Sam Harris & Neil deGrasse Tyson On Race

[BaggerofTea]

I don't even think hes giving off the veneer anymore.

The man was feeling himself to the point where he stepped to a 90 plus year old Noam Chomsky; the worlds foremost public intellectual, and got his shyt handed to him like a mouthy Sophmore. Whats worse was he posted it publically like some groupie

Harris was a fool for this. I think Chomsky called him out for his ardent neo conservatism

 

[VegasCAC]

I think race evolved to that point. I'm not sure if it was the driving force.

Maybe when Europeans first stepped onto the African continent they saw how much they technologically overmatched native Africans and that contributes to some sense of superiority. But I don't think racial superiority was the catalyst.

I think it grew out of the capitalist thirty for control. The feeling of racial superiority was a gift given by aristocraic white gentries to their poorer less sophisticated and easier to control white brethren

Economics was the driving force of the development of race, but not its originator.

The internal logic of racism (heritable biological superiority) was developed earlier in Medieval Europe, especially in France, as an explanation of class. The technological innovations that allowed the so-called "Age of Discovery" helped to allow them to those same ideals outward upon newly "discovered" peoples. The economic incentive of chattel slavery further contributed to this development in that the regime it created provided powerful incentive for the replication and assertion of race as fact.

 

[ⒶⓁⒾⒶⓈ]

Racial slavery arose in the Western Hemisphere long before "all men are created equal".. Race was "mixed in" with slavery in other colonial regimes just as much as it was in the Untied States. Ever heard of Code Noir? . Sowell doesn't understand history

The context of that Quote was the Americas...Its interesting that you brought up the racism of the European slave trade tho because the quote "All men are created equal" has its origins in Christianity..
The rise of the christian religion is intertwined with the rise of european racism vis a vis the curse of cain/ham (whichever way you wanna go with that)

The Christian English/spanish/portugese slave traders had to come up with the very same justifications for slavery because the bible (their constitution) told them all men were supposed to be equal before God
So what of these black men they were putting in chains ...they had to be declared to be less than human..right

it would seem you actually are further confirming sowells point

The particular form of New World chattel slavery arose as a labor system due to the economic incentives of staple crop production,

Thats actually misleading..there was a huge demand for agricultural labor but the slaves in the new world did way more than that there were plenty of skilled slave craftsmen blacksmiths stonemasons and so on...colonies need more than agriculture..they needed infrastructure.
How else did many of all those grand old colonial buildings get built.

and race developed in ideological discourse informed by this particular reality and often was used to justify it. Perhaps the greatest driver of the development of the idea of race was the incentive to justify the values of the economic regime of brutality.

Or the common sense approach that brutality is necessary if youre going to work someone to death without paying them..Slavery is always brutal even when both parties have the same skin tone...jussaying

And that's just the first minute of the video. Who the fukk is this guy

Maybe you should watch more than 60 seconds before jumping to conclusions...this is a complex issue not a vine

 

[BaggerofTea]

When he started positing arguments like


"Would it be morally ethical to first strike nuke a Muslim country if they had a weapon? That would be unspeakable and awful but... We have to consider it..." And just innumerable dumb ass scenarios like that.

I don't agree with the premise, but I see where he is coming from .

What if that Muslim country had Islamic radicals in charge bent on nuking the US. Pakistan for example.

 

[Broke Wave]

I don't agree with the premise, but I see where he is coming from .

What if that Muslim country had Islamic radicals in charge bent on nuking the US. Pakistan for example.

Then a first strike nuclear attack is still obviously not the answer

Like the complete lack of knowledge of the logistics of a nuclear strike are astounding and for him to even come out of his mouth sideways about that is unbelievable. If a country is hell bent on nuking America, nothing can stop them because there are non conventional delivery systems. This guy lives in a binary fantasy world. Please read his exchange with Chomsky and his incredilous logic about the Sudanese medicine factory and how America had moral cover for that monstrosity due to "intentions"

 

[BaggerofTea]

Economics was the driving force of the development of race, but not its originator.

The internal logic of racism (heritable biological superiority) was developed earlier in Medieval Europe, especially in France, as an explanation of class. The technological innovations that allowed the so-called "Age of Discovery" helped to allow them to those same ideals outward upon newly "discovered" peoples. The economic incentive of chattel slavery further contributed to this development in that the regime it created provided powerful incentive for the replication and assertion of race as fact.

That superiority was falsely created and confirmed via economic dominance though.

 

[Mr.Logic]

Here is a better intellectual discussing race

That is just his opinion...Sounds like a bunch of nonsense...

 

[VegasCAC]

[
The context of that Quote was the Americas...Its interesting that you brought up the racism of the European slave trade tho because the quote "All men are created equal" has its origins in Christianity..and the rise of the christian religion is intertwined with the rise of european racism vis a vis the curse of cain/ham (whichever way you wanna go with that)
The Christian English/spanish/portugese slave traders had to come up with the very same justifications for slavery because the bible (their constitution) told them all men were supposed to be equal before God
So what of these black men they were putting in chains ...they had to be declared to be less than human..right

it would seem you actually are further confirming sowells point


Thats actually misleading..there was a huge demand for agricultural labor but the slaves in the new world did way more than that there were plenty of skilled slave craftsmen blacksmiths stonemasons and so on...colonies need more than agriculture..they needed infrastructure.
How else did many of all those grand old colonial buildings get built.



Or the common sense approach that brutality is necessary if youre going to work someone to death without paying them..Slavery is always brutal even when both parties have the same skin tone...jussaying


Maybe you should watch more than 60 seconds before jumping to conclusions...this is a complex issue not a vine

The Curse of Ham was a (mostly American) pro-slavery argument that gained prominence after humanist challenges to the racial chattel slavery regime. Conceptions of race were established much earlier. No.

"All men are created equal" has parallels to Christian brotherhood, but its intellectual origins are obviously descended from the Enlightenment, which operates on the assertion of human equality due to the ability of the individual to reason, not in the assertion of human equality due its ostensible reality in the heavenly realm. No.

And.. no, not at first. The initial slave trading regime was justified by the concept of "just war" (which actually had biblical origins) before it was justified by race. Race (and even further down the line, the curse of Ham) was developed later as the economic regime of chattel slavery and the rise of science necessitated new explanations.

Don't be an idiot, the demand for slaves was due to staple crop production, whose regime required the infrastructural needs that necessitated the labor of smiths, stonemasons, and so on to maintain viability. Many individuals operated within an export-based staple commodity economy without actually working in the fields. That doesn't change the fact that the reason they were there was the bushels, barrels, cartons, etc. of shyt being shipped off for export.

No, slavery is not necessarily brutal unless economic incentive necessitates it. Chattel slavery was uniquely brutal because the kind of labor involved in say, sugar production by its nature given contemporary technological constraints was brutal. Many other forms of slavery worldwide, for thousands of years did not have the same form of brutality due to this simple fact. The economic viability of African labor moved along the process of defining race as justification. So was slavery especially brutal solely because of the race of those involved? No. But you can't ignore the fact that they were specifically selected to be involved in a slave trade complex that developed later into a mutually reinforcing dialectic of race and capitalism.

 

[BaggerofTea]

Then a first strike nuclear attack is still obviously not the answer

Like the complete lack of knowledge of the logistics of a nuclear strike are astounding and for him to even come out of his mouth sideways about that is unbelievable. If a country is hell bent on nuking America, nothing can stop them because there are non conventional delivery systems. This guy lives in a binary fantasy world. Please read his exchange with Chomsky and his incredilous logic about the Sudanese medicine factory and how America had moral cover for that monstrosity due to "intentions"

I don't cover for Harris's neo-conservatism

 

[ⒶⓁⒾⒶⓈ]

Economics was the driving force of the development of race, but not its originator.

The internal logic of racism (heritable biological superiority) was developed earlier in Medieval Europe, especially in France, as an explanation of class. The technological innovations that allowed the so-called "Age of Discovery" helped to allow them to those same ideals outward upon newly "discovered" peoples. The economic incentive of chattel slavery further contributed to this development in that the regime it created provided powerful incentive for the replication and assertion of race as fact.

What youre referring to here isnt specifically racism rather a class based caste system much like that still around in parts of Asia and specifically India and while its tempting to link it to modern racism it doesnt make much sense..The European nobility may have discriminated against the sun tanned peasant classes but they didnt view them as an entirely different species altogether.
Youre painting with broad brush strokes here.

 

[VegasCAC]

What youre referring to here isnt specifically racism rather a class based caste system much like that still around in parts of Asia and specifically India and while its tempting to link it to modern racism it doesnt make much sense..The European nobility may have discriminated against the sun tanned peasant classes but they didnt view them as an entirely different species altogether.
Youre painting with broad brush strokes here.

Several scholars have argued that there is a linear connection between the French model of hereditary biology in class and later forms of French racism, which informed European racism generally. Of course, what existed in France was a class-based caste system (grounded in feudalism) much like in India, but the difference between France and India was the opportunity of colonial interaction supplied by technological innovations that allowed for the "Age of Discovery" and the production of a chattel slavery regime in the Americas. These realities gave France and Europe generally a unique menu of choice in the development of the concept of hereditary biology to create "race" and to justify the economic regime they created in ways that simply weren't available in other parts of the world where the concept of biological heredity in the determination of value was already established.

You'd be surprised by views of the peasant class held by the European nobility: they weren't pleasant and were biologically tinged. Also your reference to species is anachronistic, as really before Linnaeus and Voltaire, the meaning of the word carried different implications than the polygenism you're referring to.

 

[ⒶⓁⒾⒶⓈ]

The Curse of Ham was a (mostly American) pro-slavery argument that gained prominence after humanist challenges to the racial chattel slavery regime. Conceptions of race were established much earlier. No.

Was it ???...Unfortunately for you i have receipts....papal bull "dum diversas" courtesy of wikipedia

*We grant you [Kings of Spain and Portugal] by these present documents, with our Apostolic Authority, full and free permission to invade, search out, capture, and subjugate the Saracens and pagans and any other unbelievers and enemies of Christ wherever they may be, as well as their kingdoms, duchies, counties, principalities, and other property [...] and to reduce their persons into perpetual servitude*

Now keep in mind this was the mid 1400s so the term "saracen" was synonymous with "Black" ..the term was descriptive of Black North Africans the subcontinent was largely unexplored at this time

*Beginning no later than the early fifth century, Christian writers began to equate Saracens with Arabs. Saracens were associated with Ishmaelites (descendants of Abraham’s older son Ishmael) in some strands of Jewish, Christian, and Islamic genealogical thinking.

By the 12th century, Medieval Europeans had more specific conceptions of Islam, and used the term "Saracen" as an ethnic and religious marker.[1][14] In some Medieval literature, Saracens—that is, Muslims—were described as black-skinned, while Christians were lighter-skinned.*

"All men are created equal" has parallels to Christian brotherhood, but its intellectual origins are obviously descended from the Enlightenment, which operates on the assertion of human equality due to the ability of the individual to reason, not in the assertion of human equality due its ostensible reality in the heavenly realm. No.

The Founding fathers obviously borrowed that from the enlightenment but if you pursue it even further the enlightenment thinkers themselves borrowed that from religious texts and thinkers like Thomas aquinas not that youre entirely wrong as far as postcolonial era America but to slave traders of the British East India company and Dutch east india company the religious justification is what they had to rely on to soothe their conscience

And.. no, not at first. The initial slave trading regime was justified by the concept of "just war" (which actually had biblical origins) before it was justified by race. Race (and even further down the line, the curse of Ham) was developed later as the economic regime of chattel slavery and the rise of science necessitated new explanations.

Was it really a "new" explanation though...Put chains on the Black man because he is the cursed son of ishmael and put chains on him because he is only 3/5 ths "human" sound awfully alike...its the same reason sans the religious connotations...."less than human"

Don't be an idiot, the demand for slaves was due to staple crop production, whose regime required the infrastructural needs that necessitated the labor of smiths, stonemasons, and so on to maintain viability. Many individuals operated within an export-based staple commodity economy without actually working in the fields. That doesn't change the fact that the reason they were there was the bushels, barrels, cartons, etc. of shyt being shipped off for export.

You keep defaulting to "demand" as an argument yet nobody has opposed that particular assertion...Yes new land needed lots of labor

No, slavery is not necessarily brutal unless economic incentive necessitates it. Chattel slavery was uniquely brutal because the kind of labor involved in say, sugar production by its nature given contemporary technological constraints was brutal. Many other forms of slavery worldwide, for thousands of years did not have the same form of brutality due to this simple fact.

If were going to be pedantic the most brutal slavery in the world by far was the slavery of the muslim arabs..the male victims were castrated(penis and testicles) brutally and sent into war until they were killed and the women into harems and brothels
But i digress IMO any form is brutal there are only gradations to the violence but never a complete lack of it.

The economic viability of African labor moved along the process of defining race as justification. So was slavery especially brutal solely because of the race of those involved? No. But you can't ignore the fact that they were specifically selected to be involved in a slave trade complex that developed later into a mutually reinforcing dialectic of race and capitalism.

I wouldnt call it capitalism...more like piracy..A state sponsored corporation stealing people to work without pay on stolen land on another continent..the whole system is only workable because of violence

This has been quite entertaining but thus far you still havent disproven Sowells argument which i will restate

Once the founders wrote "all men are created equal" while Black Africans were enslaved they immediately had to come up with a justification why those men arent equal..ergo the 3/5ths rule and so they codified racism and froze it in time until another legislative body had enough will and pressure to change things...Thats why America had a harder time than Brazil who had no such codes so all they had to do was change the social zeitgeist

 

[BaggerofTea]

This last page is why I come to higher learning.

 

[CHL]

Racial slavery arose in the Western Hemisphere long before "all men are created equal".. Race was "mixed in" with slavery in other colonial regimes just as much as it was in the Untied States. Ever heard of Code Noir? . Sowell doesn't understand history

The particular form of New World chattel slavery arose as a labor system due to the economic incentives of staple crop production, and race developed in ideological discourse informed by this particular reality and often was used to justify it. Perhaps the greatest driver of the development of the idea of race was the incentive to justify the values of the economic regime of brutality.

And that's just the first minute of the video. Who the fukk is this guy

In Marxist terms I guess you could say slavery was the base, the relations and forces of production madeup by the slavers; and race was part of the superstructure, the ideology and culture subsequently built up up in order to provide a false justification for the base. The base and the superstructure then reinforce each other.

 

[VegasCAC]

In Marxist terms I guess you could say slavery was the base, the relations and forces of production madeup by the slavers; and race was part of the superstructure, the ideology and culture subsequently built up up in order to provide a false justification for the base. The base and the superstructure then reinforce each other.

Excellent analysis. I tend to have a very Marxist view of slavery