When talking about slavery, I dont think that most people realize that us white folk didnt just go down to Africa and round up blacks to bring back and work for us. The slaves we bought were already being used as slaves by rival tribes who had kidnapped/overthrough them. And even then a good majority of the slaves were not kunta kente pick my cotton boy or else yous gets the whippins slaves, they were more indentured servents who had it pretty good. Infact, most "slaves" stayed with their "Masters" after slavery was made illegal. There were bad slave owners who saw their slaves as nothing more than tools to be worked to death, but they were the minority.
Lucky7 on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
edited July 2007
Saying "I'm not arguing X" and then proceeding to argue X does not give you a pass, Evander.
The problem I have with black people (I get the award for the worst way to start a sentance EVER) is that they don't seem to be able to figure out how to pull themselves up out of the hole that so many of them are in. I empathize deeply with "the black struggle" because I come from a background thathas had it's own share of hardships. The difference, though, is that my people were able to come together and work at actually improving their quality of life. They didn't hold funerals for the word "kike", they didn't lobby to have an official "Jewish History month", they didn't try to divorce themselves, upon becoming successful, from others of their community who were still in harm's way. I am not saying that every black individual is guilty of this, but these are what the general trends become. Do the Jews have idiotic organizations that go around making empty gestures, and special Jewish television networks, etc. Yes, we do NOW, but that is only after we have pulled ourselves up, and when there is a time that there is a serious issue to be dealt with, such as the immigration of many impoverished Soviet Jews during the early nineties, we actually come together and raise them up to where we are too.
You argue that the "silly symbolic stuff" is taking priority over everything else without really acknowledging or even knowing what other work or efforts are going on. You refer to historical "Jewish"solutions to problems that are contextually useless in the example of American blacks. Your entire tone is a smarmy mixture of self-congratulation in taking credit for the suffering and striving of your ancestors while expressing condescension and pity towards blacks.
The reference of this PR stunt is a much older PR stunt in which the NAACP "buried Jim Crow." Maybe it didn't do anything, maybe it inspired a few people, maybe it raised some awareness of the problem. There are a lot of groups doing a lot of different things, and I don't see how occasional PR stunts and politicized examples of some doofus saying something racist on the radio are doing anything to hinder the other efforts.
The problem I have with black people (I get the award for the worst way to start a sentance EVER) is that they don't seem to be able to figure out how to pull themselves up out of the hole that so many of them are in. I empathize deeply with "the black struggle" because I come from a background thathas had it's own share of hardships. The difference, though, is that my people were able to come together and work at actually improving their quality of life. They didn't hold funerals for the word "kike", they didn't lobby to have an official "Jewish History month", they didn't try to divorce themselves, upon becoming successful, from others of their community who were still in harm's way. I am not saying that every black individual is guilty of this, but these are what the general trends become. Do the Jews have idiotic organizations that go around making empty gestures, and special Jewish television networks, etc. Yes, we do NOW, but that is only after we have pulled ourselves up, and when there is a time that there is a serious issue to be dealt with, such as the immigration of many impoverished Soviet Jews during the early nineties, we actually come together and raise them up to where we are too.
You argue that the "silly symbolic stuff" is taking priority over everything else without really acknowledging or even knowing what other work or efforts are going on. You refer to historical "Jewish"solutions to problems that are contextually useless in the example of American blacks. Your entire tone is a smarmy mixture of self-congratulation in taking credit for the suffering and striving of your ancestors while expressing condescension and pity towards blacks.
The reference of this PR stunt is a much older PR stunt in which the NAACP "buried Jim Crow." Maybe it didn't do anything, maybe it inspired a few people, maybe it raised some awareness of the problem. There are a lot of groups doing a lot of different things, and I don't see how occasional PR stunts and politicized examples of some doofus saying something racist on the radio are doing anything to hinder the other efforts.
You can inject whatever subtext into my statements that you like, but that doesn't change whatI meant when I said it.
I don't see where I'm arguing that Jews are better than blacks. Having accomplished a particular thing while another group hasn't doesn't make you better than them, at least in my mind. I don't look down on those who have yet to accomplish; I give them what advice I can, and help them in what ways I can.
Just the same as when I have yet to accomplish, I appreciate advice and assistance from others.
And the word "We" is me identifying as a Jew, not identifying all Jews as part of myself. Notice that I used "They" in some parts of my post as well, to refer to Jews, seperating myself out from them. I used the word "we" when refering to the present, or to other time periods that I was actually alive for.
Saying that I come from a people that has experienced hardships doesn't mean I am saying that MY life has been hard. It is saying that I have been raised knowing of the hardships that those before me, even my parents and grandparents, had to endure. Are you upset that I feel that I can understand the pain of others who have been discriminated against through the experiences of people close to me who also dealt with discrimination? Is this one of those "You have absolutely no idea unless it happened directly to you" statements?
Not every black personin America has had to deal directly with discrimination (although I would imagine that most have, to some degree) Are those few who haven't dealt with discrimination and hardship also kept on the outside, or does the color of their skin getthem a free pass?
You've been attacking me for things that I didn't say, ignoring the things that I did. You've made multiple statements directly contradicting the things that I DID say. I really can't draw any conclusion from this other than the fact that you have some larger issue with my statements, or with me in general, and are trying to take it out by nitpicking anything you can find. Rather than responding to the points I have explicitly made, you keep either attacking me personally, or claiming that I have made a point I never did. Maybeyour larger issue was the percieved smarminess, but if it wasn't, then by all means, please stop beating around the bush, and just state what your problem is, rather than pointing things out meaningless things like the fact that I don't wear a yarmulkeh.
When talking about slavery, I dont think that most people realize that us white folk didnt just go down to Africa and round up blacks to bring back and work for us. The slaves we bought were already being used as slaves by rival tribes who had kidnapped/overthrough them. And even then a good majority of the slaves were not kunta kente pick my cotton boy or else yous gets the whippins slaves, they were more indentured servents who had it pretty good. Infact, most "slaves" stayed with their "Masters" after slavery was made illegal. There were bad slave owners who saw their slaves as nothing more than tools to be worked to death, but they were the minority.
To be fair, where else did the former slaves have to go?
It doesn't quite work to say "okay, you're free now, have fun."
That makes about as much sense as invading Iraq without having an exit strategy.
Now if we could just get rid of "cunt". That is a disgusting word no one should be using.
What's wrong with the word cunt? It's up there with Fuck, bitch, shit ass damn and hell and I particularly don't see any reason to abolish it unless you're gonna abolish those other ones too.
Boki on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
edited July 2007
Evander, I was responding to your posts - particularly those in which you attempted to draw parallels between the historical struggles of Jews and the modern struggles of black people in America. I don't have a personal grudge against you and don't care whether or not you wear a yarmulke.
I don't think that the parallels you draw between the historical struggles of Jews and the modern struggles of African Americans are apt or informative, for a whole lot of reasons. And yes, I don't think that it's a stretch to infer from your posts stating "The Jews handled problems A B and C adroitly while blacks aren't coping with problems D E and F" that a negative comparison is being drawn on some level, even if it wasn't your conscious intention.
I don't think you've presented a reasonable case that PR frippery like "burying the N-word" or going after Don Imus in any way supplants the myriad other programs and initiatives and discussions that are going on regarding the state of blacks in American society.
Evander, I was responding to your posts - particularly those in which you attempted to draw parallels between the historical struggles of Jews and the modern struggles of black people in America. I don't have a personal grudge against you and don't care whether or not you wear a yarmulke.
I don't think that the parallels you draw between the historical struggles of Jews and the modern struggles of African Americans are apt or informative, for a whole lot of reasons. And yes, I don't think that it's a stretch to infer from your posts stating "The Jews handled problems A B and C adroitly while blacks aren't coping with problems D E and F" that a negative comparison is being drawn on some level, even if it wasn't your conscious intention.
I don't think you've presented a reasonable case that PR frippery like "burying the N-word" or going after Don Imus in any way supplants the myriad other programs and initiatives and discussions that are going on regarding the state of blacks in American society.
A) you felt the whole yarmulke thing was important enough to bring up before any of the rest of this. In your own words, "Saying 'I'm not arguing X' and then proceeding to argue X does not give you a pass".
I've reitterated numerous times that whether or not the struggles were parrallel is irrellevant, and that the point merely is thatthere were struggles. However, if you want parrallels, how about segregation and denial of rights? These are two of the biggest struggles that black people have worked to overcome, and Jews dealt with both of them many times.
C) It's one thing to infer something from a post by itself. When I have made a specific point, though, throughout the rest of the thread to clarify that I was not making the exact same point that you now accuse me of, then it DOES become a stretch to infer it. To tell me that it is more likely that I am subconciously racist than that you are are wrong about your inferences is of a level that I cannot even classify it.
You keep making accusations of me that you cannot backup, and when they are shot down making other accussations. You make a point which you later call irrelevant. You say I made an argument, and then later, when I show I didn't, you turn around and say "well, you implied it." The best explanation you can come up with is that I am being "smarmy".
If you have an overarching problem, please, by all means, just state what it is. I hate playing these games.
Now if we could just get rid of "cunt". That is a disgusting word no one should be using.
What's wrong with the word cunt? It's up there with Fuck, bitch, shit ass damn and hell and I particularly don't see any reason to abolish it unless you're gonna abolish those other ones too.
To some people the c-word has a lot more offensive power than all of those other words put together.
Personally, I think our society needs to overcome its fear of words. Words have no power thatyou don't give them. Honestly, when it comes down to it, rap has done FAR MORE to deal with the n-word than the NAACP has. While the NAACP makes a big deal out of it, and treats it as a huge evil, rap music has taken it's power away from it. Now it's just another word that they use to refer to other people. In the end, that is how you really need to deal with words, by taking their power away from them, not giving more power to them.
Now if we could just get rid of "cunt". That is a disgusting word no one should be using.
What's wrong with the word cunt? It's up there with Fuck, bitch, shit ass damn and hell and I particularly don't see any reason to abolish it unless you're gonna abolish those other ones too.
To some people the c-word has a lot more offensive power than all of those other words put together.
No it doesn't... in fact it's a pretty weak word. Isn't it just a synonym of pussy? If someone says "Hey you cunt!" It just doesn't pack the same punch as "Hey motherFUCKer!" or "Hey you lil BITCH!".
Now if we could just get rid of "cunt". That is a disgusting word no one should be using.
What's wrong with the word cunt? It's up there with Fuck, bitch, shit ass damn and hell and I particularly don't see any reason to abolish it unless you're gonna abolish those other ones too.
To some people the c-word has a lot more offensive power than all of those other words put together.
No it doesn't... in fact it's a pretty weak word. Isn't it just a synonym of pussy? If someone says "Hey you cunt!" It just doesn't pack the same punch as "Hey motherFUCKer!" or "Hey you lil BITCH!".
Yes it does. As Evander said, "to some people" it is more offensive than anything else. Anything else. You may be fine with it, but I know some people who won't use it under any circumstances.
Now if we could just get rid of "cunt". That is a disgusting word no one should be using.
What's wrong with the word cunt? It's up there with Fuck, bitch, shit ass damn and hell and I particularly don't see any reason to abolish it unless you're gonna abolish those other ones too.
To some people the c-word has a lot more offensive power than all of those other words put together.
No it doesn't... in fact it's a pretty weak word. Isn't it just a synonym of pussy? If someone says "Hey you cunt!" It just doesn't pack the same punch as "Hey motherFUCKer!" or "Hey you lil BITCH!".
Yes it does. As Evander said, "to some people" it is more offensive than anything else. Anything else. You may be fine with it, but I know some people who won't use it under any circumstances.
Now if we could just get rid of "cunt". That is a disgusting word no one should be using.
What's wrong with the word cunt? It's up there with Fuck, bitch, shit ass damn and hell and I particularly don't see any reason to abolish it unless you're gonna abolish those other ones too.
To some people the c-word has a lot more offensive power than all of those other words put together.
No it doesn't... in fact it's a pretty weak word. Isn't it just a synonym of pussy? If someone says "Hey you cunt!" It just doesn't pack the same punch as "Hey motherFUCKer!" or "Hey you lil BITCH!".
I said "to some people", not to you, personally.
There are people out there, many within so-called "feminist" circles, butnot all of them, who view that word as one of the biggest evils out there.
Different things offend different people. You never know what might set some one off.
Now if we could just get rid of "cunt". That is a disgusting word no one should be using.
What's wrong with the word cunt? It's up there with Fuck, bitch, shit ass damn and hell and I particularly don't see any reason to abolish it unless you're gonna abolish those other ones too.
To some people the c-word has a lot more offensive power than all of those other words put together.
No it doesn't... in fact it's a pretty weak word. Isn't it just a synonym of pussy? If someone says "Hey you cunt!" It just doesn't pack the same punch as "Hey motherFUCKer!" or "Hey you lil BITCH!".
I said "to some people", not to you, personally.
There are people out there, many within so-called "feminist" circles, butnot all of them, who view that word as one of the biggest evils out there.
Different things offend different people. You never know what might set some one off.
Yeah, I read it. That's the part I was referring to with the 'woeful lack of historical knowledge' comment.
It's easy to say "you're wrong"
How about explaining how i'm wrong? If I am "woefully" lacking in historic knowledge then, by all means, enlighten me.
Gorak's already pointed it out, and I'll add that the history of Jewish oppression in Europe is not a relevant point of comparison with the black situation in America. I'll also point out that even if it was, the Jewish have had a lot more time to recover from their treatment, so in effect you're chiding black people for not being quick enough off the blocks for your liking. That's silly. When two groups are oppressed differently, in different places and at different points in history, you don't get to chide the later one for not catching up quick. You're also persisting in the notion that black groups don't really do anything besides these occasional symbolic things and therefore need to focus on 'the real issues'. I'm pretty sure they're capable of doing multiple things at once
I mean, not just the ones who have misconstrued the point of feminism into thinking tht their goal should be to get back at men for all those years of oppression, but ALL feminists? You hate people just because they feel that women should have equal societal status with men?
Yeah, I read it. That's the part I was referring to with the 'woeful lack of historical knowledge' comment.
It's easy to say "you're wrong"
How about explaining how i'm wrong? If I am "woefully" lacking in historic knowledge then, by all means, enlighten me.
Gorak's already pointed it out, and I'll add that the history of Jewish oppression in Europe is not a relevant point of comparison with the black situation in America. I'll also point out that even if it was, the Jewish have had a lot more time to recover from their treatment, so in effect you're chiding black people for not being quick enough off the blocks for your liking. That's silly. When two groups are oppressed differently, in different places and at different points in history, you don't get to chide the later one for not catching up quick. You're also persisting in the notion that black groups don't really do anything besides these occasional symbolic things and therefore need to focus on 'the real issues'. I'm pretty sure they're capable of doing multiple things at once
I've said a lot of things in this thread, so you probably didn't get a chanceto read them all, but while I was being rather reactionary in my initial post (although I didn't intend for it to come off as though I was "chiding" anyone, but I can see how it looks like that.), I've restated my points in a more level manner since then.
The black community has made great strides towards improving their station, but recently I feel as though they have been lacking in focus on what is important. Rather than putting more effort into the most important places, which I would personally consider to be illiteracy rates and mortality rates, they seem to have spread out their focus over everything, which, to me, detracts from the more important goals by putting them on the same level as the less important ones. Whenyou are drawing more publicity to an event to "bury" a word, especially an event that EVERYONE knows will make no difference (those who use theword would have stopped by now if things like this were going to stop them) than you bring to the issues of illiteracy rates and mortality rates, you do the community a disservice, because public perception becomes the way it is.
I brought up Jews because there were two particular constantsthat the Jewish people had which I believe would benefit Blacks in their current struggle. I think that Blacks had these too, to varrying degrees, at points during the civil rights movement, but over time they seem to be less and less present.
Those two things are a strong sense of focus on which issues require the most attention, and a cohesion between the people that causes the majority of them to do all they can not only to raise themselves up, but to raise everyone else up with them.
This was the point that I was making. I wasn't trying to say that anyone is better than anyone else. I wasn't saying that Blacks do nothing at all to help themselves. I wasn't saying that George Bush actually DOES care about black people. All I was saying is what is above, and I apologize if my initial reactionary tone made it seem like I was trying to make a different point.
I really want to know, though (since it seems thatthis thread is pretty much devolved at this point), to the people who kept saying that it was different for Blacks because they can't hide their skin color, would you advocate that Gays have an easier time than black because they can simply "not act Gay" in public? If a black person COULD hide his skin color (through body paint, etc.) should he? Should a woman who can get away with it dress up as a man?
The statement that it's different because you can't hide your skin color always struck me as just inherently flawed, like, isn't that EXACTLY what we are arguing against when we argue against discrimination?
I don't think that pointing out that camouflage is an effective tactic in a hostile environment neccessarily implies an endorsement of said environment, just that when trapped in a bad situation it may be easier for some groups to cope than others. So long as its accompanied by the sentiment that 'passing' shouldn't be a goal for a given group or individual, I don't see a problem.
I don't think that pointing out that camouflage is an effective tactic in a hostile environment neccessarily implies an endorsement of said environment, just that when trapped in a bad situation it may be easier for some groups to cope than others. So long as its accompanied by the sentiment that 'passing' shouldn't be a goal for a given group or individual, I don't see a problem.
I don't know, so often to me it seems to just be a game of one-upsmanship, saying "X has it betterthan Y, because X can pass, but Y can't." Besides the issues I have with trying to rate which opressed group has it worse than which other oppressed group (rather than, you know, recognizing that we should care about ALL oppressed groups), my problem is that I don't see how that sentiment can do anything but contradict the former statement.
The place that I can see it mattering is when talking about the hardships facing a particular group, in and of itself, on merely a surface level, but to compare two groups, and say "yeah, but this one can pass, although they shouldn't have to" begs the question, "why did you mention it in the first place, then?"
I really want to know, though (since it seems thatthis thread is pretty much devolved at this point), to the people who kept saying that it was different for Blacks because they can't hide their skin color, would you advocate that Gays have an easier time than black because they can simply "not act Gay" in public? If a black person COULD hide his skin color (through body paint, etc.) should he? Should a woman who can get away with it dress up as a man?
The statement that it's different because you can't hide your skin color always struck me as just inherently flawed, like, isn't that EXACTLY what we are arguing against when we argue against discrimination?
It's absolutely different, and there are, as I pointed out, highly different standards of discrimination. Atheists, for instance, have a ridiculously rough time making public office, but people rarely cross the street when they see one coming. Racist sentiment against blacks may or may not be stronger than that against Jews or gays in any given location, but, as you put it, Jews and gays tend to "pass" in the suburban supermarket.
Saying that you "pass" because you're not wearing a yarmulke or leather chaps is not an endorsement of racism. It's just pointing out the the ubiquity and effect of the racism has a different effect.
Irond Will on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
You keep making accusations of me that you cannot backup, and when they are shot down making other accussations. You make a point which you later call irrelevant. You say I made an argument, and then later, when I show I didn't, you turn around and say "well, you implied it." The best explanation you can come up with is that I am being "smarmy".
If you have an overarching problem, please, by all means, just state what it is. I hate playing these games.
Okay Evander, if I have so grossly misunderstood your posts, then please succinctly explain what your point is with going on about the historical tribulations of Jews vis a vis the modern state of the black community. And while you're at it, explain how a NAACP media event takes away from "meaningful progress".
I really want to know, though (since it seems thatthis thread is pretty much devolved at this point), to the people who kept saying that it was different for Blacks because they can't hide their skin color, would you advocate that Gays have an easier time than black because they can simply "not act Gay" in public? If a black person COULD hide his skin color (through body paint, etc.) should he? Should a woman who can get away with it dress up as a man?
The statement that it's different because you can't hide your skin color always struck me as just inherently flawed, like, isn't that EXACTLY what we are arguing against when we argue against discrimination?
It's absolutely different, and there are, as I pointed out, highly different standards of discrimination. Atheists, for instance, have a ridiculously rough time making public office, but people rarely cross the street when they see one coming. Racist sentiment against blacks may or may not be stronger than that against Jews or gays in any given location, but, as you put it, Jews and gays tend to "pass" in the suburban supermarket.
Saying that you "pass" because you're not wearing a yarmulke or leather chaps is not an endorsement of racism. It's just pointing out the the ubiquity and effect of the racism has a different effect.
What about the fact that there is a LOT more involved in "passing". It may be easier for some groups to pass than others, but there are still various unconcious tells.
If a man every mentions his "boyfriend" in public, that gives him away. Mr. Goldstein isn't really going to be able to hide anything from that cashier after he hands over his credit card, etc. There are many other "tells", those are just a coupleof easy ones to mention.
The fact is, a random gay guy walking down the street is less likely to get slurs yelled out to him than a random black guy, but in the end, does that make any difference at all? Yes, it can be pointed out as "a thing that happens" but it doesn't have any real implications on anything, as far as I can tell. I've never honestly seen anyone advocating that "passing" is a solution to anything, or even a good idea. And the fact that some groups can "pass" more easily that others doesn't invalidate the experiences of other groups. It just seems to me like a "fact" that peoplelike to bring up in these sorts of discussions, but one that doesn't hold any actual sort of implications.
You keep making accusations of me that you cannot backup, and when they are shot down making other accussations. You make a point which you later call irrelevant. You say I made an argument, and then later, when I show I didn't, you turn around and say "well, you implied it." The best explanation you can come up with is that I am being "smarmy".
If you have an overarching problem, please, by all means, just state what it is. I hate playing these games.
Okay Evander, if I have so grossly misunderstood your posts, then please succinctly explain what your point is with going on about the historical tribulations of Jews vis a vis the modern state of the black community. And while you're at it, explain how a NAACP media event takes away from "meaningful progress".
What you deem to be more important is hardly the primary criteria for what they choose to focus on.
Literacy rates and mortality rates are less important than continuing the irrelevant discussion over a word that has been used so much that it has lost all meaning to entire subcultures of people?
You're right, who cares that Jamal can't read, or that black people are more than four times as likely to die of AIDS, and almost twice as likely to die of Diabetes compared to the average American, overall. Don Imus called a bunch of women, some of whom weren't even black, "hos", so we need to deal with an idiotic racist old man immediately.
When talking about slavery, I dont think that most people realize that us white folk didnt just go down to Africa and round up blacks to bring back and work for us. The slaves we bought were already being used as slaves by rival tribes who had kidnapped/overthrough them. And even then a good majority of the slaves were not kunta kente pick my cotton boy or else yous gets the whippins slaves, they were more indentured servents who had it pretty good. Infact, most "slaves" stayed with their "Masters" after slavery was made illegal. There were bad slave owners who saw their slaves as nothing more than tools to be worked to death, but they were the minority.
yeah... um ok
Where would those slaves go after the abolishment of slavery?
Think they'd just buy some land in a nice neighboorhood and live peacefully?
Indentured servents are people who agree to work under a contract for a determined amount of time. The African-American slave were people mostly born into slavery and sold like cattle. These people could be raped and couldn't report it to anyone because they were owned. Say ol' kunta did refuse to pick cotten, you think his quote unquote master would simply put him in time-out?
Gotta disagree, I don't think the American slave actually had a pretty good thing going for them.
What about the fact that there is a LOT more involved in "passing". It may be easier for some groups to pass than others, but there are still various unconcious tells.
If a man every mentions his "boyfriend" in public, that gives him away. Mr. Goldstein isn't really going to be able to hide anything from that cashier after he hands over his credit card, etc. There are many other "tells", those are just a coupleof easy ones to mention.
The fact is, a random gay guy walking down the street is less likely to get slurs yelled out to him than a random black guy, but in the end, does that make any difference at all? Yes, it can be pointed out as "a thing that happens" but it doesn't have any real implications on anything, as far as I can tell. I've never honestly seen anyone advocating that "passing" is a solution to anything, or even a good idea. And the fact that some groups can "pass" more easily that others doesn't invalidate the experiences of other groups. It just seems to me like a "fact" that peoplelike to bring up in these sorts of discussions, but one that doesn't hold any actual sort of implications.
I'm not referring to "passing" as a strategy, but rather "passing" as happenstance. A Hasidic Jew, for instance, wouldn't "pass" even if he never mentioned that he was Jewish. A constantly-worn yarmulke would have a similar, if a bit more subtle effect.
It's the difference between having localized negative encounters and ubiquitous negative encounters, and it's why non-white immigrant groups have had a much harder time integrating into the US and Europe than white immigrants. I'm sure that you make no attempt to hide your Jewishness, but if you were seated next to a dude who really hated Jews on an airplane, he wouldn't necessarily even know unless you told him. It doesn't make it "okay" that the dude hates Jews and it doesn't mean that any incidents in which you were treated poorly because of your heritage are dismissed.
When talking about slavery, I dont think that most people realize that us white folk didnt just go down to Africa and round up blacks to bring back and work for us. The slaves we bought were already being used as slaves by rival tribes who had kidnapped/overthrough them. And even then a good majority of the slaves were not kunta kente pick my cotton boy or else yous gets the whippins slaves, they were more indentured servents who had it pretty good. Infact, most "slaves" stayed with their "Masters" after slavery was made illegal. There were bad slave owners who saw their slaves as nothing more than tools to be worked to death, but they were the minority.
When talking about slavery, I dont think that most people realize that us white folk didnt just go down to Africa and round up blacks to bring back and work for us. The slaves we bought were already being used as slaves by rival tribes who had kidnapped/overthrough them. And even then a good majority of the slaves were not kunta kente pick my cotton boy or else yous gets the whippins slaves, they were more indentured servents who had it pretty good. Infact, most "slaves" stayed with their "Masters" after slavery was made illegal. There were bad slave owners who saw their slaves as nothing more than tools to be worked to death, but they were the minority.
If you truly believe this not only are you a fool, but you must have a complete lack of knowledge of ACTUAL history. "Indentured servents" are you fucking kidding me? The used to hang black women upside down and cut open their wombs when they were pregnant. Indentured servants, sure.
When talking about slavery, I dont think that most people realize that us white folk didnt just go down to Africa and round up blacks to bring back and work for us. The slaves we bought were already being used as slaves by rival tribes who had kidnapped/overthrough them [citation needed]. And even then a good majority of the slaves were not kunta kente pick my cotton boy or else yous gets the whippins slaves, they were more indentured servents who had it pretty good. Infact, most "slaves" stayed with their "Masters" after slavery was made illegal [citation needed]. There were bad slave owners who saw their slaves as nothing more than tools to be worked to death, but they were the minority.
If you truly believe this not only are you a fool, but you must have a complete lack of knowledge of ACTUAL history. "Indentured servents" are you fucking kidding me? The used to hang black women upside down and cut open their wombs when they were pregnant [citation needed]. Indentured servants, sure.
When talking about slavery, I dont think that most people realize that us white folk didnt just go down to Africa and round up blacks to bring back and work for us. The slaves we bought were already being used as slaves by rival tribes who had kidnapped/overthrough them [citation needed]. And even then a good majority of the slaves were not kunta kente pick my cotton boy or else yous gets the whippins slaves, they were more indentured servents who had it pretty good. Infact, most "slaves" stayed with their "Masters" after slavery was made illegal [citation needed]. There were bad slave owners who saw their slaves as nothing more than tools to be worked to death, but they were the minority.
If you truly believe this not only are you a fool, but you must have a complete lack of knowledge of ACTUAL history. "Indentured servents" are you fucking kidding me? The used to hang black women upside down and cut open their wombs when they were pregnant [citation needed]. Indentured servants, sure.
...Roberts argues that by taking away control over sexuality and the rights of motherhood, slave masters took away a piece of women's humanity and their worth as people in society (p. 30). She gives us an example of the beating of pregnant slaves as “maternal-fetal-conflict.” This separation of woman from fetus allows social policies and medical practice to treat a pregnant woman in opposition to the fetus she is carrying. Pregnant slaves were forced to lie face down on the ground where depressions were made to shield the fetus from harm (p. 40). Womanhood and motherhood could be separated, which enabled care of the fetus without regard for the woman’s health and well being.
Not hanging them upside-down, but the next closest thing.
What about the fact that there is a LOT more involved in "passing". It may be easier for some groups to pass than others, but there are still various unconcious tells.
If a man every mentions his "boyfriend" in public, that gives him away. Mr. Goldstein isn't really going to be able to hide anything from that cashier after he hands over his credit card, etc. There are many other "tells", those are just a coupleof easy ones to mention.
The fact is, a random gay guy walking down the street is less likely to get slurs yelled out to him than a random black guy, but in the end, does that make any difference at all? Yes, it can be pointed out as "a thing that happens" but it doesn't have any real implications on anything, as far as I can tell. I've never honestly seen anyone advocating that "passing" is a solution to anything, or even a good idea. And the fact that some groups can "pass" more easily that others doesn't invalidate the experiences of other groups. It just seems to me like a "fact" that peoplelike to bring up in these sorts of discussions, but one that doesn't hold any actual sort of implications.
I'm not referring to "passing" as a strategy, but rather "passing" as happenstance. A Hasidic Jew, for instance, wouldn't "pass" even if he never mentioned that he was Jewish. A constantly-worn yarmulke would have a similar, if a bit more subtle effect.
It's the difference between having localized negative encounters and ubiquitous negative encounters, and it's why non-white immigrant groups have had a much harder time integrating into the US and Europe than white immigrants. I'm sure that you make no attempt to hide your Jewishness, but if you were seated next to a dude who really hated Jews on an airplane, he wouldn't necessarily even know unless you told him. It doesn't make it "okay" that the dude hates Jews and it doesn't mean that any incidents in which you were treated poorly because of your heritage are dismissed.
On what basis do you say that non-white immigrant groups had a harder time integrating into the US and Europe? ESPECIALLY with the specific accounts of the almost utter LACK of Jewish integration in Europe.
Whe you are dealing with immigrants, you're dealing with a whole new set of rules, including language barriers, and style of dress, etc.
Honestly, the only place where "passing" seems to have any relevance to anything at all is in being noticed by individuals with whom you have no interaction at all. Yes, there can be danger there, but in those cases you are looking at random acts of aggression, not systematic discrimination, such as being turned down for jobs, and loans, etc. In these instances, where you have to give personal information, you are much less likely to "pass".
Evander on
0
Options
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
When talking about slavery, I dont think that most people realize that us white folk didnt just go down to Africa and round up blacks to bring back and work for us. The slaves we bought were already being used as slaves by rival tribes who had kidnapped/overthrough them [citation needed]. And even then a good majority of the slaves were not kunta kente pick my cotton boy or else yous gets the whippins slaves, they were more indentured servents who had it pretty good. Infact, most "slaves" stayed with their "Masters" after slavery was made illegal [citation needed]. There were bad slave owners who saw their slaves as nothing more than tools to be worked to death, but they were the minority.
If you truly believe this not only are you a fool, but you must have a complete lack of knowledge of ACTUAL history. "Indentured servents" are you fucking kidding me? The used to hang black women upside down and cut open their wombs when they were pregnant [citation needed]. Indentured servants, sure.
I'm sure you won't mind my asking why VBates' post merits this bit of noncontributory pedantry when the entirety of Lucky7's screed didn't.
EDIT: oh hey, I didn't catch the cutesy [citation needed]s in the first paragraph. My bad. Even so, I'm pretty sure one sentence could have sufficed in place of an entire quote tree.
Posts
You argue that the "silly symbolic stuff" is taking priority over everything else without really acknowledging or even knowing what other work or efforts are going on. You refer to historical "Jewish"solutions to problems that are contextually useless in the example of American blacks. Your entire tone is a smarmy mixture of self-congratulation in taking credit for the suffering and striving of your ancestors while expressing condescension and pity towards blacks.
The reference of this PR stunt is a much older PR stunt in which the NAACP "buried Jim Crow." Maybe it didn't do anything, maybe it inspired a few people, maybe it raised some awareness of the problem. There are a lot of groups doing a lot of different things, and I don't see how occasional PR stunts and politicized examples of some doofus saying something racist on the radio are doing anything to hinder the other efforts.
See my game reviews at: http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=strangegamer
You can inject whatever subtext into my statements that you like, but that doesn't change whatI meant when I said it.
I don't see where I'm arguing that Jews are better than blacks. Having accomplished a particular thing while another group hasn't doesn't make you better than them, at least in my mind. I don't look down on those who have yet to accomplish; I give them what advice I can, and help them in what ways I can.
Just the same as when I have yet to accomplish, I appreciate advice and assistance from others.
And the word "We" is me identifying as a Jew, not identifying all Jews as part of myself. Notice that I used "They" in some parts of my post as well, to refer to Jews, seperating myself out from them. I used the word "we" when refering to the present, or to other time periods that I was actually alive for.
Saying that I come from a people that has experienced hardships doesn't mean I am saying that MY life has been hard. It is saying that I have been raised knowing of the hardships that those before me, even my parents and grandparents, had to endure. Are you upset that I feel that I can understand the pain of others who have been discriminated against through the experiences of people close to me who also dealt with discrimination? Is this one of those "You have absolutely no idea unless it happened directly to you" statements?
Not every black personin America has had to deal directly with discrimination (although I would imagine that most have, to some degree) Are those few who haven't dealt with discrimination and hardship also kept on the outside, or does the color of their skin getthem a free pass?
You've been attacking me for things that I didn't say, ignoring the things that I did. You've made multiple statements directly contradicting the things that I DID say. I really can't draw any conclusion from this other than the fact that you have some larger issue with my statements, or with me in general, and are trying to take it out by nitpicking anything you can find. Rather than responding to the points I have explicitly made, you keep either attacking me personally, or claiming that I have made a point I never did. Maybeyour larger issue was the percieved smarminess, but if it wasn't, then by all means, please stop beating around the bush, and just state what your problem is, rather than pointing things out meaningless things like the fact that I don't wear a yarmulkeh.
To be fair, where else did the former slaves have to go?
It doesn't quite work to say "okay, you're free now, have fun."
That makes about as much sense as invading Iraq without having an exit strategy.
What's wrong with the word cunt? It's up there with Fuck, bitch, shit ass damn and hell and I particularly don't see any reason to abolish it unless you're gonna abolish those other ones too.
I don't think that the parallels you draw between the historical struggles of Jews and the modern struggles of African Americans are apt or informative, for a whole lot of reasons. And yes, I don't think that it's a stretch to infer from your posts stating "The Jews handled problems A B and C adroitly while blacks aren't coping with problems D E and F" that a negative comparison is being drawn on some level, even if it wasn't your conscious intention.
I don't think you've presented a reasonable case that PR frippery like "burying the N-word" or going after Don Imus in any way supplants the myriad other programs and initiatives and discussions that are going on regarding the state of blacks in American society.
A) you felt the whole yarmulke thing was important enough to bring up before any of the rest of this. In your own words, "Saying 'I'm not arguing X' and then proceeding to argue X does not give you a pass".
C) It's one thing to infer something from a post by itself. When I have made a specific point, though, throughout the rest of the thread to clarify that I was not making the exact same point that you now accuse me of, then it DOES become a stretch to infer it. To tell me that it is more likely that I am subconciously racist than that you are are wrong about your inferences is of a level that I cannot even classify it.
You keep making accusations of me that you cannot backup, and when they are shot down making other accussations. You make a point which you later call irrelevant. You say I made an argument, and then later, when I show I didn't, you turn around and say "well, you implied it." The best explanation you can come up with is that I am being "smarmy".
If you have an overarching problem, please, by all means, just state what it is. I hate playing these games.
To some people the c-word has a lot more offensive power than all of those other words put together.
Personally, I think our society needs to overcome its fear of words. Words have no power thatyou don't give them. Honestly, when it comes down to it, rap has done FAR MORE to deal with the n-word than the NAACP has. While the NAACP makes a big deal out of it, and treats it as a huge evil, rap music has taken it's power away from it. Now it's just another word that they use to refer to other people. In the end, that is how you really need to deal with words, by taking their power away from them, not giving more power to them.
No it doesn't... in fact it's a pretty weak word. Isn't it just a synonym of pussy? If someone says "Hey you cunt!" It just doesn't pack the same punch as "Hey motherFUCKer!" or "Hey you lil BITCH!".
Yes it does. As Evander said, "to some people" it is more offensive than anything else. Anything else. You may be fine with it, but I know some people who won't use it under any circumstances.
Describe those people.
I said "to some people", not to you, personally.
There are people out there, many within so-called "feminist" circles, butnot all of them, who view that word as one of the biggest evils out there.
Different things offend different people. You never know what might set some one off.
I understand.
Personally though I hate feminists.
TWITTER TWATS
Gorak's already pointed it out, and I'll add that the history of Jewish oppression in Europe is not a relevant point of comparison with the black situation in America. I'll also point out that even if it was, the Jewish have had a lot more time to recover from their treatment, so in effect you're chiding black people for not being quick enough off the blocks for your liking. That's silly. When two groups are oppressed differently, in different places and at different points in history, you don't get to chide the later one for not catching up quick. You're also persisting in the notion that black groups don't really do anything besides these occasional symbolic things and therefore need to focus on 'the real issues'. I'm pretty sure they're capable of doing multiple things at once
You hate women who think they're equal to men? Oh, that's fantastic. You're my new best friend.
Really?
I mean, not just the ones who have misconstrued the point of feminism into thinking tht their goal should be to get back at men for all those years of oppression, but ALL feminists? You hate people just because they feel that women should have equal societal status with men?
Hey, hey. "People who think women are equal to men."
Please.
I've said a lot of things in this thread, so you probably didn't get a chanceto read them all, but while I was being rather reactionary in my initial post (although I didn't intend for it to come off as though I was "chiding" anyone, but I can see how it looks like that.), I've restated my points in a more level manner since then.
The black community has made great strides towards improving their station, but recently I feel as though they have been lacking in focus on what is important. Rather than putting more effort into the most important places, which I would personally consider to be illiteracy rates and mortality rates, they seem to have spread out their focus over everything, which, to me, detracts from the more important goals by putting them on the same level as the less important ones. Whenyou are drawing more publicity to an event to "bury" a word, especially an event that EVERYONE knows will make no difference (those who use theword would have stopped by now if things like this were going to stop them) than you bring to the issues of illiteracy rates and mortality rates, you do the community a disservice, because public perception becomes the way it is.
I brought up Jews because there were two particular constantsthat the Jewish people had which I believe would benefit Blacks in their current struggle. I think that Blacks had these too, to varrying degrees, at points during the civil rights movement, but over time they seem to be less and less present.
Those two things are a strong sense of focus on which issues require the most attention, and a cohesion between the people that causes the majority of them to do all they can not only to raise themselves up, but to raise everyone else up with them.
This was the point that I was making. I wasn't trying to say that anyone is better than anyone else. I wasn't saying that Blacks do nothing at all to help themselves. I wasn't saying that George Bush actually DOES care about black people. All I was saying is what is above, and I apologize if my initial reactionary tone made it seem like I was trying to make a different point.
A male feminist? Impossible!
That's like saying that it's okay for white people to think that discrimination is wrong.
True! I blame lack of caffeine. Boki remains a fucking idiot, though.
The statement that it's different because you can't hide your skin color always struck me as just inherently flawed, like, isn't that EXACTLY what we are arguing against when we argue against discrimination?
I don't know, so often to me it seems to just be a game of one-upsmanship, saying "X has it betterthan Y, because X can pass, but Y can't." Besides the issues I have with trying to rate which opressed group has it worse than which other oppressed group (rather than, you know, recognizing that we should care about ALL oppressed groups), my problem is that I don't see how that sentiment can do anything but contradict the former statement.
The place that I can see it mattering is when talking about the hardships facing a particular group, in and of itself, on merely a surface level, but to compare two groups, and say "yeah, but this one can pass, although they shouldn't have to" begs the question, "why did you mention it in the first place, then?"
I love this tree on so many levels.
Saying that you "pass" because you're not wearing a yarmulke or leather chaps is not an endorsement of racism. It's just pointing out the the ubiquity and effect of the racism has a different effect.
What about the fact that there is a LOT more involved in "passing". It may be easier for some groups to pass than others, but there are still various unconcious tells.
If a man every mentions his "boyfriend" in public, that gives him away. Mr. Goldstein isn't really going to be able to hide anything from that cashier after he hands over his credit card, etc. There are many other "tells", those are just a coupleof easy ones to mention.
The fact is, a random gay guy walking down the street is less likely to get slurs yelled out to him than a random black guy, but in the end, does that make any difference at all? Yes, it can be pointed out as "a thing that happens" but it doesn't have any real implications on anything, as far as I can tell. I've never honestly seen anyone advocating that "passing" is a solution to anything, or even a good idea. And the fact that some groups can "pass" more easily that others doesn't invalidate the experiences of other groups. It just seems to me like a "fact" that peoplelike to bring up in these sorts of discussions, but one that doesn't hold any actual sort of implications.
http://forums.penny-arcade.com/showthread.php?p=2262622#post2262622
See if that helps clarify.
I'm off to sit in traffic, but I should be back on later, in case that is not satisfactory.
George Bush doesn't.
yeah... um ok
Where would those slaves go after the abolishment of slavery?
Think they'd just buy some land in a nice neighboorhood and live peacefully?
Indentured servents are people who agree to work under a contract for a determined amount of time. The African-American slave were people mostly born into slavery and sold like cattle. These people could be raped and couldn't report it to anyone because they were owned. Say ol' kunta did refuse to pick cotten, you think his quote unquote master would simply put him in time-out?
Gotta disagree, I don't think the American slave actually had a pretty good thing going for them.
Mr. West is wrong.
George Bush doesn't care about poor people.
I'm not referring to "passing" as a strategy, but rather "passing" as happenstance. A Hasidic Jew, for instance, wouldn't "pass" even if he never mentioned that he was Jewish. A constantly-worn yarmulke would have a similar, if a bit more subtle effect.
It's the difference between having localized negative encounters and ubiquitous negative encounters, and it's why non-white immigrant groups have had a much harder time integrating into the US and Europe than white immigrants. I'm sure that you make no attempt to hide your Jewishness, but if you were seated next to a dude who really hated Jews on an airplane, he wouldn't necessarily even know unless you told him. It doesn't make it "okay" that the dude hates Jews and it doesn't mean that any incidents in which you were treated poorly because of your heritage are dismissed.
Wow... You're an idiot..
TWITTER TWATS
If you truly believe this not only are you a fool, but you must have a complete lack of knowledge of ACTUAL history. "Indentured servents" are you fucking kidding me? The used to hang black women upside down and cut open their wombs when they were pregnant. Indentured servants, sure.
http://www.brandeis.edu/projects/fse/slavery/slav-us/slav-us-lit/slav-us-lit-roberts.html
Not hanging them upside-down, but the next closest thing.
TWITTER TWATS
On what basis do you say that non-white immigrant groups had a harder time integrating into the US and Europe? ESPECIALLY with the specific accounts of the almost utter LACK of Jewish integration in Europe.
Whe you are dealing with immigrants, you're dealing with a whole new set of rules, including language barriers, and style of dress, etc.
Honestly, the only place where "passing" seems to have any relevance to anything at all is in being noticed by individuals with whom you have no interaction at all. Yes, there can be danger there, but in those cases you are looking at random acts of aggression, not systematic discrimination, such as being turned down for jobs, and loans, etc. In these instances, where you have to give personal information, you are much less likely to "pass".
I'm sure you won't mind my asking why VBates' post merits this bit of noncontributory pedantry when the entirety of Lucky7's screed didn't.
EDIT: oh hey, I didn't catch the cutesy [citation needed]s in the first paragraph. My bad. Even so, I'm pretty sure one sentence could have sufficed in place of an entire quote tree.