Elitism

[JohnFKennedy]

To me Elitism is rather simply about looking down on those who do not belong to one's own group. It is usually associated with people who are rich and/or highly educated. I have encountered a great deal of it...

We can distinguish between academic elitism (which I see every day, every minute, at work) and social elitism (which I rarely witness).  In my experience academic elitists are more likely to be democrats while social elitists (the few really wealthy people I've met who look down on the impoverished) have generally been republican.  

Statesrights pointed out another form of elitism which I hadn't initially considered, and which seems to cross party lines.  (geopolitical elitism, I think I'd call it.  Europeans look down on third world folks, or Easterners look down on West Coast for sure, or within the east, the two northern regions north of mason and dixon's line, look down on those who hail from south of that line, etc.)  There may also be religion based elitism:  zoroastrians, Mainstream protestants, Jews, Catholics, Mormons, evangelical protestants, Sunni muslim, Shia muslim (Monotheistic groups listed in order of how elitist I perceive them to be.  Anyone know where druze fit in here?  anyone ever met a druze?)

I met a lot of Druze, they are 1% of the population here..

and how did you decided to rate the Monotheistic groups like that?  

With my tongue in my cheek, of course.  

but zoroastrians, the progenitors of all later hebrew and greek and latin and arabic monotheism, know they were the first to stumble on the idea of a noncompetitive god to whom worship was obligatory.  And they know it.  RWN points out that they are one of the few religious groups which will not accept converts.   The rest are fairly self-explanatory, I imagine, given stereotypes in this country.  Consider GWB, born Episcopalian.  How many presidents have been episcopalian (US version of anglican)?  Well, almost all of them.  You know his family looks down on Kerry (a catholic), and Reagan (a 'born again' evangelical prot), and Clinton/Gore (Southern Baptists), etc...

As you probably know, Harvard did not admit Jews or Catholics till the early 1900s.  For the first three-hundred years of its existence, it allowed only WASPs.  Hell, even the Klan didn't take that long to start admitting catholics and jews.  (of course, they're pretty hard up, so they'll take anyone who's white.  I think the rationale behind harvard's controversial decision to start admitting non-WASP types about a hundred years ago was a bit different.)

Kerry is 1/4 or maybe 1/2 jewish (though according to jewish law you either a jew or not and he isn't) but I read he is closer to the english crown (so does Bush but Kerry is closer)

Jews believe you inherit your religion entirely from your mother, Christians half from mother and half from father.

My Mother is Jewish, so to her I am full Jewish, BUT my Father is Christian so to him I am half-Jewish, half-Christian, so I am three quarters Jewish and one quarter Christian .

[angus]

To me Elitism is rather simply about looking down on those who do not belong to one's own group. It is usually associated with people who are rich and/or highly educated. I have encountered a great deal of it...

We can distinguish between academic elitism (which I see every day, every minute, at work) and social elitism (which I rarely witness).  In my experience academic elitists are more likely to be democrats while social elitists (the few really wealthy people I've met who look down on the impoverished) have generally been republican.  

Statesrights pointed out another form of elitism which I hadn't initially considered, and which seems to cross party lines.  (geopolitical elitism, I think I'd call it.  Europeans look down on third world folks, or Easterners look down on West Coast for sure, or within the east, the two northern regions north of mason and dixon's line, look down on those who hail from south of that line, etc.)  There may also be religion based elitism:  zoroastrians, Mainstream protestants, Jews, Catholics, Mormons, evangelical protestants, Sunni muslim, Shia muslim (Monotheistic groups listed in order of how elitist I perceive them to be.  Anyone know where druze fit in here?  anyone ever met a druze?)

I met a lot of Druze, they are 1% of the population here..

and how did you decided to rate the Monotheistic groups like that?  

With my tongue in my cheek, of course.  

but zoroastrians, the progenitors of all later hebrew and greek and latin and arabic monotheism, know they were the first to stumble on the idea of a noncompetitive god to whom worship was obligatory.  And they know it.  RWN points out that they are one of the few religious groups which will not accept converts.   The rest are fairly self-explanatory, I imagine, given stereotypes in this country.  Consider GWB, born Episcopalian.  How many presidents have been episcopalian (US version of anglican)?  Well, almost all of them.  You know his family looks down on Kerry (a catholic), and Reagan (a 'born again' evangelical prot), and Clinton/Gore (Southern Baptists), etc...

As you probably know, Harvard did not admit Jews or Catholics till the early 1900s.  For the first three-hundred years of its existence, it allowed only WASPs.  Hell, even the Klan didn't take that long to start admitting catholics and jews.  (of course, they're pretty hard up, so they'll take anyone who's white.  I think the rationale behind harvard's controversial decision to start admitting non-WASP types about a hundred years ago was a bit different.)

Kerry is 1/4 or maybe 1/2 jewish (though according to jewish law you either a jew or not and he isn't) but I read he is closer to the english crown (so does Bush but Kerry is closer)

Kerry's catholocism puts him light years away from the English crown.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Some members of our forum have labeled me, and our not so dearly departed friend CTGuy, elitists. I would like to have this term clarified. What qualifies one as an elitist? Politics, education, background, residence, lifestyle? I've never known this to be a positive descriptor and I just want to know what I'm considered as a result of this term.

An elitist is anyone who believes that a small minority of the people, for whatever reason, is fit to determine the fate of the rest of the people, and that most people are unfit (uneducated, ignorant, whatever) to determine their own fate.

I would say the liberal establishment today is much more elitist than the conservative establishment.  When a court of law dictates policy to a legislative body, in disregard for the will of the people who elected the legislature, that is elitism.

[dunn]

To me Elitism is rather simply about looking down on those who do not belong to one's own group. It is usually associated with people who are rich and/or highly educated. I have encountered a great deal of it...

We can distinguish between academic elitism (which I see every day, every minute, at work) and social elitism (which I rarely witness).  In my experience academic elitists are more likely to be democrats while social elitists (the few really wealthy people I've met who look down on the impoverished) have generally been republican.  

Statesrights pointed out another form of elitism which I hadn't initially considered, and which seems to cross party lines.  (geopolitical elitism, I think I'd call it.  Europeans look down on third world folks, or Easterners look down on West Coast for sure, or within the east, the two northern regions north of mason and dixon's line, look down on those who hail from south of that line, etc.)  There may also be religion based elitism:  zoroastrians, Mainstream protestants, Jews, Catholics, Mormons, evangelical protestants, Sunni muslim, Shia muslim (Monotheistic groups listed in order of how elitist I perceive them to be.  Anyone know where druze fit in here?  anyone ever met a druze?)

I met a lot of Druze, they are 1% of the population here..

and how did you decided to rate the Monotheistic groups like that?  

With my tongue in my cheek, of course.  

but zoroastrians, the progenitors of all later hebrew and greek and latin and arabic monotheism, know they were the first to stumble on the idea of a noncompetitive god to whom worship was obligatory.  And they know it.  RWN points out that they are one of the few religious groups which will not accept converts.   The rest are fairly self-explanatory, I imagine, given stereotypes in this country.  Consider GWB, born Episcopalian.  How many presidents have been episcopalian (US version of anglican)?  Well, almost all of them.  You know his family looks down on Kerry (a catholic), and Reagan (a 'born again' evangelical prot), and Clinton/Gore (Southern Baptists), etc...

As you probably know, Harvard did not admit Jews or Catholics till the early 1900s.  For the first three-hundred years of its existence, it allowed only WASPs.  Hell, even the Klan didn't take that long to start admitting catholics and jews.  (of course, they're pretty hard up, so they'll take anyone who's white.  I think the rationale behind harvard's controversial decision to start admitting non-WASP types about a hundred years ago was a bit different.)

Kerry is 1/4 or maybe 1/2 jewish (though according to jewish law you either a jew or not and he isn't) but I read he is closer to the english crown (so does Bush but Kerry is closer)

Kerry's catholocism puts him light years away from the English crown.

"Kerry has many royal connections" said Harold Brooks-Baker, publishing director of Burke's Peerage, a guide to the aristocracy.

Kerry can trace his roots back to the first Massachusetts governor, John Winthrop, to every great family in Boston and to a host of royals in Europe.

"Kerry can almost certainly be traced back to King James I and to the bloodlines straight through the Windsor and Hanover families," Brooks-Baker said

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

"Kerry has many royal connections" said Harold Brooks-Baker, publishing director of Burke's Peerage, a guide to the aristocracy.

Kerry can trace his roots back to the first Massachusetts governor, John Winthrop, to every great family in Boston and to a host of royals in Europe.

"Kerry can almost certainly be traced back to King James I and to the bloodlines straight through the Windsor and Hanover families," Brooks-Baker said

Most Americans of any English background are probably descended from Edward I, and most certainly from William the Conqueror.  And mathematical models predict that every European alive today is a descendant of Charlemagne.  Here's an interesting link:

http://www.compapp.dcu.ie/~humphrys/FamTree/Royal/ca.math.html#computer.simulations

Chances are pretty good that every person on the planet is descended from Egyptian royalty.

Anyway, my point is, being descended from royalty is not the big deal people think it is.

[Gustaf]

"Kerry has many royal connections" said Harold Brooks-Baker, publishing director of Burke's Peerage, a guide to the aristocracy.

Kerry can trace his roots back to the first Massachusetts governor, John Winthrop, to every great family in Boston and to a host of royals in Europe.

"Kerry can almost certainly be traced back to King James I and to the bloodlines straight through the Windsor and Hanover families," Brooks-Baker said

Most Americans of any English background are probably descended from Edward I, and most certainly from William the Conqueror.  And mathematical models predict that every European alive today is a descendant of Charlemagne.  Here's an interesting link:

http://www.compapp.dcu.ie/~humphrys/FamTree/Royal/ca.math.html#computer.simulations

Chances are pretty good that every person on the planet is descended from Egyptian royalty.

Anyway, my point is, being descended from royalty is not the big deal people think it is.

There were a lot of people lving in Europe at the same time as Charlemagne...but I guess you mean they would have intertwined by now?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I'm certainly related to lots of Vikings

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

but zoroastrians, the progenitors of all later hebrew and greek and latin and arabic monotheism,

I rather doubt there is enough evidence to support a claim that Zoroastriansim is a "progenitor" of Judaism.  Zoroastrianism dates to 1400 BC at the very earliest, and the Jewish Torah references (with amazing accuracy) Egyptian history dating back to around 1600 BC.  You might be able to support a claim that Zoroastrianism *influenced* Judaism, Christanity, and Islam, but that's quite another thing.  It's just as likely that Judaism was the progenitor of Zoroastrianism.  Since writing was invented by the Semites and exported to the Persians and Indians, it is reasonable to think that the Semites shared their religious ideas along with their writing.

know they were the first to stumble on the idea of a noncompetitive god to whom worship was obligatory.  And they know it.  RWN points out that they are one of the few religious groups which will not accept converts.  

This is because, when the Zoroastrians fled from Persia to India, the king who allowed them to settle forbade them from converting the local Hindus, as a condition of their settlement.  Eventually that law became part of their tradition.

The rest are fairly self-explanatory, I imagine, given stereotypes in this country.  Consider GWB, born Episcopalian.  How many presidents have been episcopalian (US version of anglican)?  Well, almost all of them.  You know his family looks down on Kerry (a catholic), and Reagan (a 'born again' evangelical prot), and Clinton/Gore (Southern Baptists), etc...

Except that GWB considers himself "born again," and he's (for some reason never adequately explained) a Methodist.  Granted, the Methodist church is just a side-branch of the Anglicans...

As you probably know, Harvard did not admit Jews or Catholics till the early 1900s.  For the first three-hundred years of its existence, it allowed only WASPs.  Hell, even the Klan didn't take that long to start admitting catholics and jews.  (of course, they're pretty hard up, so they'll take anyone who's white.  I think the rationale behind harvard's controversial decision to start admitting non-WASP types about a hundred years ago was a bit different.)

Rather amusing to see them today, so filled with guilt they're nearly suicidal.  Aren't Haavaad and Yale leading the movement for "slavery reparations?"

[Filuwaúrdjan]

GWB's religion is confusing... he seems to put "Methodist" on papers and things... but he clearly isn't a Methodist...

[dunn]

Amen beef

[angus]

I've no energy left to argue.  But I am unaware of any president other than Ronald Reagan using the phrase 'born again' with respect to his faith.  GWB clearly changed from one mainstream protestant denonmination, episcopalian, to another mainstream branch, methodism, when he became engaged to Laura Welsh, a methodist.  Reagan and Carter and Clinton were the only evangelical protestant presidents we have ever had, to my knowledge.

Zoroastrianism is a mystery, but clearly influenced the ancient hebrews.  And clearly the ancient hebrews gave rise to modern judaism, modern christianity, and modern islam.  I am not a religious scholar, but I have read a bit on the subject and am convinced that Zoroastrianism is the first monotheistic religion we know about.  You are certainly welcome to your interpretation of anthropoligical evidence, in any case.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

"Kerry has many royal connections" said Harold Brooks-Baker, publishing director of Burke's Peerage, a guide to the aristocracy.

Kerry can trace his roots back to the first Massachusetts governor, John Winthrop, to every great family in Boston and to a host of royals in Europe.

"Kerry can almost certainly be traced back to King James I and to the bloodlines straight through the Windsor and Hanover families," Brooks-Baker said

Most Americans of any English background are probably descended from Edward I, and most certainly from William the Conqueror.  And mathematical models predict that every European alive today is a descendant of Charlemagne.  Here's an interesting link:

http://www.compapp.dcu.ie/~humphrys/FamTree/Royal/ca.math.html#computer.simulations

Chances are pretty good that every person on the planet is descended from Egyptian royalty.

Anyway, my point is, being descended from royalty is not the big deal people think it is.

There were a lot of people lving in Europe at the same time as Charlemagne...but I guess you mean they would have intertwined by now?

Yes.  Once you go back far enough, if an individual is the ancestor of some people living today, he is the ancestor of *everyone* living today.  There are people who can trace their lineage to Charlemagne.  Therefore everyone in the population is also descended from him.

Think of it this way:  You have two parents, four grandparents, eight great-grandparents, and so forth.  Go back 1200 years.  That's roughly 50 generations.  2^50 is about one quadrillion.  Of course there weren't one quadrillion people living at the time, and you are going to run into lots and lots of common ancestors, but chances are, if someone was able to contribute to the modern gene pool, he's probably one of your ancestors.  And, according to computer models, if you go back past a certian "magic date," he is certainly one of your ancestors.

[Michael Z]

To me Elitism is rather simply about looking down on those who do not belong to one's own group.

I think Gustaf hit the nail on the head there. As a teenager I used to go on about 'bloody elitist conservatives', not realising (at the time at least) that this was actually an elitist statement in itself.

Elitism does not involve sheer hatred to the extent that, for example, racism does, but it's another example of human beings trying to distil their insecurities by dismissing those who don't belong to their own social groupings, consequently creating a fake sense of superiority for themselves.

Chances are pretty good that every person on the planet is descended from Egyptian royalty.

Cool.

[angus]

I most certainly am NOT descended from royalty!  I am poor white trash and I worked very hard to get where I am.  I bitterly resent the suggestion that I am related to royalty.  The rest of you six billion elitists may be related to royalty, but I am not.  I will assume I am not related to any king or queen unless you can prove otherwise.

[Gustaf]

I most certainly am NOT descended from royalty!  I am poor white trash and I worked very hard to get where I am.  I bitterly resent the suggestion that I am related to royalty.  The rest of you six billion elitists may be related to royalty, but I am not.  I will assume I am not related to any king or queen unless you can prove otherwise.

Lol...

[migrendel]

I do not feel that is elitism, Beef. If a court recognizes that a law contravenes the highest laws of our land, and strikes it down, it does not demean the will of the people, it does its constitutional duty. I also believe that hallowing the rights of those disliked, even despised, by the many and securing them beyond the reach of majorities is not elitism. It is the defense of the voiceless and powerless, which shows a humility that is not always appreciated.

[Gustaf]

I do not feel that is elitism, Beef. If a court recognizes that a law contravenes the highest laws of our land, and strikes it down, it does not demean the will of the people, it does its constitutional duty. I also believe that hallowing the rights of those disliked, even despised, by the many and securing them beyond the reach of majorities is not elitism. It is the defense of the voiceless and powerless, which shows a humility that is not always appreciated.

Disrespect for the people's ability to rule, like in the EU, is definitely elitism. But restricting the political domain and protecting the minority from being oppressed by the majority most certainly isn't.

[migrendel]

'Tis pity that so few conservatives realize that in our country, Gus.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

I do not feel that is elitism, Beef. If a court recognizes that a law contravenes the highest laws of our land, and strikes it down, it does not demean the will of the people, it does its constitutional duty. I also believe that hallowing the rights of those disliked, even despised, by the many and securing them beyond the reach of majorities is not elitism. It is the defense of the voiceless and powerless, which shows a humility that is not always appreciated.

In the case of the Mass. Supreme Court, if I believed for a minute that the push for "gay marriage" was about protecting a minority, I'd be with you.  But it isn't.  It's about reinventing society and dismantling sexual mores.  Liberal courts such as the Massachusetts Supreme Court and the 9th Circuit have shown that their vision of the future of the country, and their interpretation of the Constitution, is what matters - the people be damned.  That is elitism.

[The Dowager Mod]

I think many "elitists" have a sense that being a guy is somehow "brutish" mostly because of the feminist movement. I don't see many N'easterners hog, deer, turkey hunting. Fishing maybe. Out of anyone in the N.East I admire most it's the fisherman/lobsterman.

ya blame women.

[migrendel]

Did you ever stop and think of it from the perspective of those whose very existence is stifled by your "sexual mores"? I am proud that my court recognized that equality is a sacred right, not one that applies when it is convenient and when the majority approves. When you have that, who's to say that your rights aren't the next ones that offend the will of the majority?

[angus]

Did you ever stop and think of it from the perspective of those whose very existence is stifled by your "sexual mores"? I am proud that my court recognized that equality is a sacred right, not one that applies when it is convenient and when the majority approves. When you have that, who's to say that your rights aren't the next ones that offend the will of the majority?

Your SJC did the right thing.  It did not write law; it merely requested that the legislature make its laws consistent.  Perfectly legitimate judicial review, and most republicans know the difference between activism and constructionism.  The ball is in Finnerman's court.  They need only do nothing and let the ruling stand, or they can amend the Commonwealth's constitution, a viable, if ill-advised, option.  

This is not a matter of homosexuality or of marriage.  It is simply a question of order.  No moral stand is needed to justify the SJC's ruling, imho.  Should the legislature choose to deal with it, and I have a sneaking suspicion that it may, then it can become an in-your-face argument pitting traditionalists against moralists.

I'll assume you know where we individualists stand.  

[12th Doctor]

Some members of our forum have labeled me, and our not so dearly departed friend CTGuy, elitists. I would like to have this term clarified. What qualifies one as an elitist? Politics, education, background, residence, lifestyle? I've never known this to be a positive descriptor and I just want to know what I'm considered as a result of this term.

I used to think you were an elitest.  You do have a prejudice against southerners and rural people, which is something that I would normally label elitest, but you are not what I would call an "Economic elitest" by any measure.  You are VERY different from CTGuy.  I would never dream to compare you two and I certainy hope you didn't think I had.

Anyway, as I have said, I have made piece with you and I respect you.  We had a rocky start, but I've put that behind us.  

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Did you ever stop and think of it from the perspective of those whose very existence is stifled by your "sexual mores"?

No one is stopping men from living with other men, women from living with other women, or engaging in whatever sexual variations they so please behind closed doors.  As it should be.  But to say that something as cherished and established as marriage needs to be redefined so that a perceived "minority" can feel good about itself is absurd.

I am proud that my court recognized that equality is a sacred right, not one that applies when it is convenient and when the majority approves.

We already have equality.  Straight men are allowed to marry women, and aren't allowed to marry men.  Gay men are allowed to marry women, and aren't allowed to marry men.  Everyone is equal under the law, regardless of "sexual orientation."

When the people of Massachusetts and the USA decide, for whatever reason, that marriage should be expanded to include man-man and woman-woman unions, they will express their will through the democratic process.  There is no need for that process to be short-circuited.

[migrendel]

On what grounds is marriage cherished in this limited manifestation? Religion? Perfectly illegitimate in a country with a tradition of secular government. Tradition? Slaveholding was a tradition in this country. All of those reasons to preserve marriage are arbitrary, vague, and baseless with regard to logic.

To continue, you do not quite understand why this violates equal protection. I have always conceived this not as a case of discrimination based on sexual orientation, for the exact reason you cited, but gender discrimination. If one of the putative members of the couple was biologically different, they would not be denied a marriage license. Because they are of the same gender as their prospective husband or wife, they cannot be married. Gender discrimination is very much part of our law, and would seem to apply to this case.

And your democratic process argument is fatuous. Should Brown v. Board of Education should have been decided by local school districts, where people very much supported segregation, or was it correct as it happened? Should Roe v. Wade have been resolved by state legislatures? Should Miranda v. Arizona be applied based upon the community's concept of the right to know your rights? And if not, why are they different from the Goodridge case? The point is, judicial decisions are application of legal rules and rights derived from the Constitutions of our nation and common law, not opinion polls.