On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 09:43:26 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> It's not a "privilege" to be treated fairly by the courts, or to be
> allowed to live without being hassled by your neighbors, or to avoid
> being beat up for no reason when you walk down the street.

Some might argue, though, that it is if your situation is such that you 
are not.  There's the idea (which is what you describe), and then there's 
the reality (which many in the US live in every day).  It *shouldn't* be 
a privilege, I'd agree with that - it should be something everyone has 
access to.

> The idea that you'd want to take these "privileges" away from someone in
> order to be "more fair" is absurd in my mind.

I agree with this.  For example, the way to fix "not everyone is treated 
fairly by the courts" is not to make the situation so it reads "everyone 
is treated unfairly by the courts".

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 10:26:44 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Stephen wrote:
>> If you had the right to sleep with a bride before her wedding.
> 
> I would think that would be a privilege. ;-)

Depends on the bride. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 09:24:33 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> But yes, they didn't really stand a chance because of the technological
>> differences - that doesn't mean they didn't try or that they weren't
>> willing to do so.
> 
> True. I misread your original post that I followed up to. Your
> "unwilling, or didn't try" came out as binary alternatives in my brain
> rather than two restatements of the same idea.

Not a problem - completely understand how that happened. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> >   You claim that a person's history consists of his ancestors' history
> > besides his own life. I disagree. Why should it have any effect on your
> > actions what your ancestors did or didn't do? Why should your own
> > ancestors' actions have more effect on yours than the actions of someone
> > else's ancestors?

> Because the mistakes made by those who came before me (whether related by 
> blood or not) are mistakes I personally would care not to repeat.  

  Which is precisely what I said: It doesn't matter who *your* ancestors
were. "Your ancestors also did this or that" is completely irrelevant.

  If I'm to learn from past mistakes of humanity, why should I make any
distinction between whether those people were my ancestors or not? That's
absolutely and completely irrelevant.

  The original point in this thread was that you shouldn't treat immigrants
with disrespect *because your ancestors were immigrants too*.
  No, that's not the reason why you shouldn't treat immigrants (or anyone
else) with disrespect. That's just an irrelevant argument which doesn't
make any sense.

> I can't just come in and say "right, everything we did before is null and 
> void, I don't care who promised you what, we're starting over from 
> scratch".  If we did that on a national/global scale every generation, 
> we'd never get anywhere, and we CERTAINLY wouldn't make any progress.

  I didn't even understand that.

> >   And in this thread in particular: Why should the social status (in
> >   this
> > case being an immigrant) of your distant ancestors have any effect on
> > your own social status or your opinions? You are not your ancestors. You
> > are not what they were. You are you, and what you are depends only on
> > what you have done.

> No, that's simply not true.  That the families that came into the US (for 
> me about 4 or 5 generations ago) were permitted to enter this country, 
> even though they didn't speak English (well, some of them did - they came 
> from England) and were welcomed (generally) without people saying "Hey, 
> <derrogatory term>, why don't you learn some goddamned English?  YOU'RE 
> IN AMERICA NOW, SPEAK ENGLISH YOU FRIGGIN IDIOT!" does inform my opinions 
> on matters like this.  As well it should.  Doesn't mean I'll always agree 
> with them, but that past informs my decisions and opinions in the current 
> world situation.

  Sorry, I still don't understand. Informs?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 09:43:26 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> 
>> It's not a "privilege" to be treated fairly by the courts, or to be
>> allowed to live without being hassled by your neighbors, or to avoid
>> being beat up for no reason when you walk down the street.
> 
> Some might argue, though, that it is if your situation is such that you 
> are not.  There's the idea (which is what you describe), and then there's 
> the reality (which many in the US live in every day).  It *shouldn't* be 
> a privilege, I'd agree with that - it should be something everyone has 
> access to.

Unless you count "privilege" as opposite of "disadvantage", I don't see 
how you count "being treated the way the law says you should" as being 
"privileged."  I.e., you run into the excluded middle of "normal", where 
everyone who isn't ground down is unfairly uplifted.

Maybe this is a meaning of the word "privilege" I'm not aware of. Lots 
of people seem to use it to mean "better off than I am, through no fault 
of theirs or mine."

>> The idea that you'd want to take these "privileges" away from someone in
>> order to be "more fair" is absurd in my mind.
> 
> I agree with this.  For example, the way to fix "not everyone is treated 
> fairly by the courts" is not to make the situation so it reads "everyone 
> is treated unfairly by the courts".

That's the problem. You start getting people saying "let's take away the 
unfair privileges."  You know, like being born in a country where it's 
possible to get rich.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     "That's pretty. Where's that?"
          "It's the Age of Channelwood."
     "We should go there on vacation some time."

Post a reply to this message

In article <480fedbc$1@news.povray.org>, nos### [at] nospamcom says...
> On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 19:04:19 -0600, somebody wrote:
> 
> > And had native Americans were willing and able to protect their land an
d
> > prevent conquest and immigration, maybe the world would be a better
> > place now. It's pointless to argue what ifs, but it should help convinc
e
> > you that whatever happened in the past (immigration included) need not
> > have been the "right" thing.
> 
> Are you saying the native Americans weren't willing to fight to protect
 
> their land, or didn't try?  Because if you are, perhaps you should read
 
> some early American history.
> 
> >> What you seem to be saying is that since we can't do anything about th
e
> >> past, we should just forget that it happened and not learn from it.
> > 
> > No. I'm saying we should base today's decisions on present
> > circumstances, not past circumstances. Just because people immigrated i
n
> > the past in large numbers to their present locations, we cannot assume
> > immigration is always desirable. There's no hypocricy in realising what
> > worked in the past may not work now (or vice versa).
> 
> I don't disagree with that, but at the same time, people need to realise
 
> that they're not *native* Americans, everyone came from somewhere. Unless
 
> you're descended from actual Native American tribes, you really have no
 
> more claim on this land than anyone else.
> 
> >> I don't have that luxury - and remember that those who fail to learn
> >> from history are doomed to repeat it.
> > 
> > Learning is one thing. Making present decisions based on historical dat
a
> > or pretext is something entirely different.
> 
> No, making decisions based on historical *and* current data is the wise
 
> thing to do.  You can't make a good decision based solely on historical
 
> data, and I would argue that you also can't make a good decision based on
 
> a total lack of historical understanding.
> 
> Jim
> 
Dude, by most estimations less than 5% of the "Native American" tribes 
are still 100% Native American, and frankly, the one that has the most 
casinos, etc. right now, only has *1* Indian member, everyone else in 
the family being 50% or more white. So, logically, by any rational 
standard, we should let the 50 people in the US that are still more than 
50% Indian keep their reservations and just label everyone else as, 
"They all came from some place else.", right? lol

OK, my numbers are off. I just guessed at them, but the fact remains 
that the number of "pure bloods" is shrinking rapidly, the first ones to 
build casinos (and who now own 80% of Indian gaming) barely qualify as 
Indians are all, and our continued claim that its relevant is reaching 
the point of being close to irrelevant for anyone. And that is without 
even pointing out the fact that most are not "pure blood" between 
individual tribes any more, or "native" to the Americas, in the long 
sense, any more than anyone else.

-- 
void main () {

    if version = "Vista" {
      call slow_by_half();
      call DRM_everything();
    }
    call functional_code();
  }
  else
    call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 19:06:47 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> >   You claim that a person's history consists of his ancestors'
>> >   history
>> > besides his own life. I disagree. Why should it have any effect on
>> > your actions what your ancestors did or didn't do? Why should your
>> > own ancestors' actions have more effect on yours than the actions of
>> > someone else's ancestors?
> 
>> Because the mistakes made by those who came before me (whether related
>> by blood or not) are mistakes I personally would care not to repeat.
> 
>   Which is precisely what I said: It doesn't matter who *your* ancestors
> were. "Your ancestors also did this or that" is completely irrelevant.
> 
>   If I'm to learn from past mistakes of humanity, why should I make any
> distinction between whether those people were my ancestors or not?
> That's absolutely and completely irrelevant.

I guess the hang-up here is that I'm not necessarily talking direct-line-
of descent, but "generations that come before us".  I honestly don't know 
if my ancestors were involved in the slave trade.  But that the slave 
trade took place is something that is historically undeniable, and that 
it happened is something that plays into decisions lots of people make in 
how to deal with minorities (for example).

>   The original point in this thread was that you shouldn't treat
>   immigrants
> with disrespect *because your ancestors were immigrants too*.

Well, sure, you shouldn't treat immigrants with disrespect because it's 
just plain wrong to do so.  The historical context is what helps 
demonstrate that it's wrong.

>   No, that's not the reason why you shouldn't treat immigrants (or
>   anyone
> else) with disrespect. That's just an irrelevant argument which doesn't
> make any sense.

Right, I think we agree on that.

>> I can't just come in and say "right, everything we did before is null
>> and void, I don't care who promised you what, we're starting over from
>> scratch".  If we did that on a national/global scale every generation,
>> we'd never get anywhere, and we CERTAINLY wouldn't make any progress.
> 
>   I didn't even understand that.

My point was that if every generation did not incorporate historical 
context into their decisions, as a civilization, we wouldn't make any 
progress.

>> No, that's simply not true.  That the families that came into the US
>> (for me about 4 or 5 generations ago) were permitted to enter this
>> country, even though they didn't speak English (well, some of them did
>> - they came from England) and were welcomed (generally) without people
>> saying "Hey, <derrogatory term>, why don't you learn some goddamned
>> English?  YOU'RE IN AMERICA NOW, SPEAK ENGLISH YOU FRIGGIN IDIOT!" does
>> inform my opinions on matters like this.  As well it should.  Doesn't
>> mean I'll always agree with them, but that past informs my decisions
>> and opinions in the current world situation.
> 
>   Sorry, I still don't understand. Informs?

Sorry, forgot - non-native speaker. :-)  In this context, "inform" (the 
verb) is used as meaning "To give form to the mind, to discipline, 
instruct, teach (a person), to furnish with knowledge."  Or put another 
way, the historical context provides a foundation for the opinion.

My point here is that, at least in the US, some of us forget that our 
ancestors (ie, those who came before us, not necessarily any specific 
individual's specific lineage) generally came from somewhere outside this 
country, and it is disrespectful to our collective history to ignore that 
fact as we take a more adversarial stand (and for some, a much more 
adversarial stand including the suggested and actual use of violence) 
against keeping people out of the US.

I've suggested to several friends who have differing opinions on 
immigration in the US to me that they watch a particular episode of 
Morgan Spurlock's "30 Days" that dealt with the issue of illegal 
immigration.  The idea behind the programme is that someone who is 
against something (be it immigration, Christianity, Islam, whatever - in 
the final episode, Spurlock spent 30 days in jail to show life 'on the 
other side of the tracks' - very interesting) in the situation they 
don't.  When they looked at immigration, they took someone who was a 
legal immigrant (from Cuba, IIRC) who had joined up with the Minutemen 
(an organization - some would say of vigilantes - who 'protect' the 
border from illegal Mexican immigrants) and moved him in with a family of 
illegal immigrants in California.  It was very interesting to see the 
discussions/debates he had - and then he went to Mexico and *saw* where 
they had lived; the family hadn't been back since they crossed the 
border, and they had missed the funeral of one of the grandparents as a 
result.  When he came back to the US, his opinion had changed; even 
coming from Cuba, he had no idea conditions were that bad in the rural 
parts of Mexico and he completely understood the motivation people had to 
cross the border, even illegally, to escape from that extreme poverty.

In the US (and in Europe, I suspect) we talk about poverty, but we really 
have no idea what real poverty is like.  Not to diminish the situation 
that the less fortunate in our respective countries live in (and I know 
there are a few here who identify in that economic category), but 
comparatively speaking, many of those in the US we think of as "the poor" 
have a roof over their heads.  This family in Mexico had 2 walls.  No 
roof, no plumbing, no source of potable water nearby.  A really sad 
situation.

Anyways, the Minuteman who went and saw this came back, and it was 
reported that he then left the "front lines" of the Minutemen and focused 
instead on ways to improve the situation back home for those who would do 
anything to escape the extreme poverty they were leaving.

Unfortunately, in the US, we are a society who looks for "quick fixes", 
and repairing the socioeconomic problems in Mexico is seen (and to an 
extent, rightly so) as being Mexico's problem.  The thing is, Mexico has 
little incentive to do this, so the "quick fix" here in the US is to 
build a wall and put men with guns on that wall to keep the illegals from 
coming over (yes, that's a somewhat simplistic picture of the proposal).  
What would work better is for charitable organizations here to work with 
small towns in the affected parts of Mexico to improve things.  The 
problem with this is that it isn't a quick fix, and it doesn't change 
things overnight - and we are so much a society who lives for instant 
gratification in everything we do.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 16:59:01 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 09:43:26 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>> 
>>> It's not a "privilege" to be treated fairly by the courts, or to be
>>> allowed to live without being hassled by your neighbors, or to avoid
>>> being beat up for no reason when you walk down the street.
>> 
>> Some might argue, though, that it is if your situation is such that you
>> are not.  There's the idea (which is what you describe), and then
>> there's the reality (which many in the US live in every day).  It
>> *shouldn't* be a privilege, I'd agree with that - it should be
>> something everyone has access to.
> 
> Unless you count "privilege" as opposite of "disadvantage", I don't see
> how you count "being treated the way the law says you should" as being
> "privileged."  I.e., you run into the excluded middle of "normal", where
> everyone who isn't ground down is unfairly uplifted.

That's a good way of explaining it, actually - privilege is the opposite 
of disadvantage for purposes of this discussion.  Being treated as the 
law you say you should be isn't a privilege, but if the only thing 
someone sees is people being treated better than they are, then the 
appearance *is* one of privilege.  It's a matter of the point of view, or 
the lens you look at the treatment through.

> Maybe this is a meaning of the word "privilege" I'm not aware of. Lots
> of people seem to use it to mean "better off than I am, through no fault
> of theirs or mine."

Well, again, it's a matter of the lens you look at it through.  From the 
perspective of someone who isn't treated fairly but sees people who are, 
the perception frequently is that of those being treated fairly 
("better") as being privileged.  From the perspective of someone being 
treated fairly, the point of view is different, and it's easy to look at 
it and say "it isn't privilege" because we're used to the fair 
treatment.  But if one's perspective is the one from not having that fair 
treatment, I can see how the fair treatment could be perceived as 
"privilege"  (sorry if I repeated myself, two sittings while writing one 
paragraph can do that <g>)

>>> The idea that you'd want to take these "privileges" away from someone
>>> in order to be "more fair" is absurd in my mind.
>> 
>> I agree with this.  For example, the way to fix "not everyone is
>> treated fairly by the courts" is not to make the situation so it reads
>> "everyone is treated unfairly by the courts".
> 
> That's the problem. You start getting people saying "let's take away the
> unfair privileges."  You know, like being born in a country where it's
> possible to get rich.

Also agreed.  The thing is, the opportunity is there, but is the 
opportunity equal for everyone?  That's a tough one to answer because 
there are so many factors.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 20:27:51 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> Dude, by most estimations less than 5% of the "Native American" tribes
> are still 100% Native American, and frankly, the one that has the most
> casinos, etc. right now, only has *1* Indian member, everyone else in
> the family being 50% or more white. So, logically, by any rational
> standard, we should let the 50 people in the US that are still more than
> 50% Indian keep their reservations and just label everyone else as,
> "They all came from some place else.", right? lol

Heh, well, don't get me started on the casino BS.  I think that's a 
travesty myself - a bastardization of the heritage that's just nothing 
more than crass commercialism/consumerism.

> OK, my numbers are off. I just guessed at them, but the fact remains
> that the number of "pure bloods" is shrinking rapidly, the first ones to
> build casinos (and who now own 80% of Indian gaming) barely qualify as
> Indians are all, and our continued claim that its relevant is reaching
> the point of being close to irrelevant for anyone. And that is without
> even pointing out the fact that most are not "pure blood" between
> individual tribes any more, or "native" to the Americas, in the long
> sense, any more than anyone else.

Well, it's shrinking, but I don't know how rapdily, particularly here in 
the intermountain west.  But to solve the "problem" of past conquest 
today isn't an easy one to answer, because you can't make things like 
they were in the 1400's - and I don't think current tribe members would 
think that was a solution.

I think there's a fine line between acknowledging the past and exploiting 
the sins of the past.  Is it appropriate to continue to pay reparations 
to the Native Americans today for something that started 700 years ago?  
I honestly can't say I know the answer to that question.  My instinct is 
to say "you have the same opportunities today as everyone else here", but 
at the same time, it doesn't feel right to not acknowledge the past and 
to do *something* that isn't pure tokenism but at the same time isn't an 
ongoing thing through the rest of time.  Is it enough just to ensure that 
the traditions and history doesn't die?  I don't know.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> When he came back to the US, his opinion had changed; even 
> coming from Cuba, he had no idea conditions were that bad in the rural 
> parts of Mexico and he completely understood the motivation people had to 
> cross the border, even illegally, to escape from that extreme poverty.

  This presents a moral problem which easily makes multiculturalists kind
of hypocrite.

  Usually multiculturalists heavily oppose the deporting of illegal
immigrants because they would usually be deported to an environment of
extreme poverty, as you mention.

  However, this presents a moral dilemma: Why are those who have successfully
crossed be border considered to have "more right" to be protected than those
who haven't? Is being able to cross the border some kind of test you have to
pass in order to get the protection of multiculturalists and human right
activists? What about those who didn't succeed in crossing the border, and
those who haven't even attempted, but who live in such poor conditions?
Don't they deserve such protection as well?

  Or are they simply comfortably "far away" enough so that they can be
ignored?

  Of course the problem is that of resources: No matter how rich the
rich countries are, it's a physical impossibility to open the borders
to everyone to come in who so wishes. If all western countries did that,
probably 2-3 billion of people would move in, creating a complete economical
catastrophe. The economy and society of the rich countries would simply
collapse.

  Multiculturalists and human right activists understand that, so nobody
seriously is demanding complete opening of borders (except perhaps a few
wackos).

  And here's where the hypocrisy steps in: They defend to death the right
of illegal immigrants, those who have somehow succeeded in entering the
country, to stay in the country, because if they were deported they would
be returned to the poverty, but they don't demand bringing *all* people
from those poor countries.

  Thus being able to get inside the borders of the rich country is, in
practice, some kind of test: If you pass it, you get protection, if you
don't pass it, then you don't get the same protection. People are treated
differently depending on whether they had this luck or not.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message