Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Racism in Buddhist America
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
MI5 is a spy agency,(top secret hush hush mum's the word) so they might already have agents working for the local councils...Who knows,,,, (tongue in cheek response so don't take this too seriously)
@Cinorjer, I don't think it's one or the other. I think those are 2 different problems that happen to intersect. The racial aspect is more historical, the militarized and authoritarian police force is a newer phenomenon.
I don't think some white people understand the other side of the issue at all. First off I don't know anything about this other than seeing posts about it on facebook mostly rhetoric from those people arguing against the guy who is shot.. rhetoric. If I am counting correctly I have 3 facebook friends who are black and I haven't heard anything from them. I just went to thanksgiving with my girlfriends family. The topic came up and her family, all white, said something to the effect that the guy shot had it coming. I don't know the exact details the only place I have hear of this thing is at dinner tonight and reading the thread.
So is it true that the kid was lawless and put fear of a fire arm into the police? I don't know anything about it. I thought of not mentioning this as these white views might be upsetting but then I also think it is important to really see what others believe.
No, you took me all wrong there, Dakini. Training for every member of the family.
Iow, the training will emphasize the importance of keeping unused guns unloaded and locked away securely.
I don't exactly know at this very moment how to describe what I mean by a sober society -- I don't mean no drinking. It's an attitude thing that I'm trying to describe. The overall demeanor of society that takes things seriously when it's important and knowing this. Today in modern countries, there's too much distraction for many folks to focus on what exactly is important. It seems as though most people are mesmerized (drunk) on being constantly over-stimulated by the media or electronic games and all the other electronic wizardry.
You'll find me to be quite inflexible in this matter.
Why don't we just go with "go f*ck myself" and leave it at that.
No, by all accounts from reputable news organizations the kid wasn't a thug, wasn't running in a gang, etc. What is known is that after an altercation at the vehicle, the kid was running away when the cop got out of his car and fired about a dozen shots at him, hitting him multiple times and eventually killing him.
You can go to a news site like cnn.com and find lots of articles about the entire controversy.
In the small town I live in the police have acquired a mine resistant vehicle. From military surplus under a federal program. I can't imagine any scenario where such a vehicle would be needed.
@Cinorjer, are you talking about Michael Brown. The autopsies showed, as far as I know, that no bullets entered from the back of the body.
I support Mike Brown's family. I think Wilson should have gone to trial so all the evidence could be seen.
As I recall the autopsy didn't show any entry wounds in Brown's back.
There was contrary statements about whether he was charging at Wilson or stumbling toward him. And whether his hands were raised or reaching toward his belt.
Again, everyone had a right to see all the evidence presented in court.
fwiw,
Yes, the debate always gets bogged down in details like was the young man hit after he stopped and turned around or was it the one hitting him in the arm caused him to turn around, etc. I think the protest has as much to do with the contempt the cops and mayor showed the family and community as anything.
Be a little more explicit in your intent here, please.
@vinlyn: We've been talking an awful lot about gun control in this thread so I thought this was related in the sense that just perhaps many Americans are experiencing and noticing more and more of our basic freedoms being eroded, so I think they feel that this kind of thing can happen to them. Or am I in the wrong thread?
No, I thought that's what you were getting at. And out here in the West (I live in Colorado now), that thought is very prevalent -- that owning a gun and even belonging to a militia is a protection against the government coming "to get you".
I have to say, however, that I don't buy that justification. With the military might of this nation, the number of hand guns, even here in the West, would be little deterrence to a determined military.
This poster is an example of the emotional argument that in reality makes no logical sense. So the gun rights people using this type of argument are actually saying that if the US government really wanted to...I don't know, round up all the Christians or something, a few handguns and rifles in the hands of citizens are going to make a difference?? This is pure fantasy. It begins with the paranoid delusion that Obama wants to take everyone's guns away from them. So he can send the secret Muslim army to take over our cities, I guess.
By the way, I don't know where the person who made the poster got their history from, but in 1935 the Nationalist and Communists were in the middle of a bloody civil war and Japan had just taken advantage of this to invade and occupy much of the Chinese coast as a prelude to the second world war. After the war the two sides continued their civil war with both sides heavily armed, with the Communists eventually winning. What this tragedy has to do with some gun control law supposedly passed way back when beats me.
The days of scattered civilians with some private guns being able to defend themselves against an army are long over. But the emotional fantasy remains. At least in America.
I have to say, however, that I don't buy that justification. With the military might of this nation, the number of hand guns, even here in the West, would be little deterrence to a determined military.
I think you're probably right about that... It's just that especially since 9/11 a lot of Americans are becoming more and more nervous.
What happens when these armed militias or other armed groups take up an insurgency to protect beliefs that are not popular? And start duking it out between themselves or against the government, like in the Middle East? Car bombs, suicide attacks and all of it.
To me that's a more likely scenario than an organized uprising against an unpopular government.
I can't think of anything like that has happened in the US, and I doubt it would be after the style of how they revolt in the middle east. I wonder what a realistic scenario in the not-to-distant future would be like and how it would unfold.
I'm not so sure. Think of Timothy McVeigh. The Waco siege. Etc.
It seems she was not enough Indian because the mother remarried. Not enough so she >couldn't be adopted. But enough to get aid for college. She goes to a private school. >the school gave her a 40 thousand dollar scholarship.
Are you in Canada? Canada's the only place that cancels Indian status if the mom marries a non-Native.
The urgent need for a thorough examination of policing policies notwithstanding, the problem of racism and its utter denial still needs to be addressed politically.
I mean, the Fox News mentality that says there are just too many people about with nothing better to do than bandying "the race card," just reeks of callous disregard for others to me. The Jon Stewart video near the beginning of this thread has many examples of this. It's just too bad that a lot of us less affluent "white people" can't relate to various themes mentioned in the discussion in the Opening Post. I mean, I don't FEEL privileged, like they say white people are. But that's beside the point, since I AM privileged. I can come and go with a lot more freedom than many people of color can and do. Wazzup?
The last I heard, that federal program is under review, with the intent to limit it. Local police departments have gone overboard in the type of hardware they've been able to access. It seems like some boys are getting carried away playing "army".
After our Civil War, southern whites worked hard to prevent the 2nd amendment from being applied to freedmen and successive black generations. They made specific laws against it. Interestingly, back in the 50s and 60s, the NRA sometimes provided firearms to southern blacks so they could defend themselves from the KKK.
How an American views guns today usually boils down to who they ultimately trust to protect them. Does the ultimate responsibility lie with the police or the individual? If a violent criminal breaks into my house during the night, the police cannot possibly be there in time. The only thing between him and my wife and children is me and my Marlin lever action. Someone is guaranteed to be badly maimed in the event of a home invasion, and it won't be any of my family members.
So, you have a loaded gun at the ready in your house where your family lives?
You are a professional soldier so imagine that you can guarantee that your children are safe from that gun.
I'm sure that more kids and family get killed than home invaders by less experienced guys keeping loaded guns around.
Also it's not just shocked and put off, it's anger and resentment due to the boiling over the borders that happens with the gun culture.
I'd love nothing more than to only feel the need for this type of weapon:
It's not ingrained in my DNA, nor in the DNA of any of my extended family members, not even on the side of the family that's from pioneer stock.
The vast majority of Americans have no pioneer DNA. They immigrated here more recently than that, so that's a bogus argument.
Most home invasions are non-violent, i.e. the invader is unarmed. I've experienced 3 "home invasions" in my lifetime, and was able to cope with all of them without resorting to firearms. I have a brain, and it works pretty well, thank you.
I am not interested in relying on statistics or the beneficence of someone breaking down my door in the dead of night.
My best friend a mile a way was held a gunpoint in his own driveway by a violent felon intent on coming into his home recently.
If you desire peace, prepare for war and all that.
But there are a lot of (White) people in the US who just don't know how to talk about race. They feel awkward about it, so they've never really faced it, so they don't even have a vocabulary to discuss it with.
It is, I believe, more than this. They don't have the experience to even begin looking for the vocabulary. I don't blame them.
It is similar to any number of disabilities that children are born with. Usually it is an accidental happenstance, or the child becoming slow to speak, or even not until they go to school that the parents become aware and explain to the child that they have a hearing problem - or that they need glasses. The child has no frame of reference that he or she is seeing or hearing things different from other folks.
It doesn't change when those children grow up to be adults mired in samsara. Now they have no frame of reference that others experience life differently than they do.
I hope your friend managed the situation ok.
Many people don't live around grizzlies (lol) or anywhere, where the likelihood of encountering a violent felon is high. But I'll tell you one thing. People in high-end neighborhoods, or even in lower-end neighborhoods, have alarm systems, and those alarm systems are wired to the local police departments. Some systems even have strategically-located buzzers, so that police can be alerted with the mere press of a button from the bedside. At 2:00 in the morning, the police can arrive pretty quickly.
So there are many neighborhoods where no one feels the need for a gun. People are able to feel safe and secure without that. Guns in the home can cause more problems than they solve. But, whatever. It's an individual choice. Just presenting an alternate view. At least if you have a gun, make sure no kids have access to it.
Perhaps this is how it starts.
St. Louis, Ferguson terror plot foiled
http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/crime/2014/11/27/nr-dnt-brown-alleged-ferguson-terror-plot.cnn.html
What I hear is fear, anger and rhetoric about the frontier in ancient history. (Someone else dragged in the rebellion against the British Empire for god sake. Seen any redcoats lately?)
It sounds like an unhealthy and dangerous combination to me.
If the USA were an individual it would need psychotherapy.
For entire societies, unfortunately, there is no cure.
No, what I said was that the militia concept in America began, in part, with militias raised to fight the British during the American Revolution era. This, in turn, led to the inclusion of the "militia clause" in the Constitution, upon which the individual's right to own a gun today is based.
To a learned person, knowing historical bases helps one understand current events, rather than some current concept just popped up recently out of nowhere.
Yes, but I think this historical context is no justification for present-day policy.
It sounds like an unhealthy and dangerous combination to me."
I honestly don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about. I think it's a pretty undisputed fact that Americans have a preoccupation with guns in a way our cultural cousins do not. Whether you think it's because of settling the West or the Revolution or whatever, I guess I'm missing where you're diagnosing the "fear, anger, and rhetoric" about the subject, Doctor.
>
Yes. A very wry, dark joke...
Being as aware as a Buddha in this day and age, is also an important 'weapon' -- but awareness about potential dangers that can come from being totally unaware for such a long time (by design), I mean gosh, I don't know what to say except another one of those jokes: Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're NOT out to get you. I think 9/11 proved that one out for many.
![:\](https://newbuddhist.com/plugins/emojiextender/emoji/little/confused.png ":\")
Okay, you’re in denial.
Yes it is, and here's why.
That's what got the clause put into the Constitution.
Now that it's in the Constitution, it can only not become the law of the land by the Supreme Court reinterpreting that clause, which is almost totally unlikely since they recently ruled on it and overall public sentiment in much of the country (aka, most of the Western and Southern states) is pro-gun. OR, if the required number of states pass a Constitutional amendment, which also ain't gonna happen (for basically the same reason).
Now, if you want to talk about he wisdom of our present-day policy, then I'll agree with you. But if you want to talk about the law of it, you have no ground to stand on.
Our governor here in Colorado got a slightly toughened gun law through the legislature in his first term. He nearly lost the election, and the state legislature switched from being controlled by Democrats to being controlled by Republicans. And, our Democratic federal Senator lost his reelection bid, in part because of a GOP backlash against the gun law. That's how the politics of it would work in many, many states.
Now, if you want to talk about he wisdom of our present-day policy, then I'll agree with you. But if you want to talk about the law of it, you have no ground to stand on.>
Okay. Thanks for making this clear.
I'd like to add another aspect of this topic to this discussion. Considering how factured this nation is already -- over virtually every topic (racial issues, gun control, abortion rights, fracking, the Keystone pipeline, and on and on), do we really want to elevate even more this fight over guns.
If it were up to me, I'd happily have the guns taken away from all but responsible government agencies.
You don't know how hard it is (or maybe you do) to have several fairly close friends who are always talking about hunting and their visits to various NRA gun ranges (vacations that are based almost solely on that).
>
You're referring to the discussion here, right? Like most threads, it will have its heyday for a while and then fade away into obscurity.
Just think of it as lots of these fireside chats are going on all over the world - in living rooms, restaurants, bars ... I think it's a good thing to discuss while we're able. I'm thinking China sounds like an exotic place - to visit - but I wouldn't want to live there, if you know what I mean.
Even though these discussions may get a little or a lot too intense for some, they're sort of vital and make us feel alive and caring about one another, even when disagreeing - or because of it.
Sorry about the ramble.
You can't accuse someone of "angry rhetoric" and then when asked for evidence, you give none and further accuse of denial.
Except the first joke is positively true. Average police response time is a couple minutes at best. Those of us who have lived in poor neighborhoods or ghettos know it can be much longer.
All the theory and awareness and noble intentions is wonderful until there is a real monster at the door.
No, I'm referring to a fight between the pro-gun and anti-gun sides in the nation.
Sorry I didn't make that clear, so thanks for giving me that opportunity.
That's cool but it doesn't sound like something I said. shrug
You're right! Our wonderful quote system did that. I've corrected that.
>
Yes, I was implying that by using 'wry' -- meaning cynical.
I totally hear you on all that.
>
I've noticed it is kinda whack!