Political Theory

Re: Was A.J Nock a racist?

Twirlcan — Mon, 19 May 2008 14:25:20 GMT

France has interesting food. But Denmark and Norway? The food is good but not what I would call "interesting". In fact Norway could be accused of having food described as interesting when you are trying to find a polite way of saying "I really hate this" (google Lutefisk). I like Danish and Norwiegan food and I make about the best Rommegrot in the US, but I don't expect people to like it.

Good quote though from a well bred Anglo-Saxon American who prefers the food of Denmark, Norway and France.

Re: Was A.J Nock a racist?

majevska — Fri, 16 May 2008 07:04:42 GMT

on page 144: "Where I found the most interesting food, as in the Low Countries, Denmark, France, Norway, there I found the soundest idea of what civilisation means, and the clearest understanding of the discipline necessary to produce it. On the other hand, where I found the dullest appreciation of food, as in America and the British Isles, there I found the idea of civilisation standing at the lowest level, and there also by consequence I found its discipline the most persistently disparaged and disallowed. The contrast gave me a lively notion of what existence would be like if the Anglo-American conception of civilisation should prevail in the world, as it then seemed likely to do, and now seems even likelier."

Re: Was A.J Nock a racist?

Twirlcan — Fri, 16 May 2008 04:40:34 GMT

What does Anglo Saxon mean or what does Nock mean by Anglo Saxon?

That is a tough one. It meant something different before the Battle of Hastings and then after the Battle of Hastings. Anglo Saxon before the battle of Hastings was a term used by the former King of Mercia ...I think it was Aethelbald when he declared himself king of Britain by proclaiming to rule the Angles and Saxons. So the Kings between Aethelred and Harold Godwinson used the term to mean the occupants of England. After the Norman invasion the term was most often used to refer to the non-Normans in England since the Norman nobles were an occupying force for a number of years.

I think it was Henry I that married a royal Anglo Saxon and then merged Norman and Saxon royalty. After that the line of William the Conqueror died off and merged into the French/Norman/Saxon line of Plantegenet. Sometime after that the people were refered to as English...until around 1400 AD when English...the language became known as English and then it reverted back again to describing the people of England as Anglo Saxon or English...depending on who was writing.

Pardon my tedious response but you can see that definitions change from year to year. Sometimes fast and sometimes slowly.

A more enlightening question would be: What do you think Nock meant by "Anglo Saxon Breed" and what makes you think that? What historical comparisons are there where "Anglo Saxon" and "Breed" when combined became a Racist Peanut Butter cup?

Re: Was A.J Nock a racist?

Geoffrey Allan Plauche — Wed, 14 May 2008 01:40:12 GMT

LUCHAC:

To complete my previous comment, here is a larger piece of the idea that contains the phrase, maybe it will give you a better idea:

"The odd thing about our fortuitous aggregation of talent was
that it had no root in any established tradition. None of it came
of any Continental stock where music was a fixed and necessary
part of life. These people were all of the Anglo-Saxon breed,
some New Englanders, some "York State Yankees," some from
the Western Reserve; and their only traditional music was the
ensemble of the bucksaw, the anvil and the flail."

In this context, how can you mantain that when praising these people, the note of 'Anglo-Saxon breed' refers to culture or upbringing? To be honest, I can substitute 'breed' with 'upbringing' in all his other references and it still makes sense, but not in this one, as he directly dismisses a 'distinguishable' culture. What, then, does he mean by 'Anglo-Saxon'? Is it not race? The color of skin? If so, why was it relevant, anyway?

Any thoughts?

I need to read the book. Could you give a page number? I need to see the broader context the paragraph is embedded in. He seems to be talking solely about some "fortuitous aggregation of talent" in this paragraph, but that doesn't mean every time he uses the term breed or breeding he's limiting the usage to this.

Re: Was A.J Nock a racist?

Geoffrey Allan Plauche — Wed, 14 May 2008 01:22:59 GMT

LUCHAC:

Ok, I think you have said something that may lead to a reasonable conclusion. Maybe we can simply set aside whether 'ethnocentrism' is a form of racism or whether it is good or bad, or if my rejection of it in any way implies some form of cultural relativism, which I think it doesn't. Let's focus on what he meant, then, by Anglo-Saxon breeding, according to you.

Can you please expand on what you mean by Anglo-Saxon culture? Because I was under the impression that he actually uses the expression to praise the people he is referring to precisely because they had no culture, that is, they were not 'folks'.

I'm not sure. I haven't gotten around to reading Memoirs yet, but I think it's pretty clear that he doesn't mean 'folks' have culture and his 'people' don't. The difference, rather, seems to be that 'folks' have low culture, bad manners, a focus on the wrong things in life, etc. Folks are common, in the sense of commoner. Folks also has the connotations of simple and unsophisticated. So, again, this gets back to his aristocratic views on culture.

Re: Was A.J Nock a racist?

LUCHAC — Wed, 14 May 2008 01:21:38 GMT

To complete my previous comment, here is a larger piece of the idea that contains the phrase, maybe it will give you a better idea:

"The odd thing about our fortuitous aggregation of talent was
that it had no root in any established tradition. None of it came
of any Continental stock where music was a fixed and necessary
part of life. These people were all of the Anglo-Saxon breed,
some New Englanders, some "York State Yankees," some from
the Western Reserve; and their only traditional music was the
ensemble of the bucksaw, the anvil and the flail."

In this context, how can you mantain that when praising these people, the note of 'Anglo-Saxon breed' refers to culture or upbringing? To be honest, I can substitute 'breed' with 'upbringing' in all his other references and it still makes sense, but not in this one, as he directly dismisses a 'distinguishable' culture. What, then, does he mean by 'Anglo-Saxon'? Is it not race? The color of skin? If so, why was it relevant, anyway?

Any thoughts?

Re: Was A.J Nock a racist?

LUCHAC — Wed, 14 May 2008 00:39:57 GMT

Ok, I think you have said something that may lead to a reasonable conclusion. Maybe we can simply set aside whether 'ethnocentrism' is a form of racism or whether it is good or bad, or if my rejection of it in any way implies some form of cultural relativism, which I think it doesn't. Let's focus on what he meant, then, by Anglo-Saxon breeding, according to you.

Can you please expand on what you mean by Anglo-Saxon culture? Because I was under the impression that he actually uses the expression to praise the people he is referring to precisely because they had no culture, that is, they were not 'folks'.

Re: Was A.J Nock a racist?

Geoffrey Allan Plauche — Tue, 13 May 2008 23:46:55 GMT

LUCHAC:
The part that I find more difficult to reconcile, however, and I admit I want to, is that lame attempt from some people here to call racism with a more fancy name: 'ethnocentrism', which funny enough the same 'libertarians' would undoubtedly criticize when taken to the scale of NATIONALISM or PATRIOTISM or even ZIONISM, even in the absence of the state.

You talk as if ethnocentrism is just a form of racism, but ethnocentrism is more cultural. Is there something wrong with preferring one culture over others? They aren't all equally good/bad.

LUCHAC:
So, the fact that Nock doesn't go out of his way to backlash on the 'blacks', for example, means nothing to answer the question of what type of person he was and the principles that he stood by if he actually thought of the Anglo-Saxon a superior 'breed'.

What type of person was he? Well, in the realm of politics he was a libertarian and, I believe, an anarchist.

Re: Was A.J Nock a racist?

Jon Irenicus — Tue, 13 May 2008 23:46:08 GMT

Could you explain why it is wrong to favour one on account of their breeding? This is an unchallenged premise that reigns these days, as if it is some self-evident axiom. It is a matter of preference, and I fail to see why if Nock held such a preference it should be any different, unless he wished to inject coercion into it - which he didn't.

BTW, Anglo-saxon is also a cultural grouping, not just an ethnicity, hence one can speak of Anglo-saxon culture and possibly breeding without implying anything racial.

-Jon

Re: Was A.J Nock a racist?

LUCHAC — Tue, 13 May 2008 23:39:40 GMT

Well, I said before that I had no problem in considering some of Nock's references to 'breeding' as upbringing. I think it actually makes sense.

The part that I find more difficult to reconcile, however, and I admit I want to, is that lame attempt from some people here to call racism with a more fancy name: 'ethnocentrism', which funny enough the same 'libertarians' would undoubtedly criticize when taken to the scale of NATIONALISM or PATRIOTISM or even ZIONISM, even in the absence of the state.

Regardless of how imprecise some of you might think the term 'racism' is, I think it actually stands very clear that it is not simply discriminating against a particular group of people on the basis of race, but also in favor of it. So, the fact that Nock doesn't go out of his way to backlash on the 'blacks', for example, means nothing to answer the question of what type of person he was and the principles that he stood by if he actually thought of the Anglo-Saxon a superior 'breed'.

Nock clearly refers to 'Anglo-Saxon breeding', what does it mean exactly? And he didn't mean simply the difference between his father's English ancestry and his mother's French origins, which he describes at length in the first or second chapter. Here, he means something else, and I admit that because of his complex writing, I can not really identify.

By the way, I think it is very anti-intellectual to label someone 'anti-intellectual' simply because he/she does not share one's opinion.

Thanks.

Re: Was A.J Nock a racist?

Byzantine — Tue, 13 May 2008 18:31:59 GMT

Non Angli, sed angeli.

Re: Was A.J Nock a racist?

Niccolò — Tue, 13 May 2008 17:15:01 GMT

SouthernHero:

No matter the time period, there is nothing wrong with being proud of who you are and where you came from, especially when you've got alot to be proud of (i.e. Nock's Anglo Saxon blood).

Yes, the finest stock of blood.

Re: Was A.J Nock a racist?

Niccolò — Tue, 13 May 2008 17:12:52 GMT

jtucker:

I don't know why we should continue to have to belabor this point but it is obvious to anyone with deeper reading that books written in the last 10 years that Nock is NOT speaking in code. He is speaking colloquially about one's heritage and background and all that goes with it. Ths is casual talk of the sort that was common once upon a time, the way everyone spoke without any consciousness of genetics or race or whatever. It's ridiculous. The idea that he would be hammered for this strikes me as anti-intellectual and reactionary.

So wait... Nock wasn't the 106th Grand Klansmen of the Illuminati?

I'm in the wrong web-site...

Re: Was A.J Nock a racist?

SouthernHero — Tue, 13 May 2008 14:48:56 GMT

No matter the time period, there is nothing wrong with being proud of who you are and where you came from, especially when you've got alot to be proud of (i.e. Nock's Anglo Saxon blood).

Re: Was A.J Nock a racist?

ThorsMitersaw — Mon, 12 May 2008 22:18:02 GMT

breed and breeding are not meant to convey what the poster means to convey