A Society of Sub-Cultures.

*I’d rather be wearing white in desert sunlight!

Consider the dynamic between proletariat and bourgeois, from the communist framework of course. It strikes one as reasonable that members of the proletariat would seek to become bourgeois, and so this class would criticise the revolution if it restricts their dreams o private property. There are castles for sale (bloody aristocrats eat cake whilst citizens of DPRK eat grass). If they were all to become culture centres and tourist traps, what effect would be seen in those with secret, selfish wishes? On their motivation? Their social engagement?

This type of selfish desire is harnessed in an effective manner in our society, by the form of monetary value and taxation. Not to say there is no room for improvement. This acceptance of selfish desire, and this method of harnessing it for the greater good, enhance some aspects of community, although if private property is the problem these dynamics only repeat the problem. Anyway, there is no need for all citizens to go to a mosque, church or stupa, to be taught a spirituality which encourages selflessness and kindness. How else can the plethora of cultures and sub-cultures coexist?

Secularism is another facet of pre-existing ideology which holds influence over this state of affairs. Some communities desire to be the supreme social power, and have all state affairs organised and developed by their principles. So, for example, an Islamist and a Apostolic Christian may agree about peace on earth, but would they do agree about the prayers which should be said before class? Secularism, although it does diminish the dream of overwhelming religion / culture, means that only the secular code shall be placed above the divine code and then mostly in matters in the public domain. Proslytising and preaching can occur in personal domains, which appears to give breathing room to the dream of religious dominance.

As a certain form of economic structure (capitalism) and a certain form of governance (secular) spreads and deepens around the globe, individuals (born in the right place to the right parents, more than ever before) are free to pursue their own ends, and by so doing inch the larger community forwards. Value systems and individual projects are not uniform and do not have to be. However, limits of what can be selfishly pursued (monopoly control of all high fructose corn syrup or mangos) and which value systems must be excluded (WWII Japanese rape culture, WWII USA nuclear weapons usage) are exceeding a certain boundary, one most deserving of respect.

A minimum (prison) standard should be guaranteed, all else is competition. I believe it is better to share some standards of capitalism and secularism than it is to raise them. This leads me again to the question of whether current leading communities can remain so only as long as the global order remains stable. So to say it differently, if all people everywhere were given the wealth of the average Qatari on their 18th birthday, would inflation collapse the global networks of markets, the networks of production and distribution?

Advertisements

Institutional Discrimination.

Why should minority supporting quotas and incentives be accepted? If a job has two objectively equal applicants, why should subjective value be over-ridden by a quotas? Or objective value tilted by incentive?
A lot of discrimination occurs without organisation. A passive form of discrimination, of preferential treatment of those most comfortable to an authority figure, becomes a serious issue as it emerges from a community of millions.

Kim Davis, as an individual, refused to do the paperwork for a homosexual marriage, on religious grounds (an inconsistent personal standard, due to her divorces). This is an example of the category of discrimination which occurs without collusion. She did not act as a result of scheming between the USA government and Apostolic Christians.

Studies which found resumés with popular American-African* names require more applications to achieve the same number of respones, as those with popular generic American names. This is not due to the Aryan Brotherhood infiltrating business networks to influence hiring trends but instead evidence of an ideology without clear organisation & intent. A media which circulates more stories of American-African crime is an organised distribution which feeds the dynamic of discrimination, it is not done with the intent to disadvantage but to scandalise and sell.
*I hold that the first nationality is the place of residence and the second a heritage, so here an American with African heritage.

If TV news station has a segment for flattery of an individual, should an individual from the class which receives the most negativity elsewhere in the news, be chosen?

If two job applicants are objectively equal, in terms of education, experience etc., is it natural that subjective value (i.e. interviewer & interviewee share a hobby) becomes decisive?
Of course it is, and this aspect of humanity would see institutional dominance of the rich, white man maintained, but without intentional, organised ill-will. Mandatory quotas, alongside tax breaks & other incentives, act against this passive discrimination. However it means that the state enacting them is discriminating against the rich, white male, by legally de-valuing them or over-valuing the non-rich, non-white, non-male. Quotas and incentives then, become a systemic and intentional discrimination against the dominant class. What a strange inversion of the original state of affairs.

Much talk of discrimination frames the problem as though there were a conspiratorial group creating it, to the detriment of the minorities. Historically this has been true, and remains true of myriad situations. Also, that this is a realistic foundation subsumed into conspiracies of liberal perversion of government and public community promoted by right wing communities. Yet despite disorganised, unintentional discrimination against minorities, it should be seen that Western cultures which have systemic, intentional discrimination in favour of minorities are developing beyond a historic limit of equality.

Australia, Invaded or Colonised?

Try and read this first. My whole case here can be boiled down thus, compare the Russian invasion of Germany, with the Russian colonisation of Crimea (and genocide of Tartars). What happened in Australia should be grouped with the second and not the first.

The University of New South Wales, UNSW, has a set of guidelines that dictate Australian history should be discussed with the division of time as the pre-, during, and post-English invasion. To me, this seems to be more about using strong language to convey the suffering of Aborigines caused by, mostly, the English and encourages white guilt and division. However, the platonic content of the word is incongruent with this situation, and it does a poor job of explaining modern, and much of historical, Australia. Of course, at the university level people should have acquired a better knowledge of Australia than a single word, particularly if it’s where they call home but it’s one word I just don’t like.

The guidelines also aim at removing discovery from the terms used to describe Australian history. These seems to be an effort to place the reader in a position of universal humanity, as opposed to a more realistic position. To the English, it was new and did constitute a discovery. To the then Australians, it was a home tens of millennia old. Whether it is better that university students position themselves to connect to the oldest humans first, and so to place the sole possible discovery of Australia in pre-history, or to those more culturally, historically and genetically immediate and so to validate the discovery of Australia from that perspective, is a question for the reader.

More problems of language abound in the guidelines, in that Australia must not be spoken of as being settled, but instead it was occupied. If a person moving into a new home can do it with a moiety of occupying or settling into their new home, violently or peacefully respectively.

Invasion, Google will give multiple definitions, one of which is an unwelcome intrusion, invasion will mean for this writing, a movement of military for warfare (state organised violence). This definition is consistent with one of the Google definitions. For this writing, colonisation means movement of civilians for civilian purposes. I am adamant that throughout the entire history, including prior to Europeans and after the penal colonisation, such as the arrivals of Asians and Americans during the Gold Rush Era, movement of people to & fro has been civilians moving for civilian purposes and that this does not exclude suffering.

The First Fleet, and the Second, were the beginning of the English population in Australia. These fleets came with marines, and they did kill Aborigines. However, the objective of the marines was not confrontation but security of the penal colony, which required seizing land from its traditional owners. If undemocratic loss of land constitutes an invasion, recent land purchases by Chinese entities mark invasion anew, despite the USA being the  most common foreign investor. This should be contrasted against more traditional forms of invasion, Saddam invading Kuwait, USA invading Japan.

English elite of the time, those in whos mind the decision was made, made a decision to establish a penal colony. Aborigines were given no more thought than a tree, if the English elite considered violent consequences of the plans, they were deemed acceptable but not an objective. This is colonisation, from the beginning it was colonisation. Some hear colonisation and think elevation of civilisation, and find it unbearable that the various, historic Aboriginal peoples should at all be considered worse than historic English and that colonisation excludes any cruelty or violence. To avoid making a relative judgement, accepting that colonisation involves anything unrighteous, and to promote awareness of Aboriginal suffering, invasion is de rigeur.

What sort of invasion carries mostly convicted criminals and builds prisons first? Some of the invaders had no choice in the matter after being violently kidnapped, and that’s just the marines who were press-ganged into military duty. The first colonisers, the convicts, had no choice, no weapons, no training, no violent or military objective, no freedom to pursue violent conflict and surely those attributes are required to be an invader. If they are not required to describe an invader, it follows that the right wing community are well justified in calling Islamic refugees the fore guard of the Islamic invasion.

Many of the later colonisers had those attributes of an invader, and there were violent lynchings by vigilantes (i.e. farmers revenging livestock against human life), as well as pitched battles between the military and the Aborigines. Clearly however, the majority of new arrivals had not departed home to be able to hunt Aborigines, nor was the majority of the general population involved. It is better understood as the establishment of a penal colony, with outbursts of violent racism and extravagant retaliation.

Invasion means war and modern Australia requires peace, but no peace treaty exists. If the convicts of the First Fleet were invaders, despite having no choice & no weapons, than any who came to Australia on the authority of the past or present governments, even if they come without choice or weapons (i.e. refugees), are invaders. There is no historical Aboriginal body to validate a refugee program, and any modern body which does so, does so within the establishment of the invaders and may simply be dismissed as state puppetry. To continue the invasion perspective, the Gold Rush Era saw an influx of invaders to Australia, not migrants not colonisers, and this attitude must extend fully to the present moment, to Congolese refugees. This attitude is divisive, it necessarily places all non-Aborigines in a classification with some of the most vile moments of history.

UNSW should amend the guidelines it promotes. Australia was not invaded by the reasonable definition of military moving across borders for warfare. Loss of land occurs without invasion. Racist policies, genocidal policies, occur without invasion (these examples are drawn from Australia, it would be distasteful to reference Nazi Germany here). The perspective of invasion is a weak explanation of Australian history and is an intellectual obstacle to peace. Colonisation is a strong explanation, offers a better perspective to understand Australian history and does not exclude terrible stupidity, selfishness & suffering. The Gold Rush Era, and the convicts are a historical source of identity for Australia ranging from the lionisation of Ned Kelly to the frequency of the Eureka Stockade flag in tattoo parlours.

I take the position, which verges on racism, that Aboriginal communities of history, although of a higher form than the contemptible flora & fauna policy, trees don’t make tools or tell tales, that those societies were less good than relative European societies. Both had disgusting brutalities as banal realities, and neither anchor us down from hiking towards the future paradise. We might get there a little faster if the media sought to hear Aborigines speak about their modern sufferings, racist and otherwise, rather than the elites of education searching for the perfect frame for history.

Tales Of Old Japan.

Goodreads review.

Did you know blind, bald shampoo-ers were the loansharks of certain era? Not only a font of Japanese trivia, the brief foot-notes reveal English attitudes from a time long past. A hundred year + book, a rather good read, mine had pressed flowers. At the end of the book a dozen pages on seppuku / hara-kiri, such as flag arrangements at the samurai’s suicide, were a dull slog.