Discussion with Danny – Part 1 – The “BGI.”
On December 31, 2013, and by my invitation, Danny Warrior visited and posted several comments. He was invited to dispel accusations by a harasser that he is my “mole.” I promised him that after the first of the year we would continue discussion.
This post is under the Potpourri category and menu. If it should scroll off “Recent Posts,” just go to the top menu under “Potpourri” to find it.
I do appreciate your willingness to discuss and to do it here on this blog. It bothers me that you closed your blog because of the malicious harassment and lies. Others have done the same, or made their blog private, or disallowed comments because of the same people and their malicious lies to work their agenda to slander.
The following is one of your comments and serves as a good basis to start. I had asked you about the “BGI.” (Danny, if you believe we should start on another issue, let me know.)
So much to respond to. Where to start?
These are my views. This is how I see it.
BGI began to be coined as a racial adadge at the OutHouse during this case. But, the proper term is GI. The GI is a political philosophy that social issues are resolved through the use of laws and Government. Unlike the Civil Rights movement where the leaders intent was to seek racial equality into everyday life, BGI has leaders who seek out one situation and claim a whole race is discriminated against because of some law yet passed or overturned.
As history shows us, as well as these groups, laws may make it illegal to discriminate against someone because of color etc, the law is useless to grieve about how people feel. Feelings have nothing to do with law. So now, it has become the social argument of what is not fair is not equal. What is equal is not always fair.
As for the GZ case not being an example of SYG, or self defense? You hit the nail on the head with my position. And it has nothing to do with white vs. black law. He is not even white.
As I stated in a previous comment, I don’t want to re-litigate the George Zimmerman case. However, there are some areas misunderstood and/or that are grey. This might be a good lead-in regarding “BGI.” In my humble opinion, it’s important for people to validate what others understand and/or believe, even if or when they disagree. That is impossible to do without understanding what people mean by the words they use. For instance, some people use the word “white” to refer to skin color while others use the same word to refer to race. For still others, they are one and the same.
There are people with white skin who are not White by race just as there are people with dark skin who are not African-American by race. These differences in understanding have resulted in debate when identifying George Zimmerman’s race.
Before the Civil Rights movement, there were three races in America; Caucasian, Negro and Oriental. The reason I know this is because my first job out of high school in 1968 was with a hospital as a “ward clerk,” and they placed me in what was then called the OB/GYNE ward. Part of my job was to fill-out birth certificates.
Over the years, classifying people based on race has gone through transformations as more people from other countries became citizens of the United States by way immigration or birth. Orientals are no longer Oriental but “Asian.” Those descendants from Latin countries now have a choice of being Black Hispanic or White Hispanic. Previous to the 1970’s, they were Caucasian regardless of the color of their skin.
Some people will tell you that “Hispanic” is not a race but a language. The proper term for those descendants from Latin American countries is Latino.
On his police and medical reports, George Zimmerman’s race is “White.” Remember Anthony Gorgone’s testimony at Zimmerman’s trial? Zimmerman’s DNA is “Caucasian.” George Zimmerman is White. But know what Danny? There are people who say that Whites and Blacks are “racist,” but they omit that Latinos and Asians can also be racist. For instance, are you aware that your subject harasser is of Viet Nam descent?
How did race become an issue in Zimmerman’s case? When nothing had been released to the public other than George Zimmerman’s non-emergency phone call, Police Chief Bill Lee appeared before cameras and said that Zimmerman claimed self-defense and until he could establish probable cause to dispute that, he didn’t have the grounds to arrest him. When officers of the Sanford Police Department spoke with others on camera, they said they were obligated to do a fair investigation that included not only Trayvon’s position, but Zimmerman’s.
Trayvon was dead. How were they to get his position? How was Bill Lee to investigate for probable cause when he placed credibility in Zimmerman’s statements? Those were dog whistles. They were dog whistles because there is enough evidence in Zimmerman’s NEN call to question his credibility.
It was not the media that made race an issue in the case. It wasn’t Trayvon’s parents, neither their attorneys, nor activists. It was the Sanford Police Department’s dog whistles. Even during WWII Nazi occupation in Europe, there were Jews who heard the dog whistles, and some who did not. I don’t expect for everyone to recognize dog whistles but when someone does, it should be validated that is what they hear.
There were White Supremacist websites such as Wagist (now no longer available) that plotted the thugification on Trayvon as the only defense to what they believed was race baiting. It wasn’t in support of Zimmerman but rather, an agenda of propaganda to oppress people by way of slander and humiliation. Is that not exactly what the harasser tried doing to you? Zimmerman is nothing more to them than an excuse, like an unclean salad fork that they use to argue that they shouldn’t pay for the meal by blaming the dishwasher, the chef, the server, the owner of the establishment.
BGI has leaders who seek out one situation and claim a whole race is discriminated against because of some law yet passed or overturned.
Please bear with me, because what I’m about to write is not necessarily intended for you (unless you believe that the BGI exists). Rather, it’s intended to present questions and by those questions, why I see the BGI as a label intended to oppress.
In order for there to be BGI leaders, there has to be a BGI. BGI is a false hypothesis; a label placed on activists who know by history that as a nation of laws, if one person is served injustice, then it trickles down to all such persons.
Does the Dred Scott case meet the qualifications of the BGI? Was it one situation that claimed a whole race was discriminated against because some states had some laws and some states had other laws? Were the abolitionists its leaders? Was that case not settled by a Civil War and amendments to the Constitution?
Was Rosa Parks one woman, and did the Jim Crow law that she resisted not affect all Blacks, even those visiting in Jim Crow states?
Was Emmett Till not one person who was murdered because he did not know the culture of racial bigotry and discrimination in the State of Mississippi? Were those charged with his murder acquitted, and then admitted to their acts, because of racial bigotry and the law protecting them from double-jeopardy? Does the same situation that applied to one person, Emmet Till and the trial of his murders not exist today because of the law?
By analogy, did abortion in America become legal because of one situation? As the states have began making it humanely difficult as possible for women to have legal abortions, does it not discriminate against an entire gender? Do activists supporting legal abortion seek out one situation to take action using law to support their position?
Should we place a WGI label on it?
Choice and equality are somewhat synonymous because discrimination deprives citizens of choices in life. Women don’t have a choice of their birth gender anymore than people have a choice over their race but when it comes to their choices in life, our constitution is understood to hold that all are equal.
How many people have to be harmed before it becomes worthy of activism and advocacy? What happens when the same situation happens to hundreds, or thousands, or tens of thousands? Were numbers one through ten thousand not served an injustice? Were they not equal? Were they not good enough?
Feelings? Some legal actions are decided based on what a “reasonable person” would or does do. Even stand your ground law is based on reasonable belief, or reasonable fear of how a reasonable person would act. Those things are based on feelings and the law individualizes it. Zimmerman’s entire defense was based on what he felt.
What I’m beginning to see is that there is an hypocritical challenge by those coining and defining “BGI”, because they support a law based on feelings while asserting that those opposed to stand your ground do so based on “feelings.” Do I understand that correctly?