[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

No he didn't just break out a Salt n Pepa song!

No, he didn't. Feel free to copy coupon and re-use.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

This implies that the any work ethic other than the "black" one is somehow useless. So there ya go - differences contributing to cultural or individual achievement.

Only in the mind of the truly dense can that conclusion be reached. What you term as implications are quite clearly assumptions on your part.

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Hmmm... That would appear to be a policy aimed at providing skills to the black community whilst denying them to the general community. Sure smells like discrimination.

Now where exactly did it say anything about denying one's skills to the general community? Have you forgotten that the black community is a minority in the US? The overwhelming majority of of black people work in the "general community". Oh I get it ... the black community is now discriminating against the "general community" by withholding their labor and skills now huh? Oh please ...stop the madness!

Originally Posted by Doofy 

So, just black institutions then? Sure looks like a policy aiming for a system of government which discriminates against the non-black community.

Again. I'll break out the stick figures for you. I regularly donate money to the United Negro College Fund/The College Fund (UNCF) that funds Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). Does that mean that I also don't kick some money to The United Way and The Red Cross?

Originally Posted by Doofy 

And there we go again with the assumption that black values are somehow better than any other values, as pointed to in definition #1.

Hmm. So having a value system that seeks the betterment and advancement of the community to which you belong means that you think you are better than other people and their value system now huh? Ok.

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

That's En Vogue!

Indeed. Somehow I got to thinking of that "None of your Business" track by Salt N Pepa. My bad!

OAW

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Bleedin' 'eck you people are dense.

Look who's talking. I seriously think you've got issues with regards to this subject.

It's a fact of life that there are ethnic, racial, cultural and national enclaves in the United States. Go outside of whatever cave you've been living in, and realize that. There's every manner of Japan/Korea/Chinatown, there are Little Italys, Little Armenias, Little Ethiopias, etc. etc. There are black communities, Latino, Middle Eastern, European, Asian, and so on.

There are Amish communities where people ride around in horse and buggies with straw hats and dressed to party like it's 1862. I guaran-friggen-tee you they have churches with commitments to AMISH values and AMISH customs. Are you wetting your panties over that? Is it racist?

Ditto entire Jewish neighborhoods with Jewish schools and a total focus and commitment to Jewish traditions and culture.

My own wife belongs to a Finnish society that's focused on Finnish culture and Scandinavian traditions and arts because, guess what... she's FINNISH! She doesn't have to deny her roots because some ninny may be offended by that. And I would love to see you suggest that any member of that society was un-American, or a Nazi or something, simply because they also have ties to their roots as well as this country. You'd get popped in the nose and straightened out on that subject pretty quickly.

But somehow black people doing what EVERY OTHER GROUP IN AMERICA has done for centuries offends a few little whiney babies. It's just WEAK. Get over your hang ups. Americans have always been Americans, while at the same time celebrating and remaining dedicated to their ethnic, religious, and national origins. It's a fact of life, and the only double standard is people wetting themselves about it in this case because the word 'black' offends you.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Look who's talking. I seriously think you've got issues with regards to this subject.

It's a fact of life that there are ethnic, racial, cultural and national enclaves in the United States. Go outside of whatever cave you've been living in, and realize that. There's every manner of Japan/Korea/Chinatown, there are Little Italys, Little Armenias, Little Ethiopias, etc. etc. There are black communities, Latino, Middle Eastern, European, Asian, and so on.

There are Amish communities where people ride around in horse and buggies with straw hats and dressed to party like it's 1862. I guaran-friggen-tee you they have churches with commitments to AMISH values and AMISH customs. Are you wetting your panties over that? Is it racist?

Ditto entire Jewish neighborhoods with Jewish schools and a total focus and commitment to Jewish traditions and culture.

My own wife belongs to a Finnish society that's focused on Finnish culture and Scandinavian traditions and arts because, guess what... she's FINNISH! She doesn't have to deny her roots because some ninny may be offended by that. And I would love to see you suggest that any member of that society was un-American, or a Nazi or something, simply because they also have ties to their roots as well as this country. You'd get popped in the nose and straightened out on that subject pretty quickly.

But somehow black people doing what EVERY OTHER GROUP IN AMERICA has done for centuries offends a few little whiney babies. It's just WEAK. Get over your hang ups. Americans have always been Americans, while at the same time celebrating and remaining dedicated to their ethnic, religious, and national origins. It's a fact of life, and the only double standard is people wetting themselves about it in this case because the word 'black' offends you.

Exactly, and for the most part not claiming victim status, are not calling for enconomic parity and the mddle class does not have boot on their neck imposing values. America: where the middle class just happens.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

There are Amish communities where people ride around in horse and buggies with straw hats and dressed to party like it's 1862.

This line was so funny it just made my whole afternoon!



OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

Sure, but where is the white value system imposed blacks? Surely there are equally humble Christian whites?

I'm not sure what you are getting at here.

Originally Posted by Orion27 

And you have not addressed this notion of a Black Value System. So, by their own rhetoric, they reject the White value system. This kind of philosophy has taken hold in Black communities which associates for instance, good grades in school as somehow white. Speaking correct English is white.

What do you mean I haven't addressed it? What is there to address? It's right there in front of you. The "Black Value System" is the first twelve points in the mission statement that you listed. If you want further information, a few seconds with Google will show you this.

Additionally, your notion of "getting good grades or speaking correct English associated with being white" is outright rejected.

Dedication to the Pursuit of Education

We must forswear anti-intellectualism. Continued survival demands that each Black Person be developed to the utmost of his/her mental potential despite the inadequacies of the formal education process. “Real education” fosters understanding of ourselves as well as every aspect of our environment. Also it develops within us the ability to fashion concepts and tools for better utilization of our resources, and more effective solutions to our problems. Since the majority of Blacks have been denied such learning, Black Education must include elements that provide high school graduates with marketable skills, a trade or qualifications for apprenticeships, or proper preparation for college.

Basic education for all Blacks should include Mathematics, Science, Logic, General Semantics, Participative Politics, Economics and Finance, and the Care and Nurture of Black minds.

To the extent that we individually reach for, even strain for excellence, we increase, geometrically, the value and resourcefulness of the Black Community. We must recognize the relativity of one’s best: this year’s best can be bettered next year. Such is the language of growth and development. We must seek to excel in every endeavor.

And your problem with this is what? Other than use of the term "Black"?

Originally Posted by Orion27 

Hell, they're debating whether Obama is black enough to be a truly black president. If you gave some of these people half a chance we'd be seeing the rebirth of the Red Guard. Just what is Black enough? Or too White, or too middle class? Sorry your explanation just doesn't ring true.

And who is "they"? What I see is one African-American author, who seems to be making a career out of making outlandish statement, that kicked off this "controversy". And a sh*tload of white commentators who are running off the deep end with it. What you don't see is the African-American community at large engaged in this foolishness.

OAW

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Look who's talking. I seriously think you've got issues with regards to this subject.

Yeah, I've got serious issues with regards to this subject. That's 'coz I effin' hate racism.

You guys don't even realise just how far gone you are. Clue: Replace "black" or "hispanic" with "white" and if the ACLU scream bloody murder about it, the original is racist.

Compare NAACP and NAAWP, for starters.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Yeah, I've got serious issues with regards to this subject. That's 'coz I effin' hate racism.

You guys don't even realise just how far gone you are. Clue: Replace "black" or "hispanic" with "white" and if the ACLU scream bloody murder about it, the original is racist.

Compare NAACP and NAAWP, for starters.

If you actually had any clue as to the origins of the NAACP ... its raison d'etre ... its history and accomplishments then you wouldn't be dumb enough to "compare" it with the NAAWP. The NAAWP is white separatist organization founded by David Duke, a former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan. It is in no way, shape, form, or fashion "analogous" to the NAACP which is a civil rights organization that has a long track record of fighting for integration, equality, etc.

Only the truly foolish among us would equate the two over something as superficial as the name. But since the shoe seems to fit, let's delve a little deeper into that shall we?

Name controversy

Supporters of the NAAWP assert that there is a double standard: the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is seen as a civil rights organization and considered socially acceptable while the National Association for the Advancement of White People is seen as a racist organization and considered socially unacceptable. The similarity of the names NAAWP and NAACP is intended to call attention to the contrasting treatment and support the idea that to be fair, either both organizations should be viewed as inherently racist or neither of them should be.

The NAAWP is seen as a "racist" organization not because of its name, but because of its platform. Because of the white supremacist history of its founders and leadership. But hey ... the cluepon I posted for you above hasn't expired yet.

OAW

[BRussell]

As a middle class white male I have to say that I agree with Doofy, and I have a dream that someday all this racist oppression against my community will stop.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

If you actually had any clue as to the origins of the NAACP ... its raison d'etre ... its history and accomplishments then you wouldn't be dumb enough to "compare" it with the NAAWP. The NAAWP is white separatist organization founded by David Duke, a former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan. It is in no way, shape, form, or fashion "analogous" to the NAACP which is a civil rights organization that has a long track record of fighting for integration, equality, etc.

Only the truly foolish among us would equate the two over something as superficial as the name. But since the shoe seems to fit, let's delve a little deeper into that shall we?

Actually I was just on about the name in that instance. Just to check if you'd jump on that bit of the post without addressing the other. There ya go.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

As a middle class white male I have to say that I agree with Doofy, and I have a dream that someday all this racist oppression against my community will stop.

You want to get together? We could form the Oppressed Old White Men of America, OOWMA! It's really quite sad that someone has to go to such lengths to look for something that isn't there.

[Doofy]

Who's oppressed? I'm not. I'm just telling you how it is.

[gururafiki]

Doofy, it's obvious you are not black. It is also obvious that you are not racist. However, you seem to be ignorant to the fact that black people, more than any other race in this country, have been, and STILL DO face prejudice from white people. This country has a longer history of hate against black people then it does of black people uniting together to form their own communities/organizations/church's/support networks. You cannot forget or dismiss the history of hate against blacks in this country or you will sound as ignorant as you do.

There is this great industrial band called Consolidated and they have a song called Why I'm In The Klan. In this song, a man gets on stage and asks why is it legal to have a Black College Fund when there is no White one, and why is there a Black Ms. Beauty Pageant and not not allowed to be a White Beauty Pageant. A member of the group replies, "People like you, my friend and that attitude I'm sorry to attribute to you because it is in all of us, have been responsible for the fact that White people in this country have always had what they need and Black people do not, and if you do not understand that I suggest that you like, wake up." (The group is Consolidated, and the album is called Play More Music, track is number 8).

White power tends to be about hatred, and Black power is about pulling themselves up out of the gutter (where slavery left them). As a white person you do not have to pull yourself out of the gutter, so please do not assume that because it is a Black church/organization/whatever catering the the advancement of Black people that it is racist. It is about the empowerment of a peoples who are not only a minority, but also a group of people still to this day struggling to be treated as equal.

BTW, it's February, aka Black History Month.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Actually I was just on about the name in that instance.

Uh ... this is completely unintelligible.

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Just to check if you'd jump on that bit of the post without addressing the other. There ya go.

I responded to the other part of that particular post of yours earlier. So what are you talking about? Apparently you weren't paying attention.

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by gururafiki 

BTW, it's February, aka Black History Month.

Hey now watch out there! You can't say that. As Doofy says ...

Here's a clue: If any organisation makes use of race (i.e. the NAACP or NAAWP) for any reason whatsoever, it's racist (for the non-racist form of those it'd be the NAAP). Until you figure that out, your country is lost.

So you can't use the term "Black" because that in and of itself constitutes "racism" in his rather obvious (perhaps deliberate?) misunderstanding of the definition of the term.

An interesting article by Tim Wise, a very respected anti-racist writer and educator in the US (who just happens to be white), entitled White Whine: Reflections on the Brain-Rotting Properties of Privilege. In it, he addresses this ridiculous notion:

To truly understand a nation, a culture, or its people, it helps to know what they take for granted. After all, sometimes the things that go unspoken are more powerful than the spoken word, if for no other reason than the tendency of unspoken assumptions to reinforce core ways of thinking, feeling and acting, without ever having to be verbalized (and thus subjected to challenge) at all.

What's more, when people take certain things for granted, anything that goes against the grain of what they perceive as "normal" will tend to stand out like a sore thumb, and invite a hostility that seems reasonable, at least to those dispensing it, precisely because their unspoken assumptions have gone uninterrogated for so long.

Thus, every February I encounter people who are apoplectic at the thought of Black History Month, and who insist with no sense of irony or misgiving that there should be no such thing, since, after all, there is no White History Month: a position to which they can only adhere because they have taken for granted that "American history" as told to them previously was comprehensive and accurate, as opposed to being largely the particular history of the dominant group. In other words, the normalcy of the white narrative, which has rendered every month since they popped out of their momma's wombs White History Month, escapes them, and makes the efforts of multiculturalists seem to be the unique break with an otherwise neutral color-blindness.

Sorta' like those who e-mail me on a semi-regular basis to insist, as if they have just stumbled upon something of unparalleled profundity, that there should be an Ivory Magazine to balance out Ebony, or that we need a White Entertainment Television network to balance out BET, or a NAAWP to balance out the NAACP. Again, these dear souls ignore what is obvious to virtually all persons of color but which remains unseen by those whose reality gets to be viewed as the norm: namely, that there are already two Ivory Magazines: Vogue and Cosmopolitan; that there are several WETs, which just so happen to go by the names of CBS, NBC and ABC; and that the Fortune 500, U.S. Congress and Fraternal Orders of Police are all doing a pretty good job holding it down for us white folks on the organizational front. Just because the norm is not racially-named, doesn't mean it isn't racialized.

I'll just let the man's words speak for themselves, because he is exactly on point.

OAW

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by gururafiki 

the fact that black people, more than any other race in this country, have been, and STILL DO face prejudice from white people.

. You cannot forget or dismiss the history of hate against blacks in this country or you will sound as ignorant as you do.

It is about the empowerment of a peoples who are not only a minority, but also a group of people still to this day struggling to be treated as equal.

Yeah, that is just wrong. Several minorities, including white ethnic minorities have been subjected to prejudice at some point in the US. "Far more and still do" can be claimed with some level of truth by any member of those groups.

No, you can't dismiss it but claiming it is a special or unique case that bears some higher level of significance than any of the other things that has happened in the country's history is silly. Genocide, theft of lands from indigenous people, and any number of racially motivated immigration quotas amount to injustices just as bad as slavery.

Its a pretty tired argument laced with guilt driven political correctness that blacks bear a heavier burden than any other minority in the nation.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Hey now watch out there! You can't say that. As Doofy says ...

So you can't use the term "Black" because that in and of itself constitutes "racism" in his rather obvious (perhaps deliberate?) misunderstanding of the definition of the term.

Is black history somehow different than normal everyday history? Why the need to segregate yourselves - why not just pop whatever it is that's taught in black history month into the normal history syllabus?

Like I've been saying all along - the problems you face will continue in perpetuity until such a time as you don't see a black man in the mirror... ...you just see a man.

I watch a Will Smith, Sam Jackson or Morgan Freeman film... ...I don't see a black actor, I see an actor. If you're sitting there thinking "yay for black actors" instead of "hey what a brilliant performance" then there's something seriously wrong with your brain. Period. You can extend this philosophy a far as you like - straight into Obama's church if you like.

Your skin colour is not your identity. Your great great great great grandma's place of birth is not your identity. So get over yourselves.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Yeah, I've got serious issues with regards to this subject. That's 'coz I effin' hate racism.

Then stop being such a wuss and making up charges of racism where there is none. What you’re doing is exactly the sort of thing that P.C. nitwittedness has programmed you to do, have kneejerk reactions to WORDS and SYMBOLS and BULLCRAP rather than actual racism. "OMG!! Someone used the word 'black'! WAHHHH!! It's racism!"

Geeze man, butch up a few clicks.

Learn the difference so that you aren’t always jousting at windmills and accusing people of racism where there isn’t any. As I said before, it's weak.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Is black history somehow different than normal everyday history? Why the need to segregate yourselves - why not just pop whatever it is that's taught in black history month into the normal history syllabus?

It's apparent that you either don't read the entirety of my responses or your comprehension skills are lacking. Let's assume it's the former, so it seems that Mr. Wise's words bear repeating:

Thus, every February I encounter people who are apoplectic at the thought of Black History Month, and who insist with no sense of irony or misgiving that there should be no such thing, since, after all, there is no White History Month: a position to which they can only adhere because they have taken for granted that "American history" as told to them previously was comprehensive and accurate, as opposed to being largely the particular history of the dominant group. In other words, the normalcy of the white narrative, which has rendered every month since they popped out of their momma's wombs White History Month, escapes them, and makes the efforts of multiculturalists seem to be the unique break with an otherwise neutral color-blindness.

So just what is "normal everyday history"? I'll tell you what it is as someone who has received one of the best "educations" the US has to offer (one of the most prestigious and exclusive private high schools in the country as well as a highly ranked private college). "Normal everyday history" is the narrative of white people. Plain and simple. The typical American student studies "US History" which focuses 99% on the accomplishments of white males as well as courses like "Survey of Western Civilization" which focuses on 99% on the accomplishments of white males in Europe. It is most rare for a US student to study anything regarding Asian history, or the history of the Americas, let alone African history. The average US student has no clue that West Africa alone had highly advanced and civilized kingdoms (Ghana, Mali, Songhay) that dwarfed in size and wealth the entire "continent" of Europe at the time. The average US student has no clue that Timbuktu in West Africa is actually a real city (not some fabled city of legend only) that was one of the greatest cities of learning in the ancient world, rivaling Alexandria in Egypt. But we learn plenty about King Henry VIII of England or the Renaissance or the Roman empire. Not that there is anything wrong with that because it truly is not. But it is far from comprehensive. The systemic exclusion of the history of non-Europeans in the typical US curriculum is what leads to many well-intentioned people of all ethnicities believing, to the point where it is taken for granted, that the only things that are of historical significance are the accomplishments of white people ... be they good, bad, or ugly. As Mr. Wise stated:

To truly understand a nation, a culture, or its people, it helps to know what they take for granted. After all, sometimes the things that go unspoken are more powerful than the spoken word, if for no other reason than the tendency of unspoken assumptions to reinforce core ways of thinking, feeling and acting, without ever having to be verbalized (and thus subjected to challenge) at all.

Having said all this, let me clue you in on a little tidbit of information. The curriculum in a typical US school is not developed by Black people. So you are posing your question to the wrong person. I would absolutely love it if the history curriculums in the US were not so Euro-centric and were instead more inclusive. I would love it if there were no need for a Black History Month. Hell I would love it if Black History Month covered more than Harriet Tubman, George Washington Carver, and Martin Luther King. But that is simply not the reality here. First of all the Fox News crowd continue to fall all over themselves damn near frothing at the mouth at the mere suggestion of such diversity. And most other people don't even think about it one way or the other because they completely take for granted that a Euro-centric view of history is in fact "normal history". Much like yourself it seems. So in the end, the status quo remains just that.

OAW

[subego]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

why not just pop whatever it is that's taught in black history month into the normal history syllabus?

Gee, thanks Doofy!

All this time, I thought the issue was two centuries of institutionalized racism, when apparently it was that we Americans were just too stupid to come up with this idea on our own.

Maybe we can set up a mutual aid exchange program. Let's see... You know all those rights you keep complaining your government keeps taking from you? They should, uhh... stop doing that.

Hope that helps.

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

Anybody have a clue as to the Black Value System they speak of?

Yes. They probably want to turn the country upside down, enslave the white man and then lynch the rest of the middle class.

And Obama is their leader who is going to conspire to make it happen.

[OldManMac]

This thread is a great example of what can result when fearful and paranoid people express their beliefs, based on unnecessary fear and paranoia. It never ceases to astonish me how many people are threatened by others, simply because they're different, even though it shouldn't astonish me, as many wars have been fought over that issue.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

So just what is "normal everyday history"? I'll tell you what it is as someone who has received one of the best "educations" the US has to offer (one of the most prestigious and exclusive private high schools in the country as well as a highly ranked private college). "Normal everyday history" is the narrative of white people. Plain and simple. The typical American student studies "US History" which focuses 99% on the accomplishments of white males as well as courses like "Survey of Western Civilization" which focuses on 99% on the accomplishments of white males in Europe. It is most rare for a US student to study anything regarding Asian history, or the history of the Americas, let alone African history. The average US student has no clue that West Africa alone had highly advanced and civilized kingdoms (Ghana, Mali, Songhay) that dwarfed in size and wealth the entire "continent" of Europe at the time. The average US student has no clue that Timbuktu in West Africa is actually a real city (not some fabled city of legend only) that was one of the greatest cities of learning in the ancient world, rivaling Alexandria in Egypt. But we learn plenty about King Henry VIII of England or the Renaissance or the Roman empire. Not that there is anything wrong with that because it truly is not. But it is far from comprehensive. The systemic exclusion of the history of non-Europeans in the typical US curriculum is what leads to many well-intentioned people of all ethnicities believing, to the point where it is taken for granted, that the only things that are of historical significance are the accomplishments of white people ... be they good, bad, or ugly.

That pretty much sums up the situation. Most people who are angered by the focus on black/women's/hispanic/native american history in specific months of the year fail to realize/refuse to accept that the history they have been taught--and most of their ancestors have been taught--is an incomplete history of the United States. They fail to realize/refuse to accept that they have been taught only a history of the white, European-derived peoples of the United States.

Of course, I think why people have been taught that particular history is not too hard to fathom: The victor writes the history (to paraphrase an old saying on military battles). White, European men "discovered" North America, founded the United States, and built a country here based on the assumption that it was, and would continue to be, the norm for white, European men to be in charge. So, when it comes time to formalize a history of their actions, it would be the norm for that history to focus on, almost exclusively, the white, European men and their accomplishments.

So, if you are black/hispanic/native american person and you don't see yourself reflected in that specific history of the white, European men and their accomplishments it is understandable why you would complain about your lack of representation.

Heck, even my history isn't that well represented and I am a descendant of white european men. My family comes from generations of poor/working class Irish. Our mention in US history comes only from the migrations during/after the Irish potato famine. You might get something about discrimination in late-19th-century labor practices ("Irish Need Not Apply"), but otherwise, there is nothing to our story. You really have to be a WASP to get the full your-history-is-worth-telling treatment. The funny thing is, if you were a WASP, you got that full historical treatment whether or not you did anything significant to merit it.

So, Doofy, perhaps now you will have a better understanding of why there are these group-specific history months. Although, as OAW said, I too would love to see these months go away and have the history of the United States that gets taught being fully inclusive of all the peoples and those among them who have made significant contributions to the social/cultural/political/ideological development of the United States. It's probably not gonna happen any time soon but it is a nice goal to strive for.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

Yes. They probably want to turn the country upside down, enslave the white man and then lynch the rest of the middle class.

And Obama is their leader who is going to conspire to make it happen.

I think by associations, it gives some insight into the thinking and values of a candidate. What is his position on say, income redistribution, taxes, the free market and individual freedom? These are social and politcal issues which quite frankly, the candidate has not been questioned and does not possess a body of work on which we can make an informed assesment. The Democrat party is left of center politically. Hillary Clintton is considered a moderate within the Democrat party. She is on record of wanting to take profits from private business and realocate them to government programs of her choosing. I believe Obama is running to the left of her. He's got some explaining to do.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

It's apparent that you either don't read the entirety of my responses or your comprehension skills are lacking.

Or that I disagree with you.

Originally Posted by OAW 

The typical American student studies "US History" which focuses 99% on the accomplishments of white males as well as courses like "Survey of Western Civilization" which focuses on 99% on the accomplishments of white males in Europe.

Well, like it or not, western civilization was created by white men. If you're doing a history on it, then you're going to be hearing about them. Same for US history - the founding fathers ain't suddenly going to become black because you're upset that there's not enough focus on black guys.

Originally Posted by OAW 

It is most rare for a US student to study anything regarding Asian history, or the history of the Americas, let alone African history.

That's because you're in the US. You want to study French history, go live in France. You want to study Japanese history, go live in Japan. You want to study Nigerian history, go live in Nigeria.

Originally Posted by OAW 

The average US student has no clue that West Africa alone had highly advanced and civilized kingdoms (Ghana, Mali, Songhay) that dwarfed in size and wealth the entire "continent" of Europe at the time.

And these contributed exactly what to the history of the US?

Originally Posted by OAW 

The average US student has no clue that Timbuktu in West Africa is actually a real city (not some fabled city of legend only) that was one of the greatest cities of learning in the ancient world, rivaling Alexandria in Egypt.

Hey, the average US student can't even point to their own country on an unmarked map.

Originally Posted by OAW 

But we learn plenty about King Henry VIII of England or the Renaissance or the Roman empire. Not that there is anything wrong with that because it truly is not. But it is far from comprehensive. The systemic exclusion of the history of non-Europeans in the typical US curriculum is what leads to many well-intentioned people of all ethnicities believing, to the point where it is taken for granted, that the only things that are of historical significance are the accomplishments of white people.

That's because the only things of historical significance to the US prior to the 1940s were the accomplishments of white men (since black men were restricted to picking cotton). The US was founded by white Europeans. That's simply how it is. That's what happened. That's history.

Originally Posted by OAW 

Having said all this, let me clue you in on a little tidbit of information. The curriculum in a typical US school is not developed by Black people.

Perhaps it would be - if organisations like Obama's church actually actively engaged in the community in general, rather than just the black community. If you self-segragate, you're not going to make a mark, are you?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

This thread is a great example of what can result when fearful and paranoid people express their beliefs, based on unnecessary fear and paranoia. It never ceases to astonish me how many people are threatened by others, simply because they're different, even though it shouldn't astonish me, as many wars have been fought over that issue.

Nobody is fearful, paranoid or feels threatened. This is all in your head.

But then we've already discovered that senility is setting in with you, haven't we?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

So, Doofy, perhaps now you will have a better understanding of why there are these group-specific history months. Although, as OAW said, I too would love to see these months go away and have the history of the United States that gets taught being fully inclusive of all the peoples and those among them who have made significant contributions to the social/cultural/political/ideological development of the United States. It's probably not gonna happen any time soon but it is a nice goal to strive for.

See above reply to OAW.

I still don't buy it. I'm sure there's some subconscious retention of victimhood status going on there. I see exactly the same thing going on with "the working class" over here.

To coin a lyric:

slave screams he thinks he knows what he wants
slave screams thinks he has something to say
slave screams he hears but doesn't want to listen
slave screams he's being beat into submission

slave screams he spends his life learning conformity
slave screams he claims he has his own identity
slave screams he's going to cause the system to fall
slave screams but he's glad to be chained to that wall

(* note: We'll probably have some rabid senile old plonker like KarlG going on about the use of the word "slave" in such a discussion. The intelligent amongst you will realise that it's not talking about the deep south.)

[gururafiki]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

Yeah, that is just wrong. Several minorities, including white ethnic minorities have been subjected to prejudice at some point in the US. "Far more and still do" can be claimed with some level of truth by any member of those groups.

Which "white ethnic minorities" are you talking about? Where in the US has the entire society, it's government and it's citizens, oppressed white ethnic minorities? Far more and still do is fact.

No, you can't dismiss it but claiming it is a special or unique case that bears some higher level of significance than any of the other things that has happened in the country's history is silly.

How is it just silly? Look at the link I posted above. The numbers show that it is still a major problem in this country, and when you add in the data of every year since founding of this country I believe you will find it to be of extremely high significance, more so than most other things in this country's history.

Genocide, theft of lands from indigenous people, and any number of racially motivated immigration quotas amount to injustices just as bad as slavery.

Here I agree with you, however many of these things are still not happening to this day. Racism by whites against blacks (and other races) is.

Its a pretty tired argument laced with guilt driven political correctness that blacks bear a heavier burden than any other minority in the nation.

Oh really? So how does this data not show that blacks bear a heavier burden, especially at the hand of white's?

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by gururafiki 

Which "white ethnic minorities" are you talking about? Where in the US has the entire society, it's government and it's citizens, oppressed white ethnic minorities? Far more and still do is fact.



How is it just silly? Look at the link I posted above. The numbers show that it is still a major problem in this country, and when you add in the data of every year since founding of this country I believe you will find it to be of extremely high significance, more so than most other things in this country's history.



Here I agree with you, however many of these things are still not happening to this day. Racism by whites against blacks (and other races) is.



Oh really? So how does this data not show that blacks bear a heavier burden, especially at the hand of white's?

If one were to properly log those bogus statistics, one would probably find less disproportionality in the numbers. Blacks file more hate crimes because it is fashionable and reflects some victim status. If a black hits a white upside the head, that's logged as a typical robbery.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

If one were to properly log those bogus statistics, one would probably find less disproportionality in the numbers. Blacks file more hate crimes because it is fashionable and reflects some victim status. If a black hits a white upside the head, that's logged as a typical robbery.

So how much would you claim it's inflated?

You don't even get close to proportional unless over half the reported cases are bogus. That's a lot of bogus reports. Even for the FBI.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by subego 

So how much would you claim it's inflated?

You don't even get close to proportional unless over half the reported cases are bogus. That's a lot of bogus reports. Even for the FBI.

I don't believe any of it. The hate crime statute is a PC croc of poo. A murder is a murder and rape is a rape. The law is colorblind. I wonder if the OJ Simpson murders were logged in as hate crimes?
Can we log in the Twin Tower Murders? That would about make it equal.

[subego]

Then why did you bother with your previous statement?

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by subego 

Then why did you bother with your previous statement?

The point is hate crime is a subjective charge. The Duke rapists are probably already logged in. I'm just pointing out the obvious so stop whining.

[OldManMac]

So, if someone murders another because they're gay, or because they're Black, Asian, White, Green, etc. that's just subjective?

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

So, if someone murders another because they're gay, or because they're Black, Asian, White, Green, etc. that's just subjective?

Yes, and deciding whether to file a hate crimes charge is too.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

Yes, and deciding whether to file a hate crimes charge is too.

So we should just stop trying to determine how we can stop people killing others for what ever reason?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

The point is hate crime is a subjective charge. The Duke rapists are probably already logged in. I'm just pointing out the obvious so stop whining.

Well then you should have said that.

Sorry for trying to follow along.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by subego 

Well then you should have said that.

Sorry for trying to follow along.

No problem, but you do understand the Duke rapists are innocent?

[gururafiki]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

If one were to properly log those bogus statistics, one would probably find less disproportionality in the numbers. Blacks file more hate crimes because it is fashionable and reflects some victim status. If a black hits a white upside the head, that's logged as a typical robbery.

Wow. The ignorance laced in that statement is just sad.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by gururafiki 

Wow. The ignorance laced in that statement is just sad.

Why is that?

[gururafiki]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

Why is that?

Blacks file more hate crimes because it is fashionable and reflects some victim status.

This statement is ignorant, plain and simple. You are making a broad assumption and speaking for millions of people for which you have no right to so and no voice to represent them by.

If one were to properly log those bogus statistics, one would probably find less disproportionality in the numbers.

I invite you then to point me to some more accurate numbers to back up this statement.

If a black hits a white upside the head, that's logged as a typical robbery.

Again, show me. Prove to me that this statement is fact.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

So, if someone murders another because they're gay, or because they're Black, Asian, White, Green, etc. that's just subjective?

Yes. Motive of something like murder is already dealt with from a legal standpoint. Felony murder, manslaughter, etc., deal with the motivation and reason behind committing the act. Adding something as pointless like "hate crime" charges to the act is superfluous and more often then not is applied unequally to cases.
Issues that are tied to crimes that fall under "hate crime" statutes are already addressed in the charges filed and during sentencing.
People who oppose mandatory sentencing in things like drug arrests and 3 strikes laws should oppose the principle of hate crimes if they weren't so goddamned PC.

The label of hate crime is also used unequally because there is no requirement that prosecutors apply it in every instance where it could be considered. It is subjective in that they are free to use it as they see fit even in cases where the victim's race was an issue to the perpetrator. As was the case here in Chicago last summer when 3 black teens went looking for a white teen to assault and rob. It would have been politically unpopular in an election year and had the possibility of causing unrest because of the two communities proximity if hate crime charges were filed in addition to other felony charges. The state's attorney's office cited some BS reason for not calling it a hate crime when in fact any 1st year law student could have found a way and explanation for why it should have been applied. I know you were a car mechanic of something of that nature so I don't expect you to see the complexity in how utterly stupid it was to create separate statutes for this but it is. It passed into legislation because on the surface it is something that officials can't oppose because it would paint that person as racist. In fact it doesn't add any higher level of justice to the system it just convolutes issues for the sake of being politically correct.

The hate crime label was made to appease and pacify the politically correct, uneducated, and the stupid. People who cite hate crime statistics and champion their usefulness are usually all three of those things.

[OldManMac]

Well, thanks for putting me in my place, Captain Obnoxious. Obviously you have the answer to everything. Maybe someday you ought to try to find out what makes you try to sound so superior, and get rid of that unconscious inferiority complex. Then you might not be such a prick.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

Well, thanks for putting me in my place, Captain Obnoxious. Obviously you have the answer to everything. Maybe someday you ought to try to find out what makes you try to sound so superior, and get rid of that unconscious inferiority complex. Then you might not be such a prick.

KarlG, just make your case instead of attacking the messenger. Could be considered evidence in a hate crime.

[OldManMac]

There is no making a case with Captain Obnoxious. Read his posts sometime; he regularly refers to people as "stupid" and discounts their intelligence, and he does so in his usual obnoxious ways. He has a severe inferiority complex, so he has to lash out everybody who doesn't agree with him, otherwise his unconscious insecurities would be validated. We all fly off the handle occasionally when we get excited about something that we believe in; he does it regulary, as he can't stand the thought of being wrong.

My point was that, in some circumstances it may be helpful to know why some crimes are committed. If someone kills people because he hates homosexuals, and a trend is seen in that direction, then it may help in deciding where to direct resources, so the chance of the crime being repeated by someone else isn't repeated. Just blindly calling a murder as a murder does nothing except put someone in prison.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

There is no making a case with Captain Obnoxious. Read his posts sometime; he regularly refers to people as "stupid" and discounts their intelligence, and he does so in his usual obnoxious ways. He has a severe inferiority complex, so he has to lash out everybody who doesn't agree with him, otherwise his unconscious insecurities would be validated. We all fly off the handle occasionally when we get excited about something that we believe in; he does it regulary, as he can't stand the thought of being wrong.

We're all passionate, or we wouldn't post here. I'm not picking on you. We can all take a deep breath.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by gururafiki 

Which "white ethnic minorities" are you talking about? Where in the US has the entire society, it's government and it's citizens, oppressed white ethnic minorities? Far more and still do is fact.

The Irish, Jews, Italians, and Catholics in general. How is that for a start?

How is it just silly? Look at the link I posted above. The numbers show that it is still a major problem in this country, and when you add in the data of every year since founding of this country I believe you will find it to be of extremely high significance, more so than most other things in this country's history.

You're kidding right? I mean you realize that shows total incidents in a year rather than incidents per capita? That's going to mean a Jew is far more likely to be a victim of a "hate crime" than a black person. Those stats also don't say who the perpetrators of the crimes are. It would be just as likely blacks commit crimes on Korean Americans or Arabs committing crimes against Jews than saying a white person was more prone to do it.

Your numbers aren't really telling of anything other than whomever decided to label one act a "hate crime' and another vandalism or battery is an elected official subject to appeasing the political whims of their constituency. Political pressures are the most dramatic driving force determining what is and what is not a "hate crime." As I said above "hate crimes" are fabricated charges than follow no consistent application in the legal system. No one can say otherwise because the criteria and decision process for finding what is a hate crimes is tailored to suit circumstances.

Here I agree with you, however many of these things are still not happening to this day. Racism by whites against blacks (and other races) is.

Without looking too hard and for obscure items. Since Reconstructon and the abolition of slavery:

1876 - U.S. government ordered that all Native Americans must move to reservations or be declared hostile.

1882 - Chinese Exclusion Act

National Origins Act of 1924 - purposely restricted immigration of "Orientals" Italians, Poles, Greeks, and Jews trying to flee Nazi oppression. "Purer" Western European whites were not subjected to such stringent immigration quotas.

FDR's 1942 Executive Order 9066 - Japanese internment camps

1952 McCarran-Walter Act - reinforced the 1924 laws but cleaned up the language. Still gave favorable immigration preferences to immigrants from Western Europe.



If you can't draw on anything from today and be specific then you can only compare things like this to Jim Crow and other events of that era. Racism today can only be brought up in a case by case instance which has a couterpart in every other ethinic minority community where it is just as common.

You've bought into the myth that black Americans are the victims of such a pervasive and debilitating brand of prejudice that no other group could compare in our history. So far we've seen no less than 3 viable black candidates names thrown around for our government's highest office. And 2 black Supreme Court justices. Asians, Hispanics, and Native Americans can claim no such accomplishments. No on denies racism is out there but to say blacks are more subjected to it than anyone else is a fallacy. I bet in 50 years there will be a dramatically larger percentage of upper middle class Hispanics than black Americans. Not because Hispanics aren't subject to the same type of racism and institutional oppression as blacks but because of cultural differences within their community that don't promote such a victim mentality. The majority of the problems in the black community are not the fault of racism. And I'd wager anything that time will show this to be the case when history compares them to other minority groups in the United States.

[Captain Obvious]

Don't be such a puss Karl. You don't see me delve into those threads about cars or how amazing the Airbus 380 is. If I needed input on something like that I would defer to someone who has a background in the subject. The general public is pretty stupid and average intelligence is nothing to be excited about. That isn't an opinion it is a sad truth.

So if you find my posts abrasive then ignore them. But you can't expect me to take someone's opinions on the law seriously when their authority on it comes from a blog or some liberal rag.

IF you think i am wrong on something feel free to prove it wrong.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Well, like it or not, western civilization was created by white men. If you're doing a history on it, then you're going to be hearing about them. Same for US history - the founding fathers ain't suddenly going to become black because you're upset that there's not enough focus on black guys.

And the history of the US is limited to the founding fathers?

Originally Posted by Doofy 

That's because the only things of historical significance to the US prior to the 1940s were the accomplishments of white men (since black men were restricted to picking cotton). The US was founded by white Europeans. That's simply how it is. That's what happened. That's history.

This is just so unbelievably ignorant that I'll just let it speak for itself. But I will say that it is a prime example of Mr. Wise's comments that I referenced earlier.

On second thought ... I will mention just one thing. The westward expansion in the US and the settling of the region during the mid-1800s was a critical period in the history of this country. Those who braved the frontier and "tamed" it so to speak are considered "heros" in the lore of this land. Yet the typical US citizen has no idea that approximately 25% of all "cowboys" during this period were black. Add to that the number of cowboys of Hispanic descent and you are easily looking at upwards of 50% of all cowboys being persons of color. Yet the US history books and Hollywood cinema reflects the "John Wayne / Roy Rogers" archetype nearly exclusively. So again, Mr. Wise's words warrant repeating ...

To truly understand a nation, a culture, or its people, it helps to know what they take for granted. After all, sometimes the things that go unspoken are more powerful than the spoken word, if for no other reason than the tendency of unspoken assumptions to reinforce core ways of thinking, feeling and acting, without ever having to be verbalized (and thus subjected to challenge) at all.

OAW