Which of these two mindsets is the more racist one? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All sociological topics not appropriate or suited to other areas of the board.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15007430
Times change, our perception of race evolves, and in turn so too does our perception of "racism".

Martin Luther King gave way to massive social change with one of his most famous lines, that being "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."

I have begun to notice something however. That is, that there seems to be a negative and unintended backfiring of applying this principle in the present day.

Many today believe that the epitome of being a non-racist is to judge all human beings the same and completely disregard the factor of racial background. That is one possible attitude a person can take, inspired by the words of Martin Luther King. This attitude however, ironically creates and perpetuates oppression, which I will try my best to explain as we go along in this thread.

Many others apply a second attitude which in my opinion lessens harm and is far more righteous. That is, we acknowledge the oppressed nature of certain groups, and based on that acknowledgement we adjust our behaviors so as to give them a kinder and more compassionate degree of treatment than we would for someone who is not part of an oppressed group.

Now, it seems that some of us have become very concerned with identifying "racism" in terms of technicalities - that is, treating it only by the use of the historical definition of the term which for its time would have been directly in line and in correlation with harm done onto other human beings. Many of us are concerned to hold on to this technical definition today even in the face of great harm perpetuated onto other human beings. Others associate racism to harm, which would perhaps explain the use of the term being extended towards fascists, sexists, homophobes, and others who promote aggressive forms of hatred.

Now suppose you're a police officer. We do know in fact, that police themselves admit to racial profiling as a tool to catch those who are more likely to commit crimes. Not all police organizations do this, of course not, but many do and in fact many who have worked in the police force will attest to it themselves, for it is no secret. But suppose on the other hand, you're a police officer and you recognize the disprivileged fate of a black man due to history, and based on this recognition you decide to be more generous and compassionate towards blacks than whites.

Which attitude is more racist: Attitude #1: "I am going to treat all people equally regardless of race"
Attitude #2: "I recognize that some racial groups have been oppressed, and so I will behave more leniently and compassionately towards individuals in that group"

?
#15007985
Agent Steel wrote:Times change, our perception of race evolves, and in turn so too does our perception of "racism".

Martin Luther King gave way to massive social change with one of his most famous lines, that being "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."

I have begun to notice something however. That is, that there seems to be a negative and unintended backfiring of applying this principle in the present day.

Many today believe that the epitome of being a non-racist is to judge all human beings the same and completely disregard the factor of racial background. That is one possible attitude a person can take, inspired by the words of Martin Luther King. This attitude however, ironically creates and perpetuates oppression, which I will try my best to explain as we go along in this thread.

Many others apply a second attitude which in my opinion lessens harm and is far more righteous. That is, we acknowledge the oppressed nature of certain groups, and based on that acknowledgement we adjust our behaviors so as to give them a kinder and more compassionate degree of treatment than we would for someone who is not part of an oppressed group.

Now, it seems that some of us have become very concerned with identifying "racism" in terms of technicalities - that is, treating it only by the use of the historical definition of the term which for its time would have been directly in line and in correlation with harm done onto other human beings. Many of us are concerned to hold on to this technical definition today even in the face of great harm perpetuated onto other human beings. Others associate racism to harm, which would perhaps explain the use of the term being extended towards fascists, sexists, homophobes, and others who promote aggressive forms of hatred.

Now suppose you're a police officer. We do know in fact, that police themselves admit to racial profiling as a tool to catch those who are more likely to commit crimes. Not all police organizations do this, of course not, but many do and in fact many who have worked in the police force will attest to it themselves, for it is no secret. But suppose on the other hand, you're a police officer and you recognize the disprivileged fate of a black man due to history, and based on this recognition you decide to be more generous and compassionate towards blacks than whites.

Which attitude is more racist: Attitude #1: "I am going to treat all people equally regardless of race"
Attitude #2: "I recognize that some racial groups have been oppressed, and so I will behave more leniently and compassionately towards individuals in that group"

?


Dear @Agent Steel
Instead of treating individuals according to groups, with either #1 or #2 the solution is to treat each individual as that person needs in order to feel equally safe, secure, respected and protected.

Not assuming how because of their grouping, but because that individual responds to that approach.
People will tell you what they believe and what they need.

So if we work on democratizing communities to be self-governing,
where residents and leaders, students, parents and teachers
all interact with respect for one another, and have open communication
and mediation assistance to address different beliefs and even conflicts between them,
then there's no need to 'assume' which method works better for which people.
They will agree among themselves what different people, relations or situations require,
case by case.

SEE example Guidelines for Sharing in groups:
http://www.isocracytx.net/hp-org/CHRguide.html

GUIDELINES FOR SHARING
from the Center for Healing of Racism
www.centerhealingracism.org

We have come together to try to learn about the disease of racism and promote a healing process.

Sharing is voluntary.

We want to create a safe, loving and respectful atmosphere.

Sharing is about one's own feelings, experiences, perceptions, etc.

We are not always going to agree or see everything the same way and that's O.K.

Each person has a right to and responsibility for his or her own feelings, thoughts, and beliefs.

It is important to avoid criticism or judgement about another person's sharing, point of view, and/or feelings.

Avoid getting tied up in debate and argument. It rarely changes anything or anyone and tends to ultimately inhibit the sharing.

We can only change ourselves. Our change and growth may, however, inspire someone else.

Refrain from singling out any individual as "representing" his or her group or issue.

It is important to give full attention to whomever is talking.

Feelings are important.

We will surely make mistakes in our efforts, but mistakes are occasions for learning and forgiving.

We may laugh and cry together, share pain, joy, fear, or anger.

Hopefully we will leave these meetings with a deeper understanding and a renewed hope for the future of humanity.
#15008068
emilynghiem wrote:
GUIDELINES FOR SHARING
from the Center for Healing of Racism
http://www.centerhealingracism.org

We have come together to try to learn about the disease of racism and promote a healing process.

Sharing is voluntary.

We want to create a safe, loving and respectful atmosphere.

Sharing is about one's own feelings, experiences, perceptions, etc.

We are not always going to agree or see everything the same way and that's O.K.

Each person has a right to and responsibility for his or her own feelings, thoughts, and beliefs.

It is important to avoid criticism or judgement about another person's sharing, point of view, and/or feelings.

Avoid getting tied up in debate and argument. It rarely changes anything or anyone and tends to ultimately inhibit the sharing.

We can only change ourselves. Our change and growth may, however, inspire someone else.

Refrain from singling out any individual as "representing" his or her group or issue.

It is important to give full attention to whomever is talking.

Feelings are important.

We will surely make mistakes in our efforts, but mistakes are occasions for learning and forgiving.

We may laugh and cry together, share pain, joy, fear, or anger.

Hopefully we will leave these meetings with a deeper understanding and a renewed hope for the future of humanity.


None of that gay shit is gonna help. What would help is real shit like radical democratization, ending the war on drugs, abolishing mass industrial education, public banking, universal healthcare, strengthening unions, reverse social security or a ubi, free college, public access media(tv,radio,print), free high speed internet, etc etc etc
#15008496
RE None of that gay shit is gonna help. What would help is real shit like radical democratization, ending the war on drugs, abolishing mass industrial education, public banking, universal healthcare, strengthening unions, reverse social security or a ubi, free college, public access media(tv,radio,print), free high speed internet, etc etc etc

Dear @Sivad

How do you propose to pay for college and health care without mandating that people work to support it?

Would you support mandatory medical education, training and services
so that people earn their educations by serving in public health?

If you support worker owned cooperatives, what do you think of the idea
to take the model for health care cooperatives (see www.medcoops.com)
and organizing labor unions and even entire Parties to own and manage
their own health care benefits for their own members.

By taking on responsiblity for admin, 1500 members running their own
health care coop means $5-10 million if you count monthly costs as
$300-600 per person x 1500 x 12 months.

That's enough capital to invest in building your own clinic centers
, and with 10 chapters per specialist center, and 10 of those per
central hospital, that's enough to manage a whole network.

Is this what you have in mind? www.medcoops.net

If so, who is your closest regional govt representative
interested in either health care or prison reform.

I'd like to work with you and other progressive friends
who want to reform prison funding and pay for education
and health care instead of wasting it on failed systems
of criminal justice and mental health that cost triple.

By focusing instead on converting prison facilities and
resources into teaching hospitals and medical education
programs, we can treat the mentally and criminally ill
through public service internships that pay and train
more nurses and doctors with the money wasted
incarcerating inmates at 50K a year per person.

What do you think of this proposal?
#15008499
emilynghiem wrote:How do you propose to pay for college and health care without mandating that people work to support it?


Paying for it isn't the problem, society generates more than enough wealth to fund these programs. The problem is we allow the 1% to steal the wealth that's created through the cumulative labor of the 99% . What the rich do is capture wealth, they don't create it.

Would you support mandatory medical education, training and services
so that people earn their educations by serving in public health?


No, I don't support conscripting people into mandatory service.

If you support worker owned cooperatives, what do you think of the idea
to take the model for health care cooperatives (see http://www.medcoops.com)
and organizing labor unions and even entire Parties to own and manage
their own health care benefits for their own members.


I think 100% socially funded member controlled cooperatives are the only way to go.
#15008559
Sivad wrote:A1. No, I don't support conscripting people into mandatory service.

A2. I think 100% socially funded member controlled cooperatives are the only way to go.



Thanks @Sivad
A. By "socially funded" do you mean through govt mandates? Isn't that conscripting people into mandatory service, since money is made from labor, so if you force everyone to pay isn't that usurping their labor?

Otherwise, we seem to agree that member controlled coops are the solution.
Do you get the point that 1500 people is enough to manage their costs?
NOTE: the medicare and govt funding can still be kept for people who need it,
but this doesn't have to be forced on anyone else. the resources saved by cutting out insurance profits
is enough to cover costs without forcing others to pay, so people basically pay for their own costs not others.

Sivad wrote:B1. Paying for it isn't the problem, society generates more than enough wealth to fund these programs. The problem is we allow the 1% to steal the wealth that's created through the cumulative labor of the 99% .
B2. What the rich do is capture wealth, they don't create it.

B. Isn't it just as wrongful to try to "capture the wealth" that OTHERS in "society generates"
if you are saying the 1% are 'stealing' it from other cumulative laborers.

We might agree if we are both saying to TEACH the laborers how to manage their OWN labor
and resources through cooperative ownership.

In your other post you seemed to indicate you DON'T believe in "going through govt"
or "depending on govt" to shift this paradigm of ownership back to the actual people and laborers.

Do you believe as I do the key is educating people to govern themselves?
And not rely on govt to decide for them.

If so, where you and I may differ is in using the existing laws and system
to EDUCATE people how to govern themselves (such as by Constitutional principles
that people can learn to manage group dynamics and protect themselves from abuses within their groups).

Are you okay with that?
Some anarchists are, who can understand Constitutional terms are a FORM of expressing 'natural laws of
democracy for self govt'
(some cannot stand anything that is already institutionalized and corrupted by others)

Do you believe it is sufficient to teach people Cooperative structures
and conflict resolution management? Or would you support teaching
Constitutional laws so people can negotiate with existing govt and
work out their own contracts for redirecting taxes to their own programs?
SEE www.ethics-commission.net
What structure or model would you use to teach people to manage
their groups and coops independently?

Also, since you mention public radio, do you volunteer or work with
any of the Pacifica stations? If so, I wrote some lyrics for a music
video contest to raise money to fund cooperative campus development
around each station to focus on different areas of social and political reforms:
www.10million.net Tell me what station or area you are closest to.
I'm happy to network with you to get fundraising going in the media
to support educational outreach in coop development (and lobby the
candidates to put campaign money there directly in solutions instead of empty promises)
#15009048
emilynghiem wrote:A. By "socially funded" do you mean through govt mandates?


I mean through taxation.


Isn't that conscripting people into mandatory service, since money is made from labor, so if you force everyone to pay isn't that usurping their labor?


The money collected from taxation is not made from your labor, it's made from capturing the wealth created by the labor of others. It's not your money, you didn't earn it and it doesn't belong to you.

The revenues generated by an individual's economic activity are not solely due to the efforts of that individual, those revenues are due in no small part to the investment of time and energy of millions of other people.

In order for you to generate revenue other people had to make, raise, and educate children or you wouldn't have customers or employees or co-workers. People had to design and build infrastructure or you wouldn't have any way to distribute or receive goods and services. People had to develop and operate systems of law and commerce in order to facilitate your economic activity. The bulk of the revenue you generate wouldn't be possible if not for the product of the cumulative labor of millions and millions of other people.

B. Isn't it just as wrongful to try to "capture the wealth" that OTHERS in "society generates"
if you are saying the 1% are 'stealing' it from other cumulative laborers.


How is it wrongful to give people their own wealth back? What's wrongful is keeping money you didn't earn and doesn't belong to you.


In your other post you seemed to indicate you DON'T believe in "going through govt"
or "depending on govt" to shift this paradigm of ownership back to the actual people and laborers.


No, I don't have any problem with going through government to get our captured wealth back, my only problem is with the government capturing that wealth for itself and using it to control people's lives.
#15009081
A few hours before the ceremony, an incident occurred when their parents did not want a Roma girl to sit at a pew in front of the altar with other children, the TASR newswire reported.

The mother of the girl described the case on Facebook and raised the discussion.

“Can you advise me on where I can submit a complaint to the parish for discrimination? We – my daughter - were about to attend her first communion. We went to confession and the parents of these children didn't want my daughter to sit in the front with other children. We were supposed to sit in the back as a family,” the mother wrote.

The parish of St Nicolas in Trnava has refuted the claims of discrimination against the Roma girl. It said that the mother had enrolled her daughter for first communion late and that the girl did not attend the preparation with the others. The place she received followed a seating plan.

“Despite the unpleasant reaction of some parents, the priest decided on Saturday morning that the girl would sit among the other children,” reads the statement of the parish, as quoted by the SITA newswire.

The mother enrolled the daughter only about a week before the ceremony. Although the girl did not prepare with the other children during the school year, the priest was willing to take her because she was a Roma child.

At the same time, he refuted the claims that the problem occurred because of the girl’s skin colour. He even said that there already was one Roma girl, but this one attended all activities along with the rest of the group.

He also stressed that they had no power to decide on who would sit where.

“Our children have been hearing about this since Saturday and are stressed out, like us parents,” Praženka said. “We are considering submitting a criminal complaint against the girl’s mother for perjury.”

https://spectator.sme.sk/c/22131381/par ... hurch.html


The mother of the Roma girl lied about the incident. The mother had enrolled her daughter for First Communion so late that the girl did not attend the preparation with the others. However, the girl was allowed to sit among the other children because she was perceived to be racially oppressed and parents complained about the preferential treatment given to her by the clergy. The incident took place in a church, where people are supposed to be compassionate toward each other. But we cannot expect police officers to be non-discriminatory towards minorities as they are prone to be more racist than the general population.
Trump's Dumb Economics

Truth and facts are not always the same, since tr[…]

They are not victims just stupid. Your socio[…]

Too Many White People

I would amend that statement. I think the governm[…]

I support this initiative. Small migrant boats can[…]