Sunday, November 25, 2007


His Grace is quite correct ...

The Most Rev. and Rt Hon. The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury has made the correct functional distinction between the British Empire and the current American hegemony.


I, for one, am very glad that Dr. Williams has chosen to speak-out in such a manner. We need to draw more distinctions between the British Empire, which I generally believe (in its later manifestation anyway ...) was a relatively benign and well-meaning hegemon - and the avaricious and self-interested American version that plagues us in the current day and age.

To the neo-fascist Right, I would point-out that Dr. Williams has strong words for Islam & Israel in addition to his well-considered position on the Iraq War. Read before you condemn. Assuming you can read ...

12 Comments:

At 11:42 pm , Blogger Sir Francis said...

His Grace's observations upon America are both apt and timely.

Sadly, a people who cleave to neither holiness nor law are hardly likely to heed the words of one of the West's prime embodiments of both.

 
At 5:39 am , Blogger Aeneas the Younger said...

Sir Isaac:

I welcome your return and apprectiate your comments. Your implied comments about cultural relativism and materialism is well-taken. We can have values and tolerance and inclusiveness if we choose to live the "golden rule." It is really as simple as that.

 
At 5:02 pm , Blogger Ice said...

Nice - You're actually posting this time around ;)

 
At 10:06 pm , Blogger Ryan said...

Depends on what you mean by "later manifestation"

1890's or 1950's ;)

 
At 1:16 pm , Blogger Thomas Jefferson said...

His Grace's flowing ensemble is to just die for!!!

 
At 8:45 pm , Blogger Ryan said...

ATY- I've just finished "Radical Tories" by Charles Taylor. Have you ever had a chance to read?

 
At 6:52 am , Blogger Aeneas the Younger said...

I read it years ago (and a few times over) and it remains in my library. To many people this is an unknown book.

To demonstrate how far the rot has set-in with the Americanisation of conservatism in Canada, you only have to refer to Taylor's late '70's reference to Joe Clark as a neoconservative!

This should indicate to all just how much things have changed in Canada since 1979.

I was raised a tory (am now 44) and am one by choice - but I have not been a party member since 1990. The CPC are not tories.

The men I knew as Senior and Retired Party Members - now long gone - would be disgusted by this crew.

 
At 12:18 pm , Blogger Ryan said...

Radical Tories - The book surprised me. Like Taylor, by the end, I considered myself a Conservative by his definition as well.

I'd never actually tied an aversion to the myth of unlimited progress to traditional conservative thought before. I dislike the attitude that all tradition must cease for society to truly progress. These Tories tended to be realistic idealists, in that they understood the need for change without abandoning tradition, something that is lacking in today's politics.

Though I'm still nominally a socialist or social democrat, I find many other people in my camp to have no fondness for tradition or communitarian values that surface in the radical tory tradition. Great book.

Though the new afterward by Rudyard Griffiths was completely inappropriate, and seemed like an attempt to undermine the whole book. Griffiths suggests that the Tory tradition is an important one to remember, but then continues by countering that Canadians are becoming proud of their heritage through our new military role on the world stage, as well as our globalized economic competitiveness. I don't know who asked him to do it, but it didn't even seem to me like he read the book, much less understood it.

 
At 11:20 am , Blogger Aeneas the Younger said...

I read Griffiths' forward in a newer edition in the Bookstore, and I agree with your criticism.

Go to Wikipedia and read the article on "Red Tory" (ism). I wrote most of it. That pretty much sums-up what conservatism in Canada used to mean and represent.

 
At 5:37 pm , Blogger Ryan said...

Yeah, isn't it a joke that Peter McKay and Scott Brison were supposedly Red Tories. It's interesting how the term now has come to mean neo-cons who think "gays are okay" or "don't cut social spending... too much."

In the book, I thought the interview with David Crombie was particularly good. His sort of populist communitarianism would probably be immensely popular today, especially in the larger cities feeling the crushing weight of urban sprawl.

 
At 6:52 pm , Blogger Aeneas the Younger said...

I lived in Toronto until I was 33. Crombie was our "tiny perfect Mayor" in the 1970's ...

 
At 9:14 am , Blogger Keir said...

Just found your site and want to express my gratitude at finding a like-minded voice.

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home