It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What can we do to address race-relations and solve racism?

page: 63
2
<< 60  61  62    64  65  66 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 10:13 PM
link   
BH--this is what loam said about the "Brown-eyed/Blue-eyed" project:


Originally quoted by loam

My understanding of the issue didn't come from some contrived eye-color exercise comfortably practiced in a seminar.


I think it's your turn to read a little bit more closely.




posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally quoted by Benevolent Heretic

But you didn't, even though you've had every opportunity. I have yet to hear ANY response from you, even though I've asked questions and expressed views on several subjects. You're certainly free to ignore me, but it flies in the face of what you say you want. Which is a discussion.


Well, even though I had a work load to finish while fighting off these personal attacks from loam, I didn't have any time to answer you. But now I do. Consider your request done.




I realized after reading this and thinking about it that I am so far from the stereotypical white person and the stereotypical woman, that this does not apply to me or help me understand anything at all. In fact, I found I was getting a little pissed. As far as I am from being "passive, weak, fragile, and powerless", I also do not stereotype black women as "independent, assertive and aggressive". I can proudly say that these stereotypes (that I was not aware of and I'm still not sure I 'buy') don't even come into my mind when meeting another woman.


Who said you were "passive", "weak", "fragile" and "powerless"? The article, the last time I read it, did not focus upon you. However, it was describing a typical stereotype that some people might have. And the author was using these stereotypes as a way to analyze how some women of different races might have such a discussion of race. And furthermore, she said that these stereotypes need to be done away with.


I don't like stereotyping and I don't think it's helpful in dealing with other people. I think the stereotypes should be thrown out the window and we should connect with people for who they are instead of expecting such stereotypes as “Miss Anne”, the “Snow Queen” or “Femme Fatale". Or heaven forbid, "Miss Scarlett".


Really? You stereotype me by my behavior. I've stereotyped you by yours. We're both guilty. Thus, I think the article has a little more weight than what you are giving it.


I can deal with people's anger just fine... as long as it's not aimed at me. Especially for something I didn't do. I'm angry about racism, too and I don't blame black people one bit for being angry! They have every right to be angry!


I'm glad you're angry about racism. And I'm glad you don't blame black people for being frustrated by it. But, why do you use stereotyping in terms of describing the experiencesof myself and other people of color?

Not everyone who is of color is going to be angry when describing the experiences they've gone through. Not everyone has inherent racism when discussing a particular form of racism.

And not everyone is "gunning for revenge" when they are describing these experiences. And when you describe "racial rage", how do you come to that conclusion when that might not be the case?


Which Ceci, you clearly are. You don't throw around the personal, racial insults that you have without being very angry at me, I can only assume because I'm white and you have assigned me one of the stereotypes.


How am I angry? Isn't that a stereotype you have of me? I think it is better not to assume, but you do it every time.


Taking your racial anger out on me is highly misdirected.


Exactly, what is this "racial anger"? After all, you keep on describing this phenomenon and I would like to know more about it. Or else, I'd think you're stereotyping me again.


I'm on your side. I actually agree with you about most things. But when I do disagree with you, you break out the racial rage ON ME, which is highly inappropriate.


Yes, you are on my side...mostly. I'm glad you agree with me on most things. But there is that "racial rage" thing again. I don't have "racial rage". But just because you say I do, I have it?


Perhaps this article will actually help some women to talk to each other, and if it does, that's great. What I'd like to hear are your (and others') opinions on the piece. It's great to source articles, but it doesn't help us to get to know each other. That's why I rarely source articles.


That is the reason why I do. When discussing these things without the articles, it is too easy for some to apply stereotypes and negative assumptions to what is being discussed. If I didn't have the articles here, you'd think that these endeavors were a "fantasy" and an "illusion". It is always good to have sources to back you up. You wouldn't expect any less on another topic.


Anyone can look on the Internet and find interesting information to support or disprove their position, but my interest lies in people. My interest lies in looking beyond the color of your skin. Because something I think we can do to improve race relations is to get to know each other.


Is harping on my behavior all the time, getting to know me? That's why source articles are important because they describe exactly what is at stake without letting your bias get involved.


How can I say this? I'm not offended by the author's "anger around racism", but I'm ever-so-slightly offended by the idea that this question assumes. I'd also like to add that I personally don't feel any guilt or even agreement about white women hanging out with the 'oppressors'. My father was a pretty oppressive sort, over his family, but he would have been the same had he been a black man.


Fine. Describe how a black man approaches fatherhood, if you are so sure. Why do you think his experience of being a father is the same as a white man?


. And I've never been the wife, sister or lover of an oppressor. I admit I may not have been as open to the real meat of the article because of the generalizations that abound.


How do you know they are generalizations?


And let me reiterate (for all the good it will do) I don't think anyone's intimidated by anger about racism.


Could have fooled me. You harp about my "racial anger" all the time.


Only when it's directed AT us for the color of our skin might we feel intimidated.


Tell me about it.


This author seems to assume that when we (white women) see an angry black woman, we run for the safety of our white man's protective and patriarchial arms. That thought makes me a little ill. I don't know ANY woman who would do that.


How do you know this is the case? She might or might not. And of course, this is from your perception. There could be other white women who think differently than you do.



There's not a white woman I know who wouldn't get angry right along with a black woman who was angry about being discriminated against because we face it all the time, too! We are angry about it!


I'm glad you empathize, but the same discrimination that white and black women face together is sexism. But black women have to deal with institutional racism and personal racism by the dominant culture. White women deal with sexism in social institutions.


Perhaps it's easier for us NOT to blame the 'white man' as the oppressor because we do hang out with white men in our lives and know them to be respectful, sensitive, caring human beings.


I agree that there are wonderful white men who are caring, respectful and sensitive. In fact, I am glad to know some personally like that. But, the operative term is "the white men we know in our lives".

Outside of our lives, there may be wonderful white men as well. But also, there are terrible white men who do take on the role as the oppressor. In fact, there are white men who display various attitudes toward the issue of race. And just because they might be sensitive and caring to one individual does not mean that they act the same way to another.


There are men, however (of all colors) who are "the oppressors" and more significantly, there are the women (of all colors) who play right along with them and support the "patriarchy" of which they are a contributing member. This group can rightly be called the Dominant Culture.


With that, I mostly agree. But who makes up the majority in a racialized sense?


But it doesn't just consist of men, it doesn't just consist of white people and there are tons of white men who DO NOT fit into that group, so it's unfair (in my mind) to use that term as synonymous with white people or white men.


See my question above.


I got the feeling from this article that the author had everyone comfortably tucked away in their little compartments complete with labels and I was in pretty much disagreement with that. Did I miss the whole meaning of the article?


Unfortunately, you did.



I'm sure there are some general differences between white women and black women, but I personally see us as having much more in common than say white women and white men.


How so? Culturally? Racially?



Secondarily, there is the culture gap, say between myself and a Chinese woman. But I am apparently largely missing the gap between a a black and a white woman raised in the US. I think we have different experiences, but no more so that a white woman raised on a Montana ranch and one raised in Manhattan. If the black and white woman were both raised in Chicago, I'm not at all sure I'd recognize a racial gap.


But there is a difference. That is the problem. There are people who can be raised identically and still have a different set of experiences based on skin color. Not everyone practices this, but more often than not it happens because there are people who do have prejudices.


(I will continue answering your comments in the next post)




[edit on 4-10-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally quoted by Benevolent Heretic

It's just that I don't see these stereotypes in the first place. Say I'm in denial, but when I meet a woman, I don't automatically think she must be assertive because she's black. So I agree with getting the stereotypes out of the way, if they're there.


I agree with you. But what do you actually assume when you meet a black woman?




Yes. That's quite obvious. A poster is being sarcastic. It happens probably hundreds of times a day here on ATS. It's allowed. You may not like it, but you can't control it. You seem to take the 'worst' examples of what other people do and apply it to us all, though, and that's simply not fair. Is it?


Of course it isn't fair. But there are a lot of things I can think of as not being fair, but when I describe them they get branded as a "fantasy", an "illusion" and as "nonsense". Is that fair?

I really don't take the worst examples and apply them to everyone. In fact, I don't judge others from the acts of a few. But, the stigma remains, does it not?

However, if I see similarities from a demonstrated pattern of behavior and have them echoed in the source articles, then perhaps it is time to mention it.



There's probably nothing you can do to change the way that poster feels about you or this issue. Why not focus on people who are actually trying to have a discussion with you? Why totally ignore someone who is trying to have a discourse about racism and instead give all your focus to the behavior you don't like?


Well, I guess those who are having a discussion about racism and race-relations are only those who root out my behavior and misconstrue it as something else. Or else, some cannot stay on topic and actually discuss what is being proposed in the thread.

Is that how some people approach things when discussing these issues? First telling someone they have "pain", "racial anger" and "inherent racism" while not dealing with the actually subject at all?

I thought that the topic consisted of issues that had to do with racism and race-relations, not me and my opinions. At least that's what I thought anyway.

Did anyone miss what Byrd and wecomeinpeace said in regards to the thread?



I think a lot of us do that. Some don't and won't. That's just the way it is. Nobody always gets the respect they deserve. NOBODY.


Then why are you so worried about this if that is what you believe?




That is simply not true! What IS true is that not everyone agrees or empathizes or comprehends as perfectly as you would like, but by saying that There is no demonstration at all at comprehending discounts those of us who do really get some of it or try to comprehend or have empathy. That completely discounts all our efforts.


Exactly. So why is it so hard to recognize the examples experienced by people of color in the articles then?







[edit on 4-10-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006
Fine, loam.

But for what it is worth, read what Rasobasi said to FF in the post above mine. It might open your eyes to what is at stake. What do you think he's trying to say?


Well, after reading Rasobasi's last few posts, I actually think his/her perspective is much closer to mine than it is to yours.


Originally posted by Rasobasi420
all in all Racism is bad (agreed?)



Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Hate of any form is wrong.


Your position, ceci seems much more qualified.


But returning to Rasobasi's point, it begins earlier with the notion that Malcolm X's "hatred" for whites is understandable in the context of his personal experiences and a society that at the time continued openly and unapologetically institutionalized racism against Black Americans.

His specific comments to FlyersFan makes the point that it would be a mischaracterization to describe the "racism" of the time as involving just a few whites.

I don't disagree. For God sakes, there were still plenty of these hanging around:

home.earthlink.net..." border=0>


The fact that those types of signs were permitted to be around- even in government offices- is certainly a strong indication it was more than just a "few" white racist.

But it's the next point Rasobasi makes that I think you partially miss with regard to my own posts.


Originally posted by Rasobasi420
With that said, the label 'racist' brings with it some damaging issues. If someone called a racist, it often results in their words meaning less (to some) and their message being lost in a veil of prejudice (ie, if he's wrong about race, he must be wrong about everything else)

...

Not only that, but the word itself has become one of the most upsetting insults in modern history. I know you're not going out of your way to insult the man. It's just interesting what unsaid meaning comes with a word over time.


I understand that you and Rasobasi are making the point that to label or defame the messenger (in the specific case, calling Malcom X a racist), it is either an intended attack to the legitimacy of the overall message of racial injustice, or if not intended, has nonetheless the same result.

I don't disagree.

(I also understand that this is what you think I am doing.
)

But what I fail to see is why you think doing the same in reverse is ok?

I have no doubt the number of racist whites, then, was much more than just a "few"... I have no doubt the number is even sizable today.

I have no doubt of the unconscionable brutality Black Americans were made to suffer then...and I have no doubt of it's more subtle forms today.

But I also have no doubt that the problem of racism will never materially improve unless the opposition to it is universally applied.


Originally posted by ceci2006
Besides that, this thread is not about me or my views about race or race-relations.


I see nothing wrong with me commenting on your "on topic" views. I have no problem with you commenting on mine.



Originally posted by ceci2006
On the contrary, you're the one that's playing games. You can't bring yourself to get past the "Brown-Eyed/Blue-Eyed" test and read the other articles which distinctly describe some of the things that people of color go through. You can't even describe them. You can only criticize them. You can't even bring yourself not even to talk about how these examples might be important to someone of color.


I understand how they would be important to a person of color. I get the subtleties of body language, expression or act from certain whites that demonstrates they fear a person of color...or feel superior to them ...have "judged" them on the basis of race alone.

I understand it well enough.

I also understand that this is not an unusual and uncommon experience for Black Americans, and that its impact economically and socially is devastating.

But what I don't understand is why you find it difficult to acknowledge and condemn such injustices regardless of a person's race?

When I ask such a question, you assume I'm practising the "equivalency" argument (and therefore either intentionally or subconsciously minimizing the relevancy of your experience), rather than understanding that what I am saying is... opposition to racial injustice, wherever it might be found, and regardless of the race involved, is a prerequisite commitment to solving the problem of racism.

I don't know how to say it any more clearly than that.


Originally posted by ceci2006
You keep on saying that it is "contrived" without even saying why. You can't even describe how or where Ms. Elliot's methodology is flawed. Not to mention, where it might need work in order to have a proper study of race-relations and discrimination.


Ceci, I used that word to describe the exercise in comparison to the ACTUAL experience of racism. I don't see how you could disagree with that.

If you're asking if I think the exercise has no merit? Of course not. Where did you see me post this?


Originally posted by ceci2006
That's what I meant by avoidance and deflection as well as the failure to use critical thinking on this issue. You just keep on rolling out the same, learned messages about race. Not visiting all the countries in the world can cover that up.




What learned messages would that be? Do you honestly think that to expect universal opposition to injustice is "a learned" message I feebly use to mask my own racists beliefs?

:shk:

You are unbelievable.


Originally posted by ceci2006
Show you examples? I've written examples in each of my posts!?!



I didn't ask for "examples", I asked for my QUOTES. All you have done is level accusations about what I have written...you haven't actually quoted any of them to demonstrate what you so conveniently conclude.


Originally posted by ceci2006
It's okay. It just tells me that there isn't anything to talk about here. It's best that you stop the conversation in its tracks because your mind is already made up. You've already made the decision to discount everything because you can't even get yourself to question why these examples are bought up.

If you're just going to criticize me here and lightly skin over the issues in this thread, it's best that you make better use of your time elsewhere. Otherwise, it's useless to explain this to you. And, I can spend my time involving myself in other areas of the thread.


I'll manage my own time. Thank you.




[edit on 4-10-2006 by loam]



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 01:33 AM
link   

originally quoted by loam

But what I fail to see is why you think doing the same in reverse is ok?


And why do you think that? I've never given any indication of doing this.


But I also have no doubt that the problem of racism will never materially improve unless the opposition to it is universally applied.


I completely agree. However, we disagree how to go about this.

But you're also wrong about Rasobasi and myself. I agree with him most of the time. I also believe that racism in any form is wrong and should be universally combatted. However, what exactly does the "same racist experience" entail--even when they have to do with different races?

What would you do if someone from your own race is not "universally" combatting racism?


What learned messages would that be?


I leave it to you to figure that out.


Do you honestly think that to expect universal opposition to injustice is "a learned" message I feebly use to mask my own racists beliefs?


No. But no one is completely free of bias, no matter who they are.


You are unbelievable.


Likewise.


[edit on 4-10-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006
Well, loam, I have some questions to ask you then:


I wish you would answer the ones I ask of you. So far, you haven't answered a single one.


Originally posted by ceci2006
1)Describe the racism I have.


Assuming that because I am a white male and advocate the universal opposition to racial injustice, that such a belief is not possible, or genuine, and that I am somehow endeavoring (consciously or otherwise) to minimize the racial injustice suffered by a specific subset of victims.

Clear enough for you?


Originally posted by ceci2006
2)What type of neat little box am I putting this all into?


See my answer to #1.


Originally posted by ceci2006
3)What kind of pain am I clouding?


I didn't say you were clouding your pain. What I said was that your pain was clouding your judgment.


Originally posted by ceci2006
4)Describe, by virtue of the articles that I posted, how I am directing this toward someone "white" and "male".


When I commented on the offensive premise of Mary McRae's "My Sister" piece, you defended the piece as if it were a personal attack on you. (I suggest you go back and read page 60 again.
)

The fact that you don't find the identification of "White men as the oppressors" offensive is revealing, in my view.


Originally posted by ceci2006
5)I've asked twice to describe (through the articles that I posted) how might a person of color perceive the acts taking place in these texts.


I think my previous post answers this question.


Originally posted by ceci2006
I know you understand English. And by virtue of your superior intellect you can do comparison and contrast. Please analyze the articles to prove that you can comprehend what people of color go through.


Prove I do not.



Originally posted by ceci2006
However, you claim you know me and my atitudes since you are taking more time to criticize me than focusing on the issue at hand. Since you keep on harping on intellectual dishonesty, state your answer as truthfully as you can instead of twisting my words. Stop playing your own set of games.

Or otherwise, we don't have anything to discuss. And I would like to get back to the topic at hand.


Where have I twisted your words?


[edit on 4-10-2006 by loam]



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 02:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006

originally quoted by loam

But what I fail to see is why you think doing the same in reverse is ok?


And why do you think that? I've never given any indication of doing this.


Are you kidding? You have stated in a half dozen ways that my statements were EVIDENCE of it... You've had no problem labeling my comments as "deflection" and thereby invalidating my message.

But you don't see that, do you?


Originally posted by ceci2006

originally quoted by loam
But I also have no doubt that the problem of racism will never materially improve unless the opposition to it is universally applied.


I completely agree. However, we disagree how to go about this.



That is certain.


Originally posted by ceci2006
But you're also wrong about Rasobasi and myself. I agree with him most of the time. I also believe that racism in any form is wrong and should be universally combatted. However, what exactly does the "same racist experience" entail--even when they have to do with different races?


I'm not sure I understand the question. But this is the FIRST time I have seen you express "racism in any form is wrong."


Originally posted by ceci2006
What would you do if someone from your own race is not "universally" combatting racism?


Confront it.


[edit on 4-10-2006 by loam]



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 03:35 AM
link   

Originally quoted by loam

I wish you would answer the ones I ask of you. So far, you haven't answered a single one.


I have. Look on page 61.


Assuming that because I am a white male and advocate the universal opposition to racial injustice, that such a belief is not possible, or genuine, and that I am somehow endeavoring (consciously or otherwise) to minimize the racial injustice suffered by a specific subset of victims.


Where have I ever literally said that in this entire thread?


See my answer to #1.


That's no answer at all.


I didn't say you were clouding your pain. What I said was that your pain was clouding your judgment.


What pain was this again? And why is it clouding my judgement?



When I commented on the offensive premise of Mary McRae's "My Sister" piece, you defended the piece as if it were a personal attack on you. (I suggest you go back and read page 60 again. )

The fact that you don't find the identification of "White men as the oppressors" offensive is revealing, in my view.


Really, I did? I said no such thing. If you find I literally said that, I'm sure you'll let me know.



I think my previous post answers this question.


Not even remotely. Nice try, though.


Prove I do not.


You didn't take the articles and meticulously discuss them like you've been doing to my comments. Is this discussion about me? Or is it about racism and race-relations? That is the question, is it not?

I did say articles, didn't I?

When you actually do break down the articles and answer my questions, then I'll truly be surprised.


Where have I twisted your words?





Are you kidding? You have stated in a half dozen ways that my statements were EVIDENCE of it... You've had no problem labeling my comments as "deflection" and thereby invalidating my message.


Is everything always about you?



But you don't see that, do you?


Knowing that this is not the subject matter of the thread, you'd probably show me.


I'm not sure I understand the question.


I'm sure you can figure it out. You don't need anyone's help since you research various subject matter on the board quite a lot. Plus you have experiences of racism in real life to back you up.


But this is the FIRST time I have seen you express "racism in any form is wrong."


Really? Was I supposed to?



[edit on 4-10-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 03:43 AM
link   
I'll let our posts stand.

You're right, we should move on.



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 05:14 AM
link   
These are some articles discussing strategies to continue discussions such as the one on this thread. They carry some insightful things that people can include in their future conversations.



Straight talk about racism
Whites do not begin to know the effort it takes for Blacks to subdue their true feelings about the racial pain they incur, even in work situations, where it may appear that the relationships are collegial and compatible. Generational fear provides the protective, defensive kindness that "sugar-coats" feelings. In this way the blunted comments that come out of the mouths of Blacks are not the same as the sharply edged thoughts kept on check in the inside that cut so deeply into the self-esteem of the psyche. This has proven to be hazardous behavior for Blacks; the evidence of stress-caused illnesses is only now coming to the fore— the expense of enduring the hurt rather than expelling or dissipating it on the offender.
[...]
The real solution to racism lies not with the transformation of avowed racists, although we must never give up on them. Instead, it rests with the great masses who do not know that they are, or do not believe themselves to be, racists. These are the people who delight in their relationship with those who are racially and culturally dissimilar from themselves. They tell the story of racial compatibility from their vantage point, always without the benefit of honest feedback. Black America and White America have never truly talked and seriously listened to each other. Our solution rests with our ability to instigate and sustain such communication.

So, if the basis for racial healing is to be applied or prescribed for this social psychosis, let us use the psychotropic medicine of truth. It eliminates early signs of hallucinations, the appearance of people of other ethnic groups never seeming to be quite equal to the observer. The truth must be told early, openly, unguardedly, and publicly, otherwise there is no prospect of ever achieving racial harmony. And, without it, we are all the losers. We are a republic with a democratic form of government, but we all know that we do not treat all people right. Although there are many poor people who are White, not one of them is poor because he or she is White; the same cannot be said about Blacks. In addition, our sense of charity is affected by the color of the one in need. Generally, Whites will not give to a Black charity, but Blacks will give to a White charity because they can identify with the need and the hurt.
[...]

The biggest news to White Americans is that Blacks do not hate them. Blacks resent being treated with contempt, and they demand equality. But, if the opportunity for revenge came today, Blacks would not do to Whites what has been done to them. It is hard for Whites to conceive that anyone who has been as horrific as they have been to Blacks can be forgiven. Even the recent examples of the kindness demonstrated by Blacks toward Whites in Kenya, Zimbabwe, and South Africa after they had experienced great oppression and enormous loss of life for freedom are classic illustrations of this truth. Anger does give way to hating when encrusted and compacted in unrelenting misery. And it is important to note that we have in our midst the first generation of Blacks—free in a limited sense—growing up separated from the White society. This is a group of Blacks with no fear of Whites drilled into them by anyone, and they do not wish to become part of what they call "White middle class America." They are fearless and will not run from a fight. Even other Blacks are afraid of what is brewing within them.


Jamar Wheeler writes of how different races can come together to discuss these issues. Although it is a course paper, I think he says a lot of things to consider:


The Road to Race Unity

Racism is a force that is sprung out of ignorance, and its effects on people’s lives can no longer be tolerated. It is ugly and below as human beings. Racist ideologies have been founded on outdated and biased scientific research to justify the slavery, imperialism, and the slaughter of countless Native Americans. The only way to fight these evils is through education, patience, and recognizing the oneness of humanity. The oneness of humanity refers to the scientific and spiritual truth that reveals there is no distinct difference in the nature of man. I believe all of society’s ills stem from the disunity of people around the world. The main contributors to disunity are divisions in “race”, religion, sex, and economic status. In this paper I will explain why unifying all the people around the world is the first step to an everlasting peace.
[...]
Today’s racism is not easily seen, but its effects are still detrimental to society. For example, whenever I go to the mall or go to the store I feel in a rush to buy things because I always feel like someone’s watching me. Usually, when I check to see if I’m correct I either catch them looking away or blatantly staring. And at other times I’m completely wrong about it. The thing I want to know is how do people get to the point where they believe young black males love to steal, maybe it’s the way we’re presented through the media. Secondary racism is at times worse than blatant racism because its done behind closed doors out of the public view so we can’t see who are enemies truly are.
[...]
All these examples are wounds on the American spirit festering and poisoning the souls of future generations. Race relations have improved through the years, but changes in the attitudes of people have been slow. It amazes me how people still hang on to misconceptions for the sake of ignorance. The main problem is not those who harbor racist feelings, the problem is with those who know in their hearts racism is wrong but do nothing to improve the situation. We as a whole are deathly silent when it comes to important issues like racism. In short, not speaking out against racism is just as bad as supporting those ideologies supportive of racism.


This is a very interesting glossary from a conference on race-relations. It has some definitions that might help with defining some of the aspects we are engaging in here:


Glossary


Accountability
The concept of being held responsible for ones actions and attitudes. In the context of anti-racism, accountability requires sensitivity to, interaction with, and inclusion of, people of color in discussion of and decisions about anti-racist activities.


Anti-racism
A conscious and intentional effort to eradicate racism in all of its forms-individual, cultural and institutional. Deconstruction of racist attitudes, institutions and cultural norms is a process that requires analysis, skills and commitment.

Cultural Racism
The use of power by a dominant culture (whites) to perpetuate their cultural heritage and impose it on others, while destroying the culture of ethnic minorities. Power + Ethnocentrism = Cultural Racism.

Ethnocentrism
The tendency to favor and believe in the superiority of one's own culture and disfavor minority cultures.


Oppression
The systematic subjugation of a social group by a group with access to power, or,
Prejudice + Power = Oppression.

Prejudice
Preconceived judgment or opinion, and adverse opinion formed with insufficient knowledge, or an irrational attitude of hostility toward an individual, group, 'race' or their supposed characteristics.


Racism
An attitude, action or institutional structure that subordinates a person or group because of skin color, combined with the power to carry out discriminatory practices through the major institutions of society.


White (skin) privilege
The ability to be perceived positively based on physical appearance (white/lighter complexions) resulting in unsolicited social economic and cultural benefits. Often the person holding this privilege is unaware of the "invisible package of unearned benefits," yet the benefits are taken for granted, and assumed to be "the way things should be."





[edit on 4-10-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006
Really? You stereotype me by my behavior.


That's a contradiction in terms.



With that, I mostly agree. But who makes up the majority in a racialized sense?


The same who make up the majority race in the US. White people. So of course the majority of jerks are white. We make up the majority in this country. So that means the majority of sensitive, caring men is also white. The majority of politicians is white, the majority of cops is white, the majority of preachers is white. The majority of wonderful people is white! The majority is white. So if you're going to generalize, don't forget the good things, too! But that doesn't fit your model, does it?



How so? Culturally? Racially?


This would be a perfect question to discuss in this thread, but I'm so tired of defending my thoughts and what I say and my opinions to you that I'm not even going to bother. I can't talk with you.


Originally posted by ceci2006
I agree with you. But what do you actually assume when you meet a black woman?


I can't think of a thing. I am curious and eager to get to know her. I usually like black women I meet. But then - I usually like everyone I meet so that's not because she's black.



I really don't take the worst examples and apply them to everyone. In fact, I don't judge others from the acts of a few. But, the stigma remains, does it not?


People think that because we see it happen over and over again. Are we supposed to deny what we see in front of our eyes?



Is that how some people approach things when discussing these issues? First telling someone they have "pain", "racial anger" and "inherent racism" while not dealing with the actually subject at all?


This is not how it started, Ceci! We were all on the same page at one time. Until people started disagreeing with you. Until people started voicing opinions that you didn't want to hear and you struck out with personal assaults and you haven't stopped.



Exactly. So why is it so hard to recognize the examples experienced by people of color in the articles then?


Where have people failed to recognize the experiences of people of color? Do you think we are a bunch of stupid white rednecks who have never seen racism against blacks? We KNOW it exists. We work in corporate America. We watch TV. We are well-read. We (most of us) know the history of this country! We see racism against people of color on the streets. We see it, feel it, speak out against it. When you post article after article of "proof" that it exists we're like... Duh! Of course it exists. Of course it's terrible! Of course it's WRONG! You're trying to convince us of something we already know with every cell in our being! We KNOW it. We're not denying or failing to reccognize anything.

When you post articles trying to prove racism, I'm almost insulted. Don't you think we KNOW???



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally quoted by Benevolent Heretic
I'd just like to say that I've certainly made mistakes while discussing racism here and I've apologized for them.


So have I. Over and over again.


And I have since been very careful, I've listened, I've been empathetic and acknowledging. Yet every time you post to me it's acerbic. Could I ask that you stop that? Please? If you want to have a discussion, I want to as well. But I won't continue if I'm under attack covertly or overtly.


Stop what, exactly? And how are you under attack? Am I not allowed to answer the way I want to or does it always have to depend on what mood you are in?


I understand that you don't like people discussing your behavior. And there's something you can do about that. If there are no attacks, no little barbs and digs, there will be nothing to discuss about it.


I hate to say this, but that is the biggest crock of BS I've ever heard.




There are some things I've asked questions about with genuine curiosity. I've said "I don't see it" and asked for explanation and you just accuse me of "selective hearing". I want to remain curious, but when I ask or say that I don't understand only to be accused of doing it on purpose, it's pretty disheartening.


When I have done that? Do you honestly think I direct all of my comments to you? It's pretty disheartening for you to continue to wag your finger at everything that I do.

But you still do it. And then to top it off, you give me an ultimatum.



I imagine being called "Buckwheat" would be very painful. Any racially charged name is painful. If you expect to call people racially charged names and then expect empathy from them when you or someone of your race gets called a racially charged name, that's very unrealistic to expect. Calling names such as "Miss Scarlett" and "The Lyncher" to white people and then expecting people to feel sorry for you and your race because someone was called "Buckwheat" or "Aunt Jemima" is VERY unrealistic and a blatant double standard.


I've apologized for this over and over as well. But, I guess it isn't a double standard to tell others how they should be feeling and what they should be doing.


But no, I don't expect anyone to feel sorry for me. That is again, one of the many times you misconstrue my words. And rather offensive and disheartening, I might add.

But nail me to the wall.


Why is it OK for you to lash out in this way yet not ok for white people to do the same?


When have I ever advocated this literally? Point it out since you are so fond of doing that.


Perhaps you need the consider that 'practicing what you preach' is a very important rule to go by when expecting people to listen to you and respect what you have to say.


And you don't have to go by this rule? Talk about double standards.



If you want to talk about white people respecting, listening, and being empathetic to your point of view, isn't it important that you be extra sure that you are practicing these principles as well?


No. It's not as high on my list as it is on yours. This is a discussion, as you are fond of saying. It's certainly not a summit.

However, it is quite derogatory for you to say that this is all employed to get "white people" to "respect", "listen", and "be empathetic". Did you ever ask yourself how this sounds to a person of color?

Everyone should want to do these things, shouldn't they? The burden shouldn't always have to fall on me.

Is that how you "treat everyone the same"?




Just to explain, when I say this (or similar phrasing) I mean that in general, I don't make negative judgments about people before knowing them. Whether they're old, young, black, white, have baggy pants or a mini-skirt, I do my very best to withhold judgment. If I literally treated everyone the same, I'd be a robot and I am not. So yes, there are some unconscious judgments that take place, but I do my very best consciously to withhold judgment before getting to know them.


I'm sure you do generally.


Does that make sense?


Yes, but that is not the case every time. For this part, I agree.



This is not how it started, Ceci! We were all on the same page at one time. Until people started disagreeing with you. Until people started voicing opinions that you didn't want to hear and you struck out with personal assaults and you haven't stopped.


How so? Is that what happened? Since you feel that was the way I perceived the comments on the thread, go right on ahead and speak for me. You sure didn't ask me if this was the case. You went on with your pronouncement "on high" and ran with it despite the fact I've said repeatedly that it doesn't matter if people agree or disagree with me.

And "personal assaults"? I'd love to hear how you define the attacks machinated by yourself and others against me.


Again, I ask, what did wecomeinpeace and Byrd say in regards to the thread?

But there is also another thing I know for sure: you'll never let me forget it.


Is this giving someone the "benefit of the doubt"?



Do you think that everyone who says they treat people equally is automatically deflecting? Could it ever just be the truth?


Of course, it's possible. But for the most part, it isn't. Some people do not want to discuss race as it is. They rather hide behind another "ism" to get, what I mentioned before, "safe ground".

It was even said as such when some posters keep on mentioning that would not want examples of racism "in their face". They want it to go away.

The question then becomes, why? Do they not want to know the lists of acts that have happened as a result of institutional and personal racism especially when it has to do with privilege?

These things happen on a daily basis and with utter frequency. By not hearing the full truth of the matter, it is like turning one's back on the experiences of people of color.



[edit on 4-10-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally quoted by Benevolent Heretic

Where have people failed to recognize the experiences of people of color? Do you think we are a bunch of stupid white rednecks who have never seen racism against blacks?


What do you think we Blacks are, if I may ask? I'm sure that you must realize that Black people are not as easy to manipulate as you think they are--especially when demanding that they curb another's behavior.


We KNOW it exists. We work in corporate America. We watch TV. We are well-read. We (most of us) know the history of this country! We see racism against people of color on the streets. We see it, feel it, speak out against it.


That might be possible in your point of view. But it doesn't always happen. Can you earnestly say that everyone does this?


When you post article after article of "proof" that it exists we're like... Duh! Of course it exists. Of course it's terrible! Of course it's WRONG! You're trying to convince us of something we already know with every cell in our being! We KNOW it. We're not denying or failing to reccognize anything.


I'm sure that some white people do know it. Thanks for explaining that. It shows me why the silence is deafening. It also explains why some will not come to grips with what has happened.


When you post articles trying to prove racism, I'm almost insulted. Don't you think we KNOW???


I'm glad you're insulted, because I'm going to continue to post them whether you like it or not.

But thanks for saying that. Now, there shouldn't be any reason to avoid the subject matter offered in those articles. Some others should be able to discuss the text because they KNOW it happens.

However, your opinion doesn't count for everyone. Isn't there always the accusation of taking the action of one and assuming that for the endeavors of all?


I'd also like to ask, are you displaying "racial rage" here? You never did give me a good definition about it when I asked. You also didn't display the courtesy of asking me whether I experienced this phenomenon. You "pronounced" I simply did. So much for carefully considering your words.




[edit on 4-10-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006

Originally quoted by Benevolent Heretic

Where have people failed to recognize the experiences of people of color? Do you think we are a bunch of stupid white rednecks who have never seen racism against blacks?


What do you think we Blacks are, if I may ask?

That question presumes that she thinks blacks are something which impiles she is racist. Nice try. Have another.. I'm sure you will.

I'm sure that you must realize that Black people are not as easy to manipulate as you think they are--

Wow.. you've certainly laced that one with insults. You've accused her of not only being manipulative but only doing so because you are black? ..also suggesting that she must think blacks a easily duped/stupid because she 'thinks blacks are easy to manipulate'. Tripple whammie. Talk about being manipulative.. you've got trip wires all over the place.


especially when demanding that they curb another's behavior.

Ceci.. people have asked you.. as in YOU.. not you who happens to have darker skin.. but you the individual to curb your behaviour. Accusing people of disagreeing with you because you are black will not help 'race relations' or your credibilty.

edited to fix quotes
[mods, 'preview edit' doesn't work]

[edit on 4-10-2006 by riley]



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006
And then to top it off, you give me an ultimatum.



What "ultimatum"? Quote it, please.



When have I ever advocated this [lashing out] literally?


Why does it have to be literally? Are you saying you haven’t attacked people then complained and called the mods when they did the same to you? That’s the double standard I’m speaking of.



Is this giving someone the "benefit of the doubt"?


It's far too late for that, Ceci. I did give you the benefit of the doubt and you chewed it up and spit it back in my face. And now you want courtesy from me? Sorry. I respect myself too much. And before you go saying it’s because you’re black or that’s the way I feel about blacks or whatever about blacks, I respect and have perfectly civil and wonderful discussions and relationships with every other black person on this board (as far as I know). My dialogue with you has absolutely nothing to do with your race, else I’d be having the same issues with them, too. And I don’t.


Originally posted by ceci2006
What do you think we Blacks are, if I may ask? I'm sure that you must realize that Black people are not as easy to manipulate as you think they are--especially when demanding that they curb another's behavior.


What??? I don’t think “you blacks” are anything. I don’t think “you blacks” are easy to manipulate. Where do you get this stuff? I haven’t demanded a thing! I’m in no position to demand anything.
WTF are you talking about? What have I demanded???



Can you earnestly say that everyone does this?


No. I have never said nor implied this.



I'm glad you're insulted…


…And I get to know you better and better.



Now, there shouldn't be any reason to avoid the subject matter offered in those articles. Some others should be able to discuss the text because they KNOW it happens.


Just because people don’t comment on every one of the articles you post doesn’t mean they’re avoiding them or denying them or disagree with them. Maybe they just don’t want to get caught up in this drama of a discussion. Maybe they don’t want to be called names or have it covertly implied that they’re racist because they only agree with you 94% of the time instead of 100%.



I'd also like to ask, are you displaying "racial rage" here? You never did give me a good definition about it when I asked.


No. If I were experiencing racial rage, I’d be saying things like:
“Are you people biologically predisposed to being lazy”?
“If you want a better life, get out of jail and get a job”
“If you don’t like it here, go back to Africa.”
I’d be calling you “Aunt Jemima” or “Kizzy.”
I’d be using phrases like “your ilk” or “you people”.
I'd be saying “Just go back to your slave quarters and shut up, will ya”?

That would indicate what I call racial rage.

Racial Rage - Definition by BH (and ONLY BH): The anger a person has at another race as indicated by the use of racially charged words, phrases or names to demean, shock, insult and attempt to silence or otherwise control another person or race. This anger is felt toward an entire race, but many times is focused on an individual.

I have said that you have this racial rage and that you are conrtrolling. These are my opinions and my opinions, only. I have every right to express them. They are not an accusation, but an observation. It's what I think. You do not have to agree. And I'm sure you don't. But an opinion isn't right or wrong, it's just what I see.



You also didn't display the courtesy of asking me whether I experienced this phenomenon.


I don’t often ask others if my opinion is ok to express. And I’m supposed to be courteous to you? After all you’ve said to me, you’re still expecting me to be courteous to you??? Sorry, I’m human, not a saint.



So much for carefully considering your words.


Oh, I do carefully consider my words. I meant exactly what I said.

[edit on 4-10-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally quoted by Benevolent HereticWhat "ultimatum"? Quote it, please


I guess I should since I was chided by you to properly use the quote function on this thread:


Originally quoted by Benevolent Heretic And I have since been very careful, I've listened, I've been empathetic and acknowledging. Yet every time you post to me it's acerbic. Could I ask that you stop that? Please? If you want to have a discussion, I want to as well. But I won't continue if I'm under attack covertly or overtly.



Originally quoted by Benevolent Heretic
I understand that you don't like people discussing your behavior. And there's something you can do about that. If there are no attacks, no little barbs and digs, there will be nothing to discuss about it.





Why does it have to be literally? Are you saying you haven’t attacked people then complained and called the mods when they did the same to you? That’s the double standard I’m speaking of.


While you have remained "free from sin" on this board? Spare me the double standard crap. Really. You and the others have attacked me in the same way. And it doesn't stop.



It's far too late for that, Ceci. I did give you the benefit of the doubt and you chewed it up and spit it back in my face. And now you want courtesy from me? Sorry. I respect myself too much.


You chewed and spit first. I was returning the favor. No, I don't want courtesy from you because I learned long ago that you have no guilt or manners for what you do. So, it is useless to ask.

But then again, I might add: nobody deserves respect.


And before you go saying it’s because you’re black or that’s the way I feel about blacks or whatever about blacks, I respect and have perfectly civil and wonderful discussions and relationships with every other black person on this board (as far as I know).


Why would I say that in the first place? Stop putting words in my mouth. Do you even realize that you actually say these things?

And about dealing with other black people? It hasn't been entirely smooth. After all, you were using that "relationship" with them to nail me to the wall. Isn't that right? I'd say that was taking advantage of the good will you've fostered with other Black people.

If it truly didn't have to do with my race, you would have asked anyone to "curb my behavior". But you solely asked Black people to do it. Therein lies the rub.

You simply did it and used your friends because of their race. That is blatant and without conscience no matter how many podcasts you do.


My dialogue with you has absolutely nothing to do with your race, else I’d be having the same issues with them, too. And I don’t.


Could have fooled me. But keep on deluding yourself.


What??? I don’t think “you blacks” are anything.


You heard it here. I'm sure you don't think of us as "anything".


I don’t think “you blacks” are easy to manipulate.





Where do you get this stuff?


I should ask you the same thing since your accusations get more and more outrageous as the posts come.


I haven’t demanded a thing! I’m in no position to demand anything.


You haven't? How quickly do they forget.


WTF are you talking about? What have I demanded???


Many different situations all through each of my threads. You can't stop yourself--especially when it comes to my behavior. Things would go well for a while, and then you start to complain. Now, it is starting again-- the latest cycle of "Alas!!!! Woe is me."


…And I get to know you better and better.


Likewise.


Just because people don’t comment on every one of the articles you post doesn’t mean they’re avoiding them or denying them or disagree with them. Maybe they just don’t want to get caught up in this drama of a discussion. Maybe they don’t want to be called names or have it covertly implied that they’re racist because they only agree with you 94% of the time instead of 100%.


Since when did you miss the part I said that I don't care if people agree or disagree with me? But continue putting words in my mouth.



No. If I were experiencing racial rage, I’d be saying things like:
“Are you people biologically predisposed to being lazy”?
“If you want a better life, get out of jail and get a job”
“If you don’t like it here, go back to Africa.”
I’d be calling you “Aunt Jemima” or “Kizzy.”
I’d be using phrases like “your ilk” or “you people”.
I'd be saying “Just go back to your slave quarters and shut up, will ya”?


I'd say that your racial rage happens more subtly especially when it extends to patronizing the coversation, but of course, you always rise to the occasion to make yourself a victim when the time seems right. This is no exception. Now, I'll watch all the WATS flood in out of pity because you are so "patient" and "free of racism'.


I have said that you have this racial rage and that you are conrtrolling. These are my opinions and my opinions, only. I have every right to express them. They are not an accusation, but an observation. It's what I think. You do not have to agree. And I'm sure you don't. But an opinion isn't right or wrong, it's just what I see.


Which you turned into a stigma for others to follow. Well, if I see you as "Miss Scarlett" and the "Lyncher", how would you feel? You haven't spared any space telling me and others. Stigmas are not that very kind, are they?


I'd say that you have a predisposition to implement subtle racism and to use victimology to gain attention. It's what I think. You do not have to agree. And I'm sure you don't. But a opinion isn't right or wrong. It's what I see.

Keep those words in mind the next time the violins play.


I don’t often ask others if my opinion is ok to express.


For a person who doesn't consider politeness and manners, it shows.


And I’m supposed to be courteous to you?


You're simply not. You never are.


After all you’ve said to me, you’re still expecting me to be courteous to you??? Sorry, I’m human, not a saint.


That's not what others think about you. But the tarnish on your halo is about to show.


Oh, I do carefully consider my words. I meant exactly what I said.


I'm sure you did. You always do--especially when you said that "Blacks aren't anything". That's why you should never tell me not to misconstrue your words ever again.

Well, I should prepare for the peanut gallery to come now for my next pogrom. They'll come flooding in to save you. Well, look above! It's already started.


Might as well duck and cover.





[edit on 4-10-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 05:15 PM
link   

from BH Oh, I do carefully consider my words. I meant exactly what I said.



from ceciI'm sure you did. You always do--especially when you said that "Blacks aren't anything". That's why you should never tell me not to misconstrue your words ever again.

BH, I'm surprised that you said "Blacks aren't anything". It's not like you at all.

Could it be you were misquoted or misconstrued?

Do you see what's happening here? You're being an enabler.



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 05:52 PM
link   
Talk about enablers. Take a look in the mirror.


The ambulance chasing has just begun.

[edit on 4-10-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
BH, I'm surprised that you said "Blacks aren't anything".


Yeah, I'm surprised, too!




Could it be you were misquoted or misconstrued?


Ya think?




Do you see what's happening here? You're being an enabler.


Very insightful. Thank you.


I have considered that I'm playing some sort of sick 'straight man' from time to time. But I think you're more right... It's enabling. That's not healthy...

Where's the pity for me, though??? Where's your violin? Where's my WATS? Where's your loyalty? Did you bring any peanuts?



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 06:05 PM
link   
Go ahead. Make jokes about it. But that's okay. I'm used to your old tricks by now.


Yes, you meant what you said. And you're not sorry. You've made jokes and think nothing of it.

You've done this repeatedly.

Face it. This is just one more drama queen demonstration down the line. You've done it so frequently, it's already time to look forward to the next one.

[edit on 4-10-2006 by ceci2006]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 60  61  62    64  65  66 >>

log in

join