Reply With QuoteRead more, oh panicky one.
This is just..... scary.
How much is a plane ticket to Australia again? And can I get a permanent visa fairly easily? I think it may be time to leave the ship, it is sinking pretty fast.
It has been a while since I have seen a group of people that carry such self-hatred as extremely left white liberals. The scary part is, they are a large part of American academia which means they can raise lots of others of European lineage to hate themselves too.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?nav=hptop_tb
Maybe this is just the start. Maybe next we will need to give up part of our property as well as repayment for this "whiteness" we suffer from. Then after that we can burn the books. Revisionist history at its finest. Scary stuff.
Read more, oh panicky one.
Jason, do you have a link to where Horowitz says that white studies is about exterminating the white race? Because he does NOT say that in the quote in the original article. What he says is that it portrays whites as evil.
That's not the same thing. So the self-hate criticism may or may not be valid, but to say anything about extermination is pushing it.
At any rate, I don't understand why the answer to this problem is to make whites aware of their own race. Why not make everyone else FORGET about race? If we are saying all the races are equal scientifically, then the only difference is cultural. So why not just talk about different cultures?
One thing in particular that bothers me is when people say that economics and similar fields are racist. This is an odd claim. Not many people say science is racist for example. Are Newton's Laws of Motion somehow biased because Newton was white? So in what sense is economic theory racially biased? It may just happen that white people are the first to worry about certain things, or to put things in certain ways. If those things are useful or accurate, who cares who came up with them?
OTOH, I understand the point about history being biased in perspective. This does happen, but it can't be fixed by biasing it in other ways. For instance, we can't say that Hannibal and Cleopatra were black (just because they lived in Africa) in order to take away a Eurocentric bias. That's just fictionalizing history in order to try to fix it. That kind of bias would be intentional. But we SHOULD try to understand that just because a people wasn't inventing guns or ships, etc. that they weren't important. cultures have different evolutions and priorities. The Zulu culture wasn't inferior just because it was eventually defeated, any more than the Mayan culture was, or even Greek culture (which was also defeated). I think we do need to eliminate those kinds of biases. I just don't want it to go too far the other way in an attempt to balance out past discrepencies.
He doesn't mention the extermination of the white race, as such. He does say they "call for the abolition of whiteness" in such a tone as to imply they were calling for the extermination of the white race--at least that's the way the Post presented it.Originally Posted by Robert Sharp
In any case, 'Whiteness Studies' may be one of those many academic ideas that are pretty good (or at least interesting) among the people that thought them up (think communism) but become disastrous when put in practice by the evil or idiotic.
Tell that to the orcs and humans. They never get along. Well, except for that one time.
I keep hearing about this, but I've never seen an example. And on the drafting Egyptians/Hannibal as black thing, that's something confined to the outliers of black studies and the various nationalist movements, I think; no one appears to take it very seriously.
Here's a fun game: can you find anything mentioned in the article that they're doing that's bad? I can't, really.
The closest Horowitz quote I can find is this:
But Max is more or less accurate; Horowitz thinks liberals are out to immolate themselves or something, and his crazy rantings tend to bleed over into more respectable outlets."It's so evil that one author has called for the abolition of whiteness," he said. "I have read their books, and it's just despicable."
... with perhaps a few exceptions.
Yes, I can. Here are some quotes from various students describing the outcome of their 're-education'can you find anything mentioned in the article that they're doing that's bad? I can't, really.
I would not choose friends because of color, but it's important to choose friends because of color. A blatent contradiction which is impossible to integrate into a consistant philosophy.. "I would never not choose to be someone's friend because they are white, but I think it's important to have friends of color,"
They are being taught to take the focus off their own identity."was really, really hard . . . both personally and as a white person, because you really want to take the focus off you and your whiteness."
Translation: Everything else we learn in school is white biased, and therefore must be wrong"other classes, like economics, politics and history, are about whiteness. They are written by and are about white people."
Racialized? WTF does this word mean? By whom are whites racialized? themselves? Others of different races? The question is purposefully unanswerable. And now for the most poignant comment by a recent graduate of indoctrination:"the class was beneficial, because it brings to light that white people, too, are racialized."
Translation: I am guilty. The evilness is inside me. Because I have been told that all white knowledge is wrong, I can now identify other whites who are evil like me."I am racist. It's not on the surface, but it's in me. Day to day I hear racist comments, and people don't even know what they're saying."
They are attempting to destroy a 'culture' by destroying identity, replacing the moral code with a contradictory one. Leaving the victim helpless, unable to act, not knowing if their actions can ever be 'good' because they are inherently 'evil'.
Sounds like organized religion to me. Lost souls waiting for a savior to show them 'the way'. Can I get an "AMEN!" ???
and whats this nonsense of non culture-bashing?
Equating the inportance of various cultures simply because they all existed at one point in time is the same revisionist history you claim to want to avoid. Aversions to value judgements for the sake of courtesy only obscures valid anaylsis of a cultures importance or relevence to our own. Don't we measure things based on our own experiences? Shouldn't the value of a culture be based on our own culture? Simply saying all culures have equal importance is just a nice way of saying:" I'm too scared to be labled a racist"OTOH, I understand the point about history being biased in perspective. This does happen, but it can't be fixed by biasing it in other ways. For instance, we can't say that Hannibal and Cleopatra were black (just because they lived in Africa) in order to take away a Eurocentric bias. That's just fictionalizing history in order to try to fix it. That kind of bias would be intentional. But we SHOULD try to understand that just because a people wasn't inventing guns or ships, etc. that they weren't important. cultures have different evolutions and priorities. The Zulu culture wasn't inferior just because it was eventually defeated, any more than the Mayan culture was, or even Greek culture (which was also defeated). I think we do need to eliminate those kinds of biases. I just don't want it to go too far the other way in an attempt to balance out past discrepencies.
Goddamn, I hate so many people. Hermy is pretty clearly either a sockpuppet of Cleve or the worst person on earth. The people who run these classes really deserve a brutal, brutal beating with a clue stick. And McCullough worships at the feet of anyone left of center while mistrusting anyone with the slightest hint of any beliefs diverging from the Green party handbook.
McCullough, you don't see any problems with something like black studies being about the history and achievements of the black race but white studies being a trial of whiteness? (I also enjoy your relative attitudes towards Moore and Horowitz, who are two sides of the same coin. You are just shamelessly biased.)
The absurd lengths that liberals go to about race just give racists targets they can shoot down. Bullshit that race is a mental construct; facial structure, skin color, height? This is as absurd as the liberal delusion that gender is enviromental. Christ, why do you people do this shit? Just because you want it to be true doesn't mean it's true, no matter how much you'd like it to be. Nobody(sane) has more trouble with that concept than liberal academics. Cleve is playing his own little game here, obviously.
Sharp- I disagree on the cultures. How important could a culture that wasn't winning wars or inventing stuff be? It's not racism to say that the Native Americans sucked. They did. Several European civilizations, a couple of Arab empires(geographically and/or culturally, so I can count the Moors and the Egyptians under this), some Asians, those guys had their shit together . They were inventing or conquering or building or something of importance, something worth remembering. The Native Americans were absurdly behind the curve on these things. They were shooting each other with primitive bows over hunting grounds while Europeans had flintlock muskets and commercial farming. What can we learn from the Mohawks? Why should we remember the Zulus?
No empire is eternal, not every defeat is at the hands of a superior civilization, but it's not that hard to figure out who had their shit together and who thought that charging semi-modern rifles with spears was a good idea.
My perceived political opinions are funny.
Do you define your self worth by the stuff you invent over your lifetime?Sharp- I disagree on the cultures. How important could a culture that wasn't winning wars or inventing stuff be? It's not racism to say that the Native Americans sucked. They did.
Well, sometimes it works, doesn't it?
Anyway, I think you've been playing too much Civilization.
I do believe Ben was talking about cultures, not individuals, which is probably why he wrote "cultures" rather than "individuals". Regardless, why shouldn't successful inventors be proud of their inventions? That sounds like an eminently plausible basis for high self esteem.
because what you invent doesn't belong to you, it belongs to everyone. Why should anyone get more credit than anyone else? Why should anyone else have more self-esteem ?
That's not what I meant. We don't consider an individual's life "worthless" if they just work, get married, and have kids; you don't have to change the world. Why does it suddenly become important for a society? I mean, yeah, I'd rather live here and now than at any time in Zulu society; but why on earth would you not remember the Zulus? Do you throw away the stats of everyone in baseball who doesn't win the MVP?I do believe Ben was talking about cultures, not individuals, which is probably why he wrote "cultures" rather than "individuals". Regardless, why shouldn't successful inventors be proud of their inventions? That sounds like an eminently plausible basis for high self esteem.
Jared Diamond is far more coherent than I am on this, and makes a good case it's all based on initial starting conditions anyway.
Crap, I forgot about them!Tell that to the orcs and humans. They never get along. Well, except for that one time.
I was going to cite the Jared Diamond book but Jason beat me to it. His earlier books is also excellent and touches on the topic here:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...063550-1092769
Also, last year I read an extremely good book on the issue of nature/nurture and the social/political consequences:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...063550-1092769
Both are pretty interesting reads.
On the topic of "whiteness" studies, there's definitely a lot of idiocy regarding race/gender and victimization going on in Academia. I was at UC Berkeley in the late 80s when a lot of these theories were being developed and attended lectures by people on multiple sides of these issues like Alan Dundee, Vincent Sarich and Todd Gitlin. There was a HUGE amount of foolishness going on - many people believed things like "racism is one-way, from the white power structure down to the oppressed minorities, ONLY" (completely disregarding the whole issue of situational power, and the fact that stereotyping goes on amongst ALL groups.)
Jason - I DID hear people (mostly grad students teaching section) say things like "economics is inherently racist", "there is no objective reality" "objective reality is used to oppress less powerful groups" "reality is a social construct" and so forth. I actually had an Anthropology TA (teaching my section of Anthro 1) tell me that women's behavior during the menstrual cycle was caused by gender bias in society (!).
I lump this current "whitness studies" stuff in with that. One of the reasons the left in this country is in disarray is that in the academic study of social issues, a whole host of post-marxist, deconstructionist and other assinine theories have taken root. There are definitely people in academia who are so caught up in their fancy framework of post-modern theory that they don't see the social realities of our times.
Anyway, the conservative reaction to this is an over-reaction IMO. There's always going to be a certain amount of pie in the sky theorizing going on in academia. I survived 4 years of it and got a BS in History and I feel reasonably sane :). Then of course the harsh realities of law school beat the theoretical crap right out of me :). And being out in the working world did it even more so.
That's the solution! Everyone who applies to teach one of these whiteness studies class has to work for at least 2 years in a real business and make a net profit over that time. Then if they still want to teach that stuff, let em :).
Dan
Wait a minute here. Ben, are you saying a culture is only valuable if we can learn something from them? Or if they can defeat someone in a war? Or if they are "progressive", meaning they invented things? Those are odd claims. The Greeks never really conquered anybody until the Macedonians came along. Is that when they became valuable? They created thought and built buildings of course, but the Native Americans had thoughts too. The Spanish conquered lots of peoples. Does that make them a great culture? Were the Mongols or the Huns great people because they could wipe out towns?
I have to agree...you have been playing too much Civ :).
I would also like to point out to Mulligan that I did NOT say that all cultures are equal. I said there is no easy way to judge one culture better than another, except (as you said really) by our own perspective. I don't believe people shouldn't judge people or cultures. I would say the culture of Nazi Germany was a bad culture for a lot of reasons. What I AM saying is that anyone who can't at least try to understand WHY a culture does what it does, rather than just saying that they were "inferior" misses a lot of what is going on. Native Americans didn't invent things because there was no need for them to do so, not because they were necessarily stupid people.
I agree with that. I am an academic myself and I am often amazed at just how naive many academics are about the "real" world. I had to work my way through college, and I think anyone in academics should have to at least try a "real" job for a while.
"Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for western civilization as it commits suicide. It allows one to feel good while watching everything one believes in collapse and be destroyed." -- James Burnham
Jason- I didn't say that someone who goes to work everyday and raises a family had a "worthless" life(in fact, your use of "worthless" is borderline dishonest. I never used the word). But how many regular Joes can you name from 1643? A ton of people have lived productive, worthwhile lives. A handful of people are remembered. It's not racist or unfair to forget those John Q Publics, it's how it should be.
We do remember who invented things and who created works of art and who won victories, we don't remember who did a good job as a bricklayer or accoutant. Is that wrong? Should we teach our children about a 1950s car mechanic or a 1530s cobbler? I don't quite understand what point you think you were making or what you are arguing against. It appears, connecting the dots, that you think it's biased and unfair that we don't give equal coverage to Joe Footsoldier and Alexander the Great. Is that true? If you want to know who I think was a more important person, it really is Alexander. Sorry, "Joe", but you didn't get it done. The reasons for that are another story, but the facts speak for themselves. No matter how good you were at stabbing Persians, you didn't control the entire known world before you turned 35. Alexander should get books written about him, you should be consigned to the dusts of history.
Robert- Yes, I am. Importance is self-explanatory. If we can't learn something from them, why are should we waste our time when we could be studying someone we could learn from? The Zulus are only important in that they were an almost comic foil for some Europeans. The Greeks are important because of the wealth of art and thought they developed and the taking over the known world that Alexander did. We should study the Zulus in a comparative, "why were they so primitive" sense, but it's bullshit to pretend that the Native Americans and Greeks deserve equal attention or anything close to equal attention. There's no equivalence there.
I was giving a variety of reasons a culture could be important, you don't have to qualify in every category. Hence the word "or". The Native Americans had thoughts? What's the Native American counterpart to "The Republic"?The Greeks never really conquered anybody until the Macedonians came along. Is that when they became valuable? They created thought and built buildings of course, but the Native Americans had thoughts too. The Spanish conquered lots of peoples. Does that make them a great culture? Were the Mongols or the Huns great people because they could wipe out towns?
They didn't need to invent stuff? History differs with you here. They damn well needed to invent stuff when whitey came over with his boomsticks. You want to divert this into an argument about morality or a difficult-to-define term like "greatness". No.
The Native Americans were not an important civilization. It's not Eurocentric to dismiss the Zulus and the Native Americans and all the other people who got swept aside by the real players of history. I'm not saying they were genetically inferior, I don't care about starting position. I'm talking about performance.
I think it was burned by some Spanish priests along with the rest of the entire written history of the Mayas.What's the Native American counterpart to "The Republic"?
Before whitey came over to spoil the party Indians lived in a beautiful land with plenty of fresh water and food of many different varieties, were practically disease free, and very rarely had any major wars.
Big deal that they hadn't invented gun powder, they had no reason to, but they adapted plenty of plants to use as remarkably effective medicines and were even better hunters than the best European hunter by far.
The Huns and the like didn't invent permanent settlements until LONG after the rest of Europe and they STILL raged through and killed pretty much everyone, a cultures accomplishments in one area are not a watermark, just a benchmark. The Vikings were less advanced then the English yet managed to rape them every other day.
All I'm saying is that different groups of people need different things, the world was MUCH bigger in that day then it is today. Today you can use that logic, but not then.
Don't be close minded and useless fucks like Cleve and hermyherpes here, they're disgusting human beings that need a scapegoat and won't let knowledge into their pointy, bald skulls. You simply can not base your views on an entire race on one or two examples or what you read off of the KKK's website. Take people on a person by person basis.
And when the race wars come I'll be on this, and my sweetheart's, side. I look forward to splitting your bald pate with my shovel Cleve.
Good points, Cookiepants (no, I can't believe I said that either), the fact is advancement comes from adversity. The human race as we know it wouldn't be anywhere if the Ice Age hadn't been kicking the ass of our homonid ancestors (anybody else see Walking with Cave Men?). The Europeans got very good at fighting cause they were doing so much of it amongst themselves, and because they benefited from contact with most of the world which gave them access to inventions like gunpowder, algebra, the compass, steel, etc. And they used those things to make weapons of War. North America, isolated and lacking the same kinds of survival imperitives as existed in the Old World, didn't advance along the same line.
The risk of hubrus and elitism is missing the chance to actually learn from the defeated cultures of the world. At the same time moralizing about the course of "white" history is to deny the natural process of evolution. In the same way academia unduly glorifies certain marginalized cultures, it appears they taken the next step by unduly demonizing white culture. Some like to pretend that humans exist outside the process of natural selection, and that's simply not the case. Progress is by definition the product of conflict. There is no such thing as the perfect balance of nature or harmony between competing species. Evolution is the process by which one species attempts to gain an advantage of another, and it's no different with cultures.
That's hilarious, Sharpe. Good old Berkeley; what was the rational for economics being racist?
Ben, I'm not sure why we shouldn't remember the average people of history, or examine what the life of 1500s cobbler was like; it's interesting, teaches valuable things, and so on. What possible reason is there?
Tell your friends this the next time you play a game.I don't care about starting position.
Cookiepants- Real Rousseauian there. They weren't noble savages, they were just regular savages. They did have diseases, just not European ones. And Europeans were exposed to a lot more because they weren't so insuar. The Native Americans didn't have majors wars because they didn't have major nations. They had tribal conflicts, but they simply didn't have the social structures necessary for a major war.
They were better hunters? What, genetically? They hunted a lot more because of the lack of commercial farming, but Europeans who tried to hunt were good at it. They had firearms and metal traps and stuff. I understand elementary schools are big on teaching Native Americans as being all in touch with nature and having a special understanding, but that's a crock. They hunted because they needed the meat and they knew the land because they lived there.
I'm assuming that post was a joke, because that's a real Disney version of history.
And the Vikings weren't less advanced than the "English". I guess you mean the Saxons, what we know as the English have a lot of Viking stock. The Vikings are the most underappreciated great civilization, they owned Europe. The Huns were nomads.
Bet they were pretty important to those who were (and are) part of those civilizations. "The real players of history?" What the hell kind of crap is that? What on earth is a real player of history? Do you have any criteria here, or is it just whatever civilizations you like?
Progress is not by definition the product of conflict. Well, at least I've never seen it defined as that, and I see no logical reason why it should be.
Regarding natural selection and cultures: That doesn't mean that things have to or should be like that, just because there's conflict now. If anything, should we not be working towards a more harmonious and balanced world to increase the happiness and well-being of all?
Progress doesn't come only because of conflict. However, conflict can cause considerable amounts of progress. The countries of Europe were in constant conflict during many parts of their history. Because of this, there was a constant need/desire to gain a competitive advantage. Contrast this with China, for example. China at various points in its history was probably more advanced than Europe. However, instead of extending its lead it pissed it away? Why? One fundamental mistake that China made was it began to worship the past. The right way to do things was the way things had been done in the past. The Mandarins stopped trying to innovate and innovation was not rewarded -- instead following tradition was rewarded. As a result the Chinese technological lead was lost.Progress is not by definition the product of conflict. Well, at least I've never seen it defined as that, and I see no logical reason why it should be.
If China had been surrounded by neighbors who were in constant technological competition with it and who were constantly innovating, they would have been less likely to turn inward and less likely to worship tradition. In turn their technological lead might not have been lost.
This isn't my theory, I stole it from Paul Kennedy, but I do think it has some merit.
For another example of conflict driving progress, think World War 2 and the Cold War. World War 2 accelerated our understanding of atomic power and atomic energy. It also accelerated development of rocketry and jet engines. I'm sure there were numerous technologies whose development was accelerated as a result of the war. The Cold War was indirectly responsible for the space race and its accompanying technology gains.
Oh, I'm not disputing that. My point was only that progress does not require conflict, that progress is not by definition the product of conflict, as it was put.
Hmm base insult 'j00 a jung$ter' never gets old. Since I've no real way of proving how old I am I'll leave it at this: You fuck dolphins.
Who do you think taught the Europeans tracking techniques? Who were always hired as guides? Who reached the Pacific ahead of Lewis and Clark to report the path back to them? I'm not talking all that mystical crap you're trying to pin on me, cold facts. Read any accounts of any battle against the Indians, 'excellent shot', 'fierce warrior' blahblahblah. But then again the ones reporting that HAD to be jung$ters, so their opinion doesn't count.
And hey, I did use the terms 'practically' and 'rarely' you wanna put words in my mouth asshole they should AT LEAST look like they could be interpretted that way.
Yes the Huns were nomads, what's your point, hmm could that be why they didn't have permenent settlements? You refute my arguments by defining my words. Way to lose cock hound.
You know, I clicked that link. Those are the whitest black women I have ever seen. High cheekbones, small european nose, skinny frame, long STRAIGHT hair.
I'm guessing the complete irony of that is lost on you, though it isn't at all surprising. You are really "down" with the sistas aren't ya? :roll:
And Ben, by the way, you have in the course of one thread gone from a raiving liberal lunatic to an almost completely rationale human being. *wild applause*
Posting Permissions