In a global economic recession, you might think western governments would be reducing historically high immigration levels in the interests of social cohesion.
Not if Canada's anything to go by.
Apparently the Canadian government is dead keen on both increasing immigration and speeding-up the processing of immigration applications. This year it hopes to bring in up to 265, 000 immigrants.
Jason Kennedy, Canada's Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism (note the PC title) says cutting immigration in a recession is not for a liberal icon like Canada:
"While other countries are talking about lowering their immigration levels, Canada plans to maintain its current high level of immigration...We're taking the long-term view. Immigration remains key to addressing our demographic challenges and the needs of our labor markets."
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Monday, January 26, 2009
Some thoughts on Islamic internationalism
Many right-liberal westerners concerned with the threat of Islamic terrorism argue that Islam must be either reformed, and the union of church and state dismantled, or crushed through military intervention and the spread of western ideology.
Personally, I don't see how such an approach can work.
Most of the Middle East's moderate, nationalist regimes that were established by the European powers during the 20th Century have now given way to theocracies, where the union of church and state helps bind together societies that would otherwise fall apart due to factors like tribalism and cousin marriage.
Adding to the difficulty in changing Islam is the fact that it's been around for 1400 years, and doesn't appear to have much of a history of radical reform.
The Middle-East also faces serious demographic problems, with a burgeoning population and a growing shortage of resources, (see here and here) and when times are tough, people generally become more, not less religious.
In such an environment it's difficult to see how Islam can be moderated or defeated.
Rather than trying to moderate Islam in a bid to make it more Western, why not try to reduce the Islamic threat by encouraging particularist Islamic movements through a combination of economic and political negotiation and immigration restriction?
Professor Olivier Roy asserts the radical internationalist Islamic movements such as Al Qaeda, have no long-term future because they have no history, and refuse to recognise themselves in a given culture.
He claims that Islamic internationalism, known as Salafiysm, has little support in the Caucasus and Central Asian Republics where most Muslims follow the Islamo-nationalist creed of Sufism.
Even in the most anti-western Muslim states like Iran, Roy says Islamic internationalism is giving way to particularism, with discussions about culture replacing discussions about Islam.
Reading Roy's take on Islamic politics it seems likely that strategists in China and Russia are already aware of this trend and take it into account in their foreign policy.
While the U.S and its allies are still pre-occupied with trying to moderate Islam by attempting to spread western values, China and Russia generally operate pragmatically and don't meddle in the cultural politics of other nations unless they feel their own national interests are directly threatened (Tibet being a possible exception).
In regard to Islamic terrorism by Muslims living in the West, Roy says:
"The Western-based Islamic terrorists are not the militant vanguard of the Muslim community; they are a lost generation, un-moored from traditional societies and cultures, frustrated by a Western society that does not meet their expectations.
And their vision of a global ummah is both a mirror of and a form of revenge against the globalization that has made them what they are"
If cultural alienation and radical internationalism go hand in hand, then it seems that one of the best ways of containing it is to restrict immigration from countries with radically different cultures, particularly in Europe where opportunities for many immigrants are limited.
While Roy does not advocate increased immigration restrictionism, his theory seems to provide a good reason for doing so.
Personally, I don't see how such an approach can work.
Most of the Middle East's moderate, nationalist regimes that were established by the European powers during the 20th Century have now given way to theocracies, where the union of church and state helps bind together societies that would otherwise fall apart due to factors like tribalism and cousin marriage.
Adding to the difficulty in changing Islam is the fact that it's been around for 1400 years, and doesn't appear to have much of a history of radical reform.
The Middle-East also faces serious demographic problems, with a burgeoning population and a growing shortage of resources, (see here and here) and when times are tough, people generally become more, not less religious.
In such an environment it's difficult to see how Islam can be moderated or defeated.
Rather than trying to moderate Islam in a bid to make it more Western, why not try to reduce the Islamic threat by encouraging particularist Islamic movements through a combination of economic and political negotiation and immigration restriction?
Professor Olivier Roy asserts the radical internationalist Islamic movements such as Al Qaeda, have no long-term future because they have no history, and refuse to recognise themselves in a given culture.
He claims that Islamic internationalism, known as Salafiysm, has little support in the Caucasus and Central Asian Republics where most Muslims follow the Islamo-nationalist creed of Sufism.
Even in the most anti-western Muslim states like Iran, Roy says Islamic internationalism is giving way to particularism, with discussions about culture replacing discussions about Islam.
Reading Roy's take on Islamic politics it seems likely that strategists in China and Russia are already aware of this trend and take it into account in their foreign policy.
While the U.S and its allies are still pre-occupied with trying to moderate Islam by attempting to spread western values, China and Russia generally operate pragmatically and don't meddle in the cultural politics of other nations unless they feel their own national interests are directly threatened (Tibet being a possible exception).
In regard to Islamic terrorism by Muslims living in the West, Roy says:
"The Western-based Islamic terrorists are not the militant vanguard of the Muslim community; they are a lost generation, un-moored from traditional societies and cultures, frustrated by a Western society that does not meet their expectations.
And their vision of a global ummah is both a mirror of and a form of revenge against the globalization that has made them what they are"
If cultural alienation and radical internationalism go hand in hand, then it seems that one of the best ways of containing it is to restrict immigration from countries with radically different cultures, particularly in Europe where opportunities for many immigrants are limited.
While Roy does not advocate increased immigration restrictionism, his theory seems to provide a good reason for doing so.
Nationalist base proposal
The Nationalist Alliance, a small white nationalist group based in the South Island, has proposed setting up a nationalist base in North Canterbury.
The group proposes using the base as support and training centre along the lines of those set up by some survivalist groups in the U.S, with self-defence training, and efforts towards self-sufficiency.
In response, Labour MP Clayton Cosgrove told The Press newspaper the idea was "nutty," and that the proposal is "50 to 60 years" behind the times. "...People have moved on. It's crackpot stuff," he said.
"50 or 60 years" behind the times, well possibly, but maybe they are actually 30 years ahead of their time.
New Zealand's still about 70 percent white, and the South Island about 90 percent white, so in terms of the laws of liberal politics, whites can't yet be considered a dis-empowered minority.
However, if current trends are anything to go by, whites are likely to become a minority within about 30 years.
Nevertheless, if liberal opposition doesn't stop them, the Resource Management Act probably will.
The group proposes using the base as support and training centre along the lines of those set up by some survivalist groups in the U.S, with self-defence training, and efforts towards self-sufficiency.
In response, Labour MP Clayton Cosgrove told The Press newspaper the idea was "nutty," and that the proposal is "50 to 60 years" behind the times. "...People have moved on. It's crackpot stuff," he said.
"50 or 60 years" behind the times, well possibly, but maybe they are actually 30 years ahead of their time.
New Zealand's still about 70 percent white, and the South Island about 90 percent white, so in terms of the laws of liberal politics, whites can't yet be considered a dis-empowered minority.
However, if current trends are anything to go by, whites are likely to become a minority within about 30 years.
Nevertheless, if liberal opposition doesn't stop them, the Resource Management Act probably will.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Liberalism and its enemies - the old and the working class
Considering that left-liberalism is traditionally associated with standing up for the underdog, you'd think that under-privileged groups like the elderly and the working class would be worthy recipients of liberal support.
Unfortunately, given liberalism's obsession with minor points of language and "saying the right thing" the grouchy, apathetic elderly and the "rough around the edges" working class are at a distinct disadvantage in modern liberal society.
Witness the increasing number of older white guys in the media, from sports commentators and talk-show hosts, to politicians and noble-prize winners, who've had to "retire early" for blurting out politically incorrect statements at inconvenient moments.
Like radiation seeping out of a concreted-over nuclear powerplant, pre-1968 thoughts leak out into the open as the aging frontal lobes begin their inevitable decline.
Meanwhile the working class are increasingly finding that their un-enlightened voting patterns and talk radio statements, are also getting them into a lot of hot water with the liberal establishment, with liberals getting their own back by encouraging liberal-approved immigrants to take over previously working class neighborhoods (note that the working class should not be confused with the underclass, who are doing much better out of liberalism, thank you very much).
However, if tactless, politically incorrect statements are a crime in themselves then where does that leave those who suffer from disorders of impulsivity? Hence all this intolerance of un-PC speech got me thinking about whether liberalism will start reigning its otherwise tolerant attitude towards those suffering from the likes of ADHD and Tourette's Syndrome, where saying the wrong thing pretty much goes with the terrority.
Politically incorrect tactlessness was certainly an issue for an ADHD-sufferering South African ex-truck driver I meet a few years back, who'd be lucky to last 30 minutes if he were ever let loose in a modern liberal workplace.
An amusing example of the irony of liberalism's support for disabilities and intolerance of un-PC impoliteness was provided in a recent VDARE column where Peter Brimelow exchanged words with liberal radio host and ADHD advocate Thom Hartmann who strongly supported the replacement of "Merry Christmas" with the culturally neutral "Happy Holidays".
Clearly the irony of Hartmann's liberal hypersensitivity over the Christmas issue and his advocacy for an impulse control disorder (a significant symptom of which is blurting out tactless statements) was lost on him.
Interestingly, liberal society's most polite and diplomatic demographic - educated middle class women - also happen to be disproportionately well-represented among liberal work places and in liberal politics, funny that.
Unfortunately, given liberalism's obsession with minor points of language and "saying the right thing" the grouchy, apathetic elderly and the "rough around the edges" working class are at a distinct disadvantage in modern liberal society.
Witness the increasing number of older white guys in the media, from sports commentators and talk-show hosts, to politicians and noble-prize winners, who've had to "retire early" for blurting out politically incorrect statements at inconvenient moments.
Like radiation seeping out of a concreted-over nuclear powerplant, pre-1968 thoughts leak out into the open as the aging frontal lobes begin their inevitable decline.
Meanwhile the working class are increasingly finding that their un-enlightened voting patterns and talk radio statements, are also getting them into a lot of hot water with the liberal establishment, with liberals getting their own back by encouraging liberal-approved immigrants to take over previously working class neighborhoods (note that the working class should not be confused with the underclass, who are doing much better out of liberalism, thank you very much).
However, if tactless, politically incorrect statements are a crime in themselves then where does that leave those who suffer from disorders of impulsivity? Hence all this intolerance of un-PC speech got me thinking about whether liberalism will start reigning its otherwise tolerant attitude towards those suffering from the likes of ADHD and Tourette's Syndrome, where saying the wrong thing pretty much goes with the terrority.
Politically incorrect tactlessness was certainly an issue for an ADHD-sufferering South African ex-truck driver I meet a few years back, who'd be lucky to last 30 minutes if he were ever let loose in a modern liberal workplace.
An amusing example of the irony of liberalism's support for disabilities and intolerance of un-PC impoliteness was provided in a recent VDARE column where Peter Brimelow exchanged words with liberal radio host and ADHD advocate Thom Hartmann who strongly supported the replacement of "Merry Christmas" with the culturally neutral "Happy Holidays".
Clearly the irony of Hartmann's liberal hypersensitivity over the Christmas issue and his advocacy for an impulse control disorder (a significant symptom of which is blurting out tactless statements) was lost on him.
Interestingly, liberal society's most polite and diplomatic demographic - educated middle class women - also happen to be disproportionately well-represented among liberal work places and in liberal politics, funny that.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Spending your way to prosperity
There seems to be a consensus among independent conservative pundits like Pat Buchanan and Steve Sailer that Obama's plan to get the U.S economy out of recession through public spending programmes won't work.
In this situation I'm definitely inclined to agree, fiscal stimulation didn't really work in the U.S in the 1930s, and it's even less likely to work today. Infrastructure spending during recessions only works if it complements the growth of new industries and if the government actually has surplus funds it can afford to invest.
For example, between the 1930s to 1960s, infrastructure investment was a general success in Australia and New Zealand because, A, the government was fiscally solvent and B, it tied in with the rapid growth of agriculture and mining. Without roads, bridges, schools and telephones it was difficult to attract settlers to new areas and transport products to overseas markets so back then investment in these areas made a big difference.
Similarly, the development of a national highway system in the U.S after WW II helped fuel the demand for a raft of new domestically made products from trucks and cars to refrigerators and lawnmovers.
In the modern post-industrial U.S economy though, there aren't really any productive industries that are being seriously held back by lack of investment in infrastructure. Some of the high-tech sectors like biotechnology and robotics might benefit from greater investment in research and development, but in terms of basic transport, power and communications infrastructure, the U.S is in reasonably good shape. This kind of crude Keynesian stimulation can only really work in countries at a much lower level of development.
Nor does this kind of approach work if there is a shortage of markets for locally made goods and services. One reason the 1929 Depression dragged on for so long in the U.S was because the U.S was shut out of many overseas markets that were putting up tariffs at the time to protect their domestic producers.
In contrast, the Depression was much less severe in Commonwealth countries like Canada and Australia, which had access to a protected Commonwealth market.
Indeed, if it wasn't for the fact that more Americans had cars, relatively cheap housing, and land on which to grow food than in European countries, America could well have gone down the Fascist path of countries like Italy and Spain. Today the U.S also faces major problems exporting overseas. This is partly due to tariffs, subisidies and currency manipulation, but also because of global over-production in manufacturing and farming.
Then there's the fact that (as Ron Paul often likes to point out) America just doesn't have the money.
With a federal deficit of over $1 trillion, the U.S government should really be cutting federal programs, not increasing them. While getting out of Iraq should leave the government in a slightly better financial position, it still won't be enough to compensate for the massive increase in Medicare and pension costs that are set to occur over the next decade.
As least that's one good thing about the election of National last year - New Zealand's now one of the few countries going in the tumultuous 2010s with a reasonably fiscally conservative (albiet right-liberal) government at the helm.
In this situation I'm definitely inclined to agree, fiscal stimulation didn't really work in the U.S in the 1930s, and it's even less likely to work today. Infrastructure spending during recessions only works if it complements the growth of new industries and if the government actually has surplus funds it can afford to invest.
For example, between the 1930s to 1960s, infrastructure investment was a general success in Australia and New Zealand because, A, the government was fiscally solvent and B, it tied in with the rapid growth of agriculture and mining. Without roads, bridges, schools and telephones it was difficult to attract settlers to new areas and transport products to overseas markets so back then investment in these areas made a big difference.
Similarly, the development of a national highway system in the U.S after WW II helped fuel the demand for a raft of new domestically made products from trucks and cars to refrigerators and lawnmovers.
In the modern post-industrial U.S economy though, there aren't really any productive industries that are being seriously held back by lack of investment in infrastructure. Some of the high-tech sectors like biotechnology and robotics might benefit from greater investment in research and development, but in terms of basic transport, power and communications infrastructure, the U.S is in reasonably good shape. This kind of crude Keynesian stimulation can only really work in countries at a much lower level of development.
Nor does this kind of approach work if there is a shortage of markets for locally made goods and services. One reason the 1929 Depression dragged on for so long in the U.S was because the U.S was shut out of many overseas markets that were putting up tariffs at the time to protect their domestic producers.
In contrast, the Depression was much less severe in Commonwealth countries like Canada and Australia, which had access to a protected Commonwealth market.
Indeed, if it wasn't for the fact that more Americans had cars, relatively cheap housing, and land on which to grow food than in European countries, America could well have gone down the Fascist path of countries like Italy and Spain. Today the U.S also faces major problems exporting overseas. This is partly due to tariffs, subisidies and currency manipulation, but also because of global over-production in manufacturing and farming.
Then there's the fact that (as Ron Paul often likes to point out) America just doesn't have the money.
With a federal deficit of over $1 trillion, the U.S government should really be cutting federal programs, not increasing them. While getting out of Iraq should leave the government in a slightly better financial position, it still won't be enough to compensate for the massive increase in Medicare and pension costs that are set to occur over the next decade.
As least that's one good thing about the election of National last year - New Zealand's now one of the few countries going in the tumultuous 2010s with a reasonably fiscally conservative (albiet right-liberal) government at the helm.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
America's "Dirty Laundry"
Some time last year I came across an interesting news article from 2000 about an information archive covering the race riots that flared up in America from the mid 1960s to the early 1970s.
Sociologist Dan Myers of the University of Notre Dame, who unearthed the extensive archive of newspaper articles, says it was previously believed that there were about a "couple of hundred" race riots during this period. However, the archives indicate that at least 3,500 riots of one size or another took place.
According to Myers, interest in the riots was high at the time, and the Lemberg Centre for the study of violence, which assembled the archive, also paid for a Roper Poll about the riots which included responses from some 6,000 people. By 1973 however, interest in the riots had begun to wane and the centre was closed down.
Taking his inspiration from the discovery of this collection, conservative writer Adrian Cerny has written a provocative history of the riots in a book entitled America's Dirty Laundry.
Making liberal use of newspaper article summaries and photographs from some of the major riots between 1965 and 1973, as well as statements from prominent politicians at the time, Mr Cerny has produced an eye-opening account of this tumultuous period in recent American history.
Cerny takes issue with the conventional view that the riots didn't really accomplish anything, and that they undermined some of the gains made through the peaceful civil rights protests of the late 50s and early 60s.
In Cerny's view, the riots played a major role in encouraging white flight from U.S inner cities and the subsequent political takeover of many civic governments by Black politicians.
Certainly the massive scale of the riots put a considerable strain on America's army and police services at a time when a high percentage of troops were serving in Vietnam.
Furthermore, there were few soldiers or policeman at the time who were trained in modern riot control methods, which often lead to escalating the level of violence between the authorities and the rioters.
For example, during the unrest in the city of Detroit during June 1967, over 2,000 firearms were stolen by rioters and the Mayor was forced to call in 900 inexperienced National Guardsmen to try and restore order. However, this only served to escalate tensions as the outnumbered and heavy-handed guardsmen came under heavy sniper fire from the rioters.
Eventually President Johnson was forced to intervene by calling in over 4,000 paratroopers to restore order. By the end of the rioting, 43 people were killed and over 1300 buildings were burnt or looted.
Without the manpower to guarantee law and order Cerny says, the Johnson administration decided to pursue a policy of appeasing the rioters by passing "second wave"affirmative action legislation such as the Fair Housing Act of 1968 which was deeply unpopular with many white voters.
As well as covering the riots of the civil rights era, Mr Cerny's book also documents the infamous LA riots of 1992 and the lesser known (at least outside the U.S) Cincinnati race riots of 2001. He has also written another book on the same theme - Terrorism and the Civil Rights Movement - a History.
While the book is written in a polemic rather than scholarly style, and could have done with more referencing it's an entertaining read which also contains a lot of eye-opening information about an important but under-explored chapter in U.S History.
Sociologist Dan Myers of the University of Notre Dame, who unearthed the extensive archive of newspaper articles, says it was previously believed that there were about a "couple of hundred" race riots during this period. However, the archives indicate that at least 3,500 riots of one size or another took place.
According to Myers, interest in the riots was high at the time, and the Lemberg Centre for the study of violence, which assembled the archive, also paid for a Roper Poll about the riots which included responses from some 6,000 people. By 1973 however, interest in the riots had begun to wane and the centre was closed down.
Taking his inspiration from the discovery of this collection, conservative writer Adrian Cerny has written a provocative history of the riots in a book entitled America's Dirty Laundry.
Making liberal use of newspaper article summaries and photographs from some of the major riots between 1965 and 1973, as well as statements from prominent politicians at the time, Mr Cerny has produced an eye-opening account of this tumultuous period in recent American history.
Cerny takes issue with the conventional view that the riots didn't really accomplish anything, and that they undermined some of the gains made through the peaceful civil rights protests of the late 50s and early 60s.
In Cerny's view, the riots played a major role in encouraging white flight from U.S inner cities and the subsequent political takeover of many civic governments by Black politicians.
Certainly the massive scale of the riots put a considerable strain on America's army and police services at a time when a high percentage of troops were serving in Vietnam.
Furthermore, there were few soldiers or policeman at the time who were trained in modern riot control methods, which often lead to escalating the level of violence between the authorities and the rioters.
For example, during the unrest in the city of Detroit during June 1967, over 2,000 firearms were stolen by rioters and the Mayor was forced to call in 900 inexperienced National Guardsmen to try and restore order. However, this only served to escalate tensions as the outnumbered and heavy-handed guardsmen came under heavy sniper fire from the rioters.
Eventually President Johnson was forced to intervene by calling in over 4,000 paratroopers to restore order. By the end of the rioting, 43 people were killed and over 1300 buildings were burnt or looted.
Without the manpower to guarantee law and order Cerny says, the Johnson administration decided to pursue a policy of appeasing the rioters by passing "second wave"affirmative action legislation such as the Fair Housing Act of 1968 which was deeply unpopular with many white voters.
As well as covering the riots of the civil rights era, Mr Cerny's book also documents the infamous LA riots of 1992 and the lesser known (at least outside the U.S) Cincinnati race riots of 2001. He has also written another book on the same theme - Terrorism and the Civil Rights Movement - a History.
While the book is written in a polemic rather than scholarly style, and could have done with more referencing it's an entertaining read which also contains a lot of eye-opening information about an important but under-explored chapter in U.S History.
Saturday, January 03, 2009
Condemn first, read later
I've recently been reading through a couple of books from three controversial academics - DNA by James Watson and the infamous Bell Curve by Charles Murray and Richard Hernstein.
One of the most striking things revealed in both books is that none of the three academics are particularly pre-occupied by race issues, despite all three being condemned for rank racism by the mainstream media.
When the Bell Curve was first published in the mid 1990s, various critics in the media were quick to condemn Murray and Hernstein for suggesting there were significant IQ differences in the U.S between Blacks and Whites. However, only one chapter in the book is actually devoted to race issues. Most of the book deals with IQ differences among whites, and the many policy implications of the unchanging distribution of IQ scores after over half a century of universal public schooling.
Nor, does the book necessarily advocate right-wing approaches to dealing with the social and economic problems caused by IQ differences. Despite the fact that Charles Murray is a self-confessed libertarian, in the Bell Curve he doesn't necessarily advocate reducing government spending on public education or other right -liberal policies. A 1920s-style Fabian socialist like George Bernard Shaw would probably be less offended by its public policy discussions than the majority of today's neo-conservatives and libertarians.
Arguably the most interesting finding in the book, in my view, is the declining level of education among high IQ students, rather than those at the bottom of the Bell Curve. As the authors point out, dumbing-down modern schooling has actually improved the academic performance of most average IQ children, but at the same time it's undermined the education of the smartest pupils, who are now no longer challenged as much as they used to be.
If the book had been written in 1904 instead of 1994, the press would have no doubt spent more time talking about its relevance to the decline of elite education rather than its single chapter on racial differences.
In the same way that Samuel Huntington's Clash of Cilivisations was simplistically criticised as a work of Islamophobia, the Bell Curve has been written off as a white supremacist book about racial IQ differences. Indeed, in some ways the Bell Curve is something of a anti-managerial work, in that it questions the value of the one dimensional BMA- type education criticised in more left-leaning books like John Ralston's Saul's Voltaire's Bastards.
Reading through half a dozen chapters of Watson's DNA (first published in 2003) he certainly doesn't give the impression of being the far-right racist he's been labeled in the popular media over his recent African IQ comments. For example, he describes the early-20th Century eugenics movement in the U.S as a "pseudo-scientific vehicle for the notably unscientific prejudices of men like Madison Grant and Harrry Laughlin," and criticises the 1924 Immigration Act (unfairly in my view) for restricting refugee immigration in the 1930s.
About the only right-wing comment I noted in the book was Watson's interesting observation that despite the popular perception, Republican administrations are no stingier than Democratic ones when it comes to investing in scientific research.
One of the most striking things revealed in both books is that none of the three academics are particularly pre-occupied by race issues, despite all three being condemned for rank racism by the mainstream media.
When the Bell Curve was first published in the mid 1990s, various critics in the media were quick to condemn Murray and Hernstein for suggesting there were significant IQ differences in the U.S between Blacks and Whites. However, only one chapter in the book is actually devoted to race issues. Most of the book deals with IQ differences among whites, and the many policy implications of the unchanging distribution of IQ scores after over half a century of universal public schooling.
Nor, does the book necessarily advocate right-wing approaches to dealing with the social and economic problems caused by IQ differences. Despite the fact that Charles Murray is a self-confessed libertarian, in the Bell Curve he doesn't necessarily advocate reducing government spending on public education or other right -liberal policies. A 1920s-style Fabian socialist like George Bernard Shaw would probably be less offended by its public policy discussions than the majority of today's neo-conservatives and libertarians.
Arguably the most interesting finding in the book, in my view, is the declining level of education among high IQ students, rather than those at the bottom of the Bell Curve. As the authors point out, dumbing-down modern schooling has actually improved the academic performance of most average IQ children, but at the same time it's undermined the education of the smartest pupils, who are now no longer challenged as much as they used to be.
If the book had been written in 1904 instead of 1994, the press would have no doubt spent more time talking about its relevance to the decline of elite education rather than its single chapter on racial differences.
In the same way that Samuel Huntington's Clash of Cilivisations was simplistically criticised as a work of Islamophobia, the Bell Curve has been written off as a white supremacist book about racial IQ differences. Indeed, in some ways the Bell Curve is something of a anti-managerial work, in that it questions the value of the one dimensional BMA- type education criticised in more left-leaning books like John Ralston's Saul's Voltaire's Bastards.
Reading through half a dozen chapters of Watson's DNA (first published in 2003) he certainly doesn't give the impression of being the far-right racist he's been labeled in the popular media over his recent African IQ comments. For example, he describes the early-20th Century eugenics movement in the U.S as a "pseudo-scientific vehicle for the notably unscientific prejudices of men like Madison Grant and Harrry Laughlin," and criticises the 1924 Immigration Act (unfairly in my view) for restricting refugee immigration in the 1930s.
About the only right-wing comment I noted in the book was Watson's interesting observation that despite the popular perception, Republican administrations are no stingier than Democratic ones when it comes to investing in scientific research.
Thursday, January 01, 2009
Nice scenery, shame about the rednecks
Like the war on Christmas, the new film Australia seems to be a muddled, but no doubt profitable, combination of rampant commercialism and left-liberal political correctness (see Spiked on the former, and Oz Conservative on the latter)
As a Hollywood-style historical epic the film is already commercialised enough, but the instigators of the film have to go one better and explicitly market it as a tourism promotion vehicle. Sure, movies often do make good promotional tools for tourism, as in the case of the Lords of the Rings trilogy, but usually as a by-product of a film's popularity, not as a reason for producing a film in the first place.
The Lord of the Rings trilogy was filmed in New Zealand because the scenery suited the movies, not ( as far as I know) because the New Zealand tourism board thought filming orks and hobbits running around Fiordland would be a good way to capture the authentic essence of New Zealand.
Using a movie as a marketing video presents problems though, because satisfying modern liberal sensibilities means the producers had to get around the problem of knocking Australia while promoting it. However, using a liberal female immigrant as the heroine was a master stroke - instead of just admiring the scenery and cringing at bigoted outback whites herding around the local Abos, overseas tourist, er movie-goers and urban Aussie liberals can identify with the enlightened new-comer on her mission to bring light to the dark heart of rural white Australia (eat you're heart out Peter Reobuck).
Conveniently, the heroine character also happens to a Brit, with a saintly indigenous understudy, a combination which allows the producers to show they're not into passe Mel Gibson-style Pom bashing (or shooting themselves in the foot by alienating a key tourist demographic) and are fully signed up members of the Sorry generation.
Thus not only do the producers manage to knock rural white Australia while promoting Australian scenery, but they also get to promote urban liberal Australia and indigenous Australia at the same time.
Now that's marketing.
As a Hollywood-style historical epic the film is already commercialised enough, but the instigators of the film have to go one better and explicitly market it as a tourism promotion vehicle. Sure, movies often do make good promotional tools for tourism, as in the case of the Lords of the Rings trilogy, but usually as a by-product of a film's popularity, not as a reason for producing a film in the first place.
The Lord of the Rings trilogy was filmed in New Zealand because the scenery suited the movies, not ( as far as I know) because the New Zealand tourism board thought filming orks and hobbits running around Fiordland would be a good way to capture the authentic essence of New Zealand.
Using a movie as a marketing video presents problems though, because satisfying modern liberal sensibilities means the producers had to get around the problem of knocking Australia while promoting it. However, using a liberal female immigrant as the heroine was a master stroke - instead of just admiring the scenery and cringing at bigoted outback whites herding around the local Abos, overseas tourist, er movie-goers and urban Aussie liberals can identify with the enlightened new-comer on her mission to bring light to the dark heart of rural white Australia (eat you're heart out Peter Reobuck).
Conveniently, the heroine character also happens to a Brit, with a saintly indigenous understudy, a combination which allows the producers to show they're not into passe Mel Gibson-style Pom bashing (or shooting themselves in the foot by alienating a key tourist demographic) and are fully signed up members of the Sorry generation.
Thus not only do the producers manage to knock rural white Australia while promoting Australian scenery, but they also get to promote urban liberal Australia and indigenous Australia at the same time.
Now that's marketing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
