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.
This is a fair response. My only hang up with Ferguson is that the violence that was intended as a way to speak out against the powers that be was turned against the community in which those very people live. Looking at this strictly from a community and humanitarian perspective, what purpose did looting and damaging your own community serve?
I agree that every concern should be addressed. As a citizen our government should react appropriately since they serve us. It isn't about addressing concerns in a way that white people would be comfortable with but more so in addressing matters in a civil way that society as a whole can relate to. Peaceful means doesn't only come from white people and isn't a white thing. It's a human desire.
Let's say you are walking down the street and you accidentally bump into someone as you look down to check your watch. Their reaction is to quickly turn around and slap you in the face. What is your next reaction going to be? 9 times out of 10 you are going to lash back out in defense, right? What if that person instead said "Hey man, you should be more careful. I almost spilled coffee on myself." You're likely going to realize that your action (or lack thereof) potentially causes harm to someone else and apologize and pay more attention during your walk.
I know... some are going to say apples to oranges but really think about it. It's not that different. Newton's third law applies here. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. So by someone acting out violently, the reaction that they will most times receive back is one of violence and not understanding. Why not find a different action that will achieve more positive reactions? Are you more willing to listen to someone who comes to you with a concern and offers up potential solutions to a problem, or someone who comes in throwing things and demanding that you provide a solution?
People can be equal and still not approve of a negative action if it affects society as a whole. There are a lot of white people out there right now that do things that most of the white race wouldn't approve of. Just as there are a lot of black people who do things that the black race as a whole wouldn't approve of. That doesn't make them any less equal to their peers... just in a position of disapproval.
Yes, they can. Which is why I think every other avenue that can be explored should be before moving to protest. Protest can become dangerous as soon as a person figures out that they can attach to a platform already out there and push their own agenda. They fall under the umbrella of that protest and can hide a lot of their negative intentions.
I agree with this...... with exception to violence only being their only means of communication. Others should step in and help teach those individuals how to communicate effectively and help lift those people up. It's a dis-service to the community to sit back and allow someone to act out violently simply because they don't know how to communicate differently. Whites cannot have any involvement when it comes to this sort of issue in the black community because it comes with a backlash of negativity. They perception is made that those whites are trying to push their superiority or trying to tell a black person how to live. Rarely is it looked upon as a societal member trying to help elevate and educate another member of society.
I coach a 10u baseball team every year. Sometimes we get new kids who come from a bad family background (of all races). They don't do well with authority and usually don't like to listen to the coaches. They tend to be more violent in that it takes very little (a bad hop of a ball that strikes them, a strike out, or a missed pop fly, etc...) to set them off. I had a young man two years ago hit another team mate in the face with a glove for telling him that he needed batting practice because he couldn't hit a ball. He didn't know how to tell us that he needed glasses. Once we were able to figure out a way to get him to communicate with us, we bought him glasses because his family couldn't afford them. He was a much different person once we knew what he needed and could provide a solution to a problem. Despite the differences, we've usually been able to spend some extra time with the kids and teach them how to communicate effectively with the rest of the team and come out with a group of 10-12 kids from all walks of life who are friends.
Now, HOW do we communicate in such a way that everyone can relate and bring potential solutions without resorting to violence, finger pointing, or any other negative actions? That to me is the real answer. I don't think we need to continue to repeat the problems to everyone without offering up potential solutions. That becomes frustrating to everyone. Those who have the problem become frustrated because they aren't being heard and those who listen become frustrated because they don't know what the person wants.
I think everything you've said is fair.
I don't defend violence. I struggle to understand where the violence comes from. That doesn't excuse the violence. But I also don't attach the violence to the protests. I see them as separate things. Which is why your remark that every avenue should be explored before moving to protest doesn't make sense to me. Every avenue is protest. If I see injustice, and I speak out about it, that is me protesting injustice.
If I see injustice, and I write my congressman, that's me protesting injustice.
If I see injustice, and I contact the media and get the press involved, that's me protesting injustice.
If I see injustice, and I organize a candlelight vigil, that's me protesting injustice.
If I march in the streets, that's me protesting injustice.
Every avenue is protest. And my protest is not associated with people throwing bricks at police cars. That's someone else's protest. My protest is not invalidated by their protest. But when you take the position that it is invalidated, and you're part of the power structure that I'm protesting against, then you've validated my perspective that I'm not your equal. You've imposed a framework, that not only must I stage my protests in ways that you find acceptable, but that I must accept that anyone who joins my protest but acts in an unacceptable fashion then invalidates my protest. That's an imposition of power against someone without power. I can't be responsible for every other protester. I can only be responsible for the validity of my complaints.
Sports are a perfect example that white people accept successful black people. I personally believe that black people could be just as successful at business and trade as they are in sports if they started emphasizing education and proper manners in their homes.
Of course there will be ignorant, racist people in the world. But hard work, honesty and positivity overcomes all.
Nonsense. Racism stretches just as much to sports as it does to everything else. Success in sports doesn't change that for black folks.
Guy wears tats and cornrows in a basketball game, then it's a thug league. Especially when they had an incident of a player going into the stands to fight. The NBA probably has less fights than any other big sports league, but they're all somehow a bunch of thugs.
Hockey players beat the **** out of each other on a regular basis, no big deal. Hockey fans have a brawl in the stands, no big deal. Hockey player comes up behind a player and slashes him right in the head with his stick, no one even utters the word 'thug.' Baseball players have several bench clearing brawls every season...no talk of thuggery. Guy tosses a 90 mile per hour fastball at a guy's head, no mention of thuggery.
Moreover, your comment about a "perfect example that white people ACCEPT successful black people is silly.
You really believe that your acceptance is that valuable or that important? LMAO..get real.
"Slaves that worked there were well-fed and had decent lodgings provided by the government, which stopped hiring slave labor in 1802. However, the feds did not forbid subcontractors from using slave labor."
What in the world could this passage mean? Could O'Reilly really thing that how well a slave is fed is a cogent argument - that "cuisine" offered makes slave-holding less of an abomination?
Do some people really think slavery was some kind of entry level job with just a few "perks?"
Are there really people in America that don't realize slavery ended over a 100 years ago and that people today had absolutely nothing to do with it?
I wonder if Mr. Trump has met with any of the folks he has fiercely disrespected?
President Lincoln was certainly interested in what Mr. Douglass had to say:
Quote:
...Upon arriving at the White House, Douglass found “the stairway was crowded with applicants … and as I was the only dark spot among them, I expected to have to wait at least half a day.” But within two minutes he was ushered into the president’s office, where he found Lincoln seated “in a low armchair with his feet extended on the floor, surrounded by a large number of documents and several busy secretaries.” Lincoln immediately put his visitor at ease. “I know who you are, Mr. Douglass; Mr. Seward has told me all about you,” the president said. “Sit down. I am glad to see you." ...
Trump is an AH, I doubt that man meets with any one ...
I have to go get ready for work and I haven't time to spend with the opinion piece, you've selected. However, I am sure it has just enough factual content in it to make it an interesting read ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest
Gee whiz Ma'am & thanks for the back handed compliment! Have a cheery day!
& what is AH? That must be some pretty darn complimentary accolades to the wonderful & mighty Mr. T I'm supposing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell
Most people when they read an opinion piece (article) they understand that there will be just enough factual data to make the piece interesting to their audience and increase their readership. My compliment was to the author of the article.
AH (a donkey's ... ) was used as a acronym in conjunction to Trump's overall character image and stands for a word that I can not use on this public board. It is not complimentary in the least.
I hope you have a good one. For me, I owe, so it is off to work I go ... btw ... I do hope to return to that article and separate the author's facts from its fiction. It may prove to be an interesting task as well as a learning experience.
I have returned and have had the chance to read the opinion piece.
I am at a disadvantage. While Mr. Lincoln may have been told all about Mr. Douglass, me on the other hand, have not. However, given to what I do know, it is my understanding that Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Douglass have a common ground on which to stand, the belief in the more powerful, union.
Do we know any one that Trump has disrespected that may have a common ground to stand on, with him? If so, then we know how it is that some would partake in the Trump koolaid. (still I do not know if Mr. Lincoln held any disrespect for Mr. Douglass ... )
From the article that has been presented:
"On Aug. 1, 1863, Frederick Douglass wrote a letter in his newspaper announcing his refusal to continue recruiting black troops for the Union Army. “When I plead for recruits, I want to do it with all my heart,” he wrote in Douglass’ Monthly. “I cannot do that now,” he said, because “colored men have much overrated the enlightenment, justice and generosity of our rulers in Washington.” Among other things, he said, black soldiers were not being paid as much as whites and were being sent on menial or dangerous missions without adequate support. Even worse, Confederate forces that captured black soldiers often either executed them or sold them into slavery."
While that may be true (of the pay) of the Union Army, how about those of the Confederate (Rebel) Army, what were their conditions?
'POW
Civil War Prisoner of War
Fort McHenry POWs
Fort McHenry
According to The Valley of the Shadow, a Civil War digital archive project, the Staunton Spectator (Staunton, Virgina) newspaper on Tuesday, October 13, 1863 reported: "The Petersburg Express is informed by Lieut. Daniels, who has just arrived at Petersburg from Fort Norfolk, that some 35 or 40 Southern negroes, captured at Gettysburg, are confined at Fort McHenry. He says that they profess an undying attachment to the South. Several times Gen. Schenck has offered to release them from the Fort, if they would take the oath of allegiance to the Federal Government and join the Lincoln army. They had peremptorily refused in every instance, and claim that they should be restored to their masters and homes in the South. They say they would prefer death to liberty on the terms proposed by Schneck."1 Prisoner of War
Slave Narrative (1936-1938)
Federal Writers' Project
Richard Mack, Slave Narratives: Volume 14, Part 3, Pages 151-153
"I loved dem days, I loved dem people. We lived better..." "I had thousands of dollars in Confederate money when the War broke up. If we had won I would be rich."
"The time Capt. Wade Hampton was stumping I followed him all over the State; I led 500 head ... led 500 negroes through the county; I was Captain of them; I rode 'Nellie Ponsa' and wore my red jacket and cap and boots; I had a sword too..." The Era of Black Confederates
Just to add: FAQ for Black Confederate Soldier WebSite
"From the beginning of this struggle, [African Americans] took part ---
on the Union side thousands of run-a-way slaves joined the Army and Navy.Likewise thousands took part on the Confederate side
actuated by a type of loyalty unsurpassed in human annals."
~West A. Hamilton, Colonel, Infantry Reserve
Hampton Conference on National Defense (November 1940)
Harry S. Truman Library and Museum
You're the one making excuses to growl at what Black people are doing.
For us to "get over it" while the Black community is in a disarray is an excuse. It's an excuse to get us to kowtow and play Stepin Fetchit to people like you...much like our ancestors were forced to do so.
If either you or others like you have a problem with Black people discussing our plight in this country, please make your own thread and do all the pissing and moaning to your heart's desire. Because, that's all you're doing anyway. Now unless you'd like to offer a solution not stinking of bias and prejudice, your opinions will hereby be moot.
Take the shackles off so we can talk. Oh wait, you can't ....
The Federal Government never took off those shackles and have placed shackles on all Americans of any color.
So until you can accept the fact that we are all living in the same boat together, your opinions will hereby be moot.
Quit passing the buck, then. We can get our house in order once people like you get out of it.
Now unless you can also stop pissing and moaning about Black people's affairs, then I suggest you keep your nose in yours. You're pretty much going to get the same response I'm giving you anyway, so be a good little boy and butt out.
When people bring their affairs out into the public arena, they can not have their cake and eat it too.
But the race war isn't...I'll leave it at that. All the bigots on this thread will start frothing at the mouth like mad dogs, start blaming me for blaming whites for the Black plight, I'll risk an infraction or two by calling them out harshly, and they'll sit gleefully knowing I might get suspended or banned for going in on them harshly. All because I said that the race war hasn't ended.
Response accusing me of blaming whites and being racist in 3...2...1...
You can do the blame game all you want, but that won't get you where you want to be.
...However, given to what I do know, it is my understanding that Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Douglass have a common ground on which to stand, the belief in the more powerful, union. ...
You have grossly underestimated & undervalued Mr. Douglass' influence & wisdom.
The 'devil is in the details' indeed.
Mr. Douglass had his eye on the endgame. President Lincoln probably did too.
There are some, in the present day, who would refer to both men as 'tyrants'. (& then quibble amongst themselves over whether it's a little 't' or a big 'T')
The reason why I think the American Civil War still matters is because the past continues to shape the future. This is true both on the individual level & on the society level.
The United States of America began with a contradiction when it came to liberty. This historical fact has an impact on the present day. It would be nice to think this isn't true but it would be necessary to put on present day blinders to cover your eyes & to ignore the 'blind spots' when looking back.
Mrs. Obama refuses to do so:
Quote:
...That is the story of this country, the story that has brought me to this stage tonight, the story of generations of people who felt the lash of bondage, the shame of servitude, the sting of segregation, but who kept on striving and hoping and doing what needed to be done so that today I wake up every morning in a house that was built by slaves. ...
Mr. O'Reilly chose to present his politically correct interpretation.
Personally, my long story short interpretation of that section of Mrs. Obama's speech is, 'The price of liberty is eternal vigilance'.
This Country has come a long way in seeking to resolve that original contradiction. Americans can be proud but it doesn't make sense to forget how we got here to this present moment. Black Americans, more so than White Americans, have cause for eternal vigilance. Mrs. Obama recognized not only the progress that's been made but the deep resistance all along the way from bondage, servitude & segregation. & she could've said much more but she focused on the strength inherent in a people who choose to keep striving.
In the introduction to his essay toward a history of the part which Black folks played in the attempt to reconstruct democracy in America, W.E.B. Dubois describes two types of readers. Even though it was written in 1934, Mr. Dubois' description is still accurate:
If the southern man would do what? From your link:
"Let us not bother our brains about what Providence intends to do with our Negroes in the distant future, but glory in and profit to the utmost by what He has done for them in transplanting them here, and setting them to work on our plantations. . . . True philanthropy to the Negro, begins, like charity, at home; and if Southern men would act as if the canopy of heaven were inscribed with a covenant, in letters of fire, that the Negro is here, and here forever; is our prop- erty, and ours forever; . . . they would accomplish more good for the race in five years than they boast the institution itself to have accom- plished in two centuries. . . ."
Not from your link:
General Forrest said, "When I entered the army I took 47 negroes into the army with me, and 45 of them were surrendered with me. I said to them at the start: 'This fight is against slavery; if we lose it, you will be made free; if we whip the fight, and you stay with me . . . I will set you free. In either case you will be free. [They] stayed with me, drove my teams, and better confederates did not live."
--------
Your right The United States of America began with a contradiction when it came to liberty and that contradiction is alive and well today.
Until we can learn from history, we will be forever repeating it.
btw: the confederacy lost ... so I guess we all know what that means. Or do we?
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.
the devil is in the details ...
