why waite, why thoth ?
@.com gea
why waite, why thoth?
i simply cannot imagine why anyone would use [ if they really had a good
look at alternatives] waite or thoth.
white rabbit said that swords and wands scare him in the waite deck
scare, i 'd have kittens with that awful ten of swords.
well little rabbits.
they both seem sooo oldfashioned and stale to me. the waite are grim
[ very easy to read ]
and the thoth dry , beautiful pictures but so hard to identify with.
the trouble is that so many designers , or artists don't read tarot,
[hence the strange sizes]
i like it when someone looks at a card and instantly says, that's me,
or my sister, or that is exactly how i feel,
much more rewarding.
gea
J. Karlin
> why waite, why thoth?
> i simply cannot imagine why---
Perhaps imagination is sacrificed when one depends upon
(claims of) "psychic" powers too much.
That you can not imagine why is no comment upon the value
of the things protected from your imagination.
> anyone would use [ if they really had a good
> look at alternatives] waite or thoth.
Many people can not imagine why anyone would "use"
Tarot cards at all, especially for "psychic" uses.
> white rabbit said that swords and wands scare him in the waite deck
Did he say that?
He's said a lot of really stupid things.
To be frightened by ink and paper is pretty stupid.
To be frightened by one's projections of the value
of the ink and paper is pretty standard, but also
limiting to one's ability to learn Tarot.
> scare, i 'd have kittens with that awful ten of swords.
> well little rabbits.
Then you have not learned Tarot well enough.
There is nothing in it that's frightening, any more so
than a lonely graveyard at midnight---which can be quite
a festive place, or so I've heard.
> they both seem sooo oldfashioned and stale to me.
"stale" makes you have kittens?
Perhaps you'd better stay clean away from "fresh" then.
> the waite are grim [ very easy to read ]---
You aren't reading them. You're having kittens.
There's a difference.
> and the thoth dry , beautiful pictures but so hard to identify with.
Not if you know what they mean.
You won't do that by being afraid.
> the trouble is that---
---people talk a lot about what they don't know anything
about. They often cover that talk over with blather about
their "psychic" powers.
But, when they blather enough, and sometimes not so much at
all, their ignorance is revealed.
Tarot is about something. You can be wrong in Tarot. You
can be dreadfully stupid in Tarot.
> so many designers , or artists don't read tarot,
> [hence the strange sizes]
It's the size and pertinence of the ideas represented
that should matter, not the size of the cards.
If fortune-telling, or some "psychic" scam, is the key
concern, a regular playing-card deck fits most adult
hands, and conforms to limited adult imaginations,
just fine.
> i like it when someone looks at a card and instantly says, that's me,
> or my sister, or that is exactly how i feel,
>
> much more rewarding.
Yeah, it makes reading them, instead of the cards, a lot
easier. But you don't need cards to do that.
(jk)
**********************************************
Read the alt.tarot FAQ:
http://lonestar.texas.net/~r3winter/tarotfaq.html
More tarot resources available at:
http://lonestar.texas.net/~r3winter/alttarotqa.html
**********************************************
@.com gea
--
Gea
"J. Karlin" <r3wi...@texas.net> wrote in message
news:3C3AE02C...@texas.net...
> gea wrote:
>
> > why waite, why thoth?
>
> > i simply cannot imagine why---
>
> Perhaps imagination is sacrificed when one depends upon
> (claims of) "psychic" powers too much.
i was hoping to have a genuine answer not some kind of supercillious
little remark.
>
> That you can not imagine why is no comment upon the value
> of the things protected from your imagination.
of course i can imagine why, i was just probing to get a response.
>
> > anyone would use [ if they really had a good
> > look at alternatives] waite or thoth.
>
> Many people can not imagine why anyone would "use"
> Tarot cards at all, especially for "psychic" uses.
no, well i am sure we could all list a lot of things that people cannot
imagine.....................................................................
............................................................................
............................................................................
............................................................................
............................................................................
...................................................
>
> > white rabbit said that swords and wands scare him in the waite deck
>
> Did he say that?
> yes
> He's said a lot of really stupid thing
s.
>
no doubt you haven't, loads of people are scared of the imagery [ i think it
is that strange thing called being human ]
> To be frightened by ink and paper is pretty stupid.
> why, some books have changed peoples lives, if not the world
"the pen is mightier than the sword "
> To be frightened by one's projections of the value
> of the ink and paper is pretty standard, but also
> limiting to one's ability to learn Tarot.
>
> > scare, i 'd have kittens with that awful ten of swords.
> > well little rabbits.
>
> Then you have not learned Tarot well enough.
i was merely empathising, [ you know feeling what someone else feels]
the statement did not apply to me.
>
> There is nothing in it that's frightening, any more so
> than a lonely graveyard at midnight---which can be quite
> a festive place, or so I've heard.
WELL i'll remember not to ask you where to go for a good night out
>
> > they both seem sooo oldfashioned and stale to me.
>
> "stale" makes you have kittens? no patronizing does.
>
> Perhaps you'd better stay clean away from "fresh" then.
>
> > the waite are grim [ very easy to read ]---
>
> You aren't reading them. You're having kittens.
> oh a little bit of humour
goodness, hope that didn,t hurt.
> There's a difference.
>
> > and the thoth dry , beautiful pictures but so hard to identify with.
>
> Not if you know what they mean.
oh god give me stength
>
> You won't do that by being afraid.
>
> > the trouble is that---
>
> ---people talk a lot about what they don't know anything
> about. They often cover that talk over with blather about
> their "psychic" powers.
>
> But, when they blather enough, and sometimes not so much at
> all, their ignorance is revealed.
projection
>
> Tarot is about something. You can be wrong in Tarot. You
> can be dreadfully stupid in Tarot.
> yes i am sure you can
> > so many designers , or artists don't read tarot,
> > [hence the strange sizes]
>
> It's the size and pertinence of the ideas represented
> that should matter, not the size of the cards.
>
womens hands are smaller than mens,so they often have difficulty shuffling
the cards.
> If fortune-telling, or some "psychic" scam, is the key
> concern, a regular playing-card deck fits most adult
> hands, and conforms to limited adult imaginations,
> just fine.
[ nasty dig, lets see if there are anymore]
>
> > i like it when someone looks at a card and instantly says, that's me,
> > or my sister, or that is exactly how i feel,
> >
> > much more rewarding.
>
> Yeah, it makes reading them, instead of the cards, a lot
> easier. But you don't need cards to do that.
>
no just some kindness, empathy, sensitivity ,intelligence, compassion
preferably a little clairvoyance,
well i 'll know where not to go if i ever want a reading.
gea
[ you used the word stupid 3 times? interesting]
White Rabbit
who pissed in your coffee this morning ?
en innocent mail about Christmas dinner and an irked Jk pops up!
"J. Karlin" wrote:
> gea wrote:
> > white rabbit said that swords and wands scare him in the waite deck
> Did he say that?
> He's said a lot of really stupid things.
wow !!!! you are really irked I see ! :-)
>
>
> To be frightened by ink and paper is pretty stupid.
>
you too if you believe I meant that ...!
Theo
"Nonsense is nonsense only when we have not yet found that point of view
from which it makes sense""
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm
not sure about the former."
Albert Einstein
@.com gea
--
Gea
"White Rabbit" <"ByJokeŽ"@ch.inter.net> wrote in message
news:3C3AD572...@ch.inter.net...
> i expect he's off to find a lonely graveyard to cheer himself up,
gea
White Rabbit
it is your first encounter with the "bandit" that gave such a bad reputation
at Alt Tarot I guess !
And he thinks he is a genious .. like Alistair
He is afraid others are better than him.. got a problem
He is jealous.. very envious... he is plenty of psoriasis in fact .. because
of that !
But union will make strenght and life continues with of without JK
unpleasant pleasantries
Theo
White Rabbit
Theo
gea wrote:
--
Gea
"White Rabbit" <"ByJoke®"@ch.inter.net> wrote in message
news:3C3AD572...@ch.inter.net...
> He he he ! JK
> who pissed in your coffee this morning ?
> en innocent mail about Christmas dinner and an irked Jk pops up!
>
>
> i expect he's off to find a lonely graveyard to cheer himself up,
gea
--
TarotHrmt
>why waite, why thoth?
Because both are major players in the establishment of the western mystery
tradition as we know it today. They did the work and applied themselves.
Consequently, if we want to use that knowledge then we must establish a solid
foundation that can standup to scrutiny and encourage critical thinking.
>
>i simply cannot imagine why anyone would use [ if they really had a good
>look at alternatives] waite or thoth.
What alternatives are you speaking of? Some are quite awful!
>white rabbit said that swords and wands scare him in the waite deck
Did he say that? Didd he use the word scare?
>
>scare, i 'd have kittens with that awful ten of swords.
>well little rabbits.
What is really so awful about the ten of swords? Do you really know all the
interpretations behind this scene?
>they both seem sooo oldfashioned and stale to me.
Well, I guess it is that kind of thinking that leads to negation of the
accomplishments of the past.
the waite are grim
Only to those who do not truly understand the meanings of the cards.
>[ very easy to read ]
REALLY!!!!!!!!!
>and the thoth dry , beautiful pictures but so hard to identify with.
Hmmm...........so you know very little about the western mystery tradition? And
have no interest. There was a joke in the sixties that goes like
this.......'last week I could not even spell injuneer and now I are one."
>the trouble is that so many designers , or artists don't read tarot,
>[hence the strange sizes]
Whether the artists know the tarot or not has very little to do with the size
of the cards. That is called marketing.....the very esoteric philosophy of the
corporate world.
>i like it when someone looks at a card and instantly says, that's me,
Oh, so you do not have to think or use critical judgment, just let your client
do the work.
>or my sister, or that is exactly how i feel,
>
>much more rewarding.
What makes you think that tarot should be rewarding? In what way is it
rewarding. And what do these rewards bring to you?
Tarot Hermit
Hieronymous707
>What makes you think that tarot should be rewarding?
Just about everything anybody of import has ever said about tarot has included
reference, implication, or inference to a final reward.
> In what way is it
>rewarding. And what do these rewards bring to you?
Final confirmation.
-hi-
melisande55
"gea" <gea @.com> wrote in message news:a1elcu$239$1...@helle.btinternet.com...
>
> why waite, why thoth?
>
> i simply cannot imagine why anyone would use [ if they really had a good
> look at alternatives] waite or thoth.
You sound like a little old grandma. And
of course, there's implied in your statements that folks who do use
these decks aren't able to "look" well at other cards.
>
SNIP>
> they both seem sooo oldfashioned and stale to me. the waite are grim
> [ very easy to read ]
> and the thoth dry , beautiful pictures but so hard to identify with.
Interesting. Three different times, people have gifted me with Thoth
decks, certain that I'd identify with them (I do). And once (before the
gifts) I spontaneously bought one for myself (long before I knew
anything about Crowley or tarot.) (Not that I know that much now).
>
> the trouble is that so many designers , or artists don't read tarot,
> [hence the strange sizes]
>
> i like it when someone looks at a card and instantly says, that's me,
> or my sister, or that is exactly how i feel,
I know lots of people who prefer Waite. Including many people
who do readings for others at faires and so on.
>
> much more rewarding.
>
> gea
Since you like information so much, here is some that might be
helpful (and maybe help you sort out why some like and others
dislike the Waite-Thoth cards).
In the period when the Waite deck (especially) was created,
the post-modern view (oft-criticized or at least suspiciously examined
here - and with good reason, I think) had not yet arisen. The period
is usually called the Modern period, and it isn't clear when the first
post-modern decks first arose. (Perhaps someone could enlighten us?)
But in general, many historians claim the modern period unraveled or
ended around World War I and certainly by World War II). There
are hints of modernism in Crowley, since he believes a New Aeon
is coming (of which he is a/the prophet) and modernism is all about
things getting better, usually in stages, with the ultimate triumph of
humanity over many of its major problems.
Post-modernism makes no such claim. At best, history is uncertain,
at worst, things are getting worse. If things are actually getting worse
(not better) and there is no hope of things getting better, there is the
distinct possibility that the best of human life has been lived in some
_previous_ era and we (you and I) are never going to see the Golden
Days.
If such is the case, life is pretty dismal. Making yourself feel better
in whatever way you can is a good alternative. Hence, the Me Decade,
the rise in narcissism, etc. And there's no point in trying to engage
yourself in some larger, pro-social movement because it's all pointless.
Indeed a common variant of post-modern (folk and academic) philosophy
is "make yourself feel better, but try not to mess up other creatures'
processes of feeling better."
Making oneself feel better vs. engaging in changing history. That's one of
the
underlying differences in the two (historic eras). Now, I'm not saying that
ALL
the decks created past 1917 or 1945 or whatever date one chooses
are feel-better decks. Just that feel-better (palliative) decks are far
more
common these days, and often the best-selling decks. There are still
other decks, out there, that lay out ways of engaging the individual in
an upward process (such as enlightenment). Enlightenment, by the way,
is very difficult and not entirely (or even usually) a feel-good thing.
And as for the history of magick (and the use of tarot and other symbologies
within the magickal tradition) and what magick has accomplished (and
still accomplishes), unless you understand that history (at least on some
level) you likely have no insight into what these decks "do."
Melisande
>
>
>
@.com gea
--
Gea
"TarotHrmt" <taro...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020108121139...@mb-ms.aol.com...
well mr.hermit,
when i first started using cards, playing cards i was about four, my
grandmother used them for divination, as did my great, great grandmother.
they were both mediums and psychics with romany blood.
i "studied tea leaves" and palms as well, and at six regularly went to the
spiritualist church
and attended my grandmothers seances.
when i was about 12 i got hold of the marseilles pack and used them
for quite a few years, studying the meanings,
i have been using tarot cards for other people for about 30 years, i went
through my introspective, reading only for myself part , and
learning the meanings, in depth[ which i still do ]
but for me now the most important part of tarot is to help other people
to gain insight and objective awareness into their own problems.
i feel that there are right and wrong paths in life and it is very easy for
anyone to go on the wrong one.
tarot has this inimitable way of showing that very clearly, and people can
see exactly which way to go,
when someone rings me and thanks me or writes to me or comes back and says i
have helped them,
if i say anymore it will sound big headed, i don't quite know how to word
this,
all i know is the sheer joy of feeling i have helped someone to become who
they really wanted to be, realise a goal. escape from a dead marriage,
not have a nervous breakdown, not commit suicide,
nothing feels better,
surely gaining knowledge and then helping other people has got to be
so rewarding and it makes me feel really happy.
what is wrong with that?
SO maybe the cards i use are more commercial, i try to use cards that say
transformation instead of death, the green giant instead of the
devil, which is actually only drawing on arthurian legends which
are highly underrated [ in my humble opinion], and have a whole meaning of
their own [ the hallowquest book is packed with symbolism]
if you want to study the thoth or the waite , fine, i don't mind,
gea
TarotHrmt
>
>>From: taro...@aol.com (TarotHrmt)
>
>>What makes you think that tarot should be rewarding?
>
>Just about everything anybody of import has ever said about tarot has included
>reference, implication, or inference to a final reward.
Please quote me some specifics.
>> In what way is it
>>rewarding. And what do these rewards bring to you?
>
>Final confirmation.
>
Confirmation of what?
Tarot Hermit
Mark Filipas
gea wrote:
>why waite, why thoth?
>
>i simply cannot imagine why anyone would use [ if they really had a good
>look at alternatives] waite or thoth.
Hi Gea,
One huge reason why these two decks are so popular is because they had
little competition when they came onto the market. Once the 70s hit,
America slowly started seeing many more deck creations, but by then
the Waite-Smith especially had more or less become the
establishedTarot. One reason for that, of course, is its illustrated
pips, which were not only unique but made the memorizing of that
deck's divinatory meanings much easier.
Of course, the artwork is competent as well, which helped it gain
acceptance.
A big reason why the Thoth became so entrenched is because it was
being heavily distributed through the same successful publisher as the
Waite-Smith deck: U.S. Games Systems.
Perhaps even more influencial here was the predominance on the market
of OGD-influenced Tarot books. Both Waite and Crowley, the authors of
these two decks, came from the OGD tradition, and the vast majority of
Tarot books over the last 30 years have maintained the predominance of
that tradition here in America -- as opposed to continental Europe,
which has for the most part followed instead the Tarot traditions of
earlier French occultists.
So to answer your question, it comes down to "advertising" in the
sense that people buy more of what they are exposed to, and are often
not even aware of alternatives until later.
>white rabbit said that swords and wands scare him in the waite deck
One criticism of the Waite-Smith deck is that the illustrated pip
cards "freeze" or "snapshot" each card's divinatory associations by
depicting a single image. The images chosen for it's pips show a
range of connotation, but these connotations are limited to only a few
predominant interpretations (and questionable ones, at that.)
Plus, the intense personalities of both Waite and Crowley come through
strongly in their decks.
>they both seem sooo oldfashioned and stale to me.
To some degree, they reflect divinatory approaches which are
old-fashioned and stale, incorporating as they do so much of early
French cartomancy.
>the waite are grim [ very easy to read ]
>and the thoth dry , beautiful pictures but so hard to identify with.
>the trouble is that so many designers , or artists don't read tarot,
>
>i like it when someone looks at a card and instantly says, that's me,
>or my sister, or that is exactly how i feel, much more rewarding.
But the criticisms I raise above regarding the Waite-Smith and Crowley
decks are there with most modern decks as well; it is a byproduct of
the artist's natural desire to create a work of art through his/her
Tarot deck. And it sounds to me like you prefer the illustrated pips.
That's fine, but you still have to realize that those "snapshot"
images are the personal and limited choices of their artist as well.
The predominant difference between such modern pips and the
Waite-Smith pips is in the art style. One has to decide how much to
base a choice of deck on artistic preferences and how much on its
underlying philosophy. Both are important factors.
A lot of folks have looked at one or more the Waite-Smith cards with
exactly the same response you've used above: "that's me, or my sister,
or that is exactly how i feel". That kind of experience is based
largely on one's personal aesthetic preferences -- not as much of a
Tarot reading as it is a "Rorschak ink blot" response. There's
nothing wrong with that, in and of itself. But it is primarily an
aesthetic response rather than a knowledge of the meaning put into the
card by its designer.
- Mark
White Rabbit
maybe you can find the answer there ..
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/1896/crowhar.html
Theo
White Rabbit
a friend told me that she noticed that wands and swords pip cards often identify
with authority/police..
maybe this is why I dislike them :-)
theo
White Rabbit
HI
Mark Filipas wrote:
>snip>
> Perhaps even more influencial here was the predominance on the market
> of OGD-influenced Tarot books. Both Waite and Crowley, the authors of
> these two decks, came from the OGD tradition, and the vast majority of
> Tarot books over the last 30 years have maintained the predominance of
> that tradition here in America -- as opposed to continental Europe,
> which has for the most part followed instead the Tarot traditions of
> earlier French occultists.
exactly-- they developed a Saxon tradition with a
closer reference to Saxon mentality than Marseille's Tarots .
this is why they are ( Waite) more spread in the States
and Saxon world than in Europe
<snip>
Theo
>
> - Mark
--
@.com gea
--
Gea
"Mark Filipas" <fil...@slip.net> wrote in message
news:3c3b2af8...@news.SpiritOne.com...
> Mark,
thanks for the reply, the marketing bit makes sense, they say that about 80
% of readers use the waite deck,
yes i know the history, i had to give live readings and at least one hour
long talk on the radio for five years,
going into the history[ separate from the readings]
i think america is very different to the uk, something i didn't realise
until
i joined the newsgroups.
may i be so bold as to suggest that americans like history a little more
than the english , we are swamped with it,
when someone said that tarot didn't hit europe until the 15th century
[ actually the 14th ] i remember thinking ,well that's not very long ago !!!
THERE is a sort of reverse thing going on, the english seem to long for
all things american, seeing it as modern, new
exciting [ america is like the promised land for most english people that
i do readings for]
more money, bigger cars etc. i find the voyager cards really appeal to
people,
older quainter things appeal more to collecters, including cards.
so i suppose there is an element of the grass being greener etc.
one thing i find odd though is the way people[ in this group] talk about
single cards,
i do a 38 card spread, and i expect to read them like a story, i mean
the ten of swords coming after a new relationship, is going to mean alot
different to it coming before, or the tower before the star then vice/ versa
also allof the different people in peoples lives and their roles and effect
on the consultant,
best wishes
Gea
>
>
>
>
>
melisande
"White Rabbit" <"ByJokeŽ"@ch.inter.net> wrote in message
news:3C3B11DA...@ch.inter.net...
Thank you very much, Theo. Fascinating.
I especially like this quote from Crowley:
"The whole world as I see it is at present lost in constipations
of this kind; the real needs of humanity are what they have always
been, food, shelter, love and freedom. That, roughly speaking,
is the general true will of the species, and all devices,
which are not subservient to this will, are errors."
The constipation to which he refers is rooted in
"the modern soul-sickness...a lack of confidence in one's creative powers."
He also says some interesting things about what he means
to be a man. Gender doesn't just float away (as it does in many
post-modern views, especially those of feminists).
And of course, he approaches the "faces" on the cards in a rather
different way than Gea.
I really like how the letters show the kind of work Lady Harris did.
Melisande
>
>
Hieronymous707
>Please quote me some specifics.
I'll be happy to compile something for you if you wish, though you may have to
wait until I can get to the library. It seems I've either sold, misplaced, or
given away many of my immediately accessible reference materials.
However, implicit in any suggestion of attainment or adeptness (as many authors
are want to do), is the concept of aquisition or advancement. A reward is just
another way of looking at things.
>Confirmation of what?
Just wait. You'll see.
...
(That's just a little joke.)
-hi-
White Rabbit
Lady Harris was a consenting victim in the spyder web !
the last mail from the Order to Crowley say a lot about his actings
Theo
melisande wrote:
--
starwoman
TarotHrmt <taro...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020108121139...@mb-ms.aol.com...
> > "gea" gea@.com wrote:
>
> >why waite, why thoth?
>
> Because both are major players in the establishment of the western mystery
> tradition as we know it today. They did the work and applied themselves.
> Consequently, if we want to use that knowledge then we must establish a
solid
> foundation that can standup to scrutiny and encourage critical thinking.
> >
> >i simply cannot imagine why anyone would use [ if they really had a good
> >look at alternatives] waite or thoth.
>
>
> Hmmm...........so you know very little about the western mystery
tradition? And
> have no interest. There was a joke in the sixties that goes like
> this.......'last week I could not even spell injuneer and now I are one."
>
It seems that Gea is more interested in being psychic than in understanding
and applying WMT principles.
Jean-Michel David
mentality... how does one account for the return to the earlier (and more
accurate) numbering of, for example the Crowley-Harris deck (I am not a
Crowleyan, by the way)?
Also, the (Waite-ColmanSmith) depicted pip cards were, for many of them, copied,
with modifications, from a 15th century (non-Tarot) deck then on display at the
British museum!
The Traditional 'Marseilles' deck transcends local European cultural boundaries,
as does the Waite and other decks. They each personify, in mildly different
ways, the Being beyond the mask of Tarot.
White Rabbit
but in between old Marseille( continental Europe and mainly French -Italian) and
England there was not much choice
No "english" cards apparently have been found-left until Waite start making
them so apparently there was a huge "gap" between these two periods and Waite was
English so he made according his cultural references transforming the Marseille
ones
Theo
Jean-Michel David wrote:
--
MsCompNerd
>
>i simply cannot imagine why anyone would use [ if they really had a good
>look at alternatives] waite or thoth
Ahhhhh.
I just have the Thoth deck.
But it is "tradition" to have the Waite deck.
I honestly think the Thoth deck is pretty..... That is the reason I own the
deck. But I own a bunch of decks........
And hey, Miss Cleo uses the Waite deck.
:-P
Hieronymous707
>And hey, Miss Cleo uses the Waite deck.
>:-P
No, she doesn't ... but she is partial to roasted pig ears.
-hi-
@.com gea
--
Gea
"MsCompNerd" <mscom...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020109091503...@mb-ba.aol.com...
the thoth deck are beautiful, but the constant reference[in this group] to
them puzzled me,
Gea
J. Karlin
> > And hey, Miss Cleo uses the Waite deck.
> > :-P
>
> the thoth deck are beautiful, but the constant reference[in this group] to
> them puzzled me,
On your way out take a look at the name of the newsgroup.
OoHedoniaoo
>From: "melisande" melis...@hotmail.com
>Date: 1/8/02 11:32 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <CPH_7.659$6u3.3...@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net>
>
>He also says some interesting things about what he means
>to be a man. Gender doesn't just float away (as it does in many
>post-modern views, especially those of feminists).
>
Gender doesn't just float away? What might you be referring to here
specifically regarding feminists? Thanks.
melisande
"OoHedoniaoo" <oohed...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020109113636...@mb-fd.aol.com...
A lot of feminists believe there are no (essential or other) differences
between men and women (aside from the one chromosome and some
minor genitalia differences). Everything about gender is learned and
subject to change. Therefore, with appropriate education/upbringing, we can
make gender go away and everyone will just be "themselves" (but
without gender). There is even a school of thought called "gender feminism"
that claims what we understand as gendered behavior is the result
of economic oppression and the concerns/needs of capitalism (etc.)
This viewpoint is hotly contested by folks with a background in biology,
since those sex-determining chromosomes (and their interactions with the
body throughout
life) create different brains, biochemistry, etc. (which of course create
behavior).
Melisande
J. Karlin
> A lot of feminists believe---
And things go downhill from there.
White Rabbit
melisande wrote:
> "OoHedoniaoo" <oohed...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20020109113636...@mb-fd.aol.com...
> > >Subject: Re: why waite, why thoth ?
> A lot of feminists believe there are no (essential or other) differences
> between men and women (aside from the one chromosome and some
pissing standing is a male peculiarity
hence the pleasure of using lavabos windows etct etc !
>>minor genitalia differences).
minor?
talk for yourself !
> Everything about gender is learned and
> subject to change.
there are people that cannot be changed unless by brain washing or if you
use hormons and even then...
theo
> Therefore, with appropriate education/upbringing, we can
> make gender go away and everyone will just be "themselves" (but
> without gender). There is even a school of thought called "gender feminism"
> that claims what we understand as gendered behavior is the result
> of economic oppression and the concerns/needs of capitalism (etc.)
>
> This viewpoint is hotly contested by folks with a background in biology,
> since those sex-determining chromosomes (and their interactions with the
> body throughout
> life) create different brains, biochemistry, etc. (which of course create
> behavior).
>
> Melisande
--
melisande
>
>
> melisande wrote:
>
> > "OoHedoniaoo" <oohed...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:20020109113636...@mb-fd.aol.com...
> > > >Subject: Re: why waite, why thoth ?
> > A lot of feminists believe there are no (essential or other) differences
> > between men and women (aside from the one chromosome and some
>
> pissing standing is a male peculiarity
> hence the pleasure of using lavabos windows etct etc !
>
> >>minor genitalia differences).
>
> minor?
> talk for yourself !
I was most definitely NOT speaking of my own evaluation of the situation.
I am, however, speaking of what I know of feminists.
>
>
> > Everything about gender is learned and
> > subject to change.
>
> there are people that cannot be changed unless by brain washing or if
you
> use hormons and even then...
> theo
A lot of feminists believe we've all been brainwashed into thinking that
men are better at math and engineering, and women are more into diffuse
ways of "taking care" of problems.
>
>
MR
>
melisande
"J. Karlin" <r3wi...@texas.net> wrote in message
news:3C3C6792...@texas.net...
> melisande wrote:
>
> > A lot of feminists believe---
>
> And things go downhill from there.
>
> (jk)
>
Sigh. If it were only downhill, that would be an improvement. It's
downhill, in circles,
digging into a hole
and over the top, simultaneously.
White Rabbit
I was jocking !
melisande wrote:
> "White Rabbit" <"ByJokeŽ"@ch.inter.net> wrote in message
> news:3C3C6065...@ch.inter.net...
> >
> >
> > melisande wrote:
> >
> > > "OoHedoniaoo" <oohed...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > > news:20020109113636...@mb-fd.aol.com...
>SNIP>
>
> A lot of feminists believe we've all been brainwashed into thinking that
> men are better at math and engineering, and women are more into diffuse
> ways of "taking care" of problems.
my doughter is more mathematic and logic than my son .
the world loves thinking in schemes
it is self assuring !
Theo
>
>
> >
> >
> MR
J. Karlin
> That many people own and use the Waite deck doesn't make it any more
> 'tradition' than not.
100 years of being popular certainly makes some kind of tradition.
> Each of these is based, in various ways, on the Marseilles deck... Now
> there's tradition!
Why?
Why is it more of a tradition, or the same tradition, as the
Waite deck?
What is tradition?
Is it a good thing, or a bad thing?
(jk)
@.com gea
--
Gea
"starwoman" <res...@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:4jM_7.576896$8q.46...@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
> " so now you are making jokes "
GEA
MLYoung
>since those sex-determining chromosomes (and their interactions with the
>body throughout
>life) create different brains, biochemistry, etc. (which of course create
>behavior).
Hmmm, I know some folks with
backgrounds in biology who think the
differences are quite slight--pretty much
all traceable to the right infusion of
a particular hormone at the right time
during fetal development.
--margaret
MLYoung
>men are better at math and engineering, and women are more into diffuse
>ways of "taking care" of problems.
More to the point, in countries, such
as China, where women aren't thought
to be innately poorer at math, there is
no sex-linked difference in math scores.
--margaret
melisande
"MLYoung" <mly...@aol.comZAPTHIS> wrote in message
news:20020113043529...@mb-bg.aol.com...
I know of only one study (the Xu study) that
makes this point, and the authors state clearly that
their conclusions are highly preliminary. Do you
know of others?
And what would your explanation be for the fact
that Asian students score higher in math in general?
Is that because they believe they are good at it?
BTW, the Xu article provides no evidence about
what people in Shanghai believe. The party line is
that men and women are equal, but does everyone
believe it? I'm curious what you read to give you
that knowledge.
It could be a matter of hard work and preparation,
rather than belief.
MR
melisande
"MLYoung" <mly...@aol.comZAPTHIS> wrote in message
Is that the word, they used, "slight"?
How would a scientist know whether a difference
was slight or not? Slight compared to...
other species?
It's absolutely true that our species is one of the least
sexually dimorphic of the mammals, and definitely the
least of the primates.
But within our species, it's hard to know how to define slight.
>
> --margaret
Define "slight."
The wage gap is slight, too.
Melisande Rupert
Haeden Dees
The *three* chemicals are testosterone, dihydrotestosterone and
estradiol.
They're also responsible for the "slight" difference between men and
women called the penis.
They're also responsible for the "slight" differences between the
brains of the zebra finch: male birds sing, female birds don't.
http://info.med.yale.edu/chldstdy/plomdevelop/development/november.html
Haeden
White Rabbit
"beads calculating machine"
that obblige also the brain to work faster
I have also the impression that others languages
like Jew Arab Chinese and so on that do not use alphabet
like we do , have the same effect , these countries has always
been very keen in mathematics and trade
but this is just a personal opinion !
Theo
melisande wrote:
--
Hieronymous707
>But within our species, it's hard to know how to define slight.
>Define "slight."
Slight: content compared to contempt.
>The wage gap is slight, too.
"Nothin' up my sleeves ..."
or in my pockets.
That's a slight.
-hi-
White Rabbit
Haeden Dees wrote:
> <SNIP>
>
> The *three* chemicals are testosterone, dihydrotestosterone and
> estradiol.
>
> They're also responsible for the "slight" difference between men and
> women called the penis.
it is a difference "of size" sometimes and without it no firemens, no hydrants no gun machines ..!
gee!
Theo
>
>
> They're also responsible for the "slight" differences between the
> brains of the zebra finch: male birds sing, female birds don't.
>
> http://info.med.yale.edu/chldstdy/plomdevelop/development/november.html
>
> Haeden
--
starwoman
Tarot Hermit wrote:
> > > Hmmm...........so you know very little about the western mystery
> > tradition? And
> > > have no interest. There was a joke in the sixties that goes like
> > > this.......'last week I could not even spell injuneer and now I are
> one."
> > >
Star Wrote:
> > It seems that Gea is more interested in being psychic than in
> understanding
> > and applying WMT principles.
Gea Wrote:
> > " so now you are making jokes "
> GEA
Wasn't a joke. From your postings you seem not to have an appriciation for
WMT, but instead use tarot as a psychic tool. Your choice. I think some of
the chaffing you are experiencing here is related to that though. Just my
observation. Maybe I am becoming psychic after all.
Star
>
>
MLYoung
>> backgrounds in biology who think the
>> differences are quite slight--pretty much
>> all traceable to the right infusion of
>> a particular hormone at the right time
>> during fetal development.
>>
>> --margaret
>
>
>The *three* chemicals are testosterone, dihydrotestosterone and
>estradiol.
>
>They're also responsible for the "slight" difference between men and
>women called the penis.
You mean that enlarged clitoris? I'd
consider that a slight difference. It's
not as if one sex had an extra pair of
arms and feathers.
>
>They're also responsible for the "slight" differences between the
>brains of the zebra finch: male birds sing, female birds don't.
Both sexes chirp, correct? The singing
is an extension of that.
--margaret
>
>http://info.med.yale.edu/chldstdy/plomdevelop/development/november.html
>
>
>Haeden
>
>
>
>
>
MLYoung
>> backgrounds in biology who think the
>> differences are quite slight--pretty much
>> all traceable to the right infusion of
>> a particular hormone at the right time
>> during fetal development.
>
>Is that the word, they used, "slight"?
No, actually what the person said was
"There are so few differences between
male and female that it's scary." My
own observation is that we tend to
exaggerate the differences between
the sexes in, well, about any culture
I've come across.
>
>How would a scientist know whether a difference
>was slight or not? Slight compared to...
Slight as in it doesn't take all that much
to make a fetus male or female. Slight
as in the difference between "male" and "female" hormones is,
chemically, pretty minor.
Thus, the phenomenon of XY-females,
pseudo-hermaphrodites, hermaphrodites,
Turner Syndrome and such. Admittedly,
not all of them are fertile, but my understanding is that there's less
difference between ovaries and testes than
one might think--both start out as
ovotestes in the fetus.
Mother Nature screws up a certain percent
of the time.
--margaret
White Rabbit
MLYoung wrote:
> >> Hmmm, I know some folks with
> >> backgrounds in biology who think the
> >> differences are quite slight--pretty much
> >> all traceable to the right infusion of
> >> a particular hormone at the right time
> >> during fetal development.
> >>
> >> --margaret
> >
> >
> >The *three* chemicals are testosterone, dihydrotestosterone and
> >estradiol.
> >
> >They're also responsible for the "slight" difference between men and
> >women called the penis.
>
> You mean that enlarged clitoris? I'd
> consider that a slight difference. It's
> not as if one sex had an extra pair of
> arms and feathers.
>
well there are some "enlarged clitos of 12" never faced one? :-)
Theo
>
> >They're also responsible for the "slight" differences between the
> >brains of the zebra finch: male birds sing, female birds don't.
>
> Both sexes chirp, correct? The singing
> is an extension of that.
>
> --margaret
>
> >
> >http://info.med.yale.edu/chldstdy/plomdevelop/development/november.html
> >
> >
> >Haeden
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
--
White Rabbit
MLYoung wrote:
>
> Turner Syndrome and such. Admittedly,
> not all of them are fertile, but my understanding is that there's less
> difference between ovaries and testes than
> one might think--both start out as
> ovotestes in the fetus.
>
> Mother Nature screws up a certain percent
> of the time.
mother nature is always trying new patterns or correcting old ones or
deviating
because of human intrusion (chemicals/ hormons)
of course not all of them are viable
Theo
>
>
> --margaret
>
> >
> >other species?
> >
> >It's absolutely true that our species is one of the least
> >sexually dimorphic of the mammals, and definitely the
> >least of the primates.
> >
> >But within our species, it's hard to know how to define slight.
>
> >
> >>
> >> --margaret
> >
> >Define "slight."
> >
> >The wage gap is slight, too.
> >
> >Melisande Rupert
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
--
melisande
"MLYoung" <mly...@aol.comZAPTHIS> wrote in message
> >> Hmmm, I know some folks with
> >> backgrounds in biology who think the
> >> differences are quite slight--pretty much
> >> all traceable to the right infusion of
> >> a particular hormone at the right time
> >> during fetal development.
> >
> >Is that the word, they used, "slight"?
>
> No, actually what the person said was
> "There are so few differences between
> male and female that it's scary." My
> own observation is that we tend to
> exaggerate the differences between
> the sexes in, well, about any culture
> I've come across.
And in almost any species you come across, too.
How do you explain that? If the difference
is so slight, how do you explain its effects on
human culture?
> >
> >How would a scientist know whether a difference
> >was slight or not? Slight compared to...
>
> Slight as in it doesn't take all that much
> to make a fetus male or female. Slight
> as in the difference between "male" and "female" hormones is,
> chemically, pretty minor.
That's true of lots of chemicals. But minor differences
can sometimes mean the difference between life and death,
depression and joy, and so on.
A small chemical difference, but a meaningfully large
social and historical one (between the sexes).
>
> Thus, the phenomenon of XY-females,
> pseudo-hermaphrodites, hermaphrodites,
> Turner Syndrome and such. Admittedly,
> not all of them are fertile, but my understanding is that there's less
> difference between ovaries and testes than
> one might think--both start out as
> ovotestes in the fetus.
True. I see what you're saying. But as anyone with
a child with Turner Syndrome knows, the difference
is not perceived as slight (especially in the first months
and years after diagnosis). And the lives of XY-females
are often plagued with difficulties that they don't view as
slight (such as their inability to have children).
>
> Mother Nature screws up a certain percent
> of the time.
I don't know if I regard the folks you mentioned as
"screw-ups." A certain amount of variation is coded
into the genome by the natural dynamics of how DNA
is reproduced.
OoHedoniaoo
>Message-id: <lz__7.148$97.2...@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net>
>
>
>"OoHedoniaoo"
>> Gender doesn't just float away? What might you be referring to here
>> specifically regarding feminists? Thanks.
MR:
>A lot of feminists believe there are no (essential or other) differences
>between men and women (aside from the one chromosome and some
>minor genitalia differences). >
And a lot of feminists think that these differences are highly over-emphasised
when raising children, not just that there is no essential difference.
< Everything about gender is learned and
>subject to change. >
How about many things regarding gender are learned and conditioned responses.
Why go overboard with words like "everything"?
< Therefore, with appropriate education/upbringing, we can
>make gender go away and everyone will just be "themselves" (but
>without gender). >>
How about with appropriate education and upbringing we can balance out the
extremes of the past so that being oneself means incorporating the male and
female traits we all have which may translate into a real freedom when relating
to the world and interacting in it?
<There is even a school of thought called "gender feminism"
>that claims what we understand as gendered behavior is the result
>of economic oppression and the concerns/needs of capitalism (etc.)>
You do not think that economics/race/and so on play into the whole idea of
people having a "place" or being programmed to act out specific roles which
serve (or not) the community as a whole but not necessarily the individual?
>This viewpoint is hotly contested by folks with a background in biology,
>since those sex-determining chromosomes (and their interactions with the
>body throughout
>life) create different brains, biochemistry, etc. (which of course create
>behavior).
This would seem obvious, but I do not see how it undermines the ideas of some
femminists who are not as radical as you seem to be portraying them in this
post.
melisande
> >Subject: Re: why waite, why thoth ?
> >From: "melisande" melis...@hotmail.com
> >Date: 1/9/02 8:52 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: <lz__7.148$97.2...@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net>
> >
> >
> >"OoHedoniaoo"
> >> >
> >> Gender doesn't just float away? What might you be referring to here
> >> specifically regarding feminists? Thanks.
>
> MR:
> >A lot of feminists believe there are no (essential or other) differences
> >between men and women (aside from the one chromosome and some
> >minor genitalia differences). >
>
> And a lot of feminists think that these differences are highly
over-emphasised
> when raising children, not just that there is no essential difference.
There are several groups of feminists. I'm speaking of the
Mary Daly/Andrea Dworkin group (who, actually, waffle between
claiming men should be limited from the species and declaring biology
is of no real importance). Unfortunately, they're probably the
most visible and quoted feminists in America (along with Hilary Clinton).
>
> < Everything about gender is learned and
> >subject to change. >
>
> How about many things regarding gender are learned and conditioned
responses.
> Why go overboard with words like "everything"?
Those aren't my words, but it is the opinion of many active
feminists. Everything essential about gender is learned, they say.
>
> < Therefore, with appropriate education/upbringing, we can
> >make gender go away and everyone will just be "themselves" (but
> >without gender). >>
>
> How about with appropriate education and upbringing we can balance out the
> extremes of the past so that being oneself means incorporating the male
and
> female traits we all have which may translate into a real freedom when
relating
> to the world and interacting in
That sounds great. But it isn't what a lot of feminists
are trying to do.
But frankly, I don't really want anyone telling me how
to raise my children so that their "gender issues" balance
out what has happened historically. I have my own
perceptions of history (and childrearing).
>
> <There is even a school of thought called "gender feminism"
> >that claims what we understand as gendered behavior is the result
> >of economic oppression and the concerns/needs of capitalism (etc.)>
>
> You do not think that economics/race/and so on play into the whole idea of
> people having a "place" or being programmed to act out specific roles
which
> serve (or not) the community as a whole but not necessarily the
individual?
I think there's a tremendous amount of variation (in terms of gender)
_within_ races and economic classes. It's hard to explain why
some folks who are, say, black working class, turn out one way
and other folks very differently.
People being programmed by economics and race? Perhaps,
Can you give an example?
>
> >This viewpoint is hotly contested by folks with a background in biology,
> >since those sex-determining chromosomes (and their interactions with the
> >body throughout
> >life) create different brains, biochemistry, etc. (which of course create
> >behavior).
>
> This would seem obvious, but I do not see how it undermines the ideas of
some
> femminists who are not as radical as you seem to be portraying them in
this
> post.
>
Not all people who call themselves feminists are that radical, of course.
The radicals probably get more press. And so, it doesn't undermine the
ideas of the less radical feminists.
MR
edeejay
> "OoHedoniaoo" wrote: > >
> > You do not think that economics/race/and so on play
> > into the whole idea of people having a "place" or being
> > programmed to act out specific roles which
> > serve (or not) the community as a whole but not necessarily
> > the individual?
> I think there's a tremendous amount of variation (in terms of gender)
> _within_ races and economic classes. It's hard to explain why
> some folks who are, say, black working class, turn out one way
> and other folks very differently.
What way is it that you think 'black working class' turn out that's very
different from other folk? And who are these 'other folk' you're
talking about?
edeejay
melisande
"edeejay" <Ede...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:3C443C7C...@netscape.net...
I don't think so. My point is that there is little or nothing that
people from a particular class or ethnic group can be said to have
in common (other than being from a certain income and having
certain alleles).
I was responding to someone else who said
> > > You do not think that economics/race/and so on play
> > > into the whole idea of people having a "place" or being
> > > programmed to act out specific roles which
> > > serve (or not) the community as a whole but not necessarily
> > > the individual?
My answer is no, I don't think economics "programs" people.
MR
>
OoHedoniaoo
>Message-id: <3B118.1065$8z1.4...@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net>
>
> "OoHedoniaoo" wrote:
You do not think that economics/race/and so on play
>> > > into the whole idea of people having a "place" or being
>> > > programmed to act out specific roles which
>> > > serve (or not) the community as a whole but not necessarily
>> > > the individual?
MR
>> > I think there's a tremendous amount of variation (in terms of gender)
>> > _within_ races and economic classes. It's hard to explain why
>> > some folks who are, say, black working class, turn out one way
>> > and other folks very differently.
eedejay
>> What way is it that you think 'black working class' turn out that's very
>> different from other folk? And who are these 'other folk' you're
>> talking about?
>>
>> edeejay
MR
>I don't think so. My point is that there is little or nothing that
>people from a particular class or ethnic group can be said to have
>in common (other than being from a certain income and having
>certain alleles).
Can you possibly rephrase the above statement so that it is more
understandable? For example what do you mean by the word nothing?
MR
>I was responding to someone else who said
>
>> > > You do not think that economics/race/and so on play
>> > > into the whole idea of people having a "place" or being
>> > > programmed to act out specific roles which
>> > > serve (or not) the community as a whole but not necessarily
>> > > the individual?
>
>My answer is no, I don't think economics "programs" people.
>
>MR
>
Economics is in direct relationship to the whole culture. It affects food;
music; educational levels; language; art; social relationships and much more.
Much of a cultural group's expression comes from it's relationship to economics
and so it's major influence can become a programming factor in the lives of
people who may almost exclusively identify with where they live; their race and
so on.
Zeke
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
White Rabbit
OoHedoniaoo wrote:
> <SNIP>
> >My answer is no, I don't think economics "programs" people.
> >
> >MR
> >
> Economics is in direct relationship to the whole culture. It affects food;
> music; educational levels; language; art; social relationships and much more.
> Much of a cultural group's expression comes from it's relationship to economics
> and so it's major influence can become a programming factor in the lives of
> people who may almost exclusively identify with where they live; their race and
> so on.
a study made in a diplomatic mission ( I already posted about few months ago )
reached another conclusion
Religion is the first factor in direct relationship with economic development
In matter of fact the best economically developed countries are"Jew Chinese/
Japanese and Protestant
follows Catholics than Arabs and the last one Animist .. the religion define
their approach to economics
through a mind conditioning others environmental factors as climate race and
nutrition wil probably influence also
Theo
>
>
> Zeke
melisande
I don't think the problem in meaning is with the word "nothing." My
sentences were indeed poorly constructed. Here's a better attempt:
I have nothing to say about what "all blacks" or "all poor people" have
in common. Do you?
>
> MR
> >I was responding to someone else who said
> >
> >> > > You do not think that economics/race/and so on play
> >> > > into the whole idea of people having a "place" or being
> >> > > programmed to act out specific roles which
> >> > > serve (or not) the community as a whole but not necessarily
> >> > > the individual?
> >
> >My answer is no, I don't think economics "programs" people.
> >
> >MR
> >
> Economics is in direct relationship to the whole culture. It affects
food;
> music; educational levels; language; art; social relationships and much
more.
> Much of a cultural group's expression comes from it's relationship to
economics
> and so it's major influence can become a programming factor in the lives
of
> people who may almost exclusively identify with where they live; their
race and
> so on.
>
> Zeke
It seems one could investigate the affects, although so far I don't
know of anyone coming up with conclusive results on how any
of the things you mention are affected by economics. There are
always folks at the same economic level who don't share whatever
the postulated characteristic might be. So something else is operative.
Economics _may_ correlate with, influence, have some bearing on...etc.
(but it does not program).
On the other hand, two families or persons of the exact same economic level
might differ on every of the variables you state (their food, music,
educational
level, etc.) How do you explain that? What's the variable that hovers
above
economics and is more important in this case?
MR
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
OoHedoniaoo
>Message-id: <bYm18.1115$aB5.4...@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net>
>
>> eedejay wrote:
>> >> What way is it that you think 'black working class' turn out that's
>very
>> >> different from other folk? And who are these 'other folk' you're
>> >> talking about?
>> >>
>> >> edeejay
>>
>> MR
>> >I don't think so. My point is that there is little or nothing that
>> >people from a particular class or ethnic group can be said to have
>> >in common (other than being from a certain income and having
>> >certain alleles).
>>
I said
>> Can you possibly rephrase the above statement so that it is more
>> understandable? For example what do you mean by the word nothing?
>
>I don't think the problem in meaning is with the word "nothing." My
>sentences were indeed poorly constructed. Here's a better attempt:
>
>I have nothing to say about what "all blacks" or "all poor people" have
>in common. Do you?
Confused. It was you who brought up blacks and then eedejay who questioned you
on your comment. If I had something to say I probably would have by now.
(read above or re-read the thread to clarify this)
You said that "My point is that there is little or nothing that people from a
particular class or ethnic group can be said to have in common"
It was this comment only that I found incredibly hard to believe.
>
MR:
>It seems one could investigate the affects, although so far I don't
>know of anyone coming up with conclusive results on how any
>of the things you mention are affected by economics.
People eat what they can afford and they create food art accordingly. Volumes
of books have been written on the influence of poverty on music.
There are
>always folks at the same economic level who don't share whatever
>the postulated characteristic might be. So something else is operative.
Oh no, always is much too strong a word. People individuate in infinite ways,
true enough, but there are some very specific and obvious correlations between
culture and economics. Of course something else is operative, some many many
other things.
>
>Economics _may_ correlate with, influence, have some bearing on...etc.
>(but it does not program).
Semantics.
>On the other hand, two families or persons of the exact same economic level
>might differ on every of the variables you state (their food, music,
>educational
>level, etc.) How do you explain that?
If you are discussing Europe or most of the USA, I'd say outside influences
and their heritage.
What's the variable that hovers
>above
>economics and is more important in this case?
There may be many factors which are as important or even more important than
economics, as Theo pointed out regarding religion. I think we've lost our way
here in communication. Anyway, it's not tarot anymore.
Zeke
>MR
>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Juan Herberto
_People_ 'program' (or 'prejudge' or "catalogue" etc) _other_ people,
and utilize economics as a parameter (along with skin tones, religious
preference, level of education, accent, size/appearance of dwelling
place, etc) of their determinations.
^..^
melisande
I was responding to your comment: )
OOh:> You do not think that economics/race/and so on play into the whole
idea of
> people having a "place" or being programmed to act out specific roles
which
> serve (or not) the community as a whole but not necessarily the
individual?"
In which you mentioned race. I do not believe there are races of human
beings, but there are ethnic groups (of which there are hundreds of
examples,
blacks are one).
I guess you are able to think in generalities (like race, which I say
doesn't exist) but not in terms of specifics.
"
>
> You said that "My point is that there is little or nothing that people
from a
> particular class or ethnic group can be said to have in common"
>
> It was this comment only that I found incredibly hard to believe.
So you name an ethnic group and then tell me what they all have in
common. You may find it hard to believe, but you aren't able to
come up with a counter-example. Choose whatever group you like.
> >
>
> MR:
> >It seems one could investigate the affects, although so far I don't
> >know of anyone coming up with conclusive results on how any
> >of the things you mention are affected by economics.
>
> People eat what they can afford and they create food art accordingly.
Volumes
> of books have been written on the influence of poverty on music.
>
> There are
> >always folks at the same economic level who don't share whatever
> >the postulated characteristic might be. So something else is operative.
>
> Oh no, always is much too strong a word. People individuate in infinite
ways,
> true enough, but there are some very specific and obvious correlations
between
> culture and economics. Of course something else is operative, some many
many
> other things.
> >
> >Economics _may_ correlate with, influence, have some bearing on...etc.
> >(but it does not program).
>
> Semantics.
To you.
>
> >On the other hand, two families or persons of the exact same economic
level
> >might differ on every of the variables you state (their food, music,
> >educational
> >level, etc.) How do you explain that?
>
> If you are discussing Europe or most of the USA, I'd say outside
influences
> and their heritage.
>
> What's the variable that hovers
> >above
> >economics and is more important in this case?
>
>
> There may be many factors which are as important or even more important
than
> economics, as Theo pointed out regarding religion. I think we've lost our
way
> here in communication. Anyway, it's not tarot anymore.
Agreed.
>
> Zeke
> >MR
> >
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Juan Herberto
all have in common.."- OK. Black African-Americans resent the pervasive
endemic racism that they encounter in the U.S. (& I'll define 'African-
American' further by a 'not this-not that' "keying out" of the 'subject'
if you wish- but I shouldn't have to...)
^..^
Got Problems?
Get RIDOVEM
edeejay
> I do not believe there are races of human
> beings, but there are ethnic groups (of which there are hundreds of
> examples, blacks are one).
Oh really? Do you care to explain how you define 'ethnic groups', then?
And why are "blacks" (whatever you mean by that) one of these 'ethnic
groups'?
edeejay
<who's interested in hearing a lower-tier anthropologist take on ethnic
groups>
MLYoung
>
>And what would your explanation be for the fact
>that Asian students score higher in math in general?
I don't have one, though I can think of
several possibilities. I doubt, however,
that it's hardwired. The brain just doesn't
work that way.
--margaret
melisande
"Juan Herberto" <rid...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:29412-3C...@asg-storefull-1111.public.svc.webtv.net...
Abdul Akoni says he has no resentment whatsoever.
But he's a pretty kind and devout person. He also said I could use his
name in this post.
I passed your post on to Lori, who wrote back, "who's got
time to waste on resentment?" (Then she bugged me about not
going to Pilates training for the twentieth time).
Abdul says he's an African-American, Lori calls herself Black.
Neither uses the term Black African-American (I asked).
>
> Got Problems?
> Get RIDOVEM
>
melisande
> melisande wrote: >
>
>
> > I do not believe there are races of human
> > beings, but there are ethnic groups (of which there are hundreds of
> > examples, blacks are one).
>
>
> Oh really? Do you care to explain how you define 'ethnic groups', then?
> And why are "blacks" (whatever you mean by that) one of these 'ethnic
> groups'?
Way off topic. But I've posted on the matter in sci.anthropology,
you can google it.
melisande
"MLYoung" <mly...@aol.comZAPTHIS> wrote in message
exclusively to mean "genetic." By now, your
vocal tract is most likely hardwired (neuronally
connected) to produce on-pitch sounds over
three octaves. It's very unlike you're laying down
new dendrites each time you sing.
Melisande
(this is tangentially related to tarot, since some, like Jung,
claim that people have preset reactions to certain
symbols).
edeejay
> "edeejay" wrote: > >
> > melisande wrote: > > >
> > >I do not believe there are races of human
> > > beings, but there are ethnic groups
> > > (of which there are hundreds of
> > > examples, blacks are one).
> > Oh really? Do you care to explain how you define 'ethnic groups', then?
> > And why are "blacks" (whatever you mean by that) one of these 'ethnic
> > groups'?
> Way off topic.
Exactly, so why don't you can the way off topic
stuff (especially if you have no intentions of
backing up what you're claiming) and get on topic.
> But I've posted on the matter in sci.anthropology,
Doesn't matter. My only concerned is what you're
posting in alt.tarot.
> you can google it.
No thanks, I read enough of your unsubstantiated
drivel here. No need to go searching for more.
edeejay
Hieronymous707
>Doesn't matter. My only concerned is what you're
>posting in alt.tarot.
Do, er did you mean that in the past tense? Concerned, I mean.
>No thanks, I read enough of your unsubstantiated
>drivel here. No need to go searching for more.
But you do ... er, did.
-hi-
MLYoung
>vocal tract is most likely hardwired (neuronally
>connected) to produce on-pitch sounds over
>three octaves. It's very unlike you're laying down
>new dendrites each time you sing.
>
>Melisande
Actually, if I don't practice, I lose part of
the range. And there's more than one
way to sing a note. It's not a simple
neural connection. Each time I sing, I
adapt to circumstances.
>(this is tangentially related to tarot, since some, like Jung,
>claim that people have preset reactions to certain
No, it's not. It related to your need
to prove yourself to me.
--margaret
Juan Herberto
generalization, there are exceptions. Abdul Akoni -born in this country?
Parents born here? I'm sure if you asked Ward Connerly, he'd also say
'no resentment- no time for it..' which may be an indication of how he
'processes' his feelings. You may have a valid point that all these
differences are matters of 'perception,' like 'race', 'ethnicity,' etc.
I'd say the same thing about being an American. What does 'nation' mean,
anyhow? It's a totally artificial construction (as anyone who lives on
the Left side of the mississippi River can tell you, if they're honest.
Look at all those big, rectangular 'States' over there!.. hardly a
geographical border anywhere; and yet nearly everyone out west will tell
you that they're from Somewhere, a citizen, a 'resident', etc- all
totally arbitrary, like 'nations'... and 'races.'
And any 'ethnic group' that sends kids to public (or most any) school
here (anywhere?) can say "bye-bye ethnicity' to their progeny. We're
just all in this together, basically... ^..^
Got Problems?
Get RIDOVEM
melisande
That's how I see it.
Akoni was born in Kenya, but is a naturalized American. But the original
comment was about _all_ "Black-African-Americans". (Akoni actually
prefers the term Afro-American, but has given up trying to correct people
and accepts African-American. He wrote a book called "Afro-Americanisms"
about the retention of African culture among Americans whose ancestors
came from Africa several generations ago.
At the same time that some individuals are "losing" ethnicity (I mean,
Japan itself may not be as "Japanese" as it was fifty years ago, so what's
the basis for comparison?), other folks are "becoming" ethnic (turning
Japanese, so to speak). It's a big carnival, a cultural free-for-all.
MR
>
> Got Problems?
> Get RIDOVEM
>
melisande
"MLYoung" <mly...@aol.comZAPTHIS> wrote in message
> >now, your
> >vocal tract is most likely hardwired (neuronally
> >connected) to produce on-pitch sounds over
> >three octaves. It's very unlike you're laying down
> >new dendrites each time you sing.
> >
> >Melisande
>
> Actually, if I don't practice, I lose part of
> the range. And there's more than one
> way to sing a note. It's not a simple
> neural connection. Each time I sing, I
> adapt to circumstances.
I'd suspect that's because of muscle involvement (although
unused dendrites break down over time). At any rate,
I doubt you go back to where you were at age five (or where
I am now).
>
>
SNIP
MR
-you're an intelligent person, so it's interesting reading
what you post.
Hieronymous707
>-you're an intelligent person, so it's interesting reading
>what you post.
One does not necessarily follow the other, Melisande.
You're an intelligent person. You should know that.
-hi-
edeejay
> "Juan Herberto" wrote: > >
> > Abdul Akoni -born in this country?
> > Parents born here?
> Akoni was born in Kenya,
I see. What about this Akoni's parents? Are they
American born? Are they of American born parents?
> but is a naturalized American.
At what age was this Akoni naturalized?
> But the original
> comment was about _all_ "Black-African-Americans".
No, your original comment was that "blacks" was an
'ethnic group' (whatever you meant by that).
> (Akoni actually prefers the term Afro-American,
Why? The term Afro-American, if used correctly,
refers to a person of African descent who was
American born. According to you, this Akoni
wasn't born in the US. Then he isn't by
definition an Afro-American.
> but has given up trying to correct people
Why? Doesn't this Akoni believe in the
dissemination of correct information about his
cultural origin?
> and accepts African-American.
Well, hello, that's what this Akoni is. He's an
African (Kenya born) who has become American.
> He wrote a book called "Afro-Americanisms"
> about the retention of African culture among Americans whose ancestors
> came from Africa several generations ago.
So what? Do you think that makes this Akoni an
authority on what it means to be an American of
African descent?
> At the same time that some individuals are "losing" ethnicity
You talk about ethnicity like it's a sock or glove
lost in the wash. Why? Just like tarot, cultures
evolve. And evolution doesn't necessarily mean
loss.
One of the many things I've learned since I
started posting here is that tarot (like life) has
no place for ones preconceived notions about what
it all means. If ones true intention for posting
to alt.tarot is to learn about the subject of this
newsgroup, then one of the first things one's
going to have to learn is how to lose their
prejudices.
edeejay
Hieronymous707
>One of the many things I've learned since I
>started posting here is that tarot (like life) has
>no place for ones preconceived notions about what
>it all means.
You brought preconceived notions with you to the computer today. You couldn't
help yourself, but you just did it. There's a place for that. It's right
here.
Some people can't find their preconceived notions with both hands, so it may be
necessary to spell it out for them. I'm not suggesting that you are one of
them, but there are some people ...
>If ones true intention for posting
>to alt.tarot is to learn about the subject of this
>newsgroup, then one of the first things one's
>going to have to learn is how to lose their
>prejudices.
It's funny that you wrote "posting" rather than reading.
The seemingly logical assumption is that one would want learn about the subject
of this newsgroup by reading it, not by posting to it. Unless, of course, one
reads one's own posts and expects to learn from that ... which would be a
preconceived notion.
Are you suggesting that one should learn how to lose one's self-prejudices?
Isn't that redundant?
-hi-
Hieronymous707
>The seemingly logical assumption is that one would want learn about
>the subject of this newsgroup by reading it, not by posting to it.
There should be a t(w)o in there between want and learn.
The (w) is just a suggestion.
> Unless, of course,one reads one's own posts and expects to learn >from that
... which would be a preconceived notion.
I don't know about you, but I just learned something.
Just goes to show you.
-hi-
melisande
> melisande wrote: >
>
> > "Juan Herberto" wrote: > >
>
> > > Abdul Akoni -born in this country?
> > > Parents born here?
Why does that matter to you?
>
>
> > Akoni was born in Kenya,
>
>
> I see. What about this Akoni's parents? Are they
> American born? Are they of American born parents?
Why does that matter to you?
>
> > but is a naturalized American.
>
>
> At what age was this Akoni naturalized?
What does that matter to you?
>
> > But the original
> > comment was about _all_ "Black-African-Americans".
>
>
> No, your original comment was that "blacks" was an
> 'ethnic group' (whatever you meant by that).
There's a group of people who refer to themselves as "black."
There is little or nothing that one can say that describes
all of these people simultaneously, other than that they (some of the time)
use the descriptor "black." Some folks use the descriptor
at some times, but not at others.
>
> > (Akoni actually prefers the term Afro-American,
>
>
> Why? The term Afro-American, if used correctly,
> refers to a person of African descent who was
> American born. According to you, this Akoni
> wasn't born in the US. Then he isn't by
> definition an Afro-American.
That's not how he defines it. Where are you getting
your definition?
>
> > but has given up trying to correct people
>
>
> Why? Doesn't this Akoni believe in the
> dissemination of correct information about his
> cultural origin?
He doesn't regard the term "Afro-American"
as a piece of "information."
>
>
> > and accepts African-American.
>
>
> Well, hello, that's what this Akoni is. He's an
> African (Kenya born) who has become American.
And I'm sure you're not going to give any citations
to support this. I'm sure you're aware that the SUNY
series in Afro-American Studies publishes monographs
under that label that include studies of both African-
and American-born persons. Have you thought of trying
to correct them? Greenwood Press does the same thing.
But Akoni, actually, is following the definitions laid out
by his graduate thesis advisor, Salikoko Mufwene.
>
> > He wrote a book called "Afro-Americanisms"
> > about the retention of African culture among Americans whose ancestors
> > came from Africa several generations ago.
>
>
> So what? Do you think that makes this Akoni an
> authority on what it means to be an American of
> African descent?
No. But as a human being, he's entitled to use language
in his own chosen way. You're basically saying he hasn't
thought about it enough and doesn't what he's talking about.
I disagree.
>
> > At the same time that some individuals are "losing" ethnicity
>
>
> You talk about ethnicity like it's a sock or glove
> lost in the wash. Why? Just like tarot, cultures
> evolve. And evolution doesn't necessarily mean
> loss.
That's why I put it in quotes, when responding to Juan H's notion
about ethnic progeny.
>
> One of the many things I've learned since I
> started posting here is that tarot (like life) has
> no place for ones preconceived notions about what
> it all means. If ones true intention for posting
> to alt.tarot is to learn about the subject of this
> newsgroup, then one of the first things one's
> going to have to learn is how to lose their
> prejudices.
>
How true. Do you follow your own advice?
> edeejay
>
melisande
"Hieronymous707" <hierony...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020119150430...@mb-mu.aol.com...
Right. And you're right that her intelligence is
only part of the reason why Margaret's posts are
interesting.
MR
(and gee, thanks for the compliment)
Hieronymous707
>Right.
Absolutely.
>And you're right that her intelligence is
>only part of the reason why Margaret's posts are
>interesting.
Although I didn't actually say that directly, I concur whole heartedly with the
sentiment.
>MR
>(and gee, thanks for the compliment)
You're welcome, I guess.
I was simply stating the obvious.
I don't think that is either gratuitous or an overstatement.
...
Well, maybe that was.
-hi-
OoHedoniaoo
>Date: 1/18/02 11:14 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <20020119021450...@mb-me.aol.com>
>
>Actually, if I don't practice, I lose part of
>the range. And there's more than one
>way to sing a note. It's not a simple
>neural connection. Each time I sing, I
>adapt to circumstances.
>
>
MR:
>>(this is tangentially related to tarot, since some, like Jung,
>>claim that people have preset reactions to certain
>
>No, it's not. It related to your need
>to prove yourself to me.
>
>--margaret
>
And your need Miss Margaret is? LOL
>
>
>
>
>
Juan Herberto
you ask yourself whether or not you've just inhaled? Oh, sorry to be
such a 'cat,' but I'm really Bummed! Every time there's a 'margaret'
post, the 3 of us in the office draw lots, based on the number of
self-referentials in the post. I haven't won one yet!.. & it's cost me a
_lot_ of Odwallas! The 'consolation' prize is pretty good, though... the
'loser' gets to read the post in their best 'margaret' voice (like, I
got to work in a '3-octaves-with-yodel' extemporaneous bit into this
last one- Fun!). I bet you've got a great 'head' voice, Mag! (Can you do
it 'country?.. ie sans vibrato?) peace! ^..^
OoHedoniaoo
>Date: 1/19/02 11:13 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <7792-3C...@asg-storefull-1112.public.svc.webtv.net>
>
>(margaret wrote).." each time I sing, I adapt to circumstances.."- like,
>you ask yourself whether or not you've just inhaled? Oh, sorry to be
>such a 'cat,' but I'm really Bummed! Every time there's a 'margaret'
>post, the 3 of us in the office draw lots, based on the number of
>self-referentials in the post.
LOL, lots of me me's. I didn't know Marge could sing. I wonder if any of us
has heard *her* falsetto?
LOL
OoHedoniaoo
>From: "melisande" melis...@hotmail.com
>Date: 1/19/02 2:54 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <2Pm28.1357$L73.6...@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net>
>That's not how he defines it. Where are you getting
>your definition?
>
>>
>> > but has given up trying to correct people
>>
>>
>> Why? Doesn't this Akoni believe in the
>> dissemination of correct information about his
>> cultural origin?
>
>He doesn't regard the term "Afro-American"
>as a piece of "information."
>>
>>
>> > and accepts African-American.
>>
>>
>> Well, hello, that's what this Akoni is. He's an
>> African (Kenya born) who has become American.
>
>And I'm sure you're not going to give any citations
>to support this. I'm sure you're aware that the SUNY
>series in Afro-American Studies publishes monographs
>under that label that include studies of both African-
>and American-born persons. Have you thought of trying
>to correct them? Greenwood Press does the same thing.
>
>But Akoni, actually, is following the definitions laid out
>by his graduate thesis advisor, Salikoko Mufwene.>>
Ah, and herein lies the rub. Akoni doesn't really know who he is ethnically
or racially. Akoni is relying on 'acadamia' to tell him what is politically
correct. He uses words which may hold no real or deep meaning for himself.
>> > He wrote a book called "Afro-Americanisms"
>> > about the retention of African culture among Americans whose ancestors
>> > came from Africa several generations ago.>>
Sounds fine, and yet he needed to rely on one of his advisors to tell him what
term he should be using to define his own heritage. That's a bit incongruent
as I see it.
theo:
>> So what? Do you think that makes this Akoni an
>> authority on what it means to be an American of
>> African descent?
>
>No. But as a human being, he's entitled to use language
>in his own chosen way. You're basically saying he hasn't
>thought about it enough and doesn't what he's talking about.
Wouldn't that be backed up by your comment above where you say he got this term
from someone else? What does that say to you?
>
>I disagree.
>>
>> > At the same time that some individuals are "losing" ethnicity
Bingo, keyword: *some*. Some retain their ethnicity very well and would
probably enjoy telling you that themselves but I doubt they are reading this
newsgroup or much of anything on usenet.
>>
>> You talk about ethnicity like it's a sock or glove
>> lost in the wash. Why? Just like tarot, cultures
>> evolve. And evolution doesn't necessarily mean
>> loss.
Right On Mr.Theo. Absolutely. But you see, when someone relys on
institutions to tell them what goes on in the world and how things work, they
are in this quagmire of mis-information. They often miss the point. Somehow
the essence is lost. Thanks for bringing up this excellent point.
Zeke
melisande
Akoni (and I) don't believe in race. And Akoni isn't in to ethnicity,
either.
He does, however, claim that certain customs originated within historical
times in Africa, and that those customs (when practiced by an American)
make that person an Afro-American. I think Akoni regards the entire
"naming thing" as a kind of deep play. Anyway, it's interesting (some would
say amusing) to see the blond surfer dudes leave his course claiming to
be Afro-Americans.
And Akoni's friendship with Mufwene (and respect for him) is quite deep.
Akoni is one of those folks who forms deep allegiances to others. I don't
know how you define meaningful, but it's interesting to me that you're able
to define it for someone else.
>
>
> >> > He wrote a book called "Afro-Americanisms"
> >> > about the retention of African culture among Americans whose
ancestors
> >> > came from Africa several generations ago.>>
>
>
> Sounds fine, and yet he needed to rely on one of his advisors to tell him
what
> term he should be using to define his own heritage. That's a bit
incongruent
> as I see it.
Rely? Tell? Have you ever heard of people formulating a common
language?
>
> theo:
> >> So what? Do you think that makes this Akoni an
> >> authority on what it means to be an American of
> >> African descent?
Akoni is not an authority (he'd be the last person to claim that!)
But this thread was about "all blacks" believing or acting in one
way. Akoni would not discourage other people from viewing
him as black (he knows that Americans, pretty universally, refer
to him as black). But he personally uses a different term (for himself).
Isn't he entitled?
> >
> >No. But as a human being, he's entitled to use language
> >in his own chosen way. You're basically saying he hasn't
> >thought about it enough and doesn't what he's talking about.
>
> Wouldn't that be backed up by your comment above where you say he got this
term
> from someone else? What does that say to you?
I'm laughing, since this discussion is taking place on a newsgroup
where the entire topic (tarot) is gotten from somewhere else. Not one
of you invented tarot.
One of the purposes of language is to discuss things with others.
Akoni likes discussing with Mufwene (and a bunch of others).
A lot of people adopt other folk's terminology or conceptualization.
If we all invented our own words each time we went to speak, that
would screw up one of the main tasks of language, now wouldn't it?
>
> >
> >I disagree.
> >>
> >> > At the same time that some individuals are "losing" ethnicity
>
>
> Bingo, keyword: *some*. Some retain their ethnicity very well and would
> probably enjoy telling you that themselves but I doubt they are reading
this
> newsgroup or much of anything on usenet.
Very true. But even people who are "losing" one set of ethnic
concepts can be gaining other concepts. And what makes it
all interesting is that a whole lot of people can claim to be one
thing (such as Cherokee) but have very different ideas about
what it means to be Cherokee. Or Irish.
>
> >>
> >> You talk about ethnicity like it's a sock or glove
> >> lost in the wash. Why? Just like tarot, cultures
> >> evolve. And evolution doesn't necessarily mean
> >> loss.
>
> Right On Mr.Theo. Absolutely. But you see, when someone relys on
> institutions to tell them what goes on in the world and how things work,
they
> are in this quagmire of mis-information. They often miss the point.
Somehow
> the essence is lost. Thanks for bringing up this excellent point.
Mufwene is not an institution, Zeke. He's a regular person.
I agree with Theo. Ethnicity is in constant flux, and I know many people
who will
claim different ethnicities on different days (especially in Hawaii and
sometimes even
within the same day). So not only are ethnic groups in constant flux, but
they
are not mutually exclusive.
Melisande
edeejay
> Anyway, it's interesting (some would
> say amusing) to see the blond surfer dudes leave his course claiming to
> be Afro-Americans.
Is that anything like tarot newbie leaving a two
week online tarot course claiming to be psychic?
Uh huh.
<rolling eyes>
edeejay
Melisande
Perhaps. But we do live in a time when identity fluctuates.
And a number of blond Afro-Americans here in So Cal are organizing
quite a large Rasta gathering on April 20, which they say will
be fun and entertaining.
MR
>
>
J. Karlin
> And a number of blond Afro-Americans here in So Cal are organizing
> quite a large Rasta gathering---
"Afro" is a hairstyle. If it's also a lifestyle in California,
that doesn't say much about it except it's American, not
African in style and origin. America is omnivorous, that
doesn't mean it's culturally diverse, or that its diversity
is more than skin (or hairstyle) deep. That quality of
adopting the "other" is simply what we do here, and
is contrary to the approach of anywhere else in the
world, where "roots" are not merely a mini-series.
John Walker Lindh is about as close to a postmodern
"white" kid successfully adopting a foreign culture as
I know about, and even HIS motivations are American
upper-class-ified, not comparable to the people who
were born into Islam, and see us (US) as the great
Satan.
(jk)
**********************************************
Read the alt.tarot FAQ:
http://lonestar.texas.net/~r3winter/tarotfaq.html
More tarot resources available at:
http://lonestar.texas.net/~r3winter/alttarotqa.html
**********************************************
Hieronymous707
>And a number of blond Afro-Americans here in So Cal are organizing
>quite a large Rasta gathering on April 20, which they say will
>be fun and entertaining.
Be sure to take the good shit ... or just get off the pot all together.
-hi-times
melisande
"J. Karlin" <r3wi...@texas.net> wrote in message
news:3C504228...@texas.net...
> Melisande wrote:
>
> > And a number of blond Afro-Americans here in So Cal are organizing
> > quite a large Rasta gathering---
>
> "Afro" is a hairstyle.
Yes it is, but these folks reject that style and wear dreds instead.
If it's also a lifestyle in California,
> that doesn't say much about it except it's American, not
> African in style and origin. America is omnivorous, that
> doesn't mean it's culturally diverse, or that its diversity
> is more than skin (or hairstyle) deep. That quality of
> adopting the "other" is simply what we do here, and
> is contrary to the approach of anywhere else in the
> world, where "roots" are not merely a mini-series.
It might not be just America, and it might not be contrary
to everywhere else in the world. But it is certainly a major
trend in California.
>
> John Walker Lindh is about as close to a postmodern
> "white" kid successfully adopting a foreign culture as
> I know about, and even HIS motivations are American
> upper-class-ified, not comparable to the people who
> were born into Islam, and see us (US) as the great
> Satan.
I'm guessing that you're right about his motivations being
different from many people born into Islam (but of course,
there are many born into Islam who don't share his motivations).
But I'm wondering what makes you think he's American upper
class? I haven't been following the story closely enough. Was he
raised in the Hamptons or something? Beverly Hills?
MR
RimaBell
>>
>> John Walker Lindh is about as close to a postmodern
>> "white" kid successfully adopting a foreign culture as
>> I know about, and even HIS motivations are American
>> upper-class-ified, not comparable to the people who
>> were born into Islam, and see us (US) as the great
>> Satan.
>
>I'm guessing that you're right about his motivations being
>different from many people born into Islam (but of course,
>there are many born into Islam who don't share his motivations).
>
>But I'm wondering what makes you think he's American upper
>class? I haven't been following the story closely enough. Was he
>raised in the Hamptons or something? Beverly Hills?
I believe it was Berkeley and if you can believe the press, yes, his family
is wealthy and he was quite "privledged"......financially that is. Still, I'm
not sure what that might imply. I'd wait to hear more before making any
assumptions about the guy.
Rima