Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Why is race such a taboo subject?

page: 4
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Benevolent Heretic
Can we get back to the subject. Can this thread be saved?


Thank you, Benevolent Heretic, for stepping in there. I appreciate it. Don't get me wrong. I do like spirited discussion. But, the main goal is to continue a civil conversation and put out the fires before they turn into full blazes.

The way I see the exchange between donwhite and jsobecky, imho, is important however. On his side, jsobecky has suggested that Rev. Jackson is not to be held up to the standards that people place upon him. On the other side, donwhite, is questioning jsobecky on his hypocrisy to single out Rev. Jackson as one of many preachers who have taken advantage of the system. Although their exchange is slightly more political than what the topic asked for, I think it is fair to have an exchange about Rev. Jackson because it does have to with race and "role models".

I for one would like jsobecky to explain himself why he singles out Rev. Jesse Jackson as a bad example and why he thinks that the dignitary is a false leader beyond his first post. I would also like him to address his feelings in which he points out this fact. Is the preacher someone that represents a "bad" Black role model? Or, simply that, Rev. Jackson represents some key feelings that jsobecky might have about the leaders of the Black community? Why does he fixate all this concern about Rev. Jackson?

It might be better if jsobecky could frame his concerns in a question so we can talk about it.

Perhaps then, jsobecky can enlighten us on why he chooses Rev. Jackson. I don't mean to put him on the spot. But there is a reason why he used Rev. Jackson as a point of contention. And before I chime in about what I think, I'd rather hear jsobecky out. And in that way, the debate about Rev. Jackson can be worked out in the thread.





[edit on 21-4-2006 by ceci2006]




posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
"Birth of a Nation" and "The Jazz Singer" Are Terrible Movies.


Yes, they are. And that's another reason why I picked them. They are indicative of how race can be intertwined into entertainment negatively. I'm sure I could have picked other films to make my point. However, these two pictures are blatant examples of why White actors in "Black Face" are not amusing.

To answer Benevolent Heretic's question a little more, this was Griffith's answer to the fears of the power that Reconstruction might give to African-Americans if they do progress in society. In the Jazz Singer Al Jolson lampooned the Black image with his song, going back to old stereotypes ridiculing how Black people would "sing and be happy" all the time. Not to mention dance. These images stay in my mind because they remind me how African-Americans were treated in entertainment and socially in the past. But, Benevolent Heretic is right. The past is the past. And we have the power to change it.

A good film to see on the deconstruction of the "Black Face" image is Spike Lee's Bamboozled. In that film, he discusses the entertainment industry and its treatment of people of color.

As of Kentucky's state song, I can only shake my head. I could only guess how hard people argued for "historical accuracy" if they left the word "darkies" in the song. Historical accuracy for whom? Jeez. It doesn't matter how many toes that are stepped on, does it?


Originally quoted by jsobecky

ceci, your last post was thought provoking. You say that you get angry when you see certain stereotypes, but yet you look at them in the historical context of when they were made. That's a very healthy attitude, imo.

If we edit them out, and make it un-PC to ever refer to them or bring them up, then we run the risk of raising a generation of "holocaust-deniers". We need to build a monument to them or else it won't be long before people will say, "Aw, shucks..it wasn't that bad".


Yes. I would be the last to argue for banning the films, or television shows that highlight these instances of negative stereotypes. I would rather have a venue in which to show them and have people talk about it. Because it is not the images themselves that hurt people as much. It is the lack of action that allows people to continue thinking in crystallized positions.

For the sake of the media, people ought to talk about these images and then confront the stereotypes. Furthermore, viewers should be able to discuss what affects them when they are bombarded with such derogatory scenes.

That is why Alain Resnais' Night and Fog (1955) is a very important film to me. It is a film about the holocaust. What the director does is juxstapose the images of Auschwitz during WWII with its post-war ruins. Mr. Resnais' stark images really stuck out to me. I saw a screening of it not too long ago. It's a disturbing film, nevertheless, because it shows the terrible repercussions of war as well as its human toll. After the lights came up, no one could speak.

But then, the questions came. And what came out of it was a great discussion. It was filled with emotion at times as well as anger. But, people came away with more understanding about the horrors of the Holocaust and the information about how the film was made.

That's why it is important to bring the images that we see into a discussion. And for negative stereotypes, it is truly relevant as a starting point to ask questions of another culture or race to see how they might view a film or show.

But images also are compelling because they test your values, character and thoughts about race.



[edit on 21-4-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 05:00 AM
link   
As someone already mentioned, people are scared to discuss race for fear of being called a racist. To be honest i have never understood racism, maybe i am to stupid to get it. I just can't see a reason to hate someone for being black, asian, indian or inuit, can anyone actually explain any logic behind racism? I will give an example of a misinterpreted comment though if anyone is interested.

A good while ago, maybe a few years i was in a pub with four friends. Two of them were black and 3 including me were white so that makes five. I point that out for a reason which will seem more obvious in a minute. So me and my friends have known each other for years. My one friend Mark i have known for over 6 years and he is one of the black guys. Me and Mark often talk about racism and i actually respect his views quite deeply. Not simple because he is black but because he recognises that balck people can be very racist towards white people as well as the other way around.

We were on the subject of a certain black doll, at this point i don't know if i am allowed to mention the name. This is how bad political correctness has gotten, if the mods want to cut this they can. The doll is called a Gollywog, that is it's name. Anyway we were discussing the issue of racism and these dolls and one of my other white friends used the nasty 'N' word that refers to black people in a bad way. Please note he didn't say it in a nasty way it was part of the discussion. Our black friends didn't mind because it was a part of the discussion and wasn't meant in any nasty way, our discussion continued.

Not 15 seconds later a black guy walked over and started calling my friend a racist for using that word. My friend Mark stood up and tried to explain that we were just having a discussion and it wasn't meant in any nasty way at all. This guy then accused my friend Mark of betraying his people! This is the problem, you can't make any comment that could be seen as racist so we are all looking over our shoulders as it were. We are being careful of what we say all the time and this i think makes the problem worse, it breeds resentment.

We aren't allowed to use certain historical words even in a careful thought out discussion. People of all races and religions often refer to others as 'there people' and so segregate themselves completely. We need to put aside our hangups of race and language, we should be able to use words we want as long as it isn't meant in a nasty way and we need to stop segregating ourselves.



posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 05:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006
The way I see the exchange between donwhite and jsobecky, imho, is important however. On his side, jsobecky has suggested that Rev. Jackson is not to be held up to the standards that people place upon him. On the other side, donwhite, is questioning jsobecky on his hypocrisy to single out Rev. Jackson as one of many preachers who have taken advantage of the system. Although their exchange is slightly more political than what the topic asked for, I think it is fair to have an exchange about Rev. Jackson because it does have to with race and "role models".

I for one would like jsobecky to explain himself why he singles out Rev. Jesse Jackson as a bad example and why he thinks that the dignitary is a false leader beyond his first post. I would also like him to address his feelings in which he points out this fact. Is the preacher someone that represents a "bad" Black role model? Or, simply that, Rev. Jackson represents some key feelings that jsobecky might have about the leaders of the Black community? Why does he fixate all this concern about Rev. Jackson?

It might be better if jsobecky could frame his concerns in a question so we can talk about it.

Perhaps then, jsobecky can enlighten us on why he chooses Rev. Jackson. I don't mean to put him on the spot. But there is a reason why he used Rev. Jackson as a point of contention. And before I chime in about what I think, I'd rather hear jsobecky out. And in that way, the debate about Rev. Jackson can be worked out in the thread.


Well, I certainly didn't just pick JJ out of thin air and begin slamming him. I picked on him because Saphronia and donwhite were apologizing for him. If donwhite had apologized for Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson, I would have jumped on that. I'm not being hypocritical here. donwhite brought up the white guys, not me. The same as he brought up "GOP equals racist" and "Christian racists children". To him, the only good white guy is a Democrat.

But everybody lets his comments slide. Why is that? Could it be because this board is populated with like-minded people? Are you all sitting there nodding at his words while he slings his hate speech?

Saphronia got all huffy because she implied that I was telling tales about JJ, that he had never extorted money from corporate America, or that he doesn't make his family and friends rich while tossing an occasional bone to the masses. Right away, I'm the bad guy, I'm the hater.

So, I take the time and effort to answer her challenge by providing facts. And that's all it takes - people don't want to hear that. So naturally, they shoot the messenger.

Before I said word one, donwhite apologizes for JJ's extortion by saying it takes cash to be able to fight injustice, man those first-class tickets are expensive!

To answer your question "Is the preacher someone that represents a "bad" Black role model?", let me say this. He would be a bad role model for me. I don't agree with adultery, I don't like extortionists. I'm not as quick as most to excuse that behavior. But everybody has to make up their own mind. He certainly would not be someone I would want to model my life after.

Another question: "Or, simply that, Rev. Jackson represents some key feelings that jsobecky might have about the leaders of the Black community?"

Things are much different today than they were back in the 60's and 70's. Back then, blacks had a different battle than they do today. There's no longer a reason for blacks to be as militant as they might once have been. The days of JJ and Al Sharpton are over; all that's left for them is to line their pockets. They know it, too.

Today, black role models are shifting away from politics to the members of society that busted their butts to succeed; the doctors, the business people, the teachers. Bill Cosby gets shouted down because he gets in the face of the black inner city that has a 4 time higher death rate for young black mothers than white mothers. He is unpopular because he comes down on the heads of black men that abandon their role in raisng the children that they father. He is a man whose message I admire, although there was a time when I hated him because he had made an overtly racist statement.

Education is the key. And not Black History 101, but med school and the bar.

So, no, I'm not fixated on Jesse. I've seen his kind too often, and the carnival he puts on. I'm surprised that people still fall for his spiel. The same as I'm astonished that people still write a check to the 700 Club. Or burn down an embassy because of a cartoon.

So, is that what you wanted to know, ceci?



posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 07:18 AM
link   
I think we are all forgetting something here, people. Not one of us is of a piece. We all have our bad and our good, all intermixed usually in equal parts, not always, but usually.

Jesse Jackson is no different. He has done some marvelous things, and some not so marvelous. How is he different from any of us? Pat Robertson has done some marvelous things, and some that weren't so marvelous. How is he different from any of us? I'll answer both questions with one sentence: They aren't. Only in magnitude, and exposure. That's all. We've all said things that we immeadiately regreted, done things we wished like hell we'd never done. If you haven't, you're a saint; or a liar.

Before we cast stones, or blame; what say we try to visualize ourselves in the others shoes. Walk a mile, if you will.

I don't know if I can call this an ipiphaney (spelling?), or not. Probably not. All I can try to do is try to walk that mile. Undoubtedly, I will stumble from time to time, falling back into some sort of stereotypical judgemental behaviour. I'm human, failure is what we do to learn. Wisdom is learning from the failures and moving on from there.

Hmm...sorry for the preachiness. All done now
.



posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 08:30 AM
link   
All very interesting reading! So much information I think I'm going to have to start over and re-read the thread!


jsobecky, I just want to apologize to you for coming down so hard on you. You're right, Jackson was being discussed in a not-entirely-positive light before you even posted in this thread. I don't think the 'shakedown artist' comment was necessarily the best way to approach this discussion, but it is your opinion and you have every right to have and express that.

Race is a sensitive issue with me, as it is with many, and I also find myself standing for the underdog in life so I think I overreacted. Sorry.

I still think regardless of what Jackson has done, it's important to acknowledge the good that he has done, too.



posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 08:38 AM
link   
Jsobecky...three of the links you posted were editorials...by definition an editorial is an opinion. It can't be considered proof of a fact. This just goes to show that your view of Jesse Jackson and his boycotts are just commonly held opinions of people like you. Jesse calls for boycotts whenever he feels black folk are being shut out of business deals (those are his politics). He has the right to call a boycott for anything he wants, if he wants to boycott Charmin toilet paper because the baby on the logo is white, so be it. If Charmin changes their logo to a biracial baby to appease Jesse and his boycotters--blame Charmin! And that's the counter opinion to the supposed "shake downs".

Btw, I didn't get huffy. If you took it that way, I'm truly sorry. I wouldn't have typed one word toward you if you hadn't claimed your opinion was a fact. After reading your post since you joined ats…let's just say I know where you stand, I don't even have to read what you wrote. You are entitled to your opinions just don't try and pass them off as fact unless you have some fact...and if you do...I'll accept it because as my sig says...my mind isn't closed. I'm not a lover of Jesse Jackson, but the dood aint a thief, he just has his politics and his power...that's really what you don't like about him--politics and power.

sorry for taking this thread off topic...I have punished myself by staying awake and reading ats threads even though I worked all night...sleep deprivation is a form of torture, ya know.
I'm kinda mad cause I'm out of wats for the month...not one wats to give. ceci and BH, yall get honorable mention wats from me.



posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006
No, you didn't imagine your attack. And I think it is sad that someone attacked you simply because of color. I can tell from the tone of your words that you are still angry about it. But, simply blaming an entire race on a single confrontation is also bad. You've got to readjust your mind-set to think clearly about the situation.

I do not 'have' to do anything and the situation was very clear. I am simply angry that I was attacked and that he was not held accountable.. where have I said that I blame an entire race for it? That would be racism- I didn't even mention his race.

What led up to this? Why do you suppose you were called that derogatory name? What precipitated the fight? You have to put it all into context.

In context I was standing on a train platform talking to my heavily pregnant friend who was sitting on a bench.. we had just gone shopping for baby clothes and were probably talking about girly crap when a guy from the opposite platform threw rocks at us and I was struck in the foot, she was lucky she didn't get hit in the stomach. What do you mean 'what precipitated it'?

Re-examine your feelings and ask yourself if you have been treated by others of this non-white race the same way or positively. And you have to realize that not all members of this non-white race act that way.

So.. you are saying I have to realize that not all members of this non-white race act that way and that generalisations and assumptions are bad yes? I do not think of them all in the same way.. that is an assumption. My main point is racism is still very previlant today but it seems [from my own experiences] that when 'whites' are the victim it's downplayed and sometimes considered morally justifiable [an eye for an eye]. I have even been told that I 'have it better' by non whites [as in plural not all] .. well yes I'd agree if I didn't have rocks hurled at me.

Biggots come in all colours.


[edit on 21-4-2006 by riley]



posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by riley
Yeah. I use it because it's comforting.. must have been my imagination when I was waiting for a train and a 'non-white' pelted two fist size rocks at me, fractured a bone in my foot, called me white trash and then told me I was only angry at him because I was a racist.
Thats just ONE experience.

A guy like that, you should have dragged him over and kicked his racist butt with your one good foot. I know I would have.



posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 03:38 PM
link   
riley,

I have more to say, but I don't have time right now. But I wanted to say that I do sympathize with you. It shouldn't have happened. And yes, there are bigots in all colors. But even in your response, the rage comes out. And you have to deal with that rage.

I for one am not downplaying your situation. It is very serious for someone to throw rocks at you and hurt you. I just want to say that in the same way that other people have experienced racism, you have to find some sort of redress for it. And I don't think that Whites deserve some payback. That is a wrong assumption that you have about 'non-white' people. We don't go around hurling rocks at people hoping to hit a White person.

Tell the police. Make a description. Make sure that the police will follow up.

This is not only a crime of racism. It is a crime of violence and it should not happen to anyone.

But, with that being said, you really do have to deal with your experience and try to make some sense of it.

I wish you luck and I hope that you can come to terms with it instead letting your anger get the best of you.



posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 05:53 PM
link   
There are several different views on this. As a manager, I have to keep in mind while hiring people, to try and keep a very diverse staff working. There has only been one time when someone called me a racisit and accused me of doing such. (Course the person was being terminated for gross abuse of customers). Most people, when they see a few people of a particular race, tend to get an impression of how the rest would be from those actions. So those of African American descent would see the white people as being far well off compared to them, those of a muslim or arabian descent would see white americans as being dirty and immoral. Not because we are, but from the actions of a few people. And that sets the tone of how we would think of others of that race. The one thing to remember is that everyone is different. And that not all are the same. With all, there are good and bad, just have to keep an open mind.



posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 09:24 PM
link   
Boy, oh boy. Lots of fascinating responses. I would like to say thank you to Saphronia for the honorary WATS. I am grateful for your support. And I am equally grateful for your participation in this thread.

And I appreciate seagull for what he said, because it demonstrates that we need to be more mindful of judging others. It is fair to examine the works of a certain dignitary and see if he/she fits into our criteria of ideals. But, we also have to cut some slack too.


Originally quoted by riley
I have even been told that I 'have it better' by non whites [as in plural not all] .. well yes I'd agree if I didn't have rocks hurled at me.


Although I have sympathy for your situation, I have to ask one question. Why do you think that Whites have it better than "non-whites"? You said it in your response. And you said that you'd agree. I just want to know why.


Originally quoted by Imaginary Reality 1984
We aren't allowed to use certain historical words even in a careful thought out discussion. People of all races and religions often refer to others as 'there people' and so segregate themselves completely. We need to put aside our hangups of race and language, we should be able to use words we want as long as it isn't meant in a nasty way and we need to stop segregating ourselves.


Yes, that's true. But there is a historical and social context to the N-word. It's not fair that your friend was attacked for using it--if it were acceptable to use it amongst your Black friends. But still at the same time, it is an inflammatory word. And, sometimes in a public situation, you have to be judicial in using it. I think that the same thing goes with Black people. Black people when they are amongst themselves, use the "N-word" quite frequently.

However, there is a way to explain this. First, the "N-word" has been used in such a racially volatile way that in its modern context, it is offensive because it brings back all the "racial baggage" Black people have experienced. For someone outside the race to use the word, it is literally like being punched in the gut.

On the other hand, when Black people use the word, they use it as a way to desensitize themselves from its painful implications. By taking the "N-word" back, they are taking the power away from the word and rendering it useless.

Sadly enough, I don't know where I stand on this issue, except to say that it's best to be socially mindful when the word is used. If I were White, I would not want to shout the "N-Word" in the middle of Watts or Harlem. Lest, you had a death wish. However, if there is a meaningful discussion of the word and people are trying to make sense of it, then perhaps it should be used in its context to get to the bottom of why it is offensive.

It is sad that historical words are afforded this power. But, you have to realize, not all people are over its use--especially when it was a commonly printed word in newspapers during the 18th and 19th century.

What are some other thoughts about this?


Originally quoted by jsobecky

Today, black role models are shifting away from politics to the members of society that busted their butts to succeed; the doctors, the business people, the teachers. Bill Cosby gets shouted down because he gets in the face of the black inner city that has a 4 time higher death rate for young black mothers than white mothers. He is unpopular because he comes down on the heads of black men that abandon their role in raisng the children that they father. He is a man whose message I admire, although there was a time when I hated him because he had made an overtly racist statement.

Education is the key. And not Black History 101, but med school and the bar.
[....]
So, is that what you wanted to know, ceci?


jsobecky, I agree that people need to have a jaundiced eye when looking at dignitaries. However, I have to agree with Benevolent Heretic that you can't always ignore the good that the person has done. I don't think that Rev. Jackson is not socially redeemable. I do understand that you tend to root out the hypocrisy that might lie with Rev. Jackson's character--not to mention other leaders that might be just as hypocritical.

Despite all the things he has done, Rev. Jackson has fought for civil rights. That is a good thing about his character. Do I approve that he has an illegitimate child? No. I don't. But in my eyes, it only shows that people are human. They make mistakes. And they are not the paragon of perfectness. But, was Rev. Jackson prosecuted for these "shakedowns" as you say? No.

So, what you claim might or might not be legitimate.

As of role models, I think you are right. Black people do have to have role models that present good examples for young people. For example, one of my role models is Rosa Parks. Mrs. Parks is a personal hero of mine because she was a woman who refused to give up her seat. It was her simple act that started a boycott of Busing in the South. She went on to benefit others by her acts--especially in building a center to educate youths. She demonstrated the power that one person can do to change society.

And there are other role models in this strain. One is Shirley Chisholm, one of the first Black women in Congress. Another was Congresswoman Barbara Jordan. And yet, still another is Dr. Charles Drew. And of course, Benjamin Banneker, Crispus Attucks, Dr. George Washington Carver and Phyllis Wheatley. I'd ask you to look the last five up, but you would probably think that this was also part of "Black 101".

I think it is rather close-minded to think that all the role models Black people possess is mainly regulated to sports stars, rap stars and the notables. Yes, lawyers and doctors should be honored. But, one of the problems of using "Black 101" as a phrase to denote that knowing our history is lesser than other histories, is to ignore all the Black inventors, innovators and other participants that have contributed to American History. In fact, I can say that in my family resided a Tuskegee Airman. Here is more information about them and how they served honorably in the military as Tuskegee Airmen.

My grandmother also knew a Buffalo Soldier as well.

The Tuskegee Airmen and Buffalo Solders both are considered heroes.

However, in the vein of sports heroes, most certainly you must not forget Jackie Robinson and Joe Louis. To my father and his generation, Jackie Robinson and Joe Louis represented pioneers which fought not only for the honor of African-Americans, but for the conscience of the nation. So, you cannot dismiss all of our sports heroes as being bad role models.


I get what you are saying. And your intentions are good. Black people do have to take the criticism and allow ourselves to reevaluate our priorities. And yes, you satisfied my question.


Originally quoted by sdcigarpig
Most people, when they see a few people of a particular race, tend to get an impression of how the rest would be from those actions.


That is what I meant when talking about "images". We are quick to judge others on these fabricated characteristics. So, it benefits everybody to ask questions and meet people from different walks of life. You don't have to go whole hog. But take a step one at a time and keep an open mind.

It is improper just to brand someone "a racist". However, if there is proof of past actions and there is a record of racism to back it up, then the shoe fits. Other than that, we have to be a little bit more thoughtful into reading the intentions of other people.


To everyone else:

Please do ask more questions. Ask lots! Keep the conversation rolling! And I still have that shout out to the other ethnicities and races to participate. Please come on by!

















[edit on 22-4-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 11:01 PM
link   
A few years ago, I was shown a copy of a public school textbook from the 1800's (from a midwestern state, forgot which one) in which one of the lessons taught about the different races, complete with a hierarchy of races, based on darkness of skin. Guess who was on top, all the way down to the bottom--best to least. That "races" are "different" and that there is white supremacy was taught as a fact! Until the United States can put to rest this outdated thinking born of ignorance, we will continue to discuss race. This outdated thinking has been our inheritance we must disown.



posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 11:38 PM
link   
Well I deal with Race everyday...comes with the job.
I discuss it the same as I discuss blonds vs brunetts. Ive known black and white and even native american drug dealers and black and white and yes, native american cops/partners.
discussion is always good, but leave the preconcieved notions behind and come at it with an open mind.
Trust me the police Profession is FULL of rascism



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 12:05 AM
link   
I would like to welcome the new posters to the thread.

Desert:

Your observance of the old education textbooks is one of the sad relics of what is appropriately titled the "color bar". To think that this knowledge was deeply ingrained in the minds of school children of that era, it is sad enough to realize that some of the problems between races start.

That's why now we still have some problems with race today.

Police_Officer339:

Then may I ask a question? What is the deal with racial profiling? I'm sure there isn't anything overtly stated. But why do cops do it? I do not want to get anyone in trouble. I just want a straight answer because it is prevalent and myself and many others can probably exchange tales.

Or if anyone else has an answer, please contribute.

Or if you have a question, feel free to ask it!






[edit on 22-4-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 05:22 AM
link   

However, in the vein of sports heroes, most certainly you must not forget Jackie Robinson and Joe Louis. To my father and his generation, Jackie Robinson and Joe Louis represented pioneers which fought not only for the honor of African-Americans, but for the conscience of the nation. So, you cannot dismiss all of our sports heroes as being bad role models.

I intentionally left out athletics because the schools use the kids to sell seats and get TV time, then spit them out after 4 years without a usable education. Maybe 1 out of 1,000 make it to the pros, and there's only one Mikey per 100,000 players. And he is a good role model, imo.


Originally posted by desert
A few years ago, I was shown a copy of a public school textbook from the 1800's (from a midwestern state, forgot which one) in which one of the lessons taught about the different races, complete with a hierarchy of races, based on darkness of skin. Guess who was on top, all the way down to the bottom--best to least. That "races" are "different" and that there is white supremacy was taught as a fact! Until the United States can put to rest this outdated thinking born of ignorance, we will continue to discuss race. This outdated thinking has been our inheritance we must disown.


I'm not defending it, but look at the time period. The Civil War was fought over slavery, among other things.



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 06:58 AM
link   
jsobecky,

That is true that for sports in the modern sense. I would much rather have athletes not be seduced by the NBA or the NFL because of the money. Their education is rather important. And yes, I feel frustrated when some young men and women leave school to attempt it in the pros. Yes, you're right. And like I said, there are priorities that need to be reevaluated.

However, sports in its historical context can serve as more relevant examples of Black History.

But when mentioning Mr. Robinson and Mr. Louis, they are representative of great moments in sports, national and Black history. They are stories of inspiration, struggle and great achievement.

Jackie Robinson broke the color line in baseball by playing for the Dodgers. That was a very important thing for African-Americans because before that there was the Negro Leagues. Black Players were not allowed to play in the major leagues until 1948 when Mr. Robinson came along.

And Joe Louis is important because he fought Max Schmeling. Their fights were not only used in the national sense (Hitler wanted to prove that Aryans were superior to other races), but in the racial sense. As my father tells it, there was not a pin drop in all his neighborhood. Everyone tuned into that fight because they wanted to listen to every part of match. Joe Louis, lost the first fight, but won the second. But years later, Schmeling and Louis became friends. Schmeling ended up paying the burial costs for Louis in Arlington cemetary.

The other important story of inspiration (and there are many others) is Jesse Owens. He ran in the 1936 Olympics in Berlin. Here too, Hitler wanted to prove Aryan superiority. But Mr. Owens won four gold medals during the games. The dictator was shamed. Owens proved his importance not only to America; he, like Louis became an inspiration to Black people everywhere.

Here is a short description of Owens' role in the 1936 Olympics.

That is why the historical context is important. This isn't simply "Black 101". These stories are important markers in the timeline of the nation.

As for Michael Jordan: He is a superior athlete, both at UNC and the Chicago Bulls. And I am waiting for him to prove himself as a leader off the court.


I hope that makes it a little clearer why I meant that you simply can't say "Black 101". African-American role models have long existed within the Community. I could only speak for myself, but my eldest relatives and their friends still tell the tales and explain how much certain luminaries among the years have made an impact on their lives.


To donwhite: to be fair, and if you're interested, please present your side of the case for Rev. Jackson. I don't want to put you on the spot either. But, I want to hear your side of the regarding his potential to be a "role model" or not.





edit: to correct information on joe louis.


[edit on 29-4-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006
It's not fair that your friend was attacked for using it--if it were acceptable to use it amongst your Black friends.
...
Black people when they are amongst themselves, use the "N-word" quite frequently.


This is another thing I don't understand and as of yet, don't accept. I don't use the word. EVER. Not under my breath, not even in private, when talking to my husband. I won't repeat it if someone else says it. In historical context, I say "the N-word" and I still hate it. And not out of respect for black people. I avoid it out of respect for myself.

I understand why black people say they use it, but it makes no sense to me. If the word is offensive then why use it? And if they're 'taking the power away' then why can't anyone use it?

To me, it's a power trip that black people (who use the word) are on. To say "I can use this word because of the color of my skin, but you can't because of the color of your skin", is RACIST and feeds RACISM and I don't buy it, I don't like it.

And black people (who use it) don't just use it 'amongst themselves'. They use it, period.

Do any of you use it?



By taking the "N-word" back, they are taking the power away from the word and rendering it useless.


That's not true. If it was powerless, anyone could use it. If they want to take the power away, they should not use it. The only people I ever hear use it are black people. If a white person used it in my presence, they would hear from me. And you know what? If a black person uses it, they hear from me too.

I don't say much about this, but I really do hate it. I think it just lengthens the life of racism in the society today. When black people use it (yet forbid white people using it), it feels to me like they're saying, "We're on top now - We have the power now." And that's no better and no different that white on black racism/superiority. NO DIFFERENT.

They use it as a tool to weild over white people. They use it for power.

Like I said, I don't use it out of self-respect. I actually think there will come a time when black people respect themselves enough to stop using it. I certainly hope so. I hope there comes a time when they don't feel the need for it. That's the power of true equality.



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006
But even in your response, the rage comes out. And you have to deal with that rage.

'Rage'? I'm just loving your continued observations about my state of mind. The tone of my response was also influenced by you previously telling me:

But, simply blaming an entire race on a single confrontation is also bad.

When I didn't say I blamed anyone and and don't.. and it's not a 'single' confrontation.. I just used it as an example.. but I already said that didn't I? This statement was also another way of calling me a racist which further pissed me off.

You've got to readjust your mind-set to think clearly about the situation.

Maybe I got my wires crossed and was blinded by racism or paranoia? Not sure what you meant by that but clearly you thought I had the 'wrong mindset' which ties into your earlier assumption that I'm a racist [oh the irony].

What led up to this?

As though I should 'know' the chain of events that took place before I was assaulted.. and then see if I somehow contributed to them. This question really couldn't mean anything else.

Why do you suppose you were called that derogatory name?

Perhaps I provoked the verbal abuse as well? I said he called me white trash.. not sure WHAT exactly you are inferring but wow it's offensive. Hey.. maybe I was wearing a mini skirt or something!


What precipitated the fight?

Inferring that it may have been a 'mutual' conflict and not an unprovoked attack.. despite my having already stated otherwise.

You have to put it all into context.

My judgment was clouded and i don't know the way it 'really' happened? So YOU do?


What motivated you in asking these insulting questions in the first place? I kind of asked that before but you avoided it because you may have realised how offensive they were. They strike me as bizzarre and now I'm now wondering if they would have been asked at all if I was a 'non white'. Seemed to be alot of doubt about my story.
I was prompted to give an example of the 'race card' being used to I did.. then basically got given the third degree when I reacted to your presumptious reponses:


And you must try, like some Black people, to get the "chip off your shoulder" and make peace with what happened to you by replacing this horrible act with positive experiences.

Chip on my shoulder.. might be there, might not but it was still uncalled for.

I for one am not downplaying your situation.

By expecting me to get into specifics to 'validate' an attack you did. If you did not doubt it happened you would have taken my word for it that some race attacks are directed at whites.. instead you asked me to re-evevaluate my experience and it's cause as though I need some moral 'guidence' understanding the difference between a racial attack and a regular disagreement. Do you have any idea how patronising that is?

It is very serious for someone to throw rocks at you and hurt you. I just want to say that in the same way that other people have experienced racism, you have to find some sort of redress for it.

I do. When I see someone inferring that whites do not experience racism.. I correct them.

And I don't think that Whites deserve some payback.

I don't think you do either but some do.

That is a wrong assumption that you have about 'non-white' people. We don't go around hurling rocks at people hoping to hit a White person.

I didn't make that assumption. You informed me that I blamed all of 'that race' for my assault and told me why it was wrong to assume that. I just love these after school specials.

What I actually said:

My main point is racism is still very previlant today but it seems [from my own experiences] that when 'whites' are the victim it's downplayed

[As proven here.]

and sometimes considered morally justifiable [an eye for an eye]. I have even been told that I 'have it better' by non whites [as in plural not all]

How many disclaimers do you want? It is clearly my personal opinion based on personal experience.. not a racist generalisation.

Tell the police. Make a description. Make sure that the police will follow up.

I did. Nothing happened and they blew me off.. for some reason all the cameras on that line were not working that day.


But, with that being said, you really do have to deal with your experience and try to make some sense of it.

In what way? Am I suppose to ignore it or picket against it? I think the best way to deal with it is to share my experiences.. that is what I have done.

I wish you luck and I hope that you can come to terms with it instead letting your anger get the best of you.

Someone said something on this thread that annoyed me.. [they never actually reponded- I wonder if they still think the race card doesn't exist?] then you said something that further annoyed me. Being annoyed by people on a message board does not equate to not 'coming to terms' with something. If you had've just agreed with me in the first place and said something like "Thats awful." and discussed the issues surrounding it instead of "But maybe it didn't happen that way.." I would not be responding the way I am.

The straw:


Originally quoted by riley
I have even been told that I 'have it better' by non whites [as in plural not all] .. well yes I'd agree if I didn't have rocks hurled at me.


Although I have sympathy for your situation,

So you keep saying.. where was this 'sympathy' when I first posted? You basically told me it might have been my fault ['What precipitated it?'].

I have to ask one question. Why do you think that Whites have it better than "non-whites"? You said it in your response. And you said that you'd agree. I just want to know why.

You've responded to this twice now. Perhaps re-reading this a third time might help you actually see the other half of the sentence:


'well yes I'd agree if I didn't have rocks hurled at me.'

I DID NOT not say that so therefore I don't agree. To put it simply as I can.. if I had never suffered abuse because for my skin colour I would say I have it better than non whites.. but considering NO race is immune from racism I don't.

Now.. I know this response is very harsh and I'm sorry but your very first response to me basically called me a racist [I blamed all non whites] and told me [in a very round about way] that I might have miss-read a situation where I was physically assaulted and that I may have been to blame.. THEN you have the audacity to tell me I need to deal with my rage when you have contributed to it, and NOW you are missquoting me as saying I think whites have it better. :shk:



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 09:19 AM
link   
Great discussion here. I think my point in my prior post was to say we still have the echoes of an outdated, ignorant thinking as a nation. Race only matters here if the belief is held that humanity is "divided" into races (for a religious or scientific purpose or whatever), as if the color of one's skin matters, and a derivitive belief that one race is superior.
Laws against racism do not necessarily mean this thinking goes away (just look at Nazi ideals still being out there). Also, race can be different than culture or ethnicity.
I recommend readings by bell hooks when she writes about racism and superiority.





new topics




 
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join