In A Sufficiently Rational And Ethical Society, The Official Apology To African-Americans By The International Association Of Chiefs Of Police Would Begin A Productive Process Toward Healing Distrust Between Police And Black Communities. This Is Not A Sufficiently Rational And Ethical Society.

"Not a bad speech, Chief, but since we all know you and your kind are part of a racist conspiracy to murder unarmed black men, not nearly good enough."

“Not a bad speech, Chief, but since we all know you and your kind are part of a racist conspiracy to murder unarmed black men, not nearly good enough.”

Terrence M. Cunningham, the chief of police in Wellesley, Mass, and the president of America’s largest police management organization, announced a formal apology to the nation’s minority population this week.

Cunningham delivered his remarks at the convention in San Diego of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, whose membership includes 23,000 police officials in the United States. He said in part:

There have been times when law enforcement officers, because of the laws enacted by federal, state, and local governments, have been the face of oppression for far too many of our fellow citizens. In the past, the laws adopted by our society have required police officers to perform many unpalatable tasks, such as ensuring legalized discrimination or even denying the basic rights of citizenship to many of our fellow Americans.

While this is no longer the case, this dark side of our shared history has created a multi-generational—almost inherited—mistrust between many communities of color and their law enforcement agencies. Many officers who do not share this common heritage often struggle to comprehend the reasons behind this historic mistrust. As a result, they are often unable to bridge this gap and connect with some segments of their communities.

While we obviously cannot change the past, it is clear that we must change the future. We must move forward together to build a shared understanding. We must forge a path that allows us to move beyond our history and identify common solutions to better protect our communities. For our part, the first step in this process is for law enforcement and the IACP to acknowledge and apologize for the actions of the past and the role that our profession has played in society’s historical mistreatment of communities of color.

At the same time, those who denounce the police must also acknowledge that today’s officers are not to blame for the injustices of the past. If either side in this debate fails to acknowledge these fundamental truths, we will be unlikely to move past them. Overcoming this historic mistrust requires that we must move forward together in an atmosphere of mutual respect. All members of our society must realize that we have a mutual obligation to work together to ensure fairness, dignity, security, and justice.

It is my hope that, by working together, we can break this historic cycle of mistrust and build a better and safer future for us all.

It would not have been helpful or diplomatic, but the unspoken conclusion of the speech is “Your move.” The speech is obviously intended to lessen tensions and distrust that endanger the lives of both police officers and citizens, and that threatens to undermine effective law enforcement in black communities that desperately need it. Last month, a tipping point may have been reached when the highest court in Massachusetts ruled that it may be reasonable for blacks to run from police, and therefore should not create a presumption of wrongdoing. Something had to break what increasingly looking like a death-spiral of racial trust on the streets, and it was appropriate for the initial olive branch to be extended by the police.

For anything to progress, however, there must be a return apology in kind. Someone with authority and legitimacy within the black community—not Al Sharpton, Colin Kaepernick, Kanye West or Michael Brown’s mother—now has to make a consonant statement. That statement must acknowledge the responsibility of the black community in producing so many criminals and individuals contemptuous of law and authority. It must acknowledge that the past conduct—as long as the police have adopted the comforting mythology that this is all in the past, the return apology can do so as well—of many blacks gave placed police officers in legitimate and justified fear for their lives, and, as a result, have generated biases that have often proven deadly. It should acknowledge that just as it is unfair for police to judge a community and a race by its worst actors, African-Americans have too often regarded all police officers as indistinguishable from the worst among their ranks, and have engaged in hateful and incendiary rhetoric. The statement should also admit that just as it is wrong for police to presume that a citizen is a potential criminal because of his color, it is wrong to assume that every officer in blue is motivated by racism, even if the officer shoots an unarmed black man.

Finally, that spokesperson should flap his arms, soar to the sky, and return to earth with two white doves in his hands as he or she sings “Give Peace a Chance.” This part of the statement is approximately as likely as what I just described.

For this is not how radical activists think, and the anti-police movement is thoroughly radicalized. Such a confession of accountability for past wrongs is taken as demonstration of weakness as well as  sly maneuver to duck responsibility rather than accept it. There will be no willingness on the part of black organizations to apologize for anything, or accept any level of accountability for the problem. Anything short of an unequivocal admission that police remain part of a systemic effort by white Americans to oppress blacks will be deemed inadequate. Various black leaders have already pronounced Cunningham’s speech as inadequate. It is certainly not perfect, but if there was ever an example of allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good, this is it.

To open a dialogue, the other side has to take a risk consistent with the risk Cunningham took, accepting that hard-liners in his own camp would condemn the effort ( William Johnson, the executive director of the National Association of Police Organizations:“Such appeasement of the violent anti-police movement is just one more nail in the coffin of American law enforcement.The people who support American police officers aren’t looking for an apology. And for the people who hate the police, it won’t make any difference.”) and that police adversaries would regard the acceptance of responsibility as just an inadequate first step toward total capitulation.

I wish it would happen. It should happen. I don’t see the problem being addressed until it does happen.

But Campaign Zero co-founder DeRay Mckesson responded predictably, saying that he looks forward to seeing the apology backed up by “deep, structural changes to policing and the criminal justice system”—in other words, “it’s not our move, it’s still yours.” Charlene Carruthers, national director for the Chicago-based BYP100, reacted by saying the apology was inadequate, and that the next step was to remove financial resources away from law enforcement and give them to community-based programs.

African-American groups, communities and leaders will not apologize or accept any responsibility for the distrust between blacks and police. Until that changes, nothing else will.

Nice try, though, Chief.

 

 

70 Comments

Filed under Ethics Alarms Award Nominee, Ethics Train Wrecks, Government & Politics, History, Law & Law Enforcement, Leadership, Race, U.S. Society

70 responses to “In A Sufficiently Rational And Ethical Society, The Official Apology To African-Americans By The International Association Of Chiefs Of Police Would Begin A Productive Process Toward Healing Distrust Between Police And Black Communities. This Is Not A Sufficiently Rational And Ethical Society.

  1. Neil A. Dorr

    Jack,

    The move is still theirs to make. I agree that BLM and related groups are unlikely to formally “accept” nor are they liable to issue a conciliatory statement of their own but, so what?

    Apologies from one group to another are (most of the time worthless PR gestures that do little to change policy or public opinion. The Catholic Church has apologized for the Crusades, officially pardoned Galileo, and even paid restitution to the victims of sexual abuse, but it doesn’t change the fact that’s it’s still corrupt and has failed to garner any more trust by their parishioners or society-at-large.

    Moreoever, apologies aren’t (or shouldn’t be) predicated on the idea that the other side must likewise take responsibility or even acknowledge the attempt. They’re also useless unless followed by actions. Talk is cheap, and that’s all this is. So, if the implied sub-text of the message was indeed “your move,” it doesn’t really express true remorse or a desire for change.

    To me, this feels like a futile attempt to buy goodwill, while placating their base (Police) with the feeling that they’re the ones being treated unfairly.

    • I don’t disagree, Neil, but it is still an opening, if anyone wants mutual problem solving. The point is that they have made an effort to move the needle. If the other side doesn’t reciprocate, then the needle WILL bounce back.

      • Zanshin

        I would expect that Cunningham had negotiated with relevant representatives from the ‘other’ side regarding an adequate response of them before making this speech.

    • JutGory

      I disagree with Jack that a reciprocal apology is necessary. But, I do agree that the next move is for the “black community” to acknowledge the attempt to create a constructive relationship between the police and the black community.

      It was accurate to describe police-race relations as a death spiral. A few prominent shootings lead to greater fear in the public, which results in some instances of violence towards police, which make the police more fearful, which results in more shootings, etc., etc., etc. That downward spiral can be reversed, but it takes a constructive exchange for that to occur. This is a good first step, but for it to work, the other side has to agree to work on the relationship constructively. Yes, talk is cheap, but it is also a necessary first step.

      But, I don’t think an apology is necessary for this to happen. The NAACP, for example (trying to think of a national group), could respond by saying they would be to enter into discussions with the Association to come up with ideas for improving the relationship between police and black communities that could be implemented on a nationwide scale.

      That’s it! Step One is over. Then, the time comes for action but, perhaps, the downward spiral has gotten just a little less steep by the agreement that both sides want to improve the relationship.

      It is not really that hard, but it does require leadership and good faith. Cunningham appears to have demonstrated both qualities. Like Jack, I am not optimistic the other side will reciprocate. There is not enough money and influence in cooperation. Furthermore, success would endanger the existence of Campaign Zero.
      -jUT

      • (Changed policy to apology–right?)

        As long as a disproportionate number of people who come in contact with police in anger are black, and as long as a disproportionate number of blacks who are given lawful requests and orders defy these and react elusively or antagonistically, then police will develop reflex biases against blacks. It is partially the responsibility of the black community to encourage behavior that will not engender bias, Teaching kids that police are not racists out to kill them is a good start, for example.

        Accepting accountability on the part of both sides is essential.

    • “The move is still theirs to make. I agree that BLM and related groups are unlikely to formally “accept” nor are they liable to issue a conciliatory statement of their own but, so what?”

      Because unlike the Church you go on to mention, African Americans, despite acting as a gigantic voting bloc, aren’t actually an organisation. There are no internal memos or secret meetings behind closed doors, for a group as varied as the black community, there isn’t a way to privately signal pleasure and publicly signal something else… There’s only the public signal. So far, the public signal has been negative… So what message is the average black person to glean from the episode, and what message does it send to future law enforcement heads?

  2. ” reacted by saying the apology was inadequate, and that the next step was to remove financial resources away from law enforcement and give them to community-based programs.”

    Uh…law enforcement is a community based program. Dumb assertions like this is one more proof why the African American community doesn’t want real solutions. Because real solutions would require THEM to embrace real change for themselves of their own accord and responsibility.

    Ain’t gonna happen as long as an entire half of the political spectrum endorses and supports their broken community structures.

  3. Rick M.

    I may be off the core topic and I will be ranting, but I will certainly feel better for it.

    I will apologize for being stupid, naïve, foolish and a dozen other things in regards to the tenuous race relations in this country. As a white person, I was fully duped by promises and my own guilt over the horrendous history of oppression of white’s towards people of color – not exclusively black, but that is now my focus.

    Yes – I marched. Yes – I was active. Yes – I support all civil rights legislation. Yes – when MLK was assassinated I shed a tear. The law was now in place and the next step was a helping hand. I supported measures and when results were nil I was still willing to give it more time and money.
    WTF has been accomplished? Trillions spend and every conceivable program designed to address the disparity. They have failed. They continue to fail and every failure is just another reason why I have had it.

    I have had it with a leadership that is comprised of professional blacks and not black professionals. The rancid figures are there for all to see regarding any “erodes” for the key economics. You still have a “community” incapable of making a concerted and cooperative path to improving their collective lot in life. I see nothing of consequences being accomplished. I see the ultimate sign of hope in Obama and that has failed and failed miserably regarding race relations. I am tired of when I mention opposition or concern to any program to address issues that I am branded a “racist.” I thank our president for creating such a toxic climate and I was duped in 2008.

    • Amusingly. The great lie of the “great political flip flop” has convinced Americans that Republicans used to be for “everyone having a chance” while democrats were for “keeping the black man down” to now being democrats for “giving everyone a chance” to republicans for “keeping the black man down”.

      Colossal lie.

      The real truth is:

      Democrats were for “keeping the black man down” and republicans for “everyone having a chance”. Now it’s republicans for “everyone having a chance” and democrats for “conferring limited and modest benefits for anyone we need to vote for us”

      • Rick M.

        I was a 75% Democrat until the party gave Studds a free pass. Even was a member of the Town Committee. Now? No affiliation. I will be very selective on voting. I have actually go and taken a ballat and submitted it blank.

        • Other Bill

          Rick, it’s my theory that it’s the total failure of the War on Poverty (to use that as shorthand for what’s happened to the black underclass since the 1960s) that has generated all the current insanity. The intractable, multi-generational poverty and bereftness and dysfunction of the black underclass has driven policy makers and intellectuals and social scientist and Africana Studies professors nuts. There doesn’t seem to be a solution. The current theory is that the failures of the last fifty years are the fault of malicious misconduct by white people and society as a whole.”That’s it! That’s got to be it! We’ve tried everything else and it hasn’t worked! Eureka!” But any self-examination is verboten.

          Total insanity. And again, the situation is maddening, so I guess we shouldn’t be too surprised.

          • Rick M

            Daniel Moynihan had it pegged right. I gave it a lot of time what you have to do I’m very patient. 40 years time is enough and nothing has really been resolved. The economic engine has stalled. And yes we have created a new plantation society.

    • Rick M. wrote: “I have had it with a leadership that is comprised of professional blacks and not black professionals. The rancid figures are there for all to see regarding any “erodes” for the key economics. You still have a “community” incapable of making a concerted and cooperative path to improving their collective lot in life. I see nothing of consequences being accomplished. I see the ultimate sign of hope in Obama and that has failed and failed miserably regarding race relations. I am tired of when I mention opposition or concern to any program to address issues that I am branded a “racist.” I thank our president for creating such a toxic climate and I was duped in 2008.”
      ____________________

      It is interesting for me to watch people come right up to the very edge of a solid conclusion … and then recoil away from it. But then I guess that it is very hard to face the consequences, and the historical meaning, and the ramifications for the Republic, if the implications are concretized into definitive statements.

      What I find interesting is the sophistry of blaming ‘black leadership’ when, if the truth were stated, it is far simpler. The real truth is more devastating. But to state such truths openly is dangerous business. For this reason, in today’s climate (and everyone knows this) you cannot actually say what you mean and what you think. This leads to ‘coded phrasings’ which I think reflect a ‘divided consciousness’: a truth that is understood interiorly, but a manifested attitude that contradicts the internally-grasped truth.

      Once a whole, vast and interconnected system of lies, distortions, false-statements, false-assertions and politically-correct formulations gets spun into *reality* the ‘self’ gets identified with *it* and thus the self lives in an unreal world. Pull at one thread here and it starts to unravel there. Once the unraveling has progressed to a certain point the *cloth* is threatened and yet more energy must be expended to keep it whole.

      The act of *accurate description* and *speaking the truth about what is* gets so politicized that a weak or unprepared individual collapses before the unraveling in intense confusion and deep emotional distress.

      I think this is what ‘social crisis’ is. It is a point where the Guiding Narratives have cracked but they still hold their own, sort of. But they will have to come crashing down.

      It is not just this one *truth* (which touches on race and culture) but whole sets of lies and distortions which require revising.

      • Rick M.

        I guess you will have to explain to me “The Real Truth.”

        • wyogranny

          Oh, she will.

        • The thing is I am still sort of a coward. And I still have many uncertainties. I think I understand ‘the real truth’, and I even think I could do a fairly good job articulating it (I am speaking here about race but there are other ‘truths’ that are becoming plainer and they cut through astounding American hypocrisy (but all men are hypocrites really, for similar reasons), and to some extent I already have. And since you are aware of my somewhat long posts you have likely already read some of my thoughts. Great stuff, eh? 😉

          But there is another element too. It is that my ideas, radical as they are, are indeed offensive to some and even many. To cause offense is to cause pain. A direct, open, honest essay on what I have concluded or begun to conclude is not in keeping with the values of the Blog. My contribution, at least in a somewhat strict sense, would amount to using the Blog for purposes that are contrary to its purpose. I have probably already done that enough.

          Yet I think I really did allude, if generally, to where your own statement naturally and logically leads. Its you, too, who would need to bring out your ‘real truth’. I don’t think you have the fortitude, either.

          My tactics have shifted. That’s because I concluded I am the spiritual daughter of Thomas Jefferson (joke).

          I am getting more out of reading up on and thinking about the founding of the country (with its rather addictive histories) and trying to think more in terms of the ethical standards of these strange and unusual men who formed the country.

          The only revelation I have for you today, and which I offer freely, is that Donald Trump is (or seems to me to be) non-different in his core americanism from so many other notable American figures. He is an echo or an octave of the same historical processes! He is not incommensurate nor even very strange at all! They say “We are not like this! We are ‘better’ than this!” but that is an empty statement in many ways. Donny Trumpet is very much aligned with ‘what America is’ than a great many others. Even the people here seem to me echoes and manifestations of other figures. Take for example Charles Green, or Zoltar, or Chris.

          Kind of interesting, no? Its the same ‘conversation’ in the same basic circle of conversation but hundreds of years in the future.

          • Rick M.

            So I am bring out my real truth? I thought you were going to describe “The Real Truth” in some type of bullet format that I could easily understand? A simple “revelation” will certainly not satisfy my suddenly voracious appetite for the real truth. Yes….I can see a lot of MLK in Trump.

            • Why the mockery? It is a rhetorical question since I think I have insight into the answer. I think it must be because you assume that you require no illumination. Is it because you think you have it all figured out? That you know the answers to the most plaguing questions? Are you uniquely establsihed in ‘the truth’ (accurate understanding of how and why things are as they are) that no one can suggest that perhaps you need it? Or that you lack it?

              I think that often on this Blog I am watching people who are in the idea-management class. I mean a better educated class than many. You don’t get told how things are, or that some element of understanding is lacking, you rather frame the discussion. My general impression though is that many here, and many in our present, do not seem to have much of a clue about too much of anything! Because *you* — I hope you will permit me the general ‘you’ just for the sake of conversation — notice the superficial side of events but *you* often lack in-depth statements about why.

              More self-consciousness would have you writing with more depth (I think) about your failed romance with (what seems to be) Sixties romantic politics. You got ‘duped’ through your own ‘guilt’ but now, it would seem, you are waking up. To what exactly? All you do is cast blame on the President and ‘professional Blacks’ and you leave all the conclusions hanging in the air.

              And you get snippy because I appear to lecture you? Is that it? What exactly irritates you?

              • Rick M.

                I am waiting for “The real truth.” That is a statement you made. I am not mocking you, but I do not enjoy a linguistic tap dance that supplies no answer. That is what irritate me. Try….try really, really hard and try in a few simple sentences that my age rattled mind can CLEARLY understand. I have more confidence in solving Beal’s Conjecture than actually getting that simple and clear answer. If that is sarcasm it is intended to be so since I am wasting internet ink attempting to pry that simple response from you.

                I do not need a regurgitation of what I wrote since I could simply paste that. What I want – again – is for YOU to tell what “The real truth” is? If you are incapable of that my assumption is that what you said is just blather.

                • OK, but to quote Cassio: “I’ll do it , but it dislikes me”. (Sort of not true since obviously I like polemics). The ‘real truth’, in my opinion, in regard to the race question and America is that African Americans, taken as a whole or as a block, are in most ways, and I think essential ways, not compatable with the Republic. The core reason, in my humble estimation, is that they did not ever struggle for their freedom, freedom was provided them. My idea is that the concept, or perhaps life-style is the word, of ‘being provided for’ (in this one important sense, obviously, but then extending from it to many other things) has become a facet of their general character (and again, speaking to a block and a generality).

                  I think that I have a similar outlook as did President Lincoln. That there could be in most ways no greater evil imaginable than that of the slavery of men, and that it was certainly necessary to clearly see that as a strict philosophical principle, I am of the opinion that he also had it right when he declared that a compatibility of the races — sharing the same soil, institutions, as well as interchanges at a biological level (breeding together) as simply the worst idea imaginable. Essentially impossible. And that the best course for all concerned was separation.

                  I base my idea on numerous factors, but all of them require a great deal of explanation. It is really a very involved topic. I also recognize that it is terribly difficult and as I said painful. And at the same time I am not merely lopsided to a white perspective. I made an effort to read a great deal of the Black Liberation documents (teología de liberación) as well as the Black American activists. I concluded that what Blacks needed was indeed a ‘war of liberation’ but that the white System (if I can put it that way) simply could not, would not, allow it. To remain in America without undergoing their own historical liberation and identification and self-realization process, was tantamount to remaining within ‘the empire of the white man’s will’. That is the world they as a people were brought to. To quote Angela Davis when ‘we were robbed from the shores of Africa’.

                  Now, how many words have I got up to here? Not 100,000 but it’s ‘TLTR’ even as it is! I have only described one small aspect of a far larger issue and problem and I have, of course, blasphemed against America’s gods. In my view, America is showing signs of fraying. Of dis-unity. What is it di-unifying from? The core doctrine, the core idea of participation. ‘The Proposition’. There seem to be many many reasons for this impass, and again, too much to write out. But it could be written out.

                  There is much more to say therefor. But I want to leave you with this: my position, to be valid and communicable without being rat-like and nefarious, must be ethical. This is the great gift I have gotten and continue to get from this blog and in many ways it has ordered/reordered my intellectual trajectory. So with that said, it is my understanding that the articulation of this idea and taken to its full form, can be expressed ethically.

                    • You are welcome. Here is an added bonus. I always wished as a little girl to learn to bailar claqué but it was frowned on. But this is the best I could come up for ‘linguistic tap-dancing’.

                    • deery

                      …One does not lecture you folks does one? One only GET a lecture and a scolding (and a beating).

                      But the same tendency with you-all have noticed on the campuses with the screeching females and the shutting down of the possibility of independent, probing, questioning intellectual work in the face of intellectual repression and censorship, is just exactly what limits *you*. …

                      Hmm, so when have you stopped to ask real meaningful questions, rather than the disingenuous “just askin’ questions” concern-troll type of question? When have you changed your mind in the presentation of facts? When have you linked to something useful? When have you looked at opposing points of view and tried to refute them with something reputable or integrated them into your worldview?

                      You come here, deliver a boring, pompous over-blown racist lecture, tenuously related at best to whatever subject is at hand, whine and cry whenever you don’t get a positive response, promise to flounce off, only to reappear, kracken-like, at the next post. You obviously have not found the right audience to grapple with your “great ideas.” Please go find them.

                    • To be quite frank I mostly pay attention to Jack’s positions and also his responses. I want it to be clear that I do not mind your or anyone’s *hard* treatment of me, or any level of challenge, and I do think I notice that Jack tends not to go too hard on me. Perhaps he feels I am not influenceable? Be that as it may, my main object has to been to *subject* myself to Jack’s methodologies and also his sources. There are few who really write out their ideas in clear, essay-like form. Charles Green has an (undesired) fan in me. I think Steve in NJ is consistently good (and a good prose-writer). But in general terms I would say that, to a certain extent and in important ways (that I can describe), what is articulated on this forum is overall a sort of ‘dead conservatism’. I say this not because of meanspiritedness but as a result of a good deal of reading here.

                      Why is this? What has happened? What has happened in people’s thinking that they remain in ruts and only makes the ruts deeper? Well, that is the *question* I ask. Who am I to inquire of when — and this does not realy bother me — no one will converse with me? This is not a complaint as you think nor a boohoo. I fully understand that the state that you (one) thinks in forbidden categories results in social shunning. I am just so interested in that mechanism though. You see?

                      As to you, there is little that you have to teach anyone, in my view. I have observed your efforts for about a year. I can think of nothing notable in what you write or in your general endeavor. A short pamphlet on the ‘philosophy’ of the SJW by a SJW is what it amounts to. And a good bark. And polished little teeth with predictable bite.

                      The meaningful questions, you say? Based on what I have read of your writing I do not think you can articulate them. I see the articulation of those questions as a difficult and demanding task. To get the right questions you have to turn to responsible and serious people. Do you really think that is what you are about? Bless your heart but I would differ with you. Yet I mean you no offense.

                      I have heard the ‘troll’ complaint since DAY ONE. If I am a ‘trill I am a very engaged one! I have read more, studied more, discussed in my milieu and family more, and written a great deal in the course of my time here. And I am a troll for that? What a blog like this needs then is more trolls like me!

                      As to having my mind changed, and I don’t wish to appear sycophantic, I have definitely received many such impulses from Jack’s writing and his *structure of ideas*. I don’t necessarily agree with him or his conclusions and yet I can honestly say that his methods have influenced me. Actually, I desire to emulate his analytic method and its clear-sightedness. Often, he cuts right through to the core and then tells a truth. That is a skill I value. But it cannot be imitated. One has to have done the work. (There are 4-5 others who also have had an influence but I cannot say that have ‘changed my mind’).

                      Your last paragraph is admirable as an attempt at *blistering rhetoric*, and so I appreciate the effort, but it has little effect on me and does not influence me. I have gotten much more clear about what I think and why, and I have also cleared up the emotional weakness which led me to feel somewhat miserable and that I was doing ‘something wrong’.

                      I am doing something right, and very right, and necessary, and also good. And you can have and will not have any effect on that.

                      Can I go now? 😉

                    • Rick M.

                      A propaganda myth? So what was the gas chamber I saw at Auschwitz? A racket ball court for Hitler Youth? The historical evidence is over whelming. There are so many first person accounts that any denial is just laughable – if one can associate laughable with systematic extermination.

                    • Look into the issue Rick. Read the critical position. Do some of the math. Look behind the scenes. Closely examine the position of those who uphold this particular story and why.

                      Consider the extreme danger of working with such chemicals in a non-hermetic environment. Look closely at the LACK and absence of first-person accounts and how these stories fall apart. Then consider the propaganda-value of such nefarious images as industrial scale gassing and cremations. But do not lose sight of the fact that millions of Jews were killed. Most of them, it seems, in the East.

                      Read Finklestein and understand ‘The Holocaust Industry’. There are 3-4 notable Israelis who also work in allied areas. If you want I will put up their names for you.

                    • I don’t know what you think you mean by “first hand.” My dad was among the troops that liberated some of the camps. Saw the bodies, saw the gas chambers, saw the ovens. There have been plenty of fist person accounts by camp survivors. Why haven’t the Germans spoken up? Well, to start with, it will get them prosecuted, even now. They have every reason to stay quiet, because “they had no idea this atrocity was going on.”

                      Visit the Holocaust Museum in DC. I have. Once is enough.

                    • So your dad was just part of the propaganda conspiracy of millions.

                      Phenomenal.

                    • Rick M.

                      I certainly do enjoy alternate histories, Alizia, so I am sure those you reference would be somewhat enjoyable in a perverse way. However, I will stay in our on universe and avoid any trips into the realm of fantasy or into an alternate universe.

                      Alizia – I paid a visit to two concentration camps so just what did I see? What this some type of post war creation to fool us? Why were those chambers there? Why all the first person accounts? I have spoken to many survivors who shared the horrors. Were these a fabrication? Is this some type of mass hysteria? Please explain to me the accounts of survivors and witnesses (many were Nazi’s). I had an uncle who entered Ohrdruf in 1945. Was what he saw a fabrication?

                    • David Cole came up with this:

                      Like Cole I do not doubt the ‘destruction of the European Jews’ as a result of the war. But I very much do doubt the ‘official stories’ about nearly every past and aspect of that war. My view is that once one encounters, and exposes, even if it is not completely or absolutely, one historical lie or untruth, it generally proceeds onto others.

                      I openly admit to confusion about this problem and also how to get to the bottom of it.

                      In short, my view is that the *real history* of that war has yet to be *fully told*. And some who work in that direction have received prison terms and oppression for voicing their ideas. That tells me something I must say. When people are willing to go to jail rather than back down in the face of coercive efforts. I have also came to see that many histories, and especially those handled by the victors, tend not to be *real histories* put partial or slanted histories.

                      I do not have any answer to the assertion or claim that soldiers saw operating gas-chambers. I hold it as possible, despite my tentative conclusion, that my understanding, and the understanding I have gained from reading the critical accounts, is wrong and even a sophisticated lie. It would be dishonest not to hold to that view.

                      But I tend to have more faith when I hear the story of a Jew (David Cole) who made the effort to look into the question in detail and who was threatened by a faction of the Jewish American establishment, and those who have a stake in upholding Story.

                      Further, when I notice what function Auschwitz has in a Jewish ‘ontology of malevolence’, and the story that we Jews tell about ourselves and our presence — and I know this from the community of my own upbringing — and when I understand (if you will permit the phrase) the *mileage* postwar Jews have gotten out of it, I have tended to get a bit cynical.

                      And I am not alone either. Norman Finklestein, Hajo Meyer, David Cole, Uri Avery, Gilad Atzmon, Uri Davis, Mordechai Vanunu, Adam Keller — all Jews/Israelis and opponents of various injustices they name and resist (though not all of them have a position on gas-chamber revisionism and no one of them, nor I, deny the Shoa) — have prompted me to suppose that there is more to this entire story than meets the eye.

                      It feeds my theory that *it is next to impossible to get a clear view of ‘Reality’ and especially if it is a hot or contested topic*.

                    • I don’t really mean to be too mocking but this line: “Shhhh. Do not break the bubble” has gotten many repeats in my household in the last 24 hours. There is a newish metaphor for breaking the bubble which is ‘Taking the Red Pill’. Its even got it’s own Wiki page. “The red pill and its opposite, the blue pill, are popular symbols representing the choice between embracing the sometimes painful truth of reality (red pill) and the blissful ignorance of illusion (blue pill).

                      I began by making a truthful statement about an aspect of African American history which, in my view, leads to a specific psychological relationship to the American republic. It doesn’t really matter if it was a minor observation or a major one, it is strictly the fact that as an idea it runs counter to an accepted PC narrative that it evokes what I call “condemnation and attack with both feet”. It is not the idea which is challenged but the person who has the idea and who is capable of thinking in such terms. You see, breaking with the crowd, seeing things independently and differently, is very serious business. Especially in The Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave. That’s what things have come to. Whole systems of interconnected mechanisms of lies which support the ‘Home of the Free’ illusion. The great horror in all this is that intellectual work is stymied. But it is worse: you who conduct yourself in these ways are part of a destructive political force which will, reflexively, do tremendous harm to institutions, to intellectual traditions, and you will not stop there though. You will destroy reputations, you will cause people to get fired, you will cause economic damage, and you will shun. And you will do this believing — sincerely believing — that you are righteous in doing so! That you are protecting a great value.

                      Once you label your enemy — usually this is a public statement and a public shaming — you set it up so that anyone can come and take a shot and feel no moral pangs. That is its purpose really. The ‘label’ is the signal for the group to attack. It is important to notice that as it pertains to this phenomenon of shunning — common everywhere — that there is an American variety. The attitude that animates this particular hater is one that *gets offended* when an important tenet of the American Civic Religion is seen as being attacked. Hello Zoltar, hello Beth, hello Chris, hello Deery. How is your project coming along?

                      Get it?

                      Full of an astounding, an overflowing self-righteousness there is no restraint on your venom. It does not matter if what you insinuate is true or false — it does not matter — what seems important is that you have found an outlet in which some collective anger can be released. You MUST keep independent thinkers under social control. You CANNOT allow independent thinking, and challenging thinking, to be carried on near you. That would be ‘defending the blissful ignorance of illusion’.

                      Because I question common narratives that touch on racial questions and other problematic questions I am instantly labeled a ‘racist’ and therefor fair game for the outflow of hateful venom. Yet I see my project as one of ‘race-realism’ which, as a project, seeks to help both myself and the other define themselves in more clear and honest terms. But no matter: my terms are meaningless and they are a ‘lie’ since I (and people who think like me) are demonized by *you-all*.

                      In this conversation it switched to one of examining a vast System of Interconnected Lies and Misrepresentations which, as it happens, underpins something really much more than mere ‘idea’ or ‘aspect of history’. The Holocaust ‘imago’ is a shimmering cloud of shifting illusion which shrouds a metaphysical notion of Ontological Malevolence and conceals vast economic and political machinations. And this notion of evil, and the various White Nights who battle nefariousness within this plane of reality, function within a vast system that has been created in which Satan himself is part-and-parcel of this Imago of Malevolence. This is where the *metaphysical* element really does come into play. (And I clearly referenced where the critical analysis is focussed).

                      As it happens, there are now some schools of thought — it is essentially a philosophical project I guess you’d have to say since it deals with such elements as ‘how the self is understood within *Reality* and how this meshes with political and economic ideologies — some schools of thought which are considering the things I have referenced here, And please note: it is such people who are thinking contrarily who, as I showed above with the Hall video, are getting fired from teaching positions. Are getting harassed and tormented and ‘labeled’ as *you* harass and torment and label. Except that for those outside of a forum it becomes very much more real and deadly.

                      The noble Granmother from Wyoming predicted that this wold get up to 100,000 words. Ha ha ha. She is right in a sense. It takes a vast amount of time, energy and description to get through a protecting insulation that is formed around fortified ideological position.

                      “Shhhh. Do not break the bubble’.

                    • Rick M.

                      I am getting better – much better. I managed to get through three paragraphs before I had to visit my drug locker. The issue – Alizia – is the absurdity of two of your more “huh?” inducing comments. I will ignore “The Real Truth” since your reply is still far too mystifying to comprehend.

                      However, your little pronouncements on “gas chambers” and “freedom” certainly place you into the intellectual spam folder on those two topics. I guess I am just “meanspirited?”

                    • Oh yes, I forgot to mention. That the label ‘pseudo-intellectual’ is applied when someone is speaking about something the other simply cannot understand.

                      In your medicine cabinet, staggering over there under the burden of heavy thoughts, did you reach for the calming ‘blue pill’? 😉

                      I think I am pretty much done for now. But if there is anything else please do let me know.

                    • Rick M.

                      When I taught if a student or students didn’t understand something I would explain it. If the results were the same after three attempts the problem was not them but me.

                    • Never too late to revise a defective syllogism!

                    • Rick M.

                      Thank you.

                  • Chris

                    African Americans…did not ever struggle for their freedom, freedom was provided them.

                    This is factually incorrect.

                    • Nice restraint, there, Chris. My head exploded.

                    • African Americas, at that time and under those conditions, could not be said in any sense of the word to be agents capable of defining ‘freedom’ except in the most rudimentary forms. The will to freedom though was very strong and developed in the Abolitionists of the North. It was their definition, and their will in a significant sense, that brought events to the point of war. African Americans were the subject of that war and not its authors or leaders and main agents. A war was fought between the two *oppressing* camps which determined the status of the enslaved, victimized people who for all the reasons we know could not have defined ‘freedom’ in the terms of understanding of people like Thomas Paine. The African American was brought from an totally foreign system, a tribal system, a primitive system with no intellectual traditions, and made to serve in the ’empire of the white man’s will’. My view is that there is a group of statements that when made, and by that I mean not avoided, help to bring things into a *real* focus. My object as a person, and if I may be so bold to say ‘as a philosopher’ or thinker is to gain the ability to see things and describe things in *real* terms.

                      It is not at all easy. There are certain things that cannot be said out loud not because they are not accurate (or true) but because there is a censor-mechanism that inhiba some ideas from becoming concrete thoughts.

                      A vast and extremely costly and devastating war was fought in which 700 thousand of America’s young men died and which simultaneously destroyed, significantly, one entire section of the country. The African American as I said was the subject of the war, or at least appeared to be, yet he was in almost no sense a protagonist. The events occurred and the results determined the African American but in no sense that could be remotely compared to a struggle for liberation and self-definition. The *condition* of the African American was therefor substantially as it was: a foreign type, a laboring man, with no inate connection to the institutions of the United States nor to the West nor Western civilization who found himself, by Fate’s decrees, tossed into a sort of furnace within which he had little or no footing.

                      You imagine this is some terrible critical effort on my part in order to be mean or something. No. I can apply and I do apply a similar critical lens to myself, the condition of my family or my social milieu, and I mean as Latina and Latin American. We are not the same people as *you*. *You* have advantages that it will take us 10 generations to attain.

                      It is in this way that I have come to see that — I mean this in general terms — many Black communities in America, right now, live in time-extensions from this original condition. They do not self-define, they do not have the means and even the desire to do this. They seem to be the outcome of an uprooted people who have not found yet a solid place in *reality*. I think this creates all of the internal conditions which inhibits what is called ‘integration’. But neither do I deny that there is such a thing as aversion to the black body (this is essentially what it comes down to: aversion to the black body and the black destiny as a specific human entity), nor of prejudice and even of ‘racism’. I see these things as 100% natural and also inevitable. Morality is irrelevant in significant ways. Or it is not really the issue.

                      I could go on into many many different levels of analysis, and I can do the same in many other zones and areas which, by and large, are off-limits for clear, rational thinking because of the intense polemicization of these questions and then by dread ‘politically correct thought’. A wicked imposition which inhibits people from accurately seeing things and describing things. (And as a result getting mired).

                      There is more dimension in this small sampling of my thought than you will think in the next 20 years of your incarnation Chris. And for this I am *hated*.

                    • Jack wrote: “Nice restraint, there, Chris. My head exploded”

                      I accept and I understand that our viewpoints are radically different. I also accept that you consider my understandings thoroughly unethical. Yet my object is to work out my understandings in accord with my sense of the moral and the ethical.

                    • You still have to stick to the facts, Alicia. Blacks were not passive regarding eliminating slavery. Ex-slaves fought for the Union and operated the Underground railroad. Fredrick Douglas provided much of the intellectual ammunition for abolitionists. Freeing the slaves was a biracial enterprise.

                    • Rick M

                      Shhhh. Do not break the bubble.

                    • Why don’t you write out your thoughts Rick? If you have a different view and perspective why don’t you articulate it? You imply, underhandedly, that what I express is a ‘bubble’ that can be popped. But unless you do that it is just vanity and insinuation on your part. This is a substitute for good thinking and clear expression.

                    • deery

                      African Americas, at that time and under those conditions, could not be said in any sense of the word to be agents capable of defining ‘freedom’ except in the most rudimentary forms. The will to freedom though was very strong and developed in the Abolitionists of the North. It was their definition, and their will in a significant sense, that brought events to the point of war. African Americans were the subject of that war and not its authors or leaders and main agents. A war was fought between the two *oppressing* camps which determined the status of the enslaved, victimized people who for all the reasons we know could not have defined ‘freedom’ in the terms of understanding of people like Thomas Paine. The African American was brought from an totally foreign system, a tribal system, a primitive system with no intellectual traditions, and made to serve in the ’empire of the white man’s will’.

                      African-Americans were quite capable of defining freedom, beyond the mere rudimentary, read the works of Frederick Douglass or Harriett Jacobs if you doubt that much.

                      Many, many African -Americans freed themselves by fleeing plantations where they were kept in bondage. Others kept a passive resistance to the work that was forced upon them. Others had active rebellions. Others opted for the death part in ” give me liberty or give me death.” And many others signed up to fight directly in an army, despite the resistance in having them do so.

                      Also, it is obvious from your assertions that you are very ignorant of Western African history, culture, and philosophical traditions. There is a an intellectual tradition that is quite comparable to Western and Islamic traditions. Please do some research in that area before you make such non-reality rooted statements.

                      There is more dimension in this small sampling of my thought than you will think in the next 20 years of your incarnation Chris. And for this I am *hated*.

                      You are “hated” around here because you are a bald racist, and a boring one at that. You feel as if you you cover up you standard alt.-right HBD crap with a ton of words and some pseudo -intellectual mumbo jumbo, while pretending to be coy that people don’t see you for what you are. But just because you pour syrup on shit doesn’t make it pancakes. Your pedantry is tiresome, as is your blatant racism. As is your “woe is me, I’m way too intellectual for you people to understand my *unique * special unicorn brand of racism.” You aren’t, and we do.

                    • Deery wrote: “African-Americans were quite capable of defining freedom, beyond the mere rudimentary, read the works of Frederick Douglass or Harriett Jacobs if you doubt that much.”

                      I have. And a great deal more. I was speaking generally which is a valid way to speak and yet it does not take exceptions into account. Also, and this is important, the categories of Douglas’ thought were those of the northern Abolitionists and in this specific sense (which is the sense I was speaking) not categories of African thought. And what I said, despite the fact that you feel inclined, as an agent of the politically-correct to morally hound me, was to place emphasis on another set of definitions. In my view, and as a result of my studies, I came to see that African Americans (and Africans of the New World generally) still need to work out their liberation — in their terms. What I tried to point out, and which you did not capture, is that African Americans more or less came under the yoke of another ‘master’ when their liberation was enacted for them. The point of what it means to carry out your own liberation-project, in your own terms, according even to your own traditions, seemed to have gone over your head.

                      Deery writes: “Many, many African -Americans freed themselves by fleeing plantations where they were kept in bondage. Others kept a passive resistance to the work that was forced upon them. Others had active rebellions. Others opted for the death part in ” give me liberty or give me death.” And many others signed up to fight directly in an army, despite the resistance in having them do so.”

                      This is very true, and in no sense whatever negates what I tried to bring forward. A mule also gives ‘passive resistance’. But defining oneself as agent in this world and *metaphysically* if you will in reality, is another endeavor, and to that I referred. Occidental men, within and through their own traditions, invented and gave life to their notions of freedom. Because they did this themselves, it became *theirs* in a unique way. It empowered them and they were empowered by it. The African American did not have this chance as it were. Therefor, he was taken out of one category and forced, more or less, into another. And it is THAT CONDITION in which many African Americans still live, think, and carry on. It is reactive and reactionary, as is rebellion generally. I am just touching the surface of a complex human topic and one that I, too, have a relationship with. (As Latina, as Venezuelan).

                      Deery writes: “Also, it is obvious from your assertions that you are very ignorant of Western African history, culture, and philosophical traditions. There is a an intellectual tradition that is quite comparable to Western and Islamic traditions. Please do some research in that area before you make such non-reality rooted statements.”

                      This goes to show how off-the-mark one can be. I am from Venezuela and the ‘national religion’ of Venezuela is a modification of African religions similar to Santaria in Cuba and Voodoo in Haiti. Our National Figure is Maria Lionza and the Corte Espiritual. I have read extensively on the Santeria traditions, on Ifa diviniation, on the African religions which came to the New World via the African Slave, and as well I have during my rebellion-process from my orthodox Judaism spent time with cigar chomping old Africans priests and priestesses who are direct exponents of those West African religious traditions.

                      These are ‘symbolic’ traditions, supported by elaborate stories or mythologies, and they are not and were not comparable to the Western intellectual traditions, philosophical, jurisprudential et cetera. I know how your mind works though. It is YOU who have some theoretical knowledge of these things, and you who elevate them, or desire to place them on a similar footing. But that is not the point. These traditions are valid, important, and real for those people, in their context. Our traditions do not correspond with them and are of a different order. It is this and more that I would speak about when ‘working out my definitions’ of defining ‘what is’.

                      Deery wrote: “You are “hated” around here because you are a bald racist, and a boring one at that. You feel as if you you cover up you standard alt.-right HBD crap with a ton of words and some pseudo -intellectual mumbo jumbo, while pretending to be coy that people don’t see you for what you are. But just because you pour syrup on shit doesn’t make it pancakes. Your pedantry is tiresome, as is your blatant racism. As is your “woe is me, I’m way too intellectual for you people to understand my *unique * special unicorn brand of racism.” You aren’t, and we do.”

                      Wait, is there an ‘exciting racist’ you can put me into contact with? Is there a way to dress up racism so that it is dynamic and interesting?

                      I am interpreted as a ‘bald racist’ by people who function from non-subtle perspectives of the politically correct. I have heard to ‘pseudo-intellectual claim and the ‘jumbo-jumbo’ term quite a few times before. (And ‘jumbo-jumbo you will find is a ‘racist’ term!).

                      I am — admittedly — a race-realist and am working in areas which you equate with oppression and evil, this much I do understand. But it is not the case (that I am evil or bad — or even boring!)

                      And I can now, to some degree, define my position, but not as well as I want to. But I will get there. And I will do it in accord with a clearly defined morality and ethics.

                    • From Mumbo-Jumbo, masked dancer described in 18th-century European accounts of the Mandinka, probably from Mandinka maamajomboo, masked dancer with prophetic powers : maama, term of address for a masked dancer + jomboo, ceremony of opening or first use.]

                      You should be ashamed of yourself! A period of reflective self-criticism is in order, Comrade!

                    • deery

                      Cute that you thought it was an accident.

                      Yes, I know that the politically correct term for a racist is now “race realist.”

                      Occidental men, within and through their own traditions, invented and gave life to their notions of freedom. Because they did this themselves, it became *theirs* in a unique way. It empowered them and they were empowered by it. The African American did not have this chance as it were. Therefor, he was taken out of one category and forced, more or less, into another. And it is THAT CONDITION in which many African Americans still live, think, and carry on. It is reactive and reactionary, as is rebellion generally.

                      You seem to be saying, in your own strained way, that African Americans somehow did not come up with their own notions of freedom, and of those that did, it was of a lower order than white American notions of freedom? Despite all written documentation, oral evidence, and actions to the contrary? Ok.

                      For “race realists”, they definitely have a habit of ignoring inconvenient evidence, or denying that they said precisely what they said. While it’s also nice as a Venezuelan that you think you are an expert on African American culture after perusing a few books and probably watching some television shows, in addition to whatever racist blogs you favor, you might actually want to be to know a few real African Americans. 75% of African Americans don’t live in poverty. African American women are the most educated group in America. And most African Americans don’t live in the city at all. You, like Trump, are relying mostly on a fictive hellscape of your own imagination.

                    • I did also say “I’ll do it, but it likes me not!” and now I get my dressing down from Dreary Deery. I accept that you have those ideas about me. I can respect your perspective.

                      The term ‘race realist’ is actually a scientific term and from genetic science. It implies a ‘realistic’ way of looking at race and understands that it is a fraught endeavor.

                      What I said is what I said. I can’t control your paraphrasing.

                      As to my experience with the African religions in Venezuela, read it over again. I don’t think I have even seen a TV program on Venezuelan religions but I have read many of the works of Angelina Pollak-Eltz.

                      A similar trend is happening in Latin America: many Latinas are getting university training. Even more than the men.

                      To know what my position is, and to be able even to condemn it, you’d have to really understand it. More often than not, conversing with people with fixed ideas and then PC ideas well-ingrained, that is largely impossible.

                    • Rick M.

                      “African Americans…did not ever struggle for their freedom, freedom was provided them.”

                      I have rarely seen such a historically inaccurate pile of rubbish since Fred Leuchter. There is such a massive amount of primary sources available to dispute this and what you have written that Jack would need the collective server resources of Google and Yahoo. I will leave others to try and decipher this convoluted mess. Personally – Alizia is just pulling a fast one on us.

                    • That is interesting, Rick. Because it really seems to be true that the Nazis did not use gas chambers and that there really is a gas-chamber myth. Millions were killed by various means but there were no gas chambers. It seems to have been a propaganda device. So by referring to that I don’t think you have really supported your case but more revealed (if these two issues can be compared) that what you are comfortable with is relying, if you will, on certain ‘narratives’ which, though not necessarily true, are convenient and common.

                      I said, speaking in general terms, that the American Civil War was a battle fought between two modern armies with one result that was the freeing of the slaves. In this sense freedom was provided them. I did not say, and it would not be correct to say, that there was no will to resist slavery, nor that some slaves resisted or escaped. Yet the converse of this story should also be a part of it: large groups of slaves, on many plantations, lived contentedly, and if you were to refer to ‘primary source materials’ you would of course know that.

                      The Northern narrative, for example that of Beecher Stowe, is in large part of fantasy-projection. She ‘channeled’ her story from out of her heated Abolitionist soul. She had never even been in the South or on a plantation.

                      What this points to I find intensely interesting: it is a reverse-engineering of history on one hand to conform it to present ideas and understandings. A sort of ‘imposition’ on reality of the unreal. Inevitably, you will take this to mean that I regard some of the facts (of resistance, etc.) as therefor being *unreal* but that is not so. The actual facts, and I think I could mention the actual facts of the American Revolution of 1776 (since I am reading in this area) is very different from what is recited in many histories. The *real truth* is thus an accessible project even if it contradicts some and even many stories and mythologies.

                      What I feel at times is that I am confronting heavily indoctrinated ideologues who are not fully aware of the degree that they have received indoctrination. That is somewhat strong a word and yet it applies. For this reason you cannot actually see history. What you *see* is a novelization of it. At that point you can simply make history what you want it to be. Just like there is Official State History and Official Pary Lines.

                      And little or none of this do you comprehend. The idea is so outlandish that it is unthinkable thought.

                    • Bizarro Howard Zinn, is that you? Where do you get this crap? Zyklon B is not a fantasy. Harriet Beecher Stowe did her research (she published another book with all the clippings) and informed ignorant Northerners and enabling Southerners about how inhuman slavery really was, and it was the catalyst for abolition. Saying she had never been on a plantation is in the same category as the silly people who say we can’t prove evolution unless we witness it. History is complicated, that’s all. There is nothing dishonest about cutting thorough the static to assert basic truths.

                    • You know, I can deal with the intellectual nonsense of racism before I can deal with the intellectual nonsense of holocaust denial. See, racism, as deplorable as it is, at least ultimately boils down to a severe misunderstanding of how much DNA and genotypes affect the moral composition of a human.

                      But seriously…holocaust denial relies on a massive conspiracy involving millions taking part in propaganda. Apparently the only dissenters coming forward against that “propaganda” are the very types who hate Jews anyway.

                      Flabbergasted.

                      Your patience is laudable.

                    • I really feel like the next step in Alizia’a sophomoric rise is a long lecture on the merits of phrenology.

                    • I didn’t deny the Holocaust! I said millions were killed. But the gas chambers are a propaganda myth. And Zyklon is certainly real and was used as a pesticide.

                      There is a Jewish-based and genuine movement which examines Jewish tropes that have been established in our present and are exploited for various purposes. Zinn is in that category but he is not in any sense a Holocaust denier. He thinks that Israel and the supportive Jewish community use it to get sympathy which is used as a cover for policies which are unjust. There are others like Finkelstein.

                      I do not deny the Beecher Stowe did research, nor that slavery was a real thing, but what she also did was to inflect her story with a religious zeal. And that zeal was a particularly northern sort. The *real truth* is different. It is a simple statement, a true statement, and a necessary statement. My researches have led me to see that distortions and historical revisionism are destructive and lead to misunderstanding of history. I seek an accurate picture.

                      Saying she had never been on a plantation means only that she had never been on a plantation. Like a novelist she invented her characters and their situations. I read many reviews of her work written by both the North and the South at the time it appeared — some of these analyses very thoughtful and detailed — and I base my understanding on my own researches, not on a view that is received (or forced).

                      In my view there IS something dishonest about falsifying history with Story. It implies that the history alone, or the truth alone, is not enough. A version must be fabricated to influence a public. Your view supports a non-fact-based propaganda. It’s okay to lie or distort as long as you do it for the *right* reasons.

                      I choose to examine every *hot topic* by undertaking my own research, reading my own books, and coming to my own understandings.

                      In my view when some of the myths and distortions are exposed for what they are it throws people into a panic. But they generally do see and understand already how in so many areas such lying occurs (political lying, corporate lying, agency lying). I find it hard to understand why the adjustments I note as necessary are so very difficult.

                    • Look into Gilad Atzmon’s writing as one example of an active intellect who questions standard narratives. Lisen to Tony Hall. I suggest that he gives a very good sense of what happens when thinking is constrained and political forces enter in to limit what people can think and what they can research

                    • Heh heh. Well Tex break out the calipers! But the real problem that ‘we’ face, and the one that is having a tremendous negative and overtly destructive impact on our present, in America and in the world, is the mental attitude which you seem to embody. One does not lecture you folks does one? One only GET a lecture and a scolding (and a beating).

                      But the same tendency with you-all have noticed on the campuses with the screeching females and the shutting down of the possibility of independent, probing, questioning intellectual work in the face of intellectual repression and censorship, is just exactly what limits *you*. Really, it is a problem that we all have to face and I do not exclude myself necessarily from it. We must resist coercion.

                      The evidence is visible just over these last posts. What you do therefor is undermine and destroy enquiry. And you too are involved in enforcing a a variation of State Sponsored View which tells you what to see and think and then what you cannot.

                      And there is a mechanism in you which can and will instantly brush of my criticism because such a thing, according to you, is simply impossible to conceive. Things are not clarified to you, you clarify to others. You drip arrogance.

                      It is a rotten, polluted, self-centered position to have. And you would, as is obvious, see destroyed anyone who makes different definitions and interpretations. You too connect to that activity, like the SPLC. And it is quite common in a number of people who write here yet they cannot notice it. This profound assumption that you know things better than others. You will hate me even more for this but I notice this as a particularly American defect. It is classically arrogant.

                      I continue to learn how NOT to conduct my intellectual life.

                • After every encounter with what I understand to be the SJW-type, one thing that always sticks to me like a residue is the intensity of the moral condemnation one receives. This moralizing is thick with emotionalism I have noticed. I mean it is not idea-moralizing. Once they get you in their sights the attack is basically directed at an emotional center. To shame you. To condemn. Its like if they could you would be cut out of the very Tree of Life.

                  Yet nothing I said was deserving of that. It is another interpretation. Another group of opinions. But with politically-correct thinking there is really a Party Line, not a plurality of views or perspectives. This is an area that interests me intensely. This whole intensity-structure of liberal-progressivism. I think this is why people are often cowered down before it.

                  How many people have certainty of their opinions, or confidence in their interpretations, or faith even in their capacity to make sense of contested, polemicized issues? But when you see that by raising your head even a little with a different view that you will be crushed and villified, more often than not I think people surrender the confidence of their opinions or intuition and toe the line.

                  The other factor is how, again, there is little or nothing allowed when one says ‘I wish to defend my own people’, or when one speaks out as an activist, for example, of one’s own group (that is, if one is white-identified). But it is clear as the summer sun that those races and groups that are said not to exist define themselves as groups, and as races, and move forward therefor as members of their group and race. (And I do not necessarily blame anyone for that).

                  (My thoughts tend to develop well after-the-fact. Sometimes days afterward.)

  4. Chris Marschner

    Rational and ethical societies seek to solve problems. Rational but unethical societies seek to prolong problems because problems create the need for people who earn their living promulgating perceptions of injustice.

    Like food stamps its a job creator.

  5. While we obviously cannot change the past, it is clear that we must change the future. We must move forward together to build a shared understanding. We must forge a path that allows us to move beyond our history and identify common solutions to better protect our communities. For our part, the first step in this process is for law enforcement and the IACP to acknowledge and apologize for the actions of the past and the role that our profession has played in society’s historical mistreatment of communities of color.

    They could start by not tolerating misconduct among their own ranks.

    Felipe Santiago Peralez was basically Brock Turner with a badge.

    And of course let us mention Chicago. Ever wonder why it has a huge gang problem? well, if the Chicago police leadership did not do anything to stop Al Capone ninety years ago, why would they stop his moral successors now?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s