What I find to be interesting is that this admirably universalist American mindset no doubt born from the specific circumstances of this country’s history isn’t shared in many other parts of the world. When you read books like On China by Henry Kissinger or Has China Won by Kishore Mahbubani, one of the central themes stressed is that of Chinese particularism versus American universalism. Americans believe that the entire world can and should be like us. The Chinese believe that only they can be Chinese. The irony of Amy Wax being condemned for being anti-Asian is that in my opinion she's a lot closer to the Asian mindset when it comes to race and culture than the mainstream American norm.
I believe that this difference in mindset is the source of much contemporary geopolitical tension. By and large China avoids opining on the internal issues of other countries as long as those issues don’t directly touch upon core Chinese interests like Hong Kong or Taiwan. America on the other hand believes that ideals of human rights and freedom are universal. I would argue that American universalism has overreached in past decades, as evidenced by our recent pullout from Afghanistan and the collapse of our regime building efforts there. It’s possible that certain parts of the world don’t possess the requisite cultural capital for American style democracy.
Glenn aptly brought up the importance of nationalism in response to Kmele’s position of racial abolitionism and as a counter to the idea that only the individual matters. If in this country we’re moving past race and ethnicity and towards the idea that we’re really just Americans first and foremost, how do we grapple with the fact that transracial humanism isn’t shared in many other parts of the world and that notions of universalism might impact how we approach the most important bilateral relationship of the 21st century?
I should also point out that Samuel Huntington wasn’t even the first intellectual to predict a clash of civilizations. Racialist Lothrop Stoddard in his 1920 book The Rising Tide of Color prophesized a future where the whites and the yellows would battle for global influence. I don’t know if I would describe the current geopolitical situation as a race war, but it’s certainly a clash between two very different civilizations with very different cultural values and heritages.
Universalism is a nice sentiment, but somehow we always end up being pulled back into the muck of group conflict. As they say, blood is thicker than water.
What I find to be interesting is that this admirably universalist American mindset no doubt born from the specific circumstances of this country’s history isn’t shared in many other parts of the world. When you read books like On China by Henry Kissinger or Has China Won by Kishore Mahbubani, one of the central themes stressed is that of Chinese particularism versus American universalism. Americans believe that the entire world can and should be like us. The Chinese believe that only they can be Chinese. The irony of Amy Wax being condemned for being anti-Asian is that in my opinion she's a lot closer to the Asian mindset when it comes to race and culture than the mainstream American norm.
I believe that this difference in mindset is the source of much contemporary geopolitical tension. By and large China avoids opining on the internal issues of other countries as long as those issues don’t directly touch upon core Chinese interests like Hong Kong or Taiwan. America on the other hand believes that ideals of human rights and freedom are universal. I would argue that American universalism has overreached in past decades, as evidenced by our recent pullout from Afghanistan and the collapse of our regime building efforts there. It’s possible that certain parts of the world don’t possess the requisite cultural capital for American style democracy.
Glenn aptly brought up the importance of nationalism in response to Kmele’s position of racial abolitionism and as a counter to the idea that only the individual matters. If in this country we’re moving past race and ethnicity and towards the idea that we’re really just Americans first and foremost, how do we grapple with the fact that transracial humanism isn’t shared in many other parts of the world and that notions of universalism might impact how we approach the most important bilateral relationship of the 21st century?
I should also point out that Samuel Huntington wasn’t even the first intellectual to predict a clash of civilizations. Racialist Lothrop Stoddard in his 1920 book The Rising Tide of Color prophesized a future where the whites and the yellows would battle for global influence. I don’t know if I would describe the current geopolitical situation as a race war, but it’s certainly a clash between two very different civilizations with very different cultural values and heritages.
Universalism is a nice sentiment, but somehow we always end up being pulled back into the muck of group conflict. As they say, blood is thicker than water.