Social Criticism Archives • Page 4 of 4 • Wolf's Notes ...

Empowering the Culturally Conservative Majority?

2021-05-132021-07-17Wolf PaulUncategorizedEnglish, Politics, Social Criticism

Allister Heath writes in The Daily Telegraph (May 13, 2021),

«What is wrong with France, a wonderful country relentlessly let down by its politicians? There is an unmistakable whiff of panic in the Parisian air, a growing sense among sections of the ruling class that France, riven by culture wars, its economy and society in never-ending decline, its housing estates in the banlieues permanently on the brink, is nearing a tipping point.

For all the sneers, Boris Johnson’s latest electoral triumph did not go unnoticed. What, the more far-sighted intellos ask themselves, will be France’s equivalent of Brexit, if, or rather when, it finally comes? Will it be another 1961 (a failed putsch), 1968 (hard-Left student insurrection), 1981 (communists in government), 1789 (proper revolution) or, hopefully, something milder, more constructive?

The gilets jaunes two years ago were a false alarm, but how will the rage of la France profonde manifest itself next time? Emmanuel Macron has admitted that “Leave” would win a vote on Frexit, though nobody will want to risk one. It’s a great shame: France, the country in which I grew up, needs a cathartic reset like Brexit, a political earthquake that is neither hard-Left nor hard-Right but which finally empowers the culturally conservative majority.»

Here are my non-expert thoughts on this:

The problem is that, increasingly, even the “moderate left” view themselves as the elite, superior to cultural conservatives whom they view as “hard-Right”[1]. Therefore they will not easily countenance anything that empowers these “deplorables“, to use Hillary Clinton‘s deplorable diction. This is true not just in France but all over the West.

It will be interesting to see how things continue in the UK. As much as I regret Brexit, it seems to have brought about or at least started just such a “reset”. But while these larger countries (Britain, France, even Germany) might go through a Brexit or Frexit or Gexit without too much damage to their economies, for all the EU’s shortcomings leaving it, or its complete break-up, would have disastrous consequences for smaller countries and even Italy or Spain. Among other things it would mean the total domination of our economies by the US and China, without any counterbalance.

__________

for example when they insist on the reality and immutability of biological sex, marriage only between a man and a woman, or the protection of unborn life[↩]

I do not permit comments on this blog. The reason for this and further information can be found on the page Privacy Policy.

Prince William propagates “White Saviour” — Really?

2021-05-052021-07-17Wolf PaulUncategorizedEnglish, Social Criticism

In a letter to the editor published in profil 18/2021 biologist and elephant researcher Dr Hannah Mumby from the University of Hong Kong writes,

“In 2018 Prince William travelled to Tanzania, Kenia, and Namibia to learn about conservation. At a conferenc he presented a video about his trip to Tanzania. Many NGOs criticized that the video was promoting a “white saviour” image, because only one African, a student, spoke in front of the camera while the remaining interviewees were international conservationists.”

I assume that the video which Prince William presented reflected his trip to Tanzania: what he experienced, who he talked to, etc. It should not be too surprising to anyone that a politically prominent figure like the Prince primarily encounters carefully selected people on a trip like this; people who are judged by the security teams (both his own and those of the host country) to be harmless and unlikely to be a danger. That this selection criterion results primarily in prominent experts and activists, and that these, for any number of reasons tend to be mostly white Americans and Europeans, does not surprise me either.

I am also not surprised (because this phenomon is not new) but rather irritated that activists and propagandists (and I use these terms without any negative connotation) have the tendency to consider everything someone says propaganda, or to dig through it for things that could be interpreted as propaganda.

Most of us normal folks (and I assume that this applies to Prince William as well) are not constantly in propaganda mode when we comment on something; much of the time we simply report, without value judgments, on what we have experienced; we are not at all concerned with how others could interpret what we say as propaganda or promotion of this or that.

And so I also assume that Prince William travelled to Africa to express his interest in conservation and to support various conservation initiatives; that he presented his video for these same reason, without worrying overmuch about who he had talked to or interviewed. I am pretty sure that he was not seeking to make some political statement about the ethnic or national identity of the conservationists he spoke to. If “many NGOs” wish to interpret his video that way, then it is because they assume that everyone else thinks in the same categories and patterns as they themselves — and that’s pretty naïve and stupid.

I do not permit comments on this blog. The reason for this and further information can be found on the page Privacy Policy.

Persecution for Christ’s Sake?

2021-05-022021-07-19Wolf PaulUncategorizedChristianity, English, Politics, Social Criticism

Increasingly there are reports of Christians getting into trouble with police for publicly preaching against homosexuality and gay marriage, most recently this report on the site churchleaders.com. The verdict of “Incitement” against Pastor Olaf Latzel in Bremen is another example.

Here are my thoughts on this:

Of course Christians, like everyone else, should have the right to exercise their constitutional right of freedom of opinion and speech, and the fact that this right is increasingly eroded by labelling some opinions “hate speech” is a problem and politically concerning.

BUT: From a spiritual perspective our task as Christians and as the church is NOT to preach Christian morality to an unbelieving world, but to preach Jesus Christ as Lord and only Saviour.

When people come to Jesus and are born again then the Holy Spirit will lead them into all truth, and He cannot be arrested by police.

Of course, as Christians we will be increasingly discriminated against when we express our convictions on various topics, or when we refuse to participate in certain activities (i.e. abortions, same-sex weddings), and this is a deplorable development in countries that boast of their liberal society because it is the very people who most vocally demand tolerance for their views who are most intolerant of others.

But I warn against claiming persecution for our faith, even obliquely, as long as we are permitted to preach Jesus as Lord, as the crucified and risen Christ and Saviour.

The problem is this: if we call the discrimination which we experience on certain subjects here in Europe and other western countries, “persecution for Christ’s sake,” when Christians in countries like China, North Korea, or India experience violent oppression and persecution including imprisonment and even death, or while Christian refugees in refugee camps here in Europe experience violent persecution from Muslim fellow refugees, we are effectively risk minimizing the suffering of these persecuted Christians as we focus on our own discomfort. If we complain of being persecuted right now, how will we cope if we ever are faced with real persecution?

I do not permit comments on this blog. The reason for this and further information can be found on the page Privacy Policy.

White Privilege?

2020-12-062021-07-17Wolf PaulUncategorizedEnglish, Social Criticism, UK Current Issues

The UK’s venerable children’s charity Barnardo’s is in hot water over a guidance it published online (sorry, this might be behind a paywall) telling parents and others caring for children to teach them about “white privilege.”

A group of conservative MPs has complained to the charity itself as well as to the Charity Commission about this “move into political activism.” Earlier, the Equalities minister Kemi Badenoch had told MPs that teaching children about “white privilege and their inherited racial guilt” could be breaking the law.

A Barnardo’s spokesman denied that the charity is promoting critical race theory and said,

“… we certainly don’t believe Britain is racist or that anyone should feel guilt about being from a particular background. We do know that in our country in 2020 being non-white creates particular and additional needs – indeed the blog itself was written based on what children in our services told us they wanted to convey. To be ‘colour blind’ would be to fundamentally fail in our duty to address the needs of these children.”

So, what to make of this? Here is my take on it:

If you are not promoting a particular theory or political ideology you should not be using its buzzwords.

Apart from being closely associated with critical race theory, the term “white privilege” is misleading and sends the discussion about racial inequality in the wrong direction.

A privilege, as opposed to a right or entitlement, has the connotation of an unearned benefit. If having adequate housing, a job, and generally feeling safe are described as “white privilege,” the implication is that you are not entitled to these things, and that therefore the solution would be to take them away from you in order to create equality.

Other things that are described as aspects of “white privilege”, such as the preponderance of white teachers, white police officers, judges, and jurors, are, in a country like the UK which is still predominantly white, not at all related to being white or black; if you go to, say, Nigeria or Zimbabwe, even as a white person you are unlikely to encounter white teachers, police officers, judges, and jurors. Also, our energy should be turned towards encouraging everyone not to commit crimes in the first place rather than worrying about the ethnicity of the police officers when a crime has been committed.

And when Barnardo’s writes that it is “white privilege” to have a managerial job, it ignores the fact that only a small percentage of all working people, regardless of ethnicity, have managerial jobs.

In reality, equality is fostered when we work to ensure that minorities of every kind enjoy adequate housing, a job with a living wage, and a safe environment — for these are not (or should not be) privileges, but human rights.

I agree with the Barnardo’s spokesman when he says,

“We believe those who nurture the next generation of children should be supported in understanding racial inequality in all its complexity, so that they in turn can find appropriate ways of discussing this with children – much in the same way other big parenting conversations happen already. In a year of so much upheaval and debate about race, shying away from the subject doesn’t mend division.”

I agree we ought not to shy away from the subject of racial inequality. But rather than appropriating a term so closely linked to a controversial academic and political theory, with all its misleading connotations, it would be far better to frame the discussion in terms of extending the human rights many people enjoy to those who, for whatever reason, are currently denied them.

I do not permit comments on this blog. The reason for this and further information can be found on the page Privacy Policy.