Inauguration of the New President

But a discussion shouldnt be moved because it was stemmed from an earlier discussion. It has validity in this thread. And now we're getting off-topic arguing on whether it should be moved. ARGH!
[br][/br]
Edit:
[br][/br]
I have to say this thread really is proving racism is alive but now its trying to hide itself under a banner of tolerance and a utopian picture of the future.
No one ever disputed that racism wasn't alive.
 
I think your comment proved that racism was alive. I was out of it until you said that white people were wrong. "don't think ANY white person has a right to argue an 'us and them' mindset after what white people have done, and still continue to do." That is racism, and it is on YOUR part. So again, EB, is labeling. You really like those dont you?

Yes, I do like labels - but thats a different topic.

I said that White people don't really have the right to be offended by any of this because its the history of white people that has us all in this terrible place.
For white people to be offended is just plain ridiculous because of that simple truth.

Now, one last time, this is for another thread.
[br][/br]
Edit:
[br][/br]
But a discussion shouldnt be moved because it was stemmed from an earlier discussion. It has validity in this thread. And now we're getting off-topic arguing on whether it should be moved. ARGH!

Erm, do you read threads on BB?
Often conversations take tangents that are related to the initial topic but are actually off topic, in those situations a MOD will step in and request we get back on topic and if we wish to discuss the other thing start a new topic.

Racism is part of the implications of Barack Obama and the presidency however it has nothing to do with Barack Obama's inauguration.
 
I said that White people don't really have the right to be offended by any of this because its the history of white people that has us all in this terrible place.
For white people to be offended is just plain ridiculous because of that simple truth.
No, that is not what you said.
" (i) don't think ANY white person has a right to argue an 'us and them' mindset after what white people have done, and still continue to do."

You did not mention anything about being offended by a comment, you mentioned we are not allowed to bridge the gap because "what white people have done, and still continue to do"
 
I saw some of it when I got home from work, looked pretty cool. So many people, what an atmosphere!

*tip-toes away from the arguing*
 
Cohen
Cohen
[No message]
No, that is not what you said.
" (i) don't think ANY white person has a right to argue an 'us and them' mindset after what white people have done, and still continue to do."

You did not mention anything about being offended by a comment, you mentioned we are not allowed to bridge the gap because "what white people have done, and still continue to do"

Offence was implied, if you didn't read it then fair enough.

However, my entire stance is that white people don't have the right to be offended because they can't use a word they pushed onto a people in order to hold them back and bring them down.
White people don't have the right to try and stop black people from using it, when they are in the process of reclaiming it and making it into something positive for them.



Which is one VERY big reason he freakin got elected! And thus is being inaugurated, so yeah, it kinda has something to do with the inauguration.

No, the inauguration is an event not the political implications.
 
But we all receive the same opportunities. And I will say that again and again.

One of the things that got me today was after the inauguration when a black kid said "We are now able to see ourselves becoming lawyers, doctors, and the president." But they have the same opportunities that we have. Actually, they have more opportunities because they get a LOT more money to go on to school to become doctors and lawyers and politicians because they are "minority students". But they don't take those opportunities.

No, some of them don't, but a lot do. You're right, they have the same opportunities as anyone else, and there are MANY black lawyers, doctors, politicians, street sweepers, etc., so I don't see how the election of a black President has suddenly opened all these vistas of opportunity. That's crap.

I do believe Pres. Obama struck a chord with his comments about the sacrifices our ancestors made that brought us to this point. If it hadn't been for the hardships that faced black people 50 years ago that brought on the civil rights movement in the first place, and those brave men and women that spoke out against injustice (and risked thier lives and thier families in the process), we wouldn't be standing where we are today, with a newly sworn in black President. They envisioned a better future and I think there IS one now. By no means are things ideal, because we're human. It's sad, but I think we'll always be like this, Us vs. Them.
 
However, my entire stance is that white people don't have the right to be offended because they can't use a word they pushed onto a people in order to hold them back and bring them down.
White people don't have the right to try and stop black people from using it, when they are in the process of reclaiming it and making it into something positive for them.
Dude, you are just adding and adding. Trying to fatten your answer so you do not appear to be a racist.

" (i) don't think ANY white person has a right to argue an 'us and them' mindset after what white people have done, and still continue to do."

That is a racist line.. I never once mentioned 'not allowing' the use of the word. I never said there were not reasons for the word. I said the word separates us.. In your mind, by that statement, ALL white people are wrong and we should not complain that there is a difference between races.
 
Personally I the discussion is valid while it remains civil.

And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright's sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning. That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.


In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience - as far as they're concerned, no one's handed them anything, they've built it from scratch. They've worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they're told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.


Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren't always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.


Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze - a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns - this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.

Obama Race Speech: Read The Full Text

This speech says everything for me, above is just a section.

Personally I can see both sides and the validity of each point. What I will say is this, it is impossible to take away the hurt and the anger felt bu oppressed people. That is a pain that does not fade away and marks those people for generations. Slavery is one of those marks and it has branded both sides whether you personally took part or not. The Black community are just as entitled to feel aggreived by their history as white people are. Each side needs to acknowledge the others pain.
 
Dude, you are just adding and adding. Trying to fatten your answer so you do not appear to be a racist.

" (i) don't think ANY white person has a right to argue an 'us and them' mindset after what white people have done, and still continue to do."

That is a racist line.. I never once mentioned 'not allowing' the use of the word. I never said there were not reasons for the word. I said the word separates us.. In your mind, by that statement, ALL white people are wrong and we should not complain that there is a difference between races.

Yup you got me.

I am a racist. I have tried to hide that fact by supporting the ability of the black community to do what it requires to actually get itself up to an equal footing with the white community.

BUT I digress, don't put things in my mind.

I hve never once said 'all white people are wrong'.
What I have done is say I find it laughable that white folks are takingsome kind of umbrage at the fact they aren't allowed to use a word that the black community is reclaiming and rebranding.
 
Bottom line is we all believe what we're going to believe and nothing's going to change our beliefs. So, if Al wants to think I'm ridiculous for being offended that people are going around shouting "Black Power" or are hypocrites by using "Nigga" or "Crakker", by all means, I'll be ridiculous to him.

And as I said before, I don't mind tasteful celebrating. Go on and celebrate. But it's when the words "black power" are used that it becomes racist and tacky. And yes, by George, I'm offended!
 
Yup you got me.

I am a racist. I have tried to hide that fact by supporting the ability of the black community to do what it requires to actually get itself up to an equal footing with the white community.

BUT I digress, don't put things in my mind.

I hve never once said 'all white people are wrong'.
What I have done is say I find it laughable that white folks are takingsome kind of umbrage at the fact they aren't allowed to use a word that the black community is reclaiming and rebranding.

I have a question. How would you use the word? I mean give me a sentence where using the N word does not sound like the gravest of insults coming from the mouth of a white person?

I mean would you refer to yourself as a cracker?
 
I have a question. How would you use the word? I mean give me a sentence where using the N word does not sound like the gravest of insults coming from the mouth of a white person?
What's Up, my nigga?! (nigga here meaning something along the lines of "man", "friend", etc.)

I mean would you refer to yourself as a cracker?
Hell. No. I'm not bread, nor do I own any slaves.
 
Hell. No. I'm not bread, nor do I own any slaves.

But you would use nigga? See I feel that if you would not use a hateful word to describe a white person like cracker then the same should apply to nigga. If you won't use cracker on the basis that you are not a slave owner then why use nigga when the person you are addressing is not a slave?
 
by supporting the ability of the black community to do what it requires to actually get itself up to an equal footing with the white community.
That is good; but when you bring down the white community by saying there are not "any" white people that have the "right" to argue the use of a word meant to separate us, you arent exactly building equality among races now are you? You are just further defining the differences.

Where did I call you a racist? I did not. Your comment however, was racist.
 
I have a question. How would you use the word? I mean give me a sentence where using the N word does not sound like the gravest of insults coming from the mouth of a white person?

I mean would you refer to yourself as a cracker?

I never would. I wouldn't even use it often on a forum because I that me using that word is very offensive.

I wouldn't refer to myself as 'cracker' either but then I have never been oppressed by a people who use that term to keep me down and I don't feel a need to use that term to make a stand to my oppressors.
 
Quick question - what's a "Crakker" or a Cracker?

Now, when I was 5 or 6 I had a Nigerian step-sister called Masfan. She and her natural parents are, without wanting to sound racist 'as black as the ace of spades'.

Anyway, we were sitting on the garden wall one afternoon when a couple of the local yobs came past and said "Hey, look there's an N word!"
Me, being naturally curious went into the house to ask my Mother what the N word meant and she told me it was a nasty word to describe Masfans colour.
After our evening meal, I took Masfan into our garden shed and painted her from head to toe in pale blue paint and proudly presented her to my flabbergasted parents, announcing that "She's not an N word anymore!"

It took the local hospital three days to get the paint off her - poor girl. I didn't get into trouble for my little stunt thankfully, but got a slight ticking off from the doctor who dealt with her! Three years later her natural parents came back to the UK from Nigeria and took her back home.

No real relevance to the ongoing discussion - just thought I'd throw it in to lighten the mood some.
 
B
Blondie Bear
That is equal parts hilarious and sad.
E
Edmund Blackadder
Commenting on the colour of someones skin is not racist. Making hateful remarks about the colour of someones skin is.
But you would use nigga? See I feel that if you would not use a hateful word to describe a white person like cracker then the same should apply to nigga. If you won't use cracker on the basis that you are not a slave owner then why use nigga when the person you are addressing is not a slave?

No, I personally would not use "nigga", but if i were to, that's how I would use it.

And, if we wanted to get technical, the word was really a noun for "ignorant", so if I wanted to call someone "stupid" and wanted to be harsher, then I could call them a "nigger" because that's what the word means.

Also, some people say there's a difference between "nigger" and "nigga". "Nigger" being the foul word. "Nigga" being the friendly word. And so, why would it not be okay to call someone a "nigga" if it's not really a foul word.
 
That is good; but when you bring down the white community by saying there are not "any" white people that have the "right" to argue to usage of a word meant to separate us, you arent exactly building equality among races now are you? You are just further defining the differences.

Where did I call you a racist? I did not. Your comment however, was racist.

A white person has no right to argue the usage.

That is not racism, thats just plain common sense.

After centuries of the white folks using this word to oppress people, then the black folks taking that word and trying to change its meaning to a more familial tone, but for their community, then the white folks who DO argue it are doing so because it is a blemish on their history.
We don't want to be reminded of why we're in the state we are now, we want to ignore it and carry on.
The thing is, we have to face up to our past indiscretions and this words is a big one.
 
Back
Top Bottom