Lakotization is Family Liberation

First, your terminology is offensive,” by Seth, tdaxp, 15 June 2005,

The moral pathology of Lakotization doesn’t need a lot of space,” by TM Lutas, tdaxp, 29 June 2005,

Seth from CCK criticizes the term “lakotization”

First, your terminology is offensive. Saying we have “lakota”ed a people by destroying their culture is about as wonderful as saying people in Darfur were “jew-ized.”

While TM Lutas condemns on the lakotization process…

The moral pathology of Lakotization doesn’t need a lot of space. It’s almost self-evident that we’re going to regret doing this (if we are doing it) later. … Lakotization is a mistake morally, it won’t work practically, and should neither be advocated, nor tolerated.

That a Democrat partisan and a Rightist aficionado of The Pentagon’s New Map find common cause against lakotization is a sign that my attempts to defend it have failed. From these critiques, I gather it is an offensive pathological failure.

So instead of exporting fear, I will export hope. How can lakotization be repackaged so it doesn’t elicit such outrage

Simple, give it a new term: family liberation. The goal remains the same: destroy Enemy family structures and turn the individuals to rely on the state. But family liberation will be presented positively and its harmony with human rights will be defended.

Description: Family Liberation is an attempt to

  • change a culture
  • to decrease the strength of families
  • and increase the influence of the state

We know each of these can be done with little violence while respecting human rights.

Cultures are changed constantly. Even when change is effected by small sub-groups, we do not consider this a violation of human rights. We hear activists talking about changing the culture of violence, the culture of bigotry, the gun culture, etc. What these people mean is that they wish to change the folkways of a culture so that violence becomes less acceptable to all societies in that culture, that “bigotry” becomes less acceptable to all societies in that culture, that gun ownership becomes less acceptable to all societies in that culture, etc.

None of these agitating groups form a majority or anything close to it. All use whatever outside help they can get. And many times the state has propagandized and subsidized actions it considers in its interest. So changing a culture is an acceptable goal. So we know that cultures can be changed while respecting human rights.

Weakening families is an acceptable political goal. Christ agitated for weaker family bonds — as did Paul. Women’s liberation and children’s liberation — indeed, the whole of feminism — is concerned with withering these bonds. While such views may be noxious, the entire world (outside the Islamists) recognize the legality of such political efforts.

Likewise, Leftism has nearly defined liberation as dependence on the state. So encouraging state dependency is an acceptable state goal. A state-education, a state-pension, a state-protected job, etc, are seen as marks of “Freedoms.” The first President to speak of a United Nations Organization — Franklin Roosevelt, used the word in this statist way when we described his “Four Freedoms.”

All lakotization is — all I mean by family liberation — is the process of converting a society from family-centered to state-centered. America has liberated the families of the lakota and the blacks. We can do this to Iraqi Sunni Arabs to save a country.

6 thoughts on “Lakotization is Family Liberation”

  1. I read somewhere over the past couple of years that the Western prohibition against marrying cousins had its origins in the efforts of the Catholic Church to consolidate its control by breaking down the large, clan-like families.

    During the rise of industrialization in the US, it was young, single women who worked in the textile mills. They often lived away from their families in dormitories. Traditionally single women with under their father's roof until they were married. But in the textile mills they were earning their own money and so had achieved financial independence. My understanding is that this is thought to have contributed to the rise of the women's suffrage movement. And the breakdown of more authoritarian family structures.

    I think Dan is onto to something here in recognizing the political role of families and tribes in many countries around the world that can make it very difficult or even impossible to establish the institutions of liberal democracy. The reality is we have to get these families and tribes to subordinate themselves to the new government. This can be done voluntarily through negotiation or through force. Peaceful means are the preferred method, but at some point the new governments in Afghanistan and Iraq will have to assert their authority. Democratic government will undermine the family/tribe both by establishing authority with the gov't and by empowering the individual as voter and political actor.

  2. Phil,

    You are right on the destabilizing nature of industrialization. With “microfinance” and similar programs, we are seeing the latest generation of that in India and other places today.

    Instead of subordinated/unsubordinated, perhaps a better divide is winning/losing. Some cultures “win” with increase connectivity. Much of the Anglosphere (Canada, USA, UK, Ireland, South Africa, India, Singapore, Australia, New Zeaand, etc) falls into this category. Others “lose” — think of the Arab world and questions of “what went wrong?”

    There is an old saying: “When what you are doing is not working, stop doing it.” If a culture with strong family-ties is losing, make those family ties lose. Likewise, if a culture with weak family ties is losing (maybe like “old Europe”?), strengthen those ties.

  3. hi Dan,

    My esteemed former RSR colleague TM inadvertantly demonstrated the reason for a point I had previously tried to make.

    As to the rest of your post, excellent job BTW,I think you have defined ” Soft Lakotaization” rather well.

  4. Mark,

    Thanks always for your comment.

    The blogosphere is good at forcing people to think horizontally, because different people will use different analogies and different approaches to make the same point. That, and the community it generates, are why I love blogging.

    “Family Liberation” rhetorically focuses the mind on “soft lakotization,” but it also includes “hard lakotization” as well.

    By adopting leftist rhetoric whe appropriate, we are able to selectively use leftist policies to shrink the gap. This is good.

  5. There is a point past which the lack of state loyalty becomes a problem. It's a long distance between developing a healthy allegiance to the state and weakening families to the point where daddy's little girl is turning tricks to earn money for the family.

    There are Iraqi clan networks that are loyal to the current Iraqi regime. In fact, I would guess that a majority of those networks are loyal. Will those loyal networks also be “liberated”? If so, whatever makes you think that they will remain loyal to a regime that is trying to kill them off? You've still got a very big practical problem.

    I would submit that Lakotization, soft or otherwise, is irredeemable. I can understand the impulse to use it. I have the same problem with analyzing economic fascism.

    I don't recommend taking on that kind of language problem unless you absolutely have to. If you're looking for salability, try “ending unislamic repression of women” which achieves the result of recreating healthy family partnerships without throwing out the family structure baby out with the bath water.

    Dan – “What went wrong” predates the industrial revolution. The islamic world has been falling behind for centuries, far longer than the industrial revolution has been with us.

    Mark – Former colleague? When did former happen? I just write a bit more at Barnett's forum.

  6. I can't tell if you were being serious or not in these Lakotization posts. Do you remember?

    On the off-chance you were being serious, I'd point out that- from a practical standpoint- destroying the livelihoods and internal control systems of a community you're connected to is nuts. Even granting that it allows for the building of new control systems and economics within the community, you'd be competing with people (gangs, Al Qaeda) to see who's concepts get put in place. The only way it would really work is if you combined it with a dramatic increase in connectivity, and that could backfire too by increasing the available options for hurting you.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *