Is Trumps Boarder Wall Antithetical To Jedi Doctrine?

Fyxe wrote: well this went nowhere fast didnt it zealot. Why do you think this is? where was the breakdown here, and by that I mean the breakdown in the issue discussion. please dont resort to personal attack in your reply or it will be an end of all discussion.

dude, you should know by now that I'm not prone to personal attacks. I don't like it. To me personal attacks mean that person is "losing" the debate, if it is a debate. This is why I like speaking in generalizations because normally, I'm not directing what I say to a specific person. I have to say "you" or say your name.

Look... I know there are black people out there that you may have already encountered who blame whites for everything, who misrepresent history to some degree, who aren't masters of finance, and who would rather buy Jordans than stocks. But you cannot define an entire race based on a minority just like I can't say that all whites were slave owners when I know it was a minority of the population. So it was never, for me, about who deserves blame. It was about explaining how we got from point A to Z, which all parties should understand, prior to engaging in talks about solutions.

Because obviously I have no interest in going to war, theft, etc. in order to gain wealth. And even if I think reparations is a valid idea that doesn't mean there is a consensus on how it should be done. I would suggest either some kind of grant system for land/business ownership, tax rebate from money people already paid into the fed, or perhaps even something like tithing in Judaism where taxes from disenfranchised minority groups, who could prove a history of disenfranchisement in the supreme court, could then have their tax burden, for a period of time, be redirected to social programs for the poor in our own community. If the system were fair this wouldn't matter, but if we are giving our money away to the fed to make the right decisions of how to spend this money that we are paying into the system, we should have a reasonable expectation to have that money spent in ways that can revitalize and reinvest in our community. Bare minimum it would pay for community centers like the Boys and Girls clubs, and help create local jobs and training programs. I would create special certificate programs outside the normal expensive college system, paid for through these tax dollars and grants, that would allow black owned businesses to hire and further train the next generation with work study or apprenticeship programs where they can learn fields they want to get in while still be able to get paid and support their families; especially if the mother isn't receiving child support.

I could keep going as I have a lot of ideas that don't rely upon your money. But if you assume I'm asking for handouts then we can't even talk about other solutions.

But every discussion doesn't even have to be about solutions for the socio-economic condition of black people. It turned into that somehow based on a conversation about me simply suggesting that instead of saying "I don't see color" that people could say "I don't discriminate" instead. But what happens is that there are disagreements below the surface that rarely get to be voiced, because we, as a society, are somewhat timid to talk about this subject. We're either afraid of being called racist or afraid people will misunderstand when in reality there are always things we can both learn from each other but you can't be so busy assuming that your place is that of the teacher that you fail to listen. I'm willing to have those conversations about those things below the surface, but I'm going to explain what I believe isn't currently well understood. And if you've never heard about black wall street before, which a lot of people haven't, or you never heard the story of what happened to the black baseball leagues, that doesn't make you stupid or ignorant, it just means you may not have a complete picture. I want to help anyone who wants to, to have a more complete picture of the effects of racism so that we can build a better system. It doesn't have to be perfect. But I do want it to be better. Better for you and better for me. And better for our children.

I accept your positions and I acknowledge them as valid. I disagree with many of them though but I think the time to discuss them further is not right now.

At this point Ill agree to disagree and just send you some friendship love instead! Love ya as a friend and as an adversary and I think for now I shall end it right there!

Fyxe wrote: I accept your positions and I acknowledge them as valid. I disagree with many of them though but I think the time to discuss them further is not right now.

At this point Ill agree to disagree and just send you some friendship love instead! Love ya as a friend and as an adversary and I think for now I shall end it right there!

I feel the same. We can be aggravated and annoyed at each other sometimes but for whatever crazy reason I value our friendship over whatever thing we may choose to debate. I think we both enjoy the mental challenge and I know you are bright and intelligent. We don't need to agree with everything the other says. We just need to remind each other that we value each other's point of view. And I do.

Zealotx....They literally don't realize whiteness, privilege or supremacy even exists. It's a step even further back than having to define racism as a system of oppression rather than individual bigots negatively effecting individual lives of people of color based on a stereotypical shallow view of race.

Notice how all the fellow woke Jedi, and especially the clergy, came in to back you up?

If ever you wonder weather reconciliation between the alleged aims of the order and the actual material realities of the political positions its most "vocal" members tend to profess can ever come to fruition, I suggest you let the answer to that question be your guide.

KerouacsGhost wrote: Zealotx....They literally don't realize whiteness, privilege or supremacy even exists. It's a step even further back than having to define racism as a system of oppression rather than individual bigots negatively effecting individual lives of people of color based on a stereotypical shallow view of race.

Notice how all the fellow woke Jedi, and especially the clergy, came in to back you up?

If ever you wonder weather reconciliation between the alleged aims of the order and the actual material realities of the political positions its most "vocal" members tend to profess can ever come to fruition, I suggest you let the answer to that question be your guide.

On the contrary, its recognized, understood and targeted in manners which are not hypocritical, because hypocritical action leads to cyclical mechanisms of reaction. For discrimination happens to people, and it need not be any particular type of discrimination or person for it be more or less bad then if it were another type of discrimination or person. So something like systematic discrimination is the worst kind because it denotes widespread and persistent discrimination - but that is not measured by the width or persistence but rather the structures which enable its width and the cultures which enable its persistence. The danger of using terms of race like blackness or whiteness to project concepts like privilege onto those groups is not so much that it is quite literally discriminatory (racist), but its hypocrisy unwinds all the progress that has been made in removing the stain of discriminatory thought and behaviours carried from the past into today. So white privilege is such an inefficient term for its intended meaning to that extent that its inaccurate even though privilege does on occasion get given to whites. On occasion privilege gets given to blacks as well so yes there is a concept of black privilege also. What the difference is, is where it happens, why it happens and how much it happens right? But just because one might be more prevalent at one level of analysis does not mean it extends to all levels of analysis.... because its that category error done on the basis of difference which is the literal definition of discrimination. Accuracy is much more effective then broad labels being thrown around, and arguing for accuracy is not the denying of other more accurate models for other circumstances.

Post script to my above...
..that assumes one acknoweldges that other forms of racism and discrimination can be as harmful as racism against blacks, and as such one wouldn't endorse any type of discrimination onto anyone.

Another thing I think on is that I tend to expect victims of discrimination to be even more acutely aware of this, but understand that direct victims of any abuse experience a range of insecurities and even outright fear as a result of their suffering which impacts thoughts and behaviours. For me the way forward is not to coddle fears but understand them, remove mechanisms and habits of discrimination where possible, and protect victims from staying trapped in the same cyclical mindset that oppressors want of their victims to begin with, eg: nothing more a white supremacist wants then a black supremacist - to justify their toxic ideology.

KerouacsGhost,

Well, I'm glad someone gets it at least. I *FEEL* like a lot of people want to be able to tell victims of discrimination how to feel at the same time as downplaying the symptoms of that very oppression; and mainly because they don't want to feel guilty as being the perpetrators who are the root cause. And the thing is... I'm not saying they are the cause. I'm not blaming them. Racism continues because of participation as well as enabling. People turn a blind eye to it because it doesn't directly concern them or their family. They don't HAVE TO worry about it and so they don't. And because they don't worry about it, it is easier for them to compare others to themselves and think the problem is heavily exaggerated. But it's not. It's just that the people it's happening to can't help but to see it and not just see it but anticipate it. The form that anticipation takes can look to those who don't understand, like "black supremacy" or "reverse racism". The "black pride" that some people react to negatively is a compensation and coping mechanism in response to having the black identity ridiculed and attached to the equivalent of cattle.

So people get defensive but don't understand how black people really feel and what the many years of repeated ridicule, defamation, fear, etc. have done, not simply to us as individuals, but to our image as a collective group. The "medicine" those people who don't understand always prescribe is for us to behave as individualistic "exceptions" as if we are not black, as if we shouldn't even see our own "blackness" because they have deemed our "blackness" problematic. But it's not. We say black is beautiful, not because white isn't, but because white is the unspoken standard of beauty while black was constantly called ugly.

And so it is that we have had to react in ways to help maintain our very sanity; unified by the struggle against such malice and oppression, but also the struggle against apathy and those practicing quietness in the face of more than just comical stereotyping. I'm talking about negative attitudes that assume that because you're black, you must be on welfare... you're angry/violent... you're lazy... etc.; things that impact your ability to get and maintain jobs... unless you are "exceptional". And if you aren't exceptional, people assume you got the job because of "black privilege" or some kind of social safety that MUST HAVE saved you from your otherwise incompetence or lack of qualifications-when in reality, these same people thought to be unqualified often have to be more qualified (hence: "exceptional") just to get the same job or lower, with the same salary or lower.

The assumptions are assigned based on one race preaching an internal doctrine of superiority; especially intellectual, over not all races, but over the black "race". Black people are treated as individuals when a person claims not to see color, but treated as a race by all those who judge individuals by their racial assignment. And then they call the police as if that individual man, woman, boy, or girl, is a dangerous threat to society and then that makes the police a dangerous threat to us.

But the answer is not to pretend that people aren't black or white. This only feeds the ignorance and lulls the sleep and pacifies the contention so that they don't have to confront a problem that still exists. What they're pretending isn't simply that people aren't black, but they're pretending that they have no role or part to play in racism; whether pro or con. By pretending they excuse themselves from having to care or having that internal voice we call conscience, bug them. Because at any opportune moment they can say "it isn't me. I'm not racist. I don't see color." And so they invent a danger where danger doesn't exist. The danger to them is using terms of race. This is false. Terms of race already exist. The vase has already fallen off the counter and hit the floor. You can either glue it back together or you can throw it away. But you can't pretend it never fell in the first place. You can't put the genie back in the bottle after it has already granted the wish of enslaving a group of people because of the color of their skin, after it has already caused those same people to have extra hurdles when competing for jobs. You can't suddenly pretend they're not the same group that was labeled and oppressed. That happened. It happened. And because it happened there are consequences and effects of all those things that happened.

As a consequences and effect there are many white people who are outwardly and vocally racist. Many of them are children because they learned it from their parents and it wasn't rebuffed by their community at large. So they say racist things out loud because they feel comfortable enough to say it; not just because they don't fear those they're saying it to, but because they don't fear their own community reprimanding them. They are too used to hearing silence; the silence of so much pretending... so much "not seeing color". And so there are those who are sleeping through history and thus bystanders, watching it unfold. And at the same time there are those who are "woke". And I appreciate those people very much because they are the antibodies to bad viral ideas and they are the ones who change the world for the better. They're not always seen, not always heard, but I want you to know that they are appreciated.

And for anyone not already woke this was simply a wakeup call; an alarm clock to get up and stand up for liberty and justice for ALL. People who are sleep often get mad when the alarm goes off because they can't wait to hit the snooze button. The choice is yours.

Guess I'll explain my "Green" comment from above.

Not everything fits into your paradigm. Army Personnel are "trained" to see "Green", and not see the color of a person's skin. We were told not to see color any other color because we're all on the same team, your race doesn't matter on the battlefield, and since you train as you fight, it's best to get rid of your stereotypes. It doesn't mean we cannot see the beauty in celebrating our ethnic backgrounds (many do, cultural celebrations are set up as MWR events- and though my favorite was a small celebration I witnessed for a Black woman who had published her Black Poetry book; she read a couple to the people in attendance).

On the civilian side, however, we can't really count you as "Green". You aren't a part of the "Green" culture. Though we will show the same respect to the other services- except the CG ! *laughingly sneers* Unicorns. But seriously- not everything is about whether or not someone is racist. The very first person I ever heard say "Who's black? I don't see colors, I just see Green" was a Black Drill Sergeant. The first person I ever heard say "What female? I just see soldiers." was a Black Male First Sergeant.

So when a Veteran says they "don't see color", it has nothing to do with systematic racism. It has nothing to do with whether or not they recognize white people on average have greater privileges. It's about saying "I recognize you are my equal".

Now you civilians that say it? I can't speak for you. I can only hope that when you say it, you actually mean the same thing we veterans do. But hope and truth are not necessarily the same thing.

I think it could be helpful to have a point of clarity here.

When someone with left leaning politics uses words like racism whiteness and privilege, the meaning of these words is very different than what they appear to mean from outside of that paradigm.

The effect is very similar to when someone says that evolution is just a "theory" not a fact. The scientific community has a very specific meaning and definition attached to the word "theory" which distinguishes it from the assumed meaning of those outside that community in such a way that "theory" becomes (almost) synonymous with fact.

When someone says evolution is not a fact it's just a "theory," those of us with proper social training will giggle silently to our internal child. Those without will laugh out loud as if you had said gravity was just a "theory" or heliocentricism was just a "theory."

The reason this language inspires laughter is because it makes clear that the person speaking doesn't know some basic facts about critical things.

Social science is the branch of science devoted to the study of human societies and the relationships among individuals within those societies.

In social science power is the capacity of an individual to influence the behavior of others. A power structure is an overall system of influence between individuals within any selected group.

A power structure may be a formal or an informal set of roles organized by centralized aggression to create a ranking system wherein some are given access to rights and privileges while others are not, such as those found in a dominance hierarchy. Or, a power structure may be a formal or an informal set of roles organized by equality and decentralization to create a social structure which aims to maximize freedom and liberty for all rather than for a chosen group.

A culture that is organized in a dominance hierarchy is a dominator culture, as opposed to a culture of partnership based in equality and decentralized authority/governance/power and mutual aid.

Critical theory is the social science which studies power structures. It argues that social problems are influenced and created more by social structures than by individual factors.

Critical race theory (CRT ) is a theoretical framework in the Social sciences that uses critical theory to examine society and culture as they relate to race, law, and power.

CONCLUSION:
I AM NOT saying that you should agree with CRT.
I AM NOT saying that you should agree with Critical Theory.
I AM NOT saying that you should value the social sciences.

What I am saying:

There are scientific bodies of knowledge which attempt to study cultural and social phenomena. When it comes to the issue of race Critical Race Theory is that body of study.

If you are arguing against the notion that white supremacy and racism were not only a foundational element of the society in which we now live but also that the power structures maintained by race have material consequences and therefore measurable empirical bodies of evidence to support these claims, then you are arguing against CRT.

When I was a kid the PC message was for white people to stop seeing black people as black and just see them as people. The goal post has changed in this generation and unfortunately, not everyone has caught up to it. Please try to understand that when white people talk about not seeing color it is coming from a place of trying to be on black people’s side.

Temple challenge from Pastor Carlos


I’ve since long stopped using color to describe people. It changed a lot for me. It continues - which is proof for me to continue and encourage others to as well- it’s a challenge worth trying.

Feel free to shoot me the bird or a pm or both. Love ya Temple.

Feel free to ignore this post as well.

KerouacsGhost wrote: If you are arguing against the notion that white supremacy and racism were not only a foundational element of the society in which we now live but also that the power structures maintained by race have material consequences and therefore measurable empirical bodies of evidence to support these claims, then you are arguing against CRT.

I'm not sure anyone is talking about it. The only tools to change society are policy and education. Some of that can only be done individually and some of it only within organizations. How these things are approached represents the outcomes quite heavily, and so it's important to be clear and concise about the present day to improve it. The past has valuable lesson's and obviously was the foundation for the present, but it shouldn't define the future IMO.

OB1Shinobi wrote: When I was a kid the PC message was for white people to stop seeing black people as black and just see them as people. The goal post has changed in this generation and unfortunately, not everyone has caught up to it. Please try to understand that when white people talk about not seeing color it is coming from a place of trying to be on black people’s side.

The PC culture does occasionally get things wrong. Hard to believe.

And it is somewhat natural to society to overreact before finding the right balance. As an agent of balance, I understand that's where you guys are coming from, I appreciate the positive intentions as well as the heart from where it comes from. I'm only advocating a better approach in the name and interests of accomplishing the goal.

Because unfortunately, I don't know how many black people the PC crowd actually consulted before coming up with that message. What they got right is that black people do want to be seen as people. "Black people". You can emphasize the people part but its mainly about understanding that black people are people too; people just like you, and therefore should be treated with the same dignity and respect that you would treat each other with. Because the goal is for us all to be "each other" and not have a separation based on color or sexual orientation or what other isms that turn into schisms.

But the reason there is gay pride and black pride is not about running away or hiding from these different identities but actually celebrating what was once viewed in a very negative and stigmatizing sort of way and if you can't say it... like its a profane word... then it's like that word still has power and its still just as negative as it was before. This is why black people took the "N-word", changed it, and put it to use. A lot of people don't understand that but for us, it allows us to change its meaning and takes the negative power and energy away from the original N-word, which should never be used outside of educational purposes.

Again... black is a positive thing. White is a positive thing (don't let anyone tell you different). Gay being positive for Gay people doesn't make being straight into the new gay or something that is less positive or valued. White and black is the same. But, like being straight, the value of being white is "baked" into society by default. It's a given. It is the default standard of beauty and success. Meanwhile, non-whites kind of have to work harder (in terms of marketing) to be seen in the same (equal) light. And hence more vocalization on those fronts.

But some people get defensive as if the black pride is an attack on whites OR even that gay pride is an attack on straight people, on the institution of marriage, etc. It's basically a reactionary reflex based, imo, on fear.

And I'll admit that because I'm not white it's hard for me to imagine how it could be hard or in anyway negative to be white or seen as white when "I feel" like white people (if we're considering the pre-existing but imaginary racial group construct) are winning and have almost all the power, wealth, etc. So that grass looks pretty green to me; not enough that I wish I was white but simply because I think many of us wonder how life might be better if we were white or, at least, weren't stigmatized. That's why when I hear things like "All Lives Matter" I'm like, really? No one said anything to the contrary so why would/should anyone take "black lives matter" that way? But again... its hard to foresee that particular reflex when your intentions had nothing to do with disparaging another group of people; but rather saying that black people are being mistreated by the police specifically regarding this black identity. Not only can they (physically) see color just fine they often (NOT ALL officers, but too many) treat people of color differently (including Hispanics).

Again... people trying to be PC police ignore the actual intent and purpose because they're too busy being offended and end up saying or doing something that is also offensive and makes things worse. And everyone is capable of "creating sides" and doing this in an effort to do the right thing. But at the end of the day we all just need to consult each other so that we can understand each other. Because you can be "PC" without having a single black friend. But "POLITICS" should not be the bar or standard. Why be satisfied with that? I'm suggesting that our standards should be higher and based on real relationships and talking to each other and understanding each other and treating each other how the other person wants to be treated as well as how we want to be treated too.

Such should be the life of a Jedi.

Haha, no I don't think its a case necessarily of people being left behind and 'unwoke'. Rather proper use of language to avoid abuse of language.

I feel like I'm on the other side of the argument, not being from the US or having been there I feel I'm spared the baggage of its racist wounds, at the expense of less exposure to the issues - but that said I've got some experience with industrial human rights in regards to discrimination, so my motives are moving the conversation forward, as it appears the US is sort of going around in circles on the issue. It gives me the benefit of critical eyes looking at the issue in terms from other different types of cultural and organisational discrimination.

As a Jedi though it's a bit deeper which goes to complicate the issue perhaps for others trying to understand the details of my point. I not only do not see black (or white etc) as a person, I also don't see nationality as a person, or (most challenging) don't see species! Well actually the most challenging is not seeing mortality but that is a whole other paradigm. I see life force, in a vehicle... a bit ghost in the shell-esk perhaps. Not to say they are distinct things, but in defining the person as an individual I find it's the individual rather then their associations which most define them.

My point, these things are just labels, and inherent to my Jedi path is looking beyond the vehicle of somethings existence and seeing the expression of that existence. So discussing labels is more about the effective use of labels, which goes to include the avoidance of abusive use of them.

And in that regard 'What is black'; is it a culture or is it an individual? A label without definition is a very bad label as I'm not a big fan of the over-use of simplifications - it tends to lead to confusion and abuse IMO. If its the an individual, then whom is it? I would have thought it would be a 'race', in which case its just the large collection of associated cultures and genetic history and their present day social constructs and descendants. An individual cannot be a race, but instead can be of a race AFAIK.

So if black is a race, and an individual cannot be a race.... then I don't pretend to see an individual as something they are not.... even if I do understand they might be part of a race. Even if an individual is part of a race, they do not represent the race beyond their own participation and knowledge within and of it? A black person is just a person who is of the black culture. If I'm interested in the black culture then I will look for the black in the individual, but if I'm interested in the individual then I will look past all the labels and associations, even black.

TLDR; defining people by their group participation (chosen or otherwise) is the same mechanism as discrimination. If it can be avoided it should be, because its easy for it to be abused and be discriminatory (or misinterpreted as discriminatory).

@Adder


With you not being from the US I can appreciate your position as far as not being exposed to racism in the US and its varied dynamics. For you, the information I provide may sound more anecdotal. But I hope you can sense from me that I am not a person that jumps to extremes and overreacts to things. And having traveled to Canada and Jamaica I would say that the situation in not globally "white vs black" but is rather a regional affliction.

I have referred to racism many times in this thread, as a "viral idea". I want you to hold on to that thought while I provide some extra context that may help you better understand where I'm coming from. Bear with me and feel free to ask additional questions.

Right now I'm wearing a mask but around my neck; not over my face. Company policy currently states that we have to wear a mask when we walk around, especially from one dept to another. There is also an office part and a factory party. The factor is our metaphoric "field" (slave reference to the cotton fields) and the office is the metaphoric "house" (reference to the slave master's large residence). This separation creates 2 distinct regions or zones in which the company is divided. Because I work in the "house" I'm very much disconnected with the lives, the trials, the pressures, the struggles of those working in the factory ("the field"). I'm much better compensated than they are, partially due to education, experience, and specialization. This creates a state of relative privilege that comes with protections and comfort. This adds to the separation.

Hold this image in your mind. It will help you understand.

There are areas of the United states that we can also separate into similar zones. As you know, the South fought against the North for the right to own slaves (but people from the American south will often disagree and say that it was about "states rights" but in reality it was about the right of states to own slaves). Within that North vs South divide you have metropolitan vs rural; places where those fields are literal fields and where the houses are office buildings. You have corporations with factories and offices, often separated by thousands of miles. It's a different world and yet... the divisions often survive.

I just moved from Dayton, Ohio to Middletown which is between Dayton and Cincinnati. Cincinnati borders a Southern state. The further you go out of the city... even in Dayton, into areas where the population is 80-90% white and maybe 4-6% black, you're more likely to run into hardcore racists. Yes, we could say that one is either racist or not but its more like all racists have the virus but not all people with the virus are displaying symptoms. And as the virus spreads in the body there is a time when it hasn't really taken root yet in the lungs and may just be in a person's sinuses. Likewise, a lot of children hear older people talk and those ideas get into their brain but they haven't fully taken root yet and their symptoms may be mild depending on their immune system.

This is where having a good character is similar to a healthy immune system because your good character protects you from different ideas which are either criminal or immoral. So a lot of people think to themselves, that they could never be racist and use how they think of themselves to doubt racism in others. It's kind of like thinking "I don't have corona so I doubt most people around me have corona". And that may be true. AROUND YOU. However, if you go to places with a dense population there are places where the conditions for spreading any sort of virus are much greater. And if you don't know what's in those people's heads and they don't know what's in yours because you're not from where they are, then you may not hear them sneeze or cough because they're sneezing into their elbow or they're wearing a "mask" (metaphoric). Just because someone is a racist doesn't mean they're proud to be and want everyone and their momma to know they are. Most racism is very much in the closet because those people are afraid of losing their jobs. In areas where most people are racist however, the consequences of getting caught are highly diminished because most other people around that person are too and therefore they don't care. So, in Dayton, for example, there are areas where racism got a hell of a lot more vocal after Trump was elected. That doesn't mean it didn't exist there before, but that their comfort level went higher. A single person waving a pitchfork is a lunatic. A mob with pitchforks and torches... is a mob.

If there is no Frankenstein (or his monster) then those people are simply the "innocent townsfolk" and see themselves as the good guys. If they perceive a monster then only in the presence of the monster do they get threatened and typically in a group, that's when the pitchforks and torches appear. Black people were made into the monster by racist propaganda. It doesn't matter what name or label you give to the monster if, at the end of the day, it scares you. That's why the label doesn't matter. "Black, brown..." these are just colors and there is nothing inherently wrong with a color. Right? So the problem is mental connection between the color and the "monster"; in other words... the fear that produces hate.

Only when a person can be confused for white (because they're extremely light skinned), only then, do we see their color not being seen (in American society). Many light skin people have historically passed for white in order to get better treatment and in some cases use that to help their people. And because they were still connected with their people by blood and culture, they were still "black" and that label still connects us today.

At the same time there is still field vs house. And there have always been poor whites working in the "field" (factories, mines, etc) and only a few blacks who ever get to work in the house. And no, as long as there are poor whites in the field there must be at least the same proportion of blacks in the field. But what is unfair is if there are extra hurdles put into the path of black people that are based on their color; because of someone's fear or hatred. If the person doing the hiring is a racist then they can easily impact these numbers and help to control who gets what job. And let's be real. In many industries and jobs its about who you know. Because a lot of racism is a mask on top of class warfare (with, imho, wealthier whites preferring that poor whites and blacks hate and blame each other rather than targeting them) a lot of it is related to jobs and income. The propaganda against blacks was therefore created to hinder our ability to get jobs, leading to the widespread (among black people) idea that we always have to be over qualified to compete for the same jobs. However.... overqualified can mean more expensive and can be a reason not to hire on that basis. So if the organization has plenty of cash (like the government) or health industry that's where more black people are likely to find good jobs. And some of these industries are more heavily regulated which also helps with equality in labor practices.

If white people have the idea that black people are desperate for them to like us, they would be mistaken. It's about fair opportunities so that we can live, prosper, and feed our families. The difficulty of that proposition often depends on where you live or work. I went to college in the South, at a school that was made specifically for black people because they weren't ready (or willing) to integrate in a way that was fair. I grew up in a church that is still segregated to this day at the local conference level. Part of the reason we say it's systematic because if there is racism at different levels of "the system" (education, health, etc.) then that presents minorities with challenges that others simply don't have to face. When combined with the same challenges that everyone has to face, regardless of race or gender, it creates a smaller funnel the less people can get through; not making success impossible, but more of a struggle. And when it's institutions like banks or housing or the police... it makes it more difficult, and that is something that is avoidable by society, not something that minorities should be forced to live with. In other words, racism is a viral idea that is worth fighting against, either through immunization or social distancing (from racists) and the opposite... i.e. socializing with people from all cultures, backgrounds, income brackets, etc so that we all understand each other and realize how much we have in common.

I am grateful to be here, to be part of this mostly enlightened community, and to have the pleasure of communicating with you guys. I mean that sincerely. It is an honor. Thank you for your time and patience!

Labels are not necessarily the product of fear or hate - but yes racist labels are, and racists seem to use labels derived from fear or hate. That though doesn't mean we should abandon proper use of labels, just because some misuse some labels... and by giving ones self identity over to the group identity. That just creates more or stronger division ie making the fear derived labels even stronger by clinging to them to form stronger group boundaries.

I wish it were as simple as ignoring the past pain and doing the right thing, but how people define right is going to be a mix of self interest and group interest... in how they define themselves. And if people use group identity to define themselves then they tend to inherit the struggles of the group - for its those dynamics which tend to define a group. The problem I think is when the person mixes the group struggle for the individual struggle.
Like any struggle, there are good ways to deal with them and bad ways. Mob rule is not a good rule because a mob is a poorly defined and unorganized group driven by some trace of purpose. A clearly defined group purpose means those within it are participants of the problem causing the struggle, but not all black people are net victims of racism, just like not all white people are net beneficiaries of racism.... so race is not the best group to associate directly to levels of discrimination. Not forgetting discrimination happens in various ways to all sorts of people, and each type can be as devastating to the individual as the other. There are plenty of white people who've been destroyed by discrimination and achieved no benefit from any privilege, at no fault of their own. This is the sort of thing I mean about proper use of labels being effective use of labels. It's just easier to show how bad ones don't work then how good ones do, but that doesn't mean I'm ignorant of, arguing against the existence of, or denigrating the extent and impact of it.

For everyone I guess it's more about being a good role model for peace, and working to ensure the hard and sharp edges are worked down over time to smooth things out so no-one gets hurt in the future.... so its important not to get caught up in the identity politics of the stakeholders in struggles to best achieve this. Minds are easy to change, but changing society takes getting in, doing the hard work and making systems work better to solve these problems. Solving the individual struggles at the individual level, whether it aligns with the group or not.

I tend to use the idea of the Force instead of self or group, to approach a concept of essence identity, and define all the iterations as natured aspects of that essence (ie nature). Jedi is my path using the Force in the naturing environment to facilitate that naturing and balance competing forces into supporting forces. So its things which blur support and promote competition which tend to make me explore the dynamics of the argument. Competition has a place, but in many context it leads to conflict, so I feel its a bit like bread and butter for a Jedi to avoid progression into the 'fear to anger to hate to suffering' Yodaism :lol:

I don't know much about the USA.

I imagine it has a bunch of divides.

Some racial, by design or convenience, some maybe of any other design or convenience.

JD Vance is a chubby white republican who went to Yale (I don't know what kind of place Yale is, but it might mean something to people closer to it)

he wrote a book - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillbilly_Elegy

I'm not going to try to quote it or represent his version of events in any particular way, but it was mildly interesting (may be less interesting, may be more interesting if you're "local" to the circumstances) in terms of considering how the USA's cultural divides work.

I'm not suggesting he's the last word on the subject - he's just some guy who wrote a book - but I guess it paints the picture that race or skin colour isn't really the issue at all (even if it is occasionally used as a handy concept to rally around, for one party or another)

Adder wrote: And if people use group identity to define themselves then they tend to inherit the struggles of the group - for its those dynamics which tend to define a group. The problem I think is when the person mixes the group struggle for the individual struggle.

Let's use ourselves as an example. By calling ourselves Jedi, what does that mean? I can't speak for you. I can only speak on what it means to me and there are probably multiple threads voicing numerous opinions. But what it means to me is that there is a shared culture. It may or may not involve a fictional mythology. But it is a term that unites us. Binds us.

Because we value and respect this label we view it as good thing and magnify the positive context and nature. But our internal vision of this term for ourselves does not rule or define how others (outsiders) view it, or us through it. Some people think it's funny. But guess what? I don't care. Because they don't get to define the term Jedi. I do that by the way I live it. Just as you do and so many others. We define ourselves. And we define the term that unites us. To allow others to do so gives them power. And so I would never change the name just to avoid criticism or judgment or comedy at my/our expense. And truly if someone makes fun of you for being a Jedi then they are also making fun of me because I am the same. And guess what? I'm proud of that. It doesn't bother me at all. It doesn't matter if it's negative to other people because it is positive to us. Do you see?

Now does it mean that by being a Jedi we somehow lose sight of our personal struggle vs the group? Not at all. If you get attacked for some personal reason does that mean the Jedi have been attacked? No. But if you were attacked for being a Jedi then it does mean the Jedi are being attacked. Do you see?

If someone refused to hire you because you have bad credit and a felony on your record that's a personal problem. But if someone refused to hire you because you are a Jedi then it's not just a personal problem. It's a group problem because it is the group that is being discriminated against and you are simply a representative of that group which means your case could have happened to any one of us. Therefore, instead of waiting for it to happen randomly to the rest of us we can proactively defend ourselves. Do you see?

The difference between being a Jedi and being black is this. Everything I just said applies except "black" is not something you can easily hide; at least not in person. You can't choose to stop being black. You are black. People aren't going to ask you how you see yourself or if you associate with being black before they treat you the same way they treat all black people because their generalizations and stereotypes don't just apply to those who "accept" the label. In America, people don't give a crap about you or what you think if you belong to a group they don't like. Period. You're not going to change their mind or change anything when the one thing about you they don't like is something you can't change. If they see you as the monster, it's not because of a label but rather "the fear of the other", because you're different from them and because they are ignorant.

There are a lot of men that would rather be women and vice versa. Just like there are some black people who bleach their skin in some misguided effort to look white. A gender issue could be the real result of hormones or some biological malformation or imbalance. But with race, it's not about how you feel. It's about your DNA and what it said about you before you were even born. You can try to hide it but you can't change it and trying to do so IS a personal/psychological problem. But not only that, it is mainly a non-acceptance of self based on the influence of the larger society.

I understand your desire to address the treatment of others on an individual level but here's why that's not the best idea. Just like Corona cases you can only try to limit the spread and the fatalities. Every human gets to make mistakes. And if a doctor or a police officer or a judge or a lawyer or a banker all make mistakes in only 1% of cases then it make look like they're doing a good job. And a lot of people think this is okay because they are unlikely to be in that 1%. But if that 1% is due to racism and not really a mistake but an intentional conscious or unconscious bias then for black people it's not 1%. It make be 4-5% if it was 1%. It may be 20-30 percent if it was 4%. It may be 50-60% if it was 6%. I'm not trying to be numerically accurate (way too much work). I'm just trying to show you that what may look okay to the outside world is definitely not okay if you judge racists by individualistic standards. Because again, the math from your perspective may look tolerable but from our perspective it is not.

Another example of this. Serial Killers and Mass Murderers. A lot of people die every single day; so many that we are numb to a certain degree and ignore it. 1,000 people die and its not national news. Some people are so numb to death that its like who cares if someone shoots up a school and kills a bunch of kids. Kids die all the time too, right? But I bet those kids at that school care. Those are their friends and classmates and if it could happen at one school it could happen at many others. Most countries don't even have school shootings at all. What's wrong with the US? So, understanding that we cannot stop mass murders in general we actually do a pretty damn good job at stopping terrorist plots (foreign at least). But of course the FBI doesn't necessarily get credit for all the domestic plots they manage to prevent. But if we should simply accept the reality that people die every day then why invest in police, hospitals, etc. Why not just let nature take it's course? Because if we CAN help... if we CAN prevent bad things from happening, then... shouldn't we? As a society do we not have a duty or responsibility to protect each other? At the very least, we should protect those who are more vulnerable and form a strong force to combat strong forces that arise to do us harm. Alcohol kills even though its legal; even though it is safe if used responsibly. Still, there is AA, MAD, and other organizations out there to fight alcohol abuse. PETA fights for the protection of animals. Animals also die every day, often by other animals. And sometimes it seems like animals are definitely treated better than humans.

So, to me, it isn't tolerable to address these issues on an individual level and only bother with how people in general are being treated. Because if you can't tell there is a problem you can't fix it. And if you're too busy trying not to see color you wont see when people of color are getting mistreated because of their color. Nor is that mistreatment somehow going to magically disappear if they recant their color like some kind of Christian heretic facing the inquisition. Should they also give up their association with Jesus in order to gain better treatment? Of course not. They're not the ones who are wrong so why should they change themselves?

https://www.templeofthejediorder.org/forum/Jediism/123775-what-does-it-mean-to-be-a-modern-day-jeddist