"I'm not a racist, I'm a 'culturist'!"

[The Shadow]

Brooklyn Tea Party Protests Mosques, Big Government at Rally

Dr. John Press, president of the Brooklyn Tea Party, doesn’t believe in multiculturalism. Instead, he believes in “culturism.”

Press believes in America’s roots as a Judeo-Christian society, and as such, his group believes in an adherence to the values associated with Judeo-Christian cultures.

“When they say that all cultures are our friends, and anybody who supports having a border is racist, they undervalue us and do us a disservice, and quite frankly endanger the continuation of America,” Press said. “That’s why we’ve got to replace multiculturalism with culturism.”
…
The organization was the brainchild of Press and a few friends, who had seen the Staten Island Tea Party achieve success. What began as small meetings at a local pizza shop grew through word of mouth, paper flyers, and a Facebook page. Now the group meets every Sunday at Kosher Hut on King’s Highway.
…
Press says he is not a racist, but instead a “culturist.” He says that multiculturalism does not work, and that all countries have a core set of cultural aesthetics — like Judeo-Christian teachings in America, for example — they need to sustains themselves as nations.

"If this was racism, there would be no hope, because people are not going to change their skin color,” Press said. “But this is culturism. People can change their culture.”

So when he said he wasn't racist, I was half expecting him to follow that with a qualifier like "some of my best friends are Muslim/Mexican" or something along those lines. But calling oneself a 'culturist' is one I actually haven't heard before. Not that it's any less transparent.

And I had to laugh at the sheer irony of a group of people concerned about preserving 'American' culture having their regular meetings at places like pizza parlours and Kosher huts.

[lordlundar]

He says multiculturalism doesn't work, yet the place he's protesting at is probably the most multicultural place going.

I swear, John Stewart's segment "Are we run by A**holes?" more and more appropiate.

[Sage Blackthorn]

So when he said he wasn't racist, I was half expecting him to follow that with a qualifier like "some of my best friends are Muslim/Mexican" or something along those lines. But calling oneself a 'culturist' is one I actually haven't heard before. Not that it's any less transparent.

Yeah, that's a term I've never heard before either. But whenever you hear someone called an "-ist" of any type, it's usually a good idea to start paying close attention to them, simply because it tends to distract from whatever issue they are trying to talk about. Of course ya' don't normally see anyone calling themselves an "-ist" of some type.

It looks like this guy was well aware that what he was about to say would get him labeled as "racist" and was making a preemptive statement against that.

I'm gonna have to read this article more carefully to say anything more. Something's fishy here (and by fishy, I mean there's a slippery quality to this article that I'm having trouble pinning down.)

[Rageaholic]

Though I have to disagree with these guys stance on things (protesting the mosque among other things), I can kind of understand where they are getting at. One of the things I got tired of in college was hearing about how we should never judge other cultures no matter how barbaric and cruel their practices seem. We even went over some Mayan and Aztec cultures, where they would play some soccer like game to determine who would be killed for the gods. Of course, that may be cruel "to us" but it's what they believed, says the anthropology professors. Uh sorry, but when you're hurting and killing other people, fuck your culture. I feel this way about a lot of things in Islam (Sharia Law).

Now the problem with these guys is that they are taking it to the other extreme. They just want everyone to be a Christian and don't have any tolerance for other traditions. There's a fine line between being repulsed by brutal traditions and being repulsed by traditions that aren't your own. These guys are more the latter.

I feel that a lot of cultural beliefs are either outdated or just make no sense, but that includes things in my own culture as well as others. Islam's view on women is just wrong, but so are these people who think that there's only one way to be a "true American".

[Sage Blackthorn]

Though I have to disagree with these guys stance on things (protesting the mosque among other things), I can kind of understand where they are getting at. One of the things I got tired of in college was hearing about how we should never judge other cultures no matter how barbaric and cruel their practices seem. We even went over some Mayan and Aztec cultures, where they would play some soccer like game to determine who would be killed for the gods. Of course, that may be cruel "to us" but it's what they believed, says the anthropology professors. Uh sorry, but when you're hurting and killing other people, fuck your culture. I feel this way about a lot of things in Islam (Sharia Law).

Now the problem with these guys is that they are taking it to the other extreme. They just want everyone to be a Christian and don't have any tolerance for other traditions. There's a fine line between being repulsed by brutal traditions and being repulsed by traditions that aren't your own. These guys are more the latter.

I feel that a lot of cultural beliefs are either outdated or just make no sense, but that includes things in my own culture as well as others. Islam's view on women is just wrong, but so are these people who think that there's only one way to be a "true American".

In this case, I have to agree with the Anthropology Professor....with a caveat: It's fine for the Aztecs to do as they wish within their own lands, their own territory. It is NOT fine for them to come to my territory and try force me to live like they do. If I choose to go to them, then I have to accept their lifestyle, their traditions, their "culture", and learn their language. If they invade my territory and try to force me to become Aztec, you can be damn sure I'm going to fight to preserve my OWN cutlure, traditions, and lifestyle that I enjoy.

Besides, it's now thought that those killed after playing the soccer-like ball games were not the loosers, but the winners who earned the "privelege" of being sent to their gods as representatives of the finest the Aztecs had to offer. Very similar, in fact, to the Bog People found in the British Isles. Pretty much across the board the bodies found when studied by forensic anthropologists showed them to be in good health, with little to no signs of heavy labour, evidence of good diet, some of them were reported to have been wearing valuable jewelry. All the evidence points to it being considered a privelege to be chosen.

Do I consider it barbaric? Yes. Is it still practiced? Thank goodness, No. But there are A LOT of things that are no longer practiced. Even amongst all those good "Judeo-Christians" who's values are suppose to be at the root of American society. And again, thank goodness. You ever read Leviticus? That's some scarey shit! Children put to death for cursing their parents? Men put to death for so much as touching a bed that a women slept in while she's on her period? Oh, and my all-time favorite "Any man who has sexual relations with an animal shall be put to death....and so shall the animal." Chalk it up to things done in the past that are no longer found to be acceptable.

I'm perfectly fine with them practicing "brutal traditions" on their own people, it's when anyone tries to tell me HOW I MUST LIVE that I take great offense. I see no difference in "civilized" cultures telling "uncivilized" cultures how to live and members of one sub-culture telling members of another sub-culture how to live. I may not agree with or even like the tenets of someone else's religion, but as long as they leave me alone, I'll leave them alone.

I don't agree with Sharia Law either, but then no ones trying to force it down my throat where I live. When they do, I'll oppose it. Until such time, I feel what a people do in their own country is their own business.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now these folks' in the article and their whole thing about trying to say that America has it's roots in Judeo-Christian society, to me, is simply ludicris political posturing that has no basis in fact. If you ask them to name off these so-called virtues you'll find that people other than Judeo-Christians tend to agree they are good ideas. The "nation", the political entity, known as the United States Of America, had as it's founders a number of Deists who specificly wanted to AVOID associating their new government with ANY religion because they'd personally seen the corruption of having Church and State as one entity in the form of the Church of England when it proposed to arbitrarily take away their liberty, their property, and after being told where to go and it could do with itself, their lives.

[Rageaholic]

Sage, you're right politically. As long as people don't invade other cultures and force others to adopt to their lifestyles, they should be able to have their own culture.

However, I'm arguing philosophically. I think we all as humans should agree to some basic principles, like killing and mistreatment being wrong. My biggest issue with anthropology is that every culture is equal, even if they are brutal. It's one thing to try to understand why they are doing this stuff, but it's another to just say "oh well that's okay".

The biggest problem I have with cultural anthropology is that it focuses on culture rights and not human rights. What good is a culture if they spit on human rights?

[Hobbs]

That's right up there with, "He's not gay; he's in a fraternity."

[dendawg]

"I'm not a racist, I'm a 'culturist'!"

No matter how much you try to polish it, a turd is still a turd.

[Sage Blackthorn]

Sage, you're right politically. As long as people don't invade other cultures and force others to adopt to their lifestyles, they should be able to have their own culture.

However, I'm arguing philosophically. I think we all as humans should agree to some basic principles, like killing and mistreatment being wrong. My biggest issue with anthropology is that every culture is equal, even if they are brutal. It's one thing to try to understand why they are doing this stuff, but it's another to just say "oh well that's okay".

The biggest problem I have with cultural anthropology is that it focuses on culture rights and not human rights. What good is a culture if they spit on human rights?

Well, now I think yer splitting hairs. What about the rights of indigenous people to their traditions? What about their right to self-determination? To be free of interference from other cultures? If you're going to invoke "human rights", which rights do you mean? Philosopher John Locke's "unalienable human rights"? The U.N. Declaration of Human Rights? By talking about "rights" you are, in effect, arguing Political Philosophy.

According to the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples:

Article 4
Indigenous peoples, in exercising their right to self-determination, have the right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their internal and local affairs, as well as ways and means for financing their autonomous functions.

Even if you think that killing is wrong, what if that killing is done as punishment of a crime as defined by the tribal traditions? "Mistreatment" is rather vague. Some people might consider imprisonment as "Mistreatment". By attempting to enforce your own views on "killing" and "mistreatment" are you not interferring with an indigenous people's right to self-determination in matters realting to their internal and local affairs? Just because someone disagrees with their ways doesn't grant them the right to interfere.

People seem to throw around "human rights" as if it's a catch all for things that cannot be taken away. But they miss a subtle, yet important, distinction. The entire concept of unalienable human rights, or those rights that exist in a state of nature before the advent of government which are endowed by a Creator (i.e. God), cannot be taken away "arbitrarily" (i.e. without due process of law, on a whim of the government). Which means it's perfectly allowable if the institutions and laws of the community are followed impartially. If someone commits murder, and is proven guilty under the laws of their own society, and the punishment is death, then the killing is not "arbitrary".

We may not agree with it, but that doesn't mean we have the right to deprive, for example, The Gebusi of Papua New Guinea to their right of self-determination in matters of punishing those who break their laws when they kill someone who's been found guilty under their rules of society, their "laws".

And Political Philosophy is a branch of Philosophy. In talking about "rights" of any kind, Political Philosophy and the concept of "Justice" must be considered (consequently, I just finished up watching the discussion on John Locke, the father of Libralism, check it out, you might be surprised about what he has to say about "unalienable human rights").

[Rageaholic]

I wouldn't say we have the right to interfere, nor would it be a smart idea. It's just that I believe in individualism and am opposed to any cultural beliefs that hurt or abuse others. The way I see it, if people can't even agree on what's harmful or abusive to others, there's a huge problem. There's a difference between punishing someone with death for murder and punishing someone with death for working on the sabbith. I just can't sit back and say "Well that's not really wrong. Right and wrong are subjective". As much as I hate to be moral absolutist, I think there are some basic things everyone should agree on. We don't all have to be the same, but come on. Besides, some of those cultures would kill people for not being the same, so you can't really have it both ways.

What am I going to do about it? Nothing really, as there's nothing I can do, nor do I believe our government should do anything (a lot of good that did for Iraq). It's just that according to anthropology, I would be considered ethnocentric for looking at some culture and thinking "wow, that's harsh".

[Hobbs]

What am I going to do about it? Nothing really, as there's nothing I can do, nor do I believe our government should do anything (a lot of good that did for Iraq). It's just that according to anthropology, I would be considered ethnocentric for looking at some culture and thinking "wow, that's harsh".

Well, you are being ethno-centric, as you are basing your judgements on a culture based on your own culture.

I've recently had Cross-Cultural training, so let's put that to use.

First, let's define culture:

Culture is the creation, maintenance, and transformation across generations of semi-shared patterns of meaning, sense-making, affiliation, action, and organization by groups. –Air Force Culture and Language Center

Ethnocentrism is the belief that one’s culture is higher than another’s and measure other cultures by their own standard.

Right now, you're measuring other cultures based on your own standard and believing your culture to be "superior." That's ethno-centrism.

The opposite to ethnocentrism is cultural relativism. Cultural relativism is open to trying to understand different cultures within the context of that particular culture.

What you're failing to do is to see the ways that the outside culture's rituals, beliefs and practices have shaped that culture and what it means within the culture. You just see something and say "bad!"

Let's take a look at the *"American" culture. American culture is usually rooted in several key identifiers. One is monotheism. Not everyone, but a lot, of Americans believe in a singular god in one form or another. Another is personal rights. Rights to worship, bear arms, assemble, vote etc. are all things that most Americans, not all, agree upon. Now then, a citizen of the UK may disagree with our right to bear arms belief, but that doesn't make the UK culture any better, or worse, than the culture of the US.

That said, it's okay to be a bit culturally relative, and a bit ethnocentric at the same time. Your location might change how relative or centric you are, however. For example, if I were in Iraq or Afghanistan right now, I would be culturally aware (relative) of the practice of not addressing female relatives of a friend. While I would think that such a practice is silly in my culture, I would not risk ruining relations by doing anything about addressing the practice. As cultures mingle and share information with one another, it is possible for such cultural trends to dissipate and ultimately disappear.

*Yes, I mean the United States

[Fire_on_High]

Oh, and my all-time favorite "Any man who has sexual relations with an animal shall be put to death....and so shall the animal."

The hapless animal is likely in great pain after being violated, with internal injuries, and very little if any chance of healing properly and resuming a semi normal life...just dying slowly and miserably. Killing the animal is a kindness here.

[Sage Blackthorn]

The hapless animal is likely in great pain after being violated, with internal injuries, and very little if any chance of healing properly and resuming a semi normal life...just dying slowly and miserably. Killing the animal is a kindness here.

Yes, I agree. But the point I was making is that such extreme punishments: Killing children for cursing their parents, killing a man who rapes a goat, killing a man for so much as touching the bed that a menstruating woman has slept in.... are not practiced any more. They are seen as outdated, archaic, and no longer applicable to modern culture. It's still considered wrong for the man to rape the goat, but it is no longer punished with death. It's punished with inprisonment and hopefully counceling. Particularly not being stoned to death, as was often how people were put to death in the time and place that these rules came from. The practice was considered acceptable a couple thousand years ago, it's not considered acceptable now. People's views on such things change over time.

[Andara Bledin]

There's a difference between punishing someone with death for murder and punishing someone with death for working on the sabbith.

While I happen to agree with this statement, there are many who do not. Just as an example, those who oppose any form of death penalty would see no difference in the two examples cited and would find both to be completely unacceptable.

^-.-^

[Rageaholic]

While I happen to agree with this statement, there are many who do not. Just as an example, those who oppose any form of death penalty would see no difference in the two examples cited and would find both to be completely unacceptable.

^-.-^

True, but I think even those who oppose the death penalty would understand that murder is much more serious than working on the sabbith. In fact, they should be even more against those cultures for being so brutal.