The Sum of Their Fears
“You may take the most gallant sailor, the most intrepid airman or the most audacious soldier, put them at a table together—what do you get? The sum of their fears.”
——Winston Churchill
The idea that the stench of Racism is somehow less pungent because it is no longer socially acceptable to be openly and overtly racist is antithetical to the idea that systemic and institutional racism are a societal plague and a blot on the nation’s character.
Euphemisms and platitudes employed in the place of the epithets and invectives that were in vogue and acceptable in times past have not made the racism which is baked into the political, social, and cultural DNA of this country less hurtful, harmful, damaging, destructive, and divisive…
Racism is the ambience of the national environment. Racism is as ubiquitous and prolific as the air we breathe. It permeates every aspect of the lives and livelihoods of every black man, woman, and child in this country…
Racism is everywhere. The effect and impact of racism is inescapable…
The fact that White folks are loathe to wear their racism on their sleeves or shout it from their rooftops for fear of being stigmatized and ostracized by their families, friends, and neighbors is not evidence of the the notion that racism is waning or receding from the body politik.
It simply means that the White folks who are caught out and called out for their open and overt racism are less adroit at ambiguity, avoidance and hypocritical denial….
Both Bitey and Koshersalaami have questioned and pondered the veracity and validity of my assertion that most of the white people in this country are racists. Neither are able to state conclusively or with conviction that my determination is wrong. Both have left the question open and open ended. Both seem to deal with the matter with some trepidation. Neither has come to the table prepared to address the very real possibility and prospect that the contention is accurate and correct.
The question that looms like the proverbial elephant in the room is:
What if Ron’s right? What if most of the white people in America would allow this country to slip back into the darkness of Jim Crow segregation and Constitutional apartheid?
The fight to save, preserve and defend the American Democratic Republic is inextricably linked to the social and political fate of American nonwhite populations.
The majority of white folks continue to remain indifferent or ignore this salient fact of American political and social life. They do so at the risk of losing the democracy to the forces of autocracy and authoritarianism….
The events of January 6th are clear and convincing evidence of the fact that this country cannot and will not survive a second coming….
“If you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; … if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.”
——Sun Tzu
01/29/2021 @ 12:19 pm
“…Both Bitey and Koshersalaami have questioned and pondered the veracity and validity of my assertion that most of the white people in this country are racists…”
I would be the “validity” part of this quote. I think you make a fair assessment here…of my view, and of the larger question.
That said, I think your assessment makes my point. Again, I agree with all of it. The thing of it is, if racism is some completely systemic, it is much easier to not be conscious of it while it affects everything done. The Earth spins at roughly 1,000 miles per hour at the equator, but if you were standing on the equator, you could not detect that it is spinning. The reason is because it is so large. The system moves everything, and hides its effect.
I think, like you explained, that systemic racism is bigger than we generally assume. It is definitely bigger than I had previously assumed. I have said in these pages in the last year that it recently occurred to me that racism is more of a power system, like a caste system, than it is an analysis of interpersonal relationships. We all know of the “Black friend” canard where a racist seeks to deny his racism. If we accept the systemic aspect, we can see how interpersonal conduct and broad social forces are separate branches.
This is also why I say, and have said as recently as yesterday, that racism on the individual level is not particularly interesting to me. I am more concerned with the broader themes which stem from the systemic aspect of racism. So, it is in that difference that I acknowledge that I am the validity of that question.
There was a time when ancient astronomers looked into the sky and saw stars, planets and the Sun moving around the earth, and determined that the earth was centered in the universe. My view is that racism is not revolving around the racist individual. Racism is a system with individuals traveling within the system. It seems to me that, by necessity, a system so large can not be spun by the bad ethics of an individual. Good, bad, or in between, the system is spinning us.
01/29/2021 @ 12:36 pm
Let me do a little bit of clarification of your statement. You said the following.
“Neither are able to state conclusively or with conviction that my determination is wrong…”
First of all, Ron, you have not made a “determination.” You have a theory. A determination is “the process of establishing something exactly by calculation or research.” That is not what happened here. In fact, such a theory is too large to prove. What I said on the previous post where this was discussed was, “I disagree with Ron’s view.” “Ron may be right. I can’t prove otherwise.” What goes along with that, Ron, is that you can’t prove your theory. They are competing theories. There is no “determination”, not in this sense of the word anyway.
And as for the “neither are able to state conclusively or with conviction that my determination is wrong…”
Allow me to state conclusively and with conviction, and at the risk of being repetitive, you have not make a determination. You have a theory. With that, the burden of proof is yours, not mine or anyone else’s. Theories remain open ended until proofs are provided. Proofs are provided by those putting forth the theory. I expected that you already knew that.
01/29/2021 @ 2:28 pm
Your definition of the term “determination” is too narrow to be of use in the context of this post.
I use the term as a synonym for the word or term; ‘conclusion’…
As in the following:
After careful consideration of my experiences, oberservations, and studies on the matter, I have come to the ‘determination or conclusion’ that most of the white people in this country are racists and as such would allow this country to slip back into the darkness of Jim Crow segregation and Constitutional apartheid…
If my conclusion is merely a ‘theory’ that is too large to prove, as you surmise, it follows that as a ‘theory’ it is too large to disprove, and therefore the question(s) remain open and open ended…
01/29/2021 @ 3:59 pm
So was I. You have not made a conclusion, Ron. You have a theory.
If I were to say, it is my determination that I am from Mars. Nothing you have said conclusively or with conviction says that I am wrong…that would not be a theory. Not every assertion is a conclusion. You need evidence and logic for it to be conclusive. Short of that, it is your assertion. Actually, calling it a theory was giving you the benefit of the doubt.
That’s not the only problem with the assertion, Ron. I can go further. You said “most white people.” Can you “conclusively state” that your number, “most”, is not actually merely 50%? Maybe it’s 49%. Maybe its 4.9%. Nothing about your statement is conclusive. You have a vague assertion. If I call it a theory, it is incumbent upon you and only you to present the evidence to make a conclusion. You are operating on a theory. The level of your determination does not make it a logical determination. It makes it a logical theory…at best. I acknowledged from the start that we both have theories. Even the word “most” makes your theory fail because it is unsupported.
01/29/2021 @ 4:09 pm
Let me state it another way. Donald Trump made the determination that the election was stolen from him. He asserted fraud on the part of government officials who did not award him with victory in various states. He went to court in the various states.
Fraud was his theory. Fraud was his conclusion. Was it actually a legal, logical conclusion? No. When asked for evidence, they provided none. They used vague terms alluding to quantity like “landslide”, but they gave no actual evidence indicating landslide, or even victory. They gave no evidence. They were never able to demonstrate that they receive “most” of the votes. Using the term “most” determines, or concludes nothing without evidence. No counter argument was presented. None was needed. The arguments with no evidence were thrown out of court.
01/29/2021 @ 4:21 pm
“I use the term as a synonym for the word or term; ‘conclusion’…
As in the following:
After careful consideration of my experiences, oberservations, and studies on the matter, I have come to the ‘determination or conclusion’ that most of the white people in this country are racists…”
This is also false. That is not how you used the word “determination.” The proof of that is from another of your statements. You said, “…Both have left the question open and open ended. Both seem to deal with the matter with some trepidation. Neither has come to the table prepared to address the very real possibility and prospect that the contention is accurate and correct….”
Now, if you have come to a personal conclusion, it does not require that I or anyone refute it. The fact is, you were not making a statement of personal philosophy. You were attempting to make a statement of fact. That means my “determination” of the word “determination” was accurate. Furthermore, you said that (I’ll speak only for myself here) I came unprepared to address the very real possibility that it is a real possibility…etc. Ron, again, I said I believe you are wrong, but you may be right. Read it again. Read it until you get it. I addressed the possibility that it could be correct. You have only your credibility to salvage here. As for “trepidation”…come now, Ron.
01/29/2021 @ 10:12 pm
‘Trepidation’ in this context relates to your seeming uncertainty….
“Now, if you have come to a personal conclusion, it does not require that I or anyone refute it.”
I can go with this all day long…
I stand by my clarification of my meaning and use of the terminology I’ve chosen to articulate my assertion…
You cannot unilaterally and arbitrarily supplant my intended meaning and then affix a definition of your own making and then respond to it as though your words express my thoughts….
I haven’t yet decided whether that is a bad habit or a neat trick…
Your definition doesn’t work within the context of my intent…
There are shades of meaning in virtually everything written here….
When you write I try to live with your mode of expression as it is…. If I believe something needs clarification I let you, the author, provide it and live with that….
Again, if you honestly believe that my ‘theory’ is too big to prove, why do you continue to insist on ‘proof’.
I find that to be singularly annoying and quite disingenuous….
If there is no answer to the question raised, let the question remain open and open ended because at the end of the day I’ve left you with either something of consequence to think about or nothing that you need to concern yourself with at all…
I’m good with that either way….
01/29/2021 @ 10:44 pm
I’ll start with the same quote Bitey did:
“Both Bitey and Koshersalaami have questioned and pondered the veracity and validity of my assertion that most of the white people in this country are racists.”
No, Ron, I haven’t. That is absolutely not what I questioned.
What I questioned was your assertion that the majority of the White population is driven by its racism enough to tolerate the reintroduction of Jim Crow without your presenting evidence to back it up. You just pronounce it true.
You were a lawyer. Perhaps you still are. In that case you should understand the fairly simple concept of Burden Of Proof. Have you ever debated formally? The burden of proof is on the affirmative. You’re the one who made the assertion, so you’re the one responsible for backing it up. You act like it’s obvious. I don’t find it obvious at all. In fact, I find it contraindicated.
I could say “At midnight every night, thirteen invisible bats fly over Ron’s house.” And I could follow that up with “Prove that they don’t,” and say “If you can’t, then I’m obviously right.” This doesn’t work because if I assert that those invisible bats fly over your house at midnight, the only way anyone would ever believe me is if I provided some evidence. It would be my responsibility to provide it, not yours. In the case of
Most White Americans are racist
therefore
Most White Americans would tolerate the reintroduction of Jim Crow
your “therefore” isn’t enough. One does not inevitably mean the other.
You talked about how a failure to admit racism doesn’t mean that that racism is any less virulent. But why the failure to admit? In the early sixties and in many places beyond that, people who were racist were not embarrassed by their racism. They expressed it freely. Now they’re embarrassed by their racism.
Why?
Why aren’t they proud of it?
01/30/2021 @ 7:53 am
@Koshersalaami;
“Why aren’t they proud of it?”
“White folks are loathe to wear their racism on their sleeves or shout it from their rooftops for fear of being stigmatized and ostracized by their families, friends, and neighbors…”
Your analogy re “invisible bats” would work if there was a four hundred year history of “invisible bats flying over my house at midnight…”
“You were a lawyer. Perhaps you still are. In that case you should understand the fairly simple concept of Burden Of Proof. Have you ever debated formally?”
You have constantly and continuously attempted to cast aspersions on my professional and academic status and as an attorney and university educator….
It is both disrespectful and insulting that you find it necessary to be demeaning and condescending as an element of your attempt to establish the ‘superiority’ of your position and posture…
If you’ve ever been engaged in formal debate, you would know that in certain venues and instances, ad hominem arguments and attacks can result in summary and immediate disqualification…
The next time you indulge your not so subtle impulse to insult me, you do so at your peril.
PROOF!?:
Racism is baked into the political, social, and cultural DNA of this country.
Racism is the ambience of the national environment.
Racism is as ubiquitous and prolific as the air we breathe.
Racism permeates every aspect of the lives and livelihoods of every black man, woman, and child in this country…
Racism is everywhere. The effect and impact of racism is inescapable…
If you can accept any or all of these statements as ‘true’, you have your ‘proof’….
The libraries and archives are burgeoning with the ‘proof’ you claim to seek…And in a court of law, it would not be difficult to gain an appropriate stipulation to this fact…
What we refer to as racism today has been a significant and prominent element of Western European history and culture since Pope Urban II initiated the Crusades at the Council of Claremont in 1095.
Western Europeans brought their racism with them to the Western Hemisphere and the New World through the periods known as the Enlightenment and the Ages of Discovery and Exploration, etc…
Racism has been part of the lifeblood of political and social thought in the West for nearly 1000 years…
To say now that most white people in this country are racists, whether they are aware of it or not, or whether they would acknowledge it or not, is, in my view, somewhat of an understatement and a ‘no-brainer’…
01/30/2021 @ 12:59 pm
Ron,
The first answer I have for you regarding my disparaging you is that your post includes a false accusation aimed at me.
I have no desire to catch you not using typical legal standards in your argumentation but I do anyway. I don’t get any pleasure out of this. However, I recognize certain things. One is that the concept of burden of proof should be obvious to you from the outset. Another is that you made an accusation – that the majority of American White people would accept a return to Jim Crow – that you did not substantiate. If someone tells me that there’s a linkage missing from my case, I work on the damned linkage. The linkage missing from your case is evidence that the severity or variety of racism found in (going with another assertion here but one which I think you have more grounds for) the majority of American Whites is of sufficient vitriol for them to accept a return to Jim Crow. You’re not presenting anything to reinforce that linkage.
I’ve presented factors that would bring that assertion into question, such as
– The country has gone from racists being open about their racism to, in almost every example I’ve seen, not wanting to admit their racism. Why would someone not want to admit something if they’re fine with it or if they assume their peers are fine with it? Between Jim Crow and now there has been a shift from racism being openly accepted by large swaths of the population to its widely being considered enough of a bad thing that racists generally feel a need to conceal it, if they face their own racism at all. You are saying that racists will obviously ignore that shift and support racism in the most obvious and blatant way possible. Given that they now don’t want to admit it, your assumption is contraindicated.
– The percentage of American Whites who approve of interracial marriage has become overwhelming. You are assuming that all these people would freely deny rights, based specifically on race, to people that many would accept as family. Again, contraindicated.
– When the American White population was faced with the murder of George Floyd, protests erupted all over the country among White populations, even in small towns, and a majority of Republicans shifted their perceptions drastically and agreed for the first time that the country has a problem when it comes to widespread racially biased law enforcement.
Now, just to review, because you seem to have an unexpected amount of trouble with this point:
I am not stating that most White Americans aren’t racist.
Let me repeat that:
I am not stating that most White Americans aren’t racist.
I don’t know if they are or not. I”m not sure that knowing whether a majority of American Whites are racist (and here we get into defining racism which isn’t as easy as it looks, I might turn to Bitey for this) is even useful. Given that we need ways to change minds regarding policy – and here I’m reasonably sure I’ve isolated a distinction that Bitey agrees with – how many minds we have to change may be beside the point. We know it’s a lot.
What I’m saying about a return to Jim Crow is not about how widespread racism is or how pervasive racism is or how imbedded in American DNA racism is, because the case about Jim Crow isn’t at its core about numbers so much as it’s about the current nature of pervasive racism.
You can say “It’s no different than it used to be” all you want. Clearly there are differences. I’ve just described three of them, all of them significant. I Pronounce That They Don’t Matter doesn’t constitute a case.
You can pretend all you want that my argument with you over the Jim Crow issue is about the pervasiveness of racism, because that’s an easier issue to address, but it’s not, and I’ve been clear repeatedly – in fact, from the very beginning – that it’s not.
I used to go through arguments like these on Open Salon often. I eventually recognized the technique I was facing, and it took my frustration down some once I understood what was happening. It’s a technique I named after its chief practitioner. I called it Pulling A Jan Sand. Here’s how it works:
If you have trouble answering what I’ve said, pretend I said something related that you can answer easier and answer that instead.
In this case, pretend I’ve questioned the pervasiveness of racism.
I suppose I could use more common terminology, a bit less specific than Pulling A Jan Sand. I could call it a straw dog.
01/30/2021 @ 8:18 am
Ok, let’s examine your assertion in a less confrontational way. Let’s start with your idea that, “most white people in America are racist.” If we assume this to be trueCan you name any other deep moral failing, like racism, that is generally held by “most” people of a population? And if it is held or practiced by most, is it a moral failing? The point of my question is to determine how this can possibly be so. You have expressed that you have a different definition of determination. Is it not possible that “most white people” operate with a different definition of “racism”, and therefore deny your theory in exactly the same manner that you deny a difference between a determination and a feeling held subjectively?
Follow along with me here. I assume most people eat meat. I think that is accurate. Could you say that most people are murderers because they eat meat? It is one thing if consumption of meat is subjectively considered to be murder, and quite another if the general public views it that way. There would be indications that society viewed meat consumption that way if that were so. One example might be criminal indictments and prosecutions. Given that it is not illegal to make, sell, or consume a hamburger, can it not be assumed that society generally does not disapprove of the practices? What severe moral misconduct or philosophy exists, to such a degree that it is held by a majority of the public, or a race, and it is simultaneously approved or condoned by society?
It seems to me that if a majority of white Americans were racist, the stigma would dissipate, or the meaning would change. What else exists to such a consistent degree that it can be described as a general characteristic, and is also shunned?
01/30/2021 @ 11:00 am
“What else exists to such a consistent degree that it can be described as a general characteristic, and is also shunned?”
Try greed and selfishness…
You can fill in the blanks…
01/30/2021 @ 11:46 am
No, neither greed nor selfishness are exhibited by most of the population. As far as filling in blanks…can you give some examples of how you see greed or selfishness to be so pervasive and also shunned?
01/30/2021 @ 1:51 pm
If people are more selfish than not, more racist than not, and you essentially accuse them of both, what exactly is your strategy in making the accusation? What incentive does anyone have to not be what you are accusing them of. Presumably their perspectives serve them. According to you, this is true about a majority of them. How is it that they arrive at this inferior perspective without you, and you can provide them with a superior one? You’re talking about pervasive beliefs held by a majority of people. That’s like accusing someone of using a hairbrush…from their perspective. Have you considered how your accusation is supposed to be received and acted upon?
01/30/2021 @ 4:47 pm
If you find my assertion abhorrent and contrary to what you believe, why not just say so and be done with it…
Your contravening protestations are interesting if not compelling….
Fodder for the social media grist mill of endless prattle and noise….
It has finally dawned on me that we can go on with this ad infinitum with no mutually acceptable resolution…
My conclusion to all of this is a oversimplification of that which to me should have been obvious from the BEGINNING and that is:
If I had started out by saying that most white people in this country WERE NOT RACISTS, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
01/30/2021 @ 5:23 pm
Ron, you said,
“Neither are able to state conclusively or with conviction that my determination is wrong. Both have left the question open and open ended. Both seem to deal with the matter with some trepidation…”
Referring to Kosher and myself. You made this about what I am able to do, etc. I have given you more consideration personally than you offered from the outset. Then, when you offered that bit about “selfishness” and “greed”, I began to see it more clearly.
What you see is a reflection of your own dark soul. I’ll leave you to it.
01/30/2021 @ 6:47 pm
Ron,
Once again, your contention that most White people are racist is not what I disagreed with. I’ve said that enough times that I’m beginning to be worried about you. And I’m by no means sure that if you’d said that we wouldn’t be having this discussion. I don’t know how Bitey would have responded, though I suspect he might have asked you how you determined that.
One thing I’m pretty sure I can say safely about Bitey and I’m absolutely sure I can say about me is that we both value process, perhaps even abnormally. If you’ve ever studied a science, you know that science isn’t in the conclusions, it’s in the methods. How rigorous was your process? How did you get from “Racism is in our DNA and is everywhere” to “the nature of that racism is such that the majority of American Whites would tolerate a return to Jim Crow?” There’s a step missing. As your math teachers undoubtedly told you, Show your work. Let me be as clear as possible: The missing step Is Not Obvious. It may be obvious to you but it certainly isn’t obvious to me and if you’re going to get me to buy into that statement, you’re going to have to make it obvious to me. I’m not 100% sure you can’t, but I am 100% sure you haven’t. As of right now, based on the fact that I’ve only seen the evidence I presented and not the evidence you haven’t, I’m going to disagree with your statement until you persuade me otherwise. I am not telling you I don’t want to be persuaded. I am perfectly willing to be persuaded. I am perfectly willing to be wrong. But if you want me to agree with your contention, you’ve got work to do.
01/30/2021 @ 6:58 pm
@Bitey;
“I would not bet my life that dominant culture in the US would not sell my people down the river, if push came to shove. It would not be the first time.”
….And this is a reflection of what?
01/30/2021 @ 7:20 pm
Furthermore, Ron, “sold down the river” means something. I expected that you would recognize that. It isn’t obscure. Alluding to that historical practice, I based my measured statement on something that actually happened. Conversely, when repeatedly asked to support your broad accusation, you never once gave anything to support it. Thus, it was a reflection of your soul…and nothing else.
01/30/2021 @ 7:14 pm
Read it carefully, Ron. My statement, and my position is not remotely like yours. Your statement is that something is certain. You made a declarative statement. Your statement is also more broad. You said, “most white people are racist.” My statement is much more measured. I said, most people, “white and otherwise”, do not stand up for principle. They simply keep their heads low and wait for the new boss to be established. I referred to the middle that just wants to keep out of the way. Your statement doesn’t allow for a middle. I do not attempt a statement about any group of people that could not be said about all people. Yours specifically says that white people are mostly racist.
Mine says, I would not risk my own life in this uncertain situation. How can you not understand that?
01/30/2021 @ 10:35 pm
But does an inactive middle mean that most White people would tolerate a return to Jim Crow based on their inactivity? Theoretically possible, not that I agree with that possibility as a realistic assessment, but theoretically possible. However, what that means is that we could theoretically get a return to Jim Crow without that being driven by racism on the part of the majority of Whites.
This makes sense in terms of how I view racism but not in terms of how Ron does. Here I have to distinguish between the consequences of racism as a phenomenon and the racism of individuals. I think a lot of what has racist consequences comes from a whole lot of apathy rather than active ill will. In other words, we can explain a lot of it not by what it starts but by what it doesn’t stop.
01/30/2021 @ 11:19 pm
That sums up my view nicely.
I don’t think racism in in our DNA. I think we are more likely to help or cooperate with a person in need than to decide based upon their phenotype. Would a blind deaf mute person lack all empathy because they could not perceive another person’s code? I can’t prove it, but I am inclined to believe that if you put a baby in the arms of a blind, deaf, mute, they would hold it gently. And if they grasped the hand of an adult, they would grasp that differently from the baby. Those things, and so many more that unite us as humans are, in part, passed on by our DNA.
Above is a vid of a lion protecting a calf from another lion. The lion shares more DNA with the other lion, but protects the calf out of a sense of empathy. Mammals do this. Humans are mammals. The racism behavior is more analogous to the lion attacking the calf, for the power that the lion can use over the calf. The lion protecting the calf is empathetic. Are lions more humane than humans?
01/31/2021 @ 9:41 am
Bitey,
I agree with that because more racism manifests from lack of exposure than from exposure. You’ll notice that the worst right-wing extremist movements come from places that have hardly any minorities. The biggest fears of illegal Mexican immigration are centered in the Great Lakes. When Marjorie Taylor Greene comes up with this accusation about Jewish space lasers setting fire to California forests (which sounds for all like medieval accusations about ritual murder and poisoning wells) is it because she has a significant Jewish population in her district? When conservative White pundits spout myths about race, is it because they know anything about Black experiences by actually talking to or even reading Black people? Liberal Whites tend to be urban and educated; in other words, they (we) have more actual exposure to populations being vilified in rural Red America. Most racism these days comes from fear of the unknown. And what’s made things much worse is the deliberate discrediting of real sources of information, which leads to myths getting echo chambers. QAnon comes from isolation.
01/31/2021 @ 9:58 am
QAnon is propagated in isolation, but the seed kernel of QAnon is pure invention. The person who began the nonsense conspiracies knew they were false. The joiners assimilate the nonsense as much for belonging as they do acceptance of the facts. That’s my view, anyway.
Interestingly, Joe Walsh, the former congressman from Illinois was just interviewed on MSNBC by Ali Velshi, who did a particularly good job, by the way. Walsh has moderated somewhat from his positions when he was one of the early Tea Party stooges. He used to claim that Obama was Kenyan, and Muslim, etc. Walsh is now saying that the old GOP is gone, and and “cult”, and lost in conspiracy theories. When Velshi said, isn’t calling Obama a conspiracy theory, Walsh deflected claiming that he was just joking. He was caught, and refused to own up, and in doing so, he acknowledged that he knew better from the start. It was just more important to him to be part of that Tea Party wave.
I don’t have much respect for Walsh because he still has difficulty with being honest. Velshi ended the interview brilliantly by saying, “the next time you see Obama, tell him he has been stealing my thunder. I am an actual Kenyan born Muslim.” At that point, it was clear to Walsh that the racist “joke” he had been using against Obama actually described the person he was talking to.
01/31/2021 @ 3:36 pm
Joe Walsh is, above all, a shameless opportunist. IMO
Velshi always does a good job, I’m sorry I missed him today. I love it when he points out the Kenyan Muslim thing.
01/31/2021 @ 10:27 am
Either the myths are outright fiction or they’re based on conclusions poorly drawn by not figuring out actual causes. An example of the latter is that Jewish populations in medieval Europe had better sanitary practices than the populations around them, so they caught bad diseases less. This was noticed and led to the conclusion that the Jews were poisoning the wells. Hitler did this in the aftermath of Germany’s loss of WWI. He was a racial superiority theorist and in his model the superior race couldn’t lose the war, so if they did there must be a cause that didn’t threaten his theory. What could answer that was internal betrayal, and there was one major population in Germany that was racially different (by his definition of race). So, conclude that they did it. I don’t know what to call this. There’s actually a technique of doing this in Torah study, coming up with theoretical stories that solve contradictions.
Sometimes it’s straight fiction. The ritual murder charge, a charge initially made in medieval Europe that Jews used the blood of Christian children for Passover. That has been repeated as fact by a top Hamas official visiting Lebanon within the last ten years. It was already old by the time it appeared in the Canterbury Tales. Or, more blatantly, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which was written by the Czarist Secret Police to malign Jews. That has shown up serialized as fact on Egyptian television within the last fifteen years or so, keeping in mind that Egypt and Israel had diplomatic relations at the time. I’ve never spoken to anyone Jewish who has talked about having read them. I haven’t.
QAnon obviously falls into the second category. In that case you have to be intellectually challenged to buy into it, sort of like the recent spate of Flat Earthers. Of course, when you base things on flawed premises, weird things become logical. If you’re a flat earther it makes complete sense to fly from Los Angeles to Tokyo over Europe. Anyone could look at airline schedules and conclude that flat eartherism is impossible, though I suppose if you’re invested enough you can conclude that airline schedules are a conspiracy.
01/31/2021 @ 3:28 pm
just a thought – I talked to my sister up in trmpistan and she said there are “People Of Color” even moving into their little town (pop <700) these days. Things may change.
01/31/2021 @ 6:11 pm
I moved this comment in order to maintain conversational continuity and the structural integrity of the thread…I hope it works…
“Racism is baked into the political, social, and cultural DNA of this country.”
Does not refer to the DNA of humans as a species.
As I said before, I haven’t decided whether what you tend to do is a bad habit or a neat trick.
Most white people are oblivious and indifferent to their own racism as individuals and the systemic racism that is manifest in the political and social institutions.
and relationships upon which the society rests.
“I think a lot of what has racist consequences comes from a whole lot of apathy rather than active ill will. In other words, we can explain a lot of it not by what it starts but by what it doesn’t stop.”
I’m in full agreement with this assessment.
Ignorance, complacency, apathy, and passivity are at the heart of my contention…
It seems to me that a fair question is: Can we educate our way out of the racial and anti-democratic malaise or must we come to a point where the only way out is some kind of armed conflict?
01/31/2021 @ 11:14 am
Ron,
Armed conflict strikes me as a bizarre way to address an apathetic population. Aside from which, we have decent indication that education works. We didn’t need armed conflict to delegitimize Confederate flags or to trigger small town protests across America over the George Floyd murder.
And here we get to the biggest disagreement I have with you in general about racism. An apathetic population is easier to reach than a committed racist population because we don’t have to overcome seriously committed views. The apathetic population is large enough to make a difference in policy. Now the task becomes reaching them.
In order to reach them we have to worry about HOW to reach them. In order to reach them we need them to be receptive. If they aren’t receptive, we lose.
If they aren’t receptive, we lose.
Their receptiveness is in our interest. Their receptiveness is critical to our success.
In terms of this equation it doesn’t matter how we feel, it doesn’t matter how angry we are, it doesn’t matter how ridiculously unjust it is that we have to worry about their receptiveness. This is cause and effect and, to play with vocabulary a bit, this is critical to our cause.
This doesn’t mean we need to water things down. After all, the George Floyd video was not watered down. This means we present our strongest cases and it means we gear our language to our audience.
If you’re talking to them, you don’t talk about racism being baked into DNA. You talk about how Black people face a whole lot of difficulties that most White people aren’t aware of, that these difficulties are externally imposed, and that if more White people were aware of them they’d be more compelled to drive change. You walk them through life as it is and you allow them to reach the conclusion that This Isn’t Right or, if they aren’t getting there quickly enough, ask What would you do? If they suggest something that doesn’t take racism into account, then We wish that worked, but it hasn’t. We don’t have a vested interest in getting you to believe that we’re facing difficulties we don’t face, we have a vested interest in your helping us address the difficulties we do face.
01/31/2021 @ 6:32 pm
@Koshersalaami;
The armed insurrection that took place at the Capitol on 6 January was about as bizarre as it gets…
These folks appear to be hell-bent on provoking violent confrontation…
They seem to be beyond the redemption of gentle persuasion or intense reeducation…
01/31/2021 @ 8:43 pm
Ron,
These folks are clearly not who we’re after. They’re not the center. They’re not the apathetic. They are less the uninformed and more the deliberately misinformed.
01/31/2021 @ 9:50 am
And when exposure does lead to racism, that exposure typically consists of exposure to a population forced into certain circumstances, then blamed for the result of being forced into them. If you set up a situation where the only way most people in a given community can make a decent living is illegally, you’re going to get a lot of people making their livings illegally, regardless of ethnicity. Under these circumstances, the idea that ethnicity is responsible for behavior is false. Show me a poor urban immigrant community and I”ll show you gangs.
01/31/2021 @ 9:58 am
“Racism is baked into the political, social, and cultural DNA of this country.”
Does not refer to the DNA of humans as a species.
As I said before, I haven’t decided whether what you tend to do is a bad habit or a neat trick.
Most white people are oblivious and indifferent to their own racism as individuals and the systemic racism that is manifest in the political and social institutions.
and relationships upon which the society rests.
“I think a lot of what has racist consequences comes from a whole lot of apathy rather than active ill will. In other words, we can explain a lot of it not by what it starts but by what it doesn’t stop.”
I’m in full agreement with this assessment.
Ignorance, complacency, apathy, and passivity are at the heart of my contention…
It seems to me that a fair question is: Can we educate our way out of the racial and anti-democratic malaise or must we come to a point where the only way out is some kind of armed conflict?
01/31/2021 @ 10:58 am
“As I said before, I haven’t decided whether what you tend to do is a bad habit or a neat trick.”
This would be funny if it were not so serious. You have again left out a third possibility. You tend to go from one extreme or another as possibilities. The fact is most concepts can have infinite variance, and a general third/middle is required to make your analysis remotely fair. The third possibility in this particular case is that my clarification is actually correct.
My clarification specifically references the “chance for bad inferences.” That has an infinite range of possibilities. My clarification did not deny your metaphor. What it did was say that using DNA as a metaphor in a discussion of race is problematic. There is no “trick” in that. And if that is a “bad habit”, I don’t want to be good. (In case you missed it, that is an allusion to a lyric which goes, “if loving you is wrong, I don’t want to be right”). Clarity is good, Ron. Clarity is not a trick.
Now, try this on for size. They are your words.
“If you find my assertion abhorrent and contrary to what you believe, why not just say so and be done with it…”
You said this in an earlier comment. I read this as you wanting me to be more direct with my objections. To that point, I had been trying to make my statements subtly…relatively. You fairly assertively stated that I couldn’t, I wouldn’t…and then I should. SO…once I start using more clarity, you describe it as a “bad habit”, or a trick. I read this as weakness in perception or deception. The fact is, Ron, you are being sloppy. You have assumed that your assertions stand without evidence. You assert that someone not providing evidence to the contrary supports your position. Then when it is presented to do a number of things. You pivot on the meanings of words. (Often, you say that my dictionary definition is too strict). Then you claim that you were using metaphor rather than literal meaning. There may be a bad habit or a desire to trick involved, but it is not mine. It is yours.
Here is more of you. “Neither has come to the table prepared to address the very real possibility and prospect that the contention is accurate and correct…”
Clarifying your meaning is “address[ing] the prospect that the contention is correct.” So, are you going to penalize me for not doing so, and then penalize me for doing so?
YOU need to provide your evidence. YOU need to clarify your terms. YOU need to admit that you are wrong. YOU are wrong if your argument depends on inference, and it does not stand up to examination of literal meaning.
01/31/2021 @ 10:13 am
I’m aware, Ron. My purpose is to clean the colorful terminology from your message that can lead to bad inferences. For example, if you state that most of white people are racist, and then you use a term like DNA as a metaphor, it could lead one to draw an inference that DNA and racism are necessarily linked. That is a profoundly dangerous message. Racism is actually a cultural construction, and it helps those opposed to racism to keep that clear. Those who want to advance racism, on the other hand, love when DNA is insinuated in such a conversation.
Also, there have been discussions of morality within various sects of Christianity for hundreds of years that question whether humans are inherently innocent, or inherently evil. Racism fits into this philosophical question when one considers “social and cultural DNA”. If you look back at my comments, they have followed that line generally. “Fallen soul”, “morality”, etc, did not just arise from thin air. This has been discussed for centuries. Some are of the view that individuals are inherently evil, and in need of improvement by Christianity. Others believe individuals are individuals are inherently innocent, and acquire their evil by experience. My view is that babies are born with no desire to hate. Your view, Ron, with over 50% of white people being racist, lands extremely close to individual humans being born inherently evil. And, if you assume that a white baby is like any other baby, the concept extrapolates to all of humanity. That is the “dark soul” that I referred to. So, you see, “DNA” can be a very loaded term.
01/31/2021 @ 5:41 pm
“For example, if you state that most of white people are racist, and then you use a term like DNA as a metaphor, it could lead one to draw an inference that DNA and racism are necessarily linked.”
Your discussion and explanation re my use of the term DNA is about as twisted and convoluted as it gets…
Anyone who would conflate and confuse my use of the term DNA in the context of the political and social history of this country with the term in the original scientific sense is short on reading comprehension and in need of a semester of remedial assistance…
01/31/2021 @ 11:20 am
“If reading this is right, I don’t want to be wrong.”
01/31/2021 @ 11:22 am
This is just fucking hilarious. Check this out, Ron. The first segment quoted is from the body of your post. The second is from one of your comments. You state a hugely different meaning without ever conceding that you have changed the meaning.
First the quote from the body.
“Both Bitey and Koshersalaami have questioned and pondered the veracity and validity of my assertion that most of the white people in this country are racists.”
Then the quote from one of your comments.
“Most white people are oblivious and indifferent to racism as individuals and the systemic racism that is manifest in the political and social institutions.
and relationships upon which the society rests.
“I think a lot of what has racist consequences comes from a whole lot of apathy rather than active ill will. In other words, we can explain a lot of it not by what it starts but by what it doesn’t stop.”
First you plainly state that “most white people are racist.” Then you
Say that white people are “oblivious to racism”, and “a lot of what has racist consequences comes from…”.
Do I need to ask the question, Ron?
01/31/2021 @ 5:21 pm
The first comment should have read:
“Most white people are oblivious and indifferent to their own racism as individuals and the systemic racism that is manifest in the political and social institutions.
and relationships upon which the society rests.”
The second comment is my quoting Koshersalaami….
I have always contended that manifestations of racism can be the unintended and unintentional product of unconscious or subconscious reflexes…
For example, one need not experience hate to manifest or express racism in their behavior or speech…
01/31/2021 @ 6:30 pm
The second is a quote of Kosher, but you said that you are in “full agreement.”
Both are far from “most white people are racist”, and the broader, more measured version need not be disproven. No one expressed disagreement with it. It could be said about any group of people. There is no “trepidation” involved in formulating that statement. There is only the appropriate level of care with fact and speculation.
02/03/2021 @ 8:20 pm
No doubt somethingtodo with Westside Story will be a question of next evenings’ Jeopardy.
Stage Craft Syncopation. My premonitions are solid. Albeit as an at home gamer the CATS
(categories) are shown what? Once? And always spoken with poeleez as the contestants SEE the what R there six (6) broad headers…?
And here in twilight I’m deep breathing a when/Zen tricksterisk/moments of reprieve post Lester Holmes’ good (redemptive) “…FINALLY tonight…” segment…hey day in the life…never go home again….like 3 out of 4 then 3 out of 5 as though encircled by windshield wipers piercingly right through the neck…
And Steve Harvey recently (justaboutayearago) (justaboutayearago) (justaboutayearago) (justaboutayearago) (justaboutayearago)…Frankly I know more ‘linemen for the county’ [is shock therapy still du jour?!) more linemen for the county than GMS should read GME goobers!
So there! Already! O for my penthouse with that acupuncture magic carpet.
…Jungian Archetype Test – Psychologist World…
hey am i the only one thinking @flavored baking soda
02/12/2021 @ 12:58 pm
Hail hail rock ‘n roll and Nikki Haley!
jpHart
Foley and Co. Line Road
Headed for Kennedy Park (glare ice permitting) Sugar Pie and me have a hankering to push
South to the Padres. Hot hoot! This glacier steam vapor makes me feel invisible now LO;} [SP escaped East Berlin as a child (lost her friend) … no relief…. SP deserves a trip aside the ocean…I’m so invisible…heated seats…yeah that’s the ticket. Geeze I’ve Sunlight and Shadow G. Shepard hair all over my burgundy pea coat and if she’d please tone down that
audio of Gravity’s Rainbow…fall softly snow! I so want to spin Huey Lewis. AM Beauty on deck too. Aren’t we something in our MSOE HOCKEY caps?!
05/24/2021 @ 10:08 am
‘[sic] …The person who began the nonsense conspiracies knew they were false….* (ABOVE) somewhere along the way. Additional air-glue-like clues in Thomas Pynchon’s ‘Inherent Vice’:
TP (page 25) wait! wait wait a minute I just lost my glasses and I was sitting on them: (IV:) “…{sic}…Fast forward to Compton, the present day. ‘”What concerns us.” Big foot was trying to explain, “is this, what we in Homicide like to call, ‘pattern’? Here’s the second time we know of that you’ve been discovered sleeping at the scene of a major crime and unable — dare I suggest ‘unwilling’? — to furnish us any details.”‘ Bitey*s outtake. Eight miles high from time to time. Now if I could only locate that coupon amidst this sound and fury for Harry’s Razor. !0!
No mayflies were slipped upon during the typing of this blurb. Fluoride A! The Postman Cometh! Red and thin that thread unraveling laid-weigh-waaay back to paraquat 🩸🩸🩸
04/05/2022 @ 5:20 pm
*Our Response Depends On Your Response