Bush praise for Uganda AIDS policy raises interesting Qs

Indeed - you understand my point, I think!

lemme try again ...



Au contraire, if we are to take his statement literally. After all, he actually said that he considered Uganda "a world leader - not just a leader on the continent of Africa, but a world leader in the fight against HIV/AIDS". And he calls Uganda a "world leader" exactly because of the way the government there appears to have at least partially succeeded in promoting abstinence & monogamy.

(Actually, I think he might be using the 'model' of Uganda to send a message back home to his fellow-Americans about the "morality" of "abstain[ing] from risky sex", to use your words.)

In no part of his statement did he tread in the murky waters you're exploring with your suggestion that "the tribesmen" in Africa have different "levels of morality and conscience", and that they are therefore harder to restrain from risky sex. If you want to talk that talk, dont refer to Bush for it.

[..]

And Sofia (glad you could make it, btw , I do think people have a point when they call steissd on the implications of his post, of the wording he chooses. The history of racism is the history of entrenched stereotypes, stereotypes, specifically, that are used to argue there is a hierarchy of racial cultures: that some peoples are more "moral" than others.

The stereotype of the primitive black man, who lacks the moral self-restraint of white cultures because of how much closer he is to the 'primal' sex drive of nature (oh, those wild primitives), has been an extremely powerful image in racist rhetorics through the ages. The reference to Nazism isnt therefore all that knee-jerk an 'out there' reaction when it is once more brought up, at all, whether the racist connotations were deliberate or wholly accidental.

In an aside, I'd bet my bottom dollar that the AIDS problem in Africa is NOT especially concentrated among the barefoot tribesmen in the jungle.

There's NOT a whole lot of those, in any case, in percentage of African populations.

Overcrowded cities with newly urbanised populations in a state of continuous flux, freshly disrooted from traditional community ties ...

Impoverished rural populations, in an equal state of flux as civil wars, droughts and the pull of season labour has populations moving from place to place, and as rapid socio-economic and political change has turned the traditional exercise of community authority upside down without providing new ones ...

Africa is in social disarray, in town and countryside. Probably the remaining few "tribesmen in the jungle" (do you people really think Africa's population is made up of the Masai warriors you see in picturebooks?) are the best sheltered from the ravages of such disarray, including AIDS. That's my guess, anyway. ;-)

I think your guess is right on.

As an aside, I'm pretty tired of people defining whole cultures by the exotic stereotypes they see on the idiot box.

dlowan wrote:
Not sure quite when tribal turned from a description into a term of abuse....
------------
And I agreed wholeheartedly. Hence my entire problem with PC. Some words are relegated to 'code word' status, by people who don't want to take the time to read your comments, and see what you actually mean. They'd rather scan your words for 'code words' and point their finger at you.
------------
Walter said--
Actually I don't think "tribal" to be an incorrect word per se. It's just the way you use it .
--------------
Even though we may not agree with the statement, I don't think his use earned him the Nazi reference.

------------------------------------
Per nimh--No one mentioned the percentages of rural people in Africa. Just that the people, meeting this description would be harder to reach and teach about safe sex. I don't like to see people equated with murderous, evil Nazis because of a statement. It dilutes the reality of Nazism. IMO. It's thrown out all the time. I think there is a smarter, more useful way to address such statements. Hitler and the SS and all their disgusting followers deserve full credit for their actions, and shouldn't be confused with our friends, who have ideas we don't agree with.

I don't get my information about Africa from movies.

I would also bet the AIDS problem isn't concentrated in the bush. Large concentrations of people are easier to reach and educate.

Gautam-- You wrote this--
Ever since I read on a thread (I cant remember where), him saying "I can avoid AIDS as long as I dont have sex with men", any such statement from him, reeks of bigotry for me.
*******
That would have been a great time to educate someone. I'd hate for someone to think that (above) would keep them safe from AIDS. A lot of patient explanation and correct information is what generally changes people's minds about some, incorrect, closely-held opinions.
-------------------
My opinions about Muslims were--"Hey! Why aren't the American Muslims seperating themselves from the ones, who killed 3000 Americans?" "Hey, why are all those Arabs and Muslims dancing in the streets, thrilled that 3000 Americans have been murdered?" "What the---, why does Louis Farrakan make all of these statements about America getting what it deserves."

I looked into the history of Islam, and saw that they were very intolerant of other religions--enslaved Jews--abolished other religions, building mosques on the sites of churches they demolished...

But, then I revisited my own religion, and realized plenty of charges could be made about Christianity, too. So, I called it a wash.
-------------

dlowen said--
Perhaps it would lessen contention if views rather than people were labeled as bigoted? 'Tis a nice point.
---------
Yes. And, if you could convince them to save the word "Nazi" for people, who have actively participated in ethnic cleansing. I would be much happier.

LOL, I'd not want to draw any attention to myself if I were a Muslim right after 9/11. I'd lay low and curse the terrorist bastards. Even when they did denounce it the results were sometimes negative. I can't count how many times a Muslim who denounced terror brough on his head the accusation that he was full of talk and did not take repsonsibility for his peers. This leads me to the following:

Snood once posted something interesting about how when a minority does something everyone expects the rest of the minority to stand up and disown the individual(s).

I think it was a relevant point, when a white guy does something stupid none of us feel compelled to stand up and assosiate ourselves with the individual(s) through the attempt to disassociate ourselves and I think it a fair question to ask why we expect that of minorities. Why do we like to insist that the minority group be held responsible for each of their individual actions?

Sofia,

I agree with the overuse of the Nazi stigma. I found myself using it on occasion in a way I'd not like to defend, most notably on the Realm with Thorman (where is Thorman dammit??).

But I seek clarification. I personally have never sought to equate Steissd with a Nazi, I think taht would be tasteless.

I did, however use Nazi ideology in my discussions with you about using circumstantial factors to support bigotry.

Do you speak of that as well? Is the mere mention of their ideology "un-PC"?

I do not think you mean this, I take it to mean you decry the attempt to label an individual a Nazi but seek clarification on this point.

When Falwell, Swaggert, Robertson, Jim and Tammy, and a host of other disgusting people, who call themselves Christians do something stupid--I always feel compelled to disassociate myself with them.

When a Republican comes out with a stupid racist or homophobic statement--I feel I must draw distinctions, lest someone think I am in league with their mindset.

People do tend to define us by our 'labels'. If I were a Muslim, after 911, I probably would have called every non-Muslim I knew and said, "Hey--that was terrible..."

oops - I never ever called steissd a Nazi!

Since he used nearly the same sentences is in neo-Nazi leaflets, since he often overstretches the stereotypes as neo-Nazis do here, I just compared it with their languages. (And this has never been a reason of which steissd never called me "antisemic" as others did :wink: .)

No. I wasn't referencing your use of Nazi. I think you were mentioning it, because it was already in play.
I had made my initial whine in the direction of Walter--who had satisfied me, with his use of it previously. (Not that it is important to satify me, but he had.)

Yet, you came in swashbuckling, and not reading, and brought the whole thing up again. We all got in a typing jumble.

But, I thoroughly enjoyed the opportunity to discuss it with you. Certainly, as far as I'm concerned, mention of the Nazi ideology is not taboo. Discussion of anything should not be taboo. Hence my diatribe.

Hmm. I would think it a good PR move but wouldn't expect it of anyone. I was surprised that as an American in Brazil I got over 100 phone calls on 9/11.

Thing is, I can see how you'd want to disassociate yourself with any extreme element within one of the "labels" you subscribe to when you disagree with that extremity.

But I never see Christian leaders being called upon to decry any of their own.

Ok, I overstate (as per usual) I have seen few cases, one I remember off teh top of my head was when American Christians called upon the Catholics to speak out about the abuses.

But in any case I rarely see Christian groups being called upon to defend their faith through "official" press releases after one of their own does something dastardly.

I do include the caveat that Muslim fanatics use their religion in their ideology more so than Christian fanatics do.

Sofia,

I think the mention of Nazi ideology (I brought up KKK ideology) is extremely relevant. Neither of those groups liked to phrase their prejudice in hate filled diatribes. They liked to use circumstantial factors to lead the horse to water, so to speak.

Another complication is these discussions is that disagreement is often called an attempt to muzzle. And this leads to a paradox.

If all discussion is within bounds is not discussion in which disagreement about what is said hurt?

Let me make that clear (yes yes, bad writing and such).

If no discussion should be considered a taboo then we enter a paradox.

What if someone's opinion (which they wish to share in a discussion) is that there is something that should not be said? Is stating that disaproval of what was expressed a taboo?

Get where I'm going? If there should be no taboos in a discussion than anyone who seeks to call a certain line of discussion a taboo has broken the "there is no taboo" taboo.

Furthermore there is a disconnect with that reasoning. You yourself have imposed taboos in discussions. Taboos that I have sometimes agreed with. I can PM you if you do not know what I am talking about.

Referencing this--
But I never see Christian leaders being called upon to decry any of their own.
--------------------
I remember vaguely some idiotic comment by Falwell--other "Christians" were called on to refute it, and they did.

What did he say? Some broad brush thing about Islam... Or was it Robertson? And Franklin Graham's comment, also about the 'evil Islamic religion'... This was a litmus question for several "Christians" in public forums.

This does happen.

Sofia - as a final word, I think it disingenuous of you to try to turn this:

"Mr. Bush believes that his compatriots have higher level of morality and conscience than the people in Uganda, and it is easier to convince Americans to abstain from risky sex than the tribesmen from jungles and savannas."

into a simple comment about remoteness a la:

" Just that the people, meeting this description would be harder to reach and teach about safe sex. "

The pairing of "Mr. Bush believes that his compatriots have higher level of morality and conscience than the people in Uganda" with "easier to convince Americans to abstain from risky sex than the tribesmen from jungles and savannas." makes it sound a lot more as though, in the writer's eyes, the the lower morality and conscience explain the difficulties of convincing.

Re my "tribal" comment - please do not read me as condemning political correctness - I believe the connection between lesser morality and conscience and "tribalness" (I know there is no such word - but there oughta be!) is made by Steissd in his comment, not by those you accuse of the dreaded PC.


(When, by the way, are we going to call anti-PCness by its proper new name - "political correctness" - the pendulum having, in this matter, completed its counter-swing to the extent that anti-PC has, I believe, assumed the mantle of its predecessor, and deserves its title, too!)

Ok, I'm not speaking of people on forums but rather something a tad higher in a social ladder. But we digress and it's no biggie to me.

Referencing dlowen's statement--
(When, by the way, are we going to call anti-PCness by its proper new name - "political correctness" - the pendulum having, in this matter, completed its counter-swing to the extent that anti-PC has, I believe, assumed the mantle of its predecessor, and deserves its title, too!)
--------------
Anti-PCness doesn't need a title. It is just the ability to say what you mean.

And, I did say I had no reason to think Ugandans, nor Africans, were less moral or possessed inferior consciences. I don't really know what to make of the AIDS epidemic there, or in Russia, for that matter.

I cannot say anything about KKK, but Nazis did phrase their prejudice in open appeals to hatred and violence. Here are the examples: [Caption: "This year is over. Struggle goes on."]
and
[Caption: They fight and the Jews grin"] It is taken from the
Der Sturmer magazine.
And here is the classical Nazi-style cartoon from the modern Egyptian press:

No statistics, no proofs, no suggestions, just blatant application to barbaric emotions of the excited crowd. This is a real Nazi style.

I disagree Steissd, I never said all Nazis never stooped to blatant hatemongering. Both the KKK and the Nazis have gone as far off the edge as anyone.

I note that the understated style is a more powerful tool and that both groups weild it deftly.

Anti-PCness doesn't need a title. It is just the ability to say what you mean.

Sofia, I will discuss that comment in another time and place!

Couldn't sleep last night, and I be all stupid and grumpy.