Hi All, Rigel speaks!
Platt > [Arlo] > I've been dealing with Ham's (and Platt's) bigotry for years. So > perhaps I had a context to Ham's post you have not yet "discerned". > :-) The MOQ is used here to justify a supremicist ideology that > (conveniently) always ends up with these two on the glorious zenith. > Yes, some things are better than others. Yes, we should judge those > who hold freedom of speech as being morally superior to those who do > not. But I add, in this regard. What the MOQ allows us to do (intends > for us to do), is to be able to cast aside static social patterns and > discriminate among intellectual ideas. What these two do is use this > as justification for saying one group is absolutely morally superior > to another... period. > > Ask them, since they demand discrimination, in what ways are ANY > other cultures superior to America's? If "black culture" is inferior > in some regards, as they claim, then ask "okay, now in what ways is > it superior?" What are the "racial differences" Ham alludes to? Are > there any that cast whites worse of than blacks? You will see that > the proclamations of superiority are blanket proclamations. So the > issue is not "X is better than Y", but "people A are morally superior > to people B because X is better than Y". Conveniently, as I said, Ham > and Platt always end up being part of "people A". We are to also > judge nations, we are told, so I ask, if America is better than other > nations in some regards, in what ways it worse? And who is better in > those regards? See what kind of answers you get to these questions. > Its not about "discrimination", its about creating a hierarchy that > at once and always has YOU on top, in all regards, in all manners, > and with absolute certainty. > > Make no mistake, in his ongoing condemnation of "multiculturalism", > Ham traces this "great evil" back to desegregation. In your opinion, > should we resegregate the schools? Should those inferior blacks have > their own schools so they don't bother our morally superior white > kids? (BTW, when I first joined MD many years ago, a topic of debate > was The Bell Curve, where Platt was firmly arguing that this > constituted scientific evidence that blacks are biologically less > intelligent than (inferior to) whites.) Is it no wonder, also, how a > short time ago Ham lamented that the influx of "Hispanic values" > would "may not be "the end of liberty and the enslavement of > mankind", but is will surely "lead to > the destruction of America" as we know it." Hispanic values, it > seems, are threatening "the values that are indigenous to American > culture". (I asked Ham to outline these "indigenous American values" > but he never has. I was curious, because I have many Hispanic > friends, and I wanted to know which of their values presents a threat to > me). > > The isolationism Ham speaks of retreats to an era of xenophobia and > fear, which is small wonder considering this is platform rhetoric for > them. Be afraid of Muslims. Be afraid of Russians. Be afraid of Iran. > Be afraid of commies and Marxists and darkies and Mexicans. Go into > your house, lock the windows and shiver and shake about the great > mongrel horse that is waiting to come charging over the hill. Yes, > freedom of the press in the West is morally superior to the > state-censored press of Iran. But that does not make Americans > superior people. What such thinking does is dehumanize the world into > inferior "others" who don't matter as much as us (except to keep us > afraid). I know several Iranians. They are good people, who, when you > strip away the extraneous wrappings of culture (clothing, food, > habit, etc.) are the same as we are. > > And this is what multiculturalism is all about. It is about > tolerating the meaningless differences between peoples. Who wears a > NASCAR hat and who wears a Hijab. Its primary foundation is that > stripped of the veneer and paint of our local cultural historical > traditions, as well as the particular genetic traits we are born with > (eye, skin, hair colors, height, weight, girth, etc.), we are all > people. We all bleed. We all love. And although we have different > customs and different gods/beliefs, and different customs about > eating, sleeping, relaxing and living, our fears about "the other" > are chains by which we bind ourselves. Sure, there have been misteps, > unexpected pitfalls and supremicist/fear reawakenings along the way, > but this the direction we should go. > > Also make no mistake. Tolerance must cut in all directions. We should > NOT be tolerant of an ideology that seeks to curtail our freedoms of > speech. But we must also be intolerant of only those things, and not > move in outward spirals to consider whole groups morally inferior. > For example, a law FORCING women to wear hijabs is immoral. But so is > OUTLAWING it for those who choose to wear one (something Platt once > claimed was a victory for intellectual patterns, to forcibly outlaw > this clothing). If others choose to wear hijabs, that is no different > than those who choose to wear NASCAR hats, they are people. They > love. They cry. They feel. They bleed. They should not be excluded > from schools because they choose to wear this, nor should they be > treated with any less respect than ANY human being should have. > > To sum. We can certainly discriminate moral and immoral in our world. > We must not translate that into a superior race or people. I am > always weary of those who do, and conveniently end up in the > "superior" column each and every time. > > Anyways, this went on a little long. Blame the coffee. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
