Evidence of Salvation

Originally posted by KellyJay
I think a little bias revealing is going on from both of us, but I'll say
that I think your right in some of your points. So why did you interject
the "white man' comment into the discussion, being one does not add
too or take away from that?
Kelly

Last time I checked, the terms European, Euro-American, and white man were more or less interchangeable. Each is problematic, of course, as are all generalizations.

I recognized your comments as part of a patterned response. One that has been a routine part of these conversations for at least two decades (probably longer, but that's how long they have been a central element of my foci). "White man" is the most common term in the litany.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
Last time I checked, the terms European, Euro-American, and white man were more or less interchangeable. Each is problematic, of course, as are all generalizations.

I recognized your comments as part of a patterned response. One that has been a routine part of these conversations for at least two decades (probably longer, but that's how long they have been a central element of my foci). "White man" is the most common term in the litany.

I think it is demeaning and not accurate, for one people come in all
shapes and colors and live in Europe and America. Those with more
color than me that live in Europe are some how less than? I think not,
and I don't think you believe that either.

Can we just stick with people and leave the colors out of it, unless you
really do want to separate people by color for cause?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I think it is demeaning and not accurate, for one people come in all
shapes and colors and live in Europe and America. Those with more
color than me that live in Europe are some how less than? I think not,
and I don't think you believe that either.

Can we just stick with people and leave the colors out of it, unless you
really do want to separate people by color for cause?
Kelly

People come in a limited range of shapes and colors. No all. How many purple people do you know? There's a reason the purple people eaters became extinct: no food.

The first Congress under the Constitution of the United States limited citizenship to "free white persons." In U.S. v Bhagat Singh Thind, the Supreme Court accepted the common understanding of white as legally appropriate to exclude from citizenship a man that was more clearly Caucasian in an ethnic sense than the typical EuroAmerican.

It may be demeaning, but it is our history. I cannot pretend that politically charged criticisms of simple observations have no relationship to history. I can accept that you did not understand what you were saying when you wrongly accused me of being anti-Western. I can accept that you were unaware that such a statement also connotes anti-white. But, as a matter of fact, your criticism is part of a response pattern shared by many. You may not have intended to bring race into the picture, but you did.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
People come in a limited range of shapes and colors. No all. How many purple people do you know? There's a reason the purple people eaters became extinct: no food.

The first Congress under the Constitution of the United States limited citizenship to "free white persons." In U.S. v Bhagat Singh Thind, the Supreme Court accepted the common understand ...[text shortened]... attern shared by many. You may not have intended to bring race into the picture, but you did.

I didn't bring it in, you did! Go back and review it! If I'm wrong and
I have been in the past I'll admit it.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I think a little bias revealing is going on from both of us, but I'll say
that I think your right in some of your points. So why did you interject
the "white man' comment into the discussion, being one does not add
too or take away from that?
Kelly

I have been attempting to explain that race is implicit, despite your intent, in the assertion:

Originally posted by KellyJay
This sounds more like a slam on western thinking ...

"Western thinking" refers to Western Europe, as well as ancient Greece and Rome, and is the source of the delusion called "whiteness". You are always already caught in this configuration despite your efforts to extricate yourself from it, or to pretend that you cannot see the epistemes from which your objection--a false criticism, as we've seen--originates.

I did not slam western thinking; nor did I slam whiteness. <--- that sentence is a pleonasm, saying the same thing twice.





I don't think you are wrong; rather you appear unaware of the implications of your statements. Thinking they originate in your own head, you are blind to the history of the conversation within which you find yourself, and within which you are repeating things that have been said frequently, and with nuances you profess to reject.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
I have been attempting to explain that race is implicit, despite your intent, in the assertion:

Originally posted by KellyJay
[b]This sounds more like a slam on western thinking ...

"Western thinking" refers to Western Europe, as well as ancient Greece and Rome, and is the source of the delusion called "whiteness". You are always already ca ...[text shortened]... e repeating things that have been said frequently, and with nuances you profess to reject.[/b]

For me, that still sound more like prejudce, it automatically assumes
that the foundation reasons behind my stance are purely linked to
the color of my skin. Math teachers repeat things they heard too due
to the soundness of the math, it isn't enough to reject something
simply because of color, the soundness of the statements must be
the only reasons for a rejection or you are prejudce.
Kelly