Assault on the white man
(Remember I am just an observer of things, no matter how offensive)
With the whole Imus thing, I am seeing something happening and it has kind of been happening for the last 20 years. Indirectly, white people are getting assault. Think about it; Imus said things that Chris Rock if turned around could have made an entire act out of. Remember the "cracker a** cracker routine". Chappelle does a lighter version, but similar.
And recently, with O'Reilly and Geraldo. O'Reilly is the proverbial Irish white guy and Geraldo is hispanic, so people will automatically paint O'Reilly as this crazy, racist, right-wing nut.
Remember Catholicism, attacked. Christianity, on the defensive.
And it is not like they are being attacked, literally, but the white-man's balls are being cut off, one ball at a time.
Me, I am kind of sitting here and laughting. What is the white community going to do.
April 10th, 2007 11:20am
Another observation: What was the name of Michael Moore's book: "Stupid White Man...blah blah"
Compare that with Imus's comment.
April 10th, 2007 11:43am
Who was the president before Bush, wouldnt have gone as far to call Clinton a great white hope; but he was the first "Black President", interesting.
April 10th, 2007 11:45am
Are you off your meds again?
O'Reilly doesn't need any help painting himself as anything. If anything, sitting next to a tool like Geraldo makes him look more reasonable.
The Catholic church hasn't been attacked for anything they didn't bring on themselves.
There is no "attack on religion" going on in this country, it's more Fox News propaganda to keep the US vs THEM mentality alive.
Man, you suck.
April 10th, 2007 12:19pm
Bot - WTF?? - the state of organized religion surely needs questioning and deserves any "attacks" it gets
bob's your uncle
April 10th, 2007 12:39pm
If the 'majority' uses its 'majority' power to oppress a 'minority', that's bad.
A 'minority' cannot use it's 'minority' power (because there isn't one) to oppress the 'majority'.
If Imus wants to tell "whitey" jokes, people would not be impressed, but they wouldn't be offended. Imus calling the members of a black basketball team 'hos' is offensive.
If Chris Rock wants to tell "black" jokes, people are not offended. I'm sure if he told Jew jokes, people WOULD be offended.
Besides all that, the goal is NOT to allow the majority and the minority to be equally offensive to each other. What kind of logic is that? Two wrongs make a right?
No, the goal is for BOTH sides to treat each other with respect. Imus is the most recent example of failure in that area.
April 10th, 2007 1:09pm
This is where I try to inject some reasonable comments.
I thought it was more offensive to call them 'hos' and wouldnt make it a racist comment but more misogynistic comment. But just that, a comment. Why is it receiving a whole day of CNN coverage.
"A 'minority' cannot use it's 'minority' power (because there isn't one) to oppress the 'majority'." Why even define a concept of minority and majority. There are still some 40 million african americans in the US. Why are african americans still a minority? It is based on numbers alone? I would say that the african american still has a majority influence of many aspects of life.
What if Al Sharpton came and said, "Hey I am not that offended by your statement, sticks and stones kind of thing" Once again, just puts blacks on the defensive.
April 10th, 2007 1:17pm
Yeah, I agree about the ho thing. With Imus, his 'you people' sounded like he meant the people who he thinks are trying to make his comments be something more than what they were. This whole 'You people? you people? so... you mean negroes, do you? Black oppressor! Black oppressor!" routine is just trying to create animosity where it didn't exist.
April 10th, 2007 1:35pm
Couldn't this problem be fairly effectively solved by dropping Imus in the middle of a Rutgers practice? I realize that the team probably isn't currently practicing, what with the season being over, but there's a bunch of muscular girls and one old white dude who makes his living sitting on his ass. The outcome here isn't that hard to work out.
"Why even define a minority and majority?" -- because the 1960's proved "separate but equal" doesn't work. That a majority that CAN oppress a minority sometimes DOES oppress the minority.
And without checks and balances on the majority, there's nothing to stop the abuse.
Because until 1963 or so, the minority was quite clearly defined, and quite clearly dis-enfranchised of voting rights.
If you want to indulge yourself in some Animal Farm or "1984" double-think philosophical maundering about "are we really different", and "differences don't exist until we give them a name", you go right ahead. That will work until you get to the point of "some animals are MORE equal than others", at which point it breaks down.
April 10th, 2007 2:19pm
Eso es ACEPTABLE. Eres todo que va a ser una minoría pronto bastante.
(Bad google translation of:
"That's OK. You're all going to be a minority soon enough.")
April 10th, 2007 2:29pm
Why is he even worth our time discussing? That's what seems to be the problem.
Is discussing Imus worth five minutes of your time?
I think it's pretty sick. Funny for a moment that it's so self-destructive humor, but basically sick. Could you imagine putting people down daily and getting paid 20 mil a year?
Um, LorB, the discussion ended several hours ago.
April 11th, 2007 9:34am
April 11th, 2007 1:13pm
"A 'minority' cannot use it's 'minority' power (because there isn't one) to oppress the 'majority'."
You sure about that?
Due all our political correctness it would sure seem that way to me.
I could get all in a huff about some 'cracker' comment, but it wouldn't amount to a hill of beans. Had that sofa been cracker-white it wouldn't have made the news.
I think it is elevated to the level of oppression when people start losing opportunities over the color of their skin through bullshit policies like affirmative action and selective admissions to universities.
April 11th, 2007 3:16pm
Wow, 26 whole hours before somebody really jumped on that statement. I must be slipping or something, or you people aren't paying attention.
Okay, the truth is the minority have 'minority power' only so much as it is allowed them by the 'majority'. So yes, it's not entirely true to say it doesn't exist at all.
I was going to use Ghandi as an example of "minority power", except when he was taking back India from the British the natives of India WERE the majority, even though the British had the power of rule and of arms.
So perhaps it's the power of the "enfranchised" versus the power of the "disenfranchised", and all this "minority/majority" thing simply comes from the USA's experience with slavery.
Fact: Ghandi took back India using "non-violent" means. This only worked because the British rule cared enough about civility that they were unwilling to bring in machine guns against the non-violent. This is an example of the "enfranchised" limiting their power.
Fact: "Separate but equal" was tried in the U.S. with disasterous results. This was an example of the enfranchised using their power to maintain a poorer learning environment for the disenfranchised.
Fact: The 1963 Voting Rights Act was trying to undo actions taken by southern states that effectively made blacks second class citizens.
Fact: "Affirmative Action" in the U.S. tried, through quota's, to insure opportunities for blacks. This was because it was recognized that blacks were under-represented, as a percentage of the population, in U.S. boardrooms, and in higher education.
This action was called "Affirmative", because the "just let it happen" approach seemed to be maintaining the disenfranchisement.
So, this brings us to today, where "Affirmative Action" has been dismantled. Where some of the "enfranchised" are claiming they have LESS opportunity than some of the disenfranchised. Where blacks are still under-represented in U.S. board-rooms and higher education, but not nearly as badly as in the 1970's.
Some claim "Affirmative Action" has gone far enough, and should be dismantled. I'm not sure that's so, but I am sure "AA" has been dismantled. What I don't want to see are actions by the enfranchised to disenfranchise others. Nor actions by the newly enfranchised to disenfranchise anybody else.
In short -- the disenfranchised are still in a 'one down' position with regard to the enfranchised. The enfranchised can use their position to enact laws and policies either to increase or decrease the position of the disenfranchised. The disenfranchised do not have equal power to do so to the enfranchised.
April 11th, 2007 3:53pm
"bullshit policies like affirmative action"
Ah well, JoC. I tend to agree with you.
But these past two years at my current employer tell a different story about AA's necessity. The sorority girls refuse to hire or even interview someone not in their certain set of sororities for positions in a twin company I work for that does corporate relations for financial departments in the F-1000.
They can always say there are none. Why do I doubt that. The reason I even thought of this is because I was really concerned that the many women who work here think I'm some kind of hateful person because I can't pick them out of a crowd on the street. They all look and dress so much the same that I simply cannot recognize them to even politely say hello when we bump into each other while waiting to purchase lunch or something.
I started peeking at the resumes they are considering. It really is scary how they discriminate. Actively. But if you confronted them about it, they would deny it vehemently.