SocialistPunk
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
A link to a "socially-informed" website, but interesting all the same.http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/ViewPage.aspx?pageId=72
Hi HrothgarI can see why people on this thread are losing their cool with you. But I will not be goaded into "losing it", by your long distorting posts. On that note, I guess we both see each other as using distortion tactics, so I intend to keep it simple.Are their any genes that determine a persons "race"? The answer is, no. "Race" is not a scientific reality, it is a social construct, just like culture, or politics. I have maintained that stance throughout such discussions, past and present.What we have is a social construct used as part of cultural identity, a concept that is highly subjective. Socialists don't really care about the concept of "race" itself. We care about the divisional tactics used by the elite in their pursuit of keeping the working class in line, of which "race" is one hell of an effective tool.The clash arises today, when some insist that "race" has a scientific basis. It gives divisional politics an air of much needed credibility. But if in the near future, scientists overwhelmingly declare "race" to be a scientific fact, I would not mind one bit, nor would most on this thread. I have three simple questions:1) Are their any specific genes that determine a persons "race"?2) How many "races" are there? 3) Why is the socialist position on "race", as a social construct, harmful to the case for global socialism?
Speaking of men who may or may not have hated Britain. The below snippet is an eye opener, that may go some way to explaining the conservative doctrine of the Daily Mail today, (even if it does come from Wikipedia). In the 1930s Rothermere used his newspapers to try to influence British politics, notably being a strong supporter of appeasement towards Nazi Germany In the 1930s, he urged increased defence spending by Britain; his were the only major newspapers to advocate an alliance with Germany. For a time in 1934, the Rothermere papers championed the British Union of Fascists (BUF), and were again the only major papers that did so. Rothermere infamously wrote a Daily Mail editorial entitled "Hurrah for the Blackshirts", in January 1934, praising Oswald Mosley for his "sound, commonsense, Conservative doctrine".[7]Rothermere visited and corresponded with Hitler.[8] On 1 October 1938, Rothermere sent Hitler a telegram in support of Germany's invasion of the Sudetenland, and expressing the hope that 'Adolf the Great' would become a popular figure in Britain. He was also aware of the military threat from the resurgent Germany, of which he warned J. C. C. Davidson, then Chairman of the Conservative Party.Numerous secret British MI5 papers related to the war years, were declassified and released in 2005. They show that Rothermere wrote to Adolf Hitler in 1938 congratulating him for the annexation of Czechoslovakia, and encouraging him to invade Romania. He described Hitler's work as "great and superhuman".[9][10]The MI5 papers also show that at the time, Rothermere was paying an annual retainer of £5,000 per year to Stephanie von Hohenlohe, suspected by French, British and the Americans of being a German spy, as he wanted her to bring him closer to Hitler's inner circle. He also encouraged her to promote Germany to her circle of influential English contacts. She was known as "London's leading Nazi hostess". The secret services had been monitoring her since she came to Britain in the 1920s and regarded her as "an extremely dangerous person". As World War II loomed, Rothermere stopped the payments and their relationship deteriorated into threats and lawsuits, which she lost.
I had intended not to bother with this discussion, as I said previously, my energy levels are rather limited these days and Hrothgars reply to me on page 12, or thereabouts, was rather long. I have decided to post this now because this "debate" is no longer that, it seems to have degenerated into a grudge match.Hrothgar is rather fond of accusing people of distorting his words, so in keeping with the spirit of things allow me to continue the tradition.
Hrothgar wrote:Regarding your point on the value of 'debate', the interesting thing is that if we both started a new thread on here and went over to JSTOR and what have you and dug out the research, you'd probably win the debate. In fact, I'm sure you'd 'win' (if that's the right way to see a 'debate'). That's because the body of research on this subject is directed in a certain way that is socially-informed. This assumes of course that you have some understanding of the science and that you are willing to make the necessary concession that racial types exist genomically. However, even as the 'victor', you'd still have to acknowledge that what you're not able to do is contradict my core claims that: (a). race exists as a genomic and social reality; and, (b). despite the best efforts of capitalism, most people still align according to socio-racial categories. These points are near-irrefutable and their significance defies anything else of substance you might throw at me (though I admit there is substance against aspects of my position).The first highlighted sentence speaks the truth. There is no scientific evidence to say that "race" is determined genetically. The most we can say is that geographical ancestry can be demonstrated, but geographical ancestry does not determine so called "race". What I have discovered, after further reading on this subject, is that most genetic scientists think the concept of "race" is unscientific and unhelpful.The most interesting aspect of the first sentence above, is not that Hrothgar admits his ideas are scientifically unsound, but that they are unsound because of the way todays scientists push the research to satisfy a social/political agenda. This is very telling. Supporters of "race" have no problem accepting the old view of "racial" categories that were based on limited scientific understanding and loaded with social and political prejudice. We all have a tendency to dismiss the stuff we disagree with and look for the stuff, however loaded, that supports our opinion. We still see it now with the climate change skeptics.The second highlighted sentence is a little odd. I seem to be all at once the "victor" and at the same time wrong, because despite the lack of scientific proof, "race" is apparently a fact.On this thread and on a previous thread on "race", the socialist view is that "race" is a social and political construct, that is forever fluid and open to social prejudice.So what we have, is Hrothgars idea that "race" is determined ancestrally and socially. Given that geneticists can trace ancestry back many, many generations, it would be difficult to pin down any solid "racial" identity that way. However when we add the social and political aspect of "race", pinning down "racial" ancestors becomes easy, depending on what we want from them. Rather than being despite capitalism's best efforts, it is more a case of, because of capitalism's best efforts, that people huddle together in divisive groups of various different identities, political, financial, religious, "racial". The fact that people still break with those confines, proves that so called human tribal instincts do not work for everyone.
The hilarious thing about the Daily Mail and their smear campaign against Ed Milibands' father, as an anti British Marxist, is that they claim it is relevant to Eds politics today.They seem to conveniently forget the past when it comes to the fascist sympathies of one of the original founders of the Daily Mail, Viscount Rothermere.
What with Osborne spewing the usual anti socialist rhetoric, without having a clue what he's on about, (nothing new there then) and the Daily Mail going on about Ed Militants' father being a rabid Marxist. It looks like the right wing are intent on branding the Labour party in their old image.
Found this gem in the Guardian today.http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/sep/26/mod-study-sell-wars-publicI never knew the MoD had an Orwellian style think tank called The Development, Concepts and Doctrine Centre (DCDC). I checked out their site and it seems they have been around since 1998.Here's a little bit of the truth, regarding the role of the military, from their site;"Through the Global Strategic Trends Programme, this team provides the strategic context within which long term decisions can be made in policy and strategy areas. Our analysis leads to the likely defence and security implications, the UK may face as a result of changes in areas such as global commerce, economics, science and technology, and politics."To quote a character from the TV series the X-Files, "The truth is out there. You just have to know where to look."The sad thing is, most people don't want to look, or dare not look. Like the war widow in the article who is shocked that the military would manipulate the deaths of soldiers, to secure an agenda.
An interesting bit from the linked news article."A poll of troops last year found that nearly one in 20 members of the Armed Forces said they had experienced violence or threats of violence."I am not one for tarring whole sections of society with the same brush, but I have experience of off duty soldiers looking for trouble. I even knew a guy years ago who was stabbed while on holiday in Spain by a drunk off duty soldier. I am sure many others have had the delightful experience of drunk off duty soldiers.I think I smell the stench of electioneering from the Labour party.
Ed wrote:A membership application is subject to E.C. ratification. Since you've become hostile again I have nothing left to say to you.Hi there Ed, I don't wish to cause offence, but the above comment reminds me of many a politician when in a situation they are unable to defend. They have a tendency to stick to the official line and claim the other side are unreasonable, allowing them to extract themselves from the discussion.
Hrothgar wrote:I owe this site nothing. I owe you nothing. I have looked at your posts and your specialism is distorting other people's positions and winding people up. You also like to throw in some foul language now and again. Presumably you think it makes you look 'edgy'.Hi Hrothgar, sorry you feel that way. You are right you owe nothing to anyone on this site and we are free to disagree. I was only trying to understand why you would make an insulting statement about laughing at children and grandchildren, mixing with Africans and Asians, from your words below. You are of course free to try to divert attention from your flaws, by labeling my use of your words as distortion. But you still wrote them, and still fail to explain them.
Hrothgar wrote:But you're welcome to it, if you want your children and grand-children to mix with Africans and Asians. Please proceed. Don't worry, you won't hear any objection from me [though I will be sat somewhere (somewhere very far away, I hope) shaking with laughter].That is all that concerned me. Yet you now claim to be the injured party and seem to have a handle on my character. As you joined just recently, you must have been following this site for some time or perhaps have contributed under a different name. But that is of little importance. I was not that aware of my "edgy" use of colorful language, but you seem to know me better than myself. Perhaps you picture me with a red mohawk, big boots, a crusty jacket adorned with anarchy symbols, snarling at everything? Is that "edgy" enough?I have never ever made any statement supporting any homogenous mixing of humans to satisfy some socialist communal agenda. In all my previous years in the party and watching from without, I have never heard a socialist from the SPGB make any such claims either. That is a view from someone who doesn't really understand our position. As a socialist it is my desire to see humans freed from the constraints of capitalism. If that ever happens then it will be up to the people to decide how they wish to live. In fact I can perceive the flourishing of cultural identities, that are now in danger of disappearing because of the pressures of capitalism. Perhaps then we would discover if people really want to mix only with others of similar skin colour.As for me not wanting to debate, that was not my goal here. We obviously disagree on a number of things and may never reach a common ground. I could dig out counter research and you could do likewise and on and on etc. My goal was to see if you would be willing to explain your insulting statement.But you decline, fair enough.As for the "silly" game, of matching the faces to racial groups. It is simply an exercise to show how outward appearance tells us little of who a person is. To know what "race" a person may belong to before we decide to engage with them would require showing one another a genetic passport, listing all physical characteristics. But some already do base such decisions on outward physical appearance that is so often flawed. The test/game demonstrates this in a simple way. But you seem to have missed the point. Again that is your choice. As for your distortion about Tom Rogers just being shouted at. If you read TWC's last post on that thread, you will see that TWC made quite an effort to methodically unravel Tom's position. TWC did not shout or swear, yet Tom did not reply. Perhaps he did not like having his views scrutinised in such depth.I do not seek "victory" over anyone, in your case I seek an explanation, an understanding if you like.I ask once more, will you explain what is so amusing about people choosing to "mix with Africans and Asians"?
Hrothgar wrote:But you're welcome to it, if you want your children and grand-children to mix with Africans and Asians. Please proceed. Don't worry, you won't hear any objection from me [though I will be sat somewhere (somewhere very far away, I hope) shaking with laughter].Hrothgar wrote:But you're welcome to it, if you want your children and grand-children to mix with Africans and Asians. Please proceed. Don't worry, you won't hear any objection from me [though I will be sat somewhere (somewhere very far away, I hope) shaking with laughter].I think you owe this site an explanation as to what is so funny about people of different skin colour choosing to mix it up sexually. All the genetic science in the world does not support the ideology of racism, I'm sure most genetic scientists would be appalled that their their work is used to justify segregation. As I mentioned on the other thread, my partners best friend married a British guy of Afro-Caribbean descent, and they have a child. Is that funny? Is their wonderful son a biological corruption, to be laughed at?As it stands now Hrothgar, you come across as a racial supremacist. That may not be the actual truth, I'm hopeful you are not, but the above quote of yours is a very crude departure from your use of science to justify segregation and is essentially the heart of the matter with racial supremacists. Socially driven fear and dislike of others who outwardly appear different.As to the idea that Tom Rogers rang rings around us on a previous thread, he failed to answer the invitation to do the test that Ed provided and TWC unraveled his science very effectively, so effectively he failed to reply.I do not have the energy at the moment to get bogged down with a debate that will ultimately just go back and forth, with nothing to be gained by anyone, but I do think we may get somewhere if you could explain your above comment and maybe try the test: let us know your result.
ALB wrote:SocialistPunk wrote:Mehdi Hasan made some insightful points, one in particular aimed at, Damian Green, as a rebuttal to Green's mantra about chemical weapons being illegal. Mehdi asked why the Tory government of 1988 turned a blind eye to Saddam Hussein's use of chemical agents against his own people and Iran. Can anyone guess what Green's answer was?What was it? That that was then, but now is now? Can't have been that the West was supporting Iraq in the Iraq-Iran war, can it?
None of those ALB.Green said nothing, just shook his head in the way politicians so often do when they've been caught out.
