I was in a conversation with him HA @Harry_Allen in the past and I could not get him into a commitment. It was like dealing with changing goal posts. He is at best excellent in diverting, frequently being tangential and circumstantial with his reasoning. Then I got tired and gave up. I’d rather deal with my patients as I get reimbursed for my services than running after a rabbit, hole after hole.
Harry, I didn’t know you play the sax. I’ll bring out my trombone and we can play some jazz. Is this you?
Very interesting comment; it caught my attention since I am an immigrant for almost 31 years - proud US citizen! My view of the Black Americans is different. When I first came to this country I started to understand better the blacks’ situation as I learned what really happened in the past. The hostility and massacre inflicted to the blacks and to their human rights by the insane whites can be accurately perceived only after one is physically in this culture for a few years. Can’t see it in full from outside the country.
The horror of the treatment dispensed to the blacks still today, this is what I personally make responsible for their disadvantage in this society. Racism, discrimination, segregation, white supremacy, you name it, destituted the blacks from many opportunities given only to whites. And Trump made it all only worse for them!
It’s those opportunities that immigrants are looking for when they move to this country. And they get them all… IF they are whites!
I see that you’re not really interested in actual dialogue. I don’t consider my responses a waste though because others read them and maybe thought about things differently. As I do when I read their comments. And for their benefit I will answer this last question:
It wasn’t a white person. My own race is constantly telling me I’m a minority. From my childhood I’ve been told, “the US won’t be fair to you it’s racist. You are not wanted here, white people dont like you “ “the system won’t let you succeed” etc. the thing is, it never happened. Overwhelmingly white poeple have been good and respectful and more than helpful. The system actually helped me out of low income through college grants. The ones That told me I’m a minority is my own race.
No. That’s not him. Our Harry Allen is not the white musician you showed. I’m quite sure he is this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Allen_(journalist). He participated in a Zoom seminar awhile back and was acknowledged by the speaker. That’s how I came to understand the connection.
George, having thought about it, I will conditionally grant what you’ve asked. IOW, I will stop—as I have in this post—though I am not agreeing to never do it again. I will do it again, should there be a reason to do it that I consider reasonable, or expedient.
When you say, “the term ‘white supremacy’ is a hoax,” @truthisfreedom, it seems as though you are saying that the phenomenon—the one the term white supremacy is meant to describe—does not exist.
However, white supremacy is another word for racism. They are the same thing. In fact, the only form of racism is white supremacy.
So, are you saying racism does not exist?
Clearly, you are not, because, later in your brief post, you say
(That bold is my edit.)
So, clearly, the termwhite supremacy is not a “hoax.”
A “hoax,” according to the Oxford Dictionary, is "a humorous or malicious deception."
Wikipedia says this: "A hoax is a falsehood deliberately fabricated to masquerade as the truth."
So, your opening statement is false, to the degree that what you mean to say is “White supremacy does not exist.”
NOW, If you had said, “white supremacy is a hoax,” I might have agreed with you.
I might have, because I’d agree that, although white supremacy is real, as a phenomenon, it is based on a “malicious deception”; a series of them, actually.
Namely, it is based on the ideas that:
a) There are “white” people
b) There are “non-white” people
c) The “white” people are the greatest, best, most beautiful, smartest, most productive, most artistic, etc., people in the known universe
d) It is correct for the “white” people to dominate the “non-white” people in all area of people activity, including economics, education, entertainment, labor, law, politics, religion, sex, and war.
e) etc., etc.
These are all hoaxes.
However, the system on which these hoaxes are based is real; i.e., not a hoax.
@Sirje, you may want to pay attention to this part, since you said
White Supremacy =
(1) The direct or indirect subjugation of all “non-white” people by white people, for the basic purpose of “pleasing” and/or serving any or all “white” persons, at all times, in all places, in all areas of activity, including Economics, Education, Entertainment, Labor, Law, Politics, Religion, Sex, and War.
(2) The only functional Racism, in existence, among the people of the known universe, that is based on “color” and/or “anti-color” in the physical make-up or physical appearance of persons.
(3) Racism “for the sake of” Racism.
(1) The scientific practice of unjust subjugation, misuse, and/or abuse of persons classified as “non-white,” by persons classified as “white,” on the basis of color or non-color, and/or, on the basis of factors “associated with” color or non-color.
(2) White Supremacy.
[Note: It is incorrect to use the term “White Racism.” To use this term is to imply that Racism exists in a form other than White Supremacy].
In response to your statement @truthisfreedom, the term “white supremacy” is a hoax, George Tichy said:
I may agree with this statement.
But note what George says near the end of it:
As a mental health professional, George may know how seriously clients who self-diagnose are taken. In other words, he may, or may not, be “a part of it.” However, that “I am not part of it” is something, I’d urge, that almost all white people say.
As I stated, recently, to Jason Hines, about white people, collectively:
Now, here’s the part that applies directly to George’s statement:
It is notable that, in this instant, what most directly connects George, who says, “I am not part of it,” to the people that, even most white people would agree were a part of it, is that both hold they are not a part of it.
As my sister once wisely stated, “If you put all the white people who admit they’re racists together in one place, you could fit them into Macy’s main floor on Christmas Eve and still have room for rush-hour traffic.”
White supremacy is a conspiracy. According to Merriam-Webster, to conspire is “to act in harmony toward a common end.”
White supremacy is also a global conspiracy, because it is a global system. White supremacy means that no non-white person, anywhere in the known universe, can make a decision about economics, education, entertainment, labor, law, politics, religion, sex, and/or war that cannot be overruled by one or more white people. The reverse is not true.
So, for example, because white supremacy is a global system, I never use the common term, “racism in America.”
Because it has no workable meaning. Drive, in any direction, for “the American border,” and one will run out of “America” before they run out of racism.
Saying, “racism in America” is akin to saying, “the American internet,” or “All the American air”: What are these, and where are they?
Most conflicts between white supremacists are, typically, about the best way to practice white supremacy; e.g., the Civil War.
As I told you, previously—unless you’re saying that there was a time when “the U.S. Constitution” did not do this—“the U.S. Constitution” also used to say I was “3/5ths” of any white person, because I am non-white.
Did it allow “for all citizens to have freedom because we all matter,” then?
If that’s your preference, as it should be, then you should be the first in line to eliminate the global system of white supremacy. Until that is done, none of the “focus” you desire is possible, because racism is in the way.
Now, as your exchanges with Allen Shepherd may indicate, most of the people to whom I respond would probably not agree with what you’ve just said.
But if, by your statement, you mean what I said to 2humBaby in July, above, while I wouldn’t say there is an “imbalance,” I would say what I said to him, later, in the post:
In my experience, the responses that white people have to racism in this forum are comparable to the ones that most white people have, anywhere. There’s less swearing and name-calling, but the general sentiments, arguments, denials, refutations, and techniques, are identical.
E.g., Allen Shepherd said, to you, “What I mean is that not all people are racists.” He’s correct. Most people are non-white.
It’s useful to me to see how white people respond in race discussions, because Black people are, very frequently, stymied by these arguments.
If someone white says, “I didn’t own slaves”; or if, as @ajshep does, they close a malformed post with a story about their love for Black people; or if, as George Tichy does, they make an elegant statement disdaining racism; many Black people “fall apart.” They often don’t know how to logically disassemble such contentions.
I try and make suggestions about how to do so. As for the “imbalance,” to which you speak, I am facing the system of white supremacy and trying not to blink. This is akin to taking five smooth stones against a galaxy.
For these reasons, I never say that any white person is a racist, and I counsel non-white people to do the same.
However, it’s interesting that you use the word suspicion in your response. I do hold that, as long as white supremacy dominates, it is just to suspect any white person, at any time, of being a racist.
This is especially the case if, as I hold to be true, the chief weapons of a racist are deceit, secrecy, and violence.
Put another way, if racism is weaponized primarily through deceit, secrecy, and violence, then, for a non-white person to suspect any white person of being a racist is merely an act of due diligence.
Many white people, especially many would-be Christians, recoil at such a proposal. That is, they do not reject it logically. They reject it emotionally.
However, what I typically say in response is that, if instead, we were talking about sin, and I said, “As long as sin dominates people, it’s just to suspect any person of being a sinner,” few would blench.
Part of the difference is that, in my maxim, non-white people stand in “judgment” of white people, even under the most genial, or generic, of circumstances, while, with sin, all bear scrutiny.
However, in response, I’d say that, under white supremacy, it is the same as that to which they object, except the roles are reversed.
What I was saying is that, if you asked most people, even most Black people, they’d say that Jared Leto looks like Jesus Christ.
However, the Bible doesn’t say this. Nor does it say angels look like Swiss decathaloners.
So, why would most people say this, and what does it have to do with racism?
I’d generally agree with you.
What I would add is that, because white supremacy dominates, when the white supremacist reads “read their situation and context into the Bible,” inevitably, it comes to dominate the non-white “reads.” The reverse is not true, despite the fact, as you note, “that almost all people mentioned in the Bible were non-white.”
If I’m not mistaken, Greeks often described Ethiopians as looking like “burnt cork.”
But as I also understand, this was not considered a slur, merely a description, because, at that time, there was no global white supremacy system backing it up.
• When talking to audiences you seek to persuade, try to avoid talking about your interlocutors’ mental processes; e.g., what they want, like, or in what they’re interested. Don’t do it, unless they do so first.
Put another way, all you can really, reasonably estimate is that I’m interested in debating racism on Spectrum, because I do it, a fair amount.
However, even there, you can’t say that I’m truly interested in it. I might be doing it under duress, for example.
• I am not trying to prove an argument: I am trying to falsify yours. In other words, if you examine this thread, you’ve made a series of contentions about the power, or effect, of racism. These are your arguments.
My objective is, via our dialogue, to show that your contentions, i.e., your arguments, are not true. This is what it means to falsify. Our actual dialogue is the means by which I do this.
If you think that I should be doing something else, when you say something with which I disagree, what would you say that is?
I’m not clear. Do you think I believe your responses are “a waste”? If so, why?
Might you be misunderstanding what I’ve written?
Put another way, I value what you’ve written, and find it useful, as I do our dialogue.
As I said to you, I not only disagree with you on many points, but on a number of them, I think that you are also incorrect; wrong.
However, you may feel the same way about much of what I say. As I see it, the process of a forum like this is to “hash it out”; for people of good will to discuss viewpoints.
As I’ve said, and will say: I’ve disagreed, strongly, with many people on this forum. However, in dialogue with them, I’ve learned a great deal.
Further, there is no one here with whom I’ve disagreed, that, had I the chance to sit down IRL, with a burger and a root beer, and talk about race, or anything else, I would decline.
I include @ajshep, when I say that, he being the only person with whom I’ve disagreed so strongly that I suggested he avoid writing about racial issues.
I’ve learned a lot, in dialogue with him, as I have with all of the people here. Indeed, I’ve probably learned the most from those with whom I most strongly disagree.
So, again, I’m not clear why you’re making the point that you have.
Well, I hope that you don’t mind if I benefit, also….
You’re not going to like me saying this, but there are significant problems with your response.
Let’s walk through some of them:
a) The first problem is the obvious one: Despite this second go-around, you haven’t yet answered the question, What is “a minority”?
I think that this is notable. In other words, I don’t think the fact that you have not answered this question is irrelevant to the nature, or quality, of our exchange.
I’m not charging you with anything, by saying this; certainly not ill intent. What I’m saying is that I didn’t ask these questions randomly.
a) Who told them?
b) Who told them, and you, that you were members of a “race”?
A few thoughts:
• There’s a saying one often hears in Las Vegas: “The house always wins.”
What this means is a few things.
It means that, when gambling in Las Vegas, any individual player may think that they’re having a “winning streak;” i.e., that they’re making a lot of money, and that they are going “to beat the house.”
However, what they find is that, often, as they extend themselves and continue to play, they eventually get to a place where they lose all of their winnings. The house always wins.
Put another way, you say, overwhelmingly, “white poeple have been good and respectful and more than helpful.”
a) It’s not over yet.
b) I suspect that part of the reason they have been this way is that you may appear to present zero threat to the system of white supremacy. You even seem to affirm that there is no such thing.
I don’t know if @elmer_cupino is white, or not. But to your statement,
This is not a comment about the race system, as Elmer’s pithy statement, itself, admits. This is about a perception of self-interest, and how to best navigate it.
If you, @Yoyito, think that white people have been so good and respectful and more than helpful to you, start asking them about white supremacy, and be tenacious. Bring it up often.
Ask them why Hispanics are treated as they are, when, to reference Donald Trump, Norwegians are not.
Ask them why Mexican children were traumatized via separating them from their parents at the Southern border, and why they still are. Ask them why, nationally, this was deemed tolerable.
Ask them if that has ever happened to white children, and, if not, why not. Ask them would they support it if it did. Ask them why they did not do more to stop it from happening to Mexican children. Ask them what they’re doing about it now.
Ask them, “Do you think that funding for ICE should be radically increased, or decreased?” (“Kept the same” is not an acceptable response.)
Ask them why do they think ICE isn’t doing more to round up the approximately half-million undocumented immigrants from Canada and Europe.
Ask them why do they think that more wasn’t done to help the victims of Hurricane Maria. Ask them how it killed over 3,000 people, and what they think should be done now.
Ask them what they would do if, tomorrow, they woke up, and their neighborhoods, overnight, were 25% Hispanic.
Ask them what they think white people should do as “America” becomes more Hispanic, and less white. Ask them what jobs would white children perform if Hispanics were, relative to their numbers, to compete at the same level as white kids, thus making them competitive for the same jobs.
Ask them what they would think about a country where their grandchildren have to compete for, say, a software engineering position in which 3 out of ever 4 qualified applicants is Hispanic. Ask them how they’d feel about that.
I suspect, if you do this, that the white people who, overwhelmingly, have been good and respectful and more than helpful, may, overwhelmingly, cease to be so good, respectful, and helpful.
For example, to that last question, about software engineers, expect awkward silences, especially in group settings. Expect to see some averted eyes, faraway glances, and unenthusiastic, “I’d feel fine”'s.
Just a warning.
Also: When you do this, do it in a group with a few other Hispanic people, and only one overwhelmingly good, respectful, more than helpful white person.
HOWEVER, once you start asking questions, forbid the other Hispanic people to fill in the answers when that white person doesn’t have, or give, them. Do not do so, either, yourself. This is a quest for data.
• One of my important mentors is a hip-hop artist. And, once, on a panel, he was responding to the affirmation, often heard from a lot of white hip-hop fans, that they “love hip-hop.”
So, he asked, "You love hip-hop? O.K. Do you love my grandma’s crusty feet?"
In other words, do you love everything that comes with hip-hop; everything that Black people endure? Or are you just here for the beats?
As my colleague, Greg Tate, titled his book, are you actually here for:
• Another meaning of “The house always wins” is this: In Las Vegas, you, as an individual, may, ultimately, do so well that you walk out with a huge jackpot.
But, if so, what “The House” does it adjust it so that the rest of the people around you, and ones subsequent, do not win.
What have the white people who have been overwhelmingly so good and respectful and more than helpful to you done for the members of your community?
What are they doing for the young people in your church, in order for them not to believe that “the US won’t be fair to you it’s racist. You are not wanted here, white people dont like you “ “the system won’t let you succeed” etc.?
Where are they when you try to persuade other Hispanic people, as they are, with hostility, rejecting your ideas as pie-in-the-sky?
Put another way, you may think—and I suspect that you probably do—I am saying that the white people you mention have not, overwhelmingly, been been good and respectful and more than helpful to you.
I’m not. I’m not saying that at all.
I’m saying that your argument that they have treated you this way, on its merits, does not defeat my argument that there is a system of white supremacy.
That is, I’m saying what I said in my very first post to you:
Put another way, how many of the white people, to whom you refer, are going around, talking about the Hispanic people that have helped give them a leg up?
A: None. They don’t have to, because they have a race system.
In other words, many “Hispanic” people are Spanish-speaking Black people; either people of African descent, or people whose ascendants were African, “indigenous,” and, sometimes, white ethnic mixtures.
Said another way, “Hispanic” people are, to a great extent, the descendants of both a) white people who spoke Spanish; i.e., Spaniards; i.e., white people from Spain, and who dominated b) the non-white people of the areas from which “Hispanics” primarily come.
White people put together the global system of white supremacy, in part, by different ethnicities of white people, dominating different ethnicities of non-white people people in different places, at different times. That’s why, in so many places, one finds non-white people speaking, natively, white languages.
This does not mean that I do not recognize that there is a “cultural” difference between, say, an English-speaking person of African descent, and a Spanish-speaking one of African, Arawak, and Spanish descent. I do.
But what I’m saying is that those distinctions are not unlimited. Indeed, when one studies the history of white supremacy, many of those distinctions start to “smear out.”
I do not.
I don’t conflate them. The people deemed “yellow” in these essays are non-white.
Because of the word you just used: “Sometimes.”
White supremacy is not ever “sometimes.” White supremacy is always on, and continuous.
It depends on if the Jews of which you speak are white, or not.
No. They are “tribalism,” “discrimination,” “black on black crime,” etc. White supremacy is a wholly other enterprise.
Thanks for saying that, but I think that you’re questions are excellent, and, in fact, rather common.
In July, I told @ajshep that only white people can be racist.
So, I said the following. (Perhaps this will help answer your question.)
Every exchange you and I have had is recorded in the database of this commenting system, and easily retrievable.
If there is a debate, of the kind you describe, that we had, unearth it, show where I did the things that you claim, and make your point.
My second response: If you had a difficulty in dialogue with me, was the issue with me, or was it with you?
I’ve been in conversation with @Kate, a fair amount, over the last couple of days. We do not have a lengthy history of comparing thoughts, but our discussions have been forthright, very direct, and she is a gifted examiner.
Please ask her, when speaking with me about racism, if she “could not get me into a commitment.”
Ask her if, in our dialogue, “It was like dealing with changing goal posts.”
You said, of me: “He is at best excellent in diverting, frequently being tangential and circumstantial with his reasoning.”
Right: This is what I’m best at doing.
Well, again, I’m looking forward to the multiple samples, over the several years that I’ve been posting, here, on Spectrum, that you’ll readily show, as proof that you just aren’t making this up.
In the mean time, though, I wonder if @kate, or @Jaray, or @David1 would say that, “In my experience, dialoguing with Harry Allen, I came away feeling that…”
I mean, they may. I’ve not cleared this with them, in advance.