“First, your terminology is offensive,” by Seth, tdaxp, 15 June 2005, http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2005/06/11/delusional_iraqi_arab_sunnis_slouching_toward_lakotization.html.
“The moral pathology of Lakotization doesn’t need a lot of space,” by TM Lutas, tdaxp, 29 June 2005, http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2005/06/25/lakotization_of_the_iraqi_sunni_arabs_family_disintegration.html#c152142.
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.