Writer’s Note
Because it is worth repeating in context with the current controversy concerning The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction Workshop.
Originally Posted January 26, 2009
Last summer I got hung up in a very nasty firefight over the issue of racism. It mainly pertained to the public posting of a rejection letter by William Sanders, formerly publisher and editor of Helix Science Fiction, by Luke Jackson (a science fiction writer not much further advanced in their career than I am) at the blog of William Preston over at Livejournal (not much further along himself).
The letter, in violation of ettiquette within the field, more or less took Jackson to task for a number of issues related to stereotypes Westerners have of Islam. Without the actual story for a point of reference, we have no real idea what crime was committed by Jackson (and to be honest, given my personal dislike of Jackson, I don’t really care at this point). The main issue, as far as I was concerned, was the impropriety of posting a rejection letter in public.
The letter, unfortunately, shitstormed into a debate about racism mainly pertaining to Sanders’ use of the term “sheethead.”
From there, the situation grew steadily worse and I was in the middle of it taking Jackson to task for posting the letter. Then taking some of the more Far Left Politically Correct Facists in the field (and yes, I still call them PC Nazis) to task for some of their own behavior.
It escalated on a number of fronts, notably at Asimov’s Forum (where I’ve been permanently banned, but I frequently get past the lock outs) and before long it spilled out onto other blogs.
By time it was all said and done, I was called a racist, sexist, homophobic so and so.
Am I conservative? Yes, I vote right of center. Do I oppose affirmative action as it currently exists? Yes, I most certainly do.
But am I racist? Well, depends on the definition.
Here is what the American Heritage Dictionary says.
Racism:
1. The belief that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based upon race.
Hmm. The former Star Trek Liberal in me would be the first to say that whatever race I belong to (I identify with at least four different ethnic groups in the greater European family and probably have Native American and who knows what else) would be the first to state that ethnicity or race is no guide to the determination of superiority.
On point number two, though I used to hear this all the time in my former job as a security officer, doesn’t apply either. In addition to being pathologically honest to a fault, I’m also pathologically fair, or at least I try very hard to be (especially when I might hate your guts).
I don’t match the dictionary definition by any means. Yet some people in the SF community believe I am racist. What definition are they using?
Well, roughly as I understand it (perhaps poorly) it goes like this.
I’m “white” (actually, I’m Irish-German with some Dutch, English and Native American tossed in with a high probability of some African though no one knows for certain) and as such I am culturally programmed with a sense of privilege that drives my subconscious to see “the Other” as inferior and by virtue of that programming I somehow strive to maintain the status quo of the “white patriarchy” without even knowing it.
In other words, I may think I’m not racist. I may strive to be fair. I may try to treat everyone fairly but somewhere, somehow, just because of my socio cultural positon, I can’t help myself.
Unlike some liberals, I’m not going to sit here and claim to understand the lives of minorities and various ethnic groups in America. I have my training as a historian which shows me the challenges they face. I have the knowledge that they feel alienated even know in an era of the first African American President. I hear their complaints (actually, I read them at various blogs) frequently.
So what is my problem? Well, here it is.
First, if you think your oppressor is subconsciously programmed to perpetuate the status quo, then how is telling them to “shut up” and shouting abuse at them going to change anything? They don’t believe for an instant that they are the oppressor, don’t buy into your theory and thus think you are just making their lives miserable. I suppose this is worse if you are a liberal or a liberal science fiction writer (google: Elizabeth Bear and Cultural Appropriation if you want a taste) and don’t think of yourself this way. Me, being conservative, I’m used to getting hammered with the “R” word.
Second, specifically to the field of science fiction, these folks who toss the R word around like so many hand grenades seem hellbent not on constructive dialogue or winning people over but instead seem intent on intimidation.
How? Well, nothing is more destructive to one’s career these days then to be slapped with the accusation of racism. Even if it is baseless one must devote considerable resources to dealing with the accusation (most especially if it is not TRUE).
Some of these people tried to tag me with it last summer during the Helix debacle.
You want irony? The first name in that entry before I appear is Patrick Nielsen Hayden. I don’t know him well. I know he is an editor at Tor books and that he is probably left of Marx. I know his wife, also an editor at Tor books is probably left of Stalin. Patrick is hardly a Klansman yet when all was said and done in the latest firefight with Elizabeth Bear, he was tagged with the term Racist.
I made a prediction last summer and provided a rather Cassandra like warning. One of the worst offenders in the Helix mess accused former editor of Asimov’s, Gardner Dozois, of being racist. It was one of those out of the corner of one’s mouth accusations pertaining to his stance on the rejection letter controversy.
More or less, what this person said was, “I wonder what Gardner wrote in his rejection letters.”
Gardner Dozois is many things, perhaps infamous for penis jokes at conventions from what I hear, but I sorely doubt he is racist. I took his accuser to task (which is part of what the crap at the link refers to and takes out of context). I made the point to those folks who were not quick at making Gardner’s accuser issue a retraction (and to date, they have issued no such retraction) that if they’d accuse Gardner of being a racist then they’d accuse anyone.
Fighting racism is a worthy, laudable and necessary cause if we want a decent nation to live in. But I think there are very different views on what form this fight should take.
And more to the point, I think there are people who are using this issue not for the purpose of social justice.
They are using it to intimidate, silence, and scare people into submission. I think I said as much over at Toby’s blog. I think I also said there are people who aren’t going to put up with it.
I just didn’t think my prediction would manifest itself so rapidly.
Back to nominal programming tomorrow.
Oh, word of warning to people who find their way here. I will delete your fucking ass at will if you engage in trollery. You will not use my blog to push your views.
Period.
Steven Francis Murphy
On the Outer Marches
89 comments
Comments feed for this article
January 26, 2009 at 7:35 am
Birmo
About fifteen years ago I had to write a long essay for a magazine about gay politics. The core of the argument was a rejection of the idea of oppression playing a role in gay peoples lives anymore. It was VERY controversial, but I was content with my reasoning, which compared the problems faced by wealthy, white, highly educated gay men, with oppressed minorities in various dictatorships. There was a set of criteria I borrowed from a writer working in the area, four conditions which had to be met before a group could claim to be systematically oppressed. Wish I could recall them now, but I can’t. Something to do with the denial of education, the denial of economic autonomy, and … well.. some other stuff. It was a long time ago.
Anyway, the racism debate is interesting because nowadays in the west one of the main props of oppression, the use of state policy against specific ethnic groups is not just illegal, but in some cases is actively counterbalanced by affirmative actions, government spending etc.
That’s not to deny that ‘racism’ per so does not exist. If the US is anything like Australia then about 15% of the white population could probably be classified as racist, in that they believe themselves superior to people from other ethnicities, and would support policy-making which preferenced them and punished others. Furthermore there’s the complicating factor of racism between non majority groups, such as Aborigines and Pacific Islanders in Australia, or the older European migrant populations and the Asians who came after them.
Where am I going with this? Not sure. But I guess racism aint what it used to be. And there is no doubt the term racist has been appropriated, and thus devalued, by political actors on the left.
January 26, 2009 at 8:05 am
beeso
it’s a pretty loose definition and i wonder how long that definition will last in the dictionary. We have a word prof on the local radio here who gets calls all the time about words being used out of context with their dictionary meaning. He points out that words change to fit the meaning of the time, or they get discarded.
Here in Oz what pisses me off is excessive nationalism. White middle class people telling immigrants to conform or piss off. Well, OK, but you don’t see too many of us grabbing a spear and getting a bit of roo for dinner, so perhaps people shouldn’t throw stones.
January 26, 2009 at 8:41 am
brian
Ok – Murphster. If this happened last Summer. Why wait so long to share?
Nope – not being flippant. Just interested.
I conceed some of our liberal friends are a bit loose with their language. Strange to use that term ‘liberal’ for me . Over here, the Liberal Party is seen as a bunch of conservatives.
You know my opinion of that term ‘conservative’ as well. Only conservatives worthy of the word are farmers. If they’re feedin me – damn straight I want them to be conservative.
I hate the labelling. Only test is a competency test.
January 26, 2009 at 9:32 am
Tribeless
Philosophically I’m an Objectivist, and politically a Libertarian, so from my perspective racism, sexism, et al, are all just relics of collectivism: the refusal to treat and deal with people as individuals first, and thus viewing individuals as mere stereotypes conforming to some arbitrary collective or identity. Ironically, the neo – as opposed to noble Classical – Liberal, thus the position of Western Socialism today, is the worst at seeing the world through the distorted, life hating, prism of collectivism.
Worse, the neo-liberal has, through cowardice, made a fatal error in respect of these issues, a mistake that is now seeing the end days to a heretofore proud Western, Humanist, Classical Liberal philosophical tradition that has represented, thus far, the peak of humanities progress toward truly free, civilised societies, centred around a constitution enshrining the primacy of the individual, property rights, and the non initiation of force (acknowledging the latter is entirely dependent on a willingness to defend our freedoms).
That is, the neo-Liberal, the Leftie, has bought, as a rule, into multi-culturalism, and that single notion is undermining the West, via the Islamification of our culture.
And their mistake becomes evident on calling me a racist for saying the above, which could not be further from the truth.
The notion of multi-culturalism came from Montesquieu’s ‘The Spirit of Laws’ (1748), but if that great man could see how is is being interpreted today he would turn in his grave. The neo-Liberal has interpreted multi-culturalism to mean that all cultures are equal: crap. And Montesquieu never meant that: he always held what he called an ‘eternal truth’, that cultures could be measured up to that, and that all cultures were not equal. Cannibalistic pigmy cultures are not superior to Western Culture, and the world would be a better place without them. Equally, as an idea set, a philosophy, Islam is barbaric and medieval still, (to say nothing of sexist, etc), it does not recognise the primacy and freedom of the individual, indeed, is implacably opposed to such a notion, and thus Islam is inferior, and more, a danger to the what we hold dear and true for our Western lives, in this great, nay, stunning, culture that we have created and fought for.
This neo-Liberal error has long ago translated to a cowardly retrenchment: an inability and an evil refusal to stand up for, fight for, what we KNOW is right. (Because the neo-Liberal no longer has to ability to judge good verse evil, they live in a sea of subjectivist BS).
And it is not racist to say Islam is evil: it is attacking the idea set of that crude faith (and Christianity for that matter), attacking the evil, barbaric philosophy – look at Sharia law – regardless of race or gender. Indeed, the stupidest people alive today must be white, European women who have converted to Islam. I can only assume it’s some sort of fetish, in line with sado-masochism, except, while I would have no issues with them joining some sort of appropriate club to get their submissive jollies, by working for the politicisation of Islam, they want to enslave me, also, in their life hating cult of death, and they are doing so.
Sorry, I’ve forgotten your question Murph.
Here’s a good clip though, from a fellow Objectivist, on our right in the West to defend those freedoms millions of our forbears have died fighting for, which the Left are handing over to our erstwhile enslavers on a welfare plate. The link is here:
January 26, 2009 at 9:39 am
Tribeless
Philosophically I’m an Objectivist, and politically a Libertarian, so from my perspective racism, sexism, et al, are all just relics of collectivism: the refusal to treat and deal with people as individuals first, and thus viewing individuals as mere stereotypes conforming to some arbitrary collective or identity. Ironically, the neo – as opposed to noble Classical – Liberal, thus the position of Western Socialism today, is the worst at seeing the world through the distorted, life hating, prism of collectivism.
Worse, the neo-liberal has, through cowardice, made a fatal error in respect of these issues, a mistake that allows them to cry racism where none exists, a mistake that is now seeing the end days to a heretofore proud Western, Humanist, Classical Liberal philosophical tradition that has represented, thus far, the peak of humanities progress toward truly free, civilised societies, centred around a constitution enshrining the primacy of the individual, property rights, and the non initiation of force (acknowledging the latter is entirely dependent on a willingness to defend our freedoms).
That is, the neo-Liberal, the Leftie, has bought, as a rule, into a completely wrong headed notion of multi-culturalism, and that is undermining the West, via the Islamification of our cultures.
And their mistake becomes evident on calling me a racist for saying the above, which could not be further from the truth. Their touchy feely blinkers have blinded them to what racism is, and what tyranny is. The Left have become bereft in the realm of ideas and values.
The notion of multi-culturalism came from Montesquieu’s ‘The Spirit of Laws’ (1748), but if that great man could see how is is being interpreted today he would turn in his grave. The neo-Liberal has interpreted multi-culturalism to mean that all cultures are equal: crap. And Montesquieu never meant that: he always held what he called an ‘eternal truth’, that cultures could be measured up to that, and that all cultures were not equal. Cannibalistic pigmy cultures are not superior to Western Culture, and the world would be a better place without them. Equally, as an idea set, a philosophy, Islam is barbaric and medieval still, (to say nothing of sexist, etc), it does not recognise the primacy and freedom of the individual, indeed, is implacably opposed to such a notion, and thus Islam is inferior, and more, a danger to the what we hold dear and true for our Western lives, in this great, nay, stunning, culture that we have created and fought for.
This neo-Liberal error has long ago translated to a cowardly retrenchment: an inability and an evil refusal to stand up for, fight for, what we KNOW is right. (Because the neo-Liberal no longer has to ability to judge good verse evil, they live in a sea of subjectivist BS).
And it is not racist to say Islam is evil: it is attacking the idea-set of that crude faith (and Christianity for that matter), attacking the evil, barbaric philosophy on which it is based – look at Sharia law – regardless of race or gender. Indeed, the stupidest people alive today must be white, European women who have converted to Islam. I can only assume it’s some sort of fetish, in line with sado-masochism, except, while I would have no issues with them joining some sort of appropriate club to get their submissive jollies, by working for the politicisation of Islam, they want to enslave me, also, in their life hating cult of death, and they are doing so.
Sorry, I’ve forgotten your question Murph.
Here’s a good clip though, from a fellow Objectivist, on our right in the West to defend those freedoms millions of our forbears have died fighting for, which the Left are handing over to our erstwhile enslavers on a welfare plate. The link is here:
January 26, 2009 at 9:40 am
Tribeless
I can’t seem to post … testing. I may have done a post that is too big, if so, I shall post in two parts
January 26, 2009 at 9:41 am
Tribeless
Okay then: Part One.
Philosophically I’m an Objectivist, and politically a Libertarian, so from my perspective racism, sexism, et al, are all just relics of collectivism: the refusal to treat and deal with people as individuals first, and thus viewing individuals as mere stereotypes conforming to some arbitrary collective or identity. Ironically, the neo – as opposed to noble Classical – Liberal, thus the position of Western Socialism today, is the worst at seeing the world through the distorted, life hating, prism of collectivism.
Worse, the neo-liberal has, through cowardice, made a fatal error in respect of these issues, a mistake that allows them to cry racism where none exists, a mistake that is now seeing the end days to a heretofore proud Western, Humanist, Classical Liberal philosophical tradition that has represented, thus far, the peak of humanities progress toward truly free, civilised societies, centred around a constitution enshrining the primacy of the individual, property rights, and the non initiation of force (acknowledging the latter is entirely dependent on a willingness to defend our freedoms).
That is, the neo-Liberal, the Leftie, has bought, as a rule, into a completely wrong headed notion of multi-culturalism, and that is undermining the West, via the Islamification of our cultures.
And their mistake becomes evident on calling me a racist for saying the above, which could not be further from the truth. Their touchy feely blinkers have blinded them to what racism is, and what tyranny is. The Left have become bereft in the realm of ideas and values.
The notion of multi-culturalism came from Montesquieu’s ‘The Spirit of Laws’ (1748), but if that great man could see how is is being interpreted today he would turn in his grave. …
January 26, 2009 at 9:41 am
Tribeless
Part the Two.
The neo-Liberal has interpreted multi-culturalism to mean that all cultures are equal: crap. And Montesquieu never meant that: he always held what he called an ‘eternal truth’, that cultures could be measured up to that, and that all cultures were not equal. Cannibalistic pigmy cultures are not superior to Western Culture, and the world would be a better place without them. Equally, as an idea set, a philosophy, Islam is barbaric and medieval still, (to say nothing of sexist, etc), it does not recognise the primacy and freedom of the individual, indeed, is implacably opposed to such a notion, and thus Islam is inferior, and more, a danger to the what we hold dear and true for our Western lives, in this great, nay, stunning, culture that we have created and fought for.
This neo-Liberal error has long ago translated to a cowardly retrenchment: an inability and an evil refusal to stand up for, fight for, what we KNOW is right. (Because the neo-Liberal no longer has to ability to judge good verse evil, they live in a sea of subjectivist BS).
And it is not racist to say Islam is evil: it is attacking the idea-set of that crude faith (and Christianity for that matter), attacking the evil, barbaric philosophy on which it is based – look at Sharia law – regardless of race or gender. Indeed, the stupidest people alive today must be white, European women who have converted to Islam. I can only assume it’s some sort of fetish, in line with sado-masochism, except, while I would have no issues with them joining some sort of appropriate club to get their submissive jollies, by working for the politicisation of Islam, they want to enslave me, also, in their life hating cult of death, and they are doing so.
Sorry, I’ve forgotten your question Murph.
Here’s a good clip though, from a fellow Objectivist, on our right in the West to defend those freedoms millions of our forbears have died fighting for, which the Left are handing over to our erstwhile enslavers on a welfare plate. The link is here:
January 26, 2009 at 9:42 am
Tribeless
Part the Two:
. The neo-Liberal has interpreted multi-culturalism to mean that all cultures are equal: crap. And Montesquieu never meant that: he always held what he called an ‘eternal truth’, that cultures could be measured up to that, and that all cultures were not equal. Cannibalistic pigmy cultures are not superior to Western Culture, and the world would be a better place without them. Equally, as an idea set, a philosophy, Islam is barbaric and medieval still, (to say nothing of sexist, etc), it does not recognise the primacy and freedom of the individual, indeed, is implacably opposed to such a notion, and thus Islam is inferior, and more, a danger to the what we hold dear and true for our Western lives, in this great, nay, stunning, culture that we have created and fought for.
This neo-Liberal error has long ago translated to a cowardly retrenchment: an inability and an evil refusal to stand up for, fight for, what we KNOW is right. (Because the neo-Liberal no longer has to ability to judge good verse evil, they live in a sea of subjectivist BS).
And it is not racist to say Islam is evil: it is attacking the idea-set of that crude faith (and Christianity for that matter), attacking the evil, barbaric philosophy on which it is based – look at Sharia law – regardless of race or gender.
January 26, 2009 at 9:43 am
Tribeless
Final Part – sorry for hogging your space Murph, but this stuff annoys me greatly.
Indeed, the stupidest people alive today must be white, European women who have converted to Islam. I can only assume it’s some sort of fetish, in line with sado-masochism, except, while I would have no issues with them joining some sort of appropriate club to get their submissive jollies, by working for the politicisation of Islam, they want to enslave me, also, in their life hating cult of death, and they are doing so.
Sorry, I’ve forgotten your question Murph.
Here’s a good clip though, from a fellow Objectivist, on our right in the West to defend those freedoms millions of our forbears have died fighting for, which the Left are handing over to our erstwhile enslavers on a welfare plate. The link is here:
January 26, 2009 at 9:43 am
Tribeless
Final Part – sorry for hogging space.
Indeed, the stupidest people alive today must be white, European women who have converted to Islam. I can only assume it’s some sort of fetish, in line with sado-masochism, except, while I would have no issues with them joining some sort of appropriate club to get their submissive jollies, by working for the politicisation of Islam, they want to enslave me, also, in their life hating cult of death, and they are doing so.
Sorry, I’ve forgotten your question Murph.
Here’s a good clip though, from a fellow Objectivist, on our right in the West to defend those freedoms millions of our forbears have died fighting for, which the Left are handing over to our erstwhile enslavers on a welfare plate. The link is here:
January 26, 2009 at 9:44 am
Tribeless
Second to Last part – sorry for hogging space.
Indeed, the stupidest people alive today must be white, European women who have converted to Islam. I can only assume it’s some sort of fetish, in line with sado-masochism, except, while I would have no issues with them joining some sort of appropriate club to get their submissive jollies, by working for the politicisation of Islam, they want to enslave me, also, in their life hating cult of death, and they are doing so.
January 26, 2009 at 9:44 am
Tribeless
Finale:
Sorry, I’ve forgotten your question Murph.
Here’s a good clip though, from a fellow Objectivist, on our right in the West to defend those freedoms millions of our forbears have died fighting for, which the Left are handing over to our erstwhile enslavers on a welfare plate. The link is here:
January 26, 2009 at 9:45 am
Tribeless
Sorry, I’ve forgotten your question Murph.
Here’s a good clip though, from a fellow Objectivist, on our right in the West to defend those freedoms millions of our forbears have died fighting for, which the Left are handing over to our erstwhile enslavers on a welfare plate. The link is here:
January 26, 2009 at 9:46 am
BrianC
Let me Preface this with. – dont see i to eye with murph on a _lot_ of issues. I do however support his right to be wrong about them (
). And to be wrong about them as loud as he wants.
My view on this issue is :
A writer should be able to use any word he wants to help build the characters of his players. Trying to sell a racist with PC words wont work. Neither will a hate filled rant from an ordinarily nice guy work, if all the words are pc.
Should “hate” words be used on conversational speech well no they shouldnt, im not black, latin, or aboriginal, but i am irish catholic from the north and i grew up with british squaddies calling us dirty micks and paddies, so i have my own baggage. I know how the use of these words effect me and their use was realativly mild to the focused hate that people direct towards ethnic minorities in western society.
In Regards to the forum post elseblog :
Woah
Steve stirling really takes em to task doesnt he.
After he(blog author) edited your post with his oh so witty retorts did he stop you from posting or are you letting discression be the better part of valor?
January 26, 2009 at 9:47 am
Tribeless
Sorry, I’ve forgotten your question Murph.
Here’s a good clip though, from a fellow Objectivist, on our right in the West to defend those freedoms millions of our forbears have died fighting for, which the Left are handing over to our erstwhile enslavers on a welfare plate. The link is here:
.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoAWCwm-UXw&eurl=http://www.solopassion.com/node/5828>The Problem of Iran.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoAWCwm-UXw&eurl=http://www.solopassion.com/node/5828
January 26, 2009 at 9:48 am
Tribeless
Damn, I can’t post a link in here, so I won’t post the last part
You’ll be pleased.
January 26, 2009 at 10:26 am
Flinthart
“Equally, as an idea set, a philosophy, Islam is barbaric and medieval still…”
Tribeless, you’re a clueless fuckwit. Go read Omar Khayyam. Come back when you can distinguist between different versions of Islam, eh? Otherwise, you’re tarring with the kind of brush that, if reversed, would include Catholicism with Quakers with Southern Baptist Snakehandlers with David Koresh. And I don’t suppose you’d accept that as a fair approach, would you?
Please. I’m sure the soap-box is shiny and tempting, and I’m sure you have a lot to say — but for the love of fuck, at least have the grace to do the most basic research.
***
Murph: we disagree here and there. But I ain’t seen shit from you to suggest racism in any form. And I’ve been reading your stuff long enough to make up my mind.
It’s quite true. There’s a segment of the PC world that uses “racist” as a term to suit its own ends.
Fuck ‘em if they can’t take a joke.
January 26, 2009 at 10:28 am
havock21
Beeso,
let me just clarify A point you made. Only Indigenous Australians are allowed to kill Native Fauna, eg KANGAROOS for food as I understand it. That is, ME, being Australian is not allowed to, unless I am a primary producer who can show just cause for requesting a Culling permit. In which case I may get lucky and be allowed to thin out 5 or 6 of the bastards and NOT for consumption either.
On that basis who is discriminated against, I AM, because I am NOT an Indigenous person. Imagine me taking that one to the courts. OH YEAH.
But I digress.
Hmm, Racist. OK. Here goes.
I heard on the air waves today, a request that Australia day be changed because it reminded the Indigenous population of The arrival of the WHITE MAN, and oppression, or something along those lines. The gentleman in question, is in this day and age quite free to express his opinion and request. WHAT I am also free to do, is ask why, why should we, that is ME accept that. I find looking back all the time into the past and being shit canned for what people before me did is wrong. WHEN I arc up about it or say, Screw you, I get tagged quite quickly with being racist against Aboriginals.
Fact is I have no issue with them, No issue with ensuring we give them more support or whatever other Gummit programs they deem to be necessary to assist. Much like any other demographic.
What starts to piss me off is the Child like WANT WANT WANT. Lets rename this, lets restrict this, lets not allow photos of this and so forth. THAT PISSES ME OFF. But I do not think it makes me racist. AS for writing, well if you cannot utilise the right words, in the interest of meeting the editors PC requirements then I would suggest the editor has an issue and not you.
People are so fucking thin skinned and politically correct now days, it generally gives me the fucking shits, you need your guard up twenty four seven.
January 26, 2009 at 10:38 am
havock21
Oh, I should point out it was ONE Aboriginal who received Australia day Honors that put the suggestion out there. NOT, the whole Aboriginal community. Thats was wrong and incorrect. Although he will have followers who may well agree, but I did not hear that on the Junk Box.
January 26, 2009 at 11:35 am
sfmurphy1971
Birmo, if you come across that article, I’d sure like to read it some time. It sounds interesting. Thanks for the thoughts.
besso, I’m aware of the situation in Australia on race relations but I’d never claim to be well versed in them. I think maybe what should be done is redefine this question.
“What is Australia?” Here in my country we have a pretty regular ongoing dialogue, sometimes very heated and nasty about the “What is America?” question. We are presently discussing it right now in Terri’s American Lit II class (Terri is my creative writing teacher and these days, peer, who I have a lot of respect for inspite of our differing political views).
Perhaps instead of falling back to racism, perhaps a smarter move for all sides would be to move toward a discussion about what it means to be Australian.
Then maybe the nationalism which you dislike so much might become more palatable because it would include your own identity.
We try to do this here in the States but some folks . . . well, anyway.
brian, I nominally keep such traffic off the Pondering Tree. I don’t like using my blog as an artillery piece especially when I can move and engage my opposition as far forward as possible. The other reason is that when you type “S.F. Murphy” into google, the link above is the top result. Frankly, given the ongoing fight over some of the very issues I predicted in my one and only post to that blog, I felt it was long since time for an airing out.
BrianC, I was banned so he says. I’ve not tried to get past the lock out but if I really truly wanted to, I could do so. In any case what happened if one follows the thread is that my first two stories were discussed. No such thing as bad PR. I decided to let it go.
And yes, Steve Stirling does indeed take them to task, calmly, cooly, and rationally. He does what I SHOULD have done.
Tribeless, I agree with most of what you say but I think Islam itself is a bit more complex than simply ascribing it to be stuck in the 7th Century AD. Granted, part of it seems to be but I think as Christianity evolved into something more tolerant, perhaps Islam will do the same. No religion is locked in stasis.
Well, maybe Catholicism is but that is another topic for someone else’s blog.
Flint, yes, we do disagree from time to time but thanks for the backup.
Havock, I see where you are coming from. Similar arguments are often aired here in the States about some of the efforts to redefine America. Here is how I understand it.
If it is European in origin, it is bad and must be discarded/replaced by something indigenious or native in origin.
We see this manifest itself in history classes where instructors focus on Native Americans and African American history in standard survey courses to the exclusion of other topics like, oh, I don’t know, the Constitutional Convention. I see their point that these groups have been marginalized but there are some problems with simply swapping one group out for another.
1. For better or worse, the current society was established by those of European descent. I would argue that it is an evolving society but in order to UNDERSTAND IT one probably needs to study those dead white guys like Jefferson, Franklin, Hamilton, and the like.
2. The practice of focusing on Native Americans and African Americans excludes other ethnic groups, most notably the Latino-American side of the house which is underemphasized in our textbooks. We are supposed to be inclusive of everyone yet I have a hell of a time finding material for Latino-Americans. I know it exists but since it isn’t my core speciality and I do not know who to talk to, I have trouble fixing the problem.
On the kangaroo issue, is it possible that it is a conservation issue that is driving the policy more than simply a matter of excluding Euro-Australians from hunting them? I ask only because I know the ecology is incredibly fragile down in Australia (Collapse, Jared Diamond, good book). I don’t know enough about it to say.
Oh, though I’m hardly a shining example of behavior, lets keep the “fuckwits” and such to zero. And I write that knowing that I am not always the best at this but I think if we’re going to talk about this and it is an important topic, we ought to try VERY FUCKING HARD to keep it non-nuclear.
Jesus, it is too early for this. 0535 hours on my end as I finish this response.
Respects,
Murph
On the Outer Marches
January 26, 2009 at 11:39 am
Damian
Murph, I’ve said elsewhere that I think you draw hasty generalisations about Muslims, but that certainly doesn’t make you a racist. For sure – some people on the left use that as a label and a gag, much as some people on the right use “PC”. From what I’ve seen of you in countless discussions now, I’m pretty sure you are not a racist. And while we disagree over a few things, I think you’re right to take people to task over using labels in that way.
Tribeless: “Objectivism” isn’t philosophy. About the kindest thing I can call it is a cult. I’ve seen that argument about racism and “collectivism” before, and you don’t manage to make it less vilely here. While racism as we know it is a relatively modern phenomenon, all groups in human history have made distinctions between insiders and outsiders and your Ms Rand and her acolytes were certainly no exception to that. Even in your own terms the way you treat Islam above is logically incoherent: you say “their” culture is inferior to yours because it lacks the fetishism of individuality that you believe is necessary, but don’t treat “them” as individuals yourself.
January 26, 2009 at 11:52 am
sfmurphy1971
Thanks, Damian.
Respects,
Murph
On the Outer Marches
January 26, 2009 at 11:56 am
beeso
havock – mate roo is a shocking meat, not enough fat and perhaps you missed my meaning. The “natives” aren’t insisting we run round in skins, believe in the dream and move around the country to follow the food. They are not saying assimilate or piss off, so why should we. What you’re talking about is a government not letting you cull. As for me, Australia day is just a public holiday. Every day for me is Australia day, because i’m not living in Somalia or the congo or the west bank and i’m bloody thankful for it.
January 26, 2009 at 12:03 pm
brian
Murph – the Latino thing. Not the time or place to talk about it, now.
Sometime – put it down in the blog.
Weird . . .no body turns a hair about learning Latin or French. Spanish? Weirdsville.
January 26, 2009 at 12:38 pm
yankeedog
I’m with Flinthart-I’ve never read anything from you that says ‘racist’. That word is trotted out too easily these days.
Would I be correct in guessing that this springs from your dislike of the current President’s ideology, which you’ve been taken to task for? Nowhere in any of your statements have I seen anything remotely racist said about the man.
January 26, 2009 at 12:46 pm
havock21
Beeso, just for the record, you might want to look up Kangaroo meat EXPORT. WHY, because we ship bucket loads of it OS, WHY, because it is a great lean meat, if over cooked its as tough as nails. But none the less a great meat and unfortunately DEAR TO BUY in OZ.
What Irks me, is the Gummit, in the interests of being PC, they afford our Indigionious community to much in some cases. don’t get me wrong, they were and still are unfairly treated and I am not exactly sure what the answer is. I treat them like normal, certainly when in contact with them in the NT. I Was shocked at how they were treated and took exception to me being afforded treatment different to that which they were. Thats wrong. Its systematically wrong and I still do not see any real addressing of the issue by the gummit.
Then I get to go to the rock, or Uluru as its been re named, told I cannot climb it or take photo graphs around it, or walk around sections as it is sacred. Walking, yes I can live with, but its part of MY country and if I wish to photograph i sure as fuck will.
Whats also not addressed sufficiently is the BUSH or rural Australia. Ingrained there are prejudices which are not only based on incorrect facts, but by and large by people who have no idea about so called mulitculturalism. I moved to Melbourne 20 years ago and now find myself mixing with people of different ethnic backgrounds, some or really all of which would be sunned in certain areas. Not all of the bush is like that, but a vast amount is. one of the big areas that the gummit needs to tackle.
AND the media, well, an Aboriginal gentlemen making a statement about changing Australia Days date is just too Juicy for them to not air. This time Big bad Kev got it right, it does not take a rocket scientist to know which way the wind is blowing on that one.
January 26, 2009 at 3:13 pm
sfmurphy1971
YD, to be fair to Mister Obama, I believe his stance is that affirmative action should evolve beyond race and gender to include class based issues such as the perpetually impoverished. In principle, if I understand him correctly, I could sign off on this but in reality, Americans have a very hard time admitting that we exist in a class based society.
No, my dislike for him tends more toward matters military and foreign policy. And it is merely a disagreement in terms of ideas. I have more of a problem with his party than I do with the man (who I actually find quite likeable).
I don’t see moving Australia Day’s date. That’d be like trying to move the Fourth of July or trying to rename Columbus Day something silly (and factually untrue) like Genocide Day.
Respects,
Murph
On the Outer Marches
January 26, 2009 at 7:12 pm
Luke Jackson
Murphy,
I used to think that “political correctness” was just a political buzzword that had no real power, just something people threw around for effect. But look now, they’re trying to fuck up my occupation and livelihood in the real world:
http://kynn.livejournal.com/946200.html
They really don’t know what the hell they’re talking about, and their online “efforts” will fail. That’s exactly why I work at the kind of firm I do. But it’s sad to know that if I worked at another kind of firm, a larger one, they might have been able to do some damage.
January 26, 2009 at 7:32 pm
Tribeless
Different forms of Islam?
Oh, like the ones the radical socialists of Iran were perhaps hoping for before they toppled the shah of Iran? Before the fundamentalists then set about slaughtering them.
Where you get the politicalisation of Islam, that leads, always, to fundamentalism. Show me examples of where this has not lead to fundamentalism (because those guys use the sword thus always win out)?
And to be clear, all forms of mysticism, Islam, Christianity, belief in the Big Pagan Tree God: they all involve the abdication of responsibility for an individual life to an outside Other: thus, as Voltaire ably said, ‘those who believe in absurdities become capable of atrocities’. As proof I cite, well, human history.
The only compassionate morality is man qua man. And we will never see civilised societies until they are founded on just that basis.
But Islam, particularly, has no concept of the individual, and the freedom of an individual is anathema to it. And I am not creating a ‘they’: I am attacking the philosophy of that faith.
Perhaps someone wants to tell me how the defacto institution of Sharia law in many Western jurisdictions is a good thing?
I do admit a contradiction. I want a free society, yes, but how much freedom do you allow belief systems that have as their rationale to take yours away from you?
January 26, 2009 at 7:50 pm
Tribeless
Murph: Islam hasn’t reformed in over 2,000 years. The Muslim Brotherhood’s attitude to women, infidel, et al, is unchanged. Under that faith their will never be a female leader of an Islamic State. Hell, they still can’t even drive cars in what the West would consider the most moderate countries where Islam holds sway, such as Saudi Arabia. What will reform that faith into something civilised?
I put it up that is cannot reform, as to question The Word is always to incur the wrath of Allah, and we all know where Allah’s wrath leads.
The Roman Empire destroyed itself from within. The Once Great West is being destroyed by lack of intellectual, philosophical, backbone. My proof: many of the posts above.
January 26, 2009 at 8:06 pm
Tribeless
Final point. My problem is with the politicalisation of Islam, which is being allowed via the neo-Liberals buy-in to multi-culturalism, as such politicalisation can use our notion of democracy in the West (an unheard of concept in Islamic ‘cultures’, and theocracies), our tyrannies of the majority, to overturn the freedoms and progress we have made through it.
The West needs to move beyond the notion of democracy: instead a constitution enshrining the primacy of the individual, property rights, a small state to allow the operation of a justice system and laissez faire market, and protect the individuals in it from the initiation of force. Under that sort of society, then you can believe in the Big Tree Frog, Christ, Allah, or any other nonsense, because you will not able to take my freedoms from me through the political process, this PC’ness which is destroying us, and if you attempt to use force to take my freedom to live as I want, there will be an apparatus to clobber you with.
January 26, 2009 at 8:50 pm
Tribeless
No, one more final point. Damian, once the West has finally done away with the ‘the fetishism of individuality’, and I admit that has always been the agenda of the Left, to destroy our wonderful Humanist tradition up until this point, then what are we left with?
If the Western philosophical tradition, and all the wars and lives lost defending just this, has not been about ensuring you, as an individual, can live a life free of interference, able to do whatever the hell you like in your ‘pursuit of happiness’, so long as you do not initiate force on another, then what – to turn this to where is matters – is the point of living a life?
Any other type of society is a slave society, a Gulag of which you’re welcome to live in, but leave me out of it (the irony being you can’t, can you. I have to live at the behest of the Big State you’re presumably creating for my own protection)?
January 26, 2009 at 8:52 pm
Tribeless
(Wish I could edit typos in here Murph.)
January 26, 2009 at 9:20 pm
sfmurphy1971
This lament I often issue when I make posts. But to be fair, you couldn’t edit typos at Journalspace either.
I don’t have the time to spare to read though all of this and cogitate on it but I will.
Respects,
Murph
On the Outer Marches
January 26, 2009 at 11:30 pm
Tribeless
Cheers Murph, although I would be more interested in the responses of PC-Flinthart and Comrade Damian.
January 27, 2009 at 12:28 am
Flinthart
Tribeless: in accordance with Murph’s request, I retract my ‘fuckwit’, and replace it with ‘dilettante’. I’d like to read your lengthy posts, but I keep running across glaring points that simply turn me away.
It started when you declared all Islam to be one in its barbarism, demonstrating your lack of understanding of the various forms. The next tooth-grinder came when you declared that Islam hadn’t been ‘reformed’ in ‘over 2000 years’.
Given that Islam is founded on the revelations of the prophet Mohammed, born roughly 570 AD, your statement demonstrates either a cavalier carelessness with fact, or a breathtaking ignorance. Either of the two, I’m afraid, is sufficient to turn me away from the argument.
Tribeless I am not. I have three kids, a wife, and a whole lot of responsibilities. I allow myself the privilege of online discourse because I live in an isolated area where adult, thought-provoking discussion is hard to come by. But my time is limited, and the Internet is vast.
I really, truly don’t have the time to waste on people who can’t be bothered getting even the most basic elements of their statements right. For all I know, the rest of your multi-part wonderposts could be pure genius — but why should I risk the effort, when it’s clear you aren’t prepared to make the least of efforts for the rest of us?
Go away, Tribeless. Learn to use language, facts, history and rhetoric. Come back when you’ve learned not to argue from ignorance.
January 27, 2009 at 12:31 am
Flinthart
Beeso’s right about mainland ‘roo, by the way. But the local Tasmanian wallabies are fantastic, and it’s not at all difficult to get a permit to knock a few of ‘em over. The modifications to the local landscape caused by Western agricultural techniques (clearing forests and raising grass) have led to an explosion in the wallaby population. They’re fat, sassy, easy to cook, and very tasty.
January 27, 2009 at 12:43 am
chazfh
Murph I have to say that I have never seen you as being a example of the R-word. The problem is that certain groups, because of their inability to format logical arguments have to resort to shouting down and name calling.
Everyone have bias’ or some type and discription. I know I do even against some ethnic groups, however Saudis, Pakistani tribesmen and Nigerians on the whole have few fans so I feel i’m pretty safe.
Tribeless, Islam has always been political. This is because it does not allow for disestablishmentarianism, Islam also is at the same stage of development as christianity was at the time of Martin Luther however because it is not a true hierachical religion it is a lot harder for it to evolve in the same way that chrisitanity did. islams other problem is that it it is tryign to develop at the same time as and it’s rival societies (and technology) are moving forward in leaps and bounds. This combined with the tribal aspect of many of it’s followers in the ME makes for problems.
I have alot of links with the ME however due to the constant socialogical pressures brought about by constant corruption and deprivation caused bgy poor governance the ME has not developed over the last 50 years like Asia has. Just loook at the rot that has set into Israel turning it from a democratic candle into a semi-police state.
Time for me to shut up as i’m rambling.
January 27, 2009 at 1:01 am
Tribeless
Flinthart:
Name a single Islamic Theocracy that was/is not fundamentalist? That did/does not become a hell hole for its citizens?
Name the different sects of Islam that would not introduce Sharia law were they to hold power. Better, that are prepared to say many elements of Sharia Law are barbaric, and ‘their’ Islam will have no part of it?
Demonstrate to me how – Chazfh’s thoughtful post aside – the politicalisation of Islam does not devolve to the fundamentalists?
Do you want to live under Sharia Law? How would that be consistent with your (and any poor sod woman’s) freedom?
Do you seriously believe that once an Islamic group were able to achieve political power, they would not curb the freedoms that I take for granted and being mine of right in the West?
Answer please, oh Learned One. And on the questions.
January 27, 2009 at 1:11 am
Tribeless
Flinthart: I have posted a reply to you, but it doesn’t show up. When I resend it warns off for duplicate post. If it doesn’t show up in an hour or so I shall try again … if this one gets through.
January 27, 2009 at 1:16 am
Nautilus
Aaaggghhh! My comment got eaten.
To paraphrase:
1. Murph not racist IMO
2. Don’t understand how anyone that thinks for more than 30 secs can be racist
3. Shame we can’t seem to seperate race and religion in some cases
4. I don’t think I am racist but I definately dislike different forms/branches of religion unequally
January 27, 2009 at 1:28 am
Tribeless
Flinthart:
Name a single Islamic Theocracy that was/is not fundamentalist? That did/does not become a hell hole for its citizens?
Name the different sects of Islam that would not introduce Sharia law were they to hold power. Better, that are prepared to say many elements of Sharia Law are barbaric, and ‘their’ Islam will have no part of it?
Demonstrate to me how – Chazfh’s thoughtful post aside – the politicalisation of Islam does not devolve to the fundamentalists?
Do you want to live under Sharia Law? How would that be consistent with your (and any poor sod woman’s) freedom?
Do you seriously believe that once an Islamic group were able to achieve political power, they would not curb the freedoms that I take for granted and being mine of right in the West?
Can you cite me any example at all of Muslims in Western countries rising up in the streets to protest against the ludicrous, and offensive, protests by tens of thousands of members of that faith against the Dutch cartoons – being that was an outright attack on the heart of a free country; free speech. I would point out that the NZ Libertarianz extended the hand of peace to the NZ Muslim head body to join such a protest, to demonstrate how they were no threat to our freedoms, and they would have no bar of it.
Enough said.
Answer please, oh Learned One. And on the questions.
January 27, 2009 at 1:34 am
Tribeless
Flinthart:
Name a single Islamic Theocracy that was/is not fundamentalist? That did/does not become a hell hole for its citizens?
Name the different sects of Islam that would not introduce Sharia law were they to hold power. Better, that are prepared to say many elements of Sharia Law are barbaric, and ‘their’ Islam will have no part of it?
Demonstrate to me how – Chazfh’s thoughtful post aside – the politicalisation of Islam does not devolve to the fundamentalists?
Do you want to live under Sharia Law? How would that be consistent with your (and any poor sod woman’s) freedom?
Do you seriously believe that once an Islamic group were able to achieve political power, they would not curb the freedoms that I take for granted and being mine of right in the West?
Can you cite me any example at all of Muslims in Western countries rising up in the streets to protest against the ludicrous, and offensive, protests by tens of thousands of members of that faith against the Dutch cartoons – being that was an outright attack on the heart of a free country; free speech. I would point out that the NZ Libertarianz extended the hand of peace to the NZ Muslim head body to join such a protest, to demonstrate how they were no threat to our freedoms, and they would have no bar of it.
Enough said. Figure out what is important from the facts of reality around you: get a backbone.
Answer please, oh Learned One. And on the questions.
January 27, 2009 at 1:35 am
Tribeless
No luck. I can only seem to make small posts, so two questions per post for Flinthart:
Name a single Islamic Theocracy that was/is not fundamentalist? That did/does not become a hell hole for its citizens?
Name the different sects of Islam that would not introduce Sharia law were they to hold power. Better, that are prepared to say many elements of Sharia Law are barbaric, and ‘their’ Islam will have no part of it?
January 27, 2009 at 1:37 am
Tribeless
Murph: there are at least four posts loaded in here somehow, not showing. When you have a look at the problem, can you just release the last – full – one, with the interesting question regarding the Dutch cartoon fiasco.
January 27, 2009 at 1:47 am
Terri
“impoverished” people(s) everywhere are more alike than they are different.
January 27, 2009 at 2:05 am
Tribeless
[OT Technical: Is the problem cutting and pasting from a Word document? The blog won't accept them. Although the problem of larger posts not showing also happens when I type in directly. I can't seem to post anything above about a paragraph?]
January 27, 2009 at 2:07 am
Tribeless
Damn, they’ve just all appeared. Sorry Murph.
Flinthart, just go to my last bigger post at 1.34am (everything else is a double up in one way or another).
January 27, 2009 at 2:10 am
sfmurphy1971
Tribeless, I activated a moderation program that didn’t work the way I thought it would. Now I’ve simply approved everything to include Luke’s comments (who would normally not be able to post here).
Terri, I think makes the best point and one I frequently make in my history classes. Poor is poor and poverty knows know ethnic boundary. One would think that the poor of one ethnic group would find common cause with the poor of other such groups and yet what often happens is that these groups are pitted against each other on racial lines.
Forex, during American Reconstruction there were White and Black Sharecroppers. You’d think they’d ban together but they didn’t. Why? The Southern Political Elite won over impoverished white support by holding up the flag of racial solidarity. The notion, as I explain it in class (probably in a fashion that would upset PC Nazis) is that no matter how poor and downtrodden a white man may be, they are still better than the richest African American.
Which is utter horseshit BUT that is the tool that was used to pull poor whites away from giving support to African Americans.
That is racism, as I understand it.
Nautilis, I’m a militant agnostic myself.
Respects,
Murph
On the Outer Marches
January 27, 2009 at 2:21 am
sfmurphy1971
Luke, Luke, Luke, my adversary Luke.
Did you not see that group of people for what they were? I’ll never cease to be fascinated by what has happened here in the last week. Predictions I made back during the summer were roundly ignored. If they’ll accuse Gardner Dozois of being a racist, they’ll attack anyone, diminishing the true acts of hate and racism that need to be addressed out there.
I was ignored because:
A. Murph is full of sour grapes.
B. Murph doesn’t like So and So (so what? Doesn’t mean my point is not valid regardless of whether I hate/like/don’t care about a given person).
C. Murph is an Independent who votes for Republicans and is racist by default of his personal politics.
You, frequently, have come to my blog and made some comments which didn’t serve you well. I guess if you are looking for sympathy, well . . .
I don’t know. Ask the peanut gallery around here. Got a minimum of two published writers on this thread and many more lurking. I suspect your mileage will be very poor indeed.
As for Kynn, yes, I read the LJ. I didn’t post a link in the comments or blog it because frankly I didn’t want to give the twit any additional power. I wouldn’t even post the link to Toby’s except for the reasons I stated above, especially given the latest BS over at Livejournal.
Perhaps Luke it is time to reconsider your tactics. Even at my most virulent, with full froth raging, I still operate under a certain level of restraint. Here are the baseline rules I use.
1. Never insult a person’s physical appearance/condition (there are exceptions but the one you targeted with PC Heifer is not one of them, nor is that smart/cool to attack someone’s weight).
2. Unless they’ve really fucked up with a story, I never attack their fiction. Yes, KSR gets hammered. Yes, a couple of Asimov’s writers take heavy fire but when they do I almost always have what I consider to be a Very Legitimate Reason for doing so.
3. Stick to professional etiquette. I handle my communications in the same fashion I’d handle legal documents, student records (which are federally protected) or military communications. If I absolutely need someone else to look at them, I discuss/send it to them privately. I don’t post it in a blog thread.
Personally Luke, I don’t know if Kynn can harm you or not. I suspect general incompetence will protect you. If not, well . . .
I’ll be down by the river, watching, waiting.
Oh, don’t post here anymore. I’ll be deleting any follow on comments. Go to Asimov’s since they still let you post there.
Steven Francis Murphy
January 27, 2009 at 2:23 am
sfmurphy1971
Honesty, trust and confidentiality (apparently I can’t spell today). If a writer sticks to those three, I think they can probably ride out just about anything.
Respects,
Murph
On the Outer Marches
January 27, 2009 at 2:32 am
Tribeless
Ahem. My reference to ‘Dutch cartoons’ in my post above should have been the ‘Danish cartoons’.
January 27, 2009 at 4:18 am
bangarrr
Murph I’ve never seen any sign of racism from you. Fascinating thread.
January 27, 2009 at 4:38 am
brian
I second Bangar’s sentiments. Fascinating.
January 27, 2009 at 4:40 am
Mark
I’m not going to read all 53 or 54 comments, but I think people get prejudice and racism mixed up, or at least believe they are the same thing, but I disagree. Racist, in my book, is one who believes their race is inherently better than another. However, we can have prejudices, and I do. Many of them are unfounded, but they are prejudices against ideas, behaviors and lifestyles, not a race. For example, I have an idea of what I call “inner-city culture.” It seems to be anti-education. It seems to be mysoginistic. It seems to be violent. I don’t for a second believe that “inner-city culture” is synonymous with African-American culture, although large numbers of people living in the inner cities of America are African-American. But those people, whether black, white, Latino, Asian, etc., who act in ways that lean towards my perception of “inner-city culture”… well, I have a prejudice against the way they act and what they stand for.
This may confuse a few people, but I’m a homosexual who has a prejudice against “gay culture.” Just like “inner-city culture,” I don’t believe all homosexual or bisexual people adhere to what I define as “gay culture,” but there is a definite set of actions, beliefs and lifestyles among groups of people identifying themselves as gay or queer that I find offensive. I have a prejudice against the way they act.
There is a difference between racism and prejudice.
January 27, 2009 at 5:21 am
sfmurphy1971
Mark, per your own prejudice with regard to homosexual culture, I don’t find that confusing. More than a few veterans demonstrate considerable prejudice against their fellow veterans. I’m not always supportive as I other wise might be.
But you make an excellent point that there is a difference between racism and prejudice.
Bangar and Brian, thanks.
Respects,
Murph
On the Outer Marches
January 27, 2009 at 5:34 am
Therbs
So where have you been racist? I’ve read quite a bit of your blog for a little while now and haven’t seen racism. Did I miss something?
I do however believe you just might be intolerant of ‘P.C. Nazis’. Tsk tsk.
January 27, 2009 at 6:40 am
Flinthart
Tribeless: you don’t get it. You’re the one making baseless, sweeping statements. I don’t have to defend all of Islam across the planet, throughout its (slightly less than) fifteen hundred years of history. If you’ve got a case to make, then make it rationally, without recourse to the kind of completely out-of-the-blue assertions you’ve used so far.
Your latest round of questions: first, name three genuine Islamic Theocracies. When you’ve demonstrated you can do that, I’d like you to cite for me ANY historical theocracy which hasn’t turned to the kind of shit you describe. Why should Islam be held more accountable than Christianity, Hinduism, or Judaism?
As for the all-conquering sharia, I note that far the majority of countries in which the state religion is Islam don’t follow the sharia. Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei… but of course I would expect an Islamic theocracy to stick to religious law even as I’d expect a Christian theocracy or a Hindu theocracy to do the same.
I’m trying hard here to moderate my language and be polite — but I note that you promote a near-religious worship of this concept of ‘the individual’. I also note that you seem to be as upset by any questioning of the concept and the principles you attempt to derive from that concept as any Islamic scholar might be of questions as to the validity of their faith. In other words, you come in loud and hard telling me how much better all your ‘rights’ are, without actually giving me basis to believe you — and more importantly, without demonstrating that your society actually protects and promotes those ‘rights’ you insist that it does.
Ask reasonable, rational questions, Tribeless. If you want me to admit that an Islamic theocracy is a bad idea — hey, no problems. I don’t like any theocracies that I know of. On the other hand, if you’re going to insist that all Islamic nations must become theocracies… I guess we’re going to disagree, based on the state of the world, and its history. And if you’re insisting that all those who follow Islam are barbarians without respect for life or individual rights… you’re very badly educated.
Reality can fix that if you just take a look around. It isn’t my job to fix it for you, though.
January 27, 2009 at 6:51 am
havock21
Just a short note,
Kangaroo meat meat which BTW is now called australus, like Deer is called venison. its an industry worth 270 million per annum in export earnings, but not all goes for Human consumption.
both Germany and France are the two biggest importers of kangaroo meat for Human consumption. its considered a lean meat, less than 2 percent fat, TENDER and is also minced for sausages, eg Russia’s primary import of skippy.
we have a pop of between 55-70 Million kangaroo’s in OZ, the eastern grey which is mainland is also found in Tasmania.
Tasmania, unlike other states has an issue with Wallaby control. The season as I understand it now runs all year. two species reside in tas, they being the Bennetts and Pademelons ( Rufous) Wallabies. Tas has about 7- 10 million Wallabies. Hence their control presents some issues. permits are required, which actually falls under the game lic arrangement as per most other states and the taking of Wildlife which under normal circumstances is protected, or which has its protections selectively removed for seasonal periods dependant upon population numbers, eg , the taking of certain species of Wild Duck in the state of Victoria. This has not occurred for approximately 6 seasons owing to poor rainfall and other issues.
And whilst I have no wish to take on Flinthart in a culinary debate or cook off because I would get my arse kicked, i will beg to differ on the Roo issue FH.
January 27, 2009 at 7:20 am
Tribeless
Flinthart:
And if you’re insisting that all those who follow Islam are barbarians without respect for life or individual rights… you’re very badly educated.
I’ve got three tertiary degrees with an A+ average across all of them, lowest grade a B+, a whole bunch of merit scholarships, so lets continue, which means, trying to push through your PC evasions. The workings of your mind are interesting, as it is the mind pf a man/woman that has destroyed the West.
name three genuine Islamic Theocracies.
Afghanistan until thankfully the US wiped them from the Earth. Not before it slaughted hundreds of thousands in the name of an aburdity.
Iran. Do you want to live there?
Saudi Arabia – whose entire legal system is based on Sharia Law. Many of their business policies are theonomic, in the sense that they are Sharia compliant.
All three hideous, dangerous places to live, when no individual freedom is possible.
Why should Islam be held more accountable than Christianity, Hinduism, or Judaism?
Because Islam is currently the only culture:
Flying terrorist planes into buildings.
Breeding suicide bombers.
Launching rocket attacks deliberately from populated areas to gain media sympathy.
Threatening to kill teachers for naming their teddies Allah.
Wanting to quash, completely, a tradition of free speech for the sake of cartoons.
I don’t need to go on.
As for the all-conquering sharia, I note that far the majority of countries in which the state religion is Islam don’t follow the sharia.
I was talking of Theocracies, the end point of the current politicalisation of Islam.
But re all three jurisdictions you mention, you better get yourself educated: the legal systems of all essentially operate under the barbaric Sharia Law.
Indeed, Malaysia is looking to make this official. From http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1561896/Malaysia-considers-switch-to-Islamic-law.html
Quote: “Hardline Islamic law could be introduced across Malaysia under reforms proposed by the country’s chief justice.
As the nation in south-east Asia celebrated 50 years of independence from Britain yesterday, its government was preparing to discuss a plan that would revolutionise the legal system put in place by its former colonial administrators.
As Kuala Lumpur witnessed celebrations that included parades, fireworks and a fighter-jet fly-by attended by the Duke of York, the proposal pointed to the deep differences which locals say are poisoning social relations beyond the glitter and skyscrapers of Malaysia’s modern capital city.
Ahmad Fairuz, the chief justice, told an Islamic conference in Kuala Lumpur that 50 years of independence had failed to free Malaysia from the “clutches of colonialism”. Sharia law should be “infused” into the gaps created by abolishing common law, he said.
Malaysia’s non-Muslim Chinese and Indian communities, who form 40 per cent of the population, are alarmed at creeping Islamisation.
Abdul Badawi, the prime minister, this month joined other leaders for the first time in denying what the British-authored constitution has said for 50 years – that Malaysia is a secular state.
Sharia law already operates in some Malaysian states and is occasionally applied to non-Muslims, as in July when Islamic officials forcibly separated a Hindu-Muslim couple with six children after 21 years of marriage.”
Barbaric countries: wouldn’t want to live in any of them. How would you feel about your well educated daughter (example) going to live in one of them.
I’m trying hard here to moderate my language and be polite …
Let it go mate. I think you’re a treasonous, PC apologist who will see my life enslaved.
I also note that you seem to be as upset by any questioning of the concept and the principles you attempt to derive from that concept as any Islamic scholar might be of questions as to the validity of their faith. In other words, you come in loud and hard telling me how much better all your ‘rights’ are, without actually giving me basis to believe you …
Understand this. As an individual all I want is a society in which I have absolute privacy, given that civilisation is the progress toward privacy, and in which I can be left alone. That is all. It’s not about being ‘better’, although all freedom loving individuals know that is it (morality of man qua man), it’s about being left alone, responsible for myself. A Big State, or an Islamic State, any type of Theocracy, will not allow that, and thus is objectively inferior. They are slave states, and they imprison, they kill, they slaughter, always in the righteous name of a an Other.
Do you want to live in a slave state? Unless you start judging. Unless you finally draw the line and realise that a man’s freedom is the most important thing he has, then you are not only an apologist for tyranny and atrocity, you are the PC harbinger of it.
As such you disgust me.
Ask reasonable, rational questions, Tribeless.
Patronising pap you dullard. Don’t worry about me, just answer the questions. Let’s return to those Danish cartoons, because they have become the litmus test.
Where was a moderate Islam, in the heart of our Western societies, to decry the Muslim protests against our free speech, the cornerstone of a Western, free culture?
There were NONE. You talk about all the different types of Islam, well where were they when that one little test came along?
I have said, I belong to NZ’s Libertarianz Party, I stood for them in the 2008 year election, and we asked the Islamic Council of New Zealand to join with us on a march and demonstrate their support for free speech over that issue and they would not, because they agreed Western free speech was trumped by the brute Allah.
That doesn’t worry you at all?
January 27, 2009 at 8:11 am
Tribeless
I don’t need to go on.
Then again perhaps I will:
Honour killing their daughters for having the audacity to see men friends who aren’t family, and this in England, the bastion of the West, where the Western judiciary even give air to the evil Sharia.
Christ! Says this atheist.
We have lost the battle against oppression in the only place that matters, Flinthart: your head.
January 27, 2009 at 9:32 am
beeso
“Do you want to live in a slave state? Unless you start judging. Unless you finally draw the line and realise that a man’s freedom is the most important thing he has, then you are not only an apologist for tyranny and atrocity, you are the PC harbinger of it.
As such you disgust me.”
It wasn’t that long ago that America kept slaves and defended their right to do so. Or that Britain thought that stealing a loaf of bread was just crime for sending a teenage girl half way round the world in the bottom of a ship to basically work as indentured serf.
Mate you can keep your three degrees and you “war of the mind and PC” I’ve been working since i was 14 and i know that you are speaking a fair degree of mass generalizations. I don’t like the things about islam that you have described, but then i’m not too keen on my government lying to me about throwing kids overboard, but i expect that people don’t think that all of australia is like that. I’m not that keen on the US flying suspects to lands where they can torture them, but i’m pretty sure not every citizen in that country is down with it either. You talk about one incident that has colored your thinking, yet statistically that is crap as well, you have a few bad experiences and that decides the attiude of millions of people?
Hey murph this is a good topic and i’m going to use you as the subject of a post. hope you don’t mind
January 27, 2009 at 9:49 am
Tribeless
but then i’m not too keen on my government lying
Yes! I thought I made it quite evident that I am absolutely no supporter of big government – the opposite. How could you get that idea from my posts?
I want to be left alone, period. A very, very small state.
I’ve been working since i was 14
The point being?
i know that you are speaking a fair degree of mass generalizations.
And they are?
I don’t like the things about islam that you have described ..
Good, then you don’t like the evil that is Islam. A step up from Flinthart.
January 27, 2009 at 9:52 am
Tribeless
oh ….
It wasn’t that long ago that America kept slaves and defended their right to do so. Or that Britain thought that stealing a loaf of bread was just crime for sending a teenage girl half way round the world in the bottom of a ship to basically work as indentured serf.
Yes! So doesn’t it trouble you greatly that the neo-liberals want to take us back to societies worse even than those?
January 27, 2009 at 10:07 am
Beeso
Which countries are these?
My point about how long I’ve been working is that I have not had a classical education, have no leftist PC attitude, yet i agree more with flinty than I do with you and your 3 degrees.
If you think Islam is evil than so is Christianity with it’s crusades and inquisitions.
All Islam is evil is a mass generalization that cannot be supported by statistical fact. Just as john howards Australia did not represent me, so does the wackjobs in osomas camp represent all of Islam. I’ll leave you with this. There is a devout Muslim who plays footy in Sydney who during a rape saga involving his team was known by everyone to be the one person above suspicion such was the strength of his charachter.
January 27, 2009 at 10:10 am
brian
Whoeee! Murph – followed the link. Reminds me of Usenet it does.
Whatever happened to plain language?
Incidentally. Islam as established was a far cry to what went before and compared to the Late Roman Empire? Well – there were a terrible lot of willing converts in the old Roman Provinces. Not much of a population crash or a ‘Dark Age’. Meanwhile in the West – population crashed out. Europe didn’t achieve that level until the 13th century. Islam has a few big ticks in my book. Rome invented Crusades. Not the other way around.
Please read some history.
January 27, 2009 at 10:13 am
Flinthart
I got as far as Saudi Arabia. Then, encountering another of your splendidly researched notions, I quit reading.
I don’t care if you’ve got more degrees than influenza. If you don’t use your training in your thinking, your debate and your argument, you might as well wipe your arse on those degrees.
Here’s my objection: Saudi Arabia isn’t a theocracy. The head of state is a king. That they utilise a form of sharia doesn’t make them a theocracy. Crudely put, a theocracy is a state governed by the church. Law and enforcement thereof is, as you know, but one branch of government. That a country utilises Sharia law does not instantly make it a theocracy, any more than the basic elements of Roman law in England, or the US, or Australia make any of those countries Empires.
To hell with you, Tribeless, and your idiotic accusations of “PC”. You can ask Murph about me and PC. The difference between you and me isn’t about “PC”. It’s about using brains and education. It’s about thinking before you speak, and being able to coherently back up what you’re trying to say.
So far, you’ve done little more than rail. Every time I ask you to offer a clear argument, to do your research, to establish grounds which permit discussion, you and your three tertiary degrees launch into a multi-part post that starts out with the simplest and most egregious of errors of fact, let alone logic.
I’m not avoiding your arguments, Tribeless. You’re simply not making them. And I’ve wasted far too much time trying to nudge you in the direction of constructing a thoughtful, researched, well-supported argument that I can actually disagree with in a meaningful way.
Think what you like, mate. I’ve spent much more time on you than you earned.
January 27, 2009 at 10:51 am
Tribeless
Let me put it really simply Flinthart: are you comfortable with an Islamic Party holding political sway in the society that you live in?
That’s easy for me: hell no. Based on the evidence, vis a vis, facts of reality.
And it doesn’t matter that Saudi is not a full blown Theocracy, you keep nit picking on irrelevancies. That country bases it’s legal system on the cruel and barbaric, sexist creed that is Sharia – might as well be ruled by the Ayatollahs, therefore. And that same Sharia is gaining a foothold in our Western societies, and is even being given the nod by the powers that be and the bureaucrats – that is appalling. If the West can no longer even gather the courage to say Sharia Law has no place at all in a free, progressive, civilised society, then we open ourselves to being victims of the barbarity that rotten mystical system perpetrates.
Our basic freedoms lie in precisely the opposite direction, away from this cruel mysticism toward reason. Morality that originates from man qua man.
Think what you like, mate
Well yes, while I still can. The way Western society is crumbling, that won’t be possible for much longer. Yes?
Brian, regarding the Crusades – and yes, the Christ freaks are as absurd as far as belief goes as the Moslems, it’s all mystical BS and the handing of your life over to an Other – but note that latter faith reformed and dropped its sword, whereas circa the twenty first century, if anything, Islamic Jihad is growing apace – and of course it is, because Jihad is the very product of the modern politicalisation of Islam in the West, it is how the Mullahs spitting hate get their converts amongst the young and disaffected (probably being trained up on welfare).
Beeso, I have no doubt at all that I could get along with many Moslems – although difficult as they don’t drink – but that is not the point. Look at what the politicalisation of that faith leads to, that is my point.
January 27, 2009 at 11:24 am
brian
Sorry. Christianity really hasn’t reformed itself.
Protestant Jihadists abound. Very polite about it – but scary.
Talk later Murph. We’ve worn this topic down.
January 27, 2009 at 7:53 pm
Tribeless
Hah! Yes, you’re right about the Protestant Jihadists. They seem to find my door a lot.
And yes, the thread had worn down.
I declare myself the undisputed winner, and will move on to the next …
January 27, 2009 at 9:22 pm
brian
(brian checking out the empty room)
Err? This was suppossed to be a contest? Funny . . .I didn’t get the memo.
Didn’t look like a contest. Just someone ranting and raving. I get that on street corners for free.
January 27, 2009 at 9:50 pm
Birmo
Murph and Terri’s post about poverty was spot on. One of the most interesting books I was forced to read at university was a marxist analysis of the Northern Island conflict. If you subtracted all the deontological finger wagging the author’s take on the commonality of interests between the catholic and protestant poor was spot on.
Didn’t count for shit when the bricks and the bullets starting flying though.
January 27, 2009 at 10:03 pm
Tribeless
Good one. Now I’m waiting for Flinthart to pull you up on your ‘Island’/Ireland typo Birmo, and explain how this lack of accuracy has made the entire Troubles irrelevant.
January 27, 2009 at 11:16 pm
chazfh
The schism within the IRA in the 70’s was due to certain parties in the army council relasiing that the PIRA’s actions would gain more support within the catholic community if it lost it’s strident left wing philosophy (eg the aim of a one party socialst state with Sinn Fein being the sole party).
The founder members of the INLA disagreed and so the PIRA and INLA went their seperate ways the rest is bloody history.
As for the the inevitablity of islamic theocracy. The spread of hard line Sunni and Shia islam is linked mainly with high oil prices. The second main aspect is the inability of most countries with an islamic majority to improve the lot of it’s people. You need to remember that following the seocnd world war the main politcal movement in the middle east was not islam it was Arab Nationialism based on the socialist ideal only Saudi, Kuwait, the UAE, Jordan and Oman held out and only Oman to date has moved to improve the lot of it’s populace.
The rise of hezbollah has more to do with iran pumping money into it’s proxy than it’s actual appeal to the lebanese shia population. now it has become a state within a state.
In Egypt the Mulism Brotherhood worked tirelessly in the slums and working class areas of Cairo and the southern towns using charity to bring education and a better lifestyle to the havenots. Unsuprisingly it gained politcal power to the concern of the Egyptian secular movement.
The possibility of a caliphate in SE Asia, although not impossible is remote unless we have a full blown depression. Although we have seen soem tightening of the screws in both Malaysia and Indonesia the majority of the inhabitants do not want full blown islamic rule. Again it is more the havenots in the rural areas that are driving the islamic bandwagon not the urban middle classes.
January 28, 2009 at 4:51 am
Damian
I remember folks on Usenet used to have .sig files with cutesy “Please don’t feed the troll” signs. It’s a pity web clients don’t have scorefiles.
Murph, Mark and Beeso – yeah it is an interesting theme to explore, and yeah prejudice is different to racism, and I agree prejudice isn’t always wrong. People joke about excuses not to think, but the facts of life are that thinking takes energy and appropriate prejudices save time and frustration. It doesn’t mean that when dealing with an individual person, you don’t owe them some thought once they’ve cleared your checkpoints, but it can help to have a few rules of thumb that filter out the outright idiots.
I note that folks here in general do not suffer fools gladly. To me that’s an example of a constructive prejudice. But what the hey, maybe that’s a foolish whimsy.
January 28, 2009 at 6:13 am
Tribeless
Am I paranoid or are the troll remarks directed at me Damian?
If so, then in the face of questions I have raised which are crucial to the survival of the West, and our freedoms in it, even the concept of the individual, that is the worst, most cowardly cop out.
Would you be happy to live in a society where an Islamic political party had a say in how you are able to conduct your life?
And now you are back, perhaps you’d like to put your philosophy for living on the line and answer the questions I raised to you way up the top of this thread: let me repeat them:
No, one more final point. Damian, once the West has finally done away with the ‘the fetishism of individuality’, and I admit that has always been the agenda of the Left, to destroy our wonderful Humanist tradition up until this point, then what are we left with?
If the Western philosophical tradition, and all the wars and lives lost defending just this, has not been about ensuring you, as an individual, can live a life free of interference, able to do whatever the hell you like in your ‘pursuit of happiness’, so long as you do not initiate force on another, then what – to turn this to where is matters – is the point of living a life?
Any other type of society is a slave society, a Gulag of which you’re welcome to live in, but leave me out of it (the irony being you can’t, can you. I have to live at the behest of the Big State you’re presumably creating for my own protection)?
January 28, 2009 at 8:26 am
bangarrr
Oh dear I’m still at the party when the drunks are arguing in the corner. Probably a record on the net for no Goodwin.
Tribeless marks are deducted for mentioning your academic achievements, if you have to show your certificates instead of your thinking … you need more of one and less of the other … would you like to see my A grade?
January 28, 2009 at 9:37 am
Tribeless
The only important questions on this thread, putting aside all the pontification of cyncial, liberal gits:
1) Would you be happy to live in a society where an Islamic political party had a say in how you are able to conduct your life?
2) Would you be happy to see any woman you liked, or even didn’t like, tried under the barbaric Sharia Law, which due to PC cowardliness, Western bureaucrats are giving credence to in our once free West?
[I mentioned by grades, because some fool said I was not educated, but dpn't let that distract you from the fact you are about to lose your heads in the next twenty years, because you were PC yellow bellies.]
January 28, 2009 at 9:40 am
Tribeless
It is significant, and deeply saddening, that not one person on this thread has addressed these above two questions.
The freedoms our brave soldiers fought for, all gone.
January 28, 2009 at 9:43 am
Tribeless
And by typos I am undone.
January 28, 2009 at 1:53 pm
sfmurphy1971
Tribeless, to be fair to you and Flinthart, I’ve not followed your discussion as closely as I might due to other ongoing concerns. I’ll try to take a look. I’ll issue the caveat that religion in general, well, it deeply bores me.
Thanks for the props, Birmo. The Marxists do have a pretty good grip on some things, especially poverty.
I’m killing Custer today. Again.
The bastard just won’t stay dead.
Respects,
Murph
On the Outer Marches
January 28, 2009 at 7:39 pm
Tribeless
Don’t worry too much about wading through it all Murph, I suspect I was off on a tangent making a different point to your own (which Flinthart and Damian reinforced for me).
Um, The Marxists do have a pretty good grip on some things, especially poverty.
… only on creating it.
January 29, 2009 at 3:34 am
sfmurphy1971
Well, maybe per the Marxist thing. But to be fair to the Marxists, poverty existed long before Marx came along.
Respects,
Murph
On the Outer Marches
January 29, 2009 at 3:56 am
Tribeless
poverty existed long before Marx came along.
True, but history has now demonstrated that laissez faire, even the government distorted capitalist systems – albeit it is scarcely accurate to call them capitalist systems – which America and Europe have, of which only the relics now still exist, would and are a better fixer of poverty, and improving living standards, than Marxist systems. Plus laissez faire is the only system consistent with individual freedom, whereas Marxist based systems have shown themselves to be most efficient at killing their own citizens
January 30, 2009 at 4:48 am
Terri
As an aside to Tribeless: If I was a woman under Sharia law, I would have been stoned to death long ago.
January 30, 2009 at 5:59 am
Tribeless
And yet many of the people on this thread, Terri, are quite happy, apparently, to see such a sick creed as Sharia be implemented in a country near you. It’s basically operating in Britain, and through intellectual cowardice, the neo-liberals are selling our freedoms out everywhere else in the West. I can’t name a single country not under their jaundiced, fascistic rule.
Pretty alarming isn’t it.
As I said, the West is lost. Such a shame, as it had the potential to be the best damned thing created by humanity.
I guess we just continue to sip our whiskey at night, eat nice food, trying not to offend anyone – heaven help us were that to happen – until the final curtain. Probably a good thing Obama’s stimulus package will implode the economy all the sooner. Might as well get it over with.
January 30, 2009 at 6:02 am
Tribeless
1) Would you be happy to live in a society where an Islamic political party had a say in how you are able to conduct your life?
2) Would you be happy to see any woman you liked, or even didn’t like, tried under the barbaric Sharia Law, which due to PC cowardliness, Western bureaucrats are giving credence to in our once free West?
Not one detractor on this thread had the guts to answer these two questions.
January 30, 2009 at 12:06 pm
sfmurphy1971
I think most readers know that I have very little tolerance for any political party that either tells me what to do and uses the government to enforce it or worse actively sabotages me (regular readers know I tend to see the Democrats as an example of the later).
Personally, I think Islam would have a hard time setting up a regime similiar to what we’ve seen in the Middle East here in the States. There are too many people who simply wouldn’t tolerate it. I do think it could establish a foothold in certain areas and disrupt the country badly enough to cause a break up (which is why I am not as sanginue as about our chances with the Enemy).
I do agree with Terri’s post per the stoning. I’d probably find myself in a bad way in such a state.
Respects,
Murph
On the Outer Marches