[Tourian]

Originally Posted by Right To Life

I didn't find it offensive or inflammatory myself. Some people on here want to speak for everybody.

Much of the stuff posted on these forums are posted in other publications. That is a weak criticism unless you criticize people for posting anything that is available in newspapers, etc.

Right, right... and most times people get called out for it. There's nothing wrong with bringing a topic here to discuss. The point is to discuss. Not just post links to elsewhere. That's just lazy. Start a topic. Post a point of discussion. It isn't that hard. Don't be dense.

[Tourian]

Originally Posted by Right To Life

So your criticism does look a little hollow.

Because I wasn't criticizing you.

[Tourian]

Originally Posted by Right To Life

I know that, I meant of the guy who isn't here. You are annoyed he didn't stick around to talk about it but you aren't talking about the issue with somebody who is willing to talk about it that is here.

My criticisms were directed at both Floating_by and Reactionary who did basically the same thing.

You are also said the politicians sentiments were dumb. Since I agree in a general sense, you did kind of insult in an indirect way. I don't take it personally though.

Where did I say that? I haven't made any commentary yet.

But I do think the comments are rather embarrassing for the state. There is no war on whites. I made a comment about the Rebel Flag in another thread that people who feel this way (or display a flag) are just looking for a fight and not interested in working things out, so it is best to just ignore them. These are the types that get bent out of shape because there is a NAACP or a Black History month. No amount of reasoning works with them, so just leave them be - they usually burn themselves out ranting and raving and people stop paying attention.

[bluebeard]

Originally Posted by Right To Life

Separating out black history and making it a month is a little weird.

Its not weird if it isn't being sufficiently taught the rest of the year.

Being colorblind does not mean being non-racist. In fact, it is argued that being blind (or pretending to be blind) to the social division that exist is actually racist:
http://www.blogher.com/new-study-fin...ogy-and-racism
http://www.tolerance.org/magazine/nu...ess-new-racism
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...is-form-racism

And from a conservative POV (given liberals also pretend to be colorblind): http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinio...olumn/2776795/

[Tourian]

Originally Posted by Right To Life

You didn't really prove the guy wrong.

I wasn't really trying to. I think the guy is so far out there that he isn't worth talking about. I think his whole stance is just to stir up controversy and to justify the stagnation that exists in Congress where nothing gets done. There is no war on whites.

I disagree that "nobody" gets bent out of shape over the NAACP. I mean again, that's a given to me. The sky is blue. there are some white people who dislike the fact that the group exists and that if they tried to start a NAAWP that they would be deemed racist. I can't be making this up. I can't be the only person who has heard this. But again, this is what I expect when drawn into the quagmire of a discussion like this. People see what they want to see.

[bluebeard]

Originally Posted by Right To Life

Ok, well that is your opinion. Other people have their own. Never hear anybody making a big deal out of it though. I don't think this politician said anything about that.

I remember hearing a lot about slavery and segregation and civil rights movement in my AP History class, in South Carolina, in the mid 90s. I think the idea it is being supressed is a house of cards. I would argue a lot of decades our of history get short shrift in schools, most of the focus seems to be on Revolution, Civil War, and slavery/segregation/civil rights. It seemed like we would get bogged down on the war stuff, like names of various battles and dates they occurred on.

While it was not what he was directly talking about, colorblindness is the context of what we were talking about and the congressman comments. The inability to see racism and different social contexts between races is the bedrock of preaching colorblindness as being an anti-racist action.

[bluebeard]

Originally Posted by Right To Life

His point is Democrats aren't colorblind. I don't think he denied there is some racism.

If you are always talking in terms of "the black vote", you obviously are not colorblind. These Democrats act like people are all the same if they share a skin color. If we all individivuals, then how can there be a singular "black vote"?

My point was that colorblindness is a faulty ideology and ignores social contexts and divisions.

I will skirt many of the issues here and just state that this is what all politicians too. They organized people into various voting blocks (e.g. soccer moms, etc...)

[bluebeard]

Originally Posted by Right To Life

Ok, well MLK disagreed with you on colorblindness. You are basically making the guy's point for him.

You can't say he was off about Democrats if you read those 15 examples provided in the link. He had a basis for his comments.

I'm not really for holding the stances and ideas of historical figures outside of their historical context when things have changes so much:
If The Founding Fathers Were Alive Today, They

Nevertheless, I don't believe MLK was precisely preaching total colorblindess. Perhaps this will make a point, given that it critiques politicians in general rather than just Republicans. I have my issues with it, but it makes some good points:
Politicians have abused Martin Luther King Jr's dream | Tanner Colby | Comment is free | theguardian.com

Here is a lengthy rebuttal to the idea that MLK is preaching colorblindness, rather that equality
Misusing MLK Legacy and the Colorblind Theory

[bluebeard]

Originally Posted by Right To Life

lol, ok, man. If you want to brag about not being colorblind, go for it. You sound like you may have majored in sociology or something where they develop some contrarians.

If MLK really wasn't colorblind, that hurts his legacy. His most powerful statement was about colorblindness, character, merit, etc over skin color.

Your whole argument is based on the premise that there is no longer racism and our society is not, in large part, still organized around race.

I majored in a STEM field, which also breeds contrarians

[bluebeard]

Originally Posted by Right To Life

I never said there was no racism. There aren't racists in positions of power, at colleges and employers. Too many black people in good colleges and working for good employers for that to be true. I think racism tends to an excuse for people who aren't succesful in life. Somebody else is to blame for their failures.

Some people want racism to still be around, in my opinion. So they can campaign on it and demonize people against them on political issues, or even profit on it like Jesse Jackson and Sharpton.

I majored in mechanical engineering. Engineering programs breed people interested in the truth, not contrarian and wrong. Nothing wrong with being contrarian if you are right but you appear to be going out of your way to make a non-logical argument that is wrong to be color blind. Don't complain about racism if you believe that.

I'm not quite sure how you can pursue truth without at times being contrarian. Unless you believe truth is defined by popular opinion at each specific place and time, and thus changes with those factors.