Dr. Bastiat posted a summary of some of Dalrymple's major themes over at Ricochet, and I think there are a number of important insights there. Apparently, this is from the Wikipedia entry on Dalrymple.
Here are the first three of 14 or so, to see if the post might be worth your time:
- The cause of much contemporary misery in Western countries – criminality, domestic violence, drug addiction, aggressive youths, hooliganism, broken families – is the nihilistic, decadent and/or self-destructive behaviour of people who do not know how to live. Both the smoothing over of this behaviour, and the medicalisation of the problems that emerge as a corollary of this behaviour, are forms of indifference. Someone has to tell those people, patiently and with understanding for the particulars of the case, that they have to live differently.
- Poverty does not explain aggressive, criminal and self-destructive behaviour. In an African slum you will find among the very poor, living in dreadful circumstances, dignity and decency in abundance, which are painfully lacking in an average English suburb, although its inhabitants are much wealthier.
- An attitude characterised by gratefulness and having obligations towards others has been replaced – with awful consequences – by an awareness of “rights” and a sense of entitlement, without responsibilities. This leads to resentment as the rights become violated by parents, authorities, bureaucracies and others in general.
7 comments:
I would prefer to believe that this is a cultural issue, as Dalrymple claims. But I do not know of any evidence for this that escapes the qualifier that it could actually be genetic.
How can God do this to us, and to them? I don't know. But I do not see an escape from the data.
"But I do not know of any evidence for this that escapes the qualifier that it could actually be genetic."
I don't know- but the English CHAV's behavior mimics our "underprivileged urban youths" pretty closely. And the genetics are far far apart. The socialism though, is rubbing elbows.
You can go that way, and say, "Look, here are two quite different genetic populations who have learned to behave in similar ways."
You can also go the other way, and compare the different genetic populations to their ancestors (whose genetics were similar). How much difference is there between the current generation of CHAVs and Gin Lane? Some? None? Much?
Insofar as you can identify clear differences between recent generations; and especially if you also find similar transitions among different populations in the same generation; well, then culture is more likely than genetics as a cause.
I don't doubt that there is a genetic basis to much human behavior. But given that there is a drastic difference in many key indicators of human thriving over the last 50-75 years, even among purely "white English" people, then cultural mediation has to be involved.
What I think happened was, over a long period, culture developed and adapted in very fine ways to the biological reality of the populace-- and that culture, in turn, had a huge impact on who reproduced with whom. That created a new set of biological facts over time. (Some examples of this: capital punishment removing the most violent from the gene pool, ostracism of women who had children out of wedlock lowering their overall number of children born, allowing or forcing emigration for certain people, etc.)
And then, in the postwar era, they just chucked that all out in favor of a bunch of theories about human behaviors, universal rules, removal of "judgmentalism", etc. And so they go from a < 4% illegitimacy rate, to a > 70% illegitimacy rate in poorer neighborhoods, in the space of 50 years. Which is, itself, creating new biological facts on the ground...
Suppose all people tend to react in certain ways, on the average, when the social environment decays.
Different groups might have cultural resilience, or perhaps populations could have less resistance to the blandishments of whatever is destroying the culture(*)--but if they succumb the outcome looks the same.
(*) Are really high IQ types easily enticed by the flattery of hyper-individualism? "You're special and different and ordinary rules don't need to apply."
That, James, is what I understand to be the recruiting pitch for Special Forces -- although IQ is not the only 'high' attribute they're seeking. But it does regularly draw out guys who are willing to endure great danger and difficulty in order to be freed from ordinary bothersome Army rules. Also for the opportunity to do great things.
Offhand I'd say Dalrymple is echoing Plato's dictum that self-restraint is a very important part of behavior. "Virtue" and all that. Without it, we have hedonism of one sort or the other, each sort identifiable as a violation of one of the Ten Commandments. Or--a shorter list--identifiable as one of the Seven Deadly Sins.
To grant that 'genetics' is the culprit, or even partially the culprit, denies the equality of peoples or--if you prefer--dehumanizes some of them. That's not the path the Founders chose.
Post a Comment