Peace

Thanks for the discussion bro.

JLL

Please understand that I’m not against racial harmony, but in my view that’s not predicated necessarily on someone’s acceptance of me per se. Given that, it’s immaterial whether someone views me as an equal. What really matters is that I view myself as an equal as it is in this context that I will deal. If I accept my own equality as my worldview, independent of what others think, then that’s what my behavior will project and ultimately that’s the context in which I’ll be dealt with.

Self definition to me is about power and with power one can demand redress if that’s what one wants to do. Power allows one to tell the story in their own way and to project their own worldview and let the world deal with it on your terms. Bullies know who to pick on. If you project strength, bullies will just simply move on to the path of least resistance. I don’t believe that means that someone becomes an oppressor.

You raise an interesting point about what happens in the long term. In 50 years, the demographic makeup of America and the world will change. America will become a majority minority country, while the same thing occurs in Europe. Of course, the relative size of populations doesn’t necessarily imply a change in who’s in charge, but assuming that it does, who would be there to seek redress from? If the changing demographics result in shift politically and economically such that another group is predominant, what does that mean for the strategy of seeking redress from whites for historical wrongs?

I argue that it’s this changing world and our specific conditions right now that need to drive our plans and strategies. IMO, the issue is not the tension of black and white, but our survival. I believe our survival can only come about by assuming that we’re in charge of our future notwithstanding our past.

Peace,
Greg

Well, who’s to say that our self-definition, as defined by ourselves, will ever be regarded as equal when sitting down at the bargain table concerning racial harmony?

Personally I vacillate about this “acting like the victim” mindset. While I understand that playing the victim role always allows the victim to place blame on the one for whom the atrocity was perpetuated, but, if we never admit that we were wronged and understand that we were victimized, it will never make the perpetrator become aware of their actions. To simplify it, if this were a playground and the bully always was beating me up and I never told an adult, the bully would keep on doing it until I decided to stand up and fight back–which means that now I become the bully (and this whole understanding of the oppressed becoming the oppressor stream of consciousness that’s latent in some black power memes sometimes troubles me).

I’ll never say that blacks need to accept the definition of dominant culture–not by a long stretch, but for long term, I really wonder what will this country look like in 100, 200, or 500 years. That is to say, I’m on board for what many blacks propose for our own economic and social empowerment, but it seems that much of what gets suggested can only operate in the current tension of black versus white–my question is what happens when this dichotomy no longer exists?

First of all, let me say that I appreciate the engagement and the topic you’ve introduced here. Also, I do appreciate good writing and certainly this blog is full of that.

I’m self employed and have been engaged in that manner for the bulk of my professional career. This means that to get business from anyone, regardless of color, there’s something I have to bring to the table that the other party wants. If whatever I’m bringing doesn’t fit their needs, they’ll simply keep looking at other people in my business until they find it. If I’m desirous of getting the business, then it’s incumbent on me to develop the skill set or whatever else is needed to garner the trade. Either way, I dealing as an equal in the sense that I’m seeking to do business or accomplish what I’m seeking to accomplish based on what I’m bringing to the table. That doesn’t mean that I win all of the time as that’s impossible, but it’s equal in the sense that there’s not a presumption of me being in a subservient position. I’m dealing just as anyone would deal. For me, it’s trade, not aid. I am not a victim.

Self definition means to me that we cast off the entire victim mindset. That doesn’t mean that we weren’t victimized, but it does mean that notwithstanding that, I don’t have to carry it as a burden. What I saying is the same thing you’ve said above when you say “Yes, racism is alive and needs to be dealt with; yes there are a myriad of civil rights issues when it comes to race that need to be addressed, but for some of us, we need to knock the racial chip off of our shoulder.”

Knocking the chip off our shoulder really means that it be replaced with something. What better to replace it with other than something notable we done for ourselves in the collective (or as an individual for that matter).?

I simply reject the notion that I have to accept someone’s definition as a limit on what I do. I suppose that someone could call me sectarian just because I opted to be self employed or because I think differently. Should I allow someone’s label to dictate what I believe is a rational response to my circumstances? Should I accept someone else’s view of me as my reality?

We have a immense set of issues in our community. Should we wait until someone approves what we think we should do? Should we work on reconciliation with others prior to reconciling with ourselves? Should we expend our efforts seeking the aid of others to fix them or should we just start off on our own to fix them?

It seems to me as long we accept the definitions of other folks, the limits on our progress are prescribed by their definitions. I simply can’t accept that. I simply can’t.

Greg

Again, it’s not so much that I’m disagreeing with what you’re proposing, I’m just not convinced in the argument that the outcome will be so great. Self-definition is fine. But as long as we are the minority population in this country, we will always be compared to the dominant culture. We will always be subjected to the laws and the culture of the dominant society. Therefore, if we self-define for ourselves and by ourselves, dominant culture will label us as sectarian.

For me that’s a problem. Do you at all see that as a possible issue of what you’re proposing?

Reconciling with someone strictly on what you’re bringing to the table as an equal already implies some sort of reconciliation has taken place. That assumes that the dominant culture will accept what we’re bringing to the table is equal. Clearly that’s not the case.

The macro culture has been resentful of the fact that their tax dollars have gone in support of the “welfare state”. The macro culture has resented affirmative action as well. The only thing we’re left with is self development.

Actually, I think that would resolve both intracommunal and intercommunal relations and self development doesn’t preclude trade and interaction with others. If anything, self development would not only enhance ourselves but the standing of America itself if one presumes that the American economy is not firing on all cylinders now with a significant portion of its citizenry existing outside the bounds of the economic mainstream. Self development doesn’t mean self segregation or hating on anyone. It just means that we do what we need to do to develop our community.

What I argue is this: racial reconcilationm while desireable, is not the problem for black folks in the main and does not provide a basis for self definition. As currently constituted, it only provides a basis for acceptance into the majority culture on terms defined by them rather than us. The fact that acceptance is sought rather than earned puts us in constant search for it based on someone else’s standard. That’s much of the problem now.

I’d rather reconcile with someone strictly on what I’m bring to the table as as equal.

I’m not against racial uplift, but I will say,what does self-sufficiency look like in a country that’s supposed to be a melting pot?

I daresay that what you’re proposing wouldn’t make racial reconciliation the natural next step. Let’s remember with de facto and de jure segregation in this country post-Civil War, blacks more or less self-sufficient–by default of course. And even then we still didn’t have the respect from the white community. I’m still not convinced that since 1964′s Civil Rights Act have we seen a REAL step toward reconciliation of the races.

I think what would happen is that we’d become even more entrenched in our beliefs. While blacks would be be okay with providing for ourselves, and yes, intracommunal issues may be resolved, but the dominant macro culture would still be resentful and level charges of “black nationalism” and “secessionist” ideals.

That’s definitely not reconciliation..

Yeah, I kinda pulled back for this one. It still was under 3,000 word count, I thought it was still short for me, lol