From Msharmony
Quote:

"we can be 'americans', without having to give up scottish, irish, german, jewish, catholic,, or any other traditions and values of our ancestral culture,,,,,,but many african americans dont have a way to truly know what their ancestral culture was or to feel that same connection as those whose ancesters arrived consentually and because of starting out and remaining 'outsiders' for so long,, mere 'assimilation' will not be enough of an answer as it may be for those who arrived here consentually and were able to physically and asthetically be seen and ACCEPTED as part of the fold,,,,,"



This is a real psychological problem; always has been since the time of the Emancipation Proclamation. It has over the years been brought up but never even partially dealt with to my knowledge. It has always been far easier to dismiss, especially by various Presidents and their all white advisers and Cabinet members. Silence is a form of denial despite elected members of Congress who are of African ancestry. Only two members from the US congress, as far as I know ever tried to bring this matter up either publically or in meetings with the White House. Adam Clayton Powell and Shirley Chisholm (NY and Texas). Powell was always being dismissed as a buffoon and an idiot because of his occasional rants and behavior,(he certainly was no 'idiot'!) and Chisholm got total silence, even by many other Congressmen. Many gave the impression that they had no idea or concept of the psychological problems could be that caused so many African-Americans to assimilate and fully integrate with 'normal society' in America. Sadly, it still seems they do not and possibly do not want to understand. This wound still festers...It needs; it must be openly discussed so as to at the very least try and understand the consequences of a historical trauma.
Having lived in several African countries one thing Americans of African descent can be thankful for not having is the sense of Tribalism which permeate all aspects of life; most assuredly, all
political life....and even death. If the continent of Africa was compared to a charnelhouse in the 60's due to the uprisings of its peoples against the more despotic and murderous colonial governments, it still is , primarily due to the continual inter tribal warfare that still continues to decimate entire populations there. It is , sooner or later, a vexing problem for all African countries south of the Sahara. Tribes within the political borders that are a colonial hold-over are ever ready to start butchering each other at the least 'provocation'. Since the demise of Idi Amin, who had been touted as 'a danger to the continent of Africa', there have been an upsurge of tribal wars spreading to many surrounding countries and which follows the immigrants to even North America and Europe. The UN, of course, will not address it as each country proclaims 'interference into the internal affairs of the sovereign nation of(fill-in-the blank).
apologies for getting somewhat off topic)

So, you are saying that it an act of racism for someone to tell others that their racist behavior perpetuates racism.

Well, isn't that a case of the apple calling the orange "fruit".

Do you know the origin of the English word "slave"?

The word comes from the name "Slav", which was the name of a group of Caucasian people who used to be enslaved.

That's right. Historically, people of all "races" have been victims of slavery, including people who were racially "white".

Also, there is a difference between identifying one's self as being a member of an ethnic group (examples: Scottish, Irish, Slav) and judging people by their outward "racial" characteristics.

Suppose that a Christian who happens to be outwardly "black" calls a Muslim man "brother" because that Muslim also happens to be outwardly "black". The two people could be of completely different ethnicities, but the Christian has judged the Muslim solely according to skin color and deemed the Muslim "family" solely because of skin color. That would be an act of racism.

Now, suppose that the same Christian encounters a Christian man who happens to be outwardly "white". The two people could have grown up in the same culture, one in which racial discrimination was dying relic of a previous era. The two could have plenty of cultural things in common, but the first Christian doesn't call the Christian man "brother" despite their shared faith. That would also be an act of racism.

Boys and girls, we aren't living in the middle of the 20th Century. These days, people of different outward "racial" characteristics are growing up immersed in the same culture. They are living in the same neighborhoods and apartment complexes. They are attending the same schools, attending the same churches, working in the same factories. In short, people are growing up ethnically the same despite any differences in their outward "racial" characteristics.

There comes a time when the culture of one's ancestors becomes a thing of the past. Sure, it is acceptable to acknowledge the culture of one's ancestors, but you can do that without denying comradeship of people who are a part of your present-day culture, regardless of what outward features that they may have. Modern-day ethnic comradeship is not dependent on a person's outward "racial" characteristics.

That is what it means to be color-blind. It means that one does not judge comradeship with another person solely according to skin color. It is an attempt to fulfill Dr. King's dream.

Here are excerpts from Dr. King's "Dream" speech:







Dr. King repeatedly talked about the need for people who are "racially" different to accept each other as brothers and sisters.

Dr. King expressed brotherhood as being color-blind. I am in agreement with him.

Oh, Dodo, when you quote those words I can still hear his voice ringing out. That got me right in the heart.

everyone sees through their own eyes...

smh,,, the message is not getting through

you are also my brother dodo, and I love you dearly

but not even you gets to accuse me of 'racism' because of whom I choose to call brother,,,,

there are different applications of the word 'love', are there not?

we love our children one way, our parents one way, our spouses one way,,, all love, but in different capacities

likewise people can be brothers and sisters in different capacities,,,whether its culturally, religiously, or ethnically

so respectfully, it IS the same thing when I call a black man my brother in aknowledgement of our similar ancestral history or cultural experience

as when I call a white man my brother in acknowledgment of a similar religious history

because, to be truthful, noone walks around with their genetic history on their foreheads,, and in THIS COUNTRY , it was the asthetic appearance that determined the treatment of people,, and that creates a COMMON cultural experience that is not only based in RACE, but perceived race

,,,its hypersensitivity that sees something more to that, and especially that can see calling someone a 'brother' (for whatever reason) as negative

I Have color blindness.

Let me set the record straight.

In the USA, people have been playing on a level playing field for quite awhile, especially during the entire 21st Century.

The unpleasant thing about playing on a level playing field is that doing so doesn't guarantee equal results. So, what happens when people don't get the results that they want?

Well, it isn't uncommon for a black American to cry "Racism!" when there is no racism because that person doesn't like the outcome of something, and the person will expect that his/her false claim of racism to be accepted as being true just because the person making the claim is black.

The harsh reality is that not only can black Americans make false claims of racism, but there have been plenty of cases of black Americans making false claims of racism. Yet, not once have I heard or read a black American social commentator admit to the existence of false claims of racism made by black Americans.

The sad truth is that too many black Americans have learned to see racism where there isn't any.

For the sake of fairness, I could be mistaken when I say that a person is engaging in racism by calling others of that person's race "brother" and "sister". My perspective could be flawed. I, too, could be seeing racism where there isn't any.

For the sake of argument, suppose that I am wrong in regards to my earlier claims. Suppose that it is not an act of racism for one black American to call another black American "brother" or "sister". Well, black Americans can do that while at the same time declaring racism to be absolutely wrong.

People genuinely opposed to racism say that racism is absolutely wrong.

People who practice racism deny that racism is absolutely wrong. People who practice racism accept an act of racism if they approve of the act's beneficiary.

Now, if a white American were to proclaim that racism isn't absolutely wrong, the that person would be accused of supporting racism . . . and the accusation would be true. The person would be guilty of supporting racism.

So, what happens if a black American were to proclaim that racism isn't absolutely wrong? Would that person be judged the same way that a white person would be judged for making the same claim?

Here is the deal:

If it is absolutely wrong for a white person to judge people by skin color, then it is absolutely wrong for a black person to judge people by skin color.

If it is absolutely wrong for black people to be denied something because of their skin color, then it is absolutely wrong for black people to be granted something because of their skin color.

The call for color-blindness is a call for all people to play by the same rules, for all people to be held accountable to the same standard.

In a color-blind society, people receive government aid based on their need, not based on their skin color. People who want to be given an advantage because of their skin color will be opposed to a color-blind society; they will be opposed to Dr. King's dream.

Dr. King dreamed of living in a color-blind society. He didn't see color-blindness as being a problem. He saw it as a virtue.

Consider the following hypothetical situation:

Ships "A", "B" and "C" are traveling on the Atlantic Ocean when all three strike icebergs, causing all three ships to start sinking.

To make matters worse, neither ship has enough life boats for its passengers.

Captain "A" of ship "A" responds to the lifeboat shortage by announcing that all white passengers will be given first opportunity to enter lifeboats, while non-white passengers will have to wait until all white passengers are in lifeboats.

Over on ship "B", Captain "B" has learned what Captain "A" has done. So, in an attempt to make things "equal", Captain "B" announces on ship "B" that all non-white passengers will be given first opportunity to enter lifeboats, while white passengers will have to wait until all non-white passengers are in lifeboats.

Meanwhile, on ship "C", Captain "C" gives all passengers equal opportunity to get into lifeboats.

Questions:

#1. Did the action of Captain "A" justify the action of Captain "B"?
#2. Was there anything dangerous about Captain "C"'s color-blind treatment of his passengers?

The moral of my story is this: Two wrongs don't make a right.

You don't set right the results of yesteryear's racism by using new acts of racism that have different beneficiaries.

The correct way to combat racism is to promote the color-blind treatment of people, which is what the late Dr. King promoted in his "I have a dream" speech. If color-blindness is dangerous, then Dr. King had a dangerous dream.

talking about race , is not racism,
aknowledging race is not racism
talking about the very real affects of historical institutional racism is not wrong

its wrong when we assume a NEGATIVE Attribute to an individual based on race

race is a very real and significant factor in AMerica, because of its HISTORICAL impact and the lingering consequences of those institutionally racist practices and beliefs

dr king didnt believe in 'color blindness', he believed in PEOPLE being judged by their (individual) character

there is as much of a difference there as there is between being sexist and aknowledging gender and its social affects, history, and impact,,,,

how 'equal' things have been and for how long is a topic for another discussion, because we will also disagree there

life is an accumulation of events, not any one moment, you cant take a child beaten their whole life and a child nurtured their whole life, and then declare they suddenly become 'equal' when they turn 18

certainly, though the eyes of the law TRY to apply equally to them,, the IMPACT of their history , by definition, starts them out on 'unequal' footing in the start of their 'equal' adult lives

similarly, a culture/race/gender of people who are oppressed dont overnight become 'equal' because laws change

laws do not change cultures, they do not change attitudes, they do not change treatment ,

they do not take that person who was permitted to run the race once everyone else had had an eight lap head start, and make them 'equal'
because they suddenly get permission to join at the starting line,,,

color blind treatment,, Im not sure what that even is

its not realistic to treat everyone as if they are the same identical person, of course it is necessary and logical to consider where each person comes from

its dangerous to assume that someone has positive or negative traits and characteristics without knowing that person

but there is a world of gray between the different examples of colorblindness and 'racism'

where racism exists INSTITUTIONALLY (not individually) it needs to continue to be improved,, even if it may not yield 'equal results'



the issue of restitution is constantly compared to a 'reverse racism',. but the stats just dont pan out that complaint,,,,,

INSTITUTIONALLY, the affects of LEGAL Discrimination and enslavement still play out ,,,,

certainly in a life or death situation, race shouldnt matter,,,
but Im not speaking of letting people die,,,here again is where different extremes are being used to make a point

Totally agree; it cracks me up when someone says they wont date a certain race, people lose their minds but if a black person says they will only date a white person, or another race will say something like that, then it's all good.

I date people; not races; and some I am not attracted to.

It's not peoples rights to date who they want; it takes two interested parties, not one.

I posted in another thread that choosing dates 'strictly' on race is racist, and I Was ,,,,strongly challenged, about my opinion.

so I agree. Individually, race doesnt and shouldnt be the 'sole' determinant in anything.

However, INSTITUTIONALLY, race does play a huge role in america, its policies, its history, its current discrepancies,,etc,,

I posted the op, because it saddens me as an african american, that we have come from blatant racism of the sixties, to the more passive aggressive racism that makes people truly believe that IGNORING my race is a better option

I Dont want my race to be ignored anymore than my gender, they are both parts of me. I just dont want to be individually assessed strictly on either of those parts.

I Agree with this!!!!