Displaying 17,491 To 17,520 Of 19,504 Comments So I gather the “straw man” aspect was the only comment you disagreed with in my post? » Posted By AdLib On January 11, 2010 @ 11:03 am Nellie, it still is a racist word, whoever uses it, even in rap. What’s unique is that black people used the strategy of taking back the word to overwrite the racism behind it. To a degree, it succeeded but to a degree, it failed. Black people still use the word to refer to other black people as ignorant and inferior. So, though it’s use in rap and socially among black people can have a positive application, the word never stops being a racist term, referring to race in every usage. » Posted By AdLib On January 11, 2010 @ 10:58 am Kev, I thought you didn’t like straw men? Negro spiritual refers to music. Yes, it has the word “negro” in it as the NAACP has the words “colored people” in it. These are both anachronisms, they are terms that come for the past and are no longer used today because they are recognized as racist terms. There are many racist terms used for Native Americans, Jews, Blacks, Irish, Italian, etc. which still float around in society because in the past they were used freely when prejudices were instead seen as the way things are. I’m sure you wouldn’t start a support group for black people in 2010 using the term “negro” because you would find it racist. » Posted By AdLib On January 11, 2010 @ 10:53 am How about this proposition, if an elderly grandmother type says, “He’s a nice (N-Word),” is the N-Word not a racist term simply because she’s oblivious to how that word is perceived? Your proposition seems to be that one’s intent or awareness makes a word racist or not. My proposition is that there are words that are racist and intent or awareness doesn’t change that fact. Intent and awareness as factors do make it more or less offensive and aggressive but they don’t negate the racism that certain words necessarily reflect. » Posted By AdLib On January 11, 2010 @ 10:44 am Agreed, Reid is never going to unplug that circuit in his head. However, I have not been on Reid’s back on this, I have been having a discussion about the use of the word “Negro” and the passive racism it represents and betrays about some Mormons/Utah residents and many in our country and society. If you reread my comments, you’ll see that aside from my last one, I don’t mention Reid other than to note that he said it. » Posted By AdLib On January 11, 2010 @ 10:34 am Unfortunately you’re right, people in government have no doubt called black people far worse things this year alone. What I feel some people here aren’t getting is that we can’t make it okay for anyone to use hurtful, racist words even if it’s people in our own party and even if it was not said with the awareness that it was racist. People who are not in a minority sometimes have difficulty relating to how damaging and hurtful things like this are. As you can imagine, it’s no solace to black people who have been offended by this to be told, “You shouldn’t be so upset, it’s not as bad as calling you the N-Word.” Any racist term is insulting if you are a member of the group being referred to and no one should have to patiently endure public statements using racism just because there are far worse insults they could have been called. » Posted By AdLib On January 11, 2010 @ 10:25 am I pretty much agree with this comment of yours in full. I too do not believe Reid had any intention of ill will behind his remarks…which we agree were racist in their nature and offended black people. Intention, however, doesn’t change that a term is racial, agreed? It has everything to do with why that term was used and whether it was used to hurt or attack. But calling someone a name that is racist, hurts people whether or not the speaker is oblivious to that. Ultimately, I want Reid out because of his spinelessness and status quo mentality but this adds to my feeling that the Dems would be better off with a leader who is smarter, younger and more connected to where we are as a society. » Posted By AdLib On January 11, 2010 @ 10:19 am Keven, if anyone knows, you know that I don’t play games like setting up straw men, you were unclear and I didn’t understand you. I think I understand you better now and I find myself in total disagreement with you on this. You appear to present a personal definition of “racism” that is only applicable to aggressive or hostile racism. You seem to be saying that passive racism should not be referred to as “racism”. You seem to be arguing that it is more important to make the term “racism” as repugnant a label as possible by only using it on those who are most repugnant instead of applying it to all degrees of racism. This is not a straw man, this is what it seems that you’re saying. I think that approach is a mistake because it excuses the ambiance of racism that is and has been prolific through our society. I do not think this should become a massive event, though in my mind it is racist to use the word “Negro” for black people in this day and age, Reid was not expressing it to intentionally express racism or negativity towards black. What you and I apparently will have to agree to disagree on is that passive racism and aggressive racism are both forms of racism and should both be called “racism”. » Posted By AdLib On January 11, 2010 @ 10:08 am Let’s be realistic, the Dem machine is of course going to present prominent black Dems to defuse this. Who would expect them to have their faithful come out and join arms with the GOP? As I have said, none of this changes that Reid exposed his passive racism. Is the penalty for this exposure of it being dogpiled on by the Dem Party? Nope, they’re behind him. And I don’t dispute or disagree with Brazile’s point that people should be judged on their actions more than their words. If one did so, one would likely conclude that Reid is generally supportive of issues and causes that benefit black people but he does have some passive racism within him as well. » Posted By AdLib On January 11, 2010 @ 9:53 am Kev, I really think you are totally missing the boat on this. When you reprocess the actual language of someone then address the reprocessed language, you are setting up an alternate reality. He said “Negro” which is insulting to many black people, whether those who aren’t black agree with that or not. That’s the focal point of all of this and rewording his actual statement doesn’t unring that bell. » Posted By AdLib On January 11, 2010 @ 9:47 am Racism isn’t racism because people on both sides of a divide can be racist? Don’t understand this double-negative proposal. » Posted By AdLib On January 11, 2010 @ 9:42 am Indeed, and all roles of black people in movies in that era. How about another beloved role, Mammy in “Gone With The Wind”? And the black female character Prissy who says, “Lawzy, we got to have a doctor. I don’t know nothin’ ’bout birthin’ babies. » Posted By AdLib On January 11, 2010 @ 9:18 am Disagree, see my post above. Define “racism”, is it not all cases of using race to delineate others? Race – ism? » Posted By AdLib On January 11, 2010 @ 9:13 am If I may, I think sharing an understanding on the application of the word “racism” is important. Nellie gave a perfect explanation of it below, allow me to show her superior approach to this through comparison. There are different degrees of racism, from the passive and oblivious reliance on definitions and stereotypes as taught to people since they were children to the fierce and hostile racism of Klan and Teabaggers. That is to say, kindly old grandmothers or grandfathers (like Reid) who likely have no ill will towards others due to race, can still be racist. That is, they apply different standards and expectations to others based on race. Being racist does not mean hating people. This is where I see the biggest disconnect on this. One can exhibit prejudice without being hateful. For example, would Reid ever make a comment about a white person speaking well in comparison to poorly educated white people? As everyone here can confirm, there are white people, in the South for example, who speak very poorly and give off the impression through it that they are ignorant. Yet, it is black people who are the usual recipient of compliments that they speak better than others of their race. As for older generations expressing themselves as Reid did, they are products of their era and society…which had racism firmly entrenched in it. If a child was to grow up apart from black people as many did in America, see jokes in films and cartoons about blackface, see black people portrayed only as grateful and faithful servants, see black people act subserviently to white people in public, it is not surprising that they could grow up to be kind and thoughtful people who have such perceptions ingrained in their minds. None of this changes the pain someone feels who has to experience that racism, it doesn’t make it feel better to be called or have the race one belongs to referred to publicly and in the media with a disrespectful and hurtful name. Imagine a Dem politician noting how impressed he is at the generosity of a Jew. Or the sober demeanor of someone who was Irish. Racism does not mean hatred. It is prejudice…pre + judge. And though Reid should not be treated the same as someone who hates black people, he did need to apologize and does deserve to be taken to task for, as one of the highest ranking politicians in this nation, displaying casual and oblivious racism. » Posted By AdLib On January 11, 2010 @ 9:05 am Nellie, you hit the bulls eye here. These two parts of your comment were the most instructive about passive racism for me: It » Posted By AdLib On January 11, 2010 @ 8:24 am Well…people bought into Reagan, didn’t they? » Posted By AdLib On January 10, 2010 @ 11:40 pm Odd, I had a similar situation with my Great Aunt who also ended up with Alzheimer’s. They were from an era where, just looking at the movies of the day, passive and active racism was taken as the way things are. It’s an explanation, not an excuse. Yep, the complimenting of blacks or Jews or Latinos or whatever as showing traits that are good enough to be in white people, is a way such people acted and still act…they genuinely think they’re giving a generous compliment. They don’t “get” that a compliment based on a non-white person being nice enough not to be compared to their own race but to white people is degrading and racist. And such people can be the sweetest, most unassuming and most pleasant people in every other way. They’re not haters, they’ve just been taught that there is a class system to races with white people at the top and accepted it. » Posted By AdLib On January 10, 2010 @ 11:39 pm That’s enough to put a crease in your Magic Underwear. » Posted By AdLib On January 10, 2010 @ 11:28 pm There is a passive, non-hostile form of racism where people don’t even realize that they think in ways that are racist. Calling someone black or the black community “Negro” in 2010 is ignorant and oblivious to racism. Does Reid look down on or hate black people? I doubt it but he is a product of his environment which includes his upbringing as a Mormon. Now just because someone is Mormon, they certainly are not automatically racist or hateful towards non-whites. At the same time, there is no secret about how racism was integrated into Utah and the Mormon religion nor how they removed their institutionalized racism only after the passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1968 which posed severe trouble for them and Utah if they didn’t. In fact, the Mormon Church did not reverse their racist policies fully until 1978! And only then did so in order to spread Mormonism around the world to become bigger and more powerful…not because of conscience. From Wikipedia: LDS church president Spencer W. Kimball (president 1973 – 1985) took general conference on the road, holding area and regional conferences all over the world. He also announced many new temples to be built both in the United States and abroad, including one at temple in S » Posted By AdLib On January 10, 2010 @ 10:55 pm Emails From PlanetPOV Are Now Twice Daily Back at ya! » Posted By AdLib On January 10, 2010 @ 8:49 pm Cheers, my friend! » Posted By AdLib On January 9, 2010 @ 7:06 pm No, I usually get emails from them. Hmm…will look into it. What’s the gist (do you wont to post it here)? » Posted By AdLib On January 9, 2010 @ 7:05 pm Isn’t Shanghai the most updated and modern of the cities in China (not including Hong Kong)? Have been to Beijing which was an eye opening experience. My first big surprise came as we were driving into town from the airport…billboards on either side of the highway advertising all kinds of things and businesses! In communist China? It immediately broke preconceptions for me. I found the people very nice though, like in other repressive regimes, they did not express their dissatisfaction about their country in public but in private, many would indeed prefer a more open and pro democratic country. » Posted By AdLib On January 9, 2010 @ 7:14 pm As for community banking and credit unions, right with you! As far as any country changing the dynamics of the global financial system through politics, I am not too optimistic. We are mired in a structure that all parties want to keep in one way or another. Not saying Obama or individuals want them but the financial powers that be want them. The status quo of financial entities and corporations (including the Military Industrial Complex) want as much money spent as possible by the government each year to put in their pockets in the form of contracts, grants, pork, etc. The Chinese relish the power and leverage they have over the U.S. as their “landlord”. It is critical that we try to work towards self-sufficiency once we deficit-spend our way out of this depression/recession. That is the real threat to America, much more than underwear. » Posted By AdLib On January 9, 2010 @ 6:05 pm “He Who Dies With The Most Derivatives Wins”? The problem with getting corporations to go to India is that they’re not as cheap as China because they actually are realizing a growing standard of living and (relatively speaking) middle class. As you describe, China has a select amount of people who are millionaires and billionaires while the majority of the nation lives in deprivation…and will work for next to nothing. I agree, we would be so much better off, even if profit margins were somewhat less, if our key financial strategic partner was India instead of China. » Posted By AdLib On January 9, 2010 @ 3:51 pm The problem with the way the dynamics have changed is that there is nothing the U.S. could do to help China, China is the one helping the U.S.. Think of it this way, the U.S. is now in the position of being a child who comes to its parent, China for its allowance (to deficit spend). One day, China pulls out empty pockets and says, “Sorry, I don’t have enough to pay my own rent.” What can the U.S. do? It’s dependent on China for its money. The sad thing is, if China was to fall, we would have nowhere to turn for the amount this nation needs to operate every day. Then what? » Posted By AdLib On January 9, 2010 @ 3:35 pm Vox Populi AfterChat – 1-08-10 Huh? Who said he lied? » Posted By AdLib On January 8, 2010 @ 11:33 pm Appreciate your POV on this but as you noted, I look at this a bit differently. The Repubs could not impeach, that’s a fact. The House must impeach and the Dems have a huge majority. How could the Repubs be any more obstructionist than they are? No is no, they could say it more times but they vote 100% against everything Obama proposes. The mandate Obama had was powerful, not fragile, he won by a bigger majority than any president in recent memory. And if the filibuster was killed with the nuclear option, the Dems would only need 51 votes in the Senate, they have more than that for a public option and many other bills. I do agree with you that he needed to try bipartisanship but he should have learned from his experience on the stimulus that it was part of the GOP campaign to try and deny him any success. Many of us saw it then and have been pained to see him hit the wall on this again and again. » Posted By AdLib On January 8, 2010 @ 11:31 pm THANKS! I may never get out of the tub! » Posted By AdLib On January 8, 2010 @ 10:00 pm I have been tough on Obama on some issues but I remain a strong supporter. Now may be a good time to review some of his key accomplishments (aside from the STimulus and HCR bills). Here is Politifact’s scorecard on campaign promises Obama has already kept:
No. 15: Create a foreclosure prevention fund for homeowners Check out their site to see many more on that list: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/ » Posted By AdLib On January 8, 2010 @ 9:58 pmComments Posted By AdLib
“?
«« Back To Stats Page
No. 16: Increase minority access to capital
No. 33: Establish a credit card bill of rights
No. 36: Expand loan programs for small businesses
No. 40: Extend and index the 2007 Alternative Minimum Tax patch
No. 58: Expand eligibility for State Children’s Health Insurance Fund (SCHIP)
No. 125: Direct military leaders to end war in Iraq
No. 132: No permanent bases in Iraq
No. 134: Send two additional brigades to Afghanistan
No. 167: Make U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional on anti-terror efforts
No. 174: Give a speech at a major Islamic forum in the first 100 days of his administration
No. 239: Release presidential records
No. 244: Provide affordable, high-quality child care
No. 290: Push for enactment of Matthew Shepard Act, which expands hate crime law to include sexual orientation and other factors
No. 411: Work to overturn Ledbetter vs. Goodyear
No. 513: Reverse restrictions on stem cell research
Home Stats