posted on April 10, 2001 07:50:16 PM new
HJW In Mississippi, the oppression, violence and hatred toward black people is similar to that found in South Africa
I've lived in Mississippi for 3 years, and I've found they don't have a monopoly on ignorance or prejudices, or even rash generalizations.
I grew up in Venezuela my first 16 years, most of my adult life was in Alaska, but I've live in many places in the US and traveled heavily. I feel I've seen a few other customs.
When some people tell you they are thinking, they are merely rearranging their prejudices.
posted on April 10, 2001 08:30:42 PM newHJW: You are aware, aren't you, that since the early 90s apartheid in South Africa has been abolished? That the president, the deputy president and almost every single government minister is black? (the only exceptions are 4 who are Indian and 2 that are white).
Also, that Mississippi is pretty low in hate crimes in comparison with other states? 34 states have higher numbers in this area (wow, Pennsylvania's 1,108 in 1997 makes Mississpi's 79 pale in comparison).
posted on April 10, 2001 09:07:58 PM new
Bunni,
You know perfectly well that that isn't any kind of accurate comparison so why are you trying to pull the wool over poor innocent b'gosh Helen?
Those numbers only reflect the population concentrations in the two states and I'd almost bet that the per capita rate of whatever you use as defining hate crimes is actually as high if not higher in Mississippi than Pennsylvania. On the other hand though, it's likey the case that the remaining black populace of Mississippi has been taught (read--had DRUMMED into them) to keep to
their 'place', so there would be a consequent lessening of a continued need for those hate crimes. Even in Mississippi they don't beat a dog who minds his master.
posted on April 10, 2001 09:22:16 PM new
But in Texas, black people are dragged to death behind pickups for sport. And the GOP president many hold so dear refused to sign a hate crimes bill when he was governor and begged by the deceased man's family.
*edited to add more thoughts**
[ edited by Baduizm on Apr 10, 2001 09:24 PM ]
posted on April 10, 2001 09:31:06 PM new
Jlpiece said: "As for you Badu, you mention alot of problems in the past to account for the double standard today (ie NAACP, black colleges, BET etc). Last time I checked, it's actually easier for blacks to get into college than whites, and if you only see black folks on BET, and not NBC CBS ABC FOX UPN & The WB than we are watching two different TV's in 2 different worlds. What void are you referring to?"
When did it become easier for African-Americans to gain admittance to college? That statement is purely reactionary and not grounded in any truth.
Yes BET has demographic marketing and programming you won't see on any of the regular networks. But your position that there should be "white" entertainment television is laughable since so much programming on the major networks IS WET in the first place, LOL!
posted on April 10, 2001 09:44:06 PM new
Not only that, with few notable exceptions, the networks did not have regularly scheduled television until blacks had established, independently, that it could be marketable. Once all of the big guys realiized that there was a buck to be made they couldn't scrabble up enough competing programming fast enough.
posted on April 10, 2001 10:34:35 PM new
Badu and KRS you raise very good points that initially and for a long time there wasn't the same commercialisation as there is now. I agree 100%. I also agree that once the big guys saw the money to be made they couldn't market things fast enough. I agree on all of these things, but how long shall we continue to make up for past wrongs?
Badu my very own UofM (Michigan) is currently being sued in a HIGHLY publicized suit for letting in minority students with lower test scores than whites who were not admitted. That's what I based my statement on...fact. UofM law school to be exact, and the judge agreed that their admissions practices were unconstitutionally biased. Look it up.
Krs...1/8 Cherokee???????? I won't even ask what you were thinking with that one.
posted on April 10, 2001 10:52:34 PM new
Badu: I hadn't heard about this new sport you refer to in Texas. My understanding is nothing else like that has happened in my memory anywhere in Texas. Correct me if I'm wrong... In fact the same people who complain about Bushs' death penalty wouldn't object to those perpetrators being put to death. As far as the hate crimes legislation goes as a result of that horrific crime against James Byrd (I believe that was his name)How much worse would that bill make the punishment for such an act. Isn't the punishment death already, or at least life in prison? How much worse would the hate crime distinction make it. I'm not a real supporter of the death penalty, but in my oppinion, that was one of those incidences where it would fit.
posted on April 11, 2001 03:13:08 AM newjlpiece, as much as I hate to identify anyhting with you, I happen to have had the same experiences that you mentioned.
I am a ghost, skin color so white that it makes new snow look gray. And when I went to the 7th grade, I went to a middle-school that was 60%-70% black. I too found myself on the receiving end of racism. How many times did some black kids push me into a wall calling me "Whitey"? How many times was I threatened at the point of a knife and told that I was going to be "cut up 'cuse you is White!"? My school years of 8th grade through 12th grade then took me to a place where both whites and blacks were sheer minorities and picked on for their skin color. Yah, I've been on the receiving end of racism too, but I still don't believe that peoples are evil, only individuals are.
To answer your other remark about when Clinton was Govenor, jlpiece, the fact is that Clinton made sure that the playing field in Arkansas got as leveled as he could. If he couldn't do everything that needed to be done, that's because he's not God. And its a lot more than any Republican ever did for that state!
------------
Back to Topic:
OK. So the Confederate Flag is supposed to be a rememberance of History. Tell me, Southern Citizens, exactly which memories and whose history are you referring too?
*edited for late-nite spelling*
[ edited by Borillar on Apr 11, 2001 03:15 AM ]
posted on April 11, 2001 08:15:34 AM new
borillar,
I missed your question last night.
I was referring to Africa today...Where
race is still the greatest single issue in political, social, and economic life.
Poor blacks still work as near-slave laborers for their employers (although by no means are all of these white).
It reminds me of Hemingway's visit to Mississippi(and Borillar, I mean after the civil war) in which he
stayed awake all night with his rifle between his knees because he was afraid of the good citizens of Mississippi.
posted on April 11, 2001 08:21:17 AM new
Sorry to get off topic. <out for awhile>
Borillars post........
"Back to Topic:
OK. So the Confederate Flag is supposed to be a rememberance of History. Tell me, Southern Citizens, exactly which memories and whose history are you referring too?"
posted on April 11, 2001 09:20:26 AM newBorilar, [i]"Back to Topic:
OK. So the Confederate Flag is supposed to be a rememberance of History. Tell me, Southern Citizens, exactly which memories and whose history are you referring too?"[/i]
Southern type citizen weighing in again here.. since I seem to be the only one not afraid to admit it.. I was referring to America's history! In my earlier posts I said something like southerners are not proud of the past, but feel a need to perserve it. I also said something to the effect of we are more proud of the inroads that have been made into fighting prejudice and racism. I would like to amend that to read "MOST" southerners. Prejudice does go on in the south, and for me to deny that just because of my own convictions is absolutely wrong. Still, our past (ALL of our pasts), should be preserved and we should continue to learn from it. I ALSO said that the flag is (unfortunately) a symbol of racism, and is offensive to some, and therefore has no business being in a place of learning.
It was a truly extraordinary circumstance that allowed this then young nation to become so divided. And yes, brothers did fight on opposite sides of the war. To toss that away and sweep it under the rug because certain hate groups have perpetuated an antiquated notion of (in)equality is absolutely wrong. There is far more to being southern than a flag, just as there is far more to being racist than that same flag. For you northerners to denounce us all as racist just for being southern is no more prejudicial than what those Texans did to the man they drug behind the truck. You can not lump all persons of any location, heritage or background into one category. We are all different to varying degrees.
And prejudice exists EVERYWHERE with or without a flag. My DH was born and raised in Chicago. He recalls his father (child of Irish immigrants, also born and raised in Chicago) moving from their very nice home to a "better" location. The reason? White Flight. Seems the blacks were encroaching on Western Avenue on the South Side. I don't recall my family ever packing up and moving because a certain race was moving in on us. We just lived together, played together and grew up with our different cultures... together.
On being southern:
When I lived in Chicago, the only way I could get a home style meal like my mama used to make was either cook it myself, or.. go to a "Soul Food" restaraunt! My DH used to scoff at my preference for ham hocks and greens, grits and country fried steak. He couldn't understand why I "ate like a black person". Now I am assimilating him into the south, and he is learning that to be southern is to accept heritage, history, and home cookin'! And believe it or not, he is actually less prejudiced than he was in highly segregated Chicago.
posted on April 11, 2001 09:43:39 AM new
Thank you Sugar2912 for those paragraphs and recapitulation of your previous post. Still, I don't feel as though the question was answered: "Tell me, Southern Citizens, exactly which memories and whose history are you referring too?"
Now, any civil war, in any country, always sees brother pitted against brother in battle. Sad. But do oyu see them waving flag and having re-enactments because of it? Nope! And do you know why? Because its not something that rational people like to think about. WHAT'S THERE THAT THEY SHOULD BE PROUD OF IT???
posted on April 11, 2001 10:03:22 AM new
Ok, Borilar, I thank you for not substituting the word "post" with another four letter word ending in "t".
Are we proud of what we did to the Native Americans throughout American history? Should we forget about that? Sweep it away as though it never happened? NOPE! Nor should we in this instance.
Perhaps the reason most other countries don't re-enact their civil wars is because they never really end in most other countries. We did end it, abruptly. We did re-unite, the south did lose, and did admit it's mistake.
Is a valid reason to wipe that portion of history off the books simply because you are offended? Isn't it far more rational to examine, study and dissect American history than to shut your eyes to it because a large chunk of America was wrong? Do rational people not want to know the facts, whether ugly or pretty? Is it rational to stick your head in the sand on an issue and period of time and pretend it never happened? If our grandparents had felt that way, we would not be having this discussion today. We would not know that a civil war really could happen here on our own soil.
Just because the past ain't pretty doesn't mean that the present should pretend it never existed. Otherwise, how will the future know how to prevent it from recurring?
posted on April 11, 2001 10:15:05 AM new
Thank you for that bit of more information. OK, now I had ancestors who died in every war here since the French-Indian-English war. But I do not own a flag and probably never will. I am not ashamed of those wars, but neither do I go about being proud of it.
"We did end it, abruptly. We did re-unite, the south did lose, and did admit it's mistake."
>>COUGH!<< >>COUGH!<< I don't know which South you're from, but when I was living in Memphis, they believed no such thing! "The South Shall Rise Again!" You'd think that loosing is something to forget about. If a football team looses the season, do you see anyone "remembering" it every year and putting that failure and shame of disloyalty on their state flag? I've heard the excuses that there's some history to be proud of for the South. I'd rahter see them parade and make emblems on flags for how they've overcome their hatred of blacks and the progress that they've made, than to pretend that they're eatting a picnic and leaving out the part about the ants!
So, using this same rational, let's do this: on all Southern flags, we'll put a picture of Kunta Kinte' being sold on the auction block. The Southerners can have re-enactments, but switching places this time with the black folk. Would you object to that?
posted on April 11, 2001 11:01:12 AM newhttp://www.kuntakinte.org/history.htmlKunta Kinte was one of 98 slaves brought to Annapolis, Maryland aboard the ship Lord Ligonier in 1767, and despite many years in bondage, he never lost his connection to his African heritage. Kunta Kinte's experience symbolizes the struggle of all ethnic groups to preserve their cultural heritage.
Should we put that on the Maryland state flag? Oops! They weren't part of the southern secession!
Which brings me back to my original point, American history.
You seem to have, in your convenient sense of history, forgotten that the north had slaves too. They just abolished it when it became politically correct to do so. It seems to me that we should all practice a bit more tolerance here.
The southern flag as a political statement is wrong. It has been bastardized by certain groups into merely a symbol of hate, which is also wrong. The fact that the history of America is less than pretty is truth. To wipe that out is wrong. To hate someone because they are southern is also wrong, and prejudicial!
I don't think you'll find anyone who actually believes the "South is gonna rise again". It's a kitschy bit of southerness that won't soon go away. I think too, if you went to Memphis today and asked any upstanding citizen whether or not they felt the south should re-secede from the Union that they would actually say yes.
And.. cough cough... The south did admit it was wrong when they signed the surrender and everyone rejoined the union.
HJW, I'm beginning to think that my own lynching would be the only thing that would make some folks happy!
posted on April 11, 2001 12:17:11 PM newSugar2912:, please -- I'm not trying to lynch you! I'm only saying, once again, that you can't celebrate the Picnic without remembering the ants! I see the Revolutionary War Re-Enactments as a good thing: it teaches us to stand up to Monarchies and the Tyranny of not being represented in lawmaking (like we are now!) I think that the ideals od freedom and individual liberty that they fought so bravely for and died for are admirable and reminds us the price that succeeding generations have to pay for such lofty ideals. The South had no such ideals. it wanted to presenve it's way of life, it's pride, it's dignity, it's bravery and cleverness in battle. But, like the Picnic, they couldn't have had these things as they did without walking all over someone else's back - namely, slavery. And then to tell everyone that they are celebrating their disloyalty and remembering a system of living that was based upon the subjugation of an entire race, somehow that doesn't seem to be anything Noble to remember.
So, Sugar2912:, I'm only leaning on you for some sensible, reasonable explanation. I am *not* trying to hold you accountable for the movement.
P.s. Not all the northern states allowed slavery. Some never allowed it at all. And for the ones that did, it was very brief and that experience fired the Abolition Movement. Whereas, the South, being largely agricultural, depended upon Slavery to get by.
posted on April 11, 2001 12:33:20 PM newSugar2912: No one is saying we should "forget" our history. Every school child in the country studies it. However, using the Confederate flag as a symbol of "pride" is celebrating a shameful part of that history.
As for northern states stopping slavery "only when it was PC to do so"--that is incorrect. The northern states that did allow slavery dropped it as a result of the hard work of abolitionists who campaigned against it.
HJW: Your links about recent happenings in South Africa show a *black* government mistreating black people...
posted on April 11, 2001 12:58:47 PM newBorilar and [b]Buniculla[b/] you are both so right, and I agree with what you are both saying! It is what I have been saying too. It is nothing noble to remember. That is exactly why it should never be forgotten. We did subjucate an entire race, we fought the bloodiest war in America's history over it. Please God, never let that happen again!
I have been of the stance all along that the flag as a hate symbol is intolerable, but it is a historical fact (an ugly part of our history Borilar). I have also been of the stance all along that it has no place on kids clothing in schools because it is offensive. And Borilar, I'm sorry, I have no reasonable account for the movement to wear rebel pride to school. All I can figure is that the parents are bigots, or are incapable of realizing the import of what they are teaching their kids.
This topic is 6 pages long: 1new2new3new4new5new6new
