Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
From what I gather, your solutions to racial problems can be summed up by saying that you think that no one ever anywhere should ever acknowledge any difference between races with respect to anything. How is this different than ignoring the problem?
I can imagine your diatribes about King opting to work on behalf of an all black sanitation worker's union. "What about all the blue collar white workers getting screwed? Why is he ignoring them? Because they're white? Why, that Martin Luther King is nothing but a hatred spewing racist."
|
That is not what I am saying. What I am saying is there are more positive far far better ways to fight racism than to counter it with racism and hatred.
We need t teach and learn from each other, not have Rev. Sharptons, Louis Farrakhans, and the likes or David Duke's or whomever running around creating more hatred. We need more men like George Foreman, MLK, later Malcolm X, Clarence Thomas', Colin Powells, and so on that get out there and will take up the cause in POSITIVE ways. Not keep reopening wounds, promote hated and preach ignorance so they can stay in power.
Quote:
|
No, it's not. Racial equality doesn't just refer to equal treatment, it also refers to equality with respect to other measures as well. The fact that young black males are more likely to be criminals, regardless of their treatment by the justice system, is a sign that inequality still exists, regardless of who is to blame for it. The fact that you can't seem to fathom the role a successful black man might have in convincing a group of young black males who've already started on the wrong path to turn change their lives around is immaterial. Could the judge have spoken to these young men in front of everyone else? Yes. Would his lecture have necessarily had the same effect if it was in front of the general public? Maybe, maybe not. None of us were there, we don't know.
|
I have stated before, I would feel the same about ANY judge removing all but a certain group out. It's prejudicial and goes against everything I believe a court and a judge should stand for. How are we, or this judge to know that others would not benefit from what he said? I find it bullshit.
But the worse part, for me is when 1 judge of a certain background can do it but another from a different background can't.
If you are going to argue that it is ok for a judge to do this then you best argue ALL judges can or you are just as prejudiced and hateful as those you supposedly are fighting against.
Quote:
|
You can sit back an call it racist, but that doesn't matter, you're opinion is irrelevant to any of the folks actually involved. I don't think your definition of racism is useful in any sense, because apparently anyone who does anything proactive concerning racial inequality is racist.
|
There is a HUGE assed difference between proactive teaching to reject ANY prejudice and teaching hate and prejudice to fight hate and prejudiced.
Sharpton, Farrakhan and Wright are positive and teach positive race relations????? Give me a fucking break.
Just as David Duke and whomever else is out there teaches racial peace.
Quote:
How about this: You, Pan, are a racist, hate filled bigot for even acknowledging that the judge was black. Clearly, in the world that is MLK's dream we don't even have words for race, because it doesn't exist in any relevant way-- color of skin << content of character, all that. Since you claim to be an adherent to the goals of MLK, the fact that you even recognize that other people are black makes to a racist, hate spewing bigot.
Does that last paragraph seem reasonable? Not to me. Maybe it does to you.
|
No, it's not reasonable and someday I would hope color, religion, sex and so on won't matter.
But right now they do. Why? Because again, oce you have people saying one judge can because of a certain background and another can't, PREJUDICE will be the first thing said and rightfully so.