25 total posts
Oh no, there goes Morgan Freeman
for doing "Driving Miss Daisy". Stereotyping.
Moses and the Egyptians too
Anything depicting historical reenactments could need to be subject to a "Political Correctness" ratings panel similar to the old Legion of Decency movie ratings.
Moses murdered a man. Maybe the Egyptians should have formed a "center" and go on a hunt for him over 40 years till they found him, or he returned to Egypt, then they could have given him a trial, maybe hung him, or killed him in some other manner, without regard to his wife, son, or other family. I mean, someone should have reminded God of that! Obviously that's what He must want, to hear some tell it. Did that murdered man killed by a "prince of Egypt" not have family that suffered from his loss of life, and they from the loss of his wages? Makes one wonder how God could have used a murderer, unless He has some other agenda than generational hate in His mind.
Figures you don't see the difference
I wonder how many blacks
would end up being fired if they admitted to using the "honky" word sometime in the past? Probably not a single one. If they were fired, here would come the Liberals to complain about it. I don't think either should be fired.
Don't you know that, if blacks do it, it's okay
but, if whites do it, it's racism.
A million-man march for black men is great. A million-man march for white men is racist.
If black people
don't want anyone to use the "N" word , they should stop using it themselves. I always hear them calling each other "That" all the time and it's ok? All that gangsta rap music using the "N" word ! GEEZE ! They force the world to hear that word but dare anyone but them to use it and than sue . It's a double standard. Of course, this is coming from a "Cracker" so I wouldn't understand....Digger
That raises an interesting subject
There is a line of thought (which I do not subscribe to) that racism is only racism when it's practiced by a group in a position of power over another group. Most of us would consider that "institutionalized racism," e.g. apartheid, but there is a school of thought that this is the only definition of racism, and that it is not possible for a black person in America to be racist. I don't buy it at all but a lot of people do think this way.
I'd consider racism as any policy that deliberately
hinders one race of people or offers it an advantage over another race when both are seeking the same goal. Such policies such as "affirmative action" are a form of racism. If we can find justification for it, so be it, but we must at least admit it rather than say it ain't so.
I think affirmative action had its place
There was a lot of past inequality to try to rectify. I think the need for it has been met though. The skin color of the man in the White House should be enough to demonstrate that.
I think remaining issues of inequality in education are more economic than racial, and need to be addressed at the grade school level. There's no reason why public schools in poor neighborhoods should get less funding and generally be so much worse than public schools in better neighborhoods. Property taxes and other monies that go to education need to be distributed more equitably. If kids get a better grade school education and just plain have a better school experience, their chances of getting into college go up.
Your definition of racism is valid. I just don't think it's the only definition.
I'd say the economic aspect of inequality
in education is only part of the problem and that part is more related to a child's home life than the school's brick and mortar. If a child's performance improves when moving to a newer school with newer books, my guess is that more of the improvement is attributable to the new people around him than to the newer facilities. That doesn't mean just his teachers but classmates as well. There's nothing that changing property tax distribution will do to fix what's broken in a child's home.
I know the government can't do much.....
.....about people who are just plan lousy parents or who have given up on life because of their economic status and pass that on to their kids. Government can at least try to give those kids something to look forward to in the morning instead of a school that isn't any better than home. Programs to help those kids have worked in the past, but they're usually very localized and limited in scope. Kids in bad neighborhoods go to schools that are often literally crumbling, while the nicer neighborhood a few miles away has the best of everything because there's more tax money there. That isn't right and needs to change. Another part of the problem is that teachers often see an assignment at one of those schools as some kind of punishment, which means that only the worst teachers end up there.
If you haven't seen "Waiting for Superman," watch it. It's eye-opening.
regarding property is valid; however, you aren't taking into consideration the number of times governments (local, state, and Federal) have stepped in, razed old tenements and built new complexes/apartments for the poor just to watch them turn into trash again because the people themselves take no pride in their own neighborhoods. Until that mentality changes, the tax values on properties in those areas will continue to crumble just as the buildings and attitudes of the people living there do. I saw a story just recently where, I believe PA, had a zoning ordinance put in that said a new construction site had to build a certain number of lower income housing units in order to get poor families into better neighborhoods....and then turned around and required that the building company actually double the number once construction started.......the local government broke the contract and were literally turning a somewhat 'wealthy' middle class neighborhood into a housing projects. Needless to say, the entire construction, in a bad housing economy to begin with, shut down and has not restarted.
Give a liberal an inch and they will take ten miles..........because no matter how many years we have tried to fight the war on poverty, it has NOT worked and billions have been wasted trying to....but it keeps the unions working and that's all that counts.
when the govt owns it
Is it their own neighborhood? There's a pride of ownership missing, not to mention the arrogant attitude of some "you can't tell me what to do, you aren't the boss here, you don't even own it".
Similar happens when homes in residential
areas are purchased and turned into rental property. This also happens to homes which have been on the market too long and the owner has no prospective buyers. They turn into rentals. We have a few near me and the properties go noticibly downhill after a while. Having worked hard for something makes a big difference in how they treat it.
Here's exactly what you mean. And it's in Sanford, Fl.
"The shuttering of six sprawling housing projects in two historically black sections of Sanford stoked tensions in the small city of Sanford,... Five public housing developments were located mainly in Goldsboro, Florida's second oldest city chartered by African-Americans, ... until all-white Sanford stripped the city of its charter and absorbed it in 1911. A sixth housing project was in Georgetown, older than Sanford by 14 years, but which was also drafted into the city in the early 20th century.
Some of the projects were named after Goldsboro founders... but when the city was taken — older folks in Goldsboro say "stolen" — the street names were changed to numbers....Seminole is one of Florida's most affluent counties, but of its eleven "pockets of poverty," nine are located in Sanford,...After the recession devastated home prices across Florida, some homeowners began renting out their places..., making Section 8 an attractive offer for some desperate homeowners.
Oliver said some homeowners associations actively fought the new residents, who received rent assistance from HUD, in some cases prompting the local chapter of the NAACP to get involved.
These were black residents there, some families for a century or more, being pushed out by urban renewal and the garbage they knew new subsidized neighbors would bring to their neighborhoods. Black home owners beset on both sides.
Depends on the context. A million man march of whites
for the payment of child support wouldn't be viewed as racist except by a few delinquent dads of colour.
The race not being discriminated against.....
......has no need to march. A million-man whites-only march would most likely be for the promotion of white supremacy, and thankfully they'd be unlikely to get a million people to show up.
That said, the people who organized the original "million-man march" were as racist as they come, even if the event was not racist in intent (and that turnout was way less than a million also).
So it's more important to reply with opinions
about the character of other members than that of the posted issue? If there's a difference, which (if either) of the noted examples is acceptable and which is not.
.....was an actor in a film. The racism was not for the amusement of the audience. You were supposed to be disturbed by it. The "plantation party" was celebrating a part of American history that decent people should be ashamed of.
Don't agree about being ashamed
It's that which we regret that offers the greatest learning opportunities. Self flagellation never cured anything.
I believed that the movie was supposed to demonstrate that close relationships between 'classes' took place more often than people would like to believe. His loyalty to her was remarkable and he never saw himself as beneath her.
And what's that crap about 'decent' people should be ashamed......??? Don't you think that people like Jesse Jackson coining the phrase "African-American" is something HE should be ashamed of? How many blacks does he know who were actually BORN in Africa? We have generations of blacks who are AMERICANS, Josh, and who were born HERE. He deliberately separated Americans with that crap, and liberals have been doing it for a long time now.
She said that she called the man the N word
when talking about it to her husband discussing a black man was holding a gun to hear head.
What I think we should try and be understanding of
is that we didn't all have the same experiences when growing up. What was normal conversation in some households was not acceptable in others. Regional customs varied and no one thought much of it unless traveling out of our own. When we see or hear something that differs from our own ways all we notice is the action. We don't always recognize the intention and that's where, IMO, we fail. We've come to a point where our words need to be so carefully crafted to avoid the possibility of offending someone that we often sound phony. Well...maybe we've actually become a bunch of phonies.