Quote:
Originally Posted by percy
I think you have a bone to pick somewhere about something eating inside you but are using this thread as a vehicle. No offence but that is the impression I get.
|
Not really, but perhaps. What eats at me is the hypocrisy. I once would have been one praising this black judge. But as I work in the inner city and become more exposed to areas I had never been exposed to and people I'd never been exposed to.... the view changes. You see white and black street people and they are just trying to survive. They all deserve the chance to better themselves and to get out of where they are.
Many look for excuses as to why they are where they are. Some of them are racist, some are conspiratorial, some are just out there. But the ones that don't look for excuses and believe in themselves make it.
I have seen neighborhood kids fighting gangs to keep out of them and go to college. I have seen men and women in their 20's get out of the negative mindset, that have stopped buying into it and have moved on.
But the ones that have stayed seem to live their lives in their excuse filled world.
It changes one's views and core beliefs when you spend the time and see what truly happens with people living in the inner city, high crime areas.
Quote:
I don't know how this comes back to some white judge but I'll give it a go. If a white judge did what this judge did,.. kick everyone and lecture black people, then is he a racist?
Again it all depends. If a white judge is stationed in a predominantly black area, has predominantly black people charged in front of him, and decides to take it upon himself to lecture only the blacks? Maybe so, maybe not.
If a white judge does the above in Vermont, a predominantly white state,...maybe yes, maybe not.
|
It comes down to the belief that some have that it's ok for a black judge to do this but not a white judge.
Like I said, this is a 2 pronged argument.
On the very top layer, the superficial we have should a judge be allowed to do this?
The deeper layer comes when those who say, sure he can do that... then say, but a white judge can't.
If this had been a white judge kicking non whites out, racism, prejudice and demands for his job would have been heard from Farrakhan/Sharpton to people in this very forum.
So that becomes a sign and symptom of a more serious problem that needs addressed, because it affects race relations and the continuing forward movement of our nation as a whole.
Double standards promoting racism/prejudice no matter how you look at it or what excuse you want to use still in the end are nothing more than hypocritical standards promoting racism/prejudice.
A female judge let's say does it. there would be some who would be ok with that but find it wrong if a male judge did it..... and so on.
Quote:
Pan one thing I think you fail to realize about this supposed notion of rampant racism, is that it isn't cultural, it's individualistic. Racism is a core belief that dominates a person's being and is unfliching regardless of company or consequence.
|
Racism maybe a harsh word. I am not the most eloquent and right chooser of words. But I do see it as racist. Just as if a female had done it... it'd be sexist in my eyes. It's definitively prejudicial in my eyes.
That judge has no right to segregate and separate and decide who he needs to give "special lectures" to from the bench. ALL people may have benefited and some in that select group may not have even wanted to be there and felt singled out themselves.
This judge said it was ok to separate races.... and he did it from the bench.
THAT IS WRONG.... there is no excuse for it at all.
Now, we have some that will argue a judge can do anything and ANY judge can do this and they'd be ok with it. OK. There's the superficial argument. It's plain and simple and I can grasp that argument and in the end be ok with that opinion.
Then we have those who make the excuses, "Blacks can do it because.... but no white judge can because....." and we have seen those arguments here on this board. They will come up with "well the black culture.... but the white culture...." and so on.
So then the argument becomes why would you promote a racist way of thinking? A very divisive, very unhealthy way of thinking?
Quote:
[But I see your point. In todays world if a white judge did what this black judge did, he would be labelled a racist, regardless, and only for trying to instill values in people who may or may not get it.
Unfortunately he would be labelled a racist by an ignorant society.
|
And that my friend is the problem I am having. Not so much the superficial because if you say you would allow all judges to do it.... I still would argue vehemently but I would see the merit in that side.
To say one can and one can't and he'd be racist.... boggles my mind I cannot grasp that idea being logical to anyone truly wanting racial harmony. This is something that I truly cannot let go. It's just so hypocritical and damaging to the country I love and am proud to have served and live in.
The country will never get better if we continue to allow this thinking to prevail and run cities, states and even the federal governments. We will eventually destroy all we have accomplished and this great nation with this thinking.
Quote:
Good thing oranges aren't green, or someone would accuse them of being apples
|
Ahhhh but oranges are green until they become orange.
PS I know I repeated myself in this but..... I answered it as honestly and as heartfelt as I could through this medium.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ratbastid
You know, you've been saying that this is "prejudicial" since the beginning. I'm still not clear what you mean.
Did he discriminate against the non-blacks by having them leave the courtroom? Did he discriminate against blacks by singling them out for a "come to Jesus" lecture? Something can't just BE prejudicial in the abstract, just because something happened that acknowledged the existence of race in a public building--it has to actually put somebody up and somebody else down. My question is: against whom exactly is it prejudicial? Because I'm not clear at all about that.
Let's see, a definition might give some focus to the question I'm asking here.
prejudicial, adj.
1. Detrimental; injurious.
2. Causing or tending to preconceived judgment or convictions
How EXACTLY is this detrimental, injurious, or causing or tending to preconceived judgment or convictions? I'm not saying it's NOT. It might be. I guess I'm saying that I'm no longer willing to take your assertion that it's prejudicial at face value. So supply us with some more of the logic that underlies your assertion, please. I can actually see how I would answer, if I were back in high school debate and assigned to argue your side, but I'm much more interested in your answer.
|
The judge obviously believed that whites could not benefit or were somehow not worth his speech.
A judge should show no favoritism nor bias of any sort towards anyone or group. This judge did. Most people respect judges because they are level headed and don't show bias from the bench. This judge did. If I were a white defendant and he had kicked me out simply because of my skin color, I'd have my attorney looking to sue in a heartbeat.