Getting beyond prejudice, and solving the racism problem.

I am still on the road,  but I am finding time to read some interesting articles.

"How prejudiced are Americans? The internet knows. Whether it's racism, sexism, cissexism, transphobia, classism, sizeism, or ableism, online residents are watching out for it and pointing it out at tremendous volume. Whole tumblrs are dedicated to meticulously cataloging the prejudiced histories of famous people.

While often useful and necessary, this strategy comes up short. The idea is that by "calling out" individual acts of oppression, we can raise awareness about the myriad subtle ways that prejudice manifests itself. The citizenry, better educated, will adjust its behaviors.

The problem is that white people, our dominant and most privileged socioeconomic group, tend to resist these critiques. In the case of racism, they are the ones who benefit from prejudice, and they squirm out of this stigma in increasingly interesting ways. How? These days, by loudly agreeing with those critiques, thereby signaling that they are meant for other, bad white people.

Think of the guy in critical theory class who embraces radical feminist authors extra-fervently in a bid to escape his own implication in the patriarchy. This bit of political jujitsu is rather "like buying an indulgence," as Reihan Salam put it at Slate.

One might respond that the answer is improved self-knowledge, greater humility, and more self-flagellation on the part of the privileged (see: #CrimingWhileWhite). Sure. But the problem is that there is no possible demonstration of prejudice and privilege that cannot also be appropriated by white people in the service of demonstrating the purity of their own views, resulting in an endless vortex of uncomfortable, obnoxious earnestness. Being a Not-Racist these days is getting very subtle indeed.

But there's another approach that is both simpler and far more difficult. Instead of focusing on individual guilt and innocence, the socioeconomic structure that undergirds racism can get equal or greater billing. If educating the privileged has reached a point of diminishing returns, then attacking racist outcomes with structural policy can make that education unnecessary.

Now, it should be noted that any individual instance of calling out prejudice is surely harmless and heartfelt. It should further be noted that many if not most anti-prejudice activists share these structural goals. The problem is a question of emphasis. Prejudiced words tend to get 10 times more attention than racist acts and structures. For example, Donald Sterling was hounded mercilessly for his racist comments, but largely ignored for his concretely racist actions as a landlord.

And the problems America faces go far beyond one rotten rich person. There's the prison-industrial complex. The stupendous wealth and income gap between black and white. The fact that the police randomly gun down unarmed black men and boys on a regular basis. That's just for starters — and it's getting worse, not better.

Working on those problems is going to take a massive nationwide policy effort. Prison and sentencing reform, ending the drug war, overhauling American policing, and implementing quota-based affirmative action would be a good start. In particular, there is a good case for class to take center stage in any anti-prejudice effort. Nearly all racist oppression is heavily mediated through economic structures and worsened by endemic poverty.." {More} 

I agree with the reforms needed to curb institutional racism, and that economic self-reliance is remedy and possible cure-all for "racist oppression". But what is also needed is a level of individual soul searching that so call Christians found during the Christian Awakenings of the 18th and early 19th century in the United States.

It won't be easy. The "individual guilt" the author writes about, in my humble opinion, is tied to the larger institutions because of the makeup of the people and policy makers who run those institutions.

We will probably never be able to change what is in their hearts, but we can certainly hold them accountable and shame them into doing the right thing-----even if they do so reluctantly.

       

  
    

Is satire in the eyes of the beholder?

*

Most of you know that I like to explore the World Wide Web and see where my travels take me. And for the most part the stuff that I come across is usually pretty informative, and educational. But every now and then I stumble across blogs, or blog posts that really leave me scratching my head. Not because of the ignorance or sheer risibility of the posts, but because I am often left wondering if the sites themselves were meant to be purely satirical in the vein of sites like "The Onion.", or my man, Jon Swift.

Take this little gem for instance, which was accompanied by the picture shown above: *

"I ain’t predudice or nothing but lets call a spade a spade! America ain’t ready for no Negro in the WHITE House! I ain’t a Democrat, but I can see that Jackie Kennedy brung CLASS to the WHITE House. Even though her hubby act like a horny nig, doing everything that cross his dang path!!!! LOL

But do we really want chicken bones all over the floor of the Map Room? Do we want crack pipes and thongs all over the durn floor of the Chinaman Room? Do we want pickaninnies running round the Residence? Do we want disgusting rap music bout colored bitches and hos played at full blast — until the French Ambassador glasses rattle — at state dinners where the main coarse is fat back and pickle pig feet?

You all — they still time to save this country from this disgrace!!!!! I decided — I done care how bad a white trash mother Sarah Palin is or how old or stupid John McCain is — we CAN NOT have no Negro in the WHITE HOUSE!!!!!!!"

Okay, I think get this (I hate to give these clowns hits), and I think it's to shock and attract readers because the author couldn't be serious. Or, the author could be making a serious point about just how ridiculous certain posts and comments--- like the one above--- really are.

See, that's my problem, I can't really tell if this site is meant to be a serious site or not. ("REPUBLICANS FAITH CHAT"?) I checked some of the links, and they seem to pass the smell test. So you have to wonder, what gives? It would be just like those mean libs to make up a site and pretend that they are republicans. I mean the more I read the more convinced I became that the site was meant to mock and demean republicans and Christians in general. And here is the thing: if it is meant to be purely satirical, is there such a thing as satire overkill? Are the creators of the site now using satire to do and say what they wanted to do and say all along but couldn't because of their fear of political correctness running amok?

I am so glad I have all you smart folks who comment here on the regular to help me with this, because I am sure that you will check it out and break it down for me.

Ahhh I love blogging; you can actually take a break from the mental weight lifting and ask others to do some of the lifting for you. And the real beauty of it is that you can stay in pretty good shape by just reading.

"Onward Christian Soldiers"

"Rescue me o Lord from evil men; protect me from men of violence.

[men]who devise evil plans in their hearts and stir up war every day"

~~Psalm 140:1-2~~

I have a confession to make; I am a news junkie, I can't tell you how many different stories I read, watch, and listen to every day. But some stories always seem to get my attention more than others.

Like when I came across this story about the soldiers being sent camouflage bibles by various religious groups. Apparently this has been going on for awhile, but surprisingly, it just caught my attention.

Honestly, the shit is troubling. Although I suppose that we could reason that since we are a Christian nation our troops should be protected by christ. Hey, the "evil doers" according to some groups are praying to allah, why can't our boys who are charged to protect us, pray to our god?

But who says we are a Christian nation? Not history, and certainly not the facts. Weren't our founding fathers deists? Deism was what was practiced by the intellectuals in the early part of our Republic's history. And they were folks who who believed that human reason should be used to solve political and social problems. Deist did not believe in the divine inspiration of the bible. Thomas Paine, George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson, to name just a few, were deists. So where did this myth of us being a Christian nation come from? The slaves who were brought here, and who worked to build up this nation certainly were not Christians. Nope, if you hear their plantation owners tell it, they were pagans who practiced things like witchcraft, voodoo, and other "dark" mysterious things. The Native Americans, who were already here, were not Christians. Nope, I don't think that they had a Christian god in mind when they spoke of the "great spirits".

Look, I know I am not a true believer, and if I thought that the bibles would give our troops even a slight edge over those allah loving Muslims they are fighting, I would be all for it. Unfortunately, I don't think that whoever is up there pushing the buttons has a bias in this fight one way or the other. And let's be clear, I have no problem with Christians, Muslims, or any other religious group. Most of the folks I know (like some of the people who comment here) who happen to belong to one religion or the other are good decent people. It's the ones who try use their religion to impose their will on others that I have a problem with. You know the ones; the crack pots who fly planes into buildings in the name of allah, or the crack pot who sends innocent men and women to die because he thinks he has some divine right as the leader of a Christian nation.

I do know one thing, if there is an evil force out there, he [she] is glad for the person who put us into this mess. And if he [the person who put us in this mess] calls himself a Christian, and it makes him feel better about himself and his war, well then so be it. Just keep killing those "evil doers", and we will see where that gets us.

So let's keep sending those bibles, shall we. And don't forget to make sure that they are camouflaged. After all, we wouldn't want our soldiers to give away their positions while they read the good book.

Who would Jesus vote for?

Like I wasn't going to get my two cents in on this debate. So now it seems that one of our great religious leaders here in A-merry-ca, is in an open feud regarding theology with our leading presidential candidate. That would be James Dobson. Mr. "focus on the family" himself. Good old James has taken issue with what the "O" man had to say about the old testament. Seems the two men have a totally different interpretation of the good book.

"I think he's deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology,
"... He is dragging biblical understanding through the gutter."

Really Reverend? And how do we know that your interpretation is the right one? Personally, I think this entire debate is silly. To me, it's like arguing the historical accuracy of stories in the Harry Potter series. But that's just me.

So there goes the "O" man. He has jumped right into this religious debate. (Hell, he even compared Dobson to Rev. Al. Those are fighting words "O" man) "Folks haven't been reading their Bibles,..." I see you have "O" man, but if you think it's going to get you the evangelical vote I have some news for you. Your advisers should have told you to just leave the religion thing alone. Lord knows it's gotten you in enough hot water. And now I hear that you are going to be reaching out to Christian radio and blogs (I guess I won't be hearing from your campaign anytime soon). "American Values House parties"? Just what the hell will we do there? Listen to Pat Boone Cd's, and bake flag shaped cookies? I don't know "O" man, you might want to reconsider that one.

Say what you will about Mr. Morton, the guy does have a certain agnostic streak about him that I admire. You won't see Mr. Morton in a bible scripture battle with some prominent preacher. Not that he needs to be. Trust me, he is a republican, and dem folks don't vote for Ivy League educated Negroes from the South side of Chicago, for POTUS. They just don't.

So "O" man, leave this battle alone. Ask yourself : wwjd. I bet he would turn the other cheek.

You might want to do the same.

Why Osama won.

I am always sceptical when I hear people yearning for the "good old days"in America. A time when according to them there were real family values in this country, and the American dream didn't seem so illusive. But the "good old days" to me didn't represent what it did to most A-merry-cans. The good old days to me represented a time when black people weren't in magazines or on television, and they had to drink at separate drinking fountains. But still, there are some good old days I would like to go back to. That would be the good old days before September 11, 2001.

Remember those days? The days before nineteen Saudi Arabian men decided that they wanted to hook up with 72 virgins in paradise, and decided to turn four commercial airliners into bombs. Those bombs ended up killing over three thousand of our fellow citizens, and forever changed our lives here in A-merry-ca. As Don McLean sang back in the day; "bye bye Ms. American pie".

Now thanks to a president who saw those attacks as the start of a spiritual war between Muslims and Christians; those lunatics didn't just kill over three thousand people that day, they killed the American spirit and what America stands for as well. I wonder what happened to that America? A place where we actually had civil liberties. A place where we could say and write whatever the fuck we wanted to without the fear of some government black suit throwing our asses in an unmarked plane and shipping our asses to Egypt, so that they could torture us until we vowed to vote republican. A place where we weren't paranoid every time we picked up the phone or stepped outside our door. A place where there wasn't a twenty four hour so called news station which focused on supporting the government and dividing the country along racial lines for the sake of ratings. A country where there wasn't a noose around every fucking corner, and every small town District Attorney from Michigan to Mississippi wasn't locking up people of color and throwing away the key.

Oh if we could only have those days again. Where did they go? I want to know, because not only are we fucked on a domestic level, but I am considered an American, and damn near every poor Arab boy in the world wants to kill my black ass because of my president.

Am I afraid? You bet your Chevy and your apple pie that I am. I am very afraid now and I wasn't afraid before 911. But I am not afraid of those Arab boys, I am afraid of my own government; and that is why Osama has won.