5 questions about that national dialogue about race.

1. Is it possible?
2. Is it desirable?
3. Who is qualified to start it?
4. Is a national leader even necessary?
5. If 1 and 2 are "yes" (they are for me), will cultural progress overtake the good such a dialogue could do at any rate?

1: possibly
2: desirable? no...necessary? absolutely
3: should be black and white folks in unison (perhaps some forum where the hard issues can be debated)
4: not really, but people listen more to celebrities
5: progress without talking about it will lead to more problems

1: possibly

Fair enough. :D

2: desirable? no...necessary? absolutely

Well put, yes.

3: should be black and white folks in unison (perhaps some forum where the hard issues can be debated)

DU may not be exactly the place, if only because we're pretty white. I think it should be an in-the-flesh matter anyway.

4: not really, but people listen more to celebrities

heh.

5: progress without talking about it will lead to more problems

Enough progress could make the topic irrelevent. Maybe.

A Matrix weekend again?

will accept whites that come to the non-racist worldview, a lot more easily than the whites had to accept civil rights because of American democratic values. It will be an easier assimilation from their POV.

I'm hearing mixed reviews on that last bit...it's a bit disappointing, but I want to see it anyway :bounce:

Of course it's desirable. Painful and difficult and messy, too, but very desirable, for the good of the country.

Dirk

that an honest national discussion of race, should it ever happen, will not be a particularly pleasant affair - there are a lot of unhappy realizations waiting, even (especially?) for a lot of us who are liberal and white. That doesn't make it any less necessary, of course. My response was in that light.

because, whenever the discussion TRULY arises will be the time of the most potential for violent reactions

The ultimate goal is worth it, but I'm disgusted that humans are such racists anyway.

1)yes
2)yes
3)everyone. everyone should be included. the thing is, without honesty, it will mean nothing. people need to be able to express why they feel the way they do, without being shot down. we may not agree with their expressions and feelings on race but, if we don't know how they really feel, we can't confront it head on.

4)no, i don't think so.

5)that i'll have to give more thought to.

:hi:

the thing is, without honesty, it will mean nothing. people need to be able to express why they feel the way they do, without being shot down. we may not agree with their expressions and feelings on race but, if we don't know how they really feel, we can't confront it head on.

There's the rub, yes. That's partially what I meant by asking whether or not it was possible.

those most reluctant to talk about the issue are the individuals that can still be reached. if some are uncomfortable then, in my mind, there has to be reason. 1, they recognize their privledge and are afraid to confront the guilt and fear of life without and 2, their rationale for their feelings are based on irrational propaganda.
the true blue racist wouldn't have any qualms about discussing their 'thoughts' on race.

:hi: back ulysses!

1. Is it possible?


Yes. In fact it got started in the 60's and 70's and was progressing from race to class issues until it got short circuited by the deaths of those leaders who brought it to bear (many, not just MLK)

2. Is it desirable?

It is absolutely desirable. We were making progress until millions of dollars went into think tanks and campaigns for political gain by those who divide the masses in order to divide the classes.


3. Who is qualified to start it?

Anyone with a STRONG commitment to see it through. Dean may just be the person. I am pleased that he is able to see how one can create a hornet's nest with soundbites. Now that he has let the cat out of the bag, he need not rely on soundbites. It remains to be seen if he HAS the commitment to see it through.

4. Is a national leader even necessary?

Yes but not A national leader. MANY national leaders. The movement needs to be bigger than one person's personality.

5. If 1 and 2 are "yes" (they are for me), will cultural progress overtake the good such a dialogue could do at any rate?

Absolutely NOT unless Democrats and like minded liberals acknowledge that we NEED a language that trumps the right wing's language...granted it is easier for the right wing since their policies RELY on generalities.

We were making progress until millions of dollars went into think tanks and campaigns for political gain by those who divide the masses in order to divide the classes.

That's what goes so strongly back to Dean for me. I acknowledge that I may well be quoting a view that isn't, in fact, there, but the flag comment said a lot to me about economic class and taking on that divide.

It remains to be seen if he HAS the commitment to see it through.


True.

Absolutely NOT unless Democrats and like minded liberals acknowledge that we NEED a language that trumps the right wing's language...granted it is easier for the right wing since their policies RELY on generalities.

We keep tripping on language, don't we? Those many national leaders need to be painfully direct speakers.

an indelible image. One need NOT be inflammatory to be graphic. There IS hope though. Someone finally gets it although I have SOME monir disagreements with this article, I look forward to the results of his work.

Framing the issues: UC Berkeley professor George Lakoff tells how conservatives use language to dominate politics

By Bonnie Azab Powell, NewsCenter | 27 October 2003

BERKELEY – With Republicans controlling the Senate, the House, and the White House and enjoying a large margin of victory for California Governor-elect Arnold Schwarzenegger, it's clear that the Democratic Party is in crisis. George Lakoff, a UC Berkeley professor of linguistics and cognitive science, thinks he knows why. Conservatives have spent decades defining their ideas, carefully choosing the language with which to present them, and building an infrastructure to communicate them, says Lakoff.

The work has paid off: by dictating the terms of national debate, conservatives have put progressives firmly on the defensive.

In 2000 Lakoff and seven other faculty members from Berkeley and UC Davis joined together to found the Rockridge Institute, one of the only progressive think tanks in existence in the U.S. The institute offers its expertise and research on a nonpartisan basis to help progressives understand how best to get their messages across. The Richard & Rhoda Goldman Distinguished Professor in the College of Letters & Science, Lakoff is the author of "Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think," first published in 1997 and reissued in 2002, as well as several other books on how language affects our lives. He is taking a sabbatical this year to write three books — none about politics — and to work on several Rockridge Institute research projects.

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/10/27_lakoff.shtml

SOteric made sure she sent this to me. It's very much worth a read.

That is good stuff and true. Thanks. Need to digest that more...

already did this. Even set up a White House Office whose mission was just this.

with the subject unaddressed and the 800-pound canary still resident in the corner.

Sorry, #5 just didn't apply for me.

I'd have thought that #5 might have had some appeal to the libertarian mindset...

Ultimately, if racism is to be overcome, and it never will be completely, no more so than stupidity ever will be, it will happen quite divorced from national agendas, gigantic federal projects, think tanks, etc....

It will come from just regular folks treating everybody else like regular folks.

I wasn't proposing a cabinet-level post overseeing racial discourse. Not every national discussion is a program.

1. Is it possible?

yes, but unlikely

2. Is it desirable?

yes

3. Who is qualified to start it?

don't know

4. Is a national leader even necessary?

still don't know

5. If 1 and 2 are "yes" (they are for me), will cultural progress overtake the good such a dialogue could do at any rate?

no

Much to admire in brevity. :)

As long as there are different groups they will be prejudiced against the others and discriminate against them. What we need to do is dismantle these social constructs called race, religion, and ethnicity. Of course, it is much easier said than done...

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Only the President can
4. Yes, in order to draw attention to it
5. No. Race will be a non-issue in 50 years, just like how ethnicity is a non-issue now. The melting pot will solve this problem in the long-run.

1. Possible? Yes.

2. Desirable? Definitely.

3. Who qualified? Very few. I would recommend a true spiritual guru such as http://www.lightparty.com/HealingOfAmerica.html">Marianne Williamson (and also: http://renaissancealliance.org/) (my favorite). I can't see a politician or church leader having enough respect and credibility to do this. The person who leads this needs to respected by all and already be on record as having cared. No new-comers.

4. National Leader Necessary? Yes, but only for participation and support- not to lead it.

5. I don't think there can be any true cultural progress without dialogue. Had we addressed this issue long ago, we wouldn't be in such a race pickle right now... Really wish we had and will.

http://www.mariannewilliamson.com/

I don't think there can be any true cultural progress without dialogue.

I just keep thinking of all the teenaged interracial couples I've seen around town - it's not just intown Atlanta either, as I've seen it extending well into the white northern suburbs. I call that progress, and they're just doing what comes naturally, not preceeded (wouldn't think, anyway) by a huge amount of discussion.

Personally, I'd like to see Cornel West paired with...hell, I don't even know who, but someone, taking this head on.

Acceptance of each other can not be "legislated"..

Groups never get along until they socialize, intermarry and blend together..

If you are white or black, ask yourself these questions..

1. Do you phone someone from a different race, just to chat??
2. If you are a teen, do you "trade clothes" with someone from a different race?
3. When was the last time you took a friend to lunch (and that friend is of a differnet race)..
4. Do your kids "sleep over" at the home of a person of a different race?
5. Do you "notice" people of a different race in your neighborhood?


I could go on, but you get my drift...

Until people are truly color-blind, things will never really change..

I know people who have a mixed race GRANDCHILD, and they still make racial slurs..

As long as one group of people thinks they are "better" than another, things will never change :(

... how about the majority listen and the minorities talk?

1. Is it possible?
Yes.

2. Is it desirable?
Yes.

3. Who is qualified to start it?
Do you mean who is going to call everyone together? Or who speaks first? And what do you mean by "qualified"? If we all wait until the perfect person begins, nothing will be started.

4. Is a national leader even necessary?
Only at the end, to listen to what the people tell him or her what they've decided.

5. If 1 and 2 are "yes" (they are for me), will cultural progress overtake the good such a dialogue could do at any rate?
It hasn't so far. How long do you want to wait?

That's fine, except that the majority also needs to talk to our own problems, not just listen about them.

Do you mean who is going to call everyone together? Or who speaks first? And what do you mean by "qualified"? If we all wait until the perfect person begins, nothing will be started.

I'm in complete agreement with your last point. The problem is that we're all waiting for someone to speak, or have given up waiting. But when someone does speak, they're castigated for it.

How long do you want to wait?

I don't want to wait at all. We've been waiting a long time, though.

That is by definition racist. Doing so would destroy the dialogue before it even starts.

Perhaps you don't understand what's at issue. I don't think that whites should be mute in the discussion, but clamming up for a good while and trying to understand both the history and present of race relations in America from the other side is the only thing that would make such a dialogue possible. We've done the talking for a long time.

That is by definition racist. Doing so would destroy the dialogue before it even starts.

... but I think that if we intend to create a less racist society we need to know all the ways it is racist. Just "fixing" what the majority thinks needs fixed still leaves that majority setting the agenda, doesn't it?

Plus, the dialogue on race needs to include not only blacks but Hispanic, American Indian, Jewish, Arabic, Asian, and etc. Admittedly, we tend to think only of African-Americans when we talk about "race issues" but although the other groups are smaller in numbers, they feel the same pain from overt racism directed against themselves.

:thumbsup:

our nominee should talk about it in every speech and make it one of the top priorities of his presidency because racism is on the rise in the United States.

1. It is possible.
2. It is probably desirable, but that is not guaranteed. It could always be handled really badly.
3. Ordinary people are qualified to start it. So are extraordinary people.
4. A national leader is not necessary.
5. If so, then I'm not sure I'd call it cultural progress. However, the good that a dialogue could do is a long term thing, as would be the dialogue. It has already begun in tiny places in disorganized ways. It just isn't big (again, yet).

I am often asked about my perceptions vis-a-vis racism in America and my experiences confronting it in Germany. It gives me no pleasure to say that America is so much worse. What I've encounter in Deutschland is better described as "xenophobia" as even out in remote villages it IS possible to break through it. There is also the cultural paradigm of coming to terms with the past and admitting wrongdoing. Racism is part of the very fiber of American consciousness. It is ingrained, institutionalized, codified into law and DENIED. The present mentality of Americans is not conducive to such a discussion. White America is more deeply in denial than it was when I integrated my elementary school and the atrocities committed by government policies and military adventures worldwide have NEVER been confronted head on. The level of "civil discussion" is the sewer, courtesy of corporate manipulation.

So, NO I don't think it is possible.

It is ALWAYS desirable when people come together as a community, with respect for each others' humanity to discuss their differences and similarites. However, the first almost insurmountable hurdle is for white people to SHUT UP AND LISTEN. Being accustomed to defining the terms and framing the issues from a standpoint of their inculcated belief in their own superiority, this is nearly impossible.
I know MANY who have been able to rise to this difficult challenge as individuals, but a large group dynamic would surely preclude it.

3,4 & 5 I'll leave alone for now.

1. Is it possible?
Yes.
2. Is it desirable?
I can only speak for myself , Yes.
3. Who is qualified to start it?
I don't know
4. Is a national leader even necessary?
I don't think so , we as individuals have our
responsibility also .
5. If 1 and 2 are "yes" (they are for me), will cultural progress overtake the good such a dialogue could do at any rate?
The wounds still need to be healed regardless.

I think I killed it... :freak: