Logo

Lucifer Baphomet · 07-04-2009, 04:39 PM

From a PDF I found...

Quote:

Most outspoken in breaking the taboo on culture in the Dutch research scene has undoubtedly been another young anthropologist, Marion van San. In her report on the delinquent behaviour of that other infamous Dutch problem group, Antillean youngsters, Van San criticizes the tendency within minorities studies to evade the question whether aspects of ‘culture’ might promote criminal behaviour.35 She therefore addresses the issue head-on, by investigating whether some forms of delinquent behaviour by boys from Curaçao might be explained by the greater tolerance within the group for particular offences.36 From interviews with delinquent Curaçao boys and their mothers, Van San reconstructs the ´insider´ perspective on ‘instrumental’ and ‘expressive’ crimes and concludesthat, whereas the boys cannot fall back on their cultural background to legitimize an instrumental crime such as stealing, there does exist a shared subculture which legitimizes expressive crimes such as stabbing. The most shocking and controversial element of Van San´s findings is the justifying, sometimes even encouraging roles she claims that Curaçao mothers play in tolerating the criminal behaviour of their sons, especially concerning expressive crimes, where ‘honour’ is at stake. Van San´s report met with serious criticisms concerning the negative effects it might have on the public image of Antilleans in Holland. This outburst of political sensitivity, however, must have been peanuts to her compared to the fierce resistance she met when, on request of the Flemish government, she started an investigation into the relationship between ethnicity and criminality in Belgium. When the report was finally published, it was ignored by the intellectual and political establishment, and, to her regret, embraced by the Flemish Block.37

Which means she hates the way the Vlamms Belang have twisted her findings to their own purposes.

Eirik, this woman despises your politics.

Eirik · 07-04-2009, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joshua Nightshade

And the publication in question:

Elsevier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You're talking about the Elsevier company. They're a holding.

The Elsevier monthly as in this specific journal the interview came from is an independent magazine. They're not any more biased than any of your sources.

Again, your lack of international skills limits you. The English wikipedia is incomplete. The Dutch wikipedia has separate articles on Elsevier company and Elsevier Monthly.

Eirik · 07-04-2009, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucifer Baphomet

Which means she hates the way the Vlaams Belang have twisted her findings to their own purposes.

Eirik, this woman despises your politics.

How many times have I got to repeat it on this forum.

I DO NOT AND WILL NOT VOTE FOR VLAAMS BELANG

Joshua Nightshade · 07-04-2009, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eirik

You're talking about the Elsevier company. They're a holding.

The Elsevier monthly as in this specific journal the interview came from is an independent magazine. They're not any more biased than any of your sources.

Again, your lack of international skills limits you. The English wikipedia is incomplete. The Dutch wikipedia has separate articles on Elsevier company and Elsevier Monthly.

My lack of international skills, coming from the bigot who won't leave Europe, heh.

Uh where am I right now, buddo? I think Australia's pretty international, and Adam and I spent the majority of last summer all over Europe.

I think I managed rather adequately in Finland for someone with no international skills.

Eirik · 07-04-2009, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joshua Nightshade

My lack of international skills

You speak what? One language? Two maybe?

If for local news you limit yourself to English searches, then YES. That means you lack international skills.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joshua Nightshade

So mark me incredulous, and unimpressed.

Then continue to be incredulous and unimpressed. I'm going to bed anyway since I have to be working early tomorrow, yay for weekend shifts.

I've posted all there is to say about this topic anyway. Have fun with your little circlejerk.

Joshua Nightshade · 07-04-2009, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eirik

any of your sources

Which would be blogs and forums, similar to where yours came from. Aside from the one interview that isn't saying what you want it to say.

Joshua Nightshade · 07-04-2009, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eirik

Have fun with your little circlejerk.

Joshua Nightshade · 07-04-2009, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eirik

You speak what? One language? Two maybe?

If for local news you limit yourself to English searches, then YES. That means you lack international skills.

Then continue to be incredulous and unimpressed. I'm going to bed anyway since I have to be working early tomorrow, yay for weekend shifts.

I've posted all there is to say about this topic anyway. Have fun with your little circlejerk.

Tisk for the ninja edit. I don't see what the amount of languages I understand has to do with this discussion.

You're trying to frame your perspective to an english audience, unless you expect any of us to just take your word for it. I didn't, went searching, found nothing to really back you up.

Anyway I've already addressed that ineffectual dismissal for Nina's benefit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by prinţesă nină

english was the third language i learnt.
how about you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joshua Nightshade

I know English, French, Spanish, Latin, a bit of German and Greek, and stupid cunt.

Don't be Nina, Eirik.

detrius · 07-04-2009, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eirik

How many times have I got to repeat it on this forum.

I DO NOT AND WILL NOT VOTE FOR VLAAMS BELANG

If you say that, you should also mention why you won't vote for them:
it's because they're a self-proclaimed "Christian" party, not because they're a bunch of racist, xenophobic bigots.

Lucifer Baphomet · 07-04-2009, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eirik

How many times have I got to repeat it on this forum.

I DO NOT AND WILL NOT VOTE FOR VLAAMS BELANG

I just mentioned them as theyre the dominant party in the Flemish Block.

Wasn't the party you voted a member of that block?

Arilynn · 07-04-2009, 05:08 PM

Really interesting article:

Quote:

From the International Journal of Comparative Sociology: The Long-Term Historical Development of Racist Tendencies within the Political and Social Context of Belgium (2006)

...
Although the precariousness created by globalization pressures cannot be ignored, I would like to stress the historical significance and longue durée of racist attitudes in Belgium, a theme that some sociologists admit to (e.g. Bilsen and De Witte, 2001), but one that is rarely elaborated upon. With the notable exception of a few engaged social scientists and Africanists, most sociological studies in Belgium have neglected to take into account the colonial heritage of the collective imaginary in post-colonial times.The most critical voice emanating from within Belgian academia is that of a former colonized subject, Bambi Ceuppens (2003), an expert on the history of the Democratic Republic of Congo. Ceuppens has traced a direct line between how blacks were treated by whites in the Belgian Congo, to how immigrants and ‘colored’ minorities are discriminated against and patronized in today’s post-colonial Belgium.According to her, most Belgians are oblivious to the amount of racism and discrimination immigrants face in Belgium (Ceuppens, 2005). Public opinion in Wallonia actually claims that assimilationist policies have worked so well that there is no racism and no successful right-wing racist political parties. Yet as Hassan Bousetta (2000: 135) notes in his report on the Moroccan community in Liège:

. . . the dominant assimilationist ideological framework has impeded the emergence of alternative ways of representing ethnic minorities either in the formal political process or in the implementation of public policies. To some extent, one could contend that this has resulted in the reproduction of immigrants’ powerlessness through a systematic non-politicization and non-specific decision-making....

Sociological research on immigrants in Belgium is rather limited when compared to that in other industrialized nations and there is limited funding for academics available. Perhaps not surprisingly, immigrant views are seldom found in Belgian scientific publications; indeed, from the spring of 1980 through to the summer of 1990, the most prestigious sociological journal in Flanders, the Tijdschrift voor Sociologie,
ran only one article related to immigrants and minorities in Belgium, and it was about Muslims in a special issue devoted to religion in Belgium.

Those academic debates that do take place with respect to the continuing impact of colonization, public policies towards minorities or the challenges posed by immigration are unfortunately an almost entirely ‘white affair’ to be discussed by patronizing natives and even then ‘they’ are discussed in a passive manner, for example, the extent to which one should argue for or against affirmative action (suspiciously labeled ‘positive discrimination’ in Flanders) on ‘their’ behalf. Most academic publications have been reluctant to advocate any kind of public policy that would favor helping minorities outright (e.g. the policy recommendations of Denolf and Grieten, 1990) and in so doing, reflect the official government position that those problems that affect (poor) Belgians and immigrants should be handled in tandem.
...
Also in vogue are social science studies that tend to scrutinize and problematize the daily behavior of immigrants, their values and their communities at large, as demonstrated by the publicity surrounding Marion Van San and Arjen Keerkes (2001) and others (e.g. Foblets et al., 2004). But if one looks at the public opinion surveys regarding Belgian attitudes towards immigrants, one wonders if the scientific scrutiny has been directed at the most appropriate target. Public opinion polls have indicated that 22 percent of all Belgians would label themselves as ‘very racist’ and 33 percent admit to being ‘fairly racist’ (Rea, 1998: 170), which combined make up a majority of the population. Among those under 25, 41 percent claim there are too many foreigners in Belgium. And a solid majority – 57 percent – agrees with the statement that unemployed immigrants should be deported to their country of origin (Rea, 1998).
...
It would appear that immigrants are damned if they do, damned if they don’t: if you’re an immigrant who works, you are accused of stealing someone else’s job; if you don’t, you’re seen as living off ordinary people’s taxes. Perhaps it is Belgian society’s treatment of its immigrants that should be problematized.
...

Colette Meiji · 07-04-2009, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pussycat Catnap

My point is that...

There was NO JUSTIFICATION for attacking me and my heritage. Calling me racist for me referencing something that is good about some of my cousins is itself racists.

Attacking my heritage as has been done here was completely uncalled for.

People emigrate. Now I get called on for being a descendant of someone who immigrated? And making that kind of attack is not also racist?

If I flip any of those attacks around and made them on whites, I would be called a racist...

Who attacked your heritage?

They only disagreed with the idealistic notion of "the noble savage" and used Amazonian Indians as an example.

Since there has never been a perfect society, pointing out that there are societal problems of violence and sexual violence in that culture does not constitute an attack on said culture.

In Japan they had(ve) a comic book named Rape Man. The fact they did is sickening. Does that mean I am attacking Japanese culture by bringing it up? No.

In the US Gays are institutionally discriminated against. Does that mean I attack the culture by bringing it up? No.

In Soviet Russia, they drank a lot of vodka (or the other way around) and alcoholism was a huge problem. Does that mean I attack the culture by bringing it up? No.

For some reason you are hyper-sensitive to criticism of your culture (or ancestors culture or w/e), yet OUR cultures' problems are routinely discussed in this very sub-form. Does every thread constitute and attack on US or European or Chinese culture around here? I think not.

**Circle Widdershins** · 07-04-2009, 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaleVinson

OK. I don't want to be "sneaky" here, so, yes, this thread was inspired by some of the discussion in the Ban the Burqa thread, and I will feel free to take any consensus we may reach here (yeah, right, like *that's* going to happen

) back to that thread. But I also feel that a discussion on this topic has its own intrinsic merit too.

So, my question is: what are the minimal requirements we can come up for a society that is said to be free, open, and effective. The following is my first stab, which I feel free to modify, or reject entirely on the basis of subsequent discussion.

A) Access to political power is uniform for all citizens

I think this is currently "epic fail" for even the western democracies. "One person, one vote" is a good start, but the amount of money spent on political campaigns is proof to me that a rich person has more political clout than a poor person.

B) Rule of law

Independence of the judiciary and all that good stuff.

C) Regulated Capitalism

This is why I included "effective" in my list of societal principles. Its no good having a in-principle Utopian society in which no-one produces anything.

I have no problem with more/better work == better reward, but in the absence of effective regulation I see lots of ways to access rewards without contributing anything to society to justify this.

D) Equality of Opportunity

This is a "biggy" for me, on both moral and economic grounds.

Life can never be truly fair, so we will never meet this goal, but we should strive to get as close as possible to it. And certainly, we should have no policies that work against it.

Lack of commitment in this area undermines Capitalism (C). Put crudely, you can't reward someone for winning the 100m sprint, when you tied boulders to the other competitors.

(D) can be broken down into components:

D.1) Universal access to a basic level of health-care.

D.2) Universal access to a basic level of education.

D.3) Universal access to justice and the rule of law.

E) Freedom to do whatever you like, that does not harm others or conflict with the proceeding principles

One immediate corollary of this is that "thought crime" cannot exist, because my thoughts, in and of themselves, cannot harm anyone else. It is the *actioning* of those thoughts that is the problem.

It also follows that there can be no privileged "moral stance" in such a society, based on religion or anything else. You are free to hold whatever moral stance you like, for yourself, but may not action that against others.

=========

Well, there's my attempt. Its undoubtedly wrong, lets see if we can improve it.

For myself, it'd be nice if people took note of that "minimum" in minimum requirements. But do as thou wilt.

================================================== =================================
ADDED IN EDIT

I'd like to keep notes in one place as people make corrections, additions, etc.

1) Right to privacy (Brenda Archer, Post #2)

I like the first few pages of this thread and I like the OP. It is vastly interesting to discuss levels of civilisation as defined by societal laws as limited by human nature (circular writing anyone?

). I'd like to see the discussion restarted.

And I hate to see Cale sighing.

I would add to this list of bare essentials, especially in how it relates to 'open' and 'effective' in that the principles underpinning the guidelines should also be extended to rules guiding relationships with other countries/nation states. (Particularly E and Privacy)

While these hypothetical guidelines are a very good start towards an ideal society, the society described has the initial appearance of being in a vacuum without the influences of other nation states/countries/people. And any country/nation state which only looks inward, paying less attention to the ideas of, and interractions with, outside influences, has less chance of success. [snark] Kinda like fascism. [/end snark]

Hypatia Callisto · 07-05-2009, 04:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cindy Claveau

Small point of order: the Greeks (and later the Romans) weren't all that free and open. The right to vote in Athens (the greatest of the Greek city-state democracies) was reserved to adult males who had completed military training. So women and slaves were excluded, as were those whose failure to pay debts had resulted in suspension of their citizenship.

It was a start, but it was gravely flawed.

But Epicurean ideals of a communal society, and Platonic derived ideals of the polis are still alive and well behind a lot of political models. But it would be severely wrong to say that was mainstream Greek culture.

Plato was deeply influenced by Pythagorean statecraft, having spent part of his time in Southern Italy in these societies. (spending time in exile so he didn't suffer the same fate as Socrates, no doubt) Plato cannot be described as a friend of democracy, he was deeply critical of it. While one can justifiably say, as Karl Popper did, that Plato provided the underpinnings for the organisation of an authoritarian city... some of the earliest arguments for the equal rights of women in society can be traced back to Plato's Laws. I think it's remarkable that Plato dissented so strongly to the Athenian treatment of women, given his aristocratic background.

But it's the Epicureans who managed to do the counter-culture society of friends successfully for approximately 800 years, accepting men and women of all walks of life, slave and free, and influenced important minds as wide ranged as Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Thomas Jefferson. When studying Jefferson, one must take the influence of Gassendi's Epicureanism and its popularity during the Enlightenment into account.

Hypatia Callisto · 07-05-2009, 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Colette Meiji

Who attacked your heritage?

I am really surprised at the new research that Jean-Jacques Rousseau was born in the Rainforest, but who knows.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As far as Americans are concerned, I'm in no position to talk, because I emigrated to Europe, and live in the land where some of my ancestors are from. I'm also of Irish nationality from a Catholic family, the fact I was born in the US pretty much a footnote as I haven't lived in the country for more than a decade and have 100 percent no contact with my American dad or his family, only the Irish and Irish American members of my mothers.

I guess I should paint my face in blue woad and blow up British buildings and scream about the horrific deaths of some members of my family, who were in the IRA, persecuted at various times by the British for the last 800 years (up until last century) but ... that shit didn't happen to me. Yeah, us Irish have been the white trash of Europe for a long time. We got over it, mostly.

Anyway, brown people have no corner on being discriminated against.

Hypatia Callisto · 07-05-2009, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Circle Widdershins

I like the first few pages of this thread and I like the OP. It is vastly interesting to discuss levels of civilisation as defined by societal laws as limited by human nature (circular writing anyone?

). I'd like to see the discussion restarted.

And I hate to see Cale sighing.

I would add to this list of bare essentials, especially in how it relates to 'open' and 'effective' in that the principles underpinning the guidelines should also be extended to rules guiding relationships with other countries/nation states. (Particularly E and Privacy)

While these hypothetical guidelines are a very good start towards an ideal society, the society described has the initial appearance of being in a vacuum without the influences of other nation states/countries/people. And any country/nation state which only looks inward, paying less attention to the ideas of, and interractions with, outside influences, has less chance of success. [snark] Kinda like fascism. [/end snark]

*restarts*

Well, we can start discussing Hobbes vs. Rousseau. I will confess a preference for Hobbes.

Thomas Hobbes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

so that would mean that I'm someone who believes that societal laws are limited and even defined to a large degree by human nature, yes. However, I'm a fan of Richard Dawkins too, in that I don't believe we should take naturalistic Darwinian explanations of how we got here, as instructions on how we should move forward. Nature just is, and I prefer to follow Hume and avoid the naturalistic fallacy.

I guess this in many ways outs my moderate scepticism, even though I have a strong affection for Epicureanism, in its modern and ancient forms. But even that didn't evolve in a vacuum, and it evolved mainly out of sceptical Democritean philosophy, just like that other branch of scepticism - Pyrrhonism.

So that would make me an anti-Darwinian in my politics, to a very large extent. I've posted this before, but someone I truly love is Daniel Dennett. He has said in one of his talks, that a key to a free society is a critically informed citizenry.

How can we instill the values of scepticism in people, to look with a critical eye? Because I truly believe that without a critically informed citizenry, it's impossible to have a free society at all. Control has to come from somewhere, either individuals are self-aware enough to control themselves, or the government has to take the responsibility for them. In reality we have a combination of both in democratic societies. I'd like to see more bottom up freedom but I know its impossible without people who are aware enough to know how to limit their own behavior.

It's depressing. :/

Richie Waves · 07-05-2009, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eirik

I'm a fascist sociopath who probably has no friends and stews in bitterness

I agree.

**Beebo Brink** · 07-05-2009, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaleVinson

Those last few posts have done it. I'm in serious need of chocolate now. And possibly more than is good for me.

Rest assured, that should zits form as a result, I *will* be naming them "Luc", "Beebo", "Cindy", and "Hypatia".

I'm happy to report that as of Sunday morning, Cale was zit free. My conscience is clear.

Lucifer Baphomet · 07-05-2009, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beebo Brink

I'm happy to report that as of Sunday morning, Cale was zit free. My conscience is clear.

O RLY??

Surreal · 07-05-2009, 09:39 PM

minimum requirement would be new kind of people... seems like there is no system so well designed that people can't screw it up

CaleVinson · 07-05-2009, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucifer Baphomet

O RLY??

You, Sir, are a cad.

A lovable cad, but a rotter and a scoundrel nonetheless.

Samantha Fuller · 07-05-2009, 10:29 PM

I will add one more idea that might help, It seems that our current model's of civilizations don't scale well due to limits of the monkey-sphere perhaps the answer is to not try to over scale civilization but rather adopt the family model and set it up so that when it gets a certain size it buds a completely new independent civilization.

CaleVinson · 07-05-2009, 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hypatia Callisto

How can we instill the values of scepticism in people, to look with a critical eye? Because I truly believe that without a critically informed citizenry, it's impossible to have a free society at all. Control has to come from somewhere, either individuals are self-aware enough to control themselves, or the government has to take the responsibility for them. In reality we have a combination of both in democratic societies. I'd like to see more bottom up freedom but I know its impossible without people who are aware enough to know how to limit their own behavior.

It's depressing. :/

/me hands chocolate over to Hypatia.

I thought this was an interesting question, and have no real idea how to answer it. My first thought was that "education conquers all", but on reflection that's probably naive - if, as has been suggested by others above, we're talking about hard-wirings in brain-types, rather than "simple" ignorance, then our educational program is going to need millennia to work.

Way back near the start of this thread of this thread, Beebo suggested that we apparently needed both the authoritarian and the idealistic elements of rule for our societies to prosper.

Question: what do we think would happen if we ran a sort of "Inverse Lord of the Flies Experiment"? Took 10,000 people, subjected them to year-long psychological testing that established, as best we could, that they were people whose "brains could go there" as Beebo put it, and then plonked them all down on an uninhabited island somewhere. Would an, admittedly local, utopia result, or would they be eating one's anothers brains before the year was out? (Assume for the sake of the argument that the island was reasonably hospitable, the colonists arrived with start-up supplies, etc, etc)

Lucifer Baphomet · 07-05-2009, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Surreal Farber

minimum requirement would be new kind of people... seems like there is no system so well designed that people can't screw it up

Crakers?

**Circle Widdershins** · 07-05-2009, 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaleVinson

/me hands chocolate over to Hypatia.

/steals the chocolate ...

... noms! yay

Maybe the internet is our new society?

Where we can choose to hang out with like minded people, poking fun at other collections of people, and thus forming new and improved in-groups and out-groups, with our own internal warring factions.

*sigh

nom

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

07-05-2009, 10:29 PM	#122 (permalink)
Samantha Fuller Senior Member Mostly quiet Lurker Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 371 My Mood:	I will add one more idea that might help, It seems that our current model's of civilizations don't scale well due to limits of the monkey-sphere perhaps the answer is to not try to over scale civilization but rather adopt the family model and set it up so that when it gets a certain size it buds a completely new independent civilization.

Logo

Site Navigation