Outside of the last two paragraphs, you didn't say anything that was the substance of much of what I said. You conclusion is just different. What's to get mad about?

Oh, and thanks for the link! :-)

You get links, Juliette. You always have.

And what I get angry about is making other folks feel good at Black people's expense.

Prom, Mr. King faced the same thing in many communities where minority leadership had already vested itself within the structure of segregation.To the point if he had not been a Reverend and vested within society in that regard it may have prevented his efforts. Of course a lot of his meetings were in CHurches, he could not have rented faclities otherwise. Some communites forbade this from within fearing repurcussions, church fires were common. In the end taking it to the areas not within the margins of segregation is what really made others fully aware.

This evidence shows the conclusion to ratinoalize- the business infrastructure has deliberately limited growth so it can only occur on their terms.

Now that the middle class has expanded the business world and even Republicans want to court this monied upper and middle class. What is sad is that while doing so they've expanded the lower class for every demographic as well.

Reagan cut poverty- yeah he dropped 3 grand a year off the mark so by "creating" more middle class people he actually lowered the poverty line. Some on the Clinton years saw this as well, so it is a two way street.He of course did leave open the window of attack but understood the generation would seize the intiative.

P6 there has been merit in the black work force, it was not until affirmative began that any were really allowed to utilize this in fair terms. Of course a lot people calling the shots set up straw men to make the affirmative decision look bad as well.

That goes back to addressing the stereotype dialogue. Ironic some actually used this to reinforce those in worst case scenarios which the media feeds upon("scapegoating"). The Clinton statement left one possiblity- the terms must be taken on aggressively and are being done so now by the progressives, not with any help from Bushco and with actual hindrance.

That is why the culture should push this forward and celebrate success. Make a conscious visualization . The heros mythology is vulnerable too, instead of the personal standard, find the underlying reasons for success and model them. The idea behind the person.The professional and philosophical standard language must become an armament.

And the langugage should be grandoise. Self evident truths made realities.

If the "contract with America" sham and its attempt to change the Constitution could revive codifed standards, it is time to make language which cannot be limitied in reply. Vast in its appeal and potential.

The pursuit of happiness is something that must be championed in terms of realization for all. The idea intially was only for landowners, then whites so there is a social evolution going on. Take the founder's language and apply it to all, they cannot speak against those words.

This decade has seen a rollback of the Constitution for most people.

Agreed that EVERY PERSON has ALWAYS wanted the good life of democracy. Republicans go back to the entire self determination language in their determination of selfishness. Unless the playing field is fair as you said this cannot occur and the resulting fallout and collateral damage is something they don't deal with. It's easy to agree that people do well. It's hard to agree that a narrower window of opportunity, with side affects is as much society's responsibilty as the individual's...

Good post though it shows the argument stays the same from one side, and ineffect it invites response. This thread is the result they actually want because regardless on conclusion they'll restate the same spot. because all matters have a starting point and harping the same methods they prevent the HOW and WHEN of the argument by asking WHY over and over.

Change the response dialogue until those answers are a given to the point it can be moved past the start point and the real complexities of solutions involving the three tired response of business, government, and people can find working solutions.

P6: A simple "you're welcome" would have sufficed.

And what I get angry about is making other folks feel good at Black people's expense.

Me, too. What's that got to do with the subject at hand?

No "You're welcome" because I didn't link for your benefit any more than you're commenting here for mine.

And what my complaint has to do with what you wrote is, that's what you wrote. Anyone that includes ending slavery as something Black people should be grateful to Republicans for is either an apologist for the mainstream's absolute resistance to growth and integration described in my post, a sell-out of Armstrong Williams' stripe or grossly misinformed: the current Republican party stole the identity of the Republican party of the 1800s...whose death began when the Dixiecrats switched parties, was made irrevocable by Barry Goldwater and was completed with Nixon's Southern Strategy.

You are an immigrant though, and may well be legitimately unaware so I cut you a lot of slack.

Okay, I don't believe you're unaware. I just don't choose to make the political divide between Black editorial bloggers as nasty as it is with mainstream types. You're not Misha, though you do trail little green footballs in your wake.

Mr. M:

I like your lyrics: sad song that ends on an upbeat note.

No "You're welcome" because I didn't link for your benefit any more than you're commenting here for mine.

Well, so much for doing each other the courtesy of assumng that motives are pure. Heck, I try every now and then with you. The last time I tried to have an honest conversaton was in email, for which I received no answer. Was that email for your benefit or mine? Neither. It was to ask why without being accused of grandstanding.

I guess I'll learn eventually.

You got a response

And your email:

(Your comments aren't working.) Glad to see you back in the comment mode rather than just posting articles. I would take your "outside their specific domain" comment personally, but since I know that--along with my rants--I've submitted posts using valid premises and cogent reasoning, I just can't. (Now whether you, using the same tools, would come to different conclusions is a separate issue.)

Should I chalk this oversight on your part up to your polemicist and rhetorical tendencies? Don't know, since I don't you and have rarely visited your site (not because of what you saw, but because you've rarely had anything to say of your own lately).

…was not an attempt at communication; nor did you assume pure motives on my part.

And that was your last "attempt." Which amazed me because I do both analysis AND rhetoric. You only do rhetoric.

Maybe you will learn. Maybe not. We'll see.

By comments, I meant "posting your own opinion rather that just posting articles and leaving it for the readers and commenters to analyze. (For a while when I visited, that's all I saw, so I stopped coming by.) It was actually a compliment. (Sheesh! It seems as though there's no winning with you.)

When I get called names, however, it's illogical to assume the the caller's motives are pure. You did not call names, but you agreed with an individual who has a history of doing that to me.

Anyone that includes ending slavery as something Black people should be grateful to Republicans for is either an apologist for... Since I don't care what either party has "done" for black people--the point of my post--whether blacks are grateful to either party or not isn't important to me. That part of the post was a example of what I used to do in answer to the question posed at the beginning.

Immigrant? No I'm not.

Since you missed my analysis posts--you say you rarely visit, so it's understandable--it's not surprising that you missed that it's my father who was born in Kenya, not me.

I commented under the old post.

By comments, I meant "posting your own opinion rather that just posting articles and leaving it for the readers and commenters to analyze. (For a while when I visited, that's all I saw, so I stopped coming by.) It was actually a compliment.

Really? Okay.

(Sheesh! It seems as though there's no winning with you.)

Actually, if you're competing, you're right.

When I get called names, however, it's illogical to assume the the caller's motives are pure. You did not call names, but you agreed with an individual who has a history of doing that to me.

Funny, Mac Diva had the exact same issue with me. She got over it.

I'm sorry if it's a problem that I have no issues with someone you don't get along with. That's not a burden I accept from anyone, though.

Anyone that includes ending slavery as something Black people should be grateful to Republicans for is either an apologist for...

Since I don't care what either party has "done" for black people--the point of my post--whether blacks are grateful to either party or not isn't important to me.

In our first conversation I pointed out that, because of your audience, the things you say about Black people will have a particular impact.

My question: is it too much to ask of others not to question the validity of these views and experiences?
If (editorial) you aren't questioning your own, yes it is.

And, should individuals examine the validity of their own views every now and then?

I challenge myself on the regular. I accept challenges too. Others I question more than challenge. My question to you about the post that started it all is, who's your intended audience?

See, the way you said all that was not in a fashion that Black folks will hear as an attempt to be helpful. I'm pretty convinced you know that. And when white folks respond like

Black Americans Victims Of Their Own Leaders

Juliette aptly illustrates the "white man keepin' us down" fallacy being sold to some of the minorities by their own leaders and she exposes it for what it is – an excuse to fail.

and you don't challenge it, it would be real easy to write you off. As you say, this sort of response is a piece of the puzzle and part of the problem. But do you realize your acceptance of this misunderstanding of your statement is seen as validation by Chan Eddy?

Of course you do.

And when Will did not respond well to the comments you challenged HIM…further validating the truly bullshit assumption that Black people do not want success or prosperity?

You know, I'll have a similar experience and tell a similar story…up to a point. The point will be where I try to school the brother on how his attitude is a problem, and maybe how to get around it. And the story I'll tell will be about how it's is a normal, though suboptimal, human reaction to come to his conclusion while living in his circumstances.

This is not an attempt to hold the moral high ground. It's a recognition that if I meet Chan Eddy I will start out facing an even further entrenched set of assumptions.

Was it actually "not worth the time" to say "Black Americans Victims Of Their Own Leaders" was not the point of your post? Or was it…I'm open to being convinced I'm wrong on this point as well.

You understood that. Yet you continue as though you don't. Though I am arbiter of no one's behavior but my own, I find that troubling.

When you called me out on that, I said that you were right about the mischaracterization of that particular post and posted a comment to the author of that headline, correcting his perception. Perhaps you didn't see it, but I didn't think it was necessary to point it out to you.

And if you recall, I didn't challenge Will. I asked him a question to clarify something he was saying and he...well, I can't think of a better phrase than this...nutted up.

Funny, Mac Diva had the exact same issue with me. She got over it.

If I said that I wasn't Mac Diva, I'd merely be stating the obvious. However, if you recall, I did get over our spat concerning what I know or don't know to be true. (Someone telling me what I think, when I know that I don't think that will do that to me.) As I said, I used to visit here intermittently, looking for your take on things. When I found that sparse, I stopped.

I pointed out that, because of your audience, the things you say about Black people will have a particular impact.

I remember reading this. My questions: what type of impact? will the impact be good or bad? if it is bad, how much of that impact will matter if we gain power for ourselves in the same manner that the Jews have in this country, i.e. education, hardwork, networking, etc.?

We can't do the latter--gain power--by shooting ourselves in the foot: expecting either Democrats or Republicans to do the things that a competent people should be doing for themselves. All they need to do is get out of the way.

By the way, since I've grown a thicker skin in the last few months, I'll be continuing this conversation for as long as it goes.

All they need to do is get out of the way.

they=Dems and Repubs

When you called me out on that, I said that you were right about the mischaracterization of that particular post

that particular post ???

That's a bullshit word game, and you know it. It's only less offensive than when the police use the tactic here in NYC because you can't kick my ass over the Internet.

and posted a comment to the author of that headline, correcting his perception. Perhaps you didn't see it, but I didn't think it was necessary to point it out to you.

Of course I saw it. THAT'S WHY I KNOW YOU UNDERSTAND THE IMPACT YOU HAVE WHEN YOU RAG ON BLACK FOLKS.

And if you recall, I didn't challenge Will. I asked him a question to clarify something he was saying and he...well, I can't think of a better phrase than this...nutted up.

He asked a question:

What if he meant, "They are creating a hostile learning environment, and, since this isn't conducive to an optimal learning experience, I'd rather not experience this." Is that a legitimate complaint?

You responded with a debating tactic rather than an answer, as you are doing now:

The man in question in my above post was solely referring to the application process. There is no question of it.

Could you explain what you mean by hostile learning environment?

That has no bearing on his question which, if one is literate, is quite clear. You are literate. Therefore you understood him. Second corollary: you were simply avoiding a response.

If I said that I wasn't Mac Diva, I'd merely be stating the obvious.

Just my way of letting you know I don't yield on the point due to politics. One shouldn't even mention their issues with someone else when dealing with me. Their karma and your karma is not mine.

I pointed out that, because of your audience, the things you say about Black people will have a particular impact.

I remember reading this. My questions: what type of impact? will the impact be good or bad? if it is bad, how much of that impact will matter if we gain power for ourselves in the same manner that the Jews have in this country, i.e. education, hardwork, networking, etc.?

That's your question now. You had none then...and that wasn't the end of our talk…if your skin has thickened, it was healing from being thinned out AFTER that talk, in response apparently to someone other than me.

You want to know the impact you have? You make white people think it's okay to write shit like this:

Black Americans Victims Of Their Own Leaders

Juliette aptly illustrates the "white man keepin' us down" fallacy being sold to some of the minorities by their own leaders and she exposes it for what it is – an excuse to fail.

They cite you as evidence.

Is that good or bad, Juliette?

Doesn't it BOTHER you that Black-hating racist bastards see you as a fellow traveller?

I answer ALL your question. I'm asking these.

We will continue with your power questions AFTER you answer these simple questions. Though after seeing you cavort on LFG (in the thread where The Black Republican decided to link to my post expressing annoyance over a white boy calling himself that rather than to the explanation on his own site) I understand they don't bother you personally because they don't bother YOU, personally.

And it's good you've got thick skin. You may be here a while.

I've come to see you almost as yin to my yang, Baldilocks.

Well, P6, since you have me pegged, what more is there to say? /sarcasm

That's a bullshit word game, and you know it. It's only less offensive than when the police use the tactic here in NYC because you can't kick my ass over the Internet.

I probably can’t kick your ass in person either. :::shrug::: You know it’s this type of pointless rhetoric that made me believe initially that it wasn’t worth bothering trying to engage you. I correct another’s misperception--that you pointed out--and I still get excoriated for it and get compared to rogue NYC cops. At least I don’t talk about you behind your back.

I try to engage Will in conversation, and I get accused of using a "debate tactic." Never mind that I know that it wasn't. I wanted to get specifics so I wouldn't be accused of assuming what Will meant by his comment, i.e. presuming to know what's in his mind. I hate it when others do that to me, so I try not to do that to others. Likely, having dealt with this, I might have agreed with him in some cases and given examples of how to combat it, both outwardly and inwardly. But I never got that chance. And, yes, his response angered me greatly, because we had the chance for some good, constructive dialogue and he refused. He links to my post, points out his disagreement and then stomps away when I try to find out the specifics of the disagreement. That tells me at least one thing: he didn’t want to talk, but wanted to hold me up for ridicule. Well, screw that and him. Talk, agree, disagree, ask questions and answer them. (By the way, that’s why I’ve promised myself I’d hang in here. I can’t criticize others for not having guts if I don’t have them.)

And that's what I'm trying to do with you regarding the impact questions, your insulting responses aside. I'm trying to have a civil conversation here with you and I'd appreciate it if you would refrain from hurling invective at me. Okay?

You want to know the impact you have? You make white people think it's okay to write shit like this

I took care of it. What more do you want?

In answer to your question, it's bad. But I'm still waiting for an answer to the third question: the effect of the bad impact. This is my take on that: who gives a damn if some black hating racist continues to hate blacks? As long as they stay off my property, stay away from me, mine and other black people and get out of the way (or are kept out of the way) of our education and prosperity, they can go on hating blacks with impunity. Under the above circumstances, I couldn't care less and I'm hoping that more and more black people start caring less as well.

It’s like this: why give import those that will hate us no matter what we do? (You and I are likely to differ on what constitutes hate, but that can go in another comment.) It’s up to us to take the opportunities that are out there and tell those that don’t like it to bugger off.

LGF: Cavorting? It’s shameful for anyone to post another’s address and phone number on the Internet without their permission. I was simply hoping that the perpetrators got their just deserts, especially since they’d likely be bothering some hard-working, tough black man who happens to have the same name as LGF’s proprietor. Such venal people deserve whatever is coming to them and, having been raised by black men, I know that many don’t like unannounced visitors, especially if they’re out to annoy him.

Doesn't it BOTHER you that Black-hating racist bastards see you as a fellow traveller?

As long as they stay out of our way—as set forth above--we shouldn’t care what stupid people think. One of the reasons I’m an NRA member, however, is that sometimes racists don’t stay out of our way.

I've come to see you almost as yin to my yang, Baldilocks

Now that is frightening. :-)

Seriously, it more true than you have heretofore given me credit. I still think we want the same things, but, as is obvious, widely differ on how to obtain those things. Yin and Yang? You bet.

More later…

Would you mind if I linked to this conversation in a post on my blog?

Would you mind if I linked to this conversation in a post on my blog?

Feel free.

I correct another’s misperception--that you pointed out--and I still get excoriated for it and get compared to rogue NYC cops.

You did not get excoriated for correcting someone's misperceptions.

And in fact you weren't compared to rogue NYC cops. You were compared to the NYPD establishment, who (with only three exceptions I can recall over th elast ten years, none of them in Giuliani's term) reflexively say any misdeed by the police is a one-off event. No matter how many of them there are.

At least I don’t talk about you behind your back.

I don'ttalk about you at all. I type aboutyou…and any time I've discussed anything about you or what you may have said, it's been right here on P6, and there's been a link to your blog.

And that's what I'm trying to do with you regarding the impact questions, your insulting responses aside. I'm trying to have a civil conversation here with you and I'd appreciate it if you would refrain from hurling invective at me. Okay?

Barring the above, that I admit you could legitimately take offense at, there's been no invective. In fact, the above has no invective. Just observation. I'm taking my cue from Dr. Cosby, no longer concerned about who sees what dirty laundry.

You want to know the impact you have? You make white people think it's okay to write shit like this

I took care of it. What more do you want?

I want you to be conscious. I want you not to feed the fools.

You're still calling it, or thinking of it, as a one-off event. Meanwhile every little green sports fan that passes through your posts about Black folks walks away REALLY happy.

In answer to your question, it's bad. But I'm still waiting for an answer to the third question: the effect of the bad impact.

That would be because I said I'd answer after your response to my question, which you have just provided.

The effect is bad. By definition.

This is my take on that: who gives a damn if some black hating racist continues to hate blacks? As long as they stay off my property, stay away from me, mine and other black people and get out of the way (or are kept out of the way) of our education and prosperity, they can go on hating blacks with impunity.

I agree with what you say.

But do they stay off YOUR property? How many blogs on your blogroll would I have to read before hitting something intended to be REALLY offensive to Black folks? How many Chan Eddys read you daily?

We don't have the circumstances that you say makes you unconcerned about the racists that read you. Even Dr. Cosby recognized that.

Seriously, it's more true than you have heretofore given me credit.

Like I said, you get links. You always have. I had to have a conversation once with someone you probably don't even remember.

I know you have limits. Dr. Rice has limits.

You did not get excoriated for correcting someone's misperceptions.

And in fact you weren't compared to rogue NYC cops. You were compared to the NYPD establishment, who (with only three exceptions I can recall over the last ten years, none of them in Giuliani's term) reflexively say any misdeed by the police is a one-off event. No matter how many of them there are.

Okay. If it wasn’t a comparison, I fail to see why you added it, other than for inflammatory rhetoric’s sake during a conversation in which we—you and I—are trying to understand where the other is coming from.

I don't talk about you at all. I type about you…and any time I've discussed anything about you or what you may have said, it's been right here on P6, and there's been a link to your blog.

Was there an email heads-up to that Walter post—the one in response to my email to you--to alert me that you wrote it? If I missed it, I retract the statement and apologize.

Barring the above, that I admit you could legitimately take offense at, there's been no invective. In fact, the above has no invective. Just observation. I'm taking my cue from Dr. Cosby, no longer concerned about who sees what dirty laundry.

Word games? I thought we weren’t playing those. Venomous language: check (weak ass excuse); blame or ill will: arguable, though capital letters don’t generally denote good will. It’s a toss-up.

Regarding the dirty laundry issue, if you don’t care about it, I cannot understand why you care about some racists’ feelings, one way or the other.

I want you to be conscious. I want you not to feed the fools.

You're still calling it, or thinking of it, as a one-off event. Meanwhile every little green sports fan that passes through your posts about Black folks walks away REALLY happy.

Okay. If it wasn’t a comparison, I fail to see why you added it,

It WAS a comparison.

You were compared to the NYPD establishment,

It's in the very text you quoted.

Was there an email heads-up to that Walter post—the one in response to my email to you

No. None was needed because we read each other's site.

Word games? I thought we weren’t playing those. Venomous language: check (weak ass excuse);

I'll leave off "ass" if I feel the need to go there again.

Regarding the dirty laundry issue, if you don’t care about it, I cannot understand why you care about some racists’ feelings, one way or the other.

I don't care about their feelings. I care that they are trying to solve their racial issues onmy back, and my daughter's and my immediate family's and cousins'...

I care about behavior, not feelings. And verbal behavior ALWAYS escalates if left unchecked.

I'm noticing you do not deny your appeal to racists. You deny caring whether or not you appeal to them.

Okay, what is it that makes it bad?

You yourself said it's bad, so you know the answer already. The real question is, why do you accept this when you know it's bad?

But I will answer you. There's a certain level on which I can't believe I'm doing it, but...

I should probably shift into The King's English-Precision Mode.

All Americans have a race issue. Basically, white folks' race issue is they don't want to be held responsible for racism. Black people's race issue is they don't want to experience racism.

Just as we have parallel issues, we have parallel tasks…IF our goal is to fix things rather than simply get off the stress the race problem causes.

If white folks collectively can simply decide they have no responsibility for the racial problems we face then we are going to live with them forever. The simple reality is Black people cannot force white people to change. It's fortunate the racist buy-in has never been absolute. But damn it, if I have to take responsibility for the ills of the Black "race", white folks have to take responsibility for the ills of white "race."

Or, we can grow up. Consciously abetting denial on either side is damaging to us all. But I'll tell you categorically that a racist who has a Black person supporting their position feels more securely anchored than they would with equivalent rhetorical support from a white person. They resist change more strongly and thereby anchor us to the past more firmly.

And no, you're not solely responsible for this.

And Walter wasn't the person I had to talk to in regard to you.

P6, I came over from Juliette's blog, so I suppose I'm one of those white LGF people she's cavorting with. I just wanted to say that I was particularly struck by this line in your last comment:

All Americans have a race issue. Basically, white folks' race issue is they don't want to be held responsible for racism. Black people's race issue is they don't want to experience racism.

I think that's a really good way of defining the situation. However, I -- and I'm sure other white people -- sometimes feel frustrated when it seems black people claim to "experience racism" in instances where it just doesn't seem to be true.

I admit that many people do need to grow up, both black and white. But I assure you that we white people constantly walk on eggshells to try to avoid offending the black people we work with, for fear of saying something wrong and being charged with "racism". Do black people walk on any similar eggshells?

I see things through different eyes than you, but in 2004 I see white people walking on those eggshells and black people pointing a lot of fingers. That's what I see going on; perhaps you can shed some light from your point of view.

People, people can't we all just get along?

P6, I suspect that I'm merely volunteering for some abuse here, but you seem to be a dozen kinds of twisted up in determination to find reasons to be crappy with whitey. "white folks' race issue is they don't want to be held responsible for racism." It's not that I don't want to be held responsible, but that I am not and will not be held liable for the crimes or perceived crimes of other people's ancestors.

Further, guilting white folks is getting more and more difficult as we get generations past Jim Crow. That stuff was ugly, and a lot of white folks have - largely deservedly - felt great guilt for the ill treatment of blacks. However, no one below about the age of 45 or 50 has even childhood memories of Jim Crow.

Thus, very few 20 or 30 year old white guys have EVER oppressed a black man. I know I've never been mean to someone for being black, or insisted on a black person moving to the back of the bus. Nor, to the best of my knowledge, has anyone in my family.

In short, I for one am innocent, and simply refuse to accept a package of unearned guilt.

There's no such thing as a "level playing field." In the classic words of Tom Petty, "everybody's had to fight to be free."

In fact, we've pretty well dismantled institutional racism in America, and the big majority of people are trying to do right.

However, y'all got to meet us halfway. Recognize that some of the problems come from your side of the aisle. For example, I'm sympathetic to the classic complaint about black guys having trouble getting a taxi, but do you expect taxi drivers not to notice or take into account that young black men in this country have far higher crime rates than about any other group? Do you expect them to ignore reality in front of their faces and their own physical security?

I gently suggest that at this point black folks are most often their own worst enemies. I hasten to add that I am probably my own worst enemy.

I have not found much noticeable advantage in being white. The one real main benefit of being a heterosexual white male really seems to be that we are more held to standards. When I screw the pooch, I don't get to blame it on anyone else.

The question should not be what the Republicans are doing for you, but what the Democrats are doing to you. Left wingers have spent many decades infantilizing minority groups, particularly black folks. They seem to have convinced a lot of people that they are weak and helpless, incapable of doing for themselves without the benificient help of the Democrat Party to stop the evil white man conspiracy against them.

"If white folks collectively can simply decide they have no responsibility for the racial problems we face then we are going to live with them forever."

Not necessarily. Those what are are screwing up can straighten up and fly right. Whitey CAN'T solve the problems of the black man.

'if I have to take responsibility for the ills of the Black "race"'

Well, no, you, P6 do not have to take responsibility for the ills of all black people - just your own.

By the way, what exactly would I, Al Barger, need to do or say in order be judged clean and not-racist?

Finally, a few words in defense of the lovely and fierce Miss Juliette: The issue shouldn't be how any words she says might be used, but whether her words are correct.

You're attributing FAR too much power to the opinions of whitey. The success or failure of a black man trying to break out of poverty will be largely based on their own actions, and will have little to do with what Al Barger or any other white guy thinks. Further, their success will have NOTHING to do with what whitey thinks about what Baldilocks thinks.

Let us conclude this evening's seminar on racial reconciliation by reciting together as one the wise words of Aunt Eller from "The Farmer and the Cowman"

I'm not saying that I'm better than anybody else
But I'll be danged if I ain't just as good

Although I disagree with much of it, this has been a helpful discussion to read - primarily because it helps show the perspective that each side is coming from. That understanding is paramount in hearing what each side is trying to convey.

Here is one point from an individual white guy. I'm not pretending that I speak for the entire race, but here is what I see and why.

This statement really got under my skin and it took a bit of thinking to figure out exactly why:

All Americans have a race issue. Basically, white folks' race issue is they don't want to be held responsible for racism. Black people's race issue is they don't want to experience racism.

For me, this is an offensive concept because I never consciously think of myself as part of the 'white race'. I'm just an individual person. I relate with other individual humans, who I also don't view as members of a specific race.

There are many factors which influence how I view an individual: character, respect, work-ethic. Race is such a broad and meaningless canvas that it has no value to me as far as predicting behavior or character.

From the statement quoted above, you (P6) obviously view things through the framework of race. You see your own identity as something you share with other blacks and classify me with all other whites. A racial offense against another black person becomes an offense against you - an assertion which you have every right to make. The logical flipside is that a racial offense from another white person becomes an offense from me - an assertion which I do not accept.

I'm not saying that your perspective is wrong and mine is right, I'm just observing how different our worldviews are and how that interferes with communication and relationship. If I tell you that I'm not racist, you take issue with that because you have experienced unfair treatment from other members of the group I belong to.

The above statement is true in that I do not want to be held responsible for racism. But it is not because I'm denying that racial injustice exists or that I'm endorsing it. It is because I don't see myself connected in any way with the small-minded people who mistreat others because of the color of their skin.

I'm a pretty regular visitor to Juliette's site and followed her link here. I thought it was an interesting conversation, but ultimately frustrating because P6 couldn't see J's point. As a "white guy", "member of the White Race" (P6's definition) or "a guy who can't jump" (Hollywood's definition), I do have a couple of takes to add to the ones already put forth.

a. The problem with black perception of racism is that it's about achieving perfection--something that will *never* be attained. If 1 in every 1000 white people is a racist, a black person who encounters whites regularly is going to hit that 1:1000 ratio every few weeks. If 1 in every 100,000 is racist, the black community will hear about a racist incident every few weeks and a black individual is probably going to encounter racism a few times in their lives. If that 1 in 100,000 runs a blog or a hate website, it is that much more public. As a member of the 99,999, I cannot own the problem of that 1. And you need to focus on those 99,999--as hard as that may be at the time.

b. The part that was most interesting in the thread above was how P6's problem with Juliette wasn't with what she said, per se, but with the fact that she was publicly criticizing blacks in a way where white people might see it and might misinterpret it. I had a good friend in college who was black (a black activist no less) and we once had a huge talk about this exact subject. My argument to her was that it hurt the black community's credibility to be depending on people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton as their public mouthpieces and advocates, and I didn't understand why the black community couldn't see that. After many late night hours of debating this, she finally admitted that in reality, a lot (if not most) blacks don't really like or respect those mouthpieces either, and criticize them in private. But *to the outside world* they don't criticize them because "they are all we have!" and they didn't want their mouthpieces marginalized or undercut by their criticisms. That was back in the late 80's when Jesse was a bigger deal, I guess. But now I see the same argument again. Only what has changed is that those dudes aren't all you have anymore to be your advocates in the public realm. Condolezza Rice takes a lot of crap--more from blacks than whites--for what? Colin Powell could be the next VP. Bill Cosby is loved and respected by millions and millions of people.

It is time for blacks to realize that their self-censorship of criticism for their own has got to stop. It is only hurting them to cling to the relics and rhetoric of the past. Whites see it, whether blacks criticize or not. Start sticking to the people going places instead of clinging to the people you had no choice about before.

I'll have my reply to P6 in the morning.

I'll be more than ready.

I'll be out tomorrow afternoon, so if you time it right it will sit unchallenged for a while. Let your thoughts (in combination with a few others) marinate.

P6

If you do not, or will not, acknowledge the majority of whites that hold no animus toward blacks, (indeed we want the number of succesful blacks to grow, big time), how do you expect our numbers to increase?

What am I to think when I look in a black man's face and see that I am disliked, distrusted, and disrespected because I am white?

Actually, since my online IT program takes precedence over my play time here, timing isn't a factor, other than playtime coming after work.

------

[Skipping the stuff about comparisons, since it was merely insult time.]

No. None was needed because we read each other's site.

But you just said that you rarely read my site. Okay, nevermind.

I'll leave off "ass" if I feel the need to go there again.

It was all three words--not just the one-- that constituted invective.

I don't care about their feelings.

I care that they are trying to solve their racial issues on my back, and my daughter's and my immediate family's and cousins'...

I care about behavior, not feelings. And verbal behavior ALWAYS escalates if left unchecked.

And I did say that if what’s said escalates, the results of the escalation must be checked; with force, if necessary, by other means, according to the level that it escalates. And, again, what you or I or anyone else do/do not say will not matter to such people.

(And why would such people agree with the fact that I say and believe that, black people *are not* inferior to others and should be treated as competent, functioning adults, according to individual talent, ability and industriousness?)

I guess where we’re differing (I know you’ll correct me if I’m wrong) is in how much power such people have over the lives of black people. I say it’s minimal *if* we accrue more power for ourselves, especially through the means which were specified by me.

I refuse to cede any power to those that would hate me no matter what I said or did. Were I to self-censor for any reason that involves what they think or feel, that action, to me, would cede yet more power to them.

I'm noticing you do not deny your appeal to racists. You deny caring whether or not you appeal to them.

I have no way of knowing whether I have that appeal or not, which is why I‘ve neither confirmed nor denied it. And, since you are indeed correct that I couldn’t care less about it (which I’ve stated several times here), there is no point in arguing about it.

You yourself said it's bad, so you know the answer already. The real question is, why do you accept this when you know it's bad?

I’m asking for specifics: how,, specifically, is it bad. However, you answered in that paragraph about escalation and below.

But I will answer you. There's a certain level on which I can't believe I'm doing it, but...

I should probably shift into The King's English-Precision Mode.

All Americans have a race issue. Basically, white folks' race issue is they don't want to be held responsible for racism. Black people's race issue is they don't want to experience racism.

Just as we have parallel issues, we have parallel tasks…IF our goal is to fix things rather than simply get off the stress the race problem causes.

If white folks collectively can simply decide they have no responsibility for the racial problems we face then we are going to live with them forever. The simple reality is Black people cannot force white people to change.

It's fortunate the racist buy-in has never been absolute. But damn it, if I have to take responsibility for the ills of the Black "race", white folks have to take responsibility for the ills of white "race."

Who says that (proverbial) you have to take responsibility for the ills of the black race? You’re free to do it or not do at your discretion, in accordance with your own conscience and in the manner in which you see fit.

Or, we can grow up. Consciously abetting denial on either side is damaging to us all. But I'll tell you categorically that a racist who has a Black person supporting their position feels more securely anchored than they would with equivalent rhetorical support from a white person. They resist change more strongly and thereby anchor us to the past more firmly.

You cede them the power to “anchor us to the past more firmly.” I say we—black people--are the ones who control whether we are anchored in that past or not.

I don’t base my opinions on who it is that agrees with me. I based my opinions on whether they make sense to me, stemming from what I read and observe. (Heck, the NOI and white separatists were in agreement with each other for a long time. As far as I know, they still are. For that reason should Louis Farrakhan change his opinion *solely* because it parallels that of Tom Metzger? [Mr. Farrakhan apparently doesn’t think so, since the two have met and agreed that their respective goals are complementary.]) Now, you may say that my reasoning is flawed, which would be a fair criticism. Hopefully, when you're explaining why you think it's flawed, you'll actually believe that you're doing it. :-)

Likely, we won’t agree as to how much power white racists have in this country. However, I’m certainly not going to hold back on what I say and give them more power as a result.

If my criticism of trends in the black community is valid, I’ll hold to it. If it isn’t, someone points it out to me and backs up their opinion with something more valid that I’ve over-looked, ignored or got factually wrong, I’ll retract the criticism and revise my opinion. That’s how it works with me.

Also, I don't criticize that with which I am unconcerned.

And Walter wasn't the person I had to talk to in regard to you.

Okay, but you might be surprised who/what I remember.

No. None was needed because we read each other's site.

But you just said that you rarely read my site.

After YOUR saying you had stopped reading mine I could not possibly have been talking about your site.

I'll leave off "ass" if I feel the need to go there again.

It was all three words--not just the one-- that constituted invective.

I'll leave off "ass" if I feel the need to go there again. Then there will be only two words.

Who says that (proverbial) you have to take responsibility for the ills of the black race? You’re free to do it or not do at your discretion, in accordance with your own conscience and in the manner in which you see fit.

That's kind of you to say. You are in disagreement with the majority of society, though

I say we—black people--are the ones who control whether we are anchored in that past or not.

And I say we-Americans-are in it together, like it or not.

When I move, you move…just like that.

Funny though…I never thought of you as a separatist.

The word "excuse" implies that I'm trying to absolve others from blame. I don't give a rat's butt if others justly or unjustly blame themselves for the injustices that have been perpetrated on black Americans or not. They've got to follow their own consciences--assuming such are present--I've got to follow mine and, of course, you've go to follow yours.

That's kind of you to say. You are in disagreement with the majority of society, though.

Be that as it may, we bloggers have forums to set forth how we may agree or disagree with the majority. Majorities have been proponents of many ideas that, shall we euphemistically say, made no sense. Change has always started with individual words and or/action to transform majority perception. The Civil Rights Movement was fueled by individual actors who came together and moved. And it gained support by the word getting out through the media of that time. (No worries about my ego;it's big but it's not *that* big. I don't think that I have that kind of juice.)

What I am saying is that our fate is more in our own hands than at any time since before the Arabian/European/American slave trade started and determining where blame should be cast for where we find ourselves *right now* is futile. Take *now* and use it, to paraphrase Stokely.

I'm not a separatist. However, I do think that our--black people's--fate, lies in each other's hands to a certain extent,if only as it relates to the nuclear and extended family structure. Start at that level and build. That's not to say that we should separate ourselves from people of other races in any respect.

Majorities have been proponents of many ideas that, shall we euphemistically say, made no sense. Change has always started with individual words and or/action to transform majority perception.

Okay.

What I am saying is that our fate is more in our own hands than at any time since before the Arabian/European/American slave trade started and determining where blame should be cast for where we find ourselves *right now* is futile.

Okay.

Now, as I was saying, what you write convinces white folks they have no responsibility for correcting this mess. When you write things like "All black people want everyone to love them," when you lampoon Black folks, and obviously not all your readers have that LGF/Freeper outlook, your readers that have an LGF/Freeper outlookbecome more firmly set in their opinions. Which anchors the whole nation to the past…including Black folks unless we go the separatist route.

That other topic you were discussing can be continued on your blog if you like.

Well, I think we/ve beaten our respective horses to death.

Thank you very much, P6, for this dialogue and, rest assured, I won't be a stranger any longer.

J.

I haven't read any of the comments as I write my own, so please, no one take this in that context. I want my idea to be fresh after reading P6's response.

As a Conservative, and as a Republican, and more importantly as an American, it is my sworn duty and purpose in life to make the "playing field" as totally unfair for everyone as possible, to my exclusive benefit, and always within the boundaries of what is right.

"To my exclusive benefit" and "within the boundaries of what is right" means that I could give two flushes about what color anyone's skin is with regards to any "playing field." I seek to make the playing field unlevel to my benefit without regard for anyone for any reason, except to always act rightfully.

If anyone classifies me as a "White person" because I have a relative Dermal Melanin Deficiency, or for some other reason, then they are a racist. If anyone applies some sterotype to me based on prior racist classification of me as a "White person," then they are a bigot. Likewise, I would not presume to do the same to anyone else.

The solution to all racism and bigotry is to ridicule, condemn, and reject it whenever it is encountered, with extreme prejudice.

I do not associate with people who choose to identify themselves or others by any notion of "race"; to me, there is no such thing except in the minds of racists. I accept such notions as a "black person" out of respect for another person's self-identiication relative to their cultural bias(es), but as soon as a person proves that their self-identification is based on a notion of race, I will politely disassociate from them.

KoalaBear
Leading Marsupial Peoples in Eternal Struggle against The Koala.

I seek to make the playing field unlevel to my benefit without regard for anyone for any reason, except to always act rightfully.

THAT is the non-sequitur of the year.

Don't even ask for an explanation. Just don't.

Now here's another question: WTF does LGF have to do with any of this? (I'm well aware re: Misha, I juts don't see what Charles has to do with any of this.)

And who's Armstrong Williams?