> In a message dated 00-01-22 19:13:49 EST, you write:
>
> << Hasn't it always been obvious to everyone that western civilization is an
> enormous con game, simply picking out predecessors of whom we approve?
> >>
>
> This is a caricature of PC-ness. All cultures and civilizations pick their
> antecedents. The Hebrews in the old days went through a bunch of writings,
> edited them, kept the ones they liked, and this is the Hebrew Bible or old
> Testament. The rest is Apocrypha. Does that make ita con game or somehow
> disreputable?
(1) It is a little odd to accuse Brad DeLong of PC (and the rest of the post brings out the ways in which uses of that charge are unavoidably unprincipled)
(2) The magician's "con game" on the stage is not disreputable -- but some of the same tricks used to con someone out of their life *is*. And the con game of western civilization has been quite consciously used for such purposes. Whatever his errors or weaknesses, Edward Said (along with many others) established this pretty clearly.
(3) You also write:
> --jks, a white male American of European descent (who doesn't feel guilty
> about it . . .
Why in the hell should you? This is the first time I have seen that moldy nonsense used by anyone to the left of Mike Royko. It is an unprincipled implication that anyone who opposes you on the particular argument is saying you ought to feel guilty. . I don't feel guilty about the u.s. killing of iraqi children -- that is, I don't take responsibility for those murders in Washington. But ordinarily I wouldn't consider it worthwhile to pompously parade that fact.
In any case, extremely distinguished scholars in the United States and the U.K. do very seriously maintain the objective reality (so to speak) of "Western Civilization." The WSJ has printed letters speaking of Indian cruelty and hinting that that makes the present repression of Indians legitimate. I really don't see why you chose to take this particular exchange personally. Shall there be no more cakes and ale?
Carrol