Go back to previous topic
Forum nameOkay Activist Archives
Topic subjectRE: angel cake vs. devil's food
Topic URLhttp://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=22&topic_id=33408&mesg_id=33583
33583, RE: angel cake vs. devil's food
Posted by The Damaja, Thu Dec-22-05 12:21 PM
Well, now you're examinig history (and LOTR) for the mechanisms of racism and fascism which is what I recommend. I could argue some of the points like Britain's reason for entering the war and resisting fascism (for instance there's the economic reality vs. what the PEOPLE actually believe, if by propoganda) but that is out of the scope of this argument

people obviously single out LOTR because they think it's overtly pro-racist (and not even just 'racist by default'). THAT is what I disagree with. You've got to accept a text on its own terms, and an author on his own terms, and I think in this case both take steps to counter racist ideas. Not examine them, just counter them or circumvent them.

> I never said that Tolken was a fascist. I think European
>history is far more complex than that. If you want to talk
>purely about racism, then the problem is far worse in the
>western hemisphere because racism was largely created by
>slavery not by intellectuals.
>If you read about fascism and understand it, it’s not hard to
>see why it had its appeal in Europe. Each country’s populace
>has its reasons for choosing fascism: Germany because of WWI
>and the Great Depression of 1929, Spain because of the decline
>of the country’s prestige, wealth and power and the loss in
>the War of 1898. Probably the best explanation why England
>didn’t become fascist is that the country did not have serious
>problems moving to capitalism or industrializing. As the
>current of industrialization and capitalism moved from west to
>east from Europe finally to China the process became more
>difficult, bloodier, more authoritarian, and the time period
>allotted for industrialization and the move to capitalism
>became more condensed. This is represented in increased death
>tolls in the process from west to east. England had a
>relatively bloodless transfer to capitalism and industrialism,
>France more bloody and authoritarian, Germany, and Russia and
>China much bloodier, and more authoritarian.
>This doesn’t mean that the ideas that fueled fascism in the
>rest of Europe did not exist in England because in fact they
>did. Hegel and Pareto were two key philosophers in the fascist
>canon, and they were very popular in England. However, in
>England and France, fascism did not have quite the appeal that
>it did in the rest of Europe. You say that England was
>battling fascism, but I disagree with that statement. By 1914,
>Germany was economically a more productive nation than
>England, and wanted colonies like the other European powers.
>Remember Germany hosted the Berlin Conference to divide up
>Africa. England with the greatest empire during the 19th
>century fought a war for power and empire not good versus
>evil. “The rock” in England during WWII Winston Churchill was
>the very man who came up with the policy that he himself
>called “social imperialism” in which the state would silence
>internal concerns with imperialism abroad. That doesn’t sound
>much different from the fascist’s foreign policy to me.