That's How We Roll

A comment was offered hoping that blacks aren't still looking at slavery 350 years from now, a response to my notion that it takes longer to heal a wound--any wound--than it takes to inflict it.

A few thoughts on that, and the commentaries that followed.

1) If you can think of an instance of a wound that heals in LESS time than it takes to inflict it, I'd be very interested.

2) The subject of the Irish came up, and the fact that there actually were real slaves, and not just Indentured Servants. The difference? The exact difference between rape and seduction. Now there are some fascinating things to look at here. One, these cases seem to have been confined to island locations, and not in the Continental U.S. Therefore, no direct comparison can be made with the status of Americans. If you do make a comparison, it would have to be between blacks of island descent and Irish descendants of island slaves. Two, I would not expect the differences to be as drastic: Irish resemble their oppressors sufficiently to "hide" among them far easier than Africans. If the pain gets too bad, you can "pass". Third, I would bet that, on those islands, descendants of Irish slaves are poorer than descendants of their former European masters. Fourth, the Irish kept their names, religions, and culture to a degree FAR beyond that experienced by Africans. Blacks basically had their hard disks "wiped" and then horrifically negative "software" installed: you are inferior, dare not protect your families or chastity, and we will kill you if you say different. Without the self-definition of culture to fight back against this, you are screwed.

3) The period of healing begins when the last piece of shrapnel is removed from the wound. The common mistake made in (for all practical purposes) 100% of white argumentation in this arena is to measure this period from the end of slavery--about 150 years ago. How comforting it must be to forget Reconstruction, Jim Crow, and Segregation. In my book, it is reasonable to say blacks became citizens of America as of about 1965-70, somewhere around the Voting Rights amendment. THAT is when the damage really began to heal. Three hundred years of hell, followed by about 45 years of relative equality. If you were fifty years old, and had been abused for the first forty years of your life, I think we could expect some dysfunction still.

3) Will blacks "catch up?" No, I don't think so. Not as a group. All things considered, they would have to be superior to whites to do so, and they ain't. Or there would have to be a period imposed externally of equal disadvantage to whites. That's not going to happen. But what WILL happen is that blacks with 110% of average ability will be able to get 100% average results. Close enough. African immigrants will do well--they still have their mythology, heritage, language, and relationship to their Gods. But looking at the descendants of slaves will be a lot like looking at people who experienced abuse in childhood. As an average, there will be problems.

I'm sorry to seem pessimistic about this...but the other side is that interbreeding is going to make the majority Brown rather than white or black, anyway. In some ways, this is a non-issue long term, similarly to the fact that people worried about the Chinese ruling the world are, in my opinion, missing the fact that countries are becoming obsolete.

None of this implies that blacks are intellectually inferior, or whites morally inferior, although I sympathize with those who interpret the data that way. One of my problems--or advantages--is that in my meditations I flow from black to white, male to female, young to old, human to animal, animate to inanimate, matter to energy. It is too easy to see the sloppy logic use to justify bigotry or political position. When Nicki was a little girl, I watched like a hawk for any signs that the culture would slide backwards in terms of gender relations--or male power. And would not tolerate anyone who tried to place females into a category in any way inferior to male.

Now I have a six year old boy, and I'm seeing that he is going to have to take crap about being male. You guys know that I like Huffington Post. But the Left-leaning Post is just as sexist as some of the Right-leaning organs it decries. The only difference is that...wait for it...Huffpost is bigoted against males. Never, ever, in any column there have I seen a comment to the effect that rights and privileges should be taken away from women. Or that women are inferior to men. But commonly one finds posts suggesting that men are responsible for the evil of the world.

Now...it is possible to make that comment and still be intellectually honest. But damned few are. My standard? If you give men the blame for the wars and violence, and say this is due to intrinsic problems with men, then also give them credit for creating most of the science, art, and exploration...and maintain that this is also due to their innate differences.

But of course there are damned few who would take this position. Usually, you get "well, men have accomplished more because they oppress women. And they are more violent because they are inherently violent. " In all honesty, I see this as intellectual cowardice.

What do I think? That thousands of generations ago, men and women made a deal, and both agreed to it: women, whose bodies carry children, would raise those children and maintain the home circle. Males, who were larger and stronger, would specialize in dealing with aggressive threats, and take the dangerous jobs (and how many women died in that mine collapse? Anyone? Anyone?). Both sides contributed to the social rules, myths, songs, stories and cultural reinforcements that encouraged men to be "men" and women to be "women." It worked...for the production of children, but with a caveat: women's dreams were disposable. As were men's lives. I have been horrified at the callous reactions of those who say it doesn't matter if far more men die in wars...since men start the wars. As if when women start wars, they send women to fight in them. As if to the man dying on a beach with his intestines blown out, it matters that Stalin or Hitler or whoever were men. As if women don't encourage men to be aggressive, and profit when their men bring home the loot.

I've known whites who thought blacks were superior, and thought them sick. Blacks who think whites are superior. Sick. Women who thought men were superior. Brain-washed.

You can guess where THAT line of reasoning goes. But as the pendulum swings, and women take more of the power in the world (a natural consequence of effective birth control and expanded educational opportunities) watch for women dominating men in commercials, situation comedies, academic environments. Watch for it to be "funny" for women to strike or dominate men in ways that would be abhorrent if the shoe was on the other foot. Watch for political organs like HuffPost to allow comments that would be seen as rabidly sexist if said by men about women.

And never, ever let yourself forget: they're the same as men, only they have female reproductive organs and secondary sexual characteristics. Sexism is sexism, and if they were guys they probably would have been "a woman's place is in the home" types. "Barefoot and pregnant" types.

In politics of all kinds: national, gender, racial, sexual...I automatically discount the opinions of the most radical 10% on either side: Liberals who think Conservatives are fools or knaves...or vice versa. Blacks who think whites are evil, or whites who think blacks are mental midgets. Men who think women are weak and manipulative, women who think men are violent and evil. Straights who think gays are diseased perverts, gays who think straights are sexually repressed hypocrites. And on and on. I am quite certain that my insistence on staying to a point of balance creates its own problems--there really are times that one polarity or another is simply correct. It happens.

But as I've said before, what I see is whites who conveniently forget the history of race relations. Women who forget that those who stop the raping men...are also, usually, men. Straights who forget that homosexuality exists in nature. Christians who forget the history of aggression between the West and the Arab world.

When will blacks stop talking about slavery? When individuals stop blaming their childhoods for their obesity, depression, and bad relationships. When religious groups stop orbiting their lives around events that took place thousands of years ago. When nations stop celebrating events that took place before any living citizen was born. When American women stop blaming men for their status in life.

In other words--when human beings stop being what they are: strong, smart, tough...and also whiny little bitches.

That's how we roll.