Frankly, I think the man's death had nothing to do with racism, and had he been a giant pink skinned and tattooed skinhead with flaming red beard, the same thing would have happened. It was excessive force, miscalculation on the officer's part, and folk are not considering officers must frequently subdue someone vastly larger than them where if the guy got loose, he would use the nearest officer as a club on any others.
That this was immediately played as a race incident is entirely disgusting and predictable, as was it being seen as license to burn and pillage by those poor victimized people. In those neighborhoods where officers are outnumbered, arrests always draw crowds a hearbeat from swarming the officers, and is a recipe for brutal and swift takedowns by officers of suspects so that they not be mobbed and beaten to death. The real suspects in how this happened and continues to happen are too numerous to mention...failed economic systems not allowing folk to rise, failed school systems breeding ignorant savages, failed families doing same, populations uncaring and indifferent to morals and education, and no decent jobs available for those who DO try for an education. But racism has almost nothing to with it.
So, naturally, the USCCB must come out with a collective guilt statement. Media leads with narrative, USCCB follows as sheep. If one must slap a label on it, it is police brutality, the police tasked with controlling an often brutal population in nearly lawless places teeming with brutes. I grew up where if you had a run in with the police, you had better be polite, compliant, and follow every direction, or you were going to be hurt or maybe even die. They were guard dogs we hired to do a job, and you did not mess with them...and their job and what they deal with daily does not make them nicer, but we did not hire them to be Mister Rogers...we hired them to protect from even worse.
I like the idea, except for one detail: I think it should be a day of prayer and atonement for sins of racism and prejudice. Period. I would drop the whole thing about "minorities". Racism is rampant in a LOT of other countries than just the United States--try being Chinese in Japan! Also, sometimes the minorities are just as hateful towards the "majority" race, sometimes even more so. If racism and prejudice are wrong, they're wrong for everybody, minority or majority, American, French, Iraqi, what have you. Let's just pray to end racism and prejudice and take the focus off blaming America and blaming white people exclusively. It's everywhere and it's in every racial group...and it's always wrong.
Bob's post made me start thinking about how much I know (or don't know) at this point about what actually happened in the George Floyd case. For example, what is the actual evidence (i.e., facts) that support the charge of "racism" (the belief that one race is superior to another): is the fact that the officer is white and the victim is black the only evidence of "racism?" Is there evidence that this officer believed that whites are superior to blacks, and that they should be treated differently?
It's been reported that there were 18 other complaints filed with the Minneapolis Police Department against this officer. Was each complaint investigated? What was the nature of those complaints? Excessive force? What percentage of the complainants were black, white, Asian or Hispanic? If there was an investigation and they found wrongdoing, was the officer disciplined? If not, why not?
If the only evidence of "racism" at this point is the fact that the officer is white and the victim is black, does this mean that if we have a black officer who kills or injures a white person during an arrest, the reason is automatically the "racism" of the black officer? Would this incident (a black officer killing a white suspect) be reported in the media? Have there also been incidents where black officers killed white persons during an arrest? What is the actual rate at which persons of a race different from the arresting officer are killed during arrests?
I haven't seen any of this kind of factual evidence being reported in the media, nor do I see it online. Yet, it seems to me, much of the media (and the chairman of seven committees of the USCCB, bishops, others in the Church) have concluded that this is "racism." The video evidence shows clearly that the officer is responsible for this man's death and should be appropriately charged and tried, but I have not seen any actual evidence that the officer is "racist."
This is another example of how unprepared the governments are are for their duties. I agree with dropping the phrase about minorities because it balkanizes the participants rather than unifies them.
I think the comment about the 18 complaints about this officer is a good point and may simply show he was a thug when it came to arresting people who may have not been as compliant has they should have been. The biggest problem this officer faces, apart from the charge of racism, which hasn't actually been proven in his case, is that he keep his knee on a man who was clearly in distress and did so several minutes after he passed out or died. If he is brutal in the way he treats those he arrests, once they are subdued or in handcuffs, it may be that he has a brutal streak in him, not that he is a racist. But we don't know either way yet, because nothing has been proven in a court of law.
I think this officer had some serious issues. It was reported his wife has filed for divorce in the aftermath of this case.
What is disturbing, besides the horrendous incident itself, is the pathologies afflicting many of those living in large cities. Chicago, my old city, is a case in point. Minorities kill their minority brethren there day in and day out and the Mayor and authorities wring their hands, mouth the usual platitudes, and then memory hole the problem because they do not want to deal with the root causes. What is so tragic, is that law abiding citizens living in these areas, most of whom are minorities themselves, see their businesses and homes destroyed by the actions of a few.So where is the racism there? Racism, like sexism and homophobia is an easy way to deflect from taking a serious look at the conditions on the grounds and identifying the root causes. Media and grandstanding politicians are not helping. I am not sure where he stands these days, but in the past Jesse Jackson, used to say the communities themselves have to fix the problem. FYI, Chicago has seen a large out-migration of African-Americans leaving and moving to friendlier climes to raise their families, a fact not very often reported. Ironically, many go to the South. We need to pray and where we can provide assistance on a personal level, help those who are trying to build a better life, either in these large cities, or elsewhere.
If you want to hear racism at its ugliest, just sit next to a table full of black people at a restaurant and listen to them talk about another black person who they think "acts white". Vile hatred at its lowest.
I think TJM hit the nail on the head with several of his/her points: 1. The officer has serious issues; 2. The charge of "racism" is an easy way to deflect from taking a serious look at the root causes of the problems faced by many minorities; and, 3. The media and politicians/the government do not help; they actually ensure that the problems continue or they make them worse by refusing to even name the problems so that they can be addressed.
I would also add that what I think may be many of the root causes of the problems, not the least of which is illegitimacy, are increasingly affecting white people at the lower end of the economic spectrum. And, from what I have read, the real detrimental impact of illegitimacy on a child's future (and his mother's future) is borne out by actual statistics/facts, which are, for many of those same politicians/government officials, "inconvenient truths."
Your Mass and benediction should be for "A day of Prayer, Atonement, and Reconciliation" for America. That's it. This would cover all the bases including those in law enforcement. Are they not in need of this also? I say this because race and prejudice are seen by all too many as just a "white" problem, endemic to our judicial and law enforcement institutions. There is and has been an undercurrent of racism and prejudice(anti-semitism) in the African-American community as well. It does no good to bring up racism if you don't give examples so we can solve the problem. What we are seeing now are evil acts of vandalism, looting, and wanton destruction by neo-anarchists in many of our major cities. I just saw a picture from New York where even St Patrick's cathedral was spray-painted with graffiti. Many of those committing these acts are not just African-Americans, but members of groups such as Antifa in some kind of perverse solidarity with the Black community. So what is needed is a "A day of Prayer, Atonement and Reconciliation" for America(to cover all our problems).
NATION OUT OF CONTROL... Urban Warfare Spreads... LA, Seattle, Nashville, Oklahoma City, Salt Lake City, Atlanta, Chicago, Detroit, NYC, DC... Philly, Miami, Vegas, Cleveland, Denver, Des Moines, Dallas, Indianapolis, Charlotte, Kansas City... Pittsburgh, Columbia, Wilmington, Portland, Phoenix, Tampa, MORE... 82nd Airborne on standby to deploy to Minnesota... Violence Erupts Near White House... National Guard Deployed...
We need prayers for our nation. It is not just racism and prejudice.
The life situation experienced by African-Americans in the United States is clearly multifaceted, not to mention that it is misleading to generalize about African-Americans as a monolithic group. So any reductionist, conceptual approach is not particularly helpful and just tends to feed existing biases and partisanship. What is needed is a holistic approach that explores all aspects of the “problem.” This in turn suggests the need for a “national conversation” on the subject. But, of course, all this takes time, effort, large helpings of goodwill on all sides, etc. Perhaps most critical of all, it suggests the need to “understand” one another. In the famous words of Atticus Finch speaking to his daughter Scout, “You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view . . . until you climb into his skin and walk around in it.” In addition to exercising our moral imagination, then, open-minded and open-hearted listening to one another’s stories and experiences is probably the closest we can get to achieving this degree of empathy.
But what to do in the meantime, in the face of an immediate crisis such as the one we now face? One thing not to do, surely, is to minimize the extent of “systemic racism” that appears to exist in our law enforcement and criminal justice system. I know I have just referenced a loaded term and, quite frankly, I don’t much care what we call it. What is more important is to acknowledge facts/claims such as those indicated in the following sources:
Indeed, it is important to acknowledge facts, and I was able to find an excellent article which provides quite a lot in the way of facts and statistics about the interactions of black Americans with the criminal justice system. The last part of the article, called "The verdict," is particularly interesting. Since I think most of us will see American newspapers and news sources as either "conservative" or "liberal" politically, I thought that the source of this article, Channel 4 in the United Kingdom, was a source that some of us might be more likely to see as unbiased, since they don't have "a horse in the game," so to speak. Here is the link:
Facing the history of lynching in the United States is hard for all of us who are not black.
The first response is often to say it is "nothing" as TJM has done.
The second response is often an attempt to justify the lynching. Those murdered were "guilty" of provoking violence by winking at a white woman, not stepping off the sidewalk to allow whites to pass "unmolested," or, heaven forbid, registering to vote.
The third response is often an attempt to put responsibility on the minority communities themselves saying things like, "Well, they kill each other all the time," as TJM has done. And I quote: "Minorities kill their minority brethren there day in and day out and the Mayor and authorities wring their hands, mouth the usual platitudes,..."
This denial is why racial tensions and disparities continue to be a cancer in our society. Like many cancers they will, if untreated, lead to death.
Your Party, the party of infanticide, is the party behind the deaths and destruction being wreaked on the US now. The AG of Minnesota's son has pledged his loyalty to ANTIFA and the Mayor of Minneapolis' daughter is tweeting her support of the rioters. There is no justification for the riots, none. Minority businesses and homes are being destroyed by their own. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. would be the first to speak out against it. The minority communities, just like Jesse Jackson has said, time and time again, have to fix themselves because money will not fix the problem. Neither you nor I cause them to have broken homes, illegitimate children, and to leave school before graduating. Those are likely the real causes for the problems in their neighborhood, not alleged racism. That a Catholic priest is trying to justify violence is beyond the pale.
#OnThisDay in 1921, the #BlackWallStreet massacre rages into its second day in the #Greenwood neighborhood of #Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Regarded as the worst incident of racial violence in U.S. history, the Tulsa Race Massacre began when the KKK - along with some city officials and adjacent white supremacy groups - attacked the affluent African-American neighborhood. More than 800 citizens were hospitalized and 35 blocks were destroyed. A revised death count estimates 150-300 fatalities.
The violence began when a black man was apprehended for allegedly insulting a white woman. While rumors spread of a lynching, a group of black men arrived on the scene and a shootout ensued, resulting in 12 deaths. In retaliation, a white mob rioted throughout Greenwood. The Oklahoma National Guard declared martial law to diffuse the situation.
For decades, the violence and destruction was shunned from the public discourse. A 2001 commission reinvestigated the incident and determined that reparations were in order for the black community. The massacre was just instituted into Oklahoma's public school curriculum this year. HBO's #Watchmen used the massacre as a key plot point while also introducing many to the incident for the first time."
TJM and now Gene have moved to the last level, as described by James Baldwin: "“I imagine one of the reasons people cling to their hates so stubbornly is because they sense, once hate is gone, they will be forced to deal with pain.”
One day you may be graced enough to deal with it. Till then, have a nice day.
In August 2011 a 29-year-old black man, Mark Duggan, was shot dead by police in Tottenham, north London. He was armed and wanted by the police, but there was no evidence that he had fired on the officers. Widespread rioting, arson and looting followed and quickly spread to other London boroughs. In the next few days, fanned by social media, violence erupted in several other cities, including Bristol, Birmingham, Nottingham and Manchester. It was the worst outbreak of civil disorder for thirty years.
Eyewitnesses remarked that there was was an almost carnival atmosphere among the rioters, who could burn and pillage with impunity. They even posted pictures of themselves with the expensive goods they had looted.
The previous year the Metropolitan Police had released statistics which showed that while blacks made up 12% of the population of London, black males were responsible for 54% of street crimes, 58% of robberies, 32% of sexual offences and 67% of gun crimes. This last figure was of particular concern, and Duggan was being tailed as part of a long-term operation (Operation Trident) to tackle this problem.
Hi Gene, it is good to hear from you! I hope you and yours are well.
You said “People out in the streets burning and destroying and endangering innocent people should be shot. I don't see the issue.”
At one level, of course your instinct must be correct. It is a natural and understandable reaction to lawlessness in the streets. No-one in his or her right mind wants to see such a thing, in the abstract. I certainly don’t.
But therein lies the problem. Such a thing is rarely in the abstract. Let us suppose, for example, that the people doing this in the streets are members of the Resistance in Nazi occupied Europe. Or Americans resisting a tyrannical federal government that seeks to “take their guns away.” Same reaction? Of course not. Context is everything.
But we don’t even need to try to justify the violence in the streets in this way. Former President Obama himself condemned the violence today: "Let's not excuse violence, or rationalize it, or participate in it. If we want our criminal justice system, and American society at large, to operate on a higher ethical code, then we have to model that code ourselves”:
What about, then, protests across the nation in which 99% plus of the protesters are peaceful but a very few, relatively speaking, are “in the streets burning and destroying and endangering innocent people”? We all understand that the 1% (pun definitely intended) get all the attention—after all, such scenes sell advertising, and our media know a good money-making opportunity, if they know anything. But does this distorted and misleading focus justify turning a blind eye to what may well be legitimate grievances of the 99% (pun again definitely intended)? (I’m not suggesting this describes what you are doing yourself, but isn’t this a risk when things are not seen in proper perspective and put into proper context?)
By the way, how many of us posting here are Black?
I see you are the typical modern academic, you don't want to hear what you find "unpleasant."
Do you have any comments to John Nolan's statements? Most liberals hair catches on fire when they are smacked in the face with reality.
Lastly, Blacks in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area exercised their 2nd Amendment rights and defended their businesses with arms since the police obviously were not doing their job. Should they have allowed the mobs to burn their businesses? Or are they not black, because they fought back? (Hat tip to Joe Biden).
Over the weekend there were copycat protests in London, Manchester and Cardiff over the killing of George Floyd (mostly peaceful but flouting social distancing rules). The slogan was 'black lives matter'. Indeed they do, but rather than addressing perceived white 'racists' the protesters would be better employed reminding the gangs who conduct drugs-related turf wars which claim the lives of many young black people that their lives 'matter'.
I don't give a damn what color people are. Any group engaging in such destructive and riotous behavior needs to be shot. If they bring it to the suburbs, as the morons say they want to, the response will be very different. Lots of guns, lots of ammo, lots of seething white rage. They will provide a target rich environment.
"Or Americans resisting a tyrannical federal government that seeks to “take their guns away.” Same reaction? Of course not. Context is everything."
Looting in the name of gun rights is wrong too. Looting under any set of facts is wrong.
White liberals love to bring up the color of people's ideas. It is so racist. As if a black person can speak for black people. Since I grew up in the black community, I see the white guilt for what it is: narcissistic catharsis. Sadly, it is both white liberals jumping on this situation to stir up dissension and white idiots hiding behind ANTIFA masks doing most of the violence. If white liberals cared about jobs and supporting black males and their families, there would be less of them willing to loot. But white liberals like blacks for only one reason: their political value.
If you want to hear from a black person in this combox, go invite one of your friends to post here. But I encourage you to invite them as a person and not as a representative of an identify group.
Perhaps the protesters are following the lead of the President to “LIBERATE” or taking him at his word when he said:
...during his 2016 campaign, he encouraged his supporters to assault protesters. “Knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously, OK,” he said on the day of the Iowa caucuses. “I promise you I will pay for the legal fees.” Later in Las Vegas, he said the security guards were too gentle with another protester. “I’d like to punch him in the face,” he said. Sure enough, a protester was sucker-punched on his way out of a rally the following month
What happened in my town, “They stripped their helmets and their shields, laid them down and they started coming toward us. A couple of them actually took a knee. I almost have no words. It was just a moment you had to be here for,” said Corey Parks of Englewood.
“It’s just a beautiful thing and I’m happy to be a part of it," Parks said.
"Bloody Sunday, or the Bogside Massacre, was a mass shooting on 30 January 1972 in the Bogside area of Derry, Northern Ireland, when BRITISH soldiers shot 26 unarmed civilians during a protest march against internment without trial. Fourteen people died: 13 were killed outright, while the death of another man four months later was attributed to his injuries."
But, we know that Irish-on-Irish crime in Ireland was nearly 100%. Irish burglarized Irish homes, Irish men raped Irish women, Irish were responsible for nearly 100% of the street crime, and nearly 100% of the gun crimes.
So, you see, it is entirely understandable, even reasonable, that the Irish were murdered on Bloody Sunday in 1972.
"Oh, Jeeves, bring me another spot of tea my good man...."
“When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross,” goes an oft-quoted line of uncertain origin. On Monday evening, Donald Trump, with four US flags behind him, threatened to send in the military against the American people, then crossed the road to pose for a photo outside a historic church while clutching an upside-down Bible. He was only able to get there after heavily armed police and horse-mounted national guardsmen fired teargas and rubber bullets to chase away peaceful protesters and journalists... without prior warning and 30 minutes before the announced curfew.
'Bloody Sunday' in Derry (1972) has nothing to do with crime rates in London in the 21st century. To dismiss black-on-black violence in the glib way you do is an extreme form of racism.
The Met Police's statistics in 2010 were not made up, and only released because a journalist from the Sunday Telegraph invoked the Freedom of Information Act.
If you want an example of what Irishmen can do to other Irishmen, I suggest you look at the Civil War of 1922-1923 which followed the Anglo-Irish treaty of 1921. More Irishmen were killed than in the period 1916 to 1921 which is seen as the War of Independence.
Nearly a hundred years on it is still a touchy subject in Ireland.
Of course, you are too monumentally stupid to appreciate any of this. Crawl back into your cave.
It was laughable you brought up Race Baiter in Chief, Obama. The race card should have been retired when he was elected president twice. But "intellectually" that is all modern liberals have. Gullible white liberals are still falling for his nonsense. Race relations deteriorated during his time in office, because, miraculously he generally took the side of the looters and denounced the police, even in cases like the Ferguson affair. In terms of his being a man of peace, I recall his speech where he referred to Republicans as the enemy, and that "if they bring a knife, we bring a gun."
So maybe you should think twice before citing his remarks.
Big Nose, you are on a roll, although to me you will always be Big Berk
"Let us suppose, for example, that the people doing this in the streets are members of the Resistance in Nazi occupied Europe. Or Americans resisting a tyrannical federal government that seeks to “take their guns away.” Same reaction? Of course not. Context is everything."
Well, that's not the context now, is it? No more so than to context what's going on right now to the American revolution.
President Eisenhower sent troops of the 101st Airborne division into Arkansas to ensure the integration of a High School. President Kennedy sent 3000 troops into riots in Oxford Mississippi, after first sending federal officers(US marshals, etc) to ensure the integration of a University. President Lyndon Johnson sent troops into Michigan and other states. This included in Detroit, tanks and soldiers armed with machine guns. There were many deaths and injuries.
Were the above presidents wrong to do what they did? And what of Pres. Trump?
Well, now I think I have just heard about everything:
"Archbishop Wilton D. Gregory, the first African American archbishop of the Archdiocese of Washington, condemned President Trump's visit to the Saint John Paul II National Shrine. He said the visit "violates our religious principles."
Gregory has jumped the shark. But Pelosi and company can proudly continue to lobby for abortion funding during a pandemic because abortion is an "essential healthcare service." What did Gregory or any of the other wimp bishops have to say about that?
Earlier, someone asked if anyone posting here is black. My response is that we should not care unless we want to perpetuate the current situation by Balkanizing the American People. The treatment of black people by police must pass the same standards for all citizens. Likewise, the expectations for the civil behavior of the citizens must be the same without exception. Those problems must be solved simultaneously for any reasonable expectation of a civil society to exist.
Not only did Trump order Fed patrols to forcefully (and probably illegally) move non-violent protestors from Lafayette Park so that he could walk over to the church for a photo op, but now we find out that the same troops forcefully removed the pastor and other church staff from the steps of the church - so much for religious freedom!
What was the purpose of today’s trip to JPII’s shrine? He met no one and no prayers were said, neither did Trump make any comments to address the current social unrest. He used the church for another political photo op, and at what cost to the public purse? Archbishop Wilson is quite right to complain.
I saw today a video of a white man wearing military gear brandishing a large gun in the face of peaceful protestors in ?Philadelphia. He was seen calmly talking to police officers before moving on. This despite it being illegal to openly care arms in that state and that he was engaging in threatening behaviour. Yet the police didn’t detain him for breaking the law although apparently it’s perfectly okay to beat up an unarmed black man while sitting in his car. Blatant double standards and a clear example of white privilege and racial inequality towards black citizens.
John - You posted your data to make the killing of blacks sound more palatable, more reasonable. In your view, they commit more crimes, so it is oh-so-reasonable to fear blacks in general. Bunk.
After all, the statistics "prove" that they are more dangerous and should be feared. That was your aim, that was your goal. If this was not your goal, what was? If this was not your goal, why these statistics:
You said, "The previous year the Metropolitan Police had released statistics which showed that while blacks made up 12% of the population of London, black males were responsible for 54% of street crimes, 58% of robberies, 32% of sexual offences and 67% of gun crimes."
I have not dismissed black-on-black violence. I have pointed out that Irish-on-Irish violence or Kenyan-on-Kenyan violence or Laplander-on-Laplander violence doesn't mean that anyone has a right to look at an Irishman or woman, a Kenyan, or a Laplander and think, Maybe I'd better unbuckle the strap on my holster.
Monumental is your arrogance and imagined superiority.
"What was the purpose of today’s trip to JPII’s shrine?" Well, that is utterly clear.
His purpose was to pander to Catholic voters.
His purpose was to use, in the most unpleasant sense of the word, the image of Saint John Paul II as a vote-gaining weapon.
I like what Rev. Hendrickson wrote:
“This is an awful man, waving a book he hasn’t read, in front of a church he doesn’t attend, invoking laws he doesn’t understand, against fellow Americans he sees as enemies, wielding a military he dodged serving, to protect power he gained via accepting foreign interference, exploiting fear and anger he loves to stoke, after failing to address a pandemic he was warned about, and building it all on a bed of constant lies and childish inanity."
-- Robert Hendrickson, Rector, Saint Philip’s in the Hills Episcopal Church
And yet, the Episcopal Church accepts the politically correct pro choice agenda of its politicians as well as same sex "marriage." And in a culture they have acquiesced, the mantra of not being judgmental seems to be hypocritically jettisoned if it doesn't comply with political expediency of their agenda.
I hope the good Catholic Archbishop of Washington, not only calls out Trump for using religion to pander for votes, be it Catholic or non Catholic votes, but also to some of the most notorious Catholics who pander for Catholic votes with the Most Holy Eucharist in hand or on tongue, despite the fact they favor pro-choice policies in their most virulent forms to include partial birth abortion as well as euthanasia.
Vice President Joe Biden, where is the outrage when he panders for Catholic votes and Black votes either by receiving Holy Communion or visiting various non Catholic Churches, especially African American Churches? Will anyone say to him that all lives matter to include the various races of children slaughtered prior to be born and some in partial birth abortions?
John Nolan - the Metropolitan (London) Police, of course, admitted to “Institutional Racism” and were forced to undergo significant reforms following those riots you mention, as well as in response to their messed-up half-hearted investigation into the appalling murder of Stephen Lawrence. Hopefully the American police system will also now be forced to undergo systemic reforms. These are not a “few bad apples” officers, this is widespread entrenched bigotry.
Once again, all of us posting here would do well to heed the famous words of Atticus Finch speaking to his daughter Scout: “You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view . . . until you climb into his skin and walk around in it.”
This truth applies to the protesters, to the police, to everyone posting here, and yes even to President Trump, if all of these are to understand and to be understood.
Unlike the Abortion Party, President Trump believes in Freedom of Religion and is trying to undue the damage done by the liberals little wooden god, Obama. What Wilton stated was a disgrace and will cause faithful Catholics to rethink their allegiance to the American Catholic Church which is becoming more and more a secular NGO. By the way, if a Communist dictator wanted to visit the Shrine, the Archbishop would have been slobbering over him, talking about dialogue, understanding, etc.
And then, of course, there’s always this, which I assume we all try to take seriously:
Lord, make me an instrument of your peace: where there is hatred, let me sow love; where there is injury, pardon; where there is doubt, faith; where there is despair, hope; where there is darkness, light; where there is sadness, joy.
O divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled as to console, to be understood as to understand, to be loved as to love. For it is in giving that we receive, it is in pardoning that we are pardoned, and it is in dying that we are born to eternal life.
To me, people such as "Big Nose", while of liberal political persuasion, are as inflammatory as anyone in the comments they make. Big Nose, maybe you should take to twitter like your alter ego the President, with a point-counterpoint to how to inflame others. Yeah, that will really help the situation. No, consider praying more to be enlightened by the Holy Spirit to be a positive force and example.
Why don't some of you commenting here volunteer to ride with a policeman as he or she patrols our streets. I remember some years back in the city I live in where a local TV reporter, a black man, went to learn first hand about what it was like from the perspective of the police. Wow, did it change his toward them and he admitted it on air.
Anon 7:52 - And Fr. McDonald's "bombshells" which rain on us like Luftwaffe bombs on London? Aren't these inflammatory?
Isn't that what they are designed for in the first place?
And, Fr. McDonald, isn't if hypocritical to lament the lack of social distancing among protesters when you, yourself, chose not to social distance in the chapel before the ordinations?
My point is irony. We are exposed to COVID 19 everywhere. To shut down everything because people are not doing what most aren’t is asinine. We have to take health risks today. That’s the new normal and I applaud the peaceful protesters who are courageous and willing to risk and aren’t like hysteria mongers crying the sky is falling like chicken little because one person was known to have tested positive whereas most of us don’t know who may have had their droplets on us and have it.
Yes, I love the Prayer of St. Francis. When I think of it in its totality, it really is what I would consider a prayer asking the Lord to help the person who is making the prayer to be charitable towards all other people. "Charity," as I understand it from a Catholic perspective, is the embodiment of Christ's commandment that we should love God with all our heart, soul and mind; and, love our neighbor (all human beings) as ourselves.
As a Catholic, I must confess that I don't see much charity (love) being shown by the Archbishop of Washington in his statement regarding the President's visit to the JP II Shrine. Good manners alone, it would seem, would require the Archbishop [if he had good manners] to thank the President for taking the time to visit and pay his respects.
It also occurred to me, that in addition to the complete lack of charity (and manners) shown by the Archbishop, he also missed an opportunity to have a positive impact and to teach people something about our Church, its leaders (the popes), and, more specifically, about JP II. Instead, he descended to politics, and, in doing so, lowered himself in the eyes of many Catholics, including me.
No, we are not exposed to coronavirus (not Covid-19 which is the disease caused by coronavirus) everywhere. We are exposed only where the virus is present.
We take health risks today. We do not, unless We are irresponsible or have a death wish, take unnecessary health risks.
And since you are now so open to taking health risks today, you will undoubtedly be reinstating use of the Common cup for communion tomorrow.
Not to do so would be, given your cavalier attitude toward sickness and death, asinine.
Hey Father yes prayers for George Floyd's soul and to end racism but also could you put in a prayer for the 92 policeman who died in the line of duty, 20 murdered, since January of this year? Thanks.
Police Lives Don't Matter to liberals (until they need one). The political left (a wing of the Democratic Party) is violent and hateful but don't expect faculty club members nor the media to condemn their actions. They are still scurrying around looking for the mythical right-wingers or Nazis who have miraculously joined up with the political left to support minorities. "Archbishop" Gregory is clueless. Everywhere he has been, he has been pretty much a cipher for the political left and an embarrassment. Another disastrous Francis appointment.
Anonymous at 9:50 pm (definitely not Anonymous K),
Well stated. I have never been more ashamed of the Catholic hierarchy in the US as I am now: hyper political, intellectually and spiritually barren, with just a few exceptions. They are going to reap the whirlwind, they just don't know it yet.
Who has said police lives don’t matter - absolutely nobody!
And just because police lives also matter, does not negate the fact that black lives matter; nor justifies rampant police brutality.
BTW - I see Boris Johnson (UK Prime Minister) has just denounced systemic American racism. The Trump administration is looking more and more politically isolated on this and other issues among its international allies. The countdown to the end of Trump’s political career has begun!
The moral of the story is “don’t do deals with the devil” ‘coz it never ends well!!!!
So the Holy Father Pope Francis has also prayed for George Flyod and an end to racism today. Are we going to hear his comments denounced on here as partisan and political as well?
“We cannot tolerate or turn a blind eye to racism and exclusion in any form and yet claim to defend the sacredness of every human life,” the pope said. His words during the audience and later in a statement indicated that he considers George Floyd’s death to be a result of racism. His carefully chosen words left no room for equivocation: Any Catholic who claims “to defend the sacredness of every human life” must combat racism and exclusion in all its forms.
He did so in a message addressed to his “dear brothers and sisters in the United States,” meaning the entire nation and not just its 70 million Catholics, a senior Vatican source told America. He spoke to them during his virtual public audience from the library of the apostolic palace on June 3, which was carried by Vatican Media.
Francis is well aware that a sizable number of Catholics and other Christians in the United States limit the defense of “the sacredness of human life” mainly to abortion, but do not view racism, the death penalty or other forms of exclusion—like mistreatment of migrants—as life issues. In today’s message, the pope underlined the full teaching of the church regarding “the defense of the sacredness of every human life” as expressed in the Second Vatican Council. He does not want this teaching to be reduced and manipulated for political or ideological reasons.
Ironically Donald Trump is the least racist president evah. A person who views everything through the prism of race is the real racist, like the guy who departed the White House in January of 2017. Trump opened his clubs to African-Americans when many clubs would not and Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton used to praise him for all of his work for the African-American community until he declared that he was a "gasp," Republican. Under Trump, until the China Flu hit, they were experiencing their lowest unemployment rate ever and rising wages. The only African-Americans who made considerable economic gains during the Obama years, were, well the Obamas, now residing at their seaside estate, far away from "the people." The Dems are in a panic because all they promise African-Americans is more dependency.
Only simpletons buy this media narrative but since most modern day liberals are simpletons, it is an easy sell.
Hey UK-"Priest" ever hear the concept of instrinsic evil? You may want to revisit that concept before you pop off about US Catholics. The death penalty is not intrinsically evil nor is keeping illegal aliens out of the US because they place a huge financial burden on American taxpayers. If you want more illegal aliens in England for virtue-signalling purposes, I am sure it could be arranged. Unlike John Nolan who offers value to this blog, you just come around to denigrate, snark and insult others. It is hard to believe you are priest.
Statistics concerning ethnicity and crime are informative. Although they may highlight problems, they offer no explanations nor suggest any remedies. However, to ignore them or pretend that there isn't a problem is irrational.
Those who are closely involved with their own ethnic communities do not need reminding, and they are well aware of the underlying causes. Whether it's to do with Moslem youths turning to extremism or black youths joining gangs, they don't blame everything on the white majority or the police.
Big Nose referred to 'institutional racism' in the police, and by extension to other institutions and indeed to society as a whole. The term gained currency as a result of the Macpherson report of 1999 after the enquiry into how the police dealt with the murder of Stephen Lawrence in 1993. It was not alleged as being a factor in the 2011 riots. Moreover, the definition of 'institutional racism' is a problematic one, and Macpherson's definition is highly questionable.
In 2000 the think-tank Civitas (Institute for the Study of Civil Society) published a 180-page critique of the Macpherson inquiry which was highly critical of both its methodology and its conclusions.
One has to reach one's own conclusions without being pressurized by special interest groups. A certain Anonymous concludes that I want to justify the killing of black people. I know he's not the sharpest knife in the box, but if he doesn't recognize his own absurdities he does need professional help.
In the USCCB’s 2008 and 2012 voting guides, the bishops condemned racism as “intrinsically evil” and explicitly paired it with abortion (e.g., Catholics should not vote for candidates who support “an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism”) rather than including it among other acts that “can never be morally justified.
I would say that it is also an intrinsic evil to cage children like animals but maybe that makes me a Marxist leftist in your book.
The idea that Trump is not a racist because he financially benefits from the patronage of minority groups is repugnant to most, and ignorant of the facts.
You really to get a grasp on reality. I never said racism was not intrinsically evil. You mentioned the death penalty and illegal immigration and I pointed out that error to you. However, there is really very little hard evidence of racism these days, or if there are still vestiges of it, it must be waning, after all this "racist" Country elected a Black man president twice. I guess you could say we are really bad at racism. However, from personal experience in England, I know racism is alive and well there among some of your countrymen. I was in a pub near Hyde Park and the entertainer would not continue his show until a person of color from India departed.
In terms of caging children, that was done by none other than the Barack Obama administration. When the media tried to pin that on President Trump, they were roundly humiliated when the photographs they used to push their narrative were shown to have been taken during the Obama administration's time in office.
Your last statement is mendacious. President Trump has done more for African-Americans than any modern president. Far more than Obama who just kept them as Democratic Party dependents. You sound like the typical braindead member of the elite class we find in the US, facts are never allowed to get in the way of their feelings or narrative. I guess Jackson and Sharpton aren't really Black since they praised Trump. The same lying elites also claimed President Trump was anti-Semitic even though he has Jewish grandchildren whom he apparently loves and has been a stalwart supporter of Israel finally moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem after several prior presidents promised to do so, but never could find the spine to do it.
You are a sad little man. You should focus on England's problems instead of butting in over here.
Although we should seek to understand him, especially whatever pain and suffering has led to his current brokenness (and let’s not forget, we are all broken), Donald Trump is neither racist nor non-racist; he seems first and foremost to be a Trumpist.
For his part, Trump has branded the protesters “thugs” and threatened to have American citizens shot and “vicious dogs” unleashed on them. On Sunday he tweeted that antifa would be labeled a “terrorist organization”.
Strangely, Barr and Trump did not apply the same threat to the armed white men who stormed the Michigan capitol, challenged law enforcement and shut down the government during a pandemic. Trump defined these gun-toting white men as “very good people”.
Be very careful trying to argue with TJM. He has a panoply of rhetorical sleights of hand up his sleeve. He claims to be an experienced international lawyer, and I certainly see evidence of some lawyerly tricks in what he writes. For example, he laid a rhetorical trap for you about intrinsic evil, choosing his words very carefully, and unfortunately—but quite understandably—you fell into it. Our Lord had to deal with lawyers too, as I recall.
I understand lawyers. I am one myself and I train them. It is a noble profession but sadly is sometimes practiced ignobly, which is why lawyers over here have such a terrible reputation because, as in so much else, it is the vicious minority who give the virtuous majority a bad name. To be clear, I am not trying to suggest that TJM is part of that minority, just that he knows the tricks of the game.
I found the comment regarding the USCCB's voting guides interesting, so I looked at the USCCB's "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship" guide, Digital Edition, February 2020. It says "The threat of abortion remains our preeminent priority because it directly attacks life itself, because it takes place in the sanctuary of the family, and because of the number of lives destroyed." "Preeminent," according to dictionary.com, means "above or before others; superior; surpassing." The document goes on to say that they "cannot dismiss or ignore other serious threats to human life and dignity, such as racism, the environmental crisis, poverty and the death penalty." (page 6, para. 7, and top of page 7).
So, it appears to me that abortion, based on what the bishops say in this document, is "above or before, superior and surpassing" to all other issues, and they compare "racism" to the "environmental crisis, poverty and the death penalty," not to abortion, which is "preeminent" (superior to all other issues).
This document says that it (the document) is a "Call to Political Responsibility from the Catholic Bishops of the United States," which doesn't sound to me, as a lay Catholic, to have the same force that perhaps the Catechism of the Catholic Church would have, so I decided to see what the Catechism actually says about these two issues.
I couldn't find the sin of "racism," the belief or theory that one race is superior to another, mentioned anywhere in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (Note: I am not saying that it isn't there, but I couldn't find it.). Perhaps it is because "racism" itself is an idea or belief, and not necessarily an action, although I can certainly see it could be a sin against charity to treat a person differently based on his race. In any case, I couldn't find "racism" itself in the Catechism.
However, I did find "abortion" listed in the Catechism, and it says the following:
"Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception." CCC 2270 "Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or as a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law.." CCC 2270 "Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense." CCC 2272 "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae, 'by the very commission of the offense'...." CCC 2272 "The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation." CCC 2273
So, it seems clear to me that the bishops did not explicitly "pair" abortion and racism as if they were equal; indeed, it seems quite clear to me (since they made it quite clear) that abortion remains "preeminent"/superior to all other issues, including "racism," based on what they actually said in their "Call to Political Responsibility."
As you may have noticed, two other rhetorical techniques TJM uses are the recasting of a narrative through the use of selective facts that favor his side of the argument and the belittling of the opponent with whom he is arguing. The former technique, telling a story that favors the client (typically, in TJM’s case, Donald Trump) is a legitimate technique in legal argumentation provided one stays on the right side of the obligation of candor toward the tribunal (no lying, for example); the latter violates the professional norm of civility.
The more fundamental problem with all of this, however, is that on this Blog we should not be acting as adversaries trying to get a verdict or ruling in our favor—there is enough of that in legal and political argument—but as Catholics seeking greater understanding of one another and of the truth. Not to mention that trying to correct the record by balancing the selective use of facts with a fuller accounting is exhausting—and for the most part, I have given up trying to do so with TJM, and this “wearing down” of those on the side of truth is of course what Trump and his allies are counting on. But people have only so much energy in a day.
Another serious problem in political conversation today is selective quotation. For example, the comment by Anonymous at 7:48 p.m. is quite correct insofar as it goes. The problem is that you have to put the language quoted from the Bishops’ Introductory Letter (“The threat of abortion remains our preeminent priority because it directly attacks life itself, because it takes place in the sanctuary of the family, and because of the number of lives destroyed”) in context—in this case in the context of the entire document. The best thing to do, then, is to prayerfully read the USCCB document in its entirety with an open mind and an open heart and in this way to form your conscience and make up your mind how to vote.
I will not here attempt—yet again—a detailed exegesis of relevant passages from that document. I have done so at least three times over the last decade or so to demonstrate that it does not in effect say, in the case of the upcoming election, “You must vote for Donald Trump because he claims to oppose legal abortion and will nominate federal judges accordingly.” It is too exhausting to do it all again. Readers are welcome to google my earlier posts on the subject, however.
To be fair and balanced, I should point out that UK Priest’s quotation from the USCCB Bishops at 3:10 p.m. is also correct insofar as it goes, but of course it too has to be read in the context of the entire document.
Will someone please explain to me what “virtue signaling” is? The phrase seems to have crept into our language recently, at least on this Blog, and the intent behind it appears to be for it to serve as yet another rhetorical weapon wielded by those “on the right” to short circuit actual thinking and to put down “liberals” and other undesirable types. But I’m still unsure what_its_use is supposed to signal. Is it a “dog whistle” term of some kind? -:)
I have just become aware of former Secretary of Defense James “Mad Dog” Mathis’s statement this evening. There is hope as long as such profiles in courage are willing to stand up and be counted:
Of course, the object of his anger and dismay, President Donald “Bone Spurs” Trump, immediately “counter-punched” at “the world’s most overrated General.”
The latest edition of Chambers defines racism, which has replaced the older term racialism, as follows:
racism, n. Hatred, rivalry or bad feeling between races; belief in the inherent superiority of some races over others, usu. with the implication of a right to be dominant; discriminative treatment based on such belief.
It therefore follows that the Israelites were racist; what we know of the Philistines suggests they were a settled people with a developed rural and urban culture. But they were heathens and, crucially, in the way. Was their treatment at the hands of the 'chosen race' intrinsically evil?
I don't believe in the superiority of one race over another, but I do hold that European culture is inherently superior to non-European cultures, and can justify this belief evidentially. Is this 'intrinsically evil?' This would imply that 'relativism' is intrinsically good, yet the Church condemns this.
When the Macpherson report came out, I and many others were disturbed by the definition of a racist incident (not crime) as 'any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person.' So the opinion of only one person, from the minority or the majority, determines whether a remark is racist or not, and this also applies to remarks made in private.
That a senior judge could endorse this nonsense was particularly appalling.
'Virtue signalling' is used to describe the actions of celebrities who use social media (esp. Twitter) to comment on current issues in order to show how 'woke' they are.
It shouldn't be used as a catch-all criticism of everyone who expresses 'liberal' opinions.
The writer above (at 8:44 p.m.) made a good point about taking a word or two out of context and then quoting it, which is why I quoted a full sentence (at 7:48 p.m.) from Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, and not just two words as the other writer did (at 3:10 p.m.). I couldn't find the five words that same writer has in quotation marks ("an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism") in the document in the order he explicitly quoted, and I did a word search for his quote in the document. So, from what I see, the document doesn't contain that quote at all. My quote, however, is a complete sentence directly from the document.
I do agree that it's important to look at the totality of what the Church teaches, so here are some quotes regarding the issue of abortion from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:
"It must in any case be clearly understood that whatever may be laid down by civil law in this matter, man can never obey a law which is in itself immoral, and such is the case of a law which would admit in principle the licitness of abortion. Nor can he take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or vote for it. Moreover, he may not collaborate in its application."
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration on Procured Abortion, November 18, 1974, nos. 19-22
"John Paul II, continuing the constant teaching of the Church, has reiterated many times that those who are directly involved in lawmaking bodies have a «grave and clear obligation to oppose» any law that attacks human life. For them, as for every Catholic, it is impossible to promote such laws or to vote for them."
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life 2002), no. 4
Once again, looking at the totality of the Church's teaching, including the Catechism, I simply do not see the Church equating "racism," which is not even mentioned in the Catechism at all, with the intrinsic evil of abortion. The sin of abortion does appear on every "examination of conscience" I have used to prepare for confession, but I do not remember ever seeing "racism" on the list of sins included in those documents either.
Minneapolis, Minn. has been under Democratic control since 1978. Chicago has been under Democratic control for 89 years; its present mayor is a black woman. Philadelphia has had Democratic mayors for 68 years; three of its last five mayors have been black men. Six of the last seven Atlanta, Ga., mayoral administrations were led by black Democratic mayors, and the present mayor is a black woman.
A city runs its police department and other services; therefore, if there is so much ‘systemic racism’ in these organizations, why hasn’t it been corrected over so many years under Democratic leaders?
Why aren’t these cities garden spots of racial tolerance, understanding, and virtue?
Because tolerance, understanding, and virtue don’t promote Democratic power.
Anon 7:29 - read the America article I linked to for a full explanation and commentary of the concept of intrinsic evil.
“The sin of abortion does appear on every ‘examination of conscience’ I have used to prepare for confession, but I do not remember ever seeing "racism" on the list of sins included in those documents either.“
UK-Priest: Thank you for taking the time to respond. I did look at the link you mentioned and the article to be found there, and, unless I am mistaken, it is simply the opinion of M. Cathleen Kaveny, a law professor at Notre Dame. I don't mean any disrespect to you or to her, but as a Catholic, I look to the Church's official teachings, as contained in her official documents (such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church), to determine what I believe and how to conduct my life, and that conduct includes how I vote. If I happened not to understand a particular doctrine of the Church because it wasn't clear (and this is pretty clear to me), I'd ask my pastor or bishop for clarification, not Ms. Kaveny.
I prefer to keep partisan politics out of discussions on this blog, but since you linked to an article by Ms. Kaveny, I think it is fair to comment on her from that perspective: To say that Ms. Kaveny is politically biased is, in my opinion, an understatement of rather large proportions. Here is a quote from her after President Trump was elected, but before he had even assumed office: "I am as yet unable to imagine the future — I can't think about the Supreme Court, the fate of immigrants, race relations, Obamacare, the economy, or any other issue..."
It's hard to imagine how anyone could, after such a quote, ever see her as fair and unbiased from a political perspective (and certainly not a religious one), which is why I refrain from quoting people with clear political bias toward one side or the other when I post about religious matters. From my perspective, quoting people (or referring others to their writings) with such an obvious political bias actually hurts the argument being made by the writer once the reader discovers the political biases of the person being quoted.
John Nolan - “I don't believe in the superiority of one race over another, but I do hold that European culture is inherently superior to non-European cultures, and can justify this belief evidentially. Is this 'intrinsically evil?' This would imply that 'relativism'.”
Belief in the superiority of Western Civilisation is just a more subtle way of expressing cultural racism and their underlying racist assumptions in a more socially acceptable way...
When not applied to discussions of city plumbing and poetry readings, the words “western civilisation” denote a racist colonial project to crush, change, enslave, eradicate or genocidally erase other cultures. To “civilise” is a verb that divorces people from the values of their own community and indoctrinates them into another’s. Historical rhetoric polarises the “civilised” westerner as superior to the dehumanised “savages”, “primitives” and “barbarians” of the term’s late 18th-19th century common use.
It is...abortion and racism are connected. We have civil rights activists that point this out time and time again but the left holds abortion, up to and including infanticide, 'sacred'. We even have supposed 'Christian' liberal politicians from the democratic party tell us that 'God Blesses abortions' including the 30% black babies that are killed. They tear down statues of confederate generals but a statue of Margaret Sangor is still displayed in the National Gallery even after a group of black Americans asked for it to be removed. Perhaps you have heard about her and if you want to learn a little more about Sangor, a real racist, check out chapter 6 in the book Salvation Is From The Jews by Roy Schoeman but for now all you need to know is she is the founder of Planned Parenthood and their abortion mills.
@UK....and if you want to know about abortion/racism and what the left is up to in Africa check out Target Africa by Obianuju Ekeocha. Actually you might be aware of her because I think she lives in the UK. Anyway about the book.....
Since the end of colonization Africa has struggled with socioeconomic and political problems. This has attracted wealthy donors from western nations, organizations and private foundations who have assumed the role of helper and deliverer. While some donors have good intentions, there are other western "progressive" donors whose gifts to Africa are often attached to their ideology of sexual liberation. These are the ideological neo-colonial masters of the 21st century who aggressively push into Africa their views on contraception, population control, sexualisation of children, feminism, homosexuality and abortion.
If you are going to quote me, have the courtesy not to end the quotation mid-sentence.
I don't recognize the concept of 'cultural racism' since I don't suscribe to the post-modernist ideology of the Left, where the term originates. I don't accept the idea of 'multiculturalism', which was also criticized by both John Paul II and Benedict XVI. Cultural relativism, indeed relativism generally, is alien to my philosophy.
I did not in fact use the term 'western civilization' but anyone who has seen Kenneth Clark's ground-breaking BBC series 'Civilisation' (1969) would find your jaundiced and profoundly ignorant definition the height of absurd prejudice (and exhibiting a self-loathing that verges on the psychotic). And Clark begins his narrative with the 'Dark Ages'; the Graeco-Roman culture which underpins the whole is not covered in any detail.
In fact your diatribe convinces me that fifty years of winding up left-wing zealots were not wasted. Back in the day they labelled me a fascist. Now, apparently, anyone who dissents from their received wisdom is a racist.
I suppose I should feel insulted, but coming from the likes of you I take it as a compliment.
We need someone in authority to guide us through all the sources relevant to voting one’s conscience. That is the purpose of the USCCB document. Have you read it in its entirety?
I believe that is why it is called “systemic racism” (a term, I should add, that really does seem to have some useful meaning). It is not a partisan issue, as if only Republicans were responsible for “systemic racism: and Democrats weren’t. Acknowledging, confronting, and dismantling it is very difficult, as we see in the news today, and on this Blog.
As Johnny c points out, systemic racism is also implicated in the disproportionate impact of abortion on Black communities.
Margaret Sanger opposed abortion and sharply distinguished it from birth control, the latter being a fundamental right of women, the former being a shameful crime. In 1916, when she opened her first birth control clinic, she was employing harsh rhetoric against abortion. Flyers she distributed to women exhorted them in all capitals: "Do not kill, do not take life, but prevent.” Sanger's patients at that time were told "that abortion was the wrong way—no matter how early it was performed it was taking life; that contraception was the better way, the safer way—it took a little time, a little trouble, but it was well worth while in the long run, because life had not yet begun.” Sanger consistently distanced herself from any calls for legal access to abortion, arguing that legal access to contraceptives would remove the need for abortion. Ann Hibner Koblitz has argued that Sanger's anti-abortion stance contributed to the further stigmatization of abortion and impeded the growth of the broader reproductive rights movement.
While Margaret Sanger condemned abortion as a method of family limitation, she was not opposed to abortion intended to save a woman's life. Furthermore, in 1932, Margaret Sanger directed the Clinical Research Bureau to start referring patients to hospitals for therapeutic abortions when indicated by an examining physician. She also advocated for birth control so that the pregnancies that led to therapeutic abortions could be prevented in the first place.
P.S. Although generally opposed to abortion, Margaret Sanger promoted birth control, including for reasons of racial eugenics. The Wikipedia entry on this point is very long:
Johnnyc- Abortion has nothing to do with this discussion which is about the racist act of a policeman murdering an innocent black man by deliberately kneeling on his neck for almost nine minutes. Please shut up about abortion as it is not relevant to the current topic. The hundreds of thousands of demonstrators across the world are not protesting about abortion.
The only reason that abortion has been introduced to this discussion is as a pretext by racist sympathisers to justify supporting a racist President. Donald may be making unlikely promises to outlaw abortion tomorrow but he is racist today in his speech and in his deeds.
John Nolan refers to the Postmodern ideology of the Left.
I have read this ideology summarized thus:
Any "truths" we in the West think we have about life and human nature etc are actually quite relativistic and are mostly bourgeois creations which are promoted and maintained to prop up the patriarchal corporate state.
However, this situation could change.
As in, is it not wonderful that in the West millions of university students since the 1970s have embraced the following:
1. All societies and cultures are worthy and deserving of respect, except functioning Western democracies, which are destructive and bad.
2. All truth is relative, but Postmodern ideology tells it like it really is.
3. All values are subjective, but sexism, racism and homophobia are really (ie: objectively) bad !!
Woke is a slang term that eased into the mainstream from several variations of a dialect called AAVE - African American Vernacular English.
From about 2008, "stay woke" became a watchword in parts of the black community in the USA for those who were self-aware, questioning the dominant paradigm and striving for something better.
In recent years, Woke has become increasingly used as a byword for social awareness; an adjective describing any person alert to injustice in society, especially racism.
UK Priest's views are in no way "psychotic"! His black armband views on Western civilization are in fact the only sane ones.
I should know as last year I was awarded a BA (hon) in cultural studies and literary theory from the University of Wollomollo.
Having for 4 years absorbed and reflected on 2 key texts: Foucault for Dummies. Derrida in a Nutshell. I can inform both of you there are absolutely no eternal truths and no absolute truths about life, the world and human nature that so-called great Western artists, writers, philosophers and even scientists can reveal to us.
Can't you 2 and other reactionaries on this blog see that your so-called " truths" are merely ideological assertions and that there are in fact as many "realities" out there as there are ideologies which construct them ?!!
If you two were sane you would both envy me and those like me who have spent at least 4 years at university doing with or to Western civilization the only thing that should be done to it !! That is, deconstructing the so-called "masterpieces" of Western art and literature to show how complicit they have all been in the process of depriving women, people of color and LGBT people of power.
UK-Priest: You made a good point that abortion isn't actually the original point of this discussion, but I didn't remember exactly who introduced the subject of abortion here, so I did a search. It was first mentioned by Anonymous 2 on June 1st at 11:24 p.m. There were several posts in response to Anonymous 2, and then you (UK-Priest) brought it up in a different context, that of Pope Francis, on June 3rd at 12:06 p.m. There were several more responses, and then you brought up abortion again in a different context in your post on June 3rd at 3:10 p.m., this time stating that the USCCB "paired" it with racism.
Johnnyc obviously did not introduce the subject of abortion here (Anonymous 2 did). His (Johnnyc's) first post here was on June 3rd at 12:41 a.m., in which he simply asked Father McDonald to also pray for the 92 policeman who have also been killed in the line of duty since January of this year (and more, I think, since then).
I am sure that you did not mean to imply that this subject (abortion) was introduced by him, and I hope that you would also agree that, in our charity, we should also be praying for the souls of the policemen who have died in the line of duty, as Johnnyc suggested.
We'd like to invite you to our next meeting of the London Postmodernist Christian Club.
It is so intellectually and spiritually liberating to assent to the doctrine that there is no reality in the world other than one constructed by words! There is joy in belief in the dogma that all categories are constructed according to the power groups advantaged by such constructions!! I feel you could contribute wisely to our discussions when we discover all the fallacies in Aristotle and Aquinas and all the implausibilities in the New Testament as we analyse all the modes and techniques of rhetorical deceit in these texts; yes, these texts which are foundational for the ideology of the white patriarchy.
I do not believe that this is a worldwide spontaneous response to the death of any black man at the hands of incompetent bullies. The conventional wisdom is that it happens every day. Why, then, was this fellow the trigger? The detailed coordination and uniformity of message is more than suspicious, it is indicative of a planned event. The governments are frightened because the groups they thought were in their back pockets are done with the old man and want to seize power for themselves. The nervous energy stored after so many months of idleness is a reservoir of action tapped by coordinated and well financed actors. It is almost comical to see so many people falling all over themselves to declare their sensitivity and solidarity with a mob slogans. It breeds contempt to read the statements of people who are clearly frightened for their money and power trying show how black they are.
Yes, it is related to abortion because it falls under the same cynical and soulless view of humans as commodities. The political strategy betrays its lineage to the era that it was born. That era of trench warfare where the ground gained is more precious than the bodies under it. There is no sacrifice in that system, only investment of the blood of others.
You people bleating support for the poor down trodden black man are in fact cheering on his auction to the god of war. I hope you don’t know that you, too, are being used rather than that you are all simply cowards.
As one of the more balanced contributors to this blog, in addition to your forensic experience, you have hit the nail on the head when you question whether 'labelling' does anything to advance civilized discourse. Of course it does not.
I don't hold to the ideology of cultural relativism. I am labelled a racist.
I suggest that pregnant women are not best suited as front-line infantry soldiers. I am labelled a sexist.
I disapprove of same-sex genital acts on moral grounds, but do not believe that homosexuals should be discriminated against. I am still labelled as a homophobe.
I don't subscribe to 'gender theory'. This marks me out as transphobic.
Even terms such as 'right' and 'left' have become confused. At one time authoritarianism was seen as 'right' and libertarianism as 'left'. Now it's the other way round.
Since two contributors to this blog have more-or-less inferred that I am a racist, I have nothing to lose by engaging the more intelligent in a discussion as to what is meant by 'systemic' or 'institutional' racism. This can mean a body (such as a police force) having a set of policies or norms to which its employees have to conform, and which includes racism. Or it can mean that the institution is prepared to tolerate racism on the part of its employees, if their efficiency is not thereby impaired. After all, one's personal beliefs should not be an issue. Or it might imply that there is an 'unconscious' racism in all of us, which logically would not be confined to the white races. Macpherson (influenced by special interest groups) even argued that being 'colour-blind', which to me means treating people equally regardless of race, is a form of racism.
What is important is that freedom of opinion and reasoned debate should not be stifled. Yet this is seen as purely a right-wing concern despite the fact that not a few on the left are uncomfortable with it.
Thanks for demonstrating that irony is not dead, even on the internet!
The Anonymous who posted just before you is quite correct in his definition and etymology of 'woke'. However, he failed to point out that the word has quickly been politicized by both Left and Right. He would normally be the first to tell us that word meaning is primarily determined by context.
Thanks for that reminder of the superb 'Rumpole of the Bailey'. If any Americans have not seen that iconic barrister of the 1980s in action, I suggest they rush out and do so.
One of my favourite aphorisms of his: 'Exercise is a short cut to the grave.'
John, I myself detected zero irony in the above comments of either Bruce Whitlam or Sam Bollard. In fact I am a close friend of Sam Bollard SJ. A number of times I have suggested to Sam that a synopsis of his masters' thesis be sent to The Tablet to be published as a lead article. Sam, with a prose style better than Cardinal Newman, and with the ability great than Bishop Sheen to communicate his complex, original and profound insights to the average lay Catholic, shows how various power elites in modern times - especially wealthy, white, Western, Christian males- have in culture war struggles made use of the works of power elites of the early Christian Church (aka saints Peter, Paul and John etc) whose theology as it appears in The New Testament mostly involves exploiting the slipperiness of the Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek languages to foist their patriarchal constructions of the truth on to the first century's oppressed minorities- ie: women, slaves, gladiators and male temple prostitutes etc.
@Anonymous 7:46am.....thanks for doing the research lol.
in our charity
Yes I'm afraid ukpriest does not come off as being very pastoral. If he actually did encounter a real racist would he not accompany them? Meet them where they are? As Cardinal Pell put it.....
those emphasising ‘the primacy of conscience’ only seemed to apply it to sexual morality and questions around the sanctity of life. People were rarely advised to follow their conscience if it told them to be racist, or slow in helping the poor and vulnerable, the cardinal said.”
Yes, it is rather strange, is it not, that we don’t hear about “accompaniment” and “discernment” when it comes to stealing, embezzling, lying, hating, coveting, murdering, bribing, and so forth. But sexual sins, for some reason, get a special pass.
You are correct that I mentioned the subject of abortion but it was in a context making it clear that I was attempting to prevent it being addressed as a diversionary tactic—yet again. And so I said:
And TJM:
Please don’t seize on the quote from Obama to make a point about abortion again. We get it already. Please don’t do it.
The first item links to a 2018 report to the United Nations providing much greater detail.
The second item also provides more detail and contains the following important passage towards the beginning:
“Of particular concern to some on the right is the term 'systemic racism,' often wrongly interpreted as an accusation that everyone in the system is racist. In fact, systemic racism means almost the opposite. It means that we have systems and institutions that produce racially disparate outcomes, regardless of the intentions of the people who work within them. When you consider that much of the criminal-justice system was built, honed and firmly established during the Jim Crow era — an era almost everyone, conservatives included, will concede rife with racism — this is pretty intuitive. The modern criminal-justice system helped preserve racial order — it kept black people in their place. For much of the early 20th century, in some parts of the country, that was its primary function. That it might retain some of those proclivities today shouldn’t be all that surprising.
In any case, after more than a decade covering these issues, it’s pretty clear to me that the evidence of racial bias in our criminal-justice system isn’t just convincing — it’s overwhelming.”
So, the claim is not that individuals within the system are necessarily racist (although some of them may be, of course). It is that the system itself, although apparently neutral on its face, has a disproportionately negative impact on a particular race. Living in the Deep South, and being married to a woman from Alabama who remembers segregated water fountains, transportation, and schools, I can understand what is meant because the legacy of this apartheid continues in multiple ways. Also, I have many Black students and colleagues who can readily confirm these ways to me. That is one reason I wish we had someone posting on this thread who has experienced this first hand. As it is, we are a bunch of White people (mostly men) opining about “the Other” without really understanding “the Other” from their perspective. Hence my quote from Atticus Finch: “You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view . . . until you climb into his skin and walk around in it.”
And it is indeed vitally important “that freedom of opinion and reasoned debate should not be stifled.” Sadly, over here at least, threats to this eminently sensible position are multiple. And lying is one of the biggest threats because it tends to a complete corruption of the conversation, which is why I cannot stand it and will oppose it wherever I see it, and this of course is my primary problem with Trump who sets a terrible example by his pathological lying. How on earth can democracy survive when we cannot rely on what we say to one another and hence cannot trust one another? It’s basic—something we were supposed to have learned at our mother’s knee. You know, "she who must be obeyed" (per rcg).
For a wonderful survey of Western Civilization I recommend Russell Kirk’s “The Roots of American Order.” It is a bit dated now and of course requires contextualization and supplementation, but it is a great place to begin:
The US is not systemically racist. Despite its history, it is systemically anti-racist. However, if the leftist-liberal elites, and people like the radical neo Marxists who founded BLM, who more or less hate the US on principle, push the systemic racism line long enough and hysterically enough, they may create the reality they claim to oppose.
"You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view . . . until you climb into his skin and walk around in it.” You mean like a typical large city law enforcement officer? Interesting that there have been African-American law enforcement officers fired, such as in Atlanta.
People today are so determined on using outcomes to evidence something such as racism. Outcomes, in and of themselves, are not necessarily determinate to arriving at a valid conclusion.
Big Nose: I did look at the youtube video for which you provided a link, but it was really short on actual facts and data, and it also seemed to be more regionally focused. For example, they talked about two students who live only a few streets apart, but are in different school districts with the funding coming from property taxes.
I understand that this is more common in some parts of the United States (many school districts within a county), but throughout the South, school districts are generally county-wide, so the funding disparity doesn't exist in the same way: all schools in the county are funded by property taxes paid by residents of the entire county (with some coming from the state), teachers are paid the same whether they teach in a poor area or a wealthy area of the county, a predominantly black area or a predominantly white area of the county, etc. So, the examples given in the video aren't really applicable for a large section of the United States, a section where large numbers of black people actually live.
In looking around on youtube, however, I did find some excellent videos by Thomas Sowell, a black American economist and social theorist, and they provided an excellent overview of some of the particular issues faced by the black community in the United States, and, his videos are full of factual data. Here is a link to the one I just watched:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS5WYp5xmvI
I hope you find Mr. Sowell's videos as helpful and informative as I did.
I can't speak for the American criminal justice system, but you are well aware that there was no legally-enforced segregation in England or Scotland (although this does not stop people segregating themselves). Until the 1950s black communities could be found in port cities such as Bristol and Liverpool but there was no widespread 'new Commonwealth' immigration and Britain was ethnically more or less homogeneous (the sectarian division in Northern Ireland is a separate issue).
My objection to the term 'systemic' or 'institutional' racism is first and foremost that it does not admit of precise definition. In the case of the police, accusations of 'institutional racism' led to a defensive attitude which effectively stopped them doing their job properly. The most notorious example was the failure to investigate organized gangs of men of Pakistani origin who were exploiting vulnerable young white girls for sex. One such gang was even operating in Oxford. These men did not prey on girls from their own communities, so their crimes, bad enough in themselves, were racially aggravated. Yet the police were so concerned with not being seen as institutionally racist that they effectively turned a blind eye.
You are statistically far more likely to be robbed, raped or burgled in London than you are in New York. Only homicides are less frequent, and London is catching up. Yet both cities have similar-sized populations, have approximately the same number of police officers, and spend about the same on policing. However, In New York Mayor Giuliani and NYPD chief Bill Bratton successfully combined a zero-tolerance policy with 'community policing' which has paid dividends.
The Met Police, on the other hand, largely ignore 'low-level' crime on the grounds that tackling it might antagonize 'local communities'. Yet such crime impacts on all communities, regardless of ethnicity. Meanwhile this weekend they and other forces will be out policing more BLM 'anti-racist' demonstrations. The only possible result of these (apart from helping to spread COVID-19) will be to exacerbate bad feeling between races, which is one of the definitions of racism.
You are a trained lawyer. Don't you see the implications of Macpherson's definition of a 'racist incident' which I quoted earlier? If racism is merely a subjective opinion hurled around indiscriminately as an insult, we would be well advised to eschew the term altogether, along with other epithets ending in -ist or -phobia.
“You mean like a typical large city law enforcement officer?”
Yes, of course, as I made clear in my post at 5:42 p.m. on June when I said in referring to the same Atticus Finch quote:
“This truth applies to the protesters, to the police, to everyone posting here, and yes even to President Trump, if all of these are to understand and to be understood.”
If there is to be progress, based on a meaningful dialogue, all relevant perspectives must be empathetically engaged by all sides. What is deadly for progress and meaningful dialogue regarding an issue as complex as systemic racism is to have just a partial and/or partisan-driven dialogue.
This said, some people have to fight even to get a voice at the table, and I believe that is what we are witnessing now with the BLM protests even if some more unsavory elements have tried to hijack them to serve their own agendas. Do we really think that formal segregation would have been dismantled without the protests of the Civil Rights movement in the mid-twentieth century?
Not only do I see the implications and limitations of such a definition, I have experienced, and indeed have been on the receiving end, of such a definition personally. In working through these sorts of situations—something that requires extensive dialogue, patience, and goodwill—attitude and listening are all important. It is also important in such dialogue not to allow a person to hide behind an allegation of “racism” to excuse poor performance, bad attitude, etc. However, the fact that the term_can_be misused—again as a “label” that stops conversation and short circuits thought (a bit like the way some use “abortion” on this Blog)—does not negate the fact that there are indeed genuine incidents of racism (just as there are legitimate ways of talking about abortion).
Regarding your other point about the “chilling” of legitimate police work, I believe that my just posted response to Anonymous at 8:38 p.m. speaks to that.
Regarding the differing situation in Britain (and indeed in Europe more generally), clearly the issues of de-colonization and the voluntary migration from Commonwealth countries that followed (largely, I suspect, as an “easy” way to assuage a guilty national conscience as well as for economic reasons), are a different set of issues from issues stemming from forced migration in the form of chattel slavery, which many call America’s Original Sin.
Indeed isn’t there a strong connection with traditionally understood Original Sin in all of this, and isn’t this why these are ultimately, or even mainly, not political questions but moral and spiritual ones? Presumably, this explains why the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. was such a powerful voice in leading the Civil Rights movement until he was dealt with, as Power only knows how to do, through force and violence. It is always telling to me that the first particular sin after Man’s expulsion from Eden was a fraternal murder. Power dealt with Jesus in the same way, and sadly I suppose we can expect no better. Power, like Wealth, doesn’t like being threatened and it certainly doesn’t like having to relinquish any of it.
Anon2: I’m getting that book this evening. One aspect of your argument re: that we are just white men opining, seems rooted in a Marcus Garvey approach to questions by delegitimize people by groups rather than explain the position. You don’t generally seem to need to use that approach. If white people cant perceive their own racism how can this be solved?
I am delighted you are getting the book. I am sure you will enjoy it.
I don’t know about you, but I have frequently needed others to point out my own limitations and blind spots. Being married to a psychotherapist and having participated in couples therapy at various points in our marriage, as well as having to engage in “difficult” conversations with professional colleagues and students, have led me to appreciate the importance of listening to what someone else has to say about how my actions affect them (and vice-versa, of course!).
However, I did not feel “delegitimized” in this process, although I did feel threatened, and tended to be a bit defensive, to begin with. In the end, however, I felt the opposite when my own perspective was also understood and in this way also “validated.” The process must be even-handed, therefore, so that people can trust it and feel safe within it. If it is, the result can be greater mutual understanding, healthy behavior modification, and improved relationships. The analogy should be clear.
I mentioned Power in my last reply to John Nolan. Coincidentally, and serendipitously, I have just read this very interesting piece on how power seems to change the brain and risk resulting in “hubris syndrome.” It would seem quite relevant to the present discussion (and presumably the risk attends those who attain power within social movements such as Black Lives matter, too):
Throughout most of the 19th century the constant element in British foreign policy was the suppression of the slave trade. It was a long, diplomatically complicated and (for the Royal Navy who had to enforce it) largely inglorious task. The Arab slave trade out of east Africa which had gone on for centuries proved particularly intractable and although the great slave market in Zanzibar was closed in 1890 the trade was not finally extirpated until 1909.
At the time of the American Civil War revulsion against slavery was so strong amongst all classes in Britain that there was never the remotest chance that London would recognize the Confederacy, despite Northern belligerence, the 'cotton famine' and the fact that the Prime Minister Lord Palmerston, who had been Secretary at War during the conflict of 1812-14, had no love for the United States.
There was no 'guilty national conscience' regarding the empire in the 1950s. If people thought about colonialism at all, they saw it in a positive light. During the Mau Mau emergency in Kenya much press coverage was given to atrocities committed by the insurgents, but there was little protest against atrocities committed by the British administration.
In the 1960s it became fashionable in left-wing circles to denigrate the colonial past, but their arguments were too simplistic and one-sided to have much effect on the national psyche.
There is also the fact that slavery never existed in Britain itself, as Lord Mansfield famously ruled in 1772. So I can appreciate that it resonates far more strongly in the United States than it does here.
Racism is a sin, and like all sin it will never disappear completely. The United States has done a commendable job in at least trying to diminish its power and influence with all the different approaches, and initiatives, such as affirmative-action, quotas, set-asides. and anti-poverty programs that have been employed to deal with it. Honestly, I don't know anywhere in the world where a minority has it better. The thing is, no matter how much better we are when compared to 50 years or 75 years ago, it doesn't matter. To people invested in reforming and transforming American society to their liking, it seems that it will always be a moving target, until and unless at some future date they themselves assume power.
In referring to my suspicion of “an ‘easy’ way to assuage a guilty national conscience,” I did indeed have in mind the 1960s fashion you referred to in your penultimate paragraph, a fashion that I believe was also noted by the likes of Lord Elton and Enoch Powell conjoined with a warning regarding the phenomenon of Commonwealth immigration and its likely consequences
I know that Lord Acton said that 'power corrupts' and it certainly can do so, but to see Power as a malevolent personality opposed to virtue and acting in its own name, though obviously allegorical, leaves too many questions unanswered. Power can be spiritual and moral, and even force and violence can be employed for good ends.
Martin Luther King was murdered by an escaped convict with a twisted notion of white supremacy. Unless you are a conspiracy theorist, that is all there is to it.
This morning’s WSJ has an essay by Orlando Patterson that is a good summary of the complaints against institutional racism in the USA. It is a pretty emotional piece with many accusations dressed as facts, but it does summarize what seems to be the general beliefs with some of the reasoning portrayed as well.
Thank you for the WSJ reference. I was able to read the beginning of the article but unfortunately the article is behind a paywall and the WSJ is not among my subscriptions, although I do read the occasional article in hard copy form when I am on the physical premises at work. And sadly, the WSJ does not seem to be one of those newspapers that allow one to read a fixed number of article for free each month.
This is quite interesting. I agree that power, and even force and violence, can be used, like wealth, status, or fame, for good ends but, like much else, we run the risk of making it into an idol (it is so hard for us to remain on the straight and narrow because there are so many temptations).
It seems quite easy, therefore, for the use of power to become sinful, and this can manifest not just in individual sin but in “structures of sin” when individually sinful actions result in the creation and perpetuation of institutions or systems and of reinforcing cultural mindsets and worldviews, as in systemic racism, for example. When so idolized, it does not seem unreasonable to conceive of power, if only allegorically as you say, as a malevolent force.
This has an interesting relation to the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. Of course, his family has long believed that others were involved:
But even if no-one else other than a deranged white supremacist was involved, we have to ask where that person’s mindset originates. I am now going to do something that may result in critical comments from other Blog commentators, but I am never one to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Here is an account of the assassination of civil rights activist Medgar Evers:
We know there can be toxic mindsets and worldviews, as in the case of ISIS, for example (and who manipulates the rank and file there?), or Nazism, or you name it, so why should to be different with the mindset or worldview of white supremacy when that becomes an ideology (or should one say an idolology)? The warped worldview of ISIS, Nazis, and white supremacists doubtless start from something much more benign (mainstream Islam, love of the Fatherland, or justified pride in the achievements of the West) but in the warping the benign becomes corrupted and malevolent, and good fruit becomes rotten fruit.
What’s terrifying about this moment is that the foundational institutions of our democracy are under assault, that the fundamental norms upon which our Constitution and our system of government rests are being threatened.
I just read an interview in the Harvard Gazette with Orlando P. Patterson on George Floyd and the aftermath. Some of what he said I agree with, some of it I didn't.
One thing he said which resonated with me is the following:
"What’s terrifying about this moment is that the foundational institutions of our democracy are under assault, that the fundamental norms upon which our Constitution and our system of government rests are being threatened."
I just read an interview in the Harvard Gazette with Orlando P. Patterson on George Floyd and the aftermath. Some of what he said I agree with, some of it I didn't.
I agree with him that the 40% proportion of the incarcerated population in the U.S. as being African-American needs to be reduced. But it does mirror and reflects the rate of crime in the AA communities. In the majority-black city I live in, we are already close to a record number of homicides for the year (almost all black on black) even though it is just the beginning of June. There have been perpetrators arrested and charged with crimes that had lengthy rap sheets which would prompt one to understandably wonder how they could be running around free. it is difficult for the criminal justice system to function as it should. There is only so much prison and jail space. And only so many courtrooms to hold trials in and lawyers to work the caseload. From the Bureau of Justice Statistics: Most violent offenders released from state prison in 2016 served less than 3 years. The average time served by state prisoners released in 2016, from initial admission to initial release, was 2.6 years, and the median time served was 1.3 years. Better and more effective work release programs would seem to be something needed to transition those imprisoned back into the general population. Also taking a different approach with non-violent offenders.
One thing he said which resonated with me is the following:
"What’s terrifying about this moment is that the foundational institutions of our democracy are under assault, that the fundamental norms upon which our Constitution and our system of government rests are being threatened."
An interesting datum from the WSJ article is that the rate of poverty among AA (academic pigeonholing is appropriate?) increased after voting rights act and the civil rights movement. I think that it resulted from the increased political weight of AA and the attendant ‘welfare’ programs. The AA community became highly dependent on subsidy, less productive and therefore less self sufficient.
This will sound a little tinfoil hatterish, but I think the protests are a coordinated effort by the Chinese Army and domestic political And government groups to influence this Fall’s election.
134 comments:
Frankly, I think the man's death had nothing to do with racism, and had he been a giant pink skinned and tattooed skinhead with flaming red beard, the same thing would have happened. It was excessive force, miscalculation on the officer's part, and folk are not considering officers must frequently subdue someone vastly larger than them where if the guy got loose, he would use the nearest officer as a club on any others.
That this was immediately played as a race incident is entirely disgusting and predictable, as was it being seen as license to burn and pillage by those poor victimized people. In those neighborhoods where officers are outnumbered, arrests always draw crowds a hearbeat from swarming the officers, and is a recipe for brutal and swift takedowns by officers of suspects so that they not be mobbed and beaten to death. The real suspects in how this happened and continues to happen are too numerous to mention...failed economic systems not allowing folk to rise, failed school systems breeding ignorant savages, failed families doing same, populations uncaring and indifferent to morals and education, and no decent jobs available for those who DO try for an education. But racism has almost nothing to with it.
So, naturally, the USCCB must come out with a collective guilt statement. Media leads with narrative, USCCB follows as sheep. If one must slap a label on it, it is police brutality, the police tasked with controlling an often brutal population in nearly lawless places teeming with brutes. I grew up where if you had a run in with the police, you had better be polite, compliant, and follow every direction, or you were going to be hurt or maybe even die. They were guard dogs we hired to do a job, and you did not mess with them...and their job and what they deal with daily does not make them nicer, but we did not hire them to be Mister Rogers...we hired them to protect from even worse.
I like the idea, except for one detail: I think it should be a day of prayer and atonement for sins of racism and prejudice. Period. I would drop the whole thing about "minorities". Racism is rampant in a LOT of other countries than just the United States--try being Chinese in Japan! Also, sometimes the minorities are just as hateful towards the "majority" race, sometimes even more so. If racism and prejudice are wrong, they're wrong for everybody, minority or majority, American, French, Iraqi, what have you. Let's just pray to end racism and prejudice and take the focus off blaming America and blaming white people exclusively. It's everywhere and it's in every racial group...and it's always wrong.
George Floyd was subdued - on the ground in handcuffs - while a police officer knelt on his neck for approximately nine minutes.
Police officers are not "dogs" hired and trained to do a job.
Yes, there is racism in all communities, majority and minority groups.
But there is a qualitative difference. The crowd of 200 racist white people, men, women, and children, has captured and hogtied 2 racist black men.
The crowd of 200 racist white people drags the 2 racist black men to the edge of town and lynches them on an old oak tree.
Here's the difference: Two racist black men die. 200 racist white people go home laughing and congratulating each other on a job well done.
Bob's post made me start thinking about how much I know (or don't know) at this point about what actually happened in the George Floyd case. For example, what is the actual evidence (i.e., facts) that support the charge of "racism" (the belief that one race is superior to another): is the fact that the officer is white and the victim is black the only evidence of "racism?" Is there evidence that this officer believed that whites are superior to blacks, and that they should be treated differently?
It's been reported that there were 18 other complaints filed with the Minneapolis Police Department against this officer. Was each complaint investigated? What was the nature of those complaints? Excessive force? What percentage of the complainants were black, white, Asian or Hispanic? If there was an investigation and they found wrongdoing, was the officer disciplined? If not, why not?
If the only evidence of "racism" at this point is the fact that the officer is white and the victim is black, does this mean that if we have a black officer who kills or injures a white person during an arrest, the reason is automatically the "racism" of the black officer? Would this incident (a black officer killing a white suspect) be reported in the media? Have there also been incidents where black officers killed white persons during an arrest? What is the actual rate at which persons of a race different from the arresting officer are killed during arrests?
I haven't seen any of this kind of factual evidence being reported in the media, nor do I see it online. Yet, it seems to me, much of the media (and the chairman of seven committees of the USCCB, bishops, others in the Church) have concluded that this is "racism." The video evidence shows clearly that the officer is responsible for this man's death and should be appropriately charged and tried, but I have not seen any actual evidence that the officer is "racist."
This is another example of how unprepared the governments are are for their duties. I agree with dropping the phrase about minorities because it balkanizes the participants rather than unifies them.
I think the comment about the 18 complaints about this officer is a good point and may simply show he was a thug when it came to arresting people who may have not been as compliant has they should have been. The biggest problem this officer faces, apart from the charge of racism, which hasn't actually been proven in his case, is that he keep his knee on a man who was clearly in distress and did so several minutes after he passed out or died. If he is brutal in the way he treats those he arrests, once they are subdued or in handcuffs, it may be that he has a brutal streak in him, not that he is a racist. But we don't know either way yet, because nothing has been proven in a court of law.
Anonymous K at 6:48 am, thanks for nothing.
Father McDonald,
I think this officer had some serious issues. It was reported his wife has filed for divorce in the aftermath of this case.
What is disturbing, besides the horrendous incident itself, is the pathologies afflicting many of those living in large cities. Chicago, my old city, is a case in point. Minorities kill their minority brethren there day in and day out and the Mayor and authorities wring their hands, mouth the usual platitudes, and then memory hole the problem because they do not want to deal with the root causes. What is so tragic, is that law abiding citizens living in these areas, most of whom are minorities themselves, see their businesses and homes destroyed by the actions of a few.So where is the racism there? Racism, like sexism and homophobia is an easy way to deflect from taking a serious look at the conditions on the grounds and identifying the root causes. Media and grandstanding politicians are not helping. I am not sure where he stands these days, but in the past Jesse Jackson, used to say the communities themselves have to fix the problem. FYI, Chicago has seen a large out-migration of African-Americans leaving and moving to friendlier climes to raise their families, a fact not very often reported. Ironically, many go to the South. We need to pray and where we can provide assistance on a personal level, help those who are trying to build a better life, either in these large cities, or elsewhere.
If you want to hear racism at its ugliest, just sit next to a table full of black people at a restaurant and listen to them talk about another black person who they think "acts white". Vile hatred at its lowest.
I think TJM hit the nail on the head with several of his/her points: 1. The officer has serious issues; 2. The charge of "racism" is an easy way to deflect from taking a serious look at the root causes of the problems faced by many minorities; and, 3. The media and politicians/the government do not help; they actually ensure that the problems continue or they make them worse by refusing to even name the problems so that they can be addressed.
I would also add that what I think may be many of the root causes of the problems, not the least of which is illegitimacy, are increasingly affecting white people at the lower end of the economic spectrum. And, from what I have read, the real detrimental impact of illegitimacy on a child's future (and his mother's future) is borne out by actual statistics/facts, which are, for many of those same politicians/government officials, "inconvenient truths."
Your Mass and benediction should be for "A day of Prayer, Atonement, and Reconciliation" for America. That's it. This would cover all the bases including those in law enforcement. Are they not in need of this also?
I say this because race and prejudice are seen by all too many as just a "white" problem, endemic to our judicial and law enforcement institutions.
There is and has been an undercurrent of racism and prejudice(anti-semitism) in the African-American community as well.
It does no good to bring up racism if you don't give examples so we can solve the problem. What we are seeing now are evil acts of vandalism, looting, and wanton destruction by neo-anarchists in many of our major cities. I just saw a picture from New York where even St Patrick's cathedral was spray-painted with graffiti. Many of those committing these acts are not just African-Americans, but members of groups such as Antifa in some kind of perverse solidarity with the Black community. So what is needed is a "A day of Prayer, Atonement and Reconciliation" for America(to cover all our problems).
NATION OUT OF CONTROL...
Urban Warfare Spreads...
LA, Seattle, Nashville, Oklahoma City, Salt Lake City, Atlanta, Chicago, Detroit, NYC, DC...
Philly, Miami, Vegas, Cleveland, Denver, Des Moines, Dallas, Indianapolis, Charlotte, Kansas City...
Pittsburgh, Columbia, Wilmington, Portland, Phoenix, Tampa, MORE...
82nd Airborne on standby to deploy to Minnesota...
Violence Erupts Near White House...
National Guard Deployed...
We need prayers for our nation. It is not just racism and prejudice.
Part of this is extroverted people closed up for 3 months, no jobs and no control over any of it. Things will explode and are.
Other protests, including those that turned into riots, followed the brutal beatings and deaths of black people killed by police.
There was NO three month pandemic shutdown.
The shutdown is not the cause, nor even a contributing factor.
Oppression is.
The life situation experienced by African-Americans in the United States is clearly multifaceted, not to mention that it is misleading to generalize about African-Americans as a monolithic group. So any reductionist, conceptual approach is not particularly helpful and just tends to feed existing biases and partisanship. What is needed is a holistic approach that explores all aspects of the “problem.” This in turn suggests the need for a “national conversation” on the subject. But, of course, all this takes time, effort, large helpings of goodwill on all sides, etc. Perhaps most critical of all, it suggests the need to “understand” one another. In the famous words of Atticus Finch speaking to his daughter Scout, “You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view . . . until you climb into his skin and walk around in it.” In addition to exercising our moral imagination, then, open-minded and open-hearted listening to one another’s stories and experiences is probably the closest we can get to achieving this degree of empathy.
But what to do in the meantime, in the face of an immediate crisis such as the one we now face? One thing not to do, surely, is to minimize the extent of “systemic racism” that appears to exist in our law enforcement and criminal justice system. I know I have just referenced a loaded term and, quite frankly, I don’t much care what we call it. What is more important is to acknowledge facts/claims such as those indicated in the following sources:
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/racism/upload/racism-and-criminal-justice.pdf
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2018/09/18/theres-overwhelming-evidence-that-the-criminal-justice-system-is-racist-heres-the-proof/
Indeed, it is important to acknowledge facts, and I was able to find an excellent article which provides quite a lot in the way of facts and statistics about the interactions of black Americans with the criminal justice system. The last part of the article, called "The verdict," is particularly interesting. Since I think most of us will see American newspapers and news sources as either "conservative" or "liberal" politically, I thought that the source of this article, Channel 4 in the United Kingdom, was a source that some of us might be more likely to see as unbiased, since they don't have "a horse in the game," so to speak. Here is the link:
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-black-americans-commit-crime
Anonymous@9:03 PM
It's good to look at the facts. We can then look deeper, but we have to start from some foundation and then go from there.
"Anonymous K at 6:48 am, thanks for nothing."
Facing the history of lynching in the United States is hard for all of us who are not black.
The first response is often to say it is "nothing" as TJM has done.
The second response is often an attempt to justify the lynching. Those murdered were "guilty" of provoking violence by winking at a white woman, not stepping off the sidewalk to allow whites to pass "unmolested," or, heaven forbid, registering to vote.
The third response is often an attempt to put responsibility on the minority communities themselves saying things like, "Well, they kill each other all the time," as TJM has done. And I quote: "Minorities kill their minority brethren there day in and day out and the Mayor and authorities wring their hands, mouth the usual platitudes,..."
This denial is why racial tensions and disparities continue to be a cancer in our society. Like many cancers they will, if untreated, lead to death.
Anonymous K,
Your Party, the party of infanticide, is the party behind the deaths and destruction being wreaked on the US now. The AG of Minnesota's son has pledged his loyalty to ANTIFA and the Mayor of Minneapolis' daughter is tweeting her support of the rioters. There is no justification for the riots, none. Minority businesses and homes are being destroyed by their own. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. would be the first to speak out against it. The minority communities, just like Jesse Jackson has said, time and time again, have to fix themselves because money will not fix the problem. Neither you nor I cause them to have broken homes, illegitimate children, and to leave school before graduating. Those are likely the real causes for the problems in their neighborhood, not alleged racism. That a Catholic priest is trying to justify violence is beyond the pale.
People out in the streets burning and destroying and endangering innocent people should be shot. I don't see the issue.
#OnThisDay in 1921, the #BlackWallStreet massacre rages into its second day in the #Greenwood neighborhood of #Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Regarded as the worst incident of racial violence in U.S. history, the Tulsa Race Massacre began when the KKK - along with some city officials and adjacent white supremacy groups - attacked the affluent African-American neighborhood. More than 800 citizens were hospitalized and 35 blocks were destroyed. A revised death count estimates 150-300 fatalities.
The violence began when a black man was apprehended for allegedly insulting a white woman. While rumors spread of a lynching, a group of black men arrived on the scene and a shootout ensued, resulting in 12 deaths. In retaliation, a white mob rioted throughout Greenwood. The Oklahoma National Guard declared martial law to diffuse the situation.
For decades, the violence and destruction was shunned from the public discourse. A 2001 commission reinvestigated the incident and determined that reparations were in order for the black community. The massacre was just instituted into Oklahoma's public school curriculum this year. HBO's #Watchmen used the massacre as a key plot point while also introducing many to the incident for the first time."
"...ALLEGEDLY INSULTING A WHITE WOMAN."
- from "History In Five"
TJM and now Gene have moved to the last level, as described by James Baldwin: "“I imagine one of the reasons people cling to their hates so stubbornly is because they sense, once hate is gone, they will be forced to deal with pain.”
One day you may be graced enough to deal with it. Till then, have a nice day.
Anonymous K,
Your posts are routinely judgmental, full of conjecture, and contempt for opposing viewpoints.. Heal yourself
In August 2011 a 29-year-old black man, Mark Duggan, was shot dead by police in Tottenham, north London. He was armed and wanted by the police, but there was no evidence that he had fired on the officers. Widespread rioting, arson and looting followed and quickly spread to other London boroughs. In the next few days, fanned by social media, violence erupted in several other cities, including Bristol, Birmingham, Nottingham and Manchester. It was the worst outbreak of civil disorder for thirty years.
Eyewitnesses remarked that there was was an almost carnival atmosphere among the rioters, who could burn and pillage with impunity. They even posted pictures of themselves with the expensive goods they had looted.
The previous year the Metropolitan Police had released statistics which showed that while blacks made up 12% of the population of London, black males were responsible for 54% of street crimes, 58% of robberies, 32% of sexual offences and 67% of gun crimes. This last figure was of particular concern, and Duggan was being tailed as part of a long-term operation (Operation Trident) to tackle this problem.
Hi Gene, it is good to hear from you! I hope you and yours are well.
You said “People out in the streets burning and destroying and endangering innocent people should be shot. I don't see the issue.”
At one level, of course your instinct must be correct. It is a natural and understandable reaction to lawlessness in the streets. No-one in his or her right mind wants to see such a thing, in the abstract. I certainly don’t.
But therein lies the problem. Such a thing is rarely in the abstract. Let us suppose, for example, that the people doing this in the streets are members of the Resistance in Nazi occupied Europe. Or Americans resisting a tyrannical federal government that seeks to “take their guns away.” Same reaction? Of course not. Context is everything.
But we don’t even need to try to justify the violence in the streets in this way. Former President Obama himself condemned the violence today: "Let's not excuse violence, or rationalize it, or participate in it. If we want our criminal justice system, and American society at large, to operate on a higher ethical code, then we have to model that code ourselves”:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/01/politics/barack-obama-george-floyd/index.html
What about, then, protests across the nation in which 99% plus of the protesters are peaceful but a very few, relatively speaking, are “in the streets burning and destroying and endangering innocent people”? We all understand that the 1% (pun definitely intended) get all the attention—after all, such scenes sell advertising, and our media know a good money-making opportunity, if they know anything. But does this distorted and misleading focus justify turning a blind eye to what may well be legitimate grievances of the 99% (pun again definitely intended)? (I’m not suggesting this describes what you are doing yourself, but isn’t this a risk when things are not seen in proper perspective and put into proper context?)
By the way, how many of us posting here are Black?
And TJM:
Please don’t seize on the quote from Obama to make a point about abortion again. We get it already. Please don’t do it.
Anonymous 2,
I see you are the typical modern academic, you don't want to hear what you find "unpleasant."
Do you have any comments to John Nolan's statements? Most liberals hair catches on fire when they are smacked in the face with reality.
Lastly, Blacks in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area exercised their 2nd Amendment rights and defended their businesses with arms since the police obviously were not doing their job. Should they have allowed the mobs to burn their businesses? Or are they not black, because they fought back? (Hat tip to Joe Biden).
Over the weekend there were copycat protests in London, Manchester and Cardiff over the killing of George Floyd (mostly peaceful but flouting social distancing rules). The slogan was 'black lives matter'. Indeed they do, but rather than addressing perceived white 'racists' the protesters would be better employed reminding the gangs who conduct drugs-related turf wars which claim the lives of many young black people that their lives 'matter'.
I don't give a damn what color people are. Any group engaging in such destructive and riotous behavior needs to be shot. If they bring it to the suburbs, as the morons say they want to, the response will be very different. Lots of guns, lots of ammo, lots of seething white rage. They will provide a target rich environment.
Anonymous 2,
"Or Americans resisting a tyrannical federal government that seeks to “take their guns away.” Same reaction? Of course not. Context is everything."
Looting in the name of gun rights is wrong too. Looting under any set of facts is wrong.
White liberals love to bring up the color of people's ideas. It is so racist. As if a black person can speak for black people. Since I grew up in the black community, I see the white guilt for what it is: narcissistic catharsis. Sadly, it is both white liberals jumping on this situation to stir up dissension and white idiots hiding behind ANTIFA masks doing most of the violence. If white liberals cared about jobs and supporting black males and their families, there would be less of them willing to loot. But white liberals like blacks for only one reason: their political value.
If you want to hear from a black person in this combox, go invite one of your friends to post here. But I encourage you to invite them as a person and not as a representative of an identify group.
Perhaps the protesters are following the lead of the President to “LIBERATE” or taking him at his word when he said:
...during his 2016 campaign, he encouraged his supporters to assault protesters. “Knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously, OK,” he said on the day of the Iowa caucuses. “I promise you I will pay for the legal fees.” Later in Las Vegas, he said the security guards were too gentle with another protester. “I’d like to punch him in the face,” he said. Sure enough, a protester was sucker-punched on his way out of a rally the following month
What happened in my town, “They stripped their helmets and their shields, laid them down and they started coming toward us. A couple of them actually took a knee. I almost have no words. It was just a moment you had to be here for,” said Corey Parks of Englewood.
“It’s just a beautiful thing and I’m happy to be a part of it," Parks said.
"Bloody Sunday, or the Bogside Massacre, was a mass shooting on 30 January 1972 in the Bogside area of Derry, Northern Ireland, when BRITISH soldiers shot 26 unarmed civilians during a protest march against internment without trial. Fourteen people died: 13 were killed outright, while the death of another man four months later was attributed to his injuries."
But, we know that Irish-on-Irish crime in Ireland was nearly 100%. Irish burglarized Irish homes, Irish men raped Irish women, Irish were responsible for nearly 100% of the street crime, and nearly 100% of the gun crimes.
So, you see, it is entirely understandable, even reasonable, that the Irish were murdered on Bloody Sunday in 1972.
"Oh, Jeeves, bring me another spot of tea my good man...."
“When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross,” goes an oft-quoted line of uncertain origin.
On Monday evening, Donald Trump, with four US flags behind him, threatened to send in the military against the American people, then crossed the road to pose for a photo outside a historic church while clutching an upside-down Bible.
He was only able to get there after heavily armed police and horse-mounted national guardsmen fired teargas and rubber bullets to chase away peaceful protesters and journalists... without prior warning and 30 minutes before the announced curfew.
Anonymous
'Bloody Sunday' in Derry (1972) has nothing to do with crime rates in London in the 21st century. To dismiss black-on-black violence in the glib way you do is an extreme form of racism.
The Met Police's statistics in 2010 were not made up, and only released because a journalist from the Sunday Telegraph invoked the Freedom of Information Act.
If you want an example of what Irishmen can do to other Irishmen, I suggest you look at the Civil War of 1922-1923 which followed the Anglo-Irish treaty of 1921. More Irishmen were killed than in the period 1916 to 1921 which is seen as the War of Independence.
Nearly a hundred years on it is still a touchy subject in Ireland.
Of course, you are too monumentally stupid to appreciate any of this. Crawl back into your cave.
Anonymous 2,
It was laughable you brought up Race Baiter in Chief, Obama. The race card should have been retired when he was elected president twice. But "intellectually" that is all modern liberals have. Gullible white liberals are still falling for his nonsense. Race relations deteriorated during his time in office, because, miraculously he generally took the side of the looters and denounced the police, even in cases like the Ferguson affair. In terms of his being a man of peace, I recall his speech where he referred to Republicans as the enemy, and that "if they bring a knife, we bring a gun."
So maybe you should think twice before citing his remarks.
Big Nose, you are on a roll, although to me you will always be Big Berk
"Let us suppose, for example, that the people doing this in the streets are members of the Resistance in Nazi occupied Europe. Or Americans resisting a tyrannical federal government that seeks to “take their guns away.” Same reaction? Of course not. Context is everything."
Well, that's not the context now, is it? No more so than to context what's going on right now to the American revolution.
President Eisenhower sent troops of the 101st Airborne division into Arkansas to ensure the integration of a High School.
President Kennedy sent 3000 troops into riots in Oxford Mississippi, after first sending federal officers(US marshals, etc) to ensure the integration of a University.
President Lyndon Johnson sent troops into Michigan and other states. This included in Detroit, tanks and soldiers armed with machine guns. There were many deaths and injuries.
Were the above presidents wrong to do what they did? And what of Pres. Trump?
Well, now I think I have just heard about everything:
"Archbishop Wilton D. Gregory, the first African American archbishop of the Archdiocese of Washington, condemned President Trump's visit to the Saint John Paul II National Shrine. He said the visit "violates our religious principles."
Gregory has jumped the shark. But Pelosi and company can proudly continue to lobby for abortion funding during a pandemic because abortion is an "essential healthcare service." What did Gregory or any of the other wimp bishops have to say about that?
Houston, we have a problem.
Earlier, someone asked if anyone posting here is black. My response is that we should not care unless we want to perpetuate the current situation by Balkanizing the American People. The treatment of black people by police must pass the same standards for all citizens. Likewise, the expectations for the civil behavior of the citizens must be the same without exception. Those problems must be solved simultaneously for any reasonable expectation of a civil society to exist.
Not only did Trump order Fed patrols to forcefully (and probably illegally) move non-violent protestors from Lafayette Park so that he could walk over to the church for a photo op, but now we find out that the same troops forcefully removed the pastor and other church staff from the steps of the church - so much for religious freedom!
What was the purpose of today’s trip to JPII’s shrine? He met no one and no prayers were said, neither did Trump make any comments to address the current social unrest. He used the church for another political photo op, and at what cost to the public purse? Archbishop Wilson is quite right to complain.
I saw today a video of a white man wearing military gear brandishing a large gun in the face of peaceful protestors in ?Philadelphia. He was seen calmly talking to police officers before moving on. This despite it being illegal to openly care arms in that state and that he was engaging in threatening behaviour. Yet the police didn’t detain him for breaking the law although apparently it’s perfectly okay to beat up an unarmed black man while sitting in his car. Blatant double standards and a clear example of white privilege and racial inequality towards black citizens.
John - You posted your data to make the killing of blacks sound more palatable, more reasonable. In your view, they commit more crimes, so it is oh-so-reasonable to fear blacks in general. Bunk.
After all, the statistics "prove" that they are more dangerous and should be feared. That was your aim, that was your goal. If this was not your goal, what was? If this was not your goal, why these statistics:
You said, "The previous year the Metropolitan Police had released statistics which showed that while blacks made up 12% of the population of London, black males were responsible for 54% of street crimes, 58% of robberies, 32% of sexual offences and 67% of gun crimes."
I have not dismissed black-on-black violence. I have pointed out that Irish-on-Irish violence or Kenyan-on-Kenyan violence or Laplander-on-Laplander violence doesn't mean that anyone has a right to look at an Irishman or woman, a Kenyan, or a Laplander and think, Maybe I'd better unbuckle the strap on my holster.
Monumental is your arrogance and imagined superiority.
"What was the purpose of today’s trip to JPII’s shrine?" Well, that is utterly clear.
His purpose was to pander to Catholic voters.
His purpose was to use, in the most unpleasant sense of the word, the image of Saint John Paul II as a vote-gaining weapon.
I like what Rev. Hendrickson wrote:
“This is an awful man,
waving a book he hasn’t read,
in front of a church he doesn’t attend,
invoking laws he doesn’t understand,
against fellow Americans he sees as enemies,
wielding a military he dodged serving,
to protect power he gained via accepting foreign interference,
exploiting fear and anger he loves to stoke,
after failing to address a pandemic he was warned about,
and building it all on a bed of constant lies and childish inanity."
-- Robert Hendrickson,
Rector, Saint Philip’s in the Hills Episcopal Church
And yet, the Episcopal Church accepts the politically correct pro choice agenda of its politicians as well as same sex "marriage." And in a culture they have acquiesced, the mantra of not being judgmental seems to be hypocritically jettisoned if it doesn't comply with political expediency of their agenda.
I hope the good Catholic Archbishop of Washington, not only calls out Trump for using religion to pander for votes, be it Catholic or non Catholic votes, but also to some of the most notorious Catholics who pander for Catholic votes with the Most Holy Eucharist in hand or on tongue, despite the fact they favor pro-choice policies in their most virulent forms to include partial birth abortion as well as euthanasia.
HYPOCRISY IS THY NAME.
Vice President Joe Biden, where is the outrage when he panders for Catholic votes and Black votes either by receiving Holy Communion or visiting various non Catholic Churches, especially African American Churches? Will anyone say to him that all lives matter to include the various races of children slaughtered prior to be born and some in partial birth abortions?
John Nolan - the Metropolitan (London) Police, of course, admitted to “Institutional Racism” and were forced to undergo significant reforms following those riots you mention, as well as in response to their messed-up half-hearted investigation into the appalling murder of Stephen Lawrence. Hopefully the American police system will also now be forced to undergo systemic reforms. These are not a “few bad apples” officers, this is widespread entrenched bigotry.
Once again, all of us posting here would do well to heed the famous words of Atticus Finch speaking to his daughter Scout: “You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view . . . until you climb into his skin and walk around in it.”
This truth applies to the protesters, to the police, to everyone posting here, and yes even to President Trump, if all of these are to understand and to be understood.
Big Nose Aka Anonymous K,
I await John Nolan’s epic beatdown! Enjoy fake catholic
Father McDonald,
Unlike the Abortion Party, President Trump believes in Freedom of Religion and is trying to undue the damage done by the liberals little wooden god, Obama. What Wilton stated was a disgrace and will cause faithful Catholics to rethink their allegiance to the American Catholic Church which is becoming more and more a secular NGO. By the way, if a Communist dictator wanted to visit the Shrine, the Archbishop would have been slobbering over him, talking about dialogue, understanding, etc.
And then, of course, there’s always this, which I assume we all try to take seriously:
Lord, make me an instrument of your peace:
where there is hatred, let me sow love;
where there is injury, pardon;
where there is doubt, faith;
where there is despair, hope;
where there is darkness, light;
where there is sadness, joy.
O divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek
to be consoled as to console,
to be understood as to understand,
to be loved as to love.
For it is in giving that we receive,
it is in pardoning that we are pardoned,
and it is in dying that we are born to eternal life.
Amen.
To me, people such as "Big Nose", while of liberal political persuasion, are as inflammatory as anyone in the comments they make. Big Nose, maybe you should take to twitter like your alter ego the President, with a point-counterpoint to how to inflame others. Yeah, that will really help the situation. No, consider praying more to be enlightened by the Holy Spirit to be a positive force and example.
Why don't some of you commenting here volunteer to ride with a policeman as he or she patrols our streets. I remember some years back in the city I live in where a local TV reporter, a black man, went to learn first hand about what it was like
from the perspective of the police. Wow, did it change his toward them and he admitted it on air.
Anon 7:52 - And Fr. McDonald's "bombshells" which rain on us like Luftwaffe bombs on London? Aren't these inflammatory?
Isn't that what they are designed for in the first place?
And, Fr. McDonald, isn't if hypocritical to lament the lack of social distancing among protesters when you, yourself, chose not to social distance in the chapel before the ordinations?
My point is irony. We are exposed to COVID 19 everywhere. To shut down everything because people are not doing what most aren’t is asinine. We have to take health risks today. That’s the new normal and I applaud the peaceful protesters who are courageous and willing to risk and aren’t like hysteria mongers crying the sky is falling like chicken little because one person was known to have tested positive whereas most of us don’t know who may have had their droplets on us and have it.
Yes, I love the Prayer of St. Francis. When I think of it in its totality, it really is what I would consider a prayer asking the Lord to help the person who is making the prayer to be charitable towards all other people. "Charity," as I understand it from a Catholic perspective, is the embodiment of Christ's commandment that we should love God with all our heart, soul and mind; and, love our neighbor (all human beings) as ourselves.
As a Catholic, I must confess that I don't see much charity (love) being shown by the Archbishop of Washington in his statement regarding the President's visit to the JP II Shrine. Good manners alone, it would seem, would require the Archbishop [if he had good manners] to thank the President for taking the time to visit and pay his respects.
It also occurred to me, that in addition to the complete lack of charity (and manners) shown by the Archbishop, he also missed an opportunity to have a positive impact and to teach people something about our Church, its leaders (the popes), and, more specifically, about JP II. Instead, he descended to politics, and, in doing so, lowered himself in the eyes of many Catholics, including me.
No, we are not exposed to coronavirus (not Covid-19 which is the disease caused by coronavirus) everywhere. We are exposed only where the virus is present.
We take health risks today. We do not, unless We are irresponsible or have a death wish, take unnecessary health risks.
And since you are now so open to taking health risks today, you will undoubtedly be reinstating use of the Common cup for communion tomorrow.
Not to do so would be, given your cavalier attitude toward sickness and death, asinine.
Hey Father yes prayers for George Floyd's soul and to end racism but also could you put in a prayer for the 92 policeman who died in the line of duty, 20 murdered, since January of this year? Thanks.
johnnyc,
Police Lives Don't Matter to liberals (until they need one). The political left (a wing of the Democratic Party) is violent and hateful but don't expect faculty club members nor the media to condemn their actions. They are still scurrying around looking for the mythical right-wingers or Nazis who have miraculously joined up with the political left to support minorities. "Archbishop" Gregory is clueless. Everywhere he has been, he has been pretty much a cipher for the political left and an embarrassment. Another disastrous Francis appointment.
Anonymous at 9:50 pm (definitely not Anonymous K),
Well stated. I have never been more ashamed of the Catholic hierarchy in the US as I am now: hyper political, intellectually and spiritually barren, with just a few exceptions. They are going to reap the whirlwind, they just don't know it yet.
Who has said police lives don’t matter - absolutely nobody!
And just because police lives also matter, does not negate the fact that black lives matter; nor justifies rampant police brutality.
BTW - I see Boris Johnson (UK Prime Minister) has just denounced systemic American racism. The Trump administration is looking more and more politically isolated on this and other issues among its international allies. The countdown to the end of Trump’s political career has begun!
The moral of the story is “don’t do deals with the devil” ‘coz it never ends well!!!!
God’s will will prevail.
So the Holy Father Pope Francis has also prayed for George Flyod and an end to racism today. Are we going to hear his comments denounced on here as partisan and political as well?
“We cannot tolerate or turn a blind eye to racism and exclusion in any form and yet claim to defend the sacredness of every human life,” the pope said. His words during the audience and later in a statement indicated that he considers George Floyd’s death to be a result of racism. His carefully chosen words left no room for equivocation: Any Catholic who claims “to defend the sacredness of every human life” must combat racism and exclusion in all its forms.
He did so in a message addressed to his “dear brothers and sisters in the United States,” meaning the entire nation and not just its 70 million Catholics, a senior Vatican source told America. He spoke to them during his virtual public audience from the library of the apostolic palace on June 3, which was carried by Vatican Media.
Francis is well aware that a sizable number of Catholics and other Christians in the United States limit the defense of “the sacredness of human life” mainly to abortion, but do not view racism, the death penalty or other forms of exclusion—like mistreatment of migrants—as life issues. In today’s message, the pope underlined the full teaching of the church regarding “the defense of the sacredness of every human life” as expressed in the Second Vatican Council. He does not want this teaching to be reduced and manipulated for political or ideological reasons.
Big Nose aka Anonymous K,
Ironically Donald Trump is the least racist president evah. A person who views everything through the prism of race is the real racist, like the guy who departed the White House in January of 2017. Trump opened his clubs to African-Americans when many clubs would not and Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton used to praise him for all of his work for the African-American community until he declared that he was a "gasp," Republican. Under Trump, until the China Flu hit, they were experiencing their lowest unemployment rate ever and rising wages. The only African-Americans who made considerable economic gains during the Obama years, were, well the Obamas, now residing at their seaside estate, far away from "the people." The Dems are in a panic because all they promise African-Americans is more dependency.
Only simpletons buy this media narrative but since most modern day liberals are simpletons, it is an easy sell.
Hey UK-"Priest" ever hear the concept of instrinsic evil? You may want to revisit that concept before you pop off about US Catholics. The death penalty is not intrinsically evil nor is keeping illegal aliens out of the US because they place a huge financial burden on American taxpayers. If you want more illegal aliens in England for virtue-signalling purposes, I am sure it could be arranged. Unlike John Nolan who offers value to this blog, you just come around to denigrate, snark and insult others. It is hard to believe you are priest.
Statistics concerning ethnicity and crime are informative. Although they may highlight problems, they offer no explanations nor suggest any remedies. However, to ignore them or pretend that there isn't a problem is irrational.
Those who are closely involved with their own ethnic communities do not need reminding, and they are well aware of the underlying causes. Whether it's to do with Moslem youths turning to extremism or black youths joining gangs, they don't blame everything on the white majority or the police.
Big Nose referred to 'institutional racism' in the police, and by extension to other institutions and indeed to society as a whole. The term gained currency as a result of the Macpherson report of 1999 after the enquiry into how the police dealt with the murder of Stephen Lawrence in 1993. It was not alleged as being a factor in the 2011 riots. Moreover, the definition of 'institutional racism' is a problematic one, and Macpherson's definition is highly questionable.
In 2000 the think-tank Civitas (Institute for the Study of Civil Society) published a 180-page critique of the Macpherson inquiry which was highly critical of both its methodology and its conclusions.
One has to reach one's own conclusions without being pressurized by special interest groups. A certain Anonymous concludes that I want to justify the killing of black people. I know he's not the sharpest knife in the box, but if he doesn't recognize his own absurdities he does need professional help.
TJM - Racism is indeed an intrinsic evil.
In the USCCB’s 2008 and 2012 voting guides, the bishops condemned racism as “intrinsically evil” and explicitly paired it with abortion (e.g., Catholics should not vote for candidates who support “an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism”) rather than including it among other acts that “can never be morally justified.
I would say that it is also an intrinsic evil to cage children like animals but maybe that makes me a Marxist leftist in your book.
The idea that Trump is not a racist because he financially benefits from the patronage of minority groups is repugnant to most, and ignorant of the facts.
UK Priest,
You really to get a grasp on reality. I never said racism was not intrinsically evil. You mentioned the death penalty and illegal immigration and I pointed out that error to you. However, there is really very little hard evidence of racism these days, or if there are still vestiges of it, it must be waning, after all this "racist" Country elected a Black man president twice. I guess you could say we are really bad at racism. However, from personal experience in England, I know racism is alive and well there among some of your countrymen. I was in a pub near Hyde Park and the entertainer would not continue his show until a person of color from India departed.
In terms of caging children, that was done by none other than the Barack Obama administration. When the media tried to pin that on President Trump, they were roundly humiliated when the photographs they used to push their narrative were shown to have been taken during the Obama administration's time in office.
Your last statement is mendacious. President Trump has done more for African-Americans than any modern president. Far more than Obama who just kept them as Democratic Party dependents. You sound like the typical braindead member of the elite class we find in the US, facts are never allowed to get in the way of their feelings or narrative. I guess Jackson and Sharpton aren't really Black since they praised Trump. The same lying elites also claimed President Trump was anti-Semitic even though he has Jewish grandchildren whom he apparently loves and has been a stalwart supporter of Israel finally moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem after several prior presidents promised to do so, but never could find the spine to do it.
You are a sad little man. You should focus on England's problems instead of butting in over here.
Although we should seek to understand him, especially whatever pain and suffering has led to his current brokenness (and let’s not forget, we are all broken), Donald Trump is neither racist nor non-racist; he seems first and foremost to be a Trumpist.
Anonymous 2,
On the other Obama is a racist who views everything through the prism of race
Is Donald Trump a racist and bigot?
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/588067/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_views_of_Donald_Trump
https://m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/trump-racism-examples_n_5991dcabe4b09071f69b9261?ri18n=true
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/2016/7/25/12270880/donald-trump-racist-racism-history
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-rhetoric-and-reality-of-donald-trumps-racism/amp
You’re entitled to your opinion, even if the documented facts suggest otherwise!
2/2 Is Trump racist?
For his part, Trump has branded the protesters “thugs” and threatened to have American citizens shot and “vicious dogs” unleashed on them. On Sunday he tweeted that antifa would be labeled a “terrorist organization”.
Strangely, Barr and Trump did not apply the same threat to the armed white men who stormed the Michigan capitol, challenged law enforcement and shut down the government during a pandemic. Trump defined these gun-toting white men as “very good people”.
Double standards indeed.
Ask yourself why that is!
U.K. Priest:
Be very careful trying to argue with TJM. He has a panoply of rhetorical sleights of hand up his sleeve. He claims to be an experienced international lawyer, and I certainly see evidence of some lawyerly tricks in what he writes. For example, he laid a rhetorical trap for you about intrinsic evil, choosing his words very carefully, and unfortunately—but quite understandably—you fell into it. Our Lord had to deal with lawyers too, as I recall.
I understand lawyers. I am one myself and I train them. It is a noble profession but sadly is sometimes practiced ignobly, which is why lawyers over here have such a terrible reputation because, as in so much else, it is the vicious minority who give the virtuous majority a bad name. To be clear, I am not trying to suggest that TJM is part of that minority, just that he knows the tricks of the game.
I found the comment regarding the USCCB's voting guides interesting, so I looked at the USCCB's "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship" guide, Digital Edition, February 2020. It says "The threat of abortion remains our preeminent priority because it directly attacks life itself, because it takes place in the sanctuary of the family, and because of the number of lives destroyed." "Preeminent," according to dictionary.com, means "above or before others; superior; surpassing." The document goes on to say that they "cannot dismiss or ignore other serious threats to human life and dignity, such as racism, the environmental crisis, poverty and the death penalty." (page 6, para. 7, and top of page 7).
So, it appears to me that abortion, based on what the bishops say in this document, is "above or before, superior and surpassing" to all other issues, and they compare "racism" to the "environmental crisis, poverty and the death penalty," not to abortion, which is "preeminent" (superior to all other issues).
This document says that it (the document) is a "Call to Political Responsibility from the Catholic Bishops of the United States," which doesn't sound to me, as a lay Catholic, to have the same force that perhaps the Catechism of the Catholic Church would have, so I decided to see what the Catechism actually says about these two issues.
I couldn't find the sin of "racism," the belief or theory that one race is superior to another, mentioned anywhere in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (Note: I am not saying that it isn't there, but I couldn't find it.). Perhaps it is because "racism" itself is an idea or belief, and not necessarily an action, although I can certainly see it could be a sin against charity to treat a person differently based on his race. In any case, I couldn't find "racism" itself in the Catechism.
However, I did find "abortion" listed in the Catechism, and it says the following:
"Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception." CCC 2270
"Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or as a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law.." CCC 2270
"Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense." CCC 2272
"A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae, 'by the very commission of the offense'...." CCC 2272
"The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation." CCC 2273
So, it seems clear to me that the bishops did not explicitly "pair" abortion and racism as if they were equal; indeed, it seems quite clear to me (since they made it quite clear) that abortion remains "preeminent"/superior to all other issues, including "racism," based on what they actually said in their "Call to Political Responsibility."
UK Priest:
As you may have noticed, two other rhetorical techniques TJM uses are the recasting of a narrative through the use of selective facts that favor his side of the argument and the belittling of the opponent with whom he is arguing. The former technique, telling a story that favors the client (typically, in TJM’s case, Donald Trump) is a legitimate technique in legal argumentation provided one stays on the right side of the obligation of candor toward the tribunal (no lying, for example); the latter violates the professional norm of civility.
The more fundamental problem with all of this, however, is that on this Blog we should not be acting as adversaries trying to get a verdict or ruling in our favor—there is enough of that in legal and political argument—but as Catholics seeking greater understanding of one another and of the truth. Not to mention that trying to correct the record by balancing the selective use of facts with a fuller accounting is exhausting—and for the most part, I have given up trying to do so with TJM, and this “wearing down” of those on the side of truth is of course what Trump and his allies are counting on. But people have only so much energy in a day.
Another serious problem in political conversation today is selective quotation. For example, the comment by Anonymous at 7:48 p.m. is quite correct insofar as it goes. The problem is that you have to put the language quoted from the Bishops’ Introductory Letter (“The threat of abortion remains our preeminent priority because it directly attacks life itself, because it takes place in the sanctuary of the family, and because of the number of lives destroyed”) in context—in this case in the context of the entire document. The best thing to do, then, is to prayerfully read the USCCB document in its entirety with an open mind and an open heart and in this way to form your conscience and make up your mind how to vote.
I will not here attempt—yet again—a detailed exegesis of relevant passages from that document. I have done so at least three times over the last decade or so to demonstrate that it does not in effect say, in the case of the upcoming election, “You must vote for Donald Trump because he claims to oppose legal abortion and will nominate federal judges accordingly.” It is too exhausting to do it all again. Readers are welcome to google my earlier posts on the subject, however.
To be fair and balanced, I should point out that UK Priest’s quotation from the USCCB Bishops at 3:10 p.m. is also correct insofar as it goes, but of course it too has to be read in the context of the entire document.
Will someone please explain to me what “virtue signaling” is? The phrase seems to have crept into our language recently, at least on this Blog, and the intent behind it appears to be for it to serve as yet another rhetorical weapon wielded by those “on the right” to short circuit actual thinking and to put down “liberals” and other undesirable types. But I’m still unsure what_its_use is supposed to signal. Is it a “dog whistle” term of some kind? -:)
I have just become aware of former Secretary of Defense James “Mad Dog” Mathis’s statement this evening. There is hope as long as such profiles in courage are willing to stand up and be counted:
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/03/read-mattis-statement-on-trumps-handling-of-nationwide-protests.html
Of course, the object of his anger and dismay, President Donald “Bone Spurs” Trump, immediately “counter-punched” at “the world’s most overrated General.”
Please read the below for a different perspective(I try to get differing views)
https://anncoulter.com/2020/06/03/on-the-other-hand-theres-rodney-king/
Typo correction – Mattis, not Mathis. Sorry.
TJM & others,
You may want to educate yourselves about the Catholic concept of intrinsic evil...
https://www.americamagazine.org/issue/673/article/intrinsic-evil-and-political-responsibility
UK Priest
The latest edition of Chambers defines racism, which has replaced the older term racialism, as follows:
racism, n. Hatred, rivalry or bad feeling between races; belief in the inherent superiority of some races over others, usu. with the implication of a right to be dominant; discriminative treatment based on such belief.
It therefore follows that the Israelites were racist; what we know of the Philistines suggests they were a settled people with a developed rural and urban culture. But they were heathens and, crucially, in the way. Was their treatment at the hands of the 'chosen race' intrinsically evil?
I don't believe in the superiority of one race over another, but I do hold that European culture is inherently superior to non-European cultures, and can justify this belief evidentially. Is this 'intrinsically evil?' This would imply that 'relativism' is intrinsically good, yet the Church condemns this.
When the Macpherson report came out, I and many others were disturbed by the definition of a racist incident (not crime) as 'any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person.' So the opinion of only one person, from the minority or the majority, determines whether a remark is racist or not, and this also applies to remarks made in private.
That a senior judge could endorse this nonsense was particularly appalling.
Anonymous 2
'Virtue signalling' is used to describe the actions of celebrities who use social media (esp. Twitter) to comment on current issues in order to show how 'woke' they are.
It shouldn't be used as a catch-all criticism of everyone who expresses 'liberal' opinions.
The writer above (at 8:44 p.m.) made a good point about taking a word or two out of context and then quoting it, which is why I quoted a full sentence (at 7:48 p.m.) from Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, and not just two words as the other writer did (at 3:10 p.m.). I couldn't find the five words that same writer has in quotation marks ("an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism") in the document in the order he explicitly quoted, and I did a word search for his quote in the document. So, from what I see, the document doesn't contain that quote at all. My quote, however, is a complete sentence directly from the document.
I do agree that it's important to look at the totality of what the Church teaches, so here are some quotes regarding the issue of abortion from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:
"It must in any case be clearly understood that whatever may be laid down by civil law in this matter, man can never obey a law which is in itself immoral, and such is the case of a law which would admit in principle the licitness of abortion. Nor can he take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or vote for it. Moreover, he may not collaborate in its application."
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration on Procured Abortion, November 18, 1974, nos. 19-22
"John Paul II, continuing the constant teaching of the Church, has reiterated many times that those who are directly involved in lawmaking bodies have a «grave and clear obligation to oppose» any law that attacks human life. For them, as for every Catholic, it is impossible to promote such laws or to vote for them."
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life 2002), no. 4
Once again, looking at the totality of the Church's teaching, including the Catechism, I simply do not see the Church equating "racism," which is not even mentioned in the Catechism at all, with the intrinsic evil of abortion. The sin of abortion does appear on every "examination of conscience" I have used to prepare for confession, but I do not remember ever seeing "racism" on the list of sins included in those documents either.
'Donald Trump is neither racist nor non-racist; he seems first and foremost to be a Trumpist.'
I've never seen it better expressed. Say what you like about the Donald, he is certainly sui generis.
Anonymous 2,
Here is your assignment for today, debunk this:
Minneapolis, Minn. has been under Democratic control since 1978. Chicago has been under Democratic control for 89 years; its present mayor is a black woman. Philadelphia has had Democratic mayors for 68 years; three of its last five mayors have been black men. Six of the last seven Atlanta, Ga., mayoral administrations were led by black Democratic mayors, and the present mayor is a black woman.
A city runs its police department and other services; therefore, if there is so much ‘systemic racism’ in these organizations, why hasn’t it been corrected over so many years under Democratic leaders?
Why aren’t these cities garden spots of racial tolerance, understanding, and virtue?
Because tolerance, understanding, and virtue don’t promote Democratic power.
Anon 7:29 - read the America article I linked to for a full explanation and commentary of the concept of intrinsic evil.
“The sin of abortion does appear on every ‘examination of conscience’ I have used to prepare for confession, but I do not remember ever seeing "racism" on the list of sins included in those documents either.“
- no, but perhaps it should!
UK “priest”
You are like our home grown Mark Thomas. You blithely ignore the facts to demolish your arguments but move on to your next liberal talking point..
UK-Priest: Thank you for taking the time to respond. I did look at the link you mentioned and the article to be found there, and, unless I am mistaken, it is simply the opinion of M. Cathleen Kaveny, a law professor at Notre Dame. I don't mean any disrespect to you or to her, but as a Catholic, I look to the Church's official teachings, as contained in her official documents (such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church), to determine what I believe and how to conduct my life, and that conduct includes how I vote. If I happened not to understand a particular doctrine of the Church because it wasn't clear (and this is pretty clear to me), I'd ask my pastor or bishop for clarification, not Ms. Kaveny.
I prefer to keep partisan politics out of discussions on this blog, but since you linked to an article by Ms. Kaveny, I think it is fair to comment on her from that perspective: To say that Ms. Kaveny is politically biased is, in my opinion, an understatement of rather large proportions. Here is a quote from her after President Trump was elected, but before he had even assumed office: "I am as yet unable to imagine the future — I can't think about the Supreme Court, the fate of immigrants, race relations, Obamacare, the economy, or any other issue..."
It's hard to imagine how anyone could, after such a quote, ever see her as fair and unbiased from a political perspective (and certainly not a religious one), which is why I refrain from quoting people with clear political bias toward one side or the other when I post about religious matters. From my perspective, quoting people (or referring others to their writings) with such an obvious political bias actually hurts the argument being made by the writer once the reader discovers the political biases of the person being quoted.
John Nolan - “I don't believe in the superiority of one race over another, but I do hold that European culture is inherently superior to non-European cultures, and can justify this belief evidentially. Is this 'intrinsically evil?' This would imply that 'relativism'.”
Belief in the superiority of Western Civilisation is just a more subtle way of expressing cultural racism and their underlying racist assumptions in a more socially acceptable way...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_racism
https://archive.thinkprogress.org/when-western-civilization-is-code-white-nationalism-9a8cff6a99a1/
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/22/western-civilisation-is-not-under-threat-even-if-conservatives-want-you-to-think-so
When not applied to discussions of city plumbing and poetry readings, the words “western civilisation” denote a racist colonial project to crush, change, enslave, eradicate or genocidally erase other cultures. To “civilise” is a verb that divorces people from the values of their own community and indoctrinates them into another’s. Historical rhetoric polarises the “civilised” westerner as superior to the dehumanised “savages”, “primitives” and “barbarians” of the term’s late 18th-19th century common use.
@UK....no, but perhaps it should!
It is...abortion and racism are connected. We have civil rights activists that point this out time and time again but the left holds abortion, up to and including infanticide, 'sacred'. We even have supposed 'Christian' liberal politicians from the democratic party tell us that 'God Blesses abortions' including the 30% black babies that are killed. They tear down statues of confederate generals but a statue of Margaret Sangor is still displayed in the National Gallery even after a group of black Americans asked for it to be removed. Perhaps you have heard about her and if you want to learn a little more about Sangor, a real racist, check out chapter 6 in the book Salvation Is From The Jews by Roy Schoeman but for now all you need to know is she is the founder of Planned Parenthood and their abortion mills.
@UK....and if you want to know about abortion/racism and what the left is up to in Africa check out Target Africa by Obianuju Ekeocha. Actually you might be aware of her because I think she lives in the UK. Anyway about the book.....
Since the end of colonization Africa has struggled with socioeconomic and political problems. This has attracted wealthy donors from western nations, organizations and private foundations who have assumed the role of helper and deliverer. While some donors have good intentions, there are other western "progressive" donors whose gifts to Africa are often attached to their ideology of sexual liberation. These are the ideological neo-colonial masters of the 21st century who aggressively push into Africa their views on contraception, population control, sexualisation of children, feminism, homosexuality and abortion.
UK priest
If you are going to quote me, have the courtesy not to end the quotation mid-sentence.
I don't recognize the concept of 'cultural racism' since I don't suscribe to the post-modernist ideology of the Left, where the term originates. I don't accept the idea of 'multiculturalism', which was also criticized by both John Paul II and Benedict XVI. Cultural relativism, indeed relativism generally, is alien to my philosophy.
I did not in fact use the term 'western civilization' but anyone who has seen Kenneth Clark's ground-breaking BBC series 'Civilisation' (1969) would find your jaundiced and profoundly ignorant definition the height of absurd prejudice (and exhibiting a self-loathing that verges on the psychotic). And Clark begins his narrative with the 'Dark Ages'; the Graeco-Roman culture which underpins the whole is not covered in any detail.
In fact your diatribe convinces me that fifty years of winding up left-wing zealots were not wasted. Back in the day they labelled me a fascist. Now, apparently, anyone who dissents from their received wisdom is a racist.
I suppose I should feel insulted, but coming from the likes of you I take it as a compliment.
John Nolan:
Thank you for the clarification regarding “virtue signaling.” But now there is another question that arises.
Can someone please give me a good explanation of being “woke” (a “label” or term that, I believe, emanates from the Left rather than the Right)?
More generally, are_these_sorts of “labels” and terms helpful in advancing meaningful conversation and proper understanding?
Anonymous at 7:29 a.m.:
We need someone in authority to guide us through all the sources relevant to voting one’s conscience. That is the purpose of the USCCB document. Have you read it in its entirety?
TJM
I believe that is why it is called “systemic racism” (a term, I should add, that really does seem to have some useful meaning). It is not a partisan issue, as if only Republicans were responsible for “systemic racism: and Democrats weren’t. Acknowledging, confronting, and dismantling it is very difficult, as we see in the news today, and on this Blog.
As Johnny c points out, systemic racism is also implicated in the disproportionate impact of abortion on Black communities.
Johnny c:
From Wikipedia:
Margaret Sanger opposed abortion and sharply distinguished it from birth control, the latter being a fundamental right of women, the former being a shameful crime. In 1916, when she opened her first birth control clinic, she was employing harsh rhetoric against abortion. Flyers she distributed to women exhorted them in all capitals: "Do not kill, do not take life, but prevent.” Sanger's patients at that time were told "that abortion was the wrong way—no matter how early it was performed it was taking life; that contraception was the better way, the safer way—it took a little time, a little trouble, but it was well worth while in the long run, because life had not yet begun.” Sanger consistently distanced herself from any calls for legal access to abortion, arguing that legal access to contraceptives would remove the need for abortion. Ann Hibner Koblitz has argued that Sanger's anti-abortion stance contributed to the further stigmatization of abortion and impeded the growth of the broader reproductive rights movement.
While Margaret Sanger condemned abortion as a method of family limitation, she was not opposed to abortion intended to save a woman's life. Furthermore, in 1932, Margaret Sanger directed the Clinical Research Bureau to start referring patients to hospitals for therapeutic abortions when indicated by an examining physician. She also advocated for birth control so that the pregnancies that led to therapeutic abortions could be prevented in the first place.
P.S. Although generally opposed to abortion, Margaret Sanger promoted birth control, including for reasons of racial eugenics. The Wikipedia entry on this point is very long:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger#Eugenics
Johnnyc- Abortion has nothing to do with this discussion which is about the racist act of a policeman murdering an innocent black man by deliberately kneeling on his neck for almost nine minutes. Please shut up about abortion as it is not relevant to the current topic. The hundreds of thousands of demonstrators across the world are not protesting about abortion.
The only reason that abortion has been introduced to this discussion is as a pretext by racist sympathisers to justify supporting a racist President. Donald may be making unlikely promises to outlaw abortion tomorrow but he is racist today in his speech and in his deeds.
John Nolan refers to the Postmodern ideology of the Left.
I have read this ideology summarized thus:
Any "truths" we in the West think we have about life and human nature etc are actually quite relativistic and are mostly bourgeois creations which are promoted and maintained to prop up the patriarchal corporate state.
However, this situation could change.
As in, is it not wonderful that in the West millions of university students since the 1970s have embraced the following:
1. All societies and cultures are worthy and deserving of respect, except functioning Western democracies, which are destructive and bad.
2. All truth is relative, but Postmodern ideology tells it like it really is.
3. All values are subjective, but sexism, racism and homophobia are really (ie: objectively) bad !!
AJP.
Woke is a slang term that eased into the mainstream from several variations of a dialect called AAVE - African American Vernacular English.
From about 2008, "stay woke" became a watchword in parts of the black community in the USA for those who were self-aware, questioning the dominant paradigm and striving for something better.
In recent years, Woke has become increasingly used as a byword for social awareness; an adjective describing any person alert to injustice in society, especially racism.
Dear John Nolan and TJM,
UK Priest's views are in no way "psychotic"!
His black armband views on Western civilization are in fact the only sane ones.
I should know as last year I was awarded a BA (hon) in cultural studies and literary theory from the University of Wollomollo.
Having for 4 years absorbed and reflected on 2 key texts:
Foucault for Dummies.
Derrida in a Nutshell.
I can inform both of you there are absolutely no eternal truths and no absolute truths about life, the world and human nature that so-called great Western artists, writers, philosophers and even scientists can reveal to us.
Can't you 2 and other reactionaries on this blog see that your so-called " truths" are merely ideological assertions and that there are in fact as many "realities" out there as there are ideologies which construct them ?!!
If you two were sane you would both envy me and those like me who have spent at least 4 years at university doing with or to Western civilization the only thing that should be done to it !!
That is, deconstructing the so-called "masterpieces" of Western art and literature to show how complicit they have all been in the process of depriving women, people of color and LGBT people of power.
Yours,
Bruce Whitlam BA.
UK-Priest: You made a good point that abortion isn't actually the original point of this discussion, but I didn't remember exactly who introduced the subject of abortion here, so I did a search. It was first mentioned by Anonymous 2 on June 1st at 11:24 p.m. There were several posts in response to Anonymous 2, and then you (UK-Priest) brought it up in a different context, that of Pope Francis, on June 3rd at 12:06 p.m. There were several more responses, and then you brought up abortion again in a different context in your post on June 3rd at 3:10 p.m., this time stating that the USCCB "paired" it with racism.
Johnnyc obviously did not introduce the subject of abortion here (Anonymous 2 did). His (Johnnyc's) first post here was on June 3rd at 12:41 a.m., in which he simply asked Father McDonald to also pray for the 92 policeman who have also been killed in the line of duty since January of this year (and more, I think, since then).
I am sure that you did not mean to imply that this subject (abortion) was introduced by him, and I hope that you would also agree that, in our charity, we should also be praying for the souls of the policemen who have died in the line of duty, as Johnnyc suggested.
UKPriest,
We'd like to invite you to our next meeting of the London Postmodernist Christian Club.
It is so intellectually and spiritually liberating to assent to the doctrine that there is no reality in the world other than one constructed by words! There is joy in belief in the dogma that all categories are constructed according to the power groups advantaged by such constructions!!
I feel you could contribute wisely to our discussions when we discover all the fallacies in Aristotle and Aquinas and all the implausibilities in the New Testament as we analyse all the modes and techniques of rhetorical deceit in these texts; yes, these texts which are foundational for the ideology of the white patriarchy.
Regards,
Sam Bollard.
I do not believe that this is a worldwide spontaneous response to the death of any black man at the hands of incompetent bullies. The conventional wisdom is that it happens every day. Why, then, was this fellow the trigger? The detailed coordination and uniformity of message is more than suspicious, it is indicative of a planned event. The governments are frightened because the groups they thought were in their back pockets are done with the old man and want to seize power for themselves. The nervous energy stored after so many months of idleness is a reservoir of action tapped by coordinated and well financed actors. It is almost comical to see so many people falling all over themselves to declare their sensitivity and solidarity with a mob slogans. It breeds contempt to read the statements of people who are clearly frightened for their money and power trying show how black they are.
Yes, it is related to abortion because it falls under the same cynical and soulless view of humans as commodities. The political strategy betrays its lineage to the era that it was born. That era of trench warfare where the ground gained is more precious than the bodies under it. There is no sacrifice in that system, only investment of the blood of others.
You people bleating support for the poor down trodden black man are in fact cheering on his auction to the god of war. I hope you don’t know that you, too, are being used rather than that you are all simply cowards.
Anonymous 2
As one of the more balanced contributors to this blog, in addition to your forensic experience, you have hit the nail on the head when you question whether 'labelling' does anything to advance civilized discourse. Of course it does not.
I don't hold to the ideology of cultural relativism. I am labelled a racist.
I suggest that pregnant women are not best suited as front-line infantry soldiers. I am labelled a sexist.
I disapprove of same-sex genital acts on moral grounds, but do not believe that homosexuals should be discriminated against. I am still labelled as a homophobe.
I don't subscribe to 'gender theory'. This marks me out as transphobic.
Even terms such as 'right' and 'left' have become confused. At one time authoritarianism was seen as 'right' and libertarianism as 'left'. Now it's the other way round.
Since two contributors to this blog have more-or-less inferred that I am a racist, I have nothing to lose by engaging the more intelligent in a discussion as to what is meant by 'systemic' or 'institutional' racism. This can mean a body (such as a police force) having a set of policies or norms to which its employees have to conform, and which includes racism. Or it can mean that the institution is prepared to tolerate racism on the part of its employees, if their efficiency is not thereby impaired. After all, one's personal beliefs should not be an issue. Or it might imply that there is an 'unconscious' racism in all of us, which logically would not be confined to the white races. Macpherson (influenced by special interest groups) even argued that being 'colour-blind', which to me means treating people equally regardless of race, is a form of racism.
What is important is that freedom of opinion and reasoned debate should not be stifled. Yet this is seen as purely a right-wing concern despite the fact that not a few on the left are uncomfortable with it.
Anonymous (Bruce Whitlam)
Thanks for demonstrating that irony is not dead, even on the internet!
The Anonymous who posted just before you is quite correct in his definition and etymology of 'woke'. However, he failed to point out that the word has quickly been politicized by both Left and Right. He would normally be the first to tell us that word meaning is primarily determined by context.
Sam Bollard
Thanks for that reminder of the superb 'Rumpole of the Bailey'. If any Americans have not seen that iconic barrister of the 1980s in action, I suggest they rush out and do so.
One of my favourite aphorisms of his: 'Exercise is a short cut to the grave.'
John,
I myself detected zero irony in the above comments of either Bruce Whitlam or Sam Bollard.
In fact I am a close friend of Sam Bollard SJ.
A number of times I have suggested to Sam that a synopsis of his masters' thesis be sent to The Tablet to be published as a lead article.
Sam, with a prose style better than Cardinal Newman, and with the ability great than Bishop Sheen to communicate his complex, original and profound insights to the average lay Catholic, shows how various power elites in modern times - especially wealthy, white, Western, Christian males- have in culture war struggles made use of the works of power elites of the early Christian Church (aka saints Peter, Paul and John etc) whose theology as it appears in The New Testament mostly involves exploiting the slipperiness of the Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek languages to foist their patriarchal constructions of the truth on to the first century's oppressed minorities- ie: women, slaves, gladiators and male temple prostitutes etc.
Yours truly,
Claude Erskine-Browne.
When speaking to children I refer to their mother as “she who must be obeyed.”
@UK priest said....The hundreds of thousands of demonstrators across the world are not protesting about abortion.
Maybe someday! We can hope and pray.
@Anonymous 7:46am.....thanks for doing the research lol.
in our charity
Yes I'm afraid ukpriest does not come off as being very pastoral. If he actually did encounter a real racist would he not accompany them? Meet them where they are? As Cardinal Pell put it.....
those emphasising ‘the primacy of conscience’ only seemed to apply it to sexual morality and questions around the sanctity of life. People were rarely advised to follow their conscience if it told them to be racist, or slow in helping the poor and vulnerable, the cardinal said.”
Yes, it is rather strange, is it not, that we don’t hear about “accompaniment” and “discernment” when it comes to stealing, embezzling, lying, hating, coveting, murdering, bribing, and so forth. But sexual sins, for some reason, get a special pass.
Anonymous at 7:46 a.m.
You are correct that I mentioned the subject of abortion but it was in a context making it clear that I was attempting to prevent it being addressed as a diversionary tactic—yet again. And so I said:
And TJM:
Please don’t seize on the quote from Obama to make a point about abortion again. We get it already. Please don’t do it.
"with a prose style better than Cardinal Newman."
Now that's a compliment!
John Nolan:
My understanding of the term “systemic racism” or “institutional racism” is informed by the following two items, which I mentioned in an earlier post:
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/racism/upload/racism-and-criminal-justice.pdf
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2018/09/18/theres-overwhelming-evidence-that-the-criminal-justice-system-is-racist-heres-the-proof/
The first item links to a 2018 report to the United Nations providing much greater detail.
The second item also provides more detail and contains the following important passage towards the beginning:
“Of particular concern to some on the right is the term 'systemic racism,' often wrongly interpreted as an accusation that everyone in the system is racist. In fact, systemic racism means almost the opposite. It means that we have systems and institutions that produce racially disparate outcomes, regardless of the intentions of the people who work within them. When you consider that much of the criminal-justice system was built, honed and firmly established during the Jim Crow era — an era almost everyone, conservatives included, will concede rife with racism — this is pretty intuitive. The modern criminal-justice system helped preserve racial order — it kept black people in their place. For much of the early 20th century, in some parts of the country, that was its primary function. That it might retain some of those proclivities today shouldn’t be all that surprising.
In any case, after more than a decade covering these issues, it’s pretty clear to me that the evidence of racial bias in our criminal-justice system isn’t just convincing — it’s overwhelming.”
So, the claim is not that individuals within the system are necessarily racist (although some of them may be, of course). It is that the system itself, although apparently neutral on its face, has a disproportionately negative impact on a particular race. Living in the Deep South, and being married to a woman from Alabama who remembers segregated water fountains, transportation, and schools, I can understand what is meant because the legacy of this apartheid continues in multiple ways. Also, I have many Black students and colleagues who can readily confirm these ways to me. That is one reason I wish we had someone posting on this thread who has experienced this first hand. As it is, we are a bunch of White people (mostly men) opining about “the Other” without really understanding “the Other” from their perspective. Hence my quote from Atticus Finch: “You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view . . . until you climb into his skin and walk around in it.”
And it is indeed vitally important “that freedom of opinion and reasoned debate should not be stifled.” Sadly, over here at least, threats to this eminently sensible position are multiple. And lying is one of the biggest threats because it tends to a complete corruption of the conversation, which is why I cannot stand it and will oppose it wherever I see it, and this of course is my primary problem with Trump who sets a terrible example by his pathological lying. How on earth can democracy survive when we cannot rely on what we say to one another and hence cannot trust one another? It’s basic—something we were supposed to have learned at our mother’s knee. You know, "she who must be obeyed" (per rcg).
For a wonderful survey of Western Civilization I recommend Russell Kirk’s “The Roots of American Order.” It is a bit dated now and of course requires contextualization and supplementation, but it is a great place to begin:
https://www.amazon.com/Roots-American-Order-Russell-Kirk-ebook/dp/B00JBRUHY2
I used it as one of the texts in my own courses for several years, with considerable success.
GS
The US is not systemically racist. Despite its history, it is systemically anti-racist. However, if the leftist-liberal elites, and people like the radical neo Marxists who founded BLM, who more or less hate the US on principle, push the systemic racism line long enough and hysterically enough, they may create the reality they claim to oppose.
"You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view . . . until you climb into his skin and walk around in it.”
You mean like a typical large city law enforcement officer? Interesting that there have been African-American law enforcement officers fired, such as in Atlanta.
People today are so determined on using outcomes to evidence something such as racism.
Outcomes, in and of themselves, are not necessarily determinate to arriving at a valid conclusion.
Anon2: Thank you your explanation of systemic racism.
Here is a link to a U-tube video for those dummies that still don’t understand or choose to not understand:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YrHIQIO_bdQ&feature=youtu.be
Big Nose: I did look at the youtube video for which you provided a link, but it was really short on actual facts and data, and it also seemed to be more regionally focused. For example, they talked about two students who live only a few streets apart, but are in different school districts with the funding coming from property taxes.
I understand that this is more common in some parts of the United States (many school districts within a county), but throughout the South, school districts are generally county-wide, so the funding disparity doesn't exist in the same way: all schools in the county are funded by property taxes paid by residents of the entire county (with some coming from the state), teachers are paid the same whether they teach in a poor area or a wealthy area of the county, a predominantly black area or a predominantly white area of the county, etc. So, the examples given in the video aren't really applicable for a large section of the United States, a section where large numbers of black people actually live.
In looking around on youtube, however, I did find some excellent videos by Thomas Sowell, a black American economist and social theorist, and they provided an excellent overview of some of the particular issues faced by the black community in the United States, and, his videos are full of factual data. Here is a link to the one I just watched:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS5WYp5xmvI
I hope you find Mr. Sowell's videos as helpful and informative as I did.
Anonymous 2
I can't speak for the American criminal justice system, but you are well aware that there was no legally-enforced segregation in England or Scotland (although this does not stop people segregating themselves). Until the 1950s black communities could be found in port cities such as Bristol and Liverpool but there was no widespread 'new Commonwealth' immigration and Britain was ethnically more or less homogeneous (the sectarian division in Northern Ireland is a separate issue).
My objection to the term 'systemic' or 'institutional' racism is first and foremost that it does not admit of precise definition. In the case of the police, accusations of 'institutional racism' led to a defensive attitude which effectively stopped them doing their job properly. The most notorious example was the failure to investigate organized gangs of men of Pakistani origin who were exploiting vulnerable young white girls for sex. One such gang was even operating in Oxford. These men did not prey on girls from their own communities, so their crimes, bad enough in themselves, were racially aggravated. Yet the police were so concerned with not being seen as institutionally racist that they effectively turned a blind eye.
You are statistically far more likely to be robbed, raped or burgled in London than you are in New York. Only homicides are less frequent, and London is catching up. Yet both cities have similar-sized populations, have approximately the same number of police officers, and spend about the same on policing. However, In New York Mayor Giuliani and NYPD chief Bill Bratton successfully combined a zero-tolerance policy with 'community policing' which has paid dividends.
The Met Police, on the other hand, largely ignore 'low-level' crime on the grounds that tackling it might antagonize 'local communities'. Yet such crime impacts on all communities, regardless of ethnicity. Meanwhile this weekend they and other forces will be out policing more BLM 'anti-racist' demonstrations. The only possible result of these (apart from helping to spread COVID-19) will be to exacerbate bad feeling between races, which is one of the definitions of racism.
You are a trained lawyer. Don't you see the implications of Macpherson's definition of a 'racist incident' which I quoted earlier? If racism is merely a subjective opinion hurled around indiscriminately as an insult, we would be well advised to eschew the term altogether, along with other epithets ending in -ist or -phobia.
Anonymous at 8:38 p.m.:
“You mean like a typical large city law enforcement officer?”
Yes, of course, as I made clear in my post at 5:42 p.m. on June when I said in referring to the same Atticus Finch quote:
“This truth applies to the protesters, to the police, to everyone posting here, and yes even to President Trump, if all of these are to understand and to be understood.”
If there is to be progress, based on a meaningful dialogue, all relevant perspectives must be empathetically engaged by all sides. What is deadly for progress and meaningful dialogue regarding an issue as complex as systemic racism is to have just a partial and/or partisan-driven dialogue.
This said, some people have to fight even to get a voice at the table, and I believe that is what we are witnessing now with the BLM protests even if some more unsavory elements have tried to hijack them to serve their own agendas. Do we really think that formal segregation would have been dismantled without the protests of the Civil Rights movement in the mid-twentieth century?
John Nolan:
Not only do I see the implications and limitations of such a definition, I have experienced, and indeed have been on the receiving end, of such a definition personally. In working through these sorts of situations—something that requires extensive dialogue, patience, and goodwill—attitude and listening are all important. It is also important in such dialogue not to allow a person to hide behind an allegation of “racism” to excuse poor performance, bad attitude, etc. However, the fact that the term_can_be misused—again as a “label” that stops conversation and short circuits thought (a bit like the way some use “abortion” on this Blog)—does not negate the fact that there are indeed genuine incidents of racism (just as there are legitimate ways of talking about abortion).
Regarding your other point about the “chilling” of legitimate police work, I believe that my just posted response to Anonymous at 8:38 p.m. speaks to that.
Regarding the differing situation in Britain (and indeed in Europe more generally), clearly the issues of de-colonization and the voluntary migration from Commonwealth countries that followed (largely, I suspect, as an “easy” way to assuage a guilty national conscience as well as for economic reasons), are a different set of issues from issues stemming from forced migration in the form of chattel slavery, which many call America’s Original Sin.
Indeed isn’t there a strong connection with traditionally understood Original Sin in all of this, and isn’t this why these are ultimately, or even mainly, not political questions but moral and spiritual ones? Presumably, this explains why the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. was such a powerful voice in leading the Civil Rights movement until he was dealt with, as Power only knows how to do, through force and violence. It is always telling to me that the first particular sin after Man’s expulsion from Eden was a fraternal murder. Power dealt with Jesus in the same way, and sadly I suppose we can expect no better. Power, like Wealth, doesn’t like being threatened and it certainly doesn’t like having to relinquish any of it.
Anon2: I’m getting that book this evening. One aspect of your argument re: that we are just white men opining, seems rooted in a Marcus Garvey approach to questions by delegitimize people by groups rather than explain the position. You don’t generally seem to need to use that approach. If white people cant perceive their own racism how can this be solved?
Rcg:
I am delighted you are getting the book. I am sure you will enjoy it.
I don’t know about you, but I have frequently needed others to point out my own limitations and blind spots. Being married to a psychotherapist and having participated in couples therapy at various points in our marriage, as well as having to engage in “difficult” conversations with professional colleagues and students, have led me to appreciate the importance of listening to what someone else has to say about how my actions affect them (and vice-versa, of course!).
However, I did not feel “delegitimized” in this process, although I did feel threatened, and tended to be a bit defensive, to begin with. In the end, however, I felt the opposite when my own perspective was also understood and in this way also “validated.” The process must be even-handed, therefore, so that people can trust it and feel safe within it. If it is, the result can be greater mutual understanding, healthy behavior modification, and improved relationships. The analogy should be clear.
I mentioned Power in my last reply to John Nolan. Coincidentally, and serendipitously, I have just read this very interesting piece on how power seems to change the brain and risk resulting in “hubris syndrome.” It would seem quite relevant to the present discussion (and presumably the risk attends those who attain power within social movements such as Black Lives matter, too):
https://getpocket.com/explore/item/power-causes-brain-damage?utm_source=pocket-newtab
Anonymous 2
Throughout most of the 19th century the constant element in British foreign policy was the suppression of the slave trade. It was a long, diplomatically complicated and (for the Royal Navy who had to enforce it) largely inglorious task. The Arab slave trade out of east Africa which had gone on for centuries proved particularly intractable and although the great slave market in Zanzibar was closed in 1890 the trade was not finally extirpated until 1909.
At the time of the American Civil War revulsion against slavery was so strong amongst all classes in Britain that there was never the remotest chance that London would recognize the Confederacy, despite Northern belligerence, the 'cotton famine' and the fact that the Prime Minister Lord Palmerston, who had been Secretary at War during the conflict of 1812-14, had no love for the United States.
There was no 'guilty national conscience' regarding the empire in the 1950s. If people thought about colonialism at all, they saw it in a positive light. During the Mau Mau emergency in Kenya much press coverage was given to atrocities committed by the insurgents, but there was little protest against atrocities committed by the British administration.
In the 1960s it became fashionable in left-wing circles to denigrate the colonial past, but their arguments were too simplistic and one-sided to have much effect on the national psyche.
There is also the fact that slavery never existed in Britain itself, as Lord Mansfield famously ruled in 1772. So I can appreciate that it resonates far more strongly in the United States than it does here.
Racism is a sin, and like all sin it will never disappear completely.
The United States has done a commendable job in at least trying to diminish its power and influence with all the different approaches, and initiatives, such as affirmative-action, quotas, set-asides. and anti-poverty programs that have been employed to deal with it.
Honestly, I don't know anywhere in the world where a minority has it better. The thing is, no matter how much better we are when compared to 50 years or 75 years ago, it doesn't matter. To people invested in reforming and transforming American society to their liking, it seems that it will always be a moving target, until and unless at some future date they themselves assume power.
John Nolan:
In referring to my suspicion of “an ‘easy’ way to assuage a guilty national conscience,” I did indeed have in mind the 1960s fashion you referred to in your penultimate paragraph, a fashion that I believe was also noted by the likes of Lord Elton and Enoch Powell conjoined with a warning regarding the phenomenon of Commonwealth immigration and its likely consequences
Anonymous 2
I know that Lord Acton said that 'power corrupts' and it certainly can do so, but to see Power as a malevolent personality opposed to virtue and acting in its own name, though obviously allegorical, leaves too many questions unanswered. Power can be spiritual and moral, and even force and violence can be employed for good ends.
Martin Luther King was murdered by an escaped convict with a twisted notion of white supremacy. Unless you are a conspiracy theorist, that is all there is to it.
This morning’s WSJ has an essay by Orlando Patterson that is a good summary of the complaints against institutional racism in the USA. It is a pretty emotional piece with many accusations dressed as facts, but it does summarize what seems to be the general beliefs with some of the reasoning portrayed as well.
Rcg:
Thank you for the WSJ reference. I was able to read the beginning of the article but unfortunately the article is behind a paywall and the WSJ is not among my subscriptions, although I do read the occasional article in hard copy form when I am on the physical premises at work. And sadly, the WSJ does not seem to be one of those newspapers that allow one to read a fixed number of article for free each month.
John Nolan:
This is quite interesting. I agree that power, and even force and violence, can be used, like wealth, status, or fame, for good ends but, like much else, we run the risk of making it into an idol (it is so hard for us to remain on the straight and narrow because there are so many temptations).
It seems quite easy, therefore, for the use of power to become sinful, and this can manifest not just in individual sin but in “structures of sin” when individually sinful actions result in the creation and perpetuation of institutions or systems and of reinforcing cultural mindsets and worldviews, as in systemic racism, for example. When so idolized, it does not seem unreasonable to conceive of power, if only allegorically as you say, as a malevolent force.
This has an interesting relation to the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. Of course, his family has long believed that others were involved:
https://www.history.com/news/who-killed-martin-luther-king-james-earl-ray-mlk-assassination
But even if no-one else other than a deranged white supremacist was involved, we have to ask where that person’s mindset originates. I am now going to do something that may result in critical comments from other Blog commentators, but I am never one to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Here is an account of the assassination of civil rights activist Medgar Evers:
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/medgar-evers-assassinated
And here is Bob Dylan’s very plausible interpretation of that episode in “Only a Pawn in Their Game:”
http://www.bobdylan.com/songs/only-pawn-their-game/
We know there can be toxic mindsets and worldviews, as in the case of ISIS, for example (and who manipulates the rank and file there?), or Nazism, or you name it, so why should to be different with the mindset or worldview of white supremacy when that becomes an ideology (or should one say an idolology)? The warped worldview of ISIS, Nazis, and white supremacists doubtless start from something much more benign (mainstream Islam, love of the Fatherland, or justified pride in the achievements of the West) but in the warping the benign becomes corrupted and malevolent, and good fruit becomes rotten fruit.
What’s terrifying about this moment is that the foundational institutions of our democracy are under assault, that the fundamental norms upon which our Constitution and our system of government rests are being threatened.
I just read an interview in the Harvard Gazette with Orlando P.
Patterson on George Floyd and the aftermath. Some of what he said I agree with, some of it I didn't.
One thing he said which resonated with me is the following:
"What’s terrifying about this moment is that the foundational institutions of our democracy are under assault, that the fundamental norms upon which our Constitution and our system of government rests are being threatened."
rcg:
I just read an interview in the Harvard Gazette with Orlando P. Patterson on George Floyd and the aftermath. Some of what he said I agree with, some of it I didn't.
I agree with him that the 40% proportion of the incarcerated population in the U.S. as being African-American needs to be reduced.
But it does mirror and reflects the rate of crime in the AA communities. In the majority-black city I live in, we are already close to a record number of homicides for the year (almost all black on black) even though it is just the beginning of June. There have been perpetrators arrested and charged with crimes that had lengthy rap sheets which would prompt one to understandably wonder how they could be running around free. it is difficult for the criminal justice system to function as it should. There is only so much prison and jail space. And only so many courtrooms to hold trials in and lawyers to work the caseload.
From the Bureau of Justice Statistics:
Most violent offenders released from state prison in 2016 served less than 3 years.
The average time served by state prisoners released in 2016, from initial admission to initial release, was 2.6 years, and the median time served was 1.3 years.
Better and more effective work release programs would seem to be something needed to transition those imprisoned back into the general population. Also taking a different approach with non-violent offenders.
One thing he said which resonated with me is the following:
"What’s terrifying about this moment is that the foundational institutions of our democracy are under assault, that the fundamental norms upon which our Constitution and our system of government rests are being threatened."
An interesting datum from the WSJ article is that the rate of poverty among AA (academic pigeonholing is appropriate?) increased after voting rights act and the civil rights movement. I think that it resulted from the increased political weight of AA and the attendant ‘welfare’ programs. The AA community became highly dependent on subsidy, less productive and therefore less self sufficient.
This will sound a little tinfoil hatterish, but I think the protests are a coordinated effort by the Chinese Army and domestic political And government groups to influence this Fall’s election.
Post a Comment