Gilles Tran <gil### [at] agroparistechfr> wrote:
> Now that's surprising :D
> The damn knapsack is *** invisible *** for those who wear it. That's the 
> whole point of the essay.

> She's just saying that people who are born with a certain set of privileges 
> have a hard time understanding that they have it in the first place (that's 
> the social and cultural capital). It's invisible to them, they were born 
> with it, so they can pretend (rightfully) that it doesn't exist.
> However, people who don't have it not only can see it all right but are 
> reminded every minute of the loss.

  What I meant to say with "I don't understand what she is talking about"
was that even if this was so, what's the writer's point?

  Is her point that I should feel guilt or something because sometimes
other people may treat me differently because of my skin color (or other
attributes)?

  Perhaps this is more relevant in places where open racism is prevalent.
I just can't see this here. Maybe I *am* blind.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

4810924a@news.povray.org...

>  The credit may be unjustified, but is denial of the negative things 
> wrong?
> From a purely logical point of view it's true: Modern people are *not*
> responsible of what their ancestors did 200 years ago. Thus how can it be
> wrong to deny any responsibility?

The usual situation is the following:
The ancestors of Group A do bad stuff to the ancestors of Group B.
X years later, Group B still *** suffers *** from the crime while Group A 
still *** benefits *** from it (*)

Now obviously people in Group A are innocent and are not responsible. But 
there's still a pending debt to pay to contemporary Group B and the only 
people who can pay it are Group A, who are, after all, living off the 
interest of grandpa's crimes. If you're from Group B, hearing Group A say 
"Well, I don't care" doesn't really cut it.

(*) The French town of Nantes is, according to polls, the nicest city in the 
country. Should we forget that its current prosperity was inherited from the 
17-18th centuries when being the slave trade capital turned Nanted into a 
large, wealthy city? Likewise, some of the corporations (banks, 
industries..) that provided the funds for colonization in the 19th century 
are still in operation today and wealthy as ever. People die, but capital 
rolls on.

G.

Post a reply to this message

On 24 Apr 2008 10:43:34 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:

>what's the writer's point?

IMO
I think what she is saying is that people who are born into a
"privilege" don't see that the "privilege" is a privilege and don't
take it into account when dealing with people who were not born with
that "privilege".
That is a bit wordy it just means that because you are a
man/white/educated etc. You won't see how you are putting others at a
disadvantage because they are not a man/white/educated etc.
(I think)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Of course multiculturalists just classify this as racism, and equate
> them with the neonazis and white power activists. Of course the racists
> also take the negative things they are saying and use these things for
> their own racist agendas. It's a lose-lose situation.
> 
I think not. Of course there are some "multiculturalists" that take that
viewpoint but IMO they are as bigotted as the neonazis. Most of those
that work or volunteer at MRC take the more balanced position. It is
important to note that many refugees coming here as migrants will have
psychological problems stemming from their experiences in their country
of origin, their (probably) stressful journey here and the culture shock
when they arrive. To expect them to instantly integrate within our
society is short-sighted and counter-productive.
They will, in time, be of benefit to this country; they will, in time,
consider themselves to be British and eventually their descendants will
be able to post to newsgroups stating
> Of course, being descended from Polish Jews and Dutch Tea Planters on
> one side of my family and wild Scottish Highlanders on the other
or words to that effect.
Don't tar us all with the same brush. The issue is way too complicated
to be simply presented in a black/white, true/false manner

John

-- 
I will be brief but not nearly so brief as Salvador Dali, who gave the
world's shortest speech. He said, "I will be so brief I am already
finished," then he sat down.

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 17:06:00 +0200, "Gilles Tran"
<gil### [at] agroparistechfr> wrote:

>
>(*) The French town of Nantes is, according to polls, the nicest city in the 
>country. Should we forget that its current prosperity was inherited from the 
>17-18th centuries when being the slave trade capital turned Nanted into a 
>large, wealthy city? Likewise, some of the corporations (banks, 
>industries..) that provided the funds for colonization in the 19th century 
>are still in operation today and wealthy as ever. People die, but capital 
>rolls on.

No we shouldn't {I can think of a few British examples (my home town
was a stop on the "Slave Triangle")} But we shouldn't take personal
responsibility. Just don't compound the problem.
On a personal note when I was working in Kingston (a former slave
colony of ours). A lot of people had a great deal of fun with me, on
the subject of slavery.
 
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

48109c95@news.povray.org...
>  Is her point that I should feel guilt or something because sometimes
> other people may treat me differently because of my skin color (or other
> attributes)?

Guilt would be pointless. Awareness will suffice.

>  Perhaps this is more relevant in places where open racism is prevalent.

Doesn't need to be open and it doesn't even need to be plain racism (again, 
that's the point of the essay). But yes, Wikipedia tells me that Finland has 
2% of immigrants (vs 8-10% in countries like UK or France), most of them 
from neighbouring countries of close cultural background so I guess that 
these kinds of problems are rather theoretical there.

G.

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 16:10:19 +0100, Doctor John <doc### [at] gmailcom>
wrote:

>The issue is way too complicated
>to be simply presented in a black/white, true/false manner

Too true! And my good Scottish friend Peter Lukiewicz would agree with
you.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 16:10:19 +0100, Doctor John <doc### [at] gmailcom>
> wrote:
> 
>> The issue is way too complicated
>> to be simply presented in a black/white, true/false manner
> 
> Too true! And my good Scottish friend Peter Lukiewicz would agree with
> you.
'Afternoon, Stephen.
Fancy a pint in a bar staffed by Polish, French and Italian workers? Say
a week from today i.e. 1st May.

John

-- 
I will be brief but not nearly so brief as Salvador Dali, who gave the
world's shortest speech. He said, "I will be so brief I am already
finished," then he sat down.

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 16:30:30 +0100, Doctor John <doc### [at] gmailcom>
wrote:

>'Afternoon, Stephen.
>Fancy a pint in a bar staffed by Polish, French and Italian workers? Say
>a week from today i.e. 1st May.

As long as I've already voted. I don't want Boris to get in by default
:)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> 
> As long as I've already voted. I don't want Boris to get in by default
> :)

OK will confirm exact time nearer to the date

John

-- 
I will be brief but not nearly so brief as Salvador Dali, who gave the
world's shortest speech. He said, "I will be so brief I am already
finished," then he sat down.

Post a reply to this message