Check out this post from Ed Brayton on a definition for "cultural racism" from the Seattle Public Schools:
Examples of these norms include defining white skin tones as nude or flesh colored, having a future time orientation, emphasizing individualism as opposed to a more collective ideology, defining one form of English as standard, and identifying only Whites as great writers or composers.
As someone who isn't "flesh colored" (see picture to your left, you know you got to love the hot chocolate!) and has lived in the Pacific northwest of the United States for over 15 years, I will weigh in here:
1) On average, cultures where the majority of people are phenotypically white are more individualistic than those where the majority of people are non-white. See The Geography of Thought.
2) Just because one can generalize about a particular group does not mean that that all members of that group are going to follow that characterization. Culture exists only in the collective expression of individual choice, it does not exist a priori "out there" as a separate, living thing worthy of respect or reverence.
2,200 years ago the Greeks viewed the Roman republicans as a stoic and emotionally controlled folk. Today, few would assert that about the citizens of modern Rome. in 1550 the Prussian march was characterized by backwardness, inefficient and corrupt rule by the Teutonic knights. That changed after the arrival of tens of thousands of Huguenots (who brought skills and capital) after 1700 and the reorganization of the Prussian state under Frederick the Great. The point is that culture changes, and just as expectation varies as a function of time, so it varies as a function of individual. Generalizations are part and parcel of the human perception of the world around us, but I generally take issue when people refuse to abandon generalization when confronted by individuals or phenomenon which countervails their theoretical expectation.
Perceptions of cultural difference elide over non-trivial intracultural variance (the generalizations are roughly true, but they are not universally appropriate for government). Though South Asian culture is fairly characterized as spiritual and otherworldly compared to Chinese culture, the Carvaka movement prominent before 1000 CE was composed of atheistic materialists. Even though Chinese culture did not conceive of a personal omni-God (Shang Di was a ancestral godling, Tien was impersonal), the idea of the deity in the philosophy of Mo-Tzu came close to this idea. The "unlike" lumps of discordance are reproduced in legion on the granular level of the individual . Though my skin is brown (genetically South Asian) and my family is Muslim, I feel far more cognitive kinship with the intellectual-philosophical traditions of the West and China than those of the Islamic world or India. This is not that unusual, even if it isn't typical.
Finally, I am probably a "cultural racist." There is a time for epoche, and there is a time for living. In the world of life I am strongly biased toward individualism, a minimal level of "future time orientation," secularism, equal rights before the law for females, etc. Across the cultures of the world there are positive and negative correlations on all these traits. I am predisposed positively toward those cultures which promote these values, and negatively toward those which do not, and, I believe that it probably best for our republic if particular core values (equal rights before the law, separation of church and state, and to a lesser extent primacy of individual choice over familial obligation) were promoted by the institutions of the state.
- Log in to post comments
When I lived in florida i heard about some area in south florida passing a law prohibiting teachers from suggesting that any culture was better than any other. While I'm a liberal, I can tell you, that was an example of leftist insanity arriving at a deeply illiberal result. Fuck no the culture of the Taliban is not as good as mine.
in part, it depends on the wording and the context. people who say "our culture is #1!!!" are acting out of reflexive jingoism and ignorance quite often. but, there is something to be said that for given a certain set of values some cultures do come at as more concordant. ultimately, i guess the issue is human stupidity an the inability to appreciate nuance.
nevertheless, i would prefer blind adherence to life, liberty an the pursuit of happiness than cultural relativism from the masses. cultural relativism might be good for cultural diversity, but it is often bad for individual liberty (especially women).
Oh, of course it does. I don't like dumb jingoists any more than you do. Being a liberal means having certain values. The minority of people who favor complete neutrality w/r/t culture may call themselves liberal, but they aren't.
At the HS and JR HS level any cultural comparison at all can lead to taunting and petty feuds. The Lithuanian contribution to civilization has certainly been less than the German one, but this would not be a good discussion topic in a 50/50 class of German and Lithuanian immigrants.
This is equally an argument against formal recognition of minority cultures.
Kids tend to miss the grand philosophical message and interpret everything in terms of immediate personal relationships.
Kids tend to miss the grand philosophical message and interpret everything in terms of immediate personal relationships.
stupid kids, yes.
i think that there are practical reasons in some contexts where cultures should/can be recognized. but, when possible, they shouldn't, and in the USA they don't need to be, yet. this sort of preemption though only encourages the crystallization of these identities.
Still want one of those T-shirts, razib?
Still want one of those T-shirts, razib?
you know i could get away with it :)
What the heck is "a future time orientation"?
I'd like to make a plug for the importance of cultural institutions. For example, I do suspect that some of the "chaos" of Italy is a result of the nature of Italian culture, but I also think it is strongly impacted by their system of multi-party parliamentary democracy. Perhaps if they had US-style government institutions they'd appear less chaotic? And there are meta-institutions: The fact that Americans have certain kinds of institutions habituates them to establishing them where they don't yet exist.
In other words, the mechanism of group decisionmaking significantly biases the decisions actually made.
"Stupid" kids = the vast majority of the kids actually being taught.
How much is the US of A responsible for the rise of liberal democratic model throughout the world? Was America really as much the social model for the woprld that patriots claim it is? Or are these amer-patriots talking more about america's economic model? Many american patriots are quick & eager to tell you that america was the first "Free Country". What do they mean by Free Country? What are these people really saying? Do they mean flourishing secularism, equal rights for females & individualism was strongest here in the U.S., that these values/traits took firm root here first?
Questions that interest me also include to what extent these values that westerners hold so dear - secularism, no religious endorsement/interference by state, equal rights, individualism & so on - are compatible with our innate cognitive biases.
I mean, are, or would it seem that, these values are destined to survive long term, or are there overriding cognitive biases which might eventually make a society based on these values impossible? What does the global ethnographic data tell us about, say, equal rights for women? Immigration trends to the western world give me an impression that modern western values are something which humans might see as comprising the *ultimate good society*. Of course, maybe they *don't* give a damn about western societal values & just want to take advantage of western economic & tech culture while continuing on with their native, oppressive cultural practices in private life. It's true that western tech. contributions to civilization have been hugely disproportionate. The U.S., UK, Germany & a few others account for about all the nobels for great achievements. mostly Germanic & Jewish, IIRC. I dunno. :(
btw, thnx for mentioning/linking the Carvaka Movement & Mo-tzu. Very interesting to a layman with little/no historical backround.
"flesh colored" lol
Speaking of cultural relativism, i have a feeling that many western explorers couldn't bear letting various aboriginals to continue their savagery(so they had to civilize them to a bearable extent).
No matter how much a cultural relativist one is, it seems difficult to look objectively upon the kind of savagery practiced up until recently by certain islanders around the world. I don't want to think that the tribe near me is making boiling stew of excess or unwanted babies, or hammering open the cranials of enemies & cooking their brains while tearing chunks of flesh off of them to relish, & keeping them alive as long as possible to make them bear the pain(Papua, New Guinea). Or throwing babies up in the air & catching them on spear tips(Africa) Things that make a civilized man grit his teeth, things that even a machiavellian would wince thinking about.
What the heck is "a future time orientation"?
The ability to delay gratification. Contrast with "present-mindedness".
Head-shrinkers measure this among children by asking if they want a candy now or three candies 30 minutes later.
That future time orientation has me confused. Individualism is looked down upon in our mighty centers of education, but this is the first time I've seen forward thinking attitudes associated with western imperial evil.
this is the first time I've seen forward thinking attitudes associated with western imperial evil
Financial capital is little more than foregone consumption.
Part of the paradox that is Africa is filial charity. There is little incentive to save. Once you have more than you need to cover the essentials, relatives come out of the woodwork and demand their share. Little saving means little investment. Little investment means little growth. The result is the paradox that is Africa. The obverse of that paradox is that paradox of the West: selfish delay of gratification.
I don't think the Seattle definition intends to "look down" on individualism, or critiscis future time orientation. I think you might be missing the point there. The definition seems to be not what WE think, but our reaction to what and how OTHERS think.
e.g native americans might be considered inferior for not being futrure time oriented, as traditionally native americans are present time oriented. Such orientation affects thought and behaviour, but is a cultural attribute, not a racial one as is often percieved.
A kid from an underpriveledged background (the majority of which are ethnic) might be labelled as stupid/lazy/uninterested by his/her school teachers because he/she tends to live in the "now" and not think about the future. In fact, the nature of the kids life, i.e severe financial restrictions means that thinking about the long term future (which requires an element of financial stabililty) seems at best difficult, at worst futile. So his/her thoughts and behaviour are present time oriented.
Rather than understanding this, a teacher could easily attribute this "attitude" to race rather than social background.
So I think the seattle definition makes valid points. Time orientation, or at least what the main social agents of american society (white people) consider to be the norm in time orientation is relevant to racism. The perception of individualism as the "norm" and anything else as other is also relevant, but to confuse that with an attack against individualism, as I said at before, would be to miss the point. My $0.02