Fund the police

[Era Might]

3 minutes ago, Aloysius said:

Ok, I am not at all opposed to organizations that would help organize people, politically or otherwise, although they can't claim they speak for all black people just because they have the same color skin--there is a diversity of opinions, they're not a monolith.  But they can speak for themselves as an organization and work to affect positive change in the world and for black people.

All I want is us all to live and love each other as brothers and sisters.

I am of course aware of the deep history of 'nations' as a concept, though it is a concept that has had different meanings in different times.  There are many troubling theories out there that I consider outdated but are swirling around out there anyway that center themselves around that term 'nation' though, terms that sow division and hatred between communities, basically anything that is "ethno-nationalist" (particularly ethno-nation-statist, at least, but anything that tries to sow division between peoples based on race as some kinds of 'nations' that should be competing with each other) I associate with what GK Chesterton called the "race religion" which is basically self-idolatry, "the curse of race religion is that it makes each separate man the sacred image which he worships. His own bones are the sacred relics; his own blood is the blood of St. Januarius."

Anyway I'll give a look to some of the things you mention, should make for interesting historical reading if nothing else.

Well if you only read one thing I highly suggest The Philosophy and Opinions of Marcus Garvey. He based his philosophy on the doctrine of imago dei, that every man is an image of the unseen God. But Garvey rooted his philosophy in history, rather than in sociology or economics. He said history is the landmark by which races, nations and civilizations are guided into their destiny. He loved all races because he believed in one God, the father of all. But he didn't try to erase race from history. Race is a fact of history and Garvey's message in the 1920s was Africa for the Africans, just like Ireland for the Irish or India for the Indian. I think you'll like Garvey, a very intelligent man, and a dreamer on a massive scale. He started his own ship line to create a transoceanic economy between Africa, the Caribbean and black ppl in America.

[Aloysius]

Downloaded it and will give it a look.  Though perusing his wikipedia I already know a few of the things I'll be quite against--racial separatism and being against miscegenation; but anyway, I'm sure I'll get something out of him, I do like massive dreamers in general.  Things like Africa for the Africans/Ireland for the Irish/India for the Indians can be ok if there are basic core principles at the heart of a generally voluntarist territorial core groupings based around some basic immigration limits and such, but when it turns into some hard rule about racial purity and competition between races I find it repugnant to my own highest held values.

[Era Might]

12 minutes ago, Aloysius said:

Downloaded it and will give it a look.  Though perusing his wikipedia I already know a few of the things I'll be quite against--racial separatism and being against miscegenation; but anyway, I'm sure I'll get something out of him, I do like massive dreamers in general.  Things like Africa for the Africans/Ireland for the Irish/India for the Indians can be ok if there are basic core principles at the heart of a generally voluntarist territorial core groupings based around some basic immigration limits and such, but when it turns into some hard rule about racial purity and competition between races I find it repugnant to my own highest held values.

You're making it too complex. The real point is that black ppl are their own nation. This is not symbolic. I mean literally, there are parts of America where white ppl don't fit in because they aren't black. This seems like stating something obvious but I don't think white ppl understand this. Black ppl in America are like the birds. Everyone sees and hears the birds, but nobody really know what the birds are up to, because birds live in their own world, even when they're right in front of us. That is the sort of experience we're talking about when we talk about black ppl as a political community. They aren't merely a voting bloc, they are an institution or nation, however you want to phrase it. They have their own language, culture, history, etc. And they are also Americans. This is a contradiction that white ppl can't solve or live with.

[Era Might]

The point of recognizing black ppl as a 'political community' is not to compete with national (that is, federal) government. The point is to recognize black ppl as a whole who must come together independently to formulate and fight for their own collective good. This does not necessarily have to come in the form of a political party. But it requires some way of collectively formulating self-governance and pursuing policies that empower communities to build a real economic and political base on nothing more than the fact than that they are black and American. That's simple. If you want to frame it in political terms, you could just say it's the party of people who are both black and American. They can still belong to other organizations or parties, but the point is to build up a real, independent black power structure. Black ppl aren't trying to fight white ppl, black ppl and white ppl want the same things, jobs, food, freedom, opportunity, etc.

If you would analyze America in the same terms you would the British Raj in India or Apartheid in South Africa, I think you would get the drift of how I see the United States, my lens. It's not the only lens, but I think it is the right lens for this current discussion about BLM.

[Didacus]

16 hours ago, Era Might said:

You're making it too complex. The real point is that black ppl are their own nation. This is not symbolic. I mean literally, there are parts of America where white ppl don't fit in because they aren't black. This seems like stating something obvious but I don't think white ppl understand this. Black ppl in America are like the birds. Everyone sees and hears the birds, but nobody really know what the birds are up to, because birds live in their own world, even when they're right in front of us. That is the sort of experience we're talking about when we talk about black ppl as a political community. They aren't merely a voting bloc, they are an institution or nation, however you want to phrase it. They have their own language, culture, history, etc. And they are also Americans. This is a contradiction that white ppl can't solve or live with.

Would consoder there are parts of the USA where whites cannot fit in the Asian 'community'?

Would there be a place where only whites would 'fit it'?

Personally i see nothing wrong woth BLM movement but i must remove those who take advantage of the protest to loot amd proliferate violence - those are not protesters in my book.

[Era Might]

3 hours ago, Didacus said:

Would there be a place where only whites would 'fit it'?

Yes, most of American society. The golf course. Job interviews, for example. If you're going on a job interview, you're probably going to be dealing with white ppl. You have to be mentally prepared to deal with white ppl, if you're not white.

Edited July 10, 2020 by Era Might

[dUSt]

On 7/8/2020 at 8:11 PM, little2add said:

Affirmative action programs, The Civil Rights Act of 1964 effectively ended most Racial discrimination, a black man was elected to the highest office in the land, twice.

Wow. 

[dUSt]

I agree with Era Might. haha

I think he’s basically arguing against "colorblindness". Being "colorblind" doesn't mean we are not racist, it just means we are blind.

America is a diverse set of people and cultures. When we take vacations to other countries, like Ireland, Greece, Japan, Africa, etc, we go to these places to enjoy the beauty and diversity of these different cultures. Let's not pretend to be colorblind here in our own country and lose that. We should be recognizing our different colors, embracing them, and experiencing the beauty and uniqueness in each of them.

White people would be so comfortable if black people would just "integrate" into their worldview so they can pretend differences don't exist--instead of embracing, learning about, and loving everything beautiful about being black.

 

[Aloysius]

I agree with you absolutely, dUSt, however I'm not so sure, what Era Might is saying might be a little bit more than that.  reading into Marcus Garvey, his opinions were very much black separatism and segregationism by force of governance, he argued that miscegenation was against racial purity, and he even worked with the KKK to promote separation of the races, etc.  Now I'm willing to take the good from an historical figure and associate the bad things with the times he lived in, I'm sure there are some good things to take from him, but his racial purity ideology and segregationism are unacceptable to me.

I certainly don't agree with some kind of general colorblindness, we should acknowledge and embrace our differences, yes, nothing wrong with that.    Being in favor of integration over segregation simply means, to me, being in favor of a system that allows people to intermix as much as they want to with no force forbidding them from doing so and allow them to have the same access to public spaces, giving them as fair access as possible to financial opportunity and political power, etc.  it's a balancing act between civil rights and the freedom of association--as long as those associations are free and not coerced by force, there's nothing wrong with there being different life worlds in different groups.

so anyway, Era, I'm curious as to whether you agree with Garvey's ideas on miscegenation and 'racial purity'?  That's what I take the most issue with.

[Era Might]

38 minutes ago, Aloysius said:

I agree with you absolutely, dUSt, however I'm not so sure, what Era Might is saying might be a little bit more than that.  reading into Marcus Garvey, his opinions were very much black separatism and segregationism by force of governance, he argued that miscegenation was against racial purity, and he even worked with the KKK to promote separation of the races, etc.  Now I'm willing to take the good from an historical figure and associate the bad things with the times he lived in, I'm sure there are some good things to take from him, but his racial purity ideology and segregationism are unacceptable to me.

I certainly don't agree with some kind of general colorblindness, we should acknowledge and embrace our differences, yes, nothing wrong with that.    Being in favor of integration over segregation simply means, to me, being in favor of a system that allows people to intermix as much as they want to with no force forbidding them from doing so and allow them to have the same access to public spaces, giving them as fair access as possible to financial opportunity and political power, etc.  it's a balancing act between civil rights and the freedom of association--as long as those associations are free and not coerced by force, there's nothing wrong with there being different life worlds in different groups.

so anyway, Era, I'm curious as to whether you agree with Garvey's ideas on miscegenation and 'racial purity'?  That's what I take the most issue with.

Miscegenation was an issue of rape. Marcus Garvey was an enemy of WEB DuBois and the NAACP because Garvey rejected the idea of "colored" ppl. His mission was to unite black ppl at the most basic level possible so that all black ppl were included. Garvey was a catholic in this sense, he was a universalist. He rejected the caste system implied by "colored" ppl where lighter-skinned blacks, the descendants of slave rape, held higher status. He was also a black nationalist so he was interested in building up black ppl as a nation, which means marrying in the race. And yes, I agree with his views on miscegenation. It's a complex topic but it's not about racial purity, it's about knowing who you are. Most interracial couples fit together economically, and they live in a dominant American culture where their function is to work, not to build a nation, so race is explained away in America, and Americans are consequently very ignorant about race. Marcus Garvey was a nation builder and stands in his generation with men like Lenin, Gandhi, Churchill, etc. He is caricatured as a 'back to Africa' crackpot but he was much more. Garveyism as a philosophy is in my opinion the ideology for the black man in the modern world. Garvey was a supporter of capitalism, industry, science, but he insisted on organizing black ppl as black ppl, rather than as workers or as citizens. Africa is one continent and one country and black ppl worldwide must have a common political, social and economic organization rooted in the pursuit of black power. Garvey admired America greatly and did not see black nationalism as replacing or competing with territorial/economic nationalism. In other words. Garvey believed in race as a basis of organization, not just as a point of personal pride.

Edited July 11, 2020 by Era Might

[Aloysius]

And herein we will never agree.  Such racial ideologies are repugnant to me, whether held by white people or black people.  I am not ignorant of such ideas and opinions about race that have emerged from time to time throughout history, but I do oppose them in the strongest possible terms.  These are 19th century racial theories, they are not timeless but rather inventions of a burgeoning industrialized world trying to make sense of its increasing interconnections and colonial clashes, and making sense of it in a way that had disastrous consequences until we buried such ideologies in the ash heap of history... but they are always in danger of re-emerging, I suppose, they're a hyper ideologized version of endogamy, when it comes down to it, pretending to be a natural and timeless law of human nature.

Miscegenation is not just about rape, we're talking about people voluntarily joining together and having families.  Yes, as with all couples it is most often that people marry within their same economic class (although there is often some degree of hypergamy where women will marry into higher classes).  Garvey called such choices people would make 'racial suicide' and in that, has much in common with people who talk about 'white genocide' now.  (I can consider his opinion a product of his times, though I side with W.E.B. DuBois on the matter myself, of course).  I personally think it's a disgusting ideology whether it's from black or white people, or irish or italian people for that matter, viewing race this way has been harmful throughout history and will continue to be harmful--it is not natural, and it is not timeless, either.  Prior to the colonial era and then the advent of the modern nation-state, there were many different forms of endogamy and exogamy practiced by peoples everywhere, there has always been intermixing inside and outside of one's groupings, and with modern technology connecting the world like never before that kind of intermixing is only going to increase--such intermixing of the gene pool is generally beneficial to all involved, we're all humans.  voluntary political communities can form around all sorts of shared cultures and traits in common, including racialized groups, but trying to build them around just these kinds of essentialized views on race I think is a very very bad idea.

As Chesterton said when he mocked the nazis for their racial ideology, "the essence of Nazi Nationalism is to preserve the purity of a race in a continent where all races are impure".  true in Europe, but the same is true of Africa and basically every other 'race'--there is no such thing as purity.  I know you say it's not about racial purity but in the same breath you say that "building a nation" or "building a racial political community" requires marrying within your own race.  so whether you'd use the term 'purity' or not, it sounds awfully like not intermixing is very important to your concept of what it would take to build a political community, whatever terminology you want to call it that's building a nation based on racial 'purity' in my book.

[little2add]

“Defund the police” is making the nation’s cities far less safe than they were just a few weeks ago. Criminals know the police are demoralized, with many walking off the job, and that local prosecutors, mayors, and city councils do not stand with the blue.

.We’re in a moment of national hysteria as the killing of George Floyd, the unprecedented coronavirus lockdown, and extreme unemployment are affecting our entire society. Defunding police is probably the worst thing cities can do at the moment. It will put trained police officers out of work when they could help restore and keep order. It can be expected to lead to sharp increases in violent crime in cities across the nation. Our country is likely to pay for these poor and hastily made choices for years if not decades to come, in the form of rising violent crime, population shifts away from cities, and other less predictable effects. And cities are making these rash decisions despite the fact that the majority of Americans do not support defunding the police.

[Era Might]

6 hours ago, Aloysius said:

And herein we will never agree.  Such racial ideologies are repugnant to me, whether held by white people or black people.  I am not ignorant of such ideas and opinions about race that have emerged from time to time throughout history, but I do oppose them in the strongest possible terms.  These are 19th century racial theories, they are not timeless but rather inventions of a burgeoning industrialized world trying to make sense of its increasing interconnections and colonial clashes, and making sense of it in a way that had disastrous consequences until we buried such ideologies in the ash heap of history... but they are always in danger of re-emerging, I suppose, they're a hyper ideologized version of endogamy, when it comes down to it, pretending to be a natural and timeless law of human nature.

Miscegenation is not just about rape, we're talking about people voluntarily joining together and having families.  Yes, as with all couples it is most often that people marry within their same economic class (although there is often some degree of hypergamy where women will marry into higher classes).  Garvey called such choices people would make 'racial suicide' and in that, has much in common with people who talk about 'white genocide' now.  (I can consider his opinion a product of his times, though I side with W.E.B. DuBois on the matter myself, of course).  I personally think it's a disgusting ideology whether it's from black or white people, or irish or italian people for that matter, viewing race this way has been harmful throughout history and will continue to be harmful--it is not natural, and it is not timeless, either.  Prior to the colonial era and then the advent of the modern nation-state, there were many different forms of endogamy and exogamy practiced by peoples everywhere, there has always been intermixing inside and outside of one's groupings, and with modern technology connecting the world like never before that kind of intermixing is only going to increase--such intermixing of the gene pool is generally beneficial to all involved, we're all humans.  voluntary political communities can form around all sorts of shared cultures and traits in common, including racialized groups, but trying to build them around just these kinds of essentialized views on race I think is a very very bad idea.

As Chesterton said when he mocked the nazis for their racial ideology, "the essence of Nazi Nationalism is to preserve the purity of a race in a continent where all races are impure".  true in Europe, but the same is true of Africa and basically every other 'race'--there is no such thing as purity.  I know you say it's not about racial purity but in the same breath you say that "building a nation" or "building a racial political community" requires marrying within your own race.  so whether you'd use the term 'purity' or not, it sounds awfully like not intermixing is very important to your concept of what it would take to build a political community, whatever terminology you want to call it that's building a nation based on racial 'purity' in my book.

People can sleep with anyone they want. But multiculturalism or interracialism is a social illusion. The end goal is the construction of an "American" race, a sort of post-racial nationalism. I don't stand for all that silliness. 

[Era Might]

White ppl in America are ardently patriotic about interracialism because their national identity has a leveling effect. They see American culture as a super-culture that bridges all gaps. But behind this seeming benevolence, white ppl believe in integration because it solves all problems. Black ppl are upset? Well, just remind them we're all in this together because we're all Americans. That didn't solve the problem? Well, call the police, we tried being nice.

As Malcolm X put it, when you want to weaken coffee, you integrate it with milk. When you want to disempower black ppl, just remind them of white benevolence and how white ppl have achieved so much for them. 

Edited July 11, 2020 by Era Might

[Anomaly]

4 minutes ago, Era Might said:

White ppl in America are ardently patriotic about interracialism because their national identity has a leveling effect. They see American culture as a super-culture that bridges all gaps. But behind this seeming benevolence, white ppl believe in integration because it solves all problems. Black ppl are upset? Well, just remind them we're all in this together because we're all Americans. That didn't solve the problem? Well, call the police, we tried being nice.

As Malcolm X put it, when you want to weaken coffee, you integrate it with milk. When you want to disempower black ppl, just remind them of white benevolence and how white ppl have achieved so much for them. 

And therein lies the problem.  Denying and eliminating any identification of cross racial commonality as diminishing self racial “otherness”.  That philosophy effectively eliminates identifying commonality in society.