Selective Outrage when It Comes to Racism

Were talking about race in the context as a social conception. after all that's where racism is derived from. the fact that we are biologically the same is irrelevant to the discussion, at least until we are a homogenous phenotype

 

It is a flawed classification for example since most hispanics are considered white. According to the definition of racism me using derogatory words or stereotypes against them isn't racist by definition. What about people of mixed race? A person could be 3/4 "white" yet still considered "black". The only way to eliminate racism is to tear down the false construct that created it to begin with. Then we can just hate each other for other difference like religion or opinions.

While the Webster dictionary may define something a certain way is not the be all end all IMO. If the oppression or derogatory comments are based on a supposed race then to me that is racism. The skin tone of the person who uses those statements is not important. The meaning of words change and that definition is outdated IMO.

 

it was a yes or no

 

Yes 1960s MLKmeant they could drink out of the same water fountain. He wanted blacks to be treated equal not different, your own citation states it in bold. When he says he wants them to be able to compete on an equal basis, that's exactly what it means.

 

Did you read the citations:

 

Don't need to, Ive studied him extensively. Ill explain it again. In 1960 NOT 2014 MLK wanted blacks to be treated as equals so that they could compete on a fair basis. That's the basis of AA. He didn't want them getting a leg up over or be treated differently than white people. He knew the end to racism would only come on the day that no one saw a black man and a white man, they only saw two men, Sadly President Obama has driven that wedge further down the wood. When you say a black man can say something but a white man cant you are an active participant in widening the racial divide. AA was meant to level the playing field not tilt it as we do in todays version. Just because it doesn't work or isn't needed today doesn't mean it was wrong in that era.

 

You trying to explain to us what MLK wanted or thought is a joke. If Dr. King were alive today it is folks like you that would be against him.

 

Whos us? and who are "folks like you"? (please explain what you mean by that) Are you implying I am incapable of understanding MLK because of my skin color?

P.S. Ive often commented (feel free to go back and read my posts) that it was a sad day when he was assassinated. It set the world back. If he were alive perhaps we wouldn't have a racist President who gets on TV to incite racial divide. Perhaps Obama would have had a better role model than Al Sharpton, Bill Ayers, and Rev Wright. Perhaps we wouldn't have youths thinking its funny to walk around and sucker punch innocent people. Nah Im pretty sure if he were alive today MLK would agree with me and be against those things as he understood that these types of criminal and hate based activities would only further divide all of us not unite us.

 

According to this opinion piece, Clarence Thomas is in good company.

...
THE novelist Harriet Beecher Stowe, born 200 years ago today, was an unlikely fomenter of wars. Diminutive and dreamy-eyed, she was a harried housewife with six children, who suffered from various obscure illnesses worsened by her persistent hypochondria.

And yet, driven by a passionate hatred of slavery, she found time to write “Uncle Tom’s Cabin,” which became the most influential novel in American history and a catalyst for radical change both at home and abroad.

Today, of course, the book has a decidedly different reputation, thanks to the popular image of its titular character, Uncle Tom — whose name has become a byword for a spineless sellout, a black man who betrays his race.

And we tend to think of the novel itself as an old-fashioned, rather lachrymose affair that features the deaths of an obsequious enslaved black man and his blond, angelic child-friend, Little Eva.

But this view is egregiously inaccurate: the original Uncle Tom was physically strong and morally courageous, an inspiration for blacks and other oppressed people worldwide. In other words, Uncle Tom was anything but an “Uncle Tom.”

Indeed, that’s why in the mid-19th century Southerners savagely attacked “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” as a dangerously subversive book, while Northern reformers — especially blacks — often praised it. The ex-slave Frederick Douglass affirmed that no one had done more for the progress of African-Americans than Stowe.

The book was enormously popular in the North during the 1850s and helped solidify support behind the antislavery movement. As the black intellectual W. E. B. Du Bois later wrote, “Thus to a frail overburdened Yankee woman with a steadfast moral purpose we Americans, both black and white, owe our gratitude for the freedom and the union that exist today in these United States.”

The book stoked fires overseas, too. In Russia it influenced the 1861 emancipation of the serfs and later inspired Vladimir Lenin, who recalled it as his favorite book in childhood. It was the first American novel to be translated and published in China, and it fueled antislavery causes in Cuba and Brazil.

At the heart of the book’s progressive appeal was the character of Uncle Tom himself: a muscular, dignified man in his 40s who is notable precisely because he does not betray his race; one reason he passes up a chance to escape from his plantation is that he doesn’t want to put his fellow slaves in danger. And he is finally killed because he refuses to tell his master where two runaway slaves are hiding.

As for Little Eva, she bravely accepts her coming death and says she would gladly give her life if that would lead to the emancipation of America’s enslaved blacks. Together Tom and Eva form an interracial bond that offers lessons about tolerance and decency.

Unfortunately, these themes were lost in many of the stage versions of “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” that inevitably sprung from its immense popularity. Indeed, Stowe’s novel yielded the most popular and one of the longest-running plays in American history.

The first dramatization of the novel appeared in 1852, the year it was published, and countless others followed. By the 1890s, there were hundreds of acting troupes — so-called Tommers — that fanned out across North America, putting on “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” in every town, hamlet and city. Some troupes even toured internationally, performing as far away as Australia and India.

The play, seen by more people than read the book, remained popular up to the 1950s and still appears occasionally, including a staging last fall at the Metropolitan Playhouse in New York.

But as the story moved from the book to the stage, Stowe’s revolutionary themes were drowned in sentimentality and spectacle. Eva’s death was frequently a syrupy scene in which the actress was hauled heavenward by rope or piano wire against a backdrop of angels and billowing clouds.

Uncle Tom, meanwhile, was often presented as a stooped, obedient old fool, the model image of a submissive black man preferred by post-Reconstruction, pre-civil rights America.

It was this Uncle Tom, weakened both physically and spiritually, who became a synonym for a racial sellout by the mid-20th century. Black musicians, sports figures, even establishment civil rights leaders were all tarred with the “Uncle Tom” label, often by younger, more radical activists, as a way of demeaning them in the eyes of the African-American community.

But it doesn’t have to be that way; Uncle Tom should once again be a positive symbol for African-American progress.

After all, many people who over the years were derided as Uncle Toms — Jackie Robinson, Louis Armstrong and Willie Mays, to name a few — are now seen as brave racial pioneers.

Indeed, during the civil rights era it was those who most closely resembled Uncle Tom — Stowe’s Tom, not the sheepish one of popular myth — who proved most effective in promoting progress.

Rosa Parks didn’t mind the Uncle Tom label, since she believed that great change could result from nonviolent moral protest. The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., though often called an Uncle Tom, also stuck to principled nonviolence.

Their form of protest was just as active as Tom’s, and just as strong. Both Stowe and Tom deserve our reconsideration — and our respect.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/14/opinion/14Reynolds.html?_r=0

 

Black folks, folks that hated Dr. King and those like him today. You are capable of understanding it, you just don't agree with it.

Yea I know that is why we see streets named after him and usually in the poorest part of town.

That's funny because the same things that are said about Pres. Obama today were said about Dr. King in his day.

Yea maybe Dr. King could have been his role model, but wait he was murdered and why?

It was crime going on when Dr. King was alive and before he was alive.

I find it amazing listening to folks who criticize and attack black today trying to tell us what Dr. King would think today.

- - - Updated - - -

Can you tell us who was calling Rosa Parks a "Uncle Tom"?

 

Hopefully one of these days it will hit you that attitudes like this is what keeps racism alive.

 

Yea that is the same thing that was told to Dr. King.

 

I dont know why you pretend to care for the man or name drop him at every opportunity when you post more like a Louis Farrakhan then a King.

 

Oh that's right I am suppose to turn the other cheek, that is why we have lost all our cheeks.

 

+10 Good point. It is surrealistic isn't it?

 

Maybe you should read the definition with a clear head. When Congressional Black Caucus member Rep. Bennie Thompson hurled a racial epithet at Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas a rational person could assume that Bennie holds beliefs that are compatible with the definition below. Bennie seems to believe that Justice Thomas is acting outside the presumed shared inheritable traits that Bennie expects from Blacks. If the CBC and Bennie don't believe that different races to be ranked as inherently superior or inferior to each other or that different races should be treated differently what is Bennie's problem with Justice Thomas acting as Justice Thomas wants?????????? Bennie and the CBC expects all Black to be born with a blood oath to remain in the gang or give up their social and politically correct protection.

Racism is actions, practices or beliefs, or social or political systems that consider different races to be ranked as inherently superior or inferior to each other, based on presumed shared inheritable traits, abilities, or qualities. It may also hold that members of different races should be treated differently.

Some definitions consider that any assumption that a person's behavior would be influenced by their racial categorization is inherently racist, regardless of whether the action is intentionally harmful or pejorative, because stereotyping necessarily subordinates individual identity to group identity.

Every national poll shows that Blacks believe that Blacks are more racist than whites are. Because liberals don't really understand and can't come to grips with the way they feel about race or reality they don't understand that their hate for conservatives is because they hate their own race. Hating the white people for acting white is racism no matter your race. Just as Bennie hating Justice Thomas is the worst level of racism.

It need not be one group or the other. It can be one group expecting his own group to toe the racial line.

I'm as white as humans can get and I have been around Black Folk all of my life. My father was a special deputy in Midland, Texas in the 50s for Negro relations. We went into NT at night with no trouble when others feared to go there for good reasons.

In the Air Force I worked in the bomb dump and one of my best friends was Black. He hated the sun so he asked me to help him talk the other guys into going on straight nights and I did. Edwards was a smart guy, funny and he loved the Thai girls so he lived off base in an area where Americans kept their girl friends. Most of the guys worked days so Ed was there with their girl friends during the day throwing tea parties, taking them to movies and sleeping with them. Ed would have risked his life for me and I would do the same but I wouldn't have let him meet my girl friend.

In Austin, Texas I worked with a retied Arm E-9 who was the first person I would choose to go into battle with. I loved him like family and would have trusted him with my life. At the same Chrysler dealership we had some other Blacks that ranged from very ignorant, militant to very smart and the one that I liked who thought that the black man had it made because he had no expectation of morality or responsibility. The last time I went by where Frack worked he told me that he had been to his birthday party and from the three women he had kids with he had a lot of daughters and 19 grandkids. He thought it was funny that he didn't know any of the grandkids' names. In high school he took advantage of the white idiot sluts in the school parking lot and may have kids from those girls too. He had new cars a nice apartment but seldom supported the women he had kids with or the kids. But I liked his worthless ass anyway.

 

The only one trying to bend backs is you all in the name of "racism". Your posts drip with it with your constant "you folk" and "us" type of comments.

Long as you have an "us" against "you folk" mindset you will never clear your head of the hate. Heck you just cant help yourself.... Just look above and your use of "We".

 

It really is fascinating on many levels to see the incredible contortions, re-writing of history and willful delusion that the far right wing will engage in to depict themselves as the true heirs of Dr.King, a man who they hated while alive, and his message, which they seem to truly believe they are the true interpreters of even as they work against it. I suppose that desperate need to cloak itself in his mantle reflects progress insofar as they realize that they were very much on the wrong side of history and society won't tolerate the bigoted attitudes of the 'good ole days'. Hence the periodic head shaking, gaped jaw claims that King was really a conservative or a Republican or an early **********, blah blah blah. Cognitive dissonance meets historical revisionism.
But let's not divert or distract from BLOODY BENGHAZI!

 

You would have to ask the author at the NY Times who I hope researched it, but my guess would be the uneducated who saw Mrs. Parks as trying to mingle with the white folk.

 

Everything seems to be a sensitive issue w/ you

 

Probably because that is how I have been conditioned in America.

Its not an "us" against "them" mindset, eventhough, it probably could be with all the racist crap I see on this forum.

Black folks have been given many reason to hate during our sojourn in America, but through it all we do just the opposite and fight to be accepted as equals.

 

Whites (pretty much every other ethnicity for that matter) are too busy working and improving their own lives to care that much about racism.Race baiters like yourself and Al Sharpton are just a minor nuisance to us, at the end of the day you're just a fly.

Just because you obsess over race in your life doesn't mean everyone else does.

 

The reason I ask is because I have never heard or read anyone calling Mrs. Parks an "Uncle Tom" so it makes you wonder where the author actually got his so called research from.

 

if this if that, can't you just live in the present and stop being such a victim?

 

That's just it, when you have never been the victim of racism or you have always been on the side of dishing it out why would you worry about it.

I know that is what was said of Dr. King, Medgar Evers, A. Phillip Randolph and others as well, but today you want us to believe that you actually respected and honored those men.

Your right you don't have to and we both know why that is.

- - - Updated - - -

Thanks for letting me know that racism ended in 1964.