Mickey Z
Cool Observer
Monday, January 24, 2005
Does the "baggage of bigotry" get x-rayed at airports?
“To make it simpler, ponder the actuality that if all Europeans disappeared overnight, the genetic composition of our species would hardly change…but the planet might smell a helluva lot better.”
That’s intelligent.
Curious that science is so heavily relied on. The sciences helped support racist thinking and policy for so long, and in many quarters, it still does.
Posted by Mike on from dublin 01/24 at 08:53 AMBaggage indeed!
And it was Trent Lott that was in charge of the Inaugural and who introduced him!
Stunning aint it?
http://inaugural.senate.gov/committee/chairmansmessage.htm
Posted by allotherplaces on from 01/24 at 01:55 PMEven more stunning is how we Americans just nod and grin like trained seals.
Thanks for the comments…
Posted by Mickey Z. on from 01/24 at 02:13 PMNot that seals are known for nodding and grinning...but I think you get my drift.
Posted by Mickey Z. on from 01/24 at 02:18 PMScience is a method of inquiry, as easy to abuse or use correctly as martial arts. The kept intellectuals of think tanks cynically distort scientific findings to support their paymasters’ programs. They produce pseudoscience for popular consumption. “The Bell Curve” is a good example of latter day eugenics nonsense.
I wonder if you were talking about actual body odor, Mickey. As a non-smoker and vegan, you’re going to be a lot, a real lot, more sensitive to them than most people. If you ate the same diet (not recommending a change of diet, by the way) as most of the people around where you live, the odors would be less distressing.
Posted by Harry on from 01/24 at 03:35 PMYou’re right, I am more sensitive to odors than most people but I was just being facetious vis-a-vis the damage Westerners have done and continue to do to the planet.
Posted by Mickey Z. on from 01/24 at 03:52 PMI substitute “ethnic chauvinism” for “racism” whenever I hear the word. The phrase seems to me a better description of the miasmic fear & suspicion between groups at odds than sheer physical difference. Also, ethnic/cultural/societal conflicts are far more common and longer lived (e.g. N. Ireland, Palestine, Sudan, Sri Lanka, ex-Yugoslavia, Chechnya, ...) compared with the relatively rare (and modern) phenomenon of color based conflict...Reminds one of the saying that there really aren’t any religious wars, there’s always some kind of axe or another being ground that’s the decisive catalyst…
Posted by sk on from 01/25 at 12:01 AMExcellent...from now on, I will also substitute “ethnic chauvinism” for “racism.”
Posted by Mickey Z. on from 01/25 at 06:50 AMI suppose I should have offered a more detailed explanation. The comment was understood as an attempt at being facetious, but I see it more as a foolish way of thinking. There a number of reasons for this, and I’ll briefly describe two.
Firstly, you are arguing that this group of individuals can be all classed the same. An individual with just a cursory understanding of Europe knows just how foolish that remark is. It is the same type of method employed by large media companies, “the american people”, “us”, “them”, “we”, “liberals”, “conservatives”, “anti-globalization”, etc. Speaking like this invites ignorance, even in jokes. You even follow it up with “westerners”, which is equally dishonest.
Second reason I’ll explain here is that comments such as these hide the speaker’s social location in relation to the conditions described. Using generic labels (I can’t say meaningless, because this type of communication has proven to have meaning and consequences) hides the relationship between the speaker (a NYT reporter, a scientist, a Mickey Z) and the events described. It allows these speakers the opportunity to claim a universal and objective description, when this is not possible.
As for science, it should not be granted some autonomous existence, and this relates to some of my previous remarks. The bell curve and eugenics are easy targets, and there are many others. Darwin’s theories were influenced by social scientists, and the current practices of maternity hospitals reflect power relations between males and females. The list goes on. The point is that sciences are socially and culturally produced, and are not to be taken as “matters of fact”.
Posted by Mike on from dublin 01/25 at 09:12 AMInteresting mix of academic-style talk and personal insults. Bottom line from where I’m sitting: Mike, I think you misinterpreted the post. We might agree more than yu think. Perhaps you can e-mail me directly for further discussion...unless others care to join in.
Posted by Mickey Z. on from 01/25 at 01:09 PMI’m not sure how I misinterpreted your post, and I’m also unsure of what issues you believe we agree on. Since nothing was mentioned in your last message with regards to these claims, I’ll volunteer some more discussion.
As far as how I interpret your article, I would say I also believe that the criminal justice system has proven to be racist, and that both Republicans and Democrats have had (and continue to have) racist policies and representatives.
With regards to scientific support against race classification, there are more certainly scientists making these claims than before. (not sure why I’m criticized for “academic-style talk” when you quote both natural and social scientists, but maybe I’ve missed something.) It should also be remembered that there are also scientists supporting previous claims, so I wouldn’t use the phrase “as any post-1960s biologist or anthropologist could tell you”.
Maybe you could tell me how you disagree/agree with my previous post?
Posted by Mike on from dublin 01/26 at 10:54 AMDespite the talk about me being “dishonest” and “foolish,” we appear to agree that specious science is often used to create division between groupings of humans. We also appear to agree that black vs. white is as much a false conflict as Yankees vs. Red Sox. And, as you state above, we agree that racism is hardly the domain of any individual political party.
Posted by Mickey Z. on from 01/26 at 12:18 PMI’ll just quickly reflect on where there is disagreement. I strongly believe that the labels you defend using, whether in jest or serious comment, are working against what it appears you are trying to argue for, and, are also veiling critical relationships and circumstances. This is why I would use words such as “foolish” and “dishonest”.
I understand the Boston/New York analogy, and I’ll use another sports analogy. Many people in Ireland root against English sports teams, regardless of sport or opponent. In fact, this goes beyond sport, and into humor and other areas. This, in my mind, is counterproductive, as it seems to say that “they” are all against “us”. Obviously, not all English people equally shared, or share, in the profits of colonialism. Likewise, not all Irish, suffer from the effects of colonialism. These actions mask the points I mentioned in a previous post. And, even Karl Marx wrote on this relationship, as he was well aware of the situation. (possibly aided by a major influence in his thought, William Thompson.) So, I wouldn’t make statements like “English people” are brutal occupiers, nor would I think that “American people” enjoy killing innocent people.I’m not bringing the criticism up to merely trumpet a trivial objection, nor for purposes of trying to sound academic. The use of language is critical in both communication and thought. Maybe its fitting to quote an academic (at times a very uptight academic), “A thorn in the eye is sometimes the best magnifying glass”. Language forms how ideas are constructed, so it appears to me that the language you’ve recently used works against the ideas you want to fight for. That probably sums up the disagreement in the shortest amount of words.
Posted by Mike on from dublin 01/26 at 12:59 PMAnd, as a few quick examples, that touch upon why I disagree with some of these terms,
check out Roy’s speech:
TIDE? OR IVORY SNOW?
Public Power in the Age of EmpireQuote:
“The Spectator newspaper in London assures us that “[w]e live in the happiest, healthiest and most peaceful era in human history.” Billions wonder: who’s “we”? Where does he live? What’s his Christian name?”Compare who wrote “We the people of the United States” with who runs it now. What is their relationship to the people they write for, then and now?
Same with “We the people of the United Nations”.Posted by Mike on from dublin 01/26 at 01:02 PM
Next entry: Piss on Pity: Clint Eastwood's "Million Dollar" snuff film
Previous entry: Mickey Z. on your radio dial
Copyright © 2005-2007 Mickey Z.
