Jump to content

Recommended Posts

However, I feel no need to cross the street when I see Black Men walking toward me. Why, because I have the advantage of being Black. I mean; I have the advantage of knowing in my heart that it is not the color of a Black Man that makes them rob people. It is other things. You are right when you say that the perception of Black People is negative because of the amount of Black People who are unfortunate enough to come from bad Social and Economic backgroungs. Let's remember; that is not their fault. They didn't pick their parents nor the neighborhood they were raised in. And for the record, I have seen some of these same unfortunate things happen at the grocery store from White People, families, etc. Think about the people we call Red Necks. They are white, but they are ignorant.

 

I think there is an interesting point in here.  You were immediately able to make a distinction about white people of a certain economic status, upbringing, outlook, and behavior with "rednecks".  I for one knew who you meant immediately(1).  Neither you nor Willyboy was able to make that quick linguistic distinction regarding black people, and I doubt one would be able to within the bounds of socially acceptable discourse.  Instead you had to pull out these other factors and list them.  I would guess Willyboy also noticed and was implying these factors when he discussed the "sidewalk crossing dilemna", though I can't speak for him in this regard. Certainly most white folks that I know are capable of making that distinction in their minds, even without the advantage of being black.  It's almost a truism that "white people see black people as a monolithic group".  I don't think that is actually true of most white people these days. I do think that our language as it currently stands doesn't allow for easy distinctions of different classes of black folk.(2)  Anyway, that's my input on this. (3)

 

 

 

(1)  I would note that having a term for a group of people doesn't mean everyone uses it the same, though.  I always understood "redneck" to mean a rural person, probably a farmer.  They may or may not be ignorant, poorly educated, lazy, whatever.  I would have used the term "white trash" for the type of people you meant.  Regardless, I did know who you meant immediately.

 

(2)  Whether or not it is really desirable to do so would be controversial in its own right, and probably so should the use of terms such as "white trash" or "redneck".

 

(3)  I also want credit for being the first poster to use footnotes on this forum.  X=Innovation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone fear for Obama's life? And does anyone feel the Presidential campaign in getting somewhat racial?

 

No, I think he has excellent protection.  Any racial comments are being brought up by Obama, his aides, and the Democrats.  Harry Reid suggested that today when they talked about his relationship with Fannie Mae.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Does he have some invisible forcefield we don't know about? lol

 

I think it's harder for my generation to picture a racially motivated assasination. I've never had to witness anything like that or see it on tv (the assasination of a great minority leader). I'm confident something like that wouldn't happen, I mean I wasn't there in the 60s but I can't imagine there being rallys in that time period where people would hold up signs saying "REDNECKS IN SUPPORT OF MLK" or "REDNECKS FOR EQUAL RIGHTS" the way they have made signs for Obama. I think signs like that are a strong visual statement about how society has changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Presidents have much better protection than in the '80s when Regan was shot. I mean really, somebody would have killed Bush by now if they could.

 

How does that work? Secret service keeps an eye out for snipers? I'm curious what precautionary measures they take. I wonder if their sunglasses have zoom and xray or some other crazy features.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Secret service usually has snipers of their own in high places.  I saw Clinton speak at OSU years ago.  He was at the High St end of the oval and they had guys perched on the library roof.  Those were just the ones I saw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Presidents have much better protection than in the '80s when Regan was shot. I mean really, somebody would have killed Bush by now if they could.

 

How does that work? Secret service keeps an eye out for snipers? I'm curious what precautionary measures they take. I wonder if their sunglasses have zoom and xray or some other crazy features.

 

It's insane. We've had many presidents, heads of state, elected officials, etc. at our buildings and Secret Service and or that individuals security detail is very strict.

 

Every situation is different, due to location, but in my experience, Security Service (in conjunction with local law officials) usually contacts you a 48 hrs - 72 hrs before hand.  SS usually meets with the security detail at each location the "individual" visits.

 

There are usually security sweeps and a "check/balance" (I can't remember the term they use) for route planning.  There are agents along the route in buildings, on the street, in cars, roof tops, etc.  It's quite a coordinated dance between multiple agencies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I once helped manufacture safe-route identification materials for Treasury.  Without going into their appearace, the specs were very exacting. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. I knew they had security but I didn't know every route was strategically planned like that, especially for ex presidents and first ladies (just looked it up). They must use some sophisticated GIS data. I  guess you can't expect people to end their grudge.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. I knew they had security but I didn't know every route was strategically planned like that, especially for ex presidents and first ladies (just looked it up). They must use some sophisticated GIS data. I  guess you can't expect people to end their grudge.

 

It's crazy, you can't imagine.  I've been to some high profile buildings in DC for meetings and the pre-security screening and detail is nerveracking.

 

One of my ex staffers works for an ex president and just getting into the building is a nightmare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an ex-Air Force Titan II Launch Crew Member (Ground Hog), I know how tight security can be. This was in the early 80's, so I can imagine the advancements in technology, etc. However, I am a firm believer that if someone smart and rich enough or simply rich enough to hire someone smart, it is extremely difficult to stop them from killing a person, even The President. There are too many ways to anticipate and technology is so advanced. From my understanding, Snipers can hit a target from up to 2 miles away, now. Bombs and chemicals can come in all forms, shapes and sizes. Poisons can be administered through the air, skin, food, drink, etc.

 

If there was an organized effort by some hate group with undercover members of America's rich and/or well connected, I think a well planned attack wold be difficult to stop.

 

Oh, and don't forget, my question was more so on the subject of this thread: Has America changed that much from the 60's. In my opinon, it has, but there are still enough organized hate groups out there that could feel threatened enough to make an effort. If they are rich enough and connected enough, they could make a serious effort. Some have already been calling him Obama Benlodin (Excuse me if I mispelled his name, he doesn't deserve it spelled right, anyway).

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also posted this at the presidential election thread......

 

Any time a minority has broken through a barrier, there's been a backlash like this. Obama is breaking through one of the biggest -- president of the United States -- for the first time in 225 years.

 

As much as it pains me to see/hear all of this, I'm afraid this ugliness is necessary. We've swept race under the rug for the past 40 years. Now all the stuff that some people don't talk about it in public are starting to talk about it when confronted why they won't vote for Obama. It's ugly to see/hear, but necessary if we are to address the ignorance which is ultimately what racism is all about.


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This goes back to the comments earlier about the use of the n-word. im a 22 year old white male who takes extreme offense to that word, and if i do hear it being used i will say something to whoever is saying it.

I was on the e line trolley sometime last year standing at the front of the bus, i got on in front of the urban affairs building at csu, and a group of 6 or 7 black high school kids, boys and girls, were in the very back row of seats using the n word and f bomb with every other word that came out of their mouths. As soon as we passed east ninth street the bus driver, a middle aged black male, stopped the bus and started yelling at these kids for a good few minutes to watch their mouths, and if they knew anything about the history and the strength of the n word then they would not be saying it. He said he was not gonna tolerate the ignorance of uneducated people throwing that word out there like it was nothing, and if he heard it again he would call the rta police and have them deal with the kids. Pretty much every other person on the bus was extremely proud of the driver for saying what he did and how he said it 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whats sad is Pauly Shore is so washed up that the "racial rant" youtube leak didn't even get any attention to where it could adequately fool a large number of people lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can one be "washed up" if one never had it to begin with? 

 

The only reason Pauly Shore ever had a career in what in his case is charitably called "comedy" is his mother ran one of the more influential comedy clubs in LA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dude, Pauly Shore looks BAD. I wonder what kind of drugs he does? And honestly, doing something like that for a publicity stunt shows just how desperate he is for attention.

 

I feel the same way about Nicolas Cage (imo terrible actor) riding his uncle's coattails (Francis Ford Coppola).

 

I thought that until I saw "Adaptation." It's pretty effective acting, though the movie is more depressing than funny.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Nicolas Cage is a pretty good actor. Is he a racist? As far as Pauly Shore. F that B. That was in poor taste, even for a publicity stunt. I think he's trying to convince himself that he's not a racist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are whites racially oppressed? (Commentary)

 

t1largwhite.gi..jpg

White marchers gather at Glenn Beck rally this summer. Were they driven by racial fears or patriotic sentiment?

 

They marched on Washington to reclaim civil rights. They complained of voter intimidation at the polls. They called for ethnic studies programs to promote racial pride. They are, some say, the new face of racial oppression in this nation -- and their faces are white. "We went from being a privileged group to all of a sudden becoming whites, the new victims,'' says Charles Gallagher, a sociologist at La Salle University in Pennsylvania who researches white racial attitudes and was baffled to find that whites see themselves as a minority.

 

"You have this perception out there that whites are no longer in control or the majority. Whites are the new minority group." Call it racial jujitsu: A growing number of white Americans are acting like a racially oppressed majority. They are adopting the language and protest tactics of an embattled minority group, scholars and commentators say.

 

They point to these signs of racial anxiety:

 

• A recent Public Religion Research Institute poll found 44% of Americans surveyed identify discrimination against whites as being just as big as bigotry aimed at blacks and other minorities. The poll found 61% of those identifying with the Tea Party held that view, as did 56% of Republicans and 57% of white evangelicals.

 

• More colleges are offering courses in "Whiteness Studies" as white Americans cope with becoming what one commentator calls a "dispossessed majority group."

 

• A Texas group recently formed the "Former Majority Association for Equality" to offer college scholarships to needy white men. Colby Bohannan, the group's president, says white men don't have scholarship options available to minorities. "White males are definitely not a majority" anymore, he says.

 

• U.S. Census Bureau projections that whites will become a minority by 2050 are fueling fears that whiteness no longer represents the norm. This fear has been compounded by the recent recession, which hit whites hard.

You have this perception out there that whites are no longer in control or the majority. --Charles Gallagher, sociologist

 

• Conservative talk-show host Rush Limbaugh argued in a radio show that Republicans are an "oppressed minority" in need of a "civil rights movement" because its members willingly sit in the "back of the bus" and "are afraid of the fire hoses and the dogs."

 

• Fox talk-show host Glenn Beck led a march on Washington (attended primarily by white people) to "restore honor," and once called President Obama a racist with a "deep-seated hatred for white people and white culture." He later said he regretted making that comment.

 

hdr-globe-west.gif

 

More below:

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/12/21/white.persecution/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn


"You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Video of Violent, Rioting Surfers Shows White Culture of Lawlessness

CORD JEFFERSON

Yesterday 7:52pm

 

A frightening and violent mob swept through the normally quiet seaside community of Huntington Beach last night following a surfing competition in the area. Businesses were vandalized and looted, portable toilets overturned, and brutal fistfights waged right out in the open. It was an ugly display and a sad day for California. But more than that, it was a reminder that we must begin to seriously consider the values of our thuggish white youth.

 

Many people don't want to hear this kind of tough love, of course. They'd like to bury their heads in the sand and pretend that all white children are as sweet and harmless as Taylor Swift. But the reality is that the statistics tell a different story. For instance, according to research from the Department of Justice, 84 percent of white murder victims are killed by other white people [PDF]. Similarly, white rape victims tend to be raped by other whites [PDF]. White-on-white violence is a menace to white communities across the country, and yet you never hear white leaders like Pastor Joel Osteen, Bill O'Reilly, or Hillary Clinton take a firm stance against the scourge.

 

...

 

http://gawker.com/video-of-violent-rioting-surfers-shows-white-culture-o-954939719

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember watching clips of the Cincinnati "riots" in 2001 & thinking, "looks like college kids on spring break"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

white leaders like Pastor Joel Osteen, Bill O'Reilly, or Hillary Clinton

 

Those are our leaders? They forgot Casey Kasem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trash, just trash.  Granted all people filmed were not white. I can't be sure, but some of those people look Latino.

 

OC is like this.  It a hot bed of white racists.  Many feel like they can do anything and will get away with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That video had nothing to do with racism, total red herring.

 

Then you missed the entire point of this article.  It's about racism and elitism.

 

Question, have you ever spent any significant time in the OC?

 

If you did you would understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That video had nothing to do with racism, total red herring.

 

Kind of like the Glenn Beck rally pictured above.....

 

Seriously though, that was the author's point..... at least that it had nothing to do with RACE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get why Californians are so wound up.  They seem to just look for a reason to riot.

the unbeatable high

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah yes, Riot was the first Dead Kennedys song I ever heard.  I heard it on WAIF 88.3FM when I was about 14 years old.  It was and still is a totally thrilling song -- parents would inevitably think the song was encouraging teenagers to riot, when in fact it was warning you not to do so...that political riots were all set-ups designed to benefit somebody. 

 

As for the FOX interview -- you have to wonder again if this was a setup since the existence of a book about Jesus written by a Muslim will provide endless fuel for FOX and the talk radio machine.  It's just like Obama's books -- everybody was suspicious of them even though they never read them. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Clash did a song called "White Riot"....(after seeing a doc on Joe Strummer, what a poser he was....not convinced...)

 

White riot - I wanna riot

White riot - a riot of my own

White riot - I wanna riot

White riot - a riot of my own

 

Black man gotta lot a problems

But they don't mind throwing a brick

White people go to school

Where they teach you how to be thick

 

An' everybody's doing

Just what they're told to

An' nobody wants

To go to jail!

 

White riot - I wanna riot

White riot - a riot of my own

White riot - I wanna riot

White riot - a riot of my own

All the power's in the hands

Of people rich enough to buy it

 

While we walk the street

Too chicken to even try it

 

Everybody's doing

Just what they're told to

Nobody wants

To go to jail!

 

White riot - I wanna riot

White riot - a riot of my own

White riot - I wanna riot

White riot - a riot of my own

 

Are you taking over

Or are you taking orders?

Are you going backwards

Or are you going forwards?

 

White riot - I wanna riot

White riot - a riot of my own

White riot - I wanna riot

White riot - a riot of my own

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I loved this take on the Fox interview:

 

"At no point does Fox News realize the irony of persecuting someone over their religion in a discussion about Jesus."

 

-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I loved this take on the Fox interview:

 

"At no point does Fox News realize the irony of persecuting someone over their religion in a discussion about Jesus."

 

-

 

SIMPSONSFOXNEWS_zps320e5a74.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure why this is in the Racism discussion. It really should be re-assigned to the "Post Your Worst Example of an Interview with the Most Pompous, Arrogant Blowhard Ever to Emerge From Academia" thread.  :laugh:

 

I've seen other interviews with him and he doesn't constantly rattle off his qualifications. Given the circumstances, I think it was appropriate. Though in that situation I think I would have been more humble, so I kind of see your point. But, really, think about how she was trying to discredit him, and why she was wrong to do so -- she persistently brought up his faith, so he persistently shot back with his credentials. She's the one who wouldn't let the point go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh.... I had thought EVD was talking about the interviewer.  I forgot how he felt about those elitist smart people.

 

Personally, I thought the interviewee masterfully maintained his cool.  She certainly would've caught much more of a tongue lashing from me.  I would say his respectful tone in the face of such blatant ignorance in no way demonstrated a pompous, arrogant attitude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but you know black people do have special powers :mrgreen:

 

null_zpsd9a1c93d.jpg

 

 

They can vomit up their pizza slices whole?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure why this is in the Racism discussion. It really should be re-assigned to the "Post Your Worst Example of an Interview with the Most Pompous, Arrogant Blowhard Ever to Emerge From Academia" thread.  :laugh:

 

I've seen other interviews with him and he doesn't constantly rattle off his qualifications. Given the circumstances, I think it was appropriate. Though in that situation I think I would have been more humble, so I kind of see your point. But, really, think about how she was trying to discredit him, and why she was wrong to do so -- she persistently brought up his faith, so he persistently shot back with his credentials. She's the one who wouldn't let the point go.

amidst all the hoopla about the now infamous Fox interview, a little detail must have gotten lost in the shuffle: Reza Aslan's "scholarly" credentials seem to fall short of what one would seem to expect from someone making such grandiose claims--he teaches creative writing! As unprepared as Lauren Green was in discussing the book, I'd say the author's qualifications to have written it are on par with her's. Let's call it a wash.

 

from a review in yesterday's NY Times re Reza Aslan:

 

"Some of Mr. Aslan’s other claims are just speculations with no supporting evidence, more at home in fiction than in scholarship — for example, that Jesus spent at least 10 years living and working in the city of Sepphoris.

 

By profession, Mr. Aslan is not a scholar of ancient Judaism or Christianity. He teaches creative writing."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Unprepared"??  Ha!

 

Let's assume Green was.... ummmmm.... "prepared" to attack this guy's credentials in addition to his audacity writing a book about Jesus despite being a moooooooslem.  She might have looked even more stupider (yeah, that was intentional):

 

THR: The Weekly Standard called you a bully and a martyr and also questioned the veracity of your credentials. Can you respond to that?

 

Aslan: Sure. So what they were saying is that I am neither a historian nor do I have any degrees in the New Testament nor do I teach religion. OK, my degree in religion from Santa Clara University is in the New Testament. That’s what my degree is in. And my minor was in biblical Greek. My master's of theological studies is literally in the topic of the history of religion. It’s also called world religions. My Ph.D. -- and people have no idea how academic disciplines work -- my Ph.D. course work is in the history of religions in an interdisciplinary university. My dissertation, which was on Jihadism as a social movement, was sent to the sociology department. So technically my Ph.D. is in the sociology of religion, which encompasses the history of religion. It also encompasses, by the way, philosophy of religion, anthropology of religion. They are considered the same academic enterprise. I hold a joint position at the University of California Riverside: I am an associate professor of creative writing, but I'm what’s called non-affiliated faculty with the department of religion. I have previously held two full-time academic positions in departments of religion: one at Drew University in New Jersey, one at the University of Iowa. So again, it’s so funny. I can totally understand Glenn Beck going off on this, because that’s what he does. But as I tweeted, I thought Weekly Standard was supposed to be the smart guys in that group. Is there nobody with a Ph.D. at the Weekly Standard? Is there nobody who has ever been to graduate school? Do they not understand how this works? I mean yeah, Glenn Beck is one thing, but come on.

 

It’s funny because the first website that actually launched this attack is called First Things, and they were the first ones to [question] my credentials, et cetera. My dissertation adviser and the chair of my work at UCSB actually wrote back on the site, in the comments, "I'm the person who actually gave him his degree. I can tell you what his degree is in. And he is exactly what he says he is." You would think that would end the matter. The actual person who gave me the degree is saying, "You are wrong." But of course it didn't matter. This is not about facts.

 

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/jesus-biographer-reza-aslan-fox-599770

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^The guy has a bachelors, masters, and PhD in the history of religion / theological studies.  Saying he isn't qualified to write a book on religion because he teaches creative writing is like telling a civil engineer with a professional license that he isn't qualified to design a bridge because he simply teaches mechanics and dynamics. 

 

In other words, it's absurd. 

 

Historians are going to disagree about the details surrounding the life of any figure that lived over 2000 years ago.  It's just part of the process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...