Not take land [Archive] - NazNet Community

Mark Metcalfe

26th June 2008, 11:21 AM (11:21)

I mentioned in the other note about population migrations. In our "melting pot" we have populations from every nation and some struggled to integrate (such as the Irish and Italians), and some seem to adapt and flourish.

Gene Roddenberry had the Star Trekkian "Prime Directive" not to disturb any culture that you went to. Let it evolve naturally without outside influence. This is a contradiction to the Great Commission which premise is to change the world and not just let it [d]evolve naturally.

Wasn't it a great time in world history when people could migrate from one place to another (like nomads) and not bump into each other? When Abram and Lot got too wealthy, they needed to spread out. Good thing the earth's population was far less than 6 billion people back then so they could each take different areas.

The world population would make it impossible to return all peoples to their lands of origin. First, you'd have to pick a date: let's say 1492 when Columbus sailed the ocean blue. Whatever origin your ancesters were between 1492 and today, that's where you go to live (assuming you can also redraw the govermental/fuedal boundaries of 1492). Assuming that could be done, there might not be any standing room on the English Isle.

Also, with regards to the abolition of slavery, I learned from the National Treasure movie that it was only after the Civil War that the United States was referred to in the singular instead of the plural. Remember that half or more of the States were not involved in slavery. My distant relatives never were (as far back as I can research). And the US that prevailed in that conflict that cost the US the most American lives of any war, was the side that abolished slavery. At that time, some people wanted then to ship African Americans back to their homelands. (This is itself is controversial today because some motives were impure (to be rid of them), and some were not (to reunite them); some wanted to return, some did not; some flourished; many have suffered the injustices of racism and hatred.) My point is that "we're not doing enough" doesn't always have practical suggestions for what more we should be doing to adapt, assimilate, and affirm this and any other cultural group into the [singular] Unites States of America.

Mark

Edited to add: I would welcome comments from historians from the Civil War era. There is a LOT of material out there in books and documentaries (Ken Burn's Civil War series was very interesting, for example).

Marsha Lynn

26th June 2008, 11:40 AM (11:40)

The problem really was when we decided people could own land at all. Once we made that move, there was no going back.

Probably before any discussion of reparations, we need to actually apologize for the wrongs committed. That would at least be a step in the right direction.

Doesn't an apology without reparation ring rather hollow?

"I'm sorry I stole your stuff. I'll never do it again. I don't know how to fix things for you. I've got the stuff now and you don't. But I'm really sorry."

:fav03

Dave McClung

26th June 2008, 11:53 AM (11:53)

The discussions of our day have raised a question, how do we give the land back? Is there enough land that everyone could go back to where they settled by not taking land from anyone else? Could we give all the land the American Indians had to them. Is there land that could be settled on they did not own or had settled?

For some of us, if we got back to land that our family bought, we would still have to go back farther to see that it had been legally bought and not taken from anyone.

Now if we did this would there be land that didn't belong to anyone we could settle on?

We would only have to go back as far as the great flood seeing only Noah and his family owned anything at that point. When Noah got off the boat did he own everything or how was it decided how much he had a deed to.
Who did the American Indians buy the United States from?

Maybe the fair way to do it would be to just divide it up now. Every person would get a deed to so much land. Does anyone know how much that would be? A square mile, half an acre?

We can not just keep talking about this and not really ever be doing anything about it; that only leads to guilt and frustration. I think I will go pack while you figure out where I should go. (I know what you are thinking and it was not nice at all. :laughing)

Three years ago, Linda and I followed the Lewis and Clark Trail from Illinois to Washington and Oregon. As we traveled, we studied about the native American culture.

I had always been told that the Europeans changed the Native American Culture by introducing guns and alcohol. We learned that the one thing that changed American Culture the most was the introduction of the horse. Until horses came to the "New World" Native Americans lived in isolated villages. They rarely traveled more than 30 miles from where they were born.

So, if we were going to return their "native land" we should go back to before horses were introduced. Even when Lewis and Clark reached the Northwest, the tribes n Washington and Oregon were living in small villages along the waterways. In fact, even today you can see where they lived by the signs that say "Casino."

Dale Cozby

26th June 2008, 12:06 PM (12:06)

Doesn't an apology without reparation ring rather hollow?

"I'm sorry I stole your stuff. I'll never do it again. I don't know how to fix things for you. I've got the stuff now and you don't. But I'm really sorry."

:fav03 Actually the apology shuld be:
For Texans:
" I am sorry someone in my family bought land, that was bought and sold from other people, that was granted the land from people of my ancestral group, who was granted the land from people who are partly your ancestral group and partly my ancestral group, but fought for thier independence from people who fought for thier independence, who took your land from the tribe that took the land from the tribe that took the land from your great great great great great great great great great grandfather's tribe, but since they didn't really consider that the land was thiers in the first place and whose ancestors wandered around and lived off and on the land for centuries hunting deer and buffalo thats the most acurate apology I can make.":laughing

There is 57 million square miles of land on earth. Roughly 6 acres for every person alive right now. Man, woman and child. That would mean my family should have 30 acres. hey where is my share?:p

Of course the arable land is only 4,900,000,000 acres so we would get 3/4 actre a piece. more than enough to feed each person on earth......Uh unless we start growing it to convert to fuel to burn in cars.:eek:

Shameless the sins of men.:rolleyes:

Crystal Lutton

26th June 2008, 12:06 PM (12:06)

Is it even practical to speak of going back? We can't. We can't make it before something was done--it has been done. And at this point the original things were not done to the people living today--different things were done to them. Maybe what we could try is stopping the things we're doing today (some in the name of making up for what was done yesterday).

Marsha Lynn

26th June 2008, 03:03 PM (15:03)

Actually the apology shuld be:
For Texans:
" I am sorry someone in my family bought land, that was bought and sold from other people, that was granted the land from people of my ancestral group, who was granted the land from people who are partly your ancestral group and partly my ancestral group, but fought for thier independence from people who fought for thier independence, who took your land from the tribe that took the land from the tribe that took the land from your great great great great great great great great great grandfather's tribe, but since they didn't really consider that the land was thiers in the first place and whose ancestors wandered around and lived off and on the land for centuries hunting deer and buffalo thats the most acurate apology I can make.":laughing

Yea, I have never quite understood the concept of apologizing for things in which we had no part. I can see expressing regret for what happened in the past and pledging to seek ways to live better than our ancestors. Or even offering some sort of restitution for what our ancestors did in an humble attempt to even things out a little. But I'm not sure there's any value in taking personal responsibility for historical events in which we were personally uninvolved.

I can come up with enough personal transgressions right now as a rich American in a hungry world to justify selling all of my goods, giving the money to the poor, and living in voluntary poverty the rest of my life. Maybe I need to make a little headway in that area before I start digging into the sins of my ancestors.

Of course, Jesus placed personal responsibility on the Pharisees for killing the prophets, even though it was actually their ancestors who did it. Maybe I'm just a little dense on this.

Marsha

Jon Twitchell

26th June 2008, 03:20 PM (15:20)

Mark Metcalfe

26th June 2008, 04:11 PM (16:11)

I'm not sure how the following thought will be applied to this discussion.

I'm fascinated by the fact that when the Israelites entered the Promised Land and took the city of Jericho, God instructed them to leave Jericho in ruins. It was their "firstfruits" offering of the conquest, and a reminder that God owned the land and was responsible for winning the battle.

Here are the Israelites, strangers to a new land, without buildings or any land to call their own. The logical (from our perspective) thing to do would have been to rebuild Jericho and turn it into their home-base of operations. It was defensible, and was probably along a trade route with a source of water. But God tells them to leave it in ruins.

Again... not sure how it applies. Just felt like tossing it out there.

It may apply more uncomfortably than one wants to consider in today's political climate. Ancestors of people laying claim to that land want it back today. Relativism dictates that the Old Testament is Israeli history with a definite skew that paints the conquered peoples in a bad light.

Even seen as merely a historical migration and displacement (without the religious implications being reasons to lay claim to a land - i.e. "God gave it to us"), it does not address how far one has to go back to find the original owners. And with 6 billion people on the planet now, we can't practically become a nomadic people that raises their own food. We can't even give .75 acres to every man woman and child to develop their own food source (because I assume that arable land include the rain forests and other environmentally sensitive places, no?).

Setting up laws to allow for legal migration that is sustainable and absorb-able is a sensible way to deal with such issues - except that it leaves some people out (by necessity). Otherwise, population migrations can have a disastrous effect to one population or another, or both, and violent conflict has a greater chance of coming from unregulated migrations.

Mark

Charles W Christian

26th June 2008, 04:14 PM (16:14)

Marsha (and others) --
You may be missing the point a bit, with all due respect.

First, we are not apologizing for "something that we had no part in," exactly. Most whites (even those who did not own slaves or whose families did not) have some direct or indirect "part", since we participate in power structures in our society that sprang from racism. That sounds like "liberalism," but it is a historical fact, and if we as a white Americans were looking at other countries objectively we would say it about them, but we hesistate (or maybe our closeness to the events makes us unable) to say it about ourselves.

Second, and along those same lines, I at least need to be aware that as a white person I am looked at with distrust from many minority communities. I should not blame them for that (as many whites do), or should I tell them "just forget about it," which is the height of insensitivity and even arrogance. I should be aware of the distrust, and I should strive to demonstrate that this distrust in my case or your case need not be. This takes time and it often takes a proactive commitment, since it was white people who did some horrible and terroristic things! Look at today: Middle Eastern folks, or people who are Americans of Middle Eastern descent that I know recognize that there are some areas of mistrust toward them (unfairly, but in reality) due to recent events. They would be foolish to say to other Americans, "Just pretend that 9/11 has nothing to do with how your perceive things, and just get over it." Or, it would be foolish to say, "I don't see why you are distrustful of me, since I didn't drive the planes," etc. Of course, on the one hand they would have a point, but on the other, they would be in a kind of denial about how people perceive things given the terrorism that has happened in recent years.

Now, multiply that terrorism by about 100,000, and the time of occurnce over the course of a few hundred years(!), and I think we will get a better clue regarding why many people of color -- especially many African Americans -- do not feel that there has been equity or they do not trust white people! It is simple math, really, it seems to me. What whites did to blacks historically -- both directly and subtly -- and what is done today (nowadays usually, but not always, more subtly than directly) is far worse than the terrorism on 9/11, and has affected far many more people. So, now at least we can see why there is a sense of distrust and a "rift" that sometimes surfaces.

People in power in America (who happened to be white) often utilized that power to violently or even subtly at times keep people of other races from doing things like a) having access to vote; b) owning property; c) attending schools, or later attending schools that had whites; d) eating at lunch counters; etc., etc. Now, while hopefully the white folks reading this have never directly participated in these things, over time, white people have generally benefitted in society MORE from the fact that these inequities lasted for a LONG TIME in America -- even before its official founding as a nation!!

Should we be directly "sorry" for that? Well, yes and no. We should be remorseful that big chunks of our history as a nation and the success of many (but not all) whites is built upon the exploitation and exclusion of people of color -- sometimes violently and sanction by the government! We should recognize this, and when programs that seek to make some dent in making things right are introduced, we should NOT (as most white folks do) suddenly claim that WE are the victims! Also, apologizing corporately is quite biblical ("If my people..." plural, remember?), and as long as it is followed by corporate actions by later generations that seek to make right (even little by little) that which has been done wrong, God seems to like it, and honor it!! :bible:amen

I know most conservative evangelical Christians want to forget that these things ever happened. But, denial is NOT Christlike. We don't come to the cross and say: "OK, Jesus, now that I'm acting better you have no right to remind me of my past!" How dare we? Yet, we want to do this in regard to our responsibilities as a race and as a nation. This is just not right.... No matter how well-meaning we are.....

Thanks for letting me share my heart with you on this. I must be fair and say that my passion is social ethics (I teach it, and I've done work in this regard for most of my adult life). This doesn't make me an expert; just passionate -- more than about most things. I feel like an oncologist sometimes: I don't like cancer at all (the cancer of racism in this case); I know something about it; I've experienced it firsthand (sometimes as a direct or indirect participant); and I want others to see how ugly this cancer is and join with me to get rid of it! But, at times, those who deny that cancer exists, or who think that cancer is really not a big deal anymore, really stir me.... With all due respect....

Blessings,
Charles

Ryan Scott

26th June 2008, 04:19 PM (16:19)

Yea, I have never quite understood the concept of apologizing for things in which we had no part.

We may not have had a part in the act, but we enjoy the benefits of the act. There is no question that the descendants of the Europeans are better off than the descendants of the native people, at least as a whole.

The first step is apologizing for the wrong. It is helpful to hear your grievance acknowledged and given validation. I wonder if Roland would have something to add about the recent apology Australia made to the children of it's native peoples?

Also, to the comment above, I heard a statistic today that every person who has ever lived on the Earth could all fit onto the Isle of Man, the little island just south of England. Not that we could all live there, but the physical size of Earth's population is very small compared to it's land area.

Charles W Christian

26th June 2008, 04:28 PM (16:28)

Edited to say: WOW -- I thought my above post was lost. I guess it wasn't. Ooops... Oh, well, you can read that one, or the abridged version here. Yikes....
================================================== =============================

OK.... I don't know what happened, but I had a LONG post pouring out my guts on this issue and now it's gone. Arrrr....I'll try to summarize.

1) Sharing responsibility for the wrongs of the past that we've benefitted from is not a bad thing. In fact, it's a biblical thing. God seems to like that sort of thing and He blesses nations that are serious about it.

2) Practically, the answer to racism involves recognizing distrust that exists. Just like some folks are a little uneasy these days if a person of Middle Eastern desecent (even if they are American) is on a plane, that's how many people of color feel about whites. Why? Because people who looked just like "us" (White people) did HORRIBLE acts of terrorism for much longer than a day or an event -- but for centuries. Also, these (white) people were people in power, so they controlled not only the events of terror, but also the positions of political power and were complicit with much of the terror and the systematic oppression of people of color. This is not "liberalism", it is a fact of American history. Sooo... that means that people who look like me (and like most of you reading this) either directly or indirectly benefitted from a society that was SET UP TO oppress people who did not look like us. We set the rules, and the rules favored us, and we often dared anyone not like us to "make it."

3) The "rules" are changing now, and that is good. However, it bothers me at how offended white people (esp. conservative white evangelicals) get when current generations try to give greater voice to minorities, and try to assess and correct the past inequities that were built into this nation's history and structure! Instead, we say, "Oh, just forget about it." Or, "Since I didn't DO these acts, or own slaves, then why should I do anything about it?" Here's why: RESPONSIBILITY and the fact that YOU did benefit in some way -- some a lot, some a little -- from the horrible inequities built into this country's DNA. That's why. Apologizing for it is the least we can do. Helping in some tangible ways here and there are all that most are asking for, and many even complain about THAT! That is the essence of terrorism and inequity and hypocrisy, and it just shouldn't be so, especially among Christians.

4) If anything, we shouldn't be asking about "bare minimums" just to "shut them up." Rather, we should be saying (it seems to me): "What can I do sacrificially, as Christ would, to do what I can (great or small, depending upon my circumstances) to help give voice and equality to people who were systematically denied such things." Instead, what I hear is just modified mockery, or intentional amnesia. How dare we....

I can rant more, believe me. But I should stop here for now....

I feel like an oncologist sometimes: I know something about cancer (racism; I have studied and taught social ethics and theology for most of my adulst life); I've experienced it (as a perpetrator); I now see its destructive force, and I want to say and do something about it! Meanwhile, there are those who deny that cancer even exists, and others who look at cancer victims and simply say, "Just get over it." That sucks.....

With all due respect....

Charles

Dennis M. Scott

26th June 2008, 05:26 PM (17:26)

Several years ago, in Colorado, I had opportunity to sit with a Native American believing brother. We happened to be waiting for the same shuttle bus. We talked about our families, homes, walks with the Lord, and our experiences in the church. He was a few years younger than me, but we had enough in common that we laughed about similar things. There came a quiet time in our meaningful conversation, and I said to him, "I am sorry that people in my culture have done so many inappropriate things to people in your culture. As far as I know, none of my family members have directly done any of those things, but neither do I know very many who have done much to stop it. What we have done is wrong, and I don't know how to make all that right, but I want at least in this context, you to know that I wish it hadn't been like it has."

He was a good sized person: a little intimidating in stature. Other than knowing how our conversation had gone, I really didn't know how he might respond. He certainly didn't blow me off. "Well, my people weren't doing all that well three hundred years ago, either. Most of them don't do very well today. I don't blame you for what happened way before you were born. But it helps me to know that you care. No one in my life has ever said what you just said. Thank you, for caring enough to say it. Thank you also, for being my brother in Christ." Then with tears literally running down his face, he came over and threw his arms around me. I was nearly dwarfed by his size, and I am not a little person. We must have looked pretty funny, two big guys standing in front of a hotel entrance, hugging each other. By then we were both crying. I, on my part, didn't especially care how it looked.

I'm not especially proud of how I have sometimes treated other people. I don't mention this episode to fluff my own feathers: I do that enough. I am glad for that exchange. I am embarrassed that no one had ever said to him what I said. That is almost as bad as the offenses that have taken place. It communicates that we don't care, and it has to hurt. Sometimes silence is a good thing, but probably more often than we are aware, it is painful. People don't know that you care at all unless you show them. An apology isn't about me . . . then again, maybe it is.

Mark Metcalfe

27th June 2008, 09:03 AM (09:03)

Hans Deventer

27th June 2008, 09:24 AM (09:24)

P.S. Similar to Dennis, I have surprised a number of veterans (especially of the Viet Nam era) with an expression of thanks for their service, even when it wasn't terribly popular. The reaction was similar. (Thanks for the anecdote, Dennis.)

Thanks for doing so, Mark. I'll never understand why people can't distinguish between the politics and the soldiers. As much as one can hate the politics, the soldiers who merely have to fulfil their duty (especially in the Vietnam War when the draft was still in place) deserve nothing but our highest respect. The few bad apples (My Lai) notwithstanding.

Cindi Hammons

27th June 2008, 09:41 AM (09:41)

Whatever origin your ancesters were between 1492 and today, that's where you go to live (assuming you can also redraw the govermental/fuedal boundaries of 1492). Assuming that could be done, there might not be any standing room on the English Isle.

Mark,

My problem is that I would have to physically cut my body into pieces where part would go to live in Ireland, England, Scotland, France, and Germany. A very small part of me could continue to live in America...most likely around southern KY/Va/NC. Not very practical! :laughing

Marsha Lynn

27th June 2008, 10:52 AM (10:52)

Edited to say: WOW -- I thought my above post was lost. I guess it wasn't. Ooops... Oh, well, you can read that one, or the abridged version here. Yikes....

I read them both and thank you for them. If I am coming across as being one of those who want oppressed people to "just forget about it," then I am obviously failing to adequately express what's in my heart.

My heart's desire is to be in the story that Dennis shared with us. Whether or not my ancestors were involved historically in oppression, I find myself always and forever desiring to show greater hospitality to those who encounter little welcome in our society. The fact that many of my ancestors were Quakers and thus involved in neither war nor slavery does nothing to lessen that desire. Prejudice and oppression come in many forms and I have as much for which to repent on behalf of my forefathers as anyone.

Since my previous post apparently came across as putting me on the "other side" on this issue, perhaps the best I can do at this point is to embrace silence after saying that I humbly convert to your position and will take every opportunity to minister to those who are pushed aside by our society regardless of their race, gender, creed, culture, citizenship, language, or sexual orientation.

Marsha

Charles W Christian

27th June 2008, 10:58 AM (10:58)

Charles,

Several times you have stated things as "facts" and "biblical."

I would like to understand your grounds for those claims (not knowing how much respect that you think is due to those Christians who come to a different understanding). I (sincerely) appreciate your passion, but wonder how you came to the understandings you have.

Facts are not always what they seem. For example:

Documented fact: earth's climate is changing
Accepted fact: humans contribute to global climate change
Supposed fact: humans have a significant impact on changing the global climate.

I have very sincere brothers and sisters who believe the supposed fact as actual fact, when it is actually not demonstrated. Sometimes, even accepted facts can be better understood in light of new information.

So, I am asking you to lay out (or trace back) the ways that brought you to your way of thinking on these matters, if you would, please.

Mark

P.S. Similar to Dennis, I have surprised a number of veterans (especially of the Viet Nam era) with an expression of thanks for their service, even when it wasn't terribly popular. The reaction was similar. (Thanks for the anecdote, Dennis.)

Mark -
I'm not sure exactly what you're getting out. Here's are examples of facts that influence my thinking on the subject of race:
1) American allowed slavery for a long time.
2) It was a long time before black slaves were freed
3) Even after the Emancipation Proclamation, certain freedoms were systemically and violently prohibited. For example, lynchings were NOT popular during slavery, but there were HUNDREDS (perhaps thousands) of documented lynchings during Reconstruction (those pesky facts). Lynchings were a terroristic "weapon of choice" for many whites against blacks who "stepped out of line," which could mean anything from not moving off the street when a white person (especially a woman) walked by, to simply asserting their rights to vote in certain elections, etc.
4) It took an act of Congress that occurred 100 yrs after the Emancipation Proc. to enact meaningful Civil Rights legislation that got the Federal Govt. more involved in the oppressive "Jim Crow" laws many states had enacted.
5) The Supreme Court of the U.S. once ruled that "separate but equal" was OK (which was a farce, since the schools were only separate, not equal). Of course, Brown Vs. the Board of Ed. (in the 1950s!) overruled this, yet it took federal troops to enforce it!

Anyway, I could go on. But, these are the facts...and they are available to anyone who wants to look them up! This has led to a system that systematically favors whites over blacks. You can look up LOTS of stats to support this, too, if you'd like (look at housing laws, demographic data, etc., etc., etc.)....

So, racism and structures that lead to racism are NOT simply a matter of opinion, or just "another way of looking at things." They are indeed facts. It's just that there is strong denial (selective amnesia) among many whites in America. That's a fact, and it is a problem....

Thanks,
Charles

Charles W Christian

27th June 2008, 11:09 AM (11:09)

I read them both and thank you for them. If I am coming across as being one of those who want oppressed people to "just forget about it," then I am obviously failing to adequately express what's in my heart.

My heart's desire is to be in the story that Dennis shared with us. Whether or not my ancestors were involved historically in oppression, I find myself always and forever desiring to show greater hospitality to those who encounter little welcome in our society. The fact that many of my ancestors were Quakers and thus involved in neither war nor slavery does nothing to lessen that desire. Prejudice and oppression come in many forms and I have as much for which to repent on behalf of my forefathers as anyone.

Since my previous post apparently came across as putting me on the "other side" on this issue, perhaps the best I can do at this point is to embrace silence after saying that I humbly convert to your position and will take every opportunity to minister to those who are pushed aside by our society regardless of their race, gender, creed, culture, citizenship, language, or sexual orientation.

Marsha
Marsha-

I for one didn't see you on the "other side", so I wasn't directing my comments at you per se. Just writing my thoughts....

As usual, I appreciate your post(s), and I think what you say makes sense.

Blessings,
Charles

Mark Metcalfe

27th June 2008, 11:25 AM (11:25)

Mark -
I'm not sure exactly what you're getting out. Here's are examples of facts that influence my thinking on the subject of race:
1) American allowed slavery for a long time.
2) It was a long time before black slaves were freed
3) Even after the Emancipation Proclamation, certain freedoms were systemically and violently prohibited. For example, lynchings were NOT popular during slavery, but there were HUNDREDS (perhaps thousands) of documented lynchings during Reconstruction (those pesky facts). Lynchings were a terroristic "weapon of choice" for many whites against blacks who "stepped out of line," which could mean anything from not moving off the street when a white person (especially a woman) walked by, to simply asserting their rights to vote in certain elections, etc.
4) It took an act of Congress that occurred 100 yrs after the Emancipation Proc. to enact meaningful Civil Rights legislation that got the Federal Govt. more involved in the oppressive "Jim Crow" laws many states had enacted.
5) The Supreme Court of the U.S. once ruled that "separate but equal" was OK (which was a farce, since the schools were only separate, not equal). Of course, Brown Vs. the Board of Ed. (in the 1950s!) overruled this, yet it took federal troops to enforce it!

Anyway, I could go on. But, these are the facts...and they are available to anyone who wants to look them up! This has led to a system that systematically favors whites over blacks. You can look up LOTS of stats to support this, too, if you'd like (look at housing laws, demographic data, etc., etc., etc.)....

So, racism and structures that lead to racism are NOT simply a matter of opinion, or just "another way of looking at things." They are indeed facts. It's just that there is strong denial (selective amnesia) among many whites in America. That's a fact, and it is a problem....

Thanks,
Charles

Here's a point, Charles: I do not dispute the facts you present here. Not one of the five. But there are many, many other facts, such as the whites who shed their own blood and families and futures to address these facts; the whites who fight alongside blacks to address these issues.

I also have no problem with systemic address of inequity. Let me state that more positively: I advocate equal opportunity for every single person. With equal opportunity also come equal responsibility. The problem I have with some of your views is that they often say that these other forms of address are never enough. You rail against "the system" that favors whites over blacks (and here we probably could include women and the feminist movement, too). What specifically do you propose as remedies?

Does the system favor whites over Irish and Italians (not enslaved classes, but certainly oppressed), and how about asian, Indian, and native Americans? Or are the asians and Indians also benefactors of "the system?"

We're listening for specific remedy proposals, but in the meantime equal opportunity (no one benefits from the system more than another) seems like it makes "the system" a level playing field. When do we get to truly be color-blind?

Mark

Charles W Christian

27th June 2008, 11:52 AM (11:52)

Here's a point, Charles: I do not dispute the facts you present here. Not one of the five. But there are many, many other facts, such as the whites who shed their own blood and families and futures to address these facts; the whites who fight alongside blacks to address these issues.

I also have no problem with systemic address of inequity. Let me state that more positively: I advocate equal opportunity for every single person. With equal opportunity also come equal responsibility. The problem I have with some of your views is that they often say that these other forms of address are never enough. You rail against "the system" that favors whites over blacks (and here we probably could include women and the feminist movement, too). What specifically do you propose as remedies?

Does the system favor whites over Irish and Italians (not enslaved classes, but certainly oppressed), and how about asian, Indian, and native Americans? Or are the asians and Indians also benefactors of "the system?"

We're listening for specific remedy proposals, but in the meantime equal opportunity (no one benefits from the system more than another) seems like it makes "the system" a level playing field. When do we get to truly be color-blind?

Edited to add: Mark, when we whites impatiently say (as you do), "Can't we just be colorblind already?", we are like the little kid who takes his time on the trampoline, and then when his friends finally get on says, "Hurry, hurry! Aren't you done yet??" We spend hundreds of years NOT BEING colorblind, and telling blacks THEY have to just wait, and now a few short years (about 45) since practical laws have been in place, we're now saying, "OK, now just forget the last 350 years and hurry up and let's all be colorblind!" It sounds hypocritical, is what I'm saying...CWC

Mark
Hi, Mark -
First, I'm not "railing," just reporting facts -- facts that you say you agree with. It sounds like railing, it seems, to those who may want us to forget three hundred years and simply now "be color blind" all of the sudden. That sounds convenient. I wish it were the case: I wish we were color blind. Here's an idea/suggestion: When we as whites feel the need to be colorblind, let's not be angry at people of color! Let's be angry at the whites who came before us who were NOT color blind, and do something to cancel our their lack of colorblindness! See my point?

I hear whites who claim they want to be colorblind harping on the victims of whites' lack of colorblindness! This doesn't sound right. We wouldn't want to combat rape by telling the rape victims to "get over" rape since we have such good rape laws now, right? No! Instead, we would honestly address the fact that there were rapists, and if we look like the rapist, we would want to ensure those victims even more that we are not like those who look like us! Also, our anger would be at the rapists themselves who caused all this mistrust in the first place! Why are you seemingly so angry at the victims of racism, Mark? Why do you want to suddenly be the one saying "Let's be color blind," when people who looked like you (and me) were perpetrators of terrorism (yes, terrorism) against people in a way that was explicitly NOT color blind? What you're saying is far too typical of white Americans --even white Evangelicals. This doesn't make it right, though....

What if instead of looking for ways to claim that racism doesn't exist, or that whites(!) are somehow being "unfairly lumped in" (welcome to the world of black people, by the way for the last few hundred years), we instead spoke up honestly about the inequities in our system that is part of America's DNA? This would go a long way in fixing the racial divides right away! Also, what if we are 1/3 as patient as we asked African-Americans to be (that means we give it a hundred years or so of laws and policies that intentionally combat inequities). Then, what? Well, we'd still only be waiting 1/3 of the time that they did; however, it would probably give us a little more credibility than we have now.....

Thanks,
Charles

Mark Metcalfe

27th June 2008, 12:04 PM (12:04)

What if instead of looking for ways to claim that racism doesn't exist, or that whites(!) are somehow being "unfairly lumped in" (welcome to the world of black people, by the way for the last few hundred years), we instead spoke up honestly about the inequities in our system that is part of America's DNA? This would go a long way in fixing the racial divides right away! Also, what if we are 1/3 as patient as we asked African-Americans to be (that means we give it a hundred years or so of laws and policies that intentionally combat inequities). Then, what? Well, we'd still only be waiting 1/3 of the time that they did; however, it would probably give us a little more credibility than we have now.....

1. Charles, are you accusing me of being a racist?

2. I think your rapist analogy is wrong.

3. I'm still waiting for specific remedies instead of accusations. What laws would you pass? Would you enslave white people to teach white people of their ancestral wrongs? Would you do this for all white people, not just the relatives of those who enslaved people (and not the ones who fought to remove the blight of slavery)? As someone pointed out as well, which "white" people would you "reverse oppress" - those with at least half white parentage? Would it be okay if white people of Swedish descent were exempt (assuming those whites were never involved at any level or age)? Who is "white" nowadays?

Mark

P.S. Edited to say, I am not angry (if I seem to be to you). I am trying to get to a reasoned and reasonable understanding.

Paul Whitaker

27th June 2008, 12:26 PM (12:26)

Two of my gggrandfathers fought in the war of 1812. As a 'reward' for their doing so they were given land in Missouri to live on.

They were given adjoining properties in Missouri. During the Civil War their homes were two which were pilfered and destroyed by a group of soldiers. They decided it wasn't in their best interest to stay in those locations. They decided to go elsewhere looking for a place to 'settle down'.

In the process of this the daughter of one and the son of the other decided they would make a life together. I'm sure glad they did for I wouldn't be here otherwise.

Now, how would repatriation fit here?

Charles W Christian

27th June 2008, 01:10 PM (13:10)

1. Charles, are you accusing me of being a racist?

2. I think your rapist analogy is wrong.

3. I'm still waiting for specific remedies instead of accusations. What laws would you pass? Would you enslave white people to teach white people of their ancestral wrongs? Would you do this for all white people, not just the relatives of those who enslaved people (and not the ones who fought to remove the blight of slavery)? As someone pointed out as well, which "white" people would you "reverse oppress" - those with at least half white parentage? Would it be okay if white people of Swedish descent were exempt (assuming those whites were never involved at any level or age)? Who is "white" nowadays?

Mark

P.S. Edited to say, I am not angry (if I seem to be to you). I am trying to get to a reasoned and reasonable understanding.

Mark -
I will attempt to bring the temperature of the recent heated exchanges down a bit. As you know, there are buttons for everyone, and mine obviously have a lot to do with issues of race, reconciliation, social ethics. I grew up in a racially divided community that slowly learned to do more than get along (my dad was a police chief in this small East Texas town). It was post-1960s, so all the laws were in place, but the customs (and prejudices) took longer to adjust. Then, I lived in Dallas/Ft Worth, which was a study in contrast: very diverse, some racial progress, some blatant racism, too.... My areas of academic interest involve both systematic theology and social ethics, so I was immersed in a variety of perspectives and histories regarding race and have taught such courses to undergrad and grad students (I've been an adjunct prof. since 1998). This does not make me some sort of "expert," nor do I claim to be. It just has brought with it years of hearing and responding to a wide range of questions and challenges from whites and from people of color.

So some of my posts here are snippets of attempts to process all that -- the good, the bad, and the ugly. Therefore, I mean nothing personal or hurtful when I use analogies or examples or even pointed questions. I'm sure that most people on Naznet are not individually racist, and I am not accusing anyone of being such. I do feel that many of us on Naznet have benefitted in some way or are certainly products of a system that has some blatant racism in it.... Those are the things I try to talk about more, since they are not talked about a lot. There is a lot of denial, it seems, when it comes to this issue, in a way I don't see in other cultures.

For instance, South Africans talk openly about apartheid and pretty much the whole world says, "Wow, that system is going to take years to fix, since there was over 50 years of organized, legalized racism." Yet, we had hundreds of years of it, and it seems that many want to say, "Let's just all forget this happened and pretend we're all the same color and have the same benefits," etc. Again, I'm not saying YOU're saying all this individually; I'm just making an observation that applies on a societal level (social ethics).

So, in answer to your questions:
1) I don't think you're a racist.
2) The rapist analogy was a bit over the top -- but I would argue that it is not as over the top as you may think since, ironically, part of the terrorism used by whites (especially white slaveowners) toward black women was rape (talk to light-skinned African-Americans about this, and they will talk about this...true story...);
3)Specific remedies are many, and I'm sure I would run out of space. I don't think things like land reparations, etc., would work as a practical matter at this stage. I think certain fair housing laws (which could be enforced better), certain affirmative action laws (which are ironically called "reverse racism" by many whites, even according to the new survey by Naz sociologists), and cetain intentional acts of diversity (not laws, but simple acts of listening, sensitivity, and intentional bridge-building) could help a lot. We probably have to get over more of our denial as a nation first, though, in my opinion.

Blessings,
Charles

Charles W Christian

27th June 2008, 01:15 PM (13:15)

I read them both and thank you for them. If I am coming across as being one of those who want oppressed people to "just forget about it," then I am obviously failing to adequately express what's in my heart.

My heart's desire is to be in the story that Dennis shared with us. Whether or not my ancestors were involved historically in oppression, I find myself always and forever desiring to show greater hospitality to those who encounter little welcome in our society. The fact that many of my ancestors were Quakers and thus involved in neither war nor slavery does nothing to lessen that desire. Prejudice and oppression come in many forms and I have as much for which to repent on behalf of my forefathers as anyone.

Since my previous post apparently came across as putting me on the "other side" on this issue, perhaps the best I can do at this point is to embrace silence after saying that I humbly convert to your position and will take every opportunity to minister to those who are pushed aside by our society regardless of their race, gender, creed, culture, citizenship, language, or sexual orientation.

Marsha

Marsha -
Let me say again (especially since I re-read your original post) that I didn't mean to include you by name. That was my mistake....

I agree with the actions and sentiments you express here. It's always nice to agree....

Blessings,
Charles
:basic01

Mark Metcalfe

27th June 2008, 01:39 PM (13:39)

Mark -
I will attempt to bring the temperature of the recent heated exchanges down a bit.

Thanks. I think this is the way to accomplish something of value.

3)Specific remedies are many, and I'm sure I would run out of space. I don't think things like land reparations, etc., would work as a practical matter at this stage. I think certain fair housing laws (which could be enforced better), certain affirmative action laws (which are ironically called "reverse racism" by many whites, even according to the new survey by Naz sociologists), and cetain intentional acts of diversity (not laws, but simple acts of listening, sensitivity, and intentional bridge-building) could help a lot. We probably have to get over more of our denial as a nation first, though, in my opinion.

I think we can get somewhere here.

I advocate providing advantages to people who find themselves in disadvantaged positions (poverty is not color-based but the statistics do show that a proportional part of the poverty class is black). The advantages that I advocate (regardless of color, creed, gender, or religion) are those that would provide a level playing field for all, for that is true equity, IMO. I realize that there are many in our society who do not have the opportunity to "benefit from the system" and I would advocate changes to the system to allow everyone to have those opportunities.

I am thankful for people like William Wilberforce who tirelessly worked to bring slavery to an end in England, and those many thousands of people in the Civil War who died to bring slavery to an end in the Americas. I am thankful to Martin Luther King, Jr. and all those (black, white, and other) who have systematically worked against the system of segregation and racism. I am thankful for several generations of educators, (even TV programs like All in the Family that highlighted bigotry under a spotlight).

We have come a long way, and we have some ways to go. I oppose systemic changes that would "turn the tables" because I do not think two wrongs make something right. (Restitution may still have a place in some instances.) I support changes that make things right - period - for all persons, and that is where equal opportunity for all is the cornerstone.

Mark

P.S. I've lived in the northeast all my life, so I know that "colors" my worldview somewhat, and I recoginize that some other parts of the country have not had the advantages that can be had from multicultural environments. In the 1970's I grew up across the street from a synagogue and Jews were heavy influence in our community. (Schools closed on Jewish holidays.) We were on the metro-NY district then, and racial tensions were beginning to get worked out, (first among the Christians, I think). Comparing 1970 to today, what a difference! In my company today, we have a diverse population (of asians, Indians, and whites; very few hispanics and blacks; the gender population is well-represented). (The women's movement, perhaps, has made better strides than the black cultural movement, and I think this would make an interesting study. It may be that people are more prejudice at blacks than at women, or it may be that the disadvantages are more stark; i.e. the starting point from which these groups come from). Exposure to multicultural people - and I mean also that interracial combinations are becoming far more prevalent these days to blur the class and race distinctions - exposure on the personal level to different individuals and backgrounds helps to diffuse the fears and racial stereotypes, so that people can enjoy and celebrate the cultures for what they are.

Charles W Christian

27th June 2008, 01:57 PM (13:57)

Thanks. I think this is the way to accomplish something of value.

I think we can get somewhere here.

I advocate providing advantages to people who find themselves in disadvantaged positions (poverty is not color-based but the statistics do show that a proportional part of the poverty class is black). The advantages that I advocate (regardless of color, creed, gender, or religion) are those that would provide a level playing field for all, for that is true equity, IMO. I realize that there are many in our society who do not have the opportunity to "benefit from the system" and I would advocate changes to the system to allow everyone to have those opportunities.

I am thankful for people like William Wilberforce who tirelessly worked to bring slavery to an end in England, and those many thousands of people in the Civil War who died to bring slavery to an end in the Americas. I am thankful to Martin Luther King, Jr. and all those (black, white, and other) who have systematically worked against the system of segregation and racism. I am thankful for several generations of educators, (even TV programs like All in the Family that highlighted bigotry under a spotlight).

We have come a long way, and we have some ways to go. I oppose systemic changes that would "turn the tables" because I do not think two wrongs make something right. (Restitution may still have a place in some instances.) I support changes that make things right - period - for all persons, and that is where equal opportunity for all is the cornerstone.

Mark

P.S. I've lived in the northeast all my life, so I know that "colors" my worldview somewhat, and I recoginize that some other parts of the country have not had the advantages that can be had from multicultural environments. In the 1970's I grew up across the street from a synagogue and Jews were heavy influence in our community. (Schools closed on Jewish holidays.) We were on the metro-NY district then, and racial tensions were beginning to get worked out, (first among the Christians, I think). Comparing 1970 to today, what a difference! In my company today, we have a diverse population (of asians, Indians, and whites; very few hispanics and blacks; the gender population is well-represented). (The women's movement, perhaps, has made better strides than the black cultural movement, and I think this would make an interesting study. It may be that people are more prejudice at blacks than at women, or it may be that the disadvantages are more stark; i.e. the starting point from which these groups come from). Exposure to multicultural people - and I mean also that interracial combinations are becoming far more prevalent these days to blur the class and race distinctions - exposure on the personal level to different individuals and backgrounds helps to diffuse the fears and racial stereotypes, so that people can enjoy and celebrate the cultures for what they are.

Mark -
I appreciate and agree with the sentiments you express here, Mark. Sorry if my passion for this issue took us awhile to get on some common ground -- this issue is a definite tender spot for me, as is evident. It probably doesn't help that I just got through teaching a grad course called, "Leadership, Race, and Gender," and my reading and prep work exposed me to some things I haven't looked at in a long time -- sometimes not at all - in the area of how women and African-Americans specifically (Native Americans, too) have been treated and still are treated in some cases in America. Some of it perpetrated by Christians! Yuck....

So, I guess I vented some along the way. Sorry if you got some shrapnel... it was indeed intended to be "friendly fire." :rolleyes:

Blessings,
Charles

Cindi Hammons

27th June 2008, 03:22 PM (15:22)

Sorry if you got some shrapnel... it was indeed intended to be "friendly fire."

It wasn't just Mark. I started to respond, and then stopped because of the "heat" of your comments. It did not appear to be "friendly fire," go back and re-read your first post and see if you think it sounds friendly. Mark was only brave enough to respond...and I chickened out.

Ryan Scott

27th June 2008, 06:02 PM (18:02)

The remedy for the serious effects of racism/sexism that still exist in our society and through which those of us who are white and male still benefit is education.

Not everyone is going to admit to the still prevalent advantages that white men have in our society. And while there are certain laws or practices that could be changed to make the system better, that will always be true.

The difference is making people aware of the areas their life is advantaged and challenging people to take action regarding these things.

The fact that people with dark skin get pulled over while driving drastically more often than people with light skin is an inequality. Whose fault is it? No individual. There are racist police officers out there, but relatively few. The truth is we grow up in a society where the majority of criminals we see on the news or through other media are black. People with no racist bone in their body may instinctively react in a way, shocking to them upon reflection.

There are many less publicized examples in our society of which we can educate ourselves. The system changes because people change and their change reflects on how the system operates. We can't just sit back and expect things to work themselves out, but at the same time, there is no easy answer.

Crystal Lutton

27th June 2008, 06:58 PM (18:58)

I know that things have been covered over and it's not my intention to stir anything :) I did want to respond specifically based on the analogy brought into the discussion.

and if we look like the rapist, we would want to ensure those victims even more that we are not like those who look like us!

This is where I disagree with a lot of what has been put out as "solutions" (not just here, but in general). Looking like the rapist doesn't make someone guilty--nor does it put an extra burden on them. A victim who goes through the rest of their life hating everyone who looks like their rapist, or everyone who happens to be the same sex as their rapist, is a victim who has never healed from their rape. That is no one else's "fault".

The level of personal responsibility in our culture has been overridden by "class action" responsibility and everyone runs around suing just because they were wronged by this group or that group . . . . if you are part of the "group" I think wronged me then YOU share liability. This is all backwards.

It is a far cry from blaming the victim to insist that they will not find fulfillment and health and functionality in life until they forgive the ones who wronged them (actual wronging or perceived wrong); it is not blaming the victim to teach them how to not be a victim anymore. Empowering someone cannot be done on a corporate level--it has to be done by each individual; it's a very personal thing.

Charles W Christian

27th June 2008, 09:07 PM (21:07)

I know that things have been covered over and it's not my intention to stir anything :) I did want to respond specifically based on the analogy brought into the discussion.

This is where I disagree with a lot of what has been put out as "solutions" (not just here, but in general). Looking like the rapist doesn't make someone guilty--nor does it put an extra burden on them. A victim who goes through the rest of their life hating everyone who looks like their rapist, or everyone who happens to be the same sex as their rapist, is a victim who has never healed from their rape. That is no one else's "fault".

The level of personal responsibility in our culture has been overridden by "class action" responsibility and everyone runs around suing just because they were wronged by this group or that group . . . . if you are part of the "group" I think wronged me then YOU share liability. This is all backwards.

It is a far cry from blaming the victim to insist that they will not find fulfillment and health and functionality in life until they forgive the ones who wronged them (actual wronging or perceived wrong); it is not blaming the victim to teach them how to not be a victim anymore. Empowering someone cannot be done on a corporate level--it has to be done by each individual; it's a very personal thing.

This is true.... As I said earlier, this analogy is far from perfect. But, I wasn't talking about blame sharing as much as about understanding. Do I understand why I am not trusted sometimes?

Does healing need to happen? Yes! But, how can any victim be healed if so many voices are saying, "Don't talk about it. Just forget about it," etc.

That was my point.

All Jewish people cannot blame all German people for the Holocaust. That is true. However, it would be insensitive of a German person to say, "When are you Jews going to just stop talking about the Holocaust and move on" as if nothing ever happened? That would not promote healing, it seems to me.

And that was my main point -- awkwardly made, but a point nevertheless....

Charles

Gina Stevenson

27th June 2008, 11:05 PM (23:05)

Don't recall who wrote this particular quote:

All Jewish people cannot blame all German people for the Holocaust. That is true. However, it would be insensitive of a German person to say, "When are you Jews going to just stop talking about the Holocaust and move on" as if nothing ever happened? That would not promote healing, it seems to me.

but it reminded me of a gal I've known for several years now, who just the other day reminded me of something ... how, being from Germany, they got some "stuff" tossed their way after coming to the US when she was young. Guess there are still some people [or at least were yet then] who will harass an entire race due to what some of them did years before.

Charles W Christian

28th June 2008, 02:16 AM (02:16)

Don't recall who wrote this particular quote:

but it reminded me of a gal I've known for several years now, who just the other day reminded me of something ... how, being from Germany, they got some "stuff" tossed their way after coming to the US when she was young. Guess there are still some people [or at least were yet then] who will harass an entire race due to what some of them did years before.

This is sad, Gina. We shouldn't harass anyone, I believe.

Although in regard to race relations in America vs. Germany is that Germany has faced its past pretty honestly and has sought to make right some past wrongs in a way that was much slower in coming in America, especially in regard to blacks and whites. There are some who still harass the victims of racism for mentioning the systemic injustices! This is where the Germany/U.S. comparison breaks down a bit. One commentator said recently that in regard to race, "U.S.A." sometimes seems to mean "United States of Amnesia." This was a Christian commentator, who was not "anti-American," but was pointing out that we sometimes choose to deny rather than face our race issues.

May God guide us toward His peace....

Blessings,
Charles

Paula Karr

28th June 2008, 10:18 AM (10:18)

Does healing need to happen? Yes! But, how can any victim be healed if so many voices are saying, "Don't talk about it. Just forget about it," etc.

As much as I do NOT want to join in this discussion, I must bring up a point of view that I've not seen here yet. Your use of the word "victim" made it impossible for me to stay out of the discussion, based on my personal situation.

I was horribly abused for 12 years as a child. I was -- some might call it -- a victim. My abusers never apologized to me. They never did anything to undo the damage they personally inflicted on me. Fortunately, I was introduced to Someone who loved me purely and completely. After many years of experiencing His love, I was able to forgive my abusers. I can -- and occasionally do -- still get angry when I think about what was done to the innocent child I used to be. When God led me to forgive, He did not require me to forget -- so I was always wise enough to protect other children who might have been put in the path of harm.

So in answer to your question, "How can any victim be healed?" I would respond, "They must choose to be healed, to forgive, and to move on." The ultimate responsibility for their healing and recovery rests primarily within themselves. There is no guarantee that sinful humans will "do the right thing" and repent and perform restitution for their own actions, much less the actions of others who abused innocent victims hundreds of years ago.

IMHO, victims can choose to turn themselves into victors, or they can refuse the opportunities that are available to them TODAY through education and participating in the social structure that is available to them. Just as sinners can accept the Gospel of Christ as a means to improve their temporal and eternal life, so can "victims" choose to move towards healing.

As part of my process, I was hospitalized twice for depression. In one of my therapy groups, the counselor taught us that feelings follow actions. In other words, if you want to be more outgoing and happy, behave in an outgoing and happy manner. It's not easy at first. But then, one does find oneself FEELING like an outgoing, happy person. But each of us must start the process for ourselves.

It is not my intent to minimize the wrongdoing that was done by our forefathers, but I also will not be made to feel guilty or responsible for political decisions that were made hundreds of years ago. The system we have in place has made available remedies for these evils -- but at some point, the victim needs to decide to act, too.

Please be kind in your responses, as I have tried to be in mine. Thanks.

Mark Metcalfe

28th June 2008, 10:22 AM (10:22)

....Germany has faced its past pretty honestly...

Well....

The presence of neo-Nazi-ism might demonstrate that there are still pockets of denial. (Not to mention Arab denials of the holocaust.)

More to Crystal's point is the story of Corrie Ten Boom who, after speaking to an audience, was confronted by one of her former captors, a guard at her concentration camp. Corrie was talking about forgiveness, and the guard met her afterward and asked if she could forgive him. This story is powerful because it is where all the rhetoric is confronted by reality. As I recall the story, she said that it she told the Lord that he would have to help her and it was all she could do to put out her hand and say the words. She did forgive the prison guard and it was perhaps as emancipating to her as walking out the prison camp gate.

Mark

Hans Deventer

28th June 2008, 10:34 AM (10:34)

Well....

The presence of neo-Nazi-ism might demonstrate that there are still pockets of denial. (Not to mention Arab denials of the holocaust.)

Yes, there are still lunatics. But I think Charles' statement still carries. Germany, as a whole, in general, has done well. Much better than the Japanese, for instance.

Charles W Christian

28th June 2008, 11:46 AM (11:46)

As much as I do NOT want to join in this discussion, I must bring up a point of view that I've not seen here yet. Your use of the word "victim" made it impossible for me to stay out of the discussion, based on my personal situation.

I was horribly abused for 12 years as a child. I was -- some might call it -- a victim. My abusers never apologized to me. They never did anything to undo the damage they personally inflicted on me. Fortunately, I was introduced to Someone who loved me purely and completely. After many years of experiencing His love, I was able to forgive my abusers. I can -- and occasionally do -- still get angry when I think about what was done to the innocent child I used to be. When God led me to forgive, He did not require me to forget -- so I was always wise enough to protect other children who might have been put in the path of harm.

So in answer to your question, "How can any victim be healed?" I would respond, "They must choose to be healed, to forgive, and to move on." The ultimate responsibility for their healing and recovery rests primarily within themselves. There is no guarantee that sinful humans will "do the right thing" and repent and perform restitution for their own actions, much less the actions of others who abused innocent victims hundreds of years ago.

IMHO, victims can choose to turn themselves into victors, or they can refuse the opportunities that are available to them TODAY through education and participating in the social structure that is available to them. Just as sinners can accept the Gospel of Christ as a means to improve their temporal and eternal life, so can "victims" choose to move towards healing.

As part of my process, I was hospitalized twice for depression. In one of my therapy groups, the counselor taught us that feelings follow actions. In other words, if you want to be more outgoing and happy, behave in an outgoing and happy manner. It's not easy at first. But then, one does find oneself FEELING like an outgoing, happy person. But each of us must start the process for ourselves.

It is not my intent to minimize the wrongdoing that was done by our forefathers, but I also will not be made to feel guilty or responsible for political decisions that were made hundreds of years ago. The system we have in place has made available remedies for these evils -- but at some point, the victim needs to decide to act, too.

Please be kind in your responses, as I have tried to be in mine. Thanks.

Paula -
The nightmare of abuse is a tragedy, and I will pray for your continued healing.

The best parts of the movements for racial reconciliation and healing in this country are those elements that seek to do what God is allowing you to do: heal and become victorious. In the case of African-Americans, generations of abuse, neglect, and pain have seen them persevere. So, it is not about carrying around unforgiveness. Rather, it is about proactively taking steps to help ensure others do not have to endure the abuse that previous generations did, as I sure you seek to do with your life as one who was victimized by abuse. I admire so many leaders on the left and the right in the African-American community who are honest about the past but (often without an apology from those who abused them) want to promote healing not only for themselves but for the nation -- including (as Dr. King reminded) those who need healing the most: the abusers themselves.

So, like your story, the story of the African-American community in America is one of how that arises out of abuse (in their case generations of abuse), and while the abuse must be discussed and is tragedy, it is not the end of the story. Whether we're talking about a cruel cross, a lynching tree, or some other horrible symbol of abuse and death, we as Christians know and continue to pray for the "rest of the story": the empty tomb and the defeat of sin and death.

God bless you,
Charles

Crystal Lutton

28th June 2008, 12:06 PM (12:06)

I think Paula's point is beautifully expressed and was my follow up thought last night as I pondered this. I cringe when I hear "victim" applied as liberally as is being used in this thread--to a generation NOT originally harmed by (in the main instance of this thread) slavery. Is there an African American alive today who actually was a slave to a white person in their life? I know the response is that slavery touches them in a personal way . . . so because I'm not black let me take this back to an area I know a lot more about . . . the rape analogy. And I do think this is a very good analogy.

Rape affects a person very deeply--to the point that how they respond will affect future generations of their offspring (if they have them). Some women refuse to trust men so much that they won't marry or have children. Others have rocky marriages that reinforce their experience with men and lead to greater distrust being passed on to their children, etc. But some choose to deal with it--not to rant in the streets or rant abusively to men but to talk to someone who can actually help them process their feelings. Rape counselors usually know what they're doing . . . usually from experience. And if a 3rd generation child of a rape victim is still, without being a rape victim themselves, hating or distrustful of men in general then I can look in and know that healing never happened within that family. It is not my fault; and I do not deserve blame or abuse from that family--no one does. They need to own their issue.

I would never tell someone with pain to stop talking--I do counseling ;) But I would tell them to stop ranting--to stop raging at people not to blame--to talk to God and those who can help more than rioting in the streets. The way we say what we say says as much about us and our issues as what we say.

Going to the Jewish Holocaust issue . . . it's a lot the same. Some Jews found God in the Holocaust; some abandoned him. Some Jews carry anger and scars--very literally--some just have the scars and have let love grow in their lives. The Nazis did what they did. The individual Jewish person must own their response. No one can make you feel anything--and the "victims" who know that survive a lot healthier. Recover a lot better.

I grew up on military bases and there were lots of every race represented there and I've always had black friends in my life. It feels strange saying that and these discussions are strange to me because in all my life I've only had one black person in my life who took everything back to being a "black thing"--and it made the other black people in the group uncomfortable. But I've seen angry black people; and I've seen black people who have a perspective several generations away from slavery that allows them to think back to the horrors that happened and not blame every white person walking past for them. There was a series on PBS recently tracing famous people's ancestors back to their slave ancestors. Morgan Freeman learned that his slave mother, after the Civil War, stayed with one of the children of her slave owner even though she couldn't marry him and they appear to have loved each other very deeply and while their children wouldn't naturally inherit land from him he deeded it to their sons when he died. Another actor learned his family was from slaves owned by the Native Americans who were not required to let their slaves go in the Emancipation Proclamation and continued to keep slaves until about a decade later when they were threatened by the government to let them go. He was not sure what to do about the fact that his family was owned by an even smaller minority group. Chris Rock learned about his ancestor who, I can't remember the details, but he got his freedom, ran for state legislator and won, was run out when something else happened in his state, then worked back from broke to a business owner and got into politics again . . . he very honestly shared that if he had known that . . . if he had known that his "slave heritage" included this kind of success and determination . . . that his life would have been very different.

IME we have done the disservice of lumping everyone from this race or that, or from this group or that, into a "class" of people. When their identity comes from that class identity they are "victims". When their identity comes from who they really are--whether it be personal awareness or family heritage awareness (thinking of Chris Rock learning the truth about where he came from) they don't have to see themselves as victims anymore.

I do not know if "The United States" is going to be able to ever, to everyone or even a majority satisfaction, make things right with the African American slave descendants. Not because there isn't a need, or even a desire to; but because, unlike Germany, we are a lot of big states with all different issues and identities who are united, but some days more strongly than others. And, honestly, when I talk to friends and family from the South . . . some Southerners haven't healed from their anger over the "War Between the States". Some had their families lose everything with the loss of slavery and they have struggled for generations--claiming the victim status. I'm not defending anyone . . . just saying that each person has their own story, their own experience. People are angry, or not; victims, or not; healed, or not . . .

I think the story earlier of sitting with someone and apologizing to them--one on one--personal--speaking to their pain . . . THAT is where the answer is. When enough individuals connect with enough individuals and cut through the pain to real relationship, that is where healing comes. I cannot say the number of women and men I've counseled with who have huge healing come from their childhood when I am able to say, "I know I can't go back and be your mother, but I am sorry, as a mother, for what you endured (whether at her hands or because she didn't/couldn't stop it)." The tears come and the healing begins at a new level.

My heart breaks when I think about what slaves in this country endured. Even those "treated well" were owned, less than human in consideration. It is disgusting! And I am proud of the people in our country who fought to end it. I am proud of the people who worked with the underground railroad; who went to war and died; who protested and changed laws and fought on whatever their front to change things! I am proud to be part of a country today that does not allow slavery and condemns it around the world (in word if not in action). And I get angry when I hear leaders--black and white--talking to and about African Americans as though they are still victims. I get angry when a black friend from college was told by her high school advisers, "You're smart enough--take the white people scholarships and leave the black kid ones for the not so intelligent black people who need it." I get angry when Bill Cosby--a black man who has succeeded in this culture and according to everyone's standards--is attacked by people for telling a group that they need to parent their children--be there for their children--teach their children . . . that is at least part of what is needed!

I also get upset when white people think the solution has to come from us--like there is something we can do to fix things, or help the black people. Honestly, it is taken by a lot of black people as quite condescending. It's like a man thinking he can fix things for the rape victim--it can't work that way. Germany can take responsibility for what they did in the Holocaust and determine to never let that happen again--but they can't fix what was done; it can't be undone.

Healing has to come from the choice to embrace healing. It has to involve forgiveness, talking to the right person, and realizing that even if someone attempted to repay you--nothing but the cross can cover the debt you are owed. Sign it over to God and live this life the best you can. Decide to never be a victim again!

Mark Metcalfe

28th June 2008, 12:24 PM (12:24)

Yes, there are still lunatics. But I think Charles' statement still carries. Germany, as a whole, in general, has done well. Much better than the Japanese, for instance.

I accept this. So, considering where America is today with regards to race relations, vis-a-vis say the height of the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s (basically two generations removed from MLK Jr.), as a whole, I think America is doing fairly well. I will concede (and have already said so) that we still need to provide opportunity (education) for disadvantaged people (but believe that it includes all disadvantaged persons, no matter how they came to be disadvantaged).

Mark

Crystal Lutton

28th June 2008, 01:17 PM (13:17)

Mark Metcalfe

28th June 2008, 01:30 PM (13:30)

The only word change I would suggest to what you are saying, Mark, is that I wouldn't call the people who need help getting education "disadvantaged". I would call them disadvantaged if they don't get an education and want to succeed in our culture.

I don't mind working through semantics to get to understanding. Thanks.

By it, I meant that some people start out in difficult and impoverished circumstances (disadvantaged) and that they won't get an education unless there is some sort of societal contribution - providing the opportunity for the education to compete and succeed.

Even more to the point, I don't think anyone in NazNet disagrees that society has a responsibility to help others who are less fortunate. What we have contended with is how best to remedy systemic issues in our society. And too easily, complicated issues become boiled down to repeated mantras that tend to place people in either a "good side" or "bad side."

There are problems to be addressed with any cultural group that either cannot assimilate into the "melange of an American culture," or chooses not to assimilate (as with some asian or hispanic communities), because many of us do aspire to be One Nation Under God, Indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.

Mark

Hans Deventer

28th June 2008, 02:00 PM (14:00)

I accept this. So, considering where America is today with regards to race relations, vis-a-vis say the height of the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s (basically two generations removed from MLK Jr.), as a whole, I think America is doing fairly well.

Yes, I agree. I think MLK would have been overjoyed to see that an African American actually stands a real chance of getting elected as president. I'm not sure if it's the promised land yet, but I would certainly say it is a major step along the way.

Kevin Rector

28th June 2008, 02:09 PM (14:09)

The advantages that I advocate (regardless of color, creed, gender, or religion) are those that would provide a level playing field for all, for that is true equity, IMO. I realize that there are many in our society who do not have the opportunity to "benefit from the system" and I would advocate changes to the system to allow everyone to have those opportunities.

The only way to allow those who are disadvantaged to be on a level playing field is to "raise" them to that field (over several generations)... that means giving them something for nothing. Affirmative Action is a practical example of this, and yet I would venture a guess that most Nazarenes are opposed to Affirmative Action.

Yet the end to racism can't really be legislated anyway. The end to racism happens when Christians choose to live in shalom with each other and the world... giving up "our rights" for the good of our brothers and sisters.

Mark Metcalfe

28th June 2008, 04:05 PM (16:05)

Hans Deventer

29th June 2008, 02:00 AM (02:00)

Re: "an African American actually stands a real chance of getting elected as president. I'm not sure if it's the promised land yet, but I would certainly say it is a major step along the way. "

I agree. In fact, Barack Obama is only partially African American - and interracial man. However, my vote will not be predicated on making history because this man has a darker color than I.

Well, that's exactly it! If people were indeed only voting because of race, no progress would have been made. But if they vote because of political views and still a coloured man has a chance (or a woman, for that matter), then there is real advancement.

Mark Metcalfe

29th June 2008, 07:26 AM (07:26)

Charles W Christian

29th June 2008, 10:50 AM (10:50)

Well, that's exactly it! If people were indeed only voting because of race, no progress would have been made. But if they vote because of political views and still a coloured man has a chance (or a woman, for that matter), then there is real advancement.

True, Hans.... And sadly, we must add that for a LONG time in this country, we mainly voted because of race, and so many women and people of color were excluded just because of race and gender. There will be many, according to polls and interviews, who will NOT vote for Sen. Obama simply because of race, and that is sad. I'm not talking about people who disagree on policy, but those who ARE Democrats, and who oppose Sen. McCain, yet because Sen. Obama is a black man (he has dark skin), they will not vote for him. Hopefully, those folks will be a smaller percentage than our country has turned out in the past, but it is still sad and worth of prayer for our nation.....

Thanks,
Charles

Charles W Christian

29th June 2008, 10:56 AM (10:56)

This is where the rub is. What does it mean to "raise them to that field?"

If you mean giving education for nothing, then I can agree with you.
If you mean giving other things without merit (a person should be able to compete and earn a job by being qualified - through education and skill), then I disagree.

To me, this is the difference between "giving a fish and teaching to fish." One satisfies for a day, another satisfies for a lifetime.

Re: "an African American actually stands a real chance of getting elected as president. I'm not sure if it's the promised land yet, but I would certainly say it is a major step along the way. "

I agree. In fact, Barack Obama is only partially African American - and interracial man. However, my vote will not be predicated on making history because this man has a darker color than I. My vote will be aligned with whichever candidate more closely aligns with my views of governing. (Obama supporters need not worry about my vote; I live in Massachusetts, which is not in any danger of giving its electoral votes to McCain.)

Mark

Mark -
It is encouraging that your vote will not be predicated on skin color. That is noble and right. It is also very different from most of our country's history, and so, that is why people are buzzing about the possiblity of the first African-American as pres. Less than a century ago, a president of our country was the subject of death threats simply because he allowed a black man to be a lunch guest at the White House!!! So, I guess we've come a ways, and that should be noted.

By the way, in America, Sen. Obama is seen as a black man, regardless of whether one of his parents are white. Americans are not color blind; in fact, they look at color first. For centuries, too, if a person had one relative in their immediate preceding generations who was black they were called a black person, no matter how "white" their skin was. I'm sure your point regarding Sen. Obama's parentage was one of educating folks, but the harsh reality is that most of American history has produced people who are shallow enough to look at a person's skin color and say, "That is a black man," or "that is a white man," etc., etc., and then judge that person solely on that. Maybe that is changing, and I hope more people develop your voting habits -- looking at issues rather than simply color, but you are (ironically) a minority in some circles....

God bless,
Charles

Greg Farra

29th June 2008, 02:01 PM (14:01)

I don't mind working through semantics to get to understanding. Thanks.

By it, I meant that some people start out in difficult and impoverished circumstances (disadvantaged) and that they won't get an education unless there is some sort of societal contribution - providing the opportunity for the education to compete and succeed.

Even more to the point, I don't think anyone in NazNet disagrees that society has a responsibility to help others who are less fortunate. What we have contended with is how best to remedy systemic issues in our society. And too easily, complicated issues become boiled down to repeated mantras that tend to place people in either a "good side" or "bad side."

There are problems to be addressed with any cultural group that either cannot assimilate into the "melange of an American culture," or chooses not to assimilate (as with some asian or hispanic communities), because many of us do aspire to be One Nation Under God, Indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.

Mark

Sometimes it's hard to figure out how to best help people. There are some people who need help and will not be able to do much for themselves (such as totally disabled) while there are those who can and will take what help we give them and use it wisely. Then we have those we enable to just get by. I work in Section 8 and other low income housing. We get all kinds of people. We have poor who keep their houses clean, make sure their kids behave and learn in school. Then I know lazy poor who keep their places filthy while they lay around all day. Certainly there is some way to channel the money and resources to those that show some initiative rather than have a sense of entitlement.

Crystal Lutton

29th June 2008, 02:52 PM (14:52)

The only way to allow those who are disadvantaged to be on a level playing field is to "raise" them to that field (over several generations)... that means giving them something for nothing. Affirmative Action is a practical example of this, and yet I would venture a guess that most Nazarenes are opposed to Affirmative Action.

Years ago when I was in the Honors College at ASU we were taken to a commune in the Northern part of the state and attended a day of a gathering of the greatest minds at the time (at least that is how they marketed themselves ;) ). One of the speakers that day was a much older black man who had worked alongside both Martin Luther King Jr. and then Farakhan. I really wish I could remember his name but this was truly years ago. He shared his experiences in the Civil Rights Movement and then went into where the movement had come since the early days and where the leaders were committed to taking it. I was shocked at some of the things I was hearing and when he was finished speaking there was a q&a time. I asked, "I want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly. I hear you saying that the movement began with a goal of equal opportunity but has decided that this is no longer enough. If I hear you correctly you are saying that the future of the Civil Rights Movement leaders is the goal of 'equal results' and you will not be satisfied until that is achieved. Am I understanding you correctly?"

His answer: "YES. Until we have equal results we do not have equality."

I think that most people think we are still trying to level the playing field--achieve equal opportunity. Maybe that is why so many don't understand the level of unrest found in some circles. If "Equal Results" is the goal then there will never be satisfaction. There is no way to guarantee equal results--there are not equal results among white men. Some work as CEO's and others dig in mines--some live in trailer parks and some live in Bel Air.

Going on the above quoted definition of affirmative action--giving something for nothing--you are right that I am opposed to that. Something obtained for nothing is not valued. That doesn't mean, though, that I'm opposed to correcting things over generations. To me that means giving the opportunity to work for something, the opportunity to have things previously kept from you. I'm very much in favor of those from lower incomes receiving financial assistance that doesn't land them in severe debt and since statistics show that a majority of the black population would qualify then that's fine that they would get more assistance than their white colleagues. I'm fine with laws that make sure people of any color can work, buy homes, etc., without prejudice causing them to not have these things.

As a woman I've found out that I was hired for a job over a man because the company didn't see a man in that role--that offended me. If I were to be given something because of something as arbitrary as my race or gender or something outside of my control then I would not want it any longer. But to be given the opportunity to strive for anything, to be given the opportunity to put my efforts into achieving anything, to not be restricted because of gender or race . . . that is equality.

Mark Metcalfe

30th June 2008, 09:18 AM (09:18)

There will be many, according to polls and interviews, who will NOT vote for Sen. Obama simply because of race, and that is sad.

Have you seen the polls and statistics of the African American community (somewhere around 90% voting for Obama)? Does anyone think is it about reasoned policy and stand on issues for all 90%?

I decry voting on the basis of race completely.

Mark

Mark Metcalfe

30th June 2008, 09:37 AM (09:37)

By the way, in America, Sen. Obama is seen as a black man, regardless of whether one of his parents are white. Americans are not color blind; in fact, they look at color first. For centuries, too, if a person had one relative in their immediate preceding generations who was black they were called a black person, no matter how "white" their skin was. I'm sure your point regarding Sen. Obama's parentage was one of educating folks, but the harsh reality is that most of American history has produced people who are shallow enough to look at a person's skin color and say, "That is a black man," or "that is a white man," etc., etc., and then judge that person solely on that. Maybe that is changing, and I hope more people develop your voting habits -- looking at issues rather than simply color, but you are (ironically) a minority in some circles....

I point it out as an increasing reality on America. We are a heterogenous society, and we have - since the Civil Rights movement began - moved definitely to become a real "melting pot" (instead of groups of diversity) because there are more and more interracial marriages of all kinds. This begins the process of erasing the classifications that polarize.

My heritage is pretty homogenous. My wife is "white" but has an accumulation of national backgrounds. She is probably a sixteenth Native American, though her dominant features are Irish. Now, my kids, when asked what nationality they are respond that they are mostly English by descent, but have a lot of other nationalities in them.

Now, the only singular descriptor you can use for my wife is "white" because she has fair skin and doesn't tan as well as I do. But "white" and "black" are polarizing and increasingly inaccurate descriptors... especially nowadays and the trend in America is for even MORE blending.

Mark

P.S. My children have married people with French backgrounds!

Hans Deventer

30th June 2008, 10:19 AM (10:19)

Have you seen the polls and statistics of the African American community (somewhere around 90% voting for Obama)? Does anyone think is it about reasoned policy and stand on issues for all 90%?

I decry voting on the basis of race completely.

And rightly so. Two remarks, however.

1. I thought African Americans generally vote mostly Democratic. It would have been much stranger if all of sudden they voted for a Black Republican.

2. We've discussed here before, racism isn't completely the same from the oppressing side as it is on the oppressed side. Blacks have voted for white people for as long as they had the right to vote. You can hardly blame them for voting for "their" man. It's part of the process. Once the bridge has been crossed, race has a good chance of not being an issue anymore from BOTH side of the divide. But it's up to white people first (understanding what you wrote about "white" in your other post). Kinda like the general superintendents. Since Nina has been elected, we're more free to vote for a person irrespective of gender.

Mark Metcalfe

30th June 2008, 10:30 AM (10:30)

Hans Deventer

30th June 2008, 10:36 AM (10:36)

I also suppose that you are correct about the second part, too. So I accept what you say. It is just that racism is odious whether coming from the oppressors or the oppressed. What I admire from MKL Jr. and Ghandi was the distinct and intentional lack of "responding in kind." That brought more and more people to the side of "doing what is right" rather than "doing as has been done to you." Taking the high road will suffocate racism far more quickly.

Absolutely! Problem is of course that people like MLK Jr. and M. Ghandi were special people. Unfortunately, not all of us are up to their level. So my approach was more pragmatic, I guess. But I totally agree with the goal!

Charles W Christian

30th June 2008, 10:38 AM (10:38)

And rightly so. Two remarks, however.

1. I thought African Americans generally vote mostly Democratic. It would have been much stranger if all of sudden they voted for a Black Republican.

2. We've discussed here before, racism isn't completely the same from the oppressing side as it is on the oppressed side. Blacks have voted for white people for as long as they had the right to vote. You can hardly blame them for voting for "their" man. It's part of the process. Once the bridge has been crossed, race has a good chance of not being an issue anymore from BOTH side of the divide. But it's up to white people first (understanding what you wrote about "white" in your other post). Kinda like the general superintendents. Since Nina has been elected, we're more free to vote for a person irrespective of gender.

Well said, Hans. This is my thinking on the matter, as well. When a door has been closed for so long, intentionality does not necessarily have to be equated with prejudice or racism. The last GS elections are a good example of this, in my view as well.

So, since there have been no black people elected to the presidency ever in America -- and indeed for most of our history black people had been systematically denied the right to vote , then the enthusiasm for African-Americans to say, "FINALLY," and to vote in large blocks for a candidate who is viable (among all races) and who appeals to the majority of concerns in that voting block (African-Americans tend to vote in high numbers for Democrats) is a different story, it seems to me. I mean it's easy to "decry" it when we've not been a victim of intentional oppression regarding our voting rights as white Americans. Whites have been the perpetrators of intentionality, and now when Blacks are intentionally making a move with a viable candidate (other black candidates in the last couple of decades have not gotten the high turnout that Obama is getting), then we probably have no right to get too offended! :-)

Also, lots of whites -- even white evangelicals(!) -- seem to be interested in Obama, and this is unusual lately for any Democratic candidate; especially a person of color. White evangelicals tend to vote for white Republicans, statistically-speaking. However, some reporters (and some Naznet interactions we've seen) tend to say that at least a small shift is beginning to happen that will create the phenomenon of "Obama Democrats" that will mirror (though not in quantity) the "Reagan Republicans" that emerged in the late 70s/early 80s in America (Reagan Republicans are Democrats or Moderates who voted strongly for Reagan).....

I'm glad there's no politics in heaven....:basic05

Charles

Charles W Christian

30th June 2008, 10:47 AM (10:47)

You are correct, they mostly vote democratic.
(Some prominent black Republicans include Alan Keyes, Colin Powell, and Condi Rice.)

I also suppose that you are correct about the second part, too. So I accept what you say. It is just that racism is odious whether coming from the oppressors or the oppressed. What I admire from MKL Jr. and Ghandi was the distinct and intentional lack of "responding in kind." That brought more and more people to the side of "doing what is right" rather than "doing as has been done to you." Taking the high road will suffocate racism far more quickly.

Thanks.

Mark

I don't think those who are voting for Obama are not taking the high road, and I don't think MLK would support McCain, with all due respect to McCain. MLK advocated non-violence and harmony; however, he also (read his biographies) spoke about African-Americans pro-actively and intentionally rising up to provide a counter-balance for the historic injustices. He felt this would not only give needed self-esteem to the Black community, but would also allow Whites to awaken to their need for repentance (corporately/societal speaking). Anyway, I guess I'm saying that he was more activistic -- especially toward the end of his life -- than most white like to admit sometimes.

Also, there are sociologists who argue that only the majority can be "racist," since racism is about societal structures and power. Who has the power in American societal structures, historically? they would ask. Oppressed groups cannot be racist per say, but they can be prejudiced (since prejudice is a more individualistic designation). I'm sure that there are holes in those arguments, but it is an intriguing argument, nevertheless. The summary: Only those who hold power in the society can be "racist" in the technical sense of the term. Others can develop prejudice, but do not have the power to "dominate and oppressed based upon race," which is the classical definition of racism.... I don't know; I see racism as also discriminating against or for someone based upon race, too. Either way, discrimination individually is indeed wrong, and I would agree with you on that.

Again, having said that, we whites would do well to recognize that when or if we boldly state this toward other races, we are not taken as seriously -- domestically or internationally -- since we have a "plank in our own eye," as Jesus might say....:eek:

By the way, I'm not directing any of that last part to Mark or anyone in particular -- just a general comment, based upon my own "wrestlings" with these things....

Blessings,
Charles

Paula Karr

30th June 2008, 11:02 AM (11:02)

Hans Deventer

30th June 2008, 11:14 AM (11:14)

So while you folks are divvying up pieces of the pie to make it all fair, please be sure to send some in the direction of us women.

Ahh, but I did!

Well, that's exactly it! If people were indeed only voting because of race, no progress would have been made. But if they vote because of political views and still a coloured man has a chance (or a woman, for that matter), then there is real advancement.

Charles W Christian

30th June 2008, 11:26 AM (11:26)

Charles, you said, "and indeed for most of our history black people had been systematically denied the right to vote."

May I respectfully point out that until 1920, HALF of all WHITE Americans were denied the right to vote. They were called "women." While the "pink ceiling" has been lifted to some degree, there is still a salary gap.

So while you folks are divvying up pieces of the pie to make it all fair, please be sure to send some in the direction of us women.

:-)

Point well taken....True!

I'm also a big advocate for women's rights -- an evangelical feminist you might call me....:-) And proudly so! Thanks for the necessary corrective word (at least toward some of us...).

Thanks,
Charles

Gina Stevenson

30th June 2008, 12:44 PM (12:44)

Sometimes it's hard to figure out how to best help people. There are some people who need help and will not be able to do much for themselves (such as totally disabled) while there are those who can and will take what help we give them and use it wisely. Then we have those we enable to just get by. I work in Section 8 and other low income housing. We get all kinds of people. We have poor who keep their houses clean, make sure their kids behave and learn in school. Then I know lazy poor who keep their places filthy while they lay around all day. Certainly there is some way to channel the money and resources to those that show some initiative rather than have a sense of entitlement.

Tell you what ... there is some "crazy" stuff that occurs within this set-up. Have seen what appears to be a couple of (no, three) things that help waste tax money, while some of it is needed for such things:

(1) Had an application for this one place where I got scared out last December after my face-smashing fall ... due to their outside laundry. In it was written that this tiny one-BR/one-small bath place's rent was something like $600+ market value. Now, there are nicer 2-BR places one can rent (*not* subsidized) for less than that ... so it appears that the rental price is jacked up when subsidized (& allowed to be done!), which gives them more total rent than a non-subsidized place. Is that a waste?

(2) Finding so many places, after all, that have trot-across-the-complex-outside-in-nasty-Michigan-weather laundries, I mentioned how, with all the $$$ put into these machines which more than pay for themselves that way, it would make sense to accommodate people considered seniors/disabled folks by letting them launder INSIDE. After all, this is not southern California, or Arizona, where it's nice year-round! 'Know what they told me? Rather than paying to have safely accessible washing facilities, they will PAY someone to do someone else's laundry, so they don't have to handle this weather with their laundry bundles! That has to cost more than just putting washing facilities where they're safely accessible!! When people are perfectly capable of doing their own laundry, but maybe not capable of hauling all sorts of it over icy/snowy walks, etc, there's NO NEED to pay someone to do it!! More waste(!!), no? But it's something that's often done, I guess, from what I hear. Stupid! (a word I use sparingly)

(3) Disability Advocates: when one could more nearly support themselves by working at home, thereby putting in the hours according to their back's ability (you can't too often lie down on a job out in public), what are they told by DA (who they were informed would be able to help in just about any way one might need)? "Well, we only do what we can to get people back into regular, fulltime jobs! We've no find-work-at-home help here!" How much more $$$ could that save, too, if they'd work with employers to make this more possible? Yes, I understand some employers want to "keep their eye on" their folks, but there has to be some place(s) out there that, so long as work was done decently, would allow this!

It's crazy when one's not one of the "lazies," but can go crazy until something comes along as some book editing did for awhile last year, that there's not some way, somehow, to earn some $$$ ... hopefully to even get off SS (would if I could, for sure). People have suggested this on-line stuff ... well, the only way yet I've seen (unless one's cool at e-bay selling, & then you have to buy cheaply to sell for anything worthwhile, etc) on-line seems to involve a lot of spamming!! Need "regular" work ... not a web page, either, that might be found once in a great while via a search, & might be only looked at ... might make a few $$$ once in awhile ... but, how about "regular/consistent" income? It's not my brain that's incapable ... duh!

So, yes, there's much governmental sheer WASTE! (aside from some of these places being downright dangerous in winter)

His answer: "YES. Until we have equal results we do not have equality."

..........................

But to be given the opportunity to strive for anything, to be given the opportunity to put my efforts into achieving anything, to not be restricted because of gender or race . . . that is equality.

Definitely agree that it's equal opportunity we need; results is then partially up to the one who's been given the opportunity.

Ahh, but I did!

Yes, you did acknowledge women, Hans; now, if you could only help out in effecting the demise of that salary gap, eh! :cool: