The search for the exception seems to typify the way in which many Westerners approach the ‘Other.’
In an interesting piece here, Tom Kratman writes about the Kurds, based on his experiences with them.
Kratman relates his first experience of the Kurds when he was in the Middle East in 1990, at the time of the first Gulf War. He writes of the less-than-favorable reputation of the Kurds amongst the other peoples of that area, and he learns of how that reputation is not ‘bias’ but based in reality. Yes, despite the egalitarian multicult propaganda saying that ‘we’re really all the same under the skin, we all bleed red,’ etc., there are people who have bad cultures. And where do cultures come from? Cultures reflect the people whose collective traits create the culture.
As American military leaders decided the Kurds would be useful allies, they wanted to frame them in a favorable light, and show them as gallant, honorable people in contrast to the designated ‘bad guys’ of the Middle East. But Kratman decides that
“..it might be better for the United States, before pinning too much hope and faith on the Kurds, to understand that they’re military imbeciles with an unearned and undeserved reputation, that their culture is barbaric, they their one talent seems to be propagandizing and manipulating liberal Western opinion, which is eager to be manipulated, anyway, that any kids who die usually do so because of their own neglect of those kids, that they have no sense of gratitude for any help you give them, that they treat women like donkeys, and that they place zero value on the lives of those who try to help them. Why we, or anyone, would place our faith and trust in them…well, it eludes me.”
The obvious reason why our military would place faith and trust in them is the hope that they would prove to be useful to us and to our aims in the Middle East. Yet I can’t help but think that even by 1990, most of those promoted to high rank in our military were politically correct, on board with the Agenda. I think most of them today, certainly, are dedicated egalitarians (women in combat, the co-ed military, promoting women, gays, ‘people of color) and one-worldists, multiculturalists. And like just about everyone in Western countries, they seem to have a deep-seated need to find wonderful exceptions, Others who defy the so-called ‘stereotypes.’ Trouble is, stereotypes almost always have a basis in fact, and are grounded in reality. Peoples, groups of people, acquire a certain reputation for very real reasons.
Christians should recognize this passage from the King James Bible, Titus 1:12
“One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said , The Cretans are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.”
Paul the Apostle was stereotyping. Imagine that. No, he was reporting what was said, and verifying it based on his observation.
Just as individuals vary in character so do groups of people. Yet we are compelled to pretend everybody is ‘basically good’ or at least equal in every respect. And since our country is being de-Americanized and multiculturalized, we have to pretend that any culture is compatible with our own.
So why do the Kurds matter to us? For one thing, because in their strange zeal to ”reward” our Kurdish allies, our government and the refugee resettlement profiteers are establishing colonies of Kurds in this country. Nashville, Tennessee is the site of one such colony, apparently the largest — so far.
It has become some kind of accepted tradition now, this idea that if some group of people becomes an ‘ally’ in one of our wars, regardless of their motives in doing so, we automatically owe them the right to resettle here, and to be supported, if only for a time, by taxpayers. This was the pattern with the Southeast Asian Hmong people who were resettled in various places after the Vietnam War. Though the Hmong have not always been the ‘model minority’ per the Asian stereotype, they have their defenders. Even the supposedly conservative World Net Daily tells us of the ‘plight’ of the Hmong, appealing to our sympathy.
Should the Hmong, or the Kurds, or the Iraqi interpreters who ‘helped’ us automatically gain admittance to our country, and ultimately citzenship? The softer-hearted among us will say ”yes”, unhestitatingly, but the result of our sympathetic approach is a further fracturing and weakening of our society. Because we must ‘host’ Islam and other religions which oppose Christianity, our rights to public freedom of worship are eroded, and being lost. And if some of the ‘refugees’ turn out to be radicals, militants, anti-American, or just criminal, as with Chai Vang, the Hmong murderer, should we not stop to consider what is good for us? The good of our own people should absolutely come first, before our hearts bleed for the rest of the world. We have legitimate interests of our own.
In this insane pretense that we’re all the same, all ‘blank slates’ to be inscribed with some kind of ”universal human values”, our well-being has been seriously undermined as we look to save the world. We are ‘saving the world’ at the expense of our own posterity. And it’s all based on mistaken notions about human nature and human malleability.
And it does seem that Westerners have this peculiar deep-seated need to find “Others” to like, Others with whom we can sympathize, and Others in need of our help and assistance. In doing that we put on rose-colored glasses and try to see good in everyone. But not all cultures are good, and cultures which are corrupt in some way tend to produce individuals who behave badly, or at least don’t behave in accordance with our ideas of good.