quote:

---

Originally posted by Tau Zero:
[QUOTE]The key to solving the social problems of our age is to abolish the
white race, which means no more and no less than abolishing the
privileges of the white skin. Until that task is accomplished, even
partial reform will prove elusive, because white influence permeates
every issue, domestic and foreign, in U.S. society.

---

The sentence beginning "The key to..." appears to have been refuted by history.
[/QUOTE]

T-0, That is just plain ludicruous. In the USA, the legal bit is the least
critical piece at this point. "Privilege of the white skin" exists by
dint of pervasive racism. Same w/mysogeny vs. male dominated power structure.
That's just OBVIOUS and undeniable in my mind.

I agree with the material that you quote in that:

quote:

---

...which means no more and no less than abolishing the
privileges of the white skin. Until that task is accomplished, even
partial reform will prove elusive...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tau Zero:
As long as certain groups decide to define themselves by their
differences from "the other" and those differences include any factor
important to success, they'll be less successful.

---

Yes, and that's important. But even more important, is definition from without
rather than from within such a group. I'm not certain that one can combat
racism successfully without self-identifying a minority group for a while.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tau Zero:
Demands for "reparations for slavery" will go nowhere.

---

I don't know where this comes from, as I didn't look at the site, but as an
isolated sentiment, I agree.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tau Zero:
Even affirmative action in school admissions and public contracting has
been reversed by plebiscite in several states. People in general seem
to want a color-blind society, and that's just fine with me. I'm a
meritocrat.

---

You're also either in denial or an optimist. I think an awful lot of people
like to have groups they can point to as "other" and kick.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindy Viridis:
The proper term for such people is "reformed alcoholic", which isn't the sort of person I was talking about

---

Booker T. Washington, who rose from slavery to become the nation�s first widely recognized black leader, once warned against what he called "problem profiteers" among our nation�s black community. "There is a class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs and the hardships of the Negro race before the public," observed Washington. "Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs � partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs."

quote:

---

Originally posted by ARJ:
I hate to add to the nitpicking and make this behomoth of a thread any longer, but I feel this statement doesn't fairly represent alcoholism & other forms of addictive behavior. As the daughter of what you would call a "reformed alcoholic" I can say with a little bit of authority that my dad is still an alcoholic (something that he would state as well), and will be until the day he dies, probably. He just doesn't drink anymore. But the underlying compulsive behavior is still there. He can never "just have a beer;" if he has another drink, he knows he will go back to systematically rotting his liver. If he stops going to AA meetings, he starts going a little wonky. He may be able to manage his compulsion to drink, but his alcoholism is still there.

---

When you first talked of 'racism' (lets call this RALD, for "Racism, Astrid Leuer's Definition"), you mentioned it as something done by "the white, male power structure." At other times it was something done by "the white power structure," implying white women were in on it too. Then RALD could be indulged in by white males, but only by females and non-whites (Margaret Thatcher and Thomas Sowell being the examples offered) who"collaborate" in the white power structure. Later, you suggested that a Japanese business man in Japan who refused to hire a Chinese was being racist. Finally, you suggested some of us were "in denial" about being racists.

Now, aside from the truth or falsity of this, and aside from the emotional reaction to being called racists, I found, and find this somewhat confusing. For instance, I can't think of much Prof. Sowell, Lady Thatcher and I have in common, except being native speakers of English, something that also applies to you, I think. Possibly we all collaborated on supporting the Allied forces in the Gulf War, but that's all I'm aware of. Perhaps it will come clear in time, but it certainly isn't now.

So my point, and I do have one, is they cancelled my tv show, my lover left me, I'm back working the club circuit and THAT SUCKS! that since you are coming at all this from a perspective rather different than many of us, you ended up expressing yourself in terms that only those familiar with your ideas on this understood.

Related, sorta: this all started with cras and Beenay using the word 'chicks', which was found offensive. It only occurred to me recently that, judging by their 'from:' addresses, probably neither is a native speaker of English, and so didn't necessarily know what reaction the word 'chicks' would elicit from USians. Similarly, you interpreted 'colored' in the South African sense, which has never been U.S. usage. That's another potential for misunderstanding: being divided by a common tongue. (Damn, if I could draw, I'd work up a picture of a huge tongue dividing you from us, but I can't. *sigh*)

Well, alls well that ends, as the Bard put it on the Carol Burnett show, but I hope we'll all try please to look for possible confusions of these natures in future. We're having enough controversy when we do understand each other.

Gee, quiting time, I get to go home and see if my wife still lives there. Oh, and also go feed my friends cats. Later, folks.

------------------
Saintonge

Now I'm a reasonable man ... ka-click!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindy Viridis:
Yes, that's exactly what "reformed alcoholic" means -- an alcoholic who doesn't drink anymore, and who dares not drink ever again because he would not be able to stop. I was only remarking on the difference between an alcoholic who can't control himself and one who has "reformed" himself with the aid of a 12-step group, since it seemed to me that Saintonge was trivializing the severity of the problem by jumping from my analogy of a drunk to an essentially irrelevant example of AA members who no longer drink, as if there was no difference at all between them, or as if the drunk could trivially become reformed on his own.

---

Given that my mother killed herself with alcohol, and another sibling ruined his life with it, and it contributed greatly to my father's too early death, I would never trivialize alcoholism. What I was doing was arguing against your labeling some behaviors as 'compulsive,' and saying that a person with a 'compulsion' might be able to control themself temporarily, but given enough time will inevitably crack as give in to said compulsion, regardless of consequences. The evidence seems to be against that view.

quote:

---

Abolish the white race - by any means necessary

---

In the United States (and Race Traitor's mailing address is Cambridge, MA, so I expect they know this), the phrase "by any means necessary" is associated with leftism. USAmericans who use such terms will inevitably invite their listeners to attribute other political positions to them. The listener may be correct in doing so.

quote:

---

The white race is a historically constructed social formation - historically constructed because (like royalty) it is a product of some people's responses to historical circumstances; a social formation because it is a fact of society corresponding to no classification recognized by natural science.

The white race cuts across ethnic and class lines. It is not coextensive with that portion of the population of European descent, since many of those classified as "colored" can trace some of their ancestry to Europe, while African, Asian, or American Indian blood flows through the veins of many considered white. Nor does membership in the white race imply wealth, since there are plenty of poor whites, as well as some people of wealth and comfort who are not white.

The white race consists of those who partake of the privileges of the white skin in this society. Its most wretched members share a status higher, in certain respects, than that of the most exalted persons excluded from it, in return for which they give their support to the system that degrades them.

---

To some extent, race is obviously a social construct. If it weren't, 'passing' wouldn't be possible. But that doesn't show that social construction is all there is to it.

We know that skin color, hair color/type, facial features, and body proportions are largely controlled by 'the genes.' We don't know, YET, which other characteristics, if any, are strongly influenced by genetics, and to what extent. But a so-called science that prejudges this issue is just propoganda.

As for the mixed blood stuff, so what? Consider a litter of pups from a wolf/dog union. We breed half of them back into a fairly large wolf population, and half into a dog population, until some generations later every member of either group is descended, in part, from that litter. Does that make 'wolf' and 'dog' social contructs?

I suspect they first classified 'natural science' as 'that which regards races as non-existant,' then proclaimed the scientific vacousness of the idea of race.

quote:

---

... anti-racism admits the natural existence of "races" even while opposing social distinctions among them. The abolitionists maintain, on the contrary, that people were not favored socially because they were white; rather they were defined as "white" because they were favored.

Race itself is a product of social discrimination; so long as the white race exists, all movements against racism are doomed to fail.

---

A good deal of nonsense there. People were classified as "white" and "non-white" because of rather visible differences in skin pigmentation.

Now, Race Traitor might reply that people only looked on this as signifigant because of a previous social decision to favor "whites," or at least "our group." But dividing ourselves into groups, and favoring 'our' group over the 'others' appears to a human universal. It may not be possible to end it, and it certainly won't be easy.

quote:

---

RACE TRAITOR aims to serve as an intellectual center for those seeking to abolish the white race. ... Dissolve the club.

The white race is a club, which enrolls certain people at birth, without their consent, and brings them up according to its rules.

---

As Tau pointed out, that's what every culture does, and it apppears to be hardwired behavior in children to learn their society's rules. How then do we go about abolishing the 'club'?

quote:

---

For the most part the members [of the white race] go through life accepting the benefits of membership, without thinking about the costs. When individuals question the rules, the officers are quick to remind them of all they owe to the club, and warn them of the dangers they will face if they leave it.

---

<sarcasm>Gee, somehow those officers never talked to me. Could someone give them my address? I want to learn more about my benefits.</sarcasm> I doubt that the authors intend this 'club' and 'officers' stuff to be taken in the sense that of a conscious decision by persons unnamed, but it is not at all clear what they do mean by it.

quote:

---

It is our faith - and with those who do not share it we shall not argue - that the majority of so-called whites in this country are neither deeply nor consciously committed to white supremacy; like most human beings in most times and places, they would do the right thing if it were convenient. As did their counterparts before the Civil War, most go along with a system that disturbs them, because the consequences of challenging it are terrifying. They close their eyes to what is happening around them, because it is easier not to know. ...

Recently, one of our editors, unfamiliar with New York City traffic laws, made an illegal right turn there on a red light. He was stopped by two cops in a patrol car. After examining his license, they released him with a courteous admonition. Had he been black, they probably would have ticketed him, and might even have taken him down to the station. A lot of history was embodied in that small exchange: the cops treated the miscreant leniently at least in part because they assumed, looking at him, that he was white and therefore loyal. Their courtesy was a habit meant both to reward good conduct and induce future cooperation.

Had the driver cursed them, or displayed a bumper sticker that said, "Avenge Rodney King," the cops might have reacted differently. We admit that neither gesture on the part of a single individual would in all likelihood be of much consequence. But if enough of those who looked white broke the rules of the club to make the cops doubt their ability to recognize a white person merely by looking at him or her, how would it affect the cops' behavior? And if the police, the courts, and the authorities in general were to start spreading around indiscriminately the treatment they normally reserve for people of color, how would the rest of the so-called whites react? ...

The moments when the routine assumptions of race break down are the seismic promise that somewhere in the tectonic flow a new fault is building up pressure, a new Harpers Ferry is being prepared. Its nature and timing cannot be predicted, but of its coming we have no doubt. When it comes, it will set off a series of tremors that will lead to the disintegration of the white race. We want to be ready, walking in Jerusalem just like John [Brown]. What kind of journal is this? ...

In the original film version of ROBIN HOOD (starring Errol Flynn), the Sheriff of Nottingham says to Robin, "You speak treason." Robin replies, "Fluently." We hope to do the same.

---

And here we see that the conclusion of leftism mentioned above was correct. I've been cuffed and arrested for reckless driving (long story that I'll summarize by saying that I didn't stop when they hit the lights and siren). If enough people behave as I did that night, it will certainly make traffic stops more unpleasant for all. It might lead to the civil war they seem to be hoping for. But I can't see it leading to the abolition of racism, no matter how that word is defined.

Astrid, they have have sensible things to say, but so far I'm underwhelmed.

------------------
Saintonge

Now I'm a reasonable man ... ka-click!

RACIAL AGITATORS of the political left routinely seize any instance of white-on-black violence as evidence of systemic oppression against blacks. Their demagoguery is not limited to instances of "hate crimes," such as the horrific dragging death of James Byrd at the hands of racist goons in Texas, but includes even episodes in which race plays no role whatsoever, such as the Amadou Diallo shooting in New York....

Their concern is never for the victim, but for the racial politics. When blacks are attacked by other blacks�a much more common occurrence than white-on-black crime�they say nothing. Or worse, they side with the perpetrators, such as Jesse Jackson�s rush to support the rioting delinquents in Decatur, Illinois.

Naturally, they care even less for the victim of crime who happens to be white, especially if the assailant is black. Because the media subscribe to the left�s bigoted view of American race relations, their reporting reflects this bias. So, despite the constant coverage of the Amadou Diallo trial in New York, there has been nary a peep from the national media about the case of Tiffany Long in North Carolina.

A cherubic, white ten-year-old, Tiffany�s life came to an end in October, 1998, when three neighborhood teens�two male, one female, all black�lured her into an empty house. There, they sodomized her, strangled her with a cable wire, and beat her to death with a board....

As for the racial agitators, two nights before the trial, the local chapter of the NAACP held a prayer vigil�for the three brutes charged with kidnapping, raping, and murdering young Tiffany.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saintonge:
(lets call this RALD, for "Racism, Astrid Leuer's Definitiom

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tau Zero:
Another interesting tidbit I found here

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Astrid Leuer:
[quote][b]Similarly, you interpreted 'colored' in the South African sense, which has never been U.S. usage//quote]

What about the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People? US and SA apartheid have a lot of common roots[/B]

---

Er, when the NAACP was formed, the current term for those of African American descent was 'colored'. AFAIK, it has no relationship to the legal definition of 'coloured' which I understand to be a definition of mixed-race people, with one of the races black. (I suspect I'm missing some technicalities; dunno how asian-caucasian mixes are dealt with--around here, they're pretty well part of the landscape.)

I think the reason why the episode in question rankles T-0 (and me, but I hadn't heard of it), is that NAACP is supposed to be the most mainstream African-American political group, as opposed to, say, the Black Panthers, or the Nation of Islam.

A lot of white folks were marching along with the NAACP in the '60s, and scenes of black and white folks praying for the victims of white-on-black violence were pretty common. The image of NAACP members/leaders praying for the (presumed) perpetrators of black-on-white violence throws a lot of salt on partially healed wounds.

But your second paragraph illustrates *my* point; while the case is indeed disgusting (if the facts actually are as Tau Zero paints them; one learns not to trust the established media when race is involved), is it really going to help solve the race problem for white people to keep picking on what does or doesn't "rankle" with them, when the larger issue is completely different. This is why I'd rather talk about black-on-white "bigotry" or "race hatred", and save the political term "racism" for use in purely political contexts.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Astrid Leuer:
What about the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People? US and SA apartheid have a lot of common roots

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Astrid Leuer:
I have no idea why you posted this, Tau -- do you have reason to believe that any members of the American NAACP are lurking, since quite certainly none have posted? Or did you think that the discussion would benefit from a few lurid descriptions of horrible crimes? What point were you, actually, trying to make?

---

The point, Astrid, is that the American left and most of the media have used skin color as an excuse to play down or ignore heinous crimes and blatant injustices, even so far as sympathizing with their perpetrators.� You show every sign of holding similar views.� My point wasn't directed to the NAACP, it was directed to you.

Have you taken a look at any of the commentary from Alan Sokal yet?� He was responding mainly to "humanist" philosophical analysis of science, but a lot of his points seem to apply to this kind of political blindness.� Sokal taught math in Nicaragua under the Sandinistas; you'd do well to read what he has to say.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tau Zero:
(Still trying to re-define "racism" contrary to definitions going back to 1936, I see.)

---

Still trying to carry on a fairly dull ad hominem flamewar, I see. Give it up.

quote:

---

I didn't think you'd get it. �Looks like I was right.

The point, Astrid, is that the American left /

---

Of which there are precisely no representatives posting here ....

quote:

---

and most of the media have used skin color as an excuse to play down or ignore heinous crimes and blatant injustices, even so far as sympathizing with their perpetrators.� You show every sign of holding similar views.

---

So .... you're trying to redefine what I think, contrary to statements made by me, dating back to 1989? Do you not have enough to do, talking to my actual, expressed views, so you need to attribute things to me which I have never said? Would you appreciate being treated in this way? What are you trying to achieve, Tau? The defeat of views which I have never either expressed or held? In which case, why bother me with them; send an email to the NAACP.

quote:

---

� My point wasn't directed to the NAACP, it was directed to you.

---

*At* me, more like. You want to load up as many preposterous or unpleasant views as you can onto me, so that you can excuse yourself from listening to my actual points.

quote:

---

Have you taken a look at any of the commentary from Alan Sokal yet?� He was responding mainly to "humanist" philosophical analysis of science, but a lot of his points seem to apply to this kind of political blindness.� Sokal taught math in Nicaragua under the Sandinistas; you'd do well to read what he has to say.

---

I've read Sokal & Bricmont. It's pretty poor stuff, actually; a rather good practical joke turned into a long, dull and bad book. We can start a thread on it if you like; why don't you make the first post, telling me what I think? I've also been on a mailing list which Sokal occasionally posted to; he certainly would not support your appropriation of his name.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saintonge:
(lets call this RALD, for "Racism, Astrid Leuer's Definition)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Astrid Leuer:
No, let's not. Let's try to be civil to one another.

---

I wasn't trying to be insulting, I was just trying to keep straight what was being talked of.

quote:

---

Saintonge:Similarly, you interpreted 'colored' in the South African sense, which has never been U.S. usage

---

Astrid:

quote:

---

What about the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People? US and SA apartheid have a lot of common roots.

---

Maybe I'm missing something here, but back in your first post on this thread, Aug. 22, 2:29 AM, you said

quote:

---

Errrrr .... guys .... if you'd ever had to work in a multi-racial environment where people are honest about their racial feelings (and in South Africa, we can't afford not to be), then you might realise that "jokes" like this are really extremely hurtful. "Coloured" is a term specifically invented by the apartheid system (the South African one) in order to politically oppress black people.

---

'Colored', and 'colored people' in the U.S.A., never had any such connontations I am aware of. It went out of style around 1965, when 'black' came in, then went sort of came back into style in the 1980s as
'people of color' as a generic description of non-whites (or perhaps I should say, 'non-pinkish caucasians', given the biological slipperyness of 'white.'). 'Colored,' 'Negro,' 'black' and were all reasonably common, polite usage for anyone of sub-Saharan African descent, and no great attempt was made to distinguish between 'pure blacks' and 'mixed-race' blacks, as .za seems to have done.

This brings up another difference between .za and the US. In .za, or so I understand, sexual relations between people of different officially designated races was illegal. In the U.S. South, marriage between people of different races was illegal (though not, generally, in the North and West), and sex between a non-white male and a white female was likely to be a lynching matter (again, the North and West was different), but white males and non-white females in non-marital relations were common (so common, in fact, that H.L. Mencken once mentioned a white southern acquaintence who told him that he, the acquaintence, was in his late teens before it occurred to him that he could conceiveably have non-marital sex with a white female! Till then he'd fantasized exclusively about black/mulatto/quadroon/octaroon females.)

In the US, probably the majority of 'blacks' are 'colored,' that is, they have at least one white ancestor (the late Alex Haley, author of Roots, was more than 50% white by descent, I believe). There's also a fair admixture of American Indian blood.

Which is why I think we need to nail down the way we are using these terms: they sound the same, but aren't, necessarily (in WWII, a Scots visitor was on the phone long-distance when the operator broke in. "Are you through?" "Ya silly girl, of course I'm through!" disconnect, dial tone. A USAmerican friend had to explain that in Glawgow, 'through' might mean connected, but in Manhatten, it meant 'finished.') We have enough real disagreements without tripping over terminological ambiguity.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saintonge:
What I was doing was arguing against your labeling some behaviors as 'compulsive,' and saying that a person with a 'compulsion' might be able to control themself temporarily, but given enough time will inevitably crack as give in to said compulsion, regardless of consequences.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Astrid Leuer:
one learns not to trust the established media when race is involved

---

I've learned not to trust established media in any case more complicated than "What was yesterday's weather?" or "The stock market closed at ... " Anything complicated seems to be beyond them.

quote:

---

Astrid:Bottom line; there is racism in all directions, as a personal term. In a political sense, however, the only racism in America is white against black. And I'm not impressed by stories about local government either; compared to the power of Big Business, these things are milk toast, and Big Business is 'most entirely white. That's why I'm in favour of doing what we did in SA, and handing the blacks their fair share of the economy. They're actually managing it rather well . . .

---

What do you regard as the 'fair share of the economy' and how did you decide it?

Am I correct in inferring you regard USAmerican 'Big Business' as racist? If so, how did you reach that conclusion?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindy Viridis:
I understood your intention, but choosing AA as your example was remarkably off-target and seemed to me to trivialize the difference between a drunk and a "reformed" alcoholic. AA doctrine states that for an alcoholic to control himself and stay sober, he must have a support group and must go though the "12 steps". He can't do it alone.

---

True that alcoholics in AA have a support group; however, I don't think the difference between a "reformed" alcoholic (e.g. an alcohlic that no longer drinks alcohol) and an active drunk is as non-trivial as you think. At least in AA terms, the act of drinking alcohol is merely a symptom of a disease. An alcoholic can stop drinking alcohol and still be very "sick" in that sense. My dad has known many people who go to AA meetings every day of the week and still suffer a lot of emotional and psychological repercussions from their alcoholism. His term for them is "dry drunks."

So in that sense, there are people in AA who suffer from compulsive behavior, but no longer exhibit the socially unacceptable symptom of their compulsion (e.g. drinking excessively).

quote:

---

And remember that this was originally an analogy to the situation of a compulsive rapist/killer. Most such men are alone. They have no support group. In theory, perhaps a 12-step "Rapists Anonymous" program would be able to help some of these people, but not all of them (for the same reason that not everyone who joins AA stays sober), and no such program exists today in any case. Besides, any rapist on the loose would have to be crazy to go to such a meeting, since the police would have to be stupid not to monitor who went to it. Considering all this, I think it's sort of silly to use the example of AA to suggest that a compulsive rapist can learn to control his behavior.

---

Actually, you are getting closer to the true problem here. American culture is one that prefers punishment to reform, and rapists/sex offenders are some of the least-tolerated criminals; there really aren't a whole lot of options for convicted rapists to deal with their problem other than to be in jail or be heavily monitored once out of jail. There is a group for "Sexaholics Anonymous"; but considering that rape is more about violence/control/domination than it is about purely being addicted to sex acts, it doesn't seem quite appropriate. However, the idea that the police would heavily monitor a support group like that (or, perhaps, to be more exact, would have the right to) is not entirely valid. The use of certain narcotics is illegal in this country, however, there is a "Narcotics Anonymous"-- the whole point of the "Anonymous" on the end of these groups is that the identity of the members of the groups aren't revealed to society in general. And we also have laws about not being forced to incriminate ourselves. It would be difficult to have unmonitored anonymous support groups for sex offenders (actually, there may be some lesser-known groups at this point-- we have support groups for everything else); but it's legally possible.

Lore in OA is that a lot of people have trasited the other xA groups, and frequently end up at food.

Beyond all that, the handful of 12 step groups that I know of try to build on the AA book.

FWIW, there are prison chapters of several 12 step groups, so there may very well be an active RA meeting. If not, it's not unusual for a person to work on problem X while attending meetings for YA.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saintonge:
What I was doing was arguing against your labeling some behaviors as 'compulsive,' and saying that a person with a 'compulsion' might be able to control themself temporarily, but given enough time will inevitably crack as give in to said compulsion, regardless of consequences.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindy Viridis:
I understood your intention, but choosing AA as your example was remarkably off-target and seemed to me to trivialize the difference between a drunk and a "reformed" alcoholic. AA doctrine states that for an alcoholic to control himself and stay sober, he must have a support group and must go though the "12 steps". He can't do it alone. And remember that this was originally an analogy to the situation of a compulsive rapist/killer. Most such men are alone. They have no support group. In theory, perhaps a 12-step "Rapists Anonymous" program would be able to help some of these people, but not all of them (for the same reason that not everyone who joins AA stays sober), and no such program exists today in any case. Besides, any rapist on the loose would have to be crazy to go to such a meeting, since the police would have to be stupid not to monitor who went to it. Considering all this, I think it's sort of silly to use the example of AA to suggest that a compulsive rapist can learn to control his behavior.

---

Ah, I see your point now.

Two of mine still remain. First, that there is emperical evidence of people pulling away from chronic drunkeness without a support group (the book Heavy Drinking, mentioned before).

Second, that you haven't given any emperical evidence that any of the people who do commit this sort of crime are compulsive in the sense you used it. I ask again, do you have such evidence?

quote:

---

Originally posted by ARJ:
American culture is one that prefers punishment to reform, and rapists/sex offenders are some of the least-tolerated criminals; there really aren't a whole lot of options for convicted rapists to deal with their problem other than to be in jail or be heavily monitored once out of jail.

---

I find I must disagree. There were and are a variety of attempted reformative practices in U.S. society, but they have fallen into disrepute when conspicuous failures turned up committing the same kinds of crimes again.

Part of the problem, imao, was that they tried to use 'reform' as a substitute for 'punishment.' Convince the person running the therapy that you are 'cured,' and you get let out of what was termed a 'hospital,' but was actually a prison. Surprise! People lied, and therapists who wanted to believe that they could 'cure the sickness of sex offenders' fell for it. Eventually, the public got fed up.

Mindy: I almost forgot. I asked before what you would do with the people you considered compulsively violent, and you didn't answer. Instead, you said what you wouldn't do. Do you have an answer?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Petethelate:
Following up on AA and such, there's another concept known as 'switching addictions'. In AA, you generally find a table of coffee and doughnuts (sorry, Saintonge ). Any surprise that there's also an Overeater's Anonymous? (You won't find the doughnuts, and sugar for the coffee is conspicuous by its absense....)

---

quote:

---

Sainty stated:
I find I must disagree. There were and are a variety of attempted reformative practices in U.S. society, but they have fallen into disrepute when conspicuous failures turned up committing the same kinds of crimes again.

Part of the problem, imao, was that they tried to use 'reform' as a substitute for 'punishment.' Convince the person running the therapy that you are 'cured,' and you get let out of what was termed a 'hospital,' but was actually a prison. Surprise! People lied, and therapists who wanted to believe that they could 'cure the sickness of sex offenders' fell for it. Eventually, the public got fed up.

---

Actually, a fair distinction I think, and I agree & stand corrected. The first rule of reform (in alcoholism, at least, so I suppose for other similar forms of compulsion), is that the person has to want to truly be reformed-- it doesn't happen simply by following a formula, no matter how many steps you need to follow. However, any intelligent criminal can simulate reform well enough in a controlled environment, under observation.

My statement was meant more in the sense of: in theory, Americans may or may not agree with reform; in practice of voting/legislature, however, we've been boosting prisons and length and stringency of sentences. Taxpayers may like the sound of reform, but they seem to want more of their money to go toward jails (at least, lately).

Yeah. One guy put it as Step Zero: "This Shit has to stop!"

I'm pretty sure I understand where you are coming from, but I think we'll have to agree to disagree.

The problem that I have with the definition of racism-as-opression is that it seems (from what I can see) to offer an out to someone: The definition of a racist act depends on the (perhaps ad-hoc) relative definition of the oppressor vs oppressee group. I'll borrow an example from an older post of Mindy's: If a white storekeeper (iirc, in a white area) refused to serve a black patron, it's racism. If a black storekeeper (black area, I'd guess) refused to serve a white person, is it racism? If the white person is an old, poor person who can barely walk down the street, who's the oppressor? IMHO, the dictionary definition makes it simpler. If there's one standard of behavior, it seems easier.

From what you're posting, it appears that you feel that racism (and to a smaller(?) extent, sexism) is still institutionalized. From my perspective, in the businesses I've worked in, it doesn't seem to be.

I entered college as an electrical engineering student in 1970. On my dorm floor (er, 80 to 100 people in our unit), we had, if memory serves, one black guy. He had to leave when he was victim to an assault on the streets. Not sure of the circumstances. OTOH, the black population of the university was considerably better than 1%. On the gripping hand, 1% was about par for blacks in engineering. Similarly, the asian population in school was quite small (this was the U of Illinois in the down-state campus. At the time, the asian population in the Midwest was tiny, and the Vietnamese population was negligible.)

Trying to remember black engineers at my first two pro jobs (I left those 24 and 21 years ago). Can't recall any; this would have been in semiconductor companies. Lots of asians, biased towards Chinese, with some Korean.

At my current position, out of a few hundred professionals and engineers, we have and had about 4 black engineers. One was ABD in a PhD program at MIT; he later went to a position in a CAD startup. Doing extremely well now. One came from New Jersey, shifted from product/test engineer to IC designer, got homesick and went back to a New Jersey startup. One guy has been with the company longer than I have (21 years for me). Not sure of the last applications/marketing type--we're dispersing into other buildings and I haven't seen him lately. (I'm not counting summer interns--had a fair share of all minorities; black, hispanic, asian, etcetera. We're doing better at getting them for full hires now that we're an R&D group. Manufacturing just ain't sexy.)

FWIW, my employer decided to keep with an affirmative action program after the voters passed the ban on AA (which nominally affects the state and local governments). This has evolved into an emphasis on reviewing minority candidates first. As usual, the hiring pool is so small that we usually bring in anybody who shows signs of technical strength (Since we're living in the SF bay area, people who pay attention to the housing costs frequently refuse the job interview.)

At a rough count, we've talked to 20 candidates (for a couple-three positions). About 1/3rd are East asian (China, Viet Nam, Korea and Singapore), 1/3rd are central Asian (indian, Pakastani, Iran), and 1/3rd elsewhere, including Amurrican. Maybe 40% are women. As best as I can recall, we made offers to a representative sample. (Let's see, so far, we've succeeded with a singapore guy--Chinese extraction, an east asian woman--not sure of ethnicity, and have offers to a couple of central asians. Right now, no 'Amurricans' are in the mix. Last guy we offered to wanted to stay in Austin, Texas, and took a job with our company at a field office there.)

And yes, I've agreed that many (not all) of the candidates are qualified. I've passed on a representative sample. I try 2.5 basic criteria: 1) would I want to work with this person? (only one failed that test...) 2) Can he or she do the job? If no, can he/she be trained?

OTOH, my father was a bigot. I don't go down that road.

Petethelate

From what I can see as an adult, there aren't many generalizations about power and oppression that apply nationally, or even regionally. It's more this company, that company, this school, that school, or this area, that area.

------------------
Saintonge

thats all i have to ad to this conversation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saintonge:
. Growing up in the slums of Albany, N.Y., I didn't notice much in the way of a power structure at all

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Petethelate:
Following up on AA and such, there's another concept known as 'switching addictions'. In AA, you generally find a table of coffee and doughnuts (sorry, Saintonge ). Any surprise that there's also an Overeater's Anonymous? (You won't find the doughnuts, and sugar for the coffee is conspicuous by its absense....)

Lore in OA is that a lot of people have trasited the other xA groups, and frequently end up at food.

---

quote:

---

FWIW, there are prison chapters of several 12 step groups, so there may very well be an active RA meeting.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ARJ:
Actually, you are getting closer to the true problem here. American culture is one that prefers punishment to reform, and rapists/sex offenders are some of the least-tolerated criminals; there really aren't a whole lot of options for convicted rapists to deal with their problem other than to be in jail or be heavily monitored once out of jail.

---

Interestingly enough, a friend of mine married a guy who turned out to have been a child molester (slept with his own daughter).� He confessed to it, but got away with it with "counselling".

The real irony is that he works (still) in the state Dept. of Corrections, and wound up in mandatory counselling sessions with some of the same people he was supervising while on the job.� A civilian would almost certainly not get such lenience; in this case, it is a matter of people in the system protecting their own.

(The marriage?� It's history.)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Astrid Leuer:
It's not the power structure *within* slums I'm talking about, rather the power structure which decides that there *are* slums.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saintonge:
Ah, I see your point now.

Two of mine still remain. First, that there is emperical evidence of people pulling away from chronic drunkeness without a support group (the book Heavy Drinking, mentioned before).

---

quote:

---

Second, that you haven't given any emperical evidence that any of the people who do commit this sort of crime are compulsive in the sense you used it. I ask again, do you have such evidence?

---

In specific, however, there have been a number of case studies (sorry, I don't have citations handy) of serial rapists and serial killers in which the perpetrator insists consistently that he never understood why he did what he did, and suffered considerable guilt over it. In his own view, his behavior was not controllable, and the psychologists studying him found him credible. Now, of course, if you wish, you can write this off as a rationalization or a pitiful excuse, but then one can do the same for any mental condition. I seem to recall there was an early psychology writer (contemporary with Freud, I think) who dismissed all mental illness as a ruse to avoid taking responsibility for one's life.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindy Viridis:
I find it convincing, however, no doubt in part because it makes sense to me that sexual violence could become compulsive, considering that Western culture (and probably not only Western culture, but that's what I'm most familiar with) is still largely insane on the subject of sexuality.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tau Zero:
Definitely not just Western culture.� I recall reading about a Japanese comic book series called "Rape Man" or something similar.� From the description of the plots, it sounded like control to me (the victims were girls/women who got "too uppity").

---

quote:

---

I don't have any reference to support this, but I am told that the societies with the lowest incidence of rape and other sexual violence are those with the most relaxed attitudes about sex (generally in Europe).

---

quote:

---

On a related note, the city in my state with the highest ratio of churches to people is also the one with the highest incidence of reported rape per capita;

---

quote:

---

repression seems to lead to worse problems.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saintonge:
. Growing up in the slums of Albany, N.Y., I didn't notice much in the way of a power structure at all

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Astrid Leuer:
It's not the power structure *within* slums I'm talking about, rather the power structure which decides that there *are* slums.

---

Astrid, when we moved into the housing project, it wasn't a slum. The inhabitants turned it into one. A ruthless policy of weeding out vandals, kids who pissed in the elevators, thieves, etc. might have preserved it. But there's no evidence I know of that someone decided "We will have slum housing here," except the inhabitants of said slums.

------------------
Saintonge

quote:

---

Los Angeles police chief Bernard Parks, who is both African-American and a supporter of racial profiling, offered the following example to a New York Times Sunday Magazine reporter to explain the type of case where profiling is acceptable: "We have an issue of violent crime against jewelry salespeople ... The predominant suspects are Colombians. We don't find Mexican-Americans or blacks or other immigrants. It's a collection of several hundred Colombians who commit this crime. If you see six in a car in front of the Jewelry Mart, and they're waiting and watching people with briefcases, should we play the percentages and follow them? It's common sense." Jesse Jackson, in a rare moment of candor, once conceded an idea much the same: "There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life," he said in 1993, "than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start to think about robbery and then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved."

---

Horowitz also cites some very interesting figures on crime statistics (which at least ought to be verifiable):

quote:

---

Professional drug dealers are often involved in criminal gangs -- another reason why so many black and brown criminals fill the nation's jails. There are an estimated 31,000 gangs in the United States that have a combined membership approaching 1 million. Eighty percent of these gang members are Hispanic and black. Meanwhile, 70 percent of the violent juvenile defendants in criminal courts are black males; 60 percent of the juvenile murder defendants in criminal court are black males; as are 72 percent of the rape defendants, 78 percent of robbery defendants, 61 percent of assault defendants and 65 percent of defendants charged with other types of violent crime, according to the Office of Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention. These facts alone account for a good deal of the disparity in prison statistics.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saintonge:
Ah, I see your point now.

Two of mine still remain. First, that there is emperical evidence of people pulling away from chronic drunkeness without a support group (the book Heavy Drinking, mentioned before).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindy Viridis:
It depends on what you consider to be "evidence". This kind of thing isn't laboratory-testable, so what evidence there is, one way or the other, is largely anecdotal and subject to interpretation. I find it convincing, however, no doubt in part because it makes sense to me that sexual violence could become compulsive, considering that Western culture (and probably not only Western culture, but that's what I'm most familiar with) is still largely insane on the subject of sexuality.

In specific, however, there have been a number of case studies (sorry, I don't have citations handy) of serial rapists and serial killers in which the perpetrator insists consistently that he never understood why he did what he did, and suffered considerable guilt over it. In his own view, his behavior was not controllable, and the psychologists studying him found him credible. Now, of course, if you wish, you can write this off as a rationalization or a pitiful excuse, but then one can do the same for any mental condition. I seem to recall there was an early psychology writer (contemporary with Freud, I think) who dismissed all mental illness as a ruse to avoid taking responsibility for one's life.

---

Taking the second point first, I don't write it off, but neither am I going to accept it uncritically. There are just too many incentives for criminals to lie to themselves and others, and too many for the therapists to lie to themselves and others (consider the case of a psychiatrist who decides that the problem with violent criminals is moral rather than medical. By by all particular claims to expert knowledge).

Of course, if I was convinced that someone really couldn't control their actions, my immediate reponse would be "Give him a half hour to make his peace with his God, then shoot him like a rabid dog."

Here's an interesting example of people deceiving themselves that speaks to your first point:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ARJ:
but considering that rape is more about violence/control/domination than it is about purely being addicted to sex acts,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tau Zero:I don't have any reference to support this, but I am told that the societies with the lowest incidence of rape and other sexual violence are those with the most relaxed attitudes about sex (generally in Europe).

---

So, rapists aren't after sex, they're after opportunities to hurt, but if they can get sex easily, they don't rape as much -- Wanna run that one by me again? And we haven't even begun to think about the fact that men can't go erect voluntarily, arguing that all 'normal' rapes pre-suppose sexual excitement, or the emperical evidence from crime reports on what percentage of rapists use more violence than necessary to obtain sex ...

In a culture where the Church of the Holy Orgasm is one of the most respected of religions, the idea that rape is just another form of male sex is apparently too painful for many to contemplate.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saintonge:
So, rapists aren't after sex, they're after opportunities to hurt, but if they can get sex easily, they don't rape as much -- Wanna run that one by me again?

---

I've never accepted the idea that rape is "not about sex". I think the history of thinking on this subject makes it clear that that idea was an overcompensation. It used to be, back before the modern feminist movement in Europe and the USA, that many people (or at least many men, including police officials) did not take rape very seriously. The attitude was, "What's she so upset about, it's just sex." Then feminist theory came along and said, "It's not sex, it's about violence and control," which correctly moved the emphasis away from "it's just sex" but also led many weak minds to the patently idiotic conclusion that rape was not sexual.

I tend to think that it's more complex than "just sex" or "just violence" or "just control" -- rape is usually violence expressed in a sexual way because it is an expression of psychosexual problems and related anger towards women. It may also be that in some cases the rapist simply wants sex and is the sort of person for whom other people and their feelings are not real, so he takes what he wants without concern for anything but his own desires. (This is an idea I have been considering recently after reading about date-rape drugs, though of course the need for total control may also be involved in those cases, since an unconscious woman is very easy to dominate.)

For the victim, it is also not "just sex" or "just being hurt" or "just being dominated", but a compound sense of "being dominated and hurt through sex", which is worse than just being hurt and dominated in many other ways. This is my interpretation of it, anyway, which seems to be supported by what I've heard from rape victims and read. Fortunately, I cannot speak from personal experience.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindy Viridis:
I tend to think that it's more complex than "just sex" or "just violence" or "just control" -- rape is usually violence expressed in a sexual way because it is an expression of psychosexual problems and related anger towards women.

---

Absolutely. Perhaps I was unclear in my statement and should've said "rape is more about violence/control than it is about simply obtaining pleasure." Most people who just wanna have a roll in the hay, or perhaps are even addicted to sex, aren't into forcing someone else into something they don't want to do.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saintonge:
In a culture where the Church of the Holy Orgasm is one of the most respected of religions, the idea that rape is just another form of male sex is apparently too painful for many to contemplate.

Moral: look hardest at agreeable conclusions, we all have a tendency to believe what makes us comfortable, however ridiculous.

---

That's all about animals, though.  We're more englightened than that (or so we like to tell ourselves).  The problem with assuming that we have nothing in common with our evolutionary forebears is that we deny that we have certain unwelcome urges and pressures, instead of admitting that they exist but are wrong.  Hell, even some consensual things lead to results which are highly undesirable (stupid) and morally questionable for their effects.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindy Viridis:
I think the significance is not that sex is readily available in low-rape societies, but rather that the general attitude towards sexuality is healthier, and so fewer men grow up with psychosexual problems.

---

OBGeek moment: Paramecium porn.