CDZ Black people think in terms of "we;" white people think in terms of "I"

[320 Years of History]

Active supervolcanoes like the Yellowstone volcano and U.S. racial tensions...the two have much in common.

• Most folks know it's there.
• Most folks realize that it's a question of when it'll explode again, not whether it will.
• Everyone knows when it erupts the consequence is widespread devastation that gets worse and stays that way long before it gets better.
• Few folks consider it a clear and present danger to our nation, preferring to view it in an "it is what it is" context.

Yet I believe there is one key difference between them: unlike a volcanic eruption, we can stop racism.

I'm like a most folks, especially white folks, in that while I have opinions on the matter, I don't revel at the opportunity or need to discuss the racial issues that infest American society. Yet, at least once a year or so, sometimes a bit more often, I have little choice but to face the matter head on. I must because, without exception, the kids I mentor are minorities and I am not. The other night just after the Flint debate was the most recent instance.

One of my mentorees ("my kids"), a high school senior, called me to discuss my views on Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders' responses to some of the debate questions they answered. As the conversation progressed, the inevitable happened: I was tacitly obliged to be the voice of and act as the representative for the entirety of the white race in America. I knew it was only a matter of time before that would happen; truly I was surprised it hadn't some years ago, for the other night was hardly our first race-related discussion.

Anyway, at the end of the discussion, I ended up pointing him to an essay, "I, Racist" by John Metta. I asked him to ask one of his white friends to read it and to do the same with one of his black friends and then discuss it with them both and then compare and contrast the context in which his friends reacted to it. Specifically, I instructed him to pay special attention to the "we vs. I" nature of their respective comments, telling him further that therein will he find what I believe is the first major hurdle that must be overcome for most folks in both races.

And that brings me to the topic of discussion and questions for this thread:

• Assume you've been asked to design a high level process that has as its goal the abolition of racism in both its overt and subtle forms.
  • What would be the key, high level steps, in order, you'd identify for accomplishing that objective? Why?
  • What do you see as the intermediate objective of each step?
  • What dependencies are there, besides mere will, to each step being successfully accomplished?
  • What impediments do you see to successfully completing each step, as well as all of them collectively?

Please be clear in letting us readers know what that you are presenting is your idea or supposition (be it optimistic or pessimistic) and what is credibly established or very widely accepted by subject matter experts on "whatever it is." Merely writing "I believe..." will do that effectively enough.
​

P.S./Edit:
If you are not certain what subtle racism is or how it manifests itself, you may find this helpful:

• Prejudice, Stereotyping and Discrimination
  
• Stereotypes and Prejudice Their Overt and Subtle Influence in the Classroom
  
• Overt and Subtle Racial Discrimination and Mental Health: Preliminary Findings for Korean Immigrants
  
• UnderstandingPrejudice.org: The Psychology of Prejudice

 

[9thIDdoc]

Stop giving race baitters media forums.
Stop rewarding the "Oh poor me I'm (X color)!" syndrome.

 

[TemplarKormac]

And I think that this issue is a horse that has clearly been beaten in two.

 

[Agit8r]

LOL. What?

 

[emilynghiem]

Active supervolcanoes like the Yellowstone volcano and U.S. racial tensions...the two have much in common.

• Most folks know it's there.
• Most folks realize that it's a question of when it'll explode again, not whether it will.
• Everyone knows when it erupts the consequence is widespread devastation that gets worse and stays that way long before it gets better.
• Few folks consider it a clear and present danger to our nation, preferring to view it in an "it is what it is" context.

Yet I believe there is one key difference between them: unlike a volcanic eruption, we can stop racism.

I'm like a most folks, especially white folks, in that while I have opinions on the matter, I don't revel at the opportunity or need to discuss the racial issues that infest American society. Yet, at least once a year or so, sometimes a bit more often, I have little choice but to face the matter head on. I must because, without exception, the kids I mentor are minorities and I am not. The other night just after the Flint debate was the most recent instance.

One of my mentorees ("my kids"), a high school senior, called me to discuss my views on Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders' responses to some of the debate questions they answered. As the conversation progressed, the inevitable happened: I was tacitly obliged to be the voice of and act as the representative for the entirety of the white race in America. I knew it was only a matter of time before that would happen; truly I was surprised it hadn't some years ago, for the other night was hardly our first race-related discussion.

Anyway, at the end of the discussion, I ended up pointing him to an essay, "I, Racist" by John Metta. I asked him to ask one of his white friends to read it and to do the same with one of his black friends and then discuss it with them both and then compare and contrast the context in which his friends reacted to it. Specifically, I instructed him to pay special attention to the "we vs. I" nature of their respective comments, telling him further that therein will he find what I believe is the first major hurdle that must be overcome for most folks in both races.

And that brings me to the topic of discussion and questions for this thread:

• Assume you've been asked to design a high level process that has as its goal the abolition of racism in both its overt and subtle forms.
  • What would be the key, high level steps, in order, you'd identify for accomplishing that objective? Why?
  • What do you see as the intermediate objective of each step?
  • What dependencies are there, besides mere will, to each step being successfully accomplished?
  • What impediments do you see to successfully completing each step, as well as all of them collectively?

Please be clear in letting us readers know what that you are presenting is your idea or supposition (be it optimistic or pessimistic) and what is credibly established or very widely accepted by subject matter experts on "whatever it is." Merely writing "I believe..." will do that effectively enough.
​

P.S./Edit:
If you are not certain what subtle racism is or how it manifests itself, you may find this helpful:

• Prejudice, Stereotyping and Discrimination
  
• Stereotypes and Prejudice Their Overt and Subtle Influence in the Classroom
  
• Overt and Subtle Racial Discrimination and Mental Health: Preliminary Findings for Korean Immigrants
  
• UnderstandingPrejudice.org: The Psychology of Prejudice

Dear 320 Years of History
I would refer you to three solutions that I believe cover all the bases and more.
Not just addressing and resolving "racism" specifically, but at the same time, addressing
and resolving ALL OTHER AREAS of differences that lead to bigotry, whether by class, gender, belief, etc.

Why not solve all problems at once.

A. For racism specifically the best group I know that teaches all the levels you list,
internal to external racism, individual to institutionalized, etc. is
the CENTER FOR THE HEALING OF RACISM
Center For The Healing Of Racism | Internalize Oneness

See their Guidelines for Sharing used to facilitate forums where people share their experiences
and use the dialogue to heal by releasing and moving the process forward (not blaming and getting
caught up in debate between competing or conflicting viewpoints)

http://www.houstonprogressive.org

CHR teaches individuals and groups how to resolve all areas of racial issues and injuries.
They are the best I have seen at addressing every level out there by working all angles.

B. For working issues out in general,
the root cause of why conflicts don't get resolved and relations get destroyed
instead of healed is FORGIVENESS. this is the first step toward solving anything by getting
the emotional part healed, then the rational problem solving can follow.

Forgiveness must be freely chosen, can never be forced or dictated.
This is something people have to learn from experience to help them move forward.

The best groups I know that teach healing as a natural process include
* Christian Healing Ministry where the founding teachers have experience
in what it takes to heal both physical, mental, emotional and even criminal level illness
through forgiveness and generational therapy.
see http://www.christianhealingmin.org

Interestingly enough the same founder who authored the book HEALING also wrote one on
how homosexuality is healed in cases where this therapy succeeds.

* Worldwide Forgiveness Day, Forgiveness Alliance, and 17 Steps to Forgiveness
See links to these posted at freespiritualhealing

C. and for Black/White racism in America specifically
the big "Elephant in the room" is LAND OWNERSHIP and control of cities and govt.

People who were descendants of the founders who established govt and cities/states
are going to have an advantage with this experience in their family backgrounds
compared with people who spent 150 years not owning property but being OWNED AS PROPERTY.

So the key to catching people up on the learning curve of ownership is
to set up entire districts like school programs where people can learn to
own, manage and develop every level from school district to cities to states to whole countries.

I have suggested starting with Freedmen's Town in Houston as a model for developing such a campus
Freedmen's Town Historic Churches and Vet Housing
then replicating these campus models in every city and across the border
Earned Amnesty

So if you are serious about equality, then all people of all backgrounds and economic classes
need equal access to programs to learn to govern independent communities under local laws
and representation if we are ever going to be fully equally politically and economically.

 

[Elvis Obama]

I reject the entire premise of this thread and of the John Metta article. Is racism at the core of all the world's conflicts? Does North Korea loathe South Korea because of racism? Do Hindu and Muslim fight in India because of racism? Human beings are ruled by their fears. All human beings. Regardless of race, gender or religion. All such conflicts have their different histories and characteristics, but fear is the enemy, not religion or race or ideology. Can you really compare the fear and loathing generated by racial animus to the horrors of ideological conflict? Fear of the black man has caused some terrible tragedies, but it never threatened us with nuclear annihilation.

What's the worst danger we face, racism, or those who seek to stoke and exploit racism? Hate blacks? How 1956. The hip, cool racism is Muslims. The real danger is Donald Trump and his casual, amoral exploitation of the new "trendy" racism. The only answer to fear is education. Education makes people resistant to demagoguery. Education makes people successful and allows them to reject the loser mentality which causes them to cling to loser symbols like the Confederate flag.

 

[Dekster]

Stating that blacks think one way and whites another is in itself racist

 

[I amso IR]

The subject sounds like a discussion of individual vs wedavidual characteristics. If you have never eaten in a unsegregated military mess hall you have never seen segregation in it's raw form. Where blacks are free to sit with whites but not vice versa. It is called personal space, always has been and always will be. Had America been settled by African tribes...

 

[320 Years of History]

The subject sounds like a discussion of individual vs wedavidual characteristics. If you have never eaten in a unsegregated military mess hall you have never seen segregation in it's raw form. Where blacks are free to sit with whites but not vice versa. It is called personal space, always has been and always will be. Had America been settled by African tribes...

Red:
....there may have resulted some sort of bias, but it's unlikely to have been predicated upon the color of one's skin.

For example, looking at the Hindu pantheon of gods, one finds the "top god," Krishna -- in Sanskrit the name means black/dark -- is dark skinned and has been depicted as such since well before Europeans assumed political control and exerted cultural influence on Indians. In contrast, most Hindu goddesses are depicted as light skinned except Kali who has dark skin and is considered "the mother of all." Additionally, one will observe that the cultural preference for light or white skin, as a "positive" trait in and of itself, in India appeared after the British took hold of the subcontinent.

Circumstantially, sure, darker individuals born with effectively the same skin tone were less favored in Indian society; however, accrued from their being darker because they worked/existed mostly outside not under protection from the sun. Thus it was easy to distinguish a high caste person from a low caste person.

Seeing those observations and combining their verity with the fact that Hindu gods interact among themselves in response to all the myriad motivations humans have for doing so, or opting not to do so, it stands to reason that skin color racism isn't something that must necessarily arise from the interaction of of individuals of naturally lighter and darker skin tones.

 

[I amso IR]

Opp's, I was under the impression we were attempting to discuss racism in the U.S. I am not in a position to discuss the feasibility of racism within the Hindu belief system as I have never associated with Hindu's. As far as the European cast system goes I believe the British barons settled that matter or at least changed policy concerning human rights during the 12th century. My point, in my original comment was that when slavery was legal in America, it resulted in the importation of the slaves from tribal countries, primarily in Africa, which today is seen in the "we",ism stated by the author of the article which the OP himself hi lighted in red. Whites in general, I believe, are not tribal in nature and therefore suspicious of the nature of tribal peoples. If that suspicion is racial, in nature, then I suppose the charge of racism is then valid as in, "individualism bad", "tribalism good". But I tire of this bantering and therefore bid all, a fine, good morning.

 

[320 Years of History]

Opp's, I was under the impression we were attempting to discuss racism in the U.S. I am not in a position to discuss the feasibility of racism within the Hindu belief system as I have never associated with Hindu's. As far as the European cast system goes I believe the British barons settled that matter or at least changed policy concerning human rights during the 12th century. My point, in my original comment was that when slavery was legal in America, it resulted in the importation of the slaves from tribal countries, primarily in Africa, which today is seen in the "we",ism stated by the author of the article which the OP himself hi lighted in red. Whites in general, I believe, are not tribal in nature and therefore suspicious of the nature of tribal peoples. If that suspicion is racial, in nature, then I suppose the charge of racism is then valid as in, "individualism bad", "tribalism good". But I tire of this bantering and therefore bid all, a fine, good morning.

Red:
We are discussing contemporary American racism. I don't desire a discussion of racism in Indian culture.

I used the example of the Hindu religion merely to illustrate the uncertainty and potential implausibility/limited plausibility of the propositional outcome implied by the indefinite statement, "Had America been settled by African tribes..." as it appeared in conjunction with the earlier remarks you made.

I don't think one need know much about Hinduism beyond being able to observe that the same skin color bias doesn't exist within its deities, thus that trait doesn't inherently infest the human culture over which they hold domain (in the minds of Hindus). One can look at other ancient cultures, Rome, Egypt, Greece, etc. as well. While one does find slavery, including chattel slavery, one will not find that enslavement and perceptions of inferiority were driven by skin color. Instead, skin color was incidental to the perceived inferior position of those who were enslaved as well as being incidental to a group or individual's social status.

I chose Hindu as the ancient culture I used to illustrate that point because Indians quite often have dark brown skin similar to black Africans; however, racially they are Caucasoid. Additionally, Krishna's name specifically refers to his dark skin, he's depicted as being dark skinned and his common consort is depicted as being fair skinned. I just figured that most folks would be more familiar with having seen depictions of Krishna and other Hindu gods, thus making the point more accessible. In contrast, the racial dynamics of ancient Roman, Egyptian, Greek cultures is something one must read about in scholarly texts and papers that are less easily obtained than are images of Hindu deities. (I'm aware of the texts I've read on those cultures and that discussed the matter, but I don't know that they are available to read on the Internet.)

Perhaps the following pic will help illustrate the point.

Krishna -- Contemporary imagery

​

Krishna -- ancient imagery

This one is from the 14th century, so you can see that something lightened his skin over time, yet you and I both know that actually happening (in theory or in reality) makes no sense to consider as something that happens, so it can only be a cultural bias of some sort that arises out of some sort of influence. Given the age of the Hindu culture, it's unlikely that influence arose from within the culture itself seeing as Hindus for millennia were perfectly content with his being depicted as very dark skinned.


Blue:
Tribalism isn't unique to non-whites. All humans are social beings, and as such, regardless of their race are given to forming groups. What is a tribe but a group?

Racism is an outgrowth of how members of one group perceive and respond to those of another. Specifically, it's the perception that the members of various groups are superior or inferior on account of one attribute, race, that plays no causal role in establishing whether the members of those group in fact are superior or inferior, as classes/groups, to one another.

Pink:
Individualism and tribalism are neither good nor bad. They simply are two elements of human nature. How one or a society expresses itself using either as the context for doing so is what is good or bad, rational or irrational, fair or unfair. It's a given that groups will seek supremacy over or parity with competing groups. Obviously it's own supremacy is preferable from either group's point of view. Supremacy earned through measurable achievement is fine; we see that played out daily in nature. Supremacy maintained by imposing artificial constructs such as racism is the problem.

In other words, a human of any race is as capable of achieving as one of any other, assuming oneself more "whatever" in terms of his merit as a human simply because one's skin is fairer is not something that plays out in nature at all, except when that trait does indeed belie inferiority. What is an example of that happening in nature? Albinism. For a great many species, albinism is a distinct disadvantage for survival. An albino leopard, for example, lack the camouflage leopards need to catch prey and hide from opponents. Animals of the same species often reject their albino brethren, but that rejection is justified because albinism reduces an animal's ability to achieve -- find food, hide from enemies, see in bright light, etc.

 

[emilynghiem]

I reject the entire premise of this thread and of the John Metta article. Is racism at the core of all the world's conflicts? Does North Korea loathe South Korea because of racism? Do Hindu and Muslim fight in India because of racism? Human beings are ruled by their fears. All human beings. Regardless of race, gender or religion. All such conflicts have their different histories and characteristics, but fear is the enemy, not religion or race or ideology. Can you really compare the fear and loathing generated by racial animus to the horrors of ideological conflict? Fear of the black man has caused some terrible tragedies, but it never threatened us with nuclear annihilation.

What's the worst danger we face, racism, or those who seek to stoke and exploit racism? Hate blacks? How 1956. The hip, cool racism is Muslims. The real danger is Donald Trump and his casual, amoral exploitation of the new "trendy" racism. The only answer to fear is education. Education makes people resistant to demagoguery. Education makes people successful and allows them to reject the loser mentality which causes them to cling to loser symbols like the Confederate flag.

Dear Elvis Obama
I TOTALLY agree with you that FEAR is the root factor.
This is what makes racial conflicts worse, and religious/political bigotry so bad and go in vicious cycles -- because of exacerbation of FEAR.

You are right on point.

Dr. King Jr said it this way:

"Men often hate each other because they fear each other; they fear each other because they don't know each other; they don't know each other because they can not communicate; they can not communicate because they are separated."
Martin Luther King Quote: Men often hate each other because they fear each other; they fear each other ... - Refspace

He sought to remind us that "Perfect Love Casts out Fear:

18There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love.
1 JOHN 4:18

Love overcomes fear.
Truth and Wisdom overcome ignorance and fear of the unknown.
Forgiveness and Compassion overcome unforgiveness.
Good will and good faith overcome ill will and bad faith.
Inclusion overcomes exclusion.

I think forgiveness and inclusion are the hardest challenges.
It is hard to forgive and include the very people and groups we blame the most for causing problems and injuries.

If we can overcome that, it opens the door to resolving any number of problems connected with whatever ills we are so enraged about.

It is easier said than done, but once we make the commitment to forgive and include each other in solving problems together, it becomes so empowering that nothing can resist this force of justice and peace bringing the best out of even the worst of situations. Good always triumphs in the end; love never fails, because what is good for relations and humanity has greater influence and lasting ability than anything bad that cannot prevail in comparison.

The forces of good, of life and love, of justice and truth to bring peace are more powerful than any setbacks that get in the way but can eventually be resolved and overcome.

 

[emilynghiem]

Stating that blacks think one way and whites another is in itself racist

Dear Dekster
What I learned from experienced mediators volunteering with a nonprofit that facilitated conflict resolution to resolve contract disputes, as well as teaching workshops, is that
(A) the African American, Latin American and Asian American cultural groups tended toward COLLECTIVE identity such as putting the FAMILY name first or the COMMUNITY before the individual. They processed information to make decisions more HOLISTICALLY "with respect to or in relations with others besides just themselves."

(B) While the European type thinking tended to be more LINEAR. And especially focusing on the individual success as one's responsibility (as opposed to considering success for collective humanity as one's goal). If you need to excel in your job or school, you have to look out for number one and take care of yourself first before worrying about others; you can only rely on yourself, you are solely responsible for your own success or failure, etc.

So when people of the two cultural styles got into conflicts over how to carry out an agreed contract, their different COMMUNICATION STYLES required help to facilitate, or else the two parties might "talk past each other" and misunderstand each other's intent.

In some cases, the holistic/verbal processors took offense that the other party needed more than a verbal agreement or handshake, but wanted to document the points of the agreement "in writing" which is just doing business to them, but was considered a sign of distrust or disrespect to the others. While the "Eurolineal" type thinkers couldn't understand why the other party talked "holistically in circles around the issues" addressing other points that seemed off topic to them as if to "avoid or deflect from" the immediate agreement. But that is how that person processed their decision making, in context with other people and factors that did not seem significant to anyone else. They looked "evasive" to the other person, when it was cultural difference.

That is just one example of the difference in processing info and making decisions.

I have seen this in my own historic neighborhood, that the community made decisions as a UNIT and if their ability to assemble in order to negotiate and make decisions COLLECTIVELY as a community was compromised, then their leadership and plans fell apart. it is part of their culture.

It was part of the strategy of slavery to keep the "field slaves" and "house slaves" competing AGAINST each other so they couldn't fully unite "against the owners" and rebel to liberate themselves.

By breaking off the identity of the slaves from their ancestral lines, isolating family members from each other, and changing their names so they could never trace their heritage, this broke the ability of the slaves to unite and fight back.

We see this today in the attempts to organize mass protests in order to express the "collective voice" at a level that speaks to the powers that be. Some of this "collective protest" has had an impact, at least by forcing discussion to address issues.

But these vocal protests are still not fully united, and that's why political division is still pitting the "conservative Black pastors" against the liberally politicized anti-police lawlessness brought out at these protests.

 

[Stephanie]

just wow. if that's the case why aren't all you "we's" helping in stopping their children from being killed by black gang members? , why aren't you "we's" pulling your monies to help them bury them, move them from the public housing, buy their food, clothes, etc? you we's are so much better than them white folk?

this is the new racism being spread in this country and white people need to take notice.

 

[Holos]

Easy.

We are thinking of two extremes that only acknowledge themselves and one another, but cannot recognize anything else in the middle joining them or altogether parallel in joined extremity.

Think of a fallen dry tree branch. This "racist" conundrum between white and black (which is in reality much less human and much more biodiverse than we are accostumed to think) is only considering the "leaf end" part of the branch and the "trunk end" part of the branch but not any of the middle part that joins the two. One of those ends is like the blacks, the other of those ends is like the whites. They cannot properly recognize themselves (evident in crimes of "same color communities"), the joining middle or the other because they represent maximum absorption of light (black) or maximum reflection of light (white) in which only very little amounts of reflection can enter black and only very little amounts of absorption can enter white. Both maximum absorption (black) and maximum reflection (white) are blinding, black by the absence of light and white by the excess of light.

How does the problem easily go away then (if there is too much light) or is safely resolved (if there is no light at all)?

Physics, even as the reference to race is actually and genuinely biological (although not so human as it seems to be).

White is the mixture of all optical - light - colors (there are more than optical colors, or colors made of light particles, did you know?! We can make colors out of chemicals too, but that is not where the answer to these particular socio biological matters are). If you put a slice of each optical color on a disk and spin it fast enough it becomes white, thus proving optical white is the mixture of all optical colors.

To eliminate white extremism, or "racism" provenient from people who identify themselves as whites or singularly white all another person has to do is "slow down" the white spinning disk and show the disk they are actually is made of many colors. Spewing or shining colors from sources not already present won't do it. The only way is slowing them down and thus proving before white they were colors - and then they may even go back to spinning white fast but this time safely in honor of themselves and of all others.

To eliminate black extremism, or "racism" provenient from people who identify themselves as blacks or singularly black all another has to do is point to absolute blackness, which cannot truly be seen because it absorbs and merges every color without reflection. The blackness understood by extremist humans is and can only be perceived because it is in fact only a dark tone or shade of mixed colors that have been spewed or shone on absolute blackness. In optical physics, there is no precondition for black as there is for white, or in other words, black cannot be made like white can be made in optical physics, black is not optical at all, although acknowledged by optics as a contrast to white. Because of this situation, black cannot be really recognized or identified by conventional optics so it happens to become a "middle ground" for experimental mixtures. (look away from this light, that is, look at black for a moment, and then look at this light).

In this (visual) sense we use to distinguish groups or individuals, real, true, optical and physical black is what allows us to see any part of the dry branch and itself ad a whole too, because our eyes must absorb some light just as no object can reflect all of the light it is receiving to be seen (unless it produces its own light, which takes us to a new lesson in physics). However, that absolute black is everywhere, and if it was not for the white light thah is able to merge many light segments we would not be able to distinguish anything at all and everything would simply be a vast homogenous blackness.

The point is, no black or white community are truly pure or homogenous.

Therefore, a good education ranging all topics (which already exists and is what I got and am able to now share) is what will resolve any conflict. There is no "racism" in my hoods, and I've been to many different places where uneducated people of all sorts tended to speak a bunch of crap about black and white, even with their false sense of pride and confused identification. All of it would quickly go away when I had to intervene to provide proper education - which of course was and is never rejected.

 

[Dekster]

Stating that blacks think one way and whites another is in itself racist

Dear Dekster
What I learned from experienced mediators volunteering with a nonprofit that facilitated conflict resolution to resolve contract disputes, as well as teaching workshops, is that
(A) the African American, Latin American and Asian American cultural groups tended toward COLLECTIVE identity such as putting the FAMILY name first or the COMMUNITY before the individual. They processed information to make decisions more HOLISTICALLY "with respect to or in relations with others besides just themselves."

(B) While the European type thinking tended to be more LINEAR. And especially focusing on the individual success as one's responsibility (as opposed to considering success for collective humanity as one's goal). If you need to excel in your job or school, you have to look out for number one and take care of yourself first before worrying about others; you can only rely on yourself, you are solely responsible for your own success or failure, etc.

So when people of the two cultural styles got into conflicts over how to carry out an agreed contract, their different COMMUNICATION STYLES required help to facilitate, or else the two parties might "talk past each other" and misunderstand each other's intent.

In some cases, the holistic/verbal processors took offense that the other party needed more than a verbal agreement or handshake, but wanted to document the points of the agreement "in writing" which is just doing business to them, but was considered a sign of distrust or disrespect to the others. While the "Eurolineal" type thinkers couldn't understand why the other party talked "holistically in circles around the issues" addressing other points that seemed off topic to them as if to "avoid or deflect from" the immediate agreement. But that is how that person processed their decision making, in context with other people and factors that did not seem significant to anyone else. They looked "evasive" to the other person, when it was cultural difference.

That is just one example of the difference in processing info and making decisions.

I have seen this in my own historic neighborhood, that the community made decisions as a UNIT and if their ability to assemble in order to negotiate and make decisions COLLECTIVELY as a community was compromised, then their leadership and plans fell apart. it is part of their culture.

It was part of the strategy of slavery to keep the "field slaves" and "house slaves" competing AGAINST each other so they couldn't fully unite "against the owners" and rebel to liberate themselves.

By breaking off the identity of the slaves from their ancestral lines, isolating family members from each other, and changing their names so they could never trace their heritage, this broke the ability of the slaves to unite and fight back.

We see this today in the attempts to organize mass protests in order to express the "collective voice" at a level that speaks to the powers that be. Some of this "collective protest" has had an impact, at least by forcing discussion to address issues.

But these vocal protests are still not fully united, and that's why political division is still pitting the "conservative Black pastors" against the liberally politicized anti-police lawlessness brought out at these protests.

That is a very long-winded way of admitting you are a racist, but thanks for the honesty. Culture =/= race

 

[9thIDdoc]

Your enemy is never a villain in his own eyes. Keep this in mind; it may offer a way to make him your friend. If not, you can kill him without hate--and quickly

Robert Heinlein

 

[Unkotare]

The title of the thread suggests an illogical conclusion.

 

[320 Years of History]

The title of the thread suggests an illogical conclusion.

Really? I'm not aware of any conclusion it uniquely suggests. Please share what conclusion you feel it specifically suggests to the exclusion of all other conceivable conclusions it might also suggest.

 

[Unkotare]

The title of the thread suggests an illogical conclusion.

Really? I'm not aware of any conclusion it uniquely suggests. Please share what conclusion you feel it specifically suggests to the exclusion of all other conceivable conclusions it might also suggest.

It suggests that people think differently because of the color of their skin, and that all "X" people think alike. Those are illogical conclusions.