It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why is race such a taboo subject?

page: 18
1
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 06:48 AM
link   

Originally quoted by Open_Minded Skeptic

I've never seen him in a situation where he was faced with a non-white person who needed help. But based on his kitty experience, I find myself wondering if he's as hard-nosed as he lets on.

So, is this guy a 'real' racist? I'm not sure.
Is he a malignant racist? I think not.


To be honest, I think he's a conundrum in many ways. He is at first talking in a derogatory fashion about people of color behind their back. But, he reveals himself to care for a kitten, which does add more to the palate of this character.

The guy might be racist because he unrepentantly talks about his views regarding people of another race. He doesn't want to make any connections with diversity. And he also doesn't wish to. He is an example of someone who wants to reside in the place that he feels most comfortable without stepping an inch outside. On one hand, it sounds as if he's very frustrated by the mere mention of diversity. After all, in his point of view, he could think of people of color intruding on his carefully controlled perception of the world. And for that, he vents his dislike for the changing landscape of society. However, he's not malignant as of yet because there is no evidence of him participating in endeavors that might allow him to act on his feelings.

However, if there was a proposition that would call for the segregation of another race, I'd be hard-pressed to say that he would vote for it in a minute to help satiate his feelings of anger. Quietly dangerous enough to send warning bells. But, he hasn't taken his feelings to the next level, imho.


Originally quoted by Benevolent Heretic
Just as a side note, I can't believe how much I've learned about how I feel about things having the comparison of this thread and the feminism thread. Being a woman and working towards full equal rights gives me some insight into what it must be like being a black person working toward equal rights in the US.


I think that being sensitive to bias whether you are a woman or a person of color, teaches you a lot on how to empathize with others. However, with this recognition of other people's experiences in relation to your own, it has to be realized that a common struggle is taking place in an increasingly changing world. The simple question of equality is seen as hostile by those sedimented in "the system" because it would make them recognize that the old days are over.

However, in that march toward equality, it is hard to convince those who "just don't get it" why this is so important. The same thinking comes forward once again to counter every different view. And as a result, every issue becomes a step toward acknowledgement in the release of civil liberties for all. The sad thing is as much people of color are relegated a back seat in terms of being realized as full, participating citizens, women are too. That's why throughout history, some movements have combined in order to maximize their potential of letting the "oppressed" speak and fight for social change.

These are valuable lessons to take with you. This is the understanding that I strive toward.



[edit on 2-6-2006 by ceci2006]




posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
You think that others will not accept your interpretation of Tony Snow's remark. They do. But they don't think it is such a big deal as you are trying to make it out to be.


I must agree. It's not that people don't understand or accept that some people were offended by what he said. It's very clear that some were. It was all over the internet. People aren't daft. Well most of them anyway. We understand. It's just that it would be beneficial for those offended to understand that it was a remark made in innocence.


Originally posted by ceci2006
For people who cannot break their crystallized view of how they see race, they would only see Tony Snow as not making a racial slur. In actuality, he didn't.


It should also be noted that for people who cannot break their crystallized view of how they see race, they would see Tony Snow as making a racial slur. In other words, someone who was looking for racial injustice at every opportunity would see it as a racial issue regardless of the circumstances or intent.

There is crystallization on both sides.


Originally posted by ceci2006
It is easier to apply a misnomer to negate one's experience than to actually consider the other sides of the issue. And that's exactly what happened when trying to explain the other connotation of "tar baby".


You decided that's what happened. You decided Tony Snow's intention along with the intention of the people discussing it with you in that thread. You decided what they meant, regardless of what they said. You decided their intentions and their meanings. You weren't listening to them any more than they were listening to you. It was a 2-way street. That's what happens with neither side listens. Communication Breakdown. It's always the same.


Originally posted by ceci2006
"Real racism" is one of those phrases such as "crying wolf": it is a discursive tactic that silences the opposition in order to influence others that the issue being brought up won't be believed.


There's a reason these phrases exist (other than to derail the conversation). They exist out of real experience. To say that anytime these phrases come up they are not valid, is not true. They came from people crying wolf, from people calling racism where there is none. It happens. That's fact.

To deny the existence of the 'race card' is to refuse to understand the people you are trying to educate. Just as women sometimes use their gender to take advantage of a situation or to cry or sexual harrassment, people sometimes use their race to make their position more justified. I'm pretty sure that's what Cynthia McKinney did. She not only used her race, she used her gender in the same breath.

And it doesn't matter whether a particular situation employed the race card or not. What's important is that everyone acknowledge its existence. To deny it puts a person who is charging racism in a position of 'denial' and people aren't going to believe them or commiserate with them.

Example:

A - I know the race card exists, I've seen it used and it makes me ill because it hurts my cause, but this time, I really don't think that's the case. And here's why...

OR

B - The race card doesn't exist! You're just trying to change the subject and invalidate me! I am a victim of racism because I say so.

Who are you going to be more likely to listen to? Denying the race card hurts your cause.


Originally posted by jsobecky
What are we supposed to do, walk around giving people little yellow post-it tickets when they say something you think is racist?

Or might it be a better idea for you to grow a thicker skin and realize that you cannot change most people to fit your world?


Although jsobecky has made this point in his usual forthright manner, it really gets down to the brass tacks.

Forgive me for relating to the feminist movement here.

I am learning in the feminism thread that some people really aren't ready, willing or able to accept the modern view of feminism. And the more I 'fight' with them on it, the more I'm actually pushing them away. I am actually doing the movement harm by insisting that everyone 'get it' in my time frame. I have learned that to do the movement justice, I must realize that, even though it's been active for 50 years, there are still people who are reluctant to embrace true equality of the sexes. They don't get the little nuances and indications that still exist between men and women and for women in this society. They're not ready, no matter how much I want them to be.

My continued 'fight' only pushes people away. I must lead by example. I must step back and allow people to learn in their own time that women are intelligent, capable, loving, wonderful, DIFFERENT BUT EQUAL creatures, while striving to take my rightful place in this society. I can't save the feminist movement by deriding and needling those who aren't ready to support it by calling them chauvinists and denying that women enjoy certain benefits by maintaining the status quo. Calling people chauvinistic only encourages them to attack back.

I am not like some women who see a sexist attack in everything a man does. If a man opens a door for me, I emphatically say, "Thank you, sir" regardless of his age. And if I approach the door first I hold it open for him and say something like, "After you, sir" to make it easier on him to fit into this new arrangement that I'm trying to foster between men and women. Invariably, he thanks me and walks through, if a little uncomfortably.

Baby steps.



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 10:35 AM
link   
"We have been complaining and complaining," said Sandy Washington, 65, who said she had gone to neighborhood meetings to report drugs and prostitution in the area. "Our voices aren't heard."

Story: Indianapolis, IN - June 1. 7 family members were shot to death in their Indianapolis home police said. The attack appeared to have been a home invasion, but not at random, Deputy Chief Tim Foley said. Investigators were considering several possible motives.

Shortly after 10 p.m. Thursday a witness saw one of the victims being dragged into the home and heard gunfire. Responding officers found three children dead on a bed and the bodies of four adults scattered inside. All had been shot.

Chief Michael Spears released a photo of one suspect, Desmond Turner, 28. Police also said that they were searching for another man and that witnesses had reported seeing three or four men running from the back of the house.

The victims were Emma Valdez, 46, her husband, Alberto Covarrubias, 56; Flora Albarran, her brother Magno Albarran, 29; Alberto Covarrubias, 11; David Covarrubias, 8 or 9; and young Luis age 5. "They were real friendly people," a neighbor said. "You couldn't ask for better neighbors. God, I hate to see this happen." Police had no history of calls to the home apart from one to check on an alarm.

Neighbors said the area, about a block from the Indiana Women's Prison, had declined in recent years and that drug crimes and mugging had become more common.

"We have been complaining and complaining," said Sandy Washington, 65, who said she had gone to neighborhood meetings to report drugs and prostitution in the area. "Our voices aren't heard."

Thursday's slaying were the city's worst since King Edward Bell, a laid-off autoworker, killed his estranged wife, mother-in-law and four children in 1981. Bell was sentenced to six consecutive 40-year prison terms. End of story from Yahoo.com.

Commentary. People of color. Guns. Drugs. This kind of crime never happens in a gated community. This kind of crime does not happen in the "better" parts of town. You might get the idea this kind of crime is "race based?"

Note this neighbor’s not atypical protest: "We have been complaining and complaining," said Sandy Washington, 65, "Our voices aren't heard." Our white society moves on. White America has surrendered the colored ghettos to the drug lords. How many times have we found young, rich white kids arrested in black neighborhoods buying drugs? Reminds me of Duke’s Lacrosse team. Anyone who knows anything knows where to go in your city for drugs, after hours liquor and prostitution. This is the legacy of 375 years of slavery followed by deprivation and legal segregation in America. Jim Crow. Anybody who studies this issue learns that, quickly. America won’t face it. White America blames either the victim or the messenger.

It is the albatross around our nation’s neck. OK, Amend 2 gunnies, here is another example how the obscene excess of guns provides 'security' for the common folk. Thank You, NRA, you really love America. For some background on our national aceptance of violence, go to

www.booktv.org...


[edit on 6/2/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
There's a reason these phrases exist (other than to derail the conversation). They exist out of real experience. To say that anytime these phrases come up they are not valid, is not true. They came from people crying wolf, from people calling racism where there is none. It happens. That's fact.

To deny the existence of the 'race card' is to refuse to understand the people you are trying to educate.

Thankyou.. a much more diplomatic answer than I would have given. Despite the length of this thread and the amount of rehashing, explaining and apologising it seems we've gone right back to square one.

[edit on 2-6-2006 by riley]



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 12:47 PM
link   
"our voices aren't heard." That's a common enough lament in all facets of American society today, and yesterday, and in all likelihood tommorrow as well. When does taking personal responsibility, both as an individual, or as a collective group come in. Its all very well and good to blame "white america" for the faults of society, and I don't deny that "white america" does come in for some, but not all the blame. Personal responsibilty, or lack of same, is to blame for the rest of it. If you want your neighborhood to be safe, you, not the police, or the gov't, are the ones who must make it so. It all comes down to personal responsibility.

The government is not going to come into your neighborhood, be it poor blacks, poor whites, poor hispanics, poor whatever race/creed of your choice, and clean it up. It's up to us as individuals, and as a group to do it. Neighborhood watches, safehouses for kids, afterschool boys/girls clubs, etc... are successful not because of gov't. support, but because you, and I make it happen.

Another thought, if the gov't did come into the neighborhoods to "clean it up" there would be all manner of protest about unwarrented gov't intrusion into civil liberties. So the gov't isn't going to do it, nor should they. It's ultimately up to us as the people who live there in the neighborhood.

If "white america" is apathetic to the plight of inner city crime, that only increases the neccessity of personal responsibility to my mind.



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

Originally posted by truthseeka
Like I said,

The white racists ruined it for the other proud whites who are not racist. Have you ever seen footage of Neo-Nazis or the Klan talking about their respective groups? White pride is one of the first things they mention.

What do you mean, "ruined it for the other proud whites... "? Ruined it in whose eyes and mind? Yours?

It would be too easy to point out incidents where some black men have "ruined it" for all other black men, so I don't think you want to go there.

Edit typo

[edit on 1-6-2006 by jsobecky]


I guess your bigoted, closed mind missed the whole point of my post.

I was giving BH my OPINION about why people who say they're proud to be white are seen as racist. You should have minded your own business instead of letting your bigoted mindset leak through on this post.



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
It would be too easy to point out incidents where some black men have "ruined it" for all other black men, so I don't think you want to go there.


To be fair, jsobecky, it's not ruined for all black people. Black people claim pride in their race all the time and they don't get called racist or supremists. There's black magazines, TV shows, a month...

I think this was a misunderstanding, so let's not get all freaked out with the 'bigoted' 'close-minded' stuff, ok truthseeka?



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 01:31 PM
link   


posted by seagull:

"Our voices aren't heard." That's a common enough lament in all facets of American society today, and yesterday, and in all likelihood tomorrow as well. [Edited by Don W]


Depends on what we collectively decide to do about it, would you say? We can offer platitudes. We can do something, or we can do nothing.



When does taking personal responsibility, both as an individual, or as a collective group come in. Its all very well and good to blame "white America" for the faults of society, and I don't deny that "white America" does come in for some, but not all the blame . .


I tend to be refreshed by reading the Preamble to our Glorious Constitution. It starts, “We, the people of the United States . . “ and goes on to say “ . . to form a more perfect upon . . “ and ends by saying, “ . . do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” Note the use of “we” and “united” in this part.

I use the term “white” America as much symbolically as to be completely accurate. It’s like saying most educated Catholics I know are also like WASPs, save their religion, of course. It ought to go without saying that the white people own the country. Ownership without responsibility is oligarchy.



Personal responsibility, or lack of same, is to blame for the rest of it. If you want your neighborhood to be safe, you, not the police, or the govt., are the ones who must make it so. It all comes down to personal responsibility.


I concede this charge of [victim] responsibility might have validity if it was not true that the inhabitants of these nether regions are also taxpaying citizens of this commonwealth.

Which reminds me of another clause “All persons born . . are citizens . . nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Article of Amendment, XIV, Sect. 1.

I think a good case can be made that one part of a city does not get the “equal” protection of the law enforcing agency. At least, that has been my experience.



The government is not going to come into your neighborhood, be it poor blacks, poor whites, poor Hispanics, poor whatever race creed of your choice, and clean it up.


See above.



Another thought, if the govt. did come into the neighborhoods to "clean it up" there would be all manner of protest about unwarranted govt. intrusion into civil liberties. So the govt. isn't going to do it, nor should they. It's ultimately up to us as the people who live there in the neighborhood.


Why is everything discussed in “either or” terms these days? Why should “clean it up” imply violations of civil liberties? Where does this kind of term and idea associative thing start? I assure you the police respect all civil liberties in Beverly Hills. Why can’t they do that in West Los Angeles? Uh oh, it looks like a race thing again.



If "white America" is apathetic to the plight of inner city crime, that only increases the necessity of personal responsibility to my mind.


OK, so how about a little cash on the line to help those who do exercise personal responsibility? Say like a grant of $10,000 a year to live in a neighborhood which the local bank president will not live in? Or the medical doctors. Lawyers, or merchant chiefs. Architects. CPAs. Let’s put our money were our mouth is. Let's make those old "blue lines" meaningful in a real way? There is not much you can do in this world that does not cost money. Nobody ever audits Halliburton. Or FEMA. So don’t make any plans on auditing those City Pioneers. Maybe Ronnie Reagan's phoney story about the Welfare Cadillac can at last come true? Sweet Jesus!


[edit on 6/2/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally quoted by Benevolent Heretic

There's a reason these phrases exist (other than to derail the conversation). They exist out of real experience. To say that anytime these phrases come up they are not valid, is not true. They came from people crying wolf, from people calling racism where there is none. It happens. That's fact.

To deny the existence of the 'race card' is to refuse to understand the people you are trying to educate.


I'm sorry to say, Benevolent Heretic, that those phrases also come up by people who have already decided that the other party has "cried wolf" or "played the race card". And I do have to agree with truthseeka. jsobecky does have a "close-minded" view. He doesn't define race. Whenever race is brought up, he represents one of the "finger-waggers" who try to dispense advice instead of trying to understand the other side. And to be blunt, you sometimes do the "finger-wagging" bit as well. I'm very sorry to say this. But you do. And this time is no exception.

And although I agree there was a communcation breakdown, it isn't because of me. I understood the other side of the issue.

This time, I think what you are trying to say isn't fair. How are you to determine what Tony Snow said isn't racist? Is there some sort of secret code or guide book amongst people from "dominant" culture that tells them what is right or wrong in terms of words or phrases? No. And selfishly, the experiences of those very same people seems to override the suggestions and ideas from others who are trying to explain another side. So, yes, experiences are important. I had even admitted on that thread that I saw the other side. jsobecky--as far as I know--did not.

But it is amazing to me that jsobecky comes right back on trying to "tell someone else what to do". This isn't about "control issues". This is about condescension. And he is being condescending because he feels that his experiences are already validated. And as a result, he feels that his ideas and thoughts are right opposed to others. He tells them so.

For what it is worth, I never disagreed with you guys about what Tony Snow said. I brought up the fact that I saw the word "tar baby" represented something else to me than what you saw. However, my feelings were that Tony Snow knew exactly what he was saying--racist slur or no. It's not as if he's insulated from the insults between races thrown at each other. And I don't assume for a moment that neither do all of you. So, I guess jsobecky is right here.

However, you automatically assume that the ideas I brought up are "problematic" and "wrong" because they do not jibe with your world view. That is the problem here. And as a result, out comes the "grow a thicker skin" or "grow up" or "lunancy" or "idiocy".

I'd beg to differ if someone called you a "tar baby". If they did, you'd be right there saying the word was offensive. Notice the amount of friction that happened when jsobecky yelped about the word "collaborator". Well, I'd be hard pressed to call him one, but I think by his answers alone determine that.

And that's why, I don't see the point of his insults. What I do see though, is his own refusal to grow a thick skin and his own denial of race at all. Face it. He sold you a bill of goods and the sky is green. No amount of information I could say will ever convince him otherwise. He refuses to change and unrepentantly so. And because of that, he will not show any compassion for others except himself. He is sort of like OMS' friend at work: concentrated with his own world view. And his gift is to nullify other thoughts and ideas simply because he refuses to deal with them. That's where you get the "crying wolf" and the "side-tracking" and the calls for "divisive" language". Not to mention the really rich discription of my posts: "racism".

Who is he to determine that when he can't even define the term for himself? He is one of those people that also play the race card whenever he brings up one of his "targeted" black groups: the New Black Panthers, or the NAACP.

That's why I refuse to answer him anymore. He can't be negotiated with. He can't adequately describe his own experiences with race, but he can sure tell others how to live with racism in society. And whenever other people ask him about his "racial" views, he turns tail and runs with an insult in the dust. His behavior is consistent, not just here. It's all over the board. It's "all or nothing" with him. And I'm not the only person to point this out.

I'm with donwhite on questioning what it is with this "all" or "nothing" thinking that is going on.

Btw, it's no misunderstanding what he said to truthseeka as well as myself. I got his message loud and clear what he thought of our comments and the deriding comments he gave them.

So agree with him if you must here. But is he the one who determines what is racist or not when he can't even bring himself to define it as you and OMS has done? Does he have the right?




[edit on 2-6-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

To be fair, jsobecky, it's not ruined for all black people. Black people claim pride in their race all the time and they don't get called racist or supremists. There's black magazines, TV shows, a month...

I think this was a misunderstanding, so let's not get all freaked out with the 'bigoted' 'close-minded' stuff, ok truthseeka?


Damn, that, BH. I'm calling it like I see it.

You asked a good question and I tried to answer it for you. We were cool, just a discussion. Then, Becky gets on here and starts running his mouth when he has no idea what's going on, knowing I don't like him.

He just wanted to get on here and talk smack to someone. So, I called him out on it.



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006
I'm sorry to say, Benevolent Heretic, that those phrases also come up by people who have already decided that the other party has "cried wolf" or "played the race card".


Sure they do. I'm not denying that they do. I'm just saying that there's a reason the phrases exist in the first place.



How are you to determine what Tony Snow said isn't racist?


I imagine the same way you do:


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
ceci, please pick one.

When Tony Snow used the term "Tar Baby", was his meaning:

1. the doll smeared with tar, set to catch Brer Rabbit
2. a derogatory term for a black person
3. a "sticky problem"
4. it doesn't matter what he meant, the term should never be uttered by anyone



Originally posted by ceci2006
Number three. I know what he meant.


That's how I determine it. If he meant to demean a race, it's racist. If he used a word that has several definitions, one of which is a racial slur, but I "know what he meant", I determine it wasn't racist. It's pretty clear to me.

When someone says, 'That's a "broad" brush', I don't take it as a sexist remark because he used the term "broad".



It's not as if he's insulated from the insults between races thrown at each other. And I don't assume for a moment that neither do all of you.


I told you I had never heard the term "tar baby" before. If you think I'm lying, that's your problem. (See how I wasn't offended when you called me a liar just then? That's because it says something about you, not something about me.)



I'd beg to differ if someone called you a "tar baby". If they did, you'd be right there saying the word was offensive.


No I wouldn't. I actually do have a pretty tough skin and I also believe that words are harmless. I rarely get offended because I can't see wasting my time with it. I HATE political correctness and have no desire to try to get other people to act or talk a certain way. If they want to be respectful and civil, they can. If they want to call me a name, they can. It has nothing to do with me. THEIR BEHAVIOR DOES NOT REFLECT ON ME, it reflects on them.



jsobecky does have a "close-minded" view.


As far as the rest of your post, I'm not interested in your personal judgments about another member. Your whole post is directed at me, but the vast majority is about someone else. Quite a little tirade there. Kindly leave me out of it, though. If you have something to say to jsobecky, I'd appreciate not being put in the middle of it. Thanks.



He sold you a bill of goods and the sky is green.


Excuse me? What are you talking about? jsobecky sold me a bill of goods?




So agree with him if you must here.


Well thank you. I wasn't sure if that was within the rules.



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
Damn, that, BH. I'm calling it like I see it.


Okie-dokey.
I was just trying to diffuse the situation.



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 04:25 PM
link   
I'm not calling you a liar. I don't how you got that. I just said that people have a basic understanding of what racial slurs are. So, it isn't on me. I will try to explain.


Originally quoted by Benevolent Heretic

As far as the rest of your post, I'm not interested in your personal judgments about another member. Your whole post is directed at me, but the vast majority is about someone else. Quite a little tirade there. Kindly leave me out of it, though. If you have something to say to jsobecky, I'd appreciate not being put in the middle of it. Thanks.


It's not a tirade. In fact, it's not really personal at all. It's just a description of how he inserts himself into issues of race. Really, I don't have that much of an emotional investiment in this to make it such. In fact, this morning, I chose not to answer his post. But look who did? You. You made it your own business to answer him. You inserted yourself in this debate by positioning yourself in the middle. So, I'd appreciate it if you read my side of how I view his comments opposed to yours in this issue. Thanks.

But if you did take it personally, I'm sorry for that. After all, I'm sure we haven't all made personal assessments of other members at some time, have we?



Sure they do. I'm not denying that they do. I'm just saying that there's a reason the phrases exist in the first place.


Of course there is. To nullify the point of the other party. That is why "real racism" is a misnomer.



That's how I determine it. If he meant to demean a race, it's racist. If he used a word that has several definitions, one of which is a racial slur, but I "know what he meant", I determine it wasn't racist. It's pretty clear to me.


It's clear to me too. But, it is amazing to me how it isn't clear to accept the possibility that "tar baby" is also a racial slur.


When someone says, 'That's a "broad" brush', I don't take it as a sexist remark because he used the term "broad".


And neither do I. But you know about the other connotation of "broad" don't you? And you made an example of it as another connotation, did you not? However, I do know the other connotation about "broad". And I didn't call your remark "lunacy" or "idiotic", did I? I didn't say that you "had issues". And of course, I took you for your word instead of denying your experiences.

And that is what I am trying to explain. I am not denying your experiences. And so far, you did not nullify mine. You saw both sides of the issue. Your assessment of what happened in the "Tony Snow" thread is different from jsobecky's. That is what I wanted to point out.


]Originally quoted by truthseeka
Originally posted by truthseeka
Damn, that, BH. I'm calling it like I see it.



Originally quoted by Benevolent Heretic
Okie-dokey. I was just trying to diffuse the situation.


You "inserted" yourself in this "situation" as well, did you not? If you didn't want to be in the middle of truthseeka and jsobecky's disagreement, you would have minded your own business. Rather ironic.






[edit on 2-6-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006
Really, I don't have that much of an emotional investiment in this to make it such.


Really?



You inserted yourself in this debate by positioning yourself in the middle.


I don't have any problem inserting myself into a situation. I don't like being PULLED into the middle by someone else. There's a BIG difference. When I insert myself, I am fully aware and willing to deal with whatever consequenses arise. When I get pulled into the middle, it is not my choice.



So, I'd appreciate it if you read my side of how I view his comments opposed to yours in this issue.


I have read 'both sides'. (What grade are we in again?) I'm not going to moderate in an argument between the two of you. If I wanted to do that I would have inserted myself already and since I have already said that I'm not interested, I take exception to you pushing the issue.

And ceci? Just by the by... Trust me. You don't want me in the middle of this one.



After all, by asking me to refrain from not "putting you in the middle" is a neat way of avoidance, is it not?


Avoiding getting into the middle of a fight? Yes. If you think I'm avoiding OPENLY stating my views, you haven't been reading my posts.



Of course there is. To nullify the point of the other party. That is why "real racism" is a misnomer.


So are you saying the race card doesn't exist? Are you saying that every single time someone cries racism, it's true? If I were to claim that you treat me the way you do is because I'm white, that wouldn't be playing the race card?



But, it is amazing to me how it isn't clear to except the possibility that "tar baby" is also a racial slur.


Who said that? I never saw anyone claim that. And if they did, it's easy to prove them wrong. Let it go.



You "inserted" yourself in this "situation", did you not?


Yes, I did. Neither one of them came to me asking me to read their side or bolster their argument.



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally quoted by Benevolent Heretic


I have read 'both sides'. (What grade are we in again?) I'm not going to moderate in an argument between the two of you. If I wanted to do that I would have inserted myself already and since I have already said that I'm not interested, I take exception to you pushing the issue.


And I take exception to you thinking that I would want you to moderate this arguement. I don't. Why on earth would you think so?

I'm not making the insinuations of a school yard fight, here. You are.


And ceci? Just by the by... Trust me. You don't want me in the middle of this one.


I know I don't. Because it is evident to me who you would defend. I'd have to watch my own back anyway.





[edit on 2-6-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006
You stabbed me in the back once. I expect you to do it again.


WHAT?

I have no clue what you're talking about and I'm quite sure I don't want to know.

:shk:



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 05:07 PM
link   
Forget it. It's not important. I'm sorry that was my first thought. It's better we just stay on topic. And instead, you're right. Jsobecky has to answer for himself.

I just take exception to the fact that you assumed that you should mediate this. I also do not like the assumption that what I say regarding another member's comments is personal. It is not because it pretty much has to do with the way he answers issues about race. He has yet to make a straight answer. In fact, he doesn't even approach it except to attack. I'm sure what you'd say here too, but this bluntly is the truth.

However, it is that "all" or "none" type of thinking here that is taking place. There isn't any shades of grey at all in this situation. It's just sad that like I said before, I avoided jsobecky's comments because this is what I'd think would happen. I didn't want to quarrel anymore because of what happened the last time. And I don't want to quarrel now.

[edit on 2-6-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
So are you saying the race card doesn't exist? Are you saying that every single time someone cries racism, it's true? If I were to claim that you treat me the way you do is because I'm white, that wouldn't be playing the race card?

I am very interested in reading the answer to this.. though she's already given it.

Cece, you made point of saying the race card did exist.. now you are again saying it doesn't. In reality you have now not only accused me of sharing my experiences with racism just to dismiss racism against blacks, but you have also dismissed MY experiences of racism.

I strongly take offence to that.



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
So are you saying the race card doesn't exist? Are you saying that every single time someone cries racism, it's true? If I were to claim that you treat me the way you do is because I'm white, that wouldn't be playing the race card?



Originally quoted by riley
I am very interested in reading the answer to this.. though she's already given it.


For the record, I am not saying the race card doesn't exist. It does. I am saying that the person who accuses another of "using the race card" is trying to nullify the other's experience. I have not done that to the both of you. I have never said your experiences were not true.

I am just saying that when someone does have a complaint about race it should be taken seriously and examined.

That is different from accusing the complainant of being a "nut with issues", an "idiot" or what they are saying "is a conspiracy".

No one should have to endure abuse for simply telling their side of the story. Not even you. So, I will try to listen and learn from you as well as the other contributors to this board. However, at the same time, I would ask that yourself and the other posters listen to my point of view. No accusations made. No attacks.


Cece, you made point of saying the race card did exist.. now you are again saying it doesn't. In reality you have now not only accused me of sharing my experiences with racism just to dismiss racism against blacks, but you have also dismissed MY experiences of racism.

I strongly take offence to that.


I'm sorry you feel that way. But respectfully, you are not accurately portraying my words. I have never dismissed your experiences. You accused me of that. I have tried again and again to understand your experiences. But you kept on accusing me that I was running an "anti-White" board, using "anti-White" rhetoric, not to mention that I was a "racist".

Now, it is fair to you to say, I did call you a racist. But that was until I was pushed to the wall. Usually, I would have to be convinced that a person is racist through their actions. You have not convinced me that you are racist. You have made apologies to me and admitted at times you were wrong. You have made restitution. You have also shown empathy for others. These are great things.

However, you are too quick to take offense and make accusations on things that you could have asked me about. Then, we could debate about it and not bicker. But, your style is confrontational. I try to be polite until I am confronted. And then, when I am confronted I set to defend myself. And so it goes.

So, I will try to lay things on the line.

I never said that sharing your experiences dismisses those of Black people. In fact, I have said many times that to understand one another is to listen to each other's experiences. In fact, I even gave you the floor to discuss what you wanted. You haven't done it as of yet.

Look, I don't want to have another fight on my hands. It already pains me that I bickered with BH today because she is the last person I want to argue with.

But, I think your offense is misplaced. I really do. Because I can accept that two people can see different meanings in the same thing. But the problem here is whose experience is more worthy? I would say, all of our experiences are valuable. I have said that many times. But, somehow, I think that now instead of accusing each other of things in the extreme, it is best to explain each of our points of view, have others acknowledge each opinion and work with experiences so that there isn't anything to be missed. And what would even be better if no one accused each other of the "race card".

So, to avoid any more quarreling in the future, how do you suggest we handle hearing each other's experiences? This is across the board so that everyone gets heard.









[edit on 3-6-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 11:46 AM
link   
DonWhite.

Of course it depends upon what we do! Platitudes accomplish exactly nothing.

Gee. Thanks for the gentle reminder of what the Preamble to the Constitution says. I am as aware of it as you are.

In reading your various responces to my post I have come to a conclusion, but if I am wrong please correct me.

You seem to be advocating something resembling a "nanny state" wherein the government asumes the role of benevolent caretaker. I would agree that gov't should play some role in helping protect our streets and neighborhoods, but the primary responsibility belongs with us, the citizens of this country.

I put my money where my mouth (or keyboard) is, I support those clubs that I mentioned. I volunteer my time where I can. I'll grant you that its not the inner city, its small town America, but its still important. I've done, and still do what I can to help. Personal responsibility is the key to solving these problems, not the only key, obviously, but by for the most important.

I agree that enforcement of our laws has been, in the past, and in the present as well, somewhat racially insensitive, for lack of a better term. All the more reason for us to assume a more proactive stance in advocating personal responsibility. Government can not be the voice of change, it can only respond to that voice. If we want change, regardless of what sort, WE must bear the responsibility of forcing that change. Big Brother can't, infact won't, do it. It isn't in the gov't. best interest.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join