On Vikings and Victims: White-Guilt in Context

American Thinker ^ | December 14, 2008 | Raymond Ibrahim

[neverdem]

All-permeating "white-guilt" did not appear out of thin air. It has taken a sustained propaganda effort, a wide-ranging mobilization of education and culture, to inculcate and sustain self-loathing among American Caucasians. Like the Coca-Cola ^TM brand, white-guilt needs endless repetition to remain struck in the thought and behavioral processes of the masses.

The movie Pathfinder, which I saw on cable, offers a vivid example of the sort of brainwashing intended to refresh the white-guilt ^TM brand in the thinking habits of young people in particular.

Set around 900 AD, the film deals with Viking incursions into North America.  The Vikings are portrayed as ironclad giants -- more monster than human -- mounted atop massive Clydesdales, barking and grunting obscenities in some strange tongue; the natives, as expected, gentle, innocent, and peace-loving.  This theme, of course, is not new.

Subtleties playing on white-guilt, however, are spread throughout.  Consider the usage of language.  The Vikings speak only Norse, with English subtitles (though the viewer could do without, since apparently the north-men had naught to utter but barbarities and cruelties).  Conversely, the natives rattle off in 21^st century colloquial English.  If the movie was primarily interested in authenticity (let alone objectivity), both languages -- Native and Norse -- should have been used (as in The Passion, where Latin, Hebrew, and Aramaic are maintained throughout).  Moreover, if either of the two languages should have been rendered into English, logically it should have been Norse, which is at least etymologically related to English and in the same linguistic group. 

Of course, philological fidelity is not the movie-makers' primary interest; empathy by association is.  Violent Vikings are left to babble unintelligently about fire, war, and iron, while Natives talk of love, peace, and courage -- all in very smooth English.   Americans are supposed to identify with the natives, not their Norse co-linguists, nor, for millions of American viewers tracing their lineage to Scandinavia, their ancestors. 

Language manipulation aside, the depiction of Vikings as brutal warriors and plunderers is at least plausible and historic.  The Native presentation, on the other hand, is neither.  Indeed, the cultural anachronisms of Pathfinder suggest that 10^th century natives were akin to modern-day liberals, easily "traumatized" and constantly in need of "therapy" and "reaffirmation" -- concepts wholly non-existent in the 10^th century. 

From the start, a native woman encounters dead bodies and starts shrieking (she is "traumatized") and running madly -- as if living in 900 AD North America (or anywhere else at the time, for that matter) men, women, and children would not find the sight of rotting corpses banal.  In the midst of this carnage, she happens upon a Viking boy who brandishes a sword at her.  Instead of reacting instinctively -- fight-or-flight -- she casts a loving look at him as if to say "You poor boy; what have they done to you?" and embraces him.

In fact, the main reasons that make the hero of the story, this same young Viking grown into manhood, agreeable, are his "liberal-therapeutic" tendencies.  He has "daddy-issues" (his father beat and abandoned him for not being "man" enough) and is "confused" about his "identity," finally sloughing off his violent Viking (read: "white") heritage in favor of a sort of "multi-culti" native identity, thus making him the triumphant hero we can all support and identify with. 

Of course none of this should be surprising; neither presenting dead white men as the personification of evil nor presenting non-whites as the personification of good -- especially Native Americans, who have all but come to be the paradigmatic "noble other" who suffer countless and untold depredations at the hands of the white man.  This theme is well rooted in popular culture, thanks to academia.  Indeed, this motif is so ubiquitous that none other than Osama bin Laden exploits it to make white Americans feel shame and guilt.

This "noble-victimized-non-white" paradigm has further come to be applied to almost all non-whites.  For example, early sub-Saharans are always portrayed as a peaceful people who simply wanted to live and let live-until warlike white man came along. (Pointing out that it was fellow Africans who sold their kinsmen into slavery is unpopular in polite -- that is, white-guilt laden-conversation). 

The most recent rehashing of the "noble-other vs. evil white-man" paradigm is based on the U.S. response to the Islamic world post 9/11.  Following al-Qaeda's lead, academia and the media have been quick to portray George Bush as a ravenous brute (like the Vikings, also speaking an unintelligible tongue)  who mindlessly attacks the peaceful others -- this time Muslims -- in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. 

What seems to be missed by all, however, is the simple fact that, if whites have been traditionally aggressive or exploitative of non-whites, that is not because the former are intrinsically violent (a racist point, incidentally) but simply because they were able to.  And that's the bottom line of all history: Capability.  Did whites defeat and uproot Native Americans, enslave Africans, and colonize the rest because they lived according to some sort of unprecedented bellicose creed alien to non-whites?  Quite the contrary; they did so because they -- as opposed to natives, blacks, et. al. -- were able to do so. 

Had 10^th century Native Americans developed galleys for transoceanic travel, or advanced fire arms, or compasses, or organized military structures and stratagems -- or any of those other things that have made the Western way of war supreme -- and had they arrived on the shores of Dark Age Europe, is there any doubt that they would have done the same exact thing?

Would they have conquered and subjugated in the name of empire, or would they have looked at the inferior pale savages and "respected" them, in the name of "diversity," leaving them wholly unmolested?  What if 18^th century sub-Saharan blacks were technologically or militarily more advanced than their northern neighbors and could have easily subjugated and enslaved them?  Would they have done so, or would they have left them in peace in the name of "multiculturalism"?  These are the hypotheticals that no one seems interested in asking, since the answer is not only clear as day but immediately places whites and the rest of humanity on the same moral grounding. 

Nor can the argument be made that non-whites did not reach such a militarily advanced state because they were a peaceful and content people.  If so, why then did they also constantly war, kill, rape, plunder, and sell each other into slavery -- as history so unambiguously records?  If this is how they treated, and often still treat, their own kin, what would they have done to the "other," such as the white man?  As for Muslims, history attests that whenever there has been a caliphate on the ascendancy, it had no compunctions whatsoever about launching devastating wars of conquest.  Approximately 85% of the "Islamic world" today was subjugated during the Islamic conquests (or, according to the white-guilt lexicon, Islamic "expansions").

None of this is meant to exonerate the crimes of the white-man, but rather to put them in context by indicating that all people -- white, black, yellow, red, whatever -- are the same; they war, and, when capable -- keyword -- go on the offensive in search of conquest and hegemony.  Depending on scope, it could be either tribal or international hegemony.  Some religions incite these innate "passions," others mollify them.  Yet these passions-which, according to that astute philosopher, Thomas Hobbes, "carry us to partiality, pride, revenge and the like [e.g., war and conquest] -- apply to all of humanity.  To say otherwise is to be racist.

[MathDoc]

1. Excellent points.

2. You leave out the loser dynamic. Even those who are proud of European and American culture already see Europe as lost. They look at the growing 5% to 10% muslim minority in Europe and simply give up. That's like a football team ahead 70-0 giving up as soon as the other team scores one touchdown. Our side may have demoralized itself, but that is not an excuse to give up and forfeit the game.

Why not start taking pride in Western culture?
Why not resume having more than 1-2 children and resume teaching them about all the good in our history and traditions?
Why not take teaching jobs in the schools to expose other children to the idea that our history and culture are overall good things?

[dr_lew]

None of this is meant to exonerate the crimes of the white-man, but rather to put them in context by indicating that all people -- white, black, yellow, red, whatever -- are the same; they war, and, when capable -- keyword -- go on the offensive in search of conquest and hegemony.

Here he contradicts himself. In fact, the very usage of the expression, "crimes of the white man", represents a submission to the liberal view that the article rails against. And then on top of that, as a matter of form, he rejects the notion that all of his exculpatory rhetoric can exonerate him. "Take up the white man's burden --"

[ari-freedom]

it’s hard to be proud of European culture.

[fr_freak]

it’s hard to be proud of European culture.

Read some Shakespeare. You'll feel better.

[nathanbedford]

The Origins of Political Correctness An Accuracy in Academia Address by Bill Lind

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1308645/posts

[dr_lew]

The bad news:

Niccolò Fontana was the son of Michele Fontana, a rider and deliverer. In 1505, Michele was murdered and Niccolò, his two siblings, and his mother were impoverished. Niccolò experienced further tragedy in 1512 when the French invaded Brescia during the War of the League of Cambrai. The militia of Brescia defended their city for seven days. When the French finally broke through, they took their revenge by massacring the inhabitants of Brescia. By the end of battle, over 45,000 residents were killed. During the massacre, a French soldier sliced Niccolò's jaw and palate. This made it impossible for Niccolò to speak normally, prompting the nickname "Tartaglia" (stammerer).

The good news:

In 1530, Niccolò Tartaglia (1500-1557) received two problems in cubic equations from Zuanne da Coi and announced that he could solve them. He was soon challenged by Fiore, which led to a famous contest between the two. Each contestant had to put up a certain amount of money and to propose a number of problems for his rival to solve. Whoever solved more problems within 30 days would get all the money. Tartaglia received questions in the form x3 + mx = n, for which he had worked out a general method. Fiore received questions in the form x3 + mx2 = n, which proved to be too difficult for him to solve, and Tartaglia won the contest.

Why don't you try a couple of these? Then swell with pride for Tartaglia and European culture!

[ari-freedom]

I don’t consider England as part of Europe. :)

[wintertime]

Why not take teaching jobs in the schools to expose other children to the idea that our history and culture are overall good things?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This is not the solution. The government schools are utterly liberal/Marxist in their orientation and are legally and officially godless. So?...What happens when conservative and religious people attempt to sneak in a little Christian morality and appreciation of Western Culture?

Answer: They teach all the children that Christian conservatives are sneaky.

Solution:

* Get you own children out of the government schools.

* Encourage your neighbor to do the same.

* Support candidates that promote privatization of universal K-12 education.

* Organize with your neighbors to support all measure that cut off funding to these Marxist government indoctrination camps.

From its very inception, the philosophy that underlies government schools is socialistic. The purpose of government education is the creation of pliable and easily manipulated masses.

Also, government schools and the First Amendment are utterly incompatible.

* As for colleges and universities, conservatives should open new colleges and universities.

* If conservatives give money to existing liberal/Marxist colleges and universities they should pool their gifts together. Large gifts can have big thick strings that demand reform.

* And...Finally, Charles Murray is right. We should move to credentialing and credentialing exams and organizations. Very little of the work done in the U.S. requires a college education.

[Misterioso]

Lukacs, who was considered the most brilliant Marxist theorist since Marx himself,...

The above is an exerpt from Lind's article and implies that Marx was "brilliant." Not in the least.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/Marxism.html

[Misterioso]

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/Marxism.html

[wintertime]

Okay....So?..What is the real underlying problem here?

Answer: Marxism.

It is the goal of the Marxist movement to demoralize and undermine Western Culture. They have slowly eating away at the foundations of our culture for more than a 100 years.

Marxism is our nation’s most serious threat. Schools are the Marxists’ most important and powerful weapon.

[SantosLHalper]

Although all humans of all races are bigoted in some form I truly do not consider myself racist.

However I find it hard to believe that the world would be better off if the white man had never left Europe.

Consider if you will the state of Africa or Asia today , which by the way were drug into the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries kicking and screaming by Europeans.

True, we did introduce firearms to them, but eventually someone, somewhere would have figured it out.

Thank God Almighty that my ancestors where greedy, adventurous pioneers because I get to live in the greatest nation the WORLD has ever known.

Whenever I argue this point with my liberal friends/co-workers they always change the subject because they have no rebuttal, public school and all ya' know.

FLAME AWAY TROLLS.

[dennisw]

Dittos on that!

[eclecticEel]

Didn’t China introduce firearms to us? Although granted we heavily improved on their original.

[nathanbedford]

I don't not know what you are talking about and I do not think that you know what you're talking about either. William Lind has been in the forefront of the crusade against The Frankfurt School. To twist a phrase out of context to suggest the contrary is worse than poor scholarship.

[nathanbedford]

I don't not know what you are talking about and I do not think that you know what you're talking about either. William Lind has been in the forefront of the crusade against The Frankfurt School. To twist a phrase out of context to suggest the contrary is worse than poor scholarship.

[Ulysse]

The BIGGEST problem is the ennemy from within and its endless self-denigration-hatred against “western civilization”.
These enemies from within are the best allies of the islamic barbarians...

Therefore it is urgent to locate that enemies and FIGHT THEM AT LAST...
GWBUSH obviously failed in that fight and it paved the way for the OSAMABAMA’s hijacking of USA

[Misterioso]

My comment refers to the assertion that Marx was brilliant. Do you agree with this opinion? I don’t know who William Lind is (pity me) and that probably won’t change.

[nathanbedford]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1308645/posts