Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl01077)

At 11:44 PM 5/18/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Alexis:
>
>[writing to Martin]
>
>
>>>Actually, GdeP says that the black race is a young and promising race
>>>and will mix completely with the white race and other races.
>>>So, I don't think it would be a regression.
>
>>>Jinarajadasa and Leadbeater on the other hand state that the black race
>>>is an old race and in the latter days of their evolution.
>
>>But Jinarajadasa and Leadbeater were racists plain and simple, and probably
>>anti-semites to boot.
>
>If you substitute terms like "the Roman Empire was aging and in decay,"
>would that be equally racist, and would it imply that someone born into
>that Empire in its last years is inferior to someone born into a
>different, more advanced and powerful society? Certainly not, I'd hope.

No Eldon, that substitution just doesn't hold water. By the fourth century
of the common era the Roman Empire was 1,000 years old and decadent in the
extreme. That is history, that is fact! But to extend the same description
to Africans or Semites is not history, it is not fact, all three segments of
the homo-sapiens species are the same age, and they simply have different
environmental contexts that produced their societies. There is one human
race, and only one human race it is homo-sapiens and it comes in three
colors. None of those three septs is older, better, more advanced, and
today, in our times, one cannot even say any one branch is more powerful.
You can "spin-Doctor" (your term after all) until you are as Blue as Krishna
and it still will never make the Racial Hypotheses of literalist theosophy
at all respectable or acceptable to those of us who reject racism with all
our souls!
>
>>>GdeP remarks that anyone who observes black people can see that the
>>>black race is a very vital one and thus *must* be younger than the
>>>more sober minded white race. It seems to make sense, but again, I'm not
>>>too comfortable with race-theories and do not think these to be very
>>>fruitful to our understanding of the spiritual, at least not in this
>>>current era. Of course there will be many individuals in the black race
>>>who are more advanced spiritually than most in the white race are and
>>>vice versa. That's in the scheme of things.
>
>>This kind of totally untrue sweeping generalization can only be the result
>>of almost no experience with individual human beings. To even contemplate
>>the idea that Africans are less sober-minded or philosophically oriented
>>than Caucasians (or visa versa) is simply racism, or ignorance, or both!
>
>You seem to be dismissing sociology, psychology of groups, much of history,
>and science and statistics where it deals with the behavior and characteristics
>of groups. And at the same time, you are writing off group karma, the
>evolutionary drama with periods of evolution, much of the nature of cycles,
etc.

I am not dismissing sociology, or social anthropology, or "group
psychology", any of history, any of science, but I think you have odd
definitions of the meaning of these things in connection with racism. As to
statistics, they serve only one purpose, that is the needs of the compiler
thereof, nothing in any scientific or scholarly disciplines lies more than
statistics. I have spent 40 years fighting the lies concerning the existence
of "group behaviour" or "group characteristics". But yes, I am "writing off"
actually totally rejecting is the better word, "group Karma", "The
evolutionary drama with periods of evolution", "the nature of cycles" etc.
But that should come as no surprise I've been absolutely open on that rejection.
>
>There is nothing tabu about the study of societies, about groups, about
>cultures, their values, education, ways of life, and contribution to the
>world. You're wrong here. We can describe and understand the characteristics
>of, say, Eskimos from Alaska, Irish potatoe farmers, or Chinese rice farmers.

Not when it's objective, but there certainly is when the goal is to "put
them down"! The Theosophical Racial hypotheses has absolutely nothing to do
with either study or objectivity! It is subjective racism!
>
>But what are we describing? We're describing the characteristics of a
>*group*, not of any particular *individual*. The same holds true of anything
>to do with statistics. It's possible to know with a high degree of accuracy
>that the households in a city have 2.1 children. Does any particular family
>have 2.1 children? Of course not. But this does not invalidate group
>parameters nor the study of sociology, psychology, economics, or occult
>teachings dealing with cycles and the evolution of cultures.

I have already made my view of statistics perfectly clear, but we are not
discussing population demographics we are discussing judgmental and
condemnatory invidious racial comparisons. Lastly it is outrageous to
discuss "sociology" "psychology" and "economics' in the same breath with
something as subjective and unprovable as "occult teachings" that's pure
poppycock!

>>I would rate Nelson Mandela as much more spiritually advanced than most people
>>on this planet. He is, I am personally sure, an Adept of high degree.  I
>>would definitely rate him as higher than G de P because Nelson Mandela has
>>actually made the world a better place for millions of human beings.
>
>Here I'd again disagree. Perhaps your definition of "adept" is farther from
>the theosophical one than I'd thought.

Eldon, how come that statement doesn't surprise me a bit? I repeat, Nelson
Mandela has actually made the world a much better, safer, and more peaceful
place for millions of South africans, both Black and White. His name will go
down through the ages. Now you tell me what some theosophical theorist, no
matter how well-meaning, no matter how intelligent, has done that equates
with what Mandela has accomplished. How many people have ever heard of G de
P? Damn few, and probably for good reason, his actions and words only
effected a few people. Get real Eldon!
>
>Jerry>>If the "Fifth Root Race" is Homo-Sapiens, then
>>>I agree.  But I would still consider discussions about any
>>>"remnants of the Fourth Root Race" as racist because every
>>>single person on Earth today is a Homo-Sapien.
>
>>That is true and I personally believe the "Root Race Theories" to be the
>>most harmful and totally negative Theosophical Core Doctrine.
>
>Again, I see a considerable misunderstanding of the idea of Root Races.
>Apparently a change in terminology and modern politics has obscured more
>of the meaning that I had thought. Perhaps it is in need of a major
>rewrite, since there is so much misunderstanding, even from long-time
>students.
>
>There are many remnants of past societies surrounding us. We even see
>discussion of this in New Age terms, where some people are called
>"clinging to the Piscean era" and others as "pioneers of the Aquarian
>age," as though that actually meant something! (It does, of course, but
>it's fairly minor in terms of cycles.) Calling someone "Piscean" would,
>I'd assume, be equally offensive as calling them "fourth root race".
>Both would be wrong, of course.
>
>>>Yes, and there are always people who like to get rid of those old remnants-
>>>laggards- that's the inherent danger with this kind of ideas.
>>
>>And that's the reason, the holocaust!
>
>Actually, not ... Where we see the attempt to rid the world of
>remnants is where people resort to manipulation and thought control
>to change the behavior of others according to their ideal of a
>better society. This happens a lot in politics. The problem is in
>an arrogance, a belief that one's favorite culture, society, way of
>doing things, is better than others in the world, and where one wants
>to force his views on others, without regard to their needs or desires.

Eldon: I repeat "Get Real" come down from the Ivory Tower for a while and
"Get a Life"!
>
>-- Eldon
>
>
alexis d.>
>