Not so fast there

Sure, I agree that if you look only at the surface record, it would
appear that MLK was a recipient of, and a supporter of, the concept (in
theory) of corporal punishment. Occasionally some of his sermons
concerning crime among urban youth would almost make him sound like a
Joe Clark authoritarian.

Conservatives have long tried to claim that there was an authentic
"black conservative" dimension to Martin Luther King, and looking at
the face-value record, yes, there is that aspect.

However, we today need to realize how different those times were.
Martin Luther King was steeped in the fundamentalism of the southern
Black gospel tradition, and as a result, some of his sermons reveal a
kind of anti-homosexual, or pro-authoritarian, pro-patriarchal
dimension that (out of context) might appear conservative to us today.

Numerous of the historic leaders of the civil rights era had somewhat
similar biographies to MLK. Jesse Jackson and others would tell
humorous anecdotes about the "lickins" or "switchins" that were freely
doled out to errant boys in their community.

Oprah somehat wryly commented how much she envied white kids growing
up, how she and other black kids got a whuppin if they did sometthing
wrong. White kids only got a "talking to."

Poor folks seem proverbially cursed as far as the advantages of the
more privileged. Most of the native cultures, whatever the geography,
seem far more reliant on such traditional child-rearing methods as
"Honor they Father and Mother." Nelson Mandela discussed the very
severe lickings he received, yet his attitude seems to reflect his
understanding of a certain level of justice or fairness in them. He
does not touch on whether corporal punishment itself is either right or
wrong.

White folks have the affluence, the countless blessings of leisure and
enlightened education, and birth control. They have the luxury of
looking down their noses at other cultures, more "superstitious" and
more "ignorant" and more "primitive" than the superior Western
rationalist one.

This is in no way to disparage the countless achievements of western
Euro heritage. Darwin was a genius, for example, and he considered
white Europeans to be the culmination of natural selection, and the
darker races to be destined for extinction at the hands of Evolution.

Margaret Sanger similarly showed great courage getting the subject of
birth control out of the closet, but she also felt the main use of
birth control would be to restrict the growing numbers of inferior
races, the blacks and browns of the world.

Some folk might think white man has been on his high horse for too long
already, and may one day be in store for a humbling from the great
parent of us all, that great spirit in the sky who made us

robin wrote:

Oprah somehat wryly commented how much she envied white kids growing
up, how she and other black kids got a whuppin if they did sometthing
wrong. White kids only got a "talking to."

The misconception that black kids "got a whupping" while white kids only
got a "talking to" is so unfortunate. Both black and white kids were
and continue to be hit, smacked, whupped, spanked, or any other word you
can come up with for the practice of disciplinary hitting of children.

And not only black and white kids get a "whupping." Latino children are
hit, Asain children are hit, children from Indian and the Middle East
are hit, and children from Europe are hit.

Disciplinary hitting crosses all racial boundaries. And the idea that
"white" kids don't get whupped is a myth.'

LaVonne

Sure, I agree that if you look only at the surface record, it would
appear that MLK was a recipient of, and a supporter of, the concept (in
theory) of corporal punishment. Occasionally some of his sermons
concerning crime among urban youth would almost make him sound like a
Joe Clark authoritarian.

Conservatives have long tried to claim that there was an authentic
"black conservative" dimension to Martin Luther King, and looking at
the face-value record, yes, there is that aspect.

However, we today need to realize how different those times were.
Martin Luther King was steeped in the fundamentalism of the southern
Black gospel tradition, and as a result, some of his sermons reveal a
kind of anti-homosexual, or pro-authoritarian, pro-patriarchal
dimension that (out of context) might appear conservative to us today.

Numerous of the historic leaders of the civil rights era had somewhat
similar biographies to MLK. Jesse Jackson and others would tell
humorous anecdotes about the "lickins" or "switchins" that were freely
doled out to errant boys in their community.

Oprah somehat wryly commented how much she envied white kids growing
up, how she and other black kids got a whuppin if they did sometthing
wrong. White kids only got a "talking to."

Poor folks seem proverbially cursed as far as the advantages of the
more privileged. Most of the native cultures, whatever the geography,
seem far more reliant on such traditional child-rearing methods as
"Honor they Father and Mother." Nelson Mandela discussed the very
severe lickings he received, yet his attitude seems to reflect his
understanding of a certain level of justice or fairness in them. He
does not touch on whether corporal punishment itself is either right or
wrong.

White folks have the affluence, the countless blessings of leisure and
enlightened education, and birth control. They have the luxury of
looking down their noses at other cultures, more "superstitious" and
more "ignorant" and more "primitive" than the superior Western
rationalist one.

This is in no way to disparage the countless achievements of western
Euro heritage. Darwin was a genius, for example, and he considered
white Europeans to be the culmination of natural selection, and the
darker races to be destined for extinction at the hands of Evolution.

Margaret Sanger similarly showed great courage getting the subject of
birth control out of the closet, but she also felt the main use of
birth control would be to restrict the growing numbers of inferior
races, the blacks and browns of the world.

Some folk might think white man has been on his high horse for too long
already, and may one day be in store for a humbling from the great
parent of us all, that great spirit in the sky who made us

On Sat, 9 Apr 2005, Carlson LaVonne wrote:


robin wrote:

Oprah somehat wryly commented how much she envied white kids growing
up, how she and other black kids got a whuppin if they did sometthing
wrong. White kids only got a "talking to."

The misconception that black kids "got a whupping" while white kids only
got a "talking to" is so unfortunate. Both black and white kids were
and continue to be hit, smacked, whupped, spanked, or any other word you
can come up with for the practice of disciplinary hitting of children.

And not only black and white kids get a "whupping." Latino children are
hit, Asain children are hit, children from Indian and the Middle East
are hit, and children from Europe are hit.

Disciplinary hitting crosses all racial boundaries. And the idea that
"white" kids don't get whupped is a myth.'

LaVonne

Yup! Either all these parents are stupid or they have found that spanking
can be effective at stopping misbehaviors. And if you haven't heard,
crime rates are the lowest in decades. Just ask Kane0! ;-)

Doan

Carlson LaVonne wrote:
robin wrote:

Oprah somehat wryly commented how much she envied white kids
growing
up, how she and other black kids got a whuppin if they did
sometthing
wrong. White kids only got a "talking to."

The misconception that black kids "got a whupping" while white kids
only
got a "talking to" is so unfortunate. Both black and white kids were

and continue to be hit, smacked, whupped, spanked, or any other word
you
can come up with for the practice of disciplinary hitting of
children.

And not only black and white kids get a "whupping." Latino children
are
hit, Asain children are hit, children from Indian and the Middle
East
are hit, and children from Europe are hit.

Disciplinary hitting crosses all racial boundaries. And the idea
that
"white" kids don't get whupped is a myth.'

Well, things are improving. Note that during the last decade state
after state, school district after school district, have ended
paddling. And that more and more people are opting out of the use of
corporal punishment for child rearing. The Attachment Parenting folks
seem to adopted this non-punitive model, and generations that grew up
with the then new concepts of parenting, who themselves are now parents
are turning their backs on spanking.

The value to society is showing in interesting places, and remains to
be studied. The steady drop in violent crime might be one area to look
at. And the one that intregues me most is that whenever an
institutionized custom begins to seriously lose ground and be
threatened, there is a temporary strong backlash.

Historically we have slavery, child labor, and disenfranchised women,
as oppressive custom, that were fought, one with a civil war, and each
ended.

Just as spanking will, if I am reading history correctly. Heck, people
used to be imprisoned for saying the world is not the center of the
universe. I suppose the nutsos will have to hang a few of us who point
out the truth about spanking before humanity catches on to the damage
that's been done to individuals and society, but nicely hidden by
denial, for centuries, by the use of corporal punishment.

LaVonne

0;-



Sure, I agree that if you look only at the surface record, it would
appear that MLK was a recipient of, and a supporter of, the concept
(in
theory) of corporal punishment. Occasionally some of his sermons
concerning crime among urban youth would almost make him sound like
a
Joe Clark authoritarian.

Conservatives have long tried to claim that there was an authentic
"black conservative" dimension to Martin Luther King, and looking
at
the face-value record, yes, there is that aspect.

However, we today need to realize how different those times were.
Martin Luther King was steeped in the fundamentalism of the
southern
Black gospel tradition, and as a result, some of his sermons reveal
a
kind of anti-homosexual, or pro-authoritarian, pro-patriarchal
dimension that (out of context) might appear conservative to us
today.

Numerous of the historic leaders of the civil rights era had
somewhat
similar biographies to MLK. Jesse Jackson and others would tell
humorous anecdotes about the "lickins" or "switchins" that were
freely
doled out to errant boys in their community.

Oprah somehat wryly commented how much she envied white kids
growing
up, how she and other black kids got a whuppin if they did
sometthing
wrong. White kids only got a "talking to."

Poor folks seem proverbially cursed as far as the advantages of the
more privileged. Most of the native cultures, whatever the
geography,
seem far more reliant on such traditional child-rearing methods as
"Honor they Father and Mother." Nelson Mandela discussed the very
severe lickings he received, yet his attitude seems to reflect his
understanding of a certain level of justice or fairness in them. He
does not touch on whether corporal punishment itself is either
right or
wrong.

White folks have the affluence, the countless blessings of leisure
and
enlightened education, and birth control. They have the luxury of
looking down their noses at other cultures, more "superstitious"
and
more "ignorant" and more "primitive" than the superior Western
rationalist one.

This is in no way to disparage the countless achievements of
western
Euro heritage. Darwin was a genius, for example, and he considered
white Europeans to be the culmination of natural selection, and the
darker races to be destined for extinction at the hands of
Evolution.

Margaret Sanger similarly showed great courage getting the subject
of
birth control out of the closet, but she also felt the main use of
birth control would be to restrict the growing numbers of inferior
races, the blacks and browns of the world.

Some folk might think white man has been on his high horse for too
long
already, and may one day be in store for a humbling from the great
parent of us all, that great spirit in the sky who made us

wrote:

Well, things are improving. Note that during the last decade state
after state, school district after school district, have ended
paddling. And that more and more people are opting out of the use of
corporal punishment for child rearing. The Attachment Parenting folks
seem to adopted this non-punitive model, and generations that grew up
with the then new concepts of parenting, who themselves are now parents
are turning their backs on spanking.

This is true, Kane, but the wheel turns so very slowly. The Attachment
Parenting people appear to have adopted a non-punitive model of
parenting, which would make sense because spanking is the the opposite
of what leads to a secure attachment. And I do see more and more
individuals who realize that hitting children is not a necessary or
acceptable practice in good parenting.

The value to society is showing in interesting places, and remains to
be studied. The steady drop in violent crime might be one area to look
at. And the one that intregues me most is that whenever an
institutionized custom begins to seriously lose ground and be
threatened, there is a temporary strong backlash.

Slavery is an excellent example. The strong backlash resulted in a
Civil War, with the ultimate result of slavery being abolished. There
are many other examples, as you state in the entire post included below.

Just as spanking will, if I am reading history correctly. Heck, people
used to be imprisoned for saying the world is not the center of the
universe. I suppose the nutsos will have to hang a few of us who point
out the truth about spanking before humanity catches on to the damage
that's been done to individuals and society, but nicely hidden by
denial, for centuries, by the use of corporal punishment.


Spanking will eventually fall out of favor and laws will change. I'm
not sure this will happen in our lifetime but I suspect it will in the
lives of our children. Many countries have already followed Sweden's
example and legally banned spanking. I'm not sure what it will take for
this to happen in the US, but I do think it will happen.

The disgusting and abhorrent practice of hitting children in the name of
discipline will become illegal in this county. I know you don't
advocate laws the same way that I do, but sometimes laws are necessary
to change the norms of the country for future generations.

LaVonne





Carlson LaVonne wrote:

robin wrote:

Oprah somehat wryly commented how much she envied white kids

growing

up, how she and other black kids got a whuppin if they did

sometthing

wrong. White kids only got a "talking to."

The misconception that black kids "got a whupping" while white kids

only

got a "talking to" is so unfortunate. Both black and white kids were


and continue to be hit, smacked, whupped, spanked, or any other word

you

can come up with for the practice of disciplinary hitting of

children.

And not only black and white kids get a "whupping." Latino children

are

hit, Asain children are hit, children from Indian and the Middle

East

are hit, and children from Europe are hit.

Disciplinary hitting crosses all racial boundaries. And the idea

that

"white" kids don't get whupped is a myth.'


Well, things are improving. Note that during the last decade state
after state, school district after school district, have ended
paddling. And that more and more people are opting out of the use of
corporal punishment for child rearing. The Attachment Parenting folks
seem to adopted this non-punitive model, and generations that grew up
with the then new concepts of parenting, who themselves are now parents
are turning their backs on spanking.

The value to society is showing in interesting places, and remains to
be studied. The steady drop in violent crime might be one area to look
at. And the one that intregues me most is that whenever an
institutionized custom begins to seriously lose ground and be
threatened, there is a temporary strong backlash.

Historically we have slavery, child labor, and disenfranchised women,
as oppressive custom, that were fought, one with a civil war, and each
ended.

Just as spanking will, if I am reading history correctly. Heck, people
used to be imprisoned for saying the world is not the center of the
universe. I suppose the nutsos will have to hang a few of us who point
out the truth about spanking before humanity catches on to the damage
that's been done to individuals and society, but nicely hidden by
denial, for centuries, by the use of corporal punishment.


LaVonne


0;-


Sure, I agree that if you look only at the surface record, it would
appear that MLK was a recipient of, and a supporter of, the concept

(in

theory) of corporal punishment. Occasionally some of his sermons
concerning crime among urban youth would almost make him sound like

a

Joe Clark authoritarian.

Conservatives have long tried to claim that there was an authentic
"black conservative" dimension to Martin Luther King, and looking

at

the face-value record, yes, there is that aspect.

However, we today need to realize how different those times were.
Martin Luther King was steeped in the fundamentalism of the

southern

Black gospel tradition, and as a result, some of his sermons reveal

a

kind of anti-homosexual, or pro-authoritarian, pro-patriarchal
dimension that (out of context) might appear conservative to us

today.

Numerous of the historic leaders of the civil rights era had

somewhat

similar biographies to MLK. Jesse Jackson and others would tell
humorous anecdotes about the "lickins" or "switchins" that were

freely

doled out to errant boys in their community.

Oprah somehat wryly commented how much she envied white kids

growing

up, how she and other black kids got a whuppin if they did

sometthing

wrong. White kids only got a "talking to."

Poor folks seem proverbially cursed as far as the advantages of the
more privileged. Most of the native cultures, whatever the

geography,

seem far more reliant on such traditional child-rearing methods as
"Honor they Father and Mother." Nelson Mandela discussed the very
severe lickings he received, yet his attitude seems to reflect his
understanding of a certain level of justice or fairness in them. He
does not touch on whether corporal punishment itself is either

right or

wrong.

White folks have the affluence, the countless blessings of leisure

and

enlightened education, and birth control. They have the luxury of
looking down their noses at other cultures, more "superstitious"

and

more "ignorant" and more "primitive" than the superior Western
rationalist one.

This is in no way to disparage the countless achievements of

western

Euro heritage. Darwin was a genius, for example, and he considered
white Europeans to be the culmination of natural selection, and the
darker races to be destined for extinction at the hands of

Evolution.

Margaret Sanger similarly showed great courage getting the subject

of

birth control out of the closet, but she also felt the main use of
birth control would be to restrict the growing numbers of inferior
races, the blacks and browns of the world.

Some folk might think white man has been on his high horse for too

long

already, and may one day be in store for a humbling from the great
parent of us all, that great spirit in the sky who made us

I am amazed that anybody would use the title
"Attachment" in association with parenting after
the "rebirthing" fiasco where kids were partly
suffocated so the adopters could in their own
psycho minds feel that they had a BIRTH EXPERIENCE.

These are just the people you want advising on other things?

Some historians believe that Slavery was NOT the
reason for the civil war, and other factors precipitated it.
It seems the slavery justification was "tacked on" afterwards.

Greegor wrote:
I am amazed that anybody would use the title
"Attachment" in association with parenting after
the "rebirthing" fiasco

There's no real connection.

where kids were partly
suffocated

No, the child in question was in fact suffocated.

so the adopters could in their own
psycho minds feel that they had a BIRTH EXPERIENCE.

I do not recall that was the goal. It would be, with legitimate
rebirthing so the child could have a rebirth experience and trust the
adoptive parent by virtue of that shared experience. It's not to
gratify the parent in any way. It's to overcome the damage done by bio
parents that has driven the child to distrust ALL adult caregivers.

And in the case you refer to, those were unlicensed amateurs, not
psychologists, and certainly not trained in rebirthing. I know the case
well. And that is not how the legitimate rebirthing process in
psychotherapy is preformed by licensed psychologists.

There is no suffocating going on. It's a very gentle cradling and
rocking, lots of face to face and gentle soothing and encouraging talk.


These are just the people you want advising on other things?

No, I would not have referred a client to them, nor done anything but
jailed them for what they did, and had I known of it I would have
reported them to the authorities. Those authorities you wish to defang
and make impotent and sit on a toilet to do their work.

Some historians believe that Slavery was NOT the
reason for the civil war, and other factors precipitated it.

Some? All are very well aware, except fools such as you, that it was
very much a war of financial ambition. The north had both the raw
materials and manufacturing. The south only cotton and sweet'p'taters.
Well, they had other crops, but they could not even make the tools for
processing the biggest crop...cotton.

All tool manfacturing was locked up in the north, and there was, as I
recall, a blockade or some kind of agreement for europe, England I
think, not sell manufacting tools to the south.

****ed them off.

It seems the slavery justification was "tacked on" afterwards.

Seems it was a damn good justification, if one is black, or isn't a
bigot.

Now why did you go here? Damned if I know, but it's been fun.

Getting back to "rebirthing" and the significance there off...you are
misinformed, as usual, hunting for "justifaction" for your anti social
disease.

Attachment is simply the name, alternative used with "bonding," to
define a very real and vital component to human development. People who
fail to attach cannot commit to normal healthy attachments as an
adult...in fact they don't see the opportunities when right in from of
them. It's common the live outside of marriage with someone so flight
is easier.

It's common the are unemployeed.

And it's common the are that way because the treatment they received
from the parents, usually betrayal on one level or another, early in
life, has never triggered the neurological responses required to
"bond." It's sad.

It's also often a factor in the adult criminal.

But it's fun to watch you continue day by day to dig your hole deeper,
and be completely unaware of it, or hiding it, possibly.

0:-

Greegor wrote:
I am amazed that anybody would use the title
"Attachment" in association with parenting after
the "rebirthing" fiasco where kids were partly
suffocated so the adopters could in their own
psycho minds feel that they had a BIRTH EXPERIENCE.

You obviously know nothing about attachment theory or you would not have
said what you did in the above portion of you post. Try reading
something on attachment by Sroufe, Egland, and Ainsworth. You can go to
any research website and look up the names, and add attachment as a
keyword. Let me know when you realize what attachment means.

These are just the people you want advising on other things?

Yes, I would love to have individuals who understand attachment to
advise me.

Some historians believe that Slavery was NOT the
reason for the civil war, and other factors precipitated it.
It seems the slavery justification was "tacked on" afterwards.

There were many reasons for the civil war. But the civil war ended
slavery. My children are African American (black). One of my girls has
an apartment and a good job. My other child is graduating from
Northwestern University in Evanston, IL in June.

These girls can no longer be purchased or sold. They are wonderful
members of society.

I'm grateful for the Civil WaR.

LaVonne

Carlson LaVonne wrote:


I'm grateful for the Civil WaR.

Grateful for war, but against spanking? You bark at the moon it
will not answer you.

Llono

LaVonne


--
"never it takes a brain to supervise"
(-proverb)

wrote:
Carlson LaVonne wrote:


I'm grateful for the Civil WaR.

Grateful for war, but against spanking? You bark at the moon it
will not answer you.

Llono

LaVonne


--
"Never it takes the brain to supervise."
(-proverb)