Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [existlist] Re: In brief

Expand Messages
  • eupraxis@aol.com
    Delectation of Independence Gotta watch that spell check. Gets you every time. Wil ... From: bartleyoreg@aol.com To: existlist@yahoogroups.com Sent: Fri, 5 Dec
    Message 1 of 28 , Dec 5, 2008
      Delectation of Independence




      Gotta watch that spell check. Gets you every time.

      Wil




      -----Original Message-----
      From: bartleyoreg@...
      To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 5:03 pm
      Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: In brief

























      Louise, I work as a volunteer in a middle school, there 13-14 years old, anyway I help in the American history class.? Currently we are studying the Delectation of Independence.? I get very excited about this document, sorry knowing you're British!, anyway I believe it could be agrued that this document changed history more then any other document in the last 230 years.? It makes me proud to be an American, to see that those values, while we may have not lived up to them, where the values we believed were important as a people.? That part of being an American, is having that as our core.? I am getting anywhere close?

      Michael



      -----Original Message-----

      From: louise <hecubatoher@...>

      To: existlist@yahoogroups.com

      Sent: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 2:44 pm

      Subject: [existlist] Re: In brief



      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, bartleyoreg@... wrote:

      >

      > Thank you Louise for your thoughful response, I can see that you

      have thought deeply about this and I do want to understand your

      point of view.? On a side note I more interested in understanding

      other people posting then having or winning an agrument with them.?

      Anyway, while I can see the concept of race, what is race even,

      would be of interest to scholars besides that it seems in our

      present world that race is not that important.

      > Michael



      Michael, I have a love of argument, if it is conducted in good

      spirit, and those of us who are regular contributors at existlist

      seem to my perception moving ever closer to the attainment of such

      an ideal, whilst the list is also continueing to welcome new

      members. So I even feel a little happier tonight, contemplating the

      road ahead. With regard to the concept of race in our present

      world, it is not important to the many, but is very important for a

      few. Racial instincts, though, manifest in a non-intellectual way

      all the time. I think it would be greatly to the benefit of society

      if this were acknowledged, and an interest in discussing race could

      flourish, instead of the current situation, in which the mention of

      the topic in mainstream quarters tends to evoke immediate

      embarrassment or hostility. And may readily lead straight to the

      police cell, and the courts. The hysterical and offensive outbursts

      of those with little to say that stands up to any scrutiny would

      soon be eclipsed, if serious people were shown due respect. Louise



      >

      >

      > -----Original Message-----

      > From: louise <hecubatoher@...>

      > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com

      > Sent: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 1:15 pm

      > Subject: [existlist] Re: In brief

      >

      >

      >

      >

      >

      >

      > Yes, Michael, I agree, ethics is part of philosophy. The point I

      am

      > making is that the concept of race is European, not Semitic, and

      > that this way of asserting racism, i.e., to express communal

      Jewish

      > solidarity by introducing the confusion of the racial

      > term, 'Semitism', is potentially harmful to the attempts of other

      > racial groups to practise legitimate defence of their interests.

      It

      > seems to me to prove prejudicial even to the Jewish people

      > themselves. Their unique kind of community in diversity owes a

      good

      > deal to an idea of racial purity, but the foundation for this idea

      > is religious. The power of the concept 'anti-Semitic', to inhibit

      > free thought and impose the tendency for self-censorship on

      European

      > peoples is part of the total battle, the undoubtedly horrifying

      > history of bigotries, pogroms, recriminations, intrigue and war.

      > Until the reality and importance of the concept of race is better

      > understood, the argument here may easily be missed. Only time

      > reveals the full meanings of history. Louise

      >

      > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, bartleyoreg@ wrote:

      > >

      > > What makes you say this, please explain!? Isn't ethics part of

      > philosophy?? A view we have towards people that not an ethical

      issue

      > or concern.? How we treat people because of what they are, ie

      black,

      > women, English, only because that trait, that is not a ethical

      issue

      > or concern.? On the face of your posting it seems to be kind a

      very

      > strange statement.

      > > Michael

      > >

      > >

      > > -----Original Message-----

      > > From: louise <hecubatoher@>

      > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com

      > > Sent: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 12:35 pm

      > > Subject: [existlist] In brief

      > >

      > >

      > >

      > >

      > >

      > >

      > > From a philosophical viewpoint, anti-Semitism is a mythical

      > concept,

      > > frequently used as a political weapon.

      > >

      > > Louise

      > >

      > >

      > >

      > >

      > >

      > >

      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      > >

      >

      >

      >

      >

      >

      >

      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      >



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






















      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • tom
      What I said was that there were greater probabilities of certain strenghths and weaknesses appearing among races, but that many individuals will very much
      Message 2 of 28 , Dec 5, 2008
        What I said was that there were greater probabilities of certain strenghths and weaknesses appearing among races, but that many individuals will very much overlap. Its like saying that as a group, men are taller than women. However, there are numerous women over 6 feet, and some guys around 5 feet. Jewish and oriental students are more likely to be on the honor roll. Blacks are more likely to be the winners in track and field competition, and us white guys have the highest % of serial killers.Certain diseases are more prevalent among certain races.
        Tom
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: bhvwd
        To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 5:31 PM
        Subject: [existlist] Re: In brief


        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > At most, we could say that there is a greater probability of a
        person of a given race being more intelligent, more industrious, or
        more prone to crime than a person from another race.
        >
        > Tom,
        >
        > What race(s) would be dull-witted, lazy and felonious, pray tell?
        Shall we measure cranial widths and bumps as well?
        >
        > Wil
        > Ah Phrenology. I kept a head on my desk for several years. When I
        was tempted to digress from rational treatment I could always look
        at that perfect head. It was all wrong but it looked good. Bill
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: tom <tsmith17_midsouth1@...>
        > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        > Sent: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 4:45 pm
        > Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: In brief
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Michael,
        >
        >
        >
        > I agree with you that understanding other people's point of view is
        more important than winning an argument with them. To understand the
        reality of the world, it's very helpful to understand that people
        have various opinions. Some may be due to the nation they live in,
        their family, various complexers they have etc;but in any case the
        diversity of views is the reality. Certainly some physical and mental
        characteristics are more dominant in some races than others; but
        there is so much overlap that its impossible to characterize an
        individual by his or her race. At most, we could say that there is a
        greater probability of a person of a given race being more
        intelligent, more industrious, or more prone to crime than a person
        from another race.
        >
        > Tom
        >
        >
        >
        > ----- Original Message -----
        >
        > From: bartleyoreg@...
        >
        > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        >
        > Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 4:23 PM
        >
        > Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: In brief
        >
        >
        >
        > Thank you Louise for your thoughful response, I can see that you
        have thought deeply about this and I do want to understand your point
        of view.? On a side note I more interested in understanding other
        people posting then having or winning an agrument with them.? Anyway,
        while I can see the concept of race, what is race even, would be of
        interest to scholars besides that it seems in our present world that
        race is not that important.
        >
        > Michael
        >
        >
        >
        > -----Original Message-----
        >
        > From: louise <hecubatoher@...>
        >
        > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        >
        > Sent: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 1:15 pm
        >
        > Subject: [existlist] Re: In brief
        >
        >
        >
        > Yes, Michael, I agree, ethics is part of philosophy. The point I am
        >
        > making is that the concept of race is European, not Semitic, and
        >
        > that this way of asserting racism, i.e., to express communal
        Jewish
        >
        > solidarity by introducing the confusion of the racial
        >
        > term, 'Semitism', is potentially harmful to the attempts of other
        >
        > racial groups to practise legitimate defence of their interests.
        It
        >
        > seems to me to prove prejudicial even to the Jewish people
        >
        > themselves. Their unique kind of community in diversity owes a
        good
        >
        > deal to an idea of racial purity, but the foundation for this
        idea
        >
        > is religious. The power of the concept 'anti-Semitic', to inhibit
        >
        > free thought and impose the tendency for self-censorship on
        European
        >
        > peoples is part of the total battle, the undoubtedly horrifying
        >
        > history of bigotries, pogroms, recriminations, intrigue and war.
        >
        > Until the reality and importance of the concept of race is better
        >
        > understood, the argument here may easily be missed. Only time
        >
        > reveals the full meanings of history. Louise
        >
        >
        >
        > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, bartleyoreg@ wrote:
        >
        > >
        >
        > > What makes you say this, please explain!? Isn't ethics part of
        >
        > philosophy?? A view we have towards people that not an ethical
        issue
        >
        > or concern.? How we treat people because of what they are, ie
        black,
        >
        > women, English, only because that trait, that is not a ethical
        issue
        >
        > or concern.? On the face of your posting it seems to be kind a
        very
        >
        > strange statement.
        >
        > > Michael
        >
        > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > > -----Original Message-----
        >
        > > From: louise <hecubatoher@>
        >
        > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        >
        > > Sent: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 12:35 pm
        >
        > > Subject: [existlist] In brief
        >
        > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > > From a philosophical viewpoint, anti-Semitism is a mythical
        >
        > concept,
        >
        > > frequently used as a political weapon.
        >
        > >
        >
        > > Louise
        >
        > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        > >
        >
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >





        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • tom
        I m very much a fan of the Declaration of Independance also. Of course, the point of newspeak George Orwell made was how beautiful words can still be
        Message 3 of 28 , Dec 5, 2008
          I'm very much a fan of the Declaration of Independance also. Of course, the point of 'newspeak' George Orwell made was how beautiful words can still be admired, while the practical aplication of such statement can gradually be changed. The very Americans who talk the most about our heritage, freedom etc are very often the ones that in reality promote agendas like getting in fights around the world and building a massive police state at home; and these were the things that guys like Washington and Jefferson saw as totally opposed to the new vision on which the US was founded. Shaun Hannity starts his radio show with "Let Freedom Ring" and has "Freedom Concerts", but his idea of freedom goes no further than going to the Judeochristian church of your choice, and investing in the 401k of your choice. Yesterday, Hannity had Bill Bennett as 1 of his guests, and Bennett was Drug Czar under Bush1. Freedom is used by these guys as another excuse for imperialistic aggression.

          Tom



          ----- Original Message -----
          From: bartleyoreg@...
          To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 5:03 PM
          Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: In brief


          Louise, I work as a volunteer in a middle school, there 13-14 years old, anyway I help in the American history class.? Currently we are studying the Delectation of Independence.? I get very excited about this document, sorry knowing you're British!, anyway I believe it could be agrued that this document changed history more then any other document in the last 230 years.? It makes me proud to be an American, to see that those values, while we may have not lived up to them, where the values we believed were important as a people.? That part of being an American, is having that as our core.? I am getting anywhere close?
          Michael

          -----Original Message-----
          From: louise <hecubatoher@...>
          To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 2:44 pm
          Subject: [existlist] Re: In brief

          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, bartleyoreg@... wrote:
          >
          > Thank you Louise for your thoughful response, I can see that you
          have thought deeply about this and I do want to understand your
          point of view.? On a side note I more interested in understanding
          other people posting then having or winning an agrument with them.?
          Anyway, while I can see the concept of race, what is race even,
          would be of interest to scholars besides that it seems in our
          present world that race is not that important.
          > Michael

          Michael, I have a love of argument, if it is conducted in good
          spirit, and those of us who are regular contributors at existlist
          seem to my perception moving ever closer to the attainment of such
          an ideal, whilst the list is also continueing to welcome new
          members. So I even feel a little happier tonight, contemplating the
          road ahead. With regard to the concept of race in our present
          world, it is not important to the many, but is very important for a
          few. Racial instincts, though, manifest in a non-intellectual way
          all the time. I think it would be greatly to the benefit of society
          if this were acknowledged, and an interest in discussing race could
          flourish, instead of the current situation, in which the mention of
          the topic in mainstream quarters tends to evoke immediate
          embarrassment or hostility. And may readily lead straight to the
          police cell, and the courts. The hysterical and offensive outbursts
          of those with little to say that stands up to any scrutiny would
          soon be eclipsed, if serious people were shown due respect. Louise

          >
          >
          > -----Original Message-----
          > From: louise <hecubatoher@...>
          > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
          > Sent: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 1:15 pm
          > Subject: [existlist] Re: In brief
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > Yes, Michael, I agree, ethics is part of philosophy. The point I
          am
          > making is that the concept of race is European, not Semitic, and
          > that this way of asserting racism, i.e., to express communal
          Jewish
          > solidarity by introducing the confusion of the racial
          > term, 'Semitism', is potentially harmful to the attempts of other
          > racial groups to practise legitimate defence of their interests.
          It
          > seems to me to prove prejudicial even to the Jewish people
          > themselves. Their unique kind of community in diversity owes a
          good
          > deal to an idea of racial purity, but the foundation for this idea
          > is religious. The power of the concept 'anti-Semitic', to inhibit
          > free thought and impose the tendency for self-censorship on
          European
          > peoples is part of the total battle, the undoubtedly horrifying
          > history of bigotries, pogroms, recriminations, intrigue and war.
          > Until the reality and importance of the concept of race is better
          > understood, the argument here may easily be missed. Only time
          > reveals the full meanings of history. Louise
          >
          > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, bartleyoreg@ wrote:
          > >
          > > What makes you say this, please explain!? Isn't ethics part of
          > philosophy?? A view we have towards people that not an ethical
          issue
          > or concern.? How we treat people because of what they are, ie
          black,
          > women, English, only because that trait, that is not a ethical
          issue
          > or concern.? On the face of your posting it seems to be kind a
          very
          > strange statement.
          > > Michael
          > >
          > >
          > > -----Original Message-----
          > > From: louise <hecubatoher@>
          > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
          > > Sent: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 12:35 pm
          > > Subject: [existlist] In brief
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > From a philosophical viewpoint, anti-Semitism is a mythical
          > concept,
          > > frequently used as a political weapon.
          > >
          > > Louise
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          > >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • bartleyoreg@aol.com
          opps! I knew I should have used the dictionary! In a message dated 12/5/2008 3:43:45 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, eupraxis@aol.com writes: Delectation of
          Message 4 of 28 , Dec 5, 2008
            opps! I knew I should have used the dictionary!


            In a message dated 12/5/2008 3:43:45 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
            eupraxis@... writes:







            Delectation of Independence

            Gotta watch that spell check. Gets you every time.

            Wil

            -----Original Message-----
            From: _bartleyoreg@bartley_ (mailto:bartleyoreg@...)
            To: _existlist@yahoogrouexistl_ (mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com)
            Sent: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 5:03 pm
            Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: In brief

            Louise, I work as a volunteer in a middle school, there 13-14 years old,
            anyway I help in the American history class.? Currently we are studying the
            Delectation of Independence.Louise, I work as a volunteer in a middle school,
            there 13-14 years old, anyway I help in the American history class.? Currently we
            are studying the Delectation of Independence.<WBR>? I get very excited about
            this document, sorry knowing you're British!, anyway I believe it could be
            agrued that this document changed history more then any other document in the
            last 230 years.? It makes me proud to be an American, to see that those
            values, while

            Michael

            -----Original Message-----

            From: louise <_hecubatoher@hecubatohhe_ (mailto:hecubatoher@...) >

            To: _existlist@yahoogrouexistl_ (mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com)

            Sent: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 2:44 pm

            Subject: [existlist] Re: In brief

            --- In _existlist@yahoogrouexistl_ (mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com) ,
            bartleyoreg@, bart

            >

            > Thank you Louise for your thoughful response, I can see that you

            have thought deeply about this and I do want to understand your

            point of view.? On a side note I more interested in understanding

            other people posting then having or winning an agrument with them.?

            Anyway, while I can see the concept of race, what is race even,

            would be of interest to scholars besides that it seems in our

            present world that race is not that important.

            > Michael

            Michael, I have a love of argument, if it is conducted in good

            spirit, and those of us who are regular contributors at

            seem to my perception moving ever closer to the attainment of such

            an ideal, whilst the list is also continueing to welcome new

            members. So I even feel a little happier tonight, contemplating the

            road ahead. With regard to the concept of race in our present

            world, it is not important to the many, but is very important for a

            few. Racial instincts, though, manifest in a non-intellectual way

            all the time. I think it would be greatly to the benefit of society

            if this were acknowledged, and an interest in discussing race could

            flourish, instead of the current situation, in which the mention of

            the topic in mainstream quarters tends to evoke immediate

            embarrassment or hostility. And may readily lead straight to the

            police cell, and the courts. The hysterical and offensive outbursts

            of those with little to say that stands up to any scrutiny would

            soon be eclipsed, if serious people were shown due respect. Louise

            >

            >

            > -----Original Message-----

            > From: louise <hecubatoher@hec>

            > To: _existlist@yahoogrouexistl_ (mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com)

            > Sent: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 1:15 pm

            > Subject: [existlist] Re: In brief

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            > Yes, Michael, I agree, ethics is part of philosophy. The point I

            am

            > making is that the concept of race is European, not Semitic, and

            > that this way of asserting racism, i.e., to express communal

            Jewish

            > solidarity by introducing the confusion of the racial

            > term, 'Semitism', is potentially harmful to the attempts of other

            > racial groups to practise legitimate defence of their interests.

            It

            > seems to me to prove prejudicial even to the Jewish people

            > themselves. Their unique kind of community in diversity owes a

            good

            > deal to an idea of racial purity, but the foundation for this idea

            > is religious. The power of the concept 'anti-Semitic' is religious. Th

            > free thought and impose the tendency for self-censorship on

            European

            > peoples is part of the total battle, the undoubtedly horrifying

            > history of bigotries, pogroms, recriminations, intrigue and war.

            > Until the reality and importance of the concept of race is better

            > understood, the argument here may easily be missed. Only time

            > reveals the full meanings of history. Louise

            >

            > --- In _existlist@yahoogrouexistl_ (mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com) ,
            bartleyoreg@ wrote:

            > >

            > > What makes you say this, please explain!? Isn't ethics part of

            > philosophy?? A view we have towards people that not an ethical

            issue

            > or concern.? How we treat people because of what they are, ie

            black,

            > women, English, only because that trait, that is not a ethical

            issue

            > or concern.? On the face of your posting it seems to be kind a

            very

            > strange statement.

            > > Michael

            > >

            > >

            > > -----Original Message-----

            > > From: louise <hecubatoher@>

            > > To: _existlist@yahoogrouexistl_ (mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com)

            > > Sent: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 12:35 pm

            > > Subject: [existlist] In brief

            > >

            > >

            > >

            > >

            > >

            > >

            > > From a philosophical viewpoint, anti-Semitism is a mythical

            > concept,

            > > frequently used as a political weapon.

            > >

            > > Louise

            > >

            > >

            > >

            > >

            > >

            > >

            > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

            > >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            >

            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

            >

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




            **************Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and
            favorite sites in one place. Try it now.
            (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000010)


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • eupraxis@aol.com
            Tom, Well, I understand the save, but this is all still prejudice, in my opinion, if you are explaining such differences (even if they were accurate) as caused
            Message 5 of 28 , Dec 5, 2008
              Tom,

              Well, I understand the save, but this is all still prejudice, in my opinion,
              if you are explaining such differences (even if they were accurate) as caused
              by a "race" factor. Second and third generation Asians do not show any marked
              difference with the student population as a whole, leading one to assume that
              there is a cultural/'nurture' factor at work here. 'Blacks', qua Black, "are
              not likely to be the winners in track and field competition"; tall, long-legged
              people are. See Aristotle on attribution of cause.

              Mutatis mutandis.

              In any case, one could roll one's eyes and accuse me of deliberately being
              difficult, were it not of the fact that the problem here is with the actual
              concept of RACISM ITSELF, and that includes the delicate matter of the 'ism' of
              race. Using race as a thing-unto-itself, as a virtual metaphysic, as a natural
              difference in the great chain of being or the tree of life, etc., is a racist
              act, regardless of whether this is done as it were benignly.

              Let us not forget, this topic has been broached here alongside such other
              questions as racial identity as patriotism, ethnic cleansing, forced mono-ethnic
              societies, and the so forth. The 'bad others', so far, seem to have been South
              Asians and Near Asians. What talents/stigmata do they have? Good at school,
              but bad fashion sense?

              I do not attribute any of this to you, of course. I try not to attribute any
              of this to Louise, either, since I believe that she is mistaken and not
              malevolent. I live in the deep South, USA. My patience for these has long ago been
              tapped out.

              Wil

              In a message dated 12/5/08 7:02:24 PM, tsmith17_midsouth1@... writes:

              > What I said was that there were greater probabilities of certain strenghths
              > and weaknesses appearing among races, but that many individuals will very
              > much overlap. Its like saying that as a group, men are taller than women.
              > However, there are numerous women over 6 feet, and some guys around 5 feet. Jewish
              > and oriental students are more likely to be on the honor roll. Blacks are
              > more likely to be the winners in track and field competition, and us white guys
              > have the highest % of serial killers.Certain diseases are more prevalent
              > among certain races.
              > Tom
              >
              >
              >




              **************
              Stay in touch with ALL of your friends: update your AIM, Bebo,
              Facebook, and MySpace pages with just one click. The NEW AOL.com.
              (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000012)


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • bhvwd
              ... course, the point of newspeak George Orwell made was how beautiful words can still be admired, while the practical aplication of such statement can
              Message 6 of 28 , Dec 5, 2008
                --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@...>
                wrote:
                >
                > I'm very much a fan of the Declaration of Independance also. Of
                course, the point of 'newspeak' George Orwell made was how beautiful
                words can still be admired, while the practical aplication of such
                statement can gradually be changed. The very Americans who talk the
                most about our heritage, freedom etc are very often the ones that in
                reality promote agendas like getting in fights around the world and
                building a massive police state at home; and these were the things
                that guys like Washington and Jefferson saw as totally opposed to the
                new vision on which the US was founded. Shaun Hannity starts his
                radio show with "Let Freedom Ring" and has "Freedom Concerts", but
                his idea of freedom goes no further than going to the Judeochristian
                church of your choice, and investing in the 401k of your choice.
                Yesterday, Hannity had Bill Bennett as 1 of his guests, and Bennett
                was Drug Czar under Bush1. Freedom is used by these guys as another
                excuse for imperialistic aggression.
                > Tom I have hope for you , even if you lapse into self absorption
                and putrid rhetoric. Please continue to expunge and we will happily
                accomidate your demise. I write my sort of immersables and report
                that the better men I have known have hung their butts out. Imagine
                the courage of exclamination, get the point!Bill
                > Tom
                >
                >
                >
                > ----- Original Message -----
                > From: bartleyoreg@...
                > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                > Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 5:03 PM
                > Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: In brief
                >
                >
                > Louise, I work as a volunteer in a middle school, there 13-14
                years old, anyway I help in the American history class.? Currently we
                are studying the Delectation of Independence.? I get very excited
                about this document, sorry knowing you're British!, anyway I believe
                it could be agrued that this document changed history more then any
                other document in the last 230 years.? It makes me proud to be an
                American, to see that those values, while we may have not lived up to
                them, where the values we believed were important as a people.? That
                part of being an American, is having that as our core.? I am getting
                anywhere close?
                > Michael
                >
                > -----Original Message-----
                > From: louise <hecubatoher@...>
                > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                > Sent: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 2:44 pm
                > Subject: [existlist] Re: In brief
                >
                > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, bartleyoreg@ wrote:
                > >
                > > Thank you Louise for your thoughful response, I can see that
                you
                > have thought deeply about this and I do want to understand your
                > point of view.? On a side note I more interested in understanding
                > other people posting then having or winning an agrument with
                them.?
                > Anyway, while I can see the concept of race, what is race even,
                > would be of interest to scholars besides that it seems in our
                > present world that race is not that important.
                > > Michael
                >
                > Michael, I have a love of argument, if it is conducted in good
                > spirit, and those of us who are regular contributors at existlist
                > seem to my perception moving ever closer to the attainment of
                such
                > an ideal, whilst the list is also continueing to welcome new
                > members. So I even feel a little happier tonight, contemplating
                the
                > road ahead. With regard to the concept of race in our present
                > world, it is not important to the many, but is very important for
                a
                > few. Racial instincts, though, manifest in a non-intellectual way
                > all the time. I think it would be greatly to the benefit of
                society
                > if this were acknowledged, and an interest in discussing race
                could
                > flourish, instead of the current situation, in which the mention
                of
                > the topic in mainstream quarters tends to evoke immediate
                > embarrassment or hostility. And may readily lead straight to the
                > police cell, and the courts. The hysterical and offensive
                outbursts
                > of those with little to say that stands up to any scrutiny would
                > soon be eclipsed, if serious people were shown due respect.
                Louise
                >
                > >
                > >
                > > -----Original Message-----
                > > From: louise <hecubatoher@>
                > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                > > Sent: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 1:15 pm
                > > Subject: [existlist] Re: In brief
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > Yes, Michael, I agree, ethics is part of philosophy. The point
                I
                > am
                > > making is that the concept of race is European, not Semitic,
                and
                > > that this way of asserting racism, i.e., to express communal
                > Jewish
                > > solidarity by introducing the confusion of the racial
                > > term, 'Semitism', is potentially harmful to the attempts of
                other
                > > racial groups to practise legitimate defence of their
                interests.
                > It
                > > seems to me to prove prejudicial even to the Jewish people
                > > themselves. Their unique kind of community in diversity owes a
                > good
                > > deal to an idea of racial purity, but the foundation for this
                idea
                > > is religious. The power of the concept 'anti-Semitic', to
                inhibit
                > > free thought and impose the tendency for self-censorship on
                > European
                > > peoples is part of the total battle, the undoubtedly horrifying
                > > history of bigotries, pogroms, recriminations, intrigue and
                war.
                > > Until the reality and importance of the concept of race is
                better
                > > understood, the argument here may easily be missed. Only time
                > > reveals the full meanings of history. Louise
                > >
                > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, bartleyoreg@ wrote:
                > > >
                > > > What makes you say this, please explain!? Isn't ethics part
                of
                > > philosophy?? A view we have towards people that not an ethical
                > issue
                > > or concern.? How we treat people because of what they are, ie
                > black,
                > > women, English, only because that trait, that is not a ethical
                > issue
                > > or concern.? On the face of your posting it seems to be kind a
                > very
                > > strange statement.
                > > > Michael
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > -----Original Message-----
                > > > From: louise <hecubatoher@>
                > > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                > > > Sent: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 12:35 pm
                > > > Subject: [existlist] In brief
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > From a philosophical viewpoint, anti-Semitism is a mythical
                > > concept,
                > > > frequently used as a political weapon.
                > > >
                > > > Louise
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                > > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                > >
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >
              • Paul Jacobson
                Actually one could argue that the Declaration Of Independence was indeed Delectable ........ PJ ... From: bartleyoreg@aol.com To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                Message 7 of 28 , Dec 5, 2008
                  Actually one could argue that the Declaration Of Independence was indeed "Delectable"........
                  PJ

                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: bartleyoreg@...
                  To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                  Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 7:30 PM
                  Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: In brief


                  opps! I knew I should have used the dictionary!


                  In a message dated 12/5/2008 3:43:45 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
                  eupraxis@... writes:

                  Delectation of Independence

                  Gotta watch that spell check. Gets you every time.

                  Wil

                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: _bartleyoreg@bartley_ (mailto:bartleyoreg@...)
                  To: _existlist@yahoogrouexistl_ (mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com)
                  Sent: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 5:03 pm
                  Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: In brief

                  Louise, I work as a volunteer in a middle school, there 13-14 years old,
                  anyway I help in the American history class.? Currently we are studying the
                  Delectation of Independence.Louise, I work as a volunteer in a middle school,
                  there 13-14 years old, anyway I help in the American history class.? Currently we
                  are studying the Delectation of Independence.<WBR>? I get very excited about
                  this document, sorry knowing you're British!, anyway I believe it could be
                  agrued that this document changed history more then any other document in the
                  last 230 years.? It makes me proud to be an American, to see that those
                  values, while

                  Michael

                  -----Original Message-----

                  From: louise <_hecubatoher@hecubatohhe_ (mailto:hecubatoher@...) >

                  To: _existlist@yahoogrouexistl_ (mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com)

                  Sent: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 2:44 pm

                  Subject: [existlist] Re: In brief

                  --- In _existlist@yahoogrouexistl_ (mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com) ,
                  bartleyoreg@, bart

                  >

                  > Thank you Louise for your thoughful response, I can see that you

                  have thought deeply about this and I do want to understand your

                  point of view.? On a side note I more interested in understanding

                  other people posting then having or winning an agrument with them.?

                  Anyway, while I can see the concept of race, what is race even,

                  would be of interest to scholars besides that it seems in our

                  present world that race is not that important.

                  > Michael

                  Michael, I have a love of argument, if it is conducted in good

                  spirit, and those of us who are regular contributors at

                  seem to my perception moving ever closer to the attainment of such

                  an ideal, whilst the list is also continueing to welcome new

                  members. So I even feel a little happier tonight, contemplating the

                  road ahead. With regard to the concept of race in our present

                  world, it is not important to the many, but is very important for a

                  few. Racial instincts, though, manifest in a non-intellectual way

                  all the time. I think it would be greatly to the benefit of society

                  if this were acknowledged, and an interest in discussing race could

                  flourish, instead of the current situation, in which the mention of

                  the topic in mainstream quarters tends to evoke immediate

                  embarrassment or hostility. And may readily lead straight to the

                  police cell, and the courts. The hysterical and offensive outbursts

                  of those with little to say that stands up to any scrutiny would

                  soon be eclipsed, if serious people were shown due respect. Louise

                  >

                  >

                  > -----Original Message-----

                  > From: louise <hecubatoher@hec>

                  > To: _existlist@yahoogrouexistl_ (mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com)

                  > Sent: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 1:15 pm

                  > Subject: [existlist] Re: In brief

                  >

                  >

                  >

                  >

                  >

                  >

                  > Yes, Michael, I agree, ethics is part of philosophy. The point I

                  am

                  > making is that the concept of race is European, not Semitic, and

                  > that this way of asserting racism, i.e., to express communal

                  Jewish

                  > solidarity by introducing the confusion of the racial

                  > term, 'Semitism', is potentially harmful to the attempts of other

                  > racial groups to practise legitimate defence of their interests.

                  It

                  > seems to me to prove prejudicial even to the Jewish people

                  > themselves. Their unique kind of community in diversity owes a

                  good

                  > deal to an idea of racial purity, but the foundation for this idea

                  > is religious. The power of the concept 'anti-Semitic' is religious. Th

                  > free thought and impose the tendency for self-censorship on

                  European

                  > peoples is part of the total battle, the undoubtedly horrifying

                  > history of bigotries, pogroms, recriminations, intrigue and war.

                  > Until the reality and importance of the concept of race is better

                  > understood, the argument here may easily be missed. Only time

                  > reveals the full meanings of history. Louise

                  >

                  > --- In _existlist@yahoogrouexistl_ (mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com) ,
                  bartleyoreg@ wrote:

                  > >

                  > > What makes you say this, please explain!? Isn't ethics part of

                  > philosophy?? A view we have towards people that not an ethical

                  issue

                  > or concern.? How we treat people because of what they are, ie

                  black,

                  > women, English, only because that trait, that is not a ethical

                  issue

                  > or concern.? On the face of your posting it seems to be kind a

                  very

                  > strange statement.

                  > > Michael

                  > >

                  > >

                  > > -----Original Message-----

                  > > From: louise <hecubatoher@>

                  > > To: _existlist@yahoogrouexistl_ (mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com)

                  > > Sent: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 12:35 pm

                  > > Subject: [existlist] In brief

                  > >

                  > >

                  > >

                  > >

                  > >

                  > >

                  > > From a philosophical viewpoint, anti-Semitism is a mythical

                  > concept,

                  > > frequently used as a political weapon.

                  > >

                  > > Louise

                  > >

                  > >

                  > >

                  > >

                  > >

                  > >

                  > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                  > >

                  >

                  >

                  >

                  >

                  >

                  >

                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                  >

                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                  **************Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and
                  favorite sites in one place. Try it now.
                  (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000010)

                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------



                  No virus found in this incoming message.
                  Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
                  Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.9.14/1832 - Release Date: 07/12/29 09:57 Õ


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • jimstuart51
                  All, I feel the posts in this thread have been thoughtful and constructive, especially given the sensitive nature of the subject matter. One central issue is
                  Message 8 of 28 , Dec 7, 2008
                    All,

                    I feel the posts in this thread have been thoughtful and
                    constructive, especially given the sensitive nature of the subject
                    matter.

                    One central issue is the question of whether to engage in a
                    philosophical discussion of racism, assuming the concept of race to
                    be a valid concept, is itself to fall into racist attitudes. Thus Wil
                    writes:

                    "In any case, one could roll one's eyes and accuse me of deliberately
                    being difficult, were it not of the fact that the problem here is
                    with the actual concept of RACISM ITSELF, and that includes the
                    delicate matter of the 'ism' of race. Using race as a thing-unto-
                    itself, as a virtual metaphysic, as a natural difference in the great
                    chain of being or the tree of life, etc., is a racist act, regardless
                    of whether this is done as it were benignly." (45883)

                    As against this, Louise calls for philosophers to accept the concept
                    of race as valid and to address this matter more thoroughly than
                    before:

                    "Racial instincts, though, manifest in a non-intellectual way all the
                    time. I think it would be greatly to the benefit of society if this
                    were acknowledged, and an interest in discussing race could flourish,
                    instead of the current situation, in which the mention of the topic
                    in mainstream quarters tends to evoke immediate embarrassment or
                    hostility. And may readily lead straight to the police cell, and the
                    courts. The hysterical and offensive outbursts of those with little
                    to say that stands up to any scrutiny would soon be eclipsed, if
                    serious people were shown due respect." (45874)

                    I think both these view can be accommodated if the philosophical
                    discussion centres on the question whether or not the concept of race
                    is a valid concept.

                    On one side, the more scientifically-orientated philosophers may
                    argue that race is a `natural kind' term which can be used to pick
                    out, in an objective way, individuals who fall under one or other
                    racial category.

                    On the other side, the more subjectively-orientated philosophers may
                    argue that the whole idea of a natural-kind concept is dubious. They
                    would argue that the concepts we use answer to our interests, and if
                    we view a conceptual distinction as not being in our interests than
                    that distinction is to be rejected as invalid.

                    Nietzsche argued for this latter view when pouring score on those
                    ascetic individuals who put a disinterested `will to truth' above all
                    else. He views such individuals as weak and `anti-life'. Of course
                    the irony here is that the concept of race was one which featured in
                    Nietzsche's writings. Whilst I would not consider Nietzsche a racist,
                    he seems to come out as a `benign racist' according to Wil's
                    criterion, as he seems to accept the validity of the concept of race.

                    Another irony is that for Louise, she wishes the concept of race to
                    be discussed for cultural reasons. She is concerned that the British
                    white culture is not allowed to die out. Leftists and liberals are
                    often keen to defend the rights of minority cultures to survive
                    untainted by Western imperialism and capitalism. Western liberals
                    like myself feel that the native Indians of America and the
                    Aborigines of Australia have a right to protect their own culture
                    from extinction, but we feel uneasy when white British people argue
                    for the same right of protection.

                    I have some sympathy for those traditional cultures who do not wish
                    to be subsumed by Western capitalism. I don't want a MacDonalds in
                    every primitive village, or the top television companies beaming out
                    their lies from a television in every public meeting place.

                    On the other hand wishing to preserve one's own culture or race in
                    some sort of `pure' form makes me very uneasy as well.

                    Louise may say that all races are different but equal, however most
                    people who argue that races are different also view them as unequal.
                    Those cases where one race has aggressively attempted to destroy
                    another race are often case where the aggressor views the individuals
                    of their opponent race as not fully human – not even human at all. In
                    fact all war and killing seems to involve the combatants as being
                    brain-washed to see their enemies as lacking in humanity. (I have
                    just seen the excellent film "The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas" (USA
                    2008, director Mark Herman) which illustrates such attitudes very
                    well.)

                    The way forward, in my view, if for the philosopher to argue that all
                    human beings – whatever their racial or cultural background – are
                    fully human, and, as such, are equally valuable in themselves, and,
                    because of this, deserve to be treated with benevolence and respect,
                    as `ends in themselves, and never as means'. Kant argued for this
                    view in theory, but I gather that in practice he was not quite able
                    to see some foreigners as fully human.

                    Jim
                  • tom
                    Louise may say that all races are different but equal, however most people who argue that races are different also view them as unequal. Those cases where one
                    Message 9 of 28 , Dec 7, 2008
                      Louise may say that all races are different but equal, however most
                      people who argue that races are different also view them as unequal.
                      Those cases where one race has aggressively attempted to destroy
                      another race are often case where the aggressor views the individuals
                      of their opponent race as not fully human - not even human at all. In
                      fact all war and killing seems to involve the combatants as being
                      brain-washed to see their enemies as lacking in humanity. (I have
                      just seen the excellent film "The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas" (USA
                      2008, director Mark Herman) which illustrates such attitudes very
                      well.)Jim

                      I read a Tolstoy quote once saying that as long as we have slaughter houses we'll have front lines. The hunting gatherring party, the first social group was bounded as to everything outside of us is game.Making a blood sacrafice to the tribal God. Tribal people r so much more closely connected with each other than we. Civiliozed people lack the same unity that tribals share. However, the very closeness with each other as compared to civilized cats is matched by the willingness to align wit the emerging value
                      Tom.

                      Tom
                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: jimstuart51
                      To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                      Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2008 8:07 AM
                      Subject: [existlist] Re: In brief


                      All,

                      I feel the posts in this thread have been thoughtful and
                      constructive, especially given the sensitive nature of the subject
                      matter.

                      One central issue is the question of whether to engage in a
                      philosophical discussion of racism, assuming the concept of race to
                      be a valid concept, is itself to fall into racist attitudes. Thus Wil
                      writes:

                      "In any case, one could roll one's eyes and accuse me of deliberately
                      being difficult, were it not of the fact that the problem here is
                      with the actual concept of RACISM ITSELF, and that includes the
                      delicate matter of the 'ism' of race. Using race as a thing-unto-
                      itself, as a virtual metaphysic, as a natural difference in the great
                      chain of being or the tree of life, etc., is a racist act, regardless
                      of whether this is done as it were benignly." (45883)

                      As against this, Louise calls for philosophers to accept the concept
                      of race as valid and to address this matter more thoroughly than
                      before:

                      "Racial instincts, though, manifest in a non-intellectual way all the
                      time. I think it would be greatly to the benefit of society if this
                      were acknowledged, and an interest in discussing race could flourish,
                      instead of the current situation, in which the mention of the topic
                      in mainstream quarters tends to evoke immediate embarrassment or
                      hostility. And may readily lead straight to the police cell, and the
                      courts. The hysterical and offensive outbursts of those with little
                      to say that stands up to any scrutiny would soon be eclipsed, if
                      serious people were shown due respect." (45874)

                      I think both these view can be accommodated if the philosophical
                      discussion centres on the question whether or not the concept of race
                      is a valid concept.

                      On one side, the more scientifically-orientated philosophers may
                      argue that race is a `natural kind' term which can be used to pick
                      out, in an objective way, individuals who fall under one or other
                      racial category.

                      On the other side, the more subjectively-orientated philosophers may
                      argue that the whole idea of a natural-kind concept is dubious. They
                      would argue that the concepts we use answer to our interests, and if
                      we view a conceptual distinction as not being in our interests than
                      that distinction is to be rejected as invalid.

                      Nietzsche argued for this latter view when pouring score on those
                      ascetic individuals who put a disinterested `will to truth' above all
                      else. He views such individuals as weak and `anti-life'. Of course
                      the irony here is that the concept of race was one which featured in
                      Nietzsche's writings. Whilst I would not consider Nietzsche a racist,
                      he seems to come out as a `benign racist' according to Wil's
                      criterion, as he seems to accept the validity of the concept of race.

                      Another irony is that for Louise, she wishes the concept of race to
                      be discussed for cultural reasons. She is concerned that the British
                      white culture is not allowed to die out. Leftists and liberals are
                      often keen to defend the rights of minority cultures to survive
                      untainted by Western imperialism and capitalism. Western liberals
                      like myself feel that the native Indians of America and the
                      Aborigines of Australia have a right to protect their own culture
                      from extinction, but we feel uneasy when white British people argue
                      for the same right of protection.

                      I have some sympathy for those traditional cultures who do not wish
                      to be subsumed by Western capitalism. I don't want a MacDonalds in
                      every primitive village, or the top television companies beaming out
                      their lies from a television in every public meeting place.

                      On the other hand wishing to preserve one's own culture or race in
                      some sort of `pure' form makes me very uneasy as well.

                      Louise may say that all races are different but equal, however most
                      people who argue that races are different also view them as unequal.
                      Those cases where one race has aggressively attempted to destroy
                      another race are often case where the aggressor views the individuals
                      of their opponent race as not fully human - not even human at all. In
                      fact all war and killing seems to involve the combatants as being
                      brain-washed to see their enemies as lacking in humanity. (I have
                      just seen the excellent film "The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas" (USA
                      2008, director Mark Herman) which illustrates such attitudes very
                      well.)

                      The way forward, in my view, if for the philosopher to argue that all
                      human beings - whatever their racial or cultural background - are
                      fully human, and, as such, are equally valuable in themselves, and,
                      because of this, deserve to be treated with benevolence and respect,
                      as `ends in themselves, and never as means'. Kant argued for this
                      view in theory, but I gather that in practice he was not quite able
                      to see some foreigners as fully human.

                      Jim





                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • eupraxis@aol.com
                      Jim, Thanks for the post. Many writers before the last Century, with all of its horrors and the hindsight gleaned from them, have used the concept of race in
                      Message 10 of 28 , Dec 7, 2008
                        Jim,

                        Thanks for the post.

                        Many writers before the last Century, with all of its horrors and the
                        hindsight gleaned from them, have used the concept of race in one way or another.
                        Kant says some very terrible things about black Africans; Engels writes about the
                        small brains of American aboriginals; Nietzsche talks about the hot Latin
                        races, and so on. These statements are not part of a formal theory, but were
                        rather part and parcel of a naive prejudice held by the mainstream in the West
                        that were never examined thoroughly. Since the advent of Nazism and other overt
                        racist movements, the concept of race has been examined in all relevant fields,
                        including recently in the genetic sciences. The conclusion wrought from all
                        of these fields is that "race" is a street notion, an intellectual slang with
                        no formal veracity, a way to group family resemblances but not to associate
                        anything otherwise unusually innate to them vis-a-vis others, other than a
                        propensity to have gas after eating cheese or to develop a rare kind of anemia, etc.


                        Thus race is a term the importance of which is only to be gleaned from its
                        context, especially in writings since the 19th Century. I prefer never to use
                        it, except for phrases like "human race" and the like.

                        If we look at a writer like Spengler, whom I admire, we see how he developed
                        a very sophisticated way of understanding race as a trans-morphic secondary
                        characteristic of 'man'. If one takes a look at his monumental "Decline of the
                        West", you will see how he understands race as something that changes over
                        time. Humanity is thoroughly 'plastic' for Spengler. He contended against the
                        notion of racial superiority.

                        Even Nietzsche, whose remarks are nearly always more 'rhetorical' than
                        formal, anyway, associates the behavior of 'races' with their culinary practices and
                        weather, rather than with some virtually occult 'essence'. Perhaps those who
                        eat too many sausages have a different mood than those who eat a 'Continental
                        breakfast'? Dunno...

                        I have always found it remarkable how racists here in the US have warned
                        against the polluting of American culture by "blacks", when the obvious fact of
                        the matter is that American culture is totally infused with black culture, and
                        always has been since there was a discernible American culture in the first
                        place! While I understand the fear of a MacDonalds being on every street corner
                        of London, it is nevertheless the case that American culture (R&B, blues, rock
                        and roll, etc.) has already so affected British popular culture as to be, by
                        now, indissociable from it. For many years, there were more white Brit kids
                        from Liverpool listening to recordings of Albert King, T-Bone Walker or Muddy
                        Waters than kids from Long Island, where I grew up.

                        In any case, you offer us two basic alternatives: either to argue about race
                        from within its own controversy (what is race, is there race?), or to argue
                        about race from the oblique position of ethics and politics, if we assume, as a
                        prior condition, that all persons deserve respect. I, for one. would welcome
                        either, as I have no doubt that the conclusions of both would lead in a
                        parallel direction.

                        Wil



                        In a message dated 12/7/08 8:09:36 AM, jjimstuart1@... writes:


                        > All,
                        >
                        > I feel the posts in this thread have been thoughtful and
                        > constructive, especially given the sensitive nature of the subject
                        > matter.
                        >
                        > One central issue is the question of whether to engage in a
                        > philosophical discussion of racism, assuming the concept of race to
                        > be a valid concept, is itself to fall into racist attitudes. Thus Wil
                        > writes:
                        >
                        > "In any case, one could roll one's eyes and accuse me of deliberately
                        > being difficult, were it not of the fact that the problem here is
                        > with the actual concept of RACISM ITSELF, and that includes the
                        > delicate matter of the 'ism' of race. Using race as a thing-unto-
                        > itself, as a virtual metaphysic, as a natural difference in the great
                        > chain of being or the tree of life, etc., is a racist act, regardless
                        > of whether this is done as it were benignly." (45883)
                        >
                        > As against this, Louise calls for philosophers to accept the concept
                        > of race as valid and to address this matter more thoroughly than
                        > before:
                        >
                        > "Racial instincts, though, manifest in a non-intellectual way all the
                        > time. I think it would be greatly to the benefit of society if this
                        > were acknowledged, and an interest in discussing race could flourish,
                        > instead of the current situation, in which the mention of the topic
                        > in mainstream quarters tends to evoke immediate embarrassment or
                        > hostility. And may readily lead straight to the police cell, and the
                        > courts. The hysterical and offensive outbursts of those with little
                        > to say that stands up to any scrutiny would soon be eclipsed, if
                        > serious people were shown due respect." (45874)
                        >
                        > I think both these view can be accommodated if the philosophical
                        > discussion centres on the question whether or not the concept of race
                        > is a valid concept.
                        >
                        > On one side, the more scientifically- On one side, the more scien
                        > argue that race is a `natural kind' term which can be used to pick
                        > out, in an objective way, individuals who fall under one or other
                        > racial category.
                        >
                        > On the other side, the more subjectively- On the other side, the more
                        > argue that the whole idea of a natural-kind concept is dubious. They
                        > would argue that the concepts we use answer to our interests, and if
                        > we view a conceptual distinction as not being in our interests than
                        > that distinction is to be rejected as invalid.
                        >
                        > Nietzsche argued for this latter view when pouring score on those
                        > ascetic individuals who put a disinterested `will to truth' above all
                        > else. He views such individuals as weak and `anti-life'. Of course
                        > the irony here is that the concept of race was one which featured in
                        > Nietzsche's writings. Whilst I would not consider Nietzsche a racist,
                        > he seems to come out as a `benign racist' according to Wil's
                        > criterion, as he seems to accept the validity of the concept of race.
                        >
                        > Another irony is that for Louise, she wishes the concept of race to
                        > be discussed for cultural reasons. She is concerned that the British
                        > white culture is not allowed to die out. Leftists and liberals are
                        > often keen to defend the rights of minority cultures to survive
                        > untainted by Western imperialism and capitalism. Western liberals
                        > like myself feel that the native Indians of America and the
                        > Aborigines of Australia have a right to protect their own culture
                        > from extinction, but we feel uneasy when white British people argue
                        > for the same right of protection.
                        >
                        > I have some sympathy for those traditional cultures who do not wish
                        > to be subsumed by Western capitalism. I don't want a MacDonalds in
                        > every primitive village, or the top television companies beaming out
                        > their lies from a television in every public meeting place.
                        >
                        > On the other hand wishing to preserve one's own culture or race in
                        > some sort of `pure' form makes me very uneasy as well.
                        >
                        > Louise may say that all races are different but equal, however most
                        > people who argue that races are different also view them as unequal.
                        > Those cases where one race has aggressively attempted to destroy
                        > another race are often case where the aggressor views the individuals
                        > of their opponent race as not fully human – not even human at all. In
                        > fact all war and killing seems to involve the combatants as being
                        > brain-washed to see their enemies as lacking in humanity. (I have
                        > just seen the excellent film "The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas" (USA
                        > 2008, director Mark Herman) which illustrates such attitudes very
                        > well.)
                        >
                        > The way forward, in my view, if for the philosopher to argue that all
                        > human beings – whatever their racial or cultural background – are
                        > fully human, and, as such, are equally valuable in themselves, and,
                        > because of this, deserve to be treated with benevolence and respect,
                        > as `ends in themselves, and never as means'. Kant argued for this
                        > view in theory, but I gather that in practice he was not quite able
                        > to see some foreigners as fully human.
                        >
                        > Jim
                        >
                        >
                        >




                        **************
                        Stay in touch with ALL of your friends: update your AIM, Bebo,
                        Facebook, and MySpace pages with just one click. The NEW AOL.com.
                        (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000012)


                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • jimstuart51
                        Wil, Thanks for your post – I find myself in agreement with just about everything you have written on this subject. I ll just comment specifically on this
                        Message 11 of 28 , Dec 7, 2008
                          Wil,

                          Thanks for your post – I find myself in agreement with just about
                          everything you have written on this subject.

                          I'll just comment specifically on this section from your post:

                          "While I understand the fear of a MacDonalds being on every street
                          corner of London, it is nevertheless the case that American culture
                          (R&B, blues, rock and roll, etc.) has already so affected British
                          popular culture as to be, by now, indissociable from it. For many
                          years, there were more white Brit kids from Liverpool listening to
                          recordings of Albert King, T-Bone Walker or Muddy Waters than kids
                          from Long Island, where I grew up."

                          I, myself, am not too concerned about American culture dominating
                          over here. I consider myself rather a `counter-culture' person
                          anyway, quite happy to embrace things which are often explicitly
                          reactions against the mainstream culture, whether British or American.

                          More than anything else, I consider myself to be a European rather
                          than English or British. I see myself as part of the intellectual
                          culture of Europe which started with the Ancient Greeks, then moved
                          to the Romans, and more than anything else I see myself as a product
                          of the Enlightenment.

                          I found myself feeling a sense of pride when I read Zizek writing:

                          "What makes modern Europe unique is that it is the first and only
                          civilisation in which atheism is a fully legitimate option, not an
                          obstacle to any public post. This is most emphatically a European
                          legacy worth fighting for. (Violence, p. 118)

                          I suppose I also feel myself to be a continuation of a tradition of
                          English radicalism which embraced such groups as the Quakers, the
                          Chartists and the early trade unionists.

                          Referring to myself as European tends to annoy British/English
                          nationalists and patriots. However they themselves seem to be on
                          tricky ground when asked if they are primarily English or British.

                          I note that Louise sometimes refers to herself as `British' and
                          sometimes as `English'. This is only likely to annoy anybody who is
                          Scottish or Welsh. As you know, England has conquered both Wales and
                          Scotland at some time or other, and today there are many Welsh and
                          Scottish nationalists who wish to defend their Welsh and Scottish
                          culture from the English imperialists.

                          Sometimes these Welsh and Scottish nationalists talk of the English
                          as a different race!

                          Finally, moving from culture back to race, I can honestly say that to
                          me race is a total non-issue. I see people as human beings primarily
                          and hardly notice the colour of their skin. Just as I would be
                          perfectly happy for my children to be gay, I would be perfectly happy
                          for them to have loving relationships with individuals from different
                          racial and cultural backgrounds.

                          Perhaps it could be argued that I am so unconcerned about cultural
                          and racial only because I have never suffered at the hands of a
                          stronger cultural or racial aggressor. Certainly being male, white,
                          heterosexual, middle class and European, I acknowledge that I am
                          probably not the best person to talk on the subject of the oppression
                          of minorities.

                          Jim
                        • Aija Veldre Beldavs
                          ... not really interested in race issues, as i don t see how anyone actually conversant with modern genetic DNA research can be a racist. racism is outdated
                          Message 12 of 28 , Dec 7, 2008
                            > most
                            > people who argue that races are different also view them as unequal.
                            > Those cases where one race has aggressively attempted to destroy
                            > another race are often case where the aggressor views the individuals
                            > of their opponent race as not fully human – not even human at all.
                            > Jim

                            not really interested in race issues, as i don't see how anyone actually
                            conversant with modern genetic DNA research can be a racist. racism is
                            outdated bad science and the cumulative result of colonialist thought
                            (maybe also a specialized result of elitist or wanna-be ruling class
                            thinking).

                            i don't see racism as necessarily connected to nationalism at all.
                            nationalism, as most things, may be either destructive and hateful of
                            others or a positive unifying force which respects the positive
                            nationalism of others.

                            i don't think racism has been either a primary or universal frame of
                            reference in relation to the other, as there is ample evidence for
                            non-racist contact among archaic populations in low population density
                            areas.

                            first of all racism involves a belief in father-right and sexual purity,
                            but humans are just as related to the bonobo (whose society is not based
                            on "sexual selection") as to the larger chimpanzee. there are
                            populations, as in pre-Christian northern Eurasia, where sexual purity
                            was not necessarily demanded of females, and father right is not
                            necessarily primary. in low population density areas the primary
                            consideration is likely to be female fertility as a value rather than
                            virginity, and children are going to be valued as valuable additions to
                            the group as long as they contribute and support group norms. native
                            Americans for example kidnapped also white children when there were not
                            enough in the tribe.

                            here's an interesting article that speaks of current attitudes as
                            deriving from earlier pagan views:
                            http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/18/iceland

                            northeastern Europe is a good example of genetic diversity going back to
                            the aboriginal populations, which for the sake of simplicity may be seen
                            as for the first thousands of years as Finnic, Baltic, and Scandinavian
                            - each of them with complex timespace diverse subgroup developments.
                            there are graves of spouses of different genetic type backgrounds. even
                            in the 9th - 12th c. alliances were not made on the basis of race. thus
                            the (Baltic Finnic) Livs might ally themselves with a (Indo-Euroean
                            speaking) Balt tribe against an (Baltic Finnic) Estonian tribe or
                            another Balt tribe, but in the next round might find themselves
                            switching alliances.

                            organized military aggression in northeastern Europe is introduced by
                            Indo-European military raider bands, of whom the Scandinavian Vikings
                            are best known. the Sami of northern Europe, an archaic Europoid
                            population with both "western" and "eastern" genetics (true also of the
                            East Baltic), were unprepared for the aggression of the Iron Age on
                            warrior culture marauder raiders resulting in folklore about the
                            "Tchudes" as portrayed in the Sami Norvegian film "Pathfinder" (1987).
                            if sometimes the portrayal of Tchudes comes close to the portrayal of
                            cannibalistic ogres "stallu" that does not have to be taken as evidence
                            of innate racism. aggression, rather than race, is the primary reason
                            for characterizing the raiders as not human. friendly contacts with
                            anthropomorphically dissimilar groups does not seem to result in racism.

                            in short, i think even to modern times aggression against a particular
                            population is much more fundamentally political in the E. Baltic area,
                            rather than intrinsically racially motivated. both the Finnish and
                            Latvian peoples in particular had tragic civil war political types of
                            conflicts dividing primarily brother against brother as defender of
                            either the so-called "reds" or "whites." i think Finland is an
                            excellent example of a country that in recent times has fully come to
                            terms with its history (that is how it was, and those were the factors
                            from a systems point of view) and in research seems to welcome all new
                            evidence without feeling its core threatened, resulting in a much more
                            integrated population.

                            aija
                          • eupraxis@aol.com
                            Jim, Thanks. Again, I am in agreement with your basic enframing of the topic. Wil ... ************** Stay in touch with ALL of your friends: update your AIM,
                            Message 13 of 28 , Dec 7, 2008
                              Jim,

                              Thanks. Again, I am in agreement with your basic enframing of the topic.

                              Wil

                              In a message dated 12/7/08 11:21:06 AM, jjimstuart1@... writes:


                              > Wil,
                              >
                              > Thanks for your post – I find myself in agreement with just about
                              > everything you have written on this subject.
                              >
                              > I'll just comment specifically on this section from your post:
                              >
                              > "While I understand the fear of a MacDonalds being on every street
                              > corner of London, it is nevertheless the case that American culture
                              > (R&B, blues, rock and roll, etc.) has already so affected British
                              > popular culture as to be, by now, indissociable from it. For many
                              > years, there were more white Brit kids from Liverpool listening to
                              > recordings of Albert King, T-Bone Walker or Muddy Waters than kids
                              > from Long Island, where I grew up."
                              >
                              > I, myself, am not too concerned about American culture dominating
                              > over here. I consider myself rather a `counter-culture' person
                              > anyway, quite happy to embrace things which are often explicitly
                              > reactions against the mainstream culture, whether British or American.
                              >
                              > More than anything else, I consider myself to be a European rather
                              > than English or British. I see myself as part of the intellectual
                              > culture of Europe which started with the Ancient Greeks, then moved
                              > to the Romans, and more than anything else I see myself as a product
                              > of the Enlightenment.
                              >
                              > I found myself feeling a sense of pride when I read Zizek writing:
                              >
                              > "What makes modern Europe unique is that it is the first and only
                              > civilisation in which atheism is a fully legitimate option, not an
                              > obstacle to any public post. This is most emphatically a European
                              > legacy worth fighting for. (Violence, p. 118)
                              >
                              > I suppose I also feel myself to be a continuation of a tradition of
                              > English radicalism which embraced such groups as the Quakers, the
                              > Chartists and the early trade unionists.
                              >
                              > Referring to myself as European tends to annoy British/English
                              > nationalists and patriots. However they themselves seem to be on
                              > tricky ground when asked if they are primarily English or British.
                              >
                              > I note that Louise sometimes refers to herself as `British' and
                              > sometimes as `English'. This is only likely to annoy anybody who is
                              > Scottish or Welsh. As you know, England has conquered both Wales and
                              > Scotland at some time or other, and today there are many Welsh and
                              > Scottish nationalists who wish to defend their Welsh and Scottish
                              > culture from the English imperialists.
                              >
                              > Sometimes these Welsh and Scottish nationalists talk of the English
                              > as a different race!
                              >
                              > Finally, moving from culture back to race, I can honestly say that to
                              > me race is a total non-issue. I see people as human beings primarily
                              > and hardly notice the colour of their skin. Just as I would be
                              > perfectly happy for my children to be gay, I would be perfectly happy
                              > for them to have loving relationships with individuals from different
                              > racial and cultural backgrounds.
                              >
                              > Perhaps it could be argued that I am so unconcerned about cultural
                              > and racial only because I have never suffered at the hands of a
                              > stronger cultural or racial aggressor. Certainly being male, white,
                              > heterosexual, middle class and European, I acknowledge that I am
                              > probably not the best person to talk on the subject of the oppression
                              > of minorities.
                              >
                              > Jim
                              >
                              >
                              >




                              **************
                              Stay in touch with ALL of your friends: update your AIM, Bebo,
                              Facebook, and MySpace pages with just one click. The NEW AOL.com.
                              (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000012)


                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • louise
                              ... Tom, No, actually, I am arguing that before one proceeds to question whether there are measurable differences between races, one should ascertain the
                              Message 14 of 28 , Dec 7, 2008
                                --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > Louise may say that all races are different but equal, however most
                                > people who argue that races are different also view them as unequal.

                                Tom,

                                No, actually, I am arguing that before one proceeds to question whether
                                there are measurable differences between races, one should ascertain
                                the meaning of human equality. It is a spiritual or philosophical
                                reality, not necessarily a scientific one. The divorce of science from
                                a feeling for the sacredness of life is at the root of our modern
                                malaise. A sweepingly general statement, but reasonable, I think.

                                Louise
                              • louise
                                Jim: I note that Louise sometimes refers to herself as `British and sometimes as `English . This is only likely to annoy anybody who is Scottish or Welsh. As
                                Message 15 of 28 , Dec 7, 2008
                                  Jim: "I note that Louise sometimes refers to herself as `British' and
                                  sometimes as `English'. This is only likely to annoy anybody who is
                                  Scottish or Welsh. As you know, England has conquered both Wales and
                                  Scotland at some time or other, and today there are many Welsh and
                                  Scottish nationalists who wish to defend their Welsh and Scottish
                                  culture from the English imperialists.
                                  Sometimes these Welsh and Scottish nationalists talk of the English
                                  as a different race!"

                                  Welsh and Scottish nationalists who are annoyed by my description of
                                  myself as either British or English would be most untypical, surely,
                                  since I am obviously both, and legitimately so. Of course they are
                                  likely to be annoyed when Britain and England are named as though
                                  interchangeable, for this shows disrespect to the Scots and Welsh (as
                                  ignoring their existence) and to many Northern Irish folk who value
                                  their British nationality. There is a difference between a human
                                  being and a nation! I myself find it irritating or embarrassing when
                                  no distinction is made between the two. As for being different
                                  races, well, that might be an interesting discussion. The tribal
                                  origins of the various people who have inhabited the British isles
                                  both before and after the Norman conquest is a complex study. I am
                                  reading a book about the Vikings at the moment, and their impact on
                                  the Christian English. Fearful stuff. Louise
                                • jimstuart51
                                  Aija, Thank you for your thoughtful and informative post. Let me comment on a couple of the sections from your post: Aija: not really interested in race
                                  Message 16 of 28 , Dec 8, 2008
                                    Aija,

                                    Thank you for your thoughtful and informative post. Let me comment on
                                    a couple of the sections from your post:

                                    Aija: not really interested in race issues, as i don't see how anyone
                                    actually conversant with modern genetic DNA research can be a racist.
                                    racism is outdated bad science and the cumulative result of
                                    colonialist thought (maybe also a specialized result of elitist or
                                    wanna-be ruling class thinking).

                                    Jim: Racism may indeed be "outdated bad science," but there is still
                                    quite a lot of it about, particularly amongst those without a
                                    scientific education. I am only interested in racism to the extent
                                    that I think there is still work to be done, both intellectual and
                                    practical, to eliminate it.

                                    Aija: i don't see racism as necessarily connected to nationalism at
                                    all. nationalism, as most things, may be either destructive and
                                    hateful of others or a positive unifying force which respects the
                                    positive nationalism of others.

                                    Jim: It would be nice if nationalism were predominantly "a positive
                                    unifying force which respects the positive nationalism of others."
                                    However my own experience is that it is usually "destructive and
                                    hateful of others." Perhaps, if like the Finns, we can learn from
                                    history, then nationalism can be a force for good. Perhaps each of us
                                    can be proud of our nation's greatest achievements, whilst
                                    acknowledging our nation's worst behaviour (both past and present).
                                    Unfortunately the propaganda apparatus in most countries manages to
                                    portray the nation as always in the right. Further, individuals seem
                                    to have a strong subconscious desire to convince themselves that
                                    their social group (i.e. their nation) is the good guys. Also, in
                                    most countries at most times, it is considered unpatriotic to
                                    question the correctness of one's nation's foreign policy.


                                    What you write about "father right and sexual purity" is most
                                    interesting. I agree that those societies where pagan traditions
                                    dominated seem to have emerged in a more healthy state than those
                                    where Christian attitudes predominated. In Britain, Christian moral
                                    attitudes are the biggest hindrance to genuine ethical progress.


                                    Finally, the article on Iceland was interesting, although I wonder to
                                    what extent the recent catastrophic failure of the Icelandic banks
                                    will change things. Also, for a bleaker view of Iceland, I recommend
                                    the film "Jar City" (Iceland 2008 Dir Baltasar Kormakur).

                                    Jim
                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.