From: q2tj@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: A bushel of raspberries for whom it concernes
Date: 27 Jan 93 12:38:02 EST
Distribution: soc
Organization: Cornell University

sieh@panix.com (Nutella) writes: 
> In article <1993Jan25.124216.16998@vax5.cit.cornell.edu> 
> q2tj@vax5.cit.cornell.edu writes:
>>sieh@panix.com (Nutella) writes: 
> 
> I view it differently.  The very reasons that there has been so much
> strife, suffering, bloodshed, inhumanity etc in history is because
> of the fact that people do not view others who are different from
> themselves as one or the same.  What occurs is that one group of
> people will use every instance to ostracize another group, paint 
> them in such terms as to basically dehumanize them.  It's so much
> easier to destroy "animals" than a member of your "family".  
>
You really think that in all cases, sincere recognition that 
everyone "out there" is a member of the (human) family will solve
strife, bloodshed etc???  The sentiment might be nice here and there
but I doubt it is of great use.  This sentiment historically has
not always bred respect for other cultures. Here's an example
for 1500's to maybe even the present.  Catholic means "universal"
and the Catholic church does in fact believe in a universal
brotherhood.  And some of the missionaries really are sincere that
they are helping out their unfortunate family members who have
not heard the "word".  So it ends up they help to start imposing
beliefs incompatible with indigenous cultures.  And I do mean
"impose"!  The missionaries can get quite zealous in helping
their brothers who haven't seen the light.
 And don't tell me that this is an "exception" or done only
to help out the conquistatdors, because this is *exactly* the
kind of stuff that happens when one gets dedicated to
the "Great Humanistic Leveler" or other beliefs in universalism.

Probably any culture that believes that it's way is towards
universal brotherhood will start to think that it has the superior
way.  It's then natural to think that you ought to convert other
cultures.  Some will use force, and others persuasion but both
are rooted in this idea of universalism.  The ones who prefer
persuasion will emphasize the "brotherhood" and the "people are
people"

This is a very different kind of conquest than some other cultures
that prefer to kill a bunch of people and steal whatever they can.
Or other cultures that are highly ethnocentric and so contemptuous
of others that they avoid them.  That's why I think it is ridiculous
to blandly assert that "Euros, Indians, Africans, Chinese all had empires
of conquest....and these are part of human nature....we are 
brothers afterall....and just by circumstance on empire got the
upper hand....but it's basically the same sort of thing, and the
same sort of morality applies in these different cases"

> 
> You're confusing ideas.  Your "we" here =/= the "culture".  There are
> people(s), and there are cultures but people do not make a culture, a
> part of yes but not a determinant.  In your example, I do not necessarily 
> argue that most cultures are "basically the same (e.g. conquest, manifest
> destiny)".  These are your false interpretations.  However, I do argue
> that individuals no matter what culture they are from share some certain
> "human" behaviors.  Just to illustrate what I mean, I would say that
> everyone no matter what ethnic background, are just as likely to be greedy,
> hateful, violent, loving, caring, ignorant, fearful, suspicious, 
> angry, happy, unhappy, etc.
>
I didn't confuse anything.  That's why I said "we" or "culture"
Do you understand that the word "or" does not imply that the
operands are equal.  I know that there might be such a thing
as "human nature" and similar sorts of things between different
people whether in the same culture, geography or not. But it
isn't so obvious what these traits are.  As far as the last sentence
goes, it is so obviously false (e.g. "just as likely") that I really
think you should meet more people from other cultures.  But this
probably wouldn't help because now that you've been brainwashed
in this great humanistic leveler it will be very difficult to see
that not everyone is a likely to be as hateful, violent etc.
 
I suppose that if you live in a culture that always must
dominate, kill, and assimilate survivors from other cultures
that are different; and if this sort of brutality makes one's
stomach queasy; then it makes sense to emphasis the sameness.
Sort of like saying "Look, Look! those savages really aren't
so different afterall; so maybe we don't have to kill them"

Historically, this sentimentality often arises *after* the war
is over, and can be used as a way of expaciating one's feelings
of queasiness or quilt over the past.  Now I'm not saying that
*you* are doing this, I just trying to elucidate what goes
on and the uses and abuses of this "people are people" idea.
Ideas don't just exist as abstractions, they always have a cultural
context.

I think that everything you have said is abstract speculation.
It's out of context and I think there are few (if any) examples
to illustrate this "people are people" are the same in inclination.
Nor do I think that any examples can be provided where this
universalist attitude has been such a great protector of different
cultures.  (I think it actually is complicit, and fully resonant
with the exact opposite; even when *sincerely* applied)

Steve Seidman