On 3 Sep 2004, at 19:08, wikien-l-request(a)Wikipedia.org wrote: Geoff Burling wrote: Hi Geoff, First of all, it's good to hear from you! After the email dispute that developed following your closing remarks to this email http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-August/030035.html I was unsure whether you had left the list, because you fell silent at a certain point. It's good to still have you around and despite our differences, I would like to say that I value your input and I believe it's a good idea to have discussions about our differences. So lemme discuss, shall I? As I've already hinted at in this email http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-August/030167.html I don't necessarily endorse Christiaan's way to communicate his convictions and feelings. However--and without trying to be a back seat-driver--I think not reading Christiaan's email is a Very Bad Thing. The moment we stop listening to what our opponents have to say is the moment we start heading down the slippery slope of ignorance and negligence. If I was Karl Rove, I'd make darn sure to watch Fahrenheit 9/11 the first day it comes out. If I was Michael Moore, I'd make darn sure to go to the Republican convention (I think both did do just that, though I don't have proof positive in Rove's case). Well, I consider myself a reasonable person and, ok, I do not personally find your remarks acutely offensive, but I do find them very worthy of criticism and I find them ''potentially'' offensive--I am absolutely convinced that there are people out there who (IMHO not without reason) will find such remarks acutely offensive. Seeing his reaction, I think Christiaan might be one of them. Moot point (of ridicule) -- it's obvious that neither of your rhetorical options are sensible. Neither collective civilizatory suicide nor voluntary perpetuation of civilizatory terrorism are gonna be helpful -- not even to ourselves. Modesty however would be a good start. [[Aldous Huxley]] once wrote: If I read Huxley right, then that's a plain indictment of the not infrequent notion of wallowing in guilt. It also is a roadmap: 1st -- Repent (honestly). 2nd -- Make what amends you can (no more, no less). 3rd -- After (1) and (2) are completed, try to mend. Let me openly admit at this point that I used to be one of the guilt-wallowers. Speaking only for myself: It felt good wallowing in guilt. Because in doing so I implicitly exhibited: "Look, '''I''' am ashamed of my group." In being that I could internally and externally distance myself from the group and consider myself kind of ''exempt'' from the evil I loudly denounced. In hindsight, I can say that as a "guilt-wallower" I was just as daft as a "cultural imperialist by default and ignorance": The ''ignorant imperialist'' doesn't want to know about things that may be wrong about his group, so he doesn't have to feel bad about himself. The ''guilt-wallower'' relentlessly exhibits the wrongdoings of his group at every possible time, opportunity or no, in order to exempt himself, the "enlightened critic", from any- and everything that has gone wrong in connection with his group, so he doesn't have to feel bad about himself. The only sensible way of course is to do as Huxley proposed, and in the order Huxley proposed and not to address any step halfheartedly. Yes, the road is painful, but it leads to a better place. This section actually reminded me of SCO -- because what you say there is wrong in so many ways: 1.) To call somebody's POV "extreme" is a hollow attack. It's a non-argument, lacking merit, logic and--worst of all--content. It's "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." I could call your POV "extreme", you could call mine "extreme" or Christiaan's (as you have done). But what's the point? The label "extreme" only makes sense against a reference frame -- and especially when it comes to not infrequently held political POVs, the "extreme" label, while frequently abused in seeking to ostracize the opposing speaker, ultimately rings hollow. 2.) I put it to you that your refusal to discuss Christiaan's POV has far greater potential to alienate yourself from the Wikipedia community (and it from you) than any supposed "extremeness" of his stance. 3.) I further am slightly shocked that--after all these emails--you still write as if you hadn't noted what some people--myself included--found so objectionable about your aforementioned email closing remarks. Maybe I'm misreading you, but to me you seem to implicitly again identify "willing[ness] to engage in a conversation about [one's] contributions" and similar ideals to be "Western" achievements. They're not. I thought at least with this email: http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-August/030140.html I had made clear my point that we as "Westerners" hold no monopoly on any of such ideals. I wrote that "we're HARDLY the sole inventors or champions of these ideals". I mean it. It is simply unwise to unconcernedly and unqualifiedly repeat a point that some people strongly object to -- especially after you have already made it and after you already have found yourself challenged over it. I somehow don't think you intent was malicious, but I must say: Usually, if a person does such, it's to ram their view down the opposition's throats or to pick a fight. Surely you cannot be hellbent on either of the two? 4.) Telling someone of an opposing POV that you "don't feel [he] will be happy" participating in a project which neither he nor you own is, again, a non-argument: What are you trying to tell that person? "Go away, for people won't like your ilk over here"? Or "I represent a majority and you don't, so please leave"? Especially in case you are right (which you quite possibly are) and the Wikipedia /is/ slated and biased into your direction, then isn't that all the more reason for seeking to actively include and retain contributors who differ? If you really mean what you said in your said email closing remark, then IMHO you unfortunately will have to live with some people accusing you of racism: If you really persist in claiming that "tolerance, pluralism, & unfettered speech" was an /exclusively/ "Western" invention (warranting us to be missionaristic, of all things!), then you simply will face such accusations, sooner or later. While you have a valid point saying that many ethnically diverse groups are now integral parts of "Western" society, the balance of power with regards to "Caucasian" and other "races" is a point of an ongoing argument and historically in particular there have been huge racial injustices perpetrated and perpetuated within and by various wider "Western" communities. It is thus not without base to closely identify "Western civilization" with the "Caucasian race". Thus, unduly proclaiming "Western civilization" to have a historical and ongoing monopoly on the said ideals can very well be seen, by some, to smack of racism. Let me be clear: neither I nor, I believe, others on this list did call you racist, and I am not calling you thus now either. However: If it's hurtful to see yourself getting uncomfortably close to such labels, then maybe it's time to reexamine your position. Let me add: You wrote in this email http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-August/030105.html that you were "unaware of any serious argument that this tradition of thought was introduced from Africa, India, or China". That's a huge fallacy. Our ignorance of other cultures does not entitle us to monopolize nobler human achievements as exclusively our own. This is not patent law where you can stake a claim, however frivolous, and have it granted purely on the basis that proof of prior art/competing claims are not produced by persons of limited knowledge within a limited jurisdiction and timeframe. As your own choice of words in your initial email shows, you are well aware that portraying these noble ideals as the sole invention of the West, is sub-par: You wrote "soapbox". You wrote "chauvinist". After having given the reader of your email such clear indication that you are well aware of the rather widespread reservations about the opinions you then proceeded to express, you honestly cannot subsequently be surprised and say: "Wow. All of this verbage just because (...)". You knew what you were getting into and your own words prove it. On a related note, you may (or may not) know the closing scene to Fahrenheit 9/11 (which I just saw today): It fits my argument perfectly. For from what I gathered on the web, Americans were laughing about the fact that Bush misspoke (which is very human to do), that he failed to correctly deliver the "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me" saying. You see, some Europeans who were laughing during that scene were NOT laughing about Bush's verbal stumbling. They were laughing about the fact that Bush attributed the adage to both Texas and, tentatively, Tennesse -- when in fact these words are an old Chinese proverb. Claiming that all the acceptedly good things were invented by one's own community (note: rhetorical exaggeration) -- that's what REALLY attracts sneers, ridicule and resentment. Why go there when we know better? -- Jens [[User:Ropers|Ropers]] www.ropersonline.com