Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.' They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?' He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least among you, you did not do for me.' (Matthew 25:41-45)
The above is but one example of the many instructions in the Bible on how God wants us to serve the poor. It's not just the New Testament either. Deuteronomy 24:14 tells us: "Do not take advantage of a hired man who is poor and needy, whether he is a brother Israelite or an alien living in one of your towns." Psalm 12:5 says: "Because of the oppression of the weak and the groaning of the needy, I will now arise, says the LORD, I will protect them from those who malign them."
And Psalm 41:1-2 states: "Blessed is he who has regard for the weak; the LORD delivers him in times of trouble. The LORD will protect him and preserve his life; he will bless him in the land and not surrender him to the desire of his foes."
In looking at all of these teachings, I'm wondering if Newt Gingrich has picked up a Bible recently or, quite frankly, has ever read one. Take a look at this.
Really poor children in really poor neighborhoods have no habits of working and one around them who works? Are you fucking kidding me? I can't believe that we are still on this crap. What is it about this country and disdain for poor people? They're all lazy, I guess, and they don't teach their kids good values. They're poor for a reason, dammit, and how dare they stink up our country with their poor BO.
Some have suggested that Newt's comment was a dog whistle for bigots (the lazy blacks who don't work). Based on this line from a recent comment, they may be right.
What I am suggesting is that culture matters. And black culture, at this point in history, does not celebrate academic achievement.
I will never understand this mindset. I'd like to try to give folks like this the benefit of the doubt and simply say that they are massively tone deaf but perhaps I'm being too kind. This view, illustrated quite well by Newt Gingrich, is so antiquated that it makes me physically ill. What fucking country do these people live in? They claim to be Christian but what goes through their minds when they read this passage?
If a man shuts his ears to the cry of the poor, he too will cry out and not be answered.
45 comments:
http://www.californiaindianeducation.org/indian_humor/blame_whites.html
Yeah, damn that Newt Gingrich talking about a lack of respect for academic achievement in much of the black community. Why, he almost sounds like Bill Cosby talking about poor inner city blacks, and we all know what a bigot he is.
The simple fact is that in many cases, poor people have poor ways, and that was an old saying when my grandfather heard it from his grandfather. And that has nothing to do with color, but it has a lot to do with culture. Compare the average trajectory of Vietnamese refugees in America with Hmong refugees. It's the culture, stupid.
Pretending there isn't a problem doesn't make the problem go away, nor does throwing money at the people. As little use as I have for Newt, at least he confronts the problem. In fact, this is really no different than what Daniel Moynihan was castigated for honestly addressing back in the 60's.
I think that Newt is simply out of touch and old. People that are poor generally work very hard which makes his statement woefully inaccurate. I'm not sure he was making a racial comment. It looks to me like he was just being a crabby old man like John McCain.
So.. Mark - culture doesn't matter? Is that what you're trying to say? Cause it really seems to bother you to point out that it does.
To Mark culture doesn't matter unless it's the Micheal Jordan culture...err generation.
Reality strikes again!
To flourish, the welfare state requires favorable economics and demographics: rapid economic growth to pay for social benefits; and young populations to support the old. Both economics and demographics have moved adversely.
Now interestingly, one way to blunt the center-right-populists, i.e. the Tea Party, is to talk up the necessity of expansive immigration to address the demographic support that SocSec requires (at least to function in its current state). Tell them to choose closed borders or keep SocSec - one or the other.
If you are going to pay attention to any economist, I strongly recommend Samuelson over Krugman. Samuelson was never a paid stooge of Enron either.
Hap, you're missing the point. YOUR analysis of black culture is the problem, not whether or not it's an issue of culture. I won't even bother going to the racist path because you'll do your little dance that all you childish deniers do. Simply put, this kind of thinking is ridiculously antiquated and doesn't make sense when you think about the economics of the world today. To me, this reeks of early 20 century realist thinking that was the chief cause for both world wars.
Larry, Bill Cosby gets to say it and we don't. Them's the breaks, kiddo!
juris, note the qualifier "to flourish." That's important because then the question becomes does welfare capitalism simply just muddle along without favorable economics and demographics?
>YOUR analysis of black culture is the problem, not whether or not it's an issue of culture.
So.. Let me get this straight - you don't necessarily think it's wrong, it's just racist for a person with the wrong color skin to make the observation. Erm ok. How does that not make you an abject coward? With your continued references to "saying that to a black persons face", I'm thinking you might have some issues with assuming that black people are prone to anger or violence. Talk about the observation that culture matters Mark. Is it wrong or right? If wrong, why?
>Simply put, this kind of thinking is ridiculously antiquated and doesn't make sense when you think about the economics of the world today.
Heh, you should have avoided those first two words. They aren't true. Antiquated why? Why doesn't it make sense in relation to economics? (But it did in old time economics? Huh?)
>does welfare capitalism simply just muddle along without favorable economics and demographics?
It will muddle along as long as its creditors let it, yes. As the PIIGS are learning and you are not, that isn't forever.
note the qualifier "to flourish."
You didn't bother to read the article did you? Just read the snippet and made an assumption.
>So.. Let me get this straight - you don't necessarily think it's wrong, it's just racist for a person with the wrong color skin to make the observation. Erm ok.
haha, great observation...similar to focusing more on the Conservative Reaction to an event rather than the event itself.
juris, I thought that was the line you wanted me to focus on. Isn't that why you highlighted it? I'd be happy to comment on more if you like.
Hap, here's the problem. You're not black so for you, me or any other white person to make a comment like yours demonstrates a profound lack of knowledge and experience that comes from individualized perception. Cosby can say it and you can't because he's lived it and you haven't. Further, the fact that you attribute culture to a skin color in such a generalized way betrays a real ignorance and that's what I mean by antiquated.
Now, if you had said that our entire culture doesn't celebrate academic achievement, as you began to intimate in that comment, then you would be talking about the Micheal Jordan Generation which is very accurate. This is exactly what the president said in his SOTU speech last January.
Culture does matter but not in the way you characterized it.
You're not black so for you, me or any other white person to make a comment like yours demonstrates a profound lack of knowledge and experience that comes from individualized perception.
So the pigment in someone's skin either validates or invalidates what they have to say.
I believe you owe Dr. King an apology. Or, perhaps you don't share his dream.
I think it depends on the comment, juris. There aren't any absolute rules with stuff like this. Hap's comment falls under the "Blacks are Lazy" headline which means that, as a non black, it smacks of insensitivity at best, bigotry at worse.
>Hap's comment falls under the "Blacks are Lazy" headline which means that, as a non black, it smacks of insensitivity at best, bigotry at worse.
Exactly like I said then - my skin color is wrong in your mind, not what I said. Well, you're at least conforming to the stereotype of the liberal race baiter. Well done.
Fortunately, I have no respect for your ridiculous notion of authenticity - that you can't make generalizations about a culture if you aren't of that culture; that you can't criticize Soc Sec unless you forego its benefits. Kind of a trend with you.
There aren't any absolute rules with stuff like this.
That's funny, you sure seemed to be pretty absolute about it, i.e.
You're not black
And I don't know why you thought he was saying "Blacks are Lazy" - since that isn't what he said. He said that academic achievement isn't celebrated - which is pretty much what your point is with the "Michael Jordan Generation". Or are you suggesting there are thousands of young white boys [and girls] that imagine themselves to be future NBA superstars? I guess you are being a bigot too by tagging a generational derogation with the name of a single black man.
juris, obviously you don't spend much time around young people. They all want to be LeBron or Beyonce. It doesn't matter what color they are because that's what the corporations of this country (who are doing most of their socialization) are pushing. Success means being selfish and having a lot of money. And guess what? You are all entitled to have it because the corporate owned media says so! That's the MJG.
at least conforming to the stereotype of the liberal race baiter..
Well, it didn't take that long for the reverse race card to come out, did it? I don't understand why it's so difficult for you to admit that you made a racially insensitive comment (and that's being kind) on here. This is a great illustration of why I rip the right all the time and why I will never, ever be a conservative...no fucking ability to reflect whatsoever. "It's not me, it's liberal race baiting." Sheesh...
LeBron or Beyonce
You seem to have a real problem with rich, talented black people M.
are all entitled to have it because the corporate owned media says so!
That may actually be the stupidest thing you have ever claimed. And damn if THAT isn't saying something.
How sad, because you actually look at a problemtatic social situation and then you have to contort it into your twisted mental demon to blame it on media corporations. Is that ALL media corporations - or just Fox? [I really shouldn't goad you into deeper stupidity, but it is so morbidly fascinating to watch.]
juris, if you have the time, go spend a week in a junior high school. You'll understand what I'm talking about at the end of that week as well as having a very firm grasp on what is actually wrong with education as opposed to Kevin Baker's paranoid fantasies.
I don't have the time, so you will need to educate me. Also you will need to show me how [some] media [other than entertainment] dominates the minds of middle schoolers.
You want to know where kids get their sense of entitlement? They get it first and foremost from family - but you have said we can't talk about that if they happen to be black. After family comes the influence of society.
You can't really blame the kids when family and society tell them what a precious little snowflake they are - that they should get a trophy just for being/trying. That distinctions such as achievement are false social constructs and hurtful to those that don't achieve.
Don't throw Kevin at me, I've argued with him as much as you have on this subject in particular. Take a look at your own paranoid fantasies (about corporation evil).
They all want to be LeBron or Beyonce. It doesn't matter what color they are [...]
Nice attempted save there, but everyone heard your racist dog whistle for bigots there.
>Well, it didn't take that long for the reverse race card to come out, did it?
I think you need to go check a dictionary bubba. I'm not accusing you of reverse racism, (how would that even be possible?) I'm accusing you of simple intellectual dishonesty, using race as cover for yourself. (Otherwise known as playing the race card.) After all, Mark, you simply inserted words into my mouth and then accused me of racism based on the words that *you* created and imputed to me. But it's ok. If you have nothing else but false accusations of racism, that's what you go with. As I said, you aren't the first liberal to do this. And this is you, after all. Mischaracterizing your opponents positions in order to knock down strawmen is what you do. Why would I expect anything better from you?
>I don't understand why it's so difficult for you to admit that you made a racially insensitive comment (and that's being kind) on here.
Oh I agree that what I said is insensitive - but it isn't racist. Hard questions deserve honest, sometimes brutally honest answers. Understand this regarding insensitivity - I just don't care. Being sensitive only allows you and/or other people you coddle with your "sensitivity" to hide from mean nasty reality that you or they don't like. This is why I pointed out that you're just being a coward. And in order to avoid confronting that, you hide behind accusations of racism. Sheesh indeed. Why is it that each time I engage with you, I come away a little more surprised each time at the depth of your intellectual depravity? You'd think nothing could surprise me by now..
juris, the problem is that many are not being socialized by their parents. Those same parents have abdicated to the media which was my whole point in the MJG post. That's the world that they think is real and their friends all believe as well so the myth continues.
Hap, I know you aren't accusing me of reverse racism. That's what I'm saying that you do in the typical projection/flipping manner. Essentially, you can pretty much say whatever you want and it's ok, you're not really racist and it's all the fault of me, the liberal race baiter.
You made a comment about a culture that was based on skin color. You guys are always telling me that words have meanings, right? So tell me how this
— n
1. the belief that races have distinctive cultural characteristics determined by hereditary factors and that this endows some races with an intrinsic superiority over others
is NOT illustrative of what you said.
Why is it that each time I engage with you, I come away a little more surprised each time at the depth of your intellectual depravity?
What amazes me the most about our exchanges is how you can't make comments without ad hominem. It's seemingly impossible. Of course, this is certainly indicative of the right as a whole...not much substance and plenty of personal attacks. Nixon really did a number on you folks and you have never changed.
Says the person who wildly throws around accusations of racism, fascism, incipient Nazism, rampant corporate cock-suckage, and then wonders why people don't cut him any slack for repeated misrepresentations, distortions, double standards, logical fallacies, and shifting goalposts. Strange, that. It's truly a Mystery for the Ages.
Dear god Mark:
>by hereditary factors and that this endows some races with an intrinsic superiority over others
That entire part. You simply attached that part to me because it fits your world view. In fact, applying that to me requires you to ignore my very specific disavowal of that in the original comments. But again - that's how you operate, isn't it Mark? Ignore things that won't fit your preconceived conclusions. But hey, I guess if its ok to operate this way, then may as well go crazy with it:
Hey Mark - I notice you put "sex" in the title of your blog. I think what you really mean to say is "sex with minors." After all, you are a teacher of minors, so any reasonable person can put two and two together. Hey everyone! Mark wants to have sex with minors! And if you don't agree with me, prove it wrong Mark.
Oh! You think that method of argumentation is kind of objectionable? You don't really want to have sex with minors? Hey, it's what I *thought* you meant. That makes it true right? It certainly works for you - whatever you decide a person means is what they meant! Perfectly reasonable. Guess that makes you a pedophile, huh.
As to ad hominem, a couple things. First, dear god. Look up the definition of ad hominem. It is not synonymous with "unflattering adjectives directed at a person." Second, as Larry already pointed out, your little innocent act is well worn out. Cut the bs.
You simply attached that part to me because it fits your world view.
No, that's the Fox News version of liberals and that isn't me. Again, we're back to the flipping...it's on me, not you...liberal world view blah blah blah. Zero reflection.
You made a comment that stated that black culture doesn't celebrate academic achievement. You then followed this with white culture is heading there as well which implies that it's still superior to black culture. So, your "dead God, Mark" makes no sense.
Ad hominem...let's see...it's Latin for "to the man." Definition: an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it.
Calling me a "fuckwit" as Larry recently pointed out is, in fact, a negative characteristic. Saying this
This is why I pointed out that you're just being a coward.
is also pointing out a negative characteristic.
An attempt to negate the truth of my claim by pointing out a negative belief would be this
You simply attached that part to me because it fits your world view.
or this
As I said, you aren't the first liberal to do this
or this
Well, you're at least conforming to the stereotype of the liberal race baiter.
Should I go on?
You made a comment that stated that black culture doesn't celebrate academic achievement.
So are you now saying this isn't the point of contention - because that is sure what it sounded like you were saying before. Remember "you are not black" - and therefore any commentary on any matter about blacks is therefore invalid.
I judge by the content of character, not the color of skin. This is actually one advantage of communications over the Internet. I have no idea the gender or color of anyone I am talking to - but I can sure as hell get a read on their character.
Besides, no one but you has thrown three black people out as examples of what is wrong with our culture.
At this point you might want to let this thread die and try your luck somewhere else.
>You made a comment that stated that black culture doesn't celebrate academic achievement. You then followed this with white culture is heading there as well which implies that it's still superior to black culture.
Oh man, this is precious. Ok - first, I wasn't trying to assert the superiority of any particular culture, merely making observations about cultures as I see them. But I can see how you would immediately leap to that, especially if you are eager to paint me as a racist. So lets simply assume that my whole purpose was to state that white culture celebrates education more than black culture, and is thus superior in that respect. My response: so? Nowhere did I even come close to implying that this was due to hereditary factors or intrinsic superiority, in fact, I explicitly stated that it wasn't. So where did all this stuff about hereditary factors and intrinsic superiority come from Mark? Yes. You, and you alone. You simply assigned those thoughts and those words to me in your push to paint me as a racist. That is exactly you Mark. You've done it over and over again, the most recent (before this incident) being when you simply made up some negative thoughts about recipients of Soc Sec and simply assigned them to all of us. Like I said. It's what you do. You can either own up to it or you can use whatever avoidance strategy you are using this week. I know which one you'll choose.
>Ad hominem...let's see...it's Latin for "to the man."
>Should I go on?
Yes, in fact, you should go right back to the wikipedia page you cribbed those words from and keep reading. You'll find a section down towards the bottom called "Common Misconceptions." Yes, that the is the section that applies to you. Here is a link that explains it for you, in case that isn't enough of a hint:
http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html
The money graf for you:
"Actual instances of argumentum ad hominem are relatively rare. Ironically, the fallacy is most often committed by those who accuse their opponents of ad hominem, since they try to dismiss the opposition not by engaging with their arguments, but by claiming that they resort to personal attacks."
Lol, that sure describes you to a T doesn't it.
Lets go through our recent example. Not an ad hominem:
Mark1: You're racist because you said blacks are lazy.
Haplo1: Your claim is nonsense because in order to make that claim, you had to make up words that I never said or even came close to implying.
Haplo2: And by the way, you are an intellectually depraved little shit for simply making it up out of whole cloth like that.
versus an ad hominem:
Mark1: You're racist because you said blacks are lazy.
Haplo1: You only say that because you are an intellectually depraved little shit, and thus automatically wrong.
Do you see the distinction Mark? Are you able to grasp the (well, not really) subtle difference? If I don't address your argument and instead attack an irrelevant-to-your-claims characteristic about you in order to (try to) undermine your argument, that's an ad hominem. If I address your argument and also attack an irrelevant-to-your-claims characteristic about you, that's not an ad hominem. I haven't checked each one, but I would be willing to bet that every single instance of what you called out as ad hominem above is precisely that - your claims were argued against, yet rather than argue back, you reached for the fainting couch. I think you may want to find a new avoidance strategy.
Which brings us back to the grand irony of this whole thing about ad hominem Mark. Just who is it, Mark, that has come closest to a real ad hominem here? Who has been attacking supposed character flaws rather than arguments? Why, that would be you, as you so quickly abandoned discussing black achievement and went to Haplo-is-a-racist.
You made a comment that stated that black culture doesn't celebrate academic achievement. You then followed this with white culture is heading there as well which implies that it's still superior to black culture.
Note your use of the word "still". In other words, we're discussing something both temporary and correctable, and you know it. Notice also that there is no mention made of African blacks, only of American blacks.
So to say "black culture doesn't celebrate academic achievement" is exactly as "racist", no more and no less, as saying "blacks are poor". We're observing a temporary condition of some blacks.
Since you didn't spot that and leapt to attack the "racist", and since I don't wish to be insulting, I gotta ask: If I assume that you are not too stupid to spot that, and further assume that you're not so dishonest as to deliberately ignore it... what did prompt that response?
Yes, that the is the section that applies to you.
What's amusing about this (and hilariously ironic) is that you are now derided my use of ad hominem with ...an ad hominem. Calling me a "fuckwit" as Larry did isn't simply name calling. It's pointing out a negative characteristic which in this case is his perception (and yours) of my intelligence. But, hey, that's how you guys roll.
Your entire comment is "to the man"-me and avoids focusing on the original discussion (your comment) Some examples
But I can see how you would immediately leap to that, especially if you are eager to paint me as a racist.
Yes. You, and you alone. You simply assigned those thoughts and those words to me in your push to paint me as a racist. That is exactly you Mark.
You've done it over and over again,
Like I said. It's what you do.
You can either own up to it or you can use whatever avoidance strategy you are using this week.
That's 12 uses of the word "you" or "your." You need to get it through your head that I'm not falling for your redirect here and ad hominem. Deal with the actual argument (your racist comment) and try to not make any comments about me. In addition, the arrogance about "what words mean" is also another tactic that won't work anymore. Your feeble attempt to paint me as a "fuckwit" who doesn't understand ad hominem is just another example of you avoiding the issue and redirecting focus on me. And is, well, ad hominem:)
I'm not talking about you, Hap. I'm talking about the comment you made. I am, however, talking about you when I speak of your complete inability to be reflective.
I challenge you again to share it with some people and report back here as to what they said. It doesn't even have to be black people necessarily. Just ask a random group of a dozen people. You can even pretend that someone you know said it and not you. Obviously, my view is colored very poorly in your eyes so ask some other folks. I trust that you will be honest in their responses.
Deal with the actual argument...
Did that, and you're ignoring it. Why?
To my great surprise, Mark goes for avoidance again. If you ever get around to exercising those vaunted reflection skills of yours Mark, try this: you are the one to brought "hereditary factors" and "intrinsic superiority" into the discussion. Why did you do that?
As to ad hominem, well, can't say i didn't try. I gave you examples and links, and all it did is get you stuck on trying to figure out the difference between name calling and pointing out a negative characteristic about you, which is completely irrelevant to ad hominem. Tell you what - we'll just treat this as an inside joke on your website. If anyone asks and I'm around, I'll explain to them that you don't understand it and to just not bother trying to explain it. Better to let Grandpa Mark rave in peace.
you are the one to brought "hereditary factors" and "intrinsic superiority" into the discussion. Why did you do that?
No, I did not. By making the comment that black culture does not celebrate academic achievement, you were the one that brought hereditary factors into the conversation. Having black skin color is a hereditary factor. The rest of your comment intimates an inferiority. I called you out on it and you have since continued to keep the focus on me. Shocking, as this has never happened before.
Again, I would submit that one way you could be sure that I'm wrong about this being a racist comment is to ask some other people...friends, co workers, or maybe some of your customers at your small business? Doesn't matter what color their skin is...just repeat what your wrote and let us all know their response.
Regarding ad hominem, I know it's a drag to have this tactic taken away from you because then you'd have to actually acknowledge the validity and truth to many of my arguments. Hell, you'll have to actually discuss the points as opposed to me and do some critical analysis. Heavens! I don't mind the name calling as it pretty much brushes right off my shoulders. But when you consistently attack my beliefs and characteristics (eg the liberal world view) in an attempt to negate my statements, that's very clearly ad hominem. So, is it possible for you to stop doing that?
No, I did not.
Yes you did. You think you can hurl the charge of racism to shout down anything you don't want to hear. It is really rather despicable, and a reflective and moral man would have a long, hard look into his soul.
You are the one that tags the failings of our culture on Michael Jordan, LeBron and Beyonce. I am amazed that you aren't as shocked by that as I am.
juris, is it possible for you to not talk about me and, instead, talk about Haplo's statement? Let's see if you can go an entire comment without mentioning me. Again, focus not on me but on Hap.
Okay. There's nothing wrong with Hap's statement. Only complete fuckwits would think it's racist. How's that?
is it possible for you to not talk about me
Does it make you uncomfortable? Good, there may be hope for you yet.
No, I did not. By making the comment that black culture does not celebrate academic achievement, you were the one that brought hereditary factors into the conversation. Having black skin color is a hereditary factor.
But culture is not. Culture is a complex of choices typically made by members of a given group, in this case, American blacks. Nor is it assumed to be universal among all members of the group it describes. It is behavioral, it is chosen. He didn't say blacks don't celebrate achievement, he said black culture doesn't.
So yes, you're the one who brought hereditary factors into the discussion, by treating "black" as a noun describing a group of people, rather than an adjective modifying "culture", describing a complex of typical behaviors.
This is really incredibly elementary stuff you're not getting, Mark.
I agree that he said culture but he also said black which makes it hereditary. There's really no wiggling out of it although I'm certain that you guys will try. The level of denial here is staggering.
No, Mark, that is so completely wrong even you must be aware of it. There is nothing hereditary about culture except in the sense that children learn it from their parents. Black in this case is an adjective, something even tennis coaches should realize. Or do you believe that French culture is genetic, too?
So do you believe that American blacks don't have a unique culture (or at least sub-culture), or do believe that it is genetic in nature? Option 1 would mean you're clueless, while option2 makes you racist. If you believe that American blacks do have a unique sub-culture and that it is not genetic (hereditary) in nature, then that would be good, except that you then turn around and accuse Hap of being racist for believing the same as you. Which would make you an asshole, a liar, or more probably both. Personally, I don't think you thought about it much at all and just reflexively grabbed at something without really understanding it, which would just make you a fuckwit.
If American black culture is so genetically based, how is it that so much of its roots can be traced to white, English Deal boatmen?
Culture is behavioral, it is a pattern of choices. Do you contend that American black culture is the same as Zulu black culture? Do you contend that modern German culture is the same as Naziism is the same as Teutonic culture? Do you assert that modern British culture is the same as Elizabethan is the same as Norman is the same as Saxon is the same as Celtic?
To assert that culture is genetic is flatly ridiculous. That culture varies with time, geography and local conditions should be obvious to anyone competent to read a map.
"Black culture" has nothing at all to do with genetics. It has to do with the choices of behaviors commonly being made by members of a given group. Yes, one of the boundaries of that group is that they're black. Also that they're American and that they're members of the current culture and that of the recent past.
The rest of your comment intimates an inferiority.
Of course it does. He's saying that the current and recent culture common to American blacks is typically making choices that generate inferior results. That's no more racist than noting that Naziism generated inferior results is racist against Germans.
Indeed, there is nothing hereditary about culture. When you talk about German culture, you're not talking about race or skin color necessarily. But when you talk about black culture, you are labeling it straight away as skin color, right. I mean, you're saying the word "black" not British. There are people that are both German and British that consider themselves part of that culture but are also black.
But this whole discussion has gotten silly because you guys are playing the games that you always play. It's great wordsmithing but it largely ignores the bigotry in Hap's statement.
Your 1st sentence and 3rd sentence directly contradict each other, fuckwit.
But when you talk about black culture, you are labeling it straight away as skin color, right.
It's great wordsmithing but it largely ignores the bigotry in Hap's statement.
Okay, are you suggesting that American blacks do not have a subculture that is distinct from that of other Americans? Or are you suggesting that even noticing the fact that subcultures often divide along ethnic or religious lines, or describing it according to those lines along which it tends to naturally divide (as in this case it tends to by skin color), is racist? Just by describing something accurately?
You are aware that Barack Obama worried about being "black enough" as a young man, right?
Just because you (apparently) don't understand it doesn't make it "wordsmithing". And no I'm not "ignoring the bigotry in Hap's statement," I'm contending that it isn't there.
Besides which, American blacks also consider themselves (except for maybe Farrakhan's loons and goons) part of American culture, but only a fuckwit would argue that they don't constitute at least a distinct sub-culture. Of course, so do British blacks in Britain. Now then, unless you are willing to argue that there is no such thing as a distinctive American black culture or sub-culture, how do you propose that we refer to it? Or is it impossible for a non-black American to talk about This (Sub-)Culture That May Not Be Named without being branded a racist by fuckwits?
BTW, I have an African-black co-worker (immigrant) who says the same things about American black culture that Newt and Bill Cosby have said. Is he racist? He didn't grow up as part of the American Nameless Socio-Ethnic Agglomeration of Folkways of Descendents of Sub-Saharan Ancestors, and he doesn't think much of most them, so he must be.
Post a Comment