Capitol Hill Blue Forums Life and Moral Issues Morality & Society Of National Lies and Racial Amnesia

Wow, what a fantastic read. Thanks for sharing it, Mellow.
Amazingly it reminds me of many of my thoughts when I was in Annapolis, Md 30 or so miles from DC, welcoming my first grandchild into the world. He was born 2 days before the attack on the Pentagon. I took the train out of DC home a week later. It was like a war zone.
I felt such a sense of shame....and responsiblitity for what had happened.
My heart broke for my young grandson's birthday.

As a southern woman, these comments are especially powerful to me.

Piffle. Sometimes ones imagination can get the better of one, can it not, Toots.:-) It is not "ad hominem" to point out the oft repeated message of a writer, whether in this article or in articles past. His is a simplistic message attractive to some but not many -- certainly not many who think beyond what the surface of what he writes or says.

In this article he follows the standard 'anti-racist' strategy of rationalizing someone's statements or actions solely on the basis of the person's skin color. His rationalization is that the White Devel made the Pastor do whatever he is alleged to have done.

Tim and his fellow travelers in the 'anti-racist' movement sanctimoneously present themselves as being among the few that know the past, yet I suspect that there are few 'whites' who are not aware that there was chattel slavery in America and that it was a bad thing; I suspect that there are few 'whites' who are not aware that there was government-legitimized "separate but equal" and Jim Crowism in America and that it was bad; I suspect that there are few 'whites' who are not aware that there were many lynchings in America's past and that 'black' Americans were a popular target for many of them and that it was bad.

What makes the 'anti-racist' mantra even more simplistic is that it relies on a collectivist notion which is that the smallest indivisible unit making up a society is the group -- not the individual -- so it makes it very easy for followers of this fundamentally racist movement to play the lump sum guilt-by-association gambit(in this particular case -- skin color/'social construct' grouping).

What is even more incongrueous is that the flavor of the day is Obama the uniter, yet Tim's crowd does not unite anyone, they cause divisiveness based on race and generate resentment and increase anger. Thinking people recognize that this will not lead to reconciliation or an embrassing of each other as fellow Americans and human beings, so when the 'anti-racist' shows up and starts his spiel, they tend to walk away. Sometimes it is the best thing to do. Don't you agree?:-)
Yours,
Issodhos

All aglow and excited after reading the link, I'll respond with three comments and then go back and read all the comments.

1) If you've never read Lies My Teacher Told Me, do so now! American history books train us to be good citizens and that has little to do with the history of this country.

2) In the fall of 1969 I was one of four white teachers to join the staff at Alabama A&M, a historically black college. A vice-president at the college, a Henry Ponder, talked to us on the second day of faculty meetings. He told us that there were still small southern towns that had yearly parades where one event could be a black man made-up to represent a lynching. He would be forced to be part of the "festivities." He warned us that the children of that man would not like us. Henry Ponder was a master of understatement.

3) Shortly after 9-11 I read something that quoted a terrorist as saying that after Hiroshima America had lost the right to condemn terrorism. That hit a chord with me and I repeated it twice. The most liberal of my friends shrugged it off, saying it just sounded like rationalizing. My far right acquaintance screamed,"But we were attached!"--a cry that I took to mean that 9-11 justified any and everything we might do in response. I stopped passing on what I had read. Until now. The link brought it to mind again.

Now for what you guys have said.

PS I have nothing else to add.

"Don't you agree?:-)
Yours,
Issodhos"

No.

Iss said:

I'm not sure what you are advocating. Are you saying that anyone who says things, perhaps even true things or things they believe are true, which upset people or generate resentment or - heaven forbid - increase anger... that those people should shut up?

Are you saying that?

Because if you are.....

Martha, I had similar reaction from my friends and acquaintances when I weakly suggested (just after Sept 11) that we might want to reexamine our foreign policies....even among my liberal friends initially.

me either, Iss

Neither have I. It was an excellent article though.


You're speaking gobbledeygook. None of that was in the article. Are you sure you're in the right thread?


Well, apparently he's changed, because nothing like that is in the article at all.


Again, I don't think you actually read the article. He's a white guy, he's mostly talking about understanding the parts of history of these United States that we may be shocked to discover have been hidden or otherwise omitted from our education.


Nope, not in there. What have you been reading?


Ah, that explains it! if what you have been reading is any example of the one-sided argument you are proferring here, than no thanks, it doesn't seem beneficial really.

Or on topic. You might be a lot less confusing if you actually respond to the topic in question which, usually and in this case, requires actual reading of the cited article, and some reference to it.


Now, to add something actually substantive to the topic:

First, I didn't think the article was all that long, really, and was correct in every cite (good research - and I learned a couple things I never knew before)...
The one thing I would like to add is that the phrase "white people are shocked to find" may not apply to everyone, every time... but as much as I try to educate myself, I *have* found myself shocked, recently, by some of the things our country has done. But while it does not lead me to feel ashamed for those things I had nothing to do with, there are two thing I cam take away from this article:

1) I understand why some people cannot in good conscience feel 'national pride'; not only are there things that have been so shameful as to cast a shadow over the great and good things the country has done, but the shameful things were done to them. Asking them to express national pride would be akin to asking a person, whose mother or father was repeatedly beaten and raped as a child by their uncle, to honor that same person for valor in military service.

2) I, as a relative of that uncle, would not feel shame - but I also would not castigate the person for pointing out that that person was not a paragon of virtue.

More importantly, I need to make sure I don't turn a blind eye to such things, myself, either in the past or the future, and understand that other people's experience in this country are not as fortunate as my own. And it isn't that that makes any kind of a debt to them; but rather it is in both of our best interests to continue the dialog to help understand each other's point of view, and do what is in my ability to ensure that *I* am never the source of such shameful things, or allow such things to occur when I could discourage or prevent them.

Perhaps it would better serve the thread if you refrained from trying to put words into my mouth and instead put your own words into your own mouth, toots sure. It would certainly save you time and would not require that you embellish or add to what I wrote.;-)
Yours,
Issodhos

Perhaps my having been exposed to Tim and the 'anti-racist' movement for at least a decade gives me unfair advantage -- and yes, I did read the article, finding in it to be nothing different from past writings.

The idea that today's America has had this portion of the past hidden from it is ludicrous. We have been awash in information on slavery, separate-but-equal, lynchings, and other bad stuff for years. White Americans do not have the emotional reaction to this history that Black Americans do? Black Americans are angry? Does that surprise you? Did you somehow miss it?:-)

Other than that, see my above post of today at 2:50pm.
Yours,
Issodhos
P.s. Not really gobblygook if you are familiar with and have participated in race discussions (real ones where not almost everyone is 'white'). p + p = r is the self-serving definition of racism used by those who seek to protect themselves from charges of racism while actually engaging in it. Prejudice + Power = Racism. Power in this equation is limited to America in general, meaning power is held by 'white' people. That power is based on Whiteness as a social construct. What this means is that only 'whites' can be racist. No non-white can be racist. And all 'whites' are racist by dint of being 'white' (though one can opt out under certain conditions). The most a non-white can be is prejudiced. Handy, huh?:-)