Is Trumps Boarder Wall Antithetical To Jedi Doctrine?

@KerouacsGhost

That was excellent.


@Carlos, Adder

I really like what KG said about the past. We've all heard the saying about how those who don't know the past are doomed to repeat it. In practice, there are a lot of kids who make light (and fun) of slavery out of ignorance. I wasn't there. Neither were they. And yet they often joke about it. You almost can't play an online shooter without hearing the N-word. And why is it? Parents are pretending it didn't happen as far as teaching their children right from wrong. Why do we even learn history in schools? And how is it that the US can provide an education that doesn't terrify students with the horrible acts of inhumanity and depravity that America was built on? I don't bring this up... I don't talk about racism AT ALL... because I'm focused on the past. It's because I'm focused on the future. And I have children. And what kind of world are we leaving for the next generation? Are they going to get discriminated against? Several of them have already been mocked and derided for being black; hearing things that I never heard growing up. So it feels like we're going backwards.

People want to focus on the positives and the progress being made. I see that too. I live it. I live in luxury compared to many people I know and love. So even though I have all these things I never forget where I came from and what other people who look like me go through and struggle through. I think rap culture is highly misunderstood; including by many rappers themselves. People see all the "bling" and don't understand that all that consumerism and spending is an over reaction to the poverty and scarcity of resources in the hood. Everything is relative. A lot of people survive and do things to survive on the hopes of a better future. This image of "wealth" and success in the form of expensive jewelry, cars, women, etc. is like an economic prayer of hope for those who need it. Often that rapper doesn't have half the stuff he raps about. It's all about the image. And if people strive for that image, maybe they'll never reach it but it's something to hold on to. It's a street sermon; not the kind I'm into, but these images being displayed don't mean that everything's okay because all that racism and slavery stuff is all over now. I'm glad KG brought up the criminal justice system because that is a big part of it and people don't realize that slavery "ended" in what was more of a compromise. There could be a whole threat just on the Prison Industrial Complex and how they determine how many beds they'll need. But right now the idea I most want to combat is this idea of past sins being or staying in the past.

Dylan Roof isn't in his 80s. All these tiki torch people aren't in retirement homes. They represent something more than just the older age of Ronald Reagan. No, these are people who believe America belongs to them and they want their country back. If you fought for America, the question is what America, whose America were you fighting for? They don't care what color you were, fighting for the red, white, and blue. For them, it is their birthright. And it is within that context that they, privileged, want to enforce and further restrict immigration policy because they want The United States to be for white people. So when Trump said "s-hole countries" it wasn't a fluke or personal gaff. He was speaking for them and they love him for it. Trump's die-hard support is willing to overlook his many flaws, allegations, and possibly even criminality, all because he reflects their xenophobia. That's where this border wall debate comes from. It's not about enforcing America's laws; especially when they are misdemeanor crimes analogous to jay walking or speeding. And what red-blooded American under the age of 50 always drives under the speed limit?

So no. It's comical that we can pretend this debate is actually about the merits of immigration. In reality it is about the Trump doctrine as a weapon aimed at people of color. And that's why this discussion cannot be had without talking about minority communities. The same people who aren't outraged at all by Walmart, because they benefit from cheap foreign labor, don't really care as long as they can get 15% off. But when they think they're competing for the remaining (un-outsourced or non-outsourceable) jobs with "other" people then they start questioning who should be here because the question is really who should be able to get those jobs and prosper in this country. And the answer to that question is based on who feels the greatest amount of "ownership" with regard to this country. And when these same people think about "who built it"... they don't think about the actual slave and Hispanic and Native labor. They think of the masters, plantations, corporations of "owners". And because they often live in that past; a past of slavery and genocide, they VOTE in the present day based on those same ideas. And whether it's through their rebel flags, or their monuments and statues of racist generals; traitors to the United States, they don't let us forget either.

The past becomes the future.

From the present we can look back in hindsight and trace the problems of today back to their source. Imagine fighting a virus like covid-19 without any contact tracing whatsoever because "the past is the past". No. The past isn't just the past. It's a thread. Just like I can look back pages in this thread to inform me about how we got to this point in the discussion and what I've tried to say before already, the past informs us to all the things we've tried, some more successfully than others, but things we need to know and consider. Where we most likely all agree is that the past doesn't have to define you. If you had racist ideas years ago you don't need to still hang on to those. If you made mistakes in the past, don't forget them. Learn from them. Grow. A tree has rings that trace their history. That history is still part of the tree. It simply builds upon it's own past and grows into the future. We can do the same. But if we understand the threads that connect us to each other, we should also understand those threads connect us to each other in the past, present, and future. And we should be mindful of how it all flows. Because that too, is the Force.

For me- the past becomes the future when ya don’t do anything to change it.

Choices made for me and all that ... the ones I don’t.

Thing you can do to change it differs as sword play - martial arts and cake flavors. It all depends on who’s doing it and why.

....
If you teach others of blind hate - they can identify it them self’s. Can’t tell ya how many times my 7 year old boy “helps” me with this very thing.
It’s real and it often gets me to the quick - but that’s the idea.

As far as generations go - much hate will pass when others do. Don’t pass the stuff ya don’t want.

Easy to say - waaaaaaaay more difficult to do.

Keep on
Pastor Carlos

For sure somethings history is vital to understanding something. But of course it's not just racism, there are various types of discriminatory vitriol and actions... each potentially as devastating as the next at the level of the individual or group. I think the difference between winners and losers in struggle is that one group defines themselves by the suffering and the other defines themselves by the overcoming of suffering, at least in my experience of these things. The important part for everyone IMO is to be enables of overcoming suffering, not letting it define ones present, for that is just living in the past and being doomed to make novel iterations of the past mistakes. Knowing the past is not enough to move past it, no pun intended. Otherwise each persons struggle will tend to blind them to other peoples pain.... one of the funky things about pain is it changes a person, defines them, if it hangs around (or is worn) long enough.

But to the thread about a wall, I'm not sure it would be racist anyway.... I think it's more about the security and economic factors, such that if it were occurring on the Northern border the US might try the same thing!! How impossible would that one be!! :silly:

Knowing the past is not enough to move past it, no pun intended. Otherwise each persons struggle will tend to blind them to other peoples pain.... one of the funky things about pain is it changes a person, defines them, if it hangs around (or is worn) long enough.

But to the thread about a wall, I'm not sure it would be racist anyway.... I think it's more about the security and economic factors, such that if it were occurring on the Northern border the US might try the same thing!! How impossible would that one be!! :silly:


I have to agree here - the wall isn’t a race thing more than a national thing. I mean we can see things as we like- value comes from the eyes looking and the heart that sees - value is very - relative in this manner. If you look at the wall and see race that’s you, I guess , can’t make anyone see what I see - although I wish some days I could trade places. That’s one of the Joys of Art - no one piece can ever mean the same thing to two exact people. Never happen.


Truthfully - some actions are obviously something - drawn or directed - can’t tell people’s intentions all the time but ... that’s life I guess right? I don’t go around calling every “injustice” I see anything... ill walk around the back and make contact .... pssst need a blanket ? Pssst need anything ?
Most of the game changing ideas have come from DIRECT contact.
I know a guy named Tim who has a ranch near the border. I know a guy named Bill. Bill sets traps - Tim sets water and resources and care packages. At the end they both sleep well. Regardless of me.

Something to think about
Pastor Carlos

Adder: that one group defines themselves by the suffering and the other defines themselves by the overcoming of suffering, at least in my experience of these things.

I have to disagree with this on the weak basis of semantics. How people define themselves is an individual choice. There are multiple individuals making that same choice which then makes a group. I'm making this distinction because I don't know what "group" you're talking about. So there will always be "groups" of individuals who choose the same path simply because there are limited paths and many many individuals. Eventually, you can start to form opinions about what percentage of people will go through the door on the left vs the door on the right.

However, depending on how one thinks, those opinions about which path people will take can be based on a perception of what "group" they belong to. And this is how discrimination begins. Some people will respond to intense poverty by breaking the law to survive. Some of those people will be black and some will be brown. That's because everyone wants to survive.

Freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition. Right to keep and bear arms in order to maintain a well regulated militia. ... Right to due process of law, freedom from self-incrimination, double jeopardy.

All these rights are all about one thing. Survival. No group is less deserving of survival than another. Black, White, Asian, Hispanic, Native, Immigrant, Gay, Straight, etc. We hold these truths to be self-evident.

That's the promise of America and the potential we are constantly working to build. It is the standard we're constantly trying to get to and fighting for. And it doesn't say "All Americans" are created equal, but "all men (which includes women)". This is why the statue of liberty was gifted and why it says:

"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

America has no problems going out into the world, planting flags and military bases in foreign lands, getting involved in other nations politics, playing global police, and seeking out the cheapest labor around the world. And we're not even going to talk about American mining operations in Africa or world trade, open stock markets, etc. Donald Trump only even has money because he was able to borrow money from foreign banks. The United States owes debt to other nations as well, especially China.

All of this has greatly benefited the United States and helped to make it what it is. All the work and effort from immigrants helped to make the US what it is. People in the US didn't even realize how cheap their gas was before. And now we want to pretend that the US got to where it is by itself and therefore should withdraw into itself and keep out the same people who work on our farms, who help build and rebuild our houses and roads, who watch over our children, who cook and clean in our houses, etc. If we weren't employing them they would go back. If we weren't benefiting from them coming here we wouldn't pay them and they'd have no reason to come. You don't need a wall. You simply need to recognize a simple truth about economics.

Supply and Demand.

So it's cute and all... to say that the wall is about economics. It's not. Americans love cheap labor. That's my most of our products say "made in China". And isn't capitalism all about competition? Don't we like that prices get lower because of competition? So let's not kid ourselves. How is it that Hispanics are able to come in and work for less and previous immigrants cannot compete? Shouldn't they "pick themselves up by their bootstraps" and simply make themselves more competitive? Isn't the wall a type of hand out for them? Isn't the wall sort of a big government assistance for the welfare of the less competitive populations in America who feel threatened by newer waves of immigrants?

And the reality is that Americans of all income levels hire cheaper workers in order to save money and also make money. And the same people complaining about it could also create businesses and hire them and profit from the savings. If they don't then whose fault is that? Or are they concerned that all these people are being exploited? ROFL. No, of course they aren't. They don't even care what many of these immigrants are trying to escape from. Their just scared of them taking or eventually taking their hypothetical jobs and having to actually improve themselves and have more than a elementary, middle school, and high school education.

And we saw the same thing with the creation of unions when black people were suddenly free and were entering the paid labor markets. (Some) Poor whites were threatened and actually less skilled than their ex-slave counterparts. This is part of the reason they began attacking them and fighting for segregation. They felt like their survival was threatened and instead of making themselves better and more competitive they started a propaganda campaign against black workers that has perpetuated to this day and been secretly adopted into "the system", into the mechanisms of government, law enforcement, and private businesses in order to discriminate. So what we can see is that FEAR causes a certain other group to feel threatened and to lash out. Same thing happens with the LGBT community and those who oppose them as if marriage is under attack; as if heterosexuality is being threatened.

People want to focus on the victims and whether or not they should feel victimized and whether or not they're at fault for the way this other group is treating them. And it's easy to say "pick yourself up by your boot straps" and make the conversation about the victim of persecution's own ability to survive in the face of discrimination and persecution when it wasn't THAT long ago that Christians came to America fleeing persecution and when women were persecuted and essentially lynched for being strong. Society didn't like that and people were jealous so instead of dealing with their own fear and weakness they labeled them witches.

Do you see? This conversation is too often focused on victims when it is the PERSECUTOR that should be under the spotlight. These people always escape to persecute and discriminate another day because no one wants to own the fact that they are the problem! Why? Because some of them are our friends and family? We fought a civil war against our friends and family; because it was right. And they were on the wrong side and now that side wants to still exist and still remind those they persecuted that they still wish they had won and they still see things the same way because fighting never changed their minds but we still pretend like these old mindsets are over and done and in the past.

And they're not. THAT is the reality that those who are persecuted face everyday, not knowing where that persecution will come from or what form it will take.

So it doesn't matter whether or not YOU can move on and let something go, if the bully, the persecutor, the inquisition, the KKK, the Nazis, the Skinheads, many police officers and judges, the kids telling your kids to go back to Africa, the president calling places that black and brown people came from "s-hole countries" from his soap box as POTUS, and all the people who hated Obama and made racist images about him and his wife, and the list goes on and on... Many of these people are completely powerless to effect my life. But some of them are in a position to and many of them, when voting together, absolutely have that power. And David Duke knew it. And when he said "that's our guy" people just like him knew it too. And that's where this wall comes from. We went into another country to tear down a wall and now the people who seem to always escape judgment and justice, they want to build one here for the same reason. And that's how the past will always come back to haunt you if you don't LEARN from it.

Can we not stand against it? Can we not determine to do the right thing without regard to personal benefit? Can we not see beyond the surface and see what this wall is and what it represents? Come on. You want to be Jedi? Be Jedi. See through the cloud of the dark side to the truth of the matter. We're already repeating history.

Who is this “WE” you speak of ?
The dark side - I hear that a lot - lately - know everyone has their their own dark side - their own hidden fears - their own undisclosed info - it’s human more than Jeddist.

Be smart and be cautious where you place your focus.
This is coming from some one who has burned out countless times caring a bit too much. It’s different for everyone but at some point of caring there is - IS - a level that will be reached when you need a recharge or break. My hope in life is that for every thing I call injustice I can find 2 or 3 ( infrequent 3 often) that are giving - or unselfish or even acts of kindness. I’ve been down my own road of thinking that everything’s never gunna be up to my par and it didn’t work for me. The study of Zen helped me - greatly. Buts that’s just from one person sharing. That’s all. Thank you for sharing. I understand you. I don’t have to agree or disagree to hold your value inherent. You are one voice in my many more growing ideas of what really - IS. Good stuff. Thanks for still being a part.

Carlos.Martinez3 wrote: Who is this “WE” you speak of ?

When I say WE know that I include myself as part of history; as partially responsible for what happens next. I'm sure you know the parable of the Good Samaritan. This was a man who, by Israelite logic, should not have cared. It wasn't "his problem". While the Israelites were concerned about who they should help because they were trying to qualify people as their "neighbor", this man simply saw the NEED and responded to it.

So when I say WE... there's no disrespect intended. I simply mean that whether we help, care, or not... no matter what our focus is on or how zen we are, we're all "there" experiencing time together as the present fades into the past. We're all part of the story. We're simply not all the hero in the story. But we can choose to be. That's the Hero's Journey. We can choose not to stand by and say "that's not happening to me so I don't care". We can choose to see something wrong and speak up and out about it. We can choose to donate our time and money.

In the days after the tornado hit my house someone I didn't know and who didn't ask for a dime, came into my community just to help out. I shook his hand but that was about it. He was part of history to me and that was something I will always remember. Because he didn't have to volunteer. He simply chose to. Others chose to drive through my street just to see the devastation. Some people drove by with bottles of water. One person was handing out food. It's amazing how people can come together as a community when they make themselves part of history and don't just see it as something that happens.

So yes, it is a choice whether to do something or not but WE are always part of the story, whether we're helping or just driving by. The question is what side of history do you want to be on?

ZealotX wrote:

Carlos.Martinez3 wrote: Who is this “WE” you speak of ?

When I say WE know that I include myself as part of history; as partially responsible for what happens next. I'm sure you know the parable of the Good Samaritan. This was a man who, by Israelite logic, should not have cared. It wasn't "his problem". While the Israelites were concerned about who they should help because they were trying to qualify people as their "neighbor", this man simply saw the NEED and responded to it.

Also, I just want to point out that if we were to superimpose this story onto modern America, the Samaritan would be Mexican helping an American. Because the Israelites also looked down on the Samaritans like dogs; so busy worried about their own bloodlines and who rightfully owned what... and meanwhile the best example of what JC taught about being what they were all supposed to be... was someone who they thought had no right to the land they owned (and by owned I mean stolen from the Canaanites). These people were so entitled and the biggest barrier to their spirituality was their religion; thinking that as long as they obeyed the law they were good. As if that wasn't the barest of bare minimums.

The ugly truth was that there was a higher standard than that. And while they were judging each other based on the law (like we are judging immigrants for crossing the border illegally) they were missing the more terrible crime of ignoring the suffering of their fellow man... even their fellow Israelites. So I think it is a very valid question to this day.

Who is my neighbor? Does it stop at the border? Or is it a larger concept that encompasses all those around me?

ZealotX wrote: Adder: that one group defines themselves by the suffering and the other defines themselves by the overcoming of suffering, at least in my experience of these things.

I have to disagree with this on the weak basis of semantics. How people define themselves is an individual choice. There are multiple individuals making that same choice which then makes a group. I'm making this distinction because I don't know what "group" you're talking about.

The context was there..... in the post your replying and partially quoting out of context from; the two groups were identified by the language 'winners and losers' for the want of a better term. The implication being they start as the same group and its their definition of the struggle which creates the difference. A better term might be overcomers of sufferers and those who don't. It's a simple point about healing a problem rather then cutting it out with a rusty knife. The mechanism is fundamentally having a plan, and being the change one wants... so the context of action in addressing problems is productive rather then confrontationally reductive.

The reason its economic is not 'cute and all', that would just be one way to interpret it which suits an argument while introducing a dismissive turn of phrase? Having 'a' single point to argue does not an argument make, but it does make for argumentation because it draws out each point over time such that people either get bored and stop or forget what they've already talked about and go around in circles! If you make and explain everything in terms of slavery then everything is going to look like its related to it.... correlation does not imply causation. It's a trap of defining everything in a limited frame of reference, the wrong causes incite further confusion, conflict and are counterproductive to the progress already made by others.

I agree about the persecutor. I've always said the persecutor needs to be persecuted, that is not what is being argued by me at least. I'm arguing for victims not to become persecutors. Which is why I keep making the point victims are victims of a variety of things, and so it should be less about ones particular type of suffering as being the problem, and instead the act of discrimination itself as a category.... rather then any flavor of racism which one might have most interest in.

ZealotX wrote: Who is my neighbor? Does it stop at the border? Or is it a larger concept that encompasses all those around me?

I think these relationships are defined not by type (as that would be discriminatory), but by action. It's a bit cold to discuss system dynamics about problems of human suffering, but unfortunately there is too many people in the world for the people in the world to care as much as the people in the world would ideally like. Not everyone can get want they want, or what others are getting, but that is not an excuse to take it.

As I said early in the piece, you cannot apply the measures and standards of how you'd treat an individual to a problem at the level of mass trans-national migration across a border. Just like it would be unrealistic to expect one nation to try and solve a problem while others were not, or even worse fueling it. Political systems work to serve economic systems, and economic systems work within legal structures, and those legal structures work to serve the people.... because people are the systems, but these systems cannot just change size and shape rapidly nor be expected to cater to other systems or interference from them. Well... they can, but they become ineffective and fail. The relationships between different levels of organizational effects need to be aligned and free flowing, otherwise like in communism they get top heavy and the feet get frost bite and die. The spice must flow, lol, in simpler terms perhaps - one can afford to exert a level of interaction between someone 'closer' then someone 'removed' from the capability (to measure and adjust each others participation). The less control available the less capability can be applied (either way), but its a two way street and once one party indicates it's not willing to develop a strong relationship then it has to limit the capability offered to that connection.

I'm not sure since when it was considered normal or acceptable to just cross national borders without permission, it's usually an offence. The exception is refugee's but determining whether one is actually a refugee or just a poor person is the difficult bit. If all the poor people decided it was nicer to pitch a tent in your lawn, your lawn would like where they left before too long. I think this problem would be resolved if the UN would alter the refugee policy such that claims of refugee status could only be accepted in the closest/first peaceful country to the offending homeland. This would stop the trans-national flood's across the globe which bring with it such suffering and crime to the immigrants, at the downside of the neighbours to failed states. But at least that would give impetus to those neighbours to be more involved in their regions stability and centralize the problem of refugee's so appropriate international supports could be bought to bear. At least it would help stop the slavery and human trafficking so prevalent in those places.

Good grief, are we still going on about this!?!?! :ohmy:

And I thought Congress was adept at wasting time... :huh: :pinch: :whistle:

Wescli Wardest wrote: Good grief, are we still going on about this!?!?! :ohmy:

And I thought Congress was adept at wasting time... :huh: :pinch: :whistle:

It's possible that people who choose to keep talking about a particular subject do so because they continue to get something out their participation. Just because it's not your cup of tea doesn't mean it's not beneficial. How long have people been discussing Jesus? 2000 years? And many of them will continue because to them the job isn't finished until Jesus comes back. So excuse us, but can we let conversations continue until the people having them feel like stopping?

Adder: The implication being they start as the same group and its their definition of the struggle which creates the difference. A better term might be overcomers of sufferers and those who don't.

I'm not sure so I'm asking.

Are you assuming that people who complain about racism are "sufferers" and those who don't are "over comers"? (because I've heard this type of sentiment before) If so, I don't think this is a fair assumption because people can walk and chew gum at the same time. I can complain about racism while making almost six figures and know others who do the same. Because part of it is not just seeing and speaking on what happens to you as an individual but you as a "group". This comes with the understanding that you are seen as part of that group and therefore, no matter who you are or how much you enjoy jogging, you can still be viewed by others as a burglar suspect. And unfortunately I don't have to use my imagination for this. I'm talking about Ahmaud Arbery. Not only have there been no arrests, but the obvious thing to me is that no body saw Arbery committing a crime. And just like George Zimmerman, the actual danger isn't the black guy jogging or the black guy walking down an alley wearing a hoodie. The danger is the people who automatically suspect them of being criminals when they aren't even law enforcement. These would be the first people who would get agitated if they felt like they weren't living in a free country but they make it less free for other people.

In this scenario it doesn't matter ONE BIT whether the jogger, walker, etc. thinks they are an over comer or a sufferer. It would actually be to their benefit to think about the dangers they face so they have a better idea how to react and respond when this danger (typically from white Americans) actually comes. For instance, in one real life example, the black guy notified the officer that there was a gun present in the car and that he had a permit. Still he ended up shot with his girlfriend and her baby in the car. What did he do wrong?

In many scenarios racism is something that happens to the person because it's about how OTHER PEOPLE view you. It's not about how you view yourself. You are a victim simply by being victimized. And so the fact that this threat exists is not avoidable and something that every black person should be prepared for. In order to be prepared we cannot be ignorant to the problem. And when it keeps happening to us, ignorance becomes less and less possible. Parents are concerned about their sons, if nothing else, because even if a child isn't aware that they are hated and feared, their parents know. And they worry about what can happen to their INNOCENT child. Arbery was 100% innocent when he died; just as many black people are innocent when they don't get a job or they get passed over time and time again for a promotion. It happens. We know it happens. We know because we keep experiencing it and we share our experiences. It's simply more rare that we share those same experiences with white Americans.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2019/10/22/more-than-people-have-been-lynched-us-trump-isnt-one-them/

In the end, being the change I want means being successful while being able to spark and participate in more conversations about race to raise awareness and to share perspectives so that we can gradually shift the culture to one of more empathy (which benefits more than just victims of racism) in general. But to achieve empathy people have to be able to feel someone else's pain and imagine what it would be like to be in their shoes. What if that was their family. What if they themselves didn't feel safe just jogging, not because they were scared of criminals like what should be normal, but because they were scared of everyone else. One of the worst things about racism is that we don't know who is racist. We really don't. There's no face tattoo or mole in a certain place; not Hitler mustache we can all see. It could be anyone and therefore you don't know who might be the threat. It's like the woman in the red dress in the Matrix. You have to assume that everyone could be an agent the same way that so-called law abiding citizens assume that everyone (but for racists, especially black people) could be a criminal. And so when they should see something as normal behavior (someone running because they like to run and do it for exercise) they see something else. They project intent onto that otherwise innocent person because they imagine their guilt. It's not just terrible. It's terrorizing. And when Dylan Roof shot up the church that is exactly what he wanted to achieve. Terror. And it is a continuation of the same thing people wanted to achieve with confederate statues and flags. These things then become "Dog whistles". Non racists either don't know what they mean or allow themselves to think it means whatever they say it means. And it becomes "just history" or "just" whatever. And it's downplayed like it's not a problem at all.

Adder: one can afford to exert a level of interaction between someone 'closer' then someone 'removed' from the capability (to measure and adjust each others participation). The less control available the less capability can be applied (either way), but its a two way street and once one party indicates it's not willing to develop a strong relationship then it has to limit the capability offered to that connection.

I understand perfectly, but this is the problem. As I said in earlier posts, racism is like a virus that is concentrated in different more isolated communities. The more dense the white population is the less likely they are getting adequately exposed to black people and so their image of black people is often based on anecdotes and stereotypes and movies. Shows like Blackish are good as they bring up many of the same topics I do in approachable comical forms but racists don't necessarily watch these shows because they really don't want to have their views challenged or changed. They just assume they're right. And because they don't actually know black people, and therefore far removed, it is easier not to care and to treat them less than human. For the same reason they are probably not going to talk to me or have a real conversation with me about race; especially if they believe their race is superior. But their also far removed from you and others who I would say are more evolved in their thinking. It's like they have the disease and you have the antibodies. A lot of people have been under the assumption that if we don't talk about it, it will go away on its own. It hasn't. And that's because these isolated communities are echo chambers where the virus is constantly reinforced and jumping from person to person. These people often lead very different lives but sometimes those lives overlap and that's where racists are able to victimize minorities.

If these isolated communities had direct exposure to black people that would help. But they don't and typically what you said about being "removed" means that they don't care enough to empathize. But my thing is that if a BAD IDEA, like racism, can be spread virally then it makes sense, at least in my head, that a cure... a GOOD IDEA, can also be spread virally. And communities isolated from minorities may not get such a cure from minorities themselves, but could get that cure from other communities that think differently but share more of their culture and especially its corresponding historical identity as they are more likely to marry and have children with others of that same identity. There are other communities where there are a lot of interracial couples, and often that influence makes more room for interracial couples and pushes very hard against racist ideas. I've seen it. So to mean the removal thing you spoke about is 100% true; however, it can also be overcome. Just not by minorities directly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbDj8jaialk

For anyone who says "I don't see color" please start watching this video at the 26 min mark. This is not a judgment against you if you say this. Again, the point is so that you can have more productive conversations with people of color.

Nah she is incorrect to assert that is why people say it. Yes I'm sure it might be why 'some' say it, but for others they simply don't need to focus on one groups struggle to acknowledge and focus on the dynamics of dealing with it. At the level of interpersonal relations the application of equality not only does not need a focus on a groups individual struggle, it can be counter-productive to assume that is the only struggle or an accurate representation. Much better to view people as people, and approach things on an equal footing IMO.

But of course my answer might beg the point that things are never equal and not all people are going to be acting fairly, but that is not relevant to this point because I'm talking about the defensive of a point of view from mis-characterization like the lady in the video above.

I guess at a deeper level the problem with her point is, and perhaps your point, these concepts of race are not universal. If they are not, then why bother applying them as seeing people by them. It all comes off as a bit preachy to the choir, because if you tell a racist to see race then its not really helping. So it seems to be more about setting a narrative of emotion by race rather then any measure of anti-discrimination by any real measure.

PS: sorry I didn't see your earlier reply back in April.
From a super super quick look back at it, I'd say no, rather it's about change over time, such that both group were victims but only one retains the suffering as a paradigm to interpret reality such that things become defined as if they were a victim and as a result still are suffering - compared to those victims who overcame it and whilst still no doubt not entirely without suffering are distinct in that they are more able to be tied up in the counter-productive elements of suffering to act more effectively.

Although I admire Jane Elliot : I’ve never met physically the people she always speaks of.

For me - and just me - no one else has to vibe or bibe this way at all but I see a lot of arguments that are either some one else or something else - rarley first hand. Though a lot of what she says is first hand - that’s the part I appreciate and have trouble with. Just me. Sounds like a lot of projection, and that’s really my beef - that’s all. It may not be projection but from here - that’s what it looks like

I've always said, everyone doesn't necessarily mean the same thing when they say it. The point IS that these concepts of race are not universally understood. That, my brother, is why I was presenting a more universal statement of saying the same thing without offending anyone. And then ironically, some people seemed offended at my suggestion. Like I had broken through some kind of political correctness dimension that they didn't want to be limited by.

The point is how things are said vs how things are understood and this can be affected by region and culture. If you're a white person in the US you might hear this and say this and mean something different. If you're a white person in Australia you might say this, thinking it isn't at all controversial, and you can mean to be as least offensive as possible and literally be surprised when someone is offended. And therefore you might take their offense to be their problem. That's not an unlikely or unreasonable scenario.

But it's like asking them to not be offended to bend to your meaning because you're trying to say something positive instead of bending to their meaning and understanding why they are offended and seeing what you're saying as negative.




Jane Elliot, as she explains, is famous for providing "experiences" where people are able to confront their biases. She exposed how these biases can result in oppression. And she did this with classes of students and adults. The results have been consistent enough that she is famous for it. And so she's not simply speaking from her personal opinion but from an opinion academically educated and well reasoned from these group experiences. Her frustration started during the civil rights movement and hearing responses from the white community to Martin Luther King. That's what started her down this path. It really is fascinating, but she was able to confirm a lot of the feelings and suspicions black people have had because we've been quietly dealing with this for hundreds of years. It's so common place that many white people simply aren't conscious of it. And that's her point; that it's unconscious. You can be racist and really not even know it. I know that sounds impossible to a lot of people. But these biases don't always come out until they are tested. Do I think you are unconsciously racist? Probably not. It's really the product of nurture and societal norms. When a group decides that, for example, "brown eyes" are superior and then blue eyes become a lower class. Eventually, negative stereotypes get attached to having blue eyes.

...or blond hair...

It doesn't matter what that physical difference is, it's simply the difference itself. That's why I don't like the statement, that a person doesn't see color because it's not literally true. Unless you're a K9 you do see color. But what you see should be that there is nothing wrong with that color or pigmentation or lack thereof. Saying I don't see color is like saying you don't hear words. Of course you hear words. Of course you receive stimuli. The problem isn't the stimuli but your reaction to it.

There's many things you can say. Jane Elliot likes to say there are many colors but there's only 1 race. That's totally true and acceptable and the only people who should be offended by that are racists who want there to be multiple "races". But are there different colors? Yes, of course there are. And color is beautiful. Who wants to see all flowers in black and white? So, when I hear that phrase, it, to me, sounds like the person wants to ignore something that to me is beautiful. I understand that may not be what you mean, but that was my point. That if you (people in general) want to be understood better and have more effective conversations on race it'd be better to stay away from certain rhetoric even though it seems to be okay by the amount of white people who use it.

I think what you posted here is a much more logical way than is presented to the average white person in the US. It makes it very reasonable to me, however leaves me with a question.

So both sides of the conversation, the rhetoric is causing an interference between the parties?

Rhetoric can be an issue of context, implied and literal meaning.

This causes both parties in the conversation to prejudge the other by a misunderstanding of what one means to the other?

How do we fix that? There has to be a point where we come together.


Much Love, Respect and Peace,
Kobos

Thank you.

I think it's simple. There are many scenarios in which one side of the table lacks the knowledge, insight, and experience, the other side of the table has on that subject. So the side that knows more should lead the subject. If we're talking about women's rights/equality you can't "mansplain" what women should know or think on that issue. It would be silly. But it doesn't stop men from doing it. Sarah Silverman made a video that comically talked about the gender cap specifically in terms of wages. Still, a lot of men feel that "male privilege" doesn't exist. Why? Because they're using their limited experiences and trying to impose their view of the world upon a woman who can literally look at the statistics and see that women are paid less. And this even accounts for maternity leave.

If we think about how we should treat women, and how sexism is still a thing, it would be silly to tell women that you don't see their gender. Do women seeking to be equal mean they don't want you to be a gentleman or that they don't want any compliments? Maybe there are people who say "I don't see your gender" but how does every woman react to this? Does it sound genuine? Or does it sound like something men made up to make themselves sound like they weren't sexist?

Ultimately, this needs to be more of a listening experience where we listen to the experiences of those who have a story to tell; whether its oppression in the form of sexism, racism, homophobia, molestation, etc. Listen so we can understand and ask questions here and there (Respectfully) when we don't.

The answer is in the understanding. Because if you understand 2+2=4 you wont be going around saying 2+2=5. And if your kids hear you say 2+2=4 then they wont be running around with the wrong answer too. And when their friend says 2+2=5 they can correct them (and trust me they will if children feel comfortable enough with the answer). So this works even with the definition of racism that we use. That too is part of the problem for us getting on the same page. But the biggest thing is to listen and try to understand. Don't try to mansplain gender or whitesplain race.

Because it is entirely possible that you don't know the whole story; that you don't know what you don't know. And that's okay.

I agree completely. Now one of the things I have to ask about is are or were we not making progress on those fronts at all? Things are drastically different than even 10 years ago.

I would also like to ask, when listening who do we listen too? There are many experiences, how do we judge history against this as we shift a definition so deeply ingrained in society? Again do we see any progress? Do we trust everyone who responds?

The last thing I have to ask is because we just had a good discussion here (at least a great start IMHO). So, I have been able to make sense as I am sure many here have. Now, how do we make that message one can understand with out this form of conversation (to appeal to more without making them feel threatened and guilty instead of truly enlightening them)?

Much Love, Respect and Peace,
Kobos

“
I would also like to ask, when listening who do we listen too? There are many experiences, how do we judge history against this as we shift a definition so deeply ingrained in society? Again do we see any progress? Do we trust everyone who responds? “


This is the biggest thing for me. I don’t trust just anyone. My fault. I’m working on it.

It’s - for me - ingrained in the “acceptance” rather than tolerant.

I like to validate. It’s the Jedi in me I guess or the soldier.

This is why Joseph C. is still hard for me to read all the way through - I have to find out what he’s talking about.

THESE type of ideas seem to merry go round untill you get off the idea or ride. That’s just for me personally.

Some days I just have to take peoples word for it.
Acceptance can be a distraction as well as frustrating but in the end it’s worth it for me.

Sad this day we live in - some experiences arnt real - some folk just want the attention - some are just bored... some need some want - what a mess to sift through - every time. .... every time .... every time ....

What a mess

My hope is that every modern day Jedi understand the need for personal balance. Ya gotta have it. You can have it -

I am a Jedi, an instrument of peace;

Where there is hatred I shall bring love;
Where there is injury, pardon;
Where there is doubt, faith;
Where there is despair, hope;
Where there is darkness, light;
And where there is sadness, joy.

But.... you gotta figure it out - on your own- for you-

Have


What a good word today





Have