Cynthia McKinney website allows Racial Slurs

page: 10
1
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006
Well, in a new push by the three Amigos not to further political bickering, I refrain to answer.

So, it'll just be a mystery about what I'd say.

Have a nice day, Mr. Author.

Bull. That's what PTS is for. You just cannot defend your hypocrisy.




posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006
I love the Quakers. ... They are White, are they not?


Quakers come in all colors. I know 2 Quakers. One's black, one's white.


Originally posted by ceci2006
I do have one more question about your comments. And if you do not decide to answer me, maybe someone else who believes in a "color blind world" (again an observation, not an insult) would.


I have never said I believe in a "color blind" world. Yet another fabricated observation.

Here's what I said about color blindness in the race thread:


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
As has been mentioned, we can't expect to be color blind. That is neither practical nor the goal, as far as I'm concerned. The goal is to allow for and celebrate our racial differences and work toward further social equality.


In fact, one can see how I feel about race relations by reading that one post.

There's no need as far as I can determine, to address the rest of your stuff. Because that's what it is. Your stuff. Most of your accusations, assumptions and observations of me and what I've supposedly said, like the color blind thing, are entirely fabricated or taken totally out of context. And I cannot and will not defend things I never said nor implied.



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 08:57 AM
link   
Semper,

That is true. It is one the reason why I am re-evaluating my debating style and refraining from bickering.

I find from reading the comments of last days on the thread, that I have to slow down and be more careful about how I present my evidence and addressing the questions of others. I also have to reflect a little more about my approach toward addressing topics on sensitive subjects like these.

And when I finish thinking about these things, I will most certainly will continue with passion and tenacity. But hopefully not leave a scorched earth after my path.



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 09:01 AM
link   
Okay. I've taken it out of context, BH. I am sorry about that. But you have also taken what I've said out of context as well. Whether you acknowledge it or not, that is your choice.

And I most certainly clearly told you what I am offended by. You have told me what you are offended by. It is out in the open. On my part, I will not try to offend you anymore. I hope that you do the same for me.

So, I hope that now we won't bicker anymore.

And now, I really am going to watch others debate this for a while. I am done.

And to, the author, I still wish him a nice day. But speaking about hypocrisies, this entire thread is one.

And now, I truly will not bicker anymore.


[edit on 7-7-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 03:27 PM
link   
One time, on another thread, you said:


Originally quoted by Benevolent Heretic
Racism exists. Sexism exists. Prejudice against other people exists. We need to learn to deal with it. I don't think they're going away, but talking about them is a Good Thing.


I am sorry that I wrongfully identified you in my present comments as wanting a color blind society at the beginning of my last post. That is a mistake. There, I did take your views out of context.

But my questions about a color blind society afterward still hold water. They did not attack anyone. They were simply questions and observations. And they deserve to be addressed just like your comments deserve to. And I am not afraid of reading your comments. I read everything you say.

I wish you would have read it because it presented an alternative view of the "color blind" situation in general.

What ever happened to discussing it out? Isn't that what you felt was a "good thing"?

Or are you truly giving in to being hard-hearted and bitter about this?

You can't just ignore personalizing everything, can you?

No more bickering after this, truly. But I had to ask these questions and address this issue even though this will be written off like the others.











[edit on 7-7-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006
But my questions about a color blind society afterward still hold water. They did not attack anyone. They were simply questions and observations. And they deserve to be addressed just like your comments deserve to. And I am not afraid of reading your comments. I read everything you say.


Neither am I afraid of reading your comments. I never said or implied that your question attacked anyone or didn't deserve to be addressed. Another incorrect assumption.

Your questions are valid, I'm sure, but since I don't believe in a "color blind" society and the question was directed to those who do, I didn't respond.



I wish you would have read it ...


I read every single word. Another incorrect assumption.



But unfortunately, when reading your previous quote opposed to what was said once in the old days, I suppose that you truly don't practice what you preach. Again, you personalized my comments by saying "stuff". And refused to read the rest.

What ever happened to discussing it out? Isn't that what you felt was a "good thing"?


I did not refuse to read anything. Another incorrect assumption.

"The old days" was 3 months ago! I don't change my mind that fast!
Thirty some pages is enough for me to believe that we have talked it out and that we do not agree and aren't likely to see things from each others' perspectives. I still think race is a good thing to talk about, but not with you.

I do practice what I preach. Show me where I don't.



Or are you truly giving in to being hard-hearted and bitter about this?


Whos is personalizing this again?


We have discussed this as far as I am willing, ceci.. I am finished defending myself against all these incorrect assumptions. I am not hard-hearted or bitter. I'm just finished with this dance. I've just had enough. Call it quitting, call it giving up, call it writing it off. Whatever you have to call it to make it look like I'm the baddie. But the truth is that I respect myself enough to stop engaging you so you can sling arrows at me.



If you truly did listen with patience and tolerance, you would read my words regardless and ask why I felt the way I did about a color blind society. Not write them off. That is what you did. And you can't escape that with saying it's an accusation now.


If you think that I don't listen with patience and tolerance, that's fine. As I have said, I DID read your words. Every single word. And it IS an accusation. A false accusation at that because it's not true. You seem to have determined how I would act if I had read your words and since I didn't act as you expected me to, you ASSUMED I didn't read them and then accused me of not reading them and of writing you off.

You are wrong. What can I say? I read everything you said, but I'm done fighting with you.



You can't just ignore personalizing everything, can you?


After the last 3-4 posts of yours, you're accusing me of personalizing this? I'm just amazed! :shk:

I feel this thread escalating to the point where, in the race thread, you said:


Originally posted by ceci2006
Set me straight you have, Miss Scarlett.
...
So, let me go back to the slave quarters now


And I don't want to get to that point again with you. I won't open myself up for that kind of abuse again.



No more bickering after this, truly. But I had to ask these questions and address this issue even though this will be written off like the others.


Another incorrect assumption.

That's why I'm done. I refuse to take these attacks anymore. I don't want to deal with you anymore ceci. I'm sorry. I just don't need this. I wish you luck in sorting this all out.



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 06:11 PM
link   
I know next to nothing about Cynthia McKinney, and so I'm not going to try to defend her here. But I do feel this needs to be pointed out.

The term "Cracker-crat" is not racist. It is, perhaps, culturally derogatory. It is not an insulting term for white people in general; it is an insulting term for ignorant, bigoted Southern (especially Georgia) mostly rural-dwelling white men. There are plenty of Southern white people who would never be called "crackers," and plenty of white people living in Atlanta use the term to refer insultingly to other Georgia whites whom Atlantans sometimes look down on.

"Cracker-crat" I suppose is meant to imply that Republicans are the party of ignorant, bigoted crackers, although I think a better job could have been done in constructing it. It reads more like a play on "Democrat" than "Republican." Maybe it should have been "Republicrackers"?

The term "Oreo" is not quite racist, either, although it comes closer than "Cracker." It is used by black people to heap scorn on other black people who toady to white society; it basically means a suck-up. The only thing racist about it is that applies only to black people; there can be no such thing as a white Oreo. But it certainly doesn't apply to all black people.

If McKinney had had comments derogatory of all white people or all black people, then the racist charge would have been justified.

The charge of being quick to play the race card may be. As I said, I don't know much about her.



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 06:42 PM
link   
I agree, Two Steps, about the origin of the word, but the meaning of "cracker" has come to encompass the whole of white people as a derogatory, racial slur.

Cracker



The term is generally of a derogatory nature, and seems to be resident to the South. Despite its negative connotations, it is sometimes seen as a term of endearment, especially among White Georgians, although many Southern whites do not use nor do they approve of the term. "Cracker" has specific ethnic connotations, directed towards White Southerners, and more frequently, poor ones.
...
Clarence Major, in his Dictionary of Afro-American Slang, lists two rather interesting ideas about the origin of the term. The first is that a "cracker" was a slang term used by 19th Century Georgian slaves to refer to the slavemasters. If this were in fact, true, then the term would come directly from the cracking of the slavemaster's whip.



I don't find the word particularly offensive. But if I were called it often enough, I might. Because if someone were calling me a cracker, it would imply to me, that they think I 'don't like black people' and that isn't true.

Also



Cracker is also a Black name for whites, especially those thought to be racists.





[edit on 7-7-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 06:49 PM
link   
Well, lookie here... I didn't know this...

Dixiecrat



The term Dixiecrat is a portmanteau of Dixie, referring to the Southern United States, and Democrat, referring to the United States Democratic Party. Initially, it referred to a 1948 splinter from the party: for over a century, white Southerners had overwhelmingly been Democrats, but that year many bolted the party and supported Strom Thurmond's third-party candidacy for president of the United States. Over the next several decades, as the white South slowly re-aligned from the Democrats to the Republicans, the term came to have a broader usage, including, for example, with reference to the members of the Electoral College who in the election of 1960 voted for Harry Flood Byrd rather than John F. Kennedy, or the white Southern voters and electors who in 1968 supported George C. Wallace.

The term has also been used to refer to conservative white Southerners who remain within the Democratic Party, and those who were formerly Democrats but now identify as Republicans.


That's where the Cracker-crat crap came from.
Say that 3 times...



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 04:55 AM
link   
Mods, I suggest that you close this thread, since it has been beaten to death and no party will give quarter.

To the participants, don't worry, there will be plenty of opportunities to debate in future topics.



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 07:35 PM
link   
In the spirit of not giving up, I have only returned to say four things:

1)Thank you Two Steps Forward and BH for enlightening us on the usage of the terms. You have raised points that help explain these words. That is what I asked for at the beginning. And I am glad that this has been done so that others can see what these terms mean.

2)I have seen the errors of my ways. And I extend an apology to those (especially BH) who I've hurt. If I do contribute again to this thread (which will not be the case for a long time), I will not accuse anyone, levy personal attacks and stick to addressing the issues with either posting proof or asking generalized questions. I will also work hard not to misconstrue anyone's comments.

3)I will not address any personal attacks or insults about my posting style or past threads.

4)I believe that issues regarding race-relations ought to be addressed. But it takes people who are truly committed to change to do this. It also must have people who honestly all people to understand and appreciate each other with kindness and compassion in an informative way.

Ultimately, I see the good in people. I know that they can rise to the best of their ability and treat this subject seriously so that we can understand each other a bit more. That is why when I read BH and TSF's attempts to do this, I returned to praise them for their efforts. I am highly appreciative that they are working on this.




[edit on 9-7-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 08:51 PM
link   
Benevolent Heretic, I didn't take the line out of context but rather had problem with that section of it. That knee-jerk remark, seems to be very much the problem with this whole thread and I am shocked that it hasn't been trashed yet.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Being gay is not a burden that you carry around. It's who you are. It's something to be proud of! It's part of the essence of you. Whoever is stupid and ignorant enough to put you down because you're gay has BIG problems. But it's their problem! You don't have a problem! You're a wonderful, intelligent, loving person and being gay is NOT something to be ashamed of or to carry around as a burden. Discrimination is the problem and it's other people who are doing that. You should do your very best to walk with your head held high and not carry other people's judgments against you as a "burden".


This will be where you and I differ on opinion then. Homosexuality, is to be fair a very poor substitute for race in this debate. In Western Society, there are four main ways to devide people: Race, Class, Sexuality and Gender in that order. Race and Gender are the most highly visible ones and they are ones that can cause people the largest amount of problems. Class is also very visible in the work place. Sexuality, is something that is a lot less visible - especailly in the work place where many have taken an asexual approach.

However, we can stick with the "sexuality" debate. Take your person, he is or she is openly homosexual/lesbian. Involved in a homosexual/lesbian relationship and the office knows about this. The office then has a position opening in sernios management dealing with other companies. The Gay person, then applied for the job as did a heterosexual. It is sad to say, but it is more likely that the heterosexual will get it because many people are still bigots.

Now, take it back to race. Just like women face in the work place, Ethnic groups face both vertical segregation and also the glass ceiling. They get employed at a company, leave University with amazing grades but then realise that life will be harder for them. They see where they want to go but the glass cieling doesn't allow it - they can't get passed it and those who joined with them slowly begin to take up more and more important positions as they are passed up for promotion. There are enough sociological studies into the work place that do show this. [In fact, it is very much based on the racial stereotype on how each race does.]

It is sad to say it, but ethnic groups, women, those in the lower classes, do suffer a burden. To deny this, is to deny what happens in the workplace and to deny their life chances. Which study after study has shown is different for the white majority, compared to ethnic groups - even those who gain the same grades. However, hiding from the burden won't change things what does is ethnic groups trying harder. Society itself isn't a meritocracy at this moment, the best person for the job does not always get the job despite what people like Davids and Moore try to claim. So the only way to cause change is for them to try harder. I wish I got it as easy has the Upper Class does and those who have 5 generations of English family members the fact is I do not. So I have to try harder and it is very much the same for people I know in the United State's.

The trick is to not deny the burden, to not deny we have it placed upon us [and whtie people do have a burden on them as well]. The trick is, to accept it and to try harder to compensate it. The worst thing for any bigot is to see that "race" doing well. From personnal experience at College, University and work those sort of people hated to find out I was a child whose grandparents were immigrants and yet getting better grades than they did.

AS for her website, there really is no debate there. She does have racial slurs on her website. However, she did not post them. Simon is not responsible for what you say, what I say or what anyone but he says. Even though his website would remove those slurs. However, maybe she does likes freedom of speech more than we give her credit?

The only true test on if her website is racist, would be to make two accounts from different IPs. One of those to be a "black personna" the other "white". One of them to use the term "whitey" and one "blacky" and see what happens. Then to move this on to the term "cracker" and say "tar baby". If you don't get banned from that site then there is no arguement. Her website just would rather have a level of freedom of speech above many others. [I'm not promoting the idea of doing this test.]



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
The trick is to not deny the burden, to not deny we have it placed upon us [and whtie people do have a burden on them as well]. The trick is, to accept it and to try harder to compensate it.


I honestly think we agree more than disagree, we're just using different words. When I say that my gender is not a burden I carry around with me, it's about attitude. If I feel that my gender is a burden and think of it in terms of a burden, how can I be a proud woman? If I consider being a woman a burden, it's a negative feeling about my gender. I'm not denying gender roles and sexism exist, I'm denying that being a woman is the problem. There's nothing wrong or bad about being a woman. And when I say "being a woman is not a burden" the only thing I'm denying is that there's something wrong with being a woman.

But I don't agree that the answer is to try harder and compensate. Why should I, as a woman, work twice as hard for the same pay? That's just playing into the male-dominant mindset. No, the answer is to educate those who have sexist attitudes and think that women should get lower pay. it's THEIR mistake, not mine.

Trust me, I know what it's like being a woman in a man's world. I worked in the electronics engineering field in 1986.
But I didn't consider being female a burden. I have always been proud of who I am.



AS for her website, there really is no debate there. She does have racial slurs on her website. However, she did not post them. Simon is not responsible for what you say,


No, but if Simon spoke out publicly against the skinhead movement and then I came on here and used racial 'white power' slurs against minorities, I believe he'd take responsibility and kick my butt to the curb. I think...

Whether Cynthia McKinney is responsible or not for everything on her website is a matter of opinion. I'm ok if we disagree on that.



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
Benevolent Heretic, I didn't take the line out of context but rather had problem with that section of it. That knee-jerk remark, seems to be very much the problem with this whole thread and I am shocked that it hasn't been trashed yet.


The Gay person, then applied for the job as did a heterosexual. It is sad to say, but it is more likely that the heterosexual will get it because many people are still bigots.


You got some stats to back that up or what? Last I checked homosexuals not only did as well as minorities but better than the average American. Homosexuals have always done better than blacks, don't even hijack this thread with that ignorance. Don't even compare the black movement with the homosexual movement. You're only gay if you tell them. Your choice and even then it doesn't matter that much. Don't even go there.

mod edit to fix quote tags

[edit on 10-7-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 11:45 PM
link   
I should know better than to have an opinion on a thread like this, but lord help me I'm just not that smart.

I think viewing this through the lens of virtually any other website or other venue is a good way to guage the extent to which this reflects on Congresswoman McKinney.

If I'm so incredibly backwards that I think a person's skin color carries enough negative baggage to even merit mention in a field such as politics, where many more substantive charges are so readily available, that ignorance belongs wholly to me. Just because I might choose to be that stupid wouldn't make Simon that stupid, and just because I would in that case be a bigot wouldn't make Simon one.

If I said something like that at a political function in support of George Bush, that wouldn't make George Bush a racist.


So that's really not the issue in my humble opinion. IOW, that's not what I choose to take in consideration while forming my opinion, which I happen to believe just might be the RIGHT opinion.


What I choose to take into account is the reaction. If I take that low road on ATS and Simon lauds me copiously, then he would be helping himself to a big fist full of my garbage and making it his own. He wouldn't do it, and he wouldn't tollerate it being done. ATS has more class than that.

Neither would McKinney as far as I can tell. So far I do not see any recognition, endorsement, or promotion of that garbage from McKinney which is explicit and undeniable in nature. Inferences can be made based on other events, but that is 1. off topic and 2. biased. Bias happens, and when it's the product of reason I can't say its completely invalid either (bias based on past experience is called learning). But never the less it is an INFERENCE resulting in BIAS, and valid or no, to be intellectually honest we have to acknowledge what it is and not treat it as part and parcel of this separate event.


Now here's the difference. ATS does have more class than McKinney's website in my opinion because that stuff just doesn't fly on ATS- period. It is actively removed from the dialogue here. We do not bannish IDEAS but we insist that they be expressed maturely, with decorum, in a manner conducive to rational and peaceful exchange and development of ideas. You MIGHT slip one through the cracks around here, and that would be no reflection on Simon, but on a prominent spot on a much smaller page I guarantee ATS would find it and insist on a more civilized way of expression.


I don't see that as censorship to any degree in excess of laws prohibiting disturbance of the peace. It's one thing to stand on a street corner and rail against the injustices of oil prices with passion. It is wholly another to stand on the same corner and incite a riot through language which directs itself against a specific oil executive with the explicit purpose of dehumanizing him in such a way as will encourage an assembled mob to consider violence against him.


Granted the comment doesn't quite rise to that standard, but it is certainly closer to it than would ever be allowed on ATS. While in my mind this does not indicate outright that McKinney is a rascist in and of itself, it certainly lends itself to the conclusion that McKinney has less class than ATS, and that's bad, because I think that the level of integrity I can expect from complete strangers on the internet ought to be the BARE MINIMUM that I look for in the people I would consider in any way supporting for a position of authority in the nation to which my fate is attached.


In so exceedingly many words, what I am saying is that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. This hardly makes McKinney a machinegun-wielding anti-white militant who ought to be feared and reviled and ignored, but as far as the personal standards of certain people may be concerned, it may make her inelligible for their support. And that's fine; everybody wins. If doubt she'd want my support any more than I'd want her representation if infact the standards of decorum indicated by this incident reflect her view of where on the partisan spectrum her constituents are.



posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 06:52 PM
link   
Benevolent Heretic, I guess it all depends on what you see the burden as. It's the age old debate, on how to defeat racism. It's awkward for either of us to, push for who is right and who isn't since it still exists at this present moment.

As for her website. I'd not be so sure. I'm the first person, to defend someone due to race, sex, gender, etc. However, I am also the first to defend the other persons right to speak. Silence doesn't allow people to be educated or for views to change.


Originally posted by notbuynit
You got some stats to back that up or what? Last I checked homosexuals not only did as well as minorities but better than the average American.


Then why do only 45% of the Fortune 500's Companies Offer domestic partner benefits? The Employment Non-Discrimination Act doesn't include transgender and intersex on the "protected list". In fact, one of the top ten do not even include sexual orientation. Wikipedia is a good place to start, as I can't be bothered to get any of my books at this hour.


Originally posted by notbuynit
Homosexuals have always done better than blacks, don't even hijack this thread with that ignorance.


Have they? A good example, is to look within society. When you see people who are homosexual in the media they tend to play a very "camp" role. When you go to work, have you ever met an openly homosexual person in a position of power? I have never in the Legal Industry. Nor can I find any when I search.

However, I can find things such as Bizzari & Hackett v. Sitrin Health Center and on and on.


Originally posted by notbuynit
Don't even compare the black movement with the homosexual movement.


Why not? Also, if you'd pay attention I was not the person who raised homosexuality.


Originally posted by notbuynit
You're only gay if you tell them. Your choice and even then it doesn't matter that much. Don't even go there.


Why shouldn't I? It's a known fact.

I'll take up the case: Bizzari & Hackett v. Sitrin Health Center. In it, two women were allowed treatment up until it was found out they were lesbians. If they were not found out the treatment would have not stopped. Another good example is the United State's Military. What do you think the: “Don't ask, don't tell” policy is? Major Margaret Witt’s was discharged when it was found out she was a lesbian after all. But people are just blind to it.

Homosexuals, when found out have a harder life than their straight counter-parts. It's clear in any major business. In fact, it is easy to take an example of statistics. If homosexuals honestly had as easier a time as their straight counterparts, they would have an equal percentage of CEOs who were homosexual.



posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 06:57 PM
link   
I'm going to stay away from this one. While I don't know about the editorial guidelines she may or may not have for her website, I know I'd be keeping a close eye on my "comments" section if I was running for office, Democrat, Republican, Socialist, or Libertarian.

I wonder if this stuff will pop up on her Wikipedia entry?

-O



posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 07:22 PM
link   
If it does it will probably disappear after a neutrality debate. It's not her writing and there is no documentation to suggest that "she allowed it" as opposed to it being slipped by her.





new topics
 
1
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join