Rossweisse RIP Rossweisse, HellHost and long-time Shipmate.

Robert Armin RIP Robert Armin, Shipmate of long-standing.

White Supremacy

17810121316

Comments

  • Seems to me, an issue is a lack of a systematic approach to when we do and do not reverse ancient fuckups, alongside the need to try to achieve equity for all ethnic groups across a given internationally recognised state.

    The contrast between, for example, trying to give specific pieces of Scottish land to the descendants of families who were subject to the Highland Clearances - versus - the attempts of the Scottish government to engage in land reform and return more land to community ownership and reduce the number of absentee landlords.

    The treatment of native Americans during the colonisation of America and the subsequent consolidation of the US was manifestly unjust and genocidal. But it is not meaningfully reversible, likewise chattel slavery.
  • I don't think what was done here was an ancient fuck up. People my age were taken from their parents to be bought up white, for example.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    edited September 2019
    Yes, I'd largely agree with that. At one stage, it looked as if some progress was being made in the reduction of white racism towards the original inhabitants, but that movement seems to have stopped. Perhaps our anti-racism energy has been spent on being far more welcoming and accepting of recent arrivals from East Asia. There does seem a growing awareness of the great wrongs done in the past. The previous understanding that dispossession was largely peaceful and without bloodshed is now accepted as inaccurate.

    Koori - AIUI, that is the general name given to the first peoples in much of what is now NSW and Vic. And rather that say people who have lived in one area for thousands of years I'd say tens of thousand of years.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    I don't think what was done here was an ancient fuck up. People my age were taken from their parents to be bought up white, for example.

    Quite, I think there is a big difference between ancient and withing living memory - you can't reverse the colonization of Australia. However, I'd say that there would be an argument for paying reparations to those people who were separated in the way you describe.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    I don't think what was done here was an ancient fuck up. People my age were taken from their parents to be bought up white, for example.

    The interesting thing about that is that if they look white and they’ve been brought up white then as far as LB is concerned they are white, and thus not entitled to any of the compensations or favourable treatments that are available to their birth families. Because experience is everything and heritage is irrelevant, right?
  • RuthRuth Admin Emeritus
    Oh come on. First, you know that doesn't happen to white people as a group. Second, even if your ridiculous scenario did take place, being stolen from one's parents and being denied one's heritage is itself experience.

    There is no need to twist what lilbuddha is saying.
  • Ruth wrote: »
    Oh come on. First, you know that doesn't happen to white people as a group. Second, even if your ridiculous scenario did take place, being stolen from one's parents and being denied one's heritage is itself experience.

    There is no need to twist what lilbuddha is saying.

    Unless I’ve missed something, LB is saying that an individual’s lived experience is the only thing that matters. That if you haven’t personally suffered discrimination or prejudice for being [ethnicity] then you’re not really [ethnicity].

    So if someone is stolen from their parents early enough that they have no memory of anything before it happened, then they haven’t personally experienced discrimination or prejudice. Which presumably means they’re not really [ethnicity] and thus they can’t have been denied their heritage because it isn’t their heritage any more, regardless of who their real parents were.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    I don't think what was done here was an ancient fuck up. People my age were taken from their parents to be bought up white, for example.

    The interesting thing about that is that if they look white and they’ve been brought up white then as far as LB is concerned they are white, and thus not entitled to any of the compensations or favourable treatments that are available to their birth families. Because experience is everything and heritage is irrelevant, right?

    The one bloke I have spoken with about his experience was dealing with identity issues at the time, as a light-skinned person. He felt like he didn't belong anywhere, although he was in the process of identifying more strongly as Aboriginal.

    Archie Roach had an even more difficult time with it. He became a musician, eventually. There is so much suffering encapsulated in the last sentence in 'early life'. He spoke about it a bit in a TV show with Ahn Do, if you feel like watching. I can't get a good link to it other than on Australian TV sites. It is Anh Do's Brush With Fame, series 4 ep 12
  • It’s LB’s position I’m arguing against, not yours.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    I don't think what was done here was an ancient fuck up. People my age were taken from their parents to be bought up white, for example.

    The interesting thing about that is that if they look white and they’ve been brought up white then as far as LB is concerned they are white, and thus not entitled to any of the compensations or favourable treatments that are available to their birth families. Because experience is everything and heritage is irrelevant, right?
    Your argument is even more an idiot than usual. People taken from their parents do not change their skin colour. Aboriginal children were taken from their parents to erase Aboriginal culture. The children would still experience colour based racism. So we have a double sin.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    edited September 2019
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    I don't think what was done here was an ancient fuck up. People my age were taken from their parents to be bought up white, for example.

    The interesting thing about that is that if they look white and they’ve been brought up white then as far as LB is concerned they are white, and thus not entitled to any of the compensations or favourable treatments that are available to their birth families. Because experience is everything and heritage is irrelevant, right?
    Your argument is even more an idiot than usual. People taken from their parents do not change their skin colour. Aboriginal children were taken from their parents to erase Aboriginal culture. The children would still experience colour based racism. So we have a double sin.

    It’s not as simple as that.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    edited September 2019
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    I don't think what was done here was an ancient fuck up. People my age were taken from their parents to be bought up white, for example.

    The interesting thing about that is that if they look white and they’ve been brought up white then as far as LB is concerned they are white, and thus not entitled to any of the compensations or favourable treatments that are available to their birth families. Because experience is everything and heritage is irrelevant, right?
    Your argument is even more an idiot than usual. People taken from their parents do not change their skin colour. Aboriginal children were taken from their parents to erase Aboriginal culture. The children would still experience colour based racism. So we have a double sin.

    It’s not as simple as that.
    Navigating race and culture can be quite complex. However, there are simplicities as well.
    From your article about Laura Murphy-Oates:
    For the most part I “blended in” with the cultural majority and my experiences of racism were isolated events, rather than a constant presence in everyday life
    Which goes to my point about colour being a determinate of how one is treated.
    The removals Simon Toad brought up were people mixed at a high percentage. Not so likely to be mistaken for white.
    But let's explore that. If an aboriginal child, light enough to pass as white, were stolen from her family as an infant and raised as white, her experience would be that of a white person. It would not change her heritage, but her experiences would not be the same as Murphy-Oates'.
    To choose an apropos quote from Freddy Mercury, I have inside me blood of kings
    But that doesn't make me royal or even posh. It is a legitimate part of my heritage, but not my experience.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Hell Host, 8th Day Host
    Unless I’ve missed something, LB is saying that an individual’s lived experience is the only thing that matters. That if you haven’t personally suffered discrimination or prejudice for being [ethnicity] then you’re not really [ethnicity].

    So if someone is stolen from their parents early enough that they have no memory of anything before it happened, then they haven’t personally experienced discrimination or prejudice. Which presumably means they’re not really [ethnicity] and thus they can’t have been denied their heritage because it isn’t their heritage any more, regardless of who their real parents were.

    That's certainly what she seems to be saying. So, in LB's philosophy, since many of the young "Germanizable Polish children" kidnapped from their parents during World War II didn't remember their Polish heritage but lived the rest of their lives as Germans, it must all be okay.

    I don't think it's okay, whether the victims are Kooris or Poles, Native Americans or anything else. LB should stop assigning her own ideas about experiences she hasn't lived to others who have.

  • edited September 2019
    This and to be a completely worthy characterization of an average trumpian voter. Racist but sort of god fearingly so. Sickeningly so.

    https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/maga-dale-good-guy-190902151754681.html
  • This and to be a completely worthy characterization of an average trumpian voter. Racist but sort of god fearingly so. Sickeningly so.

    https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/maga-dale-good-guy-190902151754681.html

    Powerful article.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Hell Host, 8th Day Host
    This and to be a completely worthy characterization of an average trumpian voter. Racist but sort of god fearingly so. Sickeningly so.

    https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/maga-dale-good-guy-190902151754681.html

    I'm afraid so.

  • This and to be a completely worthy characterization of an average trumpian voter. Racist but sort of god fearingly so. Sickeningly so.

    https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/maga-dale-good-guy-190902151754681.html
    Not every Trump voter is MAGA Dave. But every single one of them voted to support racism. Trump's announcement of his candidacy cemented this. Whatever their proclaimed reason for their vote, for however sincerely they believed it; they were willing to support racism in pursuit of that reason.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    edited September 2019
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    I don't think what was done here was an ancient fuck up. People my age were taken from their parents to be bought up white, for example.

    The interesting thing about that is that if they look white and they’ve been brought up white then as far as LB is concerned they are white, and thus not entitled to any of the compensations or favourable treatments that are available to their birth families. Because experience is everything and heritage is irrelevant, right?
    Your argument is even more an idiot than usual. People taken from their parents do not change their skin colour. Aboriginal children were taken from their parents to erase Aboriginal culture. The children would still experience colour based racism. So we have a double sin.

    It’s not as simple as that.
    Navigating race and culture can be quite complex. However, there are simplicities as well.
    From your article about Laura Murphy-Oates:
    For the most part I “blended in” with the cultural majority and my experiences of racism were isolated events, rather than a constant presence in everyday life
    Which goes to my point about colour being a determinate of how one is treated.
    The removals Simon Toad brought up were people mixed at a high percentage. Not so likely to be mistaken for white.
    But let's explore that. If an aboriginal child, light enough to pass as white, were stolen from her family as an infant and raised as white, her experience would be that of a white person. It would not change her heritage, but her experiences would not be the same as Murphy-Oates'.
    To choose an apropos quote from Freddy Mercury, I have inside me blood of kings
    But that doesn't make me royal or even posh. It is a legitimate part of my heritage, but not my experience.

    LB, I think your general point is right: darker skinned people are more likely than their lighter toned siblings to experience racism in Australia, at a different intensity and of a different kind. It's also true that light skinned kids were the primary but not the only target of the genocidal assimilation policies pursued by my country as recently as the 1970's.

    I'm pretty sure you don't intend to minimise the suffering of light skinned Aboriginals, but I got a real sense of trauma from the bloke I spend a couple of days with in Perth, and that I talk about above. I also feel that underneath the linked article from that Journo is similar suffering. The trauma is insidious and damaging. Yes they are bought up in white society and can pass as white, but I heard a deep yearning to belong in that bloke, and barriers to belonging that tore at him. One of the worst bits for him was 'coming out' as Aboriginal and having people ridicule and deny that identity. He questioned himself as a result of those racist attacks, and that's where he was when we met.

    These personal attacks are matched by those of racist media commentators and personalities, who use light-skinned people to attack schemes that help Aboriginal people in the education sector and others, so the prejudice is different but it is there. The prejudice is that light skinned people are pretending to be Aboriginal; that they are freeloading off Government programs; that they are lying about their heritage.

    I linked a film about Adam Goodes in the hell thread on Australian racism. Its worth a look if you want to really feel the hate that we can generate in this country. Its also worth a look to see why Adam Goodes is such a top bloke.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure you don't intend to minimise the suffering of light skinned Aboriginals,
    Absolutely not.
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    These personal attacks are matched by those of racist media commentators and personalities, who use light-skinned people to attack schemes that help Aboriginal people in the education sector and others, so the prejudice is different but it is no less intense. The prejudice is that light skinned people are pretending to be Aboriginal; that they are freeloading off Government programs; that they are lying about their heritage.
    I would imagine that this is true in America as well. Especially in regards to American Indians.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    I don't think what was done here was an ancient fuck up. People my age were taken from their parents to be bought up white, for example.

    Quite, I think there is a big difference between ancient and withing living memory - you can't reverse the colonization of Australia. However, I'd say that there would be an argument for paying reparations to those people who were separated in the way you describe.

    There is a long-running struggle to reconcile with our past, which began with trying to work out what exactly happened. The latest attempt is the Uluru Statement from the Heart, which calls for an Indigenous advisory panel to Government. It is a beautiful and short statement, no more than a few hundred words. The document itself is beautiful, a visual and literary artistic work. This bit chokes me up:
    In 1967 we were counted, in 2017 we seek to be heard. We leave base camp and start our trek across this vast country. We invite you to walk with us in a movement of the Australian people for a better future.

    I say yes to that with a heart full to bursting. But the Federal Government has already thrice denied them. There are better results happening here in Victoria, where the State Government and the Aboriginal peoples are well down the path to establishing a treaty. I believe they are in the process of convening an elected Indigenous body to negotiate. Curse our Federal Government for its arrogance and failure.

    Also in the bad news column, the Queensland Government has extinguished native title rights in an area where a controversial new coal mine is to be established.

    In short, there is no turning back the clock, but there is reconciliation, if only the right will let us.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    Also in the bad news column, the Queensland Government has extinguished native title rights in an area where a controversial new coal mine is to be established.

    In short, there is no turning back the clock, but there is reconciliation, if only the right will let us.
    And at the same time as Pauline Hansen is proclaiming that native title claims have taken away people's land! No-one has of course, nor could it, but that does not stop her idiocy.
  • Oi! We stole that fair and square!
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    edited September 2019
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    let's explore that. If an aboriginal child, light enough to pass as white, were stolen from her family as an infant and raised as white, her experience would be that of a white person. It would not change her heritage

    Noting first that of course taking a child from her parents without their consent is deeply wrong, regardless of motive.

    Noting secondly that the ideation behind such a move is the opposite of the belief (common in the nineteenth century) of racial superiority. Such an act says that racial characteristics count for nothing; what makes a person is culture. So that someone brought up as white Australian or German or white Canadian or whatever will be a fully-functioning member of that society.

    Do we believe that or not ?

    The evidence that Simon Toad relates seems to be against it.

    But again, what do you say to the European white nationalists if you deny that bringing up immigrant children in a north-European culture makes them fully north-European ?

    Corrected quoting code. BroJames Purgatory Host
  • edited September 2019
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    But let's explore that. If an aboriginal child, light enough to pass as white, were stolen from her family as an infant and raised as white, her experience would be that of a white person. It would not change her heritage, but her experiences would not be the same as Murphy-Oates'.
    To choose an apropos quote from Freddy Mercury, I have inside me blood of kings
    But that doesn't make me royal or even posh. It is a legitimate part of my heritage, but not my experience.
    In the 1950s and 60s, indigenous children were taken from their parents and adopted out to non-indigenous families. Contrary to what you conjecture, apparently it matters that heritage is of indigenous people to children raised in white families. To the point that eventually a class action lawsuit has been settled. There is something beyond merely being "raised as" despite what you think. They call it "lived experience". PDF of the settlement agreement against the Canadian gov't is here.

    Local news story is here - it's got a video as well as a story, takes a moment to load.

    The experience of this particular settlement, with the prior Canadian Truth and Reconciliation Commission on the Indian Residential Schools also dealing with the "cultural genocide" that is part and parcel of what is increasingly being called the effects of "settler colonialism". There is another proceeding underway re Indian Day Schools.

    It appears that individual identity and the political choice to see this as individualized does not explain the identification and loss that is understood and felt by people who have lost their cultures, ethnic identities etc. It is vastly different also to have voluntarily immigrated or moved to another society on the one side than to have been forceably taken whether through administrative means. Refugees also have a different experience. Those from the dominant cultures have different perceptions of this.

    Point of disclosure: I was involved at the beginnings of the Residential Schools proceedings in Canada so do actually have some second hand knowledge of lived experiences and first hand knowledge of how courts and settlements work on these issues. I cannot agree much at all with @lilbuddha and Freddy Mercury thus.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    But let's explore that. If an aboriginal child, light enough to pass as white, were stolen from her family as an infant and raised as white, her experience would be that of a white person. It would not change her heritage, but her experiences would not be the same as Murphy-Oates'.
    To choose an apropos quote from Freddy Mercury, I have inside me blood of kings
    But that doesn't make me royal or even posh. It is a legitimate part of my heritage, but not my experience.
    In the 1950s and 60s, indigenous children were taken from their parents and adopted out to non-indigenous families. Contrary to what you conjecture, apparently it matters that heritage is of indigenous people to children raised in white families.
    You do not appear to have read what I wrote. I did not say that heritage didn't matter. I said people who appear white would have a different experience to those who do not.
    It is not that difficult a concept to understand.
  • You have also consistently implied throughout the thread that that experience would be basically worthless.

    It was your whole reason for dismissing me.
  • You have also consistently implied throughout the thread that that experience would be basically worthless.

    It was your whole reason for dismissing me.
    Which is precisely what motivated me to post what I did in response. I don't think @lilbuddha has read what @Lamb Chopped has written.
  • I am currently reading Dear Church: A Love Letter to the Whitest Denomination in the US by a Black Preacer by Lenny Duncan. He makes a very strong point that the ELCA remains the whitest denomination because it still lives under the illusion of White Supremacy. He began to notice this when he was in Seminary. He objected to the use of white albs because they reminded him of the KKK robes. His objections where ignored. Today he just wears a black cassock with 33 buttons.

    I just finished a section in which he compared his upbringing to that of Dylann Roof, the shooter of the Charleston nine. There upbringings were very similar. Broken families, drugs, black nationalism (for Duncan) and white nationalism for Roof. But the thing that divided them was grace which Duncan ultimately experienced and continued hate which Roof never broke out of. Personally I think the church failed Roof.

    Duncan makes several suggestions for the ELCA. Reconciliation Hearings among all of its 65 synods; reparations; decolonizing the liturgy (long discussion there); and more. (this is as far as I have read).

    I think the ELCA made two large steps in the direction Duncan wants it to go this year. We declared ourselves a Sanctuary Denomination; and we made June 17 a feast for the Martyrdom of the Charleston Nine.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    edited September 2019
    You have also consistently implied throughout the thread that that experience would be basically worthless.
    Absolutely not. I'm not denying anyone's experience, merely pointing out that perception of colour changes experience.
    It was your whole reason for dismissing me.
    I did not dismiss you. I am trying to engage with your questions. In my view, your replies do not address my answers. Not sure why.
    IMO, the most reasonable way to go through your initial post is to address the questions one at a time.
  • You have also consistently implied throughout the thread that that experience would be basically worthless.

    It was your whole reason for dismissing me.
    Which is precisely what motivated me to post what I did in response. I don't think @lilbuddha has read what @Lamb Chopped has written.
    You've misrepresented my posts. So...
  • RossweisseRossweisse Hell Host, 8th Day Host
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Absolutely not. I'm not denying anyone's experience, merely pointing out that perception of colour changes experience.
    Bullshit. You have denied LC's experience. You have put your unfounded opinions above her lived experience.

    When are you going to stop pulling that crap?
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    I did not dismiss you. I am trying to engage with your questions. In my view, your replies do not address my answers. Not sure why.
    IMO, the most reasonable way to go through your initial post is to address the questions one at a time.
    Double bullshit. You don't care in the least about her experience. You labor under the severe misapprehension that your opinions outweigh all else. You are terribly, terribly wrong, and you owe her an apology, at the very least.



  • Look. You have not, by and large, been trying to engage with my questions. You have been saying, again and again, that color trumps ethnicity, and implying very strongly that "experience" belongs only to those who possess color (i.e. cannot pass for white on any occasion), and you have completely failed to engage the question of what to do with those who have lost their culture through no fault of their own. For some it was a relative's choice, as in the case of my grandmother, who flat out refused to transmit the culture to her children or grandchildren, despite their desire for it. For others it was a social enforcement, as in the whole boarding school thing, or forced adoptions. But it was a real freaking loss. It was not a fortunate, blessed event -- "Oh happy you, who can pass for white and are fully acculturated and can go on your happy pseudo-white way and need never know the suffering of your cousins!" Yeah, and never know the belonging either--nor the identity, nor the meaning, nor the sense of having any rootedness anywhere. But that doesn't matter, does it? Because "passing for white" is the ultimate prize--or at least the ideological framework you've constructed boils down to that.

    I'm telling you it isn't. It sucks to be missing your heritage. It sucks to be the only kid who hasn't got a damn thing to say for yourself during heritage week, because your heritage (the only heritage you are aware of, anyway) is fucking gone. It sucks to feel like an imposter, because you can't speak a word of your great-grandmother's language, and all you know of the stories comes out of books. It sucks to be five and cry because the teacher asked you why your parents listed "American Indian" on some damn form or another, and you cannot explain it, because we all know "real" Indians live on the rez, right? Instead of in American cities (though statistically, there are far more living in the cities than not)? And have the other kids taunt you, and believe that the teacher considers you a liar because you repeated what your parents told you.

    And no, being "white" does not compensate for it.

    I am very aware of my "white privilege." In fact I use it to get stuff for my Vietnamese community--just as my husband uses his "male privilege" to get stuff I cannot get as a woman for me. Only a fool would refuse to use whatever tool is to hand, given the overwhelming need that is out there. White privilege (however semi-pseudo in my case) is a bucket, and I have a fucking ocean to empty; I'll use it. It would do my immigrant community no fucking good if I did the Don Quixote thing and went around attempting to not have it. As if that were even possible--anymore than my husband can avoid male privilege. Having it--fulltime, part time, whatever--we're going to use it. For good, please God. Because we can't not have it.

    And it sucks that we have a world where we have to do this shit, and that there are occasions (fairly frequent, too) when my family sits down and debates which of us is the least likely to be be discriminated against in the doing of a particular task ("Who should go file the fence permit? You're white--you do it." "Nah--last time I was down there, you could feel the idiot's eyes burning a hole in my shirt, and he talked to me like I was a walking set of boobs. I think a man has a better chance, even if you are Asian." "Oh, if you think so--but maybe you could take the car in this time, because I swear they keep sending it back unfixed because they think I'm a stupid immigrant without enough English to complain." "Okay, I'll do that. But what about the mortgage? And would you pick up the chay gio order, because you told me yourself they always put the prices up the minute a white woman walks in," and etc., and etc., and etc.)

    Would you please realize that the world is a vastly more complicated place than you're painting it, and America is considerably more complicated than a few conversations--or even years of residency!--is going to reveal to you, and life is not a zero sum game. There is plenty of suffering for us all. There are also plenty of ways we can help one another, if we can just stop assuming the worst of each other, and stop long enough to listen to what it's like to live the other person's experience. I have no doubt yours sucks. What you don't seem to believe or understand or get in the least is that mine sucks also--just for different reasons.

    I am willing to believe in the suckitude of your life situation if you will do me the kindness--no, the justice!--of believing in mine.
  • Look. You have not, by and large, been trying to engage with my questions.
    Incorrect. I'm trying to engage in this in a way to have a reasonable change at an exchange of ideas.
    You have been saying, again and again, that color trumps ethnicity,
    Because it does as far as how the mainstream world sees us. I'm not saying it is the only thing that matters, but it is the main interface in our dominant cultures.
    and implying very strongly that "experience" belongs only to those who possess color (i.e. cannot pass for white on any occasion),
    I am implying nothing of the sort and if you read the exchanges between Simon Toad and myself, it might help you understand that.
    and you have completely failed to engage the question of what to do with those who have lost their culture through no fault of their own.
    We have not gotten that far yet. We have not got past the first question in your initial post yet.
    For some it was a relative's choice, as in the case of my grandmother, who flat out refused to transmit the culture to her children or grandchildren, despite their desire for it. For others it was a social enforcement, as in the whole boarding school thing, or forced adoptions. But it was a real freaking loss. It was not a fortunate, blessed event -- "Oh happy you, who can pass for white and are fully acculturated and can go on your happy pseudo-white way and need never know the suffering of your cousins!" Yeah, and never know the belonging either--nor the identity, nor the meaning, nor the sense of having any rootedness anywhere. But that doesn't matter, does it? Because "passing for white" is the ultimate prize--or at least the ideological framework you've constructed boils down to that.
    If you think I think passing for white is a prize, you've read nothing I have written. Not only in this post, but in my history here on SOF.
    Losing your heritage is a horrible thing. But it is a different thing to how one is treated by the dominant culture. We can discuss culture loss, but we have not as yet. Not you and I.
    I am willing to believe in the suckitude of your life situation if you will do me the kindness--no, the justice!--of believing in mine.
    Not sure where justice comes into this.
    Common courtesy dictates that we accept what people say as their truth until we see evidence otherwise.
    I see no reason to doubt your accounts of your experiences. In fact, believing them influences what I have replied thus far. There is a possible disconnect in what you think you said and what I think you said, but I've denied no experience as of yet. There is a definite disconnect win what you say I've said and what I've meant to say.
    I will do you the courtesy of assuming that we are experiencing miscommunication.
    Let's start this at the beginning and work through it, I doubt we will agree completely, but it will give a chance to be more clear as to what we are actually saying.
  • I do not understand this fixation you have on "let's start this at the beginning and work through it" rather than dealing with the current burning issue on the table. When several people are interested in a single current topic and you insist on going back to page whatever of a thread and working through endless yonks of other peripheral issues rather than address the fire on the table in front of you--frankly, this resembles evasion. It is reminiscent of our friend Boswell II and a number of others, including IngoB. If you cannot and will not respond to a conversation in real time, or in anything close to it... no, I just can't even. I can't even even. Maybe someone else can.

    I'm going to bed.

  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    edited September 2019
    I'm not sure what "the current issue burning" is.
    I'm also not sure what I'm evading as I'm trying to engage your questions. And frankly, I am the only one directly engaging them, so I don't who these several people are.
    But OK, what is " the current burning issue"?
  • I do not understand this fixation you have on "let's start this at the beginning and work through it" rather than dealing with the current burning issue on the table. When several people are interested in a single current topic and you insist on going back to page whatever of a thread and working through endless yonks of other peripheral issues rather than address the fire on the table in front of you--frankly, this resembles evasion. It is reminiscent of our friend Boswell II and a number of others, including IngoB. If you cannot and will not respond to a conversation in real time, or in anything close to it... no, I just can't even. I can't even even. Maybe someone else can.

    I'm going to bed.

    Well said LC. This and your much longer post about 3 hours ago are spot on.
  • It was not a fortunate, blessed event -- "Oh happy you, who can pass for white and are fully acculturated and can go on your happy pseudo-white way and need never know the suffering of your cousins!" Yeah, and never know the belonging either--nor the identity, nor the meaning, nor the sense of having any rootedness anywhere. But that doesn't matter, does it? Because "passing for white" is the ultimate prize--or at least the ideological framework you've constructed boils down to that.

    A lot of white folks seem to be very concerned about policing various racial and ethnic boundaries. Typically the boundaries of blackness but, as has been demonstrated here, not exclusively so. This popped up on the 2020 election thread when one of the shipmates expressed doubt that Kamala Harris is authentically black, membership in the Congressional Black Caucus (eleventh row, first on the left) notwithstanding. This was in the context Harris' personal experience with school integration in Los Angeles. There as here the argument was that Harris could "pass" as white based on the shipmate's assessment of her picture and used this assessment (school busing program notwithstanding) to give Harris a whole imaginary back-story where she never had to deal with racial prejudice. This was, of course, without any reference to Harris' actual biography. There seems to be a frequent assumption that whiteness, or at least apparent whiteness, cleanses all.

    The president's son-and-campaign-official made the slightly different point that Harris wasn't authentically African-American since her African ancestors had been enslaved in a country that wasn't the United States. The desired end was the same though; dictating to other people how they should regard their own history and background.
  • No one can dictate to another how they should regard their history and background. .
    But there is a difference in how people are treated based on colour.* This doesn't magically erase all treatment or stolen heritage. People who can actually pass have a different experiences to their family who cannot, but that does not erase their sharing of their families experiences. It is not one thing or the other, it can be complex and often changes based on context.
    Life is not zero-sum.
    Discussing it is complex as well, which is why a single point at a time approach is more clear.
    This link, originally posted by Doublethink, touches on the complexity

    This article about raising an anti-racist child is apropos to this thread. (tl;dr:The article is written by a light-skinned Mexican American woman who is married to a white man. And it is about teaching her daughter to be anti-racist)
    Some (for me) key quotes from it.
    The journey that began with that realization continues to unfold, and I expect it to last the rest of my life. The challenges are many but chief among them for me was acknowledging that considering yourself a good or decent person who believes in equality doesn't prevent you from being racist or supporting racist ideas. Many Americans, however, believe the lie that it's only your attitude toward race that matters, not your political, social, or cultural convictions.
    Over time, I understood that this was the exact falsehood I wanted to prevent my own daughter from accepting as truth. While I feel far more confident today than I did a few years ago, developing the awareness and skills required to teach any child this, let alone a preschooler, is hard work.
    Instead, parents can be honest about how race is a critical part of how someone is seen by the world and treated by institutions small and large, then assess how the decisions they make for their children’s well-being may hurt kids of color and their families.
    While the workshop was just the first of what we hope will be many conversations, I was proud of what we’d achieved in 90 minutes — and the community we’d started to build around the values of antiracism. This year, we've convened a small discussion group of local parents to collectively explore how we can better understand our own limitations and raise antiracist children. Not all of us are white, nor are we all new to antiracist work. What I believe we share is the knowledge that unless we commit ourselves to consistent reflection, we won't succeed at what we've set out to accomplish.

    That static state of being, which requires no commitment or work, has never been enough to counter white supremacy.
    Bold mine.

    *This is true inside of groups of colour as well. Pigmentism is a thing in the West Indies (though it is getting better) and diaspora communities. It is a thing in Africa, in South America. And in North America.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    It was not a fortunate, blessed event -- "Oh happy you, who can pass for white and are fully acculturated and can go on your happy pseudo-white way and need never know the suffering of your cousins!" Yeah, and never know the belonging either--nor the identity, nor the meaning, nor the sense of having any rootedness anywhere. But that doesn't matter, does it? Because "passing for white" is the ultimate prize--or at least the ideological framework you've constructed boils down to that.

    A lot of white folks seem to be very concerned about policing various racial and ethnic boundaries. Typically the boundaries of blackness but, as has been demonstrated here, not exclusively so. This popped up on the 2020 election thread when one of the shipmates expressed doubt that Kamala Harris is authentically black, membership in the Congressional Black Caucus (eleventh row, first on the left) notwithstanding. This was in the context Harris' personal experience with school integration in Los Angeles. There as here the argument was that Harris could "pass" as white based on the shipmate's assessment of her picture and used this assessment (school busing program notwithstanding) to give Harris a whole imaginary back-story where she never had to deal with racial prejudice. This was, of course, without any reference to Harris' actual biography. There seems to be a frequent assumption that whiteness, or at least apparent whiteness, cleanses all.

    The president's son-and-campaign-official made the slightly different point that Harris wasn't authentically African-American since her African ancestors had been enslaved in a country that wasn't the United States. The desired end was the same though; dictating to other people how they should regard their own history and background.

    That is seriously screwed in the head.

    @lilbuddha might respond to the actual points raised about their posts versus going off backwards in pages, which was previously mentioned by @Lamb Chopped
  • @lilbuddha might respond to the actual points raised about their posts versus going off backwards in pages, which was previously mentioned by @Lamb Chopped
    WHAT. POINTS.?
    I'm not addressing anything to LC through second-hand vitriol and misrepresented positions.
    I will speak to LC's "burning issue" when she defines it.
    If you have an issue, present it. Clearly and plainly without going off backwards to previous posts, if you will.
  • The setup:
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    What you say you are matters differently, depending on the circumstance.
    You have Indian heritage, nothing harmful in saying this. It is what you think that means that can be potentially problematic. A person who passes for white will not experience the same treatment as one who does not. That is not about ancestry, but experience.
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    For what it's worth, I have never claimed to know what it means to experience my grandmother's experience, not being a complete asshole.
    I'm not saying you did. I'm trying to explore a very confusing post you made. To me, it would seem that hearing your grandmother's experience would give you a different insight than you seem to have.
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    And???? What are these "understandings" that I'm getting wrong, that you expected me to have that I don't have, and that I really ought to have gotten from my grandparents?
    Simple. You might have American Indian heritage, but you do not have American Indian experience.

    The punchline:
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    No one can dictate to another how they should regard their history and background.

    <rimshot>
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    edited September 2019
    Very funny.
    But this is why I am trying to address point by point. Because this represents a less than simple topic.
    I'm not dictating to LC, but trying to talk about her experience from what she's said.
    She asked the questions, so response is fair game. I'm trying to work with what's she has said, which is actually very little.

    Perception of colour is the primary interface between strangers in America. Would you disagree with that?

    People who appear white get treated better, or at least begin neutral, by white people. Would you disagree with that?

    I said
    You might have American Indian heritage, but you do not have American Indian experience
    and that should have been 'You might have American Indian heritage, but you do not appear to have the American Indian experience"
    They are two different things. As I mentioned, I have royal ancestry. That doesn't give me the royal experience. I've been to where my mum was born, I was raised by her and she is not ashamed of her culture. And yet I cannot say that her culture is perfectly mine. For I was born in my father's world and that has shaped my identity as well, if not more strongly. Not that mum's culture hasn't, but heritage and experience are DIFFERENT things.

    And that is the basic point. I know white people of Indian heritage whose family never hid it. The ones that respect the issues the skin colour v heritage raises, get along much better with the live-it-everyday American Indians than the ones that presume heritage equals acceptance.

    Instead of proof texting, try reading all of my contributions here and you get a better picture.
  • (tiredly) Croesos, you're very kind, but I'm damned tired and I don't think I'm going to get anywhere against all this obstructionism. So I'm going to withdraw, at least for the moment, and concentrate on things I actually CAN get answers to. Maybe after I've had some real quality sleep I'll feel differently. But that'll not be happening in the near future.

    Still, you go, guy.
  • @lilbuddha sees it one way, everyone else sees it another.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Very funny.

    No, really, it's not. It's wearisome.
  • LeafLeaf Shipmate
    The more I read this thread, the less I know what it's about.
  • Leaf wrote: »
    The more I read this thread, the less I know what it's about.
    Tell me about it
  • RossweisseRossweisse Hell Host, 8th Day Host
    Leaf wrote: »
    The more I read this thread, the less I know what it's about.
    That's because it's about @lilbuddha playing ugly games and making offensive assumptions about other people's lives.
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    No one can dictate to another how they should regard their history and background. ...
    After all the crap she's posted on this subject, this quote actually made me laugh out loud, in a tired, sardonic sort of way. Seriously, lb? Have you no shame?

    Let me know when you're ready to take this dog's breakfast to Hell.

  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    I am currently reading Dear Church: A Love Letter to the Whitest Denomination in the US by a Black Preacer by Lenny Duncan. He makes a very strong point that the ELCA remains the whitest denomination because it still lives under the illusion of White Supremacy. He began to notice this when he was in Seminary. He objected to the use of white albs because they reminded him of the KKK robes. His objections where ignored. Today he just wears a black cassock with 33 buttons.

    I just finished a section in which he compared his upbringing to that of Dylann Roof, the shooter of the Charleston nine. There upbringings were very similar. Broken families, drugs, black nationalism (for Duncan) and white nationalism for Roof. But the thing that divided them was grace which Duncan ultimately experienced and continued hate which Roof never broke out of. Personally I think the church failed Roof.

    Duncan makes several suggestions for the ELCA. Reconciliation Hearings among all of its 65 synods; reparations; decolonizing the liturgy (long discussion there); and more. (this is as far as I have read).

    I think the ELCA made two large steps in the direction Duncan wants it to go this year. We declared ourselves a Sanctuary Denomination; and we made June 17 a feast for the Martyrdom of the Charleston Nine.

    About ten years ago I joined my ELCA church because I was fed up with my Methodist preacher who was against accepting gays in leadership positions. Our local Lutheran church was the second most liberal church in the area (after the Episcopal) but with a better more inspiring young pastor. The ELCA was one of the first churches with women priests, welcoming to gays and of course welcoming to people of all races. If it's "the whitest church" it's because its membership consists of thousands of people with ancestry from Germany and points north. There aren't as many black people in Minnesota as there are in Georgia or Alabama because there weren't as many slaves. So denominations from the north, like the ELCA, don't have as many black members because they didn't have as many slaves. That makes it racist?

    This writer with his ideas like no white robes in church because they remind him of KKK sheets and his premise that the church with the most whites is the most racist church just infuriates me. Has he even heard of the Southern Baptists and their history? The Mormons and the awful things they teach about blacks?

    I expect the ELCA to die out along with many other small denominations as the big mega churches take over. My church has already joined with the local Episcopalian, but it wont because its "the most racist church," because that's just plain stupid.

  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited September 2019
    Twilight wrote: »
    If [ the ELCA is ] "the whitest church" it's because its membership consists of thousands of people with ancestry from Germany and points north. There aren't as many black people in Minnesota as there are in Georgia or Alabama because there weren't as many slaves. So denominations from the north, like the ELCA, don't have as many black members because they didn't have as many slaves.

    Never heard of the Great Migration, eh? Always-free state Michigan has more African-Americans (both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of population) than former slave state Kentucky. Plus this glib assessment ignores the very unpleasant means used to keep the upper Midwest white in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
    Twilight wrote: »
    I expect the ELCA to die out along with many other small denominations as the big mega churches take over.

    I'm not sure the fifth largest Protestant denomination* in the U.S. counts as "small".


    *I'm counting the Southern Baptists and National Baptists as "denominations" for this ranking, despite the fact that they hate being referred to by this term.
This discussion has been closed.