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: 20
2
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 07:04 AM
link   
OK, let's see if I get this right... it's 4:30am where I am...



Originally posted by jsobecky
... I'd like to see the playing field levelled for everyone, including women, who have their own set of discriminatory problems to deal with.

But the question is, how? Aside from passing laws making it illegal to discriminate, what can be done?

Keeping in mind the question: do I have the right to hire whomever I want to?


I think that right here you have exposed just why racism, and discrimination of all types is such a thorny issue. "How to level the field". Clearly, laws don't really work. They provide the form but miss on the substance, as shown by Affirmative Action history.

I think the only way it will really work is to evolve a truly free society that does not engage in irrelevant discrimination. I hope I can explain. Examples:

Irrelevant discrimination: Let's say you own a business, and you just don't like left-handed people with grey hair that sticks straight up. You want to hire somebody, and the person who is really best for the job happens to be left-handed with grey hair, etc. You don't hire that person, which you should be free to do. However, because you don't hire the best person for the job, your business suffers a bit compared to somebody who doesn't care about grey-haired-left-handers. You are free to indulge your prejudice, but you pay a price.

Relevant discrimination: Your business is caring for small children all day. Someone applies for a job, who just doesn't like small children. They are not abusive, but they just don't bring the right passion to the job. So you don't hire them, even though they are right handed and have nice, dark hair that lays down like it should...



Originally posted by jsobecky
That's where many (not I) would disagree with you. There is field of thought that everyone has the obligation to right every instance of real or perceived racism. If you don't, you are seen as implicitly condoning racism.


I have encountered that attitude, and it is problematic. In a truly free society, should people not have the freedom to like or dislike whomever they please, for whatever reason they choose (I know I'm preaching to the choir, here)?

Note I am talking about attitude, not action with this. I do not condone violence against people. But if some chowder . wants to spend their energy and time hating left handed people with grey hair, that is their business.

I guess one way to look at it is, I doubt there is a quick fix, sadly. It is similar to the 'drug problem' in the US. We have a culture of extremely high drug use - just look at the amount of money devoted to pushing various drugs in all forms of the media. Some people choose to use drugs that are not 'approved' - meth and so on. (I am not advocating illegal drug use). But we live in a drug-based culture. If we want to have people not use drugs, we need to evolve a culture that is not so steeped in drug use. And that takes time. It took time to evolve our culture into a heavily drug-using one; it will take time to evolve it out of that.

I'm not sure I'm being very clear... apologies...




posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006
riley: Unfortunately, this thread is not about my "charactor".

I wasn't reffering to the thread. I was re-explaining why I have been criticising you. I have had a problem with some of the racist things that you've said.. and instead of owning your own behaviour you tried to pass the buck by claiming I was 'playing root out the black racist'. Have I said ANYTHING that would lead you to believe I have a problem with you because of your race? Even now you are trying to wriggle out of it by talking about the thread instead of your accustion that I was picking on you because you're black. If you are going to accuse me of something.. back it up.

This thread is about two specific things:

1)How do we go about getting race relations better?

2)How do we go about solving racism?

Well neither are going to happen when you won't practice what you preach. Calling people slaveowners? Miss Scarlett? Claiming that the only reason people cared about the holocaust is because Jews are white? [and thats just of the top of my ... You don't think these things are racist? :shk:

And I don't appreciate your patronizing, insulting comments about my "charator" from you.

You accused me of judging you for your colour.. so, in my own defence I corrected you and told you it was for your charactor. I was completely justified in doing so.

If you like, answer the questions. If not, please take the previous advice and open a thread about me and my "charactor" as a form of your tackling racism. I'm sure that people will have lots to say.

Again.. I mentioned charactor in response to your "play root out the black racist' remark. Perhaps now you might actually consider that I have been reacting to your biggotry rather than your race?

This thread has a specific angle.

We noticed.


I'm done.

[edit on 30-8-2006 by riley]



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 07:42 AM
link   
Okay, riley. No harm, no foul. But this thread really isn't about my character, nor the positions I hold.

And to tell you the truth, I truly don't care what you think about me and my views. What's more important is the discussion of race and race-relations.

You cannot get me to change my views with your attitude. You cannot bully me into telling you what you want. But by persuasion and respect, you might get me to think about what you are saying.

But I'm sorry you feel that way about me. I'll keep on bringing up threads and discussing race with or without you. Your opinion is not contingent upon my behavior. It never was. It never will be.

Now it's time to get back to the issue at hand.



[edit on 30-8-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 07:53 AM
link   
HH,

You're right. But, I can only be honest about my views. It has nothing to do with making anyone feel bad. You have to ask yourself, whether any one has felt anything about not making us feel bad when they express themselves. You also have to ask yourself whether there was any thought at all about our feelings when some posters said what they did about Black people on this board?

I see what you are saying. But in essence, it's about not feeling guilt now. And I would like to say what's on my mind without feeling the same type of guilt as the others do not want to feel.

There shouldn't be any double standards in "feeling anything" when you have to say what's on your mind, should there? That's what I glean from what other posters are saying.

After all, there are other posters who want to be released from the guilt of feeling badly about African-Americans. And I agree with that. But in the same manner, we should not feel any guilt about "reverse racism" and the racist acts they have encountered. We didn't do it. We shouldn't feel guilty about that either.

Aren't we all wanting equality here? So, let us not feel guilty. That is the first step.

If they don't want to remember or feel guilty about the racism happening to us, should we not recognize or feel guilty about the racism happening to them?

Maybe that's what kind of society we should have: one that doesn't feel anything about anybody. A totally selfish society that does not care about history or society except the politics of the current Administration. A leader is as good as his people. And since this one lacks empathy, the society lacks empathy especially against others who are different from themselves.

It's sad, but it's part of the nihilism that Cornel West proposes. It's a losing battle, except for those who always come out on top. It's far beyond the accusation of asking for "handouts" and recieving "special privileges" Truthfully, there are no handouts or special privileges for us. The only thing that we can look forward to is to simply exist and hope that someone respects us. And some people aren't even that kind enough to at least give us that. To ask for respect is like an insult to some.

So why must the focus on guilt matter when nobody wants to feel it?

Actually, not feeling guilt is really freeing. After all, who wants to be burdened with respecting everyone and everything? Who really wants to be thoughtful of all people and their heritages and histories? For those who don't want to feel guilt, a fool would do this. And what has been demonstrated is that foolish people care.

The other thing demostrated is that smart people discriminate. After all, there are those who denounce the people who are life-affirming and loving in the world. They killed MLK because he was life-affirming and loving. And it takes a lot for people to acknowledge that--except to use him and his teachings to reaffirm their own beliefs about "not having quotas" and a falsity of "judging people based on the content of their character". They actually do just the opposite.

It's nothing but a fool's folly.

And of course, who really wants to give a damn about these issues if it so contingent on acknowledging the suffering of others? It is terrible to feel this way, but a lot of people do. And it's true you can't legislate feelings. But sometimes you have to question whether people have any sense of decency and kindness in their hearts.

No way. Not in these times.




[edit on 30-8-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by HarlemHottie
Moderate muslims are expected to denounce the radicals. 'Good blacks' (middle class, professional blacks) are expected to denounce the thugs. Why shouldn't whites be expected to denounce the dissidents in their communities? When they don't, and not even an official apology for slavery (admittedly wrong) seem forthcoming, it appears that the white community condones their actions. And that's why people feel that some contemporary 'white guilt' is in order.


This is a very good point! Moderate Muslims are called out by some to denounce the extremists. I have seen this demand made over and over. I don't particularly agree that just because they (the moderates) share a religion with some crazy people that they have an obligation or duty to publicly come out and make a claim that they are not like other Muslims and that they disagree with them. But I can see how it would mean something to many people. I can understand why that's important.

The problem with that, however (as I see it) is the assumed 'grouping' of all Muslims in the first place. This is the foundational argument or misunderstanding with me, as a regular white person, feeling some kind of kinship with racist whites because of the color of my skin. I feel NO kinship with a person (regardless of color) who would treat other people with disrespect or outright inhumanity because of the color of their skin. I think that's where I'm missing the boat on this "white guilt' or 'white privilege' thing.

It's so distasteful to me to be grouped with ignorant, racist people that I can't really bring myself to acknowledge a kinship with white racists. Especially based on the color of my skin. That's meaningless to me. If I am expected not to group all black people together and assign characteristics, which is an expectation I have of myself, why should I group all white people together and assume a kinship of some sort?

I can understand how blacks might feel a kinship with other blacks, having had a common experience with racism in this country, but I have no such feeling with other white people because we haven't suffered together. We don't have a common experience. I can't look into the eyes of another white person and recognize and acknowledge some part of what they have been through like one black American could to another, because of their common experience of racism.

I CAN, however, look at another rape survivor or another child molestation survivor and make that same connection. Because we have suffered a similar experience. But, I don't think all me should feel guilty for the actions of the few. I don't want them to.

But let it be known now - as an individual, I most definitely acknowledge past and current atrocities carried out against blacks and I strongly denounce those (regardless of their color or nationality) who have, do and will perform racist and prejudicial acts against black people. I don't care who they are or what color their skin, I denounce racism and the people who perform it.

But I cannot, in good conscience, say that, as a white person, I denounce other white people who are racist - because I denounce all racists of every color and race. And for me to say, "I'm sorry for the way others of my race act and I take some sort of responsibility for their actions, simply because we share a skin color" would be... well... racist. To me. I'd much rather apologize for the behavior of some humans against others. That I can easily do. And I do. I'm feel ashamed and apologetic to the victims of injustice at the hands of other people.



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic
Now on the the guilt factor. The actions of the Canadian gov't you describe are what might be termed 'institutional' guilt. And the US gov't has that in spades regarding the slavery era. I think it is not unreasonable to believe that the complete lack of decency demonstrated then was so extreme that people - as in government people - have trouble accepting it. I am not aware of any apology to black people for that era, and the horror of what the slave holders did may be why. I believe the government should own up to what happened, and an apology would not, I think, be unreasonable.

I just wanted to add a comment on this. There actually has been an official apology issued to blacks from the US Senate. This happened about a year ago. It was a result of a bipartisan effort of Louisiana Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu and Virginia Republican Senator George Allen.


Saturday, June 18, 2005
Brownwood's Republican Senators did not support Senate lynching apology !

U.S. Senate apologizes for 100 years of lynchings
By Frank James Washington Bureau Tue Jun 14, 9:40 AM ET

The Senate apologized Monday to lynching victims and their descendants, a belated attempt to make amends for what some lawmakers acknowledged was the Senate's shameful 19th and 20th Century history of blocking efforts to end the grisly practice of lynching African-Americans.

Apology

I haven't researched the part about Republican Senators not supporting it yet.

Interestingly enough, the apology has been rejected by some groups:


We will not forgive, or accept an apology that does not come with a change in power relationships. And we will reject any so-called Black leadership that makes its own deal.

www.blackcommentator.com...

Once again, I have not delved into what they mean by a change in power relationships. I thought that was what the ballot box was for.



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Let’s talk about the concept of White Privilege. Some questions to consider:

Does it exist?

Is it a naturally occurring thing or is it a manufactured concept?

How pervasive is it?

And finally, I’d like to hear some concrete examples. Not a “dirty look” that someone received, or a “feeling” or “tone of voice” someone used.

Of course, a discussion begins with an accepted definition. White Privilege has been described as a particular social privilege. Here is what I think is a good starting definition:


Defining “White Privilege”
by Kendall Clark
white privilege, a social relation
1. a. A right, advantage, or immunity granted to or enjoyed by white persons beyond the common advantage of all others; an exemption in many particular cases from certain burdens or liabilities.
b. A special advantage or benefit of white persons; with reference to divine dispensations, natural advantages, gifts of fortune, genetic endowments, social relations, etc.
www.whiteprivilege.com...


Clark actually lists a half-dozen definitions, but these are the ones I see as relevant.

At this juncture, I will concede that White Privilege exists. So then, I ask, Why does it exist?

This is where I differ in opinion from most scholars. I think it is a natural phenomenon, as opposed to a designed one. Why? Because I think that people, and creatures in general, feel threatened by someone that looks different from them. And the natural tendency is to surround oneself with those most like oneself. It’s part of the herd instinct. We all have heard of the baby chick born with a speck of color on top of it’s .. It is routinely pecked to death by the other chickens. And they peck at the spot on it’s ., that what is different. That's also why albino alligators, deer, etc., are rare.

Is social privilege bad? Well, do we acknowledge that professional athletes and movie stars receive special treatment? Of course we do. Is there any movement to strip that treatment from them? No.

Where social privilege crosses the line and becomes destructive is when a person’s civil or human rights are violated because they lack the privilege. For example, the right to free speech, or the right to vote. That behavior cannot be condoned, and I cannot think of any examples of it existing in America today.

But, is there also such a thing as Black Privilege? Some would argue that Affirmative Action programs are government-sponsored examples that Black Privilege does exist. But more formally, it’s characteristics were defined at an anti-racism conference in 2003:


Points- Black Privilege
• The Right to be angry- understanding that the last 400 years legitimizes that rage
• To be able to transfer white conditions to everyone (he spoke being a psychologist, learning Freud, Maslow, Eriksson, Pavlov, etc., and about the fact that white analysis is seen as the legitimate analysis, meaning that people of color degreed in white higher educational institutions are particularly versed in the dysfunctions of whites and white culture, their psyche, etc.).
• Not to be responsible for (white) governmental decisions
• To freely move in and out of white consciousness, dual realities, both worlds

www.antiracism.com...


Another example are Black universities. Does anyone think that a white man applying for entrance to Howard University would get the same consideration as a black man?

And, if a white man were to stop in for lunch at a Harlem restaurant, do you think he would be greeted and treated the same as everyone else?

One more comment on the description given by Kendall Clark:


b. A special advantage or benefit of white persons; with reference to divine dispensations, natural advantages, gifts of fortune, genetic endowments, social relations, etc.

There is a field of thought that blacks possess certain physical advantages that help them to excel in athletics. Bone and muscular structure assist them in running marathon races, football, and other sports of a physical nature. And statistics seem to support this notion.

Enough for now - I think I’m running out of character allotment. But I welcome your thoughts and comments.



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 10:49 AM
link   
Ok, this just happened to me this morning, and I immediately thought of this thread, and wanted to post it here when I got home.

I was in Lowe's (like a Home Depot), and I couldn't find one of those big carts. Finally I saw one on an empty aisle. Now I know that people usually go off, because they don't want to push those carts through each and every aisle. I waited for 5 minutes for someone to return, no one did. I decided it was fair game, so I started on my way. Once I had 15 bags of mulch on the cart, a black guy came up, and asked me if I took it from that aisle. I wasn't going to lie, I said yes. He then told me "You take those bags off that cart now, white boy, I don't have time for this (expletive)."

I said, "Dude, I'll take these bags off, but I'm not going to take them off if you talk to me like that, you can just do it yourself."

He pushes the bags off, some he threw (one almost hitting me). He then struts off with the cart. Parks it nearby and starts looking at some fencing. At that point I was floored, I was just standing there staring, because I'm honestly not used to that sort of behavior, as I'm a pretty nice guy.

Then a guy comes over to him, asks him if he can use that cart. The cart possesor turns to me while talking to him and says, "no problem, my black brother." He emphasized the black part while looking right into my eyes. I left, because I was too furious to shop.

So what could I have done? What could I have done for that man to ease race relations? I mean, that was an overtly racist act, and I honestly didn't know how to handle that, without going ballistic and chewing him out.

I thought it was topical, so that's why I added it. How could I have improved race relations with that man?



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
if a white man were to stop in for lunch at a Harlem restaurant, do you think he would be greeted and treated the same as everyone else?


It depends on who is serving the food. Hopefully not Jesse Jackson.

November, 1969 “Life” magazine interview - Jackson said that when he worked as a waiter in a Greenville, South Carolina hotel he spat into the soups and salads of White customers. “[Spitting into the food] gave me a psychological gratification,” Jackson said.

During his early years in the communist civil rights movement Jackson often repeated this story to audiences. A July 1972 New York “Times” article, quoted Jackson and said: “Jesse would spit into their soup or salad before he brought it to the table, and watch with enjoyment as Whites ate gobs of saliva as though it were, say, oil and vinegar dressing.”


* Jackson's connections to the communist party in early years is without question and he reestablished those connections with the Democratic Socialists of America during the 1980's. DSA gave an early and enthusiastic endorsement to Jackson's 1988 presidential campaign, and DSA co-chair Michael Harrington was a speechwriter for Jackson in that campaign.




[edit on 8/30/2006 by FlyersFan]



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by niteboy82
I thought it was topical, so that's why I added it. How could I have improved race relations with that man?


Damn, that's tough. I don't even know what I would do in that situation, its stuff like this, misconceptions and misunderstandings that sometimes automatically get attributed to race that lets racism continue. Had it not been you, both individuals in this case would have walked away with whatever views they had before about race, either reaffirmed or replaced, for the worst, and all from a misunderstanding. :shk:



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
There actually has been an official apology issued to blacks from the US Senate.


One problem I see with this is that it wasn't really issued to blacks. It was issued to families of lynchings, 3/4 of which were black. Another problem, it dosn't even touch an apology for slavery or racism, past and present. So, in my mind, it's kind of like apologizing to a rape victim for stepping on their toe.


Originally posted by jsobecky
Let’s talk about the concept of White Privilege.


I think of White Privilege as the more specific form of racism. Isn't it just another way of expressing the concept of white-on-black racism? To me, it's the advantages that white people have historically had as a result of racism against blacks. It's just the specificity of racism, specifically, white-on-black racism.

Niteboy What a bummer. I have been there and as far as I've been able to figure, there's nothing to be done. I have tried talking to them right in the moment and it only generated more anger. See jsobecky's reference:


Originally posted by jsobecky

Points- Black Privilege
• The Right to be angry- understanding that the last 400 years legitimizes that rage
www.antiracism.com...



Again, a specific form of racism, which, because it's black-on-white can also be called Black Privilege.

FlyersFan, Eeewww! I don't think I'll ever eat a salad again!



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by jsobecky
There actually has been an official apology issued to blacks from the US Senate.


One problem I see with this is that it wasn't really issued to blacks. It was issued to families of lynchings, 3/4 of which were black. Another problem, it dosn't even touch an apology for slavery or racism, past and present. So, in my mind, it's kind of like apologizing to a rape victim for stepping on their toe.

Good point about the 75/25 split. Makes me wonder about the other 25% of cases. As far as other victims of racism not being mentioned, it seems that the legislation was pretty specific as to it's target.


I think of White Privilege as the more specific form of racism. Isn't it just another way of expressing the concept of white-on-black racism? To me, it's the advantages that white people have historically had as a result of racism against blacks. It's just the specificity of racism, specifically, white-on-black racism.

No, I don't think so, because I'm sure that it also happened to Native Americans. And there's always the "Irish need not apply" era, the exploitation of Chiinese railroad workers, and others.


from Niteboy
How could I have improved race relations with that man?

You couldn't, man. You did the right thing.



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 03:32 PM
link   
Jso, I wasn't familiar with the Senate's apology for lynching. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. However, I have to agree with BH on this one. What kept them from going one step further and apologizing for slavery?

Oh, and there are lots of white people in Harlem now. You would be surprised.

niteboy,
on that guy! He was sooo wrong, on so many different levels of wrong-ness. First of all, he was wrong for leaving his shopping cart, abandoned, and expecting it to be there when he got back. Second, he was wrong for actually confronting you about it. (Who does that?!) Third, he was wrong for bringing racial drama into a damn Home Depot, shopping cart dispute.


People like that, of all colors, are who will keep us in the predicament we're in. But good for you on not flipping out. You had every right. It's thoughtful people like you who can help fix this whole thing.


To answer your general question, I have to agree with another poster (sorry, don't remember who): I don't know what else you could have done. You probably handled it best. To be honest, if it had been me, you know, the other way around, I don't know how I would have handled it. I don't like 'scenes' though, so I may have done what you did. It's hard to say.

Oh, and he was also tangentially wrong for calling somebody his "black brother." What decade is this?!

I still don't believe that happened. I mean, I believe you, but I don't believe that he did that. (*shakes . at ignorance*)


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
But I cannot, in good conscience, say that, as a white person, I denounce other white people who are racist - because I denounce all racists of every color and race.

Whatever works!


And I'm not being 'short,' I just didn't have much else to say.



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by HarlemHottie
Jso, I wasn't familiar with the Senate's apology for lynching. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. However, I have to agree with BH on this one. What kept them from going one step further and apologizing for slavery?



Now I may be wrong, but I was under the impression our government already apologized for slavery. What they refuse to do is to give Reparations, but not an apology.



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by WolfofWar
Now I may be wrong, but I was under the impression our government already apologized for slavery. What they refuse to do is to give Reparations, but not an apology.


That's what I thought too, but I searched for an apology and came up empty. It would be helpful if you could locate a link.



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by HarlemHottieJso, I wasn't familiar with the Senate's apology for lynching. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. However, I have to agree with BH on this one. What kept them from going one step further and apologizing for slavery?

They passed up a golden opportunity to do so. The only reason I can think of is that it was specifically an apology for years of blocking anti-lynching legislation. I don't know if it was an oversight, or considered and then rejected.


Originally posted by WolfofWar
Now I may be wrong, but I was under the impression our government already apologized for slavery. What they refuse to do is to give Reparations, but not an apology.

Clinton apologized for the Tuskegee experiment in 1997.


PRESIDENT CLINTON: The United States Government did something that was wrong, deeply, profoundly, morally wrong. It was an outrage to our commitment to integrity and equality for all our citizens. We can end the silence. We can stop turning our .s away. We can look at you in the eye and finally say on behalf of the American people what the United States Government did was shameful, and I am sorry. (Applause)

www.pbs.org...


Ken Mehlman, as RNC Chairman, apologized for certain political strategies:


It was called "the southern strategy," started under Richard M. Nixon in 1968, and described Republican efforts to use race as a wedge issue -- on matters such as desegregation and busing -- to appeal to white southern voters.

Ken Mehlman, the Republican National Committee chairman, this morning will tell the NAACP national convention in Milwaukee that it was "wrong."

www.huffingtonpost.com...



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 04:26 PM
link   
That seriously sucks, niteboy; I'm sorry to hear it happened. I can't think of any better way to handle it than as you did, except possibly a good, hearty belly laugh at the guy, right there in the store, for making such an ass of himself.



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 04:26 PM
link   
Hmm. The most I can find is an apology for lynching and murders of slaves.

Maybe its because they feel they have no need to apologize? After all, in the senates minds, theyre all union folk, and they free'd "ya" so its evens stevens?

Hmm, wow, I could've sworn they apologized...

Guess not..



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 04:32 PM
link   
Niteboy, I had read your story about what happened. That is terrible what occurred to you. I am very sorry that you had to feel that way. And I also would not know what to do in your situation if it were reversed.

But sometimes, you have to give it up to a higher being and let it go. And, after thinking about it, even when you feel frustration, you have to do the same thing. To learn to make peace of it is to talk it out. In the end, you did the right thing.

I would also say, to imagine that happening countless times to people of color. Would you understand why there is so much frustration on the part of Black people?

Apology or no apology, there has been a long pattern of feeling like you did for many, many years. It doesn't work too well for turning the tables. But, it does help to understand and make some sense out of it.

--------------------------------

And about the Black privilege--why shouldn't our rage be legitimized? The things during Slavery, Jim Crow and the Civil Rights Era were pretty terrible if you think about it. Should African-Americans be rather happy and sing about it instead?

Do you want us to let it slide for the sake of "not feeling anything about it" and letting the lynchers and other intimidators off the hook? Especially if some of them are still alive?

Rage is not a black privilege. What would you say about the Jews? Are they not supposed to feel rage as well for what was done to them? Is there a similar privilege for them?

What if someone said to a Jew, "I don't feel guilt over what happened in the Holocaust." What would one say then? Would one feel a sense of anger and sadness over what was said? What if someone else brought up "Jewish privileges": the right to feel rage. How would anyone feel then? What if someone even said that they want to stop talking about the Holocaust, because if one doesn't it will die?

I wonder if someone who doesn't "feel any guilt" would say the same things to a Jewish person that they would say to Black people? Would anyone dare to try it? Especially when talking about reparations? Would you call the reparations to Jewish people, "handouts" or "social giveaways"?

How does everyone feel about Holocaust deniers? Probably awful. What about people who deny the complexity and horrendousness of what happened to Blacks? How would anyone feel then?



[edit on 30-8-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic
That seriously sucks, niteboy; I'm sorry to hear it happened. I can't think of any better way to handle it than as you did, except possibly a good, hearty belly laugh at the guy, right there in the store, for making such an ass of himself.


That would of been great, but a guy like that might of got REALLY angry and escalated the matter. If that happens to me, I've decided that I'm going to look really sad and whimper something like 'White?..I'm Chinese
' and sulk away.




top topics



 
2
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join