Subject: Re: On interracial relationships, or anything
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 12:40:11 GMT
Wayne Johnson (ciacon@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: Thomas) wrote:
: >I am saying that the asili is real, corresponds to core, unexamined
: >values, and animates behavior, in particular the way in which a society
: >organizes itself. The African asili yields the right to land
: >as a fundamental article of the traditional African constitution;
: >the European asili yields the right of might as an organizing
: >principle, and has given us in turn feudalism, imperialism, slavery,
: >neo-colonialism, as well as capitalism and wage-slavery, and
: >male domination and sexism.
: I can't believe you can actually sign on to such an inaccurate and
: simplistic assumption as this.
As what? The existence of a grand unifying principle does
not argue against the existence of surface differences.
As broad-brush is the unifying concept of asili, it is not
confuted by the citing of differences, no matter how
numerous, if these differences do not go to the core
issue illuminated by the unifying concept. That is not
simplistic, that is using the right-brain faculties (which
see the whole) in addition to the left-brain faculties
(which focus on the parts). I address this point because
many people trapped in left-brained thinking point to
the large number of tribes and countries in Africa, and
choose to see only the differences among them. The work
of Chancellor Williams (The Destruction of Black Civilization)
Cheikh Anta Diop (African Origin; Civilization or Barbarism;
Pre-Colonial Black Africa) make it clear at least to this
reader that there are shared values across the length
and breadth of Africa, stretching back into the mists
of time, that permit the notion of cultural unity, and
the further notion of a shared "African Constitution".
Marimba Ani (Yurugu) has built upon this realization
to speak in terms of an asili. The concept is simple,
but not for that reason simplistic, or lacking in validity.
: Several people have already pointed out that a facet of many African
: subcultures is the adoption of the clitoridectomy procedure, a brutal
: and foolish attempt to subjugate women.
Speaking as one who is circumcised, and who had his son
circumcised, and from within a society where the piercing
of private body parts, male and female, is embraced
apparently as fashion, it is hard for me to accept
as self-evident, a priori, the proposition that
clitoridectomy is an "attempt to subjugate women".
If you want to decide whther women are subjugated,
you need to look at the totality of their role and
function in society.
: as sexual objects in East Africa, which has terrified women unable to
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: cajole their partners into wearing condoms, has contributed to the
: incredibly high rate of AIDS there.
You parrot these things you read in the Western press as
though they are established fact.
: Yet these practices aren't any rule in all of Africa; but the places
: where they occur must, by your rules, be part of the "Africa asili" (a
: concept I find totally absurd on it's face, unfortunately).
Well, by your own assumption, if they are not the rule
in all of Africa, then by definition they are not
part of the African asili.
: Your concept of racial characteristics defining a culture's behavior
^^^^^^^^
Where have I said this? You may quote me.
: doesn't take into account most of the subcultures of Europe, which
: until late in the 13th century, was dominated for the most part by
: non-Whites from the Middle East. Spain itself, which contributed in
: no small part to the colonization of the Americas, was ruled by
: Africans - who no doubt, would not have understood that colonization
: was something Africans are unable to do, by your asili rules - and
: there were many cultures which didn't do any colonization at all,
: including those from the British Isles, who were on the RECEIVING end
: of invasions from France, the Nordish kingdoms, and prior to both, the
: Romans.
: You brush away all references to historical reality, to attempt to
: validate these fantastic assumptions.
You conveniently leave out the relevant fact that the Moorish
invaders of Spain were in the grip of an Islami asili. Also,
within the European asili, the fact that some were on the
receiving end of invasion/subjugation does not constitute
a data point that does not fit; rather the opposite. I
have specifically cited feudalism (European-on-European
oppression) as an example of the European asili in
action.
: > In that observation, it is not necessary
: >for me to assert the uniqueness of the European asili, but I won't
: >argue with one who asserts it. As to the moral debility which
: >it contains, I also do not assert a genetic origin, but neither
: >do I shrink from it as a possible hypothesis.
: "Possible hypothesis"? Does anyone with a shred of credibility truly
: attempt to describe Europeans as a "race"?
Well, they share certain genes, don't they? If that is the
case, then, again, I cannot rule out, a priori, a
genetic determinant to a shared cultural characteristic.
: Further, is anyone trying
: to pass off the notion that being born into this "race" adopts, by
^^^^^^^^
: ancestry, some set of motivating forces that includes colonization, or
: automatic racism?
I say merely, and repeat, that a shared cultural characteristic
that moreover is correlated with shared genetic inheritance
leaves open the possibility, even the plausibility of
a genetic hypothesis as determinant of the shared cultural
characteristic. I am trying to "pass off" nothing.
: This is getting more odd by the minute. Is your post a satire, or
: what?
No, but your emotional sallies fit the other hypothesis
that we as a people are a victim of cultural AIDS, as
well as of AIDss in certain individual cases.
: >Suppose there are two twins. One came with an evil gene, the
: >other with a goodness gene. On the maintained supposition, I
: >would expect that the evil twin is more likely to try to beat
: >up on the good one than the reverse. If in addition the
: >good one "turns the other cheek" a lot, I imagine the good
: >one could in some sense be deemed to be "susceptible to
: >oppression". Within the asili of the evil twin, the good
: >twin might even be deemed to be "suffering from" the genetic
: >trait that goes along with the goodness gene. Goodness might
: >even be deemed unfit for survival...
: Look, this might work for some metaphysical text, or maybe a horror
: movie (there was something about two twin doctors, one good one bad I
: forget) but are you going to pin this "gene" on several billion
: people?
I notice you snipped the context which precipitated this
bit of satire. It was you who was suggesting as how
non-whites could be deemed to be "suffering from" a
gene that predisposed them to oppression. To your
attempted satire, I responded in kind. Now you want
to take my satirical rope and hang me with it.
: If you are, I'd like to see how you could prove who had it, and who
: didn't. Or even explain how it's possible; I don't need proof, this
: is just a friendly chat. But try to make it plausible, OK? Start
: with telling us why the Irish don't have any foreign colonies - or the
: Basques - or the Swedes, they're all blondes - or the Scots - or the
: Hungarians (woops, they were under the thumb of non-Europeans until
: about three hundred years ago - forget it) or the Poles - or any of
: those guys.
Which one of these was exempt from feudal white-on-white
oppression?
: Heck, even the Germans never got off of Europe untill about a century
: and a half ago. And they didn't get far, either.
The asili certainly did not restrain them.
: Most of the depradations you talk about were either from the British,
: the Spanish, the Portuguese, or the Romans. All but the British are
: damn near not Europeans!
^^^^^^^^^
You defeat yourself.
: Further, the biggest slave traders EVER were the Arabs! Neither
: European OR Christians!
The Arab asili is another discussion.
: I can't figure out why you expect anyone to buy into this, I really
: can't.
Well, you are welcome to argue cogently against it. Emotional
expostulations and failed attempts at satire do not an
argument make.
: >I guess you still don't understand the concept of asili.
: >I suggest you get a copy of Marimba Ani's book and read it.
: If it's more of this kind of talk, no reasonable person would bother.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Correction. No AIDss-infected person would bother.
: Finally, David Waters asked:
: >: The cause(s) of oppression are social, not genetic, just as are the roots
: > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: >Why are you sure that social behavior cannot have a genetic
: >component? I am not arguing *for* a genetic determinant of
: >asili, just that it is not a priori implausible, let alone
: >impossible.
: It is a priori impossible, as you can't, a priori or otherwise, even
: describe what the genetic component is.
I am always amused by impossibility arguments.
: Wayne "This really is asili conversation" Johnson
: ciacon@ix.netcom.com
I'm sure the AIDss-infected have better things to do.
Btw, I see you are silent on the core issue that
precipitated the exchange between us, namely the
question of racial classification.
I said:
"Race as concept is to me morally neutral, no different from height or
weight, as attributes that people may possess."
Your response: nothing.
I said:
"Racism is, however, not morally neutral. But that's a logically
separate issue. Nothing you have said so far refutes that simple
and basic contention."
Your response: nothing.
I said:
"The mimicing scheme would be validated not by Science, but
as is usual in these matters, by its correspodence to the
reality it would purport to model or describe."
Your response: nothing.
Contents | Previous | Next