[Xmca-l] Re: Your views on a question.

[Harshad Dave]

This refers to the message of Martin dtd. 26 June 2020 8.30 pm.



Hi,

You are right and you have caught my feelings telepathically regarding your
first message dtd  25 June 2020, 7.21 pm. Anyway, let us come to the points
of discussion.

Part of the answer is given in my message to Annalisa yesterday (26 June
2020, 4.56 pm). However, I simply and shortly explain my point again.

The example of man with a gun stands for just to clarify that discoveries
and inventions supplement the natural abilities of man to a substantial
extent and this supplementing increases on timeline walking towards later
(advance) period on the timeline. The questions you raised on this point
have answers in the form of my views but it will open a new discussion on
different subject matter and I do not want to go away from the prime line
of our discussion.

The prime point you raised in the last paragraph of your message is the
correct one. I explain it again here bellow,

Let us take the example of the city London of the UK. You will agree that
in the year 1700 London was there as it is also there in the year 2020. You
will agree that socio economic formations of society of London and that of
the same in the year 2020 are not equal or same. You will also find a
difference in various traits of social constitution, systems and
institutions of the respective time. It is not necessary to engage us to
determine which one was better out of two. It is just sufficient to
determine that they (both) are different.

If we randomly select five persons from the society of London in the year
1700 and other randomly selected five persons today in 2020, you will find
a *difference* in intellectual competence in various traits. Here, I make
you aware that I use the word *difference*. It is not always true that any
comparison between two should necessarily return with a result declaring
one of them inferior and other as superior, one as good and other as bad.
But it might surely return with an outcome that both are different. Here,
in my discussion, I have addressed the integrated concept of these traits
overall as “mental level” and it is linked with the socio economic
formation in which the person is living and that is why I address it as
“mental socio economic level”.

Now, if you (and other friends) agree that there is a difference in mental
level, I simply say that…

When two persons with different mental levels have occasions and events to
come into interaction with each other in a society, it generates stress and
strain in the functioning of the social system.

Hope It is now clarified.

With true regards,

Harshad Dave.


On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 2:08 AM Annalisa Aguilar <annalisa@unm.edu> wrote:

> Hello S'ma and venerable others,
>
> I was intrigued by this notion of Critical Theory being posed as a
> "grievance science," as if taking on a maudlin cape of "victim mentality"
> around the shoulders, etc.
>
> It seems something of a cop-out to reduce it to that. It is almost as
> grievous as Holocaust deniers.
>
> Still, to consider it analytically, Critical Theory by design is intended
> to uncover the ideologies by which certain social sciences have been taught
> and promulgated. It's de-constructive, right? This stance might be seen as
> nihilistic, but there has been some valuable work from stripping off the
> veneer of power structures in order to analyze its underlying logic, which
> in many cases has been arbitrary and reveals that privilege is usually not
> earned through merit.
>
> When considering relations of power, it's easy (albeit insensitive) for
> someone of privilege to name the powerless as "victims," but when this is
> done, it is only in an objection when victims call themselves victims, as
> if they have no right to do so.
>
> So who has the right to use this word "victim"?
>
> I feel there is a strange aura about the word that is likened to the word
> "masochistic" and it's *that baggage* I am wrangling with in my post here.
>
> Must there be prejudice cast upon those who are actual and legitimate
> victims. There seems intertwined in the meaning of the word something
> unquantifiable but that does result in "blaming the victim" dynamics, and
> even more insidious, gaslighting, and these have results of its own harmful
> effects. (Like when we say "to add insult to injury").
>
> Can no one use the word "victim" anymore?
>
> Frequently people use the word "survivor," which does have connotations of
> resilience and fortitude against odds (of being victimized). But when we
> consider the word "survivor" when used as the name of a reality game show
> (in the early naughts). where people choose to put themselves in difficult
> circumstances on deserted islands to overcome these circumstances by their
> wits, to then be "voted off the island" by the other "survivors." Talk
> about social Darwinism!
>
> I feel there is still something the word "survivor" leaves unspoken about
> the representation of a person who has been a target of prejudice, crime,
> neglect, or abuse, whether intentionally or not.
>
> Curious, I looked up the definitions of "victim" and found these:
>
>    1. a person who suffers from a destructive or injurious action or
>    agency: a victim of an automobile accident.
>    2. a person who is deceived or cheated, as by his or her own emotions
>    or ignorance, by the dishonesty of others, or by some impersonal agency: a
>    victim of misplaced confidence; the victim of a swindler; a victim of an
>    optical illusion.
>    3. a person or animal sacrificed or regarded as sacrificed: war
>    victims.
>    4. a living creature sacrificed in religious rites.
>
> When I look up synonyms for "victim" I find this:
> casualty, fatality, martyr, sufferer, butt, clown, dupe, fool, gambit,
> gopher, gudgeon, gull, hireling, immolation, innocent, mark, patsy, pawn,
> pigeon, prey, pushover, quarry, sacrifice, scapegoat, stooge, sucker,
> underdog, wretch, babe in woods, easy make, easy mark, hunted, injured
> party, sitting duck, sitting target, soft touch.
>
> I did the same for the term survivor:
>
>    1. a person or thing that survives.
>    <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.dictionary.com/browse/survive__;!!Mih3wA!Qq7iMvVXQK_hFwdHwBWn7GKBl3KUrdNtnsk7Pl5E5MzqhQXPDdA_r7HvE0duOmL2_XI4aw$>
>    2. Law. the one of two or more designated persons, as joint tenants or
>    others having a joint interest, who outlives the other or others.
>    3. a person who continues to function or prosper in spite of
>    opposition, hardship, or setbacks.
>
> Synoymns:
> balance, debris, leftovers, legacy, oddments, remainder, remnant,
> remnants, residue, rest, scraps, surplus, trash, odds and ends, orts
>
> The third definition seems  the lest frequent usage, or is it the most
> recent accepted meaning?
>
> It is odd to consider victims as designated parties of sacrifice; and
> survivors to be considered mere leftovers.
>
> Is it that the life energy of victims are like easily accessible batteries
> to be utilized for the benefit of those not sacrificed? Isn't that what
> criminals do? To appropriate the property or energy of others for their own
> unearned benefit and advancement?
>
> Is that fitness or crime?
>
> At the same time to be a survivor seems to be something left less whole.
>
> What then would one call an individual or group who has been overpowered
> against their self-agency by another individual or group? Is there a word
> without these undertowing currents of meaning?
>
> We can say oppressed, but no one likes to say "I have been oppressed." or
> "I am oppressed," just as no one likes to say "I have been victimized," "I
> am a victim," or "My society is victimized by your society," or "My
> ancestors were enslaved by yours."
>
> And yet, these would be factual pronouncements, were legitimate
> individuals (victims) of those actual experiences to describe themselves in
> this fashion.
>
> Would it be no different than an individual saying, "I have been an
> oppressor." or "I oppress." No one likes to say "I victimize others," "I am
> a perpetrator," or "My society victimizes your society," or "My ancestors
> enslaved yours."
>
> The problem in making these sorts of statements is that while factual and
> descriptive, they can actually be twisted into being prescriptive. As if to
> say, "I did this and I can do it again because that's who I am." or "This
> happened to me and it can happen again because that's who I am."
>
> While there are people such as this Lindsay (I did not watch the video),
> who can throw about "victimization" as if it were a shameful badge to wear,
> I don't see anyone of that camp using the same disdain to describe those
> who performed grave injustices against others, to perhaps utter a phrase
> like "perpetrator of injustices", that might invoke that same shadow of
> shame. To my estimation, whatever the words, it would be right and just
> they should provide that  shadow of shame, given the injustices that
> Critical Theory is attempting to understand, without further empowering
> perpetrators and without further disempowering victims.
>
> Is the reason for this blindspot or lapse because a crime performed in
> past cannot be adjusted to correct for the crime, that it somehow means
> justice cannot be performed? In a sort of "shrugged shoulders - c'est la
> vie" kind of attitude? That no one believes exhuming the "dead bodies" from
> "unmarked graves" worth the unpleasantness of the task?
>
> Why is it easy to commit the crime, but so hard to bend the arc of justice
> to meet the crime?
>
> In the days of the American Wild West, justice was doled out too quickly,
> but now it seems it is too slowly.
>
> This is why I wonder how to consider science when we are talking about
> power structures. What is scientific about justice/injustice? Power seems
> unscientific. It is arbitrary. Or is it?
>
> Were we to describe the cause and effect of such power structures and
> their internal reasoning, it would start to sound like Nazi propaganda, or
> the promotion of eugenics.
>
> I'm reminded of a Bill Moyers interview I saw many years ago, the name of
> the guest I don't remember. I only recall he was a politico for the George
> W Bush campaign, and the fellow claimed his favorite book was Orwell's
> 1984, as if to say that it was an instruction booklet on how to create the
> kind of society he wanted. The blatant honesty was breathtaking.
>
> Reading S'ma's post made me aware of how in the case of (all forms of)
> oppression it's rare for the oppressor to say, "I have some self-reflection
> to do to answer for the deeds of my ancestors, to make up for the
> injustices suffered by your ancestors," or "My sense of privilege allowed
> me to oppress you, and I don't feel right about that, so I will stop that
> now. I see the errors of my ways."
>
> It feels there is no obligation for reconciliation because such folk
> percieve the cement of history has been poured and dried. "It's in the
> past, let's move on."
>
> There is something absurd about the tacit agreement to avoid self-naming,
> and I'm trying to sort out how it might be not to be so absurd sounding.
> Has anyone a hand up to provide me on this reflection?
>
> I'm not sure I'm articulating this very well, but that is my best attempt.
> Forgive any flaws in my reasoning, and of course the typos there above.
>
> Kind regards,
> Annalisa
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> on behalf of Simangele Mayisela <simangele.mayisela@wits.ac.za>
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 25, 2020 6:04 AM
> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Your views on a question.
>
>
> *  [EXTERNAL]*
>
> Hi Andy and Alfredo
>
>
>
> Thank you for responding to my communication, and for viewing  the video I
> referred to in my previous email. Let me say that the connection between
> the current conversation about “scientific” knowledge (in this case in
> relation to  “levels” of mental development and “ideology”) and James
> Lindsay’s argument on Critical Theory having no scientific basis (in the
> video) is this:
>
>
>
> Lindsay and his colleagues believe that Critical Theory, I suppose with
> its shoots like Critical Race Theory, Critical Race Feminist theory,
>  Identity Theories, etc. do not have a scientific base but are a  movement
> which they call “Grievance studies”,  that perpetuates “self-pity” and
> “victim mentality”. They further went on to produce fake scientific study
> “dog rape culture and feminism” known as “hoax science” as evidence of how
> unscientific “grievance studies” are;  most of which are of course are
> situated in the social sciences. This further exposed the paucity in the
> system of peer reviews in scientific journals, which some believe are also
> tainted by ideological predispositions – my fear is that this introduces
> mistrust in the notion of review processes of scientific journals -  which
> we have to be concerned about.
>
>
>
> The reason I brought up Lindsay’s argument to the picture is: while I am
> not certain if I wholly agree with Lindsay’s argument on Critical Theories,
> I  am however fascinated by the fact that they confirm the influence of
> ideological position an individual or rather a “scientist” holds,  ( an
> idea alluded to by some,  earlier in this thread). I believe, as much as we
> aspire to be objective in our pursuit of scientific enquiry, the narratives
> associated with our scientific knowledge(s) are likely to be tainted with
> ideologically biases or historicity. The likes of Lindsay and Weinstein
> bring to our attention the dangers of the exclusion of the masses in the
> name of “scientific evidence” – who in this day of rapid technological
> connection the collective is gradually become global rather than in
> specific localities. Even those that deemed to have “primitive mental
> functioning” or “unsophisticated” mental functioning, their unexpected
> ability to infiltrate academia and other spaces with Critical Theory  like
> a  “Trojan Horse”, that’s according to Bret Weinstein (
> po.nl/2020/06/20/must-watch-joe-rogan-with-bret-weinstein-critical-theory-is-basically-a-trojan-horse/
> ) seems to surprise us. I wonder though, if Critical Theorists' Trojan
> Horse is scientific evidence of “self-pity”, “victim mentality”,
> unsophisticated mental functioning, … (we can add other classifying
> adjectives to describe all those who have not developed “scientific
> tools”).
>
>
>
> My reference to Lindsay and Marxism, is related to some of the sources
> that I have encountered earlier, clearly not on this YouTube video I
> referred you to, but it is  within this line of debates about “scientific”
> knowledge”.
>
>
>
> It seems to me that the association of  Paulo Freire’s  “Education for
> the Oppressed” to "victim mentality" is kind of twisted and perhaps mistook
> for “Education for the Depressed”, which is unfortunate, especially if we
> take into consideration all the publications by Freire, like Education for
> Liberation. Nevertheless, the Trojan Horse analogy for the Critical
> Education is evidence of  the collectively formulated knowledge that is
> generously shared, rendering the commodified "scientific"  knowledge
> accessible to the privileged few, generously shared to all who needs to
> advance the survival of humanity.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Simangele
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> simangele.mayisela@wits.ac.za
>
> *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> *On
> Behalf Of *Andy Blunden
> *Sent:* Wednesday, 24 June 2020 03:37
> *To:* xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Your views on a question.
>
>
>
> Casting collective efforts at self-determination as "victim mentality" or
> "self pity" has long been a line of right-wing criticism of progressive
> movements. Of all people, Paulo Freire is the last to be guilty of such a
> sin though; his pedagogy is aimed specifically, like Myles Horton's, at
> stimulating and equipping people from being victims to self-determination.
> There is such a thing as a politics of pity though; it is called
> philanthropy and charity.
>
> Andy
> ------------------------------
>
> *Andy Blunden*
> Hegel for Social Movements
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/brill.com/view/title/54574__;!!Mih3wA!WCK45j6Y4AscTY1OVN1quxD0_VDKtR1Y9u5SYoUgfTIzhGpvyRCeU6XnFqBCRESHVrtCaw$>
> Home Page
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm__;!!Mih3wA!WCK45j6Y4AscTY1OVN1quxD0_VDKtR1Y9u5SYoUgfTIzhGpvyRCeU6XnFqBCREQ2rLbDLg$>
>
> On 24/06/2020 9:11 am, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote:
>
> thanks S’ma; among the many philosophy of science scholars who discuss
> what rigorous scientific and scholarship are or can be, your choice—a video
> critiquing critical theory in terms of what Lindsay refers to as “grievance
> studies”–is  indeed surprising and remarkable in the context of this
> conversation!
>
>
>
> In the video, which did not so much touch my small Marxist me (I am not so
> well read so as to know how much of a Marxist I am!), Lindsay mentions
> Paolo Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed as an example of “critical social
> justice” books, which he defines as “a codified way to indulge people into
> self pity…”(min. 47:50). He complains that teachers are being educated with
> Freire’s book, and that students are being taught with this critical (or,
> as Lindsay’s says, this self-pity) attitude. Without going into whether
> Lindsay’s critique holds or has any touch with what critical theory
> scholars argue and do, I wonder, what would be, from Lindsay’s position, an
> example of a good book for teachers, and why would that one be it?
>
>
>
> Alfredo
>
> *From: *<xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of Martin Packer
> <mpacker@cantab.net> <mpacker@cantab.net>
> *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> *Date: *Tuesday, 23 June 2020 at 23:54
> *To: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> *Subject: *[Xmca-l] Re: Your views on a question.
>
>
>
> Hi Simangele,
>
>
>
> How are you evaluating “level of mental functioning”? I would say that is
> something with which psychology has had some difficulty.
>
>
>
> Martin
>
>
>
> *"I may say that whenever I meet Mrs. Seligman or Dr. Lowie or discuss
> matters with Radcliffe-Brown or Kroeber, I become at once aware that my
> partner does not understand anything in the matter, and I end usually with
> the feeling that this also applies to myself” (Malinowski, 1930)*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jun 23, 2020, at 4:32 PM, Simangele Mayisela <
> simangele.mayisela@wits.ac.za> wrote:
>
>
>
> Further,  I still have more questions, however it does appear to me that
> at the heart of the “hypothesis” of the scientific question are the
> “levels” of mental development which are associated to “skin colour”, with
> little consideration of the historical oppression that created the
> “backwards” economies that keep the third of the global population is what
> appears to be of low level of mental functioning. The question is more
> about “what is the quality of the contents of what is embodies by the black
> skin or a white skin?” with the aim to find evidence for the difference.
>
>
>
> Just to share, lately  have been viewing James Lindsay argument on what is
> “scientific”, “rigorous scientific” and “scholarship”  vs  popular
> narratives that are a propaganda based on Critical Theory, which are taking
> over academy. Here is one his videos that you may want to view – if you are
> Marxist at heart be warned that you may be challenged by Lindsay’s argument
> on ideologies.
>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8N55gFjg4yg__;!!Mih3wA!XSceodIW2xmrZKz8v7Gq_Dkr9Td554ir5v5IfJQjNLcG-Ts55m-SO3jSvJGCYsAN728lsw$ 
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.youtube.com/watch?v=8N55gFjg4yg__;!!Mih3wA!V2LYI2I2g-qSP--eE84G38eGWBud9YwatVDWX1IvY27YgsR7kTdkqVGDNoLNCYNmswIv-Q$>
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> S’ma
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Simangele Mayisela
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 23 June 2020 22:10
> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> *Subject:* RE: [Xmca-l] Re: Your views on a question.
>
>
>
> Dear Alfredo
>
>
>
> Thank you for taking my attention of “level” which is crucial to rendering
> the question “scientific”. But couple with level, which could be quantifies
> as “high” and “low” or “superior” or “inferior” would account for
> “difference”. As much as the question to be asked should be about the
> “ideological basis” , I think the “hypothesis” is likely to be linked to
> the “ideolody” as the hypothesis serves as springboard from which the
> scientist works from, which informs where the person  will land  in terms
> of the ideas.
>
>
>
> Nevertheless thank you for the clarification. I see what you mean ?
>
> Regards,
>
> S’ma
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> *On
> Behalf Of *Alfredo Jornet Gil
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 23 June 2020 20:51
> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Your views on a question.
>
>
>
> Dear S’ma,
>
>
>
> I am not sure anyone could provide that “scientific” basis without first
> explaining what is meant by “level,” and most importantly, why and how such
> explanation should be relevant to account for historical relations across
> cultures/societies, specially relations of oppression. I understand your
> curiosity, though, which is why I feel it is important to be very clear
> about this issue and not let it unfold as if this was simply an adequate
> scientific or philosophical research question. Given all that we know from
> history and more precisely from political economy, the important discussion
> is not about the scientific basis of that affirmation, but about its *
> *ideological** basis: what sort of ideological inquiry is set forth by
> posing that question in the context of this thread and of this moment in
> history? There can be no question that there are and there were differences
> between the socioeconomic formations of different cultures and that such
> cultures were local, not global or international. So, the problem is not
> finding the “scientific” basis but the how and why that question is being
> raised. I hope this makes sense to all of you, does it?
>
>
>
> Alfredo
>
> *From: *<xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of Simangele Mayisela
> <simangele.mayisela@wits.ac.za>
> *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> *Date: *Tuesday, 23 June 2020 at 19:57
> *To: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> *Subject: *[Xmca-l] Re: Your views on a question.
>
>
>
> Friends!
>
>
>
> I am curious to read more about the scientific basis of the “the
> difference in the level of *the mental socioeconomic formation* between
> the two.”  Can colleagues be kind to provide scientific sources of this
> difference.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> S’ma
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> *On
> Behalf Of *White, Phillip
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 23 June 2020 14:08
> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Your views on a question.
>
>
>
> This is horribly troubling
>
> Racist eugenics
>
> Please stop
>
>
>
> Phillip
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
>
> On Jun 23, 2020, at 5:40 AM, Harshad Dave <hhdave15@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Dear Prof. David,
>
>
>
> Your message reads...
>
> "I think racist filth, devoid of any scientific understanding and without
> a shred of scientific basis, should not be distributed anywhere. It
> certainly does not belong on this list."
>
>
>
> I request you to go through the following points carefully. Perhaps, you
> might catch the sound of my saying.
>
>
>
> Point 1
>
> If my views on the subject matter impress anyone that it is a distribution
> of the racist filth, I think they (my views) are grasped with a great
> misunderstanding.
>
>
>
> Whenever any unpleasant event happens (like the unfortunate death of Floyd
> or else) between black/brown and white, the attitude and mindset of racism
> in the event is discussed by all as if the color of the skin is responsible
> for it….. as if it is founded on the color of the skin.
>
> Here I disagree and simply say…. Basically it is not the cause of color of
> the skin but it (the cause) harbors in the difference in the level of *the
> mental socioeconomic formation* between the two.
>
> Nowhere I ever said, no where I supported, no where I believed that *“it
> is justified”*.
>
> Please, try to understand me….
>
> “Whether racism should be there OR it should not be there”
>
> OR
>
> “If it is justified OR not justified”
>
> is not the subject matter of my saying. I just say the cause of the said
> “filth” does not lie in the color of the skin but it lies in the above
> mentioned “Level difference”.
>
>
>
> Point 2
>
> You have reproduced a small paragraph from my doc file that I attached in
> my previous message.
>
> If I am not mistaken to understand the essence of the saying in your
> message, I think you pointed out…
>
>  “The views that I presented in the subject paragraph do not have *scientific
> understanding* and *scientific basis*.”
>
> I agree with you that while writing my subject views I have never searched
> if they have scientific support as above. I believe… *an outcome of
> contemplation* and *a logical compliance* are the supports and
> justifications of any *thinker* to present his views.
>
> If people (readers) accept the views no research paper is needed to
> support them. When a thinker is asked to present scientific support for his
> views I fear doors of philosophical works will get shut down. I have not
> claimed the views are *rules* and *laws*. If readers do not agree with
> them, the views automatically will become null and void.
>
> Regards,
>
> Harshad Dave
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 3:27 PM Mary van der Riet <VanDerRiet@ukzn.ac.za>
> wrote:
>
> I agree
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Mary van der Riet (Phd), Associate Professor*
>
> *Discipline of Psychology, School of Applied Human Sciences, College of
> Humanities, University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa*
>
> *email: vanderriet@ukzn.ac.za <vanderriet@ukzn.ac.za>
>   tel: +27 33 260 6163*
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> on behalf of David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 23 June 2020 02:32
> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Your views on a question.
>
>
>
> Dear Mr. Dave:
>
>
>
> I think racist filth, devoid of any scientific understanding and without a
> shred of scientific basis, should not be distributed anywhere. It certainly
> does not belong on this list.
>
>
>
> "Who were the black people that Europeans brought with them? They were
> living in primitive habitations in Africa with very primitive socio
> economic formation. Their forefathers have never passed through the ups and
> downs in last 3000 years comparable to the lessons European people learned
> and sustained with and ever before that. The development of brain threads
> of the black people and structure of their DNA are in compliance with the
> pattern of life their forefathers passed through in Africa and its status
> was in line with the socio economic formation in which they lived when they
> were forcibly kidnapped as slaves by European people and their agents.
> Generally we talk about apartheid but it is complex issue. We never give
> consideration to this fact of difference in brain thread net work and
> structure of DNA and consequential difficulties people of both the sides
> face while they have to interact with each others."
>
>
> David Kellogg
>
> Sangmyung University
>
>
>
> New Article: Ruqaiya Hasan, in memoriam: A manual and a manifesto.
>
> Outlines, Spring 2020
>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://tidsskrift.dk/outlines/article/view/116238__;!!Mih3wA!XSceodIW2xmrZKz8v7Gq_Dkr9Td554ir5v5IfJQjNLcG-Ts55m-SO3jSvJGCYsDLgXkFmw$ 
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/protect-za.mimecast.com/s/4SZoCj2J6yfjqgqZSW5Gft?domain=urldefense.com__;!!Mih3wA!TSjxRZNvMM9E_Fxpr61FuZbtdmS2LqgbJ1zNHqtehEMf9FHvEvwI66x315TOM1TAHTd1Fg$>
>
> New Translation with Nikolai Veresov: *L.S. Vygotsky's Pedological Works* *Volume
> One: Foundations of Pedology*"
>
>  https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9789811505270__;!!Mih3wA!XSceodIW2xmrZKz8v7Gq_Dkr9Td554ir5v5IfJQjNLcG-Ts55m-SO3jSvJGCYsDDT3rbfw$ 
>
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/protect-za.mimecast.com/s/_02ECk5MXzfnQgQoUVBQs_?domain=urldefense.com__;!!Mih3wA!TSjxRZNvMM9E_Fxpr61FuZbtdmS2LqgbJ1zNHqtehEMf9FHvEvwI66x315TOM1R8_2MsEg$>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 1:53 PM Harshad Dave <hhdave15@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> David—
>
> Your message addressed to Anthony impresses me that you have reached a
> conclusion in haste and prematurely about my concepts/views. Perhaps it
> might be due to weakness/error in the presentation of my views.  Here I put
> three points to express myself.
>
> *Point 1:*
>
> When I contemplate on the issue of racism (discrimination between two sets
> of people from different origin), I temporarily suspend my
> feelings/sentiments founded on *philosophy of humanity* to work on the
> issue impartially. I appeal to all friends to come out from that cocoon if
> they want to have a transparent vision on the subject issue.
>
> If anyone believes that the anatomy of the subject issue might be
> discovered by mounting one leg on the horse of our *sentiments and
> emotions on humanitarian concepts* and second leg on the horse of *facts
> of* *the prevailing social constitution of latest socio economic
> formation, *I think he will never succeed in his task.
>
> *Point 2:*
>
> Here below, I attach one doc file.... title--- “Where the shoe pinches?”
> I request you to read the points discussed there on this subject matter on
> page 28 as the article is very long.
>
> [Go to page 28 and it starts – “It is not necessary that there should be
> two separate nations or habitations with different levels of socio economic
> formations and both………….”
>
> It ends at page no. 35 – “………. prejudice and partiality, but it is
> mandatory that they must have all the abilities to secure their right of
> enjoyment through their abilities only.”]
>
> The fact that is discussed in the above mentioned text cannot be
> overlooked with our *justice and good conscience*.
>
> *Point 3:*
>
> As concluded by David,
>
> “……but it seems to me that Mr. Dave is trying to reinterpret events in
> the USA using concepts……”
>
> I say he has misunderstood me. I do agree that the social constitution in
> India is influenced by “cast culture” but there are people who might
> think and analyze issues pertaining to social science and economics
> remaining out of the cocoon of “cast culture”.
>
> Regards,
>
> Harshad Dave
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 4:26 AM David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Anthony--
>
>
>
> I think Annalisa knows more about this than I do, but it seems to me that
> Mr. Dave is trying to reinterpret events in the USA using concepts that are
> related to the ancient Hindu system of caste. Castes are not races (they
> are even less tied to pigmentation than race), and they are certainly not
> classes (they are reproduced by marriage and the family rather than by
> relations of production): I suppose they are something like kinship groups
> that are tied for historical as well as religious reasons to particular
> professions. Because they are emphasized in religion (and more recently in
> India's communal politics) they can certainly be said to be "socio-mental"
> in quality. Somehow I don't think that this is what Andy has in mind when
> he says that cultural artefacts bring the WHOLE of culture into
> interpersonal interaction and suspend the distinction between social theory
> and psychology!
>
>
>
>
> David Kellogg
>
> Sangmyung University
>
>
>
> New Article: Ruqaiya Hasan, in memoriam: A manual and a manifesto.
>
> Outlines, Spring 2020
>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://tidsskrift.dk/outlines/article/view/116238__;!!Mih3wA!XSceodIW2xmrZKz8v7Gq_Dkr9Td554ir5v5IfJQjNLcG-Ts55m-SO3jSvJGCYsDLgXkFmw$ 
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/protect-za.mimecast.com/s/7lk_ClO6EAHoZLZ6sy71p6?domain=urldefense.com__;!!Mih3wA!TSjxRZNvMM9E_Fxpr61FuZbtdmS2LqgbJ1zNHqtehEMf9FHvEvwI66x315TOM1TbNjHOhg$>
>
> New Translation with Nikolai Veresov: *L.S. Vygotsky's Pedological Works* *Volume
> One: Foundations of Pedology*"
>
>  https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9789811505270__;!!Mih3wA!XSceodIW2xmrZKz8v7Gq_Dkr9Td554ir5v5IfJQjNLcG-Ts55m-SO3jSvJGCYsDDT3rbfw$ 
>
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/protect-za.mimecast.com/s/hrCcCmwXNBT5nvnks9iGdT?domain=urldefense.com__;!!Mih3wA!TSjxRZNvMM9E_Fxpr61FuZbtdmS2LqgbJ1zNHqtehEMf9FHvEvwI66x315TOM1Rq1D29Ug$>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 8:24 PM Anthony Barra <anthonymbarra@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about here, although my sense is
> that it's wildly wrong, in various ways. I am confused but hope you have a
> nice day, regardless.
>
>
>
> Anthony
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sunday, June 21, 2020, Harshad Dave <hhdave15@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Atten.: Anthony Barra and David Kellog.
>
> Hi,
>
> This is with reference to your replies to my message. I am thankful for
> the same and regret for the delay in reply. I used the word “apartheid”
> just in the sense of racism, complains of blacks/brown that they are
> discriminated in social dealing by whites etc. David Kellog - Thanks for
> the detail source of the word “apartheid”, however I request you to take
> its meaning in the same sense as expressed above. The suggested/recommended
> articles are viewed in a glancing by me; I recall I have read them (one or
> more) on Academia web. You will agree their subject matter is different.
> Anthony Barra – The article that was recommended by you is read by me and
> it touches on various realities in the subject matter of our topic.
>
> I just put my views against the question I asked in my message dtd. 17
> June 2020.
>
> There are two most probable answers.
>
> 1.      The turned out black European people will be the victim of racism
> (discrimination) by the turned out white people from African origin.
>
> 2.      The situation remains the same and the world will see protests
> and fights on an issue or against a complaining that the black European
> people discriminate white people of African origin in the USA.
>
> I leave it to the readers to give their logical consideration to the one
> out of the above two, but my opinion says the second answer will hold good,
> but one should not forget it is just true on hypothetical presumption.
>
> It is a mistake to believe that *the attitude of discrimination* and *sickness
> of racism *harbor in the color of the skin. In fact above
> altitude/sickness is founded on the difference of *mental socio economic
> formation status* of two men. There is a basic difference between the two
> statuses of *mental socio economic formation *of black people of African
> origin and that of white people of European origin. I believe that a mass
> of people constituting a society with advanced socio economic formation has
> fair chances to exploit the mass of people constituting a society with
> backward socio economic formation. It is equally true for two classes of
> peoples at different *mental socio economic formation status* also. But,
> here (in the USA) both the classes of people are living in the same society
> with one *constitution* and uniform *rule of laws*. It is absurd to
> believe that the present socio economic formation of the society of the USA
> (21st century) has prevailed and occupied equally and uniformly by each
> and every citizen of the USA. One might find various people in the present
> society of the USA with different levels of *mental socio economic
> formation status*. It is really a complicated situation when the society
> is throughout with the latest socio economic formation and members of the
> society are with varying levels of *mental socio economic formation
> status* in the same society. Let me present part of the message of
> Abraham Lincoln before I finish this message.
>
> Fourth Debate: Charleston, Illinois – September 18, 1858.
>
> “*I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing
> about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black
> races, [applause]-that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making
> voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to
> intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there
> is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe
> will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and
> political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do
> remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I
> as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position
> assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that
> because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be
> denied everything.*”
>
>
>
> Here it is between the lines that difference in the *mental socio
> economic formation status* could be compensated to some extent, but for
> equality people with backward *mental socio economic formation status*
> will have to work hard to develop the same.
>
> I clarify, neither I am in favor of nor against the victims of the issue
> of discrimination and racism as far as my contemplation on the subject
> matter is to be carried out. But, I just want to explain where the real
> cause harbors.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Harshad Dave
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 6:01 PM David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Dear Harshad:
>
>
>
> I am still a little stunned by the last post you wrote, with all the
> references to predatory shopkeepers. It sounded like the stuff of a pogrom.
> As we discussed in the "My Hometown Minneapolis" thread, the threats to
> shopkeepers in Minneapolis often targeted South Asians, and had nothing to
> do with the police (except that the police may have been involved and
> certainly profitted from the looting politically).
>
>
>
> "Apartheid" is a term invented by the South African sociologist Verwoerd,
> who studied with the Gestalists. Some Gestaltists, like Narziss Ach and
> Felix Krueger, became Nazis; Verwoerd himself became, as you probably know,
> prime minister of South Africa and brought in the system of apartheid which
> Gandhi struggled against during his early years. The term used in my
> hometown Minneapolis is not "apartheid" but segregation: it is
> euphemistically referred to as "redlining" (by insurance companies) and
> "racial covenants" but not as "apartheid".
>
>
>
> Segregation and Jim Crow in Minneapolis is not based on pigmentation. Many
> "white" people are darker than blacks, and many black people are lighter
> than whites, because of the centuries of rape and the enthusiasm of slave
> owners for the practice of selling their own children. The last time I
> visited the "housing project"near where I grew up it was full of Hmong from
> Southeast Asia. Segregation in Minneapolis is above all a matter of class.
>
>
> David Kellogg
>
> Sangmyung University
>
>
>
> New Article: Ruqaiya Hasan, in memoriam: A manual and a manifesto.
>
> Outlines, Spring 2020
>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://tidsskrift.dk/outlines/article/view/116238__;!!Mih3wA!XSceodIW2xmrZKz8v7Gq_Dkr9Td554ir5v5IfJQjNLcG-Ts55m-SO3jSvJGCYsDLgXkFmw$ 
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/protect-za.mimecast.com/s/upIcCnZJ6DfGonorTmKJVV?domain=urldefense.com__;!!Mih3wA!TSjxRZNvMM9E_Fxpr61FuZbtdmS2LqgbJ1zNHqtehEMf9FHvEvwI66x315TOM1QFm5D1Sg$>
>
> New Translation with Nikolai Veresov: *L.S. Vygotsky's Pedological Works* *Volume
> One: Foundations of Pedology*"
>
>  https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9789811505270__;!!Mih3wA!XSceodIW2xmrZKz8v7Gq_Dkr9Td554ir5v5IfJQjNLcG-Ts55m-SO3jSvJGCYsDDT3rbfw$ 
>
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/protect-za.mimecast.com/s/LoX3CoYJXETXzkz6Sou7BK?domain=urldefense.com__;!!Mih3wA!TSjxRZNvMM9E_Fxpr61FuZbtdmS2LqgbJ1zNHqtehEMf9FHvEvwI66x315TOM1Teajel2w$>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 4:16 PM Harshad Dave <hhdave15@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Dear all there,
>
>
>
> We all are aware of the event of the death of George Floyd in the USA
> under police custody. There are flows of opinions, comments and views on
> the event with different aspects all over the world. There are debates and
> discussions on the event on innumerable web sites, we find them in
> newspapers and among the talks of people at private and public places. We
> just do not talk about riots and other events happened under agony and out
> burst of anger on the unfortunate death of Floyd, however, voice against
> apartheid was the major cry behind them.
>
> Though there are various vital aspects of the event, *apartheid* remained
> prime of them.
>
> I simply ask one question to my friends who read this post.
>
>
>
> Let us hypothetically presume, on one day fine morning, when people of the
> USA awake, they find that skin color of all the blacks is changed to
> perfectly white like european people and the skin color of all the
> europeans changed to black like negro.
>
> I ask my friends, "What will be the status of *apartheid* in this
> situation?"
>
>
>
> NB: I write one article on the ill fated event and its aspects. Your views
> on the above question will help me to write my views with more clarity in
> the article.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Harshad Dave
>
>
>
> This communication is intended for the addressee only. It is confidential.
> If you have received this communication in error, please notify us
> immediately and destroy the original message. You may not copy or
> disseminate this communication without the permission of the University.
> Only authorised signatories are competent to enter into agreements on
> behalf of the University and recipients are thus advised that the content
> of this message may not be legally binding on the University and may
> contain the personal views and opinions of the author, which are not
> necessarily the views and opinions of The University of the Witwatersrand,
> Johannesburg. All agreements between the University and outsiders are
> subject to South African Law unless the University agrees in writing to the
> contrary.
>
>
>
> This communication is intended for the addressee only. It is confidential.
> If you have received this communication in error, please notify us
> immediately and destroy the original message. You may not copy or
> disseminate this communication without the permission of the University.
> Only authorised signatories are competent to enter into agreements on
> behalf of the University and recipients are thus advised that the content
> of this message may not be legally binding on the University and may
> contain the personal views and opinions of the author, which are not
> necessarily the views and opinions of The University of the Witwatersrand,
> Johannesburg. All agreements between the University and outsiders are
> subject to South African Law unless the University agrees in writing to the
> contrary.
>
>
>
> This communication is intended for the addressee only. It is confidential.
> If you have received this communication in error, please notify us
> immediately and destroy the original message. You may not copy or
> disseminate this communication without the permission of the University.
> Only authorised signatories are competent to enter into agreements on
> behalf of the University and recipients are thus advised that the content
> of this message may not be legally binding on the University and may
> contain the personal views and opinions of the author, which are not
> necessarily the views and opinions of The University of the Witwatersrand,
> Johannesburg. All agreements between the University and outsiders are
> subject to South African Law unless the University agrees in writing to the
> contrary.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20200627/8b755029/attachment.html