Hmmm . . . only a racist could believe that "guilt and shame" can be transmuted from an individual's responsibility into a kind of collective or inherited sin. Ie., there is no "white man's guilt and shame" any more than there's a Jewish man's guilt and shame. I'd hoped we'd learned that lesson 60 years ago. But -- alas.
Did you mean to say "Israeli man’s guilt" and "Jewish man’s shame"? For both of these phenomena are not a matter of opinion, but of demonstrable fact. As for which side of the divide racists stand on this question, that too, is quite clear, but more on that at a later date.
As I mentioned on another thread, you conflate
Sippenhaft with collective guilt.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0034277/board/thread/182676766?d=latest&am p;am p;am p;am p;am p;am p;am p;t=20110530225746#latest
So right out of the gate, you have no idea what you're talking about.
“Sixty years” -- have you really been hiding under a rock that long? Much has changed in the interim, for the better, too. You ought to look into it. And before you insist that you have, suppose you tell me what political or other damage is done when feelings of collective guilt are aroused?
Btw, EVERYONE "tries" to make himself "look more noble" than he really is. You too, I suspect -- as is discernible from your post.
How can you tell the difference between someone taking a principled stand and someone trying to look more noble than he really is?
WE are among the, what did you call it, the "noble" ones
What did I call it? ^__^. I didn’t refer to myself or anyone else as “noble ones” and you know it. My reference was to mythmaking films like Boots which seek to glorify America and the white race and to expunge the nation’s guilt.
Are you similarly aware of the phenomenon of the angry black male? Or, of the angry white female? Or, of the angry middle eastern male? Or, of the angry Oriental male/female, etc., etc.?
None of these groups operate on the assumption that there is a natural Social Darwinist hierarchy that places them, by birthright, at the top of a socio-political-economic hierarchy with whites and males occupying the bottom rungs. None have created a racist or genderist mythology to buttress that claim. None of them are angry at their recent racial demotion, so to speak. To the extent that Middle Eastern Muslims chafe at the demise of the Islamic Golden Age, however, it is in direct response to the ascent of Western imperialism. Japan's 20th century experiment with Social Darwinism and imperialism in Asia was another example of reaction -- and mimicry.
What’s more, the mere existence of a chauvinistic mythology in another country doesn’t absolve people of the moral responsibility to confront their own mythologies and their own nation’s wrongs. If Japan censors its textbooks, does that mean that Germany should too? If Russia glorifies its subjugation of Siberia, does that give us carte blanche to do the same?
To clarify a term that clearly got your hackles up, the angry white male, rest assured that most white males today are not angry. The educated majority is likely to find Boots childish, immoral, and emotionally unsatisfying. A minority, however,
is angry and some of them find an outlet for this anger in films that glorify white male physical prowess, "civilizing mission" and white-on-nonwhite violence. A substantial proportion of angry white men today came of age during the civil rights and feminist movements. They feel like casualties of those revolutions. Those who have grown up with multiculturalism and feminism are far less likely to be angry.
My posts on this board have alluded to, and will continue to critique, the racism and imperialist apologetics at work in this movie. White males have been fashioning mythologies of racial domination for hundreds of years; by the 19th century it was unquestioned scientific orthodoxy. Custer, his legend, and Boots all propagate this racist he-man triumphalism, and Hitler, an avid consumer of Hollywood films, thrilled to it. Incidentally, we have Hitler to thank for the demise of films like Boots. The discrediting of Nazi ideology led to the simultaneous discrediting of racism, imperialism and the cult of “civilized manliness" in the rest of the Western world.
Damn good action flick, though, don't you think?
LOL! So funny it merits a separate thread and a detailed response I don’t have time for now.
I especially like Custer's plea (not historically accurate though, I think) about protecting the Indians' right to live in peace on their own land. Doesn't sound consistent, I admit, with the obvious racist attitudes you have ascribed to the producers of the film.
Obviously the word “expunge” just sailed right over your head and out of your consciousness. But don’t worry. All that will be explained on a separate thread as well.
During the 19th century, more caucasions were enslaved by non-caucasians in North Africa and for a longer period of time than there were blacks enslaved by whites in the American South prior to the Civil War.
Utterly absurd. If you’re going to cite Robert Davis, you might go to the trouble of getting your facts right, ala your friend Moynihan. The period he cited was 1500-1650, when he estimated that more Christians were enslaved in Barbary than black Africans were enslaved in the New World. All told, Davis estimated that 1 million Christians were sold into slavery compared with 10-12 million Africans. In any event, I have never made the crude argument that whites have a monopoly on sin. That’s your straw man and the argument you’d prefer to have. Apparently you are loath to discuss the reigning
mythologies at work in Boots. You don’t want to stop glorifying the ingroup or exulting in films that do it for you.
I don’t blame you in a way. Collective guilt always involves disturbing emotions. Some people can handle them, some can’t.
But mythology is what Boots is about and mythology is what I aim to discuss on this board. With or without your help. ^__^
TDWTBO's a damn good action flick.
LOLOL!!! Not even. But “action” how? Action as in those little plastic men you played with as a child? Action as in those bulked up superheroes you read about in comic books? The Battle at Little Bighorn was not about “action", it was about ghastly violence and unimaginable horror. More on that later, also on a separate thread.
Ahhh . . . so what's the recommended punishment for liking a "childish and offensive" picture
Nothing. If you enjoy crap like Boots, no further punishment is necessary. You already have your head up your arse.
Would we be correct in summing up your point of view as: White male bad - everyone else good?
Nope. And who is this “we” you keep referring to? Are you Queen Victoria?
Would I be correct in summing up your point of view as: there can be no collective injustice (and thus no victims) because there are no collectives, only individuals?
reply
share
cwente2
13 years ago
My goodness. How can someone put so much *beep* in a single post? I won't spend a lot of time pointing this out in detail but offer the following:
"... you conflate 'Sippenhaft' with collective guilt."
Precisely. They are two sides of the same coin.
"... for both of these are phenomena are not a matter of opinion, but of demonstrable fact."
Okay -- demonstrate them.
"As for which side of the divide racists stand on this question, that too, is quite clear, ..."
It is "quite clear". If such a "divide" actually exists, they'd stand on "both" sides, as the predicate for both would be the same. I don't accept the predicate -- though you, apparently, DO -- and Hitler DID.
"None of these groups operate on the assumption that there is a natural Social Darwinist hierarchy that places them, by birthright, at the top ..."
I see. Not really true, but if it were true . . . so what? Does it make a difference to you if you're knifed by a thug because he wants your wallet or because he doesn't like the hat you're wearing? Different justifications of the same evil thought don't make the evil thought less evil.
"Would I be correct in summing up your viewpoint as: there can be no collective injustice (and thus no victims) because there was no collectives, only individuals?"
You would be, IF you first correct the non-sequeters in your question. Eg., "no collective injustice" doesn't equate to "no victims". An absurd proposition on its face! Consider, there can be no collective injustice because there is no collective justice -- only injustice and justice (absolute truths sometimes arrived at collectively for the purpose of commonality and social cohesion. But, in a free country this can be neither quantified nor mandated -- only deeds can be so dealt with). In any case, neither attitudes nor deeds can be indescriminantly ascribed to an "entire" race (including the white race) or an "entire" sex (including the male sex) since the acts which follow "attitudes" (racism is an attitude/philosophy) can be perpetrated ONLY by an individual or a "specific" group of individuals at one time and one place, and only the acts themselves, ie., "discrimination" of one kind or another, can be redressed in forums designed for just such a purpose (eg., courts of law). Attitudes and philosophy can be over-ruled or endorsed only in the individual conscience, the court of public opinion, at home, or from the pulpit, etc.
(Btw, you missed the point entirely of my raising the slavery issue in northern Africa. Yes, slavery there reached its zenith in the 16th century and early 17th, but it didn't END there. It continues even today -- but no longer in the American South, an achievenent, somehow, of "angry white males". It wasn't my intention to juxtapose absolute quantities and absolute dates, which would be irrelevant to the point.)
Best,
Her Majesty - the Queen
reply
share