I was in a discussion with Theodoric, and he offered me a link, which was attempting to show racism against blacks in Lyndon Larouche's writings. He said I had to start another thread if I challenged anything in the links.
Here was the part that caused me to find the actual article (I had to do a google past to find the PDF):
quote:"...the Mesopotamian polymorphic, pro-bestial images of their pagan deities, for example, tell us much which is most essential--and essentially disgusting--about that culture. Hence, those who, like unreconstructed relics of the Confederacy, argue that "black" persons of African origins are an inferior species of beast-men, are intrinsically immoral believers in the bestial nature of man, themselves included. " Source: Information Society: A Doomed Empire of Evil by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. (April 13, 2000)
Note: Larouche doesn't realize he is contradicting himself: racists (Confederacy) or Larouche both despise "beast-men", they are not "believers in the bestial nature of man"!
I suspected the quote was out of context. I figured Theodoric's source might be attempting to make it look like LaRouche was calling African culture "disgusting".
LaRouche actually said that Greeks got their culture from Egyptians (a very important issue in the American black community, mind you), and the Romans started the degeneration. He was attacking serfdom and slavery:"a form of serfdom is typical of ancient Mesopotamian cultures". He wrote an article that would be seen as complementary toward black contributions to the best of humanity's offerings. It was an article about the evolution of man, but he saw man as already having intrinsic abilities. It was a very theological article.
He said Mandeville and Adam Smith saw man as a beast.
That was the referent that the "Hence, those who, like unreconstructed relics of the Confederacy" referred back to.
The Mesopotamian artistic depictions of man as part beast was also a derivation from Mandeville & Smith type of thinking.
quote:In reality, contrary to such simple-minded explanations as those popularized, statistical notions of the empiricists, the most important distinction among cultures and leading currents within cultures, is to be found in the differences among the ways in which each of these defines what it identifies as “human nature.” In the sweep of the rise of globally extended European civilization, since ancient Greece, the differences among working definitions of human nature, fall into two general classes, several sub-classes, and, finally, specific types within the bounds of classes and sub-classes. The most important subject-matter of such historiographical studies, is located in the transitions which move a society from one such type, or class of axiomatic definition, to another. The evolution of the conception of human nature within ancient Greece itself, as shown by tracing this evolution from the Homeric epics to Plato, is the most crucial example of those processes of change—e.g., transitions—which bring the underlying principles of history-making—e.g., epistemology and state craft—into focus.
The modern radical positivist’s perverse definition of human nature, is a case in point.
The general classifications to be considered are, essentially, a division between those who insist, as Mandeville and Adam Smith did, that man’s nature, or some men’s nature, is that of merely another beast, as opposed to that of the Christians, and others, who define man as, by nature, of a higher order than any and all of the beasts. Hence, the Mesopotamian polymorphic, pro-bestial images of their pagan deities, for example, tell us much which is most essential--and essentially disgusting--about that culture. Hence, those who, like unreconstructed relics of the Confederacy, argue that "black" persons of African origins are an inferior species of beast-men, are intrinsically immoral believers in the bestial nature of man, themselves included.
I just do not see this as LaRouche saying that he feels the "beast-men" status (chattel slavery) of African Americans during the Confederacy indicates they were legitimately & reasonably - to LaRouche - seen as such.
It had nothing to do with anything LaRouche believes.