colonialism, racism, Imperialism & uh... 'Quakerism'

Note: I often have links set to open in a new tab & try to indicate that using the mouse hover popup.

This is work in progress & at draft stage. I plan to combine some prior work of mine into this webpage. Please check back for updates. (Last edit: May 10, 2023)

I paid the US$14 for Rob Wipond's book, "Your Consent Is Not Required: The Rise in Psychiatric Detentions, Forced Treatment, and Abusive Guardianships", and it was all well & good ... excellent work ... so far ... until Chapter 6 and I get blindsided with his ignorant prejudice.

"American psychiatrists had a head start in developing ideas of genetic superiority through their close collaboration in colonialism." (My emphasis on the word colonialism.)

Update: May 10, 2023 - Ok, so I went & checked the reply (I have other things to do, young man ... it ain't all about you, dude) and of course he uses a word like "baffled" so I must be like "...baffling with bullshit", right? Cute! Anyways...

So the Quakers & their "humanitarian approaches", ok. So what's not to love? My understanding of early American history is Quakers were a core group involved with the colonization of the New England area and my genealogy reflects evidence that my ancestor was granted land by the king along the Delaware river... so yeah! How terrible, huh? There was a lot of land though & not very many people & the Quakers needed somewhere to go since the were being burned at the stake & all that "back home". The king must've had a heart.

If you think about it, any reasonable person wouldn't necessarily want to initiate violent conflict if it could be avoided. The settlers were mostly pacifists (Quakers & Puritans) but there was also conflict amongst themselves. There's probably an existing article that was written that substantiates my last statement but it would stand to reason that there would be disagreement (conflict) between the groups or else they'd be just one big group! (See how easy sociology is? I know; how cool, huh?)

The Quakers conficts with indigenous people resulted in violence and there's documentation that both sides suffered. Of course the Native Americans were not of all the same mindset either so there would probably be peace with some but not others. There's the historical context here in that even though there was lots of land there wasn't much for people to do as distraction from daily life so there was strife.

So once again, considering the historical context of the time when communication was much slower and the fact that the Quakers were a pacifist culture they became anti-slavery early on but couldn't do much about it but a man named Benjamin Lay advocated for the slaves and even once stood out in the snow with no coat & at least one bare foot for hours to demostrate the plight of what slaves suffered. Benjamin Franklin printed Ben Lay's anti-slavery manuscript "All Slave Keepers That keep the Innocent in Bondage, Apostates". (I have a great(x2) grandfather named after Benjamin Franklin; here's an image of his WWI Draft Card.)

• Eliminating Slavery amongst Quakers | quakersintheworld.org
• We are against the traffik of men body The Germantown Quaker Protest of 1688 and the Origins of American Abolitionism | academia.edu
• First Quaker colonists land at Boston | history.com
• America as a Religious Refuge: The Seventeenth Century, Part 2 - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic | Exhibitions (Library of Congress) | loc.gov
• Quaker Testimony for Peace, Introduction, Swarthmore College Peace Collection

Original Text...

As usual I can almost hear the "You're the only one with the problem..." which implies that I am being unreasonable, trite, picky, etc. ... Of course the "you're the only one ..." part is to exclude & isolate me ... maybe the contention is that I just need to swallow my pride ... why is it an issue since it's just a word? It is accurate and I just don't understand ... right? Well, accurate(?), sure ... sort of ... if you're just planning on completing the cultural go-all of persecuting Quakers. They were being threatened to be burned at the stake in 17th century England and they needed to go somewhere else. The Catholics & Protestants had their common enemies to scapegoat, was the problem ... (yes, a problem for the Quakers ... huh? Oh, I know it wasn't a problem for anybody else & so the Society of Friends must've needed to be taught that proverbial life lesson ... that everyone else can agree that they're in the position to teach a Quaker a life lesson ... and it's just way too tempting since, try to avoid it as they might, Quakers make people feel stupid.

To elucidate here, the Quakers are a culture or religion that (the easiest way to explain it) is committed to put humanitarianism first and that it's understood that religion is misused to control & abuse people. We abhor dogma and only talk about things that we have an understanding of ... we don't mislead or distract others, etc. Our goal is spiritual harmony and peace since that would establish a safe, efficient and therefor substainable society. Equality is the most fundamental tenet. With their existance included in a study of U.S. history it becomes clear that they were the driving force behind the anti-slavery movement. We started a war against imperialism.

Over-generalization is rampant and imagining that all white people are of the same mindset, the critical race theory is in vogue but please don't assume that I challenge it, I was taught the basis of it when I was a child. I didn't identify as Quaker when I was young. I remember now that my paternal grandfather would mention things that were pertinent to specific established principles and I wouldn't quite understand ... I'm thinking that my grandmother (his ex-wife) didn't want me to take pride in any particular culture since I was too young to understand that pride is what's needed to be avoided. (Maybe more on that later.) I did know that my friends were not as knowledgable about the plight of Black people and their history in the country and my family was/is supposed to remind & be a good influence for those people who tended to lean racist.

There's an assumption that all white people get along and if any other white person treated me badly it was my own fault. I was outcasted at a young age and didn't finish high school due to the torment that I received. I was bullied and even was physically abused by a teacher that stood about a foot taller than me. My father considered the social problems that I had to be my fault. I ended up going to work in construction since it paid more even though I was intelligent.

I began reading Mr Wipond's book and he mentioned Scientology, I think a doctor (psychiatrist) asked him if he was a member of the organization is why. It seemed as though Rob had never even read L. Ron's thesis (how I think of his work, "Dianetics") and maybe Rob is like others and disregards the philosophy: "An idea is not responsible for the people who believe in it". In brief here the book points out our basic cognitive process of thought & memory association and that traumatic events in our lives affect us. (It's been a number of years since I've read it.) The other key point to the book (and why I refer to it as a thesis) is that L. Ron managed to side-step one of the most common issues, or obstacles really, in discussions of human behavior and that is Origin of Life. That wouldn't seem to be a common & important issue since it's about a vague, distant past but people feel need to introduce the theory of evolution into the conversation since it defies existance of a Creator or God and the institution of religion can be presented as the biggest culprit to every existing universal problem that humans face. (Religious people are stupid. Period.)

What people may not know is that L. Ron's book is still spiritual in nature but his idea of Creation is ... well, I'd just explain it as being in line with his main gig of a science-fiction writer. I don't fault him in any of that. He avoided unnecessary complication while keeping the idea that people are more than just flesh & bones. We have sentience, resilience, & purpose, etc.

Once the generalization is made that white people all benefitted from racism equally and any who would challenge that notion is part of the problem then of course any white person who's upset with the premise isn't taking on their fair share of blame. White people can be victims of bias (race) related violence, too. Then there's this doofus, Rob Wipond, from the "Great White(y) North" (Canada) where they brutalized the indigenous people as much or more than we did here in the U.S. ... in the States we had the Civil War going and when the Union won the Native Americans were on the warpath too (best I can explain it). Quakers are (mostly) pacifists and as I mentioned, they migrated from England and merely wanted to settle & live in peace. They'd still be raided, though. There are historical records of settlements consisting of Quakers that were attacked by indigenous tribes and their houses burned & women abducted. Were they expected to surrender and live a nomadic life as the natives did? The indigenous peoples did not have iron nails to build with.

What's wrong with the word "expansionism"?

Maybe this would be a good place to point out that the word "colonialism" is a loaded word. (I'm probably repeating myself here, but...) Although it's commendable that the honesty is there it's the overgeneralization that still reinforces the racial tension and ensues prejudice against the white people in the lower income social strata. There are different & conflicting narratives at work in this. One being that the white people in the low income bracket consist of irresponsible people who didn't have sense enough, or were ambitious enough to take advantage of their priviledge that they were born with; but there's an alternate possibility that they didn't want to partake in an oppressive demographic. (I can go into more detail about all of this later.)

The point is here that I am not the only white (looking) person to have been victimized by violent crime that was motivated from race or bias. It becomes so obvious that the white people of the higher income strata (& Canadians) that were detached from the violence (actually, my own father is in this category also) ... but they don't mind that there exists a demographic of other white people that were/are martyred, in a sense. Yes, that is a strong word but not really exaggeration. My postulate here is that the mental health system is well populated by the demographic I've described here. Because of the U.S. existing HIPAA law section of Information Excluded from the Right of Access, the evidence of this claim of mine here is unobtainable for me. This is a difficult concept to formulate and briefly explain but I'm sure I'd get bombarded with the counterargument that the word "colonialism" is inclusive of the effect that it all had on minority white people like the Irish Catholics (which some of my ancestors were), but if that information is included it's not very apparent.

So in short, due to my upbringing of being a family of strict non-racism (my paternal grandmother was a great influence for that posit), even some close friends of mine wanted to dissuade me from that principle. I once walked off of a job because I was expected to participate in scapegoating an indigenous co-worker by blaming him for damage caused by new employee that was friends of a popular white employee. When I was a veteran too, I was frequently challenged (scrutinized) on that point and on both issues (that could be combined by people that I opened up to who were "just wanting to get to know me") and the end result was that I was convinced I was a failure in my life. In truth I was physically abused by many average "law-abiding" people who were jealous of my insight & intelligence. It took years of therapy for me to believe what the licensed counselors & mental health care people were explaining to me (that I'm a good person and have always been a good person.)

The following was previously included in another webpage of mine...

I will make myself clear on this point: there have been numorous crimes committed against me in my life. I was victim of a violent hate crime as a young man and it was psychologically traumatizing because I was targeted by a Black man merely because I look white. I told him afterwards that I didn't understand because I was raised to not be prejudiced. The man's eyes grew wide at that information and he took off. It was a violent attack on me but I didn't want to hurt the man, he was civilian and I was in the military, and in my hesitation he tried to kill me. A mental health therapist who has a master's degree, and about twenty years in the human services field, said to me that it was a miracle that I was alive after I had told him my history. (He wasn't exaggerating, he didn't do that.) One of the last crimes committed against me was when my old landlord (a wealthy real estate broker with a downtown firm) lied under oath in a local county civil court over a few hundred dollars. (I have the court transcripts!) My reason to take him to court was to call him out on shutting the boiler heat off. There was an elderly lady there that lived in a garden level apartment that complained to him about the heat all the time before she passed away. The landlord was abusive to the elderly lady but she was a white elderly lady so no one really cared. I lost the court case because he lied and my own family didn't even ask me what happened.

...

I have learned in my experiences interacting with other traumatized people that issues that I realize affect me negatively usually affect some others as well but I can sometimes explain or describe a concept or social dynamic where others have difficulty. I am not the only one in that position and there's a motivation for people who have experienced trauma & abuse to share their perspectives. There have been sociology studies and professional expert analysis and I make a point to study as much as I can. All of that can be to my detriment since my understanding of equity leads me to take what's been considered a liberal stance on some issues and I have even ended lifelong friendships with people who always would insist on a hard-lined, uncompassionate stance on social issues which I knew affected the disadvantaged in a negative way. Of course my credibility and knowledge is refuted by many of those people and so there has been a refusal by some of my old friends and/or acquaintances to ever support me in my advocacy. I had an old friend that seemed to attempt to console me a bit on one issue but on the issue with Elijah McClain there was silence from him ... ok, whatever; but then he eventually posted in support of police and I unfriended him. ⇽ That was my oldest living childhood friend that I unfriended over racism.

Of course it would be ideal if I could amass an accepted level of formal education to establish acceptable expertise (pay my dues) before submitting my opinion but that would be an impediment for me that I would hope could be avoided. Since sociology is, in essence, the study of all of our social interaction and dynamics, etc. then anyone can surely learn about it as an autodidact. By that same token then my assessment here of how racism affected me in my life, and my assertion that my personal experience and perspective could be helpful, can be evaluated by the reader as to my understanding of the subject. If that doesn't satisfy then I will finally reveal that my childhood inherited education regarding slavery included the origins of the people who were enslaved and what they suffered through before and after the Civil War. My grandmother once made it a point to discuss with me what people suffered through on the ships and she instilled on me that it's something that I must remember & always take into consideration.

...

As sensitive as this issue is for many and maybe even my own feelings of undeservedness and lack of confidence could be exploited to refute my credibility; if nothing else I will point out that I won't be budged off of my position as a commitment to an old friend of mine who's backgroud turned out to be just about opposite of mine (but he didn't discuss it much for my sake, it seems now); he was marginalized too though, since he was ugly as sin (to put it bluntly) and may have passed away already. I also am dedicated to it on account of my g'ma and what she endured and her influence. I will most likely make adjustments and I will also make additions.

...

There was another event that would qualify as "imitation" that helps exemplify the concept and provide a clearer definition as well as revealing possible resulting consequences. A local young Black man known to be a political and social activist was organizing and participating in protests of homeless encampment sweeps that the police and city services workers were conducting. The protesters contention was that the sweeps were human rights violation when actually it would be human rights violation to allow the encampments to continue indefinitely. (Yes, sometimes gov't needs to protect people from themselves since human beings cannot always be rational.) There was another assiciated health problem that existed during this time too with a body lice epidemic so the sweeps were critical to help eliminate the threat to the vulnerable, at-risk, disadvantaged human beings. The protestors also were impeding people from connecting to the available services that would help them! Since I am a human rights advocate I am not always against law enforcement and I ended up in the position of defending their actions on social media but I have also been unjustly brutalized by police in my past (an old therapist of mine knows about that) so the actions of the young, Black political protestor puts me in a position that is a bit dangerous for me since by credibility is threatened by being labeled a police sympathizer. The protestors' actions were violating U.S. Constitutional rights of vulnerable citizens who were in need of assistance but to explain that puts me in position to be scapegoated; and I was over all of that on social media since the grandiosity of the protestors' supporters causes them to insist that anyone who chooses to debate with them be completely dedicated to that one issue and be a culturally acceptable, indisputable expert. (These younger people are so narcissistic & arrogant that they accept nothing short of absolute perfection. I have experienced much trauma in my life so it will always be extremely difficult for me acquire the neccessary level of acceptance and respect to be that indisputable source, but my compassion spurs me forward regardless!)

...

Another recent controversy arose in my local area with the revealing that one of the city's old mayors was a member of the KKK. There began a vehement campaign to change the name of the redeveloped section of the city where the original main airport that was named after him had been. Seems like a reasonable and enlightened action to take. The problem is that there was an overwhelming misinformation, or more accurately, a defamation campaign associated with the cause, where the fact that the old mayor made a point to betray the organization and his actions helped end the Klan's control of the region was completely ignored. That old mayor also "...welcomed delegates to the NAACP convention" in June of 1925. There is a book in the local city library that covers the event regarding the old mayor's task force that was largely comprised of World War I veterans. I've included the excerpt of the relevant text of A Short History of Denver below.

The Denver Public Library carries a copy of this book. Excerpt from: A Short History of Denver | Stephen J. Leanard. Thomas J. Noel | Sept 20, 2016 | pages: 88, 89
Klan Downfall
"The Klan reached its high—water mark in 1924, when it saved Ben Stapleton from recall, elected Clarence Morley governor, and put Rice Means, a Klansman, in the US Senate. The magnitude of ts triumph, however, was matched by the speed of its downfall. Ironically, the Klan‘s destruction came not from its avowed foes such as Ben Lindsey or Philip Van Cise, but from one of ts most powerful allies— bland, bespectacled Ben Stapleton. By early 1925, he had soured on the hooded bigots, probably because he did not want to take orders from Locke and because he realized that some in the organization were far from the holy upholders of civic virtue they claimed to be. He recognized that some Klansmen drank and gambled, and he knew that the Klan—controlled police department was hobnobbing with the underworld.

Stapleton wanted to expose that unholy alliance but could not use the corrupt police department to do it. So he skillfully and secretly recruited honest cops, members of the American Legion (a veterans organization), and state policemen to make a strike force of around 130 men. For three months they planned their campaign. On Good Friday, April 10, 1925, Stapleton‘s little army raided speakeasies, brothels, and gambling dens, and in subsequent weeks they repeated the procedure. As the dust cleared, it became obvious that the Klan was not upholding Christian virtues. Locke‘s troubles multiplied when in May he was charged with income tax invasion. In June the national Klan organization moved to oust him. He resigned as grand dragon in July, by which time thousands of his followers were converting their robes into pilowcases. Klan members smoldered for years. The Denver women‘s chapter, renamed the Colorado Cycle Club, sputtered out of existence in 1915. But as an organized political force capable of swaying elections, the Denver Klan was dead by 1926."

John Galen Locke rejected Stapleton in June 1925, when the Grand Dragon split from the national KKK organization and formed the Minute Men of America. Also in June 1925, Stapleton officially welcomed delegates to the NAACP convention, and the city “put up street banners to herald the conference,” according to Goodstein. Over 1,500 delegates paraded through downtown Denver.
Excerpt from this Front Porch article: Who was Ben Stapleton? by: Melinda Pearson.