Ageism is so wired into our system that property taxes, home and property ownership, marriage, healthcare costs, fixed and dwindling incomes, medigap charges, saved monies, and more are systematically removed by our democratic governmental tentacles for their use and eliminated from use by their proper beneficiaries-who are then left out in the wind with their dementia, their functional limitations, their dependence-
and yet some opine that white supremacy is the chief sin.
I suggest few are they capable of analyzing the situation without getting hoovered up by their own emotions and their own self-interests to accede to this reality.
Where is the outrage that essentially “Old Lives Matter”
(but only for the money/property powerful men can take from them)
Until all lives matter-old lives, babies lives, mother lives, mentally ill lives, etc
can we honestly claim any lives matter??-
-especially when we narrow the definition to exclude black on black murder victims lives?
(Edit to add-somehow system misaddressed my general comment which was not intended to a specific person. Sorry @JohnCarson)
I missed this post, and didn’t want it to go unanswered.
Allen, you may be losing your sight, and/or some level of access to your frontal lobe.
I said:
You said:
I said:
You said:
Allen, how can it not be an answer when the response comes directly out of the statement about which you are asking a question?
Goodyear Tires are great.
What are Goodyear Tires?
Great.
That’s not an answer!
I have no expertise on “the army,” no knowledge of what they are doing, nor have I raised them as a topic.
You haven’t proved this. You’ve merely asserted it.
Further, in my experience, what you’re saying is not true.
Even this demicluster of white people on Spectrum seems to care what I do.
For example, YOU care that I’m writing about racism. The proof is your posts, and what you say about what I write.
Many of the rest of the white people, here, even though unable to competently respond to my positions, write about me. If they don’t care what I do, why do they write about what I do?
I notice this, about you white people, when it comes to race: You just say stuff, but don’t back it up. Why should anyone believe it, if you can’t prove it?
You’ve described them as “this big group.” I did not. See above.
You are inarticulately and inaccurately responding to the thought experiment that you initiated.
If you’re not going to take your own examples seriously, don’t offer them. Stick to parables.
I’ve made this point, before: White people love to say stuff like, “Black, white, green, purple, or polka-dot: Doesn’t matter to me what color you are!”
And I think to myself: What a lie: You can’t get along with the non-white people you’ve got, and here you go making up additional ones."
You’re tossing off more and more of these wack analogies, but you’re not dealing with the statement I wrote. Why is that, do you think?
This is just worthless. These are shrill, horrible responses.
They read like you’ve not thought them through, at all. At least Arkdrey tried to respond to what I wrote, and attempted to build a suitable response.
You’re not serious. You’re just sloshing in a pail.
Your sorrow doesn’t matter. It’s a pi-meson. My argument and its logic is what matters.
Why don’t you reproduce the rest of what I wrote on this topic, and respond to that, instead of selectively pulling out the parts you want to use for cheap effect?
Go ahead: You’re not going to win this.
My policy is that white and non-white people should refrain from sexual relations—sexual intercourse, sexual play, etc.—as long as white supremacy is dominant.
Are you saying that, if I open the Liberty University handbook, I am going to find the following words?:
White and non-white people should refrain from sexual relations—sexual intercourse, sexual play, etc.—as long as white supremacy is dominant.
Is that true? Because there’s a 9th commandment, not just eight. You’ve got to read 'til the end.
I hope your Black parishioners get to see this. This is why I said you should stop writing about race.
Greetings, @kate. I missed your post before closing, so I am responding to it here.
By “parallels,” I mean between the charge, and my rebuttal.
See below.
Correct.
What I meant is that many white people charge non-white people who object to racism with shortcomings and flaws of one kind or another.
For example, someone might say, “All you do is talk about racism! Why are you wasting your life?”
The Maximum Maxim says, Any criticisms made of racism’s victims, as these pertain to racism, are usually best made of white supremacy, itself.
Or, as I’ve taken to saying recently, white supremacy projects.
So, for example, re: the charge that I’m “wasting my life”:
By definition, white supremacy has wasted more of my life than I ever could. Not only has it wasted my life, but it has wasted the lives of ancestors whose names I will never know, and will probably do the same to descendants I will never meet.
It’s done the same to other non-white people, along the same, and other, axes.
Toni Morrison, the late, Nobel Prize-winning author, above, famously said:
“The function, the very serious function of racism is distraction. It keeps you from doing your work. It keeps you explaining, over and over again, your reason for being. Somebody says you have no language and you spend twenty years proving that you do. Somebody says your head isn’t shaped properly so you have scientists working on the fact that it is. Somebody says you have no art, so you dredge that up. Somebody says you have no kingdoms, so you dredge that up. None of this is necessary. There will always be one more thing.”
Even the charge that “All you do is talk about racism!” is exceeded, by far, by white supremacy. Its sole topic is racism. At least, every now and then, I talk about The Walking Dead and hip-hop. White supremacy only talks about The Walking Dead and hip-hop to the degree that doing so aids racism.
So, for example, you said:
You were saying, in other words, that “my insights” did this.
My response was that nothing generalizes whole segments of persons more than the race system, aka white supremacy. You might even say that, under race, generalizing whole segments of persons is “Job No. 1.”
You know, what’s so interesting about this statement, GeorgeTichy, is that the patient you describe sounds like you, in the way that you write about race.
The failure to change is why I kept saying to you, “Make an argument.” I felt like this Black guy:
But all you’d do is repeat the same worn cliches about not judging people. You know; stuff like that.
When you tried to get me thrown out of here for what I was saying, the moderator had to tell you, in so many words, “No, George: The idea that racism is something only whites can manifest is commonly asserted by many social scientists.”
You stood corrected. Then you deemed you wouldn’t speak to me any more.
Hmm: “A patient that is not making any progress, that is stubborn and won’t change, who refuses to ameliorate their emotional/mental condition, who don’t really want to improve their thinking process?”
Pizza! Here in New Zealand we have Hell Pizza. That sure gets some of the religious types in a knot. With phrases such as “We cater for sinners of all kinds”, Responsibly creating Hell on earth", and “Hell raising $66,666 for neonatal trust”, there is some very clever marketing, and certain types that will forswear ever stepping inside a Hell store. And the pizza names themselves make a statement. Lust, Greed, Envy, Wrath, Pride, Gluttony, and The Saviour.
Let me specify. The context implies to me that you made generalizing statements about soccer moms. Something like they would affirm Klansmen rhetoric. After your post, I understand now that for a racism victim, like you are, this wording “generalizing whole segments of persons” is an inappropriate term because of its closeness to racism, although, as we found out, it is not always a definition of racism.
As a solution, I do not make the connection to “your insights” and alternatively simply state my view without involving you:
I don’t know how to say on a sensitive and appropriate way that I don’t want to generalize soccer moms. The reason why I don’t want to do this is simply that I cannot know the thinking of each one of them. I did not intend to defend white supremacists or especially a group of white persons, but I just admitted that I don’t know how a group of persons as a whole thinks about certain things. We were only talking about soccer moms, but I could extends this to many other groups as well.
About your metaphor “snake bite poison”: I used to illustrate that on another way: One could also say that you provoke people until the ugly face of racism shows up.
The question remains whether this sort of thing is intentional, or can’t help it subconscious.
Aligns with my first statement to the poster back what a year ago. I suggested he did not know what he was saying-reply was that he absolutely did, so i lean towards the former.
But-as a male supremacist, I wonder if he would argue the same about that millenia-entrenched system of female subjugation (which apparently, due to male fragility, cannot admit, or even see).
When I read the KKK statement, it occurred to me that these were values with which most of the white people I’d met, or that I’d heard speak, or express their views, would probably agree.
That was the impression I had at the time.
That is, I don’t think they would have agreed with the specific rhetoric, and its coarseness. Also, again, I did not retain the document, so I could maintain an ongoing, metrical comparison of its views to those of 21st century soccer moms.
But I recall, at the time, having this insight: That “most average white people, it seems, would support this statement, said a nicer way.”
Such a conclusion floats at least two other observations.
One I’ve already shared: My belief that racism is a continuum between white people; it is not “siloed”; something done by “ignorant,” “stupid,” “uneducated,” or other kinds of defective white people, but, in fact, it is a shared effort.
This is a conclusion that has only sharpened as my other verdicts have been whetted; e.g., that racism is white supremacy, and that the minimum requirement for one to be a white supremacist is that one be white.
To clarify, this does not mean that if you’re white, you are a racist. But it does mean that, if you are a racist, you are white.
The second finding is the invisibility of racists. We speak about “the KKK” and “soccer moms” as though these are discrete sets. But they aren’t. For example, anyone whose studied the role women have historically played in ardently white supremacist movements knows this.
However, “ardently white supremacist movements” are not the extent of racism. Many Black people have also conducted a form of this research. They do this every time they realize that someone white, whom they originally held in esteem, they now strongly suspect to be racist.
It’s not offensive to me, if that’s what you mean.
I just don’t think that any manner by which non-white people respond to racism is more grotesque, or reprobate, than racism. It’s like farting in a hurricane.
I think that you’ve said this, and made it clear.
I think soccer moms are, to some degree, generalizable, however. First, they’re all “soccer moms.” That’s a generalization.
This concern came up early in my conversations with @Arkdrey. I retorted that Black people were less concerned with how white people think than with how they function.
He didn’t like this, but I like it a lot. Not only does it get to what we can observe and measure, but it leaves issues like “thoughts” to those who can read them.
One of the outcomes of me speaking about racism the way I do is that many white people, here, have:
berated me, personally, both directly and indirectly
criticized and derided my ideas, vaguely, but not specifically
threatened to leave the Spectrum fora
charged me with making statements about white people that I’ve never made; one being, specifically, that “all white people are racists”
tried to get me banished from the forum
joked with each other about my counter-racism efforts and goals
criticized the format of my posts as “too long,” “boring,” etc.
refused to respond to my questions or posts
told me that I was ruining Spectrum’s discussions on racism, and that, as a result of my posts, soon the fora would be empty, and I would be “talking to myself”
engaged in specifically off-topic dialogues, as a way of “running out the clock” on posted racism commentaries
Though not exhaustive, these are all textbook expressions of white fragility; the phenomenon that @mark_carr, Andy Lampkin, @Carmen, @TheAdventistPodcast, Bonnie Dwyer, Alisa Williams, and their attendees will be discussing on Friday, September 25, 2020 at 10 am PT, plug plug. (See this page for more details.)
But because I was doing this kind of work long before Robin DiAngelo was, these reactions, to me, are just what white people mostly do when you talk about racism in a way that doesn’t flatter them. I’ve seen it a million times. None of it is novel. At all.
Specifically, @Timo: The statements are intentional, of course. The “provocation,” though, you might call a reaction that I expect, due to “the extant social arrangement,” aka racism; one from which I do not back away, given the gravity of the issue.
A mentor of mine has said that, “You can’t talk about racism without doing at least two things, right off: Embarrassing Black people, and offending white people. You can’t do it…if you’re going to tell the truth.”
The differentiation between thinking and functioning is very interesting. I have to think more about that. We cannot know how a person thinks, but we can observe how they function in the system. It doesn’t matter if their actions are conscious or unconscious. Everyone is responsible for their actions.
What I noticed: When we were talking about soccer moms, we weren’t talking about all of them everywhere, but only about the once you know. That’s what you seem to imply. We cannot know how the whole group of soccer moms functions because we don’t have the ability to observe them all. You, however, can observe how those you met function because that is an observable amount of persons.
Based on these steps, I am not able to know how whole groups of people think or function. I can only observe a certain amount of them and can see how they function. This observation doesn’t happen from a neutral point of view. Each one of us is influenced by history, background, experience, position in the system etc. My baggage influences my observation. Your baggage influences your observation. We have to keep this in mind.
I agree with you that I (and actually we both) am not able to know how even an observable amount of persons really thinks 100 % (conscious, unconscious) because I am not God. I can observe hints about their thinking, and when I would be psychologically trained I could observe even hints about their subconsciousness up to a certain degree.
Why don’t you simply ask Harry (@Harry_Allen) next time instead of me? I said it once regarding talking about you and I say it here again regarding talking about Harry: I don’t prefer to talk about Spectrumites, but to them. Please understand this. Thanks, Timo. (Btw, your questions have already been addressed; see above.)
That’s why we discuss things, different people with different contributions. I for myself want to understand the concept or concepts and want to look at the concept or concepts from different angles. I want to be on a journey to learn, to connect, to explore the world, to find my place in it, to change myself, to contribute to justice. I need many contributions for this journey. That’s why I don’t want you or anybody else, and especially not the victims of racism, to feel muted.
I’m talking about “soccer moms” as a class. I’m not talking about them individually, their individual thoughts, or even their group thoughts. I’m generalizing, because I’m not talking about any of them. I’m talking about them as abstractions.
You say, “We cannot know how the whole group of soccer moms functions because we don’t have the ability to observe them all.”
What I’m saying is that, depending on what one is forecasting, one may not need to do so, give the law of averages.
When I speak of “what white people will do,” I do so in a general way, based on my experience, having interacted with a fairly wide set of white people during my lifetime, as well as having observed them, both closely and at a distance.
The same is true re: Black people, with the added fact that I am a Black person.
So, I’m generalizing. Generalizing has the powers, and limits. I know that when I am doing it.
When I talk about racism this way with white people, what tends to happen is what has happened; e.g., hostility. I’m generalizing.
I will add, here: One of the things mass marketers know, but that the general public does not seem to understand, is that human beings are fairly predictable. Most of us take a stance for our individuality, but this “individuality” is usually of a certain kind, within a certain set of behaviors.
White people tend not to agree that racism is white supremacy when a Black person says it. I don’t need to speak to every white person to know that this is true. I just need to speak to a certain number of them. This is how polling works, for example.
White people do not act in a way that eliminates racism. I know that, because racism is white supremacy, and racism exists.
What “baggage” are you suggesting is at work, here, please, in these observations?
This is why I tend to avoid talking about the thoughts of other people, even though, here, I’m not typically accredited the same courtesy.
Oh, you talked about abstractions. Now I get it. There is a nuance between abstractions and generalizations. And you are aware of the power and limits of abstractions.
Thank you for the article. I will read it.
Based on the just now defined terminology I also used an abstraction. “Baggage” in the sense every person has; I defined it as e.g. “history, background, experience, position in the system…”. Baggage is an unbiased term for me. It includes all what may influence or shape a person and therefore their perception and the way they observe the world.
Your goal was not to observe for the sake of observing, but to see how an abstract group functions in a racist system. This includes more than just agreeing or not agreeing to a statement as in your first example (= a certain number of white people don’t agree that racism is white supremacy when a Black person says it). Your observation, therefore, has to be evaluated so that it informs you about the groups functioning in the system. Your research question is how do they function and not only do they agree to your definition of racism.
At the beginning, you observe. From your point as everyone would. In order that your observation correctly informs you about the functioning of the group, you have to consider more things than just the end result (= group doesn’t agree to a certain definition of a Black person).
You have to consider nuances (body language etc.), when was the question asked, to whom, were there follow up questions, etc. to verify your observation. The observer can become part of the scenario and so influence the event. Though, I’m not saying you did, this has to be checked. Here, e.g., your position in the system can influence you. It is probably very difficult from a suppressed position to make the effort to get all the nuances. Furthermore, some nuances may or may not only be visible from the group’s perspective. It is insofar more difficult to spend this time because it may even sound like an excuse for the white group, but it is necessary to get a verified view. Otherwise, there may be the option that you just see what fits your premise. You want to be logical and transparent on each step.
Furthermore, what is your research question and can it be answered with this observation? Where are the limits? Here may be other points where an individual perception influences the outcome.
You know all of this as a media professional. I could tell you nothing new what you didn’t already knew before.
It’s akin to when people say, "The American people."
This is a massive group. There are things one can say about them, specifically, things one can say generally. However, you don’t have to talk about all of them in order to speak accurately about them, generally depending on what you say.
For example, most Americans do not see the U.S. as a racist society. I’d venture that, if you did speak to all 328 million Americans, you’d find that more than half of them feel this way. But no one has done this.
I’ve replaced the Forbes link with the NY Times one that contained the original essay.
All right.
I’m making a model.
My statements about race are part of a suite of observations. It’s not just, do you agree with my definition of racism, but how do you respond to the fact that I’m saying this?
Certainly, one cannot observe body language in an online forum. But as I told@Timo, everything people do and say in the forum is feedback; all of it. All of it helps build the model.
Your observation example was specifically about the forum? I didn’t know that. See, you think you were clear from your point of view, but I didn’t have enough background information. A good illustration of observing and building models out of it.
Well, to be honest, Harry, I value our exchange, but I don’t feel comfortable that my posts are part of a model that you build. I understand why you do this. I just don’t know how to interact, now that all words carry so much meaning and they will be part of a model for perceiving the world (edit: I won’t stop interacting and didn’t want to imply that.). A model seems so … well… huge. Don’t you think?
The responses I’ve gotten in the forum—for example, the 10-item list I enumerated — are part of the model.
I write about racism on Spectrum in order to learn more about it. By learning, I build a better understanding of how racism works.
Part of how it works is how people respond to discussions about racism.
I’ve always said: I’m here to refine a counter-racist response to racism; to make it more robust, if you will. I’ve said this numerous times.
I believe you, if you say you didn’t know this.
No, I don’t think I’m necessarily clear.
For example, a number of people have charged me with saying “All white people are racist.” I think I see why they might say I’ve stated this, though I don’t see why after my sixth or seventh denial, especially when every word I’ve said can be searched.
I understand that anything I say may be unclear. However, when matters are unclear to me, I ask a question. Because this comes so naturally for me, I see it as something of a minimum pathway to clarity.
I appreciate this.
I hope that you don’t misunderstand, and that I’m not unclear: When I say “model,” in this context, I merely mean “The way things happen, or tend to do so,” in a very general way.
