he wrote"All men (sic) are created equal",yet he owned slaves and thought Blacks inferior in his private writing. Similarly to Jim's comment below about Kant, Jefferson's Declaration of Independence had real impact in bringing the concept of equality into political reality. I mean to say that Jefferson made a real contribution to progress, despite contradictions in his life practice. Perhaps, Kant has some of the same deep contradictions of a liberal perspective. Afterall, Kant is famous as , none other than, a dualist. I think he's an agnostic. Can't (Kant) decide whether God exists or not.
Equality as a political virtue in the European tradition arose in the struggle of the bourgeoisie with feudalism. We know well from the American experience that in its original conception this "equality" was limited to white men with property, the bourgeoisie. So, Kant may very well have been an original articulator of the limited concept of equality, and still have held views such as that quoted by Louis Pro.
Kant should be criticized, negatively and positively; the rational kernel of his thought should be extracted and the shell disgarded.
Charles Brown
>>> Jim heartfield <jim at heartfield.demon.co.uk> 12/09 6:11 AM >>>
In message <4.0.1.19981208185242.01044350 at popserver.panix.com>, Louis
Proyect <lnp3 at panix.com> writes
>Immanuel Kant, "Physical Geography", Volume 8 of "Gesammelte Schriften":
>
>The inhabitant of the temperate parts of the world, above all the central
>part, has a more beautiful body, works harder, is more jocular, more
>controlled in his passions, more intelligent than any other race of people
>in the world. That is why at all points in time these peoples have educated
>the others and controlled them with weapons. The Romans, Greeks, the
>ancient Nordic peoples, Genghis Khan, the Turks, Tamurlaine, the Europeans
>after Columbus's discoveries, they have all amazed the southern lands with
>their arts and weapons.
>
>(cited in Eze's "Race and the Enlightenment," p. 64)
I'd like to see Eze's reference, since Kant is amongst the first people to talk of one human race. Certainly that is the guiding principle for the Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Intent, which argues for 'a federation of peoples', 'In such a league every nation, even the smallest, can expect to have secuirty and rights, not by virtue of its own might or its own declarations according to what is right, but from the great federation of peoples alone, from a united might, and from decisions made by the united will' (p34).
To attack Kant who originated the idea of equal rights among nations for racism is bizarre. Our contemporary view that unequl treatment is unacceptable is owing to Kant's influence. If today we extend the principle to such an extent that even Kant is faulted, we are only really paying homage to the power of that idea.
Louis should understand that if he thinks all peoples are equal, then he is a good student of Kant. -- Jim heartfield