Why the fuck isn't this book taught in school? In American high school kids get force fed Toni Morrison and James Baldwin and have to spent 90 minute periods discussing white privilege/original sin. English class nowadays is little more than a propaganda factory for progressive politics. I recently read about a substitute teacher eschewing her assigned lesson plan to teach Junot "Kill da white man for la raza" Diaz.
So why can't we have balance? Kids are REQUIRED to read anti-White rants that are directly and deliberately relevant to modern politics. It only makes sense that the consequences of those anti-White policies should be discussed as well
Why would you make a thread out of a rhetorical question? You know why the book isn't taught in schools, and the larger question you're hinting at is for
Cooper Bell
>Why would you make a thread out of a rhetorical question? For rhetorical purposes, obviously? I'm suggesting that The Camp of the Saints, a piece of literature I am leading a discussion on, should be taught in schools. Are you fucking retarded or something? (Note: this is a rhetorical question. Please do not answer this question).
Juan Harris
>For rhetorical purposes, obviously? To make a political point, yes.
>a piece of literature I am leading a discussion on Didn't see much of this, user. Enjoy your thread, but you'll only get the discussion you're looking for on its intended board.
Nolan Mitchell
>To make a political point, yes. Art is inherently political whether or not you're ignorant of its ideological significance. It is impossible to separate politics from this piece of literature.
>Didn't see much of this Maybe you should try reading the OP before replying then
Parker Kelly
The book lacks critical perspective and nuance. Unlike Baldwin and Morrison the author had a comedically black and white view of the world. It would make a good comic book though, if you replaced the immigrants with thoughtless orcs - which is essentially how they are already portrayed in the book.
Benjamin Young
The author says that whiteness isn't racial, but cultural.
Leo Bell
And so that is an acceptable scapegoat for generalizing all immigrants as barbaric? The author says a lot to paint the narration as non racist - he was smart enough to do that - but as the adage goes, actions speak louder than words and his bland over generalization of haves and haves not along with the sympathizer (that wish fulfilment scene of the liberals getting caught in a stampede of refugees while waiting to welcome them lol) show exactly where the author's motives lie
Henry Kelly
>And so that is an acceptable scapegoat for generalizing all immigrants as barbaric?
He's complaining that people of a very different and frankly barbarous culture will greedily immigrate to his country, which is true. He's claiming that they will degrade standards of living for the native population, which is true. In fact, history bore him out, as Sweden is now the rape capital of the universe, and London and Paris are uninhabitable carbon copies of Calcutta.
What's wrong with generalizing? I doubt the author cares much for racial science or biological determinism or whatever. I doubt he cares at all whether a certain percentage of the immigrant hordes are decent. He seems to think that they need some more time to develop their own culture, and that while it's unfortunate that they don't enjoy our standard of living, destroying our own culture to give it to them won't even work anyway.
You're the only one concerned with "generalizing," like the author only wrote his book as a point in someone's Facebook political argument. He's not writing propaganda or wish fulfillment. He's just expressing his sentiments, and virtuously too, since he's recognised as a great author. The scene with the naive do-gooders getting trampled is a basic moral parable, not an "amirite??" moment for people on his side.
Your entire reading of the book is based on whether it's a "fair" depiction of stuff you care about, or whether it's partisan, because you can only think in partisan terms. Read it as a book and try to understand the author, instead of reading it as a Youtube comments argument about IMMIGRANTS = GOOD OR BAD?
Mason Watson
Lol bro you just described exactly why this book isn't taught. There's no way to articulately defend it. Go back to pol fucktard faggot.
Lincoln Rivera
The book is incredibly prescient. If you can read French, it helps that the prose is also gorgeous. Raspail is a very talented writer and it shows.
I would suggest reading Sept cavaliers quittèrent la ville au crépuscule par la porte de l'Ouest qui n'était plus gardée and L'Anneau du pêcheur which are his best books.
David Hill
He just gave you a very articulate defense which you were unable to refute, let alone address. Stop browsing this board if you don't know how to read
Gavin Morales
That's a crime to force cuck logic on innocent, unknowing young teens. Give them a healthy dose of Howard zinn, melville, and Tomas jefferson instead. When you start arguing about what to teach the kids, you fail
Thomas Ramirez
Except it doesn't
Josiah Barnes
His first paragraph equates London and Paris with Calcutta Second paragraph states what's wrong with generalizing - take a single logic course okay Third paragraph states a completely contradictory statement Fourth is essentially unsubstantiated projection
Kayden White
>What's wrong with generalizing? I doubt the author cares much for racial science or biological determinism or whatever. I doubt he cares at all whether a certain percentage of the immigrant hordes are decent. He seems to think that they need some more time to develop their own culture, and that while it's unfortunate that they don't enjoy our standard of living, destroying our own culture to give it to them won't even work anyway.
Counterintuitively, Raspail is an extreme xenophile. He spent his whole life travelling and living among natives and fighting to defend their cultures against the encroachment of modernism/capitalism. His opposition to mass immigration is comparable to the position of Claude Lévi-Strauss in the latter part of his life. It, as well as many other symptoms of capitalist globalization, is a threat to the diversity of cultures in the world and ultimately the possibility of true creation.
Carson Jones
I hate this. "Ooh it's about culture, not race!"
It's about both.
Jonathan Peterson
"All the great civilizations of the past became decadent because the originally creative race died out, as a result of contamination of the blood.
The most profound cause of such a decline is to be found in the fact that the people ignored the principle that all culture depends on men, and not the reverse. In other words, in order to preserve a certain culture, the type of manhood that creates such a culture must be preserved. But such a preservation goes hand-in-hand with the inexorable law that it is the strongest and the best who must triumph and that they have the right to endure."
Juan Ortiz
>everywhere, rivers of sperm. Streaming over bodies, oozing between breasts, and buttocks, and thighs, and lips, and fingers… [E]verywhere, a mass of hands and mounts, of phalluses and rumps....Young boys, passed from hand to hand. Young girls, barely ripe… walking to the silent play of eager lips…Men with women, men with men, women with women, men with children, children with each other
Mason Lee
That article gave me cancer. Some people have no idea what literary criticism should be.
Adrian Thomas
meh, read lamarck, stop being darwinian
Adrian Powell
I cringed every time he used the phrase "the turd eater."
Why do French authors throw around scatological terms so much?
