Joined: 24 Sep 2008 {Posts: 102 } Location: Santiago, DR
Posted: Tue 14 Oct 2008 14:56 Post subject:
fwsweet wrote:
Egmond Codfried wrote:
Interesting to read Chip’s first posting, because after reading his recent answer to me on 'Black Presidents,' I thought he sounded like those people in 'Beloved' who came to get Sethè after she cut slavery. He sounds so hateful!
Codfried has now posted more than 100 messages. This means that he is no longer exempt from the last sentence of rule 1.2 ("Your every message should seek either to inform or to become informed."). As explained in the topic 1.2 You should inform or seek to become informed, "Once [members] have posted 100 messages, they will be required to follow the last sentence of rule 1.2 or face suspension."
The quoted message seeks neither to inform (about U.S. racialism) nor to become informed. It merely expresses personal emotion. This is a formal warning. The next message from Codfried that neither seeks to inform nor to become informed will trigger suspension of his posting privileges.
I would like to be able to discuss Codfried's issue he has with my post but as I understand how the rules are in place there appears to be little chance of happening.
Understanding that this forum's main premise is (taken from fsweets comment):
"to inform or to become informed."
I do believe the actuality is the current rules in place are actually counterproductive, to say the least.
Understanding that basically racial prejudice has three forms more or less; purposely insidious, innocent ignorance and that due to miscommunication it is very clear that the rules were developed to prevent all three forms from being displayed on this forum.
While people who exercise the first form of prejudice, purposely insidious, typically cannot be educated or at least with some difficulty, the latter two classes, ignorance and that due to miscommunication, can be reformed and educated. Unfortunately, the rules on this forum prevent all three types without distinction. This is discouraging because only through dialog and direct communication can the latter two forms of racism be eradicated.
IMO, the final effect of this forum is barely a whisper away from maintaining the current status quo. Therefore, for the sake of allowing this forum to evolve so that it can serve as an effective tool to diminish ignorance and miscommunication by open dialog I recommend that the moderators review the the rules of the forum and implement any changes that are necessary. I understand that with any "relaxing" of the rules there will be abuses, and more work for the moderators, but I think this is acceptable given the greater effect it will have in being a tool of real communication and thus a positive force for change.
It seems to me that you are proposing a change to the site's basic mission. Please review the site's existing mission statement. Its URL is at the top of every page.
Quote:
The site’s mission is to inform and to become informed about U.S. racialism, nothing more. The site does not support any political stance. It is not a support group for multiracial or biracial individuals. It neither supports nor opposes affirmative action. It neither supports nor opposes government demands for the collection of “racial” data. It does not strive to reduce “racism.” It does not strive to improve U.S. “race” relations. It is not a place to vent your grievances. Other sites have broader goals. Do not complain that the site’s mission is too narrow.
You seem to be suggesting that we adopt the goal of debating "racial prejudice." I am willing to hear others' opinions on this, but my first thought is that there are literally hundreds of sites and listservs out there that debate "racial prejudice." But there are no other sites that debate the history and cultural anthropology of U.S. racialism. Why should we take on a task that hundreds of other sites already perform and thereby dilute our doing what no other site does?
You wrote: "...racial prejudice has three forms more or less; purposely insidious, innocent ignorance and that due to miscommunication..." The first and third are totally outside site scope. The second (innocent ignorance) is somethat within site scope but only as a by-product. The site goal is for members to inform one another and to become informed about U.S. racialism. If reaching this goal reduces member ignorance (innocent or not), fine. But if a member habitually posts messages that show no desire either to inform or to become informed, then the site cannot reduce the person's ignorance. Such an individual would best participate somewhere else. Again, I welcome other's opinions.
In the specific thread that triggered this rules-change discussion, Codfried said that you reminded him of the slave-catchers who travelled to free states to kidnap African Americans under the authority of the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act. He also said that you sounded hateful. I understand and sympathize that you want to defend yourself against this blatant ad hominem accusation by showing that you are not like a slave hunter and that you are not hateful. I encourage you to take this personal discussion offline with Codfried. I disallow its publication here because such a debate cannot possily advance the site goal.
Of course, you are free to continue advocating that people resist "racial" classifications. Many members here agree wholeheartedly that the entire U.S. obsession with "racial" classification is a social pathology that should be ended.
In the specific thread that triggered this rules-change discussion, Codfried said that you reminded him of the slave-catchers who travelled to free states to kidnap African Americans under the authority of the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act. He also said that you sounded hateful. I understand and sympathize that you want to defend yourself against this blatant ad hominem accusation by showing that you are not like a slave hunter and that you are not hateful. I encourage you to take this personal discussion offline with Codfried. I disallow its publication here because such a debate cannot possily advance the site goal.
I actually responded to the cold hearted hatefulness, not really to the legal framework in which ‘Schoolmaster’ and his ilk acted. It's a work of literature, but to me Toni Morrison approaches her work as if she is writing a thesis. But thank you for pointing this out as well, informing us all about this law. Now I understand that stating my feelings here about Chip who first blatantly and Ad Hominem insulted me to the core, is not acceptable. So I will not do it again. I will just keep on keeping on, on egyptsearch.com where one can say whatever the hell one pleases. What about you Chip?
Joined: 24 Sep 2008 {Posts: 102 } Location: Santiago, DR
Posted: Wed 15 Oct 2008 12:40 Post subject:
Egmond Codfried wrote:
Quote:
In the specific thread that triggered this rules-change discussion, Codfried said that you reminded him of the slave-catchers who travelled to free states to kidnap African Americans under the authority of the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act. He also said that you sounded hateful. I understand and sympathize that you want to defend yourself against this blatant ad hominem accusation by showing that you are not like a slave hunter and that you are not hateful. I encourage you to take this personal discussion offline with Codfried. I disallow its publication here because such a debate cannot possily advance the site goal.
I actually responded to the cold hearted hatefulness, not really to the legal framework in which ‘Schoolmaster’ and his ilk acted. It's a work of literature, but to me Toni Morrison approaches her work as if she is writing a thesis. But thank you for pointing this out as well, informing us all about this law. Now I understand that stating my feelings here about Chip who first blatantly and Ad Hominem insulted me to the core, is not acceptable. So I will not do it again. I will just keep on keeping on, on egyptsearch.com where one can say whatever the hell one pleases. What about you Chip?
Codfired
I'm new here and no doubt have to get used to the somewhat strict rules. threfore, please post the offensive comment. I would also like to know based on what premises you consider me "hateful".
...Chip who first blatantly and Ad Hominem insulted me to the core...
Where? When? How? Please provide a source for this claim. You have 24 hours. (Also, you should read rule 4.1 when you get a chance.)
I understand under these circumstances I have to RETRACT my statement thet Chip has offended me 'blatantly and Ad Hominem.' Perhaps to my lack of English I gave meanings to his words which were actually sweet and friendly. Thank you for pointing this out so I know what great friend I have in Chip. My statement is hereby retracted. ODR is such a wonderfull site!
... his words which were actually sweet and friendly.
I disagree. Chip's words questioned, challenged, and disputed a claim that you had made. This is not "sweet and friendly." In debate, the opposite of personal insult is not sweetness and friendship, it is mutual respect and focusing on the arguments, not on the personalities. Your statement is a classical example of straw man argument. I imply that Chip did not attack you personally, so you respond by suggesting sarcastically that his dispute was "sweet and friendly." You thereby stretch your opponent's position into a caricature, in order to ridicule the caricature rather than the position. (See here for a fuller explanation of straw man.)
Egmond Codfried wrote:
I know what great friend I have in Chip.
I disagree. You may well have a great friend in Chip, but engaging in one debate does not demonstrate it. This is another excellent example of straw man. My position is that disputants MUST address themselves to the issues with civility and mutual respect and that they MUST NOT resort to personal insults. You deform this into a suggestion that disputants must be "great friends."
... his words which were actually sweet and friendly.
I disagree. Chip's words questioned, challenged, and disputed a claim that you had made. This is not "sweet and friendly." In debate, the opposite of personal insult is not sweetness and friendship, it is mutual respect and focusing on the arguments, not on the personalities. Your statement is a classical example of straw man argument. I imply that Chip did not attack you personally, so you respond by suggesting sarcastically that his dispute was "sweet and friendly." You thereby stretch your opponent's position into a caricature, in order to ridicule the caricature rather than the position. (See here for a fuller explanation of straw man.)
Egmond Codfried wrote:
I know what great friend I have in Chip.
I disagree. You may well have a great friend in Chip, but engaging in one debate does not demonstrate it. This is another excellent example of straw man. My position is that disputants MUST address themselves to the issues with civility and mutual respect and that they MUST NOT resort to personal insults. You deform this into a suggestion that disputants must be "great friends."
Egmond Codfried wrote:
ODR is such a wonderfull site!
I agree.
Dear Mr. Sweet,
I'm from Suriname and have been looking at Americans all my live, but never had these quite personal relations with them. So I'm finding out what makes you guy's thick. I have learned today that this arguing is called 'straw man!' I did not know that. But you are forever threatening me with suspension, so I try to avoid this by retraction. For example, I once read that if one would stay at a private Japanese home, and encounter the lady of the house in the morning, half naked, you ignore her. You might pass her by in a narrow hall but acts as if she even isn't there. Now I might have stumbled on something similar here on ODR.
Joined: 30 Mar 2005 {Posts: 1082 } Location: New Jersey
Posted: Fri 17 Oct 2008 16:49 Post subject:
Frank wrote:
You seem to be suggesting that we adopt the goal of debating "racial prejudice." I am willing to hear others' opinions on this, but my first thought is that there are literally hundreds of sites and listservs out there that debate "racial prejudice." But there are no other sites that debate the history and cultural anthropology of U.S. racialism. Why should we take on a task that hundreds of other sites already perform and thereby dilute our doing what no other site does?
I agree with Frank wholeheartedly. No site does what we do, and that is precisely what makes us so valuable to anyone interested in U.S. racialism, including students at universities. In my opinion, this great site would slowly deteriorate if we adopted the secondary goal of discussing racial prejudice. Naturally, there are threads that focus on this or similar things; but to add this to the site's main mission would not be beneficial to our main mission.
You seem to be suggesting that we adopt the goal of debating "racial prejudice." I am willing to hear others' opinions on this, but my first thought is that there are literally hundreds of sites and listservs out there that debate "racial prejudice." But there are no other sites that debate the history and cultural anthropology of U.S. racialism. Why should we take on a task that hundreds of other sites already perform and thereby dilute our doing what no other site does?
I agree with Frank wholeheartedly. No site does what we do, and that is precisely what makes us so valuable to anyone interested in U.S. racialism, including students at universities. In my opinion, this great site would slowly deteriorate if we adopted the secondary goal of discussing racial prejudice. Naturally, there are threads that focus on this or similar things; but to add this to the site's main mission would not be beneficial to our main mission.
William is back! How wonderful!
There are some things about this site which I do not fully understand, but give me the creeps. So I ask to be informed. For starters, I do not understand why an 'anti-racialist' site would base its definition of 'Black' on this 'SSA' Ideology. To me the SSA approach is totally NOT anti-racialist. If permitted we could have a nice thorough discussion without threats or people trying to trip others up. In my mind this site is like revolutionary, yet there seems a need to please the establishment too. Please correct me if I'm wrong, I’m just an uninformed SSA Surinamese, without the benefit of American education, the envy of the world.
To show my delight with William I have taken some of his quotes from the forbidden threat because they somehow relate to the great SSA debate we are going to have, Deo Volente. If I had a son, I would have named him William too!
William wrote:
Jaime wrote:
And sorry William, but while some claims of JA Rogers are valid, others are way over the top. Tunnel vision research.
That is essentially what I wrote. Nowhere will you find that I've written that all of his work is to be regarded as correct or valid. The claims he made that were based on eyeballing are certainly to be treated with a raised eyebrow. To be fair, he sometimes quoted others (some of whom were anthropologists) who made similar claims that are just as suspect. This is what I like least about Rogers's work. Other claims, such as the Olmecs having been "Negroid," etc. also don't hold water. But here again, he often quotes others in these cases, and does not merely give his own opinion.
However, the fact remains that generally, the basic data given about sub-Saharan admixture having occurred in various places, notably in Europe and the Middle East, is quite accurate. I also like very much the actual examples he gives of Afro-European mixing.
William wrote:
I browsed through Rogers's books tonight, and even though I have read them a few times, every time I look through them I am in awe that one man researched, wrote, and published all of this himself. He must have been very bright, and he did an excellent job. Of course, as mentioned above, claims made about people based on eyeballing are not very persuasive. To be sure, some other claims about this or that group being "Negroid" seem a bit farfetched as well; but in nearly all of these cases, he cites the work of someone else, usually an anthropologist. He is not merely making this stuff up. So, these beliefs, whatever we may think of them now, were once held by some members of the scientific community or other prominent people. There are numerous quotations. As said before, his examples of Afro-European mixing, and the data given about the absorption of Africans into European and other populations, are interesting in the extreme, and quite accurate. Rogers was remarkable in that he did not believe in the existence of biological races. In his time, belief in same was standard. So, it must be remembered when he uses words such as "Negroid" he is referring to an appearance resembling some Africans, and, incidentally, does not always suggest this sort of appearance is due to direct mixture with sub-Saharans.
I am impressed that Egmond knows of the work of Rogers, and also the work of Snowden, whose two books I also have.
Quote:
I do vaguely recall reading about the pigmentation of the folks of Pays de Vaud and also the region between Cambrai and Tournai. Rogers mentions that some observers have noticed "Negroid" traits in the population of southern France, notably Auvergne and Gascony. He mentions that the last expulsion of the Moors from Spain resulted in the settlement of many in this region of France at the invitation of the King. In Belgium, even prior to the arrival of the Spaniards with their African troops, there was supposedly a "black-skinned race." Rogers quotes a writer who mentioned this.
Quote:
David McRitchie wrote extensively in the late 1800s about various folks of the British Isles who didn't look European to anthropologists of the day. Some of it, accoring to him and those he quoted, was due to later admixture, and some of it seemed to be due to phenotypes of earlier, non-European-looking Brits not having been completely eradicated. He mentioned Mongolian and "Negroid" faces. He also consulted literature describing earlier people of Britain, including those who invaded it, and found descriptions of swarthy Danes, etc. His conclusion was that Brits can't be considered a "White" folk.
I find this fascinating to research, but am not 100% sure what to make of it all.
Quote:
Coon also says some of these types (such as the "Mongoloid"-looking or Ainu-like Frenchmen) have been around since early times, probably relics of distant prehistoric Europeans. He seems to feel that some of the non-European-appearing types are from ancient European stock (like the Frenchmen), whereas some result from admixture (like Asiatic-looking Hungarians and other Eastern Euros). He doesn't see any distinct "Negroid" traits in southern Europeans for the most part, though. He does mention the occasional person with frizzly hair as a possible example of minor sub-Saharan admixture, and he says the skull of the Mediterranean "race" has "Negroid" tendencies. But he doesn't agree with authors that claim southern Europeans are significantly admixed with Africans; and genetics supports this. There is admixture, but it would appear that genetically it is too little to really be noticeable.
Guenther, on the other hand, seems to regard all ambiguous types as having non-European admixture.
Quote:
I assure you that the purpose of this site is not to allow folks to espouse Eurocentric views, Afrocentric views, or any other such views. The purpose is to teach and learn about U.S. racialism. Of course, related subjects are also welcomed and discussed, such as DNA admixture in America, Europe, and elsewhere, and the concept of "race" as it exists in different countries. But if someone is found to advocate Eurocentrism, Afrocentrism, or any other "-ism," moderators will step in. That is not tolerated here.
Surely you jest by suggesting our discussion group is a sect with the administrator being a sect leader. I personally take offense to that. The reason why Frank established the rule that unsubstantiated claims are not to be tolerated is to uphold our status as one of the few sites whose data can be trusted. We get many hits from colleges and universities. If we allowed unsupported claims to be made, we would join the ranks of the countless other sites that are run by ideologues of one sort or another.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
