Muslim education in Britain

[bloodyminded]

Sometimes I get the impression that some gentiles out there think that we Jews think we're some sort of superior group of people. Another misrepresentation is that we describe ourselves as "the chosen people", when more accurately, we're to be viewed as "the people who chose God". In other words, it's not that we were chosen, but that we made a choice.

Basically, I find there is some misinformation out there which attempts to portray us as if we all think we're the best thing out there since sliced bread.

No doubt. But most of us don't see our Jewish brothers and sisters as any different from anyone else.

[DogOnPorch]

No doubt. But most of us don't see our Jewish brothers and sisters as any different from anyone else.

Most of us? You sure know a lot of people.

[Bob]

No doubt. But most of us don't see our Jewish brothers and sisters as any different from anyone else.

How's that? We are different... most of us have a different religious perspective, have a different sense of shared history, which in effect shapes as into a different culture, etc...

We are different, you shouldn't hesitate to acknowledge this...

Edited May 13, 2010 by Bob

[bloodyminded]

Most of us? You sure know a lot of people.

I sure do.

[bloodyminded]

How's that? We are different... most of us have a different religious perspective, have a different sense of shared history, which in effect shapes as into a different culture, etc...

We are different, you shouldn't hesitate to acknowledge this...

My point--not a terribly controversial one, I shouldn't think--is that the differences are trivial in comparison to the similarities.

[Bob]

My point--not a terribly controversial one, I shouldn't think--is that the differences are trivial in comparison to the similarities.

I disagree. The difference in history is vast. Were your parents or great-grandparents murdered in concentration camps? Perhaps oppressed in the former Soviet Union or expelled from a Middle Eastern country after Israel's establishment? Do I need to get into the vast differences in religious perspectives? This is just a small component of what separates many Jews from non-Jews, and the list is endless.

Obviously it goes both ways between all various groups, there are many historical, religious, and cultural components that differentiate cultures from one another.

Perhaps what you're trying to get at is that we're united in certain fundamental ways to values such as democracy and liberty? If that is what you're trying to get at, then that's quite different that denying differences between us. Don't be afraid to acknowledge differences, differences are part of what makes this a beautiful world!

Edited May 13, 2010 by Bob

[bloodyminded]

I disagree. The difference in history is vast. Were your parents or great-grandparents murdered in concentration camps? Perhaps oppressed in the former Soviet Union or expelled from a Middle Eastern country after Israel's establishment? Do I need to get into the vast differences in religious perspectives? This is just a small component of what separates many Jews from non-Jews, and the list is endless.

Obviously it goes both ways between all various groups, there are many historical, religious, and cultural components that differentiate cultures from one another.

Perhaps what you're trying to get at is that we're united in certain fundamental ways to values such as democracy and liberty? If that is what you're trying to get at, then that's quite different that denying differences between us. Don't be afraid to acknowledge differences, differences are part of what makes this a beautiful world!

I'm not afraid to acknowledge the differences; I just refuse to make a fetish of them.

And no, I"m not even talking about values such as "liberty," sicne I've debated self-styled "libertarians" who support government torture and kidnapping and the suspension of the rights of liberty and even life for mere suspects, with zero evidence required. So even such matters as "beliuef" in liberty and democracy are not settled, easy matters.

No, I'm talking about basic humanity...good and bad aspects of it. We're all virtually alike.

[Bob]

I'm not afraid to acknowledge the differences; I just refuse to make a fetish of them.

You just said a moment ago that you don't view Jewish brothers and sisters as different. I'm telling you we are different. I'm telling you we view ourselves as different. I'm telling you we are viewed as different by non-Jews. This is perfectly fine. There's a big difference between denying the existence of difference (what you seemed to be doing originally) between various groups of people and not making "a fetish out of them".

You can pretend we're not different if you want to, but we are different. And that's ok. There's nothing wrong with difference.

And no, I"m not even talking about values such as "liberty," sicne I've debated self-styled "libertarians" who support government torture and kidnapping and the suspension of the rights of liberty and even life for mere suspects, with zero evidence required. So even such matters as "beliuef" in liberty and democracy are not settled, easy matters.

My mistake. I guess you were talking about "basic humanity". Would you please elaborate on what that is?

Also, you're confusing the concept of "liberty" with "libertarianism". When I assumed that you were trying to communicate the solidarity between Jews and non-Jews towards the values of democracy and liberty, I certainly was not channelling in Ron Paul's campaign message. Are democracy and liberty not values that are included within "basic humanity"?

No, I'm talking about basic humanity...good and bad aspects of it. We're all virtually alike.

I disagree. I certainly do not think we're all virtually alike. In fact, I know we're not all virtually alike. I think I've got much more in common with you than with some Taliban terrorist in Kandahar, for example.

Edited May 13, 2010 by Bob

[bloodyminded]

You just said a moment ago that you don't view Jewish brothers and sisters as different. I'm telling you we are different. I'm telling you we view ourselves as different. I'm telling you we are viewed as different by non-Jews. This is perfectly fine. There's a big difference between denying the existence of difference (what you seemed to be doing originally) between various groups of people and not making "a fetish out of them".

No doubt I oversimplified; but that's only because the differences are relatively trivial. The same-nesses are profound.

You can pretend we're not different if you want to, but we are different. And that's ok. There's nothing wrong with difference.

Of course there's not. But human beings are more alike thahn they are different.

Obviously.

Also, you're confusing the concept of "liberty" with "libertarianism".

That's a little patronizing. No I'm not. I used the example of libertarians, because (according to themselves, at any rate) their primary concern is with liberty: freedom from Big Government; freedom from unjustifiable intrusions by others into their lives. Liberty.

And then, to illustrate that our (stated) shared love of liberty becomes quickly a complicated matter; say, when the evil Muzzzzlim Caliphate is stretching its sinister crescent over our proud culture, some of these liberty-lovers want the government to spy on us, kidnap us, torture us, and so on.

So no, we can't say that we all share the same respect for liberty. Nor democracy. It's far more complicated than that.

When I assumed that you were trying to communicate the solidarity between Jews and non-Jews towards the values of democracy and liberty, I certainly was not channelling in Ron Paul's campaign message. Are democracy and liberty not values that are included within "basic humanity"?

To some degree; but like I said, virtually everyone accepts, even demands, some intrusions upon our liberties: for the sake of security; for the sake of protecting other liberties.

All I"m saying is that human beings are human beings; we share the capacity for love, for compassion, for moral courage, as well as for numerous moral weaknesses. This applies to everyone. And it's not some pie-in-the-sky idealism, but biology.

I disagree. I certainly do not think we're all virtually alike. In fact, I know we're not all virtually alike. I think I've got much more in common with you than with some Taliban terrorist in Kandahar.

I have no doubt that's true. But similarly, there are some very deranged and psychotic Jews and Goys who are farther from you than some terrorists.

And terrorists are human beings too, a lot like you and me, except for some political, religious, and criminal convictions that we find insupportable and awful.

But in the most basic, human sense, I don't imagine there's a terrific difference.

[Bob]

No doubt I oversimplified; but that's only because the differences are relatively trivial. The same-nesses are profound.

Can both differences and similarities both be profound? I can assure you that our histories are greatly different. Our differing histories affect our cultural identities. We are also both Canadians, and I'm sure we probably both share certain Canadian sensibilities, which are meaningful.

I don't think the differences between myself and non-Jews are trivial, nor do I think the similarities between myself and non-Jewish Canadians are trivial. They're both profound and meaningful.

Of course there's not. But human beings are more alike thahn they are different.

Not really. I don't think I got much in common with Paul Bernardo, even though he does have two legs, two arms, and blue eyes.

That's a little patronizing. No I'm not. I used the example of libertarians, because (according to themselves, at any rate) their primary concern is with liberty: freedom from Big Government; freedom from unjustifiable intrusions by others into their lives. Liberty.

I did not mean to be patronizing, but here you are doing it again - confusing liberty with libertarianism. By the same logic we can equate the CPC with conservatism as an ideology. They are not synonymous. I'm certain you and I are on the same page, generally speaking, with respect to liberties 9as are most Canadians). We probably both believe that all people should be allowed to conduct themselves how they want as long as they don't infringe on basic freedoms of others. I can practise my religion, you can practise yours, and other are free to not practise if they so wish. We can vote, organize politically, own property, etc... Not all people, however, are in favour of these liberties.

And then, to illustrate that our (stated) shared love of liberty becomes quickly a complicated matter; say, when the evil Muzzzzlim Caliphate is stretching its sinister crescent over our proud culture, some of these liberty-lovers want the government to spy on us, kidnap us, torture us, and so on.

I understand what you're getting at, but I'm sure you'd concede that more Canadians would have opinions on these issues more closely resembling other Canadians than with the opinions on these issues held by Taliban card-carrying members. The differences between various groups around the world certainly aren't always trivial.

All I"m saying is that human beings are human beings; we share the capacity for love, for compassion, for moral courage, as well as for numerous moral weaknesses. This applies to everyone. And it's not some pie-in-the-sky idealism, but biology.

These similarities don't apply to everyone equally. If, for example, we were to label "prejudice" and "intolerance" under your "moral weakness" category, then I'm sure we'd find many more folks from Egypt with that moral failure than in Canada. Again, we're definitely not all largely the same. This is certainly not an example of a trivial difference. This is an example of difference on a value that we cannot reconcile, however. In other words, I cannot an individual or a group of individuals who reject fundamental principles of human rights.

On the other hand, there are many profound differences which enrichen our lives and do not cause strife. Religious differences, for example. Perhaps you attend some church on religious holidays? Perhaps you observe particular holidays which are meaningful for you in a spiritual way? Perhaps there are certain memorials you observe (both sad and happy) which are unique to your cultural identity? These are the healthy and strong difference I was getting at earlier.

I have no doubt that's true. But similarly, there are some very deranged and psychotic Jews and Goys who are farther from you than some terrorists.

Absolutely true.

But in the most basic, human sense, I don't imagine there's a terrific difference.

I disagree. At both an individual and collective level, there are often major differences. Many are good and healthy differences, sometimes they are problematic and irreconcilable.

[bloodyminded]

Can both differences and similarities both be profound? I can assure you that our histories are greatly different. Our differing histories affect our cultural identities. We are also both Canadians, and I'm sure we probably both share certain Canadian sensibilities, which are meaningful.

Mildly meaningful. Not terribly important.

I don't think the differences between myself and non-Jews are trivial, nor do I think the similarities between myself and non-Jewish Canadians are trivial. They're both profound and meaningful.

So what, exactly, are these profound differences? You mention the Holocaust histroy...but what does this mean? How, exactly how, does this make us really, really different?

Not really. I don't think I got much in common with Paul Bernardo, even though he does have two legs, two arms, and blue eyes.

The psychopath is in some ways unique; but they're not AS different as usually painted. I might (in fact, do) view support for torture of terrorist suspects as verging not far from a type of psychopathy; and yet, despite my very real, very felt aversion, I do not find such support totally mysterious and completely beyond my understanding.

I did not mean to be patronizing, but here you are doing it again - confusing liberty with libertarianism. By the same logic we can equate the CPC with conservatism as an ideology. They are not synonymous.

I'm aware of that; but I wasn't talking about large-L Libertarians, but rather self-styled conservatives who like to think of themselves as libertarians (even when they're not...they often as not mean "I hate taxes." Full stop.)

It might have been less confusing if I had left them out altogether, and gone more general: ie everybody talks about how important "liberty" is...and some of thsoe people think it means low taxes, primarily; some will disparage "Big Government" and its attacks on "liberty," even as they support utterly illiberal practices, even tyranny.

The only point here was that when you say "shared love of liberty" (forgive the direct quotes for a paraphrase), it is so abstract that I'm not sure how true it is. I don't mean it's false: I mean it's complex. Hell, bin Laden wants Muslims to be liberated from Western-supported tyranny (a common, and legitimate, desire for a lot of Muslim people, and one that tells us how much our foreign policies have been geared towards "liberty"); but he also wants another type of tyranny imposed.

I'm certain you and I are on the same page, generally speaking, with respect to liberties 9as are most Canadians). We probably both believe that all people should be allowed to conduct themselves how they want as long as they don't infringe on basic freedoms of others. I can practise my religion, you can practise yours, and other are free to not practise if they so wish. We can vote, organize politically, own property, etc... Not all people, however, are in favour of these liberties.

That's true, but I would wager most people, globally, are in favour of such things, with some minor quibbles.

I understand what you're getting at, but I'm sure you'd concede that more Canadians would have opinions on these issues more closely resembling other Canadians than with the opinions on these issues held by Taliban card-carrying members. The differences between various groups around the world certainly aren't always trivial.

In a way, they're trivial, because the notions are mostly determined by history and region. There's no innate, genetic distinction. Further, I have zero doubt whatsoever that most Taliban, and most terrorists, have acted with great humanity and compassion and love in many ways throughout their lives.

These similarities don't apply to everyone equally. If, for example, we were to label "prejudice" and "intolerance" under your "moral weakness" category, then I'm sure we'd find many more folks from Egypt with that moral failure than in Canada.

Possibly so, but I wasn't referring to these things. I was talking about jealousy and pettiness and selfishness and the inherent adoration of Power. Elementary human weaknesses.

Again, we're definitely not all largely the same. This is certainly not an example of a trivial difference. This is an example of difference on a value that we cannot reconcile, however. In other words, I cannot an individual or a group of individuals who reject fundamental principles of human rights.

but they can reject them in favour of a (perceived) larger good, and be perfectly sincere about it. Much of our foreign policy is predicated quite explicitly on the rejection of fundamental principles of human rights; though we jsutify it, perhaps even honestly, at times, as in service of human rights in some larger sense.

So, for example, Canada, France and the US can support (maybe aid in) the overthrow of democracy in Haiti--which even now has inferior democratic strengths than that which we got rid of. We only see this as compeltely different from similar behaviours by others because it's us...we of the "good and healthy differences," but rarely the "problematic and irreconcilable" ones, presumably. Which begs questions about the principles and excellence of patriotism, for one thing. And our "shared" appreciation of liberty, for another.

Edited May 13, 2010 by bloodyminded

[DogOnPorch]

Remember...bloodyminded speaks for all Jews. So if you are one, fall into line.

[bloodyminded]

Remember...bloodyminded speaks for all Jews. So if you are one, fall into line.

I'm afraid you haven't been following the discussion too well.

[DogOnPorch]

bloodyminded: But most of us don't see our Jewish brothers and sisters as any different from anyone else.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism

[bloodyminded]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism

This seems quite unrelated to my post, far less to the earlier post to which you responded.

[DogOnPorch]

You speak in the collective "we" far too often. You speak only for yourself. Statements like 'most of us' and 'everybody knows' are typical of this form of megalomania.

[bloodyminded]

You speak in the collective "we" far too often. You speak only for yourself. Statements like 'most of us' and 'everybody knows' are typical of this form of megalomania.

Most of us feel that you're full of shit. Everybody knows you can't have an honest debate.

(Still waiting for my historical-revisionism quotes.)

[DogOnPorch]

Most of us feel that you're full of shit. Everybody knows you can't have an honest debate.

(Still waiting for my historical-revisionism quotes.)

You see? Point proven.

Note: The image you see in the mirror is yourself. Not some adoring fan.

[bloodyminded]

You see? Point proven.

Note: The image you see in the mirror is yourself. Not some adoring fan.

Most of us believe you have made no point. Everybody knows you're just masturbating.

[Michael Hardner]

I disagree. The difference in history is vast. Were your parents or great-grandparents murdered in concentration camps? Perhaps oppressed in the former Soviet Union or expelled from a Middle Eastern country after Israel's establishment? Do I need to get into the vast differences in religious perspectives? This is just a small component of what separates many Jews from non-Jews, and the list is endless.

If they were, would you feel close to them ? Personally, I think we're reaching a point in history where we would all do well to put our heritage behind us.

[Bob]

Mildly meaningful. Not terribly important.

It's not really for you to decide to what degree a particular component of one's cultural identity is meaningful to others. Like I said earlier, there are many ways in which you and I are different simply because of our varying backgrounds. There's nothing wrong with these differences. That doesn't mean that we are no united in many profound ways, as well. Differences and commonalities are not either/or components of who we are. We can be very different in many ways and be very united in other ways.

o what, exactly, are these profound differences? You mention the Holocaust histroy...but what does this mean? How, exactly how, does this make us really, really different?

Are you serious? You don't think my connection to those events differentiates me from you? Do I really need to explain how the Holocaust and my family's experiences in WWII impart a a unique component of Jewish contemporary history? It's one of many events in the Jewish collective memory. I don't know what your heritage is or to what degree you are connected with it.

Very broadly, heritage and one's connection with his or her heritage can be a very important part of one's personal and collective identity. Does that really need to be said?

The psychopath is in some ways unique; but they're not AS different as usually painted. I might (in fact, do) view support for torture of terrorist suspects as verging not far from a type of psychopathy; and yet, despite my very real, very felt aversion, I do not find such support totally mysterious and completely beyond my understanding.

Please do not perceive what I am about to say as patronizing, but it seems to me you don't know what psychopathy is. An act (such as torture) cannot be psychopathic. An act can be performed by a psychopath, and particular patterns between acts and the motivations of those acts can paint a picture of psychopathy. Indeed, psychopaths are VERY different from the rest of us. So, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make...

I have a little experience with this subject, as I took some electives in psychology, but more specifically - I've read these two book by this Canadian professor from BC who apparently is the premiere worldwide authority on the subject. I think his name is Robert Hare, and he wrote two books, one called "Without Conscience" and the other one called "Snakes in Suits".

I'm aware of that; but I wasn't talking about large-L Libertarians, but rather self-styled conservatives who like to think of themselves as libertarians (even when they're not...they often as not mean "I hate taxes." Full stop.)

It might have been less confusing if I had left them out altogether, and gone more general: ie everybody talks about how important "liberty" is...and some of thsoe people think it means low taxes, primarily; some will disparage "Big Government" and its attacks on "liberty," even as they support utterly illiberal practices, even tyranny.

The only point here was that when you say "shared love of liberty" (forgive the direct quotes for a paraphrase), it is so abstract that I'm not sure how true it is. I don't mean it's false: I mean it's complex. Hell, bin Laden wants Muslims to be liberated from Western-supported tyranny (a common, and legitimate, desire for a lot of Muslim people, and one that tells us how much our foreign policies have been geared towards "liberty"); but he also wants another type of tyranny imposed.

I don't think it's that abstract to define common values that unite us. Freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom to be oneself (religion or lack of religion, culture, language, political beliefs, sexual orientation, etc), and all the things that make this country great. Of course there are particular limits on these freedoms when they begin to seriously infringe on the freedoms of others, but we're mostly on the same page on these issues.

That's true, but I would wager most people, globally, are in favour of such things, with some minor quibbles.

I think you're right. I believe that the values I've listed above, although manifesting themselves differently in different countries, are universal.

In a way, they're trivial, because the notions are mostly determined by history and region. There's no innate, genetic distinction. Further, I have zero doubt whatsoever that most Taliban, and most terrorists, have acted with great humanity and compassion and love in many ways throughout their lives.

I'm not talking about genetic differences. I'm talking about cultural differences, which can often be very profound. These profound cultural differences can also be totally ok, provided that they don't run contrary to our shared cross-values that I listed above. As an example, if my culture is opposed to democracy, this cannot be reconciled with your culture. So, as a consequence, my culture must acquiesce before democracy in order to be accepted into your culture.

but they can reject them in favour of a (perceived) larger good, and be perfectly sincere about it. Much of our foreign policy is predicated quite explicitly on the rejection of fundamental principles of human rights; though we jsutify it, perhaps even honestly, at times, as in service of human rights in some larger sense.

There's no need to reject cultural identity unless it run contrary to cross-cultural values such as democracy. I'm not sure what your second statement is getting at. I don't see how our foreign policy is based on the "rejection of fundamental principles of human rights".

So, for example, Canada, France and the US can support (maybe aid in) the overthrow of democracy in Haiti--which even now has inferior democratic strengths than that which we got rid of. We only see this as compeltely different from similar behaviours by others because it's us...we of the "good and healthy differences," but rarely the "problematic and irreconcilable" ones, presumably. Which begs questions about the principles and excellence of patriotism, for one thing. And our "shared" appreciation of liberty, for another.

Huh? You've lost me... since when did we support the overthrow of democracy in Haiti? What does this have to do with our original dialogue about identity and differences between cultures. Remember where this conversation started - I rejected your assertion that we are the same. We're not the same. And that's totally fine. Of course we are united on many core issues and beliefs, but we are still very different simply as a result of our cultural identities, let alone our own personal quirks (what we do for a living, our hobbies, favourite foods, etc).

[Bob]

If they were, would you feel close to them ? Personally, I think we're reaching a point in history where we would all do well to put our heritage behind us.

Of course I feel connected to my history. You seem to be in favour of this post-identity thinking, where the utopia is a world free of differences. By extension, perhaps you view the shedding of heritage of cultural identity as a progressive move towards a world free of conflict caused by the barriers erected by cultural difference(s)?

[bloodyminded]

It's not really for you to decide to what degree a particular component of one's cultural identity is meaningful to others.

???

Nor for you.

You mentioned "Canadian identity," and suggested that it might be very important for me.

I responded.

And now I'm "decid[ing]" what parts of identity are important for others?

Like I said earlier, there are many ways in which you and I are different simply because of our varying backgrounds. There's nothing wrong with these differences. That doesn't mean that we are no united in many profound ways, as well. Differences and commonalities are not either/or components of who we are. We can be very different in many ways and be very united in other ways.

I don't disagree with any of this, at all. Our only real argument is that you seem to be stressing the differences, whereas I'm stressing the similarities. That's it.

Are you serious? You don't think my connection to those events differentiates me from you? Do I really need to explain how the Holocaust and my family's experiences in WWII impart a a unique component of Jewish contemporary history? It's one of many events in the Jewish collective memory. I don't know what your heritage is or to what degree you are connected with it.

Very broadly, heritage and one's connection with his or her heritage can be a very important part of one's personal and collective identity. Does that really need to be said?

You haven't answered my question; and to be frank, I anticipated precisely this response.

I asked you exactly what are our profound differences as a result of our different histories and cultural legacies.

Your answer? that our histories and legacies are different.

So again: I know that. Obviously. It's not even debatable; it's as if you're asserting the sky is blue, perceiving some disagreement from me. I'm not asking what are the differences in historical background, or if they exist; I'm asking what are the "profound" and "fundamental" differences in human beings that have resulted from this historical background.

I mean, we've already established that we both hold to principles of liberty, democracy, and basic human rights. I'm sure we both agree that Jews aren't the hateful and absurd stereotypes that have been used to justify their oppression and attempted extermination; and that gentiles aren't a raving bunch of anti-semites who want you dead. We probably both agree that radical Islamist terrorism is a horrible thing; and that opposing it is good for our Muslim brothers and sisters, not only us; that Israel has a right to exist, and that the Palestinians do too.

That moral courage is good, bravery and compassion and intelligence are fine things....

I still have no idea what "profound" differences between us have been engendered by the differences in our ancestral histories.

Please do not perceive what I am about to say as patronizing, but it seems to me you don't know what psychopathy is. An act (such as torture) cannot be psychopathic. An act can be performed by a psychopath, and particular patterns between acts and the motivations of those acts can paint a picture of psychopathy. Indeed, psychopaths are VERY different from the rest of us. So, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make...

When a person is deemde a psychopath, the label is arrived at through (related) defining attributes: monumental self-centredness, lack of compassion, difficulty in seeing other human beings as subjects as well as objects. (Most of us perceive others as both subjects and objects, depending on the circumstances.)

To wilfully torture a person demands a lack of compassion and empathy, and demands the perception be limited to person as object. In fact, a psychopath like Son of Sam, who murdered strangers via gunshot, could do so with less compassion/empathy deficit than a person who tortures another.

It's about the lowest a human being can go, to torture and to support torture; this used to be fairly well-understood in our culture. Sadly, perhaps because we have a sense of real servility to power coupled with blind patriotism and an unhealthy bigotry, torture is now sometimes discussed as if it is a sane debate over policy (or utterly trivial, liberal hand-wringing) rather than an attempt to omit the human conscience from our actions.

Most of us are not psychopaths, of course; that's why torture-defenders will always present hypotheticals that never happen, hypotheticals like the "ticking bomb" theory [sic] even after it's been totally discredited. Similarly, there are milita men who fantasize about shooting people...so they feel compelled to dress this up as Bravely Battling Big Government and so on. But the shooting people is the thing, little boys playing war with real guns.

In other words, psychopathy is not something that can be easily distinguished: "this is a psychopath, everyone else isn't." Rather, it's a spectrum. Everyone's not a psychopath, but most or all people can behave psychopathically.

Nazi Germany, alone, should tell us this much. Or Rwanda. I'm not convinced of the starkness of the distinction.

I don't think it's that abstract to define common values that unite us. Freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom to be oneself (religion or lack of religion, culture, language, political beliefs, sexual orientation, etc), and all the things that make this country great. Of course there are particular limits on these freedoms when they begin to seriously infringe on the freedoms of others, but we're mostly on the same page on these issues.

You and I may well be (though it's not certain). But it is too abstract, because there are plenty of distinctions in how peope feel about each of these matters. Lots of grey areas, which can sometimes lead to pretty big differences in opinion on these "shared values."

A person can produce the conventional pieties about "liberty"...and simultaneously complain about suspected terrorists having any rights, as if suspect is dark enough to dispose of principles of liberty altogether. Others will disagree. So thsoe who share a belief in liberty...maybe don't really share it.

I'm not talking about genetic differences. I'm talking about cultural differences, which can often be very profound. These profound cultural differences can also be totally ok, provided that they don't run contrary to our shared cross-values that I listed above. As an example, if my culture is opposed to democracy, this cannot be reconciled with your culture. So, as a consequence, my culture must acquiesce before democracy in order to be accepted into your culture.

But how does this apply in a larger context? I think you are saying that, for example, "the West" supports and cherishes freedom and democracy, while many cultures and countries don't. But it's not so clear. Say, for example, some Muslim students in Iran are angry at the Democracy-loving West...because the West openly and materially aided the secular dictator--at the expense of the existing democratic movements. (This is not a hypothetical, but an historical truth.) Further, they might argue, not without merit, that the secular dictatorship led through circumstance to the theocratic one.

Talking about our love of democracy would make them collapse with laughter, and rightfully so.

There's no need to reject cultural identity unless it run contrary to cross-cultural values such as democracy. I'm not sure what your second statement is getting at. I don't see how our foreign policy is based on the "rejection of fundamental principles of human rights".

Huh? You've lost me... since when did we support the overthrow of democracy in Haiti?

2004, the illegal overthrow of the democratically-elected Aristide. And the justifications (totally unproven), that he was a thug and a nascent dictator, are not credible, since his replacement has been objectively less democratic, by any standard. (And that's beside the point: shattering sovereignty, overthrowing an elected president who enjoyed greater public support than our leaders are accustomed to, and replacing him with someone of our choosing--is by definition a direct opposition to democratic principles. Outright, brazen.)

What does this have to do with our original dialogue about identity and differences between cultures.

The idea was that "we" (meaning Canadians, Americans, et al) love liberty and democracy. That's not perfectly clear.

Remember where this conversation started - I rejected your assertion that we are the same. We're not the same. And that's totally fine. Of course we are united on many core issues and beliefs, but we are still very different simply as a result of our cultural identities, let alone our own personal quirks (what we do for a living, our hobbies, favourite foods, etc).

Yes, that's where the conversation started--after which I immediately pointed out that I overgeneralized; and then clearly said that there are differences...but that they're insignificant in comparison to our likenesses. Not insignificant in and of themselves; that doesn't make sense anyway, since "insignificance" demands a comparison by definition.

We're more alike than different. All this discussion comes down to this assertion I'm making.

[Michael Hardner]

Of course I feel connected to my history. You seem to be in favour of this post-identity thinking, where the utopia is a world free of differences.

Not at all. But differences that come out of the here & now can be resolved. Differences that happened between our ancestors can't, really.

By extension, perhaps you view the shedding of heritage of cultural identity as a progressive move towards a world free of conflict caused by the barriers erected by cultural difference(s)?

Why do you think that shedding this ridiculous cultural baggage is part of an unrealistic quest to rid the world of conflict ? Not my view, anyway.

[Shwa]

Why do you think that shedding this ridiculous cultural baggage is part of an unrealistic quest to rid the world of conflict ? Not my view, anyway.

Just a point of clarification please. Bob said, "heritage of cultural identity" and you paraphrased it as "ridiculous cultural baggage." Do you consider the cultural understanding that Bob has gained from his Jewish heritage - including the familial experiences of the Jewish Diaspora prior to and during WWII - as "ridiculous... baggage?"