Hey Allen Shepherd,
Hurry up, you have only two days left to figure out this racism thing before the topic closes.
And I say that only because I want to make sure that I am mocking you for good, OK?
Watch out George. You could be accused of mocking. Remember? We do not want that to happen AGAIN.
What do you mean, when you say, “isn’t science - it’s ideology”?
Surely, that: One reason is that the Cress hypothesis is not a genomic study, any more than string theory is a review of fibers.
The other reason is that she was a psychiatrist. She’s not irrelevant to psychiatry departments, particularly those whose focus is Black psychiatry, and its history. There, she is a very significant figure.
What is “trolling white racism”?
First of all, I hold “white racism” to be a superfluity.
Second, what do you mean by “trolling” it?
Put another way, I know what trolling is. But what do you mean by “trolling white racism”?
Thanks, @OldWhiteGuy. I appreciate you reading my Twitter thread on Welsing.
I also appreciate this critique. In the context of these fora, it’s novel.
Since you say you read my tweeted explication of Frances Cress-Welsing’s hypothesis on white supremacy, you’ll know that, at no point, do I claim that it is “science.”
It may be “science,” or it may not be “science.”
You haven’t, for example, in your response, said what you mean by your use of this word. Even more, you haven’t stated the implications for the hypothesis, if it is not “science.”
What most people mean, practically, by science is that an observation has been made, and then put through the rigors of the scientific method. If this is the way you are using the word “science,” then you are absolutely correct; the Cress hypothesis is not science.
And, I should add: So what?
That is, the two things you’ve not said are that:
a) The Cress hypothesis, or some aspect of it, is not true, and
b) This is the reason, or these are the reasons, why it is not true.
Further, our world is filled with ideas that are not science. Indeed, most ideas people hold to be true, and that are taught in our great universities, are not scientific.
Even further, there are ideas which aspire to scientific validity, but which have not yet achieved it, and maybe never will. I’ve already mentioned string theory, which is one. The multiverse is another.
However, in both cases, and in others, these hypotheses have sprung useful, novel ideas, and valid research.
The Cress hypothesis might do the same…were there an entity with sufficient funds and other resources, willing to investigate the hypothesis that racism (white supremacy) is a conglomeration of defense mechanisms that white people cobbled together to keep from being phenotypically overrun; i.e., that it is such a thing, or that it was such a thing.
When you, or someone else, can point to a white-run funding source that would back such a multi-year inquiry, the Cress hypothesis may possibly become “science.”
And, if not, that’s fine with me. Please keep your bridge.
Hey, @Arkdrey …. your post was addressed as a response to me.
Unless GeorgeTichy is reading my mail, he’s never going to see it.
Oh, umm, never mind.
You’re a better reader than that.
Do you give clients medication? I hope you’re a better reader than that!
I wrote a 900-plus-word post to GeorgeTichy. It says that the statement, “Not all whites are racist” is unverifiable.
That’s my case.
Now, if you’re saying that you possess a way to verify whether or not all white people are racist, please say what it is.
I believe that the following statement:
"Not all white people are racist"
That belief is neither unshakable, nor has anyone here shown it to be either false or impossible, or provided evidence to its contrary.
It does not meet your own definition of a "delusion."
So, about what are you speaking?
And, better yet, why don’t you go on and find a better way to trip me up? You, @Arkdrey, GeorgeTichy, and your ragtag crew are Elmer Fudd-ing this, gloriously.
Running a business during a pandemic downturn isn’t something I wish on anyone. All of the “me time” and some sleep had to be repurposed for a while to make sure everyone is employed and safe.
I had to find and read that post, I’ll have to jump to your defense and say that I don’t think @webEd treated you fairly. I appreciate all of the transparent efforts it takes to run and moderate the platform and content, however I don’t think below response comes across well, for a couple of reasons.
The validity of the concern shouldn’t be lumped together with whatever sins of George’s past.
In reference to “all whites are racist”, there’s more than one way to say the same thing. How much semantic difference between the following statements?
a. All black people are criminals
b. I’ve never met a black person who wasn’t a criminal
c. Based on these cherry-picked historical markers, there’s no reason to trust black people not to be a criminal
To any black person, these should rightfully be disparaging and inflammatory generalizations that are very personal. In light of this, consider something as recent as:
That’s vastly different from the Critical Race Theory concept of “only white people can be racist”, even if on is to assume it as viable.
- I understand that there’s contextual semantics that Harry frames in his arguments, in which he defines racism as global white supremacy. But that definition by itself doesn’t excuse any absolute generalizations.
One could say that all Spectrumites are antichrist heretics, and define “antichrist heretic” as someone who disagrees with classical Adventist dogma, LGT, shut door and all. That definition doesn’t really save me from the wreckage and irritation it frames for people discussing different aspects of this issue.
Racism as a term has a very limited traditional context that doesn’t work if it only applies to one group which is generally implied to be racist. The concept of racism loses any moral framework by which we can judge individuals. It merely becomes a de-facto token of a race.
I’m not in favor of ban on @Harry_Allen or even removal of his posts. I’ve enjoyed exploring his extremes, even though it can be tedious and unnecessarily floods the thread with repetitive rehashing.
All I can say that that defending his extreme position as “sociologically viable” isn’t a good look for Spectrum moderation response. Whatever George’s positions and behavior may be in the past in different scope… on this subject he’s been fairly consistent, and I think he’s a viable canary in the mine of certain things going too far.
I think it’s not as much a reflection on @Harry_Allen model, as it is on generic difficulty to semantically reconcile it with traditional concept of localized individual racism that has to exist in some shape or form.
Is this the same psychiatrist who caused controversy by claiming homosexuality among the African-Americans was a ploy by white males to decrease the black population? The same psychiatrist who asserts that white people were the genetically defective descendants of albino mutants that were forcibly expelled from Africa? The same psychiatrist who attributed AIDS, addiction to crack cocaine to chemical and biological warfare by white people?
Now I understand your “ragtag” thinking… Have you been drinking her Cool-Aid?
And the black metaltail hummingbird (Metallura phoebe), above, survives cold nights by pushing its body temperature down to 3ºC, existing temporarily in a manner of suspended animation.
This is the coldest body temperature ever documented for any bird, or for any mammal that does not hibernate.
Yet, again, like your notes, above: Off-topic and utterly irrelevant.
It’s the same psychiatrist who has been charged with saying something of this nature.
She certainly didn’t use the word “defective.”
However, the idea that white people are descended from Africans is a fundamental conjecture of human ethnology.
Do you have a different professional opinion?
She’s the same psychiatrist who has been charged with saying something of this nature.
Sorry, my brother: You have to get your own adjectives if you’re going to trade in ad hominem!
No: I’ve been gagging on yours!
At least I have not said anything that drew attention from my professional societies that I belong to.
I see that you also have interviewed Lisa Randall and Brian Greene, both of whom I admire as physicists. Do you have a link on those interviews you can share with your Spectrumite brothers?
I discovered that I’m stupid. Or positively said, I am learning something new. I thought that supremacy is the same as having power or privilege. I thought white supremacy simply means white privilege. And I couldn’t understand why anyone would deny the existence of white privilege (and btw still can’t, but that’s not the point of my post).
Now I get that some of you didn’t argue against white privilege per se (well some of you did) but against a redefinition and extension of white supremacy.
I was told very recently by someone, who is very firm in these theories, that in the US white supremacists are actually the clearly racist guys like KKK and these aryan groups etc. And this is to distinguish from the fact that white persons have white privilege. In a US context, to put them together (white privilege = white supremacy) basically implies a direct connection between all white persons (because they are privileged) with those evil supremacist groups.
I begin to understand why some of you US fellas argued so vehemently against the idea of all white persons having a connection to these supremacist ideologies. It’s a redefinition I wasn’t aware of before. Am I catching up with US terminology this time?
edit: Also @Harry_Allen Harry, help, is it a redefinition and extension from your side? Or am I still not getting it (and maybe more non-US readers)?
Please don’t say that. Your self-discovery is unwarranted.
That’s not good, @elmer_cupino. Sadly, that probably means that you’re not making any breakthroughs.
Here we are, talking about Welsing’s ideas, half a century after she wrote them, nearly half a decade after she died.
What, that you’ve recently committed to paper, will people remember, or be talking about in fifty years, Elmer? Is there something?
I’m seriously asking.
They are not online, but I should put them up: They were really good conversations.
If I do, sometime in the next few months, should I reach out to you and let you know?
I’ve lived a very boring life. Nothing to brag about.
I’ve read their books, I watch their YouTube videos as a diversion from my psychiatric practice. Let me know when you post them. I’m serious…
Well, thanks, but to actually realize to not get what people were talking about when being in the very middle of it all and blabbing all the more is kind of embarrassing to say the least.
Whoever diagnosed that must be fired!!!
Completely fake, nothing but a hoax. Was it a Russian???
Thanks for another excellent insight, @Kate.
I posted something similar, on Twitter, in June. (I’ve also done so, before.)
Starting in 2014—and doing so a couple of times, since then—I tweeted the following:
A question, for white people, only:
Does “white privilege”—having it, benefitting from it, etc.—make one a racist?
Most people could not answer the question with a straight “Yes” or “No.”
This started to confirm my suspicion that the term, white privilege, was, essentially, a racism “car seat.”
Oh, my goodness: You need to watch “Tapestry”, the S6E15 of Star Trek: The Next Generation.
I’ll happily do so, if I put them up, when they are up.
Thank you for asking.
Thanks for the suggestion. I’d like to watch it but I have successfully resolved my adolescent magical thinking years and am now entering my twilight years.