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.

 

What can we do to address race-relations and solve racism?

page: 11
2
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 11:06 PM
link   

In 1876, for several reasons none of which were premeditated to bring harm to the 4-5 million Freedmen, the Republicans in the North ended what seemed to them to be futile efforts at Reconstruction. The Radical Republicans were losing elections to the emerging Democrats (from under a rock?) who were beginning to re-assert dominance in Southern politics.


REPLY: If I'm not mistaken, the Republican Party was instituted to end slavery, and is still the party most involved in that effort over the past 50 years or so.




posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by HarlemHottie
What if this hypothetical father robbed a bank, gave the money to his son, and then died? When caught with the loot, should the son be forced to cough it up?


Yes. If the son has your money, then you should get it back.

But if the son had brown hair, that dosn't mean that you should feel something is owed to you or to your race by all brown-haired people.

I've been thinking about this over the past couple of days and realizing a lot about racism in our country today and I'm really amazed. This thread has been a real eye-opener for me.

We all (or many of us) have pain in our lives. And sometimes there's just nothing to do that can make up for it. I can't go to the decendants of my abusers and demand they return the innocence of my youth. I wouldn't even if I could, because they aren't guilty. But the measure of a man is not in how much trouble he has, but how he deals with and handles those troubles. We all have hardships, some harder than others. But if we try to compare and try to get back what we're owed, that's missing the whole point of the life lessons, it seems to me.

Sometimes pain is the best teacher. Sometimes struggle is what life is all about. The trials of my life are what have made me the person I am today and I'm thankful for them. Nobody can fix the pain. Nobody but me can make a damn bit of difference in my life.

I wonder, if all black people were paid a sum of money, would you feel better? Would that make things all better? Wouldn't that even cheapen the struggle black people have gone through? How much money would it take to make everything ok? Is money really any substitute for dignity? I'm so baffled by this idea that a sum of money could make any difference in your lives (as regards racism) at all.

In some ways I feel like I've learned a lot, but in others, I'm just feel more confused than when we started...



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 09:46 PM
link   
Hey BH. I really had planned to retire from this thread, as it seems to be going nowhere, but I thought you deserved a response. I've been rolling this thing around in my head too, reading stuff about the reparations movement (which, maybe surprisingly, I never really delved into before) and about the present-day effects of slavery. I found some links that might be interesting.

The vexed question of paying for slavery
Post Traumatic Slave Syndrome


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
We all (or many of us) have pain in our lives. And sometimes there's just nothing to do that can make up for it. I can't go to the decendants of my abusers and demand they return the innocence of my youth.

The continued comparison to your own life experiences is confusing the issue at hand. Of course, you couldn't reasonably blame the descendents of those who violated you. But what if every man you ever met raped you? Would you be justified in blaming all men? I think so.

We're not talking about a personal violation here; we're talking about a continued, societal violation that deserves a societal response.



I wouldn't even if I could, because they aren't guilty. But the measure of a man is not in how much trouble he has, but how he deals with and handles those troubles. We all have hardships, some harder than others. But if we try to compare and try to get back what we're owed, that's missing the whole point of the life lessons, it seems to me.

I assume that, sometime following the events to which you refer, you visited a therapist. You both did excellent work. It seems like you've managed to make your peace with what happened to you, and that, I can imagine, must have been quite a feat. I say this as someone who had a shrink for a while myself, so please don't be offended. Unfortunately, though, mine couldn't really help me. In fact, I felt like a case study, like she was intrigued by the effect that slavery continues to have on the African-American family, psyche, and community. I was either her first black patient (doubtful), or the first to isolate the problem. I don't really feel comfortable going into further detail on a public board, but I would be happy to elaborate by U2U. But, anyway, she couldn't help me. Why? Because there's no special training that would have helped her to help me. It doesn't exist. So, it's difficult for me, and other black Americans, I imagine, to make peace with being metaphorically "raped" everytime we encounter racism.

Further, for one to make peace with a traumatic event, I would assume that a major prereq would be for the event to over. Should I simply conclude that the world will always be against me, since I'm black, and make myself ignore it? Because, even if I say, okay, the past is the past, I'm will go out tomorrow, and racism will smack me in the face all over again.



I wonder, if all black people were paid a sum of money, would you feel better? Would that make things all better? Wouldn't that even cheapen the struggle black people have gone through?

BH, I think you're being a bit disingenuous. People sue for 'pain and suffering' everyday. So, no, it would not cheapen the struggle. In fact, it might help those who are currently struggling.



In some ways I feel like I've learned a lot, but in others, I'm just feel more confused than when we started...

I know what you mean.



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by HarlemHottie
The continued comparison to your own life experiences is confusing the issue at hand. Of course, you couldn't reasonably blame the descendents of those who violated you.


My own experience is all that I have to compare it to. I have said I can't possibly know your experience.




But what if every man you ever met raped you? Would you be justified in blaming all men? I think so.


Has every white person you've ever met been racist against you? Is that what you're saying?

To answer your question, no. But everyone who ever raped or sexually abuse me was a man. Every person who ever talked to my chest instead of my face was a man. Every person who ever told me he loved me to get me to have sex with him was a man. Every person who ever sexually harrassed me in the workplace and got away with it was a man. Every person who ever ripped me off because I didn't know about cars was a man... You get the idea.

But it took a real leap of faith to realize that every man is not out to hurt women in some way. It was a really hard choice to decide that not all men are bastards.



We're not talking about a personal violation here; we're talking about a continued, societal violation that deserves a societal response.


Oh, I agree with that. I think everyone who sees the wrong in racism should work to end it.



I assume that, sometime following the events to which you refer, you visited a therapist. You both did excellent work. It seems like you've managed to make your peace with what happened to you, and that, I can imagine, must have been quite a feat.


I don't want to go into details either, but your assumption is incorrect. I've been in and out of psychologists' offices from the time I was 14 to about 42, when I gave up trying to fix it. So, no, I am not healed from it and when I talk about it or see yet one more way it affects me in my life, I break down. I was ruined.

I'm not at all offended because I have come to terms with it. I realize that it's part of my life and I can either deny it or own it. So I'm able to talk about it. I know logically that it wasn't my fault and I know logically that I didn't do anything wrong. But the irreparable harm has been done.



Should I simply conclude that the world will always be against me, since I'm black, and make myself ignore it?


Perhaps... That's not for me to say. Maybe you should make it not matter to you. Perhaps if you just realized that racism exists and it belongs to those people who are racists, not "the world" but some people in the world, and not all of those of another color, and it certainly doesn't belong to you, you might be able to let go of it.

Whatever you decide to do about it, I believe it's your choice. And as long as you make your perception of it depend on people outside yourself, they're going to have the power.

I know you don't want me to compare it to my personal experience, but I really can't help it. I gave my power away and hated men for years. All men. They were the enemy. And your situation sounds so similar to how I used to feel that I really think it applies. But I had to learn to be discriminating. It's simply not true that all white people are racist any more than all men are rapists.



BH, I think you're being a bit disingenuous. People sue for 'pain and suffering' everyday. So, no, it would not cheapen the struggle. In fact, it might help those who are currently struggling.


I wasn't meaning to be disingenuous. I'm being curious. I've never had this particular conversation before and I wonder. I'm not crazy about the idea of suing for pain and suffering either. Unless you're suing the people who CAUSED the pain and suffering.

Sorry if I'm opening wounds with adding another response, but racism is something I care about. And regardless of how much experience I've had with black people, there's still so much I don't know. And in all the conversations I've had with them, we never got this deep. My boyfriend and I talked about it a lot, but he was from Africa and didn't experience racism till he moved here. So it was a novelty to him. He was as puzzled about it as I am.


I don't think there's any more you can tell me on a discussion board to 'get' me to understand your position because I actually think we're seeing the same thing, but just from different perspectives and I don't think either one of us are very willing or able to change that.



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Has every white person you've ever met been racist against you? Is that what you're saying?

Not entirely. I'm as angry at the System as the people who think affirmative action is unfair, but in everyday situations with white people, it rarely crosses my mind. The System, however, is run by white people, so who should I be mad at? I don't really know. However, I do know that, since Civil Rights, even liberals have abandoned our "cause" on the national scene. Therefore, when I see the continued disparities today, I get mad even at the white people who helped back in the day. Where are they now? Politically, black Americans have very little power, I would venture to say, even less than the illegal immigrants (who BTW are backed by a lobby of business owners, likely predominately white), so unless someone else brings it up, we're screwed.

Having seriously thought about it, I do wonder who specifically to be mad at. The problem appears to be systemic, as thoughtless as looters vs foragers. The person who wrote that probably didn't even realize how it sounded. Does that make them less racist, or more so, for not even thinking about it? I don't deny it, the distinction seems murky, but I only think white individials are guilty of "real" racism when they display it.



But it took a real leap of faith to realize that every man is not out to hurt women in some way. It was a really hard choice to decide that not all men are bastards.

I feel like either you've misunderstood a lot of what I said, or perhaps I wasn't very clear in the first place. I don't think all white people are active, hood-wearing racists, but when it comes to the topic of white privilege, I believe they partake wholeheartedly, without even realizing it as a privilege. That's the only way in which I believe that all white people are guilty of enjoying the indirect fruits of racism. And I'm not just talking about the rich.

I was watching CourtTV last night and there was a criminal who was white. This man had been caught, convicted, and sent to jail (4x!) for impersonating a doctor, but he kept getting out to run his scam again. They didn't actually put him away for good until he was caught caught while- you won't believe this- working for the FBI! And then, they said specifically that the only reason they pushed for him to get a lot of time in prison for that last conviction was because he had made a fool of them. Not because he was a terrible, horrible criminal who had put lives at risk by performing surgeries and prescribing meds. I was appalled. Apparently, white privilege even helps criminals commit crimes!



Oh, I agree with that. I think everyone who sees the wrong in racism should work to end it.

But, see, that's just it. It's the people who don't see the wrong in racism who do the most to perpetrate it.



I don't want to go into details either, but your assumption is incorrect. I've been in and out of psychologists' offices from the time I was 14 to about 42, when I gave up trying to fix it. So, no, I am not healed from it and when I talk about it or see yet one more way it affects me in my life, I break down. I was ruined.

Well, then, that makes your progress all the more commendable.




I'm not at all offended because I have come to terms with it. I realize that it's part of my life and I can either deny it or own it.

I meant that you might have been offended that I assumed you had been in therapy. Some people are like that, even still.



Maybe you should make it not matter to you. Perhaps if you just realized that racism exists and it belongs to those people who are racists, not "the world" but some people in the world, and not all of those of another color, and it certainly doesn't belong to you, you might be able to let go of it.

There's a sort of cognitive dissonance in the fact that I'm supposed to let it go, yet have my life shaped by it. It's not about me. It's reality. When the justice system fails me, I should make it not matter? When my name is unjustly removed from the list of those registered to vote, I should make it not matter? How do I do that? I feel like you're advising me to will myself into mental illness.



I gave my power away and hated men for years. All men. They were the enemy. And your situation sounds so similar to how I used to feel that I really think it applies. But I had to learn to be discriminating. It's simply not true that all white people are racist any more than all men are rapists.

I don't "hate" anyone. I'm aggravated that this is the 21st century and blacks are stuck in the 19th. Do you have any idea how pissed I am that those two border cops were convicted of whatever for shooting the illegal Mexican drug runner? Amadou Diallo was shot over 40 times, for reaching for his wallet, and those cops were acquitted? How can you possibly explain that?


And regardless of how much experience I've had with black people, there's still so much I don't know. And in all the conversations I've had with them, we never got this deep.

Well, that's good.
I'm glad that you feel free to ask me stuff. I was always happy to serve as that kind of a resource for my (white) friends because that's the only way we can change all of this, by fostering discussions like the one we're having here.




My boyfriend and I talked about it a lot, but he was from Africa and didn't experience racism till he moved here. So it was a novelty to him. He was as puzzled about it as I am.


To be honest, aspects of it are puzzling to me as well. I doubt that Amadou Diallo understood racism either, but after his state- approved murder, his parents certainly did. That's why they called Sharpton.

You don't have to be hung up on racism to be a victim of it. That's why it's not so easy to ignore. It walks up behind you and hits you over the head with a blunt object.



[edit on 17-8-2006 by HarlemHottie]

[edit on 17-8-2006 by HarlemHottie]



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by HarlemHottie
Amadou Diallo was shot over 40 times, for reaching for his wallet, and those cops were acquitted? How can you possibly explain that?


Errm... who knows, the jury was racist, legal system doesn't work? I don't know. I do know though that if a white man had been acquitted for the "murder" of a black woman there would likely be racial accusations thrown around by prominent "black community leaders." However when OJ was acquitted, its either great, good for him, or gee the legal system is broke, it was not (rightly so) "oh look the racist jury let him go", c’mon I see how it is.



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
However when OJ was acquitted, its either great, good for him, or gee the legal system is broke, it was not (rightly so) "oh look the racist jury let him go", c’mon I see how it is.


Oh boy, here we go with OJ...

Personally, I've always believed that one was a matter of class, not race.



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 01:08 AM
link   
This thread is very good for a lot of reasons. It has gotten people to think about race and race-relations on a deeper context despite the positions we take. It does not matter about personality issues when discussing these matters; we are all conscious about the depth of the subject matter at stake.

That is why the conversation about this issue is important. It surely gets heated and frustrating. That is why I decided to take a few days off to regain some balance in this matter.

I thank people for being courageous in expressing their views. That is ultimately what I wanted. This thread is not to air one side of views opposed to another. The reason why I fought so hard against a poster being "labeled" for what they think is because they need the freedom without being censored to express themselves and get answers back.


I know that a discussion like this is tiring, but it is necessary. All that I ask of others is to take the time off to get a breather now and then. And then, continue to ask your questions and make observances. The thread will still be there for everyone. I find that even though the questions and comments are intense and rather painful for some, we need to continue this dialogue so that we can learn new things from everyone.

And yes, despite what others may think, I've learned quite a deal from all of you. It has helped shape my thoughts about how to address these issues. And it has allowed me to question my own values regarding race and race-relations.

The thing that should be noted is that information and education helps people change. Lest, they would continue to make the same mistakes. It's about honesty. It is also about dedication to make things change for the better. I hope that these answers can help people bring more enlightenment in their lives and can continue these conversations out in the real world.

None of us live in a vacuum. We have to deal with people in all walks of life. But, it is better to understand the reasons behind these actions and perceptions than continue on the same path of misunderstanding.

I appreciate you all for your bravery. Please continue to ask questions and make observances to help all of us realize different paths to this very vital and relevant issue.



[edit on 17-8-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 01:12 AM
link   
West Point: OJ put his money into his defense. You can't fault him for that. I think that people are mad that a jury acquitted him because he was able to defend himself as ably as any rich white person in the same circumstance could. It's about class, yes. But think how many Black people can't get the same defense as he. He's a statistical anomaly. If he weren't as able as any rich, white person, he'd be put to death right now. After all, the legal system is divided by class and race for the rest of us.

But there's plenty of others that you can be offended by: Claus Von Bulow, Andrea Yates and John Hinkley, Jr. In Mr. Hinkley's case, why do you think his fate was spared compared to someone like Lee Harvey Oswald?

Where's your outrage that they got off Scot-free for their crimes?





[edit on 17-8-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 01:56 AM
link   
I know that myself and others keep on mentioning Jim Crow. I thought that it might be interesting to find out who this person is and why does he figure into discussions of race-relations. This comes from the "Jim Crow Museum of Racist Memorabilia" at Ferris State Univeristy in Michigan:


Who Was Jim Crow?

The name Jim Crow is often used to describe the segregation laws, rules, and customs which arose after Reconstruction ended in 1877 and continued until the mid-1960s. How did the name become associated with these "Black Codes" which took away many of the rights which had been granted to Blacks through the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments?
[...]

...it is clear that in 1828 [Thomas Dartmouth "Daddy"]Rice appeared on stage as "Jim Crow" -- an exaggerated, highly stereotypical Black character.

Jim Crow Rice, a White man, was one of the first performers to wear blackface makeup -- his skin was darkened with burnt cork. His Jim Crow song-and-dance routine was an astounding success that took him from Louisville to Cincinnati to Pittsburg to Philadelphia and finally to New York in 1832. He then performed to great acclaim in London and Dublin. By then "Jim Crow" was a stock character in minstrel shows, along with counterparts Jim Dandy and Zip Coon. Rice's subsequent blackface characters were Sambos, Coons, and Dandies. White audiences were receptive to the portrayals of Blacks as singing, dancing, grinning fools.

By 1838, the term "Jim Crow" was being used as a collective racial epithet for Blacks, not as offensive as 'n-word', but as offensive as coon or darkie. Obviously, the popularity of minstrel shows aided the spread of Jim Crow as a racial slur. This use of the term did not last past a half century. By the end of the 19th Century, the words Jim Crow were less likely to be used to derisively describe Blacks; instead, the phrase Jim Crow was being used to describe laws and customs which oppressed Blacks.


[note: the artifacts--which are clearly explained on the Museum's home page--were collected by a sociology professor in his examination of the presence of such memoribilia in the world. Most of his collection covers the products produced describing Blacks in a derogatory manner. However, he has extended his collection to other forms of racist products spanning the world against other races. He studies their presence in "popular culture" and society as well as their impact in terms of race-relations and racism.]


[edit on 17-8-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 03:04 AM
link   
Regarding the OJ trail, personally I’m not thrilled when someone whom I consider to be guilty based on circumstance and evidence get acquitted. OJ should be in jail, his case should one of those highlighted to show that our legal system doesn't always work. Yet some people defend him even though IMO he was clearly guilty because he beat the system and all that other crap. BTW do you think he was guilty, Ceci?

And as for the cases you highlighted, you shouldn’t jump to conclusions and think I’m not 'outraged' about those cases. With exception for Bülow I wouldn't say they got away "Scott-free" though.

[edit on 17-8-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 04:04 AM
link   
West Point, you did bring up a lot of points to consider in regards to OJ. I would like to think about it and then get back to you on this issue because there is a lot to be said about his case and the state of race-relations. But I will say to you now that I have mixed feelings about the case. I will also say that it happened during the time of the Los Angeles Riots, which heightened sensitivities against the police. So, to make a long story short, OJ's trial occurred at a time in which multi-culturalism was being put up on the surface and questioned.

I think that his case (as well as Hurricane Katrina) demonstrated the polarity of race in our country. And as a result, these events have had further reprocussions on how we view each other as well as social institutions when it comes down to the treatment of people from different races.

All I can say is that OJ did not necessarily get off scot-free (not like Vice-President Dick Cheney did after his "quail hunting" episode). He is continually hounded and scrutinized by authorities even after he left California to live in Florida. And if the gossip rags are true, his kids are turning against him now. So, it's not like he didn't suffer in the end. He has experienced social isolation because he was able to use the law properly in order to try his case.

So, it is really an argument about the fairness of being tried in this country especially when it comes to Sixth Amendment rights.



[edit on 17-8-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 05:03 AM
link   

"Racism" is a natural socio-biological mechanism designed to keep us away from other people and animals who are recognizably different than we are.
This is psychological gobbledygook, which smaks of supremacism of an ethnicity. (Superrace drr, ugh, an evolutionary throwback. No race is superior...and I very much resent the whole idea of race, even. And I don't like Christians who have to turn Ham into an evil son jsut because he was black. It's missing all the context.)/rant off

Anyway: My Psychological gobbledygook.
It's often how we classify things from childhood. A kid calls a cat "doggie" for a while because all four legged animals are "doggies". Soon, they learn the diffrence between the dog and the cat, and you have "doggie" and "kat-kat". Throughout all our lives, we classify things, and we do it in ways that we find most simplified. It's why most white who hate N***blahblahblah has their favorite black person, an exception to the rule. They classify things, then find an exception, and can't fit it into their ideas for simplifying their world.

The biggest way to stop this is to challenge someone's perceptions. Don't be typical. Shake up a bigot's world view on the small stuff and get him to begrudgingly accept a few ideas. Then it's easier to knock the superiority complex out of them.

Hoestly, this isn't easy. (Exaduration) Those who can't get beyond their obsession that all four legged creatures are "doggie" find "kat-kat" hard to accept, even when you can get them to see that "seal" and "roosters" aren't the same. It takes effort.

Here's a mind bender for most people:
What if I told you I could find a thick-browed, heavy-jawed, primative looking man who has an IQ higher than most of the people here? No mention of his color, just that much..what do you see? this is the man I see: Here

[edit on 17-8-2006 by jlc163]



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 10:06 AM
link   

posted by zappafan1

REPLY: If I'm not mistaken, the Republican Party was instituted to end slavery, and is still the party most involved in that effort over the past 50 years or so.


I assume you are jesting?



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 10:12 AM
link   
I don't understand the lack of any the barest modicum of sensitivity by the companies and or their ad firms. It is almost as if Trent Lott had retired from the Senate and was running this ad agency. Or that centenarian J Strom Thurmond had been resurrected early.

GEICO. The Oreo cookie maker. Sprint. A big - F - for each of you.



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by HarlemHottie
The System, however, is run by white people, so who should I be mad at? ... I don't deny it, the distinction seems murky, but I only think white individials are guilty of "real" racism when they display it.


That's what I'm saying. Be angry at the individuals who are responsible. Even within the system. "The system" is an entity, but within it there are some people doing good things for blacks. Plenty of white people (with power) are working toward equal rights. Don't say "The people who are responsible are white, so I'm angry at white people." It's too easy to be mad at 'white people' and not all of them (us) deserve it.

That's my whole point with this part of the conversation. You must be discriminating. If I were to take your stance, I'd say "Since violent, women-hating rappers are black and the rap industry is black and gangs are black, then I am angry at black people. Because I don't like violence, women-haters, gangs and rap."

What would you consider me if I said that?




I don't think all white people are active, hood-wearing racists, but when it comes to the topic of white privilege, I believe they partake wholeheartedly, without even realizing it as a privilege.


Tell me how I can refuse the privilege of being white. Specifically. What should I do?



But, see, that's just it. It's the people who don't see the wrong in racism who do the most to perpetrate it.


Of course that's the case. How else would it be? People who think it's wrong don't perpetrate it. And it's up to those of us who SEE the wrong to stop it when we see it. Talk about it. Fight against it. Vote! It's up to you and me. And we're different colors on the same side!

There are racists (OF ALL COLORS) and there are non-racists (OF ALL COLORS). Those are the 2 sides of the racist issue. Not blacks and whites. This is my point.



When the justice system fails me, I should make it not matter? When my name is unjustly removed from the list of those registered to vote, I should make it not matter? How do I do that? I feel like you're advising me to will myself into mental illness.


Oh, hell no! I'm not saying that. I'm not suggesting that you lie down and take it. I'm saying that whatever you do is up to you. Start a group. Protest. Get your friends, black, white and purple and do something. However you handle it is your choice. I'm not telling you what to do, I'm just saying maybe this, maybe that, I don't know. (And don't forget, plenty of white people's votes didn't count either.) But whatever you do, get it clear in your head who you're fighting against. As long as you think your enemy is "white people" instead of the system, you're going down the wrong rabbit hole, because there are a lot of white people who could and want to help you, but may not because you think the white people are the problem.

In reality, it's the system. It's momentum. It's the status quo. Same people who keep women down. And they're not all white and they're not all men. Condi Rice and Alberto Gonzales are two of the worse individuals in "the system" right now. They are your enemy and they are my enemy.



Do you have any idea how pissed I am that those two border cops were convicted of whatever for shooting the illegal Mexican drug runner? Amadou Diallo was shot over 40 times, for reaching for his wallet, and those cops were acquitted? How can you possibly explain that?


Do you think I'm any less pissed? This crap infuriates me! And plenty of white people feel the same way. That's good. That's how change comes about.



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
GEICO. The Oreo cookie maker. Sprint. A big - F - for each of you.


Hello? I saw the Oreo cookie ad last night. Mind telling me what's the problem with this ad? Maybe tell me about the Geiko ad, too... Sprint? WTF? Is every ad with black people racist now?



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 12:38 PM
link   


posted by ceci2006

“Jim Crow” is often used to describe the segregation laws, rules, and customs after Reconstruction ended in 1877 and continued until the mid-1960s . . the name become associated with these "Black Codes" which took away the rights granted to Blacks through the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments . . Jim Crow Rice, a white man, was one of the first performers to wear black face makeup. His song and dance routine was a success that took him from Louisville to Cincinnati to Pittsburgh to Philadelphia and finally to New York in 1832. He performed to great acclaim in London and Dublin. By then "Jim Crow" the counterparts Jim Dandy and Zip Coon. were the Sambos, Coons, and Dandy’s.

White audiences were receptive to the portrayals of blacks as singing, dancing, grinning fools . . the term "Jim Crow" was used as a collective racial epithet for blacks, as a racial slur. By the end of the 19th Century, the phrase “Jim Crow” was being used to describe laws and customs which oppressed blacks. From the "Jim Crow Museum of Racist Memorabilia" at Ferris State University in Michigan. [Edited by Don W]



This is bad enough even if understandable. The worst is yet to be mentioned. In 1892, a black man, Homer Adolph Plessy, boarded a train in Louisiana. He was ordered by the train’s conductor, John H. Ferguson, to move to a second coach set aside for blacks. Plessy refused to move, contending he had paid full fare and had the right to choose where to sit. The police were called and Plessy was arrested. Appearing in local court, Plessy was fined $10 for violating the Louisiana state law requiring separate cars for blacks and white. Plessy appealed to the US Supreme Court. See 163 US 537 (1896).

“Supreme Court Associate Justice Henry Brown [writing for the 7 to 1 majority] conceded that the 14th amendment intended to establish absolute equality for the races before the law. But Justice Brown noted that ‘in the nature of things it could not have been intended to abolish distinctions based upon color, or to enforce social, as distinguished from political equality, or a commingling of the two races unsatisfactory to either.’ "

Although the words were not used in this case, it soon came to be said in popular discourse that “Separate but Equal” met the Constitutional requirements. The US Supreme Court had ruled adversely to equality in an earlier case, The Civil Rights Case at 109 US 3, (1886) the Supreme Court gutted the Civil Rights Act of 1872.

By this time - 1896 - the Ku Klux Klan had reestablished white control over the Old South states. As you have read elsewhere the Klan made a big push into Indiana in the early 1920s, adding anti-Semitism and ant-Catholicism to its already stale anti-Black credo.

Not atypical, in my home state of Ky, on January 12, 1904, State Representative Carl Day, a Democrat from Breathitt County, introduced House Bill No. 25, entitled "an Act to Prohibit white and colored persons from attending the same school." Although Berea College appealed their case to the United States Supreme Court, the Court upheld the law as constitutional and it remained in effect until amended by the legislature in 1950.”

See community.berea.edu...

Plessy v. Ferguson was the “Law of the Land” in American until Chief Justice Earl Warren led the Supreme Court in its unanimous decision to undo the wrongs of more than a half century in the historic case argued by Thurgood Marshall, himself to become the first black to sit on the Supreme Court, in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (347 U.S. 483 (1954). Doing quick work on Plessy, CJ Warren summarized Brown with these words suggested by Marshall, “Separate is inherently unequal.” In 1967 President Johnson appointed Marshall to the Supreme Court where he served all Americans with honor and distinction until he retired in 1991. He died in 1993.

I shall not insult the memory of Thurgood Marshall by reciting the name of the person President Bush41 choose to replace him on the same page. I have called that person a cannibal because he “eats” his own people to get ahead in whitey’s world.

My great admiration of General Eisenhower for leading the Allied Powers to victory in Europe in World War Two is sullied only by his aloofness and benign neglect causing so much hurt to the country. Ike refused to speak out on the challenge of racial equality facing America. Without leaders a nation will perish.

There was a time - maybe a week, maybe a month - when the nation waited for Ike to tell us what to do. This - making segregation illegal - was a new paradigm for America. Instead of taking the lead, Ike sat silent while the forces of repression gathered across the south and elsewhere. By the time Ike acted, in Little Rock in May, 1957, when he nationalized the Arkansas National Guard to escort the black children into Central High School, the die of race conflict had been cast The Geroge Wallaces. Orval Faubs's, Strom Thurmond's, and several other notable GOP icons all let this happen and it is still happening. Shame on you Ike. The world really could have been different if you had acted as you did on D-Day. An opportunity missed.



[edit on 8/17/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 12:49 PM
link   

posted by Benevolent Heretic

Hello? I saw the Oreo cookie ad last night. Mind telling me what's the problem with this ad? Maybe tell me about the Geiko ad, too... Sprint? WTF? Is every ad with black people racist now?


It may well be a genetic feature over which we have no control. I dunno.




[edit on 8/17/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
. By the time Ike acted, in Little Rock in May, 1957, when he nationalized the Arkansas National Guard to escort the black children into Central High School, the die of race conflict had been cast The Geroge Wallaces. Orval Faubs's, Strom Thurmond's, and several other notable GOP icons all let this happen and it is still happening. Shame on you Ike. The world really could have been different if you had acted as you did on D-Day. An opportunity missed.


George Wallace was a DEMOCRAT, donwhite, so your attempt to paint the Grand Ole Party as singularly racist is incorrect.

Plus, he had plenty of support from black voters.



In 1972, Wallace again entered the presidential primaries, this time within the Democratic party. He led off with a Florida victory in which he carried every county in the state.
:
Wallace's final gubernatorial conquest was characterized by an unprecedented amount of black voter support during the general election. For the former advocate an chief spokesman of the state's segregationists, this spelled a complete turnabout in his political career.
:
Wallace's final administration was marked by health problems; however, he continued to push for the state's economic stability. Furthermore, his final administration was characterized by ideological alignment with and overwhelming support of some of the state's more prominent political factions/interest groups, the so called "Wallace Coalition;" this coalition included the Alabama Education Association, organized labor, black political organizations and trial lawyers.

www.archives.state.al.us...



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join