From: Dogan Goecmen (Dogangoecmen@AOL.COM)
Date: Mon Nov 27 2006 - 04:46:54 EST
Rakesh writes:
attached mail follows:
I am not calling Jerry a racist or a sexist. If that is what I did say, I am sorry. I am calling statements racist or sexist. Jerry may have swell relationships with minorities and women. That's not the point. And I would have called those statements such no matter who had uttered them. This has nothing to do with Jerry. For example, to say that human behavior is the the same as animal behavior does to me suggest two problems in the case of rape: it seems to naturalize rape and disarm appropriate moral and political criticism and secondly it seems to efface how the rape of women is an altogether different act than violence against female animals in terms of meaning and concomitant psychological effect. To fail to recognize this is insensitive to women. I follow Fausto Sterling in seeing the analogy as sexist. I am not alone--again see the many replies to Thorhill's book. And for those who traffic in sociobiology there has been Marxist critiicsm Marcel Prenant and Joseph Needham to Richard Lerner and John Vandermeer to Stephen and Hilary Rose that does consider many sociobiological claims fascist, racist, sexist and reactionary. I am not saying anything new here. Rakesh ps Dear Dogan, thank you for your statement. If you think this appropriate, would you kindly it forward it to the list. > Who ever made this decission I do not find it very wise. Punishment is the > worst way of enforcing something since it does not aim at convincing. > Rakesh > made some claims and he gave more than once reasons why he makes these > claims. > I do not think that his claims are correct because to accuse someone of > racism requires to show that he/she is consciously and intentionally aims > to > develop racist ideologies. This cannot be calimed of Jerry. But instead > taking > meaures to punish him it should have been argued. It should have been > shown > that he is wrong. This has not been done. Istead it has been moralised. To > understand human beings as natural and social beings it was, is and will > always be > necessary to draw analogies between humans and other animals. These > analogies > however can become problematic and misused if they are politicised. 19th > century is full of these attempts. > > I hope you will reconsider your decission and enable Rakesh to explain h > imself and give him the opportunity to aplogise publicly. > > Regards > Dogan > > In einer eMail vom 26.11.2006 18:46:41 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt > ope-admin@RICARDO.ECN.WFU.EDU: > > Rakesh has been given a "time out". > > If and when he is ready to change his behavior and respect the list rule > against flaming (i.e. personal abuse) then he will be re-admitted. > > In solidarity, Jerry > > >> you'll >> see that you don't know what you are talking about. >> But that's not unusual. > >> I wil reiterate that Jerry's reasserting nineteenth century ideas >> about primitive communism or savagery is the very definition of >> racism. My usage of the term is precise. In fact it would have been >> paternalistic and falsely polite not to describe Jerry's claim as >> racist. For that is exactly what it is. I do not throw the term >> around. > >> Or perhaps you are so ignorant you don't know >> the scholarly importance of the people on whom I draw. This is of >> course most probable. >> > > > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 30 2006 - 00:00:06 EST