« Calling all idiot savants! | Gene Expression Front Page | Symbiotic Celebrity Boxing »
January 06, 2003

My response to Razib

"I favor Western Civilization not because it is white, but because it is liberal"

As do I. However, it seems clear to me that liberalism works best in largely white nations. High-IQ Asian nations like Japan and S. Korea are not as free as lower-IQ white countries like Great Britain (for now anyway). Godless Capitalist has insinuated that liberty-squelching gun control legislation is primarily due to the disproportionate gun crimes committed by blacks.* In Europe, the disproportionate sex crimes committed by Arab men will surely curtail the freedoms of white Europeans in some fashion. I agree with you that racialism tends to be illiberal. But aren't the concessions of freedom that whites must make in multi-cultural societies to keep crime-prone minorities from running wild just as illiberal?

* That British blacks are disproportionately violent, particularly with guns, is common knowledge. I don't have the dates, but I suspect that the application of draconian gun control measures in the U.K. coincided with increased black immigration from Africa and the Carribrean. Does anyone have dates or stats on this?

Posted by duende at 12:37 PM




well, much of southern europe was illiberal until the 1990s-and there is still some debate about whether france & germany for instance are truly liberal-though compared to the rest of the world.....

Posted by: razib at January 6, 2003 12:48 PM


True, but Germany, France, and Southern Europe are doing a much better job of liberalism than most Muslim nations. Maybe there exists a certain "cultural aptitude" for freedom that is present in varying degrees most world cultures, but completely absent in some. And, it must be remembered, the aforementioned nations seem more or less able to HANDLE these new freedoms, as most black African nations struggle with them.

Posted by: duende at January 6, 2003 01:05 PM


Why do you think South Korea is illiberal? It used to be but it and Taiwan are evolving into fairly vigorous democracies. Generalisations are a bad thing but having known many East Asians (or rather members of the Chinese diaspora to be specific) they are instinctively what would in US parlance be called irreligious moderate Republicans.

Posted by: Jason Soon at January 6, 2003 01:58 PM


"But aren't the concessions of freedom that whites must make in multi-cultural societies to keep crime-prone minorities from running wild just as illiberal?" -- duende

Duende, what is the crime-prone minority in South Africa that causes whites there to have to make illiberal concessions of freedom?

Posted by: Cognassier at January 6, 2003 02:11 PM


At this point, with North Korea and China so unstable, I worry about those fledgeling democracies. Basically, I'm saying that I am skeptical that mass immigration from Oriental countries (e.g. what G.C. has promoted) will be an unmixed blessing as far as American democracy goes. Democracy will obviously develop in a different direction in these nations, in ways that might not be compatible with traditional American democracy. Orientals clearly function better in a democracy than Hispanics, but at this point I remain a tad skeptical, though open to persuasion.

Posted by: duende at January 6, 2003 02:12 PM


The word is "Asians." That's the word you're looking for.

Posted by: Justin Slotman at January 6, 2003 02:25 PM


Oh, you used "Asian" in the main post. I'm being an ass. Never mind.

Posted by: Justin Slotman at January 6, 2003 02:29 PM


Jason: "East Asians (or rather members of the Chinese diaspora to be specific) they are instinctively what would in US parlance be called irreligious moderate Republicans."

Yeah, but unfortunately their university-educated kids end up either:

A) Complaining that white culture is evil, while at the same time protesting and raising all hell any time a mainstream media outlet implies through their portrayal of an Asian person that that Asian-Americans are any different than whites, or

B) politically apathetic, with rare moments of political action orchestrated by their peers in category (A)

Posted by: Eric Lien at January 6, 2003 04:57 PM


Eric
I dunno but the impression I get from looking at Asian American websites is that for some strange reason the later generation Asian-Americans are more alienated from US culture than Asian-Australians are from Australia.

And as for politics, etc no more politically apathetic than the Australian population but if anything probably more well informed. I would also characterise the Asians of my generation (i.e. university educated, 1 st gen) as politically moderate conservative/libertarian - I'd say 90% of my Asian friends vote conservative - if anything the older generation is more likely to vote Left but only because they think the Right are racist.

Posted by: Jason Soon at January 6, 2003 06:12 PM


Jason Soon: for some strange reason the later generation Asian-Americans are more alienated from US culture than Asian-Australians are from Australia.

I would say that this is partly because Australia is a younger country than America, with a less defined culture and national traditions and symbols, and is more secular, all of which make it easier for Asians to fit into the nation and society.

Posted by: Dan at January 6, 2003 07:36 PM


Justin,
The U.K. has solved the terminological problem of having large South Asian and East Asian populations by dubbing the former "Asians" and the latter "Orientals". I think this is far more pithy than saying "East Asians" and "South Asians". As a writer I like efficiency in words, and as a conservative I get annoyed with wasting brain cells to rememorize the ever-changing names of different ethnic groups. No offense meant, but if you take my use of "Oriental" that way, get over it.

Posted by: duende at January 7, 2003 09:27 AM


British gun control began around 1920 in reaction to Communism. I have the impression that Black immigration there is mostly postwar.

Posted by: Anton Sherwood at January 10, 2003 11:31 PM


Duende, North Korea is not unstable. In fact, it is so stable that its government has been able to remain in power in spite of a famine and widespread poverty.

There is a tendency among Westerners to label dangerous governments as "unstable" and dangerous leaders as "crazy". But revolutions rarely happen and people can be evil and highly dangerous without being crazy. Hitler was not crazy. Neither were Stalin, Pol Pot or Mao. Well, Kim Jog-il is not crazy either. He's isolated and he and the people around him are paranoid. But they are not crazy and they are in firm control.

Posted by: Randall Parker at January 11, 2003 02:10 PM