BS: Resolving the Clash of Civilizations

15 Sep 09 - 04:59 PM (#2724366)
Subject: BS: Resolving the Clash of Civlizations
From: Amos

This thread is dedicated to avenues of reconciliation which will lead to ending the collision of civilizations between European, American, Israeli, and Muslim.

I have seen the warmest friendships between Syrian Arabs and Israeli youth, both safely living in the United States.

I have also seen suspicion, anger, grief and fear from both sides. I have seen tyranny and duplicity on a large scale, and I have seen individual communication of such purity that these things became impossible, on a small scale.

Where do the paths of resolution lie?

To begin with here is a video that shows possibilities.

---

15 Sep 09 - 05:36 PM (#2724394)
Subject: RE: BS: Resolving the Clash of Civlizations
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

1. It strikes me that the first prerequisite for peace, is always an open, empty, pair of hands. Animosity almost always arises out of fear, and the gesture which shows that one is unarmed, is the best way to allay fear.

2. A soft vocal greeting, and not as you might think, a smile(smiles have different meanings in different cultures).

That takes care of the individuals, and permits the admission of strangers to the group, which is where curiosity, and interest in new experiences should help.

3. The usual suspects, i.e. Tolerance, respect, etc.


But of course we are way beyond the point of first meetings, and respect and tolerance are in short supply.

So I can only echo the Irishman who was asked how to get out of a maze, and suggest that to resolve this clash "I wouldn't start from here!"

Don T.

---

15 Sep 09 - 07:06 PM (#2724447)
Subject: RE: BS: Resolving the Clash of Civlizations
From: CarolC

Why would anyone characterize the more than a billion people in widely scattered countries located all over the world, embodying and embracing dramatically different cultures, and even religious practices, as though they were all one, monolithic, "civilization"? (ie: characterizing it as a collision of civilizations between European, American, Israeli, and Muslim)   And why would anyone try to characterize all of the Arabs in the Middle East who experience tensions with Israel as Muslims? And why would anyone characterize American, European, and Israeli civilizations as not including Muslims? Why is the category, "Muslim" set apart from all nationalities as though it was its own civilization that exists outside of all nationalities?

It reminds me of something I read once in which someone was making characterizations about how Christians behave as opposed to how Black people behave. See the problem here?

I would suggest that the problem will never be resolved as long as people continue to mischaracterize the issue as being Muslims against the rest of the world. It's how we frame that problem that is the problem.

---

15 Sep 09 - 07:09 PM (#2724450)
Subject: RE: BS: Resolving the Clash of Civlizations
From: CarolC

Let me rephrase that first part...

Why would anyone characterize the more than a billion people (Muslims) in widely scattered countries located all over the world, embodying and embracing dramatically different cultures, and even religious practices, as though they were all one, monolithic, "civilization"?

---

15 Sep 09 - 07:39 PM (#2724459)
Subject: RE: BS: Resolving the Clash of Civlizations
From: Bobert

"Can't we all just get along..." (Rodney King)

---

15 Sep 09 - 08:31 PM (#2724481)
Subject: RE: BS: Resolving the Clash of Civlizations
From: Amos

Carol,

You are right, of course. I noticed that jarring mismatch of categories when I wrote the post, and I did not take the time to think it through. What do you think the correct description is?


A

---

15 Sep 09 - 09:50 PM (#2724513)
Subject: RE: BS: Resolving the Clash of Civlizations
From: CarolC

I think I would not characterize it as a clash of civilizations. I think I would characterize it as a conflict between colonizers and the colonized. As noted in the video, the majority of people in the world want to get along with the other people in the world. But governments often make that a very difficult thing to accomplish. There are financial and balance of power incentives for governments to create and maintain animosity between peoples, and to create and promote stereotypes about some groups of people, at the expense of those groups. This is why we think there is a clash of civilizations going on now. Because it serves someone's agenda to mislead us into thinking that this is what is taking place, and to incite us to hate those whom they want us to hate.

---

15 Sep 09 - 10:07 PM (#2724524)
Subject: RE: BS: Resolving the Clash of Civlizations
From: Donuel

The hacknyed phrase "All politics are local" is where we all can start.

Hearing what your neighbor have to say is a daunting challenge when they will not speak to you. I moved here in 2004 and said at a neighborhood gathering that George Bush was a captain leading us all into an iceberg. The retribution by my neighbors was costly, in ansering over 12 annymous accusations and investigations. It cost about $8,000 dollars and established an appearence of guilt from the unsubstantiated accusations alone.

I am talking about real Glen Beck and Limbaugh worshippers here.

I started with one person who would talk and then with her friend and they eventually told their personal stories about their experiences at or near the PEntagon ground zero on 9-11.
It was good for them and I learned that they had somehow equated anyone critical of George Bush was a person who wnated 9-11 to happen. Yeah I know its crazy but trauma and status quo patriotism is hard to juggle for people.

All I can hope for is an end to the active harrasment. Maybe they will one day let their children play with mine. But in the meantime the smallest local improvment in neighborly relations is a plus, economicly and emotionally.



A mean spirited person with or without a vested interest to "Get the LIberal!" need do is spread another tale of fear and loathing and things could go south again but at least I may have 2 more people who could express their reasonable doubt.

In short reconcilliation is slow. Resolving takes 7 or more generations. Peace will be slow to come but it will be due to all the little things that led up to it in the meantime, for we are indeed still living in mean times.

---

15 Sep 09 - 10:21 PM (#2724532)
Subject: RE: BS: Resolving the Clash of Civlizations
From: Donuel

For people who actually harm or kill their neighbors as in Rawanda i is amazing how fast certain individuals can forgive. They may not have a peacful alternative but it is amazing all the same.

Mistreatment of an an entire people often makes the victims mean and dangerous. Perhaps this is where religion provides the most rapid road to healing after a holocaust.

---

15 Sep 09 - 10:32 PM (#2724536)
Subject: RE: BS: Resolving the Clash of Civlizations
From: Janie

I think that is one valid way to characterize it, Carol, and I also think there are many, many other equally valid ways to characterize it.

Seems to me there are at least two perspectives from which to start. One is the recognition that every pov has validity and every person is entitled to their pov. The other perspective is to understand, accept and value of the inherent tensions between and among individuals and social structures, (which encompass all aspects of culture and society, however small or large the social unit, ) that appear to be evolutionarily innate because the over-all effect has proven adaptive, at least until this point, to survival of any particular gene pool.

Balance. Dialectic. Thesis. Antithesis. Synthesis. And the recognition that as soon as synthesis is reached, the seeds of paradox are again germinating and a new thesis and antithesis are inherent to synthesis. Accept the conflict, the dialectic, as inherent. Embrace paradox. Teach children from the earliest age to respect that different perspectives are all inherently valid. Conflict is inevitable. It does not have to be destructive. It can be creative.

---

15 Sep 09 - 11:47 PM (#2724561)
Subject: RE: BS: Resolving the Clash of Civlizations
From: Amos

Wow, Janie, that is profound and of genuine insight into the pattern, I think. Carol, I agree with your description in part; the crystallization into group-hatreds, such as the hatred after 9-11 in the US against all Muslims (which was how it was expressed by some no matter that it was an insane way to characterize it) or the institutionalized hatred of some Muslims against all Americans (at least as taught by some mullahs I have heard) or the encysted distrust of "Palestinians" by some Israelis and vice versa are another stage of the problem.

I agree that "clash of civilizations" is a bad label, inaccurate because this kind of crystallized hatred is the opposite of civilized conduct. I think that the path to defusing the apparent clash might lie in the art of liberating individuals from identification with their various group-thinks, allowing them to step back and review as individuals in their own right. Individuals do not, as a rule, resort to fast rules of hatred unless they have been mobbed into it (as in the training of soldiers sometimes) or abused into it (as in those who hate a government that has killed their children, for example).

How do you free an individual from allegiance to group-think?


A

---

15 Sep 09 - 11:59 PM (#2724566)
Subject: RE: BS: Resolving the Clash of Civlizations
From: CarolC

I think to a very large extent that is happening already because of the melting of boundaries that is fostered by the internet. Especially among younger people who have now grown up interacting with people all over the world on a daily basis. The people are already leading, but the governments are having some difficulty catching up with them.

---

16 Sep 09 - 11:16 AM (#2724804)
Subject: RE: BS: Resolving the Clash of Civlizations
From: McGrath of Harlow

One is the recognition that every pov has validity and every person is entitled to their pov.

How about Nazis?

---

16 Sep 09 - 12:30 PM (#2724843)
Subject: RE: BS: Resolving the Clash of Civlizations
From: Amos

McGrath:

I think individual hatred is a different problem than group-think attitudes. The Nazi culture demonstrated the power of re-tooling education to inculcate hatred and disdain. But I think the individual, with some decent communication, will alaways find his own way out of such pits, once he is free from the pressures of peers and able to think for himself.

A

---

16 Sep 09 - 01:14 PM (#2724861)
Subject: RE: BS: Resolving the Clash of Civlizations
From: Goose Gander

I don't buy into the whole idea of a 'clash of civilizations'. Most wars, social conflict, etc. are inter-civilizational. Christians fight other Christians over doctrine, political power, economic interests. Muslims fight other Muslims for similar reasons. The two primary Communist countries, the USSR and China, loathed and feared each other for years (each calling the other 'fascist'). Look at the 'troubles' in N. Ireland for fuck's sake.

The disastrous Iraq war and the ongoing Afghanistan fiasco are exceptions, but both are WARS OF CHOICE embarked upon by phony 'Labour' goverments in Europe and coporate-controlled 'democratic' (or 'republican') governments in North America.

My solution to the Muslim problem is to leave the Muslims alone.

---

16 Sep 09 - 01:32 PM (#2724875)
Subject: RE: BS: Resolving the Clash of Civlizations
From: Azizi

Amos, while it's important for individuals to recognize and work on eradicating their personal racism and ethnocentrism, I believe that it's important to recognize the existence of institutional racism.

One defintion of institutional racism is "the embeddedness of racially discriminatory practices in the institutions, laws, and agreed upon values and practices of a society." Another definition is Those forces, social arrangements, institutions, structures, policies, precedents and systems of social relations that operate to deprive certain racially identified categories equality".

I would also add ethnocentrism, religious-isms, and homophobia, to that statement about how societies as systems seek to maintain power by socializing people to fear and hate the "other".

I don't think that individuals can eradicate institutionalized "otherisms" by themselves, particularly since those "otherwisms" are centuries old and are so deeply embedded in societies.

For instance, most of Western societies' fear of dark skinned people is intricately tied in, if not originating with, early Christianity. How do people work through that kind of socialization if they don't even know it's there?

---

16 Sep 09 - 01:43 PM (#2724880)
Subject: RE: BS: Resolving the Clash of Civlizations
From: Goose Gander

"For instance, most of Western societies' fear of dark skinned people is intricately tied in, if not originating with, early Christianity."

"Early Christianity" was Asian and African. Europeans were relative late-comers to the faith, and Northern Europeans received it third-hand, by way of the Mediterranean. So I'm not sure what to make of your statement, Azizi.

---

16 Sep 09 - 01:50 PM (#2724886)
Subject: RE: BS: Resolving the Clash of Civlizations
From: Azizi

How many White Christian fundamentalist believe that "Early Christianity" was Asian and African. Europeans were relative late-comers to the faith, and Northern Europeans received it third-hand, by way of the Mediterranean"?

And even if they did accept that, I am talking about the beliefs (superstitions) grafted on to Christianity by early European Christians.

Check out this Mudcat thread: Folklore: The Devil The Color Black.

---

16 Sep 09 - 02:27 PM (#2724905)
Subject: RE: BS: Resolving the Clash of Civlizations
From: VirginiaTam

Well let's not forget the crusades and conquistadors. From end of Dark Ages through The Enlightment, Christians had mercenary reasons for colonizing and enslaving non christians. Black, yellow or red skin was a convenient way to justify doing this. By attaching the concept of evil to dark skin, they eased the way to usurping the land of and exploiting people in the name of god.

After the church and later government sanctioned exploitation ended, the mind set of white christians was already set and has been passed along to this day.   Government interjections such as Civil Rights, Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity has flared a negative reaction in many whites. It is going to take generations, lots of good will, good education to purge it.

---

16 Sep 09 - 02:51 PM (#2724915)
Subject: RE: BS: Resolving the Clash of Civlizations
From: Goose Gander

"Well let's not forget the crusades and conquistadors. From end of Dark Ages through The Enlightment, Christians had mercenary reasons for colonizing and enslaving non christians. Black, yellow or red skin was a convenient way to justify doing this. By attaching the concept of evil to dark skin, they eased the way to usurping the land of and exploiting people in the name of god."

My statement about "Early Christianity" still stands. I thought it was a fairly obvious point, unless you believe Christianity dropped from the sky sometime in the late Middle Ages (by the way, you're not going to find many serious historians who use the term 'Dark Ages'). Anyway (and obviously, too), plenty of other people besides 'white Christians' have plundered, murdered and enslaved in the name of gods, God or Mammon, and this inevitably leads to the delineation of an 'uncivilized' Other against which 'civilization' is juxtaposed. In the case of European expansion, this process was racialized in white/dark dichotomy; in different situations it evolves in different ways (caste system in India; etc).

"After the church and later government sanctioned exploitation ended, the mind set of white christians was already set and has been passed along to this day."

Define what the hell you mean by "white Christians" - do you include the many who fought against Jim Crow in the evil old days of segregation? Do you include liberal Catholics who worked in solidarity with the poor in Central America during the 1980's (some of whom lost their lives)? If you made a similar blanket statement about ANY other group of people ('Muslims do this', 'Hispanics do that', etc.) you would be called out as a bigot, and rightly so. But I suppose everyone needs a scapegoat.

---

16 Sep 09 - 03:22 PM (#2724923)
Subject: RE: BS: Resolving the Clash of Civlizations
From: VirginiaTam

Not all white Christians but enough to make the trouble long lasting and certainly feed the hate and racism in certain fascist groups worldwide whose members are white and predominately Christian.

I am white, from southeast Virginia and was raised in a Southern Baptist environment. I saw racism first hand in my own church and schools and wider community. I had frequent interaction with racist aunts, uncles and cousins and friends of the family. I heard plenty of generalisations (obviously carried down through generations) about the inferiority, criminal tendencies, etc. of people of color. All of it enough to turn me from the Christian religion and make ashamed to be white before I was even a teenager.

Also part of what I posted previously is a bit of hangover from the thread Azizi mentioned above.

---

16 Sep 09 - 03:29 PM (#2724924)
Subject: RE: BS: Resolving the Clash of Civlizations
From: Goose Gander

"How many White Christian fundamentalist believe that "Early Christianity" was Asian and African. Europeans were relative late-comers to the faith, and Northern Europeans received it third-hand, by way of the Mediterranean"?"

The racist assumptions held by some (but NOT all) evangelical Christians have nothing to do with "early Christianity" but were developed centuries later. But you yourself now acknowledge this . . . "I am talking about the beliefs (superstitions) grafted on to Christianity by early European Christians," you say . . . so maybe we are not disagreement after all.

---

16 Sep 09 - 03:33 PM (#2724925)
Subject: RE: BS: Resolving the Clash of Civlizations
From: Goose Gander

Virginia Tam -

Some people blame the Muslims, some people blame 'white Christians', some people blame the Jews, some blame the capitalists or the communists (whoever they are these days) . . . whenever I hear someone talking about an entire group of people as the repository of 'bad' (compared to the 'good'), I get a whiff of horse manure.

---

16 Sep 09 - 04:18 PM (#2724951)
Subject: RE: BS: Resolving the Clash of Civilizations
From: Amos

Well -- I know that an individual, by reviewing his own assumptions and comparing themto his own experience in sufficient detail and breadth, can overcome any set of peer-generated falsehoods. Institutionalized beliefs are only perpetuated by individuals falling into agreement with them. I don't know of any institutional method of changing individual beliefs without the individual going through this process. All the education in the world will fall on deaf ears if someone is not willing to review their own assumptions.


A

---

16 Sep 09 - 04:25 PM (#2724957)
Subject: RE: BS: Resolving the Clash of Civilizations
From: Goose Gander

Amen, Amos.

---

16 Sep 09 - 05:23 PM (#2724988)
Subject: RE: BS: Resolving the Clash of Civilizations
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""One is the recognition that every pov has validity and every person is entitled to their pov.

How about Nazis?""

The question is "Could the Nazis have developed their culture in the way they did, if their citizens had been able to use the internet to discover counter arguments, and learn the truth about their leaders' propaganda?"

As individuals, Hitler et al were indeed entitled to their POV. It only became a problem when they were able to achieve the power to cut people off from any dissenting viewpoint, and thus put their twisted ideals into practise.

So yes, every point of view is individually valid, including Nazis, but those who hold opposing views may laugh or debate them out of existence.

It is rather odd to me that we have no difficulty handling those who believe in invading aliens, but seem stymied by the prospect of invading illegal aliens.

Don T.

---

16 Sep 09 - 05:46 PM (#2725000)
Subject: RE: BS: Resolving the Clash of Civilizations
From: Azizi

Many (most?) individuals' values, attitudes, and beliefs are heavily influenced by those values, attitudes, and beliefs that are viewed as the norm.

If the group is socialized to fear and mock those who are different than most individuals will do that without thinking much or anything about that. Why? Because that's the why things are.

However, my question is why has it been normal for people within our society to fear and mock those who are different? And why does this continue to such a large extent?

For instance, why did White people in early 20th century California, and Britain, and Australia all mock Chinese with the Ching Chong Chinaman taunt (or some other racial or ethnic taunt) instead of treating people from that population as individuals who were judged on their own merits or lack of merits?

My answer is that to a large degree Western societies were poisoned with racism and ethnocentrism and xenophobia. And to a large degree Western societies continue to be poisoned with racism, ethnocentrism, and xenophobia.

And yes, I know that that was true and still is true, to a greater or lesser extent, about most societies throughout the world. But Western civilizations like to think that they are better than all other cultures. Is this regard, they may be worse.

---

16 Sep 09 - 05:48 PM (#2725002)
Subject: RE: BS: Resolving the Clash of Civilizations
From: Azizi

Let me correct these two sentences:

If the group is socialized to fear and mock those who are different, then most individuals will do that without thinking much or anything about that. Why? Because that's the way things are.

---

16 Sep 09 - 05:52 PM (#2725004)
Subject: RE: BS: Resolving the Clash of Civilizations
From: Azizi

Also, to clarify, I did not mean to imply that every person in the eally 20th century in USA, Britain, and Australia mocked Chinese people. The "all" in my sentence referred to each of those three nations.

---

16 Sep 09 - 06:08 PM (#2725013)
Subject: RE: BS: Resolving the Clash of Civilizations
From: Amos

The socialization of the group is a cumulative effect of individual agreements. That's all it is made up of. Individuals resort to such agreements in the presence of threats, loss, danger or confusion. They can equally well UNdo those agreements in the presence of reason, safe territory, unpressured time, and good communication. That's the path opf civilization in the true sense of the word, IMHO, and the way out of institutionalized insanities.


A

---

16 Sep 09 - 06:49 PM (#2725043)
Subject: RE: BS: Resolving the Clash of Civilizations
From: Azizi

Take, for example, my extreme reluctance to use the preview feature.

Sorry about the italic font. I'm glad it's not bold font. I think that's harder on the eyes than the italic font.

---

16 Sep 09 - 07:47 PM (#2725090)
Subject: RE: BS: Resolving the Clash of Civilizations
From: CarolC

I think the reason people have had the historical tendency to view those different than them as being legitimate objects of ridicule (and worse) is because historically, the majority of peoples' worlds were very, very small. Before mass communication, like radio, TV, and now, the internet, people were usually only exposed to those who were in their immediate surroundings, who were usually very much like them culturally, as well as ethnically.

The new technologies that have changed all of that for people in the industrialized part of the world (and also in some parts of the developing world), have only been available to the masses for less than a century, and in the case of the internet, for a couple of decades. I think attitudes have changed a hell of a lot in such a short period of time, and I think it's because peoples' worlds are getting much bigger, people are now much more accustomed to seeing people who are different then they are as a normal part of their environment, and because people have more opportunities to form bonds with people from other cultures and ethnic groups. On the internet, for instance, people can form very significant bonds with people they've never met, and often times, don't even know what their ethnic group/culture/race is.

Young people, especially, are disinclined to be bound by old notions about appropriate attitudes and behavior towards those who are different than they are. To adhere to old attitudes limits their world, and their choices, and that is very unappealing to most of today's young.

---

16 Sep 09 - 08:26 PM (#2725119)
Subject: RE: BS: Resolving the Clash of Civilizations
From: Amos

eliefs (religious or otherwise), superstitions, and mis-information part of the category you gave as "confusion"?

Given false or confusing data a person will experience cognitive stress, which he hcan solve in a number of ways--he can attack the problem with analysis, he can succumb to it by deciding the Elders must be right and what he thinks doesn't matter, he can stave off the whole question with the Scarlett O'Hara technique ("I'll think about that tomorrow...", or he can ignore the whole thing temporarily.

This kind of cognitive dissonance in the head can be painful, and it comes about when presented with contrary bits of data, false data, mis-evaluated importance, skewed sequences, and so on. When these are combined with emotional duress or physica pain, it is a good bet he is going to carry scars and probably be bent out of shape in consequence.

Conversely, almost every confusion stems from wrestling with, and includes, incomplete or distorted data of the kinds mentioned. There may be others. Given sufficient data of sufficient accuracy and a purpose, most anyone can figure out most anything.

When a whole culture builds itself on false data ("Romans are inherently superior") it can bring down an empire because it can't think clearly and flexibly. Not to mention a family, a company, etc.

There is so much data-distortion in circulation, the amazing thing anything gets done at all!


A

---

16 Sep 09 - 09:22 PM (#2725138)
Subject: RE: BS: Resolving the Clash of Civilizations
From: Janie

Although Don T. may have already made this clear, I use validation in the sense that we psychotherapists use it, i.e., understanding that another's point of view is a legitimate or bonifide expression of their feelings. Understanding does not imply agreement. Neither does it require that one condone. I define point of view as the interpretation an individual (or group) gives to what they see from one place or point. Both what is seen, as well as how what is seen is interpreted, is powerfully influenced by internal processes, filtered through cognitive distortions, social learning, emotional thinking based on past experiences, etc.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

The same human attributes that foster social cohesion also foster social conflict. (There is that dialectical paradox again.) There is a lot of neuroscience research now that provides evidence that these attributes or characteristics are, at the core of the human animal, innate. The same or similar characteristics are seen in many other social animals, especially other mammals that live in social groups.

One can judge human nature, individually or as social groups, until the cows come home. That does not, however, change human nature.   Only if one truly accepts the realities of human nature can one hope to be effective in fostering the strengths and mitigating against the nonfunctional aspects of those innate characteristics.

Folks, we humans are pack animals.   We are pack animals with a greater capacity for impulse control than most other pack animals. However, unless or until we accept that we are pack animals, the vast majority of our species will continue to impulsively and instinctively think emotionally and act out those instinctual and biological imperatives to propogate our own specific gene pool, even when those behaviors are no longer evolutionarily functional.    We humans tend to think the values and mores by which we judge others are inherent. They are not. Those values that are pretty universally common, that we human animals tend to apply fairly universally to at least everyone within our extended social group, and which a significant minority or perhaps small majority of humans extend to cover all other humans, are held because of their more or less universally (at least the universe of humanity) functionality to either the survival of the species or the survival of a particular gene pool.

Unless one is prepared to understand and accept the evolutionally value of what in this discussion has been termed "group-think", one can not effectively think about or effectively intervene to mitigate against the antithetical consequences of "group-think."

---

16 Sep 09 - 09:36 PM (#2725146)
Subject: RE: BS: Resolving the Clash of Civilizations
From: Janie

err-even with preview, I missed the mispelling of "evolutionary" in the last sentence.

And it occurs to me that after that word, it would have been more accurate to use "utility" rather than "value".

---

16 Sep 09 - 10:10 PM (#2725163)
Subject: RE: BS: Resolving the Clash of Civilizations
From: CarolC

There are many innate characteristics that we have been able to overcome through various means. Technology is one of the things that has made this possible. Technology continues to assist humans in overcoming innate but destructive impulses. Enlightened self-interest is also helping humans in this regard. Because of mass communication, we can see more clearly now, as a society, the ways in which we harm ourselves by clinging to our tribal impulses. Behavioral psychologists are finding that enlightened self-interest is the most powerful of all of the motivators. When people are able to cut out the information middle-man, they are able to start forming their own perceptions of what is in their best interest, as opposed to having it dictated to them by authority figures as has been the case in the past. When people form their own conclusions about what is in their best interest, it is possible for them to see more clearly the ways in which they benefit from abandoning the tribal impulse, and enlightened self-interest motivates them to do so.

---

16 Sep 09 - 10:39 PM (#2725183)
Subject: RE: BS: Resolving the Clash of Civilizations
From: Janie

I agree, Carol, that appealing to enlightened self-interest can be a very useful tool to a neutral, nonjudgemental facilatator engaged in helping opposing parties acheive conflict resolution.

---

16 Sep 09 - 10:58 PM (#2725199)
Subject: RE: BS: Resolving the Clash of Civilizations
From: CarolC

It is also a very powerful motivator for people outside any kind of conflict resolution scenario or other structured context, when people have access to the information they need to determine, without any pressure from authority figures, what is in their own best interests.

---

16 Sep 09 - 11:38 PM (#2725216)
Subject: RE: BS: Resolving the Clash of Civilizations
From: Janie

Yes, and sometimes what is in my best interest is not going to be in the best interest of some one else. At least that is the pov one or both of us will have. Inherent conflict. I posit that unless one accepts the reality of the inherent conflict, one can not access the tools needed to successfully resolve the conflict.

---

17 Sep 09 - 01:59 AM (#2725234)
Subject: RE: BS: Resolving the Clash of Civilizations
From: CarolC

I don't agree that conflict is inherent. And the reason is that the concepts of what constitute the group or groups with which people identify no longer conform to any geographical or cultural boundaries. In order for any inherent drive to seek out those in one's own group and experience conflict with those in other groups to predominate, it is necessary to have easily defined groups with specific boundaries or attributes. But that is no longer the case for a lot of people, especially younger people. Primary social groups are no longer defined by race, ethnicity, or geography, or even nationality, and now can just as easily be defined by interests, schools, favorite internet fora, or other categories, many of which may overlap, while others don't, and may include people from all over the world rather than just people in one's own vicinity, and are not conducive to creating conflict that serves any inherent drive to propagate a specific gene pool.

This is a new social paradigm, and the old ways of describing and defining these kinds of things longer apply.

---

17 Sep 09 - 08:39 AM (#2725281)
Subject: RE: BS: Resolving the Clash of Civilizations
From: Azizi

Ugh, I made the font mistake again. I'm sorry. Again.

**

Since the Mudcat hyperlink isn't working for me right now (and it's also difficult to even get Mudcat to open), I'll just give these two examples of the types of Internet blogs that I described in my previous post:

Racialicious (culture, politics: most of its posters are mixed race)

Black Kos (politics:most of its posters are Black)

---

17 Sep 09 - 12:22 PM (#2725418)
Subject: RE: BS: Resolving the Clash of Civilizations
From: CarolC

I don't disagree with the above qualifications of what I said. However, what I was describing is the paradigm that is in the process of establishing itself, while the revised version describes the situation as it is today, which includes the old paradigm which is on its way out.

And while race and ethnicity can play a role in how people interact online, it often doesn't, and it doesn't determine how people form primary social groups online.

---

17 Sep 09 - 08:44 PM (#2725734)
Subject: RE: BS: Resolving the Clash of Civilizations
From: Stringsinger

One thing must be done. De-fang religion.

No, it's not just economics. It's unreasoning and denial-provoking ideologies.

The only kind of meaningful enlightened self-interest comes from a regard for
social conditions that affect all people throughout the world.

(Libertarians don't seem to get this.)

"We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men (women) may be cremated equal......."

"So listen folks, here is my thesis...peace in the world or the world in pieces"....

Ol' Man Atom (Thanks Verne Partlow and Sam Hinton).

---

17 Sep 09 - 09:57 PM (#2725761)
Subject: RE: BS: Resolving the Clash of Civilizations
From: Azizi

Carol,

I agree with your statement that I'm still describing the old paradigm.

And in so doing, let me say that while I agree that right now race and ethnicity don't have to play a role in determining where (meaning which forums/blogs) people chose to join or post to, in my opinion, race and ethnicity usually plays some role-significant or minor-in how people interact within many of those blogs (including what topics they raise, and how they respond to that topic and to topics that are raised by others. "How they respond" includes the dynamics of the group interaction.

Take for example, the dailykos blog- the most active progressive blog in existence. I've never joined that blog, but I've visited it 'daily' (if you'll excuse the pun) for three years now, and thus feel that I'm competent to provide an informed outsider description of that blog.

dailykos has periodic demographical surveys of its members. Those surveys glean information about the members' age, gender, race/ethniciity (with "ethnicity" here meaning Hispanic/Latino), religion, economic class, geographical region, residence outside of the USA, and political party (though the majority of its members are Democrats, all of its members aren't). I believe those demographical surveys also ask about sexual preference, but I'm not sure about that. If I recall correctly those surveys usually report that about 1/3 of dailykos' members are People of Color. Most of the PoC are African American. Latino/Hispanics can be of any race, but if I recall correctly, persons who indicate that ethnicity are usually listed as the second largest PoC population at dailykos.com.

From the perspective of a frequent lurker, it seems to me that dailykos members who are PoC are active posters on many diaries that they write or that other non-PoC write. Some of the diaries that are written by PoC and non-PoC focus on race/racism, and some don't. From my perspective, it appears that most White dailykos members are very supportive of multiculturalism, and most White dailykos members appear to "get" the issues that PoC members raise.

Yet, certain African American members felt that there was a need for a Black Kos diary and that diary which focuses on news from Black perspectives is posted every Friday and receives comments from any member of the dailykos community. I should also mention that it appears to me that most White dailykos members are supportive of this diary, which was proven last week when a "troll" wrote a "White Kos" diary that included some rather inflammatory language. That troll was given a two week suspension from posting on that site.

In addition to the once a week Black Kos diary, there is also a once a week or periodic lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans issues/perspective diary. I believe that there also a similar periodica diary on Latino issues/perspective.

I believe that those types of diaries are very similar to the racial/ethnicity or LGBT caucuses that usually are formed at various large conferences and conventions.

Are those types of caucuses/diaries still needed? I definitely believe so. Will they always be needed? I hope not.

---

17 Sep 09 - 10:50 PM (#2725782)
Subject: RE: BS: Resolving the Clash of Civilizations
From: CarolC

I don't think I can agree that race or ethnicity determines where people choose to participate online. I think that for some people that may be the case (and even those will tend to participate in some that are not race or ethnicity specific), but I would suggest that most internet fora/message boards, etc, are subject related, and that the majority of subjects are not conducive to drawing people of any particular race, or ethnic group.

While some interactive websites are political in nature, the vast majority are not. They're about things like diabetes, weight loss, car repair, gardening, favorite tv shows, favorite musicians, favorite movies, favorite recipes, and they are social networking sites like facebook, myspace, twitter, and things like that. These kinds of websites and webservices don't tend to encourage forming social groups based on race or ethnicity.

---

17 Sep 09 - 10:56 PM (#2725788)
Subject: RE: BS: Resolving the Clash of Civilizations
From: CarolC

I see I misread some of the post I was addressing.

I agree that on some sites it's probably the case that race and/or ethnicity does influence the group dynamic, but my experience has been that on most, it does not to any significant degree, for the reasons I mentioned above.

---

18 Sep 09 - 09:15 AM (#2725970)
Subject: RE: BS: Resolving the Clash of Civilizations
From: Azizi

Carol, I'd like to address this topic one more time, just to clarify what I have attempted to say and not as an attempt to change your position.

I believe that since the inception of the Internet, race/ethnicity has been and remains a significant factor in interactions on the Internet (who, what, where, how).

I believe that it is not necessarily a racist act to self-identify your race/ethnicity (with ethnicity here meaning the American definition of Latino/Hispanic) but also perhaps any other ethnicity. Instead, I believe that self-identifying your race/ethncity provides demographical information that sometimes can add context to a person's comments, and sometimes can help provide a more accurate interpretation of what the person is trying to say. The same can be said for knowing a person's gender, and nationality, and age. Sometimes it might mean nothing, and sometimes it is of tremendous help in arriving at an accurate, fuller understanding of what a person is saying.

For instance, if a person wrote that they threw the fag out the window, it would be very helpful to know that the person was British because in British English "fag" is a colloquial term for cigarettes while in American English, that same word is a colloquial term for a homosexual male.

With regard to this discussion, I think it is relevant to note that I am seeing things from my perspective as an African American woman, and you are seeing things from your perspective as an Anglo-American woman. Obviously we are both speaking for ourselves and not for some monolithic group (since no race is monolithic anyway). And obviously, neither your racial identity nor my racial identity makes either of these statements/perspectives more valid than the other. But it could add context to what we are saying.

However, I believe that sometimes a person's racial/ethnic identity does add validity to her or his statements or conclusions about a particular subject. But I don't think that's necessarily true with regard to this subject.

To further clarify my position, I believe that "White male" is the default position on the Internet, and has been since the beginning of the general public's use of the Internet. One of the main reasons why this is so is because (as research has continually documented) White males are the largest demographical population on the Internet.

There are some Internet sites that "cater" to women rather than men-say for the sake of this commentary-sites on fashion or childcare. In contrast to the general statement about the Internet's default position, on those sites, the default position is "White females". And to further delineate the focus population of those sites-the default position for those sites is usually "American White females". Given those default positions, unless they are an international forum, the unstated built in assumption is that the information posted on that site is pertinent to "American White females", and that everyone (or most everyone) posting to that site, will be an "American White female". If it is a site that was created for persons from multiple nations, (given the documentation about which nations have free Internet access and who in those nations have free Internet access and how much free Internet access they have), it's likely that the most if not all of the readers and posters to those sites will be White females.

Now if the site is about childcare, some-if not much-of the information will be race/etnnicity neutral. But other information about childcare should not be race neutral (for instance, information about "hair care" and information about helping children deal with teasing). With regard to those subjects, it would be helpful for some self-identified People of Color to share information that is pertinent to them and their children of color, and information that they have learned through direct experiences.

**

Carol, you listed these topics that Internet sites might focus on (that would be race neutral)- "diabetes, weight loss, car repair, gardening, favorite tv shows, favorite musicians, favorite movies, favorite recipes". I think that car repair and gardening are the only topics in your list that are really race neutral (meaning the same information would pertain to any person regardless of that person's race/ethnicity ...although with "car repair", a person's race could (illegally) result in him or her being charged more for repairs.

But research has shown that race/ethnicity is now and has long been a factor in many health care conditions. And research has consistently shown that race/ethnicity is a factor in how well in how the health care system in the USA provides services to People of Color (within the USA).

Research has also consistently documented that African Americans (to name one racial group) have different "favorite tv shows, favorite musicians, and favorite movies" than Anglo-Americans. And I dare say the same may be true for "favorite recipes".

That does not mean that one population is right and the other is wrong. It just means that there are cultural differences.

**

With regard to African Americans and other People of Color being active participants on Internet forums that focus on general topics such as "television shows" or "movies", I think that there has to be some critical mass of self-identified African Americans (and other People of Color) before we (PoC) are comfortable participating in those forums, and because we are comfortable we then actively participate in those forums. Perhaps that critical mass is the 1/3 of the total number of members that I believe a blog like dailykos has.

Why is "comfort" important? I believe that one of the main reasons why People of Color [like other people] come to the Internet is to relax, and enjoy ourselves. And we don't want our relaxation polluted with issues of race/racism. (It's bad enough that we have to deal with it in our working life).

Furthermore, I believe that there are differences in colloquialisms, language phrasing, and cultural references (to name a few things) that most African Americans use without thinking. And I believe that many Anglo-Americans are not familiar with most of these cultural forms, and that means that in settings that aren't all Black or majority Black or settings that don't have that critical mass I mentioned before, we (Black people) often choose to refrain from using the colloquialisms, language phrasing, cultural references we would otherwise use.

That explains (for me) why there are hardly any People of Color who are members of Mudcat. I believe that there are other Black people besides myself who are interested in subjects such as children's playground rhymes and other types of folk music/folkloric study that are presented and discussed here. And certainly, the BS section of Mudcat lends itself to the discussion of just about any topic. But most People of Color don't want to be bothered talking about race to Anglo people-unless there is that critical mass of People of Color who post on that particular forum. And, obviously, on Mudcat, there has never been that critical mass.

Again, this is my sense of the current paradigm. How this paradigm changes to a better one (where race/ethnicity is just a descriptor without positive or negative connotations) is a whole 'nuther subject.


-Azizi Powell

---

18 Sep 09 - 09:24 AM (#2725974)
Subject: RE: BS: Resolving the Clash of Civilizations
From: Azizi

I'd like to rephrase this sentence from my last post:

"Now if the site is about childcare, I think most of that information is race neutral."

---

18 Sep 09 - 09:47 AM (#2725986)
Subject: RE: BS: Resolving the Clash of Civilizations
From: beardedbruce

Azizi,

You state:"With regard to African Americans and other People of Color being active participants on Internet forums that focus on general topics such as "television shows" or "movies", I think that there has to be some critical mass of self-identified African Americans (and other People of Color) before we (PoC) are comfortable participating in those forums, and because we are comfortable we then actively participate in those forums. Perhaps that critical mass is the 1/3 of the total number of members that I believe a blog like dailykos has."



Looking at this forum from the viewpoint of a conservative, I have to agree with you. Far less than 1/3 here are self-identified conservatives. We do not have such a "critical mass", yet I feel it is still important to have our viewpoint(s) [conservatives are no more monolithic than any other group] represented.

But it CAN be painful to be hated for what others think that you believe.

---

18 Sep 09 - 10:04 AM (#2725992)
Subject: RE: BS: Resolving the Clash of Civilizations
From: Azizi

beardedbruce, yes being a conservative on this forum would be quite similar to being an African American on an almost entirely Anglo-American forum.

With regard to your comment "But it CAN be painful to be hated for what others think that you believe", I admit that while I knew that you are a conservative, I confess that I've not read your posts to the extent that I would be able to say that I know whether your political positions are the same as-say-Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh.

If they are, I'd say that I very strongly disagree with your political positions. But I don't hate you because of those positions.

---

18 Sep 09 - 10:38 AM (#2726009)
Subject: RE: BS: Resolving the Clash of Civilizations
From: GUEST,beardedbruce

I have no problem with others disagreeing with my positions- but I want them to at least understanbd what I believe and not assume that I agree with their view of what a conservative believes.

As for the hate, some here are reasonable ( though opposed to my stated viewpoints) but some are not.

If ANY opposition to what the present Congress is pushing makes one racist, I would have to think that a few here that have expressed personal disdain for, or attacks on me because of my views has to be considered hate. ( sarcasm)

---

18 Sep 09 - 11:16 AM (#2726043)
Subject: RE: BS: Resolving the Clash of Civilizations
From: Stu

"beardedbruce, yes being a conservative on this forum would be quite similar to being an African American on an almost entirely Anglo-American forum."

You're kidding right? The idea that in some way entering into a robust debate over matters political can be compared to the emancipation of a people is ludicrous and not a little bewildering.

Bruce might feel he's in a minority on this site but then who doesn't sometimes? I have been called a lefty, commie, do-gooder, high and mighty, holier-than-thou and a hundred other insults for my views but so what? It's a debate. It's supposed to be a bit of rough and tumble and people will not agree.

Comparing the kicking you get in a political debate you willingly enter into with the issues raised by racism in modern society is not only distasteful, but ignorant too. We've all got the right to our opinions, and we should be allowed to air them and be prepared to defend them, but being a true blue does not make you part of an oppressed minority any more than it does the rest of us.

---

18 Sep 09 - 12:25 PM (#2726080)
Subject: RE: BS: Resolving the Clash of Civilizations
From: Amos

I submit that both race (a biological fact) and ethnicity (a cultural fact) are mostly issue-neutral until one adds in the agreements that surround their interpretation of what it means to be a certain racer or ethnicity. A person of a certain shade of skin can be anywhere on the political spectrum, for example, depending on where s/he was exposed to what ideas. An Iranian native can become a conservative US citizen managing a bank, or a liberal shop-owner, or a radical professor, or a terrorist, or anywhere in between. Without changing his race or his ethnicity.

Once you decide that your identity is "X" and that "X" means certain values, attitudes and certainties are right and true, then you begin carrying the freight of those beliefs about what is and what should be.

If that freight carries you into destructive paths, you can take the opportunity to review and change them, if you are big enough in spirit and have the courage to do so.


A

---

18 Sep 09 - 01:20 PM (#2726123)
Subject: RE: BS: Resolving the Clash of Civilizations
From: Azizi

In response to comments posted in reference to my agreement with beardedbruce that his experience on Mudcat might be quite similar in to my experience (as an African American on an almost all White discusion forum), note that I wrote "quite similar" and not "the same as".

What I was referring to is the experience of being "other than" almost all the rest of the people posting on the forum, that is to say being "the only one" or "almost the only one".

**

I recognize that individuals who are People of Color (like any other individuals) have political views that run the political spectrum. I've never said otherwise.

**

Although I believe that you meant well, Sugarfoot Jack, your use of the phrase "emancipation of a people" sounds dated to me.

I suppose your comments were directed to beardedbruce, but I'm interested in knowing what you meant by your use of the phrase "true blue" when you wrote that "being a true blue does not make you part of an oppressed minority any more than it does the rest of us."

I recognize that at this point in time there are fewer African Americans in the United States than Anglo-Americans. And while I believe that this country still is not post-racial (in that there is still a lot of personal & institutional racism against Black people and other People of Color (and there are still some Black people and other People of Color who are prejudiced against White people and other people), I vehemently reject the idea that being African American means that I am part of an "oppressed minority".

Maybe it's just the paternalistic, and hopeless connotations that I associate with the words "emancipation of a people", "oppressed minority", or any other kind of "minority". But for what it's worth (and I recognize it's not worth any more than anyone else's opinion), those words don't sit well with me.

---

18 Sep 09 - 01:36 PM (#2726130)
Subject: RE: BS: Resolving the Clash of Civilizations
From: CarolC

Well, my experience in a diabetes forum, for instance, is that there are people of all racees/ethnicities there who all interact in the same way: very supportive and helpful. They are bonded by their shared experience and their shared understanding of what its like to live with the disease, and they feel a very close emotional connection with the other people in the forum. Although some people divulge their race/ethnicity, many do not, and the discussion is not racially/ethnically specific.

And this is what I'm talking about. In the case of the diabetes forum, the group dynamic is determined by a shared experience rather than race, ethnicity, or culture. Those factors are entirely irrelevant to the discussion and the group dynamics, and do not influence how people form bonds or with whom. This is the case with the majority of interactive websites, and this is what breaks down the old group dynamics that are based on race/ethnicity/location/culture, and shifts the formation of bonds away from those that support a tribalistic group structure to a much more universalist kind of group structure.

---

18 Sep 09 - 01:52 PM (#2726143)
Subject: RE: BS: Resolving the Clash of Civilizations
From: Azizi

Carol, I agree with you that individuals can and do form bonds with people who are of different racial, ethnic, and/or national backgrounds then themselves. I know this from my own experiences on this forum and elsewhere.

But the fact that members in online communities can & do bond with each other regardless of their race, ethnicity, etc does not negate the fact that race/ethnicity and nationality has been documented to impact health conditions. And it does not negate the fact that a person's racial/ethnic identity or (a person's religious identity, and sexual orientation etc) can impact the availability of services he or she receives and the quality of services that he or she receives in the off-line world.

**

I'm not sure if you are a proponent of the "color blind" position regarding race/ethnicity. I prefer to view "color" or race/ethnicity as a neutral descriptor, and also as a descriptor that sometimes adds context and information if not validity to what people (on the Internet or elsewhere) are saying.

---

18 Sep 09 - 01:54 PM (#2726145)
Subject: RE: BS: Resolving the Clash of Civilizations
From: CarolC

And I should point out that the main point I am making has to do with the formation of bonds between people and how that has changed with the advent of the internet.

An interesting aside: one of my personal experiences in this regard happened on Facebook. A young man in Egypt sent me a friend request after we both joined a Facebook group that was oriented to holding Facebook accountable to its members. That was a totally race/ethnic/culture non-specific group. I have no idea why this young man made the friend request. He speaks some English, but a lot of his posts are in Arabic. I know very little about him except that he lives in Egypt, he is somewhere in his late teens or early twenties, he loves soccer and some kinds of rock music, and he wears his heart on his sleeve when it comes to the young ladies in his life. I wouldn't say I have formed a primary bond with him - I've never even communicated with him directly. I only learn about him through reading what he puts on his Facebook page. But I care about him as a human being in a tangible way rather than the abstract way that I care about people I am not personally aware of. This is what the internet is doing for people and it is changing the world.

---

18 Sep 09 - 01:56 PM (#2726146)
Subject: RE: BS: Resolving the Clash of Civilizations
From: CarolC

I think someone may have misunderstood the point I am trying to make. As I noted above, my main point has to do with how the way people form bonds has changed because of the internet, and I have never suggested that race/ethnicity/culture are not important.

---

18 Sep 09 - 02:42 PM (#2726179)
Subject: RE: BS: Resolving the Clash of Civilizations
From: Amos

On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog, or a Vietnamese, or a Scandinavian, or from Guam or Nigeria, except by reason of your expressions in type (so far) or in photos.

Point well taken, CC. Given that internet communication is essentially indpeendent of body appearance (in text forums, anyway), why should race have any part in it? IT is bound to come up as a topic, of course, but discussing race issues (if that is what they really are) as a topic) can be done without rancor, or hurt, amongst people of good intent.

This does not make race and ethnicity less important in terms of how each of us decides to identify him/herself.

I think (as I guess I have made clear above) that is really, really important to recognize that cultural identity or the meaning of ethnicity are very much agreements you make with poeple, not givens that you are stuck with. The critical issue, I believe, is not what race I am, but what I decide that means.

---

18 Sep 09 - 04:44 PM (#2726263)
Subject: RE: BS: Resolving the Clash of Civilizations
From: Lonesome EJ

Amos, my congratulations on never allowing a concept to be too vast to be handled in a Mudcat Thread. If we can get this one solved, someday they will say "it all started at www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm".

I believe we who weathered the 1960s are fond of adopting that same mindset we once had. If people will only talk openly then they will learn to love one another and peace will break out everywhere. Here's the problem: People are often ignorant, misguided, fanatical, greedy, and true understanding may indeed cure these diseases. But some people have legitimate grievances. Palestinians who lost their homes to Israeli settlers after a war. Israelis who lost children in a bus bombing. The Iranian whose Father was killed by the Shah's security forces for voicing his opinion. The Iranian whose daughter was shot to death by police for walking past a democracy demonstration. The people who live under the boot of a dictator supported by the US. Those who live under a dictator supported by China. To motivate one's self to action in these circumstances requires great passion, and to keep those passions from bleeding into hate is nearly impossible.
No, until we can irradicate the hate which springs from a root cause of actual injustice, we will never resolve the clash.

---

18 Sep 09 - 04:56 PM (#2726273)
Subject: RE: BS: Resolving the Clash of Civilizations
From: CarolC

All of those are government instigated problems. As I said earlier, the people are starting to lead in a new direction. The proof is everywhere to see for those who have eyes. The governments are severely lagging behind the new direction people are moving in, but eventually they will catch up.

For instance, while the government of Iran was cracking down on protesters in that country recently, Twitter made it possible for people to essentially watch the unfolding of events in real time, and to offer and provide support to the people who were protesting. To counter the influence of the Israeli government lobbyists in the US (the source of funding for the Israeli government's campaign against the Palestinians), there is a new lobbying group, J-Street, that is growing rapidly and will eventually overtake the lobby that currently shapes Middle East foreign policy, and when this new movement reaches critical mass, everything will change. It's happening. But some people just can't see it yet. And it's happening because of the internet.

---

18 Sep 09 - 05:09 PM (#2726285)
Subject: RE: BS: Resolving the Clash of Civilizations
From: Amos

You poiint to an interesting force shaping up on the Light Side, Carol. Various efforts have been made to suppress it, by closing servers, hacking code, etc. But I suspect that the cat is out of the bag. Anyone can have a server, even if they have to hide it like an old spy radio in a Bogey flick, and anyone can put a wireless node in a van with a generator if it comes to that. The tech is widely known and is, by its nature, decentralized which makes it hard for central gummints to suppress. So there IS hope.

The roots of past harm are often invoked to justify hatred, and hatred is used to justify harm. The answer is for individuals to recognize that the past in all ways and forms is a lie. This requires individual growth, communication, and a degree of compassion. That is the blind spot we must not fall into--the place where harm buries compassion.

A

---

18 Sep 09 - 05:15 PM (#2726287)
Subject: RE: BS: Resolving the Clash of Civilizations
From: Lonesome EJ

If a) all grievances are caused by governments, and b) these grievances will be corrected by people acting under the influence of the Truth, and also c) The Internet conveys Truth, then it follows that d) the Internet has the power to correct all grievances. I have a problem with all of these assumptions but primarily C. It seems to me that there is a vast and varied amount of untruth transmitted via the Internet.

I would like to believe that people, when they understand what "right action" is, will pursue that course in the interest of themselves and others,Carol. But the persistance of wrong action in the face of truth (melting polar ice caps, anyone?) continues to astonish me.

---

18 Sep 09 - 05:27 PM (#2726294)
Subject: RE: BS: Resolving the Clash of Civilizations
From: CarolC

I disagree with the formulation used above. I would frame it differently.

A. Most of the major conflicts between peoples are caused by governments.

B. The internet is causing a shift in consciousness among people all over the world, and a major change in how people form bonds, causing people to lose their tribal impulses (this is by no meansn complete, but it is very significant and growing).

C. When the shift in consciousness and group dynamics reaches critical mass, the governments will not be able to ignore it any longer and the changes will manifest on the government level.

My formulation is not issue specific, so it doesn't matter whether or not untruths are transmitted over the internet. What matters is that people are changing how they perceive and relate to people in other parts of the world and in cultures other than their own. So whether or not they understand "right action", they are becoming much less susceptible to being brainwashed into hating people their governments want them to hate. I don't predict that this will necessarily happen in the next few years (although it could), but I am suggesting that it has already started, and this is how things will be changed for the better, when they do.

---

18 Sep 09 - 06:05 PM (#2726321)
Subject: RE: BS: Resolving the Clash of Civilizations
From: Azizi

Carol, I'm not half as optimistic as you are in the power of the Internet to overcome centuries of hatred and usher in a new world order where race & ethnicity and all the other categories that have divided people no longer matter.

I think that the Internet could help do this, but it has already been demonstrated that the Internet can also be a powerful force for sowing and reinforcing hatred.

But I hope that I'm wrong and that you are right.

---

18 Sep 09 - 06:21 PM (#2726327)
Subject: RE: BS: Resolving the Clash of Civilizations
From: CarolC

I hope so too. I think I am.

---

18 Sep 09 - 06:31 PM (#2726332)
Subject: RE: BS: Resolving the Clash of Civilizations
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""But it CAN be painful to be hated for what others think that you believe.""

I see no evidence that anyone on this site personally hates YOU, BB.

There are certainly a huge number who disagree with your POV, but that isn't quite the same thing, is it?

As a UK Conservative (big C, and nothing like the US model), I face the same degree of opposition to my views, but I know that none of my fellow British Catters would treat me personally with disdain if we met in a pub.

In fact, most would happily buy me a pint, and whatever I think of THEIR politics I would willingly stand my round.

Your problem is that you espouse a discredited party, and more importantly, a discredited President, both of which ARE hated, not just in the USA, but in most of the countries of the world.

That's bound to meet with massive disapproval.

Don T.

---

18 Sep 09 - 07:40 PM (#2726373)
Subject: RE: BS: Resolving the Clash of Civilizations
From: Lonesome EJ

Well, I'm not sure we agree on the basic concept of what a government is, Carol. I do not believe that the existence of a government implies that its people are forced to hate or adopt any negative traits toward other people and governments.

In my opinion, a government is a form of formalized cooperation between a people who share a powerful commonality. This could be a common language, racial makeup, guiding belief, land mass, or a combination of any of those factors. The purpose of this cooperative agreement is mutual profit and protection. The fulfillment of this purpose requires a set of governing behaviors agreed upon by the majority of the participants. The governing body, dictator, parliament, or whatever the governing entity is called, is charged with enforcing compliance with these agreed upon behaviors. Governing bodies, or Governments if you will, are only "good" or "bad" in so far as they enforce and reflect the will of the preponderance of their citizenry.

A government may adopt a formalized practice of hate (Nazi Germany for example) that is a belief fostered by the government and used as a tool to accomplish its aims, but I believe that this is a perversion of the purpose of government rather than a natural and predictable outcome. Your views seem to imply that the purpose of government is to seperate and to repress people, and that governments repesent a "tribal impulse" which will eventually give way to...what?

---

18 Sep 09 - 07:58 PM (#2726388)
Subject: RE: BS: Resolving the Clash of Civilizations
From: CarolC

The above post is another mischaracterization of what I said. I did not say that the existence of a government implies that its people are forced to hate or adopt any negative traits toward other people and governments.

I said that most of the major conflicts between peoples are caused by governments.

Now, I would bet money that the person mischaracterizing my words in the above post really does know what the difference is between these two formulations. But if not, they can let me know and I will explain it.

---

18 Sep 09 - 10:42 PM (#2726437)
Subject: RE: BS: Resolving the Clash of Civilizations
From: Janie

I disagree that conflict is not inevitable. Conflict does neccessarily imply physical agression. Individuals experience internal conflict between and among values, needs, and wants.

From Websters on-line dictionary 2 a : competitive or opposing action of incompatibles : antagonistic state or action (as of divergent ideas, interests, or persons) b : mental struggle resulting from incompatible or opposing needs, drives, wishes, or external or internal demands have yet to encounter the person who does not have to deal with internal conflict.

Conflict is not wrong or bad. It simply is. It is a reality of the condition of life. We do not always agree with ourselves or with others. Unless one acknowleges and accepts this reality, one can not arrive at feasible ways of dealing with conflict that do not involve physical violence.

While I do not at all discount the influence of the internet among those who routinely access the internet, the world population who access the internet is still quite small. http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm. In addition, I suspect that most who have ready access to the internet have a tendency to frequent sites that validate our own predisposed povs, to accept as "true" that which we read on those sites that tend to be in agreement with our views, and to discount or view as lies or propoganda what we read on sites that we understand to be in opposition to our pov.

In other words, it is human (and none of us who are human are exempt from being human) to tend to accept as true that which confirms our various perspectives, prejudices, paradigms, and to find grounds to reject most information that does not fit our paradigms, or to otherwise devalue the opinions, or even the person, of those whose paradigms, opinions and prejudices do not mesh with our own.



Bearded Bruce, your comments are very interesting to me. I have long observed the interactions between you and others here on Mudcat, which I attribute only in part to you being one of the few conservatives here. I know you only slightly from the Getaways. The person that I slightly know from the Getaways is not the same persona I slightly know who posts on Mudcat. (And I can say that about a number of folks, regardless of their political or philosphical persuasion, not just you.) I would enjoy the opportunity for a chat when we see each other in early October.

I think I am going to bow out of this thread now, because the discussion seems to want to go in the direction of apples, while I am interested in, and keep writing about oranges.

All the best.

Janie

---

18 Sep 09 - 11:01 PM (#2726454)
Subject: RE: BS: Resolving the Clash of Civilizations
From: CarolC

I guess some people are arguing something that is not the subject of the thread, then. What I have taken this thread to be about, based on the opening post, is asking what avenues of reconciliation are available for what has been described by the thread originator as a collision of civilizations. I don't see anything in the opening post about ending all forms of conflict between all people for all time. I have been addressing the question posed in the opening post.

---

18 Sep 09 - 11:10 PM (#2726458)
Subject: RE: BS: Resolving the Clash of Civilizations
From: Janie

Perhaps you are right, Carol.

---

18 Sep 09 - 11:13 PM (#2726461)
Subject: RE: BS: Resolving the Clash of Civilizations
From: Lonesome EJ

Carol

We've both been posting on this forum for a long, long time so why you feel it incumbent on you to refer to me as "the person mischaracterizing my words in the above post" is really a puzzler. I was simply trying to determine if you thought government, by its very nature, corrupts human relationships and prevents man from exploring his basic aspirations for peace and harmony. If not, I have to wonder at your statement that "governments are the cause of most of the major conflicts between peoples", when one could certainly make an equally strong case for religion, greed, or racism. I was not trying to launch a personal attack on you or impune your credibility.

Sincerely,
EJ

---

18 Sep 09 - 11:29 PM (#2726466)
Subject: RE: BS: Resolving the Clash of Civilizations
From: CarolC

If the question is why I am being oblique in my references to other posters, it's because I'm not allowed to directly refer to other posters, or to address them directly. If anyone has a problem with that, they need to take it up with Mudcat management.

I am saying "mischaracterize" because I made my comment about most major conflicts, and my comment has been characterized as being about most governments. See the difference there?

Certainly religion, greed, and racism are powerful motivators for conflict, but it's governments that use those motivators to manipulate people into fighting wars in service of their agendas. When people become immune to such manipulation, it will become much more difficult, if not impossible, for governments to use them in that way.

Remember, I did say "most major conflicts" and not "all conflicts of any kind".

---

19 Sep 09 - 12:08 AM (#2726484)
Subject: RE: BS: Resolving the Clash of Civilizations
From: Amos

All major conflicts have a cost of entry--organizational overhead, logistics, comms, intell--and these costs require a central command and coordination if they are to be timely met. That's why men form tribes and governments. But it should be remembered as Carol implies that to meet these costs those involved must see it as worth the expense.

I think Carol's points about the new communication dynamics is very true--the effect of Twitter in Tehran is a great example. Cellphones in Beijing, too. But as a devil's advocate sort of thought, what happens when there is a legitimate cause for mobilization but the chatter prevents the organization from happening?    It is perfectly possible for a positive, legitimate cause to be balked by organized networks, and even more possible for a desperate but necessary measure (like war when under attack) to be similarly dissipated or slowed.

Just thinking aloud, here.

One of the reasons Al Qeda came into being was the outrage, to Muslims, of Christian troops mobilizing on Saudi soil. Another was the sudden disinterest in Afghanistan--populated by large numbers of multi-national jihadists armed and trained by the US--as soon as the USSR failed there. These are not the only ones but they demonstrate what happens when you ignore other people's feelings because you are calculating your own interests too single-mindedly.


A

---

19 Sep 09 - 12:16 AM (#2726486)
Subject: RE: BS: Resolving the Clash of Civilizations
From: CarolC

That's a different question than what I have been talking about, and I don't have an answer for that one. I am talking about a process that is going to take time and that will circumvent, ultimately, the need for mobilization. But in the short term, we still have a lot of problems.

---

19 Sep 09 - 11:33 AM (#2726631)
Subject: RE: BS: Resolving the Clash of Civilizations
From: Stu

Azizi - 'true blue' simply means a Conservative, it's a UK colloquialism.

---

19 Sep 09 - 01:37 PM (#2726704)
Subject: RE: BS: Resolving the Clash of Civilizations
From: Azizi

Thanks for that information, Sugarfoot Jack.

British English & American English=two foreign languages (some times any way).

:o)

---