It's an issue you never address or even hint at voluntarily. It's like pulling teeth with you to even get a whiff that maybe whitey isn't the worst thing evah. That's why you're a racist, not a sociologist.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:In other words, when African tribal blacks sold fellow blacks into slavery, they were simply being true to their culture. No hypocrisy, so it's okay. When European whites did the same thing, it was evil.
It's not okay; it's just a different issue.
How is it a different issue? Human beings enslaved human beings. That's wrong. What does their color have to do with anything?
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
quote:Wouldn't it be much easier -- and more truthful -- just to say "Western philosophy was largely hypocritical, especially in its application of 'personhood' to others?"
Western political philosophy is fundamentally hypocritical.
Saying that it's fundamentally hypocritical means that hypocrisy is so much a part of its basic makeup that it would not -- could not -- exist without it.
That seems like a strange claim to make of western philosophy. Particularly if it's being made of western philosophy relative to other philosophies.
The only way in which one could reasonably claim western philosophy to be fundamentally hypocritical is by starting with the premise that western philosophy expects more from us than any other philosophy. And since people aren't always perfect and cannot always live up to the lofty values of western philosophy, its adherents will always fall short. In the aggregate, if not in each individual case.
Do you view this as something negative? Do you prefer a philosophy that says "People suck, so of course people will do crappy things like enslave others"? Do you prefer a philosophy that simply says "Might makes right"? Because while such a philosophy may not result in hypocrisy, it will also result in a much nastier society.
Do we always succeed in living up to our own expectations of ourselves? Maybe not. But at least we set the bar high. When you condemn us for that, you're really condemning yourself for being unable to cast your view that high.
Neal Stephenson says it better than I possibly could in his book The Diamond Age:
quote:"You know, when I was a young man, hypocrisy was deemed the worst of vice," Finkle-McGraw said. "It was all because of moral relativism. You see, in that sort of a climate, you are not allowed to criticize others - after all, if there is no right and wrong, then what grounds is there for criticism? [....] Now this led to a good deal of general frustration, for people are naturally censorious and love nothing better than to criticize [...] And so it was that they seized on hypocrisy and elevated it from a ubiquitous peccadillo into the monarch of all vices. For, you see, even if there is no right and wrong, you can find grounds to criticize another person by contrasting what he has espoused with what he has actually done."
You might want to think about that, Irami.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Western political philosophy is fundamentally hypocritical. The hypocrisy is bone deep, so far that's it's largely taken for granted as common sense. Racial Contract Theory draws attention to this hypocrisy as the norm rather than a deviation from the norm. And once this morally unattractive hypocrisy is revealed, the result will be a new, more compelling series of public questions. The influx of women philosophers in the last 40 years has already done great work in this regard.
Is the philosophy itself hypocritical, or do Westerners just want to avoid its implications, e.g., by making themselves see large numbers of humans as biologically less developed than they are? I still can't see what's racist about, say, social contract theory provided that you have the correct definition of what a person is.
Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is the philosophy itself hypocritical, or do Westerners just want to avoid its implications, e.g., by making themselves see large numbers of humans as biologically less developed than they are? I still can't see what's racist about, say, social contract theory provided that you have the correct definition of what a person is.
The political philosophy is hypocritical if the political facts on which the theory depends are untenable. For example, if it is the case that it is impossible to build a society to function with both Universal freedom, and without outsourcing labor to degraded "others," whether those others are children halfway across the world, illegal immigrant labor, or even a put upon wife at home, then a political philosophy that presupposes that all people are emancipated from degraded labor, in other words: free, is untenable. The issue moves from a matter of freedom to a matter of how to we divvy up the slavery fairly.
Democratic freedom is a really tricky idea. The idea was birthed in one of those rare times in history where, en masse, the biological necessities of life were taken care of by "others." The idea is so attractive that it's hard to admit that it may not be tenable without the "others." The reality of this issue didn't reveal itself fully to our public institutions until after the civil rights and women's liberation movements came into full swing. Now, whole institutions are crumbing. It's funny. The most amusing aspect of this debate, in my opinion, is amateur athletics, wherein college and Olympic athletes are supposed to both the best, and incidentally and magically, not ever have to worry about paying for lunch.
posted
You have a serious issue (not that that is a suprise) if you equate all physical labor with slavery.
There are now, and always will be, those who have and those who have not, at least to some degree.
The difference between that and slavery is that there are choices....choices which allow you to sink or swim based on factors other than race.
But I doubt you will ever be able to let go of your hatered of white society, and of white, long enough to see that.
If you did you would have to see that people have to take responsibility for their own actions most of the time, and that no one else is responsible for the situations you find yourself in.
Keep blaming the system, Irami....it's all the excuse you will ever need to justify your failures, personally and racially.
Hopefully the rest of us will continue to work around you, living our lives as best we can.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:if it is the case that it is impossible to build a society to function with both Universal freedom, and without outsourcing labor to degraded "others," whether those others are children halfway across the world, illegal immigrant labor, or even a put upon wife at home, then a political philosophy that presupposes that all people are emancipated from degraded labor, in other words: free, is untenable.
Is this your claim, Irami?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: The political philosophy is hypocritical if the political facts on which the theory depends are untenable. For example, if it is the case that it is impossible to build a society to function with both Universal freedom, and without outsourcing labor to degraded "others," whether those others are children halfway across the world, illegal immigrant labor, or even a put upon wife at home, then a political philosophy that presupposes that all people are emancipated from degraded labor, in other words: free, is untenable.
But that's ridiculous. You're assuming that the reason labor is outsourced is that the people it's being outsourced to are "degraded". I assure you that if they charged the same amount for their labor that people in the US do, there'd be no outsourcing to other countries.
There's nothing racist or degrading in the fact that the same thing can be worth different amounts in different places. An ice cube isn't worth as much in Alaska as it is in Egypt. Not because Alaskans are better than Egyptians or Egyptians are better than Alaskans, but because it's cold in Alaska and hot in Egypt.
If I live somewhere where the average salary is half of that in the US, I might choose to work for half of what a similarly skilled person in the US might choose to work for. In such a situation, a US employer might prefer to employ me. Not because of race or degradation on anyone's part, but because intelligent and sane people, when faced with paying $1 or $2 for the same thing, will generally pay $1.
Now, if you're coming from some sort of whacked out socialist perspective where it's somehow immoral to pay less for something or to make a profit, then fine. But that also has nothing to do with race.
Furthermore, the idea that freedom from having to work is what "freedom" means is terrifying. Freedom means that you aren't forced. Period. If I can't bench press 200 lbs (I assume that's a lot), that doesn't mean that I'm less free than someone who can. If I'm able to find a job that allows me to sit at my desk in my home and type on a computer all day, that doesn't make me more free than someone who pushes a mop. That's not what freedom means. Force me to program all day, and I'm less free than a person who cleans floors all day willingly.
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: The issue moves from a matter of freedom to a matter of how to we divvy up the slavery fairly.
So slavery is when you don't like your choices, right? If you like your choices, or at least some of them, you're free. If you don't, you're a slave. And you want to be respected for that sort of view?
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: The political philosophy is hypocritical if the political facts on which the theory depends are untenable. For example, if it is the case that it is impossible to build a society to function with both Universal freedom, and without outsourcing labor to degraded "others," whether those others are children halfway across the world, illegal immigrant labor, or even a put upon wife at home, then a political philosophy that presupposes that all people are emancipated from degraded labor, in other words: free, is untenable.
But that's ridiculous. You're assuming that the reason labor is outsourced is that the people it's being outsourced to are "degraded". I assure you that if they charged the same amount for their labor that people in the US do, there'd be no outsourcing to other countries.
There's nothing racist or degrading in the fact that the same thing can be worth different amounts in different places. An ice cube isn't worth as much in Alaska as it is in Egypt. Not because Alaskans are better than Egyptians or Egyptians are better than Alaskans, but because it's cold in Alaska and hot in Egypt.
If I live somewhere where the average salary is half of that in the US, I might choose to work for half of what a similarly skilled person in the US might choose to work for. In such a situation, a US employer might prefer to employ me. Not because of race or degradation on anyone's part, but because intelligent and sane people, when faced with paying $1 or $2 for the same thing, will generally pay $1.
Now, if you're coming from some sort of whacked out socialist perspective where it's somehow immoral to pay less for something or to make a profit, then fine. But that also has nothing to do with race.
Furthermore, the idea that freedom from having to work is what "freedom" means is terrifying. Freedom means that you aren't forced. Period. If I can't bench press 200 lbs (I assume that's a lot), that doesn't mean that I'm less free than someone who can. If I'm able to find a job that allows me to sit at my desk in my home and type on a computer all day, that doesn't make me more free than someone who pushes a mop. That's not what freedom means. Force me to program all day, and I'm less free than a person who cleans floors all day willingly.
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: The issue moves from a matter of freedom to a matter of how to we divvy up the slavery fairly.
So slavery is when you don't like your choices, right? If you like your choices, or at least some of them, you're free. If you don't, you're a slave. And you want to be respected for that sort of view?
posted
I'm just trying to figure out what definition of "freedom" includes "emancipation from 'degraded labor.'"
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The part where 'degraded labor' equals 'slavery'. Once you make that idiotic leap, white people are awful enslavers until the whole freaking planet is up to the so-called 'First World's' standard of living.
It lets Irami nestle comfortably in his racism for the forseeable future.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: The reality of this issue didn't reveal itself fully to our public institutions until after the civil rights and women's liberation movements came into full swing. Now, whole institutions are crumbing.
Just to clarify, which institutions?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
