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: 62
2
<< 59  60  61    63  64  65 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
Jsobecky

Shame this does not work both ways...huh?

What amazes me jsobecky, is that "only" the dominant culture is ever accused of "not" doing this; what are the odds of that being true?

Semper

Well, it happens, semperfortis. If you are born into the dominant culture, you go through a Vulcan mind-meld with all the definitions and tactics downloaded into your brain. You went through it, trust me. You were just too young to remember.

It's a lot easier today with the mind-meld; it used to be that you'd have to get a Berg connector installed in the back of your head and go through quarterly updates/downloads. And, oh those software patches! What a headache!




posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 10:29 AM
link   
For other posters, the previous post is an example of "ridiculing" and "minimalizing" the experience at hand. They don't take the experience "as it is" without minimizing it or talking about it in a serious matter. Instead, they "de-intellectualize" the experience by writing it off and perceiving it as less.

Some people can focus on the issue at hand and answer it thoroughly and forthrightly. Others, display a lack of empathy and the least of seriousness in comprehending or analyzing the information without any sense of sarcasm.

They demonstrate attempts of deflection and avoidance of the issue at large. Furthermore, the continue to demonstrate how there are attempts by some people to not willingly discuss the issues as they are and not being able to discuss race without feeling disturbed by it.

Unfortunately, I wish that there was someone who could prove this wrong, but that's the way it is sometimes. Race is something that some people cannot handle fully. Instead, they can't discuss it and work toward ending the progression of talks so that they will stop.

Follow these posts whenever a new question comes up. Study them. They demonstrate perfect attempts of showing the falsity of sincerity that comes along with not wanting to understand another's experiences while reinforcing the notion of smug superiority that comes with a lack of understanding of the experience at hand.

For others in the thread: study this poster and logically analyse the formation of the post with the attention to discussing the issue. What exactly do you see in terms of deflection, de-intellectualizing the experience and ridiculing the subject matter?

Why do you suppose that this particular poster has a problem with discussing race and deflecting the issue at hand?

It might shed light why there is a feeling why there are such issues with how the subject matter is comprehended and masked as a way of avoiding the subject matter at hand.

There are articles throughout the thread that further address why this behavior is happening.

It also demonstrates the notion that some people "get it" while others don't.

Another example would be to watch how these latest school shootings are addressed. Why do you suppose help and counseling for the school students are happening quickly? Why do you think that law enforcement is acting fast in addressing the issues at hand at these school? What is happening at these schools opposed to schools in an urban setting?


[edit on 3-10-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006

Originally quoted by loam
Does this belief hold that those "implications" can NEVER be understood?


No. Some people, like Jane Elliot, for example, understand the depth of racism that happens in this country. She especially points this fact out when discussing what happens to people of color.

She, like a lot of others, demonstrate a sense of empathy and feeling for what happens by acknowledging that these acts exist. In all my readings of herself and others like her (i.e. Robert Jensen, et. al.), they have never written off an experience conveyed by a person of color as being "idiotic", "unintelligent" or "illogical". They deal with the experience as it is instead of trying to play it off or play dumb about it.

It is a shame that others do not follow their lead.


Ceci,

Not everyone will have the opportunity to write essays or books, or conduct seminars, on the subject. So for them, are they forever doomed to a rebuttable presumption of ignorance?

See, the problem I have here, ceci, is that you seem to require some affirmative act that demonstrates one "empathizes" with the plight of people of color, rather than start with that presumption.

In this view, the judgment of ignorance is made long before any actual acts of ignorance are identified. Why is that?


Originally posted by ceci2006
That is the difference between a "discussion about race" and a discussion about race. People who specialize in Ethnic, Civil Rights, Cultural and National studies do this all the time without any need to deflect anything. They attack it head on and analyze the issue without accusing anyone of any behavior whatsoever.

I've said before, that issues of personality and behavior does not need to supercede the subject matter no matter what type of character the person is displaying.

You have to be a good listener.


While I understand the above in terms of any discussion on the experience of racism, does disagreement concerning what to do about it amount to a "deflection" of that experience?


Originally posted by ceci2006
This is rather bizarre to you, I know. But, I particularly do not like it when someone says, "I treat everyone the same". It rarely or never happens. People treat others differently all the time. And that is particulary true by race. Because the treatment is different, subconsciously the people executing the act have issues that they don't bring to the forefront.


While I have no disagreement that this is often true, it is NOT true in ALL cases. Moreover, when some people say they "treat everyone the same", ceci, some might actually mean they start with the presumption that others should be treated as they themselves would like to be treated. Race initially has no bearing in such a view.


Originally posted by ceci2006
So, the best question that needs to be asked for those who say they treat others "the same" is how they describe "sameness". Do they treat others the same as a White person? Do they treat others the same as a Black person?


As I've already described above, the "sameness" refers to one of intention. Whether the intender's subsequent acts support such a view is altogether a different matter.


Originally posted by ceci2006
And when they say they treat everyone like human beings, which human being are they basing the sameness? Like them? Like their Asian neighbor down the street? In Darwinian terms?


At a minimum, your questions construct a type of intellectual fiction. They create an infirmity on the mere basis that if one treats others of a different race as they would treat members of their own race, that that is somehow in itself insufficient, and a prima facie case of racism.

Makes absolutely no sense to me.


Originally posted by ceci2006
Using "equality" as a way of deflection is quite more complicated than what people think.

But I take a cue from an earlier article that I posted that discussed a test to see how much one knows about racism: if one catches themselves "equalizing" the experience or saying that they "treat others the same", they need to learn more about the depth of racism in this country. There is no way around it. It can't be hidden or put in the backdrop. Racism needs to be shown as it is for people to understand why certain races have particular feelings about it socially, historically and politically. Trying to hide racism doesn't do anyone good.


"Equalizing" an experience is NOT the same as "equalizing" treatment. If I say my racial experiences are on par with your racial experiences, then perhaps I might see your point. But to say that because I assert equality of treatment that that somehow resolves into an attempt to "hide" or "put in the backdrop" the issue of race is patently false in my view.


Originally posted by ceci2006
With that, I agree with Infra_Red's assessment. Too many people in the past have tried to hide "racism".


I don't disagree, when actions clearly indicate that is the case. But presuming that to be true, in the absence of evidence for it, is altogether a different type of injustice I can't understand your support for.


Originally posted by ceci2006

If it doesn't mean that, then help me understand what special actions or statements would be sufficient to demonstrate such an understanding.


Here is my assessment of the matter:

1)Listen to what we're saying and don't write it off as "nonsense" or "fantasy". Ask questions about it, of course. But don't say it doesn't happen. People wouldn't mention it if it didn't happen (especially in acknowledging what happened to James Byrd in Jasper, TX).


Check.


Originally posted by ceci2006
2)Do not de-intellectualize our experiences. Do not say that it is less intelligent than your experience. Do not patronize the speaker by saying that they ought to know better. Do not accuse the person of racism because they mentioned a particular race did it to them. Accept the experience as it is educatively.


Check.


Originally posted by ceci2006
3)Do not ridicule our experiences or make jokes about them. A racist joke is something that should not be laughed at. If it happened to you, you wouldn't be laughing about it. Why should you laugh about the experiences of others?


Check.


Originally posted by ceci2006
4)Be honest and frank about the experience. Tell us your feelings about what happened (like in the case of what happens in the work place with a lot of people of color). If you don't understand it, say so.


Check.


Originally posted by ceci2006
5)Do not ignore our experiences. Do not pass them off as if it didn't happen. Say something about them. If you do, we wouldn't have to repeat our experiences over and over to get them to understand them.


Check.


Originally posted by ceci2006
6)Do not write our experiences off as another "-ism". Racism and race-relations is the key topic we are discussing here. You would probably think it derogatory if we wrote off your experience as another "ism", so why would you do it to us? Yes, some people are not very comfortable with discussing race. That is par for the course and acceptable. But, deal with the act in its proper context and not as another "ism" because it conveys that the listener (when responding) does not want to discuss the topic or wants to deflect it to get the issue into "safe ground".


Check.

But, ceci, show me where I violated any of the principles you list above in the slave descendant lawsuit thread?

You didn't seem to have any problem asserting an unrecognized or suppressed motivation of racism on my part, simply because I disagreed with your position on those lawsuits....



[edit on 3-10-2006 by loam]



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 10:56 AM
link   
This isn't about you, loam. This is in general why people are insensitive to the issues presented from people of color. It is not an intellectual fiction, as you put it. Instead, you just presented a wonderful example of "de-intellectualizing" the experience and "not taking the experience as it is".

Even you have to appreciate that not everyone is going to experience things the same way you do. And when experiences of racism are discussed, not everyone is going to respond in the same way. It's not about conducting or attending a seminar. It's also not about writing essays or books about the subject matter. It is about having the sensitivity and conscience to try and understand it from the person of color's view without minimalizing their experiences.

The examples are right in front of your face, but you can't "see" them.

That is why I take the cynic's approach to these issues. Some people just don't "get it" and attempt to deflect or avoid the issue by minimalizing what is expressed.

It is better sometimes, just to watch and let the discussion unfold than patiently take the time to analyze questions as presented to me. Instead of researching these issues yourself, you block your own awareness by writing them off quickly as "nonsense". There isn't any glimmer of understanding of their possibility or that they might happen.

That is why it is like watching a train wreck happen day after day, week after week, year after year. The same thing happens and leaves more human wreckage behind without seeing the depth of the cause. Instead, there isn't any sensitivity apparent at all.

So, save your questions. If you actually read the past posts of articles and truly considered what they might say, then you might understand why others possibly have a different point of view than yours. If you can't even give consideration without "writing it off" or calling it an "intellectual fiction", all you'll think about is trivializing what has happened.

Call what I've said anything you want. I don't care. It has nothing to do with whether I agree or disagree with the argument at large.

It is about having a conscience and the sensitivity to see that people experience this issue far more differently than you do. Furthermore, it is not about posting style or the way that someone posts or even how rhetoricaly the issue is put.

There is no demonstration at all at comprehending the issues with any sort of empathy.

In a cynical frame of mind, I am just going to watch how this is treated as well.



[edit on 3-10-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I only have a few minutes right now, but after seeing that movie today, I liked Malcolm X less than before I watched it. In my opinion, he (according to the film) supported segregation and the use of religion to 'manipulate' the people.


I can see where you're coming from BH, but unfortunately it's the standpoint of a middle class white woman who could never really identify with the balck community of that time. While I don't agree that segregation is the answer, it's definately a quick fix when it comes to white oppressors beating and murdering black people. At that point there was no (or very little) white support of the civil rights movement, and even less in the political field. The short term effect of a true black nation would have been very empowering to the black community. However in the long run it would be highly damaging.


Especially during his pre-Mecca days was a flaming racist and even after, he still pretty much hated a group of people (whites) for what some white people had done to black people long ago.


No, he hated whites for what they were still doing, for hundreds of years. Remember, this wasn't the 90's 80's or even 70's. When he grew up there was so much overt hatred and disgust for blacks that the natural reaction was to hate back. If someone spits in your face daily, it's tough to argue that they should live side by side. Political action will not change personal feelings.


He spoke of not being American, of not having a choice about being here. Well, neither did I. I was born here though and I'm grateful for it.


Have you ever been in constant fear of being murdered by the police? Not just a sneaking paranoia, but a full on, justified fear? That's where gratitude would fly out the window. And yes, he could have left, but he would have also left the countless millions of people in the same situation who couldn't leave. He felt that someone needed to be a voice for his people, and at the very least one must respect him for that.


Malcolm X had some very good qualities, but I don't see him as a 'great man'.


Whether you believe, or can believe what he did was right is beside the point. You must acknowledge that he faced overwhelming odds, and fought for what he believed in. It wasn't a selfish thing. He wasn't doing it for personal gain, but for the gain of his people. Anyone who does such a thing is a great man. Whether he's good or bad is of one's own opinion.

(Not to single you out BH, I know that there were others who believe as you do. Your post just stood out at me. I clicked 'quote' and hit the ground running.


[edit on 3-10-2006 by Rasobasi420]



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006
For other posters, the previous post is an example of "ridiculing" and "minimalizing" the experience at hand.


Yes. That's quite obvious. A poster is being sarcastic. It happens probably hundreds of times a day here on ATS. It's allowed. You may not like it, but you can't control it. You seem to take the 'worst' examples of what other people do and apply it to us all, though, and that's simply not fair. Is it?

There's probably nothing you can do to change the way that poster feels about you or this issue. Why not focus on people who are actually trying to have a discussion with you? Why totally ignore someone who is trying to have a discourse about racism and instead give all your focus to the behavior you don't like?


Originally posted by ceci2006
This isn't about you, loam.


Who is it about? That's a real question.



Even you have to appreciate that not everyone is going to experience things the same way you do. And when experiences of racism are discussed, not everyone is going to respond in the same way.


There's no argument with that. But who are we supposed to speak for if not ourselves? All I'm saying is that yes, there are people who do the things you say. Let me be clear on that. Some people ridicule, minimalize, de-intellectualize, patronize, etc. But the fact that that happens should not cancel out the fact that some people really are trying to understand. It's never going to be a perfect world where everyone has the respect for other people that they want and deserve.



It is about having the sensitivity and conscience to try and understand it from the person of color's view without minimalizing their experiences.


I think a lot of us do that. Some don't and won't. That's just the way it is. Nobody always gets the respect they deserve. NOBODY.



So, save your questions.


You have always said to ASK questions. That you'd be glad to answer.




It is about having a conscience and the sensitivity to see that people experience this issue far more differently than you do.


I'm pretty sure that's a known.



There is no demonstration at all at comprehending the issues with any sort of empathy.


That is simply not true! What IS true is that not everyone agrees or empathizes or comprehends as perfectly as you would like, but by saying that There is no demonstration at all at comprehending discounts those of us who do really get some of it or try to comprehend or have empathy. That completely discounts all our efforts.

On page 60 you said:


Originally posted by ceci2006
I have a response to prepare to BH


But you didn't, even though you've had every opportunity. I have yet to hear ANY response from you, even though I've asked questions and expressed views on several subjects. You're certainly free to ignore me, but it flies in the face of what you say you want. Which is a discussion.

[edit on 3-10-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Rasobasi420, Thank you SO much for your thoughtful answers and opinions. It really made a lot of sense to me. You're right, I'm seeing it from my POV and as someone who has never been in constant fear from any particular 'group' of people.

And what you said about Malcolm X made sense, too. He had to stay to do what HE thought was right for his people. I get that now.

Thank you.



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006
This isn't about you, loam.


Wrong. Your next statement makes it about me.


Originally posted by ceci2006
This is in general why people are insensitive to the issues presented from people of color. It is not an intellectual fiction, as you put it. Instead, you just presented a wonderful example of "de-intellectualizing" the experience and "not taking the experience as it is".


Wrong again. What I called an intellectual fiction are those questions you asked that presume the intention of equallity is not possible when it comes from a person of another race.

That has nothing to do with "de-intellectualizing" the experience and "not taking the experience as it is".


Originally posted by ceci2006
Even you have to appreciate that not everyone is going to experience things the same way you do.


I do.


Originally posted by ceci2006
And when experiences of racism are discussed, not everyone is going to respond in the same way. It's not about conducting or attending a seminar. It's also not about writing essays or books about the subject matter. It is about having the sensitivity and conscience to try and understand it from the person of color's view without minimalizing their experiences.


How have I not done that? Even when I agree with you, you deem it insufficient either on the basis or some manufactured interpretation of what I have written, or more generally because I don't happen to share your race.


Originally posted by ceci2006
The examples are right in front of your face, but you can "see" them.


Show me my examples.


Originally posted by ceci2006
That is why I take the cynic's approach to these issues. Some people just don't "get it" and attempt to deflect or avoid the issue by minimalizing what is expressed.


Some people. Not all.

The brush you paint with seems overly broad where my posts (and a few others) are concerned.


Originally posted by ceci2006
It is better sometimes, just to watch and let the discussion unfold than patiently take the time to analyze questions as presented to me.


I would call THAT "deflection"...and dishonest- particularly in a thread that is about discussion of race relations and racism.


Originally posted by ceci2006
Instead of researching these issues yourself, you block your own awareness by writing them off quickly as "nonsense". There isn't any glimmer of understanding of their possibility or that they might happen.


More naked presumption. How do you know what "research" I have conducted? As a matter of fact, how do you know anything about me other than what I have minimally posted about myself on these boards?

It is you who "blocks your own awareness" by treating me a some sort of evil (or just merely ignorant) cartoon character.

For you, all that is required is to know that I am "white" and "male" to impugn my character.

You have no idea what experiences I have had that would either lend to my understanding of the issue or detract from it. You have only my words- which you conveniently and comfortably continue to misrepresent in support of your outrageous preconceived notions.


I have repeatedly AND expressly acknowledged the injustices of the Black American experience in this thread and elsewhere, but in your book I have exercised no "glimmer" of understanding as to their possibility or occurrence.


YOU are the one who blocks your own awareness.

YOU don't see my points precisely because I am "white" and "male".



Originally posted by ceci2006
That is why it is like watching a train wreck happen day after day, week after week, year after year. The same thing happens and leaves more human wreckage behind without seeing the depth of the cause. Instead, there isn't any sensitivity apparent at all.


That's because your view doesn't permit recognition of "sensitivity" even where it might be found.


Originally posted by ceci2006
So, save your questions.


Why wont you answer them?


Are they somehow inappropriate or off topic? Or do they just make you uncomfortable because they might disturb the neat little box you've decided to place me in?


Originally posted by ceci2006
If you actually read the past posts of articles and truly considered what they might say, then you might understand why others possibly have a different point of view than yours.


I have and do. THAT, however, is not the same as saying I agree with all they present.

In your world view, is agreement an absolute prerequisite to understanding? It's not in mine.



Originally posted by ceci2006
If you can't even give consideration to that without "writing it off" or calling it an "intellectual fiction", all you'll think about is trivializing what has happened.


Quote specifically where I have done that.


Originally posted by ceci2006
Call what I've said anything you want. I don't care. It has nothing about whether I agree or disagree with the argument at large.

It is about having a conscience and the sensitivity to see that people experience this issue far more differently than you do. Furthermore, it is not about posting style or the way that someone posts or even how rhetoricaly the issue is put.

There is no demonstration at all at comprehending the issues with any sort of empathy.


Again, quote examples of where I have done this.


Originally posted by ceci2006
In a cynic frame of mind, I am just going to watch how this is treated as well.


I wouldn't call that cynical, I'd call it smugly convinced you're right.




[edit on 3-10-2006 by loam]



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 12:02 PM
link   
Well, let's put it to a test. Demonstrate to me that you understand and have empathy for the depth of the issues behind racism without ridiculing, minimalizing or de-intellectualing the issue?

Would you get an inkling, from reading the latest articles I've posted (such as the connection between African-Americans, anger and health from racially insensitive atmospheres) what is being talked about from a person of color's eyes?

How do you perceive their experiences?



[edit on 3-10-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420

he still pretty much hated a group of people (whites) for what some white people had done to black people long ago.

No, he hated whites for what they were still doing, for hundreds of years.


'He hated whites ... '

That's blanket racism. I have no doubt that there were white people who mistreated black people. No question. However, to make a blanket statement that ALL white people are devils ... that's racist. To hate an entire race of people because of the actions of some of the same color ... racism.

Sorry. But that's what it is.

Aren't we told time after time on this board .. don't hate all Islamics becasue of the actions of the radicals? Do YOU hate all Islamics because of the actions of the radicals? I don't. I'm sure you don't. However, if you did .. that would be bigotry and completely unfair to the innocent and peaceful Islamics who have nothing to do with the radical terrorists.

It may be partly the fault of the white people who mistreated Malcolm X that he turned out the way he did .. a racist. But it is just as much, if not more, the fault of Malcolm X himself. He had a choice to hate or not. He chose hate. The white people who mistreated Malcolm X were wrong. But so is he.

Blanket hatred of any race because of the actions of some of that race is wrong. His hate was wrong.



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
'He hated whites ... '

That's blanket racism.


And you are also correct.
It's not as if certain reasons for racism are justified and others are not. Racism is never ok. Grouping people by race and calling them "the devil" or "lazy" or "criminals" or "the dominant culture" is NOT ok and it's racism. Period.



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006
Well, let's put it to a test. Demonstrate to me that you understand and have empathy for the depth of the issues behind racism without ridiculing, minimalizing or de-intellectualing the issue?


See, ceci, I have lived in many parts of the world where for long stretches in my life *I* was the minority. My understanding of the issue didn't come from some contrived eye-color exercise comfortably practiced in a seminar. It came from REAL experience.

I have seen injustice first hand. I have seen suffering first hand. I have seen depravity emanating from the most base of human behaviors first hand.

I understand all the above, not just in their most blatant forms, but in their more subtle forms as well- and not because I learned of them through the words of another, but because I witnessed them for myself.

Yet somehow I feel certain you will believe none of it.

Your eyes and ears don't appear to be open...

Does my response now "ridicule" or "minimize" the issue?

[edit on 3-10-2006 by loam]



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 12:37 PM
link   
I believe you have experienced what it is like to be in the minority. But I truly think that you wouldn't think of what the articles as being quite so contrived if you truly answered the questions at hand. You avoided the questions and deflected the content of them. But you didn't write it off.

Now, that's what I call being intellectually dishonest. I have a feeling you really don't want to discuss what happens to people of color, you just want to reinforce what you know as being right. And that is writing things off and deintellectualizing them in a mask of superiority.

Unless, you really can discuss and feel empathy for what people of color go through. There are actually concrete examples in the articles (including the last three posts of texts) of what people of color have experienced in terms of institutional and personal racism (for example, what happened when the Black co-worker had to hear her boss saying a racial epipthet over a business dinner).

It's better to admit that you have no consciousness of what happens to people of color. In that way, you cannot write off what we are experiences as being "nonsense" or being "contrived". How would you know that if you can't even bring yourself to meticulously intepret what is going on?



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
'He hated whites ... '

That's blanket racism. I have no doubt that there were white people who mistreated black people. No question. However, to make a blanket statement that ALL white people are devils ... that's racist. To hate an entire race of people because of the actions of some of the same color ... racism.

Sorry. But that's what it is.


Never said it wasn't racism


Aren't we told time after time on this board .. don't hate all Islamics becasue of the actions of the radicals? Do YOU hate all Islamics because of the actions of the radicals? I don't. I'm sure you don't. However, if you did .. that would be bigotry and completely unfair to the innocent and peaceful Islamics who have nothing to do with the radical terrorists.


Very true, some minor differences that could be argued, like justified anger, and resentment, but all in all Racism is bad (agreed?)


It may be partly the fault of the white people who mistreated Malcolm X that he turned out the way he did .. a racist. But it is just as much, if not more, the fault of Malcolm X himself. He had a choice to hate or not. He chose hate. The white people who mistreated Malcolm X were wrong. But so is he.


His father, a man who preached for the betterment of the black man, was brutally murdered in cold blood by Klansmen. That kind of thing sticks with a person. Before dropping labels on people, especially ones with such a damning connotation as 'racist', we should try to understand where someone is coming from. Doing otherwise is what leads to such prejudice in the first place.


Blanket hatred of any race because of the actions of some of that race is wrong. His hate was wrong.



Hate of any form is wrong. Love, respect and understanding is right.
Now that we know that, lets try to understand people.



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006
I believe you have experienced what it is like to be in the minority. But I truly think that you wouldn't think of what the articles as being quite so contrived if you truly answered the questions at hand. You avoided the questions and deflected the content of them. But you didn't write it off.


That is nothing more than the response of a TROLL.

Stop playing games!

Ask me directly what "questions" at hand you feel I have so readily dismissed.


Originally posted by ceci2006
Now, that's what I call being intellectually dishonest. I have a feeling you really don't want to discuss what happens to people of color, you just want to reinforce what you know as being right. And that is writing things off and deintellectualizing them in a mask of superiority.


Really? Did it ever occur to you that the problem with our discussion is not that it has anything to do with race, but rather the disagreeable and flawed assumptions you so readily make about others?

You are so blinded by your pain, you manufacture racial opposition even where it does not exist.

You want to talk about what happens to people of color? Fine. We can do that all day long, and you will likely find little disagreement from me concerning it.

But when you fail to recognize how some of your statements perpetuate the very injustice you purport to defend against, don't expect me to subordinate myself to your twisted, hypocritical delusions concerning fairness.


Originally posted by ceci2006
Unless, you really can discuss and feel empathy for what people of color go through. There are actually concrete examples in the articles (including the last three posts of texts) of what people of color have experienced in terms of institutional and personal racism (for example, what happened when the Black co-worker had to hear her boss saying a racial epipthet over a business dinner).


Your point?

Despite your proclamations to the contrary, I am equally offended by such "concrete" examples. The fact that you don't believe me does NOTHING to change that.



Originally posted by ceci2006
It's better to admit that you have no consciousness of what happens to people of color. In that way, you cannot write off what we are experiences as being "nonsense" or being "contrived". How would you know that if you can't even bring yourself to meticulously intepret what is going on?


Again, quote where I have said that such experiences are "nonsense" or "contrived".

What I called "nonsense" is YOUR logic on a few issues.

What I called "contrived" is the eye-color parlor trick exercise in comparison to my ACTUAL experiences concerning the subject matter of racial injustice.

I feel sorry for you. :shk:

It's clear to me YOU are the one that has no interest in exploring honestly the subject question of this thread. Instead, it appears to me that what you really want is an admission or expression of my universal racial guilt. You WANT me to be responsible for the sins of others- even if I have not committed them myself or speak against them. You WANT me to wear that "status" like a collar around my neck for all to see my ascribed culpability, and because of it, dismiss the relevancy of anything I might express.

You do not seek understanding...

What you seek is reinforcement of your own racist views.




[edit on 3-10-2006 by loam]



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Never said it wasn't racism

I know. I wasn't directing anything AT you. Your statement was that he was a great man. He may or may not have been ... but he was definately racist. Can a racist be a great man? I dunno.
Probably I'd guess. Everyone has their shortcomings. I'm sure he was no different.


like justified anger, and resentment,

Sure there is justified anger. Absolutely. But anger at ALL whites because of the sick, immoral and ILLEGAL actions of those few is not justified.


brutally murdered in cold blood by Klansmen. That kind of thing sticks with a person.

You betchya. That's why I said that the white people who mistreated him are partly to blame. THOSE white people. Not all white people.


before dropping labels on people, especially ones with such a damning connotation as 'racist'


Hating everyone of a certain race because of the actions of a few is racism. How the person became racist ... thats a whole other issue. Definately worth exploring.
The end result is definately racism though. I didn't drop it on him. It's just there.


Hate of any form is wrong.

Absolutely.

lets try to understand people.

Sure. ALL people of ALL colors.


edited to fix quote thing ...

[edit on 10/3/2006 by FlyersFan]



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Sure there is justified anger. Absolutely. But anger at ALL whites because of the sick, immoral and ILLEGAL actions of those few is not justified....

Hating everyone of a certain race because of the actions of a few is racism. How the person became racist ... thats a whole other issue. Definately worth exploring.
The end result is definately racism though. I didn't drop it on him. It's just there.


I bolded the text to point out that, in the grand scheme of things, worldwide, the racist whites of the time may have been in the few. Remember FF, this wasn't a thing about a few, it was the vast majority of white people at the time. Either they were racist, or apathetic to the racism. Either way, they were doing damage to black people.

With that said, the label 'racist' brings with it some damaging issues. If someone called a racist, it often results in their words meaning less (to some) and their message being lost in a veil of prejudice (ie, if he's wrong about race, he must be wrong about everything else)

It happens all the time, just look at Mel.


Not only that, but the word itself has become one of the most upsetting insults in modern history. I know you're not going out of your way to insult the man. It's just interesting what unsaid meaning comes with a word over time.



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 08:19 PM
link   
Fine, loam.

But for what it is worth, read what Rasobasi said to FF in the post above mine. It might open your eyes to what is at stake. What do you think he's trying to say?

Besides that, this thread is not about me or my views about race or race-relations.

Can you at least get that through your head?

On the contrary, you're the one that's playing games. You can't bring yourself to get past the "Brown-Eyed/Blue-Eyed" test and read the other articles which distinctly describe some of the things that people of color go through. You can't even describe them. You can only criticize them. You can't even bring yourself not even to talk about how these examples might be important to someone of color.

You keep on saying that it is "contrived" without even saying why. You can't even describe how or where Ms. Elliot's methodology is flawed. Not to mention, where it might need work in order to have a proper study of race-relations and discrimination.

That's what I meant by avoidance and deflection as well as the failure to use critical thinking on this issue. You just keep on rolling out the same, learned messages about race. Not visiting all the countries in the world can cover that up.

Show you examples? I've written examples in each of my posts!?!


It's okay. It just tells me that there isn't anything to talk about here. It's best that you stop the conversation in its tracks because your mind is already made up. You've already made the decision to discount everything because you can't even get yourself to question why these examples are brought up.

If you're just going to criticize me here and lightly skim over the issues in this thread, it's best that you make better use of your time elsewhere. Otherwise, it's useless to explain this to you. And, I can spend my time involving myself in other areas of the thread.



[edit on 4-10-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006
You can't bring yourself to get past the "Brown-Eyed/Blue-Eyed" test and read the other articles which distinctly describe some of the things that people of color go through.
...
You can't even describe how or where Ms. Elliot's methodology is flawed. Not to mention, where it might need work in order to have a proper study of race-relations and discrimination.


Loam never even mentioned the Blue eyed/Brown eyed test. He didn't come into the thread till after we had already 'discussed' that. Do some reading.


Perhaps you're confusing Loam with jsobecky or maybe me? We all look alike, you know.


[edit on 3-10-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 10:09 PM
link   
Well, loam, I have some questions to ask you then:

1)Describe the racism I have.

2)What type of neat little box am I putting this all into?

3)What kind of pain am I clouding?

4)Describe, by virtue of the articles that I posted, how I am directing this toward someone "white" and "male".

5)I've asked twice to describe (through the articles that I posted) how might a person of color perceive the acts taking place in these texts.

(I know you understand English. And by virtue of your superior intellect you can do comparison and contrast. Please analyze the articles to prove that you can comprehend what people of color go through.)

However, you claim you know me and my atitudes since you are taking more time to criticize me than focusing on the issue at hand. Since you keep on harping on intellectual dishonesty, state your answer as truthfully as you can instead of twisting my words. Stop playing your own set of games.

Or otherwise, we don't have anything to discuss. And I would like to get back to the topic at hand.


[edit on 4-10-2006 by ceci2006]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 59  60  61    63  64  65 >>

log in

join