Go Back   Bloggingheads Community > Diavlog comments
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Notices

Diavlog comments Post comments about particular diavlogs here.
(Users cannot create new threads.)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 02-24-2009, 02:08 PM
pampl pampl is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Seattle
Posts: 750
Default Re: Let's Talk About Talking About Race

Quote:
Originally Posted by harkin View Post
One last word on this thread regarding Palin:

Camille Paglia said it much better than I ever could:

"......reporters have been too busy playing mini-badminton with every random spitball about Sarah Palin, who has been subjected to an atrocious and at times delusional level of defamation merely because she has the temerity to hold pro-life views.

How dare Palin not embrace abortion as the ultimate civilized ideal of modern culture? How tacky that she speaks in a vivacious regional accent indistinguishable from that of Western Canada! How risible that she graduated from the University of Idaho and not one of those plush, pampered commodes of received opinion whose graduates, in their rush to believe the worst about her, have demonstrated that, when it comes to sifting evidence, they don't know their asses from their elbows.

Liberal Democrats are going to wake up from their sadomasochistic, anti-Palin orgy with a very big hangover. The evil genie released during this sorry episode will not so easily go back into its bottle. A shocking level of irrational emotionalism and at times infantile rage was exposed at the heart of current Democratic ideology -- contradicting Democratic core principles of compassion, tolerance and independent thought. One would have to look back to the Eisenhower 1950s for parallels to this grotesque lock-step parade of bourgeois provincialism, shallow groupthink and blind prejudice.

I like Sarah Palin, and I've heartily enjoyed her arrival on the national stage. As a career classroom teacher, I can see how smart she is -- and quite frankly, I think the people who don't see it are the stupid ones, wrapped in the fuzzy mummy-gauze of their own worn-out partisan dogma. So she doesn't speak the King's English -- big whoop! There is a powerful clarity of consciousness in her eyes. She uses language with the jumps, breaks and rippling momentum of a be-bop saxophonist. I stand on what I said (as a staunch pro-choice advocate) in my last two columns -- that Palin as a pro-life wife, mother and ambitious professional represents the next big shift in feminism. Pro-life women will save feminism by expanding it, particularly into the more traditional Third World.

As for the Democrats who sneered and howled that Palin was unprepared to be a vice-presidential nominee -- what navel-gazing hypocrisy! What protests were raised in the party or mainstream media when John Edwards, with vastly less political experience than Palin, got John Kerry's nod for veep four years ago? And Gov. Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas, for whom I lobbied to be Obama's pick and who was on everyone's short list for months, has a record indistinguishable from Palin's."
This is the perfect example of the delusional, raving defensiveness present on the right. It's pretty hypocritical to whine about political correctness stifling talking about race then turn around and rabidly lash out at every criticism - from the left, center, and even the right - of your incompetent vp nominee.

edit: just as a reminder, the "Obama the Magic Negro" guy is still working at the LA Times. At least two conservative pundits were forced to resign for daring to point out how dumb Palin is, and that's over a much smaller slice of time than Obama was on the political stage.

Last edited by pampl; 02-24-2009 at 02:16 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 02-24-2009, 02:59 PM
Salt Salt is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 344
Default Re: Let's Talk About Talking About Race

Quoting pampl: . . .your incompetent vp nominee.

Yeah, Palin can't hold a candle to the Bidens. Renaissance men who can transition seamlessly from lobbying to hedge fund management, because, for them, both involve suction or sucking. Which is worse, the fact that Hunter took investment into his fund from Stanford Financial, or that his fund went belly up in record time? DC parasites and finance, not a good combination.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 02-24-2009, 03:02 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Let's Talk About Talking About Race

Quote:
Originally Posted by harkin View Post
Read my post again, the only protesters I criticized were those seeking to stop someone from speaking. That is suppression of free speech.
Well, one man's suppression of free speech is another's exercise of same. If there is a big movement of people who don't want Person X to be granted a platform at location Y for airing his or her views, that's legitimate, to my mind.

As I've said on numerous occasions, I find it tiresome to hear "suppression of freedom of speech" being played every time one group seeks to shout down another. It may be messy, undignified, or even unfair in some abstract sense, but that's the way it goes in a democracy and in life. The only guarantee of protection of freedom of speech that we have in the US refers to limitations on the government with respect to the citizenry.

Nonetheless, I do accept the spirit, that dissenting views ought to be given a chance, so I am not going to give a blanket pardon to every bunch of rabble-rousers on every college campus ever.

Quote:
Quote:
[me: media treatment for Palin was as fair as could be expected]
Couldn't disagree more. The msm's campaign of concentrated hate for Palin was a new low.
I disagree. I'd say it was at least as bad regarding Clinton during Monicagate, Gore during the 2000 campaign, Dean during the 2004 primaries, Giuliani during the 2008 primaries, and Kucinich every time he runs, just to name five. That some clearly disliked her does not mean they all did, and she had more shamelessly obvious boosters in the media than most pols ever get. Obviously, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

Quote:
Think about the collective audience of those outlets and compare it to CBS, NBC (both news division and entertainment), ABC, PBS, NYTimes, Wash Post, CNN, MSNBC, LATimes, etc etc etc........not even a contest.
That might mean something if all of the outlets you listed were united and unanimously opposed to Palin. That, however, is not at all true. All of those outlets regularly feature conservative commentators and guests, and almost all of them have a fetish for balance when they're doing straight news. And don't get me started on rampant High Broderism.

Also, to my mind, I thought they were entirely too uncritical of Palin in the beginning, and had she (or the campaign) not so completely shut herself off from them, they might never have roused themselves to be properly skeptical.

I'll grant that toward the end, the tide was against her. On the other hand, as I said in my last, a lot of that is on her, her history, how she conducted herself, and how the campaign managed her. As with McCain's complaints, at some point, you have to just say, look, here's the news: you screwed up, your numbers are down, and it's not biased to report those facts.

Finally, a lot of what made things look like "the media was against her" toward the end is that many conservatives -- Will, Frum, Parker, Krauthammer, Noonan, Buckley, for example -- had finally thrown up their hands and said, effectively, "After watching for the past six weeks, we feel she's not ready for the job." And on top of that, as her poll numbers plummeted, the Villagers did what they always do -- followed suit. As the old joke goes:

Q: How do you tell who the leaders are in Washington?
A: They're the ones at the back of the stampeding herd.

Quote:
The most amazing thing of all is that liberals wish to stamp out talk radio because they deem it 'unfair'.
The most amazing thing is that you think this is true. Trust me on this one: the Fairness Doctrine is never, ever, ever coming back. Liberals, by and large, don't support it, or certainly, wouldn't, if it ever became a serious matter for debate. No sane person thinks any longer that it's possible to "balance" viewpoints, especially in this age of media fragmentation. No one wants to set up another giant agency whose mission would be impossible to define and even harder to carry out.

Do I sometimes dream of Rush Limbaugh, et al, acquiring permanent cases of laryngitis? Sure. I dream. But no one is serious about trying to push this into law. (By "no one" I mean "no significant number of people." I'm sure you can find a few misguided souls who think this is a good idea, or could be made to work.) In fact, now that I think about it, I'm sometimes happy as a clam about Rush being the face of the GOP.

Finally, don't believe it when Schumer, et al, drop hints about it. They're blowing smoke, just to watch the usual suspects squirm. Or, at most, they're laying down a sham marker in hopes of being able to trade it for something real somewhere down the road. Including, not to put too fine a point on it, fat campaign contributions from Clear Channel and other radio behemoths.

Quote:
Actually, and you never said if you read the article or not, ...
I did not. I just responded to the excerpt you offered. I've since skimmed it, but I can't make myself study yet another hagiography about someone whom I thoroughly dislike. Sorry.

Quote:
... I'm not saying that and I think you missed the writer's point entirely that being a well-read intellectual does not necessarily translate into being a good leader. The article pointed out Palin's failings rather well (I did not support either ticket as I did not deem either fit for office).
If you insist. I'd call what he did "glossed over and minimized to the extent possible, and where the facts are beyond dispute, played those up in one place in an attempt to buy himself some cred." From what I could manage to get through, it sounded like he's pretty much still singing off the same page he was last August.)

I completely agree "that being a well-read intellectual does not necessarily translate into being a good leader." That does not mean, however, that I think that someone who is not well-read or an intellectual therefore has a leg up. Some people have street smarts and people skills and an innate ability to lead, no question. But some people who have an Ivy League education and a voracious appetite for books do, too. And just as it's possible to come up with examples of ivory tower denizens completely out of touch with the average citizen, so is it possible to come up with examples of people who didn't go to a fancy college who are just as out of touch, due to lack of exposure to the rest of the country and world, or a provincial outlook, or a kneejerk dislike for "Easterners," "the elite," what have you.

Presumably, these two aspects (reading history and college degree) of a resumé are not the only things we have to judge a candidate by.

I'll add that a key thing for me when evaluating someone's smarts is less which authors he or she can name-check and what sheepskins are hanging on his or her wall, but what evidence of intellectual curiosity and self-awareness of limitations is displayed. Palin appeared to me, every single time I heard her talk, like Bush on steroids regarding an attitude of "I've got it all figured out, I know what I need to know, God will lead me through the rest." I know it's poison for a politician to get sound-bitten by saying, "I don't know," but those who are unable to convey that sense of, "Yeah, I'll have to brush up on this" scare me. Palin terrifies me.

Quote:
I'm not arguing for a better treatment of Palin because I wanted McCain to win, I'm arguing for it because it's the best way to get consistantly better representation.
Do you really think Palin would represent you and your interests well? If so, fine. Nothing I can say against that. All I can say is that she sure doesn't -- and wouldn't -- represent anything close to mine. I'd add that in general, for all the supposed populism the GOP has displayed to win that certain demographic, they sure haven't delivered a whole lot to them. (e.g.) I see Palin as no different from any other ambitious pol in this regard -- wears the Carhartt, talks huntin', really only cares about her own quest for power.

Quote:
Think what the msm would have further done to Palin had she uttered some of the ridiculous things Joe Biden said on the campaign trail, but which were washed over because he was on the 'right' side of the msm.
Another place where we'll have to agree to disagree. To my mind, Biden suffered two things in during the campaign: not nearly enough coverage when he was out there tearing it up on the stump, and a predisposition to cover him only to catch his next gaffe. He's like Gerald Ford and clumsiness in the latter regard -- the MSM has long since pigeonholed him, and now they only search for data to confirm their theory.

Besides, Palin did utter a lot of ridiculous things. A lot.

Quote:
I didn't ask that Palin be given special treatment, I asked that she be given fair treatment. To say she was is to be delusional.
Once again, nothing to do but A2D. I saw the coverage of her as excessively flattering and uncritical in the beginning, generally even-handed the rest of the way, with those clearly against her offset by those clearly shilling for her. I can't help but see what you call "asking for fair treatment" to mean anything other than "go easy on her weak spots."

Quote:
Hopefully the next great leader that comes from a relatively simple, rural background won't be automatically dismissed as a backwoods animal-killing hick.
And once more, A2D. She wasn't automatically dismissed, in my view. She earned whatever dismissal she got.

And no way is she a great leader.
__________________
Brendan

Last edited by bjkeefe; 02-24-2009 at 03:22 PM.. Reason: wordsmithing
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 02-24-2009, 03:04 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Let's Talk About Talking About Race

Quote:
Originally Posted by harkin View Post
One last word on this thread regarding Palin:

Camille Paglia said it much better than I ever could:
So much for the liberal media being united against Palin.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 02-24-2009, 03:29 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Peter: Obama working at making abortion rarer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sirfith View Post
I am going by the right-wing trope that if the Government funds something you will get more of it.
In that case, you should believe that we'll get more proper sex education and more family planning assistance, too.

Quote:
Maybe Bob can arrange a Diavlog between Ramesh and Amy.
Good idea.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 02-24-2009, 03:30 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Let's Talk About Talking About Race

Quote:
Originally Posted by Salt View Post
Quoting BJ: Don't know if you read my reply to harkin, specifically the part that addressed this very question. If not, please do. If so, are you therefore asserting that those were not my real friends?

Suddenly I am reminded of Dave Gray and Hospital Food. If there are people out there who are physically detained, on thorazine, or possess super-human empathy and listening skills, they could in theory be your real friends.
Haven't the foggiest what you're talking about.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 02-24-2009, 03:38 PM
Dee Sharp Dee Sharp is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 32
Default Re: Let's Talk About Talking About Race

I could listen to many people talk about the culture war if I so chose, but few of them would bring up Hunter and Bismarck. This is why I'm a BHTV fan.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 02-24-2009, 04:01 PM
graz graz is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,162
Default Re: Let's Talk About Talking About Race

Quote:
Originally Posted by harkin View Post
[/I] So she doesn't speak the King's English -- big whoop! There is a powerful clarity of consciousness in her eyes. She uses language with the jumps, breaks and rippling momentum of a be-bop saxophonist.[/I]
Sarah-ebonics Palin-drones.

Did you have a decoder ring to parse and reconstruct her words, so as to make sense of them? Or do you and Camille share a gut level vision?
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 02-24-2009, 04:23 PM
Tara Davis Tara Davis is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 193
Default Re: Let's Talk About Talking About Race

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exeus99 View Post
That's probably not how you want to talk about it, though, 'cause then we're back to calling something (the status quo, say) tyranny, and of course no right thinking person supports tyranny.

The point is that Goldberg wasn't making a VALUE judgement when he said that the political left acts as the aggressor/insitigates/starts the culture war--he's agreeing that (at least in some cases) it's a GOOD THING that they do.
Okay, setting my wild hyperbole aside, I'm not saying that Jonah was making a value judgement, I'm simply pointing out that when social progressivism seems to be the "first actor" in a cultural dispute, it's more often than not because a group of people have perceived a fundamental unfairness in the status quo.

So if you're going to get down to a "who shot first" argument, it's often the culture itself which acts upon individuals in a way that provokes demands for reform.

So while defenders of traditionalism see progressives as instigators, the truth is that progressive activity is typically a REACTION.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 02-24-2009, 05:25 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Let's Talk About Talking About Race

Quote:
Originally Posted by graz View Post
So she doesn't speak the King's English -- big whoop! There is a powerful clarity of consciousness in her eyes. She uses language with the jumps, breaks and rippling momentum of a be-bop saxophonist.
Good catch, graz.

Anybody who knows anything about jazz improvisation knows that there's a grammar to it, a syntax born of the underlying chords and the modal relationships between notes and the emphases imposed by the rhythm. A master jazz soloist not only understands the syntax, he revises and extends it, creating a perfectly coherent new language of his own. (If you want an illustration of what I mean, compare and contrast Stan Getz and Cannonball Adderley: Corcovado, Jive Samba. [And I do apologize for obsessive geekiness.])

How Paglia can possibly find an analogy between Sarah Palin's misadventures into tortured and confused English grammar, e.g.
Quote:
It's very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia as Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where—where do they go?
Quote:
I know that John McCain will do that and I, as his vice president, families we are blessed with that vote of the American people and are elected to serve and are sworn in on January 20, that will be our top priority is to defend the American people.
is hard to understand, at least without resort to the notion of Lowry-esque starbursts. Before you can be even a competent practitioner of jazz improv, you need to be a master of basic jazz syntax. Sarah Palin's mangled sentences are the diametric opposite of that. She has many fine qualities, even I'll grant that. Her ability to use the English language is not the first of those I would list - and comparing her skill in this regard to the work of sublime artists is an indication that Camille Paglia has long since lost any claim to even a minimal level of acumen.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!

Last edited by AemJeff; 02-24-2009 at 09:47 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 02-24-2009, 05:53 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Let's Talk About Talking About Race

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
[...]
Surely you're not suggesting that Camille Paglia is not the greatest weaver of metaphors ever, are you?

When she was rehired by Salon, I let my subscription expire.

Oh, and good geeking out, by you.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 02-24-2009, 05:53 PM
kaicarver kaicarver is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1
Default Re: Let's Talk About Talking About Race

Quote:
Quote:
Peter says: "If you can't talk honestly with someone about race, you don't have an honest friendship with them"

Using this logic, if you just refuse to give a person's color any importance at all, and just treat them as a human being, you are not a true friend.

Amazing. Does this also apply to mixed race persons? To Asians? To Latinos and Native Americans?
Your middle paragraph borders on being a false dichotomy. If you have a black friend, you can of course be friends without skin color being any part of it. But that doesn't mean it couldn't possibly be both instructive to you, and considerate of you, to hear...
Maybe so, but you're missing harkin's point. Peter says (in a bit of moralizing both creepy and naive imho) you can't be friends if you can't talk about race. harkin's point is, that's wrong. I agree: replace "race" with "religion", "politics", "sexuality", "childhood trauma", ... and it's the same. Sure, you might learn something by talking about these important subjects. You might also lose a friendship. How dare Peter judge the "honesty" of friendships in this way, and how is it Eric Holder's or anyone's business to tell us to have such conversations with our friends?
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 02-24-2009, 06:02 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Let's Talk About Talking About Race

Quote:
Originally Posted by kaicarver View Post
Maybe so, but you're missing harkin's point. Peter says (in a bit of moralizing both creepy and naive imho) you can't be friends if you can't talk about race.
I would not say any two friends have to talk about race. I can't remember if that's how Peter put it, but if he did, I'm with you and harkin in disagreeing on that.

I do, however, remember how Holder put it, which was not a requirement, but a suggestion, so I don't think he was sticking his nose into anybody's business.

Again, as I have said several times already, I don't say anyone who doesn't want to talk about these things has to. I do, however, think there are things that still need to be discussed, by those who want to, and by those who might find they did after a little encouragement, and I'm glad that Holder gave the nation that reminder.

P.S. One possibility that occurs to me about what Peter said: It is possible, it seems to me, that he was saying that a measure of a friendship was not that the two people should talk about race, but that they should be able to talk about it. That's also not something I'd completely agree with; i.e., would not accept it as a necessary condition, but I wouldn't reject it out of hand as a useful metric. Purely speculative, though, since, as I said, I don't remember exactly what he said here.

P.P.S. Assuming harkin had Peter right, though, you're right: I did miss his point somewhat -- the second line pushed the first one out of my mind when I read it, I guess. Sorry, harkin.
__________________
Brendan

Last edited by bjkeefe; 02-24-2009 at 06:12 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 02-25-2009, 02:35 AM
x9#z6 x9#z6 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 27
Default Re: Let's Talk About Talking About Race

I know we're not supposed to lament any of the fine participants on bloggingheads but I don't like this pairing. Peter is one of my favorite writer/commenters and Jonah just brings him down. Sorry.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 02-25-2009, 03:03 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Let's Talk About Talking About Race

Quote:
Originally Posted by harkin View Post
The most amazing thing of all is that liberals wish to stamp out talk radio because they deem it 'unfair'.
As I described earlier, the thought that the Fairness Act is coming back is a crock.

However, if you're looking for something to worry about as far as politicians trying to control media goes, check this:

Quote:
February 19, 2009 10:45 PM PST
Bill proposes ISPs, Wi-Fi keep logs for police

Republican politicians on Thursday called for a sweeping new federal law that would require all Internet providers and operators of millions of Wi-Fi access points, even hotels, local coffee shops, and home users, to keep records about users for two years to aid police investigations.
(Emphasis added.)

Lots more details at the link -- being sold (and this'll shock you) as a way to cut down on child porn:

Quote:
"While the Internet has generated many positive changes in the way we communicate and do business, its limitless nature offers anonymity that has opened the door to criminals looking to harm innocent children," U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, said at a press conference on Thursday. "Keeping our children safe requires cooperation on the local, state, federal, and family level."
(h/t: Buzz Out Loud)
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 02-25-2009, 07:25 PM
Exeus99 Exeus99 is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 193
Default Re: Let's Talk About Talking About Race

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tara Davis
often the culture itself which acts upon individuals in a way that provokes demands for reform.
I mean, I guess...but at that point we're deeply into chicken-egging (one of my preferred terms for having descended into circularity, if you care to know) and I'm not sure how viewing things in this way is super-hostile to Goldberg's view; you'd have to say he sees things one way while you see things another, and that neither of you is really wrong, yeah? The assertion that what exists prior to people (or a movement, etc.) deciding to act to bring about a change is responsible at least in part for causing that change to be desired is definitionally true. It can be true independent of which political side acts to bring about a given change; if the side that generally acts first to bring about the change is the left, then Goldberg's assertion that the left is the aggressor in that sense is correct--saying that the prior conditions acted on people to cause them to want to bring about change and therefore those conditions really got things started isn't wrong, but it's not really addressing the same thing. Besides which, where do you stop going back? Say the condition (like overt and gov. approved racial hostility/barriers) existed for a long time prior to the beginning of an easily definable movement agitating for social change--the conditions cause the coalescence of a movement, but those conditions existed for a while, so WHEN did they "start" the clash? If by their existence they kicked things off, hasn't the conflict always existed as long as those conditions were present?

Again, I don't think Goldberg's point should really cause offense even if you disagree--he wasn't saying it's BAD that the left generally starts the fights we call the culture wars (although possibly he thinks it is), he was asserting that since (to his mind) the left does start those fights it's ridiculous for the left to then talk grandiosely about their desire to somehow end the culture wars; to Goldberg they could easily end them any time by simply surrendering/not starting them! It helps to remember that Goldberg is likely pretty unabashedly anti-Progressive (which isn't necessarily to say anti-progressive).
__________________
Chauvinist troll.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 03-09-2009, 01:05 PM
Uhurusasa Uhurusasa is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 117
Default Re: Let's Talk About Talking About Race

[QUOTE=Uhurusasa;92965]
...The potential of the end of slavery posed a considerable threat to the identity and position of the free people of color. Following the Union victory in the Civil War, the Louisiana three-tiered society was dismantled(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_Creole_people).

this aspect of the louisiana territories is reflected throughout the U.S., under the guise of a binary (black-white) racial system. sort of like south africa with a local glaze of confusion! african americans are caught in an unspoken mix of colored and black people,each with its own rank and privileges.
plessy as in the Plessy v. Ferguson jim crow case, once had the rights of europeans(whites) until the outcome of the civil war lumped creoles into a catagory with african americans(blacks).

we african americans may not be who we think we are! nor,may all the other cultures in our society, be who we and/or they think they are! we are beyond race!!

the tribal thinking(imho)of cultures tends to play along the line of "we deserve all the benefit of the doubt, and they deserve none". if we all forget that we are biased for ourselves, we keep falling into the trap of using profoundly self-serving thought as objective truth.

bias for something, is bias against something else!

we are a multicultural society, not some binary racial(cultural) society. the most eloquent reasoning on a false dichotomy,however nuanced,is high sounding nonsense. the use of a black/white template to understand the world and life has serious rounding errors. a finer grayscale template, might reveal detail lost with a black/white template!



[QUOTE=Uhurusasa;99320]
...what i call the first phase of the civil-rights movement, helped the boule and kullud overcome the barriers to mobility in U.S. society, leaving the rest of the african-americans behind. the descendants of U.S. freedmen, and slaves once again have a clear and separate destiny!



what is the next phase of the civil-rights movement?

the black(white, yellow, red, brown, or whatever) man is a convenient myth for simple minds. simple minds are useless for solving complex problems. the pariahs of all classes and caste are deserving of civil rights beyond the shell-game of U.S. politics!

the elite, no matter what the color of their faces, are serving their master, elitism! "them that's got, is them that's get, and them that's not shall lose".
/QUOTE]

There is so much culture clash!!

Last edited by Uhurusasa; 03-09-2009 at 01:59 PM..
Reply With Quote
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.