‘I had a suspicion...that the dethroning of Biblical authority was a necessary prelude to the development of modern racism’. Though Colin Kidd’s authoritative The Forging of Races qualifies this, it only does so by showing role of perverse polygenist origins readings of Bible.
Overwhelmingly his 2006 book shows that racialism is of post-Christian ‘scientific’ and naturalistic origin. By contrast the stress in eg Augustine that all humans are of one descent and kinship and therefore that we are all brothers and sisters is overwhelming.
The deviations from this have been mainly Protestant and mainly to do with a ‘liberal’ desire to reach an accommodation with modern ‘science’. Even amongst strict Biblicists.
This conclusion is just slightly obfuscated by Kidd’s reasonable professional desire as a historian of modernity not to himself give a verdict about correct Biblical interpretation. Still I don’t think that is in much doubt on this issue, nor a long-standing Catholic consensus.
His book is THE book to read on the topic of race and religion. (Though he should have cited Jay Carter.)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Thanks to author. But in the end RO thinks one can only save the most authentic core of Thomism by going beyond Aquinas. Eg his invention vs Boethian trad of ‘two theologies’ opens some way to pure nature; only transgressing of LNC saves analogy from reductions in later Thomists.
Both Eckhart and Cusa in effect realised that only such embrace of paradox is able to deny an assumption of a basic semantic univocity. As Courtine shows in his Inventio Analogiae most ‘Thomists’ after Aquinas in fact accepted this degree of Scotism.
For this and several other reasons, even though they were more radically Neoplatonic, Eckhart, Cusanus, Pico, Ficino, Giles of Viterbo, Berulle etc are really much closer to what matters in Aquinas (where he’s nearer to Greek Fathers, Augustine, Boethius) than Cajetan, Suarez etc
Am I alone in finding Mahler’s Das Lied von der Erde just tedious? All that muddy and musically uninventive emoting. ‘Drinking song of the Earth’s misery’: I mean, for God’s sake! I think I can see just why Wittgenstein had his doubts about Mahler.
Surely it is the non-German late romantics like Sibelius, Nielsen, Elgar and Vaughan Williams who really impress? German music seems to lapse after Schumann (despite Wagner and Brahms’ significant innovations) and only revive with Schoenberg and especially Hindemith’s modernism.
And I have to be honest and say that all that Lieder stuff just makes me yawn. I associate it with kind of thing Biblical Critics enjoy in their spare time...(such as it is).
Drove through swathes of north London and the squalor is shocking, now a bit like much of the USA. How come economically poor Nottingham is far better cared for and looks often smarter? Mostly the answer is money itself: it corrupts and impoverishes everything public and real.
Thus in London too many people are buying properties just to own the land and invest in it. So increasingly nothing is cared for.
Another factor I am told is the lack of central coordination and the fact that too many Labour councils are caught up in inter-ethnic rivalries. This contrasts with the often more efficient Labour rule of provincial places like Nottingham.
Do subscribe to this and read Paul Kingsnorth’s eloquent defence of the Luddites: they were no technophobes but coherent protestors against the needless subordination of people to machines which has now increased exponentially and disastrously.
Kingsnorth also sees how enclosure in the widest sense is the main driver of the processes of modern capitalist and bureaucratic tyranny. He well grasps just why figures like Cobbett, Ruskin and Chesterton were more radical than Marx in denying its inevitability and rationality.
The relationship of enclosure to empire is perhaps a difficult topic: yes on the whole enclosure and colonisation are continuous and yet without empire wild enclosing and ravaging was often still more uncontained. And older modes of empire sometimes protected the regional.
Despite good points this article confuses the need to respect and promote intelligence with Young/Sandel’s critique of the meritocratic neglect of the flourishing of all, the diversity of kinds of ability (not all intellectual) and the need to marry cleverness with honour.
Honour means respect for inherited role not being overridden by the ambition that allowed you to occupy it. Anti-meritocracy may also see some advantages in people inheriting positions of all kinds via birth: it can nurture inherited responsibility and early vocational formation.
Wooldridge is failing to see that despite admitted collapse of channels of aspiration for a working-class few, in general we now have a far greater dominance of an educated elite with typically liberal views that is facing populist resistance from the less educated.
I just read Susan Oothuizen’s brilliant revisionary book: she shows in terms of a longer duree that the English were more Romano-British than we think. But Francis Young’s reserves convince: why the lapse to specifically Germanic paganism? Why diff A-S tribes? Language shift?
And why self-consciousness as Angli? This can’t just be in Bede a Roman ecclesiastical identity as SO suggests if that very allegiance was still under dispute amongst the ‘English’ in Northumbria?
And given the lapse in ‘England’ to paganism (not in greater Wales) doesn’t that mean we can’t quite dismiss the Gildas-Bede story of British apostasy/Germanic-Scandinavian pagan invaders? They were biased yes, but why did they hold their biases?