Philosophy Now Forum

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Dec 03, 2022 7:29 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Dec 03, 2022 6:57 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Dec 03, 2022 4:11 pm
Binary principle of right and wrong notwithstanding, the problem of economic underdevelopment is dealt with by improving education and training among economically underdeveloped peoples. We have "all wound up in the state we are in" because rich countries and rich regimes have not sufficiently organised and paid for education and training. It's a sad state of human decency when education and training in economically deprived places is largely paid for by Christian and Islamic missionaries, and charities financed by middle class individuals.

I think China's emergence as a global superpower raises some serious questions about development in less-developed parts of the world. I've heard it said that they now have the world's single largest military and they are developing their own desires and wishes that diverge from those of the more developed nations. In essence, they are demonstrating the reasons why developed nations are reluctant to share technology (as you call it "education and training") with smaller nations in the first place. Are we building them up only for them to potentially start telling us what to do and how to do it? That's one of the elephants in the room here.

We citizens of the world need to risk that as the alternative is worse. I don't consider "us" to be the US super power or NATO.

So who is "us"? Do you live in one of the developed countries or do you live in an underdeveloped country? As far as risk, it seems to me that we are flirting with greater potential for nuclear annihilation through the proliferation of technology. What is the "alternative" you are speaking of which is "worse"?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Dec 03, 2022 7:32 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Dec 03, 2022 7:05 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Dec 03, 2022 7:01 pm Shhhhhhhh …. shhhhhhhhh!!!

Australia is thinking!

Is that directed at me and what is it supposed to mean?

I mean, I'm all for cooperation and sharing among nations. However, as far as I can tell, this is a vital discussion that everyone here needs to participate in and know what is being talked about.

Sorry, it was a jab directed at Harry. All good-natured I hope. It was not a commentary on what you had just written.

OK. Then thank you for allowing my participation in the topic. I know it's a dicey one at best.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Dec 01, 2022 3:42 pm Now, and I direct this both to you [Harry Baird] and to Seeds (another others who may care to undertake deeper analysis) I present here a speech by Jonathan Bowden that explains the 'countermanding' views that I alluded to. You are aware of the shorter excerpt from this speech because I shared it with you numerous times). But I very much like what he says, and I agree with a great deal of it, and I also understand it as originating in sets of ideas that are countermanding and countervailing.

As a polite gesture in deference to your request, I almost made it through the entirety of that one-hour and fifteen-minute Bowden speech, to which I say that if you are using this white nationalist - Jonathan Bowden - as a reference source whose views are a mirror of your own views, then I'm afraid you've forced me to resurrect the Venn diagram from one of our prior exchanges....



Allow me to begin this by stating that I'll be the first to admit that I'm somewhat of a "space cadet" who is promoting an extremely wild and idealistic (spiritual/metaphysical) theory, so what I am about to say will no doubt be attacked as some sort of pie-in-the-sky blatherings of an old acid head.

Nevertheless, what you are showing me is that you are firmly ensconced in the left side of the Venn diagram (the "old paradigm" side), and that you completely missed the point of what the right side of the diagram (the "new paradigm" side) represents.

Just as there is no place in the "new paradigm" for the crumbling and divisive world religions (at least not in their present forms), likewise, there will be no place for the type of divisive racial philosophy that Bowden promotes. There will be no place for worrying about whether or not the white race (or any race, for that matter) is losing (or gaining) ground anywhere on the planet.

The only thing that will matter in the "new paradigm" is that all humans become aware of the absolute sameness of their being (the sameness of their inner souls) and thus learn to live and work together in harmony. And if that takes a complete homogenization of all races into one common race, then so be it.

I like to use fanciful ways of visualizing things.

For example, if there truly does exist other advanced civilizations in the universe whose inhabitants are not only super-intelligent space travelers, but have evolved to possess radically different bodily features than us humans,...

...then it would be no wonder why they would avoid direct contact with a planet filled with a bunch of flaming idiots who hate and disparage members of their own species simply based on such trivial nonsense as skin color or minor variances of facial features.

And the point is that if certain humans are repulsed and fearful of, again, members of their own species over the superficial features of their outer facades,...

(something that none of us had any control over)

...then just imagine how these low-conscious (sleepwalking) morons would feel about (and react to) truly alien looking beings.

Now I realize that I'm evoking a bit of "Star Trekian" idealism here, but if it is indeed possible that we are not alone in this universe, then if we are to be ready and worthy of venturing to the other galaxies, then we simply must begin viewing our unity and sameness...

(again, the sameness of our inner souls)

...from this higher perspective...



...and how it relates to the greater reality of the universe, as opposed to the fractious and insular perspective we have of ourselves (of our race and national ideology) as seen from this lower perspective on the planet's surface...





And If I were to get "super-cosmic" (and, yes, "spiritual") about our situation,...

...then I would say that the sameness of the internal structure and purpose of our souls extends to any being throughout the entire universe who has reached at least the human level of consciousness (or above), in that we are all the literal (familial) "offspring" of the Creator of this universe, and thus "siblings" who have each been imbued with the equal power and eternal potential as that of the Creator herself.

Now, other than the fact that all of the preceding may indeed be the entheogenically-induced delusions of an old ("peace and love") hippie who sees us all (including God) as absolute equals,...

...if you're having a problem with any of it, then you simply do not understand what is necessary for the success of the "new paradigm" where, again, there is absolutely no place for yours (and Bowden's) white nationalist philosophy.

You stated the following to Harry:

I am examining *things* from a wider perspective, or in any case one that I consider to be removed or elevated (a position above).

Well, I suggest that your so-called "elevated" vantage point is nothing more than a mist-shrouded outcrop on a mountain that extends so far above you that it disappears into the clouds.
_______

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Dec 03, 2022 7:35 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Dec 03, 2022 7:29 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Dec 03, 2022 6:57 pm

I think China's emergence as a global superpower raises some serious questions about development in less-developed parts of the world. I've heard it said that they now have the world's single largest military and they are developing their own desires and wishes that diverge from those of the more developed nations. In essence, they are demonstrating the reasons why developed nations are reluctant to share technology (as you call it "education and training") with smaller nations in the first place. Are we building them up only for them to potentially start telling us what to do and how to do it? That's one of the elephants in the room here.

We citizens of the world need to risk that as the alternative is worse. I don't consider "us" to be the US super power or NATO.

So who is "us"? Do you live in one of the developed countries or do you live in an underdeveloped country? As far as risk, it seems to me that we are flirting with greater potential for nuclear annihilation through the proliferation of technology. What is the "alternative" you are speaking of which is "worse"?

Or by "us" are you talking about people of higher economic means vs. people of lower economic means as they transcend national boundaries? If that is the case, then I think I can see your point.

seeds wrote: ↑Sat Dec 03, 2022 7:36 pm

To me, that's an extremely complex picture that is worth billions of words, probably more than I can come up with in a lifetime. And it's very depressing to me.

seeds wrote: ↑Sat Dec 03, 2022 7:36 pm...

Nice post, Seeds. I made it all the way through without tripping a mental breaker as I sometimes do with your drawings.

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Sat Dec 03, 2022 2:02 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Dec 03, 2022 12:03 pm

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Sat Dec 03, 2022 11:44 am

Which indigenous Australian tribes have stolen land from which other indigenous Australian tribes? Please be specific.

Aborigines don't have a written language, thus never documented their tribal histories. However, there are cave paintings in the Northern Territory depicting tribal warfare that occurred around the time that the sea level rose - hence they were fighting over resources (land).

I still don't think you're engaging in good faith, but I'll respond in any case: Really? Because you don't like your shortcomings and ironies being pointed out?

So, you can't point to any specific indigenous Australian tribe which stole land from any other specific indigenous Australian tribe - you simply infer that some tribes stole from other tribes based on cave paintings that you claim depicted tribal warfare.

It does depict tribal warfare I happened to watch it on a documentary a few years ago, an EXPERT claims it. Do you honestly think there was no tribal warfare with the Aborigines, that there spears were only directed at the roos? I supposed their shields were in case the boomerang came back.

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Sat Dec 03, 2022 2:02 pmOK, let's say you're right. The short answer to your original question (quoted above) is, in any case: yes. It is incumbent upon whoever stole from whomever to return the stolen property. You'll need to identify them first though.

Oh, they're gonna love that Harry, a white man telling them to give back land.

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Sat Dec 03, 2022 2:02 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Dec 03, 2022 12:03 pm

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Sat Dec 03, 2022 11:44 am
Clearly, groups of people (occupiers of land) are identifiable, or you wouldn't have relied upon that concept in your opening quote with respect to "Aborigine tribes". Groups persist over time, and thus their claims to land persist over time.

NO Harry, people hundreds of years later are not clearly identifiable as descendents of land 'custodians'.

You're simply wrong here. Many indigenous Australians maintain an ongoing connection to their land. Even where they don't, they have a far greater right to "Australia" in general than do non-indigenous Australians.

What's this? If your not Aborigine you have to pack up and leave Australia (and after all the hard yards that everyone did to build it into a modern major player on the world stage!!).

Is that what you want to happen Harry?

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Sat Dec 03, 2022 2:02 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Dec 03, 2022 12:03 pm

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Sat Dec 03, 2022 11:44 am
I'm not sure why you consider this to be a fatal problem. There are clearly those who are more entitled to ongoing land claims than others. It can be worked out from there.

..and you don't think Aborigine's would prefer to move on

Of course they would, but not without wrongs having been righted, at the very least to the extent of a treaty, which is really not good enough, but which, after all the brutal and consistent mistreatment to which they've been subjected over the years, they might have been beaten down into accepting.

..and the wrongs would be set right by descendent getting land. So the mixed race Aborigines, do they only get partial restoration of land. Do they have to submit to a DNA test to see just how much land they can be given?

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Sat Dec 03, 2022 2:02 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Dec 03, 2022 12:03 pm rather than re-ignite racial divide as you are doing.

That which is already burning fiercely due to occupying forces cannot be "re"ignited.

Oh, next time I am in the city I am supposed to consider all the Autralians as occupying forces!

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Sat Dec 03, 2022 2:02 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Dec 03, 2022 12:03 pm I have a large family of mixed race (Aborigine\British)

I see. So, not only are you of Indian heritage, but you are also of indigenous Australian and British heritage. Am I understanding correctly?

No you are not Harry. My mother's side of the family tracks back to near the Himalayas. My English uncle married an Aboriginal.
Comprehende?

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Sat Dec 03, 2022 2:02 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Dec 03, 2022 12:03 pm they would scoff at your crazy proposal.

On what basis?

On the basis that IT IS CRAZY.

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Sat Dec 03, 2022 2:02 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Dec 03, 2022 12:03 pm

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Sat Dec 03, 2022 11:44 am
In what way am I igniting, let alone "re"igniting racial tensions?

IF you can't see that, as per my above point...well.

To which point are you referring?

The part where I stated that you are re-igniting divides whereas Aboriginals I know are happy with the way things are progressing for indiginous matters. They don't want a ridiculous white man telling them he's going to give them the land his house is on, if they can prove that their great-great grandparents used to hang out there.

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Sat Dec 03, 2022 2:02 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Dec 03, 2022 12:03 pm Again, WHERE are you going to move to Harry?

Again, I've addressed this.

Well I see you state you are going to go somewhere that you are indigenous of...so where is that?

Personally, I am indigenous to planet Earth so I'll live wherever the fuck I want.

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Thu Dec 01, 2022 12:32 pm The accusation of inconsistency nevertheless demands a response. Since I've committed to a sincere and meaningful response, I affirm up front that the thought has occurred to me to emigrate to a country in which I am indigenous (as opposed to one in which I am associated with a colonialist occupying force). There are various personal reasons why that is impractical for the moment. More importantly, though, my position doesn't anyway demand it. That position is that the decision as to what we non-indigenous residents of colonised nations should do is up to their indigenous citizens. I don't simply assume that their choice would be: "Piss off back to where you came from, the lot of you". I think that a process of genuine consultation on the basis that indigenous citizens are the genuine sovereigns of this land ("Australia") needs to be undertaken, and I would respect the outcome of that process, even if it was "Go back to where you came from, whiteys".

In the meantime, the best I can do is to advocate, from where I am right now, for effective sovereignty to be returned to indigenous "Australians", and for their will to be respected.

So, there you have it, VT. Once again, I welcome you to sink your mighty talons into my weak flesh and drag me off into your fiery den for further torment. Mock me. Scorn me. Utterly humiliate me!

What if their choice is something else that is unacceptable to you, or what if their choice was, indeed, for you to go back to where you came from? I have to admit all this sort of conjures up images of Conrad's Lord Jim. I believe in the novel the protagonist submits to tribal justice and it costs him his life. That's certainly your freedom to say that you would submit to their justice, but for the rest of us, the possibility of losing our lives is a pretty scary prospect. I mean we're all thrown into our situations (to borrow from Heidegger's oft-used term). Presumably, none of us made the choice to be born and raised where we were. What are we supposed to do?

seeds wrote: ↑Sat Dec 03, 2022 7:36 pm Just as there is no place in the "new paradigm" for the crumbling and divisive world religions (at least not in their present forms), likewise, there will be no place for the type of divisive racial philosophy that Bowden promotes. There will be no place for worrying about whether or not the white race (or any race, for that matter) is losing (or gaining) ground anywhere on the planet.

The only thing that will matter in the "new paradigm" is that all humans become aware of the absolute sameness of their being (the sameness of their inner souls) and thus learn to live and work together in harmony. And if that takes a complete homogenization of all races into one common race, then so be it.

I commend you for listening to Bowden. Yes, I like Bowden quite a bit but that does not mean I agree with him in all things. People like Bowden are points of references and also resources. His talks opened me up to many thinkers I'd have dismissed. Bowden is not a Christian, he defines himself as a Nietzschean and. Heraclitean. So, from a starting point, he looks at the world from a different perspective and from perspectives different from ours: ours being conventional idealism strongly influenced by Christianity. He is also one concerned from the *preservation of his people*. It would require lots of explanation in order to communicate the justifiability of his stance (given what I assume are your core tenets).

Though I can honestly relate, in some senses, to you 'new paradigm', and though I feel I understand it (I've certainly been around people who seem to live and think out of that mood or vision), I am now of a different mind. Also, it is wrong to say that Bowden is a racist hater but it is not wrong to describe him as a racialist. There is a very real difference. That is, he is someone who can say, and back it up with solid reasonings, that *race is real and race matters*.

Race is real and, to all intents and purposes, everywhere and among all people, race is relevant and sometimes highly so. You can propose an idealism, you can try to get people to see it that way, but my personal opinion is that you will fail. I will suggest, politely, that your non-racialist view is abnormal and not morally right. But I'd have to explain more for you, at least, to understand what I mean by that.

And if you hold your particular ideal as a moral imperative, and the moral high ground, and present your view as the more elevated one, you will simultaneously say to those other people who (honestly) think and see differently, that there is something wrong with them. That they are immoral and, finally, 'evil'. That is the way that works. And the picture that you included in your post communicates that message. In truth that is what you do believe and it comes through all of your posts. And you are one among millions who see things through those lenses.

So -- and this is really just a starting statement -- while I accept, on some levels, that there is some truth in some of what you propose, I also think your position can be critiqued morally. Though you see your views as truly of borne of some divine dispensation I am afraid that I see your views as having defective elements. Will you accept what I am saying? I doubt that. Because idealists like you, and mega-ultra idealists like you act in this world like you are God's righteous children. You know the score. You are carrying *humanity* forward, often against its own inclinations, to the New Dawn that you will preside over in one way or another.

But the world simply does not want to go along and it has numerous decent reasons why.

It does not surprise me of course that your views concord with those of Harry -- another extreme idealist. You could be said to be, in some senses, birds of a feather or people cut from the same cloth.

Again these are preliminary statements. None of this is simple, none of this is resolved without moving through a good deal of complexity. That takes time, energy and as always good-will.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Dec 03, 2022 8:16 pm

seeds wrote: ↑Sat Dec 03, 2022 7:36 pm

To me, that's an extremely complex picture that is worth billions of words, probably more than I can come up with in a lifetime. And it's very depressing to me.

The North invaded and occupied the South in an act of war that, I assume you recognize and we all recognize, is immensely and irreversibly destructive. The South had its own culture, and it had a far more complex way than Northerners are aware of assimilating those of African heritage. You might not have liked it, and I might not have liked it, but it was theirs. And the imperious North, for many reasons, and few of them *noble* in any sense, attacked and largely destroyed the South. They certainly harmed, if not destroyed, the Souther traditions. These are more complex and more 'valuable' than you, a Northerner in attitude, can understand. Richard Weaver wrote The Southern Tradition at Bay and, reading it, different doors I did not know existed, opened.

The act of war, as will always happen when war is waged, destroys the fabric of a society and it leads, also, to many many different pathologies. Study what has happened, really, in Afghanistan and in Iraq. Examine the costs. Examine the way that warring tends to bring forth intense reaction on the part of those invaded. And consider the reactions of those conquered and dominated people of the South in a different light. That light, such as it is, will help to understand what you are seeing in that poignant photograph. Not excuse it, but explain it. What, essentially, were they resisting? The imperious northern aggression is one element. And this played out in the 1960s when the North, again, determined that it was going to rebuild and reconstitute (reconstruct) the culture, and also the people, of the South.

Presently, with a discussion of South Africa, we have opened up this discussion into different directions. But I hope that all those who write here, who seem concerned for the issues, will grasp that everything is replaying in our present. That is, we are dealing with *octaves*.

My suggestion, as always, is to become more aware of the inner dimensions, which are often obscured and hard to get to.

Here, I give you-plural to take a place within the enactment. Here you can 'go to the South' and you can inflict the deserved punishment that history did not always succeed in administering. Go on! Let yourself go! Feel it. Vindicate yourself, your ancestors and all they did, and set things to right. Catharsis is glorious!

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Dec 03, 2022 11:48 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Dec 03, 2022 8:16 pm

seeds wrote: ↑Sat Dec 03, 2022 7:36 pm

To me, that's an extremely complex picture that is worth billions of words, probably more than I can come up with in a lifetime. And it's very depressing to me.

The North invaded and occupied the South in an act of war that, I assume you recognize and we all recognize, is immensely and irreversibly destructive. The South had its own culture, and it had a far more complex way than Northerners are aware of assimilating those of African heritage. You might not have liked it, and I might not have liked it, but it was theirs. And the imperious North, for many reasons, and few of them *noble* in any sense, attacked and largely destroyed the South. They certainly harmed, if not destroyed, the Souther traditions. These are more complex and more 'valuable' than you, a Northerner in attitude, can understand. Richard Weaver wrote The Southern Tradition at Bay and, reading it, different doors I did not know existed, opened.

The act of war, as will always happen when war is waged, destroys the fabric of a society and it leads, also, to many many different pathologies. Study what has happened, really, in Afghanistan and in Iraq. Examine the costs. Examine the way that warring tends to bring forth intense reaction on the part of those invaded. And consider the reactions of those conquered and dominated people of the South in a different light. That light, such as it is, will help to understand what you are seeing in that poignant photograph. Not excuse it, but explain it. What, essentially, were they resisting? The imperious northern aggression is one element. And this played out in the 1960s when the North, again, determined that it was going to rebuild and reconstitute (reconstruct) the culture, and also the people, of the South.

Presently, with a discussion of South Africa, we have opened up this discussion into different directions. But I hope that all those who write here, who seem concerned for the issues, will grasp that everything is replaying in our present. That is, we are dealing with *octaves*.

My suggestion, as always, is to become more aware of the inner dimensions, which are often obscured and hard to get to.

Here, I give you-plural to take a place within the enactment. Here you can 'go to the South' and you can inflict the deserved punishment that history did not always succeed in administering. Go on! Let yourself go! Feel it. Vindicate yourself, your ancestors and all they did, and set things to right. Catharsis is glorious!

That's a pretty violent scene, AJ (from the movie Mississippi burning). What is it supposed to mean in the context of the discussion?

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 03, 2022 2:57 am The fundamental or foundation of morality is the well-being of all life forms. Our own myopia assures our self-interest comes first, but we are of a common carbon-based biology of beings, that have the ability for both suffering and joy. The harsh reality of life is that life lives upon life but if we are to claim humanity as a virtue, compassion must be addressed to all living things and termed morality. Life and the earth that sustains it, must then be seen as sacred. None of the desert religions of today are up to the manifestation of truth virtue.

Well said! It's compassion which limits the distance between two entities, between greater and lesser bringing it closer to itself. In its ultimate version, whether actual or metaphorical, a god without compassion would be a non sequitur and thoroughly useless. The real god is nature without any of these moral qualities.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Dec 04, 2022 12:07 am That's a pretty violent scene, AJ (from the movie Mississippi burning). What is it supposed to mean in the context of the discussion?

A number of things. One, the movie is a dramatic invention the purpose of which (according to my reading of course) is for the viewer to participate in an enactment that absolves the viewer of guilt. Northerners, through they rarely admit or understand this, effectively treated the Negroes in their midst in thoroughly abominable ways. Both before and after the Civil War. Lincoln was a supreme *racist* (in the terms of the word today). His idea was to export all of the Black population to some other place.

Prior to Emancipation, Lincoln was a proponent of colonization: the idea of sending African American slaves to another land to live as free people. Lincoln supported resettlement schemes in Panama and Haiti early in his presidency and openly advocated the idea through the fall of 1862. But the bigoted, flawed concept of colonization never became a permanent fixture of U.S. policy, and by the time Lincoln had signed the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863, the word “colonization” had disappeared from his public lexicon. As such, history remembers Lincoln as having abandoned his support of colonization when he signed the proclamation. Documents exist, however, that tell another story.

See also North of Slavery: The Negro in the Free States, 1790-1860:

The Mason-Dixon Line is a convenient but an often misleading geographical division. It has been used not only to distinguish the Old South from the North and the Confederacy from the Union but to dramatize essential differences in the treatment of, and attitudes toward, the Negro - to contrast southern racial inhumanity with northern benevolence and liberality. But the historian must be wary of such an over-simplified comparison, for it does not accord with the realities of either the nineteenth or the twentieth century. The inherent cruelty and violence of southern slavery requires no further demonstration, but this does not prove northern humanity. Although slavery eventually confined itself to the region below the Mason-Dixon Line, discrimination against the Negro and a firmly held belief in the superiority of the white race were not restricted to one section but were shared by an overwhelming majority of white Americans in both the North and the South. Abraham Lincoln, in his vigorous support of both white supremacy and denial of equal rights for Negroes, simply gave expression to almost universal American convictions. In the ante bellum North racial discrimination was not as subtle or as concealed as it has been in more recent decades.

So, this completely and really utterly upends the entire idea that Lincoln (or the North) had any real 'concern' (as we define it today) for the Black man. And his attitude was *your* attitude (i.e. of all your ancestors). When Lincoln is referred to, what is referred to is a cartoon version; a distortion, a lie. Why can't the *real Lincoln* be exposed and seen? Because it upends established narratives. Through these distorting lenses the *real history* and this the truth is obscured. It cannot, in fact, be seen.

The Lincoln Monument is an entirely false representation. In so many different ways.

So a movie like Mississippi Burning should be, can be, seen in a different light. It can be read differently. It is a 'production' of a certain time frame, designed for a specific audience, and with a specific purpose: vindication for the viewer. The viewer gets to participate in all the punishments that are enacted against the Southern Man. That's you beating on Lester and giving him what he deserves. That's you treating his wife decently and, simultaneously, enlisting her in your cause. You are the FBI agents who will, if it is *righteous* violate all laws in order to bring down the perps. It is all a lie of course. Since in fact the FBI is said to have engineered the assassination of MLK. It simply repeats tropes that, unbeknownst to you(plural) were common 10-20 years prior to the outbreak of war. The vilification of the South and the Southern Man. This is 'cathartic projection' since in fact, the North (the federal structure, the régime which runs the show) is deeply invested in lies, distortions and misrepresentations.

What is the relevancy to today? That we operate from confected narratives. These are established for us, fed to us, and we become actors in them.

With a good script writer and a clever script re-write we could create a Mississippi Burning version of the Trump Presidency.

[Hold on! PBS already worked that angle!]

Instead of poor Lester (with his dumb smile) we could interpose the cartoon interpretation of Donald Trump. Seeds? What do you think? You down for this? You already have that GIF depicting Trump mimicking the cripple -- which was debunked by the way, but what does that matter? It does not matter who he is, really, what matters is how he is portrayed. And if the character in the rehearsal is to be hated then hate it shall be! So what we are dealing with is structures of view that are interposed between ourselves and *reality*.

We are both observers of theatre and, strangely enough, actors and performers in it.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Dec 03, 2022 3:38 pm

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Sat Dec 03, 2022 2:11 pm So, despite our conversing on a philosophy board, and despite my explicitly outlining my basic principles in this respect, you're not interested in debating or even just discussing those principles, nor even in supplying your own principles.

The principles that you work with are binary in the extreme.

Perhaps you're just not understanding the terms of philosophical engagement that I'm offering to you - on a philosophy forum. Principles (as generalisations) can have exceptions. You need not, then, in the interests of opposing my position, simply reject the principles I've affirmed. You can, instead, accept them as generalisations - which, of course, you ought to, because they are perfectly reasonable - but then go on to affirm principled exceptions to them and explain why those exceptional principles apply - as in the case of land theft.

You call this a "set-up", but it is really an opportunity to you to present and defend your own principles. If you instead want to rabbit on about derivations from Christian ethics, religious enthusiasm, and other issues irrelevant to the principles in question, then your choice is to be irrelevant.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Dec 03, 2022 9:09 pm

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Sat Dec 03, 2022 2:02 pmOK, let's say you're right. The short answer to your original question (quoted above) is, in any case: yes. It is incumbent upon whoever stole from whomever to return the stolen property. You'll need to identify them first though.

Oh, they're gonna love that Harry, a white man telling them to give back land.

"Telling" who? Those who stole the land or those whose land was stolen? The reactions are obviously going to be quite different.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Dec 03, 2022 9:09 pm

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Sat Dec 03, 2022 2:02 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Dec 03, 2022 12:03 pm NO Harry, people hundreds of years later are not clearly identifiable as descendents of land 'custodians'.

You're simply wrong here. Many indigenous Australians maintain an ongoing connection to their land. Even where they don't, they have a far greater right to "Australia" in general than do non-indigenous Australians.

What's this? If your not Aborigine you have to pack up and leave Australia (and after all the hard yards that everyone did to build it into a modern major player on the world stage!!).

Is that what you want to happen Harry?

That's not what I said, and as such is non-responsive and a red herring, and doesn't warrant a response in return. Deal with what I said directly or don't bother.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Dec 03, 2022 9:09 pm

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Sat Dec 03, 2022 2:02 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Dec 03, 2022 12:03 pm ..and you don't think Aborigine's would prefer to move on

Of course they would, but not without wrongs having been righted, at the very least to the extent of a treaty, which is really not good enough, but which, after all the brutal and consistent mistreatment to which they've been subjected over the years, they might have been beaten down into accepting.

..and the wrongs would be set right by descendent getting land.

"Getting" land? The land is already theirs. There's no "getting" - just recognition of preexisting custodianship.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Dec 03, 2022 9:09 pm So the mixed race Aborigines, do they only get partial restoration of land. Do they have to submit to a DNA test to see just how much land they can be given?

The existence of nuance and complexity don't invalidate my point. Nuance and complexity can be handled once the basics are established.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Dec 03, 2022 9:09 pm I am supposed to consider all the Autralians as occupying forces!

The reality is that this land was stolen from its indigenous occupants. I don't see how that can be denied. Yes, we non-indigenous folk are occupiers.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Dec 03, 2022 9:09 pm My English uncle married an Aboriginal.

I see. That's nevertheless a limited basis from which to derive an indigenous perspective, assuming you're even understanding and representing your aunt's (assuming your uncle is heterosexual) views accurately.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Dec 03, 2022 9:09 pm The part where I stated that you are re-igniting divides whereas Aboriginals I know are happy with the way things are progressing for indiginous matters.

There are those limitations again. What about the indigenous Australians you don't know?

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Dec 03, 2022 9:09 pm Well I see you state you are going to go somewhere that you are indigenous of...so where is that?

You misunderstand. I did not say that.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Dec 03, 2022 9:09 pm Personally, I am indigenous to planet Earth so I'll live wherever the fuck I want.

Choose wisely.