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

[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.

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

Red:
Hmmm...I would not and did not expect that any reader would have inferred a causal relationship between the color of one's skin and their mode of thinking. Rather, I expected that everyone would know that any such correlation would be, logically speaking, coincidental and thus an observation of what is, not an attestation to what is and why. My expectations may have been too high.

 

[Unkotare]

Words have meaning.

 

[320 Years of History]

Words have meaning.

So do semicolons.

 

[Unkotare]

Words have meaning.

So do semicolons.

I doubt you understand what it is.

 

[Sunni Man]

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

Nope......it's just a reality. ....

 

[9thIDdoc]

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

Nope......it's just a reality. ....

Nope. Obvious stereotyping.

 

[Sunni Man]

 

[9thIDdoc]

And then he was found liable in Civil Court. And then he went to jail for some of his other crimes. Has probably been some white dudes bitch for years now,lol.

 

[320 Years of History]

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

Nope......it's just a reality. ....

Nope. Obvious stereotyping.

??? Did you read the John Metta's essay that I linked in the OP? If you did read his essay, can you explain how you come to see the thread title as an illustration of harmful and irrational stereotyping, that is, the sort that sees the behavior and motives of a few members of a given group one and extrapolates that observation, assuming and expecting comparable behavior and motivations to appear and inspire the overwhelming majority of the other members of that same group?

I'm guessing that upon seeing the thread title, what went through your mind is the consideration of the its assertions and asked yourself whether that could possibly be so on a person-by-person basis. Is that how you perceived the thread title?

 

[9thIDdoc]

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

Nope......it's just a reality. ....

Nope. Obvious stereotyping.

??? Did you read the John Metta's essay that I linked in the OP? If you did read his essay, can you explain how you come to see the thread title as an illustration of harmful and irrational stereotyping, that is, the sort that sees the behavior and motives of a few members of a given group one and extrapolates that observation, assuming and expecting comparable behavior and motivations to appear and inspire the overwhelming majority of the other members of that same group?

I'm guessing that upon seeing the thread title, what went through your mind is the consideration of the its assertions and asked yourself whether that could possibly be so on a person-by-person basis. Is that how you perceived the thread title?

I consider your OP title to be a false statement. I know of no reason to believe that there is any substantial difference in how black and white Americans think. I make no judgement whether or not this (proposed) stereotype is harmful or irrational because I suspect that it is too obscure for that to matter.

 

[Sunni Man]

 

[320 Years of History]

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

Nope......it's just a reality. ....

Nope. Obvious stereotyping.

??? Did you read the John Metta's essay that I linked in the OP? If you did read his essay, can you explain how you come to see the thread title as an illustration of harmful and irrational stereotyping, that is, the sort that sees the behavior and motives of a few members of a given group one and extrapolates that observation, assuming and expecting comparable behavior and motivations to appear and inspire the overwhelming majority of the other members of that same group?

I'm guessing that upon seeing the thread title, what went through your mind is the consideration of the its assertions and asked yourself whether that could possibly be so on a person-by-person basis. Is that how you perceived the thread title?

I consider your OP title to be a false statement. I know of no reason to believe that there is any substantial difference in how black and white Americans think. I make no judgement whether or not this (proposed) stereotype is harmful or irrational because I suspect that it is too obscure for that to matter.

Wow....that is the response to a four sentence post that contains three questions....no direct reply to any of the questions asked....not even the first or last, both of which are adequately and truthfully answerable by "yes" or "no."


After reading the essay, and thinking back on the conversations I've had with blacks whom I know/knew well -- the women who worked in my childhood home, a handful of professional colleagues, and the parents of the children whom I've mentored -- along with recalling the public statements many black folks have made on myriad topics including but not limited to racial/social ones, and combined with being and having spoken with many white folks, I can easily see the accuracy of the statement in the context that Mr. Metta applies it.

That's why I asked if you'd read Mr. Metta's essay. I suspect that few folks -- black, white or otherwise -- will understand, much less find a reason to accept, the title statement without reading Mr. Metta's essay. I would not have understood the statement, much less have concurred re: its plausibility and its degree of probability had I not read the essay.

If you haven't read it, well, you haven't. That is what it is. But if you haven't read it, your remarks above aren't surprising. If you have read it, I ask you to, with reference to Mr. Metta's explanation, explain what leads you to find his assertion, in the context he presents it, is inaccurate.

 

[320 Years of History]

Off Topic:
Funny monologue. TY for sharing.

FWIW, Mother is semi-Southern and Daddy is from Mississippi. They and I are white, but I didn't get put in a "special place" or have time out. My little ass would have got whooped when I misbehaved and my face slapped when talked back to anyone, parents, governess, housekeeper, cook, teachers, or any adult for that matter.

I will likely never forget Mother saying to the principal when took me to school for the first time, "If he gets out of line, you have my permission to take him out of the classroom and whip his behind, and then you call me so I can come down here and do it again." I was a well behaved child. LOL

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Dear Stephanie EXACTLY! That is why the pastors started STAND
and the Black leadership in Houston started No More Bloodshed to address black on black violence first.

The problem is FORGIVENESS.

If people are still angry, like you are, that's why WE can't work together.
We are displacing blame outside ourselves and wanting Others to change.
While we lick our internal wounds in private.

But those are the wounds, that angry and outrage, that needs forgiveness and healing the MOST!
what these pastors are saying, and you feel it too when you get outraged at the injustice you see,
is we need to heal our INNER wounds and anger first.

Then we can unite as a nation.

You know how hard this is Stephanie to forgive the very groups you blame the most for
destruction. Well that's what you are asking Blacks to forgive who are just as angry
and wounded as you are. We are in this together, all our wounds and anger hold us back.

And the pastors are asking all of us to rise above our anger and destructive words
and put America first, To unite on what makes us strong and what will make things right.

And put aside the anger and hatred from the past, especially if you and I are asking Blacks to rise above,
and work out the problems that we are so outraged about.

The rage and blame is mutual. When we realize that, we can work together
and solve these problems we blame left and right. It is all our responsibility to fix regardless whose fault it is.

The pastors, everyone I know wants us to rise above.
It's harder to forgive than anything else, and that's where the faith in God
and grace helps to forgive that which makes us so angry we cannot.

I join you in prayer Stephanie that the Black leadership does unite
and stop the infighting and backbiting. If the Black leadership can succeed
in uniting, they can set an example for the rest of the nation to rise above our broken past
and pull our best strengths together, lift one another up, and quit putting each other down.

Together we can rise above, we need to help each other to do this,
to be bigger people and help those out of the ditches who are falling under to rise up as well.

We can do this, with God's help who is on the side of forgiveness,
healing relations, and restoring justice by standing on truth.

Thank you Stephanie and may God continue to bless you and
strengthen you in all the ways you contribute to rebuilding our nation.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Hi Unkotare not the color of their skin but the culture behind it.
It is well established that because whole generations of blacks in America were unable to own property in America but were treated as property (note: even the Black slave owners who did become plantation owners enslaved black people as property and didn't enslave whites. The blacks were more valuable in being bought and sold by both black and white owners because they could be identified more readily).

So this disparity and 150 year lag on the learning curve of owning property and participating in govt (remember the right to vote and segregation issues were still being resolved as late at the 50s and 60s)
DOES have an effect on how people operate in society.

There is a reason for the poverty and addiction to drugs and thug lifestyle if people don't have a family history of going to college or law school and participating in govt as other families have been for generations since the founding of America.

The resentment and distrust in Native Americans still isn't healed fully either, after the cruel genocide and destruction of their entire culture still fighting to resurface today.

One of my Black Native American friends wrote a song about having no representation in the UN when their heritage and tribes were among the first in this country, totally forgotten and not counted.

Look at Hawaii that received an apology for forced annexation by unlawful military force
but will have no return of sovereignty to their Kingdom that was robbed of their heritage.

You don't think that has an effect?

It's not just the external skin color, but the cultural and spiritual history
carried by people of a certain GENERATIONAL LINEAGE.

If people from Africa were robbed of their family names, where they don't know who their ancestors were,
they are going to have a different set of issues to overcome than people with UNINTERRUPTED family history where they had support of their grandparents and parents to continue growing in tradition as a family.

Of course genocide has longlasting effects on future generations.
That isn't going to heal overnight with the next person, but it carries over from one generation
to the next, up to 4 or 5 generations before these patterns are healed and stabilized.

Look at the cultural and social patterns. Race is CORRELATED with that, but not the cause.
It's the cycles of oppression and abuse carried DOWN THE FAMILY LINES.
(White people with mental illness, alcholic addictions or domestic violence issues carried down are affected by
generational factors also. so that is an issue of FAMILY LINES and not just the race these families are.)

 

[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.

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

Dear Dekster and 9thIDdoc
The way I avoid racist issues is I let people tell me how they identify their own culture, race, identity etc.
If you don't relate to my way of distinguishing race, culture, class etc.

Then I am happy to go with your way of seeing and saying these things when it comes to you.
I don't expect you to see or say things the same way as anyone else because your experiences and expression are different.

So that's how I get around these issues, by letting each person speak for themselves
and not holding any one person as "representing" a larger group, because each member
of that group is going to say and see things a little different from anyone else.

My way may not work for you, and your way may not work for me.
So why not let you represent yourself and keep these distinct?
Is that being racist to let each person say it the way that makes sense to them?
To respect each person's personal culture? To recognize these differences?

Do you agree we are all different?
And we may use words to make generalizations, but those are going to vary?

 

[9thIDdoc]

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

Nope......it's just a reality. ....

Nope. Obvious stereotyping.

??? Did you read the John Metta's essay that I linked in the OP? If you did read his essay, can you explain how you come to see the thread title as an illustration of harmful and irrational stereotyping, that is, the sort that sees the behavior and motives of a few members of a given group one and extrapolates that observation, assuming and expecting comparable behavior and motivations to appear and inspire the overwhelming majority of the other members of that same group?

I'm guessing that upon seeing the thread title, what went through your mind is the consideration of the its assertions and asked yourself whether that could possibly be so on a person-by-person basis. Is that how you perceived the thread title?

I consider your OP title to be a false statement. I know of no reason to believe that there is any substantial difference in how black and white Americans think. I make no judgement whether or not this (proposed) stereotype is harmful or irrational because I suspect that it is too obscure for that to matter.

Wow....that is the response to a four sentence post that contains three questions....no direct reply to any of the questions asked....not even the first or last, both of which are adequately and truthfully answerable by "yes" or "no."


After reading the essay, and thinking back on the conversations I've had with blacks whom I know/knew well -- the women who worked in my childhood home, a handful of professional colleagues, and the parents of the children whom I've mentored -- along with recalling the public statements many black folks have made on myriad topics including but not limited to racial/social ones, and combined with being and having spoken with many white folks, I can easily see the accuracy of the statement in the context that Mr. Metta applies it.

That's why I asked if you'd read Mr. Metta's essay. I suspect that few folks -- black, white or otherwise -- will understand, much less find a reason to accept, the title statement without reading Mr. Metta's essay. I would not have understood the statement, much less have concurred re: its plausibility and its degree of probability had I not read the essay.

If you haven't read it, well, you haven't. That is what it is. But if you haven't read it, your remarks above aren't surprising. If you have read it, I ask you to, with reference to Mr. Metta's explanation, explain what leads you to find his assertion, in the context he presents it, is inaccurate.

Wow....that is the response to a four sentence post that contains three questions....no direct reply to any of the questions asked....not even the first or last, both of which are adequately and truthfully answerable by "yes" or "no."

I don't know. I followed your links and skimmed what they led to but do not know if any of that came from Metta's essay.
The point you seem to be missing is that I am replying to your OP. Metta is not here to explain or defend what he has written and so it has little relevance and (as I wrote) I found much to question and/or disagree with. A fact is either a fact or it isn't. "Context" doesn't change that. What I understand is that neither you nor Metta can do more than speculate about what black or white Americans as groups think and it is simply impossible to compare two unknowns with any certainty. Better?

 

[320 Years of History]

Nope......it's just a reality. ....

Nope. Obvious stereotyping.

??? Did you read the John Metta's essay that I linked in the OP? If you did read his essay, can you explain how you come to see the thread title as an illustration of harmful and irrational stereotyping, that is, the sort that sees the behavior and motives of a few members of a given group one and extrapolates that observation, assuming and expecting comparable behavior and motivations to appear and inspire the overwhelming majority of the other members of that same group?

I'm guessing that upon seeing the thread title, what went through your mind is the consideration of the its assertions and asked yourself whether that could possibly be so on a person-by-person basis. Is that how you perceived the thread title?

I consider your OP title to be a false statement. I know of no reason to believe that there is any substantial difference in how black and white Americans think. I make no judgement whether or not this (proposed) stereotype is harmful or irrational because I suspect that it is too obscure for that to matter.

Wow....that is the response to a four sentence post that contains three questions....no direct reply to any of the questions asked....not even the first or last, both of which are adequately and truthfully answerable by "yes" or "no."


After reading the essay, and thinking back on the conversations I've had with blacks whom I know/knew well -- the women who worked in my childhood home, a handful of professional colleagues, and the parents of the children whom I've mentored -- along with recalling the public statements many black folks have made on myriad topics including but not limited to racial/social ones, and combined with being and having spoken with many white folks, I can easily see the accuracy of the statement in the context that Mr. Metta applies it.

That's why I asked if you'd read Mr. Metta's essay. I suspect that few folks -- black, white or otherwise -- will understand, much less find a reason to accept, the title statement without reading Mr. Metta's essay. I would not have understood the statement, much less have concurred re: its plausibility and its degree of probability had I not read the essay.

If you haven't read it, well, you haven't. That is what it is. But if you haven't read it, your remarks above aren't surprising. If you have read it, I ask you to, with reference to Mr. Metta's explanation, explain what leads you to find his assertion, in the context he presents it, is inaccurate.

Wow....that is the response to a four sentence post that contains three questions....no direct reply to any of the questions asked....not even the first or last, both of which are adequately and truthfully answerable by "yes" or "no."

I don't know. I followed your links and skimmed what they led to but do not know if any of that came from Metta's essay.
The point you seem to be missing is that I am replying to your OP. Metta is not here to explain or defend what he has written and so it has little relevance and (as I wrote) I found much to question and/or disagree with. A fact is either a fact or it isn't. "Context" doesn't change that. What I understand is that neither you nor Metta can do more than speculate about what black or white Americans as groups think and it is simply impossible to compare two unknowns with any certainty. Better?

Purple:

1. Neither Mr. Metta nor I speculated about what anyone thinks. We both remarked about how blacks and whites think, how they approach social issues, race specifically.
2. The observation and articulation of the differences between how blacks and whites approach evaluating and concluding on social issues and non-social issues that do or likely will have clear and present impact(s) on social issues is hardly speculation. The observed differences that Mr. Metta summarizes in his essay by saying what my thread title says are well documented and discussed in detail in Drs. Coon and Kemmelmeier's paper "Cultural Orientations in the United States (Re)Examining Differences Among Ethnic Groups." To the extent your disbelief in the title assertions accrues from your perceiving them as speculations, I suggest reconsidering that belief for the assertions are tested, observed and documented facts.

Red:
As far as replying to my OP goes, the only thing I asked for in it is that one address what I described as "the topic of discussion and questions for this thread." Truly, one need not even read or consider the thread title or main text to respond to the questions posed. At most, to address those questions, one need only agree that racism exists. One need not even agree that people act on whatever racial beliefs they hold, or, truth be told, that it exists in the U.S.

The preamble to the thread topic and questions was offered as a way for folks to recognize that racism exists in overt as well as in subtle forms. I provided the link to Mr. Metta's essay to provide one example of some of the more subtle manifestations of racism and how it manifests itself, largely for the benefit of folks who may not have perceived it exists in any subtle ways. It is my hope that the process ideas folks offer in answering the questions include means for mitigating both forms of racism, assuming they accept that racism exists.

Sidebar:
FWIW, I once met a man who told me that whatever one does to them short of introducing a "n-word's" neck to the "business end of a noose," one cannot be considered racist. That was one of the few times in my life whereby I had absolutely nothing to say and just walked away. I truly mean "had nothing to say," not "could not decide what to say." That remark was shared in the days before "whatever" was the term for vocalizing "everything and nothing."