Author Archives: Editors

America And Racial Intolerance.

Posted on by
Reply

America And Racial Intolerance
MIRZA IQBAL ASHRAF
ABSTRACT: Human beings impacted by geographical and environmental phenomena, different ways of life, beliefs, social systems, customs and traditions, gave birth to different cultures. This means culture is our racial heritage which is not a static phenomenon. It is an ongoing problem-solving process in response to environments and may have little or nothing to do with biological racial heritage per se. Yet racial prejudice and intolerance based on the myth of biological race, remains deeply ingrained—prominently in Western society—considering peoples of different colors, features, cultures, beliefs and ways of life as not from a common root, but are from divers racial roots. Throughout human history—more emphatically during the past 500 years—we have been taught by the intellectuals, politicians, statesmen, business and economic leaders that in modern times human racial biology reveals that certain races are biologically rather than morally and culturally better or inferior than others. These teachings have led to major injustices to Jews, Muslims, and non-Christians during the Spanish Inquisition; to blacks, Native Americans, and others during colonial times; to African Americans during slavery and reconstruction; to Jews and other Europeans during the reign of the Nazis in Germany; and to the groups from Latin America and the Middle East, and many others, during modern political times.
The Spanish Inquisition—which had its greater impact on the formation of the new found western world known America—has not been researched and discussed by the thinkers of social sciences. Spanish Inquisition did not focus on religion alone, but expanded to include ethnicity or race, introducing the notion of “impurity of blood.” It was about classes of people rather than just categories of belief. It was run by those in political power who ruled and defined religion, ideology, and race or ethnicity. Columbus’s voyage to America was at the peak of Inquisition in Spain. Thus, the conquistadores justified their maltreatment of Native Americans by declaring them as subhuman and incapable of having and understanding rational or abstract ideas and of running their own world. They were deemed morally incapable to become Christian. Thus, the inhuman conquest of America continued. Racial theories remained crucial in justifying the maltreatment of the local peoples. Terrorist atrocities were committed by the European settlers to wipe out the race of the aborigines of the newfound continent. . . . . To read full articl

American Nations by Colin Woodward

Posted on by
1
BOOK  REVIEW
by Shoeb AminName: American Nations
Subtitle: A history of the eleven rival regional cultures of North America
Author: Colin Woodward
Publisher: Penguin
ISBN: 978-0-14-312202-9If you are still looking for something interesting and enlightening to read for the summer this book is the perfect answer. If you’ve ever wondered why are some states “blue” and some “red”, even though they are situated right next to each other and how the two coasts turned similarly liberal and why the Deep South so pro-slavery ; If you wondered how the heck Trump became our president and why so many folks flocked to his rallies and still continue to do so and why New York City turned out to be so unique you need to read this book.

This book’s premise is that even though it is called the United States of America there are at least 11 distinct “countries” that make up the USA (the book includes adjacent areas of Canada), mostly depending on where the original immigrants came from as in the Puritans to Massachusetts and the Quakers to Pennsylvania and what the reasons were for those immigrants to leave their homeland and come to America. These 11 nations are named First Nation, New France, Yankeedom,New Netherlands, Tidewater,Greater Appalachia,Deep South, El Norte, Far West, The Left Coast and the Midlands.

One of the more interesting origins of one these 11 nations is about the Deep South; why it was so pro-slavery and why to a certain extent it is still somewhat racist. The people who first settled in the Deep South actually were Englishmen who actually arrived from Barbados where they had settled for many years and had prospered on slave labor (initially Whites from England and later Blacks from Africa). “Even while in Barbados they were known for their immorality, arrogance and excessive displays of wealth” as per the book. “ The slave mortality there was twice that of slaves in Virginia”. They owned huge estates but their children and their grandchildren were left with much smaller estates and the latter started looking for other places to conquer in order to preserve their lifestyle. And they chose Jamaica (West Indies) and Charleston, South Carolina. Thus Charleston became the hub of slave trade and it is their masters who eventually spread out to what is called the Deep South.

A similar interesting story describing the interplay of where the original immigrants came from and why they came relates to New York City, which actually is described as one of the 11 nations in this book. You’ll have to read it for yourself; I hope I have piqued enough interest with my review.

Finally, the epilogue describes all the possible changes that the United States may undergo with some of these nations not wanting to coexist with the others. Some of those possibilities may seem far fetched but the author reminds us as to what happened to the Soviet Union about 40 years ago.

Usury was immoral long before Islam forbade it-History Of Money lending and how it became morally acceptable-By Alex Mayyasi

Posted on by
Reply

“Ancient Mesopotamia to Ancient Greece. In Politics, Aristotle described usury as ‘the birth of money from money’, and claimed it was unnatural because money was sterile and should not ‘breed’”

In de Vitry’s world, the moneylender deserved to be defiled by demons, because he’d committed the sin of usury – charging interest on a loan. De Vitry didn’t care whether the rate was high or low, because the Church’s position was that extracting a single cent of interest was evil. The roots of this revulsion run deep, and across cultures. Vedic law in Ancient India condemned usury, and rulers routinely capped interest rates from Ancient Mesopotamia to Ancient Greece. In Politics, Aristotle described usury as ‘the birth of money from money’, and claimed it was unnatural because money was sterile and should not ‘breed’.

Judeo-Christian religions cemented the usury taboo. The Old Testament reads: ‘Do not charge a fellow Israelite interest,’ and the Book of Luke advises: ‘[L]ove ye your enemies: do good, and lend, hoping for nothing thereby.’ In the 4th century CE, Christian councils denounced the practice, and by 800, the emperor Charlemagne made the prohibition into law. Accounts of merchants and bankers in the Middle Ages frequently include expressions of anguish over their profits. In his Divine Comedy of the 14th century, the Italian poet Dante Alighieri put the usurers in the seventh circle of Hell; in the case of Reginaldo Scrovegni, one Paduan banker singled out by Dante, his son ended up commissioning a chapel painted with frescoes by Giotto to expiate the family’s sin. Over the ensuing centuries, the philanthropy and patronage of other Italian Renaissance families such as the Medicis was partly inspired by guilt about how they’d profited from charging interest.

The stigma against moneylending continued well into the 1500s. To understand it, think about your reaction to the idea of a bank making a loan to a business at a 5 per cent interest rate. No problem, right? Now compare that to how you’d feel if your mother lent you money on the same terms. In Biblical times, the typical loan was more like the second case – it wasn’t an arms-length transaction, but a charitable loan from a wealthy man to a neighbour who’d experienced misfortune or had nowhere else to turn. Throughout early Medieval Europe, the local church or a wealthy family was often the only source of capital, especially outside the major commercial centres. Many peasants bought their land by getting mortgages from a monastery. In a world without credit markets and insurance, then, charging interest felt like extorting a friend or family member.

Read more

posted by F. Sheikh

Noam Chomsky: On Trump and the State of the Union

Posted on by
Reply

George Yancy and Noam Chomsky

Over the past few months, as the disturbing prospect of a Trump administration became a disturbing reality, I decided to reach out to Noam Chomsky, the philosopher whose writing, speaking and activism has for more than 50 years provided unparalleled insight and challenges to the American and global political systems. Our conversation, as it appears here, took place as a series of email exchanges over the past two months. Although Professor Chomsky was extremely busy, because of our past intellectual exchange, he graciously provided time for this interview.

Professor Chomsky is the author of numerous best-selling political works, translated into scores of languages. Among his most recent books are “Hegemony or Survival,” “Failed States,” “Hopes and Prospects,” “Masters of Mankind” and “Who Rules the World?” He has been institute professor emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology since 1976.

— George Yancy

George Yancy: Given our “post-truth” political moment and the growing authoritarianism we are witnessing under President Trump, what public role do you think professional philosophy might play in critically addressing this situation?

Noam Chomsky: We have to be a little cautious about not trying to kill a gnat with an atom bomb. The performances are so utterly absurd regarding the “post-truth” moment that the proper response might best be ridicule. For example, Stephen Colbert’s recent comment is apropos: When the Republican legislature of North Carolina responded to a scientific study predicting a threatening rise in sea level by barring state and local agencies from developing regulations or planning documents to address the problem, Colbert responded: “This is a brilliant solution. If your science gives you a result that you don’t like, pass a law saying the result is illegal. Problem solved.”

Continue reading the main story