The “Indo” in Indo-European “people, culture and languages” refers specifically to…wait for it…India. (the swastika is the holiest hindu religious symbol, 60% of india is aryan (the rest dravidian) and zeus/dyues-pita one of the main vedic/hindu gods in the entire pantheon)

It’s christianity that is the non-European value, at least when looked from a historical perpsective (modern hindu/aryan religion is far closer to ancient greek/roman)

As you’re an American I imagine you would be!

As an Australian I find the talk about ‘values’, European or otherwise, interesting. We have broadly European cultural values whilst situated in Asia, and we are nicely positioned as resource sandpit to both the emerging giants.

It’s also interesting that ‘China and India’ are lumped together - we have radically different cultural relationships with both these countries, and the Commonwealth connection with India should not be discounted.

Hell, we now have the new Indian cricket Premier League playing on prime time here - matches like the Rajastan Royals versus the Deccan Chargers (with Australian national players as highly paid hired guns). Bollywood films are on local suburban release here now - at least in the cities.

In comarison, our relationship with China is much more problematic, but you might want to look at our new PM Rudd’s visit to Beijing recently to see how a middle power can successfully balance its cultural values against those of larger hegemonic neighbours, whilst defending realpolitickal interests. The fact he is fluent in Mandarin is most important in this regard!

Come to think of it, is Rudd’s balancing act in Beijing any different to the way our relationship with the US has always been?

Thank you, Craig. And this is what worries me tremendously. Especially if it is combined with “angst”, be it misplaced or not. This also why I suggested our “enlightenment” may be a luxury product.

But then again, I apparently did not make my point clearly enough in the post. And that doesn’t help the debate either

I am signing off for today. Time to rest and dream of better posts.

On European values: It’s a struggle but it has to be done, to avoid essentialism in discourse. When you mentioned the caste-system in India being the only thing off from ‘our values’ or when Guy writes about Islamic values changing ‘judeo-christian values’ in Holland, one gets to the heart of the problem.

Nothing, I believe, is intrinsic to any continent or people. The fact is, the values of humanity’s various subdivisions change. The ‘Europe’ of 1942 had none of the values we today call European. So when, a Lee Kuan Yew or a British Muslim activist opposes ‘Western values’ and claims ‘Asian’ or ‘Islamic’ values are more appropriate for them… It’s a bunch of nonsense.

What this means for this particular debate, I guess, is that even supposing a dramatic rebalancing of world power and influence towards Asia, I can’t see that causing much soul-searching on our part. India and Japan are both liberal democracies, China’s political system almost makes it a pariah at times. In the UK at least we already watch Bollywood and eat curry… I can imagine the sort of misplaced angst felt by some Europeans to the triumph of American pop culture or the worries in the West about ‘Japan inc.’ in the 80s.. but they seem pretty shallow.

Never mind, it was too long anyway. Better read Craig’s reaction directly above.

Okay, I’ll give it one more try. It’s getting late, though. Nowhere do I say anything about “the creation of radically new values”. If anything, I am merely asking questions.

I do believe that increased Western economic interaction with, among others, Asia will lead to a debate on Western values. Actually, this is already happening with regards to the Olympic Games and Tibet.

To sum it up: Are we allowed to criticize China when we continue to do business with them and do not criticize other regimes with a bad human rights record like, for instance, Saudi-Arabia? Furthermore, are we still in a position to criticize at all? The latter question is often framed in the context of Western dependence on developing markets, in Asia and elsewhere, and is laid out in terms of a moral dilemma.

What is the answer? Good old-fashioned realpolitik? Pretend that we care but do business anyway? We can also stop caring at all.

Upthread you mentioned “institutionalized racism” in Europe. What do you think will happen in the public mind if more Mittals occur? What if the economy really tanks because of globalisation? What if more and more people, as seems to be the case in France, are worried about their future?

I am not saying anything will change, but I do believe it worthwile to think a little about what the current shift in global power balance will mean. And not just in economic terms.

And I also know this debate is a purely hypothetical one and that it situates itself mainly in public discourse. But that is what weblogs are all about.

And the values I talk about are not “supersecret”. In several European countries there are already public debates about Western values. In The Netherlands they had this whole thing about preserving the judeo-christian values of Dutch society (versus Islam, in this case).

Obviously it’s slightly different when Americans and Russians, who are direct cultural and even ‘racial’ wings of European civilization, to when former colonial subjects (read: “subhumans, niggers, Muslims, and broadly the Wretched of the Earth”) begin overtaking us.

I think what Hektor is attacking more broadly is this whole equation of ‘Europe’ and ‘European values’ with the very idea of lofty, univeralist, humanist, progressive, democratic (etc.) thought. Why? Because as soon as we talk about non-Westerners rising, it is implied that all these super-plus-good things that 18th century Europeans thought up will vanish. Europeans, in practice, are not dictated to by their philosophers. How can we say this when Europeans themselves have such a chequered history of implementing these lofty ideals?

The history of France is a perfect example, the same Revolution which put universal reason, freedom and equality on everyone’s lips did not take long to reimpose slavery in the islands of the Carribean.. or I think of Brussels’s ugly history. We love to think of the EU as so progressive and peaceful, such a model, that we had redeemed our past sins (whether committed to other Europeans (WW1, WW2 etc.) or to others (slavery, colonialism). While Brussels was the capital of the EEC, the fledgling EU, it was from this same Brussels that an ugly neocolonialism aborted Congolese independence, fostering at different times separatism, war and dictatorship.

The more I think of it, especially of European and American attitudes to immigration and non-White minorities (Elcox’s post above is a good example) makes me think how fraudulent our claims to universalism are.

Anyway, to get to that elephant in the room which seems to lurk around these discussions of European Enlightenment values are seemingly threatened by ‘non-Europe’, suffice to say that Europeans DO NOT have and have never had a monopoly on reason (Hegel is tosh).