|
Pulpsmack -> RE: Heritage or Hate? (9/21/2007 1:14:09 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Blaakmaan
[Sighs deeply and rolls his eyes...]
I don't have a downtrodden plight, thank you.
Did I say I did, or did you just assume I did? Since I'm black and see and understand the effects of past and present racism, I can understand your assumption...
If you don't have a downtrodden plight, then you have even less to argue about. My assumption stood on the simple basis that you post with such emotional indignation that it would appear you have suffered from some of it. My mistake in the assumption. It seems you are merely melodramatic then.
quote:
Now, about your post...
If I'm a martyr, because I believe in (actually, because I know of) the existence and effects of past and current white racism, then you, in my humble opinion, are an apologist for that racism because you deny its existence...
Denying the existence of racism is not even original, Mr. Man-of-Today! Armstrong Williams, Ward Connerly, Alan Keyes, and even Clarence Thomas blazed that trial long ago, and they're still hard at work at it today.
What next... the dishonest contention that I used racial slurs?! Show me ONE place where I denied the existence of racism against ANY class. I am sorry but now you are just losing your integrity here. Never once did I contend that racism did not/does not/ no longer exist(s) against any person. I have pointed out that your antiquated assumption that "white is right" across the board is utter BS and in certain cases it is a liability (post 211). In post 227 I showed some instances where minorities had advantages (thus majorities bear the brunt of discrimination on those issues), but I never once said that because they had advantages today that racism across the board has been extinguished. That would be your assumption, perhaps because you cannot reconcile the possibility that racism can actually exist against both black and white simultaneously.
quote:
You sound like an attorney. Are you?
Title VII? Do you work with Title VII?
Well, I do. I know how difficult it is for a Title VII plaintiff to prevail in court on a charge of discrimination unless he is fortunate enough to get his hands on some direct evidence, like a copy of a tape recording of the employer sitting around telling "nigger" jokes (oh, that was the Texaco case, wasn't it?).
You really don't want to go there with me, and your argument shows. All you have contended is the burden of proof for a plaintiff in general is high to prove the case. Moreover, is the Texaco case the controlling case on the issue? Are you actually asserting that you need a tape recording of bosses telling "nigger"/"cracker"/"fill-in-the-blank" jokes to prevail? And what do you need to prevail on a racial discrimination case where the employer/supervisor was a minority class and the plaintiff was a majority class?
quote:
So, only the black people didn't respond to the late warning to get-out-of-town when Hurricane Katrina approached? How the hell could that be?
Didn't the good white people of New Orleans have the same experience regarding prior false alarms of approaching hurricanes as the black people did? Yet, somehow, those whites didn't end up in the water! Wonder how that happened?
Well, that's simple... because George Bush.... no, FEMA... no, God doesn't like black people, right? Where are you getting this crap? The good white people (and the bad) either fled or they stayed... and guess what? THEY DIED TOO. Talk about offensive topics, and BS assumptions. You have utterly no clue about what you are talking about and your ignorance grows more astounding by the post (VERY wise of you to bow out while you are behind). First, whites get all the breaks... they are God's chosen in America. Now, Hurricane Katrina made a "chocolate metropolis" while Mr. privileged sat in the Hilton watching it unfurl on CSPAN with his insurance check in hand. Your credibility to speak on this subject is completely exhausted. Who is the apologist now?
quote:
You didn't have to be in New Orleans to see what happened there when Katrina struck. It was probably one of the most exhaustively covered natural disasters in history. Now, you may not believe that anything about the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina had anything to do with race, but then you can't see what you don't wanna see, can you?
and you don't wanna see.
Based on your commentary in the last passage, it would appear that you would have to be there. The aftermath of Katrina had to do with A) class, B) stupidity, and C) governmental incompetence. The hurricane did not see the great chocolate city and say "after 30 years of near misses, it's finally time to get them". George Bush didn't say Whoa! you mean the whites are OK? HOLD EVERYTHING, FEMA. And contrary to what Spike Lee says, they did not blow the levees either. Again, more ignorance from someone who knows nothing on the subject other than seeing a lot of indignant minorities howl on TV.
quote:
"Approaching retirement age"??? You seem to have an unusual interest in my age. What's that about?
What the hell does that have to do with anything? Do you amuse yourself by believing that because you are younger than I am you have some better pipeline to the truth? Believe that if you wanna. I, for one, know better.
Instead of talking about my age, why don't we talk about your height (whatever it is) or your complexion (now, that might be an interesting converation...)? Those topics are as relevant to this discussion as my age is.
Wow. You really can't follow what your age has to do with regarding the discussion? Were you alive during the Brown case? Were you old enough to see the Chicago riots on TV? How old were you when you entered the job market of your chosen profession? Who was president then, and what were employment discrimination practices like at that point (in theory and in execution)? The fact that you have the nerve asserting that whites are the grand "privileged" people today (2007) shows that you are basing this on legitimate dated experience, or you are flat out ignorant... your choice. That was why your age came into play.
quote:
Actually, I know a great deal about profesional education, since I have a professional education. I also know what color, for example, the partners are at the typical large law firm. It's not black (or brown or yellow, for that matter). It's WHITE!
I wonder how whites--and especially white men--keep ending up in the top positions in everything (except maybe sports and entertainment--the traditional Negro areas) at the same time they are being sooooo badly discriminated against by us minorities???
I guess it's just their inherent superiority, huh?
100 people graduate in the class of 2007 from the law school. 80 of them are white. 20 of them are minorities. How many of these people will be hired the first year? How many of them will be hired into positions in excess of $60,000? You can be sure of two things: 1. substantially more white (majority) graduates will be hired than minorities for the sheer fact that they outnumber them four to one, and 2. substantially all of the minorities will have the same shot as the best-performing majority students for the sheer fact of diversity.
quote:
Apparently your life is the polar opposite of mine. But it's your error if you think that gives you some superior insight. It doesn't. You can continue being an apologist for racism and oppression. It's a noble profession, and I'm sure you'll never lack for employment, as apologists are always in great demand.
It was never my intention to come off as superior on the subject, as I am not by any means. My point is that the industry of social injustice is no longer being monopolized by your racial group and I will not sit there quietly when I see someone acting as if it is.
quote:
As for me, I have discovered, to my great dismay, that responding to those white folks on here who think flying or wearing the Confederate flag is a neutral, non-offensive act, and replying to those who deny the existence and effects of white racism--like yourself--is getting to be a full time job.
Again... look into your own definition of apologist. I never denied the stars and bars was offensive to some/most/many. I just don't give a damn that it offends, and I don't believe the government should regulate offensiveness (or obscenity). You willfully misconstrue that as me believing the flag is perfectly innocuous, when I never made that contention (instead I said it can be displayed and/or received with neutral or offensive intent). I never once dismissed black racism, or denied its existence in the past or today. I merely pointed out that it exists elsewhere, and the ethnic class of your group "isn't so darned special" regarding that issue. You willfully misconstrue that to an assertion that there is no racism, "because if my class cannot be recognized as 'so darned special' in that issue, he's saying it doesn't exist". Please. You have written articulately enough to indicate you can comprehend what I wrote. You know better than that.
|
|
|
|
