On Sunday, August 15, 2021 at 4:36:32 AM UTC+2, Frank Berger wrote:

> >
> Not to mention the people who call others racist (under the guise of "defending racism") yet can not produce any example of then having done so. Nor do they apologize for the accusation.

There is quite a history of this. You focus exclusively on a discussion with somebody, you correct and lecture him a lot, you rephrase what he is saying in such a way that it's the opposite of what you're saying and then attack that rephrasing, you demand explanations, and after a lot of to and fro you petulantly demand apologies for what the guy has not been saying.

Op zondag 15 augustus 2021 om 06:00:33 UTC+2 schreef Bob Harper:
> On 8/14/21 11:57 AM, HT wrote:
> > Op zaterdag 14 augustus 2021 om 19:05:25 UTC+2 schreef Bob Harper:
> >> On 8/14/21 1:45 AM, HT wrote:
> >>> Op zaterdag 14 augustus 2021 om 08:50:34 UTC+2 schreef Herman:
> >>>> On Saturday, August 14, 2021 at 2:35:52 AM UTC+2, Todd Michel McComb wrote:
> >>>>> In article <sf67o9$jqm$1...@hope.eyrie.org>,
> >>>>> Todd Michel McComb <mcc...@medieval.org> wrote:
> >>>>>> These are a couple of people who join in every time here, whenever
> >>>>>> race gets brought up, always to say that people of color have it
> >>>>>> wrong.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It's the implied expertise that really offends me. The "we know
> >>>>> better" approach that is so very racist.
> >>>> Yes. Also, the absolute certainty with which some people claim they've a hundred procent never done anything that could remotely called racist.
> >>>
> >>> <g> Never expected you to be a missionary of the Doctrine Of Total Depravity, trying to convince Bob and Frank that they too are "destitute of all good" and "fertile of all evil".
> >>>
> >>> Henk
> >>>
> >> Remember, Henk, I'm a Catholic, not a Calvinist. :)
> >>
> >> Bob Harper
> >
> > I was already under the impression that the confessional would be an impregnable obstacle.
> >
> > Henk
> >
> ??
>
> Bob Harper

My apologies. Not being a native speaker has its drawbacks.

I have lived most of my life among people who enjoyed what was once called "Roomse blijheid" (Roman Catholic happiness).

In no way could those around me be convinced of the truth of the doctrine of total depravity. The logic of the confessional was inescapable: after confession and penance, one was 'absolved'. The sins were addressed, not the 'sinner'.

Henk

On 8/15/2021 3:08 AM, Herman wrote:
> On Sunday, August 15, 2021 at 4:36:32 AM UTC+2, Frank Berger wrote:
>
>>>
>> Not to mention the people who call others racist (under the guise of "defending racism") yet can not produce any example of then having done so. Nor do they apologize for the accusation.
>
> There is quite a history of this. You focus exclusively on a discussion with somebody, you correct and lecture him a lot, you rephrase what he is saying in such a way that it's the opposite of what you're saying and then attack that rephrasing, you demand explanations, and after a lot of to and fro you petulantly demand apologies for what the guy has not been saying.
>

Still waiting. Example or apology. Either will do.

I think it is interesting, Frank, when the subject of reparations came up that you said that if any ancestor of yours was demonstrated to hold slaves you might be more sympathetic to the idea, but since none did you did not feel much of a connection or responsibility for the lingering effects of racism, even as you made clear that you were open to steps to diminsh inequality. Feel free to rephrase that- I'm just trying to get the part about responsibility relating to families right here.

Could a principled defense of some non-race-related practice amount to defense of racism? I'd say this is possible, and I have three examples: land deeds, voting practices and gerrymandering. Land: In at least one state in the south (I forget which), african-american families routinely had land taken away from them via "legal" racist methods in the past (let's say the first half of the 20th century) so they stopped trusting or participating in the normal processes of deed recording. Now that regular order has been brought to the recording of land and there is no racism evident as part ot the process, there is the problem that the deeds have not been handed down in the proper way, and existing families still do not trust the normal process. So under normal rules that apply to everyone, those properties may no longer belong to those families and can be taken away. A principled defense of the arrangement might be "the rules are fair; this is the fault of the property owners for not following the law." This completely ignores the history and consequences of the prior racism and fails to seek a solution that takes any responsibility for it. You can bet that howls would arise from living white property owners if any law was crafted that treated African Americans in a "special" way and forgives their failure to adhere (or correct past errors) relating to land deeds. This happened with some of the money handed out to farmers that recognized the results of racist practices- whites were pissed. History be damned, all they want is everything fair and equal in the most superficial way right now. But this fails to recognize the actual consequences of the past problems.

This is not the article I read, but it covers the same content and mentions many of the same people:
https://features.propublica.org/black-land-loss/heirs-property-rights-why-black-families-lose-land-south/

To some people, the wounds of the past are forgotten, those living in the present are all equal so long as they can all exercise the same rights and freedoms, and we were all made whole once the discrimination ceased. You get that line form the Supreme Court all the time. Voter protections are not necessary; all the laws need to be is fairly applied- never minding the fact that there is plenty of evidence that strategists in the Republican party continue to try to make it harder for blacks to vote. The hurdles to proving this without a doubt are very high, yet the outward signs are copious. You can defend many laws as fair in some way- hell, you could defend poll taxes as fair. The question is whether the burden is "reasonable." And you can simply choose to ignore that the burden of compliance with an unnecessary law like voter ID and say, well, it's just tougher for blacks and minorities because they are poor, and that's just too bad- never minding that was the whole point of the law- a reasonable barrier that nonetheless has positive results for Republicans wanting to shape voting results. I'd go so far to say that the movement around "voter fraud" is an entirely racist plot to weaken the power of minority voters, and it is seen in its gaudy glory in the eagerness of Republican state legislatures to rescind voting laws they touted in the not so distant past (vote by mail, etc) simply because it turned out that those laws were also helpful to minority communities. There is no evidence of fraud (there has not been any serious evidence of fraud for the 20 years or so this has been a Republicn talking point), but the intent to discriminate is so great that anyone who offers the fact that the election was one of the most secure and successful is thrown overboard. Credit to most Republican state officials who sought to do their jobs and not bow to dangerous, anti-democratic movements within their own part.

We can also produce principled defenses of gerrymandering that amount to defenses of racism as simply a necessary political evil, neverminding that the maps have often been drawn up with race clearly mapped, grouped and split..

On 8/15/21 2:22 AM, HT wrote:
> Op zondag 15 augustus 2021 om 06:00:33 UTC+2 schreef Bob Harper:
>> On 8/14/21 11:57 AM, HT wrote:
>>> Op zaterdag 14 augustus 2021 om 19:05:25 UTC+2 schreef Bob Harper:
>>>> On 8/14/21 1:45 AM, HT wrote:
>>>>> Op zaterdag 14 augustus 2021 om 08:50:34 UTC+2 schreef Herman:
>>>>>> On Saturday, August 14, 2021 at 2:35:52 AM UTC+2, Todd Michel McComb wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <sf67o9$jqm$1...@hope.eyrie.org>,
>>>>>>> Todd Michel McComb <mcc...@medieval.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>> These are a couple of people who join in every time here, whenever
>>>>>>>> race gets brought up, always to say that people of color have it
>>>>>>>> wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's the implied expertise that really offends me. The "we know
>>>>>>> better" approach that is so very racist.
>>>>>> Yes. Also, the absolute certainty with which some people claim they've a hundred procent never done anything that could remotely called racist.
>>>>>
>>>>> <g> Never expected you to be a missionary of the Doctrine Of Total Depravity, trying to convince Bob and Frank that they too are "destitute of all good" and "fertile of all evil".
>>>>>
>>>>> Henk
>>>>>
>>>> Remember, Henk, I'm a Catholic, not a Calvinist. :)
>>>>
>>>> Bob Harper
>>>
>>> I was already under the impression that the confessional would be an impregnable obstacle.
>>>
>>> Henk
>>>
>> ??
>>
>> Bob Harper
>
> My apologies. Not being a native speaker has its drawbacks.
>
> I have lived most of my life among people who enjoyed what was once called "Roomse blijheid" (Roman Catholic happiness).
>
> In no way could those around me be convinced of the truth of the doctrine of total depravity. The logic of the confessional was inescapable: after confession and penance, one was 'absolved'. The sins were addressed, not the 'sinner'.
>
> Henk
>
>
Yes. There is that thing about 'firm purpose of amendment', however :).
(We all fail/fall, but that's why the Sacrament of Penance can be
repeated, unlike, say, Baptism.)

Bob Harper

Op zondag 15 augustus 2021 om 22:28:52 UTC+2 schreef Bob Harper:
> On 8/15/21 2:22 AM, HT wrote:
> > Op zondag 15 augustus 2021 om 06:00:33 UTC+2 schreef Bob Harper:
> >> On 8/14/21 11:57 AM, HT wrote:
> >>> Op zaterdag 14 augustus 2021 om 19:05:25 UTC+2 schreef Bob Harper:
> >>>> On 8/14/21 1:45 AM, HT wrote:
> >>>>> Op zaterdag 14 augustus 2021 om 08:50:34 UTC+2 schreef Herman:
> >>>>>> On Saturday, August 14, 2021 at 2:35:52 AM UTC+2, Todd Michel McComb wrote:
> >>>>>>> In article <sf67o9$jqm$1...@hope.eyrie.org>,
> >>>>>>> Todd Michel McComb <mcc...@medieval.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> These are a couple of people who join in every time here, whenever
> >>>>>>>> race gets brought up, always to say that people of color have it
> >>>>>>>> wrong.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It's the implied expertise that really offends me. The "we know
> >>>>>>> better" approach that is so very racist.
> >>>>>> Yes. Also, the absolute certainty with which some people claim they've a hundred procent never done anything that could remotely called racist.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> <g> Never expected you to be a missionary of the Doctrine Of Total Depravity, trying to convince Bob and Frank that they too are "destitute of all good" and "fertile of all evil".
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Henk
> >>>>>
> >>>> Remember, Henk, I'm a Catholic, not a Calvinist. :)
> >>>>
> >>>> Bob Harper
> >>>
> >>> I was already under the impression that the confessional would be an impregnable obstacle.
> >>>
> >>> Henk
> >>>
> >> ??
> >>
> >> Bob Harper
> >
> > My apologies. Not being a native speaker has its drawbacks.
> >
> > I have lived most of my life among people who enjoyed what was once called "Roomse blijheid" (Roman Catholic happiness).
> >
> > In no way could those around me be convinced of the truth of the doctrine of total depravity. The logic of the confessional was inescapable: after confession and penance, one was 'absolved'. The sins were addressed, not the 'sinner'.
> >
> > Henk
> >
> >
> Yes. There is that thing about 'firm purpose of amendment', however :).
> (We all fail/fall, but that's why the Sacrament of Penance can be
> repeated, unlike, say, Baptism.)
>
> Bob Harper

The firm purpose didn't diminish the happiness, as far as I know. Probably because the repeatability could be counted on.

Henk

On 8/15/2021 11:20 AM, mswd...@gmail.com wrote:
> I think it is interesting, Frank, when the subject of reparations came up that you said that if any ancestor of yours was demonstrated to hold slaves you might be more sympathetic to the idea, but since none did you did not feel much of a connection or responsibility for the lingering effects of racism, even as you made clear that you were open to steps to diminsh inequality. Feel free to rephrase that- I'm just trying to get the part about responsibility relating to families right here.
>
> Could a principled defense of some non-race-related practice amount to defense of racism? I'd say this is possible, and I have three examples: land deeds, voting practices and gerrymandering. Land: In at least one state in the south (I forget which), african-american families routinely had land taken away from them via "legal" racist methods in the past (let's say the first half of the 20th century) so they stopped trusting or participating in the normal processes of deed recording. Now that regular order has been brought to the recording of land and there is no racism evident as part ot the process, there is the problem that the deeds have not been handed down in the proper way, and existing families still do not trust the normal process. So under normal rules that apply to everyone, those properties may no longer belong to those families and can be taken away. A principled defense of the arrangement might be "the rules are fair; this is the fault of the property owners for not following the law." This completely ignores the history and consequences of the prior racism and fails to seek a solution that takes any responsibility for it. You can bet that howls would arise from living white property owners if any law was crafted that treated African Americans in a "special" way and forgives their failure to adhere (or correct past errors) relating to land deeds. This happened with some of the money handed out to farmers that recognized the results of racist practices- whites were pissed. History be damned, all they want is everything fair and equal in the most superficial way right now. But this fails to recognize the actual consequences of the past problems.
>
> This is not the article I read, but it covers the same content and mentions many of the same people:
> https://features.propublica.org/black-land-loss/heirs-property-rights-why-black-families-lose-land-south/
>
> To some people, the wounds of the past are forgotten, those living in the present are all equal so long as they can all exercise the same rights and freedoms, and we were all made whole once the discrimination ceased. You get that line form the Supreme Court all the time. Voter protections are not necessary; all the laws need to be is fairly applied- never minding the fact that there is plenty of evidence that strategists in the Republican party continue to try to make it harder for blacks to vote. The hurdles to proving this without a doubt are very high, yet the outward signs are copious. You can defend many laws as fair in some way- hell, you could defend poll taxes as fair. The question is whether the burden is "reasonable." And you can simply choose to ignore that the burden of compliance with an unnecessary law like voter ID and say, well, it's just tougher for blacks and minorities because they are poor, and that's just too bad- never minding that was the whole point of the law- a reasonable barrier that nonetheless has positive results for Republicans wanting to shape voting results. I'd go so far to say that the movement around "voter fraud" is an entirely racist plot to weaken the power of minority voters, and it is seen in its gaudy glory in the eagerness of Republican state legislatures to rescind voting laws they touted in the not so distant past (vote by mail, etc) simply because it turned out that those laws were also helpful to minority communities. There is no evidence of fraud (there has not been any serious evidence of fraud for the 20 years or so this has been a Republicn talking point), but the intent to discriminate is so great that anyone who offers the fact that the election was one of the most secure and successful is thrown overboard. Credit to most Republican state officials who sought to do their jobs and not bow to dangerous, anti-democratic movements within their own part.
>
> We can also produce principled defenses of gerrymandering that amount to defenses of racism as simply a necessary political evil, neverminding that the maps have often been drawn up with race clearly mapped, grouped and split.
>
I tend to think of individuals, not groups. To the extent I think of groups it is of a collection of voluntarily cooperating individuals. An individual living today can not be responsible for what happened in the past. Current members of the KKK are responsible for what they do, not what white people did generations ago.
In your example above, there should be a process whereby families harmed by racist property crimes of the past can seek redress. I have no problem with calling the absence of such a program racist; certainly the intent could be racist. If some white guy in current possession of the property objects to having it taken away and giving it to a black guy, that objection could be purely economic and not racist, couldn't it? Can we even know? Does it matter?

On Monday, August 16, 2021 at 8:02:41 AM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
> I tend to think of individuals, not groups. To the extent I think of groups it is of a collection of voluntarily cooperating individuals. An individual living today can not be responsible for what happened in the past. Current members of the KKK are responsible for what they do, not what white people did generations ago.

> In your example above, there should be a process whereby families harmed by racist property crimes of the past can seek redress. I have no problem with calling the absence of such a program racist; certainly the intent could be racist. If some white guy in current possession of the property objects to having it taken away and giving it to a black guy, that objection could be purely economic and not racist, couldn't it? Can we even know? Does it matter?

Thanks, good summary of your belief-system (you may not like the sound of that, but in the end, it is beliefs, not facts that keeps the engine running). No point in arguing. I find the focus on individual freedoms in libertarian politics tends towards selfishness, but my view is superficially informed. No point in acting like I have anything really smart to say about this. The shoe doesn't fit - not for me.

On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 11:00:51 AM UTC-7, Owen wrote:
> This may have appeared here before, but I just read through this
> well-written, but obviously controversial article (in two parts):
>
> <https://www.city-journal.org/classical-music-under-racial-attack-part-1?wallit_nosession=1>
>
> ...and part 2:
>
> <https://www.city-journal.org/classical-music-under-racial-attack-part-2?wallit_nosession=1>
>
> It's quite long, but here is a sample paragraph about the "lies" that
> "classical music is inherently racist" (from part 2):
>
> "As the lies about classical music accumulate, not one conductor,
> soloist, or concertmaster has rebutted them. These influential
> performers know that Beethoven’s late piano sonatas and quartets are not
> about race but about pushing beyond ordinary human experience into an
> unexplored universe of unsettling silences and space. They know that
> Schubert’s song cycles are not about race but about yearning,
> disappointment, and fleeting joy. They know that the Saint Matthew
> Passion is not about race but about crushing sorrow that cries out in
> pain before finally finding consolation. To reduce everything in human
> experience to the ever more tedious theme of alleged racial oppression
> is narcissism. This music is not about you or me. It is about something
> grander than our narrow, petty selves. But narcissism, the signal
> characteristic of our time, is shrinking our cultural inheritance to a
> nullity."
>
> -Owen

As I was reading that article, I could only wonder:

- Could we be living in anti-hierarchy times?

On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 11:00:51 AM UTC-7, Owen wrote:
> This may have appeared here before, but I just read through this
> well-written, but obviously controversial article (in two parts):
>
> <https://www.city-journal.org/classical-music-under-racial-attack-part-1?wallit_nosession=1>
>
> ...and part 2:
>
> <https://www.city-journal.org/classical-music-under-racial-attack-part-2?wallit_nosession=1>
>
> It's quite long, but here is a sample paragraph about the "lies" that
> "classical music is inherently racist" (from part 2):
>
> "As the lies about classical music accumulate, not one conductor,
> soloist, or concertmaster has rebutted them. These influential
> performers know that Beethoven’s late piano sonatas and quartets are not
> about race but about pushing beyond ordinary human experience into an
> unexplored universe of unsettling silences and space. They know that
> Schubert’s song cycles are not about race but about yearning,
> disappointment, and fleeting joy. They know that the Saint Matthew
> Passion is not about race but about crushing sorrow that cries out in
> pain before finally finding consolation. To reduce everything in human
> experience to the ever more tedious theme of alleged racial oppression
> is narcissism. This music is not about you or me. It is about something
> grander than our narrow, petty selves. But narcissism, the signal
> characteristic of our time, is shrinking our cultural inheritance to a
> nullity."
>
> -Owen

As I was reading that article, I could only wonder:

- Could we be living in a world that has become anti-hierarchy?

On Thursday, August 19, 2021 at 11:30:06 PM UTC-7, gggg gggg wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 11:00:51 AM UTC-7, Owen wrote:
> > This may have appeared here before, but I just read through this
> > well-written, but obviously controversial article (in two parts):
> >
> > <https://www.city-journal.org/classical-music-under-racial-attack-part-1?wallit_nosession=1>
> >
> > ...and part 2:
> >
> > <https://www.city-journal.org/classical-music-under-racial-attack-part-2?wallit_nosession=1>
> >
> > It's quite long, but here is a sample paragraph about the "lies" that
> > "classical music is inherently racist" (from part 2):
> >
> > "As the lies about classical music accumulate, not one conductor,
> > soloist, or concertmaster has rebutted them. These influential
> > performers know that Beethoven’s late piano sonatas and quartets are not
> > about race but about pushing beyond ordinary human experience into an
> > unexplored universe of unsettling silences and space. They know that
> > Schubert’s song cycles are not about race but about yearning,
> > disappointment, and fleeting joy. They know that the Saint Matthew
> > Passion is not about race but about crushing sorrow that cries out in
> > pain before finally finding consolation. To reduce everything in human
> > experience to the ever more tedious theme of alleged racial oppression
> > is narcissism. This music is not about you or me. It is about something
> > grander than our narrow, petty selves. But narcissism, the signal
> > characteristic of our time, is shrinking our cultural inheritance to a
> > nullity."
> >
> > -Owen
>
> As I was reading that article, I could only wonder:
>
> - Could we be living in a world that has become anti-hierarchy?

https://merionwest.com/2021/07/16/from-revolting-masses-to-revolting-elites/

On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 11:09:37 AM UTC-10, Néstor Castiglione wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 1:36:31 PM UTC-7, Todd Michel McComb wrote:
> > In article <70a0faa7-6654-4103...@googlegroups.com>,
> > Néstor Castiglione <castiglio...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >If classical music is that "racist" or whatever then why would,
> > >say, Silvestre Revueltas, a Mexican artist of indigenous heritage,
> > >model himself (then later against) Beethoven?
> > Because white classical music represents a/the model of legitimacy,
> > of course.
> >
> > And as you say, I don't think that others' contributions should be
> > deprecated, but classical music has been overwhelmingly white. You
> > don't say?!? Best introduce other random ideas like what music is
> > "about" in order to deflect, then....
> >
> > The only thing I appreciated about what was offered here was the
> > Subject line itself. It seems accurate.
> Well, duh. Just like enka is overwhelmingly represented by Japanese or cueca by Chileans. (In fact, the former genre at least now does boast a significant roster of non-Japanese performers.) In fact, white Americans had to look to Europe in the 19th century for appropriate classical music models. So what?
>
> In a time when there were few or no models domestically, of course artists in Latin America and Europe also had to look abroad. Even when they did, their work was by no means derivative or constrained by imagined (and anachronistic) ideas of "whiteness." Revueltas, Salgado, and Akutagawa—among countless other non-whites—were simply moved by this music enough to not just love it, but to also make it something for themselves and their countrymen. But it's hard not to miss the implicit snub in your remark: that their music simply copies "models of legitimacy" (or perhaps even represents "internalized racism/colonialism").
>
> Anyway, if some people really believe classical music is very bad and no good, they can always do something meaningful about it: urge their local musicians to perform more non-white composers, explore the rich heritage of non-whites in classical music, or even just dump their interest in classical music and listen to something else. Anything but hollering about it online (or, worse, lecturing benighted natives such as myself on our own history and listening preferences).

This 2010 book on enka's history may be of interest:

https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/a-life-adrift-soeda-azembo/1135364769?ean=9780415592161

On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 2:09:37 PM UTC-7, Néstor Castiglione wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 1:36:31 PM UTC-7, Todd Michel McComb wrote:
> > In article <70a0faa7-6654-4103...@googlegroups.com>,
> > Néstor Castiglione <castiglio...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >If classical music is that "racist" or whatever then why would,
> > >say, Silvestre Revueltas, a Mexican artist of indigenous heritage,
> > >model himself (then later against) Beethoven?
> > Because white classical music represents a/the model of legitimacy,
> > of course.
> >
> > And as you say, I don't think that others' contributions should be
> > deprecated, but classical music has been overwhelmingly white. You
> > don't say?!? Best introduce other random ideas like what music is
> > "about" in order to deflect, then....
> >
> > The only thing I appreciated about what was offered here was the
> > Subject line itself. It seems accurate.
> Well, duh. Just like enka is overwhelmingly represented by Japanese or cueca by Chileans. (In fact, the former genre at least now does boast a significant roster of non-Japanese performers.) In fact, white Americans had to look to Europe in the 19th century for appropriate classical music models. So what?
>
> In a time when there were few or no models domestically, of course artists in Latin America and Europe also had to look abroad. Even when they did, their work was by no means derivative or constrained by imagined (and anachronistic) ideas of "whiteness." Revueltas, Salgado, and Akutagawa—among countless other non-whites—were simply moved by this music enough to not just love it, but to also make it something for themselves and their countrymen. But it's hard not to miss the implicit snub in your remark: that their music simply copies "models of legitimacy" (or perhaps even represents "internalized racism/colonialism").
>
> Anyway, if some people really believe classical music is very bad and no good, they can always do something meaningful about it: urge their local musicians to perform more non-white composers, explore the rich heritage of non-whites in classical music, or even just dump their interest in classical music and listen to something else. Anything but hollering about it online (or, worse, lecturing benighted natives such as myself on our own history and listening preferences).

Concerning enka, is there anything on Youtube that can be recommended?