Skip to main content

    Color blindness suggests that we are literally sightless to the struggles of color. Color blindness is similar to blind faith, blind attempt, blind loyalty, blind fate, blindfold, and even blind date because they all suggest purposely impairing one of our five senses until we surrender all preparation, knowledge, and control when entering certain situations...[i]
Those are the words of Carol Chehade, author of [i]"Big Little White Lies: Our Attempt to White-Out America".

I want to field the perspectives that the brothers, sisters and others have on the COLORBLIND concept as it applies to our society, AA and the overall issue of race...

It seems as if the most conservative elements in society seem to be embracing COLORBLINDNESS as the staple philosophy of MLK, despite very explicit and elaborate statements that demonstrate Dr. King's advocacy for AA & Reparation type of programs - theses very similar to contemporary advocates for both ideas.

Debate, Discuss, Deliberate...


    ______________________________
    "At the heart of this project
    is the continuing quest to free ourselves...

    an ongoing search for models of excellence
    and possibilities within our [African] culture by which
    we speak our own special *human* truth to the world and
    make our own unique contribution
    to the forward flow of human history.
    - Dr. Maulana Karenga

    ______________________________
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

"despite very explicit and elaborate statements that demonstrate Dr. King's advocacy for AA & Reparation type of programs"

Were they too 'explicit' for you to provide them here? Seems you've forgotten to include even 'one' of those alledged statements for us to review and comment on. Whats the problem?

Isn't this like saying, "Yo, the zoo is a great place, but I can't tell you whether they got any animals or not"

To save time, lets see how much thought you've put into this subject. Tell us, what is your 'alternative' to the color blind society? And what is the 'opposite' of the color blind society?

Even more importantly maginate, and since Ms Chehade seems to have no clue, if those analogies are genuine, tell us what is meant by a color blind society in your opinion. Is it not that laws should treat all people equally? You don't like that concept?

[This message was edited by sergeant on July 23, 2003 at 09:05 AM.]
I'm opening up discussion on the root idea - Colorblind society theory...

For some reason you haven't learned that I always have stuff to back up my position. As a matter of fact, Johnny "Come F~ckin' Lately" I have listed exactly what I have alluded to here so many times and so predictably so when debating Whites and/or conservatives (or other confused Negroes) that I am bored by the repetition.

But since you need to know...
I do not think that there is an argument of concerning the goal of a colorblind society, at least not from me. My problem is at what point should that become the goal. My contention is that to promote the philosophy, while radical inequalities in regards to color still exist from the cumulative effects of racism against blacks through history, is PREMATURE. Moreover, the concept at this juncture simply prevents targeting a people for elevation, which have been traditionally targeted for oppression. The resultant is that it simply preserves inequalities inherited from the past, if colorblindness is implemented before measures that correct the inequalities from past racism. However, that may indeed BE THE GOAL of the current push for a colorblind America.... simply preserving inequity between the races...to the favor and benefit of white...yet again.

Truth is always fraught with impediments. Truth agreed with is a blessed duet. Truth confronting beloved vice will sever relationships, perpetrate flight, and uncover murderous rage. - Alexander Solzhenitsyn


("`-''-/").___..--''"`-._
`6_ 6 ) `-. ( ).`-.__.`)
(_Y_.)' ._ ) `._ `. ``-..-'
_..`--'_..-_/ /--'_.' ,'
(((' (((-((('' ((((
Noah The African in America
You know what YOU {insert the best Ghetto Expletive}...

Get your ass to the LIBRARY!!
IT's FREE!!!

(So I shouldn't have even provided you with the above links, going by your philosophy. MLK been gone for how long and discussed so much and YOU don't know what the HELL he stood for, wrote about, and passionately advocated???)

Silly aSS Rabbit!!
Thanks NOAH...

At least someone can approach this subject with some intelligence unlike SARG., who has to act like an ASS when something challenges his perspective. That's cool though!

It's funny how you try to challenge me...
LYING ASS MotherF~cka! Get your shit straight before you go around declaring who does and who does not have a clue. GET YOUR aSS to the LIBRARY!!

NOAH, I'm glad you spoke in terms of the GOAL of a COLORBLIND SOCIETY... There's a difference between a goal and the MEANS by which you reach that goal. That seems, to me, to be the problematic issue with the concept.

It's funny how most all people will admit that we are not and have not reach the point to where race isn't an issue. Bush said so in his speech in Dakar... Yet, few are willing to articulate and commit to dealing with the reality of off-setting those "inequities" you speak of (that we all know about)...

That's exactly what I mean by False Theory (because it is miss applied) and Bad Practice (because it ignores those inequities)...
Dumb Drunk SARG...

Nobody has a problem with "Equal Treatment" etc. The problem is and the problem remains that there is NOT equal treatment and inequilities abound and are allowed to continue as inherited situations of disadvantage in every aspect of society.

You can't begin to talk about equality to me cause I'm down for the real...

I want equality from the top down... But you have so much invested in the status quo you wouldn't understand or begin to comprehend. Fact is... you're a sad excuse for a person of principle, integrity or anything else...

Don't try to battle me...
I'll leave you LYING!!!! Big Grin
That has been an interesting debate lately Noah. The concept that by tilting the laws, albeit unconstitutional, in 'our' favor, this will resolve racism's 'favoritism' of the past. Its the concept that the 'gubment' should correct 'inequality' by promoting 'inequality'.

The biggest problem with that, as I see it, is that there are no more 'gubment' laws that can be passed to address inequity or discrimination. All of that has been done. Race has been declared an improper determiner of priviledge OR punishment. And these things were done primarily at OUR OWN behest and demands.

Now we come to see some of us who say, "er, eh, um, wait a minute! I'm not fully for prohibitions against raced based preferences"

Huh?? Wha..?? WTF......

Now Black folks fought long and hard to achieve civil rights and rid the law of racial discrimination and bias in law. Now we come back and say, oh no thats not what we really wanted afterall.

Colorblindness in law was implemented a long time ago. This is not something that has just come up lately. The position you are actually espousing is that some 'race' discrimination should be tolerated, no matter how unconstitutional it may be.

Tell me folks, are we NUTS? Do we know our asses from a hole in the wall? So now lets work against the achievements of our past heroes and reverse what they fought for, a nation that does not put race above character, does not see race in the legitimate adminstration of law. Lets use 'race', at our discretion, if it's perceived to 'benefit' us.

I mean, whats the difference between that view and what white racists who passed Jim Crow laws said and did? They made the argument that racial preference is permissable, and now we are saying the same thing???

We really need so much 'gubment' help that we can't achieve what we want on our own? We really so 'fragile' and 'helpless' as a people? We still do not know that its education, hard work, and staying out the joint that are prerequisites to success??? We don't live in a socialist nation, the 'gubment' cannot hand out motivation, good work ethics, or talent.

Come now, surely we are a better people than this.
Sergeant, It is apparent in your continued spelling of government as "gubment" that you believe by spelling government as "gubment" you some how prove those who are opposed to your argument as being dumb and incapable of speaking properly. Everyone on this site who opposes your arguments has spelled government correctly and I am sure if this was a verbal exchange would pronounce it correctly, so why do you insist on spelling government as "gubment". Is this to say those who oppose your argument are dumb? Negroes like you will never take a condescending tone with white folk but that is to be expected because white folk love you because you can articulate their thoughts and give it a Black face.

Your delusions remind me of another Negro; Clarence Thomas, a man whom I know you admire and love. A man who was the only one to vote against given a Black man a new trial even after evidence proved that race was an issue. Like Clarence you are so delusional that in the face of undeniable evidence you will just stick to your position instead of bowing down to a greater truth. That is not debate that is being and ideologue.
As white folk continue to benefit from nepotism, cronyism, racism and out right favoritism you and other turncoats are on the prowl looking for anything that benefit black folk that you may label it as racist and unfair to whites but for some strange reason you are quite on things that benefit white folk. Why is that? Let me guess there is no such thing as white privilege. Nmaginate provided you with links to the words of MLK but now you are silent on that issue. I have seen this from you before and it is becoming your trade mark, you should get a patent for it because clearly you are the best at it.

-------------------------
When our most educated, and best prepared turn their back on our community, stagnation sets in and the men and women who are not the most educated and not the most prepared become the example for those coming behind them. It is up to those of us who are not rich and well off but are educated and prepared to educate our youth and prepare them for what they will face when entering the world.



More to come later!

Your Brother Faheem
Noah makes a valid point that until all the effects of pass racism are corrected instilling a colorblind society doesn't fix anything. If the idea is fully embraced and implemented maybe future acts of racism may go away (I doubt it) but it does not address the past.

For instance if a colorblind society came about next year, would it provide for the release of all those brothers and sister wrongly convicted and sent to prison based on their race.

Would it go back and issue mortgages to black applicants turned down because they were black.

Would it allow for the higher than normal interest rates that blacks were charged for the same things that whites brought but paided a lower interest rate because they were white returned.

The idea of a colorblind society is a noble one and one that I support. But before we have a colorblind society lets make sure that the playing field is truly equal. Its not enough to say that from now on everything is going to be good, its also important to go back where possible and correct those situations where racism clearly was the factor in deciding issues.
quote:
. Nmaginate provided you with links to the words of MLK but now you are silent on that issue.
I won't belabor the issue but I had noticed the Tough Talk has stopped...

COMPARING AA to brutal segregation is a slap in the face of our ancestors and any intelligent person. HOW IN THE HELL IS AA which has been proven to give MORE benefits to White Women as well as benefits to other minorities, White men that are veterans and disabled be any were near the EXCLUSIVE form of segregation that was specialized for African-Americans ALONE??

This is not even the proverbial comparing of Apples and Oranges... It's simply something that does in no way meet any criteria for comparison.

Speaking of APPLES...
    Family A aquires a share of food goods including One Apple A Day for 4 weeks straight. Family B is prohibited from acquiring Apples until the first 4 weeks of distribution. After the initial 4 weeks both Family A & Family B acquire the food ration at the rate of One Apple A Day.

    How long will it take for Family B to acquire the same amount of Apples as Family A?

    If it is determined that Family B should NOT have been prohibited from aquiring the food ration of Apples what must be done to off-set the imbalance?

    [a] Do nothing. Things are fair now. So Family B is not really disadvantaged or wronged by the past since everything is working fine now.

    [b] Allow Family B the opportunity to acquire the amount of Apples it was prohibited from gaining in order to achieve parity with Family A. In other words, commit to a process that will "EQUAL" out them Apples.

    [c] Offer/allow Family B to get a lump sum "Apple BackPay" or "Apple PayBack" in order to catch-up to Family A.
I know I'm repeating myself, but JOHNNY SARG. needs this kind of education... Big Grin
I reject Conservative America's plea for and/or offer of a colorblind society as patently disingenuous. This is merely its attempt to convince its continuing victims (or maybe, itself) that it no longer plan to harm them, while leaving in place the institutions that its victimization created.

But I must say that its strategy and tactics are brilliant: adopt the name of civil rights, adopt to language of civil rights activists (selectively), frame the question and control the debate.

Currently, the single most threatening organization to civil rights, the American Civil Rights Institute, (like something out of a Orwell novel) actually has civil rights in its title. Conservative America knows and quotes MLK in much the same manner as satan quoted the Bible during the temptations of Christ; selectively and out of context. And, Conservative America's saying to Black folk, "We want a Colorblind society, don't you," is alot like a thief asking a resisting victim whether the victim believes that violence is wrong.

We can never have a discussion of a colorblind society until the institutions created by color-bias are addressed.
You read the book Nmaginate? Good isn't it? Smile

Conservatives are pimping Dr. King's ideology and words as if they were Magic Don Juan! Mad It's all part of the strategy in their self-proclamed "Softer face of Conservatism" which to me just means liberalism. Who in the world do they think that they're fooling? Confused Mad As far as a colorblind society is concerned, there are more ways to determine a person's race and economic status by these companies and banks than you can shake a stick at. For example, your social security number, 3 digit phone exchange, your address, and your name (a good article was posted on this one here) all admitedly used by businesses and companies when determining whether to offer opportunities to people. Until the people who are running companies, corporations and the gov't condone change and change their ways this colorblind theory will continue to be just that.....a THEORY.

Our people have made the mistake of confusing the methods with the objectives. As long as we agree on objectives, we should never fall out with each other just because we believe in different methods, or tactics, or strategy. We have to keep in mind at all times that we are not fighting for separation. We are fighting for recognition as free humans in this society
Malcolm X, 1965
Kweli, I like to call their defense as being jujitsu like. Jujitsu is a weaponless defensive Japanese martial arts form whereby the defenders derive added power from the attackers own weight and strength. Thus, in a classic jujitsu like defense of white privilege and domination, from the attack of the promotion of equality, they use the jargon and jingoism of the civil rights movement against the civil rights movement. This is why each blow that we throw to promote our equality, as black people, must be carefully delivered as not to be used as current or future leverage against us.

Black people need to be very specific and precise in what it is we are seeking and stop using terms and phrases that can later be used against our goals.

Truth is always fraught with impediments. Truth agreed with is a blessed duet. Truth confronting beloved vice will sever relationships, perpetrate flight, and uncover murderous rage. - Alexander Solzhenitsyn


("`-''-/").___..--''"`-._
`6_ 6 ) `-. ( ).`-.__.`)
(_Y_.)' ._ ) `._ `. ``-..-'
_..`--'_..-_/ /--'_.' ,'
(((' (((-((('' ((((
Noah The African in America
First of all, I'm glad you brothers got sarge straight on that nonsense azz approach to trying to refute the truth. It is a sad state of affairs when one provides unequivocable proof and the person who does not want to believe it sticks to their inaccurate beliefs. In academia, people like that get ran out of the building with their tails tucked between their legs.

Kweli4Real posted,

I reject Conservative America's plea for and/or offer of a colorblind society as patently disingenuous. This is merely its attempt to convince its continuing victims (or maybe, itself) that it no longer plan to harm them, while leaving in place the institutions that its victimization created.

* I feel the same way about the use of the term diversity. To me, it is a methodical way of lumping black people in with others to minimize the individual nature of the problems created for us systematically. It is a way of saying our reality is just like ever other non-white's reality while overlooking things that did not affect others. The colorblind notion speaks from the premise that all is equal and america rewards its citizens equally for equal efforts.... and we all know that is a crock...
This is an interesting theory on what some people think "colorblindness" is all about.

It begs the question though, as in, can racism be truly eliminated, or are we stuck with it forever and ever? To me, the reasoning of the book seems like it's looking for racists in imagined dark corners where it probably doesn't even exist--or at least not to the extent that is claimed. Ergo: increasing the number of "enemies" which activism needs in order to breathe. I think it's a way some people can paint people as racists when they probably aren't. That seems judgmental, and last I heard, judge not, lest ye be judged.

I for one would love to see racism eradicated from the face of the earth.

"You liberals with your conspiracy theories are starting to sound like your own version of the John Birch Society"-Rush Limbaugh
quote:
Originally posted by shebakoby:
It begs the question though, as in, can racism be truly eliminated, or are we stuck with it forever and ever?


People can think whatever thoughts they want. Their behavior just must be free of bias and discrimination. I could care less whether someone thinks racist thoughts about me. I am obviously much more interested in their behavior toward me though. While the two are related, they are in fact independent.

We may never be able to eradicate the insecurity that creates racism. On the other hand, we can eliminate most racist behavior.
Oh wise and intelligent SHEBAKOBY...

Could you tell us what COLORBLINDNESS is "really about"??... I mean in practice, DON'T just quote me meaningless THEORY!

Could you tell me if it could have some "unfortunate side-effects"? (I believed you talked about something like that before.)

And could you please tell what makes a person and a SOCIETY racist or not? You seem to call most any observation of racism as someone "looking for racists in imagined dark corners" when they are speaking about very openly held views, opinions and attitudes we all are aware of.

How do you suppose racism can be eradicated??

*******************************
It is my opinion that we should focus on securing those things the will eradicate or significantly minimize the effects of racism.

The issue is then on the WILL to do what it takes... and White America has been too long too much opposed to any such thing, IMO.
quote:
Originally posted by shebakoby:
It begs the question though, as in, can racism be truly eliminated, or are we stuck with it forever and ever?


People can think whatever thoughts they want. Their behavior just must be free of bias and discrimination. I could care less whether someone thinks racist thoughts about me. I am obviously much more interested in their behavior toward me though. While the two are related, they are in fact independent.[/QUOTE]

Yeah that's probably the best anyone can hope for, although some people might slip up and let their opinions affect how they treat people. This is what is known as "sin."
quote:
Originally posted by 222:
We may never be able to eradicate the insecurity that creates racism. On the other hand, we can eliminate most racist behavior.

Well that depends on whether insecurity is what causes racism or if it is an entirely different reason. As I have indicated in other posts, I believe that the reason that racism against "African/African-American" people seems worse than other kinds is because Darwinian Evolutionists theorized that Africans were the least evolved of humankind. That was a destructive theory that caused much harm. Thank goodness most evolutionists no longer believe that, but the racism stuck while the theory evaporated--having been believed by less-educated people, which has perpetuated itself in other ways. Also, the racism of individuals is usually based on negative experiences of themselves or stories their friends have told them. Both are fallacious reasonings and all who think that way need education to smarten them a little bit up.

"You liberals with your conspiracy theories are starting to sound like your own version of the John Birch Society"-Rush Limbaugh
SHEBAKOBY...

You act as if Darwainism created racism or at least its Black form... That was a justification, an afterthought or support of the racism that was... and you still have "educated" philosophies that once you take them to their logical conclusion still promote that same idea. Your PW-All-Stars are infamous for that kind of thinking...

You can put a dirty bum in new clothes but he will always be a dirty bum after the make-over. That's all racism has done, got a make-over...

Of course, it's only the blind... COLORBLIND that can't see that. (And you got the nerve to quote RUSH!! LMAO!!!)
quote:
Originally posted by Nmaginate:
SHEBAKOBY...

You act as if Darwainism created racism or at least its Black form... That was a justification, an afterthought or support of the racism that was... and you still have "educated" philosophies that once you take them to their logical conclusion still promote that same idea. Your PW-All-Stars are infamous for that kind of thinking...

DUHHHHH I know it did not create it. But it sure as hell made it WORSE. Before, people only thought that minorities were inferior. After that, they had some kind of "proof"!!!!! (fraudulent though it was)


quote:
Originally posted by Nmaginate:
You can put a dirty bum in new clothes but he will always be a dirty bum after the make-over. That's all racism has done, got a make-over...

Of course, it's only the blind... COLORBLIND that can't see that.

Hey! They prefer to be called "homeless"!
quote:
Originally posted by Nmaginate:
(And you got the nerve to quote RUSH!! LMAO!!!)

yes I have the nerve to quote Rush. WTF is wrong with that? You quotin Malcolm X like it's going out of style.

"You liberals with your conspiracy theories are starting to sound like your own version of the John Birch Society"-Rush Limbaugh
quote:
yes I have the nerve to quote Rush. WTF is wrong with that? You quotin Malcolm X like it's going out of style.
If you equate Malcolm X to RUSH then I see why you have your perception problems.

I quoted Malcolm X to you in one thread and now I'm quoting him like "he's going out of style"... Note that I did so basically at your request.

AH... could you add some substance to your remarks.
**************************************
Your opinion that Darwainism "made racism worse" and the implicit idea that since it has been supposedly discredited then everything is better now is seeing life through rose colored glasses. Like I said, that theory was just one of many attempts to justify and not necessarily to solidify racism. Racism has been and would have been rock solid with or without it...

But I'll let you think that it really changes things...

The fact that someone had to be convinced that those theories were/are baseless (when they continue to draw attention... Can you see BELL CURVE... BEST SELLER!!) should show you that people were apt/quick to believe that and still are.
quote:
yes I have the nerve to quote Rush. WTF is wrong with that? You quotin Malcolm X like it's going out of style.

quote:
Originally posted by Nmaginate:
If you equate Malcolm X to RUSH then I see why you have your perception problems.

No I don't equate the two, other than isn't Malcolm X FOR Freedom? So is Rush. My point is you quote your favorite sources so why the hell can't I quote mine.
quote:
Originally posted by Nmaginate:
I quoted Malcolm X to you in one thread and now I'm quoting him like "he's going out of style"... Note that I did so basically at your request.

And I've only used one Rush quote.
quote:
Originally posted by Nmaginate:
AH... could you add some substance to your remarks.
**************************************
Your opinion that Darwainism "made racism worse" and the implicit idea that since it has been supposedly discredited then everything is better now is seeing life through rose colored glasses. Like I said, that theory was just one of many attempts to justify and not necessarily to solidify racism. Racism has been and would have been rock solid with or without it...

But I'll let you think that it really changes things...

Well then, have you any OTHER explanation why racism against blacks SEEMS to be worse than against most other minorities, if not because some people seemed to think that the "African race" was the LEAST evolved and thus the LEAST human, according to the dumbasses who called themselves "scientists" of the day? Of course racism would have been rock solid without it, however what you are FAILING to take into account is that the "science" of the day (Darwinism) gave an aura of respectability to the viewpoint that it otherwise might not have had. It's one thing to just suspect that other 'races' are inferior; it is quite another when someone offers believable (at the time) evidence that the suspicions are correct.

I just finished saying in an earlier post that the discrediting of the theory did NOT make everything better. Among the lesser-educated, who ate that crap up with a spoon because they didn't know any better, the idea STUCK. That is why there still are white supremacist motherf****ers referring to "the mud people." (that is, if "LAW AND ORDER" is any indication...) They believe the others are not human because they believe whites are "more evolved"--the fallacy never got exposed with that crowd. Or they steadfastly cling to it for reasons known or yet unknown. Probably because they are MENTALLY UNBALANCED.
quote:
Originally posted by Nmaginate:
The fact that someone had to be convinced that those theories were/are baseless (when they continue to draw attention... Can you see BELL CURVE... BEST SELLER!!) should show you that people were apt to believe that and still are


"The Bell Curve" was an extremely flawed work.

Dude you don't seem to understand that people have a hard time dissenting with the science of the time. Since in that era, "science" was basically trumping religion in many people's minds as THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH, people would hesitate (and still do, witness the people on the sidelines of the evolution/creation debate) to question the scientific theories of the day. Scientists have a measure of respect granted to them that most other people don't have. People believed it because "Science" told them so, and to question the determinations of science in some areas was to open the door to endless ridicule and criticism. Thus, when "scientists" made the determination about the evolutionary status of different races, few challenged their ideas--mainly because if a scientist said it, it HAD to be 'true.'

Some people have a remnant of that opinion remaining, mainly because to them, adding to the mix their insecurities or their personal experiences, it was still true in their minds and they refused to believe that the reversal of the opinion was legitimate.

"You liberals with your conspiracy theories are starting to sound like your own version of the John Birch Society"-Rush Limbaugh
You said all that stuff about "what people thought about science then" (never providing PROOF mind you) but you still have NO explanation why such a "flawed" work as you called it was a BEST SELLER!!!

Can you explain that away....???

I would think by the way the conservative movement talks about "family values" and putting God back the Pledge (and otherwise getting back to the religious Judeo-Christian roots of "this" nation) that your idea that SCIENCE TRUMPED RELIGION is backwards. That might be true of today but I think most people would typify earlier times when racist doctrines were "first" spread that they did it by religion... That's exactly why most intelligent/learned people recognize that Christianity was FORCED on Africans... It was used exactly as the that kind of instrument.
quote:
I just finished saying in an earlier post that the discrediting of the theory did NOT make everything better. Among the lesser-educated, who ate that crap up with a spoon because they didn't know any better, the idea STUCK. That is why there still are white supremacist motherf****ers referring to "the mud people." (that is, if "LAW AND ORDER" is any indication...) They believe the others are not human because they believe whites are "more evolved"--the fallacy never got exposed with that crowd. Or they steadfastly cling to it for reasons known or yet unknown. Probably because they are MENTALLY UNBALANCED.
Sorry SHEBA...

I don't by your thesis.

There is no hard and fast direct correlation to education and racism. RACISM is a CHOICE that even the most "educated" can make. As a matter of fact, the "science of the day" whether in the distant or recent past used it's "intellect" to prove exactly what they wanted to believe. That is still in most respects how scientific inquiry starts. A person basically sets out to prove what it is they believe in the first place.

That's works for both the pro's and the con's. Only the few that are objective enough to challenge their own preconceived notions will seek out as much truth as there is and "let the facts decide"... If you believe otherwise, then I feel that you are being very naive.

When Africans alone were made into slaves here in the US, there was a conscious decision made that wasn't based on "ignorance" Racism. No, a more sanitary logistical Racism created what is called racial slavery which followed an era where Blacks and poor Whites were treated "equally" as indentured servants.Now... tell me Christianity wasn't forced by hook or by crook!!!

[This message was edited by Nmaginate on July 24, 2003 at 04:42 PM.]
Consider the following SHEBA...
(First I will note that Christianity was by itself the first way of discriminating or segregating in American society...)

Christianity: FORCED on Africans and the FORCE of RACISM
    Segregation itself was a continuation of slavery, both being the product of racism, which in turn was a product of Christianity.

    It was a fundamental Christian belief, expressed in the Scriptures and repeated by later Christians, that all pagans serve Satan and that Christians had a right to protect themselves against corruption by pagans and a duty to save the pagans if possible from eternal damnation and torture. These beliefs led them to slaughter or enslave millions of European pagans in centuries of crusades, until all of Europe was Christianized.

    We know this today because Christian clergymen proudly wrote lengthy chronicles describing in nauseating detail the atrocities Christians committed in forcing pagan conversions.

    When 15th-century Christians discovered new lands full of pagans, they did to Africans and American Indians exactly what they did to European pagans, only with one difference. For centuries, Christian artwork had depicted Satan and his demons as black. In Christian literature, Satan was described as black, even specifically as an African, such as in Athanasius' Life of Saint Anthony and the medieval best-seller Voyage of Brendan. Not surprisingly, Christians decided that Africans and Indians were a lot closer to Satan than white-skinned Europeans and acted accordingly to protect themselves from the "pollution" of contact with dark-skinned peoples. Read historian Forrest G. Wood's The Arrogance of Faith for an in-depth exploration of the Christian origin of racism, slavery and segregation.

    That's why defenders of slavery in the antebellum South repeatedly use the Bible and refer to Christian concepts in their arguments. Read The Ideology of Slavery, which reprints slavery defenses, edited by Drew Gilpin Faust, to see how devoutly Christian the defenders were. Defenders correctly note that the Bible repeatedly condones slavery, even commands it at times, and never condemns it. Even the Tenth Commandment condones slavery; so much for the Commandments as a source of moral virtue. Also read Proslavery, by Larry E. Tise, pages 116-120, for surveys showing the overwhelmingly Christian character of slavery defenses. In one survey of pro-slavery tracts, clergymen wrote more than half.

    In the aftermath of the Civil War, it's no surprise that Sunday morning became the most segregated time of the week. Nor is it surprising that it was agnostics and atheists in various liberal movements who spoke out first against segregation and racism. That's one reason that white segregationists--clergy included--labeled the civil-rights workers "communists," a word they considered synonymous with atheism.
I agree Shebokoby, the issue is 'hyped' for as long as I can recall. There are those who profit from the racism industry, and there are those who maintain power if they can convince enough people that racism is hiding behind every corner, and in every aspect of life. If there is no racism, then how many people lose their jobs, causes, and political offices and power? How many times have you heard a politician 'claim' they gonna fix, or at least 'fight' against racism? Many I can assure you. Its so nice to have such a big threatening 'enemy', who never goes away, and have no way to 'measure' progress of success with.

These polticians and crusaders can practice their art infinitely, continue to profit from racism, and make everyone 'believe' they are doing something for everyone, although things hardly ever change in reality, do they.

And you are right I believe concerning the 'interpretation' of what is meant by 'a colorblind society'. It is actually a description of the prohibiton against allowing RACE to seep into LAW.

Laws should not tilt in favor of any 'race', and thats all that 'colorblind' means. Listening to some these folks, you'd think it means everyone walking around and being forbid to see one's color. Nothing is further from the truth.

Sometimes I get the feeling that some people think a 'colorblind society' is a society where everyone is walking around with blind folds on. But thats not what the term means at all, its strictly describing fair and impartial LAW without legistlating favoritism towards a 'race'.

Theres probably noone here who says LAW should be tilted to favor a race. So in reality they agree with the 'colorblind society' all the while bitching about it.

Funny.
Slavery existed in Africa long before they ever heard the word 'christianity'. Just as it had in asia. What I don't think you have comprehended is that slavery has existed, and has been 'accepted' since the dawn of mankind.

The Islamic Ascension in the North African region saw the rise of WHITE slaves from slavic regions, who were their favored type of slave.

So please, if you really want to see who promotes and pushes 'slavery', you need look no further than what muslims are doing to people all over the world TODAY.
... Let's see....

Okay... I here ya!

If there are criminals performing crimes in other parts of the world, criminals here get off until they are all caught...? Oh... YEAH!!! That makes a lot of sense!!

Why didn't I think of that one SARGE??? Wink
*******************************
EDIT:
Calling Sgt. Silent... C'min Sgt. Silent!! Big Grin

[This message was edited by Nmaginate on July 25, 2003 at 08:26 AM.]
Hey maginate, my brother, what up man.

So, you talking about 'apples' now? Whats that mean?

Here, I'll post my post again, and see if you can find out where the apples are:


I agree Shebokoby, the issue is 'hyped' for as long as I can recall. There are those who profit from the racism industry, and there are those who maintain power if they can convince enough people that racism is hiding behind every corner, and in every aspect of life. If there is no racism, then how many people lose their jobs, causes, and political offices and power? How many times have you heard a politician 'claim' they gonna fix, or at least 'fight' against racism? Many I can assure you. Its so nice to have such a big threatening 'enemy', who never goes away, and have no way to 'measure' progress of success with.

These polticians and crusaders can practice their art infinitely, continue to profit from racism, and make everyone 'believe' they are doing something for everyone, although things hardly ever change in reality, do they.

And you are right I believe concerning the 'interpretation' of what is meant by 'a colorblind society'. It is actually a description of the prohibiton against allowing RACE to seep into LAW.

Laws should not tilt in favor of any 'race', and thats all that 'colorblind' means. Listening to some these folks, you'd think it means everyone walking around and being forbid to see one's color. Nothing is further from the truth.

Sometimes I get the feeling that some people think a 'colorblind society' is a society where everyone is walking around with blind folds on. But thats not what the term means at all, its strictly describing fair and impartial LAW without legistlating favoritism towards a 'race'.

Theres probably noone here who says LAW should be tilted to favor a race. So in reality they agree with the 'colorblind society' all the while bitching about it.

Funny.
Naw, that alright. If it ain't important enough to ya, then it certainly don't matter to me.

Yes, I'd like to hear you tell us why you think AA is still 'legal'. The Constitution expressly forbids racial discrimination and granting racial preferences, no?

So, show off your intelligence for us all magnet and explain for us why AA is still practiced, despite the constitution saying race cannot be a factor used in discriminating against, or in granting favor to, any citizen based upon racial considerations.

Write your answer here -->

You can cite the constitution with all the relevant excerpts from it that make your case.

Your up.

[This message was edited by sergeant on July 25, 2003 at 10:59 AM.]


[This message was edited by sergeant on July 25, 2003 at 11:00 AM.]
quote:
Originally posted by sergeant:

Yes, I'd like to hear you tell us why you think AA is still 'legal'. The Constitution expressly forbids racial discrimination and granting racial preferences, no?



Friend, the Supreme Court just ruled that Affirmative Action is still legal. I'm sure you read that in the news somewhere. brosmile

That said, the conservative court doesn't believe that Affirmative Action is illegal or unconstitutional, why do you?



There is no passion to be found playing small, in settling for a life that is less than the one you are capable of living. - Mandela
No... SGT.

I'd like you, ShebaKoby to juxtapose The Life & Discrimination of Blacks under Segregation vs. The Life Of Whites under AA. Side-by-side, Issue-by-Issue.

Let me spell it out. Compare actual things in size and scope like... ah admission to quality hospitals and other things. And don't forget to list the number of colleges that WILL NOT accept a White applicant at all today, I'd like to see your count.

And just to be fair, go ahead and give me that SMALL number of colleges that completely excluded Blacks by virtue of race during segregation.

Let's make a real comparison. I'll let you take the lead! Smile
*******************************
Okay... while I'm waiting... let me bring home a greater illustration to the FALLACY by comparison.

You Right Wing Ideologues would never allow the War in Iraq to be compared to say... Vietnam. Immediately you would cite specific... specific reasons, variables, elements, ACTUAL occurrences, etc. to substantiate the "substantial" differences between the two conflicts.

Likewise, I feel its dishonest, ill-willed, wrong-headed, irresponsible and incredulous to compare AA and Segregation. They are simply two different animals and YOU cannot prove that Whites are being discriminated against... And you definitely can't say it even begins to approach the discrimination that existed under segregation.

What college has absolute barred ALL Whites from enrolling (let alone being admitted)??

[This message was edited by Nmaginate on July 25, 2003 at 12:26 PM.]
Thanks MBM, (Didn't hear anyone praising conservatives for making that decision by the way)

But, thats not entirely accurate either MBM, they did strike down what the undergraduate school was doing, so lets not be too hasty now.

Remember, this can have wide-ranging and presumably long termed 'unintended consequences' if not watched very closely. If racial preferences or discrimination is suddenly deemed 'legal' in the so-called 'hire and fire' arena, can you picture a scenario where it may be used sometime down the line again?

Those who follow such things know the machinations and administration of LAW is all about basing things on 'precedent'. Has this racial 'precedent' now been cast in stone?

Anyone?

[This message was edited by sergeant on July 25, 2003 at 01:18 PM.]


[This message was edited by sergeant on July 25, 2003 at 01:24 PM.]
quote:
Originally posted by sergeant:

But, what I was asking is how that decision stands up to the scrutiny of what we know regarding the Constitution.


"what we know"? LOL Friend, don't you think that the justices on the Supreme Court know just a bit more about the Constitution than you do? If a largely conservative court is able justify AA, perhaps you should analyze your own thinking on the subject.

quote:
Who wants to show us where the constitution allows the race based preferences or racial consideration in the so-called 'hire and fire' arena when it comes to the policy of affirm action.


Affirmative Action in employment requires diverse hiring pools. Period. It is designed to counter the racist behavior of employers who, of their own volition, cannot be trusted to follow the law and hire without bias. Do you understand that? If the predominantly white males that are in positions to hire people in this country did not discriminate, there would be no need for AA.

Despite the fact that those who oppose AA try to spin it in a way to victimize themselves, the bottom line is that if whites did not discriminate, there would be no need for AA. So if you hate AA so much, just commit yourself to eradicating racism and discrimination. It's that simple!



There is no passion to be found playing small, in settling for a life that is less than the one you are capable of living. - Mandela
Well no MBM. I do not. I can read as well as any of them. Its never about 'knowing more', the Supreme court exercises 'judgement', not necessarily 'knowledge'. We are all reading from the exact same book, are we not?

And what makes you think they 'justified' aa?

"It is designed to counter the racist behavior of employers who, of their own volition, cannot be trusted to follow the law and hire without bias. Do you understand that?"

Actually MBM, ALL law is designed to ensure comformity of behavior on this same basis of 'not trusting people', otherwise why would we need law at all? We wouldn't need the law against 'robbing banks' for example, if everyone would just stop robbing banks. Nothing unique about anti-discrimination laws there.

But anti-discrimination laws and laws against racial bias are one thing, and affirm action is another. The constitution forbids racial discrimination in hiring and firing already. But we are speaking of Affirm action, not 'anti-discrimination' law.
Sergeant, I'm coming out of my temporary hiatus to answer your question... AGAIN (yawn)... about why AA is constitutional. In the Clarence Thomas thread, I answered this same question, addressed my answer to you specifically, and you never responded to it. I am pasting the same wording here, in its entirety. No matter how many times I see you ask the same question, I'm simply gonna post it again.

quote:
Originally posted by Vox:

OK, Sergeant, here's the story. Listen carefully, because I really find these kinds of arguments annoying.

There is no absolute prohibition against anything, anywhere in the constitution. There are valid laws banning certain types of speech. There are certain laws that limit freedom of the press. So despite what the constitution says, there can be no absolute prohibitions, because various rights, responsibilities, and government interests, all of which are protected, clash. Therefore, rights, prohibitions, and interests have to be weighed. If this weren't the case, there would be no need for a supreme court.

When certain types of government actions do things that the constitution says it usually should avoid, there are tests employed by courts to determine whether the state action is unconstitutional or not. These tests have been in effect for centuries. One such test, "Strict scrutiny," was involved in the affirmative action case.

If these tests did not exist, America would be thrown into chaos, because very few laws and government actions would be constitutional. To combat the chaos, Congress would have to amend cthe COnstitution so much that it would become a paper tiger, useless and of little effect.

Therefore, there are no absolute prohibitions against the use of race. If the use of race meets the "strict scrutiny" test, then it's constitutional. People who are against AA have no qualms against arresting people for threatening to commit a terrorist act, or yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. This is because you understand that there are interests that the 1st amendment must be balanced against. But whenever there is any action that seeks to level an uneven playing field to benefit historically disadvantaged minorities, all of a sudden the Constitution has to be construed in absolute terms, and all balancing tests must be thrown out of the window. Cut it out.

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×