Is Trumps Boarder Wall Antithetical To Jedi Doctrine?

When I was a kid the PC message was for white people to stop seeing black people as black and just see them as people. The goal post has changed in this generation and unfortunately, not everyone has caught up to it. Please try to understand that when white people talk about not seeing color it is coming from a place of trying to be on black people’s side.

Temple challenge from Pastor Carlos


I’ve since long stopped using color to describe people. It changed a lot for me. It continues - which is proof for me to continue and encourage others to as well- it’s a challenge worth trying.

Feel free to shoot me the bird or a pm or both. Love ya Temple.

Feel free to ignore this post as well.

KerouacsGhost wrote: If you are arguing against the notion that white supremacy and racism were not only a foundational element of the society in which we now live but also that the power structures maintained by race have material consequences and therefore measurable empirical bodies of evidence to support these claims, then you are arguing against CRT.

I'm not sure anyone is talking about it. The only tools to change society are policy and education. Some of that can only be done individually and some of it only within organizations. How these things are approached represents the outcomes quite heavily, and so it's important to be clear and concise about the present day to improve it. The past has valuable lesson's and obviously was the foundation for the present, but it shouldn't define the future IMO.

OB1Shinobi wrote: When I was a kid the PC message was for white people to stop seeing black people as black and just see them as people. The goal post has changed in this generation and unfortunately, not everyone has caught up to it. Please try to understand that when white people talk about not seeing color it is coming from a place of trying to be on black people’s side.

The PC culture does occasionally get things wrong. Hard to believe.

And it is somewhat natural to society to overreact before finding the right balance. As an agent of balance, I understand that's where you guys are coming from, I appreciate the positive intentions as well as the heart from where it comes from. I'm only advocating a better approach in the name and interests of accomplishing the goal.

Because unfortunately, I don't know how many black people the PC crowd actually consulted before coming up with that message. What they got right is that black people do want to be seen as people. "Black people". You can emphasize the people part but its mainly about understanding that black people are people too; people just like you, and therefore should be treated with the same dignity and respect that you would treat each other with. Because the goal is for us all to be "each other" and not have a separation based on color or sexual orientation or what other isms that turn into schisms.

But the reason there is gay pride and black pride is not about running away or hiding from these different identities but actually celebrating what was once viewed in a very negative and stigmatizing sort of way and if you can't say it... like its a profane word... then it's like that word still has power and its still just as negative as it was before. This is why black people took the "N-word", changed it, and put it to use. A lot of people don't understand that but for us, it allows us to change its meaning and takes the negative power and energy away from the original N-word, which should never be used outside of educational purposes.

Again... black is a positive thing. White is a positive thing (don't let anyone tell you different). Gay being positive for Gay people doesn't make being straight into the new gay or something that is less positive or valued. White and black is the same. But, like being straight, the value of being white is "baked" into society by default. It's a given. It is the default standard of beauty and success. Meanwhile, non-whites kind of have to work harder (in terms of marketing) to be seen in the same (equal) light. And hence more vocalization on those fronts.

But some people get defensive as if the black pride is an attack on whites OR even that gay pride is an attack on straight people, on the institution of marriage, etc. It's basically a reactionary reflex based, imo, on fear.

And I'll admit that because I'm not white it's hard for me to imagine how it could be hard or in anyway negative to be white or seen as white when "I feel" like white people (if we're considering the pre-existing but imaginary racial group construct) are winning and have almost all the power, wealth, etc. So that grass looks pretty green to me; not enough that I wish I was white but simply because I think many of us wonder how life might be better if we were white or, at least, weren't stigmatized. That's why when I hear things like "All Lives Matter" I'm like, really? No one said anything to the contrary so why would/should anyone take "black lives matter" that way? But again... its hard to foresee that particular reflex when your intentions had nothing to do with disparaging another group of people; but rather saying that black people are being mistreated by the police specifically regarding this black identity. Not only can they (physically) see color just fine they often (NOT ALL officers, but too many) treat people of color differently (including Hispanics).

Again... people trying to be PC police ignore the actual intent and purpose because they're too busy being offended and end up saying or doing something that is also offensive and makes things worse. And everyone is capable of "creating sides" and doing this in an effort to do the right thing. But at the end of the day we all just need to consult each other so that we can understand each other. Because you can be "PC" without having a single black friend. But "POLITICS" should not be the bar or standard. Why be satisfied with that? I'm suggesting that our standards should be higher and based on real relationships and talking to each other and understanding each other and treating each other how the other person wants to be treated as well as how we want to be treated too.

Such should be the life of a Jedi.

Haha, no I don't think its a case necessarily of people being left behind and 'unwoke'. Rather proper use of language to avoid abuse of language.

I feel like I'm on the other side of the argument, not being from the US or having been there I feel I'm spared the baggage of its racist wounds, at the expense of less exposure to the issues - but that said I've got some experience with industrial human rights in regards to discrimination, so my motives are moving the conversation forward, as it appears the US is sort of going around in circles on the issue. It gives me the benefit of critical eyes looking at the issue in terms from other different types of cultural and organisational discrimination.

As a Jedi though it's a bit deeper which goes to complicate the issue perhaps for others trying to understand the details of my point. I not only do not see black (or white etc) as a person, I also don't see nationality as a person, or (most challenging) don't see species! Well actually the most challenging is not seeing mortality but that is a whole other paradigm. I see life force, in a vehicle... a bit ghost in the shell-esk perhaps. Not to say they are distinct things, but in defining the person as an individual I find it's the individual rather then their associations which most define them.

My point, these things are just labels, and inherent to my Jedi path is looking beyond the vehicle of somethings existence and seeing the expression of that existence. So discussing labels is more about the effective use of labels, which goes to include the avoidance of abusive use of them.

And in that regard 'What is black'; is it a culture or is it an individual? A label without definition is a very bad label as I'm not a big fan of the over-use of simplifications - it tends to lead to confusion and abuse IMO. If its the an individual, then whom is it? I would have thought it would be a 'race', in which case its just the large collection of associated cultures and genetic history and their present day social constructs and descendants. An individual cannot be a race, but instead can be of a race AFAIK.

So if black is a race, and an individual cannot be a race.... then I don't pretend to see an individual as something they are not.... even if I do understand they might be part of a race. Even if an individual is part of a race, they do not represent the race beyond their own participation and knowledge within and of it? A black person is just a person who is of the black culture. If I'm interested in the black culture then I will look for the black in the individual, but if I'm interested in the individual then I will look past all the labels and associations, even black.

TLDR; defining people by their group participation (chosen or otherwise) is the same mechanism as discrimination. If it can be avoided it should be, because its easy for it to be abused and be discriminatory (or misinterpreted as discriminatory).

@Adder


With you not being from the US I can appreciate your position as far as not being exposed to racism in the US and its varied dynamics. For you, the information I provide may sound more anecdotal. But I hope you can sense from me that I am not a person that jumps to extremes and overreacts to things. And having traveled to Canada and Jamaica I would say that the situation in not globally "white vs black" but is rather a regional affliction.

I have referred to racism many times in this thread, as a "viral idea". I want you to hold on to that thought while I provide some extra context that may help you better understand where I'm coming from. Bear with me and feel free to ask additional questions.

Right now I'm wearing a mask but around my neck; not over my face. Company policy currently states that we have to wear a mask when we walk around, especially from one dept to another. There is also an office part and a factory party. The factor is our metaphoric "field" (slave reference to the cotton fields) and the office is the metaphoric "house" (reference to the slave master's large residence). This separation creates 2 distinct regions or zones in which the company is divided. Because I work in the "house" I'm very much disconnected with the lives, the trials, the pressures, the struggles of those working in the factory ("the field"). I'm much better compensated than they are, partially due to education, experience, and specialization. This creates a state of relative privilege that comes with protections and comfort. This adds to the separation.

Hold this image in your mind. It will help you understand.

There are areas of the United states that we can also separate into similar zones. As you know, the South fought against the North for the right to own slaves (but people from the American south will often disagree and say that it was about "states rights" but in reality it was about the right of states to own slaves). Within that North vs South divide you have metropolitan vs rural; places where those fields are literal fields and where the houses are office buildings. You have corporations with factories and offices, often separated by thousands of miles. It's a different world and yet... the divisions often survive.

I just moved from Dayton, Ohio to Middletown which is between Dayton and Cincinnati. Cincinnati borders a Southern state. The further you go out of the city... even in Dayton, into areas where the population is 80-90% white and maybe 4-6% black, you're more likely to run into hardcore racists. Yes, we could say that one is either racist or not but its more like all racists have the virus but not all people with the virus are displaying symptoms. And as the virus spreads in the body there is a time when it hasn't really taken root yet in the lungs and may just be in a person's sinuses. Likewise, a lot of children hear older people talk and those ideas get into their brain but they haven't fully taken root yet and their symptoms may be mild depending on their immune system.

This is where having a good character is similar to a healthy immune system because your good character protects you from different ideas which are either criminal or immoral. So a lot of people think to themselves, that they could never be racist and use how they think of themselves to doubt racism in others. It's kind of like thinking "I don't have corona so I doubt most people around me have corona". And that may be true. AROUND YOU. However, if you go to places with a dense population there are places where the conditions for spreading any sort of virus are much greater. And if you don't know what's in those people's heads and they don't know what's in yours because you're not from where they are, then you may not hear them sneeze or cough because they're sneezing into their elbow or they're wearing a "mask" (metaphoric). Just because someone is a racist doesn't mean they're proud to be and want everyone and their momma to know they are. Most racism is very much in the closet because those people are afraid of losing their jobs. In areas where most people are racist however, the consequences of getting caught are highly diminished because most other people around that person are too and therefore they don't care. So, in Dayton, for example, there are areas where racism got a hell of a lot more vocal after Trump was elected. That doesn't mean it didn't exist there before, but that their comfort level went higher. A single person waving a pitchfork is a lunatic. A mob with pitchforks and torches... is a mob.

If there is no Frankenstein (or his monster) then those people are simply the "innocent townsfolk" and see themselves as the good guys. If they perceive a monster then only in the presence of the monster do they get threatened and typically in a group, that's when the pitchforks and torches appear. Black people were made into the monster by racist propaganda. It doesn't matter what name or label you give to the monster if, at the end of the day, it scares you. That's why the label doesn't matter. "Black, brown..." these are just colors and there is nothing inherently wrong with a color. Right? So the problem is mental connection between the color and the "monster"; in other words... the fear that produces hate.

Only when a person can be confused for white (because they're extremely light skinned), only then, do we see their color not being seen (in American society). Many light skin people have historically passed for white in order to get better treatment and in some cases use that to help their people. And because they were still connected with their people by blood and culture, they were still "black" and that label still connects us today.

At the same time there is still field vs house. And there have always been poor whites working in the "field" (factories, mines, etc) and only a few blacks who ever get to work in the house. And no, as long as there are poor whites in the field there must be at least the same proportion of blacks in the field. But what is unfair is if there are extra hurdles put into the path of black people that are based on their color; because of someone's fear or hatred. If the person doing the hiring is a racist then they can easily impact these numbers and help to control who gets what job. And let's be real. In many industries and jobs its about who you know. Because a lot of racism is a mask on top of class warfare (with, imho, wealthier whites preferring that poor whites and blacks hate and blame each other rather than targeting them) a lot of it is related to jobs and income. The propaganda against blacks was therefore created to hinder our ability to get jobs, leading to the widespread (among black people) idea that we always have to be over qualified to compete for the same jobs. However.... overqualified can mean more expensive and can be a reason not to hire on that basis. So if the organization has plenty of cash (like the government) or health industry that's where more black people are likely to find good jobs. And some of these industries are more heavily regulated which also helps with equality in labor practices.

If white people have the idea that black people are desperate for them to like us, they would be mistaken. It's about fair opportunities so that we can live, prosper, and feed our families. The difficulty of that proposition often depends on where you live or work. I went to college in the South, at a school that was made specifically for black people because they weren't ready (or willing) to integrate in a way that was fair. I grew up in a church that is still segregated to this day at the local conference level. Part of the reason we say it's systematic because if there is racism at different levels of "the system" (education, health, etc.) then that presents minorities with challenges that others simply don't have to face. When combined with the same challenges that everyone has to face, regardless of race or gender, it creates a smaller funnel the less people can get through; not making success impossible, but more of a struggle. And when it's institutions like banks or housing or the police... it makes it more difficult, and that is something that is avoidable by society, not something that minorities should be forced to live with. In other words, racism is a viral idea that is worth fighting against, either through immunization or social distancing (from racists) and the opposite... i.e. socializing with people from all cultures, backgrounds, income brackets, etc so that we all understand each other and realize how much we have in common.

I am grateful to be here, to be part of this mostly enlightened community, and to have the pleasure of communicating with you guys. I mean that sincerely. It is an honor. Thank you for your time and patience!

Labels are not necessarily the product of fear or hate - but yes racist labels are, and racists seem to use labels derived from fear or hate. That though doesn't mean we should abandon proper use of labels, just because some misuse some labels... and by giving ones self identity over to the group identity. That just creates more or stronger division ie making the fear derived labels even stronger by clinging to them to form stronger group boundaries.

I wish it were as simple as ignoring the past pain and doing the right thing, but how people define right is going to be a mix of self interest and group interest... in how they define themselves. And if people use group identity to define themselves then they tend to inherit the struggles of the group - for its those dynamics which tend to define a group. The problem I think is when the person mixes the group struggle for the individual struggle.
Like any struggle, there are good ways to deal with them and bad ways. Mob rule is not a good rule because a mob is a poorly defined and unorganized group driven by some trace of purpose. A clearly defined group purpose means those within it are participants of the problem causing the struggle, but not all black people are net victims of racism, just like not all white people are net beneficiaries of racism.... so race is not the best group to associate directly to levels of discrimination. Not forgetting discrimination happens in various ways to all sorts of people, and each type can be as devastating to the individual as the other. There are plenty of white people who've been destroyed by discrimination and achieved no benefit from any privilege, at no fault of their own. This is the sort of thing I mean about proper use of labels being effective use of labels. It's just easier to show how bad ones don't work then how good ones do, but that doesn't mean I'm ignorant of, arguing against the existence of, or denigrating the extent and impact of it.

For everyone I guess it's more about being a good role model for peace, and working to ensure the hard and sharp edges are worked down over time to smooth things out so no-one gets hurt in the future.... so its important not to get caught up in the identity politics of the stakeholders in struggles to best achieve this. Minds are easy to change, but changing society takes getting in, doing the hard work and making systems work better to solve these problems. Solving the individual struggles at the individual level, whether it aligns with the group or not.

I tend to use the idea of the Force instead of self or group, to approach a concept of essence identity, and define all the iterations as natured aspects of that essence (ie nature). Jedi is my path using the Force in the naturing environment to facilitate that naturing and balance competing forces into supporting forces. So its things which blur support and promote competition which tend to make me explore the dynamics of the argument. Competition has a place, but in many context it leads to conflict, so I feel its a bit like bread and butter for a Jedi to avoid progression into the 'fear to anger to hate to suffering' Yodaism :lol:

I don't know much about the USA.

I imagine it has a bunch of divides.

Some racial, by design or convenience, some maybe of any other design or convenience.

JD Vance is a chubby white republican who went to Yale (I don't know what kind of place Yale is, but it might mean something to people closer to it)

he wrote a book - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillbilly_Elegy

I'm not going to try to quote it or represent his version of events in any particular way, but it was mildly interesting (may be less interesting, may be more interesting if you're "local" to the circumstances) in terms of considering how the USA's cultural divides work.

I'm not suggesting he's the last word on the subject - he's just some guy who wrote a book - but I guess it paints the picture that race or skin colour isn't really the issue at all (even if it is occasionally used as a handy concept to rally around, for one party or another)

Adder wrote: And if people use group identity to define themselves then they tend to inherit the struggles of the group - for its those dynamics which tend to define a group. The problem I think is when the person mixes the group struggle for the individual struggle.

Let's use ourselves as an example. By calling ourselves Jedi, what does that mean? I can't speak for you. I can only speak on what it means to me and there are probably multiple threads voicing numerous opinions. But what it means to me is that there is a shared culture. It may or may not involve a fictional mythology. But it is a term that unites us. Binds us.

Because we value and respect this label we view it as good thing and magnify the positive context and nature. But our internal vision of this term for ourselves does not rule or define how others (outsiders) view it, or us through it. Some people think it's funny. But guess what? I don't care. Because they don't get to define the term Jedi. I do that by the way I live it. Just as you do and so many others. We define ourselves. And we define the term that unites us. To allow others to do so gives them power. And so I would never change the name just to avoid criticism or judgment or comedy at my/our expense. And truly if someone makes fun of you for being a Jedi then they are also making fun of me because I am the same. And guess what? I'm proud of that. It doesn't bother me at all. It doesn't matter if it's negative to other people because it is positive to us. Do you see?

Now does it mean that by being a Jedi we somehow lose sight of our personal struggle vs the group? Not at all. If you get attacked for some personal reason does that mean the Jedi have been attacked? No. But if you were attacked for being a Jedi then it does mean the Jedi are being attacked. Do you see?

If someone refused to hire you because you have bad credit and a felony on your record that's a personal problem. But if someone refused to hire you because you are a Jedi then it's not just a personal problem. It's a group problem because it is the group that is being discriminated against and you are simply a representative of that group which means your case could have happened to any one of us. Therefore, instead of waiting for it to happen randomly to the rest of us we can proactively defend ourselves. Do you see?

The difference between being a Jedi and being black is this. Everything I just said applies except "black" is not something you can easily hide; at least not in person. You can't choose to stop being black. You are black. People aren't going to ask you how you see yourself or if you associate with being black before they treat you the same way they treat all black people because their generalizations and stereotypes don't just apply to those who "accept" the label. In America, people don't give a crap about you or what you think if you belong to a group they don't like. Period. You're not going to change their mind or change anything when the one thing about you they don't like is something you can't change. If they see you as the monster, it's not because of a label but rather "the fear of the other", because you're different from them and because they are ignorant.

There are a lot of men that would rather be women and vice versa. Just like there are some black people who bleach their skin in some misguided effort to look white. A gender issue could be the real result of hormones or some biological malformation or imbalance. But with race, it's not about how you feel. It's about your DNA and what it said about you before you were even born. You can try to hide it but you can't change it and trying to do so IS a personal/psychological problem. But not only that, it is mainly a non-acceptance of self based on the influence of the larger society.

I understand your desire to address the treatment of others on an individual level but here's why that's not the best idea. Just like Corona cases you can only try to limit the spread and the fatalities. Every human gets to make mistakes. And if a doctor or a police officer or a judge or a lawyer or a banker all make mistakes in only 1% of cases then it make look like they're doing a good job. And a lot of people think this is okay because they are unlikely to be in that 1%. But if that 1% is due to racism and not really a mistake but an intentional conscious or unconscious bias then for black people it's not 1%. It make be 4-5% if it was 1%. It may be 20-30 percent if it was 4%. It may be 50-60% if it was 6%. I'm not trying to be numerically accurate (way too much work). I'm just trying to show you that what may look okay to the outside world is definitely not okay if you judge racists by individualistic standards. Because again, the math from your perspective may look tolerable but from our perspective it is not.

Another example of this. Serial Killers and Mass Murderers. A lot of people die every single day; so many that we are numb to a certain degree and ignore it. 1,000 people die and its not national news. Some people are so numb to death that its like who cares if someone shoots up a school and kills a bunch of kids. Kids die all the time too, right? But I bet those kids at that school care. Those are their friends and classmates and if it could happen at one school it could happen at many others. Most countries don't even have school shootings at all. What's wrong with the US? So, understanding that we cannot stop mass murders in general we actually do a pretty damn good job at stopping terrorist plots (foreign at least). But of course the FBI doesn't necessarily get credit for all the domestic plots they manage to prevent. But if we should simply accept the reality that people die every day then why invest in police, hospitals, etc. Why not just let nature take it's course? Because if we CAN help... if we CAN prevent bad things from happening, then... shouldn't we? As a society do we not have a duty or responsibility to protect each other? At the very least, we should protect those who are more vulnerable and form a strong force to combat strong forces that arise to do us harm. Alcohol kills even though its legal; even though it is safe if used responsibly. Still, there is AA, MAD, and other organizations out there to fight alcohol abuse. PETA fights for the protection of animals. Animals also die every day, often by other animals. And sometimes it seems like animals are definitely treated better than humans.

So, to me, it isn't tolerable to address these issues on an individual level and only bother with how people in general are being treated. Because if you can't tell there is a problem you can't fix it. And if you're too busy trying not to see color you wont see when people of color are getting mistreated because of their color. Nor is that mistreatment somehow going to magically disappear if they recant their color like some kind of Christian heretic facing the inquisition. Should they also give up their association with Jesus in order to gain better treatment? Of course not. They're not the ones who are wrong so why should they change themselves?

https://www.templeofthejediorder.org/forum/Jediism/123775-what-does-it-mean-to-be-a-modern-day-jeddist