Can we connect philosophy with racism?

[coberst]

Can we connect philosophy with racism?

In Antebellum South the white man would not work for anyone because he considered laboring for hire made him no better than the black slave and his superiority to the black man was essential to his self-esteem. There was no labor class in the Antebellum South. The slaves did the labor but the slave was a capital investment just like a horse or oxen. Here was a total society without a laboring class.

What were some of the effects of no free labor in the South? The most important factor I suspect was that the ordinary white man felt any labor was beneath his dignity. This lack of ‘free labor’ led to many of the characteristics of the Southern man and woman that probably is a factor today in the still distinctive character of the Southerner.

I think that the wheel might be a useful analogy for understanding the mind of the South. The spokes of the wheel represent the essential components of all societies--economy, law and culture. The hub to which all spokes focus is labor. The Antebellum South revolved around slave labor.

Classical Athenians “believed that to render any form of service, especially the physical, to another man in return for money, even if only for a short time, was a form of slavery, and unacceptable to a free man”.

Ideology universalizes, absolutises, and reifies (makes an object of) abstract concepts. The ideological group converts its concrete experiences and its abstract concepts into universal standards (a form of philosophy?) for the whole society.

A society like our own, in which there exists free labor that “sells” its skills, capacities, and activities to another, must find a means of defining humans in such a way that such individuals can still feel like complete and free individuals even though they sell part of them self to another.

How does a society define the human essence in such a way that the individual “sells” only that which is alienable to him or her while maintaining the essence of a free individual?

“In order to say that his freedom is not compromised when his abilities, skills, and activities are placed at another man’s disposal, he had to be defined in the barest possible manner.”

If a person’s skills, capacities, and activities are alienable to her what is his essence that may be considered to be unalienable? Capitalism, wherein labor is commodified and thus faces this problem, has located the human essence as being the capacity for freedom of choice and will.

“The individual was, above all, an agent. As long as he was not physically overpowered, hypnotized, or otherwise deprived of his powers of choice and will, his actions were uniquely his, and therefore his sole responsibility. It did not matter how painful his alternatives were, how much his character had been distorted by his background and upbringing and how much his capacities of choice and will were debilitated by his circumstances.”

This description seems much like what we Americans now use to assuage our guilt when consciously considering the death and dismemberment, physical and mental (PTSD), of our soldiers serving, dying, and being fragmented in our war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Quotes from Marx’s Theory of Ideology by Bhikhu Parekh

[behaviour???]

What i have is an entirely different concept..I belive philosophy to be an instable subject that is it can be connected with anything in this world, whatever it is.

And so is my reply

Thanks

B???

[Michelle]

http://kentuckyannatruenews.blogspot.com/2...-slaves-in.html

It's interesting to note that only 4.8% of the Southern population had slaves. I wonder, if they refused to work for other white people, how did they all manage to make a living?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States

Another source for the 4.8% figure since the first one would seem biased to some people.

Edited June 13, 2009 by Michelle

[Michelle]

I couldn't edit my other post again so....just for the record, I had never seen that site for my first link before. I new the percentage was 4.8 but couldn't remember where I read it. When that one came up I thought the article was interesting, checked the facts and they were correct.

[coberst]

http://kentuckyannatruenews.blogspot.com/2...-slaves-in.html

It's interesting to note that only 4.8% of the Southern population had slaves. I wonder, if they refused to work for other white people, how did they all manage to make a living?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States

Another source for the 4.8% figure since the first one would seem biased to some people.

Of course they worked for them self. They did not work for another person except in rare cases. There was little industry in the South at that time. There was subsistence farming.

The most enlightening book that best answered my questions was the book “The Mind of the South” by W.J. Cash. Cash says-- “With an intense individualism, which the frontier atmosphere put into the man of the South also comes violence and an idealistic, hedonistic romanticism. This romanticism is also fueled by the South conflict with the Yankee. Violence manifests itself in mob action, such as lynching, and private dealings.”

[Virtual Particle]

Racism is not just about the South or any other incidence of racism. Like the African American Doctor who came up with the methodology for blood transfusions dying in a hospital because it was a Caucasians only hospital or the fact, that Albert Einstein left Germany to the US when Hitler took power. Racism also is simply not a factor relationship between peoples of different colors, or cultures but also creeds. Not as much a problem in the US as it was in the past, though today, in third world countries, were elections have been held and there is discussion of voter fraud, there have been incidences of the populace attacking and killing the opposing parties citizens because they feel the election result could not have been correct.

In Native American culture (one of the groups responsible for raising me ) there is a Legend which cites that Caucasians, Africans and those of Chinese decent began arriving in the Western Hemisphere way before Columbus (the matter of the Olmec civilization; for example). In most cases the most common way had to do with Eastern Hemispheric burial rituals, which involved, predominantly, really well constructed boats and not everyone

who arrived that way was dead. The policy in relation the events was to take the people to a place where other's of there kind resided, you see there was a substantive population of any race in the Western Hemisphere and they were all together in tribes. They were taught how to survive and each of the tribe were migratory and they were given a route.

Once those from the Eastern Hemisphere came in force these individuals were reintegrated into society and there children (again according to this legend) spread through-out the Western Hemisphere.

There are stories with respect to Native American and US conflicts which show clear evidence to when conflict existed? Certain people in the conflict were not killed.

As far as I know it was because they were known members of these families to the attacking Native Americans.

Based of course on the Legend.

Racism is a philosophy its roots deep and well grounded in all cultures but despite that we all have very similar problems (I mean besides the fact we all happen to be on the same planet) we all die the same ways and we all have children with birth defects and more...

Any thoughts?

PS: For the most part they probably came across during winter you know and like the first settlers in American History they were looking for a better life.

Edited June 14, 2009 by Triad

[Total Science]

There is a definite connection between eurocentric Newtonian and uniformitarian so-called "science" and racism.

Newtonians and uniformitarian so-called "scientists" deny Hebrew and Native American history, just as the Nazis denied Jewish history.

Edited June 14, 2009 by Total Science

[Mr Walker]

I think you have oversimplified and perhaps misrepresented conditions in the ante bellum south.

Of course white men worked for other white men.There were sailors, train crews , many drove on cattle drives. All apprenticeships, from blacksmiths to bootmakers would have been white. I suspect that white men would have been quite happy to work. The problem was economic cost. Most jobs could be performed by slaves at lower costs than white people could afford to live on. However while the very labour intensive roles of plantation agriculture and less so of house and personal servants could legitimately be fulfilled by slaves it was simply not possible, given the nature of slavery, for much of the work in the south to be performed by slaves, and in a society with limited industrial output there was a need for considerable labour.

Slaves actually had quite high costs but these were amortised over time. Even so slavery was generally so uneconomic that in the end, slavery was largely confined to social rather than economic value. Many southerners keeping slaves were going broke in the process, and it was sustained partly through the trade itself (almost a form of pyramid selling) and a tendency towards house slaves. Slaves in the cotton fields were basically uneconomic even before the civil war began (ironically and very sadly)

In the south (And indeed in other parts of north america)there was also, for a time, wide spread indentured labour of white people This worked under the same sort of economics as slavery and had the same failings.

There is somewhat of an urban myth about this topic, although undoubtedly there is an element of truth, especially in certain places and periods. After the civil war, of course, much of the racial tension revolved around competition between freed slaves and white labourers and it is true that this tension existed well into the 20th century. "black" peole were often roughly treated through fear of competion, as much as pure racial prejudice, and many white men ma y well then have argued that they would not compete with black ones.

The truth was they would greatly have had to reduce their standards of living to do so. Thus, rather, they tried to create a new "slave class" of the black people despite their legal freedom from slavery.

[Virtual Particle]

Say for example a robot is built and it can clear an entire farm of produce and prepare it for sale 10 times faster than anything we have today. In a manner of speaking that would be great the problem is when we go for this allot of people are going to loose there jobs. Now say for the sake of example the population of unemployed individuals are unable to read for the most part and while they are capable of learning a new skill that will take time and money. A potential depression is the result and in reality unless one upgrades, one will not be able to compete as if the product is cotton for example? While one brings in one shirt the competitors who have upgraded are providing ten.

This was one of the situations which existed prior to the Civil War in the United States.

During the time of the Civil War there were some issues upon how Darwinism was applied but that was World Wide.

Keeping in mind that we are discussing issues that occurred prior to even World War 2.

Any thoughts?

[Lady Amethyst]

Check out Julius Evola.

[555soul]

Racism is a philosphy or philosophical contemplation molded into a reality. That reality spread upon its vector. Yes.

Racism would have little effect and affect in an environment where every individual was manifest as God and exercised their own God voice. Racism travels as a reality vector to those who are in a position of submission of the mind.

That reality gains gravity as it accelerates, making the reality more real as gravity is given to the concept and to time and to the development of form.

Racism is also biological and race divides into anthropological groups most are not aware of consciously. Racism functions on the fundamental biological levels of evolution and on the sociobiology morphing into the biology of man through the notion of tribalism.

The roots of racism and the foundation it operates upon also incite violence among humans that appear similar on the surface, but are not below the surface. This includes humans or naked apes of the same perceptual surface race.

Racism is also a political warfare tool, thereby giving it form to reality through sociobiology.

Edited June 15, 2009 by 555soul

[555soul]

Man is given control over woman, thereby controlling 50% of the population. White man and white woman are given control over black man and woman, thereby giving white man the illusion he is not controlled by the power state, because his mind is preoccupied.

Woman blames man, but does not hold the power state accountable. Black man blames white man, but does not hold the power state as accountable as he should.

Woman directs her anger of control towards man because she is impotent. Black man directs his anger towards white man for same. White man takes his anger out on black man and all women for being enslaved, being in denial of his slavery and being too impotent and powerless to do anything about it.

divide et impera. politics. warfare. power state in action.

The manifest reality of the false God that one gives power to by not recognizing their own God voice within. Listen within.

Edited June 15, 2009 by 555soul

[555soul]

Man is weak because he has been weakened by another species of man.

Because man cannot acknowledge that he is enslaved, he expresses this enslavement upon others to mitigate his anger as he stays suspended in denial.

He acts out and mimics the tyranny of the control he is under upon those others as a tyrant himself. If he knew this, he wouldn't do this, but someone has been hiding it from him.

We are vampire.

[Mr Walker]

gee i hadnt realised life was so complex. Go figure.

[coberst]

The connection between philosophy and racism exists in the discipline called CT (Critical Thinking). Philosophy might appropriately be said to be about radically critical self-consciousness. CT is the art and science of good judgment and can, in my opinion, be considered as 'philosophy lite'. Social theory becomes an ideology when CT is not part of the general attitude of a population.

A population that is unskilled in CT cannot be easily reasoned with and thus the leaders use emotional appeal. Thus the low level of sophistication becomes permanent in a democracy. If the population does not have a level of sophistication to recognize that they are not sufficiently sophisticated then they may not have the ability to become sophisticated. A vicious circle ensues.

Does this not insure the destruction of the human species when its technology reaches a critical level of too much power in the hands of too many fools?

[Virtual Particle]

Critical thinking is purposeful and reflective judgment about what to believe or what to do[1] in response to observations, experience, verbal or written expressions, or arguments. Critical thinking might involve determining the meaning and significance of what is observed or expressed, or, concerning a given inference or argument, determining whether there is adequate justification to accept the conclusion as true. Hence, Fisher & Scriven define critical thinking as "Skilled, active, interpretation and evaluation of observations, communications, information, and argumentation."[1] Parker & Moore define it more narrowly as the careful, deliberate determination of whether one should accept, reject, or suspend judgment about a claim and the degree of confidence with which one accepts or rejects it.[2]

Critical thinking gives due consideration to the evidence, the context of judgment, the relevant criteria for making the judgment well, the applicable methods or techniques for forming the judgment, and the applicable theoretical constructs for understanding the nature of the problem and the question at hand.[2] Critical thinking employs not only logic but broad intellectual criteria such as clarity, credibility, accuracy, precision, relevance, depth, breadth, significance and fairness. Thinking is often casual or routine, whereas critical thinking deliberately evaluates the quality of thinking. In a seminal study on critical thinking and education in 1941, Edward Glaser Edward Glaser writes that the ability to think critically involves three things:[4]

An attitude of being disposed to consider in a thoughtful way the problems and subjects that come within the range of one's experiences, Knowledge of the methods of logical inquiry and reasoning, Some skill in applying those methods. Critical thinking calls for a persistent effort to examine any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the evidence that supports it and the further conclusions to which it tends. It also generally requires ability to recognize problems, to find workable means for meeting those problems, to gather and marshal pertinent information, to recognize unstated assumptions and values, to comprehend and use language with accuracy, clarity, and discrimination, to interpret data, to appraise evidence and evaluate arguments, to recognize the existence (or non-existence) of logical relationships between propositions, to draw warranted conclusions and generalizations, to put to test the conclusions and generalizations at which one arrives, to reconstruct one's patterns of beliefs on the basis of wider experience, and to render accurate judgments about specific things and qualities in everyday life. Critical thinking calls for a persistent effort to examine any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the evidence that supports it and the further conclusions to which it tends. It also generally requires ability to recognize problems, to find workable means for meeting those problems, to gather and marshal pertinent information, to recognize unstated assumptions and values, to comprehend and use language with accuracy, clarity, and discrimination, to interpret data, to appraise evidence and evaluate arguments, to recognize the existence (or non-existence) of logical relationships between propositions, to draw warranted conclusions and generalizations, to put to test the conclusions and generalizations at which one arrives, to reconstruct one's patterns of beliefs on the basis of wider experience, and to render accurate judgments about specific things and qualities in everyday life.

Rest of link

Defining Critical Thinkink

Critical thinking...the awakening of the intellect to the study of itself.

Critical thinking is a rich concept that has been developing throughout the past 2500 years. The term "critical thinking" has its roots in the mid-late 20th century. We offer here overlapping definitions, together which form a substantive, transdisciplinary conception of critical thinking.

Critical Thinking as Defined by the National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking, 1987

A statement by Michael Scriven & Richard Paul for the

{presented at the 8th Annual International Conference on Critical Thinking and Education Reform, Summer 1987}.

Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action. In its exemplary form, it is based on universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness.

Rest of link

Given these two links coberst do you feel more needs to be added to the definition.

I just want to be clear coberst for all concerned.

Any thoughts?

[Virtual Particle]

Racism is a very serious issue and with respect to certain commentaries it is very easy for folks to get offended. In the Civil War of the United States two states, which had slaves, were allowed to keep there slaves and fought for the North (this is public information). The issues of machines capable of collecting cotton? We are talking about the Cotton gin a devise capable of working faster than humans. Southerners considered the possibility of competing with such a devise, by securing more slaves. This meant that there intent was to go south in relation to Central America, the Caribbean and South America to secure more slaves. There was another issue and this was in respect to the rest of the world, this being that (for example) Karl Marx (May 5, 1818–March 14, 1883) response to the abuses which, had resulted from the industrial revolution. In the Eastern Hemisphere (in those days) everyone was a slave except of course those in charge; labor laws did not exist and the idea of working 16 hours a day was common place (Racism with respect to class and a new caste system). Caucasian American Southerners (the intellectuals) given the then, current situation, were very concerned that technology would result in them themselves becoming slaves (this was not unrealistic given what was going on those days in fact it was obvious).

The reality was that technology was changing how people in society interacted and southerners had no real justification to trust Abraham Lincoln (after all he was born in Kentucky). Had there not been a Civil War I feel that Abraham Lincoln would not have been assigned the position that he has today and the reality is that had there not been a Civil War in the US things would have been no different that what happened in the Eastern Hemisphere at the time. Now the reason I understand this is because I went to college (in the US) one can search the internet and find such information but in respect to what one learns in the US prior to college, it is that Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves. The Democratic Party began in the South after the Civil War and they did take over the government of the US soon after the civil war was fought. Yes in the south we do have problems with the KKKK (there is actually 4ks not 3) but fundamentally the Civil war in the US was about the human condition and the Industrial Revolution.

What has been presented is and effort in Critical Thinking and an opinion based upon my understanding of history. As to if it is taught in schools today sure, my exposure to the above was presented in 7th grade (Catholic school) and again reinforced when I was working on my Associates Degree (first 2 years of college). This issue of correct information is integral to development of Critical Thinking skills.

Critical thinking has to do with (for example) looking at an éclair and not only understanding how good it tastes, but also how unhealthy it is to eat one. In this way making a decision to eat it, is based upon all potential issues and not just how good it tastes.

Any thoughts?