>>Jonathan seems to take some liberalities with what I actually wrote. His opinion of what I meant, and his assumptions about the real meaning of what I said may be at odds with what I wrote and what I actually meant.<<<
My apologies sincerely to Jim if I interpreted anything incorrectly, and I hope it will not be construed as attempting to put words in his mouth. (I also agreed with his response to Craig as to the relevancy of this discussion and despite differing opinions, look forward to continued exchange of ideas) While I agree with Jim on the power of the communities of color uniting, it still seems to suggest that they will or should elect a candidate of color. But perhaps he can elaborate on this further. wrt identifying oneself as a member of a particular group, I have heard candidates identify themselves as White and pronounce this as a reason to vote for them, but they tend to be members of certain extreme parties. I don't think White or Male candidates have to identify themselves as such or pronounce either as a reason to support them because that is what is the majority of representation and the prevailing view. One does not need to be an expert in these areas, because this is the default perspective. Most history, civic, and common perspectives are represented from a White, Male, Heterosexual perspective. People who have significant exposure or who come from underrepresented cultures or perspectives should and do represent themselves as such. We need more GLBT representation, and thus members identify themselves as openly gay or lesbian. We need more female representation, and thus candidates identify themselves as the right woman for the job. And we definitely need more people of color, and as such I have identified myself as a person of color and will continue to do so, but I firmly believe that one should never run on nor be supported solely on this, anymore than one should be elected solely on who they know or who supports them. The qualifications of a candidate are the primary concnern. >>Jonathan also says, "Jim's implication was that they were, that almost everyone came here as slave." I do not believe that was either said or implied at all. << That statement was referring to this: "This country like almost every country in the world, and particularly African Countries, has enslaved every race there is. Scots and Irish were sent to this country as slaves, Chinese people came as slaves, Indian people were enslaved here, and of course Black people were. It is something we all share and something that we all bear. Which is the way it reads to me, but I'll accept a different explanation if Jim has one. That says to me ALMOST everyone. I'm happy to take off any distorted glasses, but I think we must recognize those distortions, Jim. Actually, I have read the Bible, was an Altar boy for 7 years, read the Bible every night for 15. However, I did not stop there. I investigated history in other sources as well. One of the things I would challenge you on is enslavement because of perceived race in ancient Egypt. From the Bible's perspective, yes the Egyptians were evil hateful people, but from other historical perspectives such as the works of Manetho, Apion and even the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus there is recorded a different story. That of an Egyptian priest named Osarsiph who later chose the name Moses that pulled together "impure people", religious and political dissidents of many cultures and races that were in bondage and who joined together to leave Egypt and become the Jewish people. They were not originally Jewish, because the Jewish religion does not start until Moses comes down off of Mt. Sinai with the ten commandments. But the Hebrews were also called Semites, they are the original bi-racial people being a mix of European and African mostly, many the descendants of Joseph of Chaldea. Bear in mind, that this is what my studies have discerned and in no way is meant to discount anyone's faith and I would welcome any new information or discussion off list regarding this history. But in addition, all other forms of slavery have allowed for slaves to own property, buy themselves out of bondage, have families, gain wages, etc. and any combination of these. Slavery in antiquity was much more indentured servitude than American Slavery in which members of families and tribes were specifically separated from each other in order to decimate communication, forced breeding, recognition as property, etc. and we won't even mention the Middle Passage. I would suggest a little more research on the actual experiences before stating that they are the same, and I'd be happy to recommend some text. Wrt Jim's questions in general, I think you might be surprised at some of the answers. Having grown up in a different time, not many of the experiences have happened (and I hold a lot of respect for people such as Jim who have gone through them) to me, but my father did experience much of what you listed coming from Columbus, MS and other cities such as Coldwater. I did however, pay for college myself, aside from scholarships I earned solely on academic merit no connections, have helped support my family at as young as 12, have had to survive on the street and gotten food from some pretty bad places, and yes stood with my eyes down and been insulted by the man, knowing the consequences. As for your questions about Minneapolis, yes for 2&3 and 1 is too many times to count, once by the police. Of course I've only been here for 5 years this time around. But I have a plethora of experiences in other parts of the country. In return I could ask how many times Jim's been pulled over for Driving While Black? How many times he's been assaulted for being too Black or too White? When was the last time Police in riot gear attacked him for watching a protest? How many times a person in a professional setting gets off an elevator or crosses the street because he's there? How many times he's had to duck down in car or get off the road in the South because if the Klan catches you after dark, you will be killed? We could go on an on comparing experiences, but the main point was that we have different experiences of discrimination. And you may share a lot with Black people, but you are definitely the exception to the rule, and while it may grant you some insight, it does not give you complete understanding any more than I have complete understanding of what it is to be a woman or Latino or many other groups. But people such as yourself having a better understanding may help all of us to eventually move beyond barriers of race and cultures and see people for just people. Which will be a beautiful day. >>I like you Jonathan, but you are a little too young to know what real discrimination is all about. That it is a gut thing - not a theory thing. << I think the proper response is never judge a man 'til you've walked a mile in his moccasins. Don't allow the suit or sunny disposition to fool you. I have seen and experienced much more than the average person twice my age, including discrimination from both White and Black people. Because I am able to overcome adversity does not mean that I don't know why the caged bird sings. But since this has drifted away from Minneapolis Specific, we might be better off continuing off list. Jonathan Palmer Victory Who wonders if Tomato Bottom was in Missippi County near Barfield, AK not to be confused with Barfield, MO which changed it's name because of this confusion to Naylor _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
