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.

 

The Two Sides of Race-Relations

page: 5
6
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 11:46 AM
link   
The insinuation that I/we are out of our mind, or have no idea what we are talking about, was quite clear.

Why is it that you guys continue to focus on one issue that has been said countless times? Why is it that nothing that "we" say is clarified? We are attempting to confirm a few aspects of this approach, yet it all goes unnoticed. Stop regurgitating everything that Ceci is saying for a moment, and allow her to clarify a few things.

Why is your posting history off topic and irrelevant? Is it that a contradiction exists?
Why do you condone the attacks of members who disagree, all the while victimizing yourself to the staff?

I'm done with this thread until some of these are clarified. I'm tired of reading about the definitions to different terms that any dictionary could tell me. I can put a slant on different terms as well, I just choose not to. Not all of us embrace the role of the victim.

Again, waiting for clarification.

'Til next time.



[edit on 17-2-2007 by chissler]




posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
Facts are facts. In sociology, the majority in a society is called the dominant group.


I am not sure this generalization is accurate. In formal logic, to disprove a claim or proposal, all that is necessary is a counter-example.

Without attempting at all to defend or laud the culture of the Greek Spartans, the relationship of Spartans and Helots clearly shows that a numeric majority does not, in fact, necessarily determine the dominant culture.



hatred of the Spartans towards the Helots originates in fear: given the relatively small number of Spartans in comparison with the servile population


Source




Here's how the situation stood for Sparta at the end of the Messenian revolt. Almost defeated, controlling the territory of a subject population that outnumbered their population ten to one , it was only a matter of time before this subject population would overrun their conquerors. So the Spartans invented a new political system as dramatically revolutionary as Athenian democracy in the north: they turned their state into what amounts to a military state.


Source

So clearly, there are factors other than pure numeric majority that determine a dominant culture.



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 02:43 PM
link   
Oookaayyy.
So I take it these Helot guys outnumbered the Spartans by quite a bit, but the Spartans were the "dominant culture", Am I close?


You're way too ejimakated for me. Really.


Helots = Majority
Sparts = Dominant Minority

We can look in the US, too. The people who make the rules (the government) and dominate the whole deal are by FAR in the minority.

Regualr People = Majority
Government = Dominant Minority

It seems the OP wants to say

White = Majority (and therefore) = Dominant =

"People of color" = Helpless Minority =


Which of course, she's free to say. I just don't agree with it.

Another issue here is that if you really want to talk about race-relations, you must consider classism. To separate out race and talk about it alone is like talking about musical notes without considering music.


[edit on 17-2-2007 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic

Originally posted by truthseeka
Facts are facts. In sociology, the majority in a society is called the dominant group.


I am not sure this generalization is accurate. In formal logic, to disprove a claim or proposal, all that is necessary is a counter-example.

Without attempting at all to defend or laud the culture of the Greek Spartans, the relationship of Spartans and Helots clearly shows that a numeric majority does not, in fact, necessarily determine the dominant culture.

So clearly, there are factors other than pure numeric majority that determine a dominant culture.


Pay closer attention to the posts.

I ALREADY said that the majority is not defined merely by numbers. The majority is defined more by the group with the most power in a society. You ain't saying anything I didn't already say. But, maybe you missed that page on this thread.

BH, on the other hand, hardly ever pays much attention to the posts...



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 04:44 PM
link   
AND...

BH fails to realize how closely tied race and class are in America. So, for the purposes of this discussion, there's no need to talk about class.



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
So, for the purposes of this discussion, there's no need to talk about class.


What are the "purposes of this discussion", I wonder?

Because it seems that if people really wanted to get to the issue and discuss "race relations", then they wouldn't be so staunch in excluding talking about class. Because class is an integral part of the discussion of the dominant and subordinate groups in this country. In fact, The very best indicator of dominance in this country is wealth. The almighty dollar.

However, if the "purpose of this discussion" is to make one race out to be the victim of the other race (Is that the "two sides of race relations" perhaps?) then it would behoove the participants to exclude class. And that's fine if victimization of the black race is the purpose of this discussion. But then, we should use the terminology "whites" and "blacks" or "whites" and "people of color", because THOSE are the terms that align with race.

Because everyone knows that you can't split race from class and have any meaningful kind of discussion.

Dominant and subordinate don't map directly to race. Unless, of course that's the "purpose of the discussion", which I'm beginning to see that it is. To map Dominant to white and Subordinate to black.



[edit on 17-2-2007 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 06:02 PM
link   
Please allow me to say this one more time.

With all due respect, you guys are missing the point. Ceci, ts, I am not prepared to dispute the fact that you guys are fully capable of substantiating your opinion. What you guys say does happen, it does exist, and it may continue to exist. However, just because it exists does not mean that it is the "norm". You have placed a stigma on several members that frankly do not deserve it. Have I wronged you? Yes. Has BH wronged you, or FF wronged you? That is up for interpretation. I am not going to speak on behalf of them. But I will openly admit that I have said some things that were unnecessary and did little to further the discussion. The breakdown on this matter, in my opinion, is your unwillingness to admit a possible error in approach or judgment. Whites have oppressed blacks. Yes, we know. I am white, you are black. Just because we share an inherited attribute does not mean that the generalization carries over to ourselves. As someone has previously said, we are not guilty for the sins of our fathers.

You have said that you really want this discussion to prosper. Well, make the effort to further this process. When you preset a point, "we" do our damnedest to acknowledge and represent our opinions on the subject. However when we attempt to present an angle to the situation, it tends to go unnoticed. If it does not go unnoticed, it is passed off as off-topic, misguided, or a personal attack. Why is that? Time and time again we've been stigmatized as "harassing" or "trolling". I'm not even prepared to acknowledge these attempts to slander our character anymore, because frankly, that is the extent of the off-topic posts in this thread.

If we "really" want this thread to prosper, acknowledge the points that have been brought to your attention, rather than undermining our position or "presumed" agenda.

Let us try this one more time.

• Your posting history indicates a strong contradiction in your message. You preach one thing, but behave in another. Why is that? It is not off-topic, and we are interested why you fail to see the contradiction in your own message.
• You have openly criticized other members for attacking you personally. Yet you applaud a member who attacked those who disagree. Why is that?

Considering we are discussing race, I think all of this pertains directly to our topic. In my opinion, you victimize yourself when a white member comes along in disagreement. You take it personal and feel we are being oppressive. Yet, when a black member comes along and overtly attacks a white member, you praise his efforts.

...Why is that?

Choose to ignore this and you will only reinforce the message that already seems to be ringing true.



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
I ALREADY said that the majority is not defined merely by numbers. The majority is defined more by the group with the most power in a society.


Indeed. And that is a sloppy use of language. It is a mixing of terms for a subordinate group and a minority group. These two concepts are, as I have demonstrated, not synonymous.

But let's address the idea of dominant culture by your own definition, such as it is:


Minority is about POWER


So, if minority is about power then majority is about power. And if (by your definition, which I do not accept, but let's use it for the moment) the terms dominant group/culture and majority are synonyms, then dominant group is about power.

And what group is it in the US that has power? The rich, right? Right. The rich. And what color are rich people in the US? Why, looky there, rich people come in all colors! Therefore, to make the argument that dominant culture = white people is inaccurate.

When discussing power in society in the US today, economic class cannot be left out. Economic class is an integral part of the dominant culture, i.e. the power culture, in the US.



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 07:30 PM
link   
I'm a little hesitant to jump into another one of these threads, but I have a few things to say that may not be precisely on topic but have relevance to the discussion.

First, a disclaimer: This is not directed at any one person, but rather my observations after participating in these threads. If you feel that it is directed at you, perhaps it's because you see a bit of yourself in my post. Nobody is perfect.


It's obvious that there is a lot of history between many of the posters on this thread. By dragging around that history from thread to thread, the entire topic is done a disservice. This is a sensitive topic and when we talk about 'white people' and 'black people', we are talking about each other. None of us are an accurate representation of what an entire race of people is like and we all know this. While it may be difficult, in order for any discussion to truly be productive about this, we need to try to keep in mind that we are speaking in general terms. I would urge both 'sides' to try to not personalize the statements made too much. When something hurts us, we lash out. It's normal human behaviour and we're all human, right? Sadly, lashing out gets us nowhere and only makes the situation worse. The irony of me asking everyone not to be so sensitive is not lost on me.


When I participate in these discussions, I often feel that my thoughts and opinions are glossed over sometimes because people know that I am Ceci's friend. Perhaps they think that I am trying to appease her, that I am some kind of apologist or that I worry about offending people - none of which are true. I simply try to be respectful because I know how sensitive this subject is and that I will make more progress by treating everyone with respect. I could lash out and use the
smiley but honestly, is that going to get people to consider what I have said and perhaps rethink their position? I'm guessing it won't.

I'm sure everyone is tired of me trying to seek middle ground, but that's just the way I am. If we don't want to spend the rest of our time arguing about semantics, both sides are going to need to give a little. Is being right so important that we are willing to belittle our fellow ATS members? Maybe for some, but it isn't for me.

Anyhoo, now that I've done my little 'Let's all get along' spiel, which I'm sure many of you are sick of hearing, I do have a question. I'd like to know why the idea of a dominant culture doesn't take class into account. Is this something that will change over time, or will it always be an 'us' versus 'them' thing that divides people along racial lines?

I'm not really looking for a textbook answer (although I won't turn my nose up at one), I'm more interested in personal opinions.



edited due to being close to obsessive about spelling.

[edit on 17-2-2007 by Duzey]



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Duzey
The irony of me asking everyone not to be so sensitive is not lost on me.



That is SO adorable!



When I participate in these discussions, I often feel that my thoughts and opinions are glossed over sometimes because people know that I am Ceci's friend.


I just want to be clear that I ALWAYS read your posts with interest. I don't judge you as "Ceci's friend" (although you may be that), I judge you as Duzey, whom I highly respect and adore.



I could lash out and use the
smiley but honestly, is that going to get people to consider what I have said and perhaps rethink their position? I'm guessing it won't.


No, it won't. And to be perfectly honest, I have no desire whatsoever for anyone to change their position. I lost hope of that long ago. When I post on these threads, I'm posting to the board, not necessarily the other posters here.



I'm sure everyone is tired of me trying to seek middle ground, but that's just the way I am.


I am not tired of it. You wouldn't be you if you didn't do that.




I'd like to know why the idea of a dominant culture doesn't take class into account. Is this something that will change over time, or will it always be an 'us' versus 'them' thing that divides people along racial lines?


I'd like to know that answer as well. Because you know what? If we decided to discuss class instead of race, we'd probably find that we're all on the same side!
And then there wouldn't be "2 sides" to discuss!


Duzey, your words and opinions are priceless! Thank you!



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
Facts are facts. In sociology, the majority in a society is called the dominant group.


Unless of course they are not the majority by numbers per se, right? Only as long as they maintain the "power", right?

Seriously man, don't go down with this sinking ship.




[edit on 17-2-2007 by phoenixhasrisin]



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I judge you as Duzey, whom I highly respect and adore.

*blushes*

Thank you.




When I post on these threads, I'm posting to the board, not necessarily the other posters here.

That's a difference between us. When I post, I'm only talking to the people in the thread. After all, they are the ones having the discussion.

I know that the chances of me changing anybody's opinion are slim to non-existant. If I could get even one person to look at something in a different way because of my posts, I'd consider that a very high success rate.


Duzey, your words and opinions are priceless!

And for everything else, there's Mastercard...




posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Duzey
When I post, I'm only talking to the people in the thread.


Just to clarify, I said "when I post in THESE threads" meaning the race threads. Yes, I used to post to Ceci and the others in the thread (you remember that) and I still do that on the rest of the board... on other threads, but on THESE threads, the race threads, I'm posting to people who might be reading and not participating in the discussion, because I know it's totally fruitless to post to Ceci, frankly. I have no hope of communicating with her. I even tried at the beginning of this thread to have a real discussion, but again, it was to no avail.

I'm mostly just getting my view out there. When I want to talk seriously about race, I now have other people I can talk to.



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 08:52 PM
link   
Ahh, I get what you're saying.

Unfortunately, I think that there is so much history (yes, I remember) that there is not a lot of hope for productive discussion between the two of you. It happens to the best of us. I also have an ATS member that I can't have a reasonable conversation with due to our personality and posting-style clashes.


Yes, there is someone that Duzey can't be nice to, no matter how hard I try!


Sorry for taking us off topic.......



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Duzey
I also have an ATS member that I can't have a reasonable conversation with due to our personality and posting-style clashes.


You just can not let it go can you? Just let bygones be bygones, please!

Of course I am joking. Duze it is your level headedness and attempts to find middle ground that some of us need from time to time. I have no hard feelings towards any member of this thread, even you friend, and I will continue to push forward to have a civil discussion. Overt discrepancies that are so evident to me are something I will pursue and something that I hope Ceci will address.

It is not the material itself that I dispute. It is quite clear that she is extremely knowledgeable on the subject. However I feel that she generalizes certain issues that can help mold her posts into a solid argument. That combined with continued efforts to duck questions that may contradict her stance is leaving other members, myself included, quite frustrated.

To refer back to something that Skeptic had said back one page, I would like to clarify that we were not implying that the staff was tolerating a member to abide by a different set of standards. What I was implying, can not speak for others, is that the OP had laid out standards for others that intended to post. Those who happened to disagree were chastised for not following these mythical rules that she was attempting to govern this thread with. When we took her posting history into account, she was offended and turned to the staff for assistance on an attack that did not exist. This, and this alone, in my opinion, is what spun this thread into a cycle of off-topic posts. This one included.

When I read posts from Ceci, BH, or Duzey, I see members that are clearly educated on the subject. It is quite clear to me that the three of you carry a level of knowledge that others would hope to share. I do not come hear to argue, I do not come here to ridicule or attack, I come hear with eyes open and ears ready to listen. Even when I appear to be stubborn and pigheaded, I am listening very attentively. The ultimate goal for me here is to learn. For me to learn, I am going to confront overt contradictions and push the limit. This may seem like a personal attack to further my agenda, and maybe that is what it is. Well, it is certainly not a personal attack, but it may be an attempt to further my agenda.

My agenda being that I am looking to learn as much as possible. Even if I disagree, it may help me understand where others are coming from and strengthen my own stance. I'm not hear to change anyone's opinion, I am merely looking to reinforce my own. Through the astute members whom are present in this thread, I look to reinforce.

So I say again, I would love to see some of these contradictions faced so I can continue to learn on an issue that captivates me.

And no TS, I'm not high.


I think some humor is needed. No hard feelings, just trying to shine a light.


[edit on 17-2-2007 by chissler]



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by chissler
You just can not let it go can you? Just let bygones be bygones, please!



Like I said, nobody's perfect.

My post was for everyone on the thread, and everyone includes Ceci and myself. Putting someone on the defensive changes the way they respond to you. I wish I could go into more detail on your post, but I can't. I have a strong aversion to discussing another member's behaviour in the open forums and I won't get involved in it. That's why I always use generalities in my little pleas for harmony.

If you feel Ceci has been inconsistent in her postings, feel free to question her on it. Just be aware that how you ask very much affects how you are answered. But I think that you already know this.

Just call me Switzerland.



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Duzey
If you feel Ceci has been inconsistent in her postings, feel free to question her on it. Just be aware that how you ask very much affects how you are answered. But I think that you already know this.


You and I have chatted quite frequently on these boards. I always try to carry myself with a level of decorum, respect, and open-mindedness. I bemoan to say that at times on this thread, and another recent Social Issues thread, that I may have posted one or two posts that were "lacking" to say the least on the aforementioned. I do little to deny this and I acknowledged the error in my way.

In my opinion, I've politely asked Ceci to acknowledge some of these issues. Because, as I've said, I am looking to reinforce my personal beliefs. Whether they change, or are solidified, I am merely looking for reinforcement on my end of things.

If Ceci feels that my last two or three posts have been disrespectful and another personal attack, then I would expect her to say so. But if you feel they are, please reread a second time. As I would strongly disagree that I've been anything but honest and respectful. By being honest I imply that I may or may not agree with everything that you've said. But even in disagreement, I've attempted to be respectful.

Hopefully in the not too distant future, she has the opportunity to respond.



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 11:31 PM
link   
Damn.

I don't know what to tell you. I keep saying that the sociologists created these terms, yet y'all keep going on about how they're wrong. I don't give a damn, that's not my field of interest. However, it makes you look like a fool when you keep saying "that's not right, those terms aren't synonymous, etc." Like I said, take it up with the sociologists if you disagree with the terms, not me or Ceci.

Is that so hard to understand? Is it really?

As for the class not being connected to race in America, that's BULL. Sure, it's convenient to say "it's the rich people who are the dominant group." But damn, use some common sense; who makes up the majority of the rich people in America? I won't even post evidence that points to which race is clearly represented by the aforementioned statement. From what I've seen said to Ceci, it's just stupid to post evidence for what you say.


BH, you can try to divert this to a class issue if you like, but you ain't conning me. I've seen the numbers...numbers that literally DROPPED MY JAW. But don't worry, you won't see me posting those type of things on here. I really don't care if you want to be pretentious, I know the truth...from both statistics and real life experience. Tell that crap to someone who just fell off the turnip truck.



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 11:39 PM
link   
I will have more to say later. But I have one question:

How can I be generalizing when I have posted sources that have proved my point?

Otherwise, I just have to thank Duzey for her comments. She is right. The discussion is being tainted by personalities. The reason why I took the tactic of posting sources is to eliminate that. But people just keep on throwing their personality into it and delving into the history of the board. I'm sorry that this is the case, but it can only hide their miseducation about how society works when it is not in the eyes of the dominant culture.

The only language that they do know is victimology, in which they use as leverage to make themselves "superior" than others; the language of paternalism is especially used when treating the person of color as a "bad dog who has soiled the rug" while deflecting the comments; and wresting control of the terminology so that the "normal" transmission of culture values, social norms, social values, language and behavior stays the same.

If anything, this conversation has taught me that the "abnormal" is quickly quashed by the attempts to make normality more credible through group solidarity and initimidation through ridiculing and attacking the points instead of trying to absorb them.

All I can say is that the majority that is considered by these respective fields are European, Christian, White, (Hetero-sexual), English Speaking people. Most of the sources, I have posted has been written by white people.

I'm sorry if you think that there is some big agenda. But there isn't. I am trying to solidify my position with using proof.

But your reactions only tell me that the answer is one that you don't like. And you will intimidate me to change my opinion so that you'll feel better.

Sorry. But debate doesn't work that way. :shk:

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

Otoh, my problems with FF have been very long and encompassing. I'm sorry that they unwittingly became a part of this thread. But it is true. Mods and Supermods have had to handle the problem. There's nothing else to say about that. But they are not part of the subject matter and has no place here.



[edit on 18-2-2007 by ceci2006]



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 11:43 PM
link   
Chissler,

I wasn't trying to imply that you haven't been respectful and I have always found you to be so when we have discussed things. I am trying to speak in generalities (which I hate doing) because it is not my habit to discuss individual member's actions in public. That includes yours, so please don't feel that I am pointing my finger at you. I'm not.

It is not my place to respond on Ceci's behalf or defend her actions. If I have something to say specifically to Ceci regarding the way she posts, I will do it via u2u and nobody but the two of us will ever know if an exchange of that nature has or hasn't taken place.

I'm not saying that everyone should follow my lead on that, I'm merely saying that that is a rule that I hold myself to.

I apologize for not making that clearer in my last post.


[edit on 17-2-2007 by Duzey]




top topics



 
6
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join