(psychology/philosophy) Why Racism Persists

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread

Mornin' y'all. Here's a thought provoking essay from Capitalism Magazine. The link follows:


Why Racism Persists

By Joseph Kellard

"Any Day Now," a weekly sitcom on cable TV's "Lifetime" channel, chronicles the lives of two woman-one black; the other white - who have renewed their childhood friendship that began in Birmingham, Alabama, during the early 1960s. The show featured a special two-hour episode on racism. The manner in which it treated this issue, however, helps answer the question "Why does racism persist?" even though the writers of the show are unaware of it.

The episode began at a restaurant where Renee, the black woman, charged her white friend, Mary Elizabeth or "Mary Elizabeth," with racism after she'd mistook a young black woman for a waitress. Later, Mary Elizabeth apologized for her mistake to the young black woman, who dismissed her apology and castigated both her and Renee with racist remarks (one which implied that Renee's straightened hair meant she was "acting white").

These incidents prompted Mary Elizabeth to write a magazine article on racism. To research this issue, she decided to visit her uncle Jimmy, Ku Klux Klan and Nazi sympathizer. She discovers that he owns a "hate" Web site that features a list of (black) people's names, addresses, and schedules, along with his suggestion that they be murdered.

The young black woman who was mistook for a waitress then coincidentally applied for a job with Renee's law firm. Thereafter, the show lapsed into a tired, narrow but pervasive treatment of racism. Renee refused to hire this woman because of her racist tirade, but the tirade was not only never said to be racist, it was dismissed as being the result of a "a bad day" for the young woman. Renee then offered her oversimplified advice: "grow up" from your rage that blames whites for the troubles of blacks. This woman's form of racism was then dropped from the story, so as to focus instead only on the radical racism of Mary Elizabeth's white uncle.

The show properly had its main characters denounce his views and actions, and had him convicted, in essence, on the grounds that his Web site's "hit list" amounted to the threat of initiating physical force, not free speech. But besides that the show failed to examine the new racism embodied by the young black woman to, once again, examine KKK-style racism, it focused on aspects of racism that are consequences of its cause--but treated them, as is usual, as if they are its cause.

That is, racism is regarded as essentially the belief in the innate superiority of one's race and the hatred of individuals of other races. The show focused on the latter, as Mary Elizabeth's uncle was often shown spewing remarks that oozed with racial hatred.

Actually, while a consequence of racism is irrational hatred, it is not its cause. At root, racism is a form of collectivism: the belief that an individual's identity is determined by his unchosen physiological characteristics--and not by his chosen values and actions. Since collectivists of all stripes regard themselves and others only on such terms and can only see men as having in common with each other such concrete characteristics (such as skin color), this consequently gives rise to distrust, dislike, even hatred of others "not of one's kind."

Yet that which is predominantly pushed today as racism's cure also rests on collectivism. Be it affirmative action, multiculturalism, or "diversity," collectivism is its foundation. Just as Southern racists once forcibly segregated blacks from whites in schools, employment, and housing-a policy based on race and backed by government guns; so affirmative action allegedly seeks to remedy this racism by forcible integration; that is, pointing government guns at property owners and demanding them to educate, hire, and house individuals based on race. If Dr. Martin Luther King's professed dream is to become a reality--where individuals are judged by the content of their character instead of the color of their skin--then race must become irrelevant in human relations. Affirmative action, like Jim Crow laws, are simply two sides of the same coin.

But the degree to which Americans are rejecting individualism--which bases an individual's identity on his chosen rational, universal values (e.g., honesty, production, independence)--to celebrate racial collectivism, was nakedly on display at the town hall meetings of President Clinton's commission on race. These nation-wide meetings that were supposed to feature an open "dialogue" on race mostly heard grievances regarding mis- or under-representation of their racial/ethnic group from Hispanic activists, the Japanese American Citizen League, the European American Issues Forum, the American Indian Movement of Colorado, etc.

When opponents of "diversity" and affirmative action stated the injustices that these policies have perpetrated against certain individuals, they were routinely booed or told that such issues should be discussed in a way to dispel any notion that, as one member of the commission's said, "to be white in America is a disadvantage." So what prevailed was not any "dialogue," but rather monologues, shoutings, and protests--wherein racism was largely equated with how whites maltreated non-whites.

And this episode of "Any Day Now" reflects this prevailing treatment of racism today. While at first the show suggested it would treat the issue of racism honestly, it soon dropped this to convey the message that racism essentially amounts to the hatred of other races by whites.

If this show had offered an honest treatment of racism, it would not have had Mary Elizabeth's research of the issue lead her only to her racist white uncle. It would not have abandoned but rather developed the racist character of the young black woman alongside Mary Elizabeth's uncle, and then it would draw parallels between their views on race to reveal how they both share the same evil foundation: collectivism.

And this treatment of racism could have been crafted in a manner that would not suggest it is a problem that exists just between whites and blacks. With this kind of characterization and plot, the storytellers could have demonstrated how racial collectivism takes on many forms and infects men of all races.

If racism is ever to be fully understood and defeated, collectivism must be recognized as its foundation and individualism its antidote. But this episode on racism, reflective of the corrupt intellectual environment today, predictably fell flat in this regard. It left individuals still questioning why racism persists.

Joseph Kellard is a freelance writer living in New York.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), June 28, 2000


At root, racism is a form of collectivism

And at the root of collectivism is ignorance. Break it down!

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), June 28, 2000.

Rambling On:

Break it down further: over-inflated ego.

When I experience myself as truly separate from others & grasp onto that separation & hold tight, then I have already begun piling bricks with which to build a wall of ignorance. When WE are divided the result is ME over here & YOU over there.

But humans fend poorly in isolation (even we hermits). How do we decide who to include & who to cast out of our lives? Good works? Physical characteristics? Bloodlines? And from whom do we learn how to apply the scalpel of discrimination wisely?

I've wondered for most of my life just how some people can be so ignorant, so petty, so small as to seek to divide up into groups based upon physical characteristics. Truth is we aren't taught by the wise ones of this world. We are indoctrinated by imperfect people upholding imperfect systems who fail to acknowledge this imperfection, or to strive ever more fervently to improve themselves & hence their systems.

It is imperative that those of you who reproduce our species teach your children with all the wisdom at your disposal.

Effort, Sincerity, Endurance. The walls between us must be disassembled. This process begins inside each of us.

Thanks eve.

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), June 28, 2000.

Excellent subject. Too bad it is usually the white extremists who will discuss it as the article points out that the only racism that is politically correct to discuss is that of whites against non-whites.

This opens the door for and allows continued increases of the rest of the racism that exists.

As in the MMM thread, the racial slurs of of the person "MFB" are not met with the same flames and recrimination as the poster of the " 'ger being put to death" received.

Forced integration WAS necessary, American society allowed too many discriminatory actions for much too long.

Going to extremes with quota's and continued forced racial mixing, especially after a generation of it, was more harmful then helpful.

It has set up a situation where some people demand they be given a place in areas where they have not earned the right to be, as whites have to do to get there.

The continuation of quota's, forced bussing and societies acceptance of reverse discrimination has set up a situation where the actions of non-whites are creating some justification for a new form of racism. The reasons for the new forms of racism are not the same ones that existed in the past.

I am aware that there is still racism in the form it existed in in the past, but it is no longer socially acceptable and condoned.

The racism of people in the past does not justify any form of racism being accepted today.

Racism by non-whites is no more acceptable or justified then the white racism that has been fought against for the last 40 years.

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), June 28, 2000.

Good morning, Eve. I've seen previews of this show but have never watched it. Although an interesting review of the show, I couldn't help but notice that the author of this article first said:

"The manner in which it treated this issue, however, helps answer the question "Why does racism persist?" even though the writers of the show are unaware of it."

THEN...at the end, he said, "If racism is ever to be fully understood and defeated, collectivism must be recognized as its foundation and individualism its antidote. But this episode on racism, reflective of the corrupt intellectual environment today, predictably fell flat in this regard. It left individuals still questioning why racism persists."

First, the author states his expectations [despite any indication of this from the show's writers] and then states that his expectations weren't met.

If I were to answer the question of "Why Racism Still Exists", I'd have to go along with the "collectivism" argument. We all tend to make generalizations about groups based on lack of information. I'm in no way immune to these generalizations. Last night, SO started watching Women's Soccer. We both love to watch Women's Soccer, but I occupied myself with other things for the first half because the U.S. team was playing Brazil. In MY mind, South America in general has been popping kids out of the womb, delivered with soccer balls that had been kicked around the womb for 9 months before delivery. I wanted to watch the U.S. girls WIN...NOT see them slaughtered by folks who had put much more influence on soccer than families in the U.S. By half-time, I sat down to watch. The score was still 0 to 0. The score never got BEYOND 0 to 0. A coin had to be flipped to see who would play who next.

I thought of Lars at this time, as I watched what I saw to be an all- white American team equalled by a team that seemed to have a lot of African in their genes.

Back to this racism thing, I was reminded of looking at an apartment in a south suburb of Chicago. I wanted a bigger place, checked out an ad and talked to the landlord. He asked if I minded living in the same building as a black family. I said, "Not at all"; He said I could view the apartment, gave me the address, etc. Well, all hell broke loose when I tried to view that apartment. The current tenant wanted to know WHY I wanted to view the apartment. I related that the landlord had sent me. She went off on a rant about how "The Man" had sent me, etc.

I called the landlord afterwards, stating that although I was quite willing to live in the same building as a BLACK family, I had no interest in living in the same building as someone in a SUBculture. The unfortunate thing is that some folks [of both races] have never been exposed to folks of the other race that aren't OF a subculture. It's similar to how MY exposure to South Americans were parents of kids that played soccer [and beat my kids' teams into the ground].

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 28, 2000.

Two personal stories:

After years of debauchery I went back to school that I might assess the damage  how many brain cells were still capable of storage/retrieval of information. One course I enrolled in was African-American Literature.

Im Caucasian & was the only one of such heritage in the class. My first real-world lesson learned there was the fact that there exists a significant depth of bigotry within the African-American community based upon skin shade. My mind was blown. If I had any doubts that ignorance was a chief causative factor of racism this lesson extinguished them.

Flashback to 1972 or so. Im eight-years-old. My sister is twenty & attending a predominantly-black college in the south. She meets and falls for a guy. A great guy named David. Hes dark-skinned black. They become engaged & all hell breaks loose in what was supposed to resemble a family.

I always knew my father was a bigot. He was good at it. Archie Bunker with decades of festering anger driving his irrationality (and a case of beer a day +/-). Now I found my mother expressing similar views. Out of the closet she came. This was a woman of kindness, unselfish to a fault. Quite a lesson for an eight-years-old. More about that later. The birth-morons teamed up to chase David off. It was very ugly.

Questions Ive had ever since: why did I not adopt my parents views on this issue? How is it I knew they were wrong, terribly, terribly wrong? From where did the strength come for me to oppose them vocally? This is the ingredient which I could not account for in my above posts. Any thoughts?

David, if youre out there, I still love you man. And Im sorry the bastards prevailed.

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), June 28, 2000.


I don't think there's an easy answer to your question. I know in MY family, my parents weren't acquainted with black folks. [It's not like Norway ever had many.] When they moved to the U.S., they could only really rely on what they heard from others. Fortunately [or unfortunately, depending on your viewpoint], they sent me to school with black kids. I got to know them, and like them. I was pretty surprised when I asked my mom if a girl from my track team could come for lunch. She said, "What would the neighbors think?" I was, perhaps, your age, but I thought at the time, "What have the neighbors got to do with who we invite to our home?"

I think you realized, much like I did, that the parental unit was more concerned with THEIR self-esteem than the happiness of others or even the justice inherent in their decisions. If one follows the unwritten rules of the neighbors, one is ACCEPTED. If one does not, one is not accepted. It was, perhaps, more important for our parents to be accepted by group-think than it is for us?

Had you reproduced [I know...I keep bringing this up] you would have done a great job at allowing your children to make these decisions on their own.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 28, 2000.

all hate & bigotry=is satanic inspired. GOD IS LOVE=what.s the opposite of love?? evil heart,s =do evil thing,s!!

-- al-d. (dogs@zianet.com), June 28, 2000.

Anita, much of your response applies to my parents as well. The need for acceptance in their day is a strong argument. Doesnt let them off the hook for their repulsive actions. Not your point, I know. My mother grew up on the prairies of Saskatchewan  lily-white. Segregation played a large part in who the old man was exposed to day- to-day.

I too had a black friend who wasnt allowed on the property. He wasnt allowed to drink from our water hose. This was at about the same time period as the event I related above.

The town I grew up in was mostly populated with folks of Italian heritage  Roman Catholic. We were secular Jews. My old man drank & fought & I learned to do the same.

I wasnt a kid who insisted on displaying independence right off the bat. As I grew up (quickly) I realized the adults around me were jackasses. I asserted independence because I had core beliefs which werent reflected in those around me. Where did these beliefs originate?

Again I ask, what could have been different about me and/or my environment which resulted in my not becoming a bigot? Im aiming at something here which shouldnt surprise  reincarnation. I dont wish to bump this thread off course. But I have to mention this as a contributing factor to the idiocy that is bigotry. Its not just about how our parents raised us, the religion thrust upon us, the neighbors & the pressure of acceptance from peers. We bring predispositions to the table, IMO.

I hope I would allow my, cough/hack, offspring to discover who they are AND provide a strong role model for them. Not a you do as I say role model, but one who does as he says.

Hey flora, you reading this? Strike while the irons hot, honey. :^)

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), June 28, 2000.

I haven't watched the TV show, but it seems to me that it's very (unfortunately) normal for any racial group to break itself into social classes. With limited resources, who gets what and when becomes a matter of survival; bigotry is just an extention of the cast system. People will segregate regardless of race for example the 'untouchables' in Japan, or the Jews in Nazi Germany.

If there were no other race/color than white, bigotry would still exist. It would be drawn on religous or ethnic differences. It goes back to survival of our specific off-spring vs. someone elses.

My specific bigorty is toward people who refuse to educate themselves ("My mind is made up; don't confuse me with the facts"), so I'm really no better than Archie Bunker.

-- r (r.1@juno.com), June 28, 2000.


Did you call me?

-- March For Bullshit (million.moms@are.wrong), June 28, 2000.


.....There is really nothing "philosophical" about the intentional perpetuation of the race issue outside of the singular conclusion of the author of this article; thanks for posting it...

.....From The Congressional Record, Friday, June 7, 1957, page 8559; "civil rights debate"...

....."This civil rights business is all according to a studied and well-defined plan. It may be news to some of you, but the course of the advocates of this legislation was carefully planned and outlined more than 45 years ago. Israel Cohen, a leading communist in England, in his A Racial Program for the Twentieth Century, wrote, in 1912, the following"...

"We must realize that our party's most powerful weapon is racial tension. By propounding into the consciousness of the dark races that for centuries they have been oppressed by the whites, we can mould them to the program of the communist party. In America we will aim for subtle victory. While inflaming the negro minority against the whites, we will endeavor to instill in the whites a guilt complex for their exploitation of the negroes. We will aid the negroes to rise in prominence in every walk of life, in the professions and in the world of sports and entertainment. With this prestige, the negro will be able to intermarry with the whites and begin the process which will deliver America to our cause."

.....So... any person of color that has been prompted to blame their station in life upon the whites are no more than communist dupes; any white that feels guilt over the "exploitation" of the darker races are no more than communist dupes. When the communist-trained idiot, (Rhodes scholar, recall...), Clinton drives the racial wedge at every given opportunity, he proves his political stripe; red. What hypocrisy abounds with these sort of people! They wish to "instill a sense of exploitation" while they are the ones doing the exploiting. This may be offensive to some, but since it is the truth, I will make no apologies for stating it; Martin Luther King, (and I call no man "reverend"), was no man of virtue acting in a noble manner on behalf of his people; he was communist-trained and financed by over two- hundred communist front organizations in this country at the time, (documented, I might add; I have the books). He was an ally-cat with the women, and most of his "great writings" are mere plagiarism. Yet the leftist establishment academe refused to expose him for it. Those that ride his coat-tails today are no more than political whores that work to further the Israel Cohen "dream", (nightmare?), and do their damnedest to keep the racial pot on full-boil.

.....I agree implicitly with the conclusion of this author; this is simply the two warring factions of communism/collectivism vs. individualism/Americanism. I judge the man by his character; not by his color... the trouble is that all too often, I find little character in those I meet. So where does that leave the reality of the racist issue? If you want some real eye-opening information, go to the congressional record of the above date and read the entire debate.

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), June 28, 2000.

.....What did I do, scare you all off?

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), June 29, 2000.

LOL Patrick. I know I kill threads myself sometimes. In actuality the collective consciousness of the forum has dipped appreciably today. The folks who would normally respond to your fine post perhaps have found greener pastures to graze upon. Theyll be back  or so I hope & pray.

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), June 29, 2000.

Thanks, Bingo 1...

.....I just hope they get back soon; I'm heading off for vacation after tomorrow.

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), June 29, 2000.

Hi guys,

I had mentioned in my "Hope" thread that I put up yesterday, that I wanted to respond to all of you, but I'm just overwhelmed right now. Also, things are taking longer than I'd planned. Please have some patience and I'll jump back in as soon as I can.

I mean, it took almost a half a day just to find and post all the recent stuff that I did, which put me further behind in my work.

Thanks for understanding.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), June 30, 2000.

Patrick, since you're leaving, I'll try to get in a response to you sometime today.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), June 30, 2000.

I'm less politically correct than Bingo, Patrick, so I WILL state that you ran me off. I'm not a pit-bull. I think that folks WILL and DO have differing opinions. I've followed your threads on EZBOARD and came to the conclusion that you and I have absolutely NO opinion in common.

I disagree entirely with your ear-marking on "red" influence. I'm quite sure you have books to back up your premise, but I'd question the direction of the authors.

We once discussed in chat how I didn't discuss religion or politics with folks. You mentioned that those two topics were your favorites. I didn't discuss those topics because the forum was dedicated to Y2k and with the emotionalism already apparent in the Y2k "camps", it didn't seem prudent to me to introduce other "emotional" topics. Some of us have moved beyond Y2k now, and these topics are open to debate. They're still filled with emotionalism. I'm a non- Christian, Patrick, and a liberal thinker. Although I find Marxism elagent in theory, I've never seen it practiced beyond what Jesus himself did.

You can certainly understand, then, why someone who feels as I do would refrain from engaging with someone like you in a discussion such as this....I hope.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 30, 2000.


[I'm beginning to understand now why I'm statistically the most prominent poster on this forum. I screw up more!]

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 30, 2000.

Me PC? Why you...I oughtta...but...but...the man DIDN'T mention Y2K, nor polly/doomer. Not once. His CAPS LOCK key managed to stay off. And last but not least, Patrick provided a gen-u-whine e-mail addy.

These are the times that try men's souls...and why Patrick received the "atta boy" from me. Feel free to tell your friends Patrick. Don't be shy.

As to the content of his post, OK, I cringed. I assumed the shape of a pretzel once or twice. But what the hey. He wandered over from EZ, took a chance on us. Least I could do is be kind.

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), June 30, 2000.


Still movin' kinda slow, just caught this thread today...

Have many disparate thoughts. The first one, when I saw the title of the thread "Why Racism Persists" fired off as 'because we bear the gift {or curse} of sight'. I had to wonder if we were all blinded, would there be racism {is it any suprise my better half is a sci-fi buff, thoug I never touch the stuff!}.

Then I thought 'we are given sight, but often not the vision'.

I was with an Asian fellow for many years. Racism is an interesting thing. The racism between closely associated, yet differing groups was strong & shocking. I was just repeating something the other day, that my old honorary MIL used to say about one Asian nationality who you would want a member of as an attorney, because they are hard workers & trustworthy. On the flipside, her daughter-in-law who bore the most grandchildren, was from a different Asian country. No matter what this young woman would do in her life, she would always be 'below the salt', as it were.

My spouse was raised in a different faith, though he embodies more of the ideals of the faith that I was raised in, than many of those who profess it. Our marriage was actively condemed shortly before it took place, by a fundamentalist family member. I now consider this family member to be a true and trusted friend, and I know she feels the same way about me.

All that being said, I have some misgivings about 'diversity training' & quotas. Gad, you don't really want to get me started on this topic do you?

Tying back into the old bomb - was Bagga Donuts really that Chittum character? Did anyone read that stuff & what did you think? This is the point where I can understand the concerns of Doc Paulie, in a way.

-- flora (***@__._), June 30, 2000.

Then I thought 'we are given sight, but often not the vision'.

Well stated. This is the heart of the matter for me, flora. My questions are in the realm of - are we given this vision? Do we carry such vision into the womb with us? What's the spark which ignites hatred based upon skin pigment? What role does conscience play in fortifying bigotry in general, rascism in particular?

The author states this is simply a matter of collectivism. I say it goes deeper, much deeper.

As to JBD, I pushed that ugliness out of my mind a LONG time ago.

Look at that. You lit my fire again flora. You do have a knack.

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), June 30, 2000.


To respond to your first sentence: To the contrary, collectivism certainly IS philosophical. It goes all the way back to Plato; further in ways, but Plato was the first to lay it out comprehensively.

Plato, as the father of collectivism -- at least in the West -- is the first thinker to come out with a systematic view of reality. And if you follow the chains of logic, a collectivist politics is its culmination. Now, the following may be tough to get through, but crucial to understanding the roots of collectivism, so bear with me. If you'd like an elaboration, I'll be glad to give it.

We need to start with reality -- which is at the absolute root of collectivism: Plato's metaphysics (his view of reality) holds that the universe consists of two opposed dimensions:

1) True reality: This is a perfect, immutable, supernatural realm - - nonmaterial and nonperceivable; and

2) The material world -- that which we live in. The material world (Plato holds) is only an imperfect appearance of "true reality" -- a semi-real reflection or projection of it.

Ok, now, the content of of "true reality," according to Plato, is a set of "universals." Universals (in this sense) are a set of disembodied abstractions representing that which is common among various groups of "particulars" in this world.

An example of a universal is the concept "tree." "Tree" exists in Plato's "true reality." But all of the actual trees exist in the "material world."

So to recap: Universals (we know them as concepts, e.g., "tree"), for Plato, are supernatural things. They're nonmaterial entities in another dimension, independent of our minds and of any of their material counterparts (we would know them as the actual trees the universal represents). Plato tells us that the universals (e.g., "tree" or "man") are what is really real. The particulars they subsume -- i.e., the concrete things that make up this world (e.g., actual individual trees or men) -- are not real. These have only a shadowy, dreamlike half-reality.

Now, once you've graped the above, you get the astounding payoff.

Now, incredibly momentous conclusions about man are implicit in this metaphysics. And these conclusions were made explicit by a long line of Platonists:

Since individual men are merely particular instances of the universal "man," they're not ultimately real. What is real about men is only the universal which they share in common and reflect. To our common sense, there appear to be many separate, individual men, each independent of the others, each fully real in his own right. But to Platonism, this is a deception. ALL THE SEEMINGLY INDIVIDUAL MEN ARE REALLY THE SAME ONE UNIVERSAL, in various reflections or manifestations. In other words, all men ultimately comprise one unity, and no earthly man is an autonomous entity -- kind of like as if man were reflected in a multifaceted mirror, the many reflections would not be autonomous entities.

What follows in regard to human action -- according to Plato -- is a life of self-sacrificial service. When people gather in society, says Plato, the unit of reality and the standard of value, is the "community as a whole." So each man must strive, as far as he can, to wipe out his individuality (that is, his personal desires, ambitions, etc.) and merge himself into the "community" (e.g., whatever that "community" happens to be -- the state, the race, the party, the proletariat, etc.), becoming one with it and living only to serve its welfare.

On this view, THE COLLECTIVE (the "community") IS NOT AN AGGREGATE, BUT AN ENTITY. Society (the state) is regarded as a living organism, and the individual becomes merely a cell of this organism's body, with no more rights or privileges than belong to any such cell.

The reason this carried through the centuries, was that subsequent philosophers and schools of philosophy built on this. And, again, I'll be glad to expand on how this was done if you'd like.

Patrick, the quote by Cohen was very interesting. And thanks for the reference. But the extent to which the communists directly or indirectly influenced the people of color you speak of is unclear to me. Of course, people of color are individuals, many of whom were strong and smart enough never to fall for this game. These would include those with a stronger character, including a healthy sense of self-esteem.

In any case, the root of communism (as well as nazism, socialism, etc.) is collectivism, which takes us back to Plato.

I'll try to get back to the rest of y'all as soon as I can. Thanks for responding.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), June 30, 2000.

Stop it Bongo, you'll make my head swell!

If I knew we are given the vision, or earn the vision, or learn the vision...I'd start my own cult.

You know, I even had a name for it in high school - 'Our Lady of Perpetual Guilt'. Still think there's a goldmine in there.


You're headin' into Hawk territory with that 'mass conciousness' thing. My rubberband of a brain doesn't snap that far.


If you're still out there, I still owe you one about the 'no killing within the tribe' thing. I know what you were driving at, but you're wrong.}

-- flora (***@__._), June 30, 2000.

OT {Bongo - avert your eyes}-

Final weird thought for the day: Did it cross anyone else's mind that INVAR & JBD might have been one in the same? They both had the knack for vehemently vile frothings. The alliance with Di was odd, I envisioned that Invar more likely would've been one of the first to light her pyre.

Now, back to your regularly scheduled programming:

-- flora (***@__._), June 30, 2000.

"That concludes our broadcast day. We leave you with this little musical number performed by The Doors, requested by Diane - for INVAR: "Come on baby light my pyre..."

You are a sick, sick woman. You did warn me to avert my eyes. Which only made me want it more.

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), June 30, 2000.


.....If you'll reread my first sentence, you'll see that I said there was nothing philosophical about the intentional "perpetuation" of racism; the rest of the sentence was meant to say that I agree with the collectivist philosophical conclusions of the author. Sorry I wasn't a bit more clear here. I appreciate your response just the same, though, and fairly well understood that which you laid out so well; what we are experiencing, in my opinion, is the classic struugle of the Platonic and Aristotlean philosophies. The collective vs. the individualistic.

.....That said, I view Plato's work as merely a deliberate dileneation of the priciples he observed within the collectivist's objectives, as opposed to open advocacy. Aristotle, on the other hand was more of a spokesman for his views and openly advocated allowing individualism to flower for the inherent rewards that came with it. We can see from history that he was correct in this view, as plainly as we see that when this country embraced the individualistic principles of it's founding, it flourished as no nation that had gone before it. That we have abandoned those principles, that so much tragic life had been lost to preserve, grieves me to my core.

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), June 30, 2000.

"Patrick, the quote by Cohen was very interesting. And thanks for the reference. But the extent to which the communists directly or indirectly influenced the people of color you speak of is unclear to me. Of course, people of color are individuals, many of whom were strong and smart enough never to fall for this game. These would include those with a stronger character, including a healthy sense of self-esteem."


.....I meant to respond to this particular statement prior to submitting the above; that there are, indeed, many people of color that are strong enough and smart enough, is the one saving grace to keep the numbers of those subjecting themselves to the whims of the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons of the world much lower than they otherwise would have been. Living in the rural area that I do, we have what could certainly be considered a lower proportion of people of color compared to the city, and working with and befriending them over the years has afforded me the opportunity to discuss politcally sensitive matters without someone taking offense, as they know that my intentions in asking are on the level, and they know I meant no disrespect. What I have learned from those encounters, is that the people here feel as I do regarding what the liberal/socialist philosophy has done to, not only their people, but the nation-at- large. Politics of division will always destroy.

.....As an quick illustration of this, even as a child growing up in the late fifties and sixties, my very best friend in the world was "a negro"... (a quite valid term back then), that was always welcome in our home and vice-versa. When we got to around 1966 or so, the year I moved to Ohio, just before our departure, I went down to my friend's house to see what we would be doing that day, and his older brother ran me off for reasons that I didn't understand at the time, as I was only ten years old. Well, back then, the parents were involved in such matters, so my mom right away went back to his house with me to investigate. All the while walking the block-and-a-half, she was asking what I could have done wrong to the family. My friends mother and my mother had a private conversation and we left. Shortly after this we moved, so I sorta forgot about the whole thing. Years later, she told me that the reason I got ran off was because of all the tension being stirred up between the races by MLK, and his older brother was rather militantly involved, so my friend's mom and mine decided that for the time being, it would be better to just not let us kids play together for a while. Niether one of them were happy with the situation as it existed, as they had become friendly as well, but understood the reality of what was going on in the country at the time.

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), June 30, 2000.


.....I appreciate the candor of your post; I apologize if Ive come off as a pit bull at times when my passion spills over. However, we do have at least one opinion in common; we both like you... hehehe...

.....I understand your reluctance to agree with the ear-marking, as you refer to it, concerning the red influence, but perhaps the difference is in what we would each consider red by its nature. When I see money coming out of my pocket to pay for something in, say California, that should be paid for by Californians, to me, that is the very essence of communism at work. There are varying degrees of such, but inspite of the fact that the money will, and does, leave my pocket at the threat of a gun-barrel, (ultimately), there is nothing saying that I have to embrace such horrendous concepts.

.....You join another from this board when you disagree with some of the authors that I have read, but thats okay too... suffice it to say that for a goodly number of years now, I have read strictly non- fiction, and done a pretty fair amount of political research to verify the veracity of the assertions that I have seen. I dont make assertions such as the above based upon opinion, only fact. The documentation that I have tracked down, and the bibliographies have shown me that most contemporary writers, (editorialists, mostly), in the political realm are merely passing off their opinions as carte blanche fact, where facts truly dont exist. When the light of day does, at times, get shined onto the perpetrators, then the messenger is the first to suffer the shrill demonization that the communo/socialist element among us have had in their playbook for many years. Nevertheless, I stand by my research, and that of the authors that I quote from time to time. Facts being facts and all, our history is laced with many nefarious dealing, particularly in this century. That they are not broadcast, or taught in our inststutions makes them no less true.

.....Politics and religion are not for every appetite, and that I speak strongly at times doesnt necessarily mean that Im actually in your face, (generally speaking... I cant ever recall being such with you), regarding these matters. Perhaps well find a subject more benign that we could discuss in the future.


.....I really do appreciate your kind words.

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), June 30, 2000.


You said, "...from whom do we learn how to apply the scalpel of discrimination wisely?" (and similar questions). We can do this on our own. We start by treating people as individuals, focusing on what they might have to offer us intellectually -- emphasizing their character. After we get in the habit of this, I think that superficial characteristics like skin color, would naturally fade away to irrelevance.


And a fine post by yourself. I would make one exception, though. I don't think that forced integration ever should have been done -- unless it was to correct forced segregation in the same geographic area or other context. I really don't know what it accomplished, aside from fomenting hatred and cynicism.


Interesting stories. And I like your black vs. subculture distinction. I think your soccer thing is a good example of a benign generalization, from our understanding of a given culture's observable emphasis on an activity.


Your "bigotry" (your self-description) towards those who refuse to educate themselves is really an understandable reaction. You're feeling a rational contempt for a person's rejection of the one gift that makes them fully human -- their mind.


A coupla thought-provoking experiences. Food for thought: Is generalizing that Asians are hard workers and trustworthy showing a benign type of racism?


I might want to get back to you on some points in your latest posts; thanks just the same.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), July 01, 2000.


It was one particular folk from a particular Asian country. I'm staying out of a tar pit here, I was trying to contrast that with how she felt about anyone coming from her DIL's Asian country - which anything but benign. To most outside observers, they would probably all look the same'. Hard to not be specific, I'll drop you a note, I just don't want to perpetuate this stuff and probably shouldn't have tried to use it as an example.

-- flora (***@__._), July 01, 2000.


My comment was in no way meant to sound derogatory, and I apologize if you took it that way. You know, I'm still in the process of examining my own feelings in that regard across the board, and I might very well feel similarly.

Maybe "racism" is inappropriate in that context, anyway; and it's an incendiary term. In retrospect, I probably shouldn't have used it -- even though I called it benign. Again, I'm sorry, flora.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), July 01, 2000.


Please don't apologize. I didn't take the time to read the whole thread, caught up somewhere around der Bingle, & tossed in a somewhat sanitized personal story. This stuff is hard to talk about, but well worth examining - for all of us, & repeatedly...

Nobody Expects the Spanish Inquisition {TIC - tongue in cheek}

-- flora (***@__._), July 01, 2000.

Great flora. Now I have to go watch a Python video. Good thing for you I received the 1st year's episodes in the mail last week. Wanna come over for some popcorn? Or Crunchy Frog? Spring Surprise? Betcha can't eat more than one.

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), July 01, 2000.

Think I have a hankering for one of your previously recommended Forehead Incisions, ala carte.

-- flora (***@__._), July 01, 2000.

flora and Bingo,

Just glance skyward at a new thread floating above...

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), July 01, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ