Ending the Myth of Racism

Uzima Moto wrote: It seems there's a lot to unwrap here. I didn't watch the videos, but I think I might get the gist of some of the argument here. I also so saw some.. discrepancies.. when it came to recounting history..

I'll address the main myth first. Racism is real, systemic racism is illegal.

please note that in the OP I said this...

note: Myth of Racism in this context means the existence of different "races"

The idea of races was invented. But we keep telling ourselves that we're so different but in reality we are the same and often don't get close enough to truly see the similarities

Uzima Moto wrote: However, its not unique to America. It was a common practice during the European Colonial Era. Started by the Spaniards and Portuguese. Europe was a late player in the International Slave Trade. Only thing special about them was being able to make it transoceanic. The Slave Trade between Africa and India, by way of Arabia, was just as brutal and precedes Europe by 600 years at least. You have to put these things in their proper historical context because popular opinion often gets it wrong. The West is HIGHLY propagandized, systemically.. as all de facto governments practice it. Even on their own employees.. Willie Lynch is believed to be a hoax for some seemingly legitimate reasons..

We can talk about slavery in other countries if you wish. I'm sure I'd learn something. However, right now we're discussing racism. I don't mean to be dismissive but let's say we were having a discussion about equal pay for women. Talking about how women were treated in other societies has what to do with equal treatment in the present? And I'm sorry to bring this up as an example but it seems like racism is one of very few issues where it seems permissible to look for all these other historic reference and what-abouts and such instead of simply everyone speaking out against racism and the idea that different races of man exist. It is our collective imagination. People don't even know how to respond and I blame absolutely no one for that. But it is the reason why these conversations should be had; so that one day we can all talk about it without discomfort or defensiveness. And I could argue about slavery vs indentured servitude but how does that have anything to do with every one of us in modern times (its almost 2020 which is what our hindsight of racism in the US should be) treating each other like we're civilized?

Uzima Moto wrote: We have to be REALLY careful about info and disinfo in Popular Culture. Because it will have us acting against reality, but, like God (The Force) our actions aren't without affect. As we would undoubtedly change aspects of reality itself.. including causing civil unrest given the right spark.. unlawful wars have been supported by propaganda. Assassinations covered up, and false flags ignored. It's so deep in American society that "Americans" don't realize that their States are Nations.. because "States" are nations by definition in law. Which is bigger than one might think...

Instead of being an African American.. I'm Texan American.. or someone else could be Georgian American.. so on and so forth.. this has big societal ramifications, but HUGE legal ones..

Babies on Bayonets is a good historical example of what propaganda could lead to..

Not entirely sure where you're going with the whole propaganda angle. Are you asking black people to give up their racial/ethnic identity? Why do black people need to do this in response to what other people are doing to them? If it was proven to be more effective should black people bleach their skin in response to racism? Why should black people change a single thing in order to receive better treatment, higher level of tolerance, etc?

When I was in middle school, going into high school, I didn't understand all these things or my own history. So for a time I said to myself, I'm not black. I'm brown. True statement though it is, being black is a shared identity based on a shared experience that also grew into its own culture. I call myself black now, not because whites call us that, but because of a shared connection with everyone who comes from the same story. Something positive to take from the brief life story shared by VV is not to forget where you came from. That story is part of you. VV had pride that could only come from overcoming those obstacles in life. Slave owners tried to strip away everything African from their slaves. We weren't allowed to speak our native languages and to this day cannot easily connect with Africans. Our histories and stories, much of it, was washed away. Likewise, with the Trail of Tears, this was also done to a degree to native Americans. So I refuse to believe that the answer is for the oppressed to willingly give up their unique identity and be assimilated; especially when the reaction to integration has been so sharply met with aggression and violence. So again, why should black people need or should want to do ANYTHING in the quest to end racism?

I actually think Star Trek nailed it when they told the story of the Borg Collective. The Borg were supposed to be these logical machines but they seemed to hate the idea of difference and individuality. They couldn't accept it and were intolerant to the point of violence and aggression. They felt justified as if they were "saving" people by assimilating them. But were they? What were they becoming? Why would anyone want to be a killer race of robotic people with nothing really to talk about because they all shared the same mind? What art did they have? What music? They didn't even realize how impoverished they were by lacking these things. Other cultures add a wealth of new sights, sounds, food, music, style, competition, stories, etc. In America one of the easiest to find foods are called "French Fries". We'll eat Italian one day and Mexican or Asian the next. The solution is not less culture or less identification of ethnic origin. It's more.

ZealotX wrote:

Phoenix Vidensia wrote: ZealotX, since you’re still on about racism, please cease to continuously highlight white supremacy, seemingly ignoring racism against whites by your beloved minorities. Heck, you’re ignoring the racism between the minorities. It’s irritating.

Are you trying to bait me? If so, you should save your energy. It wont work.

saying "my beloved minorities" makes it sound like you don't exactly love minorities. I'm sorry if that's how you feel. You might be a cool person but without knowing you I would be losing out.

I have enough resistance trying to argue that racism exists. You seem to be trying to argue that reverse racism exists and should not be ignored. I'm sorry you feel that way. I'm sorry you believe that I am ignoring some form of racism that means something to you. I'm sorry if you feel disenfranchised and/or oppressed by black people. Please feel free to share your story of racial oppression.

The reason I don't talk about "reverse racism" is because I don't use any definition of the word that makes it "reversible" the way you describe. Reactions to racism are not "reverse racism". If I purposefully step on your shoe and you get mad, you are entitled to get mad. Getting mad isn't "reverse shoe stepping". You can step on my shoe in return but you'd have to be in a position to be able to step on my shoe.

What makes racism "a thing" is the fact that racists occupy a dominant position and are therefore able to use their power to oppress people in an inferior position. A lot of people ascribe racism to a view that one's race is superior however, the entire idea of race was invented by whites. We all came from Africa. We all have the same ancestors. There are people who are bigots. Bigotry knows no color or gender. Everyone can play the "I'm better than you" game. However, that's not what I mean when I talk about racism. Now if you can't get a job because black people wont hire you then please tell that story. That would be an amazing case of reverse racism. But if you can get a job more easily than the person who hired someone else... I don't consider that racism or just cause to even complain.

Racism is different from racist jokes or attitudes. It's different from dating preference and attraction. Racism is something that has a negative impact on that other person and helps to determine their future. Racism does not prevent a more desirable future, but rather affects the probability of more desirable outcomes in a number of areas in which success can be measured. Racism is similar to an actual race where some of the other runners have a head start and have no interest in letting you catch up. Instead, they want you to stay in your lane. But again, if you have evidence of racism you'd like to share feel free. This forum is not about me making everyone's arguments for them. I'm mainly responding to questions and arguments posed to me. But I do appreciate you being here and taking part in the discussion.

The... hell? Reverse racism? Look, if someone is racist, that’s that. Not just white people can be racist. ANYONE can be racist. Why the crap is this even up for debate? I wasn’t referencing people who REACT to being treated poorly for their skin color either, I was referring to non white racists. Good God!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8ysHnbDQ50

Phoenix Vidensia wrote: The... hell? Reverse racism? Look, if someone is racist, that’s that. Not just white people can be racist. ANYONE can be racist. Why the crap is this even up for debate? I wasn’t referencing people who REACT to being treated poorly for their skin color either, I was referring to non white racists. Good God!

Again... it depends on your DEFINITION of "racism". Your definition may be more along the lines of racial PREJUDICE. That's FINE. But it's NOT the definition I'M using in MY thread. So if you're taking offense based on your own definition then that's on you. I don't really have any responsibility to your definition. Someone else asked about definitions to make sure he had the right context. I would recommend reading his post and our responses to each other. Otherwise, if you have no interest in how other people define racism you're probably not going to like this this thread.

And that's okay. But I don't want to debate your expectations.

ZealotX wrote:

Phoenix Vidensia wrote: The... hell? Reverse racism? Look, if someone is racist, that’s that. Not just white people can be racist. ANYONE can be racist. Why the crap is this even up for debate? I wasn’t referencing people who REACT to being treated poorly for their skin color either, I was referring to non white racists. Good God!

Again... it depends on your DEFINITION of "racism". Your definition may be more along the lines of racial PREJUDICE. That's FINE. But it's NOT the definition I'M using in MY thread. So if you're taking offense based on your own definition then that's on you. I don't really have any responsibility to your definition. Someone else asked about definitions to make sure he had the right context. I would recommend reading his post and our responses to each other. Otherwise, if you have no interest in how other people define racism you're probably not going to like this this thread.

And that's okay. But I don't want to debate your expectations.

It’s a word in the English dictionary. Why don’t we go by THAT definition? Just a thought...

Phoenix Vidensia wrote:
It’s a word in the English dictionary. Why don’t we go by THAT definition? Just a thought...

I don't presume to tell you which definition you should use. I never precluded you in any way nor disabused you of using that definition. As for myself I find that definition wanting and prefer the definition of racism(white supremacy) by Dr. Frances Cress Welsing. Again, you are free to use whichever definition you want. I'm not saying you're wrong. I simply don't have to agree or limit myself to anyone's understanding; especially not the most accepted view of the masses (majority white). I have my reasons for this as I'm sure you have yours. I respect both.

ZealotX wrote:

Phoenix Vidensia wrote:
It’s a word in the English dictionary. Why don’t we go by THAT definition? Just a thought...

I don't presume to tell you which definition you should use. I never precluded you in any way nor disabused you of using that definition. As for myself I find that definition wanting and prefer the definition of racism(white supremacy) by Dr. Frances Cress Welsing. Again, you are free to use whichever definition you want. I'm not saying you're wrong. I simply don't have to agree or limit myself to anyone's understanding; especially not the most accepted view of the masses (majority white). I have my reasons for this as I'm sure you have yours. I respect both.

Only white people can be racist... got it. :blink:

You brought up the history. It just wasn't accurate.. neither is the idea that discrimination causes the "gender pay gap".. but that's what propaganda does.. twists the definition of reality to obtain a desired result.. I never said get rid of your cultural identity, but you have to stop "group thinking" in order to understand my perspective..

Because institutionalized racism is illegal in America and has never been a federal policy. The US Constitution didn't make blacks slaves by law, nor did it call us 3/5ths a person. It only acknowledges slavery's existence and allowed foreign slave trade until 1808. That's what happens when several COUNTRIES ratify a treaty of Union, compromise.. but that was the "Old Republic" era.. the Empire of DC oppresses All now, equally under the law of course lol which is why nobody is called a Texan or Georgian by law.. we're all "Americans" now

You're not using your own definition of racism though.. I've heard it before, repeated numerous times actually. The whole "black people can't be racist because it takes power to be racist" which is demonstrably false. Anybody can be racist. I know some racist black folks. Give them the power and they'd be just as oppressive.. Propagandizing history was a huge part of that negative thinking.. That's the reality of the dark side I guess though..

"It's such a quite thing, to fall.. but far more terrible, is to admit it" truer words have hardly been spoken..

One cannot equivocate an individual with a group to transfer blame from others from that group onto that individual, just by virtue of that person being of that group..... that is discrimination pure and simple. Doesnt matter jf the person doing it is an actual victim from those at faultor not! It's even worse when the attribute of group is not one of choice but birth, crikey........ these novel constructs of justifying rascism emerging from some parts of the African-American community seems a little bit of history repeating itself. Familiar cuts of cloth, just different colors of fabric. Shame to see so much sacrifice and struggle twisted into spreading hate.

You brought up the history. It just wasn't accurate..

You'd have to be a tad more specific. What history did I bring up? And how was it inaccurate?

neither is the idea that discrimination causes the "gender pay gap"

what I said was...

but let's say we were having a discussion about equal pay for women. Talking about how women were treated in other societies has what to do with equal treatment in the present?

your response made me have to go back and look at what I said because I'm not sure how this response led to that. Can you act like I just asked the question again and provide a clear answer? The point was that shifting past blame doesn't negate what's happening in the present. As far as the gender pay gap not being caused by discrimination, if you mean discrimination isn't the sole cause then yes I'd agree. Just like discrimination has never been the singular sole cause of black unemployment. However it is 'a' cause.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap

The reasons for lower pay include both individual choice and other innate and external factors. An example of a voluntary choice is choosing to work part-time when full-time employment is available. An example of an involuntary choice is working a low-skill job because of an inability to access higher education. An example of an external factor is discrimination.

and if you direct your attention to the right column of the page you'll see it is "Part of a series on Discrimination"

you've used this 'information' as an example of propaganda. However, in this instance you seem to be incorrect so is it possible that some things you have accepted as "propaganda" are actually true? Because if it's true then it isn't "bending reality" as you put it. But if you are convinced by "alternative facts" (alternate propaganda) then you might believe reality isn't real and become biased against facts, regarding them as propaganda. I'd like to reiterate I'm not saying this is true in your case. I'm merely pointing at the possibility that you could be wrong, just as the possibility exists that I could be wrong.

I never said get rid of your cultural identity,

Sorry, but that's how I interpreted you saying that you didn't identify as African American. If you say Texan American that reflects state pride and that's fine for you but although I was born in Ohio and am an "Ohioan", that's not my ethnic origin and usually words like "Italian American, Mexican American, African American, like French Canadian, signify an origin beyond and outside of North America (or Canada). I see no reason to change any of these. If you're Texan... you're American. So, not to be critical, but it seems a little redundant. If you say you're Texan everyone knows you're American because you can't be Texan without being American. I'm also Jamaican American on my father's side. The American part is what unites us all. If people feel divided because of the prefix then that would seem to be their problem, not mine. I love all types of Americans because it's the diversity that makes us stronger.

but you have to stop "group thinking" in order to understand my perspective.

Ouch. So now you're assuming that I'm group thinking.... not that its possible that certain opinions in the black community are shared because they are based on valid observations that we come to independent of each other. And that some people may not arrive at those same opinions. Does that make everyone else automatically some kind of monolithic borg collective?

Because institutionalized racism is illegal in America and has never been a federal policy.

okay? You're just not explaining to me why Federal law or policy should shape any discussion on racism and white supremacy. White supremacists don't really abide by the law at all times. That's why they wear hoods. Lynching was never legal. Of course if you can change policy to allow things like voter suppression then that does make racism legal in that particular instance. Black voters aren't suppressed because it is antithetical to the black agenda... obviously... so who's agenda then? If its purely about conservative values isn't one of those values to be conserved "democracy"? And how do you have democracy if at any time you can say who the mob is to who gets to rule and make it not about numbers? And sure you could argue that voter suppression isn't a policy. However redistricting is and there is no law to prevent doing so based on where African Americans are concentrated. Why not? Who would vote against such an attempt at improving equality?

There is also policy on drugs that treated cocaine differently from crack. Is there some significant reason for this, other than targeting minorities? And come on... we even have admissions that the drug policies were specifically aimed at the black community that go all the way up to the white house. So if you're looking for some "central master policy" okay... you got me. There isn't ONE. Rather there are "policies", plural, that targeted African Americans. Not to mention... you do have to understand federalism vs states rights which I'm sure you do. There was no federal law which prevented the Jim Crow laws at the state level. Remember that Slavery was more so about economics in the South. So by the time there was a "United States" we were too divided on the issue for there to be a federal policy in support of racism. Instead, what you have is the federal government not preventing STATE and LOCAL governments from such things as Jim Crow, segregation, etc. It was largely a state issue and if blacks couldn't get out of those states then... oh well?

In 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act, which legally ended discrimination and segregation that had been institutionalized by Jim Crow laws. And in 1965, the Voting Rights Act ended efforts to keep minorities from voting.

so basically these things were legally done previously to the extent that the federal government had to get involved. But this didn't happen until the mid 60s. I was born in 1979. So yeah... to me that wasn't that long ago; not to mention my mother was from Mobile Alabama.

Anybody can be racist. I know some racist black folks. Give them the power and they'd be just as oppressive..

Umm.... So... they don't have power then. So when you say anyone "can be" racist you can't really say you know racists if they don't have the power to oppress. You're saying they are something based on an assumption of what they'd do if they had power. But you say they don't have power. So how can they presently be the thing that takes power to be? But even if they had power. Let's say they were circuit court judges. Whites could appeal on such a basis. Let's say black officer shoots a white person because for some reason they were more afraid of their lives because of that person being white. Let's pretend that happened. What are the chances the case would then go to one of the racist black folk you know and how many of them would have to be in the judicial system for the family of that victim to receive justice? What are the chances that an all black jury would be selected to protect the police officer?

Racism and white supremacy isn't an individual sport. So the idea that black people can determine the future or be in the position to deal out "prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control." maybe something your friends may fantasize about but simply do not have. You can't oppress or control people without the power to do so. Now if you want to say everyone can be racist by a definition of racist that is more like bigotry or discrimination or prejudice or something like that, I don't have a problem with that. Like I said before, I'm not calling the normal definition wrong for those who wish to use it. However, again, for me, that definition is lacking and doesn't capture the full context of "racism/white supremacy". So that's why **I**, while not forcing anyone else to use it, use a different definition. Someone wanted to argue with me based on the definition THEY were using and while true for THAT definition, as I said, is not true for the definition I am using and have used in this thread.

Propagandizing history was a huge part of that negative thinking

There is some truth to that, but if the truth was taught in school propaganda of this sort wouldn't be nearly as effective. People who are lied to are going to be hungry for truth and may not filter it because the lie was prevailing. Similar to distrust in government produces conspiracy theories. Many people are prone to one or more of them because they distrust the government. And while we can blame the individual the government does conceal information and operate outside the wishes of the majority of its citizens to serve private interests. So what are people supposed to think about that? Positive thoughts? Trump simply harnessed the negative thinking of everyone who distrusted the government, was worried about their jobs and money, and yes some who are racists and hated having a black president.

Phoenix Vidensia wrote: The... hell? Reverse racism? Look, if someone is racist, that’s that. Not just white people can be racist. ANYONE can be racist. Why the crap is this even up for debate? I wasn’t referencing people who REACT to being treated poorly for their skin color either, I was referring to non white racists. Good God!

Once again, it depends on the definition you are using. And no I'm not debating it. I already told you that you can use whatever definition you want. You're trying to argue about what definition **I** should use in MY thread. Participation in this thread is entirely voluntary. No "reverse slavery" going on here If you want to talk about black people start a new thread and talk about black people to your heart's content. But it's not my job to use your definition to talk about black people when I'm not using your definition in which everyone can be racists. Nor do I want to confuse what I am talking about by bringing it down to the level of simplistic hate and animosity. Because that feeds on itself. As long as you have whites who hate blacks you're naturally going to have blacks that hate whites. What do you expect? That the objects of 400 years of hate, ridicule, and oppression are going to sing cum by yah at it all and have no negative feelings whatsoever? Hatred begets hatred. These things are obvious and don't need to be debated. If you want to scold black people for having a reaction to racism, slavery, oppression, being called the n-word and other racial epithets, and having lives and economics disrupted, you can go right ahead... and start your own thread. This thread isn't for that or about that.

Somebody will always find an excuse to complain. First blacks and Hispanics complain they are discriminated against because they are not featured in advertising. So the advertisers target those markets on Hispanic and Black TV and they hire more and more black actors and Hispanics for commercials.

So guess what, now the black and Hispanics are complaining that they are being unfairly targeted disproportionately for junk food ads.

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/junk-food-ads-disproportionately-target-black-hispanic-kids-study-finds-n959111

Until people stop complaining and actually accept what they deserve this argument will never get any better. Racism does not need power, it needs attitude only. Systematic racism requires group policy, individual racism only requires individual point of view. Without this racial group policy, the black shop owner not hiring whites is just as powerful as the white shop owner not hiring blacks. Everyone needs to get over this pity party of how badly history has treated their kind because if it continues like this, no one realizes how bad it can actually get.

WOW

VixensVengeance wrote: Somebody will always find an excuse to complain. First blacks and Hispanics complain they are discriminated against because they are not featured in advertising. So the advertisers target those markets on Hispanic and Black TV and they hire more and more black actors and Hispanics for commercials.

So guess what, now the black and Hispanics are complaining that they are being unfairly targeted disproportionately for junk food ads.

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/junk-food-ads-disproportionately-target-black-hispanic-kids-study-finds-n959111

Until people stop complaining and actually accept what they deserve this argument will never get any better. Racism does not need power, it needs attitude only. Systematic racism requires group policy, individual racism only requires individual point of view. Without this racial group policy, the black shop owner not hiring whites is just as powerful as the white shop owner not hiring blacks. Everyone needs to get over this pity party of how badly history has treated their kind because if it continues like this, no one realizes how bad it can actually get.

so, black people should be the ones to ignore the fact that they're less likely to get jobs and the very few black owned businesses that can afford to hire anyone at all should be treated the same as the myriad of white owned businesses that either do not hire blacks or hire 1. How about you get the main people who are doing the discrimination to stop first and let's just see how many on the other side still have a problem. I think we're disagreeing mainly because where you are trying to equivocate I see cause and effect. If you don't like the effect you have to control the cause.

Racism doesn't require a group policy, just a shared set of views or ideology. The same is true of the fact that there are many Christian churches of different denominations and yet they vote together on shared values. They are unorganized and their pastor only has to reinforce the ideals without telling them exactly who and how to vote. That's power. Influence is power. So let's not pretend that it isn't. Let's not pretend that a group of people acting on the same worldview cannot, together, effect the lives of another group of people. I love the whole "Get over it argument" but you we can walk and chew gum at the same time. No one is sitting at home crying about how they can't get a job because of "the man". But while we work on a personal level to advance our own individual lives and families, we still feel the pain of the larger community. The leads to activism and conversations about race.

I personally, am doing well. So what is your argument? That I'm complaining instead of.... what exactly?

It seems more like certain people would rather not be part of the discussion. But the answer to that is not to bash the discussion and COMPLAIN (because that's what... it is...) about what is "perceived" as complaining. Rather ironic, I think.

Its not an argument, its an observation. You see the world a specific way and you know how I feel about things because we have discussed it in PM.

You see an unfairness in things. Well the reality is that things will always be unfair. life is inherently unfair. You see that unfairness manifested in a specific way in this case but the problem is you are waiting for or demanding the other guy make the change. You want him to give up power freely but that will never happen.

Do you want that same sort of power? Do you want his power to do with what you feel is right? Then you must take it! It will never be given to you. You can sit and complain or you can do something about it. My observation is an insight into a personal quandary. Are you a complainer or a person of action? You see the wrong in the world but do you have the guts to go out and change it?

You see that power in another and you want it. So what are you going to do about it? How far are you willing to go to get what you want?

Well, complaints are taken pretty seriously in the business world. At work we are told we are not finished until the customer is satisfied. Many times I have had to reprint entire runs simply because they did not like the color. That was a complaint. It got something done. Are you saying force is the only acceptable method to attainment?

VixensVengeance wrote: Its not an argument, its an observation. You see the world a specific way and you know how I feel about things because we have discussed it in PM.

You see an unfairness in things. Well the reality is that things will always be unfair. life is inherently unfair. You see that unfairness manifested in a specific way in this case but the problem is you are waiting for or demanding the other guy make the change. You want him to give up power freely but that will never happen.

Do you want that same sort of power? Do you want his power to do with what you feel is right? Then you must take it! It will never be given to you. You can sit and complain or you can do something about it. My observation is an insight into a personal quandary. Are you a complainer or a person of action? You see the wrong in the world but do you have the guts to go out and change it?

You see that power in another and you want it. So what are you going to do about it? How far are you willing to go to get what you want?

rugadd made a good point which I will now shamelessly steal. Thanks.

I also work at a company where complaints are taken seriously but I'll go one better. The bigger the client is the more the request is taken seriously and the more likely the customer is to get satisfaction. Politics largely works via exactly that. Complaining. However, the term is "lobbying". You can call up your representative and... "lobby" for issues that are important to you. However, other people are lobbying too and some contribute to that reps re-election fund. If what you want doesn't have a lot of opposition its more likely to be taken seriously. If you are seen as an important client you're more likely to be heard. Why are some candidates now talking about reparations? An effort to secure the black vote. Democrats may have taken black voters for granted but since Hillary lost they know they need us to win.

So certain things, yes, complaints actually do work. But again, like we've discussed, I believe in walking and chewing gum at the same time. I believe we need a multi-pronged approach. I have never suggested black people do ONE thing or NOTHING and wait for white people to stop hating us. Nor do I think I can convince people who hate us to stop. They'll probably just hate me personally for bringing it up. There are things black people are doing and need to do more of. There are things that white people are (already) doing and need to do more of. You have a noble warrior spirit, if I may say that. You don't want your victory to have anything to do with your opponent conceding. However, as I talk about racism one should understand that it is a complex thing which also uses isolation and indoctrination within that isolation in order to foment and cultivate racist ideologies. As long as those being indoctrinated and being influenced by propaganda are keeping to themselves and circles where they are more likely to stay in their protective bubbles the more these ideologies will prevail because they are programmed into people. Even if you preach about love and tolerance it doesn't work without the definition "who is my neighbor". You can't fight propaganda with your fists. You have to counter propaganda intellectually with your voice. As it has been said...

The pen is mightier than the sword. Look at the SW Sith for example. The rule of 2 was a departure from the brute force methodology in favor of manipulation and cunning. This proved to be a far more formidable weapon. Palpatine didn't take power by force. It was given because people always give their power. And what was his argument? What did he use? Did he not use the treatment of Naboo and the passionate speech by its queen on behalf of her people? But again, that's politics. We have to develop our own economic solutions but also our own political solutions. They are both valid and both things that should be done simultaneously to support each other. Some people fight in the courts. Some people protest. Some people become lawyers and judges, seeking positions of power. Some people call and write their members of congress. Many people vote whenever they get the chance. Some people debate. Some people become principles and takeover schools. Some people give talks. Some people provide racial sensitivity training to Starbucks and other companies. Some people write books. Some people make movies. Some people get into community organizing and activism. Some people run for public office. This one black guy even became president of the United States. The point is... there isn't one solution or one idea. You have to do EVERYTHING you can if you want to fight for equal rights and justice. And the more people you have fighting THEIR good fight and using whatever skills and talents they have towards this purpose the more effective the COLLECTIVE is against the thing we're fighting against. An individual will always be viewed as powerless against the many. But the efforts of racists are not individual. They are simply individual parts of a mostly disorganized whole. To fight against that you have to be an individual part of a more powerful coalition.

The complaint got nothing done. It was the threat of not getting paid or the potential promise of no repeat business that got something done. And I never said anything about force anywhere in my comments. However in the case of Palpatine, he did not seize power by force but he definitely held onto that power by force.

I could give or take the business...there is always more if you know how to market. My motivation, every time, was to see them smile and be happy. That is not the same thing as being afraid of their discontent. I love my job because of that. You assume alot to think fear is the motivator.

You continue to put words in my mouth. Once again, I never said anything about fear. I choose my words quite carefully and I would appreciate it if you would heed that.

And what if they made a request that was unreasonable? Would your motivation still be one to make them smile and happy or would your motivation become one to preserve your business and its profits? Say they demanded to only pay 100 bucks for a 1000 dollar job because thats what they felt it was worth?