Skip to main content

View Diary: Broken Thread: To My Partner in Dialogue (76 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Uh, no (20+ / 0-)
    I don't 'see the gorilla'; am I thus a racist?
    There are many folks who didn't see it, but supported the actions of those who did.  The point being, its not all about you.

    This isn't hard, if a whole lot of folks see something that you don't, perhaps, just maybe, you should consider the possibility that they are seeing something real, that for some reason you do not.

    This isn't hard. You are not the arbitrator of what is or not racist.  If a significant number of people of color tell you its racist, it probably is.

    This isn't hard. If a cartoonist is told by numerous people that his cartoon is offensive and hurtful, and he has the skill to change the depiction but refuses, that cartoonist can't scream about being oppressed.

    This isn't hard.  Its not all about you.

    "Empty vessels make the loudest sound, they have the least wit and are the greatest blabbers" Plato

    by Empty Vessel on Wed Dec 04, 2013 at 11:18:38 AM PST

    •  Can't add a thing EV (8+ / 0-)

      You said it all.

      And daddy won't you take me back to Muhlenberg County Down by the Green River where Paradise lay. Well, I'm sorry my son, but you're too late in asking Mister Peabody's coal train has hauled it away. John Prine

      by high uintas on Wed Dec 04, 2013 at 11:21:04 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  As one of the people who was hurt and (8+ / 0-)

      offended I think you have taken the wrong message.  I don't think I saw anyone say that you are a racist by virtue of simply not agreeing about what you see.  The ugly, hurtful part is the continued insistence that just because you don't see it the offense taken and the hurt given are overblown.  I personally agree with Empty Vessel that if so many people do see it and I don't, I think I owe it to myself to try to look again with a different perspective.  Continuing to double down on the issue by insisting that you have been treated unfairly because you don't see a gorilla is to continue to validate your own privileged position and to devalue that of those who were personally affected.

      "Speak the TRUTH, even if your voice shakes."

      by stellaluna on Wed Dec 04, 2013 at 11:45:32 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Thanks, stellaluna (5+ / 0-)

        for your thoughtful response.

        However, I did not say, have never said, and would never say this --

        just because you don't see it the offense taken and the hurt given are overblown.
        And this is not about 'me being treated unfairly'.  This is about the 'parameters' that automatically define every member of dKos who does not 'see the gorilla' as a racist who doesn't 'see the offense and hurt', or sees it as 'overblown'.

        Please go back to the diary and read the 'revised warning' above, or look at my summary of it that I wrote in the comment above:

        I can have it look like Gerald Ford AND understand that others see it as racially offensive AND agree that the perceptions of those who see it as racially offensives should be respected AND that the image should not be permitted on this site out of respect for those who find it offensive.
        And you may not have seen this, but it has happened to me and to others --
        I don't think I saw anyone say that you are a racist by virtue of simply not agreeing about what you see.
        •  I kinda think (8+ / 0-)

          this is a straw man:

          the 'parameters' that automatically define every member of dKos who does not 'see the gorilla' as a racist
          I really did not see a consensus in the comments defining such 'parameters'.

          Many people saw the cartoon as racist. Some others called Rall himself a racist, although there were several comments that got a lot of rec's (like Bob Johnson's) saying it is not possible to know if Rall is a racist, rather that the cartoon fits within a continuum of cartoons that are racist / hurtful.

          There may have been a few stray comments calling everyone who was offended a racist; I didn't read every comment. However I think this characterization - that you were suddenly defined as a racist by having a different perception - is by no means what most of the comments were saying.

          •  I think you are right (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            CroneWit, dharmafarmer, PhilJD, Agathena

            It wasn't a majority of the comments that said that anyone who did not think the comic was simian were also racists, but such comments were made, by frontpagers here, no less, recc'd up and with not a single word said in opposition.

            That being said, the reason this is worthwhile to discuss is NOT, I repeat, NOT because somehow I am hurt by this and my hurt needs to be addressed at all in the way that people of color were affected by this comic. That is important so let me pause there. The most important thing is recognizing that depictions of AA as simian or close enough to simian that a large group of people see simian features causes real harm to people.

            The reason talking about this comment, that all people who did not see the ape like nature of the comic are also racists, is because 1) I don't think that is true and 2) it made it impossible to have any conversation after. I mean, where do you from there? Either agree with me or you are a racist. That's a nonstarter. And that's ok if you don't want to have a conversation. If that was the goal, to say "I'm mad, I'm hurt and you are contributing to it", then the goal was achieved. But if the goal was to really talk to others in the community who had sincere disagreements, this didn't help.

            You see things; and you say “Why?” But I dream things that never were; and I say “Why not?” --George Bernard Shaw, JFK, RFK

            by CenPhx on Wed Dec 04, 2013 at 12:59:27 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Okay (5+ / 0-)

              I'm still not sure which comment(s) are being referred to since I didn't see them I guess. I think I saw one by a front pager who has posted before that we all, if we live in this country, have at least some racism within ourselves, and she has included herself in that statement. So in that sense we are all racists. There may have been other ones that you and CroneWit are referring to and I just missed them. But I felt like the overall tone was more about placing the cartoon within a framework of historical depictions of AAs in the US, and addressing the hurtfulness of having that framework intrude here.

              I'm not sure what conversation there is to be had, really, with respect to your second paragraph. A conversation about who's "right" on whether it was or was not a racist image? Because the comments and diaries that tried to treat it like a logic puzzle / geometry problem ("see, the nose doesn't look like X, ergo it is not a racist image") are missing the point IMO.

            •  Thank you, CenPhx (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              CenPhx, dharmafarmer, Agathena
          •  The 'see the gorilla' phrase was originated (4+ / 0-)

            by David54 to describe his experience of entering the debates late and trying to make sense of several days' worth of diary backlogs.  I also entered late, reading 4 day's worth of diaries (with LONG threads!) in two days, and my experience was like his.  Perhaps is was this intensive read-it-all-fast method that led to the distilled formulation that he articulated.

            What I saw was an argument about whether he was drawing Obama as an ape . . . .. The other thing I saw was that anyone who disagreed with the "drawing Obama as an ape" opinion was a racist.

            David54 http://www.dailykos.com/...

            Very few people saw David54's comment, because it came late in a long thread.  A few more people will see it now, in this diary.

            Just as a thought question -- how many Kossacks is an acceptable number to feel categorized as racists through no act of their own, before they even knew that new definitions existed.  I know of three for sure.  Others may feel the same way, but not know how to articulate it or be scared to say it.  Is 3 an OK number?  12?  142?  300,000?

            Thanks for your respectful questions, pat of butter in a sea of grits.

            •  Well (5+ / 0-)

              Again .... maybe I missed the comments that made you feel that way. But I think the main point of most comments was not to label those who disagreed, but rather to point out why the images might be perceived as hurtful to some people. This discussion seems a little beside the point to me I guess.

              •  I'm not going to ask you to re-read all those (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                CenPhx, Agathena

                threads, so you can get the impact that some of us latecomers had, but I wonder if you'd consider this:  Would you consider going back to the thread in the 11/29 Black Kos diary and reading the comments (after the early greetings) down to the point where they've gone from talking about 'the racists' ad begin to talk about coconut cake and stuffing recipes.  While you're reading try to imagine that you really know nothing about the issue, and you're just trying to get a first impression about what this flamewar is about.

                I know you may not choose to do this, but if you were to do it -- as though it was your very first exposure to the issues -- you may have a suggestion of what my first exposure was like.

                •  I looked at it (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  CroneWit, poco

                  Most of it is about the participants' own feelings of hurt, disappointment, etc. I still don't feel like there was a lot of labeling of others there. I'm curious what you think of shanikka's contention that it is hard for any of us in this society truly to escape being racist on some level, even subconsciously. I tend to agree with that idea, that it is hard if not impossible for any of us to truly be free of it. I am sorry if you felt bad though.

                   I might suggest a look at tonight's diary by jdcooper with a few more of Rall's cartoons, they might change your mind on his portrayals. I thought they were pretty egregious, especially the last one.

                  •  Sorry (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    poco

                    jshooper, not jdcooper.

                  •  I agree that -- (2+ / 0-)

                    --

                    it is hard for any of us in this society truly to escape being racist on some level, even subconsciously
                    I have never, and would never, dispute that.

                    I would mention, however, that this statement is not just 'shanikka's contention'.  This idea has been part and parcel of my understanding of American racism for around 55 years, when my Sunday School teacher began talking to her fourth-grade class  of 8-9 year-old kids about what was then called 'race relations', while the pastor was also including these concepts in his sermons.

                    Cultural constructs about racism (or feminsm, or other -isms) necessarily  take generations to shift.  Currently, society at large is going through another upward shift in the awareness of embedded cultural constructs -- which in itself is a good thing.  However, the way in which the 'electric storm' (to borrow Pluto's phrase) stemming from the way this community is handling this particular storm is causing harm to the community and to actual human beings.  This diary is intended to point out that collateral damage.

                    This diary is very definitively not about the cartoonist or the particular image that resulted in the Warning.  The subject of this diary is this site's current cultural mandate, 'See the gorilla or you're a racist'.  In your second paragraph, you appear to be urging me "Look harder, look again, maybe you'll see the gorilla and join in our judgement on the racist cartoonist, then you'll be with us and won't be a racist any more.'

                    Even if that change were to take place in me, it still wouldn't solve the problem that I am describing here.  This community has been split into a 'good vs evil' armed camp, with no conversation possible until one has 'seen the gorilla'.  As CenPhx said, when the 'parameters of debate' (the rules of the new game) are that --

                    all people who did not see the ape like nature of the comic are also racists . . . made it impossible to have any conversation after. I mean, where do you from there? Either agree with me or you are a racist.
                    I know you are well-intentioned, and I very much appreciate  the fact that you are joining here in respectful dialogue.  And I appreciate that you took the time to look through the thread I suggested.  And yes, I also saw lots of pain being expressed.

                    But I also saw one commentor referring to all Kossacks who were not True Believers as "POS racists"; I saw that comment receive 12 recs, one from a leading member of BKos who is also a Front Pager, with no pushback whatever.  Not even a scolding or mild reprimand, no suggestion that such a term might be a little too strong and condemnatory to apply in a broad-brush way.

                    After seeing that "POS racist" applauded, I went back through the thread carefully.  I read back through the thread three or four times, even clinking through to links that had been included because they pointed to 'great examples' of fighting the good fight.  I spent two days going back through all the long threads in all the diaries written on the issue before David54's comment made it all jell for me:  yes, among all the pain and grief and anger, there was a new cultural mandate:  'See the gorilla or you're a racist.'

                    And maybe that whole experience deserves a diary of its own, if I have the stomach for it.

                    •  Well (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      CroneWit

                      I didn't say or mean that YOU are a racist if you don't see it. I just thought some of his images published later in that other diary make the reasons for the objections more obvious than the initial one, so I thought it might clarify. The one with Oprah annoyed me; i.e. his implication that black women are voting purely based on race and gender, but of course white men, who only had 43 presidents in a row who looked like them, are far above that kind of thing. Rall is an ass.

                      Anyway, I don't see this really as a 'two camps' thing where one is racist and one isn't, because I do buy into the idea that racism is pretty endemic in our society; thus there's no 'camp' that isn't racist. (I know it's not just shanikka's idea, but I thought that was who CenPhx was referencing, which was why I mentioned her - she has made these points more than others I have seen here.)

                      The 'POS racists' comments - not defending it, but I thought it was being applied to some specific individuals who went a lot farther than just not 'seeing' the concerns - like one diarist who put up a diary with pictures of Obama juxtaposed with images of a gorilla in order to attempt to prove a point about the images, or some others who were trying to say that you can't logically prove that he was being racist, it's merely an emotional argument and therefore should be dismissed (which is just an inappropriate reaction to this issue in my view. DKos is a place that is often extremely logic oriented and dismisses emotional statements; but this is an issue based in emotion and can't be looked at like a logic puzzle). Not having the same reaction to Rall's images is nowhere near the same thing as doing any of that. While I didn't read all the threads, I'm pretty sure you personally are not one of the ones who is being complained about there. And honestly, if someone is going to put up a picture of Obama next to a picture of a gorilla and try to make a logical argument about it, they had better expect some angry reactions. That was pretty tasteless / clueless.

                      •  I'm not writing about the cartoonist (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Agathena

                        or even about the particular cartoon except insofar as it was the trigger  for a war that is tearing this community apart.  And I'm pretty well aware of the explanations for the 'new cultural mandate' that you express in you last comment.

                        Just to make this clear, let me re-state it:  I understand your position.

                        You'll remember that this diary was born out of a long, two-day dialogue with Kossack Loge (the link to this thread is at the bottom of the diary, in an Update).  The dialouge with Loge started when he replied to my posting about about dKos-employed cartoonist Reuben Bolling's (Tom the Dancing Bug guy) protest of the censorship of his colleague.  I asked if Bolling was now 'one of

                        those
                        guys' (quoting Kos' statement).  And I said:
                        Asking questions about 'who is one of those guys?' is going to become very important around here, imo.  A blanket statement calling Kossacks of differing views "POS racists" is not just accepted, but applauded in the 11/29 Black Kos diary thread, which makes an awful lot of Kossacks into 'those guys' -- the enemy.
                        This is the issue I'm writing about in this diary -- a new cultural mandate that says 'See the gorilla, or you're a racist'.

                        Later in that conversation, Loge added:

                         

                        you may not be a POS racist, but i can't really tell the difference from your behavior if you were.

                        http://www.dailykos.com/...

                        I replied:
                        May I take it, then, that you have rescinded 'the benefit of the doubt' and that you are now clearly and plainly calling me a '100% POS racist'?

                        http://www.dailykos.com/...

                        To which Loge replied:
                        how about you're just a piece of shit, and we agree to disagree on the racist part.

                        http://www.dailykos.com/...

                        Loge's last words before the time-out were to tell me --
                        if you don't see the racism in the cartoon, it is indeed problematic.  Plenty of people who "fight on your side in this war" already do and learned to cut their losses.

                        [NB:  His 'fight on your side of this was' was quoting me, when I talked aoubt innocent bystanders who didn't 'see the gorilla' as collateral damage in a war they didn't know had started.]

                        http://www.dailykos.com/...

                        You may not have been intending to tell me to 'Look harder, see the gorilla, and then you won't be the enemy racist any more.'  Loge did so in a very straightforward way, and others have done the same in other comments.  The first comment in this thread does this, in its own way.

                        The big issue, imo, is not 'is this drawing racist' or even' is person X racist'.   The big issue is, imo: Are people who 'don't see the gorilla', but who know enough to defer (not condescend!) to the judgement of the directly affected group as the arbiters of what is racially offensive to them without being classed as "POS racists" because they don't see the gorilla.

                        Speaking as an officially designated POS racist, I would like to see an opening made in the new cultural mandate for that possibility.  Because I still see Gerald Ford, not a gorilla.

                        And please let me remind you how much I appreciate your willingness to enter into dialogue about this.  Thanks again.

                        •  Okay (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          CroneWit

                          I can't get in the middle of a thread between you and someone else. Sorry if you got called a name. I would merely comment on your focus on the rec's - Black Kos is a community diary and the norm is for people to group-rec virtually every comment, so I wouldn't take recs necessarily as a measure of support for that particular term. I still, looking at that original "POS" comment, think it is referring not to the 'bystanders' who disagree, but to those who are really going the extra mile to be offensive, like the diary I referenced. Thus, I feel that (re:your "The big issue" para) the answer is no, those who are essentially bystanders are not "POS racists". I wouldn't call anybody a POS anyway, but clearly there is a distinction to be made between "not seeing/deferring" and "not seeing/making the situation even worse than it was before".

                          •  I appreciate that you see the distinction -- (2+ / 0-)

                            and I appreciate your reply.  This is the first comment I've seen in the whole week-long debacle that allows for a distinction to be made, as you do with this --

                            clearly there is a distinction to be made between "not seeing/deferring" and "not seeing/making the situation even worse than it was before".
                            Thank you very, very much for that!

                            I've given you a lot of additional history (which you have been very patient about reading -- thank you!) mainly in response to those who have spent time in the War threads but 'didn't see' what I saw.  (This includes my quotes from the long thread with Loge, which he gave me permission to include in the diary.  Not trying to drag you into a dispute, just using those quotes as illustration.)  So if I've over-generalized and applied something to you personally that you don't deserve, my apologies.  

                            It was because the original unchallenged "POS racist" comment was so stunning that I read and re-read the BKos thread, including all the side-links.  Surely, I thought, there must be some qualifiers somewhere that I've missed; surely there are some defining terms that limit the breadth of what looks like a blanket statement to some particular actors.  So I started that search thinking what you express here:

                            looking at that original "POS" comment, think it is referring not to the 'bystanders' who disagree, but to those who are really going the extra mile to be offensive
                            And believe me, it grieves me as much to have to write this as it did to finally conclude that there were no qualifiers or defining terms that limited the application of the term 'racist' -- except perhaps to limit it to the 'Them' who 'aren't Us'.

                            I really wish it were otherwise.  Bu t it's this whole 'Them Kossacks who are against Us Kossacks' mindset that has led to all the wounding and the breakdown of communication that could inflict lasting damage on this community.

                            A very special thanks, once more, for being the first person to allow for the possibility that a person can 'not see the gorilla' and still not be a racist.  This is huge.  Thank you.

                          •  No (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            CroneWit

                            No defining terms. I think it was understood in the comments, at least that is how I read them, but I can see how it could be misinterpreted.

                          •  Thanks for recognizing 'no defining terms' (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            marina

                            And I was struck by the fact that there were two leaders of the Black Kos community who are also Front Pagers -- and are therefore employees of dKos and who (if I understand correctly) can be quoted as representing Editorial Policy.  I would have expected them (in both their functions, as leaders and employees) to have exercised a moderating influence on language.  I was disappointed in this expectation.

        •  I agree with the other comments to this that (5+ / 0-)

          I didn't see the comments that said essentially, "if you don't see the gorilla you are racist".  I did see comments to the effect that, "if you don't see any problem portraying the President as a gorilla then you are a racist"  But like everyone else, I didn't see all of the comments and I certainly don't remember all I read.  I am still offended that people made comments to the effect that my offense over the depiction was because I am some fan of the president and not a true progressive.  And even worse, that I (or people like me) would use race as a subterfuge to attack people who are tough on the president.  

          "Speak the TRUTH, even if your voice shakes."

          by stellaluna on Wed Dec 04, 2013 at 02:48:03 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I am genuinely sorry that you and others (5+ / 0-)

            were treated this way, stellaluna --

            I am still offended that people made comments to the effect that my offense over the depiction was because I am some fan of the president and not a true progressive.  And even worse, that I (or people like me) would use race as a subterfuge to attack people who are tough on the president.  
            •  Thank you for your kind comment. (4+ / 0-)

              I have commented elsewhere that the level of hurt I felt surprised me.  I am completely aware of the fact that it is because I now have (black) skin in the game.  When I look at my two mixed grandchildren and think that they could easily be depicted like monkeys it completely breaks my heart.  To know that one day they will run into someone who treats them differently and that that they will realize it breaks my heart. (Already I can see that on occasion they are treated differently but they don't know it yet)  It's terrible that it took such personalization for me to have this level of understanding of the hurt caused by racism.  I have a friend who has mixed children as well and we have talked about what a positive effect having mixed children in our all white families has had.  Previously stone cold racists in our families have at least found it possible to make exceptions for the little ones.  And they truly love them.  Maybe the hope for ending racism can be found in doing it one family at a time.  But if we can't do it on a progressive blog then we aren't ever going to be able to do it.

              "Speak the TRUTH, even if your voice shakes."

              by stellaluna on Wed Dec 04, 2013 at 05:43:56 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Beautifully said, stellaluna. Thank you. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                stellaluna

                . . . and if we are going to do it on a progressive blog, we all have to be open enough to listen to each other and really hear.  Being stuck on blaming or fearful sides isn't going to get us there.

                Thanks for being willing to take the risk of speaking here.

        •  Even those who were silent were faulted (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          CroneWit
          It matters. For the most part, the pain in its essence is real. And when people don't see it they lose any good argument they have by ignoring it, because no one is going to respect that.
          It seemed to me that the names of the recommenders of one of the diaries became a list and if you were not on it, you were remaining silent and that was some kind of assent to what was perceived as racism. It was seen as "at last the site is united." yes, because they found a "hate object" that they could rally around.

          I have a friend who was going to join up until this last week-end. He no longer wants to be associated with this site. How many other good writers like him are out there?

          To thine ownself be true

          by Agathena on Thu Dec 05, 2013 at 12:46:24 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  I can agree that an image is offensive (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dharmafarmer, CenPhx

      and should be removed because it is offensive without having to alter my perception (what my eyes see) or pretend that my perception was something other than what it was.

      When I first saw the image, I thought it looked like Gerald Ford -- and it's OK that it looked like Gerald Ford to me.  I can have it look like Gerald Ford AND understand that others see it as racially offensive AND agree that the perceptions of those who see it as racially offensives should be respected AND that the image should not be permitted on this site out of respect for those who find it offensive.

      Which is what I wrote in the 'revised warning' text in my comment to David54, above.

      If you read the diary, you will see that I'm not trying to tell anybody what 'is or isn't racist'.  What I do find troublesome, however, is that fact that an unknown number of dKos' nearly 1 million members (including myself) find themselves stuck in the 'parameters' that say 'See the gorilla or you're a racist'.

      Since I expect that a good number of any comments I receive here will do no more that reiterate the 'parameters of debate' that my partner described, and since those 'parameters' have been done to death in a number of diaries in the last week, I'm making a decision not to respond to individual 'parameters only' comments after this one.  Instead, I will gather the various expressions of the various parts of the 'parameters' that appear in this thread, and compile them either into an Update on this diary, or into a diary of their own.

      The framing of this debate has a 'with us or against us' division of the community built into the terms of the Warning as delivered to the cartoonist.  The 'revised warning' in the diary is my attempt to introduce what Hegel called a 'synthesis' between the thesis-antithesis of the 'parameters of debate'.  And you're right, it's not about me; it's about this community, and all its members.

    •  Precisely. And thatCroneWit, in particular, seems (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CroneWit

      seems to feel personally personally called out is a continuing problem for me.

      Isn't it time for the US Govt to give Leonard Peltier back his freedom? ** "Throwing a knuckleball for a strike is like throwing a butterfly with hiccups across the street into your neighbor's mailbox." -- Willie Stargell

      by Yasuragi on Thu Dec 05, 2013 at 03:22:12 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yasuragi, your comment is not clear to me. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Yasuragi

        Would you be willing to expand it, for clarity's sake?  Genuinely asking, here.

        Things that are unclear to me are --

        You agree 'precisely' with something; could you quote/link or explain what you are agreeing with?

        You say that my feeling 'personally called out' is a 'continuing problem' for you.  Can you tell us in what way?

        Thanks!

        (oh, and btw -- I had to go back into that Loge long-thread to pull some quotes and found your comment reprimanding Loge for direct personal insult.  Your comment had timed out, so I couldn't rec it, but I wanted you t know that I appreciated your stepping in, even a day after his comment was written.  Thanks!)

        •  Could you please see my comment (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          CroneWit

          downthread?  I was needlessly harsh here.  And I will always (try to) call out reckless cruelty.  Thank you for noting that, though.

          I saw the Berlin Wall fall
          And I saw Mandela walk free
          I saw a dream whose time has come
          So keep on dreaming, Dreamer, dream on
          -- Johnny Clegg

          by Yasuragi on Thu Dec 05, 2013 at 06:07:11 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I want to add another thank you, Yasuragi, (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Yasuragi, marina

            for taking the time to read patiently through a diary that disturbed you at first.  And thanks for being able to keep an open mind as you read, and for being willing to let what you read modify your first impression.

            So thanks again -- times 3!

            •  Listen, if there's one thing we've all (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              CroneWit, marina

              learned in the past week, it's to try and listen better.  :)

              I saw the Berlin Wall fall
              And I saw Mandela walk free
              I saw a dream whose time has come
              So keep on dreaming, Dreamer, dream on
              -- Johnny Clegg

              by Yasuragi on Thu Dec 05, 2013 at 08:41:59 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Has that been happening? I've missed it (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Yasuragi

                Can you point me to where that's being done?  Or to discussion about the fact that it needs to be done?

                It would be a great, great relief to me to know that such efforts are underway, no matter what stage of the process they're in.

                I just HAVE to quit and go to bed soon, but if you have some links I'll be delighted to read them tomorrow.  Thanks!

          •  Yasuragi, now that lines of communication are open (0+ / 0-)

            I still think it would be helpful to the discussion if you could answer the questions I asked above.  At your first entry into the diary, you felt/thought a particular way.  Later on, your thoughts and/or feelings had modified somewhat.  Could you talk about that change some?  Thanks.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site