 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Tearing down walls > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Mayflower
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 445
| Posted 10/18/2003 6:53 AM (GMT -6) |   | Subject: The SEEDS OF RACISM
.
My recent post (attached below), is excerpted from the
Christus Victor Ministries "Ugly Game -Ghettopoly" discussion thread:
http://www.christusvictorministries.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2715
While relevant to that topic, I would also like to address the
larger problem. Therefore, I have entitled this thread: The SEEDS OF RACISM.
There is no question that the "root" of racism is evil.
In recognizing that racism / bigotry is not of God -- what enables it to continue to thrive and spread in America?
What feeds racism? From where does it get "life"?
How can the "roots" of racism be exposed & confronted -- thereby beginning the task of tearing down these divisive walls?
I welcome the thoughts of others...
Peace & blessings...
<><
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
Mayflower
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 445
| Posted 10/18/2003 6:56 AM (GMT -6) | |
quote:
Tigress wrote:
...Laughing about certain characteristics of a culture is one thing, but to characterize a culture as full of moral degenerates is quite something else.
Well said.
For example, the (regional) joke entitled:
"You Might Be A Minnesotan IF YOU" . . .
is humorous to Minnesotans because we
laughingly recognize ourselves in some of the tongue-in-cheek descriptions:
For example (excerpt):
• ..."You think that UFF DA is a standard English phrase.....
• ... Mayo is NOT something that goes on a sandwich!
• ... You know how to say Wayzata, Mahtomedi, and Shakopee...." (etc.).
If we compare such regionally-based "Minnesota" humor, which (good-naturedly)
pokes fun at MINNESOTANS "collectively" -- with the content & agenda of "Ghettopoly" -- which targets a particular group of individuals based upon RACE, the difference is obvious.
The first is harmless,
while the latter is designed to fuel division and racial hatred.
DLW wrote:
quote:
...What I'd like to know is why all this outrage is springing up
over a board game when so little is heard in the way of protest about
the outlandishly self-destructive behavior that gives rise (emphasis mine) to a game like Ghettopoly, and which is burying any chance of a viable future for extraordinary numbers of young black men and women, and their children.
How can you march against a game and not march against the real-life slaughter on the streets and in the homes of inner cities across America? Violent crime, ignorance and disease are carving the very heart out of America's black population....
I agree with you. I believe that we should be outraged by Ghettopoly; however, the issue is bigger than an offensive a board game.
It's not enough to protest one of the "symptoms," while ignoring the root of the problem.
Tell me, exactly where should such "protests" begin?
Shouldn't we more closely examine WHY racism (which feeds the secondary "symptoms") continues to flourish in America?
If, as a country, we are becoming *more* educated, enlightened, and wise, how do we explain the ignorance that allows racism to flourish -- amongst supposedly "bright" people?
What gives it "life"? We know it's evil; but, what allows racism to thrive today, as opposed to a century ago?
How does it continue to exist? WHO AND WHAT fans the fire of racism,
and -- causes it to spread?
What about national "role models" -- such as Michael Savage and Rush Limbaugh, who routinely spew the seeds of racism across national (radio) airwaves?
While we all know that a steady diet of racist propaganda feeds overt bigotry -- THIS problem lies not "in the homes of inner cities across America," but in the *comfortable suburbs* of our country.
How do we halt the effect of racism (and, the ultimate devastation it causes
in the lives of countless individuals and families) -- when national radio hosts such as Rush Limbaugh make bigotry "acceptable" in mainstream America, with such
broadcasted comments as, "Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?"
How, over time, might comments such as these, change the radio listener's perception of black Americans?
How, over time, might such racist propaganda alter the way our law enforcement officials deal with black citizens? For example, could this contribute to Racial Profiling, etc.?
And, in being treated as second-class citizens (as the result of the propagation of negative racial stereotypes), how, over time, might this alter ones feeling of self-worth? And, their life??
This is the impact of racism on people of color.
But, what is the outcome for others who are also touched -- in different ways, by
the ongoing exposure to racist views or attitudes?
What becomes of the children whose parents tune-in daily,
and have their worldviews shaped -- crafted, by (racist) radio hosts such as
Savage or Limbaugh? Through parental example, word and deed, does racism then become a generational curse, to be passed from father to son?
HOW CAN WE HOPE .....
to teach (impressionable) school-aged children about brotherhood
and equality -- when they have grown up listening to beloved parents...
who echo the views of racist "heroes," such as Limbaugh?
RACISM.
Where and how does it begin?
How can we, as a society, work together to root out
THE SEEDS of racism -- so future generations can be free of this senseless sorrow and division?
<><
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Mayflower
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 445
| Posted 10/18/2003 6:59 AM (GMT -6) | |
"GHETTOPOLY" GAME SPARKS PROTESTS
October 11, 2003
NEW YORK (AFP) - It's a far cry from the Monopoly board game you grew up with.
Playing pieces include a pimp and an Uzi submachine gun, the hottest property on the board is "Smitty's XXX Peep Show," and one game card directs you to collect 50 dollars "from each playa" for successfully addicting your neighbourhood to crack cocaine.
The game is "Ghettopoly" and its stereotyping of gangsta rap culture has attracted a cult fan base in the United States along with outraged protests from African-American groups.
Played like Monopoly, but with no affiliation to the original game or its manufacturer, Hasbro, the aim of Ghettopoly is to become the richest player by stealing, cheating and fencing stolen properties.
The banker in the original becomes the "Loan Shark" and instead of building residential homes and hotels on their properties, players set up crack houses and slum projects.
The normal playing cards -- or in this case "Hustle" and "Ghetto Stash" cards -- are doctored along similar lines.
"You and your boyz just spotted a rapper at Weinstein's flashin some Bling Blings. You decided to jack da fool. Collect 150 dollars," reads one example.
One property on the board, Martin "Luthor" King Jr. Boulevard, has a caricature of the famed civil rights leader scratching the front of his trousers and proclaiming "I have an itch."
The game's creator, David Chang, 28, whose family immigrated to America from Taiwan when he was eight years old, acknowledges the stereotyping charge but insists that the charges of racism miss the point.
"Ghettopoly is controversial because it's both fun and real life," Chang says on his website www.ghettopoly.com.
"It draws on stereotypes not as a means to degrade, but as a medium to bring people together in laughter," he argues. "If we can't laugh at ourselves and how we each utilise the various stereotypes, then we'll continue to live in blame and bitterness."
A hot seller on the Internet, the game proved equally popular when it was temporarily stocked by national clothing chain Urban Outfitters two weeks ago.
But not everyone was amused and black leaders organised angry protests outside stores in Philadelphia, Chicago and Seattle, saying the game poked fun at serious social problems like drug addiction and poverty.
"Images do count and it's disgusting," said J. Whyatt Mondesire, president of the Philadelphia chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP).
"He's bastardised a family-oriented board game and used the worst stereotypes that have become associated with African Americans," Mondesire said.
The protests prompted Urban Outfitters to pull the game from its shelves. "Due to customer concerns, we've decided to recall and no longer sell the product," the company said in a statement.
Hasbro, meanwhile, has threatened legal action at what it sees as a degenerate Monopoly rip-off.
"We want to make it clear that Hasbro has absolutely no connection to the reprehensible 'Ghettopoly' game," said Frank Bifulco, president of Hasbro's US Games.
"Mr. Chang's game violates our Monopoly game intellectual property rights and Hasbro plans to bring suit against Mr. Chang if he does not immediately stop selling the game."
Chang was not directly available to comment on the level of protests, but stressed on his website that Ghettopoly does not single out any minority group.
"The graphics on the board depict every race in the country and both genders," he says, stressing that one playing square depicts a Chinese restaurant owner selling dog meat.
Chang says his research for the game included watching MTV, studying the lyrics of rap and hip-hop music and playing video games.
And his plans don't end with Ghettopoly. A new game called "Hoodopoly" is already in the design stage and the website also promises "Hiphopopoly," "Thugopoly" and "Redneckopoly."
[end]
• GAME WEBSITE: "Ghettopoly Board game - Stolen Property Fencing Game"
http://www.ghettopoly.com/
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Mayflower
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 445
| Posted 10/18/2003 8:22 AM (GMT -6) | | Apology?
NEWSDAY:
"Blacks deserve a public apology from Urban Outfitters for selling Ghettopoly, a new board game that promotes "racial hatred," members of a civil rights group said yesterday.
"The entire game is offensive, it seems like you're targeting a certain community saying that this entire race of people are no more than drug addicts, alcoholics, crack heads and that's the way they live in the inner city."
The game replicates Monopoly -- but, replaces the game pieces with "ghetto" characters including "playas," crack houses and pimps.
...
[end]
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Mayflower
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 445
| Posted 10/18/2003 8:56 AM (GMT -6) | | LIMBAUGH:
Racism on national airwaves:
"As Criticism Rushes In for Racially-Charged Comments,
Limbaugh Resigns from ESPN Post"
October 2, 2003 -- Acid-tongued commentator Rush Limbaugh resigned late Wednesday night as a hurricane of controversy swept everybody – from presidential candidates and civil rights leaders to TV executives and Black athletes – into a national debate over race and acceptable boundaries for public commentary.
ESPN, the cable sports network owned by the Disney Co., hired the conservative radio show host in hopes that his shoot-from-the-hip adlib would kindle the banter among the show's panelists and, ultimately, pump up the ratings. Ironically, it ended up being Limbaugh's shot from the lip that did him in.
On Sunday, Limbaugh, known for previous racially insensitive remarks – He once told a caller to his show to "get the bone out of your nose and call back" and said that "all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson" – suggested that Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donavan McNabb, a three-time Pro Bowl selection, was overrated and getting a free ride from the media because he is Black.
It was the shot heard 'round the globe, and the criticisms poured in.
Even the usually quiet McNabb, 26, expressed umbrage with the remarks and said he wished that at least one of Limbaugh's cohorts on the show would had challenged them. Two of the panelists, Michael Irvin and Tom Jackson are African American.
"It definitely should have been tackled," McNabb said. " I'm not pointing at anyone, but someone should have said it. I wouldn't have cared if it was a cameraman."
In fact, the criticisms were so heated and so plentiful that ESPN executives, who originally dismissed Limbaugh's words as honest discussion about McNabb's development, called the comments "insensitive and inappropriate." ...
Black leaders, including NAACP leader Kweisi Mfume and the Rev. Jesse Jackson, kept the heat on.
Jackson, speaking hours before Limbaugh resigned, said Disney Co. Chairman Michael Eisner had a "real responsibility … to address this. This is not a slip of the lip," Jackson said.
Offered Mfume: "Limbaugh's comments last Sunday about Donavan McNabb were both bigoted and ignorant. If this is the future of ESPN, I think fair-minded fans, who tune in for sports news coverage, and not for racist views, should get their sports on other networks. It is appalling that ESPN has to go to this extent to try to increase viewership."
By late Wednesday night, ESPN was agreeing that Limbaugh had done the right thing by tendering his resignation.
But it was clear that Limbaugh, in Philadelphia Thursday to address the National Association Broadcasters, was unrepentant -- even defiant.
"All this has become the tempest that it is because I must have been right about something," Limbaugh said on his Wednesday radio broadcast. "If I wasn't right, there wouldn't be this cacophony of outrage that has sprung up in the sportswriter community. There's no racism here. There's no racist intent whatsoever."
[end]
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Mayflower
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 445
| Posted 10/18/2003 10:51 AM (GMT -6) | | Greetings, DLW:
Sorry, brother.
However, I must (respectfully) disagree with you on this issue.
It has been reported that most "loyal Limbaugh followers" (i.e., his radio fans) find nothing objectionable about his racist remarks.
However, the vast majority of the general public does not share this view.
Nor does the National Football League.
Peace and blessings...
<><
_______________________________________________________________
LIMBAUGH WAS WRONG
Published October 5, 2003
NFL
Fifteen years ago, Doug Williams threw four touchdown passes in the second quarter as the Washington Redskins blew out the Denver Broncos 42-10 in Super Bowl XXII.
For most NFL players, that also signaled the day the whole black-quarterback issue was squashed for good.
Williams was a championship quarterback. A successful quarterback. He was a black quarterback, but that wouldn't matter anymore.
Until last week, when Rush Limbaugh jump-started a dead issue by suggesting Philadelphia quarterback Donovan McNabb was "overrated" by a liberal media that was determined to ensure that black quarterbacks succeed.
Even supporters of the conservative commentator were stunned. Has he seen Michael Vick work his magic? Has he seen Daunte Culpepper hit Randy Moss with the deep ball? Or Steve McNair will the Titans to victory? Or McNabb play in
back-to-back NFC Championship Games?
Is the media making this up?
"When I heard [Limbaugh's comments], I couldn't believe it," Culpepper said on his weekly radio show on KMOJ-FM. "That's one of the worst things he could have said.
I feel sorry for us as black people that somebody would say something so stupid."
The fact Limbaugh was hired to do NFL analysis for ESPN in the first place has puzzled some players. Limbaugh likes the game but obviously doesn't stay in touch with it closely enough.
"I think Rush was totally out of line," Cardinals running back Emmitt Smith said during a national conference call on Thursday. "The best quarterback for Philadelphia is Donovan. It doesn't have anything to do with who's black or who's white."
The Vikings are 4-0. No one in the media thinks of it as 3-0 with the black quarterback and 1-0 with the white quarterback (Gus Frerotte).
Culpepper is an outstanding quarterback because he's bigger than a house, throws the ball like a dart, runs like a tailback and is smart enough to understand all the stuff the coaches cram into his brain every week.
Limbaugh resigned from ESPN because of the controversy. He said it was to protect ESPN. He probably should worry more about himself and his credibility.
[end] | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mayflower
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 445
| Posted 10/18/2003 11:44 AM (GMT -6) | |
Post script:
Whether they are voiced from the studio of his nationally-syndicated radio program;
or, in any other public broadcast forum (i.e., as a NFL Sports Commentator, etc.), the "ripple effects" of Limbaugh's racist remarks leave a horrific legacy in our country -- regarding how people of color are viewed, and therefore treated.
THAT is the heart of the issue -- in that it speaks of the "roots" of racism.
Again, I ask:
quote:
Tell me, where should such "protests" begin?
Shouldn't we more closely examine WHY racism (which feeds the secondary "symptoms") continues to flourish in America?
If, as a country, we are becoming *more* educated, enlightened, and wise, how do we explain the ignorance that allows racism to flourish -- amongst supposedly "bright" people?
What gives it "life"? We know it's evil; but, what allows racism to thrive today, as opposed to a century ago?
How does it continue to exist? WHO AND WHAT fans the fire of racism,
and -- causes it to spread?
What about national "role models" -- such as Michael Savage and Rush Limbaugh, who routinely spew the seeds of racism across national (radio) airwaves?
While we all know that a steady diet of racist propaganda feeds overt bigotry -- THIS problem lies not "in the homes of inner cities across America," but in the *comfortable suburbs* of our country.
How do we halt the effect of racism (and, the ultimate devastation it causes
in the lives of countless individuals and families) -- when national radio hosts such as Rush Limbaugh make bigotry "acceptable" in mainstream America, with such
broadcasted comments as, "Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?"
How, over time, might comments such as these, change the radio listener's perception of black Americans?
How, over time, might such racist propaganda alter the way our law enforcement officials deal with black citizens? For example, could this contribute to Racial Profiling, etc.?
And, in being treated as second-class citizens (as the result of the propagation of negative racial stereotypes), how, over time, might this alter ones feeling of self-worth? And, their life??
This is the impact of racism on people of color.
But, what is the outcome for others who are also touched -- in different ways, by
the ongoing exposure to racist views or attitudes?
What becomes of the children whose parents tune-in daily,
and have their worldviews shaped -- crafted, by (racist) radio hosts such as
Savage or Limbaugh? Through parental example, word and deed, does racism then become a generational curse, to be passed from father to son?
HOW CAN WE HOPE .....
to teach (impressionable) school-aged children about brotherhood
and equality -- when they have grown up listening to beloved parents...
who echo the views of racist "heroes," such as Limbaugh?
RACISM.
Where and how does it begin?
How can we, as a society, work together to root out
THE SEEDS of racism -- so future generations can be free of this senseless sorrow and division?
Peace and blessings...
<><
| | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 10/18/2003 12:07 PM (GMT -6) | | Mayflower:Sorry, brother.
However, I must (respectfully) disagree with you on this issue.
It has been reported that most "loyal Limbaugh followers" (i.e., his radio fans) find nothing objectionable about his racist remarks.
However, the vast majority of the general public does not share this view.
Nor does the National Football League.
Peace and blessings...
<><
Do you follow football? I don't. The point in question was not whether he was the best quarter-back his team had, but rather whether he was such an outstanding quarter-back, relative other past quarter-backs, as to merit the amount of media-attention that was given to him.
Consider the following statistical regression.
Media=Amount of Media Attention.
Wins=No. of games a quarter-back is responsible for winning.
Black=Equal to one if the quarterback is black, zero otherwise.
We can regress Media on Wins and Black and their interaction(the one times the other). If Rush were right in his assessment we would find a significant posititve coefficient from the interaction term.
Hence implying that the media and the NFL was giving additional media attention to Quarterbacks above and beyond what they would receive for a similar record if they were white.
The consensus among most at the other forum was that McNabb was good but not as good as the amount of media-attention he was getting, which is what Rush was commenting on.
dlw
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Blood Washed Heretic
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 167
| Posted 10/18/2003 1:13 PM (GMT -6) | | I don't know who you're chatting with, DLW, but Donovan McNabb is easily one of the NFL's top players. He's struggling a bit so far this season, but he is a three-time Pro Bowl selection. Just so you know, it's the fans, players and coaches who vote on the Pro Bowl, not the media or the NAACP.
Rush Limbaugh is an ass.
As for the issues you originally brought up, Mayflower, I believe the gentrification trend in this country has a lot to do with it. More on that later...
I've gotta go see KILL BILL again.
In essentials, unity; In matters of opinion, liberty; In all things, love. | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 10/18/2003 1:45 PM (GMT -6) | | "Limburgh is an ass." Thank you for that wonderfully loving and insightful comment. You have restored my faith in a Christian's ability to love...
BTW, McNabb is not one of the top players in football, as just about anyone knows. He is a very talented but extremely undiscplined player. He has not lived up to his potential.
What bothers me much more than Limburgh's comments is the rush to judgment and lack of allowing a person to voice an opinion contrary to the PC perception in the world. The true racists are the one's who stifle free expression. NAACP, ESPN, the owner of the Eagle's should be ashamed of themselves. Limburgh has the right to expression an opinion...yet no one actually tried to refute him: the power of the label "racist" is enough. Well, at least we know who the true racists are now.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 10/18/2003 8:43 PM (GMT -6) | | | BTW, DLW, thanks for bringing some levelheadedness to Limbauhg's comments. If people had actually looked at them for what they were rather than going off the deep end, there would have been rational dialogue rather than this racial paranoia. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mayflower
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 445
| Posted 10/21/2003 6:57 PM (GMT -6) | | Greetings, Honorman:
For Your Information...
I do not dislike Rush Limbaugh.
I do (intensely) dislike his racial slurs.
For Your Information...
Confronting racism is "the right and moral thing to do."
However -- I hope that you can accept that my speaking out against bigotry
IS NOT an attack upon you personally. Why are you reacting as if it is?
If you are a Limbaugh or Savage follower, you will probably object to anyone confronting their racist views. This is your choice.
However, that does not mean that racism should not be challenged. I will continue to speak out against it. This is my choice.
As brothers & sisters in Christ, we will simply need to (lovingly) "agree to disagree"
on this topic. I truly hope this is acceptable to you.
(If not, you can simply block my posts on the topic of racism!  ).
Shall we continue exploring how we as a society can uncover and attempt to eliminate The SEEDS OF RACISM?
FOR THE RECORD:
Racism is regularly "modeled" by a number of national radio hosts.
The fact of the matter is that Rush Limbaugh has a
*LONG-STANDING (DOCUMENTED) HISTORY of racist remarks.
His recent slip-of-the-tongue as an NFL commentator was simply the tip of the iceberg.
[*Refer to article, attached below].
Therefore, the issue isn't "whether" Limbaugh, Savage, and other
nationally-syndicated radio hosts intentionally use their public forums to spread the seeds of racism; THE ISSUE is how to best deal with such negativity, in order to combat the effects racism.
Peace & blessings,
<><
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Mayflower
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 445
| Posted 10/21/2003 7:20 PM (GMT -6) | |
Limbaugh:
A Color Man Who Has A Problem With Color?
Published: June, 2000
Talk radio host Rush Limbaugh may be returning to television.
He recently auditioned for a job as color commentator on ABC's "Monday Night Football." The tryout followed weeks of self-promotion by the self-styled "truth detector" to the millions who listen daily to his syndicated radio show on some 600 stations.
Limbaugh's audition is stirring controversy.
Sports columnist Thomas Boswell quipped that if Limbaugh joins "Monday Night Football" then baseball's game of the week broadcasters might "team up with John Rocker."
Veteran sports writer Michael Wilbon, who is black, indicated a boycott might result:
"If Rush Limbaugh is put in that booth, I will NOT listen to the broadcast," he wrote in a Washington Post chat session.
"His views on people like me are well documented and I would find it insulting and hypocritical to watch him…There are tens of thousands, probably hundreds of thousands who feel the same way I do."
If ABC hires Limbaugh, it's not clear a boycott will materialize. What is clear is that his expressed views on racial matters -- from the spiteful to the sophomoric -- would make him an odd color commentator. Indeed, CBS Sports dismissed Jimmy the Greek Snyder for ignorant racial remarks, less derisive than some of Limbaugh's.
As a young broadcaster in the 1970s, Limbaugh once told a black caller:
"Take that bone out of your nose and call me back."
A decade ago, after becoming nationally syndicated, he mused on the air:
"Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?"
In 1992, on his now-defunct TV show, Limbaugh expressed his ire when
Spike Lee urged that black schoolchildren get off from school to see his film Malcolm X: "Spike, if you're going to do that, let's complete the education experience. You should tell them that they should loot the theater, and then blow it up on their way out."
In a similar vein, here is Limbaugh's mocking take on the NAACP, a group with a ninety-year commitment to nonviolence: "The NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies."
When Carol Moseley-Braun (D-IL) was in the U.S. Senate, the first black woman ever elected to that body, Limbaugh would play the "Movin' On Up" theme song from TV's "Jeffersons" when he mentioned her. Limbaugh sometimes still uses mock dialect -- substituting "ax" for "ask"-- when discussing black leaders.
Such quotes and antics offer a whiff of Limbaugh's racial sensibility.
So does his claim that racism in America "is fueled primarily by the rantings and ravings" of people like Jesse Jackson. Or his ugly reference two years ago to the father of Madonna's first child, a Latino, as "a gang-member type guy" -- an individual with no gang background.
In 1994, Limbaugh mocked St. Louis for building a rail line to East St. Louis "where nobody goes." East St. Louis is home to roughly 40,000 residents -- 98 percent of whom are African-Americans. One of its 40,000 "nobodies" is star NFL linebacker Bryan Cox.
Once, in response to a caller arguing that black people need to be heard, Limbaugh responded: "They are 12 percent of the population. Who the hell cares?" That's not an unusual response for a talk radio host playing to an audience of "angry white males." It may not play so well among National Football League players, 70 percent of whom are African American.
Compared to some talk radio hosts, racism is not central to Limbaugh's
shtick. But there has been a pattern of commentary indicating his willingness to exploit prejudice against blacks to further his on-air arguments.
ABC has the right to hire Limbaugh, even at the risk of alienating members of its audience. ("Monday Night Football" is the second-most watched TV show in black households). Thrust into the world of pro football where Limbaugh himself would be something of a racial minority, is it possible that he'd rise above his history of racial bigotry and insensitivity? Not likely.
When all is said and done, the athletes are the key players on "Monday Night Football." It would be great to know how they'd feel about a color man who seems to have trouble with people of color.
[end]
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Mayflower
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 445
| Posted 10/21/2003 7:49 PM (GMT -6) | |
Whew!
No retort from Honorman yet.
Oh, hurrah!
Do you suppose he blocked my "confronting racism" posts??!  | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mayflower
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 445
| Posted 10/22/2003 5:19 AM (GMT -6) | |
Good Morning, Honorman:
In searching for related threads, I see that the topic of racism has been discussed before:
Christus Victor Ministries Discussion - "Racism 2001":
URL: http://www.christusvictorministries.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=610&SearchTerms=,racism
Sir, I respectfully argue that unless we continue to CONFRONT AND CHALLENGE ongoing racism in America, change will not occur.
IGNORING the reality that racism is alive and well in our country gives a "green light" to those who engage in racist behavior.
Peace and blessings...
<><
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Mayflower
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 445
| Posted 10/22/2003 5:29 AM (GMT -6) | | P.S.
Greetings, Honorman:
Why did you delete some of your previous posts defending Limbaugh's
right to express his (racist) "opinions"?
Are you beginning to understand that racism is truly is harmful?
Peace be with you, Brother...!
<>< | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 11/7/2003 8:00 AM (GMT -6) | | Flags Versus Dollars
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: November 7, 2003
Howard Dean's remarks about the need to appeal to white Southerners could certainly have been better phrased. But his rivals for the Democratic nomination should be ashamed of their reaction. They know what he was trying to say — and it wasn't that his party should go soft on racism. By playing gotcha, by seizing on the chance to take the front-runner down a peg, they damaged the cause they claim to serve — and missed a chance to confront the real issue he raised.
A three-sentence description of the arc of American politics over the past 70 years would run like this: First, Democrats and moderate Republicans created institutions — above all, Social Security and Medicare — that provided a measure of financial security to ordinary working Americans. The biggest beneficiaries of these institutions were African-Americans and working-class Southern whites, and both were part of the moderate-to-liberal coalition that dominated American politics until the 1960's.
But the right opened an increasingly effective counterattack, with a strategy that included using racially charged symbolism to get Southern whites to vote against their own economic interests. All Mr. Dean was saying was that Democrats need to understand and counter this strategy.
I know these are fighting words. But the reliance of modern Republican political strategy on coded appeals to racism is no secret. Controversies over efforts to remove the Stars and Bars from the top of the South Carolina Statehouse, and to reduce its size on the Georgia flag, played a significant role in Republican victories in 2002. And the evidence that race is still a crucial factor is as fresh as Tuesday's election.
The big story in that election was the victory of Republicans in Mississippi and Kentucky. The secondary story, however, was a string of victories by Democrats in affluent suburban areas in the Northeast. In my state, New Jersey, Democrats took firm control of the state's Legislature.
What this tells us is that some people — either in New Jersey, Mississippi or both — voted against their economic interests. For whatever you think of Bush's economic plan, it's clearly much better for New Jersey — a rich state, which gains a lot from tax cuts tilted toward the affluent — than for a poor state like Mississippi.
Consider, for example, the effects of estate tax repeal, a central feature of the 2001 tax cut. Almost nobody in Mississippi pays the estate tax. In 2001 only 249 estates in Mississippi paid any tax at all; raising the exemption to $5 million, which some Democrats suggested as an alternative to full repeal, would have reduced that to a couple of dozen. By contrast, New Jersey, with three times Mississippi's population, had almost 10 times as many taxable estates.
Or consider the 2003 tax cut. It was also heavily tilted toward the affluent, and therefore toward rich states. According to Citizens for Tax Justice estimates, the typical New Jersey family got a $409 tax cut. In Mississippi, the number was only $165.
So did Mississippi voters support the Republicans, even though they get very little direct benefit from Bush-style tax cuts, because they — unlike New Jersey's voters — understand the magic of supply-side economics? If you believe that, I've got an overpass on the Garden State Parkway you may be interested in buying.
Now maybe New Jersey voted Democratic because of irrational Bush hatred. But I think it's a lot more likely that white Mississippi voters, unlike their counterparts up north, are still responding to Republican flag-waving — and it's not just the American flag that's being waved.
Yet the fact is that Mississippi, being relatively poor, will lose disproportionately if the right wins on its full agenda, which involves a big rollback of New Deal and Great Society programs. (I'll explain in a future column how Republicans are using the prescription drug bill to lay the groundwork for later Medicare cuts.)
Mr. Dean wasn't suggesting that his party adopt the G.O.P. strategy of coded racial signals, and by and large African-Americans — my wife included — understand that. What he meant by his flag remark was that Democrats must make the case to working Americans of all colors that the right's elitist agenda isn't in their interest. And he's right.
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tigress
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1252
| Posted 11/7/2003 11:31 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Laika
What are some practical, implementable ways to "CONFRONT AND CHALLENGE ongoing racism"?
I have struggled with prejudiced thoughts towards certain people for most of my life and I'm constantly having to fight them. I'm not sure why these thoughts are even in my brain anyway as no one's ever flat-out told me that I should believe that way about certain people. For instance, why is it that I automatically become wary if I walk past a group of black men? No one ever said to me, "Be careful of black men." It's almost like my fears are instinctual. I guess it must be because of original sin. I have to conciously fight my preconceptions about black men if I'm ever in a situation where I must speak with one, like if a male black courier comes in (I'm a receptionist). Or just seeing black men in the hallway of my office building - I automatically start to become anxious about my safety. Why in the world is that? I don't recall a time in my life when a black male ever did anything negative to me in any way. In fact, I once even worked for a Summer at a place where the majority of people there were black men, and I had a slight crush on two of them. Yet, I get wary if I see a black man that I don't know. I don't generally become wary of most white men, unless they act unusual or are dressed unusual or something. (Doing that is actually sort of setting up a false sense of security, because just because a white male looks all neat and polished, doesn't necessarily mean that he truly is a man of integrity. So a woman could put herself into a vulnerable situation with a man like that.)
Oh, I wish I could just have a balanced view of all people!
Tigress 
"Name a shrub after me. Preferably one that's prickly and difficult to eradicate."
-Captain Jack Aubrey
"Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World" | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 11/7/2003 11:50 AM (GMT -6) | | I think we all need to revisit our prejudices and the values at stake when it comes to opening oneself to being taken advantage by someone with a different background from us.
I remember my grandpa, who was a Baptist pastor in the boonies of Ontario paid rather little, my grandma who was a school-teacher made more than he did, decided to make a loan to a native-canadian who told him that he wanted to turn his life around so he could buy a car. My grandma was opposed to it, since of course native-canadians were drunks that couldn't be trusted. My grandpa went through with it and the native-canadian defaulted on the loan.
This resulted in my grandpa not having a car of his own and my grandma, to punish him, refused to help him out. My mother had to go up and work out just how long it would take for my grandfather to save up enough to buy himself a car on his own budget and then my grandmother relented.
Would it have been racist or just smart for my grandpa not to take the chance on the native-canadian? Probably smart, given his own circumstance, but I prefer to think that he saw sharing the Gospel, living his life differently, as by far more important than going with the prejudice as justified as it may have been.
Who knows what seed may eventually have come to fruition out of his willingness to take a risk like that?
dlw
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:00 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
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|