Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl01209)

Jerry S:

>Apparently you don't understand just what "racism" means.
>It implies a basic, even genetic, difference that cannot ever be
>eliminated.

And this is something that is *not* part of the idea of
Root Races. Our external personality may be born into a
particular culture, but it is capable of change and adaptation,
and can adopt a different culture. And our inner self can
evolve beyond the external cultural limits.

There are two kinds of differences between people. One is
of type of experience. This is like two college students,
both juniors, simply taking different upper-division courses.
The course that they take is a matter of preference, and
says nothing about their standing in college.

The second difference is between level of development. This
is like one student being a freshman, and a second being a
graduate student. There are these differences among people.
Some are less evolved, others are more evolved. When the
differences between people are sufficient, it becomes easy
to distinguish between them, as between a Charles Manson
and a Ghandi. Granted, even the lowest person is capable
of growth and change, but at this particular moment in
time they *are* at a particular state.

>Technical advancement is a difference that can be decreased by
>education.  Third-world countries are simply poor.  This can be
>equalized by making more money.  I don't agree with your last
>sentence, but again, this difference can be decreased by Westerners
>becoming more spiritual.

Both as individuals, we can grow and change, and the
societies that we live in. The changes in our societies
are measured in time periods both great and small, and the
distinct cultures would be the "subraces".

>But when you say that Whites are older than Blacks (and G
>de P does say this, as part of his own interpretation
>of the SD) then there is no chance of ever becoming equal,
>because as Blacks mature, Whites will always be older.

Either way we put it -- older or younger -- it could be
made to sound good, when put one way, and bad, when put
the other way.

Younger might be called "good" when considered as a more
advanced race, like the sixth subrace; with this older
means "remnants" or older forms. Older might be called
"good" when considered as more mature, like a civilization
at its height is more advanced than one still in its
infancy.

There is no "bad" here. It's just saying that some
cultures are younger than others. Some are in their
formative stages and others are near their maturity,
or in their decline.

>Can you see this subtle difference, Eldon. Its the
>difference between racism and merely pointing out
>differences that can be minimized by various
>techniques or processes.

If it's respectful rather than a "put down", like
presented in Theosophy, then it's multiculturalism,
as opposed to uniculturalism. It respects the
distinct heritage and historic periods of each
ethnic and cultural group, rather than denying that
groups actually exist and saying that such distinctions
are bad.

The term "racism" really has nothing to do with races,
since the idea of races is a fiction. There is no
such thing as a "white man", "black man", or "redskin
man", etc. There are cultures where a particular
physical appearance predominates, but it is in the
feelings, thought life, and ideas of the culture that
it is distinguished, and not in nose size, eye color,
or skin pigment.

The real thing that "racism" refers to is ethnic
hatred and bigotry. It's just as bad in Protestant
versus Catholic Irish, or between Jews and Arabs on
the West Bank, as it is between Americans with
white or black skins in the South a few decades past.

>racism ... by definition, is labeling a whole group
>of people as superior or inferior to another group
>of people.

Perhaps you're missing a subtle distinction here?
You can describe the attributes of a group without
labeling all its members as superior or inferior.

A group itself has attributes in its own right,
apart from any individual you might refer to. Sixth
Grade, for instance, exists as an established stage
of learning, apart from what children are passing
through it.

What you are referring to is the *unfair* labeling
of a person because of group membership, the
misapplication of statistics or an unfair generalization.
I'd agree that we have to look at an individual -- seeing
how that particular person was -- in order to tell
what stage they were at. We could not assume a particular
stage for that person based upon their being in a
particular ethnic group.

>Cultures come and cultures go.  While it may not be
>racist to say that Black culture in America is in its
>infancy, it is racism to say that Blacks are more immature
>than Whites, which is a direct fallout of the SD teaching
>when races are applied to Root-Races.

I don't see it as a direct fallout, but as a misconception,
a misreading of the idea. Is that misreading due to the
student's imperfect reading of the words, or due to the
imperfect writing of the author? It would depend upon the
particular passage. But I wouldn't agree that what you say
is the theosophical teaching.

>>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.

>Agreed, and this was pretty much the point I was trying
>to make.

Rather than trying to pin racism on HPB, where I don't
think it's deserved, perhaps it would be more productive
to outline the basic principles of Root Races in neutral,
non-inflammatory language. We could do this using  words
that express the ideas without invoking the automatic
outrage of political reformers.

In a previous posting I gave a list of the first ideas
that came to mind under this theosophical doctrine.
Perhaps you could add to the list, or mention a few
ideas of your own.

>Eldon, I applaud your valiant effort to get out of this
>racist argument. You can't do it, but I do applaud your
>effort.

But there is no teaching of ethnic bigotry to be found
in Theosophy. It's a misunderstanding that unfortunately
has been taught by some, and perceived as part of what
Theosophy presents by others. The problem is in clearing
up that misunderstanding, getting around all the hot
emotions, and coming back to a balanced view of the
law of karma and cycles as it applies at the level of
human cultures, at the national and tribal subrace level.

-- Eldon