It was an unfortunate, and undeserved, fate. Bruckner's book is a vigorous indictment of "Third Worldism"-the odious species of romance that glorifies everything foreign, exotic, and primitive while simultaneously railing against civilization, science, and modernity. (That other social philosopher, W. S. Gilbert, was right to save a place on his famous list for "the idiot who praises with enthusiastic tone/ All centuries but this and every country but his own.")
The very power of Bruckner's indictment helps to explain its neglect. The message he brought was distinctly unwelcome music to the ears of politically correct intellectuals, whose smugness and sense of moral superiority, then as now, was inextricably bound up with the mendacities of Third Worldism and kindred specimens of emotional blackmail. (Just listen to Susan Sontag on Kosovo or Michael Ignatieff on Rwanda.) "Solidarity with oppressed peoples," Bruckner wrote, is above all a gigantic weapon aimed at the West. The logic of aggression is at work in Third World solidarity, and this has made it a continuation of the Cold War by other means. Being non-European is enough to put one on the side of right. Being European or being supported by a European power is enough to make one suspect. The bloody messes in banana republics, and butchery of political opposition and the dictatorial lunacy by their petty chieftains are all brushed aside. Such trifles will not restrain the progress of these peoples toward socialism. What seems criminal in Cuba, Angola, and Guinea has the real purpose of washing away the far greater crime of colonialism.
Clearly, Bruckner's message is as pertinent today as it was in the 1980s-more so, perhaps, since the attitudes it chronicles, if often less histrionic, are today more thoroughly institutionalized, more thoroughly absorbed into established opinion.
It is worth pointing out that, unlike many Third Worldists, Bruckner had firsthand knowledge of the problems about which he wrote. Having worked as a member of the International Action Against Hunger, he animated compassion with deeds. If this tempered his romanticism, it also sharpened his vision. Bruckner did not march arm-in-arm with Jean-Paul Sartre. He was not a beneficiary of UNESCO's extortionist escapades. He did not rail against Western oppression. He did not curse the evils of colonialism. On the contrary, he understood that the West's real crime was not pursuing but rather abandoning its responsibilities as a colonial power.
Part of what makes The Tears of the White Man such an important book is Bruckner's sensitivity to the aerodynamics of liberal guilt. He understands what launches it, what keeps it aloft, and how we might lure it safely back to earth. He understands that the entire phenomenon of Third Worldism is fueled by the moral ecstasy of overbred guilt. Bruckner is an articulate anatomist of such guilt and its attendant deceptions and mystifications. "An overblown conscience," he points out, "is an empty conscience." Compassion ceases if there is nothing but compassion, and revulsion turns to insensitivity. Our "soft pity," as Stefan Zweig calls it, is stimulated, because guilt is a convenient substitute for action where action is impossible. Without the power to do anything, sensitivity becomes our main aim, the aim is not so much to do anything, as to be judged. Salvation lies in the verdict that declares us to be wrong.
The universalization-which is to say the utter trivialization-of compassion is one side of Third Worldism. Another side is the inversion of traditional moral and intellectual values. Europe once sought to bring enlightenment-literacy, civil society, modern technology-to benighted parts of the world. It did so in the name of progress and civilization. The ethic of Third Worldism dictates that yesterday's enlightenment be rebaptized as today's imperialistic oppression. For the committed Third Worldist, Bruckner points out, salvation consists not only in a futile exchange of influences, but in the recognition of the superiority of foreign thought, in the study of their doctrines, and in conversion to their dogma. We must take on our former slaves as our models. . . . It is the duty and in the interest of the West to be made prisoner by its own barbarians.
Whatever the current object of adulation- the wisdom of the East, tribal Africa, Aboriginal Australia, pre-Columbian America -the message is the same: the absolute superiority of Otherness. The Third Worldist looks to the orient, to the tribal, to the primitive not for what they really are but for their evocative distance from the reality of modern European society and values.
It is all part of what Bruckner calls "the enchanting music of departure." Its siren call is seductive but also supremely mendacious. Indeed, the messy reality of the primitive world-its squalor and poverty, its penchant for cannibalism, slavery, gratuitous cruelty, and superstition-are carefully edited out of the picture. In their place we find a species of Rousseauvian sentimentality. Rousseau is the patron saint of Third Worldism. "Ignoring the real human race entirely," Rousseau wrote in a passage Bruckner quotes from the Confessions, "I imagined perfect beings, with heavenly virtue and beauty, so sure in their friendship, so tender and faithful, that I could never find anyone like them in the real world." The beings with whom Rousseau populated his fantasy life are exported to exotic lands by the Third Worldist. As Rousseau discovered, the unreality of the scenario, far from being an impediment to moral smugness, was an invaluable asset. Reality, after all, has a way of impinging upon fantasy, clipping its wings, limiting its exuberance. So much the worse, then, for reality. As Bruckner notes, in this romance adepts "were not looking for a real world but the negation of their own. . . . An eternal vision is projected on these nations that has nothing to do with their real history." [End Excerpt]
______________________________________________________________________
Zimbabwe denies land grab by ruling elite - Colonel Muammar Gadaffi taking his cut*** HARARE, Zimbabwe - Allegations that top politicians and ruling party elite took confiscated white-owned land intended for the landless and impoverished were "patently stupid and indecent," a government spokesman said Thursday. However, ruling party officials were not excluded from a program to allocate seized land to some 54,000 new black commercial farmers, Information Minister Jonathan Moyo said in a statement. A report compiled by farmers that was distributed Thursday said hundreds of senior officials, ruling party supporters, military, police and intelligence officers, and even journalists in the state media were allocated plots ranging in size from a few acres (hectares) to farms of thousands of acres (hectares).***
Mugabe dishes out goodies to cronies*** "The United Nations says this is our longest dry spell in 20 years, and yet all our dams are almost 80 percent full. Our dams are so full because the water has not been used to irrigate crops. There are no crops in the ground because government supporters stopped farmers from growing food because they wanted the land for their masters - and now 6 million people face starvation. What a sickening irony." Buckle said that last week, Zimbabwean Agriculture Minister Joseph Made said that any white farmer who did not put a crop of wheat into the ground would have his farm listed for seizure. ***
"I'm not sure where the minister has been these last two years, because he has already listed 95 percent of Zimbabwe's farms for government takeover," Buckle explained. "There are now only 308 farms in the entire country not listed for state seizure. Neither Dr. Made nor any of his officials are prepared to offer any written guarantees to a farmer that he will be able to grow, reap and sell his wheat before the government moves in and takes the farm over. The 6 million starving Zimbabweans have Dr. Made and his government to thank for their plight. We have become like Somalia and Ethiopia and are holding out our begging bowls to the world. A world that would rather feed us than help us to get a democratic government who care for their people."
Mugabe's hungry and unpaid stormtroopers threaten violent revolt***"We've turned ourselves into killers and thugs - and for what?" asked David, 35. "We have no money, no jobs and no future. All we have are hungry stomachs and bad dreams about what we've done." He described the missions of murder, abduction and arson on which he sent young men and women earlier this year to help keep Mugabe in power. "We did everything they wanted," he said. "We won the election for them, but they have treated us no better than donkeys. They have used us and thrown us away." .... "I don't want to do those things any more," said Sam. "My parents are so unhappy." David added: "We're in a jail of our own - never free to leave and always being punished for what we do. We'll never have our lives back until Mugabe is gone." ***
Zimbabwe should not be an exception***In the face of a stubborn and credible opposition Mugabe cannot successfully employ the same tactics he has used in the past to destroy opposition parties. This one is synonymous with the people of Zimbabwe and is therefore indestructible. Fifteen years ago, when Mugabe was still considered a hero, he could have counted on many countries to voluntarily rally to his cause. Now he is reduced to blackmailing some African states into endorsing his neurotic leadership.
They do this to cover up their own shame and embarrassment because when your fellow black brother or sister behaves as abominably as Mugabe has done, the immediate reaction is to cover up in the face of fierce external condemnation. There is this strange perception in Africa that as soon as non-black people condemn a black leader's behaviour, there should be a show of solidarity by other blacks. How about universal principles that bind together our collective humanity regardless of colour? When a black leader bankrupts his country by pursuing foolish policies he/she must be condemned.***
Africa disgusts me.
I don't mind giving where there is a need. But for GODs sake, take responsibility man. Forever Africa has been a basket case. Agriculturally, economically, morrally etc.
These people there are just pathetic. And like North Korea, people like me everywhere are tired of throwing good monies after bad. For what purpose? Aid will be wasted or stolen by those in power which means those with the most guns. The aid doesn't get to the people that need it most.
Here in America we have people going hungry. Take a trip through Appalachia or through the back woods of Alabama. The hell with Africa, take care of America and Americans first.
And now they wonder why they're starving.
Gee, I can't imagine. (/extreme sarcasm)
Management of food supplies is mismanagement. If people are allowd to grow and keep food they will go where they can grow food and survive. If the United Nations or any other so called organization tries to manage food supplies there is always disaster.
Instead, God gave her children. Win some; lose some!
More corruption. Those in power steal, knowing full well there will be more free money from the west. Well, this time there should not be. Their is a hell of their own creation, repeating itself for the umpteenth time. Let them bail themselves out.
Errrrr, aren't eggs, milk, cheese, meat considered food?
If the people in the affected areas had less kids, then there would be more food for everyone else.
It seems that Malthusian principles are at work here (at least on a limited scale).
Don't get me wrong, I'm totally against abortion, but perhaps the effective use of contraceptives would help these people in the long run.
I for one am willing to let Zimbabwe die, in order to make an example of what a true despotic nature communism has. Let the blacks of Zimbabwe learn that the only wage that communism pays is death. I have nothing but contempt for them, and our leaders who say we need to pay their way. I know the white Europeans who settled the land in the first place, did just fine on their own, of course that was up until the blacks settled into the region. If the creators and settlers of that land truly wanted it back, they would ask America for arms, instead of food, or money, which is what Robert Mugabe is asking for. Mugabe doesn't want food for his people, as he has turned away boatloads of it. He wants to crush any resistance by starving them out, and then giving them just enough to stay alive. Anyone who knows what Communism is about, knows this is how they destroy any kind of insurgency.
First they break the people, by starving them, and killing or jailing anyone who speaks out against them. They confiscate the land, blaming one group for all of the other people's problems. Then they let the land die off, so that no crops are being grown. Then they put the survivors to work on these farms, and give them a pittance to live on. Pretty soon, you have all of these workers doing nothing but toiling on lands that aren't even theirs, and have no hope of purchasing. This is the beginning of what will be the most oppressive society in the world. If you thought Hitler was a bad guy, watch what happens to Mugabe's Zimbabwe if he isn't assassinated. Mugabe won't stop with Zimbabwe, once he's conquered that people, that disease will spread to other nations, weaker nations, and soon, Africa will make the old Soviet Union look like America in 1789. There is an agenda here, and we're watching it unfold. Africans cannot govern themselves. If you look at North Africa, Subsaharan Africa, and most of South Africa, where blacks have become the majority, there's nothing but chaos, and a lack of education. The only way these people can govern themselves is through harsh means, and tribal law. White Europeans have no business trying to teach them any other way to live, because they can't live like Europeans, or Americans. The reason is simple, They are incapable and unwilling to become civilized.