Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Am I the only one to see the irony of someone using the nik Scarlet O'Hara complaining about "Plantation politics"?
Quote:
Education is worse for black kids -- they are presumed to be intellectually inferior and have provisions made for them that reinforce inferiority.
Presumed? Funny because there certainly isn't an abundance of evidence that too many African American students lag behind the achievements of their non black class mates, and I might and no shortage of conservatives pointing this out to reenforce their arguments about need to do away with any program designed to address the disparity.
Quote:
Then you have people like Sharpton and Wright claiming that black kids brains are different from white kids brains --- feeding right into white intellectual superiority.
A citation regarding the above would be exceedingly appropriate at this juncture.
Huck Finn - So the justification for changing a word was so that the book would be more acceptable to schools. Do we really have to look to 120+ year old literature to illustrate anti-racism? Really? Is anti-racism the dominant message? Do children even get that message when many adults don't?
When consider the wholesale redaction of slavery and the Civil Rights movement from school texts by conservatives in states like Texas and Oklahoma arguments about redacting the n word from one published edition of Huck Finn seems a bit more than overwrought.
Quote:
The dominant message is that whites are heroic, smart and superior - and blacks are hapless victims. Same with To Kill A Mockingbird.
If that is how you feel, instead of posting here why not write to your local school board and insist that the require reading of Daniel Rasmussen's 'American Uprising" or the Confessions of Nat Turner (that should be fun to read about).
Quote:
Perhaps people should ask themselves, who does it benefit in the long run that I remain a victim.
In light of the increasing number of highly visible African Americans in every aspect of American culture, business and government, do I need to mention that there is a black President, I must be missing this mass sense of "victimhood".
Quote:
Those who don't buy into victimhood are vilified.
Perhaps because folks who collectively and individually defeated the victimizers don't have much tolerance for folks who would like to return the former victimizers to a position where they can attempt to turn back the clock?
Quote:
You can't keep a group in victimhood if you teach them about those who weren't victims
I throughly agree, which again I would recommend that you require reading about folks like Nat Turner, Demark Vesey, Fredrick Douglas, W.E.B Dubois, Marcus Garvey, A Philip Randolph, James Baldwin, Paul Robeson, El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz, Fanny Lou Hammer and the un-redacted and diluted speeches and writings of Martin Luther King Jr.
Quote:
A previous poster mentioned that Clarence Thomas doesn't speak. Look at Obama...he is barely allowed to speak without a teleprompter.
Not surprising that someone calling themselves Scarlet O'Hara would attempt to build up one black man by scurrilously attempting to tear down another particularly when the later has achieved the highest position in the land whether you like his policies or not.
Quote:
It certainly gives the illusion that blacks participate in politics though, doesn't it.
The illusion? The presidency, the Congress, the state houses, governorships, and too many mayors and city councils to recount. One hell of an illusion.
Education is worse for black kids -- they are presumed to be intellectually inferior and have provisions made for them that reinforce inferiority. Most children are very perceptive and pick up on it; and it's very easy to convince children of inferiority and victimhood.
Then you have people like Sharpton and Wright claiming that black kids brains are different from white kids brains --- feeding right into white intellectual superiority. Have you seen any notable whites denouncing this notion - or blacks either for that matter?
....
Rev. Wright has not preached that whites are intellectually superior to blacks or blacks are superior to whites.
From the NPC: Rev Wright: Black learning styles are different from European and European- American learning styles. They are not deficient; they are just different.
Anyone spending much time at a Trinity UCC service would hear a lot of emphasis on black achievement, with numerous references to to successful people of African descent.
The following is an excerpt from Stephen Mansfield's "The Faith of Barack Obama" were he talked about the environment of achievement that Rev. Wright created at Trinity.
Trinity called for people to rise, created an environment of learning and achievement, and modeled the pursuit of intellectual excellence. Another pastor might joke about a seminary being a cemetery and about how believers could "get their learning and lose their burning." Jeremiah Wright, a man with four earned degrees, used, as Obama later wrote, "twenty-five-cent words" with regularity. He hired only well-educated staff, put university professors in charge of Sunday school classes, and worked to send the youth of his church to the most reputable schools in the land.
Mansfield also points out the Obama returned to Harvard after joining and attending Trinity.
The message youth receive at Trinity is that much is expected from them and the in spite of some of the barriers placed in their path they can achieve great things.
It took a long time for blacks to get any collective respect in the US. They still have a ways to go: white hegemony will fight for its advantage as if the ethnic minorities were drooling zombies taking over the planet.
Today, as we celebrate the birthday of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., signs of King’s legacy are everywhere - in government, business, sports, the arts. The president and his attorney general are black. We have had two highly respected African-American secretaries of State.
In Massachusetts, our governor and chief justice are black. Blacks lead some of this country’s most powerful business institutions, including American Express, Merrill Lynch, Xerox and Aetna. And in the fields of sports and entertainment, many of our nation’s most identifiable cultural icons are black.
Gone are the days when successful black politicians, business leaders and celebrities were considered novelties or tokens. That black Americans have achieved so much since the 1963 March on Washington is cause for celebration indeed.
Yet in 2011, many liberals regard black conservatives - indeed any African-American who questions the liberal establishment - not only as novelties, but as ignorant or traitors to their race.
The classic example, of course, is Justice Clarence Thomas. After almost two decades on the U.S. Supreme Court, the left still regards Thomas as an intellectually weak “Uncle Tom†- never mind that most of Thomas’s critics have read not a word of his scholarly opinions.
I don't think that the majority of liberals consider Black conservatives as selling out or any other epithet. I think that liberals see that it is somewhat counter intuitive to vote for a party that has espoused exclusion in the past. With that said, Republicans are not on the whole racist. Both parties were racist, however, the Democrats were more accepting (picking the lesser of two evils at the time).
With the class issue that has garnered much attention in recent years, it is not in the best interest of poor people (of any race) to vote Republican. It is a sad legacy that Blacks do not earn as much on average as Whites. Thus, Blacks form a disproportionate percentage of the poor. So when liberals state that ALL Black conservatives (Republicans) are "Uncle Toms", they are two things...1) lumping all Blacks as poor 2) stating that if you are poor and Black voting for a party that cuts services is self defeating.
While 1) is stereotypical...2) makes a valid point.
Education is worse for black kids -- they are presumed to be intellectually inferior and have provisions made for them that reinforce inferiority. Most children are very perceptive and pick up on it; and it's very easy to convince children of inferiority and victimhood.
Then you have people like Sharpton and Wright claiming that black kids brains are different from white kids brains --- feeding right into white intellectual superiority. Have you seen any notable whites denouncing this notion - or blacks either for that matter?
Huck Finn - So the justification for changing a word was so that the book would be more acceptable to schools. Do we really have to look to 120+ year old literature to illustrate anti-racism? Really? Is anti-racism the dominant message? Do children even get that message when many adults don't?
No, I don't think so. The dominant message is that whites are heroic, smart and superior - and blacks are hapless victims. Same with To Kill A Mockingbird.
Perhaps people should ask themselves, who does it benefit in the long run that I remain a victim.
Those who don't buy into victimhood are vilified. You can't keep a group in victimhood if you teach them about those who weren't victims - and anyone straying from victimhood gets shut out immediately. Again, who benefits? Is exchanging votes for a pittance to keep you dependent upon the benevolence of white folks a good plan?
A previous poster mentioned that Clarence Thomas doesn't speak. Look at Obama...he is barely allowed to speak without a teleprompter. Did you ever think about all the possibilities as to why? It certainly gives the illusion that blacks participate in politics though, doesn't it.
There is a legacy that exists due to racist policies. We don't have parity economically due to past. Which makes sense. If your grandfather had more money, your father will have more opportunities and you will have even more. Accumulated wealth. However, many Blacks were unable to accumulate wealth.
If you compare African immigrants to Black Americans, you see that the average income is substantially higher for the immigrants. They are the most educated subset in the nation. Why? Because they were middle class in their nations and accumulated wealth over generations. I'm mixed race...my mother is from West Africa. My cousins are doctors and lawyers. I went to college as did my brother, my aunts and uncles, cousins, etc. Most Africans in the states went. We had our version of racist policies, however, the middle class was solidified during the colonial era as far back as the 1800s. So my family lived like middle class Europeans in the 1940s to today (for the most part, my grandmother married a man who was quite poor...she died and my mother was kicked out).
The reason why I mention this is to compare and contrast accumulated wealth within the same race. One group (African immigrants) has a majority of people obtaining a bachelors or higher...the other has quite the opposite. One group has been able to acquire wealth for a long time (albeit not to the extent of Europeans or White Americans, but much more so than Black Americans)...whereas the other group was unable to until relatively recently.
So when we make educational policies, we should take into consideration that wealth gap plays a large role. We shouldn't treat anyone like victims, but rather give the same advantages to richer students.
Am I the only one to see the irony of someone using the nik Scarlet O'Hara complaining about "Plantation politics"?
Congratulations, you are perhaps the first to see the irony.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
Presumed? Funny because there certainly isn't an abundance of evidence that too many African American students lag behind the achievements of their non black class mates, and I might and no shortage of conservatives pointing this out to reenforce their arguments about need to do away with any program designed to address the disparity.
Yes, generally, black children are presumed to be intellectually inferior by white centrism. Absolutely, no doubt about it. I am saying it is false, there is no disparity by skin color --- that the disparity to which you refer is mostly created by the messages sent to black children by both actions and words. Sometimes it is subtle and other times it is blatant. Children are perceptive and too many accept it as fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
In light of the increasing number of highly visible African Americans in every aspect of American culture, business and government, do I need to mention that there is a black President, I must be missing this mass sense of "victimhood".
A whole lotta people are missing it. What did you think the poster I quoted was talking about?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
Perhaps because folks who collectively and individually defeated the victimizers don't have much tolerance for folks who would like to return the former victimizers to a position where they can attempt to turn back the clock?
There are folks who want blacks to believe that, and further that only they can protect blacks from this boogeyman. I don't suppose you see the victimhood and dependence that creates either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
A citation regarding the above would be exceedingly appropriate at this juncture.
Huck Finn - So the justification for changing a word was so that the book would be more acceptable to schools. Do we really have to look to 120+ year old literature to illustrate anti-racism? Really? Is anti-racism the dominant message? Do children even get that message when many adults don't?
When consider the wholesale redaction of slavery and the Civil Rights movement from school texts by conservatives in states like Texas and Oklahoma arguments about redacting the n word from one published edition of Huck Finn seems a bit more than overwrought.
I throughly agree, which again I would recommend that you require reading about folks like Nat Turner, Demark Vesey, Fredrick Douglas, W.E.B Dubois, Marcus Garvey, A Philip Randolph, James Baldwin, Paul Robeson, El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz, Fanny Lou Hammer and the un-redacted and diluted speeches and writings of Martin Luther King Jr.
If that is how you feel, instead of posting here why not write to your local school board and insist that the require reading of Daniel Rasmussen's 'American Uprising" or the Confessions of Nat Turner (that should be fun to read about).
Not surprising that someone calling themselves Scarlet O'Hara would attempt to build up one black man by scurrilously attempting to tear down another particularly when the later has achieved the highest position in the land whether you like his policies or not.
Suffice it to say that my children learned from me -- and a good deal more that has been whitewashed from mainstream history.
If your refutation is to be only focused on what you think I may or may not do or have done with school boards and elsewhere, you will lose. Guaranteed.
So now, can you focus on concepts rather than me?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
The illusion? The presidency, the Congress, the state houses, governorships, and too many mayors and city councils to recount. One hell of an illusion.
None of whom are treated or viewed as equals for the most part. They are perceived to be there as a result of the benevolence of whites, certainly not by their intelligence, determination, skill, etc. And many blacks are all too content with this patronization.
Rev. Wright has not preached that whites are intellectually superior to blacks or blacks are superior to whites.
From the NPC: Rev Wright: Black learning styles are different from European and European- American learning styles. They are not deficient; they are just different.
It's absurd.
He implies that blacks and whites are different species.
Further, does saying that black children can't learn like white children imply inferiority or superiority? It certainly doesn't imply equality. What do you think a black child would perceive when all of a sudden they can't learn like white children.
There is a legacy that exists due to racist policies. We don't have parity economically due to past. Which makes sense. If your grandfather had more money, your father will have more opportunities and you will have even more. Accumulated wealth. However, many Blacks were unable to accumulate wealth.
If you compare African immigrants to Black Americans, you see that the average income is substantially higher for the immigrants. They are the most educated subset in the nation. Why? Because they were middle class in their nations and accumulated wealth over generations. I'm mixed race...my mother is from West Africa. My cousins are doctors and lawyers. I went to college as did my brother, my aunts and uncles, cousins, etc. Most Africans in the states went. We had our version of racist policies, however, the middle class was solidified during the colonial era as far back as the 1800s. So my family lived like middle class Europeans in the 1940s to today (for the most part, my grandmother married a man who was quite poor...she died and my mother was kicked out).
The reason why I mention this is to compare and contrast accumulated wealth within the same race. One group (African immigrants) has a majority of people obtaining a bachelors or higher...the other has quite the opposite. One group has been able to acquire wealth for a long time (albeit not to the extent of Europeans or White Americans, but much more so than Black Americans)...whereas the other group was unable to until relatively recently.
So when we make educational policies, we should take into consideration that wealth gap plays a large role. We shouldn't treat anyone like victims, but rather give the same advantages to richer students.
There is more to it than just wealth, IMO. African immigrants are generally viewed much more favorably than black Americans - and that has little, perhaps nothing, to do with wealth.
There is more to it than just wealth, IMO. African immigrants are generally viewed much more favorably than black Americans - and that has little, perhaps nothing, to do with wealth.
African immigrants are viewed more favorably because they can be used to be pitted against African Americans by those who don't like African Americans. They aren't viewed more favorably because people all of a sudden love black Africans.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
