Leftists want the historically Western nations to abide by Western ideals but then if cultures clash with notions of rights and liberal democracy to give that a pass because of cultural relativism. Therefore human rights to them matter less than respecting cultures. Yet they support the current idea itself of a self-determining NATION STATE. That idea itself, as outlined in the Atlantic Charter is, guess what? WESTERN. — schopenhauer1

Could you give some examples of this tendency of 'leftists'? I don't get it.

If you take female genital mutilation (fgm), for instance, are you claiming that leftists are somehow soft on fgm and other people aren't? I don't know of any evidence for this. I'm inclined to think, feminists leaning to the left have recognised the fact of fgm more clearly and openly than anybody else. But I don't know that that involves believing that perpetrators aren't responsible for their acts, and that the acts aren't wrong in ethics and in law.

If you take the way some women from some Muslim countries are clothed, then there is some sort of left/right divide, e.g. in France, where they have legislated against certain forms of dress. But I don't see the right to tell women what they can and can't wear to be part of a Western ideal, do you?

So, what are examples of this leftist leaning?

On a general note: I'm not American and like some others here, I don't quite recognize "leftists" in your descriptions.

This kind of stemmed from the thread on Israel/Palestine/Gaza. There are people who don't differentiate between "Palestinians" and "Hamas". Some extremists (on the Left) will even be for Hamas (not just Palestine in general). That is to say they are for a homicidal Jihadist/Isalmist society that would certainly stand for everything that these (extreme leftwing) people would be against if a Western country was for this.

It stems from a weird inverse of morals whereby if a group is perceived to be an underdog they must be morally the right side. As long as they are "fighting" a "hegemon" and who are "occupiers" they are then "justified" is somehow the thinking. This is a tendency that the "Left" takes. It may stem from various Marxist "liberation" ideas (think Che Guevara starting revolutions in Africa against the Western allied regimes). Anyways, I will go further and give you more examples, including the term "Woke", but that is a different contingent of people. And these Hamas-supporters are not just American (you'd probably see less of that in America actually). They are all over. They quickly become muddled in the general protesters in general who might have more nuanced and moderate understanding of the situation.

It goes along with a segment he did the week before:

It stems from a weird inverse of morals whereby if a group is perceived to be an underdog they must be morally the right side. As long as they are "fighting" a "hegemon" and who are "occupiers" they are then "justified" is somehow the thinking. — schopenhauer1

Where I live, this is exactly the strategy of right-wingers.

Where I live, this is exactly the strategy of right-wingers. — baker

Well, being that Trumpism might pretty much take down the worlds oldest surviving liberal democracy, they have their own strategies that look similar.

I think you should watch the video. Notice how Maher brings out the fact that the craziness cuts in both sides (most of those politicians from
Harvard are right wing even though his critique started out criticizing the left wing students and academics).

That is, the end-point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government." — End of History

Rather, it’s best to acknowledge the End of History is Western and adopt liberal democracy and rights wholesale. — schopenhauer1

Wasn't it Leibniz that said in his time that this is the most perfect of Worlds? At least quite aptly Voltaire ridiculed him with Professor Pangloss in Candide. And I guess something has improved since the time of Leibniz.

And, for (the same?) reason as Voltaire mocked Leibniz, nearly everybody (as it's a low hanging fruit) has criticized Fukuyama. And in the end, Fukuyama is really a simple, foolish man: he went all in with the neocons and then later had to refute joining them in a book.. as he somehow didn't understand what the neocons were up to from the start. And that's why he deserves to be called a fool. Because let's face it: the neocons were utterly insane!

Perhaps Fukuyama was the Peter Zeihan of his time: saying to Americans what they want to hear. And that is that America is great and others aren't. Hence Fukuyama was, for some reason, put on a pedestal. A shaky pedestal, that has to be said.

When the topic here is "Western Civilization", we should discuss when that belief in Western ideas goes off the rocker. Actually Fukuyama and other neocons are a perfect example of this. These idiots really sold this idea that you could create democracies by gunpoint and transform cultures that didn't have the own desire or were not capable to transform after a military defeat (like Germany and Japan).

For the first time, because there was no Soviet Superpower whose reactions would have to be anticipated, since the US-Spanish war United States went to invade countries. And if the neocons would had it, there would have been immediately a lot more invasions. Which actually, many happened after the Arab Spring and the emergence of Al Qaeda part II, ISIS.



Only after Trump, yes, of all people after Trump, this insanity was shown out as he kicked out of the 2016 elections the older (wiser?) brother of George Bush with his little finger simply saying truths about George Bush invasion of Iraq. And that was it! No more of the Bush clan. Because before the insanity was totally looked as something sane: It wasn't only the insane lie that "Bush got bad intel", it was the delirious, crazy statement that it would be logical to invade and occupy a country because a small terrorist cabal whose financier happens to be in that country (Afghanistan) and not in another one (Sudan).

In a way, there is a moment for similar delusionary thinking in Israel now. October 7th was such a horrific attack, that "the gloves come off" and now is the time to settle all the scores. Because why not, the US won't do anything. There is an election coming and if the Biden makes any trouble, Bibi can simply pass him and talk directly not only to the Republicans, but also to Democrats. Just look at Carter and soon perhaps Obama: US presidents telling the truth about the Palestinian question are sidelined.

Fukuyama later with another neocon, Bill Kristol:


And back to the issue of Western culture. First and foremost, when looking at any culture, one has to weed out the hubris that people will often label to actually any culture. If it's some native tribe still living as they lived hundreds of years ago, then that culture is promoted by the idea of the "noble savage" who "have not been tarnished by present consumer culture etc". Because they have a "bond" with nature.

And even if it's a joke, there is a truth to it that those who study cultures in the university are usually excited about all cultures except they own culture, which they despise from the bottom of their heart.

At least, in the West.

Wasn't it Leibniz that said in his time that this is the most perfect of Worlds? At least quite aptly Voltaire ridiculed him with Professor Pangloss in Candide. And I guess something has improved since the time of Leibniz.

And, for (the same?) reason as Voltaire mocked Leibniz, nearly everybody (as it's a low hanging fruit) has criticized Fukuyama. And in the end, Fukuyama is really a simple, foolish man: he went all in with the neocons and then later had to refute joining them in a book.. as he somehow didn't understand what the neocons were up to from the start. And that's why he deserves to be called a fool. Because let's face it: the neocons were utterly insane! — ssu

So why didn't you quote one of the first things I wrote?

The 90s was a facade of exuberance. Fukuyama admitted he was wrong. That doesn’t mean Huntington was right either though. However, it isn’t wrong to want the conflicted war torn countries to attain the peaceful ennui of a post WW2 Western Europe, replete with liberal democracies that respect their heritage, history and culture of the respective region. England’s history and Anglican Church (official religion of government) and roots in medieval early Anglo Saxon and Norman kingdoms that developed its unique culture aren’t obfuscated because it’s a liberal democracy that also has taken on enlightened principles. The Netherlands gets to still have a roughly Dutch culture even though it takes on Enlightened principles. Same with Japan and their culture, same with Israel and theirs. — schopenhauer1

I just outright said Fukuyama was wrong and said he admitted he was wrong too. This is a philosophy forum so I get more cred apparently if I throw around philosophers. There was one that came to mind. However this is a strawman you are saying I hold because I mentioned an association of the idea (I didn't endorse his actual ideas or anything resembling neocons, possibly my least favorite political philosophy of recent history):

When the topic here is "Western Civilization", we should discuss when that belief in Western ideas goes off the rocker. Actually Fukuyama and other neocons are a perfect example of this. These idiots really sold this idea that you could create democracies by gunpoint and transform cultures that didn't have the own desire or were not capable to transform after a military defeat (like Germany and Japan).

For the first time, because there was no Soviet Superpower whose reactions would have to be anticipated, since the US-Spanish war United States went to invade countries. And if the neocons would had it, there would have been immediately a lot more invasions. Which actually, many happened after the Arab Spring and the emergence of Al Qaeda part II, ISIS. — ssu

So no, don't try lumping me in there with Bush, Cheney et al because Fukuyama became associated with them.

Rather, my point was that liberal democracies (liberalism in general) is a good thing. I don't think it should be forced onto people at the point of a gun. Rather, I was pointing out that Europe did a lot of carving out of the rest of the world, and is basically drawn as to the territories it is because of them. Even the idea of a nation-state itself is a Western notion. They "let" them self-determine AFTER creating the divisions that they wanted. My point was:

"Well, if you are already Western in the fact that you exist in the entity you are (non-Western country), you mine as well try out liberal democracies too. It seems to be a good thing for humans.. And I mentioned the anglo-saxon-norman (celtic/Roman/Viking) history of England, and the Anglican Church, and the monarchy and all the other cultural trappings because England is an example of a country with a liberal democracy that also keeps its cultural characteristics and history intact. Just as France. Just as the Netherlands. Just as Finland. Just as Japan. Just as Korea. Just as Israel, etc. You don't need to forgo a bunch of your own cultural history or pride or whatnot because you are taking on "Western" political notions of free speech, equality, freedom of thought, freedom to demonstrate, etc. etc. You already use the technology, you like the medicine, the engineering of the Enlightenment of the 1700s and onwards. Well, probably good to embrace that."

Oh and the odd idea that the Soviet Union/Russia were "counterbalancing" American aggression as if they weren't ACTUALLY aggressively trying to convert countries to their point of view, is a bit beyond ironic. You should know that well knowing Finland and its history with Russia.

So why didn't you quote one of the first things I wrote? — schopenhauer1

Here's why:

That doesn’t mean Huntington was right either though. However, it isn’t wrong to want the conflicted war torn countries to attain the peaceful ennui of a post WW2 Western Europe, replete with liberal democracies that respect their heritage, history and culture of the respective region. — schopenhauer1

Because that's the idea behind the neocon delusions. Because it's wrong to assume that if Germany or Japan could make a dramatic change after a disastrous aggressive expansion policy that ended up in total defeat, then just invading a country that isn't democratic can be made democratic.

The hallucination here is that the drive to democracy can be implemented by guns and violence by an invader. It was Germans themselves that didn't want to continue the Nazi resistance by forming Werewolf units, but happily went on as being occupied. In West Germany the leadership wanted to make a dramatic change, whereas East Germany simply regarded itself to be different as a socialist country (and hence the East German army was quite similar to the old Wehrmacht). And so was with the Japanese.

And in general, the US made it's most brilliant foreign policy decision, perhaps unintentionally, by listening to Europeans themselves and supporting European integration. And the end result is NATO, in which the European member countries believe themselves and hence nobody wants the US to get out of Western Europe.

And if Iraq had indeed attacked Iran and Kuwait, the US invasion was because of a non-existent WMD project. And they (Iraqis) had been under sanctions for quite a long time. Besides, just as the Saudis had warned that it was a bad idea to go into Iraq (perfectly understanding what a mess it would be). So once the US came into Iraq, then started the Sunni Shia civil war too.

So wanting to be a "Western democracy" has to come from inside the country, not pushed through by outside powers. Especially with military force. That is the pinnacle of delusional hubris. And we have witnessed that.

So wanting to be a "Western democracy" has to come from inside the country, not pushed through by outside powers. Especially with military force. That is the pinnacle of delusional hubris. And we have witnessed that. — ssu

So again, why are you ignoring my whole post above when I’m saying the exact same thing you are saying here? Here is the post again if you want to try again to read what I actually said instead of cherry picking and then debating a straw man.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/851829

Fair enough. Sorry if carried away Fukuyama and that he would have a point. I'm an optimist and presume that for people will consider the time we are living as dark as we now look at the time Leibniz and Voltaire.

The question ought to be more specific as just referring to being a "democracy", what to do we mean? Is that there are elections every once a while? Usually we are OK with just that narrow definition.

One of the difficulties is that in English there seems not to be a term for what in Finnish is called oikeusvaltio or in German Rechtstaat. Simple translation is "justice state" and closest version in English would be a constitutional state. Here the "justice" isn't only that laws are followed, but the laws are also just. A justice state is nearly the opposite of a police state. Putin might demand that laws are followed and will hold the elections every now and then, but that doesn't Putin's Russia at all justice state. And many democracies usually have a constitution like Russia, so the constitutional state can be misleading.

Fair enough. Sorry if carried away Fukuyama and that he would have a point. — ssu

:up:

The question ought to be more specific as just referring to being a "democracy", what to do we mean? Is that there are elections every once a while? Usually we are OK with just that narrow definition.

One of the difficulties is that in English there seems not to be a term for what in Finnish is called oikeusvaltio or in German Rechtstaat. Simple translation is "justice state" and closest version in English would be a constitutional state. Here the "justice" isn't only that laws are followed, but the laws are also just. A justice state is nearly the opposite of a police state. Putin might demand that laws are followed and will hold the elections every now and then, but that doesn't Putin's Russia at all justice state. And many democracies usually have a constitution like Russia, so the constitutional state can be misleading. — ssu

Yes, that's why I like the term "liberal democracy" as opposed to "illiberal democracy". Just having elections is part of the equation. It is having the (good) trappings of the notion of rights, free speech, freedom of expression, freedom to exercise religion, the ability to have opposition parties, etc. The problem is, you have to have systems in place that don't allow an illiberal group to be voted in and then take away all those systems.

And when define "liberal democracy" to be that "justice state" or "Rechtstaat", then the number of democracies decrease dramatically.

The problem is, you have to have systems in place that don't allow an illiberal group to be voted in and then take away all those systems. — schopenhauer1

And simply are:

a) Constitution and limits (majority requirements) on changing the constitution / minority rights
b) separation of powers (Montesquieu)
c) free press
d) the educated voter.

D) is crucial. There is no way to protect democracy from the voters. Hence that the voters are informed and reasonable is essential for the system to work. This happens when the system works for the voters. But if for some reason, the voters are treated like shit and they lose all confidence at the existing institutions, they will simply turn to radicals and "the fringe".

Because in a democracy the voters do get what they want. If a party that thinks red headed women are dangerous witches who have to be detained and gets a 2/3 majority in the elections here, guess what will happen to the few red-headed women in Finland?

You may have forgotten the "anti-" part, as in "anti-racist"? — javra

Yes, my apologies for the typo.

I'm sorry you had to experience that xenophobia. I suppose you know first hand what it's like to be prejudged because of some perceived ethno-cultural differences.

All one needs to do is look out the window a bit to see that racism of all stripes and flavors is alive and well in Western society. — javra

That is quite an exaggeration. It is the kind of thinking that this thread is meant to address. The notion that "racism of all stripes and flavors is alive and well in Western society" is known as "racial realism". This concept originated with Derrick Bell, who applied marxian critical theory to his civil rights work and has become known as the core architect of crt.

I don't think that it is a coincidence that many Leftists are echoing the ideas of Derrick Bell. Impossible to think that so many would independently arrive at such complex ideas with such uniformity.

It seems much more likely that ideas based in critical theory (like those of Derrick Bell) have been taught in top tier Western universities for decades, and adopted by myriad successful people who have gone out into western societies to evangelize and exert varying degrees of influence. Many of those ideas have come to be go-to, boiler-plate talking points of the Left, particularly when pointing out how oppressive Western civilization is.

D) is crucial. There is no way to protect democracy from the voters. Hence that the voters are informed and reasonable is essential for the system to work. This happens when the system works for the voters. But if for some reason, the voters are treated like shit and they lose all confidence at the existing institutions, they will simply turn to radicals and "the fringe".

Because in a democracy the voters do get what they want. If a party that thinks red headed women are dangerous witches who have to be detained and gets a 2/3 majority in the elections here, guess what will happen to the few red-headed women in Finland? — ssu

Yes, education is key. The problem is when "Rights" are used as a tool to bludgeon the enemy, and not as a way to govern one's own population. Only others (foreign powers, the Great Satan, the hated enemy) can violate your rights. WE can't do that. WE represent your best interests. That might be at the root of most of these populist versions of illiberal democracy.

I'm sorry you had to experience that xenophobia. I suppose you know first hand what it's like to be prejudged because of some perceived ethno-cultural differences. — Merkwurdichliebe

Nice of you to so say. My pov: In life, shit happens; don’t know of anyone who can affirm otherwise.

All one needs to do is look out the window a bit to see that racism of all stripes and flavors is alive and well in Western society. — javra

That is quite an exaggeration. It is the kind of thinking that this thread is meant to address. The notion that "racism of all stripes and flavors is alive and well in Western society" is known as "racial realism". This concept originated with Derrick Bell, who applied marxian critical theory to his civil rights work and has become known as the core architect of crt.

I don't think that it is a coincidence that many Leftists are echoing the ideas of Derrick Bell. Impossible to think that so many would independently arrive at such complex ideas with such uniformity.

It seems much more likely that ideas based in critical theory (like those of Derrick Bell) have been taught in top tier Western universities for decades, and adopted by myriad successful people who have gone out into western societies to evangelize and exert varying degrees of influence. Many of those ideas have come to be go-to, boiler-plate talking points of the Left, particularly when pointing out how oppressive Western civilization is. — Merkwurdichliebe

Myself, I’m not well enough versed in political science to have much of an idea of what you’re referencing with Derrick Bell, unfortunately. I have however had Asian, Hispanic, and Black friends and acquaintances over the span of my life, aside from the white. From their stories—and from a little that was directly witnessed by me—incidences of racism from some pockets of society were and remain. Then there’s things like me hearing the N-word used in derogatory manners by folk that happen to be white thinking they're talking to another likeminded white person (for better or likely worse, I admit that I most often didn’t start lecturing them on why racism is not good). I've seen swastikas drawn up in humongous sizes in sand on easily seen beaches; and I don't think they were there to reference what the swastika represent in Eastern cultures.

Despite not knowing much about Derrick Bell, I greatly doubt that most of the “black lives matter” people in the USA gained their perspectives from writings, or even from the media; and I instead firmly believe that most have had shitty experiences due to racism on repeated occasions (with the untimely death of loved ones here included). Nor do I take the anti-Asian sentiments, assaults, and battery that are sometimes reported in the media to be some sort of a hoax sponsored by a cabal of liberal academics. And there’s a longer list here regarding present day accounts of racism. There’s antisemitism, as previously touched upon. There’s anti-non-Jewish-Middle-Eastern-ism. And more. Granted, this from my own largely USA-centric (more specifically Californian) acquaintance with the topic (though, being from Europe and having traveled there often enough, I’ve seen it there as well first hand).

What you’ve mentioned at least seems to indicate the view that racism is something only perpetuated by the majority populace toward minorities which are thus oppressed. However, in my experiences, there’s also racism that can and in some circles does occur from minorities toward the majority, as well as from one minority toward another. (For example, with the friends and acquaintance previously mentioned, some groups would make derogatory racial jokes against the race of other friends I had, with which the first batch of friends was not acquainted.)

So again, from what I know of the society I’m living in via my own experiences, racism—though not pertaining to the majority of the populace—does nevertheless exist well enough in society at large, and with no signs of stopping. It’s like traffic on the streets: most drivers are polite enough to make driving manageable, but there always were and still are those who can make driving in traffic an unpleasant experience due to being assholes. Yes, the latter are a minority on the streets, but there’s still enough of them to make driving, let’s say, unnecessarily stressful and antagonistic.

I’m not here offering any academic theory regarding the matter. It’s simply my honest observations that—although not pertaining to the majority as it currently stands—racism is alive and well in society. For me to deny this is for me to deny my accumulated experiences, as per those mentioned above.

[BTW, a funny anecdote: Normally cops are pretty cool with me on the rare occasion they’ve stopped me in traffic. Now, I’ve been confused over the years for a number of different races by some: Gypsy, Hispanic, Middle Eastern … Anyways, a white cop who gave all indications of at first thinking me Hispanic once pulled me over for driving about 5 miles per hour over the speed limit in a 40 or 45mph zone. I politely told him “good afternoon officer” as he was nearing my open window. He immediately pulled his pistol out of its holder in front of me while asking, “what did you say to me?”. At the end, he let me go scot-free … this after at first forcefully asking me if I was ever imprisoned and the like. Funny anecdote to me. But shoot, this doesn’t compare to stories I’ve heard from Asians, Hispanics, and Blacks I’ve personally known.]

With all that said, I'm by no means one to deem Western civilization oppressive! I find it to be quite the contrary. Racism can be found in individuals everywhere (like in many a Buddhist, of all people, in Myanmar toward the Rohingya people). But, to my knowledge, only in the West was the affirmation of "liberty, equality, fraternity" made explicit with ambitions to create states that more perfectly embody this ideal. This as just one example of what I have in mind. (The politics of any given moment does not constitute a civilization ... ah, but I've already written more than I initially wanted to, so I'll cut this short.)

At any rate, this doesn't make the West a place where racism is as infrequent as is murder.

It's always funny when people think to tell me about Dutch history as if I'm ignorant of the history of my own country. You're confusing states with nation states, which came a lot later than the Westphalian system.

Dutch tolerance is in fact a fairy tale that was romanticised thanks to the links to the pilgrim fathers and the dominance that the Netherlands got in the 17th century when the system of religious tolerance continued. But it was tolerant to the point that different people could live next to each other but it didn't accept exchange between the two to the point that they had their own church, schools, bakery, hairdresser etc. that was largely also a reflection of regional differences. Even in that period of "tolerance" (starting in 1543 with the 17 provinces) the Great Iconoclasm happened. It was pragmatism that brought them back together. Certainly, nothing as high minded as liberalism crossed these men's minds. In reality, this religious tolerance existed in other European countries as well at the time. Meanwhile all those Jews that were welcome were still pushed into ghettos and they had to bury their dead far away from the cities.

The pilgrim fathers moved to a country that was receptive of protestants (calvinisten) and the Dutch had just signed a treaty with the Spanish - it was close and relatively safe at a time that local rulers were quick to (pretend to) be calvinist or at least 'tolerant' to the point they kept their heads and power. The pilgrims still got into religious fights in Amsterdam after which they moved to Leiden, where they then were disgusted with the drinking and gambling going on.

Even so, all this, including the first colonies, predates liberalism as a political movement and any links to Dutch thinkers is tenuous at best.

This as just one example of what I have in mind. (The politics of any given moment does not constitute a civilization ... ah, but I've already written more than I initially wanted to, so I'll cut this short.) — javra

Write more, please. You are a well-spring of fresh thought, don't cut yourself short for anybody, nor Time. I have more to add but I've been kinda swamped at the moment, however your ideas are very worthy of conideration.

I greatly doubt that most of the “black lives matter” people in the USA gained their perspectives from writings, or even from the media; and I instead firmly believe that most have had shitty experiences due to racism on repeated occasions (with the untimely death of loved ones here included). — javra

First, it is an indisputable truism that all racists are bitch-ass cowards that deserve a healthy beatdown. So let's get that out of the way.

If we are talking racially motivated homicide, it is pretty evident from police statistics that, whites are predominantly killing whites, and blacks are predominantly killing blacks.

Overall, most homicides in the United States are intraracial, and the rates of white-on-white and Black-on-Black killings are similar, both long term and in individual years.

Between 1980-2008, the U.S. Department of Justice found that 84% of white victims were killed by white offenders and 93% of Black victims were killed by Black offenders.

In 2018, the Federal Bureau of Investigation reported that 81% of white victims were killed by white offenders, and 89% of Black victims were killed by Black offenders.

In 2017, the FBI reported almost identical figures — 80% of white victims were killed by white offenders, and 88% of Black victims were killed by Black offenders. — USA today

And since i live in a diversified and civilized area, there are never any people being murdered, much less over racial hatred, hence I can only go off statistics from usa today. Based off those statistics, it is obvious that intraracial homicide is much too prolific to give interracial murder any consideration until the intraracial is dealt with.

With all that said, I'm by no means one to deem Western civilization oppressive! I find it to be quite the contrary. Racism can be found in individuals everywhere (like in many a Buddhist, of all people, in Myanmar toward the Rohingya people). But, to my knowledge, only in the West was the affirmation of "liberty, equality, fraternity" made explicit with ambitions to create states that more perfectly embody this ideal. — javra

With that I can agree. Everyone holds racial prejudice, even those that genuinely consider all races equal. Prejudices of all types. The question is about which prejudices we can tolerate while respecting the core principles of "liberty, equality and fraternity/duty". Is it even possible to push the limits of tolerance?

Yes, education is key. — schopenhauer1

And simply that the society works at least somehow. The economy has to work in some way. Politicians can be incompetent, that can be, but not criminals. Or simply people who don't have the people's interest at all. Revolts on the ballot box can then become revolts in the streets.

Write more, please. You are a well-spring of fresh thought, don't cut yourself short for anybody, nor Time. — Merkwurdichliebe

Oh … just stop it. :smile: Thanks though. :pray:

If we are talking racially motivated homicide, it is pretty evident from police statistics that, whites are predominantly killing whites, and blacks are predominantly killing blacks. — Merkwurdichliebe

Interesting. I’m in fact surprised by the relatively low percentage of race on race killings among blacks—this considering that there’s a far higher percentage of black street gangs with violence in-between, or at least so my presumptions hold. I added that part about death due to what I’ve heard on the news regarding police killings. Here’s one statistic relative to the US:

Black males comprise 6.1 percent of the total U.S. population but 24.9 percent of all persons killed by law enforcement. — Law Enforcement Epidemiology Project - U.S. Data on Police Shootings and Violence

The statistic, though, doesn’t give context to why the disparity occurs. And I for now can only speak of cases I’ve heard of in the news, granting that they’re preselected to be newsworthy.

With that I can agree. Everyone holds racial prejudice, even those that genuinely consider all races equal. Prejudices of all types. The question is about which prejudices we can tolerate while respecting the core principles of "liberty, equality and fraternity/duty". Is it even possible to push the limits of tolerance? — Merkwurdichliebe

Aye, to that. It would be dysfunctional for developed life not to form pre-judgments (i.e. prejudices in this sense) via generalizations from past experiences. What degree of prejudice (in all senses) can or should be tolerated is a tough question; akin to asking how many grains of sand does it take to make a heap. Don’t know. Still, at the end of the day, we can all distinguish between a blatant heap of sand and a few sprawled out grains of the stuff ... or so I'm thinking.

Racism can be found in individuals everywhere (like in many a Buddhist, of all people, in Myanmar toward the Rohingya people). — javra

In this particular case though, there is an alternative explanation: According to Buddhist principles, Buddhists aren't supposed to drink alcohol or kill animals or be involved in the business of making alcohol or slaughtering animals. But they still want to drink alcohol and eat meat. And as far as the meat is concerned, the Buddhist precept against killing is not breached as long as one didn't kill the animal oneself, didn't order it to be killed, or has no reason to believe that it was killed for one specifically. So the Buddhists found a convenient way around the Buddhist precepts and allow people of other religions to live among the Buddhists and to do the dirty work of brewing alcohol and slaughtering animals.
How the Buddhists thought that this wasn't going to backfire ...

I think you should watch the video. — schopenhauer1

I watched both, but I'm not sure what to make of them. First off, I don't appreciate mixing serious criticism with humor. I'm not sure what to make of this genre.
Generally, the US just seems strange to me, a world I cannot relate to. This is, pretty much, why it captures my interest.

It's always funny when people think to tell me about Dutch history as if I'm ignorant of the history of my own country. You're confusing states with nation states, which came a lot later than the Westphalian system.

Dutch tolerance is in fact a fairy tale that was romanticised thanks to the links to the pilgrim fathers and the dominance that the Netherlands got in the 17th century when the system of religious tolerance continued. But it was tolerant to the point that different people could live next to each other but it didn't accept exchange between the two to the point that they had their own church, schools, bakery, hairdresser etc. that was largely also a reflection of regional differences. Even in that period of "tolerance" (starting in 1543 with the 17 provinces) the Great Iconoclasm happened. It was pragmatism that brought them back together. Certainly, nothing as high minded as liberalism crossed these men's minds. In reality, this religious tolerance existed in other European countries as well at the time. Meanwhile all those Jews that were welcome were still pushed into ghettos and they had to bury their dead far away from the cities.

The pilgrim fathers moved to a country that was receptive of protestants (calvinisten) and the Dutch had just signed a treaty with the Spanish - it was close and relatively safe at a time that local rulers were quick to (pretend to) be calvinist or at least 'tolerant' to the point they kept their heads and power. The pilgrims still got into religious fights in Amsterdam after which they moved to Leiden, where they then were disgusted with the drinking and gambling going on.

Even so, all this, including the first colonies, predates liberalism as a political movement and any links to Dutch thinkers is tenuous at best. — Benkei

Ok, so I'll admit that one of the main reasons I brought up Dutch history was to show its connection with the US to some extent. That's why I put in some Dutch cultural traces with the name "Brooklyn", "Bronx", "Harlem" and the like. Presidents such as Martin Van Buren, Teddy Roosevelt, and Franklin D. Roosevelt have obviously Dutch names and lineage amongst a litany of Dutch-descended Americans.they were unsurprisingly from New York, undoubtedly descended from the early Dutch families. In a bit of counterfactual history, I wonder what New York would have turned out if it remained New Amsterdam, or if it retained much more of its Dutch roots and was liken to New Orleans' French Quarter retaining French/Spanish influence.

As far as any connection to liberalism, I never said it was tolerant as if taking on the present-day version of that, but it was leading the way towards a kind of religious tolerance. However, this might have been a Calvinist Protestant specific kind of tolerance that for a time, had a philo-semetic characteristic. Under Oliver Cromwell in England, the Jews were allowed to return to England after being kicked out in 1290 under Edward I Longshanks. So, there were various factors regarding tolerance. Besides this there was the fact that for a while, there was the Dutch Republic with a sort of democratic confederacy. Of course, it also ran an imperial and brutal colonial system just as England, Spain, Portugal, and France. But they did secure a for the burgeoning US in the Revolutionary War, though they waited until the defeat at Yorktown to provide that loan.

But certainly, despite some regressions to a monarchical form of government, there has been a strain of liberalism in the arts, religious tolerance, etc. up until WW2, where, as with other European countries people were forced into helping the Nazis, some having to collaborate with sending their Jews and others to the concentration and death camps far away. But like other countries such as France, they also had a resistance movement. Many Dutch sacrificed and died, the tyrannical rule and the hunger winter and forced factory labor. But there were numerous strikes. And let us not forget the Diary of Anne Frank, which is a ubiquitous text for most school children around the world in regards to WW2.

Certainly "Liberalism" as we know it being a term for having "rights" and "freedoms" and a sort of focus on individual liberty was more a product of specific philosophers and movements in the late 1600s and 1700s.. People like John Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, even Spinoza had some ideas that could start leading to freedom of religion, etc. Certainly Montesquieu, Voltaire, and in America Jefferson, Adams, Madison, et al.

But as far as nation-states many historians would indeed point to the origin of territory self-determined without outside influence as the Westphalian system. However, indeed it wasn’t until the romanticism of the 19th century that you get a cobbling of city states into a nation state in the examples of Italy and Germany.

I added that part about death due to what I’ve heard on the news regarding police killings. — javra

I understand that, and police have a culture all their own. Maybe there are currents of racism running through police culture, I don't know. Let us impugn all police as racists (against black people, whatever), I still do not see any necessary connection between that, and the general sentiment of the average person. Police exist in an entirely different world than the average person, and, imho, we shouldn't impugn the average person for the actions of state sponsored officials.

I understand that, and police have a culture all their own. Maybe there are currents of racism running through police culture, I don't know. Let us impugn all police as racists (against black people, whatever), — Merkwurdichliebe

A touchy topic for a number of reasons. Besides, I've conversed with more than one police officer who was anything but a racist. Of course, if the culture of a particular precinct is, then those police officers within the precinct that aren't generally have a very hard time with things.

I still do not see any necessary connection between that, and the general sentiment of the average person. — Merkwurdichliebe

There's a lot of connections in life that cannot be epistemically established as necessary. All I've got to go on are my own experiences, of which I think I've addressed enough of.

Do you by chance uphold there being a "necessary disconnection" between the actions of state sponsored officials within a democracy and the general sentiment of the average person within said democracy?

Do you by chance uphold there being a "necessary disconnection" between the actions of state sponsored officials within a democracy and the general sentiment of the average person within said democracy? — javra

I do. I don't think it is the average person that determines the government, despite the system. Whether constitutional republic or ochlocracy, it always seems to be controlled by a select few. When has the average person ever mattered? Was it Lenin who said: "The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves."?

I don't think it is the average person that determines the government, despite the system. Whether constitutional republic or ochlocracy, it always seems to be controlled by a select few. When has the average person ever mattered? Was it Lenin who said: "The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves."? — Merkwurdichliebe

That made me laugh a bit, in a good way. Sure, but then it sure sounds like were addressing dysfunctional democracies here: states that are democratic only in name. This in full parallel to how communistic states have only been communistic in name.

Seems like the same applies to both in like measure: "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others". (to quote from Orwell, of course)

As for those who might be naysayers when it comes to functioning democracies, they've been in the past. Ancient Athens as a good example: the citizens - male though they all were - where deemed equal enough to have most offices of state settled by lottery. I say this laughingly: imagine having the secretary or state or some such selected by lottery nowadays. Its why education has always played one of many pivotal roles in any functioning democratic rule. So as to no result in a system wherein some are deemed "more equal than others". But this is a wholly different issue.

As for the connection topic, I'm OK at this point with agreeing to disagree on the matter.

As for the connection topic, I'm OK at this point with agreeing to disagree on the matter. — javra

You have given me an innocent chuckle too: something about grains of sand and heaps. Loved it.

I disagree that we disagree much on the matter. I feel like we are simply expositing various approaches on the matter as best we can. We have not been emotional or irrational reactionaries in our entire conversation.

We have not been emotional or irrational reactionaries in our entire conversation. — Merkwurdichliebe

:grin:

Yes, now that you bring it up, quite true. Somehow was taking this for granted before as the way things ought to be. Especially on a philosophy forum. But I guess it is something significant enough to be worthy of mention. :up: