Is criticising a national culture racist?

[Tahuti]

In several threads, I have made some comments on the culture of Palestinians, which was received with shock. I guess my wording should have been a wee more careful, given how this is forum rather sympathetic to them. However, when I criticised the culture of the US for its insistence on dividing individuals among racial lines, including by 'racial minorities', I may have not received the same degree of shock, though my comments were still received with a similar sense of bewilderment, chiefly by US posters, who are otherwise rather content with accepting criticism of their own culture by foreigners.

Is being hostile at a culture a form of anti-national sentiment or racism? And if it is, does it justify a mild degree of such in the pursuit of truth? My viewpoints are rather clear on this (it isn't, but if it is, I'm okay with that), so it may seem like a loaded question, but I am rather curious how those that disagree would argumentate their viewpoints, or even whether opponents have thought about on methods of countering such lines of reasoning.

Please do not use this thread for giving cultural criticism yourself though, as there are loads of opportunities to do that elsewhere; the goal of this thread is a honest evaluation of the usefulness of such, and to answer the question posed by the OP's title.

 

[Borachio]

I don't understand quite what you mean about national cultures.

Why is there any need to stereotype people in any way? Why not treat each person on their own merits as you meet them?

It is, though, important to be aware of cultural differences so as to avoid inadvertently offending someone. But I think that's a rather different matter from "national cultures" and being hostile to a whole group of humanity for no very good reason.

 

[Tahuti]

I don't understand about national cultures.

Why is there any need to stereotype people in any way? Why not treat each person on their own merits as you meet them?

I was hoping you'd come to this thread.

So, you see it as problematic because it is stereotyping. Don't you think it is possible to picture a national culture without resorting to it? Although I readily concede it will always involve a degree of oversimplification, which may degrade into stereotyping if left unchecked.

 

[Borachio]

I'm not sure how you could picture a national culture without stereotyping.

Aren't you saying that a national culture consists of such and such (like clogs, windmills, and daffodils), and painting every member of that nation with the same brush?

Isn't stereotyping unavoidable with every attempt to figure out what the national culture consists of?

 

[Tahuti]

There a couple of things that can judged without becoming all too stereotypy: The political responses in conflicts, which can be culturally defined. The langauge or dialect, on which some judgments can be made on whether what a culture values. Idem dito for national remembrance days and holidays. The key is not to focus too much on the people, rather, on what do within a cultural boundary.

For instance, I think it is perfectly fair to give self-criticism to contemporary Western culture for having commercialised Christmas for instance. This Western commercialisation was AFAIK, not always the case.

The problem is perhaps is that criticising a national culture requires a belief that every culture is underpinned by a certain ideology that is put into motion.

 

[Borachio]

I'm not sure that self-criticism of any kind could ever be thought of as racist. How would that work?

 

[Tahuti]

I'm not sure that self-criticism of any kind could ever be thought of as racist. How would that work?

Well, it seems to be problematic when you offer the same kind of criticism towards others, as I have found out.

 

[Borachio]

There's a crucial difference between criticizing oneself and criticizing someone else, don't you think?

I find my self-criticism is much more to the point, and very hurtful, simply because it's likely to be more accurate than someone else's criticism of me. I mean, what on earth does someone else really know about me?

 

[Tahuti]

There's a crucial difference between criticizing oneself and criticizing someone else, don't you think?

I find my self-criticism is much more to the point, and very hurtful, simply because it's likely to be more accurate than someone else's criticism of me. I mean, what on earth does someone else really know about me?

I'd rather not pry into other one's matters myself. However, I feel that superior cultures do need to assert themselves. There is no meaning without them.

 

[Borachio]

Do you think that "superior" individuals need to assert themselves too?

But tell me, what makes for a "superior" culture?

Is the Israeli culture superior to the Palestinian one for instance?

 

[Tahuti]

Do you think that "superior" individuals need to assert themselves too?

Yes.

But tell me, what makes for a "superior" culture?

Is the Israeli culture superior to the Palestinian one for instance?

The ability to swallow tragedy would mark a superior culture. This includes having suffered a genocide, then being able to defeat larger nations afterwards.

Remember that I said that the struggle between moralities are more important than the end result? For that reason, I believe a superior culture acknowledges the non-existence of a eternal moral ideals. Wanting to pose a moral endgame - i.e. the final judgment in Abrahamic faiths - is wanting to impose nothingness and meaninglessness. That's the mark of an inferior culture.

 

[classical_hero]

It is simple. If the people of the nation are predominantly white, then no, but if they are not white, then yes. That is the way thing work around here and in the liberal world.

 

[Farm Boy]

See, here's the problem with that Tort. You've totally lost me on your value judgment at the end. If you now say that you judge my faith, to the extent that it influences culture, and you also claim that 'superior cultures need to assert themselves over inferior ones' you've already done much of the hard work in laying the foundation for a system that gives rise to circumstances where people 'like me' wind up obliged to kill people 'like you' and vise versa. You know, all the penis waggling of nationalism. I prefer Borg culture better where we halfass assimilate anything that people feel like picking up.

 

[Triewd]

It is simple. If the people of the nation are predominantly white, then no, but if they are not white, then yes. That is the way thing work around here and in the liberal world.

Whilst you are being satirical I think this is accurate.

In answer to the OP: No for two reasons

1 the very concept of 'racism' is flawed Free Speech is free speech regardless of whether it is hate speech or not

https://anarchopapist.wordpress.com/2014/12/20/racism-is-as-prevalent-as-ever/

(Ive no idea how you insert links on this forum so you will have to look that up yourself)

If it is no more than the claim that we form racial stereotypes, then undoubtedly everyone is racist as it is effectively impossible to not form stereotypes if you’re reasoning anything like a neurotypical human being [and this is not something you escape by autism]. Further, if it is only the claim that one treats different racial groups differently, then just like the claim which rests on it being the forming of stereotypes, it is not reflected in the common usage. Anti-racism is not an escape; it merely transfers the momentum of prejudice on to other groups which are actually less deserving of negative stereotypes. As Peter Stone at Social Matter notes, making it politically incorrect to notice the negative qualities of aggrieved minorities only makes it politically correct to manufacture negative stereotypes of relatively pro-social groups.

The way I look on it is this Stereotypes are impossible to avoid.

2 Any culture should be able to be criticized at any time by anyone. No special treatment for anyone no one crying racism or antisemitism, or any other ism And anyone should be able to criticize what anyone else has said about that culture.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I see the problem with the "criticism of culture" as being that it is often circumstantial rather than cultural.

For example: there are plenty of holier than thou critics of the US regarding their frequent and often unwarranted flexing of military muscle. I fully agree that unwarranted flexing of military muscle is disgusting and should be discouraged by any available means...but...

When someone from a country with a record of conquest and imperialism that stretches back ten times further than the US even has any history gets all righteous about it just because their country doesn't happen to have the power right now to follow their own clearly identical cultural inclinations I find that equally disgusting, if not more.

 

[Antilogic]

In several threads, I have made some comments on the culture of Palestinians, which was received with shock. I guess my wording should have been a wee more careful, given how this is forum rather sympathetic to them. However, when I criticised the culture of the US for its insistence on dividing individuals among racial lines, including by 'racial minorities', I may have not received the same degree of shock, though my comments were still received with a similar sense of bewilderment, chiefly by US posters, who are otherwise rather content with accepting criticism of their own culture by foreigners.

Is being hostile at a culture a form of anti-national sentiment or racism? And if it is, does it justify a mild degree of such in the pursuit of truth? My viewpoints are rather clear on this (it isn't, but if it is, I'm okay with that), so it may seem like a loaded question, but I am rather curious how those that disagree would argumentate their viewpoints, or even whether opponents have thought about on methods of countering such lines of reasoning.

Please do not use this thread for giving cultural criticism yourself though, as there are loads of opportunities to do that elsewhere; the goal of this thread is a honest evaluation of the usefulness of such, and to answer the question posed by the OP's title.

Since I think one of my posts may have been the impetus for the thread, I'll elaborate a little bit.

I come from the position of skepticism as to whether national cultures are truly A Thing. Maybe it's just my experience, which is largely with the US. But even when I'm abroad, I notice that 1) culture doesn't seem to respect national borders as much as people give it credit for, 2) there are a lot of sub-cultures that don't really mesh well into a national culture, and 3) even if you do scramble all those sub-cultures together, the national culture looks an awful lot like everyone else's, making the concept inherently useless.

So, when people post or discuss what they call "cultural criticism" I don't necessarily think it's about the national culture because all of us humans are a lot more similar than we are different. I look for other, more specific factors that more accurately account for the differences they are attributing to cultural values, whether economic, political, social, historical, etc.

But what really disturbs me is when a culture is described as barbaric, backwards, doesn't value life, is idiotic, etc. Because that's the same kind of cultural criticism generated by 19th century thinkers, for example, that I read about in history books. And that was effing racist, full stop. Colonizing powers saying that native cultures were backwards and needed to be modernized under the watchful eyes of their colonial parents, for example. Slaveholders arguing it was their Christian duty to hold millions of poor workers in bondage because they were too inept to build lives for themselves. And so on. This was always used to justify policies that predominantly favored those of European descent against the rest of the world.

Which means that when I see stuff like this:

... I feel that superior cultures do need to assert themselves. There is no meaning without them.

Or stuff posted in other threads, I get really effing suspicious. That sets off those pattern recognition alarm bells.

I'm not sure how you could picture a national culture without stereotyping.

Aren't you saying that a national culture consists of such and such (like clogs, windmills, and daffodils), and painting every member of that nation with the same brush?

Isn't stereotyping unavoidable with every attempt to figure out what the national culture consists of?

Also this. Stereotyping is risky business.

 

[NovaKart]

I don't see how it's racist to criticize certain things about a culture but I wouldn't agree with criticizing the entire culture. I live in Kurdistan and I like a lot of things about the culture and there are a lot of things I don't like.

 

[Domen]

In several threads, I have made some comments on the culture of Palestinians, which was received with shock. I guess my wording should have been a wee more careful, given how this is forum rather sympathetic to them. However, when I criticised the culture of the US for its insistence on dividing individuals among racial lines, including by 'racial minorities', I may have not received the same degree of shock, though my comments were still received with a similar sense of bewilderment, chiefly by US posters, who are otherwise rather content with accepting criticism of their own culture by foreigners.

Is being hostile at a culture a form of anti-national sentiment or racism? And if it is, does it justify a mild degree of such in the pursuit of truth? My viewpoints are rather clear on this (it isn't, but if it is, I'm okay with that), so it may seem like a loaded question, but I am rather curious how those that disagree would argumentate their viewpoints, or even whether opponents have thought about on methods of countering such lines of reasoning.

Please do not use this thread for giving cultural criticism yourself though, as there are loads of opportunities to do that elsewhere; the goal of this thread is a honest evaluation of the usefulness of such, and to answer the question posed by the OP's title.

Racism is basically the new witchcraft, so you are a witch Torvergieter/Kaiserguard, and those posters are witch hunters!

 

[Tahuti]

Because that's the same kind of cultural criticism generated by 19th century thinkers, for example, that I read about in history books. And that was effing racist, full stop.

19th century thinkers often got a lot of things right in that regard because they seem more perceptive and more honest. And even if they turn out to be wrong, they still may produce a couple of highly useful insights in the process that can be used more generally.

The guy of my current avatar believed that British culture produced inferior philosophy, because the English language doesn't allow the same precision of explaining concepts as German and especially French. Thus, Analytic philosophers were pretty much predestinied to come from Anglo-American culture according to that view. That may be untrue, however, in the process, he raises a point how language may affect our perception. Which may be kinda true.

And national cultures (and regional variations on them per province) are a thing: To know a language or dialect, what kind of local holidays and commerations they have and how they celebrate it gives a unique view how a culture tends to look at things. It feels differently than anything you have seen. Although here already a cultural problem itself presents: You are American and your culture is universally understood. You will have trouble perceiving other cultures (altough not subtle differences per state or regions within those states) because everyone you know (including myself) will put up an Anglo-American mask to make themselves understandable to you. To be frank, it is easier - as in less likely to appear hostile or racist - to make the thesis I have brought before you in my native Dutch as opposed to English. The majority of the world populace doesn't speak Dutch. And the Dutch, French and German mentalies are more sensitive to cultural differences than Anglo-Americans, especially considering the latter's dominance worldwide.

 

[JollyRoger]

It depends on how you do it . . . sometimes just criticizing the actions of a nation's leadership will get you branded anti-Semitic, even though you are obviously just going on about certain leaders, not the entire group.