"A Product of an Overwhelmingly White, Straight European and Male Cadre"

[CarlManvers2019]

To use a WH40K explanation of the Aristasian critique of Bongos, it's highly focused on their aspect as Nurgle cultists, whereas most other conservatives are focused on critiquing their aspect as Slaanesh cultists. But Bongos very much manage to be both, so both critiques are applicable.

Wouldn’t exactly call them Slaaneshi given how much they enjoy censorship

But honestly, I think these “Bongos” have big ego’s, little actual skill

And are likely to think a “painting” made of lots of human excrement or decomposed body parts is beautiful just because it “subverts expectations”. Probably deep down know it’s disgusting themselves but will promote it anyway.

I think there’s a Jewish Artist who makes art depicting black people killing and raping white people and it’s publically promoted now

 

[Emperor Tippy]

I entirely disagree with Yales choice, but with that being said; this is a complex issue.

Art falls into a great many types (books, plays, music, sculpture, paintings, and so on; with many subgenres of them all) and is produced in different places and times by different types of people for very different reasons.

The advantage of western art is that it has a prevalence of english language sources related to it and so, from a teaching perspective, is much easier to get an entry level class invested in.

More broadly, Renaissance art was very often related to the Roman Catholic Church and the RCC has been almost uniquely good at preserving the artwork that it has commissioned and/or acquired over the centuries. It was also quite good about keeping records (and preserving them) related to that art work. There are many pieces where we can accurately and concretely say "This piece was commissioned by A on B date for C price as a gift for D. E produced it over F period using materials from G and the reception at the time was H. This is how it has been viewed and interpreted by different individuals (including other prominent artists and philosophers) over the intervening centuries."

It is far harder to do that with most non western art.

Then comes the topic of types of art. I mean Japan, for example, has had Bonsai as an accepted form of art for a very long time. It is art carried out over generations and with individual products taking hundreds of years to "produce". Koi and flower gardens are also, unquestionably, art and many have had far more effort put into them over a far longer period of time than anything done in the Renaissance but to really get the impact of that art you have to visit in person and understand the full story. In other words, not really suitable for a classroom environment at a US college.

Western art is far and away the best introduction to art to teach in a university environment to an American audience. They have an understanding of a great many of the cultural factors surrounding the art via osmosis, the source material is in English (or can easily be accurately translated into English), many of the pieces of art the class is discussing can be fairly easily viewed in person, and the students are liable to already have at least a cursory understanding of the historical context in which the art was produced.

Go outside of western art and all of that goes away, and you need to teach it all to actually be able to teach the art.

 

[The Name of Love]

So does that mean SJWs are basically deculturated?

Effectively. Or rather, they seek to impose their ideology as a substitute for culture.

Doesn’t mean that all cultures can’t eventually produce their own works

Try basing stuff off your distant pasts, all those tribal carvings are pretty beautiful and can be used in new ways combined with modern works

Even if your past wasn’t much or is long forgotten, doesn’t mean you can’y build a new future in-regards to aesthetics and history and art

It wasn't until the Nords were Christianized that they went from worshiping trees and chasing pigs in the forest to building world-spanning empires and creating beautiful works of art. That they eventually created such wonders did not render the ancient Roman judgment of them as "barbarians" any less accurate.

Similarly, what's in store for the Zulus or the Papauns is sort of irrelevant to a judgment of what they are and have been. You can look all you want, you won't find a Tolstoy among them.

As a traditionalist, I can appreciate the various cultures of the world and sympathize with even the most barbaric of customs. That doesn't mean I'm not going to hold them to an objective standard and pass judgment on them. And that's exactly the problem with the bongos. They promote a false cultural relativism where "white culture" can be judged as evil and all other cultures are equal with "white culture" yet somehow better. It's disgusting. Only by understanding objective aesthetic and moral standards can you truly appreciate the beauty and goodness of other cultures... however much they have.

Exactly! I have long contemplated much the same.

Do Africans have a Plato or a Tolstoy? Do Aborigines have an Einstein or a Wright?

I think at some level there is a sense of envy and an inferiority complex as well, especially with the "Black Egypt" nonsense, they know deep down their ancestral cultures don't have the sort of accomplishments European cultures do, but to admit that fact would mean that their cultures are inferior, at least as far outstanding cultural production is concerned(but most definitely in other ways as well). And to do that would defeat their whole political raison de'etre.

Amongst white liberals and SJWs who believe similar sorts of BS-I think its guilt. They feel guilty their civilization is so much more culturally blessed, advanced and prodigious(technologically and politically as well). So seeing western works and what not makes them feel guilty and bad, they feel that these works perpetuate injustice and unfairness because one culture has them and a claim to them, and others do not.

It is born of envy, an ethnic envy that the self-hating European bongos are all too willing to stoke for their own political ends.

I don't actually like the epithet "SJWS" either to be honest. Its used too liberally(even when used accurately) and isn't necessarily accurate as to what the people with the designation want or believe. Also the internet's endless culture wars and twitter battles have made me recoil from slinging around these sorts of insults, even if I agree with the people slinging them.

As a Catholic who believes in Social Justice, the fact that it's more associated with state-enforced redistribution, same-sex marriage, transgenderism, and Black Lives Matter rather than the ideas of Heinrich Pesch and Luigi Taparelli d’Azeglio

 

[S'task]

Do Africans have a Plato or a Tolstoy?

Yup, in point of fact, pretty much the entire "western" moral matrix was constructed by an African as was a huge percentage of common Christian theology. It was some guy who lived in the north of Africa... Augustine of Hippo. In fact, I'd argue that Augustine is actually more important to modern western culture than Plato is...

But you probably meant sub-Saharan Africa, given that north Africa historically was heavily integrated into what we consider "western civilization". That said, you really should be more precise, because it leaves you open to EXACTLY this kind of critique.

As a point of fact, I do kinda feel that all y'all are being a bit, well, Eurocentric in your understanding of this matter. Yes, there are parts of the world that have not generated great works of literature and philosophy. These areas of the world also happen to align with the parts of the world that lagged behind in having settled civilizations. India, China, Korea, Japan, and South east Asia in general all generated many great works of philosophy and literature that are completely unrelated to the western canon. In point of fact, the first novel was not even written in the west, rather, the first novel is generally regarded to be Japanese via the Tale of Genji.

But just because societies didn't value the written word as highly as the far east, near east, and Mediterranean civilizations did, doesn't mean they should be disregarded and mocked.

All that said, ejecting the canon of western literature and philosophy is just plain foolish in and of itself. History and where a people come from is valuable to study and understand, and refusing to study such just makes unanchored individuals. Of course, that is in reality the point of this, they do not want students to have an understanding of their own civilization so that instead they can be indoctrinated into being members of a new civilization that these elites seek to create, one founded not on western civilization, but rather on their own ideals.

 

[Deleted member 88]

Yup, in point of fact, pretty much the entire "western" moral matrix was constructed by an African as was a huge percentage of common Christian theology. It was some guy who lived in the north of Africa... Augustine of Hippo. In fact, I'd argue that Augustine is actually more important to modern western culture than Plato is...

But you probably meant sub-Saharan Africa, given that north Africa historically was heavily integrated into what we consider "western civilization". That said, you really should be more precise, because it leaves you open to EXACTLY this kind of critique.

As a point of fact, I do kinda feel that all y'all are being a bit, well, Eurocentric in your understanding of this matter. Yes, there are parts of the world that have not generated great works of literature and philosophy. These areas of the world also happen to align with the parts of the world that lagged behind in having settled civilizations. India, China, Korea, Japan, and South east Asia in general all generated many great works of philosophy and literature that are completely unrelated to the western canon. In point of fact, the first novel was not even written in the west, rather, the first novel is generally regarded to be Japanese via the Tale of Genji.

But just because societies didn't value the written word as highly as the far east, near east, and Mediterranean civilizations did, doesn't mean they should be disregarded and mocked.

All that said, ejecting the canon of western literature and philosophy is just plain foolish in and of itself. History and where a people come from is valuable to study and understand, and refusing to study such just makes unanchored individuals. Of course, that is in reality the point of this, they do not want students to have an understanding of their own civilization so that instead they can be indoctrinated into being members of a new civilization that these elites seek to create, one founded not on western civilization, but rather on their own ideals.

Somehow I knew a counter example like that would be brought up.

Augustine of Hippo wasn't culturally "African" though or part of the broader milieu of sub-Saharan Africa. He lived in late antiquity, when North Africa was an integrated(well at least the coastal areas were) part of western(or rather Greco-Roman Mediterranean) civilization. Augustine didn't emerge from the Congo, or what would become say South Africa or Rwanda.

He was a product and influenced the Mediterranean world, not the world south of the Sahara desert.

 

[Big Steve]

Uh, didn't S'task basically say that? When he brought up people meaning sub-Saharan Africa after mentioning Augustine of
Hippo?

 

[Deleted member 88]

Uh, didn't S'task basically say that? When he brought up people meaning sub-Saharan Africa after mentioning Augustine of
Hippo?

He did, but I responded anyway.

I didn't respond to the rest of the post because I had no disagreement or comment to make.

 

[Big Steve]

He did, but I responded anyway.

I didn't respond to the rest of the post because I had no disagreement or comment to make.

Cool.

I may have presumed an argumentative element to the response that wasn't intended.

 

[Deleted member 88]

Cool.

I may have presumed an argumentative element to the response that wasn't intended.

All fair, easy to make misunderstandings on the internet.

 

[Deleted member]

@S'task you are absolutely correct of course, but to remain on topic, and the focus of my post, this is an introductory course in the United States. It should teach the western canon first precisely because those are the cultural touchstones that people here will find significant to their own hearts. The great bodies of literature of Japan, Korea, China, Tibet, Burma, India, Persia, Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam, Indonesia (or the whole Malay world really) and Arabia all stand with the first rank of human achievement--and so does the Rabinal Achí--but they weren't intended to fit into western civilisation like the teeth of a comb. You have to enculturate scholars or else they won't be scholars. I believe the literature of the whole world should be taught, but if you don't first ground westerners in the western canon they're not going to be westerners. The equivalent is like having Chinese students in a Chinese University read Tolstoy before reading The Water Margin and The Romance of the Three Kingdoms. It would be ridiculous, and nobody would dispute that it was ridiculous.

I regard there as being a total aesthetic equality between the great words of the Mayan and our own civilisation--but that doesn't change which one of those two is suitable for introductory education in our own civilisation.

 

[Husky_Khan]

I dunno about a Tolstoy of the Zulus but they can perform that song and dance routine they did at the beginning of the Zulu movie for me anytime. Especially if they got that regiment of Zulu women that the Swiss chap in the movie was talking about available for touring. Tough luck I bet, probably all got machine gunned to death at Ulundi for the temerity of existing.

Sorry had a CarlManvers moment there...

Well not really. He's more interested in animation so... Who is the Rei Hiroe of the Japanese or the Kenichi Sonoda of the Zulus. I would gladly read them... or at least offer my full appreciation of their artwork.

 

[Doomsought]

Part of it is that your appreciation of cultural works and their aesthetic virtues is inherently grounded in your culture. A Westerner will never be able to appreciate the Rabinal Achí as much as Tolstoy, but nor should a Mayan be expected to think the western canon superiour to the Dance of the Trumpet.

The problem with the far left/SJWs is that they think race and culture are the same thing. To them, a person of Hispanic descent cannot understand the western canon on a genetic level, which is why teaching them the western cannon is racist. At the same time they believe that white people are genetically incapable of understanding Mayan cultural works, and any attempt to do so would only produce the result of racist thoughts thus whites are only permitted to praise the works of other cultures without making any attempt at critical thinking.

The pattern is entirely consistent, whenever you criticize a culture, it is treated as the criticism of a genetic race.

 

[The Name of Love]

The pattern is entirely consistent, whenever you criticize a culture, it is treated as the criticism of a genetic race.

Well, you aren’t wrong, but what you said is misleading. The SJWs aren’t racial essentialists, they are racial eliminativists. Race is a social construct, remember? That means that genetic race is reducible to culture.

 

[Doomsought]

Well, you aren’t wrong, but what you said is misleading. The SJWs aren’t racial essentialists, they are racial eliminativists. Race is a social construct, remember? That means that genetic race is reducible to culture.

They use both claims, depending on what is more convenient. Consistency is not a standard post-modernists hold themselves to.

 

[Hlaalu Agent]

They use both claims, depending on what is more convenient. Consistency is not a standard post-modernists hold themselves to.

Don't they see consistency, like pretty much everything else under the sun as being oppressive?

 

[CarlManvers2019]

Don't they see consistency, like pretty much everything else under the sun as being oppressive?

Unless THEY enjoy it, even then they can NOT enjoy the same things if done by other people

Feminists can be both pro-sexuality and anti-sexuality

Like this pic.....men are in the end victims of both

Men and the stuff they love

Because women simultaneously want in and hate the stuff and say it needs changing

 

[The Name of Love]

They use both claims, depending on what is more convenient. Consistency is not a standard post-modernists hold themselves to.

I wouldn't characterize a post-modernist like that. Certainly, that may be some post-modernists, but post-modern philosophers have thought out the implications of their positions in depth.

Don't they see consistency, like pretty much everything else under the sun as being oppressive?

Not to my knowledge. They would probably say, though, that what you consider "consistent" is not applicable to all times, places, and peoples. Different cultures have different ideas of what is consistent, and there's no objective way to do it because objectivity itself is a culturally and historically dependent.

Does that make sense?

 

[Hlaalu Agent]

I wouldn't characterize a post-modernist like that. Certainly, that may be some post-modernists, but post-modern philosophers have thought out the implications of their positions in depth.


Not to my knowledge. They would probably say, though, that what you consider "consistent" is not applicable to all times, places, and peoples. Different cultures have different ideas of what is consistent, and there's no objective way to do it because objectivity itself is a culturally and historically dependent.

Does that make sense?

That actually does, the way you explain it. Allows me to comprehend how wrong they are.

 

[The Name of Love]

That actually does, the way you explain it. Allows me to comprehend how wrong they are.

I actually think that post-modernists are difficult to understand. Sometimes intentionally so. Makes it harder to really refute their philosophy.

I'd suggest taking a look at the YouTuber Cuck Philosophy. He does a lot of videos on postmodernism that explain it to laymen.

 

[Doomsought]

Not to my knowledge. They would probably say, though, that what you consider "consistent" is not applicable to all times, places, and peoples. Different cultures have different ideas of what is consistent, and there's no objective way to do it because objectivity itself is a culturally and historically dependent.

That logic is backwards because the way you arrive at objectivity is through seeking universal consistency in order to overcome historical, cultural and personal biases.