Speaking of white types, I was going to mention an item from our local paper, the Lake Traverse _Travesty_. It's not really such a bad publication, though it commonly runs dopily-worded headlines and other goofs. Its editorial page offers a variety of views. Within the past few weeks there appeared a letter from a local, likely lefty, Lutheran (I think) pastor--and part-time roofer. Now, I've seen it claimed that the Lutheran clergy tends to be further to the left than other denominations', though these guys also are said to keep their politics out of the pulpit. (By no means do I wish to dump on Lutheranism, having been reared in that tradition myself.)
$#|+! That's the second time tonight Bugger's *lost* my text when I tried to post it! (The first time, it claimed to have recovered it, but it hadn't.) OK, I'll write it all offline and paste it in. I don't need this.
Sorry for the interruption. Anyhow, presumed populist Pastor K. wrote to argue against war with Iraq. He writes well, too. Unfortunately his "argument" consists of stringing together politically-correct complaints about US history, then evoking the gospel dictum, "Let him without sin cast the first stone." That doesn't work in this context. As for his list of "our" offenses, maybe I shouldn't bother--though, to deal with its beginning, I'll note that territorial conquest and slavery were not invented here! In fact, the West was the first civilization to *abolish* slavery.
A curious sidelight to his antiwar point is his introduction of the Ojibwe expression _gichi-mookoman_, which he explains as "an unflattering term for white guy" literally meaning "big knife." Interestingly I'd gotten the impression long ago that some natives of the North American interior referred to the inhabitants of the young United States as "Big Knives" to distinguish them from the whites still representing European powers. Personally it doesn't strike me as negative--but then I collect knives (some of them big!) and archaic weaponry. Coincidentally it turns out that, roughly 500 years ago, German civilians carried an unusual variety of sword called the grosse Messer--literally "big knife!" I thought it cool enough that I eventually bought one from the catalog I'd found it in.
Saturday, February 15, 2003
More on astrology and _Columbia_: Firstly I didn't mean to imply that such divination practices were invented solely in the West. China, by way of conspicuous example, developed its own system.
The _Columbia_ connection? Well, there's this *troll* who bills himself as an astrologer of note and, evidently, a champion of faith against scientism/materialism/naturalism. He writes fairly well, but in my opinion he's not advancing his cause. The guy, whose moniker I won't mention, maniacally cross-posts to newsgroups such as alt.sci.planetary, where his views are unwelcome. I've seen cranks come and go there over the years, but this clown takes the cake; he's always altering his name and address to evade readers' filters. He badly needs satirizing, but I haven't done it yet, my excuse being that my home ISP for some reason apparently doesn't allow for posting! Anyhow, he recently seemed to be *gloating* over the _Columbia_ disaster & what it means for NASA. One can unsparingly criticize the agency's manned space program, notably for putting all its eggs in one basket--but this cyberjerk was out of line. Unfortunately his response wasn't the worst.
While I'm at it: If you want to impress people with your ability to predict, get your prognostications/prophecies out there for people to see *in advance*. Predicting the past ain't good enough.
The _Columbia_ connection? Well, there's this *troll* who bills himself as an astrologer of note and, evidently, a champion of faith against scientism/materialism/naturalism. He writes fairly well, but in my opinion he's not advancing his cause. The guy, whose moniker I won't mention, maniacally cross-posts to newsgroups such as alt.sci.planetary, where his views are unwelcome. I've seen cranks come and go there over the years, but this clown takes the cake; he's always altering his name and address to evade readers' filters. He badly needs satirizing, but I haven't done it yet, my excuse being that my home ISP for some reason apparently doesn't allow for posting! Anyhow, he recently seemed to be *gloating* over the _Columbia_ disaster & what it means for NASA. One can unsparingly criticize the agency's manned space program, notably for putting all its eggs in one basket--but this cyberjerk was out of line. Unfortunately his response wasn't the worst.
While I'm at it: If you want to impress people with your ability to predict, get your prognostications/prophecies out there for people to see *in advance*. Predicting the past ain't good enough.
Monday, February 10, 2003
At about the time I launched this blog, current events dropped a horrific surprise on us. Yes, I mean the _Columbia_ disaster, which affected me as it apparently did the nation at large. Leaving aside the media hype, what I find most provocative is the timing: NASA's three incidents with astronaut fatalities all occurred within a span of a few days on the calendar over a 36-year period. There's one for the astrologers to figure out!
Not that I'm arguing for or against astrology. The subject, in fact, fits under the heading of White Studies, this blog's ostensible topic. At the very least I'd describe the practice in question as cultural baggage, in this case the baggage of Western Civilization. I might almost have titled the blog "In Defense of Western Civilization," because that's more or less (I think!) what it's about. White Studies is of course a more eye-catching formulation, offered in parody of the various racial/ethnic/gender/sex-related study programs you can find helping to balkanize the education world these days. It is *not* about any sort of white separatism/supremacy/racism.
My notion of "white," in fact, is rather inclusive, owing more to science than popular culture or tradition. We're talking North Africa to South Asia here! Yes, Islam is, regarding geographic origins, of the "white" world--which should be taken neither as praise nor blame. I'll admit I've never formally studied the subject, though I consider myself relatively well-informed about this culture, which in fact overlaps that of "the West."
It's not as if our civilization needs to be identified with a race, of course. There's a multiracial aspect probably going back to Egypt. Unfortunately racialism still offers some people a route to political influence.
One more possible reason for the name "White Studies": this may not be the "Great White North, but Canada's pretty close. I think we could claim the title of "Little White North" here, anyway!
Not that I'm arguing for or against astrology. The subject, in fact, fits under the heading of White Studies, this blog's ostensible topic. At the very least I'd describe the practice in question as cultural baggage, in this case the baggage of Western Civilization. I might almost have titled the blog "In Defense of Western Civilization," because that's more or less (I think!) what it's about. White Studies is of course a more eye-catching formulation, offered in parody of the various racial/ethnic/gender/sex-related study programs you can find helping to balkanize the education world these days. It is *not* about any sort of white separatism/supremacy/racism.
My notion of "white," in fact, is rather inclusive, owing more to science than popular culture or tradition. We're talking North Africa to South Asia here! Yes, Islam is, regarding geographic origins, of the "white" world--which should be taken neither as praise nor blame. I'll admit I've never formally studied the subject, though I consider myself relatively well-informed about this culture, which in fact overlaps that of "the West."
It's not as if our civilization needs to be identified with a race, of course. There's a multiracial aspect probably going back to Egypt. Unfortunately racialism still offers some people a route to political influence.
One more possible reason for the name "White Studies": this may not be the "Great White North, but Canada's pretty close. I think we could claim the title of "Little White North" here, anyway!
Friday, January 31, 2003
I thought I'd take advantage of the timing and commence my published rantings with some token remarks on the State of the Union Address. So I will--but I hope to be brief.
First of all, if I were President, I'd ignore latter-20th-century precedent and replace the Big Speech with more frequent informational sessions in Congress--more like the traditional Prime Minister's Question Time. I read such a proposal somewhere recently, so it's hardly original. At any rate the Constitution doesn't require the current format. Of course, there's a whopping great deal else it doesn't require. Admittedly the prospect of my assuming the office appears remote!
Secondly, I confess I like Dubya. It seems I intuitively favored the Bushes going back about 23 years. Like most libertarian/conservative types, I acknowledge some disagreements and misgivings, too. Most obvious is the matter of _expanding_ government. Wouldn't it be nice if every new department set up meant that one or two old ones had to be abolished?
Not that there's anything wrong with homeland security per se. Security (and I don't mean "Social Security") is government's basic function. Most of us are aware of the chronic conflict between security and liberty, so I won't belabor the point. One thing I'm reminded of, though, is a TV movie that must have come out some three decades ago, depicting life in a fascist US. Even back then, when the flaming Left maintained a widespread popularity, thoughtful types knew that tyranny was like nothing we'd ever seen here. In this dark vision an _Internal Security Force_ dominated the country, its flag even replacing Old Glory (an unlikely theatrical touch). Naturally the slight similarity between our new department's name and that of the fictional ISF caught my attention--but I can't make too much of it. In fairness I wish to add that if we had an ISF, and I was offered a position there, I'd accept--assuming the requirements weren't personally annoying! Presumably, if their preferred parties were in power, so would many of our typical lefty academics.
On the subject of annoyances: circumstances have handed me something conveniently controversial to embellish this post with. A relative drew my attention to an HBO program about the famous "Virtual Corpse," which I believe is online somewhere. It turned out to be largely a disguised piece of propaganda sympathetically portraying the one-time murderer, allowing relatives to romanticize him (showing a photo of him as a kid with a Christmas tree in the background) and offer excuses, while his victim, an "old man," was never even named. Meanwhile those who carried out the project were cast in a less flattering light. The credits revealed a possible clue: Swiss and German production. Well, I've long admired Switzerland, and the Continentals are entitled to their opinions of Texas--but this was dishonest.
First of all, if I were President, I'd ignore latter-20th-century precedent and replace the Big Speech with more frequent informational sessions in Congress--more like the traditional Prime Minister's Question Time. I read such a proposal somewhere recently, so it's hardly original. At any rate the Constitution doesn't require the current format. Of course, there's a whopping great deal else it doesn't require. Admittedly the prospect of my assuming the office appears remote!
Secondly, I confess I like Dubya. It seems I intuitively favored the Bushes going back about 23 years. Like most libertarian/conservative types, I acknowledge some disagreements and misgivings, too. Most obvious is the matter of _expanding_ government. Wouldn't it be nice if every new department set up meant that one or two old ones had to be abolished?
Not that there's anything wrong with homeland security per se. Security (and I don't mean "Social Security") is government's basic function. Most of us are aware of the chronic conflict between security and liberty, so I won't belabor the point. One thing I'm reminded of, though, is a TV movie that must have come out some three decades ago, depicting life in a fascist US. Even back then, when the flaming Left maintained a widespread popularity, thoughtful types knew that tyranny was like nothing we'd ever seen here. In this dark vision an _Internal Security Force_ dominated the country, its flag even replacing Old Glory (an unlikely theatrical touch). Naturally the slight similarity between our new department's name and that of the fictional ISF caught my attention--but I can't make too much of it. In fairness I wish to add that if we had an ISF, and I was offered a position there, I'd accept--assuming the requirements weren't personally annoying! Presumably, if their preferred parties were in power, so would many of our typical lefty academics.
On the subject of annoyances: circumstances have handed me something conveniently controversial to embellish this post with. A relative drew my attention to an HBO program about the famous "Virtual Corpse," which I believe is online somewhere. It turned out to be largely a disguised piece of propaganda sympathetically portraying the one-time murderer, allowing relatives to romanticize him (showing a photo of him as a kid with a Christmas tree in the background) and offer excuses, while his victim, an "old man," was never even named. Meanwhile those who carried out the project were cast in a less flattering light. The credits revealed a possible clue: Swiss and German production. Well, I've long admired Switzerland, and the Continentals are entitled to their opinions of Texas--but this was dishonest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)