REL - Q8


Becky Lindroos
 

Q8:
• The author makes few actual policy prescriptions. Instead, he argues that history must be the foundation. “The alternative to ignoring our racist history is creating a racist future.” Do you agree?

Becky


Becky Lindroos
 

I don’t know if I agree or not.

The alternative to ignoring our racist history is creating a racist future.”
We can pay attention to it and draw the wrong lessons, too. There’s more than one way to create a racist future.

Reading it again, I’m not even sure what that means! I think it maybe should have read “The result of ignoring our racist history is creating a racist future.”

Becky

On Jul 12, 2021, at 4:43 PM, Becky Lindroos <bekah0176@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Q8:
• The author makes few actual policy prescriptions. Instead, he argues that history must be the foundation. “The alternative to ignoring our racist history is creating a racist future.” Do you agree?

Becky




Jeffrey Taylor
 

Yes.  Those are not clear cut alternatives.  

On Monday, July 12, 2021, 06:50:02 PM EDT, Becky Lindroos <bekah0176@...> wrote:


I don’t know if I agree or not.

> The alternative to ignoring our racist history is creating a racist future.”

We can pay attention to it and draw the wrong lessons, too.  There’s more than one way to create a racist future.

Reading it again, I’m not even sure what that means!  I think it maybe should have read “The result of ignoring our racist history is creating a racist future.”

Becky

> On Jul 12, 2021, at 4:43 PM, Becky Lindroos <bekah0176@...> wrote:
>
> Q8:
> • The author makes few actual policy prescriptions. Instead, he argues that history must be the foundation. “The alternative to ignoring our racist history is creating a racist future.” Do you agree?
>
> Becky
>
>
>
>







David Markham
 

Hi Becky et al:

I don't like the way the question is framed. Einstein said that we can't solve problems with the same thinking that created them.

Systemic racism, i.e. America's Caste system, has been the primary structure of the country since its founding and continues in more nuanced and permeated forms to the present day. If we don't understand the structures, the roles, the practices, and values that created the current societal ways of functioning, how can we consciously improve these structures and systems for the better?

While history can help shed some light on these patterns and practices, it does not alone explain the structure and dynamics. This requires systems thinking at a higher level of conceptualization. These conceptualizations help develop cognitive maps which allow one to consider different pathways to embark on if we are to journey in a desirable and preferred direction to arrive at our destination..

Outside of the concept of Martin Luther King Jr's Beloved Community, I don't think Americans can even agree on a preferred destination let alone identify and name it. White Supremacists want one kind of America while more mature people want a diverse and  an open, just, equitable society.

These two opposing forces have existed since America's founding and continue to create tension to this day. The question is what will it take to transform our society from an egocentric and ethnocentric level of consciousness to a world centric and integral level of consciousness? Charles M. Johnston calls this evolutionary development "cultural maturity". About 10-20% of the population may be there, but 80%of Republicans, which are half of the country, are still culturally very immature..

Will a better understanding of past levels of cultural immaturity help this segment of the population mature? It takes much more than understanding. Maturation is a process which requires all kinds of resources, motivations, and incentives. These ingredients are sorely lacking.

Even passing a voting rights bill seems beyond what the U.S. congress is capable of. It seems to me that the people are far ahead of their leaders and until they find ways if utilizing their power, cultural stagnation, if not regression, will continue to be the contemporary experience.

Having written the above, I am optimistic because there is something in the air.

David Markham



On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 5:43 PM Becky Lindroos <bekah0176@...> wrote:
Q8:
• The author makes few actual policy prescriptions. Instead, he argues that history must be the foundation. “The alternative to ignoring our racist history is creating a racist future.” Do you agree?

Becky





Jim Harris
 

As long as history ignores the reality of racism then racism is institutionalized into the system.

Jim 


Jeffrey Taylor
 

Yes

On Tuesday, July 13, 2021, 09:14:35 AM EDT, Jim Harris <jameswallaceharris@...> wrote:


As long as history ignores the reality of racism then racism is institutionalized into the system.

Jim 


Jenny Berman Ross
 

It is a sentiment that has been shared before by statesmen, philosophers and historians:

Irish statesman Edmund Burke is often misquoted as having said, “Those who don’t know history are destined to repeat it.” Spanish philosopher George Santayana is credited with the aphorism, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it,” while British statesman Winston Churchill wrote, “Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”

I think the idea behind his statement is that a full understanding of the past can inform future decisions. 

As an example, and understanding of how, when and why Confederate monuments were erected including the knowledge that the majority of the Confederate monuments were not erected right after the Civil War ended to commemorate the fallen soldiers but decades later to provide visual support for segregation and the removal of Black civil rights and to provide shrines to the mythical "lost cause" narrative is an important basis for discussions of taking them down. 

No Common Ground: Confederate Monuments and the Ongoing Fight for Racial Justice by Karen Cox is apparently a good history.

Jenny


David Markham
 

It seems that the question begs the question , "What are the values that we can mutually support to create our nation together?"

The values we have chosen in the past have changed, many would say, for the better.

Do we want enslavement, discrimination, prejudice, exploitation, domination and subjugation or justice, equity, and compassion?

It's pretty simple really. I know what I want. What about you?

The current controversy and conflicts are about values clarification and mutual agreement - what some call a covenantal relationship. Americans have not had that and the polarization in some ways appears to have become more accentuated.

The simple question is "What is the fair thing to all parties?" or as I prefer, "What is the loving thing?"

We tend to get lost in the weeds when actually, the whole situation comes down to a very simple choice: to love our fellow humans or allow one group to screw over another group. What kind of a society do you want to live in?

image.png

David Markham


On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 6:50 PM Becky Lindroos <bekah0176@...> wrote:
I don’t know if I agree or not.

> The alternative to ignoring our racist history is creating a racist future.”

We can pay attention to it and draw the wrong lessons, too.  There’s more than one way to create a racist future.

Reading it again, I’m not even sure what that means!   I think it maybe should have read “The result of ignoring our racist history is creating a racist future.”

Becky

> On Jul 12, 2021, at 4:43 PM, Becky Lindroos <bekah0176@...> wrote:
>
> Q8:
> • The author makes few actual policy prescriptions. Instead, he argues that history must be the foundation. “The alternative to ignoring our racist history is creating a racist future.” Do you agree?
>
> Becky
>
>
>
>







Jenny Berman Ross
 

I think a better ideal is equity and open discussion with space for dissenting views.

Covenantal models often stifle dissent and tend to diminish minority voices when they point out uncomfortable truths.

Jenny


David Markham
 

Hi Jenny:

Excellent point.

Perhaps it is not covenantal relationships we are wanting to create but a shared vision of the preferred future.

David Markham

On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 10:39 AM Jenny Berman Ross <jenny60060@...> wrote:
I think a better ideal is equity and open discussion with space for dissenting views.

Covenantal models often stifle dissent and tend to diminish minority voices when they point out uncomfortable truths.

Jenny


Jeffrey Taylor
 

I favor tough love for those groups who wish to screw over other groups. 

On Tuesday, July 13, 2021, 10:35:15 AM EDT, David Markham <davidgmarkham@...> wrote:


It seems that the question begs the question , "What are the values that we can mutually support to create our nation together?"

The values we have chosen in the past have changed, many would say, for the better.

Do we want enslavement, discrimination, prejudice, exploitation, domination and subjugation or justice, equity, and compassion?

It's pretty simple really. I know what I want. What about you?

The current controversy and conflicts are about values clarification and mutual agreement - what some call a covenantal relationship. Americans have not had that and the polarization in some ways appears to have become more accentuated.

The simple question is "What is the fair thing to all parties?" or as I prefer, "What is the loving thing?"

We tend to get lost in the weeds when actually, the whole situation comes down to a very simple choice: to love our fellow humans or allow one group to screw over another group. What kind of a society do you want to live in?

image.png

David Markham


On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 6:50 PM Becky Lindroos <bekah0176@...> wrote:
I don’t know if I agree or not.

> The alternative to ignoring our racist history is creating a racist future.”

We can pay attention to it and draw the wrong lessons, too.  There’s more than one way to create a racist future.

Reading it again, I’m not even sure what that means!   I think it maybe should have read “The result of ignoring our racist history is creating a racist future.”

Becky

> On Jul 12, 2021, at 4:43 PM, Becky Lindroos <bekah0176@...> wrote:
>
> Q8:
> • The author makes few actual policy prescriptions. Instead, he argues that history must be the foundation. “The alternative to ignoring our racist history is creating a racist future.” Do you agree?
>
> Becky
>
>
>
>







David Markham
 

Hi Jeff:

What does "tough love" look like? Can you give an example?

David Markham

On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 11:44 AM Jeffrey Taylor via groups.io <jatta97=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:
I favor tough love for those groups who wish to screw over other groups. 

On Tuesday, July 13, 2021, 10:35:15 AM EDT, David Markham <davidgmarkham@...> wrote:


It seems that the question begs the question , "What are the values that we can mutually support to create our nation together?"

The values we have chosen in the past have changed, many would say, for the better.

Do we want enslavement, discrimination, prejudice, exploitation, domination and subjugation or justice, equity, and compassion?

It's pretty simple really. I know what I want. What about you?

The current controversy and conflicts are about values clarification and mutual agreement - what some call a covenantal relationship. Americans have not had that and the polarization in some ways appears to have become more accentuated.

The simple question is "What is the fair thing to all parties?" or as I prefer, "What is the loving thing?"

We tend to get lost in the weeds when actually, the whole situation comes down to a very simple choice: to love our fellow humans or allow one group to screw over another group. What kind of a society do you want to live in?

image.png

David Markham


On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 6:50 PM Becky Lindroos <bekah0176@...> wrote:
I don’t know if I agree or not.

> The alternative to ignoring our racist history is creating a racist future.”

We can pay attention to it and draw the wrong lessons, too.  There’s more than one way to create a racist future.

Reading it again, I’m not even sure what that means!   I think it maybe should have read “The result of ignoring our racist history is creating a racist future.”

Becky

> On Jul 12, 2021, at 4:43 PM, Becky Lindroos <bekah0176@...> wrote:
>
> Q8:
> • The author makes few actual policy prescriptions. Instead, he argues that history must be the foundation. “The alternative to ignoring our racist history is creating a racist future.” Do you agree?
>
> Becky
>
>
>
>







Becky Lindroos
 

Fwiw, about 45% of our military personnel comes from the South. Eliminating Confederate names might not be in the best interests of maintaining our military forces.

Becky

On Jul 13, 2021, at 9:56 AM, David Markham <davidgmarkham@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Jenny:

Excellent point.

Perhaps it is not covenantal relationships we are wanting to create but a shared vision of the preferred future.

David Markham


On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 10:39 AM Jenny Berman Ross <jenny60060@comcast.net> wrote:
I think a better ideal is equity and open discussion with space for dissenting views.

Covenantal models often stifle dissent and tend to diminish minority voices when they point out uncomfortable truths.

Jenny



Jeffrey Taylor
 

You may use you imagination.

On Tuesday, July 13, 2021, 11:54:28 AM EDT, David Markham <davidgmarkham@...> wrote:


Hi Jeff:

What does "tough love" look like? Can you give an example?

David Markham

On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 11:44 AM Jeffrey Taylor via groups.io <jatta97=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:
I favor tough love for those groups who wish to screw over other groups. 

On Tuesday, July 13, 2021, 10:35:15 AM EDT, David Markham <davidgmarkham@...> wrote:


It seems that the question begs the question , "What are the values that we can mutually support to create our nation together?"

The values we have chosen in the past have changed, many would say, for the better.

Do we want enslavement, discrimination, prejudice, exploitation, domination and subjugation or justice, equity, and compassion?

It's pretty simple really. I know what I want. What about you?

The current controversy and conflicts are about values clarification and mutual agreement - what some call a covenantal relationship. Americans have not had that and the polarization in some ways appears to have become more accentuated.

The simple question is "What is the fair thing to all parties?" or as I prefer, "What is the loving thing?"

We tend to get lost in the weeds when actually, the whole situation comes down to a very simple choice: to love our fellow humans or allow one group to screw over another group. What kind of a society do you want to live in?

image.png

David Markham


On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 6:50 PM Becky Lindroos <bekah0176@...> wrote:
I don’t know if I agree or not.

> The alternative to ignoring our racist history is creating a racist future.”

We can pay attention to it and draw the wrong lessons, too.  There’s more than one way to create a racist future.

Reading it again, I’m not even sure what that means!   I think it maybe should have read “The result of ignoring our racist history is creating a racist future.”

Becky

> On Jul 12, 2021, at 4:43 PM, Becky Lindroos <bekah0176@...> wrote:
>
> Q8:
> • The author makes few actual policy prescriptions. Instead, he argues that history must be the foundation. “The alternative to ignoring our racist history is creating a racist future.” Do you agree?
>
> Becky
>
>
>
>







David Markham
 

Hi Jeff:

Good answer!

I will give it a go and probably my imagination will go wild.

I love you, man.

David Markham

On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 12:01 PM Jeffrey Taylor via groups.io <jatta97=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:
You may use you imagination.

On Tuesday, July 13, 2021, 11:54:28 AM EDT, David Markham <davidgmarkham@...> wrote:


Hi Jeff:

What does "tough love" look like? Can you give an example?

David Markham

On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 11:44 AM Jeffrey Taylor via groups.io <jatta97=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:
I favor tough love for those groups who wish to screw over other groups. 

On Tuesday, July 13, 2021, 10:35:15 AM EDT, David Markham <davidgmarkham@...> wrote:


It seems that the question begs the question , "What are the values that we can mutually support to create our nation together?"

The values we have chosen in the past have changed, many would say, for the better.

Do we want enslavement, discrimination, prejudice, exploitation, domination and subjugation or justice, equity, and compassion?

It's pretty simple really. I know what I want. What about you?

The current controversy and conflicts are about values clarification and mutual agreement - what some call a covenantal relationship. Americans have not had that and the polarization in some ways appears to have become more accentuated.

The simple question is "What is the fair thing to all parties?" or as I prefer, "What is the loving thing?"

We tend to get lost in the weeds when actually, the whole situation comes down to a very simple choice: to love our fellow humans or allow one group to screw over another group. What kind of a society do you want to live in?

image.png

David Markham


On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 6:50 PM Becky Lindroos <bekah0176@...> wrote:
I don’t know if I agree or not.

> The alternative to ignoring our racist history is creating a racist future.”

We can pay attention to it and draw the wrong lessons, too.  There’s more than one way to create a racist future.

Reading it again, I’m not even sure what that means!   I think it maybe should have read “The result of ignoring our racist history is creating a racist future.”

Becky

> On Jul 12, 2021, at 4:43 PM, Becky Lindroos <bekah0176@...> wrote:
>
> Q8:
> • The author makes few actual policy prescriptions. Instead, he argues that history must be the foundation. “The alternative to ignoring our racist history is creating a racist future.” Do you agree?
>
> Becky
>
>
>
>







Jenny Berman Ross
 

This assumes that only people in the South support the Confederacy and that perpetuating White supremacy and racism in the Military is good for the Armed Forces.

We have a volunteer military and in 2016 40% of Army personnel were either Hispanic or Black - how do you think they feel about serving at bases named after Confederate Generals?

What message does it give to members of the Army that we name Army bases after traitors and Air Force Bases after war heroes and heroic prisoners of war?

Jenny


David Markham
 

White supremacists in the military and among police forces is a problem as has been noted recently in the news. Do we want people with these values and beliefs in our military and on police forces?

David Markham

On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 12:00 PM Becky Lindroos <bekah0176@...> wrote:
Fwiw, about 45% of our military personnel comes from the South. Eliminating Confederate names might not be in the best interests of maintaining our military forces.   

Becky

> On Jul 13, 2021, at 9:56 AM, David Markham <davidgmarkham@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Jenny:
>
> Excellent point.
>
> Perhaps it is not covenantal relationships we are wanting to create but a shared vision of the preferred future.
>
> David Markham
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 10:39 AM Jenny Berman Ross <jenny60060@...> wrote:
> I think a better ideal is equity and open discussion with space for dissenting views.
>
> Covenantal models often stifle dissent and tend to diminish minority voices when they point out uncomfortable truths.
>
> Jenny
>
>
>







Becky Lindroos
 

"Six years after the Charleston church shooting (in which a Confederate flag was important), we have documented the removal of more than 300 public Confederate symbols, including 170 monuments."
Southern Poverty Law Center
https://www.splcenter.org/news/2021/06/17/six-years-later-170-confederate-monuments-removed-charleston-church-massacre

Becky

On Jul 13, 2021, at 11:00 AM, Becky Lindroos <bekah0176@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Fwiw, about 45% of our military personnel comes from the South. Eliminating Confederate names might not be in the best interests of maintaining our military forces.

Becky

On Jul 13, 2021, at 9:56 AM, David Markham <davidgmarkham@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Jenny:

Excellent point.

Perhaps it is not covenantal relationships we are wanting to create but a shared vision of the preferred future.

David Markham


On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 10:39 AM Jenny Berman Ross <jenny60060@comcast.net> wrote:
I think a better ideal is equity and open discussion with space for dissenting views.

Covenantal models often stifle dissent and tend to diminish minority voices when they point out uncomfortable truths.

Jenny







Jeffrey Taylor
 

I just keep thinking that loving the insurgents will result in giving them too much respect.  And then there is our Marjorie Taylor Green.  She makes love very difficult. 

I find tolerating intolerance to be too much to ask.

But thank you David.  

On Tuesday, July 13, 2021, 12:05:04 PM EDT, David Markham <davidgmarkham@...> wrote:


Hi Jeff:

Good answer!

I will give it a go and probably my imagination will go wild.

I love you, man.

David Markham

On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 12:01 PM Jeffrey Taylor via groups.io <jatta97=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:
You may use you imagination.

On Tuesday, July 13, 2021, 11:54:28 AM EDT, David Markham <davidgmarkham@...> wrote:


Hi Jeff:

What does "tough love" look like? Can you give an example?

David Markham

On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 11:44 AM Jeffrey Taylor via groups.io <jatta97=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:
I favor tough love for those groups who wish to screw over other groups. 

On Tuesday, July 13, 2021, 10:35:15 AM EDT, David Markham <davidgmarkham@...> wrote:


It seems that the question begs the question , "What are the values that we can mutually support to create our nation together?"

The values we have chosen in the past have changed, many would say, for the better.

Do we want enslavement, discrimination, prejudice, exploitation, domination and subjugation or justice, equity, and compassion?

It's pretty simple really. I know what I want. What about you?

The current controversy and conflicts are about values clarification and mutual agreement - what some call a covenantal relationship. Americans have not had that and the polarization in some ways appears to have become more accentuated.

The simple question is "What is the fair thing to all parties?" or as I prefer, "What is the loving thing?"

We tend to get lost in the weeds when actually, the whole situation comes down to a very simple choice: to love our fellow humans or allow one group to screw over another group. What kind of a society do you want to live in?

image.png

David Markham


On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 6:50 PM Becky Lindroos <bekah0176@...> wrote:
I don’t know if I agree or not.

> The alternative to ignoring our racist history is creating a racist future.”

We can pay attention to it and draw the wrong lessons, too.  There’s more than one way to create a racist future.

Reading it again, I’m not even sure what that means!   I think it maybe should have read “The result of ignoring our racist history is creating a racist future.”

Becky

> On Jul 12, 2021, at 4:43 PM, Becky Lindroos <bekah0176@...> wrote:
>
> Q8:
> • The author makes few actual policy prescriptions. Instead, he argues that history must be the foundation. “The alternative to ignoring our racist history is creating a racist future.” Do you agree?
>
> Becky
>
>
>
>







johannakurz
 

This is a very good quote but unfortunately, the reality is different.
Johanna



Von meinem/meiner Galaxy gesendet


-------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------
Von: Jenny Berman Ross <jenny60060@...>
Datum: 13.07.21 16:00 (GMT+01:00)
An: AllNonfiction@groups.io
Betreff: Re: [AllNonfiction] REL - Q8

It is a sentiment that has been shared before by statesmen, philosophers and historians:

Irish statesman Edmund Burke is often misquoted as having said, “Those who don’t know history are destined to repeat it.” Spanish philosopher George Santayana is credited with the aphorism, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it,” while British statesman Winston Churchill wrote, “Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”

I think the idea behind his statement is that a full understanding of the past can inform future decisions. 

As an example, and understanding of how, when and why Confederate monuments were erected including the knowledge that the majority of the Confederate monuments were not erected right after the Civil War ended to commemorate the fallen soldiers but decades later to provide visual support for segregation and the removal of Black civil rights and to provide shrines to the mythical "lost cause" narrative is an important basis for discussions of taking them down. 

No Common Ground: Confederate Monuments and the Ongoing Fight for Racial Justice by Karen Cox is apparently a good history.

Jenny