"Thug" is the new "N-word"/Jordan Davis and Treyvon Martin page 2

46 posts

Flag Post

I agree, racism doesnt exist because the KKK disbanded years ago and nobody got offended by that recent cheerios commercial that featured an interracial couple

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

Mostly, I’m saying that differences do exist. What is important isn’t that they shouldn’t exist;

What’s important is we focus on the similarities rather than the differences. There are biological differences yes – negative effects on health of having dark skin in a cold northern climate are well documented, as an example. Nowever, you take a black man’s brain, cut it out and plonk it on a table, do the same with a white man’s brain, and an asian man’s brain, then switch them around a bit and ask people to work out which one came from which (without resorting to a genome analysis), well, good luck with that one. They’re both visually and functionally identical.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

Mostly, I’m saying that differences do exist. What is important isn’t that they shouldn’t exist;

What’s important is we focus on the similarities rather than the differences. There are biological differences yes – negative effects on health of having dark skin in a cold northern climate are well documented, as an example. Nowever, you take a black man’s brain, cut it out and plonk it on a table, do the same with a white man’s brain, and an asian man’s brain, then switch them around a bit and ask people to work out which one came from which (without resorting to a genome analysis), well, good luck with that one. They’re both visually and functionally identical.

And, we all have 2 arms, 2 legs, 10 toes, 10 fingers, 2 eyes, 2 ears, 1 nose, 1 mouth, all blood is red, digestive tracts work the same (food in; poo out), same for reproductive process, we laugh, we cry, we die.

Yeaaaaa….for the similarities.
And, boring.
My full statement is the crux of my point; it goes well beyond elementary focusing on biology & simple emotional baggage. Those “differences” I’m talking about that shouldn’t exist [matter] are the lame-ass ones that (for whatever idiotic reasoning) ppl who have agendas (obvious or insidious) use to bring about totally unnecessary disharmony

Mostly, I’m saying that differences do exist. What is important isn’t that they shouldn’t exist; but rather, how can they peacefully coexist in order to maximize the inherent potential greatness afforded by multiplicity (don’t put all of your eggs in the same nest).

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

We probably should include the Latin Grammy Awards, the ALMA, the DAR and any other such events that celebrate accomplishments within a particular group demographic.

That’s true; I just wasn’t aware of the Latin Grammy Awards, etc. Whenever there is an event that is specific to one race, even if it’s meant in a positive vein, the implication is that it excludes all the other races.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Twilight_Ninja:
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

We probably should include the Latin Grammy Awards, the ALMA, the DAR and any other such events that celebrate accomplishments within a particular group demographic.

That’s true; I just wasn’t aware of the Latin Grammy Awards, etc. Whenever there is an event that is specific to one race, even if it’s meant in a positive vein, the implication is that it excludes all the other races.

I imagine that when this form of comparative evaluation happens, there is one huge factor omitted: percentages.

Let’s make an analogy.
Let’s use high school football.
Let’s say that a tiny Kansas town is participating in KSHSAA will compete against a big one for the state high school football championship.
Let’s use the 1A small town of Udall, enrollment of 98, playing against the much larger one just up the road 20 miles from it….6A Derby, enrollment of 1919.

Just to be sure that you understand how such disparities operate, the football teams for Class 1A are made up of 8 boys…Class 6A have the typical 11. Beginning to get the picture yet?

Now, let’s do away w/ this “class system” and magically say all the high school districts are the “same”….regardless of enrollment numbers. And, let’s have them compete “evenly” for the state football championship….including that those districts playing 8-man continue to field that many players….even against 11-man teams.

When we are talking about minority groups, to say they should be happy being allowed to compete in “the big show” is, at best, disingenuous and only beginning to be better at insensitive. Yes, A FEW players on those 8-man teams are standout & will be even better than their counterparts on the “top tier” teams. But, it will be highly unlikely that the “wins” will be reflective of the true PERCENTAGES of minority numbers.

I first began to make this connection by going to the Kansas high school track & field State Competition. Yes, the districts were divided by their Classes & competed within them. But, many of the smaller towns produces athletes that performed as well or even better than the larger ones. Yet, in no way could the team have had a chance to win the title.

But, within a determined class, those of similar capabilities were on a more level playing field….one not at all determined by talent alone, but by the potential to produce a particular amount of it within the resources available.

That is why I don’t find such “off shoots” any too disturbing.
Of course, it will always come down to INTENT.

Another way of looking at it.
Are any of those who are excluded from the “minor league” awards bitching that they can’t have a chance to “win little”?
Aren’t they happy to be in the “majority league” show where the real prestige is?

 
Flag Post

Geez did SD die in the last day? No activity/bumps and I’ve been seeing a lot of this up in here

 
Flag Post

It’s taken a while to work out Karma’s logic, and I still haven’t managed to. I just don’t see how a team unable to raise the required numbers equates with an individual who shys away from the big competition because they are afraid they are not good enough. Being a big fish in a small pond proves nothing.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by beauval:

It’s taken a while to work out Karma’s logic, and I still haven’t managed to.

If you worked it out after awhile; then I would assume that you did manage to do so. ;-)
.

I just don’t see how a team unable to raise the required numbers equates with an individual who shys away from the big competition because they are afraid they are not good enough.
I’ll work on that logic some….I’ve not yet managed to see how it is applicable to the concept of the reasons for there being different levels of competition based upon inequities inherent in—here it comes—the factor I prefaced my post: I imagine that when this form of comparative evaluation happens, there is one huge factor omitted: percentages. I’m talking how a minority is a smaller percentage of society.

Society is fife w/ situations where their is a multiplicity of levels of “competition” w/in a particular area. And, for good reason. One of them being that the lower level of completion can encourage not-yet-realized/recognized talent to keep trying….some of which just might end up being a Halle Berry.

I sure as hell don’t at all understand this: shies away from the big competition because they are afraid they are not good enough. Who has said any of the fish in the small pond are AFRAID of competing in the big pond? Who has said that they don’t or aren’t allowed to do so?

What I have presented is that, for good or bad, the reasons for minority groups having their own small-pond competitions is so there can be just that much more opportunity for recognition…in all the levels of a particular venue.

Here in Wichita, we have a very famous NBC which gives “lesser known” athletes an opportunity to compete so their DEVELOPING skills might once again be able to garner attention by those who could open greater doors for them. Maybe get a chance to compete in baseball farm teams like the one we have for our Kansas City Royals. Football & Baseball farm teams have a lot of small-to-larger classes for competition that “keep alive” the potential for a big-fish-in-a-small-pond to be realized.
.

Being a big fish in a small pond proves nothing.

It does to that particular big fish. It does to those who aspire to also be, at the very least (for reasons given above), that big fish. A big fish in a small pond might be given hope that they may one day be a reasonable size fish in the huge pond….or even a bigger fish. Ya know, the way the minors in sports work: Minor league baseball is a hierarchy of professional baseball leagues in the Americas that compete at levels below Major League Baseball (MLB) and provide opportunities for player development and a way to prepare for Major League Baseball (MLB). By _prepare, I imagine they mean: hone their skill/craft.

I well image that those small-pond towns that have high school enrollments so small that they can field only 8-man teams would be hugely “cheating” their kids were they to just not even bother to have football at all because they couldn’t achieve shit in competitions w/ the big-pond schools. Thereby utterly smothering what could be some really great talent that could be utilized in the larger ponds of collegiate competition.

Wichita State, currently doing so well in basketball, doesn’t field a football team….hasn’t for years. Wichita sports fans are the lesser because of it. I imagine Black communities are also similarly affected by a lack of seeing their kids garner noted accomplishments….even if they are only done so in a small pond.

There are plenty of references to these small/minor ponds. Even England does it: In England (and many other countries), the football leagues have many divisions below the top-flight as part of the football pyramid.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
Originally posted by beauval:

It’s taken a while to work out Karma’s logic, and I still haven’t managed to.

If you worked it out after awhile; then I would assume that you did manage to do so. ;-)

I think he means he’s spent a while trying to work out the logic and has failed.

Probably the same area I’m struggling with Karma; I understand the necessity of multiple levels and groupings of competition so different ability levels and budgets can compete on an even playing field with others of similar capabilities. What I don’t understand is why one of those groupings has to be race. What does what race you are have to do with your ability?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
Originally posted by beauval:

It’s taken a while to work out Karma’s logic, and I still haven’t managed to.

If you worked it out after awhile; then I would assume that you did manage to do so. ;-)


I think he means he’s spent a while trying to work out the logic and has failed.

LOL…I was merely poking fun at how he stated it.
.

Probably the same area I’m struggling with Karma; I understand the necessity of multiple levels and groupings of competition so different ability levels and budgets can compete on an even playing field with others of similar capabilities. What I don’t understand is why one of those groupings has to be race. What does what race you are have to do with your ability?

Okay, once again, I’ll venture to make my point clearer.

First: The factor IS NOT what race has to do w/ ability. It comes down to—as I’ve pointed out—PERCENTAGES. The very thing that denotes what a minority is. Therefore, the percentage of opportunity for a particular race to have any significant number of “wins” is going to be, usually, equally minor. The NBA being somewhat an exception.

Second: If one makes the effort to look at the history of these forms of “exclusive” competitions, they will have a much greater understanding of the reasons for them. At one time, prior to Jackie Robinson, there was a very talented Black league baseball….but, Blacks were segregated into their own racial competition.

Does this mean the same level of validity for such racial divides should exist? Good question.
But, I have an even better one: What difference does it make…why does it matter so much to society at large? What serious objection can be mounted against their existence? I see bigotry as being very prominent in most of the arguments presented.

Another example of divide: locally, we have Christian organizations that put on high school “proms” that definitely SEPARATE those kids from the majority crowd.

Third: For me it is rather simple. If race isn’t a factor and the majority race touts that they don’t believe it is, then why is there angst when a race operates w/in its own parameters…is doing something racial of/for themselves?

It’s not at all about talent alone & race. It’s about a venue where talent can be recognized & encouraged without regard to the percentage-effect of being a minority. vika, in America, ppl who believe racism doesn’t yet exist aren’t at all aware of the truth. Young Blacks who are aware of the historical facts involving horrendous segregation are likely to still view, accurately or not, the opportunities available to them as being still lessened because of their race.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

What serious objection can be mounted against their existence? I see bigotry as being very prominent in most of the arguments presented.

The reason for divisions is ability driven. The paralympics are separate from the olympics because most paralympians cannot compete against fully able bodied olympians in a physical event. Some can, and those that can, move up to the main olympics.

Women’s football is segregated from men’s football for the same reason. Most women cannot compete against professional athlete men in a physical event. So for fairness, the women’s events are separated.

Continuing this theme, if you segregate blacks away from whites into their own division, you are making the statement that most blacks cannot compete against whites, and therefore need to be segregated from them. Sure a few can, and as in the above, they then move up into the higher tier. But the majority of blacks are at a disadvantage against whites, and this is why they need their own special tier. Whether you intended to or not, that’s the message you’re sending.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

What serious objection can be mounted against their existence? I see bigotry as being very prominent in most of the arguments presented.

The reason for divisions is ability driven. The paralympics are separate from the olympics because most paralympians cannot compete against fully able bodied olympians in a physical event. Some can, and those that can, move up to the main olympics.

Women’s football is segregated from men’s football for the same reason. Most women cannot compete against professional athlete men in a physical event. So for fairness, the women’s events are separated.

Continuing this theme, if you segregate blacks away from whites into their own division, you are making the statement that most blacks cannot compete against whites, and therefore need to be segregated from them. Sure a few can, and as in the above, they then move up into the higher tier. But the majority of blacks are at a disadvantage against whites, and this is why they need their own special tier. Whether you intended to or not, that’s the message you’re sending.

It’s not at all about talent alone & race. It’s about a venue where talent can be recognized & encouraged without regard to the percentage-effect of being a minority. vika, in America, ppl who believe racism doesn’t yet exist aren’t at all aware of the truth. Young Blacks who are aware of the historical facts involving horrendous segregation are likely to still view, accurately or not, the opportunities available to them as being still lessened because of their race.

Most anything that endeavors to help stop this kind of divide is just fine by me.

I’m unable to make it any clearer that racial-specific venues usually afford opportunities for a race to achieve encouragement & community support which the more general competitions don’t. Again I ask, what is the harm in this happening….other than the bigots seeing reverse racism in it?

 
Flag Post

I agree, there is nothing racist about awards that are only for people of specific races. It is also not racist that caucasian’s dont get their special race awards because giving white people special treatment like all the minorities get is racist!!!

oh sorry, the last sentence should have ended with “reverse racist” so it doesnt sound as bad!

discuss how treating white people differently based on their race isnt racism because they are the majority

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
Again I ask, what is the harm in this happening….other than the bigots seeing reverse racism in it?

It segregates. Promotes separate but equal. If you truly see separate but equal as a good thing, then sure, it is a great thing to promote. If we are going to have ethnic group specific events, then absolutely we should have events and awards which are “Whites only” in order to bring equality back to the table.

The odd thing is I cannot think of a single country other than America which is so hellbent on segregating talent by ethnic group. Protecting each ethnic group from unfair competition by other ethnic groups, sheltering them away, and continually reinforcing the message of you cannot compete with the other ethnicities directly. You are special and need to be sheltered from them.

Every other multi-ethnic country, just throws all the races in together, and lets ability speak for itself.

 
Flag Post

Karma, your “big fish little pond” is inaccurate, to say the least. Availability of players to draw from a pool has nothing to do with race. In regards to awards, statistically, it is expected that minorities receive less awards because there are less of those minorities in the game. There’s no reason to exclude others just to highlight minorities that wouldn’t have won an award in the mixture because there was someone better for them there who wasn’t the same race as them. That is racist. People win awards off merit – how many people there are competing and what their backgrounds are do not matter. Race shouldn’t be a factor in deciding awards, yet these things meant to empower do exactly what should be avoided – award based on race.

Providing opportunities to people is fine. Necessary even, when they’re being denied them otherwise. Making them have their own little group isn’t the way to go about ending racism. And it is reverse racism in a way when a more capable student is denied a place at a college because a certain amount of spots are reserved for people of another race. It is reverse racism in a way when there are special awards for people just because they’re a certain race. It is reverse racism in a way when there are groups only for certain people based on their race. Each of those has underlying reasons which were intended to do good, but is only counterproductive in the long term.

Racism won’t die until we stop seeing race as a reason to separate.

 
Flag Post

Kasic, I didn’t start the big-fish-little-pond analogy.
And, I probably shouldn’t have tried to roll w/ it.
Because it obviously didn’t succinctly address my point as I wish it had.

I want to point out that I’m not at all advocating some of the points you’re making.
I don’t want something along the lines of “affirmative action” that places someone of a race ahead of another (your more capable student….).

I don’t want any distortion of my point about fairness of wining at large venues; wining on merit… of which you appear to agree: _In regards to awards, statistically [my percentages], it is expected that minorities receive less awards because there are less of those minorities in the game.

I don’t “providing opportunities” to be construed to be seen as: _Making them have their own little group….
Who is doing this “providing” and “making” them you speak of?
I know you too well to take it as “whitey” being the one doing it….even tacitly.
I’m not even good w/ “allowing” or “tolerating”.
Having events that are race-specific is something they CHOOSE for themselves.

Again I ask, wherein is the problem w/ this form of opting to reward members of its own group for achievements? For me, those who have a problem w/ a race being “racial” (of or relating to race) is confusing it w/ the ugliness of racism: (the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.)

Blacks don’t appear to me to be saying anything “superior” or negative via their race-specific events. They appear to simply want to recognize, stimulate, promote the specific aspects of their culture.

Racism won’t die until there are no longer races…i.e, ONLY GRAY.
No white, no black, no yellow, no red, no brown.
But, since such is not going to happen in the foreseeable future, I propose we Americans truly live up to our concept of celebrating diversity and actually be supportive when a minority part of that diversity does celebrate its own diversity in its own way.

Different races exist, trying to be inclusive at the expense of their losing that which actually makes them a race and diminishing their ability to have pride in it seems to me to be highly disingenuous.

 
Flag Post
Again I ask, wherein is the problem w/ this form of opting to reward members of its own group for achievements?

Nothing particular, until you base it on race. If there were awards for only white people, I think we all know how that would go over. It doesn’t have anything to do with whites being the majority, but the idea of basing rewards and excluding others on the merit of race.

I wouldn’t have any problem if some film organization decided to hold awards only for films it produced and actors that played in them. If they want to do that as an organization, good for them for recognizing their own acheivements. However, forming a special group just to recognize minorities on basis of race is, at best, counterproductive to the idea of fighting racism, even if it was intended to be helpful.

Who is doing this “providing” and “making” them you speak of?

Most of the time it’s that own group. Which is why it baffles me that if whites held award shows for only white people, everyone would be in an uproar (as they should be) yet when black people or latino people or other minorities hold award shows for only members of their groups, it’s seen as good. Um, what? By definition, one of those two has to be the wrong response, as the only thing changed was the race being represented.

Blacks don’t appear to me to be saying anything “superior” or negative via their race-specific events. They appear to simply want to recognize, stimulate, promote the specific aspects of their culture.

But it’s not their culture. It’s a copy-cat award ceremony that excludes everyone except black people. They make it so that they can award things to only black people. Film isn’t specific to one race. Why have the same types of rewards for what we already have in place with Golden Globe/Oscars/w/e (I’m not very informed on any of that)? If it’s okay for black people to have that kind of award ceremony for themselves, why isn’t it also okay for any group (whites) to do it too?

Now, you argue that the reasons behind it are different. It’s not to exclude everyone, but to recognize members of their own group. Would you have a problem with white people doing the same thing? Forming their own award ceremonies to recognize members of their own group? Or will you admit the hypocrisy inherent?

Racism won’t die until there are no longer races…i.e, ONLY GRAY.

Racism won’t die until hatred dies which won’t die until everything is dead.

I propose we Americans truly live up to our concept of celebrating diversity and actually be supportive when a minority part of that diversity does celebrate its own diversity in its own way.

But it’s not celebrating diversity to segregate awards and give special attention to minority groups. That’s segregation and special recognition. Celebrating diversity =/= exclusion of the majority to benefit the minority. Why do black people need special awards ceremonies to recognize their actors? Why are we even making a distinction between black and white actors? They’re all actors – just because of population proportions we have more white ones that subsequently win more awards because there are more actors of them than those with darker skin tones, it suddenly makes sense to make an arbitrary distinction between skin color for the sole purpose of rewarding people based on their skin color? Excuse me? Doesn’t that seem a wee bit contradictory? Weren’t we trying to recognize everyone as equal?

Different races exist, trying to be inclusive at the expense of their losing that which actually makes them a race and diminishing their ability to have pride in it seems to me to be highly disingenuous.

And here I come with the ax. Why should we have pride in our race? Excessive pride is the other face of bigotry. If you have so much pride that you think it’s unfair that your group, who make up a smaller portion than other groups, receives statistically less awards because there are less actors to compete, then that subsequently means you think that your actors must be better on the basis of their race.

It’s perfectly fair that, say, (made up numbers) 85% of actors are white and 10% are black, 5% are latino, etc, and that each group brings in that share of awards after a big enough amount of time. That’s only natural. What wouldn’t be fair, and what these awards for certain races are trying to address, is the underlying assumptions that it IS fair and that black, white, latino, w/e actors are all held to the same standards and have the same opportunities to get into the business in the first place.

Except creating special award shows does absolutely nothing to fix that and only displays a benevolent hypocrisy.

 
Flag Post

A better way of doing things would be to have many different levels and types of award that anyone, regardless of their race could compete for, but in recognition that some have it easier financially or self-esteem wise than others, create action groups and funds to give those people a leg up if they need it with finances, strong advertising or therapy to boost their esteem. If they truly have the talent, then removing these obstacles that perhaps have something of a racial bias to them for historical reasons, would be the way to go.

All add to what Kasic said above with an example of a racial award that I’ve made up, but illustrates the problem nicely. A poor area. A predominantly black neighborhood. Some members of the community try to create a springboard for those of their own who have a particular talent to showcase it, and start on the road to fame and moving to a better neighborhood. So far, so good.

Because it is a predominantly black neighborhood, someone with influence takes the next logical step and declares it a black only event as a way of reducing the chance that someone from an adjacent, more affluent neighborhood will try and compete.

In the same neighborhood are some white folk. They’re a comparitive minority, but they’re just as poor as everyone else. One of them a young girl, has this talent in spades. She’s the equal of any other talented person from the neighborhood, and she’s had the exact same lack of opportunity as anyone else in the area. However, her skin color automatically bars her from applying. She’s not black. She grew up with these people, is one of them, part and parcel of the neighborhood, and has had the exact same sort of life up until this point. However, because her skin is the wrong color – too light – she is denied the opportunity to compete directly against her peers. She’ll have to compete for a different award, which isn’t going to happen, because this award competition was set up precisely because those of the neighborhood haven’t had any access to any kind of recognition like this.

Something’s very wrong here, but it’s exactly what segregation by race ends up doing. Cutting out those with the same ability, the same circumstances as others, solely because they have the wrong concentration of melanin in their skin.


EDIT: Edited for spelling. I typed a technical report in Queen’s English over the past couple of hours, and forgot to switch back to American English to type this. Apologies to those who got confused over the strange plethora of ’u’s and ’z’s and odd words.

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post

What’s sad in cases like these is, no one really wins. Some crazy guy flipping out and killing a disrespectful teenager doesn’t make being disrespectful okay. And rioting in the streets doesn’t do much in the way of easing negative stereotypes.

 
Flag Post

EDIT: I’m not the type to constantly post on my SD threads because frankly, I can’t contribute much. I will ask however, now that more coverage on the case and Al Sharpton’s (inevitable) involvement has occurred, what is your thoughts?

I think that it’s wrong for Davis to be killed, but it’s a bit of a double standard. While the main focus seems to be Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, it feels somewhat inevitable that the race debate would come up. Would this case get nearly as much coverage if the skin color’s of the two (Davis and the shooter, never found out his name) were swapped?