Were we ever united?


Guest Godless
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Godless

Note: I tried my best to make this is apolitical as possible out of respect for current site rules. I ask that respondents please do the same to the best of their ability.

I've been sitting on this for a couple of weeks. I had initially typed it up as a response in a recent thread started by @Traveler, but the thread was locked before I could send it. I'll start by sharing Traveler's post for context. I'm putting it in bold because apparently I don't know how to format a quote from a different thread without ruining the format of the entire post.

"I have retired - but one thing I have learned by my many years of work (in the field of automation) is that when things go wrong in a complex system - the only way to "fix" it and make things get running again requires very accurate and complete, to the most minute detail, understanding of what, where, when and how things went wrong.  There are problems gathering data especially when the cause is ambiguous.  It is not uncommon to think that the problem has been discovered when in reality one has only discovered a symptom and not a cause.  There is also a unintentional effort to shift blame.  A simple way of putting this shift of blame problem is software types thinking the root of the problem is hardware and the hardware types thinking the root of the problem is software. 

Then there is the matter of process.  I was working with a Japanese robot when a storm caused a power outage and an uncontrolled shut down of everything in the plant.  The Japanese robot was intergraded into some very complex processes that completely lost is brains in the shutdown which took days to get back on line.  But the Japanese would not accept any responsibility for their robot's failure to come back on line - they  kept saying we should not allow a uncontrolled shutdown.  They simply could not understand any recovery processes outside of a controlled shutdown - which BTW took up to a few hours to complete. 

It is surprising that very few people understand cascading problems from the seemingly simple to catastrophic failure. There is a motion picture titled "Passengers" that high lights such a problem.  Fixing anything but the root cause will not avoid catastrophic failure. "

@Traveler suggests that the trials facing our country today are symptoms of a bigger problem, though he stops short of offering insight into what the bigger problem might be that has seemingly kept the United States from truly being united in the entirety of its 245 years of existence. That's not a knock on Traveler. I'd argue that most Americans, regardless of political affiliation, would struggle to put their finger on it. I have a theory. Most of you aren't going to like it. I can already see eyes rolling on the other end of the internet. I'm not optimistic that I will reach anyone or change any minds, but I'd love for you to hear me out.

There is one stain that, no matter how hard we have tried, we have never been able to fully wash clean from our nation's fabric: racism. Racism runs deep in our nation's history, heritage, and institutions. Even after slavery was abolished, racism was still a very strong American tradition for much of the 20th Century, as evidenced by Jim Crow laws, redlining in the post-WWII suburbs, and the resulting redistribution of public funds to favor the predominantly white suburbs. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is the most momentous piece of legislation towards racial equality since the 15th Amendment was ratified. We've made a lot of progress since then, but there are a lot of wounds that are still fresh. There are generations of black people living today that were affected by legalized racism and segregation in the last century. There are generations of white people living today who actively promoted said racism. Some of the despicable people in the photo below may still be alive today. Some of them likely had children born into hateful families. One can only hope that their offspring were able to live better lives than their parents, and maybe some of them did. The black lady in the photo is Anne Moody. She passed away five years ago. Joan Trumpauer is the white woman sitting next to Moody. She was very active in the civil rights protests and is still alive today. The white man next to him, John Salter, passed away two years ago. 

Anne-Moody-Mississippi-lunch-counter-protester-dead-at-74-.thumb.jpg.f9817f1b52a8c9ef73a985c77e27ecde.jpg

 

We recently saw the Confederate Flag proudly displayed inside our nation's Capitol. The symbolism of that flag has been the subject of debate for decades, even on this forum. I have no interest in reviving those debates, but I'm hoping to offer some factual context into its use. Let's start with the fact that the rectangular Stars and Bars banner that we commonly associate as the Confederate Flag was never actually used during the Civil War. This link provides some useful insight into the history of the Confederate flag during the war. And while the author seems to sympathize heavily with the modern flag being used as a regional/cultural identifier, he acknowledges that it was ultimately hijacked by the Dixiecrats and the KKK in the early years of the Civil Rights Movement. It became a symbol of segregation and a reminder of what the Civil War was fought over. It's quite likely that Anne Moody and activists like her endured a great deal of emotional abuse and trauma at the hands of people wielding that flag. Black people were lynched by people wielding that flag. That it continues to enjoy widespread use despite its shameful history is a testament to how deep our division is. Just about any black person you meet will tell you that, to them, it's a symbol of hate. Their ancestors were enslaved by the ancestors of those who say it's about "heritage, not hate". The Civil War's heritage IS hate. Slavery was an act of hate, and the South divided the country trying to defend it. There's no way around that. It's a historical fact.

Whether you like it or not, whether you acknowledge it or not, white supremacy has deep roots in our society. It can be found in the accounts of the Tulsa Massacre of 1921, in which 36 black citizens were slaughtered and hundreds more injured by a white mob that had the blessing and support of local authorities. It can be found in the ashes of the black Philadelphia neighborhood that was BOMBED by police in 1985, killing 11 people, including children, and destroying over 60 homes. It can be found in the fact that no matter how black people choose to protest their lives being taken at the hands of police, they are met with violence, contempt, and hate. Martin Luther King, while it's true that he was a pacifist, said that "A riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it that America has failed to hear?". Peaceful protests turn violent for two reasons. 1) The protests are unheard and people keep dying. And 2) The violence is perpetuated by the police. Police started the violence in Selma during a peaceful march. They attacked protestors this past summer at some of the BLM protests (and yes, the protestors were responsible for more than their fair share of violence as well). The cycle of racially-charged violence will continue until the unheard are heard and meaningful reform takes place.

So where do we start? How do we unify our country? The first step is to acknowledge the problem. Until more people acknowledge that white supremacy isn't just the fantasy of a fringe group of Nazi cosplayers but rather a deeply ingrained part of our national identity, there will be no unity. Until white people acknowledge their privilege and the ways that it is perpetuated by white supremacy at the expense of millions of their fellow Americans, there will be no unity.

I know a lot of people bristle at the talk of white privilege, but you shouldn’t. If you’re white, then you’ve probably benefitted from it at some point in your life. I have no doubt that I have. That doesn’t make you a bad person, and it’s nothing to be ashamed of. But it’s important to acknowledge it. That’s one of the main goals of Critical Race Theory, that thing that the National Review writer in @carlimac's post is so afraid of apparently. I won’t get too much into CRT because I’m pretty new to it myself and still have a lot of research to do on the topic. But it basically outlines the ways that our society is built to benefit white people, often at the expense of people of color. It puts emphasis on institutional racism, particularly in our law enforcement and justice systems. It also outlines steps to combat the racist structures that permeate our society. So yeah, I think it’s pretty important to get the ball rolling on that from a young age.

Carlimac’s article seemed determined to label CRT as a “progressive agenda”, which in today’s vernacular is another way of calling it liberal propaganda or SJW nonsense. It’s frustrating to see terms like that attached to serious racial issues, and I don’t see our country being able to unite itself until those stigmas are breached. Racial equity is not a political issue. It isn’t partisan, or at least it shouldn’t be. It was encouraging to see Elder Oaks recently recognize the current state of race relations in this country, even going so far as to say the words “Black lives matter”. It was considerably less encouraging to see some of the reactions that his remarks generated among church members. Black lives DO matter, but our society doesn’t reflect that. Our law enforcement agencies and justice system don’t reflect that. When George Floyd died, it didn’t take long for people to bring up his criminal history and things he’d done in the past that had nothing to do with his death. That’s a common theme when black people are killed by police. White people tend to look for reasons not to care. “He was a criminal.” “He should have listened to the cop.” “He shouldn’t have ran.” It’s so easy for some white folks to justify a black death. To be clear, I’m not saying that anyone here has this type of victim-blaming mentality. But you don’t have to look very hard to see these patterns when people are reacting to a black death at the hands of a cop.

I want to dive into white privilege a bit more before I wrap this up. Yes, it’s real. No, you shouldn’t feel bad about it. It’s an observation, not an accusation. The best way I can describe it is to liken it to a foot race in which one runner has a 30 second head start. The other runner, in addition to being 30 seconds behind, has weights tied to their ankles. After the first lap, a weight is removed (Emancipation), and the other one is removed after the second lap (CRA). Runner #2 is now unburdened, but still very much behind due to multiple disadvantages. Black America is Runner #2. They were enslaved, then treated like second-class citizens, denied opportunities to buy property and build equity, and to a large extent left to fend for themselves in underfunded inner city communities while public funds flowed freely into the suburbs. Things are getting better, but Runner #2 still has a lot of ground to make up. And unless Runner #1 recognizes his unfair advantages and works to level the playing field, that gap isn’t going away anytime soon.

It’s important to not lose focus of how recent some of the critical events in our nation’s history are when it comes to race. The CRA was passed in my parents’ lifetime. The Philly bombing took place the year I was born. The year before that, MLK Day had been made a federal holiday. A Senator named Jesse Helms tried to stop it by filibustering with a bunch of slander about MLK being a Marxist/communist that was too outrageous to sway even the well-documented racist Strom Thurmund. Both Thurmund and Helms held their Senate seats until 2003. While we can hope that the openly racist players in our government are in our history rather than our present, that history is fairly recent. And I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that using Marxism to discredit black activists seems to be a renewed tactic in modern times. 

I’ll leave you with one more MLK quote. This is my favorite quote from him and the only one that I feel comfortable sharing this time of year, because I was reflected in it for most of my life. I’m trying to grow past that, and I hope some of you will do the same.

“I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.”

Edited by Godless
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few thoughts...

Diversity is a buzz word.  Its used so much that people think that it is inherently good.  It is not.  It is neutral. Context makes it good or bad.  Let me expand on that idea.  A widget manufacturer is holding a meeting.  They want to make "better" widgets.  As long as that purpose is agreed to by everyone in the meeting then diversity is wonderful.  However if that common purpose is not respected, and people individual 'voice' is more important then you get some talking about better widgets, other want to build thingamabobs instead and still others are focusing on what is for lunch. Diversity is a failure in this latter case.

Racism is simply rebranded otherism.  Humans are tribal, us vs them, normal (which is completely subjective) vs different.  You can't fix otherism, tribalism, differentsim by focusing on what makes things different.  You fix it by focusing everyone on things they share, things they have in common.  Take for example two current movements.  BLM and MAGA.  Which one focus one the difference of the races and which one is race blind?  Yet which one is labelled politically correct which one is considered just plan wrong.

Finally white privilege... The whole argument for white privilege is that white people are blind to it.  But they do not follow that to its logical conclusion.  Why am I blind to my privilege?  Simply because I do not consider it a privilege... I consider it normal, I consider it default.  And like most humans I consider what is normal and default for me is the normal and default for everyone. This is a clearly false assumption.  But it tells you my headspace.  I am not hording my privilege, I am not denying it to others, I am blindly and falsely assuming they have it. 

Now when trying to address this difference one can either try to enlighten me, and enlist me in trying to lift others to the to the level I already assumed they were at.  The only block to this is my ignorance and false assumptions.  Or one can choose to attack me, try to shame me, try to get me to reduce or limit what I consider normal.  When you see these two options there is a very clear winning path and a very clear losing path.  Yet almost every time the choice it made to take the losing path.  Its as if the ones trying to drive the 'fixes' don't really want to fix things.  Why would this be, the answer is simple, if things were fixed they would have no power.  And that drive for personal power (which is not limited to one party) is why we are not united like we should be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Godless
3 hours ago, estradling75 said:

Diversity is a buzz word.  Its used so much that people think that it is inherently good.  It is not.  It is neutral. Context makes it good or bad.  Let me expand on that idea.  A widget manufacturer is holding a meeting.  They want to make "better" widgets.  As long as that purpose is agreed to by everyone in the meeting then diversity is wonderful.  However if that common purpose is not respected, and people individual 'voice' is more important then you get some talking about better widgets, other want to build thingamabobs instead and still others are focusing on what is for lunch. Diversity is a failure in this latter case.

I agree. I've seen people on FB scoffing at calls for unity from our elected officials because in their minds, unity = homogenized values and ideology. I don't think that has to be the case. I think it's perfectly reasonable to think that you can have people from different backgrounds with different ideologies working towards a common goal. I think there are a lot of great people on "your side" who do a great job of taking this to heart. I also think there are people on "my side" who have a great deal of room for improvement in this area. I think the biggest obstacle we face right now is an increased presence of fringe/radical elements in the current political landscape. The last year has been ugly, and I think there's some healing that needs to happen before we can talk about unity.

When it comes to racial/ethnic diversity, it's hard to think of many downsides to increased diversity. Obviously, diversity itself can't be the only goal, merits have to be considered. I remember last year when the Washington Football Team hired Jason Wright as the first black team president in NFL history, there was instantly a lot of talk of "affirmative blacktion" and other disgusting preconceptions about the hire. To be clear, the hire was overwhelmingly celebrated not just because of Wright's skin color, but also his credentials. That didn't stop some people from hyper-focusing on the former. I loved Wright's response to the critics. 

Quote

Racism is simply rebranded otherism.  Humans are tribal, us vs them, normal (which is completely subjective) vs different.  You can't fix otherism, tribalism, differentsim by focusing on what makes things different.  You fix it by focusing everyone on things they share, things they have in common.  Take for example two current movements.  BLM and MAGA.  Which one focus one the difference of the races and which one is race blind?  Yet which one is labelled politically correct which one is considered just plan wrong.

The goal of BLM is to elevate black lives to the point that we can truthfully proclaim that all lives matter. In order to do that, we need to confront some harsh truths about our current reality. Our differences are brought to light so we can recognize and overcome them.

From the start, MAGA was infiltrated by known white supremacists. I'm not saying that all or even a majority of MAGAs are racists, but the fact that it's evidently a very appealing movement to racists should send up some red flags. I'm of the opinion that there are many MAGA followers who aren't openly or even consciously racist, but who are very comfortable in the bubble of privilege that centuries of white supremacy has built for them and feel threatened by the thought of losing that bubble, though those feelings may be subconscious.

Quote

Finally white privilege... The whole argument for white privilege is that white people are blind to it.  But they do not follow that to its logical conclusion.  Why am I blind to my privilege?  Simply because I do not consider it a privilege... I consider it normal, I consider it default.  And like most humans I consider what is normal and default for me is the normal and default for everyone. This is a clearly false assumption.  But it tells you my headspace.  I am not hording my privilege, I am not denying it to others, I am blindly and falsely assuming they have it. 

That's a very common mental fallacy among white people. It's a difficult one to break, and I'll admit that I still struggle with it sometimes. 

Quote

Now when trying to address this difference one can either try to enlighten me, and enlist me in trying to lift others to the to the level I already assumed they were at.  The only block to this is my ignorance and false assumptions.  Or one can choose to attack me, try to shame me, try to get me to reduce or limit what I consider normal.  When you see these two options there is a very clear winning path and a very clear losing path.  Yet almost every time the choice it made to take the losing path.  Its as if the ones trying to drive the 'fixes' don't really want to fix things.  Why would this be, the answer is simple, if things were fixed they would have no power.  And that drive for personal power (which is not limited to one party) is why we are not united like we should be.

While I won't deny that CRT is sometimes weaponized to the point of shaming and attacking, I think it's also true that people sometimes find malice where none is intended. As I said, the mere mention of white privilege often puts white people in a defensive mentality because it can be a very difficult and uncomfortable topic for us to discuss openly. People who are in a defensive mindset tend to easily feel attacked.

Edited by Godless
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Godless said:

The goal of BLM is to elevate black lives to the point that we can truthfully proclaim that all lives matter. In order to do that, we need to confront some harsh truths about our current reality. Our differences are brought to light so we can recognize and overcome them.

From the start, MAGA was infiltrated by known white supremacists. I'm not saying that all or even a majority of MAGAs are racists, but the fact that it's evidently a very appealing movement to racists should send up some red flags. I'm of the opinion that there are many MAGA followers who aren't openly or even consciously racist, but who are very comfortable in the bubble of privilege that centuries of white supremacy has built for them and feel threatened by the thought of losing that bubble, though those feelings may be subconscious.

 

Funny how you define BLM by its goals... But MAGA by whose abusing it to their own agendas.  That is hardly fair, or equitable, in fact it is down right hypocritical.  Yet it proves my point precisely.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Godless
57 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Funny how you define BLM by its goals... But MAGA by whose abusing it to their own agendas.  That is hardly fair, or equitable, in fact it is down right hypocritical.  Yet it proves my point precisely.

 

Fair enough. So what are MAGA's goals, in your own words? What do they mean when they say "Make America Great Again"? I have thoughts about that slogan, but I'll keep those to myself for now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Godless said:

Fair enough. So what are MAGA's goals, in your own words? What do they mean when they say "Make America Great Again"? I have thoughts about that slogan, but I'll keep those to myself for now.

Interestingly enough this isn't the first time it's been used.  It's been used by many Republicans and Democrats in the since the '40's, but really caught on as a slogan with President Trump.  

In Trump's own words:
 

Quote

“It actually inspired me,” Mr Trump said, “because to me, it meant jobs. It meant industry, and meant military strength. It meant taking care of our veterans. It meant so much.”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Godless
44 minutes ago, Grunt said:

I typically tune out when the preface is "whether you like it or admit it, what I say is factual".   That doesn't leave much room for honest discussion.

If you take so much issue with how I presented my statements that you can't be bothered to examine and debate the statements themselves, then I suppose you're right that there's no room for honest discussion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Godless said:

If you take so much issue with how I presented my statements that you can't be bothered to examine and debate the statements themselves, then I suppose you're right that there's no room for honest discussion. 

You stated there was no room for honest discussion.  Your false premise is a logical fallacy.  When you make a declarative statement, such as "Whether you like it or not, whether you acknowledge it or not, white supremacy has deep roots in our society." you're opening a discussion based on a false premise and requiring it be accepted as fact.   

You can't start a dishonest discussion then blame the other person when they point it out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Godless
2 minutes ago, Grunt said:

Interestingly enough this isn't the first time it's been used.  It's been used by many Republicans and Democrats in the since the '40's, but really caught on as a slogan with President Trump.  

In Trump's own words:

Thank you, that makes sense. To be honest, I think a lot of leftists could easily get behind some of those ideas. The problem is that Trump's message was polluted with anti-immigration rhetoric that bordered closely to xenophobia. I think more than any other political figure in US history, Trump was defined by his rhetoric. Arguably, that's how he got support from white supremacist groups that have never made themselves more visible than they have been in the last 4 years. When that happens, it's prudent to ask yourself why. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Godless
14 minutes ago, Grunt said:

You stated there was no room for honest discussion.  Your false premise is a logical fallacy.  When you make a declarative statement, such as "Whether you like it or not, whether you acknowledge it or not, white supremacy has deep roots in our society." you're opening a discussion based on a false premise and requiring it be accepted as fact.   

You can't start a dishonest discussion then blame the other person when they point it out.

I'll admit that I could have framed my words differently/better. I believe that there is a great deal of objective truth in what I've presented, but I certainly welcome honest discussion and debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Godless said:

Thank you, that makes sense. To be honest, I think a lot of leftists could easily get behind some of those ideas. The problem is that Trump's message was polluted with anti-immigration rhetoric that bordered closely to xenophobia. I think more than any other political figure in US history, Trump was defined by his rhetoric. Arguably, that's how he got support from white supremacist groups that have never made themselves more visible than they have been in the last 4 years. When that happens, it's prudent to ask yourself why. 

I disagree.  The left warped it to look like anti-immigration and called him xenophobic, but that wasn't the case.  He opposed illegal immigration.   He also didn't bring white supremacists out of the woodwork, the media just labeled everyone that agreed with him a white supremacist.  You're regurgitating 4 years of leftist talking points.  They weren't true then, they aren't true now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Grunt said:

He opposed illegal immigration.

1072531466_Untitled-1copy.jpg.6dcb5734cf64b863e363fa1e9ef7766e.jpg

Quote

Naturalization is the legal process through which a foreign citizen or national can become a U.S. citizen. In order to be naturalized, an applicant must first meet certain criteria to apply for citizenship.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US has it's periods where it is more united, and it's periods where it is more divided.  It seems that the United States is heading more towards a period of the latter, and generally without great turmoil, the former does not return.  Only through massive events that change us, do we get more united again.  Sometimes that unity is not seen by all, but only by the victors. 

One such division occurred after the Revolutionary War (the Revolutionary war did not actually have as many in favor of the New Nation being formed, as many loyalists who were the conservatives of their time were opposed to this idea, and thus their was great division between those who saw themselves as English vs. those who saw themselves as Americans).  We didn't truly become united probably until the War of 1812 (which interestingly enough had 3x the amount of death and suffering that the Revolutionary War had). 

We then became more divided regarding the issue of Slavery which eventually led to a Civil War in our own nation.  This time we didn't really become united as instead the victors turned upon the conquered and forced acquisition upon them.  It is here where you see the birth of much of the resentment towards the policies of the North among those in the South.  The symbols of that resentment brought forth the ideas that instead of being ashamed of their Southern Heritage, their should be pride in their Ancestors and their accomplishments instead.  That they should stand up for their own rights and that of their States rather than being forced at gunpoint to accept the dictation of others.  In many ways, though there was no revolution again (the South had lost), it was the repeat of the idea of no taxation without representation.  In such an environment, ALL the Northern legislative governing was sought to be overthrown which resulted in Jim Crow Laws and many other things  (Conservative Southerners being Democrats for example...for DECADES after the Civil War just to spite the Republican Party).  The above reference to the Confederate flag is a representation of this idea, that one should be proud of their Southern Heritage, their state, and that they will not be forced to be humbled or ashamed of who they are simply because others dictate that they must be.  This is the message that many have missed.  It is not really a symbol of slavery that some try to paint it as, but of independence and the right to choose rather than being forced to accept new laws and regulation.

This division continued more or less until the Great Depression and the ensuing World War 2.  Pearl Harbor seemingly united us greatly to the point that we surprised many (including the Japanese which had incorporated our division and inability to be united in purpose into their strategy which supposed that we would never be able to be united long enough to actually defeat them and cause them the problems we did...they were mistaken...and we won the wars on two fronts in both the Pacific and Europe).  This changed us enough that decades later, even though divisions still existed, we were Federally able to enact many of the Civil Rights laws and cases on those who had resisted such changes for the years prior.  In addition, the Cold war also acted as a unifying force among many who normally disagreed.

With the dissolution of the Cold War from the fore thoughts of our mind, I see that once again issues have arisen and we are once again heading to the divide. 

We have never been completely united, this nation has always had those who disagreed on many various policies.  Even when we have been at our most united (for example, in World War 2) there has still been much  political disagreement, but that is also the miracle of our Nation and Constitution.  Every 4 years we are able to have what one would term as a peaceful revolution.  We can change the entire way the nation is headed by changing the leaders of our government (in truth, it is actually more like a 6 to 8 year cycle due to how Senatorial voting can work).  It means that sides that are radically different in thought and approach can co-exist in the same nation. 

Thus, one could say we have never truly been completely united in the issues, but at the same time there are periods of time where we are more united than others.  In many cases, this division is caused by strong political belief and an unwillingness to understand, or at least compromise with those who have strong political beliefs that differ from each other.

This is why I think there is so much division today.  A great part of that is that BOTH sides are convinced they are correct, and are unwilling to even consider the other side's viewpoints.  This can lead to violence, because when one does not think you will listen to their views one way, in many instances they hope that they can get your attention and force you to listen in another (which can be violent or turn violent). 

 

Other commentary I'll have on a different post below.

Edited by JohnsonJones
corrected a phrase at the beginning
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Godless said:

It’s important to not lose focus of how recent some of the critical events in our nation’s history are when it comes to race. The CRA was passed in my parents’ lifetime. The Philly bombing took place the year I was born. The year before that, MLK Day had been made a federal holiday. A Senator named Jesse Helms tried to stop it by filibustering with a bunch of slander about MLK being a Marxist/communist that was too outrageous to sway even the well-documented racist Strom Thurmund. Both Thurmund and Helms held their Senate seats until 2003. While we can hope that the openly racist players in our government are in our history rather than our present, that history is fairly recent. And I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that using Marxism to discredit black activists seems to be a renewed tactic in modern times. 

I’ll leave you with one more MLK quote. This is my favorite quote from him and the only one that I feel comfortable sharing this time of year, because I was reflected in it for most of my life. I’m trying to grow past that, and I hope some of you will do the same.

“I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.”

The reason BLM (the organization, not the movement) is seen as Marxist is because they claim it themselves.  Also two of their leaders are stated Black Supremacists.  Is there a reason we should not believe them?

I too lived through the Civil Rights Movement.  I had a first row seat to Integration.  Though I agree with many of the BLM movement's ideas, I am against the actual BLM organization (due to the reasons in the paragraph above, of which they themselves have stated they possess). 

Sometime to note, the idea that ALL LIVES MATTER was started by the other minorities.  They did it due to Black Americans being racist toward them.  These other minorities (Asian Americans, Native Americans) did not feel included in the BLM movement.  Some White Americans took the phrase (and unfortunately, some of those were White Supermacists) which let BLM try to label it as a White racist statement, but it was not originally utilized by White Americans.  To label it as such shows the inherent RACISM among Black Americans.  Instead of acknowlegding the problems that the smaller groups of minorities experience they state it is not to ignore those minorities, but to say that Black Lives also matter (implying that this was ignored while the other minorities were not.  That is nonsense as Black Americans have been at the forefront of civil rights while the smaller minorities have routinely been ignored far more.  Even Asian Americans now have blatant discrimination, normally under the guise that they are the "model minority" in order to enforce racism against them, a racism that Black Americans tend to fully support).

Having relatives that are minorities (by marriages into our family) has opened my eyes to the racism that is prevalent today against minorities by Black Americans.  There is this idea that Black Americans cannot be racist, but some of the most horrendous racism to my family members (the minorities that are part of my family by marriage now) have been at the hands of Black Americans.  This points out the problem in the Black Rights movement today.  Rather than acknowledge that the problems other minorities face are being ignored and may even be greater than what Black Americans face and thus their idea that they should ALSO matter by bringing up the term All Lives Matter (which, as I said was adopted by others, but was originally used by the minorities being ignored by the BLM movement) or at least the term should be Minority Lives Matter, the BLM movement IGNORES their statements as they imply that it should be BLACK LIVES are the ones that are to be noted in their statements and idealogy.

Which is worse...a Black American going into a store and being ignored, or a Native American not even being allowed to enter the town in the first place and being run out by the Police if they do try to enter it?  Which is worse, the Black American not being able to rent an apartment and having to find one in another part of town or the Native Americans who have their lands given by treaty having those lands taken and/or polluted with chemicals which will poison your water supply and cause long term health injuries and perhaps even death?  Which is worse, having your ancestors be slaves 150 years ago (and that IS horrible) or later fully supporting the idea (of racial internment and enslavement of another race) and even pushing it in the community (intern the Japanese) and then being some of the guards which enforced putting an entire race (Japanese Americans) in concentration camps a less than 80 years ago (similar to the camps put up by the USSR and German, and currently being put up in China) and then justifying it as the right thing to do TODAY?  Which is worse, a Black American getting into Harvard with scores required to be far less than anyone else and getting a scholarship, or the Vietnamese-American who currently lives in welfare housing and poverty who lost their father in a sea crossing and has supported their mother who is crippled by working at night which has straight A's, test scores higher than anyone else, but legally discriminated against and so those scores are not high enough and not allowed to attend Harvard, much less many other universities, despite being higher than anyone elses?  Which is worse, Black Americans being called names and terrible terms, or purposefully creating a movement at targeting Asian Americans in a racist manner to rob, steal, injure, hospitalize, and perhaps kill while at the same time calling them racist slang with the purpose to simply either hurt them or force them to leave the city and perhaps the nation?

There is a great deal of Racism among Black Americans today, but unfortunately it is ALSO being ignored.  This Racism is driving many problems that are conveniently also ignored.  Black on Black violence is FAR greater than White on Black Violence, or even then the numbers of Blacks being put behind bars.  Black on other Minority Violence is greater in numbers than ANY OTHER RACIAL VIOLENCE in the US currently.  This is being conveniently ignored.  The greatest persecutor of violence upon minorities in the US today are NOT White's, but Black Americans.  This should be one of the BIGGEST factors of focus in creating equality for minorities today, but is conveniently ignored by BLM and everyone else?

Why?

Now, I actually agree with much of what you wrote, despite what I wrote above.  I wrote the above to make you realize that the issues on this are far greater and more complicated than the Black and White message (literally) that the BLM organization seems to want to portray it.  I think part of this is because, unlike what you imply in your message, BLM does NOT descend from the ideas of Martin Luther King jr.

Unfortunately, they come from a young Malcom X's speeches (in fact, the Black Lives Matter phrase could be directly attributed to a speech of his if one really wants to boil it down) who advocated violence.  He advocated Black Supremacy and that it should be enforce if not taken entirely by violence itself.  His later ideas (which still are not all that great, but are not quite as focused on violent means to an end) seem to also be ignored in today's climate.

If Martin Luther King's ideas were utilized, we'd probably see a bigger push for unity between ALL minorities, and a more widespread adoption of protests which are meant to be inclusive rather than exclusive.  We would see a bigger push for equalization regarding ALL situations with poverty and how to build unity rather than division.

That said, for the most part I support many of the IDEAS that the BLM movement express, even if I will NOT support the BLM organization (for the reasons they give themselves of being Black supremacists and in favor of Communism).  I acknowledge that I probably have had a lot of help from White privilege in my life, and that this probably has come at the expense of other minorities (probably more Hispanic in the areas I currently reside than Black Americans though).  (edit: I also acknowledge that I am racist...some of it unconsciously so, but intentionally or not there are things that I do that are probably racist whether I mean to be or not).  There is a great deal of injustice in our society, and an inequality in many areas (for example, Black Americans are generally given harsher sentences than White Americans for the same crimes) that should be changed. 

However, having gained minorities in our family (via marriage) and discussing things with them can open one's eyes to the greater picture (for example, they would say the greatest amount of racism they have experienced in their life was actually NOT from White Americans, but from Black Americans which should raise a LOT of questions regarding just how much Black Americans want equality for all vs. Black Superiority for themselves, at least if taken at face value the comments I've heard from some of the minorities who have experienced direct racism in their lives).  It's a complicated picture, but once which again I think would be able to be referenced more to the Malcom X vs. Martin Luther King ideologies.

If we lived with Martin Luther King jr's ideologies, one of the big things was to do away with the racist and unchristian attitudes within themselves as well as others.  It is hard to expect others to do away with racism if you yourself are racist to begin with.  We must see people as humans and all part of the human race, equal as brothers under God rather than how we view each other today.  WE must do away with the devil among ourselves if we wish to get rid of the devil among others.  Instead of division, we should seek unity.  It is in pursuit of that unity that Black Americans MUST have rights and privileges equal to their White Brothers and Sisters.  Only with equality can we truly all experience the freedoms that we are granted by heaven above.

Malcom X (his early views, as opposed to his later views) did not view it as such.  Any problems (crime, etc) among Black Americans was the fault of others, and the path to overcome this was to attain power over other races.  Black's should stick with each other and support each other, and if other races wanted to come along they could, but to gain rights, Black Americans needed to stick together as one race and put their own race and people first in their agendas.  Only together could they accomplish the means to success, even if that meant by violent means.

Unfortunately, today, I see the ideas of Malcom X being the ideology of many of the Civil Rights movements of Today rather than the better and greater ideas of Martin Luther King jr.  I support the ideas of Martin Luther King and think it is something to strive for.  I support the BLM movement insofar as they support these types of ideas, and as such I actually do support much of what you typed.  However, I tend to see the picture as a lot more complicated than the Black and White picture that we typically see it as painted.

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/22/2021 at 10:05 AM, Godless said:

Fair enough. So what are MAGA's goals, in your own words? What do they mean when they say "Make America Great Again"? I have thoughts about that slogan, but I'll keep those to myself for now.

No I will not.  I (and others) have repeatedly called you personally out over this type of behavior and you continue to engage in it. I see no reason to try to discuss any issues with you as long as you think it is ok for you to personally engage in behavior (ACTIONS speaking louder then words) that you would call deplorable and reprehensible if I were to engage in it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I have wondered how to best respond to this thread - especially since I was quoted to start it.  To be honest I am conflicted with arguments for diversity.  Please allow me to explain. It seems to me that the more there is a focus on diversity the less we we can become united or have understanding.  Rather we must focus on commonality if we are to achieve any unity.  In mathematics there is a term called "the least common denominator".    The point is that by using "the least common denominator" diverse numbers (fraction) can be "united" and resolved.  If a common denominator cannot be found, realized and accepted there can NEVER be unity.

I will make a statement using _______ and the reader can fill in the ________ with what ever they can envision is possible.  There is the statement:  You cannot understand me or how I feel because you are not _______!       I view such statements as a refusal to recognize any possible common denominator.  It is an admission that the individual making such a statement has absolutely no desire - under any circumstance to make any progress towards any kind of unity.  It is an absolute refusal to consider any possible unity or understanding whatsoever.   It is a statement of blatant prejudice (xenophobia) with zero respect for diversity. 

I could make a rather long list of such prejudice (xenophobic) efforts to dismiss all possible common denominators that result in one or another kind of segregation.   But here are a few.  I am uncomfortable when I am not in social group without others that "look" like me.  We should have our own representatives (based in race or whatever we think is our diving diversity that has no common denominator) in the government.

There is a statement - united we stand; divided we fall.  Our country has divisions.  We can either find common denominators or choose to remain divided.  It appears to me that if this country fails - it is most likely because of efforts to divide us from within and refuse any common denominator.  I so believe in finding common denominators that I am beginning to think that no patrician (political) law should ever be passed.  That we cannot agree or find common political ground - we do not deserve to be a country pretending otherwise.

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share