i mean yeah, we apparently do because otherwise literally nobody pays attention to the similar immeasurable cultural destruction that has been wrought by western cultures elsewhere (and in some...
Exemplary
Do we really need to play this game every time people have an outpouring of grief for something in "the West"?
i mean yeah, we apparently do because otherwise literally nobody pays attention to the similar immeasurable cultural destruction that has been wrought by western cultures elsewhere (and in some places continues to be wrought) directly and indirectly--which is kinda one of the points of the article. people are more than happy to drop a billion on rebuilding the notre dame without even thinking about it (even though many of these people refused to bankroll the renevations that would have made this less likely), but media and people as a whole don't acknowledge the comparable icons to the notre dame that western governments have damaged or destroyed pursuing wars in other countries (much less actively fundraise to rebuild or replace some of the cultural icons that have fallen at the hands of such conflicts) even when we're directly and unambiguously responsible for it. you would at least expect us to maybe care a bit more about similar events to the burning of the notre dame when we cause them to happen in other societies given how much support is given when such events happen in our backyard--but we as a collection of societies don't even have the decency to do that.
You two are just doing a more eloquent version of "nuh uh", "yuh huh" now, and haven't said anything of substance in several comments. Take it to PMs if you want to continue this.
You two are just doing a more eloquent version of "nuh uh", "yuh huh" now, and haven't said anything of substance in several comments. Take it to PMs if you want to continue this.
no, western governments basically did--debatably directly, certainly indirectly at least--cause the rise of ISIS. ISIS as it currently is started basically as a splinter of al-Qaeda in Iraq and...
The US and other western democracies left a huge power vacumn just waiting to be filled in the Iraq and Syria and you could make an argument that it directly led to ISIS filling in that gap and gaining prominence in 2014 / 2015.
no, western governments basically did--debatably directly, certainly indirectly at least--cause the rise of ISIS. ISIS as it currently is started basically as a splinter of al-Qaeda in Iraq and originally rose to power because the US government basically fucking ruined the country and propped up a regime which, while certainly less openly autocratic and brutal as saddam's, had literally none of the power over the country that saddam's regime did and was constantly fighting to not collapse. eventually, that regime basically "toppled" under the weight of the insurgency it was trying to keep a lid on (which happened to coincide with the arab spring, of course), and that was when ISIS really ballooned in power and came to control significant parts of the country and, later on, syria and other MENA nations (which it had been establishing groups in for years prior).
Maybe, but part of the reason Westerners care about Notre Dame (and things like it) is because they have personal experiences and memories of being there. It doesn't make sense to harp on someone...
i mean yeah, we apparently do because otherwise literally nobody pays attention to the similar immeasurable cultural destruction that has been wrought by western cultures elsewhere
Maybe, but part of the reason Westerners care about Notre Dame (and things like it) is because they have personal experiences and memories of being there. It doesn't make sense to harp on someone who physically went there and experienced it for not being equally upset about a mosque they've never been to and maybe haven't even heard of.
At some point this starts to sound like people trying to show off how worldly and educated they are and disguising it as moral preening. But moral preening isn't an attractive trait either, so it's really unclear to me what people are getting out of this emotionally.
I have some vivid memories of Notre Dame and I admired it greatly as an artistic and architectural feat. My wife, however, was raised Catholic and visiting it was one of her first international trips with her family as a child. She has concrete memories of the place and powerful emotions tied up in it. I have similarly powerful emotions tied up with my first visit to Hampi in India. It would be ridiculous for me to expect her to feel as strongly about Hampi as she does about Notre Dame and vice versa.
I can really sympathize with the plight of a White person trying to be woke in an online culture where nothing is ever good enough. They get told they're not allowed to participate too enthusiastically with other cultures lest they be engaged in cultural appropriation. But they're also not allowed to vocally or openly have feelings about their own cultures either? Even if they wear hair shirts and flagellate themselves endlessly they still get people telling them to stop expecting PoC to absolve them of accountability for their racism. There's a lot of "Here's why you're an asshole" and not a lot of "Here's what you should be doing."
The author here goes pretty far out of their way to soften their message and not tread over the feelings of people sad about Notre-Dame. Hell, the title even starts with "Cry for Notre-Dame,...
The author here goes pretty far out of their way to soften their message and not tread over the feelings of people sad about Notre-Dame. Hell, the title even starts with "Cry for Notre-Dame, sure," it is not only not shaming how anyone reacts to the loss, but also directly pointing at how it is not doing that to remove any ambiguity.
The only way to take this as a personal affront to you or anyone who cares about this tragedy is if the mere suggestion that the cultural artifacts of others also matter and maybe we should care about them offends you on its own. Is the suggestion that other things are worth caring about really that much of a pain?
I think the parent comment did not want to imply that, rather, it's the implication that other things have to be worth caring about personally, even if you actually don't. While it's quite a shame...
Is the suggestion that other things are worth caring about really that much of a pain to you?
I think the parent comment did not want to imply that, rather, it's the implication that other things have to be worth caring about personally, even if you actually don't.
While it's quite a shame when cultural artifacts in the middle west are destroyed, I have no connection to them, cultural or otherwise. It's halfway around the world from Europe.
Not everyone cares about all the cultural heritage and artifacts equally, they care about their own more and that is perfectly acceptable.
There's a whole lot of things I can't bring myself to care about on an emotional level, but I can't imagine getting defensive and taking it as if I'm being shamed when someone (especially someone...
There's a whole lot of things I can't bring myself to care about on an emotional level, but I can't imagine getting defensive and taking it as if I'm being shamed when someone (especially someone going out of the way to respect the thing I currently care about) suggests that I should care about another thing.
You know what, person handing out flyers on how the local aquarium is unethically treating one of their animals? I don't really care about your cause. Maybe on an intellectual level I do, but I don't feel a thing. We need to be calloused to parts of the world to keep our minds and hearts intact, but it's a mistake to be so comfortable in our callousness that we get mad at the suggestion that we let something through. I'm sorry to the guy handing out flyers that I can't care, and maybe if I have a chance someday I'll try to make myself care.
Because I should. I can't right now, but I should. We can live in that space, where we know there are ways to make ourselves better and know we should do them, even if we can only do so much.
I think the problem is that what you care about is a very deeply personal choice. If someone else says you should care about X, especially if they use some other thing you care about as leverage,...
but I can't imagine getting defensive and taking it as if I'm being shamed when someone suggests that I should care about another thing.
I think the problem is that what you care about is a very deeply personal choice. If someone else says you should care about X, especially if they use some other thing you care about as leverage, it feels like they try to make you think that your personal choice is wrong. People tend to defend their personal choices, even from minor change, if they feel like they're being forced to, even if that is not true.
That also tops of that the article attempts to guilt-trip the reader by implying islamophobia or worse if you do not care, which likely strengthens the feeling that the reader is being pressured into changing personal choices for being morally wrong. If the reader does not agree that it was morally wrong (because they don't think it's islamophobia, or it's that important or any other reason), then it's even moreso perceived as an attack on their personality.
I'm sure that we all should care about heritage and history being destroyed anywhere in the world, but the reality is that Notre Dame probably got a minor 4-line report in an arabic newspaper right next to the full page headline that some local religious site was destroyed, while the same site got a 4-line report in my newspaper right next to the full page headline that Notre Dame burned.
So on top of people feeling attacked for suggesting that not caring about 4-liners in the newspaper is wrong, they don't see a reason why the 4-liner is as important as the full page headliner.
The Twin Towers are misplaced there. It's a far more devastating tragedy compared to the others. I'm certain it made the news in most of the world and it is possible maybe even likely that the...
The Twin Towers are misplaced there. It's a far more devastating tragedy compared to the others. I'm certain it made the news in most of the world and it is possible maybe even likely that the average Chinese who knew about it was concerned.
The issue with Notre Dame is completely different. A lot of people outside Europe and North America don't know and to some extent I guess they don't care.
I mean, I don't think anyone outside the North-American+European circle really cared about Notre Dame. There is plenty of history going up in flames outside the circle and we don't care and there...
I mean, I don't think anyone outside the North-American+European circle really cared about Notre Dame. There is plenty of history going up in flames outside the circle and we don't care and there is plenty of history going up in flames inside it and everyone outside it doesn't care.
Like, if my local church burns down, likely nobody outside the district will even care, is that wrong? And if a small church in another state like Cologne burns down, I don't really care either. Same principle, more scale.
That is very short sighted. It has made the news here in Turkey. Both the govenrment and the new mayor of Istanbul offered their condolences. These artifacts belong more to the humanity than they...
I mean, I don't think anyone outside the North-American+European circle really cared about Notre Dame.
That is very short sighted. It has made the news here in Turkey. Both the govenrment and the new mayor of Istanbul offered their condolences. These artifacts belong more to the humanity than they belong to their originators; they are a testament to the human progress.
I don't believe the entirety of the "West" was mourning the event (most possibly most people were sorry for a moment and that is it) nor that the rest of the world largely ignored it (even if it was not mich different from the hypothetical reaction that I said I thought most "westerners" had).
This black and white view of the world is ill-founded.
Turkey is to some extend still part of the European circle (and even on the european continent to some extend). I'm not painting the world in black and white here, hence "really", there is...
Turkey is to some extend still part of the European circle (and even on the european continent to some extend).
I'm not painting the world in black and white here, hence "really", there is probably plenty of people outside who cared anyway, and I made no statement of how long/much people on the inside cared. I'm making a statement that outside the circle, a lot less people care compared to the inside.
These artifacts belong more to the humanity than they belong to their originators; they are a testament to the human progress.
That depends on how you look at it, claiming it a testament of human progress is a bit... western. There is plenty of things I would rather categorize as testament to human progress.
I don't think it's realistic to expect people to afford the same emotional capital towards events directly related to a foreign culture as they do for events impacting their own personal history...
I don't think it's realistic to expect people to afford the same emotional capital towards events directly related to a foreign culture as they do for events impacting their own personal history and culture. I certainly don't expect someone in Japan to feel the same way about the Notre Dame fire as they would about Kiyomizu-dera if it suffered a similar tragedy.
i mean yeah, we apparently do because otherwise literally nobody pays attention to the similar immeasurable cultural destruction that has been wrought by western cultures elsewhere (and in some places continues to be wrought) directly and indirectly--which is kinda one of the points of the article. people are more than happy to drop a billion on rebuilding the notre dame without even thinking about it (even though many of these people refused to bankroll the renevations that would have made this less likely), but media and people as a whole don't acknowledge the comparable icons to the notre dame that western governments have damaged or destroyed pursuing wars in other countries (much less actively fundraise to rebuild or replace some of the cultural icons that have fallen at the hands of such conflicts) even when we're directly and unambiguously responsible for it. you would at least expect us to maybe care a bit more about similar events to the burning of the notre dame when we cause them to happen in other societies given how much support is given when such events happen in our backyard--but we as a collection of societies don't even have the decency to do that.
You two are just doing a more eloquent version of "nuh uh", "yuh huh" now, and haven't said anything of substance in several comments. Take it to PMs if you want to continue this.
no, western governments basically did--debatably directly, certainly indirectly at least--cause the rise of ISIS. ISIS as it currently is started basically as a splinter of al-Qaeda in Iraq and originally rose to power because the US government basically fucking ruined the country and propped up a regime which, while certainly less openly autocratic and brutal as saddam's, had literally none of the power over the country that saddam's regime did and was constantly fighting to not collapse. eventually, that regime basically "toppled" under the weight of the insurgency it was trying to keep a lid on (which happened to coincide with the arab spring, of course), and that was when ISIS really ballooned in power and came to control significant parts of the country and, later on, syria and other MENA nations (which it had been establishing groups in for years prior).
Maybe, but part of the reason Westerners care about Notre Dame (and things like it) is because they have personal experiences and memories of being there. It doesn't make sense to harp on someone who physically went there and experienced it for not being equally upset about a mosque they've never been to and maybe haven't even heard of.
At some point this starts to sound like people trying to show off how worldly and educated they are and disguising it as moral preening. But moral preening isn't an attractive trait either, so it's really unclear to me what people are getting out of this emotionally.
I have some vivid memories of Notre Dame and I admired it greatly as an artistic and architectural feat. My wife, however, was raised Catholic and visiting it was one of her first international trips with her family as a child. She has concrete memories of the place and powerful emotions tied up in it. I have similarly powerful emotions tied up with my first visit to Hampi in India. It would be ridiculous for me to expect her to feel as strongly about Hampi as she does about Notre Dame and vice versa.
I can really sympathize with the plight of a White person trying to be woke in an online culture where nothing is ever good enough. They get told they're not allowed to participate too enthusiastically with other cultures lest they be engaged in cultural appropriation. But they're also not allowed to vocally or openly have feelings about their own cultures either? Even if they wear hair shirts and flagellate themselves endlessly they still get people telling them to stop expecting PoC to absolve them of accountability for their racism. There's a lot of "Here's why you're an asshole" and not a lot of "Here's what you should be doing."
The author here goes pretty far out of their way to soften their message and not tread over the feelings of people sad about Notre-Dame. Hell, the title even starts with "Cry for Notre-Dame, sure," it is not only not shaming how anyone reacts to the loss, but also directly pointing at how it is not doing that to remove any ambiguity.
The only way to take this as a personal affront to you or anyone who cares about this tragedy is if the mere suggestion that the cultural artifacts of others also matter and maybe we should care about them offends you on its own. Is the suggestion that other things are worth caring about really that much of a pain?
I think the parent comment did not want to imply that, rather, it's the implication that other things have to be worth caring about personally, even if you actually don't.
While it's quite a shame when cultural artifacts in the middle west are destroyed, I have no connection to them, cultural or otherwise. It's halfway around the world from Europe.
Not everyone cares about all the cultural heritage and artifacts equally, they care about their own more and that is perfectly acceptable.
There's a whole lot of things I can't bring myself to care about on an emotional level, but I can't imagine getting defensive and taking it as if I'm being shamed when someone (especially someone going out of the way to respect the thing I currently care about) suggests that I should care about another thing.
You know what, person handing out flyers on how the local aquarium is unethically treating one of their animals? I don't really care about your cause. Maybe on an intellectual level I do, but I don't feel a thing. We need to be calloused to parts of the world to keep our minds and hearts intact, but it's a mistake to be so comfortable in our callousness that we get mad at the suggestion that we let something through. I'm sorry to the guy handing out flyers that I can't care, and maybe if I have a chance someday I'll try to make myself care.
Because I should. I can't right now, but I should. We can live in that space, where we know there are ways to make ourselves better and know we should do them, even if we can only do so much.
I think the problem is that what you care about is a very deeply personal choice. If someone else says you should care about X, especially if they use some other thing you care about as leverage, it feels like they try to make you think that your personal choice is wrong. People tend to defend their personal choices, even from minor change, if they feel like they're being forced to, even if that is not true.
That also tops of that the article attempts to guilt-trip the reader by implying islamophobia or worse if you do not care, which likely strengthens the feeling that the reader is being pressured into changing personal choices for being morally wrong. If the reader does not agree that it was morally wrong (because they don't think it's islamophobia, or it's that important or any other reason), then it's even moreso perceived as an attack on their personality.
I'm sure that we all should care about heritage and history being destroyed anywhere in the world, but the reality is that Notre Dame probably got a minor 4-line report in an arabic newspaper right next to the full page headline that some local religious site was destroyed, while the same site got a 4-line report in my newspaper right next to the full page headline that Notre Dame burned.
So on top of people feeling attacked for suggesting that not caring about 4-liners in the newspaper is wrong, they don't see a reason why the 4-liner is as important as the full page headliner.
The Twin Towers are misplaced there. It's a far more devastating tragedy compared to the others. I'm certain it made the news in most of the world and it is possible maybe even likely that the average Chinese who knew about it was concerned.
The issue with Notre Dame is completely different. A lot of people outside Europe and North America don't know and to some extent I guess they don't care.
My god, do I agree with you.
I mean, I don't think anyone outside the North-American+European circle really cared about Notre Dame. There is plenty of history going up in flames outside the circle and we don't care and there is plenty of history going up in flames inside it and everyone outside it doesn't care.
Like, if my local church burns down, likely nobody outside the district will even care, is that wrong? And if a small church in another state like Cologne burns down, I don't really care either. Same principle, more scale.
That is very short sighted. It has made the news here in Turkey. Both the govenrment and the new mayor of Istanbul offered their condolences. These artifacts belong more to the humanity than they belong to their originators; they are a testament to the human progress.
I don't believe the entirety of the "West" was mourning the event (most possibly most people were sorry for a moment and that is it) nor that the rest of the world largely ignored it (even if it was not mich different from the hypothetical reaction that I said I thought most "westerners" had).
This black and white view of the world is ill-founded.
Turkey is to some extend still part of the European circle (and even on the european continent to some extend).
I'm not painting the world in black and white here, hence "really", there is probably plenty of people outside who cared anyway, and I made no statement of how long/much people on the inside cared. I'm making a statement that outside the circle, a lot less people care compared to the inside.
That depends on how you look at it, claiming it a testament of human progress is a bit... western. There is plenty of things I would rather categorize as testament to human progress.
No takebacksies, now they finally get to join the EU!
Europe != EU.
Turkey: the country without continent. It is placed in Asia and Europe, whichever one pleases the speaker.
I don't think it's realistic to expect people to afford the same emotional capital towards events directly related to a foreign culture as they do for events impacting their own personal history and culture. I certainly don't expect someone in Japan to feel the same way about the Notre Dame fire as they would about Kiyomizu-dera if it suffered a similar tragedy.