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: 66
2
<< 63  64  65    67  68  69 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 10:34 PM
link   
So your saying that sitting around lamenting about being a victim, is your way of combating racism.......

I'll say it again....

YOU have not experienced the violence inherent in racism 1/10th as much as I have, and yet I do not feel the need to wallow in my own pity.
I experience the actual PHYSICAL effects everytime I limp to the bathroom in the morning. Should I expect you to feel sorry for me because some bad black man permanently severed my sciatic nerve.

How about the concussion that has caused me to have VERY limited vision in one eye? Do I get points on your racism scale for that one because again, a big. bad black man did it.

Or instead of fireside chats about how bad we have had it, why not concentrate on why it happened and what to do to correct it so that my daughters if they choose my profession will not suffer the same as I have. Or we can continue with the fireside stories and all have a wonderful hug and tell each other how sorry we are that someone in our family suffered long ago.

Semper




posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 10:38 PM
link   
Now to answer your ever present edited post. (You know there is a Preview option)

So start a thread about black history if as YOU HAVE STATED, the telling of your history is of prime importance to your cause.

Yet, you lead us all to believe you wanted to talk about racism.

NOT White on Black
NOT Black on White
NOT Irish, Jewish etc

RACISM

If it was all about you telling your historical accounts, then why not tell us that?

Semper



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 10:50 PM
link   
Did I ever say that? Please try and find the post in which I said those things. Otherwise, please refrain from the accusations.


All I can say is that if you want to talk about those things, talk about them. Or better yet, start your thread about racism against whites if it is that important to you.

Or, you could post on "Why does everyone hate the Jews?"

Or, the many threads which discuss the "United Caucasian College Fund" that some posters have done as a mockery to UNCF.

There's many ways you can do it instead of posting here and complaining about the anti-intellectualism that is going on. This board is gigantic. You need not post here and be drowned in your misery.



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 10:50 PM
link   
I don't know if your upset about the forum or not, I really don't care. None of my business, the Admin. made their decision.

I brought up the forum as a possible look into the psychogenic reasons behind your obvious inability to find a common ground when debating so many other posters.

I could simply accept that because they are White, and you are Black, that your reasons for not accepting their opinions, sources and comments is purely racist; However in the attempt at an intellectual response (unedited) I choose to examine more fundamental functional causes relating to basic response. There is some reason this is occurring.

By simple statistical analysis, it is highly unlikely they are always wrong and you always right. Yet that is what appears to be your stance. Figure in the obvious factor of Loam's intellect, BH's passion for understanding and FF combination, and the Applied Mathematics Principles just do not equal....

So, using those proven principles, it can only be concluded that you are in fact wrong at various times.

Those are the principles that can be applied to a discussion of Racism. But only a true discussion and not some fireside chat about our personal experiences.

Semper



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 10:54 PM
link   
Ceci,

Sorry, but I shall post where I wish and what I wish within the guidelines of the T&C.

If that upsets you, perhaps you should look into your own personal motivations behind your conjectural assumptions and innuendoes that when exposed you so vehemently deny, and are so obviously guilt of.

Semper (Unedited)sp?



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 10:55 PM
link   
So, you're saying the work of HH, Saph, Rasobasi, myself and others is not intellectual?

You can try to find a psychological reason all you want. However, let's cut the crap. I think you need to be around like-minded people if this is bothering you. Obviously, you would rather be among those who are "intellectual". We obviously are not on this thread--in your point of view.

Concerning the things you were wrong so far in this thread, I think there's a lot of innuendoes of your own you need to deal with.



[edit on 6-10-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006
...validated.


What does this mean to you? In other words, what goal does it describe and what purpose does it serve? What would be required to achieve it?


Originally posted by ceci2006
For us, we have to make sure our heritage, cultures and history is also adopted in the larger expanse of discussion. Without us, we'd hear the same old crap over and over while our histories get ignored.


Can you help me understand what context you mean when saying "the larger expanse of discussion"?



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I'm sorry, but I feel totally confused. I really need some help in understanding what kind of response you are hoping to get or wanting from me on this, if any.


I wasn't really expecting a response. You seem interested in feminism, so I thought I could help elucidate some things about 'our side' of the issue. I asked you a question and you re-directed it back to me. I was attempting to explain why there aren't a whole lot of black women involved in the Feminist Movement, because we feel excluded.



Why do you want me to read this book?

See above.



I acknowledge that there is a difference in the way some white women treat black women AND the way the country (in general) looks at white women as compared to black women. I believe that a racial gap exists. I do everything I can in my own little world to change that.

Thank you for acknowledging that, but, your approach only works if you're my employer, or landlord, or whatever. In my mind, that is not enough.



I'm just not sure why I feel constantly in this thread that people are trying to convince me of something. Especially something I already believe.

BH, sweetie, calm down.


I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I was simply sharing another perspective.



It's a class thing. And black people are usually in the lower class and white people are usually in the upper class. But their color doesn't make them who they are.

Exactly, but it certainly helps keep us here.

Think about the Irish immigrants: it took them, maybe, three generations to 'make it' in American society. All they had to do was lose the accent and change their last names. So, their color made it easier for them. Think of it as a (+3) advantage in assimilation. In much the same way, my color and my nationality serve as a handicap, or (-4), because, as we've learned, employers prefer foreign-born blacks and those employers act as gatekeepers to the middle-class.




But I also know that the wealthy, white, Republican, Christian stay-at-home mother may not have these issues in her basket...Shouldn't she be reading the book? What good would it do for me to read the book when I don't even KNOW the people who could actually benefit from the knowledge and information within it?

I get the feeling that you see reading this book as some kind of punitive measure undertaken to make you feel bad for being a white woman. That is absolutely not the case. I recommended it because I see you as receptive. I recommend books to people everyday, never as punishment. I do it because, well, I thought that was the point of expanding your knowledge base: to share it with others.



I don't have some sort of "white connection" or "in" in the white upper class - that I could expolit to approach these women with this information and open their eyes. I don't even know who they are and frankly, I don't want to know them.

Haha, that was funny.


I do know 'them', or at least, the 'future them,' and I'm not too excited about it either.



I did read it several times. And I did comment on it. I talked about it on a couple of long posts if I remember correctly.

Yes, but this is what you said



I admit I may not have been as open to the real meat of the article because of the generalizations that abound.

So far, your responses focussed on the fact that the author referenced stereotypes. She did not invent them, or even use them- she referenced them, for the purposes of 'airing our dirty laundry' and moving along. You've focussed on that, but that was not the point of the article. The point was that black women and white women have some issues to work out amongst themselves before they can take on the male hegemony. It must be true because, here we are, several pages later, still working them out.



And by the way, I'm curious about the answer to the question I asked:
Why aren't there many black women involved in the feminist movement?

Have I answered that question yet?



Well, okay. I don't feel the same way and I'm not thrilled about being seen as "bitching about nothing" any more than you are thrilled about black people being seen as doing that.

I understand your point and I admit that I violated my own rule of intellectualism, lol. When I wrote that, I was digesting that wage-gap information for the first time, and it was a bit shocking to me. But, still, do you admit that white women are 'doing better' than everyone else, except white men?

The way I interpret that information is that, although blacks had Civil Rights, the majority of income in this country is still flowing into white households. I could be wrong, but its not looking too good...



Just because the white woman makes better money than the black woman doesn't mean her complaints aren't valid.

No, but it does mean that she has that much more opportunity to improve her own situation.

If all the wage-gaps disappeared, and everyone was paid equally, a lot of 'black issues' would be non-existant, like gang-violence. Those kids would much rather be working on a job with decent wages and healthcare, but those jobs don't exist for them, because of this wage-gap. Another example: if blacks were paid equally, we wouldn't be so dependent on public education. That would fix the problem of the 'education-gap.' See what I mean?



From my feminist position, I want equality for all people, not just between white men and white women.

Good, I would like you to share that with other feminists you know.



My longest post, ever, I believe! Sorry!

That's okay, I like hearing from you.



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 11:03 PM
link   
I have not brought up anyone Ceci,

I am directly posting to you.

I have also not used any form of blanket statement about intellectual quality of the posts on here. I was very clear in my intent and shall not repeat it. I am also equally confident that you understood it and choose to deflect my contention instead of answering it, as has been your habit throughout this thread.

The other posters you have mentioned have contributed to the thread on an intellectual basis and engaged several other posters in informative productive debate.

Again, if it is your wish to tell stories lamenting your experiences or the general experiences of White on Black racism, why does this thread have the topic it does?

Semper



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally quoted by loam

What does this mean to you? In other words, what goal does it describe and what purpose does it serve? What would be required to achieve it?


Validation means to me four things:

1)To discuss a topic without any sort of ridicule or dismissing of the issue as "nonsense".

2)To be able to integrate all sorts of histories, experiences and knowledge into the topic and discuss them without accusing the messenger.

3)To have all people accept those histories, experiences and knowledge as they are. None is "less intellectual" than the other.

4)To add on to the knowledge produced and continue the conversation smoothly, trying to make connections and awarenesses of what has been contributed without fear or intimidation.


Can you help me understand what context you mean when saying "the larger expanse of discussion"?


In terms of history, there are many types. But when one thinks of a generalized history or knowledge, the history of the dominant culture is at the fore. All other aspects are ignored.

In terms of this topic, it seems that the only knowledge that gets validation still is what happens to the dominant culture. The rest of our knowledge is taken sparingly, if never. In fact, it is accused as not being "intellectual". Therefore, the history that has to do with people of color is still not appropriately addressed and discussed fairly.

The problem is that uni-lateral thinkers see no deviation other than their own beliefs. When there is such a deviation, it is dismissed, perceived as a bother, or treated with hostility.

I mean, who else would be asked, "What do you want?" as if the inquirers were held hostage?




[edit on 5-10-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 11:13 PM
link   
Semper, you can bring up your experiences just as much. No one is saying you can't. But, it is far from victimhood. Or else, anyone telling their life story--from Gore Vidal to William F. Buckley, would be seen as "playing the victim". So, if by focusing on our histories we are victims, you are not left out of the picture. I suggest you rewrite your terminology so you can live with yourself.

But, I tend to think part of the disturbance is that uncomfortability of having a discussion that deals with experiences and information other than what is constantly put out by white people belonging to a particular mind-set. There are white people who actually see what the problem of race is in this country. And then again, there are others who woefully don't.

It is disturbing because everything is seen differently from what has been thought before. The control from the dominant culture is not there. It constantly tries to take over, but there are some of us who keep on resisting. That is the work against oppression and privilege.

Of course people know about racism. I think everyone does know a type of racism in their lives.

But race is rather hard to discuss and it requires people who are willing to lay out all the cards on the table without being scared of it. And this thread has a lot of scared people who want to keep things "status quo". In fact, they become hostile and predatory to keep it that way.



[edit on 5-10-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by HarlemHottie
Think about the Irish immigrants: it took them, maybe, three generations to 'make it' in American society. All they had to do was lose the accent and change their last names. So, their color made it easier for them. Think of it as a (+3) advantage in assimilation. In much the same way, my color and my nationality serve as a handicap, or (-4), because, as we've learned, employers prefer foreign-born blacks and those employers act as gatekeepers to the middle-class.


This is a fascinating perspective. I'm curious why you believe "employers prefer foreign-born blacks"?


Originally posted by HarlemHottie
the male hegemony


Why do you suppose I bristle at this term?


Originally posted by HarlemHottie
...although blacks had Civil Rights, the majority of income in this country is still flowing into white households. I could be wrong, but its not looking too good...


No it's not. But do you believe this is true entirely due to race?



[edit on 5-10-2006 by loam]



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 11:28 PM
link   
Ceci,

That is exactly why I advocate an "Intellectual" discussion and not the same ol' emotional response that has been so ever present on this board. And no manner of you throwing the word "Intellectual" around with grammatically incorrect quotations, will ever change the fact that this is the only possible answer to the question posed by the title of the thread.

The telling of historical chronicles can only have two possibly hypothetical outcomes. The stimulation of [Response] from the listener, or the [historical] recording of past events. Both have been proven to be inaccurate as far as a historical perspective can take us.

The Response Hypothesis is based on the history, current situation and social background of the listener; thereby presenting us with several responses of varied intensity from the listening audience.

The Historical Hypothesis is flawed because it depends on memory. Memory is both directly and indirectly effected by the same phenomenon as the Response Hypothesis and therefore unreliable.

That is why in order to achieve any goal in understanding any particular phenomena or human condition, the human factor must be removed as much as possible.
If there is any chance an emotional response may be generated, the experiment, social or not, is invalid.

Semper



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006
And this thread has a lot of scared people who want to keep things "status quo". In fact, they become hostile and predatory to keep it that way.


Who are you identifying has done that?



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam
This is a fascinating perspective. I'm curious why you believe "employers prefer foreign-born blacks"?

A zillion pages ago, I posted a study that came to that conclusion. I really don't have it in me right now to look for it, but if I come across it in my travels, I'll send it to you, or re-post it.



Why do you suppose I bristle at this term?

I should have put that in quotes. I was speaking from the feminist perspective, which is kind of new to me.



No it's not. But do you believe this is true entirely due to race?

Yep, but that's just an opinion. If anyone would like to refute it, refute away. If you present good evidence, I might just agree.



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 11:35 PM
link   
Well then, Semper, I think that with your criteria, you need to create an atmosphere where you can put out your theories without this needless bother.

We can talk theory as much as the next person. But, I think the only theory you are concerned with is your own. And then, you wrap those ideas around other theorists in history and psychology in order to give them more weight than they deserve. That's fine and well. That's why I suggested you might create your own thread if intellectualism is what you crave.

Never mind if you just single-handedly put down the ideas of others and dismiss them with "emotionalism".

But, for you, this thread is getting out of control. You need to be somewhere you can have all the law and order attached to putting forth what you feel is right. I'm sure that there are many others who will join you because a lot of posters feel as you do--especially when it comes to being hostile to all this "emotional" talk.

I could mention all the mistakes and errors you have made, but I rather not. I'm too good of a person to do that. I also wouldn't put it in caps, like you do.

Btw, I answered both BH and loam in the post you were referring to. If they didn't ask me about the type of white people I knew or the experiences regarding slavery, I wouldn't have mentioned it at all.



[edit on 6-10-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by HarlemHottie

Originally posted by loam
This is a fascinating perspective. I'm curious why you believe "employers prefer foreign-born blacks"?

A zillion pages ago, I posted a study that came to that conclusion. I really don't have it in me right now to look for it, but if I come across it in my travels, I'll send it to you, or re-post it.


I'd like to see it. Thanks.

I'm curious if you remember what conclusion was made for the reason employers preferred foreign-born blacks?


Originally posted by HarlemHottie

...although blacks had Civil Rights, the majority of income in this country is still flowing into white households. I could be wrong, but its not looking too good...


Originally posted by loam
No it's not. But do you believe this is true entirely due to race?

Yep, but that's just an opinion. If anyone would like to refute it, refute away. If you present good evidence, I might just agree.


I'll see what I might find.

But I'm curious, however, why you think that's logical?

There are poor whites and white gangs. Is their condition caused by racism? And if not, what unique set of circumstances causes white poverty that would not ever be applicable to other races?



[edit on 5-10-2006 by loam]



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 11:49 PM
link   
Thank you for the consideration, but I am fine right here.

There has to be some equalization and "Intellectual" honesty to combat the innuendo and verbal repertoire that continues even to your last post.

After all the title of the thread indicates that one wishes to Address Race Relations and Solve Racism. Something I think about everyday I walk, or attempt to point focus.

By eliminating the emotional response there is always the possibility of resolution or at the outside, compromise. Including the emotional response eradicates that.

Also what must be considered is the posters intent. When confronted with the obvious negative response generated by an intentional emotional stimuli, a seeker of the truth, would accept the failure of the emotional response experiment and move to more productive methods to effect the required responses in the debate.

Injecting emotional cues after being presented with negative reactions, can only be construed as counter productive and the continued practice of this must be deemed intentional.

This leaves only one possibility, the author of the posts that generate an emotional response must be intentional in her approach.

Semper



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
Although it is VERY evident just reading the posting on here, I felt some instances from the "real" world would help to even things out...

I'm sorry, what was "very evident?"



Having served 20 years this year in this uniform and 5 before that in the Marines, I have experienced racism in ways perhaps no one else on this thread can imagine. See I was "The Man!"

So, let me ask you, what was it like in the Marines for you? 'Racially,' I mean. You've stated previously in this thread that you're "tan," implying, I can only assume, some 'colored' heritage.

[I stated it that way because you could 'be' anything, Indian, Hispanic, etc. On the racial continuum, there are many groups of people between black and white.]



This thread has degraded into the most incredible example of WHAT NOT to do to address anything, much less racism. I have not felt so much racism ever since leaving the Projects and moving here.

I feel the same way you do, but I doubt we agree on the source of that animus.




I did not know the article I posted was "debunked" and still I am not 100% sure the debunking was not some political effort.

Well, at the very least, the reports of rape were greatly exaggerated.



Regardless, some peoples attempt to assign racism to one specific group targeting another is without a doubt the most ridiculous, unintelligent effort I have observed on here.

There are tons of 'ridiculous and unintelligent efforts' in this thread, and they're not the sole province of any one poster.



Yet, the brick, the 2X4 to the head while changing a strangers tire, the knife in the Glutamous(No Laughing please) they were all attacks on ME, not when I was enforcing anything.

Were you in uniform?



I guess it just gripes my tail to hear about how much someone has suffered because of racism, when I'm sure they have not had 1/10 the hospital time I have had because of who I am.

Suffering takes many forms.



Some will say it is because I was a cop, not because I was white... Maybe it was because I am a white cop?

I'm confused. Are you white or "tan"?



Racist behavior is color blind, anyone can and anyone does experience it, and commits it.

I have to stop you here. Based on the rest of your post, what you mean to say is, "Racist violence is colorblind..." I don't expect you'll get a lot of argument, but you have to admit, there's more than one way to be racist.



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by HarlemHottie

Originally posted by semperfortis
Racist behavior is color blind, anyone can and anyone does experience it, and commits it.

I have to stop you here. Based on the rest of your post, what you mean to say is, "Racist violence is colorblind..." I don't expect you'll get a lot of argument, but you have to admit, there's more than one way to be racist.


HH, I don't understand your distinction here. Of course there's more than one way to be racist. What's the point?



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 63  64  65    67  68  69 >>

log in

join