I Have A Dream Too
Last night I woke up, startled by a B-grade racist dream. It was surreal. But aren’t they all?
The dream began with me walking down a street, and then I’m in a moment where I am making a racist remark about Senator Obama. It’s not that my mind doesn’t do all sorts of unpredictable things, but rather that this time, something really honorless and vexing leapt out of me. I was shocked and surprised that I had done this. It was the kind of thing where I was left going, wow, I didn’t know I really felt that way. Even more alarming was the apparent fact that somehow Barack was aware of what I’d said! He overheard me, or was omniscient, or I don’t know – it was a dream!! But anyway, it startled me.
The dream quickly cut to the next scene, and I’m kind of floating above my own body, watching myself walk down a hallway, heading to a meeting with the whole Obama Family, like being called to the principal’s office. And just like that, there I am. What a dream!
There’s a lump in my throat, a knot in my stomach. I open a plain door and enter this small sterile square room, like the hospital waiting room they brought me to tell me my father had died, with bland blue vinyl chairs and couches, and I am staring face-to-face Michelle Obama’s father! … Also inside are Barack in the left corner in front of me, Michelle to my immediate left, one daughter between them, and the other to the right. Michelle’s father – their girls’ grandfather(!) – is immediately to my right, his face practically in my face, and he’s staring at me with very intense eyes which are saying a lot.
But he says nothing.
Obama looks at me with a silent, disappointed consternation. It’s a strong glare, though not entirely a bludgeon. He alternates this look with glances around the room at his family. And clearly Michelle is affronted.
I’ve come there to have my contrition, kind of like Colin Powell so publicly endorsing Obama last week, after selling the world on the Iraq War. I knew I had been cruel – and stupid – felt terrible, and wanted to get on with taking responsibility, admitting my transgression, let them judge me if they will, and attempt to show some honor.
What I had thought I was going to do is to walk in there, say what I had done, apologize, and hope to move on.
However, something about the energy in the room immediately threw me off. It was uncomfortable in that room, and they didn’t know what I was gonna say! Being a parent, I realized that I just couldn’t walk in there and say that stuff! The Obamas and Mr. Robinson were broadcasting: “How’re you going to handle this one?!” I realize quickly I can’t repeat what I’d just done in front of the kids! How would that be? Adding insult to injury is how that’d be. What kind of example is that?!
So I paused and reflected, and then something like this came out of my mouth: “I’m really learning how to appreciate people for who they are. I really have a lot to learn about respect and respecting people, and about really deeply caring, and about trusting and feeling deeply safe.”
The whole room relaxed. I was so relieved.
Then I got woken up by my baby and the dream was over.
[Anecdotally, I’ve discovered how having a child is such a great way to get to remember dreams – sleeping through the night is so a thing of the past!]
_____
Upon awakening, I was left with a small sense of guilt, but more strongly a sense of dignity and esteem, in having been present and powerfully responsive.
Soon after, I told my Reality Sandwich colleague, Ken Jordan, about this canny dream I had had, while at a retreat in Utah. He said my dream showed me confronting my shadow. And that everyone is having this type of experience right now. It’s happening across the culture. People are being confronted deeply, and their shadow is being confronted. Deeply. Right now. It’s happening all over the place.
That’s when I heard some bells going off inside my head. Suddenly I saw it; the whole country is confronted with their prejudices in this election – both collectively and individually. And we have a choice about how we are going to respond. While the election is not about race, per se, it is an election which nonetheless really draws a line in the sand.
The contrast between these two candidates could not be more clear. Deepak Chopra goes into this when he says that Palin, particularly, and the Republican party in general, represents the shadow, while Obama “is calling for us to reach for our higher selves, and frankly, that stirs up hidden reactions of an unsavory kind.” (He follows up with part two, here.)
This time around, no one is going to make the claim that the candidates are just like each other, that’s for sure. And while the difference is way more than skin deep, nonetheless people are going to have an opportunity to make a choice that is deep and personal, a choice with dimensions which goes beyond who becomes president.
Sure, it seems self-evident that plenty of people will look at their ballot and think, "I’d vote for him, but he’s black." But I’m guessing that a lot of racist-thinking people will see that thought for what it is, and raise it with a bet that a Senator Obama Presidency would be better for them. I think that at the end of the day, a surprisingly low number of people of any stripes will actually vote against their economic interest this time around. A lot of pundits are mentioning that the polls may lie because people want to lie about their true feelings. But I think something entirely opposite will occur for vast numbers of people: they will surprise themselves. They don’t actually know yet that they are going to vote for Obama.
I know, it sounds crazy. While some people won’t admit in advance they’re planning on voting for Obama, other people who had originally thought that his “color” would be the deciding factor, will find themselves “in the voting booth” reflecting … hey, wait a second, he’s black– but so what? He obviously does a better job of standing up for me. So many people are going to have an inner experience of something like, “Well I’m either going to go with my prejudice here, or vote about something that’s a little more concrete, like putting food on the table and not blowing up the rest of the world.” People will be going, Wow, I can’t believe I’m doing this, but I’m not stupid enough to be able to deny what I see. Much has already been written about this in the press.
Having set their minds to voting for McCain, having told their friends and co-workers, and people they gather with that “Hell yeah, I’m voting for McCain,” I think countless people will meet that moment when they fill in that box, or punch that card, or touch that screen, and they’ll pause, maybe hold their breath, and maybe think about their kids, and their finances, and they’ll vote for Obama. Then they’ll walk away in wonder, scratching their heads, and they’ll chalk it up to, well, life’s just confusing, and there’s plenty of things I am conflicted about, so what the hell. Self-interest versus small-mindedness. It’s a beautiful, perfect bind, because people like to do things they can feel proud of.
On one level, these candidates offer us a clear choice between past thinking, and a different future. There is just no question about it. On a certain level, though, the vote will end up being a referendum on prejudice. And because both of these streams are running concurrently, people will have the equivalent of a perfect storm type of moment, when those for whom it’s useful will be able to rationalize looking beyond their fears and prejudices out of a deeper sense of self interest.
I would go on to conclude by saying that in hindsight, this election will be a life changing, transformative moment for many, many people. Regardless of whether Obama wins, people who vote for him after wrestling with their shadow will come away from the experience of having taken the physical action of making the vote as people somehow changed. It’s different than a thought, or something spoken of – or even a dream. When you take an action in the real, physical world, it leaves an imprint on your psyche, your consciousness, and your unconscious. Like a line drawn in the sand, it marks a moment, and a place, where someone did something different than they ever had before. And while many people will meet this moment with variations on surprise, loathing, uncertainty, and conflict, it also sets up an opportunity, if things go well, for them to look back on this in the future and feel proud that they made the change in themselves. Since people love to take credit, if they’re happy about it later, they’ll surely be thinking, “I did that.”
In a nutshell, or a voting booth, or a far too easily disqualified mail-in ballot, I don’t entirely think it’s too reductive to say that, in a lot of ways, this choice, this election, this year, now, really does boil down to change, hope and inspiration versus racism.
Nonetheless, in order to overcome the voter caging and the traditional “hidden racism” Bradley effect, which could each account for the polls being off by as much as 5%, Obama really needs to come in with closer to 60% of the vote in order to win this. It’s far from over. But, it seems like a pretty good set-up. So I’m crossing my fingers, and I’m guardedly excited about it.
Hope is no more a platitude than racism is just a concept. They are realities. And if ballots and voting have a deeper meaning, then to a large extent this election really seems to be about a choice among these realities. Its consequences will extend far beyond just who becomes the next President. It’s the ultimate reality show; we’re all contestants, and we’ll all take away something from it – whether we’re aware of it or not.
Image by fakeplasticgirl, used via a Creative Commons license.
Tweet
- 10-31-08
- Jeffrey Roth's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
Comments
Generational Gap in this election
Propaganda Anonymous
From talking to people across the generations during this election campaign I have concluded that the younger generation is not as much confronted by their shadows when it comes to voting for Obama.We've grown up differently than those a generation ago.
There is a lot of bashing of my generation and younger in the form of books that I see on the shelves of bookstores, but I think this election really shows where we stand. (Though it is still dependent upon how many do get out the vote)
There is a book right now that just came out that is called 'Generation We,' and I think that sums up what I see in the positive aspects to people my age.
That said, there are always ignorant people in every generation, and I know that there are those who will not be confronted by their shadows for voting Obama in the older contingent.
Interesting article nonetheless
PEACE
PRop!
Will the Real Slim Shady Please Stand Up!
No I Don't Think That
http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=Prhnc2fxAzg&feature=related you won't have to dig very far to see the connections to hate. The Minister Louis Farrakhan received the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. Lifetime Achievement Trumpeteer, Award at the 2007 Trumpet Gala held on November 2, at the Hyatt Regency Chicago.
Don't Tell Me Words Don't Matter
When the Chickens Come Home to Roost
So your saying that I just made all this up, it's all fiction to you CJ? The Facts do not cease to exist just because they are ingorned CJ. I never said Jeremiah was a liar. Jeremiah incites anger and fear which is the foundation of hate. Was the Gospel of Jesus Christ created to incite anger?, come on CJ wake up. "Farrakhan prolly did a lot of good stuff for his community" Hey CJ could you be more specific and post some facts up on the screen man? The only thing you know about Jeremiah is that he was a bullfrog. How do you know what Obama was listening to? Twenty years of Jeremiah, that's a serious commitment CJ. I respect Jeremiah's right to free speech and Obama's right to worship. And as a libertarian and I don't vote for Democrates or Republicans execpt maybe Ron Paul. CJ the conspiracy jive is not jive to everyone, your just blind. CJ I really wish I was "blowing smoke up my backbrain."
What's OJ got to do with this CJ?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3105519703637733227 It's called Unconstitutional -The War on Our Civil Liberties.
Farrakhan in his own words
Propaganda Anonymous
Here's an interview clip of Louis Farrakhan.
McNuggetz, you have actually stated some of the same stuff on this site that Farrakhan says in this interview.
PEACE
PRop!
White Folks, You Owe Us The Whole Country!
Keep watching the Video
Propaganda Anonymous
I am not going to defend the title of the video.
I will say this, Farrakhan's next statement, was much more scaled down. Meaning that he was practing the art of Rhetoric.
Many people utilize this method when talking to a l;arge crowd, much like the size of the audience which he was speaking to.
Have you read any McLuhan or Rushkoff? How is your Media studies critique?
Some people utilize such devices to get big reactions. This is where the term rabble-rouser comes from.
Second, Farrakhan is addressing the issue of White Privilege and it's interaction with Institutional Racism.
White Privilege holds "white" people back just as much as it holds people of color back.
I am inclined to believe that the quicker we all face these Institutional flaws in our overall society design, the quicker we will find some balence with "nature" and perhaps save ourselves from ecological disaster.
Murray Bookchin, and his philosophy of Social Ecology, makes some great arguments in terms of that.
Point of interest
Cotton, picked by slaves (most of what I'm about to say applies to tobacco as well), was amongst the most exported items of this country during pretty much the entire existence of colonial habitation on this continent. Perhaps the most, during the revolutionary period. It was the southern plantation economy that enabled this country to finance a Revolutionary War. It was our economy that was part of France's decision to aid us in that war, without which we would not have won.
After the war, it continued to be the export of cotton that largely supported this country until the fledgeling industrial economy got off the ground in the north. It was this rise of economic power in the north that caused the Civil War, as southern plantation owners became at odds with the factory owners. You see, the factory owners wanted cheaper cotton so they could sell at a larger profit. And that's just for starters.
The rift between the north and south during the Civil War was a macroscale example of the rift between the capitalist and the laborer.
After the war, the slaves were freed. But they largely continued to be the pickers of cotton. They were not given the means to go anywhere, or anywhere to go really. They just mostly just did what they had been doing. Wage slavery replaced chattel slavery, as they weren't paid enough to ever be able to afford to move, and time marched on. Cotton remained (and remains) a vital commodity in the (inter)national economy.
The invention of the cotton picker ended this for the black population. Within a decade of its creation, somewhere around 1940, 100% of cotton was picked by machine. The blacks were out of a job. They headed to the cities, hoping the factories could save them. But there weren't enough jobs, in any market, for such a sudden flood, and discrimination was still out of control.
It was largely this issue that united the black community in the great civil rights movement through the 50's and 60's. They were literally starving on the streets, and no one would give them a job because of their color. That's why the black church is still so important to this day in their community: it provided succor to the starving, aid to the needy, and a forum for learning and debate. A place to be heard in a world where no one else is listening to your screams of pain.
Much like RS. You hear some crazy things here, too. None of us necessarily agree with everything that is being said, but at least here someone listens. But I degress.
This is why we still see such a large majority of the black population living in the cities. Once they got there and found there were no opportunities, they couldn't afford to leave very easily. Everything they'd had was used up in the attempt to get to where they where at.
And that is why so many of them are so poverty stricken, to this day. Poverty breeds poverty, and out-of-control stress. That level of stress has a way of wearing a person down unbelievably. Psychological studies have been done on it. Imagine being born into that. Imagine seeing that from day one.
Poverty and misery beyond the ability of words to tell were the wage we payed the black and native populations for their absolutely vital role in building this country (we literally wouldn't be here without the cheap labor we forced them to provide, or the land we stole from them). Poverty and misery are still what too many of them face today, for no other reason than everyone in their ancestry being persecuted for the amount of pheomelanin or eumelanin in their skin pigmentation.
So, you see: this country does owe the black man, and the Native American, everything: without them, we would have nothing; without us, they would likely have been just fine and dandy, thank you.
America's chickens are coming home to roost, my friend. This is the fallout of exploitation. Virtually every problem this country currently faces comes back to that.
"Pain trickled up", as a wise man once said.
"You built your empire with natives and slaves, like the Truth don't resurrect to wage the war from its grave" Saul Williams
"You must *be* the change you wish to see in the world." Mahatma Gandhi
Great Point!
Propaganda Anonymous
First of all, Saul Williams rocks! He could be the realest mc/poet in Hip-Hop. 'Black Stacey' is one of the greatest songs I've ever heard.
Second, thank you for this history Chibi.
There is not much else that I'd like to add to what you've stated, except for on thing.
Immigrants, those "who choose" to be here.
I will speak about what I know best in terms of Immigrant groups, The Irish.
Most Irish immigration occured in America during and after the Potato Famine of the 1840's.
Tom Hayden in his book, "Irish on the Inside," does a great job at stating that There WAS NO Famine, so to speak. It was Racist Economic policies that the British crown held against the Irish people that manufatured a food shortage in Ireland.
This is not a historical anomaly, it is more like the norm.
So many Irish went to America because they were literally starving, they had very little choice in the matter. And when they got to the States, they were unwanted. Being on the same social strata with Black people.
And in some instances, like when many Irish were duped into going to New Orleans for work. They were subjected to more dangerous work than black slaves because slaves were in the very least an economic investment, when the Irish were just cheap labor. Messed up stuff man.
Something occured though with the Irish. From a combination of pack-bonds, persistance, illegal activity etc. The Irish were able to pull themselves up in American Society.
But there is a dark side to this history. See The Irish became "White" along the way. They forgot where they came from, in a sense. As events progressed back in Ireland, things changed.
So, like a few other immigrant groups like the Italians, they started putting on the "white" mask in public. There seems to have been a turning point somewhere around the 1930's when it seems to have solidified more in American society. But many Irish Americans stopped wanted to be concerned with everything going on 'back home.' And again, many forgot where they came from, and then themselves started internalizing racist views and perpetuating institutional racism.
IT is all obviously more complex than the little I've written here, and all very interesting.
I believe that it is time that we all remeber where we came from, seek out heroes in the past that have been on the side of equality and use them as inspiration to truly move forward in not just America, but the whole world.
Heh. Thought you would
Heh. Thought you would dig the Saul Williams reference. I also like Immortal Technique. If you can point me toward more artists with this level and theme of lyricism, I would appreciate it. Truthfully speaking, I find most of the Hip-Hop I hear to be promoting memes that I cannot accept. But, then, the mainstream of virtually every genre is like that. The power of the artform itself is very evident to me, and I would like to be able to explore it further.
Also, it is an interesting phenomenon, this identification with 'being white' of which you speak. Of 'being black' as well, obviously. I do it subconsciously myself, even though my own ancestors were largely Irish and Apache (two of the most exploited types in history), with a smattering of Welsch; according to the geneaology my mother did years and years ago. Direct male descendent of Geronimo, if the records my mom found are accurate. Maybe it is his spirit that drives me? Who knows.
We've taken that ability from a large portion of the black population (though I think many blacks would be startled to find that their ancestors were never slaves, and came in through Ellis Island in the early 1900's...but I digress). By bringing them over, and refusing them their history (literally. We whipped them until they agreed to never talk about it again) we robbed them of any individual history. All they can know is that their ancestors were brought over on X slaveship and sold to Y 'owner'. The actual ancestry of tribe and nation are lost completely in virtually every case.
This is why they unite under one community, 'black community', in this country. Their color was all they were allowed to keep for themselves for a very, very long time.
I guess its not that I identify with being 'white', so much as that I know I am accepted in that category. The point you make of looking back to my own historical culture is a good one. In fact: Gaelic, Welsch, and Native American themes have been prevalant and fascinating to me my entire life. Weird how that all works, eh?
This whole label of dark-skinned peoples as 'black' came about with the Spanish term negro (which means black in Spanish) in about the 1400's or so. It wasn't really the norm until the 1800's. Prior to the enslavement of the African race, the issue of one's skin color wasn't considered to be very important. It didn't become critical until after a few rebellions where poor whites and slaves united in their cause, and caused a great deal of trouble. In fact, the first recorded slave revolt, in Gloucester Country, VA, included in the conspirators white servants.
There is a slew of literature of the time regarding the dangers of indentured white servants and poverty stricken whites joining with the black slaves. That would have meant literally more people than the entire rest of the population of the state (any slave-state) combined.
That's when you begin really seeing this issue of skin color being the argument. I mean, if they are 'black', and we are 'white'...Light and Dark...well, that's just the primordial conflict, going back all the way to whatever beginning you believe in. Of course they hate us, and want to hurt us. Of course we can't let them, and need to insure ourselves against them. Its just basic, right?
And, it guarantees that the exploited classes hate each other even more than they hate their exploiters. You place in effect ideologies that touch our most basic instincts, and which completely obscure the actual root cause of the problem: someone, or class of 'ones', is taking -- and squandering on obscenely opulent lifestyles -- so much of the produced wealth of the country that everyone else is starving to death.
And, let's face it, everyone is going to do what it takes to eat that next meal.
"You must *be* the change you wish to see in the world." Mahatma Gandhi
Either/Or Logic perpetuates Racism
Propaganda Anonymous
Simply put when people think in perspectives formed by Either/Or logic, they tend to see in blocks and not gradiations.
Robert Anton Wilson has written so much great stuff about the roots of Either/Or Logic, which is firmly based in Aristotelian Logic. Thomas Aquinas, way back in medieval times, solidified that form of logic.
Our knowledge has far surpassed that system, but many are still stuck there.
Alfred Korzybski, Bertrund Russell, and a few other cats really blew that open back in the 1930s and onward.
Truth is, nobody is really White. It doesn't exist. Nor is anyone really Black. Our eyes become coerced by our perceptions.
I do think that they are truly social constructions that are then reflected and played in society through, most strongly, in Economics and Legal systems.
If we are to talk about migrations to America, then there is some literature out there they firmly states that there were many migrations to America waaaaay before Columbus. Some of which was, allegedly, from Africa.
There is speculation about the ancient Mesoamerica civilazation being travelers from Africa who went found their way to mesoamerica.
This is all fairly new to me, and I am currently researching this, which will be included in future articles.
What we've been 'taught' as history has really been a a one-sided story about humanity since the 1500's.
This is a great exchange Chibi, I'm enjoying it man.
Slainte!
PRop!
I've heard of that, like
I've heard of that, like the voyage of the Kon Tiki and whatnot, right? Very interesting stuff, really. I will be interested in reading the results of your research.
As far as binary logic is concerned, I couldn't agree more. Is twilight dark or light? What about pre-dawn? Isn't it really a touch of both? I really like the idea of win/win debate and problem solving. The idea that both parties can come out happy, that the idea of a 'winner' in such situations is extremely counter-productive (for an interesting treatment of this topic, Google ternary logic, or OS012).
We should enter conversations and debates with the understanding that both parties are ultimately correct. Or, more precisely, that each of them has a piece of truth and a bit of error (and, please understand, mea culpa maxima). We should be looking as much for what we agree with as what we don't.
Coming to see and understand our mutual common-ground, without ignoring our vital differences or uniqueness, is crucial to what we are trying to accomplish here, I believe. We mostly all want -- I think its safe to say -- to work to find the Truth, and to build something more positive than what we are surrounded with...not argue semantics and opinions (though that is still an important part of the process, don't get me wrong) till the cows come home. =)
"You must *be* the change you wish to see in the world." Mahatma Gandhi
Did you get my PM man?
Propaganda Anonymous
I sent you a message with some recommendations, as per your request on the Hip-Hop artists.
Did you get it man? If not, I'll just repost it here
PEACE
PRop!
Indeed I did.
I am going to begin exploring the links tonight, and I do appreciate the info. ^_^
"You must *be* the change you wish to see in the world." Mahatma Gandhi
UNSURPRISINGLY, AN ARTICLE ON THE SHADOW FLUSHES OUT RACISM....
So much stink is made of Obama’s now-repudiated pastor Wright. In the final days of the campaign, it gets dirtier and uglier.
But the fact is, mentioning Wright is code for condoning anti-black racism. There wasn’t anything racist about Wright’s comments. I understand that may be a matter of opinion, but a commonly held opinion is that his point of view fairly represents the frustration which a lot of people have felt over having been oppressed and denied rights for centuries. So I think he rails more against the U.S. Government than against racial specifics.
On the other hand, hardly mentioned is McCain’s nefarious pastor, Rod Parsley. Rod Parsley is is an active bigot and racist, blatantly calling for the elimination of Muslims—as well as speaking out against the rights of Gays. Why hasn’t more of an issue been made of McSame’s
“past” associations with Parsley in this campaign? Could it just be that Obama didn’t want to lower himself to McCain’s level? Maybe it’s because Obama promised to run a clean campaign, and chose not to fight fire with truth. Or could it be that Parsley’s views are more in line with some sort of “mainstream” of the culture, and they’re actually found objectionable by a far smaller margin of the population? Who knows!
Furthermore, there’s Sarah Palin’s church in Wasilla, which calls for the apocalypse, actively mixes church and state, blesses her in church, raises money for her in church, and is not at all shy about proclaiming the need for the government to be taken over by people like them who wish to hasten the end of the world because Alaska will be a safe place to be in the “end times.” Just YouTube: Palin Witch Church.
So, religion and politics…a tricky thicket. Ditto the idea that somehow politics without overt spiritual guidance is somehow inherently morally bankrupt by dint of that fact. That’s an incredibly overly simplistic notion because it disregards the basic fact that we are all inherently spiritual beings already, and therefore that we are already always actively living our spirituality and therefore any political actor cannot be being anything less than an expression of the spirituality in which he or she believes. It would probably be inappropriate for a politician to wear the clothes of the clergy, but short of that, I’m not quite sure what the qualifier would be.
But really, and more to the point, my article was not about Reverend Wright, nor the validity of the practice and principle of voting itself, nor was it about whether Obama is qualified, nor whether he is similar to any other politician and if so, how. The point of my article was really quite narrow and direct, and quite the opposite. What I am specifically talking about in the article is that if one were to strip away everything else besides race, then there are a white candidate and a black candidate in the two slots on the ticket amongst which the election will be decided. And that this sets up a specific set of circumstances which have some unique ramifications at this specific historical moment.
In fact I have recently heard news of Union leaders in Pennsylvania asking their members to do just this—imagine in their minds the too candidates without taking race into account, and then adding race back in. People are startled to have this brought to their attention, and it helps them to become more clear about what really matters to them. Millions of people who never thought they would vote for a Black man will do so this week. Regardless of whether Obama wins or loses, the culture is going to come out the winner on this score, because a huge number of people will transcend their prior self concepts which had inhered a degree of racism, even if just for a moment. And while it may not change everything on that front for them, it will mark a difference that they will never forget.
I think the point I was making that the 2008 Presidential Election forces Americans to confront their shadow consciously, and possibly like never before, is really exemplified by how some of the discourse in the Comments on the article nearly immediately spiraled deeply into a kind of race-baiting-inspired tailspin, in my read.
Hate Comes in Every Color
Trinity United Church of Christ is building Barack Obama's controversial former pastor a million-dollar Tinley Park home complete with an elevator, whirlpool, butler's pantry, circular driveway and four-car garage in a 93 percent white neighborhood. Jeremiah is a racist pure and simple. Jeremiah Wright has made a fortune by tapping into black hate with comments like this "They will not only attack you if you try to point out what's going on in white America, U.S. of K-K-K-A." So according to Jeremiah all white people are KKK'ers. Jeffrey that is called racism! Jeffrey if you were to say that all of black america is gold chain wearing thugs and ho's, you would be a racist. Jeremiah is not a spiritual healer, he is just a hater.
"Cock-blockers, come in every color
Even blue, now this is true
Trying to fuck your woman, and even you
Now what the fuck would you do, motherfucker" Tha Dogg Pound Gang
Wright again.
The point you are missing is that it isn't just Wright that perpetuates this type of rhetoric an hypocritical activity. This is a recurring problem with many, many 'evangelical' or 'fundamentalist' churches, of every color and race. Your focus on Wright alone seems inappropriate. I'm glad that you at least quoted a Hip-Hop group, as I was beginning to wonder (although my cousins are about as racist as it gets, yet they ride around in their pick-up trucks blasting rap all day (its sorta like that Lynard Skynard song Curtis Lowe, where they essentially say that black people aren't useless because they make good music)).
And none of this ties to Obama in any meamingful sense. Do you believe that the de facto/de jury founder of this site is the Avatar or Messiah of Quetzacoatl? I don't; in the slightest (no offense meant, Daniel). There is more craziness and opinion that flies around this place than I could ever shake a stick at, and I disagree with at least as much of it as I agree with.
But, if someone ran for President -- just for fun, let's say you -- and your opponents started focusing entirely on Daniel and his prophecies, and attempted to tie you to that story to sway conservative voters away. Perhaps even got some footage of him speaking at one of the many conferences he attends, then finding the three sentences that were most intensely radical, and looped them constantly for months, with no further context unless you were the type do do you own research.
I think you would agree that to be out of line (perhaps I'm wrong). But, they would say, look at the judgement it shows, to go back time and again to a site that promulgates these ideas. This is anti-American!
What we don't have footage of is Obama's responses to his pastor's more visceral sermons. Did he shake his hand after the talk, and say, "Well, I appreciate your passion, as always, pastor. But I can't say that I agree with everything you are saying." Why isn't it possible that this was his reaction? It seems very inline with the persona he presents, anyway. Far more in line than the fire-and-brimstone death-to-America rhetoric of Wright. Perhaps he kept going for so many years because that's where his family, friends, or some combination of the two attended. Maybe Wright's venom was a constant source of debate for them.
The point is, you don't know, and neither does anyone else who has been promoting this useless insight on the life and times of Pastor Jeremiah Wright.
"You must *be* the change you wish to see in the world." Mahatma Gandhi
Obama Lovers Relax
Think for yourself and question authority. That's the point I'm trying to make here. Obama thinks of Jeremiah as family, they have known each other for over twenty years! Jeremiah married the Obama's, this is a deep relationship these two men share together. But don't take my word for it do your own research. My focus has been on Obama because I believe that he is going to win the election. I believe that the Constitution of the United States is being slowly undermined. I believe that executive branch of our goverment has become to powerful. I believe that the world economy could collapse. I believe that war is going to spread. I believe that America is becoming a dangerous police state. I believe that the biosphere is in trouble. This why I want to know what Obama believes! I want to raise awareness and investigate the influence Jeremiah had on Obama before Obama entered the political scene and the national spotlight. Our country cannot afford to make any more mistakes. So get off my back and stop pointing your fingers at me, I'm am just trying to connect the dots.
P.S. "The world is not run by thought, nor by imagination, but by opinion." Elizabeth Drew
My black friends and co-workers tell me that Obama isn't really black to them...Obama's mother is white. So I'll say this again. It makes no difference to me the color of Obama's skin, I am more concerned about the color of Obama's soul.
I wouldn't call Wright a Racist
Propaganda Anonymous
What are you basing your statements about Wright being a racist on McNuggetz? From the stuff I've seen of his on youtube, and not what has been said in mainstream press, Wright does not seem like a racist. So I am wondering what you are basing that statement on.
I agree
"This time around, no one is going to make the claim that the candidates are just like each other, that’s for sure." - I'm sorry, but I couldn't disagree more.
There have been plenty of people who have - rightly - stated just that.
Here's a recent example:
"...this election is not about issues but about personalities. Of course there are differences, but they are not fundamental. Nobody should have any illusions. The United States has essentially a one-party system and the ruling party is the business party...Let us look at the “differences” more closely, and we recognize how limited and cynical they are. The hawks say, if we continue we can win. The doves say, it is costing us too much. But try to find an American politician who says frankly that this aggression is a crime: the issue is not whether we win or not, whether it is expensive or not. Remember the Russian invasion of Afghanistan? Did we have a debate whether the Russians can win the war or whether it is too expensive? This may have been the debate at the Kremlin, or in Pravda. But this is the kind of debate you would expect in a totalitarian society. If General Petraeus could achieve in Iraq what Putin achieved in Chechnya, he would be crowned king. The key question here is whether we apply the same standards to ourselves that we apply to others."
- Noam Chomsky
(www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,583454,00.html)
I don't like to be a hopeless naysayer. Change isn't only possible, it's inevitable. But it's not going to come from a false messiah. Nor will it come from believing in complex artistic systems like politics which are - at least on the level in which most of us interact with them - devoid of spiritual substance.
Don't vote.
Okay, I agree with
Okay, I agree with everything except that last sentence.
What, exactly, will not voting get anyone?
If everyone who was on our side actually voted/was able to vote, we might actually be able to change this country in a far more positive direction. Not all the way to where I would like it, but too much change all at once is unstable.
Even still, a third party might find itself suddenly in a position of power, and a minority finally with a voice in the forum of public debate.
Please vote. Don't let anyone sway you with who might/might not win. Just at least vote. If we take enough votes away from the major parties this election, they might pay us more mind next cycle.
Not voting gets you exactly nothing but screwed when you might have made a difference.
"You must *be* the change you wish to see in the world." Mahatma Gandhi
ARE YOU OF SPLIT MIND? YOU SAY "I AGREE" BUT THEN THEN YOU DON'T
You start with: "This time around, no one is going to make the claim that the candidates are just like each other, that’s for sure." - I'm sorry, but I couldn't disagree more.
The point I was making here was a reference to the 2000 presidential race when Nader made the point which Chomsky is making in your reference, which was that the mainstream candidates are more similar than dissimilar, or something to that effect. I love Chomsky as much as any super liberal. That being said, in my mind, his point is a relative one. Since it is a relative world and our existence is actually based on making choices and differentiating, it is important that we grapple with the distinctions which are available. So again, I feel totally comfortable with my original statement, that Obama and McCain are distinctly dissimilar. I was not opening a discourse on the level of their similarity—of which I am decently aware. Your nuanced point is fair, but it misses the point of my article... However, as to your point, and in respect to the relative real material world in which we exist, I do think your perspective akin to that of the “hopeless naysayer,” so if that is what you don’t want to be, then I would question that. That change is inevitable is really besides the point here as well; it’s quite a passive position, and has nothing to do with voting. Most change in the human realm is incremental. Further, we often are presented with imperfect options, but “not” choosing may not really forward anything except apathy really. I’m not really sure where I personally mentioned anything about Obama being a messiah, nor intimated feelings to that effect. Further if you wish for there to be something in a conversation which isn’t there---such as in the case of what you mention, spirituality in politics, then I hope you can find the courage in yourself to bring that element which you value into the discourse. Believing that Bush=Gore was a relative truth which Nader and his egoism interjected into the 2000 race and it contributed to what cost Gore the race. The planet and its people have suffered as a consequence. I think people have woken to a significant degree from that cynicism of eight years ago to see more clearly that sitting on the sidelines of life serves them nothing. And while odds are he is not the messiah (and hasn’t claimed to be) I do feel that Obama’s message reminds people that they matter. I hope you can catch my drift.
Principle wins
In the way that the 'USA' came 'aborning' amongst all the political systems of the world there is one every ascending principle: all are equal in essence.
I can't think of anything more in consonance with this appreciation of a sentiment of equinimity as that from amongst us ALL we should see an individual from a 'diverse' background and not a member of the 'elite', let alone not being 'white', yet be able to President.
Why would this be anything surprising? What is it we idealize? Who hasn't heard it said: ANYONE CAN BECOME PRESIDENT?
And if we are a Nation of Law and Equity, what would 'race' have to do with that?
Here is a thoughtful man. If he were a black woman, that would be like the best of all worlds.
In fact, I predict that the first woman president will be a woman of 'color'.
It won't be Sarah Palin. Nor Senator Clinton.
It might be that Caroline Kennedy is the first woman president. I'm rather certain, should that be, the VP will also be a woman. And that will be a woman of color.
And so, by degrees, we'll see that the dominant paradigm gets closer to what is writ and what we claim to 'idealize': all one, all equal, a system of representation that comes from our own midst.
At all costs, we must at least ask that such know what the Constitution says as extant and the underlying principle that gave birth to it.
We can ammend this to more perfectly approximate a fair or fairer and just system. A reticence to just add ammendments has good grounds since as a basis for a code of Government it has worked. A common saying being: if not broke, don't 'fix' it.
Certain issues about the Constitution have legitimate arguments yet to be resolved. Like the role of the 'Judiciary' and 'presidential nominations' of 'for life' judges.
Today, and tomorrow, we are about to see the document live as really promising equality. And then all the objection based only on prior inertia will fade away and we will know: we feared - - - if we feared - - - for no reason.
By behavior, the electee will be judged. Not on issues of 'race', but on judgement. On deliberations. On wisdom . . . or the lack therof.
No black, no white 'superiority' exists. No 'superiority' at all. What's superior is principled behavior and adherance to a system that provides by LAW fairness and justice and judgement and, even, mercy. And maybe even 'mercy' above all things.
======================
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation." HERBERT SPENCER
P.S.: Evidently, when one 'edits' the 'signature' on RS, there is some limit to the number of letters allowed. I've tried to fix this any number of times and it never comes out right. The quote is from Herbert Spencer, not He, or Her, or Herbe or Herbert but "HERBERT SPENCER" . . . .
Check out Spencer. I expect this sentence, too, will be cut off mid-sen . . . just kidding.
<
This article is poignant for me
This article is poignant for me.
I grew up in a small Texas town(Graham, TX), with a pretty small population (I don't remember the exact number, I was very young. circ. 1985).
The black population was near nil, and they still held KKK meetings once a month.
Needless to say, as a very small and nerdy white boy, I didn't have positive encounters with the very few blacks I did encounter during these years. Nor did I receive a positive outlook. From being beaten up by frustrated children, to hearing the worst sort of talk; its safe to say I grew up racist.
It took years to get past this. And part of it was sweet circumstance beyond my power. I moved all over; from Wyoming, to Virginia, to Maryland, finally to Georgia. I met a larger example of the black population. I grew to realize the faults and limitations of my parents. I expanded my horizons through literature and art.
At this point in my life, some of my best friends have been dark-skinned. It was amazing to me how open they were about talking about the issue, actually. The final hurdle I had to overcome was being afraid to even mention their difference, much as we hesitate to talk about someone in a wheelchair.
That's where a lot of people reside today. They would like to believe they are all over it...but they are actually trying to ignore it.
I truly hope you are right about which way they will swing when they stand before that choice.
"You must *be* the change you wish to see in the world." Mahatma Gandhi
Cool Man
Propaganda Anonymous
You were pulling needles from your brain
That is a metaphor I will explain at a later date.
One thing that I'd like to add onto your statement Chibi is that one thing that "White" people might be doing more and more, (I think Hip-Hop and the Internet has added lots to this) is that "they" are breaking out of the media constructed 'reality' of the other.
So prejudices are crumbling. And some "white" people are getting cold feet a bit, thas cool. Keep pushin through it, there are plenty of cool people on the other side. And the music is dope! Haha.
For real though, thank you for the comment.
thanks for the link...
Just checked out the Chomsky interview -- thanks for posting!
Re: Conner's admonition against voting posted above, here's a quote direct from Chomsky that speaks well to this:
"To say it doesn't make any difference who wins is simply to express your contempt for the general population, because it does make a difference. A lot of what they say is correct, the two parties are effectively factions of one party: the Business Party. But the factions are somewhat different, and as I mentioned, over time the differences show up in benefits, working conditions, wages, things that really matter to people."
I also chuckled a bit at this line:
"There's nothing wrong with picking the lesser of two evils; the cliche makes it sound as if you're doing something bad, but no, you're doing something good if you pick the lesser of two evils."
Hey hey - glad everyone's
Hey hey - glad everyone's talking.
I'd like to point out that when I say, "don't vote", I often get the "if we ALL voted..." response (or some variation of it - "If all the GOOD people voted..." etc.). Give thought to the other side. What if none of us voted? If everyone actively decided to refuse the vote and protested against it? You can come up with whatever future you'd like for that side too. Some would be positive, some negative. Neither scenario is likely to happen. So I leave the voting for the people who believe it does something - if you think it works, you should do it. I don't, so I try my best to pursue freedom in ways that don't exist for a moment and then disappear as soon as I walk out of a curtained booth.
The fact is, when we vote, we support the democratic system. When we decide to do that, we implicitly give our support to whoever wins. If we don't - if we gripe about George Bush (stolen elections aside) and say, "He's not my president," we're deceiving ourselves. The possibility of the "other side" winning is part of what we support when we vote.
I chose Chomsky's bit as a rebuttal to a statement in the article - that no one would claim the candidates were the same.I'm not a big fan of Chomsky's, but he's clearly a bright and politically active person - I wanted to show that there were intelligent people flying in the face Jeffrey Roth's reductive assertion.
The reason I don't like Chomsky is the same reason I don't particularly care for politics. The way in which he interacts with politics is materialistic. He believes that it's people interacting with people, and that there's no will of spiritual beings behind the whole thing. This is the way most people interact with politics (or with most anything, I suppose). When a spiritual being does show up in politics, it's that vague (or overly-defined)"God" with a big G. Without going too deeply into cosmology, I think it's safe to claim there's a deformed connection between fundamentalist Christian belief and what is actually going on - so that their connection between spiritual beings and politics is confused.
I don't think that politics drained of a spiritual perspective can do much good. It's an empty art. In fact, we usually have to work against the political system, employing a real spirituality, to bring about real change.
When we engage in politics, we run the risk of getting confused by the art of it - the battle of personalities and the false glimmers of hope. When we enter the painting, we get stuck in the frame.
Much love,
Conner
And what definition of
And what definition of spirituality should we base our laws on? How long before that becomes a state religion? Or do you just want it to say somewhere, "We aknowledge that there is a spiritual aspect to life"? Politics is about government, and government is (ideally) about our material relations to one another, and nothing more. I'd rather it just stay out of spirituality, thank you very much.
And if nobody voted, they would just use the Supreme Court or Congress and the Senate to appoint a President. Then there would probably be a media blitz of propaganda, a great deal of it entering our public schools, to help whip up some zealotry and patriotism again. Perhaps even another Reichstag-style event. Fear usually works. They might have to bring the danger closer to home, as we are getting pretty cynical, but they still have plenty of room to work with.
Whatever they did, the one thing you can guarantee is that they will not just let go of power. You don't get to their position by being the sort who lets go of power.
Besides, there is a performative contradiction in this argument: everyone not voting is just as unlikely as everyone voting (perhaps less, because it is asking people to give up power, however little or illusory). This being the case, it is unwise to not have your voice be heard.
You will be expected to obey regardless of whether you participated.
"You must *be* the change you wish to see in the world." Mahatma Gandhi
racism is not part of "my shadow"
han shan
It seems to me that free thinking individuals are up against a rock called the system and a hard place called race in this election.
What about the issues?
McCain is obviously woeful on every issue but what about Obama?
Will he seek to end the fake War on Terror?
Will he seek to end the War on (some) Drugs?
Will he seek to repeal legislation like Patriot Act and Military Commisions Act and strike Bush's executive orders from the books?
Will he dismantle the police state thats been growing around us since September 11 in the name of fighting terror?
What about his rhetoric on Afghanistan, a resource war fought under false pretenses just like Iraq?
Will he continue to siphon off money from the public to the military industrial complex and its foreign wars amounting to about a trillion dollars a year?
Didn't he support the bailout plan, which basically stole money from the people to prop up failed monetary institutions?
Will GM and Ford and the airlines die the deaths they deserve for their lack of innovation or will he bail them out too?
What about our environment and the consequences of a system based on unlimited growth?
Sorry to get all radical on y'all, but these are the things I'm passionate about. The change this election represents just isn't enough for me to vote, so I'll be sitting this one out. Plus I've voted in three past presidential elections and since I live in a stridently "red state" the electoral college guaranteed my vote never counted.
I hope Obama wins, but I dont see his candidacy changing too much of the things I mentioned above. If anything democratic control of both the executive and legislative branches will show people how much the two parties are alike. Or maybe my hypothesis that we are ruled by an elite corporate oligarchy will be proven wrong.
For those who woke up during Bush II just remember to stay awake and aware in the next few years.
P E A C E
An important perspective on voting...
Hello all, I have posted a link address below, which I believe, expresses a very important explanation of what voting is.
I would encourage you all to watch the video (it's short) and try to set your bias aside. I actually will be voting in this upcoming election, but not because I bear any illusions about the act. I simply view it as a way to make my sentiment heard to the vote counters. It is a protest vote and nothing more. I hope for no one to be president.
Nonetheless, I share much of the perspective expressed in the video. I hope it pushes some of you to think a little more critically about "political solutions." Thanks. Much love to all.
Here is the address:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oGMEEE11Lc
ON HAN SHAN's POINTS...
I'm not sure if you can agree with me or not that the country was in a lot better shape when Bush got into office than now, nearly 8 long years later. It takes time to change things--for better or for worse. It took a few years for Clinton to balance the budget, months for Bush to bankrupt the government. Change takes time. I think it's more a read on whether one can see through the rhetoric to the intentions and character of the candidate. Did anyone really believe that Bush would be a "Compassionate Conservative?" I sure as bush didn't.
I do agree that all of the real issues you raised are very important factors in considering the candidates. I also know that a candidate would never outright make a statement on most of those matters. Those matters are too inflamatory.The candidates will give indications of their true direction during the campaign, but of course what they really will do, and what they have the policial capital to do, remains to be seen. ... They have to play to the middle to win elections, then they can do what they want. That's why Bush faked center than ran hyperspeed to the ultra far right.
I hate to get all radical on ya too, but I'm also passionate too. Racism may not be part of your shadow, but based on what you wrote, to be honest, defeatism and cynicism do seem to be a part of your shadow. And since I am passionate, and I wrote this article because I deeply care about the direction of politics, I'm taking the time to not call that out and not let your comments go unanswered--because, as I mentioned in the article, it was similar arguments made by Nader of all people which significantly contributed to Gore's loss in 2000. I amnot saying that feelings of defeatism and cynicism aren't totally reasonable and understandable, I'm just sayin what'cha gonna do about it, huh? I'd really hate to see you have'ta get all more cynical if ya sat this one out and didnt participate and then somehow McCain won, even though in your state your vote may not matter, and the country ends up trending further right. The comments about Chomsky saying it's wise to choose who's better I think should be taken to heart.
Peace to you as well.
Cynicism is definitely part of my shadow
and I'm no expert on Jung, but didn't he say we needed to integrate our shadow selves into our conciousness? Cynicism is a useful tool for building a workable reality tunnel. Sometimes its also called street smarts or common sense. Cynicism is somewhat like anger in that it can be useful as long as you don't allow it to overcome you.
The democrats just don't do it for me and I cant understand why we only have two parties in this country. Other countries have multiple parties and it seems to create an atmosphere of richer debate and true democracy. The conclusion I come to is that we really only have one party. I think Chomsky called it the business party in one of the quotes above. By creating the false duality of left/right, democan/republicrat they pull off the old divide and conquer trick.
I disagree with your assertion that Nader lost the election for Gore. Gore lost that election on his own by running an uninspired campaign. Nader was spot on in his evaluation of Bush/Gore as tweedledee and tweedledum. And Bush only took off on a tangent to the far right because 9/11 gave him the political capital to do so. And oh how the dems rolled over! Not to mention they've been in control of congress since 2006 and we're still in Iraq and Bush is still unimpeached.
I'm pretty sure Obama is gonna win tomorrow. And as a matter of fact I'm pulling for him. I can't shake the feeling that theres more autoritarianism and war on the horizon, though. And the cognitive dissonance among the true believers is going to be painful to watch if thats the case. But, rather than be defeated I'll keep on fighting in any way I can.
I can also pretty well assure you that McCain is gonna win ALABAMA. Probably by double digits. And thats where I'm at. I'll save everyone the electoral college rant.
To anyone who lives in, say, Ohio or Florida or Pennsylvania for instance, get out there and vote because your vote will probably actually count for something.
And if McCain wins tomorrow in a fair election then you have no right to complain against the will of the people. Forget about the dumbing down and manipulation by the corporate media, the shitty education system and the fundamentalist and materialist belief systems(BS). Thats democracy!
Did you say you live in ALObama?
I can tell your comments are heartfelt and I appreciate that a lot.
All I can say is, isn't it interesting that ALABAMA and OBAMA are Surprisingly similar words?!
Hmmm,, I wonder what that means!
But seriously, even in Alabama, the more numbers Obama gets, the greater a message it sends--win or loose.
And secondly, there are more parties than just the two. Although the others aren't going to win any time soon, and maybe never, people can still vote their conscience. I do think those numbers are important, even the ones in the "losing" column(s), simply becuase they register sentiment and support for postitions, and--vote fraud aside--that gives the collective conscious if you will a read on where things are at. It's like a census.
Finally, one recent commenter made some really nice remarks today about what it had felt like for them not to have voted in the past, and why they are choosing to do so this time around.
Anyway, I respect the integrity of your personal process. Best wishes to you.
Re: Han Shan and Chibi and Entangled Roots
Han Shan, I read and agree with your concerns - they're real concerns that, I believe, are more important than the cult of personalities that this election represents.
Thank you also, EntangledRoots, for the great link. I think that's good viewing for everyone.
Chibi, I think it's important to note that all governments run on spiritual principles. In the same way that people claiming to not be political are taking political action, governments that claim to be secular are in fact supporting specific thought-forms and spiritual impulses, if not spiritual beings themselves.
Explaining all the aspects of the spiritual tradition I follow most and experience as a fact (Anthroposophy) would be lenghty and difficult in a discussion forum. But I do think that the US government is allied with a specific spiritual impulse - or see it as a cultural impulse if you don't want to believe in spiritual beings, it's fine. The cultural/social name is Materialism. The spiritual name is Ahriman. Fundamentalist Christianity is also allied closely with this impulse.
To believe that our government isn't spiritual doesn't hold water with me. There is a spiritual dimension to war and exploitation, as well as the urge toward living purely materialistic lives, which our government's economic system encourages.
So yes, we need to realign the spirit of the government.
You're right that neither scenario - everyone voting or no one voting - is likely to happen. Which is why I addressed that in my post.
But I don't think that by not voting, my voice isn't heard. Whenever anyone asks me why I'm not voting, I get to have a conversation with him/her about spiritual principles in government, the trouble with politics and and the frustration I have with both candidates. I've had this conversation many times, learned a lot from the people who heard me out, and have hopefully contributed to their conceptions as well. I feel a lot more visible in that way than pressing the Obama button and going home to see what happens on TV.
Much love,
Conner
ConnerHabib---TALKING ABOUT VOTING AND DOING IT ARENT EQUIVALENT
Not Voting Is Action
Consciously deciding not to vote is not the same as forgetting or deciding to beer-and-chips it while people are out voting. You call it "not choosing" - In fact, I believe it is a profound choice to not vote and then speak to people about the benefits of opting out.
I feel saddened by the persitent notion, which you perpetuate, that voting makes your voice heard. When people make a conscious decision to not vote, we are told that our voices don't count, when in fact it is the vote that is the empty gesture.
By not voting and spreading the word on it, we use our real voices - to speak, to help generate new possibilites, to discuss spirituality, and to communicate an often stifled point of view. No one uses his or her voice when touching screens or pulling levers.
Voting in the presidential race doesn't make your voice heard. It makes your voice fall in line. It reduces your voice to a gesture and an either/or soundbyte rather than a conversation. It makes the powerful and generally murderous actions of the candidate you vote for (or more precisely the candidates the ec votes for) heard. It's an absurd gesture in a hopeless game.
It reminds me of the post-September 11th Onion headline:
"Not Knowing What Else To Do, Woman Bakes American-Flag Cake"
Much love,
Conner
What benefits do you really
What benefits do you really feel from opting out. I ask that in ernest, as I followed precisely your strategy for the past 3 presidential election cycles (and, obviously, all of the ones before I was of age ^_^), and never felt that great about having chosen to not vote when it was all over.
I believe, as you do, that spiritual principles are behind what is going on, perhaps in the form of entities, perhaps as memes controlling action, maybe a combination of the two. I agree with you that talking to people about the issues, about the failures of the system, and about the greater perspective a spiritual outlook fosters.
Not voting and trying to get others to follow that example, however, I eventually decided, from my perspective, to be counter productive in the extreme. I want people to feel empowered themselves, to be inspired to participate in a movement to create a better world. This idea of not voting as a statement of power or individuality is inevitably one that causes people to feel a loss of power, or at least a lesser need to take part.
Voting is participation, and habit is hard to break.
Get people in the habit of just sitting out elections that they don't feel are necessary, and you get people out of the habit of participating in a community. You promote, overall, a sense of isolation and powerlessness in the world as it is now. These are very potent spiritual factors.
The changes may be more gradual than I would like. The issues at hand may not be the ones that I would like to be at the forefront. But it is closer now than it has been, and this is largely due to the fact that alternative parties steal votes (and the fact that W was so inept). I feel that people should vote 100% with their ideas, and not be swayed by polls and media statements of 'electability'. This is the 'falling in line' of which you speak, and I will agree with you that it is harmful. No one wants to be on the losing side, I guess.
Change, however, always is -- and always will be -- gradual (accepting crazy situations when giant rocks fall from the sky, or alien beings from alternate dimensions of existence beam new intelligence into our brains, or whatever. But there's no use trying to plan for what you cannot predict).
Voting with our hearts is the best thing we can do. If enough people vote for a third party, then either a) that party might find itself unexpectedly in power, or (more likely) b) next cycle one or the other parties might take up some of those issues in an attempt to gain more votes, bringing those issues into the arena of public debate on a much larger scale than a small conversation will ever do.
Either way, you get a little bit of progress. And the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.
"We first make our habits, then our habits make us." John Dryden
"You must *be* the change you wish to see in the world." Mahatma Gandhi
Connor
i am not your shadow. i am you.
well,
i'll be 50 in less than a year. born in washington dc on sept 11 1959 at walter reed army hospital. negro appears on my birth certificate.
i've never voted, never will. i always vote, always will.
i heard a show on the radio the other day called "in the spirit" on wrpi-fm, and the hour's guest shaman said "nothing matters, everything matters."
not voting for politicians is a vote for yourself, and affirmation of the self is what america needs. from everyone. there is no real need for change, but there is a need to readjust perception. adjusting perception, attitude adjustment, that is all we need do to see the world is much better than we would care to believe/perceive.
i understand that the race thing is a big issue for white america, a big issue for black america. but the races and nations people cling to are all the product of the artificial accumulation of imaginary power. there is no ireland or irish, no italy or italian, no germany or german. these are figments of imaginary lines no one can find on the face of the planet without the aid of easily obliterated paper.
maybe my birth chart enabled me to get over calling myself an american. or maybe i read too many letters in print. i am not even a world citizen. like jesus said, i'm a child of god, and god is nothing less than the universe. it can be frustrating that we blame each other, frustrate and enslave ourselves. i smell the frustration. know it, for it is my own. i must look again. see that the argument frustrates me because i too, look to blame.
once, i was invited to meet a pair of curators at a west side bar. the woman talked to me, incensed, for her own personal reasons, about the depiction of women on tv. i wondered why she cared, asked her as much. did she really expect tv to put out positive images of any people? even the white men on tv are unlike any of the white men i have known. she persisted. women were getting a raw deal, more than anyone. i teased her, we all get a raw deal from tv, but i have no raw dealometer to ascertain whose deal makes them the most raw. she was determined to show me the darkness of women's suffering at the hands of tv. in the capitalist system, i said, everything becomes a tool for the exploitation of the one true self. even the powerful white man, ron reagan, he was a victim of the oppressive capitalist order. he was not free to come and drink with us as we were to drink with one another. he needed bodyguards to protect his chosen vessel. and still, he supposedly took a bullet. george herbert walker tried to relax by taking too much halcyon, puked on the japanese prime minister in front of the tv cameras. all that power, it kills equal opportunity style. look closely and perceive.
"women," she cried, "tv hurts us."
finally, i told her, "look, have i pestered you to argue about who is more oppressed: women or blacks?"
her response: "why, you're not even black."
(i am, in ghetto parlance, a yellow nigger, but 100% black american, despite my ivy league degree, my chinese great grandpa, my irish great grandpa, my cuban granny, my art school cred, my norwegian [now ex-]wife)
to this assertion, i asked, "oh, is that a compliment or an insult?"
assured of her answer, she began, "why, it's a compliment," then suddenly realized her gaffe and charged me with deception, "that's a trick question!"
i am not your shadow. i am you.
much of what chomsky says, i agree with. but not all. because chomsky says vote, i am not compelled to do so or be saddled with the "conflicted" label. much of what wright says, i have heard since i was a child. i once agreed with some of it, quickly moved on.
all of what obama and mccain say, i hear every four years. i identify with the fear obama and his supporters feel when lunatic fringe mccain supporters howl for his assassination. and although i support a woman's right to choose, i think abortion is murder. but so is poverty and greed in the capitalist system. while i abhor murder, it may be the best option when faced with capitalism's offering of living death.
i once believed that i had attempted suicide. some say that failing at suicide is not an attempt. i'll spare you the details, but i definitely tried. for years, i perceived death as a better choice than the lifeless survival offered by capitalism. of course, i learned that in the universe of which capitalism is just a passing flatulence, death is not an option. only fools try to shape or destroy amorphous energy (of which the material is temporary manifestation). life abounds eternal.
i am not convinced that my vote will matter. it will not help bring on the end of the capitalist system, the lamentable shell game i saw for what it was by the time i was eleven years old. a game that too many people, liberal and conservative, are keen to prop up. it is an inhuman, evil, bloodthirsty system, and it thrives on separation and blame, hatred and fear, death and alienation. just like the moon hungers for our sadness. it is why liberals hope for good cops. it is why conservatives fear black retaliation. it is why a vote for either or both of these corporate shills is merely a vote to transfer the responsibility of the self away from the self. it is a confirmation of the hatred of the self that the capitalist system and its millions of self hating selves teach to each and every other self, their only hope that the self-annihilation they sense will be imparted upon all with whom they come into contact, and beyond. i don't oppose capitalism, but i call a spade a spade. in capitalism, all you have only proves you've been had. thus, capitalism, merchant of death and distraction before the one true self, destroys itself, providing fertilizer for the rise of the one true self. capitalism killed god and king to insert money and the individual in their place. guilty, money and the individual die the death they sowed. none need kill what has chosen death.
the king is dead. long live king!
i oppose nothing that is part of me, of which i am a part, since i, like you, we are everything. i and i, and you an eye through the doors of perception. true self is not dissuaded. it is determined to be as it is, and always will be.
what is needed is the clear perception that you have nothing, that property is theft, that usurial money is murder.
the banks are suddenly cashing more checks. some think that is a good thing. like lower fuel prices. a good thing. like winning a war. a good thing. or a good neighborhood. a good thing.
laughter abounds, ubiquitous.
your self needs your vote. only then will you vote for your fellows, irrespective of race, gender, income, status. actually, those things will disappear the more we see that we only see our true self in one another. fear of the other is fear of what we recognize as fearful in the self.
cj and mcnuggetz, for example, are each sharing the role of teacher and student. as are we all. the line is constantly crossed, the line, geometrically speaking, merely being that smallest section of a circle -- of a sphere, really -- that one cannot perceive.
infants perceive this: the flux of the amniotic omniverse that nourishes us with every imperceptibly gracious breath. we unlearn this, enroll in the school of tangible fear we call hard knocks, ignoring the self that knocks upon the door we closed and locked to be safe, secure in the fear our knowledge brings, growing old.
perceive no one need be punished. forgiving the self is the hardest, deepest secret we share. do it. all the time.
if you want real democracy, you would opt for civil service by lottery. like the draft. no presidents, governors, mayors. only councils. councils chosen by lottery. each citizen is eligible. if they are adjudged guilty of a crime, then the civil service will be their rehabilitation. but a land that allows everyone an equal shot would not suffer from crime, nor the perceived separation-fragmentation-confrontation-competition that so unites us in the dominant mode of perception we all willingly struggle to unlearn, knowingly or not.
peace and love, brothers and sisters.no one asks for anything more.
norman douglas
"vote for me and i'll set you free!"
-- from The Temptations' "Ball of Confusion"
written by Norman Whitfield & Barret Strong,
From my perspective, being
From my perspective, being willing to vote is a vote for yourself.
If we are speaking of reforming the system itself, I couldn't agree more that a system of civil service by lottery, appointing all government positions exactly as we do jurors, is absolutely a great idea for a system of government. Add to it immediate accountability, where a majority (or at least supermajority) can call any government official to task, up to and including being removed from office, at any time those they govern will it.
Barring a major period of some type of civil unrest, however, the only way we are ever going to get there is by participating and putting some kind of say into the system as it is now, understanding that any sort of change of this magnitude will almost certainly have to be gradual (again, unless something crazy happens. And, while there is some evidence that craziness may indeed be about to happen, we don't really know Who, What, When, How, or Where. So we might as well work with what we have until we know something for certain...consider it practice for the big event, if nothing else!), lest society unravel itself in a way that is far more likely to cause us to devolve than evolve.
As to your non-dual rhetoric, I agree wholeheartedly! You are, this is, we are God! Reality, existence, consciousness... these are the real-time manifestations of infinity throughout eternity. The funny thing about finally realizing that fact, for me, is this: I love the Divine, and I wish to embrace it. To let it know of my love.
But it is sooo much larger than this finite one. And though I know I am it, I this finite being still loves it so!
So how do you embrace that which is greater than you? What can you give the infinite that it doesn't already have?
By swimming in it, you embrace it. By participating in it, you give it the one thing you can choose (in at the very least an epi-phenomenal way): your action. In whatever way you are drawn to do so.
You don't wanna vote? Don't. Don't expect me to agree with you, since I really mostly think that the fact that people like us tend not to vote is one of the very things that allows the elite (the penultimate hosts of the ideology of seperation, whatever you wish to name them) to continue bringing misery, torment, and, yes, capitalism to the world...but then again I am you, so I must agree. And you are me, so you do vote. ^_~
Also, non-dual realization leads me to love the differences -- even the conflicts -- just as much as the Oneness, harmony, and beauty; as it is all God. Right?
"You must *be* the change you wish to see in the world." Mahatma Gandhi
Thanks and good luck.
To everyone, voting or not - it's been a nice discussion.
I'm not going to the buttons, screens, and levers today. I'm glad that there are others in the forum that agree that a voice is valid even if it's not conforming to the system.
To those who are off to the voting booths, good luck, too. I sincerely hope you find there what you're looking for.
Much love,
Conner
Race - blah blah blah
I read the first few paragraphs of this article and got mildly annoyed. Please don't tell readers that this kind of thing is going on with everyone, blah blah blah. The concept of race when making my choice for president has not crossed my mind during this election. Nor has gender.
Do people really get so caught up with race? Is it that you can't escape your childhoods? My guess is that's where it starts - your parents, neighborhood, etc. As for the Reverend Wright, a lot of what he says sounds right to me! I'm impressed by a man who can dare to say some of the things he's said.
As for not voting, I haven't seen anyone change our current system in my life time...Think about this. If you haven't been able to do that yet then what makes you think that your not voting is going to affect anything, or make a statement? The best that one can hope for is a tiny baby step in the right direction in our current system...that's what Obama represents... I agree this two party system is terrible. And I would love to have a different, much fairer system set up. I would be happy to do what it takes (in a positive sense) to make that happen. But it hasn't yet. Do you really think that not voting will help?! Nobody factors in lack of votes. It doesn't change your system. It's apathetic. On the other hand, voting for someone who at least conceptually represents a more fair, less warmongering government than what we've had for so long is a wee step in the right direction.
The next president will most likely choose one surpeme court judge, possibly three. I don't want warmonger McCain to make that choice. Nor do I want his sidekick - the pro-death, anti-environment, anti-wildlife, anti-women's rights Sarah Palin to make it either.
Face it - if you work in this country and pay taxes you're doing something on a regular basis that keeps this system propped up. Not voting doesn't make a difference, except in your own mind. If you want change, do something radical and wonderful soon. I'm up for it. But it the meantime, at least choose a president who's not going to take this country further down the gutter than it presently is. With a more moderate president, people can actually think more moderately. Baby steps, y'all. And to return to the whole race thing...yawn...let it go. Let's evolve.
Identity Politics and Transpersonal Experiences
Propaganda Anonymous
Hi Livelectric, in reading some of your post I noticed you make a very good point about Identity. "there is no ireland or irish, no italy or italian, no germany or german. these are figments of imaginary lines no one can find on the face of the planet without the aid of easily obliterated paper." I agree with this very much. And I also disagree with it very much.
Why is that?
Because perhaps our 'true' identities exist in a state of Paradox. What exists within the one is many.
I AM IRISH and I am Not.
I AM 'WHITE' and I am NOT.
I AM Hip-Hop and I am Not.
We seem to exist upon a spectrum of Identity and what we call 'self' goes along that spectrum; from an identification with certain ego states to identification with non-ego states.
My thoughts are, and what I am really trying to bring to this site, is a vital discussion about Identity, and how Differences Are important. They are important not as a way to keep people apart, but rather to say that 'Yes, I see you. And I am not going to assume that I automatically know you and will tell you where you come from. But I will LISTEN to you. And we will forge a friendship based out of our differences and similarities."
This is a multi-dimensional affair.
. It is my contention that One must wish to surrender one's ego state to the boundless nature of Love As opposed to that Ego state being ripped from one, 'for the greater good'
This extends to cultures. In the process of history, many cultures have been raped, and many people didn't get a chance to gleefully enter transpersonal states.
This is why I think Identity Politics is a very necessary discussion piece, and that when Differences are respected, everyone can let them go and truly revel in a shared conversation about our cosmic natures.
Though the view may be same for everyone who climbs the mountain, there are still many paths up that mountain.
I think there is a lot of truth to this.
In particular, your point of it being something that must be freely given, and cannot be forced. Every time I try to stand up for the poor and needy, some fool tries use to the fact that most holy persons and mystics lived an ascetic lifestyle as some kind of buffer against the truth of people starving on the streets.
The crucial difference is: these people chose to give it all up, after realizing its illusory nature. Denying persons their basic needs, in no way, speeds up -- or aids in any way -- their transcendence. In fact, if Mazlow's hierarchy of needs has any truth to it whatsoever, it slows it down...or even stops it completely.
If this finite self never has even a moment of real satisfaction, it will never know the nature of love. If it never knows the nature of love, it will stay separated and lonely...and soon dissolve.
"You must *be* the change you wish to see in the world." Mahatma Gandhi
p.s.: what if inside the many is one? ^_~
A myriad of bubbles were
A myriad bubbles were floating on the surface of a stream.
'What are you?' I cried to them as they drifted by.
'I am a bubble, of course' nearly a myriad of bubbles answered, and there was surprise and indignation in their voices as they passed.
But, here and there, a lonely bubble answered, 'We are this stream', and there was neither surprise nor indignation in their voices, but just a quiet certitude.
From Ask the Awakened by Wei Wu Wei
And the Truth is, both are right; but one is far more temporary.
"You must *be* the change you wish to see in the world." Mahatma Gandhi
Sisters!!!!
Letter to The Editor!!!!
I am number twelve out of that family of 13 in the Deane family that you wrote about in the evening of Obama's win.
My neice sent my family the article and I just would like you to clarify that out of the 13, there are nine Democrats, two Republicans, and one independent (me).
Thank you very much.
My Sisters always think they need to speak for me...
That's Ok as long as you tell them who you are... Rose told me she was an Independent!
Me too... An Independent like my Sister Rose!!!!!
I guess that would make it... 9 Democrats.
Man, I didn't even vote!!!
Forgot to change my place of residence.
Peace.
Sincerely,
Peter Deane
P.S. Sisters.. I'm Free to be whatever I want to be... So is Rose!
O and here's the article...
http://www.journalstar.com/articles/2008/11/05/news/politics/doc4911338457a45021195953.txt#cancel
Just a couple corrections... that's all.
Hey World thanks for the smiles today...
Peace again!!!
And just a final note in Black & White & Red & Yellow & Blue &
Brown & Orange & Grey
Believe...
Hope...
Help!
If you heard this before then hear it again...
If not, like me, then just listen...
As I am doing now...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3477482826040622447&ei=fDISScqfNZGQ-QHXhuj4Dw&q=obama+speech+grant&hl=en
To: President To Be Obama!!!!!
Thanks.
It's what we all need to hear!
The Great Spirit is Everything!!!
So, tonight,
a day after Obama's acceptance speech...
You may say, "Yes, we can!"
"Give Peace A Chance!!!"
Just a song to all the leaders of the world...
Even you... Obama!!!!!!!!!!!!
Tomorrow if you sing it... I'll dance!!!
And if you refuse!!!
Give Peace A Chance!!!!
World, I'll dance to that!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Cheers!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IWCq-b5m9s&feature=related
Yes, We Can!!
Smile...
Yes...
Si...
We.
THE RESULTS ARE IN