|
Post by What Hat on Jan 30, 2015 15:02:17 GMT -5
WOW! "Houston, we've had a problem here" (Apollo 13). What Hat, I really had not imagined that the trajectory of your intellectual pursuits had proceeded so far, so fast or necessarily in this direction! I suppose I should have been able to figure it out. Certainly helps me put your commentary on this thread into perspective. Guess I shouldn't be expecting an invitation from your "history group" any time soon. Don't suppose I would be a very welcome guest. Interesting, you are the second person I have met here on TMB experiencing the gravitational pull of Michel Foucault. Now I am curious if there is a connection between earlier religious experiences and the subsequent appeal of the Foucault philosophy, n=2 is too small a sample size but I will make a note. So . . . . . I don't normally just turn-tail and run from an interesting conversation but you have pulled our little conversational ship into water that is far too deep for me. I have neither the wit nor wisdom to engage an acolyte of Professor Michel Foucault. His philosophy and pronouncements are fascinating but I have never been able to achieve cognitive resonance beyond the superficial. . . . . my lack. I should also amend my reading recommendations. You will probably find Haidt to be far too bourgios for the effort of reading. Even though Steven Pinker has a cordial relationship with Noam Chompsky, I suspect he may be too independent minded to appeal. The Haidt book is already sitting on my shelf begging me to read it. I have studied Foucault without actually reading Foucault. I took a B.A. in English Language and Lit late in life, and Foucault is pervasive in literary critical theory. Mostly I had read literary critics who were influenced by Foucault; I never read Foucault himself. Recently I was interested in revisiting his work, so I read "Michel Foucault: Key Concepts" ed. by Dianna Taylor. I found it highly readable, enervating, and again, none of the articles are actually by Foucault so that helps. I'm sure that the quote I pulled must resonate though. Our 'history group' was begun by a neighbour and friend who was raised as an Old Order Mennonite, had belonged to a conservative Christian church and just wanted to revisit how we got where we are from a more pragmatic perspective than Christian = good, everything else = bad. Our group consists of him, one of his sons, a cousin who has a major in history, and myself. Occasionally one or two others. We're really not going to get in to Foucault.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 30, 2015 15:23:17 GMT -5
Michel Foucault is tough for me, personally. Léon Foucault is much more grounded and easier to understand.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Jan 30, 2015 15:57:47 GMT -5
Michel Foucault is tough for me, personally. Léon Foucault is much more grounded and easier to understand. Yeah I go back and forth with him, back and forth, back and forth, back and forth . .... . ... . ... . ... . B a c k and f o r t h
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Jan 30, 2015 16:17:22 GMT -5
Léon Foucault is much more grounded and easier to understand. Yeah I go back and forth with him, back and forth, back and forth, back and forth . .... . ... . ... . ... . B a c k and f o r t h You guys are thinking too much. Way too much! (Go hug a tree.)
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Jan 30, 2015 17:02:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 30, 2015 17:42:38 GMT -5
The African Union has chosen Robert Mugabe as it's chairman.
What does that say about the continent's political leadership?
Would Africa have been worse off if it had remained under Colonial rule?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 30, 2015 18:03:15 GMT -5
Yeah I go back and forth with him, back and forth, back and forth, back and forth . .... . ... . ... . ... . B a c k and f o r t h You guys are thinking too much. Way too much! :D (Go hug a tree.) It does highlight where people focus! Just lie back and watch the pendulum.... Back and forth.... See the progression around the rose.... count the swings.... back and forth..back and forth..back and forth..back and
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 30, 2015 20:36:59 GMT -5
I wonder if Arabs will eventually get sick of the violence and want peace with Israel?
Here's an interesting comment from a Syrian about the treatment of women in Syria:
The complete report:
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 30, 2015 20:39:05 GMT -5
Lovely tree, moss & all.
Have I asked you before?
Did that tree of your avatar actually grew that way with no human intervention?
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Jan 30, 2015 21:16:59 GMT -5
The African Union has chosen Robert Mugabe as it's chairman. What does that say about the continent's political leadership? Would Africa have been worse off if it had remained under Colonial rule? I, for one, believe “Yes, Africa would have been worse-off had it remained under Colonial rule.” But, the question posed is broad and non-specific. As viewed from what perspective? As analyzed by what criteria? Viewed only from the perspective of resource extraction, Africa might well have been “better-off” had the continent remained under Colonial rule. It would probably be possible to assert and defend the proposition that the yield of resource extraction would have been higher and the “return on investment” to the continent might well have been higher under the auspices of Colonial Powers. But even “return on investment” would have to be evaluated from the perspective of the wealth distribution model used (consider the consequences of the distribution model(s) used in the Middle East to distribute the proceeds from oil extraction). But “better-off’ is usually judged from a humanitarian perspective rather than a resource perspective. Africa has an incredibly long and rich human history stretching well before recorded history. It is a history rich in almost every dimension (monetary, art, language, culture). But African culture has also experienced a complex and asymmetrical history with its neighbors. It enjoyed “global” trade long before anyone realized there was a “globe”. They derived benefit from traders from the Middle East but suffered under the robust Arab slave trade from the ninth century onward. It was not until the dissection of the continent by the resource allocation and geopolitical imperatives of the European Imperial powers, however, that the African Civilizations truly suffered. The social and cultural history of Africa has always been grounded in familial, clan and tribal traditions and customs. Even the Arab conquests left these basic elements in place. But the European practice of arbitrary and negotiated boundaries ripped these elements of social cohesion apart and the riff has never been mended. In fact, it may never be possible to mend these tears in the fabric of the culture and society but I am convinced that continued Colonial rule would never have facilitated the process. When the Colonial powers left, they left a vacuum where once social cohesion had prospered. The consequence has been a ravaging by untold opportunists. The question going forward is how to restore the traditions, institutions and values for a people who have grown accustomed to the oppression of foreign dominion? Every outsider has an idea but no one seems to have a solution. As I think about countries, regions and even continents that have been devastated by social, political and economic interests my mind always returns to the question of leadership. One teeny-weeny glimmer of some hope in my mind is the ascendancy of women leaders in Africa. At the moment it is a trickle of a few women – Wangari Maathi (Green Belt Movement) in Kenya, Joyce Banda in Malawi and Ellen Sirleaf in Liberia. But these women have begun to stop the social and cultural erosion in each of their areas. Sirleaf has led Liberia out of a horrid civil war only to be confronted by the Ebola crisis. Compare the management of the Ebola crisis in Liberia and in Sierra Leone to begin to appreciate why I think the time for political leadership by women could be approaching. To answer the question of the previous post, I don’t think the Colonial powers would have facilitated this process. One final word, why do I think leadership by women rather that men is a rational prescription for modern societies? I believe this because I believe that women have a genetically programmed “H of E”, heuristic of empathy, that might be capable of managing and smoothing the clashes at cultural interfaces. Men have always been able to lead into new territories, conquer and subdue where necessary and bristle in defense of home and hearth, but now the times are different. Now there are no new territories to occupy, struggles are more asymmetrical and bristling defenses are vulnerable. We need another way. It is clear that men like Mugabe and Erdogon beg to differ with my analysis, but for the moment, I will stand pat.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Jan 30, 2015 21:23:20 GMT -5
Lovely tree, moss & all.
Have I asked you before?
Did that tree of your avatar actually grew that way with no human intervention?
In honesty, I don't know. I think it may have been a naturally induced contortion but I can't say with certainty. The image was actually found on line. I liked it. It matched my conviction that the beauty of expression need knot be linear.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 30, 2015 21:58:34 GMT -5
One final word, why do I think leadership by women rather that men is a rational prescription for modern societies? I believe this because I believe that women have a genetically programmed “H of E”, heuristic of empathy, that might be capable of managing and smoothing the clashes at cultural interfaces. Men have always been able to lead into new territories, conquer and subdue where necessary and bristle in defense of home and hearth, but now the times are different. Now there are no new territories to occupy, struggles are more asymmetrical and bristling defenses are vulnerable. We need another way. It is clear that men like Mugabe and Erdogon beg to differ with my analysis, but for the moment, I will stand pat. You have some support Yknot...
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 31, 2015 2:16:27 GMT -5
Lovely tree, moss & all.
Have I asked you before?
Did that tree of your avatar actually grew that way with no human intervention?
In honesty, I don't know. I think it may have been a naturally induced contortion but I can't say with certainty. The image was actually found on line. I liked it. It matched my conviction that the beauty of expression need knot be linear. I agree! Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 31, 2015 4:36:56 GMT -5
The African Union has chosen Robert Mugabe as it's chairman. What does that say about the continent's political leadership? Would Africa have been worse off if it had remained under Colonial rule? I, for one, believe “Yes, Africa would have been worse-off had it remained under Colonial rule.” What do you think of the economy of Zimbabwe under the incompetent Mugabe? His regime inherited one of the most structurally developed economies and effective state systems in Africa and he has systematically destroyed it. The lowest 10% of Zimbabwe's population represent 1.97% of the economy, while the highest 10% make 40.42%. How could the West possibly be blamed for this basket case with 94% unemployment?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 31, 2015 7:49:09 GMT -5
I, for one, believe “Yes, Africa would have been worse-off had it remained under Colonial rule.” What do you think of the economy of Zimbabwe under the incompetent Mugabe? His regime inherited one of the most structurally developed economies and effective state systems in Africa and he has systematically destroyed it. The lowest 10% of Zimbabwe's population represent 1.97% of the economy, while the highest 10% make 40.42%. How could the West possibly be blamed for this basket case with 94% unemployment? So someone is "blaming the West" for this and you are setting the record straight. Who, and what are they saying?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 31, 2015 8:54:31 GMT -5
In her documentary on the reprobate behaviour of Internet trolls, Lindy West states "but thanks to internet trolls, I'm perpetually reminded that the boundary between the civilized world and our worst selves is just an illusion." There is plenty of evidence when we look at predatory sexual behavior in the West that that boundary is just a veneer. In Canada, young indigenous women who travel off the reserve are frequently raped and sometimes killed. The same with prostitutes. Internet trolling allows individuals to act out their hostilities and hatred with impunity. Pornography is rampant and convenient because it allows men to indulge their sexual passions while someone else is paid to deal with the female victims, often effective slaves imported from other cultures. Surveys within traditional Christian societies yield similar results to that found in traditional Muslim societies: widespread abuse, sexual, physical and emotional. So, the veneer between our animal selves and our better selves does seem thin, indeed. But what I would like to know is this. Why do we look at Muslim ills as Muslim norms, while our own ills apparently have no link whatsoever to our norms. Why the frenzy when we look at the sexual ills of other civilizations and the blind eye to our own? And, indeed, Muslims are guilty of the same; they feel safe in their cultural ideals and are appalled by the decadence of the West.
If we are interested in "root causes" I think we should look in our own backyard. I believe the root causes are the same, East and West, although they manifest in different ways.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Jan 31, 2015 8:57:44 GMT -5
One final word, why do I think leadership by women rather that men is a rational prescription for modern societies? I believe this because I believe that women have a genetically programmed “H of E”, heuristic of empathy, that might be capable of managing and smoothing the clashes at cultural interfaces. Men have always been able to lead into new territories, conquer and subdue where necessary and bristle in defense of home and hearth, but now the times are different. Now there are no new territories to occupy, struggles are more asymmetrical and bristling defenses are vulnerable. We need another way. It is clear that men like Mugabe and Erdogon beg to differ with my analysis, but for the moment, I will stand pat. You have some support Yknot... Thanks for the link fixit.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 31, 2015 9:28:00 GMT -5
You have some support Yknot... Thanks for the link fixit. You may find the following interesting. Stephen Lewis is a Canadian politician who most recently was the UN special envoy for HIV/AIDS in Africa. Some years ago we were in the crowd when Lewis spoke in our community and he mentioned the role of grandmothers within African families and society. "African grandmothers are central to the life of their communities. With almost no support, they have stepped forward to care for millions of children orphaned by AIDS, sometimes as many as ten to fifteen in one household. They display astonishing reserves of love, courage and emotional resilience, even while grieving the loss of their own adult children." (from the web page). Lewis began a foundation called the "Grandmothers to Grandmothers" campaign. www.stephenlewisfoundation.org/get-involved/grandmothers-campaign
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Jan 31, 2015 9:52:53 GMT -5
What do you think of the economy of Zimbabwe under the incompetent Mugabe? His regime inherited one of the most structurally developed economies and effective state systems in Africa and he has systematically destroyed it. The lowest 10% of Zimbabwe's population represent 1.97% of the economy, while the highest 10% make 40.42%. How could the West possibly be blamed for this basket case with 94% unemployment? An inexpressible tragedy! Regarding "blame", I am rather ungracious and curt towards those who communicate through finger pointing. Identifying causes is a meritorious endeavor, assessing blame often masks an inability to reason constructively about alternative solutions. Earlier, I suggested that the disruption of the social fabric left behind as the Colonial Period came to a close probably contributed to the emergence of tyrants like Mugabe. What concerns me is that "the West" seems to behave as if the collective guilt of past error can be rectified by massive aid ("how much of your GNP did you give today?") to externally "suggested" governing systems that have little resemblance to traditional cultures or traditions. I am of a different mindset. Which is not to say I think I have the solution, far from it! I favor focused development of concepts such as micro-economies and the implementation of some of those strategies. By seeding small family, clan and tribal enterprises might it be possible to strengthen latent bonds and begin to re-knit a torn social fabric? Clearly, issues such as Ebola, AIDS and malaria require massive infusions of monetary and technological assistance. But I do not favor using Africa for the "clinical trials" of new and potentially harmful drugs or using Africa as a convenient repository for hazardous goods no longer marketable at home. It seems that "the West" felt a need to portray pre-colonial Africa as a poor, backward and unsophisticated hinterland that was saved from despair by the good offices of "the West". Best as I can tell, little could be further from the truth. "The West" has had almost no access to the "real" pre-colonial history of Africa until very recently. Because of the more intimate relationship between sections of Africa and Arab nations, some of that history is now becoming available through Arab history texts. In addition, works by people like Chinua Achebe ("Things Fall Apart") are beginning to flush out the "real" character of Africans. "A man without help to stand, uses his knee", speaks of an independent character. Fending off gratuitous barbs of blame accomplishes little in my mind. Attempting to learn and relate to unfamiliar cultures and people seems like a more productive exercise.
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Jan 31, 2015 11:15:55 GMT -5
How are you going to fix a problem if you don't find the source or root of it. You will just repeat the same mistake if you don't find the source.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 31, 2015 12:12:17 GMT -5
How are you going to fix a problem if you don't find the source or root of it. You will just repeat the same mistake if you don't find the source. What most people seem to want is to just fix their "own" present day problem without any reference to the source, because somewhere in the real "source" of the problem is something about them that they need to fix too.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Jan 31, 2015 13:19:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 31, 2015 14:36:08 GMT -5
Thanks you. Most insightful.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 31, 2015 16:27:53 GMT -5
Thank you xna, that was good.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 31, 2015 19:26:44 GMT -5
What do you think of the economy of Zimbabwe under the incompetent Mugabe? His regime inherited one of the most structurally developed economies and effective state systems in Africa and he has systematically destroyed it. The lowest 10% of Zimbabwe's population represent 1.97% of the economy, while the highest 10% make 40.42%. How could the West possibly be blamed for this basket case with 94% unemployment? So someone is "blaming the West" for this and you are setting the record straight. Who, and what are they saying? Good to know you don't "blame the West" Hat. There is probably not a failed state on the planet whose leadership doesn't blame the West for it's problems. Mugabe has been doing that for a very long time, and now Africa has chosen him for the role of African Union secretary. This discussion probably would have gone better had I never referred to "the West". It's divisive and unhelpful so I'll try to avoid it in future.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Jan 31, 2015 19:59:53 GMT -5
That is a powerful video xna. Thanks for linking it. Beyond the poignancy of the moment and experience, two separate concepts that the illustrator mentioned keep flashing through my mind . . . . symbols (destruction of) and responsibility. I am unable to bring the two concepts into stable equilibrium in my mind. Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jan 31, 2015 20:33:38 GMT -5
I only just skim read the NY Times article, but based on that and your previous post, I believe now that the primary motivation for the Iraq invasion was a moral imperative on the part of George W. Bush. I have wondered and not really understood why the US wanted to invade so badly. The idea that the USA was in there just for the oil was not really satisfactory, although it is an element. Generally, if a country has a resource that the USA wants, then there are American business interests involved. But I'm going with the moral imperative idea. I think there might have been the fear of a power vacuum in the region at a time when a disruption of the oil supply would have been disastrous for the USA. That uncertainty coupled with the US business interests led government actions claiming to be seeking WMDs. It would be difficult to underestimate the influence of business interests on government actions. Remember United Fruit and the CIA actions in Guatemala and the other 'Banana Republics'! And Nixon and Chile. Between the Anaconda and Kennecott Copper companies (they owned more than 3/ 4 of Chile's copper output), ITT that owned Chile's telephone system, and the investments of PepsiCO in Chile the CIA had the funds and the authorization to do whatever they could to prevent Allende from assuming the presidency, including a military coup. Nixon's well known quote, “We will make squeal the Chilean economy”. These and other actions indicates what the government will do to protect US business interests. Somehow "We will make squeal the..." does not sound like a Nixon quote. Is there a typo in there somewhere, perhaps?
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Jan 31, 2015 20:36:44 GMT -5
|
|