Prometheus 6

Some would go into a Eurocentric analysis of history and human culture to supplement pride in their "white" heritage.    

Forgive me if I answer your question with a question.  What should a person of any ethnicity be proud of?  I have actually never considered the concept of "white pride."  I am proud of my accumulated heritages, being a variegated Euromutt.  But that relates to how I see myself as an individual with a certain set of inherited characteristics, and dietary preferences (lots of pig parts) rather than some sort "boy, I'm glad I'm not an x-y-z."

But having said that, I think I might be missing your point.

Now, 45 years after the civil tights act, we still have a long way to go.  Since we are human, and therefore imperfect, -isms of all sorts are not going to go away.  I think you made this point in a previous post.  But I do have hope.  Hatred based on -isms can only thrive if one can demonize the other race/gender/religion/whatever.   Demonizaton is only effective if one can believe that the other's otherhood trumps their humanity.   I see my grandchildren playing sports, going to school, and even learning Irish Dance (off all things) with kids from other ethnicities.  When they grow up, they will have known these others, from childhood, as individuals, schoolmates, playmates - you know - equals.  Possibly even friends.

This is still a long row to plow, and perhaps we are only just starting.  But I do see a better future for these kids.

Back to Holder.  I think he was unwise to make the comment that he did, for a few reasons.  First, it resonates, very unfortunately, with Phil Gramm's "nation of whiners" comment from a few months ago, and makes it easy to see Holder as somehow out of touch.  Second, it's preachy and judgmental.  People are not going to respond well to that.  Third, it genrates more heat than light, as the dialog over at Peter David's place so amply demonstrates.

I just wrote a long, thoughtful comment.  After I previewed it and hit the "post comment" button it disappeared.  I'll never be able to reconstruct it.  Shit.  All that brilliance wasted.  I'm gong to bed.

I can place that in historical context if I have to. I don't know that anyone wants the bacteria carried on their person to be considered a racial trait...especially since we're all immune to them by now.

True, ubstu, they would. But the real issue is that black/latino/etc and so on people are "proud" in the face of a society that tells them they should be ashamed. What in our society tells white people they should be ashamed of their whiteness? Aside from the occasional "coward" comment that usually only happens when white people do something they should be ashamed of.

I mean really? Who is this cat? Of all the white people I've come across, in real life and online, who complain about the n-word "double standard," not one of them has given a good reason as to why they would use the word. I'm insulted that people get to spread garbage like that and call it intellectual thought.

What's "race fail" supposed to mean, anyway?

Seeing how childlike they are still shocks once in a while. Anyway, I'd ask for a description of White Pride that isn't zero-sum in nature.

Holder did a good thing. He caused the whites who aren't worth talking to...to identify themselves.

jazzbumpa:

Since you're not registered, your comments get reviewed before they post. That's a choice several people make.

For the record, I remember your first comment and visited your site. Your review will consist entirely of seeing your name on the post (until further notice...). This one took longer than usual because I was checking out Watchmen on IMAX...

no1kstate:

LiveJournal is an ancient (for the Internet) community with deep and extensive roots, and as such has developed its own vernacular. It's somewhat reminiscent of LOLCats, only not so obsessive or illiterate. For instance, in the comments of one post the writer was told his post was "Made of WIN!"

A "Fail" is just what it sounds like, but maybe worse for being embarrassing. I understand there some disagreement about whether the race fail applies to posts like the one I quoted above or the discussion as a whole.

LATER: It might be "fandom" vernacular, though fandom is centered on LiveJournal...if you want a look at this new language (and a kind of unfair view of fandom) check out Fandom Wank.

"Al Sharpton–as big a racist as there ever was–"

Playing the "Al Sharpton" card IMO immediately disqualifies any arguments David was trying to make.  Very sophisticated of him to equate Sharpton and his street march antics with, say, King Leopold II.

Oh, why o why did I read further.

"an atmosphere created by many members of the very audience that Holder would presumably claim as his constituency?"

Eric Holder's the attorney general of the United States.  His "constituency," such that he has one, are the citizens of the USA. Did David mean something different, and if so, why?

Anyway, I'd be 100% in favor of White History month.  It could even be a proper 31 day month. But the other 11 months would have to be ethnically neutral, howz about that?

Since the conversation is framed around the game of stereotypes and the little boxes we're all supposed to conveniently be pigeonholed into.. I'll start out, as this is my first posting here, by citing what some here no doubt would prefer to define me as. I'm a woman, 48 yrs old. I'm Abenaki, whose people are part of the Algonquin nation, for those who need further clarification, that's someone of indigenous heritage. One of the people whose history is often exploited for a variety of reasons, most recently by those who seek to undermine all civil rights, and impose a new slavery in these lands, one that will enslave all people.I grew up, not as the aforementioned stereotypes would envision, but in multi racial working class neighborhoods in Massachusetts, and then on my grandfather's farm in Vermont. I've since lived in various states around the country. I don't view myself from the narrow lens that the far leftist extreme prefers to impose, but as an individual, with a mind and the ability to use it to determine my own opinion. Like Mr. Ellison, I would prefer it if more of us would actually use their brains to think, rather than allow them to atrophy, only to be used as a mechanism to assist in the proliferation of the garbage the far leftist (or far right wing) extreme spoon feeds them.

I spent most of my life considering myself a liberal democrat, but reaffilated as an independent last summer. Not because my political views have changed, but because the leadership of the democratic party is no longer democratic, it has in fact regressed to the point where it is once again the party of slavery. That said, I voted for Obama in the election, I was originally an Edwards supporter, because he was the only candidate with a strong commitment to eradicating poverty, and who, as Martin Luther King III applauded him for, stated that while we still have some problems regarding race, the real problem was the issue of class. I grew up in the '60s and '70s, when civil rights actually meant something significant, and it was recognized that those who perpetuate stereotypes, and play divisive games, do so to distract and marginalize everyone, so as to weaken us all, so as to more easily steam roll over us. We also recognized that revisionism was wrong, those who perpetuate, and hide behind lies, do so because they are afraid of the truth.

I found this blog article, while clicking through various links, having started reading an older interview with Harlan Ellison, a writer I've admired since my younger days. I read it, and then clicked through the various links within it, to the various articles/postings they led to.

To answer the question of "white" identity, I've never actually met a white person who I would say sought to define themselves by any color chart identity. I've met both good and bad white people, but then again, I've met both good and bad people of all colors and ethnicities, and form judgments of others based on them as individuals. I will also add that the few times I've ever experienced racism, were by those who would call themselves people of "color". One was Hispanic who used the "n" word to describe me, and the other was an adjunct professor (she taught sociology and criminal justice courses) who was Palestinian, at a prestigious ivy league university in Rhode Island, she didn't level her hatred at me, I'm not exactly sure what ethnicity or race she assumed me to be, but she felt comfortable enough with my skin tone to make certain racist remarks about another member of staff, who happened to be black, to me.

As to Eric Holder's remarks, what occurred to me, was that it was rather ridiculous for the very same man, who acted rather cowardly, when he was before a congressional committee, and asked about his pushing through pardons for real felons. I watched his testimony, and I wouldn't have elected him as the attorney general of a constituency of paper cups, let alone human beings whose very real civil and human rights considerations are being violated on a daily basis. Who circumvented the DoJ, to get pardons for those who stole the life savings of innocent people, destroying their lives, and for proven murderers. Would you select as chief law enforcement officer, who engaged in pay for play, who selected as his chief assistant, David Ogden, a man who spent the majority of his career, promoting the idea that child pornography is a free speech issue? Perhaps if you believe that civil rights are exclusively for those who can afford to pay for them, you would agree with Mr. Ogden, and Mr. Holder. I happen to believe that exploitation of children is wrong, and I do believe that children have civil rights. I have to ask, why is the black leadership, whether in congress, or across the US so silent on that score, or on the subject of the displacement of black Americans in the workplace, and their exclusion from the jobs that historically lifted them out of poverty, like manufacturing, construction, etc.. not by white Americans or racism, because white Americans are being subjected to the same discrimination in those jobs, etc.. but because they are citizens and entitled to wage standards and workplace protections, by an alliance of corrupt politicians, corporate and business interests, and foreign interests of all colors, furthering lies claiming that we have a worker shortage, and jobs Americans won't do? We saw black American elites, rise up to speak out against the defamation of the Rutgers women's basketball team, many of them work as executives in the top media outlets, including the big three and cable news outlets, but those same black elites were silent after hurricane Katrina revealed the dire poverty in New Orleans, and they remained silent when those same, majority black citizen, New Orleanians attempted to return home to try to get those jobs rebuilding the city, jobs that they needed to rebuild their lives. Let's be honest here, these leaders and elites have every ability and opportunity to speak out when they choose to, and they chose NOT to in these and many other cases. They are silent on the displacement, the increased poverty and homelessness of black and all American citizens. Do they only speak out for black Americans who might be just like them, or their sons and daughters, affluent, privileged? I'll hazard a guess that is the case. They're profitting every bit as much as corrupt elites of all colors, again, I don't believe that the big problem is race, it's class based discrimination and persecution.

If anyone wants to talk about pride, start showing some, and be willing to criticize Eric Holder for his hypocrisies, and past misuses of power and attempt to exploit race, to provide cover for lies. I don't see white people holding back from criticizing white politicians when they do wrong. Those who would attempt to paint any criticisms of Obama, Holder or others, as being racist, seem to me to not actually believe in equality or justice. Is that something to be proud of?

Coincidently, Holder's little speech occured the very day before President Obama traveled to Canada, to assure the Canadian Prime Minister, Stephen Harper that he had no intention of honoring his campaign promises to suffering American citizen workers, that he would force a renegotiation of NAFTA and other bad trade deals. Of course, we were told during the campaign, that leaks out of Canada, where Obama's advisor, David Axelrod had told PM Harper that Obama never intended to pursue such a renegotiation, that it was only campagin rhetoric, were simply not true. I'm of the opinion that Holder's little speech, was intended for one purpose only, to create a divisive atmosphere, that his friends in the corporate owned and controlled mainstream media could turn into a feeding frenzy, so as to not report on Obama's being caught in yet another lie, another flip flop. It tells me that Holder doesn't hold much respect for the intelligence of black Americans, because his assumption was premised on their willingness to jump to his bait, and be played like a fish on a hook, all to provide cover.

Now, if anyone wants to talk about pride, they can't exclude these and other salient facts, let's talk about ethics, and start making value judgments, not based on skin color, but on ethical standards and adherence to them, let's remember the ethical implications of rationalizing the undermining of all our constitutionally protected rights and freedoms. Racism is not an American phenomenon, it's existed from the beginning of time. Nor is slavery an American phenomenon, it too existed from the beginning of time. It wasn't the English who created the trans-Atlantic slave trade, that in fact was created about 500 years before the first English person stepped foot on these shores, and it was the Spanish, who after committing genocide of the indigenous peoples of what is now called Latin America. It was also the Spanish who introduced that slavery to these shores, when they attempted to colonize in the southwest and southeast of what we now call, the US. African slavery, also started with Africans themselves, and it was taken up by Arab traders, who introduced the concept to the Spanish and Portuguese. So, both new where to go looking for cheap labor to use to take the resources of the lands they'd laid conquest to, after they had killed off the native peoples. The decendents of those Spanish and Portuguese invadors, today, have employed revisionism to sweep their collective histories under the rug. They've tried various tacts, the first being denial, that didn't work. Then, came the claim that they had "lived in peace and justice with the native peoples, until the "evil" English arrived", again, that didn't work either, then they tried claiming that the native peoples had just, "disappeared", unfortunately for them, the evidence was just not with them, as their ancestors had kept prodigious records of their slaughter, exploitation and genocide. They then cottoned on to a claim that they and the native peoples had intermarried, assuming that no one would mention that brown skin does not an indigenous person make, as anyone who has been to Spain or Portugal, or who has met direct immigrants from Spain or Portugal, knows very well. Physical characteristics of peoples indigenous to the two continents are very distinct from those of Spanish and Portuguese heritage, the DNA is different as well. That revisionism has been a huge part of "liberation theology", invented in Brazil in the 1950s, and later introduced in the US as black liberation theology. Apparently that belief system has also tried claiming that the indigenous peoples of the US, are actually African in origin as well, much to their chagrin when native peoples publically took a stand on behalf of their own right to self determination, and for that of their own documented history.

Ethnic separatist movements, the multicultural movement, is an old world premise, specifically a byproduct of Marxist propaganda movements. Destroy unity, and undermine society. To me, the slandering of "assimilation" by such movements, is an attack on the uniting belief in the constitutuion and the rule of law, which inspired the civil rights movement to claim the full promise of what the founders of the US form of government created with the declaration of indpendence, and constitution. Assimilation has never been about surrendering up cultural or ethnic heritage, it's been about uniting together in a respect for the rule of law and upholding the constitution, appreciating and respecting the need for all our rights being reciprocal, that you undermine your own rights, when you undermine the rights of others, that all are due respect, and all must follow the law. That is what made ours a strong country in the past, allowing us to grow beyond the flaws and prejudices of past eras.

I can't speak to the fandom issue, in so much that my sci fi reading over the past decade has been limited, because so much of it is sub par. I became a fan of the genre when one could count on fantastic writers, and I include Ellison in that. The man was taking stands for women's rights, and civil rights long before it became fashionable. Ellison believes in ethics, and he's not been afraid to churn up the waters to force people to think and discuss subjects they might find uncomfortable or inconvenient. Sci fi today is becoming more narrow minded, more reflective of insular minds and beliefs. My take on what might or might not have happened is that I wonder if Ellison was looking to provoke some discussion, and it seems that unfortunately, people, including sci fi fans are unwilling to, or incapable of thinking beyond their comfort zones. Anyway, I've just stirred the pot, and won't shy from engaging in debate here if any are willing to do so.

"What is objectionable, what is dangerous about extremists is not that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their opponents." - Robert F. Kennedy

Hi. Interesting introduction. Lot of work, multiple topics.

I'll ask you to drop a link or two to Ellison's contribution to the Race Fail thread, and to add your your points on Eric Holder to a more appropriate thread...just scan the Live Discussions block in the left column to find one. I don't want err in how I split up the concepts.

As I mentioned, I was introduced to your blog, via this article. I wanted to make a broad statement to explain exactly where I am coming from on the issue as it's simply not cut and dry. I just started preparing dinner, so I'll check back later and see what I can do.

"What is objectionable, what is dangerous about extremists is not that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their opponents." - Robert F. Kennedy

I wanted to make a broad statement to explain exactly where I am coming from on the issue

That's fine. We tend not to look into people's personal histories as we consider their reasoning on collective issues, though. And we recognize the difference between reasoning and rants. I even issue a few rants now and again.

Thanks, P6.

m232 - At the risk of being disrespect to another human being, the point?

My point was my pov on the subject of the the whole identity issue, the perceptions brought to bear on the opinions/perceptions of others. I stated my opinion, and identified myself, based on the silly requirements of identity politics (and what have you) to underscore how silly the entire exercise seems to me, as well as how little substance there actually is to the discussion in wider society. I happen to believe that there are significant issues that are crucial at this time, and we are bogged down behind what truly are defensive policies and beliefs that are intended to achieve nothing but further divides, and more bickering.

I know the blog owner suggested that I pare down my posting, putting some bits of it in other threads, but I got sidetracked last night helping my kids with homework. I stand by it's appearing in it's entirity here, because it really is applicable as a whole.

"What is objectionable, what is dangerous about extremists is not that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their opponents." - Robert F. Kennedy

"A born-again poor man's son

On the air America

 I modelled shirts by Van Heusen

(working for the black gas) yeah"

When Two Tribes Go to War: Frankie Goes To Hollywood

~

(...Okay, I know it can be considered a given that the state my faculties can be considered suspect at times, but, for me, backstory is everything!

 ...I think the story speaks more to the substance of opinion than the actual opinion does in a lot of instances!

My grandmother’s maternal people were Algonquin.

Two of the more vivid memories from my youth are of being taken to church and going to tribal ceremonies in the summer.

(…Although, being a child, I was considerably non-plused!)

I always thought it kind of funny that she would choose to take pictures with a head dress on, beaming with pride with the same folks John Wayne was always laying asunder across the vast western plains.

I would dare say a multi racial working class neighborhood in Massachusetts could not be much different than the one I grew up in in New Jersey and have lived in a variety of locals east of the Rockies.

I think ANYONE who grew up in the seventies and really understood the pulse of the times shares your lament for the lack of critical thinking that has become the norm in and among the masses, be it left and right ideologies.

My early money was also on Edwards because I really liked the “Two Nations” theme he had evoked early on, but I had watched and listened to Obama with an extremely careful nature in Iowa and though I personally didn’t think he would be able to make that much of a difference, ‘hitched my wagon’ with him because I thought the genius of what he was doing, not much unlike MLK was going beyond race straight to the heart of the class issue.

That said, I’m not sure of what you mean when you reference ‘Party of Slavery’

(...The fact the GOP has synthesized their message down to the being the party of ‘Joe six-pack’ has me equally confused on that front as well, but I think it all speaks to the point of politics on a whole being pursued by pandering to the lowest common denominator these days.)

I can appreciate your perspective on Holder and even in a lot of respects your indictment of black leadership as a whole, but I think the root cause of your argument can be traced back to a lack of concern towards the education of the youth in our country.

I don’t think anyone has claimed Holder is perfect by any means and you could just as easily say Jesse Jackson and many others are morally bankrupt and ineffective considering any perceived lapses in judgement. But even operating from positions of perceived weakness, anyone with a true conscience will speak to their sense of conviction.

So, in dissecting the message from the messenger’s foibles, you can take your personal experiences, my personal experiences, and multiply it thousands of times over and we would only just be beginning to scratch the complexities and nuances of the 'Black' experience in America.

The fact that any ethnicity that has come through Ellis Island (..Or by other means!) to America for the most part has been the subject of scorn or ridicule at some point upon their arrival.

Ethnic pride was no more than a ‘middle finger’ at those who chose to view them less then favorably and to provide their children and community with a moral and psychological defense mechanism.

As the cultures have been assimilated (Accepted) the need over time for such proclamations have lessened.

(…I don’t know whatever happened to my ‘Dashiki’ but I have not necessarily mourned it’s loss, or wondered why it is not still in vogue!)

But the problem is not with those that have been accepted, the problem is with those that have not, the intellectually confused and challenged lower classes of this society.

This is where I believe the problem starts and ends.

(...There is no true desire by the powers that be, or rather, those that wield true power, to have them enlightened.)

And I’m sure that you could make an argument for that in either direction, be it so-called ‘Race Hustlers’ or the upper reaches of corporate America. But I think, to a degree, there is a ‘Class Collusion’ in effect that not everyone can appreciate the subtleties of.

 Even with the election of Barack Obama, there are still factions of our society that believe this is just one more sign that minorities are on the verge of taking over and cheating them out of all the hard earned rights and properties that was stolen fair and square from the Indians, as well as those that will lament that that they still aren’t in a position to have opportunities of substance, even though there’s nothing in their past that would indicate they’d ever done anything to prepare themselves for the opportunity should it actually come to pass.

In light of this, we are all stigmatized by these factions as culturally and collectively. Racism, at its root is ignorance, and addressing ignorance is the conversation that’s not being had.

To the ‘enlightened’, it’s a non-issue, but having navigated my way through a variety of management related positions thoroughout the years, it's not always the easiest lines to walk, being the one convincing others that all (White People / Black People) are not necessarily going to be your enemy by virtue of the facts of their ethnicity, or that because a person may not be able to articulate the king’s English in its highest / purest forms, that they may not be any less productive or correct in their perspectives than those that do, or, just because they do, doesn't necessiarly mean that they are.

So I think it really does cut both ways along a lot of different multifaceted levels. but as opposed to preaching to the choir, I think the dialogue REALLY does need to filter down to the streets, or to take it a step further, as Fyodor Dostoevsky might note, to ‘The Underground.’

(…Personally, I believe Dostoevsky, with his transcendent style, in a lot of respects, is the ‘Godfather’ of a lot of black literature that sprang up from the late 50’s, early 60’s. James Baldwin, Richard Wright, and Ralph Ellison all sight him as a major influence and I think it’s readily evident in their works!)

Along with Fyodor Dostoevsky, Ernest Hemmingway, is among my all-time favorite authors. By all measures considered a 'Man’s man', I loved his memoir ‘A Moveable Feast’ and feel the writing, in some instances eclipses some of his best works of fiction.

And yet, even with repeated readings, I struggle to get past a passage in one chapter where he and a friend comment on the "...Big Ni#%*r betting the crap out of the other big Ni#%*r."

(…It’s a very detailed account of two big Ni#%*r’s beating the crap of one another!)

I’ve often thought that by virtue of the sentiment described as such, I should disavow any appreciation of the man, or his works, but I remain unaffected in my reverance of his works.

And though I make me piece with it, I think, by acknowledging that it speaks to prevalent thoughts of the time, it’s a passage that still always gives me room for pause.

But, at the end of the day, I always embrace my blackness precisely because of it’s uniqueness. That it’s a badge of honor that I wear that speaks to a perseverance and endurance of a people in the face of almost insurmountable odds to be recognized as human beings.

I am personally unfazed by how others tend to view it, but I do believe that humanity would be far better served if the narrower of minds alive today could view it from the same vantage point from within themselves and in others.

~

"...A battle lost or won is easily described, understood, and appreciated, but the moral growth of a great nation requires reflection, as well as observation, to appreciate it."

Fredrick Douglas

I stand by it's appearing in it's entirity here, because it really is applicable as a whole.

I take it as an introduction to the gestalt that is your personality.

If they are silly, why do you address them at all?

I will answer that: because establishing your identity establishes a rhetorical pivot for the lever of your arguments.

Don't think you can play identity politics here and hide your hand. How would you identify yourself without reference to "the silly requirements of identity politics"?

@m232 - I kinda get that. Just wanted to be sure cause I didn't read your post in it's entirety.

From my pov, your points are kinda . . . specious. They are specious, in fact. We all know race is cultural, not biological. Yada yada yada. You want to identify yourself as non-biased. Yada yada yada. I'll point out here than even Rush Limbaugh would argue that he's not racist. So, that means nothing to me. The fact is that the color of a person skin does effect any number of things: the quality of health care s/he'll receive; the price of a mortgage; the impact the soft subjects in education has on his/her self-image; a student's quality of education; treatment in the judicial system.

So, I agree with Clone. I second P6. And I implore you to look at this from the pov of a black person. We don't play identity politics as a matter of taking the screws to white people. We play it because it's being played against us. We'd be naive and negligent to pretend otherwise.