Is Trumps Boarder Wall Antithetical To Jedi Doctrine?

@KerouacsGhost

That was excellent.


@Carlos, Adder

I really like what KG said about the past. We've all heard the saying about how those who don't know the past are doomed to repeat it. In practice, there are a lot of kids who make light (and fun) of slavery out of ignorance. I wasn't there. Neither were they. And yet they often joke about it. You almost can't play an online shooter without hearing the N-word. And why is it? Parents are pretending it didn't happen as far as teaching their children right from wrong. Why do we even learn history in schools? And how is it that the US can provide an education that doesn't terrify students with the horrible acts of inhumanity and depravity that America was built on? I don't bring this up... I don't talk about racism AT ALL... because I'm focused on the past. It's because I'm focused on the future. And I have children. And what kind of world are we leaving for the next generation? Are they going to get discriminated against? Several of them have already been mocked and derided for being black; hearing things that I never heard growing up. So it feels like we're going backwards.

People want to focus on the positives and the progress being made. I see that too. I live it. I live in luxury compared to many people I know and love. So even though I have all these things I never forget where I came from and what other people who look like me go through and struggle through. I think rap culture is highly misunderstood; including by many rappers themselves. People see all the "bling" and don't understand that all that consumerism and spending is an over reaction to the poverty and scarcity of resources in the hood. Everything is relative. A lot of people survive and do things to survive on the hopes of a better future. This image of "wealth" and success in the form of expensive jewelry, cars, women, etc. is like an economic prayer of hope for those who need it. Often that rapper doesn't have half the stuff he raps about. It's all about the image. And if people strive for that image, maybe they'll never reach it but it's something to hold on to. It's a street sermon; not the kind I'm into, but these images being displayed don't mean that everything's okay because all that racism and slavery stuff is all over now. I'm glad KG brought up the criminal justice system because that is a big part of it and people don't realize that slavery "ended" in what was more of a compromise. There could be a whole threat just on the Prison Industrial Complex and how they determine how many beds they'll need. But right now the idea I most want to combat is this idea of past sins being or staying in the past.

Dylan Roof isn't in his 80s. All these tiki torch people aren't in retirement homes. They represent something more than just the older age of Ronald Reagan. No, these are people who believe America belongs to them and they want their country back. If you fought for America, the question is what America, whose America were you fighting for? They don't care what color you were, fighting for the red, white, and blue. For them, it is their birthright. And it is within that context that they, privileged, want to enforce and further restrict immigration policy because they want The United States to be for white people. So when Trump said "s-hole countries" it wasn't a fluke or personal gaff. He was speaking for them and they love him for it. Trump's die-hard support is willing to overlook his many flaws, allegations, and possibly even criminality, all because he reflects their xenophobia. That's where this border wall debate comes from. It's not about enforcing America's laws; especially when they are misdemeanor crimes analogous to jay walking or speeding. And what red-blooded American under the age of 50 always drives under the speed limit?

So no. It's comical that we can pretend this debate is actually about the merits of immigration. In reality it is about the Trump doctrine as a weapon aimed at people of color. And that's why this discussion cannot be had without talking about minority communities. The same people who aren't outraged at all by Walmart, because they benefit from cheap foreign labor, don't really care as long as they can get 15% off. But when they think they're competing for the remaining (un-outsourced or non-outsourceable) jobs with "other" people then they start questioning who should be here because the question is really who should be able to get those jobs and prosper in this country. And the answer to that question is based on who feels the greatest amount of "ownership" with regard to this country. And when these same people think about "who built it"... they don't think about the actual slave and Hispanic and Native labor. They think of the masters, plantations, corporations of "owners". And because they often live in that past; a past of slavery and genocide, they VOTE in the present day based on those same ideas. And whether it's through their rebel flags, or their monuments and statues of racist generals; traitors to the United States, they don't let us forget either.

The past becomes the future.

From the present we can look back in hindsight and trace the problems of today back to their source. Imagine fighting a virus like covid-19 without any contact tracing whatsoever because "the past is the past". No. The past isn't just the past. It's a thread. Just like I can look back pages in this thread to inform me about how we got to this point in the discussion and what I've tried to say before already, the past informs us to all the things we've tried, some more successfully than others, but things we need to know and consider. Where we most likely all agree is that the past doesn't have to define you. If you had racist ideas years ago you don't need to still hang on to those. If you made mistakes in the past, don't forget them. Learn from them. Grow. A tree has rings that trace their history. That history is still part of the tree. It simply builds upon it's own past and grows into the future. We can do the same. But if we understand the threads that connect us to each other, we should also understand those threads connect us to each other in the past, present, and future. And we should be mindful of how it all flows. Because that too, is the Force.

For me- the past becomes the future when ya don’t do anything to change it.

Choices made for me and all that ... the ones I don’t.

Thing you can do to change it differs as sword play - martial arts and cake flavors. It all depends on who’s doing it and why.

....
If you teach others of blind hate - they can identify it them self’s. Can’t tell ya how many times my 7 year old boy “helps” me with this very thing.
It’s real and it often gets me to the quick - but that’s the idea.

As far as generations go - much hate will pass when others do. Don’t pass the stuff ya don’t want.

Easy to say - waaaaaaaay more difficult to do.

Keep on
Pastor Carlos

For sure somethings history is vital to understanding something. But of course it's not just racism, there are various types of discriminatory vitriol and actions... each potentially as devastating as the next at the level of the individual or group. I think the difference between winners and losers in struggle is that one group defines themselves by the suffering and the other defines themselves by the overcoming of suffering, at least in my experience of these things. The important part for everyone IMO is to be enables of overcoming suffering, not letting it define ones present, for that is just living in the past and being doomed to make novel iterations of the past mistakes. Knowing the past is not enough to move past it, no pun intended. Otherwise each persons struggle will tend to blind them to other peoples pain.... one of the funky things about pain is it changes a person, defines them, if it hangs around (or is worn) long enough.

But to the thread about a wall, I'm not sure it would be racist anyway.... I think it's more about the security and economic factors, such that if it were occurring on the Northern border the US might try the same thing!! How impossible would that one be!! :silly:

Knowing the past is not enough to move past it, no pun intended. Otherwise each persons struggle will tend to blind them to other peoples pain.... one of the funky things about pain is it changes a person, defines them, if it hangs around (or is worn) long enough.

But to the thread about a wall, I'm not sure it would be racist anyway.... I think it's more about the security and economic factors, such that if it were occurring on the Northern border the US might try the same thing!! How impossible would that one be!! :silly:


I have to agree here - the wall isn’t a race thing more than a national thing. I mean we can see things as we like- value comes from the eyes looking and the heart that sees - value is very - relative in this manner. If you look at the wall and see race that’s you, I guess , can’t make anyone see what I see - although I wish some days I could trade places. That’s one of the Joys of Art - no one piece can ever mean the same thing to two exact people. Never happen.


Truthfully - some actions are obviously something - drawn or directed - can’t tell people’s intentions all the time but ... that’s life I guess right? I don’t go around calling every “injustice” I see anything... ill walk around the back and make contact .... pssst need a blanket ? Pssst need anything ?
Most of the game changing ideas have come from DIRECT contact.
I know a guy named Tim who has a ranch near the border. I know a guy named Bill. Bill sets traps - Tim sets water and resources and care packages. At the end they both sleep well. Regardless of me.

Something to think about
Pastor Carlos

Adder: that one group defines themselves by the suffering and the other defines themselves by the overcoming of suffering, at least in my experience of these things.

I have to disagree with this on the weak basis of semantics. How people define themselves is an individual choice. There are multiple individuals making that same choice which then makes a group. I'm making this distinction because I don't know what "group" you're talking about. So there will always be "groups" of individuals who choose the same path simply because there are limited paths and many many individuals. Eventually, you can start to form opinions about what percentage of people will go through the door on the left vs the door on the right.

However, depending on how one thinks, those opinions about which path people will take can be based on a perception of what "group" they belong to. And this is how discrimination begins. Some people will respond to intense poverty by breaking the law to survive. Some of those people will be black and some will be brown. That's because everyone wants to survive.

Freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition. Right to keep and bear arms in order to maintain a well regulated militia. ... Right to due process of law, freedom from self-incrimination, double jeopardy.

All these rights are all about one thing. Survival. No group is less deserving of survival than another. Black, White, Asian, Hispanic, Native, Immigrant, Gay, Straight, etc. We hold these truths to be self-evident.

That's the promise of America and the potential we are constantly working to build. It is the standard we're constantly trying to get to and fighting for. And it doesn't say "All Americans" are created equal, but "all men (which includes women)". This is why the statue of liberty was gifted and why it says:

"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

America has no problems going out into the world, planting flags and military bases in foreign lands, getting involved in other nations politics, playing global police, and seeking out the cheapest labor around the world. And we're not even going to talk about American mining operations in Africa or world trade, open stock markets, etc. Donald Trump only even has money because he was able to borrow money from foreign banks. The United States owes debt to other nations as well, especially China.

All of this has greatly benefited the United States and helped to make it what it is. All the work and effort from immigrants helped to make the US what it is. People in the US didn't even realize how cheap their gas was before. And now we want to pretend that the US got to where it is by itself and therefore should withdraw into itself and keep out the same people who work on our farms, who help build and rebuild our houses and roads, who watch over our children, who cook and clean in our houses, etc. If we weren't employing them they would go back. If we weren't benefiting from them coming here we wouldn't pay them and they'd have no reason to come. You don't need a wall. You simply need to recognize a simple truth about economics.

Supply and Demand.

So it's cute and all... to say that the wall is about economics. It's not. Americans love cheap labor. That's my most of our products say "made in China". And isn't capitalism all about competition? Don't we like that prices get lower because of competition? So let's not kid ourselves. How is it that Hispanics are able to come in and work for less and previous immigrants cannot compete? Shouldn't they "pick themselves up by their bootstraps" and simply make themselves more competitive? Isn't the wall a type of hand out for them? Isn't the wall sort of a big government assistance for the welfare of the less competitive populations in America who feel threatened by newer waves of immigrants?

And the reality is that Americans of all income levels hire cheaper workers in order to save money and also make money. And the same people complaining about it could also create businesses and hire them and profit from the savings. If they don't then whose fault is that? Or are they concerned that all these people are being exploited? ROFL. No, of course they aren't. They don't even care what many of these immigrants are trying to escape from. Their just scared of them taking or eventually taking their hypothetical jobs and having to actually improve themselves and have more than a elementary, middle school, and high school education.

And we saw the same thing with the creation of unions when black people were suddenly free and were entering the paid labor markets. (Some) Poor whites were threatened and actually less skilled than their ex-slave counterparts. This is part of the reason they began attacking them and fighting for segregation. They felt like their survival was threatened and instead of making themselves better and more competitive they started a propaganda campaign against black workers that has perpetuated to this day and been secretly adopted into "the system", into the mechanisms of government, law enforcement, and private businesses in order to discriminate. So what we can see is that FEAR causes a certain other group to feel threatened and to lash out. Same thing happens with the LGBT community and those who oppose them as if marriage is under attack; as if heterosexuality is being threatened.

People want to focus on the victims and whether or not they should feel victimized and whether or not they're at fault for the way this other group is treating them. And it's easy to say "pick yourself up by your boot straps" and make the conversation about the victim of persecution's own ability to survive in the face of discrimination and persecution when it wasn't THAT long ago that Christians came to America fleeing persecution and when women were persecuted and essentially lynched for being strong. Society didn't like that and people were jealous so instead of dealing with their own fear and weakness they labeled them witches.

Do you see? This conversation is too often focused on victims when it is the PERSECUTOR that should be under the spotlight. These people always escape to persecute and discriminate another day because no one wants to own the fact that they are the problem! Why? Because some of them are our friends and family? We fought a civil war against our friends and family; because it was right. And they were on the wrong side and now that side wants to still exist and still remind those they persecuted that they still wish they had won and they still see things the same way because fighting never changed their minds but we still pretend like these old mindsets are over and done and in the past.

And they're not. THAT is the reality that those who are persecuted face everyday, not knowing where that persecution will come from or what form it will take.

So it doesn't matter whether or not YOU can move on and let something go, if the bully, the persecutor, the inquisition, the KKK, the Nazis, the Skinheads, many police officers and judges, the kids telling your kids to go back to Africa, the president calling places that black and brown people came from "s-hole countries" from his soap box as POTUS, and all the people who hated Obama and made racist images about him and his wife, and the list goes on and on... Many of these people are completely powerless to effect my life. But some of them are in a position to and many of them, when voting together, absolutely have that power. And David Duke knew it. And when he said "that's our guy" people just like him knew it too. And that's where this wall comes from. We went into another country to tear down a wall and now the people who seem to always escape judgment and justice, they want to build one here for the same reason. And that's how the past will always come back to haunt you if you don't LEARN from it.

Can we not stand against it? Can we not determine to do the right thing without regard to personal benefit? Can we not see beyond the surface and see what this wall is and what it represents? Come on. You want to be Jedi? Be Jedi. See through the cloud of the dark side to the truth of the matter. We're already repeating history.

Who is this “WE” you speak of ?
The dark side - I hear that a lot - lately - know everyone has their their own dark side - their own hidden fears - their own undisclosed info - it’s human more than Jeddist.

Be smart and be cautious where you place your focus.
This is coming from some one who has burned out countless times caring a bit too much. It’s different for everyone but at some point of caring there is - IS - a level that will be reached when you need a recharge or break. My hope in life is that for every thing I call injustice I can find 2 or 3 ( infrequent 3 often) that are giving - or unselfish or even acts of kindness. I’ve been down my own road of thinking that everything’s never gunna be up to my par and it didn’t work for me. The study of Zen helped me - greatly. Buts that’s just from one person sharing. That’s all. Thank you for sharing. I understand you. I don’t have to agree or disagree to hold your value inherent. You are one voice in my many more growing ideas of what really - IS. Good stuff. Thanks for still being a part.

Carlos.Martinez3 wrote: Who is this “WE” you speak of ?

When I say WE know that I include myself as part of history; as partially responsible for what happens next. I'm sure you know the parable of the Good Samaritan. This was a man who, by Israelite logic, should not have cared. It wasn't "his problem". While the Israelites were concerned about who they should help because they were trying to qualify people as their "neighbor", this man simply saw the NEED and responded to it.

So when I say WE... there's no disrespect intended. I simply mean that whether we help, care, or not... no matter what our focus is on or how zen we are, we're all "there" experiencing time together as the present fades into the past. We're all part of the story. We're simply not all the hero in the story. But we can choose to be. That's the Hero's Journey. We can choose not to stand by and say "that's not happening to me so I don't care". We can choose to see something wrong and speak up and out about it. We can choose to donate our time and money.

In the days after the tornado hit my house someone I didn't know and who didn't ask for a dime, came into my community just to help out. I shook his hand but that was about it. He was part of history to me and that was something I will always remember. Because he didn't have to volunteer. He simply chose to. Others chose to drive through my street just to see the devastation. Some people drove by with bottles of water. One person was handing out food. It's amazing how people can come together as a community when they make themselves part of history and don't just see it as something that happens.

So yes, it is a choice whether to do something or not but WE are always part of the story, whether we're helping or just driving by. The question is what side of history do you want to be on?

ZealotX wrote:

Carlos.Martinez3 wrote: Who is this “WE” you speak of ?

When I say WE know that I include myself as part of history; as partially responsible for what happens next. I'm sure you know the parable of the Good Samaritan. This was a man who, by Israelite logic, should not have cared. It wasn't "his problem". While the Israelites were concerned about who they should help because they were trying to qualify people as their "neighbor", this man simply saw the NEED and responded to it.

Also, I just want to point out that if we were to superimpose this story onto modern America, the Samaritan would be Mexican helping an American. Because the Israelites also looked down on the Samaritans like dogs; so busy worried about their own bloodlines and who rightfully owned what... and meanwhile the best example of what JC taught about being what they were all supposed to be... was someone who they thought had no right to the land they owned (and by owned I mean stolen from the Canaanites). These people were so entitled and the biggest barrier to their spirituality was their religion; thinking that as long as they obeyed the law they were good. As if that wasn't the barest of bare minimums.

The ugly truth was that there was a higher standard than that. And while they were judging each other based on the law (like we are judging immigrants for crossing the border illegally) they were missing the more terrible crime of ignoring the suffering of their fellow man... even their fellow Israelites. So I think it is a very valid question to this day.

Who is my neighbor? Does it stop at the border? Or is it a larger concept that encompasses all those around me?

ZealotX wrote: Adder: that one group defines themselves by the suffering and the other defines themselves by the overcoming of suffering, at least in my experience of these things.

I have to disagree with this on the weak basis of semantics. How people define themselves is an individual choice. There are multiple individuals making that same choice which then makes a group. I'm making this distinction because I don't know what "group" you're talking about.

The context was there..... in the post your replying and partially quoting out of context from; the two groups were identified by the language 'winners and losers' for the want of a better term. The implication being they start as the same group and its their definition of the struggle which creates the difference. A better term might be overcomers of sufferers and those who don't. It's a simple point about healing a problem rather then cutting it out with a rusty knife. The mechanism is fundamentally having a plan, and being the change one wants... so the context of action in addressing problems is productive rather then confrontationally reductive.

The reason its economic is not 'cute and all', that would just be one way to interpret it which suits an argument while introducing a dismissive turn of phrase? Having 'a' single point to argue does not an argument make, but it does make for argumentation because it draws out each point over time such that people either get bored and stop or forget what they've already talked about and go around in circles! If you make and explain everything in terms of slavery then everything is going to look like its related to it.... correlation does not imply causation. It's a trap of defining everything in a limited frame of reference, the wrong causes incite further confusion, conflict and are counterproductive to the progress already made by others.

I agree about the persecutor. I've always said the persecutor needs to be persecuted, that is not what is being argued by me at least. I'm arguing for victims not to become persecutors. Which is why I keep making the point victims are victims of a variety of things, and so it should be less about ones particular type of suffering as being the problem, and instead the act of discrimination itself as a category.... rather then any flavor of racism which one might have most interest in.

ZealotX wrote: Who is my neighbor? Does it stop at the border? Or is it a larger concept that encompasses all those around me?

I think these relationships are defined not by type (as that would be discriminatory), but by action. It's a bit cold to discuss system dynamics about problems of human suffering, but unfortunately there is too many people in the world for the people in the world to care as much as the people in the world would ideally like. Not everyone can get want they want, or what others are getting, but that is not an excuse to take it.

As I said early in the piece, you cannot apply the measures and standards of how you'd treat an individual to a problem at the level of mass trans-national migration across a border. Just like it would be unrealistic to expect one nation to try and solve a problem while others were not, or even worse fueling it. Political systems work to serve economic systems, and economic systems work within legal structures, and those legal structures work to serve the people.... because people are the systems, but these systems cannot just change size and shape rapidly nor be expected to cater to other systems or interference from them. Well... they can, but they become ineffective and fail. The relationships between different levels of organizational effects need to be aligned and free flowing, otherwise like in communism they get top heavy and the feet get frost bite and die. The spice must flow, lol, in simpler terms perhaps - one can afford to exert a level of interaction between someone 'closer' then someone 'removed' from the capability (to measure and adjust each others participation). The less control available the less capability can be applied (either way), but its a two way street and once one party indicates it's not willing to develop a strong relationship then it has to limit the capability offered to that connection.

I'm not sure since when it was considered normal or acceptable to just cross national borders without permission, it's usually an offence. The exception is refugee's but determining whether one is actually a refugee or just a poor person is the difficult bit. If all the poor people decided it was nicer to pitch a tent in your lawn, your lawn would like where they left before too long. I think this problem would be resolved if the UN would alter the refugee policy such that claims of refugee status could only be accepted in the closest/first peaceful country to the offending homeland. This would stop the trans-national flood's across the globe which bring with it such suffering and crime to the immigrants, at the downside of the neighbours to failed states. But at least that would give impetus to those neighbours to be more involved in their regions stability and centralize the problem of refugee's so appropriate international supports could be bought to bear. At least it would help stop the slavery and human trafficking so prevalent in those places.

Good grief, are we still going on about this!?!?! :ohmy:

And I thought Congress was adept at wasting time... :huh: :pinch: :whistle: