Maybe you should. Maybe it would help you see something that has your machinery off calibration. It's certainly within the realm of possibility. I'm not speaking to your situation with authority, only noting potential in it.
:nono: MOST of psychoanalysis is projecting. It just doesn't listen very well. It is, imho, the egocentric center of psychology. It is more interested in its opinions. Problem: It is more often than not, a reflection on the analyst rather than the subject. What that means? The psychoanalyst is giving me 'their' problem with my character.
1) It is egocentric so does no help unless the analyst isn't arrogant and can look at themselves over it 2) they are generally making a living at this which is still egocentrism and 3) they are often, as was Freud, wrong.
Except that I didn't say or infer that, let alone believe it. I'm not sure why you do.
For the most part, nobody does self-analysis like I do. I'm totally open to anything ringing true, including where I stand on race issues. I'm convinced, after years of sincerely trying to be color blind, that I'm doing what I'm supposed to. On the other hand, I do indeed see what any particular group has as strengths and weaknesses and don't give room for excuses. It 'may' look like racism, but its not, I'm an equal opportunity hopeful and offender. I hope the best but certainly call out the worst while trying to be careful in doing so. Such may not be how another does it but the problem is, that person may call me 'racist' or 'blind' for it. I'm fully convinced such is incorrect and really 'their' coloring of the issue. They (and sometimes you) simply aren't listening. It is trying to call a club a spade. Yes both black cards with stems. Wrong on the suits.
As a rule they don't, though there have always been poor whites. Part of the power of racism as an institution is that it gave the lowest rung of whites in the social order status above the highest black. That is a form of power. Desegregation broke its back, for the most part.
As a 'general' rule, sure. Without exception? No. This is more of a statistics and politics kind of statement. Surely you must concede that poverty and desperate childhood have no colors? These kinds of statements and assessments make me wonder if your head was caught only in one color as a lawyer. I'd suppose, because of the politics and statistical need, that'd be true, but I don't know. I'm just guessing. For as much as you might see me as hard-headed, I'd hope you've been told the same a time or two. I think you miss key points at times. Important? I don't think so. In the spectrum of discussion, the more important is that we are specifically addressing Racism, so I think regardless, the dialogue is good and important. There is no ability or meaning behind the societal frustration without this kind of interaction.
I don't know why you believe this narrative, but it didn't come from me.
My point is that I do empathize. Not necessarily better, but differently perhaps than others.
Focusing is an interesting choice. I'd say reflection is good and helps anyone who has the tools for it. A child doesn't.
As a teacher, you need to be very careful with these kinds of statements. We do know developmentally, kids have certain ability at certain ages, but it isn't stagnant. Extremely hard circumstances can erase childhood and cause a child, without the where-with-all, yes, but makes that child 'reflect.' I've been extremely self-analytical since early childhood. My world just didn't make sense. The abuses didn't make sense. The teachers tearing into me for not 'paying attention' didn't add up. So, I didn't have the where-with-all to make sense, but the attempt was necessary.
This is obviously and understandably a delicate subject. I've said what I can on it and maybe you'll find value in that at some point. In any event, I won't raise it again.
A guy cut across the road today in front of me and I thought "you are driving like a monkey!" I saw moments later it was a guy and that he was black. There was no intention of being 'racist' in the comment. I was simply thinking of what someone swerving over the line would have to be if he/she were an animal. Derogatory? Yes, in the sense that I was calling their ability into question. If someone had seen and heard me say "monkey" I'm sure they'd assume it was racially motivated. While it may not be the wisest to give another the same benefit of doubt, it 1) was yet a 'poor' statement, but not intentionally so other than toward their immediate driving ability and 2) even if motivated by a previous ill, may not have been repeated by the same intent. Entirely too generous? It may be, but I yet think we Christians need to be most careful when disparaging anybody. I remembered this week that God has called us to reconciliation, not part of the political rivalry of the nation, nor feeding conflicts by taking sides. In this case, the injured party isn't wholly described and I yet think it dredging ill to bring up new hurts best left buried. In this thread, I think it well-worth discussion because it is clearly about this topic, but I think it too the better value to steer from causing or potentially causing further harm when we can. :up:
We/us thinking and the urge to speak for the larger toward the least empowered isn't exactly helping you here. I get that a lot of white people are quietly (or not so) thinking, "What's enough? What else?" And who made the majority that sponsored the root of the problem the one that gets to decide when its desire over need, to once again dictate what they should have and when it's reasonable?
Its a good series of questions. Isn't it found in grace? One wants it to be enough, the other wants it to continue because for them, it isn't. Between us? Erring on the side of love and grace. Faithful are the wounds. Having had many wounds, I'm very familiar with the good ones and have a good deal of trust. I had a surgery that I deem now 'unnecessary.' I'm not a doctor, but having looked into this, I think I could have gotten away with a much smaller scar.
I guess I'm saying its healed, either way. Scars can cause problems, but most have little inconvenience.
Sounds like good intentions absent a game plan, but it's too far off the racism path for me to trod here.
Well, they thought they had one. It was naive. With you, I don't believe it good for a side discussion. It was rather, regarding how much we ask and place on society. It goes back to your statements above about how much and how far we entertain a problem. I believe, and am pretty sure with you, that we go so far as to actually addressing problems and those needs. We seem to have different points of cut-off and to me, that's the basic difference and point of discussion. In a nutshell, I think our values are mostly the same, just how much is needed to actually address each of the problems we are seeing.
Slavery was removed a hundred years before people of color (and their allies) had to suffer beatings and even death to simply possess the rights every citizen should expect as a matter of course. Those people are very much among us today.
I disagree. They are two separate issues. Those in slavery, was my point, are gone. Now you may make associations, certainly, but I yet believe my point stands that bringing up the slavery or slave ownership of your, my, and their ancestors is counterproductive. Treatment of simply 'people' after, should be treated upon the premise of transition. People who have been through that don't need their great great grandfather's history to 'feel' through. All it does is dredges up harms to those 'who are not me, nor did I know them.'
But the "making you a slave" tells me that not all abuse is the same. You remembered that motivation. Again, I'm not going to bring it up, but if and when you do it's reasonable to allow me to respond on the point.
In this thread, it is necessary at least in this point in time. Between us, there are values against the mistreatment of other human beings. There are also shared values regarding the discussion of any particular group without derogatory names and descriptions. On this particular, I'd say not that I look the other way, but that I'm trying to apply Christ-honoring discussion of what helps and what does not. Where we differ, I also value. Where you might see mine in a less honoring light, I rather try to value what another is bringing to the discussion. We may still disagree, but I do believe your motivations for your values seek to honor Him.
A lot of psychoanalysis involves very active listening. And, depending on who you're seeing, interaction.
While I realize a lot of psychoanalysis does try to actively listen, I'm not sure the mark is hit as often as intention. "Digging deeper" for root problems, if assessed correctly, is very helpful and such is the goal of good psychoanalysis but there are problems. Misdiagnosis/wrong assessment, inability of the analyzer, labeling problems where none exist or exist in an entirely different area, etc.
But I'm always listening to you and intently.
It is hard to do over the internet (if not impossible - we can read and grasp what another expresses, but its very limited) but thank you, brother.
No, Lon. Those tropes aren't the best way to illustrate being incompetent or unable. But they're a top tier way to quickly establish a lot of presumptions that would include that incapacity. That's what racist tropes do. Reagan learned that one, understood the context and applied it.
Okay, he was an intelligent man and it is surely reasonable to make this assumption, but again, for me, I just don't like doing so 1) when he is dead 2) when a man can be intelligent, yet at times inept, and 3) when such may or may not express someone's overall. While I can surely see your point, I just don't like doing so when a person is dead. One day, someone may bring up something poor Billy Graham had once said. Such will be a very sad day and I will be ashamed both of those who shared it, repeated it, and me for having heard. It isn't that people cannot fall, it is rather that I'm wondering what kind of people we are, that'd bring up and discuss such. To me, it just seems too close to the definition of poor speech and content. Do we need to? Sometimes, and surely in this thread, now. I just have a huge reticence for doing so, if I can help it. I didn't bash Obama, by example. You may read about things that I believe have hurt our nation, but even then, I try to avoid most 'bashing' threads.
No, the point was they did something he fundamentally disagreed with and their opposition angered him. That anger and opposition led him to reveal a bit of how he chose to value them and their actions. And it's disappointing.
A little confused. It looks like you agreed with me, so the 'no' beginning doesn't make as much sense.
Are you saying: "Yes, I agree the remark was against what he saw as an inept and poor decisions"
or "No, he was saying all blacks are backwards shoeless monkeys"?
If you're white? Without question.
I'm not sure. I think it always inappropriate, like calling any large woman a 'hippo' but it'd not be racist simply because someone called a heavy woman of color one. Perhaps, in this, I'm saying that the 'racist' bins are wrong. I'm not disagreeing on 'inappropriate' but on whether something said is particular, in unfairness, toward a certain group of people. I'm unsure if calling a black woman an ape is less offensive or more offensive than calling any particular woman an albino ape. Rather, what one means by the comparison, is necessary I'd think. Was my comment, 'driving like a monkey' more or less inappropriate (if inappropriate) because the man was black? Isn't the comparison rather the way he was driving (not that I actually know what a monkey drives like, so it may have been an insult to a good-driving monkey)?
I don't believe she means any women look like apes. But it's the best way to proffer an insult and she used it. I think that gives us insight into her thinking.
I appreciate someone who is as analytical as I tend to be. It can become tedious to most, so I'm both pleasantly surprised and encouraged by your continued discussion here.
I don't believe most people have trouble seeing it, except in themselves. In others it's relatively easy. Especially when they trade in the rhetoric of racists.
I think it's sometimes less obvious and sometimes patently obvious. This would be the fairly obvious end. What I've been trying to get at is why you see it as something more difficult.
Let's take my 'driving like a monkey' comment. I had no intention of disparaging the man's color, just his (or her at the time) driving ability. It 'looks' like I might have made a racist comment and I think I'd be 'guilty' if someone pronounced it. I did say it. I did say it regarding a black man. End of story?
It wasn't unrelated for the reason I've given you now two or three times that you've chosen to ignore in route to repeating this mantra, Lon.They might well ask, "Why are you bringing this into an unrelated topic?" And the answer would be as I gave it to you, that the point was to meet the attempt to use unsupported rhetoric in advancing a position by trading on the moral authority of the person quoted, and that undermining that assumption with a quote by the same author was, prima facie, the best means of answering it.
Again, the relation is, for me, far and thus incredibly loose (and as I've said, for me, inappropriate as well). Do I want to drill this? No! I'd rather drip it, I was just trying to give feedback as to why.
No. The notice is that when angered and opposed, not even directly in this case, he chose a racist trope to describe black people that did it.
If I was a "black" American serving in the military, I'd have second thoughts about putting my life in harms way for a "Commander and Chief" who thought of me as a "monkey!"
How are "black" Americans with member(s) of their family who served with distinction and/or killed/wounded in defence of the nation supposed to react when their president makes degrading racist comments, while his supporters, like "ok doser," respond with "who cares?"
Insensitive, but not racist. Irish jokes about drinking are similar.
Insensitive, but I disagree. "Race" is about heredity. "Ethnicity" is rather how you are grouped according to choices. When Reagan said "monkey" it could have been ethnic or maybe not even that far reaching. "Don't wear shoes" is definitely ethnic, and not race related. Because of this, I yet think some accusations today are unfair and wrongheaded. Note that I'm not at all disagreeing with the appropriateness of the statements. That isn't my contention. Rather, it is 'how far and how accurate' that indictment goes. Without dredging up the propriety of it in light of Reagan's societal comment, I'm rather asking if the extent of the accusation is provably fair (not much more than that EXCEPT to learn about and appropriately empathize with the topic of this thread).
If by careful you mean clear, sure. If you mean we shouldn't project our standards onto the past, I'd say it depends. If no one understood how germs work I can forgive doctors for not sterilizing instruments.
Yes, good expansion on my 'careful' intent and thank you for the clarity.
I think he would have disparaged Swedish diplomats for the same action. But he wouldn't have used the terms he used, and that's the point. Words mean things. Tropes carry extra baggage as a part of their function. He chose a racist one because the men were black and opposed him, not because they simply opposed him.
Here's another question: If Reagan called them "Albino" nitwits who cannot even rule themselves" both ethnic AND racist?
I think it is. Can we say anything we want about someone with a similar color with impunity of racism attribute?
II'm not really sure what you mean, though I seem to have come in second in the point with you on whatever it is.
It was a poorly framed first-draft to say: We express differently, in our disagreements, but it is seldom over the values, but rather over applications (what we came away with hearing Reagan's comments here, for example: Different take, yet holding similar in our values -We just sometimes get there a different way so I see our disagreement more toward execution, not a difference in what we truly value.
II think there's the man and there's the mission. It's one reason I stopped the whole pedestal thing a long while back.
For me, somewhat. "Follow me, as I follow Christ" does leave room for poor choices, but it also sets about emulating another. It isn't a pedestal per say, but an appreciation that 'hardly notices when another does it wrong.' Such applies to believers. I'm not sure if Reagan loved the Lord as a new creation, but it seemed so. His strength was not so much his spiritual example, but his ability to tie faith into the execution of his office. There may be some pedestal left in there, as I appreciate he mostly exemplified, for me, how that job should be done, but it isn't that I know much more about him than that.
It was about a way through the tendency, the institutionalized evil of seeing color as a lessening. To do that, you have to make sure the offending party understands their practice and its impact.
That's why he marched and pled particulars. Not because he wanted us to live in them, but because he hoped we might, in wrestling with our national demons, someday rid ourselves of them.
Eloquent and meaningful. I had to 'get over' learning of his affairs to begin to appreciate again, what he actually did accomplish.
We can't forget vaccinations until the disease is defeated.
Again, I think it is more about the execution that tends to have us at some odds, not the need. I see it.
