What does this have to do with the OP?

Ummmm telling me "I don't think you can do it" is not a personal attack?

You wrote it, and it would help to explain why you continue to defend it.

And Jesus, give it up with the "personal attack" mantra.

you aren't willing to respond to critiques of the basis for your op.
you aren't willing to do it.
you prefer indulging some other game.
i think that is directly linked to the politics that you've adopted on this.


you complain about the lack of debate, but when you're challenged, you shuck and jive and in the end don't address what's directed at you.
people, myself included, get exasperated.
you then say "personal attack!"

read the posts i referenced please and maybe engage across that.
or, if you prefer, a blunter version:
put up or shut up.

pan, you've created a platform for this:
roachboy has politely tried to tell you that the "regular" practitioners of the opinion you are communicating on this thread, have a much more refined way of communicating it via non-communication. They put it out, but they won't discuss it, as you can see in my example above. They also have an advantage in that it is integrated into their entire political identity, whereas you're only latched on to a disjointed part of it.

Take their cue, don't try to discuss it, just put it out there. Look at Seaver's <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=2427188&postcount=72">only post</a> in this thread. He does it right....just a quick jab.

By the way....I'm still not sure that you were aware that "my message" to you yesterday was only because of my reaction to your doing "this" on the 40th anniversary of the assassination of Dr. King. Any other day, IMO, would have been a fine day for you to post your reaction to the video about the black judge.

The points you made may have been interesting to talk about.... until I got to here... then, to me it became nothing but accusations, false interpretations, a little personal attack.... well let me address it as I see it.

I have been extremely vocal about my views.... when given a true and valid point ON TOPIC I have responded to those I have seen with my opinion and views.

truly see no defense of what the judge's actions were in any of this.
But overall, it turns the focus off of the OP and the actions of the judge and turns the focus onto something else..... which if I point out, it becomes all about me..... if I ignore it gets worse, because then you say "I ignored it." So as I have done the past few posts, anything addressed to me or about me, will be quoted and given the reply... "off topic, what is you opinion on the OP." I truly see nothing wrong with that.

I do see a lot wrong when the defenses for the judge are weak and proven to be and then the personal attacks start and the focus, not from me, gets taken off the OP. Don't ask... I am pointing them out as they come and have been. I will no longer answer them in any other way.


I didn't reply, because to be quite honest, i don't like the style you type in, to me it's very degrading and pompous.


I have given reason upon reason why I defend my opinion and beliefs.

off topic, what is you opinion on the OP.


off topic, what is you opinion on the OP.

I have post after post after post shown and reiterated my views and beliefs on this topic. I have defended them and given examples and you still want to say I'm not addressing the issue?


posts 1, 12, 68, 73, 76, 79, 81, 90, 92 have all been on topic, once I got through the personal bullshit stuff I had to address.

You never replied to Post 99.

But yet again, I broke my own rule and this is the LAST time, I refuse to have to defend myself. If it has nothing to do with the OP, I just won't read it.


off topic, what is you opinion on the OP.

Have a nice day :thumbsup:

Does this invalidate my point somehow?

I do look forward to telling you to shut the fuck up in the near future, now that its obviously appropriate behavior for the politics board.

o for god's sake, pan...

this is the actual argument:

you skipped it.
this directly addresses the premise around which the op is built.
the second part of the post--which for some reason is where you started--was about linking the premise to the politics that lay behind the op claim.

it seems to me that if you accept the premise which i quote AGAIN here, you can't move to your argument in the op at all.
maybe that's why you skipped it.


===========
side note:

i don't write this way here to do anything beyond relay information that i think is relevant in the form of an argument.

i write other ways in other contexts.

so this:
i didn't know there was a writing workshop dimension to the forum.
i'll just ask you whether you're sure you want to go down this route with me.
i'm not sure you do, pan.

Nice attempt. Actually my "quick jab" was because I see this as illegal... but I just don't care enough about this instance to write it out fully. Honestly, I just don't care about this instance.

I'm just constantly boggled at the double-standard people agree we need in order to get rid of double-standards. To me that's as logical as someone who wants to end our dependency on foreign oil by going out and buying everyone he knows a Hummer.

You gotta love the drama of "As the Thread Turns"

pan...the central character with the victim complex who refuses to discuss the topic with rb because of writing style.

seaver...who believes the action of the judge in question is illegal..but of course doesnt care enough to explain that position...or perhaps because there is no legal justification.

and the ever present Ustwo....known for his "not enough hours in the day" defense to avoid responding to posts that present factual evidence that challenges his positions on numerous issues and occasions....you ready to discuss voter caging yet?

Stay tuned for more!

Can I be the handsome doctor with the bad spanish accent? Seniorrrr?

dr. will...I dont mean to make light of a serious topic....but you gotta laugh at the twists and turns...right turns only :)

The thread was doomed by the time Pan hit "post" on the OP. Some did what they could, but there never was any hope. Quite frankly it's devolved into a situation where people have their fingers in their ears and hairs on their triggers. It's dead as a debate.

That's not what the OP asked. It asked, if you thought what this judge did was racist, wrong or ok and would you be as accepting if a judge from another group took the same action? It may not have been phrased that way, I did insert my 2 cents and beliefs on the subject which is my right. But the question was fundamentally there.

What you try to do in the above is change the focus thereby changing the argument to fit your needs, what you want it to be. Not what the OP was truly about.

To me, what this judge did is racist, wrong and I have discussed why.

Do not try and attempt to tell me what my OP was about.


I do not like the way you converse, I find it very degrading and pompous .... I am allowed to... but this is off topic and has nothing to do with the OP.

Yet another personal attack having nothing to do with the OP, with the last sentence IMHO being a threat from a MOD on this board.

How nice is that.

Let's stick solely to the question and debate that.... nothing else just this "if you thought what this judge did was racist, wrong or ok and would you be as accepting if a judge from another group took the same action?"

My name does not even have to be mentioned, I don't want to see anymore posts directed at me unless hey are to question something I have stated in regards to this question.

I can almost guarantee it won't happen and I will have to say: off topic, what is you opinion on the OP.

off topic, what is you opinion on the OP.


off topic, what is you opinion on the OP.


off topic, what is you opinion on the OP.


off topic, what is you opinion on the OP.

If it is dead why post?

Unlike you its not my job, no one writes me a check based on my politics. There is nothing to defend here, its opinion only, its pretty straight forward, and the results were in fact predetermined to start with. The racist policy of your bosses in their attempts to buy votes has helped lead to this, where a black judge feels the only way he can get through to some young black criminal is to make it a black issue rather than an issue for the country at large.

Keep on promoting those double standards, I'm sure that SOME day they will pay off with equality, really :thumbsup:

Edit: And since you want to bring up an issue for the sake of bringing it up, you call it voter caging, I call it an attempt to ferret out voter fraud (something living in Chicago with ties to the mayors office I am well acquainted with from your bosses party).

Why? The same reason people slow down when there's an accident. Or maybe it's just so absurd that it's funny. The judge wasn't racist at all, but calling a brave black community leader a racist and asking for him to get fired on the anniversary of MLK Jr's death? It's so horrible that it's actually kinda funny.

You call that "brave"?????? I call it racist and abuse of power. Just as I would ANY other judge doing the same thing.

You and your side have stated if the judge were white it would have been wrong.... then when the arguments given cannot be applied to ALL and it is shown the double standard, racist beliefs being shown.... it's take the focus off, call it dead and let's have play time.

off topic, what is you opinion on the OP.

REALLY?! YOU CALL IT RACIST?! Why didn't you say that before?!

We've all already tried to explain this to you, but you're not willing to listen. He was brave, and you're wrong. He's not a racist, he's a community leader trying desperately to fix what he sees is a systemic problem in his culture. But Pan the non-racist wants to berate him and have him lose his job.

Personal attack. off topic, what is you opinion on the OP.

It IS racist. I have stated I have no problem in the message he gave.... it's where he gave it and how he abused his authority and position to give it.

You still do not deny had it been a white judge doing the exact same thing... you would call him racist and demand his job.

Sorry, that is hypocritical and a double standard I cannot nor will not accept and be silent about.

Yes this judge was


But this quote above obviously means NOTHING to "civil rights leaders" today.

This judge by throwing out anyone not of a particular color... judged a man by his skin color and not by the content of his character and THUS continues racism and those that defend this bullshit continue to keep racism alive and very negative, instead of finding ways to positively work through the problem.

It should be looked at the same no matter what color/sex/ethnicity/religion the judge was from and he people he kept in the courtroom were.

Double standards by virtue of their existence creates prejudice. Anyone who argues well it's ok or you just don't understand.... etc... only keeps feeding the beast.

By exposing the beast, showing what the double standards are and speaking out against them will positive solutions be built from.

In terms of the legality of it - as far as I am aware a judge can do what he wants (within reason) in his or her courtroom, and can certainly ask certain individuals to approach the bench or have a private discussion.

I suppose it is fashionable for white people to claim nowadays that they are the victims of reverse racism. It must be a way of trying to wash away historical guilt.

Of course, I dont mean to be anti-American, the British profited awfully from the rape of Africa as well, and many of the worst villians of America were British colonialists.

There is a big point and a little point.

The little point is that the actions of the judge are probably inappropriate, certainly make him look a bit silly and are certainly not criminal.

The big point is that, quite simply the actions of white people and black people, in regards to race, DO have different meanings. I think that for someone to argue this was not the case, would be very difficult to connect to logic.

It's illegal because it is an order based on race and nothing else. You also misunderstand me, it's not that I don't care about explaining it... I just see it as not worth fighting over. I really don't care what this judge did... does not mean it's not illegal. I see people speeding all the time, which is illegal, but it does not bother me much in the same way. Once again, my example of the double-standards are used to erase double-standards holds though.

Within reason means the judge can boot people out of a courtroom for creating a disturbance or somehow impeding justice. Judges can boot out protesters if they are creating a problem. They can boot the media if they feel it will hinder the right to a fair trial, or endanger key witnesses. They can boot a lot of people for a lot of reasons, however booting because of the color of skin is not legal.

What is your opinion of the OP?
It's not racist. It's actually the opposite of racism. He's trying to fix racial divides.
He has that authority. It's completely within his legal rights as a judge. You have yet to demonstrate otherwise.
Actually I wouldn't. If a white judge were seeing a majority of cases in front of him that were white kids causing problems and he asked the black, asian, latino, etc. people to leave so he could address the people as a white community about a problem, I'd commend him. But even for those who wouldn't, Ch'i already explained that white culture and black culture aren't the same.
You're not sorry, you're self-righteous and you're not listening to what everyone else is saying.
You aren't a civil right leader. You're actually widening the chasm with threads like this where you berate leaders who are trying to fix the divide, calling them racist: a term you clearly don't understand.

If what you said was true, its hardly actionable.

How could you prove that the order was made on the BASIS or race, rather than he wanted to speak to certain people (who were defined for different reasons) and their race was merely a defining factor which he used for simplicity's sake?

although saying that, I am aware of no law under which the judge could be prosecuted in any case, whatever intepretation you give it.

Under what federal or state (Georgia) law?

Just for the record, I'm not paid for my politics. I work for a non-partisan, non-profit organization. My boss, the deputy exec director, was Gingrich's former legislative director.

But you can still call me a "democratic operative" if it makes you feel better. I'm not offended :)

And on the voter caging issue, two courts (NJ, OH), on two separate occasions, called that so-called voter fraud prevention activity illegal because it was "ferreting alleged voter fraud" ONLY in SELECTED districts of a city or state based on the predominant race in that district...that is discriminatory, in violation of the Voting Rights Act....a topic for another thread if you like.

pan, darling, i cannot imagine what your problem is.
but it doesn't matter.
enjoy yourself.

I object to being labelled off-topic and ignored.

Martians are clearly second-class citizens here.

I don't see anything wrong with this. Firstly, of all the people who would know which race tends to gravitate toward crime, it's a judge, so his reasoning has nothing wrong with it. Secondly, it's his courtroom, and he can tell people to leave if he wants to. Thirdly, as willravel already mentioned, it had nothing to do with his decision-making process. All he wanted to do, from what I gather from the video, was to get all of the black people together and tell them that they're making their race look bad. Is that politically correct? No. Does it make at least a little bit of sense? Why yes, yes it does.

Back of the bus, greeny.

Beyond that, nothing to see here. 'Tis the usual examples of martyrdom and countermartydom that happens daily. Although I have wondered how you folks manage to nail that second hand to the cross. I would have figured it would be tough to do with the first one already nailed down and all. Are you just better hung that I? Is a hammer really a "hammer"?

Mmm far as I can tell, none of this has anything to do with martyrdom, I think the only question is should a judge be able to use race as a factor in his court.

Apparently the answer is yes, well yes provided the judge was black, and he wanted to talk about black folk about black things.

But I thought this wasn't about race, by pan's own words this thread isn't about race.

My bad - I wasn't clear. I didn't mean IRL martyrs. I don't see any of those here.

I meant TFP martyrs. Dime a dozen in this thread.

of course, it isn't about race...until it is again.

Too bad we can't persuade the old white crackers in Walton County, Ga. to finally start talking about "black things", isn't it?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&u...Search+the+Web

Atlanta congressman John Lewis made the speech yesterday, asking for justice for the two black couples lynched in Walton Cty, GA 1946. John Lewis remembers what it was like living in the south in the 1950's:
<img src="http://www.dogsforpeace.com/graphics/Selma2.jpg">

March 7, 1965, "Bloody Sunday" - forever changed Selma, Alabama.
John Lewis, Hosea Williams, and Blue leading a march for equality.


<img src="http://www.ibiblio.org/sncc/pictures/Louis_Arrested.jpg">
http://www.ibiblio.org/sncc/lewis.html
<i> In 1963, Lewis helped plan and took part in the March on Washington. At the age of 23, he was a keynote speaker at the historic event. In 1965, he led 525 marchers across the Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama. State troopers attacked the marchers in a violent incident that later became known as "Bloody Sunday." </i>


Not a crumb of empathy in your entire being, is there? What do you think that you are you accomplishing on this thread? I'd suggest that you watch the video at the first google link, but nothing can penetrate your "knowing what you know", can it?

How many years are enough to dampen the visceral pain, still burned into living memory ? IT IS NOT UP TO YOU TO DECIDE....that is what we've been trying to tell you in every one of our posts on this thread.

The legislature of the state of Georgia has refused to pass hate crime legislation or to keep track of and report hate crimes to federal crime statisticians. You would be right at home, here, come on down!

Empathy complicates felicitous fancies, don't ya know? :p

Not to hijack... but again the legalized double-standard making up for a double-standard is epitomized in Hate-Crime legislation.

Something has to be going somewhere to get hijacked. This thread stopped going anywhere two pages ago, when pan was thoroughly rebutted and declined to respond.

I'm SO glad I was away from my computer for the whole day today.

The only thing i object to in that news story was the use of the term "reverse racism". I'm not saying what the judge did was right or wrong, I just don't like when that term is used. Racism is racism, no matter what color your skin is. I find the term "reverse racism" to be a means to justify racism for people who either don't realize that they are being racist or don't want to admit that they are just as bad as the people who are racist against their own race.

Actually the irony is the original poster thinks that the judge should be censured for of all things, common sense.

You mean there has been racism host?!?!?!?!?!

I for one am SHOCKED, SHOCKED that this country once exhibited racist policy!!!!!

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR TELLING ME ABOUT IT, I NEVER WOULD HAVE KNOWN.

But if you want to dig yourself in a hole talking about hate crime legislation be my guest. I'm waiting for you to tell me why someone who kills someone for his wallet, or he just likes to kill people is a superior human being to someone who does it based on race, and deserves a lessor punishment. That should be special, and by special I mean short bus special.

What a surprise that a conservative, white, heterosexual male doesnt get the concept of criminal intent.

Ustwo...I guess you dont get the concept of criminal intent either....another surprise.

dc_dux, the distinction in hate crimes has little to do with mens rea (the technical legal term for criminal intent). It has to do with motive, which is a distinct concept from intent. Related but separate. In most criminal law motive is probative of intent but not dispositive, and is not in any case an element of the crime.

loquuitor....I stand corrected. I do appreciate the legal knowledge that you bring from experience.

Take an example:
Guy A spray paints graffiti on a subway car....motve = self-gratification or maybe just for kicks?

Guy B spray paints a swastika on a synagogue...motive = intimidation

Two cases of vandalism.....should they be subject to the same penalty? Would a hate crime law make a difference in sentencing?

or

A couple of rowdy guys (lets call them will and rb) take a couple of pieces of 2x4 lumber out of a shop class in a predominantly white school and burn them on the football field to celebrate the end of the school year.

A couple of angry guys at the same school (lets call them seaver and ustwo) take a couple of pieces of 2x4 lumber out of the same shop class and burn a cross on the football field to intimidate the small number of black students in the school.

Assume the state has no cross burning law......same crime, same penalty?

No, they shouldn't be the same. Guy B should be more heavily punished.

Let's say Guy C comes out of a gay bar and gets the Hell beat out of him by 4 black men, that were waiting to beat a gay man. They should be tried for a hate crime.

This I have no problem with. If hate and intimidation are the driving force behind the crime, then the punishment needs to reflect that. However, since prejudice and hatred can exist in ALL groups then ALL groups must face the same treatment. To say only one group should be tried for hate crimes or to try only one group for hate crimes and let another off.... then the system is wrong and prejudicial within itself.



Same treatment, that's all I'm saying about the OP also. If you can sit there and tell me it is ok for a black judge to do this but not a white judge..... then something is wrong you are hypocritical. Just as when I say I would demand anyone else's job having done something similar for their own grouping, because the color doesn't matter the abuse of power and prejudicial theme it sets.

We can not have double standards and laws that treat one group one way and another differently and say we are fighting prejudice. The fight in and of itself promotes prejudice by the laws it has created, then.

You cannot fight prejudice and hate with prejudice and hate..... IT WON'T WORK!!!!! Yet, by the postings on this board some seem to eagerly and enthusiastically believe it will, and God forgive you if you speak out on the hypocrisy.

Pan: RACISM, HYPOCRISY, WHITE PEOPLE AND BLACK PEOPLE!
Everyone else: it's more complicated than that. Here's why...
Pan: RACISM, HYPOCRISY, WHITE PEOPLE AND BLACK PEOPLE!
Everyone else: No, seriously pan, it really isn't that simple. Again, here's why...
Pan: RACISM, HYPOCRISY, WHITE PEOPLE AND BLACK PEOPLE! I'M NOT RACIST!
Everyone else: Okay, Pan. Whatever.

pan....you never heard me say that.

I just dont buy your argument that the OP wasnt about race.

But....I know "it aint easy being white"

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/YHmv9w7Yefw&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/YHmv9w7Yefw&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

OMG, that's awesome.

DC wins.

You're absolutely right, pan. Intention is a huge factor when deciding what's right or wrong, especially when one is being judged (as in a Court of Law).

Since neither hate or intimidation were the motivating forces in this case, there was no racism, prejudice or anything to get riled up about.

I do agree that all groups should face the same treatment, too. I think if you're a white man driving through the 'hood, you should be stopped and asked what business you have there. All things being equal and all ...

..........

So you truly believe you can excuse fighting racism and hate by using racism and hate?

Even Malcolm X saw that wasn't possible and it cost him his life, his own people killed him because he realized that won't work. All you will ever accomplish by doing that is to keep exploitation, racism and hate alive and flourishing.

If I give one group special treatment, it's prejudicial by definition and it will create resentments and feed hate from those groups that don't get that treatment. That is human nature.

If you take the past mistakes, learn from them and work to create a better future by understanding all sides, then hate cannot grow and true equality can become a reality.

That is my belief and that is all I am trying to communicate.

If you would say that a white judge doing this was racist, or a male judge dong this would be sexist, or whatever..... then you have to say the same in ALL situations like this. Otherwise, you are showing prejudice and supposedly that is what you are fighting..... that makes no sense, is illogical and will NO NOT NEVER solve anything. To make excuses to somehow allow this to happen, only allows prejudice, resentments, hate and anger against each other to grow because you keep feeding the monster.

If you say what he did was wrong/right and any other judge doing the same action was wrong/right and you show consistency.... there is no longer any prejudice there. There is equality there. Negativity can not grow, prejudice, resentments, anger, hatred can not grow and begin to wither and die.

We should not be defined by our color, religion, sex, sex orientation, ethnicity, we should be looked at as brothers and sisters of the same race.... THE HUMAN RACE. We can take pride and recognize our cultures, but we must respect ALL cultures equally if we are to truly understand and live peacefully with each other.

Malcolm X even said:

Link: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Malcolm_X

How far to the other extreme do we go until we realize it is hatred/prejudice and exploitation and all things we hated and preached against..... but we sugar coated it, excused it and sold it as the solution?????

How far the other way do we have to go to realize in the end, we didn't need to give anyone special treatment to make up for the past, because now we have just as much hatred, prejudice, anger, resentment, exploitation as we did when we began?

As the world gets smaller we best learn to forgive, make the future better for all and recognize that we are ALL in this together and hate, prejudice and resentments get us nowhere.

Disagree. It all depends on who is doing the damage. If a random person spray paints a happy face on a subway and a neo-nazi sprays a swastiki on a synogogue, then yes, the neo-nazi will be punished more.

But if a random person sprays messages threatening everyone on a subway with death and someone spray paints swastikis on a synogogue because they may think it's cool, unaware of the history, then no, the person threatening the general public will be in deeper shit.

A few teenagers sprayed swastikis on buildings in my city last year and it was not deemed a hate crime because it was shown these kids didn't understand the significance of their actions. Of course the Jewish community was upset, but how do you charge someone with hatred when they don't understand what and why they are doing it in the first place?

In the example he used, he said it was used for intimidation.

Yes, there are people who may not understand the significance and meanings that have been placed on the swastika and other signs and symbols.

With those teens.... we as a society must make sure they understand the meaning behind those symbols now and educate them on how wrong and truly hurtful those signs are to others.

I'm using love, convergence, understanding, and peace. You're hating the judge because he was trying to act as a responsible community leader.
You clearly aren't familiar with Malcolm X. His life was struggle, and he knew it, but he had that hope, even at the end.

Just as this judge has the hope.
PAN!! LOOK HERE!!! READ THIS!!! LQQK!!!
If the judge were white and he was responding to a high crime rate among a white population, I'd be applauding him for his efforts to help. If the judge were a woman and she was responding to a high crime rate among the female population, I'd be applauding her for her efforts to help. Is that clear enough? Or should I write it again, and again and again? Because it's not the first time I've wrote it.

So to clarify, if the roles were reverse and the judge white I'd be supporting him, too.

I have the feeling that if MLK or Malcolm X were alive today, Pan, you'd be calling them racist hate mongers because 1) they both recognized differences between the black community and the white community and 2) that neither believed that the problem could be effectively dealt with by ignoring it.

As it stands, it isn't that difficult to make it seem like dead people agree with you by selectively quoting them.

four freakin' pages of this crap...(mumblemumblemumble...)

Yes, he did in both cases. At the end though he saw ALL HUMANS as equal.


But you are the minority in this aspect Will.

Look how many made excuses saying that a white judge shouldn't e allowed or couldn't but for the black judge it was ok.

I can truly respect your position in that you would applaud ANY judge in similar circumstances at doing this. You aren't showing any prejudiced. You are ok with the action from anyone not just a black judge and make excuses why others can't.

My problem is that in court and a judge whether in session or not should not show this type of behavior. I'm against ANY judge doing it. I feel if it was a god message ALL there may have benefited not just a select group picked out by the judge.

It becomes prejudicial and shows bias.

So we disagree there. But that is just part of it.

But the other side, the side you aren't involved in because you say all would be applauded, is where a group starts saying it is ok for this judge to do this.... but not a white judge, a male judge, a female judge, etc.

When that happens it becomes hypocritical and even more divisive.

It is time we stop being fucking divisive at all and realize that WE ARE ALL ONE RACE.... THE HUMAN RACE.

Malcolm even saw it. MLK saw it. John Lennon saw it.

If you separate this judge by his race and allow him to do this but would not allow a white judge to.... then is that not just as wrong as letting the white judge do it and not the black judge???????

YES, BECAUSE EITHER WAY IT PROMOTES RACIST, PREJUDICIAL BEHAVIORS.

I am not and I have never said IGNORE.... I said learn from the past and stop making the same mistakes, going to extremes and promoting hatred in ANYWAY.

Giving a black judge a pass and then stating you would condemn a white judge is just as racist and wrong as as allowing a white judge to do it and not the black judge.

And how have you come to this conclusion?

If a white judge had done this, what do you think the outcry would have been?

I am running late for work, so I don't have time, but there are several posts that have stated they wouldn't allow a white judge to do this.

When I continually asked the question, how many were silent and didn't answer but kept making it a black/white issue and twisting my words and meanings?

But I can't say that because then we get all about how it is all about me and we have that argument instead of maintaining focus on the true issue.

And the outcry would be just as wrong if it were a white judge, but at least it would be justified to some degree. It's okay to work toward equality but also, simultaneously, admit that things still aren't equal yet. That's simply reality.

Yes it would be just as wrong, but we differ, I do not believe under any circumstance would a difference in outrage be justified.

Absolutely, but it is better to try to learn from each other and the past and find positive ways to move forward, than to continue to promote prejudice and excuse it because of the past.

Learning from each other is not the same as calling someone racist and asking for them to be fired, especially when it's very, very clear that the man's intent wasn't racist at all. He wasn't promoting prejudice by asking the white people to leave, he was trying to get his house in order because crimes being associated with black people is a huge problem when it comes to the divide between races.

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."

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.

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.

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.

If a black mob of 3000 had done this to 2 white couples, what do you think the outcry would have been? Would the murders go unsolved for 62 years, pan?

Pan, would you have authored this thread on the 40th anniversary of King's shooting if you knew that, in 1946, with the police standing just 50 yards down the road, a white mob dragged Dorothy Malcolm, and three other black people out of the back of a car, and as she pleaded for the life of her unborn baby, they lined her and the three others up, shot them down, loaded twice more, and shot them all again and again, and then one of the mob pulled out a knife and cut her unborn baby out of her womb and waved it's body in front of the mob?
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/07/26/moores.ford/index.html

Then, pan, a leading investigator said that "the best people in town wouldn't talk". They wouldn't cooperate with investigators of the murders.

How 'bout a thread appealing to these still living white people who know who did the killing, but who have remained silent, to finally clear their consciences, pan? Wouldn't that be a more productive use of your time and your indignation? This isn't a thread about racism pan, is it? Isn't it a thread about your indignation, about a double standard? Here's a double standard, pan. Do you think whites in Walton Cty, GA would be sitting still and calling for justice against a black murdering mob, for 52 years, without resorting to violence or a corruption of the apparatus of state to attempt to satisfy their indignation?

Blacks have mostly lived with their indignation, pan. Whites haven't....and it's about scale, pan. Compared to the still silent white crackers in Walton Cty, GA, <h3>your indignation is akin to a man getting riled up because somebody stepped on a gumdrop, and it looked like he did it on purpose! </h3>
pan, do you think your public effort to express indignation over, what is in context, akin to a man intentionally stepping on a gum drop on the sidewalk, compared to the black historical experience in America, an influence that will help persuade whites in Walton County, GA to finally do the right thing...tell the police what they know about the 1946 lynching of two black couples, or do you think what you are expressing in this thread will be more of an ecouragement for them to dig in...to take their knowledge to the grave?

Isn't that what this really comes down to? It's about you, pan....are you helping or hurting the quest for justice, for healing? I took offense because you chose to express your indignation on the 40th anniversary of King's assassination. Innocently, or not, can you not see that your intention could be perceived as a message from you that King's death didn't take away enough, from the hopes, dreams, and pride of black americans...... that your indignation required your reaction about the "black judge: video, too?

Here's the problem pan....we had a holocaust of our own in this country, and as in the aftermath of other holocausts, you've decided, as a non-victim of the experience, that it's time to move on....
Watch the movie. pan....it's short:
http://www.withoutsanctuary.org/main.html

As I posted to Ustwo, earlier....it isn't up to you to decide when the burning memory is distant enough to have the world become the way you want it to now, pan.

Watch the movie....it isn't a history of "the south", it happened all over the USA. It was as American as apple pie, but it was an atrocity....smiling people posed for pictures with the lynched victim in the background. People brought their kids, and made a picnic of it, pan...they sent postcards to friends that depicted the lynchings, the collected hair samples and other body parts of the victims as momentoes of "the event".

There are white people living in Walton Cty., GA, today pan, who still think the right thing to do is to withhold information about who lynched two black couples there in 1946. Can you agree to stop, at least until everyone who witnessed what happened in Walton Cty., GA in 1946, is dead?

What a load of crap.

I don't even know where to start. I would probably wind up saying a lot of things I would regret so I am not saying anything other this.

For someone to say "some bad things happened in Georgia 62 years ago so if a judge in another state wants to have a racist moment and toss all the white SoB's out of his courtroom its ok" is one of the biggest loads of shit I've seen dealt out here in a long time.

Okay scout, are you indignant because a black judge stepped on a gum drop, and he might have done it on purpose?

Scout...you, Ustwo, Seaver, and pan, don't get to decide when "things that happened in Georgia 62 years ago", don't matter now. I wish you could accept that.
Why do you think your POV is so different from Laura Wexler's and mine? Why do you think Ronald Reagan chose his first 1980 republican convention campaign stop, after he had been officially nominated as republican candidate for president, to be...of all the places he could have chosen to kick off his campaign as republican nominee...the place where three civil rights workers were murdered, 16 years before?

Why do you think Reagan gave a speech there that included, "I believe in states rights".

Why is it that I think his decision to speak there and to say that, was extremely offensive, but you do not? Isn't it about sensitivity?
Scout, I am thinking that you saw nothing wrong with Reagan's choice of places to appear, or in what he chose to say, and that you see nothing amiss in pan's thread here, correct? You say that 62 years is more than enough time, while Reagan must have thought that 16 years was enough time, so what is all the fuss about, right?

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_Mw2Xg0DELc&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_Mw2Xg0DELc&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
http://z.about.com/d/journalism/1/0/B/0/-/-/denny.jpg

Hey look its blacks beating up a white guy, for being white!

It also has nothing to do with the OP or anything else in the thread.

But yes people were racist, some are racist host, note that most of your pictures are black and white for a reason thats not artistic ;) Most of todays black criminals were not even born in those times, using it as an excuse for current issues with black youth is somewhat weak, nor is it a cause of a deterioration of the black family which has helped lead us to the current problems.

I think my summery of this is right on point.

Its ok (to the TFP) for a judge to be exclusionary based on race provided its a black judge who wants to talk to black folk about a black issues.

Did I miss something?

That's not an unreasonable summation.

BTW, [YOUTUBE]Mw2Xg0DEL["slash"YOUTUBE]

Yup....you've missed that the USA is still struggling to emerge from it's original period....say....before the 1965 Voting Rights Act was passed...when racism was institutionalized, and that you have a special problem. You've supported and you do support the politics that accomplished the "gutting" of votings rights enforcement by the civil rights enforcement section of the US DOJ. I know that, because you've mocked or done a "drive by" on every thread where I have brought up that issue....crime...horror, STEP BACKWARDS.

You're example of the attack on the "white guy", reinforces my impression that you don't understand the difference. The institutionalized racism and exclusion still exists. It's glaringly apparent if you oprn your eyes. There are today, no more than 5 black CEOs of Fortune 500 Companies.

You strike me as an "I got mine", kinda guy. If that's the impression you are happy projecting, then that's that!

Maybe we need to request that all non-white folks "leave" the politics forum for a bit to give us white guys a private moment to discuss the impression you are making of "us white guys", to our entire US society? Are you our "Jeremiah Wright"? I don't want to be linked to you or responsible for what you say and do, since I can't reach you!

For something to be institutionalized, there has to be a standard and an authority (established policies and laws). Can you provide an example of institutionalized racism? If you could, it would be illegal, against the law, and prosecutable. Is there prejudice? Probably, but if you can prove it, they will be prosecuted. There is no "institutionalized" racism. If there was, the laws are there to handle it. What you speak of is more likely done subtly by individuals outside the rule of law ... but it's not institutionalized.

Should there be affirmative action or a quota system applied to the fortune 500? What percentage of the fortune 500 CEOs are women or minorities?

Have you been living under a rock this past year, Ottopilot?
Ottopilot, the regime appointed a fucking race relations "challenged" partisan hack to run voting rights enforcement:
No, Ottopilot, there's nothing to see here, is there?

otto....I disagree with your interpretation of institutionalized racism.

IMO, institutionalized racism are discriminatory policies and practices that are enabled to exist by or within the law.

A good example is redlining, whch at the very least is a discriminatory policy of banks and lending institutions that disproportionately affect minority communities and neighborhoods.

The government addressed it in the 70s with the Community Reinvestment Act that set strict requirements for lending institutions to provide housing loans, small business loans and other investments in the communities in which they are located.

Bush relaxed these standards several years ago....

see: U.S. Set to Alter Rules for Banks Lending to Poor

....resulting in less investment (of money citizens deposit in their savings account in their neighborhood bank) in their own communities. Discriminatory or racist....small difference in my mind. The result was that these communities were not being served.


Other examples that, at the very least, raise the question of institutional discrimination:

The issue of penalities for distribution of crack vs power coke provided for great disparity in sentencing with a disproportionate adverse affect on minorities.....at least until a Supreme Court ruling last year.
***

Would FEMA have acted more quickly and followed through more thoroughly if the worst impact of Katrina had been in the Garden District of New Orleans rather than the 9th Ward?

Would it have taken as long to get trailers to wealthier white residents. Would they have kept the fact hidden for two years from wealthy white residents that the trailers posed health risks?

CDC Confirms Health Risks to Occupants of Trailers

Federal health officials have confirmed that high levels of formaldehyde gas pose health risks to hurricane victims housed in 38,000 government trailers on the Gulf Coast, and will recommend that occupants be moved before temperatures rise this spring and summer, Bush administration officials disclosed yesterday.

...The findings cap nearly two years of internal government deliberation over the housing of hurricane Katrina and Rita survivors in the trailers, and come 23 months after FEMA first received reports of health problems and test results showing formaldehyde levels at 75 times the U.S.-recommended workplace safety threshold.

Who knows...but I dont think its unreasonable to understand why the citizens of the 9th ward might think so. And yes, I know that there are white citizens in these trailers and many white victims of Katrina...but the vast majority are black and lower income (not a Republican constituency)
***

SAT and other standardized tests....Are these standardized tests culturally biased? Some say yes:

Jay Rosner, executive director of the Princeton Review Foundation, conducted an SAT bias analysis in 2003. He examined answers from 100,000 test takers along with their race, ethnicity and gender.

Rosner's findings, outlined in “On White Preferences,” showed that “every single question carefully preselected to appear on the test favors whites over blacks.”

Rosner said that whites answered 99 percent of the questions correctly at a higher rate than did blacks and Latinos.

“The test developers at ETS don’t intend to produce these results,” Rosner said. “They are choosing questions using a methodology that produces very consistent and predictable results.”

...“There has been a long history of bias in the development of standardized testing,” said Stafford Hood, professor of psychology in education at Arizona State University. “We are better in terms of paying attention to the possibilities of bias in testing than we were before, but has it been fixed yet? Of course not.

http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/....aspx?id=35935

....others say no. I dont know. But if they are used too heavily as admission standards, the result could be discriminatory or perceived as racist.

**
Conclusion....
And finally.....voter caging...an issue that Ustwo dismisses with a laugh and a shrug but really doesnt want to discuss...is institutional racism.

When I presented some of these earlier, pan's response was that since they impact whites as well, they are not racist.

I would suggest that if the vast majority of those negatively mpacted (by intent or by circumstance) are of one race...it is not a stretch to characterize these policies and practices as examples of institutional racism.

Show me a law or a corporate standard that mandates racism. You've failed to provide this. We are talking about racism, right. Not social programs based on race like affirmative action are we? We're not talking about any official program, corporation, business, political group, entertainment network , or beauty pageant with the name "Black" , "Negro", or "African American" in it's title? Or an organization's membership requirements being based on being an African American? No ... wait ... all those institutions would be discriminating based on race. I see, yes, there is institutionalized racism. I'm sorry, you are correct.

otto..... I guess that means you dont accept my definition of institutional racism:

discriminatory policies and practices, disproportionately and adversly affecting one race, that are enabled to exist by or within the law.

You dont agree that bank laws re:lending practices, standardized tests, voter caging, etc. (the katrina example is probably a stretch) may, and in fact, do disproportionately and adversely affecting one race...and provide a legal cover for those who may have racists intent?

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.

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.


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.

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.

It is utter nonsense like this that makes it so hard to have a rational, constructive discussion on race relations.

Wake me when its over.

It's not an unreasonable summation, Will. And that is the sad part. That is the negative part. THAT more than anything else is the prejudicial part.

pan....here is the problem I have with your approach to the issue.

You judge blacks you approve of, like George Foreman, Colin Powelll, etc. based on their life's work.

You judge blacks you disapprove of, like the Atlanta judge, Rev Wright, etc. based on a one minute video or only one aspect of their life's work.

And now I am really going to bed.

This is the problem.

Instead of conversing in positive ways and trying to work on positive solutions, we (and the vast majority does) becomes defensive over their positions and refuses to even listen to the other side and admit maybe, just maybe the other side has some good points and we should work on them TOGETHER.

We are all guilty of it but until we are truly willing to do something about it on all sides, nothing except hate will continue. Not just race relations, but foreign policy, religion, anything that separates us, as a whole.

pan....otto's raising the issue of entertainment network , or beauty pageant with the name "Black" , "Negro", or "African American" in it's title? Or an organization's membership requirements being based on being an African American.....is pure BULLSHIT and unworthy of discussion,

These groups (he forgot to mention Jewish, Italian, Asian. business organizatons, clubs, etc) were formed for two reasons....they were excluded for years from mainstream wasp clubs, pagents, etc. and they are for social networking.

They are a diversion from a serious discussion on race relations.

ANd now I am really really going to bed.

NO, I judge Rev Wright, Sharpton and Farrakhan on their body of work and their actions.

Wright went to Libya with Farrakhan, Wright and Sharpton preach hatred (his church SELLS the damned videos so obviously he believed heavily in the message he was sending out), the judge abused his power to do something IMHO prejudicial and wrong, so yes he should lose his job and at the very least be investigated to see how his past rulings have been. Did he have harsher sentences for blacks that came before him, lighter sentences..... One has to wonder after this blatant episode of abuse and prejudice.

All this talk of how important the black churches and church leaders are is interesting, when one considers that 70% of the inner city black children grow up without a father, drug abuse, crime, poverty snd so on run rampant in the areas affected by these so called civil rights leading Rev.

I refuse to believe it is the white man, because I have seen and know many black men that refused to buy into that bullshit and become successes.

Again, IMHO the reason why those Rev. teach and preach what they do is for POWER and greed. They lose their power and purpose when their followers stop following and turn to more positive messengers. As long as they allow the crime, the unwed pregnancies, the drugs, the school dropout rates to stagnant or increase and they can sell the people that it is someone else's fault not theirs..... they will always have followers and keep hatred and prejudice alive. And if you can't see that, if you keep allowing it to grow and the hate to evolve.... one day it will explode and then you'll wonder why no one tried to do anything sooner..... or you'll continue to make excuses.

I have given you the benefit of doubt....but you've just convinced me you are a racist.

Goodnight!

Government - the act of governing; exercising authority. the organization that is the governing authority.
Institution - an organization founded and united for a specific purpose
Racism - the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races. Discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race.
Law -legal document setting forth rules governing a particular kind of activity. the collection of rules imposed by authority.
regulation - prescribed by or according to regulation. an authoritative rule.

We can look up definitions all day. What you refer to as "Institutional Racism" is an interpretation of cause and effect. These abuses are perhaps carried out by individuals or groups within an institution where laws or practices are bent for what ever purpose these actions serve. The law or government institution cannot be racist under law. The resulting activity by individuals or groups within the government institution may be interpreted as racism. They should be prosecuted and laws amended with better language to prevent re-occurrence.

I fully understand that racial discrimination sometimes occurs under or within government institutions. A government institution or regulated institution itself is not racist. The individuals or groups responsible for racism within the institution are "responsible". Therefore, the term "institutional racism" is a perception, well-founded or otherwise ... if not taken in the literal sense, the term is little more than an operative buzzword or propaganda.

They were founded for that reason, yes.

But the days of their exclusions are over. Why continue to have your own exclusionary events and organizations now?

Perhaps, you still feel you need them. But, if you look deep inside you'll see you don't.

We have come a long fucking way in 145 years, and more in the last 50..... we have a long way to go still, but promoting prejudices, hatred, and so on from the other side now... isn't going to make things better or any more equal. Negativity only begets more negativity.

Now is the time to look how far we have come and how we ALL can move forward together and let the wounds of the past heal and stop picking at them.

It's like having I cut your leg.... you had me thrown in prison (rightfully so).... but then instead of letting that wound heal and learning to find a positive future, you kept picking at the wound for a year, 2 years, not letting it heal..... picking at it, blaming me.... picking at it, cursing me.... then it's infected..... you go to the doctor you say "look what fucking Pan did." Doctor says. "very nasty infection."

Meanwhile, in prison, I start sending you letters telling how deeply sorry I am and how when I get out I will try to correct things and beg your forgiveness.

You go to the parole board on my 2 year review.. you show your leg and how the doctor said it hasn't healed right. You don't mention or even acknowledge my letters. I point them out, but I also state I accept responsibility for my actions and I accept any punishment. The prison psychologist and chaplain say I have grown in very positive ways but not enough. I even agree with them. The parole board makes me serve my full 5 year sentence.

But you keep picking at it and not letting it heal. You don't take the antibiotics .... and the whole time you seethe with anger at what I did. Your wife and family leave you, you lose your job, your house, everything you valued, because the hate of my action has now consumed you. Then the infection gets really bad and your leg gets cut off. You really hate me now because it was all my fault. You lost everything because I did this to you.

I come out of prison, reformed, in the past 3 years I have paid all doctor bills regarding the cut. I made as much restitution I felt I possibly could, I plan to meet you and see if I can do more.

As I walk off the prison grounds, you come to me and start yelling how I crippled you and ruined your life.... then instead of telling me how I can further help.... you kill me for ruining your life.

I know bad analogy..... how can I compare a cut on the leg to slavery and segregation? I just will never understand.

No, you don't get it. I brought all this up just to point out how absurd the argument is. To bring up one side an not acknowledge the other is complete bullshit. This biased approach has become a bad cliche of a liberal high-school sociology lecture rather than a discussion. I'm playing devils advocate because I can't ignore the hypocrisies or liberties taken in your views.

If you want to believe that.... ok. I'm not going to lose sleep over it.

Even though you only took out part of what was said in that post and to me it looks like you were looking for a reason to call me a racist.

Your entitled to your opinion.

Pan ... It's disappointing how quickly and frequently some of the most self-righteous here revert to name calling ... especially something as divisive as "racist". Calling someone a racist in this discussion is unreasonable if not deplorable.

Well, like I said instead of using the whole post he took out what best suited his need so he could justify his belief.

It is actions and beliefs like his that are a reason why race relations are still a problem. It's easier to call those you don't want to hear divisive and hateful names so that you can walk away and keep hate alive instead of sitting down and finding a positive solution.

Then again, as Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan, Rev. Wright, David Duke, Hagge, and all the other racist leaders know, it keeps the easy money and the power coming in. The last thing they want is a solution.... then they lose all that power and money.

And we're back to pan the martyr.........in 5 more pages of another thread..........sleepy time......'good night and good luck'..............

And we're back to dc_dux calling someone a racist ... directly or indirectly.
I guess if Pan were a troll, he might want to do nothing but chime in with unsubstantiated drive-by commentary. But at least he tries to contribute with an honest and constructed point of view. Try it some time.

I gave my point of view 5 pages ago, try reading the thread mine was the first response, and if I were a troll, I wouldn't have lasted here as long as I have, then again you haven't been around that long so you may not have noticed trolls don't survive very long in these parts, and that is my last post in this train wreck of a thread, so respond as you will with whatever witty response you may brew up.

Wow, he must truly have it in for me.... this makes like 5 posts where he just comes in takes a cheap shot and leaves.

All well.... again, it's easier to hate, throw blame and be negative then it is to sit down, talk and find common ground so that positive things can happen.

Keep hate alive, baby. :thumbsup:

You are absolutely right. I took only part of what you said (in this and other threads)......just as you only take part of what Judge Arrington or Reverend Wright have said (or have done) that best suit your need so you could justify your belief.

I thought I would play by your rules. (and in your fave color)

I still dont think you get it.

edit:
My apologies to the rest of the TFP community who are wading through this crap.

Quoted for Irony.

Posting at this point in this thread is like wading into a pool of alligators, so I'm not going to be too substantial here. Suffice to say, pan, when you say:

... and then IMMEDIATELY follow it with:

...and NOT see that you just made a lie out of the first sentence... Well, it's just impossible to have a rational discussion with when you're operating with that degree of self-opacity.

Okay, but it's a stretch to call anything this judge did racist or hateful. You, as someone who seems to constantly lament being called a racist, should understand this.

I agree that we need people who don't promote hatred. I think you have an overly broad definition of promoting hatred.

I know you find it bullshit. I think you're over reacting. I mean shit, why stop at not throwing everybody just the nonblacks out of the courtroom. Why didn't the judge take out an ad on one of his local radio stations, or better yet, why didn't he write a book? Like you said, how are we, or this judge to know that others would not benefit from what he said?

I know you're a parent, so you should be aware of the differences, psychologically speaking, between lecturing someone in front of strangers and lecturing them in front of just their peers. Perhaps the judge felt that lecturing these young men in front of the rest of the court wouldn't have the desired effect. Do we even know what he said, specifically? If not, why are you making such a big fuss about it? It's quite possible that had he said whatever he said in front of everybody it would have been of little benefit to anybody else with respect to the lessening effect it might have had on the people for whom it was intended.

I think you are too quick to use the word hate, and it causes you problems when communicating with other people. Prejudice and hate are two different things and they don't necessarily always overlap. Accusing this judge, or anyone who supports him, or racial hatred is ridiculous. It is difficult to take one who makes such accusations seriously, especially when it is possible, given that little that we actually know about this judge, that the judge in question has done more to further race relations than you could ever hope to.


Who cares about them?

But it is reasonable. Someone who wasn't racist and discriminatory, full of hate you might say, wouldn't even acknowledge the existence of race.

So is your problem with what the judge did, or that you perceive some sort of double standard exists with respect to which judges can do it?

I 've read this entire thread(I dont know why I wasted the time) and pan you say you want to find common ground but you don't. All you are trying to do is beat your opinion into other people's heads and come to the consensus you are correct.

I think you said (may have been someone else) that if any other judges did this it still is as prejudicial as this one in this context. I just don't agree with your reasoning. I see this judge trying to instill some pride and responsibility into people of his race to do better.

What if he singled them out. Would you be arguing the opposite had he done the same in front of a packed court room, potentially embarrassing and humiliating them in front of other races, perhaps giving the impression they were inferior? I understand your point, that being if he had a message, he should have said it to everyone regardless of race. But you are not understanding his point, that being his feeling that there are problems in the black community and people need to step up.

This guy should be commended for being a role model, not admonished for trying to create positive change in his people.

Why you are arguing this ad nauseum is beyond me. Honestly for most people this is a no brainer. Try to see this from the opposite point of view, honestly, then see how your reasoning stacks up.

Hold on, Malcolm X? As in this Malcolm X?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...carbine3gr.gif

Malcolm X, the militant radical who said things like:

All quotes sourced from late 1964 or 1965, within months of his death.

I'm not going to argue your other examples, but is this really a man you want to hold up as an example of peace and racial tolerance?

Compare this to Dr. Martin Luther King, who in his most famous speech said things like:

Do you see the contrast here?

Excellent point Martian. We should keep an appreciation for the historical context of events. But if we are truly wanting to pursue solutions, we should not continue honoring or condoning racial prejudice or militancy by anyone for any reason.

Compare these quotes with the sentiment of our founding fathers under British colonial rule.

Malcolm X was assassinated in 1965.

Context is everything.

(This was a list of banned books by and about African-Americans.......moved to new thread for separate discussion).

Good lord. That is insane.

Everybody on the planet should be made read The Bluest Eye.

do you really think this thread is a good place to debate the relevance of martin luther king as over against malcolm x?

there is a potentially interesting debate to be had about that--but the chances of it happening in this thread are close to nil--and that because it reintroduces the problem of how one thinks about racism and its history and the relation of that history to the present in the united states.

this is one of the central disagreements between pan, bringer of Unity Peace Love and Understanding, and the rest of us, all of whom sow hate and negativity and division.