Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
The point I was making through the use of reference to another country is that while America is repeatedly singled out when references are made to the plight of Africans, other countries are - including Africa itself - are rarely mentioned. Another point was that while America is being singled out for its participation, it is never praised for its efforts to end the institution.
You will rarely find that kind of depth on this forum. If you genuinely desire a real understanding of the geopolitical and socioeconomic milieu of the slave trade . . . you need a textbook or a course . . . not ATOT. I could certainly be mistaken but by your tone it appears you want nothing more than evidence for the defense. In that case, a Heritage or AEI position paper would probably suffice.
I was not specifically referring to references made singularly on ATOT. I was, rather, referring to the insinuations and outright accusations we are all frequently exposed to through multiple mainstream media sources. Yes, a reading of the materials you suggest may provide insight towards the historical aspects of the slave trade. However, such a reading would not provide insight into the reason that Joe Blow has made summary judgment of America's individual responsibility for the slave trade. Unless you would like go so far as to attribute familiarity of those historical facts to a majority of the population, which I am not willing to do.
One who doesn't know of a fact cannot at the same time be aware of his ignorance of that fact. Therefore, it would be impossible to bask in the knowledge that one is ignorant.
You really have no clue. It is the most salient of notions that those which seek knowledge are perpetually bemused and enticed b/c the more they know . . . the better they realize how much more there is to learn. It is indeed quite easy to bask in ignorance. The typical presentation is having a footnote's worth of knowledge and spreading it over a chapter.
On, no, I believe that I might just have a clue. You never made reference to one with an understanding of his ignorance gained from his desire to gain more knowledge. How could such ignorance be "shameful?"
Are you referring to the world view that slavery is abhorrent? Some concepts are simply against basic human dignity and are not at all dependent upon where an individual was raised.
Not to offend but I'm referring to ignorance. Football is played throughout the globe but if you never leave west Texas or west Africa . . . do you have any concept of what football means to your geographical counterpart? Nonanesthesized circumcision of males was the standard of care in America 20 years ago while nonanesthesized circumcision of females was the standard in east Africa. How about one more . . . (we) consider it a great achievement and necessary to drop TWO nukes on Japan . . . the majority of the world still considers it barbaric and unnecessary. You are quite right that some concepts are simply against basic human dignity and should not be dependent upon where an individual was raised. But from the above, only the last example is a case where all parties are describing the same event.
Now, let me see if I am bright enough to get it this time.
When you make reference to "your worldview and perspective on slavery" you are really referring to ignorance?
Likewise, not to offend, but I believe you have misunderstood. I was asking you to define exactly which of my world views was so incorrect as to provide the foundation of my apparent "common fallacy" of its superimposition onto another's culture. A question I attempted to clarify with a subsequent example. I understood you original statement perfectly. Hence, the example of the presence and absence of Christmas celebrations. It would be an incorrect exercise of reason to state that all countries which do not celebrate Christmas are somehow 'wrong.' The same cannot be said of slavery.
Again, we are talking about deprivation of human freedom, not something people get together and do for fun in the backyard after a cookout. I will never believe that a justification for slavery can be found in the individual beliefs of a culture.
Meaning that slavery can, indeed, be a wonderful and fulfilling endeavor for all participants outside of the west African variety? Of course not, slavery is slavery. My good friends common sense and empathy.
Here's a read for you
How We Know What Isn't So: The fallibility of human reason in everyday life by Thomas Gilovich. There's a rainbow of slavery ranging from the borderline activities of indentured servitude to the chattel practice you believe provides an all encompassing perspective. Until you expand your knowledge base you cannot reason your way into accurate positions.
Thanks for the tip, but I still believe that the proposition that cross-culture differences can be used to justify every human action is absolutely false. Yes, the greatest majority of cultural differences are just that, differences. But if Mr. Gilovich suggests that the fallibility of reason can be extended to encompass those actions which are malum in se, then Mr. Gilovich is probably just trying to sell books.
Furthermore, empathy is what you feel when you experience something as another . . . so unless you've been a slave you cannot empathize . . . just sympathize. But I understand what you mean.
It's so good of you to understand what I mean, but:
empathy : Intellectual or imaginative apprehension of another's condition or state of mind without actually experiencing the feelings of the other.
Yeah, I looked it up. But not the first time.
I live in the South so every institution built after mine 1783 (the first public univesity) and before Emancipation was constructed largely by slave labor. The South (despite the Research Triangle Park, Charlotte banking center, and Atlanta) remains tied to its agriculture. A legacy born and sustained for centuries by slave labor . . . not to mention supporting Northern industries dependent on raw goods from the South.
Fine, we'll just have to disagree as to what exactly you meant when you wrote, "the majority of American institutions of higher learning." I take that to mean all of them, not just those in the South, but whatever.
The future of America lies with cultivating the talents of all Americans by providing an environment where everyone with the aptitude and attitude can reach their potential. Universal, world class K-12 is what we need followed by broad investment in all varieties of higher education.
We agree here.
Replacing 25-50% of black, native American, or Hispanic students with white or Asian students with higher GPA, ACT, GRE, DAT, LSAT, MCAT would neither improve the intellectual climate or the quality of the product.
So, in a scheme where minorities are not given admission preference they are being "replaced" by whites? Replaced? Really?
But, if those minority applicants would not have achieved admission without the additional consideration given to their race, aren't they, in fact, the ones replacing more qualified applicants with themselves.
Is rejecting the white kid with higher admission criteria in order to admit the minority with lower admissions criteria truly fostering a society "where everyone with the aptitude and attitude can reach their potential?"
In my discipline its the three As: Availability, Affability, and Ability. You cannot serve if you are not around, lack effective communication skills, or don't know what you are doing. These traits/skills exemplify a good physician hence the selection process for admissions reflects it. Are there racial/ethnic differences when it comes to social skills . . . good question? But I guarantee if you can talk a good game it's worth more than a few tenths on the GPA or pts on the MCAT.
Well sir, in law school we didn't have any guiding A's. What we did have was a study of the dramatic metamorphosis of American Constitutional rights over the past 40 years, often without anything more to stand on than a "penumbra." It doesn't matter what kind of game you can talk, when the government takes away a right on the basis of our Constitution, you can bet we'll all feel a negative impact sooner or later.
I've said it before, laws passed to help minorities today can always turn around and bite them later. The court is granting some kind of "diversity" interest today and minorities seem to benefit. I could almost guarantee that sometime in the future whites will be able to oust minorities from some locale on nothing more than a claimed right in "diversity."
For my 2 cents I agree with both decisions from the Court. The undergrad policy was outrageous but the law school was quite reasonable.
Strangely enough, we disagree.
