Professor Bainbridge...on law, politics, religion, culture & food

I hope you have tenure, because that kind of talk won’t win you friends and allies at any faculty I can think of… and I’ve been associated with several.  That said, I fully agree with the sentiment.

I agree with Sir Charles decision, but underneath something other than a clash of cultures or an exercise of power.

Suttee violates the minimum requirements for society—not culture. Society is the edge where two individuals—or two cultures—meet. At that edge, humility and respect (reciprocity) can be deduced by mind experiment to be the minimum requirements for society, and are in one’s own long-term self interest.

What is more, multi-culturalism need not be invoked.

Sbw -
Your application of logic in an attempt to end the custom of suttee would have been powerless and ineffective given the forces at play in the culture at the time.  A polite response might have been “Your point is interesting, and we shall certainly consider it.  By they way, do you have a light?”

Napier’s response was powerful, logical, and effective because its impact would have been felt immediately.  He anticipated Al Capone’s dictum:  You can go a long way with a smile. You can go a lot farther with a smile and a gun.

I’ve added that to my facebook profile.  Thanks

It’s shocking to me that a faculty member such as yourself has not learned a lesson so basic to higher learning today: that all cultures are worthy of honor. Except ours.

Men like General Sir Charles Napier are few and far between today.  Now we have “metrosexuals” and Starbucks.

Sir Napier reminds me of General Honore addressing a reporter after Hurricane Katrina: “You are stuck on stupid, I’m not going to answer that question.”

SC Mike, Napier, was pithy in his pith helmet.  Keeping my comment brief, I omitted that the logic helps determine friend or foe. Then, if society is at risk, defend it with your smile and gun, or descend back to the law of the jungle.

We are in a race for civilization, with no guarantee civilization will win. Mother Nature does not care. Winning requires understanding why civilization is worthwhile. Al Capone may have had a smile and a gun, but he did not understand the minimum requirements for society.

If we, ourselves, come to understand the minimum requirements for society, courage will follow, along with the tools to bring others along, too. Guns don’t win civilization. Civilization will be won by understanding. The guns merely protect us along the way.

"If we, ourselves, come to understand the minimum requirements for society, courage will follow, along with the tools to bring others along, too.”

Wasn’t that the promise the multiculturalists made (and still make today, despite objective proof to the contrary)? That once we proved ourselves worthy of the moral high ground, we would finally have a society worth defending, and the rest of the world would come to respect us as much as we respected them?

Another pithy saying comes to mind, something along the lines of, “Fool me once, shame on you...”

Tatterdemalian, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, stumbles against the same premise that trips up the “promise the multiculturalists made.” he confuses culture with society. Similarly, it’s a mistake to suggest our culture is the worthy one.

But resolving cultural worthiness isn’t necessary. Independent from culture, it is against all society when one bully kicks sand on another person and claims a culture sanctions it.

If such behavior is unacceptable, your assignment is to figure out what makes it unacceptable, and how, without resorting to either universals or sheer might, you can make an argument stating the case that stands up across cultures.

While, its hard to convey in brief comments using the courtesy of others’ blog bandwidth, I did want to suggest that resolution is relevant, important, and possible.

Multiculturalism is a big fat lie.

People don’t want multiculturalism, they want their own culture. 

Do our think Asians want to be more black?  Do Italians want to be more Muslim?  Do Jews want to be more Hispanic?

Most people want to be safe and secure, where processes of peaceful problem resolution insulate them from the law of the jungle.

Others prefer to gamble with life in the jungle. Society lets people choose by their actions which they prefer. But in society we get to defend ourselves against those outside the umbrella of peaceful problem resolution.

Choosing a culture is personal and incidental. Choosing society is different.

Yeah, he was also great as Lt. Boyle in “Silence of the Lambs.”

SBW,

You sound like one of those wacadamians wannabe’s who like talking in circles so you feel superior to everyone else.  Bottom line, Napier spoke to a society at their own primitive level and got results.  No deduction by mind experiment is necessary (what a load of crappola - mind experiment).

You can take your approach with a savage dog, but a swift kick in the ass is more effective.

So, Jonathan, you prefer the law of the jungle. Your choice.

Sir Charles is available with the gallows whenever you build your pyre.

Who’s next?

At Helping Rowan Williams I try to point Williams in a more useful direction… one that helps determine when Sir Charles Napier ought to be unleashed.

sbw has been seduced into believing that there are other choices beside the “law of the jungle.” It’s our folly if, as a society, we suffer from the same delusions.

If Williams is so keen for Sharia law, I propose that it be introduced first in Canterbury - so that he can be executed for apostacy. He might not be so enthusiastic then.

No, James, there is a choice in addition to the law of the jungle, for those who choose to fashion one. We are animals, but animals who can project different futures and select one that serves us best. I choose civilization, and trying to convince as many others as possible of the value of it.

One of the choices is no rules. Pacifists and generals know that “no rules” is a nasty place to be.