> On Tue, 29 Oct 2002 at 1:13pm Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> > Wojtek Sokolowski wrote:
> >
> > >Incredibly bloody is a history of humankind - so why Europe or any
> > >other natios should be thought to be different?
> >
> > When it's Europeans, it's just humankind. When it's
> > black Americans, it's a culture of violence promoted by Hollywood.
> > That's kind of creepy, Wojtek.
>
> no creepier than the 'testosterone poisoning' theory of
> violence to justify vengeance by capital punishment.
>
> the more i read wojtek's denunciations of rednecks and
> people too benighted to live in the splendoras that are our
> east coast cities, the more i am reminded of the rednecks he
> complains about. same sort of shit i hear come out of my
> a.m. radio in texas, comes out of wojtek's keyboard at jhu.edu.
True, I do not buy those multi-culti, noble savage tropes anymore. The reason is quite simple: when I go to, say, Amsterdam or Stockholm I see a functioning city and a functioning society, polite and respectful people, well maintained public spaces etc.. And then I go to places like, say, Western Pennsylvania, Eastern Europe, or even Baltimore, I see mostly delinquency, violence in-your-face arrogance, dysfunctionality, and dilapidation - coupled with "privating out" of that general decay. "Privating out" simply means erecting barriers to shiled selected individuals from the rest of society, prevalent in many developing countries.
Possible explanations of this difference falls into two groups: it is either the quality of individuals or the quality of social organization. Either the Dutch, the Swedes or the Germans are smarter, more industrious people who by that virtue create a better society than, say, Poles, Russians, Americans and scores of others - or Germany, Sweden and Netherlands have a better social organization that produce fewer and less dysfunctional individuals than Eastern Europe, the US or scores of other not so desirbale places on Earth.
I prefer the second explanation for two reasons. The first explanation would force me to accept some form of biological determinism to explain the diffrence in the quality of individuals, which so far has been sorcery not science and thus is not very appealing. Moreover, I firmly believe that being determinses consciousness, social historical conditons create individuals not the other way around - which naturally moves me toward the second explanations. Rotten societies produce rotten individuals.
I understand that this explanation may be offensive to both the lone ranger individualism and populism that many US-ers find so dear. This received wisdom has it that people are generally good and social institution rotten, hence the further an individula is from social institutions, the better of a person he is. This is the foundation of the trope of th enoble savage, that found its modern expressions in the thrid-Worldism and juvenile infatuation with everything countercultural. I do not fing that genre very appealing - too much religious idealism, not enough historical materialism.
I hope that this explains my "Europhile" position. I think Euros have a better designed social system that produces better individuals - just like Bass has techniology that produces better beer than Miller from essentially similar ingredients. It is the design, not the quality of the material.
PS. I strongly dislike people who are arrogant, in-your-face, loud, obnoxious, aggressive or violent - commonly referred to as "rednecks" "trailer trash" or "gangstas" - and I do not mind letting my feelings known. That is my only defense against their obnoxiousness. Unfortunately, I encounter such individuals (mostly males) much more frequently in the US (East Coast cities are no exception, they just offer a different mix of arrogant types than rural or suburban areas) than in other countries to which I travel (except Poland which rivals the US in general arrogance) - hence I complain more about when I am here.
Wojtek