Support NeoGAF

[Dreams-Visions]

Honest question: Why should anyone care what someone's ancestors did over 200 years ago?

If your wealth was inherited and the foundation of that wealth came from slavery, one could legitimately criticize such a situation.

hope you absorbed that honest answer. if you don't understand the value of wealth and inheritance, and how it impacts your children, generational financial mobility and purchasing power, you really need to read up. Part of the reason african americans have such low wealth overall is because home ownership and land ownership were pretty much impossible until recently. whereas whites were able to buy property, build houses and pass those things down over time...take out loans against...etc.

He is a direct beneficiary of what was done 200 years ago.

 

[Unhandled Exception]

Its ok, if you go back far enough his ancestors were black.

Why wasn't this the first post?

 

[SmokyDave]

hope you absorbed that honest answer. if you don't understand the value of wealth and inheritance, and how it impacts your children, generational financial mobility and purchasing power, you really need to read up. Part of the reason african americans have such low wealth overall is because home ownership and land ownership were pretty much impossible until recently. whereas whites were able to buy property, build houses and pass those things down over time...take out loans against...etc.

He is a direct beneficiary of what was done 200 years ago.

How would you propose he make reparations for that situation and where do you draw the line? To whom should these reparations be paid?

Should an heir to a £3,000,000,000 fortune give me a slice if I can demonstrate that all of my ancestors are poor?

I also disagree with him being a direct beneficiary.

(I'm not disagreeing that generational wealth transfer is 'unfair' to many, but how would you change that? Being fucking rich ain't fair to many, no matter how you acquired your riches).

 

[jaxword]

I just realized the irony of people on both sides of the religious debate saying what someone did hundreds of years in the past has no relevance today.

 

[JGS]

Yes, look how much he talks down to a man of faith:


He clearly treats this Ignorant Man of Faith™ like a 5-year-old for believing in God.

He's an interviewer in that piece. Like most celebrities, he's respectful in particular surroundings that call for it. Otherwise he would not be taken seriously

However, he sells books, makes videos, gives speeches, & leads referendums about dangers of religion and you present me a video clip where he interviews a priest.

Look, there's no reason to defend the guy regarding respect for the religious. I know what he is and what he does. The man does not care for religion which again is enough of a reason to not like his viewpoint if you are religious. If he was not like that, we wouldn't be discussing him right now because he would be like most normal people- religious or not.

This is possibly the most interesting post I've seen regarding sin and homo sapiens in a Christian context... I'm not going to push, and I understand that the Theist vs Athiest thread turns into a pile-on but I would like to talk about this further some time. Cheers JGS

Thanks & anytime.

Dawkins is clearly a racist and a bigot, because of his ancestor.

I mean just look at the kind of shit he sells on his website.
http://store.richarddawkins.net/products/we-are-all-africans

Wow, and it only costs 19.95.

It would look pretty weird on a black person though.

 

[Raist]

Dawkins is clearly a racist and a bigot, because of his ancestor.

I mean just look at the kind of shit he sells on his website.
http://store.richarddawkins.net/products/we-are-all-africans

 

[Alucrid]

hope you absorbed that honest answer. if you don't understand the value of wealth and inheritance, and how it impacts your children, generational financial mobility and purchasing power, you really need to read up. Part of the reason african americans have such low wealth overall is because home ownership and land ownership were pretty much impossible until recently. whereas whites were able to buy property, build houses and pass those things down over time...take out loans against...etc.

He is a direct beneficiary of what was done 200 years ago.

Isn't most wealth accumulated and most nations built upon the exploitation of the poor and common man, whether through slavery or other means? So should we all feeling bad about that all the time?

 

[iapetus]

I'm not disagreeing that generational wealth transfer is 'unfair' to many, but how would you change that?

1) Full and free access to a standard educational system streamed by performance.
2) No generational wealth transfer. Instead, post-education all citizens receive a standard government allotment of money to get them started.
3) Nepotism punishable by death.

 

[squidyj]

1) Full and free access to a standard educational system streamed by performance.
2) No generational wealth transfer. Instead, post-education all citizens receive a standard government allotment of money to get them started.
3) Nepotism punishable by death.

A cure truly worse than the disease.

 

[V_Arnold]

1) Full and free access to a standard educational system streamed by performance.
2) No generational wealth transfer. Instead, post-education all citizens receive a standard government allotment of money to get them started.
3) Nepotism punishable by death.

Sounds good. Except part 3, death is going overboard. No need to introduce that fear in a society.

 

[squidyj]

Sounds good. Except part 3, death is going overboard. No need to introduce that fear in a society.

How would you even enact 2? How would you achieve that?

What do you do with the wealth when someone dies?

 

[Stet]

1) Full and free access to a standard educational system streamed by performance.
2) No generational wealth transfer. Instead, post-education all citizens receive a standard government allotment of money to get them started.
3) Nepotism punishable by death.

Entertainment industry collapses the following day.

 

[Orayn]

How would you even enact 2? How would you achieve that?

What do you do with the wealth when someone dies?

Not a problem if you take peoples' kids away from them as soon as they're born!

 

[Daft_Cat]

hope you absorbed that honest answer. if you don't understand the value of wealth and inheritance, and how it impacts your children, generational financial mobility and purchasing power, you really need to read up. Part of the reason african americans have such low wealth overall is because home ownership and land ownership were pretty much impossible until recently. whereas whites were able to buy property, build houses and pass those things down over time...take out loans against...etc.

He is a direct beneficiary of what was done 200 years ago.

That's a slippery slope though. You're still blaming a man with absolutely no culpability for, what is essentially, the "sins of his father". The historical origins of the discrepancy in wealth between race and class are something that policies like affirmative action, and social programs are supposed to account for. We solve these issues collectively instead of placing them at the feet of an unassuming individual just because he pulled up a shitty card in the upstanding forefathers lottery.

This is still a man who, far from condoning slavery, has devoted his life to condemning some of the most fundamental historical traditions. If he's to face judgement for his inheritance, which, as he says himself is minimal compared to his own self-earned wealth, then the court of public opinion should at least be aware of the kind of stuff this man has done in his life. Otherwise it's just a smear campaign. "We can't attack this guy's arguments, so let's rip apart his family".

 

[JGS]

How would you even enact 2? How would you achieve that?

That's the one that would be most logical to enact if inheritance was actually cash & if people actually deserved it which they don't.

The problem with inheritance now is that the tax includes all assets. So if a person can't come up with the cash, they have to sell assets. Those assets simply become a part of another rich person's assets & doesn't help poor society at all.

 

[blame space]

I'm going to get "nepotism punishable by death" tattooed across my chest.

 

[Stet]

I'm going to get "nepotism punishable by death" tattooed across my chest.

You're gonna feel pretty silly when it becomes the name of an indie band.

 

[JiuJitsuka]

This is pathetic.

When people start to resort to such ridiculous accusations to smear something against this person, it only proves how much superior he actually is to them.

 

[Az]

Didn't know this many people dislike Dawkins on here. That's why I keep getting looks at the airport while reading The God Delusion.

Or maybe because I didn't have any pants on.

 

[twobear]

if your ancestors benefitted through injustice, you obviously can't have anything reasonable to say about atheism

 

[Sblargh]

seems more like a failure of logic on your part than anything. If oppression 300 years ago results in no problems today then there's no goddamn point in doing anything. If oppression 300 years ago leads to oppression today then addressing the current issue is all anyone can do and where they ought to be focusing their resources. Yet you seem to be making the implication that he's saying racism and race don't matter because slavery happened 300 years ago which is ridiculous and is not what he's saying.

Furthermore your standards for this guy are ridiculous, every issue that lands in his lap requires a crusade? cmon.

My standards for this guy is my standard for any intellectual. Either to say "it's not my area" or to not shy away from the subject. And once more, I am not demanding him to do anything, I'm just saying he could have used the opportunity.

"Hello, this is Richard Dawkins."
"Mr. Dawkins, Jimmy McReporter here! Your ancestors kept slaves and built a fortune on the back of human misery. How does this jibe with your self-righteous attitude on morals and the Church? Also, some have called for you to apologize and start an anti-slavery museum. How do you respond?"
"Ah, Mr. McReporter. Excellent questions, and what a wonderful opportunity to talk about modern-day racism and white privilege."
"But Mr. Dawkins, we've got more important things to talk about. Like: wouldn't you say your genes are racist?"

Something like this, not directly to the reporter who is an asshole, but he could have gotten into the topic. Instead he just went the "slavery is over, all I have come from my work".

I really think most intellectuals would use the opportunity instead of just being pissed off. And I can't help but feeling that if the same stuff happened to someone who isn't as liked as Dawkings, people would expect more than a "fuck off".

 

[Loxley]

Okay, one:

Why the absurd, loaded title? You're not the goddamn daily mail.

Two:

This is a ridiculous attempt to slander a man who shares no fucking common traits with these ancestors, and if you'll look at the irony of this libel against an atheist man by an angry Christian (who most likely has slave ownership in his history as well)... The slave owners in Dawkins' ancestry were Christians.

Yep.

I see no controversy here at all. Most people no fuck all about who they descended from, for all I know I my German & Czech great great great great grandfathers were horrible people and did terrible things. Do I care? Not really, because it has nothing to do with me or who I am.

 

[Fatghost]

1) Full and free access to a standard educational system streamed by performance.
2) No generational wealth transfer. Instead, post-education all citizens receive a standard government allotment of money to get them started.
3) Nepotism punishable by death.

Wow. Funniest thing I've read on the internet in weeks.

 

[iapetus]

And I can't help but feeling that if the same stuff happened to someone who isn't as liked as Dawkings, people would expect more than a "fuck off".

A "fuck off" is more than the reporter deserved. Dawkins should have engaged him in a Haye/Chisora style brawl.

And this is from someone who doesn't particularly like a lot of what Dawkins does.

How would you even enact 2? How would you achieve that?

What do you do with the wealth when someone dies?

It goes straight to me; your friendly neighbourhood benevolent dictator. To be used to fund the initial starting payouts for the next generation.

Sounds good. Except part 3, death is going overboard. No need to introduce that fear in a society.

Torture, disenfranchisement and public humiliation? I'm open to suggestions. It has to be a suitably over-the-top deterrent, though.

Wow. Funniest thing I've read on the internet in weeks.

Glad you approve. Obviously it's not an entirely serious suggestion, just a thought experiment taking certain ideals to their extreme. I keep meaning to turn it into some sort of sci-fi novel, but don't have the time these days.

 

[dude]

1) Full and free access to a standard educational system streamed by performance.
2) No generational wealth transfer. Instead, post-education all citizens receive a standard government allotment of money to get them started.
3) Nepotism punishable by death.

Oh man. That's not serious is it?

 

[iapetus]

Oh man. That's not serious is it?

Of course it isn't.

That said, what's actually wrong with it?

 

[Dice]

Some of my ancestors (german american) owned slaves
Some of my ancestors (native american, jew) got their shit wrecked
Some of my ancestors kicked each others' asses (irish, swedish)

You won't see me giving a shit about any of it. Though, I guess I am kind of proud of my more recent Irish ancestors being moonshiners in the prohibition era. Way to stick it to the man.

 

[Parch]

Some need reminding that Dawkins does not represent athiests.
He is not an athiest "leader".
There is no church or bible where athiesm is taught.
What he says and writes is purely his own and does not represent any group.

Regardless of what a twit he is, this smear campaign is pathetic.

 

[JGS]

Any of those points could represent anyone not heading an organizaion.

What parts of what Dawkins states is not shared by atheists? To some extent it would have to represent atheists as a group. Not looking into a definition of what "is" is, just clarity.

 

[Opiate]

if your ancestors benefitted through injustice, you obviously can't have anything reasonable to say about atheism

I'm not sure if this even qualifies as an Ad hominem. The reporter isn't even attacking Dawkins; he is attacking Dawkins ancestors, and through them attacking Dawkins, and through that attacking Dawkins' arguments.

It's actually even less direct and less reasonable than an ad hominem argument. Which is saying something.

 

[Joel Was Right]

Irrespective of the intent of the article, the most shocking thing related to it is the reasoning at display from a journalist writing for one of the largest broadsheets in the country.

Our piercing investigative journalist then challenged me to deny that William Wilberforce, the great anti-slavery campaigner, was a Christian. (So, presumably, were the slave-owners. Just about everyone in England was Christian at the time and Henry and Colonel Richard surely were.)
​

I’d scarcely had time to re-open my lecture notes when he rang back: “Darwinian natural selection has a lot to do with genes, do you agree?” Of course I agreed. “Well, some people might suggest that you could have inherited a gene for supporting slavery from Henry Dawkins.”​

If you're going to smear someone them why not use something tangible? I hope to see the revelation in the next few days that actually Adam Lusher (the reporter) and Dawkins know each other personally and conspired to embarrass the Telegraph and his critics.

 

[Kinitari]

Any of those points could represent anyone not heading an organizaion.

I would agree - unless it is a leader of an organization, you should never use the actions of attributes of one person to judge a group of similar peoples.

What parts of what Dawkins states is not shared by atheists? To some extent it would have to represent atheists as a group. Not looking into a definition of what "is" is, just clarity.

Any parts that aren't specifically attributed to being atheist. Which is all of them, unless you want to say Atheists share a lack of belief, which to avoid a semantic argument - sure.

An example of something a group of people might share who are religious - if they are Christian and of the same sect, they share quite a few of the same beliefs in God/Creation/Sin/Punishment etc.

 

[IceCold]

Isn't most wealth accumulated and most nations built upon the exploitation of the poor and common man, whether through slavery or other means? So should we all feeling bad about that all the time?

Exactly. We all got exploited to hell and back unless you are part of an historically rich family.

 

[Stinkles]

They're 5 miles high as the crow flies
leavin' vapour trails against a blood red sky
Movin' in from the East toward the West
with Balaclava helmets over their heads, yes!

But if you think that Jesus Christ is coming
Honey you've got another thing coming
If he ever finds out who's hi-jacked his name
He'll cut out his heart and turn in his grave

Islam is rising
The Christians mobilising
The world is on its elbows and knees
It's forgotten the message and worships the creeds

It's war, she cried, It's war, she cried, this is war
Drop your possessions, all you simple folk
You will fight them on the beaches in your underclothes
You will thank the good lord for raising the union jack
You'll watch the ships sail out of harbour
and the bodies come floating back

If the real Jesus Christ were to stand up today
He'd be gunned down cold by the C.I.A.
Oh, the lights that now burn brightest behind stained glass
Will cast the darkest shadows upon the human heart
But God didn't build himself that throne
God doesn't live in Israel or Rome
God doesn’t belong to the yankee dollar
God doesn't plant the bombs for Hezbollah
God doesn't even go to church
And God won't send us down to Allah to burn
No, God will remind us what we already know
That the human race is about to reap what it's sown

The world is on its elbows and knees
It's forgotten the message and worships the creeds
Armageddon days are here again

Sing along.

 

[Sapiens]

Okay - another manufactured Dawkins Controversy then?

 

[NullPointer]

I'm going to get "nepotism punishable by death" tattooed across my chest.

I was thinking of tattooing it on my child's chest.

Okay - another manufactured Dawkins Controversy then?

And not even an intelligently designed one at that.

 

[Count Dookkake]

Okay - another manufactured Dawkins Controversy then?

lol, yup.

Pretty much any criticism leveled at the guy is manufactured.

 

[Zzoram]

How is this still an active thread? Tons of rich white people can trace their roots back to slave owners. I'm sure the Royal Family's ancestors also had slaves. That doesn't mean that they themselves are slavers now.

 

[Count Dookkake]

How is this still an active thread? Tons of rich white people can trace their roots back to slave owners. I'm sure the Royal Family's ancestors also had slaves. That doesn't mean that they themselves are slavers now.

So can poor white people.

And black people.

 

[AppleSmack]

How stupid. The media just trying to get anything for a smear campaign these days. Reporters really need to get a life.

 

[Log4Girlz]

Dawkins is a huge hypocrite for being born white.