218358 Bullies, 5965 online  
  • Register
Our Sponsors:

Results 101 to 110 of 198
Page 11 of 20 FirstFirst ... 7891011 12131415 ... LastLast
Sponsored Links Spacer Image
  1. Cassius is offline
    Cassius's Avatar

    Moderator

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,950

    Posted On:
    11/02/2005 3:58pm

    supporting memberforum leader
     Style: Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Osiris
    Exactly what I'm saying. Sources and what not coming tomorrow.
    Fair enough. I will wait for that.
  2. TheManchu is offline

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    588

    Posted On:
    11/02/2005 5:31pm


     Style: luk chua bik da

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Leodom
    If you're talking about people who wear baggy pants, gawdy jewelry, purposefully speak poor english, and talk about "capping" people, I think they all look silly, regardless of skin color.
    What if they don't talk about capping people? What if the language they are speaking is the one they grew up with? Aren't you making an arbitrary racial determination assuming they are choosing to speak that way, as though it is the white genetic destiny to speak proper english?

    Also, what are you calling proper english? And if they aren't speaking proper english, or what you refer to as proper english, are they speaking another dialect of english?

    What if they can speak both, as many people can. Is one dialect wrong and the other right, regardless of cultural situations?

    Say there are southern dialects almost identical to this "poor english". Should we call people who speak them "wamericans", or "wenglish speakers" instead of Alabamans, Texans, etc? Why don't we?

    If there is no racial identity, then why is the word wigger in your memory? Why is someone speaking "improper english" that is clearly ebonics, which is clearly descended from southern dialects, associated with blackness, or a pretend version of it, if there is no racial identity?

    Can proving through whatever means that there is no "white racial identity" EVER prove that there is no black racial identity in America?

    Historically, in the US, is a state of slavery for the most part an identifying characteristic possessed largely by blacks?

    Historically, in the US, was the continuation of such tyranny largely focused upon blacks?

    So, would not an identifying characteristic of blacks in the US that survived and resulted from that era, which would mean adults today, include the effects of that tyranny combined with the traits that pulled them through, be they good or bad traits?

    Given that, while drawing conclusions about white identity would be more nebulous, one could point out that one key trait of blacks in the US is that the vast majority seem to want nothing to do with any party that harbors sentimental views of the eras of said tyranny or seeks to minimize the era or its aftermath.

    Since the GOP focusses on a "return to a better time" that happens to coincide temporally with segregation, since Thurmond pioneered a tactic of avoiding the race issue that he clearly held the same opinion as before on, since Lott backed this, and since the GOP has made great efforts to never undermine this two-faced old boys club sort of attitude on racism in their party, going so far as avoiding criticizing Thurmond even when he commented on how his America would have been a better one had he won the presidency when he was clearly an unapologetic segregationist(and hypocrite), and given that THAT occurence was not very long ago at all, it's fairly sensible that blacks might not trust one of their own in the GOP.

    In otherwords, if for several centuries a culture makes the race of a group a culturally identifiable trait, there will be racially influenced aspects in its culture, first enforced ones, then ones that exist out of self preservation.

    While you may want to look at Jackson as a sellout, blacks might see any black affililiating themselves with a party that unapologetically supports the ghost of Thurmond as the height of selling out. Of course, you can say that to push that belief is political, but it has it's own racial and cultural component as well. To sum it up as solely political manipulation is only going to sound like you are saying that blacks don't know what's best for themselves, and since no less than the President has said that the GOP has a long way to go as far as the black voter is involved, and since black voters repeatedly say the same, it's fairly likely that it's true. The day when the GOP is going to win over blacks by comparison with the Dems is not today; if the GOP were serious about winning over black voters, the party would be focussing on itself.
  3. katana is offline

    Capitalist Pig

    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,368

    Posted On:
    11/02/2005 5:45pm

    supporting member
     Style: BJJ, no-gi, boxing

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    The Democratic party was hardly the friend of blacks before very recently. From Wikipedia's page on the Civil Rights act:

    The bill was introduced by Democrat Michael J. Mansfield The bill divided both political parties and engendered a long-term change in the demographics of both. President Lyndon Johnson realized that supporting this bill would mean losing the South's overwhelming Democratic Party majority (which did happen, with some exceptions). After Dixiecrats led an 83 day filibuster against the bill, with WV senator Robert Byrd speaking for more than 14 straight hours, both parties voted overwhelmingly in favor of the Act, enabling its passage. One notable exception was Republican senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona, who voted against the bill, remarking "you can't legislate morality". Other notable exceptions were Tennessee senator Albert Gore Sr. and Arkansas senator J. William Fulbright and John Tower (R-TX) . President Johnson signed the bill into law on July 2, 1964. Goldwater went on to secure his party's nomination for the presidency, and in the ensuing election, Goldwater won only his home state of Arizona and five of the Deep South states 4 of which had never voted Republican since the election of 1876. This marked the beginning of the end of the Solid South.
    With the civil rights act it's clear that the parties were overwhelming in favor whether Republican or Democrat.

    The debate about this doesn't seem to be much about whether the parties are "racist" or not. It comes down to how you go about solving the issues of race. The Democrats want to continue the strategy of entitlement and the Republicans do not. That's where the friction originates when you peel back all the hollow rhetoric around the issue.
  4. Ronin is offline

    Merry Christmas Bitch

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    20,888

    Posted On:
    11/02/2005 5:47pm

    Join us... or die
     Style: Canadian Shidokan

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Wanna see "racial harmony" ?
    Go to prison.
    No racial lines there...
    Yeah, and you'll see alot of "wiggers" too...

    NOT.
  5. DerAuslander is offline
    DerAuslander's Avatar

    Valiant Monk of Booze & War

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Baltimore, MD
    Posts
    18,486

    Posted On:
    11/02/2005 5:51pm

    supporting memberstaff
     Style: BJJ/C-JKD/KAAALIII!!!!!!!

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    The irony is that the Republicans were not the party of slavery, but rather the party of Lincoln, who was viewed as a liberator for many years. I was caught in the middle of a political discussion over a friend's dinner table. His great-grandmother promptly shut all of us up by telling us that in her day, she would have never thought of voting for the Democrats.

    It's funny how things are constantly in flux in a "democracy" like ours...
  6. TheManchu is offline

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    588

    Posted On:
    11/02/2005 6:00pm


     Style: luk chua bik da

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by katana
    The Democratic party was hardly the friend of blacks before very recently. From Wikipedia's page on the Civil Rights act:
    Wrong. You need to read the rest of that page, they eventually get to the point where President Johnson(D) says that, by signing the Civil Rights Act, he has just handed the Republicans the South. Because before that, the southern segregationists were Democrats. After, they were not and blacks were.

    At that point, MOST historians agree that a dynamic shift occured where the southern segregationists, who up until that time had unfair rules that kept them in power and blacks out of power, began joining the GOP. Strom Thurmond(formerly dem, then R) popularized a movement of not mentioning his continuing chagrin with desegregaion, and that group continued to oppose civil rights. Nixon's(R) administration, which benefitted greatly from the southern strategy, dragged his feet on implementing and enforcing much of the civil rights act. The GOP accepted all of this as the cost of doing business.

    Wastrel said it best when he called it realpolitik on the part of the DNC. They traded southern segregaionists for blacks. Again, most historians agree. Eventually, many of the GOP members who signed the act got fed up with Thurmond et al and joined the DNC.

    There is an absolute and clear distinction between the Democrats pre Civil Rights Act and after, and also the Republicans. The GOP inheritted the legacy of the segregationists, the Dems gained the black vote. To suggest that the Dems pre Civil Rights and post are the same on issues of race is completely unfounded, and to suggest that the GOP could keep pace with enforcing Civil Rights while simultaneously courting the segregationist Southern Dems is simply unsupportable.
  7. katana is offline

    Capitalist Pig

    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,368

    Posted On:
    11/02/2005 6:10pm

    supporting member
     Style: BJJ, no-gi, boxing

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by TheManchu
    There is an absolute and clear distinction between the Democrats pre Civil Rights Act and after, and also the Republicans. The GOP inheritted the legacy of the segregationists, the Dems gained the black vote. To suggest that the Dems pre Civil Rights and post are the same on issues of race is completely unfounded, and to suggest that the GOP could keep pace with enforcing Civil Rights while simultaneously courting the segregationist Southern Dems is simply unsupportable.
    The issue though in my mind is much deeper than flinging around the word "racist" and associating it with the Republican Party and their legacy post-Civil Rights Act. At the end of the day it comes down to how each party thinks social policy should be crafted to deal with race. Again the Democrats want to continue a policy of entitlements and the Republicans largely do not. When someone in the Republican party mentions they want to eliminate Affirmative Action for instance they're labled as racist even though their motives likely had nothing to do with racism.
  8. TheManchu is offline

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    588

    Posted On:
    11/02/2005 6:27pm


     Style: luk chua bik da

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    It is not an issue of entitlement. Entitlements based on Civil Rights Acts are the indirect product of the intention of the acts, not the intenitons themselves. The Acts are a punishment on state and business interests. They prevent them from only hiring whites by making them hire others because in three hundred years, the South had never succeeded in doing so on their own initiative, and the North was not much better. Entitlements are a by-product, not the purpose. Since the Southern Dems joined the GOP, they had been focussed on undermining the Acts. To assume that former segregationists wished to undermine those Acts based on conservatism in any sense is wrong: State Rights, in the sense they used, had already become a euphemism for State Rights over individual(black) rights.

    The point was more whites were qualified because they made sure blacks weren't. Civil Rights alters this, but has not completed the process yet. Entitlement has not made the current "crisis" that many say is occuring in black culture. Centuries of slavery followed by a state run tyranny followed by a planned program of white flight post Civil Rights in which whites in power took advantage of districting in order to keep money in their school districts and deny it to blacks did. This white flight was just starting when I was born, and was very common: more than likely, everyone here knows many people who either benefitted from it educationally or suffered from it educationally based solely on their race. I benefitted from it. One black guy went to my high school, yet many moved into the area to go there. They were cut out by redistricting.

    People who blame the problems that occur in the black community mainly on entitlements and "race hustlers" are missing the point. If you have a headache, do you blame it on the one glass of wine you had, the slight dose of msg in your mooshoo pork, or the redneck who just hit you with a baseball bat ten minutes ago?

    Blacks have never had equal representaion on the whole, they have never had equal education on the whole, and they have never had three generations in a row in America where they were equal under the law. It is the height of idiocy to not see that this is the main cause of problems in the black community, and that every other cause is minor in comparison. To undo entitlements may seem to some as if it is taking away a free ride, but, in fact, at this point it will be giving a free ride to take advantage of blacks once more.

    Basically, if one believes in freedom, one then must believe that the effects of tyranny are terrible. This whole, hey, it's been a few years, blacks should have caught up argument is silly, and requires total ignorance of the effects of educating a family from generation to generation.
  9. katana is offline

    Capitalist Pig

    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,368

    Posted On:
    11/02/2005 6:52pm

    supporting member
     Style: BJJ, no-gi, boxing

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by TheManchu
    Basically, if one believes in freedom, one then must believe that the effects of tyranny are terrible. This whole, hey, it's been a few years, blacks should have caught up argument is silly, and requires total ignorance of the effects of educating a family from generation to generation.
    Here's the problem. While an entitlement structure was maybe required in the beginning it has largely outlived its purpose now and is counterproductive. The demographics of our society are changing and in a few decades the entire white guilt argument is going to mean nothing because the white vote will no longer be the majority. You are going to have large groups of people who don't care about the black plight because they all have their own history of persecution in one form of another or simply don't think it's their problem. When I look at the black culture today and see the ideals embraced that do not mesh up with that of mainstream America I get even more concerned. The entitlement runway is getting much shorter as each year passes and I think that the mindset that the governement owes you something is not preparing the newest generation for the day when nobody really cares about their history any more.
  10. Zendetta is offline

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    SF Bay area
    Posts
    2,681

    Posted On:
    11/02/2005 7:37pm

    Join us... or die
     Style: MMA, functional JKD

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Katana, despite my (somewht deserved) cheap shot at you earlier, you are making some good points. (Manchu too)

    Good discussion (too bad we don't have more black folks involved) - keep it up!
    "You know what I like about you, William? You like guns AND meditation."
Page 11 of 20 FirstFirst ... 7891011 12131415 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Powered by vBulletin™© contact@vbulletin.com vBulletin Solutions, Inc. 2011 All rights reserved.