Well, this thread’s getting really stale now so I won’t post any more, I’ll just say two things:

Firstly (and rather trivially)…

… Daffy actually wronged me – him *personally* and directly…

… I have never hurt anyone aboriginal in my life.

Yeah, man, I get it. But your question to me wasn’t whether you were personally responsible for European imperialism (!), it was whether saying “sorry” would do any “practical good”. All I was saying was that it’s a moot point because saying sorry never does any “practical good”.

“Sorry”, of course, has two different meanings. One is an apology (“Sorry I hurt your feelings”), the other is an expression of sympathy (“I’m sorry to hear your granny just died”). The intention of these “sorry books” was, I believe, the latter.

Mate, I wasn’t suggesting you should sign a “sorry book”. I never signed one either! My original comment (@ 77) was just teasing you for your unabashed attitude in comment 54. (Hey, I’m an Aussie too and you know how we like to take the piss tease.) It was meant in good humour, honest. Hence the wink.

Secondly, an more importantly, I think you made a really good point (actually in another thread)…

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/04/27/congress-to-nasa-go-to-the-moon/#comment-379243

… and that was that without 18th and 19th century European colonialism we’d be living in a very, very different world, and almost certainly different for the worse.

I think you’re quite right there.

So I do appreciate you sharing your opinion – especially when you probably know that opinion is likely to ruffle a few feathers. I think it’s always valuable to get another person’s perspective.

Cheers

I forgot to add: laptops have not replaced ‘traditional’ methods of learning in my school, they have simply become an additional tool. The majority of my learning (and this was more than a decade ago now) was done using books, manuals, practical lessons, and the usual overhead projectors/whiteboard stuff. Computers were mostly for typing up assignments and research, although I’m sure more classes are being done that integrate their use nowadays.

(Apologies if this has already been said, I haven’t read all the comments yet)

As a student of the first school in the world to have laptops per student (each kid has one at the age of 10, through til they graduate high school), I can say that they are NOT the answer to reducing teacher/student problems. It does not free up teacher time (and certainly doesn’t result in firings), in that they still have to prepare materials – and then translate them to an online or intranet form – learn how to use them, convince students not to use them for Facebook/myspace/games/whatever during class time. Yes, computers in schools are good; but they’re not the solution. They’re just another tool which can be damaging if with a bad/ignorant teacher; or good if they’re used appropriately and with moderation.

That’s not including the fact that you still have issues to get around, such as visually impaired students, or those who are disabled in other ways. Computer programmers do their best to make their work useable by everyone, but this does not always translate well. Teachers will still need to spend time with students who don’t do well with computers and those who struggle with the materials.

Additionally, socialisation is one main reason why students want to go to school, and one reason why they should. Online courses from the home, faxing/emailing assignments, no face time at all… that’s the line that shouldn’t be crossed. Otherwise no young person will know how to cope in the real world.

This bit of what you said :

With the caveat that as soon as one culture decides IT is the best and has the right to force that on others, it violates that very philosophy.

Not so much. Two parts to that –

1) All cultures think they’re the best & historically human nature says that all nations will go to war for their way of life and their nation or tribe. Its a natural part of human pyschology. perhaps sad but hard to avoid and fairly universal.

2) Does it really violate that principle – what if we’re helping the majority of people in some areas obtain those rights to life, liberty and the pursuit (& gaining) of happiness. If more people are better off under Western civilisation then spreading that civilisation maximises human happiness and the quality of life for most. I don’t think that’s a bad thing or at odds with “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness for all.”

3) Of course, some people and groups – such as the Late unlamented bin laden – try to prevent others from having their rights to life and liberty. Standing up for this sometimes means ending theose individuals lives and liberties for the sake of everyone elses. That’s just how it is – and the choice of those who decide to go against the West.

@ 80. Silent Bob : “Question for you – what practical good would signing such “sorry books” do? [me - MTU]
(Note sure if the question was rhetorical or not. But just in case…) Well, perhaps none. But then… why ask Daffy for an apology? (@ 74)

Because Daffy actually wronged me – him *personally* and directly – and the ethical, decent thing for him to do is admit that, apologise and refrain from ever doing so again.

In contrast, I have never hurt anyone aboriginal in my life. I never “stole” any children – or rescued them from persecution by their own as was often the case & how most of those responsible at the time saw it. The “stolen generations” are totally irrelevant to me, nothing to do with me at all, just part of history.

Apologies are for personal things that *you* are directly responsible for causing.

Not for things you have no responsibility for and couldn’t do anything about. I’ll state that I have some sympathy for the aborigines that suffered that I’d hate to have been in their shoes. (Or bare feet as the case may be, the West introduced the Australian aborigines to shoes!), In that sense, I do feel “sorry” about what happened to some of them. But forcing people to apologise for things they weren’t guilty of – that is an injustice and not ethical.

Its like asking for an apology from *you* (which I am NOT doing notice) rather than from *Daffy* for what Daffy said. Now you’d agree *that* wouldn’t be fair or justified -but asking *Daffy* to apologise for falsehoods and accusations against me that *he* wrote, OTOH, is entirely reasonable and fair.

Agreed. With the caveat that as soon as one culture decides IT is the best and has the right to force that on others, it violates that very philosophy. So stop making excuses for the excesses of your own culture; it undermines the very philosophy you are espousing.

Btw, in the language of the time, “Pursuit” did NOT mean pursue as in chase; it meant pursue in the old fashioned sense, as in pursuing an occupation. In other words, people didn’t just have the right to chase happiness; they had the right to obtain and enjoy it.

Yes, I’ve heard of the “Stolen Generations” – as an Aussie I could hardly not have.

I know. My explanation was for the benefit of those who may have the misfortune of not being Australian.

Question for you – what practical good would signing such “sorry books” do?

(Note sure if the question was rhetorical or not. But just in case…)

Well, perhaps none. But then… why ask Daffy for an apology? (@ 74)

I’m not having a go at you. I’m just saying that you might as well ask what’s the practical purpose of any apology or any expression of sympathy under any circumstances? Nothing pragmatic, surely. It’s just words – it won’t undo what’s done. I guess it’s just a matter of acknowledging and showing respect for other people’s feelings.

I expect there are many indigenous people who feel that a great injustice has been done to them and their ancestors, and would like it if their feelings were acknowledged rather than ignored.

****

Well, while I’m here I may as well toss in my two cents regarding the rest of your thought-provoking post..

… all people have inalienable human rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Hear, hear!

That is my measuring stick for how to assess cultures…

… I support Western society…

… I think others should too.

[all emphases mine]

Look, I understand what you’re saying. I can assure you I’m not about to defect to, say, communist China anytime soon.

But here’s the catch.

If you truly believe that all people have equal rights, don’t those rights include a right to self-determination and a right to decide what culture they want to live in?

If other people want to voluntarily abandon their own culture and adopt yours because they’re dazzled by its inherent superiority, all well and good.

But what if they’re quite happy with their own culture, thank-you very much, and don’t want any part of your culture? Is that not their right?

I’m sure you wouldn’t sit still for some foreign power trying to impose their own alien culture and values on you.

We may judge a hunter-gather lifestyle to be “uncomfortable, dangerous and offer[ing] little if any hope of positive change and progress”, but if the hunter-gatherers themselves feel differently, who are you or I or anyone else to tell them that their chosen lifestyle is not permissible?

One can hardly say, “All people have the same rights as me”, and then turn around any say, “I’m the best judge of what’s good for you, and I’m going to impose my culture and my values on you whether you like it or not”. That’s a contradiction, isn’t it?

Question for you – what practical good would signing such “sorry books” do?

****
Question for Daffy and others :

What do you believe in? What are your values?

I believe in the idea that the key Western values are summed up best in the phrase :

“We hold that all people have inalienable human rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

That is my measuring stick for how to assess cultures – how much they give those living in them the rights to live free, to express themselves freely, to have the opportunities to fully pursue happiness and live well.

That and how much in synch with reality as science indicates it, it is and who it puts first :

Communism puts the One Party State first.

Islam puts a stone-age religious ideology first.

The West puts human individuals – me & you first.

Politically Correct Cultural Relativism (PCCR) says these cultures, these ideas on how to live are equal. They say a way of life that oppresses women, mutilates them and allows their husbands to beat their wives – plural up to 4 of them – is as good and valid as one where women are fully equal partners allowed to drive, vote, go outside on their own and get respected on their merits.

PCCR says society where the State controls every aspect of people’s lives, tells them where they may live, controls what they say and how they think and denies them the opportunity to explore their own futures and run their own lives is as good and as right as one where everyone has equal liberty to speak and live as they please, choosing how they where and what they do for themselves.

PCCR says a culture that practices stuff like human sacrifice, infanticide & cannibalism, that uses brutal initation rights, goes head-heading and believes in evil magic that “witches” can do – and killing those same “witches” for it is just different and equally valid to a culture that doesn’t – that finds such things bizarre and nonsensical, that practices science and uses techology to achive wonderful things rather than living a hunter-gatherer lifestyle that is uncomfortable, dangerous and offers little if any hope of positive change and progress.

That’s why I support Western society and why I oppose Politically Correct Culutral Relativism. That’s why I think others should too. Do y’all really dsagree with that – & if so why?

Do *you* folks value excessively respecting “cultural differences” over the notion that all people have inalienable human rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness?

I kid you not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Generations#Emergence_of_the_child_removal_policy

(Sorry for all this off-topic stuff.)

Hey Messy, let me take a wild guess:

You never signed the Sorry Book*, right?

——————————————-
* Australian-centric reference.

http://www1.aiatsis.gov.au/exhibitions/sorrybooks/sorrybooks_selection.htm

http://www1.aiatsis.gov.au/exhibitions/sorrybooks/sorrybooks_intro.htm

“Racism is judging others unfairly based on the colour of their skin. ” What? You think that is the only example of racism? Preference on skin color?

“I don’t judge the Mayans based on their skin colour but on the fact that they practiced widespread human sacrifice for the silly reason that they thought the Sun needed blood to rise.” Romans just tortured and slaughtered thousands for heresy—big difference? Oh, and for just about anything else they could think of. OK, not to a sun god (as far as I know—Apollo could be a nasty bugger), as if that’s an important distinction. All of which is irrelevant, in any case. Although I will grant it is a matter of opinion—I stand by my comment: defending one population’s genocide for no other reason than you share their genetic background is racism as far as I am concerned. And the Romans slaughtered entire populations for no better reason than they weren’t Romans.

“Saying the American pioneers are as bad as the Nazis which you did is a lot more offensive in my view than comparing the Native Americans to the dinosaurs as things that had to go before the modern world we know could exist.” A debatable point except for the glaring fact that I never said it. Genocide is bad—but are 6 million Jews murdered worse or better than 22 million Russians or 2 million Cambodians? I don’t know—it’s all bad; but I am NOT ranking them.

“Its the Politically Correct mob who are the selfish ones thinking – most arrogantly & hypocritically – that *their* PC views and ideas only must be imposed upon everyone and those who disagree with them must NOT be allowed to say honestly what they think or phrase things as they wish.” Since most power in the world is now wielded by the rich and very conservative, I find this point laughable. It’s right up there with “The Liberal Media.” WHAT Liberal Media? When most broadcast stations and newspapers in the US are controlled by 2 or 3 global corporations, I find the very notion of a Liberal Media to be silly; can’t say about elsewhere, though.

“Retard.” There you and I may be in agreement. I like plain, clear language. “Differently Abled” and similar phrases generally hinder descriptive communication. On the other hand “Asians,” is generally a more accurately descriptive term than “Orientals” (unless they really are from the Orient, of course). So I can go either way, depending on the word or phrase involved.

Basically, I would like to see society mature and improve. Making excuses for one’s own atrocities, while decrying others’, hinders that development, IMO.

Btw, I don’t owe you an apology any more than I owe the late George Wallace an apology. I find both your viewpoints (at least on this topic) reprehensible (although we probably agree on others). In any case, my manhood does not require your or anyone’s else’s validation.

Its the Politically Correct mob who are the selfish ones thinking – most arrogantly & hypocritically – that *their* PC views and ideas only must be imposed upon everyone and those who disagree with them must NOT be allowed to say honestly what they think or phrase things as they wish.

It is also the PC mob you’ll note – from the examples in the article linked to my name in comments #64, 65, 66 – who are using legal prosecutions as a club to censor and intimidate others and restrict free speech. Contrastingly, I’ve stated that I’m not the litigious type & not going to sue you even though you actually have slandered me by making that utterly false and offensive claim accusing me of racism.

You, Daffy, owe me an apology – whether you’re man enough to offer one or not.

Racism is judging others unfairly based on the colour of their skin.

I do NOT and never have done that. I don’t judge the Mayans based on their skin colour but on the fact that they practiced widespread human sacrifice for the silly reason that they thought the Sun needed blood to rise. The Romans at least weren’t that bad – human sacrifice wasn’t that widespread andf when it was done was done for slightly – not greatly but slightly – more reasonable reasons.

Skin colour is totally irrelevant, cultural ideas OTOH are relevant and reasonable criteria for judging how good a given group is.

Culture isn’t the same as race. Race cannot be changed – but culture which is really just ideas and customs can be rethought and altered for the better. Culture is flexible and able to be improved – and the West has been doing that constantly since it began – generally for the better.

Saying the American pioneers are as bad as the Nazis which you did is a lot more offensive in my view than comparing the Native Americans to the dinosaurs as things that had to go before the modern world we know could exist. In that analogy I was NOT making an ethical judgement but a statement about the historic reality. I never stated that they deserved togo extincxt just that a culture that stayed static and didn’t explore and develop the way the European culture did was bound to fall eventually to a society that worked on raising its level of technology and advancing its territorial extent.

People like you who excuse everything based on fighting “political correctness,” seem only to care about their own freedom of speech.

What a false sweeping generalisation and misjudgement you are making there.

Did you not consider that I have actually said I oppose PC because it hurts *everyone* in our society – and that I will fight to the death so that views I disagree with – such as yours – can be expressed as freely as mine? Selfish to PC? Actually its the exact opposite!

What exactly do you want me to say? In the past you have defended Roman atrocities, while expressing horror at Mayan atrocities. You even admitted it was because you want to defend your own kind. How is that not being racist?

Now, being of a less racist mind (I have plenty of other faults, just not that one). How do I argue that point? You are into situational ethics; I am not (at least not to your level; admittedly, everyone is to some extent). You honestly think it’s OK to excuse such things in your own kind, while condemning them in others’. To my mind, justifying genocide on the basis that dinosaurs became extinct is offensive—to say the least. Justifying ignoring genocide on the basis of— OMG!—Godwin’s Law is ridiculous and hardly requires my refuting it; all it requires is an 8th grade education, if that.

Not interested in sharing my real name with you (you can find it if you really care that much), so I give you that one. If that is your real name (I am not going to check), you are showing more trust than I am willing to show a stranger. So your point there; I don’t have the guts. I’d prefer to think of it as not being retarded, but I grant that is self serving on my part.

You can SAY anything you like, sonny. But so can I. People like you who excuse everything based on fighting “political correctness,” seem only to care about their own freedom of speech. Everyone else’s freedom can go hang. Don’t bother arguing that point—you’re the one who threatened to sue me for my words.

Should we really regret the reality that it was Europeans and not say Chinese or Muslims who did the almost certainly inevitable here?

Answers not evasions and ad hominems please, Daffy!

Again – so what? How is that “offensive” in your precious and oh-so-important eyes oh great arbeiter of what may & may not be said by other human beings? (BTW. Who appointed you to that high’n'mighty position again Daffy? Not just yourself surely?)

Thinking of facts have you ever known me to say anything that isn’t factual or supported by evidence?

Plus I repeat : Answer the questions I’ve asked you (@ # 64) – or it will be presumed that you cannot do so.

since your identity is anonymous (as is most everyone’s here), that would be rather difficult.

Yeah, because you are going under your real name too. Not.

My Real Life name is Steven Raine, got the guts to share yours?

PS. You didn’t notice that I stated : *IF* I were litigious – which luckily for you I’m not - I won’t sue you. Probably. That doesn’t mean youre not guilty of defamation? Guess we can add reading comprehension FAIL to “Daffy’s” trifecta of Biology FAIL and Godwin FAIL.

Did you or did you not compare the genocide against American Indians to the extinction of dinosaurs?

Please give me one example – just one example – of where I have judged & attacked someone on the basis of the colour of their skin rather than on reasonable ethical or factual or policy grounds or apologise for your offensive slander. Pick one.

If I were the litigious type, “Daffy” – which luckily for you I’m not – then you would be facing a defamation / libel / slander suit by now. Because that is an offence that you have actually committed here whether you realise it or not.

You don’t answer my questions because you cannot – and Godwin’s law is a well established internet meme & “rule” that’s hardly a “cute Nazi joke” as you describe it.

Oh & any chance of you admitting to your biology FAIL over the nature of dinosaurs while we’re on with it, Daffy?

There is no reasoning with racists. In this and other threads you have often tried to make the case that atrocities committed by your race are somehow better than atrocities committed by other races. If that is not racism, what is? And why would I try to reason with someone who takes that stance?

I sure haven’t. I’m not aware of anyone saying that at all ever – aside from you using it as an extreme example just now. Perhaps you are showing your own bigotry and revealing your own false stereotypes when it comes to those you dislike?

As kids we used the old saying “sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.” I wish I could get the over-sensitive PC types to write that out 1,000 times until they got it because that’s pretty true. Emotional hurt such as people taking offense rightly or wrongly at stuff said in life is NOT physical injury, “it neither picks your pockets nor breaks your bones” as one famous American noted of, I think, blasphemy – the old version of today’s Political Correctness.

Living in a free society means you’ll almost certainly encounter views you don’t like – some religious folks hate Dawkins and PZ speaking against religion, everyone hates Fred Phelps spewing his detestable bile at military funerals and so on. Some people viciously attack Obama with words because they’re in Palin’s political camp whilst others in Obama’s camp viciously attack Palin with words out of the same political tribalism. Such speeches are often not nice, not tasteful and can hurt people’s feelings – but it is part of living in a free society. It’s great and preferable when people are polite and respectful. But its NOT & shouldn’t be the law.

Those who take excessive umbrage – often wrongly at totally misconstrued stuff like the “black holes” incident where an entirely innocent astronomical reference was turned into a minor scandal – see “The Hallmark of a black hole” thread posted on this blog on June 14th, 2010 at 11:01 AM – have a right to their misguided opinions. They just need to accept that the rest of us do as well.

After all, what is more respectful? To refer to President Obama as a well educated person of color or an uppity n*****?

The former clearly although “person of colour” sounds pretty archaic and is a bit of a euphemism itself.

Question for you though – should someone be punished – legally fined or treated badly – for merely voicing the latter opinion? IOW, it might be wrong but should it be forbidden by law & legally actionable?

I agree that the latter statement is disrespectful, distasteful and bad manners, I wouldn’t say that myself and would generally think less of people who would say it – but I don’t think they should be dragged before the courts wasting taxpayers money and time over it.

For instance, people shouldn’t say that Obama was really born in Kenya rather than Hawaii – it’s silly, wrong and makes them look ridiculous – but they should still have the right to say and think it if they’re that foolish. Just as others then have the right to rebut them and point out the facts. Sometimes looking bad socially and being rebutted and laughed at by others is enough and adequate punishment. People should never (wellhardlyever*) be punished merely for holding and exporessing words and ideas however much we may disagree.

I think that while there are things we *shouldn’t* say there should be very few* things we can’t say.

Because freedom of expression is a key democratic right and Western value that shouldn’t be restricted lightly.

——————

* Legitimate restrictions on freedom of speech would include cases of shouting “fire!” in a crowded theatre, cases of betraying confidential state secrets and making libellous and slanderous comments.

I repeat again – & please have the basic manners to respond politely and reasonably :

1) What exactly made my remarks in your view “offensive”? I really fail to understand what your problem with my comparison was.

2) What should I have used to compare the American Indians to if not dinosaurs given the point I was trying to make < and how would your preferred comparison be better?

3) You do get what my point originally *was*, don’t you?

4) Who gave you the right to tell me what things can and can’t be said and why what offends you is forbidden but what offends me – & these are very different things – is just too bad?

5) Or if we all have some equal right not to be offended and given almost anything said is going to offend somebody how can we actually talk to anybody about just about anything except maybe the weather?

@ 61. Dave Mundt :

At 59. Messier Tidy Upper -while I agree that the whole concept of political correctness has gone a bit overboard in America,

A bit? That’s an understatement.

Also sadly, the PC nonsense is not just restricted to America but is also present in Australia, Canada, Europe, etc .. Click on my name for a few examples.

George Orwell’s idea that people’s thoughts and langague will be controlled is coming true to some worrying extent these days. Some groups are being given extra rights and NOT treated equally before the law and freedom of speech is being attacked. I happen to think these principles really matter. You don’t?

I do want to remind you that the trend started as a way to counterbalance the decades of disrespect that folks would heap on other folks. After all, what is more respectful? To refer to President Obama as a well educated person of color or an uppity n*****? If all of us citizens treated each other with respect and tolerance, perhaps the whole “politically correct” thing would be unnecessary, and would go away.

Yet I always do try to be polite and respectful towards others.

Your example is extreme and NOT something I have or would ever say. My gripes with Obama are nothing to do with his skin colour – I couldn’t care less about that – but rather to do with his bad policies, his previous happy sitting back to Rev. Wright’s “G-d-m America!” rants and the shallow meaningless slogans that got him into power.

I can’t stand Sara Palin, Donald Trump and the Republicans – or worse yet the Tea Party – either. I’m sick of *all* the political rubbish spouters & their nonsense and think neither political side has much going for it.

I personally support gay marriage, a womans right to abortion and taking action against Global Warming among many other things. I’m not a rightwinger and if you spend much time on this blog at all you’ll know I’m very pro-science (being a science populariser myself), non-religious (agnostic rather than athiest) and NOT a political partisan but happy to point out flaws over all the political spectrums. The Rightwing gets some issues horribly wrong and others right and the Left wing is the same. One thing the political Leftwing (IMHON) gets horrendously wrong is the notion that Political Correctness could possibly be a good thing.

The whole PC business to use an old expression really gets my goat because I support freedom of speech and expression for everyone. I don’t agree with racism, sexism, homophobia, etc & think these prejudices should be opposed but I do think that either everyone has an equal right to express their opinons however disagreeable we find them – or no one does and our society is NOT free and equal. I do NOt think anyone has the right to be free from being offended by others and nobody has the right to compel people by force or law what they may think or say. Doing so is a gross infringement on personal liberty and collective freedom. To use the quote commonly if apparently attributed to Voltaire :

“I may disagree with what you say but I will fight to the death for your right to say it.”

That’s where I’m coming from. If believing in that principle and the freedom of everyone’s speech – yours as much as mine makes me somehow an “offensive boor” in your eyes (or Kuhnigget’s eyes or anyone elses) well I think your being an idiot.

I am convinced that the best way to tackle prejudices such as homophobia, racism & sexism is by vigorous counter-arguments and education NOT by counter-intolerance and the persecution or prosecution of people holding views you find objectionable.

Yup, yup and YUP!

Being a self serving a$$ isn’t edgy, or courageous; it’s just, well, self serving.