Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Ethics, etc. > (No Subject)

Forum Quick Jump

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 12/19/2002 11:21 AM (GMT -6)

Come on guys? We have this huge, interesting, politically and racially important storm brewing here, and no one's yet started a discussion on it? What's up with this? This is the place! Weigh in!!

As you know, Lott recently said something to the effect of: "If Thurmen had been elected in 1948, we wouldn't be having the problems we have now." Thurmen led the "dixecrats" in protest to Hubert Humphrey's call for integration. There main reason for being was "SEGREGATION ALWAYS" Since he said this, of course, Lott has apologized alot (5 times I believe). The question is, What should he do?

Questions (from an admittedly biased perspective)
* How can this be an innocuous slip-of-the-tongue when Lott has said the exact same thing before (1981 as I recall)?
* How can this just be a "stupid" remark when Lott's voting record has consistently been against civil rights interests?
* Is Lott apologizing for saying something stupid or for having an at least tacitly racist mindset (as his last apology boarded on admitting)?
* In one of Lott's apologies he said he was referring not to Thurmen's racist policies, but to his defense policies. Can anyone take this seriously? Suppose someone said, "If Hitler had won the war we wouldn't be having the problems we're having now." There is a public outcry because this reveals an antisemetic mindset. The person replies, "Oh, I wasn't referring to Hilter's anti-semetic policies: I was referring to his economic policies." Is this all THAT different?

Doesn't this remark, made more than once, reveal a fundamental hostility to the civil rights movement -- or at least a tacit wish that it hadn't taken place? If so, the issue is not that Lott was so unwise as to SAY it, but that his saying it suggests that he BELIEVES it. And if he believes this, or anything like this, is it not morally required of all who hold racial justice issues to be extremely important to demand that he step down?

What think ye?

Doc

"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6

graygirl
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 78

Posted 12/19/2002 4:41 PM (GMT -6)

i don't think it was a slip of the tongue

Lott is just the tip of the iceberg.

GG

BJS
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587

Posted 12/20/2002 4:39 AM (GMT -6)

First of all, let me say this: Trent Lott should be removed from his leadership position in the Senate. Whether he is personally a racist or not, I don’t know. Some of his private actions lead me to believe that he is probably not a racist (and several black leaders have agreed), but to me it doesn’t really matter whether he is actually a racist or has just allowed himself to be perceived as one. If the Republican party will ever be able rid itself of the Scarlet “R” that they have been branded with since the 1960s, they must immediately and forcefully decry messages like those that have come out of Trent Lott’s mouth for the past 20+ years.

Like Tom Daschle, I doubt that in this particular instance (Strom’s birthday party), Lott really meant to endorse segregation. He may be dumb, but probably not that dumb. My take is that what Lott said about Strom was undoubtedly just an attempt to find something special to say about a 100 year old Senator who has spent 50+ years in American politics and is close to dying. In trying to make a cute speech-worthy connection between himself and Sen. Thurmond, Lott (and/or his staff) found the anecdote about Mississippi voting for Strom when he ran for President to be appropriate. Clearly, it was not. As the National Review put it "I for one do not believe Trent Lott is a racist or a segregationist. My guess is that his speechwriter gave him note cards with a few jokes, and that when Lott finished reading them, he launched himself into what he probably intended to be nothing more than a big squirt of greasy flattery. But that's not what came out of Lott's mouth. What came out of his mouth was the most emphatic repudiation of desegregation to be heard from a national political figure since George Wallace's first presidential campaign." Lott is probably not a racist pig, but rather just a weak-minded, oily, typical politician who in trying to please everybody, often gets caught saying and doing things that offend somebody. As such, he is, in my mind, unfit for any leadership position in the Senate (nor, frankly, would I vote for him at all).

Lott has given the Republican Party (of which I am admittedly a member) an opportunity to make clear how it feels about white supremacy, segregation and racism. For too long the ideals of the party of Lincoln that originally led the way in fighting slavery, segregation, and racism, have been hijacked and muddied by an unfortunately Southern segregationist mindset, that although I believe has improved in many ways, also still exists.

Brett

"Siste viator et memento mori."

BJS
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587

Posted 12/20/2002 5:13 AM (GMT -6)

Lott is now stepping down, as I expected. Good.

Brett

"Siste viator et memento mori."

graygirl
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 78

Posted 12/20/2002 8:48 AM (GMT -6)

"A review of his voting record shows, for example, that Lott, a Mississippi Republican, opposed extension of the Voting Rights Act, expansion of fair housing laws, establishment of the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday and payment of attorneys' fees to people who bring successful civil rights suits." New York Times
**********************************************************************

"In 1979, while representing Mississippi in the House of Representatives, Lott joined a bipartisan group that supported a constitutional amendment to prohibit school busing. The proposal was rejected by seven votes.
In the 1980s, Lott voted against extending the Voting Rights Act and against establishing Martin Luther King Day as a federal holiday. On the Voting Rights Act, in 1981, he was one of 17 Republicans and seven Democrats, including most of the Virginia delegation, voting against extending that law, which struck down obstacles between minorities and polling places. In 1983, Lott joined 97 other House members, most of them Republicans, in opposing the King holiday, including then-Reps. Phil Gramm (R-Tex.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.).
In both cases, Thurmond voted in favor.
Also in 1981, Lott filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the Supreme Court to support a tax exemption for Bob Jones University despite the institution’s policies discriminating against minorities and prohibiting interracial dating. The effort, ultimately unsuccessful, would also have benefited hundreds of white “segregation academies” that were established in the wake of integration orders.
In an interview with Southern Partisan magazine, Lott explained his stance on the King holiday: “Look at the cost involved in the Martin Luther King holiday and the fact that we have not done it for a lot of other people that were more deserving.”
In his brief in the Bob Jones case, he argued that “racial discrimination does not always violate public policy,” and that “to hold that this religious institution is subject to tax because of its interracial dating policies would clearly raise grave First Amendment questions.”
As a senator, Lott was one of seven Republicans in 1989 to vote against $300,000 in funding for the Martin Luther King Jr. Federal Holiday Commission. The following year, he was among four senators who voted against a bill that would require the Justice Department to compile hate-crime statistics based on attacks motivated by prejudice and race.
He was one of 28 senators to vote for an amendment to prohibit federal funding of the King commission, but then voted for the bill granting the money in a 94 to 4 vote. Lott was one of 34 senators who voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1990, which broadened the remedies available in employment discrimination and affirmative action cases.
Also that year, he rebuked Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), who is black, for pressing the FBI to provide documents related to the 1966 killing of civil rights activist Vernon Dahmer to a local prosecutor. The prosecutor was seeking to reopen the case against a former Imperial Wizard of Ku Klux Klan in Mississippi who had been freed in 1968 when a jury could not reach a verdict.
At the time, Lott, asked about the case, told reporters: “In fact, Bennie Thompson would do well to tend to his job in Washington . . . because we’ve got a lot of very important issues to work on that affect the Delta and his constituency, and leave legal matters and lawsuits to district attorneys and the FBI and people involved.”
In the late 1980s and early ’90s, Lott appeared repeatedly before a white supremacist group, the Council of Conservative Citizens, once telling members they held “the right principles and the right philosophy.”
In an interview Wednesday, conservative radio talk-show host Sean Hannity asked Lott about one appearance before the council. The senator said it was a candidates’ forum.
“This was not a closed thing,” Lott said. “There were Democrats and Republicans there, and African Americans there. . . . Now in this case, I knew some of the people that were involved, but I also knew that a lot of political candidates were going there, and I said, you know, the things that we support in terms of opportunity for people there that I’d say anyplace else.” Wasington Post

GG

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 12/20/2002 6:38 PM (GMT -6)

However one estimates Lott's personal racial convictions, I am more encouraged by the fact that his statement caused this sort of uproar than I am shocked that he made such a statement in the first place. His stepping down is a symbol of a widespread growing conviction: we ain't gonna taken this racist &^#$@!!! any longer.

Its a good day

Doc

"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6

Springs
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 636

Posted 12/20/2002 6:56 PM (GMT -6)

I've been thinking for the last week I'd see a thread like this started by BBBC. He's usually on top of the political stuff. Thanks for the article Graygirl. I couldn't believe it when I read it in the paper. I think everyone who doesn't vote to have him step down should step down too.

Did you check out Gore on Saturday Night Live?!

Monday morning I was talking to a middle eastern guy, and he said he saw Gore on the news, and Gore was sitting in a hot tub! ha. He was relieved when I told him it was a comedy sketch. Why isn't Coleman speaking out against Lott?

-S

"Contrariwise," continued Tweedledee, "if it was so, it might be; and if were so, it would be; but as it isn't , it ain't. That's logic."

trosie
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 550

Posted 12/20/2002 8:56 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
His stepping down is a symbol of a widespread growing conviction: we ain't gonna taken this racist &^#$@!!! any longer.

This is a good thing!

I just want to throw in my two cents that it's a good thing to speak out against racism... -BUT- we also need to remember to pray for Lott

You know what I mean?
trosie

graygirl
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 78

Posted 12/21/2002 9:08 AM (GMT -6)

yea we should pray for Lott...

the thing that discourages me is how often times, for whatever reason, these fools are associated with Christianity. That infuriates me, just as the fools at Bob Jones claim the name of Christ. For whatever reason, I've found that A LOT of christians claim Lott's party as their own. I may be opening up a can of worms - but I don't get it!! at all!!?!!

I'm not saying there aren't racists in the democratic party. racism shows no preference, only a willing heart to work thru.

Soon after the election, someone sent me an email (as a joke - cuz they know my distate for the republican party) about a ship leaving the States...with the clintions as the ship directors, lewsinksy as some social director, etc. The person sent it to me in jest (we're in the same small group: it's me a democrat with all republicians:))but personally, i would rather get on a ship with them then lott, ashroft, helms and 'em. any day of the week.

i too am grateful for the exposure. it's no conicdence that the fair majority of people of color (of which i am one) repel the sorts of Lott - it just amazed me how the rest of the world didn't seem to know.

oh well.truth always rises to the surface.

GG

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 12/21/2002 8:45 PM (GMT -6)

Let's see...how can I say this without being misunderstood.

I was and am against busing white kids into black neighborhoods and schools as well as busing black kids into white neighborhoods and schools. I couldn't attend a perfectly good high school within walking distance of my house because I was white and my presence would have made too many whites. So I was bused 20 miles away to a black highschool (as were blacks from that neighborhood bused out of their district to the high school that was walking distance from my home.) Didn't make sense then, doesn't make sense now.

"ooooh, he's against bussing...he's a racisssst." Give me a break. Does not favoring bussing make me a racist? Not. I know my heart and life now as I knew it then. Let's move on.

To be against busing (forced segregation) is not to be a racist, I don't think. Draw the district lines uniformly with regard to population and let kids attend the school nearest their homes. If it's all black, so be it. If all white, so be it. If mixed, so be it. Is it the government's job to force people to face each other? Is it the government's job to fix peoples' hearts?

Now, did some good things come out of forced segregation? Yeah. Anybody see the movie "Titans" with Denzel Washington? Awesome. Some people made right choices in response to forced segregation. That's cool. Doesn't make forced segregation right. But not everybody made smart choices in response to segregation.

Oh well. I'm blabbing and have a fever anyhow. What have I said?!

Tom

"When you mix things up they get messy" Fred

graygirl
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 78

Posted 12/22/2002 9:57 AM (GMT -6)

Love Remember the Titans. it's one of my favorites!

i'm kind of mixed on busing. i feel like the brunt of the experiment fell on the black kids that usually were bused into communities that could careless about them. communities that actually despised them. i wouldn't want to go there myself - let alone send my precious, impressionable, not yet able to defend themselves children there. i believe in the power of community to take care of and nurture their own. i'm not necessarily referring to an all black or all white community either. i'm thinking of community as in a place where everyone care for one another. is that possible to have a integrated loving community like that in America? somedays i think it is. for the body i think its a must. For that reason i would argue against busing.....because it wouldn't be necassary and would break down community.

At the same time i don't trust America at large to take it upon itself to intergrate or even CARE about diversity on a personal level. Busing was an effort to alleviate that....but I also don't believe you change hearts in that manner.

All of this is really a heart issue. I don't know why you feel you would be a racist if you're against busing TGB. i'm not sure where you're getting that. but i feel the busing issues along with everything else in Lott's record makes his personal view highly suspect TO ME. i find it absolutley UNBELIEVABLE when him and his friends speak of love for all.

the biggest cry and ache of my heart as a person of color in America (as a beleiver) is how and why people don't care? Why don't people care that people like Lott hurt people like me?? That is my central question. Especially in the body of Christ. Why don't people care?

Consider these realities:

*The leading cause of requests for food assistance is low-paying jobs [US Mayors conference, 1999]

*The poverty rate for Blacks fell to a record low of 23.6 percent in 1999, down from the previous low of 26.1 percent in 1998. However, the poverty rate for Blacks in 1999 was still about THREE TIMES the poverty rate for White non-Hispanics (7.7 percent). [USDA]

*21.2% of African-Americans and 33.4% of Hispanics are uninsured, 11% of non-Hispanic whites, 1999 [US Census]

*Over 70% of teachers in school with a high concentration of low-income students report lacking necessary materials for their classes [Children's Defense Fund, 2000]

Do you see the differences in the numbers?

Does anybody care? does Lott care?

This is what i'm screamin'.

GG

honorman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137

Posted 12/28/2002 6:16 PM (GMT -6)

Don't you guys know that white guys like Lott, places like Bob Jones U. and racism are responsible for all the problems? Man, I thought everybody knew that.

fyodor
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 179

Posted 12/29/2002 8:15 PM (GMT -6)

Interjecting for the first time.....mmmmm....politics!

The most questionable part of Lott's entire dilema is not that he made the statement again ( I've said many stupid remarks twice in the last 25 years that I should have learned from the first time )

...rather, most questionable is Lott's not reveiwing (or catching the statement while reviewing) his speech. A politician at the level of US Senator says nothing that hasn't been scripted for him. Lott is merely a suited puppet of his speech writer, including appearances made at birthday roasts for the Senate's miracle of longevity, Sen. Thurman.

Lott made no specific inference to segregation, racism, busing, cross-burning, white hoods or what have you. Unfortunately, he succeeded in being guilty by association (even though the Senator probably leans towards the segregationist's side of the fence in reality). His true sin in the realm of politics is the sloth-like nature of his apology. His inability to control the spin was his downfall. Where's Newt? Where's Trent? It doesn't matter. As one party suit falls, another rises up to be danced around like a marionette. 100 senators are the elected voice of 300 million people. We should be more eager to change the view of the 300 million because the politicians will have to follow suit according to the polls.

Issues regarding race, class, and gender will never go away because a bill was passed. When the heart's of people are ravaged by the reckless love of Christ, the natural outpouring of that love is the most transforming power that can work to change these issues.

I usually vote green in the end so I can hardly be eager to loose Lott as he has already been replaced by another corporate republican.

graygirl
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 78

Posted 12/30/2002 3:24 AM (GMT -6)

"Issues regarding race, class, and gender will never go away because a bill was passed. When the heart's of people are ravaged by the reckless love of Christ, the natural outpouring of that love is the most transforming power that can work to change these issues."

Amen.

a heart ravaged by the love of Christ will care! at the end of the day that's really what it will take.

GG

Springs
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 636

Posted 1/4/2003 2:20 PM (GMT -6)

Tom: "ooooh, he's against bussing...he's a racisssst." Give me a break. Does not favoring bussing make me a racist? Not. I know my heart and life now as I knew it then. Let's move on.

Let’s move on to where though? Busing was “moving on” in its time.

Graygirl: "I don't know why you feel you would be a racist if you're against busing TGB. I’m not sure where you're getting that."

Here is an excerpt from one of the books I read over vacation:

Emerson, M. & Smith, C. (2000). Divided by Faith New York, NY: Oxford University Press, Inc.

“This is not to deny the importance of other divisions within racial groups, such as classes or gender. Rather, it says race is an independent, fundamental cleavage within the United States. For example, Brooks and Manza examined the social cleavages – which they define as differences in political alignment among groups – of class, sex, religion, and race from 1950 to 1990. (Brooks and Manza, 1997). For all years examined, they found that race was easily the largest social cleavage (followed by religion), and that the race cleavage had actually grown in magnitude since 1950.”
“But, in societies where race matters, we must be clear that the form of racial hierarchy and division varies. The form varies both between societies and over time within societies, as their economic system and other institutions change. (Van den Berghe 1967; Clara Rodriguez 1991) In the United States, roughly speaking, the form has changed from slavery, to “Jim Crow” segregation, to the post-Civil Rights-era division.”
“Jim Crow” refers to the pattern of racial discrimination resulting from state and local laws requiring segregation in everything from housing, work sites, bus seating, churches, cemeteries, theaters, hospitals, schools, restaurants, and much more. The term derives from a song referring to Jim Crow, a “happy slave,” performed in the 1930’s by Thomas D. Rice. A white performer in blackface. Jim Crow came to be a code word for segregation. (McLemore and Romo 1998).

Massey and Denton 1993: Chapter 2. The National Association of Real Estate Board’s code of ethics for many years included the following: “A Realtor should never be instrumental in introducing into a neighborhood members of any race… whose presence will clearly be detrimental to property values in that neighborhood.” This was aided by restrictive covenants. For example, restrictive covenants recorded in deeds for residential property and taken from the suburbs around Milwaukee included: “This land shall never be occupied by or conveyed to a colored person: (1925), “No race other than Caucasian race shall use or occupy any building or any lot in said subdivision: (1945), and “No persons other than the white race shall own or occupy…” (1953) (in Taeuber 1989:129-31.)

“A major problem in understanding race relations in the United States is that we tend to understand race, racism, and the form of racialization as constants rather than as variables. This view has grave implications.
“ By 1955, the problems of race and the racial hierarchy had not disappeared at all. The forms had changed to be sure, but so ever-present were the problems that major social movements and upheavals resulted. These upheavals ushered in a new era of race relations in the Unite States – the post-Civil Rights era. Our understandings of race relations, however, remain stuck in the Jim Crow era, leading us to mistaken conclusions – racism is not on the wane, and racial division and the racial hierarchy are but historical artifacts. Rather than incorrectly examine race in the United States using an old standard, we must adapt our understanding and analysis to the new, post-civil Rights era.” (Emerson, Smith, 200).

Fyodor: "Issues regarding race, class, and gender will never go away because a bill was passed. When the heart's of people are ravaged by the reckless love of Christ, the natural outpouring of that love is the most transforming power that can work to change these issues."

Unjust laws went away when bills were passed. I agree that love is important, but how does love “work to change these issues?”
If I live in the suburbs, and love black people and much as my neighbors, and my friends, but don’t ever yell hello across the street or go out to lunch, church, school, or the office with them, when exactly am I loving them?
How would you describe racism practically? I mean what does it look like when you see it? Fer instance…

Springs

"Contrariwise," continued Tweedledee, "if it was so, it might be; and if were so, it would be; but as it isn't , it ain't. That's logic."

fyodor
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 179

Posted 1/5/2003 7:47 PM (GMT -6)

Springs:

quote:
If I live in the suburbs, and love black people and much as my neighbors, and my friends, but don’t ever yell hello across the street or go out to lunch, church, school, or the office with them, when exactly am I loving them?

It seems like you may have answered your own question here. Can you love both groups as much as the other without acting upon your love?

Springs quoting Emerson, M. & Smith, C:

quote:
“This is not to deny the importance of other divisions within racial groups, such as classes or gender. Rather, it says race is an independent, fundamental cleavage within the United States.

I would guess that class is an even more stratifying division than that of race (we could take it that direction if any wants to discuss this further, but I'll just throw that out as opinion rather than arguement)

On another note....What does racism look like?

Racism takes on many looks.....In an aticle entitled "Racism: Something about the Subject Makes it Hard to Name," Gloria Yamato defines 4 forms that racism take on:

1. aware/blatant racism
2. aware/covert racism
3. unaware/unintentional racism
4. unaware/self righteous racism

she further defines the term racism as, "the systematic, institutionalized mistreatment of one group of people by another based on racial heritage."

At the core, racism is discrimination based on race. Examples are everywhere, it doesn't seem necessary to provide examples (although I will provide numerous examples should you really want them). The names of the various forms given above are axiomatic, but could additionally be grouped within characteristics of individual discrimination, organizational discrimination, and structural discrimination.

Quoting a previous post:

quote:
Fyodor: "Issues regarding race, class, and gender will never go away because a bill was passed. When the heart's of people are ravaged by the reckless love of Christ, the natural outpouring of that love is the most transforming power that can work to change these issues."

Springs: Unjust laws went away when bills were passed. I agree that love is important, but how does love “work to change these issues?”

Perhaps the unjust laws do dissappear, but race is not a legal issue. Racism is an understanding at an individual, organizational, or structural level that one group is superior/inferior to another group based on racial heritage. Laws can tell us what to do or what not to do, but they can't tell us what to believe. The issue of racism remains intact, unless the belief system of those with racist views are changed... You may ask who is racist. Classified under the forms of racism described above, it would be difficult to find someone who isn't racist. We all have areas in which we discriminate against other races either aware or unaware, blatant or covert, intentional or unintentional or outright self-righteously.

Indeed, how does love work to change these issues?

Love can indeed change the beliefs which acts of racism are based on. When we live with a heart that is truly transformed by love, we have no choice but to ascribe unsurpassing worth onto others. In ascribing this worth, how can we maintain a sense of superiority/inferiority which is a necessary component of discrimination? Perhaps the most important or effective way to change someone else's beliefs is to model and ascribe love onto them. Love changes both our actions and the responsive actions of those whom we love.

>>>"And even as each one of you stands alone in God's knowledge, so must each one of you be alone in his knowledge of God and in his understanding of the earth." Kahlil Gibran from THE PROPHET

Edited by - fyodor on 01/06/2003 12:56:55 AM

Springs
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 636

Posted 1/6/2003 4:42 PM (GMT -6)

Great post Fyodor! I agree that Christ's love transforms our hearts and makes us lovers. But it seems that, me loving the individual black people I know is not making much of a difference in the grand scheme of things. So I appreciate what you wrote:

Fyodor: At the core, racism is discrimination based on race.
...grouped within characteristics of individual discrimination, organizational discrimination, and structural discrimination.

How does love work to change the issues that are organizational, and structural? What are the latest theories? When I think about the big picture of racial discrimination it seems so hopeless. I can hear Graygirl's heart cry, of, why doesn't anyone care? I wonder that too.

-S

"Contrariwise," continued Tweedledee, "if it was so, it might be; and if were so, it would be; but as it isn't , it ain't. That's logic."

Edited by - Springs on 01/06/2003 9:42:48 PM

fyodor
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 179

Posted 1/6/2003 6:54 PM (GMT -6)

Excellent Questions Springs!

Quote Springs:

quote:
How does love work to change the issues that are organizational, and structural? What are the latest theories? When I think about the big picture of racial discrimination it seems so hopeless.

My reading is not up-to-date as to know the latest theories, however I'm willing to theorize on my own....

Organizational and Structural racism are both dependent on Individual racism for their perpetuation. It's a racism pyramid. As individuals with common beliefs about racial heritage come together they perpetuate organizational racism. This isn't limited to the racial extremists such as the KKK, but rather extends into any type of organization in which people share a common belief. The real estate examples mentioned above are good examples of racism thriving in non-race-related organizations. When two or more organizations that perpetuate racism co-mingle in a person's life it turns to structural racism. If a black man can't get a well-paying job due to organizational discrimination, and then can't get a decent apartment because of organizational discrimination, a structure of racism has occurred.

At the root is an individual belief that one is superior/inferior to another in some way. The collective individual beliefs balloon into organizational and structural beliefs. Love is the method of change and it is not only our responsibility to love the victims of racism, buut we must also extend love to the purveyors of racism. Sometimes it does seem hopeless, but we must believe that all things are possible through Christ. Love is Radical, Revolutionary, Transforming, Life-changing and ours to have and to give. This may just sound like ramblings but I can't adequately define the nature of love – it must be experienced!

Thanks for the response Springs!

>>>"And even as each one of you stands alone in God's knowledge, so must each one of you be alone in his knowledge of God and in his understanding of the earth." Kahlil Gibran from THE PROPHET

BBBCanada
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763

Posted 1/9/2003 5:50 AM (GMT -6)

Springs said:

quote:
I've been thinking for the last week I'd see a thread like this started by BBBC. He's usually on top of the political stuff.

and Greg said:

quote:
Come on guys? We have this huge, interesting, politically and racially important storm brewing here, and no one's yet started a discussion on it? What's up with this? This is the place! Weigh in!!

Sorry Springs...some personal stuff and all. Please pray for me. Here's my thing.

Do I think that Lott should step down (as he already has)? For the sake of conservativism? Yes. Do I think he made a STUPID remark? Yes. But to pick this up as Greg does, as if there is a "storm brewing" (he started a thread on it sounding alarmist) and the slight tone of bitter angst toward Lott, causes me to think of the role the dominant media culture continues to plays in our minds and lives.

Like what was it that really instigated this thread? I'll tell ya. It's what's big in the news. I mean, where was a thread like this when Robert Byrd of West Virginia said, just a couple of years ago on the floor of the Senate that "there are white niggers. I've seen a lot of white niggers in my time." Or when San Francisco's esteemed mayor Willie Brown once described a successful legislative battle this way: "We beat those old white boys fair and square." Or when Spike Lee said in disapproval of interracial marriages: "I give interracial couples a look. Daggers. They get uncomfortable when they see me on the street." Or when The National Association of Black Social Workers drafted a position paper calling white adoptions of black children "cultural genocide." They warned against "transculturation ... when one dominant culture overpowers and forces another culture to accept a foreign form of existence."

Where is the "storm brewing" when racist statements like these are constantly made on a continous basis by liberals? If you're gonna start a thread about Lott (or was it about racism in general?) then lets be fair about it.

The point is not to say that racism isn't out there, but to question the role of the media in our lives.

Brandon
"Truth is so obscured nowadays and lies so well established that unless we love the truth we shall never recognize it."--Todd Flanders/ Pascal: Talkin' 'bout My Generation

Edited by - BBBCanada on 01/09/2003 10:57:33 AM

honorman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137

Posted 1/9/2003 10:32 AM (GMT -6)

Until we are willing to consistantly examine and reexamine our concepts of what race is and what is not, until we stop accepting such concepts as "institutional racism," without proof, until we are ready to denounce all forms of racism (such as those previously mentioned by Brandon and more that can easily be cited), until we are willing to completely question whether or not racism is the reason or is simply the latest PC concept (read excuse) for people to bemoan why their lives are in such disrray, and until we are willing to stop excluding the opinions of those we have already labelled as racist (in a cruel twist of unintentional irony), racism will continue to be nothing more than a debate that means nothing of any practical importance.
Question authority, including those in control of ideas. Just because you have been victimized does not give you the right to hate. And just because you are victimized does not mean you have the right answer to the problem...

honorman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137

Posted 1/9/2003 10:35 AM (GMT -6)

Brandon: you should know by now that only white conservatives are truly racist. I thought everyone knew that. Its just common sense...

Its is simply not fashionable or "loving" to critize the "minority, downtrodden," those who are continuely brought down by the man, even when they are wrong. That is why when such things as Brandon has brought up happen, we must "empathy" for them, because they have "been through so much," and if, by chance, they are shown (or it is mentioned) that they are wrong, we should remember their "suffering."

Brandon, it ain't gonna happen. No one cares that Byrd made those statements, nor that Lee may be a racist. It isn't news and life goes on...deal with it...the policies are in place and the those who need to feel that much better...the guilt is appeased...

Edited by - honorman on 01/09/2003 3:41:53 PM

BJS
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587

Posted 1/9/2003 11:03 AM (GMT -6)

I guess your acidity did not change with your name, HonorDad.

Until we start listening instead of talking past each other, the race problem in this country will continue. Until we realize that although there are plenty of race-baiting liberals out there ready to consider any disadvantage that a minority faces to be the result of racism, real and vicious racism still exists in our society, institutional and otherwise. We cannot deny that racism is a problem by setting up straw-man arguments that insinuate that every cry of racism is an Al-Sharpton-type cry of "wolf."

Brett

"Siste viator et memento mori."

honorman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137

Posted 1/9/2003 3:32 PM (GMT -6)

Brett: I am not certain of who you are refering to (perhaps it is because I share a minority view with someone), although I have to admit that I am a dad, so I guess HonorDad is technically correct. I will certainly ponder your label for me.
But I digress, don't I? Anyway, I do not have to accept the fact that racism exists simply because you or the vast majority of the world asserts that it does simply because one group doesn't seem to do as well as others (there are actually only a couple of races that seem to be "downtrodden" in the good ole US. Apparently "racism" doesn't effect the vast majority of the aliens that enter here, but again, I digress). Yours is precisely the point. You are asserting a point of view without investigating other reasons why some groups don't do as well as others. Heaven forbid that it might actually be their own responsibility. It calls to mind Stephen Carter's comments that, "would it really be so wrong if we were know as the group that has to try harder."
Aside from that, your emotions are exactly the point. You seem to dismiss all of Brandon's point as race-baiting liberals. Its not. Whether one is abused or not, hate of another is wrong, period, and should be denounced, regardless of whose lips it comes from.
But as far as racism, I certainly can deny that racism exists, if the truth turns out to be different than what the majority perceives (and wishes) it to be.
Of course, it does depend on how one defines racism. Under my definition, it is certainly not rampant, but it is there. But much of the reasons to why certain groups succeed and others fail is far more complex than a simple six word label that everyone wants to assign to it. But then assigning labels makes it easier to deal with the "problem" and obscure the "solution", thus making it easier for most people to believe they are actually doing something about it. I mean, hey, there's nothing better than feeling bad about something, throwing some money at it and being able to say, "there, we made an effort." Now let's do lunch.
By the way, nice to meet you, Brett...
Hey, does putting your main point in BOLD make it more important? or is that simply the eqivelent of shouting down your oponent? I can never tell which...

Edited by - honorman on 01/09/2003 8:35:18 PM

graygirl
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 78

Posted 1/12/2003 4:12 AM (GMT -6)

here is my proposal

i say we let everyone do what they want. for those who are constantly whining and crying about too much of their taxes being taken away - let's give them their money so they can buy their guns, SUVs and annuity plans - money was never the issue. for those who those who don't want to bus- let them attend whatever school they want. for those who want to say racism isn't rampant and really isn't a problem - let them continue in their perception. the issue is changed hearts - where you treasure is, there will be your heart.

at the end of the day it is so tiring to fight, reason, and try to convice people of anything. i say we let those who want to be alone, alone so the rest of us who are interested in elevating the fallen things of this world to that which Christ commands can get on with the business of doing it.the bickering around race is pointless, fruitless and a complete waste of time. whatever your convictions are - go do something about it.

i have control over this life of mine and the things, the struggles, i can pour myself into. we don't have time to be wasted on people like Lott, or people simply not interested in being productive about the problems - we just don't. the problems are out there in plain view. we individually have responsabilty not just to answering the problems of race, but in answering to other problems caused by our fallen state. i can either respond to whatever problem i am called and contribute, or constantly make everything about me, my comfort, my rights, others "faults" and do nothing at all.

GG

BJS
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587

Posted 1/12/2003 5:53 PM (GMT -6)

You are so right, Graygirl. Thanks.

Brett

"Siste viator et memento mori."

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:29 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual