Abused by Race

It might be good to have a look at this first:
The Enlightenment’s ‘Race’ Problem, and Ours

I have been championing this idea for quite awhile now. My efforts are met with a range of responses from bemused stares to outright hostility toward the idea (and occasionally toward me). It seems clear that every time scientists look for "race", they don't find it. There are a number of limitations that inhibit our ability to absorb this fact. One is so obvious that it might be too easily dismissed. We are quite at the mercy of our limited sensory perceptions and the visible differences between humans (skin, hair, facial features, etc.) are very compelling. This tends to ensnare our brains in outmoded thinking. 

The other major difficulty we encounter is a bit more subtle. It relys upon a basic understanding of human psychology/motivation. It is clear to those who look at such things, that historically, one key to survival in humans was and remains our ability and inclination to detect and focus on difference. This includes novelty in our environment as well as our ability to detect "the other". That is to say, those not of our group. When we consider this ability/compulsion, we are right to ask, is it adaptive for survival or an ancient trait that can run amok? In my view, both is the correct answer. 

We all carry the seeds that can produce behaviors we label, "prejudice". We all carry the seeds that can produce behaviors we call "racism". We are all subject to a sense of our own superiority and the resulting behaviors that lead us to act dismissively towards another person or group. Further, I would assert, the single greatest obstacle to our improvement is our seeming inability to honestly confront ourselves. Why? A quirk of human behavior ensures that we most often reserve terms like racism and prejudice for use as verbal bats with which we can strike others for their presumed morally deficient behavior. Not surprisingly, we feel quite uncomfortable when presented with the idea that those same "low urges" reside in us as well. To be fair, many of us have reasoned our way through to a much better place in terms of expressing (or avoiding the expression of) these baser urges. I suggest it is also true that our moral evolution is fragile and requires regular maintenence.

There is, at minimum, one more constraint on reaching a more perfect assessment of ourselves. This requires a very brief (I promise) bit of history. As a citizen enmeshed in the milieu of American culture in the twenty first century, one might be forgiven for inferring that the "victims" of racism/predudice/etc. are people "of color". For those so deluded, allow me to suggest reading some history. One would be hard pressed to explain to an Irish immigrant to America during the last bit of the nineteenth century that she could not possibly be an object of prejudice due to her pale skin color. Likewise, one would also find frustration explaining to an African tribesperson residing in one area of that continent that she could not be a victim of prejudice or hatred by a tribesperson living in an adjacent area, because the persons inflicting injury were of similar skin tone to hers. Try telling Chinese people that Japanese people could never have treated them in a barbaric manner because, after all, the Japanese are also Asian. In short, I would suggest that there is no place one could visit on planet earth where there are no abusers nor victims. If this behavior is a condition of "race", it would be the "human race".

With the history out of the way, I feel compelled to give some thought to the practicalities of our current circumstances. In all our "philosophizing" it is important to keep sight of the fact that many injustices and injuries have been done and continue to be done. No person in his right mind denies that acts ranging from rude to vile and heinous are part of our history and our present. With that said, I would assert it is always better to call a thing what it truly is and face it in the most rational way possible. Why is the name so important? There is a longer answer but, for this moment, suffice to say that if we start with an incorrect premise our efforts to change/solve/better our position is compromised from the start. Also, if I suggested that a person in the abuser "role" had a stake in keeping the status quo, most would consider it a statement of the obvious. However, if I suggested the person in the vicitm role also has a stake in the status quo, that is judged as tantamount to siding with the abuser. I want to suggest this is not the case. To be clear, I do not imagine the victim is hoping for their pain, humiliation, etc. to continue. I am only postulating their resistance to changing the "roles" of the participants and therefore the "rules" of the game. Why?

Imagine if you were totally unfamiliar with sexual assault and the related wisdom that is now commonly understood from listening to our news outlets. Now imagine if I told you that after a sexual assault, a woman often questions her own behavior and blames herself in some way or begins experience a shattered self-worth, as though she deserved what happened to her.  Many of us would intuitively grasp this type of reaction. Why? Almost all of us have found ourselves assuming blame for some random tragedy that has befallen us. We ping pong back and forth in our minds. One minute we are convinced that we are blameless and a bad thing simply happened to us. The next moment we are equally convinced that if we had just done something different we could have or should have sidestepped the event. When something bad happens, we've all that the feeling that somehow this has happened to us because we were not good enough, smart enough, quick enough, strong enough. Also, if it were not sufficient to blame ourselves, we often worry that others at looking at us with blame in their eyes. We just "know" what they are thinking. "How could you let that happen? Are you not good enough, smart enough, strong enough to have prevented this?" In short order, we find ourselves on a path from a loss of self-respect to an imagined loss of communal respect. In other words, the victim blames himself and it is mentally consistent to believe that others are doing the same. Any psychologist will attest that this can easily become a viscious downward spiral of self-doubt, blame, depression, and worse.

It is my assertion that similar thought processes take place in persons abused by, what we have in the past termed, racism and prejudice? Further, given the inherent nature of human psychology, the anger and outrage that naturally results from being abused, appears justifiable only if everyone remains in his "role". From the perspective of the victim- I need to see myself as a victim to be outraged by my victimization. My anger seems internally jusitifiable only so long as my victimizer also remains in his "role". 

Note: Referring to hurtful hateful actions as racism, prejudice, or something else entirely does not excuse bad behavior. A change in terminology will not erase the resultant physical/mental scars of bad treatment. The point here is simply getting our terms and motivations assigned properly, such that we can look for an appropriate way forward.

We are all potentially the abused and the abuser. If we feel sobered and/or horrified by this realization, it's because we should. 

*The journey of a thousand miles does not begin with the first step. 

*It begins by knowing where you are.

You can't fix stupid. Or, at minimum, it is unlikely.

Bobby says, stop being the stupid party! 


 I know that I am likely to regret being drawn in by his smooth talking anti-stupid speech before the year is out. I hope I am wrong but, my best guess would be that they don't actually change the "stupid" but discipline their members from speaking it outright. I know the cynical Repubs will infer that I am just being a smart-ass and don't really want them to improve their game. Let me assure any who might presume this, that nothing could be further from the truth. If those on the political right managed to extract their craniums from their rectums and got into the game, the left would have something sane off of which to bounce thoughtful ideas. In short, maybe we could get some badly needed policy enacted.

More on guns

A recent Public Post on Facebook by Josh Fielder. I consider this reasonable.

To his statements, I would like to add the following.

The way we will finally get something done with regard to public policy on guns and gun violence is when reasonable responsible gun owners "take point" in this debate.

In addition to the usual but important topics like the size of ammunition magazines and assault rifles, background checks, etc., I would also like to hear something about gun manufacturers who, in my opinion, have skated under the radar in all of this.  Because most Americans who are not hunters or otherwise members of gun culture do not see advertisements on their television screens, they are likely unaware of the agressive and glamorized marketing of military style weapons. Also, I would like to hear about significantly higher taxes on firearms and ammunition. This should be specifically applied to dealing with the social costs resulting from the improper use of firearms. We think nothing of taxing the heck out of cigarettes largely because they come with a big social cost. It is clear that firearms are often used by responsible people who have no intention of breaking any law but asking them to bear some of the cost of the social negatives is well within reason.

Finally, what I would like to hear from the gun-huggers is- the truth about why they so desperately want to own these weapons. My interpretation of the truth: gun-huggers value the testosterone thrill of shooting these powerful guns more highly than they value the safety and security of their fellow citizens.

As a public service, I provide my definition of gun-hugger.

A gun hugger is distinguished from a sane reasonable responsible gun owner by the following factors: 

Gun-huggers (as stated above) value the testosterone thrill of shooting these powerful guns more highly than they value the safety and security of their fellow citizens.

Gun-huggers are likely to have more guns than the average gun owner by factors of three, four, five, or more. They have no reality based need for so many weapons. However, the sheer number often appears to correlate to their personal paranoia level.

Gun-huggers live in a dream world where the government is always about two minutes from sending their agents to gun owners homes to rob them of their freedom, their guns, and their right to fill their heads with right-wing radio 24/7. Furthermore, if their paranoia alone were not sufficiently high on the batshit crazy scale, they also operate under the laughable notion that their personal arsenal will protect them from that vividly imagined fateful day when agents show up at the door.

While we are all here and presumably paying attention, let me clear this up for any stray gun-hugger who may have wandered here. If the local sheriff or patrolman shows up at your door with a warrant or whatever, you may overpower that person. However, I can assure you that, the next iteration in this scenario will not go so well for you. In case you have failed to stay abreast of the facts regarding the personnel and firepower of your government, you may want to brush up on some facts before putting your faith in this course of action.

And, oh by the way... the following is on a personal note. If you own more weapons than Sylvester Stallone's character used in his latest action movie, perhaps, you may have slipped a gear and begun to fancy yourself as a character in one of these movies. If you feel this may apply to you but you fail to see how such behavior is a problem, well, that is a real problem.  Normal cultural behavior includes watching a movie or television show and engaging in a "willing suspension of disbelief". Failing to re-engage ones disbelief is not considered normal. Granted, this is only one interpretation but feel free to roll it around in your cranium just for shits and giggles.

Harm

This morning I am missing the voice of the Occupy Movement. I know, they totally failed to live up to my expectations also. But, at least somebody was pointing the finger in the right direction (which is to say at the small number of people who own everything and control everything to the detriment of everyone else).

How is it that years after the financial crisis, I can't think of one banker or CEO that went to prison? I know lots of people who have lost their jobs, lost their homes, lost the value in their homes, lost all they ever worked for to pay medical bills, and so on. At minimum there should be a public list of shame with the names of hundreds of people who ruined the lives of millions with their greed and stupidity. In an age when there is a television show to depict anything one wishes to view, why is there not a channel where I can watch these people pace in six by eight foot cells?

Click here for a view of the-
Ongoing Misery

Son of a Gun, another tragedy.

I will begin this way. I have owned guns in the past. While I owned guns, I never harmed, nor threatened to harm, anyone with a firearm. Luckily I was never forced to use one in self defense. While I owned those firearms, I was not privy to the fact that a legal gun owner is more likely to end up commiting suicide with that firearm or shooting a friend or family member than a criminal.

I respect thoughtful responsible gun owners in general and responsible hunters specifically. However, I am comfortable to assert that sane gun owners would not care to have their fellow citizens walking around with grenade launchers, military sniper rifles loaded with depleted uranium munitions, etc.. Likewise, I presume that responsible gun owners would be outraged if guns were knowingly sold to people with a violent history and/or severe mental health issues. Therefore we start the conversation with the idea that ones "second amendment rights" are not absolute. My point is, even the most fervent sane gun owner favors some restriction. With that as our starting point, if it comes down to a choice between gun owners "rights" and reasonable legislation that may save the lives of innocent people, my choice is clear.

Furthermore, is it my considered opinion that caring reasonable gun owners should be the ones at the point of this spear. The failure of responsible gun owners to stand for thoughtfully considered regulation would only serve to illustrate to the rabid anti-gun people that they are correct in their harshest assessments.

Click this Link Regarding firearms in the home

The best offense is a good defense

 In free nations around the world there is a marketplace of ideas. In this marketplace we are free to say almost anything almost anywhere. This includes saying things that are ignorant or pointless. I've come to see that saying, "I am offended by that", is an example of a pointless statement. Many people are offended by many things as one would expect in a wide and diverse world.

In the marketplace of ideas, one offers thoughts and information in an effort to convince others that certain behaviors and choices are superior. Therefore, saying "I am offended" is pointless because it presumes you have a right not to be offended. You don't and you shouldn't. Saying that one is offended is not more than whining. It presumes to curtail discussion without a proffering of evidence to support an alternate position.

It is my considered opinion that way too many people of every stripe employ this tactic (ie; taking offense as a strategy in what would otherwise reduce to a contest of ideas). However, the group with the most eggregious record is people of faith. It has always been that people of faith (ok, most people of faith) start with the premise that a set of ideas are true and work backward in a continuous effort to justify and rationalize that position. This position seems like a gift, at first. It is quite a wonderful and powerful feeling to be certain how the world came to be where it is and to imagine one knows a priori exactly what is good and what is bad. The problems only creep in after time as one is forced to defend challenges to those positions. Vis-a-Vis the marketplace of ideas. None should be surprised that people in that defensive mode find it easier claim offense than provide a rational defense. I did this for a significant part of my life and am quite familiar with this line of thought. (I advise everyone who is currently feeling offended to go back and read the last sentence again. I can't guarantee it, but your blood pressure may lessen.) To my great good fortune I was introduced to another method where one begins at the true initial position of humans, which is ignorance, and builds from there.

The Mormon Problem

The Mormon Problem

To any Mormons, friend or stranger, who has had occasion during recent months to read my various thoughts on the potential of a Mormon U.S. President, let me offer this much. First, I do not feel compelled to be an apologist for Mormonism. Also, I am not without some empathy for those in that camp. This is how I think of it.

I am a member of the Democratic Party. This was a choice I made as an adult understanding full well that, as a human enterprise, it was not perfect. It was also clear to me that my affiliation with the organization would leave me open equally to the criticisms and kudos leveled at this group. I accept this as an unadvertised but clearly implied "cost of membership".

I fail to see how being a Mormon is any different. However, if it might assuage any residual hurt feelings, I will again offer this much. Of the individual Mormons I've known, overwhelmingly, I found them to be decent folks. And when I say decent, I mean that I could easily interact on a civil basis with them. Would I want them imposing their belief system on me or my fellow citizens? Certainly not. What does this prove? One might make the argument (and I do) that I know otherwise decent humans whose beliefs are (and this is the kindest way I can say it) unsupported by logical thought or evidence. For all I know, they may well think similar thoughts of me. My advice? Try thinking of it as- "an unadvertised but clearly implied cost of membership".

Meanwhile, setting aside the mystical bits, we probably have many more things in common than things dividing us. We all want to prosper. We all want to feel safe and loved. We all want to satisfy our curiosity about our world. We all want our children to grow strong and have opportunities in the world. And so on. Perhaps, we can agree this is sufficient.

Though I believe it is clearly implied, I will expand briefly. Though I only mentioned Mormons, the reader would be safe to infer that his/her religious affiliation probably falls into the same category in my mind.