If you're white and all you can think about is how good blacks have it, you're an idiot [Archive]

bubba jr

07-06-2009, 02:34 AM

Bemoan the fact you can't call people "nigger" or "nigga"

Yes, I do bemoan this, either its an "acceptable" word or its not. The double standard BS is just a bunch of crap.

Wonder why there can't be a respected NAAWP

Again, why not, seems like a double standard. As stated in a thread on this same page "black" or africans are the most genetically diverse group of people on the planet, therefore, me as a white should be able to celebrate my relative genetic rarity.

Start sentences with "I'm not racist, but..."
The sad thing is that you have to start a sentence like that. The sentence should simply be

"he's an asshole"

not

"I'm not a racist, but he's an asshole".

If you're an asshole, you're an asshole, pink purple green white or black, you're an asshole. BTW, that was my dad's racism lecture while I was growing up.

As for black people being privledged, it kind of sucks for them, I would say they are at a disadvantage, but only slightly, no worse than a fat or ugly white person.

Quick aside, I was just over in Taiwan, and the guy I was staying with was telling me how incredibly prejudiced they are against black over there. I really didn't believe it until coming back I had a layover in Tokyo, and coming off the plane they stuff you in this little tram thing. We were packing in like sardines. I was one of the first on, and two black guys after me, they stood next to me on the wall, well dressed, brief cases, the whole tram was packed, except for an empty circle around these two black guys. I had about 6 people stuffed up against me to the right and plenty of breathing room to the left.

So I guess, yes, they are privledged, they didn't have a pile of hot sweaty people pushed up against them in the hottest most humid airport(or building for that matter) I've ever been in. I was just lucky to grab on to their tailcoats and only have half my body smushed by sweaty people.

On a more serious note, I except that kind of crap from my grandfather, racist SOB he is(he's still my gramps though) and he has black and puerto rican friends, go figure. It was just strange.

Mosier

07-06-2009, 02:34 AM

ashman165

07-06-2009, 02:59 AM

Anyone who thinks blacks have it so good should walk through a random white neighborhood and a random black neighborhood at night. Hell, even during the day. There's a really good chance the white neighborhood is a better, safer, and wealthier place to be born into.

Well, there's a simple way to determine this. Just start picking out some relevant communities randomly and go through them. I'd be most curious to see, though, whether a white in an all black community after dark would fare better than a black in an all white community after dark. In that case, I'm not sure that being white in the all black community would be a bonus.

At least not if one buys in the popular view anyway.

Left Hand of Dorkness

07-06-2009, 06:01 AM

Really (http://www.google.com/search?q=terrible+misfortune+in+being+born+white&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a)?

Quotation marks not optional.

Lance Turbo

07-06-2009, 06:06 AM

Think "The Fighting Whiteys" is the awesomest team name EVER

I really feel like this doesn't belong in this particular rant. The original Fighting Whites were a mix of Native American, latino, and white students who chose the name to protest the stereotypical use of Native Americans for team mascots.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_Whites

ashman165

07-06-2009, 06:07 AM

Quotation marks not optional.

Oh, I misunderstood the use of them. My mistake.

LouisB

07-06-2009, 06:27 AM

What is this thread all about and why was it necessary to call it into existence?

ashman165

07-06-2009, 06:52 AM

What is this thread all about and why was it necessary to call it into existence?

Near as I can tell it's that The Great Evil of Racism happened against the blacks in the past, and it is thus justified for them to use The Great Evil of Racism* in the present.

*Only, it isn't racism so long as the target of it a white person.

msmith537

07-06-2009, 07:12 AM

White suburban youth don't have a culture. Only brown people are allowed to have cultures now.

Wearing baseball caps, watching Wes Anderson films, driving a Prius and listening to Dave Mathews Band don't count as "culture"?

Look, I didn't get to grow up in the Ghetto. We didn't have block parties or drive Bentleys and Hummers with fancy rims. I can't afford to spend every night in da club sipping Courvoisier. We didn't have a lot of "bling" in our household. So I would appreciate it if the OP could show a bit more sensitivity to us White folk who didn't have the opportunity to become a professional athlete, award winning rapper or respected gangsta pimp hustla.

Argent Towers

07-06-2009, 07:23 AM

friedo

07-06-2009, 07:31 AM

How dare you imply that whites1 exhibit cultural diversity. How. DARE. You.

1. Not including filthy Irish beggars.

Cicero

07-06-2009, 07:41 AM

What is this thread all about and why was it necessary to call it into existence?

Thanks. I thought I was alone.

Biggirl

07-06-2009, 07:41 AM

Google "being born white" does get quite a few whiners. (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&num=100&newwindow=1&q=%22being+born+white%22&aq=f&oq=&aqi=)

Whiners of both the 'white race is dying' type AND the 'white people got it easy' type. Also, white animals are cool, apparently.

Just data points, not drawing any conclusions about it.

Dr. Drake

07-06-2009, 08:26 AM

It's stupid to lump all "white people" together. Italian, Irish, German, Greek, Jewish, Russian, Polish - Americans all have different cuisines, customs and religious traditions. Anglo-Saxon Protestants from differing regions of the US also have different cultures. The culture of East Coast WASPs is totally different from that of Southern Baptists or Swedish-American Lutherans in Minnesota. There's no monolithic "white culture". I think everyone should learn about their heritage and be proud of it. Nobody likes to be told that they "don't have a culture." Or that they "don't have soul." Or that "white people can't dance." Every culture has its own dances and music and forms of "soul." I realize that most of these remarks in this thread have been in jest, but I encounter this attitude, in earnest, in real life. Not from blacks or other minorities but from whites joking about how their own family backgrounds are so supposedly boring and bland. Well, if you'd just look into your family's history a little bit, you'd find all sorts of interesting things you never knew about.You're confusing race with ethnicity. Ethicity is culture. Race is just a macro-category. You can't often tell someone's ethicity just by looking at them, whereas you can easily assign a race (yes, I know, but read to the end of the post first). Where it gets confusing is that in the United States, "Black" is both an ethnicity AND a race, as until very recently almost all blacks in the United States had similar circumstances. White is also sort of an ethnicity: mainstream American culture is based on the culture of upper-class English-speaking Protestants, and to a greater or lesser extent "white" culture is now middle-class culture, and thus "American" ethnicity. Whites outnumber blacks by something like 7 to 1, and there has been a ton of white immigration in the last 200 years but nearly all black Americans' "immigration" (i.e. kidnapping into slavery) was before that. Therefore, U.S. black cultures have traditionally been relatively more homogenous than white cultures.

Problems with the above: you don't have to look black to be black. People who make assumptions about another's "race" sometimes get it wrong. It is perfectly possible to be bicultural, and in fact most blacks have to be to some degree. Blacks and whites with the same regional identity may have more in common with each other, culturally, than with others of their "race."

I'm all for being aware of ethnicity, but race is kind of a stupid category. I don't see why we can't grant ethnicity-based reparations to the descendants of slaves without getting into the whole Continent-of-Origin thing.

Bricker

07-06-2009, 08:53 AM

If you:

Bemoan the fact you can't call people "nigger" or "nigga"

Think "The Fighting Whiteys" is the awesomest team name EVER

Wonder why there can't be a respected NAAWP

Want to hang nooses in trees for decorative purposes

Start sentences with "I'm not racist, but..."

... or otherwise consider yourself to be persecuted, oppressed, or otherwise less lucky than black people as a whole, you're a complete fucking idiot and you embarrass yourself each time you talk about your terrible, terrible misfortune in being born white.

Eh. No credit on this assignment.

The thread as a whole is an example of the fallacy of false dilemma. It's perfectly conceivable to believe that a word such as n----r is acceptable for everyone or acceptable for no one without consequently believing that whites are "less lucky" than blacks as a whole.

Argent Towers

07-06-2009, 09:13 AM

I'm all for being aware of ethnicity, but race is kind of a stupid category. I don't see why we can't grant ethnicity-based reparations to the descendants of slaves without getting into the whole Continent-of-Origin thing.

I think reparations for slavery is an ace of an idea. I think the money should come out of the pockets of the descendants of the African warlords and slave traders who sold them into slavery in the first place. They should track down the African tribes that sold their war captives to European slavers, and find the great great great grandchildren of THOSE guys, and the reparations can come out of their end.

buttonjockey308

07-06-2009, 09:26 AM

I'm all for being aware of ethnicity, but race is kind of a stupid category. I don't see why we can't grant ethnicity-based reparations to the descendants of slaves without getting into the whole Continent-of-Origin thing.

Because there aren't living slave owners from whom to draw the money, nor living slaves to give it to. The justification for reparations has been thin since it started in earnest about 15 years ago (or perhaps that's when I became aware of it, I dunno), and with every generation of Americans it gets thinner. The shame of slavery is a mark on the soul of our country, one that will not be scrubbed away with piles of cash we don't have.

friedo

07-06-2009, 09:28 AM

I think reparations for slavery is an ace of an idea. I think the money should come out of the pockets of the descendants of the African warlords and slave traders who sold them into slavery in the first place. They should track down the African tribes that sold their war captives to European slavers, and find the great great great grandchildren of THOSE guys, and the reparations can come out of their end.

I'm still waiting on my check from the Pharaoh. :(

Argent Towers

07-06-2009, 09:38 AM

The shame of slavery is a mark on the soul of our country, one that will not be scrubbed away with piles of cash we don't have.

It is also a mark on the soul of Africa, which practiced slavery long before America existed and continued to practice slavery long after we abolished it - and yet blacks still honor this strange cult of pan-african nationalism, sporting medallions in the shape of Africa or the red, black and green colors of African flags. Their own people sold them into slavery in the first place, yet I don't see them condemning those slavers, only the ones with English names.

Slavery is also a mark on the soul of the Islamic religion since Islam condoned the practice of slavery, Islam has passages in the Koran which claim those of black skin to be inferior, and a large number of the people involved in the African slave trade were Arab Muslims - yet that doesn't stop blacks from converting en-masse to Islam, adopting Muslim names in lieu of "slave" names a-la Muhammed Ali (someone should tell him that the Muslims were just as keen on slavery as the American colonists.) But nope - again, their anger is directed solely upon he of the pale countenance.

If people are going to condemn slavery, as they ought to, then they should be consistent about it.

msmith537

07-06-2009, 09:52 AM

Really Not All That Bright

07-06-2009, 09:52 AM

villa

07-06-2009, 10:01 AM

If people are going to condemn slavery, as they ought to, then they should be consistent about it.

So your idea of "consistency" is the following:

I think reparations for slavery is an ace of an idea. I think the money should come out of the pockets of the descendants of the African warlords and slave traders who sold them into slavery in the first place. They should track down the African tribes that sold their war captives to European slavers, and find the great great great grandchildren of THOSE guys, and the reparations can come out of their end.

Wouldn't consistency require reparations to come from all the beneficiaries of slavery and the slave trade? Or is consistency more relevant when it can be used to show how Africans did bad things to those they conquered?

DianaG

07-06-2009, 10:03 AM

It is also a mark on the soul of Africa, which practiced slavery long before America existed and continued to practice slavery long after we abolished it - and yet blacks still honor this strange cult of pan-african nationalism, sporting medallions in the shape of Africa or the red, black and green colors of African flags. Their own people sold them into slavery in the first place, yet I don't see them condemning those slavers, only the ones with English names.

Slavery is also a mark on the soul of the Islamic religion since Islam condoned the practice of slavery, Islam has passages in the Koran which claim those of black skin to be inferior, and a large number of the people involved in the African slave trade were Arab Muslims - yet that doesn't stop blacks from converting en-masse to Islam, adopting Muslim names in lieu of "slave" names a-la Muhammed Ali (someone should tell him that the Muslims were just as keen on slavery as the American colonists.) But nope - again, their anger is directed solely upon he of the pale countenance.

If people are going to condemn slavery, as they ought to, then they should be consistent about it.
Were any African nations at the time, or the religion of Islam founded on the principle "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."?

Sure, there's plenty of blame to go around. But when it comes to accusing everyone else of hypocrisy, the US is at a bit of a disadvantage.

Argent Towers

07-06-2009, 10:06 AM

DianaG

07-06-2009, 10:30 AM

For just a moment, I'll humor you and ignore that your answer isn't relevant to my point.

Legal, government-endorsed slavery? Got a cite for that?

Argent Towers

07-06-2009, 10:35 AM

Did I say it was legal or government endorsed? They barely even have laws or governments in places like Somalia and Nigeria. Read a book on child soldiers or child sex slavery - it will break your heart.

Vinyl Turnip

07-06-2009, 10:40 AM

White people have neither race nor culture. They are the norm from which all other people and cultures deviate.

Suddenly, I'm sad! I would write a plaintive folk song about it, but I have no point of reference and no traditional instruments.

DianaG

07-06-2009, 10:43 AM

You've strayed awfully far afield here. Sure, it's better to be black in America than it is to be black in Somalia. It's also better to be white in America than it is to be white in Somalia. In general, it's better not to be in Somalia. How is that relevant to whether or not it's better to be black than white in America, or that America's shame in relation to the slave trade is exacerbated about 1000% by the principles of its founding?

Bryan Ekers

07-06-2009, 10:47 AM

As stated in a thread on this same page "black" or africans are the most genetically diverse group of people on the planet

Really? They all look alike to me.

Ogre

07-06-2009, 10:51 AM

For just a moment, I'll humor you and ignore that your answer isn't relevant to my point.

Legal, government-endorsed slavery? Got a cite for that?I'm not sure that's the most important point. Slavery does, in fact, exist with the full knowledge, if not support, of quite a few governments. I'd argue that turning a blind eye and outright endorsement are essentially the same thing.

Philster

07-06-2009, 10:52 AM

If you think some white people are crazy for thinking they are at a disadvantage because they are white, and you want to make the world a better, more informed place, then you should stick to the facts and let those handful of white people learn through facts and intelligent dialogue.

You're in the pit, being all bitter and a step away from the persecuted role. For what? A few nut jobs?

Gangster Octopus

07-06-2009, 11:40 AM

Didn't you hear? We have a Black President now. Racism solved.

ToeJam

07-06-2009, 12:08 PM

Suddenly, I'm sad! I would write a plaintive folk song about it, but I have no point of reference and no traditional instruments.

Pfff... just steal the nearest culture's instruments and then add a few chords and you're good to go! No one listened to their stuff anyways!

magellan01

07-06-2009, 12:55 PM

So your idea of "consistency" is the following:

Wouldn't consistency require reparations to come from all the beneficiaries of slavery and the slave trade? Or is consistency more relevant when it can be used to show how Africans did bad things to those they conquered?

Huh? How is Argent's position inconsistent? What is it inconsistent with? What metric are you using for consistency? In other words, what the hell are you talking about?

You might not like his position (as reasonable as it is), but consistency has nothing to do with it. You'll have to find another plan of attack. And if you don't like his position, why not put forth what you think is a good idea. I take it you think reparations are a good idea. Why? And how would you go about it? What would the underlying reason, and metric, be for doling them out?

alexandra

07-06-2009, 01:03 PM

Well, there's a simple way to determine this. Just start picking out some relevant communities randomly and go through them. I'd be most curious to see, though, whether a white in an all black community after dark would fare better than a black in an all white community after dark. In that case, I'm not sure that being white in the all black community would be a bonus.

At least not if one buys in the popular view anyway.

What "all black community" are we talking about?

A majority-black middle-class suburb or a ghetto? If the latter, will they pose a danger to the white person because they're probably not from there and probably have money, or because they're white?

Are there actually equivalents to the sundown town in the US?

villa

07-06-2009, 01:26 PM

Huh? How is Argent's position inconsistent? What is it inconsistent with? What metric are you using for consistency? In other words, what the hell are you talking about?

The inconsistency is that he says people should be consistent in condemn slavery, then says if there are to be reparations, they should come from a) the African warlords and b) the traders (with at least a possibility from the grammar that he is referring to African traders), without any mention of c) the American plantation owners who bought the slaves and profited from them. Hence in his desire to blame Africans (or even at the most charitable Africans and some Europeans), he whitewashes the responsibility of those who demanded other human beings be transported overseas in bondage and treated them often worse than animals.

In other words, his 'consistency' is exceedingly inconsistent. That you too can be so blind to the role of the consumers of slaves makes me wonder what the hell you are talking about.

You might not like his position (as reasonable as it is), but consistency has nothing to do with it. You'll have to find another plan of attack. And if you don't like his position, why not put forth what you think is a good idea. I take it you think reparations are a good idea. Why? And how would you go about it? What would the underlying reason, and metric, be for doling them out?

I haven't said anything about whether I think reparations are a good idea. So try again.

In fact, I don't believe in reparations at all. But I am sure you feel better thinking I do.

07-06-2009, 01:42 PM

Go find somebody who says one of those things. Ask them if they think that blacks, in general, have it better than whites. Please report the answer verbatim.

Think "The Fighting Whiteys" is the awesomest team name EVER

Definitely is the 'awesomest team name' evah. So, to answer:

None of the things you listed indicate that somebody who believe them would think that blacks, in general, have it better than whites.

In general I'd have to say that whites have it better than blacks. This is my verbatim answer, mind. Of course, mileage may vary, and some white assuredly have it worse than some blacks, etc etc...

-XT

magellan01

07-06-2009, 02:03 PM

The inconsistency is that he says people should be consistent in condemn slavery, then says if there are to be reparations, they should come from a) the African warlords and b) the traders (with at least a possibility from the grammar that he is referring to African traders), without any mention of c) the American plantation owners who bought the slaves and profited from them. Hence in his desire to blame Africans (or even at the most charitable Africans and some Europeans), he whitewashes the responsibility of those who demanded other human beings be transported overseas in bondage and treated them often worse than animals.

In other words, his 'consistency' is exceedingly inconsistent. That you too can be so blind to the role of the consumers of slaves makes me wonder what the hell you are talking about.

I think you're incorrect in thinking he was trying to absolve Whites of their role in slavery. To recap, buttonjockey308 wrote, "the shame of slavery is a mark on the soul of our country.". Argent's response was:

It is also a mark on the soul of Africa, which practiced slavery long before America existed and continued to practice slavery long after we abolished it - and yet blacks still honor this strange cult of pan-african nationalism, sporting medallions in the shape of Africa or the red, black and green colors of African flags. Their own people sold them into slavery in the first place, yet I don't see them condemning those slavers, only the ones with English names.

Slavery is also a mark on the soul of the Islamic religion since Islam condoned the practice of slavery, Islam has passages in the Koran which claim those of black skin to be inferior, and a large number of the people involved in the African slave trade were Arab Muslims - yet that doesn't stop blacks from converting en-masse to Islam, adopting Muslim names in lieu of "slave" names a-la Muhammed Ali (someone should tell him that the Muslims were just as keen on slavery as the American colonists.) But nope - again, their anger is directed solely upon he of the pale countenance.

If people are going to condemn slavery, as they ought to, then they should be consistent about it.

Look at the the third word in each of the first two paragraphs. "Also". So, he acknowledges that it is a mark on the soul of the U.S. He's simply making the point that the fault does not lie solely with us.

I'd also take issue with your "...the responsibility of those who demanded other human beings be transported overseas in bondage...". "Demanded"? No one demanded anything. They saw an opportunity to capture and turn their neighbors over to strangers for a profit and took it. What you wrote is just that kind of wrongheaded revisionism that Argent was rightfully trying to combat.

I haven't said anything about whether I think reparations are a good idea. So try again.

Based on what you wrote, my assumption was logical, but also wrong. Good. I'm glad.

In fact, I don't believe in reparations at all. But I am sure you feel better thinking I do.

Actually, it makes me feel better to hear that one less person holds that asinine position. In that, we are brothers.;) Also, if Argent thinks that reparations, if granted at all, should come from the seller side exclusively, I, too think that is wrongheaded. If that was the inconsistency you were pointing to, I agree.

monstro

07-06-2009, 02:03 PM

African governments don't owe black Americans reparations because they never promised them any.

The US government did. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman%27s_Special_Field_Orders,_No._15)

Nor did the African governments have constitutions that ensured the general welfare of its citizens and the equality of all men. Not only did our government turn a blind-eye towards slavery, but it used it blatantly in the construction of its own Capitol, the symbol of freedom and liberty for all. Not only did slavery belie the US's own founding principles, but the century's worth of persecution following Emancipation also was a huge act of betrayl. Find me an African government that oppressed American citizens for over 300 years, and I'll say you might have a point, Argent Towers.

Bringing up African governments is a way to divert attention to the wrongs of your own country. African governments did not invent the Middle Passage. They did not pack millions of people into shipholds like sardines and break them like animals. They did not invent chattal slavery in which not only your lifetime would be spent in servitude, but that of your children and their children and their children. Unable to read, unable to run away, taught that Jesus was white and that you were the son of Ham, forever cursed, and beaten over the head (literally) with this dogma so that you would stay meek and passive and wait for sweet chariots to take you home. Treated no better than livestock. Africans did not invent this. Americans did.

So if you're all adamant that blacks get reparations for slavery from Africa, Argent, I expect you'll be in support of them getting them from the US as well. African was the gun dealer, but it was America who shot the place the fuck up, all the while singing, "I'm a Yankee Doodle Dandy!" All crazy and scary-like, with fireworks in the background. In real life, we hold mass shooters responsible for their fuckupitide. We don't ever blame the gun dealer, remember?

Every day I have to pass by a spooky series of monuments to Confederate soldiers who fought for the oppression of black people, my people (I imagine it would be like you passing by Nazi officers every morning...but perhaps you'd disagree because the Civil War happened So Long Ago). The other day I spotted some tourists snapping photos of Robert E Lee. Asian tourists...don't know if they were all that familiar with the history, perhaps they were Americans and just thought it was a cool statue. But I have to look at that hot mess every day when I walk to work...a constant reminder that slavery is an old joke to most Americans. If we all accept that slavery was a vile, evil practice, then we should have a Monument Avenue devoted to Harriet Tubman, Nat Turner, Denmark Vesey, and John Brown, just to provide some balance (especially given Richmond is 40% black). But we don't. In the great ole commonwealth of VA, you're a patriot if you have a Confederate flag alongside the American flag. Talking bad about the South's position in the War will get you a good eye-rolling and cold sholder. And don't dare mention the Arthur Ashe memorial on Monument Avenue amongst all those proud officers, most of which would have shot his black ass if they had seen him in real life. The outrage behind his memorial still hasn't blown over completely.

No, white people aren't suffering any more than any one else. And I'm black and I'm not suffering any more than any one else, not anyone that I know personally. But I'll be damned if I hear someone say something stupid about slavery without me speaking on it. That wound still stings to me.

Really Not All That Bright

07-06-2009, 02:31 PM

Actual black person FTW!

guizot

07-06-2009, 02:36 PM

White people have neither race nor culture. They are the norm from which all other people and cultures deviate.That's why the term "ethnic" is simply code for "not white," (or occasionally "not Christian").

Captain Carrot

07-06-2009, 02:41 PM

In the great ole commonwealth of VA, you're a patriot if you have a Confederate flag alongside the American flag. Talking bad about the South's position in the War will get you a good eye-rolling and cold sholder.In most of Virginia. Not all of it. Not where I spent the first nineteen years of my life.

Philster

07-06-2009, 02:55 PM

African governments don't owe black Americans reparations because they never promised them any.

The US government did. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman%27s_Special_Field_Orders,_No._15)

No, white people aren't suffering any more than any one else. And I'm black and I'm not suffering any more than any one else, not anyone that I know personally. But I'll be damned if I hear someone say something stupid about slavery without me speaking on it. That wound still stings to me.

I think (and I can think whatever the hell I want to) that slaves would fall over laughing at the thought that a black person today would qualify the 'wound' as 'stinging'.

Many of your opinions (stinging wound) have likely been formed by the twisted spin put on the whole matter. Stop identifying yourself with the past, focus on how you are directly and immediately affected. You were doing such a good job and I thought you were in the clear, right up until the stinging wound comment.

Have some frigging dignity and step out of the past. Focus on what is happening right now. Woe is me. Woe is me.

magellan01

07-06-2009, 03:08 PM

monstro,

I think you're reasoning as to why the U.S. might owed blacks reparations is weak. It seems to be solely legal. I think the much stronger argument is the moral one. But as far as the legal one you cite, is it even valid? What authority does a military officer have to parcel out land? Land owned by others? Do you know if Lincoln or the sitting congress approved of Sherman's doling out of land that was either private (owned by Southerners) or federal (U.S. property after the south's surrender). I don't know which was the reality at the end of the war, so I include both possibilities.

DianaG

07-06-2009, 03:19 PM

I think (and I can think whatever the hell I want to) that slaves would fall over laughing at the thought that a black person today would qualify the 'wound' as 'stinging'.

Many of your opinions (stinging wound) have likely been formed by the twisted spin put on the whole matter. Stop identifying yourself with the past, focus on how you are directly and immediately affected. You were doing such a good job and I thought you were in the clear, right up until the stinging wound comment.

Have some frigging dignity and step out of the past. Focus on what is happening right now. Woe is me. Woe is me.
Everyone can think whatever they want. I've given it some careful consideration, and I think you're a fucktard.

Philster

07-06-2009, 03:24 PM

One of the biggest forms of slavery is being chained to the past and being sold into the "bitch and moan" culture.

Malthus

07-06-2009, 03:37 PM

Non-Pit debate on the (to me) interesting issue of limitations on victimhood here:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=523566

DianaG

07-06-2009, 03:38 PM

She's not bitching and moaning, you are. You sound like an old woman, complaining about having to be reminded of such nasty and unpleasant things. I mean, why can't people just let it go? It's so... unseemly.

Oh and by the way, exactly what "twisted spin" has been put on slavery?

Miller

07-06-2009, 03:56 PM

I think...

No you don't.

Wakinyan

07-06-2009, 04:15 PM

That was a very good post, monstro.

Argent Towers

07-06-2009, 04:16 PM

Bringing up African governments is a way to divert attention to the wrongs of your own country.

:smack: That post about modern African countries paying reparations was supposed to be sarcasm, though I guess it didn't go over very well. To be clear - I don't support the idea of reparations at all. And the reason why is because it is too hard to pinpoint who exactly will pay them, and the reason why is because SO many damn people were involved in the slave trade. Africans, Europeans, Arabs, all kinds of people. So, I mean, if America is going to pay them then Africa ought to pay them too. That was my line of reasoning. I guess I didn't make that clear enough.

From a logical standpoint, if I supported the concept of reparations, I would have to believe that they should come from everyone involved in the slave trade, including America. But I don't support the concept at all, for reasons I stated above.

ashman165

07-06-2009, 05:56 PM

Were any African nations at the time, or the religion of Islam founded on the principle "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."?

Sure, there's plenty of blame to go around. But when it comes to accusing everyone else of hypocrisy, the US is at a bit of a disadvantage.

Nor was the United States so founded on that. Indeed, I've read through the entire constitution and such isn't there. While your above citation is all well and good, it isn't now, nor has it ever been the law of the land. It's nowhere in the constitution; that is from the Declaration of Independence which isn't a legally binding charter on the United States.

Moreover, slavery was permitted by our constitution.

ashman165

07-06-2009, 05:58 PM

:smack: That post about modern African countries paying reparations was supposed to be sarcasm, though I guess it didn't go over very well. To be clear - I don't support the idea of reparations at all. And the reason why is because it is too hard to pinpoint who exactly will pay them, and the reason why is because SO many damn people were involved in the slave trade. Africans, Europeans, Arabs, all kinds of people. So, I mean, if America is going to pay them then Africa ought to pay them too. That was my line of reasoning. I guess I didn't make that clear enough.

From a logical standpoint, if I supported the concept of reparations, I would have to believe that they should come from everyone involved in the slave trade, including America. But I don't support the concept at all, for reasons I stated above.

And that there aren't any current living slaves to whom Any of those people would hold a debt. For instance, the debt, if owed, is owed by people who are long since dead to people who are similarly situated.

Bring me a real live slave who suffered under the slave trade as American took part in it, and then we'll talk.

monstro

07-06-2009, 06:02 PM

I think (and I can think whatever the hell I want to) that slaves would fall over laughing at the thought that a black person today would qualify the 'wound' as 'stinging'.

If I had said it was the wound was 3rd degree burn, festering with infection, you'd accuse me of being melodramatic and trying to exaggerate the suffering. I describe my feelings about slavery as stinging and I'm somehow being...what? Insensitive? I don't get your amusement. I really don't.

Many of your opinions (stinging wound) have likely been formed by the twisted spin put on the whole matter.

What opinion do you have a problem with? My opinion that that slavery, which everyone says is an awful, horrible thing, is kind of treated like it's a not-so-awful, not-so-horrible thing in people's minds? Because that's really the main point of my post, and it doesn't seem to be that "twisted" to me. Not when I have the metal ghost of Robert E. Lee every morning and afternoon staring at me every day, telling me I'm right.

Stop identifying yourself with the past, focus on how you are directly and immediately affected. You were doing such a good job and I thought you were in the clear, right up until the stinging wound comment.

Do you tell Jews to stop talking about the Holocaust? Why is it that no one ever gives them this particular lecture, especially as it relates to Israel, but there's plenty of scolding for the darkies who deign to mention how much slavery sucked and how no one seems to give a fuck. It's a fucking double-standard and I'm sick of it.

Have some frigging dignity and step out of the past. Focus on what is happening right now. Woe is me. Woe is me.

Funny. I read just as much "woe is me" in my post as anyone else's in this thread. But I guess people with reading comprehension problems are vunerable to projection.

monstro

07-06-2009, 06:06 PM

I think you're reasoning as to why the U.S. might owed blacks reparations is weak. It seems to be solely legal.

So some random person's sense of morality trumps legal documents now? I'm going to put that in my GD toolbox for future arguments with you.

I don't plan to ruin my vacation arguing about reparations. If you want to see my position on the issue, do a search and you shall find.

Miller

07-06-2009, 06:17 PM

Nor was the United States so founded on that. Indeed, I've read through the entire constitution and such isn't there. While your above citation is all well and good, it isn't now, nor has it ever been the law of the land. It's nowhere in the constitution; that is from the Declaration of Independence which isn't a legally binding charter on the United States.

Moreover, slavery was permitted by our constitution.

She didn't say it was in the Constitution, nor did she say it was the law of the land. She said it was one of the founding principles of our country - and it is. The entire purpose of the Declaration of Independence is to explain why we think we should be our own nation. It is the original description of the character we were trying to create for ourselves. The Constitution is an attempt to transform those principles into a body of law.

ashman165

07-06-2009, 06:23 PM

She didn't say it was in the Constitution, nor did she say it was the law of the land. She said it was one of the founding principles of our country - and it is. The entire purpose of the Declaration of Independence is to explain why we think we should be our own nation. It is the original description of the character we were trying to create for ourselves. The Constitution is an attempt to transform those principles into a body of law.

No. You are hands down wrong. The founding principles of our country are found within the constitution since it's that very document which determines what is an isn't allowable. We, as a country, agreed that slavery was okay. That is part of our legacy, and no amount of pointing to something poetic which wasn't meant to include blacks in the first place does away with that. The statement would be better if they added in the proper caveats: white, non-indian, non-black. Or, more precisely, property owning whites.

Miller

07-06-2009, 06:36 PM

No. You are hands down wrong. The founding principles of our country are found within the constitution since it's that very document which determines what is an isn't allowable.

Not all principles are legal principles.

We, as a country, agreed that slavery was okay. That is part of our legacy, and no amount of pointing to something poetic which wasn't meant to include blacks in the first place does away with that.

No one is arguing that it does.

The statement would be better if they added in the proper caveats: white, non-indian, non-black. Or, more precisely, property owning whites.

Well, it certainly would have been more accurate. But better? No, I don't think so.

monstro

07-06-2009, 06:36 PM

We, as a country, agreed that slavery was okay.

What "we"? You mean the slaves agreed that slavery was okay, so thus they never had any claim to reparations in the first place?

If all it takes is codifying oppression in law to for a government to escape later prosecution, then God help us all of us!

ashman165

07-06-2009, 06:49 PM

What "we"? You mean the slaves agreed that slavery was okay, so thus they never had any claim to reparations in the first place?

If all it takes is codifying oppression in law to for a government to escape later prosecution, then God help us all of us!

The slaves weren't part of the we the constitution originally meant. So, no. That they were only counted as property at a reduced rate for determining which property owning white folks had a say in the matter I think says a lot.

I haven't suggested that codifying such makes it okay. Or even renders one immune from prosecution. I said that because all of the people are dead, it does. Find me a real live slave who has an actual claim against a real live government official and, as I said, we'll talk.

As it stands now, all the relevant people are quite dead. No one alive in the U.S. today is a former slave of the U.S. Government. So, it wouldn't seem to me that they have any legal claim which is enforceable.

monstro

07-06-2009, 07:16 PM

The slaves weren't part of the we the constitution originally meant. So, no. That they were only counted as property at a reduced rate for determining which property owning white folks had a say in the matter I think says a lot.

I haven't suggested that codifying such makes it okay. Or even renders one immune from prosecution. I said that because all of the people are dead, it does. Find me a real live slave who has an actual claim against a real live government official and, as I said, we'll talk.

As it stands now, all the relevant people are quite dead. No one alive in the U.S. today is a former slave of the U.S. Government. So, it wouldn't seem to me that they have any legal claim which is enforceable.

Ah, but we have legal precedence. In the early 1990s, we the people of the United States granted reparations to the interned Japanese and their direct descendents. We have precedence of reparations being granted to people not directly affected by governmental injustice. The problem now is determining how far away from the actual era of oppression can descendents be broken off a piece. With black people, it's not clear since slavery wasn't the only thing they were fighting.

If the year were 1909 instead of 2009, do you think the slave descendents would be entitled to reparations, just as the Japanese Americans were decades after their internment? Do you think they would have been at least entitled to sue companies that profited from their labor, along with all those plantation owners? I think they would, damn what the law defined black people as. The law was racist, crafted by racists. Black people didn't have a fair shake until the passing of the civil rights act of '64. Until then, IMHO, they were still waiting for the Emancipation Proclamation to be fulfilled.

Free black people were "citizen" enough to fight in all the American wars and pay taxes for umpity-ump years, as well as help build up the country through hard labor as free people. Seems kind of arbitrary to me to say, "Hey, their brethren in chains don't count".

I say all of this recognizing the logistical challenges to reparations. But really, the argument that slavery was legal at the time is the weakest argument one can come up with. Slaves had no representation in government, so essentially it was the case of the majority doing whatever it wanted to the minority. That goes against the whole gist of a democratic republic.

magellan01

07-06-2009, 07:24 PM

ashman165

07-06-2009, 07:41 PM

Ah, but we have legal precedence. In the early 1990s, we the people of the United States granted reparations to the interned Japanese and their direct descendents. We have precedence of reparations being granted to people not directly affected by governmental injustice. The problem now is determining how far away from the actual era of oppression can descendents be broken off a piece. With black people, it's not clear since slavery wasn't the only thing they were fighting.

Am I my great, great, great grandfather's direct descendant?

If the year were 1909 instead of 2009, do you think the slave descendents would be entitled to reparations, just as the Japanese Americans were decades after their internment? Do you think they would have been at least entitled to sue companies that profited from their labor, along with all those plantation owners? I think they would, damn what the law defined black people as. The law was racist, crafted by racists. Black people didn't have a fair shake until the passing of the civil rights act of '64. Until then, IMHO, they were still waiting for the Emancipation Proclamation to be fulfilled.

It's entirely academic since it isn't 1909. But sure, let's lay down a timeframe. How about 150 years is beyond it, and 60 isn't. So, let's say 3 generations is close enough, but 7 is too much.

Free black people were "citizen" enough to fight in all the American wars and pay taxes for umpity-ump years, as well as help build up the country through hard labor as free people. Seems kind of arbitrary to me to say, "Hey, their brethren in chains don't count".
We didn't require citizenship to fight in our armed forces. We still don't.

I say all of this recognizing the logistical challenges to reparations. But really, the argument that slavery was legal at the time is the weakest argument one can come up with. Slaves had no representation in government, so essentially it was the case of the majority doing whatever it wanted to the minority. That goes against the whole gist of a democratic republic.

The argument isn't that it was legal, though it was. My argument, at least, was that the declaration of independence can't be read as being part of our law. It isn't. Nor does it do to read into modern usage of terms, particularly when it runs completely opposite of what it originally meant.

villa

07-06-2009, 08:29 PM

And that there aren't any current living slaves to whom Any of those people would hold a debt. For instance, the debt, if owed, is owed by people who are long since dead to people who are similarly situated.

Bring me a real live slave who suffered under the slave trade as American took part in it, and then we'll talk.

And if you honestly think that the harms caused by slavery were suffered only by those who were slaves, then you are a very naive individual indeed.

ashman165

07-06-2009, 08:41 PM

And if you honestly think that the harms caused by slavery were suffered only by those who were slaves, then you are a very naive individual indeed.

The issue isn't about residual harm. The topic wasn't "does past slavery have residual affects on people who themselves weren't slaves, or contemporaneous indictment of the morality on those who chose to act against it?".

It's about compensation of people who weren't themselves slaves.

What would the burden of proof be? "My great, great, great, great grandmother was a slave. Thus, I'm burdened. Pay me."

Really Not All That Bright

07-06-2009, 08:57 PM

What would the burden of proof be? "My great, great, great, great grandmother was a slave. Thus, I'm burdened. Pay me."
That's a much better question.

Are their accurate vital statistics going back that far?

ashman165

07-06-2009, 09:18 PM

That's a much better question.

Are their accurate vital statistics going back that far?

Well, your point is surely a good one, which has been otherwise mentioned here. The logistics seem to be a nightmare. Not all blacks living here now are descendants from slaves. How do we parcel them out?

I'm not a fan of reparation any more than I am of ceded all the land back to the Native Americans.

Was wrong done to these groups in the past? Sure. But what's the solution? Evict everyone who isn't native here out? Give all black people oodles of money?

They'd have to be able to prove somehow --I know not how-- that a.) some important ancestor of theirs was a slave, and b.) but for that, their life would be substantially better off than it is now. Some residual "pain and suffering" claim wouldn't do. I too feel sick at the premise of slavery, murder and rape. Should I get some kind of residual pay as well?

DianaG

07-06-2009, 09:51 PM

Nor was the United States so founded on that. Indeed, I've read through the entire constitution and such isn't there. While your above citation is all well and good, it isn't now, nor has it ever been the law of the land. It's nowhere in the constitution; that is from the Declaration of Independence which isn't a legally binding charter on the United States.

Moreover, slavery was permitted by our constitution.

point <------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> ashman165

Rand Rover

07-06-2009, 10:23 PM

Do you tell Jews to stop talking about the Holocaust? Why is it that no one ever gives them this particular lecture, especially as it relates to Israel, but there's plenty of scolding for the darkies who deign to mention how much slavery sucked and how no one seems to give a fuck. It's a fucking double-standard and I'm sick of it.

:rolleyes: Go back far enough and every single living human has a reason to hate every other single living human, and those reasons are just as valid as your reasons for getting all het up over US slavery.

And your comparison to the Holocaust shows the stupidity of your argument. There are people alive today that were involved on both sides, and there will be people alive for several more years that had parents or grandparents that were involved on both sides. The wound still exists. The same can't be said about slavery in the US.

In short, get over it. The misfortune of my birth is that I have to hear people like you treat me as somehow responsible for the sins of my ancestors, when I didn't choose to be white any more than you chose to be black.

Rand Rover

07-06-2009, 10:25 PM

And if you honestly think that the harms caused by slavery were suffered only by those who were slaves, then you are a very naive individual indeed.

I agree. Which further supports the idea that monstro should get over it--I was harmed by slavery just as much as she was.

villa

07-06-2009, 10:31 PM

Once again, you amaze me with your utter stupidity. Congratulations.

elelle

07-06-2009, 10:35 PM

I agree. Which further supports the idea that monstro should get over it--I was harmed by slavery just as much as she was.

I honestly want to hear you explain this point.

DianaG

07-06-2009, 11:00 PM

:rolleyes: Go back far enough and every single living human has a reason to hate every other single living human, and those reasons are just as valid as your reasons for getting all het up over US slavery.

And your comparison to the Holocaust shows the stupidity of your argument. There are people alive today that were involved on both sides, and there will be people alive for several more years that had parents or grandparents that were involved on both sides. The wound still exists. The same can't be said about slavery in the US.

In short, get over it. The misfortune of my birth is that I have to hear people like you treat me as somehow responsible for the sins of my ancestors, when I didn't choose to be white any more than you chose to be black.
Seriously? You're a bigger fucktard that the last fucktard. Do you simply not understand the direct line from slavery to Jim Crow? Plenty of people still alive who suffered under that. Fucktard.

tomndebb

07-06-2009, 11:06 PM

I honestly want to hear you explain this point.Well, you would not want to hear it on an empty stomach and your surely would not want to hear it on a full stomach, so I suspect that, laying aside morbid curiosity, you really do not want to hear it.

Damuri Ajashi

07-07-2009, 12:17 AM

Lama Pacos

07-07-2009, 01:05 AM

If I wrote everything I felt regarding this thread and its topics, it would be unmanageably long and aimless, so I'll summarize in an extremely succinct manner:

1. It really sucks that many (most?) white people can't (or more likely willingly won't) understand the living legacy of slavery. It's not a stray mark that we can press Undo on. I imagine only someone very ignorant would not be able to understand the effect such a massive system would have to the present day. Nobody would say the Rebolution has no relevance to America today, so why not slavery, which lasted much, much longer?

2. The recent upswing in historical brushing-aside, which is basically a soft denialism, really disturbs me. In this view of history, everything is up for dismissal. Of course, this is the modus operandi of oppressors with a reputation to defend. Do something bad, sit on it a while, and then tell people to "get over it". So what's the due date here? Can we get over 9/11 yet?

Just as a completely random illustration of white privilege, or of how whites are codified as the norm in the mainstream narrative, think to July 4th. It occurred to me as I was watching the fireworks that all the patriotic songs we sing for Independence Day are by and about white people. And why, during the explosions I watched, did they play country music? Why is it obvious that Rascal Flatts would perform a July 4th spectacular, but Usher less so? It's not PC to ask, but why does the country as a whole gather to celebrate the day when white males received the ability to vote, but not the day that four million chattel slaves were freed almost a century after the country's supposed independence?

DanBlather

07-07-2009, 01:07 AM

One of the biggest forms of slavery is being chained to the past and being sold into the "bitch and moan" culture.Another one is just being an asshole.

Alan Smithee

07-07-2009, 01:37 AM

Think "The Fighting Whiteys" is the awesomest team name EVERBut it is! I even own one of their hoodies! (Though I don't ever wear it.) You got a problem with scholarships for Native Americans?

ashman165

07-07-2009, 02:26 AM

Seriously? You're a bigger fucktard that the last fucktard. Do you simply not understand the direct line from slavery to Jim Crow? Plenty of people still alive who suffered under that. Fucktard.

I understand the direct line from racism to it. I think you're confusing predicates and subjects.

I'm curious, was I the supposed "last fucktard" of whom you so fondly spoke?

Incidentally, if you're looking for way to bilk some cash out of a horrible situation, it would seem like you've found a tenable ground. Sue for Jim Crow because you still have actual living people who were actually harmed by it. You don't have a generation of people decrying no fair 7 generations later.

The Christians, by and large, aren't still bitching about some of them being executed some 2,000 years ago.

Middle Easterners aren't still bitching about the Crusades and how they should be paid for something their very, very distant relatives had to endure.

There comes a point in one's life where one may dwell in the past as though it's an entitlement to be an asshole to the world, or where one can accept that really bad shit happened to people they've never met, by people they've never met. Hell, it isn't just that no one has met any of them, it's that they haven't met anyone who knows anyone who has met anyone who ever knew any of them.

Or, in 10,000 years would it still be a ripe discussion to have about how slavery was bad AND I'm owed money for it because my ancestors some 10,000 prior were slaves? For that matter, had my distant relatives from whom I eventually came been subjected to such cruelty, such depravity, such impecuniousness, I'd take a great deal of pride that given my family's history, I'm able to be where I am today.

DanBlather

07-07-2009, 02:57 AM

IThe Christians, by and large, aren't still bitching about some of them being executed some 2,000 years ago.

Middle Easterners aren't still bitching about the Crusades and how they should be paid for something their very, very distant relatives had to endure.I can't figure out if this is satire or not. Christians still talk about the martyrs. Western art is full of images of martyrs. And of course CHRISTIANS WORSHIP A CROSS WITH JESUS BEING MARTYRED

Do you resally think the ME isn't bitching about the crusades? Bush had to do some PR repair after he called going after Bin Ladin a crusade.

And apparently the biggest bunch of whiners are now white people complaing about reverse-racism.

Yookeroo

07-07-2009, 03:03 AM

I agree. Which further supports the idea that monstro should get over it--I was harmed by slavery just as much as she was.

I honestly want to hear you explain this point.

Well, you would not want to hear it on an empty stomach and your surely would not want to hear it on a full stomach, so I suspect that, laying aside morbid curiosity, you really do not want to hear it.

Yeah. Be careful what you wish for.

ashman165

07-07-2009, 03:17 AM

I can't figure out if this is satire or not. Christians still talk about the martyrs. Western art is full of images of martyrs. And of course CHRISTIANS WORSHIP A CROSS WITH JESUS BEING MARTYRED

Do you resally think the ME isn't bitching about the crusades? Bush had to do some PR repair after he called going after Bin Ladin a crusade.

And apparently the biggest bunch of whiners are now white people complaing about reverse-racism.

Well, let's not let reality get too much in the way of a good point.

The president would also have a PR nightmare if he got up and said, "Niggers? Yeah, back to the cottonfield with them!" That he accidentally* had a poor choice of words and some people reacted with outrage doesn't somehow imply that by and large the ME people are demanding recompense from the Christians for it all. But you can understand they'd get a little, um, concerned when using "crusade" in the same explanation as telling them you're invading their land.

I don't know if you're religious, or what, but I've never equated praying with bitching. It would seem that your response doesn't really have much to do with my post, unless you think bitching and praying are synonyms. Do you?

Is wearing the cross some way of saying to the jews, "You killed Jesus; you fuckers! Pay us back, now!"? Or is it a sign to them that they worship someone who was persecuted for his beliefs as a reminder of keeping faith with the sacrifice they think he made? For some people, it's merely decorative.

But neither of your examples bears on my point because they bring up in the one case a highly localized slip up, and in other a relation never before asserted.

*I'm being generous.

Zoe

07-07-2009, 05:11 AM

Monstro: ...but there's plenty of scolding for the darkies who deign to mention how much slavery sucked and how no one seems to give a fuck.

And what did you say to someone who had befriended you and who said that she always had given a fuck and who shared her experiences about trying to make her own reparations for slavery. It was hard and she admitted it. And most people didn't want to do what she did because it was dangerous sometimes. But she did it for twenty years and took pride in doing something of value -- something that would atone. And she loved doing it. You turned on her and attacked her right here on the Straight Dope.

Well, it's no secret. I am that person. At the moment, I have another project that has to do with racial barriers going down. I wouldn't tell you come hell nor high water. Because if the past is any indication of what is to come, you would just twist it to try to make it into something ugly and condescending, you would continue to make hate-filled, racist remarks, and you would then continue to whine that "no one seems to give a fuck."

Using the language of a 19th Century plantation slave to enhance your victimhood is pitiful. You need to show your posts to your doctor: "plenty of scolding for the darkies who deign to mention..." Who uses that kind of language now, Monstro?

The two best Language Arts Supervisors that I ever had were two strong black women. I owe them a lot and so do you. You have your doctorate, right? Do whatever it takes to find your strength and your sense of balance again. You need help. You have not always been this filled with hatred.

monstro

07-07-2009, 07:11 AM

And what did you say to someone who had befriended you and who said that she always had given a fuck and who shared her experiences about trying to make her own reparations for slavery. It was hard and she admitted it. And most people didn't want to do what she did because it was dangerous sometimes. But she did it for twenty years and took pride in doing something of value -- something that would atone. And she loved doing it. You turned on her and attacked her right here on the Straight Dope.

Why, Zoe. You really are a very sensitive, self-centered person. I never attacked you on this board, not in the way you're intimating, but I surely will attack you if you keep kicking up old dirt and playing the Unappreciated Martyr of Racial Injustice. I have a strong kindness for older women like yourself--who seem to be natural nurterers and kindhearts--but I have little patience for people who hold grunges and take offense at minor slights. Grow up or blow up, Zoe. Life is too short for you to take umbrage at a scolding that you SO deserved, even if you have done great things in your life.

And if you want to join the likes of Rand Rover and tell me I'm playing the victim card when I absolutely haven't, go at it. I'm apparently a lot tougher than you (for some strange reason) and I know how to dust off comments that I find disagreeable without going berserko.

Really, it's your latest interactions with me that have solidified in my mind that people are just too freakin' looney tunes to be trusted with anything more than an occassional hello. I hate saying that because I'm dealing with my own mental issues and having positive interactions would probably help, but it's true. That's why I ignored your PM to me. You are really making me sick, in the truest sense of the word. Lay off and chill the fuck out, lady.

Cicero

07-07-2009, 07:19 AM

Monstro- you do understand what "private" means?

Rand Rover

07-07-2009, 07:23 AM

Why, Zoe. You really are a very sensitive, self-centered person. I never attacked you on this board, not in the way you're intimating, but I surely will attack you if you keep kicking up old dirt and playing the Unappreciated Martyr of Racial Injustice.
Wow. Irony so thick you could cut it with a spoon.

Rand Rover

07-07-2009, 07:29 AM

Re: my comment about me being harmed as much as monstro--i agree with villa's sentiment that slaveholding hurts the slaveholder in addition to the slave. That is, treating another person as property involves a level of cognitive dissonance and cruelty that is bad for the psyche. Just like monstro's ancestors (in the broad sense) were slaves, mine were slaveholders, so she's harmed by the taint of enslavement and I'm harmed by the taint of slaveholding.

Lama Pacos

07-07-2009, 07:54 AM

villa

07-07-2009, 08:38 AM

i agree with villa's sentiment that slaveholding hurts the slaveholder in addition to the slave.

That wasn't my assertion, you ass.

Rand Rover

07-07-2009, 09:20 AM

That wasn't my assertion, you ass.

Ok, well I'm asserting it then, you stupid motherfucker.

monstro

07-07-2009, 09:22 AM

Monstro- you do understand what "private" means?

That apparently I'm not supposed to mention that I've received a private message from someone? That's a new one to me. Is that in the board by-laws or something? Must have missed that memo.

Just like monstro's ancestors (in the broad sense) were slaves, mine were slaveholders, so she's harmed by the taint of enslavement and I'm harmed by the taint of slaveholding.

If you got from my earlier post that I'm harmed, you need to go back and reread what I wrote. Because that wasn't my point AT ALL.

And for the record, I have both slave and slaveholder in my blood and I don't feel nary a conflict about it. Because I wasn't a slave, nor was I a slaveholder. I don't feel victimized, nor do I feel guilt. But I do see that I live in a society where many suffer from cognitive dissonance--a society where it's alright to treat slavery as an abstract, far-away, horrible thing, but then also treat that abstract,far-away, horrible thing as something that didn't leave a lasting impact on contemporary society. Apparently you're playing the victim card if you say something as noncontroversial as this, but I guess that's what I get for being angry, militant, chip-on-her-shoulder monstro. People misread what you wrote because they don't want to believe you actually have a good head on your shoulders and that you aren't actually angry, militant, or possessing a chip on your shoulder.

Really Not All That Bright

07-07-2009, 09:29 AM

Philster

07-07-2009, 09:44 AM

I'll concede, it is more rewarding to be white.

DanBlather

07-07-2009, 10:12 AM

Nzinga, Seated

07-07-2009, 10:15 AM

Ok, well I'm asserting it then, you stupid motherfucker.

Fuck it, I'm asserting it too. I'm asserting it too. I think it has left a huge residual blanket on both black and white descendents. People speak of the indignities of slavery but I don't think they realize that behaving like savages that would be uncivilized enough to treat humans like animals is the most undignified thing I can think of.

If there are white people today (and there are) being treated as if they themselves did the slavin', then they are being harmed. Particularly if they are carrying white guilt, and I know white people that admit outright that they are.

Monstro, you may have angry militant emotions, but that is o fucking k. Don't even bother. If someone on this board has to be dismissed as an emotional basket case on race issues, let it be me. Because when you lay your shit down, you do it with precision; backed up with fact and the kind of knowledge that comes from a woman that has actually educated herself to the point of communicating with sharp and beautiful logic that makes idiots look like the morons they are. And you still manage to get my fist in the air. So lean back and enjoy your vacation.

Really Not All That Bright

07-07-2009, 10:19 AM

monstro is a girl?

monstro

07-07-2009, 10:47 AM

Vajayjay and all.

Hippy Hollow

07-07-2009, 10:56 AM

See why I don't do these conversations on this board anymore?

Really Not All That Bright

07-07-2009, 11:30 AM

Because your vajayjay is purely theoretical in an online setting?

Alan Smithee

07-07-2009, 12:24 PM

monstro is a girl?She's hot, too!

And I think I've never seen her post something that wasn't intelligent, on point, and well presented.

(Yes, maybe I do have a bit of a Doper crush. What of it? :p )

Anyway, illegitimi non carborundum, monstro. Your posts always make me think, and I appreciate them.

monstro

07-07-2009, 12:37 PM

She's hot, too!

And I think I've never seen her post something that wasn't intelligent, on point, and well presented.

(Yes, maybe I do have a bit of a Doper crush. What of it? :p )

Anyway, illegitimi non carborundum, monstro. Your posts always make me think, and I appreciate them.

Stop making me blush. You too, Nzinga. I ain't all that. I'm just another fool with a computer.

(And see, if I was intelligent I would know what illegitimi non carborundum means.)

See why I don't do these conversations on this board anymore?

I know the frustration, but to me it's like playing a video game. I hate video games in general, but sometimes they can help the time go by.

I really wish you would "do" these conversations, though. You're much more eloquent than I am, and it sucks when the topic is about black people and there's only one of us who cares enough to put up a rebuttal to the stupidity. Lately I haven't been caring, but today I'm kind of bored.

Alan Smithee

07-07-2009, 12:45 PM

Stop making me blush. You too, Nzinga. I ain't all that. I'm just another fool with a computer.

(And see, if I was intelligent I would know what illegitimi non carborundum means.
"Don't let the bastards grind you down." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegitimi_non_carborundum)

I bet you're really cute when you blush.

you with the face

07-07-2009, 12:45 PM

I'm just another fool with a computer.

I can vouch for that.

Hippy Hollow

07-07-2009, 12:51 PM

I really wish you would "do" these conversations, though. You're much more eloquent than I am, and it sucks when the topic is about black people and there's only one of us who cares enough to put up a rebuttal to the stupidity. Lately I haven't been caring, but today I'm kind of bored.

Wow, thanks monstro, though I think you're far more eloquent than me. (Blushing like how Black dudes do.) I will jump in a little later, right now I have hankies out watching Lionel sing a song for Michael... :)

ywtf, you are crazy. Crazy funny, that is.

Munch

07-07-2009, 01:04 PM

Is there a reason the OP hasn't come back to explain anything? Is that some sort of black thing?

ashman165

07-07-2009, 01:10 PM

Is there a reason the OP hasn't come back to explain anything? Is that some sort of black thing?

Perhaps his/her catharsis was complete and s/he no longer feels the need to vent in the Pit.

monstro

07-07-2009, 01:21 PM

Is there a reason the OP hasn't come back to explain anything? Is that some sort of black thing?

That's funny, because the OP is white.

Jackass.

Rand Rover

07-07-2009, 01:26 PM

I really wish you would "do" these conversations, though. You're much more eloquent than I am, and it sucks when the topic is about black people and there's only one of us who cares enough to put up a rebuttal to the stupidity. Lately I haven't been caring, but today I'm kind of bored.

Sorry to break up the monstro love fest, but if you think you are rebutting stupidity, you're doing it wrong. Claiming that the US promised to pay reparations qualifies as advancing stupidity, not rebutting it.

Munch

07-07-2009, 01:31 PM

That's funny, because the OP is white.
Poser.

Jackass.
Hater.

Hippy Hollow

07-07-2009, 01:41 PM

Sorry to break up the monstro love fest, but if you think you are rebutting stupidity, you're doing it wrong. Claiming that the US promised to pay reparations qualifies as advancing stupidity, not rebutting it.

Rebut this, please: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/40_acres_and_a_mule

villa

07-07-2009, 01:50 PM

Rebut this, please: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/40_acres_and_a_mule

Well of course uneducated, newly emancipated slaves should have realized that a General of the United States Army, backed up by thousands of men wearing the uniform of the United States Army wasn't carrying out official United States policy, and should not have acted in reliance on said order for 6 months, building homes and planting crops. It's their own fault, really. They should instead (despite labor codes and descriminatory laws) have educated themselves and become tax lawyers (once the bar admitted black tax lawyers) and lived happily ever after. And of course had sympathy for the white tax lawyers who suffered as much from slavery as they did.

Rand Rover

07-07-2009, 01:52 PM

Rebut this, please: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/40_acres_and_a_mule
Rebut what? Certain US officials may have promised certain things to certain people, but that doesn't add up to "the US promised to pay reparations for slavery," which is what monstro claimed.

Rand Rover

07-07-2009, 01:56 PM

Well of course uneducated, newly emancipated slaves should have realized that a General of the United States Army, backed up by thousands of men wearing the uniform of the United States Army wasn't carrying out official United States policy, and should not have acted in reliance on said order for 6 months, building homes and planting crops. It's their own fault, really. They should instead (despite labor codes and descriminatory laws) have educated themselves and become tax lawyers (once the bar admitted black tax lawyers) and lived happily ever after. And of course had sympathy for the white tax lawyers who suffered as much from slavery as they did.
Yes, it's much easier to just make up absolute BS than to respond to any of the actual arguments I make in threads, so I can't fault you for adopting this tactic.

villa

07-07-2009, 01:59 PM

Much more fun too! Just trying to help out, sparky. Kisses.

DanBlather

07-07-2009, 04:25 PM

Well of course uneducated, newly emancipated slaves should have realized that a General of the United States Army, backed up by thousands of men wearing the uniform of the United States Army wasn't carrying out official United States policy, and should not have acted in reliance on said order for 6 months, building homes and planting crops. It's their own fault, really. They should instead (despite labor codes and descriminatory laws) have educated themselves and become tax lawyers (once the bar admitted black tax lawyers) and lived happily ever after. And of course had sympathy for the white tax lawyers who suffered as much from slavery as they did.They also could have waited to run for Miss America: "40DD and a mule".

Tristan

07-07-2009, 07:22 PM

What is this thread all about and why was it necessary to call it into existence?

One reason is we've had a small influx of folks that carry with them the stench of "White Nationalist", playing their game of asking questions with race as a motivator.

The other reason is that we've got a bit of a race issue, even now, in the US, and it gets talked about on occasion.

And I'm CLEARLY out of my league on this one, so I'll stay the hell out of it.

Zoe

07-07-2009, 10:19 PM

We also have a slavery issue even now within the US and throughout the world. As many as twenty-seven million people are currently enslaved in the world. And so many of them are children who are sex slaves. Five and six year old children here in the U.S. That is what makes me angry. That is what sickens me -- not the words of an otherwise well-educated woman who sees statues of long dead white Confederate leaders as "spooky" and thinks they would all have shot Arthur Ashe on sight. Apparently, she has no idea that Lee was offered a command in the Union Army first. (Hey, all Confederate leaders were alike.)

Monstro doesn't make sense. From the same post:

Monstro: I'm apparently a lot tougher than you (for some strange reason) and I know how to dust off comments that I find disagreeable without going berserko.

Monstro: You are really making me sick, in the truest sense of the word.

Which one of those statements is true? Are you the tough girl or the victim?

This thread is the first time that I have ever responded to any of your negative comments to me or about white people. You call yourself "militant." Then what are YOU doing about the slavery that exists today?

Nzinga, Seated

07-07-2009, 10:28 PM

Rand Rover

07-07-2009, 10:29 PM

We also have a slavery issue even now within the US and throughout the world.

Preach it sister. And throughout history, the number of non-black people that have been slaves dwarfs the number of black people that have been slaves. The word "slave" itself comes from the word "slav" (as in the people from the former country of Yugoslavia), who are white.

dropzone

07-07-2009, 11:12 PM

White people have neither race nor culture. They are the norm from which all other people and cultures deviate.I am white and suburban. My culture enables me to find the nearest mall within 15 minutes.

Zoe

07-07-2009, 11:38 PM

Rand Rover: ...the number of non-black people that have been slaves dwarfs the number of black people that have been slaves.

Suffering is done one person at a time. The "race" of the person enslaved is irrelevant to me. The age of the person and whether or not she or he is tortured matters to me. (Five year olds have little change of freeing themselves.)

Here is an example of two people who were convicted in my own neighborhood. (http://www.wsmv.com/news/10320275/detail.html) They are suspected of having links to a larger slave ring.

Guinastasia

07-08-2009, 12:38 AM

Preach it sister. And throughout history, the number of non-black people that have been slaves dwarfs the number of black people that have been slaves. The word "slave" itself comes from the word "slav" (as in the people from the former country of Yugoslavia), who are white.

As well as Russia, Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, the Ukraine, and Bulgarians, among others. (Although the word "Slav (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slav#Origin_of_the_term_Slav)" actually means glory, or fame.)

Ichini Sanshigo

07-08-2009, 01:00 AM

One reason is we've had a small influx of folks that carry with them the stench of "White Nationalist", playing their game of asking questions with race as a motivator.

Yeah, I noticed that too. Great Debates' front page is lousy with it. There's the thread that inspired this one, more insipid and disingenuous whining about why black people have a black beauty pageant, "reverse racism", etc; there's the reparations thread (translation: "Why can't you black people be more like my white, non-colonialized ancestors and pull yourselves up by your bootstraps? Discrimination was so 1800s"); there's the tired old arguments about how blacks are dumber than whites; and there's my fave, the thread where people pretend they want to understand why a majority of black people come out against gay marriage, when they clearly just want to vent on a convenient scapegoat.

Props to you with the face and monstro for fighting the good fight. Just reading some of that shit gets tiresome.

monstro

07-08-2009, 05:34 AM

Which one of those statements is true? Are you the tough girl or the victim?

You are making me sick as in, you are working my last nerve with your narcissism and histrionics. It's like looking into the mind of a living personality disorder when I've been interacting with you lately. You are making me wish we had never had contact before. That is what is making me sick, and that is unfortunate, especially given the positive interactions we've had in the past. Your silly and stupid comments about me playing the victim are just that and don't bother me in the least. But the breakdown of our internet relationship has. Perhaps everyone in the world is like you and it's better for me not to befriend faceless people on the 'net. 'Cuz I don't have time to deal with people who hold grudges over petty things and who carry those grudges into irrevelant threads. I'm much too laid back for the likes of you.

I don't find it surprising that you and Rand Rover, another narcissist, are in full agreement in this thread. Never thought I would see the day, but whoop! there it is.

monstro

07-08-2009, 05:41 AM

Zoe, I don't dare speak for Monstro. Montro would eat my fucking lunch any day of the week, and I would be standing there stuttering in my middle school drop out babble-eese. But I do want to make a statement about the word militant. I was the one that used that word. When she used it, I am pretty sure she was being sarcastic?

And with that, my name is bennet, and I'm not in it! I just wanted to clarify that tiny point, since I was the one that used the word.

No, don't apologize. I used the word militant because many Dopers think I am. Of course, they never say so but that's how they respond to me. I could be communicating in the exact style of all the other posters in the thread (as I did in this one), and suddenly people are lecturing me on my attitude and the chip on my shoulder. I say a historical wound still stings and suddenly I'm Stokely Carmichael lugging an AKA 47. It's like verbal discrimination or something. I don't know. If people could see me in real life, they would see how TOTALLY unangry I am.

Sure, I get pissed off just like everyone else. But I'm not seething with anger or calling for the death of whitey.

villa

07-08-2009, 07:58 AM

That is what sickens me -- not the words of an otherwise well-educated woman who sees statues of long dead white Confederate leaders as "spooky" and thinks they would all have shot Arthur Ashe on sight. Apparently, she has no idea that Lee was offered a command in the Union Army first. (Hey, all Confederate leaders were alike.)

What on earth does Lee being offered a post in the Union army have to do with anything? The fact that the Confederacy's raison d'etre was the preservation of slavery does not necessarily mean either that the purpose of the Union in fighting was to eliminate slavery, just as the presence of pro-slavery men in the Union army in no way eliminates the pro-slavery bent of the CSA.

Not all Confederate leaders were alike. But they all fought for a government whose purpose was to preserve the bondage of black individuals. And all the ones who commemorated in that stretch in Richmond were traitors (to the extent I believe they all were either graduates of West Point or had served as officers in the US Army, and had therefore taken an oath of allegiance to the United States).

I don't think all of them would have shot Arthur Ashe on sight. Some of them would have been content with a whipping so long as Mr. Ashe afterwards managed to get a good shine on their cavalry boots.

Rand Rover

07-08-2009, 08:03 AM

Monstro, you seem to believe that people are misrepresenting your views, so let's get some basic aspects of your views out in the open.

Do you think that someone (and if so, who?) should pay reparations to someone (and if so, who?) for US slavery? If so, what form should these payments take (ie, cash or building parks in black neighborhoods or what?)?

ashman165

07-08-2009, 08:51 AM

you with the face

07-08-2009, 09:47 AM

Do you think that someone (and if so, who?) should pay reparations to someone (and if so, who?) for US slavery? If so, what form should these payments take (ie, cash or building parks in black neighborhoods or what?)?

What thought process has led you to ask this question? Nothing she has written has suggested that she thinks blacks deserve reparations. All she's done is vented about the dicktitude of people who think it's cool to honor racist traitors while taking a dismissive attitude towards the history of black folk.

I swear, if I have to smell one more white person crapping their pants about some nonexistent reparations to black people, I'm cutting my nose off.

Malthus

07-08-2009, 10:10 AM

Yeah, I noticed that too. Great Debates' front page is lousy with it. There's the thread that inspired this one, more insipid and disingenuous whining about why black people have a black beauty pageant, "reverse racism", etc; there's the reparations thread (translation: "Why can't you black people be more like my white, non-colonialized ancestors and pull yourselves up by your bootstraps? Discrimination was so 1800s"); there's the tired old arguments about how blacks are dumber than whites; and there's my fave, the thread where people pretend they want to understand why a majority of black people come out against gay marriage, when they clearly just want to vent on a convenient scapegoat.

Props to you with the face and monstro for fighting the good fight. Just reading some of that shit gets tiresome.

Hey, don't drag my thread into your shit-fight. My thread is a debate over reparations generally, and not about merely about your favourite particular example.

If you wish to characterize me as a "White Nationalist" on the basis of that, please go ahead; I will then characterize you as "jumping to conclusions".

Note that everyone's favourite idiot Elvis thinks I started that thread in a nefarious attempt to support Zionism. Which brand of nefarious am I anyway - White Nationalist, or Zionist? Dammit, you people have me confused!

saoirse

07-08-2009, 10:21 AM

We also have a slavery issue even now within the US and throughout the world.

What? Where is slavery being practiced in the United States? Is there someplace where the government is enforcing one person's right to own another in this country?

As many as twenty-seven million people are currently enslaved in the world. And so many of them are children who are sex slaves. Five and six year old children here in the U.S. That is what makes me angry.

Fewer than at any time in history. However, enforcing slavery is no longer the policy of the United States government, and the ability of the United States to right every wrong in the world has recently been tested, and found wanting.

Apparently, she has no idea that Lee was offered a command in the Union Army first. (Hey, all Confederate leaders were alike.)

Apparently, she is more familiar with General Lee than you are. All Confederate leaders were not alike. Not all of them kidnapped freed blacks in Maryland and Pennsylvania and sent them to Virginia to be slaves. Lee did.

DianaG

07-08-2009, 10:37 AM

Maybe there's a point I'm missing here, but is the fact that he was offered a Union command and chose a Confederate command something that's supposed to make me like him better? Because, um... no.

Ichini Sanshigo

07-08-2009, 10:52 AM

Hey, don't drag my thread into your shit-fight. My thread is a debate over reparations generally, and not about merely about your favourite particular example.

If you wish to characterize me as a "White Nationalist" on the basis of that, please go ahead; I will then characterize you as "jumping to conclusions".

Untwist your panties, Malthus. I'm not calling you a white nationalist, I'm just saying I'm sick of the same tired old arguments against the non-issue of reparations.

Ironically, I saw another pit thread here (the "Serder Argic" one), and was thinking that FinnAgain does seem awfully aggressive and easy to characterize his opponents as anti-semitic, but I think I can see where he's coming from. When you see the same old tired shit you begin to recognize the markers, and you get to the point when you're just not willing to give the other person the benefit of the doubt.

DanBlather

07-08-2009, 10:56 AM

Maybe any day now we'll see statues of McVeigh. He tried to fight the federal govt to advance his beliefs as well.

07-08-2009, 11:03 AM

Ironically, I saw another pit thread here (the "Serder Argic" one), and was thinking that FinnAgain does seem awfully aggressive and easy to characterize his opponents as anti-semitic, but I think I can see where he's coming from. When you see the same old tired shit you begin to recognize the markers, and you get to the point when you're just not willing to give the other person the benefit of the doubt.

Pretty much spot on. You get to the point where you have said something so many times to the same person that you know they aren't listening. I've seen the progression in Finn over the last few years on this topic. If you look back at some early threads he was in on the Israel/Palestine subject you will see he goes to excruciating depth in his posts, posting and a fairly calm and reasoned manner (for him ;)) all sorts of historical and demographics facts. Really a wealth of knowledge on the subject (I thought I knew a lot, but learned a ton from him on this subject)...and, it's like pearls to swine in a lot of cases, as the same numb skulls and mullet heads keep bring up the same tired, stupid arguments. Over and over again. Ad nauseum.

After a while you just automatically dismiss these folks as unreachable, and when they continue to drop their steaming load into the thread you go into snark mode. Sort of like the damn 9/11 CT theories, or the guys who are always coming in with New! Stunning! data concerning how evolution has been overturned, or how ID is the latest thing evah!

-XT

Rand Rover

07-08-2009, 11:11 AM

What thought process has led you to ask this question? Nothing she has written has suggested that she thinks blacks deserve reparations. All she's done is vented about the dicktitude of people who think it's cool to honor racist traitors while taking a dismissive attitude towards the history of black folk.

I swear, if I have to smell one more white person crapping their pants about some nonexistent reparations to black people, I'm cutting my nose off.

:rolleyes: I asked to find out what her views are. She said that she believs the US has already promised to pay reparations, so I think it's reasonable to ask whether she thinks the US should do so.

akennett

07-08-2009, 11:24 AM

(translation: "Why can't you black people be more like my white, non-colonialized ancestors and pull yourselves up by your bootstraps? Discrimination was so 1800s");

Perhaps, in the interest of historical accuracy and all, you'd like to point out where these "non-colonialized" ancestors came from?

Malthus

07-08-2009, 11:25 AM

Untwist your panties, Malthus. I'm not calling you a white nationalist, I'm just saying I'm sick of the same tired old arguments against the non-issue of reparations.

Ironically, I saw another pit thread here (the "Serder Argic" one), and was thinking that FinnAgain does seem awfully aggressive and easy to characterize his opponents as anti-semitic, but I think I can see where he's coming from. When you see the same old tired shit you begin to recognize the markers, and you get to the point when you're just not willing to give the other person the benefit of the doubt.

It may be a "non-issue" when it comes to Black slavery, but it is an issue very much alive in other historical contexts.

It was some of the participants in this here thread that got to arguing about this particular "non-issue" in the thread I started. If they are sick of the "tired old shit", then the remedy surely lies in their own hands.

To reiterate: you (and it seems they) are jumping to conclusions. First you jump to the conclusion that a thread about reparations for historic grievance is all about the particular grievance of interest to you, and then you jump to the conclusion that discussing this issue is a "marker" (your term), for what? White nationalism?

It is interesting to see that other participants in the thread jumped to the conclusion that the thread was "all about" the historic grievance of interest to *them* (namely Israel/Palestine). They saw a completely contradictory set of "markers". Seems to me that alone is an interesting result, no?

you with the face

07-08-2009, 11:33 AM

It is interesting to see that other participants in the thread jumped to the conclusion that the thread was "all about" the historic grievance of interest to *them* (namely Israel/Palestine). They saw a completely contradictory set of "markers". Seems to me that alone is an interesting result, no?

They probably jumped to that conclusion because they recognize you as a voice who often sides with Israel (just as you probably recognize Elvis as a Israel critic). Not saying that's a justified conclusion, but I seriously doubt that if your name was free from this association, anyone would be talking about Israel in that thread to a significant degree. Jewish reparations are a done deal and rarely argued about here.

you with the face

07-08-2009, 11:42 AM

:rolleyes: I asked to find out what her views are. She said that she believs the US has already promised to pay reparations, so I think it's reasonable to ask whether she thinks the US should do so.

She pointed out a historical fact as a counterpoint to someone arguing that African chieftans be the ones to pay reparations.

Since the issue of reparations was raised by someone else, it actually makes more sense that you trouble them with your question. monstro has repeatedly said on this board that she doesn't believe in slavery reparations.

Malthus

07-08-2009, 11:42 AM

They probably jumped to that conclusion because they recognize you are as a voice who often sides with Israeli (just as you probably recognize Elvis as a Israel critic). Not saying that's a justified conclusion, but I seriously doubt that if your name was free from this association, few people would be talking about Israel in that thread. Namely because Jewish reparations are a done deal and rarely argued about here.

Certainly that has something to do with it, but I disagree with your conclusions - the multiple grievances of the Israel/Palestine situation are something I certanly considered and were considered in the article I linked to in the OP.

In the Israel/Palestine affair grievances run both ways, and the "hot topic" isn't reparations for Jews for the Holocaust, but the Palestinian so-called "Right of Return" (and contrasting arguments for Shephardim re Arab countries).

Though note that this situation would not be covered by a historical limitations period any more than the Holocaust would, as there are people now alive who were directly affected in both cases (give it a few years and that will no longer be true).

Really Not All That Bright

07-08-2009, 11:54 AM

She pointed out a historical fact as a counterpoint to someone arguing that African chieftans be the ones to pay reparations.

Since the issue of reparations was raised by someone else, it actually makes more sense that you trouble them with your question. monstro has repeatedly said on this board that she doesn't believe in slavery reparations.
It was raised by Argent Towers, and monstro quite reasonably responded that if African slavers' descendants should be paying reparations then so should American slavers' descendants, or the government, or whoever. She earlier perfectly reasonably pointed out that black people are still suffering from the lingering aftereffects of slavery.

She then less reasonably contined the debate with ashman somethingsomething, and certainly appeared to be arguing that the US ought to be paying reparations at that point, whatever she's said here before.

Personally, I think Argent's argument is silly; if slaves' descendants are legally entitled to reparations from two parties, then just because one isn't paying doesn't mean the other one doesn't have to. Claims for reparations from African citizens or states would have to be made in African courts, under African (or international) law, and whether or not those claims are granted is immaterial to whether claims in American courts should or would be.

In general, I think monstro's been quite reasonable here, but I can see why people think she's arguing for reparations.

ashman165

07-08-2009, 11:59 AM

She then less reasonably contined the debate with ashman somethingsomething, and certainly appeared to be arguing that the US ought to be paying reparations at that point, whatever she's said here before.

Of course, that's because anyone who argues against me is necessarily unreasonable. I might not always be right, but dammit I'm never wrong. QED :dubious:

Rand Rover

07-08-2009, 12:07 PM

She pointed out a historical fact as a counterpoint to someone arguing that African chieftans be the ones to pay reparations.
"Historical fact" my ass. A promise to certain blacks by a US general over 100 years ago has nothing to do with reparations as currently debated, and characterizing the earlier promise as a promise by the US government to make reparations for slavery (which is what monstro did) is completely stupid.

Guinastasia

07-08-2009, 03:01 PM

Question -- the reparations paid to Japanese Americans for the internment camps -- I assume they were only given to those who actually interned, and possibly family members? (Such as, children whose parents had passed away). But not just ALL Japanese Americans?

07-08-2009, 03:10 PM

Just those Japanese interred or their immediate families (I believe it was something like $20-30k each). Not all Japanese American's.

-XT

magellan01

07-08-2009, 07:14 PM

Just those Japanese interred or their immediate families (I believe it was something like $20-30k each). Not all Japanese American's.

-XT

I think you mean "interned". I don't think any Japanese were rounded up and buried. Not in the U.S. anyway.

foolsguinea

07-08-2009, 11:14 PM

Really Not All That Bright

07-08-2009, 11:29 PM

Hey, I think there probably should be a National Association for the Advancement of White People. For all white people, not just those born with silver spoons in their mouths. The rest of it, though, I agree.
There is (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Association_for_the_Advancement_of_White_People). Unsurprisingly, it's run by former Louisiana state congressman David Duke, and is best described as "the Klan with coats and ties". There's also the Council of Conservative Citizens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_conservative_citizens) for those who are really into semi-closeted group racism.

Zoe

07-09-2009, 02:16 AM

Monstro: You are making me sick as in, you are working my last nerve with your narcissism and histrionics. It's like looking into the mind of a living personality disorder when I've been interacting with you lately. You are making me wish we had never had contact before. That is what is making me sick, and that is unfortunate, especially given the positive interactions we've had in the past. Your silly and stupid comments about me playing the victim are just that and don't bother me in the least. But the breakdown of our internet relationship has. Perhaps everyone in the world is like you and it's better for me not to befriend faceless people on the 'net. 'Cuz I don't have time to deal with people who hold grudges over petty things and who carry those grudges into irrevelant threads. I'm much too laid back for the likes of you.

I don't find it surprising that you and Rand Rover, another narcissist, are in full agreement in this thread. Never thought I would see the day, but whoop! there it is.

Contradictions again:
"I don't find it surprising..." "Never thought I would see the day..." (Well, did you think Rand Rover and I would agree or not?)
"You are making me sick as in, you are working my last nerve..." "I'm much too laid back for the likes of you." (Can you not hear yourself going back and forth?)

You are playing an old game called "Look What You Made Me Do." I am not making you sick, Monstro. I am not working your last nerve. I am not making you wish for anything.

I am not in charge of your emotions or feelings. You are. You have already posted in other threads that you have been diagnosed with a mental illness. That is what is making you sick. That is what is affecting your judgment and getting on your nerves. Ironically, it is the exact same diagnosis that I have had: chronic, low-grade depression also known as Dysthymia. I hope that you will be able to find a therapy that will provide some relief for the symptoms. Mine is successfully treated with medications.

Your judgment is so poor and distorted that you think that Rand Rover and I are in "full agreement in this thread." Did you not even bother to notice that I said that his "racial" information was irrelevant?

You talk about my histrionics and yet you are the one who is using theatrical and dramatic language. You are the one who has been putting your ass in my face in other threads. I challenge you to show me one single thing prior to this thread where I have been personally critical or contempuous of you. I have not criticized you even in the private email that you mentioned and which you are welcome to post here if TPTB will allow you. You talk about my histrionics while using the word "darkies" and "the likes of you" for effect.

I have remained patient with you until this thread. It is you who have carried a grudge, Monstro. It is a grudge against white people. You have resented the fact that there actually ARE white people out there who have cared and who have done something about it. It would ruin the picture you want to paint in your head.

The next time you want to remain friends with some "faceless" person, may I suggest that you not continue to berate her in threads and expect her to remain loyal? I have no problem with telling you that I am angry at your callousness. Sometimes anger is a very appropriate emotion.

villa: What on earth does Lee being offered a post in the Union army have to do with anything?

Monstro claimed that all of those honored on Monument Avenue would have shot Arthur Ashe on sight. I doubt that the Union would have offered the Command of the Union Army to someone who just automatically shot black people. You seem to agree that this was not his practice anyway.

villa: Some of them would have been content with a whipping so long as Mr. Ashe afterwards managed to get a good shine on their cavalry boots.

So all Confederates beat black men at every opportunity or was this just the leaders? I don't think all of these men were in the Cavalry.

By the way, I believe that one of those men had been in the navy rather than the army. But yes, they were traitors to the Union. (Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, George Washington were traitors to the Crown before them.)

saoirse: Fewer than at any time in history. However, enforcing slavery is no longer the policy of the United States government, and the ability of the United States to right every wrong in the world has recently been tested, and found wanting.

There are actually more slaves than at any other time in history. I didn't claim that the United States Government has a policy enforcing slavery. I'm sure the children could care less whose policy it is. And of course, not all of the slaves are children. There are young women sold into prostitution, men forced to work in diamond mines, people of all ages forced into hard labor. It's going to take more than just the United States to put a stop to it. But it begins with individuals working together to bring the people who run these slavery rings to justice. (And I did provide a link in another post.)

DanBlather: Maybe any day now we'll see statues of McVeigh. He tried to fight the federal govt to advance his beliefs as well.

Monument Blvd. is not designed for the purpose of honoring anti-Union leaders.

Of course the Confederate States were wrong and it was right that the Union won. It was the worst miscarriage of justice that our country has ever known that blacks were enslaved in both the North and the South for over two hundred years. And things weren't much better after the liberation. But you need to know what is true and what is not. And you don't have to exaggerate to make men look completely evil when they were not. Whether you are white or black, another background or mixed, you can bellyache and blame and wallow or you can do things to make it better.

DanBlather

07-09-2009, 07:09 AM

Whether you are white or black, another background or mixed, you can bellyache and blame and wallow or you can do things to make it better.And that's the great thing about the South, they put all that Civil War stuff behind them.

villa

07-09-2009, 08:40 AM

Monstro claimed that all of those honored on Monument Avenue would have shot Arthur Ashe on sight. I doubt that the Union would have offered the Command of the Union Army to someone who just automatically shot black people. You seem to agree that this was not his practice anyway.

You don't think there were vicious racists in the Union Army? There were slave owning officers in the Union Army. The evil of the Confederacy, and lets not deny it was an evil institution, doesn't automatically imply that all who opposed it were sweetness and light.

The implication that I got wasn't that they would shoot any black person on sight. Even ignoring that the shooting aspect was so unbelievably clearly hyperbole, don't you think it was referring more to a black person who didn't 'know his place'?

So all Confederates beat black men at every opportunity or was this just the leaders? I don't think all of these men were in the Cavalry.

Not all. But Confederate leaders were defending the institution of slavery, which involved, correct me if I am wrong, beatings on a somewhat regular basis. And the Confederate military officers were killing their fellow Americans in order to defend the institution of slavery.

And even though I would hope you realize again that the 'cavalry boot' aspect wasn't intended to be 100% serious, it is worth pointing out that one didn't have to be a cavalry officer to wear cavalry boots.

By the way, I believe that one of those men had been in the navy rather than the army. But yes, they were traitors to the Union. (Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, George Washington were traitors to the Crown before them.).

And had one aspect of the Revolutionary Wars not been the independence of the colonies, do you think there would be statues of Washington, Franklin, and Jefferson in the streets of American cities (assuming continued British rule)?

FinnAgain

07-09-2009, 10:55 AM

characterize his opponents as anti-semitic

Simply for the record, if I was actually doing that in GD I'd almost undoubtedly have been banned by now. I do, without a doubt, point out when posters' arguments are based on fiction, double standards, etc... I also tend to point out why certain arguments are objectionable (Jews have Dual Loyalty, the International Jewish Community controls the United States government, no politician can dare oppose AIPAC except of course when they do dare and nothing happens but still... the Zionists are Occupying our Government! And so on.)
And as XT points out, I'm used to/remember the behavioral patterns of specific posters. DSeid and I, for instance, differ on certain key points, ranging from the proper response to attacks (I don't believe that his "snapping turtle" plan is the most effective), and so on. But I've never found him to be anything but knowledgeable and honest.

Other people simply have patterns of behavior that I've gotten used to over the years. BrainGlutton likes to spout off without knowing what the fuck he's talking about, Luc' couldn't care less to engage on any substantive issue but will do his best to disrupt a discussion with vapid snark and one liners, and so on. And yeah, some posters really are bastards, like Sevastopol who really is a racist and who's argued that it's perfectly natural for Americans to want to destroy Judaism by fire and that we mustn't constrain Iran's ability to "liquidate" Israel. Or posters like you with the face who came into a multi-page thread where a specific cite had been discussed, cited multiple times, its language analyzed and quoted, repeatedly, and then simply claimed it hadn't while pretending that I'd made the whole thing up, or what have have you (thereby coupling dishonesty, thread-shitting and stunning stupidity all in one compact, handy dandy package).

Others simply have a very bad habit of wanting to Say Something even when they're totally clueless, like folks who alleged that I was a "neocon" or spouting "right wing talking points", or wanted to bomb Iran (after having said repeatedly that I did not) when I pointed out that Iran had refused the IAEA access to a certain site and then, after granting them access but before they could get there, bulldozed it and that the IAEA could verify with confidence that lack of an Iranian nuclear weapons program if the Iranians agreed to the Additional Protocols whose implementation Iran had (and has) been blocking. When I posted the cites (by such noted neocon warmongers as Hans Blix) the response was deafening silence, or worse, repeated rote denial and accusations that my hideous Dual Loyalty and warmongering neoconism were blinding me. As, unfortunately, it usually is when the response to facts isn't to simply ignore that the factual underpinnings of an argument have been cut while trying to find (or invent) new facts to support their pre-judged conclusion. Like people who'll argue that Iran has never attacked anybody and then when shown evidence of hundreds of thousands of FBI man hours which confirmed that was exactly what had happened, they'll ignore that evidence and then try to find another way to disagree, and then when that rationalization is shot down they'll move onto another one. And another. And another. It's like whack-a-mole, except even more horrible and less fun.

There are some posters who, while posting the same, tired, often-debunked (often by me, repeatedly) bullshit, do not get any benefit of the doubt from me at all. Not even a little.

~sigh~

I'd love to have an honest debate on ME issues without having to spend 98% of it trying to sweep the field of dishonesty, fiction, and stupidity. I haven't gotten my wish yet. Give me a thread filled with posters who know their shit, don't resort to lying when their argument becomes too difficult to support with actual facts and don't simply rationalize a new unsupportable position when their old one gets cut down? Hell, you'll see me happy as a clam. (For the purpose of this hypothetical, assume clams are very happy).

See, speaking of that kind of bullshit from a certain kind of poster:

Jewish reparations are a done deal and rarely argued about here.

This is of course fictional. In and around 1948 a roughly equivalent number of Jews were expelled/driven out of/fled from Arab countries as Arabs who were expelled/driven out of/fled from what would become Israel. But while the UNRWA was created for the Arab refugees (and went as far as to rewrite the UN's definition of refugees only for that population) there was no organization set up for Jewish refugees and, in fact, even to this day there is virtually no traction, at all, for getting them compensated for their lost property/assets.

And this is the sort of casual fictional that's tossed off all the time in GD.
It's done continually, without remorse, retraction or regret on the part of those who make fiction their stock in trade.
It's terribly difficult to discuss the best interpretation of the facts and their implications when virtually all of a thread has to be spent pointing out that, yah it actually matters if something is a fact or just sounded good to a poster at the time they were typing.

Coming from some people I make allowances and post multiple cites and spill huge seas of electrons while explaining the context/nuance in as much depth as I have energy for, all while I try to be as patient as possible.
But coming from people who I know have deliberately used dishonesty and trickery to make their points, when they're not simply saying whatever sounds good to them without the bothersome step of fact-checking (or fact-finding)?
Then I'm more than happy to drop the cluestick and go straight for the clue-by-four.
It's not really about seeing 'markers' for general arguments, but seeing the same exact posters making the same exact 'mistakes' that have been debunked time and time and time again and which just so happen to support their political agenda (how fortunate!).

This sort of stuff happens all the time. And in a discussion where nuance matters, where the immediately relevant history can go back 100+ years and context is vitally important, having to spend the vast, vast, vast majority of a thread trying to deal with the bullshit in it simply gets frustrating.
Want to place odds against the next knock-down-drag-out GD I/P thread having someone claiming/suggesting that all/most the land in the Levant was owned by the Palestinians and ignoring the roughly 400 years of the Ottoman land code that was carried forward by the British and Jordanians and the distinctions between mulk, miri, waste land, etc...?
If so I'll happily take your money. ;)

saoirse

07-09-2009, 12:21 PM

There are actually more slaves than at any other time in history.

What? 27 Million? Are you at all familiar with the Russian Empire?

I didn't claim that the United States Government has a policy enforcing slavery.

You asserted that slavery is being practiced in the United States. "Slavery" differs from "kidnapping and false imprisonment" by the extent of the government's participation.

I'm sure the children could care less whose policy it is.

Yes, but I care, because in a democracy I take responsibility for the policies of the government. The entire "worldwide slavery" line of argument is nothing more than a red herring to confuse the issue of American slavery. Throughout human history, slavery has been the rule, and freedom the exception. The United States was designed to adhere to a higher standard.

Blackberry

07-09-2009, 10:47 PM

If you:

Bemoan the fact you can't call people "nigger" or "nigga"

Think "The Fighting Whiteys" is the awesomest team name EVER

Wonder why there can't be a respected NAAWP

Want to hang nooses in trees for decorative purposes

Start sentences with "I'm not racist, but..."

... or otherwise consider yourself to be persecuted, oppressed, or otherwise less lucky than black people as a whole, you're a complete fucking idiot and you embarrass yourself each time you talk about your terrible, terrible misfortune in being born white.

I couldn't agree more, that shit will get me to lose respect for someone quicker than almost anything. Well, the 1st, 3rd, and 5th ones, cuz I never heard of the 2nd or 4th. Thankfully.

New insult I heard from an apparently persecuted-feeling drunk white man last night: he was trying to start shit with the black dude I was with and my guy kind of pushed past him and kept walking and the man goes, "Ooh! You must be our president!" :confused: :dubious:

Nzinga, Seated

07-09-2009, 10:53 PM

New insult I heard from an apparently persecuted-feeling drunk white man last night: he was trying to start shit with the black dude I was with and my guy kind of pushed past him and kept walking and the man goes, "Ooh! You must be our president!" :confused: :dubious:

Ha! But, that's funny as hell, isn't it?

Blackberry

07-09-2009, 11:17 PM

Ha! But, that's funny as hell, isn't it?

Yeah, that one definitely falls into the "been called worse" category.
Although for the 8 years before last January it would have been pretty offensive.

Lama Pacos

07-10-2009, 12:29 AM

I've been thinking about this thread, and I can't help but feel now that reparations, whether owed or not (and I lean strongly towards "owed"), are unlikely enough that they're becoming a red herring to other, possibly more effective steps our country can take to reverse the effects of slavery: ending the drug war and its attendant prison industry, and investing heavily to bridge the education gap. Then again, to me reparations is less about bettering society in and of itself and more about giving people what they're owed. So I guess we're looking at two different beasts here.

On that last point, I'm surprised mega-capitalists aren't all about reparations. The United States stole billions of dollars from millions of black people who were slaves. If those slaves had been paid appropriately for their labor (not to mention their lost possessions, family ties, emotional and physical trauma, etc.), their descendants would have significantly different assets than they do. It is a clear case of theft. And apologies for crassly putting such egregious crimes in financial terms.

Lama Pacos

07-10-2009, 12:38 AM

Also, the idea that Israel is reparation for the Jews of the Holocaust is particularly inapt. First off, none of the expense (economic, human, etc.) of Israel came from the actual offenders-- the mainstream populace of continental Europe. All of the expense was laid at the feet of a completely unrelated third party, the Palestinian Arabs. This would be like repairing American slavery by giving a parcel of the Pine Ridge Reservation to every African-American. Second, the "reward" (though I have a hard time thinking of anything related to the state of Israel as rewarding) went to an unspecific group including many more than just victims of and descendants of victims of the Holocaust. This would be like repairing American slavery by giving things to random people in Uganda because they're black.

FinnAgain

07-10-2009, 05:20 AM

Beginning to see what I mean, Ichini?

First off, none of the expense (economic, human, etc.) of Israel came from the actual offenders-- the mainstream populace of continental Europe. All of the expense was laid at the feet of a completely unrelated third party, the Palestinian Arabs.

This too is a popular fiction. "Europeans committed the holocaust and then the Palestinians were forced to pay for it!!"
The only problem, of course, is that it simply isn't true. The Partition (which the Arabs didn't follow anyways) called for division of land along rough ethnic majority lines along tracts of land which the Jews had already bought from their owners. And the state of Israel called for full property and citizenship rights for any Muslims/Christians who stayed and wanted to become peaceful citizens of a new Jewish state. The only reason any "expense" was laid at anybody's feet was because the Arabs chose to start a war of extermination that they then lost. Then they did it again a couple decades later.

The idea that anybody took land away from the Palestinians in order to 'compensate" Jews is fiction. The idea that anybody really did anything to bring about the events of 1948 other than the proto-Israelis who fought on with virtually no international help except from their (primarily) their American-Canadian non-state-actor allies who supplied them with money and material, is fiction.

"The world gave Palestine to the Jews because of Holocaust guilt, at the expense of the Palestinians!" may make good copy, but it's slightly flawed as it has nothing to do with actual reality, at all.

Second, the "reward" (though I have a hard time thinking of anything related to the state of Israel as rewarding)

Again, see what I mean, Ichini?
If this poster, having expressed this opinion, makes the same 'mistakes' again should I grant him the benefit of the doubt?

This would be like repairing American slavery by giving things to random people in Uganda because they're black.

Of course, what it would really be like is finding a place in Africa which had a sovereign for several centuries that fell, was administrated by a foreign power for a short period that then got the fuck out of Dodge while the international community made some supportive noises about the creation of new states in the region but didn't actually do jack shit and the state(s) themselves were created only via defensive war when the administrative power left... and then people claimed that the supportive noises were what did it and that, further, it just showed the inherent injustice of the whole situation since they should've made supportive noises about only American slaves, instead.

Zoe

07-10-2009, 06:29 AM

DanBlather: And that's the great thing about the South, they put all that Civil War stuff behind them.

In my family it was a burden to have had Confederate participation in the war. We have made it a point not to have membership in any of the organizations observing it even when that cost my father money when I was in college. (The Confederate dorm was subsidized.) We don't go to any reinactments and I don't no of any one who does except one history teacher. We literally live where the battlefields were and it is, after all, part of the history of this land. Those Confederate battle flags aren't as prevalent here or in Alabama as Monstro says they are in Richmond. In two trips through Alabama from one end to the other and back, I saw one.

Most of the South -- at least the part that I live in -- was not even established during the Revolutionary War. Do you expect us to ignore our history altogether? Should we be ignorant of our history or just revise it?

villa: You don't think there were vicious racists in the Union Army?
I have no idea about the Union Army. I made no comment on them. All but one of the statues are of Confederates although two are there not because of their participation in the Confederacy. And Arthur Ashe certainly seemed to know his place! Center court. I think that the Confederacy was a mixture of men who within themselves had both good and evil. Like most human beings. But the evil that they did was a terrible thing.

villa: But Confederate leaders were defending the institution of slavery, which involved, correct me if I am wrong, beatings on a somewhat regular basis. And the Confederate military officers were killing their fellow Americans in order to defend the institution of slavery.

I do not know that all slaves were beaten on a "somewhat regular basis." I suspect that the military officers did less killing than than the average soldier. Defending slavery? Most of the soldiers didn't have slaves. They were fighting for the same reason that young kids fight today. That's where the war was. But one of the official reasons on the books was defending slavery.

villa: And had one aspect of the Revolutionary Wars not been the independence of the colonies, do you think there would be statues of Washington, Franklin, and Jefferson in the streets of American cities (assuming continued British rule)?

Do you think that if there had not been a desire for independence of the Confederate States there would be states of Robert E. Lee, J.E.B. Stuart, Stonewall Jackson, and Jefferson Davis on Monument Blvd?

Did you ever wonder if the Brits crack up when they see the play 1776? They don't seem to view the Revolutionary War quite the way we do.

Rand Rover

07-10-2009, 08:07 AM

If those slaves had been paid appropriately for their labor (not to mention their lost possessions, family ties, emotional and physical trauma, etc.), their descendants would have significantly different assets than they do.

Hmm, I don't agree. Look at factory workers today--are they able to leave large sums of money to their kids? The vast majority are not.

LonesomePolecat

07-10-2009, 08:30 AM

I'll concede, it is more rewarding to be white.
Not if you're white and poor. Fuck that "white privilege" nonsense.

villa

07-10-2009, 08:39 AM

I do not know that all slaves were beaten on a "somewhat regular basis."

Indeed. Some others were in fact raped on a somewhat regular basis. But really, if you are trying to oppose the statement that "slavery ... involved ... beatings on a somewhat regular basis" you are going to end up losing.

I suspect that the military officers did less killing than than the average soldier. Defending slavery? Most of the soldiers didn't have slaves. They were fighting for the same reason that young kids fight today. That's where the war was. But one of the official reasons on the books was defending slavery.

Indeed, officers tend to do less personal killing. But giving the orders doesn't remove the responsibility for the killing. Officers are far more responsible, IMHO. And it is officers we are talking about here. There are not many statues of privates on Monument Boulevard, unless they have been added since I last went down there.

All four of the 'gentlemen' that you mention went to West Point, and served in the US Military. They all swore an oath of allegiance to the United States. They all violated that oath. They were all traitors. I don't subscribe to the view that every person who fought for the CSA was a traitor, because the overwhelming majority were not in violation of such an oath.

Do you think that if there had not been a desire for independence of the Confederate States there would be states of Robert E. Lee, J.E.B. Stuart, Stonewall Jackson, and Jefferson Davis on Monument Blvd?

There was a desire for independence that sprung up when a fear that slaves would be taken away. And that desire for independence was strongest in those who would be most affected, the ruling classes of the Southern states. Unfortunately it was the working class that had to bear the burden of defending the rights of the rich to own slaves.

Did you ever wonder if the Brits crack up when they see the play 1776? They don't seem to view the Revolutionary War quite the way we do.

I think I have somewhat of an insight into how the British view the Revolutionary War. Maybe even more than you do. You probably have a better insight into how Southerners view the Civil War than I do. But that doesn't give me more of an insight into the actual Revolutionary War than you...

And oddly enough, British people don't sit around bemoaning the loss of the thirteen colonies, and Cornwallis isn't revered as a hero. In fact, I'll go even further and say that most British, if asked, would think that, on a very superficial level at least, the Americans were on the right side.

DianaG

07-10-2009, 08:48 AM

Not if you're white and poor. Fuck that "white privilege" nonsense.
Dude, you're waaaaaaaaaay late, where the hell have you been? Did the Nefarious League of Not White People cut off your internet or somethin'?

07-10-2009, 09:02 AM

I think you mean "interned". I don't think any Japanese were rounded up and buried. Not in the U.S. anyway.

Nope, I meant they were rounded up and buried...

Ah well...don't you love what spell checking software does some times?

-XT

LonesomePolecat

07-10-2009, 09:04 AM

Dude, you're waaaaaaaaaay late, where the hell have you been? Did the Nefarious League of Not White People cut off your internet or somethin'?Aw, sweet cheeks, don't be that way. I'm starting to think we can't be fuck buddies any more.

DianaG

07-10-2009, 09:14 AM

Sorry hon, I like my men like I like my coffee, sort of tan colored, and not bitter.

Really Not All That Bright

07-10-2009, 09:16 AM

Aw, sweet cheeks, don't be that way. I'm starting to think we can't be fuck buddies any more.
She's been with a darkie. You wouldn't want her.

Rand Rover

07-10-2009, 10:04 AM

She's been with a darkie. You wouldn't want her.

And, if the popular saying is correct, neither would she want him.

Really Not All That Bright

07-10-2009, 10:32 AM

That's probably true, but I doubt it has much to do with the popular saying.

07-10-2009, 10:37 AM

She's been with a darkie. You wouldn't want her.

Probably going to come off sounding like a prig here, but calling someone a 'darkie', even if it was supposed to be tongue in cheek (even if you happen to be black) gives me a really hinky feeling. I HATE that term. It's probably a generational thing, but it was a term that was used in my own youth.

-XT

Rubystreak

07-10-2009, 11:50 AM

Hmm, I don't agree. Look at factory workers today--are they able to leave large sums of money to their kids? The vast majority are not.

On this topic, here is a letter (http://radgeek.com/gt/2009/05/06/wednesday-lazy-linking/) from a freed slave, who was asked by his former master to go work for him again after the Civil War. The letter's author is very polite, but quite reasonably makes the terms of his return hinge on the wages owed to him by his former master:

I served you faithfully for thirty-two years and Mandy twenty years. At $25 a month for me, and $2 a week for Mandy, our earnings would amount to $11,680. Add to this the interest for the time our wages has been kept back and deduct what you paid for our clothing and three doctor’s visits to me, and pulling a tooth for Mandy, and the balance will show what we are in justice entitled to. Please send the money by Adams Express, in care of V. Winters, esq, Dayton, Ohio. If you fail to pay us for faithful labors in the past we can have little faith in your promises in the future.

This gives you some idea of how much money in in question here, considering this is just one man's lost wages. Needless to say, the plantation owner in question did not remit the $11,680 minus deductions/plus interest (about $162,000 in today's money according to the article). Now, think about all the people who labored, for so many generations, without pay. We are talking about a lot of money here, which I don't think you can dismiss by saying that factory workers don't leave their kids much money.

NOTE: I do not write this to show that I am in favor of reparations. I am merely writing to indicate that slaves were in a very different position from factory workers, at the very least in terms of wages, which should go without saying, but apparently that's not the case.

villa

07-10-2009, 11:55 AM

Rubystreak

07-10-2009, 11:58 AM

I love the last sentence in the letter...

I know, that letter made my day when someone sent me the link. The author's sardonic politeness is brilliant. I plan to find a way to have my students read it next year in class. I think they will enjoy it.

Vinyl Turnip

07-10-2009, 12:03 PM

Probably going to come off sounding like a prig here, but calling someone a 'darkie', even if it was supposed to be tongue in cheek (even if you happen to be black) gives me a really hinky feeling. I HATE that term. It's probably a generational thing, but it was a term that was used in my own youth.

So, I suppose, were "gardyloo" and "phlogiston"--- getting a shiver up your back from those too, Pops?

Shodan

07-10-2009, 02:19 PM

I'll concede, it is more rewarding to be white.How would you know? Only Michael Jackson could say for sure.

Regards,
Shodan

Rand Rover

07-10-2009, 02:58 PM

On this topic, here is a letter (http://radgeek.com/gt/2009/05/06/wednesday-lazy-linking/) from a freed slave, who was asked by his former master to go work for him again after the Civil War. The letter's author is very polite, but quite reasonably makes the terms of his return hinge on the wages owed to him by his former master:

This gives you some idea of how much money in in question here, considering this is just one man's lost wages. Needless to say, the plantation owner in question did not remit the $11,680 minus deductions/plus interest (about $162,000 in today's money according to the article). Now, think about all the people who labored, for so many generations, without pay. We are talking about a lot of money here, which I don't think you can dismiss by saying that factory workers don't leave their kids much money.
You are focused on the gross, but a person can only leave their kids the net.

Nzinga, Seated

07-10-2009, 03:02 PM

How would you know? Only Michael Jackson could say for sure.

Regards,
Shodan

Well, only lil' (http://www.kalamu.com/bol/wp-content/content/images/lil%20kim%20album%20cover.jpg) Kim (http://sicbeats.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/mugshot__lil-kim1.jpg), now.

Shodan

07-10-2009, 03:20 PM

She's hotter in the mug shot.

Tell me I'm wrong.

Regards,
Shodan

Nzinga, Seated

07-10-2009, 03:27 PM

She's hotter in the mug shot.

Tell me I'm wrong.

Regards,
Shodan

That goes without saying.

Vinyl Turnip

07-10-2009, 03:38 PM

Obviously the Teaneck P.D. needs to upgrade their copy of Photoshop.

Rubystreak

07-10-2009, 04:40 PM

You are focused on the gross, but a person can only leave their kids the net.

What you're ignoring is that it is impossible to leave your kids anything if both your gross and net are zero.

Rand Rover

07-10-2009, 06:30 PM

What you're ignoring is that it is impossible to leave your kids anything if both your gross and net are zero.

What? How am I ignoring anything? I'm taking more factors into account than you, that's the opposite of ignoring relevant info.

Rubystreak

07-10-2009, 06:40 PM

What? How am I ignoring anything? I'm taking more factors into account than you, that's the opposite of ignoring relevant info.

You're comparing factory workers' inability to leave their kids money to slaves', because, you say, I'm forgetting the difference between gross and net salaries. Don't you see how absurd that comparison is?

Rand Rover

07-10-2009, 07:06 PM

You're comparing factory workers' inability to leave their kids money to slaves', because, you say, I'm forgetting the difference between gross and net salaries. Don't you see how absurd that comparison is?

You are looking at the total salary a slave could have earned and think that is solely determinative of how much they could have left their kids. That's absurd.

BugMeNot2

07-10-2009, 07:08 PM

So, I suppose, were "gardyloo" and "phlogiston"--- getting a shiver up your back from those too, Pops?

This made me laugh, which makes it the best post in this asinine thread. If you could see me now, you'd be watching me tattoo a giant W - T - F on my forehead, in honor of this pissant thread.

monstro

07-10-2009, 07:34 PM

Zoe, I don't know how much time you've spent in central VA, but there Confederate flag is quite common around here. I worked a booth at the state fair last year, and just about 50% of the white folk who visited my booth had on a shirt of some type emblazened with the flag (with Palin/McCain sticker accompaniment).

(When I worked at Six Flags over GA as a youngster, it was the same thing. Maybe they save those kind of shirts for special outtings.)

I learned early on not to discuss the CW at work. Everyone is nicefolks, but something about that topic makes people overly defensive and stupid, because suddenly you're talking about great-great-grand daddies who ain't never had no slave and all's they was doin' was fightin' for States' Rahts and you people JUST DON'T GET IT. So I don't bother, because I'd rather keep thinking that everyone is nicefolks.

You don't know what I've seen and heard living here. This state is more backwards-looking and backwards-behaving than most people think.

Zoe

07-11-2009, 01:50 AM

Monstro, how do you know what most people think? And what would lead you to be more negative than most people?

monstro

07-11-2009, 07:24 AM

Monstro, how do you know what most people think? And what would lead you to be more negative than most people?

I'm not more negative than most people.

And I don't know what most people think.

Nothing I've said should lead you to even ask these ridiculous questions.

Rubystreak

07-11-2009, 09:45 AM

You are looking at the total salary a slave could have earned and think that is solely determinative of how much they could have left their kids. That's absurd.

No, sorry, that's not at all what I was doing. That's what you were saying I was doing, but that's not what was happening. Lama Pocos said that if slaves were paid for their work, their descendants would be in a different situation now. You disagreed, saying that factory workers weren't able to leave their kids much. I think it's safe to say, however, the factory workers are able to leave their kids more than slaves left their children, because factory workers do have assets, whereas slaves had none, not even ownership over their own person. If we can agree on that point, then the conversation can reasonably said to be over.

ashman165

07-11-2009, 09:52 AM

I'm not more negative than most people.

And I don't know what most people think.

Nothing I've said should lead you to even ask these ridiculous questions.

I think she was responding to this line of yours: "You don't know what I've seen and heard living here. This state is more backwards-looking and backwards-behaving than most people think." That kind of implies that you are purporting some insight into what most people think.

monstro

07-11-2009, 10:10 AM

I think she was responding to this line of yours: "You don't know what I've seen and heard living here. This state is more backwards-looking and backwards-behaving than most people think." That kind of implies that you are purporting some insight into what most people think.

Oooh, shoot me for making a generalization. I know, from my personal experience, that when people think of VA, they tend to think of NoVA. I certainly did before moving here. But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe people who've never lived in the state (which would be most people) have a good idea what it's like living here.

And as far as purporting to know what Zoe knows about what I've seen, you'd have to ask her how it is she knows my experience is so wrong.

The things she accuses me of, she is just as guilty of. Claiming the South isn't as bad as people assume it is is just as presumptious as what I said. And I'm not even saying the South is bad, just that I have constant reminders that people look fondly on a past that should be forgotten. Yet it only seems black people are accused of looking backwards and playing the victim.

People who defend the South's role in the CW, IMHO, are playing the victim too. Just in a different way.

ashman165

07-11-2009, 10:28 AM

Oooh, shoot me for making a generalization. I know, from my personal experience, that when people think of VA, they tend to think of NoVA. I certainly did before moving here. But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe people who've never lived in the state (which would be most people) have a good idea what it's like living here.

And as far as purporting to know what Zoe knows about what I've seen, you'd have to ask her how it is she knows my experience is so wrong.

The things she accuses me of, she is just as guilty of. Claiming the South isn't as bad as people assume it is is just as presumptious as what I said. And I'm not even saying the South is bad, just that I have constant reminders that people look fondly on a past that should be forgotten. Yet it only seems black people are accused of looking backwards and playing the victim.

People who defend the South's role in the CW, IMHO, are playing the victim too. Just in a different way.

Easy there, turbo. You made a claim that her issue with your response to something else was ridiculous. I merely quoted to you your own words which render her post not at all ridiculous. You said that you have never said such a thing despite the evidence to the contrary. My issue isn't with your making a generalization; it's with you denying that you did up until the moment someone quoted to you your own words.

I'm not here to argue the relative merits of your views versus her views (at least not at the moment). But the "she does it too" is a non-starter. Whether or not she also does it has nothing to do with whether or you have done it, and then denied doing so. She asked a question about something you actually have said, and instead of answering the question, you deny having said what you plainly did.

One would think that an "oops, so I did" would be in order.

Rubystreak

07-11-2009, 10:33 AM

ashman165

07-11-2009, 10:42 AM

ashman, what you don't realize is that you are stepping into a situation wherein Zoe is holding an old grudge against monstro for some conversation that didn't go her way years ago. She's dragging that crap into this thread on the thinnest of pretenses to give monstro a hard time. Seriously, best not to get involved.

monstro, don't worry. It's not you, it's her.

I understand there's friction there. But why would he give her the kindling, matches and lighter fluid to easily roast him by making a claim, and then immediately following that to deny he'd done it in the first place?

If he really wants to best her, surely saying something and then claiming to not have said it isn't a great technique.

Rubystreak

07-11-2009, 10:45 AM

I understand there's friction there. But why would he give her the kindling, matches and lighter fluid to easily roast him by making a claim, and then immediately following that to deny he'd done it in the first place?

If he really wants to best her, surely saying something and then claiming to not have said it isn't a great technique.

I guess I don't see their exchange in the extreme light that you do. Also, knowing the context, I know that one does tend to get so very fucking aggravated by the petty needling and grudgeholding and martyr complex, which leads to replies that are more heated than seem warranted. Like I said, best to just stay out of it IMO, but do what thou wilt.

monstro is a she, btw.

ashman165

07-11-2009, 10:46 AM

I guess I don't see their exchange in the extreme light that you do. Also, knowing the context, I know that one does tend to get so very fucking aggravated by the petty needling and grudgeholding and martyr complex, which leads to replies that are more heated than seem warranted. Like I said, best to just stay out of it IMO, but do what thou wilt.

monstro is a she, btw.

Check your PM, please.

Zoe

07-12-2009, 02:00 AM

Rubystreak: ashman, what you don't realize is that you are stepping into a situation wherein Zoe is holding an old grudge against monstro for some conversation that didn't go her way years ago.

Rubystreak, I have carried no grudge against Monstro. You are lying. No where except in this thread have I ever spoken to her in anger. Once again, you are trying to stir up trouble. Why not take the very advice that you so eagerly give to ashman165? Well, that's not like you to "stay out of it."

So I am asking you, Rubystreak to CITE where I have shown a grudge against Monstro beginning "years back." Put up or shut up! Show me where I expressed any anger or ill will toward Monstro prior to this thread.

My friendship with her began with the gift of a book to help her find strength within herself. I can easily look and find the date that the book was sent. And we have had nothing but pleasant exchanges in Private Mail.

Monstro: I know, from my personal experience, that when people think of VA, they tend to think of NoVA.

Monstro: And as far as purporting to know what Zoe knows about what I've seen, you'd have to ask her how it is she knows my experience is so wrong.

Essentially you are claiming that you have the power to read minds: I'm not buying it.

Monstro, you cannot know from your own experiences what other people think of when they think of Virginia. You have met a lot of people, but you haven't met five or six billion yet. Stop making claims that you can't possibly, rationally live up to. The truth is that you don't know what other people think of when they think of Virginia. Neither do I. No one does. No one has learned to read minds yet.

Monstro: People who defend the South's role in the CW, IMHO, are playing the victim too. Just in a different way.

Maybe some of them are. I don't often run into people who defend the South's role, but it would depend on the individual and what he or she had to say as to whether or not that person is playing the victim.

You won't hear me defend the South's role.

Rubystreak

07-12-2009, 10:31 AM

Rubystreak, I have carried no grudge against Monstro. You are lying.

I don't think you know what that word means.

No where except in this thread have I ever spoken to her in anger. Once again, you are trying to stir up trouble. Why not take the very advice that you so eagerly give to ashman165? Well, that's not like you to "stay out of it."

If you want your discussions with monstro to be private, use PM. Otherwise, if you dredge them up in a thread that everyone can read, well, then everyone can comment on them. That's how the Pit works, and if you don't like it, maybe the Pit is not the place for you, eh? You and monstro had it out in the "one drop of blood" multithread fiasco, as you well know. You couldn't leave it alone then, and you still can't. You have a tendency to needle people who cross you, and bring shit up with them in unrelated threads. That's exactly what you're doing here.

So I am asking you, Rubystreak to CITE where I have shown a grudge against Monstro beginning "years back." Put up or shut up! Show me where I expressed any anger or ill will toward Monstro prior to this thread.

I'm hearing the Looney Toons theme playing as a read this. I don't think "grudge" means what you think it means either. You have unresolved issues with her and you can't stop bringing them up. It's one of your hallmarks, the inability to let things go. I think it's all fresh enough in everyone's memory. Now, the person who needs to put up or shut up is you. If you don't have a problem with monstro, why hijack this thread with your personal issues?

ashman165

07-12-2009, 10:38 AM

"Inconceivable!"

Rubystreak

07-12-2009, 10:40 AM

You know what? Zoe is right. I'm just going to walk away from this and let her enact her particular brand of relentless crazy here if that's what she wants. monstro is a big girl, she can handle it, though she shouldn't feel like she has to. Everyone can see it for what it is, anyway.

ashman165

07-12-2009, 10:44 AM

"Inconceivable!"

monstro

07-12-2009, 11:30 AM

Actually, the grudge started when she started playing "let's uncover a fraud!" with you, Rubystreak. We had actually moved beyond the one-drop blood stuff, however horrid that was, but because I didn't defend her behavior when she started attacking you (I hope it was you. My memory is poor right now), she's been treating me as an enemy or something.

If we keep at it, she'll probably accuse me of being a liar too. The only thing I can come up with is that Zoe has been lied to a lot in the past. When she thinks you're lock-and-step with her assumptions about you, you're A-OK. But the moment you show that you are nuanced and that you don't support whatever she says unconditionally and that you can actually be angered by her actions (like I was when she questioned your teaching credentials...after I became aware that she'd done it before to others), then suddenly it's attack-mode.

Well, I don't want to battle anymore either. Not because I necessarily care for her feelings right now, but because I don't think it's healthy for either of us to nitpick each other's posts to death.

kidchameleon

07-12-2009, 12:59 PM

Oooh, shoot me for making a generalization.

I tried to, but fucking George Carter took away my pistol.

Zoe

07-12-2009, 01:37 PM

Monstro: But the moment you show that you are nuanced and that you don't support whatever she says unconditionally and that you can actually be angered by her actions (like I was when she questioned your teaching credentials...after I became aware that she'd done it before to others), then suddenly it's attack-mode.

Notice that neither Monstro nor Rubstreak has been able to cite one word that I have said to Monstro that has been critical of her. To the contrary, when Monstro was critical of me because she misunderstood the meaning of what I was saying, I did not criticize her for it. Her own twin sister later admitted that she knew the meaning of what I had been saying and just let the game of needling me go on. (That is a paraphrase of what You With the Face said.) Monstro apparently thinks that you really can detect a drop of "black blood" in a person through scientific means. Either that, or she was also pretending to be dumb just to take offense.

Nevertheless, where are the words that criticized you, Monstro? There were plenty that criticized me. Didn't you even notice that I didn't dish it back to you? Or are you really going to claim that these false accusations are just a problem that you are having with your memory?

And when you participated in the Pit of me, did I respond to you? Was I defensive in any way? No.

And a certain Mod is going to find it interesting that the issue of Rubystreak's credentials has been brought up again. She or he was forewarned hours ago that the subject was about to come up. And I certainly didn't bring it up again. That makes it rather obvious who does the stalking on that subject. Did you just happen to bring that topic up all by yourself? I think not.

The first time that topic was introduced, you didn't protest at all. You and I were getting along just fine.

You are being used, Montro. There is no strength or self-esteem that will come to you when you are someone's puppet. I hope your sister is reading and can put some other things aside. You need some serious help. Some of your sentences are incoherent and others are irrational as ashman165 pointed out. You seem to say whatever arguement comes to your mind whether it is logical or not. You contradict yourself from sentence to sentence and thread to thread. Your personality has changed considerably. You see hatred where there is none. You are not the young woman who celebrated with me in January. I hope that your sister can do something to help.

The rest of this with Rubystreak trying to interfere while telling someone else to stay out of it is very high schoolish. Cen't you see that? And she left after a big lie. Are you going to do the same?

DianaG

07-12-2009, 03:01 PM

Jesus H. Christ, the problem with crazy is that it never gets bored.

Rubystreak

07-12-2009, 03:05 PM

The rest of this with Rubystreak trying to interfere while telling someone else to stay out of it is very high schoolish. Cen't you see that? And she left after a big lie. Are you going to do the same?

Oh, I haven't left, dear. Poor ashman was getting in the middle of something he didn't understand, and I thought he should be warned not to stick his hand in the crazy. I considered it a public service. Then, I decided to take my own advice, because you are crazy, and not worth engaging with, because it's futile and only eggs you on. monstro and I obviously concur on your treatment of her, so no, I wasn't lying, but I don't have to defend myself against slurs from you. You have no credibility. You're not doing yourself any favors, but I'm really done playing around with you in this particular thread. Have at it, since I know you can't help yourself.

monstro

07-12-2009, 03:32 PM

Oh, I haven't left, dear. Poor ashman was getting in the middle of something he didn't understand, and I thought he should be warned not to stick his hand in the crazy. I considered it a public service. Then, I decided to take my own advice, because you are crazy, and not worth engaging with, because it's futile and only eggs you on. monstro and I obviously concur on your treatment of her, so no, I wasn't lying, but I don't have to defend myself against slurs from you. You have no credibility. You're not doing yourself any favors, but I'm really done playing around with you in this particular thread. Have at it, since I know you can't help yourself.

The accusations of lying is what kills me. Something about that makes me think of that thing religious people like to say. "The devil is a liar". In my twisted mind*, if you're accused of lying, you're accused of being of the devil. It does egg you on, 'cuz who wants to be of the devil?

I don't like to use crazy liberally, but yeah, it sure seems like crazy to me. And that makes me sad for her, to be honest (guess I'm not such a heartless person after all). She's actually a very good-looking, smart, helpful, and interesting person. I just wish her posts could reflect that instead of the negative and unattractive quirks that this board brings out in her.

*The product of having been raised in a Pentacostal household..

Rubystreak

07-12-2009, 03:39 PM

The accusations of lying is what kills me. Something about that makes me think of that thing religious people like to say. "The devil is a liar". In my twisted mind*, if you're accused of lying, you're accused of being of the devil. It does egg you on, 'cuz who wants to be of the devil?

Upon reviewing the thread, she seems to think that I somehow induced you to bring up her questioning my credentials. I wrote you a PM, but it said your mailbox was full, so I couldn't send it. The upshot being, I didn't remember that you defended me, and that's why you and she went negative, so I really don't think that I in any way influenced you to bring that up. It wasn't even on my mind when I commented on her treatment of you in this thread. But I guess I should thank you for sticking up for me, even though early onset senility prevents me from remembering that particular scenario.

monstro

07-12-2009, 03:53 PM

I'll clean out my PM box. Sorry.

ashman165

07-12-2009, 03:55 PM

Upon reviewing the thread, she seems to think that I somehow induced you to bring up her questioning my credentials. I wrote you a PM, but it said your mailbox was full, so I couldn't send it. The upshot being, I didn't remember that you defended me, and that's why you and she went negative, so I really don't think that I in any way influenced you to bring that up. It wasn't even on my mind when I commented on her treatment of you in this thread. But I guess I should thank you for sticking up for me, even though early onset senility prevents me from remembering that particular scenario.

Is this why you haven't mailed me that fifty bucks I loaned you that one day, for that thing you needed it for?

Zoe

07-12-2009, 10:36 PM

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, no cites for mean old Zoe saying negative or critical things to Monstro prior to this thread. That doesn't say much for Rubystreak's tale. And Monstro seems confused.

I wonder whatever would make me think that Rubystreak and Monstro were PM friends! Isn't it funny how I could guess that without its being mentioned! What a hoot!

And now Rubystreak is also bringing up "the subject" again. It bothers Monstro so Monstro brings it up. It annoys Rubystreak and so Rubystreak brings it up. Strange behavior indeed.

Monstro now wants to play the religious "devil" card just as she played the race card earlier. Since I have made it clear in earlier threads that I don't believe in the devil, I can hardly be calling her the devil now.

Monstro, you are much more impulsive in the way you handle arguments and anger than I have ever dreamed. There is a therapy would be very helpful to you, I think. It focuses on problems as they arise in your life today. It doesn't focus so much on what may have gone wrong in the past. It's about learning what's fair for you and fair for others. It's called Cogitive Behavior Therapy. I think that you might find it helpful. A lot of people at Straight Dope have.

I won't carry this anger for long, Monstro. But the friendship is broken. Ask yourself why you are being used by certain others. Some of your friends here you can trust in the long run. Some you can't. You know which ones.

Rubystreak

07-12-2009, 10:41 PM

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, no cites for mean old Zoe saying negative or critical things to Monstro prior to this thread. That doesn't say much for Rubystreak's tale. And Monstro seems confused.

The "one drop of blood" thread. That was enough nasty for one lifetime, unless of course it's your lifetime, it seems.

I wonder whatever would make me think that Rubystreak and Monstro were PM friends! Isn't it funny how I could guess that without its being mentioned! What a hoot!

We aren't. This was my first ever PM to monstro. So much for THAT theory, Girl Detective.

And now Rubystreak is also bringing up "the subject" again. It bothers Monstro so Monstro brings it up. It annoys Rubystreak and so Rubystreak brings it up. Strange behavior indeed.

What "subject" are you talking about? I never brought up the issue of you questioning my credentials. I had no idea that you and monstro had a falling out over that issue. I thought your friendship hit the rocks over your full-tilt looney performance in the one drop thread. This is all news to me. Don't expect you to believe that, don't care if you do. But read over the thread and you'll see that I never brought it up.

I won't carry this anger for long, Monstro. But the friendship is broken. Ask yourself why you are being used by certain others. Some of your friends here you can trust in the long run. Some you can't. You know which ones.

You are a fucking nutcase.

DianaG

07-12-2009, 10:42 PM

Have you considered seeking help yourself, Zoe? Because as someone who doesn't have any special relationship with any of you, you're the one who comes off far and away the craziest, using the "obsessive, delusional, projecting your own issues, no sense of perspective, unable to see that no one else gives a shit" version of crazy.

Zoe

07-12-2009, 11:50 PM

Ha! You must be new here, Diana. You also haven't read all of the thread. The information that you are asking about has been posted for your reading pleasure.

DianaG

07-12-2009, 11:56 PM

I've been here for years. I didn't say that I'm not familiar with any of you, I said that I don't have any special relationship with any of you. I've read the thread, and I remember the Rubystreak dustup. My impression is that you're crazy, and/or just lead a sadly empty life. Please note that these are not mutually exclusive conditions.

Nzinga, Seated

07-12-2009, 11:59 PM

I think Zoe is saying, Diana, that she has already stated in this thread that she has sought professional help. That doesn't mean she isn't hairy nut lickin' crazy, but she did indeed seek help for it.

DianaG

07-13-2009, 12:02 AM

Ah, then that I did indeed miss somehow, my apologies.

supergoose

07-13-2009, 12:10 AM

Well I have read the whole thread, Zoe, and I concur with Rubystreak and DianaG. You're coming off as having a few screws loose, or at the very least, as having an enormous grudge against monstro, whose posts have been among, if not the, most intelligent and thoughtful posts in this whole thread. And I am not PM friends with monstro, before you cast away my opinion as being favoritism. I don't think she and I have even interacted directly in any form.

Not that monstro needs backing up or affirmation. Frankly, Zoe, I'm hoping you'll be prompted by a complete stranger coming in and thirding the crazy consensus to at least consider the possibility that you need help* or at the very least that your perspective is skewed. Not holding my breath on that one, though.

*Edit: continuing or additional help

Zoe

07-13-2009, 12:22 AM

Rubystreak: What "subject" are you talking about? I never brought up the issue of you(sic) questioning my credentials.

See your own Post #222. (That is what is called providing a cite.)

Diana, no apology needed. I've made it a point of talking about my mental illness for the last seven years. I was diagnosed over forty years ago. Monstro and I have the same diagnosis. The medication that I take has served me well for the last twenty years, but I can get angry like every one else.

I rent out for Halloween parties. Cheap.

Zoe

07-13-2009, 12:27 AM

Dear Supergoose, see above.

Round 'em up, Rubystreak!

Yee Haw!

Rubystreak

07-13-2009, 12:30 AM

See your own Post #222. (That is what is called providing a cite.)

I'm going to lay it out for you very slowly and carefully, to be sure you comprehend it fully. I was responding to monstro's post #216 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11331843&postcount=216), wherein she corrected me when I said I thought your falling out with her was over your behavior in the one drop thread. She said that no, actually, you had reconciled after that; in fact, your friendship was on the rocks because you got angry at her because she voiced the opinion that she disapproved of how you treated me. I had no idea you went after her about that, because I'm guessing that conversation must have gone on-- wait for it-- in private, over PM! So no, I did not bring up the issue of my credentials, as I had no idea it was relevant to this discussion. monstro did. And THAT is what is called "telling the truth, not making up crazy, paranoid scenarios wherein you are the victim in spite of all evidence to the contrary." You might like to try it out.

PS-- what am I supposed to be "roundng up"? Do you think I am paying people like DianaG and supergoose to agree with me about you? Might it not be the fact that your craziness and irrationality are on full display, and they just happen to see it too? No, rather than engage in self-reflection for personal betterment, better to think I'm the ringleader of some anti-Zoe conspiracy, no doubt being conducted over PM RIGHT NOW!!!11!!

ashman165

07-13-2009, 01:18 AM

Ha! You must be new here, Diana. You also haven't read all of the thread. The information that you are asking about has been posted for your reading pleasure.

Now, as our intrepid readers here might note, there was a to-do over my having made a gentle correction of Monstro for having written something and then saying something different, and denying having said it. As, I'm sure, most of you know, sometimes we say things with one meaning without respect for what the words literally mean. So, when we respond "I didn't say that" it should usually be read "I didn't mean that, though my words actually said it."

Now that catches us up to my part. Before I said something, Zoe was taking to task Monstro for some purported ability to read minds or whatever. Now it would seem, that it's convenient to her argument, Zoe has acquired this ability to psychically know things. You don't know what Diana has read as she hasn't specifically said as much. If you're not going to allow such common statements to go unchecked in others, then you better fucking edit your goddamn shit. Got it, sister?

Ruby, um, you still haven't mailed me that $50 I loaned that one day for that stuff at the place. /cry *unrelated to anti-Zoe conspiracy dues, btw*

jsgoddess

07-13-2009, 08:54 AM

Wait. I thought I was the leader of the anti-Zoe cabal?

Christ, you miss a few days and your ass gets deposed.

Zoe

07-13-2009, 11:29 AM

ashman, preach it Brother! You are right! She read the thread, but missed the words. See Diana's apology post. I think it's #231. Anyone can miss part of a thread. Especially one talking about how they are crazy.

Rubystreak, Monstro brought the subject up first and then you brought it up yourself.

RubystreakI'm guessing that conversation must have gone on-- wait for it-- in private, over PM!

Rubystreak, I don't give you a second thought until you show up in a thread that I'm in and start bringing up my name and doing your Bride of Chucky routine. I don't even dislike you enough to think about you.

Monstro and I never had harsh words in PM ever. She said nothing unkind to me or I to her. The last PM that I sent to her was after my pitting and I told her someone had stolen her password and was posting terrible things about me using her name. (I'm paraphrasing.) Of course, I was reasonably certain that she was posting herself. The PM was meant to break the ice. But she didn't respond.

Monstro, is what I say the truth?

So, Rubystreak, all of your claims about me have been based on what you guessed was in my private mail. Yet you claimed that they were true. That is by your own admission.

It's gonna start taking you two trips to haul ass, missy.

Zoe

07-13-2009, 12:02 PM

jsgoddess: Wait. I thought I was the leader of the anti-Zoe cabal?

This is true. Damn. What are we gonna do? Does anybody have a pack of hyennas?

Rubystreak

07-13-2009, 12:54 PM

Rubystreak, Monstro brought the subject up first and then you brought it up yourself.

Stop and think a minute about what the phrase "bringing something up" means. I did not bring it up. How could I if I didn't know about it? When monstro brought it up, I responded to her. I, in no way, brought it up. Is that clear?

Rubystreak, I don't give you a second thought until you show up in a thread that I'm in and start bringing up my name and doing your Bride of Chucky routine. I don't even dislike you enough to think about you.

I was posting in this thread on a topic that had nothing to do with you, but then I saw you picking on monstro. Whenever I see you doing that to someone, it makes me angry. I don't know how you get away with it. I figured ashman deserved to know what he was involving himself in. That is the extent of my interaction with you in this thread, until you decided to make this all about you, as is your MO.

So, Rubystreak, all of your claims about me have been based on what you guessed was in my private mail. Yet you claimed that they were true. That is by your own admission.

"All of my claims about you" couldn't be covered in this thread. Fenris did a nice job of covering it here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=512206), in a thread you were too cowardly to participate in. In this particular instance, monstro said that you and she had a falling out over something she said about your treatment of me that you took issue with. I heard that from MONSTRO, not by guessing. My only guess was that the issue between you and her took place in private, since I was not privy to it and this was the first I was hearing of it. She seems to think that you are picking on her and holding a grudge. Other posters who don't know either of us have concurred that it really seems like you have a grudge and are needling her. So where do you find any lies coming from me? There aren't any, but since you need to vilify anyone who disagrees with you, you have to call it a lie.

Why don't you just stop and reflect a minute on why so many people, not just awful, horrible old me, think that you are behaving inappropriately? I assure you none of them are personal friends of mine, and some of them don't even like me. Yet they all think you are treating monstro badly, and acting crazy towards me. Is it even possible for you to step away from this and examine your own behavior? Or is this thread destined to be another trainwreck with your name on it?

Revenant Threshold

07-13-2009, 04:55 PM

Monstro, you are much more impulsive in the way you handle arguments and anger than I have ever dreamed. There is a therapy would be very helpful to you, I think. It focuses on problems as they arise in your life today. It doesn't focus so much on what may have gone wrong in the past. It's about learning what's fair for you and fair for others. It's called Cogitive Behavior Therapy. I think that you might find it helpful. A lot of people at Straight Dope have. Huh? Cognitive Behavioural Therapy is pretty much all about what you've done in the past. That's the point of it - it's about recognising your own reactions to things that have already occurred. Then you can apply what you've learned to your reactions today. Without looking at the past and your past self, i'm not entirely sure how it would work. You'd have to judge things solely as they are at the time, which the therapy presupposes may well be a faulty judgement.

monstro

07-13-2009, 05:14 PM

I wish I could now say "My name is Bennet and I ain't in it!" (Thanks Nzinga.) But I guess it's too late for all that.

Listen, Zoe. I'm the type of person who doesn't hold a grudge against most internet people. There are a few posters who have ENEMY written across their foreheads when I encounter them, but you aren't one of them. However, I don't appreciate your behavior in this thread. Athough I was too much of a coward to respond to your password-questioning PM, I didn't appreciate that either. The way I see it, I shouldn't have to hold my tongue when I see wrongdoing, and in Fenris's thread, there was plenty for my tongue to cluck over. Since then, I have been leery of you. Even though you have been very very nice to me in the past, I sometimes find you to be a scary, "too hot" presence. How do I know that one day you aren't going to question my credentials and turn me out as some kind of fraud? That's behavior I wouldn't tolerate in real life, so why should I tolerate it in a play-play universe?

We must take responsibility for our actions, even when our brains are suffering. That's why I usually don't post when I'm feel bad; I know I'm likely to come across as a bizarro monstro. I don't know what all you're suffering from--my own diagnosis is a mixed bag now, so we may not be as aligned as you think--but surely you have some self-awareness. One thing I've learned from being on the Dope is that most posters don't care enough to hate you, even when they're battling tooth and nail with you. There is no cabal to take you down. Other than providing some clarification to RubyStreak about the history between us via PM, I haven't been whispering and snickering behind your back with other posters. I most certainly don't hate you or even dislike you, but as I said, I'm leery of you. But perhaps that's more my fault than yours, 'cuz I tend to be leery of most melodramatic, emotional, grudge-bearing people. You bear grudges, Zoe. Can you at least acknowledge that?

I don't particularly care that our friendship is broken. I don't feel entitled to friends, having them isn't at the top of my priority list, and my personal connections to most people are weak anyway. We are total opposites in that respect, which I find kind of humorous for some reason. You deserve someone who can tolerate the histrionics and the hurt feelings--I'm not that person and I never should have let you think otherwise. Remember what I said in a past thread about me being heartless and cold. Well, now you know why I said that about myself. I'm a nice person, yes, but I Just Don't Care.

Now you know.

That's my introspective glurg for the day. I hope it inspires you to look at the "woman in the mirror" and make that change.

monstro

07-13-2009, 05:21 PM

Wait. I thought I was the leader of the anti-Zoe cabal?

Christ, you miss a few days and your ass gets deposed.

Yeah, the whole board has been talking about you behind your back for starting this crazy-filled thread. You're going down, girlie. It's just a matter of time before we turn you out of this place!

;)

Zoe

07-15-2009, 04:59 AM

Revenant Threshold, I defer to you on the CBT. My mistake.

Monstro: The way I see it, I shouldn't have to hold my tongue when I see wrongdoing, and in Fenris's thread, there was plenty for my tongue to cluck over. Since then, I have been leery of you.

So even though I had never once said anything unkind to you -- but you had attacked me in two threads -- you then became leery of me!??

Shouldn't that have been the other way around? And Rubystreak claims that it was! She said that I had held a grudge against you for years.[/b] And she says that she got that information from you. Those were YOUR feelings, Monstro, not mine.

And I don't hold a grudge in the sense that you mean it. There is a difference in being angry with, disagreeing with, not trusting, disliking, and bearing a grudge against someone. I don't bear a grudge against anyone. It's Rubystreak that keeps stirring the pot.

As for Fenris pitting me, do you think we'd ever exchanged two words to each other before? Not that I remember. It could just be my memory. But aren't you usually pitted by someone who has crossed your path before?

Monstro: That's behavior I wouldn't tolerate in real life, so why should I tolerate it in a play-play universe?

Well gee, Monstro, since I haven't actually done this to you, I guess you don't have to blame me just yet. You know?

I'm sorry that you see this as a play-play universe or something other than real life. But I guess that is what allows you to think there is not a real person behind these words. I'll bet you think I disappear when you log off of SDMB.

Rubystreak: Upon reviewing the thread, she seems to think that I somehow induced you to bring up her questioning my credentials.

I didn't review the thread. Care to try that sentence again?

Monstro, you said that the way you see it, you shouldn't have to hold your tongue when you see wrongdoing. For that I applaud you. And to a great extent, we have seen and spoken out against much of the same wrongdoing.

At the same time, I shouldn't have to hold my tongue either when I see wrongdoing. I didn't think that you were fair in your accessment that people in America just treat slavery as if it were a joke and that "no one seems to give a fuck." You seemed blind to the hundreds of thousands, even millions of people who have tried to make things better and to take some of the sting away. It's not that the non-blacks have to be thanked or acknowledged constantly. It's just that at some point, you might stop running all of us into the ground. That too is called racial bigotry.

Cheesesteak

07-15-2009, 05:20 AM

Lama Pocos said that if slaves were paid for their work, their descendants would be in a different situation now. You disagreed, saying that factory workers weren't able to leave their kids much. I think it's safe to say, however, the factory workers are able to leave their kids more than slaves left their children, because factory workers do have assets, whereas slaves had none, not even ownership over their own person. If we can agree on that point, then the conversation can reasonably said to be over.Lama Pocos said "significantly different assets" which implies, to me, that the money earned from this labor would have worked its way down to today's descendants. I think it is highly questionable to assume that money / assets earned 150+ years ago, by laborers, is going to be passed down over all that time and amount to anything significant today.

That's not to say that the situation wouldn't be different if these were free workers instead of slaves, but that difference has little to do with missing paychecks.

Abby_Emma_Sasha

07-15-2009, 06:21 AM

Hey Rubystreak here's a clue: Shut the fuck up!
You're trying to fan the flames between Zoe and Monstro and it just makes you look stupid and pathetic. They may have issues to work out but they don't need you butting your idiot head in. Stop it. Stop being an asshole.

Rubystreak

07-15-2009, 09:32 AM

Shouldn't that have been the other way around? And Rubystreak claims that it was! She said that I had held a grudge against you for years.[/b] And she says that she got that information from you. Those were YOUR feelings, Monstro, not mine.

You were picking on her in this thread. Others noticed it too. Can't admit that, though, can you? Or apologize. Or just leave it alone. You just happened to be righteously correcting her, nitpick by nitpick, in a way that seemed to all and sundry like a grudge. The information I got from monstro was WHY you were picking on her. I was wrong about the reasons, and she corrected me. Why do you need this to be repeated? It's all right here, in the thread. Go over it and see if my version of events isn't accurate.

It's Rubystreak that keeps stirring the pot.

It was a mistake of me to warn ashman not to get involved. I should have just PM'ed him and not incited your ire. That was definitely my mistake, and believe me, I regret it, because it unleashed The Crazy. However, it irks me how you treat people, and never once consider that it's wrong. If how you treated monstro in this thread is how you treat a friend... well, I'd say I shudder to think about how you treat an enemy, but I know about that all too well.

As for Fenris pitting me, do you think we'd ever exchanged two words to each other before? Not that I remember. It could just be my memory. But aren't you usually pitted by someone who has crossed your path before?

Your behavior can be offensive to people who are not the recipient of that behavior. Just as you said in your post: "I shouldn't have to hold my tongue either when I see wrongdoing." Others, like you, don't wish to hold their tongue when they see wrongdoing, even if it's you, Zoe, who is the perpetrator. You want to dish it out, you ought to be able to take it. Fenris was sick of watching you denigrate and belittle people who got on your bad side. There is ample evidence in that thread that you do just that, and were doing it again to monstro. monstro herself concurred that it felt like you were doing that. So why is it some master conspiracy by me? I'm just observing something that is apparent to many others. You never answered for it in Fenris' thread, and apparently you didn't learn shit from that Pitting, so here, it comes up again. No surprise.

I didn't review the thread. Care to try that sentence again?

I reviewed the thread to see what you were talking about, and you were just making stuff up. Paranoid stuff.

Hey Rubystreak here's a clue: Shut the fuck up!
You're trying to fan the flames between Zoe and Monstro and it just makes you look stupid and pathetic. They may have issues to work out but they don't need you butting your idiot head in. Stop it. Stop being an asshole.

Abby_Emma_Sasha: go eat some cream cheese and wash it down with bourbon or whatever you're drinking this morning. You'll be OK by tomorrow, or at least, this will all be a faint memory.

Rubystreak

07-15-2009, 09:34 AM

Lama Pocos said "significantly different assets" which implies, to me, that the money earned from this labor would have worked its way down to today's descendants. I think it is highly questionable to assume that money / assets earned 150+ years ago, by laborers, is going to be passed down over all that time and amount to anything significant today.

That's not to say that the situation wouldn't be different if these were free workers instead of slaves, but that difference has little to do with missing paychecks.

Missing paychecks are merely a concrete way of measuring what was lost. Obviously, it's much harder to quantify what is lost culturally when a person doesn't own himself and never has a chance to acquire any assets. It's not inconceivable to think that, if Africans came here in the same numbers voluntarily, and were paid for their work, that their assets right now, as well as American society in general, would be significantly different.

Gfactor

07-15-2009, 11:33 PM

Let's put an end to the Zoe/monstro/Rubystreak-who-accused-whom-of-being-a-liar-or-whatever-the-hell hijack and return to our regularly scheduled pie fight. If you folks want to continue your argument, feel free to start a thread about it, but this thread is not about Zoe.

No warnings issued.

Gfactor
Pit Moderator

Zoe

07-16-2009, 10:04 AM

Back to the OP by jsgoddess: If you're white and all you can think about is how good blacks have it, you're an idiot

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you:

Bemoan the fact you can't call people "nigger" or "nigga"

Think "The Fighting Whiteys" is the awesomest team name EVER

Wonder why there can't be a respected NAAWP

Want to hang nooses in trees for decorative purposes

Start sentences with "I'm not racist, but..."

... or otherwise consider yourself to be persecuted, oppressed, or otherwise less lucky than black people as a whole, you're a complete fucking idiot and you embarrass yourself each time you talk about your terrible, terrible misfortune in being born white.

Most of the OP I agree with. I think there are still some WWII Holocaust survivors who were more persecuted and oppressed than black people as a whole and perhaps survivors of the genocide in Bosnia or the killing fields in Cambodia. But blacks had their own killing fields in Rawanda and the horrors are still going on in Darfur. But it's stupid for most white people to complain about persecution for being white. They may have lost out on a job, but that is nothing in comparison. It doesn't even scratch the surface.

As for the "I'm not a racist, but..." -- I think it would serve some blacks well to remember that this sentence from their lips doesn't usually shake out very well either.

Ultimately, I don't believe in "races." As much as I enjoy diversity and live in a neighborhood of African-Americans, whites, Kurds, other Muslims, Cambodians, Koreans, Mexicans, and others, I hope that it won't be too long before we are all part of the melting pot with the cultures changing America a little more. And I will be glad for the time when we stop thinking so much about "my people" except when we mean "fellow human beings." I don't really like "us" and "them" thinking even though I know I use it out of convenience some times.