Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl01105)

>> 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.

I'm not sure why. We can speak of different societies being more
technically advanced than others, or being industrialized versus being
third-world countries. Being born into a third-world country is not a
put-down or is it racist to say that so-and-so is from an undeveloped
country. Nor is it a put down for Americans to be called spiritually
backward, as compared to easterners.

>>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.

But talking about the group says nothing about a particular individual.
An individual participates in a group, but could change to participate
in another group. The individual is not caused by, and branded by
group membership.

The problem, as I understand it, is not the calling of one group as
"more advanced" but rather is the calling of an individual as somehow
being better or worse than another *merely because of group membership*.
The presumption that an individual is inferior because of some group
membership -- this is the problem.

>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.

Yes. We have a number of oppressive social prejudices that are being
overthrown, or have been overthrown in recent centuries. These include:

1. there are certain individuals who are nobility, somehow better because
   of blood line, and entitled to be kings. (A notable objection to this
   idea was expressed in the French Revolution.)

2. slavery and indentured servitude.

3. the caste system in India.

4. women as unable to vote, own property, vote, have jobs, etc.

5. certain "races" being considered as subhuman, like the American
   Indians in America (it was not a crime to kill Indians at one point
   in history, because they were "savages" and "not human").

There are many more ways that people were categorized and unfairly
given second class citizenship. This mistreatment of others has nothing
to do with the theosophical idea of Root Races. The mistreatment will
continue by biased and narrow-minded people regardless of the pretext
they may use to explain it. The fact that some people might have
chosen to use "Root Races" as a pretext for their prejudice is not
a rational argument to discredit the actual doctrine.

>>"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?

Would you say that black culture, as a thing in its own right, in
America, is mature and highly-developed, or in its infancy? I'd say
that it's in its formative stages, and that it will take many generations
for something unique will evolve.

And I'd say the same thing for the theosophical movement in the western
world, and for the various future subraces in the west. They are in the
formative stages. Those in them are working as pioneers in new forms of
living and thinking, and are not in any way inferior to those that stick
to the well-established forms of our present-day society.

>>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-theosophists while discussing the SD.

I'd agree that some later writers misunderstood Root Races, and thought
the idea somehow justified cultural elitism, racism, etc. But that
would be apparent from their writings. The theosophical doctrine,
though, is not what *they* write, and it would be misrepresenting it
to say so.

>>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.

When reading him, or any theosophical author, we're reading the
words written or spoken in a particular era. His was primarily
the 1930's. Our ears, trained in the speech of the 1990's, may
be biased to hear things a certain way. We should be careful to
not let our biases in listening keep us from hearing what is
actually being said.

>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 the words were ill-chosen, we can explain them in better language.
We do have a responsibility to pass on the great treasury of teachings
that we've been able to benefit from.

As to who is a neo-theosophist, I may disagree. I'd consider as
primary sources those that directly taught as representatives of the
Masters, and secondary those that taught from second-hand, derived
materials. With this definition, I would not call Purucker a neo-theosophist.

>If our own leaders are unable to correctly understand the SD, then how can
>the general pubic be expected to get it right?

This is a difficult question to answer in a few words. We need to keep
new introductory materials available, written in modern words, so that
people can be exposed to the ideas and offered a key into the language
of the 1890's (and 1930's).

-- Eldon