Jul 20, 2010 -- 10:13PM, jane2 wrote:

Jul 20, 2010 -- 8:57PM, Weepingangelofthetrees wrote:

Color me surprised!The only ones this is news for is Andile Mngxitama and those who hold his views. That racism is a matter of conceptual fidelity. That racism is defined by one group's ability to subjugate another. Since black people have never had the social, economic or political power to subjugate white people, they cannot be racist, by definition. 

I've met blacks who are racist. We have what is promoted as a black college (By the college) in my town who has a library collection that I can not find in the State or local public stacks. The racist slurs scrawled on the women's bathroom stalls there are astonishing, considering it's suppose to be an institution for higher learning! Not to mention the dismissive attitude of the staff who ignore me when I appear to obviously need assistance in fining a book.But what was most obvious as the unspoken racist policy present at even the higher rungs of the Institution was a few years ago when a friend's daughter was to graduate summa cum laude. 

The daughter didn't tell her mom because she wanted it to be a surprise at the graduation ceremony. It was. For both of them!
She was the only white girl in the graduating class and when it came time to announce the honors, in order, they omitted that entire part of the graduation ceremonies. The only way the mother found out her daughter had been awarded that honor was when she read her name on the graduation program she received when she first arrived.

So this USDA inspector woman's attitude isn't really a surprise at all. Racism is hate born of fear. Skin color is accessory.

Oh good grief

Racism is a live and well and we are still struggling to know how to deal with it....

Of course Racism is alive and well. I never said otherwise. What I said was that Racism is not exclusively a "White thing".

Good grief indeed.

Jul 28, 2010 -- 12:53AM, rabello wrote:

Jul 27, 2010 -- 9:23PM, Weepingangelofthetrees wrote:

Of course Racism is alive and well. I never said otherwise. What I said was that Racism is not exclusively a "White thing".

 

Well, except you obviously didn't listen to Ms Sherrod's entire speech if you are still harboring the idea that she was/is racist, or if the people in the audience were racist, if you're still talking about her "attitude".

I made an observation about Racism not being exclusively a white thing. That in no wise imparted an accusation against Ms.Sherrod. In fact if you read my first remarks toward this matter you'll note I said, "Color me surprised?!" In reference to the implication she resigned in light of the accusation she made racist remarks.

The allusion of guilt on her part, when she was besieged from all sides for having allegedly said this. So it is her powerful detractors that didn't listen to the speech. It's herself who bowed to the pressure after having, in her recent address of the matter, stated forthrightly that she'd encountered racism in her life and her goal as an official now was to fight against that. When, if it were true, she'd have stood up, dug in her heels and demanded those detractors screaming she resign be the ones to listen to her full speech. And then ask for her forgiveness, for reacting so violently in their ignorance.

My remarks addressed the topic that encompassed this entire report. Racism! Which cuts across all color barriers and exists amid all races of person's.

So if you would read me you'd understand what I was talking about. In retrospect you're committing the same mistake as did her detractors. You didn't pay attention to what I said and instead inferred what you wished to read, in that small portion of my remarks that you did choose to see.

I've done that myself here in threads. Some folks are like myself, in that they could talk (post) the ears off corn. Sometimes you just want to read a little bit and not a flippin novelette. So the quick scan suffices. But it isn't fair, and I'm guilty of this as well, to charge someone with saying something that quick scan led you to believe was there and worthy of criticism.

The criticism I have of this woman in particular is that Ms. Sherrod bowed to the pressure the ignorants afforded against her. If she's a fighter against racism, she had her chance to prove it. Had it been me, Satan would have lip glossed my right cheek, before I'd have resigned so as to assume the burden of guilt that act applies, regardless of her stating her actual reasons for doing so, and dug in my heels and faced the real racists that were talking out of both sides of their face against me.

But that's just me. She lives her choices.

And I stand behind what I said initially and in follow-up in this post. Racism is not exclusively a white thing.

And to add, when people live up to the stereotype, they can't be surprised when the label ensues. Racism today is said to be something we're striving to get over with the inception of a new generation. Those kids taught not to speak freely because it's not P.C. , for instance. Those young folks who are witness to a Lesbian being banned from the High School Prom because she's to learn she and her sex life are not free to be equal in an American Public Institution. As her peers watch that and learn the lesson it's meant to set. We're taught compliments and self-esteem are no longer something to be freely spoken and thus freely inferred as something to bolster our sense of self-worth and appearance, because it may be construed as "Sexual Harassment". Which certainly does have it's impact when one works in a "Zero Tolerance Policy" (Guilty without option to prove innocence) work environment.

We think we've moved beyond the color of politics and bias in society. We've not done so, and we'll not in my lifetime. Not as long as black Rap groups that don't get as much press as others, record songs spewing hate against the whites in track after track. Not as long as we are an obviously visually biased society. When that fact is proven again and again because we've moved now from marketing right and approved physical attributes/appearance, unto legislating what is considered acceptable speech about such things. When you make laws prosecuting people for saying a thing, you're implying they should self-police their own thoughts.

Oops, that's been done too. In Germany! Where it's considered a "Thought Crime" , to say anything that would relegate ones self to the status/profile of a "Holocaust denier".

This case is about free speech and stereotypes. Sadly enough, every one of the key players played it to a Tee. Bodes a sad future, that shows we haven't really come that far we just think we have because the wheels are spinning.

End of Novelette. You may stop reading now. (Not that many didn't do that long ago. HA!)

Good for her, re: bringing suit against Breitbart.

Her lawyer will have to prove he knew he was dealing with a selective edit. Shouldn't be too hard.

That maroon has been cruising for a serious butt kicking for some time.

Amen ... In U. S. Courts, however, PROVING "Libel" or "Slander" is NOT easy ... There must be THREE Things:

(1)  The Accused KNEW that what (s)he wrote or said was FALSE ...

(2)  There MUST have been a malicious INTENT to the Action ...

(3)  There MUST be demonstrable HARM to the Target of the Accused ...

I think she'll WIN -- but perhaps in an Out-of-Court Settlement ...

Jul 29, 2010 -- 8:49PM, catboxer wrote:

Good for her, re: bringing suit against Breitbart.

Her lawyer will have to prove he knew he was dealing with a selective edit. Shouldn't be too hard.

That maroon has been cruising for a serious butt kicking for some time.