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

Wed Jul 1 07:29:02 PDT 2020

I hear you clearly Annalisa

And I absolutely agree with you, in essence if "victimhood" is watered down there is no "perpetrator" is watered down, and in the end if there is no victim and no perpetrator, then what is justice for?  But isn't it that collectives end up using the language to exude their state of mind, in this case my sense is there is a strong desire for peace and stability, more so those who are victims, they need time to heal and  "move on" within a social contract that recognises that victims have a strong desire to heal and move on. In any case and realistically, there is little time for adequate healing and reflection for the victims of gross violations as they come out of the trauma with the need to focus on "nation building"  and to prepare better futures for the coming generations. Not that this is the best  process, as we all understand the unconscious  collective minds  of  "victims"  as well as of  "perpetrators" may still play out the collective trauma more so if there is "forced forgetting" repression so to say, with no acknowledgement of victims and their victimhood by means of shaming or gaslighting the victims. I wonder what people who  have studies Victimology would have to say about this.

But then in my mind what stalls the healing of the victims need to survive and move is (not based on a particular theory):

  1.  If there the perpetrator (A) is not will to acknowledge their perpetration, (be it political or institutional or social) healing becomes a one sided  for the victims (B) process with the element of social cohesion as a healing factor missing.
  2.  When victims (B) make attempts to restore normality and stability as a collective in the absence of social cohesion, fear of the need for self defence on the part of the perpetrators (A)  arise from their  unconscious acknowledgement of their perpetration, and for them the focus would be to pass down the suspicion, insecurity and defence onto their future generations - influencing their activities
  3.  An example of the perpetrator (A) perceiving the victim (B) in the survivor mode as a threat of some sort, this Amy Cooper video https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFjxye6T4fk__;!!Mih3wA!QT22K7LK0brmsWOy-93Y7Cev8Kte7gWkLsKTynTHte_vnStY23TD6lQXaoNVFj5Cs2YVTQ$  shows how with a clear sense of privilege the perpetrator (A) can perceive the victim (B) as a perpetrator,  where the perpetrator (A) turns around and shouts "victimisation"  by the survivor/victim.

Thank you Annalisa for your engaging, wishing all health and safety as you navigate survival over covid-19.

I will engage from background going forward.

Regards
S'ma

From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> On Behalf Of Annalisa Aguilar
Sent: Wednesday, 01 July 2020 08:40
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Your views on a question.

Dear S'ma, David, Henry, Mike, and venerable others,

I am not in a place to look at the facebook link, though I shall try to review it in the coming days.

I think one of the "projects" of my reply to yours, S'ma, is why is it "wrong" to have a "victim mentality"? If one has indeed been a victim?

I feel that there is a denigration of the word "victim" that requires rehabilitation by purging the word of this denigration. A victim implies a perpetrator taking advantage by exercise of blatant power or by covert stealth and manipulation. That is accurately descriptive.

As I have started to read about the effects of trauma upon a person, I feel that "victim mentality" is a viable phrase to explain a state of mind in the victim that is a natural response to harm, in the same way that if I were to cut my finger, it will bleed. To remove from language a naming of this effect is like refusing to describe bleeding as "bleeding" which then seems to have a project ever more of denying that bleeding even happens.

But when I cut my finger, bleeding does not go on forever. Though I suppose one can die from bleeding out with a deep enough wound, at some point if the injury is not fatal,the bleeding staunches and the healing begins.

One of the aspects that I feel is a very real experience is the person not realizing that something has even happened, there is a mystical experience as if being in a dream. A questioning of reality.

Perhaps I might frame what I mean if we contemplate where we were when we first learned the first tower of the World Trade Center had suffered impact by a plane. Then, where we were when the second one hit the other tower. When I say "were we were" I refer to a state of mind, than a geographical location. Them where were we when the towers collapsed? When we crossed each of the stations of suffering that marked what we know as 9/11?

For many of us, which might possibly include conspiracy theorists, we will never know what exactly happened or why. I think that that is what makes "victim" an appropriate and just word, because the state of mind would not exist but for the perpetrator of violence upon the agency of the victim. We were all victims in some way by the events of 9/11, and I feel that's because we are all connected to one another. We each suffered in different degrees based upon our orientation to the events.

That space or gap or state of mind of not knowing, of ignorance and disassociation from reality, which a victim experiences cognitively, is monstrously painful because the mind works hard to try to "make sense" of what happened. It wants to fill in the gap. In order to transcend the crime committed, the victim must fill that space on one's own in one's own time; that self-talk that frames one's emotional experiences. Just as one must rehabilitate from a surgery or illness, the injured party must be provided accommodation to allow for genuine healing to manifest.

What is so outrageous is when the perpetrators try to control that narrative of healing to which the victim must arrive independently and without influence of the perpetrator, to fill that gap. That is what gaslighting is when the narrative is controlled by the perpetrator, or those who would deny the crime ever happened. That's how further injury is committed against the victim.

Such talk might be, "Well, what were you doing walking out there by yourself in the middle of the night. You were asking to be raped if you were wearing that. You should have known better." Etc.

What I am considering (and I am grateful for the collaborative spirit that you bring in this exploration to allow my consideration), is how few people seem capable of witnessing the suffering of others. This seems especially true for those who are in positions of power and who also abuse that position.

If a person is truly powerful, inherently powerful, then would it matter at all if they harmed another person less powerful, if such were the nature of power? Why shouldn't they be able to witness the destruction of the agency without grimacing?

Yet, when we do see examples of that kind of display of power, we find such a person sadistic, heartless, brutish, etc.

I am recalling the Susan Sontag book of essays On Regarding the Pain of Others, and I wish I could retrieve the book to read it again in the context of this discussion...

Oh see here! I have found it online here:
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://monoskop.org/images/a/a6/Sontag_Susan_2003_Regarding_the_Pain_of_Others.pdf__;!!Mih3wA!QT22K7LK0brmsWOy-93Y7Cev8Kte7gWkLsKTynTHte_vnStY23TD6lQXaoNVFj6rffp_bg$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/monoskop.org/images/a/a6/Sontag_Susan_2003_Regarding_the_Pain_of_Others.pdf__;!!Mih3wA!UNsCwa_P3NLoHGda5RUV9gj2AFd-9SVJZEXsQ-9oDmp5z42PwIFCAhISTWWMSEn1f3mo8Q$>

I have set up myself some homework for further contemplation and reflection to be sure.

Anyway, to resume the bead of my thought that I had started, I believe that the reason that a person with power who is incapable of rendering, in one's mind, the suffering and pain of another has to do with capacity. That's what makes them a "person with power," rather than a "powerful person."

This lack of capacity is trauma in a negative image of itself. I pose it that way because the trauma is not and cannot be the same as the trauma of the victim. I pose it that way because no one escapes violence (or crime) unscathed (which I think was the point the Marquis de Sade was attempting to make in turning the language of power into a grammar and syntax of bodies and emotions). The perpetrator suffers too, but differently.

Not that I am trying to generate a pool of sympathy for perpetrators. But I say it only to provide an acknowledgement that their lack of capacity produces numbness and denial, and a lifelong project of lying to oneself to legitimize their "right" or even "obligation" to harm another. It is trauma, but in a negative form (negative as in photography, in which the negative image produces the positive image through a reflection or obstruction of light).

Perhaps it is worse for the perpetrator than the victim, because of this "perspective" that David mentions in his post.

Still, I do not believe that a victim is only about me "being a victim." I can witness party A perpetrating an injustice upon party B and say to myself, "party B is a victim of party A." And orient myself empathically to each party, accordingly.

I can be traumatized, for example, by the violent pornography of the footage released by Wikileaks of the Reuters journalists being gunned down by American soldiers in Iraq. (I actually did feel traumatized from that footage). I have no issue in myself calling the Reuters journalists and other Iraqis gunned down "victims". My outrage was justified against callous perpetrators, which includes outrage toward the leadership of my country.

I just now wonder if this might be BECAUSE we were viewing the footage from the point of view of the soldiers, not the individuals in the street unwittingly walking into the crosshairs of assasination.

I can't say exactly.

So I trust perspective is important in the conception of understanding victims and their pain, but I do not agree that I can only use it when referring to whether I am a victim (or not). That seems part of the trap of denial of the dynamic of witnessing harm of a victim, whether me or someone else.

That is why I feel that the word meaning for "victim" requires rehabilitation and its baggage needs to be thrown off the train, posthaste!

It has to do, as I continue to reflect, with being articulate in a language of emotion and feeling. Those who hold power and possess empathy and compassion can attain a stature of being beloved, while those who hold power sans a language of emotion and feeling seem to be reviled or feared. Does that seem to hold water?

Can the same be said of a victim? One who possess a language of empathy and compassion will go farther in healing and overcoming the act, than one who doesn't possess that ability.

Perhaps this is why Spinoza is one to whom we circle back, while we grind the lens to see ourselves just a little bit better. He was attempting to understand emotion as a consequence of activities outside the person, making them passive, or what we might call in this conversation, a victim of circumstances beyond one's control or agency.

This is why I feel "survivor" is somehow lacking, though perhaps it is an adequate word for afterwards, when one must resolve to live on despite the injustice. It is what is left over. I just don't like the word because one can be a survivor without experiencing justice or being made whole.  "Survivor" seems to wash away the act that had been committed against the person, and thereby also the responsibility of perpetrator. Or am I thinking about this in the wrong way?

How can language heal this harm perpetrated upon victims just being victims and perpetrators just being perpetrators? If only so justice can just be justice?

Kind regards,

Annalisa

________________________________
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu<mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu<mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>> on behalf of Simangele Mayisela <simangele.mayisela@wits.ac.za<mailto:simangele.mayisela@wits.ac.za>>
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2020 4:25 AM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu<mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Your views on a question.

  [EXTERNAL]

Hi Annalisa and colleagues

Thank you for processing my earlier articulation in such an impeccable manner. I see how your method of using definitions as a foundation for conversations, specially sensitive conversations in a multicultural forum such as this one. You have beautifully demonstrated that in your response below and in some of your previous enlightening contributions.

Your reference to the George Orwell's 1984  is quite fitting in this situation; when  a victim expresses that they are victimised, they are then "gaslighted", as there is something seriously wrong with their mentality - the victim mentality. It is short of saying "do not think" that you are victimised even if there is "victimisation", or you "were" victimised. Perhaps we can accept better with "survivors" but the conditions and the context under which" survivors" continue to survive.

Ok then, then the survivors develop a concept, "Critical Theory"  to name, and shine light on the hidden aspects of "survivorhood", where the conditions for thinking about or "reflecting" surviving are determined and controlled, even those who have power - "scientific or unscientific".

There is undeniable history of efforts and activities of survivors of different forms oppressions and genocides,  where generations of survivors have shown resilience and the ability to move on, but only to be met with new and systematic ways of  psychological and economic oppression. Leaving them with no option but to survive by different means at the disposal, including becoming religious with the home for future redemption. Of more interest to me are those who keep trying using   "enlightened" ways by intellectually explaining to themselves as a collective and to the oppressor with the hope to bring about change for their situation - the "doing something about their situation." Using the analogy of a monopoly game Tameka Jones Young https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10158129729940856&id=522190855__;!!Mih3wA!QT22K7LK0brmsWOy-93Y7Cev8Kte7gWkLsKTynTHte_vnStY23TD6lQXaoNVFj5dCUTzVw$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10158129729940856&id=522190855__;!!Mih3wA!VX_uq7D0v43DAvM9nEC46ZStRpXjResRedVQUr9zhmuKYSRyZ34CmtUCYxxDViAr2G5ncg$> (please watch if you a minute to spare) , has a way that highlights why "victim mentality" is not an appropriate, or rather demeaning of those who are working hard to be free, let alone to be at par with the oppressors' "survivors" if I may say so. The video is in the context of the gruesome protests after the murder of George Floyd, perhaps what is important for this conversation is the content, the meaning of her articulations, though her expressions are accompanied by very strong emotions, I found her monopoly analogy worth my reflection.

I must say I owe it to myself to try draw some links between Cultural Historical Activity Theory, Critical Race Theory and Social Justice theory, I admire scholars, some who maybe in this thread who have used these theoretical lenses in their work in trying to understand mental development it the global context. I think Cultural Historical Activity Theory maybe one of the appropriate tools to explain that which concerns Lindsay; how Critical theory is finding its way of infiltrating critical spaces in communities, including academia, which he sees as nothing but "Grievance Studies"  and threatening scientific thinking.

It has been good partaking in these conversations. I think reflections can continue to happen in private at a personal level and in smaller groups.  What is important is; yes need to reflect on our thinking and our learning. I myself have learned a lot from this thread, in conscious and unconscious ways I transform as I read your contributions, to the point I  at times pleasantly surprise myself quoting what was said in this thread.

Regards

S'ma

From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu<mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu<mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>> On Behalf Of Annalisa Aguilar
Sent: Friday, 26 June 2020 22:37
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu<mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Your views on a question.

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.
  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?

t 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<mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu<mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>> on behalf of Simangele Mayisela <simangele.mayisela@wits.ac.za<mailto:simangele.mayisela@wits.ac.za>>
Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2020 6:04 AM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu<mailto: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<mailto:simangele.mayisela@wits.ac.za>

From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu<mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu<mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>> On Behalf Of Andy Blunden
Sent: Wednesday, 24 June 2020 03:37
To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu<mailto: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><mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of Martin Packer <mpacker@cantab.net><mailto:mpacker@cantab.net>
Reply to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu><mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
Date: Tuesday, 23 June 2020 at 23:54
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu><mailto: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<mailto: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!QT22K7LK0brmsWOy-93Y7Cev8Kte7gWkLsKTynTHte_vnStY23TD6lQXaoNVFj6vBnkiZA$ <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<mailto: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<mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>> on behalf of Simangele Mayisela <simangele.mayisela@wits.ac.za<mailto:simangele.mayisela@wits.ac.za>>
Reply to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu<mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
Date: Tuesday, 23 June 2020 at 19:57
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu<mailto: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<mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:vanderriet@ukzn.ac.za>                      tel: +27 33 260 6163

________________________________

From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu<mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu<mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>> on behalf of David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com<mailto:dkellogg60@gmail.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, 23 June 2020 02:32
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu<mailto: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!QT22K7LK0brmsWOy-93Y7Cev8Kte7gWkLsKTynTHte_vnStY23TD6lQXaoNVFj6FNgmWjQ$ <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!QT22K7LK0brmsWOy-93Y7Cev8Kte7gWkLsKTynTHte_vnStY23TD6lQXaoNVFj5gyJ0FBw$ 
<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<mailto: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<mailto: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!QT22K7LK0brmsWOy-93Y7Cev8Kte7gWkLsKTynTHte_vnStY23TD6lQXaoNVFj6FNgmWjQ$ <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!QT22K7LK0brmsWOy-93Y7Cev8Kte7gWkLsKTynTHte_vnStY23TD6lQXaoNVFj5gyJ0FBw$ 
<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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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!QT22K7LK0brmsWOy-93Y7Cev8Kte7gWkLsKTynTHte_vnStY23TD6lQXaoNVFj6FNgmWjQ$ <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!QT22K7LK0brmsWOy-93Y7Cev8Kte7gWkLsKTynTHte_vnStY23TD6lQXaoNVFj5gyJ0FBw$ 
<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<mailto: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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20200701/83b6d909/attachment.html 