+ Reply to Thread
Page 16 of 25 FirstFirst 1 6 16 25 LastLast
Results 301 to 320 of 482

Thread: Racism

  1. Link to Post #301
    United States Avalon Member Joe's Avatar
    Join Date
    27th February 2015
    Age
    49
    Posts
    296
    Thanks
    1,233
    Thanked 1,512 times in 270 posts

    Default Re: Racism

    ***********
    Quote Populism, the Hate/Victim dialectic and why the Left need to insult us.
    published 10/12/16 by Wulfstan’s Ghost https://wulfstansghost.com/2016/12/1...-to-insult-us/

    Even the BBC are at it now. Populism is the new racism. It is the new buzzword. Everything we don’t like is now ‘populist’. David Cameron is blaming his own political demise on populism and everyone else thinks its just fine as an explanation for the electorate not doing as they were told. So now 17.4 million voters who have almost got used to being described as thick, racist, uneducated, old, poor, white etc are now having to cope with a new insult whose repeated misuse implies that we are all just a bloodthirsty rabble. I explained here why populism is almost exactly synonymous with democracy and not something altogether nastier. But a further question is begged: Why do the Left have to resort to continual insults in order to further their political aims? The answer to this problem goes back into the depths of Marxist history and runs something like the following:

    The Marxist theory of dialectics is a bastardised re-statement of Newton’s Third Law of Motion: ‘For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction’, but applied to economics and politics. According to the theory of Marxist dialectics, there is an original state – a Thesis – and its opposite, the Antithesis. When reaction between these two states is completed, a higher state is reached – that of Synthesis. As humanity and politics evolves, this Synthesis then becomes a new Thesis which finds its match in a new Antithesis, and so on. So, according to Marxist theory, the story goes something like this: a socio-economic condition, say Feudalism (the Thesis), is matched by the conditions of the feudal slaves and serfs (the Antithesis). When revolution occurred between these two as it did during the French Revolution, then the resultant Synthesis produced Capitalism. Likewise, when Capitalism becomes the new thesis, it is matched by the Proletarian antithesis. When revolution between these two occurs, we get Communism. Communism is deemed to be the highest state of political and economic achievement and further evolution cannot occur.

    Note that there some common characteristics pertaining at each stage of this progression. The first is that there must be revolution (preferably a bloody one) between the thesis and antithesis before the synthesis can be achieved. The second is the unstated, but implied need for an educated middle class elite to act as the guiding hand to direct the antithesis stage into the synthesis. It must be remembered that Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Mao and all the rest were highly educated middle class intellectuals. A third common factor is that in each case, society must be divided into two antagonistic groupings in order that the revolution is effected. The final characteristic is that the thesis in each case becomes an object of opprobrium and hatred, whilst the antithesis deserves our sympathy. In other words, society is divided along the lines dictated by the élite.

    It is easier to think of the two groups in a divided society divided in this way as a ‘Hate’ group and a ‘Victim’ group – instead of ‘Thesis’ and ‘Antithesis’. The labelling of each group is essential in order to differentiate ‘Them’ from ‘Us’. For example, in the turmoil of revolutionary Russia in August 1919, there were leftist political groupings such as the Socialist Revolutionaries and the Mensheviks, as well as the Bolsheviks of Lenin. In an article in Pravda, Lenin accused these groups of being “accomplices and foot-servants of the Whites, the landlords and the capitalists”[1]. Note that two whole groups of people – nominally allies of the Bolsheviks – were routinely labelled as allies of actual enemies of the Revolution who had already earned themselves a place in the ‘Hate’ lexicon of Bolshevism. Having thus categorised these Socialist groups as a threat, this extract from a Cheka (Bolshevik Secret Police) internal memo dated 1st July 1919 shows the next steps:
    Quote Instead of merely outlawing these parties, which would simply force them underground and make them even more difficult to control, it seems preferable to grant them a sort of semi-legal status. In this way we can have them at hand, and whenever we need to, we can simply pluck out troublemakers, renegades, or the informers that we need….As far as these anti-Soviet parties are concerned, we must make use of the present war situation to blame crimes on their members, such as “counter-revolutionary activities”, “high treason”, “illegal action behind the lines,” “spying for interventionist foreign powers” etc. [2]
    This categorisation was constantly used in order to control and ultimately eliminate whole groups of people. Dividing society in this way, whipping up up hatred against one group or another made it easier for the Bolsheviks to gain acquiescence from the remainder of society to commit the mass murder of the first fifty years of Soviet Communism – roughly 20 million (although estimates vary). Categorisation and societal division was a process which led inevitably to wholesale slaughter or imprisonment in gulags. This in turn terrorised the whole population and gave justification for even greater excesses.



    Photographs: Soviet executions of Russians (dates unknown). Images from Wikipedia. The Left do not do this sort of thing anymore in the West. But the process of getting to this point is still the same.

    In our modern society, such slaughter is illegal and in any case is deemed counterproductive by the modern day Socialist. Nearly all societies throughout the world are much better informed than they have ever been before. The internet has ensured that governmental excesses are generally well broadcast and so the sheer brutality of previous regimes has become, for the most part, a thing of the past. The obvious exception to this is North Korea which has succeeded in keeping its population largely ignorant of the outside world. The other exception is ISIS or Da’esh which actually wants news of its excesses to reach the outside world in order to spread terror.

    This leaves us with the modern, western Left which nevertheless uses the same basic principles to divide society and thus create conditions whereby the Leftist élite are able to occupy the moral high ground, point the finger at their enemies and so (they hope) rally the rest of society around them in order to bring about whatever revolutionary vision is in their minds. Where before the victim group was ‘the worker’ or ‘the masses’ or ‘the proletariat’, this has had to be modernised into a variety of victim groups such as the LGBT community, ethnic and racial groups, women, the poor, the disabled and so on. Once again, these ‘vulnerable’ groups are given the dubious pleasures of special protection from the Left, so that another identifiable sub-section of society can be stigmatised as the Hate group. The Tories, people who voted Leave, bankers, ‘the 1%’, racists, Islamophobes, sexists, white van drivers, people you wouldn’t want to invite to an Islington dinner party, and so on, are all popular groups for provoking the ire of the Left. In fact, pretty well anyone who is unfortunate to have made a distinction between one person and another, will find themselves attracting the opprobrium of the Left. In generating this societal division, the Left insert themselves into positions of power and/or influence, from whence they begin to a) earn money at taxpayers’ expense; b) manipulate events to their own satisfaction.

    So the whole thing is a very simple process. Those who obstruct the path of the Left are placed into a Hate category. A Victim group is sought and then exploited by using inflammatory language against the Hate group. This drives a wedge into society. Into the divisions thus created, drops the middle class Leftist élite who utilise this lacuna as a means of gaining power. It does not need very many Leftists to carry out this process, especially in this age of social media. What matters is that a huge number of (often unwitting) fellow travellers latch on to the idea and use it in public discourse. David Cameron is a particularly good example of a useful fool in this respect. It is also necessary to point out that the two groups do not have to be antagonistic towards each other in the first instance. What is important, for the Leftists, is that the two groups are identifiable as different. The process of division deliberately foments, or even manufactures grievances which are then used to open the gap.

    It is the oldest rule of warfare of them all: Divide your enemies and then conquer them.

    References

    [1] and [2]: Courtois S, Werth N, Panné J-L, Paczkowski A, Bartošek K, Margolin J-L; (1999): The Black Book of Communism – Crimes, Terror, Repression. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts

  2. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Joe For This Post:

    AutumnW (6th July 2019), Mark/Rahkyt (8th July 2019), T Smith (15th June 2019)

  3. Link to Post #302
    Canada Avalon Member TomKat's Avatar
    Join Date
    23rd September 2017
    Posts
    976
    Thanks
    261
    Thanked 3,623 times in 832 posts

    Default Re: Racism

    Quote Posted by Rahkyt (here)
    Morton believed that people could be divided into five races and that these represented separate acts of creation. The races had distinct characters, which corresponded to their place in a divinely determined hierarchy. Morton’s “craniometry” showed, he claimed, that whites, or “Caucasians,” were the most intelligent of the races. East Asians—Morton used the term “Mongolian”—though “ingenious” and “susceptible of cultivation,” were one step down. Next came Southeast Asians, followed by Native Americans. Blacks, or “Ethiopians,” were at the bottom. In the decades before the Civil War, Morton’s ideas were quickly taken up by the defenders of slavery.
    Of course, every "race" is a variation of brown, from almost black to almost white. There is no red or yellow race.
    Not surprisingly, skin color mythology was started by a German:

    http://www.8asians.com/2011/05/09/wh...asians-yellow/

    "Johann Friedrich Blumenbach (1752–1840), one of the founders of what some call scientific racism theories, came up with the five color typology for humans: white people (the Caucasian or white race), more or less black people (the Ethiopian or black race), yellow people (the Mongolian or yellow race), cinnamon-brown or flame colored people (the American or red race) and brown people (the Malay or brown race). Blumenbach listed the “races” in a hierarchic order of physical similarities: Caucasian, followed by American, followed by Mongolian, followed by Malayan, followed by Ethiopian."

  4. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to TomKat For This Post:

    AutumnW (6th July 2019), Mark/Rahkyt (8th July 2019), onevoice (26th June 2019), Valerie Villars (23rd June 2019)

  5. Link to Post #303
    Canada Avalon Member Ernie Nemeth's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th January 2011
    Location
    Toronto
    Age
    62
    Posts
    3,724
    Thanks
    15,772
    Thanked 21,882 times in 3,480 posts

    Default Re: Racism

    Just an observation...

    There are visible differences in the races that no one had to invent. There are indeed different hues of skin color, anyone can see that for themselves. Each race has various ethnicities, these were also not invented. Most of these had to do with isolation and common bonds either because of ideology or war. After thousands of years each race subdivided into the many countries now on our map. The countries vary in degree in terms of race, with most modern countries being conglomerations of different races.

    Europe is an exception. In Europe most races are almost exclusively white, and due to long-standing regional borders, the main differences between the countries is not race but language. Even though the german's call themselves a race, as does every other country, in fact they are one race that has subdivided over many centuries of cohesion.

    So my point is that race has many connotations, many interpretations, not all to do with strict definitions and precise nomenclature.

    We are all one race - human. Yes. We are many races defined by physical borders. Yes. One of the ways to define race is by skin color. Yes. Another way of defining race is by language. Yes.

    Culture, race, society, country, religion, ideology, history, myth, legend, and more are used as means to divide and instill hatred to ensure the race of humanity never unites to rid itself of its masters - an alien race from the stars!(perhaps?...)
    Last edited by Ernie Nemeth; 2nd July 2019 at 15:09.

  6. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Ernie Nemeth For This Post:

    AutumnW (6th July 2019), Mark/Rahkyt (8th July 2019), T Smith (26th June 2019), Valerie Villars (23rd June 2019)

  7. Link to Post #304
    United States Avalon Member Mark/Rahkyt's Avatar
    Join Date
    11th June 2011
    Location
    San Marcos, Texas
    Age
    52
    Posts
    2,688
    Thanks
    15,744
    Thanked 21,191 times in 2,553 posts

    Default Re: Racism

    Excellent discussion on such an important topic. Since I've been gone, in thinking about how this thread has progressed and what Bill's original intent was, I believe that how folks have assayed these questions and challenges has been directly in line with the spirit of Project Avalon. There is no "final say" or "ultimate answer" there are only the variations we bring as humans, part of a greater family of beings who have chosen to traverse this vale of tears simultaneously. I offer this article in the spirit of recognition of that shared journey.

    Why We Confuse Race and Ethnicity

    A Lexicographer’s Perspective

    On our evolving understandings of racial categorization and cultural identity.


    Dictionaries sometimes provide an opportunity for users to tell more about what certain words should mean as opposed to what they do mean. Take race and ethnicity. The online dictionary at Merriam-Webster allows users to leave comments on entries, and the most common comment by far on the entry for ethnicity is that people are looking it up to determine how it’s distinguished from race. The most common comment on the entry for race is essentially “Okay, but what is race, then?”

    The reality is that the words race and ethnicity have a significant amount of overlap in terms of their general use. Race is the older word, dating back to the 1500s, and for most of its history, it referred to groups of people who shared a common ancestor, culture, or cultural marker (such as language or religion): “the English race,” “the Scottish race,” “the Jewish race.”

    But starting in the late 1700s, physiologists and anthropologists began using the word race to refer to a more formalized categorization of people that was based on physical characteristics, not necessarily shared ancestry or culture. “Physical characteristics” included everything from skin color to head shape to perceived temperament and intelligence (both of which were thought to have a biological basis). Nineteenth-century anthropologists divided humanity up into anywhere from three to twelve categories and ascribed physical, psychological, social, and intellectual attributes to each category.

    But just because a word gains a new meaning doesn’t mean that the old meanings go away. By the start of the twentieth century, race referred to groups of people who shared a common ancestor, groups of people who shared a common culture or cultural marker, and the anthropological categories of people divided primarily by physical appearance. And while those meanings seem distinct enough presented in isolation, it could be hard to tell just which meaning of race was being used:

    Quote It is my prayer, it is my longing, that we may pass from this life together—a longing which shall never perish from the earth . . . . This prayer is also immortal, and will not cease from being offered up while my race continues. (Mark Twain, “Eve’s Diary,” The $30,000 Bequest and Other Stories, 1906)
    English had furnished all the raw materials for a correction, and out of them was coined the word ethnicity. The Oxford English Dictionary has one citation, from 1772, for ethnicity, where it’s a translation of the Spanish etnicidad, but the word doesn’t appear again until the early twentieth century, in a book condemning the idea that common ethnic or cultural identity is deterministic of character or personality:

    Quote To regard every individual of an ethnic group as having primarily the characteristic nature of that group, as if affiliation with it invested him with a particular kind of ethnicity which then determined his nature, is contrary to the doctrine that each individual structure is primary. (Isaac B. Berkson, Theories of Americanization: A Critical Study, 1920)
    Ethnicity is built off the much earlier ethnic, which was used from the 1700s onward as an adjective to refer to national affiliation; both words trace back to the Greek word for “nation.” But the term ethnicity didn’t take off right away. Race was the preferred term—until the word began to get skunked.

    Skunked is the term that linguists use to refer to the process by which a formerly neutral word gains negative connotations and suddenly becomes fraught (or completely unacceptable) in general use. For the word race, lots of twentieth-century events and movements contributed to that skunking: Nazi atrocities bolstered by nineteenth-century anthropological ideas of “racial purity” and the fitness of the White race over other races; institutional structures that relied on the pseudoscience of “racial disparities” to separate society into “white” and “colored”; the various civil rights movements—like the NAACP, the National Congress of American Indians, UnidosUS (formerly National Council of La Raza), and the Japanese American Citizens League—that kept demanding we confront the realities of what it’s like to live in non-white skin in the U.S. The word race itself showed up more often in contexts that highlighted social problems: “race riot,” “racial discrimination,” “race relations,” “racial tensions,” “playing the race card.” Even today, while some people claim we live in a “post-racial” society, that nineteenth-century pseudoscience around race still affects our daily lives. For instance, a 2016 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America examines how ideas around the pain tolerance thresholds of White and Black patients—ideas that have their root in nineteenth-century concepts of race—continue to have an impact on Black people and how their pain is managed in a clinical setting.

    While these nineteenth-century ideas around race have been challenged, we still continue to hash out what, exactly, constitutes race. Nowhere is this tension more obvious than in the U.S. Census, which provides interesting (if somewhat behind-the-times) evidence for tracking the complexities of race and ethnicity. In the 230 years that the census has been running, race has expanded from three categories (free Whites, all other free persons, and enslaved people) to fifteen, including “other.” But in 1980, the U.S. Census began asking all respondents, regardless of how they answered the question on race, to identify whether they had Hispanic origins—categorizing it as an ethnicity, not a race. (Current studies by the Pew Research Center show that many census respondents who identify as Hispanic in origin consider that to be both their race and ethnicity.)

    Lexically speaking, this one event seems to be the thing that nudged the word ethnicity into general use; since the 1980s, use of ethnicity has increased dramatically. And the word race? It has more volume of use than ethnicity, as you’d expect for a word with five hundred more years of established use, but in the last few years, its use has decreased. The Oxford English Dictionary’s usage note at the entry sums up the current state of race in reference to those divisions of humanity distinguished by physical characteristics:

    Quote In recent years, the associations of race with the ideologies and theories that grew out of the work of 19th-cent. anthropologists and physiologists have led to the word often being avoided with reference to specific ethnic groups. Although it is still used in general contexts, it is now often replaced by terms such as people(s), community, etc.
    But lexical takes on race and ethnicity make the issue of what actually constitutes race and ethnicity seem much simpler than it actually is. In 2003, California Newsreel (in conjunction with PBS) broadcast a TV series called Race: The Power of an Illusion and asked four professors to tease out the differences between race and ethnicity. All four had different responses. Some felt race was a single unifying categorization based primarily on physical appearance while ethnicity was a cultural connection. Others felt that race was more an identifier of origin while ethnicity was a social, cultural, or linguistic bond. Others felt that race and ethnicity were both movable feasts and relied more on how power structures categorize and operate against people. In other words, some of the people groups that today are racially coded as White (and given the privileges of a White person) have been considered less than White or other than White in the past, particularly when anti-immigration sentiment was sweeping the nation. In more recent years, enough people have protested the Census Bureau’s reductive view of ethnicity that federal officials are considering combining the race question with the ethnicity question for the 2020 Census. That we know the two are somehow different but related is clear from the lexical side of things again: The most common use of ethnicity in print, and one of the most common uses of race in print, is in the phrase “race and ethnicity.”

    So when should you use race and when should you use ethnicity? A survey of the major dictionaries of English gives some basic guidance when talking generally about race and ethnicity. Most of them agree that the word ethnicity is most often used of a person’s cultural identity, which may or may not include a shared language, shared customs, shared religious expression, or a shared nationality (especially outside that nation’s borders). And most dictionaries agree that race is often used to describe one of several very broad categories that people are divided into that are biologically arbitrary yet considered to be generally based on ancestral origin and shared physical characteristics (especially skin color).

    There’s one more thing that dictionaries tell us, though it’s mostly subtext and only apparent in qualifiers like often and generally and especially. Race and ethnicity as labels can change not just from speaker to speaker but from context to context. Someone born to Japanese parents in the Bay Area of California and raised in San Francisco may identify racially as Asian (a broad category based on ancestral origin and some shared physical characteristics) but ethnically as Japanese, American, Japanese American, or maybe even San Franciscan (a cultural identity that can include shared customs, religion, nationality, or language). Or none of the above. The answer depends on who the speaker is talking to and why the listener is asking.
    Last edited by Mark/Rahkyt; 8th July 2019 at 16:58. Reason: add quotation indent

  8. The Following 16 Users Say Thank You to Mark/Rahkyt For This Post:

    AutumnW (6th July 2019), Bill Ryan (6th July 2019), Constance (8th July 2019), Dennis Leahy (7th July 2019), Franny (7th July 2019), greybeard (6th July 2019), gs_powered (2nd October 2019), Ken (17th August 2019), Kryztian (7th July 2019), Mike (6th July 2019), Post-Structuralist Comet (6th July 2019), T Smith (7th July 2019), Tam (17th July 2019), Tintin (17th August 2019), ulli (6th July 2019), william r sanford72 (4th December 2019)

  9. Link to Post #305
    UK Avalon Founder Bill Ryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th February 2010
    Location
    Ecuador
    Posts
    22,961
    Thanks
    83,315
    Thanked 285,040 times in 21,078 posts

    Default Re: Racism

    Quote Posted by Rahkyt (here)
    Excellent discussion on such an important topic. Since I've been gone, in thinking about how this thread has progressed and what Bill's original intent was, I believe that how folks have assayed these questions and challenges has been directly in line with the spirit of Project Avalon. There is no "final say" or "ultimate answer" there are only the variations we bring as humans, part of a greater family of beings who have chosen to traverse this vale of tears simultaneously.
    Yes, thanks. I entirely agree: the topic is culturally and historically complex, and highly nuanced — at least. Once one starts to drill down into it all (and look at it from every angle) what may well happen, if one permits it, is a great deal of learning and gaining of new insights. Avalon really does try to stand for that.

    What I'd really like to thank you for personally is how well you've presided over the discussion, even when some members have challenged or questioned you a little with their own perspectives. You've handled everything admirably.


  10. The Following 15 Users Say Thank You to Bill Ryan For This Post:

    AutumnW (6th July 2019), Constance (8th July 2019), Dennis Leahy (7th July 2019), Franny (7th July 2019), greybeard (6th July 2019), Ken (17th August 2019), Kryztian (7th July 2019), Mark/Rahkyt (22nd November 2019), Mike (6th July 2019), Rosemarie (6th July 2019), T Smith (6th July 2019), Tam (17th July 2019), ulli (6th July 2019), william r sanford72 (4th December 2019), Yoda (6th July 2019)

  11. Link to Post #306
    Avalon Member T Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    15th January 2011
    Posts
    1,195
    Thanks
    7,011
    Thanked 5,308 times in 1,070 posts

    Default Re: Racism

    Quote Posted by Rahkyt (here)
    Excellent discussion on such an important topic. Since I've been gone, in thinking about how this thread has progressed and what Bill's original intent was, I believe that how folks have assayed these questions and challenges has been directly in line with the spirit of Project Avalon. There is no "final say" or "ultimate answer" there are only the variations we bring as humans, part of a greater family of beings who have chosen to traverse this vale of tears simultaneously.
    Welcome back, Rahkyt. Lovin' the new avatar!

  12. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to T Smith For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (22nd November 2019), Constance (8th July 2019), Dennis Leahy (7th July 2019), Franny (7th July 2019), Ken (17th August 2019), Mark/Rahkyt (22nd November 2019)

  13. Link to Post #307
    United States Moderator/Guide
     
    Strat's Avatar
    Join Date
    27th April 2010
    Location
    Florida
    Age
    34
    Posts
    1,213
    Thanks
    2,646
    Thanked 6,966 times in 1,062 posts

    Default Re: Racism

    Rahkyt, I'm curious of your opinions on this: https://www.news4jax.com/news/local/...and-for-pledge
    Just as every cop is a criminal
    And all the sinners saints

  14. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Strat For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (22nd November 2019), Mark/Rahkyt (22nd November 2019)

  15. Link to Post #308
    United States Avalon Member
    Join Date
    24th June 2013
    Posts
    1,405
    Thanks
    850
    Thanked 4,042 times in 1,152 posts

    Default Re: Racism

    I was brought up on an island and witnessed the ending of the colonial British influence on people of African and European origin. As a small child I saw the differences in the way the two lived and see now that as one of the roots of racism. When I was 8, my mother left us with a very poor family which was integrated with the African community so that she could go away to study. There I learned to see people as colorful souls and individuals. Since everyone was poor, the personalities shone out as memorable, and as a Christian, I saw myself in others and vice versa and learned to treat others as I would wish them to see me and treat me.

    On the Internet I read of the man who was influential in devising living conditions for people of African descent in communities with miserable conditions, lacking in services, food stores, near swamps, low to no income or education areas and finally ready access to alcohol, drugs and guns (provided by the White Lodges). When the social rejects from those communities were compared to and by those who lived under opposite conditions, one could see why separation would seem desirable.

    Now I understand that the above conditions still exist. Therefore, REPARATIONS to me would be to REVERSE ALL THE ABOVE LIVING CONDITIONS FOR THOSE POOR, PERSECUTED PEOPLE. Create businesses and financing witch is doable for those folks to create employment and lives for themselves, decent accommodations and rent controlled homes and apartments, schools, libraries, etc., so that people are helped up instead of down. The laws of love given by Jesus Christ still help all living and hurt none. These are REPARATIONS.
    Last edited by amor; 16th August 2019 at 03:38. Reason: typo

  16. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to amor For This Post:

    Agape (16th August 2019), Bill Ryan (22nd November 2019), greybeard (16th August 2019), Mark/Rahkyt (22nd November 2019), RogeRio (16th August 2019)

  17. Link to Post #309
    Aaland Avalon Member Agape's Avatar
    Join Date
    26th March 2010
    Posts
    4,529
    Thanks
    10,729
    Thanked 18,735 times in 3,550 posts

    Default Re: Racism

    Quote Posted by amor (here)
    I was brought up on an island and witnessed the ending of the colonial British influence on people of African and European origin. As a small child I saw the differences in the way the two lived and see now that as one of the roots of racism. When I was 8, my mother left us with a very poor family which was integrated with the African community so that she could go away to study. There I learned to see people as colorful souls and individuals. Since everyone was poor, the personalities shone out as memorable, and as a Christian, I saw myself in others and vice versa and learned to treat others as I would wish them to see me and treat me.

    On the Internet I read of the man who was influential in devising living conditions for people of African descent in communities with miserable conditions, lacking in services, food stores, near swamps, low to no income or education areas and finally ready access to alcohol, drugs and guns (provided by the White Lodges). When the social rejects from those communities were compared to and by those who lived under opposite conditions, one could see why separation would seem desirable.

    Now I understand that the above conditions still exist. Therefore, REPARATIONS to me would be to REVERSE ALL THE ABOVE LIVING CONDITIONS FOR THOSE POOR, PERSECUTED PEOPLE. Create businesses and financing witch is doable for those folks to create employment and lives for themselves, decent accommodations and rent controlled homes and apartments, schools, libraries, etc., so that people are helped up instead of down. The laws of love given by Jesus Christ still help all living and hurt none. These are REPARATIONS.

    The worst demon haunting human civilisation at all times has nothing to do with how we look, so true, it’s a demon of economical and cultural inequity.

    Millions of gifted, capable people are out there who can’t make it beyond ceaseless work, struggle and fight in order to “achieve” what comparative minority received
    for granted.
    Sure there are myths ..of superiority running through family lines everywhere, no matter what continent or culture. In Africa or anywhere else, people whose ancestors were “chieftains” and “leaders” are automatically in better situation than the rest.

    There are myths of hard workers who become achievers.

    There are plenty of other myths about who deserves the funds to become operational in terms of this world.

    The way this world does seem to operate is by delegating very small -limited- group of individuals to the “billionaires club”.
    The most important decisions to do with running human society are reserved for them.

    We all know how much effort is required to move anything substantial in ours and other people’s lives otherwise. No matter what you say or do.
    We know how to save lives, how to heal and teach, how to live sustainable and beautiful life but yet
    there’s no way to take step forwards through us unless we perform some extraordinary feat charming the “club”.

    At the best they will “allow us” to live.

    There’s no real competition involved, no reality challenge. The “club game” is insured by huge numbers for those who are in.
    Individual failure does not mean anything, or what kind of myth these people cultivate and spread around themselves to charm “common Joe”. They have parents, brothers and uncles who won’t let them fall unless they’ve betrayed the “club” itself.

    Most of the modern civilisation live in one or another kind of economical and therefor also, existential slavery to those people.
    Working for 8 to 16 hours a day to be barely able to pay rent or feed family with two children with very few opting out options.

    The myth about Europe, the US or Japan supporting people who won’t participate in mass labour system in unreal.

    People all around the world should realise there’s no “human rights” equation between your abilities, purpose on this planet and your income. There’s no social care system taking care of the rest who were left out.

    So many people seem to live very poorly in the EU or the UK as well despite having the basics covered. They have certain number of items that became compulsory to fit in and perform family duties, such as cars or savings for dental work and other healthcare above average.
    They buy the cheapest food available and wear cloths saved from years back forever.
    Most people really can’t operate beyond and above the system run by these billionaires with full operational capacity.

    Racism is just a myth in my best judgement that is easily incorporated to the global agenda of wars and ownerships.
    Thinking we can own others by holding their life shares forever and “teaching them” who they are is a stealth, heresy, simply a crime.

    People are not little children because they grew up in bushes. More often they turn adults with sense of life responsibility much faster than the rest of us.

    Do I see any way with it myself , guess I don’t other than it’s unfortunate fate of this human civilisation requiring long time fixes.


    Maybe one day even some of those in-line individuals, the wealthiest of the wealthy, the healthiest of the healthy and beautiest of the beautiful ( all tongue in cheek and sour pickle)
    will step out of their predestined parallel programming, realise how deep it all goes, the root ignorance of some ancestor who once started it
    take a deep breath and ask themselves oh and “Why am I alone on this planet?”

    Because now many of the “chosen poor dears” simply don’t know well enough.
    They’ll spend millions to fix their noses and other little misfortunes and share billions with their equally underprivileged wives.

    They don’t understand there’s no way to get around THEMSELVES and their tall and fat egos. That the damage they’ve implicated and imposed on many people’s characters , lives and fates is unredeemable and that there won’t be anyone to forgive them at the end of the story.

    Too sad😢



    🙏🌟🙏



    On better note I would but wish to say, people of all cultures and colours fall in love with each other, every day which is the sole proof of our common human ancestry

    and timelessness of our Spirits.

    We exist as tweak of nature
    as well as Universal minds.

    It’s a fact that no religion can deny to its denizens.


    If I think of the amount of Love we naturally have for each of these beautiful people out there it’s overwhelming my brain. It seems to me that if we break the borders of our meditation on Love and Compassion about everyone of the 8 billion people can be given a hand when they need one.
    There is abundance of resources ..

    this Planet itself is very rich

    there are clean technologies that could provide sustainable energy grids all around the globe.

    There are medicines that could and should be made accessible to who need them because their so called cost is purely artificial compared to the price of human lives lost.


    We are capable of about anything if we give it more Love



    ❤️
    Last edited by Agape; 16th August 2019 at 07:33. Reason: This pesky grumpy extraterrestrial has better side too

  18. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Agape For This Post:

    Ayt (3rd December 2019), Bill Ryan (22nd November 2019), greybeard (16th August 2019), Mark/Rahkyt (22nd November 2019), RogeRio (16th August 2019), Valerie Villars (23rd November 2019), william r sanford72 (4th December 2019)

  19. Link to Post #310
    Brazil Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    30th June 2019
    Location
    Rio de Janeiro
    Language
    Portuguese
    Posts
    427
    Thanks
    1,854
    Thanked 1,953 times in 376 posts

    Default Re: Racism

    .. Racism, A History -- Documentary series looking at how racism has impacted on people's lifes

    1st episode -- The Color of Money



    2nd episode -- Fatal Impacts



    3rd episode -- A Savage Legacy


  20. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to RogeRio For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (22nd November 2019), gs_powered (2nd October 2019), Mark/Rahkyt (22nd November 2019)

  21. Link to Post #311
    United States Moderator/Guide
     
    Strat's Avatar
    Join Date
    27th April 2010
    Location
    Florida
    Age
    34
    Posts
    1,213
    Thanks
    2,646
    Thanked 6,966 times in 1,062 posts

    Default Re: Racism

    Kind of revisiting a past question but it just popped up in the news again: Rakhyt, what do you think of this? https://news.wjct.org/post/i-m-not-r...t-stand-pledge

    I like your perspective so it's always interesting to get your opinion.
    Just as every cop is a criminal
    And all the sinners saints

  22. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Strat For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (22nd November 2019), gs_powered (2nd October 2019), Mark/Rahkyt (22nd November 2019)

  23. Link to Post #312
    Portugal Avalon Member gs_powered's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th December 2011
    Age
    39
    Posts
    115
    Thanks
    681
    Thanked 417 times in 96 posts

    Default Re: Racism

    I believe the US have the highest regards for teachers as a society stone. I'm thinking back to the presidential speech regarding the civil representant on the Challenger, a female teacher...

    I think this goes deep into the American culture and is bound to have different people have different takes on the matter, specially due to the purpose of an educator versus the "politically correctness" he has to limit his teachings to

  24. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to gs_powered For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (22nd November 2019), Franny (22nd November 2019), Mark/Rahkyt (22nd November 2019)

  25. Link to Post #313
    United States Avalon Member Mark/Rahkyt's Avatar
    Join Date
    11th June 2011
    Location
    San Marcos, Texas
    Age
    52
    Posts
    2,688
    Thanks
    15,744
    Thanked 21,191 times in 2,553 posts

    Default Re: Racism

    Quote Posted by Strat (here)
    Kind of revisiting a past question but it just popped up in the news again: Rakhyt, what do you think of this? https://news.wjct.org/post/i-m-not-r...t-stand-pledge

    I like your perspective so it's always interesting to get your opinion.
    I teach 9th Graders Reading Comprehension. The school I teach at is probably 90% LatinX, maybe 4% Black, 6% White. When we say the Pledge of Allegiance, almost all of the kids stand, almost none will say it out loud. My opinion about this article, I think the teacher was on point, from the perspective of someone who has taken on American nationalism as a way of being. I don't force my kids to say it. Because I understand that they don't necessarily come from a space of experiencing the United States the way the majority population has, or the way I have. A good number of them have parents who don't speak English, and some, in addition to their parents, are Undocumented. I hype America by educating them about it while teaching them to read, exhort its ideals while fully understanding where and how they fail. I prepare them for the world they are going to inhabit, because where they live is almost entirely LatinX and Black, so they have no idea what it's like in the rest of the country. I do.

    Quote Posted by Strat (here)
    Rahkyt, I'm curious of your opinions on this: https://www.news4jax.com/news/local/...and-for-pledge
    My opinion is that the teacher sunk himself here:

    Quote MY POINT? You are all extremely lucky to be living in the U.S.A. If you refuse to stand during the Pledge of Allegiance or our National Anthem (AS SOME PAMPERED ARROGANT CELEBRITIES AND ATHLETES TEND TO DO), are you revealing maturity and wisdom? Actually, you are displaying the opposite.
    It is what it is. Some Americans have reason for being upset with the nation even as they live in it and partake of its bounties, blessings, curses and pratfalls daily. Others don't.

    ¤=[Post Update]=¤

    Quote Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
    What I'd really like to thank you for personally is how well you've presided over the discussion, even when some members have challenged or questioned you a little with their own perspectives. You've handled everything admirably.

    This space is worth standing for. There is no other space like it in the AltCom. Thanks for keeping it inviolate.

    ¤=[Post Update]=¤

    Quote Posted by Agape (here)
    We are capable of about anything if we give it more Love
    Agape, this entire post was filled with soul. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
    Last edited by Mark/Rahkyt; 22nd November 2019 at 18:55.

  26. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Mark/Rahkyt For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (22nd November 2019), Dennis Leahy (22nd November 2019), Franny (22nd November 2019), Kryztian (22nd November 2019), Strat (22nd November 2019), Valerie Villars (23rd November 2019), william r sanford72 (4th December 2019)

  27. Link to Post #314
    United States Avalon Member Mark/Rahkyt's Avatar
    Join Date
    11th June 2011
    Location
    San Marcos, Texas
    Age
    52
    Posts
    2,688
    Thanks
    15,744
    Thanked 21,191 times in 2,553 posts

    Default Re: Racism

    Quote Posted by gs_powered (here)
    I think this goes deep into the American culture and is bound to have different people have different takes on the matter, specially due to the purpose of an educator versus the "politically correctness" he has to limit his teachings to
    I don't think it is political correctness. That is about done, in America, anyway, thank goodness. I personally like for people to say what they believe and stand by it, so I can see who they are. It is much more honest and lets folks know exactly where they stand. Folks lying and pretending to believe things they don't sucks. This teacher showed his disdain for a bunch of folks trying to peacefully protest police killings with his words, which was problematic. He has a right to believe that athletes can be dumb and he has a right to say that as well. But the childrens' parents also have a right to let the school district know that they don't approve of the nature of the lesson too.

  28. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Mark/Rahkyt For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (22nd November 2019), Dennis Leahy (22nd November 2019), Franny (22nd November 2019)

  29. Link to Post #315
    United States Avalon Member Mark/Rahkyt's Avatar
    Join Date
    11th June 2011
    Location
    San Marcos, Texas
    Age
    52
    Posts
    2,688
    Thanks
    15,744
    Thanked 21,191 times in 2,553 posts

    Default Re: Racism

    It is a NYT article and, therefore, relatively mainstream. What it's import is in our discussion is the acknowledgement that the humanistic view of our oceanic homo sapien sapien family as being exactly the same outside of our group and individual differences, is problematic given the findings of modern DNA studies. That DNA research came out of WWII and Hitler's Germany as well as the Eugenics research done here in the United States during the era of slavery, the Black Codes and Jim Crow eras, continues to form the baseline of modern biological science and that is part of the cost of our current medicinal, genetic advances. It is a truism across the planet that good things come from bad, that a burnt out forest gives rise to new life and that disasters lead to better outcomes, eventually.

    There are things in this article that some might want to debate, like the Holocaust and whether it happened or not. I'm more interested in the underlying belief this author seems to be putting forward; that there are real physiological differences that any sort of obscuration of will result in a difficult journey forward for us as a planet, if we can't get beyond the limitations of the past, together. I will add that, for that movement forward to happen, a reconciliation of the past must occur first and, it seems, that is where the world is currently headed, in one fashion or another.



    In 1942, the anthropologist Ashley Montagu published “Man’s Most Dangerous Myth: The Fallacy of Race,” an influential book that argued that race is a social concept with no genetic basis. A classic example often cited is the inconsistent definition of “black.” In the United States, historically, a person is “black” if he has any sub-Saharan African ancestry; in Brazil, a person is not “black” if he is known to have any European ancestry. If “black” refers to different people in different contexts, how can there be any genetic basis to it?

    Beginning in 1972, genetic findings began to be incorporated into this argument. That year, the geneticist Richard Lewontin published an important study of variation in protein types in blood. He grouped the human populations he analyzed into seven “races” — West Eurasians, Africans, East Asians, South Asians, Native Americans, Oceanians and Australians — and found that around 85 percent of variation in the protein types could be accounted for by variation within populations and “races,” and only 15 percent by variation across them. To the extent that there was variation among humans, he concluded, most of it was because of “differences between individuals.”

    In this way, a consensus was established that among human populations there are no differences large enough to support the concept of “biological race.” Instead, it was argued, race is a “social construct,” a way of categorizing people that changes over time and across countries.

    It is true that race is a social construct. It is also true, as Dr. Lewontin wrote, that human populations “are remarkably similar to each other” from a genetic point of view.

    But over the years this consensus has morphed, seemingly without questioning, into an orthodoxy. The orthodoxy maintains that the average genetic differences among people grouped according to today’s racial terms are so trivial when it comes to any meaningful biological traits that those differences can be ignored.

    The orthodoxy goes further, holding that we should be anxious about any research into genetic differences among populations. The concern is that such research, no matter how well-intentioned, is located on a slippery slope that leads to the kinds of pseudoscientific arguments about biological difference that were used in the past to try to justify the slave trade, the eugenics movement and the Nazis’ murder of six million Jews.

    I have deep sympathy for the concern that genetic discoveries could be misused to justify racism. But as a geneticist I also know that it is simply no longer possible to ignore average genetic differences among “races.”

    Groundbreaking advances in DNA sequencing technology have been made over the last two decades. These advances enable us to measure with exquisite accuracy what fraction of an individual’s genetic ancestry traces back to, say, West Africa 500 years ago — before the mixing in the Americas of the West African and European gene pools that were almost completely isolated for the last 70,000 years. With the help of these tools, we are learning that while race may be a social construct, differences in genetic ancestry that happen to correlate to many of today’s racial constructs are real.

    Recent genetic studies have demonstrated differences across populations not just in the genetic determinants of simple traits such as skin color, but also in more complex traits like bodily dimensions and susceptibility to diseases. For example, we now know that genetic factors help explain why northern Europeans are taller on average than southern Europeans, why multiple sclerosis is more common in European-Americans than in African-Americans, and why the reverse is true for end-stage kidney disease.

    I am worried that well-meaning people who deny the possibility of substantial biological differences among human populations are digging themselves into an indefensible position, one that will not survive the onslaught of science. I am also worried that whatever discoveries are made — and we truly have no idea yet what they will be — will be cited as “scientific proof” that racist prejudices and agendas have been correct all along, and that those well-meaning people will not understand the science well enough to push back against these claims.

    This is why it is important, even urgent, that we develop a candid and scientifically up-to-date way of discussing any such differences, instead of sticking our heads in the sand and being caught unprepared when they are found.

    To get a sense of what modern genetic research into average biological differences across populations looks like, consider an example from my own work. Beginning around 2003, I began exploring whether the population mixture that has occurred in the last few hundred years in the Americas could be leveraged to find risk factors for prostate cancer, a disease that occurs 1.7 times more often in self-identified African-Americans than in self-identified European-Americans. This disparity had not been possible to explain based on dietary and environmental differences, suggesting that genetic factors might play a role.

    Self-identified African-Americans turn out to derive, on average, about 80 percent of their genetic ancestry from enslaved Africans brought to America between the 16th and 19th centuries. My colleagues and I searched, in 1,597 African-American men with prostate cancer, for locations in the genome where the fraction of genes contributed by West African ancestors was larger than it was elsewhere in the genome. In 2006, we found exactly what we were looking for: a location in the genome with about 2.8 percent more African ancestry than the average.

    When we looked in more detail, we found that this region contained at least seven independent risk factors for prostate cancer, all more common in West Africans. Our findings could fully account for the higher rate of prostate cancer in African-Americans than in European-Americans. We could conclude this because African-Americans who happen to have entirely European ancestry in this small section of their genomes had about the same risk for prostate cancer as random Europeans.

    Did this research rely on terms like “African-American” and “European-American” that are socially constructed, and did it label segments of the genome as being probably “West African” or “European” in origin? Yes. Did this research identify real risk factors for disease that differ in frequency across those populations, leading to discoveries with the potential to improve health and save lives? Yes.

    While most people will agree that finding a genetic explanation for an elevated rate of disease is important, they often draw the line there. Finding genetic influences on a propensity for disease is one thing, they argue, but looking for such influences on behavior and cognition is another.

    But whether we like it or not, that line has already been crossed. A recent study led by the economist Daniel Benjamin compiled information on the number of years of education from more than 400,000 people, almost all of whom were of European ancestry. After controlling for differences in socioeconomic background, he and his colleagues identified 74 genetic variations that are over-represented in genes known to be important in neurological development, each of which is incontrovertibly more common in Europeans with more years of education than in Europeans with fewer years of education.

    It is not yet clear how these genetic variations operate. A follow-up study of Icelanders led by the geneticist Augustine Kong showed that these genetic variations also nudge people who carry them to delay having children. So these variations may be explaining longer times at school by affecting a behavior that has nothing to do with intelligence.

    This study has been joined by others finding genetic predictors of behavior. One of these, led by the geneticist Danielle Posthuma, studied more than 70,000 people and found genetic variations in more than 20 genes that were predictive of performance on intelligence tests.

    Is performance on an intelligence test or the number of years of school a person attends shaped by the way a person is brought up? Of course. But does it measure something having to do with some aspect of behavior or cognition? Almost certainly. And since all traits influenced by genetics are expected to differ across populations (because the frequencies of genetic variations are rarely exactly the same across populations), the genetic influences on behavior and cognition will differ across populations, too.

    You will sometimes hear that any biological differences among populations are likely to be small, because humans have diverged too recently from common ancestors for substantial differences to have arisen under the pressure of natural selection. This is not true. The ancestors of East Asians, Europeans, West Africans and Australians were, until recently, almost completely isolated from one another for 40,000 years or longer, which is more than sufficient time for the forces of evolution to work. Indeed, the study led by Dr. Kong showed that in Iceland, there has been measurable genetic selection against the genetic variations that predict more years of education in that population just within the last century.

    To understand why it is so dangerous for geneticists and anthropologists to simply repeat the old consensus about human population differences, consider what kinds of voices are filling the void that our silence is creating. Nicholas Wade, a longtime science journalist for The New York Times, rightly notes in his 2014 book, “A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History,” that modern research is challenging our thinking about the nature of human population differences. But he goes on to make the unfounded and irresponsible claim that this research is suggesting that genetic factors explain traditional stereotypes.

    One of Mr. Wade’s key sources, for example, is the anthropologist Henry Harpending, who has asserted that people of sub-Saharan African ancestry have no propensity to work when they don’t have to because, he claims, they did not go through the type of natural selection for hard work in the last thousands of years that some Eurasians did. There is simply no scientific evidence to support this statement. Indeed, as 139 geneticists (including myself) pointed out in a letter to The New York Times about Mr. Wade’s book, there is no genetic evidence to back up any of the racist stereotypes he promotes.

    Another high-profile example is James Watson, the scientist who in 1953 co-discovered the structure of DNA, and who was forced to retire as head of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratories in 2007 after he stated in an interview — without any scientific evidence — that research has suggested that genetic factors contribute to lower intelligence in Africans than in Europeans.

    At a meeting a few years later, Dr. Watson said to me and my fellow geneticist Beth Shapiro something to the effect of “When are you guys going to figure out why it is that you Jews are so much smarter than everyone else?” He asserted that Jews were high achievers because of genetic advantages conferred by thousands of years of natural selection to be scholars, and that East Asian students tended to be conformist because of selection for conformity in ancient Chinese society. (Contacted recently, Dr. Watson denied having made these statements, maintaining that they do not represent his views; Dr. Shapiro said that her recollection matched mine.)

    What makes Dr. Watson’s and Mr. Wade’s statements so insidious is that they start with the accurate observation that many academics are implausibly denying the possibility of average genetic differences among human populations, and then end with a claim — backed by no evidence — that they know what those differences are and that they correspond to racist stereotypes. They use the reluctance of the academic community to openly discuss these fraught issues to provide rhetorical cover for hateful ideas and old racist canards.

    This is why knowledgeable scientists must speak out. If we abstain from laying out a rational framework for discussing differences among populations, we risk losing the trust of the public and we actively contribute to the distrust of expertise that is now so prevalent. We leave a vacuum that gets filled by pseudoscience, an outcome that is far worse than anything we could achieve by talking openly.

    If scientists can be confident of anything, it is that whatever we currently believe about the genetic nature of differences among populations is most likely wrong. For example, my laboratory discovered in 2016, based on our sequencing of ancient human genomes, that “whites” are not derived from a population that existed from time immemorial, as some people believe. Instead, “whites” represent a mixture of four ancient populations that lived 10,000 years ago and were each as different from one another as Europeans and East Asians are today.

    So how should we prepare for the likelihood that in the coming years, genetic studies will show that many traits are influenced by genetic variations, and that these traits will differ on average across human populations? It will be impossible — indeed, anti-scientific, foolish and absurd — to deny those differences.

    For me, a natural response to the challenge is to learn from the example of the biological differences that exist between males and females. The differences between the sexes are far more profound than those that exist among human populations, reflecting more than 100 million years of evolution and adaptation. Males and females differ by huge tracts of genetic material — a Y chromosome that males have and that females don’t, and a second X chromosome that females have and males don’t.

    Most everyone accepts that the biological differences between males and females are profound. In addition to anatomical differences, men and women exhibit average differences in size and physical strength. (There are also average differences in temperament and behavior, though there are important unresolved questions about the extent to which these differences are influenced by social expectations and upbringing.)

    How do we accommodate the biological differences between men and women? I think the answer is obvious: We should both recognize that genetic differences between males and females exist and we should accord each sex the same freedoms and opportunities regardless of those differences.

    It is clear from the inequities that persist between women and men in our society that fulfilling these aspirations in practice is a challenge. Yet conceptually it is straightforward. And if this is the case with men and women, then it is surely the case with whatever differences we may find among human populations, the great majority of which will be far less profound.

    An abiding challenge for our civilization is to treat each human being as an individual and to empower all people, regardless of what hand they are dealt from the deck of life. Compared with the enormous differences that exist among individuals, differences among populations are on average many times smaller, so it should be only a modest challenge to accommodate a reality in which the average genetic contributions to human traits differ.

    It is important to face whatever science will reveal without prejudging the outcome and with the confidence that we can be mature enough to handle any findings. Arguing that no substantial differences among human populations are possible will only invite the racist misuse of genetics that we wish to avoid.

    David Reich is a professor of genetics at Harvard and the author of the forthcoming book “Who We Are and How We Got Here: Ancient DNA and the New Science of the Human Past,” from which this article is adapted.

  30. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Mark/Rahkyt For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (22nd November 2019), Dennis Leahy (23rd November 2019), Franny (23rd November 2019), Mike (22nd November 2019), Star Tsar (23rd November 2019), Valerie Villars (23rd November 2019), william r sanford72 (4th December 2019)

  31. Link to Post #316
    United States Moderator/Guide
     
    Strat's Avatar
    Join Date
    27th April 2010
    Location
    Florida
    Age
    34
    Posts
    1,213
    Thanks
    2,646
    Thanked 6,966 times in 1,062 posts

    Default Re: Racism

    Rahkyt, got another question for you. If you want to avoid this because it could potentially set off a firestorm I'll understand, maybe shoot me a PM if so. I think we're all mature enough to handle it though. This may have been addressed already. Anyway,

    I've thought a lot about white privileged lately. Initially when this phrase started making the rounds it annoyed me as it does lots of other whites. The more I've thought about it though, I think it's just the word 'privilege' that threw me off. I think it throws off other whites as well. I think it was explained poorly by the media (go figure). At the moment I think I've come to a better understanding. I'll explain then I'd like your 2 cents.

    So, being white I never have to experience what I'm about to say: It seems like when someone is born black, they are born into a kind of a club whether they like it or not. Said person will have to obviously deal with a lot, and I don't necessarily mean just racism. Things like being pressured by other blacks. You can be called an uncle tom, you can be too dark (I think this is more an issue with gals) or too light. You have to be part of a political affiliation. You can't do certain things, I've heard Terry Crews rail against this, "Black people don't _________." Like if you wanna go skydiving or whatever. Tracking your ancestry may be impossible. If you happen to like a song and you have good bass in your car and you crank it up, someone will look at you and think "makes sense" whereas for me it's "that guy's music is loud." You need to be a scholar on race relations and when whites ask about black stuff you need to have an informative answer.

    None of this is an issue for me or other white folks. As I've thought about this I can understand that alone can be very crazy making. I imagine these are the more minor things. Whites want blacks to 'get over slavery'. Patrice O'Neal said it well, "do you want the Jews to 'get over' the Holocaust?"

    -----------------

    I suck at writing but some more thoughts:

    Call me crazy, but I think whites have a kernel of racism that's hard to get out. The thing is white folks aren't aware of it because even when we truly, honestly think to ourselves if we're racist we don't see it. We think everyone should have equal rights and be nice to each other and enjoy each others company. So how could I be racist?

    It doesn't always show itself. It sucks, I have it too to an extent I think. I don't mean being disrespectful or saying things I shouldn't, but just having opinions that are kinda ignorant. You're not aware of it until a circumstances arise.

    When speaking of white privilege, whites unintentionally lump all blacks into a category of poor lazy blacks that say this. So the 'debunk' method is to drive through the hood and see how black folks on welfare are living: beer cans stacked up in the trash, rolling a blunt with kids running around and a brand new GMC with aftermarket wheels that have more value than my 20 year old truck. Maybe I get this impression because I live in the south? I dunno. But I think you wouldn't have to go far to find a white guy use that as a debunk method to being accused of being born into privileges.

    --------------

    Sorry this is all scattered but it's late. I'd be interested to hear your 2 cents. I'm not sure why I'm fascinated in all this, I think it's in part because I'm an armchair (American) historian as well as anthropologist.
    Just as every cop is a criminal
    And all the sinners saints

  32. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Strat For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (23rd November 2019), Dennis Leahy (23rd November 2019), Franny (23rd November 2019), Mark/Rahkyt (27th November 2019)

  33. Link to Post #317
    Netherlands Avalon Member Catsquotl's Avatar
    Join Date
    24th June 2010
    Location
    3d Dimesion and beyond. 52,47 N 7 E
    Age
    48
    Posts
    399
    Thanks
    480
    Thanked 1,991 times in 367 posts

    Default Re: Racism

    Quote Posted by Strat (here)

    Call me crazy, but I think whites have a kernel of racism that's hard to get out. The thing is white folks aren't aware of it because even when we truly, honestly think to ourselves if we're racist we don't see it.

    White privileged male over here.
    That said even though I did not ask for this, It seems these days I have to feel guilty for being one. I won't by the way.
    Without ignoring past and present monstrosities taking place because of ethnical, gender or social place in the world. I honestly feel that many many many people are taking offense where none was intended.



    It seems that every little politically incorrect view these days is blown out of proportion.
    And we all know who the politicians that make the views are anyway..


    With Love
    Eelco
    ---
    Please leave some of your light everywhere you go.

  34. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Catsquotl For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (23rd November 2019), Franny (23rd November 2019), Pam (23rd November 2019)

  35. Link to Post #318
    United States Moderator/Guide
     
    Strat's Avatar
    Join Date
    27th April 2010
    Location
    Florida
    Age
    34
    Posts
    1,213
    Thanks
    2,646
    Thanked 6,966 times in 1,062 posts

    Default Re: Racism

    Quote Posted by Catsquotl (here)
    I honestly feel that many many many people are taking offense where none was intended.
    Can you elaborate with an example?

    EDIT: When I said whites have a kernel of racism I was specifically referring to US Americans. And I'm not sure about that, just a theory. Racism maybe too strong a word I'll admit.
    Last edited by Strat; 23rd November 2019 at 17:56.
    Just as every cop is a criminal
    And all the sinners saints

  36. The Following User Says Thank You to Strat For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (24th November 2019)

  37. Link to Post #319
    Canada Avalon Member Ernie Nemeth's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th January 2011
    Location
    Toronto
    Age
    62
    Posts
    3,724
    Thanks
    15,772
    Thanked 21,882 times in 3,480 posts

    Default Re: Racism

    You might be a racist in North America because here there is a mix of all races.

    But in Europe, with the nations of pure racial stock, where the notion of nationhood was born, how can one be a racist?

    That said, living under the specter of racism is uncomfortable and markedly demoralizing. But exactly when did the minority expect to have it any other way? They are the minority. And just like when the majority win an election, the minority must put up with the agenda they do not agree with. What else can be done - civil war every time the minority looses, which is every time, by definition?

    And that said leaves one other point. There is no reason in the world why one should not be proud of their heritage. But, to seriously claim that one race is actually genetically superior is demonstrably wrong...and inaccurate.

    Everyone belongs to a minority of one. How many are superior to yourself, in your own eyes? Does that make them right - and deserving of more? No.

    We are all unique individuals, and as such it is healthy to promote your race. But, the comparison of one race to another and the stereotyping of a race of people is not.

  38. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Ernie Nemeth For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (24th November 2019), Franny (23rd November 2019), Mark/Rahkyt (2nd December 2019), Pam (23rd November 2019)

  39. Link to Post #320
    Netherlands Avalon Member Catsquotl's Avatar
    Join Date
    24th June 2010
    Location
    3d Dimesion and beyond. 52,47 N 7 E
    Age
    48
    Posts
    399
    Thanks
    480
    Thanked 1,991 times in 367 posts

    Default Re: Racism

    Quote Posted by Strat (here)
    Quote Posted by Catsquotl (here)
    I honestly feel that many many many people are taking offense where none was intended.
    Can you elaborate with an example?

    When I point out that black/white/yellow/red man over there, I am just using an obvious name to signify who or what I am pointing to.
    From my end I mean no offense. When I am overheard however by the woke crowd however. It is enough to call me a racist.



    In earlier feminist days when walkmans were becoming a thing. I have been called a sexist once or twice for calling a walkman a walkman.

    When I (as a dutchman) want to celebrate a children's tradition with my kids. The world is falling over black faced helpers of s't nicholas without much regard for the way these helpers were looked upon in my younger years, but only projecting their own view of what they believe black face to represent.



    These are just a few, However my views in this are not important. What is important is that all these "examples" seem to attract a larger and larger crowd who dichotomises over them than What was the case a decade ago.
    The polarity and willingness to fight for either side is what is harmful in all these things. And yes I suspect an agenda there that is as old as we can remember divide and conquer.


    The issues aren't new. Racism, sexism etc etc. Have been there for a long time, and I agree they are vile human traits. It just seems to me that we are fighting harder and harder to prove our point, where we used to discuss and find common grounds in these matters, Going as far as inventing whole new levels of personal guilt trips and Judgemental notions on how " others" should act.


    With Love
    Eelco
    ---
    Please leave some of your light everywhere you go.

  40. The Following User Says Thank You to Catsquotl For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (24th November 2019)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 16 of 25 FirstFirst 1 6 16 25 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts