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

It's all right, HH. This thread is to discuss issues. You were speaking with true knowledge about the subject. As for others, they don't take the time to read or learn about the issue, but unfortunately can spout off anything they like and make it sound respectable. And then, they use their talk to lord over and demean the thoughts and ruminances of other people.

Always know that those who actually know substance are never insecure people who have to single-handedly nullify an argument as "nonsense". They can continue the argument as the day is long without worry of running out of information.

That is the difference between true "serious thinkers" and those who pose as serious thinkers.

Feel satisfied that you pulled away the curtain and exposed this ugly problem for what it is.




[edit on 15-9-2006 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by ceci2006
You have even said that not all white people think like yourself. So, you cannot speak for them.

I totally agree and I have never presumed to speak for anyone but myself, much less all white people. I have made it clear how ridiculous I think that concept is.

Would you please answer the question as it is?

Sure. What question?

And by all due respect, I don't ever think you would have used words such as "tone" and "getting a little tense" with anyone else.

Well, you'd be wrong.

But, it is a race-based question, that deserves a race-based answer.

I'm not clear on what the question is.

And before you edited out the MLK reference, I was wondering WTF you mean. I didn't use any of MLK's words that I know of.

The question is why do some white people feel they have to make a behaviorial assessment on Black people when they express dissent.

I hope it is clear, this time.

I've spoken about it for several posts. I've even expressed experiences and insights about this.

And about MLK: I was thinking about the "content of your character" portion of his words. But knowing what you might say, I edited it. I decided to go with clarity.




[edit on 15-9-2006 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by ceci2006
The question is why do some white people feel they have to make a behaviorial assessment on Black people when they express dissent.

I'm sorry I cannot speak for other people, white or not, so I cannot answer this question. If you really want it answered, I suggest you go to the person to whom it pertains.

Now that I think of it, I'm absolutely certain that it's not exclusively white people who do this. Because as I've expressed dissent to you, you have given detailed behavioral assessments of me. So, maybe they do it for the same reasons you do...

*shrug*

Originally posted by ceci2006
I don't ever think you would have used words such as "tone" and "getting a little tense" with anyone else. It is a color thing.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
And besides, Majic, that other thread had a lot of partisan bickering and it was also caught up in the book release and everything... Personally I MUCH prefer the tone of this thread.

And we all know Majic's pretty white.

Look... Here's HH talking to me about my "tone"... Must be a "color thing", huh? I don't think so. :shk:

Originally posted by HarlemHottie
The patronizing tone of your response lets me know that I didn't make my point.

See what I mean? Even though I've talked about the "tone" of a thread that wasn't about race at all and even though HH has used the same word about MY tone, you are totally convinced that it's all about a white person talking to a black person.

That's called "playing the race card". It's not pretty.

This just occurred to me, while I was watching CNN.

The other day, they showed an old Larry King, an interview with Ann Richards. I like her, btw. Never knew too much about her, but based on that interview, I liked her. Anyway, here's the pertinent part of their conversation:

KING: Before we take another caller or two, Ann, how is your health? How is the osteoporosis?

RICHARDS: Well, I'm just strong as mustard gas, you know? My...

KING: As what?

RICHARDS: Mustard gas.

KING: OK. That's not very Jewish, but go ahead.

RICHARDS: Well, but it's something we say at home.

KING: I gather.
Transcript of Interview

Then, today on The Situation Room, they showed a clip of Wolf Blitzer interviewing George Soros about his new book. This interview will be shown in it totality on this week's CNN Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, so there's no transcript yet. Wolf read an excerpt from the book that compares the Bush administration's use of propaganda to that of the Nazis and asked Soros, with more emotion than I've ever seen him evince, how he could possibly say such a thing, since Soros had lived through the Holocaust. Mind you, I'm paraphrasing. Soros replied that he found the comparison obvious, considering the now-infamous "You're either with us or against us" statement. Wolf continued to stress Holocaust-angle, disregarding the fact that Soros was comparing the methodology of the two regimes, not their end results.

Finally, Wolf pushed and pushed, until Soros admitted that, yes, he may have gone too far. But did he? Quite a few people have said the same thing Soros said, and a lot of Americans agree. So, was Wolf speaking as a journalist for the American people, or as a journalist with an agenda?

Here's my main question: Why is it more acceptable for Jews to "play the race-card" than it is for other races/ethnic groups?

In the first example, Larry King attempted to censure Ann Richards use of (what appears to be) a regional, idiomatic phrase. He was unsuccessful, because she really didn't seem to 'get' what he was saying.

In the second example, Wolf Blitzer attempted to censure George Soros' comparison. He was successful, after a while, but only because Soros 'got' it.

Originally posted by HarlemHottie
Here's my main question: Why is it more acceptable for Jews to "play the race-card" than it is for other races/ethnic groups?

Damn! I wish I knew enough to answer your question! I will do some research and educate myself as to who these people are and what 'group' they belong to because I have no hope of even understanding the question until I do that.

I sincerely apologize for my ignorance, but I didn't attend high school, and I only recently (after 9/11) ever watched the news. So a lot about history is simply not in my brain. I'll ask my husband about it and get back to you.

Also, my dog tore her cruciate ligament and I'm nursing her until we can get her in for surgery on the 26th.

My first response is that it is no more acceptable for Jews or anyone to play the race/culture/gender/age card than anyone. So right off the bat, that's how I feel about your question.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I sincerely apologize for my ignorance, but I didn't attend high school, and I only recently (after 9/11) ever watched the news.

That was very honest of you. I didn't really watch the news before either, so I know what you mean.

Also, my dog tore her cruciate ligament and I'm nursing her until we can get her in for surgery on the 26th.

Awwww! What's her name? I have a bird, and if anything happened to her, I would be freaked out too.

My first response is that it is no more acceptable for Jews or anyone to play the race/culture/gender/age card than anyone. So right off the bat, that's how I feel about your question.

That's what I would think too, but now that I've been paying attention, the only people who ever accuse Jews of playing the race card are Arab Muslims, and we know what response they get ("Nuke 'em!"). I know you haven't researched this yet, but when you do, I request that you look for examples of anyone else accusing them of "playing the race card." I'm curious to see what you find.

OK, I have educated myself as much as I can in 15 minutes and I will answer to the best of my ability. As I said before, It's not more acceptable to me for any person to play the race card than another.

But I think you're probably talking of being generally acceptable. And I agree that it is. And I assume that it's because of 2 reasons.

1. Jewish people have a lot of power in this country.

2. People generally see the Jews as suffering historically more than anyone else. So they cut them a lot of slack. If you say anything against Israel, you're called an anti-Semite. This has always bothered me. I've seen here on ATS, to deny the Holocaust is to some analogous to committing it! I don't get it.

I didn't say they were good reasons (and in fact, I don't think they are), but I think those are probably the reasons. I will do more research on Jews being accused of playing the "race" card. Wouldn't it be a culture/religion card? So confusing!

By the way, I didn't really see either one of your examples as someone "playing the race card" as that has a very specific meaning to me, but I understand what you're saying. But the only time I use the phrase is when a person says, "It's because I'm ____."

For example, at an outside party, a black man asked me where I got the basketball I was playing with. I answered with a smile and a bit of a smart attitude, "Who wants to know"? (I'm a flirt, what can I say) And he got all pissed off and mumbled something about being black. I said, "Hey, man! I'm sorry. It wasn't about that, I was just messing with you"! But by that time he was walking away. See, in his mind, I was treating him a certain way because he was black. Little did he know that my date for the evening was a black man.

Another example (hypothetical) is that if 2 men were up for the same job and the Hispanic guy happened to be perfectly qualified, so was hired. The other guy (a white guy) claims that he didn't get hired because he was white and that damn Affirmative Action is ruining his life.

Playing a 'card' is claiming that an action (or words) happen because of a race, when the TRUTH is something totally different. In the first example, the TRUTH is that I was 'smart' with the guy because that's the way I am. NOT because he was black. In the second example, the the TRUTH is that guy got hired because he was better qualified, NOT because he was Hispanic. And in the "tone" example, the TRUTH is that I was getting uncomfortable with the tone of our discussion and I DON'T want to threaten our friendship. A WAY LOT! Not because I don't like uppity blacks.

That's just so much BS.

And I don't like it when I perceive the race card being played and I'm probably going to point it out. People can take it or leave it.

The problem is that many times, actions are taken and words are said specifically because someone is black or Jewish or white or a woman. It's true. It happens and I fully acknowledge that. But in the examples above, clearly someone is playing cards.

My sweet dog's name is Cara and you can see her here:
www.belowtopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
But I think you're probably talking of being generally acceptable.

Yes, that is what I meant. Thank you for clarifying.

2. People generally see the Jews as suffering historically more than anyone else. So they cut them a lot of slack.

Why is that? And this is directed at anyone with an answer...

Wouldn't it be a culture/religion card? So confusing!

You're right, it is confusing. Everytime I check, it changes.

By the way, I didn't really see either one of your examples as someone "playing the race card" as that has a very specific meaning to me, but I understand what you're saying.

I had no idea the phrase was so poorly defined, lol. When I think of "playing the race card," I think of it as anytime someone tries to stop another person from saying/doing something that the first person perceives as racially insensitive. (Did that make sense??) Of course, since I don't actually use the phrase myself, I'm just using contextual clues... I really don't know what people mean when they say it. It seems like, whenever a black person says, that's racist, white people claim we're "playing the race card," just to shut us up. I didn't mean to generalize, but in my experience, those are the only instances I've heard the phrase used, and those aren't the situations where you want to quibble over definitions.

My sweet dog's name is Cara and you can see her here:
www.belowtopsecret.com...

They are both ADORABLE! The signs were a creative idea...very cute. I love animals, all animals, but I'm allergic, so I have to stick with birds. Kenya, my S. American conure, is by far one of the most intelligent creatures I have ever had the pleasure to meet. Maybe I'll upload a picture. And, yes, I said "meet," because she thinks she's a person, so we treat her like one.

But BH, by all due respect, your word is not the final decision made about this. After all, you seem to think that you have all the answers here. And unfortunately, you don't. After all, you do use behavior in a racialized format to penalize people.

And yes, you did not put up the "tone" quote I was referring to. I might as well do it for you since you seem to sweep some matters under the rug. It sounds right here as if you were about to say--in typical white-speak, "Now, don't get mad!" It's obvious here:

Originally quoted by Benevolent Heretic
This is getting a little 'tense' for me and I DO NOT want to have any negative feelings between us. I don't like the 'tone' that's starting to develop here. Being right about my observations and opinions isn't that important.

Really? Sounds like it is getting a little tense for you. And you didn't like the tone. Now that is what I was referring to.

You obviously do not understand what HH and myself were talking about, do you? It is alright to say so. Please admit it and say that you don't. And ask for us to explain it to you. But don't try to hide your obliviousness with your ability to dance around the issue. And please don't try to "finger-wag".

And myself giving you behaviorial assessments? I only gave back what you did to me first.


Sorry for the derailing of the next question. I would like to think about this new question carefully and answer.



[edit on 15-9-2006 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by ceci2006
your word is not the final decision made about this.

About what? And I'm only giving my opinion. I don't claim to be the final word or decision on anything. I don't even know what you're talking about. When you come into a discussion HH and I are having and say something about "this" how can I be expected to know what "this" is???

It sounds right here as if you were about to say--in typical white-speak, "Now, don't get mad!"

Typical "white-speak", huh? Sorry, but that's so funny! I know you don't like it when I 'joke', but God! Stop saying such funny things if you don't want me to laugh! "white-speak"!

Now that is what I was referring to.

I knew exactly what you were referring to. It's still hilarious!

You obviously do not understand what HH and myself were talking about, do you?

Gosh, I don't know. What are you and HH talking about? I understand her perfectly, but I have a hell of a time understanding you, Ceci. Strange because you're both black so I should understand you both equally, right? (That's sarcasm, in case you didn't recognize it.)

It is alright to say so. Please admit it and say that you don't.

I admit it. I have NO CLUE what you're talking about, Ceci.

Go have a glass of wine. Settle in and type something more coherent.

Oh, and if you have something to add to the discussion, great, but these ranting interruptions really get the thread off course. Why is it that you just can not stay on subject in your own thread???

Originally quoted by Benevolent Heretic

Typical "white-speak", huh? Sorry, but that's so funny! I know you don't like it when I 'joke', but God! Stop saying such funny things if you don't want me to laugh! "white-speak"!

Laugh all you want. But I don't think it's funny. In fact, I think it's very rude and condescending to say the least.

I knew exactly what you were referring to. It's still hilarious!

I'm sure you did. That's why you misconstrue my words all the time.

Gosh, I don't know. What are you and HH talking about? I understand her perfectly, but I have a hell of a time understanding you, Ceci. Strange because you're both black so I should understand you both equally, right? (That's sarcasm, in case you didn't recognize it.)

I recognize it as BS when you write off what I'm trying to say. But I still try.

I admit it. I have NO CLUE what you're talking about, Ceci.

Go have a glass of wine. Settle in and type something more coherent.

Oh, and if you have something to add to the discussion, great, but these ranting interruptions really get the thread off course. Why is it that you just can not stay on subject in your own thread???

But I was staying on topic. I was answering your previous post concerning the past issue.

But get this. I don't need you to tell me what is "ranting" or not. You do not have the right to tell me when I am "interrupting" or not. You also cannot tell me what I can or cannot add to a subject.

And I am very coherent. It's not my fault you are oblivious.

I hope you understand that. I tried to make things clear as crystal to you.

And by the way, you made a personal attack. I hope that is clear to you also--especially this part:

Go have a glass of wine. Settle in and type something more coherent.

[edit on 15-9-2006 by ceci2006]

Wow tough thread and by the way race relation could never be fix until hate is no more and that never going to happen cause that human nature.

No, El Che, it can be fixed. But personality issues can't. I'm sorry that unfortunately, personality issues get in the way.

[edit on 15-9-2006 by ceci2006]

Thank you.

I have learned something here.
something about racial hypersensitivity, and how unproductive it can be in our quest for peace and harmony.

Munchausen by melanin.

I have also learned something here. That because there is a lack of melanin does not mean those not possessing it have all the answers afforded to race-relations. It also does not give them the right to finger-wag when they see fit.

In fact, the lack of melanin causes one to lord over and scare off others who might have something appropriate and vital to say.


And Spacedoubt, count your comment as another personal attack. I am always aware of your ruminances. No matter how poetic, they insult others terribly. In this case, it was me.


Now, I am going to think about HH's question and try to write an appropriate response. I hope that is coherent enough for all of you to understand.




[edit on 16-9-2006 by ceci2006]

...would you please stop rubber-necking and stay on topic?


The question is: Why is it more acceptable for Jews to "play the race-card" than it is for other races/ethnic groups?

Thanks

HH,

I have written about this in other threads.

It seems the last answer I gave on this very topic, I was accused by another poster for being insensitive to whites. That was not what I was doing then. Now, this is not what I am doing. I hope that this is very clear. But, that's a chance I'll just have to take.

However, I'll say it once again for the risk of the same old, tired attacks:

Jews suffered horribly during the Holocaust. I would be the last to say that they didn't. It hurts my heart that humans could do the horrible things to another of their ilk. The Germans did unspeakable things to the Jews. However, Nazi propaganda also degraded American Blacks as well to prop up their Aryan platform. They especially did it to dissuade the "Swing Kids" (German youth who liked American jazz and fought against Nazi propaganda). In these propaganda films, they used the worst characteristics of Blacks. Too bad they were disproved when Jesse Owens won Gold Medals during the 1936 Olympics.

And too bad, not a lot of people know how the Nazis used Blacks in their machinations to promote the "Aryan race".

But some people can understand the suffering of Jews. They identify with their suffering because it was so horrible. Because they are white and of European descent, people pay attention to their suffering more. It is played up in the press and in government. Money is also an issue that makes the suffering of Jews more acceptable than of Blacks--especially with their lobbying and representation in American government.

Black people have gone through a tremendous amount of genocide, suffering and restriction in the past and the present. But nothing will be done because people don't care as much. Black people are still considered expendable on many fronts. And when Blacks fight back, it is seen as an affront. It is also seen as an attack on the system.

However, I am very surprised that George and Nick Clooney and Elie Wiesel spoke about the genocide of Darfur recently. So, slowly my mind is being changed.

But take the case of the Israeli/Lebanon skirmish happening recently. When the Israelis (some of which are Jewish) fight back, it is seen as a good move. They are "defending" themselves. They "deserve" to defend themselves.

But if African-Americans, for example (or the stand-off by AIM back in the day), are seen as taking "matters in their own hands", they are "terrorists" and trying to fight against the American way.

No one wants to see people of color fight back. It strikes fear in the hearts of those who subscribe to the system of the dominant culture. It attacks everything that they hold dear.

It is only when blacks or other people of color roll over and take it, people feel anything at all.

As much as I love animals, it is sad that people pay more attention, respect and love to them than other people in the world.


[edit on 16-9-2006 by ceci2006]

Catch a Fire
IMDB info

I was fortunate enough to see this movie Premier in the US , the week before last., at the Telluride FIlm festival.
I saw 14 movies that week, It was my favorite.

Aparthied in S.A. was the topic.
Yes, the blacks were labeled Terrorists by the Ruling class of South Africa.

To the rest of the World, it was obvious what they were fighting for.
A life, a Voice, Freedom, Equality. Regaining respect as human beings in a country that used to be their home, but had become a foreign land, even for them.

i think the movie will be released in late October, and I feel very lucky to have seen it early.

I recommend this movie, as an adjunct to this thread.

[edit on 15-9-2006 by spacedoubt]