Splicetoday

Politics & Media
Jul 05, 2016, 06:55AM

Cultural Relativists Are Fools: Western Culture Is Superior

Why are we afraid to say ours is better?

Rsz rs dore.png?ixlib=rails 2.1

Jimmy Dore, on The Young Turks show, recently got spitting mad when commenting on a clip of Rudy Giuliani stating that Western culture is superior to other cultures. He said he'd just been to a Trump rally, and that those people would like to throw gays from a roof like ISIS, which is doubtful. Then, referring to Flint, Michigan, Dore said that we poison children for money here. "So fuck you if you think you are better than anyone else," said Dore, addressing the former NYC mayor. "You are a cretin." It's hardly necessary to spell out why the stand-up comic's response was so ludicrous. Every issue gets trampled like this on TYT, after all. Dore's rage revealed him as a cultural relativist, that special breed native to Western culture that thinks all cultures are equally good and bad.

Cultural relativism is a refuge for guilt-plagued liberals convinced that our current Western civilization is so morally bankrupt that it's not even superior to a culture that still tolerates slavery. Cultural relativists consider themselves superior, yet their worldview puts them in the awkward position of being unable to condemn such horrors as female genital mutilation and child-rape by Afghan police and military officers, because it's just "part of their culture.”

Many Americans and other Westerners struggle with being proud about the accomplishments of their own culture. Ironically, the Muslim culture that they often defend teaches children that their own culture is vastly superior. The liberal mind, which values egalitarianism above all, resists the implication that other cultures could possibly be inferior. To younger people, who’ve been taught the joys of multiculturalism, accepting all cultures equally is a natural way of thinking.

It would be healthier if Western people would just admit the reality that Western culture, while imperfect, is currently the superior culture. Look at President Obama, who's unable to face the reality that radical Islam—Islamism—hates us and wants to destroy our civilization. He thinks that he can take care of the terrorism problem with drone strikes—like Michael Corleone trying to eliminate all his enemies until he feels safe—but he's fighting a way of thinking, not other crime families who can be destroyed, and that thinking is impervious to drone strikes. In fact, it multiplies from drone strikes.

There's a good reason why people aren't moving to Malaysia or Pakistan or China, but do want to come to countries like the U.S., Germany or Australia, where they can make a better life for themselves by working hard. By any objective standard, people live freer, longer, and more prosperously in the West, which enjoys freedom from the tyranny of theocracy, respect for individual rights, and the rule of law.

Jimmy Dore couldn't be more wrong. His “rationale” is to point out instances of where the system breaks down, as in Flint, and thinking that's a valid comparison to cultures where abuse is codified into the system. He spoke of Kim Davis, using her as an example of how gay rights are also suppressed in the U.S., an absurd comparison, given that Iran executes gays. If you're gay, your life can be in danger from the culture in other nations, but you might not be able to get your wedding cake baked here in the U.S.

People have sacrificed to produce Western civilization, and it's something to be proud of, so why so reticent? Here in the West, we're always fine-tuning our moral outlook to insure greater equality. While admirable, this requires caution, as it makes us vulnerable to making the leap from "all individuals have rights" to "all individuals have ideas that are equally good," a dangerous concept to embrace.

People in the West, where so many want to live, would be better off just saying that their way is better, and that people are equal but ideas are not, even when they come attached to a faith-based religion. Western nations are opening themselves to immigrants with open arms in a way that non-Western nations never would, so they have to right to lay down the ground rules. Bring the richness of your culture with you, and everyone benefits, but leave your old-fashioned, bad ideas at home.

Discussion
  • Couple of things from studying anthro fifty years ago. The grad instructors were muttering that cultural relativism was crap but it was doctrine. And if you could show that some quaint custom "worked", that meant things were all hunky-dory. For example, a wedding shower is a rare, self-imposed expense for friends and well-wishers of not very much money to, in the aggregate, help the hapy couple set up which in the aggregate would be possibly an insurmountable expense for them. So it "works". Thus, everything is cool. That such things "work", of course, does not mean the culture has any better moral or objective qualities than any other. Unless you're peddling relativism.

    Responses to this comment
  • wellll, western culture has been a disaster for much of the world. colonialism, the slave trade, world wars, genocides, nuclear weapons, etc. i wonder what our basic values and ideas are supposed to be. a mixed bag, i should think.

    Responses to this comment
  • We fought a war to end slavery and hundreds of thousands sacrificed their lives, but it still goes on in India and Africa. Genocide has been pretty equally spread out all over the world, as in Germany, China, Russia, Cambodia and Turkey. Nuclear weapons may well have saved lives since their advent, by preventing aggression.If your standard of comparison is utopia it would disappoint, but here in U.S. we have a constitutional republic, and freedom speech and freedom of religion that have become hallmarks of human rights throughout the world, as has the American concept of liberty and freedom from government tyranny. One of the world wars you mentioned defeated the Japanese totalitarianism that was devastating Asia, German Naziism and Italian Fascism. Then, while communism spread elsewhere, the U.S. helped rebuild Europe and contained the Soviets to the point of their eventual collapse,which was a good thing for civilization. So it's all how you look at it.

    Responses to this comment
  • sub. Crispin knows better. But it's a lefty macro or something. Bring up the subject and it just spills out. No effort necessary. BTW, I read a history recently telling us that Tamerlane reduced the world's population by 17%. I presume they meant Eurasia, not having access to census data from the Americas or Africa at the time. Wasn't he from Newport or something? Muslims kiled 60-80 million Hindus when going into India. Thats....hey, look, a squirrel!

    Responses to this comment
  • I'm surprised you use examples of genocide (which U.S. has partaken in against Native American groups and tribes) and a civil war that killed in excess of 100k citizens as examples of superiority. I guess it really is in " how you look at it." From my perspective, humans are violent regardless of the stage of culture/civilization they are in. More "advancement" more killing.

    Responses to this comment
  • Texan. What happened to the Indians wasn't genocide unless you mean the term to be anything you don't like. The Civil War ended slavery. It wasn't a good thing but it's presumed to be a better thing than not ending slavery. The scam that pointing out that America isn't perfect means it's terribleawfulhorrible is old and worn out. Point is, better than anybody else.

    Responses to this comment
  • Dick, knowingly giving pox-infected blankets and spoiled meat to Natives is an act towards genocide. Because the U.S. sucked at it and failed to eradicate all Natives does not absolve it from the attempt and certainly argues against its superiority. How is the U.S. better than anybody else precisely? Because it has an incredibly high incarceration rate? Because it has two known liars running for it's highest office? Because half the government want to subjugate the other half (this, by the way, works as both a repub and a dem argument) ? Western civilization may currently control more wealth than any other current cultures, but this has proven to be a temporary status for all major cultures throughout history. Furthermore, wealth is hardly the sole factor in determining superiority.

    Responses to this comment
  • Texan. Whitey Churchill notwithstanding, the only evidence for the small pox blanket issue is a letter from one of Amhert's officers suggesting it. But it didn't happen, and those were Brits, not Americans. Spoiled meat? Nothing much is more obvious. That's lamer than the small pox issue. Wealth is worth dismissing, unless our favorite minorities don't have it, in which case it is the be-all and end-all and somebody--the US--is to blame. We have a high incarceration rate because we have a high crime rate, although it's been dropping recently. See Mann, "1491" about the year before Columbus showed up, and the next couple of decades. Pretty solid on the epidemic issue. Churchill, as you know but were hoping I didn't, has been discredited in this area.

    Responses to this comment
  • Dick, stop creating straw-Whiteys If you don't believe that settlers tried to wipe out the Natives, there is no reasoning with you on the subject. It is well-documented history. Plain and simple. For that matter, what settlers in the history of the human race did not try to wipe out the indigenous folk?

    Responses to this comment
  • Texan. If all settlers running a volkerwarndrung tried to wipe out the locals, then we've done nothing worse than everybody else. So that's a wash. Thing is, we did less than most others. I could go on with historical examples but unless they trash the US, you won't be bothered. I've looked at the disease-issue history. It's false. The Great Death started in 1492 and in a couple of hundred years, before the Amherst letter, killed about 90% of the locals from Hudson Bay to Tierra del Fuego. The Death Fronts swept back and forth. Needed no help from anybody. I keep saying EKBA. Everybody Knows Better Already.

    Responses to this comment
  • Genocide scholars generally include forced eviction as part of genocide. If the Armenian genocide was a genocide (and it was), then the Trail of Tears is a genocide as well. (Part of the reason forced eviction is seen as genocidal is that it usually involves a high death tolll, and is intended to eliminate a people.)// Columbus' treatment of native peoples (mass murder, rape of children, cutting off hands) was certainly genocidal. Forced re-education of native children was intended to destroy Indian culture, and again is I think accurately described as a kind of genocide.// It doesn't matter how many people commit genocide; genocide is still wrong.// I think a culture that was truly the greatest culture would not need to defensively boast about how great it was. But maybe hubris is a sign of greatness now, I don't know.

    Responses to this comment
  • My point did not include any mention of "boasting." That's a strawman.

    Responses to this comment
  • It sounds like boasting to me. I guess folks can read the piece and decide for themselves.

    Responses to this comment
  • I have no interest in boasting, but I do have a serious interest in avoiding the multicultural disaster of the UK. Many lessons to be learned from them if we are smart enough.

    Responses to this comment
  • Noah. Expanding the definition of anything is the way activists get the numbers they need. Everybody's on to that. But if genocide includes things other than extermination, then it includes things other than extermination that other cultures did. See how that works?. So we're still better. Japan, for example, would qualify, keeping in mind your expanded definition. Soviet Russia. So hauling in the other stuff didn't work.

    Responses to this comment
  • BTW, the article isn't about genocide.

    Responses to this comment
  • I really have to wonder why you would feel it necessary to remind us, Noah, that genocide is "wrong." No shit.

    Responses to this comment
  • Richard, I'm not expanding the definition. I'm telling you how genocide scholars talk about this issue. /Beck, Richard I believe (not going to reread) was saying that if other colonial powers practiced genocide, then the U.S. couldn't be held morally accountable for it. I was explaining that I thought that reasoning was flawed.//

    Responses to this comment
  • Noah. Okay, you're using an expanded definition. What this does is allow all the horrid moral load of, say, the Holocaust to be smeared on anything else the activist doesn't like. Atrocity does not equal genocide, for example, but if that's all you've got,,then it pays to try to slide it in. One reading of the UN treaty against genocide seemed to imply that the disappearance of an Indian tribe through assimilation would be considered genocide for which we would be reproached by Rwanda, Russia, and China. However, with whatever definition you use, broad or narrow, the US isn't no worse, it's far better. Now, if you want to talk about the guys who've done the real dirty work over the last thousand years, you'll probably be condemned for offending a peaceful bunch of peaceful people who only believe in peace. Better to talk about forced schooling (?) or the Cherokee Removal. Sounds sophisticated and it's safer.

    Responses to this comment

Register or Login to leave a comment