Now, I have a little time to focus on the rest of your comments.

I think there's a lot of weight in that. However, the main tenets of my question remains the same: do people feel empathy for black people? What groups do they identify with empathy? I still argue that it is an important question that needs to be discussed.

I find that we live in a society that makes it hard for anyone to care about another human being. In the case of Paul Virillio's theory, it has to do with technology. In Dr. Robert Hare's perception, it has to do with the encouragement of "dispassion" in terms of our thinking and behavior enough to celebrate coolness and lack of connection as proper behavior.

So, there are many theoretical answers out there when it comes to whether people care or not. However, I tend to think that on the basis of race, there is a socialization process at place which factors into the thinking of some individuals (through politics, history as well as culture) that other groups (through stereotypes) are deemed inferior. And, I am curious--especially in the case of Black people--why this is so. Why does it seem like proper behavior to put down and criticize the actions of Black people (and other non-white groups, in extension)? Does that have to do with Horatio Algiers' notion of "pulling up one by one's own bootstraps"? Does it have to do with the connection to American individualism? Or does it have to do with the residue of Jim Crow Ettiquette and laws?

You see, these influences do not happen in a vaccuum, by any means.

That's because via religion, one is socialized to think this way. There are many religions which delve into caring for other individuals. What about Buddhist thought? Taoist thought? Do Buddhists fight each other like Christians do?

I am very glad that you realized your own path in terms of thinking about people. Not a lot people do see the distinction.

However, I can say that I was raised to believe that within a family (as well as a community) that everyone depends upon one another. Of course, individualism was not left out of the picture. I believe in many ways that we are responsible for our own actions in many circumstances. But, I do not ignore the fact that myself as well as others are connected through the bonds of society and history.

That has nothing to do with painting a community with one brush. Nor, does it have anything to do with pigeon-holing a group. But, collectively, there are some circumstances in which the community has to come together to face things in order to move life forward.

In that part, I agree. When I mention "the community", it is not some "group think", Orwellian enterprise that I am advocating. I focus on how individuals need each other to survive in society. Furthermore, as individuals, we don't exist alone. We thrive when others are around us because they shape who we are. In fact, this board represents a community. We are all different individuals here, but we also coexist as a group.

I think that is a way that I can explain it to you in terms of collectivism.

I'm glad you are fair to people. And, there is not a written rule saying that one has to be in a "Borg-like" situation in which the "community" is taken to an extreme. What I meant is that the community--when sharing resources and learning from one another is important too.

I'm glad you do. There were a lot of people after 9/11 (or even after the Oklahoma City Bombings) who didn't. And the government did not help. In fact, I remember during the time of the OC Bombings the calls from a lot of Americans who heaped their hatred against Muslims. And it was horrible. That was an example of a sort of "collectivism" that is taken to the extreme in the name of superpatriotism.


Not everything is a race issue. But, when there are certain factors in everyday life that affect a group of people differently than those in the "in group", then one must consider that other things have come into play. And for the history of Black folk (and other communities of color, sexual orientation and women), these things occurred historically with clarity. That is why sometimes there has to be a scrutinizing eye on the way things are going on in order to research questions on the gaps that are highly apparent in society.


Believe you me, I have been in the middle of some very ugly discussions in which more was exchanged than that. But, not all Black people respond that way. That's where the sense of individualism has to kick in. After all, I'm talking to you. Have I answered you in that way? Has other Black people on this board addressed you like that?

Part III coming....

__________________
Ceci's News and Views Forum

You're right. In many capacities, race talks can be highly emotional and ugly. But, I like to focus on just talking to people no matter who they are. And, sometimes, there are people who don't afford me the same amount of respect back. When I first started to discuss diversity, the ignorant and unkind comments of some individuals that I have exchanged these insights with truly hurt me. But, now, I've realized that people have different attitdues afforded to race that span a plethora of ideas and emotions.

With that epiphany, I have opened my mind and continued to talk because it breaks down the stereotypes that race talks cannot happen. Part of that reason, is because each respondent has learned a little more about the other enough to start the connection. And sometimes, that's all it takes--even in the most murky of situations.


And it shouldn't. Just as I don't let being a Black, Progressive woman define me. Let alone being opiniated, terse, theoretical and sometimes sarcastic. That's the beauty of diversity. I love speaking and dealing with all sorts of people. It makes me appreciate the many ways that people can deal with a subject, especially the beauty of understanding that comes out of it.


I understand and thank you. Yes, it is true. There are things that I have experienced that have made me see race differently in a lot ways. And my way is to keep discussing these issues so I can keep on learning how to respect others and treat them with dignity on-line as well as in the real world through ideas and awarenesses. In that way, my mind stays open and my thinking broadens with each interaction I have.

__________________
Ceci's News and Views Forum

I'll answer #2 first.

Yes, I can feel compassion for their past and current situation, but my whole point was that I'll never be able to truly feel what it is like to be in their situation. Just like how I'll never be able to conceive what it feels like to be a eskimo, or an Italian, or even an Englishman (which is what my ancestors were).

#3

I don't think I'm unable to connect with blacks, but like I said I'll never truly "get it."

#1

I don't think the rules should be re written. In a general sense I can empathize with a group of people, but like I said, I can't specifically know what it is like to walk in their shoes.



I hope this makes sense and doesn't make me sound like an ass hole.

__________________
Neither am I the means to any end others may wish to accomplish. I am not a tool for their use. I am not a servant of their needs. I am not a bandage for their wounds. I am not a sacrifice on their altars. ... I owe nothing to my brothers, nor do I gather debts from them. I ask no one to live for me, nor do I live for others. I covet no mans soul, nor is my soul theirs to covet.

Ayn Rand, Anthem.

No personal views were reflected in my post. That is how your question looked to me. Are you saying there is not an implied criticism in the question?

For myself, have no doubts...I support equal rights for all. I would definitely say I empathise with the history of black people, I am sure you could instantly relate numerous, totally factual accounts of situations, the unjustness of which would bring tears of rage to my eyes.

My experience, though, differs from the US as there is no large contingent of black people in Scotland. There are very few race issues here.

Further south in England there is a larger representation and there are issues, but these relate also to the immigration of other, non-black, races. Influxes have come from the Middle East, Asia, latterly Eastern Europe is the main player. As these races become economically succesful and are able to purchase property, they begin to predominate in the areas where they live to the exclusion of the previous residents, who cannot then afford to buy homes there or prefer not to as the area has changed. Naturally this causes bad feeling. Who would enjoy being forced out of the area where they were raised, by newcomers?

The UK official "face" is in total support of multiculturalism. As I said, there are few problems in Scotland, the people are very friendly to foreigners. I suspect though, that this would change if there were sufficient numbers for them to be perceived as a threat, as competition, or as non-contributors within society.

Ceci,

It (the lack of empathy or less empathy for African American) is a well documented phenomenon that has its roots in the historical treatment and historically negative stereotypes associated with African Americans. One recent on-line experience of mine illustrated this fact clearly. A poster who was vehemently opposed to reparations for African Americans, after arguing against reparations with a number of the typical anti-reparations arguments - e.g. "my parents/grandparents/family were not here during Slavery" - turned around and openly stated that Native Americans are/were more "deserving" than Blacks/African-Americans and, if anything, Blacks would have to wait in line behind Native Americans. Nevermind the fact that Native Americans have received some measure of compensation and direct, exclusive restitution/reparations. The point was to say clear that Blacks were not (as) "worthy" or "deserving." This phenomenon is historically observable.

Not only that but we can observe how this Black = "unworthy"/"undeserving" (or "less deserving") phenomenon by looking at how welfare has been viewed in American society. Studies have shown that states that are more homogeneous or mostly White are more generous when it comes to welfare than more racially heterogeneous states. The same goes for more homogeneous European countries when compared to the more racially heterogeneous USA.

Another point I'd like to make is how I don't have to be a female to have empathy for a battered woman. I most certainly don't have to be a woman to acknowledge how being raped may affect a woman. Likewise, when someone losses a loved one, it is hardly necessary for me to have been in their situation to show empathy. All it takes is a willingness to accept the fact that those situations have an effect and affect people, whether I understand them or not.

My simple point is this: it is certainly something other than empathy when and if I attempt to dispute whether a situation someone else experiences does or should affect and/or have an effect on that person. Often times, that's what communicated in these "race discussions." Abstract statements/professions people make in theory when a thread like this is made is often betrayed by what they say in practice in other threads.

Lots of great responses. I'll try to answer as much as I can.

Yes, it is possible to feel compassion for other groups of people which goes beyond their histories, culture and socialization. However, my take is that instead of saying that one could "never truly feel like what it is to be another's shoes", I would propose that it is better to make the attempt in the ways that I can. It is better in the attempt than just saying that you can't.

Attempting means listening, talking, learning and researching. That is far better than to just throw your hands up and say that it can never be done. With those ways, I believe that one's thinking can be changed enough to not resort to stereotypes and other derogatory statements.

It's a hard thing to do. But, the best thing is to try.

But to try and "get it" would take a lot of effort, patience and time. Again, it is in the attempt rather than saying that you possibly can't.

That's where questions and curiosity comes in. I know that a woman by the name of Jane Elliot who did such a thing called the "Brown-eyed/Blue-eyed" test in which she separates her classes into groups and teaches them about discrimination. They made several documentaries of her efforts. And, the most interesting thing is that she did it with a group of White people who were like yourself. Through her test, they were able to "feel" what it was like for people of color on a daily basis. And some of the group was moved to tears. She was featured on Oprah a while back (when her show was good) and from watching the audience in that particular show, when particularly the white people in the audience had to go through what people of color had to be subjected to in terms of the most subtlest discrimination, they changed their tune, for the most part.

That was an example of an attempt by a white woman who tried to walk in the shoes of people of color. And in turn, she taught other white people to do the same.

I get what you are saying. And I appreciate your answer.

__________________
Ceci's News and Views Forum

No. It is a simple question in which I wanted to discuss people's attitudes.

I am very glad that you do. Thank you for telling me that. However, I would like to say that I think that empathy goes beyond the history of Black people. It goes with empathizing with Black people period. Don't get me wrong. History is a part of it. But, I think that in order to understand what myself and others are coming from a lot of time, it takes the simple act of listening to what we're saying without resorting to the stereotypes that are sometimes programmed into one's mind about a group of people.

I believe that equal rights can be achieved, but only when people begin to be honest about the disparities in the system. That means dealing with its causes and its affects without trying to shove it under the rug. A lot of the time, when there are race discussions, people try not to focus on what is the honest truth about the system. As a result, they try to counter it with frustration and bias that ventures into something that is unproductive. However, race is something that people have a hard time discussing because it profoundly affects everyone on different levels.

And there are some who don't want to realize that and will do anything in their power to put a stop to what they don't want to hear. That's why the stereotypes and the lack of identification are thrown around to the point of ad nauseum.

That's fair (and as I expect Scotland to be).

Which is specifically the problem with illegal immigration in the states. I've said it before, but it is worth repeating. In that vein, it is all about resources and the culture that surrounds them. When there is an emerging group encroaching upon an established one, these issues come up. But knowing how Britain had a vast empire which colonized many countries of color, issues about nationality, race and ethnicity would be bound to be caught up--especially when in the face of a proud and old history.

So the question there is, what is one to do when they've been raised in a system that staunchly moved to wipe away the original culture and then raises a fuss when the colonized began to assert their own identity in the face of that?

That too, has been in the struggle between the British Crown, Ireland and Scotland historically. It has all been about conquest and the supremacy of certain cultures and ethnicities.

You're starting to "get it". That's why there is a lack of identification produced on other sub-cultures outside the main one. When one is a part of the said "sub-cultures", the people in the main culture will produce their values, ideas, laws, belief systems and actions in order to thwart the emergance of socialized "out-group". And as a result, when people discuss issues of race, strains of this thinking comes out. That alone produces that lack of empathy and connection on many fronts because they constantly feel that their "resources" are being threatened. And when the laws are struck down preventing the second group from having the same rights as the first group, the only resource left is to rely on that socialization in order to produce institutional and personal biases against that second group.

That's why the question of empathy is important. There are people who continually will use their "beliefs" about another group (in this case, Black people) in order to prevent connection and identification. After all, it is easier to believe all the stereotypes about Black people instead of working to break down that derogatory thinking.

Thank you for your answers. They were very insightful.

__________________
Ceci's News and Views Forum

Again, Xibit, thanks for your two cents on this issue. I was wondering what you might think.

That's what I mean by the socialization process that is a part of this aspect. Negative stereotypes produce a lack of identification with a certain group (i.e. Blacks). As a result of that lack of connection, there are some people who continue to say the same things repeatedly without thinking about the repercussions or the effects of what they utter.

You, as well as myself, have been in many discussions in which there were white people who have said the same thing repeatedly. Yet, when we ask why they say it, there is little or no answer. That is why it is important to ask about empathy. If people openly admit that they don't share any connection or empathy with Black people (in this case), then there is a reason why these derogatory, repetitious statements are continually made.

On that account, when you have the media, the politicians and other dignitaries in public life continue ignorantly in their misunderstanding about Black people, no doubt there will be other persons in society who will believe them because they present themselves as "authority figures (i.e. founts of knowledge). The ugly thing about this is that when they are saying these things and you are a part of a group in which such misunderstandings are targeted, you know that they are being ignorant and blind in terms of your identity. And the worst part is when one fights back (being from the "targeted group"), the person who continues these derogatory things becomes indignant.


A perfect example of what I mean by lack of identification.

After all, this person obviously did not identify or empathetically connect with Black people. And as a result, he/she possessed already ingrained beliefs that ventured into the negative--especially when it meant to minimalized Black people as being "less worthy" of receiving any sort of compensation for historically, legally and socially being mistreated.

If the person did not understand the depth of the mistreatment, then, he/she would naturally resort to letting the negative stereotypes rule their thinking to the point that it figures into their reasoning. In short, it is the social dominance theory at work at its most subliminal and subtle best.

True. Through identification via a "socialized in group", they know exactly who they are dealing with. As a result, they would feel more empathetic with people they know than those that represent a threat to their way of life.

That's why, as a sidebar, the issue of assimilation is so important when it comes to individuals who belong in a homogeneous group.

__________________
Ceci's News and Views Forum

Thank you for making this point. That's what I've been trying to convey even though I'm so long-winded.

It's what I said to Fry: as along as you make the the attempt, then you can have empathy. But there are some people who are so wrapped up into their own stereotypes about others that they don't even want to try.

Quite true. And it's funny in an ironic way. That's why I wonder whether people, in race discussions, truly think about what they say. That goes double whether they have empathy or not. And then again, you have to factor in whether people are being truly honest with themselves when they do repeat the same stereotypical phrases repeatedly.

__________________
Ceci's News and Views Forum