It appears the quote may have come from a conservative site called “Fee”. Not sure.
Here is an article from Intellifact, a non partisan fact checking org: Is BLM Marxist?
I’m not worried about being sucked up into the death vacuum of leftist ideology. The issue here seems to me that those making these accusations are so far right that any movement to the left is viewed as full on communist. When you are standing out in the cornfield along the right side of the road, you have to climb the right-of-way fence, cross the barrow ditch, the right shoulder and then the right lane to finally find the center line of the highway.
I don’t have any answers. Just questions. This polarization is getting nowhere. We really need to rise above the name-calling, the labeling, and the vilification of people we disagree with. Too many political leaders “win” by just these actions.
What if we asked the question, “What does the center line look like?” What can everyone agree on what the middle of the road IS?
It does get to the heart of the delusions though. If BLM then all lives will matter. Until then there will continue to be abuse by the police powers of the state. I find it funny to see some comments about how more whites are shot by police. Do people not realize that the same policies that allow the capricious murder of blacks also allows it to go unchallenged when others are also murdered. I would think we should all be in favor of some restrictions on police powers.
I think there’s some truth there… I wonder about the fear factor here though. Do you think there may be people worried that to accept this requires losing something?
We’re Christians. Could there be a call to prayer, asking, “is it I?”
Again: In a discussion about racism, generated by the blog post to which comments are responses, I see @Timo’s 90º turns toward discourses on sexism as deflective and evasive. (You do not say this, but do speak about viewing his responses on race—which you characterize as “almost without empathy and violent with words”—as “a defense mechanism.”)
Is mine the correct response to this specific issue? I think so, but I am not sure. As I stated, @Timo has never replied to this argument, perhaps for the reasons you’ve suggested. Thus, I am deprived of an examiner.
Harry, I don’t prefer to talk about a Spectrumite with someone else. I prefer to (and did in the past) talk to someone instead of about someone. An explanation: My last post to you (# 103) was not about @Timo, but it was a general observation. If it wasn’t obvious, I apologize. I also saw that you invited him to the discussion. Please understand that I won’t respond to you regarding the things directly concerning @Timo.
Having said that, I am glad to discuss the issues, which you raised in your post, and how I see them. Would that be a valid alternative for you?
I agree with your points (a) and (b): Most humans are non-white females. And if sexism would be abolished, they would still be oppressed by racists. So they fight racism first.
There are two things that i don’t understand in your post and maybe you can clarify it.
Why didn’t you mention that non-white females are, in addition to oppression by white males, also oppressed by non-white males? When I ask like this, do you see this as a racist question? Is it then better to use another word than “oppression” regarding sexism of non-white males to non-white females to avoid being insensitive to people that are oppressed for such a long time?
Why did you answer the question about non-white people and sexism only regarding actions by non-white women? Aren’t non-white men also involved in the fight against sexism? And again, I agree with your order of importance for non-white people: racism first, then sexism.
In general, the shifting of a talk about racism to sexism by a white person could be a distraction. It could be a cover for “Get your house in order before we admit that we own your house.” That is not my intention.
Thanks, @Kate. I appreciate and respect your discretion.
I have a different code. I hold that it’s appropriate for anyone to raise any question, or say anything, about anything that that anyone has posted on the site, at any time, as long as doing so is within community guidelines.
When quoting persons on Spectrum, I prefer to use their @handle, so that they will know that I am speaking about them, and/or about what they’ve written. (Again, what I typically say about them is about what they’ve written.) This gives them the option to ignore the comment or respond. This is a courtesy I would want for myself.
My comments about @Timo were that, in my opinion, a) his responses per sexism were deflective and evasive, and that b) he has never replied to my counterargument.
I’ve said this to him. I’ve said it to you, about him, having done so while commenting on things you’ve said, on-forum, about things he’s said.
I do understand this may be outside of your standard of interaction. As stated, I respect that. However, it is not outside of mine, and, again, I would have no problem with anyone doing the same to me.
Absolutely. It is that for which we’re here.
Actually, I have said this, but no longer do.
Instead, I say that the largest bloc, or group, of people are non-white females.
I can’t say, and don’t think, that 51% or more of the people on the planet are non-white females, though I am reasonably confident that they are not white people.
I wouldn’t say “first” temporally, but, perhaps, first in place, and effect; predominately.
• Also, thanks for the question. I do not see it as a racist question. There are few questions, asked with what I see as sincerity, the asking of which i would regard as racist.
• Re: the word “oppression,” I don’t have a suggestion, yet. I would use the word mistreatment, myself.
• To your main question, one could say that non-white females, in addition to oppression by white males, are also oppressed by non-white males.
However, the key reasons I don’t is that:
a) In these Spectrum fora, I’m not primarily making a case against sexism, but against racism. So, I don’t see it as in my interest to go beyond saying that racism complicates any analysis of feminine mistreatment.
This is particularly true when one part of the feminine group—the white part—is dominating the numerical majority.
b) It’s not clear to me what part of non-white male sexism is an outgrowth of white dominance. I’m also not sure that this is clear to non-white females, in many cases.
Further, I think where it is clear, the opinions are divided: Some, I believe, see non-white male sexism as its own suite of problems, while others—and I suspect that this may be the larger set—may see it as intertwined with white supremacy, and, to a tremendous degree—greater than commonly recognized—as an outgrowth of it.
That is, to some degree, non-white females, ones possessing a race analysis, may see the shortcomings of non-white males, as it pertains to females, as a form of frailty; not unlimitedly, but to some great degree.
This is especially the case, given everything with which they see non-white males beset by the race system. (I mentioned this in my earlier response.)
I had to go back and look at my response, and, having done so a couple of times, I’m not sure I see why you have this impression.
What did I say that makes you think this is what I believe?
Looking at my reply, I wasn’t trying to make a statement about non-white female culpability vs that of non-white males.
More, what I was trying to show is what non-white females might see as their obstacles, or as the forces that reinforce their impediments.
My guess is that non-white females think about sexism far more than non-white males do. This may express a form of necessity.
If so, I don’t believe that this means that non-white males should ignore the mistreatment of females, or, certainly, participate in the same. We have a stake in the wholeness and safety of all people, particularly those who are uniquely victimized or dominated.
I agree, and I’m glad that you do, also.
I think that there’s a fair amount of that, as it pertains to racial discussions.
For example, the entire, white “black-on-black crime” narrative, pressed whenever Black people object to police brutality.
I also appreciate and respect your transparency. There is no mystery or guess work around you, that’s for sure. You’re honest and direct. I value that.
About what you said first and then I repeated: “Most humans are non-white females” … thank you for stating the obvious. Of course, I meant the largest group of humans.
Yes, this is what I meant at the end of my post. You will realize that I do not use words as precisely as you do. This has to do with me not being a native speaker and with me writing here relaxed in my free-time, mostly with my heart first. Context can be key to correctly understand me.
Thank you for your insight into the intertwining of racism (and its effects/outcome) and sexism and the difficulty to separate these two regarding non-white men. I have never thought about this. Very interesting. I will think more about that.
About the second response: I was just surprised at your quote in which non-white men were missing. Now you explained it and I understand. I didn’t read the whole former discussion because I don’t click on links where I don’t know where they lead to. This is not an accusation against you. So, not that you feel bad. I see that you want to be crystal clear about each of your moves, and I don’t want you to feel accused of not being so.
About the “black-on-black crime” narrative: Yes, this is what I also noticed here on this forum. Why do people come up with that after brutality against Blacks? There can be different reasons or a combination of some: defense mechanisms, biases (as @tekcajwolley, Bob, mentioned in a post today), fear of consequences that are uncomfortable for themselves, or worst case ignorance or approval. With all this, there is not much space left for normal empathic feelings.
To change a society, usually at a first step, there has to be empathy, heart involved. Especially when one wants that the biggest group shares their privileges. Usually, only out of empathy the mind can be reached.
Do you discuss about other topics beyond racism here as well? I have not seen you do so. But I don’t read everything. I’m curious to hear about your theological perspective. And also about your theological perspective regarding racism: Is your endurance regarding racism discussions an expression of spirituality for you?
I did not rate the plus or minus value of what has happened. I noted the fact that this is so, and you have not argued that it is not so. But to say whether it was worth the suffering, I did not say one way or the other. Just pointed it out the advantage of black Americans.
But for you, just pointing it out is putrid. Pointing out facts is wrong? Or you just don’t like them?
Your comments about the holocaust are not relevant. The Jews were already successful before it.
Part of the problem with your reasoning is that you only take into account the suffering in America, while not reckoning the suffering occurring in Africa at the same time, which has been huge. In other words, there has been suffering on both sides of the equation. I have pointed out the issues there in previous posts
Ask any African which place they would prefer, go ahead. They would chose this racist, putrid place in a heart beat.
The implication here is that HA is always on the right side. I don’t think that everyone even here would agree with that.
I don’t see how you can call this a non partisan fact checking org. It is clearly not, but, well, far to the left. Look how they describe the conservative view! My quote is from FEE, but the title of their article was: “Is Black Lives Matter Marxist? No and Yes”. That is a much more balanced assessment than your “non partisan” fact checkers. In fact, there were way more facts in my post than yours!
What is so ironic is that the “fact checkers” do the name calling, and then condemn it!:
Thanks for your time in replying. This is difficult stuff. I had no intent in causing so much anger as I sense in your reply. You made reference to a quote that was discussing blm and Marxism without referencing the source. I had to look it up. In so doing I found Politifact. I haven’t spent a lot of time there but what I read was handled pretty fairly. They looked at both sides- they even said the blm founders were Marxist trained.
Doesn’t matter. Im not trying to assert my site is better than yours.
My appeal (and main point) which wasn’t copied in this post was that we need to try to discover and define the middle, the place where we can find some agreement.
We’ll never find it by inferring foul play on the part of the other.
So why not start over by trying 2 things:
1, pray that God will give us wisdom and understanding and a spirit of brotherhood, and,
2, appeal to all the lurkers here for information that will contribute to finding that middle.
Just that I have seen this too often before. Politifact seemed to imply that to mention the Marxist underpinnings of BLM was way right field, out is the corn field as they implied, when BLM founders admit it themselves. That does not seem so right wing to me.
This poster is quite misleading. The vast majority of blacks killed by police were armed. about 1-5%(an estimate, but close) were unarmed, and as the research done on the ones shot in 2019 (10 people), shows most were also attacking the police.
The poster has no context. If most were armed, then they were attacking someone.
So to seek to show that the police are out “hunting” blacks as some assert is really ridiculous.
YOU MUST HAVE CONTEXT OR THE STATS ARE MEANINGLESS
The question posed by Jane Elliott and the few responses to it by those on this forum says it all about the treatment of blacks in this country. In my opinion, everything else is just a distraction, secondary issues or insignificant.
I understand your earnest efforts with trying to provide explanations to support your views and do applaud your efforts. I encourage you to continue seeking with an open mind. With God as your guide the truth will be shown.
The underlying principle with this phenomenon is the same principle seen in therapy where a patient is referred by a loved one to change his behaviors. The patient presents to the therapist not because he wants a change but to appease his loved ones. The best society can do to equalize the playing field is to provide equal opportunity for everyone to succeed. Behavioral changes by legislature or shaming has recently been proven to be grossly ineffective by our very own church’s annual meeting and TW’s compliance committees.
The involved psychodynamics are the same as shared by the seculars and religious. Only the actors are different.
As your post appropriately implies, “Let this sink.”