hmmm ... what is it about racism?
well, I have a problem and you could help me with it.
1. Is there racism in the world or not?
2. If you think, yes, there is, and you just think it, but never say a word about it, is that racism then or is it just a matter of "Die Gedanken sind Frei" ("Thoughts are Free")
3. If you think, yes, there is, and say so, is that then racism or just 'truth telling'?
4. If you think, yes, there is, and you use it under camouflage, to talk about it - but not really openly - is that racism, because you use it as power tool to manipulate people?
5. If you think there ain't any racism and never talk about that either, are you automatically a non-racist?
6. If you think there ain't any racism and say so publicly and loudly, are you a liar or an honest to God non-racist? Or may be you are a truthteller?
If you blame Obama for everything under the sky, is that truthful and non-racist, or is that truthful and racist? Or is it plain stupid to say something about it instead to think about it for yourself with saying nothing?
See, I have a problem. I opt for thinking about racism only and not talking and using it in any fashion or mode. But does that work, can people do so?
Sigh, so for how long will I keep that post online this time? A couple of minutes, an hour, a day?
For sure I am a coward. Is this a racist essay? So help me God. God willing, it is not, but who knows what you think about it and what you say about it.
Yours truly racially challenged mimi.
Comments
I hide under the desk and try to
to take a look, when everything seems safe...
https://www.euronews.com/live
heh, I have my way of resisting
This was taken in 2012.
Still mad?
https://www.euronews.com/live
All good
questions, mimi, that go to the heart of it for me: what, exactly, IS racism?
I'll paraphrase a Supreme Court Justice; I know it when I see it.
I don't know if you've heard of it, but there's a scene in Rescue Me where the crew have to take 'sensitivity' training.
Could be harsh for most. Good luck
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=y5J2O3j9pNY
Ya got to be a Spirit, cain't be no Ghost. . .
Explain Bldg #7. . . still waiting. . .
If you’ve ever wondered whether you would have complied in 1930’s Germany,
Now you know. . .
sign at protest march
I'm not sure what your point is
I'm guessing that you're getting at something bigger.
But if you really want my $0.02, I think that what we refer to in society as "race" has no scientific basis.
When scientists refer to "race" they mean something different that involves genes and dna.
So when a non-scientist says "racism" they are actually referring to "prejudice based on skin color."
Which is as stupid as prejudice base on eye color, or hair color.
It's all tribalism, but without actual tribes.
The amount of genetic variation is greater
The amount of genetic variation within a skin color group is greater than between skin color groups. I learned that from a DNA forensics job I once had. Skin color is just one of many genetic variations between people and we place an irrational amount of significance on it.
Beware the bullshit factories.
Few scientists these days use the word "race", because
it doesn't really have any scientific meaning. Most of the genetic variation within the human race is contained across the miscellaneous indigenous populations of africa. Meanwhile, once upon a time (and not that long ago), people used the word "race" almost interchangeably with words like "ethnicity" or "nationality". Thus, thoughtful people would opine on the nature of the Irish race. Etc.
Did you know that some studies indicate that gingers as a group exhibit certain puzzling traits -- e.g., lower pain thresholds and higher resistance to anesthetics than non-gingers? Few consider them to be a "race", though they clearly share a genetic history that renders them a bunch of crybabies. Some people have argued that their characteristic pigmentation was inherited from Neandertals. I report. You decide.
Did you know that there's a group of controversialists who argue that the genetic evidence is that the Ashkenazi Jews -- which is to say, the substantial majority of the folks claiming an ancient god-given birthright to live in the place they call Israel -- aren't even a semitic people? Rather, they are supposed to be descendants of people from, uh, I think northern Turkey, who converted to Judaism way back when. I report. You decide.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
That's the Khazar Hypothesis
which is now viewed with considerable skepticism.
What is known for certain is that the Khazars migrated from Anatolia up into the area between the Black and Caspian Seas, and formed a buffer state between the Byzantine Empire and the Umayyad Caliphate - and pretty soon they had to deal with the emergence of Kievan Rus' as well. Now, the Byzantines were of course Christian and the Umayyads were Moslem, so to accept either religion would mean the other side would come down on them like a ton of bricks. It is said that the Khazars, or at least their ruling elite, adopted Judaism as a means of maintaining the balance of power.
The Rus', who were still pagans, didn't give a hoot about this "balance of power" thing and eventually conquered the Khazars, adding their territory to the Kievan state. The people were probably absorbed into neighboring populations, though no one knows for sure.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
I'd never heard any of this until recently.
It came to my attention via a co-worker of Jewish ancestry, in a conversation about people getting their DNA tested. He sent me some links to a site run by a gadfly who claims that one of the DNA ancestry companies had to modify their algorithm because it was indicating that a whole lot of very Jewish people aren't very semitic. Or maybe it was that a whole lot of not Jewish people appear to be very Jewish. I don't remember.
Although the subject comes within the purview of my professional expertise, it doesn't matter enough to me that I would spend any time trying to figure out if the guy was just a crank or not.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
DNA studies can confirm ancient connections
It's how they proved the Falasha (they call themselves something else, "Beta Israel", I think) were legitimately Jewish despite being, you know, Ethiopians.
Studies on Ashkenazim and Sephardim (Iberian Jews) show that they are actually related despite having little contact for most of the Middle Ages. Ashkenazi, Sephardi, potayto, potahto....
Oh, and as to modifying DNA algorithms, the primary reason it has been done is that "Asiatic" results have been over-represented due to very few samples from Native American sources. (In other words, until quite recently, if you thought you had a trace of Native ancestry and the test said "No, Asiatic", the test may have been wrong.)
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
you seem more interested in this, and better informed, than i,
so for your edification here's the link (which is to a genetics/sequence-analysis blog that itself copies the info from another blog). make of it what you will -- but evidently there was some sort of fairly high-profile "retraction" or something by 23andme.
http://homolog.us/blogs/distraction/2017/10/30/is-23-and-me-misleading-j...
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
DNA studies is a constantly evolving field
and yesterday's findings don't always hold up. They're also constantly refining and improving techniques so that it's very difficult to keep up - let alone catch up if you haven't looked at the subject for, well, even five years (and as for more than that!).
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
in the average case, one's DNA profile
is more likely to mislead than anything else. the manner in which we inherit our genes -- in very large blocks, often entire chromosomes -- means that two people with exactly the same set of 16 great-great-grandparents, but NO OTHER shared ancestors (which is theoretically possible) could quite easily -- indeed, probably would -- get very different results in one of those ethnic proportion profiles. People laughing about Warren's 1/1024 fraction of American Indian, suggesting to the naive an ancestor 10 generations back, don't seem to understand that, assuming no re-merging of the family tree by marriages between cousins (not a great assumption, i admit) each of us would likely have not one single base of DNA from most of our 10th-gen ancestors
to keep it simple, if you assume an average of 30 recombination events per generation, then your line from each ancestor in successive generations looks like this:
46 distinct blocks of DNA (the chromosomes)
60 blocks (chromosomes, diced by recombinations)
120
etc. to
600 blocks in the 10th.
In other words, after 10 generations, your ancestor's DNA will have been diced into 600 segments via recombination. The problem being, you have 1024 ancestors in that generation, which is almost twice as many as the number of distinctly inherited segments of DNA you have. And since you're certain to have inherited 2 or more of those segments from some of your ancestors, you're just as certain to have inherited 0 segments from over 50% of your other ancestors. No I'm not going to do the math.
If that seems bizarre, consider that if it weren't for recombination -- if you could only inherit full chromosomes -- then you would only have inherited genetic material from at most 46 of your 1024 10th-g ancestors. As it is, the number is higher than that, but still lower than most people realize, because the rate of recombination rate is quite low..
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
You're talking autosomal DNA,
which is well known to have exactly this problem.
There are two other kinds of studiable DNA, which are much more accurate but have much more limited use. mtDNA passes mother to daughter exclusively (it's part of the mother's X chromosome), and while sons can inherit it, they cannot pass it on. The big problem with this type is that you need a rock-solid paper trail documenting every marriage of every woman in the line.
The other type is Y-DNA, and while it's a little easier to follow (because it's on the male Y-chromosome and men generally don't change names at marriage), it's even more exclusive - father to son, NO exceptions (daughters can't even receive it, because if they did, they would be sons, duh). It's also more vulnerable to Non-Parental Events of any and every kind (which is why Y-DNA studies can show unexpected results and upset people's preconceived ideas of who their ancestors were - someone who's really upset may take refuge in denial of the validity of (Y-)DNA testing).
When working with ancient populations, the studies are almost always mtDNA or Y-DNA or both, because they don't recombine - they're handed down all-or-nothing - and while they do have known mutation rates, they're very slow. (And there are always people who have descendants, and a few of those will be straight-line male or female by pure luck - for statistical and ethnographic purposes it doesn't matter if there's a paper trail.)
The one exception to the above is "Neanderthal DNA", which shows up autosomal-only (so far) and is detectable because Neanderthal genes have obvious differences from those of modern humans. It shows up at a very low percentage (around 2-5%) in testees of European (and some of Asian or mixed Euro-Asian) descent, but (usually) not in those of totally sub-Saharan African descent. The Neanderthal offshoot is thought to have developed in the Near East and spread from there into Europe and western Asia, never getting back into Africa. (Jury's still out on whether Neanderthals were a separate species that died out, or a sub-species that was eventually reabsorbed into the main population.)
And I'm sure this is much more than you really wanted to know!
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
yep, right.
the thing is, mitochondrial DNA generally can't tell you much about the "distribution" of your ancestry, because theoretically you've inherited all of your mtDNA in a direct line through your grandmothers.
similarly, i noted that all of that analysis about the possible Khazar connection in Ashkenazi Jews is based on the Y-chromosomes.
but neither of these have much to do with the question of what fraction of ethnicity/geographicity there is in one genes -- which itself is a poor proxy for the "truth" of ones ethnic/geographic ancestry.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
for sure, gjohnsit, also if feel a bit more science oriented
I am not a scientist, who knows or knew anything about dna and genes. I just passed by articles who refer to what scientists think the meaning of race is.
I was referring to that "predudice based on skin color" kinda racism.
Very well said, but how stupid is it? There are tribes. People base their tribal categorization of folks on the basis of such things as skin color, eye color, eye form, hair curliness or straighteness amd hair color, nose form and sizes etc. So, if there are tribes based on those markers, what can you say about the stupidness of related prejudices? Are they stupid or are they simply pretty bad and evil, morally speaking?
Let's say: I am white, blue-eyed, "typical German" (whatever that means, but I have some idiosyncracies that people say only Germans show that clearly), do I belong to a tribe? If people say my idiosyncracies are typical German, are they expressing something obvious or do they express a prejudice?
Sigh, why did I start that conversation here to begin with? I am so sorry, it just angers me that I don't get a grip on that question and dependent how I feel, I am too mad to keep it to myself.
https://www.euronews.com/live
How stupid? Pretty damn stupid
Actual tribes are based on blood. They are related by family and history.
They mean something.
What you are talking about is like a "tribe" of Dallas Cowboy fans.
A better term would be "gang".
All I can say is racism is alive and well in Alabama
You can smell it in my part of the world....woven into the public persona.
The funny thing is they don't know it. If fact would deny it to the rafters. "I have black friends!" In my corner of the south there are not many black folk...8% maybe. This is the home of the yeomen farmer...hillbillies. Many did not fight for the confederacy and slavery. But racism is here alive and well...just under the surface of daily life. The N word isn't as common as it used to be, but the sentiment is. Having someone to look down upon helps ones self esteem evidently. Being Latino might be worst in this part of the world than being black... so racism is subjective in a way.
Others...painting people as others...is our sad fate...
“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
Thanks for your comment, the most important
sentence in it for me is
Though I don't think that is especially funny, it is what I observed everywhere I went.
Therefore my question, can something be racist, if you don't know it is racist?
I mean in the end it is futile to get headaches over that question. But on and off I get an itching to simply ask about it. Thanks for commenting.
https://www.euronews.com/live
I’m not sure what you’re thinking mimi,
but the question, “what is it about racism?” brings to my mind a word that describes any individuals expression of fear (not trust) of the ‘other’. Sometimes it's expressed with disgust, and sometimes silently with disdane. It can be bold or subtle. In any case it is very much alive in humans everywhere.
It can’t be hidden, and needs to be addressed everywhere, before what needs healing the most can become a reality.
-edited to add 'not trust'.
People like familiarity
as a kind of affirmation for who they are. When confronted with something or someone exotic many react with confusion and fear, not wanting to question their sense of security in the familiar. Interesting that the German language, which is usually so uniquely descriptive has the same word (Auslander), for both alien and foreigner. As if these people were from another planet. Some are also highly attracted to the exotic, most likely because of their conditioning otherwise. At least the more curious ones are. So I guess curiosity is a factor.
you ... 'describes an individuals expression of fear ...'
... individuals expression of fear (not trust) of the ‘other’.
So far, so good, common knowledge, I would say.
Have you not experienced persons, who never had a reason to fear anything from the 'other', but then express their disapproval of those 'other' by punishing all those, who don't feel or don't have those fears of the 'other'?
And that sentence of "some feel highly attracted to the exotic ... curiosity is a factor" makes me kind of sad. But I rather laugh, because it's one of the cliche answers I heard too often. I heard it once even by those, who were utterly discriminated and punished in life, because of their own 'otherness'. They had internalized that argument to the point that they applied it to themselves.
How much time do you give yourself, if you meet some 'other' and you get into a conversation with that 'other' to judge your own conversatin as a matter of 'curiosity because you are attracted to the exotic'? An hour, a day .. a month?
I know you mean well and are one of the friendliest persons around here ... I consider you my virtual friend, heck, I even love you ...
... just it doesn't help me to know when someone crosses the line from 'being unfamilar with your neighbor' to 'some sort of tribal feelings of your own belonging being threatened' to 'some sort of racist or tribalist emotions hidden under the camouflage of politenes' to 'openly expressing your feelings about 'the other' up to open verbal vulgarity .
And especially it doesn"t help me to understand, if all of it is racism or tribalism, when the person behaving in above mentioned ways, are not aware of themselves doing it?
https://www.euronews.com/live
Is this question based on your own empirical observations
Or is there actual science to back it up?
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
empirical observations
it's about how people feel and think and there is no science that could explain them, imo.
https://www.euronews.com/live
mimi, I don’t think I can help you with answers
to these questions.
If I’m reading that question right, which is questionable, then my answer is no, personally. Though there are many people with political power that do just that.
I’m especially unclear about what that means, but if it has to do with how reflective or self-aware I might be, I’d say that is much of what I try to pay attention to.
I knew people in High School who had never set foot in Manhattan, less than 40 miles away. It seemed a world away and somewhat frightening to them, while to Jane and me it was enticing. At 13 my friend Jane and I started taking the train into Manhattan, simply for the pleasure of people-watching. We’d make our way down from upper to lower Manhattan. We began by discreetly finding a bench to sit on in a huge bank with lots of activity in and out; and ended up with ice cream sundaes in The Village watching totally different types of people. During those four or five hours we were happily satiated with watching the whole world, in all its diversity, go by. I’m just glad our mothers gave us the freedom to explore the diversity of life around us instead of inhibiting it.
Sorry if I offended your unique sensibilities in any way, but I thank you for responding in a gentle and caring way. I hope that you will continue to find ways in which your questioning can be resolved. I think they are valid questions best explored by trying to contact those feelings inside that just 'feel right'.
janis b, you never offended my sensitivities over this issue,
and I would suggest, that I one day will try to write about it in a more conscious and disciplined fashion, and not because I had my 'hissy-fits' and frustration to not getting with my questions and answers to where I want to go or be with them.
Of course I too could be unconsciously saying something that others might see as racist or some such. In fact I am so fed up with the subject area, that I have no fun to continue on with it.
But I could just drop one more question to wonder about, before I go, and before I might one day come back to write about it:
Why do you think people asked about Obama: Is he black enough? There is an assumption in that question that his blackness makes him by default more capable and willing to defend issues of social and economic justice and fight more vigorouly against discrimination, because of his 'black experience', which is supposedly leading to it. Why do people believe that the political gravitas and moral and ethical standards of a person is related to physical ethnic or racial markers? My answer might be, because it's soo easy to do, because people can.
And why do you seldom hear about a non-black candidate the question asked, if he is white enough or not white enough, as if the whiteness would predict for some reason the probability of being a weasel-wording schmoozing empty suit lying cutsie being higher the more whiteness is in his skin or worse, the opposite of it, the more white the higher the ethical and moral standards ... pfft.
The time question of how long it takes a person to make a judgment about someone based on the physical markers of his ethnicity or race I posted, because quite often it's within minutes or hours. I don't blame anyone, I want to know why those judgments are in the mind of people, if expressed, denied, hidden or otherwise politely ignored, but not really.
Ok, sorry, the issue is disgusting to think about and express it. I know people don't want to give it a try. So let's forget about my attempt to talk about it. I knew in advance it wouldn't work.
Thank God, you will calm my nerves with your beautiful contribution of your photos and your sensitivities toward art. See you on Friday evening, that is much more fun, and I love you for being there. Good night from Germany. I had a long day and am a bit tired.
https://www.euronews.com/live
Further thoughts.
“Why do you think people asked about Obama: Is he black enough?”
I think they were questioning whether Obama could relate sufficiently to the life-long suffering of black people, and be capable of the more radical changes that were needed. And, I think most Americans would be happy to have a president, black or white, with “political gravitas and moral and ethical standards”.
“… And why do you seldom hear about a non-black candidate the question asked, if he is white enough or not white enough …”
I think that’s because white is the dominant standard by which all others are judged. But there sure were a lot of white people supporting Obama. Maybe partly because he represented a comfortable mixture of black and white, and a belief in the potential of the mixture. But sadly, it seems that racism has only grown stronger since then, which is a reason for all these questions.
“The time question of how long it takes a person to make a judgment about someone based on the physical markers of his ethnicity or race I posted, because quite often it's within minutes or hours. I don't blame anyone, I want to know why those judgments are in the mind of people, if expressed, denied, hidden or otherwise politely ignored, but not really.”
I think those first impressions/judgements are natural to us. The value though in those encounters are usually found with time.
[video:https://youtu.be/0CvLdQVgkm0]
So come, my friends, be not afraid
We are so lightly here
It is in love that we are made
In love we disappear
Tho' all the maps of blood and flesh
Are posted on the door
There's no one who has told us yet
What boogie street is for
thx, janis b, for so excellently formulate
an answer to my question. My question in my mind was a more rhetorical one, because I think we all know those answers you gave. If those judgments are natural to us, then tribalism and racism is natural to us, or do I get this wrong as well?
In any case, you have a more positive way of explaining these reactions, which I have had a hard time over my lifetime explaining to myself.
If in this context value is supposed to positive value or outcome, then I would admit that I mostly disagree with that statement according to my experiences. May be I am an outlier on the chart so to speak ...
Let's talk about something else... I am only a melting snow flake of the millions in the winter storm blizzard.
https://www.euronews.com/live
So are you saying that any criticism of Obama's actions
is because a person is a racist?
Who are you talking about here? The people who criticize him or yourself for not saying anything to those who do? Is this the point of this essay? If not what is?
What exactly is the problem you asking for help with?
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.
I expected your reaction in this way, snoopydawg,
and I think the best way would be you answer your question yourself.
I tried to say what I need help with in my response to janis b.
With regards to Obama, all I can say is that racist thoughts were all over the place from the first time he appeared in the public's conscienceness, from black folks to white folks to mulattos, "Mischlinge", to the venus on the moon.
Do you remember the most important question everyone had, when Obama started to make known his political ambitions?
"Is he black enough"? That was on a LOT of people's minds. Is that a racist thought, in your opinion?
https://www.euronews.com/live
Late to this, sorry
I am sorry to be late in responding to this essay, but I am just catching up on some of my reading. I debated about posting on this until I read your reply to snoopydawg. I think snoopydawg posed a valid question and made a very unbiased point in her comment. Being critical of Obama's policies does not make a person racist.
Just because there are a lot of us both here and elsewhere on the internet who were angry and upset with Obama's betrayal of the people who voted for him because they believed his campaign promises, that does not make us racists. In fact, the people I know who were the most upset with Obama were his staunchest supporters during his campaign. Being upset and disappointed with Obama is not based upon race, but based upon his failure to even TRY to deliver to the people.
No one was more ecstatic when he won than me because I believed so strongly in him, not because he was black, white, pink or purple, but because he seemed genuinely to care about helping the American people. He betrayed that promise from early in his administration with his sellout to big pharma before ACA was ever drafted. He protected the banksters while million lost their homes. And he expanded the wars in the Middle East including the destruction of Libya which was the richest and most educated country in Africa. Now slaves (black people) are openly being sold in the streets. There were many things Obama could have done via executive order that he refused to do, but the one thing he did that truly betrayed every day American people was to offer up cuts to Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare on more than one occasion with his Grand Bargain. That was his biggest betrayal of all.
The United States has always had a problem with racism, but to blame our anger about Obama's complete and utter sell out to the establishment on racism is ludicrous. Obama came in via a landslide in 2008 with a mandate for hope and change. It turned out we got nope and more of the same while his personal fortune has skyrocketed post Presidency.
Obama sold out blacks, and many young blacks now know that the color of the Obama's skin did not guarantee what was in his soul. Ask Niko House or Tim Black, both of whom have been critical of Obama. Are they racists for doing so?
Obama took the opportunity of a lifetime to deliver what the people desperately wanted and needed and he squandered it on the alter of the revolving door. I despise him for cold heartedly destroying the dreams of so many desperate and needy people who put their faith and trust in him.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
Sadly, in this context
I believe there are many who believe that whatever criticism you are expressing, not only of Obama, but anyone of color, must be racially motivated. Even if the criticism you are expressing is applied in the same way for everyone.
I have a colleague at work who is a gossip. He repeats personal information about other crew members which then creates discord among the rest of us. I abhor gossip for this very reason. It creates no value and encourages the worst in everyone who repeats it. When this person who likes to gossip tried to engage me by repeating, incorrectly, the reasons two other crew members were fired, I told him exactly how I felt about people who gossip.
In hindsight, I wish I hadn't. For two reasons. The first, because it's usually best to keep quite when you're in the heat of your anger. The second, because he went back and told a select few what I said to him, which now, apparently, is evidence that I am a "racist" because the gossiper who I told off is black.
Unfortunate situation because it's near impossible, in my defense, to prove a negative.
I'm also going to go out on a limb here and say that I wouldn't be surprised if the select few he told, who repeat everything CNN "reports", also believe I'm a Trump supporter.
Politically motivated? You betcha!
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
in the heat of your anger. it's best to keep quiet
(added and edited some stuff)
Well, what can I say, for some that is a short encounter with someone, who angered you. For others this is a life-long condition to live with. It's - as I can see here - hard to be understood.
I never talked about my 'life-long anger' and I think I will not try again.
I will though post a link to a documentary, that is not directly related to my general question I have posted, but there are scenes in that documentary that relate in my mind. Up to you if you could 'see' that too.
If you have time to watch it, I suggest to watch the whole movie, as a German version of the whole documentary was shown tonight on the Arte channel in Germany. Among others it showed how a mother mother related to her baby that was received by a terrorist militia man in captivity. I wonder how scientist explain that. That scene reminded me of my aunt and how she related to her baby, received by Russian soldiers in Berlin at the end of wwII.
Unfortunately my search skills to find an english version of that documentary are low. If someone should be able to find it, I would be grateful to post a link to it. Oh, I see, it's available through HBO. Here is an article and a link to the trailer (not a well made trailer though). I think it was shown in Great Britain in 2017. I wonder if it had been shown in the US.
Trailer to the documentary 'Stolen Daughters - Kidnapped by Boko Haram
An article about how the documentary came into being
If you think there is also an element of propaganda in that documentary for the do-gooder Americans and their American University in Nigeria, let me know. I think it's irrelevant ... all of my thoughts are irrelevant... but it crossed my mind as well, watching the whole documentarz. Sorry my mind went off topic a bit.
[video:https://tinyurl.com/y8neytgx]
https://www.euronews.com/live
Actually, that's not exactly correct
The long term consequences of what you refer to as a "short encounter" is that these select few who have attributed my motivation as "racist", have poisoned the well with some of the managers so that I am scrutinized in a way that poses a threat to my livelihood for as long as I'm employed there.
Your glib observation aside, I find your statement that my situation is not comparable to others an intellectually lazy argument.
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
zoebear, I am sorry for my reaction, I didn't read
nor did I understand your comment correctly and apologize. I was not able to express myself more clearly, because it would be too personal for me to let it loose for public consumption.
May be I am not intellectually lazy, but have not enough intelligence.
I am sorry that i didn't understand the consequences of your encounter and experience towards your survival on the job place. That of course is serious and grave. I think the problem of this conversation is that everyone tries to express very personal experiences in neutral ways to not need to reveal the personal to the public. This misunderstanding would not have happened, if we had met in person and exchanged thoughts and experiences in real time. It's the internet, stupid... (that is supposedly an attempt to make a joke to ease the tension that I have caused). Just saying, in my family, lots of people thought of some of us being racist, those accused of it were black, mixed-race, white and asian/Indian. The accusations have lost their bite over a life-time for me. Therefore my glib and lazy way of responding to you. Sorry for that.
Peace.
https://www.euronews.com/live
I don't know
I've thought about it often. I think we are cursed.
Here is a fairy tale.
Once upon a time 4 jets land at Logan Airport. Four bright young students are coming to attend Harvard. They are all middle class kids. A young man from Nigeria, one from Sweden, a young woman from Japan and another from Argentina. The minute they set foot in our land magic spells do their work. The young man from Nigeria is suddenly oppressed, the young women are made subservient and the young man from Sweden is bestowed great privilege and at the same time reviled. Here is where I say the moral of the story is.....nothing. This is just what we want to see. Those kids all come from somewhere, a place that has it's own sins and atrocities that would seem absurd to us, their own shame to hide or justify. No country is pure.
Maybe because the wronged are still with us and the shame so great for so long all we can do is deny the problem, and gloss it over to make ourselves feel better. I don't know the answer. I haven't found a country that has solved this problem. Everywhere we look there are long dormant coals, just waiting to be raked into flames.
yep and there are skilled coal rakers around, who are believed
to be the do gooders and then folks are suprised they didn't understand the consequences.
https://www.euronews.com/live
As a consending little shit, what would i know about racism?
Like most simple things, the word, its intent, its very being depends upon constant reminders that it exists. Let's suppose for a moment, a splendid childhood second, that it does not; and live forward accordingly in love and peace and respect for each other thereby relegating racism to the dustbin of evolution.