Alabaster? You mean it's not an allusion to my favorite Emily Dickinson poem?

Racist bitch, that Emily Dickinson.

And the NAACP should urge black Americans, at long last, to drop their hyphenated African roots.

This is so right on. If people refer to themselves as African-Americans, Italian-Americans, etc., it should mean that they were born in that country, migrated to America, and became American citizens.

The U.S.-born are simply Americans, of whatever descent.

>...it should mean that they were born in that country...

Actually, it used to mean...

That was beautiful. I think a few tears of joy welled up in the corners of my eyes :-}

"Holding school authorities accountable -- including black teachers and black-dominated school boards..."

I live in an area of High School day care, and special ed kids becoming valedictorian. I happened to sit in on a school board meeting, where a seemingly psychotic lady was hectoring the superintendent about hiring more minority teachers. I was shocked to realize this person was a school board member. Despair set in me, realizing that people had voted for this kook.

Installing this person in office seems to indicate that the whole society surrounding that part of the school district has gone mad.

It makes me angry when I compare these whiners to black scientists who overcame real segregation to achieve excellence. HBO had a wonderfull movie a few years back, "Something the Lord Made" about a pioneer in heart surgery who literally came in the back door to get to his research lab, yet developed a cure for babies with heart defects. I have an autoimmune disease, which can be treated for pennies because a black man struggled to make synthetic steroid drugs.

doombuggy-My autistic kid has to pass the same NCLB tests as the normal kids. She can do algebra, just can't make eye contact or small talk. Special ed doesn't always mean stupid.

Since Emily Dickinson does not frequently make it into blog commentary, I'll share my favorite (parody) Emily Dickinson poem.



I'll tell you how the fart rose,--

A dark fume at a time.

The classroom swam in methane,

The fumes like rockets flew.

Went right into our nostrils,

The sickness begun.

Then I said softly to myself,

"I think I had better run!"


But how it set, I know not.

There seemed a purple hue

That appeared on all the faces

That inhaled those vile fumes

And when I'd reached the classroom door,

And thought that all was well

The farter lit that methane gas,

And blew us all to hell.

This article, and the whole "reverse racism" bit reminds me of one of my pet peeves: publicity photos that always, but always show "racial diversity".

Look at any elementary school textbook that has pictures of people in it. You will be hard put to find a single picture that contains only whites. There will be pictures of blacks, of hispanics, and of mixed groups. But almost never of only whites. The same in ads, billboards, etc, etc.

Irritating...

My favourite is the guys who were born here but their parents came over from Italy about 40 years ago. When asked, they say they are European. I ask, where in Europe were you born? They will give me the name of a suburb which is clearly within the bounds of the North American continent. I then ask, where in Europe is that? They find this confusing. Then I explain to them as simply as I can, that if you were born in Canada and raised in Canada, you are 'Canadian'. This elicits much anger and more confusion.

I dunno...I think showing integrated pictures in elementary textbooks is actually a positive thing. "Everyone's the same regardless of skin color" is a positive message to give kids. It's when anyone is special or different simply by virtue of their skin color that sets off my warning bells. I'm equally pissed when they get slagged and when they get elevated. Like many ideas that become "organized", the NAACP appears to have started out with good intentions, but its been corrupted over time. I've always thought term limits on politicians is a good idea, perhaps term limits on NPO's have a place as well?

A member of a committee I was on to design a brochure for our academic department informed us that systemwide policy required any photo spread to include persons of both genders and more than one race.

I suggested, "How about if we just show one person of ambiguous appearance?" I expected a laugh and got it. But in truth, I was more than half-serious.

Jamie,

An Emily Dickinson parody with only one dash among the punctuation marks? Tsk, tsk.

Good, though.

"I then ask, where in Europe is that? They find this confusing. Then I explain to them as simply as I can, that if you were born in Canada and raised in Canada, you are 'Canadian'. This elicits much anger and more confusion..."

Chrissy,

Why does it gladden your heart to annoy people with humorously condescending questions if they wish to romanticize their family roots in this fashion?

I meet tons of Americans who refer to themselves as Irish, Scottish etc. Some of them have never been out of New York. So what?

It's generally a genial affectation based on some family affection for the old country, surely?

I just find it amusing to annoy them, because it is not genial affection for the old country as you put it, it is a superiority complex, where they show undisguised distain for anyone who isn't 'European'. There is a big difference. I don't particularly like being treated as an inferior.

I was out with some friends one night, guy comes up to me and says, "Hi, there, got any Italian in you?"

When I answered in the negative, he said, "Would you like some?"

>_O

"How about if we just show one person of ambiguous appearance?"

Imagine the market for androgynous hermaphroditic individuals of highly blended racial backgrounds! Not that I'd want to be one of them (I get irritated enough with having a gender-ambiguous first name!), but one a survey, it'd be pretty amusing to mark "yes" to every option on race, color and gender...have someone cry "foul" and have them look really sheepish when finding out the truth.

Glad you liked the poem. The whole racial thing seems to get a lotta people's manties in a bunch, so I thought some levity was in order.

"...where they show undisguised distain for anyone who isn't 'European'.."

Well, you didn't explain they were snotty about it, Chrissy.

If they're unpleasant Canadians to boot, bait away!

"If they're unpleasant Canadians to boot, bait away!"

Canadians are generally too dull to be unpleasant...and I mean that in the nicest of ways.

Amy, in Mantua, on a PC with a freaky keyboard.

Ahem....I think we prefer to refer to our culture as "polite".....not dull!

Yes, we are very polite, so being treated poorly galls us poor little Canadians to no end. A bit of baiting and booting makes me feel better, and no-one gets hurt.

w00t! I made the main page of Amy's site!

I take my thrills where I can get 'em.

Ok Amy, I'm in two minds on this one.

On one hand you are seriously right about this article and about the decline of the NAACP - swapping relevancy and effectiveness to be a mouthpiece for the worst kind of blame politics. The NAACP is not necessarily wrong in a lot of its analyses, you just have to question if focusing on these issues primarily is a good use of time. I'd argue it is not.

But one caveat - I think you are actually really good at confronting the slightly nasty undertones of people's comments in your column posts when they address women. I just can see a few comments, esp. in the original blog’s comments where people are taking the opportunity to air some subtly unpleasant views, happy that they have an opportunity to decry 'political correctness gone mad'. Such people always post on articles about a cheating husband to call women cheating bitches, or on a story about rape convictions to remind us that 'the majority of rape is just 15yr olds and 17 yr olds'.

E.g. the person who gets offended that 'all white groups aren't seen as diverse' has no place decrying the NAACP - his victim complex and theirs would suit perfectly!

I also hate the way you ended on that 'hyphenated Africa point'. The original speaker's view is actually in context but here I don't think it is. The "African-American" thing btw is (without seeming rude) not really for you to say. An entire community identifies with a term, which is, by the way, not as arbitrary as the (now completely discredited) scientific racial categories around which we all define ourselves. “African Americans” aren’t “African” - so what, ‘white’ isn’t even a race! Words don’t get their meanings from being 100% accurate, they acquire it from the context in which they are used.

Other categories of Americans are happy to hyphenate also. I just think it is a more complex debate and in my personal experience it is definitely jumped upon as a way to deny a differing black experience. That sounds a bit weird so let me be clear – some people see me (as a black person) and always immediately bring up ‘black issues’ (even if we’ve just met) in a VERY hostile way. It’s like they feel that I should ‘explain’ to them all these things they clearly feel strong grievances about. Affirmative Action I understand but I can’t understand why ‘African American’ is one. They clearly feel the right to dictate to me what I can and cannot call myself and feel. That is quite scary to be on the other side of. Yet they never bring it up to Italian Americans or any other American, even if we’re together, and one person even looked surprised when I pointed out that the Italian American person next to me might have some insight, i.e. it was specifically targeted at me, the black person. They also bring up the n-word –“why can’t I use it?” They then use it repeatedly even though I’m clearly uncomfortable with it to try and make a point – usually that I should realise that by not allowing them to call me an n-word bitch (well, p diddy can do it!) or tell me what to call myself (Seriously, what’s wrong with colored?), I am somehow discriminating against them.

I’m just pointing out that a lot of people who jump on tangential issues like this have an agenda. I know of the speaker and I know that he has tried to get people to redefine themselves voluntarily, rather than have someone “tell us what we are allowed to call ourselves”. This may sound a little sensitive but people have got to ask themselves why THEY feel so irritated about a non offensive term another group of people identify with.

Other categories of Americans are happy to hyphenate also.

Yeah, they should also stop.

This may sound a little sensitive but people have got to ask themselves why THEY feel so irritated about a non offensive term another group of people identify with.

Because it promotes divisiveness. Because it ignores and downplays points of commonality with "the other" groups. Because it ignores real differences within the black cultures and black communities. Because it leads to death by identity politics where everyone finds a need to be in some victimized group demanding societal handouts.

Because it tends not to focus on cultural heritage and what we all can share and admire but tends to create "others" and enemies and split society apart.

I don't call the friends in my tribe kikes or bitch kikes, because I don't want anyone calling me a kike or a jew bastard and treating me as such.

If you want to call your friends "n" and "h" and "b", well have at it, and if it's okay with you that movies and songs use "n" and "b" and "h" all the time, well I guess that's okay too. But after that, to get offended because other people don't clue in as to exactly why you can use it, and people can get rick off of it, but they can't use it, well, I think you're expecting a little too much from everyone.

Much has been made in recent years about Pryor's very public censure of himself, for his long time use of the world "nigger". As Pryor recalled in his concert film Here and Now (1983) and later shared with audiences of Essence Magazine in 1984, he was traveling throughout the continent of Africa and a voice inside him asked "Do you see any niggers?" and he had to come to terms with the fact that he didn't see any. Pryor's repudiation of the word "nigger" has been invoked numerous times to sanction hip-hop culture's liberal use of the word and most recently in critiques of Aaron McGruder's television series The Boondocks. As award-winning journalist Leonard Pitts wrote a few years ago, "we've become entirely too casual, too gratuitous, with this instrument of disparagement" (Denver Post 26 March, 1998).

When Pryor made his claim about the word's use (and we have no knowledge about whether he used the word in his private life) he was paying penance for a wide range of behaviors and trying to get back in the good graces of the American public. But I'd like to also suggest that Pryor's rejection of "nigger" was also about finally putting to bed a particular paradigm of American race relations that no longer functioned in the post-Civil Rights/Reagan-era. Indeed, he was paying penance for the 'sin' of making White America uncomfortable with the issue of race (much like we've seen with Muhammad Ali over the last decade).

As a reckless gasbag, I've been trying to find something to say in these comments all week, but race and underpants are things that just aren't as fascinating as some people pretend they are. Meanwhile, here's Dawkins on Hitch: http://urltea.com/1f94

For the record-- I prefer Hitchens to Dawkins, and think Hitchen's critics are wrong: There's no dishonor in mocking the Catholic rape of children. The horror that was brought to these lives wasn't some impersonal lightning bolt of bad luck, or even a Hurricane Katrina for which the children were insufficiently prepared. It was broad and willful violation of precisely the trust that believers expect their church to bring to human flesh.

Jerry - you completely misunderstood my points.

I don't quite understand the 'get rick off' thing. I don't use the n-word (hence me not using it in print). I'm pointing out that even though I didn't use it, people wouldn't let it go. I don't understand how words having a context is so difficult to understand though. For eg. a friend laughingly exclaiming 'I'm gonna kill you' if I spill a drink on her is differrent from a person coming up behind me on the street and whispering "I'm gonna kill you" in my ear. Same words, very different meaning - just due to the context. That is a pretty fundamental principle of human interaction, I sometimes think people pretend not to understand it because it gives them license to be jerks or because they feel like no one should be able to do something they can't do. What they don't understand is they have the right (of free speech) to call people an n-word bitch. Just not to control the response of that person listening.

Because it promotes divisiveness. Because it ignores and downplays points of commonality with "the other" groups. Because it ignores real differences within the black cultures and black communities. Because it leads to death by identity politics where everyone finds a need to be in some victimized group demanding societal handouts.

Really? One hyphenated word? lol. Are you saying that if African Americans dropped the African then this would all stop? Or maybe the causes for these issues are compelx and should be dealt with substantively instead of through symbolic gestures and identity posturing. Do you note the irony? African Americans 'changing their name' is exactly the kind of controversial identity politics side issue which you are railing against. Wastes time and energy instead of focusing on EDUCATION.

You didn't address the other issues in my post, that these issues are rarely raised towards Irish Americans, Italian Americans etc rather than just at black people. You sort of just ignored that but it seems to suggest that it is not the name that imparts difference.

Your last point I don't really get either. Comedians using the n-word? I didn't say I used it (you assumed that). I just said that people seemed to understand but resent not being able to say it. That is different from 'not understanding' and is also fairly rude when you don't really know somebody.

Again, comedians, rappers etc - all of these seem like a bit of a side show. I don't take my social cues generally from them and the vast majority of people don't either. Which is why I'm always slightly suprised when someone tells me how it confuses them that they can't call me names 'like Kanye West can'. They don't choose to act, dress, or talk like Kanye West, or behave like him socially in any other respect yet somehow find it incredibly confusing (and soooo difficult) not to slip into using racially offensive language ("like Kanye West can"). They also only feel compelled to direct these words towards me, even though (technically) there is nothing that specifically ties the word "bitch" to women of color.

Seems kinda suspect to me, though I'm sure you have a perfectly reasonable explanation.

Crid - I'll fight with you about something :-}

OK, just not race or underwear!

Bonnie,
I thought your comments were rather fabulous.

I also didn't get where Jerry was coming from - or why he was acting as though "context" was such a brain-throttling concept.

We've had the "Kanye West" conversation ad nauseum in our (white) household with our two argumentative teenage sons and I'm familiar with its pathetic, frail reasoning.

Bonnie,
I thought your comments were rather fabulous too. Especially.... "The "African-American" thing btw is (without seeming rude) not really for you to say." It is always amazing to me how people like bradley13 can get so bothered by something like pictures of non-whites in text books. Uhmmm...guess what brad, white people aren't the only ones reading them.

For gasbags with some time:
Here’s a light fisking of Dawkin’s review, high across the middle of the plate. Swing away if it’ll keep your mind off your work.

“… the Bible Belt states – the reptilian brain of southern and middle America, rather than the easier pickings of the country’s cerebral cortex to the north and down the coasts.”

Now what is that? If we poorly dressed schlubs in flyover country EVER want to hang with the cool kids, we’d better get with the program? My grandma is supposed to rethink her worldview so some goofball in a black turtleneck won’t think poorly of her? Back on your bike kid, we don’t want any.

“. . . the literal mind does not understand the ironic mind, and sees it always as a source of danger.”

I think he means “appreciate” more than “understand” and I think he means “stupid” instead of “literal” and “smart” instead of “ironic” but that’s outside the rules of a quote ‘n’ smote. He is making a distinction between classes of people and presenting the relationship in terms of conflict. Marx did a better job of showing how forces already present would cause the class relationship to proceed to a new point of equilibrium even if he did turn out to be, well, wrong. If Atheism is going to replace religion as the opiate of the masses, it had better get the marketing department to work on customer appeal.

“Is it not obvious to all, say the pious, that religious authority is paramount, and that those who decline to recognize it have forfeited their right to exist.”

Again, it is idealistic to think that the Atheist brand of “Hey, let’s all do it this way” is so compelling that simply everyone will adopt it if they just catch a glimpse of it. Give Atheists twenty minutes and they will be killing and torturing anyone who puts their garbage out on the wrong day, just like the theists.

“… Roman Catholic priests, including at least two cardinals and an archbishop, who solemnly told their flocks, in African countries ravaged by AIDS, that condoms transmit the virus.”

Here is an anecdote masquerading as data: I knew a family of Mexican…visitors who’s adult son was gay. The young man was deeply conflicted as a member of a machismo culture and a devoutly religious family. He was regularly arrested on drug and solicitation charges and it came to light that he was symptomatic for AIDS. His family wrung their hands for the troubled lad. Not because of his high risk behavior or his sexual orientation or even his health and that of his partners. They thought his primary transgression was using condoms. You aren’t going to get at this profound level of ignorance by chaining the doors down at Nuestra Senora and packing people off to State Universities.

There is no other word for it-it is EVIL for those priests to tell murderous lies to vulnerable people. But civilization is not spread by disdainful sniffing. Tell me about the Atheist missionaries.

“Even Buddhism, which is often praised as a cut above the rest, gets both barrels.”

This is where Atheists have burned their bridges. Buddhism!? You’d think the pragmatic free-thinking Atheist would keep an option open for those too feeble minded to embrace the enterprise of modernity. Johnny can’t read? Here’s your funny hat, your finger cymbals and your incense burner. Oooohm kid, oooohm over there, see ya’. I haven’t read Hitchens but this has me intrigued. I have GOT to see him unloading on the Buddhists.

“As Hitchens witheringly puts it, does anybody seriously think that, before Moses delivered the tablet inscription “Thou shalt not kill”, his people had thought it a good idea to do so?”

That’s not all that withering. Did anybody seriously think all men were created equal before Jefferson cribbed it from Locke? Uh, yeah, a few. Did anybody found a country on the notion? Er, not so much.

“The task of atheists is to raise people above that level of servility and credulity.”

Well then, knowing the task is half the battle. Get to it Every calm, rational, emotionally and financially secure and thinking person is behind you, in Connecticut. The other 6 billion are ready to kill themselves if their shows get cancelled.

For gasbags with some time:
Here’s a light fisking of Dawkin’s review, high across the middle of the plate. Swing away if it’ll keep your mind off your work.

“… the Bible Belt states – the reptilian brain of southern and middle America, rather than the easier pickings of the country’s cerebral cortex to the north and down the coasts.”

Now what is that? If we poorly dressed schlubs in flyover country EVER want to hang with the cool kids, we’d better get with the program? My grandma is supposed to rethink her worldview so some goofball in a black turtleneck won’t think poorly of her? Back on your bike kid, we don’t want any.

“. . . the literal mind does not understand the ironic mind, and sees it always as a source of danger.”

I think he means “appreciate” more than “understand” and I think he means “stupid” instead of “literal” and “smart” instead of “ironic” but that’s outside the rules of a quote ‘n’ smote. He is making a distinction between classes of people and presenting the relationship in terms of conflict. Marx did a better job of showing how forces already present would cause the class relationship to proceed to a new point of equilibrium even if he did turn out to be, well, wrong. If Atheism is going to replace religion as the opiate of the masses, it had better get the marketing department to work on customer appeal.

“Is it not obvious to all, say the pious, that religious authority is paramount, and that those who decline to recognize it have forfeited their right to exist.”

Again, it is idealistic to think that the Atheist brand of “Hey, let’s all do it this way” is so compelling that simply everyone will adopt it if they just catch a glimpse of it. Give Atheists twenty minutes and they will be killing and torturing anyone who puts their garbage out on the wrong day, just like the theists.

“… Roman Catholic priests, including at least two cardinals and an archbishop, who solemnly told their flocks, in African countries ravaged by AIDS, that condoms transmit the virus.”

Here is an anecdote masquerading as data: I knew a family of Mexican…visitors who’s adult son was gay. The young man was deeply conflicted as a member of a machismo culture and a devoutly religious family. He was regularly arrested on drug and solicitation charges and it came to light that he was symptomatic for AIDS. His family wrung their hands for the troubled lad. Not because of his high risk behavior or his sexual orientation or even his health and that of his partners. They thought his primary transgression was using condoms. You aren’t going to get at this profound level of ignorance by chaining the doors down at Nuestra Senora and packing people off to State Universities.

There is no other word for it-it is EVIL for those priests to tell murderous lies to vulnerable people. But civilization is not spread by disdainful sniffing. Tell me about the Atheist missionaries.

“Even Buddhism, which is often praised as a cut above the rest, gets both barrels.”

This is where Atheists have burned their bridges. Buddhism!? You’d think the pragmatic free-thinking Atheist would keep an option open for those too feeble minded to embrace the enterprise of modernity. Johnny can’t read? Here’s your funny hat, your finger cymbals and your incense burner. Oooohm kid, oooohm over there, see ya’. I haven’t read Hitchens but this has me intrigued. I have GOT to see him unloading on the Buddhists.

“As Hitchens witheringly puts it, does anybody seriously think that, before Moses delivered the tablet inscription “Thou shalt not kill”, his people had thought it a good idea to do so?”

That’s not all that withering. Did anybody seriously think all men were created equal before Jefferson cribbed it from Locke? Uh, yeah, a few. Did anybody found a country on the notion? Er, not so much.

“The task of atheists is to raise people above that level of servility and credulity.”

Well then, knowing the task is half the battle. Get to it Every calm, rational, emotionally and financially secure and thinking person is behind you, in Connecticut. The other 6 billion are ready to kill themselves if their shows get cancelled.

Doh!

Every calm, rational, emotionally and financially secure and thinking person is behind you, in Connecticut.

Yeah. All two of us! o_O

"It is always amazing to me how people like bradley13 can get so bothered by something like pictures of non-whites in text books. Uhmmm...guess what brad, white people aren't the only ones reading them."

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I'm not bothered by pictures of non-whites at all. I am bothered by the unspoken requirement to avoid pictures of whites. In school textbooks, only pictures of non-whites or mixed-groups are allowed.

I find this as irritating as any other form of racism. People should be taken as individuals. In an ideal world, no one would pay any regard to race, period. Our world isn't ideal, granted, but at least we could try to move in that direction...

"... Our world isn't ideal, granted, but at least we could try to move in that direction..."

Then why don't you stoutly make the first move in this direction yourself, bradley?

Can't you quit getting twitchy about the obvious-to-you over representation of certain people in these textbooks?

I've read God Is Not Great, Martin, and I hate to say it, but Hitchens doesn't really lay into Buddhism to the extent that he does to the "Big Three". He merely points out that chanting, meditating, and hanging out at the ashram are just another way of avoiding thinking about mortality, and that the Dalai Lama might be a swell guy, but under his rule Tibet would be an autocratic theocracy.

> Tibet would be an autocratic
> theocracy.

And a hereditary (or at least congenital) one, no?

That's enough. Fuck'em!

Hey Jody, kg - thanks! I do try. This debate seems to bring out the not-so-nice in people and it can be a bit trying.

Hey bradley, just wondering. Why do you think a more diverse picture means an "unspoken requirement to avoid pictures of whites". This seems quite a strong claim.

In the pictures I've seen, books tend to overinflate the diversity of the class by changing the distribution, not erasing white people altogether. If you follow your logic through to the end then any picture of a minority is an 'anti-white' picture (because it is not a picture of a white person). See how paranoid that sounds!

Again, I think it's more fruitful to focus on the alleged results of these books. Do you feel like this is trying to say that white people are bad? Like a conspiracy? The US population is 1/3 minority and, as a country, has been fairly proud of its diversity. However I think they probably feel like minorities on books will encourage minorities reading the books that 'maths is for them', since maybe they (have traditionally) lacked those role models elsewhere. Same reason that there are lots of girls on maths books.

Do you feel like seeing any minorities at all on the front of a maths book can somehow reverse the situation and make white children feel like 'maths isn't for them', even if there are still white faces on/in the book, the majority of educators are white, the majority of educated professionals in the country are white and the traditional images of academia are white. Wow, a strong claim. I think there is quite a lot of evidence that this would not be the case, which I could detail if you wish.

Btw - have you noticed how diverse the classes are on "Are you smarter than a 5th Grader"? Really really diverse. Do you feel that that is sending out a negative message to the American majority? Because that is pretty much what a maths textbook looks like!

Bonnie - the idea that people would draw conclusions about the suitability of a topic based upon the color of the persons on the cover of the book says more about the people producing the books than it does about brad.

let's see, there's no brown people on the cover of this algebra book, just numbers. I guess algebra isn't for brown people then.

You see how zarking stupid this sounds?

Diversity is weakness. Diversity is division. We ought not be telling children to "celebrate diversity" because we are telling them explicitly that people of different racial backgrounds are to be treated differently, and exclusively on basis of race.

Either we are all Americans, or we are not. So long as people insist on dividing the country up along racial lines so that someone is black first, and THEN an American, then we will never accomplish the greatness this nation should know.

Of course, I have on good authority that a demand for color-blindness is just another name for racial oppression

"Diversity is weakness. Diversity is division."

Orwellian slogans, anyone?

Jeesh, brian!

Here's a better one for you, Jody:

"We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately."

"Diversity", as it is presently practiced, has nothing to do with the promotion of understanding, and everything to do with perpetuating petty racial animus for the purpose of political control. (damn - that's almost alliterative!)

Orwell doesn't enter into it. Although one of his slogans is eerily reminiscent of the core principles of affirmative action: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

Brian,
I've a hunch this is one of those exchanges in which I don't actually know what egregious examples of affirmative action/diversity "celebration" are behind your pique. (That's a mollifying comment, by the way.)

But, may I ask, have you personally ever lived in a country other than that of your birth?

And - related - do you personally, in your own family, have any traces of foreign ancestry?

Lived? no. Been to, yes. I'm not entirely certain that that changes the value of my opinion, and I don't see how living in any other country would change the opinion itself.

My beef with affirmative action started with being told that my working-class white ass was the wrong race to qualify for financial aid (and this is almost 20 years ago). Having a black kid tell me that my people (whoever the hell they are) owed his people was kind of a rude shock too. And considering that my Vietnamese friends all did OK without someone shoving racialist shit down anyone's throat, I'm dubious of the whole "affirmative action" thing.

Foreign ancestry? Loaded with it. I'm at best 2.5th generation American. Of my grandparents, three were the children of immigrants, one was an immigrant. And I don't recall anyone believing that life was easy for Italian immigrants at the turn of the 20th century.

Lol Brian

Good to see your experiences haven't soured you!

Let me just say that I strongly agree that the diversity agenda has been hijacked but your reaction, though sincere, is hardly positive. I am black and I'm ok with that, I also think I'm a nice person. The people you met may have not been but have you not met non minorities like that? Getting angry/bitter hardly furthers the 'unity' you think diversity endangers.

Bonnie - the idea that people would draw conclusions about the suitability of a topic based upon the color of the persons on the cover of the book says more about the people producing the books than it does about brad.

let's see, there's no brown people on the cover of this algebra book, just numbers. I guess algebra isn't for brown people then.

You see how zarking stupid this sounds?

Great use of zarking!

I notice how people tend to pick one point to disagree with, never engaging with my point as a whole. I'm happy to respond though.

These aren't 'people', these are children. And there is quite a lot of evidence that children's expectations of their own achievement can be greatly affected by their perception of other's expectations. For example, the blue eyes/brown eyes experiment done by Jane Elliot which has been replicated many times over. The dolls experiment was also just repeated.

If children are having these views reinforced outside then it doesn't matter what their textbooks look like, but if not then it may spark something or give some encouragement. It's not huge and expensive or even discriminatory. Like I said, 1/3 of America's population is from an ethnic minority. Does it really hurt of a photo has some dark faces on it?

It is interesting how you've changed what I said. It is not a page of numbers v minorities, it's no minorities v some minorities. If children can absorb even the slightest motivation from seeing (some) people like them on the front cover, I'm interested in what you think is the overriding reason against it. Again I'm not saying only minorities or education should be compromised, I'm talking about a picture with a black person on it.

I'm sorry but I don't quite understand what your argument is. You seem to just think that saying 'diversity' is divisive, yet a picture with 1/3 minorities isn't diverse, it's reality. If I follow your photograph requirements, you seem to equate a normal/non-diversity agenda with white, which is strange. A book for all the children of America should be 100% white to 'show' them that race doesn't matter. Lol!

Bonnie - The problem comes from the "blame whitey" school of "diversity". As was pointed out, oftentimes there are NO white people, which is just as unrepresentative as a picture of exclusively white people. Diversity should include everyone. More often than not, diversity is just a code word for "everyone that isn't a conservative heterosexual white male."

If you think that having a picture with every ethnicity you can find on an algebra book might foster interest, I can't see any reason against it. In that situation it's a matter of "I can't see how it could do any damage." But when you start seeing things that intentionally exclude whites (and the reasoning behind it is typically "so you can see how it feels to be excluded") there's certainly no benefit.

Anecdote: When I was in college, on the bulletin board was an announcement of the creation of a "black engineering student association". I remarked that there was no way anyone would be allowed to create a "white engineering student association", and the response I got to that was "all the other engineering associations are white". Funny thing is, I don't remember anything in the IEEE membership guidelines regarding race.

Oh, and can someone help me to understand why a successful black man is a race traitor? I can't understand it. Study, work hard, succeed, and get kicked in the balls. Why is this tolerated by black people? Is it tolerated? Or has my mind been unduly influenced by the decades of hearing nothing but Jackson and Sharpton and their ilk?

NB: I don't mean to sound racist here, but it's not like I've had large exposure to black people. There aren't a whole lot of them here in the northeast. And although I see plenty of the thug type in the city, all the ones I've ever interacted with don't appear any different than anyone else. So why is there this perception that there is some 'authentically black' experience?

NB2: I don't use the term "african-american" because it's highly inaccurate for starters, and from all information I can gather it was created by white liberals as a way of accentuating differences to assuage their white guilt. Feel free to correct me if you actually prefer that term over any other appellation. Personally, you can call me anything you like. Just don't call me late for dinner.

another note, an appendage to the first NB above -

All I've interacted with save the one who told me I owe him something on account of I'm white.

Your comment count suggests that humans are fascinated by skin color and have attached myriad meanings to it. Anthropologists consider heightened awareness of people different than you to be a survival trait. We can never completely escape our genes.

Brian

Blame whitey school of diversity As I said, this is not the only type of diversity there is and I was not defending this. I'm not sure what you are specifically referring to because this is clearly (right or wrong) a perceptions issue. Again you are being quite vague about 'excluding white people' and I can't see how it is relevant to this issue. As for 'oftentimes there are no white people', I don't believe this. I work in education and a friend of mine actually did some research on this issue. There are very few books which have all minorities on, the vast vast majority are mixed (or all white). I'll email her and try and get some figures but it was above 95%

I'm gonna come back to your IEE point in a bit.

There's a limit to how much I can interact with your post because this you seem to be relying on anecdotal evidence and that is non refutable. As far as I'm aware, a successful black man isn't a race traitor. I hear this myth all the time and of course there is a grain of truth but it is far from being right. The way you frame questions may affect the responses you get.With respect, I think if you approach people with such a negative construct, you will get no answers. But that's if you truly want to understand the issue.

Again the 'authentically black issue' has some grain of truth. Sociologically there are some marked similarities between black individuals and historically there has obviously been a need for solidarity. I guess my question is why your hostility? It is clear that society as a whole readjusts as generations develop and a lot of the smoke you probably hear is just the discussion being generated as people debate issues in the black community and possible solutions. A large group of people with differing views but some shared interests have a debate. Pardon my ignorance but I thought that was called America.

As for the African American thing I think it will go down badly. You think it's inaccurate. So is the term 'racist' because races don't exist. Do you know some Arabs are ethnically semitic? So anti-semitism is hatred towards Arabs and Jews and we should call hatred towards Jews something else. Black people should be called brown people and white people should be pink people. This sounds stupid but these are arguments I've heard defended. Words in general are socially defined rather than to some rigid code. I think would like to be called by the name they identify with, and given the history of race in this country, think that African American is less arbitrary than negro, colored and all the other terms which have been used before. I have a friend whose name is Sara. I hate the spelling because it should be Sarah, that is the name's root. But my friend's name is Sara. If I spell it Sarah I'm offending her because I'm discounting her attachment to her name (and frankly am an imposing prig). Names are constantly changing anyhow so I don't even have history to back me up. However it is up to you. I would certainly not answer if someone told me that they had decided (in their infinite wisdom) that they would rename me and I should like it.

I don't know whether to post about the IEEE. It just seems like you've probably heard these arguments before and it's unlikely you're interested now. Organizations like this are usually again to encourage non trads into underrepresented areas. They exist for women, so I'm not really sure where the controversy is. There is evidence that some minorities have heavily depended on them, so again, what is the harm?

Look, the only thing is that the hostility level in your posts seems to be fairly high and (no offence) but since we just seem to be going through every negative experience you have ever had with a black person, I think after this next post this might be my last. There are many things you can read or watch or ask if you genuinely want answers but I only speak as one person and I doubt that I will actually be able to change your mind or even really engage with you if you are so negatively affected by the experiences you've had. You are entitled to your opinion as I am to mine but I really can't sit on the internet and refute every popular myth about race because I would never leave. Just be lucky we haven't touched on black men=sexual prowess ;-)

Not to ignore the larger discussion--and I really don't give a shit if an Inuit is on the cover of a high school algebra textbook. Fantastic, I say, but--

And a hereditary (or at least congenital) one, no?

No, Crid. It's not all in the family. He (I assume it will never be a she) is chosen by other monks. Most college professors I know frown upon the use of Wikipedia or any of its sister sites, but this one has the best explanation of how the Dalai Lama is found:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_is_the_Dalai_Lama_chosen

Which, if you read Hitchens, just confirms the core argument of his book: all religions are man-made. In this case, it's other men choosing who will be their spiritual and temporal leader.

Bonnie -

I wasn't making the argument about the book covers. I don't honestly know, because all of my math and engineering books were completely devoid of human forms on their covers.

And I don't get where you're picking up on "hostility" from my perspective either. The only thing I'm hostile to is people telling me that we need to hold people of a certain group to lower standards on account of their race.

If, as you say, there's evidence that people have benefited from minority-only groups (like the engineering association I mentioned), then I have to question whether or not there is any desire on anyone's part to have a truly integrated society devoid of racial valuations.

But the thing I understand least is the idea that all black (brown, persons of African extraction, etc.) people, regardless of their historical context, are somehow members of a monolithic life experience, and that any deviation from that template gets one marked as "inauthentic". If there's no template, then why is the media (and especially Time Magazine) obsessed with the question of Barack Obama's blackness?

What triggers my misunderstanding? My cognitive dissonance is caused by the complete lack of existence of any other group (at least in the mainstream) that obsesses over the authenticity of some ethnicity. I've never heard anyone question whether someone is authentically Chinese, or if someone is sufficiently Irish.

Until I understand that, I reserve the right to simply treat everyone I encounter as an individual. Because I am tired of the entire group-identity grievance politics game. Please understand that I am not accusing you of harboring any ill will or anything of the sort. I'm just venting at this point in the hopes that something that approximates my viewpoint ends up here.

Then if you're going to respect the individual, Brian, shouldn't you respect that individual's choice to identify themselves with whatever group they wish? American history is rife with examples of newly-arrived groups first identifying themselves with their ethnic or racial communities--whether its Irish or Chinese. Within a few generations these groups find themselves at the very heart of what it means to be American, and then it's time for the next group to first be exclusive and then inclusive.

African-Americans/blacks/whatever haven't had that luxury--no matter what your reading of American history might be--so what's it to you that it's taking longer? Why care what other folks want to call themselves? At heart, we're all Americans. They know that, you know that. Frankly, you don't have the same set of experiences as a white American. I'm not devaluing your opinion by any means. What I'm saying is that don't worry, be happy, sooner or later skin color will be irrelevant and the Next Big Issue will be legality--oh wait. That's already occurring.

Rebecca - That's part of my problem with the identity politics crowd.

Michael Steele rejected the official 'narrative' offered by the political left. He was smeared relentlessly. Ward Connerly fights against quota-based affirmative action, and he's called an Uncle Tom.

It would appear that in the world of identity politics the members of certain identity groups are explicitly denied the opportunity to identify themselves as they see fit, instead being publicly slimed if they dare to deviate from the officially sanctioned definition of 'authentic' that has been created by someone else.

It is one thing to identify oneself within an ethnic community. It is something else entirely for a self-appointed community leader to dictate that definition.

As far as the argument over legality - the part that troubles me most about all the amnesty bills floated in D.C. is that they all offer amnesty and guest visas exclusively to low-skill workers. Meanwhile, we are turning away high-skill workers and reducing the number of available visas. Which is (1) inherently unfair to those who've waited in line for a seat at the table and (2) blatantly exploitive of an under-educated lower class. But that's another rant for another day.

"It is one thing to identify oneself within an ethnic community. It is something else entirely for a self-appointed community leader to dictate that definition."

It might help your blood pressure if you stopped confusing the two then, brian.

My blood pressure's fine, Jody. I'm going to suggest, however, that we stop discussing this, since our worldviews are obviously incompatible.

> He (I assume it will never
> be a she) is chosen

Well, designated, or maybe recognized. (Aha- Your source says "They have a secret set of criteria which they use to determine whether the child they have tracked down is the Dalai Lama.") But you gotta be born with it, which is what I was reaching for with "congenital".

It's kinda like Hollywood: "Some people got it, and some people don't. And babe, you got it! Now have a seat on the couch over there, I need you to look over this contract. Why don't you make yourself comfortable. Y'thirsty?"

It's not an office you can run for or a position you can aspire to. This makes it feel un-American and not like showbiz. Also, as you note, women are excluded... In Hollywood terms, they can't fall back to soap work, or even craft services. When someone in Tinseltown says you're doomed, you can always go prove them wrong.

I hate church.

A blog-wag named Crid did opine:
'twas folly to count things divine.
still on Sundays he'd rest
blow off work like the rest
And kick back with a nice glass of wine.

Un-American?
And so you wade into the braying mob with your talk of due process and fair play and an equal chance for all and they will all drop their idols and their silly scriptures and their Monday Night Football schedules and listen to you for three seconds.

And at some point your "American" sensibilities (and they are mine too, don't get me wrong) will rub someone the wrong way and cut off someone's meal ticket and you will have to say "it's for the good of all that you and yours go hungry" and that fine scrap of parchment won't be enough by itself. You will have to tell someone their death means more than their life and you will have to appeal to something closer to their center of gravity.
So church sucks, don't go. But don't think your choice to do so comes from some mysterious emanation of freedom that is hermetically removed from a psychotic belief in something that even a dull-witted third-grader wouldn't call bullshit.

People believe in things that don't make sense. Deal with it.

(And if my tropical fish ever look like they need religion, it's Buddhism I'll recommend.)

> And kick back with
> a nice glass

How dare you... How dare you!

That comment happened before the Sabbath libation... And it was Sake, not some shabby Port.

> you wade into the
> braying mob

Huh? It's a blog, and a moderately-traffic'd one at that. There's no mob, and nobody brays. Nobody's reading these words that you don't know about.

> your talk of due process
> and fair play and an
> equal chance for all

I don't remember getting into all that. A citation would really hit the spot here.

> and listen to you

If it were that important, I'd have my own blog. Or at least go to Arianna's or someplace.

> will rub someone the
> wrong way

That's the goal.

> cut off someone's
> meal ticket

How do you figure?

> you will have to say "it's
> for the good of all that
> you and yours go hungry

We need you to flesh out the deets of this fantasy of yours. How exactly is all this human hunger going to come about from a blog comment?

> You will have to tell
> someone their death means
> more than their life

Smell it? That funk in the air? It's melodrama!

In real life, I know of a number of people whose death would mean more goodness than their lives have wrought, and I'd be happy to do an email exchange with anyone who wants to review the list. But it's troubling to me that you sit in your home imagining all these Kiefer Sutherland scenarios for my weekend.

> don't think your choice
> to do so comes from some
> mysterious emanation of
> freedom that is hermetically
> removed from a psychotic
> belief in something that
> even a dull-witted third-
> grader wouldn't call bullshit.

Huh? Run a syntax checker.

> Deal with it.

Why, you pudknocking arriviste! I'm the one who's been using that line on Amy for the past several years! She's too harsh and condescending about religion. I think she uses it as a method to (senselessly) look down on other people. Perhaps you suffer an inverse ailment, inappropriately believing yourself aligned with the Little People and their Gentle Fishes. Meanwhile, if you can explain how it's good to pretend that particular individuals can be born with Divine Specialness, we'll all be pleased to listen.

"Why, you pudknocking arriviste!"

Pudknocking arriviste?
You honor me sir!
But you have to be careful flinging such elegant insults at some people. They are likely to take them as compliments and any effort spend trying to correct the perception is apt to make things worse.

But in the interest of de-escalation, I'll remind you of your comment of 9/6, 10:52 PM where you kicked off the Monty Python 'I've come for an argument' bit and I take full credit (or blame) for guessing which buttons to push.

I ran that block of text through the syntax checker you linked and the local civil defense sirens went off. Is that supposed to happen?

My point probably comes from a recent re-reading of Burke's "The Day the Universe Changed." People believe a lot of things because it never occurred to them that they might not be true and that's a short definition of religion. Anyone who has seen a legislative committe at work knows that "every little boy can be president" is as much a matter of faith as the ones with the funny clothes and the brass plates with the felt on the bottom so the coins don't clank.

The "braying mob" certainly wasn't a reference to our hostess'genteel salon but rather the balance of humanity who will need something to replace their current template for daily living when Hitchens and Dawkins succeed in abolishing religion.

But we are far below the fold and far off-thread and I am looking forward to more photos with juicy European behinds draped in loud prints so I tip my cap in fealty.

Thanks again for calling me something more original than "troll."

Don't "Sir" me, you craven, urchin-snouted pigeon-egg!

> civil defense sirens
> went off.

I still don't know what you were trying to say, or how I've threatened anyone with starvation.

G.K. Chesterton said "When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing -- they believe in anything." Doombuggy was saying the same thing here on the first of the month... That after doing our best to disrupt faith, atheists are compelled to present a similarly comforting set of replacement fantasies and hopes to soothe these freshly shattered spirits.

I don't see why. (I was raised in a religious setting, and nobody did that for me when time came to break away... But this isn't just personal crankiness or contrariness.) We want to encourage free thinking as much as possible, while retaining the right to call bullshit. And I personally think one of the best measures of human maturity is the power to recognize and bear in mind all the bad news of life without using it as an excuse to be an asshole. I've put this quote in Amy's comments a few times before:

"Be as decent as you can. Don't believe without evidence. Treat things divine with marked respect -- don't have anything to do with them. Do not trust humanity without collateral security; it will play you some scurvy trick. Remember that it hurts no one to be treated as an enemy entitled to respect until he shall prove himself a friend worthy of affection. Cultivate a taste for distasteful truths. And, finally, most important of all, endeavor to see things as they are, not as they ought to be." -- Ambrose Bierce

Atheists aren't required to make rational life fluffy and pleasant and accessible, our job is just to insist that you keep your hands to yourself. So long as you do that, you can believe in the tooth fairy if you want to.

Hell, some people even believe in sociobiology! Go figure....

Crid - you are missing one very important point.

Better than 90% of humanity are idiots. Without religion to tell them how to live, they don't have a clue and become either violent predators or useless lumps of shit.

And since we've done such a good job (with the help of the various churches, I might add) of destroying the traditional Western religions we are now seeing an expansion of Islam here in America. Every day some disaffected young man is exposed to Islam, and the certainty it offers, and is hooked.

All because liberals hate religion. Their hatred of Christianity is virtually guaranteeing the ascension of Islam.

You can't fix stupid. All you can do is corral it. Christianity did a more effective job of corraling stupid than any other religion in recent history. Now it's being run by stupids.

Crid, you beslubbering half-faced skainsmate (nice link, thanks.)

Marie Antoinette supposedly said "Let them eat cake." I don't believe it but the reason the story grew legs is that the meaning is so sinister: "No bread? Fine, eat cake, dummy."

Not you personally (I thought it was obvious, sorry) but Atheists in general say
"...keep your hands to yourself. So long as you do that, you can believe in the tooth fairy if you want to. "
That is the same as "let them eat cake." Let people believe whatever they want for an hour on Sunday morning (etc.) as long as they believe what I believe the rest of the time. True beliefs shape actions. Most of the time those actions are boring and irrelevant but eventually and certainly, those actions involve matters of life and death. It is not a reductio ad absurdum to say that a parking ticket is a potential death warrant.

Classically liberal western civilization is a religion. Some of the key precepts wouldn't stand up to a child's analysis and scrutiny (ask any Con Law prof.) I step out of the shower each morning dead certain that I can have sushi for lunch if I feel like it and the green lights mean I can drive my car safely through. But I know that this feeling of control is an illusion. My rights are in the hands of my fellow citizens and have you met these people? We couldn't get through a single day without faith. Whether a religion that leads people to hurt children or blow up airplanes can be allowed to practice is a great question but faith itself is a fundamental human component.

Atheism or Free Thinking are really just varieties of Idealism and I think Idealism is as dangerous as painting a reproduction of the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel on the inside of your car windows and driving for Jebus.

After reading your reply, I fear we are too close to agreement on too many points you gibbering monkey-whelp, Good day.

“Perhaps you suffer an inverse ailment, inappropriately believing yourself aligned with the Little People and their Gentle Fishes. Meanwhile, if you can explain how it's good to pretend that particular individuals can be born with Divine Specialness, we'll all be pleased to listen.”

Since you had the remarkably poor judgment to ask for my opinion and promise to listen to it, please consider the following and remember it lest you take such a reckless course again.

You won’t find me in the cheap seats. I gave up on the hoi polloi first gradually, then all at once. People need to be led and sometimes you lead them by letting them think they are going where they want to go.

And “Divine Specialness” to me means something different when we are talking about who gets to be the head of a sandal church. Is the Dalai Lama a good guy to talk to if you have big, deep questions? I’ve heard he is a fair hand so somebody must have either guessed reasonably well or done a fine job of teaching. Would he eat roast infant for breakfast if he were in charge of a country with tanks and fighter planes? Hell if you and me know so let’s say “probably.”

How do you pick anybody for anything? I can go through a painstaking process to appoint a dogcatcher and somebody, probably the second choice, will claim I played favorites. I can appoint my brother-in-law and have the whiners shot (or tasered, let’s not go crazy) and save myself a lot of trouble. Or I can open the process up to the braying mob I mentioned before (you and I are not in the mob. We are off to the side wearing monocles and covering our noses with silk hankies.) If the strays get picked up on time and under budget, fine. If not, the braying mob has only themselves to blame and I get to go back to my roast brat (I made myself the hypothetical tyrant this time since you seemed uneasy in the role.)

Democracy (a Greek drollery meaning “rule by the worst”) makes my life as a despot easy so I sing its praises high and low. Sometimes, the mob puts the flying spaghetti monster on the ballot and sometimes it wins. And if some nutjob in a purple suit with a bowl of pasta on his head gets the mutts back in their cages, I don’t f-ing care.

When people judge each other for jobs or school or sports or ability to land a speeding airplane on a bobbing boat, it is always a capricious travesty. Actual power is taken, not given. So if your “Divine Specialness” means the ceremonial head of palliative worship, look for the guy who knows how to keep his mouth shut and cash his check. And if “Divine Specialness” means the guy with the power of life and death over you and yours, look for the guy surrounded by obsequious armed thugs and nod politely.

> Better than 90% of humanity
> are idiots.

That's not even snarky... Could there be any better evidence that a lot of atheism, like a lot of religion, is about the need to look down on others? If you want to go through life making plans to "corral" 90% of humanity, go for it... But don't pretend it's honorable, that it's workable, or that you're in the remaining 10%. "Humanity" is the signal, not the noise.

> the reason the story grew
> legs is that the meaning
> is so sinister

No, the reason the story grew legs is that it could be easily mas-attributed and the meaning twisted for other purposes. See Goldberg: http://urltea.com/1gj4

> Let people believe whatever
> they want for an hour on
> Sunday morning (etc.) as
> long as they believe what
> I believe the rest of the
> time.

It's cute that you think you have a choice about what other people believe, as if you were being asked to sign off on it. I think you presume that the guy buying milk in front of you in line at Piggly-Wiggly is essentially thinking the same sort of things you think, because he's living the same sort of life. But this isn't the case. I think if you really knew what was up in the hearts of those nearby, you'd never get out of bed in the morning... Or you'd take your own life to forestall your own impending murder.

> Classically liberal western
> civilization is a religion.

No it isn't, it's a civilization. How did you two fuckers get to be so grandiose?

> key precepts wouldn't stand
> up to a child's analysis

I got one of your key precepts right here... I keep it in my pants!

> I fear we are too close
> to agreement

On this side, I feel tremendous courage that we're not.

> I gave up on the hoi polloi

Be confident that they're not counting on you for much, either

Crid - do you deny that 90% of humanity is inexorably stupid? I say with absolute conviction, I believe that if there were concrete proof of the non-existence of God presented to mankind tomorrow, better than half of them would commit suicide.

Most humans are not psychologically equipped to go through life believing that it is completely meaningless, and there is nothing at the end but a ticket-punch. If there are no pearly gates, then a great number of people simply have no reason to go on. You can derive from that whatever meaning or feeling you like, but there it is.

Without organized religion, civilization would never have come to exist as we know it today. Without organized religion, civilization as we know it today would crumble.

And that is for one simple reason. Stupid is the default condition of man. Intelligence beyond certain minimum functions is simply not a biological requirement for survival. As long as a being knows what to eat and what not to eat, how to find shelter, and how to reproduce, they've got it made. Intelligent people are the outliers. They figured out early on that if the power of stupid could be harnessed, then humanity could achieve so much more than just eating and fucking.

Take away that harness (religion), and you've just unleashed hordes of stupids that can't survive without "divine guidance". And the intelligent people are outnumbered at least 10 to 1.

I don't want to live in that world. Do you?

"But don't pretend it's honorable, that it's workable, or that you're in the remaining 10%."

Whoa, who said anything about honor or workability or being in the 10%? (the thing about the monocles was merely illustrative.) Telling people what to do is a filthy business but I don't lock my doors at night to keep myself from wandering out. If "Man" were a better animal, there'd be no need for religion or politics and Atheists would have to find something else to not believe in.

Great link about Marie A. and yet we both know how most people use that quote so why muddy the water with a lot of insightful historical analysis. They chopped her head off before she got to explain herself, your noble mob.

"I think it's cute..."

"Let people believe whatever..." was a paraphrase of what you said:
"...you can believe in the tooth fairy if you want to. "
I thought what you said was cute so you kind of clocked yourself with your own backswing there, apply ice.

"...it's a civilization..." point taken, its a civilization founded on and still held together by a religion, loosely defined, that you and I share, brother. You and me, same pew, don't try to get away, give me some love.

"...grandiose..." pot, kettle, some assembly etc.

"...precepts...pants." Good luck with that, I guess.

"Be confident that they're not counting on you for much, either"

So now who is aligned with the Little People? I have no delusions that it's for me to say what people believe or not. I am as a small leaf, adrift on the tide and so are you you film-splicing, sake-drinking goober. If someone appeals to things I believe in, they'll get my cooperation faster than if they don't. How hard is that?

"...tremendous courage that we're not [in near agreement]." Fine, have it your way. But check this out--

You say: I think if you really knew what was up in the hearts of those nearby...

And I say: Have you met these people?

Of course we don't know what's in other people's silly little minds. Their actions are somewhat predictable but it is mostly our faith, in law, culture or whatever that allows you and me to get out of bed and through our day.

So where is this great chasm in our stated beliefs? You say: "[Amy]'s too harsh and condescending about religion. I think she uses it as a method to (senselessly) look down on other people. "

That's more than I would say but then, if I understand correctly, you are personally acquainted with her while I am just some anonymous yutz with too many opinions. It just seems to me that an advice columnist would want to try to see where people are coming from. That way, her advice is good, people sing her praises, publications pick up her column and Amy gets rich and famous. Or maybe Amy convinces me that her view is right and I would find that interesting too.

> deny that 90% of humanity
> is inexorably stupid?

The human enterprise has endless faults, but insulting it gratuitously doesn't do much for anyone but the insulter. Your "absolute convictions" seem no less egomaniacal than those of Catholicism or Islam. There's nothing smarter than people, OK? There was no intelligence anywhere until we came around. It's a human creation. If you admire it, you should be grateful to take it where you find it.

> Without organized religion...

I hate when people say "organized religion," including that Kissin' Bandit Hitchens. It's a tipoff that someone's about to overreach. It's wordy and pompous and obfuscating and conveys the grandiosity mentioned earlier. Religions are by definition 'organized'. There's no other kind.

> Without organized religion,
> civilization as we know it
> today would crumble.

Again, again... You don't have to stress over how things would be if all the Little People learned to bask in em>your resplendent cosmology...

> I don't want to live in
> that world.

...That's not going to come to pass. Baby! Darlin'... Sugar... Don't worry about it.

> your noble mob.

I never claimed ownership of them, certainly not the Frog ones, but I trust their aggregate to know more of life than, say, you. The difference between a crowd and a mob is leadership, and it was a leader (that wormy bitch Rousseau) who twisted the meaning. Antoinette --if she said it to begin with-- was perfectly clear.

> you kind of clocked
> yourself

How? Where? (You've let go of the thing where I'm starving people, right?)

> you are personally acquainted
> with her

...never met...

> while I am just some
> anonymous yutz

The yutz part was "rub someone the wrong way and cut off someone's meal ticket and you will have to say 'it's for the good of all that you and yours go hungry'." I still have no idea what you were getting at. The American pursuit of happiness countermands belief in Godly personages, and that's indisputably good.

That starving people thing retains your interest. I'll elaborate or belabor, whichever.

Somewhere up-thread, 9/9 5:52pm in fact, you said the way the head Buddhist was chosen seemed Un-American and hence you didn't like it. I think I know what you mean by American and I like for things to be done "American" too, a lot.
But saying something is illogical or irrational is quite different from saying it is un-American. Our American system sometimes places people in unjust situations, not nearly as often as other systems but sometimes. Any system does.
You seemed to be indirectly advocating "American-ness" as an alternative to religion and other comments support that perception.

I contend that religion can take many forms and our American way of life is a religion for some people; they believe it without really understanding it.

As soon as anyone offers any opinion about what people should or shouldn't do or how people should live, that person can be asked to skip to the "Or what?" part. The acid test of a way of living is that you can justify the sacrifices people will have to make in order to live that way e.g. would you fight for x? Would you starve for x? what about dissent etc. Is there REALLY enough there for someone to believe in when the going gets tough? Nothing personal, I wasn't accusing you of wanting to starve people. It's easy to advocate something under ideal circumstances so I was putting a load on your structure, sorry about the smell.

And yes, I paraphrased your comment and you took a shot at it. It was funny.

"The American pursuit of happiness countermands belief in Godly personages, and that's indisputably good."

It says right on my money that's not true (much to the annoyance of Atheists.)

> saying something is illogical
> or irrational is quite different
> from saying it is un-American

So what? Buddhism is all of the above.

> advocating "American-ness"
> as an alternative to religion

No. But being a spirited, self-reliant, happiness-pursuing American gets in the way of many forms of servility. We're very hospitable to religious people, but we constantly ask them to think good and hard about how much of their fate is in their hands.

> they believe it without really
> understanding it.

Always with the insults for the little people. You should break that habit.

> As soon as anyone offers any
> opinion about what people should
> or shouldn't do or how people
> should live, that person can be
> asked to skip to the "Or what?"
> part.

WTF?

> It says right on my money

"Well, the world is crawling with foolishness, isn't it"? --Frank Zappa, circa 1978

>"Well, the world is crawling with foolishness, >isn't it"? --Frank Zappa, circa 1978

So Zappa's quote is edgy and poignant and if I say a bright person can be excused for not being an expert in democratic theory I am insulting the little people, nice.

>So what?
What do you mean, "So what?" Concede the point. Your beef with religion (not just Buddhism) is that it is illogical and irrational. America, the land and the idea that we love has elements of illogic, irrationality and overt declarations of religion woven right into it.
Moving right along.

>self-reliant
pffft. I think I am starting to see the chasm I was looking for.

>we constantly ask them to think good and hard...
"We" don't ask anybody to think at all about anything. If success in the marketplace leads somebody to abandon their practice of praying for food and shelter that's not an Atheist outreach program.

>WTF?
Another glimpse of the chasm.
1. I think religion has always been a fundamental component of human institutions.
2. Atheists argue that it is time to retire religion from the public realm.
3. I think the person who suggests a major change to the machinery of civilization (government) should be prepared to answer hypothetical questions about conflict resolution.

The way I posed those hypothetical challenges far up thread was vague and elided many key arguments. My shot group will be tighter next time; thanks for the target practice.

> if I say a bright person can
> be excused for not being an
> expert in democratic theory

I thought you said the opposite ("braying mob").

(Many allowances are made for Zappa, because he was the least snobby person who ever lived and also one of the most demanding of his associates. It was a wonderful combo.)

> the chasm.

Stop trying to be literary.

> Your beef with religion
> (not just Buddhism) is
> that it is illogical
> and irrational

And often un-American. Do you wanna go over this again? I think the United States leads the world in its hospitality to and remuneration of ambition. You can be religious and American, but it's very difficult to be extremely faithful and do well here.

> If success in the marketplace
> leads somebody to abandon
> their practice of praying

Whatever it takes. How much control of other people's interior lives does it take to make you happy?

> religion has always been a
> fundamental component of
> human institutions.

Well, many of the first institutions were religious.

> the person who suggests a
> major change to the machinery
> of civilization (government)

What kinda pinko commie are you?

There's more to life that government, unless you're Hillary.

>Whatever it takes. How much control of other
>people's interior lives does it take to make
>you happy?

More than none, less than too much. If I was not an aspiring ego-maniac I'd be doing something productive right now. How 'bout you?

>Stop trying to be literary.

Your sharpest barbs all have little hearts and smiley faces on them. But fair enough, terms like "braying mob" keep clogging up the pipes either due to willful ignorance or the other kind. It is a shopworn term. The stodgy suits on their way to the shareholders meeting are the model of deportment. When they oppose the chairman's power grab, they are, from the perspective of the podium, "The Braying Mob (TM)." Its a shorthand way of saying that democracy is messy. (please send me three dollars, your diploma will arrive in 4-6 wks.)

You seemed to show offense far above when you said:
>I'm the one who's been using that line on Amy
> for the past several years! She's too harsh
>and condescending about religion. I think she
>uses it as a method to (senselessly) look down
>on other people.

Let me paraphrase Amy, be a pal and point out where I stray.
1. Religion has outlived its usefulness and poisons society.
2. Good citizens have a responsibility to act for the betterment of society.
3. Measures should be taken by responsible citizens to push religion out of the public sphere for the betterment of society.
4. Man/Woman is a social animal and responds to scorn, ridicule, rejection and being ostracized.
---Therefore Amy heaps scorn etc. on what she considers inappropriate expressions of religion.

Now where does the Crid-view clash with what I claim seems to be the Amy-view? Is it in what each of you considers to be “inappropriate” expressions? Do you agree with 1-3 but hope that religion will just go away on its own? Through market forces maybe? How about just 1 and 2, you think religion is bad and somebody should do something, just somebody else? And what about number one? Let me see your empty kool-aid glass citizen.

The martin-view is simple:
1. That for better or worse, religion is the political exploitation of a basic human need.

Many other things flow from that view but, in this particular space, the main thing it does is make it seem to me like pretty bad manners to ridicule someone at a funeral (it’s just an example, settle down you Jacobin rug beetle.) I picture one of Amy’s customers writing in to say she’s had a falling out with her dear friend and mentioning for context, that it took place in church. Would Amy’s advice be “Just stop going to church, duh.”? Dr. Laura was infamous for offering relationship advice along the lines of: “Stop fornicating and get married you little whore!” and who’s heard of her lately?

I await your scathing condecenscion.

> More than none, less
> than too much.

You know what the difference between thinking and praying is? Zero. If you're going to forbid praying, what else will you forbid? I don't trust you.

> When they oppose the chairman's
> power grab

What are you talking about? How is it relevant?

> to push religion out of the public
> sphere

It doesn't sound like you're interested in letting it live in any private one, either.

> on what she considers inappropriate
> expressions of religion.

Riiiiiight. But I think you both also do so for your own aggrandizement. I hate that. I have a theory that the list of basic human needs goes like this: Food, shelter, clothing, sex, music, and looking down on others. (People often try to disguise that last one as something they don't want to do, but are compelled to do by circumstances. And the number of people who don't at least try to condescend is about the same as the number of people who have no use for music, though they don't correlate.)

As long as people think you're getting an emotional charge out of calling them stupid, they're not going to admire your example as a rational thinker. And believe me, they can read this in your eyes like a newspaper headline... Neither of you is clever enough to hide your smirks, and you're not even trying. (The Democrats lose elections this way, too... By telling the people that they were just too stupid to understand when Bush was "Lying!" to them.)

By all means, if you can convince people to give up religion, have at it. But I don't think you're even trying. It's too much fun to call people names. People will continue to believe in God, and we'll have to work with them for whatever rationality they offer. You don't get to write them off just because you think they're beneath you. (And for the record, they're not beneath you... Even if you're who you say you are, and they're who you say they are.) The best faiths teach useful principles of humility.

> scathing condecenscion.

So stop saying weird things!

>> When they oppose the chairman's power grab
>>"What are you talking about? How is it >>relevant?"

I'm talking about the fact that political interaction is a part of life whenever two or more people interact. Since we are talking more or less about religion, I think people take an interest in the religious expressions of others because it has an impact beyond the house of worship.
When people say they want freedom OF religion, they mean they want their particular religion to have an influence in the way everyone lives (political sphere.) When someone says they want freedom FROM religion, what they really mean is (pause for effect) the same #$%@* thing. They want everyone to live by their rules.

>> to push religion out of the public
>> sphere
>"It doesn't sound like you're interested in >letting it live in any private one, either."

Just so we are clear here, that was my perception of Amy's view.

>the list of basic human needs goes like this:
>Food, shelter, clothing, sex, music, and
>looking down on others.

That is fairly well presented but consider this: You say "PEOPLE often try to disguise that last one." People often say "people" when they mean everyone who isn't smart enough to be ME. From a purely logical point of view, you have hung yourself out to dry. Can you state that last one in such a way that doesn't sound like an indictment? How about: Once I get my food, shelter, sex and music arranged, I have a nasty tendency to stick my nose into other people's business. If you can't say it with the "I" in it, you are (pause for effect) looking down on other #$%* people.

>As long as people think you're getting an
>emotional charge out of calling them stupid,
>they're not going to admire your example as a
>rational thinker.

As much as I agree with you at a purely emotional level, I have to disagree with you both in the theory I have learned and the experience I have lived. Firstly, drop the "you" throughout; I don't seek or expect admiration, especially at a political level. People follow leaders, -I- follow leaders because I think they are better than me (in some sense.) A leader is doing a job I don't want or don’t think I can do so I follow the leader and do what they ask. A good leader shows humility, magnanimity, yes but what is more arrogant and condescending than expressions of humility? It says: "YOU needn't act this way, no one worries about YOU being too proud."
A leader has to be many things but first of all, they must be a person who can write their own name on the ballot and drop it in the box (assuming democracy, otherwise they have to be ready to kill someone), the ultimate act of condescension. I hate to sound so cynical but would you really trust a leader who seemed to lack self-confidence? Just curious.
>
"People will continue to believe in God, and we'll have to work with them for whatever rationality they offer. You don't get to write them off just because you think they're beneath you. (And for the record, they're not beneath you... Even if you're who you say you are, and they're who you say they are.) The best faiths teach useful principles of humility."
>

Crid, I said far above something about us being close to agreement and you snarled with contempt. The places where you and I differ in your passage above are worth 32 keystrokes. I'm sorry you don't like church.

>And I personally think one of the best measures
>of human maturity is the power to recognize and
>bear in mind all the bad news of life without
>using it as an excuse to be an asshole.

Fantastic, I'm putting it on the fridge. If you wrote it I salute and if you found it please provide a link.

The quote from Bierce belongs over every classroom door.

>By all means, if you can convince people to
>give up religion, have at it. But I don't think
>you're even trying.

If I've given you the idea that this is my aim then excuse me while I go sit and cry.

Crid, forgive me but I am picturing a guy with a nice place to live, a nice car, a nice stereo with a great music collection and nice friends and family to share it all with. To provide for your own needs and then say "Live and let live" is not nearly so noble as you imply. It is a palatable way of saying, "Screw you, I've got mine."

If you've found a comfortable way of life for yourself, you are not done. I think we owe it to society to offer leadership. Not dictatorial leadership, just a willingness to do what we can to support the program that got us here. The comforts of our existence come mostly from the work of others. A tiny sliver comes from what we have done and the rest comes from blind luck. The you and the I are interchangeable throughout BTW. I don’t mean to preach but to say where I am coming from.

>Stop saying weird things!

Never!

[i]italic[/i] trying to get HTML tags to work so my formatting is not such a mess.

> that political interaction
> is a part of life whenever
> two or more people interact.

That's very deconstructionist of you!

> they mean they want their
> particular religion to have
> an influence

That's not what I mean. I'm a godless libertarian.

> Can you state that last
> one in such a way that
> doesn't sound like an
> indictment?

We can indict anybody we want, it's a blog.

> As much as

Too much... A long, colorless paragraph! I'm saying you won't convince people to give up God if you greet them with an insult. OK?

> and then say "Live and
> let live"

Who said that? I said "Don't fuck with people."

> I think we owe it to society
> to offer leadership.

Yeahyeah, noblesse oblige.

Are we about done here? I think human genius is spread broadly, including to people you don't entirely approve of, and we're going to need every drop of it to get out of this. We shouldn't make enemies gratuitously, and we shouldn't nourish the natural fantasy in our own lonely hearts that we/I ares/be the Chosen One who will lead the globe to a bold new day of insight and fulfillment.

Thank you for your attention to these matters.

"Are we about done here?"
Almost, thanks for your attention as well.

>We can indict anybody we want, it's a blog.

Way to wriggle out of my shrewd logic. I will take that as an admission that you personally need to look down on others once your other needs are met, as we all do.

You are too noble by half and quite possibly insane. You might want to have that checked out although it has never bothered me, typing these essays with an unsharpened pencil clenched in my teeth as the orderly adjusts my restraints.

Please recommend a resource where I can learn how to use HTML tags to format my text in these posts. Your formatting seems to work fine.

Thank you for an engaging exchange, your total comes to $1,000.26,
martin

You're a clever little cuss!