In a planet where culture was created by elites, we had to deal with the communicative of conquerors. In a planet where the speech is given by a mindless crowd and created under its passion by mass culture, we are dealing with a communicative of the victims. but it is simply a false alternative, as evidenced by the pervasive erosion of the liberal planet – from Washington to Vatican.
The dominant “narration” of our times says that expansion is inherently incorrect (like violence). Starting with classrooms in simple schools, and ending with papal arenas filled with speeches, we hear an apology for any situation in which a white man dared to thin beyond his own limits. Bad were crusades, bad colonization of America and Africa and so on.
With this attitude we are shocked erstwhile war breaks out across our east border and we do not know what to say erstwhile Donald Trump declares that he intends to annex Greenland and the Panama Canal. A bit of sound was besides caused by the return to Poland by Janusz Walus, who shot a communist terrorist in South Africa 30 years ago. His communicative besides meets with cognitive shock.
Why? due to the fact that we forget that beyond the airtight walls of the bubble of the liberal West, life goes on with its rhythm. Just like it's always been. We just didn't pretend to be different once.
Who will bear the burden of a white man?
This question was asked over 1 100 and 20 years ago by the author Jungle Books Rudyard Kipling. In row White Man’s Burden (with propaganda to justify American "intervention" in the Philippines) presents the hardships that colonizers face in order to rise standard of surviving and moral standards on occupied lands. We read (in Anna Bankowska's translation):
Bear the burden of a white man
Among the wars of execution for peace –
I've yet eaten the face of hunger,
Put out the outbreaks.
And erstwhile you get close, get closer,
Fulfilling their desires and wishes,
Look at the grumpy, crazy heathens
Hope will ruin you.
Kipling draws a image of conquest in line with the Christian ideal, according to which it is not prohibited to impose power on pagan peoples, provided that the governments thus pursued will service justice and common good and facilitate the acceptance of actual religion and morality (as he treated the substance of St. Thomas of Aquinas while considering the issues of justice and of the just war). We read about sending to distant countries flower of young peopleto carry the teacher's robe enslaved peoples, on the children's field, and on the demon's field in his superstitious beliefs. In the penultimate strofie, the author challenges the then Americans, who might as well address today's elite of Western planet power:
Bear the burden of a white man!
Don't you dare give in to tiny things,
And erstwhile you are tired,
Don't cover for him with the slogan of freedom!
From what's left of you, gentlemen,
From the whispers or screams of your abroad words,
This gloomy people will know,
You and your God are worthy.
Now let's decision into a different cultural reality and bring up the song The Last Resort from the iconic album Hotel California Team Eagles. It's hard to say if the legendary California band was inspired by Kipling, in any case, the same word appears in it: the burden of white man.
They even brought a neon sign
“Jesus arrives”
They brought the burden of a white man
They brought his rule
The full thing is highly suggestive. It's a communicative about the immigrant's daughter who went west due to the fact that she heard about the place, Where people grin and They're talking about a red man's lifestyle. And about that, How they love this land. But her image collides with reality. The vocalist and at the same time the narrator with a very soft r0ck softness leads us to a subtle teardrop from any affirmation for white man's activities in the United States. We learn that this white man dared to introduce the “invention” of the right of ownership there, put cities rising above the mountains, and yet led our narrator to bitter reflection: When you call a place paradise, kiss it goodbye... Of course, it was not possible to challenge the heaviest calibre of motivation that the erstwhile colonists were guided by:
We satisfy insatiable desires
By justifying blood acts
In the name of destiny
In the Name of God
It is known that Puritan morality leads to aberration: on the 1 hand, to excessive rigorism (resulting from the deficiency of healthy reasonal concepts and, consequently, the deficiency of actual virtue), on the another hand, to a circumstantial messianism which the Americans inactive justify their aggression. It must besides be admitted that the expansion of Catholic kingdoms is not free from sins and dark sides (from circumstantial crimes, mistreatment of natives, and ending with attempts to ideologically justify statements about their expected genre inferiority).
But the dispute over the function of the West as a carrier of noble civilizational content and its right to regulation over little developed peoples is much more fundamental than the question of how much colonization actually had dark sides, and how much it was only wrapped in a dark legend.
It's about loyalty. First of all, reality. Secondly, your identity...
Why does Nowack hatred Sienkiewicz?
The reality is that nature hates vacuum and it would be absurd to keep that if it wasn't for white people, no 1 would have conquered. Conquests are as old as the world, and in our arena, civilization clashes, if not us, would do so to Muslims, whether now the Chinese or the Russians. The question is not "was the evil that was a side effect of conquest avoided?" due to the fact that specified a question would express naive ignorance in the area of cognition of human nature wounded by first sin. The question is: Do you like Roman law or Sharia law, or any another form of social system, not necessarily good to the convenience of a European?
In turn the fidelity of our identity is something completely apparent to civilizations now stronger than ours. Faithfulness is simply a basic self-preservation consequence that unfortunately the West has lost. We conduct a suicide policy in the name of liberal dreams about "the rights of man" and another inventions. The problem is that our competitors do not recognise human rights, due to the fact that they have their own rights based on sometimes double morality (other for their own and another for strangers and infidels).
Regardless of how pretentious Kipling's poem is quoted above, the fact remains that present we have fallen to the second extreme. We pretend to be on the victim's side, but what does that lead to? The policy of the open borders (and the expected concern for the “refugees”, which Pope Francis continued to fight with a better cause) led to an unprecedented migration crisis in the United States, and in Europe our future existence is questionable, due to the fact that 1 day we will scope the point erstwhile Muslims will dominate us not only by civilization but besides by numbers. In a way, our misconception of honesty kills us. We do not want to close our eyes to the mistakes of our ancestors, but in this we exceed the limits of our own integrity – we are subject to the pedagogy of shame.
When we look at the quoted song of the Eagles band, we cannot avoid the impression that it is the highest of revolutionary substitution of concepts. We don't like Kipling's rhetoric, although he expresses a healthy attitude of a community capable of improvement and defence. Instead, we are overcome by the false tenderness of the language of modern culture, which refers primarily to feelings and emotions (such as humiliation, shame or compassion), without making any effort at a reasonable resolution of dilemmas.
Importantly, this war is inactive at the level of ideas and culture. At the level of the idea, we have late had an interesting dispute between Washington and Vatican, where the erstwhile (Protestant) reminded the another (Catholic?) what is the actual meaning of the concept of the order of love (ordo caritatis).
At culture level, it is adequate to evoke the rage with which the “minister” Nowacka turned to reading Polish classics. Did you delete In the desert and in the wilderness Sienkiewicza is not breaking 1 of the last bonds that connect us with the old way of thinking? Aside from the excellent description of the virtue and autonomy of 14-year-old Stasia Tarkowski, who should be a model for all teenagers, let us note that the imagination of Africa presented by the author is the last flashes of this wonderful light of civilization and order that the white man carried to conquered lands.
Without having to ask ourselves basic questions about the moral admissibility of expansion, as well as about what good (and not just bad!) has brought us our conquest of the world, it will be hard to defy both the pedagogy of shame and the policy of collective suicide that European and planet pseudo-elity propose to us.
Filip Obara
Washington vs. Vatican. Does mercy remove justice?
Deconstruction in Catholic: Is there inactive a explorer in the Western man?
