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.

 

Bush addresses NAACP

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006
Judging from the skeptical and cynical looks on the faces of the audience, he has a long way to go .....


That was a perfect example of seeing only what you want to ...

So the audience was skeptical and cynical, eh? So that's why they broke into
spontaneous applause so many times; laughed at his jokes; and why the few
hecklers were drowned out by the thunderous applause of the rest??
Skeptical and cyncial, eh?
Wishful thinking on your part.


Bush didn't address the NAACP for those many years because the NAACP
made it very clear that he wasn't welcome and that they wouldn't treat his visit
with the dignity that is due the office of POTUS. The new leadership is more
mature and so the visit took place.

dg ... as for the drug thing ... I have no doubt that he's been on meds for quite
a while. Emotional stabilizers of some sort. I didn't think he was on anything
that wired him for this speech. I got the impression it was a natural nervousness
that made him so loud. I'm sure he was nervous considering the hostile
rhetoric that had been coming from that group for those many years. But yes,
I agree that he's been on something for a while, but something to calm him
is my guess. He would get all emotional while speaking in front of troops and
about the war ... tears in his eyes ... they were genuine I believe, but too many
times and I think it wasn't good. Depression? Fixation on a 'Divine Mission'??
That's my opinion. But of course, just like with JFK and his drugs, we won't
know the truth of this for at least 40 years! You and I probably won't be here
anymore when the truth of it all finally comes out!
And where we will
be in the afterlife .. we probably won't care about it anymore




posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 07:23 AM
link   

On this board??? YES. Amazing huh? For a 'deny ignorance' theme it (the board
in general) really only sees what it wants to see when it comes to Bush43.


Are you or aren't you an active member i.e. a part of ats/pts/bts..?

If you feel there aren't enough posts on this board praising Mr Bush and the current Administration, then get off your behind and start posting.

Whining about it will hardly do you or this board any good, now will it?

Jeez.



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally quoted by Retinoid Receptor
Reparations are not for victims of the Jim Crow's laws, it is for the great great grandchildren of slaves. Even if it was for the people living during the Jim Crow laws, they shouldn't get reparations, Jewish people get it from Germany, because it 1)happened to them, 2)all their belongings, savings, and things of value were confiscated, 3)most of their family were killed. The Japanese in internment camps is the same way, minus #3.


Well, slavery is long gone, isn't it? But I have never said I asked for reparations. Nor, did I bring up reparations except to mention what happened to Japanese during their stay at the relocation camps.

However, this is a little thing to think about, though:

Well, I guess the tale of Rosewood, Florida is a tale told out of school. In that happening, racists burned down an entire town of Black people who were self-sufficient.

In fact, they meet your criteria of human suffering and reparations:

1)It happened to Black people
2)All of their belongings, savings and things of value were confiscated by fire
3)most of their family was killed.

Do they deserve reparations now?



I am not saying we shouldn't learn about this part of US history, but I have used this term numerous times, it should not be shoved down our throats. Meaning, black history month is enough. If Jews and the Japanese and Chinese and Mexicans and Irish all wanted to "teach" us all about there plights in America and the world as much as black people did, it would be overwhelming our calendar.


It's too late. Our calendar is already filled.

Asian American month is May. Women's history month is February along with Black history month.

May 5th is Cinco de Mayo celebrations.

St. Patrick's day is honored with parades in March.

Not to mention the various parades, festivals and gatherings celebrated by European ethnicities and other races alike (such as Tet and the Obon festival)

June is Gay Pride month climaxed by the Gay pride parade.

It seems your pleas go unheard.



And not because they are the only people involved in those type of things, but minorities have a much higher jail rate, and if you go into most bad neighborhoods, you tend to notice basically black and some degree spanish people. And if there is a even near amount of racism, some of these neighborhoods riot and destroy their neighborhoods. People look down on people like that, and subconsciously equate it with black people. It isn't because white people are all racist, it is because actions and the way many black people do things makes white people turned off. I know when I have been called racist or anti semitic I have been turned off by both cultures or whatever, and I am Jewish!



Well, there was an important "riot" in American history. It was the "Boston Tea Party". Angry whites poured the tea of other whites into Boston Harbor.

Not to mention, the uprisings of the Irish as told in "Gangs of New York"..

Better yet, the storming of ballot counting office by Mr. DeLay's Aides. They were white. Not a Black among them. That was a "riot" played out on television too.

But I guess that doesn't qualify as drastically as the Watts Riots.



There is one thing minorities have that white people don't. They can call someone racist, and woah, it turns out to be a problem. You'll get the NAACP calling, staging things, etc. I am not saying they are bad, I am saying they go overkill. Again, increasing racism. I know you must notice that unless you live under a rock or you just don't want to admit it.


Ah, but now there's "Anti-White" racism. Various posters have used it in various threads when discussing Black on White racism. Especially about Cynthia McKinney. Read them and see if their points are valid.

They'll prove that Blacks aren't the only ones "screaming racist".




Can you explain to me about the African American terminology? Why can't black people be called blacks? Why aren't white people called European American? My best friend hates that terminology because he says that he doesn't like being equated with 'African Americans', and he isn't one, because his family is from St. Lucia. I don't understand, please explain as I am curious, thanks.


I started a thread called, Why is race such a taboo subject?.

In that thread, we discussed matters like this, especially what it means to play the race card as well as terminology to call each other. It is a thread in which people politely ask questions about race without berating each other.

However, I have no problem with being called Black. And I have no problem with being called an African-American. As I explained many times and many ways, that it is up to the individual Black person what he/she would like to be called. If your friend doesn't like to be called African-American, then, simply call your friend Black.

There's nothing wrong with both.



Is there a double standard in the work place? Well yes. Like I said, it is easier for minorities to get lower income jobs and regular jobs. I mean, people who own businesses get bulletins making sure you have enough minorities. Not to mention you can get tax write off's. But in big business, especially dealing with international companies, they don't want to hire black people. Many in Europe, Middle East, Asia, don't like black people. They aren't use to them. It is like Bush sending Condi to the Middle East, well that is the worst person he could send. She is black and a woman...? People there don't respect either.


Well, people need to change their attitudes about race and productivity. That is what I meant above. As long as they have those stereotypes in their mind-set, they will continue to think of people of color as lesser than them.

However, I don't respect Dr. Rice, but for entirely different reasons. But she has a genius I.Q., knows five languages, excels in dance, ice-skating and piano, was a Provost at Stanford as well as a professor. With three degrees to boot.

So how qualified does she truly have to be? Does she have to also win the Nobel Peace Prize?



So in a closing note, I really didn't want to discuss this because it isn't important to me, but I want things to be more balanced. I want to not be blamed for black people's problems because I am white. I don't believe in reparations, I think it is a joke. And I believe that most of the time when people call others racist, it is much ado about nothing. And I believe affirmative action to be racist and stupid.


You don't have to be. I'm not blaming you or other white people. But what I do is talk about instances of history that people might over look due to racial or cultural bias.

As for reparations, it's a joke only to those that aren't sensitive to the suffering to others. If you were a Holocaust survivor, you wouldn't think it was much of a joke, would you?

Affirmative action is there to set a level playing field. However, people do not like it because they feel that "less qualified" people are taking the place of good deserving ones. That is not true. But it's an urban myth that will continued to be peddled until the elimination of quotas becomes a reality by the Republican party.


As a question to you: most advanced classes in school and good grades are made by predominately (not only) whites/asians. While lower classes usually have much more minorities. Why is that to you? Is it because of white people? Or is it because minorities don't believe they can do it? I think it is the latter. I think the NAACP should instill in the black community that they can make something of themselves, you know like that song "I know I can, be what I wanna be, If I work hard at it, I can be where I wanna be". I am just curious as to your thoughts.


I know of many Blacks who have Masters degrees, Ph.D's and are doctors and lawyers. They also have double degrees, own businesses and make nice lives for themselves. They also head agencies as well as figure into the corporate landscape. They have written books, painted and sculpted as well as traveled the world. Some know Latin. Others know four or five languages like Dr. Rice. They are very sophisticated and dignified people with wonderful kids, too. And (*gasp*)their kids go to private school!

But even they have to deal with the stereotypes continued by yourself and other people who mainly think that Black people are one type of way. And it's a shame.

But maybe they wouldn't have to if you and others who think like you would meet them half-way and treat them as individuals instead of lumping them into an entire community.

The Black community's life is not surrounded by the NAACP. However, it is there as an advocacy group for Blacks because they are filled with members who are knowledgable about the racism and suffering Blacks have endured historically and in the present day. And if you have suggestions for the NAACP, why don't you go to your local chapter and tell this to them? Or, volunteer in a Black community and bestow your knowledge of success on the kids around you.

Nothing will ever change if you sit back and complain. And that is all you are doing.





[edit on 23-7-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006
systematically disenfranchised by the system for over 500 years (and nearly two hundred years since Emancipation) ....


America is not 500 years old ... it's 230.
Emancipation was not 200 years ago ... it was ~ 140.

You are angry at the slavery system from 500 years ago? Go tell it to the
africans who made a living by selling their fellow africans into slavery - and
who still do.

If some Black Americans want free money handouts (cloaked in the term 'reparations') for their great-great-great ancestors being sold into slavery,
then they can go ask Africa for the money back. I had nothing to do with
slavery, neither did my parents, or my grandparents, or their parents either
since many of them came from Europe and weren't even here during that
time. I HIGHLY resent anyone telling me I 'owe' them money for things that
had nothing to do with me... And if by some ill chance of fate my tax money
pays for handouts then I'm going to sue the NAACP for 'reparations' because
I lost ancestors in the Civil War who fought against slavery.




[edit on 7/23/2006 by FlyersFan]



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 07:34 AM
link   
Why, thank you FlyersFan for your contribution to the thread.

[edit on 23-7-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 07:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Durden
then get off your behind and start posting.

You didn't bother to look at my post count before you made that
statement did you?


If and when praise is earned by an elected official I give it - no matter what
political party they are in. Same with complaints - if they earn it they get it - no
matter their political party.


Whining about it ....

I wasn't 'whining'. I was agreeing with the moderators observation.


Jeez.

Jeez.
right back atchya.



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 08:10 AM
link   
Flyersfan,

I respect your opinion however wrong it may be.
Seriously, dont mess with Flyersfan, or you have to mess with me.


On the Bush presentation that day, i think he may have taken some cocktail= A little upper, a little downer and something to wake up his braincells.


Maybe the side effect was being hard of hearing and screaming to the crowd.

I just love that man.



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Do they deserve reparations now?


If the US government confiscated their things, burnt down their town, and killed their family, then they should definitely be entitled to reparations.



It's too late. Our calendar is already filled.


None of the above you mentioned is covered as much as Black History Month. lol you used Asian history month...And St. Patrick's day isn't a month, and is about leperchauns and four leaf clovers. And gay pride? Well I don't agree with them either, just because I think it does more harm to the gay community. And my "pleas" are no pleas at all, it is just what I think.


Well, there was an important "riot" in American history. It was the "Boston Tea Party". Angry whites poured the tea of other whites into Boston Harbor.


lol? I am not even going to answer that one.


Especially about Cynthia McKinney.


Cynthia is an embarassment to the black community, when that news story broke I heard so many black people denounce her because they don't like black people calling racism all the time either. It makes THEM look bad.


If your friend doesn't like to be called African-American, then, simply call your friend Black.


My friend isn't African American. That is why he doesn't like that terminology because not ever black person in America is "African American".


So how qualified does she truly have to be? Does she have to also win the Nobel Peace Prize?


I never said she did not "qualify" for the mission. I said that it is stupid to send her because we need someone who will be a strong voice, and most of the rest of the world does not respect 1)women 2)black people. She is both.


You don't have to be. I'm not blaming you or other white people


You may not but other people blame white people for all their ills.


As for reparations, it's a joke only to those that aren't sensitive to the suffering to others. If you were a Holocaust survivor, you wouldn't think it was much of a joke, would you?


:sighs: I was speaking about slavery reparations. If there were ex slaves nowadays they should get reparations. The ex slaves great great grandchildren should not.


However, people do not like it because they feel that "less qualified" people are taking the place of good deserving ones.


That doesn't happen all the time. But am I missing something? That is basically what affirmative action is. People should get things not based on race or culture or religion but purely qualification.


I know of many Blacks who have Masters degrees, Ph.D's and are doctors and lawyers. They also have double degrees, own businesses and make nice lives for themselves. They also head agencies as well as figure into the corporate landscape. They have written books, painted and sculpted as well as traveled the world. Some know Latin. Others know four or five languages like Dr. Rice. They are very sophisticated and dignified people with wonderful kids, too. And (*gasp*)their kids go to private school!


Fabulous? Did I say there was no such a thing? lol. If you read the post I said that predominately(not all), the kids in Advanced classes are white/asian. I actually did that specifically so you wouldn't say something like this.


But even they have to deal with the stereotypes continued by yourself and other people who mainly think that Black people are one type of way. And it's a shame.


I am not continuing anything, I was mentioning simple facts that the majority/even minority of a people sets stereotypes for the rest. As is evident for black people.


But maybe they wouldn't have to if you and others who think like you would meet them half-way and treat them as individuals instead of lumping them into an entire community.


Are you going down the road that I am being a bigot and biased? And you are now making things up out of the air?
I don't treat black people as individuals now? lol


And if you have suggestions for the NAACP, why don't you go to your local chapter and tell this to them? Or, volunteer in a Black community and bestow your knowledge of success on the kids around you.


Um because I already said I don't really care about this that much. The only reason why I am arguing is that you started arguing about my "biased" position for not liking the NAACP.


Nothing will ever change if you sit back and complain. And that is all you are doing.


Oh I am sorry, I will be more like you now. Oh nevermind you are on the same message board.



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 08:55 AM
link   
I never said you were racist. I answered your questions. You answered mine. You are entitled to your views as I am entitled to mine.

As for your friend, that's fine. I did not create the terminology. So you probably have to take your grievances to the people who did create the difference in terms and complain to them.

And I'm serious. If you care about tolerance, do something to make people's lives better. Work on being more tolerant and bringing about more equality for everyone instead of berating different races.

But certainly you do care about the NAACP because you don't like them. That conveys emotional investment. They bother you. If you didn't care, you wouldn't express your feelings about what they should do with the Black community.

That's why if you "care" about how they treat the Black community, join a chapter of the NAACP and change the organization if they bother you that much.







[edit on 23-7-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 09:28 AM
link   


I never said you were racist. I answered your questions. You are entitled to your views as I am entitled to mine.


You did say that I don't treat black people as individuals, which I have no idea how you got to that conclusion.


But I do have a question to ask. Why are you so concentrated on what the Black community does? And why do you care? And how did you get these facts?


I have already told you I really don't care about this subject. You started hounding me about saying that I disliked the NAACP. And what facts? The one where jails are mostly filled with minorities [black people] yet make up a smaller part of the population? Poor neighborhoods are mostly filled with minorities? The other ones like Advanced classes are mostly filled with white/asian kids? You can google it, I am sure you will find a wealth of information. Ask yourself though, do you think black and spanish kids are the predominant races in Advanced classes when they have the highest drop out rates?


Did you research every school in the United States and survey every student in advanced classes?


How many surveys and statistics are based on every single person within the study? For example: 37% of Americans support Bush. Heyyy did they interview every American? Um...no.


Did you ask every Black person and Latino person about their habits, social practices, histories and cultures?


Um why would I? How is that relevant to this conversation at all?


Do you entirely spend your time in a predominately minority community to get this information for academic study?


No I don't spend my time in a predominately minority community. Again why would this matter? Just to let you know, when people conduct studies they don't actually go live with the people they are interviewing, etc.


Or are you just saying what you dredged up from the media and politicians?


I am dredged up from facts, statistics, experience (I used to volunteer with Office Depot. They give food, presents, etc. to poor minority neighborhoods.) I was also in Advanced classes all my life, in 5 different schools.


Stereotypes can often turn into facts if one makes them so.


What stereotypes were made into facts? If you want to look up what I am saying you can, I don't feel like researching things I am saying. That is why there is: www.google.com



And I'm serious. If you care about tolerance and achievement, do something to make people's lives better. Work on being more tolerant and bringing about more equality for everyone.


I am sure I am just as tolerant as you are, though I do not profess to be prejudice free, because I am honest. Those who say they are 100% prejudice free are lying.


If you do care about the scholastic levels of Black children, tutor or mentor Black kids so they can also be in that class amongst the predominately White and asian students if you care so much about the Black community's achievement.


The truth is, I don't. That is the NAACP's job, I have my own job.



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 09:40 AM
link   
Well then, don't bring it up. .

Don't express your feelings about the Black community nor express your discontent with the NAACP.

Don't complain about Blacks and Latinos and their scholastic performance.

And since you don't care, don't talk about reparations, holidays or about having information "shoved down your throat".

And don't be angry when a Black person or anyone else cries about race.

That would take care of the problem entirely.



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 09:46 AM
link   
Ceci you don't seem to understand, I can express my discontent with anything I want. All I said was I dislike the NAACP, how about you just accept it and not argue with me trying to convince me that in reality the NAACP is in fact a great organization? That really would take care of the problem entirely. And I wasn't "complaining" about anything, I was pointing things out in 1)reponse to what you posted 2) showing the NAACP could do a hell of a lot of other things.



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 09:57 AM
link   
And you don't seem to understand. I never argued that the NAACP was a great organization. I talked about what the organization does.

I never tried to convince you like the organization. I merely suggested that you join the organization if it bothered you about their direction.

You brought up reparations, problems in the Black community and racial prejudice. I answered you.

You said you didn't care. So, I said in response that if you didn't care, don't complain.



[edit on 23-7-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 10:31 AM
link   
Please Ceci. Read all your posts. This is just one of them:


Well how else can one race who has been systematically disenfranchised by the system for over 500 years (and nearly two hundred years since Emancipation) find an advocate in American society--especially when that society has been hostile to their social progress to the point of passing laws?

Who would speak for them if having such a group is racist?

Name one group that isn't racist that will fulfill these qualifications for helping those who are disenfranchised because of racial animus and bias.


Oh I am sorry that is just responding to me talking about black society. And also it is responding to me calling the NAACP racist (which I did not).



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
i think he may have taken some cocktail= A little upper, a little downer

I wouldn't be surprised if that was an everyday thing for him. I'm sure that a
lot of those high level politicians do that to be able to get through their elected
cycles. As with JFK ... I doubt we will know exactly what he's been given (or
slipped by Cheney) until 40 years from now.

Honestly dg .. I think a lot of what you picked up on was nervous tension.
(his 'little downer' probably kept him from stroking out on stage.)

In the past he wasn't welcome by that group, and in the past they were openly
aggressive against him. Having to make a speech in front a crowd with that
kind of history against you has to make anyone in his position nervous or tense.
However, the new leader was mature and welcoming and the people in the
crowd were almost all appreciative and gave spontanious applause and appropriate laughter at jokes. It went very well, especially considering the history.



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 12:32 PM
link   
Flyersfan,

I am about to be overly dramatic here now...Ready??

Look at Fidel Castro giving a speech, look at Hitler giving a speech, go back to every "D" and you will see why i am concerned.
As far as JFK, history tells us he had a horrible back problem and problem with his legs, besides i am refering to the "Mania"......Maybe i'm reading too much into this, but i did not like seeing him so hyped for the reasons i mentioned.

I wish just once we'd get an even-toned speech. This latest one
was full of hysteria. (In my opinion)*



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
I am about to be overly dramatic here now...Ready??

Oh lordi ... let me hang on .... okay, I'm ready!



i am refering to the "Mania"..... seeing him so hyped

Okay ... gotchya ....

Hyped ? Yes. Mania? I don't see it. The glossed over eyes and
slurred speech of mania are missing. But hyped? Yes. Either
through extreme nervous tension (possible) or medication (possible).


I wish just once we'd get an even-toned speech.


The debates were even-toned for him. LOUSY and pathetic ... but even-toned.
Perhaps his meds have been changed. New doctor? He has been getting
worse in his speeches since reelection. Seriously down hill emotionally.
IMHO



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 12:48 PM
link   
Well,

Maybe its the meds.
I hope so...that Hitler-like tone is not putting people at ease.
Maybe they're looking for the right combo and havent found it yet.



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally quoted by RetinoidReceptor
Oh I am sorry that is just responding to me talking about black society. And also it is responding to me calling the NAACP racist (which I did not).


So I did. I acknowledge my mistake. I stand corrected.

But you did berate Black and Latino society. That is something you did do. And again, if you say you didn't care, you wouldn't repeat three times that you were a jew, that people sometimes call you 'anti-Semetic', that you hate it when Black people call a White person racist "out of thin air", people call you a bigot for your beliefs as well as how much you hate people "shoving information down the throats" of other people about groups who feel "persecuted".

Plus, you also used a definition to describe true SURVIVORS opposed to the faux ones.

About the 500 years comment:

The first English settlers came here in the 17th century (1600's). Not long after, the very first slaves were brought to English colonies. They couldn't make slaves out of the Native American because for those that didn't die from the diseases the Pilgrims brought over, fought for their land against the settlers trying to forcefully take it.

I made a mathematical mistake. I should have said "nearly 400" years. So I acknowledge my mistake.

But my comments still hold true: 1625(circa of the time the first slaves were brought) plus 381 yrs. equal 2006.

It's just as long when describing the persecution and dehumanization of Black people in the entire history of the Colonies, after the Revolution, the Civil War, Reconstruction, The era of Jim Crow and then the post-Civl Rights era.

The Emancipation Proclamation was passed in 1864:

To me, that starts off the modern age of Jim Crow. The South started its reign of terror against Black folk despite the passages of the 14th and 15th Amendments soon afterwards. The lynching, the "forced taking of land" by the government in the name of Manifest destiny (especially when sending Black/Native Americans and Native Americans to Reservations), the burnings and the intimidation started against Black people. They were killed, lampooned in the press, intimidated and had their possessions taken by others while they tried to make a life for themselves.

So, 1864 to 1964 (The passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) is 100 years. 1964 to 2006 is 42 years. 100 plus 42 years is 142 years (I rounded the number up to "nearly 200 years"). But I am sorry. Next time I will be more accurate in my math. But the sentiment is still the same.

Nobody seems to remember that during the times of Jim Crow:

1)The government forcefully and legally took away the rights of Black Americans
2)Blacks did have their property confiscated
3)Blacks lost their lives
4)The goverment wiretapped Black leaders and violated their Fourth Amendment rights.
5)The authorities as well as the government attacked and intimidated "Blacks" while performing civic duties and education (this was especially true of the Central Nine when even the governor and the authorities tried to block the nine from entering Central High School. They were spat upon, insulted and intimidated by towns folk as well as the National Guard when trying to get an education)


Black people have probably endured just as harsh treatment as anyone else being persecuted during the era of modernity. I suggest you see the pictures of various lynchings across the South.The pictures of what they did to Emmett Till are rather gruesome.And some who "performed" the lynchings are still alive and there are those who are relatives of these "lynchers". This is especially true for those who bombed the church in Selma killing four little girls.

But no one wants to admit that. They'd like to "feel" absolved because slavery is over. Yet, it is harder to feel absolved when the acts of Jim Crow are brought to the plate.

For example, Trent Lott (who barred Blacks from Sigma Nu) is still alive and he has relatives.

Robert Byrd (who joined the KKK in his youth) is still alive and has relatives.

James Earl Ray (who died in prison) has relatives.

The people convicted for the death of James Byrd are still alive and have relatives.

The bomber that was convicted for his part in the Church bombing in Selma is still alive and has relatives.

The relatives of Strom Thurmond are still alive. Including the Black daughter he had illegitimately.

The relatives of D.W. Griffith (i.e.,the director of the film, Birth of a Nation [1917]) are still alive.

Some jury members who were complicit in letting these lynchers go in early trials during Jim Crow are still alive. And they have relatives.

Some that argued against the passage of the Civil Right Act of 1964 are still alive and have relatives.

It's not as easy to say that "my ancestors didn't do this" when you mention the heinous acts committed during the time of Jim Crow. But it's easier for those to use slavery as an excuse to say that they and their relatives "didn't do anything" to Black people.

And some of the survivors of Jim Crow and their relatives are still alive.

But you don't care. You're not alone. A lot of people don't. They're just like you in the "finger-wagging" and the berating of races of color department. And that is the problem. It will be until people try to learn to practice "true tolerance" instead of playing "lip service" to it.

















[edit on 23-7-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by RetinoidReceptor
He was definitely politically motivated. Personally I really dislike the NAACP, and Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton and the likes. Martin Luther King was good, but these organizations and demonstrators, just increases racism. Let's forget about that, many of them ARE racist.


I agree RR that the leadership of the NAACP is way to out there, about everyting, and when a minority breaks the law and gets what he deserves, its racist. How does that stop racism when you alienate the whites and others by calling them racist all the time?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join