»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
A "Lott" of Trouble
| The Alley |
|
A "Lott" of Trouble |
|
Moonlight Romeo 
since 2001-09-10
Posts 982The heart of you |
This will no doubt raise some eyebrows, but perhaps that is a good thing. Thank you. Welcome to America, land of the free and home of the ultra-sensitive. Where even the most benign of comments can label you a segregationist, or, even worse, a human being. Senator Trent Lott (R-Mississippi) found this out the hard way when, at a birthday party for Strom Thurmond, he said the following: “Lott said Mississippians were proud to have voted for Thurmond as president in 1948. He said if the rest of the country had followed suit, ‘We wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years.’ ’’ (From MSNBC) Now, for those of you that do not remember the presidential election of 1948, let me bring you up to speed by telling you that Strom Thurmond ran in that election. His platform was one that featured segregation as one of its major points. Thurmond, back then, was one of the major leaders of the so-called “Dixiecrat” movement.. One assumes that when Trent Lott said “we wouldn’t have had all these problems” he meant that we wouldn’t have had all of these problems because African-Americans would have been in their place. That is what he meant, isn’t it? What? You mean that you do not see how he said that? It is right there, in black and white (or, in this case, blue). “We wouldn’t have had all these problems over all these years.” It is obvious that he is talking about African-Americans. Anyone can see it, why can’t you? So, now that he has said these things about African-Americans and labeled himself a supporter of segregation, Trent Lott is in trouble. He has been scolded by the media and the press, and said his mea culpa at least three times now. Members of his own party, even President Bush, are calling for him to step down as incoming Senate Majority Leader. He has been on BET saying that he “now understands the pain that he’s caused”, just like a good boy who’s been scolded by his political parents should. But, wait just a moment. Let us take a look at another side of this story and these comments. Forgive me for daring to think for myself, but what did Trent Lott say? He said that: “Mississippians were proud to have voted for Thurmond as president in 1948. He said if the rest of the country had followed suit, ‘We wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years’ ” Now, please forgive me again if I am wrong, but where exactly did Trent Lott say that he is a supporter of segregation? Where did he say that he was a racist? Where did he say that he was someone who believed in these things? He did not my friends. He merely gave a gracious gesture to an old man and a friend. But, here in the land of the free and the home of the ultra-sensitive, where anyone with a microphone in front of them is an open target, it is not the words that you say, but the words that they think you say, that matter. What light through yon window breaks? It is the east, and Juliet is the sun. [This message has been edited by Moonlight Romeo (12-17-2002 01:24 PM).] |
||
| © Copyright 2002 Moonlight Romeo - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
The bottom line is this, he shouldn't have ever made those comments, even if they were taken out of context. It is called stepping on one's own [edited by Moderator]. And he shouldn't have made those comments. Why? Because the GOP needs to reach out to minorities, and what he stated is not how to do it. This doesn't mean that Clinton or others are not guilty of performing something similiar (Clinton has done so), but when your political party is already on the "hotseat" because of the race issue, the Senate Majority leader cannot put his foot in his mouth, and he did. [This message has been edited by Sunshine (12-17-2002 01:40 PM).] |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
while it may not necessarily be "right," public figures (especially political candidates or officeholders) have to (or should) weigh the consequences of their words much heavier than the "average joe." if you or i make a comment like that, it affects a few people. if someone in the spotlight says something like that, it affects a nation. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: Uh huh, so is it what you think he said, or what others thought he said? Would we have been better off with Strom instead of Harry and Dwight? Your saying he meant nothing at all. |
||
|
Cpat Hair
since 2001-06-05
Posts 11793 |
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- But, here in the land of the free and the home of the ultra-sensitive, where anyone with a microphone in front of them is an open target, it is not the words that you say, but the words that they think you say, that matter. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- you know..this is true for everyone... it is not what you say but what people think you said....it is not what you meant but what you were understood to mean.. It is called communication...and the speaker is responsible for conveying the idea to the listener. One should always choose the words they use carefully..or risk people not understanding what was meant to be conveyed. If all this is true, ( shich I happen to believe it is) then the speaker is also responsible for the misunderstanding (if there is one) and the consequences of such misunderstandings. NOw what he meant by his statement or what is read into his statement is his responsibility. Obviously, ( at least to me) anyone that is in public office is subject to much more scrutiny than the normal joe off the street or any chest beating opinionate that finds a forum to speak in. That in my opinion is as it should be. If these people are going to step up and represent the people in their Districts or States, then the people have a right to know what their elected officials are saying and to ask what was meant by it if they do not like what it might imply or infer. Seems like...it is ok to question as long as the questions asked don't question your beliefs.... hmmmm... where is the logic in that sort of behavior? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
While it's always fashionable to bash the media for reporting the news -- and to complain about partisan politicing -- ignore what the Dems and the press are doing and watch as the Republican sharks are circling the wounded Mr. Lott --it is they, and only they, that actually have any power to DO anything -- and it appears the Bush admin wants him gone. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Good point. |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
Also is the point that elected representatives, at least in general theory, represent and speak for their home constituency. So when Mr. Lott was making these statements at Thurman's party, was he speaking for his home area, espousing the commonly held views of his state? Those who are elected carry a greater resonsibility which they agree to carry. Actions and words have consequences, which beg out for responsibility. Saying 'I'm sorry', no matter how many times, does not erase the spoken word or acted deed. Alicat |
||
|
The Lonely Stranger Member
since 1999-06-18
Posts 361Upstate, NY, USA |
To be honest, I don't see what all the fuss was about. It is my understanding that Mr. Lott was responsible for representing the ideals of the GOP. It has been my belief all along that Mr. Lott did just that. So wasn't he simply doing his job ?? ... and they sent him home happy ... one hundred percent. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
No, Mr. Lott wasn't representing the Republican Party or the view of the Republican Party when he made those personal remarks at a private birthday party, Lonely Stranger. He was expressing his own sentiments. For that reason, I think it was all blown out of proportion, considering it wasn't even clear what he was referring to by his remarks. Strom Thurmond did have segregation as a part of his platform when he ran for the office of President, but he had other issues as well. Lott could have been referring to one or more of those other campaign issues of the time. Who knows? Or he could have just been trying to make a 100 year old guy feel good by telling him the country would be a better place today if he had won? But, no matter what he meant, the sharks have circled and moved in for the kill, as they always do, Republican or Democrat, no matter the issue at hand. Politics is a dirty business, and the bottom line for most politicians is the advancement of their own personal power base, Republican or Democrat. I think our country would be better off if more people thought for themselves and weren't locked into a partisan mentality. |
||
|
The Lonely Stranger Member
since 1999-06-18
Posts 361Upstate, NY, USA |
I beg to differ. When one examines his voting record, some of his prior affiliations, what was said and the context in which it was said. Mr Lott's meaning was crystal clear. I understand that some people would do or say anything to have hime exhonerated because they share his beliefs (one set or another) Secondly, when you are the majority leader, you are in public life. What you say or do will come under close scrutiny ... it's part of the deal. I believe that such a speech was given on this very board regardin Bill Clinton. Under these circumstances .... when he opens his mouth ..... he speaks for the entiretiy of the GOP. ... There is no normal life Wyatt, just life ... so live! |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
The only obvious mistake Thurmond made was living so long that his earlier ideals became antiquated. Just imagine how much trouble Lott would have caused had he said something nice about Washington or Jefferson? |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Just thought I'd muddy things up a bit more: http://hnn.us/articles/1173.html#Byrd12-19-02 Ah yes, when the world was simple. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Lonely Stranger, Yes, those in public life are under intense scrutiny, and should be very careful what they say, I agree. They have to examine everything from every possible angle, making sure that they do not say something, misconstrued or otherwise, that could upset one special interest group or another. Still, I don't see that a person, Republican, Democrat or Independent, is speaking for their respective parties whenever and wherever they speak. To say that they do is assuming quite a bit about quite a large group of people, I would think. That's quite a broad brush to be stroking. Yes, some people would do or say anything to exonorate him because they hold similar persuasions politically. The same could be said of people who hold similar political persuasions as Bill Clinton, or any other politician. My blood still curdles when I hear people justifying Clinton's lying under oath, because, afterall, it was "just sex", and nobody else's business (intimating that it was okay for him to lie under oath under those circumstances). And yet I was equally irriated at the circling Republican sharks at that time as I am at the circling Democratic sharks this time. Some people speak out because they see the partisan absurdity of it all, and not because they share the political views or conduct of the person in the headlines. Dealing with living in a fish bowl as they do is probably the only thing many of them do that even comes close to justifying their salaries, not to mention that fabulous pension plan that they pay absolutely nothing into (we pay ours and theirs out of our measley paychecks...aren't we generous?) Now, give me a politician who would address that issue and rectify it, and they'd have my vote...and my respect, no matter their party affiliation. Ron and Brad, I think the best thing that could happen in America is the bringing back of history as a subject in our schools. |
||
|
The Lonely Stranger Member
since 1999-06-18
Posts 361Upstate, NY, USA |
Ron said: [The only obvious mistake Thurmond made was living so long that his earlier ideals became antiquated. Just imagine how much trouble Lott would have caused had he said something nice about Washington or Jefferson?] Now let me be CERTAIN that I understand that I understand what you are saying before I respond. I would not want to have anyone say I bastardized your words. Am I to understand that you do not believe that Thurmmond's championing of the cause of segregation was an obvious mistake? ... There is no normal life Wyatt, just life ... so live! |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
There is no comparsion between what Clinton did and what Lott said. The Democrats couldn't wait to "jump" on this indident in order to continue their political strategy: dividng this country along various lines, especially racial. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Had it been an obvious mistake in 1948 there wouldn't have been so many people convinced it was the answer to pursue. Hindsight is twenty-twenty. |
||
|
The Lonely Stranger Member
since 1999-06-18
Posts 361Upstate, NY, USA |
[Had it been an obvious mistake in 1948 there wouldn't have been so many people convinced it was the answer to pursue. Hindsight is twenty-twenty.] I will not go into the millions of Germans who were convinced that the Holacost was the answer in order to topple that attempt at logic. I will simply as YOU RON if YOU believe that Championing segregation is a bad thing. I am asking YOU RON, in front of everyone ... if YOUR belief system says that segregation is wrong. Please answer my question. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
But if you're seeking an understanding of Thurmond, you're asking the wrong questions. What you or I believe today isn't relative to that particular understanding. Ask yourself, instead, whether YOU believed in segregation in 1948? Did you believe those flashes in the night sky were related to electricity in 1750? Did you believe the world was round circa 1450? Shoot, did you buy a ton of Microsoft stock in 1980?  You cannot judge the morality of a person's conclusions except in the context of history. (Which is not the same thing as saying you can't judge their actions. Playing your Hitler card trumps nothing in this game. It's apples and oranges.) Was Thurmond an upright guy in 1948? His support of what was then a very common belief doesn't answer that question. Not incidentally (and since I'm really not trying to evade your question), there's a reason we don't have forums for haiku and sonnets and free verse, or for love and humor poetry. Stumbling across something you haven't previously seen or valued is the most common path to new appreciations and a very large part of the success of our Open Poetry forum. Serendipity is how we learn new things. And, yea, that's as true for people as it is for poetry. Segregation maintains the status quo and is anathema to learning. Your tone implies a moral outrage and makes me wonder why YOU think segregation is wrong? |
||
|
The Lonely Stranger Member
since 1999-06-18
Posts 361Upstate, NY, USA |
Ron writes: -------------------------------------------- But if you're seeking an understanding of Thurmond, you're asking the wrong questions. What you or I believe today isn't relative to that particular understanding. Ask yourself, instead, whether YOU believed in segregation in 1948? Did you believe those flashes in the night sky were related to electricity in 1750? Did you believe the world was round circa 1450? Shoot, did you buy a ton of Microsoft stock in 1980? You cannot judge the morality of a person's conclusions except in the context of history. (Which is not the same thing as saying you can't judge their actions. Playing your Hitler card trumps nothing in this game. It's apples and oranges.) Was Thurmond an upright guy in 1948? His support of what was then a very common belief doesn't answer that question. Not incidentally (and since I'm really not trying to evade your question), there's a reason we don't have forums for haiku and sonnets and free verse, or for love and humor poetry. Stumbling across something you haven't previously seen or valued is the most common path to new appreciations and a very large part of the success of our Open Poetry forum. Serendipity is how we learn new things. And, yea, that's as true for people as it is for poetry. Segregation maintains the status quo and is anathema to learning. Your tone implies a moral outrage and makes me wonder why YOU think segregation is wrong? --------------------------------------------- Sir, I do not seek an understanding of Strom Thurmond. I have a full understanding of Mr. Thurmond and his beliefs. Do not try to muddy the waters with questions of time or era. The question before the court is a simple one that requires but a simple answer (Yes or No) Do YOU sir ... HERE and NOW ... believe that championing the cause of segregation is morally right ??? It was YOU sir who said that nothing that so many people supported could be OBVIOUSLY wrong. I simply carried this statement to Berlin Circa 1930-something. So many people supported extermination of a mass of people based on beliefs or heritage. Does this mean that mass murder is NOT obviously wrong ??? ...... apples & apples. Your Modus Operandi is a familiar one. You make a statement that conveys a certain belief system quite clearly, but affords you the room to wriggle free if required. Perhaps by trying to steer the conversation to one of styles of poetry or trying to change the frame of reference. I repeat my question sir. ****Do YOU sir ... HERE and NOW ... believe that championing the cause of segregation is morally right ???**** If anyonee would like to help clarify my question so RRon understands it thoroughly please do. And finally Sir, my tone implies nothing more than a frustration of a person trying to get a straight answer. Stand up Ron, be counted, If you have a belief, stand up for it and be counted. Don't shirk from the soapbox that you took a perch on ... Be a stand up guy Ron .... tell us what you believe, Lets not dance. I will give the likes of Strom Thurmond, David Duke and Jessie Helms credit that I, to this point, cannot give to you. They at least had the guts to stand up and say "This is what I believe" and be embraced or reviled based on these beliefs. I implore you Ron ..... Speak your mind. [This message has been edited by The Lonely Stranger (12-24-2002 01:55 PM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Have you stopped beating your children yet? C'mon, give me a YES or NO right now! Your question, like mine, is loaded with assumptions that belie a yes or no answer. Whose brand of morality do you want to measure it against? Do you even know what segregation is? Do you want to use a 1912 definition of it? That one was ruled unconstitutional circa 1915 and is very different from the 1948 definition. And I rather strongly suspect that the 1948 definition is just as different from your 2002 definition. When you ask generalities, you can hardly demand specifics. Morally right? A hammer and saw are tools and have no integral morality. They can be used to build or destroy with equal facility. Segregation, depending on which definition you choose, is just a tool. Morality is only attached to the intent to which you wish to put it. Do you really expect me to argue whether championing the use of a hammer is morally right? I already stated, fairly unequivocally I thought, that I don't believe segregation works. You read that part, right? I even gave reasons, which I would hope were a tad more convincing than moral indignation. Segregation maintains the status quo and is anathema to learning. Segregation is counter-productive for everyone involved. It just plain doesn't work. Define what you mean by segregation and we can talk more. Tell me why you think it is wrong. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: Mass murder is not obviously wrong. It's called war. Slavery is not obviously wrong. It's called the draft. Segregation is not obviously wrong, it's called his and her bathrooms. None of this is what you're talking about, but, let's face it, you're not being very specific. Ron's right on the money with the hammer metaphor, you're trying to hammer agreement on a vague concept. Are you aware that in the 1960's there was an African American movement to keep segregation (but with new economic opportunities). The idea was simple, the preceding three hundred years makes it impossible to imagine a level playing field. Therefore, kind of like the rational for tarifs, African Americans need the time to build up an economic infrastructure before they can compete with European Americans. I think the solution is incorrect, but the problem is not something we can afford to ignore. If you look at the situation in Germany, are East Germans on the same playing field as West Germans? Nobody in their right mind wants North and South Korea to unite tomorrow. Most people want a stable, workable North Korean government that gradually introduces reform (Similar to China, dissimilar to Russia). None of these arguments, as far as I know, were used by Strom in 1948, but you didn't ask whether Ron would have voted for Strom, you asked whether or not he agreed with segregation in general (he answered no by the way). You asked for a simple answer to a difficult question. Ever read "Catch 22"? --------------------------- Thinking about this more, I think Lott's comments are more the result of Southern chauvanism fanned by a, you guessed it, victimization mentality. The South does indeed have real life version of the Snopes family, but it also gave us Faulkner in the first place. |
||
|
The Lonely Stranger Member
since 1999-06-18
Posts 361Upstate, NY, USA |
[you asked whether or not he agreed with segregation in general (he answered no by the way).] I could have missed it ... please quote it for me so that I may state that I was mistaken. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: And then you quoted him: quote: And unless that sentence doesn't convince you: quote: Now, isn't that just a wee bit stronger than, "Segregation is wrong because, you know, it's wrong." |
||
|
The Lonely Stranger Member
since 1999-06-18
Posts 361Upstate, NY, USA |
Actually ....it seems as though those answers are technical answers .... my question was indeed aimed at the MORALITY of the practice ..... I want to learn about Ron and his value system ....his beliefs ....his morals. Yours too if you care to answer. ... There is no normal life Wyatt, just life ... so live! |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
You are learning. Me? I'm a libertarian socialist pragmatist. Or just a plain, old fashioned contrarian, it depends on your point of view.  |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
My value system, my beliefs, and my morals are three very different things, any one of which would require a book to explain. And since each is a work-in-progress, that book has yet to be written. I suspect those who have been reading in here for the past four years could answer the question better than I. If it helps, though, Brad and I are two-thirds in agreement (unless you count the contrarian, in which case it's probably closer to 99 percent). p.s. What's wrong with a technical answer? The alternative is usually a wrong answer. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
As a Jeffersonian Constitutionalist let me just say.... I was there. (Racial) Segregation DID work. Precisely as designed. I was in the third grade before desegregation had spread to my school (in the south). Segregation had already done its job. The purpose of (racial (not poetic)) segregation was to -- obviously -- keep the races seperate -- breed animosity -- and most of all -- keep the 'colored' man down. I don't know how anyone could possibly obfuscate that. When Strom Thurmond ran as a segregationist he was a Democrat. Later he switched. So what? Byrd is still a Democrat. Lott was a Republican. The Republicans had J.C. Watts (a black Congressman) in a very high ranking position in the Republican controlled Congress. So what? The Democrats denied Harold Ford, a black congressman, the leadership of the minority. So what? The Republicans race bait on crime. The Democrats help keep black leaders who perpetuate racial strife in power because it suits them and helps them retain power. So what? Minister Farrakhan is a neo-segregationist. So what? George Wallace was a Democrat. Does anyone see any pattern here whatsoever? Segregation worked. Oh... it worked. |
||
|
The Lonely Stranger Member
since 1999-06-18
Posts 361Upstate, NY, USA |
Three replies ....... no answers to one simple question. "Do you think racial segregation is wrong ???" Seems if you hold a believe you'd be willing to stand up for it. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
But you haven't answered the question, either. If you think it's wrong, why do you think it's wrong? Or is this just a gut-feeling kind of thinking with no reasoning or logic behind it? Seems if you hold a belief, you'd be ABLE to stand up for it? LR, you're assuming a cause and effect that can't be easily demonstrated. I was nearly a teen when you were in the third grade, raised a few stones' throws from Detroit, so I know well the environment you describe. But was it solely the result of segregation? Conspiracy theories are always neat, and I don't deny there have been incredibly stupid political blunders, but I sincerely believe that's all they were. The animosity you've seen isn't defined by political parties and it won't be solved by political parties. There's less of it now than there was thirty years ago, I think, but where it still exists, it exists in the hearts of people. And that's the only place it can be changed. One heart at a time. That's not to say we shouldn't do all we can, both individually and politically. But simple solutions rarely exist for complex problems, and looking for them can prevent us from looking more deeply. We very much need to look more deeply. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Lonely Stranger, Okay, next time, offer a multiple choice test. It's easier to grade than actual opinions. Curious but are you one of those people who think "Huckleberry Finn" and "Othello" are racist texts? I won't even ask about Local Rebel's irony. LR, But isn't one of the interesting parts about segregationists is their avoidance of saying they 'want' it to be as you decribe. I may be mistaken but they don't they usually put it in terms of 'Nature', or the "Will of God" or 'the order of things' or some such phrase. By denying responsibility, it offers us a crack, a small one to be sure, but one that opens up the possibility of change. Rhetoric may only be rhetoric, but I think it opens up possibilities: "I think the black man is inferior to the white man." as compared to "I want the black man to be inferior to the white man." In action, it may be the latter, but in words, it is the former. I think there's some pretty good reasons for doing it one way and saying it in another. |
||
|
The Lonely Stranger Member
since 1999-06-18
Posts 361Upstate, NY, USA |
[But you haven't answered the question, either. If you think it's wrong, why do you think it's wrong? Or is this just a gut-feeling kind of thinking with no reasoning or logic behind it? Seems if you hold a belief, you'd be ABLE to stand up for it?] We will answer our questions in sequence Ron, since I asked first, I will expect an answer first. At that point I shall answer your questions. Until you answer however, I have to view any further questioning by you as an attempt (however feeble) to avoid answering the question. [Okay, next time, offer a multiple choice test. It's easier to grade than actual opinions.] Alright ... but for now the question stands as a "Yes/No" which both of you seem to be doing your damnedest to avoid answering. [Curious but are you one of those people who think "Huckleberry Finn" and "Othello" are racist texts?] See above reply to Ron for answer here |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
No. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
No. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
If I knew what assumptions you're assuming I assumed Ron I could probably muster a cogent response.. but since I can only assume... Are you saying racial segregation hasn't helped to perpetuate racism? Or that it can't be easily shown to have? I don't know about detroit at that time but I still remember 'White only' signs in the south. Segregation was a tool to help perpetuate the control of whites over blacks in the south after the end of the Civil War (and I'd just like to point out to the pholks in the peanut gallery that Lincoln did not free the slaves in states that remained in the Union -- and I was living in Mississippi (Trent Lotts state) in 1995 when that state finally outlawed slavery). Is there some argument over that point? And yes Brad -- the dialog has gone pretty much as you said. Who said anything about a conspiracy theory? The only one on peoples minds right now is the 72% of Americans who think the government is covering up something about UFO's and aliens.... like... we don't have enough real problems facing us. [This message has been edited by Local Rebel (12-29-2002 08:56 AM).] |
||
|
The Lonely Stranger Member
since 1999-06-18
Posts 361Upstate, NY, USA |
As I suspected. I do not see the need to converse with either of you any more. |
||
|
aaron woodside Member
since 2001-09-26
Posts 256 |
I think they said that to kill this conversation with you. It's what I would have done had you been so blandly questioning me. I would have let you think whatever you wanted, or seemed to think already. ex animo, Aaron Woodside There are no great men, only men in great circumstances. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
No conversation ever took place. As I suspected, Lonely Stranger never had any interest in discussion, in conversation. Answering his/her question as he/she requested left him/her with nothing more to say. It put the ball in his/her court and instead he/she walked away pouting. Conversation requires two or more interested parties in an interesting subject. Lonely Stranger was neither interested nor interesting. Besides both Ron and I had aready said that. It was just a matter of putting it in the language that was specifically asked for. What opinion, here, was offered by Lonely Stranger? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Lonely Stranger, You will find racial segregation in every society, in every country, most of it voluntary segregation. It seems that it is a natural inclination of the human race to be more comfortable with their "own", whether it be racial, cultural, religious, whatever. I don't see anything wrong with that at all. In that understanding of the term, I agree with Ron and Brad, no it's not wrong, in and of itself. Do you believe that "Black" institutes of higher learning are wrong? Do you believe that the "Black" Miss America pageant is wrong? Do you believe that "Black" Political Caucases are wrong? How about the "Black Clergy of America" (or fill in any city or state that you care to). How about the "Black Police Officers or Black Fire Fighters of ________" (fill in the blank). How about "Black History Month"? Now, take any of the above groups and replace "Black" with "White". Does it change your answers? And if so, why? |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Denise, Lonely Stranger won't understand that. And my answer is yes, I do have a problem if there were corresponding version of the above with 'white'. And no, I see nothing wrong with the versions in black. Why? History, history, history. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
With the black population at about 13% of the U.S. my opinion is that it remains paramount for concerted efforts to consolidate a power base -- so -- I have no objection to those organizations Denise. I think you'll find that they are 'Black' in purpose but not exclusive. The question is -- how many whites would want to join them. I have known whites who were members of the NAACP -- but those were some pretty rare cases. There are white race organizations out there too -- it's just that not too many whites want to be members of those and certainly not too many blacks would ever apply. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Yes, Brad, I see your point about the reverse being objectionable, possibly even inflammatory due to the history of race relations. This was just my poor attempt, I suppose, to try to show that these groups do practice 'segregation', in the voluntary sense of the word, that there is nothing wrong with it, in that sense, and that the reverse should also hold true. I have no objections to them either, L.R. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Ya know? I am disappointed in how this discussion has just been left hanging. It seems as though someone has made up their mind that they think they know what someone else believes, and then just goes away…end of discussion. I guess I would be surprised if I didn't encounter this same closed-minded attitude frequently at work. I hear people who decry prejudice and bigotry and people who see it where it doesn't exist at all, and you can't tell them otherwise. Period. End of story. Many of these same people are blind to their own bigotry and prejudice. They openly make derogatory remarks about “Whitey” or “Honkey”, deliberately within earshot of White co-workers, knowing full well that they are protected by a system primarily interested in thwarting bigotry coming from White people and to a lesser degree, if at all, bigotry directed toward White people. Living and working in a large urban area, the racial environment in my world is a 60% to 40% Black to White ratio, and because Blacks are the majority in my world, I encounter more prejudiced Blacks than Whites. I see the other side of the coin, so to speak, than the side that is denounced by the groups formed as a power base to protect the rights and foster the interests of Black people. Undoubtedly, it is a different experience in areas where the ratios are different. Perhaps it is time for it to be considered “acceptable” to form groups to protect the rights and foster the interests of the White minority in large urban areas? Is there any chance that, in our society, such groups could ever be considered a legitmate venue? After all, the Black majority and the Hispanic and Asian minorities in large urban areas each have their own political action groups. Or will history always preclude the acceptability of Whites having the same protection and advantages afforded to others by such groups? Are 'national' racial ratios the only ratios that should be considered? Fortunately, most of the Black people that I come in contact with are not blind to their own tendency toward prejudicial attitudes. They are willing to discuss misunderstandings, are willing to keep the lines of communication open, don't walk away when they aren't agreed with, or think they aren’t being agreed with, and do try to see the perspectives of other people. It is the ones who are not that I have a very hard time understanding. They do nothing to advance the cause of their people. In my opinion, they can only hinder it. Closed minds thrive in every race and culture. It's just part of the human condition, I suppose. It still bothers me, though, when I encounter it. Personal prejudice is something that we all have to examine ourselves for, and forsake when we find. True harmony can't be achieved, otherwise. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
What white rights are being violated in urban areas Denise and what would 'white rights' groups do... in your estimation? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
L.R., Basically, I suppose it would be good to have an organization to go to when racial harassment on the job is not effectively dealt with by an employer, when supervisors and management sweep things under the rug instead of honestly dealing with legitimate complaints because they don't want to risk having the situation escalate to the point where activism and lawsuits are threatened by the person that has the advantage of "empowerment" behind them. Discipline is meted out much more cautiously to a member of an empowered group than it is to a member of a non-empowered group. It would also be a good thing, I think, to have organizations that offer scholarships to scholastically deserving kids, regardless of race and ethnicity and not because of race and ethnicity. I remember when my girls were in high school they brought home the paperwork for all the scholarships and grants that were being made available by different organizations for college, about 15 different ones, If I recall correctly. We couldn't even apply for a single one because we did not fit any of the "official" minority classifications, even though in Philadelphia, we are a decided minority. I don't know, maybe things have become a bit more equitable in the past eight years? I also had to pay for bus tokens for my girls to go to school, whereas the Black kids got their bus tokens for free, due to some convoluted compromise that was reached with the school district because the school district couldn't provide enough school buses to accomodate all those who applied for busing. It didn't even matter that the Black kids were not coming from outside of the area to a so-called White school. It was a predominately Black school. But if they were Black they got free tokens. If they were White they had to pay for them. My oldest daughter had a similar first and last name as one of her Black fellow students, and she was mistakenly assigned a pack of free tokens and received a notice to go to the cafeteria at such and such a time to pick them up. Not knowing that a mistake had been made, she thought that maybe because of my low income and single mom status at the time, she somehow qualified. Wrong. When she showed up and the counselor saw that she was White, she lost her designation for free tokens, with an apology for the mix-up due to the similar names (this other girl also lived much closer to school and didn't even really need tokens, but since they were free, to her at least, hey, why not take them? The money that paid for them came out of the school district portion of city homeowner's real estate taxes, so I helped pay for the free tokens as well as paying full price for my own kids' tokens.) This situation was a clear abuse of the intent of the original busing program, and a clear waste of taxpayer money. It would have been nice to have had some organization, with political clout behind it, that could have addressed the issue. I've also thought that it would be good to have made available groups similar to the Future Minority Business Leaders and Future Minority Entrepreneurs of America. Maybe some type of organization willing to fund programs such as these for any intereseted kids who don't qualify for the other programs because they aren't of an "officially" designated minority? You know, just general all-around advocacy type organizations that other minorities have available to them. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
So would the purpose of said advocacy group be to get tokens and scholarships for white people? How white? Would Irish count too? You see -- I'm just kidding.... but on this point I'm not -- if there was a white advocacy group that was, well, advocating free tokens for whites -- from whence would come the funding?? and how would any other advocacy group trump a white one? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
No, L.R., I'm not advocating free tokens for white kids, far from it. I would have liked to have been able to have had someone to go to who could have put an end to the obvious abuse of the original intent of the busing program. I think a good solution would have been to provide free tokens only to Black students going to predominately White schools for integration purposes, as was the intent of the original busing plan, and not giving free tokens out to all Black students in the city simply because they are Black. And I would have liked my children to at least have had the opportunity to apply for a scholarship or grant, and not been excluded because they didn't fit any of the "officially" sanctioned minority designations. Private funding is usually where the money comes from, donations made to empowerment groups, by businesses, private citizens, etc. I don't see that any one group would have to trump another. Basically, the so-called "White" group would be more than that. It would be open to anyone who didn't fit one of the officially designated minority stipulations of all the other programs, no matter their race or nationality, sort of a default program, if you will. It would be largely White, though, because they are basically the group without representation presently in empowerment programs. Get out of town! You mean all White people aren't Irish?  Not only are the Irish acceptable, it will only be open to the Irish, but have no fear, being Irish, I have the ability to make anyone Irish with the wave of me wand and a sprinklin of the faerie dust! [This message has been edited by Denise (01-02-2003 01:14 AM).] |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
