OT: Political Poll - Racist or Not Racist?

[Richard L]

TJR,

As jusual, you have gotten way off subject. The poll you started asked was the picture of Obama as a witch doctor racist. I said that it was racially inflamitor. I also said that most white people would not consider it racist, but most blacks would.



Then you started with all your different assinine scenerios about Bill Cosby, etc that are not even close to the same situation.



Now you are switching gears to freedom of speech! Yes, you have the right to your freedom of speach and you have the right to vent about what you don't like about minorities. You are even welcome to go to Harlem, NY or the Watts districk of Los Angeles with your photo of witch doctor Obama and invoke your freedom of speach and feel free to tell the residence there about your freedom of spech



While I was in the military, I served as a race relationsw faciilitator (I did not want to do it, but I was volunteered by somone who out-ranked me). Part of our traning was just on how blacks view these seeming harmless cartoons, jokes ,etc. Blacks don't like the images portrated by many early showbusiness blacks like Amos & Andy, Buckwheat, or any images of blacks in a slavery or servant role. Most white people find that hard to understand and just think that blacks are being overly sensitive, or just using using those incients as excuses. As Bill Cosby pointed out, so do use that as an excuse and continue to play the victim. Others like Bill Cosby or Barak Obama don't make a big issue about it and know that white people are not to blame now/



///Rich

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Richard L,



I wasn't WAY off subject.



Someone above, maybe you, said that it's up to the targeted race to determine what is and isn't racist. That opened the door for me to say that is pretty "convenient", and to show examples of where those that are targeted often, emotionally, cry racism when there is none, or see things through a racist lense themselves.



I have absolutely no issue with minorities. I have issues with bad behavior. I also have issue with people that pull out the race card, either because they don't like what is being said, or because they are being admonished for bad behavior.



Old images that blacks might find offense are just that. Images. Get over it. Anyone that thinks that Disney's "Song of the South" is or was racist, at the time, and even now, is smoking crack. Sure, I will agree, that it might no longer be considered politically correct, but I don't care much for political correctness.



If minorites get to define what the feel is offensive, and racist, then everyone else should be able to call them on it. I'm seeing that more and more with our current president. Heck, even HE is calling them on it (and I applaud him for it).



TJR

 

[Richard L]

TJR

Old images that blacks might find offense are just that. Images. Get over it.

Why do THEY have to get over it? Why don't we white people just stop using images that stereotype minorities or make them look dumb, ignorant, or otherwise inferior, and then claim they are playing the race card when they are offended?



It was just in the news the other day that a group of Native Americans is requesting that the Washington, DC NFL football team change their name from Redskins to something less ofensive? This is not the first time that Native Americans have found the Redskins name to be ofensive. The team executive feel the name is not derrogitory and shows the Native Americans as a brave nobel race...which clearly shows, THEY DON'T GET IT !!! The term Redskin has always been used by white men as a derrogitory name for the Navtive Americans who were demonized as savages, etc.



Simply changing the name to perhaps the Washington Warriors would allow them to keep the same Native American logo, and team colors, and just get rid of the derrogitory name.

Calling a Native American a "Redskin" is the same as calling a black person a "Niggger", and that is racist and is so far beyond the scope of what is or is not politically correct.



I am not implying that you are a racist, only that because you a white, you cannot as sensitive to the plight of the minorities and how they want to shed the old racial stereotypes, while still keeping their racial heritage.



While you continue to cry that minorities involk the "Race Card" to often or when no racial slur was intended, It is not your right as a white person to say what offends someone of a different race, religion or ethnic background.



There is also a big differnce in you as an individual being offended by the actions or behaviour of a minority vs publishing or broadcasting offensive images or words over the iInternet or other media sources...That's where the minorities are wanting public appologies and that's when these cases hit the news media, and whites react by saying they are playing the Race Card.



You are really no different than most white people. You are not a racist, but you are insensitive to a minority's point of view. Because you don'[t think something is offensive, you object to them claiming they are offended. Because these offensive things keep occurring, the effected minorities are speaking out loader and more frequently about these issues.



I never said the cartoon/photo was racist, only that it was probably racially offensive to most black people. For the photo to be racist would require that we know the motivation of the author, and we don't know what his intent was? Did he do it to be deliberately racially offensive? Did he do the photo as a joke about Obama's health care plan, and did not connect the witch doctor image as being offensive to blacks? We don't know what his intent was, but even if he meant no malice, he was very insensitive to how blacks might interpret the image.



...Rich

 

[Richard L]

Sorry, double clutched my reply.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

re "Redskin"...never understood how an accurate label could be considered racist, but, as you said, I don't get to define what is racist. For the record, I am not offended by "pale face" as I do in fact have a pale face.



TJR

 

[Thomas Rogers]

dupe removed

 

[Tom Schindler]

I agree with Richard L on this. Though, I have to bring the following example down one bit...

Simply changing the name to perhaps the Washington Warriors would allow them to keep the same Native American logo, and team colors, and just get rid of the derrogitory name.

Calling a Native American a "Redskin" is the same as calling a black person a "Niggger", and that is racist and is so far beyond the scope of what is or is not politically correct.

Lets get rid of the N-Word you used and use the word "Colored". Make a team called the "Cleveland Coloreds". Think the NAACP would get involved? You bet!!!



Even though the term "colored" for an individual that is black is not technically racist and those that use it are not saying it as a racist term, the description is still racist.



I was picking up some temp employees at the guard shack some years back while working a boiler outage at a paper mill. One of the temps was a black kid. After I signed them in and went to leave, the guard said to me, "Don't forget about the colored fellow". I thought nothing of it, but the guy threw a fit.



Of course, I am white so I just don't get offended if I get called a honkey, cracker, whitie, or anything else. Maybe because that is because I am white and was never considered a lower class of citizan.





Tom

 

[Richard L]

Tom,

The prefered term is African-American, or Black. The term "Colored" has also been considered derrogitory since the times of the 1960's Civil Rights movements. It is proper to speak of minority races as "People of color" which defines people of African, Hispanic, Native American, and Asian ancestry.



None of the terms are truely accurate, but it is difficult to define or classify a race of people in terms that does not offend someone.



I agree that it is now more politically correct to refer to the derrogotory term as "The N-word", but I used it in this context to show how Native Americans and African Americans feel about those racist names. In that same vain, should we not be refering to the football team as the Washington R-words??? As you probably know, both words are in the dictonary, as are other words that people feel are not appropriate to use.



...Rich

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen said:

Lets get rid of the N-Word you used and use the word "Colored". Make a team called the "Cleveland Coloreds". Think the NAACP would get involved? You bet!!!

Get involved how? To support the name change? I ask, because given the name of the NAACP if they were to boycott it would seem hypocritical.



The "African American" moniker is pretty misleading. Most that call themselves that are no more "African" than I am "English". Should I call myself an "English American" because I can trace my roots to England? Course not. I am white. They are black. African American is misleading.



Political correctness sucks.



TJR

 

[Tom Schindler]

The prefered term is African-American, or Black. The term "Colored" has also been considered derrogitory since the times of the 1960's Civil Rights movements. It is proper to speak of minority races as "People of color" which defines people of African, Hispanic, Native American, and Asian ancestry.

I grew up in the ghetto where I was the only "white boy" in my school. I am fully aware what terms are offensive and what aren't. I simply said calling a Black Man Colored is the same as calling a Native American a Redskin. While the term is not racist as other words are, the term is still offensive.

Get involved how? To support the name change? I ask, because given the name of the NAACP if they were to boycott it would seem hypocritical.

I am willing to bet when the NAACP was founded, the term colored was just the way it is, it is no longer an acceptable term, though the name still stands.

The "African American" moniker is pretty misleading. Most that call themselves that are no more "African" than I am "English". Should I call myself an "English American" because I can trace my roots to England? Course not. I am white. They are black. African American is misleading.

Actually, you are totally mixed up. African_Americas are blacks from Africa. I am Europeon-American because my ancesters come from Europe (A continent) and not England (A country) though I am white.



Then again, I have no slave ownership in my blood since my Mom is from Germany and my father is 2nd generation from Switzerland.





Tom

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen said:

Then again, I have no slave ownership in my blood since my Mom is from Germany and my father is 2nd generation from Switzerland.

Does that imply that you have a little jew killer, and a little holocaust exploiter in your blood then?



Of course it doesn't!



How exactly does one have "slave ownership in their blood?" I guess I could have a recessive gene in my blood, or maybe I have some of my grandfather's DNA in my blood, but I don't know how I can have an ancestor's ownership of something in my blood.



For example, Caymen, you own Fords. That doesn't mean your great, great, great grandchildren will have Ford blue running through their veins.



I think what you are getting to is that you feel you shouldn't have any "white man's guilt", since there are no slave owner's in your family tree. If that makes you sleep better at night, cool.



But for me, I don't hold anyone accountable for the sins of their fathers (or ancestors). I don't think anyone should. For if we did, we would have to sucker punch every Japanese person we see, and then burn to death every German.



That's why the whole idea of slave reparations makes no sense to me. The offspring should not pay for the deeds of their ancestors.



Please, don't take my examples personally! They were simply meant to show how absurd the notions of guilt, and fault among latter generations is.



TJR

 

[Tom Schindler]

Does that imply that you have a little jew killer, and a little holocaust exploiter in your blood then?

Actually it does. I share the same name with Oskar Schindler, though my Schindler's come from Switzerland and not Germany. My Grandfather fought in the German Army and was captured by the Russians and was held in a Russian POW camp.

How exactly does one have "slave ownership in their blood?"

The same as the Jews having the murder of Jesus in their blood.

For example, Caymen, you own Fords. That doesn't mean your great, great, great grandchildren will have Ford blue running through their veins?

I can only hope so! If it weren't for Ford, they may not exist since their great, great, great, great grandfather worked and retired from Ford.

The offspring should not pay for the deeds of their ancestors.

Read the bible a little more.





Tom

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen, you said "read the Bible a little more..."



Like much of the Bible (not the capitalization) that's hard to pin down. The Bible seems very contradictory on the subject.



I for one see holding a child accountable for something their ancestors did before he was born illogical. Without exception most would recognize the single most important command within the Bible is LOVE. I don't see how holding someone accountable for something that they had absolutely NOTHING to do with could be that. Other leading messages in the Bible are forgiveness and grace...again, holding someone wrongful liable for something they didn't do seems contrary to those as well.



Also, as for "jews having the murder of Jesus in their blood", what a crock. That's actually the kind of hateful thing many anti-semites still spout today. If you are a Christian you should rejoice in the Jews. Clearly they were part of God's divine plan. Every great martyr requires someone to martyr them. There should be bumper stickers: "Love your salvation? Thank a Jew!"



For Bible references on what we were talking about click below:

 

[Tom Schindler]

We can argue this point one on one.





Tom

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen,



No need, because I'm not arguing. Heck, I'm not even debating. Just pointing out the absurdity of the whole "sins of the father" line of thinking.



Our modern day courts don't even recognize such liabilities.



TJR

 

[Tom Schindler]

Our modern day courts don't even recognize such liabilities.

That is right, but modern day courts do not adhere to biblical law. They only adhere to the law of man.





Tom

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen said:

That is right, but modern day courts do not adhere to biblical law. They only adhere to the law of man.

True. However, a few of our laws are also in the Bible. Do not steal; do not murder...the biggies of man's laws and moral code. Many are quick to point out the divine inspiration of those laws, though linking man's laws and the 10 Commandments is debateable (see link).



Funny that there is at least one commandment that used to be a pretty widespread law, but one which has all but fallen from man's laws (you can figure out which one).



Heck, there are a number of man's laws that have fallen out of favor, but at one time or another were championed by people that would quote scripture; laws providing segregation, or meant to prevent bi-racial marriage, homosexuality/sodomy, etc.



Just as the Bible instructed on how to beat your slave. Clearly it is a book written during a time in man's history, filled with some timeless and some timeful advice. It's up to us to figure out which is which.



We see changes in attitudes and behavior related to mans laws vs God's so-called laws as just that, IMHO.



TJR

 

[Bill V]

Calling a Native American a "Redskin" is the same as calling a black person a "Niggger",

Absolutely. It's also the same as calling someone from Ireland a "Fighting Irish", and portraying them as brawling, drunken leprechauns. I am not exaggerating when I say that as someone of Irish heritage, I find the Notre Dame mascot extremely offensive.



I'm all for getting rid of the Redskin, Fighting Sioux (a major arguement point in this part of the country), Indians, Braves, etc., names--so long as Notre Dame is also forced to drop theirs.

Of course, I am white so I just don't get offended if I get called a honkey, cracker, whitie, or anything else. Maybe because that is because I am white and was never considered a lower class of citizan.

Very true--but that's why the Notre Dame mascot is offensive--by portraying the Irish as drunken brawlers, it is indicating that they are a lower class of citizen.

 

[Tom Schindler]

Do not steal; do not murder...the biggies of man's laws and moral code.

I would agree. Honestly, the 10 commandments are nothing more than general riles that should be the core of all human beings. Then again, that was Jewish law and not Christian law, but I digress.

Just as the Bible instructed on how to beat your slave.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that is also in the Old Testiment which was written for the Jewish Nation.



We can bring a parallel to our country. Our forefathers wrote the Bill Of Rights that said "All men are created equal", yet we had people that were not equal.



I do not find the term Indians or Braves offensive, but I do see the Fighting Irish or Redskins offensive.



One question though, if the mascot the Fighting Irish goes away, does that mean the police no longer have Paddy Wagons?





Tom

 

[Richard L]

i think too many analagies are being made that have missed the mark and are just not even close.



I am Irish, and I don't find the "Fighting Irish" of Notre Dame in any way offiensive. It refeers to Irish as Irish not some drrogitory name. I see the Fighting part as applying to most sports teams who are said to :Fight to win the game.



The other key factor is that the Irish are not classified as an oppressed minority. Nobody discriminates agains Irish peop;e because they think they are drunken brawlers, etc.



Blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, Asians, and Jews are people who have been oppressed, inslaved, and even murdered buy individuals and governements.. Many years ago, Irish were known as drunken brawlers primarily from the Gangs of New Yourg over 150 years ago, and does not apply now. It is no diffeerent than assuming that all Italians are gangsters because some italians were in the Mafia, etc.



...Rich