In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

But I Thought We Hated Europe

Sure, but we hate native brown people more. Before you dare praise any culture without European roots, heed the ladylike racism of IWF’s Charlotte Allen. Responding to an archeologist quoted in the New Yorker as saying of pre-Columbian Brazil, “All the settlements were laid out with a complicated plan, with a sense of engineering and mathematics that rivalled anything that was happening in much of Europe at the time,” Allen (no doubt an expert in archeology herself) responds with, “What?” She goes onto defend the virtues of European architecture, of which there are many, all while arguing that no other civilization compares. Heck, she says, they still don’t compare:

The Brazilians, by contrast, for all their admirable moats and roads, built no monuments of any kind, didn’t get past pottery in terms of art, and had neither reading nor writing. Their tribal descendants today, living off Brazillian government welfare, don’t do much besides run around naked, fish for piranha, wage murderous wars against their enemies, kill the occasional white intruder, practice polygamy (two wives apiece is standard), and try to keep their television-preferring children interested in the traditional customs, such as secluding teenage daughters inside the house for years until it’s time for the big fertility blowout.

Yes, those dirty naked savages still exist today! And they’re a conservative’s nightmare: they love welfare, aren’t ashamed of nudity, spit on traditional marriage, and hate white people (although they do, redeemingly, love war). She goes on to basically argue that Mayan culture has no good qualities either because they engaged in human sacrifice, their hands dripping blood “incessantly.” The Aztecs were barbarians, too. Her point: She *hearts* Europe. Or at least, pre-Columbian Europe. Because compared with them injun savages, she’d take Europe any day — assuming, of course, that we aren’t talking about France.


66 thoughts on But I Thought We Hated Europe

  1. And assuming, of course, that she wishes to ignore the fact that for a long time Greece – foundation civilisation of Europe that it is – didn’t have reading or writing, but was an oral culture. Duh, hasn’t she heard of the Iliad and Odyssey? I won’t go go into how women were treated even in Classical Greek or even Roman times either…(in contrast to those “injuns” and the seclusion of their teenage daughters…
    If she wishes to heart Europe so much, she really should know the friggin’ factual history of the place first.
    Sorry, don’t mean to be one of those classicist/historical whiners who complain when people fuck things up. I sat through Troy, and even Alexander. But these amateur “archaeologists” (heavy use of the quote marks there) are using selective history to support their theories and that is just wrong.

  2. What’s disturbing is that even with gobs of education, people can somehow reach such conclusions. Just goes to show that if you go in intending to prove a certain mindset, you most certainly will.

  3. One thing most people never really consider about pre-Columbian civilizations in the Americas is that none of them ever advanced technologically out of the Stone Age. Now, you can have a blisteringly florid culture within the Stone Age (the Egyptian Old Kingdom, for example), but they would have been easily defeated by any Bronze Age kingdom from the Old Testament and wiped out by the time you advance to the level of chariot or pike wielders.

    And because some people are uncomprehending dumbasses, Charlotte Allen is a dipshit.

  4. Jill, why do you point me to people like these? Now I am gonna have to spend some time giving them an idiological Braxilian wax.
    ARGH!

    😉

  5. “secluding teenage daughters inside the house for years until it’s time for the big fertility blowout.”

    You mean like conservatives want their daughters to stay nice and seculded for years until it’s time for the big fertility blowout? (Marriage, before which you’re supposed to be pure and wholesome and seclude yourself from being naked around guys (clothes, house, whatever in between), and after which you’re supposed to be popping out the babies.)

    And while I’m not sure the Mayans were in Brazil or if they just stayed around Mexico, but they DID have writing, of which exactly four manuscripts survive because one of the early missionaries got super-pissed when he found out that some of his converts were still practicing their old ways, and burned all the writing he could find.

    She’s got a lot of nerve to say that someone *else’s* variety of oppression of women is reprehensible, when she and hers support rather similar (and sometimes rather worse) varieties thereof.

  6. Better not tell her that algebra and our numerical system, the foundations of Western medicine and chemistry, and loads of other things were all created by “primitive” brown people.

    This lady sounds kind of like my mother describing modern black people.

  7. Actually, algebra, our numerical system, the foundations of Western medicine and Chemistry, and loads of other things, were all created by (at the time) culturally superior brown people.

    Robert: The racism lies in the assumption that those cultures are crappy. The idea that there is a grand march of progress from “primitive” non-“Civilized” cultures to the grand pinnacle of humanity that is Western Liberal Capitalism is profoundly racist, classist, sexist, and lots of other bad “-ist”s……

  8. Wow, that’s really bad.

    I went to the website and nosed around. Note this little gem under the welfare section (arguing that the government provision of social benefits demeans their female recipients):

    “Feminists’ calls for ever-larger government perpetuate the myth that women need a caretaker, whether husband, father or Uncle Sam. This caricature of women as de facto wards of the state is an insult. American women are more educated and more successful than at any time in history.

    No politician or men’s organization would seize upon Father’s Day to argue for government support for poor, hapless dads who just can’t make it on their own. Men wouldn’t stand for it.”

    Oooh, blood boiling.

    What really makes me angry is the label “Independent Women’s Forum.” Why not call it what it really is – an anti-woman, racist, anti-poor women’s group.

    But, you know, Lynne Cheney supports them, so hey.

  9. Robert: The racism lies in the assumption that those cultures are crappy.

    So if a BROWN-skinned group of people has a culture, it can’t be crappy.

  10. Robert,

    No, obviously there are great and crappy aspects to all cultures.

    The author’s arguments are racist because she’s drawing on racist and ethnocentric beliefs about the superiority of European (white) cultures and the inferiority of brown people. For an example, check out the section that Jill bolded in the first quote.

    She’s not making an argument based on empirical evidence (if she had been, she wouldn’t have been able to write that piece). Her characterization of Brazilians is hateful because it inaccurately portrays people as primitive. Moreover, she makes it a brown-people vs. white people argument when she includes “kill the occasional white intruder.”

    As Jill so aptly said, the argument reinforces a racist “dirty naked savages” image.

  11. So if she were talking about white trailer trash in one of our southern states, whose culture shares a remarkable number of those traits, would you be this appalled? And have you ever considered moving down here? Rent is alot cheaper than up ‘err in New York City^^, but I suspect that deep down you consider Manhattan culturally superior.

  12. Jill, you know, as soon as I read this entry I could just envision the conservatives saddling their steeds and riding to the rescue of their poor, persecuted fellow right-winger! Yes, this Charlotte Allen can make sweeping, stereotypical generalizations about people she’s never met, impugn their character, culture and child-rearing practices, but the minute you criticize Allen, you are denounced as one o’ them uncomprehending (liberal) dumbasses.

  13. I’d have been appalled if the author had used the term “white trailer trash” and talked about people running about naked and living off welfare. It’s a bit classist. But it wouldn’t be racist. For obvious reasons. 😉

  14. So if she were talking about white trailer trash in one of our southern states, whose culture shares a remarkable number of those traits, would you be this appalled?

    White trailer trash live off government welfare, don’t do much besides run around naked, fish for piranha, wage murderous wars against their enemies, kill the occasional white intruder, practice polygamy (two wives apiece is standard), and try to keep their television-preferring children interested in the traditional customs, such as secluding teenage daughters inside the house for years until it’s time for the big fertility blowout?

    Who woulda known?

  15. -Anyway, Robert and Bella, you’re missing the point entirely. The point is that as Independent Woman supported by Lynne Cheney, it’s our holy mandate to judgementally compare two entirely different civilizations based on partially related anecdotal evidence in order that we can comfortably reach a conclusion. As a well-off admittedly conservative woman in a european-inspired political system with european money and european education and european values (at least, approximately those of an 18th century French monarch, or perhaps Leopold of Belgium), I’ll take Europeans any day.

    In other news, reading a dozen of the longer articles/posts on this IWF site has revealed to me that it’s not feminists I find scary as previously believed, it’s just conservatives who call themselves feminists. Oops. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I never realized just how big the rift, between those believing in equal rights and treatment and those setting woman back a couple centuries in the eyes of man, really is. Fascinating…

  16. BMoe- Appalling not that the term or depiction or judgement is racist/classist, but that any such depiction without constructive purpose distracts from the committment of time, resource, and effort to fixing the situation at hand (southern poverty and an enormous rift between rich and poor as well as Manhattan and Macon). Just a thought…

  17. B Moe,

    I am a southerner by birth (or as “y’all” would say, by the grace of god) and I don’t believe that your comment was constructive to this discussion. It represents one of the reasons why people have preconceived notions about (white) southerners…that and Jim Crow, lynchings, church bombings, and the like. But that’s not the point. The point is, that her comments are dangerous. That kind of “we’re superior to them” thinking led the Europe that she so loves to almost destroy itself in WWII. Bigotry is bigotry, whether it’s hidden by a hood, a suit, or a skirt.

  18. I’ve got midterms, and not enough time to offer a full opinion, but…Allen is clearly ignorant of the concept of cultural relativism and makes no attempt to understand how practices such as polygyny, traditional customs, or um, “murderous war” operate in the context of the society. However, by pointing out her ethnocentricity, we merely highlight our own. That said, it’s important to note that ethnocentrism’s primary function is as an ideological defense mechanism. By passing other societies off as disgusting, backward heathens then Allen is free not to question her own society’s greatness.

    Additonally, she is attempting to “win” by using architecture as a yardstick. If we consider architecture to be technology/a product of technology, then she is using technology as a yard stick. It takes nothing to be a user of technology- we are all capable of “using” these great architectural spaces just as she is, whether by making use of the physical space or by simply admiring it.

    So she thinks her technology (architecture) is superior? Okay, then. What did she contribute to it? Nothing. She contributed nothing. How are you superior if you didn’t develop it, if you’re simply a user as most are? And keeping in mind the time differential, if she had contributed something, what would have allowed her to contribute? And why didn’t “they” (the more “primitive” societies) develop it? This is where the physical environment becomes key. When an environment doesn’t allow a society to create enough surplus to allow a number of the society to engage in activities other than those required to subsist (or at least a more limited number) then there is really no comparison.

    It wouldn’t take the Brazilians long to become users of Europe’s architecture, just as she is a user of it. Clearly the Brazilians had technology, and it was well adapted to their physical environment. Were we to use some other aspect as a yardstick for superiority (animal displacement, human impact on the environment, humanity toward others, etc.) Europeans -and most of the Western world- would lose.

    I don’t even know if any of that made sense. I’m hopped up on Sudafed trying to get over a cold, and felt the need to inject my ravings.

  19. When the Spanish arrived in Mexico, the first reaction of the natives was that they were the filthiest people they’d ever met. Aztec cities had the finest sanitation systems in the world. Their cities were organized plus they taught the Europeans how to mine and rotate crops. (And they had monuments and writing, too.) Those dirty Europeans were pits of disease and the diseases they carried threw the Aztecs off their balance, enabling the conquest.

    Aside from the germs the Spaniards carried in their armpits, the only things they had going for them technologically were steel and firearms.

    Many people living in the Southeast do not realize that rich civilizations existed on the soil where they now plant tobacco and cotton. De Soto was blown away by their wealth.

    As for killing the occasional white intruder –> given the history of invasion in the Americas, can you blame them?

  20. White trailer trash live off government welfare, don’t do much besides run around naked, fish for piranha, wage murderous wars against their enemies, kill the occasional white intruder, practice polygamy (two wives apiece is standard), and try to keep their television-preferring children interested in the traditional customs, such as secluding teenage daughters inside the house for years until it’s time for the big fertility blowout?

    Change “pirhana” to “bass”, and substitute “marry their cousins” for “practice polygamy” and yep, you’ve got it.

    Who woulda known?

    Anyone who has lived outside of hyperurban areas for more than a day.

  21. Aside from the germs the Spaniards carried in their armpits, the only things they had going for them technologically were steel and firearms.

    Let us not forget the horse, and the development of military tactics that employed them effectively in battle.

  22. Many European men have two wives too.. They just don’t use the same terminolgy – girlfriend, mistress.

    Using archeaology is an odd “metric” for a conservative to use.

    Many of them work in think tanks in hideous office parks in Northern Virginia, which was once beatiful landscape.

    These office parks, designed in a manner that I call “Modern Satanic,” are hardly the pride of America. Maybe ‘Murica, but these neocons are usually a bit too culturally snobby to share the tastes of the people.

  23. Appalling not that the term or depiction or judgement is racist/classist, but that any such depiction without constructive purpose distracts from the committment of time, resource, and effort to fixing the situation at hand

    Is the term “constructive criticism” not politically correct anymore?

    We are talking I think about sub-cultures here, if you read the linked article the author clearly is anyway. I haven’t read the New Yorker article she is critiqueing(sp?) but she is refering to a “lost civilization” I believe she termed it, not all Brazilians. My reference was to a very real sub-culture in this country which tends to be quite racist, sexist, and and about any other -ists you can name. I was raised on the fringe of this culture, and seeing it ridiculed and mocked helped inspire me to get the hell away as far as possible. Personally I consider that fairly constructive.

    This story reminds me of a time I was sitting at a college cafe during a time of conflict, maybe Iraq round 1, reading a paper with the headline:

    Three Brazilian Troops Killed in Bombing

    A blonde sorority girl noticed the headlines and said “Oh, my God! That’s awful!”, then she paused and added:

    “How many is a brazillion, anyway?”^^

    /ducks

  24. David, you are wrong. The Scythians were the first to domesticate the horse and develop military tactics for their employment, breeding both the Turanian horse and the Turkoman-type war horse, as well as a breed virtually indistinguishable from our modern day horse. By the way, the Scythians had Mongoloid features, not European ones. The Greeks more than likely created their Amazon women myth from Scythian women. And the Greeks also (like good Europeans) copied (and modified) the Scythians’ horse tactics for themselves. And then there are the Arabs, who are most well known for their breeding and employment of the horse, but the lesson ends here.

  25. Aside from the germs the Spaniards carried in their armpits, the only things they had going for them technologically were steel and firearms.

    That’s not all the Spaniards had. They also had numerous local allies who were tired of the Aztecs picking fights with them so that they (the Aztecs) could have an excuse to fight a war and get lots of prisoners to sacrifice. If the Aztecs had been on good terms with the other Cental American tribes, Cortez and his friends would have been dead meat, steel, fireams, and horses or not.

    I have a question for anyone who might care to take a crack at it: If you were born in the late 15th or early 16th century, where would you most like (or least dislike) to be born? I’m not sure myself, but it certainly wouldn’t be Europe. I don’t think I’d care for Aztec culture either. Incan, maybe. The Scythians or Arabs might have been decent or maybe one of the southwestern Amerind tribes.

  26. For heavens’ sake, leave the US South alone. I am from North Carolina and we have more colleges per capita then most of your states do. Public universities, the concept of, came from here and spread northward. Unless y’all want to sit down and talk about the collapse of tobacco subsidies and manufacturing economies, or maybe look to your own poor-ass people, keep my region out of it.

    Sort of like how most of the agriculture, science, math, and hygiene started way south of Ms. Charlotte Allen’s ancestors, but she’s perfectly happy to claim the credit.

  27. Right on Dianne.

    I would have liked to be Lenca. Too far south of the Mayans and north of the Inca for any serious slaughtering, mountainous terrain with temperate weather, lots of fruit and shellfish, no fault divorce, not much in the way of disease or war… sounds like a pretty sweet deal to me.

    Though I might also have dealt well with being an Arab – did they let women in those big universites way back when? Maybe if they were married to someone important and stayed covered? Definitely better there than in Europe in, say, 1300.

  28. You know what’s wrong with the South? It’s too FUCKING HOT.

    We are talking I think about sub-cultures here, if you read the linked article the author clearly is anyway. I haven’t read the New Yorker article she is critiqueing(sp?) but she is refering to a “lost civilization” I believe she termed it, not all Brazilians.

    I did read the New Yorker article, so let me fill in here. The article was about an attempt to retrace a vanished explorer’s quest for a legendary lost city in the Amazon. It became quickly apparent to the author of the piece that, given the terrain, the ungodly humidity, and the aggressive nature of the rain forest itself (not to mention the lack of stone for building cities), the lost city probably never existed.

    Or, at least not in the form that the Europeans had in mind when they thought “lost city.” The little bit that Allen refers to is from a visit by the author of the article to an anthropologist/archaeologist who figured out that seemingly random hills and ditches in the jungle were actually quite sophisticated planned cities. But because they were built from materials that eventually rot instead of from stone, they’re not obvious to the casual observer like, say, a Mayan temple would be.

    Allen’s bias shows in her insistence that monuments and such are the true marks of civilization, not taking into account available building materials.

    A very good account of why civilizations developed they way they did is Jared Diamond’s Guns, Germs, and Steel. He does address the role that horses played in the defeat of the Aztecs, as well as the role that the lack of horses in Central and South America played in the way those civilizations developed.

  29. A very good account of why civilizations developed they way they did is Jared Diamond’s Guns, Germs, and Steel. He does address the role that horses played in the defeat of the Aztecs, as well as the role that the lack of horses in Central and South America played in the way those civilizations developed.

    I would recommend reading first Alfred Crosby’s The Columbian Exchange and Ecological Imperialism, from which Diamond borrowed a lot.

  30. B Moe,

    i’ve heard that brazilian troops joke, but with blonde sorority girl replaced by George W. Bush, and set not in a cafeteria but the Oval Office. delivers just as well, in my opinion 🙂

    when i think about the fact that the mayans came up with the concept of zero before any other civilization, i have a hard time considering them primitive. but that’s just coming from a girl who was very bad at alegbra.

  31. Kate,

    The Bush version is funnier, but I wanted to set it up as a personal anecdote, and if I did that with the Oval Office setting it might give away that I am really Karl Rove.

  32. A great book — indeed, a masterpiece — that (among other things) provides a stunningly beautiful treatment of Western culture meeting Indian culture is the historical novel “Death Comes For The Archbishop” by Willa Cather. It tells the story of the first Archbishop of Santa Fe, who was from France, and how he dealt with the local cultures as he built the Church there. It is simultaneously sympathetic to the European missionaries (mostly Spanish but also French) and the Indians. However, even though Cather clearly admired Indian culture, the book may not appeal to you if you are of a Catholic=Bad and Indian=Good mindset.

  33. If you want a book that’ll blow the lid off of the conception of culture, civilization, etc, that we grow up into, read some Daniel Quinn. I recommend the Story of B, but Ishmael’s the first in the series…. Guns, Germs, and Steel is a very complement to Quinn’s (more philosophicla/narrative) work……

  34. For heavens’ sake, leave the US South alone. I am from North Carolina and we have more colleges per capita then most of your states do. Public universities, the concept of, came from here and spread northward. Unless y’all want to sit down and talk about the collapse of tobacco subsidies and manufacturing economies, or maybe look to your own poor-ass people, keep my region out of it.

    Not to mention the fact that “white trash” or “trailer trash” also live up here in the North. That’s right. There are poor whites up North, and no, I’m not particularly thrilled when someone makes classist jokes. Being poor doesn’t make one less of a person, but it’s odd how the conservatives who trot out the “what about trailer trash comments???” excuse forget that

    Anyway, onto the excerpt:

    Their tribal descendants today, living off Brazillian government welfare, don’t do much besides run around naked

    Let’s stick ’em in burquas. Oh, wait, that’s not okay either?

    fish for piranha

    Gotta eat. I’ve caught bluefish before, does that make me a savage, or is the fact that I’m a cracker a mitigating circumstance?

    wage murderous wars against their enemies

    As opposed to gentle wars with reflexology and manicures?

    kill the occasional white intruder

    As opposed to practicing genocide, a la the invading European governments

    practice polygamy (two wives apiece is standard)

    Hello, see the fundamentalist and excommunicated Mormons who still openly practice that. See King David and our other biblical heros. And um, not every tribe practices that.

    and try to keep their television-preferring children interested in the traditional customs

    Oh, NO!! HOW WILL WE MARKET AMERICAN CRAP TO THE CHILDREEEENNNN?? The horrors! No TV!

    such as secluding teenage daughters inside the house for years until it’s time for the big fertility blowout.

    Ahem. . .see: this little ditty. I guess it’s okay if it’s done by Christian whites.

  35. BMoe- On constructive criticism, the answer is no. Okay, well, my answer is no, certain current presidential administrations might disagree. However, I wasn’t referring to something that happened in your personal past, I was referring to the situation you raised of “if she [Allen] were talking about white trailer trash in one of our southern states.” I doubt that many illiterate rural southerners who can barely afford their trailer are reading Allen’s response to a quote in a New Yorker article. PC or not PC, I personally see nothing constructive about a long justification for “I’ll take Europeans [rather than long-dead ancient tribes that inhabited Brazil] any day”, and with the possible exception of the newly-introduced scenario of discouraging a child from wanting to be trailer trash when he grows up, I didn’t see anything constructive about “I’ll take New Yorkers over Southern White Trailer Trash any day” either. It isn’t an actual choice that anybody gets to make. “Okay now Johnny, because your spin landed in the middle, you get to choose European or ancient native of the general Brazilian region. Remember, this is an important decision, because it retroactively affects your past as well as your future, so choose carefully…” In that case, I’d take Russian over Southern White Urban Trash any day… *cough*
    See? My fondness for Shostakovich notwithstanding, the comment does nothing to denoise the rap in today’s top 40 or even so much as explain what’s so wrong.

    “I’ll take New Yorkers [over Southern Trailer Trash] any day” does absolutely nothing to address the quality of public education that these people receive (or don’t), or to provide them with the secure opportunity to find a way out (ie, by change of location), except indirectly send a young person with scar toward the north star, apparently. Only a severe Hurricane can create the circumstances for people to simply up-and-leave such a situation en masse, and those who still aren’t able to are criticized by politicians for being too poor. This is not constructive criticism.
    I won’t go into my rant about people who think poor == a free choice though.

    When I was but a wee lad, my parents found the need to drive home the difference between constructive and unconstructive criticism. Constructive is “Hey board of education, this is where you are lacking, this is how to fix it.” Unconstructive is “I’d choose New Yo-…” oh yeah, I already mentioned that one.

    In my remark I did not intend to imply that criticism is not allowed, but I do contest how truly constructive such judgement would be.

    [Ed.: Sorry this is so lengthy and rambly, it’s been a long night.]

  36. Dan, you don’t have to be so defensive about your religion. (As far as I know) this isn’t about Catholics, this is about Europeans (be they Catholic Spaniards and Frenchmen or Protestant Englishmen/Dutchmen) and indigenous people. Plus, I think most of the people here are pretty tolerant with living in a pluralistic society. On a side note – probably some of the bloggers’ beliefs on abortion, premarital sex, birth control and homosexuality are not likely 100% compatible with Catholicism, but they probably wouldn’t be with many other religions, either.
    I do think the revisionist history thing has gone a little far – although it is important that we acknowledge the atrocities committed by Europeans – in the old days virtually everyone was violent and cruel. Henry VIII boiled people alive, Vlad Tepes in Romania impaled thousands of his own citizens, the Ancient Persians practiced scaphism, some Asian cultures sawed people vertically in half and the Aztecs tortured hundreds if not thousands of human sacrifices to death. Human – not European, not Third-World – history has always been very dark and ugly.

  37. Plus, I think most of the people here are pretty tolerant with living in a pluralistic society.

    Kate, this has not been my experience on this blog. As a consequence of espousing orthodox Catholicism on this blog, I’ve been called a “dickfart,” a “homophobe,” “bigoted” and several other ugly things. Although they themselves may (or may not) be blind to it, many of the liberals who espouse “tolerance” are models of intolerance.

    I also take issue with your assumption that people were more cruel and violent in the “old days.” The twentieth century witnessed genocides in the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia and Germany that far exceed anything that history had known in terms of mass killing. Stalin makes Henry VIII and Vlad Tepes look like charity workers.

    It is a mistake to think we are necessarily becoming more humane. In just the last 35 years for example we have witnessed an open acceptance of killing innocent unborn children — a barbarity that before the 1970s was outlawed.

  38. Right, because “bigot” is on the same level as “dickfart.” I suppose Lauren should ban you for using nasty words like “intolerant.” You are not a bigot because of the orthodox Catholicism, but because of your refusal to either back your statements up or concede that they are incorrect. I said it before and I’ll say it again: If you cling to your assumptions in the absence of evidence, your worldview is determined by prejudice, not by reason. That makes you a bigot.

  39. In defense of the behavior of Catholics, Spanish Catholics in particular, in the colonial period, I would like to point out that it was a Spanish monk who first protested the abuse of the Amerind population. Ironically, of course, his writing was used by the English to demonstrate how evil the Spanish were and how much better off the “savages” were under their rule. (Thouh, in fact, the main difference between them and the Spanish being that they didn’t acknowledge their acts of terrorism.) Not that that makes the behavior of the Spanish, ok, of course. Just pointing out that the situation was complicated.

  40. If you cling to your assumptions in the absence of evidence, your worldview is determined by prejudice, not by reason. That makes you a bigot.

    Or a person of faith. Or an activist.

    There is not always evidence to support a proposition. It is not a priori evidence of bigotry to continue to hold the position – even in an instance where there is contrary evidence. Data and logic are useful tools for relating to the world, but they are not the only valid tools. Intuition and faith play a role.

    Reason is a princely figure, but we enthrone it as ruler of all at great peril.

  41. There’s nothing incompatible with being either a “person of faith” or an “activist” and a bigot. There’s also nothing about being a person of faith or an activist that says that you must hold your views in the absence of reason. Faith and reason can live quite happily in the same mind. In fact, faith without reason seems often to metastasize into rigid dogma.

  42. Or a person of faith. Or an activist.

    There is not always evidence to support a proposition. It is not a priori evidence of bigotry to continue to hold the position – even in an instance where there is contrary evidence. Data and logic are useful tools for relating to the world, but they are not the only valid tools. Intuition and faith play a role.

    Reason is a princely figure, but we enthrone it as ruler of all at great peril.

    That’s beautiful, Robert, but we’re not talking about propositions that can only be answered by faith, like “Is there a God?” and “What is God’s plan for my life?” I’m referring to things like, “The average gay man has 1000+ sexual partners.”

  43. Well, yeah, I should have phrased it more carefully (I don’t agonize for hours over these posts, you know) – but if anyone noticed, people actually *condemn* the tactics of modern dictators, they get put on trial like Milosevic and Pinochet, whereas it was just the order of the day in the pre-modern era.

    Dan – some food for thought, in ancient Mesopotamia a man was allowed to kill his child if he wanted to – it was totally legal – but if a woman aborted, she got impaled. In ancient Sparta, as well, infants were thrown out into the wild if they were deemed too weak. Not to mention that earlier this year, there was significant opposition to S. Amdt 1023 to HR 2361, which would have restricted companies from testing pesticides on small children. Note some of the names in opposition – what, it’s not ok to abort children in the womb but it’s alright to test chemicals on them?
    I’m sorry people are disrespectful, but you yourself said in so many words that liberals and atheists are STD ridden scrooges who never donate to charity.

    Dianne – Bartolome de las Casas. Then again, the English have Roger Williams of “The Bloody Tenet”. And I passed AP history with flying colors : X

  44. In making the claim that I am justifiably called a “bigot” because I have not backed up arguments with evidence, Piny himself omits any evidence to support his claim. I guess in his book that makes him a bigot.

    Of course what so angers Piny and causes him to call me a bigot has nothing to do with so bland an issue as whether an argument is or is not backed up with “evidence”; rather, Piny’s anger is prompted by the positions I advocate concerning morality and, more particularly, the belief that sex, including homosexual sex, outside of heterosexual marriage is wrong. In this context, the purpose of leveling the accusation of bigotry is to discredit an opinion by suggesting, but not actually arguing, that it is as morally repugnant as things such as racism and Nazism — i.e., it — name calling — is a method used by the intolerant to silence without debate. This is a tactic that is not used only by liberals. But as is abudantly documented in this blog, it is without a doubt used very aggressively by them.

  45. Kate, I agree that Christian morality concerning children and abortion is superior to that of Mesopotamia and Sparta. I was unaware of the legislation that would have prohibited testing of pesticides on children. Although I know nothing about this legislation, I can say that testing pesticides on children seems like an all together bad thing to do.

  46. In making the claim that I am justifiably called a “bigot” because I have not backed up arguments with evidence, Piny himself omits any evidence to support his claim. I guess in his book that makes him a bigot.

    Do you deny that you said that the average gay man has 1000+ sexual partners? And then, when questioned, said that you had no evidence to support that claim? You have made countless assertions about gay men, gay male culture, sexual activity, moral fiber (and I don’t mean rectitude on any Catholic register), and child sexual abuse, and have failed to provide any evidence for any of them. Show me proof that increased sexual activity outside of marriage “lowers the barriers” for child sexual abuse.

  47. The 1,000 average partners stat I did read somewhere, but I can’t remember where. It’s possible it was a median rather than an average.

    Speaking of stats Piny, did you ever back up your claim that the CDC has refuted the stats I found on the Internet concerning the efficacy of condoms in preventing particular STDs? (I never read the end of that thread, which is now buried in the past.)

    If misuse of stats=bigotry, the pro-choice camp is bigoted in the extreme. I won’t rehash here how the pro-choice camp lied about abortion-related deaths before Roe and partial birth abortions. But those episodes are well known and not subject to dispute (there can be no dispute because the pro-choice people who propogated the false stats admitted to doing so knowing they were false).

  48. Ok guys,let’s get back on topic — or at least somewhere close to it, ok?

    Dan, we all get it that you’re extremely anti-choice and have very definitive ideas about what constitutes appropriate sexual relationships. That’s fine, and you’re welcome to present those ideas here, but this isn’t the thread for it. Sorry if I’m being short, I’m just getting increasingly irritated with every other thread being de-railed by you coming in and making anti-choice and/or anti-gay comments that have little or nothing to do with the topic at hand.

  49. The 1,000 average partners stat I did read somewhere, but I can’t remember where. It’s possible it was a median rather than an average.

    The onus is then on you to check that number against others. When you don’t, people like me check into the matter and see that even reparative-therapy and anti-gay websites have estimates that are five percent of yours.

    Here’s one article that gives some information on numbers like yours, and some numbers that seem more reasonable: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2003_05/001258.php

    Here’s the original post: http://volokh.com/2003_05_11_volokh_archive.html

    Speaking of stats Piny, did you ever back up your claim that the CDC has refuted the stats I found on the Internet concerning the efficacy of condoms in preventing particular STDs? (I never read the end of that thread, which is now buried in the past.)

    I did not say that that statistic was inaccurate; IIRC, I said, “Oh, for fuck’s sake,” or something similar. My problem was with the way it was stated. Anyone not versed in statistics–any given American, for example–would read that as “If you have sex with a condom, you have a fifteen percent chance of contracting HIV.”

  50. Magnus: The Europeans may not have developed the horse, but they still had it. Aside from some initial fright, the horse didn’t prove very effective nor did the guns which weren’t terribly accurate compared to bows and arrows. In fact, the Europeans didn’t invent the techonology for guns and gunpowder. They just expropriated it from elsewhere.

    Guns, steel, and horses would not have turned the tide for the Spanish. In fact, in the first encounters, they were beaten back by the Aztecs and nearly wiped out. What happened in the interim was the epidemic which swept the Aztec capital. Sickness and a lack of understanding of how to treat it meant that the Aztecs simply were not fit to defend themselves. And that brought down the more advanced civilization.

    Cortez almost ended up at the top of a pyramid.

  51. Jill, I mentioned abortion only in passing in a comment that concerned historical standards of decency — which is on point. Kate picked up on the abortion reference and made a comment about how tolerant everyone on here is, and I responded to that. Then Piny piled on. So yell at Kate and Piny, not me. Also, I don’t mind being called “anti-choice” but I am not “anti-gay” if “anti-gay” is intended to suggest dislike of gays or an anti-gay animus.

    But you know what, you are right: I should — and will — quit this blog. I participated in this blog in the hope of presenting the Catholic point of view on the culture war issues, and in engaging others in a respectful and civil discussion of those issues. The discussion however generally was not respectful or civil (Kate excepted). It has always seemed to me that liberals do not understand orthodox Catholicism and I have this naive belief that if they can be made to understand it they will be more tolerant of it if not see how amazing it is — or that they might at least be curious about it. I cannot say that my experience on this blog has totally disabused me of this idea. However, the experience has been on the whole negative and disheartening.

    So, addio a tutti, and happy blogging.

  52. Jill: Here’s an interesting fact for you. The Aztecs believed that two types of citizens were destined for an honored afterlife: men who had died in combat and women who had died in childbirth. Everyone else, just about, ended up roving in the dark lands of Mictlan.

  53. Joel, like the Greeks, right? Didn’t they go stand in mud for all eternity, pretty much irregardless of what they’d done?

    And wouldn’t it be kind of fun if that was our new national story-of-what-happens-upon-death? Upon making a sacraligious joke, instead of saying “Hah, I’m going to hell” we would say “hah, I’m going to go stand in mud forever. Like you. And everyone else.” I thilnk that might be better.

    Today in one of my Latin America classes we discussed whether it might have been better if Pope Paul III – the guy who determined, after extensive what-happens-if-you-cut-their-heads-off sort of testing, that indigenous Americans were humans – had instead classified them as some sort of monkey. Racist? Oh hell yes, but the carte blanche genocide that might have resulted might have worked slower and less completely than herding everyone into stockades to convert them. In the missions, those European germs and that European lack of concern with sleeping in human filth could affect everyone at once.

    All I’m saying is, the everybody-standing-in-mud afterlife sounds like it might have had fewer negative historical implications.

    And re: my Southern people tangent, of COURSE I’m saying it’s bad to devalue people because they’re poor, I think we can all agree on that.

  54. No — the Greeks had the reward/punish thing going on. Heroes got the Elysian Fields (although this doesn’t always show up in things like poetry — in Homer, even the great hero Achilles says that he’d rather be a very humble LIVING man than his own renowned shade). A baddies got tortured in clever ways — Tantalos with the grapes/water, Sisyphos and his rock, etc.

  55. FWIW, I think you make some perfectly valid observation. Perhaps the lack of response indicates that everyone either 1) agrees 2) doesn’t understand 3) read midterms and sudafed, then chose to skip the inner body of the post or 4) disagrees, but finds it more exhilarating to veer as far off track as possible as if on a dirt bike than to discuss the closely related moral defense mechanism’s tertiary consequences.

    I hardly think that the likelihood of having said something that people seem to agree with is cause for giving up, but then that depends on what you were trying to accomplish in the first place… *g*

  56. alextree: Well, my “expertise,” poor as it is, lies further west and later in time, but I think that the Babylonians stood in mud. In caves. 🙂

  57. “In defense of the behavior of Catholics, Spanish Catholics in particular, in the colonial period, I would like to point out that it was a Spanish monk who first protested the abuse of the Amerind population.”

    Um, I’m pretty sure that it was the native people themselves that would’ve been the first to protest their abuse.

    And to make it very clear, the problem wasn’t/isn’t just _abuse_. The problem is invasion. Occupation. No matter how nicely it’s done.

    Although your point that some people within the church were against the Conquest is valuable and well-taken.

Comments are currently closed.