"Ike I'll seceond the motion that diversity is a good thing. So is tolerance. Here's the dilema - true diversity practically gurentees we will be "intolerant" to one degree or another. If I have a different opinion on a matter I will be saying "my idea is better than yours and you're wrong." Now I can be very polite and accomodating of you but at the end of the day I think you're wrong and I'm right. So my conclusion is we'll be arguing of something for the rest of time although hopefully we can do so without the rasicm and nastiness of the past."

Luke,

Just read through this thread and wanted to share my 2c

Awareness is the issue.

Racism, disagreements etc. is a result of diversity, tolerance and intolerance is a result of awareness.

I think that it is those that are not like us that define us. Just as I am making a point different to your statement. I could not make this point with out you. I am defining my statement against yours. We describe things in terms of there environment, how else could we do it? The rules of language dictate that allowable in the definition of a word is everything but that word. We do it everyday, consciously and unconsciously, tall/short, hot/ cold. pretty/ ugly..., We create the definition of our arguments and of ourselves in relation to others. A homophobic individual may wish to change every one to be like him, i.e make the entire population heterosexual. The funny thing is if he could do that he would be loosing a piece of himself. His environment would no longer be diverse there would be nothing to define himself by. If that same man could see that part of him was a result of part of them, an awareness of his environment in relation to him. Then he no longer would feel the need to make everyone the same. He could see a part of him in them. The Yin and the Yang.

As an aside to the race topic; I for one hope that I never "do not see race" or "we all become one homogeneous race." That would be boring as all get out. When I meet someone, whether I wish to or not I have already noticed a flood of things about them, one of which is the color of there skin and that is ok. My feelings that I attach to those observations dictate how I will feel and how I will behave. Whether I greet them with love and openness or distrust and hate. Diversity is not the problem, lack of awareness resulting in intolerance is the issue. If we can see those with a difference from ourselves like the color of skin, for what they are, a part of ourselves then "every thing going to be irie"

Edited by WalkSoftly33 on 02/07/2012 09:01:28 MST.

David

That is true there is more awareness that disease was a major player, what is lesser know however is that there is evidence to suggest the disease spread by the settlers and specifically the expansionists was not entirely accidental. It is what we call now "germ warfare" which is even more insidious than whitewash tactics. With an unsealable enemy under the pretense of trade and assistance.

The English language and the monetary system had just as much to do with it. As The English based US legal/language system developed so did one of its a foundations, property rights. The monetary system developed as well. Suddenly Indians were out in the cold as a system of legal land ownership was slipped under there feet and they did not have the blanket of money to warm themselves against the cold encroachment of property theft. Combined with disease and military might it was a fairly systematic approach from all sides.

I have always wondered, since it is illegal to own stolen goods, and most land was at one point stolen, how can one legally own land?

"I have always wondered, since it is illegal to own stolen goods, and most land was at one point stolen, how can one legally own land?"

Subjective, but something along the line of "statute of limitation" -- even though there is no formal statute. Actual duration 'depends'. Here's how it applies:

US -- a few years -- until what little voice of conscience dies down -- such as the naked annexation of the Kingdom of Hawaii (which I understand many Hawaiians are still seething over).

Our Allies -- basically "finders keepers" -- we have absolutely no issue with Britain kicking out the hapless island inhabitants of Diego Garcia and turning the entire island into a military base -- esp. when the Brits offered said base for our usage.

Countries We Just Plain Don't Like -- no statute of limitation -- such as the Chinese still need to get out of Tibet -- even after two generations of occupation.


There is no fairness -- just politics -- unfortunately. Ask the native Americans or Tibetans! As the late president Reagan famously pointed out, talk or not, you always need 'deterrence' -- yeah, even today.

Edited by ben2world on 02/07/2012 12:34:55 MST.

"There ain't no fairness -- just politics -- unfortunately. As the late president Reagan famously pointed out, talk or not, you always need 'deterrence' -- yeah, even today."

Yup your right- Walk Softly and carry a big stick

I like to change that to "walk softly and carry a big spirit" (got that little gem under the cap of a magic hat #9)

I think if more people walked around with a big spirit instead of a stick then we would see more "blacks with packs" among other things, we would see more tolerance for others different from ourselves, cultures could be come integrated ideas shared and more African Americans could be introduced to back packing. Not sure what the guy is talking about in the video though when I was in Yosemite this past summer the Asian community was well represented and experiencing the parks offerings.

During my AT thru I think I saw more Germans then I did African Americans in fact the one black guy I saw actually thru hiking was German! Is he called an African German? (haha)

>"what is lesser know however is that there is evidence to suggest the disease spread by the settlers and specifically the expansionists was not entirely accidental."

Oh, I thought there was pretty solid evidence on Amherst (Governor of Virginia and the dude with towns in New England named after him). It seemed common knowledge in Western Massachussets 30 years ago. From Wikipedia:

"Amherst is also infamous for catalyzing the first historical incidents of biological warfare, as he endorsed and commanded giving blankets infected with smallpox to the natives. The events are recounted in Chapter 5 of Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States."

Yes you are correct the evidence is not suggestive but rather fairly solid for Amherst. I was using less concrete language speaking about the practice as a whole. I had only read about Amherst earlier this morning. Not that his practice was an isolated incident but rather a well documented one.

Funny I went to school in WMass 40minutes away from Amherst, MA and that was not mentioned once in all my schooling.

"Amherst is also infamous for catalyzing the first historical incidents of biological warfare, as he endorsed and commanded giving blankets infected with smallpox to the natives."

Hardly. Armies lobbed infected corpses over the walls of castles and forts ever since the invention of the catapult. Before that they often put them in wells. Americans didn't invent nasty, nor did they invent nice, but they have definitely made some improvements in the technology of nasty since Lord Geoffrey pawned off pox infected blankets on the hapless Native Americans. :(

As an aside to the race topic; I for one hope that I never "do not see race" or "we all become one homogeneous race." That would be boring as all get out. When I meet someone, whether I wish to or not I have already noticed a flood of things about them, one of which is the color of there skin and that is ok. My feelings that I attach to those observations dictate how I will feel and how I will behave. Whether I greet them with love and openness or distrust and hate.

This is exactly the problem, the noting of a difference and the resulting change in reaction. What minorities want is to NOT be seen as out of the norm, and to be thus treated differently. When you are seen as not the norm automatically a prejudice of some kind steps in, be it very small, or very large. When people can live together as diverse groups without this focus on the color of the skin, with just that very "do not see the race", then the society will have become just and accepting.

To give an example, when you are among an exclusively white group, do you note that everyone's skin is white? White people don't even think about it. But, did you know that, because of the whole discrimination culture, blacks often DO note the shade of one another's skin, often lighter being "better"?

Edited by butuki on 02/07/2012 17:31:00 MST.

Exactly, Miguel.

If we put a tattoo on everyone's forehead with a symbol to denote their religion or lack thereof, how would they be perceived? Would some folks have a preconceived notion about others who have a different tattoo?

Didn't we all come from the same place in the very beginning?

"What minorities want is to NOT be seen as out of the norm"

We now have a black president so in the future this will seem less unusual.

Now we need a woman president. And an Asian and Hispanic...

"Now we need a woman president. And an Asian and Hispanic..."

I disagree.

We need the best person in the White House, whatever their background happens to be.

The fact that Obama is president gives us hope that we can vote for the person based only on what they bring to the office, but we are still a long, long way from that point as a nation.

"We need the best person in the White House, whatever their background happens to be."

+1. Although sadly, that isn't what our two political machinery deliver this day and age...

Edited by ben2world on 02/07/2012 21:01:29 MST.

Miguel,

I think we are talking about getting to the same point. I was trying to shine a light on how we would possibly get there. We have differences, our skin color being one of many. It is not the noticing of a difference that is the problem. It is the difference in treatment after a difference has been noticed that is the issue. If we raise the awareness that those that are different from us define us, or that we define our selves in terms of our environment. That our self identity is contingent on others, we can realize that we are two sides to the same coin, that with out them there would be no us. Viewing it in that light can bring people together to the desired point were race does not matter, It is noticed but it does not change the way people treat each other. To be open to our differences and embrace them and appreciate the diversity not pretend that it is not there. This is very difficult to do, because there is a lot of history within this issue.

That is a very broad statement about white people, I'm sure there is some truth to it, but personally (I am white) I do notice sometimes that every one in a room or on a trail is also white.

Ben,

I totally agree with you it is mine/your perception of the individuals personality that mostly determines whether I/you will be inspired/bored by there presence. I was not trying to say that skin color determines whether I would be bored with someone or not. I was trying to say if I lived in a world were everyone looked the same that aspect would be boring in its self from my perspective now. I'm sure there would still be plenty of things that tickled me silly in a purple world.

I have a buddy with two different colored eyes. He has fully embraced the magic of it. It is his go to thing with the ladies. I think he lets them notice it first, most of the time, if not it is a hell of an ice breaker. Granted people with two different colored eyes have not experienced negative discrimination that I know of, but people notice the difference between him and everyone else, he is singled out because of it. but it is his personality that carries him past that first thirty seconds of witty banter or awkward staring "what my eyes are different colors!"

Affirmative action is inherently racist. That is a whole other onion to peel.

"We need the best person in the White House, whatever their background happens to be."

That's just a rationalization to justify the status quo.

You're telling me the 535 people in the congress are "the best" people?

If half of them were women, and other groups in the population were similarly represented they would make a lot better decisions.

Rich white males are way over-represented currently and we get the results you'de expect - indefinite wars for no good reason and tax and spending policies that favor an entitled minority.

If you think Romney would be better than Obama you should vote for him, but if we had more diversity we would be better off. If I had to choose between two candidates that were about equally good, I'de chose the more diverse one.

Uh.................yeah. If Congress suddenly matched exactly the economic/ethnic/gender distribution of the USA, magic would happen. Honestly, if you believe there is a difference in a rich white Congressman and anyone else in Congress, you're pretty naive. And I say this as the son in law of a Congressman, so what do I know.

Jerry,

I didn't say we have the best people in office, I said we NEED the best people in office. And to your point, we are not electing the best people -- 100% absolute agreement.

But if the majority of the current legislators WE ELECT are white, it does not mean that another race would be better, it just means the population is doing a poor job voting or are too freaking lazy to get involved. Race should have nothing to do with it. Nor should religion, or sexual orientation, etc.

I do not think at any of us, who truly study the issues and the candidates, would come to the conclusion that two would be exactly equal. And I would never, ever tip the scales in favor of diversity as my criteria. It isn't right.

I would ask that everyone think about this...

You see a guy on a street corner who is some sort of street actor, and you are thoroughly impressed with his ability. And this person is obviously a different race than you, actually a minority race in our society. You are so impressed, that when you get home you have to tell your significant other about him. Do you say,

"I saw this amazing guy acting on the street, truly amazing he does..."

or do you say,

"I saw this amazing [Insert Race] guy acting on the street, truly amazing he does..."

I bet most people choose the second. And that is the problem in my opinion. Think about it. Even many minorities will insert the race into the brackets. When all of us can remove that thought/reaction from our thinking, we might all be able live in harmony.

I would say "I saw this amazing [Insert Race] guy acting on the street, truly amazing he does..." - and feel a little uncomfortable but trying to rephrase something like that is not what racism is about.

But I'm not talking racism or desegregation

If you have all rich white males, for example, they will have a different emotional feeling about the lives of young people. More abstract. More easily willing to start a military action.

If you also have women, they will have more of an emotional feeling about the lives of young people. Much less likely to start military action.

And the same applies for all issues and all cultural/physiological groups.

It's not like you're doing desegregation - giving favor to less qualified people just to give them a break.

It's that if you have a more diverse group of people, you'll have better decisions.

Like Western people see things more in black and white - identify the best candidate for example. Eastern people identify the inconsistencies.

That is one of the advantages the U.S. has over other countries - we're more culturally diverse.

Nick,

At what point does it go to far. Females have been discriminated against. Why refer to the guy as a guy not just a person. Why describe him as amazing, that could offend someone who isn't. Why talk about him being on the street, what about people inside buildings. Why talk about seeing him, I'm sure blind people have been discriminated against. What about people who do not act?

Why, because you are describing the situation. Other things like being tall, short, pretty, ugly, skinny, fat, hair color, clothes, the weather, persons voice etc. Could easily be substituted in that sentence

Take out all potentially offensive description you would end up with a sentence like this.
"There was a person." or probably " " (nothing at all, you couldn't talk)

Now I am being slightly facetious above. I understand your point, race is a charged issue and just removing it from the description would solve the problem when the described individual is not visually there. But that is just putting a linguistic ban-aid over a symptom. It is not the description that is the problem it is the feelings people attach to the description. The internal dialogue that goes along with labeling. That is what language is a connected series of labels or grouping. Change peoples ideas, you change the way they feel, ultimately the way they behave and treat each other. It is near impossible to be able to remove the categorization of people from our thinking. It occurs naturally. What we can change more easily I believe is the ideas and feelings attached to those categorizations and that ultimately will result in the change of behavoir which is the desired result. That requires talking about it, not ignoring it like it does not exist.

Studies have shown children as young as six months begin to detect a difference between faces of different skin color. Staring longer at those that are different then themselves.

Additionally Children will segregate them selves based on those that are like and not like them and the earlier race is discussed the better, they will come to there on conclusions and categorizations otherwise.

Source:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/09/04/see-baby-discriminate.html

Jerry,

Diversity does protect a species from an infectious disease stand point. One segment of the population may be affected by a virus but another not. If the population is all the same then one disease affecting it could wipe it out.

So I can also see it protecting our species from intellectually infectious diseases like endless global military commitment, corporate favoritism, and ponzi economics, affecting our political power structures, among other things.