bump for bookmark
ping
As originally formulated, it only applied to cultures that had not achieved spaceflight.
Essentially, once they'd gotten off-planet, other cultures could be told to play nice with others--and it could be made to stick.
I like it. It has a certain internal consistent and some broad insights into the demented mind of the left.
Bump for bookmark & later read
While your figuring out third world leftists, can you tell me why socialist/collectivist (thinking about what that means) revolutions in these geographic latrines turn immediatly to the task of tribal warfare and genocide?
>> All our liberal dissidents are threatening to move to Canada or Europe. Considering the celebration of the heritage of "la raza" by the Left, why do none of them plan on going to Mexico instead?
My theory is that leftists are racists, similiar to the Southern plantation owners of the old South. Their Uncle Tom's, such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, enforce the old-South tradition of keeping the slaves dumbed down.
Are you suggesting that Star Trek and the Federation of Planets isn't real?
J/K
I enjoyed your essay. Thanks!
Good One.
The liberal elites seem to regard whites (or perhaps more correctly, Anglo-Saxons) as visitors from another world come to study this one and its quaint peoples.
/////////////////
the key word here is article is Anglo-Saxons. A couple things to note here. First, there have been no Northern Presidents in the USA since FDR. Ever wondered why not? When you understand that then you can go on to answer why it is that Northern Republican Anglo-Saxons who ruled the US after the Civil War for nearly 100 years--would now be considered to be from another planet.
One of my favorite Sci-Fi writers Orson Scott Card used in his Ender's universe an interesting classification of aliens. The classification is based on how much understanding between peoples or species is possible.
Swedish words utlanning, framling, raman, and varelse are used for the terminology that was introduced by one of the major characters (Valentine) after spending time on a planet populated by Scandinavian descendants. This classification is known as the "Hierarchy of Exclusion," appears in the "History of Wutan in Trondheim," a fictional work described by Orson Scott Card in his novel "Speaker for the Dead," of the Ender's universe.
I don't know if this classification is used or has real roots in Sweden, or is an invention of the brilliant mind of Orson Scott Card. I'd appreciate any insight.
The original classification as appears in the book:
1 Utlanning (Otherlander): the stranger we recognize as a human of our world, but of another city or country.
2 Framling: the stranger we recognize as human, but of another world.
3 Raman: the stranger we recognize as human, but of another species.
4 Varelse: the true alien, which includes all the animals, for with them no conversation is possible. They live, but we cannot guess what purposes or causes make them act. They might be intelligent, they might be self-aware, but we cannot know it.
Some additional clarifications (hat tip goes source 1 and source 2):
Utlanning, or otherlander
source 1-the stranger we recognize as a human of our world, but of another city or country. someone of another city or country literally. Those who are closest to you but are other than you.-Swedish word: utlînning [u:tlen:ing] utlînningen utlînningar (noun)
-English translation: foreigner, alien
-Compounds: utlînningslag -en—Aliens' Actsource 2 An utlanning is a member of one's own species from the same planet but another country. Contrast with framling.
Framling
source 1-"human" but of another world. Someone substantially different than you, but descended from the same people, and cultural source.-Swedish word: frîmling [fr'em:ling] frîmlingen frîmlingar (noun)
-English translation: stranger, foreigner, alien
-Compounds: frîmling(s)|skap -et—alien status, alienationsource 2 A framling is a member of one's own species that dwells on another planet. For example, if I am a human being and an American, then a person who lived on Mars would be a framling to me; a Ukrainian would be an utlanning.
Raman (pl. ramen)
source 1-Beings not of your people, but can be related to, spoken to, and communicated with. They come from other lands, and other sources, but common ground can be established. Nature, properly approached, spirits of the lands and skies, and any other entity in which any form of communication is possible falls here. This is literally the limit, after which no relation is possible.-Swedish word: ram [ra:m] ramen ramar (noun)
-English translation: frame / (figuratively "limits, bounds")
-Examples: inom mñjligheternas ram—within the limits of possibility
-Compounds: ram|avtal -et—skeleton (blanket) agreementsource 2 A raman is a member of a species of intelligent beings (different from your own) with whom one can achieve meaningful dialogue. Whether or not dolphins are ramen or varelse has not yet been satisfactorily determined...
Varelse
source 1-Alien, no "conversation" is possible, they might be intelligent, they may be self aware, but you have no way of knowing it. These are foreigners with whom no understanding is possible.-Swedish word: varelse [v'a:relse] varelsen varelser (noun)
-English translation: being
-Examples: levande varelse—living creaturesource 2 A species of beings with whom one cannot achieve meaningful dialogue. Contrast with raman.
They live, but we cannot guess what purposes or causes make them act.
One is expected to understand and to be understood by utlanning and framling. Its more difficult with ramen. Some of their actions and motivations can be totally alien to us.
For example, a raman race of pequeninos is killing a human colonist. Because their life cycle includes transformation into a tree like being, the only stage when they can procreate, and the stage reserved only for the most distinguished of the previous stage, the killing of the human was meant to be a highest honor possible for them. It was a murder for humans. A dilemma, but nevertheless, an understanding is achievable.
There is no understanding possible with varelse, because they are too alien. If you move to understand them somehow, they are not varelse anymore, but become ramen to you. The process of understanding may not be mutual.
The original villains Ender was fighting were aliens called buggers who did not recognize humans as sentient beings at the beginning and almost wiped out humans completely. When they finally recognized the mistake, the roles reversed: the humans seen only the deadly enemy, never understood why the buggers stopped the advance on Earth, and ended up wiping out the buggers' race. Humans became ramen for them when they stopped fighting, but they still remained varelse for humans, until they learned how to communicate with Ender.
OSC explores Prime Directive from a different angle. Pequeninos make case to humans to share all information, because, as they say, every minute of not sharing, only increases the gap between them making future understanding more and more difficult. They don't see any value of the Prime Directive to them.
While in the Ender's universe utlanning and framling supposed to be able to understand each other, they are not, of course, conflict free. There are wars and power struggle. A fact of understanding does not imply automatic agreeing.
Which turns into the application of this classification to our current conflicts. A cursory search of the internet brings up liberal fans of OSC calling Bush supporters ramen at best, or even varelse. Seeing that as a gross oversimplification, I myself is guilty of lamenting of a huge gap in applied logic (or lack of it) in conservative - leftists debate. It would be better to reserve the terms to the real aliens.
Anyway, applying them to here and now, I see a mistake that leftists make. They equate understanding and acceptance. They refuse to judge moral coordinates in which different groups operate.
Yes, I can understand what makes our current enemies tick. No I can still judge them wrong. And when they display their desire and ability to harm us, I'd say smash them smartly with a full understanding.
I think the squishy sentimentality that generates such notions as cultural relativism is at the root of the liberal mindset that caused Rodenberry to come up with the PD and the same mindset would lead one into the idiotic treaties that have been brokered by the despots and "old Europe" that control the UN.
To extend the analogy, Bush would be Kirk, in that he will tell the UN to "shove it" when the best interests of the US and the world are at stake and take action.
Pinging an old thread that may be of interest!
There is a simpler paradigm than that which you offered: greed for the power to control while they advance their agenda: to use government to control the means of production, by any means, whether democratic (by virtue of mass media and control of education), by fiat (the courts), or by a police state (once they get control). First and Third world leftists differ not at all in that regard.
First world leftists simply find using government to control the market a convenient way to assure a predictable return on investment. It keeps those nasty competitors in check. First world leftists, while disavowing violence by any means, somehow manage to starve their populations by by "incompetent central planning," foment wars in the third world, or foist environmental policies (such as banning DDT), all resulting in millions of deaths. Don't think for a minute that it's by accident. It's been done repeatedly since the starvation of the kulaks by Lenin.
Note the progress of communism by democratic means, "for the little people" and then kill them later. Win that first election and then assure that there will never be another.
To try to "understand" leftists by any logic other than "whatever is good for me" is a gruesome mistake.
Ping for your interest.
Ping.
I will be pondering on it for a few days.
Good read.
A lot of what you write is addressed by Allan Bloom in his book “The Closing of The American Mind.” The average student in university takes a relativist point of view to all cultures (can’t be ethnocentric) whereas outside of the west most cultures are prejudiced towards their own customs and culture. In many ways we in the west feel superior to “the other” but out of respect for all foreign culture, that is demanded by secular multiculturalism, we can’t or shouldn’t show our pride. By having a relativist point of view on the equality of all culture we are in fact depriving ourselves of the benefits of a real education.
I enjoyed the exchange between you and CO and agree with him that the left wants power. They know that they are irrational, e.g., if all cultures are equal and deserving of respect why condemn capitalism or favor socialism? There is a lot of irrationalism with the left and I believe this is due to the failure of socialism to undermine capitalism. Irrationalism and emotionalism are the their latest tactics and you’ll see it with postmodernism: deconstruction of western hegemony, queer theory, radical feminism, post colonial studies, etc. Cultural Marxism has taken over from Economic Marxism with its Utopian dream of the proletariat rising up — actually the middle class is wealthy and there is no need to rise up as Marx saw for the redistribution of wealth. Therefore, the emphasis shifted to culture and repression of the working class. Freud, Nietzsche & Rousseau have been co-opted for the task. Repression involves the minorities in their class struggle against capitalism and the outcome will be totalitarianism or the rational state. The tactic of appealing to minorities and their grievances is similar to the National Socialism’s emotional appeal to the volk. There is still a contradiction of having both a folk and a rational, worldwide, homogeneous state but, hey, they’ll do and say anything to gain power. Ultimately, they’re sophists with a huge hatred for Capitalism.