The news lately has seen a number of volatile developments in Asia. We have read about the increased tensions in Korea, the spreading influence of Communist China, the unrest in Thailand, the terrible situation in Nepal and the ongoing troubles with Afghanistan, Pakistan and India and so on and so forth. There are a myriad of reasons for this in each individual case, however, overall I cannot help but lament the westernization of Asia. This does not mean that I (like many) am blaming “the West” for all the problems of modern Asia and it is certainly not a swipe at western civilization for those whom I hold to be at fault for this are enemies of western as well as eastern civilization -they are the enemies of civilization period. It only happens that the vile disease now infecting the Far East came from the west.
When I look at how western civilization dealt with the people of the east there are of course good and bad items to consider. However, for all we hear about the triumphalism and xenophobia of traditional western culture from modern-day liberals it was this same culture in Europe that was far more tolerant of traditional Asian culture than that of today. When the British took over India they did (justly) get rid of a number of unsavory groups and practices that were part of Indian culture. However, they kept the traditional local princes in place. When the French colonized Viet Nam there is much to criticize them for but they kept the local monarch in place, traditional values and styles and so on did not change. Yet, when the liberal revolutionary forces came to Asia, whether by Soviet puppets in Mongolia or leftist indoctrinated Chinese workers from France, they started a culture war against everything that had defined Asia for all her previous thousands of years of history.
One of the earliest examples was one of the worst and that was the communist takeover of Mongolia where the traditional culture and religion in particular was almost completely wiped out. It happened on the largest scale in China but just as fiercely in Indochina and other countries. We still see the sharp divide most vividly in Korea where the traditional form of government was pushed aside as north and south fought each other ferociously over which western form of republicanism would prevail in Korea, whether they would be capitalist or communist. Who would have ever imagined that half of Korea, Vietnam and even the massive “Middle Kingdom” of China, after thousands of years of history with their own systems of government, their own Confucian culture, would all be ruled by an ideology dreamed up by an anti-Semitic German Jew writing in London in the 19th Century?
What seems even more incredible is that most of these movements tried to wrap themselves in the cloak of nationalism. Both sides of the civil wars in places like China and Vietnam did this, despite the fact that they had overthrown their own traditional systems and embraced some form of government that was of foreign design and had absolutely no history in their own countries. In many ways they displayed more bigotry against their own culture than did the foreign imperialists who had ruled before them. Their leaders were almost invariably foreign-trained and in some cases spent most of their lives in the west. This was certainly the case with men like Sun Yat-sen and Ho Chi Minh. Contrast the cases in their countries during the “colonial period” when Great Britain lent assistance to the Qing Emperor in putting down the Taiping Rebellion or how even the French republic maintained the Vietnamese Emperors as nominal rulers and after 1948 even supported the return of the last Emperor who had been forced off the throne by the communists.
I reiterate that this is not then a matter of east vs. west or one culture against another. Western monarchists are only too aware of how their own culture has been sabotaged, suppressed and how the revolutionaries have and are using every means at their disposal to stamp it out. Yet, western monarchists (who are not bigots or Eurocentric) often have a hard time getting very emotionally involved in events on the other side of the world. This is for understandable reasons; the cultures are so different, the religions are very different and so on. However, I would ask western monarchists to keep in mind the anguish, the outrage and the frustration at how western traditions are being stamped on and then consider how you would feel if this revolutionary movement were something of totally foreign origin that had been imposed on you and poisoned the minds of your people. This is why traditional monarchists of all backgrounds should be able to understand and sympathize with each other and stand together in a united front against the plague that is out to destroy us all. I feel that I understand the sentiment very well and that is why I remain…The Mad Monarchist.
When I look at how western civilization dealt with the people of the east there are of course good and bad items to consider. However, for all we hear about the triumphalism and xenophobia of traditional western culture from modern-day liberals it was this same culture in Europe that was far more tolerant of traditional Asian culture than that of today. When the British took over India they did (justly) get rid of a number of unsavory groups and practices that were part of Indian culture. However, they kept the traditional local princes in place. When the French colonized Viet Nam there is much to criticize them for but they kept the local monarch in place, traditional values and styles and so on did not change. Yet, when the liberal revolutionary forces came to Asia, whether by Soviet puppets in Mongolia or leftist indoctrinated Chinese workers from France, they started a culture war against everything that had defined Asia for all her previous thousands of years of history.
One of the earliest examples was one of the worst and that was the communist takeover of Mongolia where the traditional culture and religion in particular was almost completely wiped out. It happened on the largest scale in China but just as fiercely in Indochina and other countries. We still see the sharp divide most vividly in Korea where the traditional form of government was pushed aside as north and south fought each other ferociously over which western form of republicanism would prevail in Korea, whether they would be capitalist or communist. Who would have ever imagined that half of Korea, Vietnam and even the massive “Middle Kingdom” of China, after thousands of years of history with their own systems of government, their own Confucian culture, would all be ruled by an ideology dreamed up by an anti-Semitic German Jew writing in London in the 19th Century?
What seems even more incredible is that most of these movements tried to wrap themselves in the cloak of nationalism. Both sides of the civil wars in places like China and Vietnam did this, despite the fact that they had overthrown their own traditional systems and embraced some form of government that was of foreign design and had absolutely no history in their own countries. In many ways they displayed more bigotry against their own culture than did the foreign imperialists who had ruled before them. Their leaders were almost invariably foreign-trained and in some cases spent most of their lives in the west. This was certainly the case with men like Sun Yat-sen and Ho Chi Minh. Contrast the cases in their countries during the “colonial period” when Great Britain lent assistance to the Qing Emperor in putting down the Taiping Rebellion or how even the French republic maintained the Vietnamese Emperors as nominal rulers and after 1948 even supported the return of the last Emperor who had been forced off the throne by the communists.
I reiterate that this is not then a matter of east vs. west or one culture against another. Western monarchists are only too aware of how their own culture has been sabotaged, suppressed and how the revolutionaries have and are using every means at their disposal to stamp it out. Yet, western monarchists (who are not bigots or Eurocentric) often have a hard time getting very emotionally involved in events on the other side of the world. This is for understandable reasons; the cultures are so different, the religions are very different and so on. However, I would ask western monarchists to keep in mind the anguish, the outrage and the frustration at how western traditions are being stamped on and then consider how you would feel if this revolutionary movement were something of totally foreign origin that had been imposed on you and poisoned the minds of your people. This is why traditional monarchists of all backgrounds should be able to understand and sympathize with each other and stand together in a united front against the plague that is out to destroy us all. I feel that I understand the sentiment very well and that is why I remain…The Mad Monarchist.
I had a much longer post considering a few of the examples presented in your article, but I managed to lose it. There is only one word appropriate to this situation - bugger!
ReplyDeleteAnyway, what I basically started with was pointing out that Korean unification is already going to be exceedingly difficult in a partisan political environment present in republics, and the task of harmonisation would be made much easier by a monarchy.
With regards to the Chinese, their rule will become ever more challenging as the Han Chinese continue their cultural and ethnic cleansing of China. The selection of the Dalai Lama's successor will surely only further alienate the Tibetans, even if he is all that China can dream of, which is to say the perfect puppet. And so it will go with China's other minorities.
And ultimately, republican blandness will ultimately work against it. What differentiates one president from another in terms of title, personality and ceremony? Not very much actually - they are all presidents or premiers (as opposed to king, emperor, sultan, emir, prince, grand duke, and many more besides, not to mention their feminine forms); they all need a saleable personality, and thus are generally all cookie-cutter copies of each other (again unlike monarchs, who are as individual as the rest of us); and all have swearing in ceremonies that basically demand the same thing, and such oaths generally do very little to restrain such behaviour (unlike coronations, which also have the advantage of being rarer).
Ultimately, as Asia's star rises, they nations of Asia will wish to differentiate themselves more, and the blandness of republics will eventually work to the detriment of that system.
Further adding to this detrimental development is the desire of people to identify with a homeland, even as the idea of the nation is attacked and derided at every opportunity by the patrician class. Republics can only do so much, and it is only by virtue of the national myths of revolution and the Constitution that America has managed to last so long. Republics inherently destroy themselves by promoting division and disunity, whereas monarchies naturally provide a focus for unity and identity.
The more we publicise this in the West, the more it might actually be considered. I wrote a poem on the matter (can be found here) which, while simple and direct, states this in no uncertain terms.
And remember this axiom: Divide and conquer - a sound motto. Unite and lead - a better one.
Don't know why it wouldn't be considered "poetry" -I quite liked it, though it must be said I have no talent in the creativity department (my late grandfather was the poet/songwriter/author in the family). Your points are all, as usual, well made. I must emphasize in particular the truth of "republican blandness". I have *serious issues* with that! It infuriates me beyond the ability of words to describe!
ReplyDeleteThat is a long-standing doctrine of communism -uniformity and boring uniformity at that! That is also a major lie of the multi-cultural crowds of today. They are the enemies of all culture! They want to mix all cultures together in order to blend them all together into dull, communist uniformity. It makes me want to scream!
To all readers: if you want to see a stark example of what I mean, visit the scenic country of Vietnam. Go to the city of Hue and visit the valley outside of town where the tombs of the Nguyen emperors are. Take in the lush landscapes, the serene pools, the great artistry and craftsmanship that when into the construction of each hall and temple. They are breathtaking. Then, take the train north to Hanoi and visit that godawful eyesore of a concrete box where Uncle Ho is kept in cold storage -built in true Bolshevik fashion. Putting aside politics and what-have-you, it is enough to make anyone appreciative of beauty break down in sobs.
My stab about my poem was simple self-depracating humour, given the general preference among poets and musical composers to write works of such obscure and indirect meaning that they themselves must be on hand to explain it (it's like explaining a joke - you shouldn't have to).
ReplyDeleteAnd I think what you indicate is not so much multi-culturalism (which I take as merely cultural co-existence) with cultural relativism (which states that all cultures are equally valid), which, along with moral relativism, has greatly damaged our own culture, and thus making valid my poetic quip.
Alas, such are our times. But they shall pass. Stay tuned on that account.