<p>Of course the Klan takes its position against blacks as a matter of principle. We therefore know that to a Klansman, no black person can ever be worthy of approval. I take my position as a matter of convenience, with the understanding that certain people in America are not to blame for the nation’s ills. I have already stated that I do not include you in the group that I hold responsible for America’s savagery. There are many Americans like you who escape my mind entirely because they not only pose no threat to goodness, but are actively involved in creating the goodness that marks the country, contrary to the behavior of the majority. But they are too few to justify reliance upon them as chief representatives of America’s general character. Even when they are successful in influencing such things as law, the savage horde more often than not eventually invalidates their efforts.</p>
<p>I don’t yet deny this, but I do not quite understand it. How is this a problem for you? It is crystal clear how it is a problem for me, but I don’t see how it gives you and me sincere cause for solidarity. I wish to discover this because it would help me trust in the possibility of the genuine interest of non-blacks in remedying these issues.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes. I wonder why we don’t permit this. Perhaps it is for fear of a deluge of frivolous lawsuits. Many people would create cause to sue the government, employing the pretense that some grave constitutional question was at stake, when in reality the people merely wish to be pests, or to gain their fifteen minutes.</p>
<p>Drosselmeier, I do find the infringement of Professor Gates’ rights problematic for me. I have made the statement several times that if anyone’s rights are not secure, then no one’s rights are secure. I take this as a matter of principle, perhaps based on an upbringing that emphasized civil liberties for everyone.</p>
<p>Why pass on the challenge, Dross? Instead of distracting from the issue by bestowing yet another judgement (this time on who is jingoist), why not name these other countries where the majority of people would be judged favorably by you. Places where, unlike the USA, the vast majority:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps you will start a stampede of travel, or even relocation to these places. I know I am dying to visit, and I haven’t even heard about them yet. Strange, of course, that people all over the world are trying to get in here, since as you say the majority of Americans lack character.</p>
<p>“There are many Americans like you who escape my mind entirely because they not only pose no threat to goodness, but are actively involved in creating the goodness that marks the country, contrary to the behavior of the majority. But they are too few to justify reliance upon them as chief representatives of Americas general character.”</p>
<p>Because it is a wholly ridiculous “challenge”. Essentially, it implies that my ignorance of other nations prohibits my criticism of gross error in my own nation. Johnny’s family is allegedly enlightened, and has a rule that beatings are contrary to the family’s law. Yet each member of Johnny’s family beats him daily. When Johnny criticizes the error, his father replies “Well, tell us of a family whose members do not beat their son daily.”, and when Johnny fails, the father then says “See, what we are doing here is the best anyone can do, despite that we know it is wrong”. What you do here is to engage in childish “thought” (for want of a better word), and I simply will not entertain it.</p>
<p>Again, if the analogy here is between this hypothetical abusive family and the country, how is this not hyperbole? I see some contradiction in your statements, as to proportion. If “some” Americans are hard at work at justice, that could be a considerable amount of people. If that’s limited to a “few” (which you say elsewhere), that could be a tiny minority. If, still elsewhere, “all” the people are “rank savages,” or even just “hordes” of savages, that’s pretty all-encompassing.</p>
<p>Call me the stubborn idealist. I see good in a lot of places, toward a lot of people who haven’t had opportunity, by a lot of people eager to sacrifice to provide those opportunities. A lot of quiet, unsung heroes in (literally) soup kitchens, still; in civil rights litigation. I agree they don’t get the press. The “press” is given to loud-mouths, much too often, to crass people who, to some observers (not me) are fascinating in their crassness. If you take the press as providing accurate, realistic proportionality, the country (in your worldview) is 98% racist; in my worldview is 98% superficial, materialistic, and amoral. But not really. Conflict (over race, over insults, over politics) and excesses in lifestyles (including the bizarre, the high profile, the extremes) are two realms which feed headlines. Because those realms tend to dominate the news does not mean that those are the most prominent realms in real, everyday life.</p>
<p>That does not mean that I believe that most people are activists for good, and for just causes. I think most people are not inclined toward activism of any kind, necessarily. But I also believe, based on life experience, that most people are inclined toward the good: it just hasn’t been awakened in them; they may be asleep; they may be apathetic; they may be self-absorbed. But when made aware, most people respond, and in the morally right way. </p>
<p>JMO, which I know you don’t share. Maybe it’s a religious thing with me. In my religion, we believe in the universal possibility of redemption. I’m not conscious of that informing my political views, but I’m sure it has a part.</p>
<p>Of course you won’t! That is my point. Better to live in the world of the imagination than put your assumptions to any kind of test.</p>
<p>Somehow this reminds me of a scene from the movie Working Girl, when the ridiculous. self-absorbed Katherine Parker is finally backed into a corner. Naturally, even in defeat, her arrogance abounds.
<p>Your example does not work at all - sorry. Anyone could name dozens or even hundreds (depending upon how social they are) of families where the children are not beaten.</p>
<p>You have failed to name even ONE other country where, as you say, the vast majority
</p>
<p>This has nothing whatsoever to do with an
Instead, the exercise sheds light on the errors in your reasoning when you judge so many people harshly (from the very high pedestal on which you have apparently placed yourself).</p>
<p>The point here did not concern proportion, you see. I used hyperbole intentionally, so that my opponent could not miss the futility of her so-called “thinking”, which she missed nevertheless. The issue I addressed concerned her claim that we must think ourselves prohibited from criticizing obviously wrong conditions (like the harsh beatings of a child) merely because we are unable to prove better conditions in others. I ratcheted up the errors so that readers could more easily understand the flaw in the approach. Once again, it is foolish to declare that because one does not know of a better situation (which may or may not exist), the situation one knows is categorically wrong becomes unassailable. Such an approach is puerile, and I marvel at how one cannot sense this instinctively.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I actually agree with this, at least some of it. I know of a certainty that there are very many wonderful people in America. Indeed, I benefit of them each day. Where we seem to differ is over the ratio of these people to the savage horde. I think these are too few, and the evidence of it is in how evil tends to reign here in America and even across the world. There is something about evil that, contrary to what we have been told, has a way of overpowering good, at least for a time. Most Germans were not Nazis, but the relative few Nazis were able to wrought one of the greatest human catastrophes in all of history despite their smaller numbers. I suppose evil has a way of striking fear in the hearts of good men such that it renders them worthless where good is concerned. And this makes me wonder whether such a thing as amorality even exists. I think not.</p>
<p>In America I think we have something of a different situation. I think the proportion of evil people is far greater than the good, but the intensity of their evil is less than that of the Nazis. All of America, except for a precious few souls, supported slavery, even by law. While America did not gas millions of blacks in a short span of time, as the Nazis did to the Jews, it still essentially gassed them over a few centuries. The ubiquity of the evil and its deceptively low intensity made it all tolerable, though it poisoned the country every bit as much as that of the Nazis in Germany. Today we have a similar circumstance, except that the intensity is far less than it was in the seventeen and eighteen hundreds. The past has given us a modern system that is shaped by the history to which I refer here. So that large hordes of people, whites and even some blacks, are such savages that they are at best indifferent and at worst gain a certain sense of pleasure, when a human’s rights are trampled. I think we have seen this here even in these forums. The people here have bent over backwards to justify what that cop did to Gates, thought it was obviously wrong. They have worked ceaselessly to lay the blame on Gates, though the man did no wrong that they could certify. They want Gates to be culpable. Some undeveloped part of their psyche’s need him to have had some part of the evil that was done to him. And the notion of his rights simply do not matter to them. Indeed, they have even argued that this incidence has no import to the Constitution. America is literally infested with such barbarous people. And they outnumber everyone else.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Consider what it is you mean, friend, when you use such words as “good” and “evil”. When I use the term “good” I mean that which promotes and protects the free development and expression of life, depending upon its proximity to one’s sphere of influence. The word “evil” is a failure to achieve good. By my definition, evil is built into the world, and humans tend to gravitate toward it, not toward good. When I look around at the world, this is precisely what I see in every place. I do not see masses of amoral blank slates who have a natural tendency toward goodness. I see people who are born into evil, who from their very first breath, from their first conception, are so naturally self-absorbed that they cannot think of anyone else except in view of what they can extract from them. Some precious few of us seem to understand that this is our lot, but fascinatingly, we war against it. I watched a documentary of some woman who spent years living with women in an Indian brothel, teaching their children photography. The woman was physically beautiful, with a keen intellect. She could have made a comfortable life for herself in any developed country. But there she was, employing her beauty and gifts on behalf of the ugly and weak. This woman, whether she knew it or not, was at war with her natural self. She seemed to have an instinctive knowledge of how hopelessly disconnected all humans are from one another, and apparently she refused to accept it. This is one example of how striving toward the good looks, and compared to the torrential flood of Americans who live only for themselves, those who strive for good are very few. Were this not true slavery never could have taken root in America. It never could have survived even a day, let alone for two hundred fifty years by official law. And Gates’s rights today would never have been trampled without an overwhelming outcry from people who by their striving toward Good have seen a glimmer of what it means to be connected to others. They would have had a near instinctive reaction against it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes. I have detected this for quite sometime in you, and I find it very attractive, though I cannot accept it. No. It seems obvious to me that there is not even one person who is truly good. Everyone everywhere is naturally cursed with evil, with a natural bent toward it. Some precious few of us understand this and try to war against it, but even we fail. We are hermetically sealed, each of us, so that genuine connection with any truth other than ourselves is just plain impossible.</p>
<p>You’ve just described, without knowing it, the Catholic Church’s doctrine of Original Sin.;)</p>
<p>I was perhaps too rosy; I didn’t mean we aren’t inclined toward self-service at the expense of others; I agree we are. But again, there does exist the free flow of grace-filled opportunities which appeal to ‘the still, small voice’ that even atheists often acknowledge seems to be an aspect of being human. (The inborn conscience.) That is really what I meant by being able to appeal to most people (not those who are psychopaths or sociopaths or those by mental limitations are restricted from choosing good).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think that’s a philosophical point that is debatable. That certainly is an aspect of 20th century existentialism. Ultimately, we are alone, existentially, yes. Even spiritually. (We ultimately are responsible for our own responses to opportunities for redemption.) But being a whole, enclosed self does not prevent the redemptive influences of others on our psyches and souls. It’s what we do with that that counts.
:)</p>
<p>Drosselmeier posed a question to me back in post #2002, and I am returning to answer it. My immediate answer to the first question in that post was “enlightened self interest.” If we permit violations of Constitutional rights, all of us will find our rights at risk (or our descendants will).</p>
<p>However, Drosselmeier’s question has subsequently prompted some deeper thought, and I have concluded that something more basic is really at issue for me: The events violate my basic sense of fairness. A man is in his own home. He questions a police officer who is in the home (without an actual invitation, as far as I can tell). The man is subject to arrest the moment he crosses the threshold of his home. In these circumstances, the man ought to have legal recourse, with the support of his fellow citizens. It also violates my basic sense of fairness that this is not the case here (i.e., the support is missing, not the possible legal recourse).</p>
<p>An elementary sense of fairness seems to be hard-wired into us. I believe that I’ve read about studies of animal behavior that suggest that primates and dogs also have basic notions of fairness.</p>
<p>So, Professor Gates’ situation would make me uncomfortable even if I had an ironclad guarantee that I, my family, our descendants, and anyone else who is personally connected to us would never find our Constitutional rights at risk. Thus, the answer to the question in post #2002 might still be “enlightened self interest,” if interpreted in a broader sense.</p>
<p>I remarked earlier that Professor Gates might not want the disruption, hassle, time-consumption, expense and possible danger that a lawsuit might involve, and that this was a problem for all of us. To continue my response to Drosselmeier’s question in post #2002: The violation of the basic concept of fairness in this situation makes it a problem for me and for others who share my general philosophy. Beyond that, based on my understanding of society, I consider this situation to be a problem even for those who don’t recognize it as problematic.</p>
<p>This raises the larger issue of the better choice: to file a suit, or not. I think that there are times when a person is obligated to stand up for his rights; and there are times when it is actually better—in terms of net progress—to overlook a particular issue, while pursuing a greater good. The example of Nelson Mandela in South Africa, who has sought “truth and reconciliation,” rather than retribution, for crimes committed against him and his people, stands out to me. There is not a hint of Neville Chamberlain’s “peace in our time” policy of appeasement, in Mandela’s approach. It is stunning in its magnanimity, and it has been a great gamble on the best way to move the country forward. Please note: I am not commending South Africa to anyone–on either side of the issue–as an alternative to the U.S. Also, I am not sure what the future will bring to South Africa. But I find much to admire in Mandela’s approach, and few precedents for it.</p>
<p>It’s Professor Gates’ call on how/whether to proceed. This is only right—and I suppose that this is a strong counter-argument against my earlier posts on “standing” for the general public to file suit, in issues of Constitutional rights.</p>
<p>So, finally, to the issue of solidarity, also raised in post #2002. As a member of the (temporary) majority race in the U.S., I don’t believe that it would be right for me to claim solidarity. But my philosophy is (for the most part) out there to be observed.</p>
<p>I share epiphany’s general religious orientation (though not Catholicism, if applicable); but I’m also deeply moved by the views of the Earth that space exploration has shown us.</p>
<p>When Apollo 8 sent back pictures of the Earth, viewed with the Moon intervening, Archibald MacLeish wrote for the New York Times: “To see the earth as we now see it, small and blue and beautiful in that eternal silence where it floats, is to see ourselves as riders on the earth together, brothers on that bright loveliness in the unending night–brothers who see now they are truly brothers (Riders on the Earth, p. xiv).”</p>
<p>But the Earth is really quite large, when viewed from just beyond the far side of the Moon. One gains a clearer perspective from the picture in Carl Sagan’s “Pale Blue Dot,” showing the small blue sphere that is the Earth, in the great [near] void. The entire Earth is so extremely small, set against the backdrop of space. And even that picture is a “close up,” relatively speaking. We really are all in this together. </p>
<p>So, another part of the answer to the question in #2002: “rampant, unwavering, idealism.”</p>
<p>Forgive me if this has already been posted. I’m watching a rerun of Oprah’s show about the new show “Who Do you Think You Are?” Henry Gates appeared on this show and stated that he and Sgt. Crowley have gotten to know each other pretty well in the past year. One day, he “asked him (Sgt. Crowley) for a sample of his DNA.” Turns out they are both descendants of Niall of the Nine Hostages, the fourth century warlord who created one of the dominant strains of Irish genealogy because he had so many offspring. </p>
<p>I find that really interesting. It underlines the concept that we are all really connected in some way, regardless of our race.</p>