The Cayucos in Spain fall mainly..
Let's be Consumers too. I hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving. I spent a good portion of the weekend stuck in traffic, either on 495 or 270, or at the entrance to the Holland Tunnel or on 95 in New Jersey and Maryland. That is one bad thing about D.C. on major travel days (Labor Day, Thanksgiving) - it is terrible. A huge percentage of the car owning population of the Metro D.C. area are from somewhere else and so they are all leaving at the same time.
Speaking of being from somewhere else - Christopher Caldwell has a very informative and thoughtful article in the Weekly Standard on African immigration (mostly illegal) to Spain.
But in another sense, Spain's immigration problem is more severe than any other in Europe. Its population seems to have lost the appetite for procreation altogether. The average woman has 1.32 children, a figure that would have looked like a misprint to any social scientist before the 1980s. As a result, Spain's native-born population will begin contracting with shocking rapidity after 2014, and it is too late to do anything to stop it. Already Spain has gaping holes in its labor supply. The strawberry fields and clementine groves of Andalusia require tens of thousands of pickers every year. The tomato-growing greenhouses near Almería rely on Moroccan labor, and Eastern Europeans staff many tourist hotels. - Christopher Caldwell.
The birthrate in Spain is scandalously low. How can anyone think Spain or Europe is a healthy society? I'm not sure I can yet add any thoughts to this article. Caldwell alludes to the questions about immigration that no Western nation is asking - questions that hinge on culture, race, religion. It is difficult for me to even imagine how Western nations might even begin asking those questions. In the United States our elite long ago gave away nationalist myths that revolved aroun rugged stoic heroism, individual achievement and even material acquisition. The elite has largely (for reasons of promoting 'social justice) committed itself to nationalist myths that revolve around equality between races and religions. Martin Luther King is getting a memorial on the national mall very soon.
Daniel Larison recently lamented the situation in Ireland where multi-culturalism and capitalism are conspiring to turn traditional Irish culture into an embarrassing artifact. Is there any major Western country where this isn't the case?
My sense is that no Western nation will be able to enact long lasting restrictionist policies until their elites begin to embrace an identity other than one in which the entire national story is encapsulated by a long march of progressive reforms. We need a convincing answer to the question, "Who are we?"
The Netherlands because of the type of immigration and the scandalizing murder of Pim Fortuyn have been able to leverage their more credible liberal nationalist myth into policies against those immigrants they see as a threat to a liberal order. But given the history of the United States in which immigration is part of our egalitarian nationalist myth (immigrants = good, nativists= bad) it is impossible to think of our elites embracing a restrictionist policy to protect liberal egalitarianism.
I also suspect, and the title of the blog has always suggested that Americans are primarily consumers of products - that our other pre-political bonds or identities are overwhelmed by our identities as consumers. We don't look at each other as members of sections, or religious communities so much as we latch onto hobbies and rank whether someone is relatively close to our status. Oh you like hot wings too? Have you ever tried this kind? You're into audio equipment? Have you seen that new tube-driven CD player in Audiophile magazine? This used to be just a tiny part of a man's eccentricity. But in the age of Patio-Man it is his identity.
Michael Brendan Dougherty
in Politics
|
34 Comments
Share this: del.icio.us | Digg | Google | Ma.gnolia | Reddit | Stumble Upon | Technorati
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (34)
Language is the basic foundation of any culture. If you're going to jettison Irish as central to Irish culture, then you lost the battle for authentic Irish culture a long time ago, by 1850 at the very latest. That historic linguistic decline had nothing to do with birthrates (though it did have something to do with capitalism); moreover, the emphasis on the decline of the Irish birthrate in Michael's post completely ignores the impact of extremely high emigration after 1845, which ensured that even when birthrates were very high, population rates remained fairly steady. Indeed, Ireland's population is still about half what it was in 1845.
I might also add that Ireland's history is the best argument I know of for separating church and state, and that identifying the Republic as a Catholic country (and Britain as a Protestant one) was a major contributing factor in the deaths of over 3000 Irish people of at least two cultural backgrounds over the past 40 years.
I'm still trying to parse this provacative formulation of "repressive Catholicism" - it has now been defined as some sort of collaborationism. Is it the English repressing the Irish? Or is it the priests repressing something? I just don't know what this repressive brand is. At first I thought we were talking abotu the last hold outs of "Jansenism" who were more than often not technically holding heretical views regarding grace but were marked by "rigorism". But I don't think that is the case here. I find most speculation about repressive vs. non-repressive Christianity to be hard to understand. Unless you are working from different Scriptures I can't find a Jesus in the New Testament who isn't talking about sin and judgement- and who tells His followers that it would be better if they plucked out their own eyes than to fornicate in their hearts. This sounds repressive.
I would add that bi-lingualism is often something quite different from multi-culturalism. Many parts of Europe are bi-lingual or multi-lingual for historical reasons that have nothing to do with multi-culturalism or with modern mass immigration.
Tomorrow I will turn my thoughts toward minor league hockey which will occasion a theological debate, I'm sure.
Religion is central to culture as well. I confess to being as confused by the distinction between 19th century "repressive Catholicism" and earlier Catholicism as Michael is. If anything, many parish priests were only too involved in republican politics until fairly recently, so I don't see how any charges of collaboration figure very well here. Fr. Murphy of Boulavogue fame serves as a fairly compelling symbol of late 18th century Catholicism siding with the rebels of '98.
But now I must be missing something--in this view, Catholicism became repressive because the Church worked with the colonialists, but then we are at the same time supposed to regret sectarian identities because they have led to conflict. So if Catholics fight against the British, they are wrong for being sectarian and for mixing up politics and religion, and if they collaborate with them they are engaged in repression. Presumably after independence the question of this "repressive Catholicism" became moot, and the Catholic culture of the Republic (which was based, surely, in the widespread adherence to the Catholic Church among the people who lived in the Republic) should be judged on its own merits and not according to the mistakes of 19th century hierarchs.
But all of this seems besides the point--who at any point was idealising or praising 19th century Ireland as the Golden Age to which Ireland was supposed to return? Regardless, even if there were significant flaws with the 19th century form of Catholicism in Ireland, why is it preferable for Ireland to abjure its long-time Catholic identity as Dr. Trifkovic mentioned that Ahern did on the death of John Paul II?
As for the Famine, surely Michael did not bother to mention it because a) it was not directly relevant and b) everyone who knows anything about Ireland knows about the Famine.
Third, the argument that Ireland's 20th century history is "the best argument I know of for separating church and state" is just childish, and ignores deeper currents flowing through society. For one thing, while both sides participated in sectarian violence, but the blame for the problem has to rest squarely on the shoulders of the Protestants. Catholics in the Republic (or most anywhere except France) have never treated Protestants that way. And as Mr. Larison correctly suggests, why should we be surprised that an overwhelmingly majority Catholic population would enshrine this in their constitution? How is it supposed to be any other way?
Culture and politics do not exist in a vacuum, separate from each other. And culture entails a lot more than language. The assertion that "language is *the* basic foundation of any culture" (emphasis mine) is no less childish than the previous argument and betrays a profound ignorance of world affairs. Why is Anglo-Canada still separate from the United States? Why did the Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks not want to stay in the same linguistically homogenous country? Should we just pretend like that one beautiful (albeit admittedly inimitable) exception known as Switzerland does not exist?
I should also point out that, contra Mr. Moses, the Catholics of Ireland killed several thousand Protestants in 1641. Whether they were justified in this or not, the fact remains that Catholics have done their share of sectarian violence in Ireland.
Mr. Moses seems to be arguing that language is not important to culture. Every anthropologist and linguist working today would disagree with you. I guess they're childish too. I might add that I did not make a claim for culture and politics, or culture and nationalism, by making that assertion. Switzerland's linguistic and cultural diversity could exist in a unified state or not, but the disparate cultures of Switzerland are linguistically based. I fail to see how the existence of Switzerland undercuts my argument that language is central to culture.
My argument is that what is today referred to as "Irish Catholicism" is hardly traditional. Here's a short explanation of what I mean: http://www.irishecho.com/newspaper/story.cfm?id=16434
Catholicism in Ireland developed very differently from Catholicism in the rest of Europe; it was not until the nineteenth century that Rome had much influence. Mr. Larison seemed willing to jettison the Irish language as central to traditional Irish culture even though modern Irish far predates what we now see as "Irish Catholicism," which he seems less willing to jettison. I'm asking, quite seriously, what constitutes traditional Irish culture, the death of which Michael laments in his post. If it's not the Irish language, which is in better shape today than it was 15 years ago, what is it?
Michael, repressive Catholicism is not the same as "collaboration," but it was made possible through the cooperation of the hierarchy with the British authorities. I'm also mystified by your distinction between European multi-lingualism and multiculturalism. Are you suggesting that Europe is not multicultural? That makes me think that you're using multiculturalism as a synonym for racial diversity. But the largest immigrant group in Ireland today is composed of Polish Catholics.
I should have mentioned yesterday that the break with Catholicism began in Ireland in the early nineties, when Ireland was hardly "multicultural." It began because of the Girl X, Ann Lovett, and Kerry babies cases, the Bishop Casey and Magdalen laundries scandals, and the uncovering of sexual and physical abuse of children by clergy. That the Taoiseach blamed the unwillingness of the state to declare a day of mourning for the Pope on capitalism and multiculturalism seems somewhat unfair given the now widespread secularism of the native Irish.
I find in this article little that causes me to mourn about repression - then again I favor repression. The Rosary and the confessional don't send chills down my spine. But, there seems to be some evidence ( I may have to sift through it) that the brand of Catholicism the early Irish Christians practiced was quite rigorous - one year of penance for each capital sin committed- etc.
Nor am I arguing that the real traditions of Irish Catholicism weren't rigorous--I just read, and will soon teach, a bunch of early Irish poems in translation that testify to the rigor of traditional Irish Catholicism. I'm arguing that these practices were quite different from what we now think of as the practices of Irish Catholicism.
I owe an apology to Betsy myself, and I'm sorry as well that you had to apologize for me. It had occurred to me just after I wrote this that perhaps I was letting myself get a little bit overly consumed by my passions, and you're definitely less hot-headed than myself. My sincerest apologies. I do not mean to offend people; sometimes I just do.
Just to clarify a couple of things: first, I agree that Irish Catholicism was not entirely in step with the rest of Europe, and this is to some extent the case even after they were converted from nominal to devout.
As for language and culture, I can't deny that they are intertwined. But I wouldn't place too much emphasis on language. There are obviously different cultures permeating the Swiss state, but I get the sense of some sort of common "Swiss" culture and values that go beyond its political unity. Regarding Ireland, the Irish language is important, but I understand there have been a number of Catholic descendants of the Old English or Norse whose ancestors never spoke Gaelic, but whose religious unity nevertheless made them feel strongly "Irish." (On the other hand, linguistic divides ARE often definitive: take, for instance, Québec and Anglo-Canada.)
European countries have populations that reflect concsious policy about immigration but also reflect a history of imperialism that is as much a part of their history and identity as America's history of immigration. To deny the second and third generation immigrants in those countries full measures of Englishness or Frenchness is to deny the reality of their own history in favor of some sentimentalized version of purity that no longer exists. It no longer exists because of decisions made for nationalist reasons above all, it is striving for empire that changed those nations not elite intellectual movements for multiculturalism. Talk about confusing cause and effect on a massive scale.
By the way, Michael, I would love a whiskey, but as I'm not recovered from my illness and after this thread I think you need mine more than I do, I'll give you the two.
I'm going to go one step further and guess that they havent spent any significant period of time here either.
I have neither the time, nor the inclination to write any kind of considred response to the many spurious opinions expressed above.
I would, however, like to clearly state one thing. Mr Larison, your opinions, which you seem to be trying to represent as facts, are laughable.
The fact that you havent visited this country in 16 years, but have chosen to believe that it has become a worse place, shows an enormouos degree of ignorance.
Or perhaps it is not ignorance and you just truly lament the passage of daily sectarian murders, repression, inequality and the complete lack of ethnic and religious diverity?
"A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again."
I've heard that last year there wasn't a single ordination to the priesthood in all of Ireland. That, combined with dropping birthrates signifies a country in moral decline.
On the flipside, oppression by world, (i.e. sectarian murders etc.), signifies spiritual life because as Christ told us, as the world hates him so likewise will it hate us.
Without doubt, peace is a good, and so is prosperity a good, but they are a false peace and a false prosperity and thus false goods when they in turn cause making peace with the world. A peace with the world which is signified by the outward signs.