- 26 Jan 2021 17:21
#15153071
Of course it is ever present and never not part of what is happening.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/spirkin/works/dialectical-materialism/ch05-s02.html
Man is not a blank slate, but whether biological processes are significant in some matter is another matter.
My concern is more that raising biological descriptions of how things work in itself doesn't show its relevance. You stated points about the parts of the brain related to fear and anxiety and how they've been correlated with specific racial images. The question then comes is whats the point of it? In terms of some solution, I think your point about integration and exposure makes enough of a point without any need to reference biological mechanisms which might underpin it.
Indeed, but the effort to get people to associate is of course difficult although on the grander scale.
And how far would such a culture extend? Because the United States of America is a big place and it most definitely isn't monolithic within states let alone across states.
But the point of some unifying force I sof course a founding point of America and which is why it often attached the idea of being American to ideas and values more so than a type of being.
And there is the sense that the push for a particular type of domiminant culture has in fact been part of the very process that has made it so divided. What if the idea of being American is one that white washes the history of colonialism, slavery and all sorts of problems. One is taught that America was discovered by Christopher Columbus, but of course what does that signify to the Native American and his ancestors and their place within the American historical tradition?
I don't know how one unifies this issues but my thought is that the break down hasn't been resisted by the tendency to push a single view which reflects a particular peoples position in relation to things.
Hence you get people like Dr. James Banks saying instead:
https://www.learner.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/3.Multiculturalism.pdf
How do you create an America that recognizes all its people and not those who had power in its founding. Because thinking of Universal suffrage alone, things tended to be confinedto the powerful property owners which wasn't some liberal equal opportunity deal either. Only particular folks need up these wealthy sorts and still do by a large majority due to generational wealth and family dynasties.
At the same time, not reckoning with the past is a means to not reckon with the state of the present and make it incomprehensible. Can one understand America today without knowing it's history? Can you even know yourself if you have no account of your life story?
And often there is a selectiveness in what is sought to be remembered and what is not.
America has changed but it hasn't resolved its historical problems.
It's like the psychotherapy patient who repeats the same actions which put them in the very problem they wish to avoid and so it has to be revealed the fault of the repetaivive behavior. Although in the case of cultural change, one has to change the material relations which so divide people.
If there is to be a healing, one does need not only a improved sense of itself where some represent themselves as the universal sense of things, but also effort to actually make America in the image of such integration. Because there are many with an opposing ideal and who have been part of a long actual tradition in opposing as much.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilmington_insurrection_of_1898
White supremacy existed and exists and has played a significant role in the development of the US as a nation and how it has developed as one.
I'm sure history is easier to swallow when the continuation of it such problems have been resolved. But such a history still stings in a sense I think because it has it's analogous problems that remain. America remains plagued by such things and can't erase them on paper.
Whether history is even relevant I don't know, but it seems that sometimes the way in which things are taught themselves cultivates an indifference to current problems and even a sense of disbelief of such a reality. In the same way that many women don't speak to men openly about being sexually harassed or assaulted, and it creates a bubble in which such men's sense of reality doesn't really accept it as real.
But something I ground my upon is that those closest to the solution are closest to the problem.
People largely unaffected by something simply have no clue what the problem is and thus can't formulate a solution.
But in regards to such matters I am not so precious to thing it will simply be talked about, the continuation of white supremacist notions actualized themselves through force and social changes comes through force.
It's not a merry talk it over with one's enemy because what common project is shared other than the very thing which both opposes one another on. It's just that in fighting, someone comes out top and established their hegemony and thus there is a kind of stability or 'peace' because the fight is over but whether one has undone the basis of such fighting requires to get to the root of the matter. Hence any improvement for different groups in AMerican hasn't somehow washed away the old notions and made for a racial utopia either.
Julian658 wrote:Biology is an important component of our humanity. I agree that sociologists cannot see this and they rather assume everything is 100% a social construct. At the e3nd of the day it is biology plus the environment.
Of course it is ever present and never not part of what is happening.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/spirkin/works/dialectical-materialism/ch05-s02.html
When discussing biological factors, one should not reduce them to the genetic. More attention should be given to the physiological and ontogenetic aspects of development, and particularly to those that evoke a pathological effect, for it is these that modify the biology of the human being, who is also beginning to perceive even social factors in quite a different way. Dialectics does not simply put the social and the biological factors on an equal footing and attribute the human essence to the formula of biotropic-sociotropic determination favoured by some scientists. It stresses the dominant role of the social factors. Nor does dialectics accept the principles of vulgar sociologism, which ignores the significance of the biological principle in man.
Man is not a blank slate, but whether biological processes are significant in some matter is another matter.
My concern is more that raising biological descriptions of how things work in itself doesn't show its relevance. You stated points about the parts of the brain related to fear and anxiety and how they've been correlated with specific racial images. The question then comes is whats the point of it? In terms of some solution, I think your point about integration and exposure makes enough of a point without any need to reference biological mechanisms which might underpin it.
Integration is important to with regards to end racism. Self segregation is lethal.
Indeed, but the effort to get people to associate is of course difficult although on the grander scale.
A single monoculture is best suited to end racism. It also fosters unity and solidarity.
And how far would such a culture extend? Because the United States of America is a big place and it most definitely isn't monolithic within states let alone across states.
But the point of some unifying force I sof course a founding point of America and which is why it often attached the idea of being American to ideas and values more so than a type of being.
And there is the sense that the push for a particular type of domiminant culture has in fact been part of the very process that has made it so divided. What if the idea of being American is one that white washes the history of colonialism, slavery and all sorts of problems. One is taught that America was discovered by Christopher Columbus, but of course what does that signify to the Native American and his ancestors and their place within the American historical tradition?
I don't know how one unifies this issues but my thought is that the break down hasn't been resisted by the tendency to push a single view which reflects a particular peoples position in relation to things.
Hence you get people like Dr. James Banks saying instead:
https://www.learner.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/3.Multiculturalism.pdf
But I think there’s another really important point that you have to keep in mind. As we teach about
diversity, we have to keep in mind: How do we maintain out unity? E pluribus unum [Out of one, many]. We have to talk
about pluribus, but we also have to maintain unity.
So we always have to keep in mind: How do we construct the nation-state? How do we educate
students so that we not only respect their cultures, but that we also build a nation? The real question is
how do we build a nation that’s inclusive? How do we build a nation in which all children see themselves?
I think the way that we build unity is not by, as we did historically, ignoring Mexican American
culture, ignoring Puerto Rican culture. But I think the way we build unity is that we reconstruct the
center. Is that we build a new center that recognizes our diversity, that we build a new center that gives
voice to the voiceless. Not by ignoring it, because that’s what we did in the past.
I do think that we need to balance diversity with unity, and that we have to construct a new metanarrative, we have to construct a new story of America that’s inclusive. But I do think that we have to
build a nation state, as well as teach about diversity, because we could splinter.
How do you create an America that recognizes all its people and not those who had power in its founding. Because thinking of Universal suffrage alone, things tended to be confinedto the powerful property owners which wasn't some liberal equal opportunity deal either. Only particular folks need up these wealthy sorts and still do by a large majority due to generational wealth and family dynasties.
At some point some people will have to put the past in the past and move ahead to the future. Otherwise, they can fight for a few more centuries or until there is a civil war.
At the same time, not reckoning with the past is a means to not reckon with the state of the present and make it incomprehensible. Can one understand America today without knowing it's history? Can you even know yourself if you have no account of your life story?
And often there is a selectiveness in what is sought to be remembered and what is not.
America has changed but it hasn't resolved its historical problems.
It's like the psychotherapy patient who repeats the same actions which put them in the very problem they wish to avoid and so it has to be revealed the fault of the repetaivive behavior. Although in the case of cultural change, one has to change the material relations which so divide people.
If there is to be a healing, one does need not only a improved sense of itself where some represent themselves as the universal sense of things, but also effort to actually make America in the image of such integration. Because there are many with an opposing ideal and who have been part of a long actual tradition in opposing as much.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilmington_insurrection_of_1898
White supremacy existed and exists and has played a significant role in the development of the US as a nation and how it has developed as one.
I'm sure history is easier to swallow when the continuation of it such problems have been resolved. But such a history still stings in a sense I think because it has it's analogous problems that remain. America remains plagued by such things and can't erase them on paper.
Whether history is even relevant I don't know, but it seems that sometimes the way in which things are taught themselves cultivates an indifference to current problems and even a sense of disbelief of such a reality. In the same way that many women don't speak to men openly about being sexually harassed or assaulted, and it creates a bubble in which such men's sense of reality doesn't really accept it as real.
But something I ground my upon is that those closest to the solution are closest to the problem.
People largely unaffected by something simply have no clue what the problem is and thus can't formulate a solution.
But in regards to such matters I am not so precious to thing it will simply be talked about, the continuation of white supremacist notions actualized themselves through force and social changes comes through force.
It's not a merry talk it over with one's enemy because what common project is shared other than the very thing which both opposes one another on. It's just that in fighting, someone comes out top and established their hegemony and thus there is a kind of stability or 'peace' because the fight is over but whether one has undone the basis of such fighting requires to get to the root of the matter. Hence any improvement for different groups in AMerican hasn't somehow washed away the old notions and made for a racial utopia either.
https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/For%20Ethical%20Politics.pdf#page90
-For Ethical Politics
-For Ethical Politics