According to David Loewe...
Dan Bretta
the big hubbub is here.
Dan
David Loewe, Jr.
wrote:
Ah...
A vanity thread. Be careful. Kyle will think you've crossed a line.
>comparing black people to monkeys is not racist so I'm not sure what
>the big hubbub is here.
>
>http://tinyurl.com/yddknvu
Liberals can compare W to a chimp, but no one can compare Obama to a
similar animal?
http://politicalpartypooper.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/bush-chimp.jpg
http://www.toonpool.com/user/718/files/bush_chimp_331845.jpg
http://www.uncuriousgeorge.org/images/rogers20050806.gif
http://www.internetweekly.org/images/bush_chimpanzee_art.jpg
http://doctorbulldog.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/8130george-w-bush-monkey-posters.jpg
http://media.photobucket.com/image/bush%20chimp%20cartoon/Duke_S/George_W_Bush_ds_300.jpg
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/steve_bell/2005/09/06/bell.jpg
Or even a monkey?
http://www.iflipflop.com/monkey_boy.gif
Or even The Joker?
http://forbiddenplanet.co.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/Drew%20Friedman%20George%20Bush%20as%20Joker.jpg
--
"Why do we never get an answer
When we're knocking at the door
With a thousand million questions
About hate and death and war?"
David J. Hayward
Dan Bretta
> On Sat, 6 Mar 2010 18:55:05 -0800 (PST), Dan Bretta <nuda...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> Ah...
>
> A vanity thread. Be careful. Kyle will think you've crossed a line.
>
> >comparing black people to monkeys is not racist so I'm not sure what
> >the big hubbub is here.
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/yddknvu
>
> Liberals can compare W to a chimp, but no one can compare Obama to a
> similar animal?
>
> http://politicalpartypooper.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/bush-chimp.jpg
>
> http://www.toonpool.com/user/718/files/bush_chimp_331845.jpg
>
> http://www.uncuriousgeorge.org/images/rogers20050806.gif
>
> http://www.internetweekly.org/images/bush_chimpanzee_art.jpg
>
>
> http://media.photobucket.com/image/bush%20chimp%20cartoon/Duke_S/Geor...
>
> http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/steve_bell/2005/0...> http://forbiddenplanet.co.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/Drew%20F...
>
I know, it's crazy isn't it???
Dan
David V. Loewe, Jr
wrote:
>On Mar 6, 9:12�pm, "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
Hypocritical, is what it is.
--
"Quantum particles: the dreams that stuff is made of."
- David Moser
Huck Kennedy
> On Sat, 6 Mar 2010 19:14:31 -0800 (PST), Dan Bretta <nuda...@yahoo.com>
We had this same discussion last year, with Enright, if I recall
correctly. I'm surprised you still don't get it, David (assuming you
followed last year's thread). Comparing black people to chimps and
apes has been one of the more commonplace vicious racial slurs for a
very long time. For that reason, it is off limits when it comes to
Obama. Doing it to Bush is disrespectful, but it has no underlying
racist undertones.
If you guys want to insult Obama, choose a different branch of
the animal tree. Put his face on a jackass, how's that? You still
get to be highly disrespectful without being racist.
Huck
Dan Bretta
comparing black people to monkeys is not racist at all.
Dan
Antonio Veranos
[<a51c4bd8-ada7-4d93...@g26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>]
[Sat, 6 Mar 2010 20:56:35 -0800 (PST)]
: We had this same discussion last year, with Enright, if I recall
: correctly. I'm surprised you still don't get it, David (assuming you
: followed last year's thread). Comparing black people to chimps and
: apes has been one of the more commonplace vicious racial slurs for a
: very long time. For that reason, it is off limits when it comes to
: Obama. Doing it to Bush is disrespectful, but it has no underlying
: racist undertones.
:
: If you guys want to insult Obama, choose a different branch of
: the animal tree. Put his face on a jackass, how's that? You still
: get to be highly disrespectful without being racist.
There is very little in debate that is more out of line than telling someone
else what they mean. Having said that, I do think you have at least a small
point in that one should recognize how one's words will be received by those
too ignorant to bother to consider what's actually being said.
--
Antonio Veranos
"Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run
out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them."
--Margaret Thatcher, 'This Week', 5 February 1976
Huck Kennedy
> [tempeh...@gmail.com | Huck Kennedy]
> [<a51c4bd8-ada7-4d93-9d94-5907fabd6...@g26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>]
> [Sat, 6 Mar 2010 20:56:35 -0800 (PST)]
>
> : We had this same discussion last year, with Enright, if I recall
> : correctly. I'm surprised you still don't get it, David (assuming you
> : followed last year's thread). Comparing black people to chimps and
> : apes has been one of the more commonplace vicious racial slurs for a
> : very long time. For that reason, it is off limits when it comes to
> : Obama. Doing it to Bush is disrespectful, but it has no underlying
> : racist undertones.
> :
> : If you guys want to insult Obama, choose a different branch of
> : the animal tree. Put his face on a jackass, how's that? You still
> : get to be highly disrespectful without being racist.
>
> There is very little in debate that is more out of line than telling someone
> else what they mean.
Comparing black people to apes and chimps has been a commonplace
racial slur for decades. So the people making the signs are either
deliberately being racist, or they are simply ignorant of longstanding
social culture in the United States. I suspect the former, but it
really doesn't matter--the signs are still racist, because that
particular slur has been established for at least decades.
> Having said that, I do think you have at least a small
> point in that one should recognize how one's words will be received by those
> too ignorant to bother to consider what's actually being said.
Sorry, you've got this ignorant thing backwards.
If you draw a picture of Mr. Schrumpf missing half his teeth
and shtooping his sister, you are either demeaning him with decades-
old West Virginia stereotype insults, or you are completely ignorant
of American culture. Mr. Schrumpf, as the victim of your slurs, is
not "ignorant" for failing to decipher whatever "is actually being
said" by you.
Huck
David Loewe, Jr.
There were over 12,000 posts to this here chatruum last month. If I
read every post I wouldn't have time for anything else.
>Comparing black people to chimps and
>apes has been one of the more commonplace vicious racial slurs for a
>very long time.
It ought to be a vicious slur towards *anyone*.
>For that reason, it is off limits when it comes to
>Obama. Doing it to Bush is disrespectful, but it has no underlying
>racist undertones.
That fact is hypocritical.
Perhaps I'm just more colorBLIND than the rest of you.
> If you guys want to insult Obama, choose a different branch of
>the animal tree. Put his face on a jackass, how's that? You still
>get to be highly disrespectful without being racist.
--
"I saw the light I've been baptised
By the fire in your touch and the flame in your eyes
I'm born to love again I'm a brand new man"
- Kix Brooks, Ronnie Dunn & Don Cook
Huck Kennedy
It is. It's just not racist unless the recipient is black, for
the reasons outlined above.
> >For that reason, it is off limits when it comes to
> >Obama. Doing it to Bush is disrespectful, but it has no underlying
> >racist undertones.
>
> That fact is hypocritical.
>
> Perhaps I'm just more colorBLIND than the rest of you.
I'm not saying people should get a complete pass for doing it to
Bush--it is indeed highly insulting. It's just that it's ten times
worse when done to a black man because of the decades-old racial
stereotypes.
Not sure why you're defending this. It seems to me that if I
were a winger, I'd much rather viciously slur Obama in a manner where
I would not immediately be labelled as obviously racist. For example,
I'd choose a jackass rather than a chimp. And I wouldn't publish any
pictures of Obama eating watermelon.
>
> > If you guys want to insult Obama, choose a different branch of
> >the animal tree. Put his face on a jackass, how's that? You still
> >get to be highly disrespectful without being racist.
So? How do you like my jackass idea? Would that suit you guys,
or isn't that vicious enough for you?
Huck
Antonio Veranos
[<64bd5f42-57db-4c7e...@i25g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>]
[Sat, 6 Mar 2010 21:15:23 -0800 (PST)]
: > Having said that, I do think you have at least a small
: > point in that one should recognize how one's words will be received by those
: > too ignorant to bother to consider what's actually being said.
:
: Sorry, you've got this ignorant thing backwards.
:
: If you draw a picture of Mr. Schrumpf missing half his teeth
: and shtooping his sister, you are either demeaning him with decades-
: old West Virginia stereotype insults, or you are completely ignorant
: of American culture. Mr. Schrumpf, as the victim of your slurs, is
: not "ignorant" for failing to decipher whatever "is actually being
: said" by you.
I'm surprised to exactly the 0th degree that you failed to recognize that I was
saying you have at least a semblance of a point, while lamenting the fact that
there are so many pompous idiots out there who think they have the right to
tell other people what they're saying, thinking, etc.
Antonio Veranos
[<3678621f-0174-4884...@g10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>]
[Sat, 6 Mar 2010 21:32:17 -0800 (PST)]
: > It ought to be a vicious slur towards *anyone*.
:
: It is. It's just not racist unless the recipient is black, for
: the reasons outlined above.
It's not racist unless the person expressing it is intending it to be racist.
Period.
Tom Enright
Considering that refering to Obama as a professor or merely
disagreeing with his policies gets one called a racist, I'm sure you
can understand the confusion.
-Tom Enright
Can Obama laugh at himself?
No, that would be racist.
> Dan
Chris Bellomy
> [temp...@gmail.com | Huck Kennedy]
> [<3678621f-0174-4884...@g10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>]
> [Sat, 6 Mar 2010 21:32:17 -0800 (PST)]
>
> :> It ought to be a vicious slur towards *anyone*.
> :
> : It is. It's just not racist unless the recipient is black, for
> : the reasons outlined above.
>
> It's not racist unless the person expressing it is intending it to be racist.
I'm not sure that's true. I'm not sure it's not, either. It's
an interesting suggestion.
What the hell, then, is it doing in rsfc?
cb
Huck Kennedy
> [tempeh...@gmail.com | Huck Kennedy]
> [Sat, 6 Mar 2010 21:15:23 -0800 (PST)]
>
> : > Having said that, I do think you have at least a small
> : > point in that one should recognize how one's words will be received by those
> : > too ignorant to bother to consider what's actually being said.
> :
> : Sorry, you've got this ignorant thing backwards.
> :
> : If you draw a picture of Mr. Schrumpf missing half his teeth
> : and shtooping his sister, you are either demeaning him with decades-
> : old West Virginia stereotype insults, or you are completely ignorant
> : of American culture. Mr. Schrumpf, as the victim of your slurs, is
> : not "ignorant" for failing to decipher whatever "is actually being
> : said" by you.
>
> I'm surprised to exactly the 0th degree that you failed to recognize that I was
> saying you have at least a semblance of a point,
Oh, it's more than a semblance,sport.
> while lamenting the fact that
> there are so many pompous idiots out there who think they have the right to
> tell other people what they're saying, thinking, etc.
Well lament away all you want. There is nothing "pompous" about
calling out decades-old racial stereotype slurs for what they are.
Huck
Antonio Veranos
[<487d31d3-c1df-492c...@15g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>]
[Sat, 6 Mar 2010 21:49:30 -0800 (PST)]
: > while lamenting the fact that
: > there are so many pompous idiots out there who think they have the right to
: > tell other people what they're saying, thinking, etc.
:
: Well lament away all you want. There is nothing "pompous" about
: calling out decades-old racial stereotype slurs for what they are.
It is entirely pompous to tell someone else what they're thinking, especially
when they're telling you in response that you're wrong.
Antonio Veranos
[<1bmdnQrsd80xoA7W...@supernews.com>]
[Sat, 06 Mar 2010 23:46:20 -0600]
: > It's not racist unless the person expressing it is intending it to be racist.
:
: I'm not sure that's true. I'm not sure it's not, either. It's
: an interesting suggestion.
:
: What the hell, then, is it doing in rsfc?
Shut it, cracker!
Dan Bretta
> [ten.wohsdoog@sirhc | Chris Bellomy]
> [<1bmdnQrsd80xoA7WnZ2dnUVZ_hRi4...@supernews.com>]
> [Sat, 06 Mar 2010 23:46:20 -0600]
>
> : > It's not racist unless the person expressing it is intending it to be racist.
> :
> : I'm not sure that's true. I'm not sure it's not, either. It's
> : an interesting suggestion.
> :
> : What the hell, then, is it doing in rsfc?
>
> Shut it, cracker!
>
Dan
Chris Bellomy
Look at the guy's name. Clearly a beaner.
I can say that 'cause I'm a Texican.
cb
Huck Kennedy
> Antonio Veranos wrote, On 3/6/10 11:40 PM:
>
> > [<3678621f-0174-4884-8556-ea6acb7be...@g10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>]
> > [Sat, 6 Mar 2010 21:32:17 -0800 (PST)]
>
> > :> It ought to be a vicious slur towards *anyone*.
> > :
> > : It is. It's just not racist unless the recipient is black, for
> > : the reasons outlined above.
>
> > It's not racist unless the person expressing it is intending it to be racist.
>
> I'm not sure that's true. I'm not sure it's not, either. It's
> an interesting suggestion.
I'd agree it is in the general case, but not in this specific
one.
It's like sexual harrassment at work. Just because someone is
offended doesn't mean that they were harrassed. The "victim" could
just be overly sensitive. But on the other hand, if a boss whips out
his dick and plops it onto his secretary's desktop, it qualifies as
sexual harrassment whether the perpetrator intended it to be or not.
Depicting black people as chimps and apes is like whipping your
dick out on your secretary's desktop.
Huck
David Loewe, Jr.
wrote:
>On Mar 6, 10:56�pm, Huck Kennedy <tempeh...@gmail.com> wrote:
Overly broad brush much, Dan?
If you look back at the coconut discussion, I said that I'd never heard
it used as a racist term. Additionally, what I'm saying here is that
the monkey comparison *shouldn't* be considered racist.
I think the monkey thing has been used on races other than blacks. I'm
pretty sure the Japanese were depicted with monkey features in WWII
propaganda. I may look for examples tomorrow (but I'm going to bed
shortly, so not tonight).
Guy does have big ears, you know.
--
"Will you come quietly, or must I use earplugs?"
- Russ Cage
David Loewe, Jr.
<summers...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>[temp...@gmail.com | Huck Kennedy]
>
>: We had this same discussion last year, with Enright, if I recall
>: correctly. I'm surprised you still don't get it, David (assuming you
>: followed last year's thread). Comparing black people to chimps and
>: apes has been one of the more commonplace vicious racial slurs for a
>: very long time. For that reason, it is off limits when it comes to
>: Obama. Doing it to Bush is disrespectful, but it has no underlying
>: racist undertones.
>:
>: If you guys want to insult Obama, choose a different branch of
>: the animal tree. Put his face on a jackass, how's that? You still
>: get to be highly disrespectful without being racist.
>
>There is very little in debate that is more out of line than telling someone
>else what they mean. Having said that, I do think you have at least a small
>point in that one should recognize how one's words will be received by those
>too ignorant to bother to consider what's actually being said.
Well, the sign linked to over in the other thread was being held by what
appeared to be a 12 year old boy - not exactly the height of
self-awareness.
--
"People in the computer industry use the word "user", which
to them means "idiot"."
- Dave Barry
Huck Kennedy
> [tempeh...@gmail.com | Huck Kennedy]
> [Sat, 6 Mar 2010 21:49:30 -0800 (PST)]
>
> : > while lamenting the fact that
> : > there are so many pompous idiots out there who think they have the right to
> : > tell other people what they're saying, thinking, etc.
> :
> : Well lament away all you want. There is nothing "pompous" about
> : calling out decades-old racial stereotype slurs for what they are.
>
> It is entirely pompous to tell someone else what they're thinking,
I didn't do that. I said either they intended it to be racist,
or else they are woefully ignorant of American culture.
> especially
> when they're telling you in response that you're wrong.
There are only three "You're wrong" responses to being called
out on portraying a black person as a chimp or ape:
1. You're wrong, I did not intend it to be racist. I am
unaware of such a longstanding stereotype, let me verify that with
some research, or asking others, etc....okay, yes, I see that it
indeed is a stereotype, sorry, I'll find some other way to insult
Obama's intelligence.
2. You're wrong, I did not intend it to be racist, and I am
lying my ass off.
3. You're wrong, I did not indend it to be racist, but now
that I've learned of the history of the black man as chimp/ape
stereotype slur, I say, so much the better for that Obama bass turd!
Huck
Unclaimed Mysteries, powered by Sparkling Garmonbozia(TM)
It gets MUCH BETTER. Check out the photo here:
http://blogs.nashvillescene.com/pitw/2010/03/nothing_funny_about_this_monke.php
(http://blogs.nashvillescene.com/pitw/162_Walt_Baker_cropped.JPG)
-cls
--
It Came From C. L. Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net
What Does A Yellow Light Mean?
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net/blog
Plaidmoon
<temp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Mar 6, 10:05�pm, Antonio Veranos <summerstorm0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> [tempeh...@gmail.com | Huck Kennedy]
>> [<a51c4bd8-ada7-4d93-9d94-5907fabd6...@g26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>]
>> [Sat, 6 Mar 2010 20:56:35 -0800 (PST)]
>>
>> : � � �We had this same discussion last year, with Enright, if I recall
>> : correctly. �I'm surprised you still don't get it, David (assuming you
>> : followed last year's thread). �Comparing black people to chimps and
>> : apes has been one of the more commonplace vicious racial slurs for a
>> : very long time. �For that reason, it is off limits when it comes to
>> : Obama. �Doing it to Bush is disrespectful, but it has no underlying
>> : racist undertones.
>> :
>> : � � � If you guys want to insult Obama, choose a different branch of
>> : the animal tree. �Put his face on a jackass, how's that? �You still
>> : get to be highly disrespectful without being racist.
>>
>> There is very little in debate that is more out of line than telling someone
>> else what they mean.
>
> Comparing black people to apes and chimps has been a commonplace
>racial slur for decades. So the people making the signs are either
>deliberately being racist, or they are simply ignorant of longstanding
>social culture in the United States. I suspect the former, but it
>really doesn't matter--the signs are still racist, because that
>particular slur has been established for at least decades.
Indeed. Howard Cosell says Hi from the early 1980s.
"Look at that little monkey run!"
I'd say most people would agree that Howard Cosell wasn't racist or at
least not overtly racist. However, the huge ensuing uproar over that
statement makes it clear that comparing black people with primates has
been considered racist for decades.
Plaidmoon
Chris Bellomy
I can hardly believe the counterargument I'm about to make,
but I always have believed that Cosell got the shaft in that
little scandal, so why not...
Just because something *has* been considered racist doesn't
mean it *should* have been considered racist. Now there's
really no question most comparisons of people of African
descent to monkeys is intended to be demeaning on the basis
of race. But not always. Look at Cosell, for instance, who
had made the same type of monkey reference to anglo players
before. What was *considered* racist, wasn't. And the results
were a damned shame.
It's very important, then, to be wary of setting up certain
words and images as always off-limits, because the *way*
they're used is always far more important, even if it's
harder argument to get at intent than just to have a banned
words list.
This situation with Obama is different, though. Setting
partisan labels aside for the moment, let's stipulate two
things that I think even rsfc can figure out a way to agree
with by consensus:
1. A nontrivial number of American anglos are unrepentant
racists. (I'm setting aside the question of black racism
because it's not specifically germane to how the president
is being portrayed. If they start to do caricatures of him
as a white trash hillbilly or somesuch, this will change.)
For the moment, it doesn't matter how these people vote
or whether they're baggers. All we're acknowledging here
is that they exist.
2. Unrepentant racists historically aren't known for laying
low and being civil when an undesirable gains power over
them in some way. To the contrary, they tend to focus all
their xenophobic rage on that person in a very public way.
Now comes the part that Messrs. Loewe and Rogers, among
others, won't like.
3. The corollary to the argument that these racists haven't
been a big part of bagger rallies is that #2 above simply
isn't true. Further, the implication is that even though
such expressions of racist contempt clearly are not unwelcome
at these rallies, the "real" racists we above agree exist
are just... staying home and being quiet for some unexplained
reason.
Now, our conservative friends fairly raise the point that
Bush was constantly caricatured as a chimp by the left.
But this gets back to the way images are used, and why
they're used that way. Now this, by necessity, gets a
bit subjective, but I can certainly explain my view: the
caricatures of Bush were meant to visually articulate
his incurious nature, his essential stupidity, while at
the same time making use of physical characteristics that
were far from universal among his race.
Caricatures of Obama as a lower primate, though... what
else do they say about Obama as a person but that he
plainly has substantial African ancestry? Anybody who
watched him spontaneously answer questions from the
Republican caucus at their meeting would be forced to
admit that this is a man of intellectual substance and
calm composure. How does that translate into "monkey?"
It's hard to see what the monkey caricature is meant to
convey here, except that he's essentially subhuman.
And *that*, my friends, is the definition of racism.
Finally, something I've alluded to earlier: these public
speakers who get very close to racial taboos in their
public appearances tend to have no hesitation when
crossing those taboos in private. Here is where my
lifetime in Texas probably jades me some, but the list
of guys I've known who make lighthearted race-tinged
jokes in front of strangers but who absolutely go OFF
on niggers and spicks in private is depressingly long.
And when you know these people personally -- several
of whom are successful businessmen -- well, you get to
where you can pick out the traits in people you've
never met. Sure, sometimes the pattern doesn't hold,
and for that reason it's important not to single anybody
out who doesn't clearly earn it. But when you see a large
number of guys like that, operating in that familiar MO,
you know from experience what the odds are that these
guys are virulent racists in private. You can't just
ignore that. You have no choice but to confront it.
And so here we are.
cb
BillyZoom
> Plaidmoon wrote, On 3/7/10 1:34 AM:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 6 Mar 2010 21:15:23 -0800 (PST), Huck Kennedy
>
> - Show quoted text -
Excellent post.
I don't want to tarnish it by saying that my following comments are
related. They are just my belief.
Obama is being stonewalled. They're not going to allow him to
accomplish anything, positive or negative. And it's because he's
black. I believe that there are a lot of people who will lie, distort
- do anything it takes to make sure he fails. Some of them realize
that they're just screwing over a nigger (hi Hugh). Others really
believe that they just hold opposing views. But they've shown that
even when Obama considers an issue and comes around to their way of
thinking, they still view that as a problem. A lot of middle-aged
white men are going to condemn Obama no matter what he does. Ask
yourself, what could Obama do that would satisfy you? If he did it,
would you vote for him in the next election?
deem...@aol.com
> [tempeh...@gmail.com | Huck Kennedy]
> [<a51c4bd8-ada7-4d93-9d94-5907fabd6...@g26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>]
>
> : We had this same discussion last year, with Enright, if I recall
> : correctly. I'm surprised you still don't get it, David (assuming you
> : followed last year's thread). Comparing black people to chimps and
> : apes has been one of the more commonplace vicious racial slurs for a
> : very long time. For that reason, it is off limits when it comes to
> : Obama. Doing it to Bush is disrespectful, but it has no underlying
> : racist undertones.
> :
> : If you guys want to insult Obama, choose a different branch of
> : the animal tree. Put his face on a jackass, how's that? You still
> : get to be highly disrespectful without being racist.
>
> There is very little in debate that is more out of line than telling someone
> else what they mean. Having said that, I do think you have at least a small
> point in that one should recognize how one's words will be received by those
> too ignorant to bother to consider what's actually being said.
If you really care how your words will be received, you don't
throw in gratuitous insults.
deem...@aol.com
> On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 05:05:30 -0000, Antonio Veranos
>
>
>
>
>
> >[tempeh...@gmail.com | Huck Kennedy]
>
> >: We had this same discussion last year, with Enright, if I recall
> >: correctly. I'm surprised you still don't get it, David (assuming you
> >: followed last year's thread). Comparing black people to chimps and
> >: apes has been one of the more commonplace vicious racial slurs for a
> >: very long time. For that reason, it is off limits when it comes to
> >: Obama. Doing it to Bush is disrespectful, but it has no underlying
> >: racist undertones.
> >:
> >: If you guys want to insult Obama, choose a different branch of
> >: the animal tree. Put his face on a jackass, how's that? You still
> >: get to be highly disrespectful without being racist.
>
> >There is very little in debate that is more out of line than telling someone
> >else what they mean. Having said that, I do think you have at least a small
> >point in that one should recognize how one's words will be received by those
> >too ignorant to bother to consider what's actually being said.
>
> Well, the sign linked to over in the other thread was being held by what
> appeared to be a 12 year old boy - not exactly the height of
> self-awareness.
Who made the sign? (rhetorical)
deem...@aol.com
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 6 Mar 2010 21:15:23 -0800 (PST), Huck Kennedy
Good post. It's close to the same thing as the difference between a
white person referring to a black as a nigger and a black doing the
same thing. Should there be a difference? No. Is there a difference?
Yes.
deem...@aol.com
ODL!!!!!!! (But true)
deem...@aol.com
> [tempeh...@gmail.com | Huck Kennedy]
> [Sat, 6 Mar 2010 21:32:17 -0800 (PST)]
>
> : > It ought to be a vicious slur towards *anyone*.
> :
> : It is. It's just not racist unless the recipient is black, for
> : the reasons outlined above.
>
> It's not racist unless the person expressing it is intending it to be racist.
>
> Period.
So, calling a black a nigger isn't racist unless you intend it to
be racist?
Antonio Veranos
[<cfbcbda1-8ac2-46a2...@t20g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>]
[Sun, 7 Mar 2010 05:45:48 -0800 (PST)]
:
I dunno, why don't you ask the following people?
Eminem
Dr. Dre
50 Cent
etc.
etc.
etc.
BTW, Bill... what is 'a black'?
deem...@aol.com
> [deemsb...@aol.com | deemsb...@aol.com]
> [<cfbcbda1-8ac2-46a2-bc4f-89cfab24a...@t20g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>]
> [Sun, 7 Mar 2010 05:45:48 -0800 (PST)]
>
> :
> : On Mar 7, 12:40 am, Antonio Veranos <summerstorm0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> : > [tempeh...@gmail.com | Huck Kennedy]
> : > [<3678621f-0174-4884-8556-ea6acb7be...@g10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>]
> : > [Sat, 6 Mar 2010 21:32:17 -0800 (PST)]
> : >
> : > : > It ought to be a vicious slur towards *anyone*.
> : > :
> : > : It is. It's just not racist unless the recipient is black, for
> : > : the reasons outlined above.
> : >
> : > It's not racist unless the person expressing it is intending it to be racist.
> : >
> : > Period.
> :
> : So, calling a black a nigger isn't racist unless you intend it to
> : be racist?
>
> I dunno, why don't you ask the following people?
Fair enough. Add "a white person" between "So," and
"calling...". It doesn't really matter how it's meant....it will be
TAKEN as racist....which pretty much scrubs any chance of meaningful
communication.
Kind of like a guy calling a woman a cunt.
>
> Eminem
> Dr. Dre
> 50 Cent
> etc.
> etc.
> etc.
>
> BTW, Bill... what is 'a black'?
Don't start that crap.
Frisbee�
> comparing black people to monkeys is not racist so I'm not sure what
> the big hubbub is here.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yddknvu
>
> Dan
You realize, of course, you're only helping David in his monthly poasting
champeenship.
Antonio Veranos
[<022e2a8c-6f8b-46da...@u9g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>]
[Sun, 7 Mar 2010 06:48:53 -0800 (PST)]
:
Women don't generally refer to themselves as 'cunts' in a jocular fashion.
Marshall Mathers (Eminem) is white, by the way.
: > Eminem
: > Dr. Dre
: > 50 Cent
: > etc.
: > etc.
: > etc.
:
: >
: > BTW, Bill... what is 'a black'?
: Don't start that crap.
Oh? Heh.
deem...@aol.com
> [deemsb...@aol.com | deemsb...@aol.com]
> [Sun, 7 Mar 2010 06:48:53 -0800 (PST)]
>
> :
> : On Mar 7, 9:31 am, Antonio Veranos <summerstorm0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> : > [deemsb...@aol.com | deemsb...@aol.com]
> : > [<cfbcbda1-8ac2-46a2-bc4f-89cfab24a...@t20g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>]
> : > [Sun, 7 Mar 2010 05:45:48 -0800 (PST)]
> : >
> : > :
> : > : On Mar 7, 12:40 am, Antonio Veranos <summerstorm0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> : > : > [tempeh...@gmail.com | Huck Kennedy]
> : > : > [<3678621f-0174-4884-8556-ea6acb7be...@g10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>]
> : > : > [Sat, 6 Mar 2010 21:32:17 -0800 (PST)]
> : > : >
> : > : > : > It ought to be a vicious slur towards *anyone*.
> : > : > :
> : > : > : It is. It's just not racist unless the recipient is black, for
> : > : > : the reasons outlined above.
> : > : >
> : > : > It's not racist unless the person expressing it is intending it to be racist.
> : > : >
> : > : > Period.
> : > :
> : > : So, calling a black a nigger isn't racist unless you intend it to
> : > : be racist?
> : >
> : > I dunno, why don't you ask the following people?
> :
> :
> : Fair enough. Add "a white person" between "So," and
> : "calling...". It doesn't really matter how it's meant....it will be
> : TAKEN as racist....which pretty much scrubs any chance of meaningful
> : communication.
> :
> : Kind of like a guy calling a woman a cunt.
>
> Women don't generally refer to themselves as 'cunts' in a jocular fashion.
True, but it's still different coming from a man. The PERCEPTION
is what's important. I can call a black guy a nigger and that will
pretty
>
> Marshall Mathers (Eminem) is white, by the way.
So?
>
> : > Eminem
> : > Dr. Dre
> : > 50 Cent
> : > etc.
> : > etc.
> : > etc.
> :
> : >
> : > BTW, Bill... what is 'a black'?
>
> : Don't start that crap.
>
> Oh? Heh.
It's a deflection. It doesn't add anything substantive to the
discussion.
Antonio Veranos
[<5a279205-6b87-4aa2...@m37g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>]
[Sun, 7 Mar 2010 07:39:36 -0800 (PST)]
: > : > BTW, Bill... what is 'a black'?
: >
: > : Don't start that crap.
: >
: > Oh? Heh.
:
: It's a deflection. It doesn't add anything substantive to the
: discussion.
It makes a point. I know what you mean, right... so that makes it okay that
you wrote something which is offensive, even racist, to some people.
I'm sorry that you don't considering hoisting you on your own petard to be
adding anything substantive to the discussion. I think that it is.
deem...@aol.com
> [deemsb...@aol.com | deemsb...@aol.com]
> [Sun, 7 Mar 2010 07:39:36 -0800 (PST)]
>
> : > : > BTW, Bill... what is 'a black'?
> : >
> : > : Don't start that crap.
> : >
> : > Oh? Heh.
> :
> : It's a deflection. It doesn't add anything substantive to the
> : discussion.
>
> It makes a point. I know what you mean, right... so that makes it okay that
> you wrote something which is offensive, even racist, to some people.
>
> I'm sorry that you don't considering hoisting you on your own petard to be
> adding anything substantive to the discussion. I think that it is.
Whatever. End of discussion.
David V. Loewe, Jr
Don't know. It certainly looked like art work done by a 12 year old.
Then again, most protest signs I've seen (on both sides) could have been
done by a 12 year old.
--
"Leave your worries behind...
'Cause rain, shine don't mind
We're ridin' on the Groove Line tonight."
Rod Temperton
deem...@aol.com
wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 05:33:32 -0800 (PST), "deemsb...@aol.com"
That's why I put rhetorical. Either way, I'm betting an adult or
two approved of the sign.
shiite
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 6 Mar 2010 21:15:23 -0800 (PST), Huck Kennedy
(In hushed, reverent NPR tone)
Ladies and gentlemen, you've been listening to "View From the Bubble,"
an always-spontaneous, often-self congratulatory, but lately,
sometimes-desperate attempt to expand the number of people who can be
branded as racist. Your host, Chris Bellomy, by virtue of his
American citizenship and subsequent right to free speech, hopes to
capitalize on his unique talent to project the inner workings of his
own self-loathing psyche onto the unsuspecting RSFC chatrum dweller.
Inspired by the success of Barack Hussein Obama, he is certain that
there are those who will somehow connect with his tortured offerings
and give him proper homage. The occasional "attaboy" from fellow
bubble dwellers seems to be all he needs to charge his
batteries.
And so, ladies and gentlemen, in a world in which there is widespread
consensus concerning the sum of "one plus one," we are introduced to
the view of life from inside the loon bubble, where the ever-so-clear,
"why-don't-you-get-it, why-can't you-see-it" answer is always three.
Honest, heartfelt, and indeed often passionate, Mr. Bellomy's
spontaneous excursions into the tortured intricacies, complexities,
and ambiguities of bubble thinking are worthy of attention, and not
only for their entertainment value. Understanding how one can get
branded as a racist by arriving at a different sum than "three" can be
a valuable asset on life's journey.
deem...@aol.com
Which doesn't make what he said untrue.
David Loewe, Jr.
wrote:
>Dan Bretta wrote:
>> comparing black people to monkeys is not racist so I'm not sure what
>> the big hubbub is here.
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/yddknvu
>You realize, of course, you're only helping David in his monthly poasting
>champeenship.
Hey!
I'm currently the 2nd ranked poster and the 6th ranked poster.
--
"You tell 'em I'M coming... and Hell's coming with me, you hear?!
Hell's coming with me!"
- Kurt Russell as Wyatt Earp in Tombstone
shiite
If "true" is defined by what resonates in the bubble, you're right.
deem...@aol.com
Apparently "true", at least in this case, IS what "resonates in
the bubble".
Huck Kennedy
>
> Just because something *has* been considered racist doesn't
> mean it *should* have been considered racist. Now there's
> really no question most comparisons of people of African
> descent to monkeys is intended to be demeaning on the basis
> of race. But not always. Look at Cosell, for instance, who
> had made the same type of monkey reference to anglo players
> before. What was *considered* racist, wasn't. And the results
> were a damned shame.
But you're missing a key point here. Howard Cosell said "Look at
that little monkey run!" (or whatever his exact words were) to heap
excited praise upon Washington Redskins Alvin Garrett. He was making
a comparison to the *positive* traits of a monkey, to wit, its wiry
speed for being such a small animal. Sure, it was still an offensive
comment, but it was also fairly obvious to those of us with a brain
that Cosell's sin was cluelessness rather than deliberate racial
slurring.
Huck
shiite
But of course. In bubble world, the ever-so-clear, "why-don't-you-get-
it, why-can't you-see-it" answer is always true.
sam
@g7g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, temp...@gmail.com says...
Didn't he get canned for that one?
s
Jim Brown
> [tempeh...@gmail.com | Huck Kennedy]
> [<a51c4bd8-ada7-4d93-9d94-5907fabd6...@g26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>]
> [Sat, 6 Mar 2010 20:56:35 -0800 (PST)]
>
> : We had this same discussion last year, with Enright, if I recall
> : correctly. I'm surprised you still don't get it, David (assuming you
> : followed last year's thread). Comparing black people to chimps and
> : apes has been one of the more commonplace vicious racial slurs for a
> : very long time. For that reason, it is off limits when it comes to
> : Obama. Doing it to Bush is disrespectful, but it has no underlying
> : racist undertones.
> :
> : If you guys want to insult Obama, choose a different branch of
> : the animal tree. Put his face on a jackass, how's that? You still
> : get to be highly disrespectful without being racist.
>
> There is very little in debate that is more out of line than telling someone
> point in that one should recognize how one's words will be received by those
> too ignorant to bother to consider what's actually being said.
IAWTP. Back a few years ago, when the "niggardly"-gate was happening,
I called a conservative talk show on WHO in DM who was blindly
defending the use of the word. He said its meaning was clear and
there should be no reason to not use the word if is was so desired. I
countered with this...Say the radio station has a contest, and the
winners name is Fuchs(there are many around here named that), and I
spelled out the name instead of giving him the pronunciation. I said
there is NO reason why you cant say "Dan Fucks" won the contest, if
thats how his name is pronounced, or you are not sure. Of course they
would never do that as it would be associated with one of the seven
dirty words. He dropped his argument.
Huck Kennedy
> [deemsb...@aol.com | deemsb...@aol.com]
> [Sun, 7 Mar 2010 07:39:36 -0800 (PST)]
>
> : > : > BTW, Bill... what is 'a black'?
> : >
> : > : Don't start that crap.
> : >
> : > Oh? Heh.
> :
> : It's a deflection. It doesn't add anything substantive to the
> : discussion.
>
> It makes a point. I know what you mean, right... so that makes it okay that
> you wrote something which is offensive, even racist, to some people.
Why, because he used it as a noun instead of an adjective? Most
of the black community has no problem with the terms "black athlete,"
"black man," or "black community," for that matter.
Huck
Huck Kennedy
Well unless that kid skipped out of school andis playing hookie
on his own, he's with his parents, so I think you're making a pretty
safe bet.
Huck
David Loewe, Jr.
wrote:
>Dan Bretta wrote:
>> comparing black people to monkeys is not racist so I'm not sure what
>> the big hubbub is here.
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/yddknvu
>You realize, of course, you're only helping David in his monthly poasting
>champeenship.
I'm moving on up. Now #2 and #5. I may have to switch to a backup
keyboard.
--
"By 1985 enough millions will have died to reduce the earth's population
to some acceptable level, like 1.5 billion people."
Paul Ehrlich 1969
deem...@aol.com
He's trying to equate the terms in some way. I guess there's a
small point there in that some blacks don't like the term, but it's
like trying to equate assault with murder...."Oh, they're both so
VIOLENT!!!!!!!!!"
deem...@aol.com
Which doesn't mean it's *not* true.
David V. Loewe, Jr
<dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 10:22:48 -0500, "Frisbee�" <discg...@gEEmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Dan Bretta wrote:
>
>>> comparing black people to monkeys is not racist so I'm not sure what
>>> the big hubbub is here.
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/yddknvu
>
>>You realize, of course, you're only helping David in his monthly poasting
>>champeenship.
>
>I'm moving on up. Now #2 and #5. I may have to switch to a backup
>keyboard.
I keep moving up. Now #2 and #4.
Woot!
--
"I still see her standing by the water
Standing there lookin' out to sea
And is she waiting there for me?
On the beach where we used to run..."
Jimmy Webb
Chris Bellomy
> Obama is being stonewalled. They're not going to allow him to
> accomplish anything, positive or negative. And it's because he's
> black.
I don't agree with this. See below.
> I believe that there are a lot of people who will lie, distort
> - do anything it takes to make sure he fails. Some of them realize
> that they're just screwing over a nigger (hi Hugh). Others really
> believe that they just hold opposing views. But they've shown that
> even when Obama considers an issue and comes around to their way of
> thinking, they still view that as a problem. A lot of middle-aged
> white men are going to condemn Obama no matter what he does. Ask
> yourself, what could Obama do that would satisfy you? If he did it,
> would you vote for him in the next election?
For the most part, I don't think they have chosen
total resistance because of his race. I believe they
would have done the same to Hillary. Hell, look at
what they did to Bill Clinton once they took Congress:
they were going to impeach him with anything they
could come up with. Their goal was to nullify Clinton's
election. Newt basically said as much to Republican
donors in November 1994.
So, no, I think think it's way too much of a stretch
to think that they'd be treating a white male president
much differently than they are Obama. It's just that
Obama offers certain Southern Strategy opportunities
the a white guy wouldn't. The tactics might differ
but the strategy would have been the same.
cb
Chris Bellomy
> On Mar 7, 12:40 am, Antonio Veranos<summerstorm0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> [tempeh...@gmail.com | Huck Kennedy]
>> [Sat, 6 Mar 2010 21:32:17 -0800 (PST)]
>>
>> :> It ought to be a vicious slur towards *anyone*.
>> :
>> : It is. It's just not racist unless the recipient is black, for
>> : the reasons outlined above.
>>
>> It's not racist unless the person expressing it is intending it to be racist.
>>
>> Period.
>
> So, calling a black a nigger isn't racist unless you intend it to
> be racist?
Does Dave Chappelle mean it to be racist?
If my best bud is black, and as best buds we constantly
needle each other; and if at some point, maybe after he's
called me a cocksucker or somesuch, I call him (completely
in private) an uppity nigger; am I racist, or am I using
the racist template to disguise male bonding as verbal
abuse, as is so common?*
(I'm assuming of course that we know each other well
enough that he knows quite well how I'm using the word
before I use it.)
I could write a long-ass essay at this point about humor
and taboos, and how humor can deconstruct taboos and make
diminish their power, but I won't. But I can allude to
the point, which I think most of us can see, and say that
this is another reason why banned word lists aren't good.
cb
*I have a friend, in real life and on FB, with whom I have
almost that kind of mutual understanding. After one of those
dumb FB quizzes showed him to be white (he's black) and me
to be black (I'm a very light pink), a long-running joke
has broken out between us where I blame him for keeping the
bruthas down. He generally tells me, "Shut it, darkie!" At
times it gets intense enough that I'm sure that his other
friends, who aren't in the know about this, must thing I'm
a total racist asshole. But of course, while I *am* a total
asshole, the "racist" component of it is hopefully quite
minor.
shiite
We may need an arbitrator, but fairness would dictate that he rule
from outside the bubble.
Jim Brown
Indeed. I honestly cant understand why someone would find it hard to
believe that people are disagreeing with Obama's very liberal
politics. And the call of "racism" at every corner is going to end up
the same as the boy crying wolf.
Chris Bellomy
> (In hushed, reverent NPR tone)
> Ladies and gentlemen, you've been listening to "View From the Bubble,"
> an always-spontaneous, often-self congratulatory, but lately,
> sometimes-desperate attempt to expand the number of people who can be
> branded as racist.
I was wondering how you'd respond. I admit that I expected
something a little better than this. It's an off day for you
I guess.
Anyway, to respond to what you've said so far:
1. I think there's not a person on earth, save *maybe* for
the blind and probably not even them, who isn't born with
the instinct to trust his/her clan first. It's a survival
instinct. And one sure way to identify your clan is to find
the ones who look like you and dress like you. One sure way
to find who's dangerous to your clan is to find the ones
who look nothing like you. If this weren't true, I sincerely
believe that racism wouldn't exist. *Something* makes us
react emotionally to skin color in a way that, say, ear
size doesn't.
2. I specifically pointed out that it's a very dangerous
thing to decide solely on the basis of early indicators
that a given person is racist.
3. I pointed out that racists exist in nontrivial numbers
(this should be a consensus view, if not... well, wow),
and implied that they surely must be up to *something*
newsworthy.
The rest was left as an exercise for the reader.
If there's something specifically false about what I've
said, I'd like to hear it. Seriously. I want to make sure
I've got this right.
cb
Chris Bellomy
> If "true" is defined by what resonates in the bubble, you're right.
Bubble. You keep saying that. I was born in a conservative
Baptist family from Young County, Texas. Cotton farmers.
Not especially racist but not especially fond of desegregation
either. When Mom called Dad at work to tell him about JFK's
shooting, Dad laughed.
(Now, Mom was a moderate Democrat, and her mother was the
exploder of racial taboos in Chillicothe, Texas, in the
1930s. So I did pick up my liberal thought from my family.
Just not from my dad.)
I have spent my entire life living in Texas. My family has
been here since the 1840s. We have never been even upper
middle class. My older brothers went to Texas A&M; I went
to Austin College because I got a grant based on my acedemic
performance. I grew up among all the other families in
west Fort Worth who depended on General Dynamics for their
livelihoods. I now live in an inner-ring suburban subdivision
where the original white families are dying off and their
homes sold to an ethnically diverse lot of people. I hear
every day how the neighborhood is going down the tubes,
even though I drive around and see the same houses, still
in good shape, with nicely manicured lawns. My kids go to
the neighborhood public schools, where they are now racial
minorities -- and they love it.
Exactly what fuckin' bubble do you think I'm in? Because
from my point of view, I'm on the front fuckin' lines, pla.
cb
Chris Bellomy
And, again... he had used the exact same language before
when describing the play of a white player.
cb
Chris Bellomy
> Indeed. I honestly cant understand why someone would find it hard to
> believe that people are disagreeing with Obama's very liberal
> politics. And the call of "racism" at every corner is going to end up
> the same as the boy crying wolf.
I agree. It's far too serious a charge to level casually;
and when it's leveled casually, it ceases to be a serious
charge.
cb
David Loewe, Jr.
<jimbr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Mar 6, 11:05�pm, Antonio Veranos <summerstorm0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> [tempeh...@gmail.com | Huck Kennedy]
>>
>> : � � �We had this same discussion last year, with Enright, if I recall
>> : correctly. �I'm surprised you still don't get it, David (assuming you
>> : followed last year's thread). �Comparing black people to chimps and
>> : apes has been one of the more commonplace vicious racial slurs for a
>> : very long time. �For that reason, it is off limits when it comes to
>> : Obama. �Doing it to Bush is disrespectful, but it has no underlying
>> : racist undertones.
>> :
>> : � � � If you guys want to insult Obama, choose a different branch of
>> : the animal tree. �Put his face on a jackass, how's that? �You still
>> : get to be highly disrespectful without being racist.
>>
>> There is very little in debate that is more out of line than telling someone
>> else what they mean. �Having said that, I do think you have at least a small
>> point in that one should recognize how one's words will be received by those
>> too ignorant to bother to consider what's actually being said.
>
>IAWTP. Back a few years ago, when the "niggardly"-gate was happening,
>I called a conservative talk show on WHO in DM who was blindly
>defending the use of the word. He said its meaning was clear and
>there should be no reason to not use the word if is was so desired. I
>countered with this...Say the radio station has a contest, and the
>winners name is Fuchs(there are many around here named that), and I
>spelled out the name instead of giving him the pronunciation. I said
>there is NO reason why you cant say "Dan Fucks" won the contest, if
>thats how his name is pronounced, or you are not sure. Of course they
>would never do that as it would be associated with one of the seven
>dirty words. He dropped his argument.
Bowdlerizing the language. How sad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niggardly
--
"In to deep left center...for Mitchell...and we'll see
you...tomorrow night!"
- John Francis Buck
deem...@aol.com
> deemsb...@aol.com wrote, On 3/7/10 7:45 AM:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 7, 12:40 am, Antonio Veranos<summerstorm0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> [tempeh...@gmail.com | Huck Kennedy]
> >> [<3678621f-0174-4884-8556-ea6acb7be...@g10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>]
> >> [Sat, 6 Mar 2010 21:32:17 -0800 (PST)]
>
> >> :> It ought to be a vicious slur towards *anyone*.
> >> :
> >> : It is. It's just not racist unless the recipient is black, for
> >> : the reasons outlined above.
>
> >> It's not racist unless the person expressing it is intending it to be racist.
>
> >> Period.
>
> > So, calling a black a nigger isn't racist unless you intend it to
> > be racist?
>
> Does Dave Chappelle mean it to be racist?
I think he means to hold it up to ridicule.
>
> If my best bud is black, and as best buds we constantly
> needle each other; and if at some point, maybe after he's
> called me a cocksucker or somesuch, I call him (completely
> in private) an uppity nigger; am I racist, or am I using
> the racist template to disguise male bonding as verbal
> abuse, as is so common?*
>
> (I'm assuming of course that we know each other well
> enough that he knows quite well how I'm using the word
> before I use it.)
There may well be exceptions.....try it in public. Would you get
a different reaction? Then maybe doing it in private isn't the best
idea, either?
>
> I could write a long-ass essay at this point about humor
> and taboos, and how humor can deconstruct taboos and make
> diminish their power, but I won't. But I can allude to
> the point, which I think most of us can see, and say that
> this is another reason why banned word lists aren't good.
Banning words is stupid. Using certain words in certain
situations is also stupid.
>
> cb
>
> *I have a friend, in real life and on FB, with whom I have
> almost that kind of mutual understanding. After one of those
> dumb FB quizzes showed him to be white (he's black) and me
> to be black (I'm a very light pink), a long-running joke
> has broken out between us where I blame him for keeping the
> bruthas down. He generally tells me, "Shut it, darkie!" At
> times it gets intense enough that I'm sure that his other
> friends, who aren't in the know about this, must thing I'm
> a total racist asshole. But of course, while I *am* a total
> asshole, the "racist" component of it is hopefully quite
> minor.
Once again, that's another strange area. Y'all have a private
joke between the two of you that must be getting some
mileage....though if he's calling you "Darkie", etc....maybe others
might get the idea?
deem...@aol.com
> We may need an arbitrator, but fairness would dictate that he rule
> from outside the bubble.
Maybe we can find a bubble-straddler? Of course, he/she would have
a soapy ass.
Dan Bretta
Dan hasn't done that in a while now.
Dan
shiite
> shiite wrote, On 3/7/10 10:23 AM:
>
> > (In hushed, reverent NPR tone)
> > Ladies and gentlemen, you've been listening to "View From the Bubble,"
> > an always-spontaneous, often-self congratulatory, but lately,
> > sometimes-desperate attempt to expand the number of people who can be
> > branded as racist.
>
> I was wondering how you'd respond. I admit that I expected
> something a little better than this. It's an off day for you
> I guess.
Well, it's not like you set the bar particularly high. Hehe.
> Anyway, to respond to what you've said so far:
>
> 1. I think there's not a person on earth, save *maybe* for
> the blind and probably not even them, who isn't born with
> the instinct to trust his/her clan first. It's a survival
> instinct. And one sure way to identify your clan is to find
> the ones who look like you and dress like you. One sure way
> to find who's dangerous to your clan is to find the ones
> who look nothing like you. If this weren't true, I sincerely
> believe that racism wouldn't exist. *Something* makes us
> react emotionally to skin color in a way that, say, ear
> size doesn't.
While this has little or nothing to do with anything I've said, I
agree.
> 2. I specifically pointed out that it's a very dangerous
> thing to decide solely on the basis of early indicators
> that a given person is racist.
OK
> 3. I pointed out that racists exist in nontrivial numbers
> (this should be a consensus view, if not... well, wow),
> and implied that they surely must be up to *something*
> newsworthy.
My first beef, albeit not a major one. One racist is too many. Words
like nontrivial ramp up the rhetoric, but do little in terms of
addressing substance. A common practice for those searching for
empirical data to support their position when there's none to be
found.
> The rest was left as an exercise for the reader.
>
> If there's something specifically false about what I've
> said, I'd like to hear it. Seriously. I want to make sure
> I've got this right.
False? I'm not calling you a liar. I'm challenging the conclusion you
made based on your own observations After spending a good part of
your post making good and reasonable observations, you leapt to an
extrapolation of prejudice toward an entire ethnic group, based on the
single act of calling a black President a derogatory name. While I
will agree that racism is sometimes what drives the epithets, there
are other motives as well. Blanket accusations may serve the agendas
of the Jeanine Garafolos of the world, but that's not a standard
anyone should aspire to.
Chris Bellomy
> On Mar 7, 3:17 pm, Chris Bellomy<ten.wohsdoog@sirhc> wrote:
>> shiite wrote, On 3/7/10 10:23 AM:
>>
>> (this should be a consensus view, if not... well, wow),
>> and implied that they surely must be up to *something*
>> newsworthy.
>
> My first beef, albeit not a major one. One racist is too many. Words
> like nontrivial ramp up the rhetoric, but do little in terms of
> addressing substance.
I disagree with you here. Nontrivial means exactly that:
too many to be trivial. If it's trivial, it's not important.
Anything else deserves attention.
So if you disagree that open, willful racism is too
easily found in this country to be dismissed as a
statistical outlier, ok. Say so and that's that. I'll
disagree but it's a matter of opinion, not fact.
>> If there's something specifically false about what I've
>> said, I'd like to hear it. Seriously. I want to make sure
>> I've got this right.
>
> False? I'm not calling you a liar. I'm challenging the conclusion you
> made based on your own observations After spending a good part of
> your post making good and reasonable observations, you leapt to an
> extrapolation of prejudice toward an entire ethnic group, based on the
> single act of calling a black President a derogatory name.
Point taken, but it also is a bit of dodge for you to say
that. Again, I point to the group of people who *do* have
prejudice toward an entire ethnic group. When a political
figure of whatever rank uses language and imagery to excite
the hatred of that group, that's a problem. And, as I said
in my post, it's difficult to attribute Obama-as-monkey
imagery to another other purpose, because the metaphor
works only on racial grounds AFAICT. IOW, there is no
further message behind those images than, "Obama is one
of THEM."
Am I wrong?
> While I
> will agree that racism is sometimes what drives the epithets, there
> are other motives as well.
Well, that gets right to the crux. What *are* those other
motives to use *those* specific images?
I open that question to the floor. Is there some other
point in comparing Obama to a monkey that should make
us forget that it's one of the oldest, most negatively
charged images in the racist playbook? Or should we all
just pretend that none of that ever happened, or that if
it did, it didn't matter? Do you see what you're asking
of people to take your argument seriously?
cb
Huck Kennedy
> shiite wrote, On 3/8/10 1:59 AM:
>
>
> > While I
> > will agree that racism is sometimes what drives the epithets, there
> > are other motives as well.
>
> Well, that gets right to the crux. What *are* those other
> motives to use *those* specific images?
>
> I open that question to the floor. Is there some other
> point in comparing Obama to a monkey that should make
> us forget that it's one of the oldest, most negatively
> charged images in the racist playbook? Or should we all
> just pretend that none of that ever happened, or that if
> it did, it didn't matter? Do you see what you're asking
> of people to take your argument seriously?
Mr. Loewe asks me to check--you do know that chimpanzees have
white skin, right?
Huck
The BorgMan
news:eq56p5p6nos4ucrtn...@4ax.com:
> On Sat, 6 Mar 2010 18:55:05 -0800 (PST), Dan Bretta
> <nud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Ah...
>
> A vanity thread. Be careful. Kyle will think you've crossed a line.
>
>>comparing black people to monkeys is not racist so I'm not sure what
>>the big hubbub is here.
>>
>>http://tinyurl.com/yddknvu
>
> Liberals can compare W to a chimp, but no one can compare Obama to a
> similar animal?
If you don't see the historical contextual difference between comparing a
WASP to a chimp, and someone of African ancestry to a chimp... no one can
help you.
--
Aaron
The BorgMan
news:MPG.25fd4c626...@news-europe.giganews.com:
> [temp...@gmail.com | Huck Kennedy]
> [<64bd5f42-57db-4c7e...@i25g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>]
> [Sat, 6 Mar 2010 21:15:23 -0800 (PST)]
>
>: > Having said that, I do think you have at least a small
>: > point in that one should recognize how one's words will be received
>: > by those too ignorant to bother to consider what's actually being
>: > said.
>:
>: Sorry, you've got this ignorant thing backwards.
>:
>: If you draw a picture of Mr. Schrumpf missing half his teeth
>: and shtooping his sister, you are either demeaning him with decades-
>: old West Virginia stereotype insults, or you are completely ignorant
>: of American culture. Mr. Schrumpf, as the victim of your slurs, is
>: not "ignorant" for failing to decipher whatever "is actually being
>: said" by you.
>
> I'm surprised to exactly the 0th degree that you failed to recognize
> that I was saying you have at least a semblance of a point, while
> lamenting the fact that there are so many pompous idiots out there who
> think they have the right to tell other people what they're saying,
> thinking, etc.
>
We don't have the right to tell people what they're thinking.
We do have a right to tell them how other percieve what they are
thinking.
If someone compares Obama to a chimp, I don't KNOW if they're racist. I
can't. I do know how the public at large perceives it though... and it's
inherent on the speaker to understand how his communication will be
interpreted.
--
Aaron
Chris Bellomy
>> that I was saying you have at least a semblance of a point, while
>> lamenting the fact that there are so many pompous idiots out there who
>> think they have the right to tell other people what they're saying,
>> thinking, etc.
>
> We don't have the right to tell people what they're thinking.
>
> We do have a right to tell them how other percieve what they are
> thinking.
>
> If someone compares Obama to a chimp, I don't KNOW if they're racist.
At the risk of beating this drum 'til it breaks:
When someone compares Obama to a chimp, the reasonable reaction
is to ask why. There must be some reason why they chose a chimp.
Racism ends up being the answer when the process of elimination
leaves no other answer that satisfies the question.
If I'm rong, tell me how.
cb
David V. Loewe, Jr
>"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote
>> On Sat, 6 Mar 2010 18:55:05 -0800 (PST), Dan Bretta
>> <nud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> Ah...
>>
>> A vanity thread. Be careful. Kyle will think you've crossed a line.
>>
>>>comparing black people to monkeys is not racist so I'm not sure what
>>>the big hubbub is here.
>>>
>>>http://tinyurl.com/yddknvu
>>
>> Liberals can compare W to a chimp, but no one can compare Obama to a
>> similar animal?
>
>If you don't see the historical contextual difference between comparing a
>WASP to a chimp, and someone of African ancestry to a chimp... no one can
>help you.
You need some context there.
Remember this, Bretta is trying for pay back against me opining that the
timeless saying "Monkey see, monkey do." doesn't invoke the stereotype.
--
"There is a move in the Texas legislature to put the words 'The Lone
Star State' in our plain looking car plates. One representative
unsuccessfully tried to ammend it to 'The Savings and Lone Star State'."
- Martin Soques
The BorgMan
news:rjrap59j3omkhb64u...@4ax.com:
> On 8 Mar 2010 20:19:47 GMT, The BorgMan <m...@me.net> wrote:
>
>>"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote
>>> On Sat, 6 Mar 2010 18:55:05 -0800 (PST), Dan Bretta
>>> <nud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Ah...
>>>
>>> A vanity thread. Be careful. Kyle will think you've crossed a
>>> line.
>>>
>>>>comparing black people to monkeys is not racist so I'm not sure what
>>>>the big hubbub is here.
>>>>
>>>>http://tinyurl.com/yddknvu
>>>
>>> Liberals can compare W to a chimp, but no one can compare Obama to a
>>> similar animal?
>>
>>If you don't see the historical contextual difference between
>>comparing a WASP to a chimp, and someone of African ancestry to a
>>chimp... no one can help you.
>
> You need some context there.
Nope.
You compare someone of African ancestry to a monkey, and it's going to be
construed as racists 101 times out of 100 due to historical context.
> Remember this, Bretta is trying for pay back against me opining that
> the timeless saying "Monkey see, monkey do." doesn't invoke the
> stereotype.
It doesn't. Calling a white man a chimp doesn't either. They aren't
playing on the same steretype or in the same historical context.
--
Aaron
David Loewe, Jr.
Your two statements are incompatible.
To whit, a sign (held by a 12 year old white child) stating "Monkey see,
monkey spend." with a caricature of a monkey drawn on it was held up as
racist. Do you think it was or do you think the use of the "Monkey see,
monkey do." paradigm exempts it?
If not, why? If so, why?
--
"Senator, America has the best health care in the world, but people
still die from cancer and heart disease. The best isn't always
good enough, is it?"
Secretary of Defense designee Tony Bretano in Executive Orders
Chris Bellomy
> To whit, a sign (held by a 12 year old white child) stating "Monkey see,
> monkey spend." with a caricature of a monkey drawn on it was held up as
> racist. Do you think it was or do you think the use of the "Monkey see,
> monkey do." paradigm exempts it?
Why use a monkey at all? What was the point of that?
Somebody made a deliberate choice. What could have
been the motivation?
David V. Loewe, Jr
wrote:
What phrase would you substitute in for "Monkey see, monkey do." that
would get the point across?
--
"Well, listen, I read Hillary's book, because like I said, I like to see
all sides. And all I remember is I got to that chapter where she said
she had no idea her old man was running around on her, and I remember
thinking, Really? I'm pretty sure you're not smart enough to be my
president. Because that is a massive Macy's balloon sized tea leaf that
you failed to read there, honey."
Dennis Miller
Chris Bellomy
> On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 19:44:03 -0600, Chris Bellomy<ten.wohsdoog@sirhc>
> wrote:
>
>> David Loewe, Jr. wrote, On 3/8/10 5:21 PM:
>>
>>> To whit, a sign (held by a 12 year old white child) stating "Monkey see,
>>> monkey spend." with a caricature of a monkey drawn on it was held up as
>>> racist. Do you think it was or do you think the use of the "Monkey see,
>>> monkey do." paradigm exempts it?
>>
>> Why use a monkey at all? What was the point of that?
>> Somebody made a deliberate choice. What could have
>> been the motivation?
>
> What phrase would you substitute in for "Monkey see, monkey do." that
> would get the point across?
Why is "monkey see, monkey do" necessary or appropriate
here? I don't see it. Well, I do see one reason.
cb
David Loewe, Jr.
wrote:
>David V. Loewe, Jr wrote, On 3/8/10 8:30 PM:
>> On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 19:44:03 -0600, Chris Bellomy<ten.wohsdoog@sirhc>
>> wrote:
>>> David Loewe, Jr. wrote, On 3/8/10 5:21 PM:
>>>
>>>> To whit, a sign (held by a 12 year old white child) stating "Monkey see,
>>>> monkey spend." with a caricature of a monkey drawn on it was held up as
>>>> racist. Do you think it was or do you think the use of the "Monkey see,
>>>> monkey do." paradigm exempts it?
>>>
>>> Why use a monkey at all? What was the point of that?
>>> Somebody made a deliberate choice. What could have
>>> been the motivation?
>>
>> What phrase would you substitute in for "Monkey see, monkey do." that
>> would get the point across?
>
>Why is "monkey see, monkey do" necessary or appropriate
>here?
Is it inappropriate?
>I don't see it. Well, I do see one reason.
Given that you see racism when you should be seeing fiscal
responsibility, that doesn't surprise me. You seem to be willing to
ascribe the worst to anyone who dares to provide organized resistance to
the policies you favor.
--
"I saw the light I've been baptised
By the fire in your touch and the flame in your eyes
I'm born to love again I'm a brand new man"
- Kix Brooks, Ronnie Dunn & Don Cook
shiite
> shiite wrote, On 3/8/10 1:59 AM:
>
> > On Mar 7, 3:17 pm, Chris Bellomy<ten.wohsdoog@sirhc> wrote:
> >> shiite wrote, On 3/7/10 10:23 AM:
>
> >> 3. I pointed out that racists exist in nontrivial numbers
> >> (this should be a consensus view, if not... well, wow),
> >> and implied that they surely must be up to *something*
> >> newsworthy.
>
> > My first beef, albeit not a major one. One racist is too many. Words
> > like nontrivial ramp up the rhetoric, but do little in terms of
> > addressing substance.
>
> I disagree with you here. Nontrivial means exactly that:
> too many to be trivial. If it's trivial, it's not important.
> Anything else deserves attention.
>
> So if you disagree that open, willful racism is too
> easily found in this country to be dismissed as a
> statistical outlier, ok. Say so and that's that. I'll
> disagree but it's a matter of opinion, not fact.
I've already said that one racist was too many. The reason we're
having this conversation is because of the history and impact of
racism. It's an important conversation, but it's equally important to
declare the *racist* label as off limits apart from dead certainty.
As already observed, reputations have been damaged and careers
derailed over false accusations and hysteria.
>
> >> If there's something specifically false about what I've
> >> said, I'd like to hear it. Seriously. I want to make sure
> >> I've got this right.
>
> > False? I'm not calling you a liar. I'm challenging the conclusion you
> > made based on your own observations After spending a good part of
> > your post making good and reasonable observations, you leapt to an
> > extrapolation of prejudice toward an entire ethnic group, based on the
> > single act of calling a black President a derogatory name.
>
> Point taken, but it also is a bit of dodge for you to say
> that. Again, I point to the group of people who *do* have
> prejudice toward an entire ethnic group. When a political
> figure of whatever rank uses language and imagery to excite
> the hatred of that group, that's a problem.
Agree.
> And, as I said in my post, it's difficult to attribute
>Obama-as-monkey imagery to another other purpose,
>because the metaphor works only on racial grounds AFAICT.
>IOW, there is no further message behind those images than,
>"Obama is one of THEM."
>
> Am I wrong?
Sometimes. Among the people that I live and work around, the most
bitter vitriol that I hear these days is reserved for politicians. It
would not be at all out of character for one of them to react to an
Obama TV sound bite with, "You stupid fuckin' ape! I once heard a
Bubba in a local coffee shop rail against Ted Kennedy as a swollen
headed gorilla. And when Obama went on his apology tour, he was the
latest version of the "cheese-eating surrender monkey."
>
> >
>
> > will agree that racism is sometimes what drives the epithets, there
> > are other motives as well.
>
> Well, that gets right to the crux. What *are* those other
> motives to use *those* specific images?
See above. Political angst, and it's subsequent verbage, is governed
by a less stringent set of rules. Anything and everything goes. If
Obama was pro life, , pro Gitmo, a fiscal conservative, and for
limited government, he'd be hearing the same stuff, but from the other
side. Ask Dubya.
> I open that question to the floor. Is there some other
> point in comparing Obama to a monkey that should make
> us forget that it's one of the oldest, most negatively
> charged images in the racist playbook? Or should we all
> just pretend that none of that ever happened, or that if
> it did, it didn't matter? Do you see what you're asking
> of people to take your argument seriously?
Fighting racism is a worthy cause, but rhetoric such as this is
counterproductive. Worse yet is being reckless with the racist
label.
Chris Bellomy
> On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 21:07:12 -0600, Chris Bellomy<ten.wohsdoog@sirhc>
> wrote:
>
>> David V. Loewe, Jr wrote, On 3/8/10 8:30 PM:
>>> On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 19:44:03 -0600, Chris Bellomy<ten.wohsdoog@sirhc>
>>> wrote:
>>>> David Loewe, Jr. wrote, On 3/8/10 5:21 PM:
>>>>
>>>>> To whit, a sign (held by a 12 year old white child) stating "Monkey see,
>>>>> monkey spend." with a caricature of a monkey drawn on it was held up as
>>>>> racist. Do you think it was or do you think the use of the "Monkey see,
>>>>> monkey do." paradigm exempts it?
>>>>
>>>> Why use a monkey at all? What was the point of that?
>>>> Somebody made a deliberate choice. What could have
>>>> been the motivation?
>>>
>>> What phrase would you substitute in for "Monkey see, monkey do." that
>>> would get the point across?
>>
>> Why is "monkey see, monkey do" necessary or appropriate
>> here?
>
> Is it inappropriate?
Please answer the question. If a case can be made that it's
necessary and/or appropriate, that at least is proof that
it's not wholly inappropriate. But I can't even see my way
to get that far with it. Maybe you can help.
>> I don't see it. Well, I do see one reason.
>
> Given that you see racism when you should be seeing fiscal
> responsibility, that doesn't surprise me. You seem to be willing to
> ascribe the worst to anyone who dares to provide organized resistance to
> the policies you favor.
I'm having to go through great trouble to extract your
response out of this, but you seem to be saying that
"monkey see, monkey do" is some sort of fiscal metaphor.
I'll throw this one to the floor: does that make sense
to anyone but David? Because it sure doesn't to me.
And David, I'd appreciate it if you'd first answer my
questions before attacking me for asking them. I do not
think my questions are even mildly provocative, and I'm
quite certain they're not accusations. I just want to
know on what basis we should be extending benefit of
the doubt here. Surely this can't be too terribly
difficult to explain.
cb
The BorgMan
news:1d1bp5pa0mab8r4fc...@4ax.com:
Depends on the drawing of the monkey.
Was the monkey drawn to caricature Obama by chance?
--
Aaron
David V. Loewe, Jr
There are links in the other thread. This particular one was posted by
Bretta, IIRC.
--
"Will you come quietly, or must I use earplugs?"
- Russ Cage
David V. Loewe, Jr
wrote:
>David Loewe, Jr. wrote, On 3/9/10 12:14 AM:
>> On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 21:07:12 -0600, Chris Bellomy<ten.wohsdoog@sirhc>
>> wrote:
>>> David V. Loewe, Jr wrote, On 3/8/10 8:30 PM:
>>>> On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 19:44:03 -0600, Chris Bellomy<ten.wohsdoog@sirhc>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> David Loewe, Jr. wrote, On 3/8/10 5:21 PM:
>>>>>
>>>>>> To whit, a sign (held by a 12 year old white child) stating "Monkey see,
>>>>>> monkey spend." with a caricature of a monkey drawn on it was held up as
>>>>>> racist. Do you think it was or do you think the use of the "Monkey see,
>>>>>> monkey do." paradigm exempts it?
>>>>>
>>>>> Why use a monkey at all? What was the point of that?
>>>>> Somebody made a deliberate choice. What could have
>>>>> been the motivation?
>>>>
>>>> What phrase would you substitute in for "Monkey see, monkey do." that
>>>> would get the point across?
>>>
>>> Why is "monkey see, monkey do" necessary or appropriate
>>> here?
>>
>> Is it inappropriate?
>
>Please answer the question. If a case can be made that it's
>necessary and/or appropriate, that at least is proof that
>it's not wholly inappropriate. But I can't even see my way
>to get that far with it. Maybe you can help.
Why don't you pull up the image of the sign and look at it? Bretta
posted the link in the other thread.
>>> I don't see it. Well, I do see one reason.
>>
>> Given that you see racism when you should be seeing fiscal
>> responsibility, that doesn't surprise me. You seem to be willing to
>> ascribe the worst to anyone who dares to provide organized resistance to
>> the policies you favor.
>
>I'm having to go through great trouble to extract your
>response out of this, but you seem to be saying that
>"monkey see, monkey do" is some sort of fiscal metaphor.
The actual phrase used is "Monkey see, monkey spend." which is a riff on
"Monkey see, monkey do." It comes across, to me, as someone trying to
get too cute. To me, the emphasis is on mindless action - a Democratic
politician sees a problem and he instinctively throws money at it.
>I'll throw this one to the floor: does that make sense
>to anyone but David? Because it sure doesn't to me.
>
>And David, I'd appreciate it if you'd first answer my
>questions before attacking me for asking them. I do not
>think my questions are even mildly provocative,
I think your whole *attitude* is provocative. You *assume* racism. That
offends me, frankly.
>and I'm quite certain they're not accusations. I just want to
>know on what basis we should be extending benefit of
>the doubt here.
I just want to know on what basis we should be making the presumption of
racism here.
I've found, over the years, that most people are classist than racist.
Since a large and visible portion of the black community is poor, that
can *look* like racism if you don't know what it is you are actually
seeing.
>Surely this can't be too terribly difficult to explain.
It is quite simple - I'm colorblind and you aren't.
--
"Clams on the half shell...and rollerskates."
Bernard Edwards & Nile Rodgers
The BorgMan
news:n51dp5daeffoka0qb...@4ax.com:
Borderline - with the Obama-nomics thing making it directed straight at a
particular black person... it's definitely something that has a huge
likelihood of being perceived as racist.
Look - using "monkey see, monkey do" with respect to someone of African
ancestry is likely to be perceived as racist. Whatever the intention...
and most people with any social graces realize and understand that.
So do most of these tea partiers.
So racist or not, they using signs they likely know will be perceived as
racist. Why?
--
Aaron
Dan Bretta
> "David V. Loewe, Jr" <davelo...@charter.net> wrote innews:n51dp5daeffoka0qb...@4ax.com:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 9 Mar 2010 15:19:37 GMT, The BorgMan <m...@me.net> wrote:
>
> >>"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >>> On 8 Mar 2010 21:56:34 GMT, The BorgMan <m...@me.net> wrote:
"Obama-nomics" are.
Dan
David Loewe, Jr.
wrote:
>Cue the 12 year old excuse...as if that 12 year old has a clue what
>"Obama-nomics" are.
My father tells me I gave him a concise explanation of why Nixon would
beat Humphrey in 1968 before the election occurred. He says the
explanation, in hindsight, was correct. I was *6*. Obama-nomics (aka
tax and SPEND) are not as hard to grasp at 12 as an election is at 6.
--
"Anything a human being does to a LaRouche follower is justifiable on
the grounds of self-defense."
- Kevin Bold
sam
dlo...@mindspring.com says...
>
> On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 10:34:02 -0800 (PST), Dan Bretta <nud...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Cue the 12 year old excuse...as if that 12 year old has a clue what
> >"Obama-nomics" are.
>
> My father tells me I gave him a concise explanation of why Nixon would
> beat Humphrey in 1968 before the election occurred. He says the
> explanation, in hindsight, was correct. I was *6*. Obama-nomics (aka
> tax and SPEND) are not as hard to grasp at 12 as an election is at 6.
48 years old, Dr* "David"? I thought you were at least 65.
s
Dan Bretta
> On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 10:34:02 -0800 (PST), Dan Bretta <nuda...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Cue the 12 year old excuse...as if that 12 year old has a clue what
> >"Obama-nomics" are.
>
> My father tells me I gave him a concise explanation of why Nixon would
> beat Humphrey in 1968 before the election occurred. He says the
> explanation, in hindsight, was correct. I was *6*. Obama-nomics (aka
> tax and SPEND) are not as hard to grasp at 12 as an election is at 6.
>
and catching frogs. Jimmy Carter was president and I only learned
later how bad things were....I feel sorry for kids who aren't allowed
to be kids.
Dan
David V. Loewe, Jr
I posted that I had achieved 48 back on December 2nd - which is my
birthday. I have no idea why you thought differently.
--
"Get next to a clue and hope the wind blows, dude."
- Fitzbo
Chris Bellomy
> I just want to know on what basis we should be making the presumption of
> racism here.
I want to answer this specifically, for emphasis. I intend to
refer back to this if you don't permit yourself to be informed
by it.
The presumption of racism exists because the caricature of
the black man as monkey is one of our oldest racist icons.
Period.
Of course it does not necessarily mean that it's meant to
carry racist overtones every time it's used, but it does
mean that ignorance is no excuse. Anyone with enough interest
in politics to make a sign like that knows that he's playing
with fire.
Therefore, it will always raise the question, "Why did he
choose to play with fire? What point was he trying to make
that couldn't be made in some less racially provocative way?"
If there are no good answers to those questions, then there's
nothing else left but incitement of racism. Period.
I am always willing to extend the benefit of the doubt, despite
your protests to the contrary. But David... "Monkey see, monkey
spend" is even *worse* than "monkey see, monkey do" IMO. The
latter is used to describe the pack mentality. The former can't
even be used with that meaning.
In closing, I want to remind you that I have treated you
with utter civility in this discussion. I have not called
you names. I have not accused you of racism, as you have me.
All I have done is ask questions. Yes, they are tough questions,
but with $DEITY as my witness, I believe they are fair
questions. Moreover, I believe their relevance cuts right
to the core of this discussion. If the images aren't racist,
then they're something else. They are chosen for some reason.
I would settle for reasonable speculation about non-racist
rationale for using such a racially charged metaphor. You'd
be amazed how much slack I'm willing to extend if only we can
come up with one. I'd much rather attribute to poor judgment
what otherwise must be attributed to racism.
cb
Chris Bellomy
Some of us were allowed to be kids, but were just dorks. :)
cb
follower of politics since age 7
Dan Bretta
I don't think I gave more than a rat's ass about politics until I
found this group around 1996 or 97....I always voted, but I was not
nearly as aware of what was going on before the internets.
Dan
David V. Loewe, Jr
wrote:
>On Mar 9, 1:11�pm, "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
Perhaps being at a protest was what the kid wanted to do?
--
"A witty saying proves nothing."
- Voltaire
Dan Bretta
> On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 11:29:37 -0800 (PST), Dan Bretta <nuda...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Mar 9, 1:11 pm, "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 10:34:02 -0800 (PST), Dan Bretta <nuda...@yahoo.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >Cue the 12 year old excuse...as if that 12 year old has a clue what
> >> >"Obama-nomics" are.
>
> >> My father tells me I gave him a concise explanation of why Nixon would
> >> beat Humphrey in 1968 before the election occurred. He says the
> >> explanation, in hindsight, was correct. I was *6*. Obama-nomics (aka
> >> tax and SPEND) are not as hard to grasp at 12 as an election is at 6.
>
> >When I was 12 years old I was riding bikes, collecting baseball cards
> >and catching frogs. Jimmy Carter was president and I only learned
> >later how bad things were....I feel sorry for kids who aren't allowed
> >to be kids.
>
> Perhaps being at a protest was what the kid wanted to do?
>
Dan
shiite
This would be more believable were it not by the demonstrable fact
that you refuse to consider what is most obvious;
that the image/slogan/insult is directed at Obama the President, not
Obama the African-American. Do you think Obama is down in the
approval ratings due to his race? Do you think the congressman who
yelled. "You lie!" did so out of contempt for dark skinned people? Do
you believe that resistance to his health care reform is rooted in
racial spite?
Assuming that you're honest enough to answer these questions with a
*no*, it would follow that you have to allow room for the monkey image/
slogan/insult to serve a purpose other than racial. You seem eager to
tie the image to a historical (and factual) context of racist
propaganda, but just as eager to turn away from the obvious play on
words of a generations-old saying "monkey see, monkey do." Like any
insult or epithet directed at a political figure, the purpose is (1)
to vent some anger. (2) to attempt to reduce the pol's credibility by
association with the image or remark. Thus the emphasis on spending.
A poster with an image of a box of rocks, without a familiar saying,
wouldn't have had the desired impact of linking him with the tax-and-
spend crowd.
I'm guessing that there are millions of conservatives like myself who
are chagrined at Obama's leadership. While you and others (Rosie
O'Donnell, Jeanine Garofolo, Louis Farrakhan) knee jerk and chalk our
criticisms up to racism, I actually regret that America's first
African-American President turned out to be such a disaster as a
leader. The only bright spot that I see is the possibility of a wake-
up call to a nation. It appears that at least one battle we'll have
to fight is being labeled as racists. Oh well.
Chris Bellomy
That's exactly the opposite of what seems obvious. Otherwise
the image wouldn't be laden with racist overtones. Why is this
so hard for you to grasp? There's an entire dictionary available
of other options that go nowhere near expressing racist contempt.
To avoid 99% of ways to express political anger so you can get
to the 1% that is fraught with racist overtones is very unlikely
to be an accident. Do you not see this?
> Do you think Obama is down in the
> approval ratings due to his race?
No. Why are you changing the subject?
> Do you think the congressman who
> yelled. "You lie!" did so out of contempt for dark skinned people?
I don't know. Would he have done it to Bill Clinton? I just
don't know. I certainly have no reason to rule out that he
was offended by having a black man at the rostrum that night,
but I also have no reason to know that he was.
> Do
> you believe that resistance to his health care reform is rooted in
> racial spite?
Absolutely not. The reactionary resistance to universal
healthcare dates back at least as far as Truman.
> Assuming that you're honest enough to answer these questions with a
> *no*, it would follow that you have to allow room for the monkey image/
> slogan/insult to serve a purpose other than racial.
That's a non sequitur.
Acknowledge this: portraying black men as monkeys is a longtime
tactic of racists. Can you do that?
cb
The Ghost of Edward M. Kennedy
the left did it to a white president.
Thanks for playing (and right into their hands, no less).
--Tedward