Posts: 7,955
Threads: 286
Joined: Feb 2003
01-28-2004, 07:40 PM
(This post was last modified: 01-28-2004, 07:48 PM by kandrathe.)
The city where I live (due to our high tax, high service nature) has been the destination for many refugee groups, including Loatian, Hmong, and most recently central Africans. If the claim is that AA is reparations for past harms of discrimination, then why are new emigrants able to participate? It would seem to be taking away the opportunity from somone who is owed the reparation.
A little thought experiment; Say we could take a pill that would permanently change our skin color to X. X doesn't matter, but that we would all be the exact same skin tone. I still think some would then move on to discriminate based on the kinkiness of ones hair, height, weight or eye color?
”There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." - Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio.
Posts: 53
Threads: 4
Joined: May 2003
01-28-2004, 07:40 PM
(This post was last modified: 01-28-2004, 07:41 PM by Sailboat.)
For crying out loud, Pete. I posted here a loooong time ago and you flamed me really hard then too. Are you on the lookout for me or something?
I've read scores of books on the Romans. I understand that, during the high point of their Republic, they did extend citizenship to "outsiders". I'm sure that, to an extent, they were fair-minded. I would not assume they were substantially MORE fair-minded than modern people. I also have read many, many times of the general feelings the Romans had of Roman superiority. I've read in Latin some of their denunciations of other peoples, and a lot of chest-beating about how great Rome was.
I suppose it's beyond you to think I could conceive of a sophisticated Roman culture that could admire Greek ways and import them while still believing the Greeks themselves to be militarily weak. People can hold apparently conflicting emotions toward something, and the Romans were no exception. John Keegan, in his History of Warfare, speculates on the possible pathology of the Roman behavior of, to paraphrase him, since I don't have the book handy, annually sending out legions to do massive violence to neighboring peoples, every campaigning season, over hundreds of years.
Obviously I made the point about the Celts to...make a point. Not to make a big deal or live in the past. The Saxons, Angles, and Jutes were overrun in turn as well; I wasn't singling out the Celts for any reason than that I could speak about them from my point of view as ancestors and not be talking about someone else's ancestry. I wasn't "making a big deal" nor "living in the past"; and I frankly find the latter claim to be kind of strange coming from someone defending Roman practices.
Anyway, I think you are jumping to conclusions about my post. Concerning the book on race, I said several times that I had not read that particular book, and I qualified my ideas appropriately, and was careful to show opinion as opinion as much as I could without completely interfering with the train of thought by qualifying everything.
I wish that you could turn your usually clear thinking to some good purpose, Pete. I find it unpleasant in the extreme to be treated nastily over something so minor -- I flamed no one, and made no sweeping claims one can't find support for in Catullus or Caesar. Yet you imply "glaring" errors? I would say my errors, such as they are, are at least subtle. :)
Regards,
Sailboat
Posts: 4,063
Threads: 68
Joined: Feb 2003
Hi,
For crying out loud, Pete. I posted here a loooong time ago and you flamed me really hard then too. Are you on the lookout for me or something?
Not for you in particular. Just for ignorant statements and illogical arguments. If you weren't behaving like an prima-donna actor that got a bad review, you'd notice that the first part of my post agreed with your premise and, indeed supported it. I gave you credit where it was due. All you could see is the fault I found. If all you want is praise, then don't post here. We tend more to rational discussion.
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?
Posts: 6,430
Threads: 204
Joined: Feb 2003
You call that a flame? You must be joking, or possibly having a thin skinned moment.
But back on topic, all arguments over detail aside, thanks, I enjoyed the content of both of your posts. :)
Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the Men 'O War!
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete
Posts: 957
Threads: 21
Joined: Feb 2003
Doc,Jan 29 2004, 06:29 AM Wrote:There was one occasion where a very frustrated white supremacist actually asked me what the hell I was cause he couldn't figure me out, a memory which I will cherish till my dying day. Yeah that is funny. :D
Posts: 957
Threads: 21
Joined: Feb 2003
Pete,Jan 29 2004, 07:14 AM Wrote:I am told there is an Arab proverb that goes, "Me and my brothers against my cousins. Me and my cousins against the world." The proverb may be Arab, the sentiment is, it seems, universal. Yes, distance seems to be the key (though not neccessarily geographical distance. Japanese philosophy (I'm only second hand here ;) ) talks about circles of association(? correct word?), where you look after family first, neighbours second, and outsiders last. (Compare this to the Christian (amongst others) philiosphy of even treating the stranger as ones own.)
In NZ the clearest illustration of the philosophy of 'distance' is in sport, rugby in particular, where at all of the various levels, your team are like your family, and your opposition are bitterly 'hated' (well, maybe too strong a term), but members from both teams may actually play in a higher grade on the same team, where the pattern is repeated there. (E.g. local club rugby through the grades, up through provincial and National rugby).
I suppose that there is some subject area on group theory and assocosiation out there that would be more enlightening (sociology?) :)
Posts: 957
Threads: 21
Joined: Feb 2003
01-31-2004, 06:55 AM
(This post was last modified: 01-31-2004, 06:57 AM by whyBish.)
kandrathe,Jan 29 2004, 08:31 AM Wrote:A little thought experiment; Say we could take a pill that would permanently change our skin color to X. X doesn't matter, but that we would all be the exact same skin tone. I still think some would then move on to discriminate based on the kinkiness of ones hair, height, weight or eye color? Ah, but the line of argument (that I am no longer pursuing ;) ) would be that this pill only changes what you are now (static) rather than what you were, are, and will be(dynamic). Not that it matters.
As to the last sentence I think that people are already discriminated against (here at least) based on their weight. (Not that this has anything to do with your point either, just pointing it out :) )
A good illustration was a recent episode of a hidden camera show called 'Target' where they film various industries and rate their performance (e.g. plumbers, computer repairs etc.) One episode showed a fashion shop (yes this is a biased example!) where two ladies were sent into four different designer shops, one 'average', and one 'larger' (Note: not fat, just larger). I wont need to tell you the results, although one shop of the four was an exception, and gave the 'larger' lady some advice on where to find clothing. (Yes, small sample size, biased industry selection, amongst other problems, but just for illustration)
|