Florida's rejection of math textbooks "due" to CRT

[jimbogumbo]

I can admit their was much that we should regret as a nation.

Such as ending slavery, at great cost, including, but not limited to, death on the battlefield, to non-slave owners.

This, as in my use of "their" rather than there, was of course not one of them. For some, remember the seizure of property of US citizens of Japanese descent, the rise of the KKK (including a governor of my former home state), the killing of MLK, the John Birch Society, proliferation of white supremacist organizations, the "war on drugs", inadequate social safety net and the abandonment of workers and single mothers. Please stop responding to comments with logical phony baloniness. (Yes, I coined that just now). Regretting some things does not imply I don't value and celebrate many others.

[Wahoo Redux]

I can admit their was much that we should regret as a nation. I must say, I am unaware of any organizations that are trying to force me into wallowing in guilt.

The organization I think I loathe  most in the US is the NRA.

I will now go back to my national park hiking. Just finished Mount Rainier and Olympic. Planning on six to eight more this year.

Damn, Jim, that sounds wonderful!!!!

There is this: The White Privilege Institute

There are all those "diversity training" sessions most of us have to attend at some point----although maybe the rhetoric at yours is a little less fraught than the ones I have attended.

There's this one too: System of White Supremacy and White Privilege

Or this: Why DEI And Anti-Racism Work Needs To Decenter Whiteness

Diversity education and training typically focuses on how to help white professionals learn about their biases and racism. Diversity education has not changed much over time. Decades ago, diversity efforts in corporate America focused on helping white people understand and recognize their racism.

<snip>

The idea that anti-racism and DEI education has to be packaged in a digestible way for employees to be receptive to it demonstrates a larger problem within workplaces. Change will not come through comfortability. A desire for comfortability is what has sustained workplace diversity efforts for decades and few changes have been made in regards to progress. Companies are still suffering from the same issues year after year.

Or my favorite, a very white Karen demanding that white people stop having opinions or be labeled racists: White Fragility

And so on.  So yeah, there are plenty that are plugged into the rage machine and working toward the wallowing of the pinkish-white people.  Their attempts to wallow people are definitely mixed.

[dismalist]

Please stop responding to comments with logical phony baloniness. (Yes, I coined that just now).

I promise, jimbo, I promise! :-)

[marshwiggle]

There's a difference acknowledged in confessional training between "feeling guilty," which may be fact- or neurosis-based, and "being guilty," which is based on acknowledged, evidentiary proof.

In the Christian tradition, "guilt" is based on actions committed by an individual; it is not based on actions of the person's ancestors or community members. (Original sin is something common to all of humanity; it's not like "privilege" that some are supposed to have and others are supposed to lack.)

I'm not aware of any Christian tradition of guilt based on "acknowledged, evidentiary proof" of events that happened before an individual was even born, or in which one took no part.

[nebo113]

There's a difference acknowledged in confessional training between "feeling guilty," which may be fact- or neurosis-based, and "being guilty," which is based on acknowledged, evidentiary proof.

In the Christian tradition, "guilt" is based on actions committed by an individual; it is not based on actions of the person's ancestors or community members. (Original sin is something common to all of humanity; it's not like "privilege" that some are supposed to have and others are supposed to lack.)

I'm not aware of any Christian tradition of guilt based on "acknowledged, evidentiary proof" of events that happened before an individual was even born, or in which one took no part.

Exodus 20:5

[Parasaurolophus]

There's a difference acknowledged in confessional training between "feeling guilty," which may be fact- or neurosis-based, and "being guilty," which is based on acknowledged, evidentiary proof.

In the Christian tradition, "guilt" is based on actions committed by an individual; it is not based on actions of the person's ancestors or community members. (Original sin is something common to all of humanity; it's not like "privilege" that some are supposed to have and others are supposed to lack.)

I'm not aware of any Christian tradition of guilt based on "acknowledged, evidentiary proof" of events that happened before an individual was even born, or in which one took no part.

Exodus 20:5

Also, that's the whole point of the doctrine of original sin.

[marshwiggle]

There's a difference acknowledged in confessional training between "feeling guilty," which may be fact- or neurosis-based, and "being guilty," which is based on acknowledged, evidentiary proof.

In the Christian tradition, "guilt" is based on actions committed by an individual; it is not based on actions of the person's ancestors or community members. (Original sin is something common to all of humanity; it's not like "privilege" that some are supposed to have and others are supposed to lack.)

I'm not aware of any Christian tradition of guilt based on "acknowledged, evidentiary proof" of events that happened before an individual was even born, or in which one took no part.

Exodus 20:5

Also, that's the whole point of the doctrine of original sin.

That passage is about consequences of sin affecting several generations; there's nothing about each of those generations having to atone.

Similarly, Deuteronomy 7:9 says
"Know therefore that the Lord your God is God, the faithful God who keeps covenant and steadfast love with those who love him and keep his commandments, to a thousand generations"


God's blessing will be felt for a thousand generations of faithful people. (This doesn't imply that any of those thousand generations get a "free pass" morally; just that they will benefit from the legacy of their forbears.)


Also, original sin goes back to the Garden of Eden, and affects all of humanity. There are not "privileged" and "oppressed" classes where people from one group have original sin and people from the other don't.

[pgher]

There's a difference acknowledged in confessional training between "feeling guilty," which may be fact- or neurosis-based, and "being guilty," which is based on acknowledged, evidentiary proof.

In the Christian tradition, "guilt" is based on actions committed by an individual; it is not based on actions of the person's ancestors or community members. (Original sin is something common to all of humanity; it's not like "privilege" that some are supposed to have and others are supposed to lack.)

I'm not aware of any Christian tradition of guilt based on "acknowledged, evidentiary proof" of events that happened before an individual was even born, or in which one took no part.

Exodus 20:5

Also, that's the whole point of the doctrine of original sin.

That passage is about consequences of sin affecting several generations; there's nothing about each of those generations having to atone.

Similarly, Deuteronomy 7:9 says
"Know therefore that the Lord your God is God, the faithful God who keeps covenant and steadfast love with those who love him and keep his commandments, to a thousand generations"


God's blessing will be felt for a thousand generations of faithful people. (This doesn't imply that any of those thousand generations get a "free pass" morally; just that they will benefit from the legacy of their forbears.)


Also, original sin goes back to the Garden of Eden, and affects all of humanity. There are not "privileged" and "oppressed" classes where people from one group have original sin and people from the other don't.

The Enlightenment did a lot of great things, but one negative was the creation and elevation of the concept of the individual. Historically, people understood themselves to be a part of a family, tribe, and nation by default. Now we think of ourselves as individuals who may choose to become a part of a grouping. Think about social contract theory: we choose to give up some of our freedom in order to participate in society. Bull. We are born into a society that has certain structures in place already, not of our choosing.

I am less concerned with feelings of guilt than with reconciliation. As a Christian, I am well aware of the harm done to the LGBTQ community over the centuries, and still today. I have not personally oppressed anyone who is LGBTQ, but I have inherited a religion that did and does. I am called to work towards reconciliation, to heal the harm done in God's name to my gay, transgender, and other queer neighbors. I don't have to be personally guilty in order to recognize the harm that has been done and to work to heal it.

The same goes for racial reconciliation. That's not my particular calling (in part because it's not terribly relevant in my current context), but I support those who are called in that way.

[marshwiggle]

The Enlightenment did a lot of great things, but one negative was the creation and elevation of the concept of the individual. Historically, people understood themselves to be a part of a family, tribe, and nation by default. Now we think of ourselves as individuals who may choose to become a part of a grouping. Think about social contract theory: we choose to give up some of our freedom in order to participate in society. Bull. We are born into a society that has certain structures in place already, not of our choosing.

Judaism (and by extension Christianity) have a solid history of the community and the individual. Individuals are highlighted as being either more or less moral than the community, depending on the story. (And of course, Christ is the ultimate individual, whose actions were completely unique, and whose life was almost entirely lived in contrast to his community.)

I am less concerned with feelings of guilt than with reconciliation. As a Christian, I am well aware of the harm done to the LGBTQ community over the centuries, and still today. I have not personally oppressed anyone who is LGBTQ, but I have inherited a religion that did and does. I am called to work towards reconciliation, to heal the harm done in God's name to my gay, transgender, and other queer neighbors. I don't have to be personally guilty in order to recognize the harm that has been done and to work to heal it.

The same goes for racial reconciliation. That's not my particular calling (in part because it's not terribly relevant in my current context), but I support those who are called in that way.

I have no problem with individuals following their own calling to any particular cause. It is the attempt to "guilt" others into accepting the same calling that I take issue with.

[mamselle]

Many events in Exodos, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, etc. as well as the whole Babylonian Captivity (the first one) are based on the assessment of communal guilt for misdirected worship, action, and strategic behaviors when instructed to do otherwise.

Christian Scriptures tend in part to be more personalized and transcendent, but even there, we see instances of misguided community behavior visited with strongly-worded reprimands (Corinthians, anyone?) and reminders--and praise for conversional behavior.

Communal as well as individual guilt--as adjudged, proven responsibility for a bad thing--is very real throughout the received canons of the Hebrew and Christian testaments, and in the wider literature of both communities--and in many other religious systems.

M.   

[Wahoo Redux]

We are born into a society that has certain structures in place already, not of our choosing.

I am less concerned with feelings of guilt than with reconciliation. As a Christian, I am well aware of the harm done to the LGBTQ community over the centuries, and still today. I have not personally oppressed anyone who is LGBTQ, but I have inherited a religion that did and does. I am called to work towards reconciliation, to heal the harm done in God's name to my gay, transgender, and other queer neighbors. I don't have to be personally guilty in order to recognize the harm that has been done and to work to heal it.

The same goes for racial reconciliation. That's not my particular calling (in part because it's not terribly relevant in my current context), but I support those who are called in that way.

I have personally worked on four individual "diversity initiatives" in my time, have worked as a "diversity advocate" on one campus, wrote a grant to fund a faculty reading group focused on historically overlooked African-American poets, walked in a number of anti-racist protests, and ensured that every semester in which I teach people of color, LGBTQ writers when applicable, and women authors whenever applicable are found on the syllabus.  Sometimes that final item is difficult----say, survey of British literature----but one can always find Margery Kemp, Hildegard of Bingen, or Marie de France (even though those last two are not British) on my syllabus.

If you want to tell me I should do more out of a general care for humanity, I would accept that----you'd be right.

But these are voluntary efforts created by good will and hope for the future, not by official mandate, guilt, or peer pressure.  I did not design the certain structures of my society.  They were well in place by the time I was born and I have done my best to navigate them and a little bit to change them because that is the right thing to do.

For me that is the difference.

[dismalist]

The Enlightenment did a lot of great things, but one negative was the creation and elevation of the concept of the individual. Historically, people understood themselves to be a part of a family, tribe, and nation by default. Now we think of ourselves as individuals who may choose to become a part of a grouping. Think about social contract theory: we choose to give up some of our freedom in order to participate in society. Bull. We are born into a society that has certain structures in place already, not of our choosing.

...

Alas. the Enlightenment only partially freed us from the tribe, or the idiocy of village life, as Charly Marx put it. The residue of the tribe is still within us. It is what makes wars possible and seemingly lucrative. It also sorts people, even , or especially, in democratic societies.

No one chooses systems -- those are myths -- but there is one, ours, which just growed -- in which cooperation is voluntary, not ordained.  And it's still founded on the family, the only efficient collective, and rather less on the individual.

[pgher]

The Enlightenment did a lot of great things, but one negative was the creation and elevation of the concept of the individual. Historically, people understood themselves to be a part of a family, tribe, and nation by default. Now we think of ourselves as individuals who may choose to become a part of a grouping. Think about social contract theory: we choose to give up some of our freedom in order to participate in society. Bull. We are born into a society that has certain structures in place already, not of our choosing.

...

Alas. the Enlightenment only partially freed us from the tribe, or the idiocy of village life, as Charly Marx put it. The residue of the tribe is still within us. It is what makes wars possible and seemingly lucrative. It also sorts people, even , or especially, in democratic societies.

No one chooses systems -- those are myths -- but there is one, ours, which just growed -- in which cooperation is voluntary, not ordained.  And it's still founded on the family, the only efficient collective, and rather less on the individual.

It's biological. We are, by nature, tribal animals, not rational individuals.

[dismalist]

The Enlightenment did a lot of great things, but one negative was the creation and elevation of the concept of the individual. Historically, people understood themselves to be a part of a family, tribe, and nation by default. Now we think of ourselves as individuals who may choose to become a part of a grouping. Think about social contract theory: we choose to give up some of our freedom in order to participate in society. Bull. We are born into a society that has certain structures in place already, not of our choosing.

...

Alas. the Enlightenment only partially freed us from the tribe, or the idiocy of village life, as Charly Marx put it. The residue of the tribe is still within us. It is what makes wars possible and seemingly lucrative. It also sorts people, even , or especially, in democratic societies.

No one chooses systems -- those are myths -- but there is one, ours, which just growed -- in which cooperation is voluntary, not ordained.  And it's still founded on the family, the only efficient collective, and rather less on the individual.

It's biological. We are, by nature, tribal animals, not rational individuals.

We do stuff by trial and error. Some of that turns out to be useful. That's not rationality, but rather habits and traditions. It just growed in a Darwinian-like process. That stuff does not eliminate our tribalism, but conditions it.

Rational attempts at reconstructing society have invariably led to blood baths.

[marshwiggle]

The Enlightenment did a lot of great things, but one negative was the creation and elevation of the concept of the individual. Historically, people understood themselves to be a part of a family, tribe, and nation by default. Now we think of ourselves as individuals who may choose to become a part of a grouping. Think about social contract theory: we choose to give up some of our freedom in order to participate in society. Bull. We are born into a society that has certain structures in place already, not of our choosing.

...

Alas. the Enlightenment only partially freed us from the tribe, or the idiocy of village life, as Charly Marx put it. The residue of the tribe is still within us. It is what makes wars possible and seemingly lucrative. It also sorts people, even , or especially, in democratic societies.

No one chooses systems -- those are myths -- but there is one, ours, which just growed -- in which cooperation is voluntary, not ordained.  And it's still founded on the family, the only efficient collective, and rather less on the individual.

It's biological. We are, by nature, tribal animals, not rational individuals.

That's true, but we are not entirely controlled by our tribal tendencies. (Among other things, because we all belong to multiple "tribes", such as family workplace, friends, etc., any individual will have many unrelated tribal loyalties. Our individual choices will reflect which tribal loyalties we value the most.)