I'm breaking this to its own thread because it's an interesting subject that's been taking up space on the Behind the Screens thread. I'm continuing it despite its seeming lack of connection to anything, because
- There is nothing that is not connected to Multiverser somehow.
- This may help referees understand the worlds they create and the people who populate them--I think that the Orc Rising scenario in which Nikolaj is currently involved gains from this type of thinking, for example, and so does the New Orleans Prohibition and Jazz setting for John 4.
- It helps us get to know each other a bit better as people.
- Gaming is ultimately a form of social interaction, a way for us to get to know each other better, in part by opening doors to discussions like this.
It started in this post when I mentioned
I did not take yesterday off in celebration of Milk Day (those who are not U.S.A. citizens/residents probably won't get that reference).This was followed by a brief conversation between Nikolaj and JohnA1Nut (John 2 in our games), which might be summarized as follows:
- Nikolaj: Does it have something to do with Obama?
John: It's Martin Luther King Day, for the initials MLK, civil rights leader in the 50's and 60's. Before him black people often could not sit at the same table as white people, but now we get a day off from work for it.
Nikolaj: Cool, and was Obama inaugurated on the same day?
John: Yes, fifty years ago a black man couldn't sit at the same table as a white man, and now we have a black man as the President.
I continued the discussion briefly thus, in this post:
It was the next day, but close enough for government work, as they say.JohnA1nut, in the next post, responded, quoting part of what I had posted and continuing thus:It is evident to me in all this that discrimination, as such, has not yet come to an end. Had it ended, no one would have noticed that the new President was black. The fact that this is noticed means discrimination continues. The part of this that is more peculiar is I think that blacks are more aware the fact that the President is black than whites are. Quite a few people voted for Obama because he was black, but not many voted against him for that reason. That's discrimination, recognizing skin color as a factor in identity rather than merely a description of appearance.
As Chris Rock said: "Who's more racist? Black people or white people? Black people. Ya know why? Cuz we hate black people TOO!!!! Everything white people don't like about black people, black people REALLY don't like about black people."That is a direct quote from Chris Rock, who is a black stand up comedian, and a well-known authority on racism. I have to say I agree with him.
With that background established, I think I'll make my comments in the next post.
--M. J. Young
There's a wonderful line in My Fair Lady, as Professor Higgins says to Eliza Doolittle something like, "The question is not whether I treat you badly, but whether you've ever seen me treat anyone else better." I agree that many blacks are racist, but not because they hate blacks--I don't think there are many blacks who hate people because the hated ones are black, and the simple fact that you hate someone who incidentally is black is neither discriminatory nor prejudicial (distinct concepts, incidentally). But I do see a certain amount of racism in many blacks which I've characterized a bit in Joseph Kondor, for whom racial identity matters in a way that can only be called discriminatory and prejudicial, and who on that basis accuse others who do not recognize the problem of discrimination with being discriminatory and prejudicial.
In fact, I've got this from the slated fourth novel, Spy Verses. Joe Kondor speaks first, to Bob Slade and his wife the Lady Shella:
"This is–-I don't know what to say. We've fallen into a war, all right, but it's a huge mess. I'm not sure how we're going to fit here at all."In a world completely devoid of racial/color discrimination, the fact that someone was black would be incidental, akin to the fact that he had brown eyes or curly hair. Not noticing the color of someone's skin would be normal."What do you mean?" Slade asked. "If there's a war, surely it's just a matter of figuring out which side are the good guys and joining them. That's what I always do."
"Not this time, you don't," Kondor said. "Didn't you see it?"
"See what?"
Kondor wondered how Slade could have missed anything so obvious. Then again, as much as he admired his friend's combat skills, the man believed that Odin had called him to prepare to fight at Ragnorak, so how smart could he be?
"O.K., as soon as they saw you, they said you were a ghost. The ghosts are the enemies. Now what is it about you two that makes you different from everyone else in that room, including me, that they could see that quickly?"
Slade screwed up his face. "I don't know. We're wearing medieval clothing and weapons?"
Kondor just dropped his face into one hand, and shook his head.
"We're not wearing army uniforms?"
It was clear that Slade had no idea.
"You're both white," Kondor said. "They call you ghosts because you're white. This is a race war. Everyone on this side is black; everyone on that side is white. You didn't notice that there wasn't a single white soldier in that room?"
"No," Slade said. "Why should I have noticed something like that?
Kondor didn't have an answer to that. If Slade didn't understand why noticing the color of someone's skin was important, he couldn't explain it to him. Slade continued. "A lot of black guys join the army; I think more of my black friends did than my white friends; my white friends tried to get into the air force or the navy or something."
"Well, not in this world. This is an all black army defending an all black nation against white people. Wait, someone's coming." Kondor heard the approaching footsteps on his headset, and quickly shut it off just before the door opened.
Now, there are people in the rising generation who have that attitude. I can remember my wife trying to get a description from one of my sons of his grade school teacher without asking the child if the woman was "black". She was, but the child didn't consider that an important feature.
I also remember the president of my first college, Pastor Worthington. There were two guys in the graduating class before mine, Julius and Wilbur. They were about the same height, stocky build, a bit overweight, close cropped tightly curled hair. Both were very active in student government and activities, and so had frequent contact with the administration. It was quite natural that Pastor Worthington would confuse the two, and he often called them by each others' names. The fact that Julius was black and Wilbur white with blonde hair was incidental to him; they looked very much the same otherwise. He was, as it were, color-blind, not recognizing nor remembering racial distinctions between people he knew.
Discrimination means you use a specific observable factor to distinguish things into distinct categories. Any law that identifies racial or ethnic identity as a factor for its application is inherently discriminatory (even if it is intended to benefit those so discriminated). Anyone who notices that a person is black, or white, or Oriental, or Hispanic, as a category, is discriminating. Prejudice means attaching specific conclusions to unrelated characteristics, such that those characteristics invoke what is for the observer a stereotype which will not fit all individuals having those characteristics. It does not matter whether it is a positive or negative stereotype--the belief that Mediterraneans are good lovers is as much a prejudice as the belief that Mediterraneans are cowardly. It also does not matter if such statements are statistically correct, that is, if the majority of persons in category A are also in category B. It is prejudicial if the statistic is applied at the individual level, since all generalities are false, including this one.
Well, I've said quite a bit on the subject. I'm interested in responses; I'm also pleased to have moved it from the Behind the Screens thread, so we can focus on this topic here and that topic there.
--M. J. Young
I have not much to add here, except that the fact that there is a black man as president, even if it is notified, seems to me as progress on the way of equality.
Furthermore, noticing the differences between people is not bad in itself, even categorizing is not bad. I've been told that that's the way our mind works. As we grow older we learn to apply nuance etc, but because we need to be able to process what we see and translate in a more or less logical way, our mind will subconsciously divide our information in categories. We 'learn' as we find out distinctions in categories. If it has four legs it's a table, could be countered as if it has four legs and says 'boo', it's not a table, but a cow, etc., etc.
To give different values to groups is bad. To recognize different groups is only natural.
One question is do we want Equality of Outcome or Equality of Opportunity?
Nikolaj is right. Without discrimination, we can't learn very well. The sword of reason divides. Categorizing is needful and appropriate, and 'unrelated' physical characteristics can be markers for cultural or biological realities.
And we can clearly see that certain cultures are superior to other cultures. You might not be able to make this distinction in all cases, but in some its very clear.
It's next to impossible to talk about racism without sounding racist, so here goes.
Eric said:
And we can clearly see that certain cultures are superior to other cultures. You might not be able to make this distinction in all cases, but in some its very clear.
Well, in this area, I'd say you're right. Blacks are (typically) physically stronger and their bodies are better suited for warm, tropical climates. White, Anglo-Saxon folks seem to excel in transportation technologies. The Chinese invented gunpowder, and with it, the first rockets, guns, and bombs.
The American Indian possessed the closest thing to real magic that ever existed in the world. The Russians tried mind control. All four biases represented in the earth's population. Each one make them superior.
@Eric:
I'm not so sure whether a culture could be superior to another, since we would then need an absolute point of reference to compare to. But every culture is how it is through a certain mindset. And in their mindset cultures like their own will be superior to others.
In our 'western' culture now, which relies on reason, ratio and intelligence are the qualities by which we compare. Only the seen and proved are important, and feelings, emotions and the like are not to be taken account of (until a certain point, where there is an absolute called the conscience, but that's another discussion).
While in other cultures emotions and feelings are more or just as important hen ratio.
In some physical strength is more important then knowledge, in some equality.
Plato's Republic, Sir Thomas Moore's Utopia, George Orwell's 1984, all give different ideas. And those are from people who value writing and passing on knowledge and values.
You've got the Buddhist's Nirvana, the indian's Eternal Hunting Fields, the Viking's Walhalla, giving ideas as to what is most important to them.
Superiority depends on how you view it. True superiority would mean that there is an absolute to which we can compare. As a christian I would say that we need to compare to the Kingdom of God. The thing that came closest to my knowledge to that ideal is communism, but that was twisted and turned through egoism, lust for power...
Then you have some christian communities or sects that based their community on that (or tried anyway), like the Hernhutters/Hutterites.
@John:
you seem to be talking about the outcome of cultures rather then the cultures themselves.
Generally speaking, tribal societies tend to rely more on strength and comeradery because of the harsh environment they live in, and because they find it important to be strong, a cunning hunter or fast. Hence the rituals of catching a lion, eagle or other dangerous beast to be called a man or an adult.
There is a lot to write about this, but I'm no sociologist(?) and know to little to teach about it. I just wanted to give my thoughts about it.
Ya know MJ, I had exactly the opposite experience as your Pastor Worthington. I've always been terrible with names and faces. When I started at a new job, at least half of the crew was black. When I met someone, it was generally the only detail about their look that I could remember. For the first couple of weeks, when I needed to get someone's attention, it would not be uncommon for me to call out the name of every black person in the department until the person responded. Someone commented on this "What John? All black faces look the same to you?"
Nikolaj,
When the Roman Empire was in its youth, and spreading, generally the people that it conquered were reasonably happy about this turn of events. Why? Because the Romans were superior to their native rulers. Roman culture was superior at that time.
Victorian England compared to Headhunting Cannibals, which is superior?
There is an absolute standard. And it is reflected in Humanity; this reflection would be called Natural Law. GWB referenced Natural Law when he talked about the yearning every person has to be free.
There was a saying during the Cold War which unfortunately didn't get used as much as it should....The Soviets try to wear the black hats, and America tries to wear the white hats, and both sides generally succeed. This points out the imperfections, but puts it in the context of the greater picture. Soviet Russia vs. Eisenhowerian America? Clearly America is superior in culture.
Now, it gets more complicated when you ask who's superior in culture? Ireland or Spain?
Or when you have two cultures which have vastly different situations to deal with such as Hong Kong and the Masai Tribesmen.
Multiculturalism is incorrect in my not very humble opinion. Often its pure laziness. "I don't have to know about the agricultural product of Ghana, nor their history, but just know that we're all equal." Frequently, Multiculti is used to support moral equivalency arguements. "Hamas indiscriminately bombs civilians with rockets, and makes a point of blowing up restauraunts with children in them, and Israel uses precision guided weapons and calls on the phone to get civilians out of the target area. Oh my, they're both as bad as the other. Who will stop the cycle of violence?"
It is also true that Communism might seem well, but that its been tried over and over again, and each and every time its been an absolutely horrid failure. This suggests that those who think Communism 'hasn't really been tried, Russia wasn't Real Communism' are similar to a bankrupt gambler who has yet again 'discovered the Perfect System' which will enable him to win big at the casino.
This is not to say that the West is always right. I think there is a good argument to be made that the Native American tradition of 'counting coup' is a more civilized form of warfare, for one.
I also doubt if the idea of late marriage and complete abstinence is a good combination. I'm for abstinence, but I think people ought to get married younger. Thats a fault in my culture, and there are many more.
If I may be so bold, the thing that really irks me about racism is that the blacks in America today want "Slavery Reparations" for what happened 200 years ago. My great-great-grandfather might owe his great-great-grandfather something, but I owe him nothing.
The other thing is that most of the slaves were taken from West Africa. Today, West Africa is a war zone run by one dictator after another, and 1/4 of the population has AIDS. I'd say slavery reparations is being an American Citizen, as opposed to living there.
Nikolaj, Eric's right. In fact, the concept of natural law, though not exclusive to to Christian or Western thought (Confucian philosophy has the "Mandate of Heaven," for instance), played a very profound role in Western political tradition. The Bible itself speaks of the natural law (Romans 2:13-15):
For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)
Western natural law thought holds that while the natural law is universal, the traditions and social norms built upon it may differ from culture to culture. Just to use an example, here in America, if you throw something out with your trash, it's no longer considered your property, something that's also law. But in Haiti, if you put something front something on your front lawn, that's considered relinquishing ownership, like throwing it out with your garbage.
So, many differences are just differences. And many values have universal correspondence. In general, one likes a coward and courage is lauded. Loyalty is valued. Betrayal is a repugnant act. Parents love their children. Even in our own hyper-individualist society, honor still plays a role. Soldiers are generally looked up to. Pedophiles are looked down on and ostracized.
But in many cases, cultures don't bother to try make a comparison. If it's different, it is looked down upon, so they never try and understand. In fact, it's a peculiarly Western practice to show curiosity about other cultures. It's not entirely exclusive, but the general inclination tends to be stronger.
However, there are cases where certain cultures held others to be superior. The Assyrians did so with the Persians, the Romans with the Greeks, and the Visigoths with the Romans. In the last case, they went so far as to conquer Rome and try and make themselves Roman (of course, so did the Romans with the Greeks, to an extent).
Of course, you also have to ask certain questions. Are true are they to their ideals? How high-minded are their ideals? How much have they given thought to it? How sophisticated is their culture, e.g. are they scratching stick figures on a rock wall or have they produced fine statuary, paintings, architecture, etc.? You wouldn't say the culture or ideals of a criminal gang were superior to a band monks, correct?
An interesting example of all of this is the US military in Iraq. Part of the insurgency was the result of American advisers and the military misunderstanding parts of Iraqi culture and unintentionally running roughshod over local traditions. With a change in strategy, both sides were able to come to an understanding and work together to get rid of Al Queda in Iraq. Once that happened, soldiers were able to start forming relationships with locals. Now? The US military is the most respected institution in Iraq and Iraqis generally have a very favorable impression of Americans.
An inverse example. The National Geographic channel used to have a show where American families were go abroad to stay with an indigenous people and live like them for a couple of weeks. The general pattern is that their hosts show immense patience and hospitality while the rich, spoiled Americans learn to quit bitching, get over themselves, and finally bond.
One episode had a family staying with a Masai. Their young son was having the hardest time adjusting, constantly breaking into tears, dealing with culture shock and having to rough it in conditions well outside his comfort zone. The father of the family that they were staying with took the boy aside and patiently, lovingly just sat and talked with him, calming him and helping him to express what he was feeling.
Some Errata:
*****Those cultures of hunters or warriors you talk about valuing strength, instead of wisdom, did in fact do both. For one thing, they usually had clan or tribal elders. And such cultures usually had/have an elaborate body stories and mythology, interwoven with moral lessons. The ancient Celts, as a fierce a warrior people as you're able to find, had the Druids, who were the priestly and scholarly class of Celtic societies (Julius Caesar, writing about his campaign in Britain, said it took twenty years for a Druid to memorize their full body of knowledge). Greek and Roman historians talk about the sophistication of their teachings and philosophy and the immense reverence the Celtic people held for them.
*****In place of literacy, many non-literate cultures have a tradition of orality, using song, poetry, systems of storytelling, and memory techniques to maintain verbally transmitted information across generations. Various studies have found that it is very accurate.
*****Plato's Republic was a thought experiment to teach a reader about questions of political philosophy. It wasn't necessarily a how-to manual. George Orwell's 1984 was a warning against the rise of police states and tyranny in general. Thomas Moore's Utopia is the only genuine example of trying to come up with the ideal society, but he was trying to get rid of things all cultures generally consider consider undesirable: famine, poverty, war, crime, etc.
Wow, this might become a long answer. All very good arguments, and I don't know how long I'm going to be able to try and defend my point, because of my lack of knowledge on the matter and because I'm still a bit undefined as to how I see multiculturalism.
I'm thinking that it would be good that we'd define some words before continuing on and try to use those terms consistently. Like what is culture, how can we compare it, what is the standard, what is the goal? People today are still confused about that. Here in Belgium even more then in America, as I may deduce from the political system.
In America (or the US, more specific), there are two distinct political parties between which you can choose. They are more or less opposites of each other. Here in Belgium you have some 13 political parties for the country. Then you have the political parties for the Flemish side and for the French-speaking part. But a handy overview can be found on Wikipedia here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_Belgium
To top that of, we still haven't had a government for the last year. But our country hasn't fallen. But I'm digressing. What I was trying to say is that There are so many views of the perfect society that it is for me hard to say this is the right one, or that is the right one. I will almost naturally have a preference for the system I grew up in.
I am particularly fond of our Belgian social system, which is superior to the American system but less superior then that of the Scandinavian countries. Yet the Social services are but an aspect of a society, and actually have nothing or little to do with culture. It has to do with politics and laws. The Muslims also have a good social system, yet it does not come from the government. It comes from the Muslim faith. The Christians should have that too, as should the Jews, according to scripture.
So what is the ideal society ad what does it have to do with racial discrimination (because I feel that we might be digressing). What is true multiculturalism? Only if we have that I will keep discussing. Because otherwise we won't be understanding each other.
Note: Before you read (sorry it's so long... :-( ), realize that I'm not arguing, so much as I'm trying to explain, as you seemed to be wondering about the differences between Belgium and America and how that affects our perspectives.
I'm thinking that it would be good that we'd define some words before continuing on and try to use those terms consistently. Like what is culture...
Culture may be defined as the institutions, traditions, character, religion, creative output, and ideals of a society. In other words, the whole of what binds them together as a community.
<i>how can we compare it, what is the standard, what is the goal?</i>
How sophisticated are their intellectual and artistic traditions? How civilized are they? What is the moral health of their society? Do their people receive justice? How happy is the populace? Is their human thriving?
In America (or the US, more specific), there are two distinct political parties between which you can choose. They are more or less opposites of each other. Here in Belgium you have some 13 political parties for the country. Then you have the political parties for the Flemish side and for the French-speaking part.
Both parties in the US are "big tents." That is, while they each party has a rough correspondence to one side of the political spectrum or the other, they are each coalitions of many groups, built around a core of shared issues, parallel to the coalitions of smaller parties you get with parliamentary politics. So, a lot of the political process that would occur in the parliament, instead occurs more informally with in our two political parties and their organizations.
The overriding principle with in the American political system is this: that no one should have too much power. So, power at the federal level is divided between the three branches. Power is then further divided between the states and the federal government, who are co-sovereign entities. And then power is divided between the people and the government. The government has strong enough powers to do its job, giving the people justice, but narrowly defined, with checks and balances, to make sure the rights of the people aren't trampled on. The rights of the people are then broadly defined and strongly protected in our Constitution (backed up with a right to bear arms), which allows us to keep the government in line. Everything is kept in tension and balance, maintaining rights, the rule of law, and the fair dispensation of justice.
I am particularly fond of our Belgian social system, which is superior to the American system but less superior then that of the Scandinavian countries.
Strictly speaking, our federal/national government is not supposed to do much welfare spending. It's focus predominately of national interests, which is mostly diplomacy and war. Social spending is supposed to occur more at the local and state level, where the government is closer the people, making it more responsive to local needs and where it can be held more accountable for the money that it spends. Of course, the principle and the reality often diverge.
Historically, Americans have never liked the government spending their money, when they can spend it themselves, and often more competently (government waste is a perennial problem everywhere).
Historically, Americans have favored the free market for various reasons:
---People know their needs better than the government does and will spend money more efficiently and generally, more wisely, than the government. Governments, at every time and in every culture, have generally been less efficient and more wasteful with the money they have.
---People have a right to the money that they earn. There was a term coined by an American philosopher, (whose name escapes me) "the forgotten man," used to describe a scenario that goes like this: Man "A" and Man "B" see that Man "C" is suffering in poverty and get together to pass a law that will give Man "C" financial relief. But it's Man "X" who's forced to pay for it. He's the forgotten man, the one forced to pay the money.
---Voluntary action is better than being coerced. It's better to inspire charity than to force it. First, it is more just, allowing for a free will choice. Second, it emphasizes personal responsibility, both for the giver and receiver, as the personal aspect of giving creates gives a face to the money and creates a relationship of accountability. That relationship can also grow into something more substantial, as it may help the person get out of their situation, more than just money can.
---Conversely, the impersonal, bureaucratic dispersal of money and social services creates a faceless system that is easier to exploit and abuse, by both the government and the people receiving. In the case of the government, not only do you have wasteful spending, but money and politics often produces corruption, especially since they can now buy votes with social spending. But also the people receiving money can abuse and defraud the system, so a social safety net becomes and hammock, reducing the incentive to be productive.
---Where government begins doing and providing things for people, it reduces freedom, discourages personal initiative, and breaks down social bonds. Conflicts that would be settled face to face and with a handshake are drug into court. Things that would have been by people on their own or the community are now expected to be done by the government.
---With in the bounds of a healthy moral and legal order, we believed that it was the most efficient and equitable way of dispersing wealth in a society, as well creating it. It rewards productiveness and ingenuity. People create new businesses to sell new products and services, finding customers who need them. Where businesses are successful, they create jobs. Where businesses compete for customers, they drive down prices, and drive up wages when competing for labor. As people save, spend, and invest money, they in turn become producers and entrepreneurs.
Government can't create wealth, it can merely take it from those who are producing it and put it somewhere else. And it most cases, that merely creates an economic burden, because its reducing the amount of money for processes of economic growth: spending, saving, and investing.
An ever-expanding government becomes a tumor, of sorts. It starts out as healthy tissue--a government doing its job--but begins expanding, adding bureaucracy and creating new, unnecessary regulations and laws. As it expands, it draws in money and resources, it takes over private enterprises, and assumes new functions with in the community, causing community institutions to disappear. People relinquish their liberties and responsibilities slowly, expecting the government to do more and more. It draws all things into itself, draining the lifeblood away from a healthy society. Mildly, it tends to produce lethargy and mediocrity. It extreme it produces tyranny, as people become sheep. We've seen examples of this: Soviet Russia, Maoist China, North Korea, and so on.
That isn't to say some social spending isn't necessary or appropriate and local/cultural circumstances vary. A smaller country like Belgium has far less risk of that happening than a large country like the US. And we do have communities that have successfully lived in a more communal/collectivist fashion, such as the Mennonites, Amish, and Hudderites. But such collectivist arrangements work best in a tight-knit community with strong social bonds, where needs are known and accountability can be kept.
Yet the Social services are but an aspect of a society, and actually have nothing or little to do with culture. It has to do with politics and laws.
But politics and laws do have to do with culture. A country's political system and laws reflect its history (Who could imagine Britain without its monarchy? Who could deny the influence its parliament has had on world history?) and how it sees best to establish a civil order, which says a lot about its attitudes and values.
The Muslims also have a good social system, yet it does not come from the government. It comes from the Muslim faith. The Christians should have that too, as should the Jews, according to scripture.
Historically, when the Christianity was still healthy in America, most charity and social services occurred through the church, or through religiously oriented organizations. Even for the less religious, the Christian principle of charity and neighborly love tended to encourage giving. Even now, you see an echo of it. Americans give more money and donate more time to charity per captia to charity than any other Western nation.
So what is the ideal society ad what does it have to do with racial discrimination (because I feel that we might be digressing).
The ideal society is where one finds justice, civility, virtue, and human thriving in the context of community. The means this is arrived at is less important than the ends.
What is true multiculturalism? Only if we have that I will keep discussing. Because otherwise we won't be understanding each other.
In America, multiculturalism has meant cultural self-loathing. Every other culture, besides our own, is valued. Everything is reduced to moral equivalency, yet our culture is vilified for every dark thing in its past, while the good things are ignored. Our traditions, our history, and our culture are ignored, while kids are taught that every culture is fine and never to be "judgmental" about things they might see as barbaric. The irony is that they never actually learn much about other cultures or how to really understand them, in both the good and the bad.
"True" multiculturalism, as might call it, is about respecting the right of other cultures to exist and exercising humility in judging things, coming to understand cultures before we judge them and knowing that some things are just differences, not better or worse.
I believe God has caused cultures to arise as varied expressions of his image and glory, like different facets of gem. Every culture has its strengths, its weaknesses, its beauties, its peculiarities, its idiosyncrasies, and its eccentricities. But some cultures are more primitive and some cultures are barbaric, the latter particularly due to the universal problem of human sin, which twists the beauty that was present.
I believe God has caused cultures to arise as varied expressions of his image and glory, like different facets of gem. Every culture has its strengths, its weaknesses, its beauties, its peculiarities, its idiosyncrasies, and its eccentricities. But some cultures are more primitive and some cultures are barbaric, the latter particularly due to the universal problem of human sin, which twists the beauty that was present.
Okay, then we're largely on the same page. But I will need to read this thing over a few times before I can answer. Thank you for taking the time to type this all up for me. It must have taken quite some time and is actually very enlightening. More reactions soon (somewhere next week that is :P).
This is very disjointed, because it is being written as I read the thread. I'm glad to see such discussion, and hope that what I write will add to everyone's understanding as you all have added to mine.
Obviously, "discrimination" is important to cognitive processing; it is the flip side of "generalization". Generalization is the mental process by which we group things; discrimination is the mental process by which we distinguish them. Categories are created by the blending of these two processes, in which we use specific characteristics to distinguish objects from different objects and place them together with like objects. This, though, happens at multiple levels--e.g.:
- Matter as opposed to energy
- Life as opposed to non-life
- Animalia as opposed to plants
- Vertebrates as opposed to invertebrates
- Mammals as opposed to other vertebrates
- Primates as opposed to other mammals
- Humans as opposed to other primates
- White adult males as opposed to other humans
- Eric Ashley as opposed to Mark Young, John Cross, Graeme Comyn, Nikolaj Bourguignon, and other white adult males.
What I'm addressing, though, is the sense in which a category matters. For example, I dated a girl in college whose grandparents were known to say, "Ya, but vat is a Svede but a Norvegian vit his brains knocked out?" To Americans, they're all at best Scandinavians, and more likely "Caucasions" (although I've a friend who is adamant that none of his ancestors were ever anywhere near the Caucus mountains, and thus that he is not properly so designated). That means at least to us the distinction between Swede and Norwegian is a possible one but not a significant one.
That's important in the entire discrimination/prejudice discussion for precisely this reason: American ethnic groups always expressed prejudice against each other (and still do) to the degree that they identify in distinct ethnic groups. The English snubbed the Irish, and then the English and Irish collectively snubbed the Italians, and then the Europeans collectively snubbed the Africans and Orientals. Most American "whites" are by now thoroughly "melted", of mixed national origin, to the point that prejudice based on European ancestry is limited to those areas where cultural isolation has created ethnic pockets--the Italian neighborhoods that still exist in some cities, the heavily Scandinavian areas of the rural northern Midwest. In most of America, you cannot tell the national origin of a white person. That aspect of discrimination has been eliminated, and with it any importance that might be attached to it.
The fact is, most black Americans are at least partly white--even, I understand, our black President, who if I am correctly informed has a pair of white grandparents on his mother's side. That means he's half white--but for some reason, everyone says he is black, not white, even though he is not more black than he is white. What it comes to is that he decided to run on the basis that he was black, and on that entirely discriminatory and prejudicial basis this white son of a white mother who has black ancestry on his father's side got himself elected President as a black man. He put himself in the "black" category to appeal to a group of voters who would vote for a black man for the reason that he is black, which is a discriminatory and prejudicial reason. His election proves that discrimination continues in America, because people use race as the basis for making decisions.
Eric wrote:
And we can clearly see that certain cultures are superior to other cultures. You might not be able to make this distinction in all cases, but in some its very clear.That's a difficult argument to make, but also a difficult argument to reject.
A lot of people would have said that European culture was superior to Native American culture. European culture did have better technology and better educational systems to advance its technology. There is a significant minority of "greens", however, who assert that Native American culture was better because it was much more eco-friendly. That's a debate we could have (and I am no friend of the greens) for a long time without resolution. The problem inherently is that "better" is a value judgment and requires a standard, but the standard itself is determined subjectively: what we say makes a superior culture tells more about our values than it does about the relative worth of the cultures.
On the argument concerning whether Communism is or is not a good system, I think it falls in the same category as other utopian dreams: it really is a perfect system that would work well if you had perfect people. Marx believed that the selfishness in the proletariat was entirely due to their poverty, and that if the poverty problem was solved such that everyone had enough, everyone would altruistically desire the best for everyone else. That's the way a utopia works, ultimately, but having good people living together. I do very much appreciate the fact that "utopia" is Greek for "no place".
Back to superiority of culture, David makes some excellent points (following Eric) concerning the use of Natural Law as a standard. However, he also misses a few things. For example, our intellectual and artistic pursuits might be considered superior to those of many other cultures, but that does not demonstrate our current cultural superiority. For one thing, as Isaac Newton observed of his own science, we stand on the shoulders of giants--we are building on the work of our predecessors. A breakthrough here, a breakthrough there, and we have the superior foundation on which to build. Our music has soared to great heights, but part of that is due to such technological advancements as the development of the valve (a major advance in musical instrument technology that moved us from the Baroque to the Classical period) and the Piano-forte and its tempered scale. We can argue whether we would have reached the heights of classical music absent those advances, and whether having those advances would have enabled another culture to reach such heights instead of us. We can also argue whether the work of those such as John Cage represents a superior music, or a degeneration into junk. In fact, Cage is an excellent example, because those who admire his work rave of its superior musicality, and those who do not call it so much noise. Whether it is music or noise depends on the standards you bring to it.
It again demonstrates that the standards we use to determine cultural superiority are our subjective standards. The recognition that another culture is superior to your own is a recognition that they have out performed you in something you value in yourself, or sometimes a repentance or rejection of the values of your own culture. How well the Western world is doing depends on whether you value gross product output or environmental sensitivity, and where you think the point of balance ought to be between the two. Most people think that nineteenth century America was horribly insensitive toward the environment, and by that standard we have improved greatly. We are today in a place where we are constantly forced to balance our standard of living with our environmental impact. It means that there is less for everyone than there might otherwise be, but that there is a cleaner and healthier world around us.
On the American political situation, David has outlined it well, but there is a significant point he overlooked: the pattern of an independently elected chief executive officer causes the coalescence of rival groups into two parties. In parliamentary systems you can have a dozen distinct parties claiming seats in parliament and then vying for control and forming coalitions to achieve their goals. In America, control of the political agenda in large part requires control of the executive office, and that means in practical terms gaining the support of states representing just over half of the population. Thus small parties have little hope of accomplishing anything independently unless they can draw sufficient support from the population that they split the electoral college (those whom the voters are actually electing to elect the President) and become the compromise candidate. Lincoln was fourth in the election, but emerged as the compromise candidate in the electoral college in a time of turmoil when factions were sharply divided and no party could create a winning coalition. Today, largely thanks to media polling, that's a lot harder to do--we know up front that one of two men is going to have at least half the electoral college vote, and it's only a question of which one.
David, it's not true that "government can't create wealth". Reagan demonstrated that it was quite possible for government tax programs to stimulate economic growth sufficiently that tax cuts would result in greater income for enough people that tax revenue would rise. The question is not whether government can create wealth, but what methods actually do so.
I think that what multiculturalism means to those who think it desirable is that ethnic diversity should be maintained within the nation, each being respected as its own subculture within America. It is contrasted against the melting pot concept, which is that each culture should lose its identity while at the same time contributing to the national identity. There are not so many Italian neighborhoods or people who self-identify as Italian-Americans, but there are lots of pizza places (mostly run by Greeks) and many aspects of Italian culture, particularly food, enjoyed by all Americans. That's melting pot thinking. Multiculturalism says that Hispanics ought to remain segregated, taught in their version of Spanish, in order to preserve their culture--it is for their benefit that they are treated thus. To those who think in terms of the melting pot, this is discrimatory exclusionism, prejudicially impeding a people's ability to achieve equality within American culture, while telling them that this is being done for their own sakes. I don't like the sound of it--but I'm a European mutt whose mix of English, French, and Italian cultural backgrounds is so thorough that I cannot always distinguish them myself. I have no imported culture to preserve, so I'm not in a position to guess to what degree such preservation might be important to those who do.
So I guess I am against multiculturalism as an American system. Melting works. Segregating ourselves, even for positive reasons, has always led to trouble.
--M. J. Young
David, it's not true that "government can't create wealth". Reagan demonstrated that it was quite possible for government tax programs to stimulate economic growth sufficiently that tax cuts would result in greater income for enough people that tax revenue would rise. The question is not whether government can create wealth, but what methods actually do so.
When I say that "government can't create wealth," I'm saying it can't do so when it's the one spending the money. In the case of tax cuts, they are reducing the amount of money they take from private citizens, increasing liquidity in the market and allowing for more economic activity.
Back to superiority of culture, David makes some excellent points (following Eric) concerning the use of Natural Law as a standard. However, he also misses a few things. For example, our intellectual and artistic pursuits might be considered superior to those of many other cultures, but that does not demonstrate our current cultural superiority.
Except that one can use the quality of artistic and intellectual output, in reference to the past, as a rough gauge. Today, for example, you could reasonably say that we have more musical performers than ever before, for a variety of reasons (larger population, economic prosperity allows for more people to pursue music, technology makes it easier for people to make money at it, etc.), but there are few who one might ascribe the title master and those that we might confer it upon tend to be aging examples of a previous generation. We might say that is an indicator that, artistically, this era is coming up short.
We can argue whether we would have reached the heights of classical music absent those advances, and whether having those advances would have enabled another culture to reach such heights instead of us.
But a technical advancement does not necessarily mean that it will be artistically utilized. One could argue that a sufficiently creative culture utilizes it, while another does not. And perhaps you might judge art, based upon a society's technological level.
We can also argue whether the work of those such as John Cage represents a superior music, or a degeneration into junk. In fact, Cage is an excellent example, because those who admire his work rave of its superior musicality, and those who do not call it so much noise. Whether it is music or noise depends on the standards you bring to it.
Didn't you write an article some years back about your time as a music reviewer, and that you could judge music objectively on its artistic merits, but still be subjective in terms of taste?
I suppose the question becomes, can we compare values and standards? The fact that we can argue about John Cage's work, might suggest that we can compare them.
We are today in a place where we are constantly forced to balance our standard of living with our environmental impact. It means that there is less for everyone than there might otherwise be, but that there is a cleaner and healthier world around us.
Off-topic: You can argue, in the main, the quality of life is, overall, increased with a healthier environment, so it's a trade-off that still brings you closer to the ideal.
However, you could also argue that it really isn't that much of a balancing act. Most advances that created a healthier environment were advances in efficiency: more efficient industry, more efficient business practices, the migration to the use of substances that weren't caustic, etc. Materially, financially, and in terms of health, I'm much better off, on average, than I was in 1900.
So I guess I am against multiculturalism as an American system. Melting works. Segregating ourselves, even for positive reasons, has always led to trouble.
I think the most potent argument against multiculturalism, in any context, is that it weakens and erodes the culture already present. A culture is something that exists in a community and a community needs a place to reside. Asserting that any incoming culture should be segregated ultimately begins displacing the home culture in its own homeland. And for the culture that must compromise, having the loyalties of its members divided and diluted, you risk destroying it. This is particularly onerous for a country like America, being a country formed around a creed.
In reality, you can't have true diversity, with in a single community, without an underlying unity. And you can certainly have both, as a mother culture and subcultures. There are people whose ancestors immigrated in the 19th century, but speak still speak ancestral languages like Creole or Swedish, but also speak with an American accent.
To add: Of course, judging the superiority or inferiority of a culture might seem like an entirely a utilitarian enterprise, which I don't think is true. We can say Bach is more masterful than whistling a simple tune, or that a Van Gogh is more accomplished than the painting of a child, but there is something good and joyous in all of them.
I was thinking yesterday that the world that Mark is running for me is a good testing ground for this discussion. And a good testing ground for my own ideas about it.
As I was thinking about this subject I tried to divide up the current cultures and the past ones of which I know a bit and see what they have in common, how they differ and what is their driving motive. And then I tried to compare it to the ideal. The Kingdom of Heaven.
The KoH is often referred to as an upside down kingdom. That is because it's driving motive, it's origin, it's foundation is so different from the rest. While 'worldly' kingdoms try to control their people, the KoH I think is all about love (which would need to be defined how, but I think most here will get it, because they have a church background). This love of God results in free will, free choice to be in this kingdom or not. The Leader of the kingdom of God is through this love also a servant. The Leader lays down his life for the servants, the people. He stands there at the front line, he takes the pain, even if it was not His fault. So every subsequent leader in the KoH should also have that attitude and love driving him (or her).
The 'kingdoms' of the world seem to go for control, even the democracy of the US does not escape this. I've found two principles there. Control by might or power. (Pax Romana, wars, violance, instilling of fear) and control through prosperity (materialism, egoism, apathy, luxury, 'bread and games' of the Romans.)
The ideal society is I think a society included in the KoH. Based on the Love of Christ and the 'constitution' He made for it. (Love God and love your neighbor, all else flows from that. paraphrased)
In this kingdom, there is place for diversity, yet there is unity.
Applying this to the previous discussion, intellect, power, level of development is not the standard to judge the perfect society. But do they act out of love. The 'highpoint' of every society resulted in an abomination and a decline and eventually a fall.
Intellect or artistic height does not say whether a culture then is superior, because we don't know their motive. It should be the motive that leads it that defines the superiority, shouldn't it?
The 'kingdoms' of the world seem to go for control, even the democracy of the US does not escape this.
It was Winston Churchill who said, "No one pretends democracy is perfect or all-knowing. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." But I digress.
Romans 13:1-6
Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
The are two components to a government's force: its authority, or sovereignty, a sacred trust invested in the government by the people to establish justice (and as justice is derived from God, so a government's ultimate authority is from God). And its power, the means to enforce its lawful authority. So, by nature and necessity, government is a blunt and coercive instrument, with a finite purpose. But power may be abused by exercising it beyond the scope of lawful authority.
Men, in their sinful nature, abuse the power given to them. However, the distortion does not change the original image it reflects, which is the perfect government of God. Is it any wonder that the simplest form of government is a king or chieftain? The image of good and just kings, like Arthur or Charlemagne, stirs ancients feelings and memories in us.
As for war and violence, there are just and unjust wars. Christian teaching on war has long held that when wars are justly fought, they are an act of love. The first reason is that, to quote G.K. Chesterton, "The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him." It is an act of self-giving love. The second reason is that, absent of the ability to make peace, it is the only way to restrain the evil of our enemy, with victory being the vanquishing of that evil. At the end of WWII, the Allies, the US in particular, could have completely wiped out Germany and Japan, but instead, we helped them to recover and establish forms of government that would not so easily fall to the impulses that lead to their fascist regimes. That was just war in action.
The ideal society is I think a society included in the KoH. Based on the Love of Christ and the 'constitution' He made for it. (Love God and love your neighbor, all else flows from that. paraphrased)
Love and justice have an interesting symmetry. Love, without justice, could have any crime excused in its name, or become perversely arbitrary; the serial killer who's a loving family man, but has bodies stacked like cord wood in his shed. And justice, with no room for loving mercy, seems terribly incomplete. And without love to direct us to the value and dignity of a life, justice would be impossible. So, love is ever present in the exercise of true justice. Christ's sacrifice, of course, satisfies both, which reside in God.
Applying this to the previous discussion, intellect, power, level of development is not the standard to judge the perfect society.
Those traits, taken by themselves, are not an adequate. But the sophistication of artistic culture can indicate a depth of spiritual reflection. The intellectual life of a society--not science, specifically, can indicate a love of knowledge and wisdom. Philosophy, in Greek, literally means "love of wisdom." Where a culture is spiritually impoverished, these things often atrophy.
Level of development, is, of course, not as important an indicator, but humans are creatures with a creative drive, reflecting their Creator. Where there is as abundance of creativity and creation, it can be a secondary indicator showing a relatively healthy society. But again, it can;t be taken apart from other factors.
But do they act out of love. The 'highpoint' of every society resulted in an abomination and a decline and eventually a fall.
A society will reach a level of prosperity where a generation becomes increasingly corrupt, forgets their heritage, and squanders what was given to them. The true greatness of a civilization, its spirit, goes out, and then everything else declines as a result.
Intellect or artistic height does not say whether a culture then is superior, because we don't know their motive. It should be the motive that leads it that defines the superiority, shouldn't it?
Like I said above, this should be taken in consideration with other questions. In general, they correspond with spiritual health. Someone with a poisoned spirit will also have a poisoned mind, and conversely, a healthy mind with a healthy spirit. But it can also sometimes be hidden. All of that is the same with a civilization.
When I said love I included rather then excluded justice. I do not see them apart from each other. Justice is I think a consequence of love. So I agree totally.
And I think we use different terms for the same thing when I speak of the motive and you of the spirit of a culture.
So I think we are on the same page. What I wanted to get to, is that this Love (including justice and mercy) is a basis from which diversity can grow. And that then no culture is more superior than another unless they act more out of love (righteousness and mercy) then the other.
David wrote
Love and justice have an interesting symmetry. Love, without justice, could have any crime excused in its name, or become perversely arbitrary; the serial killer who's a loving family man, but has bodies stacked like cord wood in his shed. And justice, with no room for loving mercy, seems terribly incomplete. And without love to direct us to the value and dignity of a life, justice would be impossible. So, love is ever present in the exercise of true justice.I hear this often, and I'm not in a position to disagree exactly; but I'd like to put a different slant on it. Love must be tempered not so much by justice as by knowledge.
When we are thinking in terms of justice, we are concerned with matters of equity and retribution. The core of the concept relates to innocent harm being recompensed by benefit, and conversely guilty benefit being recompensed by harm--the one who benefits at his neighbor's unfair expense must repay him. That extends beyond that to include that the one who harms society for his own benefit (in any sense) must make recompense for the damages. There is a balancing here.
I'm very much in favor of justice as a system in government. I think, however, that in Christian thought we put too much emphasis on it.
Under a system of justice, we recognize that the batterer is injuring the battered, and thus we must stop the batterer from injuring the battered, and find some means of restoring the harm done to the battered preferably at the expense of the benefit gained by the batterer. It is very much about the harm done to the battered.
Yet when I slap my child's hand as it approaches the hot stove, I am not at all thinking in terms of having the child recompense anyone for harm done. I am thinking that it is wrong for the child to touch the stove because of the harm done to the child. In something of the same way, in everything that we call "sin" or "wrong" in a universal sense, those crimes for which Natural Law can be cited in condemnation, there is that element that this is damaging the person who is doing it. We need to stop the batterer on some level because the batterer is destroying his own humanity. We need to heal the wrongdoer of the harm he does to himself. He needs to recognize this harm, that what he thinks is giving him a benefit comes at a terrible cost to him.
That is a very different justification for punishment, but one that is more closely based on love than justice.
This is not to say that we should not also do justice, and I would dare say that for government justice is the correct measure of punishment. Yet as Christians we ought to be mindful that the Kingdom of Heaven is a place where justice is surrendered, a place where rather than claiming our rights to be treated as we think we deserve we choose to give up all claims in exchange for the expunging of all claims against us, setting aside our rights as we serve others.
I cover some of that in What Does God Expect?, but I hope this helps here.
--M. J. Young
And that then no culture is more superior than another unless they act more out of love (righteousness and mercy) then the other.
I think we can divide barbaric cultures from civilized on such grounds. But, as they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. We can lovingly do things in the wrong way.
Let me use the analogy of a child and an adult. A child can be loving, like an adult, but a child needs to learn, so that he can grow in wisdom and maturity. To quote from Paul from 1st Corinthians 13:11:
When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.
Some cultures are "more mature" than others and it's reflected in their traditions. The health of a culture, at any given time, can be seen by whether or not they are maintaining and adding their cultural inheritance, or whether they are squandering and destroying it.
Now, the analogy is not one to one. While a more advanced culture can positively influence a less advanced one, in most cases, it's ridiculous for a culture to act parental. Each is their own respective community, with the rights that communities have to take their own course. We've some cultures take the "parental" course before, and it usually spells trouble.
Also, appearances can deceiving. The urban, industrial civilization, which most people might say is the more advanced, can sometimes be more savage than some tribe living out in the jungle.
Yep, I think so too. The problem is that we are handling it theoretically here and that we need to see how it goes in practice. I've been thinking about that and how Moses went complaining about the burden to carry being to big, God delegating authority etc., because if one human would want to lead the entire Kingdom of Heaven, it would become unbearable once the Kingdom grows. The amount of self-sacrifice requested of the leaders is so great that even if you try to run a family as a little KoH it would become very taxing.
I'm very much in favor of justice as a system in government. I think, however, that in Christian thought we put too much emphasis on it.
Actually, I don't disagree with this. I've been interested in the concept of restorative justice. I would note that our incarceration system used to be a lot better at such tasks. Prions would often have facilities and programs that made the prison into a self-sustaining community, restoring dignity and teaching responsibility to prisoners. Unfortunately, it's become a joke. Now it's just a holding pin for young cons to either get killed or become more practiced in crime.
About six months ago, I had a new neighbor move in next to me. The neighbor was gay. I am psychotic. He was telling me about the prejudice that he experienced for being gay. I told him I understood, having faced many of the same prejudices for being psychotic. I really thought we were going to be good friends.
I had a psychotic fit in my apartment. I punched my front door 4 or 5 times, and screamed for a few minutes. A few minutes later I got it completely under control. About 20 minutes after I got it under control, I heard my new neighbor come out to walk his dog. I went out to talk to him about the fit. He seemed kind of nervous. It went downhill from there.
The psychotic fits ONLY HAPPENED inside my apartment when I was alone. When I was speaking to my neighbor, I was completely calm and rational. I was speaking to him exactly the same way I had been before he heard that psychotic fit.
The last day that I talked to him, he was screaming at me, saying that I needed to be locked in a straight jacket. He said "If you come any closer I'll call 911. I think you're dangerous!!!" He moved out shortly after that.
Here he is, showing me exactly the same kind of prejudice that he himself was so adamantly opposed to. He wasn't seeing that I was speaking to him completely calmly and rationally, all he saw was the guy who had freaked out a few weeks before. He wasn't seeing me for who I was. He was showing me the same kind of prejudice that he was so opposed to.
If I had that to do again, I would have taken a step forward and dared him to call 911. (What's he going to tell them? "I need the police, my neighbor is speaking to me like a rational human being.") It would take the police a minimum of four minutes to arrive. Also, the fact that I allowed him to make the call in the first place would show that I was not dangerous. When the police arrived, he is going to be completely unharmed, and screaming about how I am insane and need to be locked up, while I am calmly smoking a cigarette and talking to the officers in a rational fashion. Who does he think they are going to arrest? Who does he think they are going to think is crazy? The psychotic who is completely calm, or the "sane person" who is screaming and yelling?
He's showing me exactly the same prejudice and hatred that he was so opposed to, and probably not even realizing it. Who was the insane person there?
My first reaction was, not the gay neighbor story again.
But I must admit it underscores something here.
Your neighbor was prejudiced against you because he thought you were dangerous.
People were prejudiced against him because they thought he was, in a different way, dangerous.
A lot of discrimination occurs because people think that those who are different might be dangerous. After all, it might undermine our view of reality to face the possibility that someone different is also normal.
--M. J. Young
The neighbor that moved in on the other side was black. I was thinking that sounds like the opening to a joke that a 7th grader would tell.
"A faggot, a psycho, and a nigger, all living next door to each other....."
Hey, I insult myself there too, so I'm allowed to say that.
@Mark: That underscores my KoH thing again. Because the Kingdom of Heaven is based on love, and as Jesus said (I think it was Jesus, it might have been Paul) "Love casts out fear".
Further I had said that it would be very taxing to run even a normal family as a KoH, yet I think the family life would be the kind of organization that the KoH encourages. Perfect Family-life. Loving Father (God), loving mother (church, body, not organisation) and then individually the children. Does that make sense?
btw, I notice that there seem to be only believers in Christ that answer here, probably because I brought in the Kingdom of Heaven or something. But I would be interested in what Greame or Scott would have to say, for example.
And just because I know someone is thinking it, don't you think I feel insulted when I get called a Psycho? Yes, technically, I am a psycho (person with overactive brain synaptic function) however, how many people know the true meaning, and are using it in context? They mean "Crazy Person." "Person who needs to be locked in a straight jacket."
I ran into a lady that I used to work with. I worked with her for about a year and a half total (Two different times at the same place) When I ran into her, I told her that I found out I was psychotic. She started backing away from me, like she was expecting me to pull an AK-47 out of thin air, and waste everyone in the room.
I was the same guy I was before I told her I was psychotic. I really thought we were good friends. The mentally ill are one of the few remaining groups of people that are still acceptable targets of open discrimination.
I get stopped by the cops, 2, 3, 4 times a year for talking to myself in public. Why? Just minding my own business, not bothering anybody, but I'm talking to myself, and cops feel the need to hassle me for it. It is not illegal to talk to yourself. If anything, aren't they violating my first amendment right to free speech?
Also, I've been told that Albert Einstein, Thomas Edison, Leonardo DaVinci, Howard Hughes, and Ludwig Van Beethoven all talked to themselves. So did Adolf Hitler, but we won't go there......
Why do the police hassle me for that??? They're probably the only people that really noticed it anyway.
I admit, I did deserve it a couple of times. However, probably 4 out of 5 encounters are just for minding my own business, talking to myself. Why is that?
I don't know man. I think they feel ashamed or scared. Yeah. I can't say why. Maybe because it's unpredictable behavior. They don't know what to do. Usually when I meet people with psychosis I also have to put myself over it. It's not that I don't accept them/you, because I do, but it's that it's unusual or whatnot. Maybe for being ashamed of being seen with 'that kind of guy'. But I've made some friends by setting myself over it. So I know what you mean, a bit anyway.
I was really hoping to get some more feedback on my discrimination by basis of mental illness. It's really not all that different from racial discrimination. Despite what my mom seems to think, I cannot snap my fingers and not be psychotic anymore than Eddie Murphy can snap his fingers and not be black. I get discriminated against for that all the time. What's the difference?
The difference is that being black isn't considered an illness (I hope that wasn't too blunt, it's not meant blunt anyway.). People also tend to think it is not curable and will probably try to get away because you could get a fit and start hitting them instead of the door.
There are people though, who think that it can be helped, and not just by medication to keep it in check. I'm reading a book called "don't leave me as I am" that talks about this a bit. But I don't know if it is applicable to psychosis, since it's more about the level of intelligence. But the general thing is that you are not defined by your illness but by being a human being, and that you can rise above your illness.
Nikolaj is right, but there's something else to be said about it.
In the sixties it was typical for white people to be afraid of young black men in the city. This was to some degree prejudicial and discriminatory--except that black people were also afraid of young black men in the city, and for the good reason that there were a lot of violent crimes, particularly muggings, committed by that particular demographic group. If you were a young black male in the sixties, you suffered for this image, because the stereotype might not describe you but you fit the image that triggered it.
- I remember a television ad running at that time, in which an elderly white woman was walking on a dark city street and heard footsteps behind her. She immediately appeared frightened, and started to look panicky as the footsteps closed on her. Then, abruptly, two young men (I believe one black and one white) appeared wearing Boy Scout uniforms, greeted her, and passed on, as she was visibly relieved. The spot promoted the idea that scouting built honest trustworthy young men--but it also reflected the fear we had of young men in the city, and particularly of those who were black.
The point is, many young black males were dangerous then, so many people reacted in fear to young black males. Today that stereotype has largely eroded, in part because integration has meant most of us know young black males who do not fit the stereotype and in part because there has been a rise in violent crime perpetrated by whites and other ethnic groups--we have no reason to be more afraid of blacks than of anyone else.
The fact remains, though, that some mentally ill people are dangerous, and particularly in casual contact most of us have no way of knowing which ones are and which ones are not. It takes getting to know someone to know whether or not they are dangerous, and getting to know them requires the risk of putting yourself in jeopardy if they happen to be dangerous. (More than one person has asked me whether I think you are safe.) Besides, seemingly perfectly normal people sometimes snap and hurt a lot of people. Someone who is already having trouble dealing with reality presents the appearance that they are more likely to snap under stress, even if this is not the reality.
So the discrimination is not entirely unfounded--"crazy" people can be dangerous and certainly are usually unpredictable if you don't know them well. It is unfair, but it probably cannot be prevented.
--M. J. Young
(More than one person has asked me whether I think you are safe.)
And what, praytell, do you tell them? For the record, for someone who is supposedly "dangerous" I have exactly 2 crimes on my criminal record. Both misdemeanors, both non-violent offenses, and the most recent was about 12 1/2 years ago. If I am so "dangerous" there should be more than that, right?
I think what I tell them is that I'm not worried about it. I don't think you're dangerous (as evidenced and confirmed by the fact that I traveled out to Columbus by bus to meet you--a rather vulnerable position all the way around). If I am mistaken, I'm still not worried. I figure I'm going to die when God agrees that I'm no longer needed here, and I'll be forced to live until then.
--M. J. Young
I think what I tell them is that I'm not worried about it. I don't think you're dangerous (as evidenced and confirmed by the fact that I traveled out to Columbus by bus to meet you--a rather vulnerable position all the way around).
Well, I'm much less psychotic now than I was then. My therapy has helped a lot.
If I am mistaken, I'm still not worried. I figure I'm going to die when God agrees that I'm no longer needed here, and I'll be forced to live until then.
My thoughts exactly. I'll live until God decides that I am no longer needed. Then it's over.
Two Posts
People also tend to think it is not curable and will probably try to get away because you could get a fit and start hitting them instead of the door.
Yeah, my gay neighbor, on the last day I talked to him, kept saying "My father used to beat me....." I guess he was afraid I was going to hit him. I remember thinking "Well, if you were acting like this, did it ever occur to you that maybe you deserved to get beaten by your father?"
The thing was that he never tried to get to know me. He just assumed that I was dangerous and needed to be locked up. Never asked me anything about it.
Dear John,
this is a difficult situation. Usually, people that have been abused as a kid by their father are very insecure. First of all, no child deserves to be abused, secondly, the person that was to protect him, did not and turned against him. It will be hard for him to trust anybody now. Especially people who they now have violent fits will be feared. They don't want to get beaten again. That's pretty understandable. It's pretty difficult for him to try and get to know him because he will generally not trust many people, certainly not those that he knows has aggressive fits.
There seems to be misunderstanding on both sides here.
Hitting the door was not an act of violence, it was a shock treatment of sorts. The sudden jolt of pain slows down the psychotic episode somewhat.
I was trying to tell him about the therapy that I am doing for the psychosis (MJ doesn't like it when I talk about it, so I'm not going to) The therapy involves putting myself into a low-grade psychotic state, and in that state, teaching myself to control the episodes. I've had some really good success with it. Three years prior to the incident with my gay neighbor, I would have been screaming obscenities for hours on end. I wonder how he would have reacted to that.....
The thing was though that he was showing me exactly the same kind of prejudice that he was so opposed to. I accepted that he was gay right off the bat. I figure that's God's place to judge him, not mine. I know people that would have flattened all four tires on his car just for having the gay pride bumper sticker. I accepted him. He couldn't accept me. Just another form of prejudice.
Two Posts
And Nikolaj, That thing that I said that he deserved to get beaten by his father, that was just supposed to be funny, more than anything. I have a very good friend who was beaten as a child. She still has nightmares about it, more than 30 years later. So, no, no child deserves that. It was just supposed to be a funny crack, that's all.
I'm sorry, I didn't get that it was a joke. That's a problem of forums, and children are my soft spot. You can really get me angry if you hurt them. I've had a depression with the latest events in our country, which have even been on the CNN news I've heard.