DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: _JS on January 25, 2007, 11:09:18 AM
-
I feel like the Cohen story probably did not get a fair hearing the other day and that it was definitely my fault. For that I apologise.
I don't apologise for my stance on the Israeli government. I'm crystal clear on that, but I think there were some good places for that topic to go and I did stifle it to make a different point.
I'd like to hear Brass' view on racism in Memphis and Sir's view on the topic in general, or specific view on the Cohen and Black Caucus issue. I'll refrain from comment if necessary or just post my points in the confines of what you all write this time.
-
I'd like to hear Brass' view on racism in Memphis and Sir's view on the topic in general, or specific view on the Cohen and Black Caucus issue. I'll refrain from comment if necessary or just post my points in the confines of what you all write this time.
My apologies, in that I haven't gotten back to this question. I will attempt to address it later today, if possible, as it does require more time than just a quick glance & response
-
I feel like the Cohen story probably did not get a fair hearing the other day and that it was definitely my fault. For that I apologize.....I'd like to hear Brass' view on racism in Memphis and Sir's view on the topic in general, or specific view on the Cohen and Black Caucus issue.
Boy, oh boy, where to start. Let's go general and work toward specific. Does racism still exist in America?, absolutely. Is it still a problem? Depends on how one defines "problem". Is it this rampant out of control problem that the likes of Sharpton & JJ would have you to believe? Of course not. Is it a problem that saturates the South and the GOP as Tee would have you believe? Obviously not. Is it a problem that still manifests itself thru-out the country, with stealth like efforts at discrimination based purely on race?, yea, that still happens in some places. Is it a problem where folks of a particular skin color are attacked based purely on that skin color? Most certainly.
Which allows me to transition to, as a country, what have we decided to accept as it relates to racism. You see, it sure does appear from this angle that white on Black racism is routinely and universally condemned....specifically when it's demonstrated to be a blatant racist act vs some idiotic slip of the tongue. But boy, when it's Black on White, no matter how transparent or blatant it is, it sure seems to get a pass. And noting how much more pervasive that is, tend to make me think that because it is so much more pervasive, that literal saturation has dulled the rest of the folks and media into downplaying it, if even reporting it in the 1st place. I'll give you 2 prime examples...The Duke Rape case and the Long Beach Halloween Beating
The Duke Rape case was getting massive national coverage. Poor black girl (apparently having to work as stripper to pay ends meat) accuses a bunch of supposed rich white kids of being raped. Before the investigation even got out of the front door, you had legions of Black activists, followed in close toe by the mainscream media, howling at how justice must prevail (translated...hang them racist ivy league rich white boys). Then a funny thing....the facts started coming out, leading to what we pretty much have now, no DNA evidence, no direct evidence, contrary eye-witness testimony, and physical evidence demonstrating other people's DNA, none belonging to the Duke boys. But boy oh boy, did we have a ton of accusations and innuendo of a racially motivated rape, that was getting pretty much national attention
The Long Beach Halloween beating.......you ask what? Precisely Possibly very few of you have gotten wind of this one. The verdict just came down today 9 youths convicted (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CA_HALLOWEEN_BEATINGS_CAOL-?SITE=CAANR&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT) 3 White women were walking along, and brutally attacked by a throng of black kids. As many as 40 were involved, and pretty much facilitated by the skin color of the 3 women. You didn't have the chorus of black activists coming to these youths' defense, probably because of how blatant a hate crime this was. Instead the defense seemed to be that these women accused the wrong black youths, that there were so many they couldn't possibly have picked the right ones. Obviously the evidence, testimony and Judge disagreed. So here we have an actual conviction of a hate crime. Have you heard anything about it? Have you seen it broadcast anywhere on the mainscream media? And I won't even go to how the LA Times was reporting this story, before this conviction came down. It would have made a rational mind nauseous in how PC they were being.
The point being, this reverse policy of accepting racist activity when it happens to be Black on what-ever, is really pathetic. Racism is Racism. Wrong is wrong. Reverse Discrimination is still discrimination. Blacks were beyond horrendously abused during the early part of this country. Does that wrong translate into allowing modern day wrongs slide? Are blacks now immune from acting racist, because of their skin color? because they "earned the right" to be racist, because of how their ancestors were treated? MLK would be rolling in his grave if he saw what a mutation of his message on equality, it had become, at the hands of folks like Sharpton, JJ, Maxine Waters, John Conyers, Sheila Jacskon Lee, Donna Brazille, and organizations like the NAACP.
Which takes this rant full circle to the Congressional Black Caucus. We even have folks on the left, such as Brass conceding that their actions of not accepting anyone unless they're Black, as racist. I have a theory. When a Black Republican tried to join a while back, he was prevented, then inhibited, but finally accepted. Of course at that point, the caucus suddenly required sub committies, so you then had the Democrat Black Caucus, and the Republican Black Caucus. So basically the GOP member got to caucus with himself. Perhaps the Dems didn't want to pass on policy ideas that the GOP member could provide to the opposing party. OK, I'll buy that. Now here comes new congressman Cohen. A white fella, elected in a predominantly black district, who's chief of staff is black, who supports nearly all the black "causes", and wants to add to the dialog and idea suggesting, by wishing to join. He's told no. I can understand why the Black Republican was blocked off, but why a white liberal democrat, supportive of nearly all their issues, and from a predominantly black district? Here's my theory, that has absolutely no evidence what-so-ever, but chalk full of logic. My guess is that at these meetings, they likely trash "white people" up and down their rows. My guess it's stuff as egregious as what you'd hear at a KKK rally, but within the sound proof confines of Democratic Black Caucus meeting room. Just a theory though, but it makes sense to me.
And I won't even go into if if they receive Federal funds or not. If they did, it shows just how big of hypocrites they are, to match their racism. Demanding that private organizations accept whomever wants to join, especially if their black, or gay, or female, or especially all 3, but the Democratic Black Caucus gets a pass on that one. But if they don't receive any federal funding, and are largely a private organization within the democrat party, then they remain simply racists. Not that that will get any attention of course. Black on what-ever racism is largely accepted, right?
So endeth my rant. I realize this was far more than anyone wished to read, and for those who actually took the time to do so, my sincere appreciation 8)
-
Just so you knew Js (& Brass), I did respond to your question, when I had more time. Though I apologise for being a tad verbose
-
I don't necessarily disagree with your assesment Sirs, but I think you have a short-term memory for these incidents.
What about Abner Louima, Amadou Bailo Diallo, Gidone Busch, Ousmane Zongo, Sean Bell, Rodney King, Martin Lee Anderson, Robert Davis, Johnny Gammage...etc?
Yeah, sometimes police officers were punished, sometimes acquitted, sometimes promoted. Then you have actions like the New York City Blackout Riots in the late 70's or the Katrina aftermath and you don't expect African-American communities to feel some resentment?
You should have read some of the letters to the editor that I read after Katrina. Some of them lacked any human compassion and basically said it was their fault, tough. It is possible that you're right about so-called "reverse discrimination" being more acceptable an that is not appropriate. Yet, I don't think we are as far along in racial relations as you seem to imply.
-
What about Abner Louima, Amadou Bailo Diallo, Gidone Busch, Ousmane Zongo, Sean Bell, Rodney King, Martin Lee Anderson, Robert Davis, Johnny Gammage...etc? Yeah, sometimes police officers were punished, sometimes acquitted, sometimes promoted. Then you have actions like the New York City Blackout Riots in the late 70's or the Katrina aftermath and you don't expect African-American communities to feel some resentment?
Are you trying to condone racist actions because someone might "feel" resentment?? How does any of the above give a pass to Black-on-whatever racism??
You should have read some of the letters to the editor that I read after Katrina. Some of them lacked any human compassion and basically said it was their fault, tough. It is possible that you're right about so-called "reverse discrimination" being more acceptable an that is not appropriate. Yet, I don't think we are as far along in racial relations as you seem to imply.
With all due respect Js, I'm not sure how that refutes my point and assessments I made previously, regarding this subject, especially as it relates to the congressional Black Caucus. Are you trying to rationalize why it's ok for Blacks to act racist?
-
No, of course I'm not condoning any form of racist actions. My point is that your first paragraph seems to minimize racism as an important issue. In fact, the thesis of your post seems to be that reverse discrimination is the invisible problem permeating society. My point was to suggest that perhaps genuine racism (against non-whites) is still a major issue.
But we could discuss this in-depth and branch out in many different directions (I don't want to veer too far off course). Truth be told, there are a great number of accepted bigotries in this country.
-
Define racism.
Specifically in regards to the Katrina aftermath.
-
No, of course I'm not condoning any form of racist actions. My point is that your first paragraph seems to minimize racism as an important issue.
No, my 1st paragraph was to indicate that Racism isn't this out-of-control monster like it was in the early part of this country's existance, as folks like JJ, Sharpton, and the NAACP would have us believe. In fact I made it very clear that it still occurs, and occurs everywhere in this country, just not to the hyperbolic levels some would argue. Might not even make the top10 of areas we could target as "major problems" in this country
In fact, the thesis of your post seems to be that reverse discrimination is the invisible problem permeating society. My point was to suggest that perhaps genuine racism (against non-whites) is still a major issue.
Close. The thesis is that ALL RACISM is an issue that should be dealt with. Simply that some racism, White on Black is apparently treated with much more disdain, than Black on whatever. And I'd argue that examples of the latter far outwiegh the former. The congressional Black Caucus for instance continues to function with little peep of condemnation from the media or the left
But we could discuss this in-depth and branch out in many different directions (I don't want to veer too far off course). Truth be told, there are a great number of accepted bigotries in this country.
Agreed. Though as you may have gathered from my original answer to your query, I've already gone into a fair amount of detailed commentary
-
Bt, I don't believe I said the aftermath to Katrina was racist, but there was a feeling of resentment from some in the black community, don't you agree?
That is fair Sirs. I think you may mischaracterize the media though, you could be correct on the sheer number of racist events (I have no idea and imagine it would depend on how you define "racist event") but you must admit that a case of an unarmed minority individual being riddled with bullets by police is always going to make more news than a Congressional caucus decision. That is more the nature of selling copy than forcing any specific view onto anyone.
-
That is fair Sirs. I think you may mischaracterize the media though, .... you must admit that a case of an unarmed minority individual being riddled with bullets by police is always going to make more news than a Congressional caucus decision. That is more the nature of selling copy than forcing any specific view onto anyone.
Racism is Racism. And acts that are in no way conclusive as racist ought not be cofused with acts that are blatantly racist
-
I think racism is too mutilated a word nowadays
ex. reverse racism
it`s the very same act ,but with switched roles
it really should treated the same,but it`s not
in california there are towns trying to be hispanic only
but it`s called protecting culture not racist.
too bad we can`t say bigoted
it just don`t have the same kick anymore.
we need a more broader word
like a$$h0!e or something
-
Bt, I don't believe I said the aftermath to Katrina was racist, but there was a feeling of resentment from some in the black community, don't you agree?
You included it in your list of racist acts. Thus my request for your definition.
-
I would prefer that this type of discussion be cast in terms of "social relations" rather than "racism," a construct more focused and less charged and broad enough to encompass all matters of race and the like.
-
You should have read some of the letters to the editor that I read after Katrina. Some of them lacked any human compassion and basically said it was their fault, tough. It is possible that you're right about so-called "reverse discrimination" being more acceptable an that is not appropriate. Yet, I don't think we are as far along in racial relations as you seem to imply.
I beleive that we can be reasonably certain that a storm feels no racism , just because more White people drowned than Black ones or that more Black people were rescued by the Coast Guard than White ones proves no racism.
But is racism proved in the opinions of people who are convinced that a storm had a racial preference?
-
I would prefer that this type of discussion be cast in terms of "social relations" rather than "racism," a construct more focused and less charged and broad enough to encompass all matters of race and the like.
That would probably be a better term as there are issues that are not accurately reflected in the term of "racism."
But is racism proved in the opinions of people who are convinced that a storm had a racial preference?
The issue was of course, not with the storm itself, as most people well know, but with the handling of relief efforts during and afterward.
-
To make the point even clearer, JS, how about "human relations"?
-
I wonder, are there real solutions to these "accepted bigotries" of society?
-
but with the handling of relief efforts during and afterward.
What specifically was racist about the handling of relief efforts?
-
but with the handling of relief efforts during and afterward.
What specifically was racist about the handling of relief efforts?
Perception....fanned by the mainscream media and black activists
-
Perception....fanned by the mainscream media and black activists
I recognize the resentment. The question remains was it reality based. If not, why use it as an example.
-
I can answer that one
it wasn`t enough
it didn`t help that the news made it looked like fed aid was slow
even though help has there from the very beggining and is just simply overwhelmed and for some reason the locals totally ignore the fact that fedral aid was told by gunfire to go away
and the evidence of this is the local police spent more time stopping those people than helping evacucation.
-
Perception....fanned by the mainscream media and black activists
I recognize the resentment. The question remains was it reality based. If not, why use it as an example.
Given that we're talking about how "fast" the government, in particular the Fed, was supposed to act, when in reality everyone recognizes the universal agonizing slow pace the bureaucratic machine runs in reality, complicated by multiple agencies, 1 run by a Republican (the Fed), the other run by Democrats (State & local), assuming the other was to take care of everything, I'd say much of it was not reality based. Add to that the calls from select Black activists and celebrities fanning the notion that not only was the Fed targeting blacks in who not to help (debunked by the facts), but the Fed in fact was responsible either by sheer negligence of inadequate levy maintaining (a state obligation) or by way of directly blowing up the levies. In either case, much was not reality based
So why is it used as an example? You'd have to ask Js
-
So why is it used as an example? You'd have to ask Js
I thought i did. Even though it was in reply to your post.
-
So why is it used as an example? You'd have to ask Js
I thought i did. Even though it was in reply to your post.
Sorry.
-
it didn`t help that the news made it looked like fed aid was slow even though help has there from the very beggining and is just simply overwhelmed and for some reason the locals totally ignore the fact that fedral aid was told by gunfire to go away and the evidence of this is the local police spent more time stopping those people than helping evacucation.
Really?
-
see
nobody remembers
it somehow forgotten that aid was delays due to gunfire
-
Duke Case: The Larger Tragedy
By Thomas Sowell
It has now become more and more obvious, even to some people who initially believed the "rape" charges against Duke University students, that there was never a speck of evidence to support the charges and a growing amount of evidence to the contrary.
However reprehensible District Attorney Nifong's words and actions have been throughout this case, it would be a serious mistake to see in this tawdry episode just the vileness of one man.
The larger tragedy is what this case revealed about the degeneration of our times and the hollowness of so many people in "responsible" positions in the media, in academia, and among those blacks so consumed by racial resentments and thirst for revenge that they are prepared to lash out at individuals who have done nothing to them and are guilty of no crime against anybody.
The haste and vehemence with which scores of Duke University professors publicly took sides against the students in this case is just one sign of how deep the moral dry rot goes, in even our most prestigious institutions.
The January 29th issue of The Weekly Standard has a devastating article about the lynch mob atmosphere created, not only by the Duke University faculty and administration, but also by writers for such "respectable" publications as the New York Times and the Washington Post, not to mention a professor of law at the University of Southern California and a former president of Princeton.
We have become a society easily stampeded, even by the unsubstantiated, inconsistent and mutually contradictory statements of a woman with a criminal record.
All it takes is something that invokes the new holy trinity of the intelligentsia -- "race, class and gender." The story of a black woman gang-raped by white men fit the theme so compellingly that much of the media had no time to waste trying to find out if it was true before going ballistic.
The biggest losers from the current Duke "rape" case include not only the three students accused but also the black community, which has once more followed a demagogue who knew how to exploit their emotions for his own benefit.
Some of these demagogues are white like Nifong but there are also homegrown black demagogues like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson who have prospered greatly, and basked in the limelight, by leading other blacks into a blind alley of futile resentments and counterproductive self-dramatization.
The unraveling Duke "rape" case should be a wake-up call, both for blacks and for liberals, on how easy it is for their emotions to be manipulated by even a third-rate demagogue with a flimsy fraud. The time is long overdue for some of those who consider themselves "thinking people" to start doing some thinking.
Many liberals can at least afford their mindless crusades. They may end up looking silly, but that has never stopped them before.
The biggest losers from getting sucked into these frauds are blacks, especially young blacks who go off on an emotional tangent that leads nowhere, at a time when there are so many opportunities in other directions, if they will direct their time and efforts in those directions through education and other serious interests.
The current self-destructive misdirection of energies in black ghettoes cannot be explained by a "legacy of slavery" or "racism." For one thing, this level of self-destruction in black communities did not exist half a century ago, when racism was worse and the black population was generations closer to the era of slavery.
Moreover, a virtually identical pattern of self-destructive attitudes and behavior has been found among British lower-class whites, where none of this can be blamed on racism or a legacy of slavery. (See "Life at the Bottom" by Theodore Dalrymple.)
What the two self-destructive communities on opposite sides of the Atlantic have in common is hearing a steady diet of propaganda blaming all their problems on others, and depicting "society" as determined to keep them down, regardless of anything they might do to try to lift themselves up.
That same deadly message has produced the same tragic results among very different people. The Duke "rape" fraud is yet another sign that the time is long overdue for all of us to start thinking.
The Lynch Mob Mentality (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/01/duke_case_the_larger_tragedy.html)
-
So this is what this thread has become?
-
So this is what this thread has become?
Become what? I thought the topic was Racism. I referenced the Duke case in my initial response, and Sowell has written another one of his gems about it. So, what's the problem? Can we look forward to you addressing Bt's question?
-
I recognize the resentment. The question remains was it reality based. If not, why use it as an example.
Whose reality?
I used it because I damn well thought of it while I was typing the post. Had I known this was a thread of pedantics as opposed to a serious thread on racism (or whatever one wishes to label it) then I would not have bothered.
I was hoping for some common ground and perhaps a discussion that went beyond black and white, to something more broad, or to areas many people may not have even considered.
Clearly my sloppy posting was offensive. Apologies. Sheesh.
Sirs. The previous comment was not directed at your Duke rape case post, apologies for the confusion.
-
Whose reality?
I used it because I damn well thought of it while I was typing the post. Had I known this was a thread of pedantics as opposed to a serious thread on racism (or whatever one wishes to label it) then I would not have bothered.
Since when has challenging a pillar of your post made the thread unserious.
If you want a serious discussion of racism, perhaps ypu would be best served by providing a definition of same.