Cultural and moral illiteracy

Anne Wotana Kaye 1

Cultural illiteracy and moral illiteracy. Which is the more dangerous -- and which is the chicken and which the egg?
In my opinion, moral illiteracy is not only the most dangerous, but is also the least excusable. Moral illiteracy can be smoothed away with politically correct words, and is the creed of the Left: the Socialists of Britain and Europe, and the Democrats of the United States. Cultural illiteracy, whilst malignant, is not deliberately so. It is usually the result of an inadequate upbringing, lack of reading material, and often a 'closed' and dull mentality, which doesn't have intellectual curiosity. There are of course, instances of cultural illiteracy which are deliberate on the part of an individual, or community, where the easiest path is to blindly live out each day without existential questioning. From examples of supporters and active proponents Islamic terrorism in Britain, I would think there is more cultural illiteracy amongst the supporters, and far more moral illiteracy amongst the actual 'bombers'. Now which is the chicken and which is the egg? Here I am at a loss, the eternal question for which there can be no answer. Cautiously may I suggest that moral illiteracy breeds the evil actions which activate terror : the chicken being the instigator and the egg the mayhem? But then again, the terror can be the result of minds that only know primitive and barbarian practices, thus placing the egg (culturally illiterate) as the instigator and the chicken (morally illiterate) as the actual perpetrator

AY

By definition, culture is the way of defining and addressing the notions of reality, virtue, and beauty.

There are corresponding toolkits, materials, and products - talent, rationality, logic, imagination, compassion, freedom, altruism, responsibility.

Cultures under-developing some of that, become mediocrities.

Cultures with lapses and delays in moral, become evil.

Celato

Wow - what a HUGE question!!

And what a lot of defining is going to have to be done ...

To set the ball rolling: what is meant by 'literacy' in this context? Are we talking about a written code (eg Ten Commandments) which, in order to be moral, it's necessary to read, understand and abide by?

If so, is there a particular code - universally applicable - or are cultural/religious differences taken into account?

(I'm assuming there IS room for such differences because of the emphasis placed on 'cultural literacy' as a desirable condition, but can see lots of fur flying before long ...)

Ah, well, no doubt some lively discussion will be forthcoming and with plenty of time to spare before cliff-tumbling time.

Cassie of Sydney

Moral illiteracy versus cultural illiteracy. When the answer is obvious. Moral illiteracy as displayed by Hilary Clinton is unspeakably dangerous. Moreover, her stupid and dangerous remarks have been picked up by leftist media outlets across the globe such as the BBC and here in Oz -the hideous Sydney Morning Herald which is engaging in a long term delegitimisation of the Jewish people and the state of Israel. They delight in Hilary's remark it confirms their self hating ethos. We have no right to lecture others because we are bad. What a tragedy. World War II could not be fought today surrounded as we are by self hating appeasers. As a Jew, I would not be alive. In fact, I believe most on the left would celebrate that. I am not offended by Sarah Palin's use of the term "blood libel". In fact, she is quite correct in her usage of it and she is indeed the victim of a vicious unrelenting verbal pogrom emanating from the left against her and her family. What I find fascinating is the so called outrage from slimey hypocrates from the left professing outrage at her use of this term "blood libel" when they love to curry favour with anti-semites such as the Hamas and Hezbollah. What a joke! Sarah Palin is a friend of Israel and the Jewish people. She (and Fox News) are no more responsible for the murderous outrage last week in Tucson than Mickey Mouse.

Keith D

All part of the Obama mindset Clinton's bought into I'm afraid.A complete misunderstanding of the values an expansionist and intolerant political movement holds,and how it will respond to the weakness,both in statement and in deed,displayed by the useful idiots in the West.Given Barry's background,his disdain for allies,and his naive speech in Cairo,its no wonder minorities are under constant attack in the ME.
The perpetrators are emboldened at every turn,as the governments in the area know that we'll keep funding them no matter what horrors they allow.

We're in a new phase of an old war,and probably the most dangerous one to date.
Examining the quality of Western leadership is not going to deter any of our enemies.
Col West is a long way from the White House.

In the Wilderness in America

There she goes again, our favorite feminist and keeper of the peace and flame, Hillary. She is sent out into the world by Obama to wag her finger, purse her lips, and scold all those who do not share her and her boss's vision of a multicultural, politically correct, and morally equivalent world. Meanwhile, in the meeting rooms, the mullahs come and go speaking of jihad on the West, not giving a damn what she said.

In the Wilderness in America
January 14th, 2011 3:19pm
There she goes again, our favorite feminist and keeper of the peace and flame, Hillary. She is sent out into the world by Obama to wag her finger, purse her lips, and scold all those who do not share her and her boss's vision of a multicultural, politically correct, and morally equivalent world. Meanwhile, in the meeting rooms, the mullahs come and go speaking of jihad on the West, not giving a damn what she said.
====================
Truly a Wasteland! TSE

John.

Not to mention actual illiteracy: the American record is even worse than our own, which is saying something.

John Holland

One question, though;
why, when despite all this angry talk of cultural illiteracy, is Sarah Palin held up as such an exemplar of political profundity?
Why, when she thinks South Korea is Communist, Russia shares a land border with the U.S. and Africa is a nation, is any criticism of her seen as mean and unfair?

Actually, I do have another question regarding 'moral illiteracy' and the American Right; there is a recurring theme here that Democrats are, by definition, moral cowards, while the Republicans, and the Right generally, have the decency and courage to stand up for freedom.
And yet, in 1940, it was the vile Democrats, and the "socialist" Roosevelt in particular, who fought for America's intervention against the Nazis (that's real Nazis, not friends of Obama), while, by and large, the Republicans (some of whom received honours from Hitler) regarded the war as irrelevant at best, and fought to remain neutral.
How does this fit into Anne Wotana's truly historically illiterate claim that the left is always, fundamentally, immoral? I could add the civil rights movement, but from a lot of the things I read on Tea-Party blogs, many on the Right see this as a mistake now.

Anne Wotana Kaye 1

Although according to John Holland I am given to making historically illiterate claims, I do know that Joseph Patrick "Joe" Kennedy, Sr, was Democrat, and also a great supporter of that arch National Socialist Hitler. Another Democrat, Theodore Roosevelt finally shook off the great reluctance of the States, fortified by Democratic resistance, to become involved in World War II, and for this his name will forever be remembered with honour and respect.

David

John Holland,
Where are you getting your news from if you actually believe the falsehoods you are putting forth as fact concerning Sarah Palin. She never said Russia shared a land border with the US, she said Russia could be seen from Alaska, and that is true. The Aleutian Island chain, part of Alaska, comes within miles of Russia.

She never put forth that South Korea was communist, she was giving an interview and after much repetition of North and South Korea, mis-spoke and said South Korea instead of North Korea. Anyone that read the transcript, or heard the interview, knew it was a simple slip of the tongue.

The "Africa as a nation" one is new to me, and I'm sure just as easily explained. You can only believe these untruths because of the unreleting attacks by the media in the US and elsewhere, who know they are being false, but also know they can get people to actually believe their garbage, as you have demonstrated.

David

Ok I found out the story about your Palin and Africa as a Country claim. It was revealed as a hoax by none other than the NY Times, which is no friend of Sarah Palin.
****
From the Times:
It was among the juicier post-election recriminations: Fox News Channel quoted an unnamed McCain campaign figure as saying that Sarah Palin did not know that Africa was a continent.
Who would say such a thing? On Monday the answer popped up on a blog and popped out of the mouth of David Shuster, an MSNBC anchor. “Turns out it was Martin Eisenstadt, a McCain policy adviser, who has come forward today to identify himself as the source of the leaks,” Mr. Shuster said.

Trouble is, Martin Eisenstadt doesn’t exist. His blog does, but it’s a put-on. The think tank where he is a senior fellow — the Harding Institute for Freedom and Democracy — is just a Web site. The TV clips of him on YouTube are fakes.

And the claim of credit for the Africa anecdote is just the latest ruse by Eisenstadt, who turns out to be a very elaborate hoax that has been going on for months. MSNBC, which quickly corrected the mistake, has plenty of company in being taken in by an Eisenstadt hoax, including The New Republic and The Los Angeles Times.

Anne Wotana Kaye 1

FRANKLIN Roosevelt - my apologies. Went through before correction could take place.

Ian Hills

Hilary was only pretending to be culturally illiterate in dumbing down terrorist threats to the level of an isolated Arizona attack. Her administration bends over backward to appease terrorists, after all. Therefore she is morally illiterate - a trait dating back to her primary campaign, with its implicit promise that she would help feminist voters get back at unfaithful men like her husband. In reality of course she just wanted to become president. US voters were not taken in - although culturally illiterate ("Is Paris an Arab capital?") they are not morally so, and therefore voted for her opponent instead.

John Holland

David- clearly you are right, and I was fooled, about the Palin hoax. The fact that it was mentioned as a fact only a few days ago in the British press is ridiculous.

Nevertheless, disingenuousness and gullibility infects both Right and Left, and far worse than gaffs about geography, for example, is the opposition's use of the deliberately misleading term "Death panels" in reference to healthcare reforms. They could again be misquotes (though I doubt it), but suggestions of eugenics seem regularly to be used by the Right in this context, and it is profoundly and deliberately misleading.
Not to mention all that rubbish about Obama being Muslim and the 'birther' myth.

Either way, it is surely either naive or blinkered to believe all the ignorance or misinformation comes exclusively from those on the opposing side.
Furthermore, when you talk of "unrelenting attacks" in the media, are you really claiming there are not unrelenting attacks too against Obama on Fox and on all those talk radio stations? Murdoch, the owner of Fox, owns a large proportion of the British media too, remember.
The truth is complicated. Deal with it.
(For what it's worth ,I think the Liberal over-reaction to Palin's use of the phrase "Blood-libel" has been ridiculous.)

John Holland

Anne Wotana- I'm glad you can concede that one Democrat, at least, could act in a way that was not wholly malicious, stupid or ignorant.

You can't bring yourself to mention the culpability of many Republicans in the appeasement of Hitler, though, and you do follow the now standard tactic on the right of always refering to Nazism as 'National Socialism', which has the advantage of implying it was a movement somehow connected to Liberalism.
I'm sure you know that Nazism was not Socialist as it's usually understood,; they supported private enterprise, did not nationalise industries and were fond of ruthlessly suppressing unions, which is why so many industrialists on both sides of the Atlantic saw then as a balwark against Communism.
Niether, of course, were they Right-wing in the Tea-Party sense (not too keen on small government), and their ideas on eugenics came from ideas promoted by some on both Left and Right at the beginning of that century.

Your fundamentalist conception of right and wrong is a feature of US political 'debate' at present, and it really is, if not culturally illiterate, then certainly historically blinkered.
For example, in all the Tea-Party movement's glorifying of 1773, the revolution and the founding fathers, where is any mention of slavery? No-where, obviously, because it's awkward, and muddies the simple, triumphalist narrative. Some supported the Revolution to protect their right to trade slaves.

Liberals have done plenty of bad things- the appeasement of Stalinism by some on the Left was shameful- but your belief that anyone to the left of you must, by definition, be either ignorant, stupid or evil is just dangerous fundamentalism.

Anne Wotana Kaye 1

John Holland
January 17th, 2011 10:26am
I've read your posting carefully, and cannot agree with you any more than you can accept my opinions. I will not insult you by calling you politically ignorant. By taking the trouble to post here, indicates you are a serious person. In my view, however, you are misguided. I will forever believe that Stalin and Hitler were two sides of the same coin, and the socialists in Europe and Britain today are dsngerous if Western democracy is to survive. The US Democrats I see as a slightly more savvy Lib Dem political party, led by self-advancing hypocrites.

Celato

Anne Wotana Kaye 1:

Since you see socialism as a 'danger' to western democracy, I take it you would like to see those subscribing to any of its tenets banned from participation in the political process.

The electorate would then be left with a choice between ... er ... what?

A spectrum of what you regard as 'acceptable' political positions would be much appreciated.

Anne Wotana Kaye 1

Celato
January 18th, 2011 9:41pm
========================
Because I see a political party as a danger, does not give me the right to ban it. I believe in democracy (not the Democratic Party). It is marxists and the so-called politically correct who ban everything, from speaking one's mind, refusing to accept homosexuals in a B&B, forbidding a Christian Pastor to visit the UK. I believe everybody should be free to support whichever party they wish, one can only pray that enough sensible people will prevail. Your assumption that I would support banning or silencing the opposition, convinces me that you are a dyed in the wool socialist.

Celato

Anne Wotana Kaye 1

Yes, I am a socialist - but I wouldn't recognize myself as such from your descriptions!

For a start, I don't stereotype those with whom I disagree to anything like the extent that you do. I recognize that 'conservatism' covers a wide spectrum of opinion, with only very few of its adherents deserving labels such as 'morally illiterate', 'malignant', 'unquestioning' or 'dangerous'.

In other words, I am actually far more prepared to accord conservatives with respect as rational human beings than you appear to be where socialists are concerned.

Which one of us, I wonder, is more likely to be a trampler on opinions and freedoms?

If my tolerance for right-wingers makes me a 'maverick' socialist in your view, don't be fooled. Just because I don't conform to YOUR perception that we're all marching to the same brain-numbing tune doesn't make me in any way unusual. There are millions of socialists who are happy to take our chances in a democratic society through persuasion, negotiation and compromise rather than proscription. Millions of us soul-search about our beliefs and actions and strive to be moral.

Don't be fooled either by any idea that the only reason 'civilized' socialists respect conservative opponents is because, deep down, we recognize the superior stance of right-wingers but can't quite bring ourselves to cross the line (owing no doubt in your book to unthinking class affiliations or intellectual snobbery). We don't feel that way at all.

I disagree vehemently with conservative political philosophy and have arrived at this position through years of thought and a preparedness to be challenged and defend myself.

...

In my previous posting here, I put it to you that if socialism was as 'dangerous' as you seem to think, it should surely be banned. Your reply rather suggests to me that your concept of danger needs urgent review and your discourse modified accordingly.

Anne Wotana Kaye 1

Celato
January 20th, 2011 11:25p
Good morning,
I am reading your carefully crafted posting before esting breakfast. All your fine words and ideals are turned to dross by your final statement. The good old socialist hammer comes down in your conviction of 'banning'. I loathe marxism, as you can see from my postings, but no, I wouldn't wish to see it banned. I repeat, I am a believer in democracy, and at my age have lived and seen various regimes, and more than ever believe that freedom of choice is the essence of true life.

Celato

Anne Wotana Kaye 1:

The essential difference between us seems to be this: I don't regard conservatism in its broad and multi-various colours as 'dangerous' and would not dream of banning its adherents any more than I would ban people from keeping cats just because cats belong to the same family as lions and tigers.

You, however, seem to group all socialists in the feral category.

I would most certainly not want a tiger to be allowed the same freedom to wander the streets as a pussycat and would do everything in my power to prevent this happening. In the 'feral' category on the political front I would include neo-Nazis whose explicit agenda was to dismantle democracy and exterminate blacks, gipsies and Jews. (Likewise any neo-Stalinists who might be lurking with a similarly destructive agenda.)

According to what you profess, this is the hallmark of repressive Marxism and not something you would consider justified. But actually I don't believe you WOULD act any differently from me in the same circumstances.

You are (I sincerely hope) perfectly well aware of a distinction between 'danger' to democracy and 'offensive' views and policies which democracy is well able to absorb. It's just that your rhetoric doesn't allow scope for such articulation.

Anne Wotana Kaye 1

Celato
January 21st, 2011 2:16pm
Celato, it has been a long day, and I'm going to end it as I started it, writing to you. I'm in my eighth decade, and come from a generation where manners were important, and responding to a letter, even an irritating one was compulsory. Yes, we are two very different people. You can grade Conservatives as, shall we say, good people right down to (in your estimation) downright wrong, or even bad. To me, however, socialists are either at the best misguided, and at the worst bad. This 'conversation' whilst intellectually stimulating is leading nowhere. I am just more than ever convinced that trying to relate to a socialist is like banging my head against the wall. I imagine, the situation for you must be similar. So goodnight, and until we cross (not pens) keyboards, enjoy blogging!