Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

452.0. "Essay on Blacks, Whites, Humans" by TNPUBS::PAINTER (we've got to live together) Fri May 08 1992 18:16

============================================================================

Permission granted by the author for circulation, provided the header
remains intact.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Copyright 1983 Richard L. Bradley (SWAM2::BRADLEY_RI)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


                         BLACKS, WHITES, HUMANS


                          by Richard L. Bradley


    The time has to come eliminate the usage of the words "black" and 
"white" as adjectives describing human beings.  This seemingly innocent 
usage of common terms dulls our perceptions and leads us to false 
judgments.  Black might be better, more up-to-date, than "Negro", but it 
too is dehumanizing, as is the term, "white".

Start with dictionary definitions:

    BLACK.  1a. of the color black.  1b. very dark in color.  1c. having a 
    very deep or low register.   1d. HEAVY, SERIOUS.   2a. having dark 
    skin, hair, and eyes: SWARTHY.  2b. of or relating to the Afro-American 
    people or culture, literature, theater, pride.  3. dressed in black.  
    4. dirty, soiled.  5a. characterized by the absence of light.  5b. 
    reflecting or transmitting little or no light.  5c. served without milk 
    or cream.  6a. thoroughly sinister or evil.  6b. indicative of 
    condemnation or discredit.  7. connected with or invoking the 
    supernatural and especially the devil.  8a. very sad, gloomy, or 
    calamitous.  8b. marked by the occurrence of disaster  9. characterized 
    by hostility or angry discontent.  10. (Chiefly British).  11. showing 
    a profit.  12a. of propaganda: conducted so as to appear to originate 
    within an enemy country and designed to weaken enemy morale-compare 
    WHITE.  12b. characterized by or connected with the use of black 
    propaganda.  13. characterized by grim, distorted, or grotesque satire.

    WHITE. 1a. free from color. 1b. of the color of new snow or milk. 1c. 
    light or pallid in color. 1d. lustrous pale gray.  2a. being a member 
    of a group or race characterized by reduced pigmentation and usually 
    specifically distinguished from persons belonging to groups marked by 
    black, brown, yellow, or red skin coloration.  2b. of, relating to, or 
    consisting of white people.  3c. SLANG: marked by upright fairness. 3. 
    free from spot or blemish.  4. wearing or habited in white.  6a. 
    ultraconservative or reactionary in political outlook and action.  7. 
    not featuring open warfare but involving oblique methods.

    These entries were taken from a 1979 edition of Webster's New Collegiate 
Dictionary.  The reader may note little that is surprising in those 
definitions.  Another entry in Websters' gives a even clearer indication of 
sources of the social and interpersonal harm engendered by usage of the 
words "black" and "white" as descriptions of Humans:

Bradley2


BLACK-AND-WHITE. 5a. sharply divided into good and evil groups, sides or 
ideas.  5b. evaluating or viewing things as either all good or all bad.

    The trouble lies not just in definition, but also in the connotative 
meanings of "black" and "white".  These shared meanings operate below the 
level of consciousness, providing the motivating force for our behavior.  
We, then, invent socially acceptable "reasons" for our actions so that we 
can manage our affairs with the least friction.  This rather complex 
passage from Joseph Chilton Pearce's EXPLORING THE CRACK IN THE  COSMIC 
EGG, gives a better explanation of my thesis:

    "Jerome Brunner spoke of our "representing reality to ourselves" 
verbally in order to make metaphoric mutations of our representations and 
so change aspects of that reality.  This is one of the uses of language 
and creative logic.  But, through acculturation, we don't employ language 
selectively--either as a tool for logic, or as communication.  When 
language becomes semantic, and takes on  negative and positive values 
beyond denotation, our homeostatic system reacts to the emotional 
undertones involved.  Then we act on tangible sensory data, as well as our 
abstract creations, through our culture's value system...We interact with 
a "mediated reality" and consider the artificial result our natural 
condition."

    Thus, we have intelligent, well-educated humans in this country 
declaring that there are, in fact, black and white people.  There is 
obvious confusion of the sociological definition denoted by those words, 
hue or color, and the wide variety of connotations alluded to above. One 
hears news reporters on television solemnly warning us of "a dangerous 
black fugitive from justice, lurking in our communities."  A moments' 
reflection will instantly inform any fully conscious person, that that is 
not information adequate to inform the police or innocent members of the 
community whom to arrest, or to avoid.  Nevertheless, the usage of black 
and white (as well as other depersonalizing terms) continues to deepen 
ethnic divisions, as most people, without awareness, sanctify these terms 
as actual descriptions of real people.

    This past weekend, July 16 and 17, 1983, a newscaster on KNBC 
television, in Los Angeles, solemnly announced that "a young woman's body 
was found in the hills; she was described as black."  How many anxious 
parents were discomfited by this off-hand "description"?




Bradley3
                                COLOR BLIND


    A July 18, 1983 issue of Time magazine carried an article entitled 
"COLOR BLIND" regarding a Louisiana woman, Susie Phipps, whose 
great-great-great-great grandmother was an 18th century slave.  Mrs. Phipps 
found out in 1977, when she applied for a passport, that her birth 
certificate called her "colored".  She claims she has always considered 
herself white.  She protested and sued the state, but was found to be 
non-white because of a law enacted in 1970.  The current Governor of 
Louisiana, David Treen, signed a bill repealing that law, which stipulated 
that a person is non-white if he/she has more than "one thirty-second Negro 
blood".  The new statute requires the state henceforth to accept the 
parent's designation of a child's race.  The change is not retroactive, 
however, so Mrs. Phipps remains a "white black woman" until disposition of 
her appeal this fall.  This is just a small sample of the absurdities we 
allow when we continue usage of presumably racial designations when 
referring to human beings.

    George Leonard, is his new book, THE END OF SEX writes: "The power of 
the abstracting, generalizing intellect is well established.  This mode of 
thought has helped us organize society, to control matter and energy, to 
create useful new fields of endeavor.  The flaws and dangers are perhaps 
less well understood...along the scale of cultural evolution, abstraction 
and generalization tend to precede territorial or ideological war and 
genocide.  That masterpiece of generalization, "The only good Indian is a 
dead Indian, was the creation of civilized men."

    What is needed, both in America and elsewhere is what Leonard calls 
Radical Repersonalization.  It means that both globally and in our most 
intimate personal relations we must, with fully conscious intention, make 
each person's FULL HUMANITY OUR FOCUS.  In order to do that,a necessary 
first step is to attend to our experience, in the moment, and to remove 
from our use abstract and depersonalizing terms that prevent such an 
experience.  Two of those terms are "black" and "white".

    The question arises, "Well, what do I call people; how do I describe 
them, now?"  My solution is simple; call them "Alex," or "Bob," or 
"Laurie," or "My Friend."  If it is necessary to describe someone not 
present, as for a blind date, describe their physiognomic features, i.e., 
size and shape of nose, color of eyes, texture, length, style of hair, mode 
of dress, speech, sound of voice, characteristic phraseology, 
idiosyncrasies, height, weight, education, cultural leaning, language, etc.  
It is perfectly reasonable to describe the actual hue of the person's 
skin--and I defy anyone to find any person who is the color of coal or the 
paper on which this article is printed.

    "Well, what about fighting racism, surely we'll need to refer to groups 
when engaged in those activities?" you may ask.  It is not essential to use 
the words "black" or "white" to conduct selective buying campaigns, or to 
insist that employers hire persons who have skins that are not colored a 
shade of pink, along with those whose skins are."


    "But aren't you making the freedom fighters who introduced "Black 
Pride" and the usage of "BLACK" instead of "Negro" or "nigger" wrong?  No, 
I am not.  I participated with Stokely Carmichael, now called "Kwame," in 
the civil rights struggles of the early '60's, when I attended Howard 
University.  He and others were responsible for the substitution of "black" 
for terms we found objectionable.  I supported this tactical maneuver, and 
I am pleased with many of the results which flowed from them.  But it is no 
longer necessary to prove that Afro-American people can govern cities, 
administer justice, program computers, manage companies, write books, 
magazines and newspapers, pilot airplanes, design new genetic structures, 
or assist in the cure of cancer.  It is perfectly plain that we can do all 
of this and more.  We need to insist that we have additional opportunities 
to do so. For those efforts, usage of the words "black" and "white" is now 
not only unnecessary, but counter-productive.

    "But everyone I know has been conditioned to use those words for many 
years--I can't stop them!"  No, you can't stop them--you can, however, say, 
when they describe someone as "black" or "white."  "You mean black like 
coal or white like plaster?" "Do you mean Caucasian, and if you do, does 
his or her 'race' add anything useful to this conversation?"  I contend 
that you will find that there is virtually never an essential reason to use 
a persons' presumed racial origin as an element of description that adds 
non-inflammatory meaning to the conversation.

    "What else can I do to repersonalize my relationships and help others 
do so, too?"  Write the station managers of major media outlets in your 
city: radio and television stations, magazines, newspapers.  Write or talk 
to speechmakers, teachers, authors, politicians--anyone whose 
pronouncements enter our nervous systems; they need to be reminded that 
their usage of depersonalizing words to describe human beings and human 
conduct is injurious to all.  Send color charts to television news 
departments for them to use when describing criminals who must be captured.  
Practice describing your friends to yourself, (in writing, too) without 
using abstract identifiers like race.  When you next spend time with loved 
ones, or anyone you might need to describe, mentally rehearse  
repersonalized descriptions of them.  You might find your relationships and 
your communication improving from the increase in repersonalization, the 
"I-Thouness" rather than the "I-Itness" of your association.

    These modest proposals will not, in themselves, solve the problem of 
racism.  Individual human beings will participate in its elimination 
through a wide variety of activities. Individuals like you.  You are the 
operator of your nervous system.  You can become conscious of, and have 
power over the way you communicate.  Accept your responsibility, direct 
your behavior, including your thoughts toward ends which improve the human 
condition, rather than those which perpetuate ancient and modern prejudices 
and hatreds which deter our progress toward a world free of the racist 
scourge.

                               BIBLIOGRAPHY


1.  Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, copyright 1979 by G. C. Merriam 
    Co.

2.  Exploring the Crack in the Cosmic Egg, Joseph Chilton Pearce.  Pocket 
    Books, a division of Simon & Schuster, Inc.  Originally, published by 
    Julian Press.  Page 46.

3.  The End of Sex, by George Leonard. J.P. Tarcher Inc. Page 100.

4.  The Silent Pulse, George Leonard.  E.P. Dutton, New York.  Chapter 11, 
    "Life Cannot Be Fooled."

5.  Neuro-Linguistic Programming, Volume 1, The Study of the Structure of 
    Subjective Experience by Robert Dilts, John Grinder, Richard Bandler, 
    Leslie C. Bandler, Judith De Lozier.  Meta Publications, 1980.  "The 
    map is not the territory".  page 3.

6.  Crisis in Black and White, by Charles E. Silberman.  A Vintage Book.

7.  Values Clarification:  A Handbook of Practical Strategies for Teachers 
    and Students, by Sidney B. Simon, Leland W. Howe, Howard Kirschenbaum.  
    A Hart Book, 1978.

Copyright 1983 Richard L. Bradley (SWAM2::BRADLEY_RI)

    Cindy,
    
    Thanks for entering Richard B's essay.  Not only is he a powerful
    writer, but one of my favorite people!!  8^)
    
    Roey
    
    P.S.  See you tomorrow!!
    

It was made public today that Blacks are turned downed for mortgages
twice as often as Whites even though their income levels were comparable.

Now, I'm certain that our Christian sense of justice wouldn't actually
prompt us to *do* anything about this.  After all, when you're leveling
the playing field, you might discriminate against the people who already
hold the advantage.  And that wouldn't be fair, now would it?

Richard

 >>         -< Christianity is about salvation, not justice!! >-
    
    Let's touch on this first.  The statement above is correct in a sense.
    Jesus did not concern himself in the affairs of the Roman Empire
    although he lived during times of high injustice.  His real mission was
    to seek and save that which was lost, namely, the souls of mankind.
    There is certainly a place for promoting fairness and justice, but
    this is secondary to the above.
    
 >>   It was made public today that Blacks are turned downed for mortgages
 >>   twice as often as Whites even though their income levels were
 >>   comparable.
    
    This is illegal at the federal level.  Richard, as a Christian, what
    would you recommend I do to help see the private sector not disobey 
    Federal equality guidelines?   Sounds like your saying that equality
    and justice cannot be mandated, it has to come from within each
    individual and has to be, as Patricia has stated, the sum of the whole.
    
    >>Now, I'm certain that our Christian sense of justice wouldn't actually
    >>prompt us to *do* anything about this.  After all, when you're leveling
    >>the playing field, you might discriminate against the people who
    >>already hold the advantage.  And that wouldn't be fair, now would it?
    
    Cynicism noted.  Glen Silva and I have bantered this about quite a bit.  
    It has been acknowleged that there is dicrimination...even after 25
    years, government manipulation has helped bring parity in the
    workplace, but only to a point.  But it still has very far to go in
    changing attitudes, which I don't believe it can.  Bigotry will always
    be out there.  
    All I can say on the "level playing field" issue is what I've stated
    before.  You talk about equity and fairness, okay, I'm for
    that...PROVIDED...
    
    1. You don't shell out unfairness to bring fairness to somebody else.
    2. You don't discriminate against somebody to discriminate for somebody
       else.. (which is impossible)
    3. No handouts...no gimme's....standards must be met.
    
    Now, regarding the article.  Cindy brought forth an excellent point.  I
    HAVE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG that labels propogate discrimination.  This
    is why I detest AA laws as an example.  You classify one group, you
    separate them and hence discrimination or ill feelings are created.
    Government has actually kept discrimination alive and well in this
    country.
    
    There is no black or white.  There is only Alex, Cyndi, whomever!!
    
    -Jack
    

    Coming from you Richard, I suspect once again a mode of cynicism.  
    It was quite scholarly thank you!!
    
    -Jack

.5

Actually, Jack, .4 (now deleted) was sarcasm, not cynicism.

Since apparently no one else is interested in the issue, I have decided against
countering the comments presented in .3.  Since I already know the outcome
of such a refutation, I see no purpose in pursuing it -- At least, not at this
time.

Shalom,
Richard

    No problem...I was just responding to the base notes and your .3.  
    As long as it is clear that government mandates under what I stated are
    the height of hypocrisy!!  And quite unchristian to boot!!
    
    -Jack

re Note 452.3 by AIMHI::JMARTIN:

>     All I can say on the "level playing field" issue is what I've stated
>     before.  You talk about equity and fairness, okay, I'm for
>     that...PROVIDED...
>     
>     1. You don't shell out unfairness to bring fairness to somebody else.
>     2. You don't discriminate against somebody to discriminate for somebody
>        else.. (which is impossible)
>     3. No handouts...no gimme's....standards must be met.
>     
>     Now, regarding the article.  Cindy brought forth an excellent point.  I
>     HAVE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG that labels propogate discrimination.  This
>     is why I detest AA laws as an example.  

        I too would detest them if I thought that AA laws
        *introduced* labels and discrimination into a system which
        otherwise wouldn't have labels and discrimination.

        But that is not the case.

        I'm sure you see this differently, but it is clear to me that
        it is possible to have a society which is so unfair to
        members of certain classes that measures to counter-bias the
        situation can be justified.

        It is also clear to me that mere measures to outlaw certain
        types of discrimination can and do have, as one of their
        effects, the encouragement of informal quotas (i.e., even if
        AA didn't exist, most responsible employers would consider
        the mix of their employees and would allow that to influence
        their selection among otherwise qualified candidates).

        So, do we do nothing?  If the alternative to informal (and,
        in some cases, formal) quotas is the wholesale and blatant
        discrimination in employment, housing, and education which
        existed before the '60s, then I'd be all for quotas.

        We must distinguish between some discrimination and
        widespread discrimination, of course.  When only an
        occasional employer discriminates against black women, white
        males, or any other "class" then the situation may not call
        for strong measures -- the applicants can always go to
        another opportunity.  When discrimination is widespread, that
        is no longer the case -- there may be no other available
        opportunity.

        To me it does not seem that long ago that many in this
        country faced not just occasional, but widespread
        discrimination.  I'm not willing to say that the battle
        against discrimination is over and the "weapons" of law can
        be laid down any more than I'm willing to agree that the
        battle against Saddam Hussein has been won once and for all.

        Bob

Note 452.3

>            -< Christianity is about salvation, not justice!! >-
   
>    Let's touch on this first.  The statement above is correct in a sense.
>    Jesus did not concern himself in the affairs of the Roman Empire
>    although he lived during times of high injustice.

You're right in a sense.  Jesus wasn't the water commissioner.  But neither
was John Woolman, M. L. King or Philip Berrigan.  Perhaps you don't agree,
but these are servants of the God of justice.

When I speak of justice, I'm not necessarily talking about legislation
or the government.  You apparently are having a hard time making the
distinction.

>    His real mission was
>    to seek and save that which was lost, namely, the souls of mankind.

Hmmm...I read the same Bible and I somehow get teaching, preaching and
healing as a major part of his mission.  Probably just more secondary stuff
from the fundamentalist perspective, eh?

  Matthew 4:23  And Jesus went about all Galilee, *teaching* in their
  synagogues, and *preaching* the gospel of the kingdom, and
  *healing* all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among
  the people.

  Matthew 9:35  And Jesus went about all the cities and villages,
  *teaching* in their synagogues, and *preaching* the gospel of the
  kingdom, and *healing* every sickness and every disease among the
  people.

Perhaps we could agree that Jesus' teachings were at least semi-important?
    
> >>   It was made public today that Blacks are turned downed for mortgages
> >>   twice as often as Whites even though their income levels were
> >>   comparable.
    
>    This is illegal at the federal level.

Yes, it is.

>    Now, regarding the article.  Cindy brought forth an excellent point.

Wake up, Jack.  452.0 was a piece written by a black Unitarian named
Richard Bradley, and entered May 8, 1992, by Cindy Painter, who doesn't note
here anymore.                       ^^^^

Richard

    .7
    
    I used to believe that Christian moral teaching was not based in
    self-interest.  Obviously, that is not universally so.
    
    :-(
    
    Richard
    

 Wake up Jack?????  Gee Richard, you forgot the smiley face!
    
 >>   Hmmm...I read the same Bible and I somehow get teaching, preaching and
 >>   healing as a major part of his mission.  Probably just more secondary
 >>   stuff from the fundamentalist perspective, eh?
    
    No doubt.  Those were all vital methods of revealing who he was.  They
    were most important.  Remember, the teaching and preaching were only
    the vehicles used to accomplish His purpose...which is to seek and to
    save that which was lost.  
    
    -Jack
    
          

   >>     I used to believe that Christian moral teaching was not based in
   >>     self-interest.  Obviously, that is not universally so.
    
    Richard, you aren't grasping it.  You can't force a society to not have
    self interest anymore than you can force somebody to tithe.  Compassion
    and love have to be drawn by personal conviction, not by federal
    mandate.  For God sakes man haven't you learned anything from
    situations like Yugoslavia?  The communists forced two factions to live
    together and once that force was lifted....bloody war!  
    
    -Jack

	Jack, what you say is true, you can't force anyone into anything, but
for protection purposes, fairness purposes, sometimes you do need to federally
madate stuff. It's more for protection of those people who could be afflicted
by those with self interests. Does this make sense?

  >>  Jack, what you say is true, you can't force anyone into anything, but
  >>  for protection purposes, fairness purposes, sometimes you do need to
  >>  federally madate stuff. It's more for protection of those people who
  >>  could be afflicted by those with self interests. Does this make sense?
    
    It only makes sense if you are willing to maintain the labels, which is 
    the subject of the basenote.  The mandates are always going to
    victimize somebody regardless of their intent.  I believe some of the
    mandates were beneficial as they helped to break down some of the
    social barriers that cause division in a society.  I believe there are
    other mandates which do nothing more than promote class warfare and
    place labels on specific individuals...something I feel the writer of
    the article in .0 would be against...I don't care what race or church
    he is from.
    
    Now let me ask you a question Glen.  Doesn't it seem a trifle odd that
    the powers who pour this compassion on the masses for some reason don't
    feel they are worthy of following the same standards?  Not just AA but
    alot of other laws as well.  I mean...what a slap on the face to women
    and minorities throughout the country!!!
    
    -Jack

re Note 452.14 by AIMHI::JMARTIN:

>     Now let me ask you a question Glen.  Doesn't it seem a trifle odd that
>     the powers who pour this compassion on the masses for some reason don't
>     feel they are worthy of following the same standards?  Not just AA but
>     alot of other laws as well.  

        As you should be aware, there are a number of very basic
        constitutional reasons why many laws can't effectively apply
        to the congress as a body (in particular, separation of
        powers).

        Bob

| <<< Note 452.14 by AIMHI::JMARTIN "Barney IS NOT a nerd!!" >>>




| Now let me ask you a question Glen.  Doesn't it seem a trifle odd that
| the powers who pour this compassion on the masses for some reason don't
| feel they are worthy of following the same standards?  Not just AA but
| alot of other laws as well.  I mean...what a slap on the face to women
| and minorities throughout the country!!!

	Jack, I guess if there weren't loopholes in the origional laws, then
you would be right. But the loopholes are there, and they really are based on
perceptions, bigotry, misunderstandings, etc. It's like if someone was drinking
and driving, they hit and kill someone. They find a good lawyer, and he finds a
loophole in the law. We then close that loophole. Isn't that what was done with
these other laws?



Glen