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

Re: Folk and Market

Expand Messages
  • irvhal
    Heidegger took folk as more than biologism, emphasizing a shared dwelling, language and heritage. History defines a folk. One does not quibble whether Kipling
    Message 1 of 10 , Nov 6, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Heidegger took folk as more than biologism, emphasizing a shared dwelling, language and heritage. History defines a folk. One does not quibble whether Kipling or Shakespeare are British. And the comfort, love and belongingness that heritage bestows, now so unabashedly asserted by (or for) Latinos, Carribeans or Pakistanis, or even by a recent Japanese prime minister who called Japan a "one race" nation, cannot be denied those in the West. A folk can and will welcome guests and even incorporate others, but unfettered immigration obliterates identity and sovereignty.

      Irvin

      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Jim" <jjimstuart1@...> wrote:
      >
      > Wil,
      >
      > Thank you for that rather depressing information.
      >
      > I look forward to reading Irvin's clarifications. I am not sure if he endorsing the racist attitudes of the predominantly elderly Whites who support your Tea Party group.
      >
      > Jim
      >
      >
      >
      > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:
      > >
      > > Jim,
      > >
      > > Irvin is correct about the US; I cannot speak of the UK or anywhere else. I hadn't realized how deeply racist (or ethnocentrist, etc.) this country is until recently, with the election of Obama and its aftermath. I think this is generational, and it will likely lapse in the future. A recent study as reported on "The Last Word" (MSNBC), for example, determined that, excluding the youth vote (the age was not specified), the majority of White voters here backed McCain-Palin, and that it was the youth vote (mostly white, educated) that overwhelmingly voted for Obama. The so-called Tea Party movement is overwhelmingly older and White. Etc. We often hear about the "browning" of America, "Africare", and all of that, by pundits whose audience is 60 and above. Most older Whites do not want "minorities" to enjoy the social benefits that they enjoy, in my opinion.
      > >
      > > I am not sure what the Heidegger claim was about.
      > >
      > > Wil
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > -----Original Message-----
      > > From: Jim <jjimstuart1@>
      > > To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
      > > Sent: Sat, Nov 6, 2010 12:05 pm
      > > Subject: [existlist] Re: Folk and Market
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Irvin,
      > >
      > > I am intrigued by your latest post and not completely clear as to its meaning. Let me split your post up into two parts.
      > >
      > > Irvin: It seems that lower and middle class Euro-Americans, and so too their counterparts in England and the continent, do not accept a welfare state whose brew includes multiculturalism and unfettered immigration.
      > >
      > > Response: I wonder what your evidence for this claim is. Are you appealing to some statistical survey? Or to recent election results?
      > >
      > > By 'Euro-Americans' do you mean the sons and daughters of European immigrants to the US? That is Scottish Americans, Irish Americans, Italian Americans, etc.? By the reference to 'counterparts in England' do you just mean the English, and exclude the Scottish and Irish immigrants to England?
      > >
      > > Are these groups of people supposed to reject the welfare state per se, or only a welfare state which treats people of all ethnic backgrounds equally?
      > >
      > > Immigration is a matter of Government policy and, as such, is not really a matter connected with the welfare state.
      > >
      > > I have only really knowledge of the situation here in England, and my impression is that most ordinary people think the welfare state here is a good thing. Generally people here are proud of our National Health Service and the fact that state education is freely available for all.
      > >
      > > Also I think most people here approve of multiculturalism – my daughter's friends include Afro-Caribbeans, Sikhs, Oriental Asians, Irish. The racist British National Party performed very poorly in the last General Election (1% of the vote, I believe).
      > >
      > > I agree that most people here do not want unlimited immigration, but that is the same everywhere. I am sure the native American Indians did not want the European immigrants taking over their country in the 17th Century and afterwards. However I think an acceptance of the great benefits of multiculturalism and limited immigration can go together with a rejection of unlimited immigration.
      > >
      > > Do you not think North America has benefitted from the Scottish and Irish immigrants?
      > >
      > > Irvin: Home, the primal and simplest of human needs, is dwelling with one's folk, and is not easily bought by elites beholden to profit, nor dissuaded by universalist mystics or intellectuals. Being, as Heidegger noted in cautioning about a worldview enframed by modern technology, is more.
      > >
      > > Response: I am not sure what the 'more' in the second sentence is supposed to reference in the first sentence.
      > >
      > > I accept that for Heidegger, Being is certainly more than profit, more than technology, more than intellectualism, more that mysticism.
      > >
      > > And who are one's 'folk'? Are you making a racist claim here? Are you saying mixed-marriage families lack a home? Are you saying that when the Scottish and Irish immigrants reached the shores of America they lacked a home?
      > >
      > > I would greatly appreciate clarification on these issues.
      > >
      > > Jim
      > >
      > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "irvhal" <i99hj@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > It seems that lower and middle class Euro-Americans, and so too their counterparts in England and the continent, do not accept a welfare state whose brew includes multiculturalism and unfettered immigration. Home, the primal and simplest of human needs, is dwelling with one's folk, and is not easily bought by elites beholden to profit, nor dissuaded by universalist mystics or intellectuals. Being, as Heidegger noted in cautioning about a worldview enframed by modern technology, is more.
      > > >
      > > > Irvin
      > > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > >
      >
    • eupraxis@aol.com
      Irvin, The concept of Volk or folk was, at that time, a key concept of reactionary Germany, and was the rationale behind Nazi propaganda. It really didn t earn
      Message 2 of 10 , Nov 6, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Irvin,

        The concept of Volk or folk was, at that time, a key concept of reactionary Germany, and was the rationale behind Nazi propaganda. It really didn't earn Heidegger any credit to use the term.

        Wil


        -----Original Message-----
        From: irvhal <i99hj@...>
        To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Sat, Nov 6, 2010 3:13 pm
        Subject: [existlist] Re: Folk and Market





        Heidegger took folk as more than biologism, emphasizing a shared dwelling, language and heritage. History defines a folk. One does not quibble whether Kipling or Shakespeare are British. And the comfort, love and belongingness that heritage bestows, now so unabashedly asserted by (or for) Latinos, Carribeans or Pakistanis, or even by a recent Japanese prime minister who called Japan a "one race" nation, cannot be denied those in the West. A folk can and will welcome guests and even incorporate others, but unfettered immigration obliterates identity and sovereignty.

        Irvin

        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Jim" <jjimstuart1@...> wrote:
        >
        > Wil,
        >
        > Thank you for that rather depressing information.
        >
        > I look forward to reading Irvin's clarifications. I am not sure if he endorsing the racist attitudes of the predominantly elderly Whites who support your Tea Party group.
        >
        > Jim
        >
        >
        >
        > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:
        > >
        > > Jim,
        > >
        > > Irvin is correct about the US; I cannot speak of the UK or anywhere else. I hadn't realized how deeply racist (or ethnocentrist, etc.) this country is until recently, with the election of Obama and its aftermath. I think this is generational, and it will likely lapse in the future. A recent study as reported on "The Last Word" (MSNBC), for example, determined that, excluding the youth vote (the age was not specified), the majority of White voters here backed McCain-Palin, and that it was the youth vote (mostly white, educated) that overwhelmingly voted for Obama. The so-called Tea Party movement is overwhelmingly older and White. Etc. We often hear about the "browning" of America, "Africare", and all of that, by pundits whose audience is 60 and above. Most older Whites do not want "minorities" to enjoy the social benefits that they enjoy, in my opinion.
        > >
        > > I am not sure what the Heidegger claim was about.
        > >
        > > Wil
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > -----Original Message-----
        > > From: Jim <jjimstuart1@>
        > > To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
        > > Sent: Sat, Nov 6, 2010 12:05 pm
        > > Subject: [existlist] Re: Folk and Market
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > Irvin,
        > >
        > > I am intrigued by your latest post and not completely clear as to its meaning. Let me split your post up into two parts.
        > >
        > > Irvin: It seems that lower and middle class Euro-Americans, and so too their counterparts in England and the continent, do not accept a welfare state whose brew includes multiculturalism and unfettered immigration.
        > >
        > > Response: I wonder what your evidence for this claim is. Are you appealing to some statistical survey? Or to recent election results?
        > >
        > > By 'Euro-Americans' do you mean the sons and daughters of European immigrants to the US? That is Scottish Americans, Irish Americans, Italian Americans, etc.? By the reference to 'counterparts in England' do you just mean the English, and exclude the Scottish and Irish immigrants to England?
        > >
        > > Are these groups of people supposed to reject the welfare state per se, or only a welfare state which treats people of all ethnic backgrounds equally?
        > >
        > > Immigration is a matter of Government policy and, as such, is not really a matter connected with the welfare state.
        > >
        > > I have only really knowledge of the situation here in England, and my impression is that most ordinary people think the welfare state here is a good thing. Generally people here are proud of our National Health Service and the fact that state education is freely available for all.
        > >
        > > Also I think most people here approve of multiculturalism – my daughter's friends include Afro-Caribbeans, Sikhs, Oriental Asians, Irish. The racist British National Party performed very poorly in the last General Election (1% of the vote, I believe).
        > >
        > > I agree that most people here do not want unlimited immigration, but that is the same everywhere. I am sure the native American Indians did not want the European immigrants taking over their country in the 17th Century and afterwards. However I think an acceptance of the great benefits of multiculturalism and limited immigration can go together with a rejection of unlimited immigration.
        > >
        > > Do you not think North America has benefitted from the Scottish and Irish immigrants?
        > >
        > > Irvin: Home, the primal and simplest of human needs, is dwelling with one's folk, and is not easily bought by elites beholden to profit, nor dissuaded by universalist mystics or intellectuals. Being, as Heidegger noted in cautioning about a worldview enframed by modern technology, is more.
        > >
        > > Response: I am not sure what the 'more' in the second sentence is supposed to reference in the first sentence.
        > >
        > > I accept that for Heidegger, Being is certainly more than profit, more than technology, more than intellectualism, more that mysticism.
        > >
        > > And who are one's 'folk'? Are you making a racist claim here? Are you saying mixed-marriage families lack a home? Are you saying that when the Scottish and Irish immigrants reached the shores of America they lacked a home?
        > >
        > > I would greatly appreciate clarification on these issues.
        > >
        > > Jim
        > >
        > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "irvhal" <i99hj@> wrote:
        > > >
        > > > It seems that lower and middle class Euro-Americans, and so too their counterparts in England and the continent, do not accept a welfare state whose brew includes multiculturalism and unfettered immigration. Home, the primal and simplest of human needs, is dwelling with one's folk, and is not easily bought by elites beholden to profit, nor dissuaded by universalist mystics or intellectuals. Being, as Heidegger noted in cautioning about a worldview enframed by modern technology, is more.
        > > >
        > > > Irvin
        > > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > >
        >









        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • irvhal
        Will, Actually, Heidegger incurred the suspicion of his government by rejecting its crude biologism, and some of his writings on dwelling proceeded the war.
        Message 3 of 10 , Nov 6, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          Will,

          Actually, Heidegger incurred the suspicion of his government by rejecting its crude biologism, and some of his writings on dwelling proceeded the war. For him, Bolshevism and rampant capitalism alike threatened to enframe us so as to prevent a broader appreciation of Being.

          Irvin

          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
          >
          >
          > Irvin,
          >
          > The concept of Volk or folk was, at that time, a key concept of reactionary Germany, and was the rationale behind Nazi propaganda. It really didn't earn Heidegger any credit to use the term.
          >
          > Wil
          >
          >
          > -----Original Message-----
          > From: irvhal <i99hj@...>
          > To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
          > Sent: Sat, Nov 6, 2010 3:13 pm
          > Subject: [existlist] Re: Folk and Market
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > Heidegger took folk as more than biologism, emphasizing a shared dwelling, language and heritage. History defines a folk. One does not quibble whether Kipling or Shakespeare are British. And the comfort, love and belongingness that heritage bestows, now so unabashedly asserted by (or for) Latinos, Carribeans or Pakistanis, or even by a recent Japanese prime minister who called Japan a "one race" nation, cannot be denied those in the West. A folk can and will welcome guests and even incorporate others, but unfettered immigration obliterates identity and sovereignty.
          >
          > Irvin
          >
          > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Jim" <jjimstuart1@> wrote:
          > >
          > > Wil,
          > >
          > > Thank you for that rather depressing information.
          > >
          > > I look forward to reading Irvin's clarifications. I am not sure if he endorsing the racist attitudes of the predominantly elderly Whites who support your Tea Party group.
          > >
          > > Jim
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:
          > > >
          > > > Jim,
          > > >
          > > > Irvin is correct about the US; I cannot speak of the UK or anywhere else. I hadn't realized how deeply racist (or ethnocentrist, etc.) this country is until recently, with the election of Obama and its aftermath. I think this is generational, and it will likely lapse in the future. A recent study as reported on "The Last Word" (MSNBC), for example, determined that, excluding the youth vote (the age was not specified), the majority of White voters here backed McCain-Palin, and that it was the youth vote (mostly white, educated) that overwhelmingly voted for Obama. The so-called Tea Party movement is overwhelmingly older and White. Etc. We often hear about the "browning" of America, "Africare", and all of that, by pundits whose audience is 60 and above. Most older Whites do not want "minorities" to enjoy the social benefits that they enjoy, in my opinion.
          > > >
          > > > I am not sure what the Heidegger claim was about.
          > > >
          > > > Wil
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > > -----Original Message-----
          > > > From: Jim <jjimstuart1@>
          > > > To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
          > > > Sent: Sat, Nov 6, 2010 12:05 pm
          > > > Subject: [existlist] Re: Folk and Market
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > > Irvin,
          > > >
          > > > I am intrigued by your latest post and not completely clear as to its meaning. Let me split your post up into two parts.
          > > >
          > > > Irvin: It seems that lower and middle class Euro-Americans, and so too their counterparts in England and the continent, do not accept a welfare state whose brew includes multiculturalism and unfettered immigration.
          > > >
          > > > Response: I wonder what your evidence for this claim is. Are you appealing to some statistical survey? Or to recent election results?
          > > >
          > > > By 'Euro-Americans' do you mean the sons and daughters of European immigrants to the US? That is Scottish Americans, Irish Americans, Italian Americans, etc.? By the reference to 'counterparts in England' do you just mean the English, and exclude the Scottish and Irish immigrants to England?
          > > >
          > > > Are these groups of people supposed to reject the welfare state per se, or only a welfare state which treats people of all ethnic backgrounds equally?
          > > >
          > > > Immigration is a matter of Government policy and, as such, is not really a matter connected with the welfare state.
          > > >
          > > > I have only really knowledge of the situation here in England, and my impression is that most ordinary people think the welfare state here is a good thing. Generally people here are proud of our National Health Service and the fact that state education is freely available for all.
          > > >
          > > > Also I think most people here approve of multiculturalism – my daughter's friends include Afro-Caribbeans, Sikhs, Oriental Asians, Irish. The racist British National Party performed very poorly in the last General Election (1% of the vote, I believe).
          > > >
          > > > I agree that most people here do not want unlimited immigration, but that is the same everywhere. I am sure the native American Indians did not want the European immigrants taking over their country in the 17th Century and afterwards. However I think an acceptance of the great benefits of multiculturalism and limited immigration can go together with a rejection of unlimited immigration.
          > > >
          > > > Do you not think North America has benefitted from the Scottish and Irish immigrants?
          > > >
          > > > Irvin: Home, the primal and simplest of human needs, is dwelling with one's folk, and is not easily bought by elites beholden to profit, nor dissuaded by universalist mystics or intellectuals. Being, as Heidegger noted in cautioning about a worldview enframed by modern technology, is more.
          > > >
          > > > Response: I am not sure what the 'more' in the second sentence is supposed to reference in the first sentence.
          > > >
          > > > I accept that for Heidegger, Being is certainly more than profit, more than technology, more than intellectualism, more that mysticism.
          > > >
          > > > And who are one's 'folk'? Are you making a racist claim here? Are you saying mixed-marriage families lack a home? Are you saying that when the Scottish and Irish immigrants reached the shores of America they lacked a home?
          > > >
          > > > I would greatly appreciate clarification on these issues.
          > > >
          > > > Jim
          > > >
          > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "irvhal" <i99hj@> wrote:
          > > > >
          > > > > It seems that lower and middle class Euro-Americans, and so too their counterparts in England and the continent, do not accept a welfare state whose brew includes multiculturalism and unfettered immigration. Home, the primal and simplest of human needs, is dwelling with one's folk, and is not easily bought by elites beholden to profit, nor dissuaded by universalist mystics or intellectuals. Being, as Heidegger noted in cautioning about a worldview enframed by modern technology, is more.
          > > > >
          > > > > Irvin
          > > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          > > >
          > >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
        • Jim
          Irvin, Thank you for your further clarification. I shall comment on the last two sentences of your post: And the comfort, love and belongingness that heritage
          Message 4 of 10 , Nov 6, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            Irvin,

            Thank you for your further clarification.

            I shall comment on the last two sentences of your post:

            "And the comfort, love and belongingness that heritage bestows, now so unabashedly asserted by (or for) Latinos, Caribbeans or Pakistanis, or even by a recent Japanese prime minister who called Japan a "one race" nation, cannot be denied those in the West. A folk can and will welcome guests and even incorporate others, but unfettered immigration obliterates identity and sovereignty."

            I think a person gains "comfort, love and belongingness" primarily from other human beings; usually, in the first instance, from the person's parents and other close relatives. Later one gains it from one's friends.

            I am not sure heritage, as such, bestows these things. Often the intelligent and sensitive young person will judge negatively aspects of her own heritage. As a British person, I am ashamed of much of what my ancestors did, particularly the imperialism of the British Empire.

            I consider myself a human being first, and a white, British, middle-class, heterosexual male second. In fact I take no pride in being white, or British, or middle-class, or heterosexual, or male. I think pride is more appropriate if one is a member of some minority or other. Thus, I have some understanding of a person being proud to be black, or gay, or working-class, or a woman.

            Strangely enough, I suppose I am proud to be an intellectual. I don't think much about my own identity, but, if anything, I feel I am a child of the European enlightenment. Perhaps I also see myself as a descendent of English radicalism.

            I enjoy living in a large city where multiculturalism and diversity are the norms. Hell for me would be living in a backward rural enclave like Heanor – an outpost of white-only inwardly-looking bigotry and narrow-mindedness.

            I accept that Heanor is some people's idea of heaven, and I accept that some whites feel proud to be part of a whites-only community.

            Given that some people do feel that their identity is threatened by a large influx of immigrants into their area, I think some limits to immigration are desirable. However I think my own country has greatly benefitted by the influx of other races over the last century or so. Immigrants tend to work harder than the indigenous population and are usually good news for the economy, as well as bringing a vibrancy into the cultural mix. I also think mixed-race marriages are a good thing too, as only when the races are mixed up will human beings value all human beings equally, and not take notice of skin-colour or other outward characteristics.

            I do think that being proud to belong to a particular race often is accompanied by a feeling or judgement that other races are inferior to one's own. And as Wil mentioned, Heidegger is not a good authority to appeal to, as he was an unrepentant Nazi who saw nothing wrong with racial genocide, as far as I am aware.

            Jim
          • eupraxis@aol.com
            Irvin, The Volkish idea was not a biological notion. It was appropriated from sociology as a technical term. Heidegger probably was also influenced by Wundt.
            Message 5 of 10 , Nov 6, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              Irvin,

              The Volkish idea was not a biological notion. It was appropriated from sociology as a technical term. Heidegger probably was also influenced by Wundt.




              Wil



              -----Original Message-----
              From: irvhal <i99hj@...>
              To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
              Sent: Sat, Nov 6, 2010 4:52 pm
              Subject: [existlist] Re: Folk and Market





              Will,

              Actually, Heidegger incurred the suspicion of his government by rejecting its crude biologism, and some of his writings on dwelling proceeded the war. For him, Bolshevism and rampant capitalism alike threatened to enframe us so as to prevent a broader appreciation of Being.

              Irvin

              --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
              >
              >
              > Irvin,
              >
              > The concept of Volk or folk was, at that time, a key concept of reactionary Germany, and was the rationale behind Nazi propaganda. It really didn't earn Heidegger any credit to use the term.
              >
              > Wil
              >
              >
              > -----Original Message-----
              > From: irvhal <i99hj@...>
              > To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
              > Sent: Sat, Nov 6, 2010 3:13 pm
              > Subject: [existlist] Re: Folk and Market
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > Heidegger took folk as more than biologism, emphasizing a shared dwelling, language and heritage. History defines a folk. One does not quibble whether Kipling or Shakespeare are British. And the comfort, love and belongingness that heritage bestows, now so unabashedly asserted by (or for) Latinos, Carribeans or Pakistanis, or even by a recent Japanese prime minister who called Japan a "one race" nation, cannot be denied those in the West. A folk can and will welcome guests and even incorporate others, but unfettered immigration obliterates identity and sovereignty.
              >
              > Irvin
              >
              > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Jim" <jjimstuart1@> wrote:
              > >
              > > Wil,
              > >
              > > Thank you for that rather depressing information.
              > >
              > > I look forward to reading Irvin's clarifications. I am not sure if he endorsing the racist attitudes of the predominantly elderly Whites who support your Tea Party group.
              > >
              > > Jim
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:
              > > >
              > > > Jim,
              > > >
              > > > Irvin is correct about the US; I cannot speak of the UK or anywhere else. I hadn't realized how deeply racist (or ethnocentrist, etc.) this country is until recently, with the election of Obama and its aftermath. I think this is generational, and it will likely lapse in the future. A recent study as reported on "The Last Word" (MSNBC), for example, determined that, excluding the youth vote (the age was not specified), the majority of White voters here backed McCain-Palin, and that it was the youth vote (mostly white, educated) that overwhelmingly voted for Obama. The so-called Tea Party movement is overwhelmingly older and White. Etc. We often hear about the "browning" of America, "Africare", and all of that, by pundits whose audience is 60 and above. Most older Whites do not want "minorities" to enjoy the social benefits that they enjoy, in my opinion.
              > > >
              > > > I am not sure what the Heidegger claim was about.
              > > >
              > > > Wil
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > > -----Original Message-----
              > > > From: Jim <jjimstuart1@>
              > > > To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
              > > > Sent: Sat, Nov 6, 2010 12:05 pm
              > > > Subject: [existlist] Re: Folk and Market
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > > Irvin,
              > > >
              > > > I am intrigued by your latest post and not completely clear as to its meaning. Let me split your post up into two parts.
              > > >
              > > > Irvin: It seems that lower and middle class Euro-Americans, and so too their counterparts in England and the continent, do not accept a welfare state whose brew includes multiculturalism and unfettered immigration.
              > > >
              > > > Response: I wonder what your evidence for this claim is. Are you appealing to some statistical survey? Or to recent election results?
              > > >
              > > > By 'Euro-Americans' do you mean the sons and daughters of European immigrants to the US? That is Scottish Americans, Irish Americans, Italian Americans, etc.? By the reference to 'counterparts in England' do you just mean the English, and exclude the Scottish and Irish immigrants to England?
              > > >
              > > > Are these groups of people supposed to reject the welfare state per se, or only a welfare state which treats people of all ethnic backgrounds equally?
              > > >
              > > > Immigration is a matter of Government policy and, as such, is not really a matter connected with the welfare state.
              > > >
              > > > I have only really knowledge of the situation here in England, and my impression is that most ordinary people think the welfare state here is a good thing. Generally people here are proud of our National Health Service and the fact that state education is freely available for all.
              > > >
              > > > Also I think most people here approve of multiculturalism – my daughter's friends include Afro-Caribbeans, Sikhs, Oriental Asians, Irish. The racist British National Party performed very poorly in the last General Election (1% of the vote, I believe).
              > > >
              > > > I agree that most people here do not want unlimited immigration, but that is the same everywhere. I am sure the native American Indians did not want the European immigrants taking over their country in the 17th Century and afterwards. However I think an acceptance of the great benefits of multiculturalism and limited immigration can go together with a rejection of unlimited immigration.
              > > >
              > > > Do you not think North America has benefitted from the Scottish and Irish immigrants?
              > > >
              > > > Irvin: Home, the primal and simplest of human needs, is dwelling with one's folk, and is not easily bought by elites beholden to profit, nor dissuaded by universalist mystics or intellectuals. Being, as Heidegger noted in cautioning about a worldview enframed by modern technology, is more.
              > > >
              > > > Response: I am not sure what the 'more' in the second sentence is supposed to reference in the first sentence.
              > > >
              > > > I accept that for Heidegger, Being is certainly more than profit, more than technology, more than intellectualism, more that mysticism.
              > > >
              > > > And who are one's 'folk'? Are you making a racist claim here? Are you saying mixed-marriage families lack a home? Are you saying that when the Scottish and Irish immigrants reached the shores of America they lacked a home?
              > > >
              > > > I would greatly appreciate clarification on these issues.
              > > >
              > > > Jim
              > > >
              > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "irvhal" <i99hj@> wrote:
              > > > >
              > > > > It seems that lower and middle class Euro-Americans, and so too their counterparts in England and the continent, do not accept a welfare state whose brew includes multiculturalism and unfettered immigration. Home, the primal and simplest of human needs, is dwelling with one's folk, and is not easily bought by elites beholden to profit, nor dissuaded by universalist mystics or intellectuals. Being, as Heidegger noted in cautioning about a worldview enframed by modern technology, is more.
              > > > >
              > > > > Irvin
              > > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > > [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]
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.