US: A Nation of Cowards on Racial Matters

[beemerman2k]

Polo: Great post! You took out all the difficulty and the many angles and put it down in a straightforward manner.

 

Can fix me up with Hallie Berry? I promise not to embarrass you.

 

Pilgrim, if I had access to that woman, you'd all know it by now. Aside from the huge smile on my face, I'd be showing up at all the rally's and unrally's with a partner in tow and a new BMW every time :smile:

 

OK, so maybe there are portions of the USA that are not represented on this forum, but to the degree that there are I am very impressed with the level of insight everyone has to this issue, and to the sacred ideals we share as Americans.

 

Pilgrim, you always "got it"! Maybe you learned a few new twists here and there, but I think you "got it" long before you met me. Hell, I'm tryin' to learn from you, partner!

[DavidEBSmith]

Political correctness in my opinion is what keeps differences present. If I need to think about what I should call this or that person, then I can't stop thinking about them as different.

 

Please, anybody who throws the phrase "political correctness" around, read George Orwell's "Politics and the English Language", especially the section on "meaningless words", and tell us what you mean.

 

People are different. Different doesn't necessarily mean better or worse. Different can teach us new things and give us new perspectives. But part of the difference is history. People are the product of their history, though that doesn't mean they have to be the prisoner of their history.

 

We can't just pretend that history didn't happen. There are wounds in this country that are still too deep for that. Within my lifetime, black people couldn't drink at the same drinking fountain I could. Within our President's lifetime, his parents couldn't have married in many states. There are people alive who haven't gotten past those times and probably won't until they die. History won't fade away because we ignore it. History will fade away when we pay attention to it and try to work past it.

 

To go back to the beginning of the thread, I don't believe that we're all as color-blind as we'd like to think we are. I don't believe that society is as color-blind as we'd like it to be. The first step of a 12-step program is to be honest about your failure. Race is an uncomfortable issue, and we're afraid of it and we'd all really like it to go away, but pretending it's not an issue won't make it go away. No matter how well-intentioned or well-meaning or liberal-minded each of us is, we all have to be open to the possibility that we still have something to learn, and we have to keep in mind the likelihood that not everybody is as well-intentioned as we are.

 

We all need to stop patting ourselves on the back about how far we've come, and look down the road to see how far we still have to go. Open, honest, understanding, and brave dialog is what we all need.

 

 

 

[SweetP]

David,

 

As wary as I am of some of the information in Wikipedia and its progeny, I think it fairly sums up 'political correctness' as 'behavior seen as seeking to minimize offense to gender, racial, cultural, disabled, aged or other identity groups'. Then one could continue ad nauseam defining each of those words. Each of us is free to define PC but none of us is unfamiliar with it and few have ever NOT used it. You yourself use the term 'liberal-minded', which I suspect would not yield a universal definition.

 

If you wish to not pat yourself on the back on how far you've come, you may, but I'm rather pleased with myself for the changes I've gone through to get to where I am. Yes, old habits do indeed die hard so I'm no angel, but I try.

 

I doubt that 'history will fade away', a literal impossibility, nor should we wish it to do so. 'Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it'. That would be tragic.

[beemerman2k]

To me, there are at least 2 components to discuss when studying race in America: history and current events. History is critical if we wish to understand how things came to be the way they are. The only caution, of course, is that we need to be careful as to whose history we read and of the motives of the historian. But assuming we are basing our views on a good and reasonably objective historian, we can come to understand how things got to be the way they are.

 

But we must also be careful because history often measures past events and societies against today’s social ethics, and that then prompts an unfair reading of that past. Furthermore, we must learn about human history, and not just African/European/American history. I say that because the wider the view we have of past events the better context we have to examine where our own history falls on the ethical map of human kind so to speak.

 

I say this because I have read more than once that, "the United States has the bloodiest and most racially evil history known to man". When I read such sentiments I think one of two things: either this writer is trying to push an agenda or this writer is not at all aware of the greater history of humankind. I can read my Judeo-Christian Bible and find cultures that wouldn't even consider ours worthy of mention on the scale of evil human history (Egypt for obvious reasons, Assyria, too: what was it they sacrificed to their god Molech? That's right, their first born child.). In fact, we need not necessarily look to history; we can simply judge our ancestors by the yardstick of today's current events. How does our slave past stack up to what's happening in the country of Zimbabwe? Somalia? Sudan? Can anyone really say one is "better" than the other? Which would you choose if you had to?

 

Well, at least the starving masses in Africa who are subject to all manner of horrific events are free. Yes, that's an important characteristic for sure, but would you rather have 5 or 10 or 20 or 30 years of a free life of pain and starvation or a long life as a slave in a country whose ideals mandate that the nation must work to end your plight and to see you through to full citizenship? I'm not saying there is a right or wrong answer to that question. I am only saying that you have to pick your poison, but it's all poison with none any more poisonous than the other. Keith Richburg, a black American journalist based in Detroit, MI, wrote a book entitled, "Out of America", in which he examines these very questions. His controversial conclusion -- controversial in the eyes of many black sociologist and historians anyhow -- is that whatever evils brought his family to America, he thanks God he's here. When he observes, as a journalist, the horrors of life in Africa, he feels the poison of slavery did indeed have potentially worse alternatives for the descendants of those who were left behind.

 

Another important point we all need to appreciate (and this fact is not at all obvious to blacks) is the history of our European brothers. I wasn't at all aware until my college years that the Irish and the Scottish suffered oppression under the English. I wasn't aware until my 30's of the genocide the Armenians suffered under the Turks, or that the Slavic region is so named because "Slav" means "Slave". These facts helped me to understand that us versus them oppression has been here in all forms long before humans learned that there were other humans of different races on this planet. I can also examine how other cultures have dealt with their oppression for better or for worse, and copy those aspects that I value.

 

OK, so let's say we have an appreciation for history, and we understand how things got to be this way.

 

The other side of the conversation concerns how we deal with today's biases against people because of various criterion such as race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or height as tallman pointed out. Regardless of history -- in fact, let's forget about history for a minute -- how important is a sense of equality to us as a society? How much do we value measuring each other by the content of our character rather than the color of our skin or the gender of our souls or the beliefs of our hearts? And this is the real question at hand, isn't it?

 

To me, history is critically important in helping me to understand how we came to be the way we are. Some read history and walk away angry at all they have learned. That is trajic in my view because to me, you have not fully thought out what you have read. That, or you have a lot more learning to do! But whether we are aware of history or not, we still have to deal with today.

 

OK, so what's my point? I love what DavidEBSmith has to say because he has an appreciation for history, and he understands how things came to be this way. That understanding drives him to make sure we don't rest on our laurels, the calling is way too important to finish the job half way and then call it a day. But I also love what Polo and SweetP seem to argue, that regardless of yesterday, we still have to be what we need to be today, which I don't believe DavidEBSmith would at all disagree with.

 

What a great thread

 

[Whip]

How do ya feel about reparations ???

 

 

[smiller]

How do ya feel about reparations ???

Aw, don't tell me you're pushing that idea again...

 

 

[Whip]

How do ya feel about reparations ???

Aw, don't tell me you're pushing that idea again...

 

 

 

For Armenians living in Texas.....only.

 

[Les is more]

This is a marvelous thread.

 

We all need to stop patting ourselves on the back about how far we've come, and look down the road to see how far we still have to go. Open, honest, understanding, and brave dialog is what we all need.

 

Well said Eebie.

 

 

 

I've always felt that the growing pains of dealing with prejudice are a little like the awkwardness of adolescence when you're trying to figure out the complexities of dealing with a member of the opposite sex--What do you say--where do you look--what's acceptable--how do you start a dialog--whats the secret handshake or password required to start a relationship?

 

This piece from The Onion had me rotfl at it's portayal of those awkward feelings.

 

 

 

 

[bendbill]

Thanks, beemerman2K, for emphasizing history. Very interesting and necessary contexts. And to Whip for bringing up reparations.

 

Both your points remind me of how eastern/Midwestern urban views, and Southern views vary from those of many of us educated in other regions. Of course, then there are you Texans, but that's another problem altogether

 

Many folks schooled in the Northwest and Southwest have a different slant on race, at least in relation to history. Just last week I was re-reading Patricia Nelson Limerick’s The Legacy of Conquest: The Unbroken Past of the American West. The most popular of the New historians of the 80’s, she rapidly became one of the standard American historians of the West. Her overarching thesis: politics, regionalism, corporations and national business interests were inextricably intertwined with 19th- and 20th century race relations. And our race relations, by the way, were different than “back” East, or among the South’s “peculiar” problems.

 

Consider her account of California’s and Oregon’s 1865 arguments against the 15th Amendment: “If we make the African a citizen,” argued an Oregon newspaper, “we cannot deny the same right to the Indian and the Mongolian.” Kinda shows where their real worries lay.

 

Although westerners were anti-slavery, they were not welcoming to the small number of blacks who moved here in the 19th century. However, depending on where one lived, people on this half of the continent were often more concerned with various American Indian tribes, Mexicans, the “heathen Chinee,” and those wicked Mormons, though we could count on Midwestern people lynching the Mormon’s founder, Joseph Smith—hence their move to Utah.

 

Then there were the Japanese. I was raised in California schools and universities: reparations meant compensating Japanese Americans detained in prison camps during WW2. Later, I believe, it came to mean compensating descendants of American slaves. And just reading the chop-logic of Earl Warren and William O. Douglas promoting the internment of the entire California Japanese population is alternately embarrassing, sad, and amusing, if one likes to make fun of fatuous reasoning.

 

In sum, I find historians' accounts of race to be more complex, yet satisfying, than the pronouncements of many other sources in the popular media.

 

[beemerman2k]

Leslie: that Onion piece is too funny!

 

In a way, it's quite true, too. Only I don't mind it one bit.

 

However, I do wonder what's coming if Obama really screws up. I might have to stay home and board up the windows

[beemerman2k]

Bill, having lived in both Arizona in the 80's and Los Angeles for about 3 years this decade, I appreciate that the views on race out there are quite different then that which we have back East.

 

Now I'm for an open society and all, but who let an ST1300 owner in here?! C'mon folks, we do have our standards, don't we? :smile:

 

(Yes, I'm jealous. That's a sweet lookin' bike you got there, Bill )

[MotorinLA]

Beemerman2k wrote:

Well, at least the starving masses in Africa who are subject to all manner of horrific events are free. Yes, that's an important characteristic for sure, but would you rather have 5 or 10 or 20 or 30 years of a free life of pain and starvation or a long life as a slave in a country whose ideals mandate that the nation must work to end your plight and to see you through to full citizenship? I'm not saying there is a right or wrong answer to that question. I am only saying that you have to pick your poison, but it's all poison with none any more poisonous than the other. Keith Richburg, a black American journalist based in Detroit, MI, wrote a book entitled, "Out of America", in which he examines these very questions. His controversial conclusion -- controversial in the eyes of many black sociologist and historians anyhow -- is that whatever evils brought his family to America, he thanks God he's here. When he observes, as a journalist, the horrors of life in Africa, he feels the poison of slavery did indeed have potentially worse alternatives for the descendants of those who were left behind.

 

 

Let's see if this spices up the conversation...

 

It is interesting to me to observe the change of vernacular from "Blacks" to "African-American" in the United States. Most African-Americans are far removed from people in Africa today. It makes me wonder if people who emigrated directly out of Africa within the last 30 years are proud of the way African-Americans are ‘representing Africa’. In my experience (generalizing, of course), immigrants from Africa are humble, soft-spoken and non-confrontational. This is a stark contrast to the loud, in-your-face attitude that I commonly observe displayed by many African-Americans in the Los Angeles area. IMO putting on traditional African garb and superficially emphasizing your African heritage is a far cry from truly embracing the African culture. It seems more like a gimmick than a true attempt at capturing the spirit of Africa.

 

On a side note, the Black community must have more power than it thinks, considering that 12% of the population of our country can make 82% of the population worried about what to call them…

[Dave in Doodah]

I have to agree with this... my ancesters came here from Germany and Ireland, but I am caucasian...? I am getting ripped off.

[DavidEBSmith]

In my experience (generalizing, of course), immigrants from Africa are humble, soft-spoken and non-confrontational.

 

I used to do cab license revocation hearings. I think I'd have to disagree with you on that generalization.

 

On the original point, which is echoed by a quote from Booker T. Washington in the Wikipedia page on reparations that somebody linked to, I think the question of "did they end up better coming here as slaves than staying there in Africa?" is a false dichotomy. What if Africans had been brought here voluntarily, as indentured servants, who gained their freedom after a certain number of years, like many white folks were? (Indeed, that blacks became slaves and whites became indentured servants was arguably one of the major social dividing forces between the races). What if they had brought over as free settlers? That gets into a whole bunch of what ifs - what if there weren't slaves to work on the plantations, what if there wasn't the economic growth in the American colonies created by the Triangular Trade, what if Africans weren't able to profit off selling war captives into slavery and had to turn to some other economic engine, like agriculture, that was better for long-term development? But to say slavery was better than staying in Africa is like saying having one eye poked out is better than having both poked out. It may be, but not if there is a third option of having none poked out, and it doesn't make it desirable.

[beemerman2k]

It makes me wonder if people who emigrated directly out of Africa within the last 30 years are proud of the way African-Americans are ‘representing Africa’.

 

If the level of support for Barack Obama on the continent of Africa is any indication, then I'd say, absolutely.

 

In my experience (generalizing, of course), immigrants from Africa are humble, soft-spoken and non-confrontational. This is a stark contrast to the loud, in-your-face attitude that I commonly observe displayed by many African-Americans in the Los Angeles area. IMO putting on traditional African garb and superficially emphasizing your African heritage is a far cry from truly embracing the African culture. It seems more like a gimmick than a true attempt at capturing the spirit of Africa.

 

When you see African nationals at large in American society, you usually only see 1 or 2 of them out there making their way in a foreign land. I would suggest, however, that you go to some African gatherings in the LA area. You will not see a group of humble, soft spoken people! Are you kidding me? You will see the most energetic and boisterous crowd around. And I hope you like to dance, because you'll have to come prepared to expend a lot of energy on the dance floor to some absolutely great music.

 

On a side note, the Black community must have more power than it thinks, considering that 12% of the population of our country can make 82% of the population worried about what to call them…

 

And it's high time the rest of us start putting that power to productive use. I loved the line in Obama's speech to Congress last night when he basically said, "...when you drop out of high school, you are not just quitting on yourself. You are quitting on your country!" I do not believe he was voted into office because he is black. He was voted into office because he managed to convince enough people that 1) he is not George Bush and 2) he is up for the job (just my 2 cents, let's not get political here, please). But since he is black, I am all for him using the color of his skin to motivate all youth to get it together and become productive citizens. When Obama says those words about dropping out of high school, he carries with it a tremendous amount of credibility and weight among young people of all colors, but of blacks in particular.

 

And I think you, MotorinLA, and I both would love to see these young black youth learn to channel their energies into positive and productive means. After all, someone is going to have to pay off this Stimulus Package......

[beemerman2k]

Interesting that African ancestry should come up in the conversation.

 

I recently traced my ancestry and found some interesting facts:

 

- I am a descendant of Colonel Dubaku from the African nation of Sangala. He served with distinction under the General Zuma, although Zuma’s regime was hostile to the United States. In fact, Dubaku came here to, um, negotiate better relations.

- Dubaku met my mother, who worked at a restaurant, while living in Washington, DC. Unfortunately, my mother was killed in a terrible car accident, where my father, Dubaku, was also gravely injured. For reasons unknown to me, a federal agent took something that was imbedded in my father’s body before he was taken to the hospital. I'll never forget my father's last words to me, "Kill the cockroaches!" Yeah, sure Dad, that's why I wear pointy shoes!

- Strange how history isn’t really past. Last I heard, General Zuma is preparing a terrorist attack on the White House of all places, and that attack will commence this Monday evening, from 8-10PM, and will be aired on the Fox television network. Well, rumor has it anyways. We’ll see what actually happens.

- Tradition has it that this one federal agent named, Jack Bauer, is hated by my father and General Zuma, and it is hoped that he will not interrupt the attempted coup in Washington on Monday.

- The really amazing thing is that all this has happened in a period of about 9 hours on one day!

 

Well, that’s all I know for now! :smile:

[Whip]

Dubaku Jr.

 

 

I'm sure glad I watched that on TIVO before you summarized the last episode.

 

This season is better than last.

 

 

Whip

 

 

 

 

[tallman]

David,

If one brings up the Triangle Trade aspect, it is only fair to point out that the overwhelming number of slaves taken from Africa to the New World ended up in places other than what is now the USA.

Over 90% went to other countries.

If we are to discuss race in America in an historical context it might be appropriate to mention the contmeporary differences between "racial matters" in the USA and other nations in the Americas.

There are distinct differences.

[SweetP]

Beemerman,

 

I would add to your reply to Motorman that, if he's talking about Africans he comes into contact with while in uniform, he's facing someone who lives where the police are generally not especially loved. I've been to several countries in Africa and can assure him that going to the police would not be my first thought if I needed help. It's understandable that they would be humble and non-confrontational because that's the way they survive at home vis à vis the police.

 

Speaking of the term 'African-American' or 'Afro-American', I've always been puzzled and, frankly, sort of amused by it. As a certain governor and former VP candidate found out, Africa is not a country, it's a continent, with probably the broadest variety of peoples anywhere. I can't remember anyone I met referring to him/herself as an 'African', but rather to either a tribal or national identity...yes, even one of many other countries from throughout the world. At one time or another, every country in Africa was run by a colonial power. Strictly speaking, a Moroccan, a Kenyan, an Egyptian, a Namibian or a Mozambiquen are all Africans but that's about where the similarity ends. Berber, Masai, Arab, German, or Portuguese, brown, black, white, or oriental, and so on, quite a brochette.

 

I was reminded of the statement that The Champ is widely purported to have said after his fight in Zaire, 'Thank God my granddaddy got on that boat.' But, Zaire, now Dem. Republic of Congo, is a miserable place, so one shouldn't judge all of black Africa by it. Also, a comment that a good friend, a black Ghanan, made regarding black Americans who go to West Africa and kiss the tarmac while saying that they have 'come home', although it is very possible that any slave ancestors came from the other side of the continent. She said that there were thousands upon thousands of people in West Africa who would change places with them in a NY minute.

 

 

[Paul Mihalka]

A bit of different subject, but part of discrimination and prejudice.

Best example of how far the people in the USA have come to have a open mind, It is great that a person, Bobby Jindal, of 100% Indian origin, a native American because his mother was pregnant with him when arrived in the USA, converted from Hindu to Roman Catholic, can get elected to high office and is considered as a possible candidate for President of the United States of America.

I remember that for the election of John F. Kennedy it was considered a problem that he came from a Roman Catholic and not Protestant background. Things have come a long way...

[beemerman2k]

Yes, Paul, that is significant, not to mention that this man is also the governor of the State of Louisiana of all places! It wasn't all that long ago, certainly within my lifetime, when this man and his family would not have felt too welcome down there.

 

Whip: yeah, I guess I should have put a warning on my family history to those who may have missed this week's documenary on The Relations between the United States and the Honorable Regime of General Zuma! :smile:

 

SweetP: if that's what Ali said, imagine what Charles Barkley would have said

[SC_SVRider]

As a mother of two interracial daughters I wonder, (sarcastically at that) if they should be called African-American Indian-Irish-Scottish-Dutch- French-German-Czech-Caucasian Americans. Wow, now try to fit all of that on a college application!

 

We as a nation, well as a world actually, have a need to label people. We do it with children in school, in college, in work, and well life in general. What does it really accomplish? We all know we come from different heritages. We can see we are different in color. Isn’t a person’s values and personality what really matters, not the color of their skin?

 

A simple little incident that showed me how insulated many of us are to the realities of what Eric Holder is talking about. I told my good friend Charles that he is a big beefy stud for not going postal due to the unforgivable ignorance that is in this world. He characteristically brushed it off as it not being a big thing. But it is.

 

Jake – I have dealt with the issues of racism through my daughters. I only hope that Shawn and I have given them a good enough base of instruction as parents to deal with it on their own as your friend did and does every day.

 

I guess it wasn't clear to me whether she felt like Obama's presidency was a victory over racism, or a victory over white people. When the subject of race comes up I'm never really sure, I guess. I get tired of thinking about it sometimes, and wish for King's dream, i.e. that one day none of us will give a rat's ass about skin color.

 

Shawn and I had a long talk with the girls about President Obama, when he was running for President, to ensure that their support of him was not because of his race, but because of his response to the issues this nation faces. They watched all of the debates and the inauguration and it was then that they felt pride in him becoming president. Because they believe he was the best MAN for the job, not because he was interracial. I know not everyone liked him and supported him for that reason, but at least I know my daughters could put facts and their own reasoning behind the man they supported.

 

My youngest daughter was watching the news the other day and noticed how they were referring to him as a “Black President”. She said, “shouldn’t they just be calling him “the President”, the color of his skin shouldn’t matter…“

 

Maybe we did teach her something…

 

 

 

[beemerman2k]

Rainy: I was enjoying the fact that we finally have a black President, and I didn't think I'd ever get tired of hearing about it. But last night during all the commentaries around his speech, I reached a point where I wanted to shout, "OK, enough already! We know what color he is! Let's talk about the nation and his plan for our recovery!"

 

Well, the good news is that going forward there will be no more infatuation for a leader based upon that leader's race or gender, I hope. From now on, hopefully, we'll simply elect a President, and then lampoon him accordingly :smile:

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

From now on, hopefully, we'll simply elect a President, and then lampoon him accordingly :smile:

 

[bobbybob]

I'd say that, after reading thru this LOOONG topic, Holder knew exactly what he was doing when he said what he said. And it WORKED!

[Whip]

I'd say that, after reading thru this LOOONG topic, Holder knew exactly what he was doing when he said what he said. And it WORKED!

 

I think it was all James.

 

I can't give credit for anything to any politician.

 

...maybe Castro.

 

[SweetP]

Oh, pa-leeze, Beemerman! You saying that infatuation based on gender would be history? S'pose Hallie Berry were elected....still feel that way?

[beemerman2k]

Oh, pa-leeze, Beemerman! You saying that infatuation based on gender would be history? S'pose Hallie Berry were elected....still feel that way?

 

 

Infatuation? No, that would be love, sweet, love

[Selden]

From now on, hopefully, we'll simply elect a President, and then lampoon him accordingly :smile:

Not having GWB to kick around any more was one of the big worries of Jon Stewart of The Daily Show and similar comedians immediately after the election. No problem!

 

[velomoto]

From now on, hopefully, we'll simply elect a President, and then lampoon him accordingly :smile:

Not having GWB to kick around any more was one of the big worries of Jon Stewart of The Daily Show and similar comedians immediately after the election. No problem!

+1

 

[DavidEBSmith]

Well, the good news is that going forward there will be no more infatuation for a leader based upon that leader's race or gender, I hope. From now on, hopefully, we'll simply elect a President, and then lampoon him accordingly :smile:

 

Well . . .

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/02/25/national/main4827964.shtml?tag=topHome;topStories

 

The mayor of Los Alamitos is coming under fire for an e-mail he sent out that depicts the White House lawn planted with watermelons, under the title "No Easter egg hunt this year."

. . .

Grose confirmed to the AP that he sent the e-mail to Price and said he didn't mean to offend her. He said he was unaware of the racial stereotype that black people like watermelons.

. . .

"I'm sorry. It wasn't sent to offend her personally - or anyone - from the standpoint of the African-American race."

 

 

Oy.

[Selden]

"First Dog will be a rescued Portuguese water dog, says Michelle Obama."

 

QED. I hope this doesn't offend fans of PWDs.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

 

Oy.

 

Wow.

 

If he truly was unaware of the stereotype (unlikely), then that means he forwarded a cartoon he really didn't understand, then he's the King of Dumb for forwarding it.

 

We've seen how the Post cartoon could be fitted with numerous interpretations, but I'm struggling to come up with more than one interpretation here, namely the stereotype that black folks are especially fond of watermelon.

 

Is that an offensive stereotype?

[beemerman2k]

I remember when Tiger Woods was ascending to the top of the golf world, there were racist jokes being told about him. Wasn't there something about if he won the Masters, fried chicken would be served as the main course or something like that? Well, Tiger went out there and kicked their butts, and then again, and again, and again, and... Strange, but I don't hear those jokes being told about Tiger Woods anymore

 

Barack Obama is going to have to do the same thing. His plans are going to have to be so successful that it silences even his greatest critics. If he manages to turn this economy around in short order in a way that lasts, then the jokes won't be at all funny anymore.

 

No pressure or anything Obama, but you can consider this yet one more straw on your back that you have to carry every day.

[Dave McReynolds]

Barack Obama is going to have to do the same thing. His plans are going to have to be so successful that it silences even his greatest critics. If he manages to turn this economy around in short order in a way that lasts, then the jokes won't be at all funny anymore.

 

It's important to realize what people can do and what people can't do. Nobody can turn the economy around. No group of people can turn the economy around. The economy will turn itself around in the "fullness of time."

 

What a person can do is to give other people hope. Like or hate what FDR's PROGRAMS did during the depression, what HE did was to give people hope, and that's why he would have been reelected for as long as he lived. If Obama can do as much, that's worth something.

[DavidEBSmith]

We've seen how the Post cartoon could be fitted with numerous interpretations, but I'm struggling to come up with more than one interpretation here, namely the stereotype that black folks are especially fond of watermelon.

 

Is that an offensive stereotype?

 

Well, this page from the (no sh*t) Jim Crow Museum of Racist Memorabilia at Ferris State University says it is:

 

It became part of the image perpetuated by a white culture bent upon bolstering the myth of superiority by depicting the inferior race as lazy, simple-minded pickaninnies interested only in such mindless pleasures as a slice of sweet watermelon.

 

On edit: That quote, out of context, may trigger some people to start mumbling about whiny liberal political correctness. There's a lot more on that page, some of which is so offensive, I wouldn't quote it. Read the jokes quoted and tell me there's no harm meant.

 

It also says that blacks eat less watermelon than the national average, possibly to avoid the stereotype, which makes it even better that the stereotype is stupid and factually incorrect.

 

On the other hand, I was watching The Matrix Reloaded on BET tonight, and it did seem like there were a lot of commercials for KFC and Popeyes. None for grape drink, though there was one for Welch's Grape Juice, and none for watermelon.

[Polo]

 

Oy.

 

Wow.

 

If he truly was unaware of the stereotype (unlikely), then that means he forwarded a cartoon he really didn't understand, then he's the King of Dumb for forwarding it.

 

We've seen how the Post cartoon could be fitted with numerous interpretations, but I'm struggling to come up with more than one interpretation here, namely the stereotype that black folks are especially fond of watermelon.

 

Is that an offensive stereotype?

 

Yes, he was unaware, right. And the Pope is Jewish.

 

Like I said, when I try to keep my friends sensitivity in mind, I don't offer my black friend either Fried Chicken, nor to go for a swim...

 

Likewise, I expect them not to offer me Tacos, or "conqueso" (What the hell is "conqueso"?)

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

Like I said, when I try to keep my friends sensitivity in mind, I don't offer my black friend either Fried Chicken, nor to go for a swim...

 

 

Likewise, I expect them not to offer me Tacos...

 

Why not? You don't like tacos?

 

Does your black friend not like fried chicken?

 

It's a shame if awareness of a stereotype is the thing that keeps you from enjoying tacos (or your black friend from enjoying fried chicken).

 

 

[Polo]

Like I said, when I try to keep my friends sensitivity in mind, I don't offer my black friend either Fried Chicken, nor to go for a swim...

 

 

Likewise, I expect them not to offer me Tacos...

 

Why not? You don't like tacos?

 

Does your black friend not like fried chicken?

 

It's a shame if awareness of a stereotype is the thing that keeps you from enjoying tacos (or your black friend from enjoying fried chicken).

 

 

If you're buying, you can chose the menu.

[beemerman2k]

Wow, look at what I found on Yahoo news this morning:

 

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

LOS ALAMITOS, Calif. – The mayor of a small Southern California city says he will resign after being criticized for sharing an e-mail picture depicting the White House lawn planted with watermelons under the title "No Easter egg hunt this year."

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090227/ap_on_re_us/mayor_watermelon_e_mail

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

 

Seems a bit harsh to me at first glance. On the other hand, if one of his police officers ends up shooting an unarmed man under questionable circumstances, and then walks, the riots would be unbelievable and this Mayor would be used as having set the racial climate for the city.

 

Still, seems to me a simple, heartfelt apology would have sufficed :confused:

[tallman]

Did you notice this link on the page the article is on?

[Polo]

Wow, look at what I found on Yahoo news this morning:

 

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

LOS ALAMITOS, Calif. – The mayor of a small Southern California city says he will resign after being criticized for sharing an e-mail picture depicting the White House lawn planted with watermelons under the title "No Easter egg hunt this year."

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090227/ap_on_re_us/mayor_watermelon_e_mail

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

 

Seems a bit harsh to me at first glance. On the other hand, if one of his police officers ends up shooting an unarmed man under questionable circumstances, and then walks, the riots would be unbelievable and this Mayor would be used as having set the racial climate for the city.

 

Still, seems to me a simple, heartfelt apology would have sufficed :confused:

 

We don't know what pressure has been exerted on him, nor from what sources, but I disagree with you, I would not be satisfied with an apology. To say something like "I didn't know that XYZ had a hidden meaning" is just a puny display of ballessness (my word) and hypocrisy.

 

To err in human, but to be childish and stupid is unacceptable from a politico. While working at a State agency, an innordionate amount of managerial time went to police use of government equipment for personal purposes. Frankly, if a tenth of that effort would have been applied towards getting things done and improved, we'd have a model government. Yet, thi sman evidently has the time to use his computer to forward jokes? He has too much time on his hand; I would conclude that his community is not being well served.

[REVz]

Clint Eastwood weighs in here

 

sorry if this has already been posted...

 

As Homer Simpson once said, "Is there anything those people in Hollywood don't know?"

[DavidEBSmith]

Clint Eastwood weighs in here

 

 

The Dirty Harry star insists that he should be able to tell harmless jokes about nationality without fearing that people may brand him "a racist".

 

So he thinks he should be able to do what he wants without accepting any personal responsibility for the consequences.

 

In those earlier days every friendly clique had a 'Sam the Jew' or 'Jose the Mexican' - but we didn't think anything of it or have a racist thought.

 

Yeah, Clint, you didn't think about it all, and probably never asked Sam the Jew or Jose the Mexican how they felt about their nicknames. What quaint moniker would you have used if DeWayne was in your friendly clique?

 

I think it's ironic that Clint and his end of the political spectrum are always whining about how "liberals" are self-absorbed, and his whole comment can be summarized as "I want to say whatever I want without having to care if it offends somebody else". Sorry if it's too much trouble to think about other people's feelings. What an a**.

 

[Pilgrim]

I think it's ironic that Clint and his end of the political spectrum are always whining about how "liberals" are self-absorbed, and his whole comment can be summarized as "I want to say whatever I want without having to care if it offends somebody else". Sorry if it's too much trouble to think about other people's feelings. What an a**.

 

Eebie, maybe he wants the same thing I do. That's the freedom to say whatever I want without having to care if it offends somebody else. Not necessarily to indulge in that freedom thoughtlessly, for self-censorship is the essence of manners, but to have that freedom, for it's hard to say almost anything any more without offending someone.

 

Pilgrim

[EffBee]

It's hard to say almost anything any more without offending someone.

 

We've been divided and conquered. Rather than a unified country of Americans, we've allowed others to dictate to us how we should feel, how we should be offended, how we should react, how we should complain, how we should sue, how we should be "compensated." We been quartered, sliced and diced as if we're under some giant Popeil Veg-O-matic.

 

EVERYONE is their own group. EVERYONE cannot be spoken about in anything less than glowing terms. EVERYONE should be made to feel good. Every slight, real or perceived, is immediately branded with an -ism. Racism, sexism, genderism, age-ism, weightism, heightism, you name it.

 

Is there hate speech? Sure. And like flag burning it should be allowed so that those who do not wish to associate with the haters can easily identify them. Probably has something to do with the First Amendment, too. But to constantly be LOOKING for offenses is to ignore the differences that identify us as well as unite us. Similarities do not unite us. They only align us. It is the acceptance of the differences, quirks, irregularities, yes even stereotypes we perceive in others, that brings us close. To have each group so separate itself culturally, physically, emotionally, socially that they cannot interrelate for fear that someone might FIND offense where none was intended is divisive, isolating, and destructive to the goal of a truly unified nation. And I can't think of a time in recent history when we've needed to be more unified than now. Yet the divisionists persist. It is, after all, the source of their power.

[Dave McReynolds]

It's hard to say almost anything any more without offending someone.

 

We've been divided and conquered. Rather than a unified country of Americans, we've allowed others to dictate to us how we should feel, how we should be offended, how we should react, how we should complain, how we should sue, how we should be "compensated." We been quartered, sliced and diced as if we're under some giant Popeil Vegematic.

 

EVERYONE is their own group. EVERYONE cannot be spoken about in anything less than glowing terms. EVERYONE should be made to feel good. Every slight, real or perceived, is immediately branded with an -ism. Racism, sexism, genderism, age-ism, weightism, heightism, you name it.

 

Is there hate speech? Sure. And like flag burning it should be allowed so that those who do not wish to associate with the haters can easily identify them. Probably has something to do with the First Amendment, too. But to constantly be LOOKING for offenses is to ignore the differences that identify us as well as unite us. Similarities do not unite us. They only align us. It is the acceptance of the differences, quirks, irregularities, yes even stereotypes we perceive in others, that brings us close. To have each group so separate itself culturally, physically, emotionally, socially that they cannot interrelate for fear that someone might FIND offense where none was intended is divisive, isolating, and destructive to the goal of a truly unified nation. And I can't think of a time in recent history when we've needed to be more unified than now. Yet the divisionists persist. It is, after all, the source of their power.

 

I think that's what happens when judgement is taken out of the equation. Similar to public schools with their "no tolerance" policies, where we read articles occasionally about some child being expelled for giving another child an aspirin for a headache, or some TSA policies on airlines regarding who gets searched or things you can't take on an airplane with you, or in this case, what remarks are acceptable and what remarks are not based solely on the language and not the context in which they were made. It's as if the rules of society have been turned over to computer programers.

[SweetP]

I kinda agree with Clint. The Humor River is down to a trickle. Jane Fonda (Whoa! I don't believe I'm quoting HER) once said that she didn't find humorous any joke that made fun of someone. If that element is eliminated, you're left with the bear and the bunny rabbit jokes that are cute, but no one rolls in the aisles like they did at Richard Pryor gigs or Mel Brooks films.

 

People 'these days' are just too thin-skinned. Lighten up, have a giggle, laugh at yourself. There are more important issues that need addressing rather than sterilizing humor.

 

 

 

[DavidEBSmith]

I think it's ironic that Clint and his end of the political spectrum are always whining about how "liberals" are self-absorbed, and his whole comment can be summarized as "I want to say whatever I want without having to care if it offends somebody else". Sorry if it's too much trouble to think about other people's feelings. What an a**.

 

Eebie, maybe he wants the same thing I do. That's the freedom to say whatever I want without having to care if it offends somebody else. Not necessarily to indulge in that freedom thoughtlessly, for self-censorship is the essence of manners, but to have that freedom, for it's hard to say almost anything any more without offending someone.

 

I read this to say:

 

"I should have freedom to say anything I want and you should not have freedom to respond".

 

Presumably you only care if you offend someone if (a) there is a negative impact on you from the other person being offended or (b) you have a moral compunction against causing unnecessary injury to other persons. (b) is an internal prohibition against offending another person, so unless you are complaining that you are restricting your own freedom, you must be talking about (a). So what you are saying is, you should not have to suffer any consequences for saying anything that offends another person. Your freedom to offend trumps the other person's freedom to object to being offended.

 

Presumably, if you were the mayor of Los Alamitos, you would demand the freedom to send out jokes about watermelons and blacks and would demand that no one have the freedom to object, point out the obvious racial insult, make fun of you, call you mean names, or refuse to vote for you at the next election. How else is your "freedom" being infringed upon, other than through the natural consequences of your actions?

 

The problem I have with the extreme individualist viewpoint is that it only pays lip service to the rights of others to have their freedoms not be injured by your exercise of your freedoms. There is no principled reason that you should have the right to express an insult and I should not have a right to be offended and to express my offense. There is no just reason that your choice to say "blacks like watermelons" should trump my choice to say "you are an idiot for saying blacks like watermelons and I don't think you should be mayor of my town".

 

I really don't see what freedom of yours is being infringed if your actions have consequences. If I go onto Folks turf and want to shout People slogans, is my freedom to do so being infringed because doing so will get me killed? Should I be hurt that my freedom to offend the Folks at will is being infringed upon?

 

And really, if you did want to say "blacks like watermelons", how is your freedom to do that being infringed? People on this DB would criticize you? Oh, boo hoo. Your neighbors might not like you so much? Comes with the territory of being a rugged individualist. Your government boss might come in and say, you've violated a whole bunch of workplace policies against hate speech and we're going to suspend you? You had the freedom not to work at a place that has hate speech policies. You can go off and live in a cabin like the Unabomber and sit around and offend people all day, but when you do it around people, you should expect that sh*t will happen.

 

What you're saying is that someone else being offended offends you, and you should have the right to not be offended, but the other person shouldn't. You want immunity from being offended for yourself but no one you want to offend should have it.

 

 

[DavidEBSmith]

To have each group so separate itself culturally, physically, emotionally, socially that they cannot interrelate for fear that someone might FIND offense where none was intended is divisive, isolating, and destructive to the goal of a truly unified nation.

 

C'mon. Nobody is really talking about people accidentally offending each other. And before anybody brings up the councilman who didn't know that "black hole" was an astronomical term, nobody really suffered any harm for his stupidity.

 

Making jokes about blacks and watermelons is not accidentally insulting. If it wasn't intentionally insulting, it shows a depth of ignorance of the history of race relations in this country that itself imposes moral culpability. If you don't understand that you're using a symbol that is strongly identified by the minority with hundreds of years of oppression by the majority, you deserve to be verbally pilloried for your ignorance.

 

I think black people in this country have to wonder sometimes, why do white people not understand that symbols like watermelons, monkeys, nooses, Confederate flags, fat mammys, and the N-word have very powerful negative connotations in the context of the black-white relationship? Are they being uncaringly ignorant or intentionally indifferent? By eagerly quoting racial insults from the days of slavery and segregation, are they covertly expressing approval of those days? That's what's isolating and divisive, not somebody saying "Hey, we really don't like it when you say that because it reminds us of the bad old days".

 

If I try to walk into a mosque without taking off my shoes, somebody will point out to me that it's a grave insult to do that. Hopefully, I will take my shoes off because I now understand and because I respect the people in the mosque enough to want to not insult them. Are they being divisive and isolating? If I argue that they're infringing on my freedom to keep my shoes on even if it insults them, and insist on pushing my way in, wouldn't it be reasonable for them to conclude that I'm doing it out of animosity and disrespect?

 

There are some symbols in the black-white relationship that are so powerful, using them out of ignorance is itself an offense. It tells black people that white people really don't know how blacks got to where they are today, what they went though, that we haven't made an effort to know, and that we really don't particularly care to know.