1
   

Negro's Riot

 
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Nov, 2005 10:17 pm
I have never killed a Catholic, nor have I even taken part in a defrocking.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Nov, 2005 10:33 pm
I may be Roger and goodfielder's opposite in that I see too many sides.

Re Lash, we disagree, I'd estimate, on thousands of things, but both think that the other means well, not to count on this but last I heard.

On meaning well, or wishing well, before you'all smush it as pabulum,
that used to be the definition of love in a nodule of observation by Acquinas...

whom I've since come to generally disagree with.
I don't agree with acquinas on much, but I still am mildly interested re that view re love.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Nov, 2005 10:35 pm
And, oh, I used to be very Catholic. Shall I immolate me?
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Nov, 2005 10:41 pm
Lash as minority.

When we last left our heroine, she was being told she wouldn't be hired at the state facility because she was white. I didn't argue with the man. I thought, myself, that I didn't have any problems with black people--a rather naive comment --and it wasn't fair; I was being cheated. And part of me thought he really may have been doing me a favor by refusing to hire me ("for my own good"). Even though I 'liked' blacks, I didn't have a lot in common with them, I thought. I really hated Soul Train and I didn't want to be in the same room with collard greens.

So, I got another job, waiting for the state to unfreeze positions in the other state facilities. But the same place had astronomical turnover and a few months later, I found myself in the office of the Director, rather than his white subordinate, who had run me off months earlier.

This man was very impressive. Penetrating, commanding, and very direct. He said he didn't have confidence in his subordinates and he'd developed a new plan for improving client care...bla, bla, bla.. Anyway, I was cruising through the interview and I knew I had it in the bag, and he said--I have to tell you I'm worried about you here. You know we're 99% black here, and these are rough people. I can't protect you. How do you feel about that?" The Director spoke of the staff in very low terms, and I felt guilty listening. In my unique situation, I heard and saw stuff I imagine very few people did. I learned a lot.

At that point in my life, I thought only whites were capable of racism, (nuts, I know) and as soon as they saw that I wasn't racist, I was sure flowers would bloom around us, animated birds would perch on my shoulder and everything would be great. I was a bit of a paternalist, like most of the people here, who feel blacks need protecting--sheilding from words and phrases and a good portion of life in general...

During my tenure at that facility, I developed too much respect for American blacks to treat them paternalistically--or differently than I would any one else, to the best of my ability. They don't need it. It denotes superiority of the deferential one. I don't mind others having opposing opinions--

Read Alice Walker about Africa, and American blacks re their neo-African affectations. There is rich explication of her short story "Everyday Use," and her own intense lecture series about female genital mutilation---she's a brave, powerful woman. She doesn't hold anyone's coat. She doesn't give a **** what the Berkeley blacks say about her. She criticised the PC view of the new romance of American blacks with Africa, and she was reviled by a lot of people. She didn't condemn it--she just pointed out the warts.

Sometimes, I think, the most respect you can show someone is to disagree with them or challenge the same way you would if they were a man, a white person, a friend, an amalgam of everybody. I think it's disgusting to have a set of responses for every color, sex or sensibility.

Next-- It Was the Best of Times; It Was the Worst of Times...Chapter 5.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Nov, 2005 10:46 pm
osso--

I don't dislike the Catholics. I don't know what dys is doing. So, please don't stick pins in yurself or anything.

And, I always think you mean well.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Nov, 2005 10:55 pm
I may flatter myself that I get dys.

he is both extremely intelligent and gentle.

talk about a cross to bear...

so, I'll be quiet and speak for no one else.
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Nov, 2005 11:54 pm
I like our multicultural society but I'm conscious of my inability really understand people from cultures other than my own. When I was a teenager and a young man I played a lot of sport. Among lots of sports I played soccer (football for those in the UK) for a team in a rural city in my state. The team was Croatia. Now this was years ago when Croatia was still part of Yugoslavia. On the team I think were two Croats. The rest of us were Australian, British, Irish, Scottish, Italian, Greek. We were a Foreign Legion of soccer Very Happy . There were other ethnically based teams we could have played for but we played for Croatia SC because we were all mates at school and we joined up together. None of us thought it was odd.

I worked in the outback for several years. Much of it was spent in an opal mining town that was very multi-cultural. I learned a lot about various cultures there because me and my colleagues were welcomed into people's homes and to their cultural and religious celebrations. Italian, Greek, Serbian, Croatian, Macedonian, Bosnian, French, German, Austrian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Belgian, Dutch, Chinese, Pakistani, American, Spanish - you get the picture - and this at a time when the average Australian though pizza was still a bit strange. I learned a lot but I never learned to see the world through the eyes of others.

I did try Lash.

I even learned a little Greek so that I could greet people properly at Easter (the Orthodox Easter - forgotten the words now) when we were invited to family dinners (we're talking huge groups of people celebrating Easter).

Up until he moved to Perth a few years ago my best mate was Cambodian. He was a survivor who got through the Khmer Rouge period even though he lost his family.

I can try but I'll always be Anglo-Irish me and I'll still see the world from that point of reference. I'll be tolerant - I think I'm reasonably tolerant - but I'll never be able to identify strongly with any other view of the world.

But I still found myself making the odd cultural blunder. It's just that I've given up apologising for it.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Nov, 2005 11:54 pm
lindatw wrote:
SadSadSad Good Grief,Y'all !! Never in my life have I seen such bile and hatred from such a young person. I was just out crusin' the A2k posts,when
I happened on this one. Glad you guys reported Kas to the moderator. Ugh. Baaaaarf!!!


Not to pick specifically on you lindatw but yours is but one of many similar postings that overwhelmed the first few pages of this thread. (and I haven't gotten past the first 5 or 6 yet)

31 pages later and the thread hasn't been locked down because of the original subject matter.

Thank goodness.

It is laughable, and a little bit scary that so many posters felt compelled to inform the moderators of this thread, or endorsed such an action.

What was the horrible offense?

The use of the word "negro?"

The racial implications of the thread?

Assuming the originator is disingenuous about the use of the term "negro," and assuming, even, that he is a racist, so what?

Really, so what?
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Nov, 2005 02:20 am
Now that's an interesting point. The focus on the orignal post has moved away to broader issues - and I think it's been interesting in its shift.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Nov, 2005 06:14 am
<still reading along with interest, these individual stories are cool>
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Nov, 2005 07:53 am
goodfielder--

Do you fault yourself somehow in relations with people from other cultures? From what you've said, I can't see why you would. I know we're all "me-centric," but it appears that you didn't have any hang ups re race.

Were you defending snood, or complaining about your me-centrism? I think you sound great.

Re Finn's remarks-- this is why I showed up. It drives me crazy for words to be removed from use. It's not even like people are (or I am) clamoring to use them--but don't think you've done anyone a real favor by shushing a word. The feeling can still prowl around unspoken--to me, that is far worse. Let them speak--and answer them convincingly--don't run them off to hate more.

This is why some of Germany's laws really blew my socks off. The illegality of denying the Holocaust is shocking, to me.

And, GF. I agree. This has been a pleasant shift.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Nov, 2005 08:01 am
osso--

I was so intrigued by one of your posts--and didn't feel "in your realm" enough to address it--but would you expound a bit on Acquinas's definition of love.

The one Paul (I think Paul) used in the Bible is one I heartily agree with:

Pray for them--(which people may discount as meaningless--but if you are in prayer, asking God, a god, the cosmos, Carl Sagan --to bless someone, to comfort them, to let them feel your peaceful, helpful presence--that orients you to a feeling of goodness toward them...

Say good things about them--(which has a power to reorient YOUR feelings about them, you are "practicing" love, maybe before you FEEL it...)

OK, I can't believe I've forgotten the last one. Do you know it, osso? I think it's do good things for them.

Anyway, it has nothing to do with a feeling, but actions.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Nov, 2005 08:21 am
Lash wrote:
This is why some of Germany's laws really blew my socks off. The illegality of denying the Holocaust is shocking, to me.


Actually, it's not only a German law, but a Austrian, French, Belgian .... as well.
(The new English law will perhaps even blow you off the socks.)

I think, denying the Holocaust is not only shocking but criminal act.

You see, Lash, history, law and the history of law is different in our countries.
Besides, we believe that we really had to undertake a commitment due to the terrible Nazi time.
None of the Jewish survivors ever thaught that these laws could blew them out off the socks.


So, after the Lipstadt case, there's actually now the second of the really big trials going on against Zündel.

Right so!
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Nov, 2005 08:26 am
Lash wrote:
Re Finn's remarks-- this is why I showed up. It drives me crazy for words to be removed from use. It's not even like people are (or I am) clamoring to use them--but don't think you've done anyone a real favor by shushing a word.

The reason several people reported the post this thread started with was, as was sometimes explicitly stated, not the use of the word "negro", in itself.

There was far worse in that post.

So thats kind of a straw man. In that sense it's also a pity that the discussion started centring completely on it, later, tho eventually it yielded good posts.

Mind you, this is exactly my problem with PC. I myself do think that open expressions of racism (etc) should be censured, and some basic level of civil discourse in society insisted on. And that goes for the poster of this thread too. I think its a good thing if people who spew racist, anti-semitic, etc bile are continually shown that our society/ies do(es) not tolerate their hate.

But the problem with PC is, in my opinion, that it focuses so overwhelmingly on form. The focus on words leads to the discussion being narrowed drastically, and being narrowed to issues of style and formulation rather than the much deeper-rooted (and more institutionalised) racism in society itself, issues of class involved, etc.

So to that extent I agree with you. The use of the wrong word itself should be discussed, but not immediately lead to a clampdown, if only because that will distract from/narrow down the issue. But then thats not what happened here: the poster was reprimanded by others (and who knows, banned), because he spewed a lot more hateful stuff than just saying "negro". And yes, I think it's perfectly acceptable that a forum draws lines of censure somewhere when it comes to racism etc.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Nov, 2005 08:34 am
Well, I totally agree on nimh's post (anf thus -partly- on Lash's as well).
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Nov, 2005 08:35 am
That guy had so many things to take issue with--Negro was the lamest, IMO. But, I would have SO much rather discussed his feelings and how he came about them--and showed inconsistencies--that run him off immediately.

His opinion may have changed.

It became about "Negro" to me because that's where the main outrage seemed to center....but of course, in addressing that, I perpetuated it. I would have preferred someone take up the more vile comments, rather than the easy Negro word.

Does anyone else believe denying the Holocaust should be a criminal act? Should someone who says, "BTW, the Holocaust never happened" be hauled of to jail? Isn't that too Big Brotherish and way too thought-policish? Am I the only one?
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Nov, 2005 09:05 am
Lash wrote:
The feeling can still prowl around unspoken--to me, that is far worse. Let them speak--and answer them convincingly--don't run them off to hate more.

There you've got a point, in general. When I read German discussions I also think, oh, you have something coming still; in the Netherlands, too, a lot of ways to discuss migration/multiculturalism were taboo, and anyone who'd complain about their neighbourhoods being 'lost' (to them), for example, was branded a certain way. That was stifling, and had the whole issue blowing up with Fortuyn's rise.

Perhaps allowing people to express their problems, their grief or resentment perhaps, with society changing around them, will in the long run prevent them from turning to the far right. (In the German elections this year, leftist Lafontaine was excoriated by the more moderate Greens and Socialdemocrats for "targeting far-right voters" in his rhetorics. I'd say it's a good thing to target far-right voters. How are you otherwise ever going to deplete the far-right's support?)

For example, the discussion of a German "Leitkultur" (see this article for quickie intro). The new conservative chief of parliament again raised the question of "what makes Germany German", specifying gender equality as a point where there was trouble with some of the new communities: "The right to equality for women, culturally based on our historical experience, and the right of the man to dominate in other cultural circles, also culturally based, cannot exist in one and the same society". For that, he was lambasted by the head of the Greens, who said that he was just "unleashing controversies" and that "The concept of a defining German culture is nothing more than an attack on minorities in our country."

Wow - its that kind of stifling, numbing suppression of any discussion on multicultural problems thats going to get Germany its own Pim Fortuyn some day - and he might not be a hedonistic, socially liberal libertarian.

But yes, there's the opposite too. Making clear from the start that some things (like calling for someone's assassination, or for the deportation of all migrants, or etc) are just not socially acceptable from the start does help in defining a kind of a common basic principles (and lord knows that in our ever more culturally/politically fragmented society, we need some). And it can also be a good way to stop the 'leaking' of hateful positions into the mainstream discourse.

After all, taboos are not always bad - most all of us would be in agreement, I suppose, on taboos on expressing sexual attraction to children, say. And to enforce it, we draw arbitrary lines - no sexual depiction of people under X years old, for example. To prevent the line from being ever shifted, kinda.

Its just a question of where you draw the line, and what you consider so far out, so dangerous or hateful, that you put it in the same category. In a country like Germany, or other countries where the Holocaust ravaged, I can imagine that denying it ever happened falls in that category.

Funnily enough, this kind of line-drawing, this kind of concept of necessary censure, is exactly what that German conservative was talking about too. Cultural difference is fine, but let one thing be clear: treating women like second-rank people is not to be tolerated. Like he said according to the article: "there should be a visible common thread that holds society together. [A] society needs to come to an agreement that there is at least a minimal level of "orientation" that should apply to everyone, regardless of ethnic or cultural background."

The Germans (and Belgians etc, dont actually know about the Dutch) decided, even before the migrants came, that a minimal level of "orientation" that should apply to everyone in the country includes the acknowledgement of what happened in the Holocaust, the biggest mass crime ever committed in the country.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Nov, 2005 09:35 am
Lash wrote:
Does anyone else believe denying the Holocaust should be a criminal act? Should someone who says, "BTW, the Holocaust never happened" be hauled of to jail? Isn't that too Big Brotherish and way too thought-policish? Am I the only one?


a) you don't be send so fast and easy as in the USA - only for crimes, which are sentenced with more than two years prison or when you failed seriously or often during your probation time.

"There was no holocaust" would cost you some money - the amount depending on where you said it, if published etc.

b) actually I think, we dislike any kind of 'big brothering' more than e.g. the US-Americans - since in 1983 our population census law was declared unconstitutional by the Federal Court of Constitution we have data laws, which might sound to you utopic. (But I admit: we are following your 'traces' Sad )


Denying the biggest mass crime in (recent) history has nothing to do with that.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Nov, 2005 09:36 am
nimh wrote:
Lash wrote:
The feeling can still prowl around unspoken--to me, that is far worse. Let them speak--and answer them convincingly--don't run them off to hate more.

There you've got a point, in general. When I read German discussions I also think, oh, you have something coming still; in the Netherlands, too, a lot of ways to discuss migration/multiculturalism were taboo, and anyone who'd complain about their neighbourhoods being 'lost' (to them), for example, was branded a certain way. That was stifling, and had the whole issue blowing up with Fortuyn's rise.
YES! It reminds me of the desperate need for therapy for so many people--to get feelings out--to avoid supression and a later inevitable explosion. I can't imagine being unable to speak my opinion about certain issues that I encounter. I think it leads to a more intense resentment of those protected from certain criticism. I just think it engenders the very hatred it is meant to supress.

Perhaps allowing people to express their problems, their grief or resentment perhaps, with society changing around them, will in the long run prevent them from turning to the far right.
YES.
(In the German elections this year, leftist Lafontaine was excoriated by the more moderate Greens and Socialdemocrats for "targeting far-right voters" in his rhetorics. I'd say it's a good thing to target far-right voters. How are you otherwise ever going to deplete the far-right's support?)
<nods>
For example, the discussion of a German "Leitkultur" (see this article for quickie intro). The new conservative chief of parliament again raised the question of "what makes Germany German", specifying gender equality as a point where there was trouble with some of the new communities: "The right to equality for women, culturally based on our historical experience, and the right of the man to dominate in other cultural circles, also culturally based, cannot exist in one and the same society". For that, he was lambasted by the head of the Greens, who said that he was just "unleashing controversies" and that "The concept of a defining German culture is nothing more than an attack on minorities in our country."
This makes me truly sad, and does seem to represent the concerns we've been discussing. That is frightening. Thanks for sharing it.
Wow - its that kind of stifling, numbing suppression of any discussion on multicultural problems thats going to get Germany its own Pim Fortuyn some day - and he might not be a hedonistic, socially liberal libertarian.
<nods>
But yes, there's the opposite too. Making clear from the start that some things (like calling for someone's assassination, or for the deportation of all migrants, or etc) are just not socially acceptable from the start does help in defining a kind of a common basic principles (and lord knows that in our ever more culturally/politically fragmented society, we need some). And it can also be a good way to stop the 'leaking' of hateful positions into the mainstream discourse.
I think a comfortable line is the absolute censure of calling for violence. There may be a wavery cloud of uncertainty in the periphery of that...After all, taboos are not always bad - most all of us would be in agreement, I suppose, on taboos on expressing sexual attraction to children, say. And to enforce it, we draw arbitrary lines - no sexual depiction of people under X years old, for example. To prevent the line from being ever shifted, kinda.
Yes.
Its just a question of where you draw the line, and what you consider so far out, so dangerous or hateful, that you put it in the same category. In a country like Germany, or other countries where the Holocaust ravaged, I can imagine that denying it ever happened falls in that category.
We part ways here. I'd rather someone be faced with having to prove that--and disprove evidence to the contrary. We know this denial is based 100% on hate--not fact. Have a TV special--take the boasting deniers to sites--show them for what they are. As many times as you can find deniers stupid enough to deny. And, then, sit them down on camera and talk with them about their feelings--where they came about them--have them talk to Jews... Only in facing it will we destroy it. MO, anyway.
Funnily enough, this kind of line-drawing, this kind of concept of necessary censure, is exactly what that German conservative was talking about too. Cultural difference is fine, but let one thing be clear: treating women like second-rank people is not to be tolerated. Like he said according to the article: "there should be a visible common thread that holds society together. [A] society needs to come to an agreement that there is at least a minimal level of "orientation" that should apply to everyone, regardless of ethnic or cultural background."
<smiles>
The Germans (and Belgians etc, dont actually know about the Dutch) decided, even before the migrants came, that a minimal level of "orientation" that should apply to everyone in the country includes the acknowledgement of what happened in the Holocaust, the biggest mass crime ever committed in the country.

They will spit those vegetables in their napkin, hide them defiantly; grow to despise vegetables, and won't ever make their children partake. Force feeding IMO, is neither a short- or long-term solution, but I enjoyed your views.


Very Happy
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Nov, 2005 09:41 am
Thanks, Walter, for the details.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Negro's Riot
  3. » Page 16
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 11/16/2024 at 03:36:31