Monday, March 30, 2009

Battlestar RULES

best. show. ever.

here's the Admiral of the Battlestar Galactica (Edward James Olmos) talks about race as I understand it.

thanks to Bryce for the find.


Kate said...

The guy next to Eddie was SO uncomfortable. Man, I love BSG! So say we all!!

Anglican Gurl said...

There is no race? What's all the concern with RACISM then? You're going to find that this claim isn't very popular. You're just opening Pandora's Box here.

Tit for Tat said...

Actually he lost me when he said it was the "caucasian" race who coined the term racism. The "truth" is the Human race is the one who implemented it, and that came long before the caucasians got to the top, and it will be there long after they leave the top. Such a good speech yet he does seem to think whitey is still at the core of racism.

Sally said...

Sweet and PC but completely naive. The division of "races" existed long before us and will exist long after. Read the Old Testament and check out how many "***ites" there are. Does it make it right...perhaps not...does it justify evil against each way...should we struggle to change it....absolutely! BUT will it "always be with us to the end of the age"....unfortunately yes.

Luke said...

@ Anglican Gurl: i'm concerned with racism... yet i see the fact that there are no genetic differences between the races ( what we are dealing with is CULTURAL.

@ T4T: yeah.. i cringed at that as well. i don't think whitey invented it, just used it to maximum efficiency... which isn't good either!

@ Sally: completely naive? i don't think so.. i think it's a different take on the -ites. all of these are cultural distinctions... why the choice not to eat shellfish? to differentiate. why the choice not to wear mixed fibers or not cut hair at the temples? to differentiate.

this type of thinking leads to a superiority complex which you're exactly right, has been around since the advent of human culture and may be with us to the end of the age. i say MAY because i'm ever trying to remain the optimist.

if we switch lens from a multi-race idea to a multi-culture lens, i think that takes away a bit of the dehumanization card played by many racial-superior groups. "one pure race" is eliminated with this view... IMO.

Anglican Gurl said...

I'm not buying it. There are four major races: Australoid, Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid. The variations occur on hair texture, skin color, facial features, body odor, and metabolic rates are all different. Not to mention stature and eye color.

Tit for Tat said...

There are four major races(AG)

You are probably right. The thing is they all bleed red.

ArchangelChuck said...

AG: Genetically, we're all the same, but there are variations that make up our traits -- skin color, hair color, and so on. There are zero significant biological differences between any of the races.

Race is a social construct for grouping people, nothing more.

ArchangelChuck said...

Addendum: Looks like Luke beat me to the punch on genetic differences.

Addendum @AG: Even a cursory glance at the Wikipedia entry on alleles will explain all of the different things you've mentioned.

ArchangelChuck said...

Ack! One more comment. Sorry for spam.

@Luke: I think it would be prudent to make something very clear. Though there are no superior races, there are superior cultures. For example, the culture of the United States, and "The West" as it were, is far superior to that of Saudi Arabia and Iran. The reason is because we have standards for human rights and dignity: we don't kill apostates or homosexuals, we don't treat women as livestock, the list goes on.

Luke said...

"Though there are no superior races, there are superior cultures."

and i cringe at this statement too! i agree with your point, it's good that LGBTQ people are more accepted, that women aren't baby factories in our culture, but it's not helpful. they think they are superior to us because we don't have the same structure of society.

plus not all of the "west" agrees with your idea. think of the Mormons, Catholics, and Amish communities. i think it's a slippery slope.

Anglican Gurl said...

Okay... I have to admit that I didn't read your article before I posted. It seems as though my view really went out the window circa 2000.

I guess that if race were completely true then children adopted from other cultures (think Brad and Angelina) would come out speaking, acting, and doing things like the rest of their race would do. This is simply not true, which is what you cite when you talk about culture. So you're right, I was wrong.

Luke said...

yeah... eugenics freaks me out. which is what you advocate with your "4 Race Theory".

ArchangelChuck said...

@Luke: Heh! A touchy subject, indeed. Here's my take.

Better values equals a better civilization, and the values of the west as it were -- individual liberties (esp. speech), justice, the rule of law, etc. -- are objectively superior to any form of tyranny or censorship. We can observe this by analyzing the growth and progress of civilizations that adapt "Western" values versus those who reject them. Invariably, they are more industrialized, technologically advanced, and socially progressive.

In the bigger picture, misplaced cultural sensitivity is a recipe for disaster, and all we must do is look at the hijacking of the Dutch government by radical Islam as a warning.

[...] plus not all of the "west" agrees with your idea. think of the Mormons, Catholics, and Amish communities. i think it's a slippery slope.

The reason they can openly and freely disagree is because they live in the West. They should not take that fact for granted.

Tit for Tat said...

The reason they can openly and freely disagree is because they live in the West. They should not take that fact for granted.(AA)

You hit the nail on the head. Its a slippery slope, and our culture has started the slide. Religious dogma cant exist with democratic ideas of freedom. Now all we need to do is find the line.

Luke said...

"are objectively superior to any form of tyranny or censorship." AA

well that's where we differ. i am praying for a society to emerge just like Brave New World. everyone has their jobs and measures planned for them, not thought required. decency is in place without all of this pornography. i'll tell ya. i'm all about tyranny and censorship! ;-D

but seriously... i don't believe in objectivity, i believe in bias coloring everything. we think we're the best because this is OUR country. i'd say Canada and Europe are leap years beyond the US in some aspects yet not in others. I can say Egypt is light years beyond us in recycling, but not in other places.

it all goes to what values your culture holds. if you hold the individual over the group, censorship and any restraint on the person feels like tyranny and suppression of the individual character. but if your culture holds community over the individual, then censorship is part of the plan, so you don't offend the tradition or upset the established order. tyranny then doesn't feel like tyranny, but common good.

it's all on what your culture values.. this dictates how your society and civilization will be set up. is one better than the other? i can only speak through what my culture values... but going to Egypt really showed the value in structuring a civilization in a radically different way. it gave me an apprieciation for another culture. i saw problems with it, but those only stem from my POV. from their POV, they see just as much wrong with us as we do with them.

Anglican Gurl said...

"it's all on what your culture values"

This is very relativistic Luke. I agree with Archangel Chuck. We don't stone women in soccer fields, or behead them, or make them stay in abusive relationships. The west's view of women are a hundred times better than those of the Middle East.

Luke said...

Anglican Gurl,

i don't want to come off like i'm saying that there are not standards! surely these things are bad. what i want to throw out is the blanket statement of "well, the west is just better than the Middle East period." we all have our growing edges and some more than others.

it is very difficult for Americans not to make value judgments on other cultures... if they are less productive that means they are inferior. but take the Maori people.

what is a superior culture? one that values technological advancement or one that values relationships? a ppl because of their aggressive nature and military might were able to conquer and colonize, or one who because of their simplicity and trusting nature were conquered and colonized? one who accumulates wealth and power or the Maori who give it away?

who is greater, servent or master? (Lk 22:27). what did Jesus say about wealth again? (Mt 6:19-21)

question of superior and inferior is much like the question of beauty, it's in the eye of the beholder. so from a historical perspective some blacks, native cultures, and Muslims in particular have concluded that white people are innately an inferior race. they say that it is innate in the white race to oppress, kill, conquer, and enslave.

view the culture, and why they do what they do... why do we live like we do? because we can? or because we view security in that?

there's crap we both have to work on... but putting military bases on their lands or dividing up the countries with make shift lines that put rival tribes in direct contact is beyond insane. even the name "Middle East" shows a colonial bias... it's between the East (India and China) and BRITIAN! so yes, a culture that affirms human rights, environmental standards, and freedom of speech are all grand and great, but each of these will look different depending on culture.