Random fashion thoughts - Part II (A New Hope)

[oulipien]

Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

In Manton's opinion, it's clearly the second, since it was, in his (not unjustified) opinion, the white dudes of European descent made modern American society and liberal government possible. Did it mean a world of suck for the North American Indians? Yes, but that's irrelevant to the central point of Manton's thesis.

You might not agree with his opinion, but it's scarcely laughable or illogical.

Rilly? That strikes me as both laughable and illogical. Laughable partly because American society was built on slave labor, so it's kind of just outright false to state that white dudes of European descent made American society possible. (The defense and preservation of the peculiar institution is also directly behind our weird system of government, the number and disposition of the states, and just about every, well, peculiar fact about the American political system. Granted: it was white dudes making those decisions!) Both laughable and illogical because even if it were true that the people who founded the country, who populated the country, who valued all the values or whatever [eta were all white men, sentence kind of got away from me there], that wouldn't mean that their becoming a minority meant jack **** in terms of the preservation of the any particular set of values. The thesis that it was all white men is already pretty bad, but you have to go into even more racist and sexist territory to think that the diminishing number of white people, all by itself, is any kind of threat.

You have to ask: what are the core traditional values? There's certainly an answer to that question on which the diminishing power and numbers of white dudes is a threat to them, but it's not one that most soi-disant conservatives are willing to give full-throatedly (though IMO it's what is actually moving them): white supremacy and patriarchy. When you put it that way, there's a real threat! But now it's laughable in a different way—like, people seriously concerned about the diminishment of the supremacy of white men should be laughed out of town.

People do seem to be more and more willing to give this answer, though, which, I don't know, I actually preferred it when they pretended to give a **** about Enlightenment values of reason and liberality. You do kind of have the problem then that you seem to be saying that the darker-skinned and more female among us can't hack those values, which, again, someone espousing that view does not deserve to be taken seriously.

 

[John L]

Don't you dare forget about the red chambrays

*snickers behind computer screen*

*wipes sandwich crumbs off of red chambray shirt*

 

[LA Guy]

Rilly? That strikes me as both laughable and illogical. Laughable partly because American society was built on slave labor, so it's kind of just outright false to state that white dudes of European descent made American society possible. (The defense and preservation of the peculiar institution is also directly behind our weird system of government, the number and disposition of the states, and just about every, well, peculiar fact about the American political system. Granted: it was white dudes making those decisions!) Both laughable and illogical because even if it were true that the people who founded the country, who populated the country, who valued all the values or whatever, that wouldn't mean that their becoming a minority meant jack **** in terms of the preservation of the any particular set of values. The thesis that it was all white men is already pretty bad, but you have to go into even more racist and sexist territory to think that the diminishing number of white people, all by itself, is any kind of threat.

The bolded part is important. Disenfranchised people are not participants in decision making, by definition. The very fact that women and slaves were not part of the framers of the constitution and the country precludes them from having built the founding institutions of the country. (You might argue that those institutions were built, sometimes literally, on their backs, but that's not the subject here.)

I'm not arguing in favor of Manton's thesis, just pointing out that at least that part of it is not nonsensical.

 

[zissou]

White dudes making a society for white dudes that needs to be protected in perpetuity by and for white dudes. Maybe someone, at a different time, in a different place, can explain to me how that's governing America, and not white nationalism.

Don't you dare forget about the red chambrays

O rite, the J Crew red chambrays! And the limited edition Apolis+Filson bag that wasn't so limited edition.

 

[LA Guy]

White dudes making a society for white dudes that needs to be protected in perpetuity by and for white dudes.
O rite, the J Crew red chambrays! And the limited edition Apolis+Filson bag that wasn't so limited edition.

Are you white dudes appropriating FUBU as well?

Geez, is there nothing you won't take?

 

[zissou]

We're taking topknots because we are all samurai. Too bad my hair fell out.

 

[LA Guy]

We're taking topknots because we are all samurai. Too bad my hair fell out.

It's cool. I just reverse appropriated Shakey Graves:

 

[cyc wid it]

Next Stylefarmer charity auction should include ______ with Manton.

 

[oulipien]

The bolded part is important. Disenfranchised people are not participants in decision making, by definition. The very fact that women and slaves were not part of the framers of the constitution and the country precludes them from having built the founding institutions of the country. (You might argue that those institutions were built, sometimes literally, on their backs, but that's not the subject here.)

I'm not arguing in favor of Manton's thesis, just pointing out that at least that part of it is not nonsensical.

It is not nonsensical to think that the Constitution was written by white men. True! The distance between that "the white dudes of European descent made modern American society and liberal government possible", and the distance between that latter claim and the thought that a decline in the numbers and power of white men is any threat to (anything a sensible person* would like to preserve of) American institutions, are both so vast that you can't see one side from the other with a telescope. (The larger point, beyond the part you bolded, was that the conditions under which those white men wrote the Constitution, which influenced the way they wrote it, were shaped by lots of non-white people and lots of non-men.) It takes more to make a society and liberal government possible than to write a parchment (especially if you want to say this is true of modern American society), and in the making of actually existing American society, people other than white men were absolutely vital.

* Of course perhaps Manton is, precisely, not sensible, and wishes to preserve white supremacy. From what I've read of his writing, it sure seems that way. To be explicit: the point of the parenthetical is to acknowledge that white supremacy and patriarchy really have been American and not only American institutions, not that someone might have a point that is worth taking seriously in lamenting their decline. And I really mean that: it is not even worth responding seriously to someone trying to argue that the end of white supremacy is lamentable. I'm with John ******* Rawls: "Of course, a society may also contain unreasonable and irrational, and even mad, comprehensive doctrines. In their case the problem is to contain them so that they do not undermine the unity and justice of society."

 

[dieworkwear]

This is stupid because Manton isn't here to speak for himself. So it's just assuming his view.

FWIW, from what I've seen from him, he's more concerned about a Clash of Civiliazations argument. It's not that he's against immigration in the past, or think that only white people should be here. He thinks Islam in its current political and religious form is incompatible with Western liberal democracy -- even if the majority here can be transformed by the American experience, there's some who will not.

It's Samuel Huntington meets Robert Putnam. Clash of Civilizations (Islam is incompatible with liberal democracy) meets Bowling Alone (ethnically diverse societies tend to be dysfunctional because of low levels of social capital and high number of political cleavages).

You can have that discussion without assuming people are white nationalists. One of my department advisors is a former Huntington student (she's a Marxist Middle East scholar and of Middle Eastern descent). I think most people who study social capital also take Putnam's stance as true (and they're not white supremacists).

Of course, this gets mixed with his other conservative views -- like his take on illegal immigration, which touches on a racial issues -- so then it gets painted in a certain light (he's racist, etc etc etc). It certainly has a racial bias but it's distinct from Richard Spencer/ Oswald Spengler stuff.

 

[skitlets]

Being Asian and all, I'm reluctant to give up my undercut, which is topknotted on rare occasion. I see goofy white dudes with it everywhere and it makes me sad.

 

[LA Guy]

It is not nonsensical to think that the Constitution was written by white men. True! The distance between that "the white dudes of European descent made modern American society and liberal government possible", and the distance between that latter claim and the thought that a decline in the numbers and power of white men is any threat to (anything a sensible person* would like to preserve of) American institutions, are both so vast that you can't see one side from the other with a telescope. (The larger point, beyond the part you bolded, was that the conditions under which those white men wrote the Constitution, which influenced the way they wrote it, were shaped by lots of non-white people and lots of non-men.) It takes more to make a society and liberal government possible than to write a parchment (especially if you want to say this is true of modern American society), and in the making of actually existing American society, people other than white men were absolutely vital.

* Of course perhaps Manton is, precisely, not sensible, and wishes to preserve white supremacy. From what I've read of his writing, it sure seems that way. To be explicit: the point of the parenthetical is to acknowledge that white supremacy and patriarchy really have been American and not only American institutions, not that someone might have a point that is worth taking seriously in lamenting their decline. And I really mean that: it is not even worth responding seriously to someone trying to argue that the end of white supremacy is lamentable. I'm with John ******* Rawls: "Of course, a society may also contain unreasonable and irrational, and even mad, comprehensive doctrines. In their case the problem is to contain them so that they do not undermine the unity and justice of society."

Except that the foundations of American society were set long before women had the franchise, even longer before African Americans had any real franchise, and then even longer before any "johnny come latelies" came into the scene. That non-white, non-men, factored into the way the country was conceived is relevant only insofar as they were factors that needed to be considered, like geography.

Critically, Manton is not a huge fan of what you call "modern American society", which he sees as corrupt and decayed. His entire premise predicated on his America careening towards self-destruction.

Whether we are on the brink of disaster is another topic altogether.

 

[LA Guy]

This is stupid because Manton isn't here to speak for himself. So it's just assuming his view.

FWIW, from what I've seen from him, he's more concerned about a Clash of Civiliazations argument. It's not that he's against immigration in the past, or think that only white people should be here. He thinks Islam in its current political and religious form is incompatible with Western liberal democracy -- even if the majority here can be transformed by the American experience, there's some who will not.

It's Samuel Huntington meets Robert Putnam. Clash of Civilizations (Islam is incompatible with liberal democracy) meets Bowling Alone (ethnically diverse societies tend to be dysfunctional because of low levels of social capital and high number of political cleavages).

You can have that discussion without assuming people are white nationalists. One of my department advisors is a former Huntington student (she's a Marxist Middle East scholar and of Middle Eastern descent). I think most people who study social capital also take Putnam's stance as true (and they're not white supremacists).

Of course, this gets mixed with his other conservative views -- like his take on illegal immigration, which touches on a racial issues -- so then it gets painted in a certain light (he's racist, etc etc etc). It certainly has a racial bias but it's distinct from Richard Spencer/ Oswald Spengler stuff.

This.

Also, though Manton is not here is speak for himself (though he could if he liked), he is has written explicitly and extensively about these subjects, so it's not as though we have to guess at his opinions.

 

[LA Guy]

Being Asian and all, I'm reluctant to give up my undercut, which is topknotted on rare occasion. I see goofy white dudes with it everywhere and it makes me sad.

Yeah. Same. Much better than the Asian fro.

 

[oulipien]

This is stupid because Manton isn't here to speak for himself. So it's just assuming his view.

FWIW, from what I've seen from him, he's more concerned about a Clash of Civiliazations argument. It's not that he's against immigration in the past, or think that only white people should be here. He thinks Islam in its current political and religious form is incompatible with Western liberal democracy -- even if the majority here can be transformed by the American experience, there's some who will not.

I'm assuming that he's a competent presenter of his own views in his published work, which, who knows, is maybe not fair! (He's not a good writer, lord knows, though I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts that he thinks he's doing some fancy Straussian audience partitioning, bless his heart.) And I'm not too impressed either by positions that essentially take the form "we have to destroy liberal democracy in order to save it", or by those whose concern about those who can't get with the liberal-democratic program doesn't extend to white people (who, as I alluded to previously, have been responsible for more terrorism in terms of both numbers and severity in this country than foreigners or Muslims or whatever). I mean: Rawls, as quoted above, is explicitly concerned about people whose views are incompatible with "justice as fairness", but he manages to express that concern without implying that Islam has anything in particular to trouble us. Manton's characterization of Islam itself, and his concern with "clash of civilizations", do not seem to be independent of a "racial bias" that then gets "mixed' with it; it's racialized through and through.

(BTW, are you describing Putman's work, or the outcome of the combination, with "ethnically diverse societies tend to be dysfunctional because of low levels of social capital and high number of political cleavages"? Because I did not think that Bowling Alone focused in the first instance on ethnically diverse societies. In any case, whatever trends he observed, it's a really pessimistic, and I think unwarranted, position that ethnically diverse societies must be fragmented. Ethnically integrated societies exist, after all.)