Off Topic · OT: Taking down Obama with the race card (page 16)

Posted by Cash:

I tried this post on another forum and a bunch of people were offended. Don't worry, I won't be posting on this forum anymore, so you don't have to call me a rascist. I tend to think that Obama's call for an open speech on race was empty. People aren't really ready to adress the real problems causing the inequality.

yeah people dont wanna discuss how the problem is that black people are really just good athletes and dancers and there just arent enough dancing jobs available. Get us some dancing jobs!!!

I jest, but seriously, you may not be a racist, I suspect you are a decent human who simply has no idea what he's talking about and I'm not particularly offended by that. Those ideas are racist though, they are biological determinist ideas. Look up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_... on wikipedia and then holler back. You talk about environment and then broadly state that blacks and latinos are this way, as if we all live in the same kind of environment and whites all live in some other different environment. SO essentially, you are making a text book racist argument, but like I said, I'm not going to hold that against you.

[Edited by - killa4luv on 03-25-2008 01:26 AM]

Posted by Killa4luv:

Posted by Cash:

I haven't read this thread very carefully, but if the point of Obama speech was to talk about race relations, then I am willing to oblige.

I think the black race problems in this country stem from the fact that they were "not willing" participants in this experiment. People generally come to this country for opportunity and they essentially "opt in" to the experiment. Low land prices and opportunity have attracted a number of immigrants who just wanted a chance to suceed and were very willing to work for it. Numerous immigrant groups have come to this country and moved up. You have to ask the question, why hasn't the african american population moved up in the same way? IQ studies show the african american population scoring 20 points lower than the white population. I find it hard to believe that natural selection would make white people smarter than black people. Before you can solve the problem you need to understand it.

I think the problem is mainly based on two things:

1.) Diet-Our current diet is loaded in carbohydrates. However, agriculture is a recent development in the history of mankind. This high level of carbohydrate is not necessarily being tolerated by a lot of minority populations like the african americans and the native american indians. Europeans have been eating higher level of carbs for years, so some natural selection has occurred in these populations. This diet is newer for the african americans. Some do fine with it, and become great althletes. Others can't tolerate it and it is hurting them. It doesn't help that carbs are cheap, which makes it a bigger problem for poorer individuals. The problem gets exacerbated, by mother's passing it on to their children making them more sensitive to carbs and the resulting energy inbalance that occurs. Most fat people aren't fat cause they are lazy. They are lazy because they can't handle the carbs, and this creates an energy imbalance. If you think people weigh 300 pounds(white or black) cause they are just lazy, you are just wrong. In practice, Atkins has given his diet to millions of Americans, however, his recommendations were mostly based on empirical evidence. More recently, Gary Taubes has wrote a book on the subject, which eloquently explains all the scientific studies that exist and how carbs are the real problem in our diet. There is a lot of bad science out there, and we hear new things every day about diet. However, Taubes is a hard science guy, and his analytical reasoning skills are superb. He is giving you the top of the line information.

The problem as far as IQ is partly based on this. If people don't have the energy to read and learn new things they will not test as well and they will not do as well in the academic environment. They are more likely to just sit on the couch and watch tv. A better diet would help bridge the iq gap.

2. Personality distribution. Different environments have preferred certain personalities to be more prevalent among people who come from different areas. IF you are familar with mbti personality analysis(and left brain right brain stuff), the best way to explain it is that the african american population is shifted toward extraverted sensing. They tend to simply be more right brained and more adept at certain tasks. They tend to be better at things like athletics, music, dance, etc, that make use of a different part of the brain then the dominant white majority. However, these are not the academic jobs.

This gets significant when it comes to values and discrimination. Generally speaking more left brained individuals tend to have stronger memories which influence their values. Their values tend to reflect this. They are very concerned about the past, as opposed to the moment. They tend to be more concerned about what people think about them as opposed to thier current desires at the moment. This personality shift is a large part of the reason why white people fear black people. They don't understand why, but they have scene enough to understand a difference.

That all being said, I think this difference will eventually subside. The growing hispanic population is also shifted toward extraverted sensing, and this country is changing at the moment. We are going to be more a people of singing and dancing and less a people of technology. I think this problem will eventually go away, but not because of programs like affirmative action. It will go away because their will be a lot more people who are "like" the black population that have been in the past.

I hope you guys understand when you read this I am talking about distributions and not the individual. Every single individual is different.

That being said, I would like a president with a real plan for the economy. At the moment, this does not exist and this is a real problem considering we are entering a more competitive world.

Your theory falls apart, imo, on 2 major points.
1. It assumes that the IQ test is a legitimate measure of mental aptitude, inteligence. I could go further, and will if need be, but its late, so lets just say, the IQ test isn't what your theory implies it is.
2. Your theory seems to presuppose that we live in a meritcocracy, that is, you seem to believe that people arrive where they are in life based on their efforts alone. I could write long posts to disprove this, but I will simply say this, our president of the last 8 years has the mental capacity of a 5th grader. HOw did he get there? Hard Work? Smarts? Charisma? What?

TO talk about the black experience in this country and to not even mention several hundred years of brutal racist discrimination as a causal factor in what is happening today, means you dont have a grasp on the black experience. You cant do what was done to a people for so long and then completely discount that when evaluating them now. Do you think what happened to Native Americans several hundred years ago has any bearing on why that community is the way it is today? You do, and it does, its obvious. Same concept.

Some other thoughts:
I dont doubt that diet is a factor as well, but it isnt the causal factor. People have bad diets, because they are poor, uneducated about diet and have poor options available. Diet is a symptom of greater problems and not the problem itself.

ANd I'm familiar with Myer Brigs, I'm an ENTP and own several books about the tests, I think their interesting, but for something like this to be all about personality types, and personal choices is a very unsociological way to look at things imo. People's personalities, and the choices available to them are all based on social forces and their environment.

[Edited by - killa4luv on 03-25-2008 01:22 AM]

Ok, thank you for your intelligent response. I understand my analysis is raw and in the early stages, but, I am still working on it and I want intelligent response so I can work on my theory. I understand that some people might view my theory as rascist, but it was never meant that way.

I am an entp as well. Although such classifications are weak, I think they get at something.

And, I think the meritocracy is related to the personality distribution. I tend to believe people like people like themselves, so whoever is in charge has a huge say over who gets promoted and such. And, at the end of the day, someone has to be in charge. Although that very well might change over time.

I don't underestimate the black experience, but I think a lot of it is personality issue. This wouldn't be the problem it is today, if it wasn't for the personality distribution of african americans toward right brainededness(in this case extraverted sensing). Slavery ended a long time ago, and civil rights increased later. I am not saying I don't have empathy toward the situation, but that is not the problem today. The system would have already corrected for it. There is something deeper goiong on and it is personality.

Posted by Killa4luv:

Posted by Cash:

I tried this post on another forum and a bunch of people were offended. Don't worry, I won't be posting on this forum anymore, so you don't have to call me a rascist. I tend to think that Obama's call for an open speech on race was empty. People aren't really ready to adress the real problems causing the inequality.

yeah people dont wanna discuss how the problem is that black people are really just good athletes and dancers and there just arent enough dancing jobs available. Get us some dancing jobs!!!

I jest, but seriously, you may not be a racist, I suspect you are a decent human who simply has no idea what he's talking about and I'm not particularly offended by that. Those ideas are racist though, they are biological determinist ideas. Look up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_... on wikipedia and then holler back. You talk about environment and then broadly state that blacks and latinos are this way, as if we all live in the same kind of environment and whites all live in some other different environment. SO essentially, you are making a text book racist argument, but like I said, I'm not going to hold that against you.

[Edited by - killa4luv on 03-25-2008 01:26 AM]

they are not biologically dominant so much as I think people are different. Why wouldn't people have developed stronger abilities than others(in certain areas) when living in different environments for a number of years. One environment might require this and another might require that.

C'mon Cash, compare the IQ's of chronically poor whites vs wealthy whites and then tell us again how this has all been biologically preordained.

[Edited by - blueseats on 03-25-2008 01:47 AM]

BTW- I never said anything about biologically preordained.

And to be honest, I am not up on my iq tests. I looked into it awhile ago, and now I am just working off that.

And, blueseats, i would guess the difference is a lot less than the difference that is normally observed between whites and blacks, and that is part of the point I was making about carbs.

Posted by Cash:
And, blueseats, i would guess the difference is a lot less than the difference that is normally observed between whites and blacks, and that is part of the point I was making about carbs.

If you want to talk about carbs in relationship to obesity and diabetes I think you've got a good case. Some body types do better with them than others. One could argue the brain is a body part and could be affected too, but I think that would be more a function of general nutrition than specific insulin issues.

But with regard to IQ, I'd put the effect of attending good schools, growing up in a household of educated people, and exposure to challenging tasks and learning aids far beyond starchy foods and left brain dominance.

EVANSTON, Ill. -- Contrary to "The Bell Curve" findings, a new study published in the April issue of Child Development by researchers at Columbia and Northwestern Universities suggests that poverty and early learning opportunities -- not race -- account for the gap in IQ scores between blacks and whites.
Adjustments for socioeconomic conditions almost completely eliminate differences in IQ scores between black and white children, according to the study's co-investigators. They include Jeanne Brooks-Gunn and Pamela Klebanov of Columbia's Teachers College, and Greg Duncan of the Center for Urban Affairs and Policy Research at Northwestern University.

As in many other studies, the black children in the study had IQ scores a full 15 points lower than their white counterparts. Poverty alone, the researchers found, accounted for 52 percent of that difference, cutting it to 7 points. Controlling for the children's home environment reduced the difference by another 28 percent, to a statistically insignificant 3 points -- in essence, eliminating the gap altogether.

http://www.monitor.net/monitor/5-5-96/povertyiq.html

Research published this month is shedding new light on the old nature/nurture argument. In a dramatic shift from previous findings, this analysis finds that for families at the very bottom of the socio-economic scale, environmental factors have a much greater impact on the variations in children?s IQ (Intelligence Quotient) than genes.

http://www.connectforkids.org/node/516

i'm eagerly awaiting the cash reply to that, more ignorance and absurdities

Posted by Cash:

Posted by Killa4luv:

Posted by Cash:

I tried this post on another forum and a bunch of people were offended. Don't worry, I won't be posting on this forum anymore, so you don't have to call me a rascist. I tend to think that Obama's call for an open speech on race was empty. People aren't really ready to adress the real problems causing the inequality.

yeah people dont wanna discuss how the problem is that black people are really just good athletes and dancers and there just arent enough dancing jobs available. Get us some dancing jobs!!!

I jest, but seriously, you may not be a racist, I suspect you are a decent human who simply has no idea what he's talking about and I'm not particularly offended by that. Those ideas are racist though, they are biological determinist ideas. Look up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_... on wikipedia and then holler back. You talk about environment and then broadly state that blacks and latinos are this way, as if we all live in the same kind of environment and whites all live in some other different environment. SO essentially, you are making a text book racist argument, but like I said, I'm not going to hold that against you.

[Edited by - killa4luv on 03-25-2008 01:26 AM]

they are not biologically dominant so much as I think people are different. Why wouldn't people have developed stronger abilities than others(in certain areas) when living in different environments for a number of years. One environment might require this and another might require that.

yes but as myself and blue havee pointed out, if you believe what you are saying about environment, then poor whites and poor blacks would be more similar than rich whites and poor whites or rich blacks and poor blacks. But since you arent saying that, and you are insisting that in spite of environmental factors, all blacks are more inclined to dance and play sports, then what you are saying is racist. This is very simple and plain, and I dont care to respond to these points, or what you consider to be a new theory, because it isn't new, and you apparently aren't digesting what people like myself and blue are saying in response to it. If you want to believe what you are believing then yes you are believing racist things, even if you aren't malicious and don't hate black people.

Furthermore, all of the available data has made this point for many many decades, yet people like yourself, and others who I will assume have more harmful intentions have clung to these theories and ideas in spite of the evidence. If you cross this threshold with all of your 'original' ideas in tact then my friend, you are definitely a racist and there is no way around it.

[Edited by - killa4luv on 03-25-2008 3:57 PM]

Soul Food For Thought

Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama and the Unacceptability of Truth Of National Lies and Racial America
By Tim Wise

Whites are easily shocked by what we see and hear from Pastor Wright and Trinity Church , because what we see and hear so thoroughly challenges our understanding of who we are as a nation.

Black people do not, in the main, get misty eyed at the sight of the flag the way white people do--and this is true even for millions of black veterans--for they understand that the nation for whom that flag waves is still not fully committed to their own equality. They have a harder time singing those tunes that white people seem so eager to belt out, like "God Bless America," for they know that whites sang those words loudly and proudly even as they were enforcing Jim Crow segregation, rioting against blacks who dared move into previously white
neighborhoods, throwing rocks at Dr. King and then cheering, as so many did, when they heard the news that he had been assassinated.

Whites refuse to remember (or perhaps have never learned) that which black folks cannot afford to forget. I've seen white people stunned to the point of paralysis when they learn the truth about lynchings in this country--when they discover that such events were not just a couple of good old boys with a truck and a rope hauling some black guy out to the
tree, hanging him, and letting him swing there. They were never told the truth: that lynchings were often community events, advertised in papers as "Negro Barbecues," involving hundreds or even thousands of whites, who would join in the fun, eat chicken salad and drink sweet tea, all while the black victims of their depravity were being hung, then shot, then burned, and then having their body parts cut off, to be handed out to onlookers. They are stunned to learn that postcards of the events were traded as souvenirs, and that very few whites, including members of their own families did or said anything to stop it.

So, in Tulsa, Oklahoma, for example, site of an orgy of violence against the black community in 1921, city officials literally went into the town library and removed all reference to the mass killings in the Greenwood district from the papers with a razor blade--an excising of truth and an assault on memory that would remain unchanged for over seventy years.

No, it is not the pastor who distorts history; Nick at Nite and your teenager's textbooks do that. It is not he who casts aspersions upon "this great country" as Barack Obama put it in his public denunciations of him; it is the historic leadership of the nation that has cast
aspersions upon it; it is they who have cheapened it, who have made gaudy and vile the promise of American democracy by defiling it with lies. They engage in a patriotism that is pathological in its implications, that asks of those who adhere to it not merely a love of
country but the turning of one's nation into an idol to be worshipped, it not literally, then at least in terms of consequence.

It is they--the flag-lapel-pin wearing leaders of this land--who bring shame to the country with their nonsensical suggestions that we are always noble in warfare, always well-intended, and although we occasionally make mistakes, we are never the ones to blame for anything.


So white folks are mad at Jeremiah Wright because he challenges their views about their country. Pardon me, but something is wrong here, and whatever it is, is not to befound at Trinity United Church of Christ.

A Little Known American Story!

By: Pamela A. Hairston
It is the story of the Martinsville Seven, the largest mass execution for rape in United States history.

In 1949 in Martinsville, Virginia, seven black men were arrested for the rape of a 32-year-old married white woman. Within 30 hours of this rape, all seven had signed written confessions. Within seven days, all had been tried, convicted and sentenced to death. Two were tried at the same time. The youngest was only 17 years old at the time of his arrest and the oldest was a 37-year-old WWII vet with a wife and five beautiful, young children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Too much of these type of crimes happened that formed how older people think today.

Three times the Supreme Court refused to hear their case. During their appeals, Oliver W. Hill and future Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, both NAACP lawyers, helped represent the Seven. Russia and China sent telegrams to the White House in defense of the Seven. Actors Ossie Davis and Paul Robeson rallied Hollywood to their defense, but to no avail. Then-President Harry Truman, an alleged Klansman, refused to grant clemency. For the record, no white man in Virginia had ever been executed for rape of any woman.

Two years later, 1951, eight men were executed in Richmond, Va., seven for the rape of one white woman. On Feb. 2, 1951, four black men were executed every 10 minutes. (They say the chair was too hot to touch) On the following Monday, Feb. 5, the remaining three were executed. Five were mere teenagers. The day before the youngest one died, he said: God knows I didn’t touch that woman and I’ll see ya’ll on the other side. Around the world, they became known as the Martinsville Seven, the largest mass execution in United States history.

The Seven case was the first time in an American court of law that lawyers appealed a death sentence on grounds of systematic discrimination against African Americans. Finally in 1977, over 25 years later, the Supreme Court ruled that rape is not punishable by death. The Martinsville Seven case was instrumental in helping change the rape laws that govern this great nation.

For the record, three of the Seven were Hairstons, relatives of mine, and I was born and raised in Martinsville. The true story of the Seven has yet to be told.

White Americans constantly tell us black Americans to stop whining, to "get over" our history.

Let us know our history before we have to forget it.

I'm not sure I should get back into this. But I will.

I am not a big fan of Iq either, but I think it says something, exactly what is up for debate. Supposedly Richard lynn held socioceconomic background constant when he compared iq's of whites and blacks. And, there was a significant difference in IQ. Poor whites scored significantly higher than poor blacks. Theoretically, they would be eating a similar diet(high carbs cause they are cheap). However, the difference, or the way I would explain it is that the african american community has had less exposure to carbs, and thus it tended to effect them more.

I really didn't want to get into lynn to much, becuase I don't have the confidence in his abilities or methods like I do with gary taubes. I haven't examined the studies, and their definetely could be things that were done wrong. That being said, it is out there, and it fits my theory.

Furthermore, the way that diet influences iq would be through a simple energy balance. Part of the reason why people are getting fat is because their insulin levels are crazy high, and this is decreasing the amount of energy that is available for them to use. This would decrease their energy that is available for learning. They just don't have as much energy to do things like read. People are much more likely to just sit on the couch and watch tv. Furthermore, insulin plays some role in memeory. Exactly how much I don't know, but it is there.

This isn't really a white or black issue, it is just hitting the black and american indian community harder because they have had less exposure to carbs than white people in the last few thousand years. So you would see a relatively lower iq value between whites and blacks.

But, I also tend to think that the african community is shifted toward extraverted sensing, and this isn't a quality that will do well on iq tests. This doesn't mean white people are using more of their brain than black people(on average) it just means they are using different parts. This isn't really all that much different than a blind person learing how to sense objects through sound. It's simply a different part of the brain, and I don't believe a lot of african americans are necessarily responding to the type of teaching that is being taught in schools. Again, this isn't a white or black problem(as both races have this problem.) It's just more prevalent in the black community.

Posted by misterearl:


So white folks are mad at Jeremiah Wright because he challenges their views about their country. Pardon me, but something is wrong here, and whatever it is, is not to befound at Trinity United Church of Christ.

Its unfortunate but not surprising that the article underestimates the intelligence of Wright's detractors, whether they be black, white, asian, hispanic etc. And lets be clear that his detractors are not just white. Those folks are mad at Wright, or should be mad at Wright, not because he spoke out against American foreign policy, which has been flawed far before 9/11.

They should be mad at Wright because he claimed, without further clarifying, that the government "purposely infected African American men with syphilis" and that "the government lied about inventing HIV as a means of genocide against people of color."; he distorted the truth for inflammatory rhetorical effect in a manner that, rather than educating his audience of real obstacles, antagonizes them without purpose. By never discussing the aftermath of Tuskeegee, a rather dramatic regulation of scientific research, he constructs a singularly evil image of white government, with which compromise seems far-fetched, and entertains the implication that Tuskeegee type healthcare violations may still be widespread. In other words, he opens old wounds and leaves them open to be "infected" by ideas of stereotyping, irreconcilable difference and revenge.

They should be mad that Wright states unabashedly that he knows "what’s going on in white America, the US of 'KKK' A" because, this time, he deliberately exaggerates the present pervasiveness of racism and white supremacy, this time grouping not just "rich, white people" but seemingly a majority of white Americans with a cult that calls for the elimination of African Americans. Bear in mind that this fabrication has striking similarities to the generalization that black people are, as a whole, violent and misogenistic because of a few high profile rappers; this flavor of argument has almost unanimously and, rightfully so, been rejected by posters here. Needless to say, racism exists and, in many forms, but, by failing on every occasion to mention that not all white share this malice, his efforts strain a discoure with what appears to be the irrational, unyielding and violent "KKK" opposition.

Yet, Theloniusmonk makes the tenuous argument that Wright is merely "pointing out oppression." Unfortunately, Wright's motivation is not so academic as real oppression does not need to be "pointed out" or fabricated. Wright's sermons instead point out a giant, false, white target and a dangerous call to action: "black men turning against black men, you both are fighting the wrong enemy, you both are the targets of an oppressive society that views both of you as a dangerous threat." Wright continues "I'm so glad that I've got a God who who knows what its like to be a poor black man living in a country and a culture run by rich white people; he taught me, Jesus did, how to love my enemies... he taught me how to love the hell out of my enemies." Before this little treat is explained away, lets take notice that if simply "black men," but not "fighting," are the wrong enemy then, without further explanation, the white men of his oppressive society are. Again, Wright does not delineate the appropriate way to "fight" against this unspecified oppression but his tongue-in-cheek "love my enemies" punchline indicates an irredeemable chasm with white government and "culture," defined by an inextinguishable hatred. Moreover, Wright's religious metaphor strongly suggests a makeshift solution of avoidance until a reversal of the positions of power, a "redemption" of sorts. In other words, Wright has superimposed the dichotomy between black and white people with the struggle between a "poor black man" and the KKK, reason and blind hate, Jesus and the Romans and good and evil. Of course, Wright is speaking to uplift his audience but, in his recklessness, he leaves them with an antagonistic moral superiority: a racist belief fixed in religious identification.

Folks, Clinton and Obama supporters alike, should be mad that Wright's opinion of black dissenters of his ideologies are just as crude and hateful as his opinions on "white america." As you might expect, Jeremiah Wright strongly condemns those that criticize Barack Obama as "not being black enough." In his discourse about black republicans at one of his sermons, however, he says with disgust that they are "Uncle Tom's," "sell outs" and "negros who just do not get it." So, it’s neither the alienating and humiliating aspect of the "black enough" comments nor the simplistic, divisive and racist concept of a singular proper black mindset that Wright is speaking out against. To Wright, being a democrat is equivalent with African American loyalty and engaging in any separate dialogue is worthy of the "Uncle Tom" label: a betrayal of African Americanness itself. Similarly, Wright thinks that blacks not supporting Obama is akin to "Jesus hav[ing] his own people siding with the enemy." It’s unnerving that Wright is also willing to shut out well-meaning black Americans from the discourse to perpetuate this recurring notion of an incurable racial split. Wright shows a refusal to accommodate even minimal compromise and, hence, sermon after sermon, reinforces his monopoly of thought on African Americans, from impressionable children to senior citizens rooted in his line of thinking, who may otherwise have had a more realistic and optimistic racial outlook.

The excuse of church hyperbole is not in the least mitigating just as Imus's comedy excuse falls flat. It should be clear that Wright is more influential to his listeners than Imus is to his casual early morning listeners looking for gossip and a good laugh. Just as Imus’s “nappy headed hos” comment required only slight inference to surmise underlying racist bias, Wright’s religious and historical comments are quite straight forward; moreover, while Imus apologized, Wright intractably stands by his racism. The bottom line remains I slammed Imus before and Wright deserves an even greater indictment. I expect a similar, consistent standard from others.

WOW!

Code, that is a brilliantly executed piece or writing. Send it over to the NY Times Letters to the Editor.

Let me ask you, how did you feel about Obama's handling of the situation?

The speech of Rev Wright that codeunknown is ready to harp on and call racist, black folk had to endure without batting an eye for many decades . We as african americans will just call rev wright excerpt a make-up call.

Posted by BlueSeats:

WOW!

Code, that is a brilliantly executed piece or writing. Send it over to the NY Times Letters to the Editor.

couldn't say it better. Thanks code.

^^^^The fact that you guys agree with him just shows me how much the races are FAR apart and out of touch wit the other when it comes to perception and the "WHY". I would have never thought dudes would agree like that. Interesting

Posted by TheloniusMonk:

^^^^The fact that you guys agree with him just shows me how much the races are FAR apart and out of touch wit the other when it comes to perception and the "WHY". I would have never thought dudes would agree like that. Interesting

perhaps you can enlighten and post which parts you disagree with, cause you really haven't added much to the dialogue with the above.

I'm here to better understand but if all you can to is point out that the races are FAR apart, you are stating the obvious.

Posted by TheloniusMonk:

^^^^The fact that you guys agree with him just shows me how much the races are FAR apart and out of touch wit the other when it comes to perception and the "WHY". I would have never thought dudes would agree like that. Interesting

Saying it's brilliantly written isn't quite the same as agreeing with it. I happen to think he did a great job of making his case.

How upset a person finds themselves by the situation is probably where most of us diverge, and that has not been measured or compared.

Posted by BlueSeats:

Posted by TheloniusMonk:

^^^^The fact that you guys agree with him just shows me how much the races are FAR apart and out of touch wit the other when it comes to perception and the "WHY". I would have never thought dudes would agree like that. Interesting

Saying it's brilliantly written isn't quite the same as agreeing with it. I happen to think he did a great job of making his case.

How upset a person finds themselves by the situation is probably where most of us diverge, and that has not been measured or compared.

I think he made his arguments elegantly, but i disagree flatly with major parts of what he's saying. I'll be back in 20 minutes.

Posted by Killa4luv:

Posted by BlueSeats:

Posted by TheloniusMonk:

^^^^The fact that you guys agree with him just shows me how much the races are FAR apart and out of touch wit the other when it comes to perception and the "WHY". I would have never thought dudes would agree like that. Interesting

Saying it's brilliantly written isn't quite the same as agreeing with it. I happen to think he did a great job of making his case.

How upset a person finds themselves by the situation is probably where most of us diverge, and that has not been measured or compared.

I think he made his arguments elegantly, but i disagree flatly with major parts of what he's saying. I'll be back in 20 minutes.

Excellent. I know to expect no less of a performance from you.

[Edited by - blueseats on 03-26-2008 10:02 PM]

Posted by codeunknown:

Its unfortunate but not surprising that the article underestimates the intelligence of Wright's detractors, whether they be black, white, asian, hispanic etc. And lets be clear that his detractors are not just white. Those folks are mad at Wright, or should be mad at Wright, not because he spoke out against American foreign policy, which has been flawed far before 9/11.

They should be mad at Wright because he claimed, without further clarifying, that the government "purposely infected African American men with syphilis" and that "the government lied about inventing HIV as a means of genocide against people of color."; he distorted the truth for inflammatory rhetorical effect in a manner that, rather than educating his audience of real obstacles, antagonizes them without purpose. By never discussing the aftermath of Tuskeegee, a rather dramatic regulation of scientific research, he constructs a singularly evil image of white government, with which compromise seems far-fetched, and entertains the implication that Tuskeegee type healthcare violations may still be widespread. In other words, he opens old wounds and leaves them open to be "infected" by ideas of stereotyping, irreconcilable difference and revenge.

I have adressed this point, he misspoke about the Tuskegee experiment, as did I, but what the gov't did is no less nefarious. Even after a cure was developed, black men were used as guinea pigs, to see how the disease spread and the effects it had on the body while living and after death; while they were denied treatment, and not even notified that they had the disease so they could at least protect their wives and children!! These are the exact types of things the Nazis did. This is not something easily glossed over, and the fact that the majority of Americans dont know it is a problem. It is a part of the reason Americans are so delusional and get so offended when they hear something negative about the country, they have been shielded from the truth. The black community has rarely had the luxury of not knowing many of these things, because so often we were the victims of these things. I wrote papers on this in school. The fact the Rev' Wright mispoke about exactly what happened in NO WAY overstates what actually did happen. The truth itself is damning. Did you know about this prior to his speech?

I think it was irresponsible to talk about the HIV theory when there is not proof to support the claim, I've said that before. But i don't think he said this to make his congregation hate white people. Its crazy how everything that anyone says publicly that is bad about our experience in this country, is always treated as somebody trying to make black people hate white people. I think he said it because he believes it to be true.

They should be mad that Wright states unabashedly that he knows "what’s going on in white America, the US of 'KKK' A" because, this time, he deliberately exaggerates the present pervasiveness of racism and white supremacy, this time grouping not just "rich, white people" but seemingly a majority of white Americans with a cult that calls for the elimination of African Americans.

Honestly, and with respect and humility, I have to tell you as my knick brother, that in general, white people are in no position to say the Rev. is exaggerating the present pervasiveness of racism and white supremacy. What you are saying implies that you know and understand what black people go through in this country, and that is simply not true. The average white person truly has very little idea about what the current state of racism is in this country; and this is our most critical source of misunderstanding.

What you are saying is the equivalent of me saying Gay people are overstating the pervasiveness of anti-gay sentiment in society. How would I know that? What do I know about what its like to be a gay man in this society? This is the key aspect of the problem. How would a white person really know what kind of time black people are having? This is the question I have been asking over and over again and its never been answered. How does a white man, come to know much of anything about how prevalent racism is in a predominantly white society? I really need an answer to this question because this question gets at the heart of the misunderstanding between whites and blacks.

[these are questions not of you specifically but in general to all of the white guys reading this to think about and hopefully respond to, and I ask seriously with respect, I'm not mad or anything like that, I am just sharing my perspective and I'd like to hear some responses.]

How would a white man know what it was like to be a black male during the Giuliani era? Or what its like to be a black man and deal with the police and have your rights violated so blatantly and so often? Or be black at a job when something ends up missing? Or what its like trying to get a job or an apartment when all of the people who determine your fate are white and are often prejudiced against you before you say a word? How would you know what its like to have friends who did long stretches in prison for a crimes they didn't commit, because they were poor and black and cops knew they could get a conviction? How would you get a sense for how often that happens? How would you know what it is like to be non-white in a majority white society? Do you not see the arrogance in the assumption that you know these things when it is so obvious to those of us who do know, that you do not? This is where the anger comes in. Because I have said all of these things many times before, and essentially what happens is this is treated is if it is untrue or does not matter. It is ignored. It isnt a part of the white experience so I think you guys just ignore it.

And this has been the trend in this society. America has gone from denying that racism exists, to stating its over, all without ever acknowledging it in the present. And more importantly, what the average white person views as racism, is bigotry and prejudice. WHat the average black person understands racism to be, is a system of discrimination where they have unequal access to housing, education, jobs, healthcare, etc, because of their race. It isn't someone calling you nigger, its society treating you like one, institutions treating you like one.

Bear in mind that this fabrication has striking similarities to the generalization that black people are, as a whole, violent and misogenistic because of a few high profile rappers; this flavor of argument has almost unanimously and, rightfully so, been rejected by posters here. Needless to say, racism exists and, in many forms, but, by failing on every occasion to mention that not all white share this malice, his efforts strain a discoure with what appears to be the irrational, unyielding and violent "KKK" opposition.

First, the critical difference between Rev' Wright and the stereotypes you mention, is that Wright said this in a church with a few thousand people and the racist remarks against blacks can be found all up and down talk radio and all over many TV and print media. Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'reilly, Sean Hannity, and many many others promote the most rabid, virulent racist stereotypes imaginable, and they get paid millions of dollars to do it. Everytime white posters try to equate anti-white sentiment with anti-black sentiment it falls on its face. The nation of Islam is not the Klan or the Nazis. Rev. is not FOX news, he is not the media empire of a racist like Rupert Murdoch, he is not a media superstar, he is one black preacher who no one would have ever heard from if an excerpt of his speech could not be used to smear a presidential candidate. There simply is no comparison. Mainstream people promote stereotypes. Imus has been doing that for years, the media just seized on it this time, and I dont know why, there are people making more sophisticated, but no less racist remarks like that on the airwaves every single day and tens of millions of white people are enjoying it with no moral outrage.

Secondly, when Rev. Wright says AmeriKKKa, we understand this in different ways. If I ask you is this a racist country, I dont know what you'll say. But if you ask me I will laugh. I will laugh because what you are asking is, to me, so obvious, so apparent, so glaring and obtrusive, it would be hard for me to take the question seriously. THis is a racist country, and by that I do not mean everyone in the country is racist. The average white person thinks of racism as prejudice or bigotry. The average black person, whether they can articulate this or not, understands racism to be prevalent on an institutional level. Take this excerpt as a better explanation, written by Tim Wise, one of the preeminent anti-racist intellectuals, who is white btw:

While most persons of color conceptualize racism as an issue of structural injustice, whites often seem to view it as nothing more than a personality flaw, present in only a small handful of especially damaged individuals, and hardly worth worrying about in the larger social sense...More recently, with high-profile cases of individual bigotry surfacing, as in the examples of actor/comedian, Michael Richards and radio personality, Don Imus, the nation's awareness of individual level racism has been raised yet again. But at the same time that these men's personal biases were made visible to anyone with a television, the media was almost entirely ignoring the persistent evidence of racism as an institutional phenomenon. So there was no coverage, nationally, of the report from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, to the effect that 2006 had witnessed the highest level of housing discrimination complaints in recorded history. Nor had there been any national coverage of, or outrage over, the 2004 study in a respected medical journal, which noted that between 1991 and 2000, there had been nearly one million African Americans who had died, who wouldn't have died, had they merely had health care equal to that of their white counterparts. Though persons of color are painfully aware of these structural injustices, whites are largely oblivious, convinced that individual bad people are the problem to be solved..."

None of this is surprising to me, because the media, like the country, is owned and controlled by rich white men. That people saw a similar remark from Wright as controversial truly boggles my mind. Is it not true?

So when you continue on with the notion that

real oppression does not need to be "pointed out"...

this again implies that you, and the nation, for that matter, are as aware of our strugles as we are. You are saying in essense, as a nation, we 'get it'. Which, of course, is simply not the case, at all. Furthermore, you go on in your paragraph to interpret Wrights remarks as some kind of a call for a race war in society, and I'll go on record and say wholeheartedly thats not what he said, nor is it what he meant. (lets get the actual remarks if you care to delve into this further) Black people, in general, see this society as racist, and as something that needs to be fought to be improved. This figthing is political. It is the same kind of fighting Dr. King did, Malcolm X did, Medgar Evers did, Paul Robeson did. Those were people who fought, and when he is admonishing black men to stop fighting each other and fight their true enemy, he means the people in the seats of power who are allowing injustices to carry on. He also means regular people who are indifferent, who passively support whats going on. This fighting is political, and if you want to interpret it as violence, thats on you, but I think thats a gross mis characterization. Perhaps it sounds different to your ears, and maybe you need some kind of disclaimer in his speech that says, oh I dont mean all white people, but thats what he means; its very clear to me that hes not calling for a race war. The handful of organizations of black people who are organized and are anti-white, are fringe groups, very small, pretty crazy and are more of a threat to their own well-being than they are to white people; and they don't have a large following in the black community.

Most black people do in fact, see racism as an intrinsic part of this country. White people do not. But what is so ironic to me is, white people have NEVER seen it as we saw it. This country went from denying it exists, to saying its over with; without ever seeing or acknowledging institutionalized, systemic racism in the present tense. In general, dont you find it amazing that throughout history so many, otherwise inteligent, dynamic, sensitive and caring white people, are anything but, when the topic of racism in America is broached.

Wright shows a refusal to accommodate even minimal compromise and, hence, sermon after sermon, reinforces his monopoly of thought on African Americans, from impressionable children to senior citizens rooted in his line of thinking, who may otherwise have had a more realistic and optimistic racial outlook.

Wright has a monopoly of thought on African Americans? LOL Surely you jest. And you, as a white man are in a position to determine that black people are being robbed of a more realistic racial outlook? Again I have to ask, (and this is all in the spirit of debate and understanding truly so please dont take this any other way) how would you have any real idea what a realistic racial outlook is? As a member of the dominant group, what gives you a vantage point from which to make such a strong statement? As I have pointed out, this country has NEVER had a realistic outlook on race, NEVER.

The excuse of church hyperbole is not in the least mitigating just as Imus's comedy excuse falls flat. It should be clear that Wright is more influential to his listeners than Imus is to his casual early morning listeners looking for gossip and a good laugh. Just as Imus’s “nappy headed hos” comment required only slight inference to surmise underlying racist bias, Wright’s religious and historical comments are quite straight forward; moreover, while Imus apologized, Wright intractably stands by his racism. The bottom line remains I slammed Imus before and Wright deserves an even greater indictment. I expect a similar, consistent standard from others.

I'll end saying this, he never says anywhere or implies that he hates white people and I dont see anywhere in any of his remarks anything that could be classified as racist. You drew your conclusions about him being racist by reaching and implying and interpreting in order to see racism. I see anger, but I dont see hatred. I saw him being critical of society in a way that is totally consistent with my life experiences. I dont expect you to see it as I do, because you have not experienced it as I have. But I do expect you to not presuppose you know whats best for my community, when it is obvious, in spite of how well-written your post is, that you do not have a firm grasp on racism in this society.

Let me end saying please, please, PLEASE do not take offense to anything I have written. I am trying to be direct about what I am saying while also being respectful, but I know in a charged topic such as this, it is easy to misinterpret intent. Trust me when I say, I do this because I think we all have something to learn from each other, and that part of the reason whites and blacks see things so differently is because there hasn't been enough dialog. And I'm sorry for rambling.


[Edited by - killa4luv on 03-27-2008 12:17 AM]