Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

1 white male among new San Jose firemen of 22

5 views
Skip to first unread message

Arthu...@cup.portal.com

unread,
Jun 27, 1992, 2:28:31 AM6/27/92
to
A shorter version of the following came out in the 6-26 San Jose Mercury.
Arthur Hu
Asian Week Column: Hu's on First
(c) June 22, 1992
but OK to distribute with proper credits

Unequal Opportunity

The San Jose Mercury proudly proclaimed that San Jose's
newest firefighters resembled the United Nations with 4
whites, 5 blacks, 6 Hispanics, 7 Asian Americans, and 5
women. Well it sure as heck doesn't resemble San Jose. But
wait, there's more. The Mercury carefully ommitted the small
detail that when you take out the 3 white women, only one of
22 finalists was a white male. My European American male
friends were surprised that even one pigment-deprived
nonwoman slipped by the quotas. San Jose State University's
disasterous trophy case of half women and minority
presidential nominees looks downright regressive by
comparison.

When two-thousand applicants compete for 22 jobs, it makes
the racial competition for Berkeley look like open
admissions. 1 in 20 Asians, and 1 in 30 women and other
minority applicants made the grade. Yet only 1 of nearly
1000 white males was allowed to join. And he was outnumbered
by 3 of his white sisters when even the population is 50
percent male. Odds that make even the state lottery look
like a good bet means that white men they were practically
excluded from consideration. Yet fire officials told me with
with a straight face that race played absolutely no part in
the selection, and that it accurately reflected the
complexion and gender of the San Jose.

While other cities halt their quotas at parity, Chief Frank
Osby told me over the phone that he is deliberately
increasing black firefighters even though they already
exceeded their four percent population, make no mistake
about it. Blacks have also reached parity in many police
departments across California. The press often imply that
blacks are among the minorities underrepresented among
firefighters, police, voters, office holders, and athletic
coaches when blacks are often at or above parity in these
positions.

Over the phone, Osby was baffled that anyone would have a
problem with redressing four hundred years of white male
oppression. He resented limiting blacks to a "quota",
suggesting I should complain elsewhere. Even the president
of the firefighters union was satisfied with Osby's
procedures as was evidently everyone else in city hall.

Compared with whites, blacks among sworn firefighters are
nearly even with whites, and Hispanics are within 50 percent
of parity. But Asians are a dramatic 15 times less than

2


whites, even after the new recruits. Even the Filipinos rank
at one-fifth. It is ironic that the one group with legal
claim to disadvantage is actually the best represented.

According to Russ Strausbaugh of the city personel office,
the initial applicants are screened with a physical, oral,
and a written test. Surprisingly, blacks actually had a 10
percent higher pass rate overall than whites. But Asians did
about 30 percent worse, and most of that was in the oral and
written tests. Asians passed only 8 percent less than whites
in the physical test. So much for the stereotype of wimpy
brainiacs. Ironically, though Asians had the highest washout
rate in the seemingly color-blind initial qualification
stage, they had the highest acceptance overall.

As an Asian American, I suppose I should be pleased that
they are fair to Asians. But as one raised to believe in
truth, justice, and the American way, I cannot accept in
silence a policy which nearly disqualifies half of the
applicants on the basis of their race and gender. If too few
Asians apply as the flip side of too many engineers and
doctors, is that really a problem? I don't think the actual
number of Asian firefighters matters at all as long as the
selection process is fair.

Advantages should be limited to underrepresented categories,
and even white men deserve a fair chance, not a token. I
expect the Mercury to take a more critical look at a deeply
flawed policy that's clearly gone off the deep end instead
of just pandering to political correctness.

Racism(?)

First San Francisco hired a Puerto Rican instead of a black
as superintendent in a act of "blatant racism". Now they've
disciplined an African-American vice principal who gave out
free answers to his black students to keep them from failing
their graduation test. Lulann McGriff of the NAACP applauded
his "zeal in supporting underserved students", and condemned
the district for "this racist act". "He's supposed to help
his students pass the test, isn't he?"

The clowns at the NAACP might actually be funny except for
the white PhD's at the National Academy of Sciences who
determined that race norming was fair too. That's where you
adjusts the number of questions it takes to pass for each
race, and that's not cheating (ahem). If Asians have no
clout in SF school politics, maybe we should follow the lead
of the African Americans and demand that they allow Asians
to adjust their tests as well. After all, politics could
only improve Asians test scores and grades, right?

Opening the Wound


3


Drivers in San Jose are puzzled by the appearance of "Heal
the Wound" signs around the city. A committee lead by Dale
"Don't Call Us Anglos" Warner is is demanding that the
District Attorney prosecute the Vietnamese student who
killed a white student at a San Jose High School for what he
considers a hate crime. Evidently, Binh Truong was among
other Asian troublemakers looking to avenge an alleged
racial slight when he got afraid and started shooting into
the non-Asian crowd. Although the court determined it was a
shooting for a stupid, not a racist reason, the point is
moot because the kid is serving maximum time anyways.

Many are critical of Warner for "Opening the Wound" on an
otherwise closed case. Yet I see he has a point when a
recent article described an engineer who was killed by a
group of rowdy youths, but the race of the assailants was
ommitted. When a mob of color tears up Westwood over an
African-American gang movie, the race of the participants is
not mentioned. Yet when a person a color is assaulted or
even tried by jury of whites, it's automatically assumed to
be a product of racial hatred.

If it was a skinhead that shot an Asian, the Asian Law
Alliance would have made it the next Vincent Chin. I suspect
they would have done the same for Ai Toyashima if her rapist
and murder were white instead of black, and if she was an
Asian American instead of a Japanese exchange student.
Sometimes it takes a loose cannon like Warner to point out
what should be obvious to any reasonable person.

Detailed Tables and Data.......

Arthur Hu
doc922:sjfire.wk1
"A U.N. look for SJFD" San Jose Mercury April 11, 1992 Steve Johnson
"Graduates in Diversity" San Jose Mercury June 20, 1992 1B De Tran
San Jose Fire Department office

White Black Hispan Asian NatAm Viet Fil Chin Jpn Tot
Men 1 4 5 7 0 3 2 1 1 17
Women 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
Pct Wom 75.0% 20.0% 16.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 22.7%
Total 4 5 6 7 0 3 2 1 1 22
Pct 18.2% 22.7% 27.3% 31.8% 0.0% 13.6% 9.1% 4.5% 4.5%
City 49.6% 4.2% 26.6% 18.7% 0.6% 3.6% 4.1% 4.3% 1.8%
AvPar 5.4 1.0 1.7 0.0 3.8 2.2 1.0 2.6
WhPar 0.4 14.8 2.8 4.6 0.0 10.3 6.0 2.9 7.0
tot
Sworn force before new recruits 680
White Black Hispan Asian NatAm Viet Fil Chin Jpn
N 500 35 124 8 7 1 6 NA NA
Pct 73.5% 5.1% 18.2% 1.2% 1.0% 0.1% 0.9% NA NA
AvPar 1.48 1.23 0.69 0.06 1.66 0.04 0.21 NA NA
WhPar 1.0 -1.2 -2.2 -23.6 1.1 -36 -6.9 NA NA
tot
Sworn force after new recruits 702
White Black Hispan Asian NatAm Viet Fil Chin Jpn
N 504 40 130 13 7 3 8 NA NA
Pct 71.8% 5.7% 18.5% 1.9% 1.0% 0.4% 1.1% NA NA
AvPar 1.45 1.36 0.70 0.10 1.61 0.12 0.28 NA NA
WhPar 1.0 -1.1 -2.1 -14.6 1.1 -12.3 -5.2 NA NA

SJ Fire Chief is proud of new diversity, out of 2000 applicants
Every group is 3X to 15X white representation, way beyond parity if
each applicant is equally qualified.

Asians are underrepresented by 14X, so that's OK to fix it.
Vietnamese were <34X (zero), but now 12X, same as other Asians
Fil supposed to be worse than Asian under AfAc category
but -5X is actually 3x better than most Asians (-15X)

Blacks were NOT underrepresented (only 4% of city),
so there's absolutely no reason for additional preference beyond parity.
Native Americans are also at parity.

Claims there is NO lowering of standards for affirm action
This is impossible, since white applicants are >= others in quality.
Russ Strausbaugh, San Jose Personel office 408-277-3848

Applicants and Eligible Pool
White Black Hispan Asian NatAm Unkwn Women Total WhMale#Ethnic
Apply 968 147 403 132 35 81 166 1766 871 1685
Pct 57.4% 8.7% 23.9% 7.8% 2.1% 4.8% 9.4% 51.7%
VsPop 1.2 2.1 -1.1 -2.4 3.4 NA -5.3 2.3
Blacks 2X, NatAm 3X to apply vs. white
Asians -2X to apply Hispanic about equal
# White Male estimate based on 90% male

Number who passed intial qualification
White Black Hispan Asian NatAm Unkwn Total
Qual 540 89 233 50 21 55 988
Rate 55.8% 60.5% 57.8% 37.9% 60.0% 67.9% 55.9%
Index 1.00 1.09 1.04 -1.47 1.08 1.22 1.00
Asians have significantly lowest pass rate 1/1.5, probably due to written
and oral tests. Pass rate for written test all 70%-80%

Initial Qualification Rate: Asians Rank Last
Unkwn 1.22
Black 1.09
NatAm 1.08
Hispan 1.04
Total 1.00
White 1.00
Asian -1.47

Physical Test Pass rate
White Black Hispan Asian NatAm Unkwn Total
91.0% 89.0% 93.2% 84.5% 100.0% 100.0% NA
Index 1.00 -1.02 1.02 -1.08 1.10 1.10
Asians have lowest pass rate 8% less than whites
Conclusion: Except for Asians, most other groups are about equally
qualified.

Finalist rate based on applicant pool
White Black Hispan Asian NatAm* Unkwn* Women Total WhMale
0.41% 3.40% 1.49% 5.30% 2.86% 1.23% 3.0% 1.25% 0.11%
Index 3.6 29.6 13.0 46.2 24.9 10.8 26.2 10.9 1.0
* Zero, rate is based on worse than one
Index is based on white males
Based on equally qualified applicant pool, B=8, H=4, A=13 times W rate.
Differences of this magnitude have to be based on racial bias.
Even one Native American would be 7 times white rate, equal to black.
Only one in 200 white applicants were accepted! Far more difficult than
getting into UC Berkeley or MIT!
Even only 3% of blacks, but 13% of Asians admitted.

Race and gender group ranked by Admission Rate
Asian 46.2
Black 29.6
Women 26.2
NatAm* 24.9
Hispan 13.0
Total 10.9
Unkwn* 10.8
White 3.6
WhMale 1.0
* None chosen, rate given is for if one were chosen by chance

Recommendation:
Blacks entitled to 9% based on applicants being over parity, but no higher.
Asians favored over blacks, but OK since they are underrepresented.
Whites should be treated same as black, not worse.

Mike Batchelor

unread,
Jun 27, 1992, 7:45:29 PM6/27/92
to
Arthu...@cup.portal.com writes:

> The San Jose Mercury proudly proclaimed that San Jose's
> newest firefighters resembled the United Nations with 4
> whites, 5 blacks, 6 Hispanics, 7 Asian Americans, and 5
> women. Well it sure as heck doesn't resemble San Jose. But
> wait, there's more. The Mercury carefully ommitted the small
> detail that when you take out the 3 white women, only one of
> 22 finalists was a white male.


How many of the 22 finalists are white males if you include the three white
women?


[] ---
[] Mike Batchelor -- mi...@batpad.lgb.ca.us
[] Long Beach, California
[] Profound thought for the day:
[] barter:money::stud:wildcards

Arthu...@cup.portal.com

unread,
Jun 28, 1992, 8:34:34 PM6/28/92
to
..mike batchelor... how many are white males if you don't take out the
three women...

The point is that they said 4 whites and 5 women in the first article,
then they gave the number of each minority, 3 white women, and 1 each
black and Hispanic women. You had to solve for white males if you were
interested in that number. The point is why such an obviously important
number is evidently left out on purpose. The purpose evidently is to
hide the politically incorrect conclusion that they had only one white
male. Or does your math say differently. People of your political ilk
hide elephants like this all the time. Like Asians have the lowest rate
of AIDS, best test scores, lowest dropout rate, lowest rate of reported
child abuse, etc. This is just the most blantant example of hiding a
statistical elephant behind a bush.

I don't hide elephants. I expose them.

Mark Slagle

unread,
Jul 9, 1992, 2:55:49 PM7/9/92
to
In article <61...@cup.portal.com>, Arthu...@cup.portal.com writes:

> FYI, after I (arthur Hu) got the letter printed in the San Jose Mercury
> complaining about how white males got completely shut out, Rose Two (evidentl
> y an Asian woman) responded about a week later saying that the only way to
> teach whites the sting of discrimination is to let them be discriminated
> against since it's only fair.

The old gambit of "two wrongs make a right"? Counter evil
with evil? Doesn't sound like good practice to me. If
unwarranted discrimination is wrong, it is wrong no matter
who practices it. Anyone who says otherwise is a dangerous
demogogue.
--
----
Mark E. Slagle PO Box 61059
sla...@lmsc.lockheed.com Sunnyvale, CA 94088
408-756-0895 USA

Arthu...@cup.portal.com

unread,
Jul 9, 1992, 1:36:08 AM7/9/92
to
FYI, after I (arthur Hu) got the letter printed in the San Jose Mercury
complaining about how white males got completely shut out, Rose Two (evidentl
y an Asian woman) responded about a week later saying that the only way to
teach whites the sting of discrimination is to let them be discriminated
against since it's only fair. Another Asian writes a letter to the paper.
Keep it up folks.

John Kawakami

unread,
Jul 10, 1992, 3:19:22 AM7/10/92
to
In article <SLAGLE.92...@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com> sla...@lmsc.lockheed.com writes:
>In article <61...@cup.portal.com>, Arthu...@cup.portal.com writes:
>
>> FYI, after I (arthur Hu) got the letter printed in the San Jose Mercury
>> complaining about how white males got completely shut out, Rose Two (evidentl
>> y an Asian woman) responded about a week later saying that the only way to
>> teach whites the sting of discrimination is to let them be discriminated
>> against since it's only fair.
>
>The old gambit of "two wrongs make a right"? Counter evil
>with evil? Doesn't sound like good practice to me. If
>unwarranted discrimination is wrong, it is wrong no matter
>who practices it. Anyone who says otherwise is a dangerous
>demogogue.

I think that it would be a good thing for whites to feel the pain of racism
every once in a while. Usually, listening to whites talk about how much
they hate racism is like listening to virgins talk about sex. Often it's
the really simplistic attitude that gets to me: "I think that fundamentally,
people aren't racist in ways that matter" or on the opposite side "I don't
see how he can live with himself, selling out his people and all people of
color that way" or the worst one "I'm not a racist, he's just obnoxious"

In this case, two wrongs can lead to greater understanding. There is
something right about that, isn't there?


--
John Kawakami kawa...@ocf.berkeley.edu
ucbvax!ocf.berkeley.edu!kawakami

Mike Fester

unread,
Jul 10, 1992, 10:50:39 AM7/10/92
to

Maybe, but not the sort of understanding you're envisioning. Myself and several
of my friends HAVE lived in areas where racial discrimination is perfectly
legal (Japan, Thailand, Nigeria, Abu Dhabbi), etc. Most come away thinking
"Yeah, there's discrimination, but so what?" Most realized that there was
nothing you could do about it, it may be VERY inconvenient, and it may p*ss
you off a great deal, but in the meantime, you have to get on with your life.

I can hear people now getting upset and thinking "No, *YOU* don't understand
at all." Well, if what you mean by racism is being discriminated against
strictly by skin color, in terms of housing, jobs, gaining entrance to certain
restaurants or clubs, having people walk up to you and say "I don't like white
people!", being told you must have certain personality traits because of
your skin color, etc, then yes, we *DO* know what it's like "to feel the pain of
racism". Or maybe you had something else in mind.

Mike
--
Disclaimer - These opiini^H^H damn! ^H^H ^Q ^[ .... :w :q :wq :wq! ^d X ^?
exit X Q ^C ^? :quitbye CtrlAltDel ~~q :~q logout save/quit :!QUIT
^[zz ^[ZZZZZZ ^H man vi ^@ ^L ^[c ^# ^E ^X ^I ^T ? help helpquit ^D ^d
man help ^C ^c help exit ?Quit ?q CtrlShftDel "Hey, what does this button d..."

Sean Cox

unread,
Jul 10, 1992, 3:28:06 PM7/10/92
to
kawa...@ocf.berkeley.edu (John Kawakami) writes:
>In article <SLAGLE.92...@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com> sla...@lmsc.lockheed.com writes:
>>The old gambit of "two wrongs make a right"? Counter evil
>>with evil? Doesn't sound like good practice to me. If
>>unwarranted discrimination is wrong, it is wrong no matter
>>who practices it. Anyone who says otherwise is a dangerous
>>demogogue.

>I think that it would be a good thing for whites to feel the pain of racism
>every once in a while.

Yeah, we could also beat children now and then to show them how bad
it is to abuse they're children. (Of course, in practice this leads to the
children beating their kids themselves. Vicious circles are lovely this
way.)

>In this case, two wrongs can lead to greater understanding. There is
>something right about that, isn't there?

Think for a moment: "I'm going to discriminate against you because
people of your skin color/ethnicity discriminate, and discrimination is
wrong." This is "right"?
If you're trying to appeal to the "empower the minority" mentality, instead
of the "stop discrimination" mentality, these ideas would make sense. Of
course, then when some other group is the "majority" then I guess whites will
get all the same breaks, right? (NOT!)

In reality though, people do discriminate, and as long as there are
differences between the groups that people identify themselves with, there
will continue to be discrimination, especially the more subtle forms. Even
things like fraternities, gangs, clubs, businesses, etc. can be reasons for
people to discrminate even for/against people of their own color/ethnicity.
The trick here is not having people make the differences between people be
good/bad things, but rather to just let there be differences.
Until then, any improvements will be superficial.

>John Kawakami kawa...@ocf.berkeley.edu
> ucbvax!ocf.berkeley.edu!kawakami

(Please excuse any typos, I'm using a new keyboard that I'm not used to.)

-Sean
--

*** Sean Cox **************************************************
*** <co...@rdrc.rpi.edu> **************************************************

Mark Slagle

unread,
Jul 10, 1992, 8:34:18 PM7/10/92
to
In article <44...@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, kawa...@ocf.berkeley.edu (John Kawakami) writes:

> I think that it would be a good thing for whites to feel the pain of racism
> every once in a while.

This statement identifies you as a racist.

> Usually, listening to whites talk about how much
> they hate racism is like listening to virgins talk about sex. Often it's
> the really simplistic attitude that gets to me: "I think that fundamentally,
> people aren't racist in ways that matter" or on the opposite side "I don't
> see how he can live with himself, selling out his people and all people of
> color that way" or the worst one "I'm not a racist, he's just obnoxious"

These statements add to the identification. They are
simply caricatures. I have no doubt that someone has
made such statements, but you are arguing for general
retribution on the basis of mere anecdotal evidence.
You are arguing that all members of a given race should
be made to suffer for the mistaken characterization that
emerges from an examination of some ignorant people.

> In this case, two wrongs can lead to greater understanding. There is
> something right about that, isn't there?

No!

Adversity often leads to learning and failure is a
great teacher. These facts do not, however, constitute
an argument in favor of adversity and failure. Your
stated wish to inflict pain on all members of a race
for the ignorance and bigotry of some who happen to
be members of that race is nothing but racism itself.
People are NOT deserving of suffering solely on the
basis of the color of their skin, no matter what that
color happens to be.

craw...@cs.uchicago.edu

unread,
Jul 10, 1992, 8:19:30 PM7/10/92
to
In article <1992Jul10....@island.COM> fes...@island.COM (Mike Fester)
writes:

I more or less agree, but I also think that you are glossing over some
important issues. There *is* a difference between prejudice and
institutionalized racism. While everyone has experienced the effects of
prejudice, only some have consistently suffered the effects of (modern) racism.
If we accept the idea that some citizens have *inherited* access to certain
resources and opportunities because of skin colour, bloodline or some other
physical characteristic, while others have *lost* access for the same reason,
then it becomes quite a bit more complex.

The question is: if the actions of past generations have resulted in an
inequality of access, then who should "pay" for this? Must anyone "pay" at
all? In an ideal situation, where everyone has equal access to educational
opportunities and so on, there would be no need for imperfect mechanisms such
as affirmative-action. However, in the real world, we must choose which is
more important to us:- to ignore the issue of the inheritance of privileges
altogether, i.e., have no affirmative action at all; or, to err on the side of
the dominant group, e.g., have equal access to high-school education, but no
hiring-quotas in the workplace; or, to err on the side of the subordinate
group(s), e.g., have tons of admissions- and hiring-quotas.

Given that many state-oriented societies are defined in terms of a
"racially-coherent" dominant group (who may naturally wish to reserve
access-privileges for their biological offspring :-), and that the number of
job-opportunities, etc., is usually finite, then perhaps "racism" is inevitable
in such societies.

Was Ancient KMT (Egypt) being "racist" when it reserved full privileges for
Africans, prior to the so-called Late Period? Was Ancient Greece being
"racist" when it denied full citizenship to all non-Hellenes? In
13th/14th-century Spain, when the Moors were arguably at the height of their
civilization, were they "racist" because Europeans had less access to
knowledge? Or, is the dominant racial group in the U.S. of today being
"racist" if it reserves full opportunity-access for itself?

The answer depends on whether we distinguish between, say, an empire whose
founding-nation is racially homogeneous [and whose dominant group could thus
only be considered racist or ethnicist (?!) by contrasting them with their
vassals/colonies], and a multiracial society which actively ensures that only
one dominant race has full opportunity-access. (This is, for example, one
difference between Ancient KMT and the antebellum U.S. South).

In any case, whether I have full access to resources and opportunities may
sometimes be determined by whoever writes the laws (cf. the 13th, 14th & 15th
U.S. Constitutional Amendments), but history teaches us that it can just as
easily be achieved by my seizing control of the legal-machinery itself, perhaps
in a revolution (cf. Russia circa. 1917, or the U.S. circa. 1776).

I guess all that I'm really trying to say is that we shouldn't toss slogans
around (e.g., "reverse discrimination") without discussing some of the relevant
background.

Regards,

Paul

kenton yee

unread,
Jul 11, 1992, 5:26:17 PM7/11/92
to
>Arthu...@cup.portal.com writes:
>> The San Jose Mercury proudly proclaimed that San Jose's
>> newest firefighters resembled the United Nations with 4
>> whites, 5 blacks, 6 Hispanics, 7 Asian Americans, and 5
>> women. Well it sure as heck doesn't resemble San Jose. But
>> wait, there's more. The Mercury carefully ommitted the small
>> detail that when you take out the 3 white women, only one of
>> 22 finalists was a white male.

So what is the current racial makeup of the ENTIRE
san jose fire dept?


Roger B.A. Klorese

unread,
Jul 13, 1992, 12:11:12 PM7/13/92
to
In article <1992Jul11....@bnlux1.bnl.gov> ky...@bnlux1.bnl.gov (kenton yee) writes:
> So what is the current racial makeup of the ENTIRE
> san jose fire dept?

Silly, racist Kenton... haven't all these "rational" folks taught you by
now that past behavior doesn't matter? After all, if race-neutral hiring
were begun today, barring mass exodus based on day-to-day discrimination,
the SJFD should reflect the general population in forty years or so...
--
ROGER B.A. KLORESE +1 415 ALL-ARFF
rog...@unpc.QueerNet.ORG {ames,decwrl,pyramid}!mips!unpc!rogerk
"Normal is not something to aspire to, it's something to get away from."
-- J. Foster

Greg Gross

unread,
Jul 15, 1992, 2:21:18 AM7/15/92
to
MS = Mark Slagle
JK = John Kawakami
(All other comments are mine...)

JK: I think that it would be a good thing for whites to feel the pain of

racism every once in awhile.

MS: This statement identifies you as a racist.

Mark, leaving aside for the moment the distinct possibility that you don't
know what you're talking about...again...on what do you base this remarkable
assertion?
John will doubtless correct me if I'm wrong, but I took his comment to
mean that whites might better be able to grasp what racism is and the
harm that it does if they were able to experience a portion of it as
a lot of us non-whites experience it on a daily basis. If that is what
he meant, that hardly makes him a racist.
G.

--
Gregory Alan Gross Welcome to life, where no good deed goes unpunished.
San Diego Union-Tribune (619) 293-1270 (voice)
P.O. Box 191 (619) 293-2333 (fax)
San Diego, CA 92112-4106 ga...@netlink.cts.com (Internet)

Patrick D. Buick

unread,
Jul 14, 1992, 7:00:22 PM7/14/92
to
In article <44...@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> kawa...@ocf.berkeley.edu (John Kawakami) writes:

>Usually, listening to whites talk about how much they hate racism is
>like listening to virgins talk about sex.

I *love* this quote, may I use it?
--
==========================================================
Patrick D. Buick EMT, EET | Internet: buick%be...@uunet.uu.net
Belay Enterprises Inc. | Internet: bui...@cuug.ab.ca
Calgary, Alberta, Canada | UUCP:...!uunet!keyword!calgary!pixel!belay!buick

Peter Westhagen

unread,
Jul 15, 1992, 1:00:57 PM7/15/92
to
John Kawakami writes:

Usually, listening to whites talk about how much they hate racism is
like listening to virgins talk about sex.

I was gonna let this pass, 'cause it's a minor point. BUT, whites have much
reason to talk about racism, because whites and blacks are equal partners
in racism, as far as scaa is concerened. It takes two to tango...

But I know what your sayin' also, what your were saying was it's pathetic
to hear whites talk about being the *victims* of racism, as if they
knew and understood. Right? Be like hearing a rich person ramble on with
so much feigned compassion on the sad state of the inner cities; rambling
on through a cellular phone, driving in a mercedes with the windows rolled
up, AC on, listening to Debussey on their Blaupunkt quad stereo system.

Don't work.

On a different topic, kind of related cause Clinton was poor and so may
be more compassionate to the problems of the poor, although may also feel
that he made it, why can't you.

But that's not the topic, the topic is, and you southerners will hate me
for this, but yankees may relate. I wonder how much of my mistrust of
Clinton has to do with his southern accent. The same accent that all those
shady cops with the shit eatin' grins and shit kicking cowboy boots be
sportin' in lame TV shows and such. Becuase Clinton says good things,
with the possible acception of the SS escapades, and he seems honest, to
the point of admitting adulturous affairs, but not inhaling marijuana (I
can't beleive the dude hasn't smoked pot). So why don't I trust him.

Hmmmm...
--
O))~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~((O
Peter Nicholas Westhagen ch...@mowgli.cqs.washington.edu
O))~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~((O

Mike Powell

unread,
Jul 14, 1992, 11:02:49 PM7/14/92
to

A recent post contains:

"In reality though, people do discriminate, and as long as there are
differences between the groups that people identify themselves with,
there will continue to be discrimination, especially the
more subtle forms."


-------------------

These words reminded me of what some people would call a minor
point.... but it think that it is very important that we understand
what discrimination is, any why it is necessary (and unavoidable).

The fact is that everyone discriminates, and almost ALL discrimination
is totally acceptable (and even required)... remember that
hiring, and housing laws etc... speak only of the illegality of
discrimination on the *basis of sex, race, national origin, religion,
etc... and increasingly sexual preference.

These define the ONLY areas where it is NOT permitted to discriminate.
(other specific situations allow for differences to these general laws)

The point is that discrimination is _expected_ and is really
all about the human capacity to make decisions... on who to hire,
who to marry, who to dislike, who to avoid etc. etc....

My guess is that most people have a majority of friends, lovers,
heros that are of the same race as they are, and that this betrays
a certain degree of racism in that individual. We we see
that white people seem to marry other whites should we call that
'racism'? When we see that blacks tend to marry other blacks is
that racism? You bet.

Racism and discrimination are ok.... it's just fine in most cases.

It is just that there are _some_ instances where society has
determined that racism and discrimination are unacceptable. But
our obsession with these *limited* areas causes us to forget that
we continually discriminate against the 'ugly' the 'overweight'
the 'powerful' the 'haves' (vs. the have-nots) the 'white men'
(yes, believe it or not... it is generally acceptable to 'bash' white
men these days) etc. etc. etc.....

So not only will discrimination continue... but it is arguable that
discrimination SHOULD continue, while recognizing that there are
some instances where some particular traits should NOT be used as
a basis of discrimination....

Something to think about the next time you kiss someone that has
the same color skin you happen to have....

-Mike-

Arthur Johnson

unread,
Jul 15, 1992, 4:03:38 PM7/15/92
to
In article <3231...@hpmwmat.sr.hp.com> mi...@hpmwtd.sr.hp.com (Mike
Powell) writes:
>
>
> Racism and discrimination are ok.... it's just fine in most
cases.
>
I think that you are confused wrt what racism is. Allow me to clear
up your confusion. Racism is "a belief that race is the primary
determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences
produce an inherent superiority of a particular race." (Webster's). Now
that you understand the concept, did you really want to say that "racism
is ok ... it's just fine in most cases."?

>
> Something to think about the next time you kiss someone that has
> the same color skin you happen to have....
>
I think my mind will be focused on other things.
>
> -Mike-

Arthur Johnson
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Department of Chemistry
joh...@whitewater.chem.wisc.edu

Andrew Kass

unread,
Jul 15, 1992, 6:18:19 PM7/15/92
to
In article <8TwXNB...@netlink.cts.com>, ga...@netlink.cts.com (Greg Gross)
writes:

Then I suppose that makes both you and John assholes. Self-righteous assholes
too. (The worst kind). I suppose you are going to tell me how I don't know what
racism is, or what it is like to be discriminated against, since I am white. I
am also Jewish and have experienced anti-semitism and discrimination, and it
sucks. I would not wish it on another person. And what's worse - even though I
experience just as much discrimination as anyone else, I don't get
reverse-discrimination programs to help me out (but I would not want that
anyway!)

Any type of discrimination is wrong. Period. Discriminating against one party
"to foster greater understanding" is a stupid idea, and has been proven to not
work by some of the reverse-discrimination policies in effect today. So all
your life you are going to fight for equality, but when you get it then you are
going to want to right to be racist against whites to get even with them?
Sounds kind of hypocritical to me.

I certainly have no sins to pay for. My forefathers have no sins to pay for. My
great-grandparents came from Russia to the US in about 1880 to escape the
state-sponsored pogroms against Jews. They were lucky to get in (they had
quotas - still do. Which is absolutely rediculous, since Judiasm is not even a
race, it is a belief.) When they came here, they had no money. They experienced
anti-semitism, discrimination, were humiliated, kicked out of restaurants, etc.
But when applying for a job, or a university, some person who is less qualified
than me will get preference because "my grandparents opressed his grandparents
and now we are making up for it". I owe no one anything. I think that I am owed
quite a bit. How about the boatload of Jewish refugees in WWII who sailed all
around the world to escape Hitler's concentration camps, but no country
(especially not the US) would grant them asylum, since they already had their
quota of Jews. So they had to go back to Germany, where they were killed. How
about my relatives in Europe who were killed because one of their grandparents
happened to be Jewish, while the rest of the world knew what was going on and
said nothing. How about the Inquisition? How about the Crusades, where more
Jews were killed than the supposed infidels?

My ancestors have been discriminated against since the first Jew. And what do I
want? Do I want everyone to let Jews have first precendence at all
opportunities to make up for their past sins? No, I want discrimination to
stop. Who am I to say who has experienced discrimination and who hasn't? How
about the kid who went to the same high school that I did, was in the same
clubs, whose family was MUCH richer than mine, who had all, if not more
opportunities that I did, but still gets preference over me because he is a
minority. This person has had no disadvantages in life. He has had all the same
opportunities as I have. It was not any easier for me. But there is a little
box that he can check that means "you should all feel guilty and give me a
better chance". Whenever I see one of those race questionaires, I always avoid
it. When someone hires me, I want it to be because I am a hard worker and the
best person for the job, not because I am some minority.

Discriminating against whites because they are white is just as bad (actually,
IMO I think it is worse, since those who do it are self-righteous about it) as
discriminating against anyone because they are anything. "Oh, you are white,
you must not know anything about discrimination, and should be taught". What a
dangerous attitude. Who are you to judge? Instead of propogating discrimination
and divisiveness, you should be trying to END IT. By saying "whites should feel
discrimination", you are explicitly trying to divide people along racial lines.
By giving special favors to certain ethnic or religeous groups, you are
explicitly trying to divide people along racial lines. What the world needs is
people who are trying to make the world a better place, not just look out for
their own selfish interests.

===============================================================================
=
= Andrew J. Kass ka...@sj.ate.slb.com =
= #include <std/disclaimer.h> del...@media-lab.media.mit.edu
=
===============================================================================

Mark Slagle

unread,
Jul 16, 1992, 1:55:23 AM7/16/92
to
Ah, we have a nibble. Let's see who's on the line...

In article <8TwXNB...@netlink.cts.com>, ga...@netlink.cts.com (Greg Gross) writes:

> Mark, leaving aside for the moment the distinct possibility that you don't
> know what you're talking about...again...

Awfully sweet of you to say so Greg, but your speculations on
what I may or may not know, regardless of entertainment value,
are not germane.

> on what do you base this remarkable assertion?

But as to your question, I would have thought that it would
be obvious. Even so, just in case, I took the trouble to
explain it in some detail in the remainder of the article which
you quoted. If my statement is unclear to you, perhaps you
might consider reading the remainder of it before flying off
the handle and tossing cheap insults.

But if even that isn't sufficient for you, then I will try to
state it plainly. Anyone, you or me or John or anyone else, who
advances the proposition that someone deserves some sort of
treatment, specifically pain in this case, because of their
skin color is a racist.

Is that clear enough for you?

william carter franklin

unread,
Jul 16, 1992, 6:00:19 PM7/16/92
to
ch...@cqs.washington.edu (Peter Westhagen) writes:

>John Kawakami writes:

>Don't work.

>Hmmmm...


Does SS escapades refer to the SILLY BIGOT SISTAH? SBS capades.
If so, that's the best stuff Clinton has ever said. She is no wise
man's leader.

Clinton is the man in 1992. Do you think Bush cares about people?


And as for the rich man in the Mercedes, or whatever, you seem to
insinuate that white people are rarely VICTIMS of racism. That is not
so. If the test scores of my peers were raised by the grader to
be higher than mine and I was passed over for a job, I would feel
like a victim, just like the white fireman who recently filed a
lawsuit did. Racism is not the solution to racism. That is why
SILLY BIGOT SISTAH has lost the respect of almost everyone who has
heard her speak. She says that there are no Black people on the face
of the earth that are racist. That is bullshit. She also says that
Blacks can not be racist because they lack the economic power to
supress whites. That is also bullshit. All black people are NOT
poor. And all white people are not rich. All white people are
not racist. Many Black people are. The problem then, is racism.
Remember, white people are doing alot to solve the problem of
racism, they are partners with blacks, equally, in the solution.
If you are looking for an example of this, remember Jimmy Carter.
Also, the guy who taped the Rodney King Beating was white, and angry
about the beating. He diplomatically used the beating tape against the
LAPD.

Like I said two postings ago, pointing the finger at another race
will not solve it. You will only alienate the many members of that
race that are working with blacks for the solution. Rich people suppress
poor people but white people do not suppress black people.

Stereotyping is ugly, and I notice that you halfway caught yourself
with a weak half-disclaimer....


>But that's not the topic, the topic is, and you southerners will hate me
>for this, but yankees may relate. I wonder how much of my mistrust of
>Clinton has to do with his southern accent. The same accent that all those
>shady cops with the shit eatin' grins and shit kicking cowboy boots be
>sportin' in lame TV shows and such. Becuase Clinton says good things,
>with the possible acception of the SS escapades, and he seems honest, to
>the point of admitting adulturous affairs, but not inhaling marijuana (I

Isn't that a form of racism? Jimmy Carter had a southern accent.
(I LOVE to hear Jimmy Carter speak, not just because of his accent,
but because of the things he says. No BLACK man even has a better
civil rights record. I challenge anyone to debate this with me, but
so far, I warn, no one on this net has been able to win one of
those against me because I do too much research to lose a debate).


[sic]

Quick..... trivia question.....

Who has the better Civil rights record...

Jimmy Carter.....
...or.......... SILLY BIGOT SISTAH? :)

Greg Gross

unread,
Jul 16, 1992, 6:00:00 PM7/16/92
to
[much BS deleted re having "no sins to pay for," not owing anyone else
anything, etc.]

Andrew:
Before you start flinging names around, i.e., self-righteous asshole,
you might want to take a good long look in the nearest mirror.

In no particular order:
1) Speaking only for me and not presuming to speak for John K.,
no sane person who has suffered the harm of racism would wish
that experience on anyone else out of some sense of malice.
But they *might* wish for the perpetrators of racism to be able
to experience it on the receiving end, perhaps just enough to
open their eyes to the evil that they're doing. If you can grasp
that, fine. If you can't, you can't.

2) If you've experienced the sting of anti-Semiticism, that's
unfortunate. If you want all discrimination to stop, great. So
do I.

As for "sins," the only behavior I would wish white racists to correct
are the ones they engage in currently, daily, throughout this country.
That does not involve turning back the clock, disinterring the dead or
any other retroactive act. It does involve people changing their
attitudes, or even more relevant to me, their behavior, in the present.


3) Re "giving special favors to certain ethnic or religious groups,"
who even *said* anything about that in any of the posts concerning
this?

4) Before you assume what I or anyone else is going to say to you in the
future, you might look real hard at the first half of the word "assume."

Clare Chu Ayala

unread,
Jul 17, 1992, 10:06:49 AM7/17/92
to
In article <1992Jul16.2...@seq.uncwil.edu> fra...@seq.uncwil.edu (william carter franklin) writes:
>>the point of admitting adulturous affairs, but not inhaling marijuana (I
>>can't beleive the dude hasn't smoked pot). So why don't I trust him.
>
>>Hmmmm...

Hmmmm... maybe he's allergic to it. I know that I have asthma
and I would never inhale marijuana or tobacco. I also know that
a friend of mine says you have to be "taught" how to inhale and
swallow smoke. So it's possible he just faked it to be cool.
Which is another reason not to trust him, right? :-)

Peter Westhagen

unread,
Jul 17, 1992, 12:02:23 PM7/17/92
to
fra...@seq.uncwil.edu (william carter franklin) writes:

|Stereotyping is ugly, and I notice that you halfway caught yourself
|with a weak half-disclaimer....

I'm not sure what the disclaimer was, and I'm not so sure stereotyping is
ugly, especially when called generalizing, cause to make a point in
this forum, it is helpful to identify certain trends in order to simplify
the picture and more easily come to an understanding. It's a given that
acceptions to the generalities exist.

It's safe to say that poor people understand poor better that rich people
understand poor (no implications of sex or race). It's also safe to say
that black people have a fuller understanding of what racism is than do
white people and that white people would be better off if they could come
down off there self-righteous, all-knowing pedestal and try and learn some-
thing. I don't mean you William, cause first off all, I don't know if your
white or not, and second I don't think your self-righteous.

Anyway, for my benefit, to which "weak half-disclaimer" do you refer...
This one?

But that's not the topic, the topic is, and you southerners will hate me
for this, but yankees may relate. I wonder how much of my mistrust of
Clinton has to do with his southern accent. The same accent that all those
shady cops with the shit eatin' grins and shit kicking cowboy boots be
sportin' in lame TV shows and such. Becuase Clinton says good things,
with the possible acception of the SS escapades, and he seems honest, to
the point of admitting adulturous affairs, but not inhaling marijuana (I

|Isn't that a form of racism? Jimmy Carter had a southern accent.
|(I LOVE to hear Jimmy Carter speak, not just because of his accent,
|but because of the things he says. No BLACK man even has a better
|civil rights record. I challenge anyone to debate this with me, but
|so far, I warn, no one on this net has been able to win one of
|those against me because I do too much research to lose a debate).

This is definitely a form of stereotyping on my part, and I think southern
accents are beautiful sometimes, relaxing and friendly. But I don't trust
Clinton. However, I think Perot has shown (Perot's supporters have shown)
that the people don't want to put up with "read my lips" behavior anymore
and hopefully, when Clinton gets elected, he will be held accountable for
his promises, most of which I can deal with.

And how are you gonna debate who has the best civil rights record anyway?
Can't we just say that Carter did a lot of good, and other people have done
a lot of good, and some people just keep on speaking those words that defile.
Why not point out the politicians with lame civil rights records and spend
your effort where it will do some good?

--
O))~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~O))
Peter Nicholas Westhagen ch...@mowgli.cqs.washington.edu
O))~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~O))

Peter Westhagen

unread,
Jul 17, 1992, 12:21:16 PM7/17/92
to

Yea, I believe it's possible, but Clinton is a child of the 60's, and seems
like he's been around. Of cource, it would be political suicide to admit
and so in some way (assuming he did smoke pot) he is justified in playing it
off, it being such a minor point anyway. But your right, if he was faking
to be cool, he's light!

BTW, did you know the constitution is written on hemp (i.e. marijuana) and
did you know that the flag that good 'ole Betsy Ross made was made out of
hemp. And did you know for two-hundered years in the US you could pay taxes
in hemp, and that Ben Franklin smoke reefer. But then the tobacco companies
(pitcure Jesse Helms) sent out propaganda and eventually brought about
prohibition. Most of the negative images people have of marijuana are
brainwashing, pure and simple.

If your interested, check out _The Emperor Wears No Clothes_ by Jack Herar (I
know I misspelled it).

Andrew Kass

unread,
Jul 17, 1992, 2:36:22 PM7/17/92
to
In article <Pyy1NB...@netlink.cts.com>, ga...@netlink.cts.com (Greg Gross)
writes:

|> 1) Speaking only for me and not presuming to speak for John K.,
|> no sane person who has suffered the harm of racism would wish
|> that experience on anyone else out of some sense of malice.
|> But they *might* wish for the perpetrators of racism to be able
|> to experience it on the receiving end, perhaps just enough to
|> open their eyes to the evil that they're doing. If you can grasp
|> that, fine. If you can't, you can't.

Well, let's look at exactly what was said here, shall we? (From your own post.
Also, I was referring in part to some things that were said in JK's original
post)

JK = John Kawakami


JK: I think that it would be a good thing for whites to feel the pain of
racism every once in awhile.

This does not say "I think it would be a good thing for 'perpetrators of
racism' to feel the pain of racism every once in a while", it says's whites. Of
course, as you seem to imply by your postings, you equate whites with
perpetrators of racism. My entire posting was directed towards the premise that
all whites are racists, and need to be punished. Which was exactly my point. I
am white, I am not racist, my grandparents were not racist, but I am typically
categorized as racist by minority groups simply because I am white. For
example: my younger brother, who was a junior in HS last year, was attacked on
two seperate occasions at his high school during the LA riots. Simply for being
white. On one occasion, a group of black youths came up to him and asked him to
give them some money. He said he didn't have any. They then proceeded to pummel
him, hold him down, rifle his pockets and steal his wallet. The following day,
while he was walking down the hallway, a black youth came up behind him, hit
him on the head with a heavy object and run away. He had to be sent home (along
with the other white kids) because it was deemed too dangerous for him to
attend school. And he was lucky: many of his white friends were beaten to a
pulp by groups of black kids, simply for the crime of being white. He was
spared more than the two incidents because he has a number of black friends,
who prevented too many things to happen to him. These incidents did not occur
off campus. They were not provoked in any way. My brother has no reputation for
being racist or discriminatory at all, in fact, as I have mentioned, many of
his better friends are minorities. However, this is a large school and not
everyone knows that. So he was attacked twice in two days simply because he was
white.

This is the type of irresponsible and hate breeding attitude that I condemned
in my previous post. I do not assume that all minorities are disease breeding,
mentally impaired, lower life forms. If I went around preaching that, I would
instantly be branded as a racist and terrible person. But if a minority goes
around preaching that all whites are evil, racist, money grubbing, oppresive,
and morally bankrupt, then that is different? Either way it is racism. Anyone
who classifies a group of people as being beneath him in some way is being
racist. So the original remark is a case of racism against whites: assuming all
whites have no experience with racism, are all racist, and need to be taught.

It is quite obvious from your and JKs postings and tone that you are predjuced
against whites. It is just as racist and wrong to be predjuced against whites
as to be predjuced against any other ethnic group. If you can grasp that, fine.
If not, then you are one of the people who is trying their best to separtate
ethnic groups and drive wedges between them instead of foster understanding.


|> 2) If you've experienced the sting of anti-Semiticism, that's
|> unfortunate. If you want all discrimination to stop, great. So
|> do I.

Ok, so your point is?


|> As for "sins," the only behavior I would wish white racists to correct
|> are the ones they engage in currently, daily, throughout this country.
|> That does not involve turning back the clock, disinterring the dead or
|> any other retroactive act. It does involve people changing their
|> attitudes, or even more relevant to me, their behavior, in the present.

See, here is another example of your (probably unknown to you) predjuces. You
rail out against the "white racists". Does this mean that only whites can be
racist? Or that everyone has the capability but only whites exercise it? Or
that it is okay for everyone else to be racist? (Most likely explanation
probably, as long as they are racist against whites).

Also, then I would expect you to disagree with the way that most affirmative
action programs are run. As per the example I gave of a minority student who
attends the same school as me and is richer than me, but still gets
preferences, because he is a minority. The justification for this is that his
forefathers had been oppressed, so he was at a disadvantage to me and should
get special preference. This has nothing to do with present day attitudes. No
one involved is racist (except the school that discriminates against whites),
no one has behavior damaging to minorities. This is entirely based on
attempting to make up for past sins. This type of program (which is the most
common) assumes that all minorities have been oppressed and are disadvantaged
and should get special treatment, regardless of their current situation. I am
glad to know that you do not support such blatant discrimination.

Especially in my case. If that argument applies to other minorities, than it
CERTAINLY applies to Jews.

|> 3) Re "giving special favors to certain ethnic or religious groups,"
|> who even *said* anything about that in any of the posts concerning
|> this?

Well, now, that is what was implied by JK. He talked about making whites feel
the pain of racism. This means putting other ethnic groups ahead of whites.
Discriminating against whites. If I can not get into the best universities
because I am not a minority, then certainly I am feeling the pain of racism. If
I don't get in because there are people who are smarter than me, or if I don't
get a job because I am not the best qualified, then fine. No complaints. But if
I really do deserve to get that job or be accepted to that university, but
aren't because I am not the right minority, then I am being discriminated
against.

This type of policy does not foster "greater understanding". This simply is a
policy of highlighting the differences between ethnic groups and creates
hostilities. Think about it. When you are rejected for a job or passed over for
promotion for someone else because they are another ethnic group, you resent
them and their ethnic group. It doesn't matter whether a black is passed up for
a white or a white is passed up for a black. Do you think that for some reason
whites should say "oh, I guess what I have been doing all my life is wrong. I
will be a better person."? Why should it be okay to do this to a white but not
to a black? What is the difference? "Because whites have been doing it for a
longer time, so now it is our turn"? Is this really going to solve anything?
Besides, the person who got passed up is not usually in any position to make
hiring/promotion decisions anyway. In most cases, I would expect the person to
come to resent minorities, not "understand them better". Why do you think that
in some places there is such a buildup of skinheads and KKK (who both are
anti-semetic I might add. You might consider me white, but they certainly
don't)?

|> 4) Before you assume what I or anyone else is going to say to you in the
|> future, you might look real hard at the first half of the word "assume."

Well, I am not assuming what anyone will say. Least of all you. As to what
others will say, all I can refer to is the number of letters I have received,
from people of varying ethnicity, who support me in my stand of abolishing all
discrimination period. It is firmly my belief that the only way people are
going to get along is if instead of every ethnic group crying "me too!" when
the preferences are handed out, and continually alienating other groups, people
should work towards a world where people are judged on the basis of their words
and actions and the contents of their heart and mind, not the color of their
skin or the name of the god they pray to.

The first step towards this goal is to stop highlighting the differences
between people and start highlighting the similarities. Its as simple as saying
"I want an end to all racism" instead of "I want an end to all white racism".

I think that the one who needs to take a long hard look in the mirror is you.
Are your actions and words any different from those of the white racists you
seem to hate so much? Just subsitute black for white and vice-versa. As I said
before descrimination by anyone against anyone else makes that person a
racist.

I encourage everyone who has a view on this matter to post their opinion.

|> --
|> Gregory Alan Gross Welcome to life, where no good deed goes
|> unpunished.
|> San Diego Union-Tribune (619) 293-1270 (voice)
|> P.O. Box 191 (619) 293-2333 (fax)
|> San Diego, CA 92112-4106 ga...@netlink.cts.com (Internet)

===============================================================================

william carter franklin

unread,
Jul 17, 1992, 4:56:06 PM7/17/92
to
cl...@nynexst.com (Clare Chu Ayala) writes:

I think you are responding to a response that I wrote to the same quote.
I did not write any of this. I support the Clinton/Gore ticket as well,

William Carter Franklin

(blah, blah, blah)

william carter franklin

unread,
Jul 17, 1992, 5:22:35 PM7/17/92
to
ch...@cqs.washington.edu (Peter Westhagen) writes:


>I'm not sure what the disclaimer was, and I'm not so sure stereotyping is
>ugly, especially when called generalizing, cause to make a point in
>this forum, it is helpful to identify certain trends in order to simplify
>the picture and more easily come to an understanding. It's a given that
>acceptions to the generalities exist.


...and yet so often the exceptions are pointed out in generalities.
Blacks portrated as violent criminals by the media. Whites portrayed
as racist rednecks...etc. This Hurts. Not only because people that are
different from you get a misconception, but youngsters who are forming
opinions of who they are see these images and think that is where they
are headed. It has a snowball effect. Liberal people like myself hate
stereotypes and only find them useful as a source of humor.

>It's safe to say that poor people understand poor better that rich people
>understand poor (no implications of sex or race). It's also safe to say

Not necessarily. That is because objectivity is often the best editor.
To see from a distance the problems of poor can help solve them better.

Racism is a problem that ALL parties must work to solve, however, as
equals.


>that black people have a fuller understanding of what racism is than do
>white people and that white people would be better off if they could come
>down off there self-righteous, all-knowing pedestal and try and learn some-
>thing. I don't mean you William, cause first off all, I don't know if your
>white or not, and second I don't think your self-righteous.


Does not matter. My point in the first posting was that whites have
done tremendous things to combat racism where it seems that blacks
are not doing as much as they used to do to combat the ugliness.
Violence is the stupidest thing I have ever seen. That will only
put the Black community behind in the efforts to end racism.

Also, give me an example of how white people are on a self-righteous,
all-knowing pedestal. I am glad they are, if that is what Jimmy Carter
and Bill Clinton and Jack Kennedy are (were) on....etc.

And by the way, as an American, I have many ancestries from many
continents. My skin is darker than most people I meet, but my mind
is smarter than most too (based on intellegence quotient scores).
Notice that skin color seems so irrelevant and inconsequential here.

>Anyway, for my benefit, to which "weak half-disclaimer" do you refer...
>This one?

> But that's not the topic, the topic is, and you southerners will hate me
> for this, but yankees may relate. I wonder how much of my mistrust of
> Clinton has to do with his southern accent. The same accent that all those
> shady cops with the shit eatin' grins and shit kicking cowboy boots be
> sportin' in lame TV shows and such. Becuase Clinton says good things,
> with the possible acception of the SS escapades, and he seems honest, to
> the point of admitting adulturous affairs, but not inhaling marijuana (I

yes, I think that very stereotype hurts alot of people. Just like the
ugly stereotypes about (Willie Horton, etc.) black people are painful
and cause the problems that I explained very well above. Let me stop
here long enough to address the net and say that a discussion should
be invoked on stereotypes and how they:

1. Cause misconceptions on behalf of others

2. Cause youngsters of the same race (creed, etc.)
to believe that is where they, too are headed.

3. Are equally harmful to all races.

4. Only can hurt the Bridge between the diversities.

>This is definitely a form of stereotyping on my part, and I think southern
>accents are beautiful sometimes, relaxing and friendly. But I don't trust

A big THANK YOU from North Carolina :)


>Clinton. However, I think Perot has shown (Perot's supporters have shown)
>that the people don't want to put up with "read my lips" behavior anymore
>and hopefully, when Clinton gets elected, he will be held accountable for
>his promises, most of which I can deal with.

Yes, when he gets elected!!


>And how are you gonna debate who has the best civil rights record anyway?
>Can't we just say that Carter did a lot of good, and other people have done
>a lot of good, and some people just keep on speaking those words that defile.

SILLY BIGOT SISTAH...for example

>Why not point out the politicians with lame civil rights records and spend

>your effort where it will do some good?

I will. And I will also point out black people who work against the
Bridge too.

Thank you for the chat, please continue, You seem like a nice guy.

william carter franklin

unread,
Jul 17, 1992, 5:26:44 PM7/17/92
to
ch...@cqs.washington.edu (Peter Westhagen) writes:

I did not write any of this. There seems to be a mistake in the
follow up. My respnse is not included in any of this posting.

And, once again, I support the Clinton/Gore ticket.
But I do NOT believe that marijuana is good for people. Neither is
tobacco. And neither is Jesse Helms.

None of ya Bizness

unread,
Jul 19, 1992, 1:42:12 AM7/19/92
to
In article <1992Jul16.2...@seq.uncwil.edu> fra...@seq.uncwil.edu (william carter franklin) writes:
$ch...@cqs.washington.edu (Peter Westhagen) writes:
$>with the possible acception of the SS escapades, and he seems honest, to
$>the point of admitting adulturous affairs, but not inhaling marijuana (I
$>can't beleive the dude hasn't smoked pot). So why don't I trust him.
$>Hmmmm...

$Does SS escapades refer to the SILLY BIGOT SISTAH? SBS capades.
$If so, that's the best stuff Clinton has ever said. She is no wise
$man's leader.

Why must you always refer to Sister Souljah as "Silly Bigot Sistah?"
It certainly doesn't make her look bad, it's annoying and it makes _you_
look stupid.

$Clinton is the man in 1992. Do you think Bush cares about people?

No, I _know_ Bush don't care about people. But what makes you think
Clinton is "the man in 1992?"

$And as for the rich man in the Mercedes, or whatever, you seem to
$insinuate that white people are rarely VICTIMS of racism.

That's because they are rarely victims of racism, if at all.

$That is not
$so. If the test scores of my peers were raised by the grader to
$be higher than mine and I was passed over for a job, I would feel
$like a victim, just like the white fireman who recently filed a
$lawsuit did.

Okay, now in the two hours it took you to think up that one instance of
"racism" (which it really ain't) I can think of at least 25 instances of
racism not only to me, but toward my peers.

$Racism is not the solution to racism. That is why
$SILLY BIGOT SISTAH has lost the respect of almost everyone who has
$heard her speak.

No, the reason why Sister Souljah lost the respect of everybody was because
she was misquoted by the media and dissed by Clinton.

$She says that there are no Black people on the face
$of the earth that are racist. That is bullshit.

Fool, no it ain't. There are some blacks who have prejudices, I will agree.

$She also says that
$Blacks can not be racist because they lack the economic power to
$supress whites. That is also bullshit.

Fool, no it _ain't_. Let me ask you like this: When was the last time you
saw some black-owned company that was in a position to start withholding your
paychecks? Oh I didn't think you could answer that one. When was the last
time you saw some black government body telling you what you could and could
not do? Ohhh! I didn't think you could answer that question.

$All black people are NOT
$poor. And all white people are not rich. All white people are
$not racist.

I'll agree wit you here, after I switch some wording around. I don't know
if you was just trying to be slick or what, but I just KNOW you meant
"Not all black people are poor" and "Not all white people are rich", etc.

$ Many Black people are. The problem then, is racism.
$Remember, white people are doing alot to solve the problem of
$racism, they are partners with blacks, equally, in the solution.
$If you are looking for an example of this, remember Jimmy Carter.
$Also, the guy who taped the Rodney King Beating was white, and angry
$about the beating. He diplomatically used the beating tape against the
$LAPD.

So here's two examples. In the two hours it took you to think up those
two examples, I can think of many contrary examples. You seem to think
that everybody is saying that it all goes one way. Well it doesn't, but
it is a LOT more lopsided that you would ever hope to perceive here.

$Like I said two postings ago, pointing the finger at another race
$will not solve it. You will only alienate the many members of that
$race that are working with blacks for the solution. Rich people suppress
$poor people but white people do not suppress black people.

And where is this fantasy world you're livin in? Please tell me. You mean
to say that the deterioration of all inner city neighborhoods was a mistake?
You mean to tell me that everytime some cracker jack calls me a nigger, that's
just an oversight? How about companies looking over qualified blacks to
keep the white collar work force just that--white? That's all a mistake, huh?
And how about last week where an FBI agent was suspended for requiring a
black lawyer to submit a footprint for the background check? You're tellin
me that all of that isn't suppression? You one-track-mind-havin backwood
woodchuck motherf*($#&(!! You gotta be out of your f*ckin mind!!

$Stereotyping is ugly, and I notice that you halfway caught yourself
$with a weak half-disclaimer....

$Quick..... trivia question.....
$
$ Who has the better Civil rights record...
$
$ Jimmy Carter.....
$ ...or.......... SILLY BIGOT SISTAH? :)

I don't know, but why don't you give me some of the shit you been smokin,
because it's obvious you're on some good drugs. "White people don't suppress
black people", indeed!

Malcolm Diallo Moore, Gangsta N-- I mean, Honeywell SSDC Student Intern
mmo...@orion.ssdc.honeywell.com (if you reply to my posts use these addresses)
mmo...@fred.ssdc.honeywell.com 3660 Technology Dr, Rm 2330, Mpls, MN 55418
Disclaimer: If I spoke for Honeywell I'd be embarrassin em wit mah vernacular.

Chris deephouse Gray

unread,
Jul 19, 1992, 4:17:28 AM7/19/92
to
mmo...@orion.ssdc.honeywell.com ("None of ya Bizness") writes:

>In article <1992Jul16.2...@seq.uncwil.edu> fra...@seq.uncwil.edu (william carter franklin) writes:

>$Does SS escapades refer to the SILLY BIGOT SISTAH? SBS capades.
>$If so, that's the best stuff Clinton has ever said. She is no wise
>$man's leader.

>Why must you always refer to Sister Souljah as "Silly Bigot Sistah?"
>It certainly doesn't make her look bad, it's annoying and it makes _you_
>look stupid.

Malcolm, it should make you laugh when you here titles like that.
When I see people using titles like that, it only lets me know that that's
the only thing that they can dig up against the person that they are slandering.
On IRC, as of late, there is this white girl who comes on our channel
typing things like "Is this the nigger channel? You are all silly
niggers..Niggers..thinking they can vote their way out of things..Commie
Niggers..." The first reactions that most of the Blak people have is
that of shock and anger. But since I understand that if I react the
way that she wants and expects me too, it will only allow her to solidify
her premature ideology about Blak people...I'll tell you more about her
later.


>$Clinton is the man in 1992. Do you think Bush cares about people?

>No, I _know_ Bush don't care about people. But what makes you think
>Clinton is "the man in 1992?"

Clinton and no other "man" is going to do jack shit for anyone, but the
white elitist circle that pulls his strings. That goes for any
figure-head president, or any other position of 'power'. As time marches
on, its becoming clearer that Blak people should use the election process
to make the Blak masses aware that we should be trying *every day* to
become independent of this 'system'..and that's means separation. If we can't
elevate ourselves, that means that the white establisment can't fall..(for a
more *vivid* interpretation...see Minister Louis Farrakhan's lecture on
"The New World Order"). As anoter brother once said on here, 3 mintutes in
a voting booth isn't going to alter the condition of Blak people in AmeriKKKa
in the way that it needs to be done. WE'RE gonna have to do this.


>$And as for the rich man in the Mercedes, or whatever, you seem to
>$insinuate that white people are rarely VICTIMS of racism.

>That's because they are rarely victims of racism, if at all.

Racism? White people? Please. You don't even argue with guilt statements like
that. That's just like comparing the hurt that a Blak child goes through when
they consider that they live in the projects, are on welfare, and are broke
(just an example, I'm not saying all Blak and White kids are in this situation)
to the white kid who gets suicidal over something 'major' like the breakind up
of Nirvana..or just because they drive a Ford Fiesta Coupe and their friends
drive a Mustang convertable or something. *laugh*

>$That is not
>$so. If the test scores of my peers were raised by the grader to

>$be higher than mine and I was passed over for a job, I would feel
>$like a victim, just like the white fireman who recently filed a
>$lawsuit did.

>Okay, now in the two hours it took you to think up that one instance of
>"racism" (which it really ain't) I can think of at least 25 instances of
>racism not only to me, but toward my peers.

What was that important verb phrase that you used in that last sentence
Malcolm? When you're either too insensitive to think(put yourself in someone
else's position..and I even wonder if this is possible at all) or are incapable of
it, its easy to use the "we're discriminated against too!" method that
whassisname used up above.

>$Racism is not the solution to racism. That is why
>$SILLY BIGOT SISTAH has lost the respect of almost everyone who has
>$heard her speak.

>No, the reason why Sister Souljah lost the respect of everybody was because
>she was misquoted by the media and dissed by Clinton.

Excuse me? When did Sister Souljah ever have the white folx 'seal of approval'?
As I recall it, she didn't even exist in white society until she told the
truth about AmeriKKKa. But what made her different from the other brothas and
sistas dropping science? She has managed to capture the attention of not only
a lot of Blak minds, but those of young white minds also. You see, when you
know that times are about to change your position of power(white ameriKKKa's
power over darker people) and you don't want to fall, you will do *whatever
is neccessary* to prevent your downfall. So don't be surprisd when you
hear things like "a feww of Ross Perot's golphing buddies are protesting
again XYZ Records because they have a rap artist who has a song about
Blak caddies killing golphers". And so on...

>$She says that there are no Black people on the face
>$of the earth that are racist. That is bullshit.

And so is the statement that 'all people are created equal'...or
'land of the free..home of the brave'..or 'you have an opportunity in AmeriKKKa
to be all that you can be'..and so on. Personally, I agree with Sister Souljah
on that point, because no substantial amount of Blak people own the land, labor
and capital to oppress another group of people, and Malcolm is about to make this point in the statement that follows. Now bigotry is another thing.
But what is it when compared to developed racism practiced in this 'system'?
What is it compared to the thought that darker people are born suspects..born
convics? Tell me how you could sit there and utter that?

>Fool, no it ain't. There are some blacks who have prejudices, I will agree.

>$She also says that
>$Blacks can not be racist because they lack the economic power to
>$supress whites. That is also bullshit.

>Fool, no it _ain't_. Let me ask you like this: When was the last time you
>saw some black-owned company that was in a position to start withholding your
>paychecks? Oh I didn't think you could answer that one. When was the last
>time you saw some black government body telling you what you could and could
>not do? Ohhh! I didn't think you could answer that question.

Give me specific examples of where white people are oppressed by
big-pocketed Blak people? *laugh* Come on..

>$All black people are NOT
>$poor. And all white people are not rich. All white people are
>$not racist.

>I'll agree wit you here, after I switch some wording around. I don't know
>if you was just trying to be slick or what, but I just KNOW you meant
>"Not all black people are poor" and "Not all white people are rich", etc.

BUT..and more importantly..*collectively* white people are wealthier. MUCH MORE
wealthier..*collectively* white people are racist.. If you have a 'system'
that allows and promotes racist and cruel treatment to a whole group of people
over such a long period of time(oh..let's say 400+ years for the sake of this
example), them they are racist to the *core*.


>$ Many Black people are. The problem then, is racism.
>$Remember, white people are doing alot to solve the problem of
>$racism, they are partners with blacks, equally, in the solution.
>$If you are looking for an example of this, remember Jimmy Carter.
>$Also, the guy who taped the Rodney King Beating was white, and angry
>$about the beating. He diplomatically used the beating tape against the
>$LAPD.

*hysterical laugher* You *have* to be kidding. What are white people doing..
more importantly..*what have White people done* to solve the problem of racism?
Cut jobs? Present the problems of AmeriKKKa as a result of Blak people being on
welfare and drugs? You find select weak examples to try to prove yourself.
Jimmy Carter, just like any figure-head president has no power to change
the condition of oppression in AmeriKKKa because the people who pull his
strings benefit the most from racism..namely corporate AmeriKKKa.

If I was poor and white in AmeriKKKa, I think I would be irrate because
I was *white* AND *poor* in AmeriKKKa. A lot to ponder about.


>$Like I said two postings ago, pointing the finger at another race
>$will not solve it. You will only alienate the many members of that
>$race that are working with blacks for the solution. Rich people suppress
>$poor people but white people do not suppress black people.

>And where is this fantasy world you're livin in? Please tell me. You mean
>to say that the deterioration of all inner city neighborhoods was a mistake?
>You mean to tell me that everytime some cracker jack calls me a nigger, that's
>just an oversight? How about companies looking over qualified blacks to
>keep the white collar work force just that--white? That's all a mistake, huh?
>And how about last week where an FBI agent was suspended for requiring a
>black lawyer to submit a footprint for the background check? You're tellin
>me that all of that isn't suppression? You one-track-mind-havin backwood
>woodchuck motherf*($#&(!! You gotta be out of your f*ckin mind!!

When did white people stop suppressing Blak people? Im interested in
your views.

>$Stereotyping is ugly, and I notice that you halfway caught yourself
>$with a weak half-disclaimer....

>$Quick..... trivia question.....
>$
>$ Who has the better Civil rights record...
>$
>$ Jimmy Carter.....
>$ ...or.......... SILLY BIGOT SISTAH? :)

Someone has really done a good job on your brain. In the first place,
Civil Rights is a joke. They are more like Civil Wrongs. Anytime a
white man can give you some legislation on some paper, he can turn around
and take it back and give you some more. And the recent actions of the
Supreme Devil...er, Court support me wholeheartedly.

Why don't you write in Jimmy Carter for president if he is all that
godly to you? *laugh*

>I don't know, but why don't you give me some of the shit you been smokin,
>because it's obvious you're on some good drugs. "White people don't suppress
>black people", indeed!

>Malcolm Diallo Moore, Gangsta N-- I mean, Honeywell SSDC Student Intern
>mmo...@orion.ssdc.honeywell.com (if you reply to my posts use these addresses)
>mmo...@fred.ssdc.honeywell.com 3660 Technology Dr, Rm 2330, Mpls, MN 55418
>Disclaimer: If I spoke for Honeywell I'd be embarrassin em wit mah vernacular.

--
BLAKNESS*BLAKNESS*BLAKNESS*BLAKNESS*BLAKNESS*BLAKNESS
Mr. Christopher L. Gray * Blak Kings and Queens
cl...@ra.MsState.edu * Come Forth!
BLAKNESS*BLAKNESS*BLAKNESS*BLAKNESS*BLAKNESS*BLAKNESS

Greg Gross

unread,
Jul 19, 1992, 1:37:16 AM7/19/92
to
sla...@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle) writes:

>
> But if even that isn't sufficient for you, then I will try to
> state it plainly. Anyone, you or me or John or anyone else, who
> advances the proposition that someone deserves some sort of
> treatment, specifically pain in this case, because of their
> skin color is a racist.
>
> Is that clear enough for you?

> ----
> Mark E. Slagle PO Box 61059
> sla...@lmsc.lockheed.com Sunnyvale, CA 94088
> 408-756-0895 USA

Ah, Mark. Just when I was afraid you might not show up...

You're perfectly clear. Transparent, even. Also wrong.

Having experienced 40 years worth of racism myself, I would not
casually wish it upon anyone else...not even you.

On the other hand, a lot of non-whites have been trying to explain to a lot
of whites why they should not be racist and the harm that racism does, with
little apparent effect. So, since we cannot seem to get through verbally to
those white who are racist, or who exhibit racism toward others, it is
not a faffetched idea to wish that such people could experience the
problem firsthand from the other side.

In other words, Mark, this has less to do with their color than it does
with their attitudes and the conduct that stems from them.

In other words, Mark, if those doing such harm to us could experience that
harm on the receiving end, maybe it would open their eyes...and even make
them stop.

Now there's a radical, racist concept for you, Mark.

As for the cheap insults, my apologies. Maybe if I shop at better stores...
G.

Larry Kolodney

unread,
Jul 19, 1992, 9:54:58 PM7/19/92
to
In <clg1.71...@Ra.MsState.Edu> cl...@Ra.MsState.Edu (Chris "deephouse" Gray) writes:


Excuse me? When did Sister Souljah ever have the white folx 'seal of
approval'?

The day she signed her recording contract with a Warner, or RCA or
Columbia Records (or whoever).


Don't you think its a contradiction, Chris, that all this allegedly
revolutionary and blak-empowering hip-hop music is sold by large white
and Asian owned multinational corporations?

Do you really think THEY feel threatened by it? (Yeah, they're
shivering all the way to the bank).


--
larry kolodney:(l...@panix.com)
_(*#&)#*&%)@(*^%_!*&%^!)*&#+!*&$+!?&%+!*&^_)*&#%)*&^%#+&
The past is not dead, it's not even past. - Wm. Faulkner

Daniel Fu

unread,
Jul 19, 1992, 11:32:59 PM7/19/92
to

>Well, I am not assuming what anyone will say. Least of all you. As to what
>others will say, all I can refer to is the number of letters I have received,
>from people of varying ethnicity, who support me in my stand of abolishing all
>discrimination period. It is firmly my belief that the only way people are
>going to get along is if instead of every ethnic group crying "me too!" when
>the preferences are handed out, and continually alienating other groups,
>people should work towards a world where people are judged on the basis of
>their words and actions and the contents of their heart and mind, not the
>color of their skin or the name of the god they pray to.

>The first step towards this goal is to stop highlighting the differences
>between people and start highlighting the similarities. Its as simple as
>saying "I want an end to all racism" instead of "I want an end to all white
>racism".

>I encourage everyone who has a view on this matter to post their opinion.

Well, I think I understand your point, and I used to think like that
too. However, I do believe that certain ethnic groups were treated
unfairly in the past. If you honestly feel that you have not
benefitted at all from, e.g., the enslavement of AfAms, the Native
Americans pushed off territories, and you feel that did not (in any
way) affect their current status today, then you're entitled to your
protests.

Now of course everybody's going to agree with such statements as "I
want an end to all racism," but that's meaningless; racism will always
exist so long as some "group" feels cheated by another (LA riots,
Japan bashing, Nazis, whatever). Talk is cheap. It always comes down
to "Who's going to pay for all this?" If you want to end racism, then
what are you going to do about it? Give your job/school to someone
else? Pay more taxes? Tell everybody to pull their own weight?
Convince everybody that life is very unfair and should be accepted as
such?

If you want to stop affirmative action (as I do), then something has
to replace it. With affirmative action we can at least say an attempt
is being made. Destruction without substitution won't make anything
better. That's for sure. Unfortunately, that's what most dissenters
of affirmative action usually advocate.

Dan

--------------------------------------
Daniel Fu dan...@cs.uchicago.edu

Tom Tedrick

unread,
Jul 20, 1992, 6:51:48 AM7/20/92
to
->However, I do believe that certain ethnic groups were treated
->unfairly in the past.

*ALL* "ethnic groups" have been treated unfairly in the past.
All through history man has been exploiting man. One group
invades, enslaves, and steals the land of another. Then a new
group comes along and repeats the process, in an endless spiral
of devastation, destruction, and death.

The current scam in America is "victimization": whine and
complain about how you are more entitled to other peoples
money than anyone else, because of your sad tale of being
an innocent victim ravaged by evil barbarians from hell.
How much $$$ will it take to buy you off?

--
"The Roman army was exterminated almost to a man by Arminius's Germans, the very
enemy Rome had always slaughtered like cattle. The captured were buried alive,
crucified, or offered up as sacrifices to the Gods. Years later Germanicus found
there whitening bones, limbs of horses, and human skulls fixed upon the trees."

Peter Westhagen

unread,
Jul 20, 1992, 1:34:31 PM7/20/92
to
fra...@seq.uncwil.edu (william carter franklin) writes:

>cl...@nynexst.com (Clare Chu Ayala) writes:

>>In article <1992Jul16.2...@seq.uncwil.edu> fra...@seq.uncwil.edu (william carter franklin) writes:
>>>>the point of admitting adulturous affairs, but not inhaling marijuana (I
>>>>can't beleive the dude hasn't smoked pot). So why don't I trust him.
>>>
>>>>Hmmmm...

>> Hmmmm... maybe he's allergic to it. I know that I have asthma
>> and I would never inhale marijuana or tobacco. I also know that
>> a friend of mine says you have to be "taught" how to inhale and
>> swallow smoke. So it's possible he just faked it to be cool.
>> Which is another reason not to trust him, right? :-)

>I think you are responding to a response that I wrote to the same quote.
>I did not write any of this. I support the Clinton/Gore ticket as well,

> William Carter Franklin

> (blah, blah, blah)

The orgional >>>> as a follow up to WCF's article...


--
O))~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~O))
Peter Nicholas Westhagen ch...@mowgli.cqs.washington.edu

"You can make a change, if you accept the blame"-Funkadelic (PBUT)
O))~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~O))

william carter franklin

unread,
Jul 20, 1992, 4:56:11 PM7/20/92
to
mmo...@orion.ssdc.honeywell.com ("Mastah of Dizziness") writes:


>Why must you always refer to Sister Souljah as "Silly Bigot Sistah?"
>It certainly doesn't make her look bad, it's annoying and it makes _you_
>look stupid.


SILLY BIGOT SISTAH is a SILLY BIGOT SISTAH. She is NO WISE MAN's
(or WOMAN'S) leader. I am prepared to defend my position on Lisa
Williamson as soon as an intellegent person asks me to. So far
that has not happened, but in case you meet someone with an intellegence
quotient above fifty, here is why:

She perpetuates racism with her hatred towards white people, many
of whom are working their asses off to help solve the problem.
What are you doing about the problem, besides calling me names?
(Later in posting). Alot of good YOU are towards the solution. (NOT).

>$Clinton is the man in 1992. Do you think Bush cares about people?

>No, I _know_ Bush don't care about people. But what makes you think
>Clinton is "the man in 1992?"

His positions on bigotry (adamantly AGAINST).
His positions on education (HEAD START)
His positions on responsibility (DEADBEAT DADS, WELFARE, AUTONOMY,
EMPLOYMENT EQUAL RIGHTS....etc.)
His position on abortion (SAFE, LEGAL AND RARE)
His positions on spending(SPEND IT HERE ON THE CITIES AND TOWNS, NOT
ON FOREIGN BULLSHIT)


>$And as for the rich man in the Mercedes, or whatever, you seem to
>$insinuate that white people are rarely VICTIMS of racism.

>That's because they are rarely victims of racism, if at all.

>$That is not
>$so. If the test scores of my peers were raised by the grader to
>$be higher than mine and I was passed over for a job, I would feel
>$like a victim, just like the white fireman who recently filed a
>$lawsuit did.

>Okay, now in the two hours it took you to think up that one instance of
>"racism" (which it really ain't) I can think of at least 25 instances of
>racism not only to me, but toward my peers.

Please post them. What is your obsession with TWO HOURS, is that how
long YOU spend on research? That was an example that just came to
mind when in the discussion mode about stereotypical racism.
I do not appreciate the mercedes stereotype. All white people are not
rich. Most aren't. And most white people are not racist either.
White people are fighting for civil rights vehemently and daily.


>$Racism is not the solution to racism. That is why
>$SILLY BIGOT SISTAH has lost the respect of almost everyone who has
>$heard her speak.

>No, the reason why Sister Souljah lost the respect of everybody was because
>she was misquoted by the media and dissed by Clinton.

Not so. People know what her message is. She can not change it now
that we the people have heard it and decided that it is bullshit.
And neither can any of her Bigot Followers (you?). Time will tell.

>$She says that there are no Black people on the face
>$of the earth that are racist. That is bullshit.

>Fool, no it ain't. There are some blacks who have prejudices, I will agree.

Then it IS bullshit. Make up your mind. Then who played the fool?

>$She also says that
>$Blacks can not be racist because they lack the economic power to
>$supress whites. That is also bullshit.

>Fool, no it _ain't_. Let me ask you like this: When was the last time you
>saw some black-owned company that was in a position to start withholding your
>paychecks? Oh I didn't think you could answer that one. When was the last
>time you saw some black government body telling you what you could and could
>not do? Ohhh! I didn't think you could answer that question.

Please tell me how much economic power it takes to be violent. If
you read things carefully and listen to what I am saying, you will
understand that my point is that it does not take economic power
to suppress. If so, look at an even smaller American Minority..
the Asian Americans. They have tremendous economic power because
they have WORKED HARD and gotten EDUCATED WELL, but they do not
systematically use their economical power to suppress any race
in the United States systematically. The point was that SILLY
BIGOT SISTAH said that "Blacks can not be racist because they
lack the economic power to suppress whites" and that IS BULLSHIT.
Forgive the double-entendre that goes with any response to this, but
I must stress my point to you again...Blacks can and are racist against
whites too, regardless of their economical status. What do you call
violence. It is the ultimate in oppression. It is also foolish.
Why the focus on money? Do all Bigots think that it takes money
to be thought of as an oppressor?

>$All black people are NOT
>$poor. And all white people are not rich. All white people are
>$not racist.

>I'll agree wit you here, after I switch some wording around. I don't know
>if you was just trying to be slick or what, but I just KNOW you meant
>"Not all black people are poor" and "Not all white people are rich", etc.

Yes, that is correct, thank you.

>$ Many Black people are. The problem then, is racism.
>$Remember, white people are doing alot to solve the problem of
>$racism, they are partners with blacks, equally, in the solution.
>$If you are looking for an example of this, remember Jimmy Carter.
>$Also, the guy who taped the Rodney King Beating was white, and angry
>$about the beating. He diplomatically used the beating tape against the
>$LAPD.

>So here's two examples. In the two hours it took you to think up those
>two examples, I can think of many contrary examples. You seem to think
>that everybody is saying that it all goes one way. Well it doesn't, but
>it is a LOT more lopsided that you would ever hope to perceive here.


Again I ask what your obsession is with TWO HOURS. Is that how long
it took you to read my excellent posting? I notice that you did concede
that these were examples of white people serving civil rights. Why did
you criticize white people by the implication that these were so few
and far between? That is simply not true. These examples came quickly
to mind and there are thousands more where they came from. Also,
it is important to point these out and praise them, unless maybe
you do not want to work for civil rights. What HAVE you done lately,
besides foster this hatred toward white people?

>$Like I said two postings ago, pointing the finger at another race
>$will not solve it. You will only alienate the many members of that
>$race that are working with blacks for the solution. Rich people suppress
>$poor people but white people do not suppress black people.


>And where is this fantasy world you're livin in? Please tell me. You mean
>to say that the deterioration of all inner city neighborhoods was a mistake?
>You mean to tell me that everytime some cracker jack calls me a nigger, that's
>just an oversight? How about companies looking over qualified blacks to
>keep the white collar work force just that--white? That's all a mistake, huh?

Please post examples of these, unless it takes you TWO HOURS so to do.


>And how about last week where an FBI agent was suspended for requiring a
>black lawyer to submit a footprint for the background check? You're tellin
>me that all of that isn't suppression? You one-track-mind-havin backwood
>woodchuck motherf*($#&(!! You gotta be out of your f*ckin mind!!

Your vulgarity and name calling signify that you are frustrated.
Get an education. Then we will talk.


Quick..... trivia question.....

Who has the better Civil rights record...

Jimmy Carter.....
...or.......... SILLY BIGOT SISTAH? :-/ ??


Any one else out there want a try?

william carter franklin

unread,
Jul 20, 1992, 5:46:18 PM7/20/92
to
cl...@Ra.MsState.Edu (Chris "deephouse" Gray) writes:

>mmo...@orion.ssdc.honeywell.com ("None of ya Bizness") writes:

>>In article <1992Jul16.2...@seq.uncwil.edu> fra...@seq.uncwil.edu (william carter franklin) writes:

>>$Does SS escapades refer to the SILLY BIGOT SISTAH? SBS capades.
>>$If so, that's the best stuff Clinton has ever said. She is no wise
>>$man's leader.

>>Why must you always refer to Sister Souljah as "Silly Bigot Sistah?"
>>It certainly doesn't make her look bad, it's annoying and it makes _you_
>>look stupid.

>Malcolm, it should make you laugh when you here titles like that.
>When I see people using titles like that, it only lets me know that that's
>the only thing that they can dig up against the person that they are slandering.
>On IRC, as of late, there is this white girl who comes on our channel
>typing things like "Is this the nigger channel? You are all silly
>niggers..Niggers..thinking they can vote their way out of things..Commie


BLAH BLAH BLAH...


You are just upset because an intelligent person, who has a RIGHT
to his opinion disagrees with you. SO pile on the racist labels....
Lisa Williamson is a BIGOT and I call it like it is....


How foolish and close minded of you to insinuate my race, or to
insinuate that I am racist just because I disagree with SILLY BIGOT
SISTAH! You like to label people it seems. My opinion is based on
the things she has said. You sound just as ignorant as you display
your preconceptions of me that are unfounded.

I think a violin, or a string quartet should have come with the
rest of your ridiculous posting. Whaaaaaaaa Whaaaaa I'm BLAAACK!!!!!
WHaaaaaaaa MOOOooommmmy Whaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!! I am A BLACK MAN...!!!!!!!!!
POOOOOrr supressed me.


POOOOoooorrr meeeee. EEEEverybody supresses me. WHHAAAAAAAAAAAaaaa.
Missed opportunities are all Whitey's fault. WHaaaaaaaa.
The inner cities that alot of Black young men sell drugs in and
alot of black young men vandalize are now in ruins and its all
whitey's fault. Blame Blame Blame. Them they Them...WHAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaa


>>$Clinton is the man in 1992. Do you think Bush cares about people?

>>No, I _know_ Bush don't care about people. But what makes you think
>>Clinton is "the man in 1992?"

>Clinton and no BLAH BLAH BLAH jack shit for anyone, but the
>white elitist WAAaaaaaaaaaaa goes for any
>figure-head sniff......blame 'power'. As time marches
>on, its becoming the election process


>to make the Blak masses aware that we should be trying *every day* to
>become independent of this 'system'..and that's means separation. If we can't
>elevate ourselves, that means that the white establisment can't fall..(for a
>more *vivid* interpretation...see Minister Louis Farrakhan's lecture on
>"The New World Order"). As anoter brother once said on here, 3 mintutes in
>a voting booth isn't going to alter the condition of Blak people in AmeriKKKa
>in the way that it needs to be done. WE'RE gonna have to do this.


So far all I have seen is violence. Great solution.... NOT!

>>$And as for the rich man in the Mercedes, or whatever, you seem to
>>$insinuate that white people are rarely VICTIMS of racism.

>>That's because they are rarely victims of racism, if at all.

>Racism? White people? Please. You don't even argue with guilt statements like
>that. That's just like comparing the hurt that a Blak child goes through when
>they consider that they live in the projects, are on welfare, and are broke
>(just an example, I'm not saying all Blak and White kids are in this situation)
>to the white kid who gets suicidal over something 'major' like the breakind up
>of Nirvana..or just because they drive a Ford Fiesta Coupe and their friends
>drive a Mustang convertable or something. *laugh*

Thank you for your precious gift, Mister STEREOTYPE. What are you doing
for civil rights? Alot for civil wrongs I see. Racist.

If there was such thing as a STEREOTYPEWRITER....

.............................................YOU would have the patent.

:0


>>$That is not
>>$so. If the test scores of my peers were raised by the grader to

>>$be higher than mine and I was passed over for a job, I would feel
>>$like a victim, just like the white fireman who recently filed a
>>$lawsuit did.

>>Okay, now in the two hours it took you to think up that one instance of
>>"racism" (which it really ain't) I can think of at least 25 instances of
>>racism not only to me, but toward my peers.


(BLAAAAH BLAAH BLAH)

>What was that important verb phrase that you used in that last sentence
>Malcolm? When you're either too insensitive to think(put yourself in someone
>else's position..and I even wonder if this is possible at all) or are incapable of
>it, its easy to use the "we're discriminated against too!" method that
>whassisname used up above.


I think I would pass the sensitivity test long before you bigots, or
your tired spokesgirl SILLY BIGOT SISTAH.


>>$Racism is not the solution to racism. That is why
>>$SILLY BIGOT SISTAH has lost the respect of almost everyone who has
>>$heard her speak.

>>No, the reason why Sister Souljah lost the respect of everybody was because
>>she was misquoted by the media and dissed by Clinton.

>Excuse me? When did Sister Souljah ever have the white folx 'seal of approval'?
>As I recall it, she didn't even exist in white society until she told the
>truth about AmeriKKKa. But what made her different from the other brothas and
>sistas dropping science? She has managed to capture the attention of not only
>a lot of Blak minds, but those of young white minds also. You see, when you
>know that times are about to change your position of power(white ameriKKKa's
>power over darker people) and you don't want to fall, you will do *whatever
>is neccessary* to prevent your downfall. So don't be surprisd when you
>hear things like "a feww of Ross Perot's golphing buddies are protesting
>again XYZ Records because they have a rap artist who has a song about
>Blak caddies killing golphers". And so on...


That is racist bullshit. You discount any and all of the countless
hours a day that millions of white people spend trying to open
opportunities to people of color and poor people too. That is
such a crybaby racist thing to do. You should be ashamed. You
sound like the type of Violent Brotha that thinks that De Force
and De Big City is gonna be a Coup De 'Etat against this
FICTICIOUS white supremacy. Go after the KKK, since they are
your white counterparts, but leave America _out_ of this.


The rest of your posting was based on the typical misconception
that it taked economical power to suppress people. True, the rich
suppress the poor. That has always been the case, but look at Asian
Americans, an even smaller minority ... they have achieved great
success economically in America. My point is that SILLY BIGOT
SISTAH said that NO black people are racist and that is BULLSHIT.
She additionally says that the reason behind the fact that no
Black people are racist is their lack of economic power. My point
is that it does not take economical power so to do, and that MANY
black people have found VIOLENCE as a great way to exercize their
racism. Money is NOT the issue here. Racism is ugly, however,
regardless of the medium... even the news network, which makes
you QUITE a Medusa.

>>$All black people are NOT
>>$poor. And all white people are not rich. All white people are
>>$not racist.

>>I'll agree wit you here, after I switch some wording around. I don't know
>>if you was just trying to be slick or what, but I just KNOW you meant
>>"Not all black people are poor" and "Not all white people are rich", etc.

>BUT..and more importantly..*collectively* white people are wealthier. MUCH MORE
>wealthier..*collectively* white people are racist.. If you have a 'system'
>that allows and promotes racist and cruel treatment to a whole group of people
>over such a long period of time(oh..let's say 400+ years for the sake of this
>example), them they are racist to the *core*.

*collectively* we could make alot of ugly statements about each
community. But why be so racist? *COLLECTIVELY*.....
THAT IS JUST A SIGN THAT A STEREOTYPE WILL SOON FOLLOW
If I ever use the word collectively like you do, I hope I am
not being as racist as you are...


Must be that STEREOTYPEWRITER clicking again....


>>$ Many Black people are. The problem then, is racism.
>>$Remember, white people are doing alot to solve the problem of
>>$racism, they are partners with blacks, equally, in the solution.
>>$If you are looking for an example of this, remember Jimmy Carter.
>>$Also, the guy who taped the Rodney King Beating was white, and angry
>>$about the beating. He diplomatically used the beating tape against the
>>$LAPD.


____ accompanied by a HYSTERICAL POSTING (violins)
|
v

>*hysterical laugher* You *have* to be kidding. What are white people doing..
>more importantly..*what have White people done* to solve the problem of racism?
>Cut jobs? Present the problems of AmeriKKKa as a result of Blak people being on
>welfare and drugs? You find select weak examples to try to prove yourself.
>Jimmy Carter, just like any figure-head president has no power to change
>the condition of oppression in AmeriKKKa because the people who pull his
>strings benefit the most from racism..namely corporate AmeriKKKa.

>If I was poor and white in AmeriKKKa, I think I would be irrate because
>I was *white* AND *poor* in AmeriKKKa. A lot to ponder about.

I think you are ignorant about Jimmy Carter. HOW DARE you even
insinuate that corporate AmeriKKKA PULLED Jimmy Carter on strings.
You know nothing, or you have not yet proven otherwise.

Anyone else want to try? Racist Bigoted Blacks need not apply.

Quick..... trivia question.....

Who has the better Civil rights record...

Jimmy Carter.....

Peter Westhagen

unread,
Jul 20, 1992, 6:35:37 PM7/20/92
to
fra...@seq.uncwil.edu (william carter franklin) writes:

>Please post them. What is your obsession with TWO HOURS, is that how
>long YOU spend on research? That was an example that just came to
>mind when in the discussion mode about stereotypical racism.
>I do not appreciate the mercedes stereotype. All white people are not
>rich. Most aren't. And most white people are not racist either.
>White people are fighting for civil rights vehemently and daily.

You see, the "Mercedes stereotype" said nothing about sex, but you
automatically assumed that it was a man, in an earlier post, and now
you seem to assume that the man was white ("all white people are not
rich"). So all your talking about the evils of stereotypes seem to be
mostly words, you do not command a full knowledge of stereotypes, as
you let on, but you simply speak as though you do. This is what I mean
about people who assume themselves to be all knowing ("my intelligence
quotient is sooo high"), when in reality there is so much in this world
that they do not know.

When I made the "Mercedes stereotype", it was supposed to be an anology,
it didn't mean to imply race or sex, in fact I did not imply race or sex.
It was your on stereotyping that made that rich person white and male.
I think making the generalizations 1) that poor know poor better that rich
know poor, and 2) that people of color know racism better than people without
color know racism ;) are far more valid than making the assumption that
mostly white males driver Mercedes.

Do you see my point? Most of you don't even care...

--
O))~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~O))
Peter Nicholas Westhagen ch...@mowgli.cqs.washington.edu

O))~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~O))

Peter Westhagen

unread,
Jul 20, 1992, 6:56:57 PM7/20/92
to

Who has the better Civil rights record...

Wiliam Carter Franklin.....
...or.......... SILLY BIGOT SISTAH?

Warren Watts

unread,
Jul 20, 1992, 7:38:06 PM7/20/92
to
In article <1992Jul20.2...@seq.uncwil.edu> fra...@seq.uncwil.edu

(william carter franklin) writes:
>
>SILLY BIGOT SISTAH is a SILLY BIGOT SISTAH. She is NO WISE MAN's
>(or WOMAN'S) leader. I am prepared to defend my position on Lisa
>Williamson as soon as an intellegent person asks me to. So far
>that has not happened, but in case you meet someone with an intellegence
>quotient above fifty, here is why:
>
>She perpetuates racism with her hatred towards white people, many
>of whom are working their asses off to help solve the problem.
>What are you doing about the problem, besides calling me names?
>(Later in posting). Alot of good YOU are towards the solution. (NOT).
>
Yes, we can all see your commitment to racial harmony as indicated by
your posts on the net. I'd be willing to bet that your hero Slick
Willie would have as much to do with you as he would David Duke. Your
main method of persuasion seems to be ad hominem attacks, and the fact
that malcolm is willing to even communicate with such a blatent
moron as yourself proves that he is working his ass off to help solve
the problem, because it's hard damn work plowing through the mental
mush that you post and make even a semi-intellegent reply to a mental
pigmy who can only argue with insults.

>
>
>>$Like I said two postings ago, pointing the finger at another race
>>$will not solve it. You will only alienate the many members of that
>>$race that are working with blacks for the solution. Rich people suppress
>>$poor people but white people do not suppress black people.
>
I don't know what alternate reality you are living in, but where I'm
at most white people think about race relations any more than they
absolutely have to. Sometimes I think that I am the only one actually
willing to do anything (It seems like a lot of whites who are
concerned would rather worry about self-gratification than actually
get off their butts and do something.) However racist whites are more
than willing to take action, writing racists epitaths, driving by and
calling someone nigger, or murdering a fifteen year old for the color
of his skin.(All of these happened in the area where I am from in
northern California). Now, if you consider what you are doing on the
net as helping to solve the problem I can see why you think most
whites are helping, but with help like that, slavery could be back in
effect in ten years.

Now we come to the stupidist most ridiculous comment you have made
yet...
>WHITE PEOPLE DO NOT SUPPRESS BLACK PEOPLE

Wow, I guess I really had the KKK wrong, they were just going around
burning crosses on POOR peoples front yards, and all those lynchings
had absolutely nothing to do with race. This sure sheds a whole new
light on that slavery thing too, I guess after those rich white
traders took away the african's gold, they were poor, and the traders
with nary a thought to their skin color or race thought "Wow, now
they're poor, let's enslave them." And I guess that mark of Ham thing
I heard in church, was really the mark of poverty not race, which
condemned people to be servants.

I don't know one person, no matter how racist that claims that white
people don't suppress black people. You must be blind deaf and really
stupid.


>
>Get an education. Then we will talk.
>

Malcolm is trying to give you an education, the rest of us just wish
you would shut up. Quit perpetuating the stereotype of the
insensitive liberal white who knows "what's best" for blacks.

>Any one else out there want a try?

I want to try you for being an idiot, can I get twelve angry men (or
women) .....

Warren Watts

None of ya Bizness

unread,
Jul 20, 1992, 10:05:41 PM7/20/92
to
In article <1992Jul20.2...@seq.uncwil.edu> fra...@seq.uncwil.edu (william carter franklin) writes:
$mmo...@orion.ssdc.honeywell.com ("Mastah of Dizziness") writes:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

That's weak. Just shows what you're about. You're so weak, you're funny.

$SILLY BIGOT SISTAH is a SILLY BIGOT SISTAH. She is NO WISE MAN's
$(or WOMAN'S) leader. I am prepared to defend my position on Lisa
$Williamson as soon as an intellegent person asks me to. So far
$that has not happened, but in case you meet someone with an intellegence
$quotient above fifty, here is why:
$
$She perpetuates racism with her hatred towards white people, many
$of whom are working their asses off to help solve the problem.
$What are you doing about the problem, besides calling me names?

And who are these white people working their asses off to help solve the
problem? Where are all these people that are supposedly helping me
have an easier life in Amerikkka? And what the fuck are _YOU_ doing
about the problem, besides putting "blah blah blah", "waaaaaaahh", and
weird faces on people's postings whose opinions contradict yours?

[What makes you think...]$>Clinton is "the man in 1992?"

$His positions on bigotry (adamantly AGAINST).
$His positions on education (HEAD START)
$His positions on responsibility (DEADBEAT DADS, WELFARE, AUTONOMY,
$ EMPLOYMENT EQUAL RIGHTS....etc.)
$His position on abortion (SAFE, LEGAL AND RARE)
$His positions on spending(SPEND IT HERE ON THE CITIES AND TOWNS, NOT
$ ON FOREIGN BULLSHIT)

Now see, I could write "blah blah blah" and put draw ASCII faces within
the body of your post, but obviously I'm a little more mature than that.

That's just bullshit to get you to vote for him. But of course your stupid
ass doesn't realize that he has to talk that game to get into the Oval Office.
Once he gets elected, it'll be "Adamantly against what? Educate what?
Spend what here?"

$>Okay, now in the two hours it took you to think up that one instance of
$>"racism" (which it really ain't) I can think of at least 25 instances of
$>racism not only to me, but toward my peers.
$
$Please post them. What is your obsession with TWO HOURS, is that how
$long YOU spend on research? That was an example that just came to
$mind when in the discussion mode about stereotypical racism.
$I do not appreciate the mercedes stereotype. All white people are not
$rich. Most aren't. And most white people are not racist either.
$White people are fighting for civil rights vehemently and daily.

Okay, smart motherfucker, here you go:

1. Whenever I walk in a department store I get followed around because they
automatically assume I'm going to steal something.

2. I get harassed by police because I'm hangin on the street corner with
my friends.

3. I get denied a job not because I don't have the qualifications, but because
I am black.

4. White people will walk across the street to avoid me.

5. When I worked at the student newspaper when I first entered college, I was
continually tossed racial innuendo and was passed up for advancement.

6. I walk into a restaurant and I'm asked to remove my cap while an entire
baseball team is in the same area, caps on and nobody notices.

7. I'm treated rudely by various customer service personnel, while non-colored
persons behind me get treated normally, if not like kings.

8. I don't even have to mention the number of times I've been called "Nigger."

9. I don't even have to mention the number of times I've been the brunt of
so-called "racial jokes".

10. I don't even have to mention the number of times I've just gone up to
a person to ask them the _fucking_ _time_ and they cringe away from me
like I'm gonna rob 'em.

11. Oh, how about the time a Korean grocer pointed a gun at my head because
I was in the store too long.

12. Of course, there's the Rodney King travesty.

13. The cable company here in Minneapolis does a practice which is supposed
to be illegal: it "redlines 'problem neighborhoods'" and refuses to
provide service to them. Not too coincidental that these exact neighbor-
hoods contain more black people per square mile than any other Minneapolis
neighborhood.

14. 373 years of slavery. Oh yes, slavery continues today.

15. Not just physical slavery, but economical slavery. Neighborhoods left
to crumble, while certain parts of the city are cleaned twice a day.

16. Continual stereotyping of blacks by the media.

17. White people who say black people, as well as all non-white people, are
the cause of all the economical problems in Amerikkka.

18. There have been many incidents of gangs of white people lynching
black me because they did something with a white woman.

19. Since when is a goddam footprint needed for a background check to
become a lawyer?

20. How about being denied a loan for a car while the next non-black
person receives it right away?

21. Welfare.

22. I'm in a department store and I go to exchange something. I better
have every receipt possible and I get sent to the customer service
booth because the cashier "doesn't have enough money in the register."
At 12:00 noon. On a weekday.

23. I wonder why it is that most every time a black person and a white person
start throwin blows, once it's cleared the white person is absolved of
the crime while the black person goes to jail?

24. A Minneapolis police officer was given a medal of honor after shooting
a black suspect in the back.

25. The Minneapolis Police Dept. has long been known for having racial
strife between its black and white officers. Two white cops were
suspended for passing racial death threat notes.

I can continue on, but I won't. If whites are working so hard to stop
racism and such, and you're sitting up here believin it, you probably will
ignore this. But it's only the tip of the fuckin iceberg.

$>No, the reason why Sister Souljah lost the respect of everybody was because
$>she was misquoted by the media and dissed by Clinton.
$
$Not so. People know what her message is. She can not change it now
$that we the people have heard it and decided that it is bullshit.
$And neither can any of her Bigot Followers (you?). Time will tell.

Look first of all, stupid ASS, I never said I was a follower of Sister
Souljah. Let me make that perfectly clear. I happen to agree with parts
of what she says, and I happen to disagree with others. And what is this
"we the people" shit? What, are you an official spokesman for the Consti-
tution now?

$>$She says that there are no Black people on the face
$>$of the earth that are racist. That is bullshit.
$
$>Fool, no it ain't. There are some blacks who have prejudices, I will agree.
$
$Then it IS bullshit. Make up your mind. Then who played the fool?

You one dimensional fool, look at the two words. They have different meanings.
Time for Reality 1101. Prejudice means "unreasoning opinion or dislike."
Racism means "the belief that ones race is superior; the belief that human
abilities are determined by race." Subtle difference, but it's there. Too
bad you can't tell it though.

$Please tell me how much economic power it takes to be violent. If
$you read things carefully and listen to what I am saying, you will
$understand that my point is that it does not take economic power
$to suppress. If so, look at an even smaller American Minority..
$the Asian Americans. They have tremendous economic power because
$they have WORKED HARD and gotten EDUCATED WELL, but they do not
$systematically use their economical power to suppress any race
$in the United States systematically. The point was that SILLY
$BIGOT SISTAH said that "Blacks can not be racist because they
$lack the economic power to suppress whites" and that IS BULLSHIT.
$Forgive the double-entendre that goes with any response to this, but
$I must stress my point to you again...Blacks can and are racist against
$whites too, regardless of their economical status. What do you call
$violence. It is the ultimate in oppression. It is also foolish.
$Why the focus on money? Do all Bigots think that it takes money
$to be thought of as an oppressor?

Of course not. There are many ways one can oppress another. Socially,
and spiritually, as well as economically. If you bombard a person with
propoganda enough, eventually his spirit will weaken and he will accept
anything.

$Again I ask what your obsession is with TWO HOURS.

I don't have any obsession with TWO HOURS, but I can bet that's how long
you were sitting at your terminal with your chin on your hand. You wanna
know why? Because there is little evidence to support your claim
that white people are striving to correct the wrongs their ancestors
have done, and even smaller evidence that black people are racist toward
white people.

$Is that how long
$it took you to read my excellent posting? I notice that you did concede
$that these were examples of white people serving civil rights. Why did
$you criticize white people by the implication that these were so few
$and far between? That is simply not true. These examples came quickly
$to mind and there are thousands more where they came from. Also,
$it is important to point these out and praise them, unless maybe
$you do not want to work for civil rights. What HAVE you done lately,
$besides foster this hatred toward white people?

Okay, so give me some examples then. I obliged to you, you certainly can
oblige to me. I ain't so stupid as to say that whites are doing absolutely
nothing, but your shithead ass can't see that. Of course there are whites
working to solve the problem, but for every white person working to solve
the problem, THERE ARE TWO MORE WHITE PEOPLE WORKING TO CREATE/PERPETUATE
the problem.

$Please post examples of these, unless it takes you TWO HOURS so to do.

No, I'm going to leave it to you to use your brain and think about it, or
are you that blind to what's actually going on? Better yet, are you able
to use your brain, because it's evident that you haven't in your posts so
far.

$>And how about last week where an FBI agent was suspended for requiring a
$>black lawyer to submit a footprint for the background check? You're tellin
$>me that all of that isn't suppression? You one-track-mind-havin backwood
$>woodchuck motherf*($#&(!! You gotta be out of your f*ckin mind!!
$
$Your vulgarity and name calling signify that you are frustrated.
$Get an education. Then we will talk.
$

No, it is _YOU_ who needs the education. Yes I am frustrated. Frustrated
that there are millions of people who think just like you, and consider
themselves "non-racist". You know, I'd rather be talkin to somebody from
the fuckin Klan, at least I know his agenda. People like you, whose
agendae is totally unclear, just make things worse off.

$Any one else out there want a try?

Oh, you seem to think of this as some sort of game show. Well it's kind of
hard to even actually debate with someone who has thoughts as irrational
and immature as yours.

--
Malcolm Diallo Moore, Honeywell/CIS-Univ. of Minn. mmo...@epx.cis.umn.edu
Moore_M...@ssdc.honeywell.com
"Jeeeeah this is the rap about the bat batman he is the one in black like a bat
out of hell he will reveal SCREAMIN DOWN THE ROAD IN A BATMOBILE!!!!!!!"

william carter franklin

unread,
Jul 21, 1992, 12:07:42 PM7/21/92
to
ch...@cqs.washington.edu (Peter Westhagen) writes:


>You see, the "Mercedes stereotype" said nothing about sex, but you
>automatically assumed that it was a man, in an earlier post, and now
>you seem to assume that the man was white ("all white people are not
>rich"). So all your talking about the evils of stereotypes seem to be
>mostly words, you do not command a full knowledge of stereotypes, as
>you let on, but you simply speak as though you do. This is what I mean
>about people who assume themselves to be all knowing ("my intelligence
>quotient is sooo high"), when in reality there is so much in this world
>that they do not know.

>When I made the "Mercedes stereotype", it was supposed to be an anology,
>it didn't mean to imply race or sex, in fact I did not imply race or sex.
>It was your on stereotyping that made that rich person white and male.
>I think making the generalizations 1) that poor know poor better that rich
>know poor, and 2) that people of color know racism better than people without
>color know racism ;) are far more valid than making the assumption that
>mostly white males driver Mercedes.

>Do you see my point? Most of you don't even care...


I care. But "man" refers to person, and usually I catch myself and
say "man or woman" but that becomes tiresome when you do as much
typing and arguing as I do in one day. Please believe that I am the last
person to assume or stereotype. I did NOT assume that it had to be a man
driving that car. "Man" is what God created in his own image and he
made some of us female and some of us male.

And yes you were saying that was a white person listening to Debussy.
Right? Repost PLEASE the exact paragraph with full context if necessary.
I want to be fair about this.

william carter franklin

unread,
Jul 21, 1992, 12:17:10 PM7/21/92
to
ch...@cqs.washington.edu (Peter Westhagen) writes:


> Who has the better Civil rights record...

> Wiliam Carter Franklin.....
> ...or.......... SILLY BIGOT SISTAH?


I mow people's yards for free. I landscaped low income minority yards
for free just last year. I never advocated violence toward another
race of people and will not. My family provided transportation for
the many disgruntled minority students in the neighborhoods that
did not want to ride the bus or even go to school.


What has Lisa done? And what are you doing to help those disgruntled
youngsters and families that are struggling? (You can start by voting
for Clinton).

Tim Pierce

unread,
Jul 21, 1992, 12:33:22 PM7/21/92
to
In article <1992Jul20.2...@seq.uncwil.edu> fra...@seq.uncwil.edu (william carter franklin) writes:

>mmo...@orion.ssdc.honeywell.com ("Mastah of Dizziness") writes:
>
>>Why must you always refer to Sister Souljah as "Silly Bigot Sistah?"
>>It certainly doesn't make her look bad, it's annoying and it makes _you_
>>look stupid.
>
>SILLY BIGOT SISTAH is a SILLY BIGOT SISTAH.

Whether or not that's true, it makes you look silly. Get over
yourself.

--
____ Tim Pierce / "You mean there are TWO of you, Pierce?
\ / twpi...@amherst.edu / God help us all."
\/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / -- Major Charles Emerson Winchester III

william carter franklin

unread,
Jul 21, 1992, 12:33:42 PM7/21/92
to
wat...@ntmtv.UUCP (Warren Watts) writes:

>Yes, we can all see your commitment to racial harmony as indicated by
>your posts on the net. I'd be willing to bet that your hero Slick
>Willie would have as much to do with you as he would David Duke. Your
>main method of persuasion seems to be ad hominem attacks, and the fact
>that malcolm is willing to even communicate with such a blatent
>moron as yourself proves that he is working his ass off to help solve
>the problem, because it's hard damn work plowing through the mental
>mush that you post and make even a semi-intellegent reply to a mental
>pigmy who can only argue with insults.

>Malcolm is trying to give you an education, the rest of us just wish


>you would shut up. Quit perpetuating the stereotype of the
>insensitive liberal white who knows "what's best" for blacks.

>I want to try you for being an idiot, can I get twelve angry men (or
>women) .....

> Warren Watts

First of all, you need to support your argument. And also remember who
is the name caller. I am NOT the name caller of this newsgroup.
If you are not too tired, please reread my postings, and you will see
that the responses that a few people made were where the names were
thrown.

For future reference, SBS = SILLY BIGOT SISTAH.

Also I would like to address your sensitivity statement. If SBS is
your idea of sensitivity, then I hope that I AM insensitive

I would only perpetuate a stereotype about whites to BIGOTED blacks.

Both races have members that suppress others because of their colour.
Whites do NOT hold the principle license of OPPRESSION. Only narrow-
minded Blacks who only think of money see it that way. There are MANY
ways to oppress people. One way is FEAR and another VIOLENCE.


And rich white traders only got African gold because they were over
there buying the slaves. Blacks were selling Blacks every day in
early Africa. Now Blacks are killing Blacks every day in modern America.
I think SBS was rediculous to drag whites into the problem when the
Black just need to stop hurting EACH OTHER.


And by the way, YOU are the name caller ..."blatent moron" I believe
is what you said. How ugly. And just because someone does not agree
with your backwards, narrow minded BIGOTED viewpoints. By the way..
BLATANT is spelled B_L_A_T_A_N_T with another A. Get an education.
THEN we will talk.

Peter Westhagen

unread,
Jul 21, 1992, 1:32:34 PM7/21/92
to
william carter franklin writes:

I care. But "man" refers to person, and usually I catch myself and
say "man or woman" but that becomes tiresome when you do as much
typing and arguing as I do in one day. Please believe that I am the last
person to assume or stereotype. I did NOT assume that it had to be a man
driving that car. "Man" is what God created in his own image and he
made some of us female and some of us male.

And yes you were saying that was a white person listening to Debussy.
Right? Repost PLEASE the exact paragraph with full context if necessary.
I want to be fair about this.

Here's the origional post:

|But I know what your sayin' also, what your were saying was it's pathetic
|to hear whites talk about being the *victims* of racism, as if they
|knew and understood. Right? Be like hearing a rich person ramble on with
|so much feigned compassion on the sad state of the inner cities; rambling
|on through a cellular phone, driving in a mercedes with the windows rolled
|up, AC on, listening to Debussey on their Blaupunkt quad stereo system.

Read *carefully*...
--
O))~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~O))
Peter Nicholas Westhagen ch...@mowgli.cqs.washington.edu respect/listen
"Just because you win the fight don't make you right" - Funkadelic (PBUT)
O))~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~O))

william carter franklin

unread,
Jul 21, 1992, 3:38:30 PM7/21/92
to


mmo...@epx.cis.umn.edu ("None of ya Bizness") writes:

>And who are these white people working their asses off to help solve the
>problem? Where are all these people that are supposedly helping me
>have an easier life in Amerikkka? And what the fuck are _YOU_ doing
>about the problem, besides putting "blah blah blah", "waaaaaaahh", and
>weird faces on people's postings whose opinions contradict yours?

>Okay, smart motherfucker, here you go:

>1. Whenever I walk in a department store I get followed around because they
> automatically assume I'm going to steal something.


That is because in 1991, 70 percent of department store shoplifters
were minorities. If the crow has been in the corn field ruining the
crops, then you watch the crows when they come to roost, and not
the Blue Jays. This is not racist propaganda either. No one wants
anybody to be a shoplifter, it is just the statistics. Wait till I
give you the violent crime statistics for 1991!

>2. I get harassed by police because I'm hangin on the street corner with
> my friends.

On Dawson street here in Wilmington a white person can not even ride
by in a car because the "I'm hangin' on the street corner with my
friends crowd" likes to throw bottles at people's cars who are not
the same colour as they are. (The last lady has had to have plastic
surgery, all because she is white and had to pass through Dawson St.).

>3. I get denied a job not because I don't have the qualifications, but because
> I am black.


It was probably because of your racist, Bigoted, pro_BLACK_anti_white
attitude. I would not hire you either.


>4. White people will walk across the street to avoid me.


In 1991 75 percent of all VIOLENT crimes (crimes classified as violent
are, for example, assault, rape, muggings, etc) were commited by
minorities. The problem is, now Black people walk across the street
to avoid each other too. Can't even trust your own brother anymore.
And the white kids are becoming more violent too. I do not want to
get ugly, but my point is that this has ALL GONE TOO FAR. We will
have to trust each other, and I agree with you that it hurts to have
someone walk across the street to avoid you, but put yourself in the
other persons shoes: they are afraid for their life. And the truck
driver in L.A. who was dragged from his truck and nearly beaten to death
because he was white will neve be the same. Luckily, a Black minister
saved him from the racist bullshit of his brothers. SILLY BIGOT SISTAH
says "yea, they were wise".

>5. When I worked at the student newspaper when I first entered college, I was
> continually tossed racial innuendo and was passed up for advancement.

So was my sister, xcept it was sexual. She is now in her last year of
law school. Women have been oppressed too. Now six congressional seats
are going to be filed by women in the next election.

Plus, in your example, I need to know WHAT THE RACIAL INNUENDO WAS.
And were you passed up for a promotion that you were the most
qualified person for? Or was all of this a figtree of your imagination.

>6. I walk into a restaurant and I'm asked to remove my cap while an entire
> baseball team is in the same area, caps on and nobody notices.


Did you ask the hostess/host/whomever why you were asked to remove
your cap while the uniformed team was allowed the priviledge?
I am sure there is a law in that very restaurant that says BLACK
PEOPLE WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO WEAR CAPS UNLESS THEY ARE ON A BASEBALL
TEAM. (sniff).


>7. I'm treated rudely by various customer service personnel, while non-colored
> persons behind me get treated normally, if not like kings.

You are trying desperately to fill up 25 spaces. Please be specific.
These are stereotypical GENERALITIES and not specific events.
They may even be fig trees (of your imagination).

>8. I don't even have to mention the number of times I've been called "Nigger."

Then don't. I won't mention the many times I am called names either.

>9. I don't even have to mention the number of times I've been the brunt of
> so-called "racial jokes".

If this is all you have to offer as an argument then I will abort
the discussion.

>10.I don't even have to mention the number of times I've just gone upto


>a person to ask them the _fucking_ _time_ and they cringe away from me
>like I'm gonna rob 'em.

See numbers 2, 3, and 4.


>11. Oh, how about the time a Korean grocer pointed a gun at my head because
> I was in the store too long.


The manager of the FAST FARE made me leave the store when I was ten
years old because I was in there too long too. It broke my heart. I
had never stolen anything in my life.


>12. Of course, there's the Rodney King travesty.

Yea, it's a real travesty, by the way, the man that filmed that was
white. If it were not for that one white man, no-one would have
known the truth about the beating. Rodney King, however needs discipline
in my opinion, from his parents or whomever brought him up. I say this
because he thinks he can do whatever he wants to do without consequence.
He was just arrested the other day for driving drunk. That discusts me.
And to think that I took up for him for so long. He needs discipline.
All drunk drivers should get life in prison or a good beating.
Do you know how many children people like Rodney KILL each year?
Thousands! LAPD was still wrong at the time, but Rodney was no angel.
He is a problem. (So are the Simi Valley Bigots, I agree, since those
cops ARE jerks).

>13. The cable company here in Minneapolis does a practice which is supposed
> to be illegal: it "redlines 'problem neighborhoods'" and refuses to
> provide service to them. Not too coincidental that these exact neighbor-
> hoods contain more black people per square mile than any other Minneapolis
> neighborhood.


See number 2. Also remember that YOU said that they redline "problem"
that's PROBLEM neighborhoods. You then pointed out that they were
black neighborhoods. Tell them to behave, then they will not be
identified as PROBLEM neighborhoods. They are NOT labeled problem
neighborhoods because of their race. They are labeled, constitutionally
based on their CRIME RATE which soars. I don't blame the company. Who
wants the extra costs and fear that go along with entering dangerous
crime zones. They can just clean up their act, then expect trust
from the community.


>14. 373 years of slavery. Oh yes, slavery continues today.


Are you a slave? Only to your Black Bigotry I would say. Start working
with people instead of being so resentful. I do not know ANYONE who
owns a slave. That is Black Bigot Propaganda.
Also, remember that it was the tribunal wars between Black tribes in
Early Africa that supplied POW's of the era that were sold to European
traders who came to the coasts of Africa. Blacks were selling Blacks
every day. Today, in America, Blacks are killing Blacks every day.
And Silly Bigot Sistah thinks they should spread their hatred and
be equal opportunity killers.


>15. Not just physical slavery, but economical slavery. Neighborhoods left
> to crumble, while certain parts of the city are cleaned twice a day.

Left to crumble? LEFT TO CRUMBLE? People could take better care of
their environment. But I also feel that you will like this next
statement. We should stop spending 3.3 Billion on Saddam (plus
Billions more in other foreign aid to him in 1990 and the Billions
that went to Russia and also to defend Europe) and spend it on America
and Education. Clinton's plan calls for these reforms. I want what is
best for EVERYONE. Stop this "us and them" shit. Blacks shouldn't have
that "us and them" shit and neither should whites. I am SICK of it.

We are Americans and we better start getting involved in the reforms
that are neccessary for:
1. Education
2. Racial Harmony
3. Technology
4. Environmental Reforms
5. Free market Competitiveness
....etc.

>16. Continual stereotyping of blacks by the media.

....for example? I have heard many stereotypes of whites on this
newsgroup!

The media shows Marion Barry as the crack addict that he is.

>17. White people who say black people, as well as all non-white people, are
> the cause of all the economical problems in Amerikkka.

Yea, all three of them. Like I said, be specific. Who is white that you
know that believes this? You are trting desperately to fill up 25 spaces
and it is starting to show that you are TIRED!!


>18. There have been many incidents of gangs of white people lynching
> black me because they did something with a white woman.

The latest racial violence? The truck driver pulled from his cab
because he was white. Beaten nearly to death. Was he on the jury?
You, by the way, did not give a specific example. "There have been
many incidents" ... sounds like a stereotype is about to follow....


>19. Since when is a goddam footprint needed for a background check to
> become a lawyer?


Is this true? So if you are Black then you MUST give me your footprint
before you can be a lawyer? Yea, right. Sounds like another
misunderstanding blown way out of proportion to me. But I am a fair
person. I would like details. So far, all I have heard about this is:
"Black man had to give footprint before being lawyer.." no facts,
nothing. Only hearsay, and VERY general. You are desperately trying
to fill up those 25! See how many 25 REALLY is now, but our mouth got
us into this, now didn't it.
Post the facts about this one....for now it is only filler.


>20. How about being denied a loan for a car while the next non-black
> person receives it right away?

Another tired old generality with no proof or specificity whatsoever.
You ARE getting closer to 25, but remember, it is QUALITY, not QUANTITY
that I am looking for.....

All of these are generalities. You have no proof,
or no CONCRETE examples, but keep reading and I will give you a
CONCRETE example of racism and discrimination...


How about this?
How about that?


How about it? Who did it happen to? My mother WORKS for GMAC. Caught
your tired ass on this one. The only people they turn down for
loans for vehicles are people who's credit history AND financial
background check indicates that they would not PAY for the vehicle.
There is no check box that says Black or White? Only when you are
trying to get a teaching job. In Florida, they called my first
cousin, who had applied everywhere for a teaching job (She has a
masters degree). They asked if she was Black and she said no.
They then said they could not hire her because they were looking for a
Black person.


>21. Welfare.


Clinton will change it to Workfare. ETC. READ his platform.


>22. I'm in a department store and I go to exchange something. I better
> have every receipt possible and I get sent to the customer service
> booth because the cashier "doesn't have enough money in the register."
> At 12:00 noon. On a weekday.

I am sure they will do a MINISERIES about that one. My mom just went
through the same mess at a local Department store. Change stores.

>23. I wonder why it is that most every time a black person and a white person
> start throwin blows, once it's cleared the white person is absolved of
> the crime while the black person goes to jail?


Bullshit. At Williston Junior High School, Then Principal Arthalia
Williams handled a situation in a racist manner.
A young black student pushed a young white student who was walking
in the hall. He then said "You aint gonna do nothing about it because
I am Black, and Mrs. Williams will take up for me." The young white
man then pushed the other boy off of him and an fight ensued. Mrs.
Williams suspended the white student and let the black student go
back to class.
(I asked seventy five white students if they thought she was racist
and sixty three said yes)

>24. A Minneapolis police officer was given a medal of honor after shooting
> a black suspect in the back.


You did not seem to mention anything about the suspest except his
colour. Is that all you noticed? Was he violent? Was his face turned
to another cop that he was trying to kill? Was he raping someone?
WHAT WERE THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE INCIDENT? I am not trying to
be ugly, but you are doing a TERRIBLE job of SUPPORTING these
claims. QUALITY not QUANTITY. Hope you didn't waste two hours on
that one. Repost with DETAILS so we can discuss, like adults,
whether or not the incident involved racism. I'll wager that if
you were in the policeman's shoes, you would have shot the violent
criminal too. But I will give you another chance to repost these
with details. Until then, and from now on... SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENTS.


>25. The Minneapolis Police Dept. has long been known for having racial
> strife between its black and white officers. Two white cops were
> suspended for passing racial death threat notes.

The ONLY one of 25 with details. So the Minneanpolis (sp?) Police
Department suspended two white cops for passing racial death threat
notes? Good. Hope the two men never work again (until they repent).

>You one dimensional fool, look at the two words. They have different meanings.
>Time for Reality 1101. Prejudice means "unreasoning opinion or dislike."
>Racism means "the belief that ones race is superior; the belief that human
>abilities are determined by race." Subtle difference, but it's there. Too
>bad you can't tell it though.


There is a consuming overlap between racism and prejudice in the example
that we were studying. Reread Please.


>working to solve the problem, but for every white person working to solve
>the problem, THERE ARE TWO MORE WHITE PEOPLE WORKING TO CREATE/PERPETUATE
>the problem.


Uh oh.... more generalities without basis or proof. Surprised you didn't
use that one as one of your 25 winners!! HHAAAAAAhahahahahaa.
Would have made great filler! AAAAAAHHHHahahahahaha.


> Yes I am frustrated. Frustrated

Ought to be...


>that there are millions of people who think just like you, and consider
>themselves "non-racist". You know, I'd rather be talkin to somebody from
>the fuckin Klan, at least I know his agenda. People like you, whose
>agendae is totally unclear, just make things worse off.


Maybe you should join. You seem to think like they do.

william carter franklin

unread,
Jul 21, 1992, 3:51:15 PM7/21/92
to
ch...@cqs.washington.edu (Peter Westhagen) writes:

>Here's the origional post:

>|But I know what your sayin' also, what your were saying was it's pathetic
>|to hear whites talk about being the *victims* of racism, as if they
>|knew and understood. Right? Be like hearing a rich person ramble on with
>|so much feigned compassion on the sad state of the inner cities; rambling
>|on through a cellular phone, driving in a mercedes with the windows rolled
>|up, AC on, listening to Debussey on their Blaupunkt quad stereo system.

>Read *carefully*...


It is implied, but that is only in MY opinion. That is my response
to your gracious repost. There seems to be an esoteric shift from
white to both white AND rich, both being mutually inclusive.


Read it and notice the shift from white to mercedes. It seems
to imply the association, but I must be fair and admit that you DID NOT
actually verbally say that it was a white man driving the mercedes.

Steven Stovall

unread,
Jul 21, 1992, 4:43:07 PM7/21/92
to
fra...@seq.uncwil.edu (william carter franklin) writes:

>If the crow has been in the corn field ruining the

^^^^


>crops, then you watch the crows when they come to roost

I think the chickens have come home to roost on that one, Jim.

_______________________________________________________________________________

steven stovall
sto...@exeter.cs.ucla.edu
(310) 825-7307

Chris deephouse Gray

unread,
Jul 21, 1992, 5:04:51 PM7/21/92
to
fra...@seq.uncwil.edu (william carter franklin) writes:

>BLAH BLAH BLAH...

Oh brutha...

>You are just upset because an intelligent person, who has a RIGHT
>to his opinion disagrees with you. SO pile on the racist labels....
>Lisa Williamson is a BIGOT and I call it like it is....

And where is this intelligent person? I'm certainly not replying to
him or it right now. Frankly, I couldn't care less about what goes
through your brain.


>How foolish and close minded of you to insinuate my race, or to
>insinuate that I am racist just because I disagree with SILLY BIGOT
>SISTAH! You like to label people it seems. My opinion is based on
>the things she has said. You sound just as ignorant as you display
>your preconceptions of me that are unfounded.

Be you Blak, White, or whatever brand of Mutt you are,
the point is that you are pathetic. It's obvious that you are
the ignorant one. You see, your mind is so programmed that all
UnKKKle Sam has to do is execute a few commands on his remote
to control you. More on this in the posting...

[rediculous garbage..typical of the source..deleted]

>>Clinton and no BLAH BLAH BLAH jack shit for anyone, but the
>>white elitist WAAaaaaaaaaaaa goes for any
>>figure-head sniff......blame 'power'. As time marches
>>on, its becoming the election process
>>to make the Blak masses aware that we should be trying *every day* to
>>become independent of this 'system'..and that's means separation. If we can't
>>elevate ourselves, that means that the white establisment can't fall..(for a
>>more *vivid* interpretation...see Minister Louis Farrakhan's lecture on
>>"The New World Order"). As anoter brother once said on here, 3 mintutes in
>>a voting booth isn't going to alter the condition of Blak people in AmeriKKKa
>>in the way that it needs to be done. WE'RE gonna have to do this.

Ooh! You know how you use an editor! *aplause* What was that about
if a bunch of monkeys were given typewriters they couldn't..etc.?

>So far all I have seen is violence. Great solution.... NOT!

I think that's all your mind(with UnKKKle Sam's hands on the remote)
is allowed to fabricate. Violence is only successfull when it is used
wisely. *recognizes shock on people's faces*

>>Racism? White people? Please. You don't even argue with guilt statements like
>>that. That's just like comparing the hurt that a Blak child goes through when
>>they consider that they live in the projects, are on welfare, and are broke
>>(just an example, I'm not saying all Blak and White kids are in this situation)
>>to the white kid who gets suicidal over something 'major' like the breakind up
>>of Nirvana..or just because they drive a Ford Fiesta Coupe and their friends
>>drive a Mustang convertable or something. *laugh*

>Thank you for your precious gift, Mister STEREOTYPE.

The pleasure was mine.



>What are you doing
>for civil rights? Alot for civil wrongs I see. Racist.

I'm *certainly* not sitting around with my thumb in my ass like some of us.
You see, I'm not the typical Knee-Grow Franky-boy..that old mind game
of asking me what I'm doing is moot. And do you really think it hurts my
feelings because you called me a Racist? You're so pathetic.
Personally, I don't believe in Civil Rights(Wrongs). Like I said,
why the hell would I crawl to the OPPRESSOR to ask for justice when
he is the one in the wrong in the first place? If you want to call it
violent, but I prefer common sense, so be it. Either way, the agenda
shall be addressed.

>If there was such thing as a STEREOTYPEWRITER....

>.............................................YOU would have the patent.

Your mind is on the plane of a child's..hell no, I give a child a little
more credit. You're pathetic..back in your crib, child!


> :0

>(BLAAAAH BLAAH BLAH)

*gives the child a bottle of Similac*

>I think I would pass the sensitivity test long before you bigots, or
>your tired spokesgirl SILLY BIGOT SISTAH.

What test? Is that another one of Sam's contraptions? Figures.
And you can save your time with the slams against Souljah.
I get the point, I *know* you're pathetic. You don't get me mad
child, because I realize you're from the ignorant. And if I am on my
way to completing 360 degrees of power, of course you're going to do
whatever you can to hold me back..its the nature of the beast.

>That is racist bullshit. You discount any and all of the countless
>hours a day that millions of white people spend trying to open
>opportunities to people of color and poor people too.

That's because those *efforts* don't amount to jack shit.
You are out of your mind. If literally millions of good ole white
folx were trying to help with the solution, we wouldn't be in the situation
we're in today. But since you're such a pathetic entity, you couldn't
possibly comprehend it.

>That is
>such a crybaby racist thing to do. You should be ashamed. You
>sound like the type of Violent Brotha that thinks that De Force
>and De Big City is gonna be a Coup De 'Etat against this
>FICTICIOUS white supremacy. Go after the KKK, since they are
>your white counterparts, but leave America _out_ of this.

*waves AmeriKKKan flags*.....NOTTTTTTTTTTTTtttttt EVVVVVVVVVVVVVVER
NeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!

*is laughing hysterically* You're afraid. I can feel it.
Either that, or you're a comedian who doesn't recognize the potential
lucrative career you could be enjoying. You've been making me
laugh all the post. If you would like to paint me that color, so
be it. The further removed from the truth, the better..Isn't that
right Franky-boy?


>The rest of your posting was based on the typical misconception
>that it taked economical power to suppress people. True, the rich
>suppress the poor. That has always been the case, but look at Asian
>Americans, an even smaller minority ...

Whoa..back it up..easy..back it up.. Let me address this point you
finally made. There are several reasons why our Asian brothas are
prospering. I will provide some of them....you know..reasons..oh I forgot
Sam won't let you comprehend those. *laugh*

First of all, many of the Asians here have a vast amount ofknowledge about their
culture and their true historical standings. Many of them are bi-lingual.
They are *not* dependent on the white man for methods of producing.
NO OTHER PEOPLE IN THE WORLD have experienced what Blaks in AmeriKKKa
have. So any other comparisons are null and void. And Franky,
we are not 'minorities'...we outnumber the caucasian 12 to 1 on the
planet Earth. Just though I'd let you know.

>they have achieved great
>success economically in America.

You know why? Because collectively they have refused to assimilate
with this society. Many of them are proud of their heritage and are able
to see White AmeriKKKa for what it really is. As far as the Japanese are
concerned, many of them have not forgetten when Sam dropped a bomb on their
people..a predominately Christian community at that.

>My point is that SILLY BIGOT
>SISTAH said that NO black people are racist and that is BULLSHIT.

Your point is on your head.

>She additionally says that the reason behind the fact that no
>Black people are racist is their lack of economic power. My point
>is that it does not take economical power so to do, and that MANY
>black people have found VIOLENCE as a great way to exercize their
>racism. Money is NOT the issue here. Racism is ugly, however,
>regardless of the medium... even the news network, which makes
>you QUITE a Medusa.

How the HELL do you know what it takes? You have no idea
and you have proven this well. You are so pathetic.
And *frank*ly if you would prefer to waddle in your own shit,
so be it.

>*collectively* we could make alot of ugly statements about each
>community. But why be so racist? *COLLECTIVELY*.....
>THAT IS JUST A SIGN THAT A STEREOTYPE WILL SOON FOLLOW
>If I ever use the word collectively like you do, I hope I am
>not being as racist as you are...

Shit Franky, I'm not even in this race.


>Must be that STEREOTYPEWRITER clicking again....

Must be those fumes from your ass circulating once again...


>>*hysterical laugher* You *have* to be kidding. What are white people doing..
>>more importantly..*what have White people done* to solve the problem of racism?
>>Cut jobs? Present the problems of AmeriKKKa as a result of Blak people being on
>>welfare and drugs? You find select weak examples to try to prove yourself.
>>Jimmy Carter, just like any figure-head president has no power to change
>>the condition of oppression in AmeriKKKa because the people who pull his
>>strings benefit the most from racism..namely corporate AmeriKKKa.

>>If I was poor and white in AmeriKKKa, I think I would be irrate because
>>I was *white* AND *poor* in AmeriKKKa. A lot to ponder about.

>I think you are ignorant about Jimmy Carter. HOW DARE you even
>insinuate that corporate AmeriKKKA PULLED Jimmy Carter on strings.
>You know nothing, or you have not yet proven otherwise.

You are just plain IGNANT. not ignorant..IGNANT Just when I think
you have reached the extremes of ignorance you show me that
their are other limits. Jimmy Carter had no real power like
all the rest of the presidents.

>Anyone else want to try? Racist Bigoted Blacks need not apply.

Try what? To show you that you pathetic?
You're wonderful with your adjectives Franky.
Who'd you steal those from?

And fuck that silly non-trivial gaga. You've wasted enough of
my time as it is.

Chris deephouse Gray

unread,
Jul 21, 1992, 5:52:36 PM7/21/92
to
ch...@cqs.washington.edu (Peter Westhagen) writes:

It's certainly not Franky boy.

Arthur Johnson

unread,
Jul 21, 1992, 6:49:53 PM7/21/92
to
In article <clg1.71...@Ra.MsState.Edu> cl...@Ra.MsState.Edu (Chris
"deephouse" Gray) writes:
> fra...@seq.uncwil.edu (william carter franklin) writes:
>
> >they [asian Americans] have achieved great

> >success economically in America.
>
> You know why? Because collectively they have refused to assimilate
> with this society. Many of them are proud of their heritage and are able
> to see White AmeriKKKa for what it really is. As far as the Japanese
are
> concerned, many of them have not forgetten when Sam dropped a bomb on
their
> people..a predominately Christian community at that.
>
In the past, perhaps, but personal observation and the few studies
I've read strongly suggest to me that asian Americans are rapidly dropping
their ancestral heritage/group identity in favor of total integration
(even assimilation) into American society, e.g. I read a study that
reported that 90% of japanese Americans have intermarried with white
Americans by the third generation. That's pretty high. I don't know what
the precise numbers are for other asian American groups, but judging from
all the asian/white couples on this campus, I wouldn't be surprised if
they are quite high as well.

>
> --
> BLAKNESS*BLAKNESS*BLAKNESS*BLAKNESS*BLAKNESS*BLAKNESS
> Mr. Christopher L. Gray * Blak Kings and Queens
> cl...@ra.MsState.edu * Come Forth!
> BLAKNESS*BLAKNESS*BLAKNESS*BLAKNESS*BLAKNESS*BLAKNESS

Arthur Johnson
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Department of Chemistry
joh...@whitewater.chem.wisc.edu

Warren Watts

unread,
Jul 21, 1992, 5:52:36 PM7/21/92
to
In article <1992Jul21....@seq.uncwil.edu> fra...@seq.uncwil.edu

(william carter franklin) writes:
>
>
>First of all, you need to support your argument.

Which argument am I not supporting?

> And also remember who
>is the name caller. I am NOT the name caller of this newsgroup.
>If you are not too tired, please reread my postings, and you will see
>that the responses that a few people made were where the names were
>thrown.

You are most definately the original name caller, Bigot is a name, and
racist is a name, and both are considered insults. I do not recall
you disagreeing with Sister Souljah for racist comments and views, but
instead you judged her a BIGOT, apparently you believe yourself gifted
with the ability to see into the hearts of people you have never met
and judge their hearts.

>
>For future reference, SBS = SILLY BIGOT SISTAH.
>
>Also I would like to address your sensitivity statement. If SBS is
>your idea of sensitivity, then I hope that I AM insensitive

Sister Souljah does not have the stated objective of promoting racial
harmony, she claims to be uplifting her people, and there is some
evidence that she has done this in voter registration drive etc, I see
absolutely no evidence of you promoting racial harmony, in fact you
are doing the opposite of what you claim to want to do.

>
>I would only perpetuate a stereotype about whites to BIGOTED blacks.
>

Maybe I wasn't quite clear, what I meant was that by continuing with
your moronic spew, you are a prime example of the typical White
Liberal.

Typical White Liberal

The Typical White Liberal views race relations without taking into
consideration the benefits he has gained by being a member of a race
that has practiced organised racist oppression for over five hundred
years.

The typical White Liberal feels that the bandaid of 20 years
of Affirmative Action makes up for the mortal wound of over five
hundred years of oppression, because he no longer feels guilty.

The Typical White Liberal claims not to be racist, yet his remarks
continually contain unconcious paternalistic racist content.

The Typical White Liberal claims to want racial harmony, but what he
really wants is racial harmony where his privileged position is
maintained.

The Typical White Liberal is not afraid to tell blacks what they need
to do to end racism, but is fears telling his white friends what they
should do because he 'might offend them.'

The Typical White Liberal thinks it is political courage to comment on
the leaky faucet of black racism, while he remains silent about the
flooded river of white racism.

You are a typical White Liberal.

>Both races have members that suppress others because of their colour.
>Whites do NOT hold the principle license of OPPRESSION.

No, but in this society they are the principal oppressors.

>Only narrow-
>minded Blacks who only think of money see it that way. There are MANY
>ways to oppress people. One way is FEAR and another VIOLENCE.
>
>
>And rich white traders only got African gold because they were over
>there buying the slaves. Blacks were selling Blacks every day in
>early Africa. Now Blacks are killing Blacks every day in modern America.
>I think SBS was rediculous to drag whites into the problem when the
>Black just need to stop hurting EACH OTHER.
>

Once again the Typical White Liberal is unafraid to tell blacks what
they need to do but lack the courage to do something in their own
community.

>And by the way, YOU are the name caller ..."blatent moron" I believe
>is what you said. How ugly. And just because someone does not agree
>with your backwards, narrow minded BIGOTED viewpoints. By the way..
>BLATANT is spelled B_L_A_T_A_N_T with another A. Get an education.
>THEN we will talk.

Exactly what bigoted viewpoints have I expressed? What prejudices do you
think I have? Where are your COHERENT arguements that show you to be
something other than a moron? Either shut up or present reasoned
arguments.

Warren Watts

None of ya Bizness

unread,
Jul 21, 1992, 11:39:45 PM7/21/92
to
In article <1992Jul21.1...@seq.uncwil.edu> fra...@seq.uncwil.edu (william carter franklin) writes:
$>And who are these white people working their asses off to help solve the
$>problem? Where are all these people that are supposedly helping me
$>have an easier life in Amerikkka? And what the fuck are _YOU_ doing
$>about the problem, besides putting "blah blah blah", "waaaaaaahh", and
$>weird faces on people's postings whose opinions contradict yours?

Uh huh, that's what I thought...you so easily passed up this question cos
you knew you couldn't possibly answer it and still even be remotely logical.
Silly Boy Willy.

$>1. Whenever I walk in a department store I get followed around because they
$> automatically assume I'm going to steal something.
$
$That is because in 1991, 70 percent of department store shoplifters
$were minorities. If the crow has been in the corn field ruining the
$crops, then you watch the crows when they come to roost, and not
$the Blue Jays. This is not racist propaganda either. No one wants
$anybody to be a shoplifter, it is just the statistics. Wait till I
$give you the violent crime statistics for 1991!

Look, I could give several shits about some damn statistics. I don't care
what color I am, and I haven't stressed this enough, so here I go again: If
you want my money, you best treat me just like you would anyone else, es-
pecially those who aren't minorities.

Here's something your stupid ass can gnaw on: The local ABC TV (or poison,
as my man Chris likes to call it) station did a hidden-camera news segment
on department stores following their black shoppers just a little too closely
and the security, when asked why they follow certain people, answered "Because
they're black."

One black man was beaten and slammed against the wall ebcause they THOUGHT
he stole something from their store, and he works for the University as
a fucking administrator of biological sciences!

$>2. I get harassed by police because I'm hangin on the street corner with
$> my friends.
$
$On Dawson street here in Wilmington a white person can not even ride
$by in a car because the "I'm hangin' on the street corner with my
$friends crowd" likes to throw bottles at people's cars who are not
$the same colour as they are. (The last lady has had to have plastic
$surgery, all because she is white and had to pass through Dawson St.).

Whose fault is that? I can't even walk around in a rich suburb without
being followed/questioned by the police, Silly Boy Willy.

$>3. I get denied a job not because I don't have the qualifications, but because
$> I am black.
$
$It was probably because of your racist, Bigoted, pro_BLACK_anti_white
$attitude. I would not hire you either.

Silly-ass fool franklin, it's more like the other way around: White job
offerers with pro_WHITE_anti_black attitudes.
did $

$>4. White people will walk across the street to avoid me.
$
$to avoid each other too. Can't even trust your own brother anymore.
$And the white kids are becoming more violent too. I do not want to
$get ugly, BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH .................. We will
$have to tr to have
$someone walk (BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH) put yourself in the
$other persons shoes: they are afraid for their life. And the truck
$driver in L.A. who was dragged from his truck and nearly beaten to death
$because he was white will neve be the same. Luckily, a Black minister

Ooops I see I have put myself in your shoes Franklin. I've resorted to
drawing BLAH BLAH BLAH's in the middle of your post, I'd best watch it be=
cause I might start drawing ASCII faces!

$Plus, in your example, I need to know WHAT THE RACIAL INNUENDO WAS.
$And were you passed up for a promotion that you were the most
$qualified person for? Or was all of this a figtree of your imagination.

No, I'm going to let you THINK about what kind of racial innuendo it was.
Since you seem to profess yourself as such an "anti-racist/equality"
spokesperson, and seem to know exactly what blacks go through in Amerikkka
every single day, I'm going to let you USE YOUR BRAIN (which you haven't
done so far Franklin) and give ME some examples of 'racial innuendo.'

$>6. I walk into a restaurant and I'm asked to remove my cap while an entire
$> baseball team is in the same area, caps on and nobody notices.
$
$
$Did you ask the hostess/host/whomever why you were asked to remove
$your cap while the uniformed team was allowed the priviledge?

Well of course I did, in fact, I refused. But that ain't the point, silly
boy. The point is I should have never been asked to remove my cap in the
first place.

$>7. I'm treated rudely by various customer service personnel, while non-colored
$> persons behind me get treated normally, if not like kings.

$You are trying desperately to fill up 25 spaces. Please be specific.
$These are stereotypical GENERALITIES and not specific events.
$They may even be fig trees (of your imagination).

What's more to say? It's happened to me so many times I can't remember
each and every single incident. Of course you resort to using this type
of argument when you know I'm striking a nerve, Silly Boy Willy.

$>12. Of course, there's the Rodney King travesty.
$
$Yea, it's a real travesty, by the way, the man that filmed that was
$white. If it were not for that one white man, no-one would have
$known the truth about the beating. Rodney King, however needs discipline
$in my opinion, from his parents or whomever brought him up. I say this
$because he thinks he can do whatever he wants to do without consequence.
$He was just arrested the other day for driving drunk. That discusts me.
$And to think that I took up for him for so long. He needs discipline.
$All drunk drivers should get life in prison or a good beating.
$Do you know how many children people like Rodney KILL each year?
$Thousands! LAPD was still wrong at the time, but Rodney was no angel.
$He is a problem. (So are the Simi Valley Bigots, I agree, since those
$cops ARE jerks).

Do you know how many black people cops like Rodney King's assailants kill
each year? If your so called "white savior" hadn't taped that incident
you would be as in the dark about what goes on in Los Angeles as well as
other inner cities in Amerikkka as a foreign tourist, Silly Boy Willy.

$Left to crumble? LEFT TO CRUMBLE? People could take better care of
$their environment. But I also feel that you will like this next
$statement. We should stop spending 3.3 Billion on Saddam (plus
$Billions more in other foreign aid to him in 1990 and the Billions
$that went to Russia and also to defend Europe) and spend it on America
$and Education. Clinton's plan calls for these reforms. I want what is
$best for EVERYONE. Stop this "us and them" shit. Blacks shouldn't have
$that "us and them" shit and neither should whites. I am SICK of it.
$
$We are Americans and we better start getting involved in the reforms
$that are neccessary for:
$ 1. Education
$ 2. Racial Harmony
$ 3. Technology
$ 4. Environmental Reforms
$ 5. Free market Competitiveness
$ ....etc.

Oh yeah, with people like you around I see that happening REALLY QUICKLY.

$>16. Continual stereotyping of blacks by the media.
$....for example? I have heard many stereotypes of whites on this
$newsgroup!
$The media shows Marion Barry as the crack addict that he is.

But of course the media doesn't show Oliver North for the greedy scum that
HE is. But of course the media doesn't show George Bush for the oblivious
money-hungry bastard that he is. But of course the media doesn't show
all of Congress for the thieves they are.

$>19. Since when is a goddam footprint needed for a background check to
$> become a lawyer?
$
$Is this true? So if you are Black then you MUST give me your footprint
$before you can be a lawyer? Yea, right. Sounds like another
$misunderstanding blown way out of proportion to me. But I am a fair
$person. I would like details. So far, all I have heard about this is:
$"Black man had to give footprint before being lawyer.." no facts,
$nothing. Only hearsay, and VERY general. You are desperately trying
$to fill up those 25! See how many 25 REALLY is now, but our mouth got
$us into this, now didn't it.
$Post the facts about this one....for now it is only filler.

Yawn. Okay, since you asked...
(copied w/o permission)
Subject: FBI agent suspended for ``footprinting'' black lawyer
Date: 18 Jul 1992 16:30:47 GMT
BOSTON (UPI) -- The FBI has suspended and transferred an agent who
required a black lawyer being considered for a judgeship to submit a
footprint for a background check, then hung the print in an FBI office
as a joke, it was reported Saturday.
The agent told lawyer Walter Prince that the footprint, taken about a
month ago, was ``standard procedure,'' then joked about the stunt when
he hung the print, the Boston Herald quoted sources as saying.
The Boston FBI office said no one was available to discuss the case,
but released a three-paragraph statement from director William S.
Sessions. Sessions said any deviation by FBI employees from the ``utmost
professional conduct'' is intolerable.
``Immediately upon learning of this aggregious (sic) conduct, I
ordered a thorough internal inquiry. That process was completed rapidly
and severe disciplinary action imposed,'' Sessions said.
``It is very unfortunate that this incident occurred. Conduct such as
happened here clouds the exceptional work done everyday by thousands of
FBI employees throughout the country.''
The Herald quoted sources as saying the agent, who was not
identified, worked as a recruiter and was suspended for about six weeks
and transferred to the FBI office in Chicago. His supervisor, Michael
Wilson, was reportedly suspended three days.
Prince is a partner in the law firm of Peckham, Lobel, Casey, Prince
and Tye.
Prince was one of several attorneys whose names were forwarded to
President Bush and he reportedly will be nominated. But he was the only
one required to submit a footprint for the FBI background check, sources
said.
One source noted that the footprint incident came on the heels of the
FBI settling a civil suit by black agents who alleged discrimination in
the bureau.
``Obviously it was a racial incident,'' the source said. ``They
wouldn't have done it to a white person.''
Sources told the newspaper that Wilson ordered the FBI agent to
apologize to Prince as soon as he heard of the incident.

*sits back as Franklin's mouth hits the floor*

You know somethin Silly Boy Willy, it's getting easier and easier to answer
your posts. I thought you had quit and run away. But the more you run your
mouth the easier it is for me, so keep talkin...

$How about it? Who did it happen to? My mother WORKS for GMAC. Caught
$your tired ass on this one.

No you didn't you silly bastard. So mothafuckin what if your mammy works
for GMAC! That pithy statement means nothing. Obviously your overtly liberal
ass hasn't been watching TV lately. Remember that Prime Time special where
they compared the ethics of a car dealer with a black customer and with a white
customer? The white customer was quoted a substantially lower price on a
car than was the black customer.

$>21. Welfare.

$Clinton will change it to Workfare. ETC. READ his platform.

Whatever, Silly Boy Willy. Bill Clinton, IF HE EVEN GETS ELECTED will do
whatever the power structure TELLS him to. If that's to duck some sick
then he will be on his KNEES jack!

$>23. I wonder why it is that most every time a black person and a white person
$> start throwin blows, once it's cleared the white person is absolved of
$> the crime while the black person goes to jail?
$
$Bullshit. At Williston Junior High School, Then Principal Arthalia
$Williams handled a situation in a racist manner.
$A young black student pushed a young white student who was walking
$in the hall. He then said "You aint gonna do nothing about it because
$I am Black, and Mrs. Williams will take up for me." The young white
$man then pushed the other boy off of him and an fight ensued. Mrs.
$Williams suspended the white student and let the black student go
$back to class.
$ (I asked seventy five white students if they thought she was racist
$ and sixty three said yes)

But of course you didn't ask any black students.

$>24. A Minneapolis police officer was given a medal of honor after shooting
$> a black suspect in the back.

$ You did not seem to mention anything about the suspest except his
$ colour. Is that all you noticed? Was he violent? Was his face turned
$ to another cop that he was trying to kill? Was he raping someone?
$ WHAT WERE THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE INCIDENT? I am not trying to
$ be ugly, but you are doing a TERRIBLE job of SUPPORTING these
$ claims. QUALITY not QUANTITY. Hope you didn't waste two hours on
$ that one. Repost with DETAILS so we can discuss, like adults,
$ whether or not the incident involved racism. I'll wager that if
$ you were in the policeman's shoes, you would have shot the violent
$ criminal too. But I will give you another chance to repost these
$ with details. Until then, and from now on... SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENTS.

Look Silly Boy Willy, you said you wanted 25 examples of racism, and so I
gave them to you. If you must know, the boy had a gun, but he was running
away. The officer shot him, then he LIED at a press conference and said the
boy was coming at him, and forensic specialists DETERMINED that he had been
shot IN THE BACK. But the officer was absolved of any negligence.

$>working to solve the problem, but for every white person working to solve
$>the problem, THERE ARE TWO MORE WHITE PEOPLE WORKING TO CREATE/PERPETUATE
$>the problem.

$Uh oh.... more generalities without basis or proof. Surprised you didn't
$use that one as one of your 25 winners!! HHAAAAAAhahahahahaa.
$Would have made great filler! AAAAAAHHHHahahahahaha.

Man you're really lame, Silly Boy Willy. I've never seen anybody claim that
he's trying to help fight racism and then come on here spouting this mess.
With your help I say we'll all be back in PHYSICAL slavery (because my silly
fool there is more than one type of slavery) within 20 years.

$> Yes I am frustrated. Frustrated

$Ought to be...

I am, Silly Boy Willy.

$>that there are millions of people who think just like you, and consider
$>themselves "non-racist". You know, I'd rather be talkin to somebody from
$>the fuckin Klan, at least I know his agenda. People like you, whose
$>agendae is totally unclear, just make things worse off.

$Maybe you should join. You seem to think like they do.

Look, Silly Boy Willy, those 25 instances of racism which people like me
experience every single day may seem like generalities and "filler" to you,
only because you haven't and never will be able to experience anything like
it. There was a recent thread on racism experiements by Jane Elliott(sp?)
where the tables were turned, I think you'd be a prime candidate for this
experience. When you've gone through the bullshit I've gone through, maybe,
just maybe you'll remotely BEGIN to understand what the fuck goes on in the
life of a Black man. You say you are helping to fight against racism, Silly
Boy Willy? Well I don't WANT or NEED any kind of your "help." It's people
like you who call themselves "solving the problem" who are actually
_perpetuatin_ the problem. You ain't part of the solution, Silly Boy Willy,
you're part of the PROBLEM. Quit bein part of the fuckin problem and run
some duct tape across your mouth! That would be your best "contribution"
to the "battle against racism."

Get an education, Silly Boy Willy. No I ain't talkin about books I'm talkin
about STREET KNOWLEDGE. THEN we'll talk.

Pi-fuckin-cante.

Brian K. Yoder

unread,
Jul 21, 1992, 5:29:38 PM7/21/92
to
What can we do to help eliminate racism aside from affirmative action? Well,
I think that eliminating affirmative action in and of itself would be a good
first step since such programs are a tremendous source of outrage among the
unfavored groups. Fundamentally though, since racism is a system of belief
over which individuals have control, there is only one way to eliminate it
and that is to convince such people they are wrong (I suppose you caould also wait
until they die too, but that takes a long time). No matter how much money
is lavished on minorities, how many jobs are given up, and how many tax dollars
are spent, you cannot change someone's mind if he doesn't see a good reason for
changing it, and all of these calls for inter-racial sacrifice will only
make the problems worse by endorsing the ideas of racial difference and group
rights. You can't cure racism by being a racist.

--Brian

Mark Slagle

unread,
Jul 22, 1992, 1:42:26 AM7/22/92
to
In article <Tg05NB...@netlink.cts.com>, ga...@netlink.cts.com (Greg Gross) writes:

>sla...@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle) writes:

>> But if even that isn't sufficient for you, then I will try to
>> state it plainly. Anyone, you or me or John or anyone else, who
>> advances the proposition that someone deserves some sort of
>> treatment, specifically pain in this case, because of their
>> skin color is a racist.

> You're perfectly clear. Transparent, even. Also wrong.

Well, you haven't shown what you think is wrong about my
simple statement of principle.

> Having experienced 40 years worth of racism myself, I would not
> casually wish it upon anyone else...not even you.

Whether you wish it upon me casually or earnestly does not
make much of a difference in the result. Try to remember,
even if your target doesn't, that you are dealing with a
person, not an object.

> In other words, Mark, if those doing such harm to us could experience that
> harm on the receiving end, maybe it would open their eyes...and even make
> them stop.

Perhaps if you could simply, and calmly, point out the
fact of it, and the effect, it might be more effective.
Hate breeds hate. No matter where it starts, we each
have a responsibility to break the chain of hate.

> Now there's a radical, racist concept for you, Mark.

It is not racist to express the wish to visit retribution on your
tormentors. If you can manage to restrict the impact of your
attitudes and programs to those whom you can show have done you
harm, then I can have no objection in principle. But you have
not usually been so selective in your targets. You have thrown
your net over all "whites" in past postings.

Secondly, your proposed retribution is still a bad idea on
pragmatic grounds. Racism is fundamentally an attempt to
objectify a group of people on irrelevant grounds. It is hard
to see how your policy of retribution can have the effect of
convincing offenders of the error of their ways, if that is
indeed your goal. Since your target is still an abstract
group of "racists", your attitude shares the same attribute
of objectification with your enemies.

Also, by analogy, it is hard to see how shouting in the face of
those who shout in yours will somehow cause them to lower their
voices. On the contrary, it would seem designed to escalate the
volume level.

> As for the cheap insults, my apologies. Maybe if I shop at better stores...

Cheap insults can be bought at stores in all neighborhoods.
I would hope that we two can keep the volume down below screaming.
For my part, I will try to express my opinions in moderate tones.
But remember that I am a person, too. If you attack me personally,
or if you attack me on the basis of my presumed membership in some
class or group, then I may be tempted to respond in kind. Just as
you are tempted to do so in response to racism, so will your targets
respond in kind to what they see as an attack. Maybe we should all
resist the temptation?
--

Arthur Johnson

unread,
Jul 22, 1992, 8:08:15 PM7/22/92
to
In article <1992Jul22....@news2.cis.umn.edu>
mmo...@epx.cis.umn.edu ("None of ya Bizness") writes:
> In article <1992Jul21.1...@seq.uncwil.edu>
fra...@seq.uncwil.edu (william carter franklin) writes:
>
> $How about it? Who did it happen to? My mother WORKS for GMAC. Caught
> $your tired ass on this one.
>
> No you didn't you silly bastard. So mothafuckin what if your mammy
works
> for GMAC! That pithy statement means nothing. Obviously your overtly
liberal
> ass hasn't been watching TV lately. Remember that Prime Time special
where
> they compared the ethics of a car dealer with a black customer and with
a white
> customer? The white customer was quoted a substantially lower price on
a
> car than was the black customer.
>
Malcolm's right. I saw this special too. It started a real debate
between my housemates and me on how to solve this particular problem. We
all finally agreed that the car manufacturers should insist that their
dealers sell cars at fixed prices (no bargaining allowed) set by the
manufacturers. Fortunately, there is one such company that does this:
Saturn Inc. They make great cars that are reasonably priced, and all their
cars are sold at fixed prices. So, with a Saturn, at least you don't have
to worry about the next person getting a better deal than you simply
because of his/her "race".
>
> --
> Malcolm Diallo Moore, Honeywell/CIS-Univ. of Minn.
mmo...@epx.cis.umn.edu
>
Moore_M...@ssdc.honeywell.com
> "Jeeeeah this is the rap about the bat batman he is the one in black
like a bat
> out of hell he will reveal SCREAMIN DOWN THE ROAD IN A BATMOBILE!!!!!!!"

Arthur Johnson

Hector Ruben Cordero-Guzman

unread,
Jul 23, 1992, 12:14:02 PM7/23/92
to

Ian Ayers, from the Stanford Law School and Peter Siegelman, from the
American Bar Foundation, have conducted some audits and found the
differences in price to persists (by race and gender) after
controling for numerous attributes like income, bargaining
strategy, and the like. The finding is quite robust. I don't
know if they have published the papers yet but I can find out...


>> --
>> Malcolm Diallo Moore, Honeywell/CIS-Univ. of Minn.
>mmo...@epx.cis.umn.edu
>>
>Moore_M...@ssdc.honeywell.com
>> "Jeeeeah this is the rap about the bat batman he is the one in black
>like a bat
>> out of hell he will reveal SCREAMIN DOWN THE ROAD IN A BATMOBILE!!!!!!!"
>
>Arthur Johnson
>University of Wisconsin-Madison
>Department of Chemistry
>joh...@whitewater.chem.wisc.edu


Hector
ta...@quads.uchicago.edu

Greg Gross

unread,
Jul 23, 1992, 3:43:26 AM7/23/92
to
sla...@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle) writes:

Anyone*dot*who advances the proposition that someone deserves some


sort of treatment, specifically pain in this case, because of their

skin color is racist.


>
> > You're perfectly clear. Transparent, even. Also wrong.
>
> Well, you haven't shown what you think is wrong about my
> simple statement of principle.
>

The principle is just fine, Mark. Only that wasn't the point of my
comment, and still isn't. It was not about inflicting the feeling
of racism on whites simply because they're white. It was *never*
that simplistic, that narrow, that obtuse. It about letting the
victimizer (translation: those whites who *are* racist) walk long
enough in the shoes of the victim (translation: those non-whites
who experience racism at their hands) to realize the harm they are
are doing...and maybe desist.

> > Having experienced 40 years worth of racism myself, I would not
> > casually wish it upon anyone else...not even you.
>
> Whether you wish it upon me casually or earnestly does not
> make much of a difference in the result. Try to remember,
> even if your target doesn't, that you are dealing with a
> person, not an object.
>

I never forget I am dealing with human beings, Mark. But all too often,
a great many whites in this society (no, not all, but many) seem
determined to treat *me* as an object. And over the span of my life
to this point, the effect of gentle reminders to the contrary has
been decidedly mixed....

> Perhaps if you could simply, and calmly, point out the
> fact of it, and the effect, it might be more effective.
> Hate breeds hate. No matter where it starts, we each
> have a responsibility to break the chain of hate.
>

I have tried simple, calm explanations, Mark. I'm *still* trying.
It just doesn't work with some people. They can't be told; they
must be shown. I wish that weren't the case, but that's reality.
Some people just don't want to hear it, Mark.

> It is not racist to express the wish to visit retribution on your
> tormentors. If you can manage to restrict the impact of your
> attitudes and programs to those whom you can show have done you
> harm, then I can have no objection in principle. But you have
> not usually been so selective in your targets. You have thrown
> your net over all "whites" in past postings.

Frankly, I recall no such blanket indictment of the entire Caucasian
race coming from me; that doesn't even sound like me. In any case,
I *think* I've made the point above, but for emphasis, will try it
again here:
This is *not* about retribution, retaliation, revenge, payback,
etcetera. This is about getting people to see the evil that they do
and getting them to stop. Nothing more, nothing less.

> Secondly, your proposed retribution is still a bad idea on
> pragmatic grounds. Racism is fundamentally an attempt to
> objectify a group of people on irrelevant grounds. It is hard
> to see how your policy of retribution can have the effect of
> convincing offenders of the error of their ways, if that is
> indeed your goal. Since your target is still an abstract
> group of "racists", your attitude shares the same attribute
> of objectification with your enemies.

You may be right. You may not. We'll probably never know.

> Also, by analogy, it is hard to see how shouting in the face of
> those who shout in yours will somehow cause them to lower their
> voices. On the contrary, it would seem designed to escalate the
> volume level.

you may be right about that, too. On the other hand, whispers from
the oppressed are seldom heard, much less heeded.

> I would hope that we two can keep the volume down below screaming.
> For my part, I will try to express my opinions in moderate tones.

Fair enough. So will I.
G.

--
Gregory Alan Gross Welcome to life, where no good deed goes unpunished.
San Diego Union-Tribune (619) 293-1270 (voice)
P.O. Box 191 (619) 293-2333 (fax)
San Diego, CA 92112-4106 ga...@netlink.cts.com (Internet)

mcb...@vax.oxford.ac.uk

unread,
Jul 21, 1992, 7:14:02 AM7/21/92
to
In article <1992Jul20.2...@seq.uncwil.edu>, fra...@seq.uncwil.edu (william carter franklin) writes:
> mmo...@orion.ssdc.honeywell.com ("Mastah of Dizziness") writes:
>
>
>>Why must you always refer to Sister Souljah as "Silly Bigot Sistah?"
>>It certainly doesn't make her look bad, it's annoying and it makes _you_
>>look stupid.
>
>
> SILLY BIGOT SISTAH is a SILLY BIGOT SISTAH. She is NO WISE MAN's
> (or WOMAN'S) leader. I am prepared to defend my position on Lisa
> Williamson as soon as an intellegent person asks me to. So far
> that has not happened, but in case you meet someone with an intellegence
> quotient above fifty, here is why:
>
> She perpetuates racism with her hatred towards white people, many
> of whom are working their asses off to help solve the problem.

Tell me William, why is it that blacks are never allowed to hate people who hav
e done them wrong? I personally find it counterproductive, but it is a natural
human emotion to hate a group who has done you wrong. Many white people are
indeed trying to help, but many more are actively involved in racism. Speak to
the blacks who were firebombed in Canarsie and parts of Long Ialand for moving
into lilywhite neigbourhoods. Speak to the victims of chokeholds and
"pro-active policing" in LA. Jews are allowed to hate Nazis, Kuwaitis Hate
Iraqis, but never must a black man express his hatred and anger against racism
by whites. Who do you think carried out all those lynchings and beatings? Do
blacks have a right to anger over those things? When news programs (run by
whites) regularly show dicumented cases of institutionalised racism, do we have
a right to anger? When political research shows that a majority of white
voters who have abandoned the Democratic party have done so because it is
percieved among other things as a party of the blacks we should not feel the
hurt?

> rich. Most aren't. And most white people are not racist either.
> White people are fighting for civil rights vehemently and daily.

How do you know that most white people are not racist, especially as the prima
facie evidence, when available suggests otherwise? If I were you I would stick
to "not all white people are racists", and "some white people fight for civil
rights vehemently and daily". A lot of others don't. A lot of them go out of
their way to make life hell for blacks, and I'm not talking about Klan members
either. A lot of them move out of their neighbourhoods once the black
prescence exceeds the threshold of tolerance. If you put yourself in Sistah
Souljah's skin for a minute, and try to relive her experiences, then you might
begin to understand her rage and frustration. Hate does not produce love. If
you show me hate then the natural reaction is to hate back. It takes really
strong character to rise above that and you would do well to remember that
before you go passing remarks about the "SILLY SISTAH BIGOT". Whether you
agree with her views or not is not in question here. What is is your lack of
understanding as to the circumstances which would make her pronounce statements
like these. If I kept on slapping you in the face would you keep on liking me
irrespective?


McBean.

Michael Friedman

unread,
Jul 23, 1992, 3:20:28 PM7/23/92
to
In article <e3VcoB...@netlink.cts.com> ga...@netlink.cts.com (Greg Gross) writes:
>sla...@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle) writes:

>Mark: Anyone, you or me or John or anyone else, who


>> >> advances the proposition that someone deserves some sort of
>> >> treatment, specifically pain in this case, because of their
>> >> skin color is a racist.

>The idea is not -- repeat, *NOT* -- to have whites experience the
>pains of racism simply because they are white. It never was. The
>idea was/is to let the victimizer (TRANSLATION: those whites who
>hold racist attitudes and engage in racist conduct) walk in the shoes
>of the victim (TRANSLATION: the non-whites on the receiving end of
>such attitudes and conduct) in the hope that the victimizer will
>awaken to the evil s/he is doing...and desist.

Greg, how do you intend to distinguish between racist and non-racist
whites for this purpose? Seems to me like this is a really pathetic
rationalization of racism. Maybe we should beat up Blacks because
Blacks have a higher crim rate than Whites. The ideas is not --
repeat, *NOT* -- to have blacks experience the pains of crime simply
because they are black. It never was. The idea was/is to let the
victimizer (TRANSLATION: those blacks who commit crimes) walk in the
shoes of the victim (TRANSLATION: the non-blacks on the receiving end
of such conduct) in the hope that the victimizer will awaken to the
evil s/he is doing...and desist.


> This is *not* about retribution, revenge, retaliation, payback.
>It is about finding a way to induce certain people to desist from
>certain hurtful attitudes and behavior. Nothing more, nothing less.

Which people? How do you plan to identify them?


--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman. I speak for myself and no one else.

Andy Freeman

unread,
Jul 23, 1992, 7:12:43 PM7/23/92
to
In article <e3VcoB...@netlink.cts.com> ga...@netlink.cts.com (Greg Gross) writes:
>The idea is not -- repeat, *NOT* -- to have whites experience the
>pains of racism simply because they are white. It never was. The
>idea was/is to let the victimizer (TRANSLATION: those whites who
>hold racist attitudes and engage in racist conduct) walk in the shoes
>of the victim (TRANSLATION: the non-whites on the receiving end of
>such attitudes and conduct) in the hope that the victimizer will
>awaken to the evil s/he is doing...and desist.

Okay. The subject of this thread is that San Jose had an applicant
pool that was mostly white males and only one out of the 22 hired
were white males.

Did San Jose screen out all of the victimizer-whites in the applicant
pool and then pick that one, or did they bias the selection procedure
against ALL white males? If the former, how did they do it? If the
latter, the "idea" seems to have been lost. Maybe the
victimizer-whites being selected are in the current firefighter
population; how did is the selection appropriate in that case?

> This is *not* about retribution, revenge, retaliation, payback.
>It is about finding a way to induce certain people to desist from
>certain hurtful attitudes and behavior. Nothing more, nothing less.

Okay. Show me how said inducements are targetted at said certain
people and not others who happen to have the same genital
configuration or ethnicity.

-andy
--
UUCP: {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA: an...@cs.stanford.edu

Kenneth Crudup

unread,
Jul 24, 1992, 5:55:05 PM7/24/92
to
It looks like "Aretha" goes in the kill file.

--
Kenneth R. Crudup, Contractor, OSF DCE QA
OSF, 11 Cambridge Center, Cambridge, MA 02142 +1 617 621 7306
ke...@osf.osf.org OSF has nothing to do with this post.

None of ya Bizness

unread,
Jul 24, 1992, 7:49:39 PM7/24/92
to
In article <1992Jul24....@osf.org> ke...@osf.org (Kenneth Crudup) writes:
$It looks like "Aretha" goes in the kill file.

Awww, come on! You mean you don't want to continue to hear him sing? I
wouldn't miss it for the world!

Larry Kolodney

unread,
Jul 24, 1992, 7:41:06 PM7/24/92
to
In <1992Jul21....@vax.oxford.ac.uk> mcb...@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:

>Jews are allowed to hate Nazis, Kuwaitis Hate
>Iraqis, but never must a black man express his hatred and anger against racism
>by whites.

No one on this list has criticized anger and hatred of racism. The
criticism has been when the anger is directed at all whites, blindly
and stupidly.


--
larry kolodney:(l...@panix.com)
_(*#&)#*&%)@(*^%_!*&%^!)*&#+!*&$+!?&%+!*&^_)*&#%)*&^%#+&
The past is not dead, it's not even past. - Wm. Faulkner

Greg Gross

unread,
Jul 25, 1992, 4:27:09 AM7/25/92
to
mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:

>
> >The idea is not -- repeat, *NOT* -- to have whites experience the
> >pains of racism simply because they are white. It never was. The
> >idea was/is to let the victimizer (TRANSLATION: those whites who
> >hold racist attitudes and engage in racist conduct) walk in the shoes
> >of the victim (TRANSLATION: the non-whites on the receiving end of
> >such attitudes and conduct) in the hope that the victimizer will
> >awaken to the evil s/he is doing...and desist.
>
> Greg, how do you intend to distinguish between racist and non-racist
> whites for this purpose? Seems to me like this is a really pathetic
> rationalization of racism. Maybe we should beat up Blacks because
> Blacks have a higher crim rate than Whites. The ideas is not --
> repeat, *NOT* -- to have blacks experience the pains of crime simply
> because they are black. It never was. The idea was/is to let the
> victimizer (TRANSLATION: those blacks who commit crimes) walk in the
> shoes of the victim (TRANSLATION: the non-blacks on the receiving end
> of such conduct) in the hope that the victimizer will awaken to the
> evil s/he is doing...and desist.
>

What's pathetic, Michael, is your attempted analogy...

On the other hand, I wouldn't have much problem with black criminal
suspects experiencing some of the emotional trauma they inflict on
their victims -- especially given the fact that the overwhelming
majority of their victims are black, anyway.

In any case, the whole question is moot, since there is no practical
way to actually execute that idea. Pure wishful thinking. Although
I don't think I'd have much trouble identifying racists who were
eligible for it. In fact, that's the only aspect of it that *is*
workable.
G.


>
> > This is *not* about retribution, revenge, retaliation, payback.
> >It is about finding a way to induce certain people to desist from
> >certain hurtful attitudes and behavior. Nothing more, nothing less.
>
> Which people? How do you plan to identify them?
>
>
> --
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

> I am not an official Oracle spokesman. I speak for myself and no one else.

Larry Kolodney

unread,
Jul 25, 1992, 1:34:24 PM7/25/92
to

>
>On the other hand, I wouldn't have much problem with black criminal
>suspects experiencing some of the emotional trauma they inflict on
>their victims -- especially given the fact that the overwhelming
>majority of their victims are black, anyway.

Apropos of this, I post the following excerpt for comments:

From "I, the Jury" in *Notes of a Hanging Judge* by Stanley Crouch:
March 12, 1985

[Speaking in the aftermath of Bernard Goetz shooting in the back four
young black men on a NYC subway after they had accosted him with a
screwdriver]

....

Ironically, the metaphor of victimization is now so well
circulated that it is used to explain everybody's predicament: the
teenagers wounded by Goetz were victims of poverty and barren social
services; Goetz was the pawn of frustration in face of threat,
flagrant dope dealing, and the justice system's revolving door;
[Eleanor] Bumpurs [an unarmed black grandmother shot by cops trying to
evict her] was victimized by police callousness or racism;
Sullivan [the cop who shot her] suffered as fall guy for the failures
of the society and District Attorney Mario Merola's antipathy toward
the police; while he was apparently defacing public property, Michael
Stewart [grafitti artist beaten to death by transit cops] became a
casualty of color prejudice; the six transit cops were wrongly charged
because of the hysteria whipped up by the media; and our poor boy down
among the corpses, [Chief Medical Examiner] Elliot Gross [charged
with altering autopsies to favor police] is the target of professional
enemies. Such a sweeping sense of victimization implies that the
idea of individual responsibility has fallen by the wayside and no
one, purported mugger or clairvoyant shootist, polceman or casualty,
coroner or grand juror, is truly accountable for his or her actions.
Human beigns are no more than silly putty pulled and shaped by forces
beyond their control. That might be meat for a Marxist or behaviorist
analysis in which human beings are piano keys that go out of pitch
when the weather is inclement and need only a master tuner to get them
in order, but such explanations are the antithesis of civilization,
brought into battle by so many different parites in these cases
because they ahve worked so well for criminals-prompting even police
to use them!

Such developments could intensify the cynicicsm tantamount to fatalism
that neither this city nor this nation can afford. The only way
solutions can be reached is for people to stop acting as though
America is a monarch - this *is* a democracy, and the repsonsibility
for bird-dogging elected officials is theirs This is especially
important in terms of the black community. As playwright Charles
Fuller says, "We have to take back the streets. Us. Black people. We
ahve to involve ourselves in the workings of society and play our role
in what is not only good for us but good for the general society.
There is no truly segregated reality in America. All we have is
different styles. Crime is the same for all of us. Fear is the same
to all of us. Education and safety are equally important to all of
us. We cannot abrogate our role as participants in American life."

Nor can black people ignore the truth. Less than 1 percent of the
people in the most dire economic conditions deface public property,
commit violent crimes, or frighten residents from the streets of their
own communities after dark. Those who do are by and large black
teenagers and the children of teenage mothers. As Dorothy I. Height,
president of the National Council of Negro Women, points out in the
March 1985 *Ebony*: "We find that in 1950 only about 18 percent of all
black infants were born out of wedlock, and only about 36 percent of
all black infants born to teenage mothers were born to unmarried
women. In 1981, 65 percent of all births to black women were out of
wedlock. Among black women under 20 the proportion was over 86
percent. The fastest growing black family formation today is that
headed by teenaged mothers." From these huseholds come many of hte
violent criminals who lord over the night. As one resident of 152nd
Street reports, "You see these kids throw a cat on the tracks and
watch it get run over. They have no compassion because they've never
felt any. It has never happened to them-the feeling of love, I'm
talking about. ALl they know is life on an animal level. They're
only conscious of their needs; they lack the capicity for
self-conscious awareness of irght and wrong. Right is what you can
get away with; wrong is the mistake that keeps you from getting away.
That's all they know. They're beasts. Savages. Capital punishment,
hard *hard* labor, and long sentences in the penitentiary are the only
thigns that will straighten them out."

You hear the word savgaes quite often, though it never comes
trippingly off the tongue. It is usually uttered with the combination
of pity and bitternss, knowledge of how dangerous thigns become when
teenaged mothers discover that parenthood is at least a 20-year
sentence and become abusive. In too many cases the male children
deflect that abuse onto the society itself. One man I know threatend
to take his daughter to court and fight for the custody of her son if
she didn't stop letting his buttocks become raw because the cost of
changing the boy's Pampers would cut into her nickel bags. She had
married too early, gotten tired of motherhood, and treated her son
with a malicious indifference. "She has no sense of sacrifice," he
says. "She thinks that if she doesn't come first something is wrong.
I tolder her she was a barbarian, and when I heard her try to read, I
was convinced of it. Illiterate, selfish, and incapable of
comprehending any kind of subtle ideas. Her mother was ignorant, my
mistake was getting her pregnant and letting her raise the girl on
welfre. But I'm not going to let my grandson be destroyed like his
mother was."

According to Ulysses S. Kilgore III of the Bedford Stuyvesant Family
Health Center, 40 percent of the mothers of these girls with teenage
pregnancies don't know the most fertile time of the month themselves.
"these children are surrounded by ignorance and the only thing that is
ging to change the sitaution is rolling up our sleeves and putting
aside the textbook rhetoric for a while - a long, long while," he
says. Kilgore understands that black people themselves must act to
solve this problem; wheat he terms "textbook rhetoric" is no more than
the defeatist sneerign at destiny rather than wrestling with it. That
the cases under discussion rise rise from the subway to an eviction,
descend from the grand jury to the morgue, accentuate the need for
accountability from law enforcement agencies and call into question
that quality of urban life and the necessary support systems that
define it, suggests that Fuller's observation about hte need for Negro
participation in the workings of American life is absolutely on the
mark. It is only through participation that the social morale of both
the black community and the nation at large can be raised. "It all
has to come from us," says Kilgore. "If we make the thrust, roll up
our sleeves and *work* at fighting the things that hamper the progress
of black people, others will follow. BUt now, I think we have to make
the first move and second and however many more are necessary to get
something going."


Getting something going is obviously a big job that calls for a enw
vision of social action from Negroes, not as outsiders but as voters,
taxpayers, and sober thinkers. All civilized societies know that
unless what is largely the sexual energy of adolescent men is
channeled, anarchic behavior is almost automatic. Unless people get
education sufficient to compete in the world, they will either become
criminals or welfare leeches draining off funds that oculd be used to
better life rather than sustain dead-end poverty. Unless ther eis a
reciprocal respect between citizens and law enforcement agencies, and
adversary relationship develops that creates mutual contempt and
paranoia. Unless young women learn that this is the best time in
history for them to take on carers and explroe their talents, they
will continue to give birth to children with dubious futures. The
history of Negro Americans, for all its heartbreak and tragedy, is
also one of extraordinary accomplishemnt in the face of ruthless
resistance. If all the shootings and the controversies serve to alter
both Negroes and the society at large to a grander struggle, none of
the shock and despair will have been in vain.


END EXCERPT

Aaron Barnhart

unread,
Jul 24, 1992, 4:16:41 PM7/24/92
to
In article <1992Jul21....@seq.uncwil.edu> fra...@seq.uncwil.edu
(william carter franklin) writes:

>And by the way, YOU are the name caller ..."blatent moron" I believe
>is what you said. How ugly. And just because someone does not agree
>with your backwards, narrow minded BIGOTED viewpoints. By the way..
>BLATANT is spelled B_L_A_T_A_N_T with another A. Get an education.
>THEN we will talk.

For those of you keepng score, Mr. Franklin is the 16th white liberal,
Asian, or otherwise disaffected American on s.c.a.a. in 1992 to pee his
pants over someone's spelling.

Apparently patriotism is the *second-to-last* refuge of a scoundrel.

--
Aaron (Barn...@gagme.chi.il.us)
Evanston, Illinois

Michael J. Carpenter

unread,
Jul 26, 1992, 2:50:40 AM7/26/92
to

I'm rollin'.......................

Yeeeaaah, boyyeeee! I'm out, Mc

Michael Friedman

unread,
Jul 26, 1992, 3:06:23 AM7/26/92
to
In article <yBLgoB...@netlink.cts.com> ga...@netlink.cts.com (Greg Gross) writes:
>mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:

>> >The idea is not -- repeat, *NOT* -- to have whites experience the
>> >pains of racism simply because they are white. It never was. The
>> >idea was/is to let the victimizer (TRANSLATION: those whites who
>> >hold racist attitudes and engage in racist conduct) walk in the shoes
>> >of the victim (TRANSLATION: the non-whites on the receiving end of
>> >such attitudes and conduct) in the hope that the victimizer will
>> >awaken to the evil s/he is doing...and desist.

>> Greg, how do you intend to distinguish between racist and non-racist
>> whites for this purpose? Seems to me like this is a really pathetic
>> rationalization of racism. Maybe we should beat up Blacks because
>> Blacks have a higher crim rate than Whites. The ideas is not --
>> repeat, *NOT* -- to have blacks experience the pains of crime simply
>> because they are black. It never was. The idea was/is to let the
>> victimizer (TRANSLATION: those blacks who commit crimes) walk in the
>> shoes of the victim (TRANSLATION: the non-blacks on the receiving end
>> of such conduct) in the hope that the victimizer will awaken to the
>> evil s/he is doing...and desist.

>What's pathetic, Michael, is your attempted analogy...

Actually, Greg, I think you must have found it rather telling.
Otherwise you would not have found it necessary to delete the part of
the post describing the original situation.

>On the other hand, I wouldn't have much problem with black criminal
>suspects experiencing some of the emotional trauma they inflict on
>their victims -- especially given the fact that the overwhelming
>majority of their victims are black, anyway.

Fine, but given that the policy in question - discrimination against
whites - does not single out racsists - why should we single our
criminals when we do a policy against Blacks?

>Although
>I don't think I'd have much trouble identifying racists who were
>eligible for it. In fact, that's the only aspect of it that *is*
>workable.

Really? So how do you do it? Anyone whose political views you don't
like? Anyone who votes for David Duke? Jesse Helms? Pat Buchanan?
George Bush?

>> > This is *not* about retribution, revenge, retaliation, payback.
>> >It is about finding a way to induce certain people to desist from
>> >certain hurtful attitudes and behavior. Nothing more, nothing less.

>> Which people? How do you plan to identify them?

I repeat the question.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jeong-Gyun Shin

unread,
Jul 26, 1992, 12:41:20 PM7/26/92
to

And also don't forget to count number of half size brains who cannot
finish a post without choice f and motherf words and those who go
along.

None of ya Bizness

unread,
Jul 26, 1992, 1:34:44 PM7/26/92
to
In article <1992Jul26.1...@udel.edu> sh...@krusty.ee.udel.edu (Jeong-Gyun Shin) writes:
$In article <1992Jul26.0...@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> mjca...@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Michael J. Carpenter) writes:
$>In article <1992Jul24.2...@gagme.chi.il.us> barn...@gagme.chi.il.us (Aaron Barnhart) writes:
$>>In article <1992Jul21....@seq.uncwil.edu> fra...@seq.uncwil.edu

$>>(william carter franklin) writes:
$>>
$>>>And by the way, YOU are the name caller ..."blatent moron" I believe
$>>>is what you said. How ugly. And just because someone does not agree
$>>>with your backwards, narrow minded BIGOTED viewpoints. By the way..
$>>>BLATANT is spelled B_L_A_T_A_N_T with another A. Get an education.
$>>>THEN we will talk.
$>>
$>>For those of you keepng score, Mr. Franklin is the 16th white liberal,
$>>Asian, or otherwise disaffected American on s.c.a.a. in 1992 to pee his
$>>pants over someone's spelling.
$>>
$>>Apparently patriotism is the *second-to-last* refuge of a scoundrel.
$>
$>I'm rollin'.......................
$>
$>Yeeeaaah, boyyeeee! I'm out, Mc
$>
$
$And also don't forget to count number of half size brains who cannot
$finish a post without choice f and motherf words and those who go
$along.

Oh yeah, I just love CHOICE Fs and MOTHERFs who chime in three weeks after
the thread is over.

SEBESTA, TIMOTHY RICHARD

unread,
Jul 26, 1992, 5:41:00 PM7/26/92
to
In article <1992Jul24.2...@gagme.chi.il.us>, barn...@gagme.chi.il.us (Aaron Barnhart) writes...

>In article <1992Jul21....@seq.uncwil.edu> fra...@seq.uncwil.edu
>(william carter franklin) writes:
>
>><deleted>>
>For those of you keepng score, Mr. Franklin is the 16th white liberal,
>Asian, or otherwise disaffected American on s.c.a.a. in 1992 to pee his
>pants over someone's spelling.
>

Why are you keeping score and what is the game we are playing?

Greg Gross

unread,
Jul 26, 1992, 6:00:48 PM7/26/92
to
mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:

> >mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>
> >> >The idea is not -- repeat, *NOT* -- to have whites experience the
> >> >pains of racism simply because they are white. It never was. The
> >> >idea was/is to let the victimizer (TRANSLATION: those whites who
> >> >hold racist attitudes and engage in racist conduct) walk in the shoes
> >> >of the victim (TRANSLATION: the non-whites on the receiving end of
> >> >such attitudes and conduct) in the hope that the victimizer will
> >> >awaken to the evil s/he is doing...and desist.
>
> >> Greg, how do you intend to distinguish between racist and non-racist
> >> whites for this purpose? Seems to me like this is a really pathetic
> >> rationalization of racism. Maybe we should beat up Blacks because
> >> Blacks have a higher crim rate than Whites. The ideas is not --
> >> repeat, *NOT* -- to have blacks experience the pains of crime simply
> >> because they are black. It never was. The idea was/is to let the
> >> victimizer (TRANSLATION: those blacks who commit crimes) walk in the
> >> shoes of the victim (TRANSLATION: the non-blacks on the receiving end
> >> of such conduct) in the hope that the victimizer will awaken to the
> >> evil s/he is doing...and desist.
>
> >What's pathetic, Michael, is your attempted analogy...
>
> Actually, Greg, I think you must have found it rather telling.
> Otherwise you would not have found it necessary to delete the part of
> the post describing the original situation.

Actually, Michael, I deleted it because I didn't see fit to waste time
or space on it.


>
> >On the other hand, I wouldn't have much problem with black criminal
> >suspects experiencing some of the emotional trauma they inflict on
> >their victims -- especially given the fact that the overwhelming
> >majority of their victims are black, anyway.
>
> Fine, but given that the policy in question - discrimination against
> whites - does not single out racsists - why should we single our
> criminals when we do a policy against Blacks?

The whole point was and is to single out racists, Michael. You're not
paying attention.


>
> >Although
> >I don't think I'd have much trouble identifying racists who were
> >eligible for it. In fact, that's the only aspect of it that *is*
> >workable.
>
> Really? So how do you do it? Anyone whose political views you don't
> like? Anyone who votes for David Duke? Jesse Helms? Pat Buchanan?
> George Bush?
>

> >> >It is about finding a way to induce certain people to desist from

> >> Which people? How do you plan to identify them?
>
> I repeat the question.

Well, Michael, I might start with the person who leaves pictures of burning
crosses and KKK's in my mailbox at work. I might add to the list the
landlords over the years who told me they have apartment rady to rent when I
telephoned them, only to tell me scant minutes minutes later (after seeing
me for the first time), that those places were already rented...and *then*
telling a white friend who followed immediately behind me that the same
apartment was, indeed, available. I might throw in the management of the
companies that paid me less than whites with less experience, less training
and doing a lesser job.

And for old time's sake, I just might add the high school teacher who
used to spend the bulk of his teaching time in my predominantly black high
school telling us that we were all "good for nothing," that the boys would
all grow up to be drug addicts, burglars and pimps, and the girls would
grow up to be alcoholics, welfare mothers and whores.

If you care to quibble with any of those, go right ahead.

Note, though, that none of those examples are cited solely because of their
ethnicity, or their neighborhood of residence, or their income level, or
their political affiliation. There is, however, a common thread for all
of them -- discriminatory or even downright abusive behavior, with race
as the criterion for their choice of victims.

In a perfect world, those are the people who would be my candidates to
spend some time in my shoes.

But of course, were this a perfect world, this entire discussion would be
be moot, because racism would not exist in the first place.

Frankly, Michael, it gives me no joy to hear that qualified whites lose
out on certain jobs. I don't think anyone ever viewed AA as some sort
of cure-all for this country's racial woes. But AA, with all its
headaches, is but a symptom of the original problem -- racism.
eliminate that, and the need for such flawed attempts at short-
term remedial solutions no longer exists.

Unfortunately, too many people would rather focus on the evils of
AA, or the evils of welfare, etcetera ad nauseum, then try to attack
the root of those evils. That being the case, we figure to be having
this discussion for a long time.
G.

;;;;7202

unread,
Jul 26, 1992, 10:21:56 PM7/26/92
to
In article <1992Jul26.1...@news2.cis.umn.edu> mmo...@epx.cis.umn.edu

("None of ya Bizness") writes:
}In article <1992Jul26.1...@udel.edu> sh...@krusty.ee.udel.edu
(Jeong-Gyun Shin) writes:
}$And also don't forget to count number of half size brains who cannot
}$finish a post without choice f and motherf words and those who go
}$along.
}
}Oh yeah, I just love CHOICE Fs and MOTHERFs who chime in three weeks after
}the thread is over.

BTW, I heard that there'll never be a black version of the McLaughlin Group
because you can't say "motherfucker" on TV. :-)

Michael J. Carpenter

unread,
Jul 26, 1992, 10:19:45 PM7/26/92
to
In article <1992Jul26.1...@news2.cis.umn.edu> mmo...@epx.cis.umn.edu ("None of ya Bizness") writes:
>In article <1992Jul26.1...@udel.edu> sh...@krusty.ee.udel.edu (Jeong-Gyun Shin) writes:
>$In article <1992Jul26.0...@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> mjca...@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Michael J. Carpenter) writes:
>$>In article <1992Jul24.2...@gagme.chi.il.us> barn...@gagme.chi.il.us (Aaron Barnhart) writes:
>$>>In article <1992Jul21....@seq.uncwil.edu> fra...@seq.uncwil.edu

>$>>For those of you keepng score, Mr. Franklin is the 16th white liberal,


>$>>Asian, or otherwise disaffected American on s.c.a.a. in 1992 to pee his
>$>>pants over someone's spelling.
>$>>
>$>>Apparently patriotism is the *second-to-last* refuge of a scoundrel.
>$>
>$>I'm rollin'.......................
>$>
>$>Yeeeaaah, boyyeeee! I'm out, Mc
>$>
>$
>$And also don't forget to count number of half size brains who cannot
>$finish a post without choice f and motherf words and those who go
>$along.
>
>Oh yeah, I just love CHOICE Fs and MOTHERFs who chime in three weeks after

Dang, what the heck did I step into?

Mc

Chris deephouse Gray

unread,
Jul 26, 1992, 11:07:49 PM7/26/92
to
sh...@krusty.ee.udel.edu (Jeong-Gyun Shin) writes:

>And also don't forget to count number of half size brains who cannot
>finish a post without choice f and motherf words and those who go
>along.

Uh? What's wrong with them? If that person wants to express themselves
that way so the fuck be it. EE:]

This is AmeriKKKa? Where you have 'freedom of speech'?

*so cynical*

william carter franklin

unread,
Jul 27, 1992, 11:32:30 AM7/27/92
to
sh...@krusty.ee.udel.edu (Jeong-Gyun Shin) writes:


>And also don't forget to count number of half size brains who cannot
>finish a post without choice f and motherf words and those who go
>along.

Yeah, I mean every time I make a good point in one of my excellent
postings, there is always some bonehead who follows me up, but
instead of making valid points he just whines and calls me vulgar names.
Doesn't that show that you have hit a nerve?

Aaron Barnhart

unread,
Jul 26, 1992, 6:59:32 PM7/26/92
to

>In article <1992Jul23....@pslu1.psl.wisc.edu> joh...@offroad.chem.wisc.edu (Arthur Johnson) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul22....@news2.cis.umn.edu>
>>mmo...@epx.cis.umn.edu ("None of ya Bizness") writes:
>>> In article <1992Jul21.1...@seq.uncwil.edu>
>>fra...@seq.uncwil.edu [name deleted] writes:
>>>
>>> $How about it? Who did it happen to? My mother WORKS for GMAC. Caught
>>> $your tired ass on this one.
>>>
>>> No you didn't you silly bastard. So mothafuckin what if your mammy
>>works
>>> for GMAC! That pithy statement means nothing. Obviously your overtly
>>liberal
>>> ass hasn't been watching TV lately. Remember that Prime Time special
>>where
>>> they compared the ethics of a car dealer with a black customer and with
>>a white
>>> customer? The white customer was quoted a substantially lower price on
>>a
>>> car than was the black customer.
>>>
>> Malcolm's right. I saw this special too. It started a real debate
>>between my housemates and me on how to solve this particular problem. We
>>all finally agreed that the car manufacturers should insist that their
>>dealers sell cars at fixed prices (no bargaining allowed) set by the
>>manufacturers. Fortunately, there is one such company that does this:
>>Saturn Inc. They make great cars that are reasonably priced, and all their
>>cars are sold at fixed prices. So, with a Saturn, at least you don't have
>>to worry about the next person getting a better deal than you simply
>>because of his/her "race".

Yeah Arthur, but no doubt someone will find another way. I am looking
here <rummage rummage> no luck, for a Wall St. Journal article of about
three months past, an editorial on the "black tax." Well, let me just
tell you two stories from that first-person account that stand out
vividly:

One is the author going to Marshall Field's to return a shirt. The woman
has one look at him and says he's going to have to *launder* the shirt first
and bring a receipt as proof of laundering before she will accept the
exchange. The author does so and gets his refund from this ethnic scum
who can barely conceal her rage. Author, natch, sends a friend to Field's
for the express purpose of purchasing, then returning a few days later,
a similar shirt. White friend gets prompt pleasant refund FROM THE SAME
WOMAN.

Another is the author -- a Newsweek photographer by the way -- trying to
sell his home in a hurry, in response to a career leap of a promotion
which he cannot afford to turn down but will have to if he can't get a
decent price on his home. Unfortauntely, the agent appraises the home
way low, and the author is stunned. But wait: he calls his *white friends*
and tells them his plan. They show up, whisking away all evidences of a
black household, replacing photographs and other telltale cultural symbols
with their white faces. Another agent is called in and .... an appraisal
slightly outside the margin of error results. To wit, FIFTEEN THOUSAND
DOLLARS HIGHER than the previous appraisal.

Then of course there are the markups in stores in predominantly black
neighborhoods, which everybody on s.c.a.a. except, of course,
[name deleted] ought to be familiar wit. But anyway.

>>> "Jeeeeah this is the rap about the bat batman he is the one in black
>>like a bat
>>> out of hell he will reveal SCREAMIN DOWN THE ROAD IN A BATMOBILE!!!!!!!"

Hey watch ou --

Arthur Johnson

unread,
Jul 27, 1992, 4:13:21 PM7/27/92
to
In article <1992Jul26.2...@gagme.chi.il.us>
barn...@gagme.chi.il.us (Aaron Barnhart) writes:
>
[...stuff deleted about why black folks should consider buying Saturn
cars ...]

>
> Yeah Arthur, but no doubt someone will find another way. I am looking
> here <rummage rummage> no luck, for a Wall St. Journal article of about
> three months past, an editorial on the "black tax." Well, let me just
> tell you two stories from that first-person account that stand out
> vividly:
>
> One is the author going to Marshall Field's to return a shirt. The
woman
> has one look at him and says he's going to have to *launder* the shirt
first
> and bring a receipt as proof of laundering before she will accept the
> exchange. The author does so and gets his refund from this ethnic scum
> who can barely conceal her rage. Author, natch, sends a friend to
Field's
> for the express purpose of purchasing, then returning a few days later,
> a similar shirt. White friend gets prompt pleasant refund FROM THE SAME
> WOMAN.
>
This sounds like it took place in Chicago. Having once lived in
Chicago, this doesn't surprise me. It's high time more of these people be
exposed. The next time some bigot tries to pull this on a black person,
the black person should ask that the bigot put this "policy" in writing
and sign it, followed by public exposure of the bigot's name, home
address, home telephone number, and company that they work for and
represent.

>
> Another is the author -- a Newsweek photographer by the way -- trying to
> sell his home in a hurry, in response to a career leap of a promotion
> which he cannot afford to turn down but will have to if he can't get a
> decent price on his home. Unfortauntely, the agent appraises the home
> way low, and the author is stunned. But wait: he calls his *white
friends*
> and tells them his plan. They show up, whisking away all evidences of a
> black household, replacing photographs and other telltale cultural
symbols
> with their white faces. Another agent is called in and .... an
appraisal
> slightly outside the margin of error results. To wit, FIFTEEN THOUSAND
> DOLLARS HIGHER than the previous appraisal.
>
This doesn't surprise me, either. I'll have to think about this one
awhile before I offer a possible course of action, though.
>
> Then of course there are the markups in stores in predominantly black
> neighborhoods, which everybody on s.c.a.a. except, of course,
> [name deleted] ought to be familiar wit. But anyway.
>
I'm not disputing this. This [markups] happens all the time. All I
was doing was offering a possible solution to the specific problem of
disparate price quotes for new cars due to the "racial" background of the
buyer. Fixed prices will solve _this_ particular problem. Saturn Inc. is
the only company that has such a company policy. I'm all in favor of
testing this policy out, using black and white "testers", to see if their
outlet stores are carrying out company policy. If they aren't, then black
folks are no worse off than before. If they are, then Saturn should be
rewarded with our business, if it's at all feasible, and the general
public should be made aware of this fact.

>
> --
> Aaron (Barn...@gagme.chi.il.us)
> Evanston, Illinois

Arthur Johnson


University of Wisconsin-Madison
Department of Chemistry

joh...@offroad.chem.wisc.edu

mcb...@vax.oxford.ac.uk

unread,
Jul 27, 1992, 6:53:15 AM7/27/92
to
In article <1992Jul24.2...@panix.com>, l...@panix.com (Larry Kolodney) writes:
> In <1992Jul21....@vax.oxford.ac.uk> mcb...@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
>
>>Jews are allowed to hate Nazis, Kuwaitis Hate
>>Iraqis, but never must a black man express his hatred and anger against racism
>>by whites.
>
> No one on this list has criticized anger and hatred of racism. The
> criticism has been when the anger is directed at all whites, blindly
> and stupidly.
>

Nice debating trick Larry. Pull an isolated sentence out of an entire post and
make an issue of it. When you respond to the context and meaning of the post
(and I believe it a fair assumption that you do have the intelligence to do
so), I'll respond. Leave that sort of behaviour to William Franklin.


>
> --
> larry kolodney:(l...@panix.com)
> _(*#&)#*&%)@(*^%_!*&%^!)*&#+!*&$+!?&%+!*&^_)*&#%)*&^%#+&
> The past is not dead, it's not even past. - Wm. Faulkner

McBean

sl...@cc.usu.edu

unread,
Jul 28, 1992, 4:24:56 PM7/28/92
to

CEASE AND DESIST, already!!!!

Mr. Franklin I have asked you nicely and I will try one last time. Please
refrain from posts that are baiting other people to flame you. And
stop the incessant whining.

Thanks.

Peace, but not without justice,
Zip

P.S. Other scaa readers please do not FOLLOWUP Mr. Franklin's followup.

william carter franklin

unread,
Jul 29, 1992, 4:55:57 PM7/29/92
to

Remember when I said (Blah Blah Blah........)...............

postings, there is always some bonehead who follows me up, but
instead of making valid points he just whines and calls me vulgar names.
Doesn't that show that you have hit a nerve?


Well....


sl...@cc.usu.edu writes:

:) CEASE AND DESIST, already!!!!
:)
:) Mr. Franklin I have asked you nicely and I will try one last time. Please
:) refrain from posts that are baiting other people to flame you. And
:) stop the incessant whining.
:)
:) Thanks.
:)
:) Peace, but not without justice,
:) Zip
:)
:) P.S. Other scaa readers please do not FOLLOWUP Mr. Franklin's followup.

Although you have proven my point for me, I bet you can NOT give
an example of any post that you think was written for the purpose
stated above. My posts are written to invoke thought, something you
seem to wish to shy away from.

(And, yes, please do not follow up this follow up unless you are Zip and
you can come up with a good answer, which is unlikely.)


Only CONCRETE EXAMPLES of your argument will do at this point...
Something your arguments usually lack. So I am NOT expecting any more
from you.

Kevin Closson

unread,
Aug 10, 1992, 12:21:07 PM8/10/92
to
In article <1992Jul21.1...@seq.uncwil.edu> fra...@seq.uncwil.edu (william carter franklin) writes:

>All drunk drivers should get life in prison or a good beating.


Your brain is broken.


william carter franklin

unread,
Aug 10, 1992, 2:37:42 PM8/10/92
to
kev...@sequent.com (Kevin Closson) writes:


> Your brain is broken.


I hope it does not take the death of your spouse or one of your children
to wake your tired ass up on this one. Drunk drivers kill more people
each year than cancer. Innocent children riding to the baseball park in
the back seat killed instantly because old fat men leave bars drunk and
don't care. LIFE IN PRISON OR A GOOOOOOOOD BEATING yes a GOOOOD BEATING.

Punishment: the ONLY true deterrant

LIFE IN PRISON, OR A GOOD BEATING.
LIFE IN PRISON, OR A GOOD BEATING.
LIFE IN PRISON, OR A GOOD BEATING.
LIFE IN PRISON, OR A GOOD BEATING.
LIFE IN PRISON, OR A GOOD BEATING.
LIFE IN PRISON, OR A GOOD BEATING.

Kevin Closson

unread,
Aug 10, 1992, 7:06:10 PM8/10/92
to
>kev...@sequent.com (Kevin Closson) writes:

>>In article (william carter franklin) writes:
>
>>>All drunk drivers should get life in prison or a good beating.
>
>> Your brain is broken.
>
>I hope it does not take the death of your spouse or one of your children
>to wake your tired ass up on this one. Drunk drivers kill more people
>each year than cancer. Innocent children riding to the baseball park in
>the back seat killed instantly because old fat men leave bars drunk and
>don't care. LIFE IN PRISON OR A GOOOOOOOOD BEATING yes a GOOOOD BEATING.

One of two things is true. Either you've changed my mind, or I still think
the death penalty is not just punishent for drinking and driving.

Do you have bumper stickers on your car?

william carter franklin

unread,
Aug 11, 1992, 4:31:47 PM8/11/92
to
kev...@sequent.com (Kevin Closson) writes:


> One of two things is true. Either you've changed my mind, or I still think
> the death penalty is not just punishent for drinking and driving.

> Do you have bumper stickers on your car?


LIFE IN PRISON OR A GOOD BEATING. WHO SAID ANYTHING ABOUT THE DEATH
PENALTY? PUNISHMENTS do DETER CRIMES.

0 new messages