Printable View
And yet, don't you need some support for your tacit claim that "Arab" is a distinct and clear-cut genetic identity applicable uniformly across millions of individuals?Quote:
it is so inadequate on your part to simply declare that the concept of an 'Arab' means nothing, or has no historical foundation.
Intelligence is a much thornier issue than race: race is as I've described, but to begin to individuate intelligence(s), we must first determine the functions of every single neuron in at least one human's brain.
And we'd better do it before we begin to precisely modify those neurons and their functions in multitudes of humans...
I completely agree that it is a relevant issue to bring up. Obviously, while scientific enquiry is perfectly legitimate regardless of motivation, it is equally legitimate to question if the lines of scientific enquiry that we choose to pursue are being constrained by underlying biases. My concern was that with the racism issue, the awareness of these innate biases only existed on one side of the debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
As for whether bigot or violent genes can be bread out, I have no idea how much such things could be attributed to a particular gene or group of genes, or whether they are much broader traits that reflect wider personalities or social influences.
Again I agree completely, acedemic intelligence is fairly small part of the brain function that determines our capabilities, and the sorts of tests used to measure academic intelligence really only measure an even narrower form of intelligence (the ability to perform well on pretty rigid and manipulative/easy to manipulate tests).Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
btw I was never attacking you in particular, more a general attitude. Everything you have said is valid and need to be said - it's more what is never said that led me to post what I did.
I would like to re-spin the concept of Us vs Them.
If we are destined to make that division, then it matters very much the basis on which we come to make the division.
God must have loved the poor because he made so many of them; God forbid that they should make common cause on that basis, so how convenient to further separate Them on the basis of race. What makes Huckleberry Finn a dangerous book is not its liberal use of the "N" word, rather it is its clear case for the common cause/condition of the poor as poor whether black or white. The fact that the book is set as a youthful adventure just makes it that much more noxious because it could shape the opinions of children.
Which in a long winded way brings me to my point: does the New Jim Crowe accentuate/perpetuate a "useful" division or bring the focus more clearly on the problem of poverty.
I never claimed it was true, or even tacitly implied such - I only ever said it was a possibility. Hax outright stated it to be untrue, but IMO didn't back his position up. I gave the reasons why I think it is possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Guys, I am reading chapter 1 right now. I got ochem and thermodynamics riding my ass as well. Give me a few days and I will post a summary and my thoughts on each chapter as I read it throughout the next ten weeks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Or, you know, the species could actively engineer itself out of existence...
I have a devastating confession to make.
For many years I have confirmed, to any who may hear, that:
Quote:
Knife rhymes with life, wife, rife, and strife.
Slave rhymes with knave and non-brave.
Weed rhymes with greed, speed, and Rasheed.
Drug rhymes with bug, slug, and thug.
Welfare rhymes with Bel-Air.
Ape rhymes with rape.
Black rhymes with crack, smack, and attack.
****** rhymes with cigger, trigger, and ditch-digger.
I am indeed the True and Perfect embodiment of the Form of Racism.
I am near, brothers. I am here, brothers.
Sing the agonies of writhing eons and slain gods with me.
Can you see the Meaning?!
:disappointed:
:hanged:
[QUOTE]Of course ethnic and liguistic groups are not synonymous, but we all can agree that their historic roots have tended to be interconnected on some level - the question is to what degree. As far as I am aware, actual population displacement is often regarded as necessary for one linguistic group to replace another in a particular geographic area, as happened across North Africa and the Middle East with Arab language, culture and religion - thus giving credence to the idea of a modern Arab ethnic identity.
Yes, but strangely this did not occur at all with Arabic: although some form of Arabic-speaking communities settled in several locations throughout the Middle-East, it took hundreds of years for a language such as Coptic to disappear (as a spoken language), whereas the Berber languages were never displaced by Arabic at all, and in Khorasan and Transoxiana, Arabic was either spoken very shortly or not at all, as Sogdian, Bactrian and (New) Persian remained the dominant languages for trade and culture, the latter displacing the aforementioned languages.
Then why did Arabic displace Aramaic and Coptic, but didn't displace Persian? To be honest, I have no idea, but it likely has very little to do with national pride or whatever. I think it has much more to do with the fact that Iran was ruled relatively shortly by an Arabic-speaking elite, which was quickly displaced by Persianate rulers and Persian-speaking officials.
It is not just complicated, it also makes very little sense when you approach this problem historically. In order to understand the meaning the word Arab, it is necessary to understand the way how people used it: the Qur'an refers to the "Arabs of the desert to be the greatest in disbelief"; the Turks who came to the Middle-East were refered to in historical documents as "Arabs" as well. The actual use of the word probably meant something like "nomad", but to be honest, I have no idea what this means. Perhaps Moros has an idea.Quote:
Yes, I realise that analysing population movements and their impact on culture, language, and modern racial identification is a complicated and murky business, especially from a time period we have little information on. But that is precisely why I think it is so inadequate on your part to simply declare that the concept of an 'Arab' means nothing, or has no historical foundation.
The point I'm trying to make is that the word Arab wasn't used in the ethnical sense for a very long time, and to a large degree, it still isn't. Compare the situation to that in Algeria, Morocco, or Tunisia, where people self-identify on the basis of their (supposed) cultural background. Bringing up the case of Yemen is interesting, as Yemenite soldiers constituted a large part of the early Arabo-Muslim armies (although these people probably didn't speak Arabic), although these people may have very well defined themselves as Arabs, or were called Arabs by others. Or not.
So while there may be a historical foundation for the "ethnicity" of the Arabs, it was more-or-less appropriated by the Arabic-speaking philosophers of the Nahda period, whom I suppose used quite a bit of confirmation bias in order to establish a shared notion of Arabness. Thus, reaching the same conclusion: we have to understand this concept in context of 19th century nationalism.
Yeah, but what? That doesn't make any sense. Of course there are correlations, but we shouldn't overestimate the size of the Arabic-speaking community, especially not in the period after the initial conquest. There are hints that Aramaic was very widely spoken across the Levant up to the 19th century, so it's not unlikely to think there was a sizeable bilingual community of Arabic- and Aramaic-speakers, and that Arabic only fully displaced Aramaic (not counting the pockets of Aramaeophone villages in Syria and Iraq) about a hundred and fifty years ago.Quote:
Or for you to declare that cultural and linguistic developments were entirely independent of population movements.
Quote:
In doing so without any foundation (other than "its not clear cut!), I think you are being every bit as ideologically motivated as you accuse
Yes, but no. I study Arabic. It's what I do for a living (more-or-less).Quote:
Fragony of being.
You may be right, but in that case it's because I very strongly disapprove of this concept of a very ill-defined Arabness which is more often that not abused, especially when it comes to anti-Israeli rhetoric.
You rhyme real well!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Rape is indeed a big influencing factor as to why one would think twice before letting people of more rapist cultures into a functional western system of living your life.
As all data show :)
Telling.Quote:
You rhyme real well!!
:no:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coprolalia
Introduction
Full audio of it found here: Removed
I actually don't know if the Youtube audiobook uploads are legal. So I will not post the links here.
First class was today. According to the syllabus we will not be reading the chapters consecutively but instead diving into chapters 2 and 4 first which is the meaty details on what the New Jim Crow is. Later, we will go back to chapters 1 and 3 for the historical timeline and perspective that highlight parallels between the Old and the New.Quote:
Originally Posted by The New Jim Crow Pg. 1
Since this is just the introduction, which was basically Michelle Alexander talking about how she started writing about the criminal justice system and what each chapter goes into detail about, I will clarify why I plan on doing a brief summary on each chapter along with some of my thoughts. One reason is that some people in this forum had some questions I could not answer. I do not plan on completely answering them, for a full resolution, you must read the book for yourself. Another is that this semi-joking thread has actually prompted a lengthy discussion that I did not anticipate. Perhaps this thread will die soon, but I hope that by doing these occasional posts, I can bring up points from the book that spur continuing conversations about this topic which seems to defy all attempts (by Americans) at putting to rest. Some members of the forum have already read the book and understand it to a far greater extent than I ever will (SFTS), some are quite distanced from the issue at hand and regard the race aspect of the problem to be a red herring that Americans continue to chase. Either way, I will be eager to read what you all have to say.
I will admit this class I am taking is an intensive research based writing class, I am very interested in hearing what you all have to say in comparison to what a class of ~30 students roughly my age (AKA "my generation") have to say. But I do not plan on taking any of your ideas or discussions as a basis for my writings. In fact our professor explicitly wants us to pursue topics that are tangentially related to the book but capture the spirit of what the issue is (discrimination, exclusion and differentiation between groups). I plan on choosing something a bit distanced from what has been talked about here. I say all this to emphasize what I will say now bluntly, I am not crowd sourcing ideas for me to write about.
With that being said, some interesting things from my class discussion:
* One individual said she wasn't that impressed with the introduction and is skeptical of it all. But she did have the courage to admit that she has a relative in the LAPD so she has conflict of interest in what she thinks.
* One person talked about how he was shocked at how little he was surprised by the main thesis presented by the introduction. Kind of weird to have a reaction towards your own reaction. I was skeptical of his genuineness.
* Most of the class seems to acknowledge being "aware" of active discrimination in society but were unaware of the extent being talked about in the book.
There are bullet points to be made from the intro but without the substance provided in the full chapters it is pointless or even counterproductive to mention them now. I kind of hope this maybe becomes a more successful version of that thread someone made long ago where we were all going to read Aristotle and talk about it like a book club. That was my inspiration anyway.
EDIT: If you guys think this is dumb you can just say so here or in a PM. Many members here are European so perhaps you guys don't really care for paying attention to a very US centered legal/social issue.
Ok. I see that the book then is not a continuation of the dialogue I attribute to Twain.
Might it be closer to Foucault's discussion of the justice system as primarily a method for supplying and maintaining an underclass useful to the dominant culture; with the focus on its affect on a particular demographic ie: black Americans.
From what I have read, I would agree with you. In fact she does use the word "underclass" often in the intro. She even goes as far as to call the whole structure a caste system.Quote:
Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny
Just because I am not American doesn't mean I mind reading about it.
So, "engineering" on a societal scale using the justice system.
The beauty of it is, by targeting a specific class the system generates the data that justifies both its existence and the targeting of a criminal class. It might fall apart on close inspection but really its all 95% of the population will ever see.
Caste, class, either way there's always someone at the very bottom so the people just above them have someone to piss on so they can feel better about their inability to avoid the streams of the upper levels.
That and to forget that they're aware of the soul crushing knowledge that the human condition is predisposed to this sort of thing and that any attempts to change it will ultimately change nothing beyond the decorations we place around the living urinal that is civilization.
And even more soul crushing is the knowledge of the nigh impossible cost of energy and lives it took/would take to merely find out you can only change the decorations.
Dang, I'm cynical today.
Why is the scope limited only to drugs, why not include other crimes?
MURDER LAWS THE NEW JIM CROWE
How many average Roman Emperors did the following:
Lived seventy years.
Ate chocolate.
Traveled at 100 km/h and survived.
Drank coffee.
Flew and survived.
Used a computer.
Watched a movie.
Read a printed novel.
Surfed the Internet.
Had access to antibiotics.
Yeah, no progress at all.
I haven't read the book. If it relies on statistical analysis then you run into the problem of all statistical studies: cohort choice; cohort size; representative?; ...etc. You can criticize the study on a number of grounds and charge bias, but after looking at the criticisms you still have to assess whether the study makes the case it set out to make. ACIN needs to read faster :whip:Quote:
Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump
The big question I have is:
Since when did people start actually reading the literature given while studying...? I mean, apart from the last 3 days before the exams? Don't ACIN have beers to drink and women to fondle?
Apparently I was too quick to accept the demise of the "divide and conquer" thesis:
http://youtu.be/P75cbEdNo2U
HoreTore, as a socialist Scandinavian, thinking You belong on some sort of intellectual scene after a few years of the socialist "University" everyone should attend after their state ordered studies - I can SO see Your argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
But see, then I left the socialist university world, and joined one where academical progress counts.
Of course, that has made it more or less impossible for me to go on with my work as teacher, as I quite frankly deem those who have studied on the level You have to be absolute morons in pedagogical questions. Not to mention many other questions.
I wouldn't trust You to teach even math without adding on some feminist propaganda and socialistic overtones.
Frankly, I see You as one of the teachers who would write his own math tests just because the examples given in the book didn't correspond to Your world view. You would use as many foreign names as you could in the math examples, to teach the kids that foreign names are not foreign, but normal. You would make sure the examples mentioned boys and girls 50/50... Just joking.
Of course it wouldn't just be 50/50, You would also make sure to put the genders in cross-gender situations to try and diminish the oh so horrible historical social gender roles.
I might be wrong, but it is the impression I got. And what truly saddens me is that I think You are proud of it.
I seriously hope you are joking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
~Jirisys ()
Kadagar doesn't seem to get irony in text format... Or I'm just bad at making jokes, I guess. I got a good chuckle out of his though.Quote:
Originally Posted by jirisys
No irony in religion, and you are deeply religious. Kadagar nails youQuote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Yeah brah, you got nailed bad there. srsly.
So did Jesus.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
So... I'm your messiah now, right?
Ask him? As I said, I think HT is proud of the fact that he is a good enough teacher to be able to BOTH teach math AND help the kids into the politically correct thinking at the same time.Quote:
Originally Posted by jirisys
HT, amIrite?
It's called the leftist church for a reason, Jezus, you see him, everywhere. The Nobel peace-price peace commision is always a good place to start looking for who is the Messias of the leftist church, it's blissfuly obvious every timeQuote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore