See George Tichy’s post above.
It’s not “one-sided,” and I don’t know what you mean by that.
I am counter-responding to responses that people, like those above, have made to me. What I’m writing is “stubborn” in that respect, only; it’s consistent.
Also, I need not defend this, nor am I: This is an open forum. Anyone can respond to anything anyone says, as long as those responses are on-topic.
Do you disagree?
You’ve not said my responses are “off-topic.” So, what do you mean by saying they are “one-sided”? That’s a non-sequitur, especially in the wake of your, well, your response.
I’m responding to @Timo. It’s on-topic. Even more, what I say about you is true.
In quotation marks?
This is an ad hominem attack, and it is unresponsive.
My argument, counter to your very claim, made again—that not only white people can be racist—is that only white people can be racist.
I do this with an example that I give, above, and have given many times; an example about a hypothetical meeting where white people complain about the effects of racism, and Black people rejoin by confessing their racism.
In this thought experiment, I urge that, if racism was something non-white people could practice, people would see this kind of scenario as often as they see what actually happens; namely, the reverse.
The thoughtful, logical, white respondent—especially if they are not a racist—has two options.
They can say:
a) “Your example is flawed, for this (or these) reason(s),” then supply that reason (or those reasons)
b) “I have seen such demonstrations as you name, and see them all the time,” supplying proof.
You have taken a third option—to which you’re open, but which takes your retort out of the logical stream, and makes it, essentially, a flag-waving sign of defeat: You’ve attacked my person; ad hominem.
Why, do you think, is that appropriate?
With all due and appropriate respect, this is ahistorical and, in a way, silly.
Brazil is not a racial Rubik’s Cube® because of Brazilian “minds.”
It is so because white people have made 700 quintillion decisions about non-white people, since the arrival of Pedro Álvares Cabral on April 22, 1500—thanks to a big up from the Kingdom of Portugal—and non-white people have not been able to overrule them 700,000,000,000,000,000,001 times. In fact, they haven’t done it once and made it stick.
That’s racism, and that’s what it means. If you are going to be a denier of this, you’ve got to attack the argument, not the messenger of it.
See above, George.
Also, thanks for suggesting that I not post with the “You said” / “In response” graphic format.
Having tried out your idea, I think I can be just as effective, and maintain a clean, visual appearance, doing it the current way.
If one doesn’t know what it IS
how does one know what it is not (one sided)??
Apparently you must drive a Chrysler,
because you are the most artful dodger ever.
No, Harry, the ad homineminems you claim do not play into your ply for victimhood.
You, no homo viator, are resolutely victor.
What I’m saying to @GeorgeTichy—and this becomes clear, if you read on—is that my responses do not fit the critique of “one-sidedness,” for many reasons. I give those reasons.
So, my objection is to his use of that term. My deferential implication is that he must mean something else.
Of course, he is free to state what that is, if so.
@GeorgeTichy’s ad hominem—his attack against me, as opposed to one against the logic of my argument—is to say that I am “living proof of the argument that not only whites are racists.”
In other words, he’s saying that I am a racist. This is absurd, for reasons I’ve given hundreds of times, here, and elsewhere.
It’s also ungenerous, and, arguably, it is un-Christian: Note that nowhere have I ever said that @GeorgeTichy is “living proof of the argument that only whites are racists.” I’ve not said this about him, or anyone.
I might have done it, and perhaps, in the eyes of men, might have even been justified doing so, on the basis of him having done so, first. Indeed—and I don’t know this— perhaps there is even evidence, amongst his many posts, or elsewhere, of the flaw with which he smears me.
That’s neither here, nor there. @GeorgeTichy’s response is a logical fallacy, and its to his error that I call.
This is a forum sub-topic about racism.
I believe that the only correct way to respond to racism is with its elimination. It is this that I discuss, and about which I speak.
If I am a man on a quest, it’s a quest to see that racism is eliminated and replaced with justice.
Harry, when someone has an unresolved conflict and refuses to resolve it, the conflict will continue to haunt that person.
Just sayin’ …
I wholeheartedly agree, @GeorgeTichy!
Those white people who came to Brazil after Pedro Álvares Cabral could have eliminated racism, but chose, instead to expand it.
In other words, they took an unresolved conflict and refused to resolve it.
That’s why, today, over half a millennium later, 91 million people of African descent—just for starters—are at the disposal of white people; any, and/or all, of them.
It’s because those who believed that white people should establish, maintain, expand, and refine unjust domination over non-white people created a conflict; one that their descendants inherited and seem to gleefully maintain.
No one likes to be dominated. But, apparently, the attitude of the white supremacists was, “It’s either you or us.”
So, the racists created an unresolved conflict and refused to resolve it. Thus, much as you say, the conflict continues to haunt those persons.
Don’t know how to respond to your post as it makes no sense to me. How ever, neither do I see a response to the quote that supports the premise I see HA making.
“From this perspective, while members of ethnic minorities may be prejudiced against members of the dominant culture, they lack the political and economic power to actively oppress them, and they are therefore not practicing “racism”
Sorry if meaning of my clumsy story evaded you.
It really is simple. Courtney linked misogyny to racism, and i merely applied Harry’s logic (of why all whites are inherently racist because of their color and why no blacks can be racist because of their color). I substituted misogyny (a far older, far broader, more prevalent form of systemic discrimination) for race.
I guess I could then suggest Harry is “Male Fragile” because he cannot accept his role in Male SUpremacy (just as is done in the white supremacy/white fragility conversation)
Does that help?
Not certain at all that I agree with the premises-
- that prejudice is not racism
- that whites systematically prevent black political and economic power
- that blacks have no power in this free-est of societies
Further, as the liberal city and state leaders appease the ‘protesters’ I sense that the type of power chosen might not fit within the societal norms. If one considers the untold many dozens of trillion dollars spent on affirmative actions, why have the intended recipients of this effort not seemingly benefited?
What are the other possible causes of the lack of political or economic power?
Is it possible that there is a system that creates illusory “power” to the people but in fact makes them subservient to those (of any color) in the “power/leader system”? Are their factors within the black community-choices-which undermine the whole of the black subset of society? If any insult is permitted (or intentionally inflicted) on any significant subset of society, does not the entire society suffer?
But back to my story-we here in the vineyard may need to revisit some of those old stories, and glean new truths applicable to our current task.
Seems a hackneyed scream that one segment of workers needs to do more is not a lesson from that vineyard.
Thanks for asking clarity-hope this helps. Perhaps my answer to the premise is that I feel the premise is itself flawed.
Harry, all I can offer is this-
if your premise is that whites are intentionally keeping technology/power/money from blacks simply because they are black, well, I’m uncertain we can even rationally begin a conversation from there, let alone dig for common ground beyond.
Are you personally acting to empower the disenfranchised
~rather than vilifying others and then, strangely,demanding someone else
(the ones you state oppress you) do this?
Not sure you want to-nor can see the logic in this-anymore than I can see the logic of some of the things you do which you are most proud of-and capitalizing handsomely from.
In any event, off the web for the week.
Wishing you the best Harry.
Have a nice day.
In kind, @GeorgeTichy.
Why should I “see @GeorgeTichy’s post, above”?
I have no comments about white intentions. I’m not credible on what white people think.
Please be more specific.
Racism ? Here in Vienna ? - well, I remember physicians from the Gold Coast as general practitioners, very good accepted;I remember - it was around 1980 - one person, arriving with a BMW 600 motorcycle and a diplomats license plate on the “Free Beach” (clothing optional !) down the Danube, taking off the helmet = black, peeling off the leather suit - and standig up therefore - a slim, but just very tall Nuba lady , a diplomat from UNO Atomic Comission far up the river = astonishment, but nooo hostility. Privacy respected.
And the many kids and young people , sons and daughters of Phillipine nurses and Viennese fathers - accepted, even favoured !
The tension now comes from the recent immigrants with their aggressive Muslim lifestyle and some exaggerations heaading for violence and sexual assaults, even rape. : Nowadays keep away from the “Free beaches” - it simply is too dangerous ! They literally fight for Muhammed !. They are on crusade !! They even are a danger n the subway ;: Do at all avoid a situationwhere one Muslim could interpret tath you had an indicent look on his sister ! Subway ride = Best hav eyour your eyes shut !!
I’m going to respond to this, @Jaray.
But before I do, I respectfully suggest that, when commenting, you use the handle that each person is assigned, with the “@” symbol, much as I’ve done per you, above. (I came across your post, accidentally, just checking to see what I’d missed.)
That way, persons about whom you’re writing, or to whom you are writing, will be notified by the comments system software.
Unless, of course, you want to write about people without them knowing. However, why someone would do such a thing, on a discussion forum—apart from cowardice—is beyond me. (Obviously, I’m not accusing you of cowardice.)
Now, to your posted statement, above:
In general, and in short, yes, that is what I’m saying.
I’ve said this a number of ways, a number of times, for years, in this forum. I’ve used the NABISCO analogy; the two-sentence “mugging” analogy; and, perhaps most recently and repeatedly, the “racism discussion + potluck” analogy. I’ve applied The Maximum Maxim, which, once one knows what it is, one can imagine gets a frequent workout, here.
However, most of what I’ve gotten back is stonewalling; non-responsive replies, ad hominem attacks, ignored questions, or other malformed rejoinders.
Until now. What’s most amazing is that you and I have had, perhaps, two general exchanges. Yet you were able to, in this way, summarize what I was saying in this area, when so many others have failed.
And, don’t get me wrong: I accept any response, ultimately, because they’re all useful. Part of the logic of what I’m doing says that you can’t talk about racism without doing at least two things, immediately: Offending white people, and embarrassing Black people. That is, you can’t, if you’re going to tell the truth.
And what do offended people do? They stonewall. They give non-responsive replies, make ad hominem attacks, ignore questions, or contribute other malformed comebacks. So, even the detritus confirms the the general contours of the model.
Yet, admittedly, this is refreshing. You must be either very smart, very young, very worldly, not as defensive as these other people seem to be, or some mixture of all four.
Keep the good work up!
Harry, for bein’ a bright guy who clearly can think faster than the average bear you sure do sandbag.
You have a pretty obvious-event blatant-netprint.
Given those two points-and your ability to know all white people are conspiring to prevent your success because you are black i think you wouldn’t break a mental sweat figurin’ this out.
I’m wondering, half out loud-that your primary purpose here is to make a self fulfilling and prophetic “told you so, I knew it all along” by positing-in the very imperative- a coercive definition of racism full well knowing you would receive pushback-which you with magnanimous grandiloquence attack as “malformed rejoinder”.
You are harvesting fodder-for proof that your idea of racism is RIGHT, and then I suspect you are using this energy to feed your anti-cop, anti-trump, anti-white, even anti-american animus.
Now, assuming you are actually capitalizing from a sub culture that glorifies all these things, I might be drawn to wonder about your motives. Remember, you recently expounded here about that “appearance of evil” thing-are you certain you have “clean hands” before calling out all that is white, all that is right about America being a nation of laws-one which requires law enforcers? Your virtual world mirrors-or is it perhaps harbinger-of the reality around you?
I listen to what Jaray writes-and he seems to have a way of not offending everyone-and is taken seriously. But offending everyone-then demanding everyone acquiesce to your prowess-and if they don’t, accuse them in a self-prophetic AHA! see-I TOLD you I was right does not seem to be as effective. Not sure if you can hear what I’m trying to say-to say without offense, appearance of evil, or appeasement for some false-peace sake.
I’ve told you before-I appreciate you-but take umbrage with some of the things you do.
I hope and pray you try understand. Might be useful. If not, oh well, just more malformed rejoinder. I also pray I remain the kinda guy that declares
“be glad I’m not the kinda guy that would dare say i told ya so…!”
Jaray, I guess I see racism the way Jesus saw adultery. You did not h ave to do the act to commit the deed. You can “look” on a woman and commit adultery with her.
So, just because you do not have power, does not mean you cannot be a racist in your mind.
Harry is actually quite the racist. From a previous thread: If you are white, and there is another white somewhere “in the known universe” being racist, you are racist too. The color of your skin determines whether you are racist. Seems to be the definition of racism to me.
Harry, I will not respond to your comment on this post.
And ironically most Christians defending capitalism on the same level as their faith are using an atheist Ayn Rand to do so.
Is seems that every new post from Harry confirms what you said now. I said it too. He is the painter and he is just progressively unveiling his portrait. It’s not possible to keep a reasonable conversation with him since he considers white people to be ALL racists by definition, and no other race (skin color) has racists among them.
Do you thing that only “fools” will continue the dialog with him?.. LOL
Thanks for the compliment. Anything I posses, it’s because God was incomprehensibly and undeservingly kind.
I had to look up the word “sandbag,” because, while I’ve heard of it, and heard it used, it’s not a part of my idiolect.
The definition I see says, “coerce or bully.”
Is that how you’re using it?
If so, how do I coerce? By what series of actions?
(I’ve asked about that word, instead of bully, because a) you’ve accused me, before, of being coercive, and b) saying that I bully, or am one, would, to me, just be whiny.)
To “coerce” is to “persuade (an unwilling person) to do something by using force or threats.”
If these words line up with your intent, what do you mean when you say I sandbag; i.e., coerce?
I have no idea what that means.
I have a question for you: Why do you keep talking about what I know, in areas where I have already said I don’t posses such knowledge?
You just spoke to me of “your ability to know all white people are conspiring to prevent your success because you are black.”
I’ve never said such a thing, or anything like it. So, there’s no way that you could equitably be charging me with such a sentiment.
I want to be clear: This doesn’t make me angry, or ill-willed. I just feel that it’s needless, careless, and time-wasting.
As should be clear, I take a fair amount of care with what I say. I respond to every question. I think about what I write, and I work to only make claims I can support.
I don’t care if people agree with me, or disagree with me. (In truth, I’d rather that they disagree with me; see below.) But, whatever they do, I’d like a good, robust discussion. Those only happen if everyone involved does a certain kind of work.
From the volume of what you’ve written in this post, the structure of the writing, the amount of time it took you to publish it, and the fact that you did it after saying you’d be off the web for a week, I suspect you wrote it in a state of relative agitation; kind of a huff, albeit one that diminished as you got the the end of the post. I could be incorrect.
Even if this is the reason that you are reaching for things I’ve never said to make your points—because you’re working fast and just want to get it out—you should avoid doing so. All it does is slow down the process. You’re creating rhetorical sludge. You shouldn’t mutually gunk up our efforts with this manner of reply.
Despite your bruised prose, I think I can meaningfully respond to this:
I talk about race in the way that seems coherent to me.
The ideas that I commonly espouse—for example…
• Racism has a sole functional form: White supremacy.
• White supremacy is a global system.
• All non-white people are victims of white supremacy.
• If racism is white supremacy, this means that the first, minimum requirement to be a racist is that one be white.
• The racists (white supremacists) dominate non-white people in all nine areas of people activity: economics, education, entertainment, labor, law, politics, religion, sex, and war.
… seem sensible to me. They didn’t always. But they do now.
They may seem odd, shocking, or incoherent to you. I expect that they at least seem oppositional to what you, and many here, especially many here who are white, hold to be true.
But they conform with my outlook, and with my experience. I believe them to be true.
However…they may not be true.
So, my expectation is that, if these ideas I hold are false, that, in a debate forum like this one, those who oppose their veracity should, by a clear and logical process, be able to derail and decimate them. This seems reasonable to me. It’s a standard assumption of argumentation.
However, like I said to @GeorgeTichy the other day, ad hominem attacks do not a counter-argument make. In fact, the minute one who opposes your viewpoint starts name-calling, it’s safe to say that they’ve run out of ideas.
So, to the charge that I’ve argued, “full well knowing [I] would receive pushback,” yes: I certainly suspected I would. I’m a Black male, and I’ve been one a long time. I certainly didn’t expect white people, here, to agree with me on racial issues. That’s why they’re racial issues.
But, like I said, I don’t want “pushback.” I want those who disagree with me to tear my arguments to pieces.
So, take my “racism discussion + potluck” argument, for example. It’s very simple, and easy to understand. It doesn’t have many “moving parts.”
The thoughtful, logical, white counter-respondent—especially if they are not a racist—has just two options.
They can say:
a) “Your analogy, and/or its underlying argument, is flawed, for this (or these) logical reason(s),” then supply that reason (or those reasons)
b) “I have seen such discussions/demonstrations as you name, and see them all the time,” while supplying proof.
Of course, I say “counter-respondent,” because a respondent does have a third option: They can agree with the argument’s conclusion.
However, what counter-respondents, here, have done, for the most part, is either, 1) ignore the analogy—simply not address it—or 2) attack me.
I don’t see why, in a discussion forum about racism, I should be blamed for making the questions too hard. None of them are as hard as racism (i.e., The Maximum Maxim).
Re: your charge of me offering “a coercive definition,” I think these words are nonsensical; like saying “sexually assaultive wood paneling.” If you’ve got a better definition, say what it is.
As well, what you call “magnanimous grandiloquence” is just semantic precision. I have no interest in, years from now, someone reading these words and wondering what I meant. I wish you would show similar concern.
I’m interested in developing a counter-racist system of elementary logic. It doesn’t have to be mine. It just has to work.
So, like the scientists who say it would have been more exciting had they not found the Higgs boson, because this means they would have to re-think the Standard Model, I would far more like, in this forum, to come up against someone who reduces my arguments to rubble.
Also, imagining I possess an “anti-cop, anti-trump, anti-white, even anti-american animus,” to me, merely suggests that, at best, you’re not paying attention.
Of what “sub-culture” are you speaking?
I don’t know what this means.
@Jaray is clearly a smart person.
I see how you might see it that way.
But, from my perspective, what I’m doing is either pointing out the inconsistencies in counter-arguments, or, as I do from time to time, with folks as varied as @Jaray and @ajshep, approving of what’s been said to me.
That is, for a very long time, @ajshep has been stating that I “think all white people are racists.” I’ve challenged him to prove this with evidence; e.g., a quote. He couldn’t. That’s because I’ve never said this.
Then, two days ago, on August 8, he wrote:
I wrote back:
I felt like a proud papa.
This is a “community through conversation.” So, discussion is how we build “the ties that bind.”
I disapproved of you, bigtomwoodcutter, @elmer_cupino, and loubama77 each putting a “Like” heart on Hansen’s, old-timey racist post, and like Paul to Cephas, I opposed all of you to your faces. Conversation.
All of you pushed back, but in completely different ways. Conversation. I wrote back to all of you, also in a varied manner; I didn’t respond to @elmer_cupino the same way I did to loubama77, even though, technically, they had both committed the same incipient act, and both said they had reasons for doing so. Conversation.
In fact, @elmer_cupino insisted that I apologize to you all for what I’d written about you. I did so immediately, and without reservation. Conversation.
What this means is that I am responding to everyone here, individually, in real-time. So, when you say:
I’m not sure I can, but maybe if you say it again, in a different way, or, better, tell me what you think I should do, or do differently, in simple, clear language, I can respond.
What needs to be clear, because I haven’t expressly said this, is, to me, none of this is personal.
I haven’t called anyone here a racist, though I’ve been called one by a few people.
Every time someone posts to me, I don’t go, “Oh, you again….” I’m glad to have the exchange.
To me, it’s all about the ideas. I know not everyone feels that way.
I appreciate the humility of this statement.
My position isn’t, “I told you so.”
My position is that I not only live with the material, but work with it professionally. This means that, when it comes to race, like I told @2humBaby, you’re probably not going to be able to come up with something that I’ve not heard before
If I say something with which you disagree, however, you, or anyone, can say, “I don’t understand,” “I don’t agree,” “This is difficult for me; it’s a view I’ve not heard before,” “What would Jesus think of what you’re saying?”, or anything else. I can accommodate these responses.
I didn’t blast loubama77. I saw from where she was coming. I’m not, “one size fits all.”
This doesn’t mean I’m not going to say that racism is white supremacy. But it does mean that I will go as far as anyone wants to go, in order to explain why I believe this to be true. All the while, I invite you to disagree.
Suppose you appear to engage me, on-list, or off-, by offering counsel about what I’m saying.
Then, when I reply, you say, “I have no intent to continue arguing on this issue, much less in private.” Full stop.
I am going to respect your wishes. However, I may not give your on-list responses much breathing room. I say this, because, to me, that reply means, not only do you not take what I’m saying seriously, but that you’re not here for conversation.
As I often say IRL, please let me know your questions, comments, suggestions, or complaints.