It's generally a semantic quibble, or at least that is what I've found when this statement is made by Americans. Some people believe that "racism" isn't synonymous with "bigotry."
At first I thought you were honestly trying to promote understanding of both sides of the issue through debate. Now it seems clear, in my opinion, that you are just being obstinate. I have dismantled your arguments using logic, reason, historical examples, and the law itself, and yet you continue to respond with simplistic, naive, and childlike thinking on very complex matters. You are entitled to your opinions just as I am mine, but I notice that you don't respond to many of my historical examples, and legal definitions that refute your assertions on the matter, that's ok, I know it is because you have no rational leg to stand on so you revert to basic thoughts such as "two wrongs don't make a right" and "censorship is bad for everyone" in feeble attempts to bolster your position. I am usually not this abrasive in my analysis, but I have tired of your never-ending willful blindness on a matter you could never fully appreciate and understand as you are not African American. Nonetheless, good luck to you.
You are not a woman. You cannot appreciate what it is to be one. You have not experienced misogyny and sexism and much worse because of your gender. I have been "under the boot" of it. I have had "skin in the game" and a Hell of a lot more than skin. I can still maintain my integrity and not change the rules based on my emotional perceptions. I am strong enough to not allow it to diminish my ADULT, FULLY FORMED position. Are you a misogynist? Do you know how easy it would be for me to believe you are and to get a lot of people to agree with me based on your attack of my arguments as "feeble". Do you know that "feeble" is a word historically used to describe women by sexist men? That alone puts you in the exactly the same position as the editor AND the cartoonist as you both authored it and published it. Do you know how this would appear to a feminist group? You would be eviscerated. Your protestations of innocence be damned. Your arguments of minutia of law did not diminish mine. You have no more dismantled them than you have dismantled the constitution. Precedent is not always proper. That is to say, if a hero of yours did something improper to achieve an end result with which you desire, it still doesn't make "the ends justify the means" true or morally right. Your arguments show a "can't see the forest for the trees" perspective. Very limited. I have dismantled your arguments with logic and reason. I also, had (until now) intentionally avoided your appeals to emotionalism and tangents that were not on point. You avoided every question asked of you, particularly when they dismantled your arguments. Are we ever going to find out if you believe your rights as a citizen under the constitution are comparable to a totalitarian regime equivalent to "Animal Farm" such as North Korea or Cuba? Don't try to claim victory when you are being as obstinate, avoiding, and simplistic as you are accusing me of being. You have no rational leg to stand on so you resort to "it's a black thing, you wouldn't understand" to bolster your position. Gee, oversimplifying the positions of others is fun.
Don't have to try to claim victory Effie, it is obvious to anyone reading this thread (and those who have posted) that you have been thoroughly humiliated, a battle of wits and logic where you were clearly overmatched, where your lack of knowledge and education were starkly exposed. Not going to get into a back and forth with you beyond this response. *Sarcasm on * Keep living with your simplistic and shallow thinking, I am sure it will serve you well in life. * Sarcasm off* Take your flogging like a woman, any response will be ignored (which I am sure won't stop you) as I should have done with you from the start.
No, wait, perhaps you truly are. Damn shame. Well since Loki has taken his ball and gone home. I will state for the record that I didn't get in the minutia of whether I believed his examples of "rights being revoked by the stroke of a pen" were actual representations of his assertion that constitutional rights are "very fluid" in an attempt to keep the posts as on topic as possible. I could have continued on those tangents of whether government checks and balances protect the rights of the individual more than he seems to recognize or whether a pure democracy is a desired form of governance over a constitutional republic or whether the "clear consensus" of a particular vote should take precedent over an established conflicting law.Had I continued down his rabbit holes he would soon have me debating whom I philosophically agree with of the founding fathers, or which of us is more "patriotic" or whether Jennifer or Angelina is more hot. I dropped those arguments as superfluous, overreaching the scope and intent of this discussion about a cartoon and freedom of speech versus censorship. The assertion that I am humiliated and outwitted is a laugh riot. (If you are reading this Loki, thanks for that.)
I'm tired of arguing and people calling me an idiot, so I was pretty glad when no one responded to what I said last, thinking I don't have to come back here to this thread any more. But, then I read a statement about winning the battle and losing the war and I really thought that made a lot of sense. Well, that got me thinking about the whole thing again, and you know what this reminds me of? When someone is a drug addict or in an unhealthy abusive relationship. People on the outside, who can be objective (and I've experienced those couple things objectively several times), tend to see things better and more for what they are, like the bigger picture, while the drug addict or abused woman/man can't, for their own personal subjective reasons, and will just tell the outside observer, "You don't know what it's like.", "You don't know him/her, like I do." And even though it breaks your heart and you want to argue and debate with them until they see it the way you do, you have to face it, that you're fighting a losing battle and causing more resentment. But I think everyone is right and everyone is wrong and we're all too stubborn and steadfast because it's such a touchy subject. Pride's a bitch too. You can continue to hate me and call me an idiot if it makes you feel good. I didn't mean to invalidate anyone's feelings, just to get my own out. Maybe you're right and I am an idiot, I'm only 24 (in 9 days), I don't have further than 1/4 of a 10th grade education, I grew up in a very small town and haven't had a lot of experiences. I just don't want to be sorry or blamed for what people of the same race as me did, especially when the biggest (slavery) didn't happen in my lifetime. And I'm sure I'm not the only one/race here who doesn't want to be blamed or sorry for things that other people of their race have done that they had nothing to do with. Of course I'm still more than sorry that racism has happened and still happens anyway. I still don't think I deserve your spite though. Anyway, excuse me, I apologize, and I am done with this thread too. PEACE, my fellow human race. Happy Black History Month (because I know they didn't talk about it much in all the white schools.)
(None of this is meant to be insulting, so please dont take it the wrong way.) The reason no one responded to your last posts is because you went on this "white people are victims, too" tirade that no one felt deserved a response. Yes, white people are sometimes the innocent victims of police wrong-doing. But we as blacks suffer from systematic racism. That means that we get the short end of the stick in almost every facet of life. Unfortunately, slavery stains almost everything that separates whites and blacks in the u.s.. But no one is blaming white people today for that. We just ask that you see today for what it is...a racially unequal derivative of yesterday. Electing a black president doesnt undo 400 years of slavery and racism. So when you complain about unqualifed blacks getting jobs, it just sounds like a white person complaining because the government is taking away the advantage they enjoy in employment opprotunities over blacks and other minorities. Before you tell us that we are making something out of nothing...ask us why this bothers us so much, instead of telling us that we are over-reacting. (Thats dialogue about race.) Some insults sting more than others. And if this is where we have drawn our line in the sand, so be it. And as niave as it may be, we would expect white women who date black men to be a little more supportive of issues that bother us. Just as any (white) woman Im dating would have my full support when it comes to the glass ceiling and women's rights. (Personally, Ive always said that women are too quiet when it comes to disparaging remarks directed at them and sexual double standards and discrimination.) If you truely feel that the cartoon isnt racist, then fine, stand your ground and shout from every roof-top your defense of your position. I can respect that. Just be as loud and vocal when you see something that truely is racist.
Britty, you are most certainly intelligent. Your education can be furthered when you are a point in life that affords opportunity coupled with your personal desires, but education is not an indicator of intelligence. Many people are above average in intelligence yet, for other reasons have below average academic backgrounds. Half the population is below average. Your reading comprehension, elloquence and disemination of information followed by production of independant theories show that you are far from below average. Sometimes, average people with a desire to achieve and opportunity have the reward of a degree attatched to their name. This does not make them smarter than you, only degreed.
Thanks for the insight.Yes, bigotry and racism go hand in hand. Furthermore, history also shows we are guilty of most forms of racism{Institutional included here}.Suggesting otherwise is just being ignorant in my opinion.
These two very good points, in my opinion, get to the heart of the reason for this debate in this (white women/black men) forum. This is a touchy subject, but not just for African Americans. This is a touchy subject for the women who love them. One generalized but very real aspect of being female (that I've even heard expressed in similar discussions here) is our empathy. This is not just a squishy-wishy word, this is a part of the core of womanhood. It is our maternal self. It is our soul-mate self. Our care-giver self. To tell a woman that she "can't understand" is tantamount to telling her that she doesn't have a uterus. Consider, there are mothers in this forum that have black children. Are they also "outsiders"? I am a mother. While my sitation is different and my son has issues of another type that are not fodder for public forums, they are, however very real in my personal life. What he goes through I eat, sleep and breathe everyday. To diminish my "understanding" is to diminish my motherhood, my womanhood, and my very reason for existence on this planet. So we are touchy, because we care. If you are giving love and feel that love is returned with a kick in the teeth, well, touchyness ensues. To expect the women who date/marry black men to be supportive is certainly not naive. It is a bit insulting if you are assessing them as "non-supportive" if they are merely in a disagreement on a particular issue or point. Remember, we do more than stand up to racism verbally. We willingly take it into our lives and our homes when we choose to love black men. Not just by empathizing with his experiences but by experiencing our own societal negative consequences as a result. We only ask that you respect the skin that we willingly put in the game.
Well said Jelly, Britty, I would encourage you to continue your education, both formal and informal, it will help you immeasurably as you travel through life. When one has no personal frame of reference on a particular issue, it is always best to begin debate by asking questions and seeking to understand, rather than jumping in with opinions. Glad to see you came back, and that you are making a concerted effort to learn.
Threads like these are the reason I love this site so much. I haven't been around the "heavier" topics on this site lately, but now that life is getting back to normal for me, I had a chance to read through this thread. I enjoyed reading it, and I commend the guys on here for bringing this stuff to light and engaging in an open dialogue on this topic. I've learn so much from everyone's posts. Thank you for that!
Well, if Britty24 wasn't a "racist" before - After reading all the back and forth, I think this thread might have just made her one. LOL!
Vegas has odds of this thread getting to at least 150 replies so here's my two pennies... Black folks are going to have to learn to deal with satire in regards to Barack Obama, we've never had a black president so we've never had to deal with caricature of us being drawn in an exaggerated form, big ears, big lips or nose. The embellishment of a person's feature's is to poke holes in the armour. The intent of satire is to amplify an event or circumstance, take advantage of an unfortunate moment or to make fun of it, something clearly a lot black folks cannot see in this instance. Is the cartoon racist, that's depending on your point of view? The cartoon isn't racist because cleary two events have been messhed into one satire. The chimp attacking a human, a stimulas bill that a number people don't like, so kill it. The cartoon is racist because blacks have long been viewed as primitive, wild, brutish. To top it off how dare the cartoonist have the police who's history of violence against blacks unfairly or overly agressive shoot our first president? So depending on your point of view the intent of the cartoon was to get discussion going or to get you thinking! I think if I am the editor I would have nixed the idea of the cartoon, that's what the job is, determining what is or isn't over the line. The cartoonist should never have to edit himself. So as far as I am concerned the NY Post does not owe me an apology.
Wow - Im just blown away by the thought process that because someone didn't have racist intent something would not or could not be racist. Ignorance is no excuse either. The bottom line with this is the editor knew it would be a problem and they made the decision to run it. There is the thought that bad publicity is better than no publicity. Of course now they have gotten allllll sorts of attention...and maybe that's really what was wanted. And yes I would agree that white women who are interested in black men should do what they can to understand what life really is for them. But then I think that ALL people should try to understand how things are for others. I've said this before and I'm going to say it again. No matter how much I may love a black man, or that I am raising a black child....I do NOT know what it is to be a black man in the US. I may be able to sympathize, be caring and concerned....but no matter what....I can still walk out that door and have white privilege. I do know what it is to be a woman in all sorts of areas of business. I'm sorry...there is no way that I would place that in comparison to what it is to be a black man in the US. Because someone recognizes that something exists and speaks about it, because they try to understand, because they try to sympathize and help in whatever ways they can...does not mean that they are making excuses or justifying bad behavior. I don't see the men who have been speaking out about this being punks who walk around saying that they can't succeed in the US because they are black men. They are simply speaking out for the truth...speaking about the realities of their life. These are the same men who do whatever it takes (and then some) to succeed in life. Maybe instead of arguing...it would be a good idea to really listen and see that there could be a real contribution here.
Chiming In Just read through this, I was out most of February. A lot of good discussion, it was a good read! Too bad these types of threads become personal and emotional and eventually resort to name-calling. I would have thought that animal rights activists would have been more offended by this cartoon than anyone. Sometimes people are there own worst enemy. What does the reader, who made no racist connection, think when he/she hears some crying "racist"? Possibly that the person who draws that conclusion may have some esteem/racist issues themselves. Sort of like looking at a psycholgist's ink blot, "what do you see?" I really like and pretty much agree with Effie's posts, and BMJ surprised me with this gem in which he hit the nail squarely on the head: Where has this outrage been for the past 8 years?
