Black people know many of their kids will wind up in jail.
They know whites use drugs as much as blacks but many more blacks will be prosecuted and get longer sentences.
They are aware that their life expectancy is shorter.
They are aware their medical coverage is inferior.
They know many hate them for their skin color.
They know their opportunities in life are abridged.
It has gone on for so long it can not be an accident.So it is an easy step to think that powerful people want it that way.
This video hits the points… and shows the sermon in entirety. If you want to cut straight to the point… go to about 10:30 on the vid.
Thanks. I appreciate it.
Not a problem. Always happy to help.
Y’know… I might be atheist. But I love this sermon… it’s honest, sure… it’s at times political, but… he’s honest. There are more calls to change (the black community) than the one I pointed you to, but it’s the best one.
It is, after all, a sermon. It’s supposed to be truth with a call to action and change.
Based on what? How do you even define anti-Americanism? Traditionally, criticizing one’s country, with the hopes that it will make us better, used to be considered patriotic. You know, eternal vigilance being the price of freedom type of thing. Now, that is not the case. Either way, if you define anti-Americanism in a way that equates honest, reasoned dissent with being unpatriotic, you completely devalue the term and allow it to be divorced from is historical definition. At that point, it’s meaningless to draw arbitrary lines defining who is, and who isn’t anti-American.
Furthermore, Americanism, is a concept far more important to Whites than it is to Blacks. It’s much higher in most White’s identity ladder. Most Blacks view themselves as Black before they view themselves as Americans. I think it’s the opposite of most Whites. Blackness is still a necessary (but incomplete) resource for most of us. It informs who we are, where we live, how we live, and how we are viewed. Whiteness means nothing to most White people. You need to appreciate that discrepancy when you discuss these things.
Ok, so the broad theory is basically that the gov’t/doctors/powers that be use birth control for nefarious purposes, many of which specifically target Blacks. Form your site:
So let’s go through these one at a time. Have medical institutions used the poor and minorities as guinea pigs to try out birth control methods in recent history. Yes . This is a provable fact. Did the government use BC to control the Black population? Again, factually accurate. Has the government involuntarily sterilized minorities? Yes . Do the government’s planning policies intend to control the number of Black people? Again, this is true (depending on how it’s defined). Even your own site says the following:
AS RECENT AS THE 1970’s! It is not alarming that people may mistakenly feel these things are still going on, failing to take advantage of modern medicine; the alarming part is that this shit actually happened. People actively conspired to make this happen as recently as the 19 fucking 70’s. And you have the gall to chastise Blacks for believing.
Again, while the theories may be factually inaccurate, I don’t understand why you are surprised by these findings. The history of HIV is rife with bias, ignorance, and despicable acts that cost thousands of people their lives. The Reagan administration urged the public not to panic since AIDS is confined to gay men and IV drug users. The president was basically telling people not to panic because the only people being devastated by the disease are people nobody cares about. Do you see how others in marginalized groups could assume there is a similar lack of concern for them? If HIV had stayed confined to the gay community and drug users, how much money do you think the government would dedicate to research?
The other “troubling” stat in your cite is that many believe that there is a cure for AIDS that is being withheld from poor people. This is not crazy at all. In fact, it is debatable. Protease Inhibitors and other drug therapies have become more and more effective in lowering viral load and prevent HIV from progressing to AIDS. Many wealthy HIV patients today will live long enough to die from heart disease like the rest of us. You know who is not getting those drugs? Poor people. Many of them will be lucky to die on a mattress. Is it really a stretch for someone to argue that these “cures” are being withheld from poor people? Especially, since many treatments are withheld from poor people. Sometimes they are “withheld” because they are considered “experimental” by insurance companies, or because nobody gives a damn about providing said things to people who can’t pay for them. Read a little about GATS/TRIPS agreements and HIV drugs in Africa. Hell, simple treatments like mosquito nets are “withheld” from millions of Africans who end up dying from form Malaria. It kills one million children per year. A mosquito net, a simple thing that is plentiful, but nearly impossible for many who need it to procure. The reality there are many solutions to problems that are withheld from people for one reason or another. This may not technically be the case with AIDS, I don’t think people who believe it is are crazy.
[QUOTE=Shodan]
and Hurricane Katrina.
Another situation where actual racism and ineptitude inspires people to engage in unfounded speculation. Actual events like the bridge blockade make it easier for some people to believe people might go one step further. Sure, those people may be wrong, but they delving into terrain that often requires a lot of guesswork and assumptions. Mistakes will happen. It’s not as though people who have actually engaged in terrible things like what is alleged will admit it.
Well to be fair, the drug thing started with the government turning a blind eye to drug trafficking, getting involved with drug traffickers, and not addressing the fallout. As the PBS report on the initial claims stated:
So the CIA was, at the very least, aiding an abetting the sale of drugs in this country. The drugs were sold to Black gangs who sell to Black people. Don’t you think factual evidence that is available to us precludes this from being just another crackpot theory? This s really a question of aims and motives. The believers may assume sinister motives where ignorance or indifference is a better fit, but they are operating from a perspective, which historically speaking, equates this selective ignorance/indifference with malevolence. Many times, the reasons for one’s ignorance or indifferent are rooted in the same pernicious racism.
WFT? This makes no sense to me. These theories are “comforting” to the extent they are because they allow one to whittle a complex situation to something digestible. They give order to chaos. It’s the same reason people believe in religion or government. Is the conspiracy theory that the gov’t blew up a levee more absurd than the conspiracy theory that the Jews and Romans conspired to kill the son of God? It’s much easier to think there is someone behind everything controlling outcomes than just a infinite regression of small decisions and changes that have unforeseen and tragically consequential effects.
It’s part of the human condition. It’s not unique to Blacks, and it doesn’t mean you are a loser.
Based on what? How do you even define anti-Americanism? Traditionally, criticizing one’s country, with the hopes that it will make us better, used to be considered patriotic. You know, eternal vigilance being the price of freedom type of thing. Now, that is not the case. Either way, if you define anti-Americanism in a way that equates honest, reasoned dissent with being unpatriotic, you completely devalue the term and allow it to be divorced from is historical definition. At that point, it’s meaningless to draw arbitrary lines defining who is, and who isn’t anti-American.
Furthermore, Americanism, is a concept far more important to Whites than it is to Blacks. It’s much higher in most White’s identity ladder. Most Blacks view themselves as Black before they view themselves as Americans. I think it’s the opposite of most Whites. Blackness is still a necessary (but incomplete) resource for most of us. It informs who we are, where we live, how we live, and how we are viewed. Whiteness means nothing to most White people. You need to appreciate that discrepancy when you discuss these things.
Ok, so the broad theory is basically that the gov’t/doctors/powers that be use birth control for nefarious purposes, many of which specifically target Blacks. Form your site:
So let’s go through these one at a time. Have medical institutions used the poor and minorities as guinea pigs to try out birth control methods in recent history. Yes . This is a provable fact. Did the government use BC to control the Black population? Again, factually accurate. Has the government involuntarily sterilized minorities? Yes . Do the government’s planning policies intend to control the number of Black people? Again, this is true (depending on how it’s defined). Even your own site says the following:
AS RECENT AS THE 1970’s! It is not alarming that people may mistakenly feel these things are still going on, failing to take advantage of modern medicine; the alarming part is that this shit actually happened. People actively conspired to make this happen as recently as the 19 fucking 70’s. And you have the gall to chastise Blacks for believing.
Again, while the theories may be factually inaccurate, I don’t understand why you are surprised by these findings. The history of HIV is rife with bias, ignorance, and despicable acts that cost thousands of people their lives. The Reagan administration urged the public not to panic since AIDS is confined to gay men and IV drug users. The president was basically telling people not to panic because the only people being devastated by the disease are people nobody cares about. Do you see how others in marginalized groups could assume there is a similar lack of concern for them? If HIV had stayed confined to the gay community and drug users, how much money do you think the government would dedicate to research?
The other “troubling” stat in your cite is that many believe that there is a cure for AIDS that is being withheld from poor people. This is not crazy at all. In fact, it is debatable. Protease Inhibitors and other drug therapies have become more and more effective in lowering viral load and prevent HIV from progressing to AIDS. Many wealthy HIV patients today will live long enough to die from heart disease like the rest of us. You know who is not getting those drugs? Poor people. Many of them will be lucky to die on a mattress. Is it really a stretch for someone to argue that these “cures” are being withheld from poor people? Especially, since many treatments are withheld from poor people. Sometimes they are “withheld” because they are considered “experimental” by insurance companies, or because nobody gives a damn about providing said things to people who can’t pay for them. Read a little about GATS/TRIPS agreements and HIV drugs in Africa. Hell, simple treatments like mosquito nets are “withheld” from millions of Africans who end up dying from form Malaria. It kills one million children per year. A mosquito net, a simple thing that is plentiful, but nearly impossible for many who need it to procure. The reality there are many solutions to problems that are withheld from people for one reason or another. This may not technically be the case with AIDS, I don’t think people who believe it is are crazy.
Another situation where actual racism and ineptitude inspires people to engage in unfounded speculation. Actual events like the bridge blockade make it easier for some people to believe people might go one step further. Sure, those people may be wrong, but they delving into terrain that often requires a lot of guesswork and assumptions. Mistakes will happen. It’s not as though people who have actually engaged in terrible things like what is alleged will admit it.
Well to be fair, the drug thing started with the government turning a blind eye to drug trafficking, getting involved with drug traffickers, and not addressing the fallout. As the PBS report on the initial claims stated:
So the CIA was, at the very least, aiding an abetting the sale of drugs in this country. The drugs were sold to Black gangs who sell to Black people. Don’t you think factual evidence that is available to us precludes this from being just another crackpot theory? This s really a question of aims and motives. The believers may assume sinister motives where ignorance or indifference is a better fit, but they are operating from a perspective, which historically speaking, equates this selective ignorance/indifference with malevolence. Many times, the reasons for one’s ignorance or indifferent are rooted in the same pernicious racism.
WFT? This makes no sense to me. These theories are “comforting” to the extent they are because they allow one to whittle a complex situation to something digestible. They give order to chaos. It’s the same reason people believe in religion or government. Is the conspiracy theory that the gov’t blew up a levee more absurd than the conspiracy theory that the Jews and Romans conspired to kill the son of God? It’s much easier to think there is someone behind everything controlling outcomes than just a infinite regression of small decisions and changes that have unforeseen and tragically consequential effects.
It’s part of the human condition. It’s not unique to Blacks, and it doesn’t mean you are a loser.
Well, not moving, of course, but instances of forced integration are not hard to find.
Regards,
Shodan
Would that also involve scrapping affirmative action?
Scrap it? Hell, we need to drive a stake through its heart and bury it at a crossroad.
So. You’ve got nothing.
While bussing to create schools of mixtures of perceived races was a dumb idea, it did not compel any person of any perceived race to live next to anyone else. Given that nearly every bussing edict in the country has already been rescinded, LonesomePolecat’s contention that “it is time to give up on forced integration” is hopelessly out of date. Claims for “natural segregation,” of course, have the unfortunate history that they have been used to justify block busting, red-lining, vandalism and a number of other actions that were used to prevent natural integration, so that is certainly an unfortunate choice of language–especially since no one is actually being compelled to live near anyone else, which is what integration actually means.
No, 5 > 0. So, that would be an other-than-factual assertion.
And since no one in the thread has suggested that it did, your statement is rather pointless.
Again, not a truthful statement.
Note the reference to “organization”, and the absence of any reference to forcing people to move their residence.
You mentioned earlier that five cites were nothing, so I won’t bother with more. Unless you can produce a reliable cite showing that “integration” always and only refers to forced moving, you can consider yourself as refuted. Or ignore it and continue pretending, as you prefer.
Regards,
Shodan
Now I haven’t read the whole thread, but i did read this and had to jump up and down a bit.
This is simply ridiculous. “Forced integration” ended long ago, and even then it was more about making black kids go to the same school (rather than live in the same neighborhoods) as white kids. No one forces blacks to live in one place and whites to live in another and last time I checked discrimination in housing on the basis of race is illegal damn near everywhere. And last time I checked, there were no subterfuges - people bought the best house they could afford.
You set up the law to make sure that people cannot be discriminated against legally; the rest is the slow work of time to change people’s attitudes and opinions. You can’t change that overnight, and you can’t change it by passing some stupid law either. You have to let people learn for themselves.
On review - tomndebb said it as well, but I think it’s important enough to say twice.
Also - Shodan- I think it’s ludicrous to claim that the Left has a monopoly on moonbats and radicals; for every Rev Wright on one side, you’ve got Anne Coulter on the other and they’re of about the same insanity as well as volume.
And it’s a third thing to say government should not allow discrimination against racial minorities, which is what the civil rights movement was really all about.
What makes you think that’s not possible now? From occasionally lurking on Stormfront I am aware of the existence of several all-white communes or colonies in the Pacific Northwest. Government has never tried to force them to let in nonwhites (and what nonwhite would want to live in one?). There’s no “ridiculous subterfuge” required, the group just needs to acquire title to the land.
No one said they had a monopoly.
But if my pastor said anything remotely similar about blacks or whites, I would not remain a member of the church for twenty years or use him as one of my inspirations if I wrote a book. White supremacist churches are small and marginalized. A member of Wright’s church is currently the front runner for the White House. Why the disparity?
Right - spreading lies and urban legends and screaming “God damn America!” is really done out of a deeply felt love of country.
Put it this way - if I began raving that black men wanted to rape white women, and that all their women were lazy welfare cheats, would you assume I was saying it because I cared so much about blacks, and wanted only to help?
Regards,
Shodan
And the Rev. Mr. Hagee? Rev. Parlsey? Any thoughts on Mr McCain’s spiritual advisors. or would you prefer to keep this focused on a comfortable subject?
You inferred it rather strongly in your post when you said:
Your conservative candidates have the millstone of intolerant fundamentalists and evangelicals around their necks; Hagee is just the latest in a string. Rather than denounce them, they are embraced and brought into the fold and asked for help in planning strategy and a legislative agenda. When your fellow conservatives remove these intolerant assholes from the very seat of power, I’ll grant you there’s a disparity. Until then, this is hypocrisy of the highest order by those demanding some sort of sack cloth and ashes act for someone with little to no bearing on a candidate’s behavior or attitudes, and whose more outlandish statements have been flatly denounced by the candidate in question.
(bolding mine)
I think you’re stretching things here quite a bit. I think it’s 100% clear that the reason Al Qaeda attacked us on 9/11 was in response to things we had done. We did things that pissed them off. They attacked us.
However, I don’t see that has anything to do with whether or not we were morally in the right. Al Qaeda is bad bad bad people. Thus, the fact that an action pissed them off in no way implies that that action was morally wrong, or that we should not have taken it. But it’s ridiculous for us to pretend that Al Qaeda attacked us simply because they couldn’t stand knowing that there was a country on the other side of the world that was rich and prosperous and free and didn’t make women go around in Burqas.
Why is it some people have such a hard time believing that whilst we’re not the great Satan we’re described as, we are sometimes doing things that people might not like and might want to take action about…
9-11 was not our ‘fault’ but it was a result of our actions. Not that we could or would change those actions, but to simply stick fingers in our ears and keep chanting “we’re the good guys” is not going to help solve our problems. And anyone who doesn’t believe the Muslim world has a few legitimate grudges should read up on the CIA’s experience in Iran with Mossadegh.
Which has been more or less the Bush Admin’s official line for six years now.