Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl01084)

Eldon:
> An understanding of Root Races is
>an understanding of group karma, cultures, cyclic evolution, and other
>experiences available to us.
	And this is the part that I go along with.  The part that I can't
go along with, is the suggestion that certain "cultures" are farther
advanced than others.  No matter how you try to explain this away, Eldon,
it is still racism.  Certainly there are differences, the problem comes
in when we talk about certain differences being better, or superior,
or more advanced, or more mature, than others.  When we talk
about a certain root-stock, root race, or national race, or family race,
being older and more mature than another, then I have a real problem.

>An understanding of other cultures, rather than a dismissing of all
>differences as "racism", is highly important to appreciate and live in
>harmony with others.
	No one has dismissed "all" differences as racism.	Only
when we talk in terms of one group being more mature, or more advanced,
do we have racism.  Many writers and teachers, East and West, have
expressed the notion that men are somehow superior to women.
Even Buddha was reluctant to include nuns in his religion.  Women
were excluded from the Christian church leadership until recently.  There
is an old maxim to the effect that if a women does well in this life,
she will return as a man in the next (all the fine-sounding stuff about
Mothers, notwithstanding).  This is pure sexism.  I have never seen this
in Theosophy, thank heaven.

>"racism" is a hate word as ugly as they come, and it's too often thrown
>around as a rhetorical device, in order to gain points in a debate
>where people are coming from fixed positions, and unwilling to think
>further on the subject.
	OK, so what do we call it, when G de P or others say
that blacks are physically and mentally immature when compared
to whites?  If this is not racism, then what is it?

>I see a lot of over reaction to the idea of Root Races on theos-l,
>with very little attempt to understand, study, or discuss what the
>idea actually meant.
	I would not lay the fault at theos-l, but at some of the
statements made by neo-theosophsts while discussing the SD.

>I can't believe that the idea is so hard to understand, that people
>will continue, time after time, to stick to what could only be called
>"popular misconceptions" about it.
	You are saying that G de P misunderstood the SD.  The
quote that I gave from him about black people is not a "popular
misconception" but his very own words.  And I do not want to be
bashing G de P here either, because otherwise he was a very
fine Teacher.  I am simply trying to point out that many neo-
theosophists, including G de P, are on record making remarks
that today would be called racist, and these remarks are all
based on their understanding of the SD.  If our own leaders
are unable to correctly understand the SD, then how can the
general pubic be expected to get it right?

	Jerry S.
	Member, TI