Well, I’m not proud to be white. I’m also not “proud” I have red hair, size 9 feet, good hand-eye coordination, was born in America, have brown eyes, natural artistic talent, and a ghastly singing voice. I’ve never understood being “proud” of inherent traits. I’m glad of these things, or at least used to them, but not proud.
I’m proud of what I’ve acheived through hard work, a desire to do things well, dedication, & so on.
What evilbeth said, so eloquently. The stormfron white Nazi whatever types mean “I’m glad I’m not one of those smelly, conniving, stupid, dirty, slanteyed ragheadraces” when they say they’re proud to be white. It’s all in the context.
In my opinon, taking pride in your ancestry is basically foolish. 1) It’s not like you had anything to do with it, and 2) You don’t necisarily have the same strengths and weaknesses that your ancestors did.
With the important cavat that “proud to be X” is usually a response to a percieved cultural assumption that X is inferior. There is a difference between a member of a historically opressed minority insisting that their culture/gender/religion/sexual preference is not a flaw, and another group (read, you) doing so just because the first one did.
It dosn’t justify predjudice from said groups, but in context, it is usually NOT a blanket statement that all other non-X groups suck.
Unless you’re a Rush Limbaugh fan, “white” dosn’t fit into that category in most of the US. So, “I’m proud to be white!” is going to have a different implied subtext. Not, really, a complementary one. Either, “This guy is so lame that all he has to be proud of is his background,” or “This guy is a racist trying to play with language to excuse himself.”
Especially since most “white” people don’t consider their background “white,” but italian, anglo, russian, scottish, or whatever.
Absolutly fair? No. But that’s life. First law of the information age. Context is everything.
And incedetally, “Yellow-bellies” is a REALLY lame insult, unless you’re Yosamitie Sam in disguise.
–
“I’m in the Chocolate Lake. My own personal hell!”
Hate speech and links to hate speech pages are absolutely unacceptable. Consider this your first and only warning. Pull this kind of thing again, and your posting privileges will be revoked. In fact, I’m going to do a search on your posts now…if I find more examples of this posting behavior, I’m going to remove posting privileges.
Note to everyone else:
I’m not moving this topic because I want R-dawg to see this warning.
That is in NO WAY RELATED TO “hate”. How about you read it first before you critisize it. You can’t go around bullying cause you are an admin. READ IT and then you can comment. It is in NO WAY “HATE” RELATED. This is absurb accusing me of this.
R_Dawg is (self reported) 18…which may excuse his sophomoric OP, and I don’t think he was engaging in “hate” speech so much as juvenile dumbness. I have on my own, once, surfed through the various neo-nazi BS, just to see what it was like. Disgusting, disgusting stuff which will never defile my monitor again as long as I live. But I think its OK to talk about it.
Of course if R_Dawg is posting racist stuff & nasty links all over these boards, I’ll change my mind.
Actually, she can. But this ain’t it. Your link is inappropriate for a board dedicated to fighting ignorance, not perpetuating it.
And, if your site isn’t racist, why does it glorify that known, and self-admitted, racist, David Duke?
Why do you offer for sale a T-Shirt of that recidivist Nathan Bedford Forrest, founder of the KKK?
Check the link again bud. Does the link I gave have any place to buy a t-shirt? Am I perpetuating ignorance? not at all. Now I ask all of you, what would be the difference from me linking this to {hate site deleted} or if I copied the page and made my own homepage with just that text on it? And no valid links to {same link, deleted} now THAT shows ignorance on YOUR part. And yet, I am yet to see valid ignorance on MY part.
(the challenge is on? LOL!)
Thank you, R-dawg, for helping me eliminate something on my “things to follow up on” list.
If you had copied the info from the hate speech site onto a web page of your own, I probably would have deleted that info in your user profile. As it is, I’m simply going to remove your posting privileges, as you do not seem to take me seriously.
Well, before it gets locked up, I have a question:
Given the OP, I don’t have a real problem with deleting the link, in context.
However,
I have posted links to Melvig and (I think) Stormfront in the context of discussions regarding racism. The links were examples of “what we’re up against” or in the nature of “your argument seems to be taken directly from this site,” but I certainly provided those links.
Lynn’s initial statement was
Given the OP and his follow-up posts, lacking all grace, tact, (or coherence), I see the deletion as appropriate, but I’m wondering if the current rules will require us to avoid providing any links to “bad” places in the future?
I’m not looking for a big discussion on the issue (which should get its own thread in the Pit), only for a statement of clarification:
Are we to refrain from providing links to those sites even in a discussion of that sort of activity?
IMO, links to offensive pages can serve a useful purpose. Specifically, how can a person comment on a page if s/he has never seen it? Therefor I do not agree that all “bad” links should be banned.
But I agree that the links in this thread did not contribute significantly to the general discussion.
Hiya, R dawg, a little truth from one white trash redneck to another. The problem with the “I’m Proud to be White” crowd is that every one of them seems to feel they accomplished something merely by being born. Of course, I guess when you have to drop out of the fifth grade at the age of sixteen because you got your sister pregnant, it’s not like you can rest on your own laurels. But here’s a clue: just because you’ve got the same complexion as Shakespeare, Edison, Churchill, and Regis Philbin don’t think their accomplishments reflects any credit on you. And consider this, when someone who’s black or hispanic or Asian or Jewish or female or gay fails in life, they can at least take comfort in thinking they failed because society was biased against them. But when you fail, R Dawg, you did it all on your own because you’re a loser. Now step off my coattails; you’re embarassing me.
That’s a good point, Tom. Let me start a dialogue on this with the rest of the mods.
I’ll tell you my off-hand impression right now, though. Here it is, ya ready?
Okay then, it seems to me that a link to a site, such as the one deleted from this tread, when posted in the context of a serious discussion, debate, or other civil exchange, would be acceptable. But, merely posting to glorify, or otherwise advance, a racist cause, or to inflame the members, should be deleted with prejudice. My logic for this follows thusly; it’s possible for a hate site to be used as an example of illogic, parallels and analogies can be drawn from their philosophies, and valid questions may even be answered, or supported, by links to sites such as these. All this can further the reduction of ignorance and is in line with the (probably overly self-righteous) mission of this message board. Spewing hate and racism for the sake of advancing prejudice obviously does not, and as I said, should be deleted mercilessly.
We’ll get back to all of you with a better formulated policy once we reach consensus. Thanks.
I assume that the policy on deleting links arises because, for potential legal reasons, the SDMB does not want to serve as gateway to objectionable sites. If this is the case, then perhaps questionable sites could be cited in a non-linkable format (e.g., “www.straightdope.com”, where the quotation marks prevent the auto-link). This way, there’s no direct gateway to the site, but people truly interested in examining the arguments/information/whatever contained there can still manually type the URL in.
I note in passing that the OP still contains an undeleted reference to the site in question.
…BTW,Dawg,you fuckstick,you are likely not as “white” as you think, geneticists claim that as many as 80 percent of black Americans have white bloodlines and that a surprising ** 95 ** percent of white Americans have some black ancestry.
These statistics are based not on guesswork but on the direct clinical examination of nucleotides and micro-satellites, genetic components common to all human blood. Dr. Luigi Cavalli-Sforza tells us in The History and Geography of Human Genes, published by Princeton University Press, that all ethnic groups hold an array of overlapping sets and subsets of mixed gene pools. He notes that modern Europeans (the ancestors of America’s “white” immigrants) have long been a mixed population whose genetic ancestry is 65 percent Asian and 35 percent African.
Statistacly the longer ones family has been in this country the higher the probability…if your family has been here sine colonial times it is almost a certainty that you have a very inclusive genetic heritage.
