dagblog - Comments for "Striving Over Surviving"

Inspiring read. Thanks Danny.

rmrd0000 — Wed, 07 Feb 2018 13:29:57 +0000

In reply to Striving Over Surviving

Inspiring read. Thanks Danny.

Bravo!

artappraiser — Fri, 02 Feb 2018 22:39:08 +0000

In reply to Actually, King and Malcolm on

Bravo!

Actually, King and Malcolm on

AmericanDreamer — Fri, 02 Feb 2018 22:17:13 +0000

In reply to I stand by the statement that

Actually, King and Malcolm on at least one point were disagreeing with one another. King avers that Goldwater is not himself a racist. Malcolm, on the other hand, says Goldwater cannot hide his racist tendencies. I have the sense that you are keen on placing people into one or the other box--they either are, or are not, a racist. So I would have thought you might have attended to that nuance.

I find exchanges that focus on who is and is not a racist generally not helpful. They mainly serve to increase the likelihood that participants will get their defenses up and either shut down or lash out.

Institutional or structural racism--or, if you prefer, institutional or structural realities that systematically saddle some, in this case black, people with unjust disadvantages--seems to me a possibly more promising way to talk about race. One of the books I mentioned on my list of history and current affairs stuff I feel I've benefited from is Richard Rothstein's The Color of Law. That is what he is writing about and documenting.

One of the other books I mentioned is Daria Roithmayr's (also relatively light-skinned) Reproducing Racism: How Everyday Choices Lock in White Advantage. Her book is also about institutional or structural racism. I found it helpful in explaining part of the disjuncture in which blacks report experiencing vastly higher incidence of racism and discriminatory behavior than whites report such treatment towards blacks.

In general I'm pretty strongly anti-essentialist when it comes to understanding and trying to make sense of how people construct and experience their identities. The extent of variation within any particular chosen or self-ascribed identity is large, in part because, in my experiences at any rate, people are multi-faceted and complex and have multiple identities even if they might rather not.

The David Hollinger book I mentioned, Postethnic America, IIRC, was making a related point, that the sort of identity freedom many seek, and mean, by multiculturalism in our society is maximum ability to create the identity one wants to create, unhindered or relatively unhindered by the consequences of stereotypes or biases tied to their immutable external features. Kwame Anthony Appiah is a person of color who has written in a similar vein if I am recalling correctly. I am eager to read another person of color, Tommie Shelby, whose 2007 We Who are Dark appears to dig into what I think of as related themes of group and individual identity and the relationship between the two for people of color.

I cannot see a reason why, say, a white woman who has been sexually assaulted should feel as though she is somehow obliged to elevate attention to racial injustice over attention to the injustices she experiences. And I think that if you are a black person heard as trying to tell her that your racial issue is more important and deserving of attention than her issue, you might not get the result you are hoping for. And if you lash out in frustration on that account you may find that you've made the matter worse. That, too, is reality.

One might hope that those experiencing injustices might, more often, be more empathetic and sympathetic, and more likely to act, in ways that are responsive to injustices experienced by others. Of course it doesn't always work out that way, and can work the other way. Some of the progressive intersectionality people write of the importance of avoiding the Victim Olympics. Indeed. Those who are indifferent to or support a continuation of injustices regularly count on being able to divide and conquer by feeding resentments and animosities among those who otherwise might unite to press concerns upon them.

I read your argument as you

rmrd0000 — Fri, 02 Feb 2018 20:59:50 +0000

In reply to What does this have to do

I read your argument as you saying that I was calling everyone a racist.

What does this have to do

ocean-kat — Fri, 02 Feb 2018 20:53:10 +0000

In reply to I stand by the statement that

What does this have to do with anything I posted? Again why are you trying to change the topic? More diversionary tactics. I've already answered the question about whether I think those who voted for Trump were willing to vote for a racist. You should know what I think because I've posted on it a dozen times. But you keep asking it as if it's some winning argument. You never pay attention to what anyone posts here because your only purpose is to look for hooks to attach your agenda items to.

I stand by the statement that

rmrd0000 — Fri, 02 Feb 2018 20:40:44 +0000

In reply to That question has nothing to

I stand by the statement that those who supported Trump were willing to support a racist. I take the same stand for those who cast votes for Roy Moore. From a historical standpoint, I posted a quote from MLK Jr that said that a man of good conscience could not for Barry Goldwater. Goldwater gave aid and comfort to the racists. Trump and Moore make similar appeals.

“The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism...On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represents a philosophy that is morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulates a philosophy which gives aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I have no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that does not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.”

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/this-mlk-quote-sums-up-the-rise-of-white-supremacy-post-trump_us_5875426de4b099cdb1000431

Malcolm X said the same thing about Goldwater

“Well if Goldwater ever becomes president one thing his presence in the White House will do, it will make black people in America have to face up the facts probably for the first time in many many years,” Malcolm X said.

“This in itself is good in that Goldwater is a man who’s not capable of hiding his racist tendencies,” he added. “And at the same time he’s not even capable of pretending to Negroes that he’s their friend.”

The Civil Rights icon concluded that should Goldwater be elected, he would inspire black people to fully reckon with “whites who pose as liberals only for the purpose of getting the support of the Negro.”

“So in one sense Goldwater’s coming in will awaken the Negro and will probably awaken the entire world more so than the world has been awakened since Hitler,” he said.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/malcolm-x-predicted-how-black-people-would-feel-under-a-trump-presidency_us_582496fce4b07751c390cae9

Do you think that the comments of these two men would differ about Trump. Don’t you think that King would say that Trump voters were not people of good conscience?

That question has nothing to

ocean-kat — Fri, 02 Feb 2018 19:34:51 +0000

In reply to There is little evidence of

That question has nothing to do with anything I posted. Why are you trying to change the subject? Why are you unwilling to address the points I make in my posts? This is your modus operandi, to attempt to change the subject when you are confronted on your bullshit. Changing every conversation to a discussion of voter suppression is your favorite diversion topic. There's really no use in answering that question since I've answered it a dozen times already and you never chose to address my comments. You don't really want to discuss it. You only want to lecture us on it.

Absolutely.

barefooted — Fri, 02 Feb 2018 19:33:01 +0000

In reply to In a melting pot we need to

Absolutely.

I never said that. Are you a

ocean-kat — Fri, 02 Feb 2018 18:38:24 +0000

In reply to The Cosmopolitan's Handbook -

I never said that. Are you a liar or are you incapable of understanding what you read? I said that rmrd calls everyone and everything racist so when rmrd calls someone a racist it has almost become a compliment. So once again I ask, Are you a liar or is your reading comprehension extremely low?

The Cosmopolitan's Handbook -

Anonymous — Fri, 02 Feb 2018 16:36:57 +0000

In reply to I report facts

The Cosmopolitan's Handbook - for the nuanced racist. Ocean-Kat said that being called a racist is a compliment these days...so your welcome.

AA - your that relative that Afro- American family members love the most. Are they allowed at the main table?