The hypocrisy has reached new levels

[Chaerophon]

Indeed we all do have a culture. But from my perspective its not something we should be proud of(nor ashamed mind you). But I think we do better when when form our beleifs on reason rather than culture.

Culture is part of humanity - but it should never be an exscuse for mistreating people.




NOTE: I suppose you could go down the road of saying my respect for humanity is an artifact of culture. Thats true but I think we need to willing to discard problem elements of culture as we relize conflicts with in it, and we must use reason to make these choices.

Before making blanket statements, define culture. Then read someone who has actually thought about it with some real depth, and get back to us all. Start with Charles Taylor. His (very basically put) belief: your life and its meaning only have significance within a sphere of significant horizons. Reason, ideas, liberty; they have no meaning without contextual reference points that have meaning and it is your shared culture, your affinity with other humans that gives such abstractions meaning and make the pleasurable and meaningful things in your life pleasureable and meaningful.

As far as your last sentence goes, fair enough, the ability and desire to synthesize and relate one's own cultural and historical experiences with those of others so as to create "cross-cultural" points of reference is an important skill and a generally "productive" idea. However, to disavow culture is nothing more than 21st century liberal cultural elitism in its own right and a denial of that providential maxim that "we rest on the shoulders of giants". To forget those who have come before is to have beliefs with no foundation, and, as you well know, those kinds of beliefs are apt to be rendered insignificant.

In sum, a very ill-conceived troll.

[Occhidiangela]

And a Communist at the same time. That is what Doc is getting at.

They are/were antithetical political structures. While historically both resulted in tyrrany and monolithic state structures, a stated goal of the Nazi's was the defense against and destruction of Communism. Given the amount of Red baiting that went on in America and Britain in the 30's, Nazi leadership could be forgiven the upset that was the alliajnce against them -- had it not been for the Non Aression pact "deal with the devil" move that Hitler made with Stalin in 1939. The day that was signed ,Poland's doom was sealed.

Consider also that before Operation Barbarosa, American Communists were very vocal pacifists. It is interesting to note that once the 'workers paradise" was invaded, that voice quited a bit. It is also interesting to note that FDR and Churchillian fears of a negotiated peace between Stalin and Hutler were generally unfounded, while the blatant attempts and overtures in the other direction, with anti communism as basis for a negotiated peace in the West, were more credible.

[Occhidiangela]

Cultural is the social context, the social frqmework, in which you were raised and in which you operate: it includes language, the currency of human social interaction. Culture has micro and macro elements whose detail exceed the scope of this conversation.

[--Pete]

Hi,

I have been spending the afternoon just looking at the trees in the hills.

It's been about forty-five years since I got my first glasses. I still remember the amazement and pleasure I felt at seeing that distant trees actually had branches :)

Enjoy.

--Pete

[Sir_Die_alot]

but why sweat the small stuff?

I don't blame you for not knowing US history but the civil rights movement really got started because a black woman wouldn't follow the rules and give up her bus seat to a white man and just stand. "Why sweat the small stuff?" Had Rosa Parks taken your advice this thread would probably be about blacks being thrown out of a white only study lounge instead of vise versa.

[Chaerophon]

Ay, but what I was trying to get at was that none of the "abstractions" such as liberty, or even reason that Ghostiger is referring to have any meaning without a context within which to place them. Which makes his claim that he wants people to "escape" culture in order to better utilize his reason a bit ridiculous. As far as the post itself, please excuse; eight hours of reading cryptic crap with interruptions only for meals produces... a brain that works in cryptic and crappy ways.

[Guest]

Its not that we should "escape" culture, rather ist that wee should not be restrained by it.

Im loathe to go too deep in this as it will quickly spiral into a existencialism vs. "zen" disscussion.


Im more interested in this topic at a suraface level.

Culture is never a valid defense for anything.

Its not bad, but its not "good" either. It can have good and bad elements both, and all these should be judged on their value rather than on their history.

[Occhidiangela]

Culture is never a valid defense for anything.

Never? Be careful with using never, "culture" (the way we do it here) is used as a defense for such mundane decisions as which side of the road people drive on. ;)

Its not bad, but its not "good" either. It can have good and bad elements both, and all these should be judged on their value rather than on their history

Where do you think definitions of bad and good, subjective measures if there ever were any, came from? They are frequently defined within a social context that we would call culture.

Example: Slavery. In the cultural context of 1500, acceptable. Currently, not so today.
Example: Polygamy: OK under Islam, OK in some African cultures, not under Christianity, but OK under early Mormon doctrine
Example: Eating with your left hand. In the West, fine and good, in some Arab locales, bad.
Example: Death Penalty. In some cultures, good, in others, bad.

B)

[Guest]

The true defense of of which side we drive on is - it hardly matters, so theres no reason to change it.

Its a non issue.


Whe I said defense - I was implying a problem. As I said earlier the cultura; inanaties are fine.


All your other points(with the exception of eating hands) are not made any more or less valid by cultural president.

As for the hands - that goes back to cleanliness before toilet paper. Now its a harmless left over(harmless unless you start holding it against other people with a different preference.)

[kandrathe]

If you find a Stencil on the road should you kill it, or did it exist in the first place? :D Just kidding.

Existentialism vs Zen :o I don't see neccesarily how they relate to our chat on culture.

Me thinks you have squirmed into a position that is more defensible. Certainly we must not be a slave to our culture and we must exercise our brains to adapt to the present and future. I guess I take it for granted that people have formed their positions based on their own thoughts, rather than just parroting the words of their parents or of their collective culture. Only when it comes to political ideologies do I find more people who merely "quote the party line". As it were.

Culture is never a valid defense for anything.

You must have been thinking about something here, as I'm missing the cognitive connection to the statement. Like, I must enjoy lutefisk and be good at skiing because I'm Swedish? Or, were you thinking that minorities should not have the right to be angry with their prior (or present) poor treatment by some racists. Does one need to experience the brutality that Rodney King experienced first hand, to justify being angry? We all should be outraged that any person would be treated that way, but can you see how black people might be more sensitive to the issue. It doesn't justify a riot, looting, and dragging people from their cars and killing them -- and in that regard I would agree that "culture" is not a defense. This reminds me of a discussion I had with a South African ANC member in 1981 where we were both working at the headquarters for the American Lutheran Church (my part time job in college). In essence I told her that I had empathy for her struggle against Aparthied, but that I could not condone the horrors perpetrated by either extremist side. To face evil with good was a far more powerful response, than to face evil with evil. Anyway, I could muse on about what you may have been thinking, or you might just tell me...

My original statement was that I thought there are parts of a minority culture that were worth preserving, e.g. a Native American "Lakota" culture, with a rich tradition in art, music, dance, language and oral histories that might be lost were they to just assimilate into the greater melting pot. Here in the US in the midwest and western states we still have the remnants of those cultures that were almost destroyed by the US government and their programs. But, there are many native americans who are struggling to retain some of their culture. I would feel remorse if they just vanished, just as I would if my own Scandinavian culture evaporated. I know that it makes my life richer to travel throughout the world and experience many different customs and cultures. But then again, I wouldn't think of myself as a zenophobic redneck leading the KKK lynch mod either.

It would be kind of boring if everywhere and everyone were the same. Hi borg! Hello borg! I am one of twenty three.

I really like this site: Native American Languages and Cultures and Orrin is a hoot.

[Occhidiangela]

Now its a harmless left over(harmless unless you start holding it against other people with a different preference.)

That social convention, where "harmless" is irrelevant except within the eye of the beholder in regards to offense given or taken, is precisely what makes cultures differ: read and comprehend the operative thought-- "how we do it here." See definition in Pete's post, entry 5, and the implication for what makes a particular corporation's culture a defining attribute . . . "how we do it here."

How we do it makes all the difference in the world in some endeavours.

At this point you are naysaying for the sake of being contrary.

If you object to folks using "its cultural" as an excuse to keep doing something a particular way, for good or ill, you might begin to understand the frustration off any reformer . . . like the American Progressives of the early 20th century or Martin Luther.

[Guest]

I dont think so about the naysaying. I think my position has been the same all along.
Your last paragraph is along the lines of what I am talking about. Im not against people having and maintaining a culture - I am against using the fact that an element is culture as a defense for the element.


I am a big fan of some aspects of the progresives and both Martin Luthers(Martin Luthers views on jews were not cool).

[whyBish]

I still remember the amazement and pleasure I felt at seeing that distant trees actually had branches :)

Enjoy.

--Pete

Yeah, but the "I feel one foot shorter and my feet are below the pavement" feeling is kinda freaky :P

By coinciddence, I may need to go scratch up that spade again. The leader of the major opposition party is arguing for the abolition of all Maori seats in parliament and other 'separatist' policies. The current Prime minister calls his views 'racially divisive'. Both sides seem to be throwing the same egg ;)

[Occhidiangela]

And perhaps poorly organized as presented here.

You and I appear to agree, generally, on your last sentiment; although such a generalization is fraught with loopholes and "what ifs." It strikes me as the key theme that you were driving at initially.

[Sailboat]

This is probably far too complex a subject to deal with in a post. I will attempt to respectfully, and with some concern for the facts, as I understand them, bring up an issue I've been interested in lately.

At least one post somewhere in this thread suggested that the students were kicked out of the minority lounge based on their ancestry. While that may have been the intention of the people doing the "kicking out", I don't think it's strictly true. I think they asked the "white" or "Caucasian" students to leave based on their interpretation of the students' appearance.

Haven't we all seen people whom we couldn't identify as belonging to a specific "color" or "race"? But what is "race"? With apologies to those who have used it as shorthand in this discussion, I would say race is a construct of lazy minds.

My ancestors may have once come down out of the Caucasus mountains and driven chariots over much of Europe in the Iron Age; but I hardly feel a connection to the Caucasus mountains. Over the vast passage of time since then, my ancestors gradually became marginalized and discriminated against, in a Europe dominated by others, clinging to the western fringes of the landmass in places where the terrain was bad, like Scotland, Ireland, Wales, and Brittany. For thousands of years the Celts were treated as completely "other" by Normans, Vikings, Goths, and all kinds of "races" or "tribes" of people we now lump together as "white". And make no mistake -- most of the people of Europe felt they could quite clearly identify a Celt by appearance, by language skills, and by dress and behavior; and at certain times the Celts were held to be lazy, prone to superstition, musically talented but not smart, inherently poor, and geneologically (before there was a concept of genetics) inferior. Sound familiar?

How did the Celts, once overlords of the chariot, but later a despised minority, perform this magic trick and become "white" alongside the Norman French, the Saxons, the Jutes?

I've seen reviews of, but not read, an interesting-looking book (can't recall the title) which seems to assert, if I am correctly interpreting what I see, that the concept of "white" arose (perhaps unconsciously) to maintain a dominant position in the social hierarchy. A lot of tribes or groups that had been outcast minorities were "admitted" to white status to swell the "white" population base and ensure (again, unconsciously) that it remain in the majority, and thus not slip down the social pecking order.

This may be complete claptrap -- or I may even be misreading what little I've seen of this theory -- but it sounds interesting to me. *Somehow* the Welsh and the Scots and even the Irish (*grin*) became "respectable" and even became The Man, here in America. And America is really where slavery, a practice as old as mankind, had become permanently associated with race: previously it was associated mainly with military defeat. For example, individual Greek ("white") slaves served Roman ("white") masters, but it never really became a Roman habit to consider the Greeks as suitable only for enslavement (although the Romans had contempt for everyone not Roman, this wasn't specifically aimed at people they'd enslaved, it was just part of being Roman.)

But in America, where enslaved Africans remained in chains long after slavery had been abandoned or renounced by most of the increasingly empathtic "civilized" world, slavery became associated with skin color, probably because out of some kind of necessary mental defense against their own guilty consicences, the slaveholders had to find some reason to justify their behavior. Unable, or too lazy, to distinguish between the Hutu, Tutsi, Bantu, Taureg, Ibo, or any of the other physically and culturally diverse Africans, the slaveholders settled on really arbitrary differences in skin color and built a myth of inferiority. Yes, I'm vastly oversimplifying here.

So *if I am understanding* this claim, once skin color became a pretext for discrimination, hatred, and most relevant to this discussion, class division, there arose the question of who was in which group, sort of like picking teams for a sport (silly metaphor for such an awful subject, I know). It was at that point that (consciously or not) the Celts and the Italians and the Magyars and the Ostrogoths and the rest somehow got lumped in with the Scandinavians as "white" despite huge differences in language, culture, hair color and even skin color.

Well, a thought-provoking topic, to me at least. I know I've just skimmed the outline of it. I hope I haven't offended any Celts or Ostrogoths.

Sailboat

[ShadowHM]

*Somehow* the Welsh and the Scots and even the Irish (*grin*) became "respectable" and even became The Man, here in America.

Would that be Lace-Curtain Irish or Shanty-town Irish? :P Not too long ago there was a definite difference between the two here in Ontario, in social status and job opportunities.

In many ways I agree with your assessment that 'race' is an all-too-easy moniker for the tendency of all humans to assume the 'other' is inferior and find all manner of ways to bolster and propagate that opinion. It sure helps to think someone is inferior when you are profiting nicely from keeping them in that status, whether by slaughtering them to get their land (attitudes toward Native Americans come to mind) or by keeping them in 'their place' for employment purposes (attitudes toward the Shanty-town Irish and the Chinese workers imported to build our railways come to mind).

Lazy minds or minds that are following the genetic imprinting that wants to view the 'other' as not worth the same consideration as 'us'? Or both?

[Doc]

I read something like that in a book about the White Brotherhood. The book I read was written by a Nazi Officer who thought himself some great social scientist. The Unification of the Aryan folks is a subject of great debate.

And I absolutely LOVE it when people can't figure out what race I am and make them selves look stupid. I am a mix actually. Lakota and Yakima tribes, a dash of Sicilian, and a touch of Cuban. And it seems there might be a touch of Bulgarian Gypsy in there some place. I am very very dark olive skinned. If I grease my hair back, I can look like a Mexican. If I let my hair fall around my shoulders and look rather wild, I can be mistaken for a Native American. If I dress a certain way and comb my hair right, I can easily be mistaken for a Middle Eastern Terrorist type, a fact which I find rather funny. If I dress up right, comb my hair right, and talk "with my hands" then I can easily pass for a very swarthy Italian.

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.

If more people would mix, situations like that one would be more common, and, people's natural fear of looking like an idiot might take over and folks might keep their mouth shut.

[TaMeOlta]

Well, a thought-provoking topic, to me at least.  I know I've just skimmed the outline of it.  I hope I haven't offended any Celts or Ostrogoths.

Sailboat

:lol: Well , you know me , Sails -- I'm very hard to offend ;)

Thank you very much for that informative post , awesome stuff .

[jahcs]

Doc Posted on Jan 28 2004, 05:29 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I read something like that in a book about the White Brotherhood. The book I read was written by a Nazi Officer who thought himself some great social scientist. The Unification of the Aryan folks is a subject of great debate.

And I absolutely LOVE it when people can't figure out what race I am and make them selves look stupid. I am a mix actually. Lakota and Yakima tribes, a dash of Sicilian, and a touch of Cuban. And it seems there might be a touch of Bulgarian Gypsy in there some place. I am very very dark olive skinned. If I grease my hair back, I can look like a Mexican. If I let my hair fall around my shoulders and look rather wild, I can be mistaken for a Native American. If I dress a certain way and comb my hair right, I can easily be mistaken for a Middle Eastern Terrorist type, a fact which I find rather funny. If I dress up right, comb my hair right, and talk "with my hands" then I can easily pass for a very swarthy Italian.

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.

If more people would mix, situations like that one would be more common, and, people's natural fear of looking like an idiot might take over and folks might keep their mouth shut. 

Perhaps someday people can avoid stereotyping others (I admit, I do it to) and base thier feeling toward others on an individual basis.

[--Pete]

Hi,

People fear what is different. That fear becomes reflected as hate. In many primitive languages, there is only one word meaning both "not of the tribe" and "enemy". And, often, the name the tribe has for itself has the connotation of "human" -- implying that those not of the tribe are animals.

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.

Throughout the history of mankind, almost every group has had its turn at being persecuted or persecutor. The Celts no more or less than any other. Anyone making a big deal of how their ancestors of years ago were treated obviously needs a life in the present, for they are living too much in the past. Yes, it is interesting to read the histories, to ponder what has happened, to learn to avoid the mistakes of the past. When it goes beyond that, to the point of focusing on those mistakes, taking one's identity from them, even attempting to "right" them, then one has crossed the line from scholar to self styled victim. A poor place to be.

And, BTW, although the Romans had contempt for everyone not Roman is a crock two ways. First, the people of Rome considered anything Greek to be superior. They imported Greek artifacts, Greek artisans, Greek tutors. They even imported the Greek religion, keeping little more than the names of the old Roman gods. Second, anyone freeborn anywhere within the empire was a Roman. AFAIK, Rome was the first conquering nation that gave citizenship to the conquered people (at least, in the second generation). Hardly the behavior of a group that had contempt for everyone else. Not the only, just the most glaring, of the errors in your "facts". Perhaps actually reading the books would be indicated?

--Pete