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: 5
1
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 09:24 AM
link   
So how about this. My black friend Mark calls me cracker lol. It's meant as a sort of joke and i think it's funny, i have never taken offense to it. I have even used the N word as a joke with him and he has never been offended. The classic "What's up my n word here" is used all the time in our little group of friends. When my mate says "Ahh what would you know cracker", it is a complete joke. He doens't meanit and he isn't really saying that being white makes my opinion less valid. He smiles when he says it, it's a joke.

Ok i am repeating myself here over and over sorry.

Maybe this is the exception to the rule. None of us give a damn what people think as to race. Dont' get me wrong here i wouldn't use the word when referring to someone i don't know because there wouldn't be a need to.

The historical use of such a word is surely justified though. If i am talking about the early american colonies and the slave trade then surely i can use such a word? Like when a friend asked me why the word was so offensive i explained various bits and pieces of information about it. He used the word to ask me, should he have said "oh what does the n word actually mean"? At the time we were talking about something else and i wouldn't have known what he was on about unless he used it. Maybe we should say "Oh you know the N word that refers to people with black skin in a derogatory way". I don't know about everyone else but that's a bit of a mouthful!

If i don't mean it in a nasty way then should it be offensive?




posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 09:25 AM
link   
St. Paul admonished slaves to be obedient to their masters. His successors-in-interest never flinched when it came to owning and profiting from the institution of slavery. I’m thinking Spain, France and England. Tribal Africa had its own problems, so it was easy for the Europeans to indulge their lust for money at the expense of what came to be several million human beings. The first slave was landed in Jamestown in 1619, a full year before the Pilgrims docked at Plymouth Rock.

The 1775 Articles of Confederation - on the web via Google - never mentioned slavery. There were 2 major defects in the Articles. 1) The executive function was a committee made up of 1 person from each state, 13 total, operating on a majority vote of 7 needed to take any action. 2) No power to tax, rather, the Continental Congress had to request money from the states, which some states never honored. Without France, we could not have paid the soldiers. Back to slavery. Unlike the Articles, the Constitution we now revere dealt with slavery: It gave away the store to the South which owned most of the slaves in 1787.

Cotton was the most valuable commodity traded in the 18th century. Charleston was the richest city in America. Financiers, ship owners, and our own nascent industrial revolution centered in New England, all profited off the institution of slavery. The newly invented cotton gin had made the removal of seeds from the flowering cotton boll quicker, easier and cheaper, thereby making raw cotton an even more valuable commodity.

1787. The Founding Fathers consented to let slavery remain in full force and effect until 1808. A 31 year hiatus. The new Constitution limited import duties on slaves to $10, a mere token compared to the average value of $300 per slave in the late 1700s. Perhaps worse, if that is possible, was the concession to count slaves in the population on which the number of seats in the House of Representatives was based.

The compromise was to count slaves as 3/5ths of a white person. It was hailed as a victory for the anti-slave cause. To paraphrase, with victories like that, who can afford defeats? Because slaves could not vote, to have been consistent, the slaves should not have been counted at all. America did not have a Moral Majority. Indeed, it was distinctly an Immoral Majority! North and South.

Abolitionists. There were always some people opposing the institution of slavery. Some of those people lived in the south of the United States. One of the more notable examples of resistance to slavery was found in the Presbyterian Church which split into a northern and a southern branch over this issue. Almost everyone knew in his ‘heart of hearts’ as Barry Goldwater once remarked, that slavery was wrong. It was contrary to all the excitement and learning of the Age of the Enlightenment, of which our early leaders were deeply indebted to and were part of and leaders in.

The pro vs. anti slavery fight settled down to whether or not to allow the expansion of slavery in newly acquired territories of the fledgling United States. The first American land acquisition came in 1780 and was called the Northwest Territory; it included the future Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and Michigan. Remember, “west” meant “on the far side” of the Appalachian Mountains to Ben Franklin and his peers on the East coast. It is noteworthy that the Northwest Ordinance passed into law by the Continental Congress, in 1780, set aside every 16th section of land for public education. The precursor of today's land grant colleges and universities. Federal support for public education is older than the Republic.

Cotton is a plant that depletes the soil very quickly. Because of cotton’s high value - it was the main raw material used in England’s industrial revolution - cotton growers preferred to move to new land rather than rotate the crops. Sort of an early slash and burn philosophy. Americans have no tradition of good stewardship of the land we found here. Or took, depending on your point of view. When land (like oil today) is cheap, it is hard to conserve.

Which brings us past the slave state free state Missouri and Nebraska Compromises to the Dred Scott case of 1857. Many state legislatures had enacted laws granting freedom to slaves who escaped into their territory. OTOH, Federal laws which overrule state laws, allowed the recovery and return of runaway slaves as “lost or misplaced” property. Bounty hunters were running rampant in the North and were beyond the legal control of those states.

The Dred Scott decision was so horrific because it put into print for the first time what many Americans had already assumed was the case, that NO African person could ever be a citizen of the United States, whether or not he was born free, became free or was a slave.

Civil War. The Dred Scott case threw down the gauntlet! It took the 14th Amendment to our Constitution to cure the judiciary’s disdain for common decency in our system of laws. The 13th Amendment confirmed what 4 years of civil war, 620,000 dead soldiers and the Emancipation Proclamation had established. (Note: 400,000 soldiers died of disease and complications.) It took the 15th Amendment to guarantee black men the right to vote. By this time - post Civil War - the United States had already acquired the Louisiana Purchase, annexed Texas, conquered from Mexico, the South-west including New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Nevada and California, and reached an agreement with Canada on the northern border from Lake Superior to Puget Sound. The U.S. truly stretched “from sea to shining sea.”

1876. With the election of Hayes, the North had given up on the Reconstruction effort. The South’s relentless truculence had paid off with the most despicable doctrine made in hell, white supremacy, fully in place. Gleefully enforced by both racists laws on the books and white lawlessness in the streets. By the by, the term “grandfather” was invented in the South. After 1876, the whites regained control of the state legislatures. They imposed a literacy test on prospective voters. It turned out that a great majority of poor whites could not read either, so the laws were amended to allow a person to vote if his grandfather had voted. Poor, illiterate white voters were “grand-fathered” in. And blacks were out and kept out by threats and real violence until the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The “window of opportunity” for blacks was short. From 1865 to 1876. Barely 11 years. The window was shut tight in 1896.

Post 1865. The newly freed slaves, numbering about 4 million and not quite half the southern state’s population, were forced back into economic “servitude” much as was to be repeated in South Africa in the 1940s when the infamous Apartheid laws and practices were established. The system - the culture - in the south came to be known as “Jim Crow” and was granted legal standing in another case that will live in infamy, the 1896 Plessey v. Ferguson, out of Louisiana. To paraphrase another notable utterance by an equally notable American.

1896. Let me digress. Plessey was black. He bought a ticket to ride a train from Texas to Louisiana. In Texas, everyone sat in the same coach. When the train crossed the border into Louisiana, that state’s laws required racially segregated coaches. Ferguson, the train’s conductor, ordered Plessey to move to another coach. Plessey refused. Ferguson called the police to arrest him. Plessey was fined $10. He appealed the fine. The case went to the U.S. Supreme Court which made its second infamous ruling to come out of the “9 old white men” that “separate but equal” fulfilled the “equal protection of the law” requirement of the 14th Amendment.

White Americans display an odd dichotomy in their character. Odd because one seems to be mutually exclusive of the other. As individuals, most Americans - I believe this - will treat persons in one on one situations with due respect, due regard and with civil courtesy. White on black, black on white. OTOH, when in a group, or removed from personal contact, or in a disconnected setting and out of sight you might say, white Americans are perfectly satisfied to “go along to get along” and will usually act in a discriminatory way towards others, especially people of color.

For example, the local white bank branch manager is willing to share his gym with a black person, to share his eating out facility, even to share his mega church building in some instances, but this same white person will be equally adept at and feel no moral compunction not to LIE over the phone or in a letter to a black applicant who is being denied equal access to loans and services because of secret blue lining or red lining. That is, to easily function under a managerial regime that blocks some applicants on racial considerations alone or primarily.

It was not until 1954, 89 years after the Civil War, more than a lifetime, 3 generations, in Thurgood Marshall’s case of Brown v. Topeka, that the “9 old white men” finally “followed” the promise of America expressed in the July 4, 1776, Declaration of Independence. The court declared the Plessey case to be overruled. Jim Crow was dead. The struggle for racial parity was put into a new arena. All laws based on race were declared not only to be unconstitutional, somewhat an esoteric concept, but in real life, to be null, void and unenforceable.

But old ways die hard. I guess it is called a “comfort zone” that all too many whites had become accustomed to living in. I come from a poor background. I’m white. I can recall when, in the late 1940s, my mother did not like to iron. We were able to hire a black lady who lived 2 blocks away, to come to our house 2 times a month to iron our clothes. A white person would not have done that. It was sort of a labor breakdown along racial lines. This kind of relationship was symptomatic of what we are all talking about here.

1950s. In the larger world, my father was an equipment supervisor of a construction company. (An inventory clerk.) In the Army his job would be motor pool NCOIC. E5 or E6. Half of the drivers or operators were black, half were white. Frankly, the main qualifications my father had to get this job were, 1) he was white, 2), able to read and write, and 3) always punctual. And, the boss liked my dad. Maybe that should be the number one qual? My father was never overtly racist. We never used the “N” word. But in some ways, the subtle racism we practiced was all the more vicious than the overt racism of Selma’s Bull Connor, for example.

Today. How can you wage a war of survival against a person who is so nice to you, most of the time? Yet, that person is part and parcel of a system that exploits you, that demeans you, that obstructs you from fulfilling your God given abilities. That is basically the form of discrimination people of color face today. Sometimes it is cruelly disingenuous as when politicians use well known and well understood “code” words. Seeking white votes at the expense of black citizens.

It is seen in people who denounce the unfairness inherent in race based college entrance quotas. Sure, every seat “given” to a black student under such a program, is probably a seat “denied” to a white student. But life is like that. To undo the misdeeds of the past may require what is superficially a misdeed in the present. But if we fail to do that, and the penny-pinchers who will not fund a school capable of handing ALL students eligible and ambitious carry the day, then you have to make some choices. Well, this has probably gone on tool long.

I’ll leave it to say this, racism in America has not been solved, it is still like an albatross around our neck. It pulls all of us down. The sooner we can deal with it honestly, take logical steps to undo the past, the better chance we have to seeing everyone fulfilled to his genetic capacity and racism may be found only in the history books.



[edit on 4/22/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 10:53 AM
link   
riley,

Sometimes, I think the the road to Hell is paved with the best intentions. You entirely misinterpreted my thoughts about the entire situation.

I didn't mean for it to sound like an afternoon special. I was merely trying to give advice.

But, since you didn't interpret it that way, I'm sorry that I've offended you.

I merely asked what happened and how it happened. I then said that I had sympathy for what happened to you. And then, I felt by the tone of your words that you were still angry because of an attack and asked you to do something about it. Which is true, you did go to the police. They didn't help. And you felt that talking about it was cathartic to you.

I never thought you were racist. I thought that it was bad that a racist thing happened against you. I was not talking down to you. I was not saying that it should have happened to you. I merely asked you a question why have you been told that "Whites have it better"? But, since you are outraged by my response, I won't add to your annoyance anymore.

How about someone else giving you a satisfactory answer more to your liking?

A note to the other posters on this thread:

Does someone else have a different view of riley's situation?

I'll read and understand what others have to say about his situation. But to relieve his annoyance, I will not answer. I've tried my best.


I will be back with some more responses to today's comments a little bit later.




[edit on 22-4-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006
Sometimes, I think the the road to Hell is paved with the best intentions.

Care to elaborate?

You entirely misinterpreted my thoughts about the entire situation.

Though I may not be telepathic but I did not misinterpite your words. When I asked you to clarify them.. you avoided it. What was with telling me to put the incident 'in context'? To readjust my mindset? What was with asking me 'what precipitated it' and why he called me white trashed? Clearly he did it because he was a racist.. I had said that already but you asked me as though there might be another reason. The only way I would be able to answer those questions would be if the motive for the attack was something other than racism. Thats what I believe you were inferring.. feel free to explain what was behind those questions if you like.. [and for the chip on your shoulder' remark- bit hard to see your good intentions when you're insulting me] for the moment though I'm still certain you asked them because you doubted my story. I can only speculate as to why.

I never thought you were racist.

It must have been someone else who told me repetitively not to blame all non whites then as though I were.
You made your thoughts quite clear.. don't pass the buck.

How about someone else giving you a satisfactory answer more to your liking? Does someone else have a different view of riley's situation?

They have..

jsobecky
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.

I wanted to do this but I was on the ground. Notice how he does not doubt that the attack was racially motivated? He/she has not questioned me about specifics or told me that maybe I took it out of context.

Now.. to 'my situation'.. I've already explained it in enough detail so I'd rather know people's opinions on the political slant of it. When are people going to make non whites just as accountable for racism as they do whites?

[edit on 22-4-2006 by riley]



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006
Does someone else have a different view of riley's situation?


Yeah. There are jerks everywhere. In every town, in every race. Some jerk took out his frustrations on riley. It sucks.

And yes, racisim goes ALL ways. Racism, like being a jerk can be found in every town and every race.

As far as I'm concerned, there's no more to it than that. If riley wants to hold onto it as a beacon of racism against whites, it's his (or her) perrogative. If he wants to let it go as some person being a jerk (whether out of racism or whatever), also his choice.

But I'll bet you a million dollars if the person who threw the rock knew riley was still carrying it around and giving the incident power, they'd be very happy and proud of doing it. riley, the anger you carry around about it isn't hurting anyone but yourself.

I've been a victim of racism, too. It sucks. But I'm not giving racism power by holding onto it and being angry about it or demanding any sort of accountability. I KNOW as well as you do that the racism gate swings both ways. Accountability cannot be forced on people, it's something they have to TAKE.

Just my opinion.



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 12:36 PM
link   
riley, I have given your comments a lot of thought. And while I felt like not answering, reading Benevolent Heretic's post gave me the courage to answer.

I said in response to your incident:


. 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. 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.


I merely said to put the situation into perspective. I did not call you racist. And I hoped that you would not blame another race for your confrontation. (However, I was writing at a time when I was pressed for deadlines, so I didn't have the chance to make it clear). I did not say you were blaming an entire race. I'm sorry if I implied that, because that is not what I meant.


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. You have to use this situation as a way to reexamine your own thoughts regarding racism. And then, you have to look at the bigger picture. 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.


You do have a "chip on your shoulder". You used this situation as a way to justify whites experiencing racism. I believe you. Everyone experiences racism. Here again, I ask that you try to have positive experiences with the 'non-white' race to erase the bad experience you had. But you never said whether you did or didn't.


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.


I took your situation very seriously. I am sorry that the police did not help you. But I truly don't go around saying that Whites deserve payback. And maybe I should not have said that you had any assumptions at all about 'non-white' people. But yes, you should deserve to have it acknowledged that White people experience racism too.


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


I said it the way I meant it: This is a crime of violence and racism. It should not happen to anyone. I personally do not like violence. And I do not like to tell someone to go back and hurt someone else in retaliation. There are other ways to redress your grievances in a peaceful manner. Which you did. You told your story and I applaud you.



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


I really do wish you luck. And I hope that you do come to terms with it. But maybe I didn't sound sincere enough.

That's why I said the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. If I did sound maternalistic (I'm a woman), I was merely trying to give you advice. I was not trying to patronize you. But I am extremely sorry for answering your post the way I did if it hurt your feelings.




[edit on 23-4-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally quoted by Benevolent Heretic

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?


That is a great question because the N-word is a haunting figure of speech, not just for White folk, but for everyone it seems. I hate the "N-word" personally. I cringe when other Black people use it--especially when my relatives use it. Using the N-word amongst Black folk doesn't make the word any better.

But what I meant is that the "N-word" has been implemented in so many ways to insult people, that when Black people use it, they do not feel the sting of the word anymore. I'm not saying that it is right. But for some African-Americans, it works. It's just that at the same time, there is sort of a double-standard. While Black people are taking power away from the word, they do not like it when White people (let alone another races) use it--because it seems more like a racial epithet.

It's not fair that it is used that way. But that's sometimes the way it is. Although I should like the word to have its power taken away so that it hurts no one, I would never advocate anyone to go around and shout it high from the roof tops. It's an ugly word. And it has cultural and racial baggage.

And in some circles, some people use it to make a point. But, I equate the word to other racial insults. And, since I do not like using the "N-word", I do not make it a practice to call anyone else in a racially derogatory fashion. I even feel awkward when my gay friends use "queer". And knowing that it is used to define a genre of studies in homosexuality, that word seems kind of awful to me.

But, here is where I sit on the fence.

There are other Black people who use it. And, I try to tell them that it isn't right to say such a thing. But, they say it anyway, because perhaps, it demonstrates their point. But, even among friends, using this word has a sort of awkwardness about it. It kills the conversation.
So, in polite society, I am mindful enough not to use it. And when people do use it, I just tell them that I don't like it.

But in other situations--like a round table discussion or any other academic occurrence--there are times that the "N-word" is being used in terms of deconstructing its meaning. Still there, I cringe. But, in that context, it is applied as a way to of trying to make sense of a text (such as Mark Twain's Tom Sawyer) or, in breaking down a particular social or cultural issue. It also helps to discuss the "N-word" in that way to open the door to race-relations.


Originally quoted by Benevolent Heretic

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.


Yes, some Black people do. And I wish that they wouldn't because of the negativity that the word radiates. I kind of think they know that the word is awful. But, some people just use it anyway. I know that doesn't excuse the racist intent of the word. I just think it is in poor taste to use the word. Period. I don't like it that some people are okay with it. But, then again, that is their personality. Here too, I would say that Black people have to reexamine their relationship with the word and figure it all out.

But older Black folks who have experienced the brunt of racism--especially in the South--have not used it. At least, that's the case in my family. And if you use it in front of them, that is as good as the kiss of death.

I hope that answered what you asked. But, I will say more about this notion later.


And, I will answer other posts later as well! So keep asking those questions!


[edit on 22-4-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 02:18 PM
link   
One of the major problems currently in first world countries is immigration. Massive immigration from the third world into the first world.

This immigration has benefited: first world business types and the immigrants often at the expense of the average citizen of the first world country involved.

Most people have a tendency to get upset when the country they were born into and the only culture they know is being rapidly transformed before their eyes without their input or permission.

Also there is the issue of governments going all out sometimes to help the immigrant at the expense of the local so that the local can be established successfully. This can cause the local to feel a great deal of anxiety as they doubt their own ability to survive in the long-run while the newcomer often appears to be doing well.

What I find hilarious in all of this discussion is that people do not talk about the economic issues and just focus on soft issues which tend to denigrate or put down those that have complaints with what is going on today.



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Orginally posted by Benevolent Heretic
But I'll bet you a million dollars if the person who threw the rock knew riley was still carrying it around and giving the incident power, they'd be very happy and proud of doing it. riley, the anger you carry around about it isn't hurting anyone but yourself.

AGAIN.. it wasn't the only incident.. and I don't carry that incident around.. it just surfaces when the issue comes up [or if I'm at a train station].
I got angry at Ceci2006 because she made comments that I found offensive and didn't explain them.

Originally posted by ceci2006
I merely said to put the situation into perspective.

This is my point.. what is wrong with my perspective on it? It is a natural one.

I did not call you racist. And I hoped that you would not blame another race for your confrontation. (However, I was writing at a time when I was pressed for deadlines, so I didn't have the chance to make it clear). I did not say you were blaming an entire race. I'm sorry if I implied that, because that is not what I meant.

Thankyou for your apology.. this was what I meant. I'm glad we have cleared the air.

You do have a "chip on your shoulder". You used this situation as a way to justify whites experiencing racism.

I was verifying racism happens against whites.. not justifying. Siting a personal experience of racism does not mean I have a chip on my shoulder.. neither does having an emotional reaction about it.

I believe you. Everyone experiences racism. Here again, I ask that you try to have positive experiences with the 'non-white' race to erase the bad experience you had. But you never said whether you did or didn't.

Good experiences do not erase bad experiences.. and just because I have a bad experience with one race it does not immediately mean I'm going to judge them all on it [as I felt was implied]. This is why I refered to the race as 'non white' as I was trying to avoid labelling that race as I do not like racism and didn't want to fuel further racism. The guy was middle eastern.. I have middle eastern friends so have indeed had good experiences with them. MY personal take on it [if I haven't made it clear] is that I have just had bad experiences with racists.

But yes, you should deserve to have it acknowledged that White people experience racism too.

Then what are your ideas for tackeling all forms of racism?



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 03:08 PM
link   
Speaking for the UK here i will state a few points and some of my beliefs.

First off no one can deny that our NHS would have died years ago if it wern't for the massive influx of immigrant workers we had years ago. Sadly now the NHS is going downhill but that is maybe a different story.

Immigration can greatly help a country, my only condition on immigration is that every immigrant is vetted. They should be made sure to get a job or an education, and speak the native language of the country. If they do these things then i say let them in regardless of culture, race or whatever else.



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 05:01 PM
link   

posted by ImaginaryReality1984: “Speaking for the UK . . First no one can deny our NHS [National Health Service] would have died years ago [but] for the massive influx of immigrant workers. Immigration can help a country, my only condition on immigration is that every immigrant is vetted.


I/R, please define for me “vetted” as you have used it. I am old and like venue and issues, vetted is a word my generation did not use. My dictionary is a 1991 version and of no help.


They should be made to get a job or an education, and speak the native language of the country. If they do these things then I say let them in regardless of culture, race or whatever else. [Edited by Don W]

Well, on learning the language. For many adults that is next to impossible. In America, we have experience where it is the 2nd or 3rd generation before the new people are completely capable in the new language. Then by the 4th generation, they have forgotten their ethnic tongue. Hmm?



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 05:26 PM
link   
ImaginaryReality1984

What is NHS? And how did an influx of immigrants save it? Were they legal or illegal immigrants?

Thx-



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 05:36 PM
link   
I'm a little puzzled at why people are suddenly talking about immigration, and first and third world countries, but I'll watch and see if it hooks back into racism somehow...



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 05:38 PM
link   
donwhite

Your dictionary is dated 4/22/2006.
Just type in "define vetted" to google.

Definitions of VETTED on the Web:

is to make a careful and critical examination of someone or something, eg a person prior to employment.
www.ventureline.com/glossary_V.asp

make a careful and critical examination of (a scheme, work, candidate etc).
www.artistwd.com/joyzine/australia/strine/v.php



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 05:56 PM
link   

posted by jsobecky: “donwhite Your dictionary is dated 4/22/2006.
Just type in "define vetted" to google. Definitions of VETTED on the Web:

is to make a careful and critical examination of someone or something, eg a person prior to employment. to make a careful and critical examination of (a scheme, work, candidate etc).


Thank you, J, I didn’t know that.

NHS. National Health Service. Called Socialized Medicine in a derogatory way in the US, hoping we will not adopt the same scheme. NHS cost Winston Churchill the premiership in 1945. Margaret Thatcher would not dare, could not abolish it.

[edit on 4/22/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 07:27 PM
link   
I have previously written with much disparagement how the Supreme Court had made at least two rulings that put its approving imprimatur on slavery and discrimination based on race. I was referring specifically to the Dred Scott case and the Plessey case. Those were not the only cases that kept in place the remnants of slavery long past the time they should have been buried.

And worse, if possible, all the states of the Old Confederacy relied on those Supreme Court cases to bolster and support their own narrow views and anti-black racism. From my own state of Kentucky, in 1902, barely 6 years after the Plessey case, a member of the state legislature named Day, offered a bill which became law, that provided no school could teach whites and blacks in the same classroom. Popularly known as the “Day Law.” Although Mr. Day denied it was his intent to see two separate public school systems that was the very predictable outcome of the Day law. This same kind of bold and rank discrimination became the common thing in many states.

So how do your create a second class citizenship in a free country? Well, we did it here. So look back barely 50 years and you can see exactly how it was done. You deny blacks the right to vote. All the more, if you can’t vote, you surely know you cannot run for office. Who on this board recalls the first African American Senator after the Reconstruction era? The first black man elected by direct popular vote? OK, you are right, it was Edward W. Brooke, III, b. 1919. he served 2 terms, 1966-1978. A Republican. From Massachusetts. Who was the second black man? Right, Barak Obama. Democrat of Illinois. 2004.

Back to second class citizenship. You mark public restrooms “White Only” and “Colored.” You force blacks to sit in the back of the bus or street-car. I have ridden the streetcar named Desire in NO, where the signs were prominently affixed to the seatbacks. “Colored Passengers Behind This Sign.” The sign could be moved as needed to provide seats for white passengers.

You have very little recourse to the courts. You have less to the police. If you did call the cops, you were very likely to get insulted, maybe physically pushed around, and not uncommonly, arrested and given a “slight beating” to encourage you to “respect” the law. You quickly learned the police would be likely to arrest the first black man who was handy, and you personally knew of so many black men who were in prison, wrongfully, just to let the cops show a “case solved.”

It’s my personal guess between 15% and 30% of all blacks were wrongfully convicted. I do think it is better in 2006 than in 1960, so now, it is probably only 10% to 20% of black men who are wrongfully convicted. That translates to 100,000 to 200,000 black men in 2006 wrongfully serving time in prison. If the average time served is between 3 and 7 years, that means somewhere between 7,500 and 20,000 “innocent’ men are released each year. Angry men. Disillusioned men. Disappointed men. Disheartened men. Sad men. Hopeless men. Somebody needs to think about this.

I could go on and on. But if you know, then you already knew. If you don’t know, then hearing it one more time will not change your outlook. I do suggest you read about Nat Turner sometime. Forewarned is forearmed.


[edit on 4/22/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 08:37 PM
link   
I'll have more to say a little later, but I am going to answer Benevolent Heretic's question about how the conversation steered towards immigration.

This is how:


Originally quoted by denythestatusquo
One of the major problems currently in first world countries is immigration. Massive immigration from the third world into the first world.

This immigration has benefited: first world business types and the immigrants often at the expense of the average citizen of the first world country involved.

Most people have a tendency to get upset when the country they were born into and the only culture they know is being rapidly transformed before their eyes without their input or permission.

Also there is the issue of governments going all out sometimes to help the immigrant at the expense of the local so that the local can be established successfully. This can cause the local to feel a great deal of anxiety as they doubt their own ability to survive in the long-run while the newcomer often appears to be doing well.

What I find hilarious in all of this discussion is that people do not talk about the economic issues and just focus on soft issues which tend to denigrate or put down those that have complaints with what is going on today.


To denythestatusquo: race is not a soft issue, as you say. It is an issue that affects everyone everyday. And sadly enough, racism--as I see it on this board--has trickled into the conversations about "immigration". That is why this thread is trying to have a civil conversation about race. Because if we don't, we won't progress as a nation.

I'm sorry that you find this subject matter hilarious. But I don't think talking about racism is a laugh riot at all. Do you think the issue of race is funny because you refuse to confront your own issues about other races as well as your own?

I have mentioned over and over in my posts for this thread that this is a place where people will not attack one another or blame another race. So far, we have had a very fruitful and interesting conversation that tackles the issues that everyone has on their mind regarding race.

I would invite you to answer your feelings about race. Most certainly it would contribute to the thread.




[edit on 22-4-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 08:53 PM
link   

originally posted by ceci2006That is a great question because the N-word is a haunting figure of speech, not just for White folk, but for everyone it seems. I hate the "N-word" personally. I cringe when other Black people use it--especially when my relatives use it. Using the N-word amongst Black folk doesn't make the word any better.


I disagree with you ceci. Tis true, this word can be ugly just like the b-word for women. If one of my friends calls me a BI and we just playin around or whatever--there is no harm because the intent to harm isn't there. Same with nigga, I say stuff like "nigga quit playin" or "who Mike, ah that's my nigga". I think the argument that "we took the power" is bogus in some ways. We don't use Nigga (never ignorant getting goals accomplished) seriously. Nigga can be an insult among black folk if the intent is to be offensive, and it can be just a word to replace friend. I don't even think about it like "oh no, I shouldn't use nigga because someone might get offended." It's part of my vocab and I've been known to call white folk nigga too. It's just a word I use.

For white folk I often wonder why it bothers them so much that we use it. Specially, when some whine about not being able to use it but black people can...why would they want to? I've been called it by white and black folk in all manners of meaning at the end of the day it's still just a word. It's not going away and it aint worth the effort to stop using it.

I don't know if any of you watch the boondocks on Adult swim. My favorite episode is the one where Gin Rummy (Samuel L. Jackson) is describing "nigga technology" to Ed the III (Charlie Murphy). Both of these guys are white cartoon charaters being played by black actors. The word nigga is just tossed around through the whole show and not one black person that has seen that show is tripping because these "white folk" are saying the n-word. Tis so funny to me. I asked my sister if these were real white folk using the n-word over and over like that would we be pissy, we couldn't answer. I prolly wouldn't. The episode is called "let's nab Oprah" if you haven't seen it.

I wouldn't suggest white folk run around saying the n-word because Saphronia said she don't care. Just cause I aint gone smack you in the mouth don't mean some other black person won't. Black folk too touchy about it. But, so are white people. If I call a white person a nigga and they say "I'm not black"...I just laugh, cause to me that's classic. So...black people are niggas in your mind...good to know.

[edit on 22-4-2006 by Saphronia]



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 09:02 PM
link   
Saphronia, I agree with you that sometimes that is the case among Black people. But, I don't like the word. But, I also concur that sometimes there are times when folk use it and they are kidding. If it's all right between them, that's okay. But, I do cringe when people say the word. I know there are folk that say stuff like "That's because I'm the "HNIC" among other things. And I do know that Black folk use it as an insult or joke among themselves. I just don't like to use it, that's all. That's just me. I'm sensitive and shy about it.

In no way am I the "Word Police". Maybe, to make it clearer, I look at how it is used. And sometimes when it is in polite society, I say something quietly and privately to the person about it. I don't make it a big show. But when it is done among friends and family, I cringe but I let it go because the context is different. But I don't use it because I still feel that it is a word of disrespect.

At the same time, when it is used in a funny context (such as Adult Swim's "Boondocks" [I am a big fan of Aaron McGruder]), I can't help but laugh even though the word is used.

So you see, I'm conflicted about its use.

But, like I said in the first post about the "n-word" is that you have to be socially mindful when you use it. And that's where I sit on the fence. My Dad says it. My mother hates it. My sister uses it in a joking way, but she doesn't make it a common practice. My great-aunts and uncles go ballistic when someone uses it.

So, that's why I really have to come to terms of where I sit using the word.









[edit on 23-4-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 10:23 PM
link   
This reminded me that Chappelle uses it and I think he's hilarious.

One problem I have with the N-word is that if I used it, somebody else is going to decide if I meant it in a 'good' way or if I meant it in a 'bad' way. And I'm not ok with that. So I don't use the word.

Black people making some arbitrary rule about who can use it and how they can use it and what they mean by it... I think that's BS. If someone took physical action against me for using it, that would be a really bad scene.

It's a word. It's a loaded word. Like the c word. I don't use that one either. But you can call me a bitch if you want because sometimes I am one. You can call me anything you want, really, because you don't have the power to upset me unless I give it to you and I don't.

And I just really wish black people who use the N-word but don't 'allow' white people to use it would realize that.

Saph - I know you don't agree with me on this, but I love ya just the same.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join