"Before enlightenment chop wood and carry water, after enlightenment, chop wood and carry water." Zen Proverb
It's a tough thing. In expressing a point of view, one must be willing to accept that the point of view is one that might not be accepted on all levels. It's quite possible that the point of view is shared only by a certain few, and will be defended against by those unwilling to accept it.
When a white person talks about racism, more than likely you will get someone who will admit that it exists, someone who will admit that they aren't racist and don't support any system or agenda that does. A pretty comfortable perch from which to view the world. If we seek further enlightenment, things can get pretty uncomfortable quite quickly.
Such is life in Bermuda. A core society where whites are the minority and are supported by a British oligarchy, a social structure created and built by whites and that still exists, blacks are the majority and have the political power, and have finally emerged from years of being held down. The transition from then to now has been a difficult one. Whites are now seen as irrelevant, and are asked to accept that the only way forward is in acceptance of the past. That will not be easy.
Our way forward is clouded in denial from whites and an in your face attitude by those in power. If whites (most whites, not all) had it their way, the past would be written in the history books and left there. It is difficult to say what blacks want. There are some who are content with life and like whites want to leave the past in the past, while there are some who are not so sure. A vote for the UBP (the white party) is a vote for the past. Seeds of insecurity and mistrust still exist. Discomfort over the past and an unwillingness to simply leave it for the history books means that there is still work to be done, on both sides.
I spent a good part of my Saturday on another local blog Bermuda is another world attempting to share my point of view about racism, and how that some attitudes prevail from the past. It's undeniable. For the most part I was accused of being a condescending, contradictory irritant who's point of view was neither appreciated or wanted. The thing is, I knew the minute I posted on the blog that I didn't share the same vision as most of the posters there, and even though most of us are white, I knew that I was in a cage of like-minded people, and the chances of me actually walking away from that site with a "feel good" were virtually nill. A bee in a hornets nest... so to speak.
What is truly scary is that most of these people argued my main points, most went after certain phraseology that was only used for "window dressing". What makes this even more disturbing is that while I found myself being dragged down into this muck, I lost sight of what was truly important, a continuation of the conversation. I left there pissed off, not at the posters who had baited me, but at myself for allowing to be baited. The other important lesson I learned yesterday was that for the most part you can't add "phraseology" to anything and expect it to be bypassed. Note to self - People will always look to degrade your vision. Do not add feed to their fodder.
I guess one of the reasons I joined CURB was that there are like-minded people like me, my own bee-hive if you will. Black and white, working together to continue the fight against racism in Bermuda, to educate and enlighten, and yes to even argue the importance of it all. To those people at BIAW, you goaded me into an area I didn't need to go. For that I apologize. You showed the kind of mentality I knew walking in, and for that I will do my best not to bother you in the future.
You say that whites want to leave the past in the past, and you say that some blacks do and some blacks don't. However what you don't say is what not leaving the past in the past entails.
ReplyDeleteLeaving the past in the past doesn't mean not trying to improve the future, not trying to overcome the racial obstacles that still remain and surely that is whats important. Not some kind of historical blame game where whites are expected to apologise for the actions of their ancestors.
Whites wanting to leave the past in the past seems to have become a popular theme among those that wish to debate about racism and yet no one has yet explained what that means. As far as I can tell it seems simply a euphamism for the whites of today shouldering the guilt for racial problems within the community and that is wrong. Racism exists in both black and white communities just as there are both blacks and whites who turn away from discrimination. Why then is it any less racist to blame whites for racism than to blame blacks for crime?
Maybe I'm just misunderstanding what it means, so perhaps you could explain to me what it means to accept the past.
As for whites being irrelevant, that is also wrong. Whether white, black or purple they are still Bermudian. If 40% of the island is made irrelevant based on race alone then we can claim no moral high ground compared to the UBP of the 80's. Injustice anywhere threatens justice everyhwere - MLK. Wise words to adhear to as Bermuda moves forward.
First I want to thank you for taking the time to check out the blog. The fact that you read and posted shows a desire to continue a basic dialogue that is important for all of us, whites, blacks and every one in between.
ReplyDeleteFirst up, you've hit me with a couple of double-negatives in the first two paragraphs, so I will attempt to understand what you are saying. I apologize if I get it wrong, so please bear with me.
There are a lot of feelings within the white community when it comes to accepting responsibility for the sins of our forefathers. A lot of white people will say that I never hated, so how can I be responsible, or why should I care? While that may very well be true, we must admit that simply changing the rules (laws) does not make up for the sins of our forefathers. Racial prejudice, Institutional racism and the legacy of the sins associated with slavery still preside in our society today. They exist in every social institution and agenda in our world.
For a lot of whites, history... is simply that... history. A subject best left for the books. What happened 100 years ago, 50 years ago, 25 years ago is best left as history. Ignoring it, or simply leaving it for the history books is dangerous only in that it does not keep the fire lit, it does not allow us the ability to continue exploration of this in our own society. For blacks it is inherently different. Those, like whites who see where they are now, those who have "forgiven and forgotten", who do not see the effects of racism in their daily lives.
Leaving the past in the past breeds complacency, and allows people to turn a blind eye to ALL things racist. The idea that "it's not happening in my house, in my backyard, in my neighborhood, my community, my country... is deadly... is wrong. Racism in any shape or fashion, even reverse racism is wrong.
On to a few of your points.
1) We must shoulder responsibility for the past. Absolutely 100%. Even if it is only to break the cycle for the future. Why are we so uncomfortable with it? Why are we so afraid of shining a light into the not so distant past? It is OUR past, OUR Bermuda, the one that had zoning/voting laws to deny blacks their right to one man one vote. That wasn't that long ago.
2) Racism is a conditioned learning. Crime isn't. An act of racism may be a crime but it is not a crime to be a racist.
I spoke of relevancy in as much as we must understand Mr. Commissiong's article in the RG not so long ago. Are we relevant? I hope so. Where do our votes go? Do we vote PLP? If not why don't we? If we vote for the UBP do we vote for the party that instituted a racist agenda? How does your vote count if you vote to keep the UBP alive?
Surely times have changed, surely the UBP is NOT the party it was, in fact it is far worse.
So why Bermuda? Why us, what about other countries? Racism exists in every corner of the world. What about blacks? What is their reponsibility? Are they off the hook for reverse racism (payback - I have called it).? Of course not. This is a journey, a healing that we AL:L must make. Whites need to accept it, and Blacks need to know that we do. We have a chance... a real chance to make a difference, to show the world how to do it. We have the community, the diversity and the racism to fight.
I know we can do it.
I know we can.
Our kids shouldn't have to fight this fight when they get older.
That point of white people accepting responsibility is the major issue of contention here. I don't agree with that, I don't agree that anyone should be held responsible for the actions of their ancestors. Just as the Irish should not blame the english for what occured in Ireland and the average German citizen cannot be held accountable for the atrocities of WW2.
ReplyDeleteThe past doesn't just belong in the past, those who ignore the past are doomed to repeat it. I think we can agree on that point. However when we turn the past into a blame game we are doomed to repeat the tit for tat hostilities that have marred human history.
The very suggestion that white's as a collective group are to blame for slavery is in itself a racist idea. I explained back on the forum that I have a country Irish heritage, my family as far back as I can trace it barely had the means to support themselves during the English occupation never mind own slaves. I intend this as just one example of how the colour of skin cannot be used to place blame.
Accepting blame is not going to cure any of Bermuda's racism problems. In fact I find it hard to see it as even a step in the right direction. It seems more of an attempt to antagonize whites than to heal wounds. I really don't know how the wounds of racism can be healed. I don't know how to break the cycle. But, I don't believe that heaping the blame on a particular race is even close. Although reason certainly isen't the answer either.
“Never try to reason the prejudice out of a man. It was not reasoned into him, and cannot be reasoned out.” -
Sydney Smith
Assuming we agreed on accepting blame for racism what is the next step? While that may lay the groundwork what would actually make progress?
If the world had learned a lesson from WW2 and the holocaust, GENOCIDE would not exist, if we had learned a lesson from the civil rights movement, its that all men are created equal, and yet many are not.
ReplyDeleteIf the English (as a nation) were to offer the Irish an apology for the past, would it not be received? If the Germans (as a nation) were to apologize for the horrors of WW2 to the Jewish community, wouldn't that go a long way in healing?
Accepting responsibility on behalf of our forefathers, who never did, is a HUGE first step. As I noted, there is a lot of work to be done. Not only by whites, but by blacks as well. As I said earlier, it is journey we must take, we must endure, just so we can recognize it, and hopefully find positive ways of ending it.
Doing nothing is the equivalent of ignoring it. If you admit that it exists, then you admit that it's a problem. If you admit that it's a problem then why wouldn't you do everything in your power to end it?
As I said, our children should not have to carry this burden with them.
A thought - If you could feel or experience prejudice/ racism from the point of view of a black person, how would you feel? If your presence as a white person provokes a conditioned response from a black person, wouldn't you want to change that?
Did Europeans learn a lesson from WW2? Most certainly they did - are the exceptions, i.e. Bosnia, yes.
ReplyDeleteI don't know anyone who has said that the past is the past and we are to simply ignore it. The fact of the matter is that if you dwell too much in the past, you can not move forward.
Nioe had it right "The past doesn't just belong in the past, those who ignore the past are doomed to repeat it." You can not forget history, but it is a mistake to spend your life dwelling on it.
"If the English (as a nation) were to offer the Irish an apology for the past, would it not be received? If the Germans (as a nation) were to apologize for the horrors of WW2 to the Jewish community, wouldn't that go a long way in healing?
ReplyDelete[snip]
A thought - If you could feel or experience prejudice/ racism from the point of view of a black person, how would you feel? If your presence as a white person provokes a conditioned response from a black person, wouldn't you want to change that?"
There is a key difference between the English government apologising for it's past actions (which I don't think it should need to) and an entire race being asked to apologise for the past actions of members of that race. The English government has an offiial stance, as far as I'm aware I haven't been invited to any conferences to decide the white race's stance. To ask for an apology from an entire race is racism, in this case it is the reverse racism that you agreed was completly wrong.
I would want to change it yes. I don't think we disagree on that, what we disagree on is the method. I don't believe that if I were to make an announcement tomorrow that I apologise on behalf of the caucasian race we would make any headway at all. It wouldn't change the prejudice in people of either race and it wouldn't fix the inequalities in the workplace. Those are the important things and that is what I think any proposals to combat racism should be focused on.
There is a quote somewhere that I cannot remember fully that goes something along the lines of The only way to live happily is to give up the wish for a better past. I think that is the view of many whites, not the ignore history one that is suggested by so many. I believe most whites accept that one must learn from history and move forward to challenge the racial barriers, simply not that they are to blame.
@ Anonymous "dwell" - I do not believe in dwelling. I believe in educating, growing, exploring, We are today the end result of events that happened yesterday. In our ability to move forward we must break the bonds that hold us down. If racism exists we must find ways to end it. In our education of what and how racism works, we must accept that the events of the past have forged our path and if that path is not the right one, we must try and fix it.
ReplyDelete“The past is our definition. We may strive, with good reason, to escape it, or to escape what is bad in it, but we will escape it only by adding something better to it.” - Wendell Berry
@ nioe - if you were invited to such a conference.... would you go? We have learned lessons through the course of history. Plagues, epidemics, nuclear bombs, but we have not learned how to deal with hatred of our fellow man. The hope for our future lies in acceptance of each other, and in finding the root of those things that allow hate to prevail. Racism is the most basic form of hatred. If we are to be better people, for a better world, we need to understand how the hate exists and affects each of us.
Do not be fooled. We can only move forward. The clock does not stop, and each day our kids are experiencing the same forms of hatred that we faced, our fathers and grandfathers faced.
I can make it no clearer than that.
No I don't believe I would. For the simple fact that to even suggest the creation of such a conference is blatant racism.
ReplyDeleteI don't disagree with anything you've said in your last post. My issue is only with the suggestion that white people should apologise. My first idea when I read that suggestion from CURB a few months ago was that it must be a joke. Then I realised it was serious and I began to notice that the suggestion itself was quite obviously racist. A solution to racism will not come from a racist suggestion. That is what I believe
Quote:
ReplyDelete"Before enlightenment chop wood and carry water, after enlightenment, chop wood and carry water." Zen Proverb"
A VERY good quote. Shame it wasn't taken to heart. This poster seems to think that his work is done and now it's his job to lecture people about how awful they are.
Quote:
"It's a tough thing. In expressing a point of view, one must be willing to accept that the point of view is one that might not be accepted on all levels. It's quite possible that the point of view is shared only by a certain few, and will be defended against by those unwilling to accept it."
It wasn't the point of view being expressed that was the problem, it was the outright refusal to back it up when questioned.
Quote:
"When a white person talks about racism, more than likely you will get someone who will admit that it exists, someone who will admit that they aren't racist and don't support any system or agenda that does."
And this is bad... why? Most folks I know that express this back it up and put their money where their mouth is.
Quote:
"A pretty comfortable perch from which to view the world. If we seek further enlightenment, things can get pretty uncomfortable quite quickly."
And yet, this "enlightenment" is never explored or discussed, just thrown in people's faces.
Quote:
ReplyDelete"Such is life in Bermuda. A core society where whites are the minority and are supported by a British oligarchy,"
Huh? "Supported by a British oligarchy"? I got 5 bucks says that, if asked to explain this, the response will be vacuous, nebulous catchphrases with no real content.
Quote:
"a social structure created and built by whites and that still exists, blacks are the majority and have the political power, and have finally emerged from years of being held down."
Yeah... and?
Quote:
"The transition from then to now has been a difficult one. Whites are now seen as irrelevant, and are asked to accept that the only way forward is in acceptance of the past. That will not be easy."
Not true. We've been TOLD this. And, even when we agree that it IS, in fact, the way forward, we're met with "NO! YOU HAVE TO ACCEPT THE PAST!"
The problem is that this seems to be the extent of this argument. There doesn't seem to be any answer to "Then what?"
Quote:
"Our way forward is clouded in denial from whites and an in your face attitude by those in power."
Rewriting reality. Does anyone actually deny the past? Seriously?
Quote:
"If whites (most whites, not all) had it their way, the past would be written in the history books and left there."
This is gibberish and completely untrue. As long as we're making generalizations, I would say that "most whites", and, in fact, most black folks, would like the past to be addressed, its legacy on the present addressed and a way forward planned out.
Quote:
"It is difficult to say what blacks want."
Not really. "Most" blacks want equality and a peaceful, healthy, happy life.
Quote:
"There are some who are content with life and like whites want to leave the past in the past,"
I love the gross generalizations and unspoken condemnations.
Quote:
"while there are some who are not so sure."
Yeah. 'Cuz it's this simple. Let's all ignore those that want to unfairly use the horrors and injustices of the past as a weapon to be used to gain power and punish those that oppose them.
Quote:
ReplyDelete"A vote for the UBP (the white party) is a vote for the past."
There are no quotes around this (in the post), so I'm going to assume that he meant this as a truism.
Now, I have no love for the UBP, but A) The UBP is NOT "the white party". That is a label put on them by the Smear Squad over on the PLP and B) this sort of vile propaganda should have no place in 21st century Bermudian politics. It's disgusting and baseless. People trot this "truism" out all the time, but cannot, nor have they ever, back it up with anything concrete. It's ridiculous.
Quote:
"Seeds of insecurity and mistrust still exist."
True. But who planted them? Who nurtures them?
Quote:
"Discomfort over the past and an unwillingness to simply leave it for the history books means that there is still work to be done, on both sides."
"On both sides"... yet I see NOTHING here calling out the "other" side.
Quote:
"I spent a good part of my Saturday on another local blog Bermuda is another world attempting to share my point of view about racism, and how that some attitudes prevail from the past. It's undeniable. For the most part I was accused of being a condescending, contradictory irritant who's point of view was neither appreciated or wanted."
No, you didn't. This is completely untrue. You posted condescending tut-tuts and finger wagging about how much less enlightened everyone but yourself is. You denounced people for not getting involved and only "bitching and moaning", all the while knowing nothing about who they are and what they do. THAT is why people said you were condescending.
You also refused to address any points that blew holes in your posts, ignoring them completely and cherry picking posts for things you could respond to with yet another nebulous, vague catchphrase, saying nothing.
Quote:
"The thing is, I knew the minute I posted on the blog that I didn't share the same vision as most of the posters there, and even though most of us are white, I knew that I was in a cage of like-minded people, and the chances of me actually walking away from that site with a "feel good" were virtually nill. A bee in a hornets nest... so to speak."
More high-horsery. What's so infuriating about this attitude is that most of us DO share the same vision, you're just so blinded by your own amazingness that you can't see it. NOTHING you said was new, was not discussed. Not a single thing. But you couldn't let yourself believe that anyone else, especially anyone white, could be anywhere NEAR as enlightened as you.
You brought nothing to the table. We've been discussing this stuff for years and most of us have learned the lessons.
But you didn't do your homework, did you? You didn't research. You just came in and assumed that we were a bunch of angry white guys, hating on the PLP because they're majority black.
Yeah, we're a "cage of like-minded people". And most of us are like-minded in our attitudes towards race, the way forward, our need to find solutions and (and I apologize for speaking for others) our dedication to discussing ways to, in fact, find those solutions.
We're friends, here, all of us dedicated to finding ways to try to heal the racial divide and make our little home in the middle of the ocean the best place to live, grow and take care of our families.
We still fight, we argue, we debate. But most of us know each other well enough to only do that on important issues and not the petty crap.
Quote:
ReplyDelete"What is truly scary is that most of these people argued my main points, most went after certain phraseology that was only used for "window dressing".
Um... This COULD be because you didn't say anything else! All you used were catchphrases.
When did you make a point other than "I'm awesome, you're not, m'kay?"
We argued, you evaded.
Quote:
"What makes this even more disturbing is that while I found myself being dragged down into this muck, I lost sight of what was truly important, a continuation of the conversation."
You were never interested in a conversation, you just wanted to lecture and have your audience agree with you. If you HAD been interested, you would have discussed and argued with us. You didn't. You just ran away when faced with a diffeering opinion or someone questioning something you said.
Quote:
"I left there pissed off, not at the posters who had baited me, but at myself for allowing to be baited."
There was no baiting. People responded negatively to your pompous posts. There's a difference.
If you want to get technical about it, the only one baiting was you, for posting inflammatory opinions as facts or, as you put it, "truth".
Quote:
"The other important lesson I learned yesterday was that for the most part you can't add "phraseology" to anything and expect it to be bypassed. Note to self - People will always look to degrade your vision. Do not add feed to their fodder."
You can add "phraseology" all you want. But when ALL you post is "phraseology", then your posts are completely empty.
As for your "vision", it appeared to me, and others, that your only "vision" was "LOOK AT HOW AWESOME I AM!"
Quote:
"I guess one of the reasons I joined CURB was that there are like-minded people like me, my own bee-hive if you will. Black and white, working together to continue the fight against racism in Bermuda, to educate and enlighten, and yes to even argue the importance of it all."
So, it's only ok for people to be like-minded and a "bee-hive" when they agree with you?
Oh, and take a look, what you describe is a whole lot like right here.
"Black and white, working together to continue the fight against racism in Bermuda, to educate and enlighten, and yes to even argue the importance of it all."
Pretty much describes what most of us joined this forum for, don't it?
Quote:
"To those people at BIAW, you goaded me into an area I didn't need to go. For that I apologize. You showed the kind of mentality I knew walking in, and for that I will do my best not to bother you in the future."
Bullshit. No one "goaded" you. YOU were doing a whole lot of goading while you were here. We just responded.
If you knew "the kind of mentality... walking in...", why didn't you even ATTEMPT to discuss? Why didn't you TRY to have a conversation?
And the final line? Bullshit.
If you don't want to post here any more, that's on you, not us. If you want to run away from people who confront you for your refusal to even listen (or, for that matter, to SAY something of consequence and not just silly catchphrases like "The statement was a statement"), for your pompous assumption that folks here aren't involved, aren't doing anything to help and are only "bitching and moaning" (again, it needs to be said, based on nothing whatsoever), then how could anyone even start to take your commitment to the things you claim seriously.
If you're not willing to discuss things with people that have opposing positions, then you're just as bad as those you rail against.
If all you want is to have people agree with everything you say, then you're as much a part of the problem as anything else.
Thank you for posting your side of the event and your perspective Uncle Elvis. It give a more complete picture to ponder.
ReplyDeleteWow...Uncle Elvis is showing that I have given him points to ponder. The great part about this is that he is probably right in his own POV. The good thing is that we don't have to agree. I hold true to my points and he can hold true to his. I am honored that he took the time and effort to continue his tirade here, and as I offered on BIAW, we should definitely get together for a beer.
ReplyDeleteUE - You were inspired to come here and pick a fight with me, and as such I will leave well enough alone. I'm not sure what your motive is. You are respected by many in the Bermuda blog-sphere, and even though we agree to disagree on things, I will still respect you by not engaging you further.
The reality of this is, for me anyway, that I only ever spoke for myself. If my points seemed condescending or arrogant, it was not my intent, and for that I duly apologize.
This does not change my view of BIAW. There is very little good happening there for me and as such I will do my best to stay away from that site. My opinions are not needed and my real mistake was posting there to begin with.
Last but not least, I am always open for discussion. The attacks on BIAW became personal and as such I removed myself from them. I never gloated or belittled anyone. I spoke from the heart, as I always do. If that is a crime, then I am truly guilty. I do not and will not discourage anyone from posting here. I accepted nioe's conversation and we had a great conversation.
Which is all I ever wanted.
WOW.
ReplyDeleteNot a single point addressed. Not a one.
Just more rewriting of history.
I didn't come here to pick a fight, I came here to point out to people reading that you were misleading them with your version of reality.
You want to get a beer with me? After THIS little ad hominem attack and bizarre bit of sopistry?
You evaded every single point. You misrepresented motives and, hell, reality.
You say:
"The reality of this is, for me anyway, that I only ever spoke for myself."
What the heck does that mean? No one ever said you didn't. This is nonsense.
"My opinions are not needed..."
Sure they are. You haven't expressed any on that site. And, based on this response, aren't interested in hearing an opposing view, branding it as "picking a fight".
"Last but not least, I am always open for discussion"
Based on what we've seen, no you're not.
You've labeled anything even remotely opposing as "picking a fight" or "attacks".
Being open for discussion means ACTUALLY DISCUSSING, not running away from even the slightest opposition or debunking, which, again, based on what we've seen, is your modus operandi.
If you're truly interested in discussion, why not start with the things I posted, where I pointed out your misrepresentations of the truth?
Or is that too hard?
When you show that you ARE interested in discussion, and not just defaming people that aren't as good as you, in your mind, anyway, then maybe I'll buy you a beer.
Until then, as I said, you're just as much of the problem as everything else.
For the record, I did not run away, I was tired of the constant accusations that I was being condescending (or defaming as you put it). I don't see where I was or how I was, and yet you (and others) keep bringing it up. Thus, somehow I have obviously missed something along the way. As I said, it was never my intention, so if I am being drawn out on that, if I am spending more time defending myself from those accusations, for which I don't understand...it is probably best that I do in fact stay away.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I'll consider your challenge. But I will only do it here. Pick a point, any point that I made that bothers you and I'll discuss it. After YOU are satisfied... we'll move on to the next point.
Back to you UE.
I've always wondered when it comes to whites acknowledging the past: what happens then? I don't think today's whites are ignorant of what came before, and I don't (as a black person) hold the white man across the street accountable for what his grandfather did. If whites accepting the past is going to be a huge blame-game clusterfuck, then what's the point? It only serves to breed further hateful feelings. So I ask again: What happens AFTER whites accept the past? What's your plan?
ReplyDeleteThe simple truth is that the world is full of ignorance and prejudice. Prejudice against people of other races, sexual orientatons, religions, and so forth. I don't see where you can stop the cycle outright, as not respecting or understanding those different from you is part of the human make-up. It cannot be completely obliterated, racism I'm referring to.
However, each generation that comes along, becomes more educated and more open to the world around them. We have come a long way from the 60's, and I'm sure 50 years from now we'd have come along way from today. The process to cure racism and other prejudices will be a slow one that will take several generations, it's not going to be a 'take two of this and call me in the morning' type instant fix.We can only educate people about both sides of the fence, and hope that this will open and free their minds.
Thanks for the contribution. I think what happens next is healing, on both sides, black and white. Working to find a solution is always better when you can work from a middle ground, the key is to find that middle ground. I don't profess to have the answers. These battles have been happening for a long time, but we must never lose hope.
ReplyDeleteWhat I hope for, in my lifetime is that we find that middle ground, a place where blacks and whites can openly discuss issues of race and continue making progress. This is why groups like CURB are so important. It allows a "safe" middle ground where we can learn from each other.
Hate will always exist. It is the flip-side of love, The ying to the yang. It will always exist, it's in recognitions and desire to be rid of it that makes us better people.
You are right, it will take several generations to fix, but let's keep working at it ok?
I often hear the term 'healing'. This is not an attack on that concept or you, but I'm curious: What does this mean? How is this achieved? If the white population accepts what happened in the past, what does the black population do in return? Do they continually point the finger, are we all going to then sing around a campfire, what is this healing?
ReplyDeleteIf there are going to be continuous calls for the white population to acknowledge the past, the black population must be prepared to accept this,and then move forward alongside the white population. I often hear that whites should apologize for the misdeeds of yesterday. Personally, I disagree. I refuse to prosecute anyone for the sins of their father.
But let's say the white population did offer an apology, the black population needs to accept it. Are we(black people) prepared and willing to, or are we going to use the past as a crutch for all that is going on in our lives? There are some people who live to blame others for their own shortcomings, is this healing going to help them as well? There are times when the biggest problems originate from within.
The example that resonates with me are the Jews. They lost 6 million of their number in Holocaust, a mere 60 years ago. There were/are people alive who lived through that. Did they allow this horribly unjust action to cripple them forever? Do they harbour a hatred for all German people that gets in the way of all else? NO... they came together as a group, and rebuilt their society and culture, and are as strong today as they ever were.
ReplyDeleteBy some accounts there were 12 million black slaves transported to the new world. There is no doubt that many, many of them died, either in transit, or as a result of their despicable treatment as slaves, but the number would have been far less than 50%, as that unfortunately, would simply have been "uneconomical". Now all this happened over a period of 345 years from 1520 to 1863/1865. I surmise that there were people alive in the first half of the last century would/could have been slaves, but there is no one alive today who knew slavery or for that matter slaves.
Slavery was outrageous, wrong and horrific. It should never have happened. But it existed long before whites entered the picture. The Spanish were the ones who started bringing blacks to the new world in the early 1500s. I don't hear outcries from the blacks about the Spanish! When are the blacks going to move on?
This is without a doubt a clear case of "internal demons". White people cannot provide the "cure" for what ails blacks, that must come from the blacks themselves. Some have managed to successfully make that transition, we all know who they are, but many are still trapped by their own internal demons, and are desperately grasping at straws from others to rescue them.
Hi Roman, welcome to the conversation. Thanx for taking the time.
ReplyDeleteCommunication is always a 2 way street. It is about listening and learning, talking and exploring. Do we know what healing will involve? No, I can only hope it leads to the exploration of hate in all its forms. It is interesting though to note that only this subject of race seems to bring forward so much emotion.
It is my honest belief that we are in a wonderful position to deal with this. Our community is not so large that we shouldn't explore ways to communicate. I can't speak for others, I don't know what is happening in other groups and to that end I don't know what will happen from here on out.
All I can say is that until we remove the race card from play, it will always be played. Until we can find a way to bridge that gap and make our lives unaffected by race, it always will be.
So what do we do? As a white person it's important enough for me to educate myself. It's important enough to me to talk to my kids about it, it's important enough for me to continue pushing the envelope, seeking ways for whites to engage blacks on a level that will break down the social and institutional problems that still exist today.
If it's important enough we will detach ourselves from the negative aspects of this and move forward in a positive stance.
Last but not least, I ask you, as a black person, what do you think? What do you feel? Are we making mountains out of mole-hills? Are we wrong for attempting to challenge the system that has led us to this point? Do you think that blacks want to discuss race openly, and if so why don't they?
once again... thanx for sharing...
Hi Lewis... thank you for bringing your thoughts...
ReplyDeleteI agree. Slavery is long gone and we can do nothing about it. Racism isn't. For it was less than 20 years ago we still lived in a society that had improper parish boundaries set up to keep one party in power. How long has it been since the 40 Thieves ran Front St.?
I certainly agree that blacks are responsible for those feelings, but if I can help alleviate those feelings, I should do all I can to make it happen. I can't stop people from hating, that's a condition learned. I can ask people to talk, discover their true feelings and say that it's ok to feel that way.
it was less than 20 years ago we still lived in a society that had improper parish boundaries set up to keep one party in power.
ReplyDeleteGet a grip. The parish boundaries were set up in the 1600s.
And for all the moaning and whining about how using the parish boundaries was just a tool to keep the UBP in power, one should also consider that i) the PLP never got a majority of the total vote until 1998, and ii) our current 'oh-so-fair' boundaries resulted in... wait for it... the party that got 52% of the votes getting 62% of the seats.
Yup, that sure was a big improvement.
Thanks Noel. Where did you get your facts btw? Just wondering. Do you work for the boundaries commission? Do you know how many times the boundaries have been changed in the past 100 years?
ReplyDeleteCan you explain to me why the UBP had 2 candidates running in Pembroke West Central for god knows how many years (James/Cartwright-Decouto) and why we were allowed to vote for both of them?
"Can you explain to me why the UBP had 2 candidates running in Pembroke West Central for god knows how many years (James/Cartwright-Decouto) and why we were allowed to vote for both of them?"
ReplyDeleteAre you incinuating that the PLP was denied the chance to put forward two candidates within this constituency as the UBP did? I don't understand your question and how it validates the "white power" structure that you are referring to?
Also Mr. Ray,
ReplyDeleteWhat proof do you have that the boundaries were manipulated by the UBP to ensure that they retained power? I guess they must've forgot a integral part to this restructuring as they still lost power to the PLP in 1998 under the same constituency borders?
What about Mr. Noel's point about how a Party which recveived 52% of the votes is able to retain 62% of the seats. It is a point that I have never heard made before and I am interested in your take on it?
I’ll start off by saying I haven’t read the post in question on BIAW. To be honest I rarely visit the site unless another blog specifically links to it. I find it a bit overwhelming what with all the different forums and threads. I don’t often have much time to get to the blogs so I only check out a few on a regular basis. One of my regulars is yours UE and I’m REALLY missing the regularity of content. Looking forward to seeing more regular posts from you and intrigued to see what you do with ComicPress. Anyway, on to it
ReplyDeleteI so often find that blog posts/discussions about race seem to descend (quite rapidly) into vitriolic rants, he said/she said, heated arguments, etc. Which is to be expected I guess given the deadlock we seem to find ourselves in (collectively) as regards race.
I’m really interested in what you had to say UE in an earlier posting (snippets quoted):
“...most of us DO share the same vision...”
“We've been discussing this stuff for years and most of us have learned the lessons...”
“And most of us are like-minded in our attitudes towards race, the way forward, our need to find solutions and (and I apologize for speaking for others) our dedication to discussing ways to, in fact, find those solutions. We're friends, here, all of us dedicated to finding ways to try to heal the racial divide and make our little home in the middle of the ocean the best place to live, grow and take care of our families.”
Quite frankly, this is very exciting to me! Having been involved with CURB for a number of years and having participated in numerous CURB-run dialogues open to the general public, I know that we often struggle to attract white people, particularly younger ones (and yes UE I still think we qualify “for “younger” status). We seem to have a core group of white folks that continually come to the meetings – what this means is that we tend to lack a diversity of opinion and I often have a sense of preaching to the choir.
UE from your quoted post above I gather that there seems to have developed on BIAW an active discussion on race and that perhaps a common opinion/attitude/approach towards our racial issues has emerged? I would really like to try to find a way to bring you and others into a discussion (in-person) on these issues. Perhaps it could be a formal CURB event or it could even be you and I grabbing a coffee and having a chat.
/CONTINUED IN NEXT POST…..
....CONTINUED from above
ReplyDeleteI have undergone somewhat of a transformation over the last few years – through much of my life, if asked, I would have said I consider myself a believer in equal rights and justice. I now see that being non-racist (for me) did not translate into being actively anti-racist and I’ve found there to be a substantive difference between the two. My opinion now is that we live in a white supremist, institutionally and structurally racist society. This does not mean I am anti-white or see white people as bad or evil in any way - what I mean is that I believe a system exists that won't disappear on its own.
As a result of this transformative experience I have, at times, had the tendency to discuss these issues in a “born-again” manner. In retrospect I see that this has caused so many issues like:
(i) The tendency to come across as more “enlightened” and thus be viewed (quite fairly at times if I'm honest) as condescending
(ii) The hardening of my views against others, sometimes becoming more closed-minded and defending my POV at all costs, which means not validating the truths in others' experiences
(iii) The erector of walls through my sometimes militant stance and provocative statements
I didn’t come to my current viewpoint through the Big Conversation or through CURB or CURE, but through my wife who has been involved in and passionate about equality and racial and social justice for far longer than I’ve known her. I could comfortably bet that, without having met Tina, I would not have become who I am today and certainly not through the Big conversation or CURB. I would certainly still be one of the people I now debate with. I’m still the same individual, but now with radically different views and beliefs than I had five years ago. I’ve lived in both camps so to speak. And I know how 2001 Mark would have reacted to 2009 Mark.
So I’m trying to learn how we can have a coming together in a harmonious way to hear each others’ beliefs and express our own beliefs without it becoming a competition to convert each other. I have to believe that we have more common ground than is evidenced in the blog debates. I don’t know how we can do this but am, in full sincerity, asking you UE whether you think we can find some common ground and what your ideas would be as to how we can begin a conversation where all voices can be heard with respect. Do you think a conversation would be useful? Is it needed? Should we start small? Should these be public affairs or private to start off? Like just two people talking over coffee?
I'm really interested to hear your thoughts..
Mr. Mark,
ReplyDeleteThank you for sharing your experiences and even noting your own shortcomings when entering into debates with other on this topic. I do not post on BIAW either, but after reading Mr. Ray's posted BIAW comments that started this whole debate, I can definitely see how they have been construed as condescending with a "I am right and if you don't agree then you are the opposite" approach. This will never succeed.
If more individuals approached this subject as you just did within those two posts then the Big Conversation would be a very different animal. I attended one because of my own interests in the subject and never have returned. There was no conversation which took place just a simple one way whitey bashing rhetoric session. This does not and never will constitute conversation and thus it will never succeed as humans by nature are defensive beings especially in light of broad attacks albeit orally or physically.
The Big Conversation while a noble attempt to improve race relations, approached the subject in a highly confrontational manner that was guaranteed only one result, failure.
Maybe you should begin a similar initiative that doesn't utilize the tactics of Dr. Brown or Mr. Commissiong. These two individuals approach to the subject is unhelpful and ultimately divisive and sets up the BRRI for one inevitable result, failue.
To tell you the truth I really don't believe that individuals that act in the manner they have really have no desire to see any sort of reconciliation between the races.
Thanks again for your insight.
Just a q, as I don't have time right this sec to go through the whole thing... I will in a sec...
ReplyDeleteBut before that, is Mark the same person as Phil Ray, or a separate person.
I'm just trying to keep it straight.
"But before that, is Mark the same person as Phil Ray, or a separate person."
ReplyDeleteMark is married to Tina ... Phil is married to Karen.
Ok... got it.
ReplyDeleteI'll get back to you, Mark, as soon as I can.
Just a follow up... I never intended any of my comments on BIAW to seem condescending. I have apologized more than once if that was the case.
ReplyDelete@Phil Ray
ReplyDeleteWhere did you get your facts btw?
Which ones? The 98/07 election numbers are available from a whole bunch of places, including various web sites, e.g. here for 2007, from the official Bda government election site.
Just wondering. Do you work for the boundaries commission?
Do you?
Do you know how many times the boundaries have been changed in the past 100 years?
As far as I know, the parish boundaries haven't changed ever. They look the same on Speed's 1676 reproduction of the Norwood map (which you can see here)as they do today.
The boundaries within the parishes, no idea. I seem to recall they were adjusted occasionally, to keep each district in the parish the same size, but I have no idea how often that happened; my impression is those changes were minimal.
Can you explain to me why the UBP had 2 candidates running in Pembroke West Central for god knows how many years .. and why we were allowed to vote for both of them?
That's because of the old Bermuda 'two MP's per district' thing, which dates from, IIRC, the reforms in the early 1960s. I forget why they adopted it, but IIRC it was discussed in J. Randolf Williams' excellent biography of E. T. Richards, "Peaceful Warrior".
BTW, have you read that? If not, you should - in addition to being an very good biography, it's also an excellent history, by a trained historian, of the struggle to end segregation in the 1940s through 1960s.
Anyway, getting back to the point, there were two MPs per district, and everybody got to vote for two MPs. IIRC there were actually a few cases in which the election result was that one was PLP, and one UBP: probably one party put up a very well-thought of candidate who carried the day, even though the party as a whole was not generally favoured in that district.
I'm a bit surprised you seem not to have understood all that?
@ Noel: Explain this (from Wikipedia):
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Bermuda
In 2001, the government began taking steps to amend Bermuda's constitution in order to abolish the island's system of parish-based, dual-seat constituencies which favored voters in parishes of small, predominantly white populations. The British Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) prepared an Order in Council empowering the Constituency Boundaries Commission to recommend to the Governor the number and boundaries of single-member constituencies into which Bermuda should be divided. The Commission held meetings with the public and concluded its deliberations. The Governor then submitted the commission's report to the UK's Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, together with the views of the House of Assembly. Finally, the FCO prepared a second Order in Council for presentation to the Privy Council to effect the proposals made by the commission, including constitutional amendments relating to electoral boundaries and representation.
Now I am not up on the whos and whats and whys of the boundaries, but I knew that the system was beneficial to whites. This goes back to the first election:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Bermuda
Bermuda's first election held on the basis of universal adult suffrage and equal voting took place on 22 May 1968; previously, the franchise had been limited to property owners and those above the age of 21. Persons who owned land in one or more parishes could vote in each parish.
incidentally most if not all land owners were white.
I applaud your efforts in this, but it is widely known that the UBP used many different "tactics" to maintain power. I also know that in PWC in which the PLP conceded as a UBP stronghold, they never campaigned and now that I am in PEC (the border moved in 01) a PLP stronghold... they still don't.
Back to the main point. If everyone had a chance to vote for 2 candidates but didn't because the boundaries were set up to keep one group in power, then how would said supporter without proper representation have a chance to see his party gain an advantage.
In fact PWC (old) is a good point. When Stuart Hayward ran in the area, people knew him, knew he lived in the area, liked him and in the end voted for him! How wrong were the PLP for not contesting the area more vigorously???
So by default the constituency remained a UBP stronghold for many years with Cartwright-Decouto/James partnership and after James left Jerome Dill took his spot. Sure the PLP could have put two candidates here, but if the boundaries were set up to support white voters, and they knew that whites didn't/don't vote PLP, what good would it have done them to waste energies here when they needed them elsewhere?
You have presented some excellent history and facts but it does not present the heart of the matter. It is a credit to you for bringing this to my attention. As I learn more and more (and that is what I am most interested in) about how the system was set up and has evolved to this point. these points actually reinforce the idea that the system was racist.
I'm a bit surprised you didn't think I'd back up my point. Maybe you have been coerced by my mates over there on BIAW. They seem to think I have no fight.
@Phil Ray
ReplyDeleteIf you believe anything in Wikipedia, well, 'nuff said.
incidentally most if not all land owners were white.
Your lack of knowledge, and just plain erroneous notions, of Bermuda's actual history is just apalling. It's no wonder you wind up espousing such ludicrous positions.
Here's a pop quiz question for you: in the 1953 election, in how many of Bermuda's 9 parishes (no districts back then, just straight parishes) were black voters (i.e. people who were actually ble to vote, under the rules of the day, because they owned land) a majority of the voters in that parish?
Mind, I'm not saying everything was hunky-dory back in the 50s. Clearly, there were major iniquities happening. I'm just using that election because I happen to know the answer - and your statement which I quoted is such ridiculous rubbish.