The WOKE Thread (Merged from WTF?)

[Lord Ratner]

7 hours ago, jice said:

2. Are you saying that sociology as a whole is not to be trusted or only the pop-sociology that we can digest in 30 second sound bites?

1. You’ve told us that women really want to be in historically women’s professions; I’d love to see the science (sociology) and whether there was any attempt at separating correlation from causation. It’s way more difficult than just asking. A) Ask 10 aircrew what their first choice of airframes was when they were two weeks from track select. 6-9 will lie and cite their current airframe; 1-2 got their then-first choice. All others were FAIPS. B) Even if you figure out how to get the truth, getting the why behind the truth remains a problem—know any males who quit dancing, singing, playing the piano, or doing art when it became costly socially? That’s acting on a preference and is a measured choice, but is also counter to that individual’s natural predilection.  Not saying it’s impossible or even unlikely, just that the study of such a thing would be difficult. Got a source? “Google it yourself” is fine if you don’t want to point to something specifically.

3. I’ve got a bit of an issue with this one. You use the word progress, as if it’s a march towards a better state. That acknowledges a gradient, two sides. One less desirable, one more desirable. When you say “inflame the issue” when we move too fast, I have a hard time finding an explanation for the “inflammation” that isn’t simply the feelings of those accustomed to the old (less progress) and uncomfortable with the new (progress). I am certain that you don’t mean that we should avoid empowering historically oppressed groups because it might upset people. What exactly do you mean? I think moving towards a less racist world/country/system is worth a bit of discomfort. 
 

4. Honest question: what do you mean when you say ‘human nature’? Plato, Moses, Dennett, and Kant would all reach different conclusions. It’s literally one of the central questions of philosophy. Regardless, agree that the government should stay out.

 

5. It’s a shame that the most outrageous ideas seem to get the most attention. Wouldn’t it be great if critical thinking skills were sexy?

2. Pop sociology is a good term. A huge amount of the scholarly output from sociology departments in the last 20 years is unsupported. Pull up some of the papers on Critical Race Theory, and the only thing they cite (if anything at all) are other papers on CRT. It's just a big loop of non-support.

 

1. https://www.thejournal.ie/gender-equality-countries-stem-girls-3848156-Feb2018/

 

3. Absolutely a discomfort. A noble and morally necessary discomfort. That doesn't change the timeline. It's like a G-ex. Pull too hard and the plane stalls. Keep the stick in your lap forever and the plane falls out of the sky. Some of the framers wanted to abolish slavery, but they recognized that the time wasn't right. So they did what they could, and established the new country on the philosophical basis that would eventually be used by Lincoln. You don't have to like it, I don't, but things take time. One of the biggest pushes for gay rights in the US was Will and Grace, not protesting. That doesn't mean you don't protest, but the "how" matters just as much as the "why." Dr. King and Malcom X disagreed vehemently on the "how," where X thought King's strategy was too gentle, too slow. But it worked, eventually. Further, King didn't rely on statistical misrepresentation to make his point. The BLM movement does. That matters, because when you hit someone in the face over and over with evidence of injustice, don't give them a reason to ignore your message. Misrepresenting crime and policing statistics does just that.

 

4. It's nothing cosmic, nor deeply philosophical. How do people think? Confirmation bias, group think, rationalization, confabulation, etc. How do they act? What do they do?

As an example, people like to have stuff. They just do. Cars, TVs, jewellery, golf clubs, you know, stuff. Any culture, any era. Give them the chance to get more stuff, and they'll work surprisingly hard. So hard that they produce an overflow of wealth that enriches the society. So hard that the economy of a country that recognizes property rights and personal freedom to choose will dominate every other economy on the planet that instead tries to determine what stuff and how much stuff you should have. The brilliance of capitalism is that it accepts human nature and channels it. 

Racism is an ugly form of a natural phenomenon, grouping. If humans don't group, they die. You can't fix racism without addressing grouping. The American dream is a set of ideals that do not exclude anyone based on unchangeable characteristics. You don't get rid of racism, you replace it. "Black people are Americans too." That's a winning message that made a difference. But by its very nature it excludes people who aren't American. That gets into cosmopolitanism, which is another thing all together, but fits into my point that you ignore human nature at your own peril. 

[Pooter]

I'm just tired of people insisting that every statistical difference between races/genders is automatically linked to structural injustice.  

As an example: orders of magnitude more men are incarcerated than women.  Does this mean courts are violently skewed against men?  Does an oppressive matriarchy dominate the justice system?!  Or is this indicative of broad behavioral differences between men and women resulting from everything from biology, to evolution, to social norms etc...

 

The problem is that no one wants to talk about behavior.. or the factors that influence people's behavior.  It's much easier to blame statistical differences on a nebulous boogeyman like "the patriarchy" or "structural racism."

 

 

[busdriver]

20 minutes ago, Pooter said:

I'm just tired of people insisting that every statistical difference between races/genders is automatically linked to structural injustice.  

It's literally in the definition du jour.  The woktivist arguement is completely tautological.

 

From the Aspen Institute:  https://assets.aspeninstitute.org/content/uploads/files/content/docs/rcc/RCC-Structural-Racism-Glossary.pdf

Structural Racism: A system in which public policies, institutional practices, cultural representations, and other norms work in various, often reinforcing ways to perpetuate racial group inequity.

Racial Equity: Racial equity refers to what a genuinely non-racist society would look like. In a racially equitable society, the distribution of society’s benefits and burdens would not be skewed by race. In other words, racial equity would be a reality in which a person is no more or less likely to experience society’s benefits or burdens just because of the color of their skin

[FLEA]

35 minutes ago, Pooter said:

I'm just tired of people insisting that every statistical difference between races/genders is automatically linked to structural injustice.  

As an example: orders of magnitude more men are incarcerated than women.  Does this mean courts are violently skewed against men?  Does an oppressive matriarchy dominate the justice system?!  Or is this indicative of broad behavioral differences between men and women resulting from everything from biology, to evolution, to social norms etc...

 

The problem is that no one wants to talk about behavior.. or the factors that influence people's behavior.  It's much easier to blame statistical differences on a nebulous boogeyman like "the patriarchy" or "structural racism."

 

 

That is 90% of what all these conversations are about. Femenism and the patriarchy is mostly a nature vs nurture debate and how much influence each has in our life. Institutional racism is a discussion on how policies, principles and values influence behavior that reinforces racial disparity or dismantles it. 

Also worth noting many femenist do discuss disprortional sentences for males vs females in society. The concept of patriarchy is not that males have advantages over females. It's that some, a very few males, have a massive advantage over everyone, and they enforce a structure that treats people differently based on gender to remain in power. That's a hugely philosophical debate in its own right though. 

Edited June 9, 2020 by FLEA

[FLEA]

In an interesting turn related to the power of language, the definition of racism will change, forcing discourse to change as well. 

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/09/us/dictionary-racism-definition-update-trnd/index.html

[Lord Ratner]

20 minutes ago, FLEA said:

In an interesting turn related to the power of language, the definition of racism will change, forcing discourse to change as well. 

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/09/us/dictionary-racism-definition-update-trnd/index.html

This is generally my most reliable indicator that a movement lacks a foundation in reality. If you have to redefine (verbal appropriation?) the language to make your point, you probably don't have one.

 

It does not seem coincidental that the people trying to change what words mean are the same ones equating speech with violence. The first amendment is the most powerful tool in the world for discovering truth. I do not trust those that seek to restrict it.

[FLEA]

30 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

This is generally my most reliable indicator that a movement lacks a foundation in reality. If you have to redefine (verbal appropriation?) the language to make your point, you probably don't have one.

 

It does not seem coincidental that the people trying to change what words mean are the same ones equating speech with violence. The first amendment is the most powerful tool in the world for discovering truth. I do not trust those that seek to restrict it.

That's one opinion. Language evolves. It's possible that existing language doesn't have the neccessary descriptions to discuss the constructs they are attempting to describe accurately. That doesn't mean the construct isn't founded in reality or it doesn't exist. This is a direct repercussion of denial. As you attempted to call me out earlier in a post and say "that's not racism" the retort would be "well then what is it?". Since no word exist and the phenomena is already associated with racism, it seems the scholarship of English literacy at Merriam Webster has decided for us. 

 

Edited June 10, 2020 by FLEA

[busdriver]

35 minutes ago, FLEA said:

That's completely an opinion. Language evolves. It's possible that existing language doesn't have the neccessary descriptions to discuss the constructs they are attempting to describe accurately. That doesn't mean the construct isn't founded in reality it doesn't exist. This is a direct repercussion of denial. As you attempted to call me out earlier in a post and say "that's not racism" the retort would be "well then what is it?". Since no word exist and the phenomena is already associated with racism, it seems the scholarship of English literacy at Merriam Webster has decided for us. 

There are plenty of words that already exist to describe the points that are trying to be made, none of those words are loaded with the emotion and horrific history of racism.  Adding another meaning to a word that is so closely tied with lynching and Jim Crow is an organizing tactic.  Not to mention so overly broad as to be almost useless as a tool for making any productive changes.

 

unconscious bias

agency

structure

lack of economic investment, [leading to]

endemic poverty and crime [and]

self destructive cultures and practices

 

See plenty of words. So yes language evolves, but to claim that in this case it's due to a lack of ability to discuss the problem is a fallacy.

Edited June 10, 2020 by busdriver

[Lord Ratner]

1 hour ago, FLEA said:

That's one opinion. Language evolves. It's possible that existing language doesn't have the neccessary descriptions to discuss the constructs they are attempting to describe accurately. That doesn't mean the construct isn't founded in reality or it doesn't exist. This is a direct repercussion of denial. As you attempted to call me out earlier in a post and say "that's not racism" the retort would be "well then what is it?". Since no word exist and the phenomena is already associated with racism, it seems the scholarship of English literacy at Merriam Webster has decided for us. 

 

The obvious response is that if we change racism to encompass the arguments put forth today, then racism isn't that big of a deal anymore. Certainly not when compared to what it used to mean. You're being either ignorant or unfathomably generous if you don't believe they are repurposing the word "racism" in the hopes it will impart the deep emotional response to a vastly different and less urgent phenomenon.

 

Same argument has been made with "gender." Same silliness.

[FLEA]

1 minute ago, Lord Ratner said:

The obvious response is that if we change racism to encompass the arguments put forth today, then racism isn't that big of a deal anymore. Certainly not when compared to what it used to mean. You're being either ignorant or unfathomably generous if you don't believe they are repurposing the word "racism" in the hopes it will impart the deep emotional response to a vastly different and less urgent phenomenon.

 

Same argument has been made with "gender." Same silliness.

Nope. Thats exactly what they are doing. Doesn't make the necessity to dismantle those constructs any less moral. Words are power. Denialist got beat to the punch. A letter to Webster saying that "we want to preserve the repugnance of the term racism, a think that we think systematic bias will dilute" probably would not have been met with as quick a change but would have generated enough debate to alter the conversation differently. But to my point, this is what happens when both sides dont talk to each other earnest with an intent to understand what they are actually trying to say. Far too often in society we just make the assumption that everyone has "some agenda." 99% of people in this society are not organized enough to have an agenda. They are just arriving at their own moral conclusions. 

[Lord Ratner]

6 minutes ago, FLEA said:

Nope. Thats exactly what they are doing. Doesn't make the necessity to dismantle those constructs any less moral. Words are power. Denialist got beat to the punch. A letter to Webster saying that "we want to preserve the repugnance of the term racism, a think that we think systematic bias will dilute" probably would not have been met with as quick a change but would have generated enough debate to alter the conversation differently. But to my point, this is what happens when both sides dont talk to each other earnest with an intent to understand what they are actually trying to say. Far too often in society we just make the assumption that everyone has "some agenda." 99% of people in this society are not organized enough to have an agenda. They are just arriving at their own moral conclusions. 

You don't think there's an agenda? BLM has a website. Their agenda is spelled out. I think you're presenting a very inaccurate portrayal of the conversation. One side is repeatedly and now violently lying about the realities of crime and policing in America. When the other side tries to discuss these statistics, it turns out you're a racist for saying so.

 

I'm not ascribing these tactics to you, but considering federal politicians are actively making this argument and Pulitzer winning media figures are repeating it, I don't think I'm mischaracterizing the movement. 

 

This stuff is not haphazard. When you control the language you control it all. They know that even if you don't. 

[busdriver]

BLM has an agenda.  Most people in the streets and on facebook saying "black lives matter" are supporting the sentiment not the organization, or are only vaguely aware that the organization is more than just the sentiment.

[HU&W]

2 hours ago, FLEA said:

In an interesting turn related to the power of language, the definition of racism will change, forcing discourse to change as well. 

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/09/us/dictionary-racism-definition-update-trnd/index.html

“He who controls the language controls the masses.”

[FLEA]

32 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

You don't think there's an agenda? BLM has a website. Their agenda is spelled out. I think you're presenting a very inaccurate portrayal of the conversation. One side is repeatedly and now violently lying about the realities of crime and policing in America. When the other side tries to discuss these statistics, it turns out you're a racist for saying so.

 

I'm not ascribing these tactics to you, but considering federal politicians are actively making this argument and Pulitzer winning media figures are repeating it, I don't think I'm mischaracterizing the movement. 

 

This stuff is not haphazard. When you control the language you control it all. They know that even if you don't. 

I'm not talking about the talking heads. I'm talking about every day people. I'm talking about the quiet dude in your office that everyone knows votes Democrat but he never really speaks up because he doesn't want to instigate an argument. Or your neighbor, who's nothing but friendly but keeps a BLM sign his yard. Those people don't have agendas. They are just living their life trying to be as good a human being as they know how. Talk to them and ask questions. Instead of saying "but blacks commit more crime" ask "there are statistics that show blacks commit more crimes, do you think that has anything to do with it?" I think you'll be surprised. These people didn't arrive at their conclusions in a vacuum. If its all the MSM why didn't you fall for it? Do you really believe you are smarter than roughly half the country? Or do you think your expereinces in life led you to be skeptical of MSM? Have you considered their expereinces may be reinforced by MSM? We're all just people man. Everyone is trying to live the best life they know how. 

Edited June 10, 2020 by FLEA

[brabus]

7 hours ago, FLEA said:

These people didn't arrive at their conclusions in a vacuum.

I generally agree with your statement above, but yes, there are a lot of otherwise smart people who immediately and blindly follow a narrative based on a headline, a tweet, a misleading infographic, etc. It’s due to one or more of the following reasons: laziness (they don’t want to spend time engaging in critical thought, research, comparing multiple sources, etc.), emotional connection (or aversion) to one side of an argument (and unwilling to let facts sway them), they live in a bubble that is better than what 99% of the world experiences and think they have ultimate SA when they actually have nil (I liken this to the Army’s self-image of their SA on how to use airpower), and they see modifying their viewpoints as losing/quitting/giving up, so they won’t do it (regardless of new information presented).

I see the above every day, across the political spectrum, from college-educated, “smart” people.  They’re good people, but they blindly follow a narrative and refuse to have an open mind to new information, or information that doesn’t support their opinion.  They then are unwilling to accept that people may disagree with them, and are disrespectful, disdainful, condescending and/or aggressive towards them (vs. having an unemotional, respectful conversation).  Much of America is driven by emotion (fueled by social media and the MSM).  So yeah, a lot of otherwise smart people very much make their opinions while sucked deep into the FaceBook void, and I think that essentially is a vacuum of single POV information with more misleading and flat out false information than their is truth. 

Instructional Fix: Stop getting your information from social media, throw your emotions in jail for a second when you have a complex conversation, and be open to other ideas and welcome information that doesn’t support your bias.  Even if you don’t trust it, acknowledge it and do some research yourself to verify it (from reputable sources), then don’t be ashamed to update your viewpoint if said info is found to be credible/accurate.  Lastly, have respect for others and in the end, this is not a competition...be OK with someone else not changing their mind and accept that you can disagree while still being friends, neighbors, etc.

[FLEA]

31 minutes ago, brabus said:

I generally agree with your statement above, but yes, there are a lot of otherwise smart people who immediately and blindly follow a narrative based on a headline, a tweet, a misleading infographic, etc. It’s due to one or more of the following reasons: laziness (they don’t want to spend time engaging in critical thought, research, comparing multiple sources, etc.), emotional connection (or aversion) to one side of an argument (and unwilling to let facts sway them), they live in a bubble that is better than what 99% of the world experiences and think they have ultimate SA when they actually have nil (I liken this to the Army’s self-image of their SA on how to use airpower), and they see modifying their viewpoints as losing/quitting/giving up, so they won’t do it (regardless of new information presented).

I see the above every day, across the political spectrum, from college-educated, “smart” people.  They’re good people, but they blindly follow a narrative and refuse to have an open mind to new information, or information that doesn’t support their opinion.  They then are unwilling to accept that people may disagree with them, and are disrespectful, disdainful, condescending and/or aggressive towards them (vs. having an unemotional, respectful conversation).  Much of America is driven by emotion (fueled by social media and the MSM).  So yeah, a lot of otherwise smart people very much make their opinions while sucked deep into the FaceBook void, and I think that essentially is a vacuum of single POV information with more misleading and flat out false information than their is truth. 

Instructional Fix: Stop getting your information from social media, throw your emotions in jail for a second when you have a complex conversation, and be open to other ideas and welcome information that doesn’t support your bias.  Even if you don’t trust it, acknowledge it and do some research yourself to verify it (from reputable sources), then don’t be ashamed to update your viewpoint if said info is found to be credible/accurate.  Lastly, have respect for others and in the end, this is not a competition...be OK with someone else not changing their mind and accept that you can disagree while still being friends, neighbors, etc.

Someone once told me, if you truly believe you are right, don't resolve to change someone's mind in a single conversation. Resolve to change their point of view in a 10 year friendship. Was great fricken advice and I have some extraordinarily close friends because of it. But in reality, I have found very few people deeply challenge their own beliefs passed college. 

[Guardian]

That is 90% of what all these conversations are about. Femenism and the patriarchy is mostly a nature vs nurture debate and how much influence each has in our life. Institutional racism is a discussion on how policies, principles and values influence behavior that reinforces racial disparity or dismantles it. 
Also worth noting many femenist do discuss disprortional sentences for males vs females in society. The concept of patriarchy is not that males have advantages over females. It's that some, a very few males, have a massive advantage over everyone, and they enforce a structure that treats people differently based on gender to remain in power. That's a hugely philosophical debate in its own right though. 

This is exactly why the patriarchy doesn’t exist. You say it yourself. “Very few males.” Not all. Not most. Very few. Hence men and women have both suffered and gone through hard times. It’s about your own choices not blaming a societal structure that doesn’t exist.

[ctf151]

BLM would be taken seriously if they would disavow the lies. Take Michael Brown, the gentle giant, for instance. Most BLM proponents still believe Hands Up/Don't Shoot, and choose to not believe the forensics. Forensics prove that every element of the initial story was a lie; that his hands were up, he was running away, etc. Not to mention his friend went on live TV and lied, then lied to the FBI and never got prosecuted. 

 

The other issue is that if you look at FBI crime statistics, you'll see that there's a group that's responsible for a disproportionate amount of violent crime compared to other groups. When you commit violent crimes, police respond differently than if you didn't commit a violent crime. That will, in turn, result in more police shootings.

 

Sorry, the whole movement is BS. 

[Pooter]

The other reason that intelligent people will go along with the woke narrative is out of fear of retribution.  Look at what just happened to Drew Brees for simply saying that he doesn't agree with disrespecting the flag.  If you don't parrot the orthodox line 100%, you risk being cast out, and unless you have future hall of fame franchise QB level job security, you might lose your livelihood too.

This risk aversion governs a lot of people's actions, especially those who don't follow politics that closely. They see other people getting in trouble and think to themselves "oh I'd better not do that."  This is how you get businesses issuing non-committal pandering woke statements and senators kneeling in kente cloth.

[Breckey]

Quote

If you don't parrot the orthodox line 100%, you risk being cast out, and unless you have future hall of fame franchise QB level job security, you might lose your livelihood too.

So just like Kaepernick.

[Guardian]

Kaepernick could have all the skills in the world. But we will never know it. He has a terrible attitude and he makes a statement and makes it all about him. Not the movement. Hence no one wants to be around him. If he protested in a good, society building, people building proper way he would have got a better response. As it is, Kaepernick is a product of the own society he claims to hate. See where he grew up? See his family?

 

It’s the difference between dr king and malcom x. Malcom x did things with force and violence. Dr king will he remembered and celebrated for a long long time. Not X.

 

[Sim]

14 hours ago, FLEA said:

 votes Democrat but he never really speaks up

...right. Because cancel culture is a "conservative thing".   Care to wear a red hat inside democrat controlled city and see the results?  

 

Also.... Who benefits from Democratic control of cities?

https://apnews.com/cd60b6d9b1e34e20b9b0c19205c2cae6

 

[FLEA]

6 hours ago, Guardian said:

This is exactly why the patriarchy doesn’t exist. You say it yourself. “Very few males.” Not all. Not most. Very few. Hence men and women have both suffered and gone through hard times. It’s about your own choices not blaming a societal structure that doesn’t exist.

That's not what the patriarchy is referring to. It's referring to our monkey roots where humans are primarily an alpha ape led society. In chimpanzees and bonobos, our closest cousins, clans are led by a single alpha male who takes exclusive access to resources (primarily good) and mating. They will keep a harem of 6-8 female apes. Male apes who are not the alpha though have a choice, they either leave the society and explore the jungle solo, significantly risky, or they remain with the tribe as a second class citizen. The alpha male will eat first, then the females, then the additional males. The additional males will never have access to mating. 

The concept of the patriarchy is that as society developed from ape man we inhereted these structures into our own structures which is evidences by genetic behavior and the behaviors of our cousins. A very few number of males became the patriarchy and began to establish systems that ensured they remain in power, i.e. feudalism, endowment, property laws. Women and men both become equally oppressed to keep the few alpha men in power. Actually quite fascinating stuff that explains a lot on gender differences like why men are expected to give their place on a life raft for women and children go this day. (By devalueing the cost of male life you reduce the probability of rivals) or how monogomy came to form (turns out in a society thousands of sexless men become quite restless and start to revolt).

Hence, I largely agree with you that the tale of human history is one of mutual suffering and cooperation. Doesn't mean a patriarchy doesn't exist though, and it's just not referring to you. The fact you are in the military, a predominantly male occupation with a historical expectation of risk, is evidence sir, that you are sadly not an alpha. In casual conversation you might bemoan that you are going to go to work for "the man" and you'd much like to stick it to "the man" but aren't really sure who this man is. Well, he is the patriarchy. 

So I mentioned earlier femenism is a largely nature vs nurture debate. The question is, do we still predominantly follow men in society because our genetic ape roots push us that direction, or do we primarily follow men because of thousands of generations of cultural institutionings? 

 

Edit: I should add too there is a significant difference between academic femenism and activist femenism. 

Edited June 10, 2020 by FLEA

[FLEA]

38 minutes ago, Sim said:

...right. Because cancel culture is a "conservative thing".   Care to wear a red hat inside democrat controlled city and see the results?  

 

Also.... Who benefits from Democratic control of cities?

https://apnews.com/cd60b6d9b1e34e20b9b0c19205c2cae6

 

It definitely does exist. Especially in the military, a primarily conservative culture. I wouldn't make that up if I didnt know there were people I work with that are pretty quiet liberals at work. 

 

[AirGuardianC141747]

Red Hat in a Democratic sanctuary =  probably not smart. This whole thing kind of stirs up the Rodney King time if anyone was around or in CA which I was during college. But BLM has a much stronger force behind this. Former African American Chief of police killed; African American police Captain shot performing his duty assisting a call during a looting shot dead along with several other incidents - BLM doesn’t discuss such matters as it’s not part of their narrative. Collateral damage perhaps?

Either way, just think - Gun control, take away the right to protect yourself. If it had succeeded before this and it may very well in the future then where might some folks be now when the cry out to defund the police is pressed. Let that sink in as the masses would become sheep to the slaughter. A police report is just that - an account of the aftermath. Presence helps but they cannot be on your lawn for you. Only community (if you will) lightly abused during the Rodney King timeframe were the Koreans. This is why they were “lightly abused” = Welcome to Korea Town storefronts avidly protecting their property with firepower putting down the menace to society no matter what race. Have guns, will travel and word got out quickly - don’t go there. Could get ugly as most Americans have armed themselves based on criminal behavior and fear of a tyrannical government these past decades. Now, we can only hope WROL does not prevail and the blowback would be catastrophic.
 

Side note: As far as immigration is concerned. Father was 1st generation Japanese to step foot in America the proper way and became a naturalized citizen giving up his Japanese citizenship as he saw the opportunity and was amazed by the Great USA. In his early teens he worked in a bullet factory during WWII. Took bombing shrapnel from Billy Mitchell’s friends as he would say. During his training as a physician in Japan, he gave up everything as the first born to his younger brother and left for the U.S. to finish his residency. After decades practicing in the U.S. he returned to his home country to share his knowledge like many current great country citizens have. Not all do and that is why many countries remain below standard as an observation and cultural differences play a huge part. In fact, he started work with the US Military in Japan at the largest private hospital which was one of the first to have an MRI when it was first introduced. It was so successful that he was sought after by the State Department or whoever and vetted by the Secret Service and became President George Herbert Walker Bush’s Neurosurgeon when he traveled in the Far East. (I was adopted; therefore, too stupid to be a doctor so I became a USAF maintenance officer, staff weenie and then a pilot.) Became a staff weenie as a pilot too and now retired flying rubber dog crap out of Hong Kong and better for it because of my fathers tenacity and ferocity.

Bottom Line: My father took a lot of crap as part of the Greatest Generation on the wrong side. Racism galore and well founded based on the era, but see how others have risen - get a clue. He sought perfection at all times and earned every success. Thru intestinal fortitude and down right grit he became a major contributor to American society and more successful than most. Americans of all color or whatever are great and he did it right, there is no excuse. Effort and discipline X 1000, unfortunately becoming a rarity in some cases.
 

I always had a good home, good food and a great father that guided me and made me work for everything I had and truly blessed. Even that base model puke yellow 1981 Monte Carlo in 1987. Should have bought a Toyota Corolla. Truly miss gentleman like my father. Our future generations need to be greater once again.

Edited June 10, 2020 by AirGuardianC141747