Another hot potato, cognitive dissonance...or both?
how
Veteran Veteran
The percentages of different ethnicity's found in our general populations usually corelates to the percentages of different ethnicities found in the local Buddhist congregations. The glaring exception to this representation is from the Black community.
Most Buddhist communities have at some time noted this observation, wondering if this is the elephant in their living room that no one wants to acknowledge and follows it up in asking if we are actually as inclusive as we claim to be.
When my own white privileged guilt dropped by, it made me wonder if folks coming from a cultural background where the essence of their validity has been endemically questioned, would the Buddhist offerings of a dissolving of one's identity not seem to be just another duplication of what caused their suffering in the first place?
Comments
It's possible. In some instances, it can help do the opposite, such as in India with the Dalit caste and Ambedkarite Buddhism to help combat and erase such racial/religious/ethnic lines. But it other contexts, the erasing of certain lines may not be as appealing or as helpful. In the US, the black community has found pride and strength in their shared culture, and many may have no interest in dissolving that identity amidst a sea of white Buddhist faces.
Or may be that many black people have not been exposed to Buddhism enough to be interested. I discovered it by accident through a friend who said they went to learn meditation at some place near my house, which turned out to be a Thai Buddhist monastery, and my visits and association with the Thai community helped bring me into the Buddhist world.
It could also be their close association with Christianity, which is a big part of black culture and identity and they may find enough spiritual fulfillment there. Black churches are often at the heart of black communities and the center of struggles for racial justice.
Whatever the case, it does bother me that most Buddhist faces I see are white (besides the Asian faces that frequent their local temples, which are usually started by monks from their country of origin and minister specifically to that community). I wish I knew how to help make Buddhist communities more diverse. I think one way is to understand racism and make sure that whatever community one is a part of is open and welcoming and vocal about it.
I think what white Buddhists can do is to be an ally to oppressed people by being supportive and by showing that Buddhists also care about injustice and are willing to be socially engaged to help change things for the better, not just sitting in a corner.
One example: http://www.buddhistpeacefellowship.org/
When I was attending a Tibetan temple there was a black pastor that attended for a while, younger guy. I had a conversation with him once where he expressed his appreciation for the place because it wasn't so white. I was a little surprised by that because the attendance was almost all white, one other black lady attended occasionally besides him, otherwise 30 odd white people. He said that he meant the overall culture of the place as it was Tibetan. I thought I understood him, but still really didn't get it at the time.
Not long after I left the Tibetan's in search of a more western approach and started attending a fairly large western Theravada community connected loosely to IMS. IMS over the past several years has made a conscious effort to be more inclusive and here there was a greater representation from POC, but culturally is was overwhelming white in nature. I had spent nearly 20 years studying and practicing Buddhism with Tibetans that I wasn't even aware what that preacher meant until I joined a larger group that was culturally white.
Like I said there were lots of efforts to be more inclusive and there were more POC than the western TB sangha but frankly to me it seemed more hamhanded and awkward than genuine, genuine in substance not intent, the intent was certainly there.
I kind of think its going to take those few black people that are interested to become teachers so they can lead groups in ways that are more authentic. IMS current teacher training group is focused on doing just that, I think around 3/4 of the class are POC.
The Nichiren Buddhist sects are the most diverse. You will find many Black people who practice Nichiren Daishonin's Buddhism which is based on the Lotus Sutra. I even know a Black woman who was ordained. She is apart of the Nichiren Shu school. Her name is Myokei Caine Barret. You can look her up on google.
This I feel is the most important point. I have had several black folks frequent the Monastery I stay at. Quite a few of them come very often.
A large portion of the black community may not even be interested in buddhism because christianity is a huge part of black culture in America. Just because a large portion of them practice christianity though doesn't mean they do not have access to the dharma. The dharma is taught in christianity as well. What they call the Holy Spirit or Christ, we Buddhists call Buddha Nature or the Unborn. Their way of explaining "letting go of the self" is sometimes referred to in terms such as "surrender your self to the good lord."
However, every part of the United States has a different story to tell and the black community in different parts of the country may be getting exposure to buddhism differently. I know in the south, buddhism is spreading a bit amongst the people who are suffering in jail. There have been programs set up for some of these places to teach meditation to inmates hoping that it could help them out. There is a documentary on this called Dhama Brothers. Meditation had a huge impact on many of the people it was offered to in these programs.
The black community is constantly being exposed to the dharma, just because it is not the dharma we are used to reading doesnt mean it isn't dharma. Also, just because we do not see them getting exposed to Buddhism where we are now does not mean it is not happening. If you are not part of the black community than how can you really know if the black community is really being exposed to buddhism or not? Maybe the people being exposed to it aren't ready to visit a Monastery because it could be awkward for them. We can't apply the same expectations and standards to a group of people that may have grown up with a very different cultural perspective on life.
The last point I want to make is, we live in the age of identity right now. This age is perpetuated by capitalism and pop culture. The black community is not the only community that seeks to have a defined sense of self. I am quite young still and I can see amongst my gen x and millennial peers that wanting a defined sense of self has just become a very pop culture phenomenon. Everybody wants to be a King, or in most cases, "Queeeen." Capitalism is selling "Self" to the masses and the young people that use technology the most are most susceptible to this cultural phenomenon. Yes it has always been a part of social justice movements but it is becoming much more than just that within our current socio-economic/political climate...
This is a lot of stuff to think about and I'd prefer not to. I'm sure just doing my own practice is enough to show others, black or white, that yes as a Buddhist I am trying my best and truly wish to help others. If someome is open, they will hear the dharma. If someone is not ready to listen to dharma, we cannot force them to.
Things change 🥳
https://www.lionsroar.com/something-has-to-change-blacks-in-american-buddhism/
For example the group @Jason mentioned seems an excellent possibility 💗
One example: http://www.buddhistpeacefellowship.org/
I used to meditate on 'Second Life' where everyone has an avatar independent of judgement.
Now that you mention it, I don't remember anyone that would identify as black off the top of my head although it's always multicultural. I haven't actually been to a live Sangha since the Sakyong lost his standing though. Well, the same one a couple of times but it wasn't the same. Actually, I'm mistaken. I do recall a dark skinned couple at the Pure Land center I went to the once not long after.
I'm not sure I can answer that. I do know however, that subscribing to "white guilt" only reinforced a kind of separation that felt irresponsible even as it was meant to make me feel the opposite. Like I was contributing to the problem by identifying with a label that marginalizes me in the same way others don't wish to be marginalized. As a "lesser than". So I've tried to go with "human responsibility" instead. I feel some responsibility for every crappy thing we have done to each other but I don't feel any degree worse because a perpetrator shared my skin tone or eye colour or even closer to me in the blood line.
The other day I actually got called racist because of the shade of my skin. I thought that was pretty ironic. I was told that "people like me" were the ones that came up with the labels so I had a lot of nerve to suggest we drop them. I said that it was actually people like him and he said "I'm not the one with white European blood". I then said it was odd that he couldn't see how he was working against his own cause.
I guess I do think that by catering to a certain ethnic group or skin colour identification that we would be in fact marginalizing those who do identify in that way. And if we forced everybody to drop the labels it would take from some peoples feeling of connection to heritage.
People have to figure this stuff out for themselves without forcing it on others. Personally, I do not identify as "white" or any other shade. I am human and have no problem with anyone identifying as they wish unless they use my name and social insurance number. I will not humor the person though. If you identify as "black" I probably won't call you black and if I need to point out that your skin is darker than mine I will say just that.
From a Buddhist POV, I think it's good for all of us to work towards being more inclusive and weakening our tendency to construct rigid self-identity views. At the same time, I think that we may create unintentional suffering when we don't acknowledge and respect other people's identities. If someone is black and identifies with all the common history, music, fashion, appearance, and lived experience that are associated with that label/identity, it doesn't seem skillful to me to tell them "No, I will not refer to you in the way you prefer to be because I don't like labels or identities." I think the same is true of people in regard to personal pronouns. Gender is fluid and we construct identities on top of them, and it may be skill to try and deconstruct that from a Buddhist POV in our contemplative practices. But if someone says, "I identify as a woman and prefer to be called she/her," it doesn't seem skillful to me to tell them "No, I will not refer to you in the way you prefer to be because I don't like labels or identities." In essence, I have no issue if one wants to do deconstruct these mental self-identifications and perceptions in their own practice, but I think we also have to balance that with respecting the wishes and lived experiences of other individuals. Not the mention the fact that some of these things have effects beyond what we personally think about them. For example, one may not wish to identify as male or white, but those perceptions in others and social institutions still have a tangible effect on how one is treated. A black man may not identify as black, but that has little bearing on how the police will treat them, and they will still be 2.5 times more likely to be killed by the police than those who are white/have lighter skin, which is why we also have to deconstruct material systems that support thing like racial divisions, gender divides, etc. as well as our own perceptions. Some things to consider, at any rate.
Things like "blackness" may not have inherent existence, but conventionally speaking they do, and we live in a predominately conventional world. The Buddha may have seen through all of this, but he still referred to people by their names and clans and other conventional designations. In the same way, I think we can find the middle way here too.
I haven't found this to be true. When I was in a couple of Buddhist groups in Seattle, there were African American members there. One was a university professor. I'm wondering what the ethnic groups are in your community, that you do see reflected in the Buddhist groups. Asians? Hispanics? How broad a demographic spectrum are we considering for this discussion?
The one omission I've found wherever I go, is Native Americans. Where I currently live, they form 11% of the population. OTOH, in my current location, the Native spiritual traditions are very strong, with a busy ceremonial calendar year-round. So perhaps it's understandable, that they don't seek out Buddhism. However, I've read that elsewhere, some Native people who study Buddhism don't feel comfortable in sanghas that aren't diverse. So they hold back.
For younger Buddhists, there was the Dharma Punx movement, that did a fairly good job of being inclusive. I don't know what's happened to that network of groups, though, after their main teacher, Noah Levine, was exposed for serious ethics transgressions.
A good book to read on this topic of diversity in modern Buddhism is Ann Gleig's new book, "American Dharma: Buddhism Beyond Modernity". She covers a variety of topics, including Buddhism and the LGBTQ community, ethnic diversity, Western Buddhism's reaction to scandals in the sangha, to name a few.
https://www.amazon.com/American-Dharma-Buddhism-Beyond-Modernity/dp/0300215800/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=American+Buddhism&qid=1591993675&s=books&sr=1-1
I appreciate that but that's not really what I said. In fact I said it is none of my business what anyone identifies as as long as it isn't me. I have yet to meet anyone that preferred to be called black rather than their name though and I will probably stick with that. Like I said, yet to have a problem.
I know there is a problem and I support anti racism efforts. I happen to think self identifying by the shade of ones skin is perpetuating the disease. That doesn't mean I equate that with learning and enjoying ones roots.
Again, that is not what I said and I don't really equate the two scenarios. If people were saying all trans identifying people were the same you would have a point but you moved the goal posts and that's a no-no.
So although I agree with the spirit of your post, I don't see race labels the same. I see them as bondage and I don't especially like being called "white" or being told how I should feel based on my shade of skin. Sorry but just because other people are stuck on racial divisive language is no reason I have to identify with it.
I see it more like the religious coverings that some women are forced to wear by males in their family and how modern society wants to force them to take it off. Personally, I would like them to shake off those shackles but it is really for the women to decide, not the men of their family and certainly not you nor I.
Now if society says I need to wear it so people feel more comfortable, that is where I draw the line.
Although I am doing that by wearing a mask on the bus, that is another issue, lmao.
Request @federica, my spell check says "nor" comes between "you" and "I" in that context. Is that right or is my spell check screwy?
I have in my own way. By allowing others to identify how they wish while not identifying myself and by sharing my opinion for the collective to digest.
I only respond to topics asking for my opinion. I do not broadcast when not asked.
I apologize if I misunderstood your statement that, "I will not humor the person though. If you identify as 'black' I probably won't call you black and if I need to point out that your skin is darker than mine I will say just that." And I mainly said what I did in response because I know many people who specifically want to be called black rather than anything else, such as person of colour, darker skinned, etc. So for example, when talking about police brutality and discrimination, they often want people to use the term black when specifically referring to black people as opposed to other darker skinned people because they have a specific shared heritage, culture, identity, etc. that they don't necessarily want to be erased or marginalized or subsumed. And it just seemed like you were saying you wouldn't being willing to 'humor' someone and do that if that was what they wanted.
As we all know, overcoming one's conditioned state, is not an easy task, be it one's views on race, ethnicity, sexuality, gender identity, or religion...there are layers upon layers of experiences which shape the so called self....the eye consciousness, ear consciousness, nose consciousness tongue consciousness touch/body consciousness mind consciousness, and what passes through their sense doors, all play their part in shaping our opinions/who we think we are, our place in the scheme of things....
Some may find this interesting...dare I say insightful...
Mindful of Race...Ruth King..
Hey, no worries.
However, if I am talking to an individual that identifies as black and we get into the conversation about it then I will indeed say pretty much what I already said here and hope they understand it doesn't mean I do not stand with them. People with darker skin or that identify as black don't just matter, they are vital and very much appreciated. That I won't actually call someone black or white or even brown (an actual skin tone that still comes in many shades) does not take away from how a person self identifies unless something hits home. And even then, only they have that power.
When someone calls me "white" I just look at them and then look at something actually white like a sheet of paper, then look at my arm, back at them again and then back to the paper with a confused look on my face.
It can't be a one way street. The street must be omnidirectional.
Please Don’t. It probably won’t be taken in the way you hope.
I think Jason has done a stellar job of trying to explain to you why thats an insensitive way to look at it. Unrealistic, and misses the whole damn point. Recognize the dark skin!! Respect it, . Like you want to be recognized and respected and given a fair shake in life. Also...You know, Most non white cultures are proud of their groups and what they’ve survived and aren’t interested in figuratively all being one united shade of clear.
Ok, you’re not ‘white’....you’re peach ,dammit.or some other shade of beige..you know what European and non European human start ups were....Let’s not play. Your range peach-ness gets you more advantages in life. Whether you want to admit it or even know it. Being darker than peach has been a real mother fucker for a lot of groups of people. Especially, the darker, the worse. You’re not expected to understand, smooth over, or even console, at this point....you’re expected to recognize. Be aware. Denying it even exist and thinking skin color doesn’t determine things in the ladder of life just tells me you don’t get it. David, you’re my dude, haha...we go back years here, but this one....you and I will go head to head on....
BTW...if you do end up in the conversation, come back and tell me what the black person said.
And most likely, that same person will want to be referred to as black., and will call you white and probably won’t want to take the time to explain to you why your dropping skin color labels idea sounds condescending.
Even if you stick by it. And swear by good intentions....It’s gonna come across that way. I’m telling you.
I’m just saying that’s not a good idea...come up with another one.
💯
I really don't see the problem with David's comments. He's just saying that he doesn't want use race labels. I can't understand why people would get mad if you don't call them Black. I know some black people who don't want to be called African American. They just want to be called American instead. It's not like he doesn't support the protesters. He said that he stands with them. I think he already knows about unfair treatment of Black people.
AFA the OP....I don’t think it’s a comfortable move out of Christianity for most black folks. That’s nothing against Buddhism, But anything outside of what you’ve been raised on, gets a side eye, haha. ( in the south/ Bible Belt) Like rituals and things. The couple of black folks I HAVE met at Sangha functions, ended up slowly going back to the Sunday Church thing. Hopefully Buddhism can become more diverse here in the states...we’ll see. It’s a lot going on with the social changes ...so.....just gotta sit with it., right?
Diversity and including all is a hard task..... You can’t force it, yet you need to be active about it...
@Omar067
Ok. Noted.
What’s your ideas on the OP? Got any other thoughts on how the sangha could be more inclusive?
I still don’t like the way his idea sounded, and I told him why. I understood his points, I knew what he was saying. I totally disagree with the theory. It being, .......that dropping labels, specifically skin shades, would improve the black relationship with whites....pertaining to sangha or not, That’s ridiculous.
It is going to be very hard for Buddhism to gain Black converts. All most impossible. You might be able to get them to respect it, but you won't get a lot of them to join a Buddhist organization.
I think there is a video on youtube that you guys will find interesting. It is called "Black Folk Don't Practice Buddhism."
We have to go out and talk to Black people about Buddhism. That is the only way. If we don't reach our hand out to them, how can we expect to more Black people join us. The Buddha wants us to spread his teachings, but we are not going into the communities to talk to them. You don't have to give up your culture to practice Buddhism.
I don’t think we should reach into the community.... Specifically, door to door stuff...no.
Sanghas can do small things to try to include others. I’m not implying it’s an impossible task. .we should be welcoming of anyone that comes from any and all communities.....that means try to have representation on leader boards...maybe some other colab thing with a community board...um...everyone here knows I’m in favor of the meditation at the prisons...so things are being done...It’s a big problem with small solutions....gotta keep going! . that’s why it’s called a struggle.
It is impossible. The only thing we can do is wait and see. We just have to wait for open minded people to join us.
There was movie called dhamma Brothers. I think someone mentioned it. The movie was about Black people being introduced to vipassana in prison. They had some resistance from Muslims and Christians though.
Most of them had life sentences.
I believe it was Sir THomas Beecham who was in New York for a Concert with the Philharmonic, who with his wife, chanced to wander into Harlem, and eventually went into an eaterie, and sat down.
Every single other patron and member of staff, was black.
Beecham and his wife, sat for a few minutes, and every eye in the place was on them. They waited for attention, and eventually, a waiter approached the table and said something to the effect of -
"Man we can't serve you in here. This is a place for coloured people."
Without missing a heartbeat, Beecham replied,
"Well... we're pink...?"
They got served.
That side of the coin was brought up in another thread with @Jason, and as usual, he explained it eloquently.....I’ll go see if I can find it....you know how the search feature can act sometimes , haha, no shade to Admins,
The above anecdote dates from the 1940's, when he was a guest Conductor with the New York Philharmonic... about the middle of WWII....
Yeah, the origin of the story is not what I’m talking about....it’s the point it’s trying to make...I don’t want to retype and explain a point when someone else did the last time you said this...that’s all...I’m being lazy...haha, if I’m not mistaken, we had this same quote brought up before...agh...hold on, it’s gonna bug me now...I’ll find it
What is the meaning of this story?
With the exception of racist mindsets ,it always has so far.
That is what I do. The Golden Rule and all that. Catering to wrong view is not a good idea and is irresponsible. In my view, the mental barriers between us is partially responsible for wrong view. I can't feed what I see as wrong just because everyone else thinks it's good.
You read only what you wanted to read. "One united shade"? Where did I say that? I'm willing to bet that other non-white and non-black communities would like to be recognized too. First Nations don't like being figuratively "black" but nobody seems to care.
No. Simply no. That is not how this plays out. I am not more responsible for what dead Europeans did than I am for the anyone else. It is called "human responsibility" and it is much more skillful than "white guilt".
Yes, I have been afforded priviledge because of other peoples views and so I take a stand by not feeding the system. I engage on a personal level.
Precisely what I am doing.
This is far from what I said. So no, you don't get it.
Fine with me.
They say all kinds of things. Sometimes it takes a while for them to see my point and sometimes they don't but everybody is different and I speak respectfully. More people end up agreeing with me than you would think. They may not agree that the labels need to go but they agree with my meaning. Some have even said "Yes! You actually get it!" There are exceptions and some have closed down or have made ignorant remarks about how "white" people are this and "white" people are that... You know, racist crap.
Nope. Not once did anyone prefer to be called "black" rather than their name. I could just imagine being at work and instead of saying "You would have to talk to Lincoln", I said "You would have to ask the black guy over there". That would go over like a lead balloon.
But it never has yet so...
No. You come up with a better one and you do it.
I live in a multicultural area and work multicultural jobs and have had this conversation countless times.
But you know better because... why again?
Oh, yes, just because we disagree on this does not mean I respect you any less. I may be a little blunt but I do genuinely love everybody and count the people here as my sangha (even as I see all sentient beings as the sangha).
Ok. We both said our piece/peace then.
Can anyone explain the meaning of the story about having pink skin?
We're all a colour, and if we can look into our own personal DNA history, chances are our origins are housed in more than one nation.
I am somewhat split regarding appraising colour; our skins may be different tints, but we all have vital organs and blood in common.
My life was saved by transfusions when my eldest daughter was born, and who knows whose blood I had? I have no idea, nor do I care.
All I know is that my life was saved by some benefactor who chose to donate blood that others might benefit.
Bless 'em all.
Thank you. It isn't like I deny their identification or anything else. I just don't use divisive labels and myself do not like being labeled "white". So if you want me to recognize the group you are in, first I need to know where you stand. That way I don't generalize and lump you into a category you may not be comfortable with. Or even worse, one that you are.
We do not act the way we do because of something in the shade of skin. It is personal and in the mind.
What, you never watched Star Trek Enterprise?
Sorry, just a bit of levity.
I edited a bit since you posted.
This is an important topic.
My wife may be Cambodian but my first wife was First Nations and there is no group that has been more abused and marginalized in Canada than First Nations bar NONE.
We are headed in the right direction but addressing the symptoms one by one without addressing the cause.
I’m so with you on that last comment. Another thread...anyway, ...
This was black and white. By all means, if your experience is different than mine and you are hearing from black folks in your community or you have in fact had these convos, and they agree with you...hey, don’t listen to me. I usually try to make it a point that this is vibe where I’m from, south, bible bet. I’m not claiming to speak for your location. My knee jerk reaction was that stuff about we’re all one color, or the labels , whatever......don’t fly here. ...not with black folks...I also have family experience married to a Ghanaian, so the that POV, that I’ve been exposed to, also don’t want to hear that stuff. And they were the ones brought over on the slave trade...so I do tend to listen to that as an expert view/experience, if you will.
I don't know the Bible Belt and it doesn't sound too great but the o/p @how is from Canada and in Canada, many are more than happy to jump on this bandwagon and waggle our collective finger at the States while pretending we are so enlightened. Anything to take the focus away from the beam in our countrys eye. Where is the protest for all the indigenous women murdered without so much ss a proper investigation?
The problem is global because it is now a global community. The problem is the disease of us and "them" and that disease doesn't discriminate.
I agree to a certain point. Us and them/ tribalism is primal. It’s not going away. My idea is just to tackIe at the interaction point. Everyday life. think understanding and listening and changing experiences can at least address one aspect of many class systems. Whether it’s sexism, money, race, family bloodline, etc. ...changing the way people think seems too hard to me...let’s focus on changing their testimony.
There's a concept called anti-fragile. Some things are fragile, like a glass, drop it and it will break. Some things are resilient, like a plastic cup, you can stress it in all kinds of ways and it will hold up. But then there are systems that are anti-fragile, they actually need some regular levels of stress to make them more resilient or they become fragile. Living things are the most obvious, like our skeletal system, if someone spends time in space the regular weight placed on their bones is absent and the bones begin to weaken. Or the developing immune system, the recommendation for a long time was to not feed children peanuts if they might be sensitive to them to avoid developing allergies. More recently they conducted a trial where young kids with skin sensitivities, who are more likely to develop allergies, were divided into two groups. One group was told to avoid peanut products and the other was given a snack containing peanuts. At the end of the study, if I remember the numbers right, the group that avoided peanuts had about 17% of the kids develop a peanut allergy, while the group that had the peanut snack had only 3% develop an allergy. Other, complex, dynamic systems fit the anti-fragile model too, like banking or human psychology.
All that is to say that white people haven't ever really had their race challenged or experienced cultural norms outside of their own while living in a majority white culture. The dominance of white majority populations is going away and white people are more and more being confronted with racial stresses that they have little experience with. Many of us white people haven't had the sorts of racial stresses that minority racial groups have and simply aren't as resilient to them, there is a fragility.
That said I also think there are issues with the way some of the ideas around racism and whiteness are being communicated. A simple example is the definition of the word racist and racism. The common usage that most people are familiar with is the classic definition of, in Robin DeAngelo's own words, something intentional and explicit like a KKK member even if often less obvious and unexpressed. While the definition that is often used is the more current one that means something implicit, unconscious or systemic. So when someone is using the newer definition regarding someone else who is hearing the classic definition there is quite a bit of unintentional aggression and exaggeration in what is being communicated. In my opinion it is partially on both sides of that conversation to try harder, but I do think the bulk of that lies with the side communicating a new idea. In science they say that the burden of proof is on the one making the claim, I think the same principle applies here.
On the other hand though with power comes responsibility, so white people have the demographic and cultural power so we have a greater responsibility with that. For example, black communities often resist gentrification because they want to preserve the racial and demographic character of their neighborhoods. Many white people feel the same way in wanting to preserve their communities as well. When a minority community does it it isn't the same as when a majority community does it. There are plenty of other places white people can move, but when white communities block black people from moving in the demographic power has an disproportionate and oppressive result that doesn't exist the other way around.
Also, there is an idea promoted by the same people that the intentions of our words aren't as important as the way that those words are received. I only partially agree with that idea, so it is important to consider the way that our words are received rather than just relying on our good intentions, but it is also important for those receiving to try to give the others the benefit of the doubt and not engage in what has been called predatory listening. So white people need to make an honest effort to listen to what is being said rather than listening in wait for "reverse racism" and take offense at being challenged. I think the principles of non-violent communication would be helpful if they were more widely implemented here.
It doesn't really have to go away, it just needs to be expanded to include us all.
Do that, and testimonies will change.
Follow the blood line back far enough and it will join. Follow the atoms back and it's all the same.
That was true not long ago. Look in the media now though and it paints a different picture. I'm surprised you haven't felt it yet but you likely will.
When I went to Jamaica over 20 years ago I was called "whitey" and "cracker" regularly and felt my life was in danger more than once simply because of the skin I wear. We didn't stay in a resort but with a family we knew.
Yeah, its changing. I'll say that it is true that white people can now face discrimination and hate for our skin color and I think that is bad too. Even so it isn't near as bad as other racial groups have faced and I think it is useful to use those experiences to try to put yourself into their shoes in a small way. I do think there is a certain problem with anti-white bias and bigotry in that it is often considered as acceptable or even justified.
Adding to my previous longer post too. History plays an important part of people's experience of race and racism apart from the current state of things, which is often ignored by conservative opinions.
I do not argue that point but we learn from the past, not dwell in it.
That is also true and I get even more grief from conservatives than so called progressives with this proposal, lol.
One extreme or the other, hmm, let's see... no thank you. I will stick with the Middle.
Some Zen toppings for a hot potato?
Whatever means one employs to separate oneself from another is just another cause for suffering.
Is a tribal membership not just another description of the dream that the Buddha exhorted us to awaken from? Gender, religion, politics, age, caste, power, status, health, color!
Is our meditation not a continual teaching of this?
Any arriving, existing or departing phenomena in any Nano moment can either be manipulated or not. Our respective practices only require us to stop renewing our tribal memberships by no longer participating in the habituated corrupting's of our own data streams.
To the degree that we can transcend our attachments to our tribal identities is the degree to which we can actually become a manifestation of sufferings cessation.
To the degree that we are unwilling to transcend such attachments is the degree to which we remain little more than the continuity of sufferings cause.
I agree that this should be our long term goal. It is also important to remember that for many minority populations tribal identities have been forced on them and have drawn strength from them in the face of adversity. Also, setting aside those identities is more of a challenge, and maybe even something they don't want to do, for POC because of history than it is for white people.
I think this is something of a long term goal too. As POC are more welcome into society and find community in the broader culture more of them and especially their children won't have grown up facing prejudice very much and simply won't have as strong of a racial identity. In fact many of the black commentators who aren't in agreement with the current progressive views on race and want a more color blind society have grown up in those sorts of conditions.
You know what, I rarely like listening to what white people have to say about race. There is usually some level of tone deafness or performative wokeness to it. So sorry if I'm doing any of that, I don't know that I have anything else to say so I might not say anything else.
That's pretty much what I'm saying but you've gotten better reception.
Maybe I didn't use enough buzz words, lol.
Then maybe just think of everybody as actual people instead of categorizing us by whos skin tone matters and then you don't have to worry about that so much.
In spite of the need to consider the way race affects people in our society there is a real risk of considering everything in those terms. Humans are deeply tribal and thinking about everyone at a group identity level runs the risk of hardening positions and creating conflict. Humans also have the ability to increase our circle of concern and think about others in terms of larger groups such as country or humanity as a whole. We can also consider people at an individual level, as actual unique people in their own right as you say.
We are unified in our diversity and learning about other cultures let's us see another side to us.
I am not suggesting suppression of cultural identity, far from it. I'm suggesting we try to remember we are family and that in reality there is only one group of unique expressions of what we are.