If Mort Divine ruled the world

[Dak]

This is the logic of an about to be or already doctorate academic. just baffling they can make it this far up the ladder and be successful in spite of it

Climbing the ladder depends on embracing this sort of rhetoric. It's where the money and limelight goes. I mean, getting in the NYT is primetime.

 

[Einherjar86]

It's a christian idea, no? This wasn't really practiced until the late 19th and early 20th centuries which was obviously global and not just European.

Original sin, as a doctrine, goes back to Augustine.

pssst slaves were not Americans

Even the ones born in America?

oh, this idea originated with slave owners?

It was certainly practiced en masse by slave owners.

Climbing the ladder depends on embracing this sort of rhetoric.

No it doesn't, unless I'm reading "ladder" differently. Do you honestly still believe this? You can be just as, if not more, successful in academia and avoid this kind of language entirely.

 

[rms]

Even the ones born in America?

were they guaranteed rights as citizens?

Original sin, as a doctrine, goes back to Augustine.

isnt 'original' original sin via women?

children getting the evil beaten out of them couldn't really have been practiced since formal and organized education didn't occur until what, late 18th century just land owning male children? then progressed from there

It was certainly practiced en masse by slave owners.

of course but this is a different response

Do you honestly still believe this? You can be just as, if not more, successful in academia and avoid this kind of language entirely.

in soft science humanities? do you really believe this?

 

[Einherjar86]

were they guaranteed rights as citizens?

No, but what else should we call them? Culturally speaking they were/became Americans.

isnt 'original' original sin via women?

children getting the evil beaten out of them couldn't really have been practiced since formal and organized education didn't occur until what, late 18th century just land owning male children? then progressed from there

I was referring only to original sin, I don't know much about the history of child abuse. But original sin, in its original form, isn't "via women"--it was the innate sinfulness borne in every human because of Adam and Eve's transgression, collectively. The appeal to original sin as justification for the disenfranchisement of women happened later.

of course but this is a different response

Was she implying that it originated with slave owners? It doesn't look that way.

in soft science humanities? do you really believe this?

Yes, I do. Do either of you publish in humanities journals? I have. I've never felt compelled or pressured to write this way.

The point is that the majority of employed humanities scholars don't write this way. Obviously those in specific studies like race or gender probably do; but it's ignorant to cast this net across the entire humanities.

 

[Dak]

No it doesn't, unless I'm reading "ladder" differently. Do you honestly still believe this? You can be just as, if not more, successful in academia and avoid this kind of language entirely.

In academic areas outside of the social sciences/humanities one can avoid this language. But if you try to avoid it - even in it's most benign forms of language about "socioeconomic inequalities" - in the social sciences/humanities, it will potentially be a problem.

 

[Einherjar86]

No, that is not true except for (possibly) specific departments.

Socioeconomic inequalities can be discussed without the kind of inflammatory rhetoric she's using in this NYT op-ed. If you're saying that most in the humanities won't reduce inequality to personal responsibility, well then yeah--because that would be inaccurate and absurd.

 

[rms]

No, but what else should we call them? Culturally speaking they were/became Americans

African slaves?

it was the innate sinfulness borne in every human because of Adam and Eve's transgression, collectively. The appeal to original sin as justification for the disenfranchisement of women happened later.

when did original sin not involve women's temptation of the snake? not a religious scholar but I thought it always was that man has sin because Eve listened to the snake

Yes, I do. Do either of you publish in humanities journals?

Obviously those in specific studies like race or gender probably do

you're comparing yourself and your field to race/gender dominated fields and you think this is a legitimate comparison?

I wouldn't even consider English a soft science like sociology or gender/race studies

 

[Einherjar86]

African slaves?

In that article, she was talking about slaves here for generations, i.e. slaves who never saw Africa.

when did original sin not involve women's temptation of the snake? not a religious scholar but I thought it always was that man has sin because Eve listened to the snake

That's the misogynist interpretation, and I'm not entirely sure when it came about. As far as Augustine was concerned, it just had to do with both Adam and Eve eating the fruit. The temptation itself wasn't sinful, it was the consumption of the fruit on the Tree of Knowledge.

you're comparing yourself and your field to race/gender dominated fields and you think this is a legitimate comparison?

I wouldn't even consider English a soft science like sociology or gender/race studies

Well, English is grouped within the humanities, and elements of race/gender studies often cross over into it. But I very rarely see the kind of inflammatory rhetoric that appears in that op-ed.

Historically, English has seen some crossover with cultural studies, in which you can find more politically fired fields. And there have been politically motivated English scholars; but on the whole, you don't find this kind of rhetoric in scholarly publications. It's a mass media phenomenon, even if its attitudes derive from academic ideas.

 

[rms]

slaves who never saw Africa.

I don't think she makes that distinction anyways, she is rather careless if not just wrong with her historical phrasing. but it doesn't change the fact they had no nationality, they were not citizens of the U.S.

If your argument is that you can culturally belong to another nation-state then that is going to complicate labels for all colonized and subordinate people throughout the last few centuries if not even before then

and the cultural labels that would apply to these african slaves would be french, spanish, native american, english and german in the north etc...

 

[Dak]

No, that is not true except for (possibly) specific departments.

Socioeconomic inequalities can be discussed without the kind of inflammatory rhetoric she's using in this NYT op-ed. If you're saying that most in the humanities won't reduce inequality to personal responsibility, well then yeah--because that would be inaccurate and absurd.

Sure, the inflammatory rhetoric is pretty limited to the departments you already identified, but the current trend is to try and absolve everyone of everything (using varied language but essentially sharing similar themes) unless they are a rich white male. This is stupid (I use this word knowing how overused this word is, but I use it with specific intent) and absolutely counterproductive to improving outcomes.

 

[Talos of Atmora]

Honestly, I feel this kind of rhetoric infantilizes people. There's no "liberation" involved here. If the information regarding physical abuse of children was out there and these parents really wanted the best for their children, maybe they'd care enough to look. To excuse such behavior from anyone and blame it on other races' past transgressions is preposterous.

 

[Einherjar86]

I don't think she makes that distinction anyways, she is rather careless if not just wrong with her historical phrasing. but it doesn't change the fact they had no nationality, they were not citizens of the U.S.

If your argument is that you can culturally belong to another nation-state then that is going to complicate labels for all colonized and subordinate people throughout the last few centuries if not even before then

and the cultural labels that would apply to these african slaves would be french, spanish, native american, english and german in the north etc...

I don't have an argument, I'm just interested in the assertion that slaves weren't American because they weren't legal citizens. I don't know if I want to say they definitively are citizens just by being raised in this country, but I'm not sure you can say they're not American either. I mean, "American" can be defined multiple ways. Trying to pin down categories like this is never theoretically helpful, only practically useful. And in the case of slavery, I'm okay being impractical.

Sure, the inflammatory rhetoric is pretty limited to the departments you already identified, but the current trend is to try and absolve everyone of everything (using varied language but essentially sharing similar themes) unless they are a rich white male. This is stupid (I use this word knowing how overused this word is, but I use it with specific intent) and absolutely counterproductive to improving outcomes.

This is simply not accurate Dak, I'm sorry. Back in January I had a conversation with a friend of mine--a grad student in anthropology, one of the most left-wing fields. Furthermore, this friend is Latin American and actually rushed to become a legal citizen once Trump was elected. He and I had a conversation about this very issue, and about how studies in socioeconomic differences or systemic variances are not justifications for absolving people of responsibility. This is a purely political perspective that does little justice to the information revealed. Can those who suffer from economic inequality improve their station by altering their behavior? In some, if not many cases, probably; but this doesn't change the fact that there are still systemic issues to be addressed and at least acknowledged as existing.

I realize that this is an anecdotal remark, but he's one of the most liberal people I know and the general tone of our discussion holds true among many relationships I have with other scholars (not all, but many, particularly older scholars). It doesn't have to be blaming rich whitey when a sociologist discovers discrepancies in child abuse between blacks and whites, or rich and poor; but it also doesn't mean that the quality of being black or being poor tends, inherently, to be accompanied by a tendency toward child abuse. Your resistance to what she's saying is as unattractive as her argument because you want to lay the issue entirely on individual/personal responsibility, when the complicated truth is that it's probably some mixture that varies from person to person.

 

[Dak]

I recognize there's some mixture. But I have a problem with this default assumption that discrepancies between any sort of contrived groupings is problematic in itself, never mind that the presence of a discrepancy tells you nothing about "fault", yet "systemic factors" are immediately assumed.

 

[rms]

And in the case of slavery, I'm okay being impractical.

not sure if you're asking anything but I would say defining American in a time period when "American" as a cultural identity likely wasn't created until mid 19th century if not later whilst ignoring all other cultural influences seems incorrect. If you said they are american/german/french/spanish - african slaves maybe i'd see something there, but without that I can't 'historically' agree with this

 

[Einherjar86]

I recognize there's some mixture. But I have a problem with this default assumption that discrepancies between any sort of contrived groupings is problematic in itself, never mind that the presence of a discrepancy tells you nothing about "fault", yet "systemic factors" are immediately assumed.

This is off the cuff, but it seems to me that systemic factors can always be assumed, whereas individual responsibility can't be. Personal responsibility and/or fault is more difficult to discern, and requires attention be paid to individual actors themselves--which, of course, a field like psychology can afford to do. In the case of widespread statistics and discrepancies, systemic factors cannot not be assumed. Models from social science, systems theory, etc. might look less accurate at more local levels, but they'll inevitably contain trace elements of truth at more complex scales.

 

[CiG]

Whites are the root of all minority problems and whites aren't allowed to speak on these issues (unless they fall in line) how fucking convenient.

 

[Dak]

This is off the cuff, but it seems to me that systemic factors can always be assumed, whereas individual responsibility can't be. Personal responsibility and/or fault is more difficult to discern, and requires attention be paid to individual actors themselves--which, of course, a field like psychology can afford to do. In the case of widespread statistics and discrepancies, systemic factors cannot not be assumed. Models from social science, systems theory, etc. might look less accurate at more local levels, but they'll inevitably contain trace elements of truth at more complex scales.

Why would we first assume the majority of the variance in individuals within a similar system be systemic rather than in individualistic? Assuming systemic variance would be the default in looking at differences in people between systems, not within systems.

Edit: I realize the first response would be that Slavery and Jim Crow were different systems. But those are not the current system, nor were they country-wide. Not only are they not current, but slavery ended 150 years ago, or roughly two average lifespans or 4 or 8 generations ago (depending on if you use 20 or 40 years). Jim Crow ended completely 50+ years ago, or 1-2+ generations ago, and some discrepancies have worsened rather than improved in response.

Edit 2: Those systemic differences were also only for blacks, not all other minorities.

 

[Einherjar86]

Why would we first assume the majority of the variance in individuals within a similar system be systemic rather than in individualistic? Assuming systemic variance would be the default in looking at differences in people between systems, not within systems.

But aren't we talking about the difference in child abuse between whites and blacks, not variances within the black community?

Also, when looking at massive populations and demographics, patterns and trends have an ontology of their own. Psychology doesn't disappear, but social complexity absolutely appears.

 

[Dak]

I ignored the specific discrepancy in that article because research surrounding corporal punishment is (or should be considered) notoriously lacking in methodological rigor.

 

[rms]

http://www.sbnation.com/nhl/2017/3/...-2017-world-championship-equal-pay-usa-hockey

dat wage gap