Trackbacks & Pings

1. the way there » The 10th Annual Erase Racism Festival on 20 Mar 2007 at 9:35 am

   [...] Go check it out. It will make you think and be enlightening. Filed under Announcements by Monica Permalink • Print • Email • Comment [...]

2. Erase Racism Carnival #10 » Eric Stoller’s blog on 20 Mar 2007 at 6:33 pm

   [...] 10th Erase Racism Carnival is over at [...]

3. March 2007 Edition of Erase Racism Carnival « The Blog and the Bullet on 20 Mar 2007 at 8:58 pm

   [...] by Jack Stephens on March 20th, 2007 Carmen Van Kerckhove, of Racialicious, hosts the March 2007 edition of the Erase Racism Carnvial. Below is an excerpt from some of the blogs she [...]

4. Latina Viva on 21 Mar 2007 at 10:24 am

   Erase Racism Carnival – March 2007 Edition…

   Carmen Van Kerckhove, of Racialicious is the host of the March 2007 edition of the Erase Racism Carnival. "The Erase Racism Carnival is a collection of blog posts dedicated to creating a world free of racism. The Carnival is……

5. Taking Place » Blog Archive » March carnivals on 21 Mar 2007 at 2:15 pm

   [...] published the 10th Erase Racism Carnival yesterday and, imho, its one of the best one’s yet. Racialicious’ strong anti-racist [...]

6. Ally Work » Erase Racism #10 is up! on 21 Mar 2007 at 2:36 pm

   [...] has posted the 10th Erase Racism Carnival. It is a great one full of enough posts to keep you reading and thinking for days! The 11th Erase [...]

7. Link Roundup: 21 March 2007 « Vox ex Machina on 21 Mar 2007 at 3:26 pm

   [...] 21st, 2007 by Vox First off, the 10th Erase Racism Carnival is up at [...]

8. Two Announcements « The Anti-Essentialist Conundrum on 21 Mar 2007 at 4:35 pm

   [...] , race , analysis , The Blogosphere , entertainment , creativity , education , internet The 10th Erase Racism Carnival is right there at Racialicious, and it is TEEMING with awesome posts on race-related issues.  Carmen gathered tools, built [...]

9. Alas, a blog » Blog Archive » Link Farm & Open Thread #48 on 22 Mar 2007 at 10:02 am

   [...] Racialicious presents The 10th Erase Racism Carnival! [...]

10. Slant Truth » Link Loveliness on 22 Mar 2007 at 8:21 pm

    [...] 10th Erase Racism Carnival is now up at [...]

Comments

1. Kai wrote:

   Damn, Carmen, you went off! This is the most extensive link collection I’ve yet seen in one of these carnivals. Great job! Thanks for all your hard work.

   Okay time to go to work on this stack o’ goodies…

   Peace.

   Posted 20 Mar 2007 at 9:00 am ¶

2. kim wrote:

   I’ll never go hungry again. Thank you, ma’am.

   Posted 20 Mar 2007 at 1:10 pm ¶

3. FEB wrote:

   Re: World White News Coverage

   I notice the predominance of white anchor men/women in the mainstream TV news media, and the a few token minorities to do the smaller stories – this is what’s called Gesichtskontrolle [face control]. If stations such as KRON 4 are as colorblind as they profess to be, then why do they place such a high premium on whiteness?

   As for the KRON intern who suggested the Jack Stephens to “become an intern to know what working in a news room is like,” I would have told her…

   “You should become a minority and live in the ghetto so you know why so many people of color find your news coverage racially and economically biased, evasive, and non-sequitur.”

   Posted 20 Mar 2007 at 5:24 pm ¶

4. Rob wrote:

   Nice articles.

   Posted 20 Mar 2007 at 5:33 pm ¶

5. Angel H. wrote:

   Re: World White News Coverage

   I was visiting my sister in Georgia and I was watching the evening news broadcast from Atlanta. Imagine my amazement when *both* of the anchors were black!

   I have never sat still through a news broadcast for so long!

   Posted 20 Mar 2007 at 9:57 pm ¶

6. Brad wrote:

   First of all I’am not going to sugercoat how I feel about the vast majority of these articles (three in particular)

   The three in particular are long beach assault case, the Rudy Giuliani story, Faces in the crowd.

   First off the long-beach story, the writer in my opinion tries so hard to pass the perpertraitors off as mostly innocent. They’re not. Every eyewitness who was there including the victims all said they were there and took part in some way in the assualt. She lays her argument all on a controversial police line-up. She doesn’t mention the stolen property with the victom’s blood on it found in the they’re car. She doesn’t mention the fact that the perps who said they were just there failed to point out who was the “real guilty party” She doesn’t even bother to mention the fact that the one male charged was caught in a lie on the stand when he stated he was making good grades in school when in fact he wasn’t.
   I pray that the anti-racist community does not turn this disgusting atrocity into a cause. These pertraitors are not deserving of it.

   On to the Rudy Giuliani story this made me angry not only because of Giulani’s great leadership post-9/11 but also because those very same policies that the writer criticizes made under his leadership helped drop the crime rate that was terrorizing many non-white communities in NYC. I would like to hear the writer state what he would do to stop the criminals victomizing the community. In case this writer didn’t know it: Crime is a very serious problem in many non-white communities

   My last comment I would like to ask Carmen why she put a Communist sympathizer’s views in an anti-racist website. The face in the crowd writer in my view has absolutely no sense of history. Communist regimes have have done nothing but brutalize numerous non-white countries (just look at cuba and North-Korea as prime examples of what they have done to their people) also Mao’s regime is believed to have murdered more people than Adolf Hitler not to mention that Joseph Stalin was intially an ally of Hitler. Carmen being the descent person I don’t believe you would have done this on purpose but this article really got my blood boiling. Communism should not have any place in an anti-racist future. It is political ideology that is truly oppressive and barbaric. Cosidering what is going on in numerous non-white nations (Vietnam, Cuba, China, and of course North Korea)

   Carmen I realy wish to hear your views on this

   Posted 20 Mar 2007 at 11:31 pm ¶

7. Bubba wrote:

   I wonder what Stanley Roberts over there at KRON thinks about face time…..any links in this site for the much undervalued/never talked about/socially denied ‘po’ white trash that fill the prisons, and have no certain identity, other than the usual stereotypes of them as racists, etc>despite often growing up ‘ghetto’ AND trailer, as well as being shuffled through various intercontinental slaveries and servitudes over the millenia??
   Too often it is convenient to lump them into the racial or ‘non existent’ categories, and overlook their multi-generational hardship–which is ironically pitted against black hardship today for ‘face time’ and resources to combat poverty in that set, right here in America–
   Who are the real racists in all of this anyways? I mean after all, no African American was ever lynched except at the behest of white womens priviledge–no war was ever fought except to uphold the ‘virtue’ of white women….stations every where have the white womans face plastered all over billboards, and advertising…hmmm…thoughts on ‘white slavery’….hmmm….and the collusion of white women?

   Posted 21 Mar 2007 at 2:07 am ¶

8. merq wrote:

   Brad,

   I’d REALLLY like you to explain exactly how Giuliani showed “great leadership” post-9/11.

   I’m so sick of hearing that shit. It’s like, after the towers came down, America was blinded by a wave of patriotism and jingoism that allowed miscreants like George W. and Giuliani to be recast as “heroes” (another term I despise) in the public discourse.

   Posted 21 Mar 2007 at 7:32 am ¶

9. Carmen Van Kerckhove wrote:

   Brad, just because the blogger attended a concert by a hip hop group that calls itself “hardcore communist” doesn’t mean the blogger him/herself is a Maoist or Stalinist.

   And communist regimes are hardly the only ones with blood on their hands. Last time I checked, the Bush regime was responsible for anywhere from 30,000 to 600,000 civilian deaths as a result of the Iraq war.

   Posted 21 Mar 2007 at 8:00 am ¶

10. Rob wrote:

    I agree with Merq.

    I’m a New Yorker and while I agree that Giuliani did much to clean up the crime, I think he’s been given too much credit for the aftermath of Sept 11th. Most of the organizational operations were conducted by emergency services rather than Giuliani’s direct involvement.

    All Rudy did was become a figurehead of America’s resolve and the credit received has been lopsided. Additionally, from most of the NYPD officers that had dealings with Giuliani in the past, he’s been reported as being a spotlight hog.

    I also wanted to point out to Brad that while there is no denying that Mao and his Red Guards suppressed Chinese history and brutalized intellectuals, most of the Chinese deaths, which white scholars like to claim were malicious, are incorrect. Most of the millions of Chinese that died were a result of his failed economic plan of the “Great Leap Forward,” which caused mass starvation, not the systematic eradication which Jews experienced at the hands of the Germans.

    Posted 21 Mar 2007 at 8:05 am ¶

11. Brad wrote:

    Carmen Thank you for responding to my question. I agree the war in Iraq has been a miserable failure for the Iragis who have suffered from the ethnic strife that resulted from it and it is time for the troops to come home and focus on bringing Osama to justice

    Merq Guiliani is a hero because he rallied the city and boosted morale for a city that had been shocked to it’s core.

    Rob no-doubt Guiliani should not take credit for the heroics at Ground Zero
    as a future firefighter I would not want to see credit taken away from the FDNY and NYPD who have given their all at ground zero. As for the Chinese who suffered under Mao. Rob white scholars aren’t the only ones who say Mao was a Bastard, there have been hundreds of thousands of chinese refugees who told tales of horror and let’s not forget what he did to tibetan monks when he came to power.

    Posted 21 Mar 2007 at 10:07 am ¶

12. Angel H. wrote:

    Bubba: You weren’t serious about all of that, were you? Am I the only one not in on the joke?

    Posted 21 Mar 2007 at 11:09 am ¶

13. FEB wrote:

    Brad,

    What exactly did Mao do to Tibetan monks? Why don’t you articulate that for us?

    Bubba,
    What the hell are you talking about? What are advocating?

    Posted 21 Mar 2007 at 11:42 am ¶

14. Rob wrote:

    Brad:

    You didn’t actually refute anything I said. While Mao sanctioned murder to solidify the regime, I grow wary of this white infatuation of trying to compare Hitler and Stalin to Mao when it comes to body count. It’s like you’re exploiting lives to declare who was more murderous.

    Factually, the ethnic Chinese that felt the need to explain how Mao was a “bastard” were probably the intellectuals who got abused in the first place. However, you can’t deny the fact that most of the dead Chinese were a result of poor economic planning rather than a malicious attempt to kill people. An individual committing 1st degree murder is more evil than manslaughter, in my opinion.

    I find most criticism of Mao these days, from white scholars, as an attempt to show how non-white dictators were somehow more evil than white ones. They hide behind the guise of fighting for the dead Chinese when they couldn’t give a crap about Chinese lives. This mantra echoes with American politicians who rail against China’s human rights record and how the Chinese people are treated. They’ll just find something else to complain about when American, and white, supremacy is in peril. See: Japan during the 80s.

    I never knew why Jewish and Zionists suspected how criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism were connected. Now I know.

    Regarding Sept 11, I can safely tell you that after the attacks, we didn’t need him to bring our morale up, we were shocked but our morale was at an all time high. You could have had a coat rack with a suit hanging from it and it wouldn’t have made a difference.

    Posted 21 Mar 2007 at 2:24 pm ¶

15. ren.. wrote:

    Just to throw in on this fun communist debate…

    I’m no fan of communism as an economic theory and I never understood the Left’s fascination with this system… do they prefer it just because it’s not capitalism? Frankly I can’t think of one “communist” country that follows the Communist Manifesto the way Marx intended. Modern day Vietnam and China are becoming increasingly capitalist and countries like North Korea operate more as a totalitarian theocracy with Kim Jung-Ill positioned as an idolized figure. Considering in N. Korea, indefinite absolute power gets transferred through the family, this type of hereditary monarchy is probably not what Marx envisioned for his ideal state. As an ethical theory, Marx’s manifesto is an interesting read however Marx himself would despise your attempt to see his work in this fashion. He viewed ethics as the byproduct of Bourgeoisie desire, fashioned only to allow them to keep reign over the proletariat. So it’s either accept it as an economic theory or not. I say not.

    I’m no Chinese scholar but it would seem malicious to me that any leader would allow the mass starvation of his people, especially one that champions egalitarianism. While no doubt Mao didn’t intend for his people to die, he was the architect for the Great Leap a theory he pushed despite reluctance in his own party. Yes, they died because their theory of economics failed but who’s responsible for their deaths – the economic theory or the man who instigated it? If the fault is in the theory, than Rumsfield, Cheney, and Bush are equally absolved from blame because it’s the Iraq strategy that failed the Iraqi people. While the death toll of the purges during the Cultural Revolution can never really be quantified, it WAS systematic eradication to silence counter-revolutionaries and critics of the prior Great Leap Foreword.

    As for what did Mao do to Tibetan Monks + entire Tibetan population? Forcing on the Tibetan people the 17-Point Agreement, promising Tibet its continued Dalai Lama (where is he now?) and pretty much the forced assimilation that came with the treaty. First time I even realized Tibet existed (apart from that Eddie Murphy Golden Child film), was when the Beastie Boys were doing that Free Tibet tour. I think that was ‘91 because it was the 50 year anniversary and China claimed it was going to celebrate for the whole year because it “liberated” Tibet… which is funny because Tibetans consider it the “Occupation”. Damn that sounds familiar.

    Posted 21 Mar 2007 at 2:42 pm ¶

16. Rob wrote:

    I, by no means, am defending Mao but it annoys the hell out of me when people compare death to death.

    If Mao killed 10 million but Stalin killed 10 million and 1, does that make Mao a better person?

    Though his policies did result in millions of dead Chinese, I find it much different than setting up camps and drawing up a plan on the most efficient method of murder.

    Posted 21 Mar 2007 at 4:24 pm ¶

17. Bubba wrote:

    I just wanted to prod folks a bit in the debate. The idea that racism id the exclusive territory of white people is a flawed notion, perpetuated by folks here in the worlds honeypot–and unfortunately, if you study slavery in world history, versus slavery in the American bubble, we find that those thus ‘liberated’ often perpetuate the next slavery; i.e. if you hate something long enough, YOU become what you hate.

    FEB: I am not advocating anything, just tellin’ it like it is. Whit women have always been a kind of jaded being beyond the pale of day to day discussion as the REASON that these things take place–as if they are not accountable. The laughable notion that jaded white women are somehow in the same group as former slaves, chattel property, or the dead white men that fought for the freedom-or fill the prison in spite of it- that we share today, is, well, laughable.

    Posted 21 Mar 2007 at 4:26 pm ¶

18. Brad wrote:

    Rob I’am not making up what I’am saying , I’am stating a historical fact. Mao did systematically murder millions of people, he occupied Tibet and oppresed the buddhist’s there. He tried to erase their culture there. He then went on to outlaw religion and criticism of his government. Rob how is this not opression?
    How does this rise to the level of ol Adolph?
    Rob I don’t wish to get aggresive with you but just because Mao didn’t have white skin doesn’t make what he did any less oppresive and Evil. Rob lets put Mao aside for a sec.
    What about what communism is doing now?
    What about the fact that religious expression has supressed in many of these countries sometimes through force. what about Tiannemon Square, what do you call that? What about the systematic starvation of the North Koreans, that isn’t oppression?
    And Rob one more point, I know many of you don’t like the ” I know someone game” but I do. My girlfriend’s father was imprisioned in a “camp” after the fall of Saigon. He still has all the scar’s from where he was beaten, He has numerous health problems becouse he was starved all that time. White Supremacy isn’t the only form of oppresion in the world. I know Communism was invented by white people but in Cuba, Chine Vietnam, and North Korea it wasn’t implemented by white men in hoods.

    So how about it Rob? Don’t any of the victoms of Non-white oppresion count for anything. Or don’t only the victoms of white people count

    Posted 21 Mar 2007 at 10:14 pm ¶

19. Bubba wrote:

    Don’t forget that Mao and many others “whose policies” led to massive deaths–was under full embargo by the west, England, America, et al, and the dead Chinese babies etc, were the direct result of that silent killer–US policies, and white womens priviledge;-)

    Posted 22 Mar 2007 at 12:41 am ¶

20. FEB wrote:

    The subject of Tibet never fails to bring out Internet China-bashers: always a one-sided argument about the “big bad communist Chinese,” and how they murdered millions of Tibetans and desecrated their monasteries and religion.

    People just love to drink this anti-Chinese cool aid, served by the likes of Richard Gere, and Harrison Ford; all too eager to present Tibet as Shangri-la or some kind of Paradise Lost, rather than the brutal theocratic feudal order it was.

    Posted 22 Mar 2007 at 2:44 pm ¶

21. FEB wrote:

    Brad,

    Slavery was practiced in Tibet until the Chinese intervened in the late 1950s. For whatever wrongs the communist may have done, they instituted badly needed social reforms to remedy injustices like serfdom, oppressive taxes, whippings, mutilations and amputations, and educational monopoly held by the monasteries.

    The Chinese also built roads, hospitals and schools. They provided running water and electricity, redistributed land among the peasants, introduced secular education and opened it to both genders. In many ways, the communist Chinese liberated Tibet from the tyranny of the monasteries.

    Posted 22 Mar 2007 at 3:33 pm ¶

22. Rob wrote:

    Wow, lots of talking but very little listening.

    Again, I never defended Mao’s actions. What I did say was that the whole idea of trying to compare one despot to another is stupid and pointless simply because regimes from all over the world are oppressive and murderous. They’re exactly the same but what I am stating is that there is a clear difference between how people died under both. Hitler manufactured a specific policy to wipe a race off the face of the Earth whereas most of the millions that died under Mao were a result of a failed economic policy called “The Great Leap Forward.”

    It’s important to note that while both were equally evil because it resulted in millions of death, there is a clear difference between Hitler’s efforts of systematic and planned mass murder compared to poor domestic policy.

    No one said that whites were more oppressive than non-whites around the world. What I am refuting is this white desire to somehow try to lessen white evil by trying to say others were worse.

    Posted 22 Mar 2007 at 4:37 pm ¶

23. Bubba wrote:

    re: “What I am refuting is this white desire to somehow try to lessen white evil by trying to say others were worse.”
    “white desire?” “white evil?”
    …and that sounds to me, exactly like textbook racism, no matter who said it….

    Posted 22 Mar 2007 at 6:03 pm ¶

24. Bubba wrote:

    p.s.
    the Chinese have put more educated women in the workforce than any other nation in the world, and, contrary to the American feminist blather which is all talk, and 2.5 children with ‘child support’ from ‘biologic fathers’, the Chinese women actually use hammers and drive trucks, as well as teach in universities, run billion dollar companies, etc.

    Posted 22 Mar 2007 at 6:07 pm ¶

25. Bubba wrote:

    p.s.s.
    Here is a thought or two about WHITE WOMEN, who, no matter what they say today about being oppressed, need to shut their little fear mongering man hating asses the hell up.
    It comes from http://brownfemipower.com/?p=1059
    Blog:
    “WHITE WOMEN have been colluding with WHITE MEN to violate and subjugate women of color and our communities. WHITE WOMEN supported white men’s slaughter of “savages,” so they could have their “city on a hill.” WHITE WOMEN spoke not one word while their husband’s forcible impregnated black female slaves. WHITE WOMEN smiled for the cameras while holding onto the arms of their murdering white husbands, WHITE WOMEN watched, even participated with, white men who raped Native children at bordering schools. WHITE WOMEN screamed “NIGGER” at black children trying to go to school. WHITE WOMEN say they were “only” testing women of color who wanted to organize as feminists–will our loyalties be to white women or black men (see SUSAN BROWNMILLER)? WHITE WOMEN collude WHITE MEN when they tell us our burqas are a good reason to bomb us (see the FEMINIST MAJORITY). WHITE WOMEN tell us that “the world has never seen sex used this consciously, this cynically, this elaborately, this openly, this systematically..as a means of destroying and whole people” when talking about white skinned women in Bosnia (see Catherine MacKinnon). ”
    And I can only add that they, today, will do and say anything to maintain the illusion that they were not, are not complicit. They will blather on and on about rights, equality, etc, and try to draw the lamest of lame parallels to their ‘downtrod existence’ but really, the afore quoted material says it best.

    Posted 22 Mar 2007 at 6:25 pm ¶

26. ren. wrote:

    Yea, and the subject of Tibet never fails to bring out Michael Parenti’s myth of Tibet speeches. I guess Parenti is right though, being as primitive as the Tibetans were, no doubt only the best reform could come by way of the Communist Party. In the same regard Jews should have beholden the Romans with starry-eyed wonder and adoration over their new sewage system. I guess the Tibetan refugees in Nepal and India just don’t appreciate good clean non-human waste infected water.

    I don’t disagree with Parenti, Communism hasn’t turned Tibet into some unmitigated Hell, benefits can always be construed. Fair enough, the graces of materialistic goods have been granted to them. I concur. And Potala Palace has been made into one of the finest and holiest tourist hubs ever. But that doesn’t cause me to overlook the tenderness of the Communist Party. I won’t question the brutality of serfdom (whippings, mutilations, and amputations what have you–) unlike the kind of justice the Chinese government offers, such as trial without jury, not legal representation, an arbitrary need for case evidence, detention without charge, a legal system devoid of due process, and sprinklings of torture. And that Tibetans are being imprisoned or re-educated merely for their religious and political views. What a step foreword.

    The concern that was brought up by our government’s Annual report on Human Rights was the lack of liberties offered to the Tibetan people. There was no whining in it that we needed to take Tibet back to the feudal era, or that communism needed to be abolished… it merely raised concerns to a lack of human rights. That’s ultimately the main issue. Few people that I can recall have advocated an overthrow of communism in Tibet apart from the “Free Tibet” crowd (which consisted mainly of doped lollapalooza attendees). I was only ten at the time so you can’t throw me in with them. The communist party needs to uphold some fundamental human rights, a road for the yaks is not a fair equivalent to having some basic liberties.

    /i do love kool-aid though

    Posted 22 Mar 2007 at 7:38 pm ¶

27. Brad wrote:

    Thanx Ren, My origional point way back was that it would be hypocritical for the Anti-Racist movement to have communist sypmathizers in it’s ranks with all talk against white oppression. That’s what my origional point was

    PS FEB
    80% of houses of worshipped destroyed
    at least a million were imprisioned or murdered after Mao came to power for their beliefs only.
    I bet they were very thankful for all of it

    Posted 22 Mar 2007 at 9:55 pm ¶

28. Kai wrote:

    I’m just wondering, how many of you have been to Tibet?

    I’ve read all that stuff that’s being paraphrased here, and written plenty about it, indeed I even have in my files a hand-typed letter from Noam Chomsky congratulating me for one of my published essays on the subject, and I have pics on display on my blog of my travels through Tibet…but somehow I get the feeling that all this doesn’t matter, ideological positions are hardened. I mean, I’m not even sure what’s being discussed here.

    Oh well.

    Posted 23 Mar 2007 at 2:16 pm ¶

29. drydock wrote:

    WEB Dubois was a communist fellow traveller for most of his life, eventually joining the party when he was quite old. He was also a fan of Stalin and Lenin.

    He’s still probably the most important writer about race in America.

    Tibet was an an oppressive feudalistic society and was “liberated” by China like the US “liberated” Iraqis from the Saddam dictatorship. Though if the US really wanted to “liberate” the Iraqis, they should have bulldozed the mosques like China did to the monasteries.

    Posted 23 Mar 2007 at 2:59 pm ¶

30. Kai wrote:

    drydock, although I largely agree with you, you demonstrate your ignorance when you suggest that there was any way to bring “bulldozers” into Tibet before roads were built over the mountain passes. Makes you sound like yet another Richard Gere groupie, which I know you’re not. I’m also guessing you know about the history of the Great Game in Central Asia, the fact that the CIA actually smuggled the Dalai Lama out of Tibet in the wake of the CIA-organized Lhasa uprising in 1951, and the overall American project of destabilizing Tibet as an anti-communist project against Mao. Just sayin. I’m very anti-Mao myself but the American pretense of human rights champion is a joke.

    If Americans genuinely cared about sovereignty, they’d start with liberating the Southwest US and Hawaii and Puerto Rico, for starters. Focusing on Tibet simply highlights Western hypocrisy to Asians.

    Not that Tibet hasn’t been wronged. I happen to be very involved in Tibetan religious and political movements, but the truth is that most Westerners have no clue what they’re talking about beyond Hollywood soundbites.

    The real work in Tibet has nothing to do with New Agey Westerners who have Shangri-La on their minds.

    Posted 23 Mar 2007 at 3:34 pm ¶

31. ren. wrote:

    *Waves hand* I have.

    Had a rigid schedule (very brief stay) so in terms of experiencing Tibet… I doubt Potala Palace really counts as an immersive experience any more than visiting the Statue of Liberty represents the American way of life. So I’ll certainly claim ignorance to the Tibetan experience. Would have loved to have seen more, but hampered with my severe asthma and being on schedule to meet my roommate in Chengdu, I know I missed out on quite a bit. I was a couple of years too early, but I would totally take that China-Tibet Train if I didn’t think I’d keel over and die halfway through.

    As for what we’re talking about. Something about communism, freedom, human rights, yaks, kool-aid… all you need to know is that it’s really all just an elaborate allegory to the ongoing battle between Kool-Aid Man and his arch-nemesis Scorch.

    /shrugs

    Posted 23 Mar 2007 at 3:44 pm ¶

32. drydock wrote:

    Kai– Point taken. Bulldoze was ignorant.

    Posted 23 Mar 2007 at 4:50 pm ¶

33. FEB wrote:

    I’m pressed on time so excuse me if this post appears rushed…

    Brad wrote: “…it would be hypocritical for the Anti-Racist movement to have communist sympathizers in its ranks with all the talk against white oppression.”

    Au contraire mon frèr!! Hypocrisy is when Racialicious allows reactionaries among its ranks.

    Communist movements unite people across race lines, while reactionary guards are about fostering racial hatreds and divisions to perpetuate their own power.

    Ren,

    Parenti does acknowledge abuses from the Chinese, but given the bias in Western media and in American popular culture, his voice is a welcome counterbalance.

    If the Tibetan people had been so content with the feudal theocratic order, then why haven’t they united behind a movement of national liberation like the Viet Minh? Could it be that they did not see their interest tied in with those of the power-wielding monks?

    Posted 23 Mar 2007 at 5:41 pm ¶

34. Brad wrote:

    FEB: Communist movements unite people across racial lines

    Um ok exactly where did communist movements bring a racial paradise to what country?

    Posted 23 Mar 2007 at 8:52 pm ¶

35. Bubba wrote:

    FEB: I agree when you said”Communist movements unite people across race lines, while reactionary guards are about fostering racial hatreds and divisions to perpetuate their own power.”
    However, I think there is a distinction between ‘communist’ and ’socialist’ movements, and even then it is not so clear what the cause of racial hatred is within them. Castro had a revolution, and every body came, and rejoiced, every race is represented; Mao had a revolution and people of primarily the same ‘race’ murdered indiscriminately, based in ideology, and theory, whereas today the stated policy is the advancement of minority populations( they can have as many kids as they want, etc.); Stalins tending to the revolution brought and interesting mix of racial and non racial homicide/genocide, with Jews who renounced religion running the butchery against religious Jews and others as wellas well; Every revolution is different and the racial complexities are too.
    Currently, the social revolution( it hasn’t yet hit the truly armed conflict state yet) here in America posits that white men own everything, control everything etc, which is absolute malarchy, but this new indigenous form of race hatred is definitely fostered by reactionaries within the feminists, the white guilt( middle class) set,and certainly it is the agenda of the Farrakhans, et. al. , and the stated policy of every Black revolutionary group ever. So is violence directed in speech or action against a ‘race’ the criterion we use to decide when and how race is a factor?

    Posted 24 Mar 2007 at 11:43 pm ¶

36. FEB wrote:

    Bubba,

    This is the part where I agree with you.

    Rich whites exploit poor whites – I don’t doubt that for a minute. Here in New York City, a “new” group of whites are occupying a social space wedged between “older” upper crust whites and poor inner city blacks: Eastern European immigrants.

    I have encountered many who work as maintenance personnel in various corporate buildings as well as upscale apartments. Rarely do I see blacks working these positions or being part of these unions. In casual conversation with some of these Eastern European immigrants, several of them expressed racist feelings towards blacks.

    So, what does this story about the racial views from Eastern European immigrants tell you about American society and race relations?

    It means that the racial hierarchy also exists among whites:

    1. Anglo-Nordic-Germanic Protestants
    2. Catholic Whites
    3. Jewish [depending on region and financial status]
    4. Eastern Europeans and White Latinos [recent immigrants]

    And much of this is also affected by money, power, and status.

    Posted 26 Mar 2007 at 7:16 pm ¶

37. FEB wrote:

    Now Bubba,
    Here’s the part where I disagree with you:

    Who is it that determines the racial order in America? Here’s a clue… it’s not people of color.

    I don’t know if you’re a white male [I’m guessing you are based on the username you selected and the arguments you deployed], but assuming that you are one, I say that you don’t experience the kind of racial visibility that Asians, blacks, and dark-skinned Latinos experience. You escape the automatic labeling that is often assigned to us.

    White privilege does not necessarily mean that you live in an affluent neighborhood or that your children have an easy pass to Harvard or Yale, but it does mean that you don’t face things like being stopped for “driving while black in a white neighborhood,” or having your patriotism questioned after white folks ask you “No… where are you really from?” or being vigorously questioned by US Customs because your flight just landed in Miami after coming from Colombia, Peru, or Bolivia and you have a surname like “Hernandez.”

    It doesn’t matter if you’re a poor white or rich white, by being white you STILL benefit from a social order that does not disadvantage you in the ways that people of color are affected. And if you care about reforming society bringing about racial and economic justice, you should stop not trivializing white privilege as if were a non-issue.

    Posted 26 Mar 2007 at 7:27 pm ¶

38. FEB wrote:

    Brad,

    From post # 34
    “…where did communist movements bring a RACIAL PARADISE to what country?”

    Where did you come up these trick question and simple-minded platitudes? Sean Hannity? Bill O’Reilly?
    Please, don’t tell me you’re imitating those mealy-mouthed know-it-all pundits at FOX News.

    Posted 26 Mar 2007 at 7:42 pm ¶

39. ren. wrote:

    I must adore simple-minded platitudes, because I was wondering the same thing as Brad. You seem so convinced that communist movements “unite people across racial lines”, where has that actually occurred? In theory, Marx claims a classless society of equals supposedly emerges, but nothing yet has happened to warrant such conviction that it WILL happen. Marx also believed that communism would wipe away worker alienation and create a society of genuine moral relationships, once people are freed from the tyranny of the class struggle. He believed this but nothing suggests that what is ideally speculated is going to become reality. Bubba makes a good point, there is a sharp distinction between the economic system of socialism and the political/ethical ideology of communism. It’s such an empty political slogan that I’m confused why people find it so appealing? I find it simple-minded to try and redefine communism into maoism / leninism / stalinism, by trying to distinguish and distance the shitty attempts of putting communism into effect, from the overall shitty idea it sprang from. I find it kind of spooky that you’d label people reactionaries (counter-revolutionaries?) especially when the topic is about communism, it hints at the less than ideal aspects of communism’s historical failures.

    Posted 27 Mar 2007 at 12:04 pm ¶

40. FEB wrote:

    Let’s examine the wonderful results from liberal capitalism:

    Worker exploitation
    Wars of conquest
    Slavery
    Imperialism
    Environmental devastation
    Violent repression of organized labor
    Sexual exploitation
    Ethnic hatred and RACISM

    Brad’s question on post #34 is nothing but a trick question, because he knows nobody can produce a perfect society. Communism/socialism is not perfect and it does not produce perfect societies; any reasonable person knows that. However, Communism/socialism addresses the many social and material injustices in liberal capitalism. That’s why it appeals to those who suffer economic and racial exploitation.

    Regardless of the negative outcomes in Russia, China, Vietnam and Cuba, the West’s claim on moral superiority is dubious at best. And given the long list abuses and brutalities resulting from liberal capitalism, you really don’t have much to be smug about.

    Posted 27 Mar 2007 at 2:43 pm ¶

41. kim wrote:

    Kai: “If Americans genuinely cared about sovereignty, they’d start with liberating the Southwest US and Hawaii and Puerto Rico, for starters.”

    Yes, Kai, and that idea is an anathema as they come here in the Southwest US. One’s neighbors display an absolute willful ignorance of what is said to them in statements such as, “we are really living in Northern Mexico/Alta Mexico.” At least I think it a willful ignorance.

    I do see many of them kind of catching up with the meaning of what was said about a minute or so after they’d hurriedly changed the subject.

    Posted 27 Mar 2007 at 3:05 pm ¶

42. Bubba wrote:

    FEB: I would like to tell you that I am ambiguously ‘white’,or ‘black’ but I cannot. I would like to tell you that I am Irish, which I cannot. I would also like to tell you I am Jewish, which I cannot; ‘black,’ is a metaphor of social standing: I can tell you that I am that kind of black, and I have always been blackened, but I ethically cannot tell you this is true because I have never paid money to have it documented in official channels.
    So I will tell you that in cyberspace, we exist with the possibilities that are endless to remain free of race based on our appearance;-)
    I find your validation of white heirarchy heartening.
    However, I disagree with you about arguments proposed being white or not, based in a stance, as you missed the one argument that on the surface, is a subtle argument about the way we perceive race, or conceive of anothers race: I chose the name Bubba for the very reason to show that racism and race perceptions transcend even our skin;-)
    I will also add that the primary victims of racial/sexual exploitation today are not just asian black etc, as it is well documented that Russia and the eastern bloc is exporting sex slavery world wide. Also, contrary to the white female desire to get close to and ‘liberate’ the ‘women of color’, i.e. “colored women” in sex slavery, taday, we see the white face of that slavery everywhere from Brazil to Mexico City
    ( where many French and Irish worked as sex workers in the last century as well) Hong Kong, Toronto, etc…
    I now ruminate, and pause.

    Posted 28 Mar 2007 at 12:44 am ¶

43. ren. wrote:

    You forgot to mention living in hovels, human chattel, and cretinism. Marx was big on Capitalist Industry creating cretins. You’ve altered the question. I realize what’s “appealing” about communism. What I wanted was an explanation on where it has actually united people across racial lines. Am I to take it that the unifying aspect of communism is the appeal? OK, but that’s a bit abstract, I recognize the appeal but I don’t find it appealing– have I been united with any racial other? And if communism doesn’t achieve a perfect society… if every reasonable person knows this, why are you reading Marx? He would vehemently disagree with you. His followers tend to forget how polemic he was as he championed his violent revolution. Giving me a laundry list of the horrors of capitalism doesn’t prove communism is better. It doesn’t prove anything about communism, THAT is something reasonable persons can figure out.

    I don’t recall my question asking which is morally superior. That’s a trick question to make me defend capitalism, which I have no interest in doing. Not a fan, I have my criticisms, I just never found myself thinking that communism was the answer. You suggest that it is and I was curious about your reasons. Call me smug, have you even read Marx or do you just pay it lip service? What did Marx, or modern day American communists for that matter, know about the hardships of the working class life? Marx was an upper middle class Parisian Romantic, espousing flowery speeches on the downfall of capitalism while spending himself broke to uphold his image as an aristocrat. Borrowing money from Engels mostly out of being destitute all the time and having three daughters who “married their father”, deadbeat Marxist bohemians who drove two of his daughters to suicide. Not sure this is the guy to take your cues from in fashioning a utopia.

    PS. Love how the flaws of communism are “negative outcomes” but flaws of capitalism are “abuses and brutalities”. Just me being smug.

    Posted 28 Mar 2007 at 9:54 am ¶

44. FEB wrote:

    ren

    In the 1930’s there was a spirit of solidarity among many socialists and communists and others who saw the rise of fascism and took a stand. The Lincoln Brigade, an American volunteer force during the Spanish Civil War, was the first racially integrated military unit since the Revolutionary War. This happened at a time when KKK was at the zenith of their power.

    Russia and China have long standing traditions of authoritarian rule, so you can not say that the communist/socialist ideology is entirely responsible for repression; culture plays a much larger role than you care to admit. Striving towards a more egalitarian society does not mean the idea is defined by any one communist/socialist leader [e.g. Stalin, Mao, and Castro]. Ideas are not a stationary matter; they evolve.

    Posted 28 Mar 2007 at 12:43 pm ¶

45. FEB wrote:

    Also…
    The question of moral superiority is implied in your comments. And yes, you are being smug for trying to manipulate the debate in way that sympathies for the left are construed as non-compatible with anti-racism: picking on every possible shortcoming before considering positive contributions towards a more humane existence for all.

    I’m okay with you not liking me or my political views, but don’t tell me or anyone else that here that just because we have sympathies with the Left, we’re not compatible with the goals of anti-racism. That’s mendacious and malicious.

    Posted 28 Mar 2007 at 12:52 pm ¶

46. Billy the Poet wrote:

    re: “deadbeat Marxist bohemians who drove two of his daughters to suicide ” WOW…THAT SURE DOES REEK OF PATRIARCHAL PERSPECTIVE, REN. I mean is there no personal accountability here for these women?
    Also, communism exists at points in time, and history, and advances one race or another in history…a more temporal sort of racial unification. For instance, today, Chinese Capitalists are interacting with American capitalists, and none of this would have been possible (the amazing, astounding amounts of money that make it possible) if Mao and his communism had not brought into being a socialist based capitalism.
    But Castro and his people are racially diverse…..I imagine racial splits and differences begin with capitalism, so watch for when Fidel kicks the bucket, and all of those incestuous racially charged Miami Cubans with their American wealth sneak back in…..

    Posted 28 Mar 2007 at 5:52 pm ¶

47. Colin wrote:

    “If Americans genuinely cared about sovereignty, they’d start with liberating the Southwest US and Hawaii and Puerto Rico, for starters.”

    That’s true for a whole host of nations, from Australia to Canada to Saudi Arabia to Japan to Turkey, and their people, too.

    Posted 29 Mar 2007 at 3:56 am ¶

48. ren. wrote:

    FEB,

    If you’re going to accuse me of being mendacious (had to look that one up in the dictionary), at least characterize my malicious, smug, manipulation correctly. I never said sympathies for the LEFT are non-compatible with anti-racism, but I did suggest communism was incompatible as an ideology that unites people across racial barriers. You did finally give an example and I get– the Abraham Lincoln Brigade? (thank god for wikipedia… who knew?) I’m a bit disappointed though, I don’t think it’s a very fair example and I know just by saying that I’ve probably “implied” my support for fascism or proves I hate justice but here’s my issue with this claim.

    You say it was the first racially integrated military unit since the revolutionary war, but supposedly this didn’t happen (apart from the revolutionary war) until WWII. Of the 3,000 persons in the Lincoln Brigade, what actually was this diverse racial makeup? Apart from saying they came from different social classes, wikipedia makes no mention of race in regards to this topic. But if we’re to trust what wikipedia says (and I take wiki with a grain of salt) let’s assume it was comprised of a vast racial mix, it still avoids answering the question. The fact that communists banded together to fight fascists doesn’t show that communism unites people across racial barriers– it shows that communists come together under a communist cause, specifically uniting for a war. Technically, you answered my question. Thank you and I’ll just accept that because I doubt I’ll get anything better. But this hardly shows communism’s positive contribution to a more humane existence for all, considering the context of communism’s “anti-racist success” is set in one of the most murderous and politically radicalized of civil wars.

    This was not the redemptive quality of communism for an anti-racist future I was expecting, at least not enough to make me disregard China, Korea, Peru, Vietnam, Cuba, and Russia. What I was interested in hearing was how communist ideology renders racial distinctions arbitrary, not give me a situation where people of different races got together under the banner of anti-fascism and they all happened to be communists– and then accord this a communist success. If this convinces you of communist ideology’s greatness, fine by me. But to be honest I already figured that communism could bring communists together. Same way the 1972 MIT class reunion paves the way for an anti-racist future because it brings people of all races together… who all just happen to be MIT alumni and graduates in 1972. Imagine my lack of surprise. I think attributing communism to a successful change in worldview is different from attributing success to individuals who just happen to belong to the communist party. This avoids having to deal with the ideology of Marx such as his championing of a dictatorship of the Proletariat and how that would achieve tangible goals of an anti-racist worldview.

    As for your claim about China, my knowledge of China is slim so I’ll take your word for it that Chinese/Russian culture had greater influence on their respective devastation in the 20th century than the role of communist ideology, I find that hard to believe and it flies in the face of credible historians but who am I (we) to question you? Though, admittedly, I find “culture” a very vague symptom.

    I will agree with you that ideas aren’t stationary, but making claims about communism and then suggesting that perhaps your view of communism isn’t Marx’s view, then by all means tell me what you’ve altered to make it differ. And if it is so vastly different why bother to label it as communism? Like I mentioned earlier, they do evolve… Maoism, Stalinism, Leninism… shittier ideas from a shitty idea but I have faith your evolved “communism in name only” communist ideology has evolved to produce a rose.

    It’s not that I don’t like you, I just don’t believe you and that’s not said maliciously. I’ll question whatever I like because I have no intention of goose-stepping behind you, nodding my head in idiotic agreement just so I don’t hurt your feelings. You’re free to question my views, but I find it strange I can’t question your own especially when it comes from the dissent/appeal for dialogue crowd. You’re free to believe whatever you like, believe communism is the answer or believe the moon landing was shot on a soundstage in Arizona. It’s when you make claims that communism had a tangible success for the anti-racist worldview, where your beliefs try and overlay on reality, that I end up badgering you. So, sorry I persecuted you by asking for an example of something you claimed was true.

    Bill,

    Mao instituted socialist based capitalism? You’re absolutely right. Me and my patriarchal reek are going to walk away from that one.

    Posted 29 Mar 2007 at 12:54 pm ¶

49. FEB wrote:

    I did not research the Lincoln Brigade on Wikipedia; even if I had, I would’ve checked a second source just to be sure. Wikipedia is a good source to establish an initial direction in any research but it’s not the end all and be all.

    You’re right, it wasn’t you who said that communist sympathizers didn’t belong in Racialicious, that was Brad. Ops, my bad.
    However, you do make common cause with him so that makes you appear partisan to his proprietary notions of anti-racism.

    Culture is not neutral… it can serve as a vehicle and cover for a host of injustices. There are brutal and repressive aspects of Chinese/Russian culture that can manifest themselves in whatever political wrapping they come in (e.g. Liberal capitalism, communism, fascism, Islamic fundamentalism, etc).

    Finally, I don’t subscribe to a fundamentalist concept or definition of communism or socialism, and if that doesn’t fit your notions of what constitutes a political idea- fine, you’re also entitled to your beliefs. We can agree to disagree.

    What I will NOT tolerate, is remarks like the one Brad made. Sorry, but I’m not going to be a gentleman about this sort of thing.

    * I consider this thread ended. This is all getting very tired*

    Posted 29 Mar 2007 at 5:11 pm ¶

50. Billy The Poet wrote:

    ren: no, I am not saying that Mao led to that directly, or intended it. Nor am I saying that his actions in building human, ideological infrastructure were the sole cause of it exactly. I am only noting that it was a step in the process. Structures, ideologies, and ideas are more fluid than they look in books, and certainly the ideas that Mao had led to aedvancement of races, and also economy, as we see today in many sectors of China. No one in their right mind would posit that it was Mao, or communism that made these capitalist changes happen, but they did contribute to what it is today.
    Factually, it was Deng, after Mao’s death, who made this socialist capitalism that we see today happen. And certainly, the farmers who follow the communist path of old are losing out to the former communists( the new guard, with webcams and western clothes) who are now becoming( or are) rabid capitalists–a rare opportunity to watch the clash of socialist versus capitalist ideologies in real time.
    Patriarchal view is only in light of you blaming the choice of suicide on the men who were married to those women who killed themselves–would you say the same about men killing themselves over looney, deadbeat bohemian wives? I didn’t mean to sound so harsh, but really, that point falls flat.

    Posted 29 Mar 2007 at 11:18 pm ¶

51. ren. wrote:

    FEB

    I wasn’t “accusing” you of using wikipedia, frankly I don’t see how it’s damning of anyone to use an encyclopedia as a reference (apart from both of our skepticism towards wiki’s user modified content). I was merely stating my own ignorance and use of wikipedia because I knew nothing of the Lincoln Brigade. Wikipedia’s entry was very vague when it comes to the racial makeup of the Lincoln Brigade so I was asking you if you had that information? That’s all.

    I don’t believe in unflinching devotion to one’s political ideology, but as I stated, if your concept of communism is different from Marx’s view you should at least explain what it is that differs or what you do or don’t follow, because when you invoke communism you are talking about at it’s core a fundamentalist system of thought with very stringent associations and ideas tied to it. Apart from that, I thought it was a fun discussion and it is time to stop and leave because it’s getting too damn difficult to find this thread in the archive. No hard feelings. Peace.

    Bill

    Your stuff about China sounds good to the layman. I promise to read up on more scholarly texts of modern China. As for the patriarchal view and I try not to cringe when I hear that word, I certainly agree that the choice of suicide was the woman’s. But these men, I did not characterize them as loony (except possibly Lafargue author of The Right to be Lazy), just deadbeat Marxist bohemians (and no they didn’t come from bohemia). Being dependent on males who were generally penniless and deadbeat not in the sense of laziness but in the sense of not looking out for oneself or one’s family and insuring their care and comfort — does not make for an environment akin with the joy of living. It’s fair to claim Marxism had no direct connection with their suicide, perhaps it was done because they burned the apple fritter they were cooking, wasn’t there so I can’t deny that. But I’m more willing to believe Marx’s biographer David McLellan, since he knows more about Marx’s personal life than most. One could also assume a wife filing for domestic abuse charges as possibly have a personality that is bitchy, but it’s probably more fair to look at the man who left the bruises on her. IMHO as a married couple, a man contributes to his wife’s mental health. The crises Marx’s daughters faced in their personal lives had a strong parallel to Marx’s life, himself often destitute, fleeing from creditors, and admittedly causing misery to his wife. That’s all I meant by his daughters “marrying their father”. As for would I think the same about men killing themselves over deadbeat Marxist bohemian wives? Probably not, especially if the context is set in the 19th century, a period where women were far more dependent on men than they are now and the conditions of divorce for a woman of that period were different from a man wanting to divorce his wife. I guess that’s a very father-centered, male dominated point of view, so I’ll own up to the patriarchal reek. If the point was I shouldn’t have been criticizing Marx’s private issues as a criticism of one’s belief in communism, that’s fair, shouldn’t have done that.

    Posted 30 Mar 2007 at 2:52 pm ¶

52. Billy The Poet wrote:

    ren: fair enough; and nice digression on the Marxist biographers.
    Yeah, I cringe when I hear the word patriarchy too, and imagine lesbians with hairy armpits and dildoes, infering that I am a dick;-) So I used it cautiously, and with the idea of explicating without explicating, the dynamic of patriarchy. In other words, today the shoe is on the other foot, so I just wanted to add a layer of historical irony–today, there are men who do kill themselves, but not because their wives are bohemians; but because their wives have the legal rights to take them to the cleaners in a divorce, etc.–and they do kill themselves quite often, but I seldom hear anyone bold enopugh to blame their wives, etc.
    So, as a father as well, and also as someone who went through the whole domestic abuse circus ( she broke flower pot on my head,tried to scratch my eyes out, etc, I stopped her, and I was charged;-)
    I can only say that the cops said( and I have since learned they often do say to men these days) ” buddy the bruises are on you,” but back then, when the anti man propaganda machine was rolling, the girls were being taught that any affront to their violence ( most acts of domestic violence against men are actually initiated by women, and perpetrated by women on children,etc.) is abuse, but everyone forgot to teach us fellahs that chivalry died. Back then I was still protecting her violent aggressive, perverse ‘womanhood’–and strangely enough holding forth the ideals of egalitarianism, in all of its debunked forms.

    Posted 30 Mar 2007 at 4:37 pm ¶

53. Billy The Poet wrote:

    Oh, yeah, and I do agree with you about marrying the father. Unfortunately, that is the down side of Electra, she is always trying to vindicate the father from the clutches of the psychotic mother, and succeeding far less thanm failing.

    Posted 30 Mar 2007 at 4:41 pm ¶

54. Waxman wrote:

    Oh, yeah: is it just me, or is it that this blog is doing everything it can to perpetuate lies and decieptful hateful propaganda?
    The link titled
    Special Post: “Slave Owner’s Manual”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Lynch
    Is absolute crap, and a very intentional smear of european descended peoples.

    Posted 31 Mar 2007 at 12:03 am ¶

55. Lyonside wrote:

    Waxman: it;s just you, bub. This site never said the manual was authentic – and if you READ it and you’ve read any literature from the early 1800s, you’d realize that it doesn’t sound right.

    However, the POINT of the work is really to point out the methods that can be used to oppress and suppress any group, and specifically the techniques that were (and to a degree still are, for AAs and other groups) used to suppress the African-American population of the US (and elsewhere) for 400 years. I’m sorry that point was too subtle for you to grasp.

    By your standards, Robert Harris’s _Fatherland_ is “propoganda.”

    Posted 31 Mar 2007 at 9:28 am ¶

56. Bubba wrote:

    I think you meant “decieptful”, right? Hawhawhaw….

    Posted 02 Apr 2007 at 10:17 pm ¶

57. Billy wrote:

    Racism–This very word evokes a great deal of pain. Through it, lives have been lost and people have been denied the opportunity to advance in the world. The exclusion and marginalization of groups and individuals inevitably leads to complications and are hinderances to world peace. I remember my first assault by racists. Since then, I have been stopped, bullied and racially profiled by women, men, and children on the other side of the cultural divide. Nonetheless, I believe in love and the power of knowledge. So I continue to work hard to create understanding for a better world. Can you imagine what the world would be like if there was less discrimination? If every person could maximize his or her potential without racism as a factor, imagine how far more advance mankind would be.

    Posted 15 May 2007 at 4:44 am ¶