What would you say about a White History Month?

Originally posted by Royal76
That you wouldnt ask the question tells me all I need to know.

Good, cos' I was beginning to lose hope.

That you would show respect and admiration for different groups but not your own says it all.

Ahh, there goes hope again.........nice jump and it started off so well.

That you would not like to discuss this at all is kind of funny since you have how many post on the subject

When did I say that I would not discuss this?

You seem to be under the impression I'm doing this for my own benefit, although if you dug deeply enough I guess nothing is selfless.

[edit on 8-2-2007 by Koka]

After this morning's exchange, I wondered where the "I don't see a color" rhetoric started. I did a little research on the matter. Perhaps in a historical/political/sociological basis, this article explains how these messages got started and turned into an assault against diversity:

The Brooklyn Rail

Almost every policy—affirmative action, welfare, minority set-asides, etc.—that has come into existence via the federal government to assist blacks has been attacked, chipped away, delegitimized by the conservative movement, some using coded racial references (“welfare,” “underclass,” “crime,” “quota queen,” Willie Horton, etc.).

[...]

The Reagan-Bush years are often viewed as the first triumph of the New Right, its obtainment of state power, which led to the diminution of federal power and programs to help blacks. The recent reelection of George W. Bush is the consolidation of that power, assisted by his base of mostly white Christian evangelicals (who probably attend all-white churches). While some cited gay rights and abortion as evidence of lack of morality in America, a fair amount of them began voting GOP when the Democrats assisted blacks in obtaining their rights to vote and full rights of citizenship during the 1960s.
[...]

American society has progressed to the point where dominative racism, or direct oppression, has mostly ended. Instead, metaracism is now the mode of action, and it consists of indirect racial oppression or exclusion through economic and technocratic means. Lopping off millions from the welfare rolls, the high rate of black incarceration, or the bogus disenfranchisement of blacks are coldly performed by public policies, law, technocrats, or result from the structure of the economy. It doesn’t matter if the intent is to cause harm to blacks as long as the outcome is such.[...]The ambiguity of contemporary racial practices can be described as “now you see it, now you don’t.” Convinced that they themselves have lived up to King’s soaring rhetoric more so than blacks, particularly in regard to judging people “by the content of their character,” most white Americans see no need to deal with the problem of racism. To many of them, racism has meant a white individual doing something bad against a black individual, and blacks have become a class of chronic complainers.

Yet structural inequality (a.k.a. white privilege) remains, and it’s hard to confront precisely because it tends to be invisible, and whites have a vested interest in keeping it invisible. It provides whites with the privilege of being white, or, more exactly, not being black. One aspect of a “Plausible Deniability” program, as Debra Dickerson explained in The End of Blackness (2004), is to see racism solely as an intentional individual phenomenon but not as “a sense of group position,” or the “organized accumulation of racial advantage.” But it is “a system,” argues Michael Brown and a group of six other scholars in Whitewashing Race: The Myth of a Colorblind Society (2003), “best understood by observing actual behavior.”
[...]
Whites simultaneously see and refuse to acknowledge “how race permeates America’s institutions—the very rules of the game—and its distribution of opportunities and wealth.” Blacks, however, are seen as the “other,” as a race, but whiteness is invisible. The historic investment in “whiteness” has been challenged by policies such as affirmative action and greater political representation, which threaten previously uncontested racial monopolization in regard to work, income, education, and cultural capital.

FYI--for others who are interested in where the rhetoric starts and how it affects institutions in America. It is especially highlights the rhetoric used in arguments against BHM and all other months associated with it. It is a historical, political and sociological analysis built upon theoretical leanings and informed observances. It especially uncovers how this rhetoric is used as a form of propaganda conveying the sense of "absence" performing as "blindness".

It also explores how the transmission of these messages have undermined social policy within American culture.



[edit on 8-2-2007 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by ceci2006
where the "I don't see a color" rhetoric started. ... the transmission of these messages have undermined social policy within American culture.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. People being color blind, and treating and automatically seeing everyone as equals, and not judging anyone based on skin color is now ... 'rhetoric and undermining American culture'.

That's psychobabble ... and delusional. :shk:

Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin
Christ, I really wish we had some "native americans" on the board to weigh in on the issue.

Why? What would you expect them to say?

A. Several of us are part Native American and we have weighed in.
B. There's Native American Indian Heritage Month. (November)

Anyone can do "research" to find 'articles' that support their view. That doesn't make the argument any more factual nor does it strengthen the argument of the person doing the quoting. There are plenty of 'experts' on all sides of the issue that can be quoted ad nauseum in an effort to make oneself appear 'more right' than the next person.

All I can add to this 'discussion' is an expression of sadness. The op asked if there should be a WHM. In my opinion there should not - nor should there be a BHM. ALL of humanity should have their respective histories and cultures studied and celebrated by all other cultures. Yes, we should come to know each other better, share in our equivalence, yet appreciate our uniqueness. But we should not do so through a temporal division which sets up a system of “My month” and “Your month”.

If there are benevolent beings observing us from upon high - or especially if they are amongst us already, they must be dumbfounded at the level of hostility that members of the "HUMAN RACE" express toward each other. It seems humans use any and every excuse to fight with each other: religion, wealth, politics, “race”. Race animosity, to me, is the most disheartening because it is something we can easily control on a personal, individual level.

Even more importantly, I am disillusioned that we, as a sentient species, have yet to mature enough to consider ourselves as all members of the Human Race. I believe that until we do so we will not be invited to join the consortium of existential beings that must be teeming in our galaxy and beyond.

Thus, if we create a White History Month, to the exclusion of other humans of color and culture (exactly as the creation and perpetuation of exclusive Black/Hispanic observances have done), then we are simply inhibiting our collective development and will be considered, as a ‘race’, to be in apathetic stasis or even regression.

In American history, there have been many great Presidents – both Republican and Democrat. However, a personal favorite, Ronald Reagan, once made a comment that seems particularly appropriate to this topic:

"With our obsession with antagonisms of the moment, we often forget how much unites all the members of humanity. I occasionally think how quickly our differences, worldwide, would vanish if we were facing an alien threat from outside this world."

Every month, every week, every day, should belong to all of us. My vote: “Humanity Month” – 12 months per year.


[edit on 2/8/2007 by Outrageo]

So what are you actually saying

All I keep hearing is blah, blah, blah,

State a point my good man.

Originally posted by Royal76
All I keep hearing is blah, blah, blah,

State a point my good man.

If thats all you are hearing, I'll save my breath.

See you again this time next year when the same question is asked.

My answer will still be insecurity even if it is not your good self posing the question.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

A. Several of us are part Native American

Funny how everyone in America is "part Native American" now-a-days.

And what tribe are you descendend from?





[edit on 8-2-2007 by phoenixhasrisin]

Koka
Insecurity about what?

Are White people too insecure to start it?
Is the United States too insecure to start it?
Are We trying to start it because we are insecure?
Are all races insecure?


PS I am 1/1000 Cherokee Indian.

Delete?--Racist overtones



[edit on 8-2-2007 by phoenixhasrisin]

Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin
Funny how everyone in America is "part Native American" now-a-days.

Are you suggesting I'm lying? Seriously, how would you like it if I said, "Seems everyone in America claims to bo 1/2 black and 1/2 white these days..."

And what tribe are you descendend from?

My father was 1/4 Native American on his mother's side, born in 1906 in Ohio. I believe he was Shawnee but it could be Iroquois. My sister could tell you a lot more because it's important to her. Not to me. My heritage has very little to do with the person I am. (I wish more people would have this attitude, but it's not for me to dictate.)



[edit on 8-2-2007 by Benevolent Heretic]

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Are you suggesting I'm lying? Seriously, how would you like it if I said, "Seems everyone in America claims to bo 1/2 black and 1/2 white these days..."

Of course not.

However, I could at least point to my skin tone to prove my point, can you say the same thing?

It's nothing against you, seriously. I just think it's funny how everyone in America is descended from native americans these days.

There are more scholarly sources I could give you that deal with the implications of this, but I can't be bothered right now. Perhaps ceci will do it for you.


[edit on 8-2-2007 by phoenixhasrisin]

Originally posted by Outrageo
Anyone can do "research" to find 'articles' that support their view. That doesn't make the argument any more factual nor does it strengthen the argument of the person doing the quoting. There are plenty of 'experts' on all sides of the issue that can be quoted ad nauseum in an effort to make oneself appear 'more right' than the next person.

Doing the research is what ATS is all about. I'm sorry if you're saddened by a little bit of leg work. However, I would like to note that there is even research in ufology.

All I can add to this 'discussion' is an expression of sadness. The op asked if there should be a WHM. In my opinion there should not - nor should there be a BHM. ALL of humanity should have their respective histories and cultures studied and celebrated by all other cultures. Yes, we should come to know each other better, share in our equivalence, yet appreciate our uniqueness. But we should not do so through a temporal division which sets up a system of “My month” and “Your month”.

If you are a member of a "racial minority" who has his or her history, culture, ideas, social norms and actions constantly attacked, ridiculed and ideologically abused, you'd think about this issue quite differently.

Furthermore, from my research, your point of view reflects "color-blindness", an affliction of "de-racing" the person of color in order to perpetuate institutional racism and the privileges afforded with it.

(not my definition; the definition derived by scholars who research sociology, cultural studies and social dominance theory)

If there are benevolent beings observing us from upon high - or especially if they are amongst us already, they must be dumbfounded at the level of hostility that members of the "HUMAN RACE" express toward each other.

If the benevolent beings (who would have better technology than us, the Earthlings) are able to watch us century after century, then they would understand that there have been a particular group of human beings that have been involved in subjugation, slavery, wars, profit and domination.

They probably wouldn't be dumb-founded; they'd be amused.

It seems humans use any and every excuse to fight with each other: religion, wealth, politics, “race”. Race animosity, to me, is the most disheartening because it is something we can easily control on a personal, individual level.

Again, a statement derived from "colorblind" theory; the de-racing of people of color is evident here. Part of my research states that it is conservative ideology that pushes this type of thinking (especially towards one group of sentient beings) in order to systematically "ignore" injustices against people of color on Earth.

Thus, if we create a White History Month, to the exclusion of other humans of color and culture (exactly as the creation and perpetuation of exclusive Black/Hispanic observances have done), then we are simply inhibiting our collective development and will be considered, as a ‘race’, to be in apathetic stasis or even regression.

I guess it would be regression if "one group of human beings" got their way at the expense of another group of "human beings" who have been ridiculed, subjugated and systematically cheated out of their rights and livelihood at the greed of another.

In American history, there have been many great Presidents – both Republican and Democrat. However, a personal favorite, Ronald Reagan, once made a comment that seems particularly appropriate to this topic:

"With our obsession with antagonisms of the moment, we often forget how much unites all the members of humanity. I occasionally think how quickly our differences, worldwide, would vanish if we were facing an alien threat from outside this world."

When I read, Ronald Reagan, I thought, "Here we go...". His name said it all. According to my research, this is the constant repetition of the mantra being posed by the conservatives through first hijacking the message of "tolerance through not seeing color" and using it as a way to continue systemic abuse of other humans of another hue.

Did you know that Mr. Reagan was responsible for the "welfare queen" rhetoric? Did you also know that he was also responsible for furthering the backlash against people of color through the lack of jobs, union busting and cutting back on programs that would aid them? On earth, aliens were the last thing he was thinking about, believe me.

This part comes from my latest source:

The Reagan-Bush years are often viewed as the first triumph of the New Right, its obtainment of state power, which led to the diminution of federal power and programs to help blacks. The recent reelection of George W. Bush is the consolidation of that power, assisted by his base of mostly white Christian evangelicals (who probably attend all-white churches).

From the likes of it, Mr. Reagan was not that benevolent or enlightened to think of all humanity.

Every month, every week, every day, should belong to all of us. My vote: “Humanity Month” – 12 months per year.

Thus, the elimination of histories of other cultural groups for the sake of one. Same rhetoric under a pernicious appeal for "humanity". You would have done better to appeal to other humans to understand one another through respecting their history, culture, and achievements instead of admonishing us just to simply being 'human'.


[edit on 8-2-2007 by ceci2006]

I'm seriously disappointed in how this thread has turned out. A member suggests a WHM and we end up discussing white vs black. :shk: Great, THEY win. We're ALL in this together folks. I suggest that we do a couple of things here. Check out the word "empathy" in the dictionary and chill out.

Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin
However, I could easily point to my skin tone to prove my point, can you say the same thing?

What difference would that make? I'm not getting your point here at all and frankly, I've taken rare offense at your implications...

You'd probably have to take my blood to be certain as my mother was decended from Scotch-Irish and those are some sparkly white people!

There are more scholarly sources I could give you that deal with the implications of this, but I can't be bothered right now.

So, you had the time to blast out an offensive comment suggesting what I said about my heritage wasn't true, but you don't have the courtesy to take the time to tell me WTH you mean by it? OK.

Perhaps ceci will do it for you.

Please... no, thanks.

Edit: OK, Intrepid. I'm chilled and I'm out.



[edit on 8-2-2007 by Benevolent Heretic]

I went further than the dictionary, intrepid; I researched the topic and found quite a deal more than what I expected.

As in every topic on ATS, research should be expected. And when the research points to critically analyze a particular form of propaganda which disenfranchises one group of people at the expense of another, it is best to present the findings and expect that another would critically analyze them in rebuttal.

Empathy--when calling for the elimination of all other months as a form of disrespect to cultural communites of women and people of color--is the last thing that is being preached here.

It's funny that you would say "they". In my mind, someone has indeed won with using propaganda to disenfranchise some of us at the expense of others of us. And the evidence points to a particular ideology who is very invested in "absence" as a way of dismantling progressive social policy. So yes, propaganda (and the constant repetition of it) is letting them win.

And BH, I only do research for myself so I can expand my mind as well as present my side of a debate. I don't expect you to understand or to respect hard work when it is done.



[edit on 8-2-2007 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

What difference would that make?

I'm not getting your point here at all and frankly, I've taken rare offense at your implications...

The only difference it would make is the fact that my claim is easily verifiable, whilst yours is a matter of "scientific testing".

It was basically a comment in response to you asking how I would like it if people would question what I claimed as my heritage.

By saying what I did, I was merely trying to say that I wouldn't mind it at all if anybody questioned my claim, because it is visibly obvious...that's all.

So, you had the time to blast out an offensive comment suggesting what I said about my heritage wasn't true, but you don't have the courtesy to take the time to tell me WTH you mean by it? OK.

I was not trying to be offensive, seriously, it was more a stab at humour. There is just much to be said about a nation of people that almost decimate another, and then claim to be their descendants some 200 hundred odd years later...that's all.

Sadly, I think only Royal76 got my point

Originally posted by Royal76
PS I am 1/1000 Cherokee Indian.

[edit on 8-2-2007 by phoenixhasrisin]

Originally posted by ceci2006
I went further than the dictionary, intrepid; I researched the topic and found quite a deal more than what I expected.

As in every topic on ATS, research should be expected. And when the research points to critically analyze a particular form of propaganda which disenfranchises one group of people at the expense of another, it is best to present the findings and expect that another would critically analyze them in rebuttal.

Empathy--when calling for the elimination of all other months as a form of disrespect to cultural communites of women and people of color--is the last thing that is being preached here.

It's funny that you would say "they". In my mind, someone has indeed won with using propaganda to disenfranchise some of us at the expense of others of us. And the evidence points to a particular ideology who is very invested in "absence" as a way of dismantling progressive social policy. So yes, propaganda (and the constant repetition of it) is letting them win.

And BH, I only do research for myself so I can expand my mind as well as present my side of a debate. I don't expect you to understand or to respect hard work when it is done.

[edit on 8-2-2007 by ceci2006]

A lot of words ceci and little that is concrete. Would you care to spell this out so that a Geico caveman could understand it?

Just so I know, what month is caveman awareness month?

It doesn't matter, intrepid. I just find it funny that research gets a bum rap in race-related studies while in other subjects (i.e. the WOT, ufology, etc.) it gets praised.

I already know that whatever I could possibly say would never move or convince you otherwise.

It hasn't moved anyone on this thread. And it won't on topics like these.

So, insult me if you must. I'll just take it in stride--especially when you accuse me again of whining and "having an agenda" instead of acknowledging that myself and a few others care enough to post sources and analyze them in order to add depth to the topic.

Thank you for responding to my post, though.

[edit on 8-2-2007 by ceci2006]