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

Originally posted by karby
Duzey, for many young black girls, this is too true.

That's what I was afraid the answer was going to be.

Nobody is born thinking they aren't attractive and I think that you are probably correct in your assessment of the problem. It's the ideal that is held up in magazines, the movies and TV. Just like girls all over the world developing eating disorders, trying to be a size 0.

I was really hoping that Tyra was trying to make some sort of statement with her show. Sadly, I just got back from the show's site and the two girls I mentioned have mysteriously lightened significantly. Now they have the same skin colour as Halle Berry.

I know some people might wonder what the heck this has to do with racism, but I see it as being an example of how people are not being accepted the way they were born. These girls are stunning just they way they are, no airbrushing or pale foundation needed.

This stuff is just insidious.

PS. I haven't seen either of those movies.

WATS to Riley. You are absolutly correct discrimination is wrong period. Semper you made some good points discrimination happens to everybody and it is always wrong. There is no good justification for discriminating against any group unfortunately all of us have prejudices. Anti-discrimination laws can address actions but until people change inside discrimination will continue.

I was going to wait until I answered Duzey's question, karby's comments and BH's podcast. But, I have to inquire about something else.

What types of discrimination should be noticed? What types of discrimination would make everyone see the drastic situation that is taking place?

Would people list about ten types of discrimination that they readily notice? Then, we can gauge who sees what in terms of discrimination. Then, if there are commonalities on each list, then we can finally mutually agree on something that is equally attributed to all of us.

Perhaps by recognizing this middle ground, we can form the discussion around something that everyone notices so that no one is left out of the conversation.



[edit on 24-9-2006 by ceci2006]

I am going to pull a few things up that people can read and integrate into future discussions due to discussion regarding "discrimination" and who recognises it.

This first article comes from Counterpunch, in reaction to Senator Kerry's platform on race-relations and civil rights. It is worth a read, but I would like to highlight a few interesting aspects that have to do with the history surrounding slavery, Reconstruction and the Civil Rights period to the modern day:

Kerry and Black America

After the Civil War and the abolition of slavery, America had an opportunity to atone for the racial injustices of its past. For a while, things seemed to be on the right track. During Reconstruction the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was passed along with a series of constitutional amendments designed to guarantee blacks equal rights under the law. Some of the South's first public schools were built during this time. Blacks made unprecedented gains in employment. Hiram Revels became the first black member of the U.S. Senate.

However, as blacks made gains, the white majority became more and more nervous. That nervousness eventually culminated in a full-fledged backlash against racial progress. This period is often referred to as the "nadir" of American race relations. Southerners called it the "Redemption." Membership in the Ku Klux Klan soared to over 3 million at one point. The courts began to chip away at the foundation of civil rights with decisions such as Plessy v. Ferguson. Blacks in the South were forced to work as sharecroppers, making them anchored to the land with little or no prospects for social mobility. Blacks in the North were excluded from the new industrial economy and labor unions. Within a few short years white supremacy had been restored in both the North and the South. The white backlash turned back the clock on almost all the gains made by blacks during Reconstruction.

A similar backlash befell the country after the civil rights era. After years of black insurgency, the movement won the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Affirmative Action was never developed as a coherent policy. It evolved through a series of executive orders, administrative decisions, and court rulings. At a time when many in the movement were talking about a revolution and radically redistributing wealth and power in the country, affirmative action was seen as a very moderate and reformist policy. The fact that it is now seen as such a controversial issue indicates how successful the white backlash and the right-wing's exploitation of it has been. As it was after the first backlash, the courts have been chipping away at the gains made by the civil rights movement. The focus and blame for racial inequality has shifted from white racism to blacks themselves. We have even seen a return of the pseudo-scientific racism that inspired the eugenics movement with the publication and subsequent success of The Bell Curve.

These comments came from a Minnesota newspaper discussing a University of Minnesota survey based on racial identity and the acknowledgement of racism in daily life. Read the poll results on the top of the page and see if these answers compare with your own. Professor and co-author of the study, Joe Gerteis, starts off with making his assessments:

Whites identify with race, study says

Gerteis said there has been a historic reduction in racism, but society has yet to completely rid institutions of its effects.

"(U.S. society has) done a good job of realizing that personal discrimination is a bad thing, but whites still don't seem able to see or understand the institutional or systemic side of racism," Gerteis said.

Paul Croll, sociology graduate student and co-author, said he's excited about the study because it will help people think about race and white advantage in new ways.

"A lot of people hear the topic of race and shut down," Croll said. "They don't understand that just because they're not personally racist, doesn't mean that they're not part of a racial system."

Many of the white people surveyed said that because every race is equal, people get ahead in life based on their own abilities and effort, Gerteis said.

Robert Jensen and Robert Wosnitzer reviewed the recent movie, Crash (2005). In their comments, they discuss the problems that might cause the cognitive dissonance in today's society when it comes to discussing race. I would suggest to read the entire article because it is interesting. However, I would like to highlight one section that really gets to the heart of the matter when it comes to understanding what is at stake in terms of discussing race:

'Crash' and the Self-Indulgence of White America

The first step in putting white people back on the hook is pressing the case that the United States in 2006 is a white-supremacist society. Even with the elimination of formal apartheid and the lessening of the worst of the overt racism of the past, the term is still appropriate, in ideological and material terms.

[...]

Today, polite white folks renounce such claims of superiority. But scratch below that surface politeness and the multicultural rhetoric of most white people, and one finds that the assumptions about the superiority of the art, music, culture, politics, and philosophy rooted in white Europe are still very much alive. No poll can document these kinds of covert opinions, but one hears it in the angry and defensive reaction of white America when non-white people dare to point out that whites have unearned privilege. Watch the resistance from white America when any serious attempt is made to modify school or college curricula to reflect knowledge from other areas and peoples.The ideology of white supremacy is all around.

That ideology also helps white Americans ignore and/or rationalize the racialized disparities in the distribution of resources. Studies continue to demonstrate how, on average, whites are more likely than members of racial/ethnic minorities to be on top on measures of wealth and well-being. Looking specifically at the gap between white and black America, on some measures black Americans have fallen further behind white Americans during the so-called post-civil rights era. For example, the typical black family had 60 percent as much income as a white family in 1968, but only 58 percent as much in 2002. On those measures where there has been progress, closing the gap between black and white is decades, or centuries, away.

Think about these pieces. Muse about them. Ask questions about them. Talk about them. These articles are just there for people to add to their knowledge regarding race-relations and racism in America.

[edit on 24-9-2006 by ceci2006]

Semper, I know that you are frustrated with the way this thread has been going. I hope that you don't drop out of the discussion entirely; your insights have provided me and others with a new point of view.

I can only guess that some of your frustration stems from your background, and the qualifications needed to be in your field. While your field has taught you many communication and deductive skills, they have only been successful because you (generic you) expect a certain result from a certain action. When people respond illogically, adult conversation breaks down, unfortunately. It can't be a one way street. And unfortunately, cyber-space doesn't allow you to work on instinct.

Anyway, I and others hope to hear from you again in this thread and others.

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

Just as I thought, Semper was unaware of the nature of some of his sources. Normally, I don't go around announcing when I give WATS votes, but I'm making an exception here. Have another vote for your collection.

This is the best post I have seen in a long time.

On the not-so-postive side, I have found similar issues with the second and third quote in that post. They are both from Michael A. Hoffman II. Hoffman is of the opinion that Jewish people should be thankful to Hitler because without him, there would be no Israel.

I only mention that so that people who aren't familiar with some of these groups and individuals can take that into consideration.

originally posted by ceci2006
jsobecky,

Shame on you for bringing up comments that have been addressed in the past.

No, they have not been addressed in the past. I did not see an apology to both FF and me for that personal attack.

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.

Well, I had the same motives, ceci. I wanted clarification. What makes your request more valid than mine?

Would you rather I had asked the mods if this post by you constituted a racist remark against an entire race, and then against a sub-group of that race?

originally posted by ceci2006
Why do Whites don't want to deal with the more problematic issues of race? Do they just skate right over them and ignore them? Or do they want to create their own concocted notions about what isn't racism and try (through the infiltration of the dominant culture) make a certain society believe them to get off the hook from believing the past harms done to people of color?

Or do they have something in their biological make-up that makes them ignore the things that people of color have been trying to tell them?

And then this:

originally posted by ceci2006
And by all due respect, jsobecky's assessment about reparations misses one important point:

1)What happened during Jim Crow, the Civil Rights Era and the modern era (Rep. John Lewis getting a concussion from a beating from a cop, "Bloody Sunday" in Selma, the Church bombing that killed four little girls, Hurricane Katrina) is still fresh in a lot of people's memories.

Well, not a white male's memory, but for the rest of us.

Emphasis added by me.

In that last post, you managed to combine both a racist and a personal attack into one mega-insult. Once again, it has not been resolved because no apology was forthcoming, and no moderator action intervened.

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.

You can assume all you want.

I choose not to answer your questions because you have lost all debating privileges with me. I will now answer only when it suits me. And those will largely be limited to refuting your personal attacks on me.

Well that's fine, jsobecky, but you are not focusing on the topic. You continue to disrupt the thread. I'm sorry that you can't stay on topic and add to the knowledge base with your own observances and comments related to the topic. You might want to take a time out until you can get it together to speak about the topic at hand.

And yes, I did apologize. Many times. Were you blind? And there was moderator action. I believe, intrepid came on yesterday saying that there wasn't to be any more personal attacks. Did you miss that?

Unfortunately, the past continues to be brought up for which these remarks have been addressed.

But for the sake of all the white people on the thread, I apologize for my remarks most whole-heartedly and humbly. I did it once again so that this time hopefully yourself and others can see that I've made an apology.

I also hope that this might encourage you to join the conversation and contribute something of worth than try to disrupt the thread once again.

Otherwise, I don't have time to deal with your outbursts and insecurities any more. The topic is more important and deserves to be addressed. I am going to stay on topic during my next posts and address others who are willing to answer my questions forthrightly and most candidly.

What are "debating privileges"? After all, you keep on saying this. Unfortunately, I haven't heard this out of the mouths of the mods, supermods or even the Three Amigos. So this isn't legally sanctioned behavior--unless it has to do with the "Head to Head" debate forum. Majic hasn't said anything about "debating privileges", so I guess they are rendered null and void. Or else, they are quite imaginary.

Lastly, I encourage others to watch your behavior as sharply and meticulously while rooting out the instances in which you make racist, sexist and rather beligerent remarks throughout the thread. You have made such comments that others have addressed with no form of apology or notice. But from now on, that might have to change. You are not immune from these strict guidelines as well. You will have to be watched like a hawk with hyper-sensitivity like the rest of us. With you being closely watched, it will free the rest of us from your tactics of manipulation and intimidation in every post you make.

Or, you can free yourself from this burdensome duty by creating your own thread. That would be most readily accepted and welcomed.

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

Now back to Semper and about his source:

It is the nature that some threads have a different style than others when engaging into debate. However, it is not fair to attribute this thread as being harder to discuss or that any of the matters posed here are illogical.

Perhaps, like all other threads, the posters here have to work harder to understand the complexity of the source issues regarding the "revisionist history".

I laud Semper having the initiative for finding out different sources of information regarding slavery. I, for one, also accept his apology.

But, I still have problematic issues with where he found the sources and how they are used. Here's why:

1)There is no logical accountability for the sources. There isn't an evidenciary accountability from those who created the source information as well. Furthermore, there is not any checking on the sources used in the post. That would mean, does the information come from "primary sources" or "secondary sources"? You have to also account for the agenda that might be posed from the source.

2)Despite the sources, it would be helpful to shore up the information by materials studied by persons in academia in this area. Any universities out there sponsoring a study of white slavery? Truly someone has focused upon it in their studies if it is a forgotten episode during American history.

3)It also helps if there were actually pictures, newspaper tracts from the age, comments written in books and diaries from this "revisionist history". Did any white slaves have a narrative we can read? Are any white slaves mentioned in the will of their slave masters? Any letters, oral histories or primary sources from white slaves? That would make a difference in proving this aspect to be true. You can prove the slavery of Blacks by these primary sources and more.

4)It would be helpful if the person who found this revisionist history would write a methodology of how he obtained his sources. Then, it would easier to follow and to break down his motivations regarding why he wanted to post material related to white slavery and how this refutes or supports the reparations movement.

5)What is the relevance for the release of this information by the sources? Why do you think they would write such a history? Is it for the glory of knowledge? Or do they have an agenda that counteracts one of multiculturalism?

These are questions asked all the time when it comes to serious studies. Those who are willing to be part of an intellectual enterprise must be able to account for their research, explain it (good or bad) and account for its short comings.

It is not determined by the person how intellectual a conversation is made. It is the evidence that is produced within such a conversation. Unfortunately, there are others that will not do the leg work in researching the source material and asking the questions when seeking out the motivations of the person who brings up "revisionist history".

"Revisionist history" is something that is done within the discipline. But, you have to use accountable sources, not questionable ones to make your case. And some of the sources are too problematic to ignore.

I'm sorry, but that is the way things appear. It's not the perception of the person that causes the questions. It is the caliber of what he brought forth to demonstrate his hypothesis.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Answers to Duzey, BH and karby on the way!

For others please do read the articles and think about them, they are quite interesting!




[edit on 24-9-2006 by ceci2006]

Duzey, I have comments to make, but in my late night combing through articles, I came up with a few things that might "demystify" the "beauty aesthetic" that you talk about in your question:

First, this description comes out of a wikipedia item about the "beauty ideal" and the notion of semotics and image:

Semiotics of Ideal Beauty

In her book,Things of Darkness: Economies of Race and Gender in Early Modern England, Kim Hall studies the concepts of blackness and colonialism, and the construction of race in England of the seventeenth century. By examining the juxtaposition of black and white images in literature, poetry and art, she highlights a provocative historical and symbolical theme. For example, the painting "Louise Renée de Kéroüalle, Duchess of Portsmouth Sitting with a Black Servant at her Lap" is not untypical of portrait art in showing an upper class white woman with one or more black servants who are often depicted holding out pearls, coral, or other valuables to their mistresses. Both the servants and their offerings come from Africa and they are all signs in the social construction that would have marked the women as fair and beautiful.

There were only a handful of African men in England at this time, so to be able to advertise such a person as an employee was to demonstrate membership of an elite and powerful group. Then, as a matter of artistic composition, the contrast of black and white complexions was used to enhance the luminous quality of the pale skin, while also reinforcing the ideal of beauty as being ‘fair’ skinned. The offered tokens are not only valuable in monetary terms but, when worn next to the skin, pearls and corals are enhancements to pale beauty and, when ground to a powder, they were the base of whitening cosmetics. The style and design of the clothing, the furniture and other objects included in each composition would also enable contemporary viewers to calibrate precisely the degree of wealth and the social status of those portrayed. It should be remembered that women at this time were little more than possessions, unable to own any property and without any of their modern rights. So, this depiction is also an objectification in that it speaks of the status of the husband who demonstrates the richness of his wife and other assets in this artistic context.

To modern eyes, such art may also be premised on white supremacism in general and on the specific gender superiority of white women over black men. There is doubt as to whether such a racialisation is justified. The early history of black experience in England shows examples of both respect and abuse — two sides of the coin of exploitation when people with skills were employed as servants by members of the upper class hierarchy. While these paintings were certainly presenting an idealised image of female beauty as it was understood at the time among the English aristocracy (which happened to be exclusively white), it is not so clear that the representation of black men in this context was anything other than as one more sign in the set of signs necessary to demonstrate ultimate wealth.

This 1999 article comes from Harvard Magazine. It discusses how the aesthetics of beauty has been emphasized and de-emphasized through literature and popular culture. It's worth a read, especially if you want to bring up some deeper issues related to "beauty":

The Stirring of Sleeping Beauty

In American universities, beauty has been in exile. Despite its centrality in human experience, the concept of beauty has virtually disappeared from scholarly discourse. Oddly enough, the banishment has been most complete in the humanities, home of literature, music, and art. Criticized as an elitist concept, an ethnocentric creation of white European males, beauty has been stigmatized as sexist, racist, and unfair. Attention to beauty, some say, may distract us from the world's injustices, and rapt enchantment with beautiful objects or persons may even harm that which we gaze upon. Current analytic approaches such as semiotics, deconstruction, and cultural studies have eclipsed the study of beauty, and not only at elite institutions like Harvard. "If I were to say, in any of my upper-division literature courses, that I found a particular poem beautiful or emotionally moving, I would be met with rolling eyes and unchecked laughter," a student at Southern Utah University complained on the Internet. "Those are things we don't say in academe."

This comes from a blog who hits some of the points that karby mentioned in her post. This essay poses a lot of thought when it comes to "internalizing" the messages from the dominant culture. Although this is debatable, I think that it is a very good entry that discusses the "beauty aesthetic" from an African-American point of view:

On the Color Caste, or; Are You Light Enough in Here?


In most circles, internalized racism is known solely as self-hatred. But this is a very amorphous term, self-hatred. In reality, the politics of race, gender, and class are understood to be much more complex. A lot of black people do wonderful things for the community, mentor young blacks, live "upstanding" lives, but still unconsciously uphold white supremacist ideals. This is most prevalent in the realm of aesthetic beauty. We as black people, far more than white folks it would seem, have bought into white supremacist beauty standards. And it is such a widespread phenomena that entire industries base their decisions on how much we devalue black beauty.

What this means is that black folks who have Eurocentric features are far more likely to be successful, both in the larger culture and the black community, than those who's features are coded as "African" or "ethnic".

The success of Beyonce is a well-known testament to this fact. Matthew Knowles studied well from the Berry Gordy school of economics. Destiny's Child was created so that any of the four (then, three) girls could be a little girl's favorite. This is why all the girls' hair color, especially in the beginning, was different. But Matthew Knowles knew that Beyonce, as the lightest, would be the most "captivating" girl -- simply because she was lightest. So she was made the front-woman. And she was lightened in magazines and given blonde hair.

I hope that these can be useful to shed more light on your question. I will have more to add on my own thoughts later on. This is a relevant issue that deserves to have more attention drawn to it. We all suffer from the "beauty aesthetic" and unfortunately, this is because the media and popular culture tells us so.


[edit on 24-9-2006 by ceci2006]

Everyone interested in race relations and race history in America ought to listen to the three hour interview of one of the most respected writers of the experience of being Black in America.

Sunday, October 1, 2006, at 12 Noon, on CSpan2.

www.johnhopefranklin.com...

en.wikipedia.org...










[edit on 9/24/2006 by donwhite]

Benevolent Heretic. Song says it all...

Kinda reminds us what we came for originally doesn't it? This particular member of ATS has some thinking to do...

Regarding beauty vs color:

This is more important to women than to men. Women want to be pretty in everybody's eyes. Black chicks whiten their skin and white chicks are always working on their tan.

Everybody is pretty to somebody. As long as your man (or whatever) thinks you're pretty, what do you care what TV or the media say?

Edit to add: Women have funny notions (to me) about who is attractive. For example, Beyonce.

I was watching TV with a lady friend and Beyonce was on. I said she did nothing for me because she was too...? I was a loss for words.

My lady friend offered "Thick?" That was it. She's too thickly built, imo.

It illustrated to me that women are more perceptive than men.

[edit on 24-9-2006 by jsobecky]

BH,

Not only was the song good, it was touching. Like seagull said, there is a lot of thinking to be done. All I can say is that this issue, when I started the thread, became more contentious than it should have been. We both agree on that.

Secondly, race isn't taboo. It can be discussed cleanly. But unfortunately, when personalities get into the way, race relations becomes the "war" that you discuss in your song. And by the anger presented in your podcast, I can understand why you felt that things were disheartening and sad.

But, by all due respect, the problem is that people have different views of race. The question then becomes should we, as people of color, suppress our ideas about it in order to keep the peace? Or should we be truthful and discuss what is bothering us about society?

I see your point of view , even though I can never truly have the experience of being white. I understand the pain of the song. I understand the bewilderment that it conveys. And I understand the greater calls for peace that has to resonate above all the talks here.

And some of us can collect the comments of others and load up their hard drive with them. But eventually, those persons have to worry about the memory of their hard drives. And eventually a memory problem will ensue. And still, the problems of race continue to occur even though this useless act takes place.

But discussing race is not reaffirming or spreading racism. We are fully engaging in a discussion about race. I take my cues from the Wosnitz and Jensen article for the Black Commentator: whenever privilege is being questioned, there are representatives from the dominant culture who will protest, try to contradict and even ignore the questioning that takes place. That commentary is from white authors. I didn't say this.

But, eventually, comes forgiveness, an apology, love and respect.

Despite how we've treated each other in this entire thread, I still do respect you and thank you for your participation. I am sorry for my words to you. And I forgive you for yours towards myself.

But in the end, people of color have to have a voice too. We have to speak out as well. And that is as important as the concerns of you and the rest of the posters from the "dominant culture". We need to have our insights and concerns taken seriously and not written off. We deserve to have our observances and opinions taken with respect without anyone trying to tell us how we're supposed to express ourselves. We also deserve to articulate ourselves without anyone commenting on our behavior or posting style.

That is why, with all the unrest, I believe "Jim Crow Ettiquette" is still in place here. Some systematically take advantage of past social norms in order to subjugate a fraction of us while trying to hit the point home that "if we don't behave like the dominant culture" our concerns will not be addressed. For all of us to be heard, we also have to defer to those of the dominant culture even though the notion of "equality" has been played with and effectively dismantled. True "equality" never was practiced here by those who propose it. "Equality" becomes a shield to deflect the deeper issues at stake.

By all due respect, we all don't have an equal platform to speak. A change has to take place. Until a proper addressing of our concerns and a answering of ignored questions take place, we will never get to that middle ground.

All you get are more misconceptions and dancing around the issue. And that is being practiced here, by all due respect, by some members who really want to stop the thread in its tracks by systematically pitting people against each other and working toward implosion.

And even despite this, I continue to hang on and try. The "race is taboo" and "race-relations" threads are both my own despite all the calls for me to get off of my own thread. And I will continue to reach out to others despite my faults for people to find that middle ground that needs to be sought.


[edit on 24-9-2006 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by semperfortis
HH,
Not arguing, at least not intending to. I on occasion, insert some humor, Lord knows this has been stressful enough.

I get it, but, just to make yourself clear maybe you should try some smiley faces or something because it's really hard to tell when you're making a joke. You sound stern, you know?

You are making a blanket statement based on personal observations and presenting it as a fact.

I did no such thing. I was giving my opinions. I am only 25, I can't know everything yet. When I present information as fact, I post sources. That's how you can tell the difference.

So according to your assertion, I must therefor be affected as well.

I edited my response a few minutes later. You may not have seen it. I added that you would have to visit a qualified professional to know for sure.

Originally posted by HarlemHottie
As for 'recrimination,' the only recrimination going on around this topic applies to the whites who cry reverse-discrimination.

Indicating that reverse racism does not exist or at least should not be brought up as a point?

No.

You took one sentence and quoted it out of context. I used the word 'recrimination' for a specific reason. FF had posted some sites, and I checked them out and responded. Here's the entire quote:

The slogan at the top of the first link, adversity.net, is "Reparations, Retribution, Recrimination, Revenge." That's obviously wrong because 'retribution' and 'revenge' would be to enslave all white people. As for 'recrimination,' the only recrimination going on around this topic applies to the whites who cry reverse-discrimination.

recrimination \rih-krim-uh-NAY-shuhn\, noun:
1. The act of returning one charge or accusation with another.
2. An accusation brought by the accused against the accuser; a counter accusation.
www.dictionary.com

Do you 'get it'? For the authors of the site to use that word in describing the pro-reparations crowd is either ignorance, or an attempt to manipulate the anti-reparations crowd into 'playing the victim.'

Specific instances or racial behavior can be quoted back to the Jewish enslavement by the Egyptians, how is this conducive to any conversation or the possibility of understanding.

I still think you missed the point. Jso attacked me for not denouncing Ceci. His reasoning, as stated, was that she's "one of my own." I responded that I have no more responsibility to denounce her than jso has to denounce those murderers.

Jso's original comment was not in the vein of conducivity and neither was my response. In essence, I was calling him on his racism, in assuming that, because I'm black, it's my place to control another black poster.

Now that I've explained the back-story, where do you stand on his comment?

My comment is directed at the intense subject matter and EVERYONE'S propensity of inflaming and then not expecting to be inflamed.

Then please address your comment to everyone.

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

I wish you would read the entire conversation before you pick nuggets of what I said to criticize. The comment you quoted was in response to a link FF had provided. That link focussed on black American reparations, hence my reply. If they had mentioned these Irish slaves, I would have addressed that as well.

Originally posted by HarlemHottie
You seem to be chastising me for comments I never made. When you originally asked the question, I answered it.

Originally posted by HarlemHottie
The only time I ever hear about reverse discrimination is when someone brings up the regular kind.

Originally posted by semperfortis
Is this your comment? I assumed it was as it was in your post.

Please stop quoting me out of context. I'm tired of re-playing old conversations.

You originally asked me: "Do you feel that reverse discrimination does NOT exist?"
I replied: "Absolutely not. I mean, I do believe that it does exist."
You said again: "You are still falling into the idea that discrimination was invented because of the African."
I replied:Would you mind providing a quote to back up this assertion?
And this is your proof?!

The rest of my comments: "To me, that means that it's obviously not affecting people that much, otherwise they would bring it up without prodding." (new emphasis) I understand that I wasn't very clear, but if you had a question, all you had to do was ask. You don't need to accuse me.

I have not changed my original position: I do believe that so-called 'reverse racism' exists- I know plenty of black people who don't really like white people. However, I have been unable to find examples like riley's here on US soil. So, I maintain, in the case of US race-relations, I do not believe 'reverse racism' affects people that much. I also believe the causes of 'both types' of racism are different, so the solutions would be different.

If I could make you discuss 'plain ol' discrimination' with the same gravitas we're devoting to 'reverse racism,' I'm sure you would admit that the former affects its vicitims with more frequency and more violence than the latter. Yet, victims of 'plain ol' discrimination' are met with admonishments to, "Be happy with the progress we've made," while I'm expected to pour my heart out, not that I don't feel sympathy for them.

Isn't that a double standard?

It is actually begining to be studied far more extensively and if you go to the links provided, you can gain an understanding of the problems and social impacts involved.

I would be happy to review an unbiased source... or, in this world, the least-biased source you can find. With this topic, it's easy to find an article you think is ok, then later realize that the rest of the page is totally off-the-wall.

(ran out of space, will continue in next post)

To semper, cont'd...

Originally posted by HarlemHottie
twist my words

Originally posted by semperfortis
My understanding of what you have posted, is by no means a perfect process. If I have misunderstood, correct my misunderstanding and leave the quips in the past posts please.

You were twisting my words. I've pointed out several instances where you quoted me out of context, drew faulty conclusions, and then threw the resultant accusations back at me. Thus far, I've responded, and explained where you got it wrong, but I really shouldn't have to. My words are there, in toto, for everyone to read.

Your use of little gibes like this that you and others have thrown around the thread as of it's beginning are irrelevant and counter productive to a conversation.

Since I already had dictionary.com open, I decided to look up 'gibes,' just so I could be absolutely sure I understood what you were accusing me of. No, I was not "taunting or jeering" you. When I said you were twisting my words, that's exactly what I meant. If you are aware of another, less offensive to you, phrase I could have used, please share it. I am not sure where you got your impression of me, but I do not go out of my way to offend. The exchange between jso and me got out of hand, but that was an aberration for me.

By the way, I noticed that you said "gibes like this that you and others have thrown around." I'm going to say this one last time.

To all those conflating me and Ceci:
I AM NOT CECI. Stop sneakily dispararging both of us in a post to one of us.

If you have a problem with me, address it to me.

If you have a problem with her, address it to her.

If you have a problem with both of us, address us by name, the way it's normally done on ATS.

What is the problem? Can you see that there are two different posters?

edit for spelling

[edit on 24-9-2006 by HarlemHottie]

And I would like to add, that it is a shame that they can't treat us like equal individuals, yet we take the time to address them in the same manner.

I second HH's request, totally. We are two different individuals who have diverse views on racism. It is rather an insult to lump us all together.

All I can say is that for those who try to preach "equality", they do themselves a detriment by twisting another's words to suit their agenda.

It only shows that they cannot keep on the issue and have little to add to an intellectual conversation. It only exposes the illogical and rather fallacious insights that are sometimes used to switch to a new topic while ignoring the original question asked.

It is a relief when there is someone who doesn't actually practice "selective hearing". They don't squirm out of the inquiries with twisting another's words. Instead, they take a brave, calm stance and reply forthrightly to what is asked instead of trying to deflect the question.

I long for a person who actually can answer the questions we ask.

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

Speaking about "sources": In an intellectual atmosphere, one has to account and explain the sources that they find in an academic light.

When true scholars do their work, they just can't "apologize" their way out of a bad source. They used the source and they have to account for it, or suffer the indignity of tainting their study in totality.


[edit on 24-9-2006 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by ceci2006
...can't treat us like equal individuals, yet we take the time to address them in the same manner...

All I can say is that for those who try to preach "equality", they do themselves a detriment by twisting another's words to suit their agenda... used to switch to a new topic while ignoring the original question asked.

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

When true scholars do their work, they just can't "apologize" their way out of a bad source. They used the source and they have to account for it, or suffer the indignity of tainting their study in totality.

Thank you Ceci. I was just too frustrated to take my usual detached stance. Now I know why you just yell at people sometimes.

Looks like we switched.

BH, that was beautiful.

I have just one question: What did you mean when you said you felt bad that, paraphrasing, 'the culture you celebrated all your life was being disgraced?' How so?



edit to add: I listened to it again. It's nice to have a voice to put to your posts.

[edit on 25-9-2006 by HarlemHottie]

You come out of nowhere with such a vitriolic post.

I give you a thoughtful response, and you disappear.

Hey, HH. That's okay. You need to express yourself. I need to express myself. I just hope that people notice so that climate on this thread can change instead of leaving it hanging in the balance.

I just hope that at least one thing sticks from what we've both said. If there is just one thing, then we're in business to discuss these issues cleanly.

And, sometimes we have to shake things up a bit so they can tell us apart, you know what I mean?

But seriously, academic scholarship is something you can't joke about.

[edit on 24-9-2006 by ceci2006]