This reminds me that I haven't been able to "like" comments for some time now. I just get "void(0)" which I suppose I could investigate further. Safari with adblock ... it used to work normally; no idea what might have changed.
I see now why stating that quote was utterly naive. What Asimov is saying pertains to those who have power, irrespective of whether the power is with the minority (e.g. Saddam) or the majority (most of the widely-known cases of ethnic nationalism). Or, I'm still not getting the point.
Yes, while Madison is concerned only about certain **kinds** of power exercised by majorities—kings on the one hand, and mobs and New Model Armies on the other—lording it over **him**...
It seems to me that one of the essential tenets of liberalism is that all humans are of equal moral worth and thereby entitled to equal treatment. A corollary is that similarly situated people will behave in the same manner in identical situations. Jews are not uniquely evil people. Neither are Anglo-Saxons. Nor are Palestineans. All these ethnicities have committed injustices. All have been victims of injustices. Past injustice does not provide a get out of jail card for future injustice.
The worst thing about the Jewish / Palestinian conflict is how totally unremarkable it is. Because of some quirks of history and religion, it gets _treated_ as if it's somehow unique, but the crimes being committed in both directions are depressingly ordinary.
I get that. I, a Methodist kid from (small-town, not academic) Oberlin, went to Columbia, joined a Jewish fraternity, learned enough Yiddish to cause serious offense in polite company, and professed confusedly, on my seminary application, that I was a "Methodist Jew." And so, I suppose, I remain.
I do remember one seminar at which both Marty Olney and I said to the speaker: "what you are really saying is that the guy is a schmuck". And senior professor David Landes put his head down on the table, pulled it up, and said: "I am glad my mother had to die before she learned that the Executive Director of the Economic History Association and an Associate Professor at Harvard University would ever use such language in public"...
There are two sides to this. On the one hand, yes, just because a group is persecuted, that does not prove they are themselves immaculate, without sin. On the other, just think of the consequences if it did! A => B means that ~B => ~A. Since nobody is entirely innocent, nobody could ever be sinned against, and therefore there could be no persecutors. Recognizing the faults of victims is a necessary part of recognizing their victimhood.
I like to use the example of Germans in the fall of 1944. Poor Germany was badly persecuted. Attacked on three fronts and bombed from the air. Sometimes persecution is justified. Sometimes persecuted groups can still be evil.
Asimov was a genius and a great writer. But he was very naĂ¯ve: His books are full of friendly robots, FTL starships that easily evade the laws of physics, and no problem that smart scientists can't solve. Asimov is also wrong about ethnonationalism. Modern nation states evolved from multi-ethnic empires and kingdoms. They've arguably done more good than bad in furthering human progress. In contrast, multi-ethnic states like Northern Ireland, India Pakistan, Israel Palestine, Rwanda, etc. have lots of problems that have to be constantly managed or fought over. If there was really an advantage to ethnic diversity, Yugoslavia would still be around.
And yet it is the US states with the highest %ages of whites that appear the most racist. How does that fit your model? [Similarly with religious tolerance, I suspect.]
Thank you. I have a deeply held belief that all of us are trying to make sense of the world. We each have our own opinions, and they are important (we act on our opinions), but when we mistake our opinion for fact we can cause great harm.
In the 21st century there are few pure ethno-religious-nations left, if there ever was such a thing. Ideally, nationalism is imbued with a sense of legal rights for all. Perhaps what more often preserves peace is if enough people identify as some minority that they realize without a coalition, then they too may become a victim. You really don't want to be isolated.
Then I see the bizarre coalition of paleo-Catholics, white evangelicals, and Ayn Randians all supporting a Constitution interpreted through religion. That diversity requires a strong national identity, a strong man, and one hell of a lot of hate to hold them together. If their opposition was clever they could turn them against each other.
Agreed. Maybe the success of homogeneity is by defining identity along only one dimension, which is emphasized by autocrats, the far left, and the far right. As examples of dimension: nation, religion, race, gender, sex, class, party, education. If our identity is only on one dimension and the minority is small enough, then one may subjugate them to oblivion. But if people identify on multiple dimensions, and particularly if we see each other simultaneously on many dimensions at once, then we fragment into too many cells for stereotypes. Then we are individuals. At that point we may be judged on our actions rather than on dimensional identities.
Power corrupts. Everyone. I once worked on a legal case involving male prison guards. The male prison guards wanted equal job opportunities as the female prison guards in the female prison. They submitted data that showed that the incidence of sexual abuse by female prison guards on female prisoners was the same as male prison guards on female prisoners. Power corrupts.
There were experiments on school kids with roles assigned to prisoners and guards, as well a group dominance based simply eye color. And we all know of the occurrence of "little Hitlers" in management situations.
This is the result of our primate ancestry and social hierarchy extended into social structures with a good dollop of "selfish genes" that help define the phenotype.
I remember stories about his behavior with women at science fiction conventions back in the 1970s. I was a fan of his and shocked but not surprised. This is obviously hearsay. I heard it from a female friend who was a big science fiction fan. (She got me a bootleg VHS copy of the original Star Wars that I still have somewhere or another.) You can do a simple search and find a lot of accounts from the era basically saying that Asimov had a hard time keeping his hands off of women and that he was notorious at conventions.
At the time, his behavior was considered reprehensible, but it was going to come down to he said, she said and what's the harm of having your ass pinched. That was the case even in the 1970s and even more recently. Back then, no gentleman did that kind of thing, even drunk, but that kind of thing went on all the time. Look at the tired trope of the boss chasing his secretary around the desk. Nowadays, pulling that kind of stunt is more likely to be actionable.
Even more recently, indeed. My wife was a Biglaw associate in the late 1980's. One of the junior partners couldn't resist making a pass at every junior female associate who didn't wear a ring. He wasn't even a star lawyer, but the senior partners let it slide. I think that Biglaw stopped tolerating this behavior in the 1990's (except for stars), although I'm open to correction.
Yeah, but women SF fans tend to be pretty smart. I suspect there was some implied consent by many women if they went to a party where they knew booze and Asimov would both be present. It's no different than female groupies going back stage at a rock concert.
"The purpose of the Constitution is to restrict the majority's ability to harm a minority."
- James Madison
(Footnote:) And to preserve the institution of slavery.
The "minority" here being slaveholders... Brad
This reminds me that I haven't been able to "like" comments for some time now. I just get "void(0)" which I suppose I could investigate further. Safari with adblock ... it used to work normally; no idea what might have changed.
I will send this up the food chain... Brad
I see now why stating that quote was utterly naive. What Asimov is saying pertains to those who have power, irrespective of whether the power is with the minority (e.g. Saddam) or the majority (most of the widely-known cases of ethnic nationalism). Or, I'm still not getting the point.
Yes, while Madison is concerned only about certain **kinds** of power exercised by majorities—kings on the one hand, and mobs and New Model Armies on the other—lording it over **him**...
It seems to me that one of the essential tenets of liberalism is that all humans are of equal moral worth and thereby entitled to equal treatment. A corollary is that similarly situated people will behave in the same manner in identical situations. Jews are not uniquely evil people. Neither are Anglo-Saxons. Nor are Palestineans. All these ethnicities have committed injustices. All have been victims of injustices. Past injustice does not provide a get out of jail card for future injustice.
The worst thing about the Jewish / Palestinian conflict is how totally unremarkable it is. Because of some quirks of history and religion, it gets _treated_ as if it's somehow unique, but the crimes being committed in both directions are depressingly ordinary.
Just wondering when he wrote this. He mentions 1977 but clearly as a past event. He seems to mention Azerbaijan as a nation which suggests 1991-2.
This is evidently from his autobiography, "I. Asimov: A Memoir" (1994).
Thanks.
Yes. A link would be helpful.
So how did I miss, in the midst of your many references to New England Brahmin ancestors, that you were Jewish? There's a story here!
I'll take your side contra Wiesel. "Those to whom evil is done,..."
I went to Sidwell Friends School grades 1-12; Sidwell then was 60% Jewish... Brad
I get that. I, a Methodist kid from (small-town, not academic) Oberlin, went to Columbia, joined a Jewish fraternity, learned enough Yiddish to cause serious offense in polite company, and professed confusedly, on my seminary application, that I was a "Methodist Jew." And so, I suppose, I remain.
I do remember one seminar at which both Marty Olney and I said to the speaker: "what you are really saying is that the guy is a schmuck". And senior professor David Landes put his head down on the table, pulled it up, and said: "I am glad my mother had to die before she learned that the Executive Director of the Economic History Association and an Associate Professor at Harvard University would ever use such language in public"...
Yup. Just like that.
There are two sides to this. On the one hand, yes, just because a group is persecuted, that does not prove they are themselves immaculate, without sin. On the other, just think of the consequences if it did! A => B means that ~B => ~A. Since nobody is entirely innocent, nobody could ever be sinned against, and therefore there could be no persecutors. Recognizing the faults of victims is a necessary part of recognizing their victimhood.
Also, nice meta-twist at the end, ha ha!
I like to use the example of Germans in the fall of 1944. Poor Germany was badly persecuted. Attacked on three fronts and bombed from the air. Sometimes persecution is justified. Sometimes persecuted groups can still be evil.
Asimov was a genius and a great writer. But he was very naĂ¯ve: His books are full of friendly robots, FTL starships that easily evade the laws of physics, and no problem that smart scientists can't solve. Asimov is also wrong about ethnonationalism. Modern nation states evolved from multi-ethnic empires and kingdoms. They've arguably done more good than bad in furthering human progress. In contrast, multi-ethnic states like Northern Ireland, India Pakistan, Israel Palestine, Rwanda, etc. have lots of problems that have to be constantly managed or fought over. If there was really an advantage to ethnic diversity, Yugoslavia would still be around.
And yet it is the US states with the highest %ages of whites that appear the most racist. How does that fit your model? [Similarly with religious tolerance, I suspect.]
Vermont is the state with the highest percentage of whites. They don't seem to be racist.
The danger of cherry picking data?
Thank you. I have a deeply held belief that all of us are trying to make sense of the world. We each have our own opinions, and they are important (we act on our opinions), but when we mistake our opinion for fact we can cause great harm.
In the 21st century there are few pure ethno-religious-nations left, if there ever was such a thing. Ideally, nationalism is imbued with a sense of legal rights for all. Perhaps what more often preserves peace is if enough people identify as some minority that they realize without a coalition, then they too may become a victim. You really don't want to be isolated.
Then I see the bizarre coalition of paleo-Catholics, white evangelicals, and Ayn Randians all supporting a Constitution interpreted through religion. That diversity requires a strong national identity, a strong man, and one hell of a lot of hate to hold them together. If their opposition was clever they could turn them against each other.
Quite a few Muslim nations remain Ethno-religious with little to no tolerance for minorities.
Agreed. Maybe the success of homogeneity is by defining identity along only one dimension, which is emphasized by autocrats, the far left, and the far right. As examples of dimension: nation, religion, race, gender, sex, class, party, education. If our identity is only on one dimension and the minority is small enough, then one may subjugate them to oblivion. But if people identify on multiple dimensions, and particularly if we see each other simultaneously on many dimensions at once, then we fragment into too many cells for stereotypes. Then we are individuals. At that point we may be judged on our actions rather than on dimensional identities.
Power corrupts. Everyone. I once worked on a legal case involving male prison guards. The male prison guards wanted equal job opportunities as the female prison guards in the female prison. They submitted data that showed that the incidence of sexual abuse by female prison guards on female prisoners was the same as male prison guards on female prisoners. Power corrupts.
There were experiments on school kids with roles assigned to prisoners and guards, as well a group dominance based simply eye color. And we all know of the occurrence of "little Hitlers" in management situations.
This is the result of our primate ancestry and social hierarchy extended into social structures with a good dollop of "selfish genes" that help define the phenotype.
Could you, sometime, expand on "even though he did not handle the sexual liberation movement of the 1960s well…"
Avoiding if possible, Presentism.
I remember stories about his behavior with women at science fiction conventions back in the 1970s. I was a fan of his and shocked but not surprised. This is obviously hearsay. I heard it from a female friend who was a big science fiction fan. (She got me a bootleg VHS copy of the original Star Wars that I still have somewhere or another.) You can do a simple search and find a lot of accounts from the era basically saying that Asimov had a hard time keeping his hands off of women and that he was notorious at conventions.
At the time, his behavior was considered reprehensible, but it was going to come down to he said, she said and what's the harm of having your ass pinched. That was the case even in the 1970s and even more recently. Back then, no gentleman did that kind of thing, even drunk, but that kind of thing went on all the time. Look at the tired trope of the boss chasing his secretary around the desk. Nowadays, pulling that kind of stunt is more likely to be actionable.
Even more recently, indeed. My wife was a Biglaw associate in the late 1980's. One of the junior partners couldn't resist making a pass at every junior female associate who didn't wear a ring. He wasn't even a star lawyer, but the senior partners let it slide. I think that Biglaw stopped tolerating this behavior in the 1990's (except for stars), although I'm open to correction.
Yeah, but women SF fans tend to be pretty smart. I suspect there was some implied consent by many women if they went to a party where they knew booze and Asimov would both be present. It's no different than female groupies going back stage at a rock concert.
Yes, you can always blame the victim.
Thank you. Very helpful. And sad.