white man's burden

dr_manhattan

okay this may or may not be worthy of discussion. And I quote (from ixoy, I think):

" Actually, that's a very interesting point which would make a good seperate thread. Should the white man pay for the sins of his fathers? You testify that they should acknowledge their forebearers sins and seek to address it. That sort of thinking isn't always safe - check out today's Independent where it points out that such thoughts have helped to keep a large swathe of anti-Semitic feelings in Europe. "

Heh, completely: whilst in germany during the rostock riots, a friend of mine went on a rant about how he was in new zealand, where all products have a seal saying "buy new zealand produce, keep new zealand working" - his point was that germans cannot say that, and that was why the right had such a strong support during rostock.

And I get your point: sometimes because of stupid but well meaning laws such as "hate crime" legislation (where if a white kid hits a black kid, it's assault, but if he says "n**ger" then it's a hate crime - not good) then this kind of thinking is dangerous.

But I'm not talking about laws, I'm talking about personal ethics and how you conduct yourself. I do not approve of anti racism legislation, because I do not believe it's the state's job to stop us being ignorant pigs: that is our own, day to day job. Sure it can be necessary, but it's a very, very dangerous short term solution and eventually fuels the fires that light the crosses.

"I have done nothing wrong or suppressive with my life. Should I feel guilt or responsibility then? Maybe sympathy but should that be guilt?"

No it absolutely should not, IMO - simply put, it should just influence how you think. For example, I firmly believe that people should remember that the concept of "reverse racism", i.e. a white being barred from an all-black bar, is flawed:

sure, on paper it's the same thing: but I never felt ashamed of my skin colour, ashamed of my hair, my smell as I grew up. I never felt I had to prove I was intelligent despite my skin colour. I never felt I had to keep a good image up for my ethnic group: and most all black people I know who's grown up in white countries have to some degree: put simply, there are no myths of white inferiority.

Irish people should be able to think about this most clearly: ever get offended by an english person, only for tham to say "ah it's okay, you can call me a brit if you want" - and realised that it's not the same? I recall as a kid feeling very much that my accent was backward, and that other nationalities were more sophisticated to a degree - this is gone now and irish identity is very trendy. But would we feel the same if irish people were still the scum of europe?

"It's not my fault, I've worked to a certain degree but - given that we're mostly white males here - are we actually too blasé about our inheritance? By the same token, however, I see no reason why I should abandon my position in life - just ensure that I never commit suppressive crimes of times yore."

I agree, and in NO WAY do I suggest that white people should be aware of our privileges. But the example I used, white americans who say "slavery ended 400 years ago, I never enslaved anyone" are ignoring the economic basis of their wealth, ignoring the fact that blacks have been unable to vote until recently, and trying to pretend that when the laws change, it all goes away.

And then there's the hidden histories: how many people, for example, know that over 8,000 black people were murdered and 10 blocks burned in the midwest in 1921? Crimes like this being ignored and crimes like the holocaust being highlighted are what's led to the great divide between black america and jewish america: resentment, percieved conspiracies, etc.

Buuut anyways, I'll shut up: anyone else got any views?

ixoy

Well it's right to say that our privileged position has been borne on a history of supression - and still is. This also has its roots in racism - cheap labour from Africa and the Far East because, in times past, the white empire did indeed degrade them and place them as second class citizens.

However, I do believe in anti-racism. You say:

No it absolutely should not, IMO - simply put, it should just influence how you think. For example, I firmly believe that people should remember that the concept of "reverse racism", i.e. a white being barred from an all-black bar, is flawed:

sure, on paper it's the same thing: but I never felt ashamed of my skin colour, ashamed of my hair, my smell as I grew up. I never felt I had to prove I was intelligent despite my skin colour. I never felt I had to keep a good image up for my ethnic group: and most all black people I know who's grown up in white countries have to some degree: put simply, there are no myths of white inferiority.

There are some myths to white inferiority based on race. The Irish have often born the brunt of this - we've long been lambasted as the drunks of the world. Take a look at American films and TV: our roles were limited to police, priests, and the town drunk. Even now we don't seem to appear far from the stereotype, unless it's to clutch our terorrist gun in our paws.
Myself, I'm gay. Another stygmatised group. Given these two angles, I know all about the feeling of inferiority that comes from being in a maligned group - and this could be applicable, in some form, to many we know. So surely we DO know about racism (essentially being pre-judged based on broad characteristics) and thus reverse-racism is still equally inexcusable? Ditto for some of the feminazis who want to suppress men rather than ecquivocate status issues.

Another interesting example of this still status-divide has cropped up with the recent Michael Jackson allegations. I haven't figures to hand, but the difference, from what I recall, in black people who believe he's innocent and white people is startling (as it was with OJ). I assume this is one of your points then: there's a perceived divide. They feel it's a white man's conspiracy, and still a white world. I saw a few interviews with some black people, post arrest, and many advocated the idea that Jackson was conspired against because he was a black artist who was too successful. I find the notion ridiculous when cold hard facts point out why he's picked on. Am I the wrong party? How do we address this? I feel I'm looking at it with the facts but is it really our responsiblity to try and educate others to what should be apparent, in some sense? I know racism is wrong, I don't practice it, but how can we let others know that the whole white man's world isn't revolving on some elitist melanin monopoly?

dr_manhattan

Well met, ixoy: loads to talk about there.

Right, let me see now...

First off, I'd like to say that, in my experience, US race issues are far more loaded, more tense and more entrenched than anywhere else I've encountered axcept perhaps south africa. What you speak of re: michael jackson is (IMHO) a regrettable side effect of this entrenchment. However, if you look at it from another angle it's more possible to see what's being said:

Basically, the way it was explained to me was that we all know how corrupt white US politicians, public figures and celebrities can be: yet a large wall of silence generally is engineered to keep their private details private - an example of this would be the deeply wierd way that hollywood has almost no openly gay stars at blackbuster level.

And I am willing to accept that, while eddie murphy was almost definitely not the only star to pick up a transsexual prostitute, he was pretty much the only one to be plastered all over the newspapers: and this may have something to do with his skin.

So the way it was explained to me was that it's not a conspiracy to jail OJ, it's a conspiracy to cover up the ill-doings of other, more white celebs. And I can accept that: especially because it agrees with my gut feeling that OJ is guilty as hell, heh. But everyone's heard the stories about that hooker murdering senator in godfather 2 being based on fact, and I damn well believe that a lot of awful deeds get covered up.

That's my take anyway - and in many ways I can't believe that people are so accepting of things. Like when someone gets outed by the tabloids: nobody ever seems to question why them in particular... but there again, nobody questions why it's such a scandal to be just having sex full stop ;-)

"our roles were limited to police, priests, and the town drunk"

Ah sure, jaysus they were, diddledy doo ;-)

Now this is something that I have discussed extensively, because the very american idea of reinforced ethnic identity often gets carried to extremes, and people start to try and build a "guilt map of the world": blacks on top, then arabs, then jews, then the irish... know what I mean?

Yes, the irish have been victims of "racism" (problem with this discussion is words don't work that well - the irish are not a race, but there again, what *is* a race?) and as I said I feel a huge affinity when I read of jamaican londoners thinking their accent was hideous, and wanting to be whiote like their white mates and speak english like the english.

And I don't want to build a "guilt tree", but the thing is, it's just a matter of thinking about it: in the late 19th century, basically, the irish fought it out with the italians, blacks and chinese for their share of the labour market in the burgeoning US. One of the reasons that the blacks came last is because (again, in my opinion) people had disgucting ideas about them.

In salem, the settlers, faced with the quandry of teaching the bible (and of course exodus: "let my people go") to slaves, came up with an elaborate idea that black people had no soul and thus slavery was okay. Millions upon millions of lies like this compounded to make blackness one of the biggest gaps in our society, I feel anyway.

So I am not saying "blacks have had it worse than us, so be nice to them", as I say the problem with discussing race is it's an emotive issue with a lot of guilt, and I don't think anyone needss to be patronised by guilty right thinking whiteboys. I am just saying that it's about acknowledging privilege, you know?

Here's a good example: my own. I had a difficult childhood, and was sexually experimenting at a young age as a result of some brutal childhood encounters. When this became known at school, I was reviled as a "queer" and life became damn difficult. However the result of my experimentation led me to realise that I preferred girls - and still to this day when people ask me if I'm straight, I answer "well mostly" because my experiences have told me that, in a lot of people's eyes, the fact that I have slept with men makes me gay, simple as that (suppress giggles at that one) - but also because I am uncomfrotable with people thinking of me as "straight" - the straight club is one I have never wanted to be a part of ;-)

But at the same time, I would never pretend to know what being gay means, because I am not. I would imagine, if I was gay, I would find that attitude very patronising (like "yeah, been there dude - being gay for a while was, like, cool")

And these are just things I keep in mind, you know? It's not like I let guilt over how hard some gay men and women have had it direct my life, and am conscious of political correctness all the time: but if, for example, a black man tells me I am racist or a gay man tells me I'm a homophobe (haha - just realised that's yet to happen in both cases, I'm in liberal heaven right now ;-)) then before I get on my own indignant high horse and tell them that they're reverse racists or straight-o-phobes, I think about the above. Ya dig?

I mean, saying "there's no such thing as real reverse racism" isn't saying "there's no black people that are unreasonable and hate people on the basis of their skin"

What it's saying is, when a white person is prejudiced, it contributes to a globally established system of racism: racism is more than just calling names on the basis of colour. Racism is ghettoising people, and white anglo saxons have never been ghettoised that I've ever seen.

When someone is racist against a white person, it works against this global order, and though it's just as stupid, it has less high ground, less history to add sting to the lash.

some examples:

when an englishman calls me paddy I get upset. However I am half english, and my father was a british soldier. When irish people call me a brit, it simply is not the same. And I have been beaten up for both.

Look at the dark history of these words:

n**ger: from negro, derived from necro meaning death. Associations of slavery, genocide and slaughter. Stereotypes of inherent low intelligence, laziness, violence. Many of these perpetuated by racist education policies, employers, and housing policies.

cracker: derived from the plantation slavedrivers' whips. Associations of rurality, sadism, ignorance: many of these coming from social status.

coon: deriving from the way blacks were hunted with the same tools used for hunting raccoons. Any african family more than 4 generations in america is likely to have grandparents that were hunted in this way.

whitey: derived from our white skin. Given that white is also the colour of purity and good, I cannot see why people have a problem with being called a 'whiteboy' or 'whitey'

Now I could go on, but to be honest I've run out of names for us whites - but I could go on naming derogatory black names forever. Strange really: we enslaved them yet we made up more nasty names for them than they did us...?

Anyways, with severe reservations that I'm gonna come across as some kind of PC liberal, rather than the work dodging stoner that I am, I cease my rant here ;-)

oscarBravo

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
n**ger: from negro, derived from necro meaning death.

Really? Isn't it just a direct assimilation of the Spanish word "negro" meaning "black"? I'm curious as to your source for the "necro" derivation.

I've run out of names for us whites

You forgot "honky"

The Corinthian

Originally posted by oscarBravo
Really? Isn't it just a direct assimilation of the Spanish word "negro" meaning "black"? I'm curious as to your source for the "necro" derivation. You forgot "honky"

Actually ‘nigger’ is a corruption of the word niger which is the Latin for black. Negro is also derived from this and is still the name used to describe blacks/Africans/whatever-I’m-allowed-to-call-them-this-week in Spain and Italy.

Additionally, there are two countries in Africa that take their name from niger: Nigeria (which takes it’s name from the river Niger which in turn takes it’s name from the Latin) and, of course, Niger.

I can’t comment on the entomologies of the other terms presented.

dr_manhattan

To the best of my knowledge, the spanish is the same derivation: and to be honest, I have only the poetry of linton kwesi johnson, the last poets, and I *think* the writings of marcus garvey to vaguely point at for this:

I am pretty dman sure though that the european association of black with death gave rise to the use of words derived from the necro- root: I'm not saying that colour association is the root of all evil, but I am saying that europeans definitely have negative associations with black as a colour: this reminds me of what i've been told of ancient egypt too: a certain amount of conspiracy-inclined african nationalists say that the origins of the maafa, or african holocaust, lie in the wars between early ptolemaic greece and egypt. Egypt was then known as "kemet", which as far as I know either means "black land" or is derived from the rich black soil that the nile turned up...

Kind of oof topic, huh? I'll do my best to dig up the necro thing.

Incidentally, I've NEVER been able to definitely establish the etimology of "honky" - but the best explanations I got was that white trash hungarian settlers, considered very low socially in the old frontier, were nicknamed "hunkies" and it came from there - but that's just what a mate who's hungarian american said - and we all know white people can't be trusted

I also, somewhat hilariously, supposed as a kid that "cracker" came from the paleness of cream crackers - ah the innocence of youth lmao...

dr_manhattan

the corinthian is on point: however I'm talking about the etymology of the latin origin - I also thing that negro came from niger, and that "n**ger" is a corruption of "negro", the erstwhile racial tag for people of colour...

The more I think about it, the less I can come up with to support this however: BUT, given that nigeria and the river niger were *definitely* names given by europeans to colonial african settlements, I think my fragile argument still stands

The cracker explanation came straight from chuck D's mouth, and anyone else i know in the US agrees; best I can do ;-) - interestigly enough, southern white folks call their kids "little crackers" as a pet name, too...

coon is also accurate, I think: given that the famous settler raccoon hats are called "coon skins" - that's the best i can do there ;-)

Ah the rich wealth of abusive terms us humans have lol

Any thoughts, anyone, on the original thread? Anyone interested in discussing so called "reverse racism"?

I say this not because i am convinced of these views, but these are views that i have developed through discussion, and this is the first irish forum I've posted on regularly, so I'm curious here

The Corinthian

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
the corinthian is on point: however I'm talking about the etymology of the latin origin - I also thing that negro came from niger, and that "n**ger" is a corruption of "negro", the erstwhile racial tag for people of colour...

It’s unlikely. Necro is a prefix derived from the Greek necros meaning death which was a parallel and separate language. While there may be a common Proto-Indo-European root to both necros and niger, arguing that this common root is also the root meaning of the term ‘nigger’ would be improbable at the very least.

In short, you can stretch a connection only so far before it breaks.

I'm not saying that colour association is the root of all evil, but I am saying that europeans definitely have negative associations with black as a colour: this reminds me of what i've been told of ancient egypt too: a certain amount of conspiracy-inclined african nationalists say that the origins of the maafa, or african holocaust, lie in the wars between early ptolemaic greece and egypt. Egypt was then known as "kemet", which as far as I know either means "black land" or is derived from the rich black soil that the nile turned up...

Again arguable - if one looks to Shakespeare’s Othello, he would have been considered black by many, however in reality he was a Moor, which is a Semitic-Caucasoid rather than Negroid race, AFAIR - so it’s all relative. The same could have been said of pre-Ptolemaic Egyptians, not to mention the fact that evidence to support the theories held by your conspiracy-inclined African nationalists is thin on the ground.

Any thoughts, anyone, on the original thread? Anyone interested in discussing so called "reverse racism"?

In a funny sort of way you’ve already done so. Historical revisionism, often erroneous, can often be used to promote and justify racism or what you would call ‘reverse racism’.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
Incidentally, I've NEVER been able to definitely establish the etimology of "honky" - but the best explanations I got was that white trash hungarian settlers, considered very low socially in the old frontier, were nicknamed "hunkies" and it came from there - but that's just what a mate who's hungarian american said - and we all know white people can't be trusted

I've come across two possible sources: "honq" meaning pale or pink-skinned, from an African language; and "bohunk," which may be the origin of "hunky," referring to eastern european labourers - bohemians/hungarians. Could be either, or a combination of both.

ixoy

Returning on topic then.

It's very common for people to become ghettoised on their skin color. There's historical antecedents for ghettos - I assume based on cheap locations, large families moving when freed, support of similiar people, etc. Now the question is do white or black people (or both) subliminally, or even outwardly, support ghettos? This isn't an issue of racism but, as you've been saying, an unwilling to redress how things were and, to a point, still are.
A small diversion here - look at "Friends". A very successful comedy featuring six white Manhattan folk. Only the PC brigade began to complain that there were hardly ever any black people in it - thus resulting in Ross' fling with the archaelogist. Now was this original white' friends gang not just a reflection of how things are? White people - generally - hang with white. Black with black. Homogenity is not something we've achieved. Is this because history has created ghettos that we can't escape from or because we're still in a divisionary mindset that makes us want to be in seperate groups?

dr_manhattan

Again, good points (to be honest, I was worrying this would wind up being yet another 'what exactly does that mean' thread... my point earlier was that europeans named black people out of a negative association, therefore 'negro' and 'n**ger' come from eurocentric negative associations as to colour: "n**ger" certainly didn't come from the latin 'niger', either: I don't think southern white trash had such a grasp of latin that it'd slip into farm hand vernacular.

And as regards there being thin evidence for pan africanist conspiracy theories, fair enough: but given that most resources of african knowledge were long since torched by our less than civilised ancestors, It's hardly surprising.

But anyway, to be honest, that's not what I'm interested in discussing: we were talking about whether or not an obligation should be felt to take a more global perspective and not take a knee jerk stance in reaction to percieved 'reverse racism'

Ixoy, the friends example is a good one: fact is, I never objected to there being no black people in friends, but i don't think it was being over PC to notice it: these people are supposed to live in manhattan, for god's sake: often there's entire episodes where you can't even see a black person on the street, and yeah, it is wierd.

However, gluing black characters in there is simply an example of why PC has such a bad name. PC was originally an idea that people could ask to be called what they wanted to be called, and was based on a long period where racial, sexual, and sexuality based attitudes were ridiculous. There was very little wrong with the idea of PC originally.

But that was before the manipulative PR system got their hands on it, and it became the reverse of what was intended: instead of trying to make people understand each other, instead it became a points system: if you hate black people, make sure and refer to them as african american and you're safe. If you are an angry, wound up bitter hippy, then go around INSISTING that everyone be called ridiculous names.

Penalise people legally for using racial epithets: it's based on some well meaning ideas, but it's just wrong. "hate crimes" come from this too, and they're another idea that seem like a good idea at first, and then just make a huge mess and worsen the situation. I'd personally prefer that someone say "n**ger" if they mean it, and then discussion can take place. Not that some nazi can learn the right words and then start making everyone else say them...

So friends, like the Cosby's, instead of DOING anything about their wierd monochrome sitcom, introduce a fake paper token chatacter: but she's gorgeous, and ross likes her, so what's the problem?

I'd personally prefer if the writers announced: "look, it's like this: generally speaking there's a huge racial divide in america. We're not going to put in some token interrracial scenario just so that happy shiny people who like friends can feel comfy. If you want your sitcoms to be intelligent and thought provoking, then make your own" - it'd be more honest anyways. And maybe people whould go "damn, they're right, this society *is* ****ed up, let's change it" instead of wanting their TV changed so that it "reflects" a better reality...

Mind you, I'm sure many middle class US black folks figure that the issue of having a black person in friends is a mini rosa parks issue. I personally don't: just like I don't really think that having all black shows is a hugely progressive triumph either: it's just balancing out a wierd system by saying "there's loads of all white shows, so lets have a few all black"

Fact is, when it's attemp[ted with these self conscious, fake efforts to fix complex problems, then obviously it's PC rubbish: but I did mention something before about people on a day-to-day basis simply trying to take account.

I'll out it this way: when someone complains to me on an issue of race, I'll listen to them: and if I think they're being an asshole or even being prejudiced against me, I won't start shouting 'reverse racism' I'll just leave it. Because I am not downtrodden, and I don't need the crutch of being so, I believe that victims of prejudice should have their say but i do not believe I can ever really be one in the same way that a black person can: cos last time I looked, it was white europeans with 90% of the world's money, so opressing us is always gonna be hard ;-)

bonkey

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
my point earlier was that europeans named black people out of a negative association, therefore 'negro' and 'n**ger' come from eurocentric negative associations as to colour: "n**ger" certainly didn't come from the latin 'niger', either: I don't think southern white trash had such a grasp of latin that it'd slip into farm hand vernacular.

Thats rubbish. Even if your etymology is correct, your argument as to why it is correct is farcical.

You're starting with your conclusion, and then trying to work back to the cause, and then using this as "proof" that your conclusion is somehow correct!!!!

I would also suggest that you should be very careful of saying that something is certain because you think certain things to be true.

Indeed, if you go so far as to put the two words "etymology" and "n*g**r" (spelled correctly) into google, you'll find that pretty-much every hit you get back will agree with TC's definition, not yours, no matter how "logical" you think your argument is.



jc

dr_manhattan

just asked to edit this post: here's an edit then.

I have to say, I've been using various internet information exchange media for the past 10 years or so, and every time I give it a shot in Ireland I find it most unrewarding: a general sense that people would rather win battles rather than discuss things, would rather pick through semantics than actually think about the issues involved.

Now, I'm not saying i'm being personally persecuted here because every thread I read here seems mired in the same mode of non-discussion: but I am saying that web posting, at best a pointless exercise, becomes entirely worthless when you're spending post after post obsessing about the tinest nuance of a percieved purpose in a post.

And when people have nothing to say except "you're wrong here, here and here" it is simply pointless. There's no room for discussion, and one may as well concede any idea of discussion and simply go elsewhere. I have posted a large amount of verbiage here, and the only issue being discussed except by myself and ixor is the one embedded issue of where racist terms come from: this being neither the foundation nor a key element of the argument.

And sure, telling people they reason like a student is a cheap shot, and so is telling someone that they're boring me, as I did before. But if you won't fully address what i'm saying, then don't expect me to take you seriously: the idea of so many people being interested in breaking down one definition, with NOTHING to say about the actual topic, to be honest, makes me depressed.

So QED: I'm outta here, I got way better places to be. You can discuss the origin of my bias against students perhaps.

ta ta

The Corinthian

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
Again, good points (to be honest, I was worrying this would wind up being yet another 'what exactly does that mean' thread... my point earlier was that europeans named black people out of a negative association, therefore 'negro' and 'n**ger' come from eurocentric negative associations as to colour: "n**ger" certainly didn't come from the latin 'niger', either: I don't think southern white trash had such a grasp of latin that it'd slip into farm hand vernacular.

The term nigger is originally derived from the Latin niger. Just because Jim-Bob from Mississippi isn’t aware of this does not make it any less true, any more than the fact that most people would not know that the English word window is originally derived from Danish.

As for negative associations, I’d disagree. The deconstruction of many terms in this manner has been largely discredited in recent years.

And as regards there being thin evidence for pan africanist conspiracy theories, fair enough: but given that most resources of african knowledge were long since torched by our less than civilised ancestors, It's hardly surprising.

Most resources of African knowledge were long since lost because they didn’t record them - they simply hadn’t developed writing. Simple as that. Where they did, records survived, such as in Ethiopia and Axum.

But anyway, to be honest, that's not what I'm interested in discussing: we were talking about whether or not an obligation should be felt to take a more global perspective and not take a knee jerk stance in reaction to percieved 'reverse racism'

And this is what I’m pointing out to you, that you are presently exemplifying knee-jerk political correctness. You ascribe meaning to terms, regardless of any historical evidence to the contrary and have pointed to theories of oppression and genocide that, by your admission, don’t hold up to examination. Your only counter to this is that the same perpetrators of said oppression and genocide eliminated the evidence - which also frankly does not stand up to scrutiny.

The modern White Man’s Burden is thus largely exemplified by the apparent need to display contrition by many whites because of a collective guilt in our past history and present wealth, even if it means having to support improbable theories to do so.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
Right, I personally think that it's hell of a lot more likely that the english word "negro" spawned the english epithet "******" - however, if you insist that it's a deirect latin derivation and some dull arse website back you up then FINE! What the **** does it matter to me?What the **** does it amtter to you?

It matters because these are facts. You’ve presented none that have held up to any scrutiny. Your argument has been based upon something you feel rather that something that is real.

Getting upset about the fact that people are pointing this out is not going to help you either.

dr_manhattan

Corinthian, your opinion could be described as just as 'knee jerk' as mine, I could point out that the destruction of the library in alexandria or any number of historical events as a so-called erasing of african culture, fact is saying that african cultures never developed writing and that's why their knowledge died out is as much of an unsupportable position as the one you seem to think I hold.

I could as easily call you a knee-jerk apologist as you call me a knee-jerk PC person, and that could go on all day.

However, I did *say* that any pan africanists I know are conspiracists, and I did not say i personally support their views: my point stands however that this has become yet another boring, semantics obsessed thread and your two successive posts that address purely semantic issues and use them as proof that any idea of white obligation for past holocausts is null and void only prove this to me.

So far here, I've tried to discuss gay marriage and wound up discussing whether or not "classification" is the same as "description", and now here's an attempt to discuss racial issues that winds up completely focussed on similar semantic issues.

I am not in college. this garbage does not interest me: I don't know if your position as a moderator made you post that last entry in order to be "on topic" but whatever, I've completely lost interest. You're 100% right, I'm a PC obsessed person who wants to makle whitey sorry for what he didn't do, and your knowledge of semantics wins. Happy?

The Corinthian

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
Corinthian, your opinion could be described as just as 'knee jerk' as mine, I could point out that the destruction of the library in alexandria or any number of historical events as a so-called erasing of african culture, fact is saying that african cultures never developed writing and that's why their knowledge died out is as much of an unsupportable position as the one you seem to think I hold.

Would this be the library in Alexandria that was built by the Greek Ptolemy?

[EDIT]And if you read over my post, I never said that African cultures never developed writing - I even cited two that did.[/EDIT]

I could as easily call you a knee-jerk apologist as you call me a knee-jerk PC person, and that could go on all day.

Except I’ve presented credible evidence and you’ve presented nothing more than your opinion. Just because you believe something to be true, does not make it so.

However, I did *say* that any pan africanists I know are conspiracists, and I did not say i personally support their views: my point stands however that this has become yet another boring, semantics obsessed thread and your two successive posts that address purely semantic issues and use them as proof that any idea of white obligation for past holocausts is null and void only prove this to me.

You presented an argument based upon the origin of a word. I pointed out that you were wrong and gave evidence to back this up. Apparently to do this is semantics.

I am not in college. this garbage does not interest me: I don't know if your position as a moderator made you post that last entry in order to be "on topic" but whatever, I've completely lost interest. You're 100% right, I'm a PC obsessed person who wants to makle whitey sorry for what he didn't do, and your knowledge of semantics wins. Happy?

I’m not in college either. Even if I were, to use that as an excuse to refute an argument would be a pretty cheap shot. And if you want to walk away because the discussion is not going how you wanted, that’s your prerogative.

amp

Dr Manhattan, if I see a post of yours in Humanities that contains **** again I will ban you permanently. As my Great Auntie Gemima used to say "Posting in anger on the Internet leads to permanent bans". Sound advice no? So calm down and count to ten before you hit the post button in future. Also I'd appreciate if people didn't goad others and argued the point and not just to enrage.

Keep it civil. Back on topic. Replies to this warning will get you banned. Yadayadayada

ixoy

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
I'd personally prefer if the writers announced: "look, it's like this: generally speaking there's a huge racial divide in america. We're not going to put in some token interrracial scenario just so that happy shiny people who like friends can feel comfy. If you want your sitcoms to be intelligent and thought provoking, then make your own" - it'd be more honest anyways. And maybe people whould go "damn, they're right, this society *is* ****ed up, let's change it" instead of wanting their TV changed so that it "reflects" a better reality...

And I agree. In fact that's one of the reasons I love HBO's Oz. In it there are neo-Nazis, KKK members, and they certainly do NOT conform to the PC types that general stations shove down our throats. Their racist language is shocking but it's a great wake-up call to realising that this sort of close-minded thinking still exists and the world hasn't been reduced to an ironic Michael Jackson PC-rant.

The show is also great at highlighting the perceived injustices against black people. It's hard to always agree with what's said but the fact that the prisoners are seperated along racial lines, or religious, is indicative really of how polarised society can still be.

Mind you, I'm sure many middle class US black folks figure that the issue of having a black person in friends is a mini rosa parks issue. I personally don't: just like I don't really think that having all black shows is a hugely progressive triumph either: it's just balancing out a wierd system by saying "there's loads of all white shows, so lets have a few all black"

There is, I believe, standards to be meet in US TV for racial perception. Certain organisations now monitor shows to ensure that X% of onscreen actors are of Y racial origins and, if it's not so, then goddammit there's a Zionist conspiracy and it needs to be addressed...

Because I am not downtrodden, and I don't need the crutch of being so, I believe that victims of prejudice should have their say but i do not believe I can ever really be one in the same way that a black person can: cos last time I looked, it was white europeans with 90% of the world's money, so opressing us is always gonna be hard ;-)

Indeedy. All of us posters here are among the priviliged few of the world. Hurrah for us. It's good that you're happy but there is a general human trend to look for more. Most of us are well enough (in circumstances) but yet we turn to the millionaires, the billionaires, the rich and famous and want what they have. We continually build a tiered system in society, where we want to climb to the next level and, in whatever sense, be able to look down on the hordes below us. The problem is that the color of the skin automatically can elevate you up a few levels. The PC brigade tries to address this by artifically hauling up a few people and saying to the masses below, "Look! You too can climb up here!" However, given that our entire society is - in an historical context - built upon having supressed races in times past, can we create a truly level playing field ever? Or will the foundations of society, and indeed our inbuilt unaddressed prejudices, prevent that ever happened?