Jesus wept. They say it is the shortest verse in the Bible. Anyone who has memorized Bible verses knows it and knows what it is about – the death of Lazarus.
But there is another time Jesus wept: when he entered Jerusalem on the Sunday before he died on the cross. His followers were shouting with joy – but he was crying!
They said he was the King that comes in the name of the Lord. They thought he would soon overthrow the Roman oppressors.
They misunderstood him – because their hatred for Rome blinded them, blinding them to the things that make for peace. He saw that violence would beget violence, round and round till Rome destroyed Jerusalem. So Jesus wept.
They were confusing God and government.
Al Qaeda does that too. We see it clearly when they kill people in the name of God.
Yet we Americans cannot see how what we are doing is the same as Al Qaeda but under a different colour flag, calling on the name of a different God to sanction and approve our murder and our mayhem!
Americans believe God approved of the rape and robbery of a continent, of African slavery, of American apartheid, of giving rich men tax breaks while millions live in poverty. We believe we have a right to the oil in other countries. We believe we have the right to send our military anywhere, anytime to do anything.
As if our government were God.
Yet it is unlike God:
- The government lies:
- It lied when it said all men are created equal – but gave the vote only to white men.
- It lied about the Gulf of Tonkin.
- It lied about the Tuskegee experiment.
- It lied about Iran-Contra.
- It lied about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.
- The government changes:
- It once allowed people to become property.
- It once said all people of African descent had no rights which whites were bound to respect.
- It once stopped blacks from voting.
- It once made blacks sit, eat and be buried apart from whites.
- The government fails:
- It failed to treat citizens of Indian descent fairly, putting them on reservations.
- It failed to treat citizens of Japanese descent fairly, putting them in prison camps.
- And it failed to treat citizens of African descent fairly:
- She put them in chains.
- She put them in slave quarters.
- She put them in cotton fields
- She put them in bad schools.
- She put them in bad housing.
- She put them in scientific experiments.
- She put them beyond the equal protection of the law.
- She gives them drugs, builds bigger prisons and passes a three-strike law
- And then she expects them to sing “God bless America”.
No, not “God bless America” but:
- God damn America for killing innocent people, as the Bible says.
- God damn America for treating her citizens as less than human.
- God damn America as long as she keeps trying to act like she is God and she is supreme!
God never lies.
God never changes.
God never fails.
Source: Based on “Confusing God and Government”, a sermon by Rev. Jeremiah Wright given on April 13th 2003 in the wake of the Iraq War, the Sunday after Baghdad fell. The sermon in turn is based on Luke 19:37-44.
See also:
“Americans believe God approved of the rape and robbery of a continent, of African slavery”
What about Leviticus 25:44-46?
LikeLike
All trough history every singöle state, land, country or empire, which has become theocratic or has been run by religion, has failed. Every single one. Islam is one example.
There was a time in 800’s when the arab world was the most advanced in every single section of society. They had a hospital in Baghdad for 1000 patients with as many doctors for free for everyone. They knew the principles of photography, they had maps of the world, they were high in mathematics, theys studied the greek philosophies, created great art and litterature, m,usic and architecture. Then came the religious back lash and it was gone.
Europe was the cesspit of the world for centuries. It was simply dark, supertitious, ignorant continent run by the church. It was dirty, violent and very unsafe. As the grip of the religion began to weaken, along came the renessance. But religion and supertition made a come back in 1500’s and were the cause for religious wars which devastated the continent. 30 year war was a power game but very much between religious schools. It was also the biggest man made catastrophe for Europe. Only after the enlighment came along and the religion started to loose its grip again, Europe began its meteoric rise in the 1700’s.
Ottoman empire was perhaps one of the most advanced states in 1500’s, till 1600’s. But then the religion took over and began to give the orders. Result was that the whole empire sank, untill 1800’s when it was no longer able to fend off any attacks or hold the territories it once had. And when this teetering giant made a last effort during the WW1, it collapsed.
USA has been going down the hill ever since religion creeped into politics. More it has gained ground in politics, the more states and the federation has sunk. Econimically, scientifically, socially etc.
It is known that Inca empire was at its peak when some 150 spanish conquistadores came and blew it down. How they did it? Because the empire was religious and its center was the Inca, they simply removed the religious center and it all falled apart.
The list goes on and on.
LikeLike
“Based on…” but twisting it for your own arrogant needs.
LikeLike
Al Qaeda’s people’s God is not a different one. It’s the exact same one and that’s probably why they are behaving in such similar ways. ARROGANCE.
LikeLike
@Sam Your point would have been good but you forget Ancient Egypt was a theocracy and they lasted 3000 years.
LikeLike
^ correction they lasted around 10000 years
LikeLike
Rome was a theocracy too in it’s imperial stage (which was most of its history)
But then again, all states that have existed in the past have come to and end
LikeLike
There is no God and as for religion, it can and has been twisted to suit whatever people wanted it to be. Religion was invented as a control of the people -if you are bad you will go to hell – if you are good you will go to heaven- what rubbish. Wars have been declared in the name of religion and countless millions of people have been killed in religion and God’s name, even the clergy (who are supposed to be god fearing) don’t believe, look at all the child abuse cases commited by these god fearing people- it’s a joke. As for governments they are as bad, when they want to be elected politcians will say anything, once they gain power everything changes. Unfortunately we have to have governments (liars and all) but lets make a stand against religion – let us just be people of the world – and kick it to the side, religion has done nobody any good and never will.
LikeLike
“I’d interpret this covenant as being applicable for the Israelites IN THE TIME of Mosaic Law. I don’t think it is applicable after Moses, and to Christianity.”
Why was slavery acceptable at that time?
LikeLike
@black:
Well, you got certain point but Egypts history is full of revolutions, destructions, assasinations, catastrophes and various dynasties replacing each others and the whole governing systems were replaced as well from time to time. And yes, the priests were behind of many upheavals and destructions and desasters via their machinations.
Also when the priesthoods grip of the power was strongest, Egypts power and might was at its lowest.
LikeLike
@black; 10 000 years? Hmm…
LikeLike
@king:
Rome was multireligious state untill emperor Constantinus made Sol Invictus, Invincible Sun, a sole god and after christianity became the only official religion. And after that it took some 150 years and Rome was no more. Byzanthine was a real theocracy but it was always just a shadow of Rome and eventually choked on itself.
The problem is that religions are stiff dogmas whos staying power is up to their ability to be the Truth. In order to be the Truth, they have to supress all the other truths and this leads into stagnation. And that erodes societies. It happened in communist states too where the communism was the Truth and religion in every other aspect than in name.
LikeLike
Yeah, that Constantine was a scoundrel!
But yes, Rome was a multi-religious society and a theocracy. The Emperors (from Augustus forward) were extended (by vote of the Senate) a state of divinity known as divus and cultus which made the Emperor effectively a divine being. – See Imperial cult of ancient Rome.
When the reins of secular power are in the hands of an emperor who is also deemed to be a god, that is definitely a theocracy in every sense of the word.
The Japanese Emperors were (and are) considered to be Shinto gods as well. The same was true in Ancient China, Southeast Asia, and modern day Tibet. You could actually say that some the longest running governments/societies were theocracies.
I vehemently disagree with theocracies. I think that they can be the most oppressive forms of government. But they do have a long track record.
LikeLike
Good post Abagond,
I am worried that America is becoming a theocracy, and is in danger of becoming a fascist nation. I think among many people on the religious right, God is white, and Jesus is too. I suspect in the the next five to six years we will see an increase in irrational behavior and thinking under the guise of bringing back Christian values to this nation. I think that Jesus is probably weeping right now, because he continues to be misrepresented and misunderstood.
LikeLike
Most Christians do not see the Law of Moses as applying to them beyond the first ten commandments. That is why few keep kosher, for example, or sacrifice animals.
The main Biblical defence of slavery in America in the 1800s was the Curse of Ham, Genesis 9:20-27:
Many White Americans read it to mean that it was God’s will for blacks, as the sons of Ham, to serve whites forever. Some said black skin was a sign of the curse, of a bad moral character, of the need to be controlled by whites.
In the early 1600s in America the excuse was different: most Africans were not Christians so it was all right to make them slaves. But when the slaves started becoming Christians that excuse no longer worked. So then race became the new excuse. By the 1700s it became common to use the Curse of Ham to defend racialized slavery.
But the Bible was being read in an extremely self-serving way and deep down most people knew it. That is why racism became necessary.
LikeLike
@Abagond,
That is why I say religion is a joke, it’s used by anybody and everybody to twist for their own aims.
LikeLike
To add to my previous comment the bible is just a book full of stories no one can prove any of it, half the things it says happened just can’t possibly be true so take it for what it is – a good story book.
LikeLike
Abagond wrote:
“That is why racism became necessary.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If this is why (and how) racism became necessary, can you explain how you, or any other non-white person could possibly be deemed a racist??
After all, since you just stated that “race” or the practice of “racism” became the excuse that WHITES needed to justify enslaving and later mistreating/oppressing black people – is it not disingenuous to label anyone other than WHITES practitioners of racism?
Have black people enslaved/oppressed or mistreated anyone on the basis of .. race (?) … that it became necessary to develop or invent a systematic justification to justify these types of misdeeds.
When you state that blacks are racists also, what you’re really doing is obscuring and confusing the essence of what racism truly is and who the racists really are. THIS is exactly what the White Supremacists – White Elitists want and orchestrate. Why do you assist these devils?
You’re doing yourself and your readers a great disservice, in my opinion, when you label yourself (and other non-whites) as racist.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on revealingartisticthoughts.
LikeLike
“No, not “God bless America” but:
God damn America for killing innocent people, as the Bible says.
God damn America for treating her citizens as less than human.
God damn America as long as she keeps trying to act like she is God and she is supreme!
God never lies.
God never changes.
God never fails.”
Maybe its because the god concept is a fallacy.
All the abuses we sapiens inflict on each other and ourselves are ultimately due to inherent limitations in the course of evolution – you find the same processes ,patterns and degrees amongst all levels of biological life that we know of.
However as I was checking the correct spelling and meaning of fallacy via Wikipedia , the list was so long as well as an even larger list for biases in judgment and decision making(few of which I am familiar with) that I have serious doubts about my own rationality.
LikeLike
@king:
Fair enough. Rome was theocracy in a sense that the emperors were the pagan popes too, Pontifus Maximus,. But Japan, nor Rome (untill in the 300’s) were monoreligious. Perhaps I should have defined my concept of theocracy as monoreligious theocracies.
Japan is still shintoistic and the emperor, according to shintoism, is divine. But buddhism came to Japan qauite early etc. The essense of shintoism is toleration and adaptibility. Because it holds that spirit is in everything and anywhere, in this blog too.
China was and is also multireligious society, despite that the emperor was seen as the Son of Heaven etc. Tibet was monoreligious and was very very poor state and country, the reason why chinese were able to take it over so easily. Well, there were other reasons as well but…
Yes, I should have been more clear here. I meant states and countries which are monoreligious.
LikeLike
@ Matari
White Americans NEED racism to feel good about themselves. Blacks do not. BUT in America blacks still get hit with many of the same racist messages. Blacks are not burning crosses or redlining or even saying “whitey” or whatever, but internalized racism is still a serious issue.
The main trouble here is the word “racist” itself. It means different things to different people. Some limit it to institutionalized racism, others to a Klan-and-n-word racism, and so on. Almost always people use a definition that lets them off the hook. As a matter of blog policy I go by the Oxford dictionary:
LikeLike
Abagond
“Blacks are not burning crosses or redlining or even saying “whitey” or whatever, but internalized racism is still a serious issue.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Okay.
Then wouldn’t it be more accurate, and more clear, to state that blacks SUFFER THE EFFECTS OF RACISM in various forms: self-hatred, self-doubt, confusion, internalized racism, rather than say we ARE all racists?
The term black racism, or black racist, only lends support to the maintenance and refinement processes whiteness incorporates to sustain itself.
When the words “racism” and “racist” become words that are general (non specific) in terms of category of persons or groups, then these words are rendered diluted and ultimately meaningless, useless and impotent.
“Racist” becomes just another word merely denoting prejudice, preference, bias, bigot. It DEFLECTS AWAY FROM its origin and original meaning. Note that in the annals of early American history not once were Black Slaves, the Original People, Mexicans, Chinese – whomever – ever described as “racists.” Yet today, some descendants of these people of color are deemed as (potentially) racist as white people?????
How, when, and more importantly, WHY, did this happen?
Perhaps when the term “racist” (who then were ONLY white people) went from being the norm (front-stage/in your face BLACK CODES/JIM CROW racism) and gradually over time became politically incorrect (to back-stage/undercover racism). As it did, terms like “reverse-racism/discrimination,” “playing the race card,” “black racism,” “black racists,” “affirmative action,” “quotas,” and other misleading language became political terms (weaponry) used to deflect away from systemic WHITE institutional RACISM.
Language (WORDING) is an important weapon in our encompassing war against whiteness. Perhaps, if more of us were on the same page and spoke the same language, then *their* confuse, deflect and divide tactics would be much less effective.
Just sayin’
LikeLike
@ Matari
I agree that the terminology sucks. The word “racism” only goes back to 1932 even though the phenomenon is way older.
LikeLike
@ Matari
To me racism is an ideology, a set of ideas, an ism about “race”. Self-hatred, self-doubt, etc, are caused by blacks believing in the ism of race, caused by them being racists. That helps me to understand it even at the level of political rhetoric it blows.
LikeLike
@Dave Enamu,
Secular laws are used by anybody and everybody to twist for their own aims. That is human nature.
LikeLike
@ Abagond
I have to commend Matari for attempting to take you to task on the question of terms like “Black racism and racist” which you have frequently used to describe your own views:
I would agree with Matari here this lends support to Randy’s simple claims of “group-isms” as a natural expression of the phenomenon we label as racism. But of course its not! No more than sexism or sexist behaviour is the natural out comings of male and female interactions.
You need alternative definitions that lend support to the internalised action and direction racism takes and manifests itself when it is expressed by Black people. This is qualitatively different in expression than it is when expressed by white people. But then I have mentioned this before many times on this blog
Racism is no more a two-way dynamic than sexism is or homophobia is. There will always be an “action” and a response to that action (re-action). The action and the response to that action ARE NOT EQUAL!
How can they be? This is the basis of the inequality if they were equal there would be no inequality!
Perhaps you can see now why anyone labelling themselves as a “Black racist” denies that already built in inequality. This is the inconsistency you seem happy to perpetuate on this otherwise excellent blog on racism.
Not to mention of course the inconsistencies over religion….
LikeLike
have you seen this??
LikeLike
Happy new year Kwamla. I hope all is well with you?
What is your definition of “racism?”
LikeLike
Kwamla & Abagond
“This is the inconsistency you seem happy to perpetuate on this otherwise excellent blog on racism.
Not to mention of course the inconsistencies over religion….”
~~~~~~~~~
Thank you for further articulating our shared point of views, Kwamla.
No disrespect intended, Abagond but I’ll add just one other “not to mention” inconsistency – regarding VOTING for the lesser of two evils. This IS STILL voting for evil…
““““““““`
Nonetheless, in spite of Abagond’s perceived inconsistencies, this IS an EXCELLENT/AWESOME blog. I see it more as a very broad community center .. or a *21st century* version of a typical Black American Barber Shop atmosphere where all manner of men, women and even young folks are welcome – within reason – to stop in, sit a spell and speak whatever is on their mind. This location is certainly one of the better places on the Internet.
LikeLike
@abagond how do i get in contact with you if I want to get your opinion on somthing without interupting the discussion
LikeLike
@son2380
Thats my point – religion is a joke – if you can twist and interpret something to suit whatever you want then it serves no piont.
LikeLike
@ Dave Enamu
^Then language is a joke too, as well as music
LikeLike
@ Dave Enamu
then everything is a joke because you can manipulate someone witha video game if the person mind is weak.
LikeLike
@ son2380
abagond at gmail dot com.
LikeLike
@ King
Many Thanks King and Happy New 2013 to you too!
King…I checked back through some of my comments on this blog and I notice you’ve asked me this question on several occasions. This is now the third time I count you’ve asked for my definition of racism. So I am hoping this comment here can serve as a general reference point.
In my view a more qualified working definition of racism is:
“…The idea of white superiority/Black & non-white inferiority translated through thought, word and behaviour…”
Here’s another link I wrote which helps explain the context for what I’ve said before about the inconsistency of using terms like “Black racism or racist”
LikeLike
Your welcome Matari!
It needs to be said as otherwise it just keeps coming back because it never gets fully addressed.
Along with Christian religion and the role of the Catholic Church….?
LikeLike
@king & son2380
You can take or leave music and video games they don’t pretend to be anything but what they are – but religion is a form of control it pretends to give people solice while it manipulates them. It wants people to believe, the problem is that it purposely allows people to interpret it any way they like, with it’s inuendo and falsities, that is why so many wars and killings have occured because of religion – people are people where ever they are from but religion divides them – muslims, christians, jews – the list goes on, they all believe in god but their religions set them apart from each other – hence hatred of one man toward another. Though I say it’s a joke by no means is it funny.
LikeLike
@black
Calling ancient Egypt (before non-Africans arrived) a theocracy shows you just don’t understand its history.
Egyptian “priests” were not akin to the church clergy of today. To be a priest in a Nile Valley temple, one had to study for 40+ years and be an expert in multiple subjects — from math to medicine to architecture. There was no religion back then.
@Abagond
“It lied when it said all men are created equal – but gave the vote only to white men.”
That’s not quite fair. The Decl. of Indep. was just a document that did not bind the states from deciding who could or could not vote. In most states in early America, only landowners had the right to vote (incl. some free black landowners), but again, this varied from state to state. Don’t forget that whites were enslaved in America as well, and prior to 1850, most whites arrived in the U.S. in bondage as well.
LikeLike
Thanks Kwamla
My apologies, I seem to have a much worse memory than I thought. I didn’t realize that I had asked you this before. Feel free to point me to our previous conversation if you think it will save time and effort on your part.
You seem to be saying above that racism is only possible when a White person is perpetrating it. So for instance, you believe that a Black person can never act in a racist manner towards an Asian person. Or a Latin person cannot be racist towards a Black person. Is my understanding of your position incorrect? Again, sorry if I’ve asked this at some time in the past.
LikeLike
what do you name it when the conversation shifts from the posted topic – the god concept and government in America – to “what’s your definition of racism?
LikeLike
Mbeti, I think it’s called “topic creep” but people often find secondary issues in other people’s posts to ask questions about. If it goes on for too long or goes too far afield Abagond will moderate it.
LikeLike
@ King
Thank you for asking anyway. Your welcome. You’ve posed a not unreasonable question:
Look at a few of my past responses to this apparent dilemma here:
and here…
And also here:
I hope they help…
LikeLike
I could never understand anti-Americanism from AMERICANS. The United States is not her government, but her people…
LikeLike
@The Cynic
most all so called anti Americanism is the criticism of the american government policies locally and internationally, however those polices are formed and implemented by who – americans that’s who.
Some of us (americans) think its okay to lock up the largest percentage of any nations population in prisons for profit under the pretext of a war on drugs which is really a war on the black brown and poor segments of the american population.
Some americans think this is immoral ,misguided and wrong and regularly speak (to anyone who will listen) and act to stop and end it.
Some americans will unquestioningly join our military and go to foreign lands to steal rape assault and kill foreigners .
Others will never join and do everything they can to stop it.
Some come/came here voluntarily ,others where brought against their will.
Who are the true americans?
who are the good ones?
who are the fake americans?
who are the bad ones?
good and bad true or false americans seem to be the tip of the spear of sapien (human) evolution.
LikeLike
So just how were these statements in any way a racist tirade against whites? It’s racist to not drink the american exceptionalist kool-aid? To realize this country is not perfect? Interesting.
LikeLike
Kwamla
LOLOLOL
You, my man, are good!
… and quite entertaining as well!!! : ))) lol
********
BTW, about couple of weeks ago, I was at your site reading some things you wrote. Good writing there! When I attempted to make a comment, I got this weird automated response. It happened twice… I don’t recall now what the response said. Perhaps I was asked for more input than what’s normal .. for a blog. I wasn’t able to enter my comment.
LikeLike
Thank you Matari! I do try!
And thanks for the feedback. I’ll look into that. Its sensitive to spam attacks!
LikeLike
This is a nation founded by hypocrits.The so called Founding Fathers. The Declaration of Indepence did not have black people in the eqation when they were wrting this document. We were kidnapped from Mother African and bought to these shores in chains to be worked like animals and treated like animals. And we were even considered not human. So the American government is evil. Especially when the first Americans were slaughtered and the land was taken from them and they are placed on reservations.America is complicit in the death and destruction of other people in foreign lands. America has many transgressions. And on our currency It says “In God We Trust”. This country was founded by so called god fearing hypocrits.
LikeLike
@ Kwamla
Ah, very good. I’ve read your postings. Do I understand your point of view then?
1. Black racism can’t be racism because it is at least partly reciprocal. In order for racism to be racism, it must occur ex nihilo.
2. You object to “racism” because in reality there is only one human race, which I gather, means that nobody is racist?
3. Because the racial cast system of the past several centuries has been White dominated, it is impossible for non-White people to be racist until such time as the entire White racist system is torn down and nullified.
Just a synopsis of course, taken from excerpts from your posts. I can give you the direct quotes if you don’t see in any case where I got a point from. Is this close to your assertions on the matter? Did I leave out anything important?
LikeLike
@ poetess
Well said.
LikeLike
@ King
No…! Your summations are not quite right. Let me explain…
“…1. Black racism can’t be racism because it is at least partly reciprocal. In order for racism to be racism, it must occur ex nihilo…”
Black racism is always a re-action>/i> to a perceived originating action of:
“…white superiority/Black & non-white inferiority translated through thought, word or behaviour…”
This has not come out of nothing! Its a false artificially imposed ideology. It came from somewhere but that can only be explored once it is accepted as such. (which is difficult enough for most people) And people stop confusing it with something as basic and natural as prejudice.
In this sense prejudice is reciprocal – Anyone can be prejudice. Racism is not – not Anyone can be racist according to how I am defining the term.
“…2. You object to “racism” because in reality there is only one human race, which I gather, means that nobody is racist?…”
Well….lets see…I object to racism because one… I KNOW ITS NOT TRUE! and second… it appears to have been artificially imposed on peoples.That is… It acts as a lens through which All peoples of the world are to be viewed. So its not that nobody is racist, which I am sure from your own experience you would be sure to contest. Its that no one group of people is ALL superior or inferior to another.
Further, no scientific basis exists for the notion of different or separate “races” exists. There is only one human race and any differences can only be accounted for within that single expression. Of course, other races do exist but they are not human! …That is native to Earth.!
“…3. Because the racial cast system of the past several centuries has been White dominated, it is impossible for non-White people to be racist until such time as the entire White racist system is torn down and nullified…”
A better way to understand this is to acknowledge that Racism – an artificially imposed ideology – does exist and has been set up purposely in favour of a particular caste of people (white or light skinned) and against another caste of people (Black or Dark skinned)
When examined in this way it clearly shows that it makes little sense to label the words, thoughts and behaviour of Black people as racist. Unless of course you are NOT willing to believe that Racism – an artificially imposed and false ideology – does exist Or you do but don’t accept that its false! We are clearly not talking about the same phenomena.
Again for Black racism to make sense there would need to be established a similar artificially imposed ideology that favoured Black or Dark skinned peoples and inferiorised white or light skinned people. BUT…and this is the big but. The existing structure of Racism, – as we have all come to know it -, would have to be erased from the minds of ALL peoples on this planet! – Which is clearly an impossible task. And which is why I say it would be easier to populate humans on another planet and implement this as a false ideology there. Totally crazy and irresponsible of course!
Does this help any further?
.
LikeLike
@ Abagond
Please could you correct the italics end bracket in this line for the above post:
“…Black racism is always a re-action>/i> to a perceived originating action of:..”
Thanks!
LikeLike
@Bulanik
That’s not the type of answer I was looking for. I hoped to get an analysis from a more.. hmm.. theological point of view. Where does God draw the line? Which kinds of enslavement are morally acceptable according to the biblical deity? Why? It seems to me that God isn’t (wasn’t?) as strongly against the concept of slavery as most modern Christians are.
About the treatment of biblical slaves, there is also Exodus 21:20-21.
LikeLike
@Bulanik
You do not have to apologize. You haven’t done anything wrong. It’s just that your perspective is not the one that interests me. Originally, I pointed out this comment:
“Americans believe God approved of the rape and robbery of a continent, of African slavery”
and wanted to get an explanation constructed in that context. I hoped someone will analyze biblical slavery in the context of theology. What does God approve of? That’s not how you perceive it so I don’t really see a point in having a lengthy discussion about it with you.
@Kwamla Hesse
How can you determine that certain kinds of behavior or prejudice are responses? What does that mean anyway?
LikeLike
@ eco
“…How can you determine that certain kinds of behavior or prejudice are responses? What does that mean anyway?…”
Think of it like programming. First you have to accept this programming exists. Then you need to understand how its been set up to function.
If someone hits you in the face and you re-act by hitting them back. How would you determine which action was a response?
LikeLike
I’ll respond more broadly later Kwamla. But let me ask a question just for clarification. Do you believe that if a Black person attacks an Asian person because of their race, that that is not racism but is a reaction to White racism?
LikeLike
@Kwamla
“Think of it like programming. First you have to accept this programming exists. Then you need to understand how its been set up to function.
If someone hits you in the face and you re-act by hitting them back. How would you determine which action was a response?”
The second action was a response, but how can I determine the first one wasn’t a response to something too?
It seems to me that you are arbitrarily picking a beginning and calling things responses based on their relation to this starting point you chose. How can you eliminate the possibility that the ‘beginning’ was a response too?
LikeLike
@ eco
You can’t but that is the point! All beginnings and endings are arbitrary! But we need them there to be able to make sense of things. Otherwise we end up with the ridiculous situation of not being able to account for or understand anything. We would always be simply re-acting or responding to what happened previously in some apparently new and unknown way.
This is the erroneous way in which racism is generally perceived today. Viewed this way anyone can be racist. Even cats or dogs could be perceived to be racist if they responded differently to Black and white people!
@ King
Please review the definition of racism I gave – that you asked me for. Do Black people attack Asian people according to this definition?
And while your at it. Please would you state your definition you go by. If you have one?
LikeLike
@ Kwamla
I generally go by the dictionary definitions for the purposes of discussion. This is from Oxford:
The reason that I am asking you questions is because it is still not clear to me what your definition is. In some places you seem to be saying that racism is an elusive concept that can’t necessarily be defined in one simple way.
LikeLike
Its not so much my definition is not clear but that you are not understanding it. It does not fit the Oxford book definition you describe. I don’t use that and question it. For example it says nothing about the potential for internalized racism. Would you deny this phenomenon exists?
If you go by this definition, which you seem to be, then clearly racism can exist “naturally” due to the existence of multiple races and a belief in racial inequality.
Do you seriously buy into that? Randy might but I don’t !!!
LikeLike
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not accusing you of being unclear, it’s just not yet clear to me.
What if we expanded the Oxford definition slightly? Does that then work for you?
Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior, or more broadly, the acceptance of a belief of superiority and inferiority between races.
LikeLike
King…How about we abandon the Oxford definition altogether? My own definition brings this up to date and is much simpler.
As Abagond, I believed stated, definitions like the Oxford one are self-serving. Do you really believe this is serving your interests or someone Else’s?
Explain to me how you believe it serves your interests if so?
LikeLike
@Kwamla
“You can’t but that is the point! All beginnings and endings are arbitrary! But we need them there to be able to make sense of things. Otherwise we end up with the ridiculous situation of not being able to account for or understand anything. We would always be simply re-acting or responding to what happened previously in some apparently new and unknown way.”
I’m not sure I understand what you mean.
We can gather knowledge about a period of time without making assumptions about the things that happened earlier, about the origins of things. That’s pretty much what the dictionary definitions of racism allow us to do. We can still analyze the balance of power and notice patterns, see instances of racism as elements of a larger thing and not as something completely unique.
I can’t notice any benefits we can get by picking a starting point the way you are doing it. I think it can lead us to conclusions we couldn’t reach without it, but they would all be misleading. By “misleading” I mean: based on an assumption we can’t prove, based on the assumed existence of a starting point.
“This is the erroneous way in which racism is generally perceived today. Viewed this way anyone can be racist. ”
I do not consider it wrong and I do not really understand why you do.
“Even cats or dogs could be perceived to be racist if they responded differently to Black and white people! ”
I think that most dictionary definitions of racism apply only to people.
LikeLike
@ eco
Basically, what I take from this response is that you don’t understand what I have tried to explain in detail over several posts. So rather than focusing on what you don’t understand about what I am saying it makes more sense to focus on what you believe and understand about racism.
Then perhaps I could explain or show why I would probably disagree with it. You could start by defining or showing which definition you agree with.
Also, I would be wary about any thought process which argued we can:
“…gather knowledge about a period of time without making assumptions about the things that happened earlier…”
Its approaches like this which can directly lead to accusations of racism! Simply because you can arrogantly assume you don’t need to check any existing assumptions you may hold before you make a judgment.
LikeLike
@Kwamla
“You could start by defining or showing which definition you agree with.”
OK. If we want to distinguish kinds of racism then the kind a lot of people mean when they use the word is:
“The belief that people’s qualities are influenced by their race and that the members of other races are not as good as the members of your own, or the resulting unfair treatment of members of other races.” (Cambridge)
I usually use a broader definition of racism: “The belief that people’s qualities are influenced by their race.”
Where race means:
“a group, especially of people, with particular similar physical characteristics, who are considered as belonging to the same type, or the fact of belonging to such a group” (Cambridge)
“Simply because you can arrogantly assume you don’t need to check any existing assumptions you may hold before you make a judgment.”
I wasn’t trying to say that the past doesn’t matter or that we can assume we are being objective.
I said: “we can gather knowledge about a period of time without making assumptions about the things that happened earlier, about the origins of things”. We can gather data and form conclusions based directly on the data.
Conclusions like: ‘there were many acts of violence against Jews in Europe, in the 1940s’.
LikeLike
Kwamla,
I posted the following (below) and other similar types of declarations in response to charges of BLACK RACISM here on this blog:
“African Americans cannot be called “racists,” because they do not have the ability to deny anyone “the dignity, opportunities, freedoms, and rewards that this nation offers white Americans.
When, or if, black people begin chaining, shipping, enslaving, selling, lynching, raping, oppressing, exploiting, shooting, jailing, whipping, maiming, torturing, evangelizing, robbing, stereotyping, bullying, bombing, segregating, building highways and thruways to dislocate businesses, communities and neighborhoods; creating SUN-DOWN towns, experimenting on, discriminating against, prohibiting, murdering, holding back/controlling in every imaginable way while HATING WHITE PEOPLE en mass via de jure and de facto racism for HUNDREDS of years, then and only then can calling black people racists make sense.
Unless America’s historical and traditional scripts are flipped, the ONLY people who can possibly ever qualify to be racists, and “fight their (“natural”) tendency toward it,” are WHITE people.
Otherwise, the word “racist” – “makes NO SENSE!”
********
Does my understanding of why black people cannot be racist – as stated above – fall within or lean toward your own understanding regarding why two separate and distinct entities/groups cannot both be racist at the same time, in the same universe?
You’ve already expounded on this philosophy/belief. I’m just trying to hone in and get as CLEAR AS CRYSTAL what I believe you’ve already stated.
LikeLike
@ eco
The definitions you’ve provided are too “woolly” . They are really unclear about racism is and who it affects. Does it effect everyone? If so how?
Its this mentally unclear picture of racism you’re holding which prevents a different and cleaner perspective of what I’ve tried to convey on this topic (see this comment here for comparison)
You would also do well to read Matari’s analysis too. Do you believe Anyone can be racist? If so explain to me why you believe this is so
LikeLike
@ Matari
“…Does my understanding of why black people cannot be racist – as stated above – fall within or lean toward your own understanding regarding why two separate and distinct entities/groups cannot both be racist at the same time, in the same universe? …
Your understanding is exactly along the lines I’ve been expounding and I do also recall this post of yours before.
I would just add the correction though of “planet” rather than “universe”. For this reason: It is or would be possible to have two planets existing in the same time and universe but with equal and opposite culturally artificially imposed ideologies of superiority/inferiority on two distinct cultures of people.
So for exampleyou could have one mentally programmed world of superiority/inferiority where everything African or Black was considered “superior” and everything Westernised/European or white was considered “inferior” by ALL cultures of people on the planet irrespective of which cultural grouping they aligned with.
Then you could have the same equal but opposite mentally programmed world of superiority/inferiority where everything Westernised/European or white was considered “superior” and everything African or Black was considered “inferior” by ALL cultures of people on the planet irrespective of which cultural grouping they aligned with.
Its possible for both these worlds to exist on separate planets BUT it is not possible for both worlds to exist on the same planet!. They can’t or they would cancel each other out, nullify any perceived advantage of inequality by superior peoples over inferior peoples
But this is exactly what is proposed by the currently accepted woolly and misleading definitions of racism in the dictionaries. Which seem to have been taken and unquestionably accepted by most people commenting on this topic on blog. Now why is that?
As you correctly summarised Matari:
LikeLike
Kwamla
“I would just add the correction though of “planet” rather than “universe”. For this reason: It is or would be possible to have two planets existing in the same time and universe but with equal and opposite culturally artificially imposed ideologies of superiority/inferiority on two distinct cultures of people.
….. it is not possible for both worlds to exist on the same planet!. They can’t or they would cancel each other out, nullify any perceived advantage of inequality by superior peoples over inferior peoples ”
********
Excellent points! I see the distinctions clearly.
*********
“But this is exactly what is proposed by the currently accepted woolly and misleading definitions of racism in the dictionaries. Which seem to have been taken and unquestionably accepted by most people commenting on this topic on blog. Now why is that?”
**********
Why indeed????
This is the trillon dollar question!
Even though the words, racism and racist, didn’t enter the English lexicon until the 1930’s, blacks and other people of color – prior to the beginning of the political correctness era (circa the 1970s) – were never deemed as RACISTS even by the white noted period writers, historians, cultural critics/commenters, talking heads, talk show hosts, etc. Even the most anti-black Americans never referred to black people as racist.
Was Muhammed Ali, MLK Jr., Malcolm X, H. Rap Brown, James Baldwin, the Black Panther Party, the NAACP, et al referred to as “racists” by their contemporary white critics?
Was the historical narrative regarding slavery, black codes, lynching, Jim Crow, white riots against black folks, sundown towns ever expressed by whites THEN from the point of view of blacks being racist or having racist tendencies because blacks did not like that whites were oppressing them?
No.
Whites traditionally pinned all manner of negative/offensive labels/beliefs and stereotypes on black people in order to excuse/justify their treatment of us, but curiously being a racist was never one of those tags!
Yet TODAY, as many of us know, if we attempt to discuss the topic of racism, we are often (mis)labeled as racist. If we don’t like whiteness, we are supposedly racist. In fact, racism is now the fault of black people because WE ARE KEEPING IT ALIVE – by merely discussing racism in its present day forms according to many white visitors (and trolls) to this and other blogs.
Interesting how words/meanings change and how tactics are subtly refined and modified over a period of years. But for whose benefit?? Surely not mine/ours.
Like you Kwamla, I’m very curious as to why so many people with melanin here accept the misleading/deflecting definitions of this ever evolving word.
LikeLike
@Kwamla
“The definitions you’ve provided are too “woolly” . They are really unclear about racism is and who it affects. Does it effect everyone? If so how?”
I think they are quite clear. About as confusing as all the other definitions of ‘-ism’s you can find in a dictionary.
Who can be racist? Since racism is defined as a belief, any person capable of holding such a belief can be racist. Practically everyone.
Who can be a victim of racism? This depends on the beliefs of people influencing a person’s life. Again, practically everyone.
How are people hurt by racism? It’s different in different situations. Depends on the personalities of the racists and their beliefs. It can be a bias or it can lead to aggression and violence. There are many possibilities.
“Its this mentally unclear picture of racism you’re holding which prevents a different and cleaner perspective of what I’ve tried to convey on this topic (see this comment here for comparison)”
I think the definition of racism you used in that comment,
I mean this: “The idea of white superiority/Black & non-white inferiority translated through thought, word and behaviour”
isn’t really clearer than the dictionary definitions. It’s just narrow. It limits racism to what I would call a kind of racism. Maybe “white supremacy”?
If that is your definition of racism then what is defined like this:
“The idea of Black superiority/non-Black inferiority translated through thought, word and behaviour”?
Or like this: “The idea of East Asian superiority/non-East-Asian inferiority translated through thought, word and behaviour”?
What are these things?
LikeLike
I think this is a excellent historical observation Matari!
@ eco
It would assist your argument and understanding of racism to place any notion or idea of non-white supremacy in this historical context. Because clearly if you cannot draw on this as an existing historical narrative then clearly the reality of non-white supremacy does not stand up.
Or to put it in your terms:
“…“The idea of Black superiority/non-Black inferiority translated through thought, word and behaviour”?
Or like this:
“The idea of East Asian superiority/non-East-Asian inferiority translated through thought, word and behaviour”?
What are these things?
Precisely what are these things? Can you place them in any historical context over the last say 200 years?
If you cannot then racism primarily as a form of white supremacy is a clearer definition. To expand this into the general form you understand (replicated in dictionaries) requires this context. Can you supply this? I can’t…
LikeLike
@ eco
Also…This question posed by King, I answered, also needs to be understood and appreciated.
“…3. Because the racial cast system of the past several centuries has been White dominated, it is impossible for non-White people to be racist until such time as the entire White racist system is torn down and nullified…”
A better way to understand this is to acknowledge that Racism – an artificially imposed ideology – does exist and has been set up purposely in favour of a particular caste of people (white or light skinned) and against another caste of people (Black or Dark skinned)
This is not understood or appreciated in dictionary (or your own) definitions.
LikeLike
@ Matari
I think you might like this…!
http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/gillianschutte/2013/01/02/dear-white-people/
LikeLike
Kwamla
LOL … You think correctly! However, my experience suggests that I would be wise to not hold my breath in anticipation that the majority of folks this letter is addressed to might be drawn to this sensible, urgent, message and have a breakthrough, a shift, a real change ….
After all, haven’t black people EVERYWHERE said pretty much the same exact words to white folks for the last 400 years?? Still, they remain anchored/glued to their whiteness, their precious privileges, delusions and denials.
Is there any hope, Kwamla, for lost souls such as these?
LikeLike
Matari
Hope or Optimism is a great and positive feeling to disseminate. Its one I always try to provide or pass on. But you do have to believe in it in order to feel or experience it. There will always be hope for those who wish to explore what this may bring. The letter proves there are honest and sincere white people willing to explore this global, impositional, artificial domination of whiteness on the rest of the planetary population. This is all it takes for those who wish to challenge or question it. It provides an anchor or a platform for those brave and courageous enoughr to do so.
But it doesn’t really matter if the vast majority of white folks the letter is addressed to take heed or not. The World or their World is changing, shifting. And it is happening right now. Soon the choice will be one of just plain survival…
LikeLike
@Kwamla
“It would assist your argument and understanding of racism to place any notion or idea of non-white supremacy in this historical context. Because clearly if you cannot draw on this as an existing historical narrative then clearly the reality of non-white supremacy does not stand up.”
I think you haven’t noticed what you defined. You said racism is “the idea of…”. Just an idea! Your definition does not require a historical context nor narrative. So, the two definitions I’ve constructed based on your version of the word “racism” also do not need to have significant historical impact in order to be ‘real’. So, what are they?
” racism primarily as a form of white supremacy is a clearer definition.”
Not “clearer”. The terms you used to define “racism” are not more precise than the ones we can find in the dictionary definitions. It’s narrow because you are limiting the meaning of a word to it’s main/most popular variant. It’s like narrowing down the meaning of ‘government’ to ‘democracy’ and ignoring the other forms of government because they have not had an impact on recent history.
“Because the racial cast system of the past several centuries has been White dominated, it is impossible for non-White people to be racist until such time as the entire White racist system is torn down and nullified(…)This is not understood or appreciated in dictionary (or your own) definitions.”
Yeah, because to see it like you do one must believe in the ‘starting point’ and the responses to the ‘starting point’. It seems it is just your assumption, something you can’t prove, so there is really no good reason why others should use that concept in their understanding of racism or their definitions.
LikeLike
@ Eco
The reason I say it is an “idea” is to show it is not written in stone! It could equally be the idea of something else like: Black superiority and white inferiority
Regardless of which ever idea is the case. For it to be taken up as “truth”, believable, or “Real” in our society there needs to be some form of evidence we can point to which demonstrates its existence. This is the historical narrative or context I am referring to which you seem to believe is unnecessary?
You are ignoring the actual social and historical contextual evidence that has already been presented (see Matari’s comment) for the idea of white superiority and Black inferiority. And judging this to be a narrow definition based on what?
This is the problem you have, and as I’ve already commented, the dictionary definitions you’re relying on have no similar historical context for a broad general idea of racism which is applicable to everyone. Even you are hard pressed to provide one!. Which is why you’ve opted for an argument to deny that one is necessary! Well…on that basis any number of weird and wonderful ideas are possible. But what determines whether they are “Real” or believable in our societies?…..Our experiences of them of course!!!
Unfortunately, the dictionary definitions you wish to associate with are guilty of denying Black people and POC experiences of racism. Perhaps you’re own lacking in this aspect of direct experience to racism is what drives you to contest this as a narrow definitional experience?
But even that assumption is arrogantly misplaced because the vast majority of peoples on this planet fall into the category of Black and Persons of Colour (POC)
So who on a numerical experiential basis is going to have a narrow definitional idea of racism?
Another evidential context for you to deny perhaps?
LikeLike
@Kwamla
“For it to be taken up as ‘truth’, believable, or ‘Real’ in our society there needs to be some form of evidence we can point to which demonstrates its existence.”
True. In the case of your definition one person is enough. I though it’s obvious that someone like that must have existed at some point so I didn’t bother to show specific examples. I think youtube alone has thousands of them.
“This is the historical narrative or context I am referring to which you seem to believe is unnecessary?”
It is not necessary because you haven’t used these concepts in your definition. What you defined as “racism” does not have to be that big and important (or historically important) in order to still fit into your definition and be “racism”.
So when I ask you what this is: ‘The idea of Black superiority/non-Black inferiority translated through thought, word and behaviour’
I do not have to turn it into: ‘the historically significant idea of(…)’ for it to be similar to your definition.
“You are ignoring the actual social and historical contextual evidence that has already been presented for the idea of white superiority and Black inferiority.”
Actually, you are ignoring it too. At least your definition does.
“And judging this to be a narrow definition based on what?”
Because you are focusing on a specific kind of racial superiority, on a specific group of people (white people) without actually justifying it. That’s why I’m asking about other groups. I think that would lead us to establishing what makes you see the kind of superiority you are talking about as different from the other ones.
“Unfortunately, the dictionary definitions you wish to associate with are guilty of denying Black people and POC experiences of racism. Perhaps you’re own lacking in this aspect of direct experience to racism is what drives you to contest this as a narrow definitional experience? ”
This is completely wrong. YOU are narrowing down the idea of racism to specific racial groups. My idea of ‘racism’ includes (not denies!) the thing you call “racism”.
My definition of racism:
“The belief that people’s qualities are influenced by their race.”
Your definition:
“The idea of white superiority/Black & non-white inferiority translated through thought, word and behaviour”
My definition is much broader. The things you can call ‘racist’ based on your definition are ‘racist’ according to my definition, because the concepts of racial superiority are based on the idea that people’s qualities are influenced by their race. I’m not excluding anything. You are, and you can’t find objective reasons to justify why you are excluding things others see as kinds of racism. When you try to justify it, you lead us back to the idea that the current situation is special, to the concept of the ‘starting point’. And why should anyone believe in the ‘starting point’? No reason.
“But even that assumption is arrogantly misplaced because the vast majority of peoples on this planet fall into the category of Black and Persons of Colour (POC). So who on a numerical experiential basis is going to have a narrow definitional idea of racism? ”
I thought I’m talking to one person and disagreeing with his point of view. When did POC make you their emissary?
Beside that, I do not really understand what you were trying to say here. If you meant to say that the majority has a better idea about what the truth is simply because they are the majority, then that’s a common fallacious argument called ‘argumentum ad populum’.
LikeLike
Its clear to me Eco you are having a great deal of difficulty in appreciating or understanding the alternative concept of racism I’ve explained in copious detail in this post and others. To be honest I am not really that surprised because it demands an appreciation of an experience you seem painfully unaware of.
In honesty I have to say I cannot really make sense of your arguments say. Other than my opinion is just as valid as yours.
But lets see if we can relate this to something we may have equal parity in awareness of: sexism
Both being males we probably have more or less the same experience of sexism. Now you could argue with me about your definition of sexism and I might find it difficult to justify why my idea should be taken as more representative of this reality than yours. Why? Well what would it be derived from which could reasonably to be viewed to carry more weight than yours?
Experience? Well Not necessarily because we could both argue we only have indirect experience of sexism by virtue of us both being both male and privileged in this area. So to whose experiences should we look to resolve or gain a better understanding of this? More men or more women? I am not saying, of course, that men can have no idea or opinion of sexism. They can but is it really realistic or accurate to assume that men’s ideas of sexism should take precedence over women’s ideas?
If we substitute race for gender in your definitions then that is exactly what you are saying about my own preferred definition of racism.
As usual…what you are calling a “..broader…” definition includes a presumption of the idea of female sexism against men. Ok..A reasonable idea but does this idea stand up to a social and historical contextual analysis of male and female experiences? No it does NOT!
Now I could have used the word: “gender” in place of “male & female” in my own definition above but then that too would have implied male & female parity of experiences in the probability of sexism. However, I would never argue this as the historical narrative and and contextual evidence would never support it.
I wonder is any of this making sense to you so far? Or do you perhaps entertain the equally unsubstantiated idea that women can be just as sexist towards men as men can be towards women?
Does this help to explain why my more specific working definition of racism is more accurate and experientially based than the unrealistic dictionary definitional ones you prefer?
LikeLike
@Kwamla
” my opinion is just as valid as yours.”
Generally? That’s true, but in a particular situation…
According to Occam’s razor your reasoning is weaker because it uses the concept of a starting point without justifying why it’s necessary and why we should place it in the spot you chose.
“I am not saying, of course, that men can have no idea or opinion of sexism. They can but is it really realistic or accurate to assume that men’s ideas of sexism should take precedence over women’s ideas? ”
I think definitions should be as separated from opinions as it’s possible so all groups could accept them.They are not supposed to construct narratives. They are supposed to outline the limits of a term, not the limits as seen by someone or some group of people.
If you want to claim that the dictionary definitions are biased you should justify that. Preferably, with something that doesn’t rely on your personal assumptions.
“As usual…what you are calling a “..broader…” definition includes a presumption of the idea of female sexism against men. Ok..A reasonable idea but does this idea stand up to a social and historical contextual analysis of male and female experiences? No it does NOT!”
The fact that two things can belong to one category does not imply that they are similar in ways not described by the definition of the category.
Chihuahuas and pit bulls are ‘dogs’. This does not imply both kinds can be used to guard things or are equally as popular as pets. Also, the fact that we call both kinds ‘dogs’ does not impair our ability to distinguish the animals.
Can women be prejudiced against men based on gender? Yes? So the term ‘sexism’ should include that possibility. The fact that it happens much less often or is much less harmful to society, or less significant in some other way, does not change the fact that it’s still the same category of prejudice. At the same time it does NOT imply that the two kinds of ‘sexism’ (men against women, women against men) are comparable in ways not specified in the definition of ‘sexism’. That they are equally harmful, important, prevalent, etc.
Narrowing down the broad meaning of ‘sexism’ to your definition of ‘sexism’ (or to the current meaning of ‘misogyny’) does not clarify things. It re-brands them and leaves us with new questions. If ‘sexism’ is only something men do to women then what do we call a situation when a woman is prejudiced against men based on gender? What’s the general term for prejudice based on gender? Changing the labels can have influence on discourse, but this kind of manipulation does not make the definitions clearer.
LikeLike
Eco
Its no wonder you don’t understand much of what I’ve carefully tried to explain and break down for you. As I suspected, you do not really understand many of your own arguments you put forward in an attempt to counter my own careful worded explanations..
How many examples is it going to be necessary for me to provide you with to show you this? You are responsible for ensuring your own reasoning is sound before you attempt to examine and criticize mine.
Please examine your OWN reasoning!. Lets do this one stage at a time:
“…I think definitions should be as separated from opinions as it’s possible so all groups could accept them.They are not supposed to construct narratives. They are supposed to outline the limits of a term, not the limits as seen by someone or some group of people…”
Please examine and reflect on this statement a bit more. THEN provide me with an example of one definition which: outline the limits of a term, not the limits as seen by someone or some group of people
I’d be very interested to see what supposedly “objective” definition you can come up with!
Then maybe perhaps we can continue…
LikeLike
‘Square: a regular quadrilateral’
You know damn well what kind of ‘objectivity’ I meant. The common, imprecise meaning of the word.
You should also notice I was talking about an ideal situation.
I said: “should be as separated from opinions as it’s possible”, “they are supposed to”.
“Its no wonder you don’t understand much of what I’ve carefully tried to explain and break down for you.”
I didn’t understand it about a week ago. I’m pretty sure I do now and I think it’s nonsense. Can I try to predict where your current argument is heading? You want to show that the dictionary definitions of “racism” have a pro-white bias. Good luck with that. You’ll need it.
LikeLike
Kwamla,
“Its no wonder you don’t understand much of what I’ve carefully tried to explain and break down for you. … How many examples is it going to be necessary for me to provide you with to show you this?”
********
LOL …
You KNOW THIS as much if not more so than (some) others. THAT is some people won’t ever get “it” … mostly because they simply don’t want to – it’s part of their unbreakable conditioning/programming.
One could inscribe the truth on their hands, feet, stomachs, necks – heck even on their faces in countless ways and they would still refuse to see it. Your tenacity is admirable though. You are far more purposed, patient and giving than many of the other ACHIEVERS here. lol
😉
LikeLike
@Kwamla
If you are wondering why these two felt the need to chip in even though they don’t have anything to add to our discussion, they probably did it because I have a history with both of them.
Matari and I had a series of conversations about the definition and meaning of “racism”, but he didn’t have much to offer. He didn’t even want to say which definition he is using. Talking about things like definitions and implications seems to be out of his league.
In Bulanik’s case I accidentally exposed her series of lies. I guess she is still not over it.
Generally, I’m trying to ignore them and the discussions they participate in. I think it’s the more mature thing to do. They do not seem to be able to reciprocate this.
LikeLike
The concept and the color of God are focused on most strongly in the area of religion, although all areas of people activity overlap, influence and fuse with one another. The global white supremacy system evolved a religion referred to as Christianity. However, it is referred to most appropriately as the dominant pattern of religious thought generated by the white supremacy system.
Absolutely critical to the white supremacy system of religious thought was the formation of the image of a white man as the “son” of God. This white male image then was referred to as “Christ” – no matter that the prophet Jesus was a Black man.
Because the brain-computer functions most fundamentally on logic circuits, at deep unconscious levels it automatically computes that God, the father, is also a white male.
If God is other than white, he would have produced a Black (or other non-white) son.
Thus, any person programmed to accept the Christian religion, whether conscious of it or not, has the image and concept of God as a white man in the logic network of his/her brain-computer.
Couple this image and concept of God as a white man with the white supremacy system’s formal definition of God as “the supreme or ultimate reality; the Being perfect in power, wisdom and goodness whom men worship as creator and ruler of the universe.” Then of absolute necessity, the logic circuits of the human brain-computer have to print out “The white man (as God, the father of the white male Christ) is the supreme or ultimate reality; the white man is the Being, perfect in power, wisdom and goodness whom all men should worship as creator and ruler of the universe. ”
With this unconscious logic circuit of “God is a white man” firmly in place, white domination over non-white people could last for one trillion years. This would be true if this critical and essential logic connection could be implanted and plugged into the brain-computers of a sufficient number of black, brown, red and yellow peoples, who constitute the vast majority of the peoples on the planet. With the white man as God, the non-white global collective would be obedient to the white man always.
It was the necessary duty of the vast army of white supremacy (Christian) missionaries sent out around the world, following the guns of white supremacy conquest, to implant – deep within the unconscious logic networks of non-white brain-computers – the critical image and concept of God as a while man. This unconscious implantation has been successful to the extent that many non-white people on the planet conceive of themselves as members of the Christian (white supremacy) religion.
In the U.S., the overwhelming majority of Black people, as well as a large portion of other non-white peoples, consider themselves Christian.
Thus, all Black and other non-white peoples who profess to be members of the Christian (white supremacy) religion, whether they are conscious of it or not, worship the white man as God (not as “a” god, but as “the” God).
And, in the unconscious logic networks of their individual brain-computers lies the logic that the white man is the supreme or ultimate reality – the Being perfect in power, wisdom and goodness whom men worship as creator and ruler of the universe.
Although Black and other non-white peoples may understand that they are oppressed by the global white collective, of which the white males are
the dominant members, the brain-computer’s cold logic circuits also unconsciously inform the non-white (Christian) victim that it is impossible to free or liberate one’s self from the supreme being who has created the universe!
In other words, if in the deep, unconscious recesses of my brain-computer rests the fundamental logic that God is a white man and that I should worship “God,” all of my attempts at liberation will move me only in a circle.
Indeed, the circumference of my “liberation movement circle” could be so wide that it really appears to me that I am moving in a straight line of progress. But moving in a circle, no matter how big the circle, is tantamount to standing absolutely still, marking time. Many Black people in the U.S. now are beginning to feel as though our liberation efforts (in spite of loss of
life and whipped heads) have left us still standing on the same spot of white oppression.
For the vast majority of Black and other non-white peoples today, the arrival of these ice cold facts of brain-computer logic at the conscious level will be experienced initially as shattering and self-disintegrating – primarily because it is God the protector and the creator upon whom the self is taught (programmed) ultimately to depend.
If the concept of God is removed from my brain-computer, upon whom or what am I to lean, especially if I am feeling oppressed, depressed and
overwhelmed? If there is nothing or no one to provide support, then I believe that I will collapse and disintegrate.
Chapter 13.The Concept and the Color of God and Black Mental Health page 163
The Isis (Yssis) Papers
1991 by Dr. Frances Cress Welsing M.D.
LikeLike
Bulanik
LOL : )))
Perhaps not as entertaining as a typical “exposing Randy” moment but still funny nonetheless. Laughter is good for the soul!
LikeLike
@ Bulanik & Matari. LOL!
I am humbled and gratified by your appreciative comments. Its far more than I going to get from Eco – Not that I would expect this of course! lol! Certainly while he still entertains the delusion of objectivity!
LikeLike
@ Eco
“…If you are wondering why these two felt the need to chip in even though they don’t have anything to add to our discussion, they probably did it because I have a history with both of them…”
Unlike yourself Eco I do read carefully other people’s comments. Perhaps you would care to review the comments on this thread and see the comments Matari actually did contribute towards this discussion.
.I don’t recall which thread you and Matari had the discussion about racism but I would be happy to review it if either of you want to direct me to it.
I am familiar though with many of your exchanges with Bulanik (some in this thread) but particularly in the Warsaw Ghetto thread where she practically encountered a similar deflection and refusal to address copious evidence presented to you as I have here. It looked to me like you were the one being exposed not Bulanik!
Ignoring people or points of view can only be a short term strategy because eventually those people or points of view will eventually surface again for your attention. I guess you could say this is exactly what has occurred here. Its why they probably felt a shared need to comment. That and of course the irresistible entertainment factor.lol! But we all need to pause and laugh sometimes!
LikeLike
@Kwamla
Since our discussion seems to be over let me summarize. I both enjoyed this discussion and I’m disappointed with it. I expected it to be much more interesting than it turned out to be. Originally I assumed your reasoning is much stronger than it seemed to be, than it is. I thought I do not understand your reasoning, that you have answers to questions I didn’t know how to answer. Questions that were making your reasoning look very weak.
I assumed you are prepared to face criticism, that you know how to deal with the most obvious questions, so I let you control the course of the conversation. When you wanted to change the topic and abandon some issue, I played along. When you asked about my definitions, clearly so we would address them instead of your own, I let you move the topic of the discussion away from the flaws of your reasoning, away from your definition. I thought that could lead me to the answers I was looking for.
At this point I think it’s clear that not only you do not have the answers, but you were not prepared to justify any of your claims and chose to simply run away from my questions. In your most recent comment you have abandoned the topic of our discussion entirely. Whenever I disagreed with something I explained why I’m rejecting your idea. You haven’t really addressed that criticism and simply changed angles, tried a different approach whenever you felt the discussion isn’t going as planed. In the end you chose to insinuate that I’m being obtuse, while ignoring the fact that every time I disagreed with you I explained why I’m doing it and usually you had nothing to say about it (no counterarguments).
The ‘starting point’ is easily the weakest element of your reasoning. Unfortunately it also seems to be the foundation of it. Not only you are unable to justify its existence in terms that do not rely on your personal opinion, it also seems you do not think having such a justification is necessary. Early in the conversation I thought about constructing a reasoning similar to yours. One that also clearly relies on a ‘starting point’, the idea that a situation was special, that it was a source other things only respond to, but leads to very different conclusions. I wanted to use a ‘starting point’ to make a ‘white inventor’ argument. White racism is the only true racism because is has conquered the world? So white brilliance is the only true brilliance because it (the technology: boats, guns, etc.) has conquered the world. People who aren’t white aren’t really capable of being racist? They can’t truly be brilliant either. They can only reflect racism? They can only reflect white man’s ideas, the ideas that had led to his superiority. And so on, and so on.
I do not really believe in that stuff but I think it could have illustrated why ‘starting points’ need really good justifications to be taken seriously. I decided not to do it because I thought it would look too much like me mocking you and I believed you deserve more time to explain your stance. Your recent comments suggest I respect your intelligence more than you respect mine.
The second biggest flaw in your reasoning in the idea that the fact that two things fit into a definition implies they share qualities not specified by the definition. Such implication does not exist. Two people who are racist according to your definition of ‘racism’ are not necessarily equally racist or equally harmful to society. It’s simply not implied by your definition. Same thing applies to my definition. Your claim that narrowing down a term makes it clearer, because it removes the implication that the things that fit the term are equal in ways not specified by the definition of the term. That’s nonsense because such implication does not exist. By limiting ‘racism’ to what I call ‘white supremacy’ you are not making ‘racism’ clearer. You are not removing the implication that ‘white supremacy’, ‘Black supremacy’, ‘East Asian supremacy’, etc., are equal, because the implication already doesn’t exist. It has never existed.
You could have had a stronger case if you decided to discuss this in a different context. Instead of talking about definitions and implications you should have taken this discussion to the realm of language and connotations. There the meanings of things become more fuzzy and I can agree with some of your claims. People do respond to certain words differently not because the definitions are different but because the words sound different.
I mean stuff like:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0210/Gays_poll_better_than_homosexuals.html
or the fact that American conservatives called ‘universal health care’ ‘Obamacare’, because the second term polled worse.
I think this kind of manipulation is what you really wanted to accomplish through the relabeling of already existing terms. You were not making things clearer on the level of definitions because the thing you called ‘racism’ already is defined and called ‘white supremacy’ also you were not removing an unrealistic implication, because the implication you were talking about hasn’t existed to begin with.
Another consequence of such relabeling is the necessity to name things that used to be kinds of ‘racism’ (other kinds of superiorities) and the general term that includes all kinds of racial prejudice. Your way of dealing with this issue was limited to hoping that eventually I’ll stop asking about it and simply accept your idea of a ‘staring point’ that was supposed to make these terms redundant.
And finally this: “he still entertains the delusion of objectivity”.
A low blow and an obvious straw man. Nothing I’ve said relies on the assumption that a person can be perfectly objective. In fact I’ve made it clear that I mean ‘objectivity’ in its common meaning (“uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices”) and that I consider it an ideal, not necessarily something realistically reachable in every situation.
The fact that no definition can be perfectly ‘objective’ and that they are always tainted by the subjective nature of their creators does not imply they are biased in the particular way you are suggesting they are. You are a loooooong way from justifying that one.
OK, I think this tied up all the loose ends. Talking to someone who actually appreciates things like definitions or logic was a nice change when compared with some of my recent conversations on this blog. In my opinion I haven’t provoked the low punches you threw in your recent comments. I think they were entirely unnecessary.
I do have one final question. If I’m rejecting your point of view because I’m being obtuse and biased (white), then how do you explain King and Abagond rejecting your reasoning, your definitions?
LikeLike
My dear Eco,
You really do like to write copious amounts of unclear, unsubstantiated, and nonsensical verbiage!
By the way that was me expressing an opinion on what I have to shift through in most of what you write. I guess you could say I got tired of constantly having to explain, break down and define everything I was saying in a way that made it easier for you to assimilate it. This was not a purely egotistical endevour on my part. It was a genuine attempt to convey and communicate a more realistic assessment and appreciation of racism from one Black person’s substantially experienced perspective.
Its more than evident from your last response here and the majority of your previous ones. Your perspective and knowledge about racism is woefully inadequate. But this is not untypical of most primarily focused white individuals in Western societies today. By far the vast majority of individuals, like yourself, share this totally oblivious and insidious characteristic. So you are by no means the exception. The very fact that we are conversing on this blog in this very subject testifies to that latent state of ignorance. You are here because (presumably) you recognize that knowledge deficit within you and have developed a vested interest in reversing it.
Why else would you be here?
Surely not to pronounce judgement on me and point out the many absurd and illogical inconsistencies in my arguments and explanations about racism? Yet this has been and still seems to characterize your approach towards me.
Do you have a rational explanation for that?.
In the light of many of the contentious statements you’ve made and continue to make here. I decided to take the one step approach of dealing with one issue at a time so as to keep things simple. Which I believe would be mutually beneficial to both of us in order to reach some level of agreement and understanding. This is the main reason why I cornered you on your meaning of the word “objectivity”. To me it is fundamental to any understanding of an issue like racism, which is experienced first and foremost on a “subjective level”,. that this experiential aspect is accepted and appreciated.
This is where our discussion has now stumbled or stalled. It is not as you say because I think of you : “…I’m being obtuse and biased (white)…”
Further…because of this. Much of what you write is just self-opinionated and unsubstantiated as I’ve already observed.
“…I do have one final question. If I’m rejecting your point of view because I’m being obtuse and biased (white), then how do you explain King and Abagond rejecting your reasoning, your definitions?…”
Just so we don’t get deflected remember this is about your supposedly more knowledgeable insight into this area of racism.
Do you really believe King or Abagond would share or agree with your own reasoning and definitions? (Whatever they are?)
I’d be interested if you would like to point out where this has occurred. And while you are at it, also, where they both have, as you claim, rejected my own reasoning and definitions.
I’d hate to think you were just making things up. Surely not! .
In conclusion:
Eco…You really need to come to terms with addressing clearly to your own subjectively held inner beliefs first before you attempt to address the same ones in others. Its your failure to confront and attempt this within yourself which has presented the biggest hurdle to you in my attempted communication of these complex issues to you.
This is the primary reason why I am able to understand your willingness to hold on to imprecise definitions of racism which appear to serve your interests (white) but not Black people or POC’s interest.
And it is why you do not and will not understand my more precise definitions of racism which serve more honestly and practically ALL peoples interests.
But then that just my own opinion of course! We can always agree to differ!
LikeLike
@ Eco
I placed this link here in response to a question by King earlier up thread. It contains 3 detailed responses which cover all of the “seemingly illogical” issues you’ve raised in posts to me in this thread. They actually provide far more background and analysis than you could ever hope to provide me with concerning your own flawed and impractical perceptions about racism..
For the life of me I just can’t think why you might not have read or seen them!
(Well I can really!)
LikeLike
This is a dangerous travesty of biblical teaching. Jesus did not give thanks for everything. Face to face with evil, Jesus was outraged; face to face with suffering and sin, he wept. And if it were not for the anger and those tears and the resolute road to the cross they marked, we would not realize how outraged by evil God is and how seriously he takes sin. The dilemma is not the result of tension between the biblical view of things and our experience of things, as if faith is opposed to reality. The dilemma comes from the tension between the biblical view of evil (a reality God hates and is not to be thanked for) and the biblical call for us to trust God and give thanks whatever happens (Guinness, p.193).
LikeLike
@Kwamla
“My dear Eco,
You really do like to write copious amounts of unclear, unsubstantiated, and nonsensical verbiage!”
My dear Kwamla,
You still haven’t constructed any actual counterarguments to my points. When I’m disagreeing with something you said I address specific claims and I explain why I consider them wrong while relying on logical conclusions and counterexamples that highlight the flaws of your reasoning. You haven’t showed how any of my counterarguments are wrong. A-N-Y. Whenever I make a point you are pretty much running away from it. You are claiming I do not understand things without highlighting ANY flaws of my reasoning and then you just rephrase and repeat the point I’ve already addressed, disagreed with and constructed a counterargument for it,
I’ll list the major claims I’ve made you haven’t addressed so the previous paragraph will not look like the empty opinions you keep writing (that I just don’t understand things).
-) the starting point is unnecessary. By Occam’s razor using it makes your reasoning weaker. If you want to use it you should justify it by presenting something its existence is improving. You claim it makes things clearer by implying a different, clearer definition of racism. That’s wrong because
-) relabeling existing definitions doesn’t improve anything, doesn’t make things cleared, more precise. There already is a name for what you call ‘racism’ and it’s ‘white supremacy’. It applies to the same group of people you define as ‘racist’. You are not making the definitions better by changing their names and offering cosmetic changes in their wording.
-) the current dictionary definitions of racism or sexism do not in any way imply parity between the people they apply to. Your definition of ‘racism’ does not imply parity between white supremacists for the exact same reason – definitions only imply the things mentioned in the definition. Calling two people (or two groups of people) ‘racist’ does not imply they are both equally racist, equally harmful to society, dangerous, etc. Neither your definition nor the dictionary definitions imply something like that. Since this is a simple conclusion from the definition of a ‘definition’, if you disagree with this, then you should probably try to redefine the word ‘definition’ too.
In your recent reply you used a few paragraphs to say that my “perspective and knowledge about racism is woefully inadequate” and that I’m being “oblivious”. Next time you might want to point out the elements of my reasoning that are wrong and point out why they are illogical or untrue instead of simply repeating I’m wrong over and over.
“Why else would you be here?”
This question doesn’t matter. Whatever my answer could be it can’t make my reasoning stronger and it can’t make it weaker. Again, you are running away from the topic of this conversation. This time by attempting to derail.
“Much of what you write is just self-opinionated and unsubstantiated”
So point these things out the way I explicitly specified I consider your ‘starting point’ to be your personal assumption you can’t justify in any way.
“Just so we don’t get deflected remember this is about your supposedly more knowledgeable insight into this area of racism. ”
No, it’s about something much more precise than that. It’s about a system of terms, definitions and implications. On this level things become much much less subjective.
I’ve never said I generally know more about racism than you do. I merely pointed out that your system of analyzing the issue is flawed. We are not comparing our experiences of racism, we are comparing methodologies. It seemed to me you could notice this when you chose to discuss sexism instead of racism. I doubt you did it because you consider people’s experiences of racism and sexism that similar, but the two ‘-ism’s are very similar on the level of definitions.
“Do you really believe King or Abagond would share or agree with your own reasoning and definitions?”
Straw man. That’s not what I said and I haven’t implied this. I merely asked: “if I’m rejecting your point of view because I’m being obtuse and biased (white), then how do you explain King and Abagond rejecting your reasoning, your definitions”. I said they are disagreeing with you, not that they are agreeing with me.
“where they both have, as you claim, rejected my own reasoning and definitions”
They both use dictionary definitions of racism. Your definition and your reasoning is not compatible with theirs. By holding theirs they are rejecting your idea of what a clear definition is.
Examples of comments where they said they use the dictionary definitions:
there is also this post:
“This is the primary reason why I am able to understand your willingness to hold on to imprecise definitions of racism which appear to serve your interests (white) but not Black people or POC’s interest.”
Again, derailing. It doesn’t matter why either of us believes in the things we believe in. That can’t make make them more true nor less true. It’s irrelevant to our discussion.
But I do admit I’m curious. Why do you think my reasoning, my definition of ‘racism’ serves my interest? How so? What am I gaining?
“And it is why you do not and will not understand my more precise definitions of racism which serve more honestly and practically ALL peoples interests.”
As usual, a statement without any justification.
“I placed this link here in response to a question by King earlier up thread. It contains 3 detailed responses which cover all of the ‘seemingly illogical’ issues you’ve raised in posts to me in this thread.”
No, they don’t cover the issues. I had read them before I started talking to you. I’ll use quotes from these three comments to make it more clear which part of them I’m addressing.
-) You claim that with the dictionary definitions “racism affects each and everyone of us the same”, but the implication of parity isn’t in the definitions. The current system of definitions does not imply that racism affects everyone equally. I’ve constructed a counterargument for this ages ago. You haven’t addressed it.
-) “Therefore each groups responses are already pre-determined according to this disparity.” We can think so only if we believe there was a ‘starting point’. And you haven’t justified why you believe in it. If the ‘starting point’ didn’t exist then you have no right to call things responses as if there was an initial source. Again, I’ve pointed that out earlier, and you didn’t disprove it.
-)”So of course if you believe in the existence of multiple races then YES! You can consider yourself to be racist too!” The dictionary definition does not assume the existence of races. It assumes the existence of people who believe in races. That’s what your definition does too.
-) “You would have to breakdown the already established system of white superiority before you could replace it with the equal and opposite system of Black & POC = superiority.” Again, a claim relying on the existence of the ‘starting point’ and the idea that certain kinds of behavior are not really racist because they are responses.
LikeLike
Ok Eco…
I have to hand it to you. You can be stubbornly persistent…. Seriously! You’ve become like a dog with a bone. You just won’t let this go will you?
Firstly…It is exceedingly tedious for me to have to wade through what you’ve written to extract the sense from the non-sense. I have already done this for you many times throughout this thread. It is pointless me providing you with clear example after example if you:
(a) Do not understand the concepts or analogies I generously provide
OR
(b) Refuse to accept or acknowledge your own flawed logic
OR
(c) Perhaps are just too submerged or blinded by your own white privilege to see otherwise.
Notwithstanding which ever category is applicable to you I have patiently and diligently attempted to explain in detail to you my definition of racism and why the current dictionary one you wish to cling to is grossly inadequate for describing the relationships between the majority peoples on this planet.
Now…whether you wish to accept or reject my opinion as expressed here is really not a big concern to me. Notice here I am not the one repeatedly calling on you to justify, clarify or explain your definition…Oh and why is that?
Simple!!! Because I couldn’t give a F@CK about your Oxford dictionary definition!!! SO WHAT???
But lets just calm down one moment and ask ourselves the question here: Why do you worry or care so much about mine? What is it about the “apparent” sloppiness of my explanations and definitions that troubles you so much?
My dear Eco…Please pause for thought here and consider this for a second.Are you on a mission here? What do you believe your mission here to be? Enlightenment? Whose?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………….
This is inaccurate Eco. In fact its very wrong and naughty of you to say this but it does serve to illustrate my point earlier made about opting to adopt one those three categories a), b) or c)
Allow me to present this to you once more for your consideration. I had to go back to the very start of our conversations which you too can find here:
You posed a question which I countered here:
Eco
“…How can you determine that certain kinds of behavior or prejudice are responses? What does that mean anyway?…”
Think of it like programming. First you have to accept this programming exists. Then you need to understand how its been set up to function.
If someone hits you in the face and you re-act by hitting them back. How would you determine which action was a response?
To which you replied and reposed another question which I also countered here:
Eco
“…The second action was a response, but how can I determine the first one wasn’t a response to something too?
It seems to me that you are arbitrarily picking a beginning and calling things responses based on their relation to this starting point you chose. How can you eliminate the possibility that the ‘beginning’ was a response too?…”
b>Kwamla
You can’t but that is the point! All beginnings and endings are arbitrary! But we need them there to be able to make sense of things. Otherwise we end up with the ridiculous situation of not being able to account for or understand anything. We would always be simply re-acting or responding to what happened previously in some apparently new and unknown way.
This is the erroneous way in which racism is generally perceived today. Viewed this way anyone can be racist. Even cats or dogs could be perceived to be racist if they responded differently to Black and white people!
This was my counter response to what has become one of your central questions to me: “…-) the starting point is unnecessary…” . I wonder have you ever heard of an arbitrary starting point called the “BIG BANG” to explain the origins of the universe?….Now…interestingly this was your response again which clearly shows you adopting one of those three categories I mentioned earlier. I’ll let you guess which one it is?
Eco
“…I’m not sure I understand what you mean.
We can gather knowledge about a period of time without making assumptions about the things that happened earlier, about the origins of things. That’s pretty much what the dictionary definitions of racism allow us to do. We can still analyze the balance of power and notice patterns, see instances of racism as elements of a larger thing and not as something completely unique.
I can’t notice any benefits we can get by picking a starting point the way you are doing it. I think it can lead us to conclusions we couldn’t reach without it, but they would all be misleading. By “misleading” I mean: based on an assumption we can’t prove, based on the assumed existence of a starting point…”
“This is the erroneous way in which racism is generally perceived today. Viewed this way anyone can be racist. ”
“…I do not consider it wrong and I do not really understand why you do…”
“Even cats or dogs could be perceived to be racist if they responded differently to Black and white people! ”
“…I think that most dictionary definitions of racism apply only to people…”
I think it was at this point I decided I was clearly wasting my time explaining my definition to you because you clearly didn’t or couldn’t understand it. Now let us just re-visit a statement from that quote of yours:
“…You haven’t showed how any of my counterarguments are wrong. A-N-Y. Whenever I make a point you are pretty much running away from it. You are claiming I do not understand things without highlighting ANY flaws of my reasoning…”
Now I want you to compare and contrast what I have just shown you here so you can see this statement of yours does not stand up to critical scrutiny!
On the contrary I think I have!. YOU just do not understand it! Which should be a bit obvious because you mention this inability to comprehend twice!
In Summary
Look Eco this is pointless arguing and debating here you obviously do not understand what I’ve tried to convey to you over all these postings. Perhaps you never will but it is of no consequence to me I can live with it. I shall leave you here my definition again just in case it gets lost in all this writing so you can mull over it again. Maybe… just maybe it might click with you as to how it might honestly and practically serve even YOU!
Theres always hope!
LikeLike
Legion you are the same SW6 commentator who refused to review and reflect on your own comments which would have provided answers to the questions you posed. Then further when I did provide you the reflections taken from your comments in another thread to show you were more than capable of doing this for your self. You refused to acknowledge or accept it?
Perhaps you’ve found a kindred spirit here in Eco!
LikeLike
@Kwamla
This time I will not bother to address the baseless insults and I’ll skip to the more reasonable part of you comment.
“But lets just calm down one moment and ask ourselves the question here: Why do you worry or care so much about mine? What is it about the ‘apparent’ sloppiness of my explanations and definitions that troubles you so much?”
Why are you assuming I’m worried or bothered by it?
Which one of us has been more emotional about this? It seems to me you are the one who struggles to remain calm.
Have you considered the possibility that you may be projecting your own emotions onto me?
Anyway, it doesn’t matter why either of us does the things we do. It’s not relevant to our discussion.
“This was my counter response to what has become one of your central questions to me: ‘…-) the starting point is unnecessary…’ . I wonder have you ever heard of an arbitrary starting point called the ‘BIG BANG’ to explain the origins of the universe?”
Do you know what “arbitrary” means? ‘Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle’. The Big Bang is not an ARBITRARY ‘starting point’, because it wasn’t simply chosen as a beginning without any justification. There was no scientist who said: “we know some stuff had happened earlier, but we shouldn’t analyze it. Lets pick the Big Bang as the absolute beginning because that will make forming conclusions easier!”. The Big Bang is considered the earliest era only because modern science can’t go further back in time.
You can go further back in time to analyze more basic forms of prejudice, but you chose not to do it to keep things simple. That is arbitrary, that is a manipulation and it has very little to do with studying reality. Well, maybe a dumbed down version of reality…
Your ‘starting point’ is simply your arbitrary choice. You have not justified why it’s necessary to have one nor why other people should pick the particular point in time you chose as a ‘starting point’.
I forgot to point out one more thing. This:
“Think of it like programming. First you have to accept this programming exists. Then you need to understand how its been set up to function.”
And what then? At which point we establish that the programming exists?
“Now I want you to compare and contrast what I have just shown you here so you can see this statement of yours does not stand up to critical scrutiny!
On the contrary I think I have!. YOU just do not understand it! Which should be a bit obvious because you mention this inability to comprehend twice!”
I said, early in our discussion, that “I’m not sure I understand what you mean” because at that point I thought there is more to your reasoning than I could notice. I thought it’s more complex and thought out than it turned out to be.
What you have is a reasoning constructed on an assumption you cannot in any way justify. Your best idea of justifying it is pretending you don’t need to justify it.
“Look Eco this is pointless arguing and debating here you obviously do not understand what I’ve tried to convey to you over all these postings.”
It’s amazing that you think it’s OK to say I’m incapable of understanding you, simply because I’m not willing to accept assumptions you basically pulled out of your a$$.
LikeLike
@ Eco
At this stage I think I’ve proved my case. Or should I say YOU have proved my case!.
You do not understand my definitions OR your own….!!!
You don’t even understand usage of the term “arbitrary”
LikeLike
For anyone else reading here ( I doubt if there are many now!) this is the basic premise Eco (and many people. He is by no means alone in this) seems incapable of comprehending or grasping:
Racism exists!
Thats it thats all you need to appreciate. accept and understand then you “get “my definition! Its as simple as that!
And this explains it…
LikeLike
@Kwamla
“You don’t even understand usage of the term ‘arbitrary'”
I don’t understand it? I didn’t call the Big Bang an “arbitrary starting point”. Considering it the earliest era modern people can study is not a matter of anyones choice or preference. It’s the truth. There is nothing arbitrary about it.
You are picking a vague period of time (beginning of colonialism?) and choosing it as the absolute beginning of racism as if ethnic prejudice didn’t exist earlier. You were not able to explain your choice in any way. You didn’t even try to. You simply claimed having an arbitrary starting point is necessary and the best example of such an arbitrary choice in science you could think of was the Big Bang. Unfortunately for you, the Big Bang has nothing in common with what you are doing.
LikeLike
Kwamla, I agree WITH YOU !
The basic premise of when someone hits you in the face and then you have to come up with a responce…
Eco, there really are places where semantical logic , and , churning over definitions doesnt play out in visceral reality…If white people created racial definitions and used their definitions to say “certain races are less than others so lets make them slaves..”, the responce to that by those enslaved is a defence while back peddling…
I beleive Brothawolf and Matari and some others have said that black Americans could be bigoted, biased or prejudiced to white people (Imnot going to make a judgement outside of white people at this point ), but its not racist to defend against something they had no hand in defining and are just playing with the cards dealt them.
And it is played out in real life , based on real life viscereal incidents , and it needs visceral defences, not logical analysis…
Kwamla, what I find most amusing about your exchange with Eco is how you have tried to imply some kind of unnatural psycho drama between me and Bulanik’s exchanges…I mean cmon, we are all just very passionate about our beleifs here…
LikeLike
@ B.R
Glad to see you are at least “onboard” when it comes to understanding the basic premise of racism as I am defining it.
There is no doubt you do understand more about “whiteness” and its effects as Matari might describe it than most white people commenting here like Eco.
And you have obviously displayed this to great effect in your discussions about the African influence of music in Western popular culture. Which is great you “get this”
But we both know there are, unfortunately, other things you “just do not get”. And one of those is the dominance of American hegemony in this world. Without wanting to resuscitate any debate lets just agree to differ on this one.
You are obviously very passionate about your beliefs and I should not have to be the only one to tell that it shows most prodigiously in your voluminous comments here.
Your exchanges with many people on this forum – not just Bulanik – tend to be more responsive than reflective. But then this is the risk we all choose when we allow our passions to run amok unchecked. Not saying this is a bad thing. Its particularly suited to creative expression. Or that you are the only one affected in this way – We all are to some degree affected differently. As you imply contrast the exchanges between myself and Eco.
More often when this happens its the personal “sense of ego” which is involved. The more one is able to spot this occurring the easier it is to extract oneself from potentially conflicting situations when they do occur.
I wonder is this something at all you may have considered?
LikeLike
@Kwambla
Well said.
LikeLike
Its Kwamla…but thank you Adeen!
LikeLike
By all means, lets agree to disagree, Kwamla, because I find you quite ignorant about the issues I have talked about, and I live it…my bus line was bombed out a day ago because of steroid pumped up drug gangs , from the huge flood of coke and arms i factualy linked you up about, that Farc is involved with who were supported by Chavez, and chumpski calls them freedom fighters…do you get my drift, its my reality,I dont have a car….and, I dont really think you have taken the time to really find out my vies on American hegemy… look at your ego also, and dont patronise me about it
Bulanik, your Grimms Fairy tales about my stalking , just point out that you are so insecure about the things you dont know about, it just must hurt you so much that there are a lot of things you have been wrong about in our discusions
You havent got the guts to really go through what happened
And Im happy to go into listenting mode…
LikeLike
and , Kwamla, you would be making one serious mistake to think that any conflict that the USA is involved with, or ideology against the USA whether Fidel, the Farc, the Talaban, Qubt, are really on your side against racism against the Afro diaspora….I have proved without a doubt that they are not…with facts, not emotion…I did get some sloppy conspiricy theorey stuff from you, though
LikeLike
@B. R.
“And it is played out in real life , based on real life viscereal incidents , and it needs visceral defences, not logical analysis…”
You’ve just expressed support for ignorance, are you aware of that? Everything should be logically analyzed. That’s how you determine something is true. I do agree that Kwamla’s reasoning looks pretty good when you don’t apply logical analysis to it, when you put as little thought into it as Kwamla does.
LikeLike
..by the way, mostly white gangs are doing the fire bombing of buses where I live , so you dont have to think its some paranoia of black gangs….yeah, i had to go into emergency mode to pick up my family at extra expence, who could have been at the mercey of this very tensce situation , and sure enough, all service was paralysed
its organised crime , pumped up over a decade of these contacts i have carefully shown you, and , I can show so much more
So, Kwamla, I have deep respect of your views on racial issues, I humbly listen to what you have to say, and your information on the Dogon. As far as being black, I dont know what it is like …your views and opinions are important …
As far as what has gone down in history with the dynamics coming out of World War 2 up intil now, you havent shown me that you have great knowledge of what has happened, Ive brought so many facts to your attentionthat you dont know, sorry, but we are man to man face to face , eyeball to eyeball on that one
LikeLike
just get in line, Eco by all means
LikeLike
Fiction is fun, but it just isnt truth….I respected your wishes at every step, I didnt address you when you said not to…I pulled out to show that I am not stalking and you have made hundreds of statements I dont come in and dog you about
I have always gone after your arguments that were weak and begged to be scrutinised..you are the one who has tried to slander me with ridiculous notions of stalking, implying Im racist, used dick size as an argument against my devastating facts about what is happening where I live , which yes, Kwamla is ignorant about..ignorance abounds on this blog about where I live, that is why no one can bring these facts up when praising moan blumski, or thinking that black muslim influences on Afro Brazilian culuture are a lot more than they actualy are..yeah , you are the one attacing my charactor, after bringing in facts clear links, all you can do is call me “white American racist oppressor”…what a weak argument to the facts and realities I have proven with out a doubt
what is this ridiculous notion that I have some kind of fixation on you, get over yourself…my gosh, I live on a beach with some drop dead gorgous women , why in hades am I going to get fixated on a cybor blip on a screen? your logic boggles…just because I like talking with women?
And you dont have the courage to really go into your claim I belittled you as a black woman…
the truth is, if someone challenges you, you fall apart and start trying to put down their charactor
LikeLike
@Bulanik
“I’m hardly a Biblical scholar,”
but you definitely know how to do your homework or subject research if you will.
I never could read the bible through much less research it as well as you did
(the bible was/is just too damn boring and irrelevant to me to brother with – I’d rather read science and then take a break and read sifi/fantasy)
with these two comment posts as examples
and double points for the PIC comparison as well!
The reason I’m even mentioning it is because – Im a atheist and I’ve lately taken to reading/listening to other atheist and while they all like to point out how the bible promoted slavery – few cite the exact verse and non cite the other side as you so eloquently have.
So I thank you again for your honesty and commitment – you never know who will be listening/reading.
LikeLike