A Dialogue on Race

[Chris Jenkins]

That's what Barak Obama says he wants to have, and I'm all for it. It seems, however, that there are some serious disparities in point of reference for that conversation.

 

As I've mentioned in previous threads, my two best friends are black and arabic. This isn't indicative of my enlightened liberal diversity, it's just the result of happy accidents regarding geographic location and similar industries. In an ongoing conversation about Obama, and Jeremiah Wright, I discovered something a bit disheartening.

 

It's been my experience in predominantly white culture that approximately 1/10 actually harbors some sort of racist attitude or mentality. My black friend reckons it's closer to 1/10 that do not, and considers me, and all my friends and family, to be statistical anomalies (or that some of them are not what they seem).

 

What the hard numbers are doesn't really concern me. What does is that there is a division based on perception of intent, and as long as that perception is there, it doesn't matter the vast advancements made in equality, because a sizable segment of American blacks still assume that a white person is racist by default, that it is some sort of built in "disease".

 

The issue of perception of intent is an important one, and Jeremiah Wright may end up being the downfall of Obama's campaign, which I'll deplore, because he's my favorite of the candidates available, despite some fairly sizable ideological differences that we have. I fully believe that America is ready for a black president, but the white majority is certainly not going get behind someone they suspect may have an angry grudge to settle, without just cause, and at the detriment to the nation at large. When I hear my black friends telling me that "they" don't want Obama to win because he is black, I have to ask them, "who? Who is they?" The implication obviously is white people, yet the fact is, Obama's supporters are predominantly white.

 

Even if every black person in America voted for Obama, that would still only represent 35-40 million votes (estimates vary). However, when paring away black Republicans, felons, and other potential votes who are either unregistered, disinterested, or at policy odds with Obama, that number becomes substantially smaller. Better than 75% of Obama's support has come from white people.

 

When I hear Jeremiah Wright speak, I hear the anger, but also the manipulation. He addresses real issues within the "black community", but then uses them, along with fiery rhetoric and historical disinformation, to justify statements and actions which are inflammatory and often downright racist. A specific example occurred in speech on C-Span yesterday morning. He referenced the "3/5ths" section of the constitution, using it to reflect a historical american undervaluation of the personhood of blacks. That couldn't be a more incorrect representation of that verbage. 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fifths_Compromise

 

Anti-slavery abolitionists wanted no slave to be counted in the southern states, for purposes of representation, in order to gain a majority on congress, and vote down slavery. Pro-slavery interests wanted all slaves to count in the population, gaining them greater representation (by white plantation owners, of course), and thus keeping slavery in effect. 

 

"It was an anti-slavery northerner, James Wilson of Pennsylvania, who proposed the three-fifths compromise. The effect was to limit the South's political representation and its ability to protect the institution of slavery. The great black abolitionist Frederick Douglass understood this. He called the three-fifths clause "a downright disability laid upon the slaveholding states" which deprived them of "two-fifths of their natural basis of representation." "

 

Separatist extremists fan the flame of division here, and create an environment of fear and mistrust. Until this is resolved, an HONEST dialogue about race will not occur.

[Ian Pollard]

From what I've read, Jeremiah Wright has something of a propensity for making extreme statements. Combined with his loquaciousness, he's a dangerous person for a politician to be associated with. He seems only vaguely aware of how much he's put his foot in it and the damage he's continuing to do. Obama has distanced himself from him, and rightly so I think. I've not read about Obama making statements evenly vaguely on-side with Wright.

I don't think you can make too much of Wright being his pastor, either. When I used to go to church there were plenty of people there -- indeed people in the bishopric -- who were miles outside my own politics. I was there for cloying spiritual sentiment, not the social politics. :)

This story is a lot of fuss about nothing. Obama walks, talks, and quacks like a pretty boring centre-left politician. I don't think, if you elect him, you'll see extremist policies. I agree with you, Chris; I do think Obama is miles in front of McCain or Clinton as a presidential candidate. He just seems credible, where the other two really do not.

I also agree that America is ready for a black President. Why not?

xxxianxx

--
"The despotism of custom is everywhere the standing hindrance to human advancement. "

-- John Stuart Mill

[ornamentalmind]

In fact, as a lilly white one, I'd guess that rather than 1/10 or 10/1
it is more like one white in 50 who doesn't harbor some sort of bias,
if even that.
Further, as said white bread, I'd be more pro Obama IF he fully
embraced Wright. Wright doesn't couch words in such social
pleasantries like the more common social lies. What I've seen of him,
he is MUCH more honest and 'right on' than ALL of the current 3 'front
leader' politicians.
So, I let my freak flag fly!

[Chris Jenkins]

So, you support inflammatory rhetoric, separatism, manipulation of history to support a baseless claim of victimhood, and count it as naught that the majority of Obama's supporters are white?

 

You really think that only one white in 50 is not racially biased? Really? Where do you live, and what time are the Klan rallies?

 

I don't even KNOW a white person who is racist. In all white crowds, I never hear racial jokes, slurs, or other denigration. My social circles are naturally diverse, as is the population, and interracial relationships of all sort are so common as to not even be noticed or commented on.

 

So, Orn, where is this dark hellhole of hatred you seem to live in? You must have got all of 'em, because they're not here.

[Chris Jenkins]

I think the biggest weakness among the crowd who follows the race baiters is that they seem unwilling to acknowledge that someone who does not support Obama might do so on policy, as opposed to race, which is what the Wrights of this world are arguing. I like Obama as a candidate, but know for a fact some of my friends are concerned about his stances on gun control and other liberal policies, valid concerns for a Senator known as the MOST liberal member of the Senate. I like his populist stance, his elegant speech craft, and I get the feeling that he would do well in diplomatic negotiations. I'm concerned about his economic policies, but am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, and hope for another Kennedy.

 

Race based power mongers make every issue about race, whether or not it actually is. White people are not racist by default. Sorry, I reject that premise entirely, based on its utter lack of supporting evidence.

 

Ornamental Mind, I've yet to hear your response. Do you know or associate with white racists, or are you simply parroting the doomsday victimhood speeches of Wright and others?

[frantheman]

As a non-US American I am more than occasionally bemused and puzzled
by US-American politics. Black-white relations and their history
remain a defining part of the US public psyche. The US is a multi-
racial society, but when US Americans talk about a dialogue on race,
they're nearly always talking about black and white. One of the points
(ironically) that Wright raised in 2003 was US treatment of citizens
of Indian and Japanese descent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Jeremiah_Wright_sermon_controversy), but, that aside, his issue is
also basically the black-white one.

If his association with Wright costs Obama the Democratic nomination,
then it will simply be a further proof that the poison caused by the
history of the black minority in the US and its fraught relationship
with the white majority is still capable of massively effecting US
politics, 143 years after the Civil War ended. And if Clinton goes on
to subsequently win the presidency, how long will it take before
someone comes up with the explanation - in old-fashioned language -
rather a broad than a nigger?

Looked at from this side of the Atlantic, Obama seems to be a fine
man, who would make a good president. In fact, the quality of all the
top three seems to be unusually high this time. That said, it still
seems to be a very strange democratic system which demands that any
serious candidate must spend many millions of dollars in order to be
taken seriously. In the US, candidates really do have to "buy their
ticket". But maybe I'm just an ignorant European who doesn't really
understand it all - like negative advertising, the priority of
rhetoric over content, the cult of personality, etc. An unusual way to
choose the incumbent of the most powerful office in the world (at
least at the moment).

If US America is, most importantly, an idea - as has often been
asserted - then it really needs to transcend the black-white issue.
Only then, perhaps, can it even begin to crown its good with
brotherhood from sea to shining sea.

Francis

> > -- John Stuart Mill- Zitierten Text ausblenden -
>
> - Zitierten Text anzeigen -

[Kierkecraig]

I just wanted to chime in on the issue of how many whites are
racists. Thats a hard question to answer and can probably be answered
more accurately on a regional level than on a national level. I think
the racial issues are hotter and more prominent in areas where there
are actually large racial divides (e.g. Georgia).

I've lived in Idaho for my entire growing up life. Lived in other
places for short stints, but never anywhere that would cause to pause
when someone asks me where I'm from. I've never lived anywhere like
Georgia where there are two rival races. However, I've lived in
Calgary Cananda where there are 20 rival races.

I never gave racial issues a second thought. Never had to, because I
never had to face them. We had hispanics living in my hometown, but
since there were so few of them they never made a huge impact on me.
In other words, there weren't enough of them for me to have any
motivation to stereotype them. I had a hispanic friend, but I never
thought of him has "hispanic." I just thought of him as my friend.

I never gave race a second thought until I got to law school. Now,
not to sound like some redneck conservative commentator, but I've
never had race shoved down my throat before like I have here, and I'm
telling you now, Its not pleasant for someone who isn't used to it.
No one likes to be told how racist, privileged, hateful, and guilty
you are for being a white person. Thats definitely not the spoon full
of sugar that helps the medicine go down. I've never been hateful or
mean to anyone just because they were born a different race. I've
never been hateful or mean to anyone for any other reason really
either. Nor have any of my friends or family. And yet here at the
law school they have all sorts of great techniques for telling you why
your friends and family are really racist, and we just don't know it
yet. Overtime, this has, regrettably, caused me to agree with them.
But if its true that I'm racist, and I just don't know it, then there
is nothing I can do about it. Its just who I am, and thus no point in
talking and talking and talking like they do here at the law school.
Either white people are capable of being kind and generous towards
those of other races, or we must go to war. Either way, sometimes I
just want to get up and shout, SHUT UP WITH ALL THE RACIAL CRAP!
There are so many more important things to talk about today other than
race. But if we (as a society) continue to insist that there isn't
something more important to talk about, then I don't want to talk at
all, I say we fight instead.

[gabbydott]

Good topic, Chris. You see, I’ve been following the U.S. media’s use
of the word "race" during this election campaign. To be precise, the
race race. It’s been built up continuously. And its full effect isn’t
even out yet. You see, in Germany we normally don’t use the word
"race" when we speak of people, only if we speak of animals we do. We
would speak of ethnic groups or people with a non-German family
background. That sort of stuff. Separatism you might call it, but
maybe it explains my fascination with how you deal with the "undivided
truth".

[Lee]

Although we both speak from persoanl subjective experiance here Chris
I'm with you. Here in the UK it would be foolish to say that racial
thought has gone, but I would really question the percentage, and
perhaps I am naive in this matter but 1 in 10 seems pessimisticly and
un realisticly high to me, and certianly does not eqaute to my
experiances.

You are correct Chris, if this is the 'understanding' of white on
black racism that our black communities have, and if ideed it is a
false one, then meaningfull dialouge will be very hard to come by.

On 29 Apr, 19:02, "Chris Jenkins" <digitalprecip...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So, you support inflammatory rhetoric, separatism, manipulation of history
> to support a baseless claim of victimhood, and count it as naught that the
> majority of Obama's supporters are white?
>
> You really think that only one white in 50 is not racially biased? Really?
> Where do you live, and what time are the Klan rallies?
>
> I don't even KNOW a white person who is racist. In all white crowds, I never
> hear racial jokes, slurs, or other denigration. My social circles are
> naturally diverse, as is the population, and interracial relationships of
> all sort are so common as to not even be noticed or commented on.
>
> So, Orn, where is this dark hellhole of hatred you seem to live in? You must
> have got all of 'em, because they're not here.
>

> On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 1:53 PM, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com>

> > > -- John Stuart Mill- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[archytas]

I think Craig gets a lot right on this one. I also think Obama's
pastor gets a lot right and that Obama has written himself out of any
good I thought about him by appeal to 'all Americans', itself a crass
appeal similar to those raised in racism about the 'in-group'.
Whatever it is we label as racism is deep set and I've found it
everywhere. The claptrap of awareness raising and so on is often very
demeaning if one has worked hard on trying to be fair and decent and
sticks in my craw. 84% of Brits are deeply concerned about
immigration and it seems this has much to do with not being able to
improve our own lot and the failure of most immigrants to integrate.
This doesn't make us racist - there are realities in jobs, wages,
housing and so on and in not being able to vote to prevent the
immigration and raise our own standards through education and
training. There are real fears about the Islamic vote and so on that
run against the secularisation we were achieving. The worst racism
I've seen in recent years is not amongst western whites, and whatever
our problems in such respects we have legislated quite well. Nearly
all the worst racism I have seen of late comes from non-whites. This
doesn't stop me thinking there is deep racism in foreign policy, but
it does make me annoyed when politically correct fools get holier-than-
thou on issues they don't understand.

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[ornamentalmind]

Chris said: "So, you support inflammatory rhetoric, separatism,

manipulation of history to support a baseless claim of victimhood, and
count it as naught that the majority of Obama's supporters are white?"

Orn replies: Chris, I'm sure that isn't what I posted. Clearly that is
what you think. If you wish to start a thread on that, cool!

Chris said: "You really think that only one white in 50 is not
racially biased? Really?"

Orn replies: Chris, while this is of course only a guess, "yes" is my
answer, again.

Chris said: "Where do you live, and what time are the Klan rallies?"

Orn replies: Chris, even though I assume your question is rhetorical,
as I've posted, I live in the US's 'whitest city' now and was born in
the mid-west. As a youth, I saw numerous 'white only' signs and in mid-
life I saw even more overt prejudice when I moved to the South. This
was in the mid 1960s.

There are photos of over 10,000 KKK members marching down the main
street in the city where I was born, all wearing their 'uniforms' with
pointed hoods. I remember my father and grandfather talking about the
'coons' and the 'jungle bunnies' as a kid. As mentioned elsewhere, my
high school only had one black and one mulatto. Military school only
had black maids walking dogs and driving the limos, other than the
crown princes perhaps.
Additionaly, one of the main Klaverns was formed in my home state.

Chris said: "I don't even KNOW a white person who is racist. In all

white crowds, I never hear racial jokes, slurs, or other denigration.
My social circles are naturally diverse, as is the population, and
interracial relationships of all sort are so common as to not even be
noticed or commented on. So, Orn, where is this dark hellhole of
hatred you seem to live in? You must have got all of 'em, because
they're not here."

Orn replies: Well Chris, I have made no claim about any 'dark hellhole
of hatred', even though I know how tempting the use of hyperbole is!
(..along with "...inflammatory rhetoric, separatism, manipulation of
history to support ..." too?)

What I DID post was about those with "...some sort of bias..".
To have some sort of bias, one does not ever have to tell (or even
know) racial jokes, slurs (not even need to know such things) or even
show any denigration at all. Neither does it have to "... even be
noticed or commented on."

Having been born in a different age of the US (during WWII), when such
bigotry was more obvious, I've had to do a lot of soul searching.

I've weeded out the vast majority of prejudice within my psyche,
starting when I was 3 years old when I heard my dad and grandfather
say those things. I felt and knew something wasn't quite right about
them doing that at the time. My mother was more 'enlightened' in her
approach. Yet, having been from an even earlier generation, over time,
I could see some small remanents in her view. She, of course, would
deny this entirely. I wish I could. When I first, in my 30s or so,
realized I had a little bit left, I was shocked, big time! I remember
the moment 'like it was yesterday'.

As I said, I've done about everything I could to rid myself of any
form of prejudice and/or xenophobia with some luck but not fully. I
doubt if my internal process is at all/very obvious to anyone else.
Whenever a shadow of concern arises when I see a group from a
different culture approach me late at night ... I watch my fear come
and go. I clense, yet again, whatever feeling doesn't appear to be
practical and appropriate. There is almost nothing left, but then
again, I make no claim about being pure other than in conscious
intention when it comes to such things.

So Chris, if you see no prejudice at all, I'm happy for you. In final
analysis, I haven't been speaking about anything overt at all, just
that which 'exists'.

On Apr 29, 11:02 am, "Chris Jenkins" <digitalprecip...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> So, you support inflammatory rhetoric, separatism, manipulation of history
> to support a baseless claim of victimhood, and count it as naught that the
> majority of Obama's supporters are white?
>
> You really think that only one white in 50 is not racially biased? Really?
> Where do you live, and what time are the Klan rallies?
>
> I don't even KNOW a white person who is racist. In all white crowds, I never
> hear racial jokes, slurs, or other denigration. My social circles are
> naturally diverse, as is the population, and interracial relationships of
> all sort are so common as to not even be noticed or commented on.
>
> So, Orn, where is this dark hellhole of hatred you seem to live in? You must
> have got all of 'em, because they're not here.
>

> On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 1:53 PM, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com>

[ornamentalmind]

An article for gabby to learn from:
http://racerelations.about.com/b/2006/05/18/german-government-spokesman-warns-blacks-stay-out-of-eastern-germany.htm

...along with a term I hear here in the US from those of the germantic
culture..."schwarz", or schwarza...etc.

> > about race will not occur.- Hide quoted text -

[ornamentalmind]

Chris said: "...Ornamental Mind, I've yet to hear your response. Do

you know or associate with white racists, or are you simply parroting
the doomsday victimhood speeches of Wright and others?"

Orn responds: Without expanding on what is clearly "... inflammatory
rhetoric, separatism, manipulation of history...", I will point out
that your first post to me was on:
Apr 29, 11:02 am
and the second post, which includes the above verbate was posted on:
Apr 29, 11:28 am

I hope this is merely an attempt at generating more discussion rather
than an accurate representation of your character.
Either way, I find it distasteful.

On Apr 29, 11:28 am, "Chris Jenkins" <digitalprecip...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> > -- John Stuart Mill- Hide quoted text -

[Kierkecraig]

Orn,
You speak of ridding racism from your heart as if it were some
religious sacrament. What you speak of as racism in your heart isn't
racism, but guilt. The White Majority in America have been thoroughly
convinced that they are a thoroughly racist race and that racism runs
in their blood like original sin. You seeing a group of thugs walking
down the street with their pants around their knees (who happen to be
black) giving you pause doesn't make you racist, it makes you smart.

[Chris Jenkins]

Bravo, Orn. You demonstrated my point perfectly.

 

Which of us in this exchange sounds like they want to have an honest dialogue on race? I pulled out all the stops for dramatic hyperbole and inflammatory rhetoric, and you civilly and rationally shared your opinion, your experience, and your desire for positive change.

 

Guess who was playing Reverend Wright in this scenario.

 

I applaud you for the fact that you even maintained a sense of discourse, and I'm glad of that, because despite the admitted baiting, you are exactly the kind of person who I'm hoping to find a sense of understanding from. I have some serious questions regarding this entire dynamic that require some real honesty, and a lack of emotionally discharged distraction. Here's my problem:

 

1. You witnessed a lot of discrimination in the past. I understand that. I wasn't around in the 60's, so I don't know how it was then. My parents could probably give me a better perspective of that. I am around now. Growing up, we learned that all people are the same, and we didn't hear the slurs you mention. There was certainly nothing overt, but I suppose that perhaps some of that percieved racist attitude had begun to be expunged, and others who might have been overt perhaps began to hide it. The end result is that I am from a generation who never thought of minorities in a racist way, find the concept to be abhorrent, and then am punished for being white, and accused of being racist, because some black people are angry over things that occurred when you were a kid. Why should I be the one to pay the price for their sins?

 

2. Honestly, looking around you now, how many white people do you know who are overtly racist? Not 40 years ago, today. How many white people do you know who are covertly racist, but have tripped your attention? That's not rhetorical, I really want to get a feel for it. I have zero of the first, and maybe one or two in a wide swath of social circle in the second (covert). The only place that I constantly hear about racism, or racial issues, is in the media, and from a certain group of fairly militant liberation theologists (laymen though they may be), and one of them is my dear friend, who doesn't seem to see the inherent contradiction in that half his friend circle is white, and we are all very close.

 

3. Painting so broad a swath as to relate general bias with racism devalues the argument. I'm biased towards 6' tall redheaded former ballerinas turned research librarians, but that's not a general statement of a social belief or perspective. That's attraction, the most common form of bias. Racism is a different beast, and to juxtapose the two presents an unwinnable conundrum; we cannot change the fact that we have biases. They are much more variant than race, although race may play a part in them. I've always been fond of Irish and Hispanic women (I'm guessing it's the fiery temper). Oh crap, I just made a race based generalization. Does that now mean that I am contributing to a greater social evil? Apologies for the minor sarcasm, but that's what's happening here: those who benefit by a heightened sense of conflict and fear perpetuate that dynamic by attaching it to ethereal concepts which are unquantifiable. The real social issue of racial equality has been replaced by the church of anti-racist racism, whose Lucifer is a racist white society who will smile in your face but always secretly hate you. This mindset will never allow an honest dialogue on race, because it would divest them of their power to admit that massive equalization that has occurred, and the primarily race neutral society that my generation represents. 

 

Thoughts? 

[Chris Jenkins]

Apologies, Orn. It was baiting.

[Chris Jenkins]

This is what I'm speaking of. It's a religion, not social science. The believers take it on faith that white people are racist. Period.

[ornamentalmind]

Craig, again, you see what you see.

In a way, it is religious to clarify my conscious which does include
such ignorant notions as racial prejudice. It has not been guilt for
me in a long time, if ever.
Again, I said nothing about "... seeing a group of thugs walking down

the street with their pants around their knees (who happen to be

black)...". This is what you projected upon my statement.
And, I've done enough introspection to, at the very least, know the
difference between guilt and unwarranted aversion.

> > intention when it comes to such things.- Hide quoted text -

[ornamentalmind]

1. You witnessed a lot of discrimination in the past. I understand
that. I
wasn't around in the 60's, so I don't know how it was then. My parents
could
probably give me a better perspective of that.

*** Orn inserts: Much of what I related happened in the 40's.

I am around now. Growing up,
we learned that all people are the same, and we didn't hear the slurs
you
mention.

*** Orn inserts: I was not the one who first mentioned 'slurs'. I
believe it was you. And, for the record, I was taught, verbally at
least that 'all people are the same' just like you were. Such rhetoric
seldom matches behavior nor the result of introspection.

There was certainly nothing overt, but I suppose that perhaps some
of that percieved racist attitude had begun to be expunged, and others
who
might have been overt perhaps began to hide it. The end result is that
I am
from a generation who never thought of minorities in a racist way,
find the
concept to be abhorrent, and then am punished for being white, and
accused
of being racist, because some black people are angry over things that
occurred when you were a kid. Why should I be the one to pay the price
for
their sins?

*** Orn suggests: If you in fact are not racist, how are you punished?
There have always been and most likely will always be angry people.

2. Honestly, looking around you now, how many white people do you know
who
are overtly racist?

*** Orn inserts: Neither I nor you, until now, have mentioned "overtly
racist".

Not 40 years ago, today. How many white people do you
know who are covertly racist, but have tripped your attention? That's
not
rhetorical, I really want to get a feel for it.

*** Covertly? In that I would have to guess?..as I did?...most who I
talk with. Some of the youngsters may not be, can't tell for sure.

I have zero of the first,
and maybe one or two in a wide swath of social circle in the second
(covert). The only place that I constantly hear about racism, or
racial
issues, is in the media, and from a certain group of fairly militant
liberation theologists (laymen though they may be), and one of them is
my
dear friend, who doesn't seem to see the inherent contradiction in
that half
his friend circle is white, and we are all very close.

*** Then, I would suggest that you are the one who lives in an
atipical grouping of people. On a global scale, racism continues to be
rampant.

3. Painting so broad a swath as to relate general bias with racism
devalues
the argument. I'm biased towards 6' tall redheaded former ballerinas
turned
research librarians, but that's not a general statement of a social
belief
or perspective. That's attraction, the most common form of bias.
Racism is a
different beast, and to juxtapose the two presents an unwinnable
conundrum;
we cannot change the fact that we have biases.

*** Orn suggests: When one is NOT attracted (racism), using your
criteria, that too could be a common form of bias.

They are much more variant
than race, although race may play a part in them. I've always been
fond of
Irish and Hispanic women (I'm guessing it's the fiery temper). Oh
crap, I
just made a race based generalization. Does that now mean that I am
contributing to a greater social evil? Apologies for the minor
sarcasm, but
that's what's happening here: those who benefit by a heightened sense
of
conflict and fear perpetuate that dynamic by attaching it to ethereal
concepts which are unquantifiable. The real social issue of racial
equality
has been replaced by the church of anti-racist racism, whose Lucifer
is
a racist white society who will smile in your face but always secretly
hate
you. This mindset will never allow an honest dialogue on race, because
it
would divest them of their power to admit that massive equalization
that has
occurred, and the primarily race neutral society that my generation
represents.

*** Orn inserts: If, in fact, your generation is 'primarily race
neutral'...then much of the overt idealism I exhibited while marching
in the streets, getting beaten by the cops who took off their name
badges and general stance I've taken may have been of some use.
I do know that the US "news", not just FOX, continues to raise 'race'
as an issue. Yes, perhaps their motive is economic. And, I'm sure that
the result(s) [larger audiences] is not an accident nor representitive
of people who are, in fact, 'race neutral'.

[archytas]

My red-headed former ballerina was only 5 ft 4 Chris. Fortunately,
she has a preference for a short, squat, mad cricket-player. Eastern
Europe is full of white racists. There are few left in the west in
such an overt way. We have missed something in the turn against
racism and in part this has to do with shame. We all have 'in group'
abilities which can be good and cause problems. We have never done
much with what we might call the 'lumpen proletariat' - people who
have few skills to offer, and have quite mad economics. I'm tired of
race issues, gender issues and so on. The lack of honest dialogue is
very wide reaching.

[Vamadevananda]

Indeed, I see Chris and OM are essentially talking past each other,
and escalating at that !

OM is talking in spiritual terms : Liberating consciousness of all
bias, inclinations, impressions, etc.

Chris is talking of acknowledging smiles and honest laughters, with
people of all kinds.

And, Neil, I am basically a pacifist, when I remember and manage to be
one ! Not when I am at work and am directed by its mission.

> > of people who are, in fact, 'race neutral'.- Hide quoted text -

[Chris Jenkins]

Orn, I know I pulled your chain a bit, and I apologize. I thought it was necessary to both illustrate the inflammatory diatribes I am contesting, and to get a sense of where you are. That being said...

 

Answers interspersed...

On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 9:50 PM, ornamentalmind <ornamen...@yahoo.com> wrote:

 

*** Orn inserts: Much of what I related happened in the 40's.

 

Exactly. These are boogiemen of the past, the long past. You cannot expect those of us in our 30's to gracefully accept being yelled at and about actions committed by people before we were born...and in your example, before my parents were even born.

 

I am around now. Growing up,
we learned that all people are the same, and we didn't hear the slurs
you
mention.

*** Orn inserts: I was not the one who first mentioned 'slurs'. I
believe it was you. And, for the record, I was taught, verbally at
least that 'all people are the same' just like you were. Such rhetoric
seldom matches behavior nor the result of introspection.

 

I can see that. However, in my upbringing, the rhetoric did match the behaviour. Ray Glover was the first black family friend I recall meeting, at the age of 6. My Dad, who was the volunteer pastor at the Christian Servicemen's Center, selected Ray to be the choir leader, and he was frequently over for dinner and fellowship. He was from the deep south, and had a cultural upbringing I didn't understand at all. Being in western Europe for most of my formative years, I didn't have the "insert race here"-American perspective that seems so common here. Whites were whites, blacks were blacks, and everyone spoke with an English accent.

 

*** Orn suggests: If you in fact are not racist, how are you punished?
There have always been and most likely will always be angry people.

 

I am punished by a pre-existing assumption that I am racist because I am white. Sometimes that punishment comes in the form of an act of agression from an embittered black man, but most commonly it comes from a lack of ability to build substantive and trusting relationships across racial boundaries in order to work for solutions to the socioeconomic realities which perpetuate the disparities. The angry people perpetuate their message to the impressionable, and spread their anger far and wide. It has an impact on the community.

 

I've been exploring this topic at length with my friend, and in fact, just got off the phone with him. He noted something which was important contextually: There have been more years in this country in which slavery was allowed than not. That presents a prevailing mindset that shapes the perspective of the "white philosophies" this country was founded on. I affirmed that perspective, hadn't really heard it framed that way before, but then noted that every generation here represents a larger number of people, as the population expands. Therefore, there are more white people in America than there ever has been. A very substantial chunk of the population was born after the civil rights movement, and believes in the concept of color blindness and racial equality. We are the group with which minorities must bond to bury the past, and build a new and balanced social order. The separatist element of society does not fight for equality, they fight for separatism, which is not a socially equanimitable philosophy. They hinder and deny positive forward progression because it threatens their ideals, and their power base. In short, they are not part of the solution, they are part of the problem.  

 

2. Honestly, looking around you now, how many white people do you know
who
are overtly racist?

 

*** Orn inserts: Neither I nor you, until now, have mentioned "overtly

racist".

 

No, but I needed to in order to quantify the question. It's often offered as rebuttal that the lack of overt racism is simply due to an increase in covert racism, and I wanted to get a feel for where your experiences lay in each.

 

 Not 40 years ago, today. How many white people do you
know who are covertly racist, but have tripped your attention? That's
not
rhetorical, I really want to get a feel for it.

*** Covertly? In that I would have to guess?..as I did?...most who I
talk with. Some of the youngsters may not be, can't tell for sure.

 

OK, so you believe that most of the white people you talk with are covertly racist. On what do you base this perception, if the behaviour is not overt?

 

I have zero of the first,
and maybe one or two in a wide swath of social circle in the second
(covert). The only place that I constantly hear about racism, or
racial
issues, is in the media, and from a certain group of fairly militant
liberation theologists (laymen though they may be), and one of them is
my
dear friend, who doesn't seem to see the inherent contradiction in
that half
his friend circle is white, and we are all very close.

*** Then, I would suggest that you are the one who lives in an
atipical grouping of people. On a global scale, racism continues to be
rampant.

 

 

So I keep hearing, but I am not seeing, at least, not here in my section of the world. This reminds me of a Winnie the Pooh movie, featuring a song by Rabbit.

 

"If it says so

then it IS so

if it is so...so it is!

A thought's not fit to think, if it's not written in ink...

if it says soooo, so it is......."

 

I hear all around me, on the media, in "studies", and from various "leaders" with clear profit motives to their message, that there is an overwhelming majority of white racists.

 

Where are they?

 

I don't believe it just because they say it, especially not when they have something to gain by saying it, and more especially when I have something to lose by believing it. I live in a diverse and equitable social sphere, and we don't have to work at it. It's just natural. I refuse to let these individuals inject their vitriol into a world clearly not as bad as they make it out to be. To deny the positive social progress does not provide solutions, it causes problems where there weren't any, and it distracts from resolving the remaining issues of economy, health care, education, and opportunity equality for all.

 

3. Painting so broad a swath as to relate general bias with racism
devalues
the argument. I'm biased towards 6' tall redheaded former ballerinas
turned
research librarians, but that's not a general statement of a social
belief
or perspective. That's attraction, the most common form of bias.
Racism is a
different beast, and to juxtapose the two presents an unwinnable
conundrum;
we cannot change the fact that we have biases.

*** Orn suggests: When one is NOT attracted (racism), using your
criteria, that too could be a common form of bias.

 

Lack of attraction is racism? Really? It can't be because I don't like their body shape, or don't find them charming? Bias is everywhere. It's built in, along with pattern recognition, to promote evolutionary progress through subtle indicators of health, ability to provide and protect, and ability to procreate. I am biased against individuals, not racist against a race. This mix and match semantical game is a common ploy of apologists, not that you are one, but it is used to help create the racist population which doesn't actually exist.

Yes, Orn, you are dead on right. The work that your generation did provided the ability of my generation to not racism as a mindset, and for your work in that, I offer you sincere and heartfelt gratitude. But for you, and the black militants still out there operating on the same set of orders from 1943, I say to you: The war is over. It's time to rebuild. Put away your guns, and let's get out some hammer and nails. There are people around us, especially those in the media, who create fear and divisiveness and profit from it. Let's not let them. Dr. King's dream came true. My children and my best friend's children sit down side by side at the table and play together and eat together and don't ever even ask the question about color or race, because it's not an issue to them. People come in all shapes and colors. It's not weird, just different, like blonde hair or black, blue eyes or brown (or green, mmm....), tall or short. They understand this basic truth, and because of it, they will not ever have to wrestle with the demons of their own psyche like you describe.

 

The kids are alright, Orn. It's time for the old soldiers to lay down their guns. We're all chilling here, and you guys are uptight. Dig?

 

 

[Chris Jenkins]

Vam, I'm really not. I flared up in one post just for illustrative purposes, which may have been a bit gamey on my part, but it was for the purpose of understanding, so hopefully it's understood. :)

 

Although OM is talking about consciousness, he's tying it in to active social issues, and that mindset contributes in a negative way to some very real social issues that remain to be addressed, such as social infrastructure.

[frantheman]

Now this dialogue is finally getting somewhere!

Thinking about the subject, it struck me that (white-black) racism
works both ways - there is also black racism. This one is more
difficult for people of an instinctive liberal bent like me to get
their heads around, because it's frequently coupled with an effective
appeal to guilt instincts (something many with "liberal" tendencies
have like a big red button saying, "push me"). I have a slight
suspicion that this may be one of Jeremiah Wright's sub-themes in many
of his statements. It could also be part of what forms the attitudes
which frequently (understandably) annoy Craig so much. A good
description of the way it works is portrayed by the Reverend Reggie
Bacon in Tom Wolfe's "The Bonfire of the Vanities" (a savagely funny
book, although the film was lousy).

I see a certain analogy here in the (now thankfully disappearing)
Irish attitude to the English. Following independence in 1922, Ireland
spent around half a century wallowing in self-pitying stagnation and
mediocrity, failing to provide a living for many of its young people
and driving most of its talented people (especially writers) into self-
chosen exile. That very little really worked was not an Irish problem
because the Irish had the universal scapegoat - the history of
hundreds of years of oppression by the English. That the historical
reality is much more complex didn't matter, the perceived wisdom was
that the Irish never had a chance because of "perfidious Albion". The
result was a debilitating mixture of inferiority complexes and self-
awarded moral and spiritual supremacy. It was an attitude still very
prevelant when I started going to school in the sixties. Thankfully
(for me) it wasn't something I experienced at home and as the
seventies and eighties progressed, it was starting to weaken.

Following accelerated economic growth in the past twenty years, it has
largely vanished. The reasons are many, but the basic one is very
human and very simple - the Irish no longer need to envy and blame the
English because today they are richer and perceive themselves to have
a genuinely better quality of life. Vestiges still remain, as anyone
who has ever watched any international sport event involving England
in an Irish pub can confirm - no matter what country England is
playing against, in whatever sport, the vast majority of the Irish
will still be rooting for England's opponents!

The point I'm trying to illustrate is that there could be a solution
here for the black-white issue in the USA - in fact Chris refers to it
when he writes about

" resolving the remaining issues of economy, health care, education,
and
opportunity equality for all."

Of course, I must admit that this is easier said than done, and some
of the solutions attempted, like bussing and "affirmative action", may
have exacerbated rather than ameliorated the problems. Still, as an
Irishman, I think I can say to US American blacks that cultivating the
attitude we Irish call "an béal bocht" [the poor mouth] may provide a
certain sort of perverse moral satisfaction but won't really get you
much farther.

Francis

On 1 Mai, 17:36, "Chris Jenkins" <digitalprecip...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Orn, I know I pulled your chain a bit, and I apologize. I thought it was
> necessary to both illustrate the inflammatory diatribes I am contesting, and

> to get a sense of where you are. That being said......
>
> Answers interspersed...
>
> On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 9:50 PM, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com>

> Erfahren Sie mehr »- Zitierten Text ausblenden -
>
> - Zitierten Text anzeigen -- Zitierten Text ausblenden -
>
> - Zitierten Text anzeigen -- Zitierten Text ausblenden -

[gabbydott]

*laughing* It's not really the freshest news, but yeah, I know what
it's about. And from what I read here, we can be glad that our
children are still curious enough to ask why other children don't turn
pale during winter time. But we have the winter as a common link,
whereas the U.S.A. is a big, big country.


On 1 Mai, 02:56, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> An article for gabby to learn from:http://racerelations.about.com/b/2006/05/18/german-government-spokesm...

[Kierkecraig]

Fran,

I would argue that it is impossible for the white majority to pull
this off. Even if they theoretically could somehow set up a plan of
helping the black populous out of the slums, the black populous would
resent us (and rightly so) for doing so. This is something they will
have to do for themselves. It will be the only way for them to pull
themselves up by the bootstraps and be able to say in the end, we did
this. This will preserve their self-respect.

I am not so naive as to think that a large portion of the Black
population is in the slums because of some genetic defect. The
presence of many successful blacks in America would immediately
discredit that assertion. However, those who are successful came
mostly from stable homes, with a mother and father there to teach them
right and wrong and bring them up right. The only way for the black
populous to save itself is to foster a healthy culture. A culture
based on gang warfare, money, drugs, casual sex, and ultimately
prison, will not foster the type of atmosphere that will create great
men. I'm with Bill Cosby on this one. He has done a lot for the
Black Community in building them up and fostering personal
responsibility in the Black Community's young men.

In sum, this is not a racial issue, it is a cultural issue. Much the
same can be said of certain segments of the white community.

[ornamentalmind]

First of all Chris, I suggest strongly that you could 'get a sense of
where' I am w/o your original tactics. In almost every case I respond
directly.

Next, you appear to react to being 'yelled at and actions committed by
people.....' Firt, this wasn't entirely clear as to what you don't
like. IF it is being yelled at as being racist, I too can empathise.
All my life I had the same reaction. I don't like being blamed for
actions done by others, no matter what era. In addition, long ago I
held the belief that much of racism would die out with those who hold
such views.

Also, as a kid I 'learned' (was taught) that all people are the same
much the same as you were. One thing that was different is that you
apparently grew up in Europe. For decades I've been saddened when I
watch very tallented blacks flee to Europe from the States because of
the overt and/or covert prejudice found here.

And, you say that Ray had a cultural upbringing you didn't understand
at all. This, to me, is one of the more importand issues.

OK, you go on to say that you are the object of prejudice (agression
from an embittered black man....etc.). So, in a way, you make my case.
You go on to point out that a major reason you believe such actions
happen is "from a lack of ability to build substantive and trusting

relationships across racial boundaries in order to work for solutions
to the socioeconomic realities which perpetuate the disparities."

This, by definition, is at least xenophobia and, in most cases I'd
posit it is racism itself. As mentioned elsewhere, ignorance. And yes,
of course this type of ignorance impacts the community! We see most of
this through similar eyes.

I'm glad you have come to the realization that there have been more
years in the US under slavery than otherwise. An asside is that, to
me, it has morphed into economic slavery, but that is yet another
topic.

Lincoln's emancipation proclamation was declaired less than 40 years
before my grandmother was born. The state I live in didn't even exist.
And, at this stage of life, I see that as a very short time ago. Later
in life, you too may have such a change in the sense of time.

Until that time, slavery was the norm in much of the US. And, since
that time, there have been a succession of small steps as intigration
has become more and more accepted. The history is there for those who
wish to study it.

For the record, England abolished slavery a scant 30 years before the
US did. And, as we know, slavery (by race mostly) has existed for at
least 5,000 years. In the grand scheme of things, to outlaw it in most
places is a rare thing.

Today, sex slavery seems to be the norm many places. Yet another
topic!

I won't be sidetracked much by your population change assumptions for
now.

As for a 'larger number of whites', in fact, unless you see latinos as
being white, the ratio between number of white youths today and non-
whites in the US is almost 50/50.

Again, there were many of 'us' who believed in racial equality. This
has existed 'forever' even though it may not have been legally
implemented. As to color blindness, I'll let Stephen Colbert do the
talking. People of ALL 'colors' have always seen color differences.
Even today, in most black communities, the lighter blacks are
'preferred'. (more attractive) To suggest otherwise is indeed blind in
my view.

So, while I do notice that 'your' generation does appear to be more
attracted to playing together 'between the races', the idealism
involved is nothing new, just, perhaps a little more prevelant.
You go on to say that "We are the group with which minorities

must bond to bury the past, and build a new and balanced social

order." Who is 'we' in this context? In the not too distant future,
'whites' will be the minority in the US.

You then suggest that there is some sort of monolithic and apparently
new "separatist element of society". This of course is silly.

You go on to give such a group a moral criticism because "They hinder

and deny positive forward progression because it threatens their
ideals, and their power base. In short, they are not part of the
solution, they are part of the problem."

First, I'm not sure there is such an easily defined group. Next, IF
there is, I wouldn't presume to be able to assign 'them' motives as
you have, unless perhaps, said motives are assigned to your generation
looking for equilibriam? ;-)

Going on, I'll answer your question by saying that I have experienced
many people over the entire spectrum of overt/covert when it comes to
racism.

"OK, so you believe that most of the white people you talk with are
covertly racist. On what do you base this perception, if the behaviour
is not overt?"

Do you count the use of the term 'them' as covert behavior? If so, the
occasions are too numerous to relate.

"I have zero of the first, and maybe one or two in a wide swath of
social circle in the second (covert)."

Good for you. I've attended meetings here where white supremacists
started yelling slogans...this was about 4 years or so ago.

If you only hear about racism from the media and your friend, and
don't see it yourself, perhaps you could sell the world some of your
rose collored glasses? ;-)

As nice as poetry is, and as much as we both would like to see there
be nothing between 'races' other than the ability to discern that
there is a difference, I don't see the age of aquarius manifesting now
nor in the near future.

As much as I would like to argue some of your other views about the
war between light/dark, I will say that I agree that ".. resolving the

remaining issues of economy, health care, education, and opportunity

equality for all." IS of primary importance here.

Yes, "Bias is everywhere." ...we agree on that. As to it being inate
or any of the other attrubutes you assign, I doubt this to be the
case, but that too is another topic.

When you say "... but it is used to help create the racist population
which doesn't actually exist.", I assume you are talking about stuff
like memes?

You said: "But for you, and the black militants still out there

operating on the same set of orders from 1943, I say to you: The war
is over. It's time to rebuild. Put away your guns, and let's get out
some hammer and nails. There are people around us, especially those in
the media, who create fear and divisiveness and profit from it. Let's
not let them. Dr. King's dream came true."

For the record, in my 20s, I was saying almost the exact same words to
people in their 40s and older. Of course, MLK wasn't well known then.
And, yes, there are even more media (corporate news) outlets today
that rely upon fear to sell. ( I remember when there was no TV at all)
To sell is the reason for TV today. Turn it off!

You say "My children and my best friend's children sit down side by

side at the table and play together and eat together and don't ever
even ask the question about color or race, because it's not an issue
to them. People come in all shapes and colors."

Yes, kids can be like that, they 'have to be carefully taught'. A
cynical view perhaps, but on aspect of being in society.

About your kids, you say "They understand this basic truth,

and because of it, they will not ever have to wrestle with the demons
of their own psyche like you describe."

First, to me, it wasn't demons, just stuff I heard and saw...similar
to memes. And, I hope that what you project into the future is the
case. I had the same hope when I was young too...and old codgers told
me to 'wait until you are older' like I'm doing to you. :-)

Here endith the rather disjointed presentation from the soapbox!

[Chris Jenkins]

On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 8:42 PM, ornamentalmind <ornamen...@yahoo.com> wrote:

First of all Chris, I suggest strongly that you could 'get a sense of
where' I am w/o your original tactics. In almost every case I respond
directly.

 

Again, Orn, I apologize, but I've found that people often reveal themselves more through adversity then through honest interaction, and when I have a hard truth I am trying to ascertain, sometimes I feel it necessary to test those boundaries to find out where someone lies when offended, or angered. I apologize, and accept your appropriate upbraiding, but in the end you demonstrated exactly what I needed to know. We have some very different perceptions, but you are studied and well thought out in yours, and not on some misguided emotion based tangent sans a real worldview. Simply asking you would not have given me that solid insight, and not given me the confidence that I can address these issues with you in trying to expand my perception of the issue, without there being a true give and take in dialogue, and that you would not simply disregard valid points for being in conflict in perhaps some very fundamental ways.

 

It was poor behaviour on my part, but it only needed to happen once.

 

Next, you appear to react to being 'yelled at and actions committed by
people.....' Firt, this wasn't entirely clear as to what you don't
like. IF it is being yelled at as being racist, I too can empathise.
All my life I had the same reaction. I don't like being blamed for
actions done by others, no matter what era. In addition, long ago I
held the belief that much of racism would die out with those who hold
such views.

 

OK, so we have some similarities in perspective (which you illustrate more later, but allude to here), but with different levels of jadedness, perhaps...

 

Also, as a kid I 'learned' (was taught) that all people are the same
much the same as you were. One thing that was different is that you
apparently grew up in Europe. For decades I've been saddened when I
watch very tallented blacks flee to Europe from the States because of
the overt and/or covert prejudice found here.

 

Do you disagree then that the lack of focus on perceptions of racism in such divisive social context has no bearing on the general civility? It's not as though there were not some issues of social disparity, but with a greater true integration which helped balance the playing field of opportunity. Additionally, socialized medicine and education removed the obstacle of a non-existent social infrastructure. Those are both things I think are in desparate need here.

 

And, you say that Ray had a cultural upbringing you didn't understand
at all. This, to me, is one of the more importand issues.

 

It protected both of us, made us safe. I had no fear of or prejudice against him, and he knew it. I was not part of a cycle that he grew up in, not one of the white folks in that neighborhood who would fling the slurs. To me, he was Uncle Ray, our brother in Christ. The lack of knowledge of that dynamic made me an innocent, fascinated with his shiny brown color and deep south accent, amazed at his rich profundo singing voice and his ability to double clap to the same beat everyone else was single clapping to. He was kind and funny and exciting and passionate about God, and I thought he was amazing. I recognized the differences in our skin tone (in relation to your literal response to my semi-metaphical use of color blind), but that wasn't a point of concern, it was a trait, like hair color.

 

The lack of training and awareness of a racist dynamic allowed me to simply experience Ray as an individual who was black, not as a black individual.

 

OK, you go on to say that you are the object of prejudice (agression
from an embittered black man....etc.). So, in a way, you make my case.

 

Perhaps I don't understand what the case you are making here is. Could I beg your patience to elaborate a bit up to here?

 

You go on to point out that a major reason you believe such actions
happen is "from a lack of ability to build substantive and trusting

relationships across racial boundaries in order to work for solutions
to the socioeconomic realities which perpetuate the disparities."

This, by definition, is at least xenophobia and, in most cases I'd
posit it is racism itself. As mentioned elsewhere, ignorance. And yes,
of course this type of ignorance impacts the community! We see most of
this through similar eyes.

 

OK, xenophobia, racism, by whatever title you want to apply to that dynamic, that is exactly what Reverend Wright is perpetuating with his "sermons". I don't understand why that doesn't bother you, and I can't fathom why you would want more of it.

 

I'm glad you have come to the realization that there have been more
years in the US under slavery than otherwise. An asside is that, to
me, it has morphed into economic slavery, but that is yet another
topic.

 

I'm 33, not 73, and I realize that perspective changes with age. I try to keep my mind open to expanding my perception, and sometimes things which may be simple can ring through in a whole different way in the middle of a conversation, and my world view shifts a click. It does, however, simply tighten my focus on the fact that we're fighting ghosts. Dead men all, and the scars they left behind.

 

Again, there were many of 'us' who believed in racial equality. This
has existed 'forever' even though it may not have been legally
implemented. As to color blindness, I'll let Stephen Colbert do the
talking. People of ALL 'colors' have always seen color differences.
Even today, in most black communities, the lighter blacks are
'preferred'. (more attractive) To suggest otherwise is indeed blind in
my view.

 

As I mentioned earlier, I was speaking figuratively when I said color blind, and I assumed incorrectly you would understand the usage. My mistake. Yes, we see color. No, we don't have to approach people differently, change the levels of trust or friendship offered with people because they are a different color.

 

So, while I do notice that 'your' generation does appear to be more
attracted to playing together 'between the races', the idealism
involved is nothing new, just, perhaps a little more prevelant.
You go on to say that "We are the group with which minorities

must bond to bury the past, and build a new and balanced social

order." Who is 'we' in this context? In the not too distant future,
'whites' will be the minority in the US.

 

It's not a little more, it's the majority of us, at least, from my admittedly limited perspective. And I don't think whites being a minority in the future represents any kind of conflict with what I am saying. We're contributing to mixing the racial bloodlines within my own family, and personally, I wouldn't mind at all if we all settle down into a nice pecan tan in a few generations or so. In today's world, however, there are socioeconomic and infrastructure disparities that need to be rectified, and it needs to be all races and credos who benefit and are lifted up by it. Poverty doesn't know color. Economically depressed neighborhoods occur with all racial groups represented, whether it's a trailer park, a city project, or a rural shanty town. By fixing the infrastructure shortcomings which make for such a large imbalance in opportunity and resources, i.e. socialized education and medicine, you fix the problem across the board, without tying it to any particular racial group. We are all elevated.

 

You then suggest that there is some sort of monolithic and apparently
new "separatist element of society". This of course is silly.

 

No, Orn, it's not, although I didn't say it was new. As a matter of fact, it's old. Guys in your generation, 'm afraid. Reverend Wright, Louis Farrakhan, Al Sharpton, Omali Yeshitela, the Black Uhurus, Liberation Theology, "Maulana Karenga", it's these soldiers of the black militant front in the 60's who have become co-opted into the mainstream, and use their fiery rhetoric to perpetuate the divide. It's not imaginary separatism that the Uhurus used a city grant to build a "A Gym of our Own", and in violation of the charter of their grant, excluded whites access. Did you listen to Wright's entire address to the NAACP? It was filled with baseless distortion, fallacies, and outright attacks against white people.

 

Orn, if it wasn't ok for white people to do it way back when, why is it ok for black people to do it now?

 

"OK, so you believe that most of the white people you talk with are
covertly racist. On what do you base this perception, if the behaviour
is not overt?"

Do you count the use of the term 'them' as covert behavior? If so, the
occasions are too numerous to relate.

 

It depends. Did "them" mean the entire black race, or a particular group of individuals? When I have said them, I am referring specifically to the men I mentioned above, and the theology associated with them.

 

"I have zero of the first, and maybe one or two in a wide swath of
social circle in the second (covert)."

Good for you. I've attended meetings here where white supremacists
started yelling slogans...this was about 4 years or so ago.

 

OK, so you went to a meeting, with a reasonably sized group of people, and you found the statistical anomalies. Is that supposed to be representative of the race at large? That seems to me to be a generalistic, and perhaps racist, sentiment.

 

If you only hear about racism from the media and your friend, and
don't see it yourself, perhaps you could sell the world some of your
rose collored glasses? ;-)

 

One thing you will learn about me my good man, if you take the time to read back through here, is that I am not known for petal tinted shades. I both railed and reveled in the rot and destruction of a corrupt political process, social decay, and man's inhumanity to man, as it were. I've spent time incarcerated, I've spent time homeless, and I've had the opportunity to explore the underbelly of America. My perspective is not idealistic...in most cases, people describe me as a cynic and skeptic.

 

As nice as poetry is, and as much as we both would like to see there
be nothing between 'races' other than the ability to discern that
there is a difference, I don't see the age of aquarius manifesting now
nor in the near future.

 

Are you now resorting to hyperbole? Perhaps I've pushed you too far... ;)

 

As much as I would like to argue some of your other views about the
war between light/dark, I will say that I agree that ".. resolving the

remaining issues of economy, health care, education, and opportunity

equality for all." IS of primary importance here.

 

It's not the biggest issue, it's the only issue. The peripheral problems with perceptions between the races will work themselves out as society is truly integrated, which begins with adequate social infrastructure, and a level playing field in opportunity.

 

Yes, "Bias is everywhere." ...we agree on that. As to it being inate
or any of the other attrubutes you assign, I doubt this to be the
case, but that too is another topic.

When you say "... but it is used to help create the racist population
which doesn't actually exist.", I assume you are talking about stuff
like memes?

 

Yes, or social consciousness, or anything else that describes the perpetuation of an idea, whether or not there is any or questionable evidence said idea has a foundation in fact. Global warming is another good example, but to quote you, that's another topic...the end result is that friends of mine who are black are likely to interpret behaviour and subtle non-verbal cues through the perception of a pre-conceived notion of racism. When they are looking that intently, they are likely to find it, whether or not it's truly there.

 

I was walking through a department store the other day in a quest for some updated office clothes. As I came around a blind corner, I was suddenly confronted with a huge barrel chest as a man easily 6'6" 350 (with about 10% body fat). In less than a second, I dropped back half a step and followed the chest up to the face, which was black. I was in a defensive posture, given the proximity and size of the individual. Although the entire encounter lasted less than a second, and we quickly made space for each other to pass, I wondered as I walked down the aisle, about these recent conversations, both here, and with my friend. It made me start to wonder if that individual had seen my reaction, and assumed there was some sort of racial bias at play in my reaction, as opposed to simply defensive surprise. When our enemy is ethereal, perception of intent becomes the only currency, and an atmosphere of mistrust makes the negative assumption the default assumption.

 

You said: "But for you, and the black militants still out there

operating on the same set of orders from 1943, I say to you: The war
is over. It's time to rebuild. Put away your guns, and let's get out
some hammer and nails. There are people around us, especially those in
the media, who create fear and divisiveness and profit from it. Let's
not let them. Dr. King's dream came true."

For the record, in my 20s, I was saying almost the exact same words to
people in their 40s and older. Of course, MLK wasn't well known then.
And, yes, there are even more media (corporate news) outlets today
that rely upon fear to sell. ( I remember when there was no TV at all)
To sell is the reason for TV today. Turn it off!

 

Yes, Orn, but take a real look at the society around us now, and compare it to when you were in your 20's. The target of choice for riot cops these days is liberal white folks exercising their first amendment rights to complain about our executive administration, and world banking and trade monopolies. Federal legislation exists which protect the rights of all. Black culture is celebrated, and commercially viable as a product for mainstream white entertainment. Interracial relationships are the norm, not the exception. There are black men and black women from all walks of life who have ascended in every industry, every government, every office in the US except two, and there is a real possibility that could change this year. See the progress, instead of the scars!

 

You say "My children and my best friend's children sit down side by

side at the table and play together and eat together and don't ever
even ask the question about color or race, because it's not an issue
to them. People come in all shapes and colors."

Yes, kids can be like that, they 'have to be carefully taught'. A
cynical view perhaps, but on aspect of being in society.

 

Kids have to be carefully taught everything, so that is nothing new. As the racial divide dissolves, there will be nothing to teach. It will simply be. We are a diverse species, and we see a thousand representations of that everyday, and it means absolutely nothing in regard to who we make friends with, who we love, who we do business with, or who we hire and fire. It does not provoke fear or hatred, there is no response to it. It becomes a non-issue. My children will grow up in a world where diversity training will sound like the silliest thing they have ever heard.

 

About your kids, you say "They understand this basic truth,

and because of it, they will not ever have to wrestle with the demons
of their own psyche like you describe."

First, to me, it wasn't demons, just stuff I heard and saw...similar
to memes. And, I hope that what you project into the future is the
case. I had the same hope when I was young too...and old codgers told
me to 'wait until you are older' like I'm doing to you. :-)

 

Fair enough, and I respect the length of the viewpoint your age gives you. I hope that your pessimistic perceptions are as overblown as I perceive them to be, but in the end, it won't stop me from saying what I feel, and working towards the changes I want to see.

 

Here endith the rather disjointed presentation from the soapbox!

 

Naah, that was just a break. I bet you've got a couple thousand more words in ya. :)

 

[Vamadevananda]

Yes, Chris, I see your point and intent.

Your position that racism does not exist, by and large, in your
generation of white and black Americans, should actually accelerate
OM's attempt at casting away his suspicions in this regard, in his own
subconscious intent and that among Americans of his generation.

On May 1, 8:38 pm, "Chris Jenkins" <digitalprecip...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Vam, I'm really not. I flared up in one post just for illustrative purposes,
> which may have been a bit gamey on my part, but it was for the purpose of
> understanding, so hopefully it's understood. :)
>
> Although OM is talking about consciousness, he's tying it in to active
> social issues, and that mindset contributes in a negative way to some very
> real social issues that remain to be addressed, such as social
> infrastructure.
>

> On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 10:51 AM, Vamadevananda <atewari2...@gmail.com>

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[archytas]

We can all be pacificists in the situation of enlightened One Vam.
It's just no good when the world contains several forms of Nazi. The
worst black racism in written form was the notion of blacks as Sun
people (lovely) and whites as Ice people (bastards). Idi Amin was no
doubt a Sun person and Mother Theresa an Ice person.
The Irish lived for a long time as a colony of Britain. Whites have
colonised the world in a somewhat similar manner, ripping off
resources, technology and so on. Such has been the history of empire
and its structures remain, laregely in idiot economics and lifestyles
we obviously need to change. One job foisted on me in the past was to
do with the indoctrination of British soldiers going to Northern
Ireland. I could do the basic stuff about sequestrating milk-bottles,
but the guff about the marxist-leninist rebels was unbearable. Powers
that be will use any old crap for their ends. Bloody Sunday was
probably about the needs idiot-paranoids in our secret service
establishment believing the conflict needed to be kept going - god
alone knows what is being kept going around the world now. I suspect
much of it is to do with Francis' analysis of Ireland in the sense of
the majority of the world being kept down for the idiot-paranoid
purposes of a few. In Mouseworld, we can kill of King Mouse but only
end up with another King Mouse. In terms of the planet, it has to be
a mistake to believe we can emulate the rich - yet at the same time we
can surely live adequate and very different lives if we accept
sensible restrictions and get on with new challenges. Revenge, of
course, lurks ...

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[archytas]

The key stuff in raising race cards is to address ignorance and
exploit it. I've recently seen a police officer sacked for using the
term 'black bastard' very much in the heat of a moment. He was very
much the kind of officer we need and made a mistake, which he honestly
admitted - quite unlike the managerial monsters who hide behind lies
and rhetorics of 'learning lessons'.
Yet we have done nothing about Stockwell where an innocent was killed
amidst racist panic and do nothing to address 'white flight' and its
causes. Apartheid was wrong but the caste system not - nor is the
exclusion of people on racial or religious grounds for all kinds of
'reasons'. Strangely, whites seem expected to know racism is wrong
and yet not those of other colours - weirdly racist in itself. A few
successful black people do not defeat the "genetic argument" but
simply confirm a strawman version of what genetics means is in play.
The idea of genetic inferiority is ludicrous and simply demonstrates
lack of knowledge - but genetic differences are real - but only as
real as cultural differences and the lack of real equalities in
differenced opportunity, including the opportunity to live decent
lives without having to kow-tow to stereotypes of 'success'. The
truth is evaded in the debates we are allowed, including people
feeling they are being swamped by immigration, birthrates and so on.
We don't even seem to know how we end up with ghettos and the rest
given our 'equality of oportunity' society.

[Chris Jenkins]

An excellent observation from Eric Deggans blogging in NYC:

 

"I was particularly intrigued by the work of the Post's Shankar Vedantam, an academic-friendly reporter who has assembled a number of stories crunching behavioral studies to explain some of the dynamics in the current election.

One reason why he thinks reaction to the Jeremiah Wright scandal varies so starkly between black people and white people is because minorities seems to measure racial progress by comparing current conditions to an ideal future, while white people measure racial progress by comparing the present to our racial past. So when Jeremiah Wright delivers fiery sermons about institutional racism, black people immediately think of how far we have to go while white people get offended, thinking of how far we have come."

[Kierkecraig]

> Strangely, whites seem expected to know racism is wrong
> and yet not those of other colours - weirdly racist in itself.  

Neil,
A good example of this is comments I've heard from friends of mine who
are hispanic. I have never heard as racist remarks spew from
someone's lips as I have my hispanic friends. I don't know if its
just the hispanics I know, or if this is a common phenomenon, but
hispanics really do not like black people. I won't even repeat some
of the things I have heard them say. Strangely enough, the group of
people that is assumed to be the most racist of all (namely white
people) I've never heard say anything racist. On the contrary, it
seems as if a white person even wanted to say something racist the
social stigma is so great that they wouldn't dare. However this same
social stigma is not enforced equally among all races. It only seems
to be applied most consistently against whites. So to quote you, it
seems "weirdly racist in itself."

[gabbydott]

* passes handkerchief *

[ornamentalmind]

Chris said: “…sometimes I feel it necessary to test those boundaries
to find out where someone lies when offended, or angered. I apologize …
It was poor behaviour on my part, but it only needed to happen once.”

Orn responds: Apology accepted, and, I will never respond to that
tactic from you again.

Chris: “Do you disagree then that the lack of focus on perceptions of

racism in such divisive social context has no bearing on the general
civility? It's not as though there were not some issues of social
disparity, but with a greater true integration which helped balance
the playing field of opportunity. Additionally, socialized medicine
and education removed the obstacle of a non-existent social
infrastructure. Those are both things I think are in desparate need

here.”

Orn: Chris, I am not clear what, let alone IF you are asking me
anything here. Sorry.
…

> > OK, you go on to say that you are the object of prejudice (agression
> > from an embittered black man....etc.). So, in a way, you make my case.
>
> Perhaps I don't understand what the case you are making here is. Could I beg
> your patience to elaborate a bit up to here?

Orn: Sure, in general, my ‘case’ was that the vast majority of people
have some level of prejudice. You mentioned those who are prejudice
against you. And, while not quite a ‘fair’ addition here, you are
prejudice against prejudice.

Chris: “OK, xenophobia, racism, by whatever title you want to apply to

that dynamic, that is exactly what Reverend Wright is perpetuating
with his “sermons". I don't understand why that doesn't bother you,

and I can't fathom why you would want more of it.”

Orn: OK, I won’t say it doesn’t bother me at all. I fully understand
his passion here. Also, he seems to be able “…to build substantive and
trusting relationships…” within his community, which is large. He may
even be able to do so across racial ‘divides’ too…but this I don’t
know.
As to ‘more of it’, I find his rants to be entirely transparent. What
he says is what he means. Much I see from those who ‘do not see color’
are often not being truthful, as best as I can tell.
Also, I watched long parts of his presentations on TV recently. It was
entertaining and, as I said, I could easily empathize with him. I even
knew exactly what he meant when he mentioned Florida A&M. I was a
marching band member for many years and had seen A&M numerous times
while living in Florida. He was ‘right on’, in my view.

Chris: “… tan in a few generations or so. In today's world, however,

there are socioeconomic and infrastructure disparities that need to be
rectified, and
it needs to be all races and credos who benefit and are lifted up by
it. Poverty doesn't know color. Economically depressed neighborhoods
occur with all racial groups represented, whether it's a trailer park,
a city project, or a rural shanty town. By fixing the infrastructure
shortcomings which make for such a large imbalance in opportunity and
resources, i.e. socialized education and medicine, you fix the problem
across the board, without tying it to any particular racial group. We

are all elevated.”

Orn: OK, your agenda is clear. How many people have you gotten to
agree with you? I will suggest, that as accurate as your view may be
about what is needed for an ideal world, I strongly doubt that the
many factors that continue to keep this from happening is merely age
related. (those who must die out) Also, merely being idealistic does
not say anything about the percentage of people who are prejudice.

Chris: “…of the charter of their grant, excluded whites access. Did

you listen to Wright's entire address to the NAACP? It was filled with
baseless
distortion, fallacies, and outright attacks against white people.

Orn: Yes. I wasn’t troubled at all.

Chris: “Orn, if it wasn't ok for white people to do it way back when,
why is it ok for black people to do it now?”

Orn: It is ‘OK’ in the sense that it is not only natural, but a
necessary reaction to generations of slavery. I see it as a way of
empowering those who were, and I will strongly suggest ARE TODAY hurt
by ongoing racism.
…
Chris: “OK, so you went to a meeting, with a reasonably sized group of

people, and you found the statistical anomalies. Is that supposed to
be representative of the race at large? That seems to me to be a

generalistic, and perhaps racist, sentiment.”

Orn: It was merely an anecdote to share. The majority there were there
for racial equality and, a larger than expected hate mongering group
was there too. NOT 1/10.

Chris said: “… My perspective is not idealistic...in most cases,
people describe me as a cynic and skeptic.”
Followed by: “…It's not the biggest issue, it's the only issue. The

peripheral problems with perceptions between the races will work
themselves out as society is truly integrated, which begins with
adequate social infrastructure, and a level playing field in

opportunity.”

Orn responds: Chris, those two comments near each other do not appear
to be congruent. Your latter idealism, while laudable, has seldom if
ever happened in the history of humanity, though many have wished
“..to form a more perfect union…” etc.

Chris continues: “…the end result is that friends of mine who are

black are likely to interpret behaviour and subtle non-verbal cues
through the perception of a pre-conceived notion of racism. When they
are looking that intently, they are likely to find it, whether or not

it's truly there. …

When our enemy is ethereal, perception of intent becomes the only
currency,
and an atmosphere of mistrust makes the negative assumption the
default

assumption.”

Orn responds: OK Chris, you have black friends who are prejudice and
‘gun shy’. This too appears to ‘make my case’ (about the percentage of
people who have some sort of prejudice). I don’t disagree with your
analysis about ‘perception of intent’ and ‘mistrust’, but again, this
seems to fit into what I present as current ‘reality’.

Chris again: “Yes, Orn, but take a real look at the society around us
now, and compare it to when you were in your 20's… Federal legislation
exists which protect the rights of all.”

Orn.: Chris, I am not talking about the result(s) of any legislation.
An innately egalitarian view can not be legislated. I’m talking about
things as they are, not as one wishes them to be.

Chris: “…Black culture is celebrated, and commercially viable as a

product for mainstream white entertainment. Interracial relationships
are the norm, not the exception. There are black men and black women
from all walks of life who have ascended in every industry, every
government, every office in the US except two, and there is a real
possibility that could change this year. See the progress, instead of

the scars!”

Orn responds: Uhhh, yes, I have noticed the ‘progress’. Believe it or
not, I am not blind. This wasn’t my point. My point had to do with
prejudice. You even point towards what can appear to be an example, a
“commercially viable…product for mainstream white entertainment.”
Blacks have always been used for financial gain and entertainment and
in many different ways. The history is readily available.

Chris said: “… My children will grow up in a world where diversity
training will sound like the silliest thing they have ever heard.”

Orn: Chris, again, while I too am an over idealist, your view includes
no apparent skeptical observation. While I hope this to be the future,
I strongly doubt that to be the case. Most likely, you will be the one
who will find out the truth of the matter.
As a ‘parting shot’, to help support my point about the percentage of
people who have some trace of prejudice within their ego, I suggest a
long trip to say, Florida, Mississippi, Georgia etc. Go out into the
country and have a beer with the locals then report back!

[ornamentalmind]

"...So when Jeremiah Wright delivers fiery sermons about

institutional racism, black people immediately think of how far we
have to
go while white people get offended, thinking of how far we have

come."* "

This seems racist too. Case in point, I am 'white', I am not offended,
I think of how far we have to go.


On May 2, 10:40 am, "Chris Jenkins" <digitalprecip...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> An excellent observation from Eric Deggans blogging in NYC:...
>
> read more »

>
> "I was particularly intrigued by the work of the Post's Shankar Vedantam, an
> academic-friendly reporter who has assembled a number of stories crunching
> behavioral studies to explain some of the dynamics in the current election.
>

> <http://blogs.tampabay.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/20...>One

> reason why he thinks reaction to the Jeremiah Wright scandal varies so
> starkly between black people and white people is because minorities seems to
> measure racial progress by comparing current conditions to an ideal future,
> while white people measure racial progress by comparing the present to our

> racial past. *So when Jeremiah Wright delivers fiery sermons about

> institutional racism, black people immediately think of how far we have to

> go while white people get offended, thinking of how far we have come."*

> > Pennsylvania, who- Hide quoted text -

[Chris Jenkins]

You've given me a lot to chew on here, Orn, and I'm taking my time and rolling it around my mental palate. There is some floating point ratio of offendedness to perception of the focus and magnitude of remaining issues, and I'm turning that formula around in my head a bit.

 

Thank you for indulging me. I'll be back with more questions, I'm sure.

[Slayer]

I recently (and sadly) discovered my father was a bit of a racist.
His main grudge is mixed couples. He believes its a sin. That we
should remain separate so to remember who we are. I really pushed the
wrong button by replying that we all bleed red. Through out human
history there has been too many racial mistakes. Those kind of scares
need time to heal. It'll just take time for us to truly learn what we
need to which is tolerance and acceptance for our "difrences" (where's
that darn spell check thingy). I don't follow the political games to
really understand some of your points, but I do believe if Obama makes
it, the best of luck to him to do a good job. Otherwise, it could be
a major set back towards getting over hill.

[ornamentalmind]

"...(where's that darn spell check thingy)..."

What I keep open ALL of the time is:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/

[Kierkecraig]

> I don't follow the political games to
> really understand some of your points, but I do believe if Obama makes
> it,  the best of luck to him to do a good job.  Otherwise, it could be
> a major set back towards getting over hill.

This is just ridiculous. Obama is riding off the perception that if
we don't vote for him that it means we are all still racist. That is
BS. Maybe I'm not voting for him because I think his universal health
care plans are going to ruin America, and also because of how he has
voted in congress against second amendment rights. There is no hill
to get over, we are over it, some of those who fought so hard to get
over it can't accept the fact that their mission was accomplished.
Now they keep fighting as if there were a war to fight still.

> I recently (and sadly) discovered my father was a bit of a racist.
> His main grudge is mixed couples. He believes its a sin.

Why does this make your dad racist? You could give him the benefit of
the doubt. Maybe he believes keeping marriage within a race helps to
promote social stability and harmony, and maybe even marital stability
and harmony. I mean there are many reasons he could think this other
than being racist.

Your comment reminds me of Plato's Euthyphro. In that story Socrates
began a conversation with a man by the name of Euthyphro who was at
the King's Court to lay charges of murder against his father.
Euthyphro was confident that he was doing the "pious" thing, until
Socrates forces him to explain was piety is. If we owe to a duty
anyone, do we not owe it to those closest to us?
Perhaps you owe your father the benefit of the doubt, maybe that is
the pious thing to do.

[ornamentalmind]

Like most so called libertarians Craig, it appears as if you wish to
reestablish Plessy v. Ferguson. Unfortunately, such 'equal protection'
requires massive increases in the role of the state as well as a great
reduction in free will, except perhaps of those few wishing to impose
such a 'final solution' upon the rest of us.


If my forceful use of hyperbole is misplaced, (you do not embrace
libertarian views), I apologize in advance and claim 'mad cow'.

[Kierkecraig]

OM,
I did not endorse Slayer's father's viewpoints, I only questioned his
condemnation of his own father. I did so though knowing full well the
risk that someone would accuse me of adopting the same view point. So
I'm not surprised you responded the way you did. And Yes OM, I am
quite Libertarian. I know what a Libertarian is, and I know what my
own viewpoints are, and they are quite similar.

[frantheman]

Craig, the way Slayer described his (I'm assuming Slayer is male)
father's view makes it seemingly clear that this view is racist: the
man, according to Slayer, beleives that mixed-race marriages are a
"sin. That we should remain separate so to remember who we are." Why
should marrying someone of another race make us forget what we are,
any more than marrying someone of another culture, religion,
nationality?

Moreoever, I do not see this as "condemnation", whatever that means in
this context. It is something relevantly normal for sons to differ -
often passionately - with their fathers. Indeed, it often seems to be
a necessary part of our (speaking as a man) development and maturing
process, a psychological rite of passage, perhaps even a necessary
dialectic which later (hopefully) reaches a synthesis in a mutually
respectful relationship between two adults, who accept each other as
such.

As a young man, my own relationship with my father was fraught with
all kinds of conflict - and the same is true of my two younger
brothers. Years later (I turn 48 today and my father is now old and in
poor health) we have, thankfully, gone beyond most of these issues. We
still disagree on a number of things, but I no longer feel the need to
shove these differences in his face as I once did. I like to think
that he too has developed and grown. One of the things we have learned
is to give each other space.

Francis

> > > the pious thing to do.- Zitierten Text ausblenden -

[Kierkecraig]

> Craig, the way Slayer described his (I'm assuming Slayer is male)
> father's view makes it seemingly clear that this view is racist: the
> man, according to Slayer, beleives that mixed-race marriages are a
> "sin. That we should remain separate so to remember who we are." Why
> should marrying someone of another race make us forget what we are,
> any more than marrying someone of another culture, religion,
> nationality?

Even if it was racist, was it worth judging his father over? We've
set racism up to be the ultimate and cardinal sin of the world. In
the story I told of Euthyphro, his father was responsible for
murdering someone. Murdering is pretty bad too, if not worse than
racism. However, I think there is a loyalty that is owed to family,
especially one's father, that transcends societal morals.

[Josh Whitaker]

Fran,  that's exactly how I fell.  My father and I never really argued until that conversation came up.  Since then he avoids the subject.  I hope to find out why he feels that way.  If anything, the combining of races and their cultures could bring about something more beautiful.

----- Original Message ----
From: frantheman <franci...@googlemail.com>
To: Minds Eye <Mind...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 3, 2008 7:34:17 PM
Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: A Dialogue on Race


Craig, the way Slayer described his (I'm assuming Slayer is male)
father's view makes it seemingly clear that this view is racist: the
man, according to Slayer, beleives that mixed-race marriages are a
"sin. That we should remain separate so to remember who we are." Why
should marrying someone of another race make us forget what we are,
any more than marrying someone of another culture, religion,
nationality?

---

Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.

[Dale Spear]

Amen, Craig. Well said.

--- On Sat, 5/3/08, Kierkecraig <craiga...@gmail.com> wrote:

> However, I think there is a loyalty that is owed
> to family,
> especially one's father, that transcends societal
> morals.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Be a better friend, newshound, and

know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

[Vamadevananda]

" ... The idea of genetic inferiority is ludicrous and simply

demonstrates lack of knowledge - but genetic differences are real -

but only as real as cultural differences ... "

If genetic ( and cultural ) differences are real, then how is genetic
( and cultural ) inferiority or superiority ludicrous, Neil ? !

Real differences lead to real abilities or disabilities, in case of
genetics, and real desirable or undesirable behaviour and aptitudes,
in case of culture !

The only real issue is : Do we have an attitude forming large enough
heart, to bridge the differences and not continue to retain the
differences in our eye and heart. Being ' superior ' offers advantages
but comes with, in fact, the great responsibility of being helpful
towards the apparently ' inferior,' at least in one's eye and
attitude. It is to restore ' love ' in the hearts of those saddled
with apparent inferiority.

[archytas]

We are not apart on this Vam. The confusions over uses of terms like
'genetic' are many. It is true, for instance, that black people
generally do worse than whites on IQ tests. Certain types immediately
leap to notions that blacks are genetically inferior. However,
Japanese score about 11 points (a lot on the scale) higher than
Americans and certain types leap to the idea that American high
schools are very bad! Work done on black kids brought up under
adoption show them as IQ capable as the rest. Maybe you and I would
have higher IQs if we had suffered the Japanese schooling system! We
established as far back as 1980 that only a third of IQ variation
amongst individuals was due to biological heredity. Another third was
shown to be about cultural transmission and the last third about
rather unspecified, mostly random differences in personal life
experience. One could, of course, have a devastatingly high IQ and
not be able to show it because one was not brought up to read and
write. It is the idea that genetics (poorly conceived anyway as
biological heredity) gives superiority alone I find ridiculous.
Having been involved with disability as an issue in education for a
long time, I dislike the way that the impairments involved can be
theoretically ignored in movements like those around the 'social model
of disability' - a model that makes sense until taken to silly
extremes. It might do us good to consider race in terms of such a
model without the idiot political correctness it has raised. I tend
to believe much works on a disabling basis, rather like the King Mouse
of Mouseworld disables his fellows. Most of our politics is in a
dreadful state of lies and prevents us talking about what really goes
on and how most of us come to be "disabled".

On human diversity one might start with Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza.

> > > > > > > "It was an anti-slavery northerner, James Wilson of- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more »

[archytas]

My father would have been appalled if I had tried to protect him from
justice (as opposed to injustice). He would have stood up and taken
what was coming, not tried to pull strings whether family or not.
Have you gone Hillbilly here Craig?
I would have had to go against the very values he inculcated in me of
fair play towards all, not special treatment.
Have you gone sexist too - 'especially towards one's father'? Oh
Dear!

On 4 May, 04:37, Vamadevananda <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > "It was an anti-slavery northerner, James Wilson of- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more »

[gabbydott]

Happy, happy birthday, Francis! All the best to you and you. :-)
Enjoy.

[gabbydott]

In times of DNA paternity testing, how does society justify men's
moral loyality approach?

[Kierkecraig]

I'm sorry, I have no idea what you are getting at. Please explain.

[Valtermar]

Hey, Fran!

Happy birthday to you!!!
(Though I realize that I am late for the wishes, having received only today
the message your posted...)

----- Original Message -----
From: "frantheman" <franci...@googlemail.com>
To: ""Minds Eye"" <Mind...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2008 9:34 PM
Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: A Dialogue on Race

[Valtermar]

Josh,

 

I think that if your father feels that way it is because that is the way he learned it and came to believe things to be. In many instances, once one becomes convinced about something, it might be very hard to change.

 

It might be that it is not just that one hears an idea expressed, but that one has strong emotional experiences, or that one is raised in an environment where everyone  seems to think in the same way.

 

It applies to the situation you reported and it applies to ideas in general people is raised with.

 

Just imagine one being raised in an environment where every adult male has a mustache, for instance. Mustache in such a cultural environment is a symbol of masculinity. It is one of the things that makes the individual a man. Such a thing is heard everywhere in this environment. It is taken as a truth by both man and women. Being raised with this belief, a mustache is grown as fast as a young one is able to. Growing a mustache is taken as an indication of achieving manhood. Loosing a mustache becomes a tragedy, if ever happening. A man without a mustache is taken as someone very weird, probably a gay.

 

Try Imagining a man grown in such an environment moving to a place where such a tradition is not known. A place where no man believes in the need to have a mustache to prove one's own manhood. Try imagining how difficult it might be for such a person to adapt to this new environment.

 

The mustache, in the example above, can be substituted by many other ideas and habits people is raised with.

 

I bring this example just as a way for one to feel more closely the influence of ideas and habits people is raised with and how they can influence the way people think and act. If you can imagine the situation, you can grasp the power of certain beliefs. Understanding it helps one to understand people better.

 

See ya.

 

Valtermar

[Slayer]

On May 4, 7:48 pm, "Valtermar" <valter...@engeplus.com.br> wrote:
> Josh,
>
> I think that if your father feels that way it is because that is the way he learned it and came to believe things to be. In many instances, once one becomes convinced about something, it might be very hard to change.
>
> It might be that it is not just that one hears an idea expressed, but that one has strong emotional experiences, or that one is raised in an environment where everyone seems to think in the same way.
>
> It applies to the situation you reported and it applies to ideas in general people is raised with.
>

I believe you're right on that one. Before that conversation with my
father came up, my gramps and other elders of my family had set up a
place for me to rent from them. Later on, a friend of mine (who
happened to be black) was down on his luck and I offered to let him
stay with me until he got back on his feet. Not even a week went by
and they (meaning Gramps and the elders) were pounding on my front
door demanding I ran my friend off. Talk about a heart wrenching
situation. I told them the situation and they didn't care. They just
wanted him out. We both left and I haven't really had a good
relationship with the family since. They put on airs every time I
come around. I couldn't choose because what was I to do. Kick him
out or try to make a point to the family. If I did kick him out I
still couldn't look at my grandfather the same way anymore. He seems
hateful where once I only saw a great, loving man. I thought he might
have seen at least some error of his actions.

[archytas]

Statistically our chances of not being our fathers' sons is about one
in ten. I always thought loyalty was earned through actions and was
lucky in this respect concerning the people who called themselves my
parents. There is a tribe somewhere that don't accept paternity,
which is ascribed to the mother's male kin.

[Kierkecraig]

Loyalty and devotion to the family is central to an ordered and
functioning society. Justice does not translate well over to the
family setting. Justice and Love are typically diametrically
opposed. Love is passionate and discriminating, Justice is cool and
even. When my wife asks me to take out the garbage I don't ask her to
pay me, or ask her what she did for me that would justify me taking
the trash out. Justice doesn't work in the family, only love.
Loyalty and devotion are elements of love, not justice.

[Vamadevananda]

Why attach or limit love to family, KC ? Love is the key, not family.
Love may or may not include a family. There could be families found on
love, and ones devoid of it.

Family is only the first arena where one learns to give and accept
love. But, if one's love is limited to that arena, it could easily
make us parochial !

Likewise, justice is not irrelevant to relationships found on love. If
one condones an unjust behaviour, merely because the person concerned
is ' family,' then one is encouraging the spread of injustice in the
society.

All in all, there must be a proportion to everything in our lives.
Justice without love leads to tyranny. Love without justice makes it
parochial.

> > > have seen at least some error of his actions.- Hide quoted text -

[Kierkecraig]

I disagree Vam. Justice does not require Love at all. I enter into a
binding contract with you and I am bound by justice to fulfill my
end. If I don't the weight of the state can come down upon me. They
can care less if I love you. The only reason we even entered into a
relationship with each other was to take mutually take advantage of
each other. This is a necessary part of society, it is what makes the
world go round. On the other hand, I entered into a marriage with my
wife because I love her. My love has nothing to do with justice. If
I am a good husband then all I care about are her concerns. I will do
everything I can to make sure she is taken care of and happy. If she
doesn't clean the house, or do the dishes, or whatever I may expect
from her doesn't mean that I am justified in withholding my love from
her. Thats not how love works. Thats how contracts and justice
works, but not love.

[Vamadevananda]

Let's agree to disagree, then, KC ! For now.

All I would say is that justice is an idea that flows from the concept
of good of ALL. It is thus found on ' love,' and is not restricted to
contracts or statutes in the rule book that are merely forms of '
justice.'

In the same vein, I may love my wife very much, but would not baulk
from arraigning her if she were to behave unjustly with maid that
works for us.

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Kierkecraig]

You may privately chastise your wife for unjust behavior, but your not
going to turn her over to the state. If my brother were to punch my
other brother in the stomach he is going to face repercussions, but he
is not going to be turned over to the police for assault. Again, that
is because justice is not a apart of a familial relationship. If some
stranger were to haul off and punch me in the face the just thing to
do would to have him go before a tribunal and get his just deserts.
Thats how society works, but no families.

[Vamadevananda]

Justice, the idea, is not limited to how the police and the state come
into the picture.

And, that you will chastise your wife for unjust behaviour, only shows
that you retain the idea and sense of justice, even within the family,
whom you love very much.

Thus, love is not beyond the idea and sense of justice we have !

[frantheman]

Ich und ich sagen danke, danke!

Francis

[Slayer]

I take what my wife dishes out. "Never anger a redhead" Especially
if they're a woman.
A thought on the sense of "Justice". If we did report our family
members for an injustice they have brought upon us then we'd all be in
jail. Maybe not all but a lot. Families are closer to each other
than the general public. You wouldn't start up an argument with a
stranger because you don't agree with what he/she is doing. You deal
with family every day.

Hey Chris,
If it were only based on this, I'd hope Obama did win and have a great
run if only to strike a blow to racist minds that they shouldn't judge
based on their own beliefs. And thanks for the second chance. I've
become rather addicted.

[gabbydott]

Excuse me, but we are not doing a rhetorical question quiz here and I
am not the show-master. Thinking is allowed. Repetition class is next
door with somebody else.

[Kierkecraig]

What's with the attitude? I honestly wanted to know what you were
getting at. I didn't ask for a flippant response. If you don't want
to have a discussion with me then just let me know and I'll have a
conversation with others on the group.

[Chris Jenkins]

*laughing*

 

It's moments like these Donnadonne that I really wonder if you are an AI, and simply misinterpreted the input. You are killing me.

[frantheman]

On 5 Mai, 06:33, Kierkecraig <craigatkin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Loyalty and devotion to the family is central to an ordered and
> functioning society.  Justice does not translate well over to the
> family setting.  Justice and Love are typically diametrically
> opposed.  Love is passionate and discriminating, Justice is cool and
> even.  When my wife asks me to take out the garbage I don't ask her to
> pay me, or ask her what she did for me that would justify me taking
> the trash out.  Justice doesn't work in the family, only love.
> Loyalty and devotion are elements of love, not justice.

I think this may be too simple, Craig. In your definitions, you seem
to be equating justice with law (a common problem with lawyers :-).
The fact that my two brothers are lawyers - one practices, the other
teaches - makes me feel that I have some experience in this area!). In
fact, justice plays a major role in families. One of the most common
appeals made by children, who have pretty keen antenne in this area,
is, "that's not fair!" Indeed, I would go further and claim that a
family in which one or more members are unjustly treated is a family
with, or heading for, major problems.

Family life - at its best - is lived love. But living includes
regulating disputes and conflicts, also within relationships and
within families, and here the perception that those involved will be
treated justly seems to me to be both necessary and prevelant.

You can argue that love goes beyond justice, but I don't see how they
can be - as you claim - typically diametrically opposed. And even if
we were to argue simply on the basis of law, surely one of the
foundations of the family is the basic contract of marriage between
two partners/spouses?

Francis

[gabbydott]

And I am honestly tired of arrogant attitudes, which really is
laziness in thinking.

[Valtermar]

I really difficult situation, Josh.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Slayer" <SlayerJ...@yahoo.com>
To: ""Minds Eye"" <Mind...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2008 11:24 PM
Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: A Dialogue on Race

[archytas]

I quite like the idea of donna as a bot - but know she is not. As a
cop I often found that people in families reported on each other,
including false information given in spite or to get rid of unwanted
family members, husbands and wives. There are loads of crap families
with estimates of about 25% of children abused in some way or
another. In fact, once families are involved in the justice system it
is more likely lies will be told. Craig isn't talking about these
problems, but I tend to disagree on the basis we do enter a social
contract in all our dealings as humans and there are dangers of an
iron cage of bureaucracy in what he is saying, plus I fnd the idea of
family very limiting and highly romanticised.

[archytas]

Callicles and Thrasymachus are the two great exemplars in Plato — in
all of ancient philosophy — of contemptuous challenge to conventional
morality. In the Gorgias and Book I of the Republic respectively, they
denounce the virtue of justice, dikaiosune, as an artificial brake on
self-interest. When we speak of justice as a virtue, we are usually
referring to a trait of individuals, even if we conceive the justice
of individuals as having some (grounding) reference to social justice.
But Rawls (1971) and others regard justice as "the first virtue of
social institutions" so "justice as a virtue" is actually ambiguous as
between individual and social applications.
However, even the idea of individual justice seems ambiguous in regard
to scope. Plato in the Republic treats justice as an overarching
virtue of individuals (and of societies), meaning that almost every
issue he (or we) would regard as ethical comes in under the notion of
justice (dikaosoune). But in modern usages justice covers only part of
individual morality, and we don't readily think of someone as unjust
if they lie or neglect their children--other epithets more readily
spring to mind. What individual justice most naturally refers to are
moral issues having to do with goods or property. It is, we say,
unjust for someone to steal from people or not to give them what he
owes them, and it is also unjust if someone called upon to distribute
something good (or bad or both) among members of a group uses an
arbitrary or unjustified basis for making the distribution (this last
aspect of individual justice obviously has reference to social or at
least group justice). Discussion of justice as an individual virtue
standardly (at least) centers on questions, therefore, about property
and other distributable goods. I would accept this is the standard
view, but I have a lot of trouble with it as institutions of justice
clearly work quite badly a lot of the time and are often unjust as
they support ruling and rich classes. Access to justice is very
patchy and there is clearly a ‘justice class’ with interests of its
own that prevents many people being able to rely on the system and
proper public scrutiny of it. Justice is not blind and too often is
blinded by the colour of money and blindness to evidence in the wrong
sense, as we have to rely on the trustworthiness of investigators and
getting investigations. I would prefer a return to the dikaosoune and
a retreat from heartless bureaucracy that jukes the evidence at will.

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Kierkecraig]

Your kidding right? Isn't that pot calling the kettle black?

[Kierkecraig]

Είπε ο γάιδαρος τον πετεινό κεφάλα

On May 5, 3:57 pm, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Vamadevananda]

Neil, the questions before us was : Is justice beyond love ? Is love
beyond justice ?

[Kierkecraig]

The only way we will get anywhere is to define Justice and Love. More
than likely we are talking past each other with different terms that
have the same name.

[ornamentalmind]

Vam, IF these are the two questions, I'll chime in with the notion
that in an upleveled/ultimate sense, both love and justice ARE virtues
and inate and consubstantial.
On other less lofty levels, they seldom are to be found within the
same breath.
The term love has been used in numerous quite different ways so far in
this one topic. To me, I do not address love in most of these
ways...more of the 'seeing the equal' sense. IF one sees it in the
passion sense, lust etc., then it is that only.
As to justice, yes, the belief that society will back up laws does
tend to hold the view of society together. Of course, this is far from
the truth...most actions are in some place and sense against the law
and not directly addressed.
Of course, the notion of different locations has to enter into the
subjectivity at this level too.
Enough, other than being words and relative in nature, I find nothing
similar with love/justice in this context. (other than the ultimate
sense I started this post with)

On May 5, 9:18 pm, Vamadevananda <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:

[gabbydott]

Are you talking to me?

[Ian Pollard]

2008/5/4 archytas <nwt...@googlemail.com>:

Have you gone Hillbilly here Craig?

Bwahahahaha!

--
"The despotism of custom is everywhere the standing hindrance to human advancement. "

-- John Stuart Mill

[frantheman]

On 6 Mai, 10:58, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Are you talking to me?
>

*** pictures Robert de Niro with a shaved head and mad eyes and
decides to stay out of this one! ***

Francis

[archytas]

Careful Ian - I sense a range war coming!

[archytas]

Craig is putting Greek donkeys in a circle.

> > Francis- Hide quoted text -

[gabbydott]

Where does that leave the leeasses then?

[Lee]

*sigh* tight black jeans?

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[archytas]

Surely you still squeeze into them for trips to the Pipe Smokers' Club
Lee? Gabbers might even turn up with her Meerschaum! I still have a
bent pipe from when I pretended to be a detective, though I drew the
line at stalking deer.

[archytas]

Perhaps Orn will turn up in his consubstantial - whatever one of those
looks like?

On 8 May, 10:06, Lee <l...@rdfmedia.com> wrote:

[Lee]

Oi although it is true that I was asked if I wanted to join the pipe
smikers club, I refused, as I was more than happy with the handlebar
club.

[ornamentalmind]

*** remembers having numerous hydrous magnesium silicate pipes ***

[ornamentalmind]

I've held numerous personas. As to a consubstantial one, the best I
can tell is that which is the result of theurgy!

[ornamentalmind]

*** ahh, the days of the 'stache pomade! ***

[Lee]

Indeed, I used one from the States, got it as a freebie from another
member, nice it was, smelt sorta gingery.

[archytas]

I only had a few 'Condor moments'.