Yes, Unconscious Racism Is a Real Thing

By -
"In August 1635, Connecticut consisted of a tiny settlement in Wethersfield and a crude fort in Old Saybrook. This was probably a good thing. It limited the devastation when the Great Colonial Hurricane arrived."

So, that was it, huh? Those were the only people in Connecticut who might of been devastated by this hurricane? There weren't, perhaps, any non-European people around?

Nah, probably not.

Comments

  1. Bobybuilder10:42 PM

    If Connecticut refers to the colony, as it seems it does since he says consisted, this is accurate enough. Why must the word refer to the land which is now is called Connecticut? In 1789 the USA consisted of 13 eastern states. Is that it, huh? No Sioux? No tribes from Oregon?

    ReplyDelete
  2. gcallah11:57 PM

    "f Connecticut refers to the colony, as it seems it does since he says consisted, this is accurate enough."

    Fine.

    "Why must the word refer to the land which is now is called Connecticut?"

    Well, in terms of how devastating the hurricane was, one might consider its effect on people who weren't English.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thomas L. Knapp4:07 PM

      "in terms of how devastating the hurricane was, one might consider its effect on people who weren't English."

      Yes, one might have.

      But this one in particular chose to consider its effect on an English colony, not on every man jack in the same general area as an English colony. I'm not sure that that's racism, conscious or unconscious.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more