Category: Western Civilization

By on

As someone who considers himself a part of Western Civilization, I ask this question because people are always carrying on about the success of the West but, it seems to me, that the basis of that success was the departure of millions of people from Europe to other parts of the world. These migrations were so large that the majority populations in three continents (North America, South America and Australia) have changed from a majority indigenous population to a majority immigrant population. The other 5 continents, at least until recently, didn’t find it necessary to send their excess population across the oceans in order for their people to make a decent living. The European world did. And why is this seen as a success?

Over 70% of the population of the United States has European ancestors. They left, by and large, because they were poor. They saw little chance for themselves or for their children in the old country. They left the world they knew to take a treacherous trip across the ocean, bringing precious little with them and landing in a new world. Many immigrants didn’t speak the language of the country they were going to or know anyone who could help them when they arrived or have any money to invest in their new country. They still left family, friends, and their known world. Imagine how bad it must have been for millions of people to take this risk.

Americans have a tendency to glorify this mass movement of people and, because it has been the driving economic philosophy of the time, capitalism as a success story. Poor people were given a chance to succeed in the new world, a chance they didn’t have in the old one. But it begs the question, if the western world and capitalism were so successful why did so many people have to leave Europe, the home of Western Civilization, in order to make it happen? Europe certainly had a problem sustaining the population it had. What would have happened in Europe if the New World had never been discovered? Also troubling is the way the immigrants took the land from the indigenous people. It was less a cash transfer from seller to owner and more outright theft of property. This certainly is the antithesis to how capitalist ideology is designed. How successful would the immigrants have been if they had to actually pay for the land they took?

What bothers me here is that there is this unquestioning assumption about the success of Western ideas in general and Capitalism specifically. It is highlights freedom, personal initiative and courage and forgets the despair the drove the emigrants and the elimination of indigenous cultures. Neither of which speaks well of capitalism, at least, capitalism as it is supposed to be practiced and hardly should be considered a smashing success for Western Civilization.

By on

This emphasis on Trans-Correct speaking is making me crazy. Mostly, because it is a diversion from issues that the vast majority of Americans are focused on and, unfortunately, the Democrats keep taking the bait. I wrote last week about the recent dust up with Bette Midler complaining about the use of such terms as menstruators and birthing people. Now a University of California law professor has gotten into a dispute over the same issue with Sen. Hawley. The worrisome point is that many liberals are saying that Dr. Bridges wiped the floor with Sen. Hawley – see https://talkingpointsmemo.com/morning-memo/hawley-transphobia-senate-witness-hearing

Dr Bridges may have made her point but I don’t think it matters. Sen. Hawley wanted to show how out of touch liberals are with regular Americans. Regular Americans, unbeknownst to Trans activists and their supporters, use the term woman when talking about abortion rights and health issues impacting women. Dr. Bridges uses the more inclusive term of “people with the capacity of pregnancy” instead. She believes that this new more inclusive term recognizes the existence of trans people and makes their lives better.

However, for the last thousand years or so, the English language used the word women. Trans activists have campaigned for using the more inclusive term in the past few years but this argument is on-going and is far from settled. I personally don’t know anyone who uses the term “people with the capacity of pregnancy” when they mean women and I am gay liberal Democrat living in California. This is the trifecta for exposure to liberal culture changes. A lot more work needs to be done before this more inclusive term is the accepted standard in the country.

Until then, most Americans will continue to use the word woman. This matters and matters greatly in that we are going into a mid-term election which historically go against the party who holds the White House. It hurts even more that Biden is unpopular and people, even Democrats, want a change. Then there is inflation and a stalled economy. Economic issues almost always take precedence during a bad economy. This is, without a doubt, going to be a very tough election for Democrats to win. The past few months have provided some options in regard to the election with the Supreme Court overrule of Roe and the continuing problem of gun violence. These seem like better issues to argue about, and, even better, they are issues where we stand with a majority of the American people.

On the other hand, what percentage of U.S. population really cares about using Trans-correct terms in speaking? I would guess not very many. I haven’t seen it come up in any discussions that the American people are weighing in on. It just isn’t the battle to be fighting right now. Which means even if Dr. Bridges wiped the floor with Sen. Hawley, Dr. Bridges was forced to talk about Trans inclusive language (not a particularly winning election issue) over abortion rights (an issue the Republicans are on the defensive about). She also tells Sen. Hawley that he is doing violence to Trans people. I don’t think that most Americans understand her point. She may be correct but does anyone other than a small cadre of Trans activists see it and does it do our side any good to be talking about it. I think not.

There might be some feel good experience for losing the good fight but this election is the absolute wrong time to be fighting it. The Republican Party can not be trusted with leading a government. It would be a complete dereliction of duty to go down over personal pronouns and Trans-correct terms. In order to win, Democrats need to get seniors and moderates and suburban voters. People who may not even know what the Trans discussion is about and who may be alienated by the idea that using the word women to describe “people with the capacity of pregnancy” is transphobic. Fighting over these low-interest issues does not serve the Democrat’s purpose. This is precisely why the Republicans continue to bring them up. But I, for one, am completely over losing elections over issues that don’t matter to most American – particularly if it is all about getting little old ladies to use “people with the capacity of pregnancy” over women.