[MD] the empire

[Platt Holden]

Hi All, 

Rigel speaks!

Platt

> [Arlo]
> I've been dealing with Ham's (and Platt's) bigotry for years. So 
> perhaps I had a context to Ham's post you have not yet "discerned". 
> :-) The MOQ is used here to justify a supremicist ideology that 
> (conveniently) always ends up with these two on the glorious zenith. 
> Yes, some things are better than others. Yes, we should judge those 
> who hold freedom of speech as being morally superior to those who do 
> not. But I add, in this regard. What the MOQ allows us to do (intends 
> for us to do), is to be able to cast aside static social patterns and 
> discriminate among intellectual ideas. What these two do is use this 
> as justification for saying one group is absolutely morally superior 
> to another... period.
> 
> Ask them, since they demand discrimination, in what ways are ANY 
> other cultures superior to America's? If "black culture" is inferior 
> in some regards, as they claim, then ask "okay, now in what ways is 
> it superior?" What are the "racial differences" Ham alludes to? Are 
> there any that cast whites worse of than blacks? You will see that 
> the proclamations of superiority are blanket proclamations. So the 
> issue is not "X is better than Y", but "people A are morally superior 
> to people B because X is better than Y". Conveniently, as I said, Ham 
> and Platt always end up being part of "people A". We are to also 
> judge nations, we are told, so I ask, if America is better than other 
> nations in some regards, in what ways it worse? And who is better in 
> those regards? See what kind of answers you get to these questions. 
> Its not about "discrimination", its about creating a hierarchy that 
> at once and always has YOU on top, in all regards, in all manners, 
> and with absolute certainty.
> 
> Make no mistake, in his ongoing condemnation of "multiculturalism", 
> Ham traces this "great evil" back to desegregation. In your opinion, 
> should we resegregate the schools? Should those inferior blacks have 
> their own schools so they don't bother our morally superior white 
> kids?  (BTW, when I first joined MD many years ago, a topic of debate 
> was The Bell Curve, where Platt was firmly arguing that this 
> constituted scientific evidence that blacks are biologically less 
> intelligent than (inferior to) whites.)  Is it no wonder, also, how a 
> short time ago Ham lamented that the influx of "Hispanic values" 
> would "may not be "the end of liberty and the enslavement of 
> mankind", but is will surely "lead to
> the destruction of America" as we know it." Hispanic values, it 
> seems, are threatening "the values that are indigenous to American 
> culture". (I asked Ham to outline these "indigenous American values" 
> but he never has. I was curious, because I have many Hispanic 
> friends, and I wanted to know which of their values presents a threat to
> me).
> 
> The isolationism Ham speaks of retreats to an era of xenophobia and 
> fear, which is small wonder considering this is platform rhetoric for 
> them. Be afraid of Muslims. Be afraid of Russians. Be afraid of Iran. 
> Be afraid of commies and Marxists and darkies and Mexicans. Go into 
> your house, lock the windows and shiver and shake about the great 
> mongrel horse that is waiting to come charging over the hill. Yes, 
> freedom of the press in the West is morally superior to the 
> state-censored press of Iran. But that does not make Americans 
> superior people. What such thinking does is dehumanize the world into 
> inferior "others" who don't matter as much as us (except to keep us 
> afraid). I know several Iranians. They are good people, who, when you 
> strip away the extraneous wrappings of culture (clothing, food, 
> habit, etc.) are the same as we are.
> 
> And this is what multiculturalism is all about. It is about 
> tolerating the meaningless differences between peoples. Who wears a 
> NASCAR hat and who wears a Hijab. Its primary foundation is that 
> stripped of the veneer and paint of our local cultural historical 
> traditions, as well as the particular genetic traits we are born with 
> (eye, skin, hair colors, height, weight, girth, etc.), we are all 
> people. We all bleed. We all love. And although we have different 
> customs and different gods/beliefs, and different customs about 
> eating, sleeping, relaxing and living, our fears about "the other" 
> are chains by which we bind ourselves. Sure, there have been misteps, 
> unexpected pitfalls and supremicist/fear reawakenings along the way, 
> but this the direction we should go.
> 
> Also make no mistake. Tolerance must cut in all directions. We should 
> NOT be tolerant of an ideology that seeks to curtail our freedoms of 
> speech. But we must also be intolerant of only those things, and not 
> move in outward spirals to consider whole groups morally inferior. 
> For example, a law FORCING women to wear hijabs is immoral. But so is 
> OUTLAWING it for those who choose to wear one (something Platt once 
> claimed was a victory for intellectual patterns, to forcibly outlaw 
> this clothing). If others choose to wear hijabs, that is no different 
> than those who choose to wear NASCAR hats, they are people. They 
> love. They cry. They feel. They bleed. They should not be excluded 
> from schools because they choose to wear this, nor should they be 
> treated with any less respect than ANY human being should have.
> 
> To sum. We can certainly discriminate moral and immoral in our world. 
> We must not translate that into a superior race or people. I am 
> always weary of those who do, and conveniently end up in the 
> "superior" column each and every time.
> 
> Anyways, this went on a little long. Blame the coffee.