posted on April 12, 2001 02:24:49 AM new
Actually, throughout history there have been intelligent, intellectual people who were/are racists. It seems to be an innate part of the human species to tend to look down on &/or discriminate against those who are different from yourself or your society. There are few societies that haven't practiced racism. Europeans are not alone in this by a long shot. India, Japan, China, Native Americans, etc. etc. etc. have all had it. And when you get religion thrown into the mix it is intensified.
posted on April 12, 2001 03:30:11 AM new
Something that wasn't addressed to my knowledge, with the demise of slavery what to do with these people when they become free. Who is to take care of them? That was a contributing factor in the decision to rebel.
In most cases they lacked the ability to provide for their self. That might be a reason Washington mentioned gradually abolishment of slavery, he knew that it would take considerable time to accomplish that! Consider why the bulk of the black population remained in the south.
Many even upon the emancipation went on to work for the very people that once owned them and in most cases even took their surnames. Cotton was always big biz in the south even before the cotton gin. The cotton gin didn't pick it tho.
The North prospered in the textile industry by utilizing a cheap resource provided by southern plantations, so they to profited from slavery. African people as a race are partial responsible for slavery, due to the fact that the sold many of their own people into slavery!
As far as pervasive racism, when you make a statement pertaining to black or white, a line is drawn you reside on one side or the other depending on your color not your believes. As long as that is practiced in society so to will racism exist. Regardless who makes the statement.
As far as the Chinese they have over come that hardship like so many others have all thru out history. Like I said before every race at some point in time has had their crosses to bear, delivered by the hand of another race or culture.
"Because the particular flag, or it's originality or not, doesn't make any difference at all to the statements being made by those who display it".
So then the statements against its display, are determined by what one perceives it's meaning is, regardless, if it is derived from it's original intent or not.
The above commentary is not intended to present a combative nature or adversative position.
posted on April 12, 2001 04:52:27 AM new"African people as a race are partial responsible for slavery"
Gee, have to remember that.
"what to do with these people when they become free. Who is to take care of them? That was a contributing factor in the decision to rebel".
I think that this is an outrageously demeaning thing to say.
"As far as the Chinese they have over come that hardship like so many others have all thru out history. Like I said before every race at some point in time has had their crosses to bear, delivered by the hand of another race or culture".
Are you saying that black people have failed to overcome hardship and "bear their crosses"?
During the 'reconstruction' period after the civil war there was direct competition between black and white people in the south for land and for the very limited available markets to sell the production of labor. In a competitive environment the poorer whites did not always fare well. Their world was by far the most disrupted by the changes following the war and they were coming back from an experience which had taken them from the pride in a neo patriotism to the shame of loss. Many of them had owned little before the war and many of them had not had to work to enjoy a relatively good standard because slavery, rather slaves provided it to them either directly or as part of the general welfare of the society. Is such a direct competitive relationship in which both elements to the competition vied to put food on the table a reasonable place for real hatred to begin? To come home, after fighting for the previous status quo to find that people previously essentially unworthy of attention were now the primary roadblock to personal economic well-being would foster a hatred if any failure to succeed were met.
The slave traders realized early on that they could take advantage of rivalry between tribes in Africa making it cost effective for them by allowing the Africans who wanted to profit by slave sale to do the foot work for them.
As far as the other comment, they were deliberately kept from education, lacking a total grasp of the language and education needed to survive, this was all planned. The lack of education would severly hamper any attempt to
intergrate into white society.
You concluded that they are failing in their struggle, not me. I feel they are gaining ground daily and hope they will continue to do so.
Yes, there are the unfortunate of any race
and in the nature of being human, those who are more fortunate should always lend a helping hand regardless of color or race of those in need.
posted on April 12, 2001 05:49:20 AM new
Hi folks....
Let's remember to address the topic, OK?
This is the third time we've had to remind about this in this thread...this is a sensitive issue which can bring forth lots of emotions...let's play nice OK?
posted on April 12, 2001 06:33:05 AM new"Let's remember to address the topic"
Have I been gone so long that "address the post, not the poster no longer applies?
"This is the third time we've had to remind about this in this thread...this is a sensitive issue which can bring forth lots of emotions...let's play nice"
However many times there are reminders, in a thread containing admittedly sensitive issues as a subject, which are acknowledged as bringing forth "lots of emotions" those experiencing such emotions are only playing and need to be reminded to "play nice"?
posted on April 12, 2001 06:33:56 AM new
I wish I could support the ACLU on this - I've been a member in the past. As a high school student in the 60's, I hated the dress codes we had to follow. However, growing up in the South has tempered my feelings.
I was born in New York but lived in Georgia for twelve years in the 50's and 60's. I remember separate drinking fountains and restrooms ( the "colored" restrooms were usually outhouses). I remember pictures in the paper of civil rights workers beaten and attacked by dogs. My high school wasn't integrated until I was a Senior. I remember our church inviting the choir of the local African American church to sing at the Sunday service and then worrying about where or if to seat the parents if they showed up to hear their children sing. On one trip to Florida I remember being appalled at my hosts bigoted, hateful statements about the integration of the beaches. The rebel flag and Dixie were included in all our sports events - and I never got the impression it was for inclusivity. Twenty years later when I finally returned to Georgia for a visit, not enough had changed.
I'm sure that prejudice in some form is everywhere, on all sides. However, when we complain about the "younger generation", we should look at what we're doing to contribute to the problem. Everyone knows that the display of the rebel flag pisses off African Americans and many others, so why continue to rub it in. A child should be free to attend school without having the rebel flag waved in his or her face.
posted on April 12, 2001 06:40:32 AM new
saabsister,
Agreed. Good post.
Racism remains a way of life in the south. Not everyone in the south subscribes to it, but it is defended with a wide assortment of arguments, denials, and rationalizations by those who do, almost as though it is a right or a result of God given superiority.
posted on April 12, 2001 06:55:40 AM newkrs Yes, the depth of racism in the South is something I don't understand. I'm sure that having lost a war fought on its soil has something to do with it. I live in the Virginia suburbs of Washington,DC. Years ago a former co-worker of mine from Nebraska said she couldn't understand why Southerners were still talking about a war fought over 100 years ago. To her it was past history,but to them it's part of the culture.
posted on April 12, 2001 06:59:33 AM new
Give any racist a Bible and, if he can read,
he will find a verse to justify what he percieves as his "God given right."
As saabsister stated, "we should look at what we're doing to contribute to the problem."
posted on April 12, 2001 07:28:33 AM new"t's a hate symbol...a racist's sentimental reminder of white supremacy and black lynching and oppression".
I don't agree Helen.
The Confederate flag is a symbol of the southern fight for independence.
That it is flaunted as a symbol of racial unrest is a misuse. I think that racism as it is today developed after that war was concluded.
Nevertheless, the flag is perceived as a symbol of racial supremacy both by some who wave it and by some who see it, and because of that perception by anyone it should not be a part of student interactions in schools. There are too many ways to read the intent of it's display.
posted on April 12, 2001 07:51:07 AM new
I knew enough forty years ago, when I was
only 12 ...growing up in Mississippi... to be
embarassed by the display of the confederate flag.
"There are too many ways to read the intent of it's display"
I can't agree with that either. Anybody
that flies the confederate flag today
has only one intent... ONLY ONE!
That is to send a message that the White Supremist are still in power with their hate
and their memories of hate and their hope
for more hate in the future.
Helen
You guys feel free to bash me now. I'm going
to a birthday party.
posted on April 12, 2001 09:14:35 AM new
In regards to Confederate Flag or any historical symbol for that matter. Now that it is apparent that it is offensive to a certain population in this country. Lets step back further in history to the beginnings of colonization here in America. As you know many people died in the shadow of the Holy Cross during the witch hunt days that took place early in our history of this country. So if you take into account how many people died in this manner, now consider how many of their descendants could be alive today in this country. Now suppose they come together, which they could total many today and they decided that the cross of Christianity which their ancestors died under is symbolic of hatred and offensive to them, due to the wrongful deaths of the ancestors. So do you obscure the cross from everybody's view or not.
posted on April 12, 2001 09:32:04 AM new
Aw Nutspec! You knew as you posted that no minds would be changed.. but that's no reason to not give your input. Folks (myself included) have been taught one thing their whole lives and aren't likely to give that up in a matter of minutes.
I personally have given everything I have to say already. It's just to the point of rehashing now anyway.
posted on April 12, 2001 09:53:04 AM newSo do you obscure the cross from everybody's view or not.
That is a question that has already been asked.
When a sliver of public land -- about 1500 square fee -- on which stood a 60-foot high Christian cross was sold to a service organization about 1971, was the arrangement rigged, improper, and an attempt to circumvent the constitution?
Documents obtained by AANEWS suggest that officials may have indeed acted improperly by trying to keep the cross standing on public land, possibly minimizing the publicity over a questionable auction or sale of the real estate, and worked to circumvent the intent of judicial decisions pertaining to the separation of church and state.
posted on April 12, 2001 10:10:01 AM new
Our governments claim to separation of church and state is hard to swallow as well, since numerous articles of currency have "In God We Trust" on them. The question may have been asked but not answered you can drive anywhere via a public road and see a cross. The circumventing of the constitution goes on everyday, The judicial branch somewhere down the line usurped some of the power of the legislative branch of the government with out our say. Furthermore now that the Supreme Court is of political constituency there will most likely be further degrading of the Constitution to the detriment of the public due to rulings of the supreme court or interpretation of Constitution based on case law as opposed to Constitutional Law
posted on April 12, 2001 10:24:46 AM newOur governments claim to separation of church and state is hard to swallow as well, since numerous articles of currency have "In God We Trust" on them.
It might make it easier to swallow once you realize that "In God We Trust" is on our money not because of any particular religious beliefs of the founders of this country, but rather, due to the efforts of numerous Protestant denominations at around the time of the Civil War.
Almost a century and a half ago, 11 Protestant denominations mounted a campaign to add references to God to the U.S. Constitution and other federal documents. Rev. M.R. Watkinson was the first of many to write a letter to the Secretary of the Treasury Samuel P. Chase in 1861 to promote this concept. 8 In 1863, Chase asked the Director of the Mint, James Pollock to prepare suitable wording for a motto to be used on coins. Pollock suggested "Our Trust Is In God," "Our God And Our Country," "God And Our Country," and "God Our Trust." Chase decided to have "In God We Trust" used on some of the coins.
Decades later, Theodore Roosevelt disapproved of the motto. In a letter to William Boldly on 1907-NOV-11, he wrote: "My own feeling in the matter is due to my very firm conviction that to put such a motto on coins, or to use it in any kindred manner, not only does no good but does positive harm, and is in effect irreverence, which comes dangerously close to sacrilege...It is a motto which it is indeed well to have inscribed on our great national monuments, in our temples of justice, in our legislative halls, and in building such as those at West Point and Annapolis -- in short, wherever it will tend to arouse and inspire a lofty emotion in those who look thereon. But it seems to me eminently unwise to cheapen such a motto by use on coins, just as it would be to cheapen it by use on postage stamps, or in advertisements."
