# Funny vs Racist



## Bester (Jan 16, 2005)

Why is it ok for members of non-white ethnic groups to make racist jokes, and it is "funny", but if a white does it, it is "racist" and "bigoted"?

 The first comic ran in our local paper. It is deemed "funny".

 If the second comic had been sent in, how many papers would have ran it, and of those who did, who many would be issuing apologies, pulling future strips, etc?


----------



## Simon Curran (Jan 16, 2005)

Good point.

As far as I am concerned (and by the way I am a white male in the under 35 years age group) equality should be just that, not one rule for one section of society and another rule the rest.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 16, 2005)

Now now,

 Dont start that line of logical thinking.  I tried it with the Gay issue and bt beaten down by forum members with baseball bats for my "intolerance"


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jan 16, 2005)

Well, humor is sometimes tricky.

When we see a traditionally "weaker" or "underpriveledged" group critiquing an "established" or "in power" one, it tickles something in our heads.  Thus the humor.

EX.: one of my favorite columnists was writing about men and women's clothing.  Why is it OK for women to dress like men, wear business suits, and we think they look "professional" or "sharp", but when a man wears a dress, even very cosmopolitan folks can burst out laughing?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 16, 2005)

At the risk of mentioning reality--apparently this, "beat down," some folks--individuals do not get to decide what words and images mean, and idealistic notions about meanings pretty much don't have anything to do with it.

In other words, "men make history, but they do not make it from materials of their own choosing." What Marx had in mind was that you can assemble whatever words, actions, etc., that you like--but their identity, and their meaning, are determined before you get there.

Personally, both versions of the cartoon are kinda dumb. (Though I doubt it was black folks who invented, say, power-walking. Face it...in some ways, "white," people do do this kinda goofy-looking stuff more often.) But both versions appear in a society with a certain kind of history that includes events like slavery and lynching (yes yes yes, those libs--always wanting the White Man to apologize, but we're simply talking about why words mean what they mean here); that includes movies like, "Birth of a Nation," and characters like Stepn Fetchit; that includes a very long line of particular kinds of jokes; that continues to maintain all sorts of racial discriminations. 

Black people were/are primarily treated as objects by that history and in some ways by present culture; white men were/are treated primarily as subjects--actors, if you like. So, you may not like the cartoon because it does exactly what Kipling's "White Man's Burden," goofy poem does--it reminds you that you are in fact being watched by what you've alwayas thought of as the Other, that you aren't the only one doing the looking and the measuring.

The two cartoons aren't symmetrical, in other words, because "black," and "white," don't mean the same things in this culture. 

The last couple decades have seen the rise of a lotta these, "reverse discrimination," arguments--which are really just backlash against civil rights for everybody. You aren't being discriminated against because you're, "white," mostly (and the talk show hosts like Leykis who claim that you are help distract you from reality...that's why they're there), but because you're working class, or you're poor, or you belong to one ethnic minority or another (like, say, Lithuanian), or because EVERYBODY's gettting screwed, and "reverse discrimination," provides a convenient excuse. 

Or, you may FEEL discriminated against because your job's threatened by economic developments, or your family's threatened by economic pressures, or because you have some problems with women's changing roles, or even because you have some leftover ugliness from childhood sitting around gathering dust in the back of your head. 
While there may be individual cases of dumbass behavior that single you out because you're, "white," there simply isn't anything systematic going on. And until, say, the Nation of Islam takes over a state, loses its collective mind, starts a century-long program of apartheid, and creates an extended history of discriminatory images, stories, jokes, etc., there won't be. 

Well, you asked.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Jan 16, 2005)

Uh.  Was there a point to those cartoons, other than stupid people who run in the snow/ice/cold?  Guess I'm colorblind.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jan 16, 2005)

I find myself at times puzzled by this "reversed racism". A few nights ago I was watching on Comedy Central the HBO Chris Rock stand up (uncensored). He makes for a very funny and insightful show but doesn't address the issue of reverse racism, which I would like for him and other comedians of color to do. 
He did make a differential between the Black man and N-----s, see, I can't even say it here in fear of pissing someone off and being damned as a racist, which I'm not. He must've said the "N" word about a hundred times in 60 minutes, but of course he can say that because he's black and nobody is going to critique him of it black or white. If it was George Carlin or Robin Williams then their hotel rooms would've been mobbed and they'd probably start receiving death threats. 
True during the terrible years of slavery whites casually referred to the black slaves as "N's", and for years afterwards until white kids in non-segregated schools got the crap beaten out of them for tossing that word around, then the kids grew up knowing it was not the best of ideas. But blacks still refer to themselves as "N's". 
Chris Rock made a seperation of that. Differentiating with (comic's exaggerations) how Black people can't own anything nice in the hood because the N's will get it all. Saying that if a Black person wants to hide something from N's that might break into their house then they should hide it all in books. "Books are a N's kryptonite, because they can't read and don't like to read. So if you got money then hide it in your books." And so forth. 
If a white comedian was to make those same jokes would it be funny? Probably so... if racists heard them. A white comedian making those jokes would be branded as a racist. Chris Rock, Chris Tucker, Eddie Murphy, Martin Lawrence, Sinbad, and a four (or more) dozen other black comedians can get away with this. The reasons why isn't clear. You watch Def Comedy Jam and you'll get the picture. 
It's the same terminology isn't it? Same derogatory moniker for uneducated, ignorant, criminally inclined, lazy, welfare living mo-fo.  Hmm, I know of some white trailer trash folk that could fit that description to a T. Why don't we be calling them N's?? We don't, because we have a seperate word for them... Rednecks! 
Bill Cosby is probably one of the few black comedians that I know of that doesn't use the N-word. In fact many of you I'm sure remember the back-lash he got for dissin' on the (black) people who fit in the aforementioned description. 


> Shown here  from dictionary.com
> nig·ger   Pronunciation Key  (ngr)
> n. Offensive Slang
> 1. Used as a disparaging term for a Black person: You can only be destroyed by believing that you really are what the white world calls a ****** (James Baldwin).
> ...


 I dunno about gun owners   but I do know that now-a-days the third definition does and should apply and the first two be removed. Notice that it (the 3rd definition) does not make that differential as regards to race or skin-color.
So where to draw the line? 
The comic strip shown in the initial post is well known for it's representation of the "angry" black man. In it's own way it's racist (to me anyway). And it gets away with it. 
We as a society must continue to learn the lessons taught by the Civil Rights Movement (the leaders) in the late 60's. I was watching PBS last night as it examined Bobby Kennedy. If he hadn't been assasinated he would've made (IMO) remarkable strides in removing the stigma of racism. It was remarkable to see the film footage of the people that came to hear him speak and those that lined up along the railroad tracks to honor him as the funeral train passed. Literally there were people (well) mixed of different colors/races. Blacks, whites and hispanics stood side by side and not in small groups of their own color. Those images to me spoke volumes of what Robert Kennedy was trying to achieve and did achieve for the brief period of his presidential run/campaign and his time as Senator for New Yawk.  
It's possible he was assasinated _because of_ the success he was beginning to make. He was perceived as a threat to White America. Ironic since he was about as white as you can get; rich, affluent, from a powerful American family with business and political ties.  
It would seem that racism is being eradicated, at least I see it that way. Black mayors, black Supreme Court Justices, Black 4 star generals in the military, wildly successful black entertainers that cater to all races, lawyers, doctors with their own firms and so forth. They have affirmative action so at least they're given a better chance at a good job than their white counterparts.  ... notice I didn't use the term... competitors. 
But it's still not enough it seems. Well to do blacks are now referred to as "assimulated". Why? Because they got off their asses and worked hard at their studies in college and on their jobs to get where they're at?  I've heard well to do blacks talk about the "bucket of crabs" syndrome and how they had to break free of that.  

Dunno about the rest of the world. But we as Americans are gonna have to get rid of it totally, completely if we are going to surivive as a nation that touts freedom for all men. The change is happening, but not fast enough I think. The rift that seperated us in the past has just barely begun to heal over. But like a newly scabbed wound, it's fragile at best and easy to tear-open again to bleed out the life's blood and future of this country, the American youth.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Jan 16, 2005)

Caver said (in part): "It's possible he was assasinated _because of_ the success he was beginning to make. He was perceived as a threat to White America. Ironic since he was about as white as you can get; rich, affluent, from a powerful American family with business and political ties. "

Ah - but he was an Eastern Irish C_atholic _(horrors!)  Same for his brother.  People can't stand it when they see people they assume to be less than they are succeed.

As to using the 'n' word.  I'm sure that where you grew up it was a daily occurrence, as it was for me, to hear your black friends address each other in that manner.    I don't think I'd ever call any of my friends by that epithet, nor would they stoop to using the 'popular' terms of denigration for Jews toward me.  Those who did call me  - and them - those things were usually white.  Forget the rest of the ethnic groups to which they belonged.  And where are those name callers now?   I have no idea.  However, one of my black friends is a judge.  Her brother is an attorney.  Another works with the disadvantaged in our hometown, and he still lives in the projects despite having gone to college and "bettered" himself.  I could go on -- and won't.  You get the point.

A racist is nothing more than a bully who can't think of anything more damaging to say to someone than calling him out because of his skin color, beliefs, or ethnic background.  And -- a bully is just a scared, small person who needs to aggrandize himself to himself.  But you know that.


----------



## Bester (Jan 16, 2005)

Racist - White Power
Not Racist - Black Power

Sexist - Male
Not Sexist - Female

Bigoted - "Those Damn Indians"
Not Bigoted - "Those Damn Whites"


Racist/Bigoted/Sexist
- National Association for the Advancement of White People
- White Pride Day
- Not hiring a lesser qualified minority

Not Racist/Bigoted/Sexist
- National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
- Black Pride Week
- Skiping over a fully qualified and experenced white male to hire an inexperienced and under or non qualified minority.


Bigots:
- Archie Bunker
- Ralph Kramden
- Anyone who takes pride in Confederate History

Not Bigots:
- Dave Chapelle
- Fred Sanford
- Anyone who bashes Confederate History

Then, we come to this enlightened view of the US: http://www.tremble.com/scribblins/images/us_of_ra.gif


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 16, 2005)

1. One sign that things are not symmetrical across the color line is that with the possible exception of Jeff Foxworthy--who doesn't do "race," jokes, but "class," jokes--there are no "white," comics who do race jokes who are remotely as funny as Chappell and Richard Pryor, and there haven't been for quite a while.

2. "Fred Sanford," Redd Foxx's character, originated as a deliberate weird twin to Archie Bunker. At the time that the show was popular, all the discussions centered around the idea that he was indeed a racist--and there were several shows in which his son, much like Meathead, tried to argue with him about it. And race was never openly part of "The Honeymooners." If you don't wanna look at his5tory, would you mind at least getting the pop culture straight?

3. "Black Pride," and groups like the Panthers, have repeatedly been critiqued for the attitude towards women. You might want to try actually reading some of the dreaded leftist stuff.

4. No, not every Civil War reenactor or patron of Johhny Reb's belongs to the Klan. But "White Pride," and the Confederate flag tend to be associated with racism because of a century or so's worth of assorted groups of marching yahoos waving that flag and screaming their pointy little heads off about black people, about race-mixing, about integration--in short, because of all their hatred for social progress. Try getting on the National Socialism website, and see for yourself.

5. As always, it'd be nice to see some actual facts to support the claims about the unfairness of affirmative action. But then, it's also be nice to see an awareness of history and contemporary reality, rather than the sorts of perfervid hysterics we get from the likes of Michael Savage.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jan 16, 2005)

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> As to using the 'n' word.  I'm sure that where you grew up it was a daily occurrence, as it was for me, to hear your black friends address each other in that manner.    I don't think I'd ever call any of my friends by that epithet, nor would they stoop to using the 'popular' terms of denigration for Jews toward me.  Those who did call me  - and them - those things were usually white.  Forget the rest of the ethnic groups to which they belonged.  And where are those name callers now?   I have no idea.  However, one of my black friends is a judge.  Her brother is an attorney.  Another works with the disadvantaged in our hometown, and he still lives in the projects despite having gone to college and "bettered" himself.  I could go on -- and won't.  You get the point.


Actually it wasn't a daily occurance except when it was my white friends speaking candidly about those "N's" whenever they weren't around, or when a black student and a white student were about to get into a fight at the school or anywhere else for that matter and the red-necked white boy would be calling out "ya Ngr!" and all that. Blacks, in my experience didn't start calling each other Ngr until the late 80's and 90's.  Understand that I grew up in Nawrthrn Virginya the first ten years of my life, Middle Tennahsea for my teen-aged years and in Texhus during my mid-twenties. In Virginia I was raised in a predominate white neighborhood. I scarely remember any blacks at all at my elem. school. In Tennessee, suddenly I was thrust right into the middle of a heavily intigrated school and the culture shock of it was ... overwhelming to say the least. I was, for a time very bigoted and racist. 
It was Texas (and Washington D.C. for my college years) that I learned to drop the stupid s*** *and actually started looking at people for what they had done (good or bad) as individuals and not at what their race was*. By then I had started getting screwed over by white guys and (ironically??)  was being cared for and helped by blacks and hispanics. Half the guys in the recovery center for alcohol/drug-addiction I was admitted in, were black and I got along better with them than I did with some of the white guys. Also in fact _one of _the great loves of my life was a first-generation American born Hispanic (*beeutiful*) girl.  As well as one of my first Martial Arts teachers was a black guy who held a brown belt in karate (not sure which Karate though  :asian: ) He was teaching me how to defend myself from those (his words) "Ngrs that wanted to kill a white boy because they was white." It was a transitional time and phase for me that enabled me to grow as a human being and to see past the skin-tonal qualities of a person who would be my friend.  For that I am grateful to no end. 



			
				kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> A racist is nothing more than a bully who can't think of anything more damaging to say to someone than calling him out because of his skin color, beliefs, or ethnic background.  And -- a bully is just a scared, small person who needs to aggrandize himself to himself.  But you know that.


 Well, not all bullies I've ever known were small, but I know what you meant. Small in character and inner-self-esteem. A lot of bullies I came to know (later) came from abusive homes and thus as any child needs to do... vented his fear, frustration, hatered, anger, pain on anyone who wouldn't strike back... like he(/she) failed to do when they were being "bullied" at home. 

I still see racism has always begun at home. Parents very often set the tone to the children on how they should view/treat others of different races. They'll either continue to carry this view point to adult-hood and pass it along to their own children, OR (like moi) have a series  of (or even a singular) life changing events that forever alter their ideals and views of what constitutes a human being. 
Desegregation of schools and public places only helped a little. In many ways it caused racism to grow. Both in Tennessee and Texas a lot of the fights (I saw in school) that went on were *rarely* between two students of the same race, and the cause of the fight was racial in some form or another. This was of course during the 70's and 80's. I would like to think that the desegregation began to bear (positive) fruit during the late 80's to the  90's and today.  
But racism is still there, just not as strong. At least this is what I'm seeing.


----------



## Darksoul (Jan 16, 2005)

-Question: why do we need to make racial jokes at all? I would say that people need to be able to laugh at themselves, but at what expense? Is that all comedy has to offer now, jokes about other people?


A---)


----------



## MA-Caver (Jan 16, 2005)

Darksoul said:
			
		

> -Question: why do we need to make racial jokes at all? I would say that people need to be able to laugh at themselves, but at what expense? Is that all comedy has to offer now, jokes about other people?
> 
> A---)



Comedy has always been about joke about other people. Yes they do poke fun at themselves (Rodney "No Respect" Dangerfield is an excellent example) but as George Carlin puts it... "Comedy, a joke as it were, is an exaggeration of a fact. That's what makes it funny the exaggeration. We blow it all out of proportion so it seems little less than real." 

Racial jokes as I understand it are intended to ease the hatered by making one see the humor in whatever a particular minority/race says or does. Black people make fun of white people and vice versa, why? To ease the tension. Laughter eases tension. You get someone who's pissed off at you or someone else to laugh it eases their desire to want to beat the living crap outta you.  True this doesn't always work, sometimes it will only make the situation worse, particularly the person/race who is being the butt of the joke. 
Still, when same race people joke about themselves it gives them an opportunity to laugh at themselves.  
Comedians as of late are beginning to see their value as social teachers, if they can put across a subtle but well intended message across by wrapping it all up in a string or monolouge of jokes people are going to listen and the message is going to sink in.  Popular college professors are popular because every-now-and again they're able to toss in a joke in between their discourses on whatever subject they're lecturing about.  People pay more attention when you're making them laugh. Producing a strong emotional effect, preferably a positive one.  But producing negative emotional responses does have it's uses. Hitler found that out early in 1935. 
Not all jokes are about people. But man/people/humans seem to like laughing at each other and ourselves. 
Why racist jokes work could be the simple fact of not understanding or being afraid or simple hatred of that particular race. Self-racist jokes are probably motivated by it's something to relate to, or as I stated earlier, to tell a message. 

As with all things that come out of a person's mouth... it is the intent of what they say that's more important than what they say.


----------



## Bester (Jan 16, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 1. One sign that things are not symmetrical across the color line is that with the possible exception of Jeff Foxworthy--who doesn't do "race," jokes, but "class," jokes--there are no "white," comics who do race jokes who are remotely as funny as Chappell and Richard Pryor, and there haven't been for quite a while.


  If 1 is ok, then the other should be.  Being "Funny" is not part of the argument, as "humor" is personal.



> 2. "Fred Sanford," Redd Foxx's character, originated as a deliberate weird twin to Archie Bunker. At the time that the show was popular, all the discussions centered around the idea that he was indeed a racist--and there were several shows in which his son, much like Meathead, tried to argue with him about it. And race was never openly part of "The Honeymooners." If you don't wanna look at his5tory, would you mind at least getting the pop culture straight?


  The sample is small, the scope large.  They are examples. I did not realize a complete reference list was required.



> 3. "Black Pride," and groups like the Panthers, have repeatedly been critiqued for the attitude towards women. You might want to try actually reading some of the dreaded leftist stuff.


  So, it's ok IF is doesn't treat women bad them.  Gotcha Doc. 



> 4. No, not every Civil War reenactor or patron of Johhny Reb's belongs to the Klan. But "White Pride," and the Confederate flag tend to be associated with racism because of a century or so's worth of assorted groups of marching yahoos waving that flag and screaming their pointy little heads off about black people, about race-mixing, about integration--in short, because of all their hatred for social progress. Try getting on the National Socialism website, and see for yourself.[/quote
> 
> An so do a dozen other symbols, yet you seem to pick and choose which are ok in your world, and damn all others who disagree.
> 
> ...


----------



## MA-Caver (Jan 16, 2005)

Bester said:
			
		

> You want facts? Pull that Ivory head out of the sand Doc, and stop seeing the roses. There be Thorns there. I have read you positions on these issues repeatedly here, and despite your years of experience, your professional standing, and your own experiences, you repeatedly show a lack of willingness to see others positions.  On so many issues you are right on the money.  So "right on target" I want to scream "Bullseye!".  But on others, you miss it man, miss it badly.  It didn't just "impact on the surface" it "skipped off into space".  Its a shame too, as those "on target" shots are usually great.


Bester it's clear you're bitter about a lot of injustices to yourself and to friends of yours and various instances in society. It's okay to express them here but no need to be antagonistic if your views don't match up with someone elses or if their view point (*ahem* seems to intentionally)  pushes buttons.  No need to rise to the bait. It only lowers yourself. 
Keep posts civil while still disagreeing is a doable possibility. 

 :asian:


----------



## kenpo tiger (Jan 16, 2005)

Bester,

You're a pretty angry guy behind all that great common sense you usually display in your posts.  Some of it with good reason.  Some not.

1) I'm female, work in a predominantly female office (one male who is in a white collar position, two who are not but do not work on our floor).  So, should that one man -- or the other two -- be the only ones who do the heavy lifting?  They aren't -- and don't.  In fact, Mr. WhiteCollar has yet to lift anything heavier than a pen.  I, and a woman ten years my senior, are the ones who do it -- the water bottle, file boxes, you name it.  No preferential treatment because you're female there, that's for sure.  Oh yes.  The boss is a woman also.
2) As to the civil service exam and being passed over for a position for women and other minorities, well, you can argue that point until you're hoarse.  You will not win against bureaucrats who sit in their snugly feathered permanent nests until they retire.  The beauty of the civil service system, at least as I know of it on my local government level, is that one cannot be fired.  Period.  You get 'laterally promoted' and your family members are given jobs without question or application.
3) The woman _does not *always*_ get custody.  Here in Nassau County, NY, my friend was denied custody of her children.  Her husband got full custody.  Then again, she was only his first wife.  Number Two managed to screw up enough so that he could have joint custody.  Who knows what will happen with Number Three.

We can go on and on.  Fact is, we all feel at times like we been done wrong, and we probably were.  But to use racial epithets to add fuel to the fire?  I feel that's just plain wrong.  It's a people problem, not a race problem.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 16, 2005)

First off, nobody demanded any sort of comprehensive list. One merely asked you to be reasonably accurate about the examples you yourself specifically cited.

Second off, the point about the Panthers was in response to your strong suggestion that lefties are so p.c. they never criticize each other. Weeellllp, not even close. The very term, "p.c.," started out as a sarcastic comment by leftists, about other leftists who were holier-than-thou...

Third off...if you're going to attempt rationaality, you need to start distinguishing between anecdotal remarks and actual evidence. At least in ivory-tower academics (and for somebody who claims never to listen to Rush et al, you sure repeat their party line a lot) academics, the evidence is rather strong that you can relax--white boys still get the preponderance of jobs, promotions, etc. Would references on where to find out about reality help?

And third--you should be angry. But the people who're sticking it to you aren't actually your enemies--your enemies are fat cat children of wealthy families--like our current Prez. Even more, your enemy is the loopy way we've arranged our economy. You're just buying the party lines of capitalists; you're just accepting "Pravda," and "Izvestia."


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jan 16, 2005)

Chris Rock is a controversial black comedian.  He manages to offend blacks, whites, liberals and conservatives...all in one show, if not in the span of five minutes.  Like Bill Cosby he is highly critical of the dregs of black society.  Unlike Bill Cosby he uses vulgarity in his criticisms.  I suspect his motivation is to reach out to blacks and slap them in the face with what he views as undesirable behavior.  Case in point: The piece "How NOT to get your *** kicked by the police."  He wasn't directing this to white people.  He was directing it to blacks.  It was funny.  It also had a message.

The frustration with the fact that black comedians can get away with the word "n****r," and a white comedian cannot is understandable.  It does indeed seem like a double standard and thus unfair.  However, one must remember that blacks often do not use the term as an acidulous pejorative when they use it towards other blacks.   Whites do.

Weve come to think that racism in this country has largely passed with the tumult of the sixties and seventies.  The Civil Rights movement did its job, some feel.  The sentiment is that blacks are on a level playing field and that if they cant hack it now, they never will.

This is a misperception and doesnt reflect reality.  Half of the 2 million inmates incarcerated in America are black.  Thats one out of every 35 black people.  Some whites use these statistics as validation of their notions of racial inferiority, while ignoring the disproportionate sentencing leveled against minorities.  Blacks get far more death penalty sentences per capita, and longer sentences than whites for equivalent crimes.  Manning Marable writes of one example of this disparity, African Americans under age 18 comprise 15% of their national age group, yet they currently represent 26% of all those who are arrested.

Stuff such as this breeds frustration and intolerance for a word they hear far more often than we do.  I have never in my life heard the word n****r directed at me.  None around me have the courage to use it disparagingly in conversation with me.  Im white.  The word is not a part of my life or reflective of my social status.  _It is for them._  My grandparents could not tell me of lynchings and beatings and bogus arrests for imagined slights.  _Theirs can._  My parents were never denied service in a restaurant, a seat on a bus, a coach on a train, or the right to drink from a public drinking fountain.  _Theirs were.  _ 

Bester, the hate and resentment that fester within blacks goes back so far and hurts so deeply that few of us whitesno, likely, none of uswill ever fully understand it.  We can hear the stories, but we didnt live the experiences.

For that Im willing to put up with a little bit of in your face attitudewhat some might yet call uppity.  If this is social friction it is one we can live with, and far preferable to what we had forty years ago.  It can even have its utilityif we let it.



Regards,


Steve 


http://www.afsc.org/pwork/1200/122k05.htm

http://academic.udayton.edu/race/03justice/crime03.htm


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 16, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Bester, the hate and resentment that fester within blacks goes back so far and hurts so deeply that few of us whitesno, likely, none of uswill ever fully understand it. We can hear the stories, but we didnt live the experiences.
> 
> For that Im willing to put up with a little bit of in your face attitudewhat some might yet call uppity. If this is social friction it is one we can live with, and far preferable to what we had forty years ago. It can even have its utilityif we let it.


 Y'know Steve, I'm not.  You are right, my parents weren't denied service in a resturaunt, forced to use special johns, etc.  But neither were many of these folks giving the "in your face".

 I've been trying to avoid these debates lately.  I'm too busy and sometimes....sometimes it's just not worth it to get the dander up and feel the blood boil.  But, here....it hit too close to home. The issue with the guys kid was too similar to my own case...stories I've heard too often from others.

 I agree with AB there.  I don't like the dual standard. I've been tagged, repeatedly, as a racist on this and other board for daring to say the "politically incorrect" about "Why not a National White Boy Day".  Hell, I even tried to tie it in to Monday Night Football, and get Beer designated the official beverage. 

 We have parades for all these different groups, but the only folks representing Whites are those morons in the bedsheets waving flags, burning crosses and books.  Why?

 Why?

 I should put up with this sanctioned discrimination because 200 years ago someones ancestors felt the sting of the lash?  Last I heard, slavery was outlawed here over 150 years ago. That is enough time to move forward.  I've been in predominantly black schools all my life.  It wasn't the "white man" stopping those kids from showing up to class, and trying to learn.  It was them.  Stupid is as Stupid does.  It knows no colors, creeds or genders as bounds.  I applied myself, read books, took risks and put in some effort to move beyond the level of my parents. -Everyone- has that chance.
 -Everyone-

 Locally, we have 1 of the finest public library systems in the nation. There is nothing, but pride, arrogence and a huge ****ing chip on the shoulder that is stopping thousands of minoritys from walking in through the door, and picking up a book, or seeking help.

 I refuse to put up with misdirected angst.  As I said elsewhere, guys like Cosby and Murphy are looked down upon by their own, for "Selling Out".  It's a crime to be successful.  Cosby says the same things I just did, and he gets grief, called a racist, by other blacks, for daring to say the unspeakable.

 That the state of black america is black americas fault, not some white racists a hundred years ago.

 I've heard the horror stories about the jobs, it's why I don't waste my time applying. I gave up on the job front 3 years ago, and have been fighting, tooth and nail, without government grants, loans or handouts, ever since.  When I applied for Medicade (or care, I get them confused) I was rejected.  The person I spoke to told me point blank it was "A shame you're not a woman.  We could get you in then."

 All -I- ask is for it to be fair.

 -I- Ask too much.


 Bester: When debating Robert, it is best to have at least 12 sources, completely unconnected to argue with. He will take out 6-8, leaving at least 4 to hit target. Be careful that none of those shots fall astray of this sites sniping policy.


 Robert: You have a tendency to push buttons.  You pushed his.  Mine are pushed too, but, this battle aint mine.  I tend to agree more with Bester here, than you, but I find some truth in what you wrote as well.  Then again, I see things in shades of grey.


 Kenpo TIger: I don't think he said "always", just "mostly".  Here in WNY, we've got at least 1 judge who pretty much screws over every father who goes through his court. I've also been the 'beast of burden' for a hen-club at 1 job.  I've also dealth with preferential treatment over the years that's always seemed to prefer the minority or female. I've also seen numerous cases where it was just the opposite.  


 My position is, it's either all right, or all wrong.  Judge and select people based on their abilities, not gender or color. If cartoon 1 is wrong, then so is 2. if 2 is, then so is 1.  Personally, I find 99% of the boondocks insulting, but my local paper chooses to run it.  That is part of why I do not buy that paper. 

 All these rules, quotas, laws, etc are needed, but need to be fairly and uniformly enforced and followed.  Until the day when, they are no longer needed.  When it won't matter your color, creed, gender, orientation, etc.  When we are all simple "The" Human Race.


 "Scotty, One to Beam Up."


----------



## MA-Caver (Jan 16, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> For that Im willing to put up with a little bit of in your face attitudewhat some might yet call uppity.  If this is social friction it is one we can live with, and far preferable to what we had forty years ago.  It can even have its utilityif we let it.
> Regards,
> Steve
> http://www.afsc.org/pwork/1200/122k05.htm
> http://academic.udayton.edu/race/03justice/crime03.htm


Steve, where you are willing to put up with it (uppitiness), I am not. I am a man and expect to be treated as such and will not tolerate anyone "in-my-face." I will do my utmost not to do the same and to my memory I haven't. 
For these reasons; it's uneducated, it's uncivilized, it's antagonistic, it's childish and it's meant to intimidate where no intimidation is needed or necessary. You want something from me, you ask in a civil tone and manner and if it's within my power and reasonable I should be able to grant it. There's no need to go nose to nose physically or verbally. It's invading private space where no invasion was warranted. It is friction where none is needed. 
We as a society (should) have grown over those last 40 years, and in many respects we have. I know I sure as hell have and I was just a babe when it all started way back when, but I experienced (and suffered) some of it's negative aspects. But as I mentioned before I have thankfully experienced the positive aspects of that movement. I do my utmost to return in kind. 
There's no need to get in my face with the attitude of "hey you OWE me mutha fu--er!" Actually I don't owe them squat and by the same token they owe me... nothing. I'm making my own way through this life best as I can, I expect no less from anyone else. If they do better than me, more power to them, help out if you want to or are able to, if not leave me alone and we'll try to be friends anyway ...  if they're doing worse then I'll do whatever I can to help out, if I can't then we'll try to be friends anyway.  
 :asian:


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 16, 2005)

Trying to remain polite---first off, the fact that WE don't see connections (or don't wish to) doesn't mean they're not there. And second--perhaps we could spend a little time discussing the issues, rather than maundering about whether or not other people raise them in a way that fits neatly into what we like to see on our plate?

And last--anybody willing to discuss the raised issue? That maybe we're members of a society, a society with a history, and that society and history just maybe possibly have something to do with the way we use words?


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jan 16, 2005)

Wow.

Well, leaping into the highly-emotional fray....

To address the original issue: HUMOR often stems from things we think are unexpected, or perverse, or unusual.  That's why someone read one way may be funny, and another way, racist.

To address the myriad comments after that:  We all have our own experiences with race, with gender, with SES.  I would like to point out that, according to numbers across the country (not about any one person's experience in particular), yes, black folks are still dealing with problems embedded in our racist past, as a nation.  And with current racial problems.

On a final note: I honestly am surprised to read about so many guys who are frothing-at-the-mouth enraged that black people can call each other n****r, but they can't call a black person such a term.  

As someone who, in many situations, has had to actively work against people's expectations ("it's got breasts, it can't do _____!"), you learn to suss out the social and political situations as best you can.  Women still realize glass ceilings exist, and that you may get fired for getting pregnant, or not wearing makeup (another thread).  Non-white races realize that they will have to put up with a lot of cr*p, perhaps intentional and perhaps not, often on a daily basis.

It's bizarre to me to see people getting so upset that they feel they, too, have experienced this kind of unequal expectation, based on gender or race.  Do I think it's right?  No.  Do I understand the frothing-mouthed nature of the anger about how non-white races and women (non-male gender, maybe?) are working to be treated in general, or the things they can "get away with", like the "n"-word?  Not at all.


----------



## Darksoul (Jan 16, 2005)

-I don't think its a matter of "whites" not being able to use racial slurs so much as why would you refer to anybody in a derogatory manner, especially someone you have something in common with, i.e. race. I don't walk around and call my "white" friends "cracker" or "honkey". But if I did, someone might call me racist. And yes, btw, I am "white". Stupid labels.


A---)


----------



## Adept (Jan 16, 2005)

As far as I can see, it's simply about good manners. You can tell a joke about someone or something, so long as you know that any offense caused will be very minimal. If you deliberately tell a joke that you believe will cause someone to be offended, then you are just being rude.

 I know I can call my closest friends the most attrocious names under the sun, words you wouldnt even hear in an angry mechanics workshop. And we all laugh, and think its a great joke. However, if I was to say those same words to a stranger, they would be considered very rude.

 Which is fair enough. It isn't our place to tell someone what should offend them and what shouldn't, or what they should find funny and what they shouldn't. For example, I find Roberts eclectic and inconstant use of the royal 'we' to be quite funny. Others likely wont.

 You know that if you, as a white stranger, call a black person a ****** (And  I dont see why I should be afraid of using the word in a post, after all I am not using it as an insult), you will offend them. To do so knowing you will cause offense is just rude. Who cares why they are offended by it? It isn't your concern.

 Black people can get away with it because they know they will not be causing offence by using it. Even white people can use it with their black friends, if the right level of familiarity has been reached.

 The same things coming from different people mean different things.

 I agree with Bester in some regards, we should be able to be as proud of ourselves as white people, as other ethnicities are. There should be as many white pride parades as there are black pride parades, etc.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jan 17, 2005)

*I am a man and expect to be treated as such and will not tolerate anyone "in-my-face." I will do my utmost not to do the same and to my memory I haven't. * 

In citing Rock and a cartoonist as examples I neve once suggested that you should be treated as anything less than a man.   Look at the title of the thread.

*
There's no need to get in my face with the attitude of "hey you OWE me mutha fu--er!" Actually I don't owe them squat and by the same token they owe me... nothing. * 

Cite specifically where I demanded reparations for blacks or advocated entitlement programs.

*I'm making my own way through this life best as I can, I expect no less from anyone else. * 

Fine.  Kudos to you--once again--for your addictions recovery.  

Now cite the statistics for incarceration of blacks versus whites for identical drug offenses, MACaver, and tell me how a person with dark skin can get through life _as best he can_.  Minorities are turned down for home loans at a far greater rate than whites.  Their unemployment rates are double that of whites, and make less per capita than whites.  Perhaps they lack industry and a work ethic, eh?  Or should we embrace the theories of "The Bell Curve?"

I have never been an advocate for positive or reverse discrimination.  However, I find it ludicrous to expect black comedians and cartoonists to suddenly be "polite" after their having directly experienced racism.  Let them vent openly.  Let white racists vent openly, if they like.  Double standards be damned.  I would prefer that.  

We can then quit pretending that this issue doesn't exist and expose it for all its ugliness.  It didn't "go away" in the seventies.  It went underground, and its advocates have taken up the rod and staff of "fairness" in their _tu quoque_ attacks against minorities.  It's a glaring distraction from the greater injustices that yet exist, but rarely get mentioned anymore.

http://www.indiana.edu/~speaweb/perspectives/vol3/necess.html

http://www.bizjournals.com/tampabay/stories/2004/10/11/daily15.html


Regards,


Steve


----------



## kenpo tiger (Jan 17, 2005)

Adept said: "Which is fair enough. It isn't our place to tell someone what should offend them and what shouldn't, or what they should find funny and what they shouldn't. For example, I find Roberts eclectic and inconstant use of the royal 'we' to be quite funny. Others likely wont."

Hit the nail on the head, imo.

*One* finds Robert amuses *one* immensely. He can, however, make use of a few 'acidulous pejorative(s)' (thanks Steve. that's a luscious one.) one too many times for *one's* comfort level, although it's done in a subtle way and not "in your face".

So. I think maybe the problem here is feeling left out. _*Hear me out please.*_ You can horse around with your buddies and call each other whatever you choose, but you can't call _just anyone_ just anything you choose. I would no more walk up to you, Caver, and address you as 'Homie' or 'Buddy' (ugh - I hate that. Why do guys _do_ that?!) or 'N****r' unless there was a relationship in place which dictated that that was proper. Same way I expect you not to refer to me as 'Hon', 'Sweetheart', 'Babe', or 'The Little Woman'. Inappropriate, as was calling an African American male 'boy'. Respect is conveyed in many different ways, including what you say as well as how you say it. 

_Y__ou don't have the right to automatically assume that whatever you want to call someone will be well-received._ 

You also have to realize that each culture develops its own shorthand language, and using the 'n' word isn't part of white culture shorthand. In fact, you run the risk of looking and sounding pretty stupid by trying to be something you aren't. Same as people employing polysyllabic words they don't know the meaning of in the wrong context because they think it will impress others.  It's embarrassing.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jan 17, 2005)

An article by Leonard Pitts, Jr. that is related to this topic, first published in the Miami Herald:

*
IN BIGOT VERSUS BIGOT, WHITE RACIST IS WINNER*


''Black people cannot be racist.'' 

It's been maybe 20 years since the first time I heard some member of the black intelligentsia say that on an afternoon talk show. Naturally, all hell broke loose. 

Years later, all hell still awaits repair. 

I base that assessment on the response to something I did in a recent column. Namely, I defined racism as ''this practice of demeaning and denying based on the darkness of skin.'' 

Man, what'd I want to go and say that for? The flood of letters has been unrelenting, dozens of aggrieved Caucasians wanting your poor, benighted correspondent to know that racism, thank you very much, is also felt by those whose skin is not dark at all. Several folks figured I must be one'a them black folk who considers black folk incapable of racism. One individual went so far as to contend that yours truly, like most blacks, hasn't a clue what racism really is. 

Well, golly, where to begin? 

First, my take on the ''blacks can't be racist'' argument: Unassailable logic, unfortunate rhetoric. 

People who make that argument reason as follows: Yes, blacks can be prejudiced or bigoted, but not ''racist'' because racism involves systemic oppression -- the wielding of power. As blacks neither wield power nor control the system, the reasoning goes, it's beyond their ability to be racist. 

I get impatient with people who make the argument in those terms, terms that seem, frankly, calibrated to produce more confrontation than insight. Most people who hear the point framed in that way are, understandably, unable to get past those first inflammatory words: ''Blacks can't be racist.'' 

So let's frame it another way. Let's allow that black folks can, indeed, be racist. Or prejudiced, intolerant, biased, bigoted or any other word that floats your boat. Black people are, after all, members of the human race and, as such, are heir to all the idiocy by which human beings are beset. 

But with that established, let's also say this: It's an affront to common sense to suggest there is equivalence between black-on-white bigotry and its opposite. This is the point the black intelligentsia's rhetoric has obscured and people like my correspondents have denied, avoided and ignored. As an aggregate, bigoted blacks have much less power to injure whites than vice versa. They also have less history of doing so. These are incontrovertible facts that render hollow the yowling demands that the racism of blacks be accorded a place in the national consciousness commensurate with that of white people. 

Hey, when you find a black bigot, feel free to censure and ostracize him or her as the circumstance warrants. I don't care. Just don't pretend the transgression is what it is not. Don't claim it represents a significant threat to the quality of life of white Americans at large. 

Because if it represents such a threat, then where are the statistics demonstrating how black bias against whites translates to the mass denial of housing, bank loans, education, employment opportunities, voting rights, medical care or justice? And please, spare me the anecdote about Jane, who couldn't get into school or Joe, who lost his job, because of affirmative action. 

Not the same. Not even close. There are, in fact, reams of statistics documenting that racism has fostered generation after generation of Joes and Janes -- not to mention Jamillas, Rasheeds and Keshias -- in the African-American community. And those numbers come not from the NAACP, the Nation of Islam, the Congressional Black Caucus or any other group with an ax to grind but, rather, from the federal government and from university think tanks. Yet even with those bona fides, some people find evidence of white racism's power dishearteningly easy to ignore. 

They have to, I suppose. Otherwise, they wouldn't be able to continue pretending an equivalency that does not exist. And somewhere inside, even they must recognize that fact. 

Put it like this: If given the option of going through life as a white man suffering the effects of black racism or the reverse, I know which one I'd choose. 

I bet every one of my correspondents does, too. 




End of article.


Regards,



Steve


----------



## Melissa426 (Jan 17, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Minorities are turned down for home loans at a far greater rate than whites. Their unemployment rates are double that of whites, and make less per capita than whites.


I agree that this is true, but I wonder WHY?  
Do you know? Certainly spotty employment will keep your income down, and probably not endear you to the mortgage company. So that begs the question, why spotty employment? 
Can you say, for instance, in your hometown of Bloomington, IN, that blacks do not have the same opportunity for a good education?  Aren't the public schools pretty decent there? 
I agree that there is an issue that blacks who try to succeed in "a white man's world" fall prey to the Uncle Tom label, get accused of abandoning their culture.  HOw should that issue be addressed?  If you disagree with what Bill Cosby and Chris Rock are doing, ( and I don't know that you do) what is a better choice?

I hear what you are saying HHJH, (and McRobertson, etc) but I wonder what the solution is that is fair and equitable to all.

Peace,
Melissa


----------



## ghostdog2 (Jan 17, 2005)

For what it's worth, The Bell Curve isn't a theory, it's a fact. Populations when plotted statistically fall into a bell curve distribution.
The book The Bell Curve reports on a number of studies of the population at large and demographics within it.  The results of those studies have been examined and sometimes criticized but have held up pretty well over the years.
Clearly this is for another thread, but I thought it worth mentioning.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jan 17, 2005)

ghostdog2 said:
			
		

> For what it's worth, The Bell Curve isn't a theory, it's a fact. Populations when plotted statistically fall into a bell curve distribution.
> The book The Bell Curve reports on a number of studies of the population at large and demographics within it. The results of those studies have been examined and sometimes criticized but have held up pretty well over the years.
> Clearly this is for another thread, but I thought it worth mentioning.


Sorry, the ideas put forth in The Bell Curve are bunk.  No self-respecting scientist would refer to that piece of ...stuff... for factual information.  

We can start another thread if you'd like, but I can't let that statement stand here without a firm rebuttal.  Those numbers have been sifted, doctored, "cooked"... and misinterpreted.


----------



## ghostdog2 (Jan 17, 2005)

"Those numbers have been sifted, doctored, "cooked"... and misinterpreted." By Feisty Mouse

No, the numbers weren't doctored or cooked. Misinterpreted, maybe. The studies and research were and are widely accepted by experts in the fields involved. Read it. You might actually like it. Only a very small portion of the book touches on race, which is the topic that seems to have most people upset.
For the most part it is a review/discussion of the heritability of generalized intelligence and its value/reliability as a predictor of certain things ranging from academic success to parenting skills. There is little scientific dispute about either point, i.e heritability or predictive value.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jan 17, 2005)

You seem to think I don't know what the book is about.

I understand the studies of "general intelligence" and heritability.

The bell curve concept was based on, among other things, regression to the mean on gross anatomical measures.  

Discussing the heritability of "general intelligence" (which changes dramatically according to what test is used and how the people are tested) is a whole other field, which is hotly debated.


----------



## ghostdog2 (Jan 17, 2005)

Perhaps we can go to PM after this, but like you, I hate to see public mis-statements uncorrected.
The heritability of IQ is unchallenged. There is some dispute over the degree of heritability, but if you stick around 50% you'll be on the low side of safe.
No, the studies ( and there are thousands referenced in the book ) were not based on reversion to the mean. Read the book and the appendices which will direct you to the research. A good bit but not nearly all of the studies are discussed and explained in the text.
Time has re-inforced the conclusions as well as the validity of the assumptions of the book. One of which is the fact the _g_ or general intelligence does not change significantly if both tests are fair and fairly administered. It is more or less constant and not dramatically varied by testing methods.


----------



## The Prof (Jan 17, 2005)

Very Interesting!!!!  I guess that in some ways one can see some truth to it.

And you are right about one thing, it's not what's said, it's who'se saying it.

The Prof.




			
				Bester said:
			
		

> Why is it ok for members of non-white ethnic groups to make racist jokes, and it is "funny", but if a white does it, it is "racist" and "bigoted"?
> 
> The first comic ran in our local paper. It is deemed "funny".
> 
> If the second comic had been sent in, how many papers would have ran it, and of those who did, who many would be issuing apologies, pulling future strips, etc?


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jan 17, 2005)

ghostdog - we'll have to take this to another thread.

Insisting that there are lots of studies and therefore it must be true, or that "g" does not vary according to test, is just ...    I don't know what to say.

Start a new thread, we can take it there.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 17, 2005)

1. First and foremost, why in the world would my pride--such as it is--need to have anything to do with the color of my skin? One had thought that self-confidence came from a sense of strong identity, and that (by the very logic argued for by those who got all bothered about that cartoon) generally speaking, one was supposed to take pride in a) one's country, b) the achievements of the human race. Sure, "race," is tangled up with this--but taking pride in the achievements of white people is just silly.

2. The whole concept of, "race," is biological. It is largely a fallacy. "Ethnicity," is what us kids are talking about; it has to do with culture and with history.

3. Ran into this "bell curve," stuff back when was an undergrad and studied behavioral genetics with a guy named Robert Plomin. (Look him up.) it may be useful to mention actual science here: a) "intelligence," is quite difficult to define and to measure, being very situation-specific; b) to the extent that intelligence can simply be measured as, say, problem solving for certain kinds of problems, the consensus is that its heritability depends on a complex of genes; c) there appear to be larger variations in IQ that can be directly attributed to education, experience and to culture than to genes--the famous example is that IQs for Northern Irish Catholics test out as being as much lower than Northern Irish Protestants as "African-American," IQs test as being lower than those of, "white," people; d) all info from genetics, at best, tells you something about groups and nothing about individuals.

4. The history of the concept of intelligence, and of the heritability of intelligence, suggests strongly that the "science," remains hopelessly contaminated with class and "racial," bias. See Gould, "Mismeasure of Man;" see Galton's, "g," and the origins of the Binet IQ test in the French Army circa WWI.

5. It is absurd to claim that African-Americans and other minorities have, as groups, precisely the same access to education that groups of "white," middle-class people have. A look at very simple, very obvious population data for colleges, universities, prep schools, elite schools at all levels, will show you that. Generally speaking, the actual scientific take on that is that African-Americans, as a group, tend to have lower levels of income and to live in places that offer fewer educational advantages at all levels. The generally-accepted interpretation is that the effects of some 300 years of systematic, pervasive racial structuring of society do not go away in one or two generations, even with everybody thinking the best thoughts imaginable.

6. It is odd--or perhaps not so odd--that a discusssion of a cartoon rapidly turned into an attempt to provide scientific bases for a claim that African-Americans are less smart. Funnily enough, these discussions never seem to mention that by the same tests, Asian-Americans are smarter than white folks--until of course somebody brings up the goofy idea that it's unfair that, "they," get all the schools and the jobs just because, "they're," smarter and work harder.

7. Again: the folks who get all hot and bothered by that cartoon don't understand who their real enemies are. The issue isn't "race," but social and economic class; the problems don't lie with poor black people or even with illegal immigrants, but with the likes of Bush, Hannity, Limbaugh, Leykis, and the rest of the guys who do very, very well by more-or-less open race-baiting, and very open support for the advanced capitalism that's really your problem.


----------



## The Prof (Jan 17, 2005)

Hi,

I have always hated discrimination. Hell, I was shot at by a KKK member about 19 years ago when I first moved to Florida for protesting a KKK rally. 

We purchased our home in a multi cultural neighborhood because that's the was we prefer to live. It is still a very fine, multi cultural, crime free and enjoyable working class neighborhood. 

Your points are very correct. For me, I have always taken exception to the Black Congressional Caucus because I feel that it is a mockery of equal but separate. If we had a White Congressional Caucus I am sure it would not be condoned. 

I dont know, I just hate all this racial crap. But so many times I see the reverse discrimination at work and it really bums me out.

The Prof



			
				Bester said:
			
		

> Racist - White Power
> Not Racist - Black Power
> 
> Sexist - Male
> ...


----------



## ghostdog2 (Jan 17, 2005)

"It is odd--or perhaps not so odd--that a discusssion of a cartoon rapidly turned into an attempt to provide scientific bases for a claim that African-Americans are less smart. Funnily enough, these discussions never seem to mention that by the same tests, Asian-Americans are smarter than white folks--" rmcrobertson

In an effort to be fair to me and Feisty Mouse, neither one of us used the term African-American or referenced it. Did we?
And no where did she or I claim they were "less smart" or try to find a scientific basis for that position.

As for Asians, "you got that right" as thet say around here. Asians seem to test about one half standard deviation higher than whites. Does this make us less smart? Don't know, but denying it's so won't make us any smarter.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jan 17, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 1. First and foremost, why in the world would my pride--such as it is--need to have anything to do with the color of my skin? One had thought that self-confidence came from a sense of strong identity, and that (by the very logic argued for by those who got all bothered about that cartoon) generally speaking, one was supposed to take pride in a) one's country, b) the achievements of the human race. Sure, "race," is tangled up with this--but taking pride in the achievements of white people is just silly.
> 
> 2. The whole concept of, "race," is biological. It is largely a fallacy. "Ethnicity," is what us kids are talking about; it has to do with culture and with history.
> 
> ...


#3 - you had Plomin?  Huh, small world!  He's an interesting guy.  I'm not crazy about all of his work, but he is by far more of the "middle of the road" behavior genetics guy, rather than the hair-on-fire folks.  

#4 - rock on.  

#7 - I don't think anyone else is listening - it's easier to get upset about some guy somehow taking your job, rather than an entire power structure.

ghostdog - studies, and popular press books based on past studies, such as the Bell jar, are based on tests of "general intelligence" that historically rate black people as less intelligent than white people, I believe that was what robertson was referring to.

g.i. tests tell you more about variation between ethnicities (or "races") and how they have access to education, etc., rather than about anything genetically inherited.  Also, "heritability" and "inherited" get confused quite a bit in such writings, which makes it even more tricky.  If there is a lot of variation, it can come from environmental sources, as well as biological sources.  Biological sources that are ignored in such discussions can include: proper nutrition during infancy and childhood; current nutrition; infant care and social development; enriched environments for children; social environment, and social expectations.  These all can affect the physiology ("biology") of people.

Additionally, as robertson pointed out, genetic "models" as proposed by people looking for "the 'g' gene" are too simplistic.  Most of our traits - particularly complex traits - are based on a large number of interacting gene products.  These gene products can act in synergistic ways, although most behavior genetics models are based on looking (and assuming there only exist) for additive genetic variance.  Looking only for additive genetic variation, and parsing out "everything else" when you don't know what "everything else" is, can lead to grossly inflated models that point to, say 50% heritability for a trait.  Which does not mean that 50% of the trait is inherited.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Jan 17, 2005)

Ah - standardized testing.  I suppose it was inevitable that we got around to discussing it vis-a-vis racial 'inequality'.

Fact of the matter is, some people know how to take test better than others.  Someone referred upthread to regurgitating what teachers tell you in order to get good grades.  Isn't that really what testing of all types does?  If you ask a child who has grown up in an urban environment -- black, yellow, red, or white -- about farm animals, they're going to do poorly.  Same for children who grew up in rural areas if you were to ask them how to take a subway, bus and possibly cab to reach a certain location (assuming one leaves Chicago at 8 pm, traveling at a speed of 85 mph and another leaves NY at 8:30 pm, traveling at a speed of 90 mph with a tailwind... )  You cannot measure 'intelligence' by imposing your standards on those who have different life experiences.

And, who's to say that 'street smarts' are not intelligence?  As martial artists, we all strive for being mentally as well as physically prepared should a confrontation arise. 'Street smarts' is an intelligence no one can teach you really.  It's environmental (forgive me, Dr. Freud.  I sound Skinnerian...) and thus, comes with 'the territory'.  If you were to put some of the ivory tower intellectuals I work with (back, Robert, back!) in a confrontational situation, there is absolutely no way that their genius-level IQs will save them, other than possibly buying a little time by confusing their attackers with talk.

So prove to me what intelligence is and how one can measure it.  Even in another thread.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 17, 2005)

One used, "African-American," in an attempt to use less-charged language in a context that involved people trying to argue that "black people," were biologically less-intelligent than, "white people."

To return to the opening of the thread--and to reality--perhaps one should stop trying to invoke, "science," as a support for a claim about something that never happened--running a cartoon featuring two guys saying, "black people." Run the cartoon in an actual general-publication newspaper directed at the same population, so that the experimental circumstances are about the same; collect responses (and collect actual responses from the genral public to the original version, too, which you haven't done), and then we can discuss science and reason. Until you do that, all you have is personally-biased speculation.

Incidentally, when one repeatedly cites "The Bell Curve," as unchallengeable proof about the heritability of intelligence as related to "race," one most certainly is claiming that, "black," people are as a group less intelligent than, "white," people as a group.


----------



## Tgace (Jan 17, 2005)

The n****r issue made me remember a little story. I was in basic training in Ft. McCllelan Al. and a group of black soldiers kind of "cliqued" together, nothing wrong or unnatural there. They werent exclusive, and for the most part we all "got along" fairly well as you all share the same misery. There was one white soldier who used to hang around with this "clique" and for the most part seemed accepted. The black soldiers used to n****r this and n****r that with each other all of the time,and I mean all of the time. None of the white soldiers (naturally and intelligently) assumed to use the same terms with them. However the wite soldier who used to "hang" with this group must have thought he was accepted enough to try it once and let me tell you all HELL broke loose. Racial sensitvity training, people being put before the 1st Sgt. and the Commander, letters home etc. etc.

Thats my "issue" with this topic. It isnt the "if they can use it why cant I?" issue, its the why is it "assumed" that a white person using the term is automatically racist even if as in this situaton it was "innocently" used?


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jan 17, 2005)

Well that's just the idea, y'see?  The historical context is what defines his saying n****r.  White people have historically used it to demean and oppress black people, so that's what it means when a white person says it.  His intentions at the time to try and fit in had nothing to do with it.  He's white, he said it, so he's being racist.

Or at least, that's what I understand the argument to be.  Historical context, not actual intent, determines what is meant by his using the word.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Jan 17, 2005)

I live in New Mexico where there is not a very substantial black population, but there is a large hispanic and native american population; and thus 'racial' issues usually are about white vs indian vs hispanic.  It gives an interesting perspective on black vs white racial issues in the rest of the country.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 17, 2005)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> Or at least, that's what I understand the argument to be. Historical context, not actual intent, determines what is meant by his using the word.


Yeah, and thats really really stupid... "Historical context" says Blacks are inferior to me... but that doesnt make it so.


----------



## Darksoul (Jan 17, 2005)

-Leaving Affirmative Action and other programs out that award people for what color they are, has anybody ever achieved anything in life because of their color? Did they become great teachers, or martial artists, or human beings because of their color? Does the color of one's skin endow people with super powers to achieve in life? Now a taxi driver may stop for a white person, and not a black person; see, its the taxi driver's reaction I'm referring to. Thats an example of the problem, the cause could be linked to many reasons. Racism, fear, whatever. But if a person works their way through school and does well in the 'real world', can we say its because of their color? I guess I'm just trying to focus on individual worth, effort, responsibility, not how others may treat that person. That person who succeeded may have done so with assistance because of skin color, but did he not the work? I think its important to separate the two. Or I'm just going off on a tangent, for which I humbly apologize.


A---)


----------



## bignick (Jan 17, 2005)

First off, I didn't think either one of them were funny...

 Secondly, these examples that you keep giving of unbalanced situations.  



			
				bester said:
			
		

> Racist - White Power
> Not Racist - Black Power


 If someone hates or discriminates against anyone based on their race they are a racist...I don't see how this example holds up at all...If someone is using the slogan "Black Power" as a call to crimes and discrimination against white people it just as bad as people using the slogan "White power" for the same reason...

 The thing is, "Black Power" in most contexts was a call to equality and civil rights...white power was used primarily as a racial slogan against colored people.....



			
				bester said:
			
		

> Sexist - Male
> Not Sexist - Female


 See above, again, sexism is discrimination based on sex again, not just men or women



			
				bester said:
			
		

> Bigoted - "Those Damn Indians"
> Not Bigoted - "Those Damn Whites"


 Again, see above 



			
				bester said:
			
		

> Racist/Bigoted/Sexist
> - National Association for the Advancement of White People
> - White Pride Day
> - Not hiring a lesser qualified minority
> ...


 Here, advancing white people?  Ummm, let me pull out the history books here, but I'm pretty sure white people have done alright for themselves over the last couple of centuries.  When was the last time you had to worry about being enslaved or lynched...?  These are things that are within living memory.



			
				bester said:
			
		

> Bigots:
> - Archie Bunker
> - Ralph Kramden
> - Anyone who takes pride in Confederate History
> ...


 Alrighty, to start off with, Archie Bunker was a fictional character and was really the butt of the joke for his views.  Secondly, I don't know how much you've watched the Chapelle's Show, but he presents a lot worse image of black people than he does of white.  His show comes down hard on pretty much everybody...


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jan 17, 2005)

*Thats my "issue" with this topic. It isnt the "if they can use it why cant I?" issue, its the why is it "assumed" that a white person using the term is automatically racist even if as in this situaton it was "innocently" used?*


Try asking a black person. 

No, I'll suggest you ask black _people._  Ask a number of them.  Get a different perspective from a number of different groups of blacks.  It'd be interesting to have this question posed to blacks from Detroit and compare their answers to blacks from Mississippi.  

Anybody up for that?


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jan 17, 2005)

Darksoul said:
			
		

> -Leaving Affirmative Action and other programs out that award people for what color they are, has anybody ever achieved anything in life because of their color? Did they become great teachers, or martial artists, or human beings because of their color? Does the color of one's skin endow people with super powers to achieve in life? Now a taxi driver may stop for a white person, and not a black person; see, its the taxi driver's reaction I'm referring to. Thats an example of the problem, the cause could be linked to many reasons. Racism, fear, whatever. But if a person works their way through school and does well in the 'real world', can we say its because of their color? I guess I'm just trying to focus on individual worth, effort, responsibility, not how others may treat that person. That person who succeeded may have done so with assistance because of skin color, but did he not the work? I think its important to separate the two. Or I'm just going off on a tangent, for which I humbly apologize.
> 
> 
> A---)


We are social animals - some might say, *the* most social (although that would be debated).  If I am someone who is treated poorly by people in positions of power ever since I was young, this will affect a number of things, including the expectations I have for myself, and the drive I have to see my goals accomplished.

If you sit someone down in a lab, and hand them a test (whether for math skills, vocabulary skills, whatever), and present it in a neutral way, people generally perform to their abilities.  

If you hand a test to a group, and say "it's a math test", girls (vs. boys) tend to do *worse* than control groups.  _They know what's expected of them_, and they "self-handicap". 

Likewise, if I'm a black woman living in a city where cabs driven by white drivers, for example, routinely refuse to stop for me, I might get a bit of a chip on my shoulder, and stop expecting them to stop - or start expecting white people to be jerks.


----------



## Darksoul (Jan 17, 2005)

-I think it would behoove us as human beings to not use race as an excuse, but obviously we are unable to do that, at least right now. Perhaps that will change. I look at my skin, in the glow of the office lights, and am completely unable to fathom how people can judge simply on color alone. For countless years this division has existed for numerous reasons. If life could be divided into positive and negative, so many seem to project the negative. To what end? I guess people would need to be more uniform in appearance to ever make this end. Though how boring. We're all so different, and unique.


A---)


----------



## Bester (Jan 20, 2005)

I am sorry if what I said offended. However, I know what I have seen and experienced. It was and remains examples of bias, discrimination and bigotry. As always, your milage may vary.  For those who had better luck or better experiences, good for you.  For those who had the same, or worse, continue the fight. And, for those who continue to promote the misconception that central Kansas is no different than Harlem NY, maybe you should go spend some time there today, not 30 years ago.  People, places and enviroments change, and some of those enviroments are less than friendly to outsiders.  My examples may not meet collage requirements, or even simplistic bbs debate standards, but if you take the time to read and think, you may see something beyond that which you initially expected.  The stupid idea that I as a white male somehow owes some waste of DNA anything, or should have to suffer because they mistakenly think I owe them anything is pure bull.  I am not in a privilaged class.  I work for a living, and I made it here on my own efforts.  No grants, no free money, no 'govmnt cheese' as Robert Townsend used to joke.  I did it the same way my ancestors did.  Hard work, long hours, and some serious sacrifice.  Maybe, just maybe, these lazy useless unmotivated slackers should put down their remote controls, get off their sofas and do the same.  Rather than bitching about 'reparations', 'free money' and what is 'owed' to them or how it is so unfair how life treats them.

Neither cartoon was funny, the stereotypes were insulting all around, and we, as a people would be better off if that crap ended.

It won't.  But I can dream.

One man once had a dream.  I don't believe this was what he drempt of.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 20, 2005)

1. Precisely who was it who said that you as a "white male," (whatever THAT means) owe anybody anything?

2. When precisely was the last time that you got hassled on account of your skin color? When was the last time, in fact, that your skin color didn't positively help you out?

3. We all of us rely on other people's work, now and in the past. That's in reality, of course.

4. Dream schmeam. Anybody wanna argue that powerwalkers DON'T look pretty silly?


----------



## kenpo tiger (Jan 21, 2005)

[robertson said:] 4. Dream schmeam. Anybody wanna argue that powerwalkers DON'T look pretty silly?



			
				kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> Uh. Was there a point to those cartoons, other than stupid people who run in the snow/ice/cold? Guess I'm colorblind.


----------



## Tgace (Jan 21, 2005)

Well...I thought the point of the original cartoon was that only "White" people were stupid enough to run in the snow.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 21, 2005)

Huh. Looked like two black kids freezing their butts off, watching some goofy-looking white kid run by in the snow.


----------



## Tgace (Jan 21, 2005)

Yeah..and the one black kid says "White people". Implying that only "White people" are stupid enough to go jogging in the snow. It ran in my local paper too. Didnt really offend me, but it is an example of racial humor thats "good for the goose" but im not so certain how the reverse would be accepted.


----------



## psi_radar (Jan 21, 2005)

There's two topics here:

1) Reverse Racism: I first remember having the "reverse racism" discussion with a Cornell professor, I think his name was Richard Spence (a black man), about 15 years ago. In a sociology class, he put forth the notion that as the ruling, most powerful race in America, whites could not have the systemic power that we wield turned against us--and therefore could not be victimized. 

This seemed ironic to me, since it so happened that that day I had just returned from visiting a white friend who had been viciously beaten by a gang of black guys for being white in the wrong part of Philadelphia. 

So, respecting but not fully agreeing with the professors statement, I came to my own conclusion--there's really two different types of racism. One is personal, in which one group of humans decides to cause immediate, physical or mental harm to specific individuals simply because they are "the other" group, which they feel threatened by or fear or hate for some reason, and this harm is usually enabled by proximity. One can become the other by being of another culture, class, color, or even a sports-team rival. Then there's Systemic, in which only the race/creed holding the majority of governing power can victimize members of society. I think these are distinct, and both very real. The most alarming events occur when these types of racism converge to fulfill an agenda--eradication of the Jews, Kurds, Cossacks, American Indians...you get the picture. 

2) Racism in Humor.

For me, neither of those cartoon was very funny. I havent really observed white people running in the cold any more than black people, but I also live in a mostly white (and Hispanic) part of the country. So it didnt resonate for me.

Theres two ways to use race in humor. The bad way, the cheap way, the racist way, is to elicit a response from a group by making it feel superior over another. On a higher level, performers such as Chris Rock use racial humor as social criticism, pointing out our imperfections as people, our senseless divisions, and ultimately, how similar we all are--while getting a few laughs. This cartoon falls into the first category.


----------



## Bester (Jan 22, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 1. Precisely who was it who said that you as a "white male," (whatever THAT means) owe anybody anything?


 Usually any time I speak with those morons who want reparations made ot slave decendants.



> 2. When precisely was the last time that you got hassled on account of your skin color? When was the last time, in fact, that your skin color didn't positively help you out?


 Hassled - Last week.
 When it didn't help - My last job interview.



> 3. We all of us rely on other people's work, now and in the past. That's in reality, of course.


 Right, but the negation is not what I said.  I said I work for a living, rather than sitting at home on my *** collecting the free govmt money thinking 'the man' owes me.



> 4. Dream schmeam. Anybody wanna argue that powerwalkers DON'T look pretty silly?


 So, your own bigotry shows through.  Well done.


----------



## Bester (Jan 22, 2005)

psi_radar said:
			
		

> This seemed ironic to me, since it so happened that that day I had just returned from visiting a white friend who had been viciously beaten by a gang of black guys for being white in the wrong part of Philadelphia.


 That cannot possibly have happened, or if it did, it must be a very rare event. To meet with true source documentation standards, can you get the blood type, social senility number and voter registration card for each of those involved? *



> Theres two ways to use race in humor. The bad way, the cheap way, the racist way, is to elicit a response from a group by making it feel superior over another. On a higher level, performers such as Chris Rock use racial humor as social criticism, pointing out our imperfections as people, our senseless divisions, and ultimately, how similar we all are--while getting a few laughs. This cartoon falls into the first category.


 Thank you. :asian:




 * this was sarcasm directed at those source documentors so anal as to dismiss things that are outside their own narrow experience or that disagree with their own predetermined ideas.


----------



## Bester (Jan 22, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Yeah..and the one black kid says "White people". Implying that only "White people" are stupid enough to go jogging in the snow. It ran in my local paper too. Didnt really offend me, but it is an example of racial humor thats "good for the goose" but im not so certain how the reverse would be accepted.


 It wouldn't be, but we are expected to just "take" the 1 way shot, but condemn it if it goes in the other direction.

 Bull Pocky!


----------



## Bester (Jan 22, 2005)

Darksoul said:
			
		

> -Question: why do we need to make racial jokes at all? I would say that people need to be able to laugh at themselves, but at what expense? Is that all comedy has to offer now, jokes about other people?
> 
> 
> A---)


 We make racial, gender, sexual and ethnic jokes to make ourselves feel better.

 We put down others so to make ourselves seem greater.

 Personally, I don't find most of them funny.


 Humor to point out certain things is of course fine.  The ironys, the sarcasms, the satires, and the parody all have their place.
 But the hateful ones, well, that is the realm of the small mind.

 Which is funnier:
 "Ok, so, a jew a black and an indian woman are all at the welfare office......."
 "George Bush choked on a pretzle today, following in his fathers food-flaw footsteps."
 "McDonalds announces new zero carb meals. Twice the greese, no carbs!  In unrelated news, anti-constipation medicine sales are up."

 Do we really need #1?  And, is it any more acceptable if it was "so, 3 white guys are at the golf course..."?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 22, 2005)

Dear Gullibile Foyled:

Oh wow. It's one's antipowerwalkerisme that disturbeth thee. Oops.

One might ask precisely how it is that you KNOW you were discriminated against--was it the Nation of Islam poster taped to the whiffle bat that they attacked you with? But one understands that you JUST KNOW these things, much as you JUST KNOW the slums are filled with drunken, lazy colored people a-feedin' off your hard labor.

One will also bet that some of us have far more experience of the real world. Why, some of us have taught for years in places like Compton--and gosh, we just haven't run into the whitey-hating folks that you seem to find everywhere. Oh, and incidentally--there don't actually seem to be a lot of, "white man must pay reparationsism," out there, either.

You might also try to keep it in mind that back here on earth, there are certain well-documented realities. Try to find out about them, rather than relying on personal dislike of people you've never met, coupled with replaying right-wing propaganda, to guide your understanding of actual life.


----------



## Bester (Jan 22, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Dear Gullibile Foyled:
> 
> Oh wow. It's one's antipowerwalkerisme that disturbeth thee. Oops.
> 
> One might ask precisely how it is that you KNOW you were discriminated against--was it the Nation of Islam poster taped to the whiffle bat that they attacked you with? But one understands that you JUST KNOW these things, much as you JUST KNOW the slums are filled with drunken, lazy colored people a-feedin' off your hard labor.


 Lets see, they TOLD ME!  
 Interviewer at the job said they prefered a minority as they got a TAX BREAK.

 6 white guys kicking a black guy screaming "die ******" = racist.
 6 black guys kicking a white guy screaming "die honkey" = not racist
 Only in Mr. Robinsons Neighborhood.



> One will also bet that some of us have far more experience of the real world. Why, some of us have taught for years in places like Compton--and gosh, we just haven't run into the whitey-hating folks that you seem to find everywhere. Oh, and incidentally--there don't actually seem to be a lot of, "white man must pay reparationsism," out there, either.


 Some of us just aren't as sheltered, lucky, etc.



> You might also try to keep it in mind that back here on earth, there are certain well-documented realities. Try to find out about them, rather than relying on personal dislike of people you've never met, coupled with replaying right-wing propaganda, to guide your understanding of actual life.


 I'm sorry.  Let me go check that Wiki you like for travel tips Doc.  Reality, it aint all nice and 'white' like you make it out to be bigot.  I have no dislike of the rainbow, the genders or the colors.  I do not introduce my friend of black African decent (who I've known the last 20 years of my life) as "My Black Friend".  He is just my friend. I don't refer to my Jewish Friend as "My Jewish Friend".  He is also, just my friend.  I don't even refer to my significant other who is female as my "girl friend".  She is also just "my friend". (Of course in her case, she is my best friend).  

 But please, continue to spew your pointed, narrow and closed minded fluff. As to finding out about them, Doc, I travel.  It's part of my job.  I've been around the world at least once. I've dined on bugs in 3rd world nations while you were marching in protest or climbing the ivory tower you now preach from. 

 I see people as that.  People.  Pity some fixate so much on the colors, shapes and desires and their own delusions of inadequacy.


----------



## Simon Curran (Jan 22, 2005)

Let's face it, what it all boils down to is prejudice, and that is the same, be it in a racial context, an educational context a gender context, whatever, it is all prejudice.


----------



## Tgace (Jan 22, 2005)

If some white guy were to use Chris Rocks material, how would that be recieved?


----------



## Bester (Jan 22, 2005)

Badly.


----------



## Tgace (Jan 22, 2005)

So we are living in a nation where its not the intent of whats said thats important, its not even the content thats important. Its the race or sex of the person who is saying it thats important.


----------



## ghostdog2 (Jan 22, 2005)

As they say around here: " You got dat right. "

Equally important is the "sensitivity" of the audience. They get to judge you by their standards.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 22, 2005)

Dear Gulliboyle:

Sheltered? One wishes.

It was illegal for the interviewer to tell you that, or to act upon it. You should call the EEOC and lodge a complaint.

Funnily enough, went to school in Orange, NJ; worked in Newark, NJ for two years; worked in inner-city hospitals over years elsewhere; taught in Compton, CA for nine or ten years; never heard "honky," except on TV.

As for where one now teaches, wish it were the ivory tower. But nope; not in well over a decade.

Sorry; realize that a) you'll simply believe that's a lie; b) this clashes so completely with your ideology, that you won't pay attention. Sorry too that have worked for a living for longer than you've been alive. 

But glad to hear that you're a bug-eatin' globe-hoppin' guy, who's learned to use words like, "Doc," and "spew," in insults. 

One regrets that you didn't get the job you wanted and worked for. If the interviewer really did turn you down for the reason cited, of course that's wrong--but nonetheless, you're focused on the wrong enemies.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Jan 22, 2005)

ghostdog2 said:
			
		

> As they say around here: " You got dat right. "
> 
> Equally important is the "sensitivity" of the audience. They get to judge you by their standards.


I think we're all guilty of that at one time or another, consciously or not.  Part of the human condition.


----------



## Bester (Jan 23, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Dear Gulliboyle:
> 
> Sheltered? One wishes.
> 
> It was illegal for the interviewer to tell you that, or to act upon it. You should call the EEOC and lodge a complaint.


 No ****.
 Did lodge complaint. At hearing interviewer denied everything. After the case was dismissed for lack of evidence, the interviewer told me in front of their lawyer that I shouldn't have "done this" refering to the whole farse of a hearing and walked away with a **** eating grin on her face.  Maybe if I had been less trusting, gone in wired, with a minicam in my hair I would have had the proof, but I was a bit trusting back then.



> Funnily enough, went to school in Orange, NJ; worked in Newark, NJ for two years; worked in inner-city hospitals over years elsewhere; taught in Compton, CA for nine or ten years; never heard "honky," except on TV.


 Me either.  Only place I heard it was on the Jeffersons.



> As for where one now teaches, wish it were the ivory tower. But nope; not in well over a decade.


 Pity.



> Sorry; realize that a) you'll simply believe that's a lie; b) this clashes so completely with your ideology, that you won't pay attention. Sorry too that have worked for a living for longer than you've been alive.


 A- I always pay attention, when there is someone saying something worth paying attention too.
 B- Don't apologize. Correct the error.

 Since some will see that as "bad talk", I will clarify so that even an uneducated individual can follow.  Times have changed. You are older than me. Big deal.  What was true in the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's and even the 90's is NOT true today. Your data is outdated Doc.



> But glad to hear that you're a bug-eatin' globe-hoppin' guy, who's learned to use words like, "Doc," and "spew," in insults.


 I haven't yet insulted anyone. That is an artform.  



> One regrets that you didn't get the job you wanted and worked for. If the interviewer really did turn you down for the reason cited, of course that's wrong--but nonetheless, you're focused on the wrong enemies.


 Doc, everyone is my enemy. The person sitting next to me at the employment office is my enemy in the job hunt. The person at the supermarket taking the last box of Frosted Flakes is my enemy in the hunt for food. The person whining because their candidate didn't win the election is my enemy, as is the one gloating that their 'man' won.  Life is a battle-royal, in the end, it is last man standing.   My enemy isn't based on race, politics, gender, or any of that crap.  It is based on the struggle at hand, and where I wish to "score" in comparison to my competition.

 It doesn't matter to me if your American Taliban buddies get their wet dream to blast "Marse Robert" off Stone Mountain, if Dubya is impeached, If Kerry has a hangnail, or if some twit on the internet thinks I'm racist because I said "black" and "white".  In the end, we are all dust, and none of this matters a bit.  Not me, not you, nada. If I vanish tomorow, the only thing here left of me will be words discounted by some as the ramblings of a sad, angry man, and aplauded by others as brilliant and dead on.

 It doesn't matter.

 Blacks/Browns/Negros/African Americans/People of Color will still have issues with Whites/Pinks/The Man/ThoseDamnYankees/Whatever, and vice versa.

 It doesn't matter.

 I will still insist that dual standards are wrong, period.
 Others will insist it's fair/right/owed/whatever.

 It doesn't matter.

 We are ALL shadows and dust.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 23, 2005)

One considered taking up the whole rant based on "Dust in the Wind,"  but regrettably, one doesn't allow oneself that sort of mean-spirited bad manners.

More interesting is that the claim about having been discriminated against has now changed. When first posted it, Bester claimed that this happened at, "my last job interview;" now, he's claiming that he went to the interview, got turned down, lodged a complaint, had a hearing--all since his last job interview?

Is it that, a) the bureaucracy moved with the speed of light, b) it's been a long time since the last job interview, and he's been sitting on 'is butt at home, taking welfare from, "the man," or c) this is another one of those stories heard on, say, Rush Limbaugh?

As for the assertion that, "everyone is...enemy," my goodness. How's it going, Thomas Hobbes? Everyone is NOT our enemy--except that in capitalism, it is dog eat dog. Do try to get enemies straight--it's a system, one that for now we're stuck with because we apparently don't know how to do any better.

We will also find that if you skip the sophistry--you know; say anything, as long as you win--and the stupid attempted insults of, "Doc," and, "your American Taliban buddies," which come from cripes knows where, we'll attract a little better discussion.

To return to the actual point: some of us are contending that a) our society remains racist in all sorts of ways; b) language, history, economics, etc., construct meanings in ways we cannot easily dismiss; c) regrettably, it's starry-eyed nonsense to confuse what SHOULD be true about "race,' with what is in fact true. And d)--what's interesting aabout that cartoon is that if you change the skin color, it's funny--to the extent it is funny at all--for very different reasons.

By the way, Freud's notion that all humor is a form of translated anger helps explain why Richard Pryor's jokes are funny and Klan jokes aren't. Or does anybody wanna finance that remake of "Blazing Saddles," with, say, Tom Metzger as the Sheriff of Rock Ridge?


----------



## kenpo tiger (Jan 23, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> One considered taking up the whole rant based on "Dust in the Wind," but regrettably, one doesn't allow oneself that sort of mean-spirited bad manners.
> 
> More interesting is that the claim about having been discriminated against has now changed. When first posted it, Bester claimed that this happened at, "my last job interview;" now, he's claiming that he went to the interview, got turned down, lodged a complaint, had a hearing--all since his last job interview?
> 
> ...


It comes down to your comfort level with laughing at yourself and others.  I know people who applaud the strangest 'humor' as genius (including Blazing Saddles) -- and I usually don't say anything if I don't agree.  If you also read the SpongeBob thread, there's a similar notion running through there as well:  we aren't who we were because we've been forced to accept certain realities.

Bester, As to your *Doomsday* approach (my appellation, not yours) to life, you don't seem to be that type from some of your other posts in other threads.  Life is difficult for everyone - look at poor Donald Trump, getting divorced and married so often, and teetering on the edge of bankruptcy with that casino .  *sighs*  It's all relative.  You can choose to see the glass half empty, as many do, or half full, as I do.  Life _is_ too short to be viewing it as a battle.  Those are _challenges_ to my way of thinking.  Sorry for your pain.


----------



## Bester (Jan 24, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> One considered taking up the whole rant based on "Dust in the Wind," but regrettably, one doesn't allow oneself that sort of mean-spirited bad manners.


 Actually, that wasn't the reference. In fact, thats 3 you've missed.  You're slipping Doc.



> More interesting is that the claim about having been discriminated against has now changed. When first posted it, Bester claimed that this happened at, "my last job interview;" now, he's claiming that he went to the interview, got turned down, lodged a complaint, had a hearing--all since his last job interview?
> 
> Is it that, a) the bureaucracy moved with the speed of light, b) it's been a long time since the last job interview, and he's been sitting on 'is butt at home, taking welfare from, "the man," or c) this is another one of those stories heard on, say, Rush Limbaugh?


 It's been a while since that interview. My current job I didn't interview for.
 I also work as a contractor for various agencies, and do projects on the side.



> As for the assertion that, "everyone is...enemy," my goodness. How's it going, Thomas Hobbes? Everyone is NOT our enemy--except that in capitalism, it is dog eat dog. Do try to get enemies straight--it's a system, one that for now we're stuck with because we apparently don't know how to do any better.


 So take up arms, tear down the corrupt society and build a new one. 



> We will also find that if you skip the sophistry--you know; say anything, as long as you win--and the stupid attempted insults of, "Doc," and, "your American Taliban buddies," which come from cripes knows where, we'll attract a little better discussion.


 The Taliban had their heads located in a dark cavern' and a hobby of blowing things they don't agree with off of mountains.  You advocate or support the same destruction of history.



> To return to the actual point: some of us are contending that a) our society remains racist in all sorts of ways; b) language, history, economics, etc., construct meanings in ways we cannot easily dismiss; c) regrettably, it's starry-eyed nonsense to confuse what SHOULD be true about "race,' with what is in fact true. And d)--what's interesting aabout that cartoon is that if you change the skin color, it's funny--to the extent it is funny at all--for very different reasons.


 This part, I agree with.



> By the way, Freud's notion that all humor is a form of translated anger helps explain why Richard Pryor's jokes are funny and Klan jokes aren't. Or does anybody wanna finance that remake of "Blazing Saddles," with, say, Tom Metzger as the Sheriff of Rock Ridge?


 No, but I will buy a ticket to see Jackie Chan in a remake of The Jeffer-sans.


----------



## Bester (Jan 24, 2005)

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> Bester, As to your *Doomsday* approach (my appellation, not yours) to life, you don't seem to be that type from some of your other posts in other threads. Life is difficult for everyone - look at poor Donald Trump, getting divorced and married so often, and teetering on the edge of bankruptcy with that casino .  *sighs*  It's all relative.  You can choose to see the glass half empty, as many do, or half full, as I do.  Life _is_ too short to be viewing it as a battle.  Those are _challenges_ to my way of thinking.  Sorry for your pain.


 Pain is good.  When I can no longer feel pain, I'll be dead.  Doesn't mean I like feeling it, but the absence of it is not always a good thing either. But, I do appreciate the kind thoughts.

 My point (1 of them, there were others) is that we all live, we all die. Arguing over color, creed, sex, etc, is a waste of time. Time we have in limited supply, and time better spent chasing dreams, improving ourselves and our families, and simply enjoying life.

 When I die, 100 years from now, few if any will remember me. Not my dreams, not my likes, not my hair color, nor even the tint to my skin. My name will be lost as well.  I will be dust, and my memories as shadows. If I leave here, or am banned, in 5 years, will my words still even exist, or will they have vanished into the realm of digital darkness? We remember Washington, and King because they made a lasting memory, but do we remember the name of the 3rd guy on the right rowing the boat across the Delaware, or walking 3 down from Dr. King? No.  They too, are Shadows and Dust.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 24, 2005)

Just out of morbid curiosity, would you mind explaining precisely how--in a thread where one has repeatedly argued that words and images take their meanings not merely from our own minds, but from language and from history--advocated or supported any destruction of history at all?

For example, one has repeatedly pointed out that the Taliban were in part our own creation during the Afghan/Russian war.

Indeed, if you'd read ANYTHING one has been writing, you'd see that again and again and again, have been very specific indeed about looking at history as it really is--so where're you getting this nonsense from? Michael Savage?


----------



## Bester (Jan 24, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Just out of morbid curiosity, would you mind explaining precisely how--in a thread where one has repeatedly argued that words and images take their meanings not merely from our own minds, but from language and from history--advocated or supported any destruction of history at all?
> 
> For example, one has repeatedly pointed out that the Taliban were in part our own creation during the Afghan/Russian war.
> 
> Indeed, if you'd read ANYTHING one has been writing, you'd see that again and again and again, have been very specific indeed about looking at history as it really is--so where're you getting this nonsense from? Michael Savage?


 I don't have time to dig and sift. In several past threads you have suggested that the swastika, confederate flags and other symbols were solely racist, and encouraged surpression of them and the history they represent to promote your politically "correct" viewpoints. You have also slandered my ancestors as racists, insulted my spiritual brethern, and more. Your bias has been evident all the way back to comments made by you in Oct 2003 here. 

 Your habit of refering to yourself as "One" is also singularly annoying.  You sir, are most certainly "Not The One", to quote my good friend Zathras.


----------



## Adept (Jan 25, 2005)

Bester said:
			
		

> Your habit of refering to yourself as "One" is also singularly annoying.


 Oh I dont know, one finds his flippant and inconsistant use of 'one' as opposed to 'I' to be a source of quaint amusement.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 25, 2005)

"Number One, I order you to take a Number Two" - Captain Beavis

:rofl:


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 25, 2005)

One uses, "one," to adopt a less-personal voice, because one got tired of insults from people who apparently don't know how to argue, and theorized that the more-impersonal tone would help.

Further, one has never slandered your ancestors--one noted that some things were true of white Southerners. For example, many of them owned slaves, and the Powers That Be in the South pushed the War to protect their personal and economic interests in owning slaves and maintaining the slave trade. Indeed, they fundamentally entwined their notions of, "freedom," and "state's rights," with the rights to trade in human beings. 

One also noted that at present, the meanings of such symbols as the swastika--much like that beautiful air of Haydn's--are hopelessly entwined with the Nazis. As--as one has noted repeatedly--are a number of things that, "liberals," hold dear.

Not very remarkably, the folks who make these claims never seem to be able to provide simple supporting quotes or evidence. It remains conjecture--and conjecture, furthermore, that is generally used to avoid discussing the topic or looking at historical reality. Very similarly, the reiterated accusation of being "liberal," of hating the US, etc.--a claim that comes out of right-wing pieties repeated and repeated over the last century--is employed to avoid real discussion, and real looks at history.

Which brings us back to, "one." If you'll actually look at the last couple of pages, you'll see that much of the material revolves around what a rotten guy I am. And the beauty part is, it's all based on claims that folks, "don't have time," to substantiate, and claims about what I must be thinking, and weird readings of comments.

Regrettably, one doesn't feel it's appropriate to respond in kind. And while one understands that this will probably simply occasion more of the same, it still will be inappropriate to respond in kind.

Just discuss the ideas. Just provide some documentation, substantiation, what have you. When the other guy's wrong--and if us liberals are that far off the beam, think how easy it should be to show!--just show that they are. 

Otherwise, it's just Michael-Savegesque attempted bullying. To that, mirroring, ananlysis, and documentation will be in order.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jan 25, 2005)

> Otherwise, it's just Michael-Savegesque attempted bullying



Bullying?  How does one (err, excuse me, somebody) bully another person on an online message board?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 25, 2005)

One wrote, "attempted." And since the medium is words, the way you use words has effects.

Similarly, in a comic strip, images and words have real effects.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jan 25, 2005)

robertson (hey, I had to replace "one" with somethin') would hope so, otherwise there'd be no point in protecting speech, right?  

I'm just wondering how posting a message on an online forum, even something as offensive as "***** you, you ****ing ****" is any form of bullying.  Bullying kinda implies some type of force or influence that the victim can't avoid, which I'm not seeing on a message board where you can easily hit the "ignore" button.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 25, 2005)

I did write, "attempted."


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jan 25, 2005)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> Bullying kinda implies some type of force or influence that the victim can't avoid, which I'm not seeing on a message board where you can easily hit the "ignore" button.



From dictionary.com, a bully is someone that is habitually cruel, overbearing, or behaves aggressively or via intimidation.  None of this implies an inability to avoid influence.

The term is perfectly applicable to the sort of rhetoric used by those on both sides of the political spectrum that are incapable of actual argument who instead fall back on insult, vague reference, and personal attack.  We see it more and more commonly these days from pseudo-conservatives as their media attack machine pushes aside the conservative intellectual traditional, but don't think for a second that liberals aren't also perfectly capable of it... the PETA thread addresses a common instance.


----------



## Bester (Jan 25, 2005)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> From dictionary.com, a bully is someone that is habitually cruel, overbearing, or behaves aggressively or via intimidation. None of this implies an inability to avoid influence.
> 
> The term is perfectly applicable to the sort of rhetoric used by those on both sides of the political spectrum that are incapable of actual argument who instead fall back on insult, vague reference, and personal attack. We see it more and more commonly these days from pseudo-conservatives as their media attack machine pushes aside the conservative intellectual traditional, but don't think for a second that liberals aren't also perfectly capable of it... the PETA thread addresses a common instance.


 So therefore Professor Robert McRobertson is a Bully.
 Vedy Gud Sah!.


 Oh and Bubby-One-Can-Bully? A read through of the majority of your posts on those subjects will illustrate my points easily. I do not need to quote, reference, etc.  Do a search here in The Study, for posts made by "rmcrobertson", and read the ones dealing with those topics I referred to. It will be clear.  Say what you wish, your own bigotry and prejudices shine clearly.  I'm done. You "Not-Da-One" can have the last "turd" in the "poop-fest".


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 26, 2005)

That's all you've got? That's it? A silly deformation of a name, a cheap piece of Gunga-Din-English, a cheesy play on Obi Wan, a claim that you don't need to know what you're talking about or have actual facts, a bit of personal insult, and an assertion that you're taking your football and going home?

One explanation: projection. Freud. Blame the other guy for our own foibles. You know...."Whatever you say aboiut me sticks to you, nyahh nyah nyah nyah nyah."

Did you have anything to say about the topic? One admits their endless fascination for others--but...the topic?


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jan 26, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> I did write, "attempted."


Wow, first use of the first-person on your part in a while.  Thank you.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Jan 26, 2005)

Robert. Can *we* continue the discussion without it degenerating into a tirade concerning "personal attacks", etc.? I think Bester is simply frustrated with your bobbing and weaving around the topic with him. 

_I_ find it frustrating to read your posts when you do that because you -- and Bester -- and others have far more to offer than puerile insults. (He hit me. No - he hit me _first_.)

Play nice, boys. Please?

I'm sorry I have to speak to you in public posts but you don't accept pms -- I understand that, I think.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 26, 2005)

Well, I certainly see your point--it's pretty much mine, with a bit of reasonable exasperation added in. I also agree that I can at times be quite stubborn, and pedantic, and, "YEAH!? Well, mine is...BIGGER!! than yours." I'm a guy; what can I say?

The reason I don't accept PMs is this: given what just writing on this Forum attracts, I don't care to have to read hostile, mean-spirited ignorant crap on my very own mail. I prefer to keep it on somebody else's sidewalk (never let them follow you home, I've found, is a good basic self-defense rule)--that of Mr. Hubbard and the other folks who are nice enough to run the Forum and ride heard.

I also confess to a bad habit of getting pissed when a discussion and/or argument starts, I write something, and the next thing I know, the topic becomes Robert. Beyond my bad habits and stupidities and stubbornnesses (which go deep), it looks to me like a) some guys can't hang with the discussion, so they resort to the Internet equivalent of a punch; b) some guys don't know HOW to argue, so they think the personal attacks are OK; c) some guys have grown up in a world where public discourse is dominated by the likes of Dan Quayle and Howard Stern, so they think that aggressive personal attacks on everybody different ARE the way to argue and discuss; d) some guys are so brainwashed by Limbaugh, Pat Robertson et al that they react to fantasies about "liberals," (of which I am not one) and "Stalinists," (even weirder) and don't even see what I write; e) some guys are so hooked to a consumerist culture that they think there's a simple answer to everything and can't be bothered to actually sit down and take the time to learn. 

On this last point, by the way--looks to me like we're seeing this a lot in martial arts--lots of folks in American kenpo are so busy, advancing," that they can't throw a punch or a kick--why? Well, to do that takes a lot and a lot of plain drudgery--or what can be experienced as drudgery, if you don't seee what you're doing.

And cap it all off with a soupcon of anti-intellectualism (which is partly why Kerry lost--he refused to stop talking like a damn college professor, which is kinda good, but...), et VOILA!: le crappy discussion.

Then there's the dick-waving. And while guilty of that more than once, myself, believe me, we do NOT wanna get into a discussion of just why it is that my stupid little posts so often elicit adjectives like, "quaint," and bizarre interpretations of what I actually wrote...

Among the interpretations of THIS post, for example, we'll probably be seeing a combo of attempts to seize onto what're seen as weaknesses, claims about What I Must Have Meant, assertions that I'm jusst claiming perfection, the odd political insult...

Oh well. In my considered opinion, what I REALLY need to learn how to do is explain once, then drop it, trust the sensible to take the point, and let the others take care of themselves. I'd cheerfully paddle about in the SF references, but I get pissed about the personal insults--which I pretty much don't make, despite occasional screwups.

For example: all I really said on this thread was that individuals do not get to determine the meanings of words and images however they wish. There're these realities called, "culture," and, "history," and, "language," and when we talk and think, we are stuck with most of their constructs. To that, I'd add that it's idealist to claim that our society isn't in any way racist, unfortunately--and that the claim about, "reverse racism," is one of the basic ways that us white guys express our frustrations with a changed and changing world.

Oh well. Now, back to the, "one."


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jan 26, 2005)

Bester said:
			
		

> So therefore Professor Robert McRobertson is a Bully.


 I'm sorry you feel that Robert's ability to outdiscuss most of his opponents is tantamount to "bullying".


----------



## kenpo tiger (Jan 26, 2005)

Robert, I knew you'd say pretty much what you did, and you make a couple of really good points, as always.  (*One,too* refuses to buy into the concept of your *dark* side...)  Howard Stern.  Now there's a bone of contention.  We even have pretenders to being Howard, toos, around here -- a couple of really local guys named Opie and Anthony who used to be widely heard on the radio, including their WOW campaign (whip 'em out Wednesday, where those of us on the *distaff* side were expected to, well, er, whip 'em out -- I guess the feminine equivalent of the wiener wave.)  Needless to say, one has too search to find them anywhere on the bandwidth these days, although I'm told they're still around.  Even the djs I listen to on my way to work have crossed a certain line at times with the discussion and call-ins (e.g., who's the hottest member of your family who you'd "do").  I'm not a morning person, but they manage to wake me up because I have to steer my car out of the path of oncoming traffic at times.  In sum, a long-winded *one, too* agrees.

As to the instant gratification aspect of American Kenpo -- not in my school, sir.  Anything but.

PS - It's still too bad you don't accept pms from certain people.  I could name at least a half dozen who'd be excellent correspondents for you -- and I think you know who they are, too.


----------



## Bester (Jan 26, 2005)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> I'm sorry you feel that Robert's ability to outdiscuss most of his opponents is tantamount to "bullying".


 Outdiscuss?  Wear out by continuingly muddying the water, bringing up unrelated material and otherwise driving off a great deal of those who might be interested in said topic.

 If the PMs and 'rep' comments I've gotten are any example, others here are also tired of his ways.

 Case in point: Kaith tried to discuss the legality of the concept of secession. Robert continually tried to stear it into a discussion of the War of Northern Agression. He continued to do so despite several attempts by Mr. Hubbard to keep that thread focused on the concept of secession.  Right now, 2 cities/villiages/whatever in Vermont are trying to secede to NH. But that discussion cannot take place without Professor McRobertsons taking shots at honored dead, and a cause long since lost.  I have a life, am currently busy beyond belief, and simply do not have the time to sit here, sift through dozens of comments to find each incident of his bullying. I am sorry if that is seen as an "evasion", projection, or whatever.


 Professor McRobertson, I started this thread. I spoke my piece. That was my contribution. I have attempted to add detail or expansion where I saw fit, and to otherwise expand on the ideas and comments of my fellow posters. Despite our disagreement on some points, I admit you have done the same. It is only when you muddy the water and attempt to "browbeat" others into seeing your side that I take exception. On many things, we agree. In this and a few other threads, we do not. For my own part in the slinging of slights, insults and other such barbs, I do apologize. For my own contributions to those issues, I apologize.  I have said the majority of what I wished to say, and I am now moving on to other issues. I do not feel I can add any more to the topic of this thread.

 Good Day.
 -AB


----------



## Tgace (Jan 26, 2005)

Come on Bester..if youve ever been in College you know that the Professor is "always right"...right? 

Just glad im not getting a report card here.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jan 27, 2005)

Why am I not surprised that "the Professor is always right" is now the childish perjorative?  Far easier than countering the points brought up.


----------



## Flatlander (Jan 27, 2005)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> Why am I not surprised that "the Professor is always right" is now the childish perjorative? Far easier than countering the points brought up.


Yes, I think that _everyone_ would benefit from sticking to the topic.


----------



## Tgace (Jan 27, 2005)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> Why am I not surprised that "the Professor is always right" is now the childish perjorative? Far easier than countering the points brought up.


Oh get a sense of humor will ya....Robert is obviously capable of defending himself.


----------

