0 comment Monday, September 1, 2014 | admin
I've mentioned before that I collect ephemera, my favorite era being the early 20th century. I love learning about earlier times from the ephemera of the age: written material, magazines, even the ads tell a story. The artwork and the illustrations were often beautiful, much more so than today's counterparts.
One thing that catches my eye in the old ads and magazine articles is the presence of many upper-class people, dressed in their finery, attending some soigné event. Many of the domestic scenes in advertising depict elegant women at home with their housemaids. This kind of thing is conspicuously absent in our modern advertising, for obvious reasons. The world has turned upside down from what it was 100 years, or even 70 years ago. The egalitarian, downward-leveling trend has become the hallmark of our age. There are no clear class delineations as there were back then, with moneyed people and their luxuries. Nowadays, the rich often dress, act, and speak just like those at the lower end of the economic spectrum. Think Paris Hilton.
And since the English language is on my mind these last few days, coincidentally I was just at a forum where the discussion centered on class
distinctions in the UK as reflected in language.
Apparently, there remain, despite all the leveling efforts of the leftists, differences in vocabulary as well as pronunciation in the UK.
This article from long-ago 1992 describes the class patterns in British English:
John Honey, an itinerant English professor educated at Cambridge and Oxford who is currently teaching in Japan, created a stir in Britain when his book was published. He urged Britons to acknowledge that speech accents are the coding of the class system and to strike a blow for equality by teaching everyone to speak the Queen's English, which Honey termed "received pronunciation," or R.P. The classic example of R.P. would be the crisp, clipped speech of most BBC news readers.
The Charles-Di split, then, is a matter of two different styles of upper-class speech. Prince Charles speaks a marked version of R.P. -- the upper-crust English, oozing privilege, spoken today mainly by senior members of the royal family, old Etonians and aging Oxford and Cambridge dons. R.P. speakers pronounce "cloth" as clawth and talk about the lorst pah of the British Empah (the "lost power of the British Empire").
Princess Diana has swung to the other end of the R.P. spectrum, occasionally assuming a trendy down-market variant, including traces of popular London speech, that approaches cockney. Its most prominent feature is "t-glotalling," which means strangling the final "t" in most words. Expert ears, for example, have detected Diana saying there's a lo' of i' abou' for "there's a lot of it about." '
From the perspective of today, it would appear that the 'received pronunciation' has long since lost the battle. I've noticed how 'the Queen's English' has been displaced in the British media by various regional accents and by more 'working-class' patterns of speech. When I watch old British films, (for example, today I saw ''Great Expectations" from 1946), the English spoken then is markedly different than that heard in the British media today.
There may be some of the older generation whose accents follow the old patterns but they seem to be few and far between.
I believe the cultural Marxists want to eliminate anything that hints at ''elitism'' and class distinctions and standards, the latter of which are
anathema to them in all areas of life. In the UK as in the United States and throughout the West, there is the mania for 'equality' and for a malicious pulling-down of those who are looked at superior or elite in some way.
And that, to me, is the crux of this issue of class distinctions in speech. The left is always busily destroying all vestiges of our former standards and ideals. Having distinctions of any kind amounts to ''discrimination" and this must always be stamped out.
This piece cuts to the chase, regarding speech:
Every detail of our selves and our lives � our appearance, speech, activities and associations � is perceived by others as an emblem of who we were, what we have become and where we fit in. The social profile of each person is recognizable and unique, like a fingerprint.
The ways we speak also reflect this combination of social similarity and diversity in fine detail.
[...]
Language has always helped to signify who we are in society, sometimes serving as a basis for exclusion. A Bible story tells how a password, shibboleth, was chosen because the enemy didn�t use the sh sound. "Shibboleth" has since come to signify an emblem of belief or membership, an identifiable sign of those who must stay outside the gate.
Societies use shibboleths in many ways. Indeed, speech is a convenient stand-in for other kinds of stigma that we recognize but do not openly acknowledge. For example, in our society, discrimination based on appearance, race, sex, religion or national origin is TABOO and often illegal, whereas discrimination based on particular details of language use by men or women, people of different religions, people from other countries and so on is often allowed.''
Do we have any class distinctions in speech in the United States? I would say we don't. It may be that some traditionally-minded people are unfavorably disposed towards those who have very uneducated speech, or strong regional accents in some cases. But this need not necessarily reflect a class bias, or a racial bias. We just tend to react somewhat negatively to someone who displays ignorance in their way of speaking.
It's often said, with some truth in the allegation, that people tend to judge those who speak with a Southern accent as ''ignorant'' or backward, even if the speaker uses impeccable grammar and syntax. The accent itself bears a stigma, I would say as much or more than ''ebonics''. And you'll notice I didn't specify that ''Northern people tend to judge'' Southern accents negatively -- just ''people.'' There are some who are born and bred in the South who carefully cultivate a neutral accent, modeling it on the media standard. Many of the younger generations do not sound Southron at all, even if their parents speak with a strong regional accent. I think this move away from the Southern speech is sometimes not a conscious thing; it's simply 'in' to speak standard American English as heard on TV or in Hollywood movies. Younger people who watch the mainstream media consciously or unconsciously absorb the accent they hear; it has connotations of being hip and cool, unlike the Southern drawl.
Other than that, however, we don't have a great deal of class distinction in our speech. Education these days does not do a very good job of educating. Sadly, most of those in academia these days are dedicated leftists who think that proper grammar and enunciation are ''elitist' and outmoded, as well as 'reactionary'. So who is there to uphold standards of good grammar and speech?
The linked PBS article argues (just as my linguistics professor did back in the 70s) that language is perpetually changing, and that we mustn't try to stop or impede the change. Language is 'organic', so the party line says. Languages just grow, like Topsy, and we can't control or even direct the change that inevitably happens. We can be 'descriptive' in discussing language, in other words, simply observe and note what we see and hear, but we can't be 'prescriptive' and uphold standards -- because everything is relative, you see. Who are we to judge the ebonics speakers or those who speak some sort of pidgin English or Spanglish or whatever argot?
A complex pattern of influences keeps the linguistic pot bubbling. Variation is everywhere. Change never stops. Language gatekeepers cannot control an ever-changing world of diversity. It�s hard on them, because in the gatekeepers' world, variation means error and change means decline.
What�s more, the very notion of a single standard of correctness in language is quite recent. "Correctness" is based solely on a purist�s own notion of what is socially or culturally correct: if it's not in, it must be out. A language purist works from a list of exceptions to the rule, ordinary speakers follow a hierarchy of patterns that reveal analogical similarities.''
Yes, the usual leftist arguments are heard in the realm of linguistics as in all other areas. Change is inevitable; embrace it. Celebrate it. Above all, don't judge it. Don't try to control it or contain it.
Change is sacred to the leftist.
And we ''language purists' who think (silly us) that there are rules and standards which apply to language just as to any other system, and who think that we should try to contain and direct change, are just sticks-in-the-mud who are impeding the 'diversity' and the richness of our ever-changing language.
I suppose we have to give the left some kind of credit for being consistent in their 'philosophy'. They are consistent to the point of being monomaniacal, when it comes to advancing their agenda in every area of life.
The larger question, though, is the loss of standards in our society.
I suppose it could be said that the beginnings of our country already contained the seed of our current obsession with 'equality' and leveling, which we see in the assault on all standards. Proper speech is now denigrated as archaic and rigid, the province of 'language purists'. Basic etiquette and social graces are scoffed at as passé and old-fashioned. Dress codes are going by the wayside, as people more and more tend to dress for 'comfort', regardless of the occasion. There are very few occasions for which Americans dress up nowadays. Jeans and T-shirts and athletic shoes are the universal uniform for all occasions from church on Sunday to the symphony. As I mentioned, even the wealthy are likely to slouch around in the ''uniform'' when in public.
Sexual mores, like all social standards, are now strictly up to the individual; who are we to judge? Tolerance of anything and everything is a mark of the sophisticated, ''enlightened'' 21st century American.
Profanity and obscenity are everywhere, with no respect for the people present. Oldsters, toddlers, nobody is spared the foul language.
The arts are no longer governed by any sort of rules regarding aesthetics or skill. This is true of the so-called 'fine arts' as well as popular culture.
Mediocrity and even ineptitude are no obstacle to attaining fame or success in the arts and popular entertainment.
Good taste has gone out the window; once I tried to discuss 'taste' with a liberal friend; it was a foreign language to her. ''Taste'' is an elitist construct, imposed by the aristocracy on the sainted common man.
The sad thing about all this is that the ''conservatives'' for the most part are rank egalitarians and levelers in most respects, just as the liberals and leftists. Perhaps the old American obsession with demolishing social class in general, the tradition of hating aristocracy, has gone too far. It seems to me that even conservatives have accepted many of the class warfare bromides of the left.
Our country was born from a revolution against English royalty, and there was an anti-aristocratic undertone to the slogans and sentiments of many of the Founding Fathers -- yet there was a movement to make George Washington a king, rather than President.
There was an old Southron aristocracy, and I am sure there were wastrels and other undesirables among their ranks, but on the other hand, many good men came out of that class: the aforementioned Washington, Thomas Jefferson, the Lees, the Pages, the Randolphs, the Taylors, and many more. Aristocracy is not an innately bad thing, provided they are principled.
Can anyone argue that democracy is preferable? How is it working out for us now?
Our forefathers, at least the Founding Fathers, opposed the idea of democracy and 'equality', despite Thomas Jefferson's unfortunate phrase ''all men are created equal."
Democracy does not exist for a long time - it wastes, exhausts and destroys itself. There was never a democracy that didn't kill itself" - Samuel Adams
"Democracy always leads to conflicts and instability, but never provides for the security of the citizens or their property. Usually it is very short at life, and very bloody at death" -- James Madison
There are many more such quotes in the same vein. Yet somehow Americans have become enamored of 'democracy' and equality.
Equality and liberty can't coexist. Neither can equality and standards. If we are to level everybody, standards must be pulled down; those who excel or distinguish themselves in any way are to be pounded down so as to prevent inequality.
Not so many decades ago, we had a culture which encouraged all, rich, poor, or middle-class, to aspire to civilized, genteel behavior. Children were taught to be polite and courteous, and respectful of elders. Girls, in particular, were taught social graces and were often sent to 'charm school' to learn how to groom themselves, carry themselves, and to be gracious.
Everybody could, and most did, aspire to ''better themselves." Even those from a poor background could become educated, or educate themselves, acquire some social polish, and improve their status in the world. Now, it seems every economic class emulates the lowest level of society. The gutter culture is 'cool.'
The old-style rich in America were standard-bearers. While there were 'black sheep' among them, in general they comported themselves well in public; it was considered part of the duty of the 'upper classes' to set an example. Now that we no longer have a wealthy class with any sense of noblesse oblige, or with a desire to uphold higher standards of behavior, we have no exemplars at all, except vapid celebrities, who are often troubled people with no detectable standards. Or there are the overpaid athletes who are idolized by many.
On this blog we've often discussed the leadership void. Leaders need not be politicians or 'statesmen' -- and how many of the latter even exist today? Leaders are standard-bearers and standard-setters. They are people who, at their best, honor and uphold social and cultural standards and traditions, and set an inspiring example. We all need something to which to aspire, and we all need to aspire to something honorable and worthy. We have few if any such leaders and standard-bearers now. I wonder if, by killing our aristocracy metaphorically, we have done ourselves in. We can see in history how much harm was caused by the Jacobins and their obliterating of class distinctions.
Standards are necessary; our mania for 'democracy' and 'equality' is proving to be very destructive to our society. I believe any effort to undo all the horrendous errors of the last five decades or so must include a renewed respect for quality, excellence, merit, and achievement, as well as for order and beauty.
We live in an ugly, sloppy age dominated by willful adolescents. At some point, the adults will have to reassert control.
The liberals say 'change never stops', and if they are right, then the pendulum has to swing back eventually.
One thing that catches my eye in the old ads and magazine articles is the presence of many upper-class people, dressed in their finery, attending some soigné event. Many of the domestic scenes in advertising depict elegant women at home with their housemaids. This kind of thing is conspicuously absent in our modern advertising, for obvious reasons. The world has turned upside down from what it was 100 years, or even 70 years ago. The egalitarian, downward-leveling trend has become the hallmark of our age. There are no clear class delineations as there were back then, with moneyed people and their luxuries. Nowadays, the rich often dress, act, and speak just like those at the lower end of the economic spectrum. Think Paris Hilton.
And since the English language is on my mind these last few days, coincidentally I was just at a forum where the discussion centered on class
distinctions in the UK as reflected in language.
Apparently, there remain, despite all the leveling efforts of the leftists, differences in vocabulary as well as pronunciation in the UK.
This article from long-ago 1992 describes the class patterns in British English:
John Honey, an itinerant English professor educated at Cambridge and Oxford who is currently teaching in Japan, created a stir in Britain when his book was published. He urged Britons to acknowledge that speech accents are the coding of the class system and to strike a blow for equality by teaching everyone to speak the Queen's English, which Honey termed "received pronunciation," or R.P. The classic example of R.P. would be the crisp, clipped speech of most BBC news readers.
The Charles-Di split, then, is a matter of two different styles of upper-class speech. Prince Charles speaks a marked version of R.P. -- the upper-crust English, oozing privilege, spoken today mainly by senior members of the royal family, old Etonians and aging Oxford and Cambridge dons. R.P. speakers pronounce "cloth" as clawth and talk about the lorst pah of the British Empah (the "lost power of the British Empire").
Princess Diana has swung to the other end of the R.P. spectrum, occasionally assuming a trendy down-market variant, including traces of popular London speech, that approaches cockney. Its most prominent feature is "t-glotalling," which means strangling the final "t" in most words. Expert ears, for example, have detected Diana saying there's a lo' of i' abou' for "there's a lot of it about." '
From the perspective of today, it would appear that the 'received pronunciation' has long since lost the battle. I've noticed how 'the Queen's English' has been displaced in the British media by various regional accents and by more 'working-class' patterns of speech. When I watch old British films, (for example, today I saw ''Great Expectations" from 1946), the English spoken then is markedly different than that heard in the British media today.
There may be some of the older generation whose accents follow the old patterns but they seem to be few and far between.
I believe the cultural Marxists want to eliminate anything that hints at ''elitism'' and class distinctions and standards, the latter of which are
anathema to them in all areas of life. In the UK as in the United States and throughout the West, there is the mania for 'equality' and for a malicious pulling-down of those who are looked at superior or elite in some way.
And that, to me, is the crux of this issue of class distinctions in speech. The left is always busily destroying all vestiges of our former standards and ideals. Having distinctions of any kind amounts to ''discrimination" and this must always be stamped out.
This piece cuts to the chase, regarding speech:
Every detail of our selves and our lives � our appearance, speech, activities and associations � is perceived by others as an emblem of who we were, what we have become and where we fit in. The social profile of each person is recognizable and unique, like a fingerprint.
The ways we speak also reflect this combination of social similarity and diversity in fine detail.
[...]
Language has always helped to signify who we are in society, sometimes serving as a basis for exclusion. A Bible story tells how a password, shibboleth, was chosen because the enemy didn�t use the sh sound. "Shibboleth" has since come to signify an emblem of belief or membership, an identifiable sign of those who must stay outside the gate.
Societies use shibboleths in many ways. Indeed, speech is a convenient stand-in for other kinds of stigma that we recognize but do not openly acknowledge. For example, in our society, discrimination based on appearance, race, sex, religion or national origin is TABOO and often illegal, whereas discrimination based on particular details of language use by men or women, people of different religions, people from other countries and so on is often allowed.''
Do we have any class distinctions in speech in the United States? I would say we don't. It may be that some traditionally-minded people are unfavorably disposed towards those who have very uneducated speech, or strong regional accents in some cases. But this need not necessarily reflect a class bias, or a racial bias. We just tend to react somewhat negatively to someone who displays ignorance in their way of speaking.
It's often said, with some truth in the allegation, that people tend to judge those who speak with a Southern accent as ''ignorant'' or backward, even if the speaker uses impeccable grammar and syntax. The accent itself bears a stigma, I would say as much or more than ''ebonics''. And you'll notice I didn't specify that ''Northern people tend to judge'' Southern accents negatively -- just ''people.'' There are some who are born and bred in the South who carefully cultivate a neutral accent, modeling it on the media standard. Many of the younger generations do not sound Southron at all, even if their parents speak with a strong regional accent. I think this move away from the Southern speech is sometimes not a conscious thing; it's simply 'in' to speak standard American English as heard on TV or in Hollywood movies. Younger people who watch the mainstream media consciously or unconsciously absorb the accent they hear; it has connotations of being hip and cool, unlike the Southern drawl.
Other than that, however, we don't have a great deal of class distinction in our speech. Education these days does not do a very good job of educating. Sadly, most of those in academia these days are dedicated leftists who think that proper grammar and enunciation are ''elitist' and outmoded, as well as 'reactionary'. So who is there to uphold standards of good grammar and speech?
The linked PBS article argues (just as my linguistics professor did back in the 70s) that language is perpetually changing, and that we mustn't try to stop or impede the change. Language is 'organic', so the party line says. Languages just grow, like Topsy, and we can't control or even direct the change that inevitably happens. We can be 'descriptive' in discussing language, in other words, simply observe and note what we see and hear, but we can't be 'prescriptive' and uphold standards -- because everything is relative, you see. Who are we to judge the ebonics speakers or those who speak some sort of pidgin English or Spanglish or whatever argot?
A complex pattern of influences keeps the linguistic pot bubbling. Variation is everywhere. Change never stops. Language gatekeepers cannot control an ever-changing world of diversity. It�s hard on them, because in the gatekeepers' world, variation means error and change means decline.
What�s more, the very notion of a single standard of correctness in language is quite recent. "Correctness" is based solely on a purist�s own notion of what is socially or culturally correct: if it's not in, it must be out. A language purist works from a list of exceptions to the rule, ordinary speakers follow a hierarchy of patterns that reveal analogical similarities.''
Yes, the usual leftist arguments are heard in the realm of linguistics as in all other areas. Change is inevitable; embrace it. Celebrate it. Above all, don't judge it. Don't try to control it or contain it.
Change is sacred to the leftist.
And we ''language purists' who think (silly us) that there are rules and standards which apply to language just as to any other system, and who think that we should try to contain and direct change, are just sticks-in-the-mud who are impeding the 'diversity' and the richness of our ever-changing language.
I suppose we have to give the left some kind of credit for being consistent in their 'philosophy'. They are consistent to the point of being monomaniacal, when it comes to advancing their agenda in every area of life.
The larger question, though, is the loss of standards in our society.
I suppose it could be said that the beginnings of our country already contained the seed of our current obsession with 'equality' and leveling, which we see in the assault on all standards. Proper speech is now denigrated as archaic and rigid, the province of 'language purists'. Basic etiquette and social graces are scoffed at as passé and old-fashioned. Dress codes are going by the wayside, as people more and more tend to dress for 'comfort', regardless of the occasion. There are very few occasions for which Americans dress up nowadays. Jeans and T-shirts and athletic shoes are the universal uniform for all occasions from church on Sunday to the symphony. As I mentioned, even the wealthy are likely to slouch around in the ''uniform'' when in public.
Sexual mores, like all social standards, are now strictly up to the individual; who are we to judge? Tolerance of anything and everything is a mark of the sophisticated, ''enlightened'' 21st century American.
Profanity and obscenity are everywhere, with no respect for the people present. Oldsters, toddlers, nobody is spared the foul language.
The arts are no longer governed by any sort of rules regarding aesthetics or skill. This is true of the so-called 'fine arts' as well as popular culture.
Mediocrity and even ineptitude are no obstacle to attaining fame or success in the arts and popular entertainment.
Good taste has gone out the window; once I tried to discuss 'taste' with a liberal friend; it was a foreign language to her. ''Taste'' is an elitist construct, imposed by the aristocracy on the sainted common man.
The sad thing about all this is that the ''conservatives'' for the most part are rank egalitarians and levelers in most respects, just as the liberals and leftists. Perhaps the old American obsession with demolishing social class in general, the tradition of hating aristocracy, has gone too far. It seems to me that even conservatives have accepted many of the class warfare bromides of the left.
Our country was born from a revolution against English royalty, and there was an anti-aristocratic undertone to the slogans and sentiments of many of the Founding Fathers -- yet there was a movement to make George Washington a king, rather than President.
There was an old Southron aristocracy, and I am sure there were wastrels and other undesirables among their ranks, but on the other hand, many good men came out of that class: the aforementioned Washington, Thomas Jefferson, the Lees, the Pages, the Randolphs, the Taylors, and many more. Aristocracy is not an innately bad thing, provided they are principled.
Can anyone argue that democracy is preferable? How is it working out for us now?
Our forefathers, at least the Founding Fathers, opposed the idea of democracy and 'equality', despite Thomas Jefferson's unfortunate phrase ''all men are created equal."
Democracy does not exist for a long time - it wastes, exhausts and destroys itself. There was never a democracy that didn't kill itself" - Samuel Adams
"Democracy always leads to conflicts and instability, but never provides for the security of the citizens or their property. Usually it is very short at life, and very bloody at death" -- James Madison
There are many more such quotes in the same vein. Yet somehow Americans have become enamored of 'democracy' and equality.
Equality and liberty can't coexist. Neither can equality and standards. If we are to level everybody, standards must be pulled down; those who excel or distinguish themselves in any way are to be pounded down so as to prevent inequality.
Not so many decades ago, we had a culture which encouraged all, rich, poor, or middle-class, to aspire to civilized, genteel behavior. Children were taught to be polite and courteous, and respectful of elders. Girls, in particular, were taught social graces and were often sent to 'charm school' to learn how to groom themselves, carry themselves, and to be gracious.
Everybody could, and most did, aspire to ''better themselves." Even those from a poor background could become educated, or educate themselves, acquire some social polish, and improve their status in the world. Now, it seems every economic class emulates the lowest level of society. The gutter culture is 'cool.'
The old-style rich in America were standard-bearers. While there were 'black sheep' among them, in general they comported themselves well in public; it was considered part of the duty of the 'upper classes' to set an example. Now that we no longer have a wealthy class with any sense of noblesse oblige, or with a desire to uphold higher standards of behavior, we have no exemplars at all, except vapid celebrities, who are often troubled people with no detectable standards. Or there are the overpaid athletes who are idolized by many.
On this blog we've often discussed the leadership void. Leaders need not be politicians or 'statesmen' -- and how many of the latter even exist today? Leaders are standard-bearers and standard-setters. They are people who, at their best, honor and uphold social and cultural standards and traditions, and set an inspiring example. We all need something to which to aspire, and we all need to aspire to something honorable and worthy. We have few if any such leaders and standard-bearers now. I wonder if, by killing our aristocracy metaphorically, we have done ourselves in. We can see in history how much harm was caused by the Jacobins and their obliterating of class distinctions.
Standards are necessary; our mania for 'democracy' and 'equality' is proving to be very destructive to our society. I believe any effort to undo all the horrendous errors of the last five decades or so must include a renewed respect for quality, excellence, merit, and achievement, as well as for order and beauty.
We live in an ugly, sloppy age dominated by willful adolescents. At some point, the adults will have to reassert control.
The liberals say 'change never stops', and if they are right, then the pendulum has to swing back eventually.
Labels: Egalitarianism, English Language, History, Leadership, Social Class, Social Conservatism, Societal Decay
0 comment Friday, June 27, 2014 | admin
Of late, I haven't been reading The Brussels Journal as closely as I did in the past. To be honest I am more preoccupied with what is happening within our country (or what used to be our country) than with Europe. I find many of the articles there lately to be rather tepid, but this latest piece by 'Takuan Seiyo' is one of the best things I've read concerning not only the situation in Japan, but the lessons for the West which are implicit in the Japanese experience.
Just as a bit of context, I expect my readers have all seen this distressing article which appeared in the last few days:
Japan must boost immigration
...We think it would be appropriate for Japan to accept immigrants to make up 10 percent of the population over the next 50 years," the lawmakers said in the report, which was unveiled late on Thursday.
"Japan is an island country situated in the Far East, and seen as having a relatively homogeneous population, so some say it is not suited to accepting immigrants," the lawmakers said.
"It is a fact that we have less experience of immigration than do Europe and America. But we are facing harsh times," they added.
The report also called for Japan to accept more refugees. Asylum seekers are currently admitted to Japan only in very rare cases.''
This should be disturbing to all Westerners, and not just to those who admire the Japanese culture. To me, it's one more piece of evidence showing that the tentacles of globalism and 'multiculturalism' have reached to the opposite side of the planet. So far, it has seemed as though the 'one world' elitists were content to let Asia remain Asian, focusing their efforts on de-Europeanizing the West. I've long thought that this must surely be a temporary oversight on their part, or maybe the Japanese need further 'softening up', more conditioning to the multicult before they would be willing to accept being colonized or 'diversified' with people from the backward nations. It looks as though the 'powers that be' have decided the time is ripe.
Takuan Seiyo does not address this latest bit of news in his piece, but he makes many very cogent points about the contrasts between Western culture and that of Japan, and about how we might learn from each other. He describes how Western ideas, disseminated via the ubiquitous mass media, have come to change Japan, particularly (as always) among the younger generations.
He discusses the writings of Masahiko Fujiwara, a professor who has written about the decline in Japanese traditional culture.
In late 2005, Fujiwara published a book entitled The Dignity of the Nation (3). Within six months the book had sold two million copies, making it Japan's second best-selling title of 2006, after, tellingly, Harry Potter.
Fujiwara is a patriot who does not like what he sees in contemporary Japan. In his book, he criticizes the Western values of logic, democracy and individualism and decries their negative impact on Japan. He lists symptoms of the disease ravaging the world's developed countries: disintegration of the family, educational collapse, crime, terrorism, drug use, AIDS.
He attributes this decay to the failure of Western logic and rationality that has set root also in Japan.
Fujiwara adduces, wrongly, that meritocracy and capitalism are among the causes of this sickness. This is a common opinion among Japanese "conservatives" that is debatable with respect to Japan but is grossly ignorant with respect to the West.
Meritocracy was the great strength of the West in the 20th century, until it was abandoned in favor of the very hobbling pox that Japan, to Fujiwara's dismay, has been trying to wean itself from. Our fetish now is to insist on equal results, on equality among unequals, on social promotion instead of merit-based promotion. And Western capitalism has degenerated to printing and shuffling money and phantom money, and it has been perverted in other ways too � but even now it has a salutary foundation that Fujiwara misses entirely.
[...]Fujiwara names these Western "starting points" on which the West's social arrangements are based: freedom, equality, democracy and, of late, globalization.
Freedom, Fujiwara writes, has degenerated into nothing more than unrestrained egotism. Equality is a fiction, a lie used to mask a reality of great inequality, or to wield as a club in the constant class, race and gender skirmishes roiling the West. Globalization is worldwide homogenization, and not to the highest common denominator. And democracy is based on an erroneous assumption: that people are capable of making mature and informed judgments.
Only a governing elite can curb democracy's tendency to run amok, says Fujiwara. Members of the elite must possess four characteristics: a broad cultural and historical erudition, an ability to see "the big picture," exceptional strength of character, and sufficient love of their people and country to sacrifice for them their lives in an hour of need. Japan, Fujiwara adds, used to but no longer has such an elite. One of his greatest delusions is that Great Britain, France, and the U.S. still do.''
It's evident to those of us living in the West, those of us who care about our peoples, that our elites no longer possess these qualities in the least, most especially the last one: love of their people and country, and willingness to sacrifice for them. Our leaders not only lack these qualities, but they embody the very antithesis of these qualities.
Seiyo then discusses the role of social class in this situation. I had just been ruminating on this subject when I read this piece, so it coincided rather nicely with my musings. I have been wondering (and I realize this is heresy in today's America) whether we in America, more than many other Western countries, have gone too far to the egalitarian end of the spectrum regarding social class. Despite the egalitarian rhetoric of some of our Founding Fathers, there was during their age, still an aristocracy of sorts in America. These people were not aristocrats in the European sense, bearing hereditary titles and special privileges, but there was an idea that there was a sort of aristocracy of birth and character in the sense that people born of 'good' families should live up to a high standard, and set an example to those lower in the social order. The idea of noblesse oblige was still extant.
I've written before about how Thomas Jefferson's phrase ''all men are created equal'' has caused untold mischief, and is now threatening to destroy us as we are hobbled in our attempt to deal with mass immigration and racial grievances. I am convinced that Jefferson did not mean for his phrase to connote an absolute equality among men.
John Taylor of Caroline (and perhaps John Randolph of Roanoke) said ''I am an aristocrat. I love liberty; I hate equality.'' Yet in our zeal to repudiate monarchy and aristocracy in general, it seems we've gone too far in embracing the leveling spirit. As it is, we have an elite who constitute an aristocracy of sorts, but they are not an aristocracy in the old genteel meaning of the word. They lack the superior education, the high standards, the sense of duty to kin and country, and above all, they lack the nobility of spirit which marked the best of the old aristocracy. Many of our elites are not of 'good families' as they used to say, but are merely riff-raff with money. Coincidentally, I was watching a documentary about a scandalous crime among the supposed members of the 'upper crust' in a New England town; their behavior was indistinguishable from the behavior of the guests on Jerry Springer. As I watched it, I thought of how money is the sole determinant, these days, of who is considered 'upper class', while higher standards, dignity, and restraint are conspicuously missing among most of 'high society.' Look at the behavior of the Hiltons. These are people who've accumulated wealth but who have no 'class' in the old sense. Money can't buy class. Even worse than the tabloid scandals of the 'upper class' is their lack of loyalty and their utter selfishness. Our elites of old at least had loyalty and a sense of nobility of character in most cases.
And the notion that the quintessence of the upper class is decoupled from any considerations of wealth and is instead linked to descent from warriors and, much more important, to character traits that once were the idolized hallmark of warriors: honor, chivalry, loyalty, courage, honesty, good manners, modesty, self-restraint, contempt for materialism, love of justice, love of country and of its deity.
Values and virtues tend to trickle from the top down, rather then percolating from the bottom. And that has huge implications. Since the newly invigorated merchants in 17th century Edo (Tokyo) started emulating samurai customs, such as the tea ceremony, Japanese with higher aspirations have sought to adopt the values and comportment of the upper class. The ethos by which those are transmitted is, by now, so widely diffused that it's an essential part of Japanese schools' curriculum, for instance in a wise book, The Tsurezuregusa, written by Kenko, a Buddhist priest and poet at the Imperial Court, around 1330.
1330! How many books reflecting traditional Western virtues as perceived even a hundred years ago are still being taught in Western schools? Instead, the psychotic Western elite disseminates the contemporary values it has minted: erasure of history, custom, and the white peoples� ethnic identity; prostration before hostile aliens without and within; tolerance über alles; equality at the expense of liberty; quantity rather than quality; flesh over spirit; indulgence over will; statism over self-reliance. All these are a contagion that destroys, rather than a restorative that invigorates.''
I've lamented before that we have no leadership, and when I say leadership I don't just mean politicians, who are all too often a venal group of people, but people of accomplishment who inspire us, people who champion what is right, people who care about their country and their people and speak out on our behalf, or who work to uphold our culture at its best, our traditions, our heritage. There is an utter vacuum at the top.
I think most who read this blog agree with me that the idea that 'all men are created equal' is false, and that certainly all peoples are not equal in abilities or in character, and certainly it follows that all cultures are not created equal. I think most of us agree that blood and heredity count for something in how people grow to be what they are; we are not born blank slates. Good and decent people usually produce good and decent children and people of low character have children like themselves more often than not. And it should not even be necessary to state the obvious, that yes, there are always occasional exceptions. But as always, those exceptions don't disprove the rule.
We are to some degree a product of heredity as well as environment. Extreme liberals of course believe environment is all, and that we are all infinitely malleable, blank slates. Conservatives know better -- or they should know better.
Seiyo talks about how the Japanese have upheld many of the values of the old samurai code, which have to do with honor, shame, and 'contempt for base behavior.' We in the West had our code of chivalry, which is not an exact parallel to the samurai code, but similar enough. To some extent that code has been preserved in Southron culture, but it's weakening. We in the West have, as our Christian faith and ethics have been weakened, succumbed to the 'non-judgmentalist' dogma which is at the core of psychology. Standards and rules are considered 'elitist' and 'undemocratic.' And many conservatives acquiesce to this unhappy state of things. Why?
The very concept of base behavior has vanished in the West, because to perceive and loathe baseness we would also have to be taught to perceive and revere highness � and that's committing a high crime in the degenerate West of today, a crime of discrimination, discernment and "judgmentalism." We much prefer the distinction of legal / illegal � but that distinction is, per se, base, for it invokes the state�s guns, batons and watching eyes as the generator of virtue.''
As a child, I was taught by older family members and elders in general that certain behaviors were 'trashy', 'low-class', and that we were to be better than that. Is that elitist? Probably, but I've retained these ideals all of my life and passed them on.
Elitism, centered by a strong moral code and set of ethics, is not a bad thing. I wish we could get over this childish, rebellious egalitarianism and regain high standards once again.
Along with our discarding of standards as 'elitist', we have lost our concern for courtesy in interpersonal relaitonships and we've lost our emphasis on quality in our workmanship. This is visible in our dealings with others every day, and in the marketplace, we settle for poor service and shoddy standards. America once had very high standards in all areas of life; American-made products were generally well-made and reliable.
Americans were once very courteous and helpful in our interactions; businesses put the customer first. No longer. There is a general air of apathy and surliness all too often. This is also exacerbated by the intercultural misunderstandings, and the presence of so many Third World peoples among us who observe no niceties, no small talk, no 'please-and-thank-you'.
Seiyo also mentions the honesty of the Japanese people, and their belief that stealing is 'base behavior.' Too many of us no longer have any such moral or ethical convictions, or even a sense that doing such things is a cause for shame, and is degrading intrinsically. Add to that the numbers of people from corrupt Third World countries where moral standards are lacking or drastically at odds with our own, and we have an increasingly value-deficient society.
Here is something else that we in the West might rediscover: the proper order of our loyalties and priorities:
Japan is one of the world's greatest supporters of the United Nations and of other global institutions, partly because its people and leaders are too naïve and ignorant to understand some of the malign mechanics that animate such institutions. But even in their enthusiasm for multilateralism, the Japanese do not forget the proper order of things: love of family, love of hometown, love of country, and only then love of mankind.
White people, in contrast, have turned this on its head so that love of mankind comes first, love of hometown and country are quaint and rare relics, and love of family is increasingly disappearing too. While the pierced-and-tattooed future of the West is busy with the problems of the Africans, the Palestinians, and Inconvenient Gorefiction, Fujiwara says: "There is no such thing as a 'global citizen,' and teaching such a fiction does a hundred times more harm than good." '
Fujiwara says it all there.
Seiyo says that the diversity mania that is raging through the West is absent in Japan. I hope he is right; I hope that xenomania, as it exists in the West, does not spread further. I hope that it isn't too late for us to be cured of our terminal case of it.
Just as a bit of context, I expect my readers have all seen this distressing article which appeared in the last few days:
Japan must boost immigration
...We think it would be appropriate for Japan to accept immigrants to make up 10 percent of the population over the next 50 years," the lawmakers said in the report, which was unveiled late on Thursday.
"Japan is an island country situated in the Far East, and seen as having a relatively homogeneous population, so some say it is not suited to accepting immigrants," the lawmakers said.
"It is a fact that we have less experience of immigration than do Europe and America. But we are facing harsh times," they added.
The report also called for Japan to accept more refugees. Asylum seekers are currently admitted to Japan only in very rare cases.''
This should be disturbing to all Westerners, and not just to those who admire the Japanese culture. To me, it's one more piece of evidence showing that the tentacles of globalism and 'multiculturalism' have reached to the opposite side of the planet. So far, it has seemed as though the 'one world' elitists were content to let Asia remain Asian, focusing their efforts on de-Europeanizing the West. I've long thought that this must surely be a temporary oversight on their part, or maybe the Japanese need further 'softening up', more conditioning to the multicult before they would be willing to accept being colonized or 'diversified' with people from the backward nations. It looks as though the 'powers that be' have decided the time is ripe.
Takuan Seiyo does not address this latest bit of news in his piece, but he makes many very cogent points about the contrasts between Western culture and that of Japan, and about how we might learn from each other. He describes how Western ideas, disseminated via the ubiquitous mass media, have come to change Japan, particularly (as always) among the younger generations.
He discusses the writings of Masahiko Fujiwara, a professor who has written about the decline in Japanese traditional culture.
In late 2005, Fujiwara published a book entitled The Dignity of the Nation (3). Within six months the book had sold two million copies, making it Japan's second best-selling title of 2006, after, tellingly, Harry Potter.
Fujiwara is a patriot who does not like what he sees in contemporary Japan. In his book, he criticizes the Western values of logic, democracy and individualism and decries their negative impact on Japan. He lists symptoms of the disease ravaging the world's developed countries: disintegration of the family, educational collapse, crime, terrorism, drug use, AIDS.
He attributes this decay to the failure of Western logic and rationality that has set root also in Japan.
Fujiwara adduces, wrongly, that meritocracy and capitalism are among the causes of this sickness. This is a common opinion among Japanese "conservatives" that is debatable with respect to Japan but is grossly ignorant with respect to the West.
Meritocracy was the great strength of the West in the 20th century, until it was abandoned in favor of the very hobbling pox that Japan, to Fujiwara's dismay, has been trying to wean itself from. Our fetish now is to insist on equal results, on equality among unequals, on social promotion instead of merit-based promotion. And Western capitalism has degenerated to printing and shuffling money and phantom money, and it has been perverted in other ways too � but even now it has a salutary foundation that Fujiwara misses entirely.
[...]Fujiwara names these Western "starting points" on which the West's social arrangements are based: freedom, equality, democracy and, of late, globalization.
Freedom, Fujiwara writes, has degenerated into nothing more than unrestrained egotism. Equality is a fiction, a lie used to mask a reality of great inequality, or to wield as a club in the constant class, race and gender skirmishes roiling the West. Globalization is worldwide homogenization, and not to the highest common denominator. And democracy is based on an erroneous assumption: that people are capable of making mature and informed judgments.
Only a governing elite can curb democracy's tendency to run amok, says Fujiwara. Members of the elite must possess four characteristics: a broad cultural and historical erudition, an ability to see "the big picture," exceptional strength of character, and sufficient love of their people and country to sacrifice for them their lives in an hour of need. Japan, Fujiwara adds, used to but no longer has such an elite. One of his greatest delusions is that Great Britain, France, and the U.S. still do.''
It's evident to those of us living in the West, those of us who care about our peoples, that our elites no longer possess these qualities in the least, most especially the last one: love of their people and country, and willingness to sacrifice for them. Our leaders not only lack these qualities, but they embody the very antithesis of these qualities.
Seiyo then discusses the role of social class in this situation. I had just been ruminating on this subject when I read this piece, so it coincided rather nicely with my musings. I have been wondering (and I realize this is heresy in today's America) whether we in America, more than many other Western countries, have gone too far to the egalitarian end of the spectrum regarding social class. Despite the egalitarian rhetoric of some of our Founding Fathers, there was during their age, still an aristocracy of sorts in America. These people were not aristocrats in the European sense, bearing hereditary titles and special privileges, but there was an idea that there was a sort of aristocracy of birth and character in the sense that people born of 'good' families should live up to a high standard, and set an example to those lower in the social order. The idea of noblesse oblige was still extant.
I've written before about how Thomas Jefferson's phrase ''all men are created equal'' has caused untold mischief, and is now threatening to destroy us as we are hobbled in our attempt to deal with mass immigration and racial grievances. I am convinced that Jefferson did not mean for his phrase to connote an absolute equality among men.
John Taylor of Caroline (and perhaps John Randolph of Roanoke) said ''I am an aristocrat. I love liberty; I hate equality.'' Yet in our zeal to repudiate monarchy and aristocracy in general, it seems we've gone too far in embracing the leveling spirit. As it is, we have an elite who constitute an aristocracy of sorts, but they are not an aristocracy in the old genteel meaning of the word. They lack the superior education, the high standards, the sense of duty to kin and country, and above all, they lack the nobility of spirit which marked the best of the old aristocracy. Many of our elites are not of 'good families' as they used to say, but are merely riff-raff with money. Coincidentally, I was watching a documentary about a scandalous crime among the supposed members of the 'upper crust' in a New England town; their behavior was indistinguishable from the behavior of the guests on Jerry Springer. As I watched it, I thought of how money is the sole determinant, these days, of who is considered 'upper class', while higher standards, dignity, and restraint are conspicuously missing among most of 'high society.' Look at the behavior of the Hiltons. These are people who've accumulated wealth but who have no 'class' in the old sense. Money can't buy class. Even worse than the tabloid scandals of the 'upper class' is their lack of loyalty and their utter selfishness. Our elites of old at least had loyalty and a sense of nobility of character in most cases.
And the notion that the quintessence of the upper class is decoupled from any considerations of wealth and is instead linked to descent from warriors and, much more important, to character traits that once were the idolized hallmark of warriors: honor, chivalry, loyalty, courage, honesty, good manners, modesty, self-restraint, contempt for materialism, love of justice, love of country and of its deity.
Values and virtues tend to trickle from the top down, rather then percolating from the bottom. And that has huge implications. Since the newly invigorated merchants in 17th century Edo (Tokyo) started emulating samurai customs, such as the tea ceremony, Japanese with higher aspirations have sought to adopt the values and comportment of the upper class. The ethos by which those are transmitted is, by now, so widely diffused that it's an essential part of Japanese schools' curriculum, for instance in a wise book, The Tsurezuregusa, written by Kenko, a Buddhist priest and poet at the Imperial Court, around 1330.
1330! How many books reflecting traditional Western virtues as perceived even a hundred years ago are still being taught in Western schools? Instead, the psychotic Western elite disseminates the contemporary values it has minted: erasure of history, custom, and the white peoples� ethnic identity; prostration before hostile aliens without and within; tolerance über alles; equality at the expense of liberty; quantity rather than quality; flesh over spirit; indulgence over will; statism over self-reliance. All these are a contagion that destroys, rather than a restorative that invigorates.''
I've lamented before that we have no leadership, and when I say leadership I don't just mean politicians, who are all too often a venal group of people, but people of accomplishment who inspire us, people who champion what is right, people who care about their country and their people and speak out on our behalf, or who work to uphold our culture at its best, our traditions, our heritage. There is an utter vacuum at the top.
I think most who read this blog agree with me that the idea that 'all men are created equal' is false, and that certainly all peoples are not equal in abilities or in character, and certainly it follows that all cultures are not created equal. I think most of us agree that blood and heredity count for something in how people grow to be what they are; we are not born blank slates. Good and decent people usually produce good and decent children and people of low character have children like themselves more often than not. And it should not even be necessary to state the obvious, that yes, there are always occasional exceptions. But as always, those exceptions don't disprove the rule.
We are to some degree a product of heredity as well as environment. Extreme liberals of course believe environment is all, and that we are all infinitely malleable, blank slates. Conservatives know better -- or they should know better.
Seiyo talks about how the Japanese have upheld many of the values of the old samurai code, which have to do with honor, shame, and 'contempt for base behavior.' We in the West had our code of chivalry, which is not an exact parallel to the samurai code, but similar enough. To some extent that code has been preserved in Southron culture, but it's weakening. We in the West have, as our Christian faith and ethics have been weakened, succumbed to the 'non-judgmentalist' dogma which is at the core of psychology. Standards and rules are considered 'elitist' and 'undemocratic.' And many conservatives acquiesce to this unhappy state of things. Why?
The very concept of base behavior has vanished in the West, because to perceive and loathe baseness we would also have to be taught to perceive and revere highness � and that's committing a high crime in the degenerate West of today, a crime of discrimination, discernment and "judgmentalism." We much prefer the distinction of legal / illegal � but that distinction is, per se, base, for it invokes the state�s guns, batons and watching eyes as the generator of virtue.''
As a child, I was taught by older family members and elders in general that certain behaviors were 'trashy', 'low-class', and that we were to be better than that. Is that elitist? Probably, but I've retained these ideals all of my life and passed them on.
Elitism, centered by a strong moral code and set of ethics, is not a bad thing. I wish we could get over this childish, rebellious egalitarianism and regain high standards once again.
Along with our discarding of standards as 'elitist', we have lost our concern for courtesy in interpersonal relaitonships and we've lost our emphasis on quality in our workmanship. This is visible in our dealings with others every day, and in the marketplace, we settle for poor service and shoddy standards. America once had very high standards in all areas of life; American-made products were generally well-made and reliable.
Americans were once very courteous and helpful in our interactions; businesses put the customer first. No longer. There is a general air of apathy and surliness all too often. This is also exacerbated by the intercultural misunderstandings, and the presence of so many Third World peoples among us who observe no niceties, no small talk, no 'please-and-thank-you'.
Seiyo also mentions the honesty of the Japanese people, and their belief that stealing is 'base behavior.' Too many of us no longer have any such moral or ethical convictions, or even a sense that doing such things is a cause for shame, and is degrading intrinsically. Add to that the numbers of people from corrupt Third World countries where moral standards are lacking or drastically at odds with our own, and we have an increasingly value-deficient society.
Here is something else that we in the West might rediscover: the proper order of our loyalties and priorities:
Japan is one of the world's greatest supporters of the United Nations and of other global institutions, partly because its people and leaders are too naïve and ignorant to understand some of the malign mechanics that animate such institutions. But even in their enthusiasm for multilateralism, the Japanese do not forget the proper order of things: love of family, love of hometown, love of country, and only then love of mankind.
White people, in contrast, have turned this on its head so that love of mankind comes first, love of hometown and country are quaint and rare relics, and love of family is increasingly disappearing too. While the pierced-and-tattooed future of the West is busy with the problems of the Africans, the Palestinians, and Inconvenient Gorefiction, Fujiwara says: "There is no such thing as a 'global citizen,' and teaching such a fiction does a hundred times more harm than good." '
Fujiwara says it all there.
Seiyo says that the diversity mania that is raging through the West is absent in Japan. I hope he is right; I hope that xenomania, as it exists in the West, does not spread further. I hope that it isn't too late for us to be cured of our terminal case of it.
Labels: Diversity, Egalitarianism, Mass Immigration, Multiculturalism, Nationalism, Social Class