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: 56
2
<< 53  54  55    57  58  59 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 03:48 PM
link   
The following is for all the members who have posted in this thread. You have all had the courage and the vision to discuss and debate such an emotional and important topic as race. I dedicate this to you…

PODthread Link

Direct Link




posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Just in case it was missed I recommend that everyone posting in this thread check out the last post on the last page.

This is aimed at no one in particullar.



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 06:23 PM
link   
Beautiful, BH. Thank you.



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally quoted by semperfortis

It is a common thread here, that instead of discussing RACISM, we are discussing Black History.



How so? Why do you feel we are discussing Black history?

I feel that we are showing you concrete examples of racism. And then, there is the ability for selective hearing to take place in order to ignore our examples. You bring up other topics instead of expressing sympathy or acknowledging those acts have taken place. The problem is not the ability to praise.

I think, the problem is that some of us do not want to acknowledge the heinous acts that have happened. Instead, they would rather "equalize" the experience instead of letting themselves feel anything about the experience or facts brought up.

I mean these are examples of racism right under your nose. What prevents you from expressing that you care or acknowledging that they happen?

I have written many times in this thread and across the board that I do acknowledge racism against whites happen. I have spoken with apology and concern. I do know that not all whites are not racist. And they don't have to jump through hoops to prove that they aren't racist.

But, unfortunately, the same leeway isn't given toward blacks. It never has. Instead, we get punished for bringing up our experiences. Or else, we get ignored while we watch the perpetrators get pats on the back and praised.

And this is without an acknowledgement or apology where the "revisionist sources" came from.

However, I realize that my questions regarding the thread have gone unanswered. I would certainly like to know where did the agenda start? I would love for one of you to explain to me and analyze how the OP questions reflected any racism toward whites?

And why do you think your comments are immune from being "racist" ? Can anyone at least explain that?

And yes, I have to say this once again. Just because you do the things you do to malign me or anyone else, I still do not hate whites--whether you believe it or not.

If I hated whites, why would I use articles from them to state the case about racism? In every aspect of racism (except for a few topics), I've used white authors to speak about racism because I thought that they could articulate the problem of racism better than I could to white posters. They would act as a sounding board.

But, you even practice selective hearing against the words from your own race.

We still haven't heard anyone's acknowledgement about the pain of lynching. I guess no one cares. What's more important is acknowledging Black on White racism. Is that the case? Do you guys want the thread to solely focus on the racism perpetrated by people of color on whites?

Will the agenda stop then?


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

And Semper, what gives you the impression that we weren't discussing ALL RACES in terms of race-relations as well as racism of ALL races here? Because some members steered it only to Black/White discussions on race?

Several posts back, I had reiterated the goals of this thread. Did you miss that post? If so, I will take the time to highlight each of the goals in bold so you can see my words better. And also, if it is necessary, I will repeat the goals over and over until you acknowledge that you understand. But I thought that since you have to remember all aspects of the law, what has been stated as the goals of this thread by the thread starter, no less, would not be any harder to commit to memory.

Well, I thank you for acknowledging other types of discrimination, but I have repeatedly asked for others to join in on the discussion. But somehow, it always comes back to Black/White relations. And that isn't because of me.

And if we were to discuss other types of racism without the acknowledgement of racism against my own race, would that make you feel better? That is the impression that I get.

If not, I suggest everyone should reread HH's comments again. She adequately states what is going on here.



[edit on 23-9-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally quoted by jsobecky
You're either afraid of ceci or racist just like her.


I thought I would answer this quote. But, I'm truly tired of repeating myself against the defamation that has been thrown against me and others who provide a dissenting point of view.

Intrepid, or any other mod, is that what is meant by a "personal attack"?

If not, would you please explain what constitutes a personal attack and direct me to any comments made in the past that might in the affirmative fully state what is a personal attack?

I would like an example so that I know in the future how to avoid such tactics.

[edit on 23-9-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 07:18 PM
link   
Another thing I've decided, after reading the comments today, is to assume in the affirmative all questions I ask that go unanswered.

So, that means:

1)You want a thread that only addresses racism against Whites.

2)You will not express any empathy against lynching or any other racist acts against Blacks or any other person of color.

3)That you do practice selective hearing towards the comments of people of color.

4)That you bring up issues that divert away from the questioning of HH, Saph, myself and others.

5)That you do sponsor and endorse the sources coming from Semper's "revisionist history".

6That you cannot bring yourself to admit that this thread does not have an agenda belittling whites.

7)And that you do bring up "equality" when it deals with lessening the experiences that blacks have.

8)You don't actually care what happens to blacks and other people of color.

9)That anyone who agrees with you is not racist. Those who dissent are racist.

10) Your comments are immune from "racism" while others are not.

11)That the goals of this thread are not adequately understood and need to be repeated every so often until comprehension comes.

12)You deny the gravity of the situation when slavery of African-Americans is practiced.

Until these issues are addressed, then, they will stand. If not, make yourselves clear.


[edit on 23-9-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006

Originally quoted by jsobecky
You're either afraid of ceci or racist just like her.


I thought I would answer this quote. But, I'm truly tired of repeating myself against the defamation that has been thrown against me and others who provide a dissenting point of view.

Intrepid, or any other mod, is that what is meant by a "personal attack"?

[edit on 23-9-2006 by ceci2006]

Do we really want to start that up again? Does theis qualify as a personal attack, mods?

originally posted by ceci2006
But I was wrong about the cancer analogy. Jsobecky and you are more like an STD that refuses to go away--causing sterility, insanity and indelible markings on the body of life and thought.

And unfortunately for some STD's they can't be cured. They keep on coming back like the plague.


For the love of all things that are holy, STOP IT ALREADY!



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 08:20 PM
link   
jsobecky,

Shame on you for bringing up comments that have been addressed in the past. But, this action, unless refuted will be taken as being: 1)you do not want to work on issues of racism; 2) you do not want to see race-relations get better; 3)you do not have anything substantial to add.

Since you have an investiment in being right all the time, I will assume that you are right in these observances.

I only asked if what was said constitutes a personal attack. I wanted the mods to give me an answer so I can work with them in preventing personal attacks in the future by following their rules of what they felt might be a personal attack. Their definition is very vague.

What did you not understand about my previous post? If you do not understand what my post to the mods meant, please ask me and I will explain it to you so that you comprehend everything.

I am confused and rather hurt by the latest actions you have taken.

What you are doing now is derailing the thread. You are disrupting the topic with stirring up trouble. Without an answer, I will assume in the affirmative that this is what you are trying to do.

If not, please make yourself clear.

I will also assume from your lack of answers regarding my 12 points, that you fully endorse what has been listed. That, I find very sad and horrible. But until you make yourself clear on this end as well, it is assumed in the affirmative.

Now, I hope that others will stay on topic and clearly state exactly what they mean. That would put the cognitive dissoance to an end.

I will stay on topic and only address the issues unless the mods speak about the definition of personal attacks.



[edit on 23-9-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 08:39 PM
link   
Thank you all, but I will be bowing out back into obscurity here.

Now what I have posted is being ridiculed and there are even some personal remarks directed at what I thought was valid and researched evidence to be considered. This makes it impossible to discuss anything on a rational, much less, intellectual level and I pride myself on only debating in that manner.

Even after 56 pages, Ceci doe not feel she is being listened to. Perhaps if she spent less time posting what others are saying to/about her and actually posted what she thinks of racism?

Everyone of her analogies has revolved around the discrimination of Blacks and any other examples, no matter how they have been researched, are deemed revisionist. As if that were a bad thing. So the discussion of Race on an intellectual level, is impossible.

Ceci still is asserting her questions are unanswered?

HH and I had it going on for a little bit. Yet that even devolved around several posts only questioning the post authors intent; providing nothing to the debate. Thereby unproductive. From my part as well, I am not innocent here.

And once again, the white posters are accused of only wanting to discuss white racism.

Reading the last few posts, it is amazing to me that it is not crystal clear what the author intends. I want no part of it as it has turned very dirty, unproductive and totally without merit.

(edit) And Ceci, your 12 points are Black vs White; again you indicate that the only racism is directed towards Blacks. Sadly a very limited view and therefor within those boundaries, impossible to address the title of the thread.

yet, I enjoyed it for awhile... So thank you all..

Adios

Semper

[edit on 9/23/2006 by semperfortis]



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 08:46 PM
link   
Semper, I respect your position. But, it would have served us a lot better if you either supported or refuted my 12 points.

If you must go into obscurity, please do so.

But, you still do not have an answer regarding the resources of your revisionist history. That speaks me to me more than anything else.

So, I will assume in the affirmative that you support the 12 points until you provide a real answer to them. Avoidance will not do here. But I will answer your questions, so it will not be assumed any other way. If you do not understand what I say, please do ask me questions and I will clearly reiterate my position.


Originally quoted by semperfortis
Now what I have posted is being ridiculed and there are even some personal remarks directed at what I thought was valid and researched evidence to be considered. This makes it impossible to discuss anything on a rational, much less, intellectual level and I pride myself on only debating in that manner.


I only questioned the sources in which the "revisionist history" came from. I have yet to see you provide an answer to this.

I never said that your research was any less valid.


Even after 56 pages, Ceci does not feel she is being listened to. Perhaps if she spent less time posting what others are saying to/about her and actually posted what she thinks of racism?


I never said I wasn't being listened to. I mainly posted my comments. I have paid attention to what everyone has been saying. But unfortunately, you have not. That is why I am considering that any questions that are not answered will be taken in the affirmative.


Everyone of her analogies has revolved around the discrimination of Blacks and any other examples, no matter how they have been researched, are deemed revisionist. As if that were a bad thing. So the discussion of Race on an intellectual level, is impossible.


So, you are saying that when the issues of Blacks are brought up, the conversation is not intellectual anymore?

Yes, how they have been researched is very important in deeming the validity of what has been said. Your sources are indeed questionable.


Ceci still is asserting her questions are unanswered?


Yes, I am. What is wrong with that?


HH and I had it going on for a little bit. Yet that even devolved around several posts only questioning the post authors intent; providing nothing to the debate. Thereby unproductive. From my part as well, I am not innocent here.


Oh, it didn't devolve. It isn't unproductive. It is up to you to make it productive. I am glad that you admitted you are part and parcel of making it unproductive.


And once again, the white posters are accused of only wanting to discuss white racism.


I asked a plethora of questions that went unanswered. And then, I decided to take into the affirmative that this is the case unless someone refutes this substantially. Until it is, there is nothing more to be said.


Reading the last few posts, it is amazing to me that it is not crystal clear what the author intends. I want no part of it as it has turned very dirty, unproductive and totally without merit.


Yes, it has. And that is because of others who do not want to answer the questions asked. This topic could be discussed cleanly if you and others would stop pussyfooting around and answer the questions.


And Ceci, your 12 points are Black vs White; again you indicate that the only racism is directed towards Blacks. Sadly a very limited view and therefor within those boundaries, impossible to address the title of the thread.


I did not. I just made observances based on the lack of information provided by other posters to my questions. If you do not think it is such, say so. If not, the 12 points will be taken in the affirmative.

It has nothing to do with Black/White relations. It has to do with the questions I asked and the lack of answers given to them.

Without answering the 12 points, I assume then that you have no feeling whatsoever about the experiences of Black people. You do not care if they are lynched. You do not care if they went through slavery. And, you do bring up other issues to divert attention from the real topic at hand.

And yes, all races are being addressed here. I said it. What did you not understand about this statement? If you need clarification, please do ask for it. If not, I will assume that you were in your full faculties in comprehending this statement.




[edit on 23-9-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 08:50 PM
link   
OK, I'm coming out of retirement for that.

Ceci,

EVERY post I mentioned history in contains a link, external source or both. Click on them and you will see all of the evidence you are asking for. That is how it works.

Your "12" points came from what? You? Where is that empirical evidence?

Please, if your going to ask for support from anyone else, practice what you preach and provide some from what you post.

I have provided TONS of information as is my want in debates. All I get in return are 12 things you pulled from your head?

Semper



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 09:02 PM
link   
I asked you about the sources, that's all. There's a reason why they turned HH's stomach to read what you posted. Why won't you admit where the sources came from?

If you are so proud about where you got the information, state them in your next post.

About the 12 points: the source of these points came from all the questions unanswered through this part in the thread.

I asked a series of questions that go unanswered. I've repeated the questions many times, but no one will take the time to shed light these matters. Until then, I've decided that all observances made from the 12 points will be in the affirmative until someone addresses them.

[edit on 24-9-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 09:08 PM
link   
The Internet Ceci.

Clicking on the links, using the internet will tell you that.

And just so you get it straight.


I read your links, and they made my stomach turn. If that's where you're getting your information, it's no wonder you oppose reparations. I would too, the way they're presenting it.

This from HH in response to Flyersfan. At least she quoted FF in her post and was not responding to me.

Is this another attempt to discredit?

Do you read your own thread? If you do, how did you miss that?

Semper

[edit on 9/23/2006 by semperfortis]



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 09:15 PM
link   
Not the Internet, Semper. I would like you to list the sites in which you got the information from. You do not have to provide the links again, but it is helpful to list them.

Don't avoid where they are coming from. Where are you getting your "revisionist history"? That is where I am pointing towards.

I'm sorry for mistaking HH's comments to FF as directed toward you.

And again, I reiterate for your benefit, it would be helpful to answer the 12 points, if you don't want it assumed in the affirmative. You have the power of changing minds, if you want it to be.

If there is something you do not understand about my post, please ask the questions. I will try to explain it to you clearly so you can answer the questions.


[edit on 23-9-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 09:20 PM
link   
Ceci,

The sites are all listed as soon as you click on the link. Click on them and learn everything, just like I did.

Why do I feel like I'm explaining the internet?

This is one of the most juvenile and ridiculous conversations I think I have ever been in. It is my fault, I should have stayed off here.

Well people I tried.

Semper



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 09:23 PM
link   
Semper, you tried. But you didn't try hard enough when answering my questions.

I asked about the direct sources. And if you can't answer them, I assume there is something that you don't understand about my questions. I will also assume that you have something to hide about the sources you do not want to post.

It is not juvenile. I am asking a question that deserves to be answered.

I am asking you to list the exact sources of your information, especially the sites in which they lead to.

Is it that hard to do so? List the sites and where they lead to. It would shed light on why certain information is reflected the way it is.

It doesn't do anything except clear things up and explain to me why there is so much bother about the recognizance of other types of slavery and the lack of empathy towards the slavery of Blacks.

At least, explain who sponsors the "revisionist history" and why they do so. Why do they pay so much attention to debunking the experiences of Black slavery and highlighting the slavery of others? Is it because of the financial aspect? Or is it that they do not want to deal with slavery as it is? Or, do they want to promote the experiences of one culture and race over another?

This is what I meant by the "dominant culture" and its dissemination of its ideologies.

It might even shed light why people tend to downplay the experiences of slavery put forth by Blacks when asking for reparations or restitution.

If you can't answer it, then I turn it to anyone who can do the basic research and list the sources of the information (without links), so people can see where this thinking is coming from.

On other threads, no one has asked for less and it isn't considered ridiculous. It is a methodology of "fact-checking". People who do research papers write methodologies all the time on where they found their sources and the people who wrote them.

You could end this by just simply answering the questions I asked.

So, I will assume that you fully endorse your sources and the 12 points. I will also assume in the affirmative that you cannot answer my questions and fully endorse my observances.

Since you won't answer, I will think of these things as such until someone tries to change my mind with a different assessment.

Then, it is time to stay on topic with people who are willing to address the questions put forth.




[edit on 23-9-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Duzey
I know this isn't really what we were talking about, but I thought it was interesting so I'll bring it up.

I was watching the new season of America's Next Top Model (I love that show!) and there were several things that came up that were relevant to this discussion. In the first episode, we got to meet the new girls competing.

One of the girls who was black came in and talked about how she never felt pretty because she was the darkest one in her family. Her siblings made fun of her and called her 'Blackula'. Another girl, whose family was from India, came in wearing blue contact lenses. When Tyra asked her why, she said it was because girls with dark hair and eyes aren't as attractive. At some point, Tyra also made the comment that she was still trying to fit in and wished she had the guts to walk around in an afro.

Then, in the photo shoot, they did model stereotypes. One of them was 'Turning the black girl into a white girl'.

Is this kind of attitude common? Do thousands of little black girls all over the US feel like they aren't pretty because they are 'too dark'?

If so, that's just horrible.


[edit on 22-9-2006 by Duzey]


Duzey, for many young black girls, this is too true. and not just in the US. in certain parts of India and Africa, for example many people, especially women are using "skin whitening" cream, that contains a very dangerous active ingeredient: mercury. i blame the media, western media in particular. people aren't born thinking "dark skin is too black and ugly". it's an idea that is drilled into their heads from a very early age: look at Disney, for example. how many of their "Princess" heroines are anything other than white, or close to it?
i can name only one: that Jazmine chick. and even then, such a light shade of brown is used for her coloring, that she is damn near close to white. ok, screw Disney for a moment. lets look at dolls: for the longest time, the only kind of doll a girl could choose from was the typical white skinned blond haired blue eyed doll. Barbie(god, i hate her so much!) is a prime example of this. when Mattell made black dolls, they were carbon copies of the white dolls, with a shade of brown smacked on to them. it was only after the 'bratz' dolls came onto the scene and began stealing a large chunk of Mattell's market audience, as well as attracing a whole new audience(black and hispanic girls) that they began to take avenue of multi cultural dolls more seriously. ok forget dolls for a moment. lets take a look at mainstream media. what kind of black women are usually shown there? really only two "kinds":
1. either the dark skinned, nappy head, loud mouth, uhmmmm-hmmmm!, hypersexualized, finger snapping, big assed "oh no she di'int!", rump shakin', fool of a black chick,
or:
2. the light skined, pretty, soft curly haired, "tee-heehee", innocent, career driven, slimmed, good figured, holy mother Teresa, black chick.
things like these was what made me turn off the tv for good...well, actually, it's not completely off...i still watch the Simpsons, Spongebob and Family Guy from time to time
. but that's pretty much it. other than that, tv's cut out.

and it's not just tv. even in movies;
there are too many examples to choose from, but i'm only going to give two because it saves on time.
i don't know if you've ever seen "House Party" or "Coming to America". these movies are kinda old, like early to mid-90ish. but they prove my point very well. in my opinion, the whole "white good black bad" is blasted all over the place from the media, especially the tv. you only need to look as far as fox primetime to know what is considered 'beautiful'. even in stores that cater to those in the black community, products such as "Bone Straight" are maketed to little black girls, telling them that their hair is only considered 'pretty' if it's soft and straight.
in my opinion, i think that one of the most effective ways to counter this mentality is simply to TURN OFF THE TV. i capitalized that because i want to make sure people read it. i felt like fecal matter as a child because i knew that no matter what i did being a "beautiful princess" would never come true. doing just that is ultimately what worked for me. once the tv was off, i was off doing other things, untill eventually i just stopped watching it all together. i know that my solution is an extremely unlikely one; too many people have their kids too glued to the tube to even notice what's going on in their lives.
give the girls other forms of entertainment besides the superficial junk that's being spoonfed to the mass population of youth through 'Empty V'. give them dolls that actually look like them and not just dolls with white features and a smack o' black splattered all over their faces. these girls have every right to know that no matter what those talking heads say, white bloned haird and blue eyed is not the only form of 'pretty' in this world.
anyway, i'm going to end this now 'cause if i keep going it's going to turn into a "how much do i hate the tv" rant



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 10:20 PM
link   
I'm not trying to get into the middle of this, but I am almost certain Semper didn't realize where some of his links are from. I truly hope that I am correct in this assessment of him.

Semper, this link www.crusader.net... (The Truth About Slavery, quoted on page 54)is a Stormfront site. Type www.crusader.net in and you'll see why perhaps the link has caused some controversy.


In that same post, you used National Vanguard as a source. Are you unfamiliar with that organization?


PS. I just read Karby's post and I'll respond to it in a little bit. Thank you for answering me.


[edit on 23-9-2006 by Duzey]



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 10:59 PM
link   
Thank you, Duzey for pointing out and answering what I was asking. That is why I wanted an explaination about Semper's sources. I appreciate your intervention and work on this.

I will get to your question and BH's podcast in a little while. Again, I thank you for your participation and following the thread.

Again, I am very sorry for the disruption my exchange with Semper has caused. I just asked a question and answered in rebuttal some accusations about me and the thread. I hope that the further issues I will address will solely contribute to the thread.

I also appreciate karby's answers.



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 11:13 PM
link   
I apologize for any misconception as to my intent here.

I apparently unknowingly posted some extremely controversial material here and I am deeply sorry if I offended anyone.

Those that know me on here, are aware of my stance in this subject, to those that do not, I am sorry.

Semper



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 53  54  55    57  58  59 >>

log in

join