| Archive for langcafe2.myfreeforum.org Come in and have your daily cup of languages! |
| Porthos |
Anyway, I would be willing to say that the Germans and Scots-Irish played just as an important role in shaping American culture as the English, who Fab feels are the majority in America.. 
In America's western expansion, most of the new frontier settlers were those who had settled America's first frontier, namely, Scots-Irish and Germans. The English, who were the first to arrive, were well established in the coastal lowlands of America's east coast, in the original 13 colonies. Those that pushed the ever expanding American territory west were Scots-Irish and German. So, the mid-west region, home of "General American" dialect, and traditionally considered "America's heartland" was settled by Scots-Irish and Germans, not English! The only area of America which can be said to have a predominatly English culture is non-urban areas of New England. The great stretches of land east of the Appalachians has a culture based on a Scots-Irish/German foundation. The mid-Atlantic and Ohio Valley region has a German, Welsh, English, Scots-Irish, and Dutch base, along with major contributions from enormous waves of Italians, Portuguese, Romanians, Greeks, Czhecs, Austro-Hungarians, Catholic Irish, Poles, Russians, and Jews from all over southern and eastern Europe. We must not forget the impact of blacks on American culture. Fab claims that being a land of immigrants is not something exclusively American, as nearly all modern industrialized Western nations have substantial immigrant populations. Yet, he fails to see that the widespread immigration to places like Western Europe did not begin until after the WWII period. The U.S. is a nation made up enitrely of immigrants, who transplanted their culture along with those of other arrivals in a foreign continent to mix and form a very unique cultural base. We continued to recieve an astronomical influx of immigrants from very diverse backgrounds all the way until the WWII period, when nations like France just began to recieve immigration. Our first immigrants were from England and Wales. (Late 1500s-1700) Our second wave of immigrants came from Ulster, German speaking - Central Europe, Scotland, northern English border areas, etc., French Hugenots, etc (1700-1790) Our third wave came from northwestern Europe, mainly Scandanavia, Low countries, Germany, etc. (1790-1840) Our fourth wave was drastically different from the previous three, as this period witnessed for the first time, large scale influx of non-Protestants, who lived an entirely different way of life, and who often looked different, and this wave was met with fierce opposition by the native, protestant establishment. These people were Catholic, Orthodox, or Jewish, and were not able to assimilate into American society as easily as all their predecessors, because they looked different, practiced a different religion and so forth, and were much more dissimilar to the native Anglo-Protestant culture. They were millions upon millions of Irish Catholics, German speaking Catholics, Italians, Poles, Russians, Romanians, Portuguese, Greeks, Serbs, Slovaks, and southern and eastern European Jews. They tended to form ethnic communities, where their culture, adapted by life on the new continent, continued to live on, until eventually, certain elements of their culture and language were adopted by mainstream, original inhabitants from previous waves of immigration, so that their culture was grafted on to the original cultural substratum. The phonology of their language affected the way they spoke English, so that urban areas of the Northeast especially reveal their linguistic influence, as manifested by the easily noticeable accents of the region, influenced by Italian, Yiddish, etc. They came to make up the majority of America's urban population in the Northeast, and upper midwest, Ohio Valley region. Their culture influneced American politics, which is why liberal, left-leaning Democrats hold sway in the Northeast, upper-midwest regions, because the collectivism espoused by the party was attractive to these people, in contrast to the strict culture of individualism among the original Anglo-Protestant (from British Isles) Americans in the midwest and south. (1840-1950) Our fifth and final wave is still underway. This wave is comparable to immigration patterns elsewhere in places like Western Europe, following de-colonization by former Western imperial powers following WWII. This wave has been characterized by what some consider to be an unsustainable influx of illegal immigrants from East Asia, and Latin America, whose descendants together now consitute 15% of our entire population. Ethnic barriers have been erected, contributing to unique cultures and dialects divided along ethnic lines, so that Asian-Americans are one culture group, Hispanic-Americans are another, White-Americans are another (although there is considerable diversity among the White group), and Black-Americans form another. There is cross-cultural fertilization however, such as when White children adopt unique colloquialisms from Black English via rap music and the entertainment industry. Therefore, it would be inaccurate to say, as Fab suggests, that American culture is an Anglo one, of primarily English roots, or that most white Americans are of English descent. Rather, it would be more accurate to say that America's culture is a result of the mixing of many elements from many different cultural/ethnic groups. |
||||||||||||||||
| Porthos |
I have another tid-bit about the Scots-Irish and Germans.
All the things thought of as traditionally "American" by outsiders, are almost always of Scots-Irish or German origins. For example, the most famous examples of American cuisine such as Hot Dogs and Hamburgers are of German origin, along with our major domestic beer producers, like Budweiser. America's intense adherence to religion despite nearly universal secularization in Europe, is indiciatve of Scots-Irish heritage. America's hawkish foreign policy, and strong sense of patriotism and tradition of war is reminiscent of the Scots-Irish culture. America's fierce spirit of individualism and radical free-market capitalism, and libertarian views on civil liberties such as gun control are also vestiges of the Scots-Irish culture. Traditional and uniquely American music, "country music" is of Scots-Irish origin. Unique American protestant denominations like Baptist and Methodists arose from unique forms of Presbyterianism imported by the Scots-Irish settlers. Americans' distate for class distinction and privellege is another result of the Scots-Irish culture, something very different from that of England. The list goes on and on... |
||||||||||||||||
| fab |
I surely aknowledge that Germans or scottish immigrants had left their mark on shaping the American identity. We are of course aware that the US is a "country of immigrants", as well is Australia or Canada, and that most Americans don't have british ancestry. It doesn't change that the people who formed the "basis" of US "white" population were of cultures close to English/British one, and melted well with it : people with same north-western European culture, with similar names easily anglicizable as Benjamin noticed; religious backgrounds (and so attitudes towards life, work, money or family) dominated by protestantim, or with similar food traditions. We understand that the following waves, which were not always of protestant or north European backgrounds had more difficulties and tented to form "communities" appart, and brought with them other cultural luggage. But, this conception of society is fondamentally not that different from, say, London. Most of England cities is made of a puzzle of peoples coming from different backgrounds - London (and the rest of England, (or Australia)) is very similar to NewYork in that it is a English-speaking salad boil; a association of independant communities with own self-identification living in a land shaped by the common use of the English language and a basis of Anglo-protestant culture. believe me, I know both US (different places) and the UK quite well, been there further times, each time living in local families. I am completlely aware of the differences of both, which can be important in some fields - but, also being from a non-anglophone society point of view I am able to see clearly the numerous and obvious common points. but I understant, that, living in it, you have more difficulty to notice it. somtimes we have to take some distance to understand Who/what we are.
It was not the question in my mind. "Anglo-saxon" for me doesn't relates to any "ancestry" (which would be a non-sence since English/British themselves are not more of one unique ancestry than Americans), but to a cultural background. The same way "Hispanic" doesn't mean to have ancestor from Spain, or being "ethnically spanish" (which has no more mening than being ethnically English)- but to be coming from a society which have being build with a Spanish-derived cultural structure.
I'm sorry but this is deeply just wrong. massive immigrations are widepreads since ever in Europe; and especially in France, being situated at many European and mediterranean crossroads. I wasn't specifically thinking about the modern immigrant populations attracted by the so-called "western" way of life, but also the differents "assimilated" people that formed the "basic population": You think only in terms of "visible" modern imigration that happened after the decolonisation of the former empires - but fomer immigration movements have always existed - the older they are, the less visible they have left marks (due to complete mixing of populations, cultural assimilation and metissage, change of names, etc...) Concerning France if we count the most massive known population movements, from the most recent to the older we would have : - recent Newcomers waves mainly Eastern European, Africans, Asians, North Africans, and much more recently latin-America. - post WW2 and post decolinisation waves ; huge numbers mainly north Africans and Portugal. millions of Pied-noirs (north Africans of European origins). a bit later from black African countries. - before WW2 : Huge spanish immigration, mainly due to the the civil war and then the Franco regime. Huge Italian immigration, especially from the poor southern regions. other diverse imigrations. - 19th century: attracted by the industrial revolution it was the beginning of the quick and strong modern waves : mostly strong Italian immigration, but also central European ; especially Polish. Also Russian and eastern European. Belgian immigration in the north. - before 19th it is more difficult to know since their wasn't countages. - 18th century: acceleration of imigration from various places of Europe. before it is harder to say, since their wasn't records - but various waves are known from Europe - middle ages : moor incursions in southern coasts - end of roman empire : Germanic, Turko-mongol, huns and diverse Asians invasions. And later Scandinavians in Normandy. - Roman colonisation: italian romans themselves but also romanized peoples from the diverses regions of the roman empire in Europe and all the mediterranean bassin, including probably many slaves. - arrival of celtic-speaking populations, probably coming from central Europe - Greeks, phenicians,etc . - indo European migrations, etc...
as well is the culture of the great Britain and other "anglo" (sorry if the word hurts you). countries.[/quote]
the Irish, and of course Scotish cultural elements are part of the British culture that had expended itself over the US, Australia, etc. When I think "anglo" I in fact think "British" - I know that wrong but this is the usage since The british isles have been under english domination, there have been to some extend a cultural mutual association of those lands, which concerning England and Scotland are part of the same nation since centuries. |
||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
My God yes. Look at who has just been elected as First Minister of Northern Ireland, for example — the Fundamentalist Protestant Rev Dr Ian Paisley, who in addition to his ultra-Unionist attitude towards the UK and his strong criticisms of the Roman Catholic Church, also advocates strict immigration controls, criminalisation of homosexuality, and euroscepticism.
No. The Methodists started in England in the 18th century by Charles and John Wesley as a splinter group from the Church of England. My grandparents are Methodists. Baptists originate from 16th and 17th century Europe, mainly England. So neither are uniquely American denominations. However, you are right that both Methodists and Baptists are vastly more numerous in the United States than in England (or anywhere else in Europe). Fab — you frequently speak about 'Protestantism', often as though it is a coherent entity. In your view, are the Church of England (largest denomination in England) and the Southern Baptist Convention (largest denomination in the US) essentially the same thing? Another question: I'm a Unitarian. Do you consider me to be a 'Protestant'?
So do you consider Irish people to be 'British'? (That is arguably a valid point, actually). |
||||||||||||||||
| fab |
In a certain point of view it may be. At least it was at some period. it just regained its independance once. To my opinion ireland has been probably as much "anglicized" than the rest of the other "celtic nations" of British isles.
No, protestantism is not a coherant entity. But compared to a catholic point of view it is quite clearly. And this is probably a big point what makes a unity of most protestant-based nations or nations with protestant tradition : to not have unity but the strong idea of the "communities" build around a lot of different independant "churches" - Is that they lack the strong unity that have been given by the nations which have been shaped by a unique "model" of Catholicism.
Yes. but there is nothing bad to that. I am myself not catholic, not even chritian, but Agnostic. The religious histories are to me important to understand the different cultures and societies. |
||||||||||||||||
| Porthos |
In a limited way, all of the peoples of the British Isles, including Ireland proper, could be called "British" and they share unique cultural connections based on location and the unifying factor of the English language. Yet there is and always has been deeply rooted divisions between the various constituent nations that make up Britain, each with their own language and set of dialects, each with their own version of Protestant Christianity, and each with their own culture. It is important to remember that they all are in fact nations, and seperate nations, with independent histories and national identities, just as France is seperate from Italy, Spain, or Belgium. The United Kingdom is a political confederacy made up of four different nations, because the crowns of Scotland and England decided to join under one government. So to lump all of the various peoples of the British Isles under the umbrella of "English people" is faulty, and unfair toward people from other countries of the British Isles. As an outsider, you may not be able to see the differences between the people, but as an Anglophone, I can see the clearly visible distinctions between the different peoples. You should read up on the vastly different cultures which shaped various regions of America to understand why it is so important to not assume that all British peoples are of "English culture", with "no significant difference in culture". |
||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
That's certainly true. And from a strictly linguistic point of view, Ireland is even more 'anglicised' than Wales.
Possibly not as much as you might think. For example, if you went to a service at Westminster Abbey in London, you'd find that it would resemble a service at Notre Dame in Paris far more than it would resemble a service at a Baptist church in the United States (except for the language, of course).
I see what you mean. However, I don't agree that the Church of England is an 'independent church', because it is the official state-endorsed church in England. Actually, it describes itself as 'the Established Catholic Church in England'. As far as I'm concerned, the Church of England is more similar to the Roman Catholic Church than to the Southern Baptist Convention in the US.
I don't really consider myself to be a Christian either — just a Unitarian. So, in your view, can I be 'Protestant' without being 'Christian'? |
||||||||||||||||
| Uriel |
Honestly, to me, English people, Welsh people, Scots, and the Irish are all pretty much the same. I know they like to make a big distinction amongst themselves, but that's sort of an internal thing. Those of us less familiar with them or less emotionally vested couldn't care less. We as Americans probably only perpetuate that recognition because of our own historical relationship with the UK -- we still make distinctions between Scottish and Irish ancestry, etc. -- but really, I can't take it too seriously on a global level. That would be like expecting a Nigerian to make the same distinctions between Southerners and Yankees -- they won't. I don't care how much you lecture them on history and cultural differences and the Missouri Compromise -- we all just Americans to them. I'm the same way with the British. |
||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
I know. However, I prefer to think of 'Protestantism' as an historical movement, rather than an suitable umbrella term for religious groups today. I see it as inherently Roman Catholic centric — comparable to how some people in this country tend to divide the world into two groups: 'British' and 'foreign'. I accept that the Church of England split from the Roman Catholic Church in the 16th century (although due to Henry VIII's marital affairs more than anything else). However, other groups have since split from the Church of England since then. I do not accept that the split between the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church was any more significant than the split between the Presbyterians and the Church of England a century or so later. |
||||||||||||||||
| Uriel |
Well, Anglicans/Episcopalians are essentially Catholic Lite. 
But I think if you were the only church in Western Europe for the better part of a millennium and a half, you probably get to be "centric" about the whole deal. And if the major point of departure between the two groups is "This IS the body of Christ" vs "This REPRESENTS the body of Christ", I can't get too excited about any serious differences between 'em. To me, a Christian is a Christian, end of story, good night. Again -- the outsider's perspective. Inside the bubble, you can all war over your various differences of opinion. Outside the bubble, you all look relatively similar. |
||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Incidentally, many Anglicans/Episcopalians (such as Anglo-Catholics) belief in transubstantiation or consubstantiation — the believe that the bread is the body of the Christ. The official Anglican position on the eucharist and baptism is certainly much closer to the Roman Catholic one than to the Baptist one, for example. |
||||||||||||||||
| Uriel |
There ya go -- Catholic Lite! (My dad once dated an Episcopalian -- that was her little joke. Along with: "The Anglican Church -- where Catholics go when they've been excommunicated!")
|
||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Haha — I was actually baptised in the Church of England when I was a baby. I'll say though that my attitude towards the Church of England today is largely neutral, although as an historical institution, it's definitely more on the negative side of neutral. |
||||||||||||||||
| Lazar |
I definitely agree about Episcopalians being Catholic Lite (and I've used that very term in the past).  I grew up nominally Episcopalian - and I inadvertently attended a lot of Catholic masses during high school - and I found that the two churches' services are almost identical.
That is very apt. In fact, my church held a ceremony of conversion for a Catholic priest who had "heard the call to become Episcopalian" - which may have something to do with the fact that he had recently got engaged to a very attractive woman. |
||||||||||||||||
| Uriel |
 Heard the call, eh? "What's that, God? You want me to be an Episcopalian so I can get laid and have a normal life? Well, gee, if you insist!"
|
||||||||||||||||
| Porthos |
So these people from north-western Europe were all of the "same" culture. So, Germans, Swedes, Norweigans, Dutch, British, etc, were of the "same" culture? Okay. So the French, Spanish, Italians, Portuguese, etc. are all of the same culture, with no real significant difference. They're all Catholic, all speak Romance languages. Basically they're all the same, with no real differences. What I'm trying to impress upon you Fab, is that the very things which make American culture distinct from that of English culture and America from England originate with the contributions made by people like the Scots-Irish. Sure, from an outsider's perspective, there really isn't much of a difference between the Scots-Irish and the English. But however subtle the differences may seem, when transplanted on American soil, and allowed to evolve, these differences amounted to enourmous cultural differences. Nearly all of the things that make American culture so alien and foreign to an Englishman like Benjamin are of Scots-Irish origin, or sometimes German. These cultural differences even played a crucial role in shaping political values, and were behind America's War of Independence, and these cultural influences continue to shape American politics and affect the development of history, and dictate American foreign policy. Here's an example that might bring it home. The current war in Iraq would most likely not have happened had the Scots-Irish not established such a large cultural prescence in America. The many things which English people find old-fashioned, or unsophisticated about the American south and Appalachia, and the rural MidWest are the same things New Englanders (of English culture and heritage) find absurd, backward, and foreign about these regions as well. |
||||||||||||||||
| Loic |
I think the 'intense religiosity' of americans is vastly overrated. The South is not a microcosm of the entire country and even if we accept that the South are more staunch Christians than the rest of the country combined, how then do we justify the peccadiloes of President Clinton, himself from the South?
Western Europe borders on heretical apostasy but that is no reason to tarnish America with the 'zealot Christians' brush. Personally, I think many American statesmen are merely paying lip service to religion when they wear their faith on their sleeves. A good Christian would not succumb to the tentation of pork-barrel politics; neither would he deliberately seek to pervert the course of justice a la Lewis Libby. He would also not deny justice to the inmates of Guantamao bay a la the current President.
I wonder if you yourself also find them 'absurd, backward and foreign'. I think they have been given the short end of the stick in popular media representations. I'd say that people from the South are also more likely to fight to defend their country; you never hear people from the South saying that they'd 'pack up their bags and flee to Canada' when President Bush was re-elected. They are at least patriotic and love their country and this is a huge redeeming feature that would absolve any of their other perceived sins.
If Notre Dame is still a fully functional house of God, that is, instead of being another tourist attraction. If there is one thing that gets my goat here, it is the army of tourists stomping all over the temples, mosques and churches, taking photographs and totally oblivious to the religious significance of the grounds they are in.
That is because the Anglican church has grand but deluded pretentions of being the universal church. Since our last conversation about the Church of England many moons ago, I've done some (cursory) research and I am now in complete agreement with you that the Anglo-Catholics, at the very least, are broadly similar in belief and creed to the Roman Catholic church.
I wonder who the hell arm-twisted that barking mad Reverend to come to the negotiating table with Martin McGuinness. Probably your Prime Minister doing plenty of work behind the scenes in a bid to secure a more favourable legacy. But it is sad that the only leaders available for Ulster were men from the two extremist ends of the political spectrum. It is truly a sad day for the moderates; it is not a victory for Northern Ireland as the Reverend claimed. A Pyrrhic victory, maybe.
In my limited contact with the Macanese people, some of them have very fanciful names. I once came across a name registrar list in which someone from Macao has this grandiose name of Ricardo Fernando Lam. I once visited Macao when it was still de jure Portuguese (so I can sorta claim that I have been on Portuguese soil before) and it is a really splendid little enclave where gambling and prostitution seemed to define the identity of this little territory.
My first reaction was to actually laugh at your previous hobby. However, I caught myself short in time as I cast a now jaundiced eye at my Power Rangers collection and wondered why I spent such an inordinate amount of time as well as money on those lame action heroes. |
||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
And likewise, when the Church of England started admitting women priests in the early 1990s, some Anglican congregations who did not accept this became Roman Catholic.
Well, arguably, if the Germans became native English speakers overnight, then there wouldn't really be much difference between England and Germany anymore. And if the Netherlands were an English-speaking country, then it probably wouldn't really be any more different from England than Scotland is.
I don't perceive being prepared to fight to defend one's country and being patriotic as inherently good.
No more deluded though than the Roman Catholic Church, as far as I'm concerned. |
||||||||||||||||
| Porthos |
True, especially when a bunch of thick-headed ignorant throngs of people jump at the call to arms from above, and do so without question, regardless of whether or not the call to arms is reasonable, just, or in the people's best interest, just so they can say they're "patriotic". This blind following of leaders, and outright ostracism of anyone who wishes to question this so-called "patriotic fervor", is definitely not a good thing. These were the same people who always called the Vietnam war protesters "pinkos", "traitors", "commies", or those who were or are against the war in Iraq, "unpatriotic". |
||||||||||||||||
| Loic |
Benjamin & Porthos:
May I quote the late John F Kennedy when he made a clarion call to the nation, 'Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country'. In my opinion, there is no such thing as too much patriotism. On the contrary, I see signs of too little patriotism amongst the young nowadays. As the sage Confucious wisely remarked, 'One is nothing without his family; his family is naught without the state'. |
||||||||||||||||
| Porthos |
So you see nothing inherently wrong with the state of affairs in Nazi Germany? There is an example of "too much patriotism". You can't forsee the dangers in the blind following of orders by citizens of a democratic state, so long as it's done behind the waving banner of red, white, and blue? |
||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
I think that people can sometimes have the wrong motivation for being prepared to 'fight for their country'. An example of this is how many British people who fought in World War II are essentially fascists themselves. I frequently hear older British people make comments like 'I didn't fight for this country for it to be overrun by niggers and pakis', and then say that they want the government to adopt highly authoritarian policies. They don't seem to understand the irony behind what they're saying. What seems to me is that these people didn't see themselves as fighting against a dangerous ideology, but rather they saw themselves as fighting on purely nationalistic grounds. Judging by the things those people say, I'd imagine that they would actually have been happy to have seen the Jews in this country killed. | ||||||||||||||||
| Porthos |
In addition, in the absence of Scots-Irish cultural foundations throughout the south, and the midwest, and rural west, the American political climate would be very different. The northeast, which does not have its cultural foundations in the culture of the Scots-Irish, but rather the English, is much more politically liberal (left-wing). If all of the "Red States" had an English cultural base instead of a Scots-Irish one, the entire U.S. would have the same political orientations as that of New England, so instead of America being a right-wing nation famous for persistant relgiousness among its people, with limited gun control, and a strong anti-gay marriage sentiment, we would have a situation like that of New England, or Europe, only on a national level. The course of history and America itself would be drastically different, and all because of the subtle differences between the English and Scots-Irish settlers. As you can see, these subtle differences amounted to titantic changes in American politics and foreign policy and culture. |
||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
I read the other day that Democrats in the Southern US would probably be more right-wing than Republicans in New England — would you say that that is the case? | ||||||||||||||||
| Porthos |
Not probably, but very possible yes. For instance, most Republican politicians in the Northeast have to assume more of a left-wing stance on issues in order to be elected. Republican presidential candidate, Rudy Guliani (former mayor of New York), is a "liberal Republican", and he could be described as more left-wing than a "conservative Democrat". *'Conservative' = right wing (RED states) 'Liberal' = left wing (BLUE states) The Northeast and upper midwest, and West coast, are polticially left-wing, multi-cultural, with diverse ethnic groups, urban, densely populated, cosmopolitan, "modern", historically very Catholic, Jewish, etc, more secular, etc.... Similar to Europe in a lot of ways.... The south, the "West", and most of the Mid-West are politically conservative, traditionally less industrialized and more agricultural, less ethnically diverse, more rural, more traditional, more religious (very Protestant), etc. All the things that you as a European probably associate with the U.S. or your stereotpes of Americans are usually based on these parts of America. The culture of these regions is rooted in that of the Scots-Irish, with the exception of large parts of the mid-west, which also betray a great deal of German and Scandanavian cultural influence, French influence in Louisiana, and Mexican influence in the southwest and Texas. 
Although the Red states occupy the majority of America's landmass, the blue states actually constitute about half of the population of the U.S., as they are much more densely populated than the red states as a rule. |
||||||||||||||||
| Porthos |
Here's an interesting article from the Wall Street Journal:
Commentary: Secret GOP Weapon: The Scots-Irish Vote October 19, 2004 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To an outsider George W. Bush's political demeanor seems little more than stumbling tautology. He utters his campaign message in clipped phrases, filled with bravado and repeated references to God, and to resoluteness of purpose. But to a trained eye and ear these performances have the deliberate balance of a country singer at the Grand Ole Opry. Speaking in a quasi-rural dialect that his critics dismiss as affected, W is telling his core voting groups that he is one of them. No matter that he is the product of many generations of wealth; that his grandfather was a New England senator; that his father moved the family's wealth south just like the hated Carpetbaggers after the Civil War; that he himself went North to Andover and Yale and Harvard when it came time for serious grooming. And as with the persona, so also with the key issues. The Bush campaign proceeds outward from a familiar mantra: strong leadership, success in war, neighbor helping neighbor, family values, and belief in God. Contrary to many analyses, these issues reach much farther than the oft-discussed Christian Right. The president will not win re-election without carrying the votes of the Scots-Irish, along with those others who make up the "Jacksonian" political culture that has migrated toward the values of this ethnic group. At the same time, few key Democrats seem even to know that the Scots-Irish exist, as this culture is so adamantly individualistic that it will never overtly form into one of the many interest groups that dominate Democratic Party politics. Indeed, it can be fairly said that Al Gore lost in 2000 because the Democrats ignored this reality and the Scots-Irish enclaves of West Virginia and Tennessee turned against him. Why are the 30 million Scots-Irish, who may well be America's strongest cultural force, so invisible to America's intellectual elites? It is commonplace for commentators to lump together those who are descended from British roots into the WASP culture typified by New England Brahmins, or the Irish, who are overwhelmingly Catholic. But it is political nonsense to consider the Scots-Irish as part of either. The Scots-Irish are derived from a mass migration from Northern Ireland in the 1700s, when the Calvinist "Ulster Scots" decided they'd had enough of fighting Anglican England's battles against Irish Catholics. One group settled initially in New Hampshire, spilling over into modern-day Vermont and Maine. The overwhelming majority -- 95% -- migrated to the Appalachians in a series of frontier communities that stretched from Pennsylvania to northern Alabama and Georgia. They eventually became the dominant culture of the South and much of the Midwest. True American-style democracy had its origins in this culture. Its values emanated from the Scottish Kirk, which had thrown out the top-down hierarchy of the Catholic Church and replaced it with governing councils made up of ordinary citizens. This mix of fundamentalist religion and social populism grew from a people who for 16 centuries had been tested through constant rebellions against centralized authority. The Scots who headed into the feuds of 17th-century Ulster, and then into the backlands of the American frontier, hardened further into a radicalism that proclaimed that no man had a duty to obey a government if its edicts violated his moral conscience. Matched with this rebelliousness was a network of extended family "clans," still evident among the Scots-Irish, built on an egalitarianism that measured a person by their own code of honor, courage, loyalty and audacious leadership. Noted Scottish professor T.C. Smout said it best when he observed that these relationships were "compounded both of egalitarian and patriarchal features, full of respect for birth while being free from humility." They demanded strong leaders, but would never tolerate one who considered himself above his fellows. Andrew Jackson, the first president of Scots-Irish descent, forever changed the style of American politics, creating a movement that even today is characterized as Jacksonian democracy. The Scots-Irish comprised a large percentage of Reagan Democrats, and contributed heavily to the "red state" votes that gave Mr. Bush the presidency in 2000. The areas with the highest Scots-Irish populations include New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, the Carolinas, Georgia, Alabama, northern Florida, Mississippi, Arkansas, northern Louisiana, Missouri, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado, southern Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, and parts of California, particularly Bakersfield. The "factory belt," especially around Detroit, also has a strong Scots-Irish mix. The Scots-Irish political culture is populist and inclusive, which has caused other ethnic groups to gravitate toward it. Country music is its cultural emblem. It is family-oriented. Its members are values-based rather than economics-based: they often vote on emotional issues rather than their pocket books. Because of their heritage of "kinship," they're strangely unenvious of wealth, and measure leaders by their personal strength and values rather than economic position. They have a 2,000-year-old military tradition based on genealogy, are the dominant culture of the military and the Christian Right, and define the character of blue-collar America. They are deeply patriotic, having consistently supported every war America has fought, and intensely opposed to gun control -- an issue that probably cost Mr. Gore both his home state of Tennessee and traditionally Democratic West Virginia in 2000. The GOP strategy is heavily directed toward keeping peace with this culture, which every four years is seduced by the siren song of guns, God, flag, opposition to abortion and success in war. By contrast, over the past generation the Democrats have consistently alienated this group, to their detriment. The Democrats lost their affinity with the Scots-Irish during the Civil Rights era, when -- because it was the dominant culture in the South -- its "redneck" idiosyncrasies provided an easy target during their shift toward minorities as the foundation of their national electoral strategy. Their long-term problem in having done so is twofold. First, it hampers their efforts to carry almost any Southern state. And second, the Scots-Irish culture has strong impact outside the South. This is especially strong in many battleground states. It is no accident that many political observers call the central region in Pennsylvania "Northern Alabama." Scots-Irish traditions play heavily in New Hampshire -- the only New England state that Mr. Bush carried in 2000. Large numbers of Scots-Irish settled in the southern regions of Ohio (called "Northern Kentucky"), Indiana and Illinois. They were among the principal groups to settle Missouri and Colorado. They migrated heavily to the industrial areas in Michigan, which is one reason that George Wallace, ran so strongly in that state in 1968 and 1972. But other than with those who identify with the Christian Right, it would be wrong to think that the Republicans have their firm loyalty. For every Lee Atwater or Karl Rove who understands the Scots-Irish, there are others who privately disdain them. And sometimes not so privately -- the most vicious ethnic slur of the presidential campaign came from Charles Krauthammer, after Howard Dean suggested that the Democrats needed to reach out to the "guys with the Confederate flags on their pickup trucks." Mr. Krauthammer, who has never complained about this ethnic group when it has marched off to fight the wars he wishes upon us, wrote that Mr. Dean "wants the white trash vote . . . that's clearly what he meant," and that he was pandering to "rebel-yelling racist rednecks." As with other ethnic groups, those inside the culture know how to read such code words, and there may come a time when the right Democratic strategist knows how to counter them in the manner that Mr. Dean contemplated. John Edwards is at his visceral best when his campaign rhetoric seems directed at doing that. The decline in public education and the outsourcing of jobs has hit this culture hard. Diversity programs designed to assist minorities have had an unequal impact on white ethnic groups and particularly this one, whose roots are in a poverty-stricken South. Their sons and daughters serve in large numbers in a war whose validity is increasingly coming into question. In fact, the greatest realignment in modern politics would take place rather quickly if the right national leader found a way to bring the Scots-Irish and African Americans to the same table, and so to redefine a formula that has consciously set them apart for the past two centuries. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Very interesting — so do these people actually self-identify as 'Scots-Irish', or is it a name that is given to them by others?
You're right though — from my perspective, it's extremely difficult to understand why so many people would vote for someone like George W. Bush. I've often been under the impression that, in the United States, 'Protestantism' tends to be perceived as a stricter and more devout religious option than Roman Catholicism. It tends to be the other way around here — if someone's a Roman Catholic, many people would at least initially assume that they're very devoutly religious and have conservative social views, whilst the Church of England and the Methodist Church are often seen as much more liberal options. Actually, it's rather weird to think that my grandmother — a Liberal Democrat party member — and George W. Bush are both Methodists. A few years ago, she went on a kind of exchange programme with a group of people from her church to stay with some people from a Methodist church in Texas — and she essentially found that she had relatively little in common with them. By the way, apparently in the United States, Unitarians have higher average incomes and more university degrees per capita than members of any other religious denomination there. Rather embarrassing if that's true, lol.
|
||||||||||||||||
| Porthos |
Exactly! They vote for him for him because he allows them to keep their guns, values religion and family values in his rhetoric, and because he protects their individualism which they value through less government regulation, taxation, and collectivism. All traditional Scots-Irish values.
The funny part about it is that these people were and are so individualistic, that they have no idea they're even Scots-Irish, as they don't prefer to organize themselves in large groups, but instead prefer a spirit of individualism. Most of them just self-identify as "Americans", and don't even know where their ancestors came from. If you look at a list of the most common ethnic origins in America by region, you will find the historic Scots-Irish homeland to be overwhelmingly "American", as most of these people only know and self-identify only as "American". 
As you can see above, all the places self-reported to be "American", are in reality mainly Scots-Irish. Now you have a reason to explain the drastically different cultural outlooks of red-state Americans from those of British people. It all goes back to the Scots-Irish frontier culture.
This does seem to be true. Most Catholics I meet seem to take an "anything goes so long as I go to confession", and they don't see any restrictions in their activities. Protestants, especially Evangelical ones seem to take their religion much more seriously, and they go to church more regularly. Most Catholics I meet are pro-choice, which is definitely not the case among Church-going Protestants, who vehemently protest against abortion and slap pro-life bumper-stickers on their cars. It wasn't always the case though. Catholics in this country were very devoted to their faith, as many immigrants like the Irish and Italians stuck to the Church being that the two things they held dear were family and Church, in the midst of persecution and discrimination by Anglo-Protestant establishment. 50 years ago, Catholics were more religious here than most protestants, not only strongly disapproving of abortion, but even forbidden to use any form of birth control. Catholic families always had many kids because married couples couldn't even use any form of birth control. For instance, my grandmother had 10 kids. My great aunt had 17, and another great-aunt had 22 children! Today, Catholics don't subscribe to any of the former restrictions on life, and most Catholics I know don't even go to Church. Almost everyone in my family is still Catholic, while almost none go to Church, and almost all of them are pro-choice, while my grandmother remains extremely devout, always going to Mass, praying the rosary, envoking all of the Santitos, and refusing to leave her husband after 50 some odd years of abuse, and repeated threats of killing her, because divorce was not allowed under any circumstances by the Church, and as a member of her generation, defying the church would be unthinkable. |
||||||||||||||||
| fab |
why is it said "african American" but "french", "hispanic, Italian", "german", etc... instead of "French-american", "italian-american", etc. | ||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Admittedly, that's often the case here as well, as many people here are only notionally 'Roman Catholic' and don't really believe in many of the Church's teachings. But likewise, most nominal Anglicans here aren't really religious either. Essentially, I didn't really realise there were still people in the world who genuinely believed in Christianity complete with all doctrines until I started talking to Americans on the internet.
Here, the Roman Catholic bishops are always speaking out against abortion, although to be honest I don't think many people really listen to them. On the other hand, the current (Anglican) Archbishop of Canterbury is pro-choice, is tolerant of openly gay priests and the blessing of gay civil partnerships and founded an anti-homophobia group. He also tried to nominate an openly gay priest to be consecrated as the Bishop of Reading, but didn't in the end due to protests, mainly from Anglican archbishops in Africa, so he had him appointed as the Dean of St Albans instead. However, he has (quietly) supported the Roman Catholic Church's stance on gay adoptions, i.e. opposed it. |
||||||||||||||||
| Porthos |
Anglicans here I believe are called Episcopalians, and there are a lot of them in New England where the WASP culture has historically been dominant. They're usually not very religious here either, and are far less religious than say, Mexican Catholics. They normally pay lip-service to their religion and nothing more. The region is very secular. Places like New England are part of America's intellectual elitist bastion, and are also home to most of our prestigious universites like Yale, Harvard, etc.
Because what we choose to call blacks in this country is a very politically sensitive issue. It's taboo to call blacks "negroes" or "coloreds". It became politically correct in the post-Civil Rights Movement era to refer to them as "African-Americans", thereby honoring their "African" roots and heritage. It's mainly used on television, or by overly poltically correct people, but most blacks themselves don't use the term, and I don't like to use the term as it sounds superficial and artificial to me. "Hispanics"/Latinos", i.e. - "Mexicans and other Latin-Americans" used to be referred to as "Spanish", and still are by older generations, but as they took offense to being called "Spanish", the word has since been replaced with "Latino" or "Hispanic" to describe them, as there is no other word for the ethnic group that encompases so many nationalities, and actually, which is also by no means, ethnically homogenous. "Oriental" used to be the word used to describe East Asians, but that has since become politically unnacceptable - "taboo", and only the older generations who haven't caught on to this trend still use the word. Everyone my age says "Asian". Sometimes Filipinos hate being grouped in with "Asians" from mainland Asia, and thus prefer the term "Pacific Islander", so there's another ethnic category created for them, and on all Censuses, there is a box marked "Pacific Islander" to distinguish them from "Asians". Minorities are basically able to call white people whatver they choose, and make use of any ethnic slurs toward white people and it's only laughed at. |
||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Yes, Anglicans are called Episcopalians in the United States (and also in Scotland, actually).
To an extent, we still use 'oriental' to describe East Asians here, partly because 'Asian' here refers to people descended from the Indian subcontinent. However, it's more common to describe such people as simply 'Chinese', because they usually are in this country. |
||||||||||||||||
| Porthos |
See, that's interesting because in America, we rarely if ever use the term "Asian" to describe anyone from India, Pakistan, the middle east, etc, even though these regions are part of the Asian continent. "Asian" is reserved for East Asia, where people are of Asiatic or "Mongoloid" stock, (short, yellow, slanted eyes, straight black hair, etc). Indians seem to be in a sub-category of their own, but are sometimes grouped in with Iranians and Arabs. We usually just call them "Indians", and people from the Middle East we call "Middle Easterners" or "Arabs". Most Americans are not aware of the distinction between Arab and Iranian peoples in the Near East, so they often refer to them all collectively as "Arabs", although you could be shot for saying something like that on the streets of Tehran.
Another thing which I find puzzling is that people tend to think of all of Sub-Saharan Africa as being one homogenous entity, and use the word "Africa" as if it described a country, rather than a continent. |
||||||||||||||||
| Uriel |
Well, most blacks would have no idea what country their original ancestors came from, if they were of slave ancestry, and most of the modern nations of Africa would not have existed in their present form. Hence the use of "African-American" in place of the more usual country terms. And the rise of dubious genetic tests for heritage, such as the one that Oprah Winfrey used to declare that she was Zulu (not very likely, since few Zulus ever made it onto a slave ship. But whatever makes you happy, Oprah....)
I think, Porthos, that you read that one notorious book on the Scots-Irish in America and got completely suckered in. 
|
||||||||||||||||
| Porthos |
If you're referring to the one by James Webb, than yes, I did read it, but only after learning much about the Scots-Irish influence on shaping America. A lot of what is in that book is a bunch of bs though, such as his repeated claims that the Scots-Irish were "Celtic" as opposed to the "English" who were "Teutonic", when they had been speaking Anglic languages for centuries. But much of what discusses is historical fact, and accepted by most historians and cultural anthropologists. |
||||||||||||||||
| Porthos |
Perhaps she was not aware of the fact that American blacks come from West Africa when she went on national television with that. |
||||||||||||||||
| Porthos |
It's also important to note that the census data used for the maps I provided are not always a completely accurate representation of people's ancestry. For example, because the data used for these maps is based on self-reported ancestry, a person can choose to self-identify as any one among many different ethnic groups that he might belong to. Very seldom do I ever encounter a person whose family has been here for more than three generations that is "pure" German or "pure" Irish, etc.
Someone might be predominantly British in ancestry, but might choose to self-identify with "German" as his primary ancestry because a handful of his ancestors were German. In my case, I'm half Mexican and half "white" (Welsh, Scots-Irish, French), but the latter half wouldn't show up in the government data and I would just be another number added to the Mexican total, because I choose to self-identify as Mexican, as that is the culture I was raised in, and being that I never knew my father's family, I only grew up around Mexican-Americans. So some ethnic groups are seriously under-reported, while others are over-reported. A lot of people choose to overlook their English ancestry because they find it to be plain or boring, with nothing exotic about it, and instead choose to identify with their partial German or Irish or Dutch or Italian ancestry. |
||||||||||||||||
| Loic |
Porthos & Benjamin:
Do not confuse patriotism with xenophobia and hence hostility towards other nations. Patriots fight to defend their country; unjustified bellicosity is a totally different subject altogether. Would you really sneak off under the cover of darkness in the event of a foreign invasion? Even animals fight to defend their turf when provoked. |
||||||||||||||||
| Loic |
I have no idea why the characteristics you chose to single out are all negative or patently untrue. I don't know what is your definition of a slanted eye, but I do not know many people here with such a physical characteristic. |
||||||||||||||||
| fab |
so if there is nothing exotic for an American point of view towards "english" things, it means that yourself recognise that England culture is exactly similar to American one (this is what means "there is nothing exotic in it"), closer than German, Irish or Dutch - it is opposite to the idea that you defended since then that English culture was supposely very dissimilar to American culture/// |
||||||||||||||||
| Daniel |
I agree. Filipinos, for example, do not have "slanted eyes". And they aren't yellow. And most of them are very dark-skinned. The same goes for Malaysians and Indonesians (but then genetically, those three groups are related). |
||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
The problem I have with this is that it encourages people to divide themselves into 'my nation' and 'other nations'. My friend from Auvergne is just my friend from Auvergne; he is not 'from another nation', because what it says on his passport is just an administrative irrelevance, as far as I'm concerned.
Again, I don't see this as inherently good, especially if 'their country' is actually in the wrong.
Again, you speak of a 'foreign' invasion, and the concept of 'our turf', 'their turf' and all that. I don't like that sort of mentality. |
||||||||||||||||
| Daniel |
Neither do I. This sort of mentality has even penetrated much of the youth today in many large cities like London where (disadvantaged) teenagers form gangs and defend their "turf" using violence.
Being half Filipino, I've never heard or met any Filipino who prefers this term. Even my Filipino relatives in the USA don't consider themselves Pacific Islanders. But then, each to their own. The Philippines is an archipelago situated just off South China and is technically sitting in the Pacific Ocean, and the culture there is unique in that Hispanic, Malay Polynesian values are merged together. For example, the majority of the population follow the Catholic faith (with a Muslim minority) but their behaviour, social attitudes and even superstitious beliefs are very much Polynesian. For example, Filipino wives are the head of their families, not husbands! Wives make decisions and always get to have the final say. Women, who are often strong-headed, always tell men what to do. This is in contrast to the traditional Western values where men are usually at the top of the hierarchy. The same is true for the Philippine languages that they speak which are distantly related to Polynesian languages (like Hawaiian, Fijian, Maori, Samoan, Tongan). Tagalog belongs to the Austronesian family). So I can understand why some Filipinos prefer to call themselves Pacific Islanders. |
||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
According to this website, there are over 375 gangs in Greater Glasgow:
http://glasgowgangs.freewebspace.com/custom2.html Even though gang warfare is completely far removed from anything to do with my life, it has never seemed like a good thing to me. And I agree with Daniel it is the result of a mentality where people are encourage to 'defend their turf'. |
||||||||||||||||
| Llatai |
The problem I have with this is that it encourages people to divide themselves into 'my nation' and 'other nations'. My friend from Auvergne is just my friend from Auvergne; he is not 'from another nation', because what it says on his passport is just an administrative irrelevance, as far as I'm concerned.
I think loic's point is not to confuse national distinctiveness with hostility between nations, one does not necessitate the other. Conflict exists within national "turf" as well. Its not the division into various nations that causes it, nor is it patriotism or love of one's country. There's a difference between the cause of a conflict and justifications used to "sell" it to a constituency. Elimination of nations will not cease conflict, as there are conflicts which ensue within nations that have more to do with cultural distinctiveness and identity than geography. Now if in a rather naive frame of mind you were to interpret this as just another definition of "turf" and conclude then that the promotion of global cultural homogeneity would eliminate conflict, then I would point out that distinctiveness is a prerequisite to diversity, and should you appreciate that concept, it might be well to consider too that nationhood is often a geographic deliniation of a cultural heritage. It depends upon the identity to which that nations adheres overall.
Again, I don't see this as inherently good, especially if 'their country' is actually in the wrong.quote] Define "the wrong". Is there any definitive conclusion in the world about what that might be, or are we to believe that the agreement with your personal conceptualization of that idea amongst six billion people is imminent? Again, you speak of a 'foreign' invasion, and the concept of 'our turf', 'their turf' and all that. I don't like that sort of mentality.[/quote] Well, you may not like it but no one's erasing national borders anytime soon, nor are the concepts of "turf" and loyalties thereto going the way of the dodo tomorrow. |
||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
I tend to think of 'national distinctiveness' as being an imagined concept. For example, I am convinced that I have far more in common with my friend from Auvergne than with many people who live in the in the same country as me — even though my friend from Auvergne and I are supposedly from 'different nations'. Essentially, I don't like describing people from other countries as 'foreigners', because it suggests that I have more in common with all 60 million people from the same country as me than with anyone else in the world — which simply isn't true.
Of course — conflict exists because people have differing vested interests. It's a shame that international conflict has to exist because of the differing vested interests of politicians — who then use 'patriotism' to try and win the support of the people they govern.
In my view, anyone or any government who encourages violence is in the wrong, because I believe (on religious grounds, admittedly) that violence is inherently bad.
That's not the point. We're all entitled to our own vision of an ideal world. In my ideal world, for example, there would be no national borders, no violence, and no capitalism. It may not be realistic, but that's irrelevant. |
||||||||||||||||
| Uriel |
There's nothing wrong with acknowledging your mermbeship to a group, and nothing about acknowledging that membership that denigrates members of another group, or means that you can't have much in common with or close friendships with people of those other groups, Benjamin. Unless you want it to be like that. I have no problem relating to people of other countries simply as individuals that I like and find interesting. You can be friends with people but still realize that they come from a different background. There's nothing about that reality that negates their personal qualities, or makes them somehow "less".
We can all be friends here, for instance, and yet realize that there are certain differences that come from being French, being American, being of Filipino ancestry, being Catholic, living in Asia, living in Europe -- and yet enjoy and embrace those differences as the spice that makes each friend unique. People's personal identities are usually many layered -- we are all simultaneously part of many groups, not all of which we share with everyone else we know. To be of a certain nationality is one such group. So is being male or female, being of a certain age group, being a heavy metal fan or a country fan, being of a certain religion, ethnicity, etc. Your group identities center on you and intersect with many other people's like a Venn diagram. |
||||||||||||||||
| Porthos |
For exactly all of the reasons you just stated, I tend to naturally categorize Filipinos apart from mainland Asians in my brain. I see them as being in-between Asians and Polynesians, with a little Hispanic flavor thrown into the mix.
You obviously misunderstood what I said. I would fight to protect myself and my loved ones if anybody, regardless of whether or not their actions were justified, invaded my home, even if that meant my government was an authoritarian dictatorship and the invaders represented a democratic government, which is why I more or less understand why the Iraqis don't take to kindly to the American occupation, even though from our vantage point, we were the "liberators". But that does not mean I would rally to the flag and call to arms in support of a pre-emptive invasion of a small little country clear across the world just because my leaders said it was a good idea, without questioning them or investigating whether or not such an action was justified or beneficial for my country. To put it in black and white, would I run into a frenzy of patriotism in support of the invasion of Iraq? No. But would I have rallied to the cause in WWII after my country was attacked by Japan? Yes.
I don't see them as being negative at all. Perhaps slanted doesn't sound nice, and maybe I should say "almond-shaped" or "narrower". There's nothing "negative" about less body hair and straight, black head hair, as opposed to more body hair, and multiple colored, and often thinner, and/or wavier hair among Europeans. And it is true that Asians are as a whole, shorter on average than Europeans. Do you deny this? Asians, generally speaking, are also of a slighter build than say, your average Swede.
No, I didn't say culture. I was talking about ethnic origins and surnames. Because most people incorrectly assume that most Americans are of English descent (due to the fact that the original American settlers were from England), it is seen as typical, mediocre, ordinary, with nothing special about it. So, a lot of people prefer to emphasize their other ethnic origins because it makes them more "special". |
||||||||||||||||
| Porthos |
I read today that between 1/5 and 1/4 of Black-Americans' DNA can be traced to European ancestors, which suggests that sexual relations between white slave masters and slaves in the U.S. was much more common than previously thought. I've often thought this must be true, as I have noticed a clearly discernable difference between the average black American and most Africans in Africa. Native Africans seem to be darker on average than their bretheren in the U.S., even in very warm, sunny climates such as the American south. |
||||||||||||||||
| Loic |
Of course Benjamin, you are perfectly entitled to your high-minded and noble notions of a non-violent utopia which Gandhi would have heartily approved. I am convinced that you would stand aside and not lift a finger when a gang of robbers break into your house.
Unfortunately, the notion of a 'turf mentality' is alive and kicking. It continues to be in the pink of health. |
||||||||||||||||
| KSa |
It's amazing what sort of rubbish one can learn on the forum! It's the highest expression of disregard towards those who shed their blood so that you don't have to be a slave under Nazi occupation.
They just show their dissapointment towards those who light-heartidely hand over their Motherland to the people who don't want to assimilate, often show hostile position towards Christian religion, culture, etc. (unfortunately ALL people responsible for the cruel acts of terror in the last years call themselves Muslims). Real (London's underground) and unsuccesful (London's underground again, London's airport) attacks make them not feel safe in their own homes. I entirely understand their anxiety and dissapointment.
Judging from what you've said on this forum up to date, you are embraced by the "anti-traditional values" paranoia. You hate and contempt traditional values. At any cost you want to offend and discredit the heroes who defended your country and the whole continent against mad ideology. At any cost you want to be original: when you got bored with your "asexuality", you jumped into "homosexuality" - what's next? I remember when on the old langcafe you said you hadn't found anything bad in paedophilia. I even remember the expression you'd used: "it's like poking a nose with a finger". Shame and disgrace! |
||||||||||||||||
| Loic |
Ksa:
Our views on this matter converge greatly, but to be fair to Benjamin, I really believe that he is not as radical as he paints himself to be just as I am not actually as reactionary as I often portray myself. It is for the sake of an argument that one is obliged to adopt a polemical position. Porthos: The wisdom of hindsight is exhilirating, isn't it? Let us rewind a bit and recall the sky-high support for the war in Iraq back then. I do not need to remind you that the premise for the war in Iraq was largely supposed to be pre-emptive in nature. Saddamist Iraq was purportedly a hive of terrorism and many intelligent people really believed that Mr Saddam Hussein indirectly supported Al-Qaeda. For the sake of an argument, let us analyse the wisdom of launching a pre-emptive war. Attack is the best form of defence in many circumstances. When the Japanese were making their presence felt in the South-east Asian theatre during WWII, the British toyed with the idea of launching a pre-emptive strike on Thailand in order to secure a beachhead with which to defend Malaya. The High Command General Archibald Wavell dithered and the moment was lost. The Japanese landed directly on the northeastern coast of Malaya and the rest, as they say, was history. The fact that the 'pre-emptive strike' in Iraq has backfired miserably does not detract from the fact that the original reason for the invasion was indirectly defensive in nature. Of course, we now learnt that the intelligence community was not even sure about the existence of those 'smoking guns' to begin with and I am now increasingly convinced that the President has taken us all for a ride. But in the event of another pre-emptive strike that is based on solid intelligence, I'd still continue to unequivocally support such an action. |
||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
I wouldn't physically be able to do anything to a gang a robbers anyway.
That doesn't change the irony behind the fact that the views of some (many?) British people who fought in World War II can often be rather fascist.
The majority of 'non-white' British are not Muslims, do want to integrate (or are already completely integrated), and show no hostility towards Christianity (even though many 'white' British people actually do). Only about 8% of people in Britain are not 'white' anyway. And let's be honest — most of them are descended from countries which Britain imposed itself upon during in the past. Did I mention that the sort of people who display fascist attitudes towards 'non-white' people in this country are frequently those who who say that they are 'proud' of Britain's imperial past?
I went to a school (which I'm virtually leaving now) where most of the pupils are not 'white', and where about 25% of the pupils are Muslims. Many of my friends are Muslims. Seriously, I do not see anything to fear about Mulims or 'non-white' people.
Those 'heroes' bombed many of Germany's beautiful towns and cities, killing very many people. Actually, in my case, it could very easily have been my family who were being killed in Germany as a result of attacks by British (and other) armed forces.
This shows a lack of consideration for people of minority sexual orientations. My experience was not at all unusual. Ask André — he was homophobic when he was my age. You won't understand this though because you are heterosexual — don't worry though, because that's not your fault.
I didn't say that I didn't find anything bad in paedophilia. However, I do have some sympathy for people who, unfortunately, but through no fault of their own, are sexually attracted to children. I think the point I was making at the time was that I didn't see child sexual abuse as being specifically worse than other forms of child abuse. Equally, I didn't fully appreciate at the time that most men have considerably larger penises than me (i.e. thinking in terms of the possibly physical damage). Anyway, I don't want to talk about like that now. You do make a point though — I imagine that, if I were to go and see a psychiatrist, I would probably be diagnosed as mentally ill in one form or another. |
||||||||||||||||
| Uriel |
If you want to use emotionally-neutral, anthropological terms, you can say that Asians (east Asians, anyway) exhibit epicanthic folds (fat pads above the eye that give their eyes that characteristic look) and are generally more gracile than the other races (of slighter build), and less hirsute (hairy). Perhaps that will be less likely to offend, although I'm sure Porthos didn't mean to. If I remember correctly from my forensic anthro class, Asians also tend to have no nasal bridge, more prominent cheekbones, a propensity toward shovel-shaped incisors, and are more likely to have a "correct" edge-to-edge bite (whites and blacks are more likely to have overbites or some degree of malocclusion). If you are trying to identify a person from a skull only, these are the characteristics you look for. (And the skull is virtually the only bone you can determine race from with any degree of accuracy.) |
||||||||||||||||
| Porthos |
Okay, you have taken your radicalism and un-orthodoxy too far with this statment. Such statements make me sick! They can help it! It's a perversion of nature and a crime against innocent children, which pyschologicaly damages them for life!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Good God man. Excusing homosexuality on the premise that they can't help it is one, and understandable, but to use the same argument for child molesters is insane. The key difference is that homosexual behavior is usually done between two consenting adults, whereas child molestation is rape, and abuse. |
||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
I think you're confusing two different things here — sexual orientation and sexual behaviour. I don't consider the view I expressed to be 'radical' at all. As a homosexual, I am a sexually attracted to men. I didn't want to be a homosexual, and I've never particularly liked the fact that I'm a homosexual but after essentially knowing that I was gay for about six years, despite denying it for most of that time, I've finally managed to accept that that's the way I am, and that it isn't going to change, so I might as well make the best of it. At least for me, I am able to have legal and consented sexual relations with other men. I always feel sorry for paedosexuals though. Like me, they have a minority sexual orientation. But unlike me, they are not in a position to have consented sexual relations with the people to whom they are sexually attracted, because they are sexually attracted to underaged children. This will undoubtedly be very difficult for someone to come to terms with — much more difficult than it was for me to accept that I'm gay, I'm sure. I think that a way to reduce the problem of child sexual abuse would be to be more open about the unfortunate fact that some people are sexually attracted to children. That doesn't mean allow child sexual abuse, but undertake research in order to gain a greater understanding of why it exists, and then perhaps funding support groups and counseling services for such people in order to help them control their desires. |
||||||||||||||||
| Deborah |
KSa, maybe some of those people Benjamin referred to are as you describe them, but I'm sure there are plenty of people there who are simply prejudiced against "niggers and pakis" purely on the basis of their dark skin, just as there are in the US.
Again, back in the '50s, there were plenty of people in the US who would actually say "Well, one good thing about Hitler -- he got rid of a lot of Jews," or "We could use someone like Hitler in this country, at least to get rid of the Jews." I actually heard people express these sentiments on several occasions, and my parents reported hearing such things frequently. Even as late as 1980, I heard someone say something like this out in the open, and of the few people who heard it, I was the only one who objected. I have no doubt it was the same in Britain.
Who are you to decide that Benjamin's discovery of what his true sexual orientation is was simply the result of boredom and the desire to be original? And BTW, Porthos -- homosexuality doesn't need to be "excused". |
||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Equally, I don't like KSa's suggestion that anyone who doesn't conform to the views and/or lifestyle currently most common is simply 'bored' and 'desires to be original'.
Moreover, I'd actually argue that my sort of 'ideal world', and the sorts of views that I generally have, aren't all that unusual in the society in which I live anyway. |
||||||||||||||||
| greg in noord-frankrijk |
Tout à fait. Un peu de méta ne fait pas de mal.
Tu plaisantes ?!?
Ouf ! J'ai eu peur...
Mais il est trop tard et le mal est fait loic. Plus personne ne peut croire les États-Unis. À trop crier au loup, on n’est plus entendu quand bien même le loup serait là.
Modère tes propos. L'homosexualité n'est pas "excusable" car elle n'a pas à être "excusée". Ni la bisexualité, ni l'hétérosexualité, ni l'homosexualité ne sont des délits — encore moins des crimes.
Ce que Benjamin voulait peut-être dire, c'est que la nature criminelle d'un acte répréhensible et répugnant ne va pas nécessairement de soi. La société punit les criminels à l'aide de la loi. La société soigne les malades, les isole au besoin s'il en va de sa propre protection. |
||||||||||||||||
| Uriel |
Okay, I think we're all agreed that child molesting = bad; let's move on.
I have to admit that when I think of Pacific islanders, I never think of Filipinos or Malaysians or any of those groups; I think more of Polynesians -- Samoans, Hawaiians, Tahitians, etc. Japan is a group of islanders for that matter, and I certainly don't include them either! I was always of the opinion that "Pacific Islander" was added to include such groups as native Hawaiians and people from our post-WWII holdings in the Pacific, like Guam and American Samoa, just as Native American/Native Alaskan was split in order to aknowledge that while the Inuit are indigenous people, they aren't of the same stock as Indian tribes. Filipinos, like other Asians, would have originally hailed from a foreign country -- which is not the case for modern inhabitants of US possessions and states. |
||||||||||||||||
| Porthos |
Really? I choose to sympathize with their victims.
You're comparing apples to oranges here. You're attracted to men for the same reasons I'm attracted to women, and they're all fundamentally physical and biological in nature. For instance, I like women for aesthetic purposes, like their breasts, their curves, etc. The only similarity between your attraction to men and child molesters' fondness of juveniles is that both are not condoned by mainstream society, because both groups are in the minority. The similarities end there, and in order to understand why, you must learn a little about the psyche of a child molester. They don't court children, or make love to children. They prey on them. It's not that they're attracted to them physically. What they crave is the power they feel upon hurting these innocent children. What turns them on in their own depravity is the look of horror, and fear in the innocent eyes of a child. That's where they derive their pleasure. They enjoy inflicting physical and emotional pain. It's the same thing for serial rapists. It's an issue of power, and it's not so much about the sex. And they don't care how their actions affect their victims, and they don't consider the life-altering ramifications of their decision.
Oh but I'm afraid it is. Sympathizing with child molesters is tantamount to sympathizing with the perpetrators of the holocaust, which resulted in the cruel murders of 9 million ethnic minorities. Those who hold these views are no better than the evil-doers themselves. The sexual behavior of these persons is sick, demented, and purely evil. It's also a well known fact that over 90% of these people, upon freedom from prison will become repeat offenders. So, the only logical solution is to lock them behind bars for life, along with therapy, or allow them to choose castration and permanent paroll as an alternative. |
||||||||||||||||
| Porthos |
On that issue, I must agree with Benjamin. These people are themselves Fascists. I've heard a lot of racist people say that the real enemy was "Stalin", and that "Hitler was a great man". It is one thing to wish to defend traditional values, and feel encrouched upon by a seemingly insatiable desire of newer generations to destroy all that you hold dear, and thus express your disconent with those views. But those who say things like "I didn't fight for all these niggers and pakis to get a free ride", is espousing racism. And in all honesty, it's obvious that these people are prejudice toward them soley because of the color of their skin. That's not excusable, and racism, and ethnic nationalism are two major characteristics of facism. |
||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Again, you make no distinction between someone who is sexually attracted to children, and someone who sexually abuses children.
Can you be sure that paedosexuals never see children in this way? It certainly isn't difficult for me to imagine that someone might be sexually attracted to children, in the same way that it isn't difficult for me to imagine that someone might be sexually attracted to adult men, adult women, very elderly people, dogs, ostriches, or even trees.
This depends on what 'mainstream society' we're talking about. I haven't personally received any negative reaction since telling people that I'm gay, and that I have a boyfriend.
Then it's unfortunate that they have those desires. But I don't believe that they choose to have those desires any more than I choose to be gay, or you choose to be straight. One can label such people 'mentally ill' if it helps.
I didn't say that I sympathised with child molesters. I said that I sympathise with people who, unfortunately, are sexually attracted to children, or have desires to inflict suffering upon other people. This is essentially because I believe that such people have a kind of 'illness'.
And in a way, I do sympathise with such people, because I believe that they are mentally ill. I find labelling people 'sick, 'demented', and 'purely evil' as rather unhelpful.
Thank you for providing evidence for the point I was making above. |
||||||||||||||||
| Porthos |
I think in some cases, they are 'ill', yes. But most of the executors of victims in Nazi Germany or any other ethnic genocide for that matter, are not mentally ill. They are just plain evil. Such a thing exists. Too often people label others as being "sick", rather than the face the reality which exists in the form of evil. |
||||||||||||||||
| Loic |
Greg: I appreciate your allergy towards the current President. I even believe you break out in a rash whenever someone mentions his name. If that is the case, do not go to Albania for the time being: President Bush is going to that country.
Let us get away from the Iraq debacle and examine the feasibility of pre-emptive strikes in general, shall we? Iraq is always poisoning every debate we are engaged in. I merely used it as an example to illustrate why that case has not dissuaded me from the merits of a pre-emptive war. Let us use Israel during the Six Day War as an example: would she have continued to safeguard her independence if she had not resorted to launching a pre-emptive strike on Syria and Egypt? Benjamin: You are basically arguing that paedophiles are inherently attracted to children and they are absolved of blame because they lack free will in this respect. Your treatment of child sexual abuse, however, conforms to the norm: you hate the sin without hating the sinner. I wish I am as noble as you are. I know that I do not have a right to pass judgement on a paedophile unless he has perverted the laws of nature by forcing himself on a child victim. However, I know that I would never allow my children to be in the vicinity of a paedophile even if he is totally innocent. Humbert Humbert would never have been my neighbour, especially if my daughter is called Lolita. Anyway, I think it is very disrespectful to tarnish war veterans with the fascist smear. The opinions of a prejudiced minority do not colour the perceptions of the majority who were fighting for freedom. Significantly, I noticed that only people living in countries who have never been under foreign occupation such as the UK and the USA have the luxury to spout such rot. To those who espouse such shameful views about their fallen compatriots, let us just say that they died so that you are now able to attack them. And I thought that it is a polite thing to never speak ill of the dead. |
||||||||||||||||
| Deborah |
Then please, let's not speak ill of Hitler or Stalin. |
||||||||||||||||
| KSa |
Compare these quotations. In the first one you find that sexual attraction to children does not differ from attraction to men, women or beasts. So you conclude that heterosexualism, homosexualism, zoophilia or paedophilia are equivalent. On the other hand, you inconsistently believe that paedophilia is a mental illness. So why not homosexualism, etc.? Anyway, certain things have gone too far. I feel I cannot participate in the forum where one of the site admins "sympathises" (whatever it means) with cruel perverts. Maybe I should say I "sympathise" with you but somehow I can not. Farewell. |
||||||||||||||||
| Loic |
Deborah:
Don't be facetious. You know what I mean, Deborah. And by the way, Americans did not just fight in Europe, Deborah. They also fought valiently in the Asian-Pacific theatre and you might not care a tosh about how they died in the islands of The Philippines, Guam and Iwo Jima. I do and I am grateful to them for having played a major part in toppling Japan during WWII. |
||||||||||||||||
| Loic |
Ksa:
Calm down, mate. If such discussions offend your sensibilities, we can either choose to exercise greater self-censorship in our views or we can declare any further discussions on this topic taboo. Walking out and slamming the door shut do not help matters. |
||||||||||||||||
| Deborah |
I knew what you meant, but I don't believe in sacred cows. I don't feel that being dead, or having fought in a war or being a mother (just to name a few sacred cows) should make a person exempt from criticism.
??? Why is this addressed to me? Or to anyone, for that matter? Did I miss something? |
||||||||||||||||
| KSa |
I will, Loic, but my blood is boiling when I see how my nightmares slowly come true. I knew that the paedophiles would want to gain the status of "sexual orientation" for their perversion. And that they'd find the keen supporters. Benjamin's "sympathy" is not an isolated case. There are plenty of those who advocate the "rights" of paedophiles. What we see right now (especially in Europe) is the first step towards legalization of this perversion. The first paedophilic party has already been legalized in the Netherlands. Rome was not built in a day and they know that it must be a long-lasting process. It always starts with "sympathy" and "condemnation of a sin and not sinners". You will see how the things go in a 10 years time. You will all see. |
||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
I think that giving a spiritual interpretation interpretation to Hitler (e.g. that he was possessed by the Devil, or empowered by negative energy, or whatever) is more useful than describing him as simply 'plain evil' — because at least that would give some sort of reasoned explanation for why he did what he did.
I totally agree with Deborah that having fought in a war does not exempt a person from criticism — I don't believe in 'sacred cows' either. My point was that there were (and to an extent, still are) many people in Britain who were/are sympathetic to the Nazi ideology — until the Nazis started invading and occupying the rest of Europe.
I never said that it was the majority. I said that it is clear to me that that many (which is not synonymous with most) British people who fought in World War II are essentially fascists themselves.
I conclude that people do not choose who they are sexually attracted to, or the desires that they have.
I suppose that homosexuality could in a way be described as a mental illness — and no-one chooses to have a mental illness. However, homosexuals are able to have consented relationships with each-other — diagnosing homosexuals as 'mentally ill' would be unhelpful, because their being homosexual does not pose any danger to themselves or to the rest of society. It is perhaps more useful to describe paedophiles as 'mentally ill', since their desires are likely to result in the abuse of others.
It's probably my fault for wording things badly. Because throughout this discussion, you've been responding to me based upon what you think I'm saying, rather than what I intend to say. And that's probably not your fault. |
||||||||||||||||
| Llatai |
[quote="Benjamin"]
I think that giving a spiritual interpretation interpretation to Hitler (e.g. that he was possessed by the Devil, or empowered by negative energy, or whatever) is more useful than describing him as simply 'plain evil' — because at least that would give some sort of reasoned explanation for why he did what he did.[quote] I don't think its useful at all. Superstition offered as reasoned explanation is an oxymoron. Loic - as the son of an American who fought in the Pacific theater in WWII, thanks on my father's behalf for your appreciation. |
||||||||||||||||
| André in Zuid-Afrika |
Right, calm down, everybody.
Just a few remarks...
Yes. The process of acknowledging and accepting the fact that you are gay, is an extremely difficult and even terrifying one. Denial is a natural part of that process. Ben's experience in this regard is perfectly normal. His "move" from asexuality to homosexuality had nothing to do with boredom, it was a brave step of accepting himself as a whole person.
Ben is right in the sense that these people do indeed suffer from an illness, and in that respect could get sympathy. Also, Ben admitted at the time that he didn't completely understand what it was about. And certainly child abuse is horrific, regardless of what kind of child abuse it is. We recently had a case in the newspapers here where a woman was convicted for repeatedly assaulting her baby, at one point breaking both legs and an arm of the baby. That woman is no better than any paedophile. The point is, however, that paedophiles do not fall in love (unlike gays), that they prey on innocent children, that their "relationships" are not based on volantarily participation by both parties. One can have sympathy for their condition (in the same way you would for a crazy person), but never for their deeds (as one would never have sympathy for a crazy person who murders someone. Many paedophiles realise that they need help, many don't, and the latter certainly deserve no sympathy. Homosexuality is something completely different. Gay people differ from straight ones only in that they fall in love with people of the same sex.
Exactly.
Exactly again. A man who rapes a woman belongs in jail, but not all straight men rape. A gay man who rapes another man, belongs in jail, but not all gay men rape. All paedophiles rape, and that's the sick part. People who are mentally ill, do deserve sympathy, but only when they actively seek help, are prepared to undergo treatment, and are willing to do everything possible to prevent them from doing bad things.
Remember, Ben, you attraction to men is not only about sex. It's also about love. For paedophiles it's only about sex.
I agree. Simply locking them up in jails is not a solution. A lot of research has in fact been done about this. Counselling services are available, but most paedophiles refuse to use it. Treatment is extremely difficult. While I strongly disagree with much of what Ben has written about this, I do understand what he's trying to say - that these people have an illness which is difficult to control, and as such we could feel sorry for them. I don't believe that means we can accept what they're doing, and certainly nobody can feel sorry for them while they continue what they're doing. |
||||||||||||||||
| André in Zuid-Afrika |
To make just one more remark, I don't believe Ben is sympathising with paedophiles as such, but rather with people who, through no choice of theirs, are not able to live and love as normal people. | ||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
What I meant was that I think it's more useful for people to give religious or spiritual interpretations to people like Hitler than to simply describe them as 'pure evil'. I still don't think that it's very useful though.
This is also a significant part of my view on this. I think that child sexual abuse often gets a lot more public attention than other forms of child abuse. But as you say, there are many other forms of child abuse that are as bad as — or possibly even worse than — child sexual abuse.
Interesting. So would you not describe someone who is sexually attracted to children, but does not have any desire to sexually abuse children, as a 'paedophile'?
In reality, I probably don't really disagree with you on this subject very much at all. I think part of the problem is that I word things very badly. And loic is right to suggest that I'm not (actually nowhere near) as 'radical' as I often present myself to be.
That is what I've unsuccessfully been trying to say, yes.
Yes, that's right. |
||||||||||||||||
| Uriel |
Well, of course. Pedo = child, philia = love of, or attraction. If you were deeply sexually and emotionally attracted to other men, but you married a woman due to social pressure and fear and never actually had sex with another man in your whole life, you would still really be a homosexual, albeit a homosexual who was never able to fulfill his true needs. Likewise, if you are a man in prison and you engage in sex with other men, either for power or pleasure (usually it's about power, of course), that doesn't make you a true homosexual. Just a predator or an opportunist. But you are probably still attracted to women, and really heterosexual in your actual orientation. Sexual behavior and orientation do run across an entire spectrum, and plenty of it can be considered "natural" or beyond a person's power to control. But you have to draw the line somewhere -- simply because an impulse is natural doesn't make it acceptable. Rape is a natural urge. Violence comes easily to many people. Ordinary people can become torturers and sadists under the right conditions. All of the huge range of human behavior is available to any one of us -- there is nothing about our ordinariness or our schooling or our normal, loving childhoods that makes us exempt from becoming monsters should the situation and opportunity arise. Nothing. You say that a superstitious explanation of Hitler's actions is more useful than just calling him "evil" -- I respectfully disagree, because for me, evil is a very human condition, and a common, easily-accessed one at that. We all have that capacity within us. Which is why we all have to draw the line. Child molestation often isn't really about attraction. It's about preying on a weaker individual -- children are physically smaller, and easily manipulated psychologically. Women and children tend to be the victims of most predatory crimes like rape, serial killing, physical abuse, etc. precisely because the perpetrator wants an easy victim -- one smaller, weaker, less aggressive, not as likely to be able to fight back effectively. These people don't want a fair fight -- they want guranteed success. They want to be able to dominate and overpower someone without any real struggle. They are sadists, but they are also fundamentally cowards. That's why you're not going to see much sympathy for these people. Yes, their psychology may be a little unusual. But they still know right from wrong, they still choose their actions, they are still cognizant of what they are doing and what the consequences will be for their victim. That's not really true mental illness. They have free will and they choose to do wrong. That is simply evilness. It's not an abstraction -- it's real. |
||||||||||||||||
| André in Zuid-Afrika |
A paedophile is someone sexually attracted to children, whether they actually abuse them or not. The thing is, the desire to sexually abuse children is part of every paedophile.
I agree with everything else Uriel has written, but I'm not convinced that they know right from wrong. In their little world, what they're doing seems right. And that's what makes it a mental illness. If you read what the leader of the paedophile political party in the Netherlands had to say, you realise that he believes there's nothing wrong with what he wants.
This guy actually believes that what he and people like him wants to do to children will be good for the children...  Evil, yes. Mentally ill, yes. They're sick people. That's the terrible part, that they don't realise how evil they are, what they're doing to children.
I agree with Ksa, btw, on the legalisation of the paedophile party in the Netherlands. We can never allow these people to be accepted as "normal" people. They should be treated as sick people, and punished for what they do. |
||||||||||||||||
| Uriel |
Oh, people rationalie their behavior all the time to make it seem more acceptable. You don't have to be mentally ill or not know right from wrong to do that!
But there are likely different kinds of pedophiles, too -- those who really are sexually aroused by children and those who just see them as an easy mark. |
||||||||||||||||
| Walker |
I believe there are paedophiles who know right from wrong, and those who do must probably suffer. I watched The Woodsman some time ago. It's about a paedophile who returns home after a number of years in prison and if I remember correctly he does know that his urges are wrong and tries to fight them, and he's just miserable. I agree that paedophiles should receive treatment if they seek it and go along with it as best they can. Those who don't should be under some kind of surveillance, if not locked up. | ||||||||||||||||
| Pauline |
Although i have read this thread I didnt' want to write here, but I'm get quite annoyed when people cnstantly equate mentally ill = evil. for example this sentence:
Of course a paedophle who commit a crime to a child has done an evil thing, I'm absolutly sure of it. This must be punished and all things possible must occur for prevent a recurrance, such as the person will remain in high secrutiy prison until the end of their live. But, if a person's character is nasty, evil, cruel it doesn't equate = mentally ill and certainly not also that mentally ill people are evil. You wouldn't say peopl with cancer are evil, or people with kidney failure are evl. If a person commit a murder or other crime during they're psychtoic and completly influenecd by those thoughts, then it's a differnt thing as I think the most of paedophiles aren't psychotic but as was desrcibed in other posts . |
||||||||||||||||
| Uriel |
Nobody said mentally ill and evil are the same thing. They just said that you can be both at the same time. Mental illness isn't some get out of jail free card that automatically absolves you of all blame if you do bad things. It is possible to still be an ass, still be mean, still be aware of your misdeeds and transgressions. It only excuses you once in a while, in special circumstances -- especially if you are a high-functioning person with mild psych issues.
These people we're talking about aren't institutionalized or unable to function perfectly well in society -- they aren't having a psychotic break. |
||||||||||||||||
| Pauline |
I forgot to write as well, that I agree wht Benjamin that there's a diffrence between a paedophle who committed a crime and one who didn't but has those feelings. the secodn one isn't guilty of nothng and it must be difficult to live with such feelings, and evidently it would be good to receive some help to repress them so not commit an evil crime.
Not resposible for the crime because of insanity I think apply in the case of actve psychosis or another similar state, btu this is only possible to disocvr if the person who commitd the crime is immediatly found and evidently psychotic.If you're psychtoic yuo're not evil. |
||||||||||||||||
| Pauline |
I agree, it's in my preceding messge nearly the same comment.
Exactly, they aren't having a psychtoic break, so it's not exclusivly becaues of mental illness that they commit those crimes. During a psychtoic break, a crime can be commttd exclusivly because of mental illness, then it's completely a different thing. But every time a nasty crime occur, all the peol say it's mtnal illness, thos evil pepl. This is ignornance and prejudice, discrimintion. |
||||||||||||||||
| greg in noord-frankrijk |
Oh tu sais, pour moi la vie est belle. Je n'ai pas reçu de bombe made in USA sur la tête, des soldats états-uniens ne sont pas venus en toute illégalité me sortir du lit à 3 heures du mat pour me fouiller et me violenter. Je n'ai pas été enlevé de mon pays pour être déporté et torturé en Pologne ou à Guantanamo. J'ai également la chance de vivre dans un pays ou c'est moi qui élis mon président, par deux fois en quinze jours, et personne ne le fait à ma place : le suffrage est direct à deux tours. D'autre part, même si j'ai profondément honte du nouveau "président", même s'il ne représente que 43 % des électeurs français, je suis sûr que c'est lui qui devait être élu puisqu'il a obtenu le plus grand nombre de voix. Donc, tu vois, mon allergie n'est pas destinée à Bush — ce serait déchoir que de lui faire cet honneur —, mais plutôt au système états-unien que je trouve antidémocratique et dangereux. Je pense que tu as confondu la cause et l'effet.
Non, surtout pas ! L'Iraq ne doit pas subir l'insulte de l'oubli à l'injure du mépris. Les États-Unis ont cru qu'ils envahissaient l'Iraq. C'est l'Iraq qui a envahi les États-Unis. Et c'est loin, très loin, d'être terminé.
Tu tombes de Charybde en Scylla : cet exemple est encore pire que le précédent. |
||||||||||||||||
| Uriel |
No, they don't. You're completely misunderstanding. Being found not guilty by reason of insanity ABSOLVES you of all guilt or responsibility -- you did not know what you were doing, were not able to distinguish right from wrong, and are not capable of good or evil due to your mental state. It's only if you knew what you were doing and chose to do it anyway that you can be evil. |
||||||||||||||||
| Pauline |
Yes, of course legally in the case that the perpetrator is found not guilty by reason of insanity it's how you've described, but i refered the view and attitdue of the people in egneral abotu people with mental illness are often evil and you must have fear of them all the time etc..But most of mentally ill people are absolutly not dangersou or nasty at all and the most of crime is commited by people not metnally ill. I don't think that paedohiles are psychtoic therefore they (exaclty as you wrote) cna sufficiently clearly think to know what they do is a crime and wrong. This is again demsntrated by the fact, that it's typical they tell the child to never tell nobody wat happened, and threat them: if they were mentally ill in the way to think what they do is corrcet, or necessary (what people would think in psychosis because then you can believe for example you must kill a person for save the world, or God tell you to do it etc) then they wouldn't tell the victim such things.
I undertsnd well why you wouldn't have sympathy for a crazy perosn who murders someone, as murder is terrible and tragic. But if the person is crazy (I suppose this would be in active and very bad psychosis) then the world is another world than the reality, in every way: it's a world of horror, confusion, hallcinatiosn what apprea reality, delusions that the spying forces put things in your brain and body for spy, etc.... . For exmaple, recently there was a murder by a woman of her little child, I think 2 or 3 year old. The woman thought that all the police etc.. follow her, want to kill her and other things, and she believd she must kill her little child for save her. She did murder her child. All the peopl told that the woman loved very much her child and after she was arretsd she was immedtaly put in a psychiatric clinic, as she had psychosis. Some days after, I heard that she was able to knwo she commited a crime, but not completely understand. i cried about this when I've heard it, because I knwo she will discover she killed her little child after sometime treatment with antipsychotics, and she will feel terrible, overwhelming guilt. mental illness doesn't mean the person doesn't have a feeling of guilt after they did something bad: psychopaths havn't conscience or guilt, btu psychopaths aren't mentally ill. I don't think that paedophiles are mentally ill in the snese to not mainatin sufficient clarity of thought to have awarenss that their crime is a crime and wrong. That to have such feelings for childrn is a form of metnal illness I don't know, it's possible. As Uriel wrote, that they do such a crime wouldn't be because of inasnity, also I believe that a person who has sometimes psychosis has responsoibility all the time except during active psychosis - few poeple have this all the time.
It depend of the ilness if the person is capable to actively seek help. In the case of paedophiles I absolulty agree; they can knwo they've a problem and must seek help. In the cas eof some other illness, for example bipolar or schizoprenia, many people don't knwo that they're ill; insight vary very much also with medictaions. Also, treatment is not good- maybe in the fture this will improve. For sure it's better tahn in the past, but it doesn't cure or prevent, only make lesser some of the probmes for some of the people. I think that for most of people with schizophrenia who've insight, the fear to become psycotic is terrible and constant. When you become little bit psychotic, you knwo it and it's frustrating, frigtening but you can know reality (more or less) but later, you are completly in the other world and lost in it. Fear, threats, paranoia, noise etc.. are the world and it's why crimes can occur, but because of delsuions not because of be an evil eprson. So, bascially i fidn the concept mental illness is too geneerally used. As physical illness, it include an infinite diversty of things. I would prefer that there would be more eductaion about it so that there would be not as much ignorance and thefroe inaapropriate fear or judgeing. at the moment, all nasty crime is put to the category mentally ill, and seldom more infos. Anyway, many of bizarre or horrble crime is committed by people who've the same illness as I've, so inevitably, I think very much about such things, too much for sure almost obsession/ phobia so i'm sorry for this. I havnt' commited a crime, although I'vedone some cruel things during I was psychtoic what i wouldn't do when I can clearly think: i have much feeling of guilt for those actions, but I don't think the paedophiles feel guilt for their crimes what are very much worser, not comparable. Okay, at last, the end of my "essay". PS I edited a thing now as when I read it, I foudn it ambiguous. |
||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
I think that anyone who desires to sexually abuse children has a kind of mental illness. A similar example to this: There was a doctor in England called Harold Shipman who killed about 500 of his patients by injecting them with poison. When he was found out, he was sent to a regular prison, but he committed suicide a few years later without ever admitting to what he'd done or explaining why he'd done it. I don't think he should have been sent to prison; I think he should have been sent to a secure mental health unit, because I don't believe that a doctor could murder 500 of his patients without having some sort of mental illness — regardless of whether or not he 'knew what he was doing'.
I have to agree with this. |
||||||||||||||||
| Uriel |
If he was competent to stand trial, he probably deserved to go to a regular prison.
As we've mentioned, mental illness comes in many forms and degrees, and only in certain specific cases does it really take away your free will and absolve you of any responsibility. Psychiatric care is available in regular prison as well; only those truly out of touch with reality need to be in a special facility. Also, being vicious, sadistic, or murderous does not make you mentally ill. Those traits can be found in people with perfectly normal mental functioning. |
||||||||||||||||
| Porthos |
It always amazes me how so many people refuse to recognize the existance of evil. They always want to mask that reality under the guise of "mental illness". It has reached a point where "evil" is now seen on a mythological, un-scientific level.
I have a theory on this. If people were to acknowledge the existance of evil, then they might be forced to admit to the very personification of evil or the origin of evil, the devil. And if they acknowledge the reality of the devil, then they must face the fact that God exists, and if God exists, then they will always have a higher authority to be accountable to, and being that they wish to decide for themselves how to live, this is disconcerting. Evil is only one manifestion among many on the spectrum of the human spirit, just as good or kindness, or compassion are. It's merely on the opposite end of the spectrum. If people can acknowledge things like goodness, empathy, unselfishness, and compassion, then why can't they acknowledge an equally human of a trait as evil? A talk radio host brought up an insightful comment on his show last night. If any of you are familiar with the Sopranos, you will know that the main character of the show is a brutal, blood-thirsty killer. He's essentially a "bad guy". Yet, he is portrayed in such a way that the audience sympathizes with him, and they actually want him to live and succeed. This is an example of the media polluting the minds and consciences of young viewers in society, and diminishing their capacity to distinguish between right and wrong, as society has blurred that distinction, with an "anything goes" mentality. This is part of a worldwide, universal trend away from traditional values, and toward the viewpoints espoused by the secular progressive movement. I easily see, 20 years from now, the majority of society condoning or tolerating paedophiles, and dismissing their actions or sexual orientation as simply an "alternative lifestyle". That is the direction in which society is heading. |
||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
I think that some things are 'bad' or 'undesirable', such as child abuse. However, I don't think that any person should be described as 'plain evil'.
That's a very Western-centric outlook. From what you've written there, I sort of had the impression that you believed that it wasn't possible to believe in God without believing in a quasi-deity called 'the devil'. Is that what you intended?
I don't believe that 'traditional values', whatever that means, are inherently good. Quite the contrary, in many cases.
So what sort of viewpoints would you prefer? Those typical of 19th century Europe?
You still don't seem to make much (if any) distinction between people who are sexually attracted to children, and people who sexually abuse children. I see those two concepts as completely different. |
||||||||||||||||
| Porthos |
You are adopting an altruistic, naive stance on this issue. The majority of paedophiles will act on their wants, just as the majority of humans act on their biological impulse to have sex. It is an urge that is strong as to not be able to repress. It's fed by the exposure to child pornography and other sorts of entertainment which only serve to strenghthen and encourage that impulse, and any opportunity a paedophile gets to abuse children, he will most certainly take advantage of in most cases, if he feels there is a low risk of being caught. Some sadistic predators actually get off on the idea of doing something forbidden, and potentially dangerous, so the more likely they are to be caught and punished, the more exciting and erotic it becomes. |
||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
How do you know this? For all you know, a far higher number of people could be sexually attracted to children than the number of people who actually abuse children. But at least you said 'majority', which seems to suggest that you recognise that it might not apply to all paedophiles.
The majority of humans don't sexually abuse though.
Aha! So now you admit that paedophiles have unchosen desires, and that it must be very difficult for them.
What, like people who run out in front of trains trying not to be run over? |
||||||||||||||||
| fab |
I agree with Ben. we are unofortunally brainwashed by our medias and the common speach which equates pedophile with child raper or even worse, with child murderer. In reality, the huge majority of pedophiles are people who are unfortunally for them attracted by children - I think most of them suffer from this attreaction since themselves consider it to be abnormal (which I obviously think is a right statement, since children are not sexually mature and deeply psychologically fragile. We should be strong, ferm and punish definitly those who realize their pulsions, but simulateously helping them. most of the time pedohpiles were themselves vitims of pedophilia in their childhood - they didn't shoosed to be perverts. |
||||||||||||||||
| greg in noord-frankrijk |
Pas du tout. Distinguer deux choses ne signifie pas négliger l'une quelconque des deux. En revanche, les amalgamer revient à les confondre. C'est exactement ce que tu fais.
Pure pensée magique.
Pourquoi donc ?
Tout ceci est davantage l'expression de tes propres appréhensions qu'une orientation probable de la société. Le libéralisme sauvage combiné à la crétinisation des esprits, plutôt que les pédophiles ou ceux qui les soignent, pourrait être à l'origine du cauchemar que tu décris. |
||||||||||||||||
| Lazar |
I agree that it's simplistic to label someone as purely evil. I think that pedophiles - and many other people with a predisposition for crime - suffer from a mental illness, itself often the result of childhood abuse; but at the same time, I do think they should be held responsible for their actions. In other words, I think that mental illness does not ipso facto absolve a criminal of guilt.
You're positing a false dilemma. The existence of mental illness is undeniable, and mental illnesses often lead to a predisposition for crime. But even mentally ill people possess free will, and they should be held responsible for their actions. I think that there are evil people, just as there are good people - but no human is purely the one or the other. The idea of a predisposition for bad actions is nothing new or progressive, Porthos. Traditional Christianity includes the concept of concupiscence, a predisposition for sin - but nobody thought that this absolved people of guilt.
You believe that we descend from Adam and Eve, so I really don't think you're in a position to criticize "mythological" or "un-scientific" viewpoints.
That's a non sequitur.
Another non sequitur.
So the only reason to do good things and avoid bad things is the fear of divine punishment?
I don't think traditional values are inherently good, and I believe in the ideals of secularism and humanism. |
||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
I essentially agree with this.
Indeed. Calvinism especially emphasises the idea that humans are 'totally depraved' — I often joke that, according to the census results, that theoretically means that most Scottish people believe that they are 'totally depraved'. (I know it doesn't really)
I totally agree with the point that Lazar is making here. This is a significant reason for why I'm a Unitarian — we don't have a notion of divine punishment (or reward) afterlife, so we have to be entirely self-motivated to do good things and avoid doing bad things simply because we want to help others and do the right thing. |
||||||||||||||||
| Deborah |
Not only are they not sexually mature, they are not mature in any way; because of that, the pedophile's power over a child is inherent in the relationship. Even if, as some pedophiles will claim, the child is willing, children are so inclined to want to please adults that any such "willingness" is not a valid argument in favor of pedophilia. |
||||||||||||||||
| Loic |
The subject of paedophilia never fails to provoke a heated storm of discussion. As I was skimming the arguments - many of them very cogent and convincing I must say- put forth by all the interested parties, I have to say that I agree with Porthos, Benjamin and Lazar that labelling someone as purely evil is horrendously simplistic and does not help to reconcile us with reality. In my opinion, nobody can be purely evil or good.
Hitler is a sterling example of a manifestation of pure evil. Full stop. End of debate. Really? Historians have learnt through intimate correspondences that the megalomaniac (for that what he precisely was) loved dogs and was kind to children. These little traits are definitely not going to redeem his wretched reputation, but it helps to illustrate the impossibility of simply tarnishing anyone with the 'absolute evil' brush. As for paedophiles, I do not have a modicum of respect for them. Sorry. I cannot even muster any sympathy within myself for their unfortunate condition. As Deborah and Uriel have pointed out, any adult-child relationship would be inevitably one of dominance and submission to varying degrees. It is not an equal partnership. Paedophiles never have meaningful relationships with children. By laying with the child against his or her will, modern day Humbert Humberts are essentially raping the child. |
||||||||||||||||
| greg in noord-frankrijk |
Coïncidence : ce soir, il y un docu inédit sur Hitler qui sort sur TF1. J'en ai vu quelques courts extraits. Il s'agit de films originaux tournés par Eva Braun, la femme amoureuse de l'incarnation du mal absolu. À travers le regard subjugué de la caméra, c'est la « fascination du nazisme » [Peter Reichel] qui apparaît en creux. Ce qui montre que l'image du mal et les actes du mal sont bien deux choses distinctes. Le problème du mal, dans le cas d'Hitler ou Staline, c'est qu'il sait se vendre efficacement : il plaît, non pas en tant que mal absolu, mais en tant que bien absolu. Voir : « Hitler. Essai sur le charisme en politique » de Ian Kershaw. Le mal doit n'être que beau pour être choisi par le plus grand nombre, sinon il est vaincu par le bien. Ça c'est pour l'aspect communication et idéologie. Car dans la pratique le mal doit avant tout être fort afin d'inspirer la peur à tous, sans exception, et non plus seulement susciter le désir des masses.
Pour en revenir à ce que disait Porthos, il ne sert à rien de confondre la personne pédophile et les actes pédophiles. C'est une illusion dangereuse de penser qu'une répression préventive contre la personne prédisposée pourrait suffire à éviter les dommages infligés à la société. On ne condamne pas un innocent. Ou alors on change de régime. En revanche il faut punir les actes commis pour autant que la société les qualifie de crimes. La prévention des actes pédophiles, l'aide aux victimes, la réparation des préjudices subis et la prise en charge des malades sont des sujets différents. |
||||||||||||||||