I apologize for addressing Jung's choice of words.  I do not care if he called "Negroes" barbaric.  My complaint against Jung was the belief he expressed.  It was lame.  Compared to Freud, I think Jung was generally a real lightweight.  Like I said; read the two passages below then take your pick as to whose vision was clearer.

Yours,
               Larry


-Larry D. Lyons


--- On Sat, 8/7/10, Kardaun M (LK) <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> From: Kardaun M (LK) <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: OFF LIST: that quest for "plain truth," unadorned
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Date: Saturday, August 7, 2010, 9:51 AM
> Hi Larry, now for Freud about women:
> “Das Weib anerkannt die Tatsache seiner Kastration und
> damit auch die Ueberlegenheit des Mannes und seine eigene
> Minderwertigheit, aber es straeubt sich auch gegen diesen
> unliebsamen Sachverhalt.” (“The female [I cannot even
> translate ‘Weib’ into English: in modern German the word
> 'Weib' has a very negative connotation] acknowledges the
> fact of her castration, and with it also the superiority of
> the man and her own inferiority, but she rebels against this
> unwelcome state of affairs.] Etc. etc. I am too lazy to
> quote more. The title is _Ueber die weibliche Sexualitaet_,
> Gesammelte Werke XIV. It is from the years 1925-1931. In
> English the paper may be called something like _On Female
> Sexuality”. I am sure you have it at home.
> 
> If anyone would claim anything of this kind and/or use this
> kind of language nowadays he would certainly make a complete
> fool of himself. (If you don't believe me, have a try with
> some of your female acquaintances: you are very likely to
> get punched in the nose.) But so what? In a text from nearly
> a century ago, what do you expect? I don't mind for a
> second. Freud is great, and so is Jung.
> 
> Maria
> 
> 
> Dr. M.S.J.M. Röell-Kardaun
> Maastricht University
> Faculty of Arts and Social Studies
> Department of Literature
> P.O. Box 616
> 6200 MD Maastricht
> Phone: +31 43 388 2015
> At home: +31 43 3254904
> Email: [log in to unmask]
> ________________________________________
> Van: Discussion Group for Psychology and the Arts [[log in to unmask]]
> namens larry Lyons [[log in to unmask]]
> Verzonden: vrijdag 6 augustus 2010 21:40
> Aan: [log in to unmask]
> Onderwerp: Re: OFF LIST: that quest for "plain truth,"
> unadorned
> 
> Hi Suzy,
> 
> I was exaggerating when I said I toss out everything Jung
> had to say whole hog. I don't know everything Jung had to
> say. It's just that he has been known to indulge in some
> really slovenly thinking. Furthermore, I have nothing
> against discussing racial and cultural differences. It's
> just that you have to be really careful of such things, not
> for the sake of politeness, but because people tend to be
> contaminate their own thinking on this subject with
> self-serving motives.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, if you want to compare Freud's intelligence to
> Jung's in regard to race, here are examples of their writing
> on the subject. First Freud's:
> 
> 　
> 
> 　
> 
> "I shall select as the basis of this comparison the tribes
> which have been described by
> 
> anthropologists as the most backward and miserable of
> savages, the aborigines of Australia...
> 
> 
> 
> The Australian aborigines are regarded as a distinct race,
> showing neither physical nor linguistic relationship with
> their nearest neighbours, the Melanesian, Polynesian and
> Malayan peoples. They do not build houses or permanent
> shelters; they do not cultivate the soil; they keep no
> domestic animals except the dog; they are not even
> acquainted with the art of making pottery. They live
> entirely upon the flesh of all kinds of animals they hunt,
> and upon roots which they dig. Kings or chiefs are unknown
> among them; communal affairs are decided by a council of
> elders. It is highly doubtful whether any religion, in the
> shape of a worship of higher beings, can be attributed to
> them. The tribes in the interior of the continent, who have
> to struggle against the hardest conditions of existence as a
> result of the scarcity of water, appear to be more primitive
> in all respects than those living near the coast.
> 
> We should certainly not expect that the sexual life of
> these poor, naked cannibals would be moral in our sense or
> that their sexual instincts would be subjected to any great
> degree of restriction. Yet we find that they set before
> themselves with the most scrupulous care and the most
> painful severity the aim of avoiding incestuous sexual
> relations. Indeed, their whole social organization seems to
> serve that purpose or to have been brought into relation
> with its attainment."
> 
> 
> 
> (Totem and Tabu, 1912)
> 
> 
> 
> Again, here is Jung's contribution to the subject:
> 
> 
> 
> "The psychological peculiarity of the Americans evince
> features which are accessible to psychoanalytic
> investigation. These features point to energetic sexual
> repressions. The cause for the repression can be found in
> the specific "American Complex," namely, in the living
> together with lower races, especially with Negroes. Living
> together with barbaric races exerts a suggestive effect on
> the laboriously tamed instinct of the white race and tends
> to pull it down. Hence the need for strongly developed
> defensive measures, which precisely show themselves in those
> specific features of American culture."
> 
> 
> 
> (Jahrbuk, 1910)
> 
> 
> 
> Take your pick.
> 
> 
> 
> Yours,
> 
>            
>    Larry
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Larry D. Lyons
> 
> 　
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 　
> 
> 
> It sounds from what I am reading as if noting any
> distinctions, any differences among people necessarily
> classifies the observer of the distinction or difference as
> a racist who is insecure and searching for some fantasy
> pertaining to the concepts of better or worse to make
> himself or herself feel personally elevated.
> 
> Gee!
> 
> While I am sure that humans are far more a like than
> different, still, such a pejorative presumption about anyone
> who observes or dares to comment on differences between or
> among people surely, in effect, squelches any discussion of
> such differences.
> 
> That's why I am wondering why, in fact (not the
> psychological study of the "other" and the neurotic need of
> some people to make judgments of who is better and who is
> worse) -- I am wondering why, in fact, mention of difference
> and distinction is verboten, as it appears to be.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Susan Washington
> 
> On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Daniel Sapen, Ph.D. <[log in to unmask]<[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask]>>
> wrote:
> Thank you for your sanity and collegiality in addressing
> these issues, J.R.
> 
> Barbaric is an atavistic cultural distinction - belonging
> to a distant time.  It was not meant as a moral one. It
> was not even pejorative in intent; it pointed to a cultural
> divide in quality but not necessarily value.  A divide
> Jung eagerly bridged again and again. If Jung is read in
> more than fevered bursts of opprobrium, his idiosyncratic
> fascination and acceptance of cultural diversity (a nice,
> current term) shines through - even through his efforts to
> suss out the psychological flavors of each culture.
> 
> Again, without even a rudimentary openness and awareness of
> context, connotation, and the ability to ask such questions
> as "moral or cultural?", we are stuck with endlessly,
> destructively jerking knees.  Even Diedre Bair, no
> friend to the Jungian world, was able to do this.
> 
> Daniel Sapen, Ph.D.
> [log in to unmask]<[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask]>
> 
> 
> On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 5:04 PM, J. R. Raper wrote:
> 
>      If so, he nonetheless felt
> them  important enough to make an extended to Africa in
> October 1925.  Perhaps  something changed his
> mind?
> 
> During the American trip, 1909, he found the "black 
> servants dressed in formal attire" a very welcome relief
> from the "stiff and  solemn" and greatly virtuous
> Stanley Halls because the  servants had a sense of
> humor.  Jung shared in their laughter  "while
> Freud sat in dignified (perhaps mortified) silence with the
> Halls .  . . ."   [in Deirdre Blair's
> JUNG biography, p. 165].  Perhaps  the servants
> were role-playing for him, but is that likely while they
> were  sternly watched by the Halls, their employers,
> for whom they would be more  likely to play a solemn
> role?
> 
> While on the same trip, he visited St. Elizabeths  in
> Washington, D.C. and was "particularly attentive to 'Negro'
> patients and  claimed to to have analyzed at least
> fifteen of them in the short time he was  there"
> [Blair, p. 231].  Perhaps the most abbreviated analyses
> in history,  but at least he gave them attention.
> 
> Is "barbaric" a moral category or a cultural  one?
> 
> Just saying,
> JR
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: larry    Lyons
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 10:37    PM
> Subject: Re: OFF LIST: that quest for    "plain
> truth," unadorned
> 
> The big difference is that Jung saw blacks as
> "barbaric."       
>    Freud didn't.  In *Totem and Tabu*
> Freud stated that there was no       
>   basic difference between the morality of black
> aborigines and modern         
> Europeans.
> 
> 
> -Larry D. Lyons
> 
> ------------
> 
> 
> Apparently in Europe in 1910, as in     
>     America, Africans were "believed" to be more
> emotionally and sexually         
> expressive than uptight whites.  Certainly the Jazz Age
> and the          Harlem Renaissance
> would be built in large part on that assumption in 
>         the coming decade.  Jung's
> statement was clearly more critical     
>     of the overcompensating white Americans than
> the         
> African-Americans.  To view his comment as a
> source          of knowledge seems
> to me to be more valuable than to use     
>     it as an occasion for judgment and a
> repressive          putdown.
> 
> Still just a thought.
> 
> JR Raper
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Solange Leibovici<[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask]><[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]<[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask]><[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010       
>       2:30 AM <[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: OFF LIST: that       
>       quest for "plain truth," unadorned
> <[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask]>
> 
> <[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask]>
> Dear all,
> it keeps on amazing me how Jungians try     
>         to turn Jung's antisemitism and
> racial psychology into something       
>       positive.
> Isn't that what psychoanalysis calls denial ?
> Solange
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: J. R. Raper<[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask]><[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]<[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask]><[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Saturday, July 31, 2010       
>         6:55 PM <[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: OFF LIST: that       
>         quest for "plain truth,"
> unadorned <[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask]>
> 
> <[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask]>
> I would like to underscore the       
>         following statement by Jason
> Roberts: "Racism is a function of *ranking*, *ordering*,
> *evaluating*             
>   and *making value judgments.*   If I
> were a             
>   cognitive psychologist, I'd focus my research on
> this               
> question:  "What is it that makes the human mind
> seek               
> out differences, and consequently assign values based on
> those               
> differences?"  What is it that makes a human behave
> in               
> accordance with his/her system of values?" <[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask]>
> I would also add that *ranking*, *ordering*, *evaluating*
> and               
> *making value judgments are sometimes a function of the
> so-called             
>   "narcissism of small differences" by which people try
> to set             
>   themselves apart from those to whom they are very
> similar: Greeks           
>     and Turks, Christians and Jews, Christians and
> Muslims, Muslims           
>     and Jews, southern whites and southern blacks,
> Yankees and             
>   Southerners, even New Englanders and
> African-Americans,           
>     etc.  Even more often, such narcissism is
> a protection             
>   against low self-esteem caused by guilt, differences
> in wealth,             
>   education, cultural achievement,
> etc.   <[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask]>
>   <[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask]>
> Certainly the solution to these differences isn't a 
>               biological
> one but a process of education, empathy,     
>           and psychological
> perception.  This is what I think Jung   
>             was getting at in
> his now "infamous" statement. <[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask]>
>   <[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask]>
> Just a thought, <[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask]>
> JR Raper   <[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask]>
>   <[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask]>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: jason roberts<[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask]><[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]<[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask]><[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Friday, July 30, 2010       
>           3:18 PM <[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: OFF LIST: that       
>           quest for "plain truth,"
> unadorned <[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask]>
> 
> <[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask]>
> Suzy, Larry & All, <[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask]>
>   <[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask]>
> Question:  In terms of psychological or
> physiological           
>       differences between the races (or what
> we choose to call           
>       "races")--suppose we discover that
> there *is*             
>     a measurable difference between them.  So
> what?               
>    Conversely, suppose we discover that there
> *is no* measurable           
>       difference between them.  Then
> what?  <[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask]>
>   <[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask]>
> The issue with/problem of/debate about race can not
> be               
>   solved by capital-S Science.  At least, that
> manner             
>     of scientific work which sets out to either
> discover or             
>     debunk differences between races.  See,
> we're operating on           
>       the (erroneous) assumption that if a
> Nobel Prize-winning           
>       psychologist or geneticist or
> anthropologist comes out and says,     
>             "Hold on! Here is
> conclusive proof that we're all       
>           the same!" then the
> public will straighten up and fly       
>           right.  Become
> "colorblind."  Not so. <[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask]>
>   <[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask]>
> Racism is a function of *ranking*, *ordering*,
> *evaluating*             
>     and *making value
> judgments.*   If I were a     
>             cognitive
> psychologist, I'd focus my research on this   
>              
> question:  "What is it that makes the human mind
> seek               
>   out differences, and consequently assign values based
> on those             
>     differences?"  What is it that makes a
> human behave in           
>       accordance with his/her system of
> values? <[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask]>
>   <[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask]>
> If new research came out tomorrow that reinforced the 
>                 old
> stereotypes (e.g. Asians are better at math, blacks
> can               
>   dance better than whites), I wouldn't be
> particularly             
>     shocked, or care.  Differences abound on
> this               
>   giant spinning rock we call Earth.  How I treat
> my fellow             
>     human being has nothing to do with a crude
> system of             
>     classification. <[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask]>
>   <[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask]>
> Re: repression.  Some generalizations may be
> valid               
>   about race & repression (grounded in cultural
> norms); but I           
>       could cite enough examples to confound
> the theory.  For         
>         example, I'm from a
> middle-class, "traditional" Christian     
>             background; I'm a
> white man from Texas!  My girlfriend   
>               happens to
> be from Eritrea (fmrly of Ethiopia ).  Of the two 
>                 of
> us, she's far more repressed.  <[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask]>
>   <[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask]>
> Best,
> Jason L. Roberts <[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask]>
> 
> 
> ___________________________________<[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask]>
> 
> From: suzy liz           
>       <[log in to unmask]<[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask]>>
> To: [log in to unmask]<[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Thu, July 29, 2010         
>         11:07:31 AM
> Subject: Re: OFF LIST: that       
>           quest for "plain truth,"
> unadorned
> 
> Thank you for           
>       your response, Larry.
> 
> I have a few thoughts I want to       
>           share with you, as well.
> 
> 1) From my minimal understanding       
>           of how "race" is
> sometimes examined
> in terms of psychology or         
>         literature, racial distinctions
> are far more
> cultural than           
>       biological. However, in terms of
> culture, what we call
> "race"             
>     can connote considerable distinctions.
> 
> 2) All that said,           
>       however, I am wondering if you saw the
> news reported
> earlier             
>     this year in National Geographic and in the
> New York             
>     Times,
> too, about the recent discovery of a genetic   
>               distinction
> between the
> descendants of humans whose       
>           antecedents immigrated
> out of Africa in
> the first prehistoric         
>         migration -- when Neanderthals
> still inhabited
> the Middle             
>     East --  and humans whose antecedents did
> not immigrate           
>       out
> of Africa until after the Neanderthals had passed
> into               
>   history.
> According to the reports, Caucasions, Asians and 
>                
> Hispanics, who
> descend from the earliest immigrants from   
>               Africa,
> share with our
> Neanderthal antecedents anywhere from     
>             7 - 25 percent of
> our genetic
> make up. By comparison, humans       
>           who descend from Africans
> who did not
> immigrate at that time         
>         do not have the Neanderthal
> genes.
> 
> These new findings do         
>         indicate a genetic distinction,
> although not
> necessarily a           
>       huge distinction. Not being a
> geneticist, I am unable         
>         to
> evaluate in any meaningful way the significance of
> such               
>   distinctions.
> But, as a reader of news, I observe that   
>              
> contemporary science has
> revealed this genetic         
>         distinction.
> 
> 3) Regarding what you describe as Jung's   
>               derogatory
> statements about
> race and sexuality, speaking       
>           strictly, as a white
> lady, I do not
> observe anecdotally -- or         
>         see any examples in history,
> either --  that
> white men             
>     are more sexually repressed than black men.
> What are             
>     the
> origins of this presumption, that seems absurd to me, 
>                 that
> white men
> are sexually repressed? Where is the evidence   
>               of their
> sexual
> repression, especially in comparison to     
>             African men?
> 
> AND IF white men are more sexually repressed   
>               than
> African men
> (although I think that difference is purely   
>               mythical,
> with no basis in
> fact) why is sexual repression       
>           considered "powerful"?
> 
> Looking forward to your         
>         responses.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Suzy
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jul             
>     27, 2010 at 11:29 PM, larry Lyons < [log in to unmask]<[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask]>> 
>                
> wrote:
> > Hi Suzy,
> > I'm replying to this privately     
>             because apparently
> it got lost in the shuffle.  For     
>             whatever reason,
> it hasn't shown up on the list.  It     
>             happens
> sometimes.
> >
> > Anyway, I answered your       
>           questions within the text
> below:
> >
> >
> >> Hi,           
>       Larry --
> >>
> >> In your dismissive (we'll call     
>             it that) remarks
> about Jung,
> >> and from
> >>             
>     some of his astonishing statements, too, which
> you               
>   have
> >> shared, I am
> >> guessing you are         
>         tossing out his ideas whole
> hog?
> >>
> >>             
>     Oui?
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> > The ansswer is         
>         Oui.
> >
> > ---
> >
> >
> >> Is that the         
>         generally accepted view of
> Jung's work lately?
> >
> >               
>   ==
> >
> > The answer to that is no.  Jung is far 
>                 more
> popular in America than Freud. I'm an     
>             oddball.
> >
> > ==
> >
> >>
> >> As             
>     you have seen, I was fairly astonished at
> the               
>   notion,
> >> which you
> >> mentioned earlier in       
>           this exchange, that 1)
> white folks
> >> have           
>       repressed
> >> ("tamed") sexuality and 2) that repression 
>                
> allows us to,
> >> therefore,
> >> advance in         
>         terms of . . .dominating other
> folks who are
> >>             
>     perceived (by
> >> psychologists of the vanilla flavor?)   
>               as less
> sexually
> >> repressed.
> >>
> >>             
>     Since I have very little knowledge of
> matters             
>     psychological
> >> (sorry), I
> >> am interested         
>         in knowing the origins -- within
> the field
> >>             
>     of
> >> psychological theory - of this vision, which
> you               
>   have
> >> credited to
> >>             
>     Jung.
> >
> >>
> >> Any theory about the       
>           (allegedly) controlled
> sexuality of
> >> white           
>       folks
> >> being a force by which whites dominate other 
>                
> races seems
> >> quite ironic
> >> in light of the         
>         historic view in the United
> States of a
> >>             
>     presumed
> >> "danger" to whites from the sexuality of 
>                
> African American
> >> men.
> >>
> >>             
>     ?
> >>
> >> Suzy
> >
> > You're asking the         
>         wrong guy.  I am not
> interested in race at all.  The     
>             way I learned it
> is that there are not enough distinct     
>             differences among
> humans to properly identify race.  I   
>               mean,
> compared to the races of dogs, for
> instance--Chihuahuas,         
>         Great Danes, Poodles, Saint
> Bernards, etc--the differences among     
>             humans are barely
> noticeable.  Therefore, the subject is a   
>               waste of
> time.  If Jung thought it was fun to think about 
>                 such
> things, I have no objection.  What I can't stand
> is               
>   the solemnity of his writing on it.  It is so
> damned la de             
>     dah considering the trivial nature of the
> subject.  To make         
>         matters worse, Jung was
> white.  He should recuse himself     
>             from passing
> unflattering judgment on other races.  He   
>               should be
> like Freud who took the trouble to recruit!
>   women to           
>       become psychoanalysts so they could
> contribute ideas on female         
>         psychology.
> >
> > Yours,
> >               
>                
>               Larry
> >
> >
> >
> >
>