I don't think there will be progress if we don't get the mainstream whites to agree. The truely worst racist is the one who knows there are inequalities and wants to continue such a system. But they are not the biggest danger to progress. The ones who don't care because it doesn't really affect them are the ones we need to win over. I don't think we have as much progress towards change as some people suggest. Things are far worse for people who are different in this country. To convince the mainstream we need to change the dialog from "we are less lucky than whites" to "we can't get jobs because we are black". The former asks for sympathy; the latter asks for a solution. IT IS IMPORTANT to unite. I don't understand how that is so controversial as to warrant a response such as: and Lastly,
sounds an aweful lot like some of the justifications for racism. I've heard a lot of the same arguments used to defend racist remarks about sterotyping a race. Yes comparisons are natural and sometimes justified. However, that is missing my point. My point isn't comparisons offer no merit. Instead they don't however, offer as much chance to unify people. If you go into peaceful negoations to end a war blaming the other side, the other side will be less inclined to end the war. Both sides are viewing it as a war of words. Instead we should be convincing people there is no "Us" and "them". The shining example of what I want is MLK's I have a dream speech. He goes out of his way to include others. He of all should be an example of the dialog we use. I can't help but think you are standing in the way of progress if you disagree. Try looking at all the dialog on each side, from the view of both sides, and I think you'll see that it is not unlike what two enemies at war would say about each other. Wars end when peaceful dialog occurs between both sides or one side is destroyed or exhausted. In a war that hardly takes casualties, you only have peaceful dialog as a means to an end. Otherwise you are enlarging the gap between the sides, making the task of peacefully negotiating that much harder.You can be upset about it or you can accept it; the only person who cares is you.
There is no other way to honestly have the discussion, and dishonest discussion is what has led to this boiling point.
Comparisons will happen. Relatives are so much easier to discuss than absolutes. "Us v. Them" will happen. "We" are experiencing hardship because of "you."
You keep couching this in terms of "should". The fact of the matter is, we're discussing a subject with deaths and riots involved. As they aren't your deaths and riots, you don't get to determine how the conversation happens. Even if you did, calling me a racist is a truly bizarre way to go about it. This is the way the conversation is going down. You don't get to have the conversation you want - you get to have the conversation that's happening. Your best move is to adapt to the facts on the ground, not refuse to engage until the conditions are more favorable to you.
I didn't call you a racist. I also didn't dismiss those deaths. The casaulties I'm talking about are the losses in the war on words. I just want to convince you that unifying everyone is the goal. I don't think you are anyone is intentionally alienating everyone in these dicusions. I'm only offering some sort of way to change a stagnant dialog. I want the dialog to move from angry blaming from both sides and into honest discussions that will inact real change. If we can't get away from the confrontational attitude that is like what we are having here, we won't bridge the gap between the sides. We need to move towards common goals in order to unify more people. If we extend these issues to minorities of all kinds we can make more headway. For example, LBGT, even atheists, and of course other races other than blacks have similar oppression. If we unite all these fronts by generalizing the discussion to those groups, we can inact change that protects all people from discrimination. Blacks may well be one the most prosecuted in the current system. However, there is a lot of other goups experiencing similar plights that we could leverage to actually win this fight. Inclusive discussions will bring more momentum. Complex issues require complex solutions. We could better combat police brutality and stave away all deaths by police brutality. We could allow equal pay and opportunity in the workplace for all minorities. Banding together gives more minds via voters, protestors, and activists collectively working towards the problem that is public perception. Stop being confrontational and instead be forgiving and unifying. Lasltly, you are inferring a lot from what I'm saying that I don't intend. I don't know your motivations or if you view me in some way that is clouding your view of my comments. I honestly think you can agree with me but I've said something that offended you. In that case, I'm sorry and hopefully the message is clearer if you hear it from someone else MLK:
Man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love.
I would suggest that trying to unify into one equality movement that seeks to tackles all inequalities (be they racial, religious, class-based, or otherwise) will not work. The bigger we make a platform, the more persuasion we have to do to change someone's mind. But I agree with you that kleinbl00's assertion that we must conform to the shape of the conversation already happening won't work. That current shape is divisive. All too often, statements that started out being about the system turn into statements about the speakers and listeners. Just look at how often you two have been throwing around "you". Stop that: it just makes the other person more defensive. A conversation between equals (and that is what we want to become, is it not? Equals?) doesn't happen on one side's terms. When we decide one side gets to steer this conversation, that one side gets to tell the other side, that one side gets to dictate what's considered a sound argument and what isn't, we create a discriminatory power differential, and that's exactly what we don't need, because that is exactly what we are trying to thwart.
You aren't paying attention. Listen: - I know that you want unity between races. - I know that you consider this black vs. white debate to be harmful and "stagnant." - I know that you want to have a discussion about colorblindness and how we are all equal. So far so good? Here are the problem that you are refusing to acknowledge: 1) That's not the discussion. 2) That will never be the discussion. 3) You will never be in a position to determine the discussion. Check this out. It's way up at the top: I can't say this any plainer: you don't get to determine the terms of the discussion. So you've got a choice: A) have this discussion on "their" terms B) accept the status quo. There is no third door. There is no outside the box. Race is being discussed in the united states in terms of oppression of minorities by the majority. You can join in, you can opt out, but you can't say "let's change the subject." That doesn't sound like "a justification for racism." By the way - how on earth did you think that calling my speech racist would further the dialogue? Has that ever worked? Here's Mirriam Webster on pragmatism: a reasonable and logical way of doing things or of thinking about problems that is based on dealing with specific situations instead of on ideas and theories. Here's Mirriam Webster on idealism: a theory that ultimate reality lies in a realm transcending phenomena. Idealists get martyred. Pragmatists make history.White people read this rant and think to themselves that they've never participated in oppression. That they have contributed nothing to the negative outcomes that they acknowledge the minority experiences. They see that the situation has been made awkward and they don't like it. They know they can do nothing about it, yet they have the urge to try. So they attempt to reframe the argument in such a way where they are not personally culpable for the pain without recognizing that it's not an argument.
I see an awful lot of people choosing B. And if people do that, it doesn't matter what shape the conversation has. One side isn't listening, and so nothing will ever change. There are two kinds of arguments. There are arguments to persuade the person being debated, and there are arguments to persuade the people witnessing the debate. To be effective, they must take very different approaches. To most effectively persuade someone, the message must be tailored to them. They have to be shown the other point of view and its strengths while avoiding making them feel like they're being attacked. The race conversation has to be the first kind of argument. This isn't an election we're talking about, this is deeply social and deeply interpersonal. In the course of this conversation, it is simply unavoidable that people are going to feel attacked on all sides of the issue. When that happens, we have to display compassion and reframe our argument in a way that doesn't make them feel attacked. Otherwise, people take option B, and everyone loses.