If you’re asking me have I ever heard of the racial “one drop rule,” the answer is YES.
This is a different question, however, than, “Harry, how much blood does one need in order to identify as Black?”
Your first question pertains to an individual’s own psychology. Activist Rachel Dolezal “identifies as Black,” and reportedly has zero drops of “Black blood.” Meanwhile, tennis player Madison Keys, presumably, has many such drops. However, she says, “I don’t really identify myself as white or African-American. I’m just me. I’m Madison.”
So, again, I don’t know how much blood one needs in order to identify as Black, even if one notes that this term, “drop,” is a metaphor for ancestry.
You said:
In response:
Real is all I ever am.
You said:
In response:
My ''out" would be to say words to the effect of, “I’m finished talking to you,” or “I don’t have anything more to say about this subject.”
In fact, I rarely do this. Indeed, I can’t think of ever having done so. What usually happens is that the white people, with whom I’m corresponding, stop speaking.
In other words, what I’d hope would be clear, by my responses to @Danny, @blc, @ajshep, you, and others is that my responses are structured and thoroughly considered. Few would say that my answers are “off the cuff,” even if they disagree with them, which, apparently, many do…though they typically do not say why.
This conversation should have ended ages ago…when you re-invent standard definitions and put your own spin on it by your own admission…thats a discussion ender.
Harry does have an odd logic-wonders why “white” people just stop talking to him.
An odd spin, and rather a distasteful one, on the definition of racism. Apparently intentional, to chase away all those racist white people. When they leave, he then affirms he was right and they were racist.
I desired to try “stop the spin”, see if he might listen a little. Apparently Harry would rather keep spinning, pushing away us bad white people, but he seems to desire no real dialog. One wonders if the conversation can ever coalesce.
I’m going to start identifying as black, (i’ve done the DNA, we are all one race), so I can be like Harry, and settle once and for all it is not possible for me to be racist.
If all it takes is “one drop” to be black, what then of the white blood in his veins?
Perhaps black blood is better, stronger, than white?
I am wondering about those white people that voted for Obama and then for Trump. They are the ones that put Trump over the top, you know. Many voted for Obama twice.
So, were they racists when they voted for Obama those 2 times or did they only become so when they voted for Trump. I am just confused on this.
And I am also wondering if I am supporting White Supremacy when I buy products produced or invented by white people, like cars and light bulbs and iPads etc.? Or if I buy stock on the NYSE, an institution invented by white folk, or vote here in America, seeing the Constitution was written by white people, and at the time excluded all black folk?
You mentioned that some of the worst racists were Missionary types that went to Africa to subjugate the races there. You seemed to suggest that I might be among that group, you know, serving in Africa for 8 years at a fraction of what MD’s made in the US (not like Rhodes, of Rhodes Scholar fame, who did make is money in Africa). Or is it that anyone going there is only taking advantage of black folk, and thus a rabid racist?
It’s not clear if you mean that the ideas I express about racism are odd, and, thus, I wonder why white people stop talking to me, or if you mean that I’m wondering why white people stop talking to me, and this, itself, expresses odd logic.
However, I don’t wonder why white people stop talking to me.
You said:
In response:
It’s just my opinion. I do believe that that definition is true, in other words, based on the evidence, some of which I’ve offered; e.g., my example about how white and non-white people talk about racism in each other’s company.
But this is a discussion forum. Your perfectly free to say, “That definition is incorrect, and here’s why….”
I assure you, what I would do, were you to do this, is either agree with you, or say, “That’s not correct, and here’s why.”
Because this is a discussion forum, what I wouldn’t do is claim victory by posting about you in the third person. That just seems a little timid.
You said:
In response:
Doing this is not a concern of mine, as I’ve stated. It’s just an observation of what happens.
Also, another observation: Usually, after I say what a correct definition of racism is, white people start calling themselves racists. It almost never fails.
I don’t do it. I’ve written thousands of words in these forums, and, were one to look, not once would they find me saying that any white person is a racist. They do this, themselves, to themselves.
This is exactly what many of my Original friends and colleagues—the people most white Australians call “Aboriginals,” or, worse, the detestable “Abo’s”—say about the system of white supremacy, especially as it has expressed itself on so-called Terra Nullis.
Even non-white, non-Original Australians, like Aamer Rahman, agree:
You said:
In response:
This can be “a discussion-ender,” but needn’t do so, if the people share good will, and if they agree that the existing word, or words, are not up to the task.
I don’t think that you can point to any field of human endeavor in which people would keep using words that were no longer useful.
For example, how many megabytes was the last hard drive that you bought? (I’m old enough to remember magazine ads offering 10- and 20-megabyte hard drives for sale.) I’m guessing that if you’ve bought a hard drive within the last few years, its size may not have even been expressed in gigabytes, but in terabytes.
I have one such 2 terabyte hard drive on my desk. When I got it, I could have asked for a 2 million megabyte hard drive. But this would not have been effective.
Now, a common response to what I’ve just said is, “That’s different from changing the meaning of a word from the one that’s in the dictionary.” I’m assuming “words in the dictionary” is what you mean by “standard definitions,” since you quoted a dictionary definition for “racism,” earlier. If so, I would agree with this statement.
However, here I would point you to Kory Stamper, a lexicographer and, associate editor at Merriam-Webster, which publishes Webster’s Dictionary. Ms. Stamper says, “My job isn’t to police what people say, or how people talk, or the things that people write, even. My job is to record the language, and not impose some sort of ‘order’ on it.”
In other words, strictly speaking, dictionaries do not “define” words—i.e., police them—but, instead, explain those words’ common usage.
The dictionary definition you gave of racismis common usage. I affirmed this. But my point was, and is, that this is not what I mean when I say racism. In a certain sense, I said, what I mean is rather different from what the dictionary says. And this is the case for literally hundreds of words that I do not use the way the dictionary does, as it pertains to racial matters.
That’s because I’m literally trying to construct a vocabulary that helps non-white people understand racism, for the task of eliminating it. I’d argue that there is no such commonly held objective in any culture of which I know, especially any dominated by the white supremacists. So, such language must be invented, as it must be in any setting of a new endeavor.
Put another way, in many places, there is widely-shared language on many tasks. For example, there is widely shared language on how to buy houses. So, if I say “closing costs,” whether in the U.S., or Australia, people will know what I mean. Australia and the U.S. do not share many of the same words. But these words are shared by people in both places.
There is widely shared language on how to be a citizen of a given country. So, if I show up as an American in Brisbane, talk about the war I fought in, and how “it was my duty, to my country, and to the flag that flew over it, to do my best as a soldier of our nation,” people in Brisbane will understand me. Some may even get teary-eyed. Now, we don’t even have the same flag, or the same country, and, in the U.S., we claim no duty to a Queen. Yet this language is widely available and generally used.
There is widely shared language between members of a religious group or society. So, if I’m in Perth, and I say to a Christian there, “I love the blood of Jesus, because it has washed me whiter than snow,” Christians in Perth would know what I mean. Notice that this language is not transferable to the other two contexts. It’s not transferable to house-buying. It’s not even transferable to being a soldier, where blood is something that one sees often, but tries to avoid. Yet, when you say these words in church, no one says, “What in the world are you talking about?” I include both house-buyers in the church, and soldiers in the church, when I say this.
Here’s my point: What I am doing is working on creating settings where, when I say, “Racism is white supremacy,” people nod their heads in agreement, the way they do when you talk about Jesus’ blood in one setting, duty to country in a second setting, or closing costs in another setting.
You may not agree with such a goal, or with the conclusion on which it is based. But if you are a reasonable person, and I suspect that you are, you may see that I strongly believe that there is a community—perhaps one that does not exist yet—that can use, and that needs, such language.
That is my focus: That future community. The point, or goal, of this language is not shutting down conversation with you. One might say that that’s just something which happens when two people do not use words in the same way.
I think your confusion may be rooted in the notion that my objection to racism is rooted in offense over white voting patterns. If so, those white people—who, like the father in the racial horror film, Get Out, admit, “I would have voted for Obama for a third term if I could”—who sought Obama are not racists, because they simply could not express their bonhomie, as our laws forbid anyone taking three consecutive presidential terms.
This is not how I look at the issue of racism at all, however. I see it as if you will, a form of white culture. In other words, I view white voting for Obama and for Trump within the context of this white culture.
You may recall me quoting Heidi Beirich, of the Southern Poverty Law Center. She was saying why in the U.S., for example, “home grown terrorism” does not provoke the outrage that the kind committed by fundamentalist Muslims does. Beirich said, “The difference between a radical Islamic attack and a white supremacist attack is this: White supremacy is an indigenous ideology in the United States.” White supremacy is the background information, to use a philosophical term, against which these voting endeavors, of which you speak, take place. It is the field.
So, a better way of phrasing your question might be this:
"Harry, for hundreds of years, white people have overwhelmed non-white people with genocide, slavery, deceit, shoddy schools and neighborhoods, lynchings, police brutality, bad quality food and food deserts, over-prosecution and jailing, symbolic disfigurement, and every kind of slight, insult, belittlement, and harassment possible, from the literal to the metaphysical.
“Given this, were those white people racists when they voted for Obama those 2 times or did they only become so when they voted for Trump?”
You said:
In response:
Thanks for the question.
Think of it this way: If you did all of the things that you mentioned, but did them underwater, would those activities be wet?
The answer is yes, correct?
O.K. Think of racism (aka white supremacy) as a kind of water.
I wrote about Bob Jones University on this forum years ago:
In fact, it wasn’t abortion that sparked the creation of the religious right. The movement was actually galvanized in the 1970s and early ’80s, when the IRS revoked the tax-exempt status of Bob Jones University and other conservative Christian schools that refused to admit nonwhites.
It was the government’s actions against segregated schools, not the legalization of abortion, that “enraged the Christian community,” Moral Majority co-founder Paul Weyrich has acknowledged.
Bob Jones University had a racial dating policy, they didn’t “refuse to admit nonwhites.” However, I think it’s likely true that racism sparked the creation of the Christian Right voting bloc. But I invite discussion, of course.
A parallel religio-political movement from that time period is the headship movement which is arguably a reaction to feminism.
@Harry_Allen
You know, Harry, some months ago I made a comment that the charge of racism is one that is essentially unforgivable. It seems that may be more true than not. Despite that your answer to me then, was some silliness about the character who played Kramer on that Show about Nothing, (my question had nothing to do with whether “hollywood” or “the public” could forgive him for his uncondoneable comments) but whether my church brothers (both columnist/writers here as well professors, pastors, and lay people) were in fact becoming defacto victimisers to “gain justice”.
Aside from the point (that none have addressed yet) that, relatively speaking, black people are relative newcomers to the subjugation issue (women have suffered under male supremacy, seems since the first shadow under the apple tree), I see no groundswell or adoption of any blacks demanding gender justice.
I’ve sometimes come across as saying things that seem to strum a nerve (ie, “one drop”, Black blood stronger?") for a reason. Is blackness, and perceived or real slight against color, a more egregious sin than that against gender? One could surmise this is the unspoken truth.
No, derogating my perspective as merely “my thought experiments”, your “siiiiiiighs”, deriding my reference to you “in third person” (pls note I was directing my words to Danny) etc have no value in the conversation-and indeed seem as intentional in fulfilling your self-fulfilling prophecies as much as your coercive redefinition “racism equals white supremacy”.
No, my sense of all of your finely crafted words is that (quoting you, one word edit)
“its almost as though you are TEACHING some kind of course…”.
OF course, you were careful constructing your sentence so that it would duck under the radar.
You are quite good at that-but, to me, it seems you are artfully evasive about the meaning of the questions asked of you (unforgivable, “one drop”, gender subjugation etc). Grace received is grace extended. How can we surmount this sticky wicket? We cannot change reality-we can change our perspective. “Your people subjugated my people” is a cry God utters to man-sadly, it seems too conveniently co-opted.
Is it high time to reconsider, is the coercive redefining of terms helpful in the largest context-
or is it fomenting and picking at the scab, in effect parlaying with the seductive role reversal of master/slave?
Harry, your problem is throwing the baby out with the bath water.
I do not deny the problems you mentioned that whites have done. And white culture is dominant in the world. But it is not all bad. You as a black man have the right to vote, and yours counts as much as mine, and I assume you do it at every opportunity. Your ability to do that is a result of what white folk have done.
Now if you go to Africa you will find that black governments there are usually one party systems. I surmise this is because they still have a somewhat tribe-with-chief sort of mentality rather than a democratic, we-the-people one, derived, again, from white thinking.
So, I would say, no culture is all good, not even black ones. Take the good, reject the bad and move on.
So, buying iPads is racists, buying Fords is racist, going to Africa to help the downtrodden is racist (this apparently makes one a rabid racist), doing my duty by voting is racist, voting for Obama twice but being white is racist.
You’re off the tracks, Harry.
The white culture is supreme in the world. Whites conquered it in a way. That is true. They imposed their culture on the rest of the world, and did as you have mentioned. But they did much more, and many good things besides the bad. And it is the culture under which the world runs. English is the worlds working language, and democracy its main governmental form, etc.
Now, you can curl up in a ball, cry victim, and withdraw as the Desert Father’s used to do to escape the corruption of the world. But it would be foolish.
It is like the man with one talent who buried it claiming the master was one who reaped where he did not sow. You have better things to do than defend your victimhood.
Lynchings in America: From wiki. There were 4743 starting about 1890 and lasting until 1968. Mainly minorities, but not all. Peak was in 1892.
Blacks dying in Chicago, mainly black on black homicide: from: Chicago: 75% of Murdered are Black, 71% of Murderers are Back. Intellectual Take Out Devin Foley 7/27/16
Figures are for 2011
VICTIMS
83.4% of deaths were from shootings, 6.7% stabbings, and 6.5% assaults. Of the 362 firearm homicides, 351 (97%) were from handguns. 77% of all homicide victims had a prior arrest history. Victims were 90% male.
Victims by Age:
(the tables did not copy.)
Victims by Race:
What stands out the most looking at both charts and knowing that 90% of the victims are male is that a lot of young, Black men are being killed in Chicago. No race comes even close to overall deaths by homicide. Keep in mind that based on 2010 Census numbers, only 33% of Chicago’s population was classified as Black.
OFFENDERS
In 2011, there were 140 convicted offenders for the 128 victims with an associated prosecution. There were more offenders than victims because 10.7% of homicides had two offenders and 10.0% had three or more offenders convicted. 87% of all offenders had a prior arrest history. Offenders were 88% male.
Offenders by Age:
Offenders by Race:
The data on offenders also tells a troubling story: Young, Black males are overwhelmingly committing most of the murders. Based on the data on the victims, that means young, Black males are primarily killing other young, Black males. What a terrible situation.
Now, we can and should debate about the causes, but let us just say that it’s hard to believe that racism is the root of it. Yes, some will argue that systemic racism traps Blacks in poverty, but does that explain why Blacks would seem to target other Blacks with such overwhelming violence and frequency compared to any other race? Furthermore on the race issue, it’s interesting to note that the Hispanics seem to actually murder more than they are murdered, while both Whites and Blacks are indeed murdered more than they murder.
Looking at the troubling statistics, is it reasonable to be reminded of Don Lemon’s (a Black, CNN anchor) somewhat famous and controversial comments during the George Zimmerman acquittal in 2013:
"‘Black people,’ Lemon said, ‘if you really want to fix the problem, here’s just five things that you should think about doing.’
The No. 1 item on that list – ‘and probably the most important,’ he said – had to do with out-of-wedlock births.
‘Just because you can have a baby, it doesn’t mean you should,’ Lemon said. ‘Especially without planning for one or getting married first. More than 72 percent of children in the African-American community are born out of wedlock. That means absent fathers. And the studies show that lack of a male role model is an express train right to prison and the cycle continues.’"
Now, in the 78 years from 1890 to 1968, 4700 or so were lynched. Or about 60 per year (of course, 1892 was the peak, so it was much lees as time went on.)
In Chicago alone, in 2011, there were 433 homicides 75% or so were blacks (324). Of the muderers convicted, 71% were black.
There has not been a lynching for 50 years. But blacks continue to die at a huge rate by the hands of their black brothers.
There seem to be other issues here besides racism. One can live in the past, and look with glasses that have a “past is primary” lens in them. But by doing so, one can miss some real solutions.
I believe you have a pastor’s heart, Allen. That’s why I engaged with you. I have confidence in the work God is doing in your life. I’ve observed it numerous times, I believe.
I hope we’re not done with this discussion, Allen, though a rest may be just the thing for us both, I’m sure.
I think all of us have gone too far, but, paradoxically, not nearly far enough.
"The difference between a radical Islamic attack and a white supremacist attack is this: White supremacy is an indigenous ideology in the United States.”
White supremacy is the background information, to use a philosophical term, against which these voting endeavors, of which you speak, take place. It is the field.
You said:
In response:
I am not very knowledgeable on this detail, though I seem to recall discussion of it.
I clearly recall their stance on non-white attendees at the school. It makes sense, given the school’s character, that if the issues of a) interracial sex and b) abortion were both extant, they would tackle interracial sex, first.
You said:
In response:
I’m not informed on the details, enough, to say.
With what I know, what you say seems very plausible.
I don’t think that the charge of racism is unforgivable. Instead, I think that those who commit it do not repent.
The late Dr. Randy Pausch was a computer scientist who, before his death a decade ago, achieved international fame with the release of his video and book, The Last Lecture; a summation of the important truths he’d learned during his life.
“A good apology,” he said, "has three parts:
‘I’m sorry.’
‘It was my fault.’
‘How do I make it right?’"
He then added:
“Most people skip that third part. That’s how you can tell sincerity.”
I’ve never seen an apology, regarding a racial incident, that had these three parts. I am not saying that one has never taken place. I’m saying I’ve never seen one.
I’ve rarely ever seen one that had the first two parts. That is, I may have seen one, but I’m not sure.
I think I’ve seen apologies that consist of Part 1, alone, and that appear genuine. However, what I’m sure I’ve seen are more of the other kind: a) The refusal to apologize; b) The “I’m sorry if you were offended” “apology”; c) The “I didn’t mean anything by what I said”; “he was just joking around” “apology”; etc., etc., etc.
So, to the degree that you believe racism is unforgivable, it probably is because few racists actually apologize.
You said:
In response:
I would need you to quote my exact words, and your own, in order to confer on this with you.
You said:
In response:
I can’t talk about what you see. However:
a) The largest bloc of human beings are non-white females.
b) Many non-white females say that they are oppressed, both, by white men, as females, and then by white women, as non-white people.
Put another way, no one ever ran a centuries-long transatlantic slave trade of white women, or lynched white women for being white, or told white women they couldn’t move into X neighborhoods upon fear of being run out of town, or disproportionately beat unarmed white women at traffic stops. No one certainly ever did the things to white women’s sons, brothers, and husbands that have been done to Black females’ sons, brothers, and husbands.
So, I think that, for these and similar reasons, many non-white women, when facing both gender fallback and racism, consider white supremacy the more demoralizing megaforce.
You said:
In response:
It didn’t “strum a nerve” with me, @Timo. It was a question. I answered it.
You said:
In response:
I’m not clear how a question can be, or express, a truth.
If you’re saying…
Perceived or real slights against color are not more egregious sins than that against gender. (One could surmise this is the unspoken truth.)
…I would refer you to my previous response, above.
You said:
In response:
A “thought experiment,” from the German gedankenexperiment, is, per Webster’s, “an experiment carried out in thought only.”
You’d said:
I said, in response:
1. I’m not sure. This is your thought experiment. You would have to say why you are proposing it.
2. Because this is your thought experiment, you would have to tell me what it has to do with what I’ve written.
If you’re saying that there is an actual “Women’s Conference,” of the sort that you described “with an attempt to keep a straight face,” and you were referring to it in your statement, then it was not a thought experiment, and I misunderstood.
If you’re saying that there is not an actual “Women’s Conference,” of the sort that you described “with an attempt to keep a straight face,” and you were referring to it hypothetically in your statement, then it was a thought experiment, and I understood you correctly.
Which was it?
Either way, however, the use of the term thought experiment was not derogatory, because to derogate is to disparage.
To prove that my statement was derogatory, you’d have to show how, by me taking that you meant something hypothetically, I disparaged you.
You said:
In response:
You said:
I found this set of questions nonsensical and, thus, wearisome.
My response was in kind.
You said:
In response:
In the two following paragraphs, to spoke about me in the third person.
You said:
That is, did you do so, or did you not do so?
You said:
In response:
???
You said:
In response:
That’s up for a debate, as to whether anything I’ve said, or that you’ve said, have any value in this conversation.
In other words, you’ve offered a conclusion—Many things you’ve said, Harry, “have no value in the conversation”—but your premises seem to be that:
i) I called a thought experiment a thought experiment;
ii) I expressed exasperation with an odd set of questions; and
iii) I pointed out that you spoke about me in the third person.
You’re not making a good argument. You may not like that I made these statements, but you can’t say that, in the context of the conversation, they were extraneous or superfluous.
You said:
In response:
I had to read this a few times, because I didn’t know what you meant by “seem as intentional in fulfilling your self-fulfilling prophecies.”
I think what you mean by “self-fulfilling prophecies” was my observation that white people stop responding when I make certain statements. However, I’ve said this already: I only think that this is predictable and, thus, interesting.
I’m not clear why you call my statement, “Racism is white supremacy,” a coercive redefinition.
What’s a “coercive redefinition”?
You said:
In response:
So, I’ve said this before, but, yes, I am teaching some kind of course: I’m teaching non-white people, beginning with myself, on responding to the system of white supremacy.
Please see #41; my reply to @Danny, after he said, “when you re-invent standard definitions and put your own spin on it by your own admission…thats a discussion ender.”
You said:
In response:
I don’t understand what this means.
You said:
In response:
I’m not interested in giving evasive answers. It’s not my style, or mode. I don’t value it in others, and detest it in myself. You must not understand my answers.
If there’s something I say, that you think is not answering the question, re-ask it, or ask it another way.
You said:
In response:
I don’t understand what this means.
You said:
In response:
I don’t understand what this means.
You said:
In response:
I don’t understand what this means.
You said:
In response:
I’m not sure I understand what this means. But I think I may.
If I do, I think my response is #41; my reply to @Danny.
Interestingly, Dr. Desmond Ford dedicated a book to me, once, with a similar title.
You said:
In response:
I don’t agree with almost any of this. But, I’m going to keep reading.
You said:
In response:
I’ll keep reading.
You said:
In response:
I agree.
In fact, when I say “Racism is white supremacy. Eliminate white supremacy and replace it with justice,” it is exactly 1) taking the good, 2) eliminating the bad, and 3) moving on, of which I speak.
You said:
In response:
Apparently, so are you, Allen Shepherd. I never said any of that.
You said:
In response:
If by “the white culture” you mean racism, I’d say, yes: White supremacy (aka racism) dominates people relations throughout the known universe, in all areas: economics, education, entertainment, labor, politics, religion, sex, and/or war.
You said:
In response:
White supremacy came to dominate relations between people throughout the known universe via deceit, secrecy, and violence.
That is true
It maintains its dominance by the same means.
That is true
You said:
In response:
What you call “many good things” are what the racists did to establish, maintain, expand, and/or refine the system of white supremacy.
In other words, these were not functions they built into the system, whose purposes were to eliminate it. These functions were designed to make sure that racism stayed intact and powerful.
Put another way, iPads, Fords, going to Africa, and voting for Obama are aspects of white supremacy. They are done in the context of it, and they do not eliminate it. They are things white people make, or do, when they don’t want to eliminate the system of white supremacy. As such, they are “part and parcel” of it.
So are your “many good things.”
You said:
In response:
I don’t know who “the Desert Father/s” is, or are. But I agree: The only correct response a victim of racism can have to the race system is to eliminate it.
You said:
In response:
Again, I agree: The only correct response to my victimhood is to eliminate the system of white supremacy, and to replace it with justice.
You gave many statistics about violent actions by Black people. They may be true, they may not be true, or they may be a mix of true and untrue statements:
White, old businessmen mostly kill white, old businessmen.
Young white jocks mostly kill young white jocks.
Black teens mostly kill Black teens.
These are all terrible situations. But, statistically, people usually kill people who are demographically like themselves.
You said:
In response:
O.K.
Why is it hard to believe?
You said:
In response:
You’re not making any sense.
See my statement, above, about who mostly kills Jews, or mafiosos.
You said:
In response:
(sigh)
I’ll allow it.
You said:
In response:
I think that, hearing these statistics, you are reminded of these statements by Don Lemon.
But I don’t consider his a serious response to these societal ills. I say that because, nowhere in his statement, does he address white supremacy, and how to eliminate it.
Then:
You gave more statistics, about lynching. They may be true, they may not be true, or they may be a mix of true and untrue statements.
Then, you said:
In response:
See above.
You said:
In response:
O.K.
Like what?
You said:
In response:
This sounds exactly like what the white supremacists do by establishing, maintaining, expanding, and refining white supremacy.
Put another way, they are not eliminating white supremacy, which would be "The Maximally Just And Most Desirable Future."
Instead, they are doing what they’ve always done; what they did last year, last decade, last century, last ???: Unjustly dominating the non-white people of the known universe.
No one “Lives In The Past” more than the white supremacists. No one says “Past Is Primary” more than the people who turned dominating non-white people into global “fun.”
No one, more than they, seek to make the future into the tacky, trashy, terroristic mess that the past was, including the past 1/2 a second ago.
