Culturist Middle East Reporting
John Press
January 16, 2009
The news provides us with nightly death counts in the Gaza - Israeli conflict. Since the past is not news and Hamas´ rockets killed very few people, we only hear about Israelis killing Palestinians. And so the calls to end this humanitarian crisis mount. Regardless of the body count, the supposition of this logic undermines the West.
The problem with this reporting is that it seeks to be neutral. It presents us with two anonymous groups far away and then counts casualties. This neutrality of language is built into the commonly used phrase "humanitarian crisis." This phrase may not, unfortunately, have caused you pause in the first paragraph. But it dangerously implies we are neutral observers of this conflict. There is no such thing as a neutral observer.
Everyone is always, already on a side. That is true even if you do not know it. There is no freedom of the press in Islamic nations. The press, by definition, should be on the side that appreciates freedom of the press. The scary thing is that the other side is completely aware that they have a side. Whether or not we consider Israel to be an extension of the West, Islamic nations do. Objectivity and neutral reporting are only our conceits.
We need to be culturist. That is, we need to know that we have a side and stick up for it. The conflict in the Middle East is not just between two unaffiliated states with whom we have no connections. Gaza is an extension of the Islamic world. Israel is an extension of the western world. From Israel to Mumbai to Sudan to London, Madrid and New York, we have a side. In all of these conflicts Muslims attacked western allies. Neutrality was not an option.
To drive this point home we must oppose the term ´multiculturalism. ´ That word asserts that the West has no particular culture and thus no side to protect. It thereby weakens and blinds us. We must challenge this word with its opposite, ´culturism.´ Culturism affirms that we have a core culture and need to protect it. The Islamic side is already culturist. To survive we must be culturist too.
Adopting a culturist perspective would cause great discomfort. It would require our media to report that pro-Hamas rallies are anti-western rallies. It would cause them to affirm our unpleasant conflict with Islam. Our media would have to rethink its impartiality on conflicts such as that in the Middle East. Disrupting the veneer of neutrality would force politicians to stand up for the West. Because these changes are uncomfortable, our media will not change until things get worse. But we can accelerate the transition by spreading awareness of culturism as an alternative to multiculturalism as they do.
The problem with this reporting is that it seeks to be neutral. It presents us with two anonymous groups far away and then counts casualties. This neutrality of language is built into the commonly used phrase "humanitarian crisis." This phrase may not, unfortunately, have caused you pause in the first paragraph. But it dangerously implies we are neutral observers of this conflict. There is no such thing as a neutral observer.
Everyone is always, already on a side. That is true even if you do not know it. There is no freedom of the press in Islamic nations. The press, by definition, should be on the side that appreciates freedom of the press. The scary thing is that the other side is completely aware that they have a side. Whether or not we consider Israel to be an extension of the West, Islamic nations do. Objectivity and neutral reporting are only our conceits.
We need to be culturist. That is, we need to know that we have a side and stick up for it. The conflict in the Middle East is not just between two unaffiliated states with whom we have no connections. Gaza is an extension of the Islamic world. Israel is an extension of the western world. From Israel to Mumbai to Sudan to London, Madrid and New York, we have a side. In all of these conflicts Muslims attacked western allies. Neutrality was not an option.
To drive this point home we must oppose the term ´multiculturalism. ´ That word asserts that the West has no particular culture and thus no side to protect. It thereby weakens and blinds us. We must challenge this word with its opposite, ´culturism.´ Culturism affirms that we have a core culture and need to protect it. The Islamic side is already culturist. To survive we must be culturist too.
Adopting a culturist perspective would cause great discomfort. It would require our media to report that pro-Hamas rallies are anti-western rallies. It would cause them to affirm our unpleasant conflict with Islam. Our media would have to rethink its impartiality on conflicts such as that in the Middle East. Disrupting the veneer of neutrality would force politicians to stand up for the West. Because these changes are uncomfortable, our media will not change until things get worse. But we can accelerate the transition by spreading awareness of culturism as an alternative to multiculturalism as they do.
Print
Email
