When you dig your trench, you call me with the coordinates.
I already stand on the same hill.
All of human history is tribal, hierarchical, and conflict. All of it.
In the midst of that unstoppable tide a bunch of farmers, lawyers, and smugglers put down on paper that ALL MEN ARE BORN FREE... and the only reason for the existence of any State was to protect the rights of the individual.
Whoo Hoo they had some good stuff back then.
They defeated an empire. And over time they freed slaves. And a century later they legislated away the last laws contradicting that ALL MEN ARE FREE...
We've stumbled. History unwinds behind us, and consequences lie before us.
I'm an American. With all the baggage, blessings, and burdens that come with the gift.
I was directed here from Instapundit and was impressed enough to subscribe. Your logic makes sense to me. Echoing another commenter...I once spent several months in the desert taking fire, protecting & being protected by genuine brothers of every race who knew that only two colors matter...Army green & the identical red that we all leak. I wish the rest of the country could have the earned perspective of truly not giving a damn about melanin b/c there are so many more important issues facing us. Maybe more of us would then have the moral fortitude to stand up to the race hustlers & charlatans who seek to feast on the misery they sow.
It's too bad more Americans haven't found simple common purpose. That's all it takes - common purpose. This is the second or third time I've been Instalaunched. Glenn is good people.
Typically wonderful piece, Michael. What has disturbed me most about the "BLM movement", even among well meaning people, is that it accepts and endorses the foundation belief of the most virulent racists, specifically that race is the most important factor in valuing a person, even an entire group of people. Indeed, that movement seems to insist on it. A debate over the relative merits of various races is nothing new, it's as old as human culture. In the present obsession over race matters we have elevated "race" to a level of importance it doesn't deserve.
A better approach, as I believe you are suggesting, is to take race out of the conversation. When people are killed, injured or mistreated in someway, it is their humanilty that makes this a serious issue, not their race. Its a concern for all of us... remember what John Dunne said? "any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind." All this race talk does is clud the issue.
You are right to be disturbed but as far as the parent BLM Org leaders are concerned it's really very simple. They are Marxists. They have said so openly in the past ( not so much now, of course). Having exhausted their bogus theory of class antagonism and it's economic consequences, which utterly failed by 1990, they have switched to race and sex/gender as new hammers of existential division. As Marxism was the elder brother of true Fascism, so are the racial-Marxists and genital-Marxists in BLM Org, by which I mean the follow-the-money drivers of our mayhem, the children of both. It will end very badly unless stopped.
Michael, what a wonderful piece. My parents came from India to the SF Bay Area in the 1960s, and I was born in San Francisco. I grew up among many other "Indo-Americans", and happily participated in community events, but I never took any special pride in being of Indian descent. I looked at myself and others as individuals (I'd claim to be a "Stoic" but I'm not so disciplined yet).
In any event, I wanted you to know that an "Indo-American" from the Bay Area saw a little bit of himself in your writing. Thank you.
What a useful commentary and an interesting video from 2008. Many wouldn't want to share from that far back to see their thoughts forming about what is now “An Issue.” I like the thought model of two groups having been in a “truce.” I remember thinking in 2008 that government had done pretty much what it could do — programs, opportunities, a system of laws — and that over time the inertia of progress, socially and economically, had produced genuine improvement and would continue to do so. And then we had a President that was black. I opposed him politically but I felt his victory galvanized the... truce? And maybe took us beyond a truce?
Much more to think about. There is always this drumbeat call for a “conversation” and a “dialogue.” But everyone knows those aren’t actually calls for either. They are calls to chant what almost sound like tired prayers. A group of white youngsters starting to chant “black LIVES MAT er” in a dirge-like tone at 1 AM in Portland next to a burning dumpster while 12 other white youngsters hold up their cell phones to record the moment. Making sure the right people among the group have vests that say “security” or “medic” or “press.” Parsing the effects of a tear gas grenade — did it bounce off a medic or a woman with a t-shirt that says “mom?”
I live in the South now. I was born in the West and lived in many Western states until moving to Atlanta in my thirties. I will always take the disjointed parts of the “conversations” that happen here all the time between blacks and whites in preference to the smug-to-dangerous nonsense I see on the news from the rest of our great nation.
This is powerful. One question that nags me is the continued issues we have with confrontations between ordinary law abiding people and police. Will abandoning race do anything to solve that problem?
Ah. Yours is a subtle but deep question. I'll go out on a limb summarizing.
1. What makes me grumble is the premise of looking at black Americans through the prism of law-enforcement. If, in the end, you are trying to make a point about why 'the races' are being treated differently or should be treated differently than we assume they are, then we are making the wrong measurements. These would not be absolutely useless measurements but I don't think they are important as they are cooked up to be. This goes under the heading of 'statistical morality'. Looking at the optics of 'white cop' 'black suspect' leads nowhere. https://cobb.typepad.com/cobb/2016/07/the-fallacy-of-racial-representation.html
2. I tell people who go to church to ask their minister about police officers in their congregation. Almost nobody in this debate talks about police officers in any other but abstract terms. What are representational examples of police interactions - they are the ones you know from watching TV? Why not do something simple like talk to a police officer with whom you have some personal connection? Establish that connection.
3. As I mentioned in my post about candidate Harris, people get carried away about police interactions (mostly by anecdote) and then they get carried away about prison populations (mostly by racial statistics), and by this they conclude that the justice system is institutionally racist. Almost nobody talks about juries, attorneys, judges and courts. And similarly I (anecdotally) find very little interest in serving jury duty.
My brother Doc, of the LAPD, tells me that you really have to work hard to go to prison. The overall system is far too inefficient to effect mass incarceration. He knows under what circumstances individuals are approached by officers, or observed by officers, etc. There's a lot of policing that goes on before an arrest is made. And a lot of arresting that is done before a felony conviction is handed down.
Thank you, Michael. I, too, was referred here by Professor Reynolds and have chosen to subscribe.
"Benign neglect" was the phrase Senator Moynihan used in his 1970 memo to President Nixon. (The not-yet senator was serving as an advisor to the president.) That document was the first thing I sent to my older children when the riots started this summer.
"The subject (of race)," he wrote, "has been too much talked about. The forum has been too much taken over to hysterics, paranoids, and boodlers on all sides."
Moynihan thought that the progress that had been made would likely continue as the rhetoric faded. He advised the administration to set an example and "avoid situations in which extremists of either race are given opportunities for martyrdom, heroics, histrionics or whatever."
Fifty years later this still seems like sound advice. I want nothing to do with boodlers.
I used to be a conservative. When I was I often wrote 'Moynihan was right.' I'm not sure how much it matters that Moynihan was correct - he wasn't the only one who understood what was going sideways at the time. Here's one of the things I wrote about the subjects. https://cobb.typepad.com/cobb/2005/09/moynihan_1.html
Thank you for the reply, Michael, and the link. I think I get the gist of the 1965 report and understand why it generated such vigorous debate, but I'm not familiar enough with the report itself to say anything useful about it.
I was thinking instead of a maxim that I picked up somewhere along the way that goes something like "the person trying to convince you you're being exploited is probably trying to exploit you."
Below, you mentioned the ongoing effort to patch up holes. Some people seem to have become convinced that performative recreation, sometimes with deadly consequences, could fill the hole with a sense of significance and purpose, but all too often it seems to me that the boodlers have produced only resentment and paranoia.
How do the sons of fathers who were "race men" ever truly escape the familial and historical ties that bind them to racial identity and solidarity? Isn't rejecting the deeply-held beliefs, struggles, and legacies of one's forebears something that feels very much like betrayal of one's entire lineage (and race)?
Great question. I think that only a more extensive look at history can give you the perspective necessary to do two important things.
1. Recognize that 9 times out of 10 you are not the 'first black' in anything at all. I realized that when I read about E. A. Bouchet.
2. With that in mind with regards to what prior generations achieved without political assistance, you have to be more modest in your political activism.
At some point, you start to recognize the very same parallel in all of society. The people who demand the most from socialism, expect the least from capitalism and generally doesn't understand at all how the latter works. Such people align themselves as zero-sum oppositionalists.
For most of my life I assumed that Conservative agitation against communism was a farce. That was because I had no idea how many people Stalin and Mao murdered as compared to the KKK. I literally believed that ant--communism was morally bereft when compared to civil rights agitation.
Futhermore it's a sign of maturity not to publicly second-guess blackfolks for any reason in the same way it's a sign of maturity not to publicly defend criminals. The family angle is like any other legacy. If your family gets large enough, defectors are inevitable.
The most difficult conceptual hurdle is the practical abandonment of the concept of race itself. As difficult as going from Negro to Black. It's a sort of liberation that is philosophically straightforward but so many Americans live in racial straitjackets. It takes courage and clarity.
The other thing I wanted to mention on the family angle is to communicate something that Spike Lee has never communicated, which is the distance between black families and 'the black community'. It's as easy and simple to understand as "White families are all like the Brady Bunch". No of course not. So "Black families are all like ... whatever" is also equally false. For many black families it is trivially easy to dismiss or dispute racial identity and solidarity. One easy way to see that is to look at skin color and body morphology differences within black America. We do, way more than one would think.
Here from Instapundit. I'm not very religious but, all I could think of after reading this is something my mama would say when she agreed strongly, "AMEN". I'm in the deep South, South Carolina. In the county I live in there are more black than white people but, everyone knows everyone. I see all the BLM and other groups on TV but, I dont think it reflects America as a whole. I was in food lion yesterday and everybody was friendly with everyone. We have always gotten along because we dont see each other as black or white but, as neighbors. My neighbors would come running to help me if I needed something, like I would them. It feels like we are 1000 miles away from racial problems and we like it like that.
I grieve for the loss of that equilibrium and long for its return. Because I think it was much preferable to what the country seems to be headed for now. I resent the social distance that race can impose between myself and people with whom I am friends. That I have to self censor some opinions in order to avoid making some black friends have to display their group conformity. (Not that I don't understand the power of such pressure). Yet I remain grateful that here in east Texas, I remain relatively insulated from the worst of race conflict. At least for the moment.
But the simple fact that I can not escape is that the lion's share of the blame for our current state in terms of race, and for the destruction of that equilibrium and the opportunity for further progress that equilibrium offered, lies firmly with white progressives. And the incentives for them are very powerful. There is the dopamine hit that accompanies the sense of self righteousness. There is the political benefit to making a large portion of blacks captive to the democrat party. So I feel impotent, beyond personally treating everyone the same regardless of their race and praying, to do any thing.
> The faster you travel, the more your racial getup slows you down.
Bullseye. This statement by itself is the nut of the entire debate and I don't think I've seen the point made this plainly to date. We tend to look at the extremes in the US--who is the richest and who is the poorest. But the success of Asians in the US has been one of steady progress. Heads down, helping mom and dad run the store, getting a law degree, and engineering degree, a medical degree. Lather, rinse, repeat for 2-3 generations. And suddenly they are the wealthiest demographic in the US. They put the focus on the individual and the family. Not the collective.
Oh I've been myself from day one. That has always been easy. What has been complicated are my decisions to accept or reject certain responsibilities tangential to race. The TLDR is that I was considered exceptional and that through various means I might have been very well connected in black politics. I abdicated black unity.
I think we're saying the same thing. To be Black (with an Associated Press mandated capital "B") is to conform to a stereotype by accepting those "responsibilities" you mentioned. Ditto being white (even without the capitalization). Race as we think about it in America is a construct based on shoving individuals into molds and pressing down hard to shape each of us into a preconceived thing that we are not. Forcing individuals to be stereotypes.
I'm not talking about culture or ethnicity, mind you. Those are differences to acknowledge and celebrate because 1) they are real, not theoretical, and 2) they make human life interesting. For example, there are many actual differences between Italian and Mexican food (thank God!) but the DNA of Italians and Mexicans is roughly 99.99% identical.
It's the same story with people who are attracted to their same sex. I avoid calling them "gay" because that word carries so much stereotypical baggage. In a rational world, no one would expect a preference in sex partners to define all the rest of who they are. Yet so many have allowed themselves to be pressed into the gay mold, as if sexual preference were inevitably linked to a preference for Broadway show tunes.
"...I’m proud of her, but I don’t believe Jesus found her house keys."
Might work this way. A small prayer (Help me Jesus) may well operate in the mind as a mantra to quiet her anxiety about losing her keys. Quiet it enough so the stylus of her hard drive can seek the information more cleanly and present her with the memory she already had but could not summon through her anxiety. Prayer ---> calm ---> clarity ---> seek/find ---> Thank you Jesus. It is simplicity itself old friend.
When you dig your trench, you call me with the coordinates.
I already stand on the same hill.
All of human history is tribal, hierarchical, and conflict. All of it.
In the midst of that unstoppable tide a bunch of farmers, lawyers, and smugglers put down on paper that ALL MEN ARE BORN FREE... and the only reason for the existence of any State was to protect the rights of the individual.
Whoo Hoo they had some good stuff back then.
They defeated an empire. And over time they freed slaves. And a century later they legislated away the last laws contradicting that ALL MEN ARE FREE...
We've stumbled. History unwinds behind us, and consequences lie before us.
I'm an American. With all the baggage, blessings, and burdens that come with the gift.
Luckiest man alive.
Good luck.
I was directed here from Instapundit and was impressed enough to subscribe. Your logic makes sense to me. Echoing another commenter...I once spent several months in the desert taking fire, protecting & being protected by genuine brothers of every race who knew that only two colors matter...Army green & the identical red that we all leak. I wish the rest of the country could have the earned perspective of truly not giving a damn about melanin b/c there are so many more important issues facing us. Maybe more of us would then have the moral fortitude to stand up to the race hustlers & charlatans who seek to feast on the misery they sow.
It's too bad more Americans haven't found simple common purpose. That's all it takes - common purpose. This is the second or third time I've been Instalaunched. Glenn is good people.
Typically wonderful piece, Michael. What has disturbed me most about the "BLM movement", even among well meaning people, is that it accepts and endorses the foundation belief of the most virulent racists, specifically that race is the most important factor in valuing a person, even an entire group of people. Indeed, that movement seems to insist on it. A debate over the relative merits of various races is nothing new, it's as old as human culture. In the present obsession over race matters we have elevated "race" to a level of importance it doesn't deserve.
A better approach, as I believe you are suggesting, is to take race out of the conversation. When people are killed, injured or mistreated in someway, it is their humanilty that makes this a serious issue, not their race. Its a concern for all of us... remember what John Dunne said? "any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind." All this race talk does is clud the issue.
You are right to be disturbed but as far as the parent BLM Org leaders are concerned it's really very simple. They are Marxists. They have said so openly in the past ( not so much now, of course). Having exhausted their bogus theory of class antagonism and it's economic consequences, which utterly failed by 1990, they have switched to race and sex/gender as new hammers of existential division. As Marxism was the elder brother of true Fascism, so are the racial-Marxists and genital-Marxists in BLM Org, by which I mean the follow-the-money drivers of our mayhem, the children of both. It will end very badly unless stopped.
Yup, the plantation awaits (those of all races) only if you accept living within its confines. Better for us all that you choose to sow your own.
Michael, what a wonderful piece. My parents came from India to the SF Bay Area in the 1960s, and I was born in San Francisco. I grew up among many other "Indo-Americans", and happily participated in community events, but I never took any special pride in being of Indian descent. I looked at myself and others as individuals (I'd claim to be a "Stoic" but I'm not so disciplined yet).
In any event, I wanted you to know that an "Indo-American" from the Bay Area saw a little bit of himself in your writing. Thank you.
What is being called "anti-racism" I prefer to call by a more accurate name: "counter-racism".
What a useful commentary and an interesting video from 2008. Many wouldn't want to share from that far back to see their thoughts forming about what is now “An Issue.” I like the thought model of two groups having been in a “truce.” I remember thinking in 2008 that government had done pretty much what it could do — programs, opportunities, a system of laws — and that over time the inertia of progress, socially and economically, had produced genuine improvement and would continue to do so. And then we had a President that was black. I opposed him politically but I felt his victory galvanized the... truce? And maybe took us beyond a truce?
Much more to think about. There is always this drumbeat call for a “conversation” and a “dialogue.” But everyone knows those aren’t actually calls for either. They are calls to chant what almost sound like tired prayers. A group of white youngsters starting to chant “black LIVES MAT er” in a dirge-like tone at 1 AM in Portland next to a burning dumpster while 12 other white youngsters hold up their cell phones to record the moment. Making sure the right people among the group have vests that say “security” or “medic” or “press.” Parsing the effects of a tear gas grenade — did it bounce off a medic or a woman with a t-shirt that says “mom?”
I live in the South now. I was born in the West and lived in many Western states until moving to Atlanta in my thirties. I will always take the disjointed parts of the “conversations” that happen here all the time between blacks and whites in preference to the smug-to-dangerous nonsense I see on the news from the rest of our great nation.
This is powerful. One question that nags me is the continued issues we have with confrontations between ordinary law abiding people and police. Will abandoning race do anything to solve that problem?
Ah. Yours is a subtle but deep question. I'll go out on a limb summarizing.
1. What makes me grumble is the premise of looking at black Americans through the prism of law-enforcement. If, in the end, you are trying to make a point about why 'the races' are being treated differently or should be treated differently than we assume they are, then we are making the wrong measurements. These would not be absolutely useless measurements but I don't think they are important as they are cooked up to be. This goes under the heading of 'statistical morality'. Looking at the optics of 'white cop' 'black suspect' leads nowhere. https://cobb.typepad.com/cobb/2016/07/the-fallacy-of-racial-representation.html
2. I tell people who go to church to ask their minister about police officers in their congregation. Almost nobody in this debate talks about police officers in any other but abstract terms. What are representational examples of police interactions - they are the ones you know from watching TV? Why not do something simple like talk to a police officer with whom you have some personal connection? Establish that connection.
3. As I mentioned in my post about candidate Harris, people get carried away about police interactions (mostly by anecdote) and then they get carried away about prison populations (mostly by racial statistics), and by this they conclude that the justice system is institutionally racist. Almost nobody talks about juries, attorneys, judges and courts. And similarly I (anecdotally) find very little interest in serving jury duty.
My brother Doc, of the LAPD, tells me that you really have to work hard to go to prison. The overall system is far too inefficient to effect mass incarceration. He knows under what circumstances individuals are approached by officers, or observed by officers, etc. There's a lot of policing that goes on before an arrest is made. And a lot of arresting that is done before a felony conviction is handed down.
Thank you, Michael. I, too, was referred here by Professor Reynolds and have chosen to subscribe.
"Benign neglect" was the phrase Senator Moynihan used in his 1970 memo to President Nixon. (The not-yet senator was serving as an advisor to the president.) That document was the first thing I sent to my older children when the riots started this summer.
"The subject (of race)," he wrote, "has been too much talked about. The forum has been too much taken over to hysterics, paranoids, and boodlers on all sides."
Moynihan thought that the progress that had been made would likely continue as the rhetoric faded. He advised the administration to set an example and "avoid situations in which extremists of either race are given opportunities for martyrdom, heroics, histrionics or whatever."
Fifty years later this still seems like sound advice. I want nothing to do with boodlers.
I used to be a conservative. When I was I often wrote 'Moynihan was right.' I'm not sure how much it matters that Moynihan was correct - he wasn't the only one who understood what was going sideways at the time. Here's one of the things I wrote about the subjects. https://cobb.typepad.com/cobb/2005/09/moynihan_1.html
Thank you for the reply, Michael, and the link. I think I get the gist of the 1965 report and understand why it generated such vigorous debate, but I'm not familiar enough with the report itself to say anything useful about it.
I was thinking instead of a maxim that I picked up somewhere along the way that goes something like "the person trying to convince you you're being exploited is probably trying to exploit you."
Below, you mentioned the ongoing effort to patch up holes. Some people seem to have become convinced that performative recreation, sometimes with deadly consequences, could fill the hole with a sense of significance and purpose, but all too often it seems to me that the boodlers have produced only resentment and paranoia.
Mr. Bowen,
How do the sons of fathers who were "race men" ever truly escape the familial and historical ties that bind them to racial identity and solidarity? Isn't rejecting the deeply-held beliefs, struggles, and legacies of one's forebears something that feels very much like betrayal of one's entire lineage (and race)?
Great question. I think that only a more extensive look at history can give you the perspective necessary to do two important things.
1. Recognize that 9 times out of 10 you are not the 'first black' in anything at all. I realized that when I read about E. A. Bouchet.
2. With that in mind with regards to what prior generations achieved without political assistance, you have to be more modest in your political activism.
At some point, you start to recognize the very same parallel in all of society. The people who demand the most from socialism, expect the least from capitalism and generally doesn't understand at all how the latter works. Such people align themselves as zero-sum oppositionalists.
For most of my life I assumed that Conservative agitation against communism was a farce. That was because I had no idea how many people Stalin and Mao murdered as compared to the KKK. I literally believed that ant--communism was morally bereft when compared to civil rights agitation.
Futhermore it's a sign of maturity not to publicly second-guess blackfolks for any reason in the same way it's a sign of maturity not to publicly defend criminals. The family angle is like any other legacy. If your family gets large enough, defectors are inevitable.
The most difficult conceptual hurdle is the practical abandonment of the concept of race itself. As difficult as going from Negro to Black. It's a sort of liberation that is philosophically straightforward but so many Americans live in racial straitjackets. It takes courage and clarity.
Thank you for writing. I'll be considering what you said for some time.
The other thing I wanted to mention on the family angle is to communicate something that Spike Lee has never communicated, which is the distance between black families and 'the black community'. It's as easy and simple to understand as "White families are all like the Brady Bunch". No of course not. So "Black families are all like ... whatever" is also equally false. For many black families it is trivially easy to dismiss or dispute racial identity and solidarity. One easy way to see that is to look at skin color and body morphology differences within black America. We do, way more than one would think.
Here from Instapundit. I'm not very religious but, all I could think of after reading this is something my mama would say when she agreed strongly, "AMEN". I'm in the deep South, South Carolina. In the county I live in there are more black than white people but, everyone knows everyone. I see all the BLM and other groups on TV but, I dont think it reflects America as a whole. I was in food lion yesterday and everybody was friendly with everyone. We have always gotten along because we dont see each other as black or white but, as neighbors. My neighbors would come running to help me if I needed something, like I would them. It feels like we are 1000 miles away from racial problems and we like it like that.
For awhile, I've pondered the fundamental illogic inherent in the belief that certain "identities" are socially constructed, whilst others are innate.
Thank-you; it's good to know I'm not alone.
I grieve for the loss of that equilibrium and long for its return. Because I think it was much preferable to what the country seems to be headed for now. I resent the social distance that race can impose between myself and people with whom I am friends. That I have to self censor some opinions in order to avoid making some black friends have to display their group conformity. (Not that I don't understand the power of such pressure). Yet I remain grateful that here in east Texas, I remain relatively insulated from the worst of race conflict. At least for the moment.
But the simple fact that I can not escape is that the lion's share of the blame for our current state in terms of race, and for the destruction of that equilibrium and the opportunity for further progress that equilibrium offered, lies firmly with white progressives. And the incentives for them are very powerful. There is the dopamine hit that accompanies the sense of self righteousness. There is the political benefit to making a large portion of blacks captive to the democrat party. So I feel impotent, beyond personally treating everyone the same regardless of their race and praying, to do any thing.
God bless you.
> The faster you travel, the more your racial getup slows you down.
Bullseye. This statement by itself is the nut of the entire debate and I don't think I've seen the point made this plainly to date. We tend to look at the extremes in the US--who is the richest and who is the poorest. But the success of Asians in the US has been one of steady progress. Heads down, helping mom and dad run the store, getting a law degree, and engineering degree, a medical degree. Lather, rinse, repeat for 2-3 generations. And suddenly they are the wealthiest demographic in the US. They put the focus on the individual and the family. Not the collective.
So, basically you're saying you want to focus on being yourself as opposed to being a stereotype? If so, I'm on board.
Oh I've been myself from day one. That has always been easy. What has been complicated are my decisions to accept or reject certain responsibilities tangential to race. The TLDR is that I was considered exceptional and that through various means I might have been very well connected in black politics. I abdicated black unity.
Here's something I wrote when I was 25 years old. Prior to this I had been a national officer in a very large black undergraduate student organization. https://www.evernote.com/shard/s6/sh/8f44af2d-8921-4eb7-a421-83b4722205bb/6478ee96bbd4305f200a0366520aa9fb
I think we're saying the same thing. To be Black (with an Associated Press mandated capital "B") is to conform to a stereotype by accepting those "responsibilities" you mentioned. Ditto being white (even without the capitalization). Race as we think about it in America is a construct based on shoving individuals into molds and pressing down hard to shape each of us into a preconceived thing that we are not. Forcing individuals to be stereotypes.
I'm not talking about culture or ethnicity, mind you. Those are differences to acknowledge and celebrate because 1) they are real, not theoretical, and 2) they make human life interesting. For example, there are many actual differences between Italian and Mexican food (thank God!) but the DNA of Italians and Mexicans is roughly 99.99% identical.
It's the same story with people who are attracted to their same sex. I avoid calling them "gay" because that word carries so much stereotypical baggage. In a rational world, no one would expect a preference in sex partners to define all the rest of who they are. Yet so many have allowed themselves to be pressed into the gay mold, as if sexual preference were inevitably linked to a preference for Broadway show tunes.
For me the term 'homosexual' is neutral. 'Gay' is political.
"...I’m proud of her, but I don’t believe Jesus found her house keys."
Might work this way. A small prayer (Help me Jesus) may well operate in the mind as a mantra to quiet her anxiety about losing her keys. Quiet it enough so the stylus of her hard drive can seek the information more cleanly and present her with the memory she already had but could not summon through her anxiety. Prayer ---> calm ---> clarity ---> seek/find ---> Thank you Jesus. It is simplicity itself old friend.
I feel you