I wouldn't see it as an either/or, Knygatin. But thanks for the reminder of an aspect that I hadn't mentioned.

Hespire Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've contributed almost nothing to this
> conversation because of my possibly heretical
> opinion (to all sides I know) that race and
> nationality hardly matter compared to the
> individual mind, a sentiment I keep finding
> (whether or not it actually exists) within the
> strongly individualistic CAS' fiction, with its
> stories of poets, low-lives, and sorcerers who are
> alienated by their fellow countrymen. But I've
> been reading on with empathy, because I feel this
> country is gutting itself with these new
> ideologies of "fairness" and "representation",
> removing the vital organs of culture and replacing
> them with artificial "feel-good" constructs that
> might feel more at home in a dystopian novel.
>
> I'm especially interested in Sawfish's attempts at
> understanding and adapting to the inevitable.
>
> Sawfish, you mentioned having a Japanese wife and
> a half-Japanese daughter. Would this, in some
> sense, make you a heretic to any ideals of
> cultural preservation and national identity?

Honestly, I don't know.

I *do* feel an affinity for European culture, that's for sure, and especially S or SE European paternal domestic organization, which appears to me to be very similar to what I see practiced by my wife's relatives. The domestic roles/relationships were immediately reconizable to me, whereas with my first wife, of N European/English descent, the relationships, while within the bounds of acceptable, were not really comfortable to me.

So as unlikely as it sounds, there were very few needed adjustments by either of us to settle into a comfortable domestic relationship.

Go figger, huh? :^)

Now she feels an affinity for Japanese cultural sentiments, and this seems to be exactly what I'm doing with European ones, and it seems merely a reordering of values, not a replacement of them. E.g., I feel social obligation, but as a much less compelling force, than she does.

So given that I'm really happy with the way all this has turned out for the last 35+ years, if I ever come under criticism as a heretic of some kind by people who--ironically like me--are in favor of European cultural preservation (and I suppose that I include in this that the most important ones are: self-reliance; ownership of personal responsibility; a deep respect for educational accomplishment; a level of basic honesty--and I find that these are *also* core values that my wife's relatives esteem, so no conflict there), then I'll wear it as a badge of honor.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 25 Jul 21 | 02:58PM by Sawfish.

Dale:

"As for Europe -- my opinion, for what it's worth, is that the countries heavily invested in colonial activity (e.g. France) probably did have an ethical obligation to welcome commonwealth-type immigrants to their cities."

It's good for us to understand this point as it affects our future exchanges, Dale.

I do not see any such obligation. I see it as a recent historic example of the impetus to expand cultural/ethnic, and likely racial hegemony, and as such we can find examples of this all thru recorded history, and implied evidence of this from the archaeological record.

Too, I see recognizable traces of it in the social apes, making me think that it is a very deeply embedded evolutionary "strategy"--if this term can aptly be used to describe an evolutionary result.

So I see no rational reason, but instead some form of group guilt--which I understand exists, but cannot for the life of me understand *why* it exists, and fear that it may well be associated with religious precepts.

I mean, it seems to me to be best explained by a belief is something akin to Original Sin.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sawfish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> One of the most important and formulative
> realizations I've ever had was about 40 years ago,
> when it dawned on me that the common social
> sentiments about suspending my judgment ("Who are
> we to judge?"), were trying to shame me into
> inaction. They literally were counseling me to
> forego my best evolved trait--the ability to
> inductively move forward thru life's pitfalls, and
> adopt the direction of others whose motive I did
> not truly know.
>
> This evolved personal judgment is what kept my
> hairy forebears from trying to "pet the nice
> kitty" in the instances of encountering a
> sabre-tooth.
>
> I am, and at this stage of life, I am appalled
> that there was ever a time when I did not, and
> worse--that there are those who never do,
> deferring instead to the judgment of "kindly
> strangers".
>
>

I have the same experience. And I would say that these social sentiments about suspending judgment, stems form Christian thinking and values ("Thou shalt not ..". "Let him who is without sin throw the first stone." Etc. ). It is downright dangerous, and this naive and guilt-ridden attitude can get you in a lot of trouble. One should trust one's inner instincts about individuals; a lot can be read immediately on the outside, in the signs of the body-language.

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> As for Europe -- my opinion, for what it's worth,
> is that the countries heavily invested in colonial
> activity (e.g. France) probably did have an
> ethical obligation to welcome commonwealth-type
> immigrants to their cities. ...

The Christian guilt-complex; repent, and atonement.

No, it makes matters worse, for all parts. Help them, if absolutely needed, in their homeland instead.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dale Nelson Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > As for Europe -- my opinion, for what it's
> worth,
> > is that the countries heavily invested in
> colonial
> > activity (e.g. France) probably did have an
> > ethical obligation to welcome commonwealth-type
> > immigrants to their cities. ...
>
> The Christian guilt-complex; repent, and
> atonement.
>
> No, it makes matters worse, for all parts. Help
> them, if absolutely needed, in their homeland
> instead.


I dunno know about a "Christian guilt-complex," Knygatin. One might think more readily in terms of ordinary commercial interactions, etc. In other words, for perhaps 200 people of Northern European origin X settled in Tropical Region Y, probably bringing many benefits (e.g. hospitals) but also profiting for a time from these "jewels in the crown." (My understanding is that eventually these colonial empires sometimes were more costly than the exports they produced, etc. -- or maybe I'm thinking of the Roman Empire. Don't know very much about this stuff.) I'm just saying that a fair-minded observer might suppose that, if for 200 years the Europeans settled in Region Y, well, fair's fair, people from Region Y might be regarded as having a right to settle in European Region X.

Is there an obvious error of reasoning there? I understand that (say) native Parisians might wish the Moroccans or whatever would stay home, but perhaps the Moroccans wished the Parisians would stay home back then.

I'm really not all that interested in this type of question, by the way, since I feel no personal duty to concern myself with it, am not captivated imaginatively by it, and so on, but I hope my comments can receive temperate responses if any. Reasonable responses differing from mine would be welcome. One such response might be, "The Northern Europeans never should have colonized those Tropical Regions, but the wrong of Commonwealth-type immigration would be just a further wrong and it wouldn't set right the first one."

I suspect I'll be watching from the sidelines from now on, on this, and I wouldn't be surprised if I will see sentiments attributed to me that I haven't expressed and that are not necessary implications of what I did say. Cheers!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 25 Jul 21 | 04:05PM by Dale Nelson.

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Knygatin Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Dale Nelson Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > >
> > > As for Europe -- my opinion, for what it's
> > worth,
> > > is that the countries heavily invested in
> > colonial
> > > activity (e.g. France) probably did have an
> > > ethical obligation to welcome
> commonwealth-type
> > > immigrants to their cities. ...
> >
> > The Christian guilt-complex; repent, and
> > atonement.
> >
> > No, it makes matters worse, for all parts. Help
> > them, if absolutely needed, in their homeland
> > instead.
>
>
> I dunno know about a "Christian guilt-complex,"
> Knygatin. One might think more readily in terms
> of ordinary commercial interactions, etc. In
> other words, for perhaps 200 people of Northern
> European origin X settled in Tropical Region Y,
> probably bringing many benefits (e.g. hospitals)
> but also profiting for a time from these "jewels
> in the crown." (My understanding is that
> eventually these colonial empires sometimes were
> more costly than the exports they produced, etc.
> -- or maybe I'm thinking of the Roman Empire.
> Don't know very much about this stuff.) I'm just
> saying that a fair-minded observer might suppose
> that, if for 200 years the Europeans settled in
> Region Y, well, fair's fair, people from Region Y
> might be regarded as having a right to settle in
> European Region X.
>
> Is there an obvious error of reasoning there? I
> understand that (say) native Parisians might wish
> the Moroccans or whatever would stay home, but
> perhaps the Moroccans wished the Parisians would
> stay home back then.

It was not based on a notion of "rights"; indeed, it's not hard to argue that the idea of "rights" is a sort of western construct.

The French had the same "right" to Algeria as Atilla did to central Europe. It was not a matter of rights so much as it was within his power to do so, and he exercised that power.

>
> I'm really not all that interested in this type of
> question, by the way, since I feel no personal
> duty to concern myself with it, am not captivated
> imaginatively by it, and so on, but I hope my
> comments can receive temperate responses if any.
> Reasonable responses differing from mine would be
> welcome. One such response might be, "The
> Northern Europeans never should have colonized
> those Tropical Regions, but the wrong of
> Commonwealth-type immigration would be just a
> further wrong and it wouldn't set right the first
> one."
>
> I suspect I'll be watching from the sidelines from
> now on, on this, and I wouldn't be surprised if I
> will see sentiments attributed to me that I
> haven't expressed and that are not necessary
> implications of what I did say. Cheers!

I won't, and wouldn't, do that Dale. I enjoyed trying to think this thru.

There is no "right answer" here; I'm merely after trying to follow the threads of any given [policy to see where they may be likely to lead.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> "The Northern Europeans never should have colonized
> those Tropical Regions, but the wrong of
> Commonwealth-type immigration would be just a
> further wrong and it wouldn't set right the first
> one."
>
>

I agree with the premise. Although I am not sure who actually colonized. It is not in the Nature of hardworking North Europeans, especially Scandinavians, who tend to struggle and toil with what they have. (The Vikings were out on temporary trading trips.) Neither common folks among the French, or Englishmen. Darwin went on scientific excursions, which is in line with the European soul.

Who exploited southern regions? Aggressive financial interests. Perhaps we should define exactly what group that entails.

We must neither forget all the "help" and "gifts" these southern regions have received, in the form of medicines, food, Western technology, material conveniences. Although it is not a good thing to make people dependent upon others. It would have been better to let them have their own cultures and societies, creating after their own ability; then their populace would have adjusted naturally. Africans are predicted by UN to double or even triple in numbers over the next 50 years, to several billions. Any sensible individual can conclude that that is not desirable.

I think I will draw a line there for my own comments on this matter.

Let me recommend to anyone interested in the topic of English colonialism in India, the book by Nirad Chaudhuri called Autobiography of an Unknown Indian. I am sure it is relevant to the topic. But it is too many years since I read it for me to say much more than this. Also of interest are various writings by V. S. Naipaul.

Oh brother. There I went again, posting messages that were not adequately proofread. And this time there's an important word missing, here supplied in capital letters:

----I dunno know about a "Christian guilt-complex," Knygatin. One might think more readily in terms of ordinary commercial interactions, etc. In other words, for perhaps 200 YEARS people of Northern European origin X settled in Tropical Region Y,------

In that message I meant to suggest that I think there is a case to be made on secular principles for the admission into the colonizing countries of descendants of people whose countries were colonized. That, of course, is not the same thing as saying that this is a case for automatic "unrestricted immigration," although one version of the idea could be that people without criminal records from Commonwealth countries should be able to move to the colonial homeland as freely as a citizen of the state of Washington should be able to move to Idaho.

There's another factor here that hasn't been mentioned, that would relate to some former colonizing countries. If I'm not mistaken, people from India and other colonized countries understood that, in return for their assistance in World War II, Britain would admit them to the island afterwards. I could be wrong about that. But if that was the deal, then the deal should be honored. And I have to admit it would seem a bit thick if I were a Sikh, say, who fought hard for the Brits in North Africa against the Nazis, and then, after the war, when I wanted to emigrate to England, I was told, "Sorry, old chap." Fair's fair.

Whatever else, we could probably agree that police in places like Britain ought to enforce laws protecting the safety of British citizens of whatever ethnicity, so if Islamic immigrants are rampaging in Brixton, the police should shut that down. If they fear to do that because they anticipate even worse behavior, then you need more cops, or whatever the British version of the National Guard is, to make things settle down. Feeble responses to mob violence encourage more of the same.

I said I didn't want to comment further, but I hope the attempt at clarification is acceptable even if you don't agree.

DN:

"Whatever else, we could probably agree that police in places like Britain ought to enforce laws protecting the safety of British citizens of whatever ethnicity, so if Islamic immigrants are rampaging in Brixton, the police should shut that down. If they fear to do that because they anticipate even worse behavior, then you need more cops, or whatever the British version of the National Guard is, to make things settle down. Feeble responses to mob violence encourage more of the same."

Portland in a nutshell...

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Such a shame... I liked ol' Stumptown back in the late 1970s-early 1980s, or what I knew of it in general anyway. Btw is there, do you know, a cafe or restaurant, as you're coming into the city from the South (I suppose on I-5), with the sign "There Is Always Something Delightful For You Here"?

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Such a shame... I liked ol' Stumptown back in the
> late 1970s-early 1980s, or what I knew of it in
> general anyway. Btw is there, do you know, a cafe
> or restaurant, as you're coming into the city from
> the South (I suppose on I-5), with the sign "There
> Is Always Something Delightful For You Here"?


If there was it was gone by the time we moved here in '87.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sawfish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> If there was it was gone by the time we moved here
> in '87.


I refer to you as "La Jolla". ;)