Jump to content

SL Xpress

Full Members
  • Posts

    4237
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by SL Xpress

  1. Then there's also the idea that society wasn't wealthy enough to keep alive people who were too much of a liability. Hunter/gatherer tribes had a lot more free time on their hands than later agrarian/domesticated animal tribes that came after them. But if for whatever reason you weren't able to contribute to the welfare of the tribe to enough of an extent, at some point the rest of the tribe stops supporting you and you either die, are killed, or are exiled. But if we believe mental health has a genetic component - and I absolutely believe it does - then it's a genetic component I feel was passed down by an ancestor long before homo sapiens. I've seen research that says chimpanzees and gorillas experience mental health issues as well, so that means a common ancestor up the chain. Anyone who has been around dogs or cats certainly feels like there are mental health aspects to those animals. If dolphins, whales, rats, or other mammals are shown to have mental health issues, then the genetic component for mental health is far up the evolutionary chain indeed. Which suggests the mental health issues we've identified are less about something new regarding human beings, and more about an exposure of conditions that have always existed but were not exposed or identified in the same way previously. I'll also say I believe our knowledge of how the brain works, and its cause/effects are still rudimentary compared to what it will be 100 years from now. I believe future neuro specialists are going to look on with horror at the massive experimentation we've done in an effort to treat mental illness in ways we currently look on lobotomy or leeches.
  2. Hell, they could be empty for all I know. Thanks for the clarification. I wouldn't have been able to identify them without help, but it's obvious to anyone they don't have any kind of cannon, tracks, or heavy armor, so I knew they weren't MBTs/IFVs/APCs. I liked @atomheartbevo's explanation above. Even just the act of moving around troops is something Russia has to respond to.
  3. Jeez. My problem is that massive group of trucks has to be known to the Russians. As someone who has no impact on anything and is merely following events from a monitor, my biggest concern is that they move forward too soon and waste men and material in a way that could have been more effective if they'd waited for the new armor shipments to arrive in a quantity that could make a difference. But shit. I know nothing. If the Ukrainian command sees an opportunity that needs seizing, I hope for great success.
  4. Well, this is just speculation, but the move right now is to train and form new brigades/divisions utilizing the western armor being provided, specifically the main battle tanks and modern infantry fighting vehicles. How long until they're sufficiently equipped and trained is classified. We'll never actually have a good handle on when that occurs, and it's highly subjective in any case. Then it becomes a matter of Ukraine being able to use these new formations to break through Russian defensive lines in a qualitative way that breaks the relative stalemate as it currently exists. There will be a lot at stake for both sides. All of us who basically amount to cheerleaders/stans for the Ukrainian side are hopeful at the prospective result, but you never know. I can't imagine they'll be able to field the kind of force they need before May, but that's simply a guess on my part. I'm sure there will be disinformation campaigns, so until the offensive begins and we see results, a lot of it will be hidden behind the fog of war.
  5. By whom? He's practically revered in Great Britain. https://www.statista.com/chart/12999/britains-greatest-military-foes/#:~:text=George Washington was named Britain's,defeat in British military history.
  6. I'm not trying to shift anything. If you have a problem with anything I'm saying or anything I've typed, seek a clarification. I'm not looking to be an enemy or to proselytize a white apologist screed. I'm typing out my view of things. If you feel like it's completely wrongheaded - which has consistently been a common response - that's certainly a legitimate point of view. But I'm not trying to avoid or shift anything. I'm responding the best way I know to whatever you're posting. The motivations that prompt invasion and destruction of black communities is the same dynamic that has existed throughout history. It's occurring right now, around the world. Most dramatically in Ukraine, but not exclusively. The white tribe in power saw a threat to their power and they sought to eliminate it. And they did. Then they made sure to the best of their ability it wasn't discussed any more, or if it was, it was always in the context of the perpetrators being heroes within the community. Are you looking for more of an explanation than that? "The truth is that that tension between "we need them" and "we would be better off on our own" has always existed. Booker T and DuBois, Malcolm and Martin etc. Even characterizing the reconcilers as people who have demanded prostration is wildly inaccurate." There is not one message out there regarding how to best handle racism moving forward. But there is a dominant message. The dominant message in the 70s was that we had civil rights, and now everything is okay. Nothing to see here. Move along. That was a dangerous and factually incorrect message that allowed white people to perpetuate the systemic racism they were comfortable with to continue being in power and to keep black people "in their place" to use a common parlance among active racists. When I actively engaged in trying to educate myself about racism and find a path moving forward, I was shocked by how I'd been brainwashed - and continue to be, quite frankly - by the constant stream of messages and images that black people were inferior and didn't deserve some kind of equal treatment. I feel like that's a critical part of the equation to reduce racism, and some kind of whitewashing - literally - is unhelpful and downright dangerous. At the same time, why is there no knowledge of white abolitionists? Why when I bring up names such as Great Britain's Wilber Wilberforce or Thomas Clarkson, or the American William Lloyd Garrison, am I met with crickets? There is a need, IMO, for people in the movement to recognize primarily, and even almost exclusively, black contributions to the movement. That makes sense, because it engenders a sense of empowerment, rather than a dependence on the white man to achieve their goals. But there's also a disenfranchisement involved as an unintended consequence that I feel is a grave mistake, and I've always felt that way.
  7. I don't agree. There's obviously more to it, but it's historical in terms of that's how human beings have always been. We look for ways to create others to bond among ourselves. The color of our skin is an easy way to do that. Sure, there were many factors involved in addition to that, but that's the ultimate root cause. There are certainly communities in our human history where having light skin is a reason for discrimination as well. It just depends on who is in power, and how they choose to enforce and perpetuate that power. But the discrimination itself is rooted at an evolutionary, genetic, instinctual level.
  8. Do you feel like I want to criminalize the discussion? Is that what you get out of this? I have sought out and certainly shared acts of rabid, violent racism all of my life. People act as if the Tulsa massacre was some kind of secret. I knew about it in the 80s. There were violent acts of racism carried out in Sugar Land, where I got my handle from. People don't talk about that the way we should. There is a desire to skip over or somehow hide under the rug not only the rampant displays of repression that exists in our history, but the acts that occur every day. That is not what I am seeking. If that's what you're seeing in what I've posted, then there has been a miscommunication. Nonetheless, there is often a demonization of white people when these narratives are shared that I don't think is helpful if we're trying to move forward in a way that reduces acts of racism right now, or most important to me, marginalizes the ones who seek white identity as a means to power. There are plenty of white people who were on the other side of this narrative. Share their stories, too. Help people identify with healing and helpful parts of a community out of pride and emulation, rather than only seeking shame and guilt.
  9. The problem with what? What are we trying to achieve? I'm saying if we want to marginalize white groups that feel like the current environment is an existential threat, it would be helpful to reduce the language that allows them to perceive there's an existential threat, while also maintaining they're a bunch of wackos who are on the wrong side of history. White supremacy is simply a wrongheaded belief that leads to great evil. We're never getting rid of all racism. There will always be people who seek to build tribes based on race. That's not just white people. That's everyone, all around the world. The important thing is to marginalize those tribes so they have no hold nor power over the general populace. I do not believe the current path we're on in terms of the narrative in this country regarding race leads us down that path. I have never felt that way. What I've seen build in terms of numbers, influence, and the level of violence from the white community over the last 40 years feels more prophetic than anything else. Those dynamics will continue to increase unless we seek out a different kind of dialogue around race. And even then there will be evidence of racism. To me the realistic goal isn't the ending of racism. It's the marginalization of people seeking it out as a solution, rather than a problem. We're going the wrong way in that regard. And yes, Adams is a perfect example of that. Or a difference of opinion. Don't care how you classify it.
  10. And it's important that doesn't happen. What's the best way to prevent that from happening? What's the best way to create successful Black communities? Are successful Black communities being created right now? Are they under threat of destruction? There is more wealth being created in this country by members of the African American community right now than there ever has been in its history. Does that mean racism has ended? Of course not. How do we seek its reduction? What's the process of doing that?
  11. Because we're naturally prejudiced and look for reasons to discriminate, that's why.
  12. Christianity isn't the same kind of racial identity that being Hebrew is. Which form of Christianity? Greek Orthodox? Russian Orthodox? Ukrainian Orthodox? Coptic? Catholic? Lutheran? Baptist? Anabaptist? Calvinist? Methodist? Presbyterian? Church of Christ? Mormonism? Etc.. Being a Jew has a very different meaning than being a Christian. Conversion to Judaism versus converting to Christianity is a much different process, with a much different mechanism for it. When Hitler decided to exterminate all the Jews, he wasn't just talking about a religion. When Russia went on one of its pogroms, they weren't just thinking about the religion. Both of them were referring to a people. When anti Semitism is expressed today, it's not just a reference to a religion. Christians suffer from massacres and become martyrs for all kinds of reasons. Heck, American evangelicals are getting specific warnings in Russia right now from the State Department. But we don't talk in terms of a Christian diaspora. I would argue that ever since Constantinople converted to Christianity, Christians have had a multitude of homelands.
  13. I remember my grandfather on my father's side talking about how JFK was a tool of the Papacy in the 70s and 80s, long after the election had passed.
  14. The defense of Bakhmut has been heroic. I'm hoping for a similar result following the loss of Severodonetsk and Lyschansk. I just don't want those guys defending the city getting trapped in there. That's a bigger concern for me than holding the city at this point.
  15. But it's not just white Americans that do this. The black community has often famously favored light skinned blacks. Visible differences in appearances is an easy way to distinguish ourselves from one another that doesn't take the kind of work things like identifying other tribal connections or differences do. As far as tribal conflicts among Irish, Italians, Eastern Euros, are we trying to pretend they didn't exist? "At some point a collective decision was made to grant entrance to all those ethnic white groups into greater white America." You make it seem like it was easy. It took a lot of work, and on some level a collective decision being made by the children of those immigrants to lessen their identity as associated with their country of origin. It's a little tougher if you're 40% African and 60% European to let go of your ancestry. It's right there on your face. "For the most part, as human beings we're dumb in how we ascribe skin color as a function of the majority of genetic differences." I couldn't agree with you more. Even more than that, if there were some kind of genetic differences, it's not even remotely helpful to emphasize them. All of our brains work the same way. They're all a pretty standard size, with the same parts to them. We all have the same kinds of connective materials. After we're born, an amazing part of our ability to reach our potential is embedded in how rich and stimulating an environment we're raised in. You have bullshit like The Bell Curve, which is simply another way of dehumanizing people of color in favor of reinforcing the sense of entitlement the people who already control the power structure possess. "It's a tribe only in the socially constructed American sense of the word, not due to any 1000 year differences that we couldn't possibly overcome." When you and I use the word tribe, I don't think we use it the same way. I use it to describe an instinctual need we have to form associations that have meaning to us with fellow human beings. So, for example, you and I are part of the Longhorn tribe, and part of our bond is that we vilify people who are part of the Sooner tribe. I am part of the iPhone tribe, and there is an inherent sense of disgust I feel when I'm on a group text and someone pipes in with that odious green color. Some tribal associations are obviously more powerful than others, and we all belong to multiple tribes at any one time and also across the course of our lives. Which ones take priority for us is a matter of our individual choices and priorities, and go a long ways toward defining who we are. Regardless, these tribal associations are as instinctual to us as kicking our leg when tapped on the knee, and just as impossible to eliminate. What is possible, is to consciously choose our tribes so that we deemphasize race in favor of other associations. But there will always be a possibility that we gravitate towards those racial differences as an aggregate, particularly over a long enough span of time. Usually because someone somewhere has figured out how to appeal to that instinctual need to form tribal associations, and to create others who are our tribe's enemy. Which is an extremely vital aspect of any powerful tribal association. So what I'm saying is that tribal associations will always happen. Period. If we want to overcome racial tribal associations, it's important to form different tribal associations not related to race. I will uncategorically state we are terrible as a country in doing that, but we're not exactly alone. In fact, I'd argue we've gone out of our way as a society to embed those tribal associations in a racial context, whether it's Far East, Subcontinent, Latina, Black, or White, but without a doubt the most pernicious and the most destructive has been the white/black dynamic, both for obvious historical reasons, and then current manifestations which may or may not be a part of the historical reasons, but may simply be an extension of natural tribal identities that are always present. Starting in the 60s and 70s, we have had a movement that has somewhat demonized people of foreign cultures having to give up identities related to their nation of origin, and while the intent is good and I can certainly easily defend it, it also has the unintended consequence of creating populations less assimilated in many ways than previous generations. My point would be as a society if we truly believe reducing racial tribal associations is important, then movements which aspire to emphasize tribal associations based on race will do the exact opposite.
  16. Is that what I'm doing? Lecturing you? If Jewish people weren't insular they wouldn't exist any more. There's no other cultural identity that has continued to exist without a homeland for 2000 years. No one even close. There's no other diaspora that even approaches Jewish success by virtually any metric. But Jewish people create an other through that identity. That's inherent. And since they're such a successful minority, it creates friction everywhere they've ever settled. If you want to blame me in some way for pointing out that dynamic, go ahead. I don't give a shit. It's not going to change how I feel about Jews, which is a bit akin to awe. Your experiences are your own. I'm sorry you're having to go through what you're going through simply to practice your faith and identify the way you want. What I am saying is that Jewish people will experience some form of anti Semitism for as long as they exist, because it's part and parcel with that insular identity. It's been that way anywhere they've settled. It's even that way in people's approach and views toward Israel. I'm not responsible for it. I'm simply identifying it. You want to be mad at me go right ahead.
  17. We can agree to disagree. There are different phrases used. The male patriarchy. Institutional racism, and the underpinning that black people cannot be racist towards white people because they're not in control of the power structures. The Atlantic article I cited above, where the repression going on in South Africa right now has at its roots the system of apartheid, rather than as I believe, it's inherent in gaining power. At its root there is a narrative that there's something special about whites being racist, as opposed to it's a mindset that is natural to our species, and is exhibited every time one tribe achieves power over another. When Idi Amin famously took over in Uganda and kicked out all the Indians who made up a significant portion of the merchant class. When the Hutus massacred the Tutsis. The Chinese wiping out the Uyghurs. The Aztecs and Mayans making slaves and sacrifices out of neighboring tribes. The Hindus deporting long time citizens from India and attacking evangelizing Christians. Not to mention the massacres of Muslims. The rapid extinction of indigenous tribes in the Amazon forest. The Orthodox Jews gutting school district funding in East Ramapo. None of these are okay. White racism is not okay. But there is not something special about whites that makes them more prone to racism than anyone else. And that is absolutely a part of the narrative. It's just that whites are the ones in power in this country, and so when we act in ways that disadvantage other races - particularly people of color - we're being racist in the way people have always been racist. It's a problem, and we need to work to overcome it. But there's nothing peculiar about our whiteness that makes us more racist than the next person.
  18. So that was an extremely powerful and compelling speech. But if the whole country shared that attitude, how does that help move us away from racism? I'm not denying the right to hold that attitude, or even to act upon it. But I will point out that if acted upon a large part of the response isn't going to be, "You know what? You're right. You do have the right to burn down these stores and take whatever you want. I don't blame you for being so angry about it. Have at it. Here. We'll throw the first molotov for you in an act of solidarity." It's going to be, "we're under violent attack. We either surrender or we fight back." Some are going to choose surrender. And some won't. And that's what we're seeing play out, IMO. But I still liked the speech. She's very gifted.
  19. I mean, that's the evolution of life in a nutshell in many ways. A species evolves so successfully it wipes out its food source or otherwise faces a challenge it can't overcome, then the next batch comes along. Or the next batch comes along and wipes out the very successful species that preceded it. Let's face it. Our chances of making life untenable for this many human beings to exist on this planet at one time are pretty fucking good one way or another. On a long enough timeline I'd put it at 100%.
  20. I don't know that I'd say there is a genetic disposition towards racial conflict as much as I'd say there is a genetic disposition towards tribal formations. It just so happens that one of the easiest is to identify based on appearance, for obvious reasons. But if you go back and look at human history and pre history through the fossil record, there is absolutely evidence of tribal conflict which ended in extermination. Certainly species conflict, such as with Homo Erectus and Neanderthals, to name two of the most prominent. Name one society that has successfully navigated multiple tribes making up their composition over their entire history. At some point they all break down into some form of tribal conflict. And those are only the ones that actually manage to incorporate multiple tribes in the first place. The vast preponderance of successful societies have been mostly homogenous, or with a clear and permanent delineation between those in power, and those who are not. With often violent results when that power dynamic one day dramatically shifts. The United States is by far the country that has historically navigated multiple tribes the most successfully. And yet we concentrate on how terrible we've been. For good reason. We have aspirations to do better than we have. That's not a bad thing. That's a good thing. But it doesn't belie the fact that history has not looked favorably in trying to incorporate multiple tribes into a functioning society in more a less a collaborative process. It's extremely difficult and challenging, to the point of saying it hasn't really been done all that well. Ever. My point is not that we can't overcome racism. My point is that there is a natural disposition for tribal identity, and that one of those significant tribes is our racial history. So there has to be an extreme conscious effort by everyone involved to overcome that natural disposition. And what we have instead, based on my observations, is a growing reluctance to overcome that, and a big part of that growing reluctance is the narrative being put forth by people who are ostensibly trying to fight racism.
  21. But that is not what happens. If you do not understand there is a narrative out there that white people - and white men specifically - are inherently evil, you haven't been paying attention. I've been hearing about it for 40 years, and that narrative has only become stronger. One thing that became abundantly clear in being part of so many discussions and activities around race, is how drawn we are to identify ourselves as victims. It's not limited to race, but that's where the realization was forced on me. The more that narrative is forced, the more bonding that occurs among aggrieved whites/white males, who see themselves as facing something akin to an existential threat, and responding according to those perceptions. There is also never going to be a society where we're all standing at home plate. Even just the first few years after birth are so critical to the formation of our brain and our ability to reach our maximum potential. To create that environment would require us to take every child from their parents at birth and put them in government housing with as close to the same upbringing as possible. Which is obviously a horrific solution and should never be implemented. But without that it's parents' genetically driven desire to give their progeny every advantage over their competitors. The fact that the difference can mean such a stark outcome merely in the first three years of our existence means that gap is never going to be closed. It doesn't mean we can't try, but when we try to make it about equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity, we're automatically going to anger the population that feels like the metrics aren't about meritocracy. But if we emphasize measurements that are color blind, we automatically favor the groups that possess inherent advantages in the first place. So there will always be a push/pull there. I'm not saying it can't be navigated, but the best result would be some kind of pendulum, where it swings back and forth depending on which tribes hold the greater power, but that there's a constant shifting of power back and forth between competing tribes. Which, idealistically, is the benefit of having some kind of representative government, as long as it doesn't fall prey to the tyranny of the majority as representative governments so often do. The worst result is the path Republicans have been on for the last 30 years - but in their defense this was after being out of power in the legislative branch for 60 years. But the decision to become combative and belligerent rather than partners in government. The move to pull in ideological purists as significant portions of their voting bloc. The massive move towards gerrymandering enabled by finally winning multiple state legislatures for the first time since reconstruction, and employing new invented computing power and database software, and most recently the efforts towards voter suppression - is about creating a status of being in power permanently. I am against any party being in power into perpetuity. I think that is the worst outcome of all. There needs to be a shifting sense of priorities, and a constant reappraisal of what we find important as a society. That is only constructively done when there is a consistent shift in who wields power.
  22. I'm going to blame the decision to quit posting the post Beard count in the thread title.
  23. But Noam Chomsky has never sought out power. Therein lies a goddamn Grand Canyon of difference, to use your words. Karl Marx wasn't evil. Jesus Christ wasn't evil. Nietzsche wasn't evil. It's when the application of their words are used to obtain and then execute the instruments of power that evil is performed. There can be no abuse of power without holding power, by definition. And I'm convinced that all of us under specific circumstances are capable of heinous acts of abuse if we're able to convince ourselves of its utility and righteous purpose. That's not exclusive to one side of a debate or another. That's inherent in our species and was rewarded over hundreds of thousands of years, arguably millions, as our species evolved. So what's important is that our side first of all has the military and/or political might to achieve our objective, and then secondarily refrains from the worst abuses of power. But the first part still comes before the second. You can't show any restraint if you don't possess the power to do so in the first place. But yes, Putinism is evil. As you've pointed out previously, there's something broken about the Russian culture inherently that's not going to be easily fixed, or maybe never fixed at all. I'm still unconvinced that the Germans have completely expunged some of the instincts that led to WWII and the Holocaust. They've merely shifted that mentality into predatory economic strategies. Which, all the better, frankly. But I'm unconvinced they've fundamentally changed. And for sure the Japanese are still the most xenophobic population on this planet. Being conquered for the first time in their history has helped in all kinds of ways, but fundamentally they're still the same culture that prosecuted the war in southeast Asia. Really, outside of an occupation of Russia and a complete takeover of their system of government and educational system for a significant period of time, I don't see them becoming less capable of evil in the future. And I don't see an occupation in a timeline in which I exist. But yeah, I'm with you that I'm glad we're on the side we're on, and that we're doing as much as we're doing. Eternally grateful, really.
  24. I'm not talking about what is fair. I'm talking about what is going to be effective in terms of bringing about a functioning society. Look, it's not like the dynamics are going to change because I posted my thoughts. I've been in plenty of rooms where I was the only white person working with people in terms of the impacts of racism, and not once has everyone looked at me, nodding their heads, going, "No, no. I see your point." So we'll continue to go down this path. What I am saying is that demanding that white people take responsibility for the actions people of their race performed historically is not the path to the end of racism. It's the path towards stronger racial identities, more resentment, more hate, and more consequences from that. At the same time, the level of ignorance white people have - and I include myself here even if I've spent a significant portion of my life trying to educate myself - regarding the pervasiveness of racism is inestimable. I remember in the 80s and 90s going through Diversity in Action multi week seminars - and even teaching them at one point - where we were bombarded with imagery that existed on a daily basis that I'd never identified as racist, but absolutely was. It's just that my white self could never see it because I wasn't affected by it. I remember growing up in the 70s in a white suburban neighborhood created explicitly through white flight after busing became enforced - which I was completely ignorant of. I used to say it was so WASP-y we all thought Catholicism was a cult group. Which was true. We'd go to the local country club - every new white flight suburban neighborhood with a golf course had one - and lo and behold, every single employee in there was black. Every one of them. And this was true nationwide. What atmosphere was this trying to emulate? Does Gone With the Wind ring a bell? And when I bring it up to friends I grew up with, it's consistently a revelation to them, even if they're steeped in trying to work through how they fit in the current racial narrative, and what can they do to contribute to its healing. If you're not a minority, you just can't even begin to pretend you understand what it's like to go through that, and especially the white/black history in this country created through the institution of slavery and then perpetrated by Jim Crow laws. But I will still say that the more we emphasize the inherent evil of being white, or being white male, and how people of that tribe have a responsibility to make restitution for the evils performed by their alleged ancestors, the farther we get from actually reducing racism in this country. But maybe that's not the goal. Maybe a sense of justice, or fairness, or righting a wrongness, takes priority. I just think there will always be a certain amount of moving the goal posts that imparts. We're never going to get to a place where the people who feel historically wronged look up and go, "Okay, we're good now."
  25. Like the Kharkiv/Kherson offensive.
×
×
  • Create New...