Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id AAA01314 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sat, 11 May 2002 00:55:19 +0100 X-Originating-IP: [209.240.222.132] From: "Scott Chase" <ecphoric@hotmail.com> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: Fw: future language Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 19:48:46 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: <F139AAWZmkUMFsZc7gP00011659@hotmail.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 May 2002 23:48:47.0179 (UTC) FILETIME=[3A0FA9B0:01C1F87D] Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>From: "Philip Jonkers" <philipjonkers@prodigy.net>
>Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
>Subject: Re: Fw: future language
>Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 17:49:40 -0700
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Grant Callaghan" <grantc4@hotmail.com>
>To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
>Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 4:02 PM
>Subject: Re: Fw: future language
>
>
> > >Subject: Fw: future language
> > >Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 21:45:00 +0200
> > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: Scott Chase <ecphoric@hotmail.com>
> > > > > Well, to make some crucial qualifiers to what I've said about
> > >diversity
> > > > > preservation, I'd not lament the loss of cultural practices like
> > >female
> > > > > circumcision, cannabilism, honor crimes or others of that
> > >reprehensible
> > > > ilk.
> > > > > Here in the U.S. we've managed to eliminate some of our more
> > >reprehensible
> > > > > practices and institutions like slavery and added a couple good
>ones
> > >like
> > > > > women's suffrage and civil rights though patriarchy and racism
>have
>a
> > >ways
> > > > > to go before going extinct. Good riddance when (or if) they do.
> > > > >
> > > > > But, I still think there's a lot to be learned and even more
>reasons
> > >for
> > > > the
> > > > > maximization of diversity, as long as said diversity doesn't
>involve
> > >the
> > > > > violation of basic human rights.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Scott,
> > > > >
> > > > > I think you are in the wrong here concerning that it is a good
>point
> > >to
> > > > get
> > > > > rid of racism or whatever is being seen as " wrong " out there !
> > > > >
> > > > > Don 't get me wrong me, though, I recognise that racism is no good
>at
> > > > > all, but you can 't just eliminate it by making up laws ordering
> > >people
> > >to
> > > > > do so_ that implies, involves the violation of basic human rights
>!
> > > > > If, racism has a genetical or for that reason a memetical bias you
> > >just
> > > > > can 't forbid people to be racistic, it won 't work !
> > > > > If you do, you set up people against their inner themselves and
>that
> > >is
> > > > > in my book perversive to the extreme.
> > > > >
> > > > > In my country, Belgium, it is by law forbidden to express oneself
>as
> > >to
> > > > > be anti-semitic, we have a few anti- racistic laws to, even a
>centrum
> > > > > for equality and human rights. All for the best, I know and I
>presume
> > >it
> > > > > is, but try to understand what went on in our minds in the period
>of
> > >the
> > > > > Israel- Palestinian clashes. Pro- Palestinian demonstrations were
>beat
> > > > > up, basically due to the anti- racistic anti- semitic laws, where
>do
> > >you
> > > > > think my basic human freedom to protest was !?
> > > > >
> > > > > What Israel did played up my emotions and there was no platform,
>no
> > > > > public forum avaible left to express mine and our feelings !
> > > > > Do you think that is good or right ! I don 't !
> > > > > And concerning this thread, banning racism as a word can 't bann
>the
> > > > > fact of it !
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > Kenneth
> > > > >
> > I think there is a lot of misunderstanding about the use of the term
>racism.
> > People of different cultures have natural preferences that favor their
>own
> > culture that have nothing to do with race and everything to do with the
> > memes they have inherited in the form of language and religion and who
>is
> > good and who is bad. People who don't understand our language and
>customs
> > are thought of as barbarians in almost every culture I have encountrered
>in
> > the world. But from a racial point of view, what are the racially
> > distinguishing features of protestants and Catholics in Northern
>Ireland?
> > What racial features separate Serbs and Croats? How are the Flemmish
> > racially different from the French? And yet you have the same hatreds
>and
> > prejudice between each of these groups as you have between black and
>white
> > or Asian and black. The mainstream Japanese are prejudiced against the
> > Ainu, the Hindu is prejudiced against the Muslim, and the Hindus
>themselves
> > are diveded into castes that act toward each other the same way whites
>act
> > toward blacks in South Africa. People will always find ways to look
>down
> > their noses at other groups and divide themselves into people and
> > barbarians. It is a fact of human nature and I have no doubt that it is
> > genetically built into us because it is so universal among the human
>race.
> > I don't know of a single culture that doesn't have some other culture it
>can
> > look down upon. And usually, race has little or nothing to do with the
> > feeling. Culture is by far the most divisive feature of war and
>separation.
> > We often refer to that as racism, but it's not. It's cultural
>division
> > and plain old human nature and not likely to be legislated out of
>existence.
>
>I agree with you Grant on this and I also find that `racism' is hardly the
>right qualifier.
>Perhaps fascism (or its kid-brother: jingoism) fits the bill better?
>
>
When I think of what "white power" groups stand for "racism" probably fits
the bill, though bigotry or prejudice could be better words if one thinks in
terms of racial lines being blurry and artificial. Nonetheless the hate
groups stand for "white supremacy" which is based on the mythos of a "white
race" and as far as that goes they are indeed racist groups.
If one were to review the history of civil rights in the "deep south" of the
United States they would probably think that, at least in this case,
"racism" applies however artificial racial constructs are. The racists are
setting the defining lines, so they are racist, whether "race" *per se*
actually exists.
As for legislation, one probably cannot legislate racism out of existence of
people's minds, but at least laws should pertain to overt behavior that
crosses some line of intolerance and violence towards others.
A possible problem that could arise with laws or censure against
anti-Semitism (reasonable laws should be in place BTW given the horrid
history of hatred towards Jewish people) is when these laws go so far as to
be used as a weapon against those who are critical of Israeli policy.
Anti-semitism is hatred of Jewish people and should be censured and laws
should be in place to deal with overt actions taken against Jewish people
based on anti-Semitic bigotry.
Anti-Semitism is not rational criticism of Isreali politics or not being
supportive enough of Israel against its detractors. That's a crucial
distinction. I wouldn't call Chomsky an anti-Semite, even if he's more
critical of Israel than I could be. *I* can read Sharon's autobiography and
actually have some empathy for the guy in places, misgivings aside. He is a
fellow hawk after all, unlike Chomsky, though I'd side with Chomsky on some
criticisms of Israeli policies.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat May 11 2002 - 01:07:04 BST