Marshall McLuhan writes about photography

Helge said:

3. He is never ever racist or xenophobic in his writings or talks (I challenge you to find just one example).

Click to expand...

Be my guest.

From the Gutenberg Galaxy:
"The African child lives in the implicit, magical world of the resonant oral word." (22)
"Civilization gives the barbarian or tribal man an eye for an ear and is now at odds with the electronic world" (30)
"The Chinese culture is considerably more refined and perceptive than the Western world has ever been. But the Chinese are tribal, people of the ear." (31)
"As we shall see, manuscript culture is intensely audile-tactile compared to print culture; and that means that detached habits of observation are quite uncongenial to manuscript cultures, whether ancient Egyptian, Greek, or Chinese or medieval." (33)
"Germans and the Japanese, while far-advanced in literate and analytic technology, retained the core of auditory tribal unity and total togetherness." (33)
"But even when trained to follow the film the native of Ghana cannot accept a film about Nigerians. He cannot generalize his experience from film to film." (45)

.... and so on. This is textbook E.B. Tylor, cultural evolutionism as the ladder from primitive to civilized, conveniently putting the Westerner at the top. Note the interesting case of the Chinese as a "model minority" here, yet another racist stereotype.

The whole Gutenberg Galaxy is steeped in this kind of generalizations that's intellectually bankrupt.

Michel Hardy-Vallée said:

Be my guest.

From the Gutenberg Galaxy:
"The African child lives in the implicit, magical world of the resonant oral word." (22)
"Civilization gives the barbarian or tribal man an eye for an ear and is now at odds with the electronic world" (30)
"The Chinese culture is considerably more refined and perceptive than the Western world has ever been. But the Chinese are tribal, people of the ear." (31)
"As we shall see, manuscript culture is intensely audile-tactile compared to print culture; and that means that detached habits of observation are quite uncongenial to manuscript cultures, whether ancient Egyptian, Greek, or Chinese or medieval." (33)
"Germans and the Japanese, while far-advanced in literate and analytic technology, retained the core of auditory tribal unity and total togetherness." (33)
"But even when trained to follow the film the native of Ghana cannot accept a film about Nigerians. He cannot generalize his experience from film to film." (45)

.... and so on. This is textbook E.B. Tylor, cultural evolutionism as the ladder from primitive to civilized, conveniently putting the Westerner at the top. Note the interesting case of the Chinese as a "model minority" here, yet another racist stereotype.

The whole Gutenberg Galaxy is steeped in this kind of generalizations that's intellectually bankrupt.

Click to expand...

Is it racism to notice that different civilizations or different cultures behave differently when put in similar situations?

So I am racist.

I was alive in the 1950s when McLuhan was often quoted mainly when he defined TV as a "vast wasteland", pretty much what people think of social media today. Of course, TV has gotten worse although some cable and Youtube may actually have improved it. But mainly it's still addictive, shallow, banal. Not much has changed in 70 years.

Michel Hardy-Vallée said:

Be my guest.

From the Gutenberg Galaxy:
"The African child lives in the implicit, magical world of the resonant oral word." (22)
"Civilization gives the barbarian or tribal man an eye for an ear and is now at odds with the electronic world" (30)
"The Chinese culture is considerably more refined and perceptive than the Western world has ever been. But the Chinese are tribal, people of the ear." (31)
"As we shall see, manuscript culture is intensely audile-tactile compared to print culture; and that means that detached habits of observation are quite uncongenial to manuscript cultures, whether ancient Egyptian, Greek, or Chinese or medieval." (33)
"Germans and the Japanese, while far-advanced in literate and analytic technology, retained the core of auditory tribal unity and total togetherness." (33)
"But even when trained to follow the film the native of Ghana cannot accept a film about Nigerians. He cannot generalize his experience from film to film." (45)

.... and so on. This is textbook E.B. Tylor, cultural evolutionism as the ladder from primitive to civilized, conveniently putting the Westerner at the top. Note the interesting case of the Chinese as a "model minority" here, yet another racist stereotype.

The whole Gutenberg Galaxy is steeped in this kind of generalizations that's intellectually bankrupt.

Click to expand...

Are you fucking serious‽ Have you type absolutely no shame‽
You are truly tribal.

Helge said:

Are you fucking serious‽ Have you type absolutely no shame‽
You are truly tribal.

Click to expand...

The example that Michel Hardy Vallee gave looked pretty racist to me. Full of the kind of statements that made an impact on me way back in the 60s when the BBC showed an Afrikaner justify why the black South Africans were not ready for the "vote" or equal status. He kept on referring to them as still being "at the baby stage" so were not fully developed in the same way as adult white South Africans

So can you explain why this indicates he, Michel, was not serious or has no shame?

pentaxuser

pentaxuser said:

The example that Michel Hardy Vallee gave looked pretty racist to me. Full of the kind of statements that made an impact on me way back in the 60s when the BBC showed an Afrikaner justify why the black South Africans were not ready for the "vote" or equal status. He kept on referring to them as still being "at the baby stage" so were not fully developed in the same way as adult white South Africans

So can you explain why this indicates he, Michel, was not serious or has no shame?

pentaxuser

Click to expand...

Would you like to point out exactly which parts are racist or even disparaging/patronizing/imperialistic about those cultures and people mentioned?

It’s shameless because the whole woke, call out culture movement lacks any real interest or grokking.
Making sport and social (often also direct) profit out of wanton, barbaric iconoclasm.
The only real aim is to billboard and market themselves as generic “good, special people” with a bleeding heart, in opposition to the evil old overlords and gatekeepers.

As has become a cliché to counter with, but it is often to the huge detriment of and distraction from real causes and issues regarding the subject or group whose interests they propose to “protect”.

Dali said:

Is it racism to notice that different civilizations or different cultures behave differently when put in similar situations?

So I am racist.

Click to expand...

When you perform the analysis upon weak, incorrect, or culturally biased evidence, yes that makes "noticing" such "differences" as racism.

As for yourself, well you're old enough to figure it out.

1) Ethno-nationalist definition of people: _the_ Germans, _the_ African, _the_ Japanese, _the_ Ghanians.
2) Essentialism: the Japanese/Germans/Inuit/etc. are X
3) Unprovable statements: this X is being oral/magical/uncongenial to detached observation
4) Parallel hierarchies: the X that others are will always prevent them from becoming the Y that _we_ are
5) Categorical statements: those X people will NEVER understand the Y that we have.

The intellectual fallacies with these are:
1) Most nations are multi-cultural, or multi-ethnic, depending what your criteria is. Ghana is a colonial invention that contains a dozen different ethnolinguistic groups. So is Canada, the USA, etc. "Africa" is not a homogeneous entity. Nor is Serbia. Though they share values, civic institutions, history, etc., inhabitants of a country are not a homogeneous entity.
2) By arguing that the "African" child lives in a magical world, or that the Germans retain a core of auditory togetherness, you are now applying an essentialist criteria, because you argue that being from a given ethnocultural group is intrinsically tied to a unique, defining characteristic. Most groups are defined of course by regularities (in language, customs, values, etc.) but as clusters with provisions for individual variation. Not all Germans speak the same dialect.
3) Apart from pulling it out of your ass, how are you going to defend convincingly the thesis that the Japanese have retained the core of oral togetherness? I'm not even asking for a statistically significant demonstration, but something that clearly shows that the "African" child (whether he be Congolese, Algerian, or Somali) lives in the magical world of orality?
4) How convenient is it to your self-importance that the Germans and Japanese, who lost the latest world war against you, are very sophisticated, but not enough? How convenient is it that the Chinese, undergoing an unprecedented civil war at that time, are tribal?
5) I can accept that there are things I will fail understand in life, but it doesn't mean I can't change, adjust, or increase my knowledge. Why would the above-defined-Ghanaian person ALWAYS fail to understand the Nigerian, then? And why is it that the author and his audience can understand their incomprehension, but not the interested parties, since we are not talking about specialist knowledge but rather recently introduced vernacular activities like cinema?

Must I go on?

Helge said:

Would you like to point out exactly which parts are racist or even disparaging/patronizing/imperialistic about those cultures and people mentioned?

It’s shameless because the whole woke, call out culture movement lacks any real interest or grokking.
Making sport and social (often also direct) profit out of wanton, barbaric iconoclasm.
The only real aim is to billboard and market themselves as generic “good, special people” with a bleeding heart, in opposition to the evil old overlords and gatekeepers.

As has become a cliché to counter with, but it is often to the huge detriment of and distraction from real causes and issues regarding the subject or group whose interests they propose to “protect”.

Click to expand...

BTW, if you go on calling people "tribal," well I'm afraid you have no clue what a tribe is, and you also clearly consider yourself the superior race, so please don't bother to read my measured response to your argument, it will just make you more superior.

Helge said:

Are you fucking serious‽ Have you type absolutely no shame‽
You are truly tribal.

Click to expand...

All I can say with a lot of confidence is three things, Helge.

1. What I saw in the section that Michel quoted was similar enough to the condescending ambience of the Afrikaner's speech for me to classify it as racist
2. You and I see things differently on many matters
3. You have a very clearly defined position on those many matters.

Now some speculation on my part. In a constant dialogue which is what I believe this will become, I strongly suspect that your determination and desire to be the last man standing in the debate will exceed my determination and desire so I best leave this particular dialogue now.

If you have the time take a look at the famous BREXIT thread. That was an eye-opener for me in how such thread's go. The two main protagonists fought to a standstill but both lost many hours in that debate which neither can ever get back. I can't really spare that kind of time

pentaxuser

A nation-state is just an enlarged version of a tribe. There are cultural idiosyncrasies among different peoples.

Michel Hardy-Vallée said:

When you perform the analysis upon weak, incorrect, or culturally biased evidence, yes that makes "noticing" such "differences" as racism.

Click to expand...

No, it makes a questionable analysis. To call this racism is your conclusion, only ours, which says a lot on how you interpret facts.

Helge said:

There can be no doubt that McLuhan would see digital and film photography as two very distinctly different media, despite their superficial similarities.

Click to expand...

Of which I thoroughly agree.

Michel Hardy-Vallée said:

BTW, if you go on calling people "tribal," well I'm afraid you have no clue what a tribe is, and you also clearly consider yourself the superior race, so please don't bother to read my measured response to your argument, it will just make you more superior.

Click to expand...

It's funny and telling that you mention essentialism while your arguments fall into the Sorites paradox fallacy category, a few lines later.

Tribe and tribalism in anthropology is old 19th century terms and therefore has a lot of baggage and history of appropriation and misuse.
But that goes for thousands of other words.
Doesn't mean we should stop entirely using them.
"Tribalism" is when used correctly, quite a neutral term used to describe some very, very well documented human behavioural traits and social patterns.
It is not used often these days because of the baggage and the broadness of the term.
Not because it is inherently racist or colonial (talk about a misused and ill defined word).

However, McLuhan like with a lot of his other reoccurring axiomatic terms - very importantly his use of media/medium for example - use tribal in quite another sense (global village anyone?).
He is consistent about how he does it, and he is not in the slightest racist in its use.
Either you don't know that. In which case you have no business criticising him.
Much worse is it if you do know though.

Cultures and cultural diversity does exist. Physical differences in appearance and ability does exist from one ethno and hablogroup to another, however small they may actually be in the grand scheme of things.
It's unthinkable that that wouldn't also extend to predilection for certain cognitive processes and (getting "dangerous" I know) as well as brain morphogenesis on some scale, however small.

McLuhan is rarely judging, as in making value judgement about the processes and groups he is discussing and describing. Most of the important and encompassing things in our societies are entirely too grand to even start talking about them being wholly good or bad.
His famous quote (not his own though), "we don't know who discovered water, but it wasn't a fish" and another (paraphrasing here): "Asking whether television is good, is like asking whether you enjoyed your latest cold".
He has preferences and worries, like any researcher and thinker. But he does an admirable, singular job at using and working around those grievances.

And so on...
It's very easy for anyone to pick your arguments apart one by one, in the same verbose, "denial of service attack", death by overwhelming with a thousand paper cuts, "I write a lot therefore I must be right", style.
Writing on a forum, we should try to practice the art of succinctness and compound clarity.
Screens are horrible to read long form text from and, this is all hopefully just a small fun distraction for us and an eyeopener or gateway to the actual "thing".

For anyone genuinely interested, here is one of the best introductions to McLuhan I've ever seen, by none other than his son Eric.