|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The social-progressive mindset
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Russ--
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Isn't it in the interests of community A to concede for example community B's right to practice "honour killings" on community B's members, as a trade-off for accepting some less-morally-serious point which more directly affects community A ?
I may be understanding-impaired tonight, or sarcasm impaired. But are you saying the answer to this is "yes"???
Yes. Not because I believe this would be a good outcome. But to make the point that a negotiated morality wouldn't necessarily resemble morality as we understand it.
It also serves as a point against the ridiculous notion that progressives are nice people who don't want to impose their moral convictions on others.
I do try not to employ sarcasm. This was just a rhetorical question.
All you're doing is illustrating Poppers Tolerance Paradox, which Conservatives like to do as if they're pointing out something progressives have never thought of, the daft twats. It's boring, we already know about it. We know that a tolerant society cannot tolerate intolerance, which would include things like honour killings. We already know we desire to "enforce" tolerance, because as Popper observed you can't maintain a tolerant society otherwise.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
@hatless. Communists used the same methods on a far greater scale but in the name of equality: you can do more real wrong in the name of real right than the deluded right. That's what the bourgeoisie (including Trump, all libertarians, Rodney Howard Brown who reminds me of Luther in the Peasants Revolt) see in the left opposing the far right and in so doing becoming the far left if they weren't already.
Obviously there is no other way of being socially progressive? As long as there is one progressive left the price is worth it? That's a win?
[ 27. August 2017, 10:20: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
What makes someone a Nazi or a fascist is not only opinions about racial superiority and inferiority, but their willingness or eagerness to use violence alongside their arguments. They lie, intimidate, use force and ultimately kill on behalf of their opinions...
...We always twist arguments to serve our secret agendas, but there comes a point when one side wishes to exclude the other from the debate, when debate is no longer the appropriate way forwards. When people actually dehumanise others, justify injustice, and sympathise with physical violence then we need to oppose them not just in debate but by rallying support and wider opinion against them.
Is anyone here arguing against laws that prohibit lying, intimidation, use of force and ultimately killing ? You don't need special anti-Nazi laws to prohibit these things.
Lying is perhaps the most debateable - we have laws against perjury, we have an Advertising Standards Authority (or equivalent in other jurisdictions). But we don't want the state enforcing truth in every detail of our private lives. Where to draw that line might be an interesting tangent. But the question here is whether there is any need for a law against "Nazi lies" that is any different from the law against other lies. With the burden of proof on those who want a special law. Because that's really not the way we should be governed - today a special law against this, tomorrow a special law against that. We should be trying to frame an adequate general law.
I don't see anything in your final paragraph where there's clear blue water between what you're saying Nazis do and what progressives do (or everybody does).
- exclusion from debate - have you never read on these boards a comment that dismisses a point of view as something that's all been settled and isn't worth discussing ?
- dehumanise others - have you read lilBuddha on Tories ?
- justify injustice - wherever two people are disagreeing about what is just they can't both be right
- sympathize with physical violence - who here believes that the acts of violence in Charlottesville were equally reprehensible on both sides ? So there's some sympathy there...
Also, not sure how "rallying support and wider opinion against" against a point of view differs from arguing against it in debate. What is it you're advocating ? Surely not "to exclude the other from the debate" ?
Push the Pale out a little wider...
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I've never said anything about a fair trial, not sure why you are bringing that up.
Just 'cos it's something that many people would consider a right.
But perhaps you think that giving Nazis a fair trial would mean letting them speak in their own defence and someone might feel hurt by that and so it shouldn't be allowed ?
If you're prepared to make one right conditional on your judgment of harm, why not all rights ?
Rights are what you allow to everyone including your enemies.
quote:
Basically Nazis have rights as people, but given that they want to use those rights to inflict damage onto other people... ...then those who are the subject of the bile deserve to be protected from them.
I don't see anything wrong with that if you can formulate that "damage" as an impartial rule that applies equally to everyone regardless of where your sympathies lie.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
I don't think there is clear blue water if that means some line that is crossed or not. It isn't one thing that makes a Nazi or fascist, but it's not difficult to recognise them.
And, ultimately and frighteningly, fascists and the rest of us have to fight for control of our common space. You may not be able to persuade a fascist that they are wrong, but you can legislate to mitigate their effect on the common space. If the fascists get control of the common space their opponents just get shot in an alley.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
- exclusion from debate - have you never read on these boards a comment that dismisses a point of view as something that's all been settled and isn't worth discussing ?
Sure. And do you want an example of something that is settled and not worth discussing? Nazism. It's bad. We've discussed why it's bad. It's not worth discussing whether you might be able to make a case for a civilized person being able to hold Nazi beliefs, because you can't.
quote:
- dehumanise others - have you read lilBuddha on Tories ?
The difference, of course, is that lilBuddha's opinions of Tories are based on what they do, and on the policies that they support, rather than on what they are. Being a Tory (or a Nazi, or a Communist, or a Socialist) is not in any way comparable to being black, or being gay, or being Jewish.
quote:
justify injustice - wherever two people are disagreeing about what is just they can't both be right
Umm, yes? But one of them can be. (If you want a clue, it's usually not the Nazi.)
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Just 'cos it's something that many people would consider a right.
But perhaps you think that giving Nazis a fair trial would mean letting them speak in their own defence and someone might feel hurt by that and so it shouldn't be allowed ?
I think there is a legal line where people are prevented from attacking witnesses if they're defending themselves. I don't know the details but it seems fair enough to me.
Nazis should get proper legal representation and should be afforded a fair trial.
quote:
If you're prepared to make one right conditional on your judgment of harm, why not all rights ?
quote:
Rights are what you allow to everyone including your enemies.
I don't see anything wrong with that if you can formulate that "damage" as an impartial rule that applies equally to everyone regardless of where your sympathies lie.
I don't understand where you are going here.
You are not damaged by someone saying they believe in abortion or rights for gays. On the other hand, a Nazi standing up somewhere and saying that you are subhuman and deserve to be sent to the gas chambers is a whole other thing.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Russ--
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Isn't it in the interests of community A to concede for example community B's right to practice "honour killings" on community B's members, as a trade-off for accepting some less-morally-serious point which more directly affects community A ?
I may be understanding-impaired tonight, or sarcasm impaired. But are you saying the answer to this is "yes"???
Yes. Not because I believe this would be a good outcome. But to make the point that a negotiated morality wouldn't necessarily resemble morality as we understand it.
A point that relies on the assumption we could find something we'd want to trade honour killings for because we're so utterly self-centred that we don't give a shit what is happening in community B.
Which, if we're actually talking enough to community B to be negotiating with them, strikes me as an utterly fanciful notion. In fact the whole idea that we're negotiating with an entirely separate community doesn't reflect how society and law actually work.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Clutch
Apprentice
# 18827
|
Posted
quote:
- is "social-progressive" an adequate name for it or is there a better one ?
- what is the connection to Christianity ? Is this a religious point of view ?
As a starting point, my first attempt at describing it was in terms of
[QUOTE]doctrines of
- internationalism (migrants good, Brexit bad)
- gender-bending (anything goes so long as you don't speak in favour of traditional gender roles)
- political correctness (can't believe anyone voted for Trump; free speech as long as you don't say what we don't like)
- anti-capitalism (profit is bad, small business has no rights and unlimited liability)
- anti-racism (racism is a huge sin that the whole white race should atone for)
Time for a newcomer to put his own two cents on this strawhatted and generalized BS, point by point.
Point 1,Internationalism: Simplistic and naive. Migration is such a boogie man to certain types that it's thus generalized. Never mind migration on merit of skills or of political need/asylum. Let's just say all progressives want open borders with little to no validation. As for Brexit, I can't speak on Brexit as I'm from Canada but I doubt that migration is the only factor on why it is so excoriated not only in the EU and in Britain but globally
Point 2, "Gender-Bending": What is a "traditional" role for genders, hmm? What's been passed down in historical writing? Never mind the fact that such writings are focused on an overview and not exactly a scientific,first hand study of every individuals that has ever lived and their day to day life. Do you account for how a certain group would have a political/power based factor in maintaining a so-called norm?
point 3,Political Correctness: This one makes me laugh at how skewed it is. I personally, am as far from PC as you can get. And I identify as a social-progressive. Sorry but no voting for Trump and me not liking what you have to say doesn't mean as a progressive I have the right to silence your point of view. But I do have the right to tell you my own opinion back, which more often then not gets misconstrued by this type of nonsense. So if I call someone an idiot for a certain opinion or viewpoint they have, please don't make the mistake of thinking I'm telling them to shut up. You'll know when I tell someone to shut up.
Point4, Anti-Capitalist: Umm, your simplistic reasoning again leaves me pretty baffled as to how you came up with this chestnut. Profit isn't evil, and sorry to tell you but most socialists I know of an associate with are very pro small business. What were against is the abuses of the current capitalist system. Specially how it's seen in the US with corporations given personhood status. I don't know of a socialist that would want to outright scrap the current economic system. Reform and monitor abuses and excesses yes.
Point 5, Anti-Racist: I'm going to add in Anti-sexist and anti-LGBTQ here cause it all fits. And please, please go back and look at history for a moment and please tell me the white man (which I am) has no sin when it comes to what we did. Look at the situations we as white men did until the current day and even at that still do this day and age and say we are pure as freshly fallen snow. If you don't like having to deal with this simple truth, the key is to go out an actively try to improve things so we can atone for that. Muttering in a corner about how your ancestors did it, not you changes nothing.
As for how this fits with Christianity. It's all down to the Great Commandment for Christ himself; Loving god with all your heart,soul, with all your mind and your strength and loving your neighbour as yourself.
Not as flowery as others have put it and with less theology, but I don't claim to be flowery or a amateur theologian. I do however think I have basic common sense and respect. It's a shame that others that share this kind of skewed viewpoint on social-progressives, don't seem to have either of those.
--------------------
Proud liberal socialist,proud progressive Anglo-Catholic and proud to be a conservative's bane.
Posts: 21 | Registered: Aug 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Clutch:
[QUOTE]
Time for a newcomer to put his own two cents on this strawhatted and generalized BS, point by point...
...As for how this fits with Christianity. It's all down to the Great Commandment for Christ himself; Loving god with all your heart,soul, with all your mind and your strength and loving your neighbour as yourself.
Generalised, certainly.
I think you're telling me that on 1, 2, 5 yes it's your progressive point of view that is being sketched out or caricatured.
But that on 3 and 4 the progressives in your part of the world are more pro-business and more pro-free-speech than the UK variety who make up the dominant viewpoint on the Ship ?
Thank you for engaging with the questions.
Personally I hadn't seen blaming my white neighbours for the actions of everyone in past centuries who happened to have the same skin colour as the best way of loving them...
Taking point 1 as an example, internationalism on the one hand does seem like universalising one's benevolence rather than restricting it to one's immediate neighbours. An "America First" policy (or the equivalent for other countries) sits uneasily with the Great Commandment.
But on the other hand, if one were an American who genuinely celebrates Independence Day and thinks one's own national self-determination a good thing, doesn't loving others as oneself mean favouring independence for other countries?
So no, the Great Commandment doesn't unequivocally point to either nationalism or internationalism.
Put it another way, have you never felt closer to a progressive atheist than to a conservative Christian who believes in the Great Commandment ?
It is not the Commandment itself but the framework of beliefs within which you interpret it and seek to apply it, the beliefs you share with the progressive atheist and don't share with the conservative Christian, that are the essence of progressive thought. And that's what I'm asking about.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
All you're doing is illustrating Poppers Tolerance Paradox...
...We know that a tolerant society cannot tolerate intolerance, which would include things like honour killings. We already know we desire to "enforce" tolerance, because as Popper observed you can't maintain a tolerant society otherwise.
The Paradox says that if you want a land of liberty then you have to enforce a rule against coercion, however paradoxical such enforcement may seem.
I think this is more or less what hatless is saying about Nazis. That holding daft theories about race can be tolerated, and a fetish for uniforms and jackboots can be tolerated, but there's no way that imposing such things on others by threats of murder in dark alleys can be tolerated.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Is the social-progressive mindset winning?
It can't win. It's not goal-directed enough for winning to be meaningful. It prizes the journey rather than the destination.
It's about an attitude to disadvantaged groups, rather than about trying to achieve any particular goal.
The republican wins when the monarchy is overthrown. The pacifist wins when the armed forces are disbanded because there's no more need for them. The evangelists win when all are baptised. The progressive can never win.
Or do you see it differently ?
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Is the social-progressive mindset winning?
It can't win. It's not goal-directed enough for winning to be meaningful. It prizes the journey rather than the destination.
It's about an attitude to disadvantaged groups, rather than about trying to achieve any particular goal.
The republican wins when the monarchy is overthrown. The pacifist wins when the armed forces are disbanded because there's no more need for them. The evangelists win when all are baptised. The progressive can never win.
Or do you see it differently ?
Not at all Russ. The poor we will always have with us. We will never achieve universal social justice, but I suppose despite the superficial perceived reverses - Trump, Brexit - the long arc is being trajected, there is utilitarian growth; we're still on the slowly winning journey.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Is the social-progressive mindset winning?
It can't win. It's not goal-directed enough for winning to be meaningful. It prizes the journey rather than the destination.
It's about an attitude to disadvantaged groups, rather than about trying to achieve any particular goal.
The republican wins when the monarchy is overthrown. The pacifist wins when the armed forces are disbanded because there's no more need for them. The evangelists win when all are baptised. The progressive can never win.
Or do you see it differently ?
One of the Just Men of Jewish tradition is said to have arrived in Sodom. Immediately, he realised the wickedness of the place and spent his days in the market place calling them to repentance. At first people enjoyed the novelty of his preaching, but gradually they drifted away and he was left preaching to no-one. One day a small boy said to him: "Why do you bother, you must know by now that no-one is listening to you". The just man responded "my child, at first I thought that I could change them. I now know that it is enough that they are not able to change me".
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
My goal is that all men and women should be treated equitably, and that society's wealth should be distributed equitably.
Those aren't goals?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
My goal is that all men and women should be treated equitably, and that society's wealth should be distributed equitably.
Those aren't goals?
They sound like goals to me.
If you have some fixed and well-defined idea of what "equitable" means then you can attempt to achieve those goals by persuading everyone to your way of thinking.
Or by acts of terrorism, with laws reflecting that idea as your demand.
Or by leading a Robin Hood existence where you take by force wealth you consider undeserved, and punish those you deem guilty of inequitable treatment of others.
If you have no fixed idea, but want everyone's wealth level and rights to depend on what you feel is equitable at any particular moment, then I guess you just want to be God.
But exhibiting a bias towards persons you consider to represent a disadvantaged group doesn't seem of itself to be actively realising those goals.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
Or where you just stop keep taking from the poor/vulnerable and giving to the powerful and defending their rights to take.
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
....
Personally I hadn't seen blaming my white neighbours for the actions of everyone in past centuries who happened to have the same skin colour as the best way of loving them......
That's reasonable. Instead, you could congratulate them on enjoying the vast wealth and benefits derived from the crimes committed in the past by people with the same skin colour as them.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
But exhibiting a bias towards persons you consider to represent a disadvantaged group doesn't seem of itself to be actively realising those goals.
I wonder that you have any idea what I do to realize those goals. Perhaps this is an amazing level of insight. Perhaps it's something worse.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
you could congratulate them on enjoying the vast wealth and benefits derived from the crimes committed in the past by people with the same skin colour as them.
I don't think the difference in wealth between my poorer neighbours and my richer neighbours has anything to do with crime. And some of us aren't enjoying "vast wealth".
I can't rule out indirect benefit from crimes committed long ago and far away. There's a sense in which everything connects to everything else. But any such apply to my Chinese neighbour as much as to my Irish neighbours. Why would I find it necessary to make reference to the colour of his skin ?
Some of my neighbours may have inherited land that they wouldn't have were it not for a relative being killed in the First World War. That's profiting from past wrongdoing by people in another country.
But I'm not intending to try to make them feel guilty about it.
Your history and your narrative take on it don't seem very applicable to people around here.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I don't think the difference in wealth between my poorer neighbours and my richer neighbours has anything to do with crime. And some of us aren't enjoying "vast wealth"....
Russ, by global standards, you, me, and our immediate neighbours live a privileged, comfortable existence because of the vast wealth generated over the last 500 years by racism, imperialism, colonialism, slavery, genocide and unsustainable production and consumption. That is not a "mindset", it is a historical and economic fact.
It is possible that when Jesus instructed his followers to love their neighbours as themselves, he meant only the people living in the same town; is that how you interpret "neighbours"? True, in Jesus' time, many people only ever knew people who lived in the same town. We don't have that excuse. We know what is happening to our neighbours around the world and we know that all sorts of shit is happening for our benefit. Pretending we can wash our hands of history leads to pretending we have no responsibility for the present and the future.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Some of my neighbours may have inherited land that they wouldn't have were it not for a relative being killed in the First World War. That's profiting from past wrongdoing by people in another country.
But I'm not intending to try to make them feel guilty about it.
Your history and your narrative take on it don't seem very applicable to people around here.
Don't you live in a country where people were still profiting off of slavery until 1996? That seems a bit glib to confine to the dim mists of ancient history.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I don't think the difference in wealth between my poorer neighbours and my richer neighbours has anything to do with crime. And some of us aren't enjoying "vast wealth"....
Russ, by global standards, you, me, and our immediate neighbours live a privileged, comfortable existence because of the vast wealth generated over the last 500 years by racism, imperialism, colonialism, slavery, genocide and unsustainable production and consumption. That is not a "mindset", it is a historical and economic fact.
It is possible that when Jesus instructed his followers to love their neighbours as themselves, he meant only the people living in the same town
not when he followed it by telling of the good Samaritan
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Russ, by global standards, you, me, and our immediate neighbours live a privileged, comfortable existence because of the vast wealth generated over the last 500 years by racism, imperialism, colonialism, slavery, genocide and unsustainable production and consumption. That is not a "mindset", it is a historical and economic fact.
That Ireland & the US are both relatively wealthy countries is a fact as shown by the statistics you quote. The importance that different people attach to different explanations for that fact is very much a matter of mindset.
The obvious explanations include:
- natural resources (could Britain have pioneered the Industrial Revolution without coal ?)
- absence of physical barriers to trade
- relative lack of wars and civil strife (nothing destroys wealth like civil war)
- enterprise culture (Hong Kong ?)
Racism and Magdalene Laundries wouldn't feature on my list of significant factors.
quote:
It is possible that when Jesus instructed his followers to love their neighbours as themselves, he meant only the people living in the same town; is that how you interpret "neighbours"?
I think Jesus calls us to extend our good neighbourliness to everyone, not merely those around us.
I'm coming from the angle that in thinking about what being good to our neighbours means, we should start with the people around us whom we meet face to face and know as individuals, and then apply those same behaviours when it comes to our dealings with those further afield.
Rather than talking about people as instances of social classes.
If your form of "love" doesn't make sense applied to yours and my actual proximate everyday neighbours, then it's not care for people as people.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
The parable of the Good Samaritan is, I would think, a prime example of Jesus challenging his hearers to think beyond the conventional understanding of " neighbor." I'm also thinking of the early Churches collection for the church in Jerusalem -- obviously "Let's take care of our own, and let everyone else do the same," wasn't the mindset of the Church the Church then. Nor has it been.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Racism and Magdalene Laundries wouldn't feature on my list of significant factors.
WTSF?!*
The Rape of Africa and slavery? Never hear of those? Just how rural is your bit of Ireland?
What The Serious Fuck: an extra layer of incredulity
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
... The importance that different people attach to different explanations for that fact is very much a matter of mindset.
The obvious explanations include:
- natural resources (could Britain have pioneered the Industrial Revolution without coal ?)
- absence of physical barriers to trade
- relative lack of wars and civil strife (nothing destroys wealth like civil war)
- enterprise culture (Hong Kong ?)
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif) Russ, you're fucking hilarious. If that was all it took to create wealth, there would have been no need for Britain - and Belgium, France, Italy, The Netherlands, Germany, etc. - to have colonies around the globe. Or are you going to claim that the colonial powers were "civilizing" the world out of the goodness of their hearts and lost money doing it? 'Cause that ain't so. The oldest company in North America is the Hudson's Bay Company. What the hell do you think they were doing in British North America, charity work? Certainly not:
quote:
It took the vision and connections of Prince Rupert, cousin of King Charles II, to acquire the Royal Charter which, in May, 1670 granted the lands of the Hudson Bay watershed to “the Governor and Company of Adventurers of England trading into Hudson Bay."
The lands were not the King's lands to give. That is theft. That is a crime. That is a profitable crime - HBC has total assets of 7.943 billion CAD and market capitalization of 2.32 billion CAD today.
quote:
... Magdalene Laundries wouldn't feature on my list of significant factors.
My bad, I left sexism off the list.
quote:
...
I'm coming from the angle that in thinking about what being good to our neighbours means, we should start with the people around us whom we meet face to face and know as individuals, and then apply those same behaviours when it comes to our dealings with those further afield.
...
And I'm coming from the angle that the overwhelming majority of the people in the world do not live in rural Ireland.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The Rape of Africa and slavery? Never hear of those?
Slavery happened, colonialism happened. These are historical facts.
What's of interest for this thread is how the progressive mindset weaves a narrative around those facts and then uses that narrative as the basis for responding to situations.
For example, the European individuals who historically were enslaved by North African individuals aren't part of the narrative. But the (sub-Saharan) Africans who were enslaved by their fellow Africans, transported by Europeans and sold to Americans are a really important part of the narrative, which becomes about the "rape" of Africa (presumably by Europe ?)
This then becomes, in the progressive mind, the dominant reason for the relative poverty of African countries and the relative wealth of European ones.
Whereas, if you look at the statistics that Soror Magna linked to, you'll see that the countries of Europe that were most involved in the slave trade are not noticeably richer than similar countries which weren't.
Because other factors are much more important determinants of wealth.
It's not that the progressive narrative is totally false. It's that it is a selective interpretation of history and economics, based around the concept of poor black people as collective Victims of rich white Oppressors.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bax
Shipmate
# 16572
|
Posted
In understanding a lot of the issues in the "mindset" that the OP suggested, where they came from and what they mean, I have found the insights of Rene Girard to be invaluable. Anyone interested in this I would direct to "I see Satan fall like lightning" chapter 13: "the modern concern for victims"
This concern for victims (that is a cornerstone of this mindset), is unique to western culture, Girard argues, and is in the process of growing exponentiation. It has its origin in the gospel, but is all we do is "victimise the victimisers" (i.e. anyone who can be accused of creating victims) we have not learned the essential lesson of the gospel. The true lesson is to stop creating victims completely, and realise our own complicity in the system of the world that victimises. (I am simplifying here of course)
https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/I_See_Satan_Fall_Like_Lightning.html?id=O2VSLxGpIt8C&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_rea d_button&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
Posts: 108 | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
Russ,
That seems like a lot of words, very few of them on point, to make the argument that slavery is neither immoral nor harmful to the enslaved.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Russ: quote:
This then becomes, in the progressive mind, the dominant reason for the relative poverty of African countries and the relative wealth of European ones.
This IS the dominant reason for the relative poverty of African countries. There is no saying what would have happened if Africa had never been colonised by the European powers; as C S Lewis said, 'Nobody is ever told what would have happened'. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, pre-colonisation, sub-Saharan Africa was very rich indeed, with a large agricultural surplus and a lot of natural resources. No doubt there would have been wars anyway - people are people - and some African societies had slavery. But they would certainly have been richer today. There might even have been fewer wars, because left to their own devices they would probably not have divided their continent up in the same way.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Slavery happened, colonialism happened. These are historical facts.
"Happened"? Russ, those things don't just "happen". People did those things because they were profitable. And people still do those things because they continue to be profitable.
quote:
What's of interest for this thread is how the progressive mindset weaves a narrative around those facts and then uses that narrative as the basis for responding to situations.
Well, that might be because progressives recognize that masses of humanity are still in shitty, exploitative "situations" so that you and I can enjoy our opulent - yes, opulent, by any contemporary or historical standards - lifestyle. It might also be because progressives think humans should accept responsibility for their actions and for each other, instead of pretending that things like slavery just "happen", resulting in people being in "situations".
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
If that was all it took to create wealth, there would have been no need for Britain - and Belgium, France, Italy, The Netherlands, Germany, etc. - to have colonies around the globe.
In fairness to Russ, Ireland has been more colonised against than colonising. The Great Potato Famine is still something people remember. That said, on Russ' principles the Great Potato Famine was just one of these things that happen and entirely unrelated to the UK's free trade policy.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
If that was all it took to create wealth, there would have been no need for Britain - and Belgium, France, Italy, The Netherlands, Germany, etc. - to have colonies around the globe.
In fairness to Russ, Ireland has been more colonised against than colonising.
This is assuming is he Irish, and not of Ulster Scot or English background.
quote:
The Great Potato Famine is still something people remember. That said, on Russ' principles the Great Potato Famine was just one of these things that happen and entirely unrelated to the UK's free trade policy.
Assuming his family were affected, it isn't uncommon for people to create an artificial disconnect between their own suffering and that of others.
[ 13. September 2017, 20:06: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
For example, the European individuals who historically were enslaved by North African individuals aren't part of the narrative. But the (sub-Saharan) Africans who were enslaved by their fellow Africans, transported by Europeans and sold to Americans are a really important part of the narrative, which becomes about the "rape" of Africa (presumably by Europe ?)
That is because the numbers involved are of an order of magnitude different. There are no white populations that are identifiably descended from slaves that I can think of. There are lots of black populations that are descended from slaves.
quote:
This then becomes, in the progressive mind, the dominant reason for the relative poverty of African countries and the relative wealth of European ones.
Most of the big cities on the west coast of Britain are there because some people made a lot of money out of the slave triangle and then turned that into philanthropic interventions, capital investments within the rest of Europe, and so on. As for Africa, I think the legacy of slavery and colonialism is only part of the story. Colonialism is the bigger legacy in that the infrastructure it left behind in African countries was predominantly set up to make it easy to extract capital and resources. But I wouldn't say colonialism left an insuperable blight upon Africa. That's down partly to US (and Chinese) support for authoritarian regimes that could be counted on to let capital extract resources and especially down to world financial institutions restricting government spending as part of their loans programs.
The relative poverty of the African diaspora compared to their compatriots on the other hand is largely down to the legacy of slavery and the attitudes among the white population that stem from it. If your father owned nothing and people won't hire you for jobs then you're not going to get rich.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
this IS the dominant reason for the relative poverty of African countries. There is no saying what would have happened if Africa had never been colonised by the European powers
Sounds like you're saying that we cannot know, but you're sure anyway...
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
I thought this was interesting.
The crime of holding a flag while blonde.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
Here's another colonial factoid:
quote:
Colonial mining began when European techniques of production were introduced into the 'New World' to satisfy the insatiable European demand for metals. Within a matter of years, gold and silver started to flow into the Spanish treasury from Mexican mines. During the next 300 years of Spanish rule, many other minerals were extracted from the ground, such as copper, coal, lead and iron.
The bedrock deposits of the great silver-gold vein system of the Veta Madre at Guanajuato was discovered in the year 1550 and unearthed almost immediately after that El Oro, located near Mexico City one of the leading gold districts, was discovered in 1521, developed to a great extent by 1530, and mined regularly with some interruptions for about 400 years. During this period over 5 million ounces of gold was extracted.
First Majestic Silver Corp.
Just think about that, Russ: Spain stole FIVE MILLION OUNCES OF GOLD over 400 years, as well as vast amounts of other valuable metals. That's a hell of an economic stimulus package. We don't necessarily think of Spain as an economic powerhouse today, but it's still way ahead of Mexico in terms of wealth and GDP per capita.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I thought this was interesting.
The crime of holding a flag while blonde.
Ok, so I read the one, non-batshit crazy link on that search, AOL.
And the ACLU admit they were wrong. They have been defending white supremacist types and to put a blonde child on their twitter feed is a bit insensitive.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
That is because the numbers involved are of an order of magnitude different. There are no white populations that are identifiably descended from slaves that I can think of. There are lots of black populations that are descended from slaves. ...
That may also be because African slaves in the New World were encouraged to have children, whereas slaves generally in the Arab world don't seem to have been held in conditions where they might have been able to. Otherwise there would be significant African populations in the Gulf, which there don't seem to be.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I thought this was interesting.
The crime of holding a flag while blonde.
Ok, so I read the one, non-batshit crazy link on that search, AOL.
And the ACLU admit they were wrong. They have been defending white supremacist types and to put a blonde child on their twitter feed is a bit insensitive.
I actually linked to one of the articles and it flipped back to my Google search, but I think it is beyond ridiculous for the ACLU to have to apologize for posting a picture of a blonde child.
Being blonde does not make one a Nazi and the ACLU, of all people, should not be going along with that bias. By removing it and calling it "insensitive," they're pandering to racists who think pale coloring equals bad person.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I actually linked to one of the articles and it flipped back to my Google search, but I think it is beyond ridiculous for the ACLU to have to apologize for posting a picture of a blonde child.
It seems like it's not so much the picture as the way the accompanying text echoes one of the most infamous white supremacist slogans, especially when coupled with the picture. Most other people would get a pass for just not being aware of the fetishistic way white supremacists use the "14 words", but the ACLU doesn't really have that excuse.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
I thought they were echoing it on purpose saying "This is the future the ACLU wants," free speech for everyone. I thought the point the ACLU was making was about the child's shirt slogan. Instead it was seen as the twitter response quoted, "A white kid with a flag?!!!"
I didn't read any complaints about the text and all about "a blonde kid." Not saying there weren't people talking about the 14 words, but I didn't see it in the articles I read. (I don't have twitter.)
I did see that the Huff Post has and article saying the ACLU should be banned for "defending Nazi's." hmmm
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I thought they were echoing it on purpose saying "This is the future the ACLU wants," free speech for everyone.
If you're copying both the rhetoric and the iconography of white supremacists, I'm not sure "everyone" is clear in your message.
I'm also not sure it was a deliberate effort to copy white supremacist rhetoric, as you seem to. Still, when you're the ACLU you should at least have some awareness of such things, which seems to be why it was pointed out.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I thought they were echoing it on purpose saying "This is the future the ACLU wants," free speech for everyone. I thought the point the ACLU was making was about the child's shirt slogan. Instead it was seen as the twitter response quoted, "A white kid with a flag?!!!"
Messages are not intent alone, but perception as well. THe SCLU does not have a history of capitulating to critics, yet here they did. Why? Because they understood what people were seeing was not what they intended to show. The fauxtrage of the right is just that: false.
quote:
I did see that the Huff Post has and article saying the ACLU should be banned for "defending Nazi's." hmmm
I couldn't find that, but I would bet that it is an opinion, not a position of Huffington post.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Russ: quote:
Sounds like you're saying that we cannot know, but you're sure anyway...
We're sure that Africa had a lot of natural resources (and people) that were appropriated by the European colonial powers.
We're also sure that Africa was divided up according to the convenience of the colonising powers with very little reference to the convenience or ethnic groupings of the people who actually lived there.
We're sure that before the colonial period Africa was self-sufficient in food production.
What we don't and can't know for sure is what the world would look like today if Africa had never been colonised and all the nations who you keep saying have not benefited at all from slavery and/or colonisation had had to fall back on their own resources.
Clear now?
[ 14. September 2017, 16:22: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I thought they were echoing it on purpose saying "This is the future the ACLU wants," free speech for everyone.
If you're copying both the rhetoric and the iconography of white supremacists, I'm not sure "everyone" is clear in your message.
I'm also not sure it was a deliberate effort to copy white supremacist rhetoric, as you seem to. Still, when you're the ACLU you should at least have some awareness of such things, which seems to be why it was pointed out.
You're the one who brought up a similarity in phrasing with the white supremacy slogan. I just thought if there is a similarity it might have been in an attempt to turn it around. I think it was probably just a cute picture.
The ACLU is about civil liberties. It's not a branch of the NAACP. Judging by the response to that picture -- a child holding a flag while wearing a free speech shirt -- the complaints seem to be about the fact that the child is blond.
I'm sorry the ACLU buckled under and I think it's a good thing they are not aware of whatever it is you think they "should be" aware of.
Sensitivity to any one group's feelings is contrary to their mission of equal rights for all, even the hateful and nasty. Even blondes.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Sensitivity to any one group's feelings is contrary to their mission of equal rights for all, even the hateful and nasty.
I'm not sure that follows. If you're dedicated in principle to the right of others to be hateful and nasty it doesn't necessarily mean that you have to be hateful and nasty yourself.
[ 14. September 2017, 20:45: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I'm sorry the ACLU buckled under
They didn't buckle under. They don't do that. They recognised their post didn't represent what they wished it to.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Russ: quote:
Sounds like you're saying that we cannot know, but you're sure anyway...
We're sure that Africa had a lot of natural resources (and people) that were appropriated by the European colonial powers.
We're also sure that Africa was divided up according to the convenience of the colonising powers with very little reference to the convenience or ethnic groupings of the people who actually lived there.
We're sure that before the colonial period Africa was self-sufficient in food production.
What we don't and can't know for sure is what the world would look like today if Africa had never been colonised and all the nations who you keep saying have not benefited at all from slavery and/or colonisation had had to fall back on their own resources.
Clear now?
The division of Africa was of ten thousand kingdoms over ten - order of magnitude - external imperiums. Portuguese, French, Belgian, Dutch, British, German, Italian, Spanish, American and now Chinese. We annihilated African diversity with third rate European 'culture'.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
