Author Topic: The State of Englishness  (Read 31304 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

kimba1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8030
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The State of Englishness
« Reply #60 on: May 29, 2008, 05:39:08 PM »
We lavish praise on Thomas Jefferson and the founding fathers for their wisdom and their love of freedom. We've turned the constitution into a sacred document and Christopher Columbus into a secular saint. Yet, Jefferson was a slaveholder and likely slept with at least one of his slave women. Some people justify this by saying that he treated his slaves well. The Constitution enshrines slavery - the holding of human beings as property. This is taught as the defining moment of freedom, but in reality it was freedom for whites and primarily for white men. It is white men who make the law, who write the history, who run the corporations. When "freedom" was given to the slaves, they were simply economic slaves to the same white plantation owners and political slaves to the whims of an hysterical white Southern culture.>

we forget the fact that a good percent of the slaves are bought in africa from rival tribes .
it not just white people at fault here.
and the idea that slavery in africa is benevolent abit of a strecht.

_JS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3500
  • Salaires legers. Chars lourds.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The State of Englishness
« Reply #61 on: May 29, 2008, 06:58:29 PM »
I don't think anyone is forgetting that Kimba.

But even that is used as a justification for the slavery here and the harsher and stricter treatment of slaves in America.

Does that justify slavery to you?
I smell something burning, hope it's just my brains.
They're only dropping peppermints and daisy-chains
   So stuff my nose with garlic
   Coat my eyes with butter
   Fill my ears with silver
   Stick my legs in plaster
   Tell me lies about Vietnam.

kimba1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8030
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The State of Englishness
« Reply #62 on: May 29, 2008, 08:17:09 PM »
not at all
I`m just trying point out the blame is already been placed and continueing to focusing on it is causing damage
blaming brings a culture of victimhood.
I`m not saying blacks are not being denied jobs.
but that doesn`t mean turning down lower paying job that immigrants will take and get accused of stealing jobs.

but on the subject slavery and how bad it is
it still exist today worldwide
by the definition human beings sold for various service
and race has nothing to do with it.
economic breakdown is so far the common thread .


Stray Pooch

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 860
  • Pray tell me, sir, whose dog are you?
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The State of Englishness
« Reply #63 on: May 29, 2008, 09:19:35 PM »
Utter nonsense. As I've indicated, Primary racism is a condition of domination through exploitation + prejudice.

No, that's a redefinition of the word "racism" to fit a political viewpoint.  Racism is the belief that your race is superior.  You can redefine it any way you want, that won't make it a fact.  

This country was built on the notion that blacks were subhuman - less than whites. You may not like that, but that is the truth.

No it isn't.  It's a radically exaggerated statement of opinion.  This country was built on the notion that representative government was better than monarchy.  It happens that slavery was PART of the building of this country, and black slaves contributed (albeit involuntarily) to the economic success of the country.  But making a sweeping statement like "This country was built on the notion that blacks were subhuman" is ridiculous.  SLAVERY was built on that notion, and that institution contributed to the economic success of the nation, but that is only a part of our history - not by any stretch of the imagination the notion upon which this country was built.  You may not like that, but that is the truth.

There is 400 years of history, of conditioning whites to believe in their superiority and the inverse - to condition blacks to their inferiority. Despite all the well-wishing and togetherness that one would love to bestow upon the current state of affairs, the truth is that five years does not change 400 years of conditioning, teaching, and living.   

400 years and 5 years.  Interesting numbers, neither of which are accurate or relevant.  Racial interaction has been in this country,  and really in much of the world, an evolutionary process.  Laws against racial discrimination have existed for many decades - not five years - and those laws have had effects beyond their initial social change.  Further, in many parts of the country and in many subcultures, such discrimination has been outlawed or at least socially unacceptable for far more of American history.  The federal government outlawed racial discrimination decades ago, and many states before then.  Since this country - as a European derivative - has existed only just some 400 years, the argument that blacks have been abused for four hundred years is nonsense.  Some few slaves were around near the beginning but wholesale slavery existed as a thriving industry for only some 200 years.  Racial discrimination has existed since the beginning of time, in all cultures, and it exists today on BOTH sides of the racial divide in America.  Antidiscrimination laws have existed at the federal level for nearly half a century.  So at best, there is a real claim for 250-300 years of institutional racism.  Complaining that racism still exists will get no sympathy from this corner.  So what?  Some blacks can't get hired by whites.  There are an awful lot of whites who can't get hired by blacks - or whites who have to consider any race EXCEPT Caucasian as a qualifying factor for hire, for acceptance at a school or for other privileges.  Some whites burn flags at KKK rallies.  Some blacks denounce whites in church.   Some whites follow David Duke.  Some blacks follow Louis Farakhan.  So what?  It would be wonderful to live in a world wher everyone got along and thought fairly.  It never has happened and it never will.  It is far more than enough to live in a country where the law recognizes equality and tempers the nature of humans.    

No offense Pooch, but this sounds like whining to me. Oprah's school is in South Africa. Do you know the history of South Africa? Do you know who supported that country's regime?

None taken, JS.  I am perfectly familiar with Apartheid and the long history of racism in South Africa.  That has nothing to do with Oprah's comments.  I take that back, it DOES have something to do with it, but it is a poor excuse.  "We get to be racist because we have been the victims of racism."  To quote a wise person, no offense, but that sounds like whining to me.  I have always said, and I find it to be true both historically and in the present case, that the yoke of the oppressed often becomes the rod of the oppressor.  This, again, is an example of how black racism is excused because of the past.  This is the present.  If keeping black kids out of Alabama schools was wrong in the sixties, keeping white children out of Oprah's school in the 21st century is wrong, too.  Mind you, since it is her school she can do what she wants.  But don't expect me to excuse her racism on grounds of property rights.  She is within her rights, but she is still wrong.  

So Detroit and Memphis are predominantly black and exceptionally poor because individual blacks have "personal failures and make bad decisions?" You are somewhat correct, but you stray off the path. Blacks are held down because the people American society demonstrates to be successful are white. White = normal. White = human. Blacks still live in a society dominated by white economic exploitation. More than that, it is a society dominated by white psychology. That is not innate to humanity, that is learned. That is 400 years of dehumanization. The white heterosexual Protestant male is held in the highest regards. Onto people who do not fit into that select group are projected all of the deviancies of the white male. In your terminology I would say, "it's called projection."

That was true thirty years ago.  It no longer is.  In fact, the white heterosexual Protestant male is in about the same place as the black, gay or woman was in the 1950's.  To wickedly paraphase John Lennon, "White Man is NOW the nigger of the world."  That's really not true, of course, especially in the context that Lennon used it, but it is true that white men are now the acceptable target of hatred, discrimination and ridicule.  You can argue, and I would not disagree, that the social condition of African-Americans (or at least a large portion of them) today is based on the racial abuse that the group as a whole has suffered in the past.  But that is still just an excuse.  When a black man doesn't get hired because of his race, he is directly suffering from racism.  The same is true of a white man in the same condition.  But there is a pervasive excuse mentality in African-American culture that says any time something happens to them it is because of the white man.  If a white man is hired instead of a black man, it's dscrimination.  If the white man happened to have a better education, it's still discrimination because the white man had the advantage of being able to afford to go to school.  If they both attended the same schools, but the white man made better grades, it is because the curriculum was racist (even though everyone was required to study afro-centric history and concepts like "western civilization" were considered taboo).  If the black man had a drug bust in his past and the white man didn't, it's because the white man created crack to dominate the blacks.  It could never be that an employer hired the better qualified man because he was better qualified.  It could never be that the white man grew up in a poorer home and struggled harder to achieve his educational goals.  It could never be that the black man refused to get good grades in high school because that was considered "too white" and therefore was not accepted at a better college.  No, it's always the white man's fault.  And anyone who points these things out is usually labelled a racist.  It is unwise, in today's culture, to apply proper nomenclature to entrenching tools.

So we have a group that gets saddled with terms like: lazy, sexually deviant, stupid, manual laborers, thieves, dirty, unwashed, ugly, unclean, etc. These are not terms that reflect on any genetic reality, but are projections of the Id from the dominant group (in this case white males). The great fear of Southern whites were black slaves storming the plantation house and raping the delicate and virtuous white women. Of course, in reality many slave owners slept with and even forcibly raped their female slaves. As I said, it is called projection.

That's true, although it is also true that a lot of blacks who were lynched for raping white women probably did - and deserved what they got.  Now of course, the fact that white men who raped white women probably were a lot more likely to get a fair trial (and white men who raped black women probably got away with it) puts the racism of lynching into perspective.  And I would bet large amounts of money that a lot of the lynching that occurred was the organized mob murder of innocent men, or men guilty of minor social infractions like Medgar Evans.  I neither condone lynching nor deny the inherent racism thereof.  Obviously, few rational people condone slavery, because this is the twenty-first century and we are blessed with the perspective of history.   But that is where we part ways in the racial question.  Those of us on the "oppressor" side of the equation recognize that slavery was THEN and it was wrong.  That, too, is a learned behavior.  But those on the "oppressed" side of the equation too often think that slavery is NOW and is still condoned (at least metaphorically).  That, again, is a learned behavior and it is taught not by white heterosexual Protestant males but by the leaders and the rank-and-file of the African-American community.  That is just as clearly racist as anything the Klan ever taught.  

The Roma, Jews, Aborigines, Blacks, and Native Americans are taught that they are "wrong" that "right" is a European white male. And it is there where you come close Pooch, but you start blaming the individual blacks, when they are only living up to what white society has taught them to be.

But in fact blacks are taught today that black is "right" and white is "wrong."  How does that differ from any of the situations you speak of?  White people used to have a power-hold on this country, but that is largely not the case today. In many places, that situation still exists - and that racism clearly exists as well - but in predominately African-American areas the opposite is true.  Understand, I am not denying the reality of racism.  I am saying it exists on both sides and it is NOT a purely white phenomenon in America today.

Many people in here, both left and right love using the phrase color-blind. If they don't use it they use the meaning. They pretend to believe that it was the goal of the Civil Rights Movement and the Civil War.

Yet, a color-blind society is typically nothing but a well-intentioned, but incorrect wish for a society that is all white. It is a society where the Roma, Jews, Blacks, Muslims, Homosexuals, and women are never free to be themselves. They are simply mimics of white male society and projections of white male deviancies. Differences are not celebrated, but are truly "viewed" as if we were all blind.

"White male deviances" is a racist term.   Please define what the specific deviances are that all white men share, and what "black female deviances" are.  What are "Asian gay deviances" or "Hispanic transgendered deviances?"  When such tools of the oppressor as Martin Luther King Jr. talked about a "color-blind" society he did not mean to suggest that all Americans should look, think, dress, eat or enjoy art like each other.  He simply meant that the laws, mores, and social values we hold should have no basis in race.  The law is depicted as blind-folded because it ought to be concerned only with justice, no other issues.  He was suggesting that diversity should extend only to our choices, not our place in society.  I subscribe to that dream, and I think that the concept that "white male deviances" or any other such ideals, just detracts from it.  
Oh, for a muse of fire, that would ascend the brightest heaven of invention . . .

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The State of Englishness
« Reply #64 on: May 30, 2008, 12:27:51 AM »
Where did I say that secondary racism is not racism? It most certainly is. Nor did I say it was excusable or justified. What I said is that it is built upon the foundation of primary racism.



What you are saying is that it is diffrent , and I am saying it is not.

The origional reason is important to know if one is trying to avoid repeating a mistake , but it sin't a diffrence in present effect.

I don't see why there should be any distinction made for secondary racism  it is a useless distinction.

As if the treatment for my phenumonia will be diffrent because I caught it on a snowy day from yours which you caught in a rainstorm.

It is important, because Primary Racism is the foundation. Without it, secondary racism does not exist or at most, has little effect.

Primary racism includes the projection from the dominant group onto the weaker groups.

Look at it this way. Secondary racism is nasty and mean. Yes. It is irrational. But it has no real affect without Primary racism. On the other hand, Primary Racism packs the punch. It is what relegates a group to economic misery. It ensures that the poor of the dominant group get their table scraps and remain loyal to the racist institutions.

Who ensures that blacks read a white version of American history? Who ensures that MLK is castrated and presented as a saint who preached the gospel of a "color-blind" society? Who makes certain that kids don't grow up to learn about how this country supported South Africa's Nationalist Government?

I know that I've done a poor job explaining, but look at it this way:

Secondary Racism is the basic racism that comes from a mix of innate fear of the unknown and different + learned behavior. How many blacks or Hispanics move into your neighborhood before you get uncomfortable and change your behaviors? Do you feel different in a room full of a different ethnicity? What myths do you associate with Roma, Jews, Catholics, African-Americans, Native-Americans that might not be true? Or it can be much more straightforward - "I hate those people."

Primary Racism is a fully learned system of racism. It is second nature and developed over time through society. Think of American individualism. It is second nature to most Americans. We aren't born with it - it is not genetic. We learn it, but not deliberately - it is pervasive throughout American society. It comes from our myths, stories, legends, films, celebrities, politics, history, heroes...make sense? Primary racism is passed the same way. It comes not through birth, but through passive knowledge. It is in our myths, stories, legends, films, commercials, television shows, history, heroes.

We lavish praise on Thomas Jefferson and the founding fathers for their wisdom and their love of freedom. We've turned the constitution into a sacred document and Christopher Columbus into a secular saint. Yet, Jefferson was a slaveholder and likely slept with at least one of his slave women. Some people justify this by saying that he treated his slaves well. The Constitution enshrines slavery - the holding of human beings as property. This is taught as the defining moment of freedom, but in reality it was freedom for whites and primarily for white men. It is white men who make the law, who write the history, who run the corporations. When "freedom" was given to the slaves, they were simply economic slaves to the same white plantation owners and political slaves to the whims of an hysterical white Southern culture.


So why did you tell me you wern't talking about Power?

None of this is right at all ,there is no secondary Racism , there is racism and raceism none of it should not be excused for being one generation younger .

As soon as you say that you are not excuseing it , you proceed to provide a long list of excuses for it!

If there is a diffrence at all ,between primary and secondary racism ,let me invoke the old Russian proverb , there may be a lot of diffrence between Cat shit and Dog crap but they both make a poor soup.

Every diffrence in reason for racism fails to justify the racism and fails to mitigate its harm.

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The State of Englishness
« Reply #65 on: May 30, 2008, 12:32:52 AM »
And then there is this.....


http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/29/obama_again_apologizes_for_a_p.html

Quote
Sen. Barack Obama was forced today to answer again for a preacher at his place of worship, the Trinity United Church of Christ. This time, it was Father Michael Pfleger, pastor of St. Sabina in Chicago and a well-known activist Catholic priest in the city.

From the pulpit at Trinity last Sunday Pfleger, who is white, spoke about white supremacy. His remarks were captured on video and today an except from them began to circulate online in a YouTube video (above).



Not to worry !

This racism is "secondary" and isn't really intended to harm the canadacy of Barak Obama .

Stray Pooch

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 860
  • Pray tell me, sir, whose dog are you?
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The State of Englishness
« Reply #66 on: May 30, 2008, 12:48:00 AM »
From the pulpit at Trinity last Sunday Pfleger, who is white, spoke about white supremacy. His remarks were captured on video and today an except from them began to circulate online in a YouTube video (above).
[/quote]

OK, now I gotta say, poor Obama isn't catching a break at all. 

Statistically, his preachers cancel each other out.  Now if Sharon Stone could only say that the Dalai Lama was exiled due to karma, we might get this all behind us.
Oh, for a muse of fire, that would ascend the brightest heaven of invention . . .

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The State of Englishness
« Reply #67 on: May 30, 2008, 01:02:45 AM »
From the pulpit at Trinity last Sunday Pfleger, who is white, spoke about white supremacy. His remarks were captured on video and today an except from them began to circulate online in a YouTube video (above).

OK, now I gotta say, poor Obama isn't catching a break at all. 

Statistically, his preachers cancel each other out.  Now if Sharon Stone could only say that the Dalai Lama was exiled due to karma, we might get this all behind us.
[/quote]


No , they would cancell if they were out of phase , being on the same beat causes reinforcement.

Stray Pooch

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 860
  • Pray tell me, sir, whose dog are you?
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The State of Englishness
« Reply #68 on: May 30, 2008, 01:07:54 AM »
From the pulpit at Trinity last Sunday Pfleger, who is white, spoke about white supremacy. His remarks were captured on video and today an except from them began to circulate online in a YouTube video (above).

OK, now I gotta say, poor Obama isn't catching a break at all. 

Statistically, his preachers cancel each other out.  Now if Sharon Stone could only say that the Dalai Lama was exiled due to karma, we might get this all behind us.

No , they would cancell if they were out of phase , being on the same beat causes reinforcement.
[/quote]

I assumed, since I didn't see the youtube clip, that "speaking about white supremacy" indicated he was endorsing it.  If that was wrong, then my whole point is negated.  But if I was right, it means that Wright was trashing whites, and Pfleger was trashing blacks.  That would be heroically ironic.  If that is not the case, I just had a lot of fun for no apparent reason.
Oh, for a muse of fire, that would ascend the brightest heaven of invention . . .

Stray Pooch

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 860
  • Pray tell me, sir, whose dog are you?
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The State of Englishness
« Reply #69 on: May 30, 2008, 01:35:29 AM »
OK.  Saw the video.  The guy's nuttier than Wright.

Oh, for a muse of fire, that would ascend the brightest heaven of invention . . .

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The State of Englishness
« Reply #70 on: May 30, 2008, 08:15:14 AM »
I can agree with Pfleger that Hillary is not entitled to be president, but then again, no one else is, either.

The election is not about redressing past wrongs against Blacks by electing one president, but it is also not about teaching Trinity Church to seek more rational preachers, either.

These are all non-issues. It is pretty clear that if the nominee is Obama,
If Hillary is the nominee, thenthen every person who thinks all Blacks are incapable of being president for every reason they can come up with will vote against Obama (and the vast majority of these for McCain).


In the odd instance that Hillary is the nominee, then every person who thinks all women are incapable of being president for every reason they can come up with will vote against Hillary (and the vast majority of these for McCain).


This will happen whether McCain disowns them or not. And the rest of the world will see the election as a demonstration on the political maturity of American society, and they will, to some degree, be entirely right to do so.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

_JS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3500
  • Salaires legers. Chars lourds.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The State of Englishness
« Reply #71 on: May 30, 2008, 04:59:25 PM »
No, that's a redefinition of the word "racism" to fit a political viewpoint.  Racism is the belief that your race is superior.  You can redefine it any way you want, that won't make it a fact.

It won't make it false because your definition is what you believe either. It is simply a categorization, and one backed by science mind you. I've provided the book and author. 

Quote
No it isn't.  It's a radically exaggerated statement of opinion.  This country was built on the notion that representative government was better than monarchy.  It happens that slavery was PART of the building of this country, and black slaves contributed (albeit involuntarily) to the economic success of the country.  But making a sweeping statement like "This country was built on the notion that blacks were subhuman" is ridiculous.  SLAVERY was built on that notion, and that institution contributed to the economic success of the nation, but that is only a part of our history - not by any stretch of the imagination the notion upon which this country was built.  You may not like that, but that is the truth.

Not radically exaggerated at all. The British did not invest in America because they liked to vacation here. They did not defend these colonies because of the charm or "representative government." That's simply bullshit. They did so because there was economic benefit to them. It was primarily tobacco in the 17th century. Anyone who has worked in tobacco fields and has familiarity with the crop understands that it is very labor intensive. At first it was possible to use indentured servants and a smattering of slaves. Those slaves were often given broad rights (under British and colonial law - NOT American).

Later, when tobacco plantations grew in size and the first major slave revolt took place in the Tidewater area of Virginia, slavery was fought by the House of Burgesses (you're shining beacon of representative government) the laws surrounding slavery were made far more strict. Slavery began to grow. As the country spread west it was discovered the another labor-intensive crop was able to provide for the economy of the textile mills in the North and in England - cotton became king. African slavery became even more integral to the economics of the United States. Dehumanizing blacks became more and more crucial both to economics and to society to justify itself.

Quote
400 years and 5 years.  Interesting numbers, neither of which are accurate or relevant.  Racial interaction has been in this country,  and really in much of the world, an evolutionary process.  Laws against racial discrimination have existed for many decades - not five years - and those laws have had effects beyond their initial social change.

Both are accurate. The first slaves arrived in 1619, sue me for rounding. The five years comes from the period where the Civil Rights Movement was able to effectively enact legislation to remove Jim Crow. The environment of white = normal and white = right still exists, so 400 years is spot on.

Quote
Racial discrimination has existed since the beginning of time

Proof? Evidence?

I'd certainly like to see it. I don't mean idle speculation, but real evidence. Let's see it. Discrimination based not on religion (that has been common, but is also learned), not on other differences, but purely on "race."

Quote
Complaining that racism still exists will get no sympathy from this corner.

I'm not complaining, I'm stating a fact.

Quote
So what?  Some blacks can't get hired by whites.  There are an awful lot of whites who can't get hired by blacks - or whites who have to consider any race EXCEPT Caucasian as a qualifying factor for hire, for acceptance at a school or for other privileges.

You are still stuck on the minutiae. You and Plane both. This goes to the center of society as a whole. This is learned behavior, second nature of centuries of what is simply accepted to be fact. You're still talking about the fringe idiots like David Duke and the KKK. I'm talking about everyday society, not the extreme racist fringe.

Quote
That was true thirty years ago.  It no longer is.  In fact, the white heterosexual Protestant male is in about the same place as the black, gay or woman was in the 1950's.  To wickedly paraphase John Lennon, "White Man is NOW the nigger of the world."  That's really not true, of course, especially in the context that Lennon used it, but it is true that white men are now the acceptable target of hatred, discrimination and ridicule.

Angry white male horse shit. Excuse my language, but that's a load of garbage and you know it. I'm a white man too, lest you forget, and I'm not the target of hatred and discrimination. I can see a system that is built for whites to succeed.

Quote
But there is a pervasive excuse mentality in African-American culture that says any time something happens to them it is because of the white man.

So this is why Detroit and Memphis are poor? Because of this "pervasive excuse mentality in African-American culture?" Or was it because black individuals just make a lot of bad choices or failures?

Quote
Obviously, few rational people condone slavery, because this is the twenty-first century and we are blessed with the perspective of history.   But that is where we part ways in the racial question.  Those of us on the "oppressor" side of the equation recognize that slavery was THEN and it was wrong.  That, too, is a learned behavior.  But those on the "oppressed" side of the equation too often think that slavery is NOW and is still condoned (at least metaphorically).  That, again, is a learned behavior and it is taught not by white heterosexual Protestant males but by the leaders and the rank-and-file of the African-American community.  That is just as clearly racist as anything the Klan ever taught.

You talk about the Klan a lot. Are you forgetting that the Southern Baptist Church taught that Blacks were lesser than whites into the 1970's? Are you forgetting the White Citizen's Councils, which became the CCC to which Haley Barbour and Trent Lott addressed? There are quite a few people today that defend the Confederacy and claim that slavery had nothing to do with the Civil War. Don't pretend that this racism was just a part of the KKK fringe. It permeates society.   

Quote
But in fact blacks are taught today that black is "right" and white is "wrong."  How does that differ from any of the situations you speak of?  White people used to have a power-hold on this country, but that is largely not the case today. In many places, that situation still exists - and that racism clearly exists as well - but in predominately African-American areas the opposite is true.  Understand, I am not denying the reality of racism.  I am saying it exists on both sides and it is NOT a purely white phenomenon in America today.

Did I say that it is purely white? But how many blacks are taught this? And bullshit that white people don't have the power today. Go to a state legislature, Capitol Hill, the Fortune 400 boards and you honestly tell me that. You know that is a load of crap.

Quote
"White male deviances" is a racist term.

No it isn't. I am speaking of societal projections and even provided a very good example. Plus, scientific studies have shown this to be true. I never said "all white men," I am speaking in societal terms through the creation of myths.

Quote
When such tools of the oppressor as Martin Luther King Jr. talked about a "color-blind" society he did not mean to suggest that all Americans should look, think, dress, eat or enjoy art like each other.  He simply meant that the laws, mores, and social values we hold should have no basis in race.

MLK was not a tool of the oppressor of course, but has been turned into something he was not. He was a Christian Socialist. How many people learn that in school? How many people learn that he wanted to redistribute wealth to the poor and that he was a major supporter of unionization? Ever wonder why? Because the powers that be write the history books. MLK is written up as a guy who preached nonviolence and got everything he ever wanted when the Civil Rights Act was passed. Now we can all eat peaches and cream and watch Pollyanna!

Quote
The law is depicted as blind-folded because it ought to be concerned only with justice, no other issues.  He was suggesting that diversity should extend only to our choices, not our place in society.  I subscribe to that dream, and I think that the concept that "white male deviances" or any other such ideals, just detracts from it.

I think that bitching about how white males have lost their place in society when clearly that isn't the case doesn't help either.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2008, 05:01:14 PM by _JS »
I smell something burning, hope it's just my brains.
They're only dropping peppermints and daisy-chains
   So stuff my nose with garlic
   Coat my eyes with butter
   Fill my ears with silver
   Stick my legs in plaster
   Tell me lies about Vietnam.

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The State of Englishness
« Reply #72 on: May 30, 2008, 10:50:02 PM »
Quote
So what?  Some blacks can't get hired by whites.  There are an awful lot of whites who can't get hired by blacks - or whites who have to consider any race EXCEPT Caucasian as a qualifying factor for hire, for acceptance at a school or for other privileges.

You are still stuck on the minutiae. You and Plane both. This goes to the center of society as a whole. This is learned behavior, second nature of centuries of what is simply accepted to be fact. You're still talking about the fringe idiots like David Duke and the KKK. I'm talking about everyday society, not the extreme racist fringe.


You are talking about that 400 year old guy again?

I would like to meet him, even if he is a racist.

Learned behavior is no older than the learner , unless you beleive in race memory , which I don't.

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The State of Englishness
« Reply #73 on: May 30, 2008, 11:04:34 PM »
Quote
When such tools of the oppressor as Martin Luther King Jr. talked about a "color-blind" society he did not mean to suggest that all Americans should look, think, dress, eat or enjoy art like each other.  He simply meant that the laws, mores, and social values we hold should have no basis in race.

MLK was not a tool of the oppressor of course, but has been turned into something he was not. He was a Christian Socialist. How many people learn that in school? How many people learn that he wanted to redistribute wealth to the poor and that he was a major supporter of unionization? Ever wonder why? Because the powers that be write the history books. MLK is written up as a guy who preached nonviolence and got everything he ever wanted when the Civil Rights Act was passed. Now we can all eat peaches and cream and watch Pollyanna!

MLKjr isn't remembered for thaings he did not accomplish  nor things non-tangental to the things he did accomplish. With Non-violence as a principal he shortcircuited a brewing race war that might have killed hundreds of thousands , for this alone he would be a hero. He is also rightly enshrined as one of our historys greatest orators on the strength of his insightfull and inspireing remarks on the steps of the Lincon memorial , this is a grand example of the right word at the right time.

He need not be celebrated as infallible , I didn't know he was a phalinderer untill pretty recently and I didn't know he was a socialist till just now , I don't consider either of these faults to be important enough to tarnish my admiration .

Nor has anyone ever stated that the Civil Rights bills of fourty years ago brought about instantainious utopia , I did see someone state that this was a five year period of progress that saw no further progress afterwards , but I disagree with him. I think that a great leap forward was accomplished , followed by four decades of further progress . This is the time it takes to raise two generations ,even though it is all within liveing memory.

Human beings are adaptable and teachable but none of us can learn anything over a period longer than we can personally survive , the majority of the US population has been born since 1970 and none of the US population is 400 years old.

Universe Prince

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3660
  • Of course liberty isn't safe; but it is good.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The State of Englishness
« Reply #74 on: May 31, 2008, 12:44:24 AM »

You are talking about that 400 year old guy again?

I would like to meet him, even if he is a racist.

Learned behavior is no older than the learner , unless you beleive in race memory , which I don't.



Human beings are adaptable and teachable but none of us can learn anything over a period longer than we can personally survive , the majority of the US population has been born since 1970 and none of the US population is 400 years old.


I don't get your obsession with this 400 year old person. No one is arguing that anyone is 400 years old. Why do you keep talking about this? I do get that in some way it is supposed to be clever, but frankly it seems more to me like you're missing the point. Yes, learned behavior is no older than the learner, I get also that is your point. But the point about centuries of learned behavior is not about one guy. Centuries of taught racism does more than just make a single person a racist. It shapes a culture. So why do you keep harping on some 400 year old guy?
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever.
--Hieronymus Karl Frederick Baron von Munchausen ("The Adventures of Baron Munchausen" [1988])--