Pilger and the Left

blockquote>

This is, fundamentally, for the Left to adopt the position that used to be associated with the Right – a switch that Paul Berman has written about. The isolationist Right used to assent to a form of multi-culturalism, with the proviso that our culture was clearly better than their culture, but frankly they’d never get it, so best leave them alone. The Left now embraces multi-culturalism, but with a different proviso: that all cultures are of equal worth. Except that a couple of further corollaries have crept in: first, that there are no supra-cultural criteria by which we can compare cultures, so we are in no position to judge or criticise, and second (in direct contradiction), our culture is actually worse, because it seeks to impose itself on others, is ruining the planet, etc..

There is clearly an element of post-colonial guilt in all this, but is that enough to explain the widespread feeling that a crime is only a crime if perpetrated by the West?

The origins of moral thinking lie in our sense of injustice done to us – “that’s not fair, why is he getting more sweets than me?” We reach true morality when we come to see others’ points of view as of equal value as our own. We may not like it, but we accept it. There comes a further stage for some when we go beyond that and sacrifice our desire for the sake of others – “no, that’s fine, I really don’t want any sweets, you have them all.” But by this point the allure of morality itself is taking over: by which I mean, there’s an undeniable cachet in appearing to be more moral, holier-than-thou.

The application of this to the political/cultural level is clear. The starting point is the unthinking attitude that automatically assumes your culture is superior to others, in whom you have no interest. One step up and you appreciate that other people think their cultures are clearly superior, and you take account of that. Plus with more and faster intercommunication between cultures you get a chance to appreciate the arts of other cultures. The third step, the holier-than-thou step, is to laud other cultures at the expense of your own.

But I acknowledge this is a bit glib. I think it’s nearer the truth to say that for a large number of people in the West now, that’s all politics is: just an occasion to curse our own politicians.

Comments

  1. CB Avatar
    CB

    The “600,000” figure is ludicrous. The usual guesstimate given for the Cambodian civil war of 1970-75 is 500,000 dead, that includes people killed by all sides in a bloody conflict – the US, the Cambodian government and South Vietnam on the one hand, the Khmer Rouge and their North Vietnamese allies on the other. I don’t have the breakdown of who inflicted what proportion of deaths to hand, but I seem to remember that US bombing was responsible for about 10% of them (i.e. about 50,000). The majority of the killing was done by the other side. Of course, Pilger would probably claim that the US was somehow indirectly responsible for all these deaths, forgetting that it was North Vietnam which spread the war to Cambodia in the 1960s by overrunning that country’s eastern borders and consequently destabilising Cambodian politics. It was Shawcross himself, in an obituary piece on Pol Pot, who criticised Pilger for his “tendentious anti-Americanism”, noting that Pilger had taken little interest in Cambodia while it was under Khmer Rouge control 1975-79.

  2. sophie Avatar
    sophie

    I think it’s true, there is a kind of moral racism atwork here. I think it is also based on a kind of taking the centre stage all the time, whether positively or negatively. No-one else other than Westerners is assumed to have moral agency or in fact to be fully human. I think it comes from a deep ignorance too–an ignorance which is allied to a spurious ‘knowledge’ gained from TV docos and assertive books. People in the West are more ghettoised even in their own countries than they were even 20 years ago…the intellectual middle class especially is hardly able to make the imaginative leap into an unfashionable suburb, let alone into, say, Iraq or Cambodia..

  3. Mick H Avatar
    Mick H

    Sophie – I think you’re right: ignorance does play a large part. Plus the fact that by the nature of our free press there will always be dirt being dug up about those in power in the West, which isn’t matched by a corresponding scrutiny applied outside the West.

  4. Peter O Avatar
    Peter O

    I know that I am entering this a bit late, but thank you Sophie for saying something that I have been arguing for years. Western lefties talk about the non-european world as if it is full of ciphers or victims waiting around for the white powers to decide their fate. I do not for a moment wish to excuse the west for its past and ongoing mistreatment of peoples in the third world, but to overlook the agency of these people in an attempt to yet again beat the west over the head is just plain stupid.
    Cambodia provides a case in point. Much is made of the role of America in the bombing of Cambodia, support fot Lon Nol and subsequent support for Pol Pot (actually they supported the royalist FUNCINPEC which was in a alliance of convieniece with the Khmer Rouge). Rarely if ever does one hear criticism of the North Vietnamese for their invasion of Cambodia and Laos in the early 60s, or of the Russian and especially the Chinese for their direct or indirect support of Pol Pot. Remember that it was China that was his closest ally while he was in power, and China that invaded Vietnam in 1979 in part to try to save the Khmer Rouge regime. This is the sort of stuff that Pilger & co squeeze into a dismissive sentence in between detailed denunciations of US policy.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *