On Jun 25, 2007, at 1:36 PM, Anne Pemberton wrote:

> Lyle Browning said:
>
> "Jumping into the intent of the post, there are those who appear to be
> blissfully unaware that racism exists in other venues than in the
> white world."
>
> Lyle,
>
> Perhaps you are jumping to false conclusion when you attempt to  
> "jump into the intent of the post". I cannot imagine that anyone  
> sophisticated enough to be part of this discussion would not be  
> aware that racism, which is described as the presumption that one  
> race, usually one's own, is superior to other/another race/s, does  
> not exist in people of other races. But what is the point of  
> berating it?
Because if you read newspapers, look at TV interviews and the like, a  
double standard exists. It is perfectly fair for African-American and  
Native-Americans to decry mistreatment, as they should; but those  
same folks go on to state implicitly or explicitly either  
specifically or in broad-brush that all of the "whites" are culpable.  
As has been said, if I were to make statements of that tenor which  
were as negative to the AA and NA groups as their posts to the  
majority, I'd be whomped until next month. On this list, statements  
have been made which imply that, perhaps without due reflection.  
There is quite the perception of not wishing to take to task negative  
statements about other's race and that is what is wrong. The more it  
is brought out, the more it is whomped, the less it is uttered and  
the less it is done and finally it just dies out, hopefully.
>
> Certainly racism has been a factor in the public and private  
> behaviors of many white persons in Virginia. Does that mean that  
> ALL white persons are racists? Certainly not. No more than to say  
> that all blacks are racist because some join organizations which  
> publically and privately extoll racist level of price in their race.
Sorry, that's a straw man argument and utterly beside the point. If a  
white person joins the KKK, and a black person joins a group  
advocating the overthrow of white society as in some of the  
"preaching" of Louis Farrakhan, then those two people are peas in the  
same pod (adding whichever other group of same ilk that you please).  
The point I would make is that both viewpoints need whomping to  
extinction. Those of us who dumbly allow that kind of vitriol to go  
unanswered will eventually end up supporting the side that wins out,  
assuming one did and that there wasn't a more accommodating middle  
ground. Not speaking up can and has ended up with the Hitler's,  
Stalin's, Mao's, Pol Pot's, Saddam Hussein's, Mugabe's, (you pick the  
dictator/head thug of your country of choice) of the world. Sometimes  
more than speaking is required. Apocryphal or not, the story of the  
British embassy person in Berlin who said that he could take out  
Hitler with a .303 Enfield was cashiered out of the service. How  
arguable is it that the world would have been a better place had he  
done it?

It's really no different than the schoolyard bully issue. Whoever  
confronts the bully and stops it does the world a service. The vast  
silent majority that sits by and does nothing for whatever reason,  
aids and abets the bully. "All politics is local" means it starts  
where it's heard and confronted.

Now there's an entirely different argument about how many people out  
of a hundred would engage the school bully, the local outspoke racist  
and all that versus those who would not become involved for whatever  
reason because it was easier to do nothing.
>
> It is not necessary to incessantly point out that there were  
> exceptions to the wide-spread sense of white superiority over  
> people of color. It is, perhaps, necessary to point out the  
> destructive results of that racism. Why? If for no other reason  
> than to keep it from rearing its ugly head again.
We absolutely agree.
>
> In another discussion on immigration, some posters typically point  
> out that the posters who decry immigration when it involves people  
> of color are actually racist in their objections. It is not just a  
> black/white issue. It is a matter of how tolerant each of us is.  
> Who is it you would prefer to deny rights to and why? Is it  
> justified to deny equal rights and opportunities to non-European  
> races only?
That's another danged red herring. Legal immigration is vastly  
different from illegal  immigration. Legal immigration was Ellis  
Island. Illegal immigration is the grappling point.
> The contention raised a few days ago by a poster who assumed that  
> the zoo in DC would bar attendees who were not of African descent  
> on this one day of the year was an example in point. No reasonable  
> person would believe admission, with money in hand, would be  
> denied. It's just that the day was set aside for those of African  
> descent to come together as they have for a century in an  
> environment pleasing to them. So what?
So nothing, it's been going on for years and folks knowledgeable of  
DC take it into consideration, or more to the point, ignore it as  
they wish or not. As they should as it is entirely a matter of  
choice, as it should be.
>
> Do people need the consent of the "majority" in order to celebrate  
> a holiday of their choosing? No, they do not. It is immaterial the  
> source of that holiday. If people choose to celebrate the day, let  
> them do so in peace and freedom.
I don't recall disagreeing with that point and in fact, am in total  
agreement with it.
>
> Let's stop with trying to be a "control freak". Let freedom ring!
Absolute freedom is anarchy. Conceptual freedom does not allow  
yelling "fire" in a theater. Nor should freedom allow unanswered  
threats to the wellbeing of any of our society. It's not about  
control, it's about due consideration and non-interference in the  
lives of others.

Lyle Browning, RPA