Despite how tragic such incidents are, I sense the real tragedy is the disproportionate reporting. This reinforces a misplaced paranoia, feeds a false narrative,and likely contributes to resultant racial relations deterioration. Keeping the focus on “America The Racist” does great disservice both to the cost America has paid to fight racism, to the melanin-challenged who personally act in non-racial manner and to the melanin blessed who falsely fear racism and are focused only on their efforts to prove endemic, systematic racism exists where it does not.
As I mentioned last week, the inability to see (unable to see) how ideas of race and racism is (and other isms) are embedded in the fabric of this country is a huge issue. I included the list of books I did last week because I appreciate Spectrum, yet I’m not hopeful. The responses to the article reflects a level of denial about the realities of systemic and institutionalized racism in this country. I’m saddened but not surprised. As my colleague David Roediger argues, it’s important ‘to understand whiteness in order to disillusion whites unable to see past the value of their own skins.’ The value of white skin is white men with guns in Michigan protesting in a way that Black and Brown people would never have the audacity to even try. The value of white skin is the freedom to jog and feel safe unlike Ahmaud Arbery. Continue advocating, Black and Brown people need allies , we are unable to do the work alone.
To draw this as ultimately a proof of racism is over reach. The simplistic first response would be to examine whether there were any non-white protesters. present in Mi.
The second part displays an unusual blindness in that it refuses to recognize black and brown people often protest in ways that white folks do not-one has no lack of evidences of black riots-with guns-looting, taking whatever is available, burning police cars, destroying local (black) businesses in such fashion that no white privileged, armed police officer (let alone a white jogger) would enter that neighborhood. This selective perspective itself creates a communication blockade, creating a “not going to listen” impasse on both sides.
No, America is not a fundamentally racist country.
Racism was not born here-it came here to die.
The signatures on the death certificate were signed in blood.
As pointed out here, emotion over-rules reason-first casualty is failure to examine black on black numbers. I’d hate to be a part of a community that believes it is above truth simply on the basis of its superior melanin content. Justice is not thus served.
Despite the criminality of the action of the two men in Brunswick does not automatically prove America is racist, nor that no white person is absolved of coercive guilt.
So how can we have this conversation?
Can we? Or do we prefer to extrude the view to fit what our own emotion spurs us to demand? Numbers such as Allens examples have no race-refusal to acknowledge them might.
One could reasonably argue that the birth of this nation was partially due to the needful recognition that all men have inalienable rights. Perhaps if the founders eyes had to chosen to ignore evil of racism, America as it is would never have been conceived, let alone born.
Years ago I had a patient in the domestic violence program. He was black, married to a white woman. Rich man, driving a brand new Mercedes. He told me seveal times that he frequently was pulled over when she was with him in the car, and the officers not only checked documentation but always asked the white woman, “Is everything OK with you Ma’m?”
You know, @ajshep, based on the content of your writing, you may be the white person on Spectrum’s boards most consumed with Black crime; its frequency, content, deterrence, etc.
I can’t prove this. To do so, I would have to lay out a systematic, qualitative analysis of your writing, comparing it to that of other white people in this forum, when the topic is race, or related to it.
However, from just a back-of-the-envelope kind of assessment of what you say, having noticed it a little while, this seems to be your thread; your beat.
In a way, your seeming preoccupation makes me think about the industrialist in Madonna’s 1989 “Express Yourself” music video. At the 2:33 mark, he indulges himself with a life-sized diorama of Black musicians, fixed upon them as they slowly gyrate to the sound of their brass instruments.
You assume too much. That I would be on the board is actually ludicrous. I would be a thorn in their flesh.
Not really. WO was a much bigger beat. Ask George.
But I find your assumption on the matter, rather than a real answer to my comments, thinking I am obsessed, to be unwarranted. It’s called an ad hominem
It might be better to stick to the discussion rather than assume something about the commenter. Why would you do that?
My comment was actually just to counter 2nd’s posting about a white on black crime, a crime that gets inordinate attention from the press because it confirm’s their narrative: White America is racist. The facts, however, point to an individual rather than a nation wide fault.
BTW, I had to look up the crime rates, did not know them off the top of my head. I also learned that white on white and black on black are where crime occurs. In other words, blacks are more likely to be killed by their own, and whites by their own. Although black on white crime is about twice as likely as white on black, it is a small fraction of the total. I did to know that.
I guess what I object to is the broad brush painting that 2nd does. I was challenged to read a book, How To Be An Antiracist, by Kendi. It’s a good read, actually. I have read about a third or so. 2nd seems to have accepted what the book says. I am a bit more skeptical of some of it. Kendi divides people into two groups, racists and antiracist. And all policies similarly. I think that is a bit much. There are other considerations besides race, and there should be.
Pretty sure Harry means this forum “discussion board”-not Spectrums foundation or executive organization. Curious though-his admission previously that his opinion is unverifiable, yet he is willing to place you on the very top of all “consumed white persons” on Spectrums site.
But you might make a good cocklebur under spectrums saddleblankeet…
That folks like Harry and 2nd will not address the race free bare numbers comparisons reveals something instructive. An honest desire for a conversation would not so casually ignore comparative relativity of threats-the goal seems purely unidimensional racially.
But since justice (or it’s kissin’ cousin) can’t be exacted from all the individuals, lets whitewash-or tar-with broadest brush possible. However I am less hopeful than I used to be that this simple and unsurprisingly employed with such eloquence concept might be recognized. Isn’t it the exact mentality that ushered in American style racism (a relatively very newcomer to the ages old old continent form of it)?
So… on the opposite end of this, if a black man isn’t pulled over like this, and doesn’t experience what you are saying… then what? You seem to consolidate and generalize all of the experience of such by pointing to select cases that are arguably rare today when you take into account the broader experience of the group that you merely identify by those who are mistreated.
I’m not responding to, or paying attention to, your argument—as @2ndOpinion may have been—or considering it.
I was just reading your words, and I thought, “This guy talks about Black crime a lot.” It was just something I noticed, having read a certain amount of your writing. I think it is a significant detail. And, yes, it is also a criticism.
If, technically, that makes this ad hominem, I’ll take it. I don’t think it is, strictly, because I’m not responding to or considering your argument. I’m writing about something else. But I’ll take the criticism, if so, or if, logically, there is no way to avoid it.
You said:
In response:
Are you saying that the recent lynching of Ahmaud Arbery may imply that the white persons involved in this act were racists, but it does not say anything about whether the society in which they reside is racist?
If so, you either don’t know what you’re talking about, or you have something to hide, which would mean that you do know what you’re talking about: Refining the system of white supremacy (aka racism).
You said:
In response:
I’m glad that you’re educating yourself on these matters.
You said:
In response:
I think most white people do. It’s almost as though they want both the credit of individuality, as well as the associative group power of race.
It’s kind of like a teenager, asserting how distinctive she looks in her new haircut. Then, as she and several thousand of her peers gather at the local coliseum for an event, all one sees is a myriad of young people in the same hairstyle, makeup, jewelry, and jeans; all of them being individuals.
You said:
In response:
That’s excellent. Drink deeply.
You said:
In response:
Of course, you do. Many react the same way to Matthew 12:30 (1st part).
It is saying "since you wont accede to my being correct you are ̶R̶A̶C̶I̶S̶T̶ err, WHITE SUPREMACIST "
It is artfully repackaged racism, pure and simple. I’d venture it is a form of supremacy, and we none-blacks are poor, illiterate, heartless haters, period.
How does the conversation get moved ahead-or is there a covert or subconscious effort to keep it stuck?
Me, I like rainbow trout, the fresher the better, dripping wet on my fly rod.
I also like bass, crappie, halibut.
I also like all people-but people who insist I, by virtue of my fins, skin color, or fresh/salt water cannot truly like them are stridently attempting to seemingly disabuse me of my personal chosen nondiscriminatory beliefs and behaviors.
.
I think there should be some placating, given the explosive nature of this conversation. People yelling “you are racist… No you are” doesn’t really gets resolved without some placating, de-escalation and appeals to unvompromising rationality.
Can I offer you some fresh salmon?
With dill mashed taters and fresh steamed asparagus?
Open invite to whomever wishes to share my humble repast.
(edit to add) I apprehend your point-however I’ve called no ONE racist-on basis of their skin color.
Only calling behavior and belief that by virtue of skin color, white people cannot help being racist.
THAT requires answer-most leave the conversation , sadly.
Dinners on at 6.
ALL I CAN ADD TO THIS IS ONE THOUGHT- IF A PERSON AGITATES FOR SOMETHING PURPORTING TO BE JUSTICE TO BE EXACTED UPON THE OTHER RACE OF PEOPLE WHO INFLICT CRIMES ON SAID PERSONS SAME RACE BUT WILLFULLY IGNORE NEED FOR THE EQUAL JUSTICE ON PEOPLE OF THEIR OWN RACE WHO INFLICT CRIME UPON THEIR OWN RACE (WHICH HAPPENS TO REALIZE A RISK MORE THAN TWICE THAT OF THE FIRST SCENARIO) I SUBMIT THAT PERSON IS CLEARLY UNABLE TO HONESTLY CALL HIMSELF ANTI-RACIST.
When discussing wetness with a fish wipe the scales from your own eyes.
So, first of all, this—the failure, by a white person, to truthfully respond to the questions of a non-white person, during conditions dominated by white supremacy—increases my suspicion that the person with who I am interacting may be a racist.
Why? Because withholding useful information supports deceit, secrecy, and violence, these being the chief weapons of the white supremacists. To withhold useful information from non-white people is an extremely common racist tactic.
NOTICE: I am not saying that @ajshep is a racist. I never have. I never will.
HOWEVER, to the degree that this question is not answered, and answered truthfully, by him, this is a suspicion I am holding, and advancing, and that I should hold and advance, even apart from the content of the question itself, or whatever the response to it might be.
Now, that having been stated:
If@ajshep is saying that the recent lynching of Ahmaud Arbery may imply that the white persons involved were racists, but it does not say anything about whether the society in which they reside is racist, I would say, either:
A) He doesn’t know what he’s talking about, simply because a society is nothing more than that: The thought, speech, and actions of its members.
To say otherwise is akin to arguing that a glass of milk may have chocolate in it, but that this has no implications as to whether or not the glass holds chocolate milk.
So, either A) he doesn’t know what he is talking about, or:
B) He is lying. If so, then he knows that, obviously, the character content of the people in a society bears, irrepressibly, on that society, and he is saying otherwise, on purpose.
However, if he is lying, why would a white person lie about racism?
The only reason of which I can think is to, in some way, protect the order; i.e., the race system; to by deceit, secrecy, or violence, keep the existing relationship set intact.
Now, if you are saying that there is a 3rd option, please state it. I could be wrong about my conclusions, and often am.
You said:
In response:
As long as racism is dominant, any charge made against victims of racism—non-white people—always suits racism better.
So, these kinds of narratives may be extremely problematic, as you say, but they are not even distantly as problematic as White Supremacy.
