I have no idea what annoyed you so much on this page, but it would seem it would perhaps be best for me to step back from editing it for some time, let you do what you intend to do, and then let the process here take its course. More important to me is resolving our personal differnces (and no, I'm not just fighting for a vote here :) You clearly were personally offended, and as I said I have no clue why. I'd like to clear that up, but it takes two to resolve things amiably, and if you are disinterested in doing so, I'll simply have to accept that. If, however, you would like to help me understand why you were offended, and allow me to make things more clear, I would be glad to resolve matters to the best of my ability. Sam Spade 14:55, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I was offended, I'm glad you noticed that, and I am pleased with your response here. I am more than willing to explain why and allow you a chance to respond, in fact, whether our discourse will continue to be "cordial" (as it was prior to this) depends on it. When it comes to human interaction, a cardinal rule for me is to treat others as I would like to be treated – I found that you failed on that front with your last post at T:R. Moreover, at the risk of being harsh, to be honest, I found your behaviour to be shady at worse, markedly un-cordial at best.
First, you make an edit change with a very obscure edit summary (incompletely citing the passage you deleted per se.), which I felt failed to specifically link to the concerns you outlined. Secondly, I treat both you and your concerns with especial respect, largely because we already had friendly and collegial relationship despite our differnces. I end by stating that "I looks forward to discussing these issues with you," your response was exactly the opposite I expected and certainly did not correspond to the positive tone I projected towards you. I issue a request of you — me, not people — not to make any further edits until we can discuss them. Is it an unreasonable request coming from me ? Me, as in the person who, at your request, took it upon himself to help mediate the conflict in Collectivism ? Thus, your response, the manner in which you have phrased your refusal to do this, certainly struck me an un-reciprocal in this sense, especially when it followed that dismissive why do people always rhetorical question. Again, to what end?
Now, I was not expecting some sort of quid pro quo or future reward when I did you a favour (you have never done me any favours, though I never requested any, until now, when I was refused, rather ungracefully, I felt), not at all – but, really, my request from you was far less demanding than the one I accorded to you. Thirdly, after expressing all this willingness to discuss these issues and reason together, you exclaim how 'you don't know what this discussion can accomplish' – now whether you feel that to be the case, it is simply untactful to mention this, at that point, in the way that you did, in the article's talk page. Fourthly, you intellectually patronize me. For someone who in the past commended me for my intellect (compliments which I very much appreciated), and specifically, my ability to deconstruct your thoughts, you sure come across discourteously with the whole 'what I see as objectivity may be your POV' — I already gathered that from your first post that you feel this to be a serious drawback to the article.
So I was (I would think, naturally) buffled, thinking, 'what have I done to earn such intellectually-condescending innuendos from you?' Lastly, the impetus for your re-entrance into the article was that you felt Racial Separatists' rationalizations should be (more of a) key to the article (they are featured prominently enough) – but you fail to demonstrate why, on an encyclopaedic (which is to say, a broad historico-cultural, etc.) sense, and of course, the meaning is RS' as in primarily-American White Pride et al. movement. I am still waiting for you to answer why their mode of thought/action takes precedence over racialism in Rwanda (by Africans towards Africans), or racialism (and genocide) directed towards the Pygmies in the DR of Congo (again, by Africans), etc. You merely stated it with no explanation. Then, you go on to exclaim that I 'plot-out' to the reader that racialists (again, according to my article, a term with more than one meaning) are actually racists in disguise. That this might be a view we both adhere to, is not necessarily that relevant – the question is is that 'conventionally' (i.e. politics, academia, etc.) perceived this way. And it is my understanding that it is. I know what people in my univ. (a rather conservative univ.) think of Professor Rushton, for example, and this is how his approach towards race is viewed, conventionally.
While my article might indeed suffer from the problems you cited (or rather, have yet to cite) – at this point, I don't think so, but I certainly view it as being within the realm of possibility, I do welcome both constructive criticism and am open to being persuasded otherwise (if I was not open to persuasion, past experience should indicate to you that I would say this straight-up and upfront). It wasn't that I was necessarily expecting acknowledgment for the substantive work I have done with the article (I argue it is vastly superior to the state it was in prior to my involvement) – regardless that you consider it POV – but what I did not expect was the opposite. It was the opposite because we already knew each other and have already established what I thought was a cordial, but if not, at the very least a collegial relationship. If this was not the case, and had it not been for your response above, it is doubtful I would be expending as much energy on this.
Instead you edit obscurely, with no specific explanation (for that particular edit); you dismiss the prospect of the discussion (therefore, the 'intellectual' respect I exhibited towards you with my first reply); you go about playing with semantics, with condescending innuendo about objectivity/NPOV, insulting my intelligence (which, again, I have never done to you); and you outright refuse the minor favour I asked of you (when, again, I have already done a more substantive favour for you), and go on to dismiss and rehtoricize it and aggregate me with other people. Now, Sam, I always give individuals the benefit of the doubt, but unlike a certain, extraordinarily-prominent man (many of his teachings I value a great deal, profoundly so), I only turn one cheek. So now that you know what 'annoyed' me (it was, in fact, more than an annoyance), please read closely what I have just written here – the nature of our future discourse depends on it. El_C
You've given alot of thought to what you said, and I wish I had done likewise. Your criticism is legitimate, but not based on similar premises. Indeed, we are coming from completely different directions, and so this collision is not so surprising.
For example, reciprocity. Yes, I did indeed make honest compliments to you in the past, but I also also wrapped up our dialogue (we were discussing matters of racism / racialism) when I discovered your POV. Perhaps I could have been frank at that time regarding the impression that you made upon me, but life has taught me to avoid such. Indeed, I have been avoiding such rather consistently with you, because I like you. That affection is not however blinding to my natural talents (understanding of others, I am a therapist in training, and preacher by calling), nor obstructive to my duty here or elsewhere. As far as returning favors, the primary favor you have done for me is to be polite, and to interact with me in regards to difficult matters in a manner both intellectual and gentle.
As far as Collectivism, our POV's are divergent on that subject. I also asked assistance from User:WHEELER on that very same page, for similar reasons. I felt that others might succeed where User:Mihnea Tudoreanu and I had failed. I did this because of your respective skills and POV's. In hindsight, perhaps I overextended our relationship in asking you for such. I will point out to you however that I have not edited racialism since your request that I not do so. And now I must return (however unwillingly) to this less savory topic.
For starters, you have improved this article in a variety of ways. The addition of images (altho I disagree fundamentally w nearly all of them) is a positive step. You contributed a great deal of content as well, as well as an orderly approach to presenting it.
Unfortunately, the obvious (to me) has now occurred. The article is now NPOV disputed (not by me, I refrained, due to our relationship). Your POV is enormous. One of the strongest I have ever encountered on matters of race. You leave very little room for disagreement, and I suspect this is true not only for matters of race, but for other matters as well. You have an absolutist approach to certain aspects of interpersonal interaction. Those who you fundamentally disagree with, you reject utterly (or so you suggest), excluding them from all interaction and intimate discourse. I find this unsettling, but not overly so, as I doubt I am a member of such communities as you reject. I have a similar approach to racists as I do with yourself. When they do not hate or reject me or mine (those whom I am intimate with), their views are merely an unfortunate aspect about them, something I hope to heal, as a doctor might heal a broken leg or cough.
I normally keep a bald head, and am fairly militaristic (my politics are very much in favor of self defense), and therefore have had a number of friendships and interactions with skinheads, including SHARP / ARA as well as traditionalist and Nazi skinheads. These people tend to have a POV not entirely dissimilar to your own, an exclusionist one. They have a great deal of hate for those whom they disapprove of.
I, on the other hand, have a fundamentally inclusionist philosophy/theology. My purpose here (in life) is to learn, and to love and help others. I have affection for almost everyone, and hate only 1 man (I don't intend to get into that, but suffice to say its not based on race :) Excluding racists IMO only fulfils their worldview, and perpetuates their hatred. I prefer to include them in rational discourse, and by such method cure them.
This brings us to racialism. What is it? It is a cover. A protective shield against people like you. People who hate racists. Racists on the fence, or who are uncomfortable w the hate or stigma of others, as well as organizations looking to recruit, protect themselves w the term racialism. It suggests (or they feel it should) a lack of violent anger towards others, a lack of hate. Rather (to them) it suggests love for ones own, and an awareness of important differences. This POV must not be dismissed in an article on the subject of this term, and it must not be violated by presenting images of Hitler. I think essentially no one outside of the racialist community disagrees with you about them actually being racists, but when you dismiss their POV, you fail to write for the enemy. That they are your enemy is clear, rejecting and isolating others is among the harshest of penalties, and you ascribe to it in their regards, or at least make such views very clear to myself.
All of this is what I am looking to handle without offending you, or creating enmity between us. Yes, I think you are a good and competent person. Yes, I think you are biased (frankly I think everyone is biased). No, I don't want to offend you, or cause you to despise me. I think I'm a pretty good guy, all told. As far as return of favors, I'd be glad to have you for tea, or to lift you up when you are down. I don't intend however to sacrifice my moral integrity in regards to what I see as bias on racialism any more than I ever expected you to do so in regards to collectivism. I imagine we have a whole host of disagreements (as well as an unexpected number of similarities) when it comes to divisive issues. That’s not really the point. The key is in being able to work thru such differences in a civil and neutral manner. Isn't that the basis of the wiki process?
I'm sorry for being so thorough, altho I am sure I have neglected some matters of import, which I trust you to point out. Respond at your leisure, and in the manner you feel best. I expect nothing other than honesty and respect, and I likewise intend nothing less. Sam Spade 23:30, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Well, first of all, I don't hate my political opponents, I pitty them, and I might be more of an inclusionist than you think (though, speaking of moral integrity, I refsue to comrpomise it). Our biases are not relavent unless they are projected to the article. My request was minor and I don't see why you would find obliging to it comrpomises your stance towards NPOV. I invited you to explain specifically your concerns and, inspite of what you said above, I found your response to be lacking – as I do the editor who added the NPOV tag – I invited him/her as well to specifically outline his/her concerns beyond general abstractions: which is to say, specific passages s/he finds problematic and alternatives. If either of you are willing to do this, but still object to the article's NPOV status, by all means, feel free to ask for a Peer Review of it. Sorry, I am, at this point, unwilling to touch on the very broad comments you have made here about the meaning of the term – this because you have (as thorough as might have been) yet to address my own. So that is an essential quid pro quo. As well, our discussion on White Pride ended mutually, you were not the one who 'closed' it, it happned reciprocally. With all respect, please spare such your POV is enourmous comments; that is exactly what I refered to earlier as being untactful – I find your POV to be enormous, also, but I would not state it in these terms, in this context. Again, if you wish to discuss the article specifically, I invited you to do so (aside, it is interesting how there was not a single comment on the article, despite many revisions by myself, but immediately after your comment, suddenly the NPOV is disputed – I am not insinuating anything, I just found that peculiar). Finally, if you refuse my request, then indeed that would mark the end of our cordial/collegial relationship. It dosen't mean though we cannot tackle issues together, I do not need to respond to you directly in order to reply to whatever items you bring to discussion or whatever edits you make, but I would naturally strongly prefer direct discourse. So that choice remains your preogrative. As for any additional requests for mediating (Wheeler, et al.) I am afraid that I am going to have to decline (not that you actually asked this here, you merely used it as an example, still I thought it should be noted). Lastly, I do not wish to get into our personal lives, so I am purposfully refraining from commenting on anything resembling this in your comment above. El_C