It's the end of a year that saw historic election in the United States. An African American was elected President. To many of us felt like a turning point. We'll have to see. But if it is, it is due to many people, some of whom we know, most of whom we will never know. Black people fought hard and long and suffered greatly. They had allies in the white community, including many academics. I thought of all this recently when reading the Preface of a book on the nineteenth century philosopher Gottlob Frege. If you aren't a philosopher or philosophy student (or possibly a logician) you may not have heard of Frege, who is the founder of modern logic. One of the greatest Frege scholars is a philosopher from Oxford University, Michael Dummett. Most people have never heard of Dummett, either. I'd heard of him but never read anything of his. I was interested in Frege for reasons having to do with my research work so a couple of weeks ago I sat down with the single book about Frege that is the foundation and starting point for Frege studies, Dummett's 1973 book (2nd ed. 1981), Frege: The Philosophy of Language. It is 700 pages about a fairly technical and specialized subject in philosophy, but an important one I felt I wanted to understand for my own work. So I started at the beginning, The Preface to the First Edition, since I always read prefaces. And here's how the Preface starts:
I am always diappointed when a book lacks a preface: it is like arriving at someone's house for dinner, and being conducted straight into the dining room. A preface is personal, the body of the book impersonal . . .
[snip]
This book has been a very long time in the writing. Partly this has been due to my own unorganized methods of work, partly to the fact that to write about Frege is to write, from a particular perspective, about the problems that most engage contemporaries in two very active branches of philosophy . . . . For this reason, the book underwent for years a continuous process of revision; at no stage did my ideas remain sufficiently static for all parts of the manuscript to appear satisfactory. I was repeatedly told that I should call a halt to the process: but how can anyone publish what he knows he can improve? (Preface to the First Edition, Michael Dummett, Frege: The Philosophy of Language)
This was both charming and interesting. But it didn't prepare me for what came next:
There is also a quite different reason why I have taken so long. In the autumn of 1964, most of the book, which was then to have been in one volume, was in a finished state, and it needed only a few months' work to complete it. That I did not finish it in early 1965 was due to a conscious choice. I conceived it my duty to involve myself actively in opposition to the racism which was becoming more and more manifest in English life. For four full years, this work occupied virtually the whole of my spare time. As a result, I had to abandon hope, for the time that this involvement lasted, of completing my book. I make no apology for this decision, nor do I regret it. Bertrand Russell, in a television interview given shortly before his death, was asked whether he thought that the political work on which he was engaged at the end of his life was of more importance than the philosophical and mathematical work he had done earlier. He replied, 'It depends how successful the political work is: if it succeeds, it is of much more importance than the other; but, if it does not, it is just silly.' One may, all the same, have to undertake something knowing there is only a small chance of success: if someone is faced by a great and manifest evil to the elimination of which he has some chance of making a contribution, the countervailing reasons must be strong to justify his refusing to make it. What has made it possible for me largely to disengage myself from work for anti-racialist organizations, and so find time belatedly to complete this book, has been that, in the first phase of that struggle, we were decisively defeated. In collaboration with my wife, to whom this book is dedicated, and whose involvement in the struggle was even more intense than my own, I have indicated elsewhere (Justice First edited by Lewis Donnelly) my reasons for thinking that, by 1968, Britain had become irretrievably identified by the black people living here as a racist society, and that those primarily responsible for this disaster were our politicians, of the Labour and Conservative Parties alike.
There is more like this in The Preface and it is continued in The Preface to the Second (1981) Edition:
Unhappily, the situation has worsened to just the degree that could have been predicted. Black people and white now inhabit two different Britains. Most white people are completely unaware of what is common experience for black people; they are oblivious of the conditions we as a nation have created. They know little or nothing of the racial murders and the assaults on black people's property occurring with ever-increasing frequency; of the cynical dilatoriness of the police when telephoned for help, or their indifference when attacks are reported to them; of the brutality practised by the police themselves against black people, to the extent that it is now hazardous for any black youngster to visit the West End of London; of the imprisonment, without trial, of hundreds of people every year on suspicion of having given false information when lawfully admitted to the country, or even only of having failed to volunteer information for which they were not asked; of the fact that many of those thus imprisoned are subsequently 'removed', still without recourse to a court of law, and that the rest, when released after weeks or months, have no redress for wrongful imprisonment; of the insecurity that this creates in people whose lawful admission, perhaps many years ago, gives them no safeguard against being at any moment arrested, imprisoned and 'removed'; of the effect on young people born in this country of being asked, at hospitals or employment exchanges, to produce their passports to prove their 'immigration status'; . . . [many more examples] . . . . Such things are due to eighteen years of indoctrination in the belief that no calamity could be greater than that one black person who can be got rid of should be allowed to remain. Those, numerous among civil servants, magistrate's and the police, who have succumbed to this indoctrination are now, by any objectivve standards,literally mad; but madness of this sort is very usual amongst us, and so it is not noticed.
I have quoted perhaps half of Dummett's cry of despair. Suffice to say the part not quoted is of a piece with the part I did. Dummett's philosophical interests and leanings quite unlike mine. He is, for one thing, an ardent and quite traditional Roman Catholic while I am an ardent and open atheist. Yet these Prefaces to a technical book on the philosophy of logic and language are some of the most heart felt and courageous I have ever read. And they conclude with a poignant irony:
There is some irony for me in the fact that the man about whose philosophical views I have devoted, over years, a great deal of time to thinking, was, at least at the end of his life, a virulent racist, specifically an anti-semite. This fact is revealed by a fragment of a diary which survives among Frege's Nachlass [literary legacy], but which was not published with the rest by Professor Hans Hermes in Freges nachgelassene Scriften. The diary shows Frege to have been a man of extreme right-wing political opinions,bitterly opposed to the parliamentary system, democrats, liberals, Catholics, the French and, above all, Jews, who he thought ought to be deprived of political rights and preferably, expelled from Germany. When I first read that diary, many years ago, I was deeply shocked, because I had revered Frege as an absolutely rational man, if, perhaps, not a very likeable one. I regret that the editors of Frege's Nachlass chose to suppress that particular item. Frlom it I learned something about human beings which I should be sorry not to know, perhaps something about Europe, also. (final paragraph in The Preface to the First Edition)
Have we in the US at long last turned a corner on race? I don't know. But if so, it will be in part due to the many Michael Dummett's of this world.
- Log in to post comments
Revere, "[Dummett continues] in The Preface to the Second (1981) Edition: "Those, numerous among civil servants, magistrate's and the police, who have succumbed to this [bigoted] indoctrination are now, by any objective standards, literally mad; but madness of this sort is very usual amongst us, and so it is not noticed."
I was thirteen years old in 1981. "Gay" is the new "black" in early twenty first century US and Oz. Michael Dummett could be literally writing about my adult life... I'm a 40 year old gay male who has experienced inhumane "third world torture" at the hands of the Western Australian government...
Revere, were you aware Australia is the only democracy in the world without human rights protection. I viscerally know this from firsthand personal experience. For over ten years, homophobic West Australians (gay, bi, and hetero) in positions of state gov medico-legal employment have used me as a "punching bag" -- staff at WA FOI are bullies (see the Tim Kennedy 2006 email excerpt below) and yet, Jim McGinty (former WA health minister) is suggesting I again interact and engage with these West Australian government employees who do what they do because a lack of Oz human rights protection allows them to behave like vicious schoolyard tyrants (see below):
So, why not click into the GetUp Australia website via the attached link and tell the Aussie Government it's time for an Australian Human Rights Act @ http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/rights/407
Cheers Then:*) Jonathon
Revere, I sincerely hope 2009, Chinese year of the Ox, brings peace and joy for us all...
**************************
Excerpted email response, prior to the September 2008 West Australian state election, from former MLA ATTORNEY GENERAL, MINISTER FOR HEALTH; ELECTORAL AFFAIRS FOR WESTERN AUSTRALIA [OurRef: 22-015231]
28 MAY 2008
Dear Mr Singleton
Thank you for your e-mail dated 22 May 2008.
I have noted the matters in your e-mail, including your reference to our previous correspondence; namely, my e-mail to you of 18 January 2006 (Ref: 22-3366) as well as your concerns regarding the treatment of yourself and other gay men in Western Australia. In relation to those matters, the following comments are provided.
First, as I trust you will be aware, I have (both as a Minister and a parliamentarian) consistently supported endeavours to strengthen and extend the rights and protection of gay and lesbian persons in our community...
Third, your e-mail appears to indicate that you may have been the victim of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. For example, your e-mail states that you "used to have a home but [were] forced out of it"...
Finally, your letter appears to allege that you have also been sexually assaulted. For example, your e-mail refers to a "violent medico-legal rape" and that you were "'raped' by taxpayer funded cops". As you may be aware, such assaults may constitute serious criminal offences. If you have any supporting evidence, you should make that evidence available to the appropriate prosecution authorities, for example, the WA Police Service and the WA Director of Public Prosecutions. If the allegation concerns WA Police then you may wish to provide that evidence (including any written statement that you may have prepared outlining the relevant facts and circumstances) to the internal investigation section of the police service.
Thank you for informing me of your views and concerns and I trust that the above is of
assistance to you.
Yours sincerely, JIM McGINTY
***********************************
Subject: RE: Gloria Allred -- Your legal inquiry [Quest 4our Justice
Version]
Thursday, October 5, 2006 7:40 PM
Email From: "Tim Kennedy"
Email To: "jon singleton"
Thanks John. Good bye. You are off too my spam list.
Subject: RE: Gloria Allred -- Your legal inquiry [Quest 4our Justice
Version]
Email To: "Tim Kennedy"
Friday 6th October 2006
Howdy Tim,
You write, "Hey John, do me a favour, take me off your distribution list, please. Your email is of a personal nature which I do not wish to receive."
Actually Tim, the emails you are referring to are of a (((LEGAL))) nature, clearly demonstrating that the poverty I'm now experiencing is due to the homophobic bigotry and violence of certain Perth, WA gov and medico folk, spanning a decade...
It's now 2006 and WA FOI have (((FAILED))) to release highly relevant documentation (eg. toxicology report) and the documentation I do have has been censored to protect the identity of those police officers who acted illegally by falsifying charges and behaving in a violent, unprofessional and bigoted manner toward myself..."
This is a striking piece. We have to wonder how one person can so completely separate in his mind the disparate parts of life: how maintain hateful and irrational beliefs about one group of other people and at that same time devote intense intellectual effort to abtract logic or other domain of thought largely free of associations with social connections with others. The easy answer, of course, is that this dichotomous behavior is possible just because there is no significant overlap of the mental domains,but that really only begs the question. The same kind of irrationality operates in domains where there is a real intersection in the two domains of thought. A scientist friend was telling me the other day of a colleague at his place of work who, though a solid and accomplished scientist, simply rejects the claims held by most of the scientific community on the matter of global warming. Though my friend has argued with him at length, and they have examined together the IPCC reports, he persists in his belief that the claims are just manufactured by the various disciplines involved in order to justify more support for their research. Some cultural programming in his development has produced what seems to be an inability to reconcile two inconsistent elements in his thinking.
There is some of this in each of us. It is perhaps the most important impediment to advancing rational scientifically-based views of many matters of wide social importance: stem cell research, climate change, evolution, vaccination - the list is long. I've recently completed a book, Imperfect Oracle in which I've delved into the many ways in which scientific authority comes into conflict with the authorities of other social sectors: law, religion, politics, and where culturally ingrained attitudes frequently trump rational considerations. We need somehow to impart methods of rational thought very early in life and associate them with important life satisfactions. It is not clear how that can be done.
Now I'm kind of glad I flunked logic in college.
Fascinating post, holmes! When I was an undergraduate, I studied under a world-renowned Husserl scholar, and we spent a lot of time--if I recall correctly, which is questionable--discussing Husserl's analyses of Frege. I thought Husserl was fucking cool, with all that 'gegebenheitsweise" shit.
In relation to prefaces, I almost always skip them.
Racial prejudice in America is contained within small pockets of the public. The media picks up on these, as we all should realize by now, and blows them out of proportion.
One thing that mystifies me is the term African American. Has everyone forgotten that Obama is half-white?
Remember hearing on the lying news channels that Michelle and Barak are interested in helping the local area around D.C. That would be a miracle in and of its self.
Ever taken the time to drive around the area revere? I have.
Lea: Since I have no idea what you are saying I don't know how to respond. But yes, I know the area quite well. There remains a lot of racism in the US but it will disappear as our generation dies off. The new generation is much better than we are. Good riddance to us.
Don't understand why you can't understand what I wrote revere, unless you don't want to.
Paragraph one: Racial prejudice in America is contained within VERY small pockets of the public. The MAIN STREAM media NEWS CHANNELS pick up on these SMALL incidences and blows them way out of proportion.
Paragraph two: One thing that mystifies me is the term African American. Has everyone forgotten that Obama is half-white?
HUH? Difficult to understand?
Color doesn't matter. And maybe it's your generation that needs to go, not mine. I know it certainly is my mother's generation that would benefit us all by croaking instantly.
Lea: I didn't understand you for two reasons. Because I don't know why you think racism is confined to small pockets of the public. And secondly, your remark about African American. Obama is literally African-American. He is not literally half white, or black in color or anything else. He represents a racial minority in this country, but in terms of his genetics, like you and me, he has both African and European genes. My son-in-law is not "white" but he isn't "black" (except in the eyes of some). He is my daughter's husband and thus a member of my family, as his family takes me as a one of them. My two grandchildren are not half white. They are my grandchildren. Yes, I do "forget" they are (according to some) "half white." Because they aren't. But I guess that is difficult to understand.
Now you're the one that's not understandable revere. No offense meant by that either. You carry your emotions on your sleeve, at least it appears that way to me.
I could give a rip what color of skin a person is.
I mentioned half white because he is just that. Nothing mean spirited was meant by it.
I am afraid, dear Revere, that the world will never turn the corner on racism. Why don't we call racism by its real name - tribalism. The Turks hate the Greeks, the French hate the English, the Chinese hate the Japanese, the North hates the South, the West hates the East, you get the drift. So long as we are all different and belong to different tribes there will be ambivalence between tribes. What works for me, is that I enjoy differences, the fact that everything is not the same, and makes for an interesting planet.
The TWOGS (Third World Groupies) of the world seem to think that mankind can become civilised, they don't realise that the veneer of civility is only skin deep.
The question of the term African American and why it is used is interesting.
Most whites in America are European American, but few refer to themselves as such. Some who may be predominately from a specific country might use the term Irish American or Italian American, and many of us are from a mix of countries, but most blacks have no idea where they came from except from Africa. So whats the point?
In fact, many African Americans do not consider black hispanics to be African Americans because they came from South of the US. It is a little known fact among most that of the 11 million Afican slaves transported from Africa, only 500,000 went to British North America, and the US after it's first 20 years then had some of the most severe penalties for those importing slaves in the world, penalty by death. The slave problem was one of inheritance, and the demographics in the south, and weakness of the federal government in the early days made abolition at the Federal level an impossibility. But this is not taught, why?
In any event, I think the term African American serves to keep blacks dwelling on the injustices of the past. It does not serve assimilation. And black nationalists and preachers like Pastor Wright teach the young racial hatred which the young use to justify their actions.
Yet culture of Africa in the days of the slave trade does not leave much to be desired. Their own slaves from other tribes were used as human sacrifices during holidays, and they profited from the slave trade, it being their main source of revenue to buy rum and other goodies. It takes 2 sides to trade. In fact, when the British moved to end the slave trade that they had such a big role in, the African rulers complained (from The Slave Trade by Hugh Thomas).
During the civil war, some blacks requested to be sent back to Africa and Lincoln was willing to accomodate those who wished to leave. However, only 2 countries in Africa were willing to accept American blacks and offer citizenship, for economic or cultural reasons, and to these countries nobody wanted to go. Africans were a very tribal people, just because you were black meant nothing if not from the same tribe, and most blacks had lost their native language ability after several generations and sopke only english.
And many do not know about the Irish Catholics being sent to work as slaves in the US and Caribbean following the Cromwell genocide and ethnic cleansing of Ireland. They called them indentured servants and were freed after a certain number of years, unlike the blacks.
Slavery existed for most of mans history, including the white man. We should teach that. It's in the bible even.
At the same time, the drug laws that have placed so many blacks in prison out of proportion for their numbers should be repealed. The racial problems are being driven from the top down with laws like these, probably because racial divisions are useful to the elite, as are the other divisions they encourage to get people fight among each other.
As for Leas questionin why Obama would identify with African Americans when his mother is white, thats a good point. His father was British coming from the British colony Kenya, and he was born in Hawaii even if he won't release his original birth certificate (just the COLB) making him an American as well. He spent his youth in Indonesia and Hawaii, where he probably did not see many African Americans. In fact, in Hawaii, whites were discriminated against by the Asian and native population, and property for rent frequently indicated "No Whites".
Yet when you read Obamas book Dreams From My Father, he expresses sympathy with black nationalists and he wonders if maybe thats the way blacks need to go to get equality. In the book, one of his classmates who was also half white labelled herself as biracial and Obama got upset. I could see how a biracial person growing up in Chicago would identify themselves as African American, but not Hawaii. But hey, thats his choice.
"The new generation is much better than we are."
Do you really think so? I wonder quite often whether or not that is true. They seem to be perfectly capable of coming up with their own insanities--I've seen plenty of young bigots, unfortunately. And I've also seen older bigots change their minds through long years of experience: My very racist grandfather hobbled out of the nursing home to vote for Obama this year.
It happens, as near as I can tell, from people being pushed into new situations where they are far from their friends and family, who would normally reinforce their prejudices via solidarity. Grandad had to go to the nursing home a couple of years ago, and met new people who weren't bigoted and people of color who didn't conform to his stereotypes--if he had continued to be a bigot, he would have been ostracized from nursing home social functions and gotten only the most perfunctory care.
Maybe young people in college only appear to be better than the older generations because they are in a new situation, in college far from home, making new friends. And once they are settled into a new "family" (fraternity/sorority, workplace, etc.) they lose that newness of thought and settle back into whatever the local prejudice is.
Lea: It's not that I wear my heart on my sleeve or that I was offended. It is that I am being careful about how I say things and I try to be straightforward. I think Victoria has it exactly right: we are dealing with tribalism, of which racism is only one kind. There is also nativism, nationalism, religious intolerance and many lesser things, like Yankees versus Red Sox fans or Manchester United versus Liverpool or whomever. The tendency to identify with a group is probably a biologically based one but that doesn't mean we can't tame its worst effects with other social abilities (also biologically based). We don't allow Red Sox fans to kill Yankee fans and for the most part they don't. There is much less racism now than there was when I was growing up. Lea is right about that. But there remains much carry over, including the tendency to identify people with a racial group. "Half white" isn't at all accurate, for example, while African American is exactly accurate, but Lea prefers the less accurate to the more accurate. That's socially and culturally based. Obama belongs to other "tribes" (e.g., he's a White Sox fan) but we don't usually identify him that way. He's American, which we do use, although we don't usually refer to him as a midwesterner except in special contexts. He's also a North American and part of the "North" political grouping of nations. He is also is a representative of a social grouping we call "black" or "African American" in the US. There is no significant "half white" social grouping, although people whose parents are of different social color groupings of "black" and "white" exist (like my grandchildren and Obama). All of us are racial mixtures, so it doesn't make sense anyway.
Maybe we can't turn the corner on tribalism, but we can turn the corner on certain kinds of tribalism and we can ameliorate the worst consequences of tribalism. That's a fact, because we've done it, not once but many times. Northerners don't kill southerners in the US any more and cattleman don't kill sheepmen.
Lora: On some kinds of tribalism, like color and sexual preference the younger generation is much better than the older one. Much, much better. They have their own kinds of issues, I'm sure, but they are way ahead of geezers like my contemporaries (and Lea's, although she's a decade younger than I am). And yes, many racists voted for Obama. Racists also vote their self interest, not just their prejudices. My mother in law was once very backward in her racial views. Now she is a strong Obama supporter. She has learned and changed. But on average, the younger folks are ahead. On average.
Racial prejudice in America is contained within VERY small pockets of the public.
Where is the evidence for this claim?
One of the finest posts I've read on Effect Measure. I, too, am desperately hopeful that the next generation will put "us" in the shade. If my 32 year old son and 28 year old daughter are typical, it will. Thank you Revere.
It was and is an excellent post. Not sure if you are preaching to the choir though revere. I would be guessing in saying that most who visit EM are of like mind, in one degree or another.
The comment made by pft was spot on BTW.
The turning the corner you speak of revere was done by me, on my own, after enduring deplorable parents and being witness to their hideous and outdated slanderous beliefs. For a little while I bought into their shame however, at a young age I knew it wasn't the right way to think or act. It repulsed me and sent me in the direction opposite of them. To this day I'm hard pressed to find any real good in them.
My words aren't adequate to convey what I'm trying to express here. Didn't sleep too good last night, this happens often.
Maybe this will suffice: There shouldn't be labels or descriptions placed on any human being. We are all denizens of this big blue marble.
Well said Sandra.
Perhaps we have turned some sort of a corner in our treatment of blacks, but we are delving into a deluge of racism in our treatment of Hispanics, all under the guise of "dealing with illegal immigration."