posted
The thing is, though, is that these things are not celebrated because they are an accomplishment, they're celebrated to foster a sense of community. I am from the East Coast and I go to school well over 1000 Km from my home. In many ways, Ontario is a totally different beast than Nova Scotia is. When I meet someone from the Maritimes there is always a little excitement, we reminisce, we trade stories. When surrounded by a strange environment it's nice to have something that reminds of home and that you're not alone. As far as university clubs go it works the same way for Asian clubs or what-have-you.
I have a feeling that wasn't very clear. Let me know if it wasn't I'll take another stab at it.
As far as Western values being superiour is concerned, of course this is how he feels, being a westerner. If he didn't think it was superior, he wouldn't subscribe to these thoughts. By the same token, I think that being Canadian is better than being American and that being vegan is better than eating meat. If I didn't think that this was the best way of life, I would be living in America and chewing on a steak right now. The difference, though, is that I don't think that this gives me the right to inflict my views on anybody else.
Anyway, I wish I had time to carry on / read over and edit this message but I have to take off the lab. If this thread is still on the front page when I get home and people are still interested I'll write more.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Diversity worship and multiculturalism are currency and cause for celebration at just about any college. If one is black, brown, yellow or white, the prevailing thought is that he should take pride and celebrate that fact even though, just as in the case of my eye color, he had nothing to do with it. The multiculturist and diversity crowd see race as an achievement. In my book race might be an achievement, worthy of considerable celebration, only if a person was born white and though his effort and diligence became black.
Race is obviously not an accomplishment. It is, however, something that contributes to identity, and there's no reason not to celebrate identity.
quote:For the multiculturist/diversity crowd, culture, ideas, customs, arts and skills are a matter of racial membership where one has no more control over his culture than his race. That's a racist idea but it's politically correct racism. It says that one's convictions, character and values are not determined by personal judgement and choices but genetically determined. In other words, as yesteryear's racists held: race determines identity.
Again, I disagree vehemently with anyone who claims that there is no correlation between race and culture. One's convictions, character and values are probably not influenced heavily by genetic factors (the nature vs. nurture argument in human development is still far from resolved, though) but they are very highly dependent on one's experiences and what they are taught by their family and friends. Since it's reasonable to say that one's parents contribute to his race, and it's reasonable to say that one's parents contribute to his values, convictions and character, it's reasonable to say that there is a correlation between race and values, convictions and character. Not necessarily a causal relationship, but a correlation nonetheless. It's true that you have a certain amount of control over your culture, but if you realize the amount of influence that your parents' culture has on you, especially in early childhood, you must realize that there's much less choice than this man seems to believe.
Regarding the relative worth of different value systems, it's impossible to talk about these things in universal terms, precisely because people who participate in other value systems will disagree. You can talk about value with respect to a system, and you can talk about objective causes and effects, but you cannot talk about right and wrong in an absolute sense.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: they are very highly dependent on one's experiences and what they are taught by their family and friends. Since it's reasonable to say that one's parents contribute to his race, and it's reasonable to say that one's parents contribute to his values, convictions and character, it's reasonable to say that there is a correlation between race and values, convictions and character.
However, you still require the belief that one's parents' values and character represent their own race. This is the issue at hand. If one's parents are black, you require that they act "black" and have "black character." This is the flaw, assigning everyone of a certain race with certain characteristics. So even though one's values and character may be stongly influenced by one's parents, this does not imply that the race of their parents is part of that. Otherwise you must equate values and character with a certain race.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Robespierre, do you actually believe that there is no correlation between race and culture?
I've noticed that your arguments are very individualist. Are you completely unwilling to lend any credence to the fact that even individuals, when you get enough of them together, tend to form patterns? To ignore data on aggregates is to ignore a large part of science, social or natural.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sadly, I think the essayist has just missed the point.
Saxon said it well that race is part of identity, the identity by which we define ourselves. If I celebrate my Welsh or Cherokee or Dutch ancestry, it is because of who I am, who my forefathers were. It is history of the most important kind, personal history. It is a birthright and it is what we have when we are thrust out onto this planet and into this world.
To think otherwise is to say we're all the same people, just in different wrappers. Nope, we're all the same basic type of person, but our histories and actions make us unique as well as our accomplishments and failings. Our heritage is the line behind us, the stories of those who have gone before. It is hopefully something to be proud of and it is a starting point. You can say, here is where I have come from and here is where I am now.
That is pride in culture and the best part of multiculturalism and diversity. In this nation, more than just about any other, it is the story of our heritage that shows how many cultures have blended into our bloodlines.
Truly though, some folks have a problem separating pride from prejudice.
posted
"Leto's post to which you responded was delivered in an eminently calm and reasonable tone. So you had no reason to jump on him. But even if he had been totally inflammatory, two wrongs don't make a right." -Saxon75
So you want an apology? Ok, I'll grant that. Though to admit it is to say I acted like a little kid, I'll admit that I did.
"I am not quite sure what you were getting at with your posts, but your tone is certainly no good. Perhaps now that you've had some time to sleep it off, you can clarify?" -Robespierre
That could have something to do with the fact that I was not getting at anything,(arguing negatively- albeit logically) save possibly this, which I think I showed pretty well: If you write a post as long as Leto's, you will not have to spend much time(no more than about two hours) doing so if you don't make much of an attempt to be clear, single pointed, and logical. Whereas to sort out your post and respond logically and intelligently takes a great deal longer (Which I proved definitively, taking 2+ hours refuting 1/2 Leto's post and some would definitely argue that I wasn't even being entirely logical considering Ad Hominum attacks). Therefore, to write a post such as that is to lay three choices before whoever you are discussing things with who does not hold your same views: 1. Respond to your entire post, point by point, and spend probably more time than is healthy in front of a computer screen. 2. Respond viciously and illogically to little bits and pieces of your posts or 3. Let you run over them, not respond to all your points, but only to a few of them logically, thus letting the others go unchallenged- and unargued, leaving you feeling smug in your correctness or incorrectness, and the discussion illogical, because one of the participants is talking to the wind.
Hey, if somebody's got another option, I'm willing to listen, but this is how I really see it. I mean, unless you really think you're God, and totally right, you should really give other people the chance to discuss your argument, otherwise, communication is pretty useless.
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see why you can't take on a single point at a time if you want to, without responding to the post en toto.
-o-
I will respond to the article you posted later, Robespierre, because I don't have a lot of time. For now, let me say it was not very persuasive of anything. It was self-contradictory, grotesquely ethno-centric, and rambling. It read like a stereotype ethno-conservative rant.
Of course, I need to justify those statements to be taken seriously . . . . when I have time I'll get to it.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I don't see why you can't take on a single point at a time if you want to, without responding to the post en toto."
You can. And it's no problem if you happen to agree with the other stuff that's been said. But if you disagree somehow with the other persons premises, then it's no longer a logical argument. And I making myself clear enough?
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"let me say it was not very persuasive of anything."
Disagree.
"It was self-contradictory,"
Don't really see what you mean- please do explain.
"grotesquely ethno-centric"
Strongly disagree and I doubt you can show me that it was. IMO, for you to say that is to help validate many of his points, including a couple that may not be valid. You would be fair and right in saying that he is 'morality-centric', possibly even 'culture-centric'(excuse the horrible grammar), but that's stretching it, because he's apparently only 'culture-centric' to the extent that he's 'morality-centric'
, "and rambling."
Nah, not really, he's fairly direct and consistent.
"It read like a stereotype ethno-conservative..."
I do not know what you mean by ethno-conservative, but I will hazard a guess that it is something illogical.
"... rant."
Not all of it, but the last paragraph or so definitely was...
Of course, I need to justify those statements to be taken seriously . . . . when I have time I'll get to it.
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
In my opinion, destructive debating tactics are useful only insofar as they stimulate or support constructive argument. That is, tearing down someone else's argument for no other reason than to tear it down is both mean-spirited and pointless. It's fine to disagree, and it's fine to point out flaws, but it should be done in order to make a point about the topic at hand.
Additionally, I don't understand what it is about long posts containing multiple opinions that you find so offensive. Surely, in a thread centered around discussion, it is both permissible and desirable to give all of your opinions on the subject.
Furthermore, I disagree that it takes more time to debunk an illogical argument than it does to construct one. Debunking an argument that rests on neither fact nor logic should be trivial.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Additionally, I don't understand what it is about long posts containing multiple opinions that you find so offensive. Surely, in a thread centered around discussion, it is both permissible and desirable to give all of your opinions on the subject."
In an ordered, logical fashion yes. Multiple points should be seperated, not bunched together and mixed around everywhich way. But I'm no forum 'cop', so write how you want, just that better writing is more rewarding to read and to respond to. I was only giving a explanation of my actions.
"Furthermore, I disagree that it takes more time to debunk an illogical argument than it does to construct one. Debunking an argument that rests on neither fact nor logic should be trivial. "
Trivial, possibly, easy, yes. But to do a decent job, quick, no.
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
