On Race - Keep Dreaming.

[ChiptBeef]

Having just past the celebration of one of many race relations leaders, Mr. Martin Luther King, the lingering question is, when and how will we finally realize Mr. King's dream that he spoke about in his famous speech. Some members have posted sentiments that since January 16, 2006 has past, we should shelve the discussion of Mr. King and race until the same time next year. I believe we should try to live Mr. King's dream everyday, so I am proactively starting this thread so that we can collectively have a place to continually discuss the issue of race relations in a manner that might help advance a legacy of positive and protected civil rights for all.

[Accountable]

I agree this is a very important subject. As many Gardeners remember, the last time this subject was up, Nomad & I got a bit heated (can you say meltdown?) ... and we agreed with each other!



So in the interest of harmony, Chip, could you set the tone with the first opinion? I'll lurk for a bit.

[ChiptBeef]

Post #1 represents my original intent for the thread, but it would be my hope that Mr. King's dream, while not fully realized, would be reached in my lifetime. I believe one key factor in making that happen is to have honest and continued debate. I believe one hurdle that has been placed on the past track of debate has been the practice of throwing around hateful labels during discussions of race. Harry Belafonte, in the not to distant past, spoke of Colin Powell inferring he was a house slave. The exact quote might even be more offensive. How many time have we heard certain African-Americans called "Uncle Tom?" If we can't get past the hateful labels, we can't realize the dream.

[SOJOURNER]

Being inclusive instead of exclusive in our personal lives does more than any spoken word can hope to do.

[ChiptBeef]

SOJOURNER wrote: Being inclusive instead of exclusive in our personal lives does more than any spoken word can hope to do.
Amen. But words can help us get there, if we say what we mean and mean what we say.

[greydeadhead]

Well.. being inclusive and accepting is fine.. but until we educate people and do away with the passing on of racist attitudes from one generation to the next, you can talk till you are purple. Racism, sexism, any kind of hate filled attitude like these are learned behavior. It will be up to the generations that come to do this.. We can start by setting an example..

[ChiptBeef]

greydeadhead wrote: We can start by setting an example..
I agree. I think the best example would be three words... "I am sorry."

"A Senate Apology for History on Lynching" - June 14, 2005

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01720.html

"Hall Calls On Congress To Apologize For Slavery" - June 19, 2000

http://www.directblackaction.com/tony_hall.htm

"Britain blocks EU apology for slave trade" - September 3, 2001

http://www.guardian.co.uk/unracism/stor ... 42,00.html



The scurge of American slavery is fact. England's premier involvement in the slave trade is fact. As world leaders, it's time for these two countrys' to do the right thing. Apologize. The economic fallout from the known liability can be debated later. America has taken the first step of apologizing for not acting against lynching and proposing an apology for slavery. Now it's time for America and Britain to follow through to the finish line of this part of the run to justice.

[SOJOURNER]

greydeadhead wrote: Well.. being inclusive and accepting is fine.. but until we educate people and do away with the passing on of racist attitudes from one generation to the next, you can talk till you are purple. Racism, sexism, any kind of hate filled attitude like these are learned behavior. It will be up to the generations that come to do this.. We can start by setting an example..


Racial hatred is inbred. I use to think we just had to wait until the dinosaurs died out and we would be living in a new world. However, I now find that their seeds are springing froth from many unlikely sources. Education is a tool, and a good one, but it takes a long, long time. Eradicating poverty is a big help also.

There is no easy quick fix to the racial problem. All people should be concerned about this, if only from a selfish point of view. One day the roles may be reversed and then the architechs of this self-build wall of hate may find it falling down upon themselves.

[Accountable]

ChiptBeef wrote: I agree. I think the best example would be three words... "I am sorry."



"A Senate Apology for History on Lynching" - June 14, 2005

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01720.html



"Hall Calls On Congress To Apologize For Slavery" - June 19, 2000

http://www.directblackaction.com/tony_hall.htm



"Britain blocks EU apology for slave trade" - September 3, 2001

http://www.guardian.co.uk/unracism/stor ... 42,00.html





The scurge of American slavery is fact. England's premier involvement in the slave trade is fact. As world leaders, it's time for these two countrys' to do the right thing. Apologize. The economic fallout from the known liability can be debated later. America has taken the first step of apologizing for not acting against lynching and proposing an apology for slavery. Now it's time for America and Britain to follow through to the finish line of this part of the run to justice.
Restitution??

[greydeadhead]

Why should I apologize.. my grandparents came here on the boats... in the early 1900's. Both of my grandfathers were discriminated against during WWII.. one is german and one is sicilian... restitution. .. sure if you can prove that my relatives owned slaves I will pay..

IMHO, the only way this issue will disappear is thru education. We have to break the chain of ignorance that breeds racial hatred. Once we create a society where ignorace is eliminated and tolerance the norm, then we shall have a society where all persons are truely equal.

[ChiptBeef]

greydeadhead wrote: Why should I apologize...
This is not about personal apologizies. I support an apology by the two governments in order to lead by example, as you suggested earlier. If you wanted your country to take similar actions for your ancestors, the precedent would then be in place to support your races' grievance.

[greydeadhead]

Hmmm.. I see.. I apologize for misunderstanding. Yes, an apology is in order. But to make it truely a first step.. all countries involved should issue an apology. And.. on top of apologizing, the current slave trade should be prosecuted to the max under international laws.. this would be an excellent first step towards the end of racism as we know it..

[Accountable]

*looking slightly wild-eyed but still under control*



Can someone define "race" as it applies to this conversation, please?

[ChiptBeef]

Accountable wrote: Restitution??
As far as America is concerned, the precedent has already been codified into law. The Civil Liberties Act of 1988. To deny some level of "restitution" to other aggrieved groups in America would be discriminatory, adding insult to injury. Wouldn't you agree? I belive the debate would be what is an appropriate form of "restitution." Some argue proper "restitution" has been made since the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Others argue further and greater "restitution" is required.

I have not formed a personal opinion on that issue yet. How about you?

http://www.usconstitution.com/civillibe ... of1988.htm

[greydeadhead]

On one level restitution of some sort is in order. But.. to grant to only one aggrieved group opens a whole new can of worms. But.. to get back on the thread.. how can we prevent racism in the future... and realize MLK's goal..??

Do you think that an apology and restitution would go along way towards achieving that goal..??

[ChiptBeef]

Accountable wrote: *looking slightly wild-eyed but still under control*



Can someone define "race" as it applies to this conversation, please?
Thanks, Mr. Moderator. That's just the "coyote" coming out.

When I wrote the original post for the thread, I was referring to race relations, in general, since we are a global forum. I wanted to be inclusive. Race is an issue world-wide. When I pondered what might achieve Mr. King's dream, I thougt of that old saying; "Many hands make light work."

:-6

[greydeadhead]

LOL.. yeah.. that veering left and right thing seems to happen in these serious topic threads... and Iam as guilty of it as anyone else..

But..if we didn't have these little forays, we wouldn't learn anything now would we...

[SOJOURNER]

Race relations for each of us is a very different matter. It mainly depends on our contact with other races and the setting of that contact.

Throughout my life I have lived and worked in areas where no such contact was made. I did not see them in my daily life. I did not work with them in my jobs. They were not at places I frequented for my social pleasure.

This changed greatly about two years ago when I took a position in downtown Cleveland. Suddently I was in the midst of many different races, cultures and backgrounds. For me it was very exciting because it was something so new to me. I even started to learn a bit a Spanish from some coworkers. I felt enriched by the experience.

Our oldest daughter has always been drawn to other races and has been very supportive of all nationalities. She was in her element going to Ohio State University with all the diversitity of peoples there.

Our younger daughter lived in a ghetto area in both Las Vegas and Bradenton, Florida, and has a much different attitute toward both 'African Americans' and 'Mexicans'. Tho she is back home now, it is disturbing how the feelings that were spawned by living there have found its way back here to Ohio.

One family, two daughters, vastly different outlooks. I'd say the community at large did much to change the views she had been raised with.

Solution? Some say absorbing everyone into one race and making all people a mixed race may be the answer.

[Lon]

As one of the older, if not the oldest member of the Forum, I have lived long enough to witness many changes (All Positive) re: Race Relations. I have seen bigoted, violent, relatives change their attitudes and admit their past views were wrong and that their actions towards "African Americans" was reprehensible. Part of the reasons for this change in my opinion is that it became Socially Unexceptable to be a bigot and with others it was working and coming in closer contact with AA and realizing that their aspirations were the same.

And while this thread is kicked off with MLK's goals and is dealing with presumeably African Americans, why not include Jews and others that have likewise been discriminated against in the U.S.? I can remember when Jews could not book in to major New York City hotels and when a blonde blue eyed girl of Irish decent marrying an Italian caused familial uproar. There will always be bigots and racists but I see violence towards them lessening considerably and as people travel more, communicate more, and come in closer working and social contact with minority members this wil do nothing but improve relations. Just look at the number of socially exceptable inter marriages.

[ChiptBeef]

greydeadhead wrote: Hmmm.. I see.. I apologize for misunderstanding. Yes, an apology is in order. But to make it truely a first step.. all countries involved should issue an apology. And.. on top of apologizing, the current slave trade should be prosecuted to the max under international laws.. this would be an excellent first step towards the end of racism as we know it..
Not to get lost in apologizes; yours to me is not necessary, but I appreciate it. We just had different views. One bone for me to pick is when public figures have a chance to avert slavery and don't. Another said it better:

"Where was Jesse? - January 31, 2000

By Nat Hentoff

"Celebrating the birthday of Martin Luther King Jr. on Jan. 17, Newark's Paradise Baptist Church joined the American Anti-Slavery Group in a special service to call urgent attention to the mass slavery of black Christians and animists in southern Sudan by the Arab Islamic government in the North. Does anyone doubt that if Martin Luther King Jr. were alive he would be in the forefront of those... leading the charge against slavery in the Sudan? Yet a friend of mine who was at the abolitionist service for Dr. King at the Paradise Baptist church told me that the same sunday, up the street from that church, Jesse Jackson, who prides himself on his association with Dr. King, was speaking at another black church on economics. Jackson has steadfastly refused to take any part in the liberation of slaves in Sudan. At the service for Dr. King and the slaves, all present... joined hands and sang "We Shall Overcome." Where was Jesse?"

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/hentoff013100.asp



"Who Will Succeed Jesse Jackson?" - March 1, 2001

By Nat Hentoff

"For several years, the new American abolitionist movement has been trying to get Jesse jackson to at least publicly condemn slavery in Sudan. Madison and others felt that since Jackson was a key force in focusing public consciousness on apartheid in South Africa, he would be of great help in combating the enslavement and gang rapes in Sudan... I left messages for Jackson, which were not answered. So did close friends of his. But Joe Madison is no longer interested in enlisting Jesse Jackson's aid. Joe himself went to the south of Sudan, talked to liberated slaves, and now speaks about them on the air, as well as in newspaper and magazine interviews."

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0110,h ... 797,6.html



Finally, in August 2004 Jesse Jackson met with Moammar Gadhafi about issues regarding Sudan, and other things. http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/africa/08 ... a.jackson/



Is Jesse Jackson the only public figure to drag his or her feet on the slavery in Sudan? No. I believe Mr. Jackson owed it to the legacy of Mr. King to act sooner and more forcefully to abate the horro of slavery in Sudan. Mr. Jackson had the chance to lead by example, but chose not to. That's what we don't need.

[ChiptBeef]

Lon wrote: As one of the older, if not the oldest member of the Forum, I have lived long enough to witness many changes (All Positive) re: Race Relations. And while this thread is kicked off with MLK's goals and is dealing with presumeably African Americans, why not include Jews and others that have likewise been discriminated against in the U.S.?
I tried to start the thread generally enough to include all those that view the forum, world-wide. I was hoping that inclusiveness would facilitate a better discussion surrounding the issues. Please don't feel limited. I just hope we can keep it between the "yellow lines," so no one gets offended. I citied Mr. King because I have always admired his goals, despite his mistakes, which we all make.

[Accountable]

ChiptBeef wrote: Thanks, Mr. Moderator. That's just the "coyote" coming out.



When I wrote the original post for the thread, I was referring to race relations, in general, since we are a global forum. I wanted to be inclusive. Race is an issue world-wide. When I pondered what might achieve Mr. King's dream, I thougt of that old saying; "Many hands make light work."

:-6
I apologize for not making myself clear. In order to have a discussion on "race" and "race relations" we need, imo, to have a clear agreement on what "race" is. Is it a simple color-coding, light -to-dark; a cultural categorization; a scientific category like species; or is it something else.



I am really trying to keep myself reigned in, as those who know me can tell, because this subject is one I am probably most passionate about. I believe I may have squelched honest discussion exactly because I am so passionate.



To avoid hijacking this thread, interested people can check out the thread on Crash the Movie.

[Nomad]

Accountable

Senior Member







Join Date: May 2005

Location: San Antonio, TX



Posts: 7,890





MEDIC !

[Accountable]

Nomad wrote:



MEDIC !
:yh_rotfl He knows me so well! :yh_rotfl

[ChiptBeef]

Far Rider wrote: But then... without exception when they are back in street clothes and leaving for their next duty station or home.... they dont mix anymore... its right back to their race and music.
Dark green and light green should extend past the post gates. I concur.

[ChiptBeef]

Accountable wrote: I apologize for not making myself clear. In order to have a discussion on "race" and "race relations" we need, imo, to have a clear agreement on what "race" is.
No official definition required. Just debate honestly with facts. Try something new.

[ChiptBeef]

ChiptBeef wrote: Harry Belafonte, in the not to distant past, spoke of Colin Powell inferring he was a house slave. The exact quote might even be more offensive. How many time have we heard certain African-Americans called "Uncle Tom?" If we can't get past the hateful labels, we can't realize the dream.


As reported on October 16, 2002, Harry Belafonte refused to retract, or apologize for the racist statements made towards Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice. This is not leadership by example. This is race hustling by Harry Belafonte in it's extreme form, IMO. http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/10/15/belafonte.powell/

[Accountable]

ChiptBeef wrote: No official definition required. Just debate honestly with facts. Try something new.
I'm still detecting animosity, maybe it's just me. Probably is.



I reject race as a concept. We can not speak in terms of race and acceptance in the same breath because the concept of race is divisive on its face.



If you consider black people as a single group (and I use the American "you" generically as the British use "one"), you homogenize a rich myriad of cultures and backgrounds. Africa alone has dozens, if not hundreds of cultures, each unique in their own right. Black-skinned people have lived in societies all over the world for generations, and have created their own cultures and subcultures.

Here in the US, racism isolated black people, resulting in the blessing of a unique culture; but even this has evolved even since the 60's. The culture has melded and blended regionally, so that while we still have pockets of uniquely black cultures unchanged since pre-integration, most have mixed so much with other people/cultures that it is more a socio-economic and regional phenominon. Black people in urban Los Angeles are culturally worlds away from suburban Atlanta, which is significantly different from rural Alabama.



To lump all people of any color into a single category cheapens the very differences we need to celebrate.

[ChiptBeef]

Accountable wrote: I'm still detecting animosity, maybe it's just me.
You are correct. The last sentence wasn't necessary. It was a tweak. I apologize. I guess I got caught up with my new "coyote" avatar. :wah:

It's time to move forward. When I write "race," I see the word "human" in front of it. That makes any formal definition, by skin color, mute.

[greydeadhead]

road runner that coyote is after youuuuuuu.....ooops.. digressed to Saturday morning comics there for a tic....

Well.. since I live in one of the whitest states in the country, perhaps THE whitest one, it is amazing to watch the residents here when people of other nationalities or races visit. Some of these farmers have never met a Black person. I am not joking.. and it is not unusal for me to hear derogatroy names used to describe someone of another race. I had a fellow employee use a common one for a person of hispanic descent the other day.. it was revolting.. but no one in my liberal leaning office stepped up to the plate to say something... a fact that was almost as distrubing...

[ChiptBeef]

In Post #21 of this thread, I found disturbing evidence of Jesse Jackson's inaction to requests for help in stopping the scurge of slavery in the Sudan. In subsequent research, I discovered another very disturbing interview that contains information about a deception by Jesse Jackson that I find horrible.

"Unmasking Jesse Jackson" - March 31, 2002; Geoff Metcalf interviews Ken Timmerman"

Q: I know you are getting a lot of questions regarding the epiphany, to some people, that Jesse Jackson's actions during the assassination of Martin Luther King were not exactly the way Jesse tells the story.

A: It is a pretty extraordinary story. The liberal media has been complicate with Jackson for all of these years since 1968. When we think of Jesse Jackson, most people think of the story he has told and the spin that he has put on it.

Q: If you tell the lie long enough and consistently enough, it eventually becomes accepted as fact.

A: That's right. And that is the way it has become. The first time Ron Daniels was on with me, he tried to claim that Jesse Jackson had in fact cradled Martin Luther King in his arms, and that is the lie.

Q: Was Rev. Abernathy lying?

A: No, Abernathy told the truth, and it is because of Abernathy that we know the truth.

Q: And what is the truth?

A: Jesse Jackson was not up on the balcony. They even tried to show the picture of Jesse Jackson up on the balcony with Martin Luther King. That picture was taken the day before. It was a publicity shot.

Q: As are most things that Jesse gets involved in.

A: That's right. He goes there for the cameras, and you are going to hear that in this story. He was not up on the balcony with Martin Luther king. He was down in the parking lot talking to a bunch of musicians - Ben Branch and others. When the shots rang out, h fled and hid behind the swimming pool area and reappeared 20-30 minutes later when the television cameras arrived on the scene. That's when Jesse Jackson told other Southern Christian Leadership Conference staffers, "Don't you talk to the press whatever you do."

Q: That's my job!

A: Yes, that's my job. Nobody had given him that job. He took that job. Call it "entrepreneurial instinct" if you wish, but on the spot he realized that he had an opportunity to spin the events to create his own persona and create a possibility for him to become a leader in the black movement. He had no prospects at that point.

Q: We know there were pictures all over the place of Jesse with blood on his shirt. Given that Jesse was in the parking lot when Dr. King was shot, where did that come from?

A: The next morning, he flew to Chicago and went on the NBC "Today Show." In the meantime, he had hired a public relations agent. So here is a guy who is in such grief from Martin Luther King's assassination that he comes back to Chicago and has the presence of mind to have himself taken from interview to interview in a chauffeur-driven car with a P.R. agent. The P.R. agent takes him to the NBC "Today Show," he appears in a shirt that he claims is smeared with Dr. Martin Luther King's blood and he says on national television, "He died in my arms" - an absolute, patent lie."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=27032

[Accountable]

Morgan Freeman's my hero!! He obviously agrees with me and made the point in an interview with Mike Wallace.



His social and political views are at times surprising and he pulls no punches.

He says he finds Black History Month “ridiculous.”

“You're going to relegate my history to a month?” asks Freeman. “I don't want a Black History Month. Black history is American history,” he says, noting that there are no white or Jewish history months.

How can we get rid of racism?

“Stop talking about it. I'm going to stop calling you a white man,” Freeman says to Wallace. “And I'm going to ask you to stop calling me a black man. I know you as Mike Wallace. You know me as Morgan Freeman. You wouldn't say, ‘Well, I know this white guy named Mike Wallace.’ You know what I'm sayin’?”

[Accountable]

ArnoldLayne wrote: Acc, I like and fully agree with Freeman's point.



To pick up on a previous point you bought up. I think we use the word "race" when discussing the issues of "racism" and that is important because its used in the same context as the "racist" would use it. To argue the point, we must see "race" as the "racist" sees it. Your point about there being just the race of human beings is right but obviously racists see it completely different. Help me out here will ya !
I don't see my point and Mr Freeman's point as different. If I can convince a racist of the futility/stupidity of the concept of race, the guy now has (1) thousands of groups to hate rather than a few and (2) many people in his hated group that look just like him. The first is just too big for a simple mind to deal with (which is why we color-code people in the first place), and the second short-circuits his prejudices.



I think it extremely harmful to continue using the term. I equate it to a person explaining to a "pro-life" advocate why she/he is "pro-abortion" rather than "pro-choice." (I know this statement could pull us off-point, but let's not let it, okay guys?)

[ChiptBeef]

Our federal government, and many state governments, define individuals by race in many administrative functions. That doesn't make those agency's "racist." Just because a person uses the term "race" doesn't make them a "racist." Race is a fact of life. Ignoring it won't make it go away. Picturing "human" in front of the word, when used, helps keep things in persepctive. We need to "keep it real."

[Accountable]

ChiptBeef wrote: Our federal government, and many state governments, define individuals by race in many administrative functions. That doesn't make those agency's "racist." Just because a person uses the term "race" doesn't make them a "racist." Race is a fact of life. Ignoring it won't make it go away. Picturing "human" in front of the word, when used, helps keep things in persepctive. We need to "keep it real."
I disagree. Race is not a fact of life, it is a fiction. I'm not advocating ignoring the issue, but attacking and eradicating it. And while the gov't is not racist, it does perpetuate racism by using the racists' own arbitrary categories (even if they give them cool new names).

[ChiptBeef]

Accountable wrote: I disagree. Race is not a fact of life, it is a fiction. I'm not advocating ignoring the issue, but attacking and eradicating it. And while the gov't is not racist, it does perpetuate racism by using the racists' own arbitrary categories (even if they give them cool new names).


From Webster's New World College Dictionary:

"race n. 1 any of the different varieties or poulations of human beings distinguished by a) physical traits such as hair, eyes, skin color, body shape, etc.: traditionally, the three primary divisions are Caucasoid, Negroid, and Mangoloid, although many subdivisions of these are also called races b) blood types c) genetic codes pattern d) all their inherited characteristics which are unique to their isolated breeding population"

Webster the "racist?" "Blood types, genetic codes" and "inheritied characteristics" are now "fiction?" Racial categories have been identified and used for thousands of years. What "cool new names?"

[Accountable]

ChiptBeef wrote: From Webster's New World College Dictionary:



"race n. 1 any of the different varieties or poulations of human beings distinguished by a) physical traits such as hair, eyes, skin color, body shape, etc.: traditionally, the three primary divisions are Caucasoid, Negroid, and Mangoloid, although many subdivisions of these are also called races b) blood types c) genetic codes pattern d) all their inherited characteristics which are unique to their isolated breeding population"



Webster the "racist?" "Blood types, genetic codes" and "inheritied characteristics" are now "fiction?" Racial categories have been identified and used for thousands of years. What "cool new names?"


A dictionary doesn't establish authority. It reports. Any new slang word gets in there.



More importantly, what purpose does it serve?

[Jives]

Somehow, I have the feeling that it is a very, very good thing that I can't see any of Chip's posts in this thread!

As for me, When I was young, I lived on the Blackfoot reservation in Norhtern Montana, I was the only anglo there, but they treated me very well indeed. I was privy to all the pow wows, and even became a log-drummer. I met Buffy Saint Marie once at a pow-wow there, classy lady all around.

In the 60's, my mother taught school in the inner city of Denver. Everyone there was Black-American except for me. I got a little taste of racism and discrimination because everyone called me "paddyboy". But it certainly didn't hurt my feelings, stuff like that just rolled off my back, it always has.

Finally, when I was fifteen, I moved to New Mexico. After a "broken circle" type incident, I gravitated to a family of Native-Americans (Navajos) for friends. that family has been my best friends for the last 30 years. I consider my best friend, a Navajo, as the brother I never had, and he considers me the same!

In the Air Force I traveled all over the world, meeting many races and peoples.

So I am probably the least racist person you can meet. From what I can tell, based on wide experience, people are either good or bad, and those two categories come in all colors.

When the kids in my class make racist remarks, I jump on it instantly. I allow nothing of that sort in my classroom. I also make sure to reference any race with the suffix "American". Black American, Native American, Hispanic American and I'm Swedish American...but emphasis on the "American" because that's what's important. We have many races in America, but we are all one country and one people.

(And see? Isn't this great? I can post all that with the peace of mind that if Chip has some snide thing to say, I can't see it!) ROFL!:D

[ChiptBeef]

Accountable wrote: A dictionary doesn't establish authority. It reports. Any new slang word gets in there.


What "new slang word?" What "cool new names?" The word "race" has been recognized and used for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Just asking for examples so I can better understand your position. In his last post, Jives wrote; "We have many races in America." Is he buying into the "fiction?" Does that mean he is a "racist" because he acknowledges the concept of race? Not trying to start another free-for-all. Just asking questions within the yellow lines of debate.

[Jives]

Oh yeah, I should also tell about the most racist student I ever saw. The little guy came from Texas and on his first day of school here he insulted every hispanic at the school and told a very nice Black American teacher to "swim back to Africa."

Kids were coming into the office in groups to ask if they "could kill him."

So we called in his parents for a conference. and what do you know?

the father comes in and he has a giant swastika tattoed on his face.

That was a big reminder to me that racism is learned behavior. Two kids of different skin color in a sandbox will not have any problem with each other.

[Jives]

Oh and this racist incident happened to me and my best friend last year:

My best friend (who is Navajo) and I walked into a pawn shop to look at guitars. He, being a computer operated machinist) walked over to a case containing sophisticated machinist tools.

The guy behind the counter deliberately ignored him, until I joined him at the counter. Then, with a look of disgust, he came over to help us. My friend asked, "May I see that tool?" indicating an expensive tool. "That's very expensive, and I don't take it out for just anybody, only people that could use it." The pawnshop guy said. The implication was obvious, he didn't think my friend could possibly either use that tool or afford it.

Well, we looked at each other for a second and began to get a little mad, then we suddenly laughed together. I said, "You freakin' idiot, he uses those tools every day! He has more cash in his wallet right now than you make in a year! You've got a lot of nerve discriminating against him! Then when he became a little defensive, I shut him up as we walked out with :

"You think you're better than us? He's a computer-operated machinist, I'm a school principal, and you? Your just a f***ing pawnshop guy!!"

We laughed all the way home!:D

[Accountable]

ChiptBeef wrote: What "new slang word?" What "cool new names?" The word "race" has been recognized and used for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Just asking for examples so I can better understand your position. In his last post, Jives wrote; "We have many races in America." Is he buying into the "fiction?" Does that mean he is a "racist" because he acknowledges the concept of race? Not trying to start another free-for-all. Just asking questions within the yellow lines of debate.
A racist is a bigot based on skin tone. Simply accepting the term doesn't make one a racist. And an arbitrary designation is not made more valid simply because it's been around a long time.



The cool new names I referred to are the numerous names cycled through for black people with the mistaken belief that new names make new attitudes (Negroid, n*****, negro, Afro-American, African-American, Black among others), indigenous people who lived here before Columbus (Indian, American-Indian) who are separated by the historically related people of Central & South America (hispanic, regardless of ethnicity, culture or even language), White people (caucasian) who don't need to change names because we're "in charge", the myriad peoples of eastern Asia (Mongoloid, Orientals, Asians).



My point is that racial designations are arbitrary. We all share the same blood types & genetic codes. Inherited characteristics are cultural. None of it is dictated by skin color (race). It's as irrelevant as categorizing people by height and saying that people between 5 feet tall and 5 1/2 feet tall are culturally or genetically different from people of other heights, or big-nosed people are culturally or genetically different from button-nosed people.



Far more valid and important designations would be culture (based on religion & political bent) and socio-economic status.

[Sheryl]

"Before the mass global migrations of people during the last 500 years, dark skin color was mostly concentrated near the equator and light color progressively increased further away, as illustrated in the map below. In fact, the majority of dark pigmented people lived within 20° of the equator. Most of the lighter pigmented people lived in the northern hemisphere north of 20° latitude."

more information http://anthro.palomar.edu/adapt/adapt_4.htm

Ok now we know how come we all have different skin colors. And we all agree no matter the color we are still humans. So can it be cleared up that race should not be based on skin color but on the persons culture.

[BabyRider]

Sheryl wrote: So can it be cleared up that race should not be based on skin color but on the persons culture.
And if only there was no other way to differentiate them, I'd buy into this notion.

[Sheryl]

BabyRider wrote: And if only there was no other way to differentiate them, I'd buy into this notion.


Trust me I wish that too. I'm not perfect. I'm guilty of making the racial slurs. Usually when stuck behind a Hispanic who refuses to drive over 10mph with his music blaring so loud my windows are shaking.

[BabyRider]

Sheryl wrote: Trust me I wish that too. I'm not perfect. I'm guilty of making the racial slurs. Usually when stuck behind a Hispanic who refuses to drive over 10mph with his music blaring so loud my windows are shaking.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! :yh_rotfl Priceless, Sheryl, just priceless.....

[Jives]

The Journey of Man. A Genetic Odyssey by Spencer Wells...

Spencer Wells just proved conclusively that all mankind is a single species and that we are all genetically related. So much for racisim.