black rabbit rubbish. Black Power is not the same as ‘Irish Power’. Go read some Stokely Carmichael.
Here is a quote on the subject from a poster on Spengler’s forum.
Has it occurred to you that a guy who publishes online under the apparent pseudonym of Spengler might have his own racial agenda?
Yes, that’s obvious. I argue with him all the time about it. The question is whether or not his quoted source is accurate or not.
I repeat, “White” is not a culture or an ethnicity or in any way an ethnologically distinct population. All it is is a skin color (sort of), so it’s stupid to try to make it a point of cultural identification or “pride.” There IS such a thing as a “Black” ethnicity in the US which applies to more than just skin color. It refers to the distinct population descended from African-American slaves and a shared history and cultural heritage which, as I’ve said, is more properly compared to Irish/Italian/Scotch/Russian/Polish/Swedish/French ethnicities than to the meaningless (and almost necessarily racist) identification of “White.”
:rolleyes:
And, apparently, those who are half white, grew up in Indonesia and whose ancestors weren’t slaves.
Regards,
Shodan
I had been trying to beat out 5 year lurker in my lurking, but it looks like I may have to settle for about 4 and a half years.
I’m taking the day off and enjoying a nice bottle of vodka while browsing over some dope threads. What really is not helpful is some random gangrene smiley in response to someone.
Lord knows I’ve not always agreed with Dio, and I’ve often in the past agreed with you, mswas, but really, this being GD, don’t post this stupid smiley as if it was a rebuttal of any sort. I’m sure you have an argument to make. Make it. For drunkards like me, this sucks.
:rolleyes: is not a counterargument.
Has anybody linked yet to Terry Gross’ interview with James Cone and one of his students from yesterday ( the 31rst )?
http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=13&prgDate=3-31-2008
Cone didn’t come off as Farrakhan-style supremacist to me. But YMMV, as always.
So you have no other reply?
“Black” and “White” are not a matched pair. One of these things is not like the other. “Black” isn’t exactly the same as white, except black. It’s a different thing. It’s not like we were a country that was 50% black and 50% white, and equal amounts of whites and blacks were enslaved, and whites were subjected to Bob Swan laws in the same way black were subjected to Jim Crow laws.
Didn’t happen. Perhaps in some other country with a different history the two would be parallel, but the United States is not that country.
Black colleges weren’t black because they discriminated against whites. Black churches weren’t black because they discriminated against whites. Black neighborhoods weren’t black because they discriminated against whites.
The reverse is not true. White colleges were white because they discriminated against blacks. White churches were white because they discriminated against blacks. White neighborhoods were white because they discriminated against blacks.
This is what happened in this country. Black and white are not interchangable terms. You can either deal with that fact, or ignore that fact, but you can’t change that fact.
Hell of a first post, too.
Considering that I created the one by substituting the word “white” for “black”, I am afraid I don’t agree - they are more than comparable, they are practically identical.
Sorry to disagree with you, since I always read what you say with interest, but simply trying to exclude black racism by definition just doesn’t fly. Excusing bigoted behavior because the bigot is black infantilizes blacks. The implication is that one can’t expect “those people” to behave like civilized adults.
Won’t work. If you want to be treated like an equal, then you will be treated like an equal in all respects.
Sorry to snip most of your post, but you are saying that you will make assumptions about “white churches” that you won’t about Black ones. Based, apparently, on the color of their skin. That’s a pity.
Regards,
Shodan
Obama grew uo in Hawaii. he only lived in Indonesia for 4 years (from the ages of 6-10). The vast bulk of his childhood was spent in Honolulu.
I’ve never heard Barack Obama try to identify himself as part of the black culture of slave descendants. Have you? He has always been perceived as black by other white Americans, so his actual experience is that of a “black man.” His genetic heritage was not visible to strangers. Even so, I’ve never heard him try to identify himself as a conventional part of the black community or as having tht shared history and heritage. He says in his books that he felt accepted by the black community, which is a different thing.
I’ve also never heard Barack Obama say a damn thing about “Black Power” or “Black Pride” or the like. Have you?
No they aren’t. As I’ve patiently tried to explain, comparing “black” to 'white" is like comparing “Australian” to “white.” You’re getting distracted by semantic superficiality. “Black” is a culture in the US. “White” is not. Do you disagree with either of those statements?
It still has yet to be demonstarted that Jeremiah Wright or the Trinity Church have ever expressed any sort of bigoted or racist theology, philosophy or agenda.
Welcome out of hiding, Ryan! Nice to have you on board.
Ryan Since you asked so nicely.
The counterargument is: That’s a lot of academic blather. Clearly a lot of white people are alienated by it. Pointing to historical inequalities doesn’t really change the fact that here and now, such divisive rhetoric is alienating people on racial boundaries. The rhetoric at this point is a whole lot of talking past each other, both sides accusing each other of racism, and trying to argue why their position is justified and the other guy’s isn’t. Either we take Obama at face value and recognize that racial division at this point comes from all sides, or we play Victocracy until we’re all dead and finally a generation is born that is bored to tears by such anachronism.
The old, “That other guy’s opinion is invalid because he’s on the other side of the debate.”, tripe doesn’t cut it with me anymore. Yes, I recognize that things are borne of different historical legacies, but at its core Black Nationalism is a separatist movement based on ethnic lines. So either we make an argument for the validity of such ethnocentrism, or we try and dismantle it in favor of greater dialogue. You can’t have it both ways. Trying to argue about historical conditions in churches and universities justifying one’s position, and therefore such ethnocentrism isn’t racist, but being sensitive to it is, is just empty rhetoric, worth no more than a rolleyes smiley.
But only because you asked nicely.
Not on the color of their skin. On their history in this country.
Let’s try this more slowly…
Historically, black churches are not black because black people didn’t allow white people to attend them.
Historically, black churches are black because white people wouldn’t allow black people to attend white churches, forcing them to form their own churches.
See the lack of reciprocity here? Does that mean anything to you?
Historically, black colleges are not black because black people didn’t allow white people to attend them.
Historically, black colleges are black because white people didn’t allow black people to attend white colleges, forcing them to form their own colleges.
Look! Lack of reciprocity!
The situations are not the same. The situations are different. Historically, you don’t have a wooden leg to stand on, whether it’s white birch or ebony.
I have a question - do you consider Mr. Obama to be ethnically “Black”?
That’s crap. You cannot ignore the history and try to force people to start with a clean slate. Nobody’s slate is clean. Ignoring the history is equivalent to sticking your head in the sand and hiding from the problem, then complaining that the other side doesn’t really WANT a solution.
I’m not excusing black racism. I’m excusing black-only institutions.
Black churches and colleges were not founded because of black racism against white people. They were founded because of white racism against black people. You know it. I know it. The American people know it.
I will make assumptions about historically white churches that I won’t make about historically black churches because I’m aware of the history of race relations in our country over the last few hundred years.
Those interested might want to look at Paul Finkelman’s book Slavery and the Founders. In it he argues that Jefferson hated slavery because he suffered from “negrophobia” and believed the institution would make whites accustomed to being tyrannical, was afraid of a slave revolt similar to what happened in Haiti, and didn’t want what he saw as a group of inferior people to be brought into his newly formed Republic to mingle with whites.
Hated slavery? The man sponsored laws that would force free blacks out of Virginia, to make it illegal for freed blacks from other states to enter Virginia, and banishing white women who gave birth to mulattos. Not only was he a racist but he was a hypocrite.
Marc