White Judge Draws Fire for Costume

[Ripper 0]

Bullshit. Your argument basically "They were white, which allowed them to get past it easily enough". Trust me, no matter what color you were, if you were openly Irish or Jewish you were going to have a hard God-damn time. There are still a lot of people who dislike Jews and Irish people, but they were still able to move past that.

 

The Chinese deal with the same racism you did, a lot of it de facto, and they couldn't change their name or "hide" it with their appearance. Their culture is one of hard work and sacrifice and they were able to raise themselves from second-class citizen status to ones who continually are at the top of our educational system.

 

So what if some changed their names? Yes, some did, but the only ones that matter in the argument are the masses that didn't and were able to push past the racism set in front of them. The hatred against Irish and Jews is a very deep one and they were still able to get past it in America despite the obstacles put against them. Again, changed names is an irrelevant argument because the only thing we need to focus on is those who were afflicted with prejudice (Which was very sizable amount).

 

I understand the argument you put forth, but I don't agree very much with how you put it, which is why my reaction was so harsh. I appoligize, but I still think that the Black race is stuck in a rut with thinking that racism is their main foe when they need to stablize some cultural problems to move up to the next step. That's all I'm saying here.

That’s not what my argument stated at all. I pointed out how long it took and then I pointed out that having white skin HELPED. They had the option to change their names. And a lot of them used that option to incorporate themselves with white Americans. The ones that owned businesses that didn't cater primarily to their own community would change their last names a lot because without doing so could cost them money. When they moved from the ghettos, they would change their names, not only for financial reasons but also for personal safety. To say having the same color skin as the majority of the nation DIDN'T help in incorporating themselves into American society is foolish and naive honestly. The fact is, if you are part of or appear to be part of the 80 percent of the majority of something, you will have an easier time getting adjusted and accepted into the society.

 

 

You also have to look at the stereotype that was put on Chinese and Asian Americans. You can go back those hundred years and find that they were always assumed to be smart and good with numbers. There is a clear difference between your stereotype being that you aren't smart, but are good for physical labor and a stereotype that you are smart and good with numbers. Which one is going to get you out of poverty faster? Trust me, there are plenty, PLENTY of bad student ass lazy as Asian Americans, but they are met with the presumption of being incredibly smart. They have to prove themselves dumb to people while other minorities have to prove themselves smart.

 

To claim the black community is worse than it was in the 60's is a laughable bunch of bullshit that was made up by the very same "black leaders" that you don't like. Poverty has not increased. Despite what the news and whatever your sources tell you, the black population has had a steady rise from the poverty line since segregation became illegal. It just appears to not be happening fast enough for those people who ignore the slow rise from poverty that every other minority group had. Don't say that abolition was when the opportunity to rise started all you want, the late 50's early 60's is a more accurate date.

 

And the biggest problem facing black america isn't racism...no...I never said it was. But it is a big problem on both end of the spectrum(blacks being racist towards whites and vice versa) . The biggest problem facing black Americans is that we are still seen as a whole and not as individuals. That is the true test of equality. There will alway be people that hate you for what you look like, that is part of being human. But the fact of the matter is, if Jesse Jackson gets on screen and talks about racism, the general reaction is "There go black people screaming racism again" while if a white person gets on television and says something stupid its viewed as look at this guy saying something stupid. The equivilant would be me assuming every opinion that Rush Limbaugh has is the opinion of whites in america. Once THAT is out the way and people are judged on their own meriets, then racism in this country won't be dead, but it will cease to matter anymore.

[Ripper 0]

Inventing statements now?

 

Pathetic.

-=Mike

...Never said blacks should be pulled over for being blacks. Never said blacks don't get high-level jobs due to poor English skills. And, LIKE IT OR NOT, blacks DO tend to be bad tippers. You can HATE reality if you wish.

 

But I'm now bored of you.

So...that was another MiketheSC that in a thread about racial profiling when I asked do you think its cool for blacks to be pulled over for being black responded with something along the lines of "They sure should. A black person driving a car at night....nothing bad could come of that."

 

It was another Mike that in a AA thread after I pointed out the incredible drop off in minority admidtance in some universities after AA sanctions had been lifted saying that That could be because most blacks don't have a grasp on the English Launguage.

 

And here is a theory...you ever think that black customers would tip you badly because you were some ignorant asshole that gave them shitty service because they were black and wouldn't tip well anyway in your eyes.

 

As I remember, you defense for not serving blacks in resturants is that they don't tip well. You don't think that mindframe show to the rest of the world.

[MrRant 0]

You don't think that mindframe show to the rest of the world.

What the hell are you saying here?

[Justice 0]

That’s not what my argument stated at all. I pointed out how long it took and then I pointed out that having white skin HELPED. They had the option to change their names. And a lot of them used that option to incorporate themselves with white Americans. The ones that owned businesses that didn't cater primarily to their own community would change their last names a lot because without doing so could cost them money. When they moved from the ghettos, they would change their names, not only for financial reasons but also for personal safety. To say having the same color skin as the majority of the nation DIDN'T help in incorporating themselves into American society is foolish and naive honestly. The fact is, if you are part of or appear to be part of the 80 percent of the majority of something, you will have an easier time getting adjusted and accepted into the society.

Again, we are talking about a hatred that transcends color here. Did it help? Meh, if you were an admitted Jew or Irishman, you were still going to get tons of shit, black, white, red, blue, whatever. It's just what comes with the ethnicity. And just having the option for an easy way out doesn't mean that they were accepted quicker: If that were the case, the Irish would still be hated and all the Irish would just throw away their heritage, which obviously hasn't happened. They had to suffer hard to get where they are now as accepted are today. I think that the black race, with the progressive society that we have today, should be doing a bit better than they are but that their 'leaders' have lead them to concentrate on the dying racism rather than self-improvement of their own race that they need. Again, the NAACP is a big organization that has swing and resources. Maybe they can legitimize themselves a bit among the community if they actually started concentrating on the community. That's all.

 

You also have to look at the stereotype that was put on Chinese and Asian Americans. You can go back those hundred years and find that they were always assumed to be smart and good with numbers. There is a clear difference between your stereotype being that you aren't smart, but are good for physical labor and a stereotype that you are smart and good with numbers. Which one is going to get you out of poverty faster? Trust me, there are plenty, PLENTY of bad student ass lazy as Asian Americans, but they are met with the presumption of being incredibly smart. They have to prove themselves dumb to people while other minorities have to prove themselves smart.

 

Honestly the Chinese that came over weren't respected as numbers people but as simple laborers for the rails. You could make a case that they had a lot of the stigmas that the black race had to deal with, but they did overcome them eventually. Their stereotype, though, has changed so much and it's weird to see them come from serious oppression and ignomy to where they are today.

 

And yes, stereotypes about all Asians being incredible students is wrong. But statistics sure show that a lot of them are up there in the class rankings. It's not as though they haven't earned that distinction.

 

To claim the black community is worse than it was in the 60's is a laughable bunch of bullshit that was made up by the very same "black leaders" that you don't like. Poverty has not increased. Despite what the news and whatever your sources tell you, the black population has had a steady rise from the poverty line since segregation became illegal. It just appears to not be happening fast enough for those people who ignore the slow rise from poverty that every other minority group had. Don't say that abolition was when the opportunity to rise started all you want, the late 50's early 60's is a more accurate date.

 

Did I say they were worse off than they were in the 60's? Unless someone is using my name without me knowing, I never said that. It's obvious they've improved; that's a fact. I think they could be improving a lot faster if they started to address some of the problems that are affecting their communities, like all the young mothers coming out of the inner-cities, screwing both themselves and their children. The whole "Thug" subculture that isn't doing wonders for your race either could maybe be addressed: It certainly hasn't helped the image of the average black american much. I think that they need to address these so they can move faster and eliminate the current disparity between races.

 

And the biggest problem facing black america isn't racism...no...I never said it was. But it is a big problem on both end of the spectrum(blacks being racist towards whites and vice versa) . The biggest problem facing black Americans is that we are still seen as a whole and not as individuals. That is the true test of equality. There will alway be people that hate you for what you look like, that is part of being human. But the fact of the matter is, if Jesse Jackson gets on screen and talks about racism, the general reaction is "There go black people screaming racism again" while if a white person gets on television and says something stupid its viewed as look at this guy saying something stupid. The equivilant would be me assuming every opinion that Rush Limbaugh has is the opinion of whites in america. Once THAT is out the way and people are judged on their own meriets, then racism in this country won't be dead, but it will cease to matter anymore.

 

That's a much better, concetrated argument than what you put forth before, and I agree with a lot that is there. I wish you had said this earlier rather than now, but this is a really good statement.

 

Honestly (And this is not a problem that can really be fixed), I think that the majority of black americans are seen, through the political spectrum, to support Jesse Jackson and your current black leaders because of their political affliation and how blacks as a whole generally vote. Not that it's right, but one could say similar things about people looking at Republicans and them thinking much like Bush; they might not, but because of their political affliation they are grouped in that way. Your leaders have politicized race in such a way that political affliation and color are almost intertwined: A black democrat is instantly thought of having the pulse of the black community, which may not be the case.

[Papacita 0]

Why is it that everytime I type up a long reply, the board decides to have some kind of error?

 

RACISM I TELL YA!!!!!!! RACISM!!!!

 

Anyway...

 

But, MY problem is --- slavery ended well over a century ago.

I see your point, and today, the light-skin/dark-skin differences really aren't that much of a problem nowadays (among most people). But again, when these things are so engrained in a culture, it will take a long while for them to completely go away.

 

And, honestly, the black "leadership" has done more to exacerbate this problem than ANY other group out there.

That's been addressed. Most blacks really don't pay all that much attention to black leaders.

 

It is STILL mind-boggling that the black community, arguably, is WORSE since the 1960's. Educational stats have dropped. Illegitimacy has skyrocketed. Poverty has gotten worse. And this really can't be pinned on racism as racism has dropped BIG TIME since the 1960's.

Whether or not it's due to racism is debatable, but a lot of that has to due to the concentration of drugs into the black community, which really started to kick in around the 70's or so.

 

At what point will black America look at one another and say "You know, this whole fighting about the color of our own skin is pretty f'n asinine. We don't want WHITE folk to hate us because of the color of our skin --- but we don't like ONE ANOTHER because of the color of our skin"?

People have been preaching it for years. I'd say that it was the main cause for the whole "black is beautiful" movement, the "what is good hair" debate, and stuff like that. Still, the tensions are engrained in the culture, and will probably always exist in some form.

 

But, as a WHITE man, I feel --- as many others do --- that we get the blame for a lot of things that we shouldn't be blamed for. The oppression of blacks is not my fault as I wasn't even born during the height of the civil rights movement and my family was ALL abolitionists up north or poor Southerners --- so neither group negatively impacted blacks.

Believe me, I understand completely. White males especially tend to catch the brunt of a lot of undeserved frustration.

 

And, again, it doesn't explain away how Asians --- many of whom arrive here with no English knowledge --- have managed to succeed.

 

Well, as I stated earlier, part of it is the cultural foundation. Again, Asian-Americans have a more solid foundation than blacks, as they have a place to look back to, more unity, as MX pointed out, and as a whole, a stronger cultural ideology. Also, there's the fact that regardless of their ability to speak English, Asian immigrants were educated before coming to America (at least the most successful ones were), so right there, you've got a stronger educational foundation, since there were a relatively small amount of blacks that were educated, either through force because of slavery, or the poor quality of schools. And also, while I'm sure a lot of you may take offense to this, but part of the reason that they were able to progress more easily in American society was the fact that...well...THEY'RE NOT BLACK. Sounds, like a cop out, I know, but fact is that a good deal of that "ideal minority" stereotype that's imposed onto them stemed from a resentment of the black power movements of the 60's and 70's. While they were still discriminated against, any resentment they had towards whites wasn't as pronounced, so it'd be easier for whites to accept Asians than it'd be to accept blacks.

 

Then, it all stopped. Completely. Most of Africa doesn't seem to have progressed ONE iota in centuries now.

Yes, and a lot of that does coincide with the arrival of colonialism.

 

The same COULD be said of Europe --- but we all know Europe was one damned violent, war-torn area.

Yup. We seem to be seeing eye-to-eye here.

 

The contributions of the Romans and the Greeks to African society IS considerable.

And vice-versa, speaking specifically of the Nile Valley region.

 

And the Europeans, for all of their faults, maintained some semblance of order.

Eh...definitely more ordered than Post-colonial Africa, simply because the imperialists already had solid government systems to work from than the post-colonial African leaders, who upon independence, had to more or less come up with an efficient way to govern a large body of people on the spot with little time for preperation. But the main problem with colonialists was the fact that they were acting in their own interests as opposed to African people's interests and never really tried to make a connection between the colonial powers and the African masses, so any kind of hold they had over the colonies wasn't really stable, evidenced by the fact that most colonies achieved independence through revolution.

 

Again, Europe did not handle things well. But, they provided order --- and at this point, order is the best thing Africa can hope for for the time being. Honestly, it seems to me that it almost would be better to just destroy ALL of the borders and topple ALL of the governments as all of them are corrupt (S. Africa is less so than most).

But again, they weren't helping the people all that much. All the order in the world doesn't mean a damn when you're being oppressed. Really, technological advances aside, Africa would've been better off if they weren't colonized.

 

  Such things as sewage and running water benefitted all people. Electricity benefitted all people.

That was one of the things with Europe's practice of divided rule...in many places, they *didn't* provide things like sewage and electricity to native Africans, and if they did, it was to a select few. Whatever technology was brought to Africa was mostly for the benefit of those in power. That's why even today, you can go to some of the most beautifully-developed business districts in Africa, and right down the street you'll find a run down neighborhood with no electricity, no plumbing, basically getting their water from contaminated wells. I know this is a broad statement, but I'll go as far as to say that the majority of Africans didn't benefit from European technology.

[Guest deadbeater]

And anyone who says that white people don't get discriminated against doesn't acknowledge antisemitism.

<ahem> Ethiopian Jews not allowed to emigrate to Israel until the 1990's <ahem>

[Guest Cerebus]

This really doesn't have anything to do with race per se, but I'm fuckng sick of people being shocked and apalled when I tell them I'm half Palestinian. Sometimes I want to slap the shit out of them for the fucking smacktard comments that spill out of their mouths.

 

"But you're white!"

"But you're such a nice guy!"

"I don't see anything around your head."

"You're not going to blow me up right? ALLAH!"

 

 

Ok let's get a few things straight people. Arab DOES NOT EQUAL BROWN SKIN, MUSLIM, OR ASSHOLE. Go to Syria, Lebanon, or Palestine (on second thought...don't) and see how many people are just as "white" as people back in the states. I'm talking blonde hair, blue eyed, fair skinned Arabs. And there are a LOT more than you think. My mother, besides for her dark hair (she has blue eyes) you would never think twice that she's "white" but she's 100% Palestinian. And turbans? Sure Osama where's them but thats because he wants the whole fucking world to turn into Dar Al-Islam circa 622 AD. Get this people, with some exceptions the only people who wear turbans all the time are SIKHS, an offshoot of HINDUISM in INDIA. And my mothers family is CHRISTIAN, (Syrian Orthodox to be specific) in fact so are a lot of Palestinians (though not close to the majority but a significant minority). And just for the record, us Christian Arabs use the word "Allah" just as often as Arab Muslims do. Why? BECAUSE IT MEANS GOD. You can debate all day if this is the same god that Muslims, Jews, and Christians all worship but remember that the word "Allah" means "God." If you see a translation without "Allah" translated its technically an incorrect translation.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

I see a good bit of talk about how Asians have been able to succeed in America where many blacks have not, and how that's one of the major failures of the black community as a whole. There's something pretty simple here that I think is being overlooked. Papacita got it right, actually, when he said "THEY'RE NOT BLACK."

 

Bottom line, Asians, Irish, and the Jews have never been slave laborers in America. Underpaid workers, seen as subhuman for extended periods of time, yes. But none of these groups have actually ever been owned by another human being and relegated to the status of property. The Chinese were interned, but that still has no connotation of ownership.

 

Obviously, no blacks living today, or even any great grandparents of any blacks living today, were ever enslaved. However, it's pretty easy to see why even today's blacks have had to - and still have to - overcome perhaps greater adversity than any one of these other groups. As has been said a few times before, we're still just a few decades out of institutionalized racism. I make no apologies for flawed black leaders or especially the outdated modes of the NAACP, but I do point towards the fact that even in studying slavery, we're forced to acknowledge a tradition that unilaterally dubbed blacks inferior for 200 years and still has aftereffects, many of which were still institutionalized until Brown vs. Board and the desegregations/Freedom Rides/and so on of the 60's. Show someone a picture of an Irishman working in a field, and you're gonna get a response of "farmer." Show a black person in the same situation, and there's much greater chance you're gonna get "slave." This attitude still culturally and socially informs us simply by the ingestion of history. It's not to say that someone who reacts this way is cognizantly racist, but it is to point out one well-regarded aspect of why it has been more difficult for blacks to increase their social standing than the Irish, Asians, or Jews.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

I make no apologies for flawed black leaders or especially the outdated modes of the NAACP, but I do point towards the fact that even in studying slavery, we're forced to acknowledge a tradition that unilaterally dubbed blacks inferior for 200 years and still has aftereffects, many of which were still institutionalized until Brown vs. Board and the desegregations/Freedom Rides/and so on of the 60's. Show someone a picture of an Irishman working in a field, and you're gonna get a response of "farmer." Show a black person in the same situation, and there's much greater chance you're gonna get "slave." This attitude still culturally and socially informs us simply by the ingestion of history.

This logic is unbelievably flawed.

[Guest MikeSC]

So...that was another MiketheSC that in a thread about racial profiling when I asked do you think its cool for blacks to be pulled over for being black responded with something along the lines of "They sure should.  A black person driving a car at night....nothing bad could come of that."

 

Never said that.

 

Heck, I'll ask again --- at night, how in the heck can a cop DETERMINE the race of the driver of a car? I know I CAN'T when I approach somebody from behind.

 

It was another Mike that in a AA thread after I pointed out the incredible drop off in minority admidtance in some universities after AA sanctions had been lifted saying that That could be because most blacks don't have a grasp on the English Launguage. 

 

Didn't say that, either. I said that blacks, academically, lag behind whites and Asians (a sad fact of life). And there are reasons behind that. Their "lack of English skills" was not the main one, anymore so than any other educational area.

 

And here is a theory...you ever think that black customers would tip you badly because you were some ignorant asshole that gave them shitty service because they were black and wouldn't tip well anyway in your eyes.

 

Nope. Didn't tip no matter what kind of service. Didn't tip black servers, either.

 

But, hey, keep trying.

 

I gave good service to everybody.

 

As I remember, you defense for not serving blacks in resturants is that they don't tip well.  You don't think that mindframe show to the rest of the world.

 

You seem to ignore that BLACK SERVERS felt the same thing.

-=Mike

[Cherry Blossom Viscount 0]

I make no apologies for flawed black leaders or especially the outdated modes of the NAACP, but I do point towards the fact that even in studying slavery, we're forced to acknowledge a tradition that unilaterally dubbed blacks inferior for 200 years and still has aftereffects, many of which were still institutionalized until Brown vs. Board and the desegregations/Freedom Rides/and so on of the 60's. Show someone a picture of an Irishman working in a field, and you're gonna get a response of "farmer." Show a black person in the same situation, and there's much greater chance you're gonna get "slave." This attitude still culturally and socially informs us simply by the ingestion of history.

This logic is unbelievably flawed.

Why? Because you can't argue it? You've argued everything else. Tell us why this logic is so flawed.

[Guest MikeSC]

I make no apologies for flawed black leaders or especially the outdated modes of the NAACP, but I do point towards the fact that even in studying slavery, we're forced to acknowledge a tradition that unilaterally dubbed blacks inferior for 200 years and still has aftereffects, many of which were still institutionalized until Brown vs. Board and the desegregations/Freedom Rides/and so on of the 60's. Show someone a picture of an Irishman working in a field, and you're gonna get a response of "farmer." Show a black person in the same situation, and there's much greater chance you're gonna get "slave." This attitude still culturally and socially informs us simply by the ingestion of history.

This logic is unbelievably flawed.

Why? Because you can't argue it? You've argued everything else. Tell us why this logic is so flawed.

Because then you're dealing with stereotypes.

 

Don't pretend to assume that the Europeans who came to America to work in factories were ANY better off than slaves. They died in shocking numbers and their lives, arguably, were of LESS value to their bosses than slaves were to their masters (seeing as how slaves were property while labor was an astonishingly easily replacable commodity).

 

Doesn't make it good --- but it is the sad truth.

-=Mike

[Perfxion 0]

Don't pretend to assume that the Europeans who came to America to work in factories were ANY better off than slaves. They died in shocking numbers and their lives, arguably, were of LESS value to their bosses than slaves were to their masters (seeing as how slaves were property while labor was an astonishingly easily replacable commodity).

 

Doesn't make it good --- but it is the sad truth.

-=Mike

Um, being consider property is a million times worse. Because as soon as these factory workers(US born or not) were considered citzens, they had rights backed by the laws of this land. Slaves had NOTHING! They were treated worse than shit. Scott vs Stanford layed out the law that slavory was allowed because blacks were considered property. And as property have no laws of protection. Thus it made it perfectly legal to kill a slave. Factory workers dieing, while bad, still had it better. It is a reason why these groups were able to move up the social ladder so fast. As Ripper et al said, they were not black. You seem not to gasp this problem. These groups had it better for this. Name one case in the supreme court where they were basically law bound to be treated like complete and utter shit?

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

I make no apologies for flawed black leaders or especially the outdated modes of the NAACP, but I do point towards the fact that even in studying slavery, we're forced to acknowledge a tradition that unilaterally dubbed blacks inferior for 200 years and still has aftereffects, many of which were still institutionalized until Brown vs. Board and the desegregations/Freedom Rides/and so on of the 60's. Show someone a picture of an Irishman working in a field, and you're gonna get a response of "farmer." Show a black person in the same situation, and there's much greater chance you're gonna get "slave." This attitude still culturally and socially informs us simply by the ingestion of history.

This logic is unbelievably flawed.

Why? Because you can't argue it? You've argued everything else. Tell us why this logic is so flawed.

...I do point towards the fact that even in studying slavery, we're forced to acknowledge a tradition that unilaterally dubbed blacks inferior for 200 years...

 

...This attitude still culturally and socially informs us simply by the ingestion of history.

He's saying that studying the facts of history fosters racism, which is categorically wrong. By recognizing these atrocities, we become much less ignorant of what allowed them to happen. We are appreciating the difficulties slaves went through.

 

There's a little saying about those ignoring history being doomed to repeat it.

[Justice 0]

Um, being consider property is a million times worse. Because as soon as these factory workers(US born or not) were considered citzens, they had rights backed by the laws of this land. Slaves had NOTHING! They were treated worse than shit. Scott vs Stanford layed out the law that slavory was allowed because blacks were considered property. And as property have no laws of protection. Thus it made it perfectly legal to kill a slave.  Factory workers dieing, while bad, still had it better. It is a reason why these groups were able to move up the social ladder so fast. As Ripper et al said, they were not black. You seem not to gasp this problem. These groups had it better for this. Name one case in the supreme court where they were basically law bound to be treated like complete and utter shit?

If you've ever read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair, that's very debatable. You have an incredibly Laisse Faire court (As proven in Lochner v. New York, which essentially cut off the power of the Legislature to put on things like health restrictions and hour limits. Also look at Hammer v. Dagenhart, which would strike down a Federal Child Labor law on the grounds that it overstretched Congress' commerce clause powers) which refused to help out the common worker, Union busters, people working ungodly amounts of hours in slaughterhouses where the working conditions are probably more dangerous (With tons of knives, slick surfaces, massive vats of lye that people sometimes fell into, you were easily risking your own lives every day you were in there), housing that was abysmal, police and lawyers that were always on teh side of business, and other such things. One could say that even the climate (They talk about one boy in the factories who came in screaming because his ears were frostbitten, and the foreman simply walked over, cupped his hands over the ears and plucked them off) was against them.

 

Slaves had nothing? So did these people. All they lacked was the name. Oh, and I named the court cases above. You aren't the only people that have been oppressed by a court ruling.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

...I do point towards the fact that even in studying slavery, we're forced to acknowledge a tradition that unilaterally dubbed blacks inferior for 200 years...

 

...This attitude still culturally and socially informs us simply by the ingestion of history.

He's saying that studying the facts of history fosters racism, which is categorically wrong. By recognizing these atrocities, we become much less ignorant of what allowed them to happen. We are appreciating the difficulties slaves went through.

 

There's a little saying about those ignoring history being doomed to repeat it.

Kinda got it, kinda didn't. I certainly don't mean to imply we shouldn't study history - we have to. It's crucial and pretty much the best resource anyone has to study how to do things and how not to do things. I'm just saying that merely the fact that we learn about slavery - that we as people become aware that blacks were once property - colors our perception of what blacks can be. Even in appreciating the difficulties slaves went through, we're adding a possible category.

 

Blacks can be lawyers, blacks can be taxi drivers, blacks can be slaves.

 

It's not an active racism at all, but it exists. How do we get around it? Well, we don't, really, because learning about slavery is far more important than the problem this creates. Consider it a small point if you like, but definitely don't think it discourages studying history. I believe the exact opposite.

[Guest MikeSC]

...I do point towards the fact that even in studying slavery, we're forced to acknowledge a tradition that unilaterally dubbed blacks inferior for 200 years...

 

...This attitude still culturally and socially informs us simply by the ingestion of history.

He's saying that studying the facts of history fosters racism, which is categorically wrong. By recognizing these atrocities, we become much less ignorant of what allowed them to happen. We are appreciating the difficulties slaves went through.

 

There's a little saying about those ignoring history being doomed to repeat it.

Kinda got it, kinda didn't. I certainly don't mean to imply we shouldn't study history - we have to. It's crucial and pretty much the best resource anyone has to study how to do things and how not to do things. I'm just saying that merely the fact that we learn about slavery - that we as people become aware that blacks were once property - colors our perception of what blacks can be. Even in appreciating the difficulties slaves went through, we're adding a possible category.

 

Blacks can be lawyers, blacks can be taxi drivers, blacks can be slaves.

 

It's not an active racism at all, but it exists. How do we get around it? Well, we don't, really, because learning about slavery is far more important than the problem this creates. Consider it a small point if you like, but definitely don't think it discourages studying history. I believe the exact opposite.

Lincoln was broke and grew up in a log cabin.

 

He became President.

 

Humble beginnings have little bearing on what one CAN become.

-=Mike

[Firestarter 0]

CNN: 'Master' and 'slave' computer labels unacceptable

 

...in California, natch. Hey, they have to find some way to keep themselves looking ridiculous.

[Ripper 0]

...

 

I made a joke about this in a computer class in college and beat my classmate that some asshole would make a fuss about it later. Somebody owes me some MONAY~!

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

WTF?

 

The request -- which has some suppliers furious and others busy re-labeling components -- came after an unidentified worker spotted a videotape machine carrying devices labeled "master" and "slave" and filed a discrimination complaint with the county's Office of Affirmative Action Compliance.

 

Good thing the word "niggardly" isn't a computer term, too.

 

Wonder if the worker was going to a gender-neutural bathroom?...

 

Too many people in this world need a Rodney King-like beating, only without the cash windfall.

 

Oh, and while we're on the topic of racists, I heard Lisa Guerrero (who I hate with a passion) talk to the mother of Tiki and Ronde Barber during the most recent Monday Night Football game. She was saying what a great job Ms. Barber did with her two sons, and among Lisa's compliments she called the twins "articulate."

 

THEY SPEAK SO WELL...

Edited November 26, 2003 by kkktookmybabyaway

[Swift Terror 0]

she called the the twins "articulate."

 

Holy God, that chick is clueless. That's about a 9.9 on the cringe factor scale. I'm sure Al and John loved hearing that. "Yeah, we got some fine-talkin' negroes here Al..."

[notJames 0]

She might have been saying that they're articulate for a couple of "athletes", who carry the stereotypical dumb-jock stigma, rather than backhandedly complimenting them for being a couple of well-speaking black men...

 

... but that's just me.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Hey, it's Wednesday.

 

Aren't we all supposed to get offended by now?

 

Chris Berman: "I have never viewed the Barber twins as articulate. Ever... Ever... Ever..."

Edited November 26, 2003 by kkktookmybabyaway

[Swift Terror 0]

She might have been saying that they're articulate for a couple of "athletes", who carry the stereotypical dumb-jock stigma

 

That's no doubt what she meant (we all know there are plenty of inarticulate athletes out there), but actually saying it as she did on national television does not come across well at all.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

She might have been saying that they're articulate for a couple of "athletes", who carry the stereotypical dumb-jock stigma, rather than backhandedly complimenting them for being a couple of well-speaking black men...

 

... but that's just me.

 

Too bad Lisa G is representing the stupid-bitch-who's-on-TV-based-on-looks-alone-and-without-an-ounce-of-talent stereotype quite well.

 

It doesn't matter WHAT she said, or how she MEANT it, I'm OFFENDED.

 

I'm going to boycott Disney until ABC forces her to resign.

 

I just had an ebonics friend of mine AIM me, saying that his son wanted to know if it's OK for him to play football (he didn't quite word it the way I just did, mind you).

 

RACIST Lisa...

Edited November 26, 2003 by kkktookmybabyaway

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

WTF? Where did you come from?...

[MrRant 0]

The hell?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

CNN: 'Master' and 'slave' computer labels unacceptable

 

...in California, natch. Hey, they have to find some way to keep themselves looking ridiculous.

I hereby declare Los Angeles County to be racist. I hope that our state, in order to appear non-discriminatory, removes Los Angeles County immediately.

 

Thank you.

[Lando Griffin 0]

Tom Jackson: I had young kids come up to me asking if it was OK to be articulate.