THIS ONE will have very untiring legs :)

That article opens so many issues we probably should all get on a direct chat room and thrash them out one by one.

I'll tackle paragraph ONE for this post.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Whether it be the Germans in World War II classics or the shady Russians from the James Bond films of the 1970's, Western culture seems to have an ingrained desire to have a villain worth hating - the “other”. The “other” is the person or group which is defined as different. The difference infers inferiority, that they are sub-human, thereby consolidating another group's identity. This “other” is effectively marginalised by the “mainstream” of a particular society.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It is because of the VERY thinking patterns in this article that we NEED to look closely at a major re-think on how we view cultural, religious and political difference. !!!!!!!

The problem is.. that 'normal' men in the street DO respond as this author has claimed, and THAT is the danger of NOT educating ourselves on the nature of society and culture. !!!!

Examining the differences in another culture does NOT imply that they are inferior..THAT one point is just one of the most misconceived notions of our time but one which is used to political advantage.

When one assesses a "different" culture, one has to be objective and fair. (yes.. it was ME who said that) And, this might produce some 'emotionally unpalatable' truths depending on your own position and world view.

When it comes to Islam, I'm wondering if the author has heard of Dar Ul Islam/Dar Ul Harb ????? if no one else knows of this, please research it. Islam or muslims are not 'inferior' its NOT about that.
Differences can be helpful or unhelpful, they can contribute or detract. One must look at them objectively and assess it in terms of potential impact.

FISHING TRIP.. Lets talk about European Carp and Trout. It is a scientific fact that European Carp will out breed Trout and eventually take over the river system they are introduced into. Scientific fact. If one religious group.. Catholic has a higher birth rate than non catholics, and they have a very strong sytem of education, there is a strong possibility that over time, they might increase to the point where 'what they say goes' politically. Perhaps more funding for non state schools and the such like. The problem with this theory, is that we just dont tick like that as far as I can see. I don't sit awake at night worrying about the 'Impending Catholic takeover'. We have all been living together in harmony for too long for me to worry about that. John Howard is Anglican, Peter Costello is Baptist, Tony Abbot is Catholic and from what I can see they get along fine. All 3 are Christian traditions.

Islam is a different thing altogether, and the difference is in the fundamentals. The history, the loyalty factor, the goals. (I've spent quite a bit of time on an Islamic forum in Sydney recently discovering a plenty that their loyalty is more to Islam than Australia per se. Loyalty to Islam HAS to mean loyalty to its social and political prescriptions which are diametrically opposed to many of ours.
John, Peter and Tony are 'infidels'.. as are the rest of us. The goal of being Christian is to glorify God and be Salt and Light to the world. (fundamentals) the goal of Islam is the Islamic State and the Rule of Sharia.(Is now, was then, and always will be.)
Knowing a bit about the Sharia law, I don't EVER would like to live under THAT !!
When the communist manifesto advocated the violent overthrow of the state, we kind of just need to be aware of that when we consider allowing a whole swag of committed communists to migrate here.
When our kids tell us they are going to a PROTEST with the Socialist Alliance, we need to be aware of the SAME goal as stated on their web sites in the fine print.

BUDDHISM Now this is a good one. Do we need to be worried about Buddhists ? or Hindus ? NOOO..of course not, and why? they have no 'goal' to overthrow the state or way of life. They have no 'Buddhist law' that they are trying to implement as a legal system.

JEWS.. Should we worry in Victoria that about 6 of the 12 judges in the federal court are Jewish ? well.. only perhaps if ur in a huge litigation against Solomon Lew and u end up before one of his pals on the bench.... but as for overthrow of the state ? its hardly one of their goals. Influence maybe.. sure.. but establishing the 'New Jerusalem' in Caulfield ? hmmm doesnt sound realistic to me.

Numbat !!
quite a bit of truth in what u said and it supports what I'm saying about our need to property assess and responsibly act, rather than demonize.

NORM....
exactly. It not about whether u should treat others of the 'other' mob decently or kindly, we SHOULD in any case. Its a much bigger issue than 'being nice'. :)

Robertomelbourne

Rushdies account may have been fictional, but it DOES relate to a very particular textual issue of the Koran and its compilation, which is one of the reasons the Muslims dont like him very much. In fact.. dare I say it.. Rushdie is THE OTHER !!! :)

BOAZ_David - we may be arguing the same point about Rushdie's book.

I found large passages of it utterly unreadable. If people got upset because it tortured the fine art of the novel, then I would be very sympathetic. But the point is that the book was considered to be an attack on Islam, and from that the Fatwa was issued. Now take for example the many films and books on Christ's life, such as the book and film Temptation of Christ. While there were protests outside the film theatres, there was no great rush to 'take 'out' the author director.

I think that Scott has tried, and valiantly so, to put forward a position, which I should have been more appreciative than my initial comments suggested. But notheless, the argument apologies for a number of cultural presets for which 'apologies' are the wrong response.

cheers

Geoffrey, I think you may have twisted Scott's words a little to make your point.

It is you, rather than he, who brings objectivity to the table. Scott himself only uses the term to point out that it is a tough concept to pin down. While "'reality' is a mere construction of language" is just another way of saying that meaning is essentially subjective, and highly dependent upon context. "I'm just going outside, and may be some time" has the skeleton of an objective meaning of itself, but carries a substantial payload when the context is Captain Oates and his frostbitten feet. I can't see anything in the article that claims an objective view, and plenty that says that our realities are just that - our own perception of the world, in our context.

You seem a little confused yourself. Scott very carefully described how the interpretations are, by their nature, subjective, but you still imagine otherwise: "However, earlier you asserted there is no objective standpoint or reality, so you can’t possible say what you just said. Simply put, you have contradicted yourself"

Well, as they say around here, duh.

I suspect that you just don't like cunning French linguists.