…and leaving nothing behind as proof.

If an alien commander was tasked with wiping out the human race to clear room on Earth, how would he/she/it do it? What would be the mechanism used for accomplishing this grotesque task, and how effective would it be? Would it point to whoever did it, or would it not leave a single thing behind? Incriminating evidence would not be a good thing to leave behind (some of those silly citizens might get mad), so choices would obviously be limited.

3. WMD War

Classic doomsday scenario. Grab a nuke from Russia, Iran, North Korea, or the US, shoot it off, and just wait for the string of nuclear retaliations. The great thing about this method is that it’ll clean up for you. Whoever survives the original war will die off from the radiation that the weapons would release. There’s also the extra benefit that there won’t be any buildings left on Earth, and thus no trace of the previous, puny civilization that inhabited the planet.

The drawback to this method would be the fallout that might kill off some people of your own race when they come to inhabit the planet. Or maybe someone would find charred remains of buildings located somewhere on the planet. Still, if speed is what you’re looking for, no method beats this.

Although if Earth is completely devoid of all life then the initial incentive for settling would be gone… maybe a minor problem.

2. Nothing at All

Step one, wait. Step two, profit.

I’m sure that global warming or some other natural catastrophe will wipe out the human race eventually. Hell, there are scientists predicting that a huge asteroid will hit the earth in 2012 and wipe out every trace of life. If nature doesn’t cause the end of humans, then I’m sure they’ll find some other way to screw themselves over.

Not the best method when it comes to timeframe, but if you’re the conscientious type, this method is the best.

1. Mass Abduction

Suck up all the people on Earth, and turn them into slaves to power your big, powerful machines. You’ll have to do the dirty work like erasing all traces of architecture, but this is probably the most efficient method anyways.

I’m sure that if your citizens found out what you were doing then there would be some ethical objections, but then you can enslave them too. Hey, you didn’t travel millions of lightyears for nothing!

The Basics

In Luna Online you have the choice between two different races. These two races are elves and humans.

Like in other MMO’s you get the choice between male and female gender in both races, and then from that you can choose between the 3 classes Fighter, Mage and Rogue.

For each level you obtain in Luna you gain 1 stat point which you can add to any of these stats

Str,Dex,Vit,Int,Wis

You also gain a few skill points which you can spend as you wish.

The amount of skill points you recieve changes as you ascend to a higher level, since higher leveled skills are more costly.

In Luna Online you need to also pay to learn skills aswell as spending your skill points.

The Stats

Human Rouge
STR: 60
DEX: 70
VIT: 60
INT: 35
WIS: 40

Human Fighter

STR: 80
DEX: 50
VIT: 70
INT: 30
WIS: 35

Human Mage

STR: 40
DEX: 35
VIT: 55
INT: 65
WIS: 70

Elf Fighter

STR: 65
DEX: 60
VIT: 65
INT: 35
WIS: 40

Elf Rouge

STR: 55
DEX: 75
VIT: 55
INT: 40
WIS: 40

Elf Mage

STR: 35
DEX: 40
VIT: 45
INT: 70
WIS: 75

In Luna Online these are the base stats that your character will start with depending on your class and race.

Hopefully this little begginers guide will be usefull to you, and gives you a brief insight into Luna Online.

Stay Tuned For More!

The Sixth Seal is opened and it is given to us in cataclysmic, exaggerated language and metaphors often used for God’s judgments and the end of days (Judg. 5:20; Psalm 18; Isa. 13:10-17; Jer. 4:20-28; Joel 2:10, 31; Acts 2:20). For in Jewish apocalyptic and poetic literature such as the Old Testament, and apocryphal literature such as “Profetes,” “Sibylline Oracles,” “Petronius,” “4 Maccabees”; “4 Ezra,” 1 Enoch,” “Joseph and Asenath,” “Jubilees,” “Simititudes of Enoch,” and the “Qumran Texts,” to name the main ones (there are many more), as well as in the culture then, these images are “metaphoric,” or symbols of specific themes in judgment. The obvious is that the actuality of this passage is pointing to God’s power, but these events are not necessarily verbatim, as it would be seemingly impossible. How could one star, much less billions upon billions land on this plant that is a billion times a billion smaller? The answer is it is figurative, and it is a mystery how this will be eventually played out and what we will see. This is a depiction, just as a first century Jew would read and write. What we do know is it will not be the same! The point of this passage tells us that no one is immune from experiencing God’s judgment. The entirety of the universe will bear witness to God’s will as incredible phenomenon, displayed in the cosmos, will herald Christ’s Second Coming (Mark 13:24-26; Luke 2:25-27). 

Talking about judgment is not a “happy-go-lucky” subject; it is a reality. Judgment is about His grace and His love. How can this be love? Because, love protects and love cares. If there were no consequences for misappropriate action and sin, then love would be absent and God would not care for His creation or the ones He has chosen to elect (Rev. chaps 7; 10-11). Yet, His judgment is His grace; His love is there, and His care is there, protecting His saints. We are His, and when we are His, we have no need for worry, fear, or doubt in what will happen. We can trust Him; we have no need to fear these events that one day will come about in their fruition. 

Questions to Ponder: 

1. What would be your fears and emotions if these seals were opened and suddenly this stuff started to happen?  What does it mean to remain true to the faith, regardless of circumstances?

1. What do you see as the point of this passage? Which of these four views appeals to you? Are there characteristics from each one that are plausible or true, are they all nuts, or are they perhaps a bit of both?

1. Do you see the excitement and awe in this passage? How does God again show His faithfulness? How does He show His faithfulness and love to you? 

1. The issue here is not who or what the images are; rather, it is what they are doing and pointing to, which is God pouring out His judgment. Do you consider this statement to be true, false, or what?

1. What area in your life are you trying to hide from God? Why? What can you do to be more trusting by allowing Christ into your inner most thoughts, fears, aspirations, secrets, and life? 

1. What does it mean that God clothes us with His grace and faithfulness? How does this help you get through the tough times of life? How can you focus on Christ and trust Him even when you have been wronged or persecuted, or even if you would lose your life?

  © 2006 R. J. Krejcir Ph.D. Into Thy Word Ministries www.intothyword.org

The Preterist view: They see this passage as taking place prior to 70 A.D., and the Christians in the early church suffering as they are slain like animals by Jewish oppressors. Their blood cries out for vengeance; they are still being persecuted and Jerusalem is judged for it (Matt. 23:35; 24:29-34; Luke 13:1-3). The preponderance of this passage is its symbolic imagery dealing with the Olivet Discourse of Jesus and the destruction and judgment of Jerusalem (Mal. 3:2). The astronomic imagery refers to the end of the Temple as corresponding to the fall of Edom (Isa. 34:4; Ezek. 32:7-8). The hiding in the caves is literal, as the Christians did this during the Roman carnage of Jerusalem. This view is perhaps an application of the passage but misses the main point. 

The Futurist view: They see this passage as the state of the tribulation taking place in the future. The souls crying out are the people remaining after the rapture who are suffering during the tribulation. They see the Martyrs either as not Christians, or people converted after the rapture. The astronomic imagery refers to the catastrophes that the last days will entail, the scope of thought ranging from the literal to the representative, as signs in the heavens. Such things include literal earthquakes, civil wars, government oppressions or breakdowns, nuclear war, volcanic eruptions, terror, and chaos. Subsequently, there are several schools of speculative thought on how and when the rapture and tribulation comes about from this passage, even though this passage does not teach anything close to it. This view makes for good novels and fun discussions, but not good, biblical theology. The rest of this passage they see as the representation of Christ’s martyrdom. 

The Idealist view: They see this passage as symbolic for the suffering church, including political upheavals through the ages, the faithful who have died crying out for relief and vengeance, and those who cry out for justice. This passage’s main theme is sacrificial essence and character of the faithful. Also, it is about the distinctions of people who live for God versus the people who live for themselves and evil (1 Pet. 4:6; Heb. 12:26; Rev. 4:13). They see this passage as still dealing with the Seven Churches and as metaphorical for God’s judgment. They do not see the great Judgment appearing until chapter 20. Thus, the astronomic imagery is the judgment for Jerusalem and Rome for their persecution of the Christians. Some, having this viewpoint, share similar beliefs to the Historicists. This view is an application of the passage, but, again, misses the main point. 

The Historicist view: They see this passage as comforting those who are being persecuted, as God consoling them. They see these sufferings happening under the emperor Diocletian (384-303 A.D.) and/or Maximian (270-383 A.D.), called the “era of the martyrs” in church history because of the carnage and suffering the church endured. The images represent the fall of paganism and the rise of Christianity in the world, from the time of the Romans on to today. After this period, Constantine became Emperor and Christianity slowly became accepted and then became the official religion of the Roman Empire. Others see this passage as the Christians suffering by Jewish oppression in the early church. The earthquakes represent spiritual revolution, and the astronomic imagery is earthly dignitaries in rebellion to God and/or the shaking of Jerusalem for its evil. This view is an application of the passage but also misses the main point.

• Great earthquake is often associated with end times and divine visitations (Ex. 19:18; Isa. 2:19; Hag. 2:6; Zech. 14:4-5; Ezek. 38:20; Amos 8:8). Severe earthquakes often devastated these seven churches and the Asia Minor region. Such imagery was absolutely terrifying as everything would be lost.

• The sun turned black refers to “darkness” as a sign of judgment, as God did with Pharaoh. This does not mean the sun will literally go dark, as all life in our solar system would perish instantly. However, if God chose to do so, He could because He can do anything (Ex. 10:21-23; Isa. 13:9-10; 24:23; 50:3; Ezek. 32:7-8; Amos 5:18; 8:9; Joel 2:10, 31). 

• Moon turned blood red may refer to an unusual lunar eclipse or even something more spectacular. These events being described are not literal, astronomic events as many today think.

• Stars in the sky fell to earth means the cosmic scope of God’s judgment, as all will be affected (Isa. 34:4). This was also a sign for the coming of Christ (Mark 13:25-26). It may also refer to angels coming down or some stunning event that all will see in the sky (Isa. 24:21; Dan. 8:10; 10:13; Rev. 12:4).

• Late figs refers to the green figs that grow in the winter after the leaves have fallen, ones that easily fall off the tree in winds.

• The sky receded like a scroll refers to Isaiah 34:4 and how a reader would open a scroll with the right hand and then role it up with the left. This meant the End of Days is at hand. Some see this as Armageddon (Jer. 4:24 or Nah. 1:5; Rev. 16:16, 20; 20:11).

• Then the kings of the earth, the princes, the generals, the rich, the mighty, and every slave and every free man. Here are seven typical castes of people in the ancient world, but not different kinds. All are either saved or are in sin. Seven means completeness, so this means God’s judgment will be complete and perfect and not have any social, class, or economic barriers to it. God vindicates us! It is judgment time for those people who are unjust and evil oppressors. These are comforting and encouraging words for those who are being oppressed by the rich and mighty, as vindication is in sight.

• General was a Roman commander who led a “cohort” or “Legion” of 1,000 men.

• Hid in caves. People will seek to conceal themselves from God’s wrath, but it will not work, for God is all seeing and all knowing (Judg. 6:2; Isa. 2:10-20; 13:6; Jer 4:29; Hosea 10:8).

• Wrath has come, and who can stand. Judgment is coming (Joel 2:11; Mal. 3:2). God’s wrath and righteousness are a reality; Christ covers our sin for us (Zeph. 1:14-18; Na. 1:6; Mal. 3:2; Rom. 1:18; 3:9-23; 6:23; Rev.19:15). This is also rhetorical to those in Christ and not meant as condescending to those who are faithful. There is hope and assurance when our trust is in Christ. He is our hope even when the very foundations of the universe are collapsing around and under us. When our hope is in Christ, nothing can shake us (Luke 12:32-34; 1 Cor. 7:29-31; Heb. 12:25-29).

Pat Buchanan, a conservative pundit who worked for Republican presidents Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan and who has also run for president three times including winning the New Hampshire primary for the Republican presidential nomination in 1996, wrote an article telling the Republicans to use Sonia Sotomayor as a way to stoke white resentment to grow the party.

Here is the article he wrote on his blog called “How to Handle Sonia”

After watching the Republican senators grill Sonia Sotomayor about issues of race in a patronizing, condescending and patronizing way, it is pretty obvious that the Republican party is trying to tap into the angry white vote. They are definitely using the Pat Buchanan playbook.

Here is a clip from the Rachel Maddow Show in which Rachel Maddow and Pat Buchanan battle it out. Buchanan says some extremely racially incendiary comments

• Under the altar refers to the blood from the slaughtered animals of the Old Testament sacrificial ritual, as the blood is drained out from the base of the altar (Ex. 29:12; Lev. 4:7-25, 24; 5:9; 8:15; 9:9).

• Souls of those who had been slain refers to those who have been martyred because they remained faithful to Christ. It denotes suffering, injustice, and persecution, but the application is that they remained true to the faith, regardless of circumstances. In context, this image indicates that the martyrs are like sacrifices, just as Christ was when he represented the Passover Lamb, innocent and undeserving, whose blood was shed. In Christ’s case, it was for our redemption; in the martyr’s case, it was seemingly in vain, but in reality, it glorified God (Phil. 2:6-11).

• How long was an Old Testament prayer of entreaty, as making an appeal before God for vindication, seeking that the duration of suffering be limited, or for judgment to come sooner (Psalm 79:5-10; Isa. 6:11; Jer. 47:6; Zech. 1:12).

• Inhabitants of the earth refers to all of humanity being divided up in two sections that cut across race and place: the people who belong to God, who are elected and redeemed, and those who are rebellious, who reject the Truth, remaining in sin and who are hostile to God (Phil. 3:10, 20; Rev. 8:13; 11:10; 13:3,8-14; 17:2,8).

• Avenge our blood is an axiom, a cry for vindication or retribution for the righteous who have been wronged. In Jesus’ time, this referred to guilt laid upon those who took innocent lives. God is the One who is to avenge (Gen. 4:8-10; Duet. 32:43; 2 Chron. 24:20-22; Psalm 70: 10; Zech 1:1; Matt. 23:35).

• White robe. In ancient times, white was normally associated with good and purity, depending on the context. In describing a priest, it meant honor, blessedness, and purity; as with a “horse,” it meant conquest. In contrast, black was associated with bad. The dead were buried in white and priests were dressed in white (Rev. 3:4-5,18; 4:4; 7:9, 13; 19:14).

• Told to wait a little refers to God’s predetermined sovereignty. He is in control and bows to no one’s schedule. In answer to the question of how long to the end? God’s reply is in His time, which is perfect. Until the full number has been reached, many see this as the call of the church to expand and proclaim the Kingdom until it comes to its fruition (Apocalyptic books of 1 Enoch 47:4 and 2 Esdras 4:35-37; Rom. 16:26; 1 Tim 3:16; Gal. 3:8; Rev. 10:11).

Introduction 

“The Promise of Vindication”   

The Lamb breaks the next two seals as God’s Judgment is being poured out to the world. Witnesses now include the martyrs, those of faith who have fallen by persecution and unjust death. They are crying out to God, whom they feel is taking too long. But, God is patient and allows His perfect timing to unfold even when we are impatient and do not fully understand His grace and love or how He judges. This passage shows a time of anticipation turning to a climax, and excitement replacing the waiting; all in the universe are in awe. God again shows His faithfulness to those who have been faithful to Him, as He finally avenges those who are just, who have suffered. Imagine all those who have wronged you, who have been evil and cruel, finally getting their just reward. How sweet it is to see God’s judgment, yet how fearful it is to know it is here. In the meantime, God asks us to wait and trust in Him and His perfect timing. He clothes us with His grace and faithfulness. We can trust Him even when we have been wronged, persecuted, and even if we lose our lives. 

The climatic wonders of judgment imagery astound our senses and imagination as God reveals to us His sovereignty and power. All that was there disappears and reforms, and all who are there hide in fear and awe, crying to die rather than face what is happening. All this is in a context and magnitude we have yet to comprehend. These are such reassuring words to those who are oppressed and/or trust God, but such fearful words to those who are self-reliant and/or complacent. 

The Fifth Seal of God’s Sovereign will is opened, witnessed by those who have received injustice and are awaiting their revenge. This is not the kind of revenge that the world seeks as in the settling of scores, nor is it the selfish desires that we see in the world. Rather, it is the desire to see God’s pure, true justice, His comforting law restored and applied, and a “can’t wait for it” attitude for His holiness to be revealed.  

Notice that as each seal is broken, a dramatic, picturesque scene opens, leading to the climax of His Second Coming in the following chapters. There are two main schools of thought in this chapter, as the horsemen and astronomic phenomena are symbols of judgment and not necessarily literal beings and events. First, the horseman is symbolic for Christ as He fulfills the judgment as the context suggests in the following chapters; secondly, the horsemen are angels as the passage states, or symbols for judgment. Now, you can see how this is a subject for debate. The issue is not who or what they are; rather, it is what they are doing. They are pouring out God’s judgment as this passage is now attesting to (Matt. 24:6-8).

Moses, illustrated by Kadir Nelson

From “Speaking Out,” Nikki Grimes’ article in The Horn Book:

I’ve met a good many people who have served on Caldecott committees over the years, all lovely men and women, to be sure. A few of them I’ve even had the pleasure to call friends. I appreciate their tireless service to the children’s book community. But I have one burning question for Caldecott committees, past and present: if this nation can manage to put a black man in the Oval Office, why can’t the Caldecott committee see its way clear to give the Caldecott medal to an individual artist of African descent?

Read the rest of the article here.

Someone sent out this link on Child_Lit and asked for thoughts. I had read it already, a couple days ago, when it was posted on someone’s blog. My response to the Child_Litter was:

I was very sad that Moses did not win the Caldecott Award in 2007, and although I love Henry’s Freedom Box, I’m a little more understanding of Hugo Cabret’s win in 2008.

Related, I wish Laurence Yep had won the Newbery award for Dragowings. I also feel it’s “time” but the tricky thing is that we don’t want to award them because it’s “time” but because their work for that year is truly deserving (which, I think, Moses was.)

I’m looking forward to hearing other people’s responses to this article.

In a moment of unexpected yet welcome levity during the Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings for to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter, Senator Jeff Sessions made an unprompted comment about correcting one of Congress biggest blunders: enacting a law creating a 100 to 1 disparity in cocaine and crack sentencing.

In an exchange with a noted civil rights advocate he said, ” Senator Leahy and I are talking during these hearings. We’re going to do that crack cocaine thing that you and I have talked about before.” The comment immediately drew laughs and prompted Sessions to explain, “We’re going to reduce the burden of penalties in some of the crack cocaine cases and make them fair.”

All jokes aside this is undoubtedly a good sign. Sen. Sessions was addressing Wade Henderson a noted civil rights advocate, who has been urging Congress to reform the crack cocaine sentencing including mandatory minimums for years. Under federal law, a dealer with 5 grams of crack cocaine on him, which is the size of two sugar packets can get a five year mandatory minimum sentence. By contrast, a cocaine dealer would have to have 500 grams of cocaine, which is more a little more than a pound, to trigger a five year mandatory minimum.  That creates a 100 to 1 disparity in the sentencing for crack and cocaine.

“Equalization of the sentencing ratio for crack and powder cocaine offenses from 100 to 1 to a ratio of 1 to 1 at the current powder cocaine level is the only fair solution,” Henderson told the Senate subcommittee on Crime and Drugs in April of this year. “The time has come to rationalize drug sentencing laws and practices.  The civil rights impact of these criminal justice reforms can no longer be ignored.”

Those sentiments were later echoed by U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder last month. “ This Administration firmly believes that the disparity in crack and powder cocaine sentences is unwarranted, creates a perception of unfairness, and must be eliminated. This change should be addressed in Congress,” Holder said.

According to the Sentencing Project, a criminal justice reform group, the median drug quantity for a crack cocaine street level seller charged in federal court (comprising two-thirds of federal crack defendants) in 2000 was 52 grams, enough to trigger a 10-year mandatory sentence. For powder cocaine, the median quantity for a street level dealer was 340 grams, not enough even to trigger the 5-year sentence, and often a mere slap on the wrist for first time offenders.

But crack and powder cocaine are pharmacological identical substances. In fact, crack is just a hardened form of  powder cocaine often mixed with baking power. But with cocaine users being disproportionately white compared to crack users who are disproportionately black the law with its penalty structures has a huge unfair impact on who goes to prison and who doesn’t and for how long.

Why did Congress do this? And continue to tolerate it? Interestingly enough, it was the reaction to the story of Len Bias‘ death that led to the passage of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, which is the law that contains all the stiff penalties. Bias’ death from a cocaine overdose after experimenting it for the first time the night he was drafted by the Boston Celtics shocked Congress into action and really prompted the war on drugs as we know it.

In fact, the law’s mandatory penalties for crack cocaine offenses were the harshest ever adopted for low level drug offenses and established the drastically different penalty structures for crack and powder cocaine. Lawmakers, however, had a poor understanding of the differences between the drug substances and figured that the disparity would lead to jailing actual drug king pins.

Of course, thanks to the Wire and countless other studies, we now know that it the law affects more low level drug dealers, who are easily replaceable as they come in and out of jail, than it does so called king pins, who often rarely see extensive jail time. This has led to an explosion of incarceration rates with notable racial disparities. Between 1994 and 2003, the average time served by African Americans for drug offenses increased by 62 percent, compared to an increase of 17 percent for white drug offenders, says the Sentencing Project.

An independent federal body called the Sentencing Commission, has called for reforming the sentencing structure for more than a decade now, and the Obama administration supports doing so, but its hard to underestimate the fear of being branded as soft on crime for Republican and Democratic elected officials alike, especially for redstate Dems.

That said, the tide does seem to be turning because with increasing support for a 1 to 1 bill in both the House and Senate. And even Sen. Jeff Sessions, a former federal prosecutor in Alabama with less than enlightened views on race, supported a 20 to 1 bill back in 2007.

To be sure, that’s not exactly where the ratio should be, but its certainly an improvement. This is significant because whatever reform bill comes out the Senate will have to go through the Senate committee where Sessions is currently the top Republican. So, when the Alabama Senator said he wants to work with Senate Judiciary Chairman Sen Patrick Leahy about a “doing that crack cocaine thing” its definitely a good sign.

By coincidence or not, Robert Lindsay had an article on the same thing as I did yesterday, but his is much better. It’s really a fascinating study of race relations south of the border.

I think everyone will find it interesting.

I’ve been reading a lot about this issue because I find it fascinating. Of course the media is going to feed you a lot of crap, nonsense and lies about this situation, so where do we go to read about it? No better place than Stormfront, the home of Nazi White nationalist maniacs! True, they are not very nice people, but I figured that if there were any Latin Americans on there, they would definitely tell it like it is.

Indeed there is a Latin American forum populated by lots of Latin American Whites. I learned a lot there, but I’m not going to link to any of the comments, since why link to Stormfront?

The truth will be very depressing to White nationalists, and it surely destroys some of their cherished myths. One of them is that separatism is possible. Apparently it is not.

Another is that as a White population shrinks, separatism becomes more of an urgent reality for a larger number of Whites. The truth, as we see in Latin America, is quite the opposite. As the White population shrinks down below 50%, unbelievably, White ethnocentrism declines accordingly, and the impulse to separate becomes less and less.

What was interesting on the forum is the way that they described Latin American Whites. According to them, the average White down there is very, very racist in US terms.

In Argentina, the general belief is that they are White and not a part of the rest of Latin America as a result, and there is open contempt, at least in private, for mestizos and mulattos, not to mention Indians. The general belief, contrary to the US, is that dark = ugly. Indians are ugly, Whites are beautiful.

In the US, the feeling is quite the opposite. Indians are not regarded as ugly, and Indian women have long been fetishized by White men as sex objects. Indian men are not seen as ugly either. We pretty much like Indians here in the US. Similarly, Whiteness is highly prized all over Latin America in both Whites and non-Whites, whereas in the US, many Hispanics, typically Chicanos, get angry if you suggest that they are White or part-White. This is seen as an insult.

In Latin America, they are widely despised by Whites, there is no way of getting around that obvious fact, and no amount of denial and lying will make it go away.

Among the Mexican upper class, among the males at least, there is once again a belief that Indian women are ugly.

Nevertheless, Mexican politics means that most Mexican Whites say they are mestizos, deny their Whiteness, and hate the US. These are traditions of Mexican society.

Mexico decided a while back to deal with the race issue by formulating a lie that said that every Mexican was a mestizo, and that’s that. That lie is called mestizaje, and it is said to be the essence of Indianness.

There is another lie about Mexican society, about Blacks. A friend went on a tour of Mexico and was informed that the large Black population had simply disappeared. The truth is that they were “bred out.” They were bred into the population so heavily that the average mestizo now is 5% Black and that percentage is fairly uniform across the mestizo population. There are few Blacks remaining in Mexico, but there are some down by Veracruz.

Denial of Whiteness goes along with mestizaje.

Hatred of the US, the gringos, is part of Mexican culture for a long time now.

These same Mexicans, surely the men, will have nothing to do with a woman that is pure Indian or maybe mostly Indian. On the other hand, they date, sleep with and gladly breed with mestizos, especially the lighter ones. They will often deny this by saying that the mestizo is White like they are, or not like the household help, or whatever.

These same Mexican Whites are also very happy to have mestizos and Indians moving into the Whiter parts of Mexico, and is means more low wage labor and more customers to buy their stuff. White consciousness in Mexico is essentially about zero.

The history of White Mexico is quite interesting. Forum posters say that Mexico was 30-40% White as late as independence. That’s very interesting. What’s happened since then is more and more breeding with mestizos and possibly even Indians such that the percentage of White Mexicans is now about 8-9% and declining all the time. Areas of Mexico that were 90% White are now maybe 30-40% White.

A player for the Mexican team Los Tigres. Although very dark skinned, he would probably be considered a Mestizo in Mexican society due to the concept of social race. If you are heavily Indian but don’t speak an Indian language or live an Indian lifestyle, you are automatically mestizo.

Along with the claim that Mexico was 40% White in colonial times is the notion it was a very nice country back then (assuming you were White of course) and that it has subsequently declined into what posters called a cesspool as it grew darker in the next nearly two decades.

The situation of Cuban Whites is also very interesting. Forum posters insisted that Cuba was a 70% White country at the time of the Revolution in 1957. The reason was similar to that of Costa Rica. Cuba was originally quite Black (slaves) but there was huge immigration from Spain in the 1800’s, mostly from Galicia (northwest Spain). Quite a few also came from Catalonia.

Hence, 85% of Cuban Whites were Spanish, 10% were French and the next largest group was Italian. The remainder included Scottish, Irish, English, Germans and Hungarians.

The rest of the 30% were basically unmixed Blacks. Although Havana has always been darker, the rest of the country was heavily White and some parts still are.

There was little breeding between Whites and Blacks because Cuba was a very racist society, something the anti-Castro Cubans deny. Part of the reason for this was high White race consciousness in Cuban Whites and another aspect was that breeding with Blacks would be like breeding with your former slaves, as many White Cubans were slaveholders. This was seen as insulting and degrading.

After Castro, most of the Whites took off, and they keep on leaving. Many of the remaining Whites are older. Further, the Revolution resulted in mass interbreeding between Whites and Blacks for some reason, such that there is now a huge mulatto* population in Cuba.

Cuban Whites go back to Cuba now and say that their beautiful White homes are now inhabited by Blacks and mulattos, and this infuriates them. They insist that after Castro, they are going to go back and take over all their White property from the Blacks and mulattos.

So you see that there is a heavy racist element in the whole anti-Castro movement. Cuban-Americans were described as still very racist, and most want nothing to do with Blacks or mulattos at all. In South Florida, you will rarely if ever see a White Cuban-American woman with a Black man. It is just not done.

The situation in the Dominican Republic was described as dire. Posters said that maybe 16% of the population was White and declining all the time. The DR has always been a much darker place than Cuba or Puerto Rico. Dominicans have long looked down on Haitians as Blacks, and most Dominicans will tell you they are mulattos, no matter how much Black they have in them. In part, this is a way of distinguishing themselves from Haitians.

The situation in Puerto Rico was very confusing, although it seemed as if maybe 1/3 of the population was White, 1/3 Black, 1/3 mulatto. Forum posters said that Puerto Rico was once much Whiter, and indeed, there was a movement around 60 years ago among White Puerto Ricans for independence, and after independence, reunion with Spain as a colony. White Puerto Ricans are very race-conscious. Even in the US, it is almost unheard of for a White Puerto Rican woman to date a Black man.

Unbelievably, there is even a tiny number of Whites in Haiti of all places. Haiti is 96% Black, with the rest being a tiny number of mulattos and some Whites. The White population is only .015%. Port Au Prince is about 2.5% White. A number of the Whites are Arabs from Syria.

The original Whites were massacred in 1804 during a rebellion led by a Black named Desallines. Almost all 25,000 of the White slaveholders and their families were killed in the uprising, which ended slavery in Haiti once and for all.

Considering the Whites were slaveowners, I support Desallines’ Rebellion, but they should not have killed minor or mentally disabled Whites. There was one case where they killed a screaming, crazy White woman who was well-known to be mentally ill. Some of the Blacks wanted to save her, but the mob had their way.

The rebellion also ended colonialism in Haiti. With 25,000 Frenchmen dead, France said goodbye and good luck. France has been furious at Haiti ever since, incredibly enough.

It’s hard to believe, but one of the big vote-getters in one of the recent fake elections in Haiti was a White man named Charles Baker (photo).

The rest of the Caribbean has very few Whites left, and those that remain, posters on the forum report, have very much of a siege mentality. Barbados (96.5 % Black) is a good example.

There is also a group of very light-skinned mulattos in the Caribbean – especially in the Grenadines and St. Kitts – who see themselves as White or near-White. They refuse to marry Blacks and will only marry “high yellows”, “redbones” or “Portagees”. I assume that those are words for very light-skinned mulattos. Some even have White features like green eyes.

In Barbados, the Grenadines and St. Kitts, there also remain small White communities who seldom intermarry. They only marry White out of tradition. Along with this is a refusal to socialize with, date or marry Blacks and mulattos. For this, they have long been accused of racism.

The Bahamas has a 9-10% White population, mostly in certain areas.

St. Barts, unbelievably, is a majority-White island in the Caribbean – the only one. However, it is now being flooded with Black immigrants from neighboring French islands who are looking for work.

Bermuda is 40% White.

Jamaica is only .01% White, and there is a large mulatto population. However, Kingston is about 4.5% White.

Cayman Islands still have quite a few Whites, especially on the western half of Cayman Brac.

Costa Rica was a very interesting case, and the % of Whites in Costa Rica was very much in dispute. Costa Rica initially experienced a huge massacre of Indians in the context of conquest and enslavement, and the White population remained small at maybe 20,000 until independence.

Nevertheless, this population had become much less White during colonization, since the Spaniards brought few women with them. Most male Indians were either killed or exported to Peru. Hence, the colonists bred with Indian women, and by independence, these people were about 55% White. Costa Rica was always one of the poorest, if not the poorest, of the Spanish colonies.

The Central Valley region, where Whites initially settled, is still as White as Rio Grande do Sul in Brazil and Antioquia in Colombia, two heavily-White enclaves in Latin America. After independence, the government had a policy of importing White workers from Europe, and this continued until about 1950 or so. This resulted in mass breeding with the original Costa Ricans, as the original group became lighter and lighter over time.

As late as 1960, Costa Rica was probably 90% White. This is why Costa Rica traditionally has been such a White place.

However, in recent years, a large influx of mestizos from Nicaragua, Colombia and other places has come into the country. There are 4 million native Costa Ricans in the country, but there are also 1.5 million Nicaraguans and 1.3 million Colombians there. Almost all of the Nicaraguans are mestizos. Downtown San Jose now looks like Mexico City.

In addition, on the Caribbean Coast, there are now many Jamaican Blacks. In recent decades, many mestizos have appeared among native Costa Ricans as the Whites there are starting to breed in with mestizos. Nevertheless, the upper class is still overwhelmingly White, as this photo set of Costa Rican Presidents shows. And Costa Rica is still probably a mostly-White country. The population is 77% white, 17% Mestizo, 4% mulatto and 2% Indian.

One would think that there would be hardly any Whites in a country like Peru, yet 12% of Peruvians are White. Peru is an incredibly racist society. If a mestizo or Indian stops a White man on the street of Lima and asks directions, the White man will usually just refuse to speak to them. The Whites there have the attitude that we don’t even talk to these people.

Even mestizos experience a lot of racial discrimination, and this experience was one of the reasons so many Peruvian mestizos became cadres in Sendero Luminoso. My perception is that the average Peruvian mestizo has a lot of Indian blood, possibly even mostly or pure Indian.

Social race is rampant here, and if you take off your Indian clothes, move out of the village to a big city and quit speaking Quechua, you can automagically transform yourself into a mestizo.

Argentina is a very interesting case. The population is still about 75-80% White (though estimates vary), the rest being mestizo.

An Argentine female sports team. How White can you get?

The largest White group are Italians (60%), followed by Spaniards (mostly Basques and Galicians) (20%) and then Germans (10%). Argentina has the largest Basque, Galician and Catalan population outside of Spain. The other 10% of the White population is made up of Swiss, French, Irish, English, Russians, Belgians and Dutch in that order.

Argentine soccer player Ortega. Spanish descent.

Only about 1% are Indians. They killed most of the Indians very quickly during colonization, so there were not many Indians to breed with.

There was a large Black population in the 1800’s in Buenos Aires, but they seem to have vanished into thin air. They were probably just bred into the population, and the Argentine gene pool is now 3% Black. In the northwest (Jujuy and Salta), mestizos are the majority,and Whites are the minority.

However, there has been a huge illegal immigrant invasion of mestizos and Indians from Peru, Bolivia, Paraguay and Chile lately. Immigrants, almost all mestizos and Indians, are continuing to pour into Argentina at the rate of 200,000/yr. The government does nothing to stop it, and recently gave citizenship to millions of mestizos and Indians from Bolivia.

The posters were complaining about this and saying that the non-White immigration situation in Argentina was far worse than in the US, and that in next 20-30 years, White Argentina may be just a memory.

Posters said that White Argentines were very racist at least in US terms. Most were said to be sympathetic to Nazism and fascism, and this is why so many Nazis fled to this area after World War 2.

However, the fascist military dictatorship, which flaunted Nazi imagery, nostalgia and anti-Semitism, pretty much ruined things in terms of overt White consciousness in the country. To be strongly pro-White now is to be a Nazi, or pro-dictatorship, and this is not acceptable in polite society since the dictatorship was so unpopular.

There is also still an extremely high level of anti-Semitism in Argentina, at least as compared to the US. White Argentines complain privately about how Jews and non-Whites are wrecking the place, but have a “What can you do about it?” attitude.

The mestizos of Argentina are very light, and at some point it gets really hard to tell who is a light mestizo and who is White. The mestizos identify as Whites and say they are White.

The reason for this is that the huge immigration from Europe to Argentina lightened the Argentine mestizo population, similar to what occurred in Costa Rica. Also there has been a dramatic increase in White-mestizo breeding in the past few generations, something that was previously rare.

Uruguay is easily the Whitest country in Latin America. A government survey taken 10 years ago came up with figures of 93% White, 6% Black, .4% Indian and .4% Asian. The Blacks, like in Brazil, are almost all mulattos. There were almost only a few Indians here, and they were mostly quickly massacred.

The economy has always revolved around cattle-raising, and there is no need for Black labor for that. However, the economy is in terrible shape and many of the middle classes are leaving.

The situation in Chile is very confusing. It’s not really a White country. It’s more of a light-Mestizo country. Looking at physical appearance alone, 60% of Chileans are light Mestizos, 30% are White (usually with some Indian admixture) and 7% are Indian. Blacks are only 1%.

Mixing occurred early in Chile, as it really took a long time to defeat the Indians; they really put up a hard fight here. They were not totally defeated until the 1880’s or so, and after that, they were not exterminated. There were not many White colonists in Chile, and the few who were there were often soldiers. Mass breeding occurred between White soldiers and Indian females. This constituted the basic stock of the nation.

The lower classes tend to be a bit darker shade of mestizo (25% Indian), but not much. The upper classes are somewhat lighter mestizos (15% Indian). All mestizos and Whites in Chile identify as White and say they are White. Whiteness is something that is highly valued by society and Indianness, and mestizaje is devalued.

However, Chile is experiencing the same problem as Argentina, a mass invasion of darker mestizo illegal immigrants from Peru, Bolivia and Ecuador, beginning in 2000. Further,many of the White Argentines who settled there after the recent crisis are going home. Posters lament that the racial situation in Chile looks dire.

About 1/3 of Brazil is White. The rest are Blacks, mulattos, Indians, mestizos and zambos. Something like 59% of the population is mixed race – this includes various forms of mulattos, mestizos and zambos; however, almost all of those are mixed with Black. Only about 7% are Black. The Blacks are mostly in the northeast. This means that Brazil had a Black and part-Black population of 125 million, making it the second largest Black population on Earth after Nigeria.

A typical Brazilian mulatto. Although he is a player on the Argentine soccer team Boca Juniors, his parents were Brazilians.

A tiny .5% are Indian. The official figures showing 54% White in Brazil are from government surveys and are not correct.

The reason the government number is higher is because it relies in self-report, and many Brazilians who are light-skinned but not really White see themselves as White and identify as White.

There are probably 63 million Whites in Brazil, meaning that Brazil has one of the larger White populations in the world. The stunning truth is that Brazil has more Whites than most European countries. Its huge White population makes Brazil one of the “largest White countries in the world” if one selectively counts the Whites as a “White country.”

Southeastern Brazil is still very White, especially Rio Grande do Sul. The three southern states – Rio Grande do Sul, Paraná and Santa Catarina – are the Whitest ones; in addition, the state of São Paolo is still majority White, but it is much less White than the southern states.

São Paolo used to be overwhelmingly White, but lately it has been flooded with non-Whites from the northeast and other areas. The city of São Paolo now is heavily non-White, but many of the smaller cities in São Paolo state are still very White.

A recent government survey found that the South is 85% White and that Rio Grande do Sul was 92% White, but that does not seem to be the case anymore with the heavy internal migration that has been moving to the state from the Northeast and Rio. The figure was already an overestimate due to the faulty nature of the poll, and the present figures are that the South is about 65% White.

The South of Brazil, an extremely White part of Latin America

The Whites are mostly Germans and Italians (71%). Brazil has the largest Italian community (27 million) outside of Italy. Italians live in São Paolo, the South and parts of Minas Gerias. Most of the Italians are from Northern Italy. Portuguese (24%) make up another large group, and Spaniards (mostly Galicians) make up a somewhat smaller group. French, Poles, Dutch, Ukrainians, Swedish, Belgians, Croatians and Russians are a yet smaller sector.

West of Curitiba there are 100% Italian cities. There are also cities that are completely French or German. In these places, the newspapers, menus, schools, everything, is in Italian, German or French and Portuguese is a second language.

The White South has its roots in history. There were few Indians in this part of Brazil for some reason, so they were easily overrun and routed. The main industry of the South has always been cattle ranching, and there is no need to import Black slaves for that. Further, there were few of the plantations that characterized the North.

This is also the wealthiest region of the country. The separatist movement in the South claims that the majority of the taxes paid to the Central Government come from the three White states in the South.

The explicitly racial White Separatist movement in the South has little support, but the more general non-racial separatist movement that intends to split off the three White states from the rest of Brazil has varying levels of support in the South. Depending on who you listen to, Southern Separatists have support ranging from slight to overwhelming. A poll might be nice.

I do not support this secessionist movement. It reminds me of Padanian separatists in Italy, Ahwaz separatists in Iran and Bolivian separatists in eastern Bolivia.

Hence, the white parts of Brazil are being flooded with immigrants from other parts of Brazil, especially the impoverished and mostly Black northeast. In addition, many were flooding in from Rio, which is an extremely racially mixed city. Posters seemed to think this was a disaster, as the new migrants will soon start breeding with the Whites in the White parts of Brazil.

Brazilian Whites were said to have a low level of White consciousness, and many think that a lot of mestizos and mulattos are actually White. Hence, many will willingly breed with non-Whites, probably especially with mestizos and mulattos.

The racial history of Brazil is very interesting.

Originally, Portugal deliberately attempted to breed the Indian tribes out of existence. They sent over the dregs of Portuguese society without women for the sole purpose of breeding with Indian women and thereby turning Indians into mestizos. The theory behind this was that mestizos would be more likely to accept colonial rule.

One famous such colonist was named Diogo Álvares. The Tupinambá Indians referred to him as Caramurú, his Indian name. He singlehandedly fathered 200 children by many different Indian women. Essentially, most of the coastal Brazilian Indian tribes were simply fucked out of existence.

Hence, the true settlement of the country occurred due to voluntary immigration or the importation of African slaves, mostly from the Portuguese colony of Angola.

White women were so heavily valued by the colonist that the law stipulated that they were not allowed to leave the country without the signed permission of their husbands or fathers, in shades of a practice that continues today in Arab lands. Unbelievably, this law remained on the books until 1975!

Since there was a shortage of women, many men brought their own wives from Europe, or arranged marriages in Europe, or tried their luck with the yearly importation of Crown’s Orphans, orphan girls gathered from all over Europe and imported to Brazil to become brides for male colonists. Yet there were still not enough women. So many men had sex with their female Black slaves, resulting in a large mulatto population.

In the late 1800’s after slavery was abolished (1888) the government undertook a “Whitening” Branqueamento project that was actually called just that. The idea was that Brazil was a mostly Black country, and that mostly Black meant disaster for the future (racial thinking was extremely common at the time).

Hence a huge effort was made to encourage Europeans to immigrate to Brazil. This effort went on for some time and attracted many immigrants from Italy, Germany, other parts of Europe, and even Japan.

In 1923, a Brazilian Congressman famously said “the Black eclipse will have passed entirely in 70 years.” He was referring to the disappearance of Blacks in Brazil as an ethnic entity, presumably replaced with some sort of mulatto or zambo.

In 1945, the country’s official immigration policy openly stated the need to “develop within the country’s ethnic composition the most convenient characteristics of its European descent.”

As recently as 20 years ago (1988), a assistant to the governor of São Paolo actually suggested mass birth control for Blacks, Indians and mixed-race people as a eugenic measure.

This explicitly racial thinking is pretty much a thing of the past. Posters said that Lula is a mulatto (though he looks White to me) and racism is now actually illegal in the country (whatever that means), though it is dubious whether this is enforced at all.

Furthermore, there is a very large amount of interbreeding going on in Brazil, even in the Far South. Down there, this mostly involves White women breeding with Black and mulatto men. In the rest of Brazil, all sorts of racial interbreeding are described as epidemic.

In general, this is mostly going on with lower class Whites. The middle and upper class Whites still do not mix with non-Whites all that much. White Brazilians felt that the situation for Whites in Brazil was dire, even in the South.

Many posters commented that mestizos and Indians in Latin America really hate Whites. Although this is a typical White nationalist claim everywhere (that all non-Whites hate Whites), there may be something to it in Latin America. One said he had heard Indians and mestizos saying that they were going to take power all over Latin America and throw all the Whites back to Europe.

All posters felt that Lula in Brazil, Chavez in Venezuela, Morales in Bolivia and Castro in Cuba were anti-White Leftist politicians.

Lula was seen as anti-White for initiating affirmative action for non-Whites for the first time in Brazil. Chavez was accused of “ethnically cleansing” Whites from the country, but that seems like nonsense. What’s going on actually is that wealthier Whites are leaving Venezuela due to Chavez’ socialist policies. Morales was accused of wanting to take over all the Whites’ property and give it to Indians and mestizos.

All over Latin America, the Indian, mestizo and anti-White cause was seen as being led by Communists for various reasons. Some of the reasons given were quite dubious. It’s probable that these Leftists are simply being driven to ameliorate the vastly inequitable situation in their countries.

One poster noted that nevertheless, at least in his part of Latin America (apparently Peru) Indians and mestizos of both sexes were constantly trying to marry White or at least have babies by Whites.

This went so far as misleadingly impregnating White women, misleadingly allowing themselves to be impregnated by White men, ingratiating themselves to Whites, flattering Whites, etc.

The poster said they want to marry White to “wash themselves.” I find it dubious that mestizos and Indians have that much self-hatred, but it’s possible.

He said all of his aunts and uncles married mestizos, and none of the marriages turned out well. He described Indians and mestizos as violent and abusive and unable to control their emotions. None of the kids did well in school. He said that all of the White parents have mixed feelings now about their part-White kids, and to some extent, they are ashamed of their offspring due to their mixed blood, poor grades and mestizo values.

All posters felt that the future for Whites in Latin America was hopeless. Continued immigration of non-Whites, high birth rates of non-Whites combined with low birth rates of Whites, along with continuing and accelerating intermarriage of Whites with non-Whites, meant a slow darkening of the White population and its eventual diminishment to low numbers.

Various proposals were suggested to “take back our countries” but all were rejected as hopeless. One suggestion was mass emigration to Uruguay, seen as one of the last holdouts for Whites in Latin America. This also was rejected as impractical. There were many threads about leaving Latin America and moving to Whiter places, especially Europe.

I saw in these threads the future of the US too. Soon the US will become just another Latin American country, that is, we will finally become part of the continent of the Americas.

The history of the continent is one of the marriage of the two great races, the White and the Indian. We missed out on it here, since so many Indians died and White immigration was so huge. Also, White colonists here brought women along.

America will become much more mixed and Spanish-speaking. In other words, the experiment of “America” will slowly end, and we will finally join the Americas.

*Although it is offensive to Blacks and mixed race people, I am going to use this word because that is the way that mixed race folks are referred to in Latin America. Further, mixed race is a seriously idiotic way to describe Black-White mixes.

http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2009/07/17/whites-in-latin-america/

The Texas board that determines textbook content (always trying to remove any mention of evolution) is now deciding that children may not learn about Cesar Chavez (inappropriate role model) or Thurgood Marshall (inappropriate historical figure)!  If you live in the U.S. but outside  the Lone Star State, still be alarmed. Because, for reasons that escape me, public school textbook publishers often use the Texas market to determine content for what they publish for the REST of the nation, too! So, they could be dumbing down ALL our children.  Time to make a stink about this.  Our children would not learn about the first African-American on the Supreme Court (who also argued the winning case in the Brown v. Board of Education case that desegregated the schools)–somehow he’s “historically inappropriate.”  And they would be deprived of learning about Cesar Chavez, leader (along with the still struggling Dolores Huerta) of the United Farmworkers union and an apostle of nonviolent protest–an “inappropriate role model.” Do I detect a bias among Texans deciding on textbook context that favors oppressors–or are they just racist bigots?!

They are trying to disappear down the memory hole the heroes of the ’60s who changed this country for the better.  As George Orwell knew, he who controls the past, controls the future.  In an era of a rightwing court dominated by the semi-fascists Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Roberts, remembering Thurgood Marshall is a dangerous, subversive memory. In an age of agribusiness and of workers deprived of ever more of their rights and  of increasing white fears of Mexican-Americans, remembering Cesar Chavez–who was a key figure in turning Bobby Kennedy from a Cold Warrior to a candidate for president who campaigned for the poor and for peace–is a dangerous, subversive act.  We don’t want to, I don’t know, INSPIRE new generations, now do we?

In debating Energy Policy with the head of the National Black Chamber of Commerce, Sen. Barbara Boxer had a foolproof argument: other black people like the policy we’re discussing.  (I caught it on StixBlog.)

Date: 7/18/2009
Scheduled Distance: 3
Actual Distance: 4
Route: Race for Central Park
Time: 34.52

changed my schedule a bit and run hung over without too much sleep, also heat was a pain.
official result.

Photo from Prince of Petworth

Paul Jones.  Marcus Robinson.  Rahiem Moore.

These are the names of three DC youths who have lost their lives in Columbia Heights in 2009.  Jones was the first.  The 17 year old was shot and killed on the 1300 block of Columbia Rd. NW on January 9th.  Marcus Robinson was 20.  He was gunned down on the 3000 block of 14th Street on May 15th.  Rahiem Moore was killed in almost the same spot as Jones, on Wednesday, June 10th, with police close by. He was 19.

Many in Columbia Heights have been saddened by their deaths and alarmed that such violence continues to take place, steps from DCUSA, from shiny new condos, from the entrance to the Metro or even at it.  These deaths seem to be gang-related, or the sad outcomes of beefs between neighboring public housing units on Columbia Rd. NW, Girard St. NW, and all up and down 14th St. NW.

Last Monday, the renovated park at Girard and 14th St. NW was reopened.  Since then, people in the community have been trying to rename it, so as not to confuse it with the Girard St. Park.  Much of the debate has been around naming it Obama Park.  There are those who think that a park can’t be named after a living person, those who disagree, those who feel it’s too soon to name something after a President who has been in office for only six months, and some who feel that a tiny community park is not befitting the nation’s first Black President.

So what do we name the park?

Let me suggest that the 14th and Girard park be named Robinson-Jones-Moore Park, or “The RJM” for short.  Not because these young men were historical leaders, or did great things in their lives (or had time to), or excelled in the classroom – they may have; I never knew them – but because they are embodiments and examples of the fundamental problem with this neighborhood: there are two Columbia Heightses.

There is my, and most other whites’, Columbia Heights: of DCUSA, new restaurants, Tivoli Square, beautiful rowhouses, and proximity to both work and play, and there is the other Columbia Heights: of petty infighting amongst public housing units, black-on-black crime, police ineptitude, an underperforming education system, and a continual wave of gentrification that pushes people further to the corners.

What’s going to solve this fragmentation?  Well, not one park, and certainly not the name of a park, either.  But still, we can’t understate the symbolism of a name.  Naming the park after these three young men, gunned down in the prime of their lives, might remind the people of this neighborhood how far we’ve come, but still how far we have to go.  Putting time and effort into building a park, in which community can be fostered, is a good first step, but we should now name the 14th and Girard Park with an eye for continued improvement, rather than with a glance back on some accomplishment.

Hello! I’m not generally a sports fan but over the past few days I’ve taken a intrest in the Tour De France. 2 incidents have occured that are tragic and in my opinion completely aviodable. The first was when Spaniard Oscar Freire and New Zealand’s Julian Dean were both hit by pellets from an air gun during Friday’s 13th stage of the Tour de France. Surely someone could see that the indivdual was carrying a weapon with them. The second tragic incident sadly happened today. A woman was killed and two other people injured when they were hit by a police motorcycle while watching the race. As said before totally avoidable incidents that have overshadowed the event and must surely put into question the safety of the race.

The event over the years has been paramount on it’s regulations into the safety of riders & spectators but it leads to an important question. Is the Tour De France safe anymore? or are these isolated incidents that inevitably happen in big sporting events.

Thanks for reading. comment back.

In the hours following the death of Michael Jackson just over three weeks ago, a childhood friend, with whom I re-connected about six months ago via Facebook after 26 years, thanked me and my parents. For what, you ask? For making the choice to move to a predominately-White neighborhood and community in June 1971. Here is what my friend wrote to me in an email:

I don’t know how to say this or even if it’s OK to express it but I trust you’ll know that what I write is heartfelt…

As a kid in an overwhelmingly White suburban community, I thank your folks for moving there and letting you and your brother be a part of my life. I am lucky and I’m grateful.

I’m not sure I know exactly how to say what I’m trying to say but I hope that I’m making sense. Before you moved across the street, another Black family lived next door to the house you moved into.

Would my life have been any less rich; my mind any less open without having as my first and best friends, Black neighbors? I don’t know. But I do know that as a child I was lucky to not see that “color” meant something. For me, we were all just kids and in this experience lays the foundation for the ability to see life more objectively…to see people not as “different” but to seek out the similarities that exist among all of us.

The remarkable thing about Michael Jackson is that he was part of the “revolution” that helped to destroy the walls that separated people based on race.

When I think about my partner and I living in our suburban, white-bread community, amongst overwhelmingly straight neighbors, I remember that we are not pioneers but our example will change minds…slowly perhaps, but minds will change and people will see us not as a threat but a couple longing to live our lives as any other.

As one would imagine, I was very moved to read my friend’s email. I never knew just how much my presence and my family’s presence meant to him, and the positive impact we had on his life. Come to think of it, no single person – White or of color – has ever said this about my family or me.

This is my reply to my friend:

This is a beautiful sentiment, and eloquently written. I can tell by your opening lines that you were reticent, and I know it must have taken a lot of courage to write what you did. I appreciate your expressing these words to me, and I will certainly share them with my parents at the next opportunity.

I agree that the true essence of anti-racist, multicultural thinking is not rooted in diversity workshops – although those are important and necessary, God knows. Instead, it is rooted in living together, and, in living together, as you say, “the foundation for the ability to see life more objectively…to see people not as ‘different’ but to seek out the similarities that exist among all of us” can be established and nurtured.

I know that my own life has been made far richer by virtue of where I grew up, where I attended college, and having traveled to different parts of the world. Each of these experiences has brought me into contact and friendships with so many wonderful people. Has it been easy? Hell, no! Is it easy today? No. In fact, I often feel like snatching bald-headed many of the adults @ my workplace for their ignorance. But, that ignorance is due to the fact that they have *not* been as blessed as you, my brother and me.

And, yes: It is OK to express to me whatever you wish. We are friends; always will be.:)

Is there someone who you know who is of a different race and who has had an immeasurable impact on your life?

On Colbert’s ‘The Word’ segment for Thursday, Steven demonstrates a pretty decent understanding of white privilege.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/2009/06/18/the-earliest-copy-of-the-quran-yemeni-koran-‎video/#comment-17399‎
‎ ‎
paarsurrey
‎
July 18, 2009 • 11:39 am
‎
Hi friend Arp

I don’t agree with you. I say I am a peaceful Ahmadi Muslim as I cannot hate the ‎Muslims en-block. One could condemn a certain incident done by a criminal; but it is ‎against the cause of humanity to condemn others who are not envolved in the incident ‎and to condemn the whole race of a people. This would be counterproductive and serve ‎on purpose. Please have a humanist approach; and don’t find fault with the innocent ‎Quran/Islam/Muhammad. If one loves humanity; Muslims are also a part of the ‎humanity; adn hence one should learn loving the Muslims also.
‎
Would you like to inform us about your faith you previously had; and your current faith ‎you were converted to later?
‎
All human beings are just like one family; one should learn respecting and loving ‎everyone and one should not hate anyone.
‎
Thanks

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim