Uechi-Ryu.com

Discussion Area
It is currently Tue Jul 29, 2014 10:55 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 35 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jun 17, 2006 9:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 17, 2000 6:01 am
Posts: 2813
Location: Massachusetts
cxt wrote:
I think thats part of the problem, in my view, other than the aforementioned criminals and the sterotyped unconstructed "southerner."


Thank you for the phrase "stereotyped unconstructed 'southerner'"...

Growing up in the south, integration occurred when I was in the 4th grade. The school system simply put everyone in elementary school into the formerly "white" elementary school, the former "black" K-12 school became the middle school for everyone, the junior and senior high schools became the place for everyone to go. That was 1968 and we didn't have any riots, didn't have any fights or yelling, didn't have any problems or issues. I had teachers of a number of different racial/ethnic backrounds and they all got the respect the deserved.

Jump ahead a few years and I was in the middle school across town. I remember my social studies teacher (who happened to be black) bringing a TV into the classroom for us to watch. What he wanted us to see was the busses in Boston carrying black school children having bricks thrown at them! None of us could understand what the problem was. I will never forget him telling us that "You remember this, because those yankees always say southerners are all racists. Look at them and think about how things are here with blacks, whites, hispanics, and asians all together in this classroom to learn. You need to learn that sometimes the person who is truly racist is the one that says they're not." And even though that was over 30 years ago, I will never forget the image of the bricks hitting that bus and the crying kids on board... nor will I forget the lesson from Mr. Brown. In fact, that's pretty darn close to verbatim even after all this time!

Anyone who thinks that skin tone has anything to do with superiority/inferiority is an idiot. But there are racial differences. As previously stated, differences are just differences and don't equate to superior or inferior. I don't have to worry about sickle cell, but I also don't ever have to worry about trying to dunk a basketball either. Those are a pro and con from MY DNA. It doesn't make me superior or inferior, just different.

Valkenar wrote:
I used that example because it's the one that resonates most clearly. People are aware of racism. The analogy I made is far more immediately comprehensible than if I had used something like "green-eyed pride" instead.


Using "green-eyed pride" would not have conjured up the negative associations with racism. Those of the PC-ilk, absolutely know that they are bring those negative connotations into the mix when they make this type of statement/argument. It is a tactic that is used and overused, to the point of being disengenuous at best.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2006 1:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2000 6:01 am
Posts: 1348
Location: Somerville, ma.
Panther wrote:
Using "green-eyed pride" would not have conjured up the negative associations with racism. Those of the PC-ilk, absolutely know that they are bring those negative connotations into the mix when they make this type of statement/argument.


Well obviously the negative associations are the point. The reason green-eyed pride wouldn't work is because nobody reads that and instantly recognizes it as a bad. The point was comparing one type of group elitism to another. Nobody would recognize "greene-eyed pride" as a form of elitism so readily, where they do recognize racism as such. But that doesn't mean racism itself is being attributed to someone just because it's used in a comparison.

_________________
- Justin Powell


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2006 6:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 17, 2000 6:01 am
Posts: 2813
Location: Massachusetts
Valkenar wrote:
Well obviously the negative associations are the point. The reason green-eyed pride wouldn't work is because nobody reads that and instantly recognizes it as a bad. The point was comparing one type of group elitism to another. Nobody would recognize "greene-eyed pride" as a form of elitism so readily, where they do recognize racism as such.


I take issue with the entire concept.

It is only considered a "negative" with the negative associations and connotations if the phrase is a support of "white" pride uttered by a "white" person, while those negative connotations/associations are not associated with "black" pride from a "black" person, "hispanic" pride from a "hispanic" person, "jewish" pride, or any non-white race making the same types of comments. It is only considered "racist" from a white person in the western world. There is an entire PC culture that believes that Louis Farrakhan is not and can not be a racist. His statements clearly indicate to anyone with any intellectual honesty that he is. As I've said before, I think only an idiot would descriminate against someone for the tone of their skin. I am dismayed that if I voice pride in my "white" European heritage/race that I am considered a "racist", but if I voice pride in my non-white native american heritage/race I am not. This breeds resentment from everyone involved. If you believe that "affirmative action" is needed as it currently is enforced (not equal opportunity, but equal outcome), then you believe that certain non-whites can not compete on a level playing field and need an advantage. I disagree with that premise and believe that they can compete on a level playing field, that all should compete on a level playing field. So... Who is the "racist"? The person that believes that the level playing field is the goal or the person who believes that certain minorities need extra special advantages? Hmmmm... Regardless of past history going back 50, 100, 200, or more years, but the fact is that I have not been a part of that and placing a stigma on me because of my light skin tone is simply not right, just or fair. In addition, regardless of those past actions, those attitudes and actions are simply not pervasive and overwhelming today, which means that giving someone an advantage today based on a disadvantage to their ancestors who are no longer living, should not be required. My "native american" parts could make the same claims. Those ancestors had their own "holocaust" and "Bataan death march" equivalents, but I wouldn't seek any special advantage from that, because it has not affected me directly. Nor do I claim any distinctive "race" designation on any government forms. There is a strong reason for that. I was raised and I believe that anyone who is a hyphenated "american" isn't an "American" at all. As for me, I'm an American and I respect my fellow Americans until they show me that they are undeserving of my respect... I am also Human, and the same goes for other Humans... until they show me that they are undeserving of my respect.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2006 7:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2000 6:01 am
Posts: 1348
Location: Somerville, ma.
Panther wrote:
It is only considered a "negative" with the negative associations and connotations if the phrase is a support of "white" pride uttered by a "white" person, while those negative connotations/associations are not associated with "black" pride from a "black" person


That's true, and I agree that it's not fair, and white pride should be equally as viable. While others here seem to disagree (to varying extents) with my statement that white pride and black pride mean different things because of historical context, I think it's hard to deny the very different origins and nature of those movements.

Quote:
There is an entire PC culture that believes that Louis Farrakhan is not and can not be a racist. His statements clearly indicate to anyone with any intellectual honesty that he is.


I agree with you. A lot of the problem comes down to imprecise use of terms. I.E. when people say "racism" they usually mean "racism against black-skinned people" which does result in the the problem that people then don't understand how racism could apply to white-skinned people. Some even go to the extreme that says anything bad that happens to white people is fair because of what happened in the past. Obviously that is insanity.

On the other hand, if one is reaping the benefits from atrocities committed by one's ancestors, I do think it's reasonable to at least acknowledge that. Sure there's a statute of limitations on culpability, but if my grandfather stole a million dollars and it eventually got passed down to me, I'd still feel more sympathetic to the needs of whoever he stole that money from than I would if it weren't in my posession.

_________________
- Justin Powell


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 5:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 5:29 pm
Posts: 1221
Val

Thats exactly why its such a complex topic.

The notion of "collective guilt" is hard to overcome.

In the small scale its absurdly easy to make the point.

Say I track you down and say:

"Your great grandfather stole 1 million dollars from my great grandfather---so I'm going to take your house and all you stuff and kill you for his crimes."

Most people catch on pretty qucik that hold children etc "rsponsible" for the crimes of their parents is simply not justice at all.

And if people ARE going to do so--where does it stop?

One of the truly tragic realities of history is that EVERYONE tended to oppress and enslave and steal and kill when ever they could get away with doing so.

You take the "million bucks" from me because my great-grandfather stole it from YOUR great-randfather, then someone ELSE showsup because of some wrong commited by your great-grandfather back in the old country, and so on and so forth...............

Things get some twisted into knots its hard to sort them out.

Writers, Sowell and Dinesh D'Souza noted that although the West is unquestionably gulity of slavery.

Western nations (GB and the USA mainly) are really the only nations that actually fought to end the slave trade world wide.
The only large scale group of people that could have owned slaves DECIDING to spend vast sums of money and being willing to kill and die to end the practice.

We have, and should have been, condemed for being slave-owners.

But by the same token, should we not also be praised for taking drastic steps to end the practice world wide?

If were going to hold people "culpable" in terms of guilt over what our great-grandparents MAY have done.

Then should we not also take pride in their actions as well?

Does one wash the sins of the other?

I honestly don't know.

All I do know is that its a tough problem.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 35 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group