Pure Parents

Question:

>Still, any belief now that no more change will occur would be grossly >inadvisable!

Change in favor of or against realistic fantastic discrimination or not? Steve Hayes http://www.suite101.com/myhome.cfm/methodius

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> >> >> > I believe in using filthy speech until it ceases to be seen as filthy. >> >> >> A convenient excuse.  What you accomplish by this is to callous the >> >> >> mind to any meaningful content in your post, which I admit is tricky >> >> >> enough to find as it is. >> >> >No, I wish to scrape OFF the callous and expose new skin! >> >> It doesn’t work that way, your wish notwithstanding. >> >Sure it does. The prejudice against sexual terminology is merely >> >ignorant and unnatural superstition. Many languages don’t even have >> >such a thing! That prejudice is an unnatural dead adherence to >> >otherwise healthy being. My use of such language is what must be >> >done over and over to abrade it away, like a corn remover. >> When you use words that have no relevance to the subject *except* as >> an unnatural superstition, then you debase and mask any relevance your >> point may have. >And now you’ve recycled your nothing-isms till nobody knows what you’re >talking about! > I accept that as your way of saying your train of thought derailed. > Tell me where I confused you and I will try explain it to you more > s-l-o-w-l-y.

Ignorant posturing on your part. Steve

Response:

>I agree that it wouldn’t SEEM to HAVE to be so, >but I can think of no exception.

Which is realistic fantastic diverse discrimination. Steve Hayes http://www.suite101.com/myhome.cfm/methodius

Response:

>Blanket assumptions that would apply to every aspect of someone’s belief >structure would just as ill adviseable.  We’re talking about much more than >just one aspect here, regarding change or the absence thereof.

Yes, we must above all see diverse discriminatory fantastic realism holistically. Seeing only one aspect thereof would be absolutely unacceptable, as hitherto and heretofore uttered forth in the public works of Testew and Cunard, MHDSRIP. Steve Hayes http://www.suite101.com/myhome.cfm/methodius

Response:

>When you use words that have no relevance to the subject *except* as >an unnatural superstition, then you debase and mask any relevance your >point may have.

Which is undoubtedly a realistic fantastic disciminaroty diversion, in a relative sort of way, of course. We must be quite definite about that. Steve Hayes http://www.suite101.com/myhome.cfm/methodius

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > > > > The prejudice against sexual terminology is merely > > > > > ignorant and unnatural superstition. Many languages don’t even > have > > > > > such a thing! That prejudice is an unnatural dead adherence to > > > > > otherwise healthy being. My use of such language is what must be > > > > > done over and over to abrade it away, like a corn remover. > > > > > Steve > > > > That being said, whether it works or not, it’s surely going to gain > no > > > > weight in THIS forum.  Whatever the chosen diction may be. > > > > AJPDLA > > > Things which are opposed are opposed only until they are not. > > > Steve > > You assume the act of change is inevitable, across the board.  It is > not. > > AJPDLA > I agree that it wouldn’t SEEM to HAVE to be so, > but I can think of no exception. > Steve > This would be true, for YOUR situation.  Others will disagree.  This is the > very nature of it all.  Very deep. > AJPDLA

Still, any belief now that no more change will occur would be grossly inadvisable! -Steve

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > > > > > The prejudice against sexual terminology is merely > > > > > > ignorant and unnatural superstition. Many languages don’t even > have > > > > > > such a thing! That prejudice is an unnatural dead adherence to > > > > > > otherwise healthy being. My use of such language is what must be > > > > > > done over and over to abrade it away, like a corn remover. > > > > > > Steve > > > > > That being said, whether it works or not, it’s surely going to gain > no > > > > > weight in THIS forum.  Whatever the chosen diction may be. > > > > > AJPDLA > > > > Things which are opposed are opposed only until they are not. > > > > Steve > > > You assume the act of change is inevitable, across the board.  It is > not. > > > AJPDLA > > I agree that it wouldn’t SEEM to HAVE to be so, > > but I can think of no exception. > > Steve > This would be true, for YOUR situation.  Others will disagree.  This is the > very nature of it all.  Very deep. > AJPDLA > Still, any belief now that no more change will occur would be grossly > inadvisable! > -Steve

Blanket assumptions that would apply to every aspect of someone’s belief structure would just as ill adviseable.  We’re talking about much more than just one aspect here, regarding change or the absence thereof. AJPDLA

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > > > The prejudice against sexual terminology is merely > > > > ignorant and unnatural superstition. Many languages don’t even have > > > > such a thing! That prejudice is an unnatural dead adherence to > > > > otherwise healthy being. My use of such language is what must be > > > > done over and over to abrade it away, like a corn remover. > > > > Steve > > > That being said, whether it works or not, it’s surely going to gain no > > > weight in THIS forum.  Whatever the chosen diction may be. > > > AJPDLA > > Things which are opposed are opposed only until they are not. > > Steve > You assume the act of change is inevitable, across the board.  It is not. > AJPDLA > I agree that it wouldn’t SEEM to HAVE to be so, > but I can think of no exception. > Steve

This would be true, for YOUR situation.  Others will disagree.  This is the very nature of it all.  Very deep. AJPDLA

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > > The prejudice against sexual terminology is merely > > > ignorant and unnatural superstition. Many languages don’t even have > > > such a thing! That prejudice is an unnatural dead adherence to > > > otherwise healthy being. My use of such language is what must be > > > done over and over to abrade it away, like a corn remover. > > > Steve > > That being said, whether it works or not, it’s surely going to gain no > > weight in THIS forum.  Whatever the chosen diction may be. > > AJPDLA > Things which are opposed are opposed only until they are not. > Steve > You assume the act of change is inevitable, across the board.  It is not. > AJPDLA

I agree that it wouldn’t SEEM to HAVE to be so, but I can think of no exception. Steve

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > The prejudice against sexual terminology is merely > > ignorant and unnatural superstition. Many languages don’t even have > > such a thing! That prejudice is an unnatural dead adherence to > > otherwise healthy being. My use of such language is what must be > > done over and over to abrade it away, like a corn remover. > > Steve > That being said, whether it works or not, it’s surely going to gain no > weight in THIS forum.  Whatever the chosen diction may be. > AJPDLA > Things which are opposed are opposed only until they are not. > Steve

You assume the act of change is inevitable, across the board.  It is not. AJPDLA

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> >> > I believe in using filthy speech until it ceases to be seen as filthy. >> >> A convenient excuse.  What you accomplish by this is to callous the >> >> mind to any meaningful content in your post, which I admit is tricky >> >> enough to find as it is. >> >No, I wish to scrape OFF the callous and expose new skin! >> It doesn’t work that way, your wish notwithstanding. >Sure it does. The prejudice against sexual terminology is merely >ignorant and unnatural superstition. Many languages don’t even have >such a thing! That prejudice is an unnatural dead adherence to >otherwise healthy being. My use of such language is what must be >done over and over to abrade it away, like a corn remover. > When you use words that have no relevance to the subject *except* as > an unnatural superstition, then you debase and mask any relevance your > point may have.

And now you’ve recycled your nothing-isms till nobody knows what you’re talking about! Steve

Response:

> > The prejudice against sexual terminology is merely > ignorant and unnatural superstition. Many languages don’t even have > such a thing! That prejudice is an unnatural dead adherence to > otherwise healthy being. My use of such language is what must be > done over and over to abrade it away, like a corn remover. > Steve > That being said, whether it works or not, it’s surely going to gain no > weight in THIS forum.  Whatever the chosen diction may be. > AJPDLA

Things which are opposed are opposed only until they are not. Steve

Response:

> The prejudice against sexual terminology is merely > ignorant and unnatural superstition. Many languages don’t even have > such a thing! That prejudice is an unnatural dead adherence to > otherwise healthy being. My use of such language is what must be > done over and over to abrade it away, like a corn remover. > Steve

That being said, whether it works or not, it’s surely going to gain no weight in THIS forum.  Whatever the chosen diction may be. AJPDLA

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> > I believe in using filthy speech until it ceases to be seen as filthy. >> A convenient excuse.  What you accomplish by this is to callous the >> mind to any meaningful content in your post, which I admit is tricky >> enough to find as it is. >No, I wish to scrape OFF the callous and expose new skin! > It doesn’t work that way, your wish notwithstanding.

Sure it does. The prejudice against sexual terminology is merely ignorant and unnatural superstition. Many languages don’t even have such a thing! That prejudice is an unnatural dead adherence to otherwise healthy being. My use of such language is what must be done over and over to abrade it away, like a corn remover. Steve

Response:

> > I believe in using filthy speech until it ceases to be seen as filthy. > A convenient excuse.  What you accomplish by this is to callous the > mind to any meaningful content in your post, which I admit is tricky > enough to find as it is.

No, I wish to scrape OFF the callous and expose new skin! Steve

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> >I usually restrict my responses to cross-posted messages to the group >> >I happen to read it in, but this is going to some worthwhile groups, >> >so I’m gonna make an exception here.  :o) >> I am glad you did. >> >:>This is only peripherally related to parenting, in that I think most >> >:>of us want to bring up our children to be nonracist and to value all >> >:>humans..  But the question of *homogenizing* our society also >> >:>looms in these remarks. >> >:> >> >You’ve brought up an important issue that is rarely ever looked at in >> >and of itself. What you refer to as "homogenizing" has a much more >> >sinister and shady meaning and history than is generally recognized. >> >After the US government pretty much decimated the indigenous >> >population of this country through a deliberate and dirty campaign of >> >murder, starvation, and germ warfare (the issuing of blankets, etc., >> >infected with small pox and other such nasties), the next step was one >> >of child abuse on a grand scale. In order to "take the Indian" out of >> >indigenous children — to "homogenize" them — they were taken from >> >their parents and homes and imprisoned in boarding schools. Through >> >any and all means, these children were forced to become white. Their >> >languages, religions, traditions, and identities were beaten and >> >brainwashed out of them. If caught engaging in anything even remotely >> >"Indianly," they faced severe corporal punishment, which was really >> >nothing more than physical abuse and torture. >> >That is likely the most extreme example of forced homogenization in >> >this nation’s history, although the chapter on Africans brought to >> >this country as slaves also rates high on the shame list. To a lesser >> >degree, but still traumatic, was the widespread belief by immigrants >> >of all nationalities that they had to blend in and be part of the >> >mythical American "melting pot," another popular phrase used in >> >reference to forgetting one’s heritage for the benefit of a >> >fast-growing superpower. >> Just to add to and expand on your point here, these kinds of things >> were practiced globally by all western colonial countries, not just >> the U.S.  It was assumed to be the White Man’s Burden to either >> ‘elevate’ the heathen people of color, or to send them to their Maker >> so they could more quickly be recycled into good Christians.  Having >> said that, I also recognize the difficulties of having within one’s >> national boundary groups which use their ‘heritage’ to keep themselves >> isolated and apart from others.  I consider this the Dark Side of >> diversity.  Most of the intra-national conflicts that happen in the >> world are fueled precisely by this, where minority groups seek by >> military force to control others.  Avoiding this doesn’t justify the >> atrocities you describe, especially since there are other, better, >> more productive, ways to deal with it, but it does make it more >> understandable, to me anyway. >> >:>Should we, worldwide, celebrate our differences? >> >:> >> >Culturally? By all means. We should also celebrate the fact that we >> >are all members of the human race, sharing the same planet. >> >:>Are we becoming a world culture with much less diversity? >> >:>Is that good or bad? >> >:> >> >Recent expansion of corporate globalism is a threat to *all* cultures. >> >Indeed, that’s part of the agenda. We’re all viewed as a resource to >> >be used and discarded at will. In Mexico and Central and South >> >America, indigenous peoples are constantly under attack by their own >> >governments. Whole families are murdered, land is stolen, traditions >> >are lost. Not a good thing. >> Monocultures provide operational efficiencies, which I think explains >> some of the incentive in removing diversity.  The apparent paradox is >> that as diversity diminishes, the stability of the system as a whole >> diminishes as well.  This is because every culture offers different >> ways to look at the world, and when a culture disappears so does its >> solutions, thus diminishing the pool of ideas from which to craft new >> ways of dealing with new problems.  Whether discussing cultural >> diversity or ecological diversity, the mechanics of both are quite >> similar. >> >:>I had bookmarked these articles and wondered what others >> >:>might think about the subject.   This is racism approached as >> >:>by Star Trek and a real life link to the blue eyed, brown eyed >> >:>experiment devised after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther >> >:>King, Jr. in 1968 by Iowa elementary school teacher Jane Elliot. >> >:> >> >:>I wonder if anyone here has any comments on these themes. >> >:> >> >I think that racism is being used by the powers-that-be as a diversion >> >from the *real* "ism," that being classism. I would venture to bet >> >that in my home town, I have been harassed by law enforcement >> >officials on a level equal to that of people of color in a nearby >> >major metropolis. Because of my appearance and my political beliefs, I >> >have been harassed by the local police for most of my life. I even >> >gave up driving a car for a time because every time I passed a cop, >> >I’d get pulled over for the most inane reasons, including no reason at >> >all. I’m not saying that people of color aren’t targeted specifically >> >because of their race, because I know that they are. But we all need >> >to realize that if you’re low-income, an active radical, or in the >> >class of the working poor, you’re gonna get harassed one hell of a lot >> >more than the upper 5%. >> I think I understand what you mean.  Both class-ism and race-ism are >> convenient hooks to hang mindless prejudices.  A difference is you can >> move from one class to another, while you are pretty much stuck with >> the ‘race’ you are born in.  It’s a "you can pick your nose but you >> can’t pick your relatives" kinda thingie.  And it does happen a lot >> where class and race are substantially combined. >All this comes down to this: That any ethnic or parochial or provincial >cultural ethic can be every bit as fascist and inhumane and stupid as >the largest monoculture. AND any better culture found in the tiniest >ethnic group or the largest monoculture can be every bit as liberating >and worthy of promulgation over all the other inhumane and fascist >cultures. >Also, it is impossible to judge either a small ethnic group or a giant >monoculture merely by the fact that they are such, and instead each must >be judged and either promulgated or condemned solely on the basis of >their content. >In the case of the "White Man’s Burden" that was bullshit, in the case >of the American "melting pot" that was bullshit, but none of those >microcultures which those large scale absorptive cultures recommended >"melting" were any bit better at all, nor were either worthy of any >promulgation. In many ways the absorptive culture was at least less >oppressive in its vagueness, which is a relief from hidebound provincial >baloney. >Steve > So we agree, but you said it using so many more rude words.  Is your > Turettes acting up again?

You know better. I believe in using filthy speech until it ceases to be seen as filthy. Steve

Response:

> >> >> Racism is part of our makeup, but is always easier to see when the >> >> other guy is a racist. >> >Minimization: "Everyone does it(racism), come on and join in! Those >> >who say we are racists are merely greedy like we are!" >> You jump to conclusions yet again.  If you deny the origins of racism >> then it will control you. >Don’t EVEN rant your silly slogan at me, I KNOW better!! > And you know better than anybody, huh?

I’m perpetually finding that I must be. It’s shocking. >> >> Also, behavior that may appear to be racist >> >> may in fact be motivated by something else altogether, >> >Greed. >> And other things.  It seems to me that simple misunderstandings >> magnified by the fear of differences is a far more common cause. >No, that CAME from someplace, it is an EFFECT, not a cause. The cause >was wealth pitting one group against another in order to divide and >conquer both of them. The wealthy propagate an unfair system and then >deflect blame for the unfairness onto a minority group. All racism >emerges from greed and fear of unfair competition. > That is one explanation among many.

But it is a better one. >> >> and it is just >> >> too easy in the U.S. to scream racist without evidence and still get a >> >> sympathetic audience. >> >Racism has damned little to do with what you feel about other races and >> >everything to do with whether you tolerate nonsensical inequities in >> >your own society. >> I know what you claim to be ‘nonsensical inequities’, so I won’t even >> touch this bait. >You sure should by now! > Yes, I have slogged through your slop too often.

Poor baby. >> >Those who wish to benefit from these inequities which favor them will >> >attempt to greedily minimize the real extent of real inequitable racism. >> If you say so. >> >It wouldn’t even matter if racism really existed, the reason has nothing >> >to do with races and skin color, it has to do with promoting irrational >> >advantage of some over others. >> I agree. >Not entirely, don’t exaggerate. > Take what you can get.

Only if you can’t do any better. Steve

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I had bookmarked these articles and wondered what others > might think about the subject.   This is racism approached as > by Star Trek and a real life link to the blue eyed, brown eyed > experiment devised after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther > King, Jr. in 1968 by Iowa elementary school teacher Jane Elliot. >Roddenberry created characters in the images of traits of humanity. >Klingons = the primitive, violent, and basic (coming out of a war, these >were easy).  Ferengi = greed and heartless capitalism (a product of the >late ’80s, the time when they were created).  Vulcans = pure logic (the >product of Gene smelling the coming of the information age). >Romulans = the sneaky ones behind the iron curtain – they don’t know us, >we don’t know them, but we spy like hell. >It’s not about race.  Race is secondary.  The new ones are similar.  

But Jack, by placing each of these characteristics into separate races, it allows race and racism to be discussed. >And the article: > :>"It’s so bubbly and sweet…Like Hu-mans….But if > :>you drink enough of it, you start to like it…Like > :>Hu-mans." >Cloy. >Not sweet.  Cloy.  Like the Federation.  Nice misquote.

Not mine and since I don’t watch on a regular basis, I am sorry not to have caught the misquote.  Thanks for your correction, but perhaps you want to let the author know too.

Dorothy There is no sound, no cry in all the world that can be heard unless someone listens .. source unknown

Response:

> I had bookmarked these articles and wondered what others > might think about the subject.   This is racism approached as > by Star Trek and a real life link to the blue eyed, brown eyed > experiment devised after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther > King, Jr. in 1968 by Iowa elementary school teacher Jane Elliot.

Roddenberry created characters in the images of traits of humanity. Klingons = the primitive, violent, and basic (coming out of a war, these were easy).  Ferengi = greed and heartless capitalism (a product of the late ’80s, the time when they were created).  Vulcans = pure logic (the product of Gene smelling the coming of the information age). Romulans = the sneaky ones behind the iron curtain – they don’t know us, we don’t know them, but we spy like hell. It’s not about race.  Race is secondary.  The new ones are similar.   And the article: > :>"It’s so bubbly and sweet…Like Hu-mans….But if > :>you drink enough of it, you start to like it…Like > :>Hu-mans."

Cloy. Not sweet.  Cloy.  Like the Federation.  Nice misquote.

Response:

> >> Racism is part of our makeup, but is always easier to see when the >> other guy is a racist. >Minimization: "Everyone does it(racism), come on and join in! Those >who say we are racists are merely greedy like we are!" > You jump to conclusions yet again.  If you deny the origins of racism > then it will control you.

Don’t EVEN rant your silly slogan at me, I KNOW better!! >> Also, behavior that may appear to be racist >> may in fact be motivated by something else altogether, >Greed. > And other things.  It seems to me that simple misunderstandings > magnified by the fear of differences is a far more common cause.

No, that CAME from someplace, it is an EFFECT, not a cause. The cause was wealth pitting one group against another in order to divide and conquer both of them. The wealthy propagate an unfair system and then deflect blame for the unfairness onto a minority group. All racism emerges from greed and fear of unfair competition. >> and it is just >> too easy in the U.S. to scream racist without evidence and still get a >> sympathetic audience. >Racism has damned little to do with what you feel about other races and >everything to do with whether you tolerate nonsensical inequities in >your own society. > I know what you claim to be ‘nonsensical inequities’, so I won’t even > touch this bait.

You sure should by now! >Those who wish to benefit from these inequities which favor them will >attempt to greedily minimize the real extent of real inequitable racism. > If you say so. >It wouldn’t even matter if racism really existed, the reason has nothing >to do with races and skin color, it has to do with promoting irrational >advantage of some over others. > I agree.

Not entirely, don’t exaggerate. Steve

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->I usually restrict my responses to cross-posted messages to the group >I happen to read it in, but this is going to some worthwhile groups, >so I’m gonna make an exception here.  :o) > I am glad you did. >:>This is only peripherally related to parenting, in that I think most >:>of us want to bring up our children to be nonracist and to value all >:>humans..  But the question of *homogenizing* our society also >:>looms in these remarks. >:> >You’ve brought up an important issue that is rarely ever looked at in >and of itself. What you refer to as "homogenizing" has a much more >sinister and shady meaning and history than is generally recognized. >After the US government pretty much decimated the indigenous >population of this country through a deliberate and dirty campaign of >murder, starvation, and germ warfare (the issuing of blankets, etc., >infected with small pox and other such nasties), the next step was one >of child abuse on a grand scale. In order to "take the Indian" out of >indigenous children — to "homogenize" them — they were taken from >their parents and homes and imprisoned in boarding schools. Through >any and all means, these children were forced to become white. Their >languages, religions, traditions, and identities were beaten and >brainwashed out of them. If caught engaging in anything even remotely >"Indianly," they faced severe corporal punishment, which was really >nothing more than physical abuse and torture. >That is likely the most extreme example of forced homogenization in >this nation’s history, although the chapter on Africans brought to >this country as slaves also rates high on the shame list. To a lesser >degree, but still traumatic, was the widespread belief by immigrants >of all nationalities that they had to blend in and be part of the >mythical American "melting pot," another popular phrase used in >reference to forgetting one’s heritage for the benefit of a >fast-growing superpower. > Just to add to and expand on your point here, these kinds of things > were practiced globally by all western colonial countries, not just > the U.S.  It was assumed to be the White Man’s Burden to either > ‘elevate’ the heathen people of color, or to send them to their Maker > so they could more quickly be recycled into good Christians.  Having > said that, I also recognize the difficulties of having within one’s > national boundary groups which use their ‘heritage’ to keep themselves > isolated and apart from others.  I consider this the Dark Side of > diversity.  Most of the intra-national conflicts that happen in the > world are fueled precisely by this, where minority groups seek by > military force to control others.  Avoiding this doesn’t justify the > atrocities you describe, especially since there are other, better, > more productive, ways to deal with it, but it does make it more > understandable, to me anyway. >:>Should we, worldwide, celebrate our differences? >:> >Culturally? By all means. We should also celebrate the fact that we >are all members of the human race, sharing the same planet. >:>Are we becoming a world culture with much less diversity? >:>Is that good or bad? >:> >Recent expansion of corporate globalism is a threat to *all* cultures. >Indeed, that’s part of the agenda. We’re all viewed as a resource to >be used and discarded at will. In Mexico and Central and South >America, indigenous peoples are constantly under attack by their own >governments. Whole families are murdered, land is stolen, traditions >are lost. Not a good thing. > Monocultures provide operational efficiencies, which I think explains > some of the incentive in removing diversity.  The apparent paradox is > that as diversity diminishes, the stability of the system as a whole > diminishes as well.  This is because every culture offers different > ways to look at the world, and when a culture disappears so does its > solutions, thus diminishing the pool of ideas from which to craft new > ways of dealing with new problems.  Whether discussing cultural > diversity or ecological diversity, the mechanics of both are quite > similar. >:>I had bookmarked these articles and wondered what others >:>might think about the subject.   This is racism approached as >:>by Star Trek and a real life link to the blue eyed, brown eyed >:>experiment devised after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther >:>King, Jr. in 1968 by Iowa elementary school teacher Jane Elliot. >:> >:>I wonder if anyone here has any comments on these themes. >:> >I think that racism is being used by the powers-that-be as a diversion >from the *real* "ism," that being classism. I would venture to bet >that in my home town, I have been harassed by law enforcement >officials on a level equal to that of people of color in a nearby >major metropolis. Because of my appearance and my political beliefs, I >have been harassed by the local police for most of my life. I even >gave up driving a car for a time because every time I passed a cop, >I’d get pulled over for the most inane reasons, including no reason at >all. I’m not saying that people of color aren’t targeted specifically >because of their race, because I know that they are. But we all need >to realize that if you’re low-income, an active radical, or in the >class of the working poor, you’re gonna get harassed one hell of a lot >more than the upper 5%. > I think I understand what you mean.  Both class-ism and race-ism are > convenient hooks to hang mindless prejudices.  A difference is you can > move from one class to another, while you are pretty much stuck with > the ‘race’ you are born in.  It’s a "you can pick your nose but you > can’t pick your relatives" kinda thingie.  And it does happen a lot > where class and race are substantially combined.

All this comes down to this: That any ethnic or parochial or provincial cultural ethic can be every bit as fascist and inhumane and stupid as the largest monoculture. AND any better culture found in the tiniest ethnic group or the largest monoculture can be every bit as liberating and worthy of promulgation over all the other inhumane and fascist cultures. Also, it is impossible to judge either a small ethnic group or a giant monoculture merely by the fact that they are such, and instead each must be judged and either promulgated or condemned solely on the basis of their content. In the case of the "White Man’s Burden" that was bullshit, in the case of the American "melting pot" that was bullshit, but none of those microcultures which those large scale absorptive cultures recommended "melting" were any bit better at all, nor were either worthy of any promulgation. In many ways the absorptive culture was at least less oppressive in its vagueness, which is a relief from hidebound provincial baloney. Steve

Response:

>Racism has damned little to do with what you feel about other races and >everything to do with whether you tolerate nonsensical inequities in >your own society.

Actually this does make some sense, in terms of finding a group to be above in a competitive society.  But, the problem, Steve, is that the feelings do become ingrained and that those who suffer the inequities begin to feel inferior as well.   Look at the results of the blue-eyed, brown-eyed experiment with successful adults.  The emotional components override the monetary and material ones after a while. >Those who wish to benefit from these inequities which favor them will >attempt to greedily minimize the real extent of real inequitable racism.

Sometimes, Steve, those who benefit do not even realize that the institutional racism is benefiting them at all. >It wouldn’t even matter if racism really existed, the reason has nothing >to do with races and skin color, it has to do with promoting irrational >advantage of some over others. >Steve

Well, that is partly true.  Skin color and race make convenient labels, however. Dorothy There is no sound, no cry in all the world that can be heard unless someone listens .. source unknown

Response:

> Racism is part of our makeup, but is always easier to see when the > other guy is a racist.

Minimization: "Everyone does it(racism), come on and join in! Those who say we are racists are merely greedy like we are!" > Also, behavior that may appear to be racist > may in fact be motivated by something else altogether,

Greed. > and it is just > too easy in the U.S. to scream racist without evidence and still get a > sympathetic audience.

Racism has damned little to do with what you feel about other races and everything to do with whether you tolerate nonsensical inequities in your own society. Those who wish to benefit from these inequities which favor them will attempt to greedily minimize the real extent of real inequitable racism. It wouldn’t even matter if racism really existed, the reason has nothing to do with races and skin color, it has to do with promoting irrational advantage of some over others. Steve

Response:

> I had bookmarked these articles and wondered what others > might think about the subject.   This is racism approached as > by Star Trek and a real life link to the blue eyed, brown eyed > experiment devised after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther > King, Jr. in 1968 by Iowa elementary school teacher Jane Elliot. > I wonder if anyone here has any comments on these themes. > http://startrek.about.com/tvradio/startrek/library/weekly/aa111198.htm [] > Dorothy

Star Trek explores SPECIEL differences, which are TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY UNRELATED TO "RACE"-ism. I don’t even think this is really toto’s post, I think it’s a fucking rascist troll!! Steve

Response:

This is only peripherally related to parenting, in that I think most of us want to bring up our children to be nonracist and to value all humans..  But the question of *homogenizing* our society also looms in these remarks.   Should we, worldwide, celebrate our differences?   Are we becoming a world culture with much less diversity?   Is that good or bad?   I had bookmarked these articles and wondered what others might think about the subject.   This is racism approached as by Star Trek and a real life link to the blue eyed, brown eyed experiment devised after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in 1968 by Iowa elementary school teacher Jane Elliot. I wonder if anyone here has any comments on these themes. http://startrek.about.com/tvradio/startrek/library/weekly/aa111198.htm :>The Fantasy of Racial Difference :> :>There’s no question whatsoever that vigilance :>against other than of my own culture, and :>someone accuses me of racism when that is not, :>in fact, the case, have I not myself become the :>victim of racism? :> :>Another injustice is perpetrated when, in order to :>avoid any appearance of racism, people :>sometimes simply ignore the cultural differences :>which confront them. Rather than celebrating the :>Asian origins of a food or a style of dress, it is so :>much safer merely to refuse to note it. Never :>mind that an opportunity for celebration, for :>growth, for increased cultural awareness has :>been lost. Not giving offense is all-important. :> :>It’s obvious that with the potential dangers of :>cultural interfacing, political correctness is a :>necessary constraint which, though imperfect, is :>a lot better than running around insulting and :>abusing each other. But the price we pay for :>peace when everyone is just itching to take :>offense is firmly tied hands and muzzled mouths. :> :>But not on Star Trek. :> :>How very peculiar is the phenomenon that on :>television’s most PC show, characters get to say :>without shame such things as, "Klingons are :>violent," or "Vulcans are logical to cover up highly :>emotional natures," or "The Ferengi love profit." :> :>Sure, sure. Starfleet personnel are supposed to :>respect Klingons and Vulcans and Ferengi as :>having all the same rights to greathood that :>Humans have, but the question of legitimate :>racial differences has been settled. No one :>would dream of saying that Klingons and Ferengi :>and Vulcans and Humans, while having many :>similarities, do not have very real differences in :>their genetic make-up. One gets to draw racial :>and cultural distinctions without the charge of :>racism. :> :>Wow. :> :>Now, don’t get me wrong. I am most definitely not :>wishing for some sort of Human equivalent here. :>As we now know, there’s more genetic difference :>between two African tribes than between any one :>African tribe and every Caucasian or Asian or :>Aboriginal group on the planet. Certainly we :>cannot have anything like the sort of legitimate :>racial differences here on Earth that we can have :>in a futuristic fictional universe like that of Star :>Trek. :> :>What I am suggesting is that perhaps Star Trek’s :>racial divisions serve as a cultural metaphor that :>allows us to fulfill a rebellious fantasy created by :>our hyper-PC culture. In a time when we have to :>be so careful not to acknowledge even pleasant :>differences in our many cultures — because :>people might think we are making racist :>comments in reference to genetics rather than :>environment — what luxury it is to point not to a :>difference in skin or hair color (extremely minor :>genetic variations in Human DNA), but to :>creatures with symbiants in their tummies, :>antennae on their heads, back-up internal :>organs, and other undeniably major genetic :>differences, and say, "Hey, you guys are really :>different from us!" :> :>On this safe ground, then, different cultures can :>be explored without giving rise to offense. The :>distinction between behavior which explores :>racial differences and actual racism becomes :>very clear. For example, if Dr. Bashir walks up to :>a Bolian and asks how his blue skin reacts to UV :>radiation, this is a friendly, even concerned, :>question. If Bashir tells this Bolian his fruity blue :>skin makes him sick, then this is racism. :> :>Now, please don’t write me mean letters, but let’s :>try that in Real Life. If I were to go up to a Native :>American and ask him if his reddish-brown skin :>color helps to prevent sunburn and skin cancer, :>is this a racist remark? I personally don’t think so, :>but I can certainly see how it might be taken as :>one. :> :>And I don’t think the fantasy works only in terms :>of Human characters. Quark’s attitude towards :>race purposefully crosses the line into racism, but :>he’s no Archie Bunker. His concerns about :>Hu-mans are legitimate as well. One of my :>all-time favorite moments from DS9 is his :>conversation with Garak about root beer: :> :>"It’s so bubbly and sweet…Like Hu-mans….But if :>you drink enough of it, you start to like it…Like :>Hu-mans." :> :>Federation ideals assimilate cultures with the :>efficiency of a Borg cube, and Quark has as :>much cause to worry about what will happen to :>his homeworld as do the people of a remote :>island when the representatives of Texaco :>appear on their shores and ask to do a "little :>drilling." But if you try to talk about the quandary :>faced by those islanders in Real Life, watch out! :>Racial booby-traps await you. Quark and root :>beer are, through the power of fantasy, able to :>demonstrate a non-PC but nevertheless quite :>real dynamic of our society without (hopefully) :>giving offense. :> :>Of all the themes of literature we’ve lost the ability :>to enjoy in the late 20th Century, the concept of :>"Those People and Their Crazy Ways" is :>probably the most noticeable. We can do it a bit, :>with fish-out-of-water tales about New York or :>Los Angeles, but these stories inevitably lead us :>to the conclusion that we’re all alike under a few :>cultural differences. The recognition of the racial :>unity of our planet is a wonderful thing, and quite :>necessary if we’re going to avoid killing each :>other off, but the price to cultural exploration and :>celebration of diversity, as I said, is so high. As a :>consequence, the fantasy of being able to draw :>racial distinctions without a charge of racism is :>unsurprisingly compelling. :> :>Perhaps, in the end, it is race, not space, that :>requires the boldest going of all. This experiment brought a lot of controversy because it was used on elementary school children.  Today it is used on adults who have some knowledge of what is being done. http://www.newsreel.org/films/blueeyed.htm :>Elliott contends that "A person who has been raised and :>socialized in America has been conditioned to be a racist… We :>live in two countries, one black and one white." In contrast to :>the more usual encounter group strategy, the feisty Elliott :>believes it’s important for whites to experience the emotional :>impact of discrimination for themselves. :> :>In Blue-Eyed, we join a group of 40 teachers, police, school :>administrators and social workers in Kansas City – blacks, :>Hispanics, whites, women and men. The blue-eyed members :>are subjected to pseudo-scientific explanations of their :>inferiority, culturally biased IQ tests and blatant discrimination. :>In just a few hours under Elliott’s withering regime, we watch :>grown professionals become despondent and distracted, :>stumbling over the simplest commands. :>Jane Elliott’s approach is especially relevant today. It :>demonstrates irrefutably that even without juridical :>discrimination, hate speech, lowered expectations and :>dismissive behavior can have devastating effects on minority :>achievement. Black members of the blue-eyed group forcefully :>remind whites that they undergo similar stresses, not just for a :>few hours in a controlled experiment, but every day of their :>lives. And Elliott points out that sexism, homophobia and :>ageism work in the same way. :> :>Back at her Iowa home, Elliott reflects upon how the simple :>classroom exercise she devised the day after Dr. Martin Luther :>King Jr’s assassination has transformed her life. After her :>experiment got national television coverage, she recalls, :>townspeople made threatening phone calls, beat and spit at :>her children and boycotted her parents’ coffee shop, eventually :>forcing it out of business. Dorothy There is no sound, no cry in all the world that can be heard unless someone listens .. source unknown

Response: