quote:

---

Leftwing political realists in both major political parties are looking eagerly beyond the era of appointment of Negroes to high federal office to the time when there will be a Negro president of the United States, a Negro on the Supreme Court, one or more in the U.S. Senate....Sen. Jacob Javits, R-N.Y., was encouraged by the 1957 (Eisenhower administration) civil rights legislation to predict that there would be a Negro cabinet member, a Negro president or a Negro vice president by the year 2000.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
To be fair there have been black cabinet ministers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dr. Hilarius:
That's very offensive, unionist. You have no right to tell black people what ideology we have to follow. There is no "black" position or "white" position on any issue. "Not in their souls"? Don't be so fucking arrogant.

---

I don't tell black people what ideology to follow. I tell all people what stands I think are the right ones to take. And there cannot possibly be different "right stands" to take based on one's skin colour.

As for Powell and Rice, I must strongly disagree with you when you call them "conservative". They are radicals - radical warmongers, aggressors, war criminals, apologists for the most aggressive and dangerous military and political machine in the world today. You may like to divide the political scene into "liberals" and "conservatives" (that's the phoney U.S. dichotomy), but I don't. Here in Canada, we recognize that there are other political opinions that serve the interests of workers, minorities, and other oppressed people - and they are neither "liberals" nor "conservatives".

[ 02 April 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by pk34th45:
I guess we could ask Unionist what he thinks Blacks need to do so that Whites will believe they truly have a "Black soul".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
Unionist I could have sworn you don't even believe in the concept of a soul since it is a religious construct from religions you have no time for.

---

I don't believe in "a soul".

I believe in soul.

ETA: Kidding aside, what actually makes you think that "soul" is a "religious construct"?

Some people think religions have a monopoly on morality, too.

Well?

Hint: Check out Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, ...

[ 02 April 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
Thats not what you said so I thought I would clarify. The term "their souls" does not generally mean they have soul like James Brown.

---

Kropotkin, do you understand the word "metaphor"?

African Americans are a people who were slaves and are now the victims of vicious racial, economic, social and political discrimination.

My comments about Powell and Rice were designed to indicate that the behaviour of those two characters more closely resembles the behaviour of the racist oppressors than that of the oppressed.

Some people understand what I meant, but would like to use it to further some provocative aim.

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
Mea culpa you are the most brilliant poster on this site and anything anyone doesn't understand about your posts is obviously their fault. I stand corrected your exalted one.

---

Ok, good, so you fall into Category B. I thought so.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Le Téléspectateur:
Unionist. Your apology for a racist comment was right out of the Rob Ford play book.

---

quote:

---

I find that comment offensive.

How do you respond?

---

quote:

---

I don't know why you want to inflate this. I never said, nor believed, in my life, nor in thousands of posts on this board, that there are "white" or "black" or "Muslim" or "Jewish" or "Quebecker" positions on any issue. I don't know how you read that into my post.

---

I believe Unionist has shown over time that he is not a racist. Claiming that Condoleeza Rice is not black "in her soul" because of her beliefs and actions was probably just a metaphor, even if a misguided one.

However, one of the attacks made on Barack Obama by supposedly progressive people has been that he is "an Uncle Tom". John Pilger, a far-left journalist, wrote this, for example:

quote:

---

Barack Obama is a glossy Uncle Tom who would bomb Pakistan.

---

The core of this idea is that because Obama is black, he has to have specific opinions on specific issues. If he doesn't, he's an "Uncle Tom", a traitor to his race.

quote:

---

I believe Unionist has shown over time that he is not a racist.

---

My comment was not racist.

I explained exactly what I meant by it. And I stand by what I meant.

If someone is offended by it, it's because they don't understand it.

I resent and oppose any implication that I expect different or higher or special standards from blacks than from whites, or anything of that nature.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
I believe Unionist has shown over time that he is not a racist.

---

Thanks for the testimonial, jeff, but I am not interested in having any debate here as to whether or not I am a racist.

quote:

---

I just get sick and tired of people questioning people's "blackness", my own included or throwing labels like "traitor", "Sellout" or "Uncle Tom" around, something which has been done repeatedly agaisnt black people like Rice, Thomas, Powell, etc.

---

Where do you go with that?

[ 02 April 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
I did not mean to offend anyone.

---

You're not allowed to call Powell, Rice and Thomas "traitor" or "sellout".

Am I off base?

[ 02 April 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

[ 02 April 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Le Téléspectateur:
Now Cueball is aligning himself with Malcom X, et al. while steam-rolling Dr.Hilarious? Such a typical reaction.

This isn't about punishment, it's about identifying the racism that exists in groups who have decided that they are not racist, or even anti-racist.

---

And I suppose you are not steamrolling?

You are saying that the legacy of Malcolm X stands completely seperate from the general history of social activism in North America. Why? Because he was black. Sorry, he does not. He is both part of our legacy, and also not. He was not only a black activist, he was also in many respects an anti-poverty campaigner, and an anti-imperialist and also a leftist. He was also a grear orator, and deeply funny in an ironic way, two things I specifically admire. Should I not align myself with Malcolm X?

There is a big difference between "aligning" oneself with someone, and taking "ownership of" their legacy, and this was the point of my post. I feel very much the same way about Rene Levesque, to a lesser extent, even though I am not Quebecois. I was quite clear that there are some things that we share in that legacy, and some thing we do not. I think its a fair point. Yours is not.

Try reading beyond the first sentence in a paragraph. Thanks.

[ 02 April 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Did you get it?

You're not allowed to call Powell, Rice and Thomas "traitor" or "sellout".

Try and stop me.

---

This is the part of what Dr. H. said that you selectively ignored...

quote:

---

These people deserve to be criticized. But for their views themselves, not for the fact that these views differ from some pre-conceived notion of what views are expected or acceptable for people from a given race.

---

So by writing what you did you are either trolling (which I don't think you are) or are misrepresenting Dr. H's words so you may ridicule his opinion. His opinion happens to be that what you said is racist, something that you continue to justify uncritically.

Just to be clear:

Unionist said that Powell and Rice were Black "In skin colour, maybe, but not in their souls."

I think that that is a racist statement. So did Dr. H, who explained rather clearly why this was so. He then put it in a wider context of Black people who are not ideologically in line with the politics of the white left being called race traitors.

Unionist kind of apologized but then proceeded to explain why what he said was taken the wrong way. Then he misrepresented Dr. H. with the above quote in an attempt to make him look like he was nuts and just wanted to silence opposition of Powell and Rice.

When I pointed out that this is almost identical to how Rob Ford acted when confronted with his racist statement (an act that was universally condemned by this community) I was attacked.

quote:

---

We all know what you mean, and no one here seriously believes you have any particular animus to black people, but it was a comment with "difficulties", and some people were well with in their rights to point out those difficulties.

---

Cueball - who is we 'cause the one person who has identified as Black in the thread has pointed out that the comments are racist? And reducing racism to "difficulties" is RACIST!

[ 02 April 2008: Message edited by: Le Téléspectateur ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Le Téléspectateur:
What I meant was that like many white people who think of themselves as progressive you have decided to publicly state how much you like Malcolm X, Huey Newton and King while at the same time de-legitimizing Dr. Hilarious' opinions.

---

I don't think so. I don't think Unionist is racist per se. That is my opinion. My point is that the statement, which I think was meant to identify with and support that legacy, can also be perceived to have a flip side that is an assertion of "ownership" over that legacy that I think is not entirely legitimate, and in bad taste, the reference to "soul," in particular, I think.

I supported Dr. Hilarious's point directly, I said: "I can't believe this is being defended," and concluded the paragraph with "and some people were well with in their rights to point out those difficulties."

I went on to examine my own feelings in this regard, and how it is that I approach these issues from a personal standpoint.

Anyway... three white guys arguing about who is and who is not more racist.

[ 02 April 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Le Téléspectateur:

Cueball - who is we 'cause the one person who has identified as Black in the thread has pointed out that the comments are racist? And reducing racism to "difficulties" is RACIST!

---

Who cares that Dr. Hilarius has identified as "Black"? Is that some sort of a pass for her opinions about Rice and Powell?

She complains about people questioning her own blackness. Why? No one did that here.

She calls these war criminals "conservatives". To me, that justifies their war crimes. She says it's irrelevant what colour they are. Well, what relevance is Dr. Hilarius' self-identified skin colour to the validity of her opinions?

She says she lived in Israel for a number of years. Why does she tell us that? What am I to make of that? Ignore it?? Israel is a rogue state that colonizes and dehumanizes Arabs.

quote:

---

You are saying that the legacy of Malcolm X stands completely seperate from the general history of social activism in North America. Why? Because he was black. Sorry, he does not. He is both part of our legacy, and also not. He was not only a black activist, he was also in many respects an anti-poverty campaigner, and an anti-imperialist and also a leftist. He was also a grear orator, and deeply funny in an ironic way, two things I specifically admire. Should I not align myself with Malcolm X?

---

Can we get beyond the black v white here thing entirely, in the sense that he is both a black activist, and a human rights campaigner, both, not one or the other. I think that was the spirit of Dr. Hilarious's post.

Anyway. I am out.

[ 02 April 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

My comment was not racist. I apologized if it was ill-chosen or insensitive, and I do so again. But don't tell me I have to bow down to someone's characterization of Rice and Powell because they claim to be "black". I don't care what colour she is.

---

Again an apology that starts with a firm assertion that you did nothing wrong. And you end it with a preposterous statement that no one but yourself has put forward.

You said something racist. This doesn't mean that YOU are a racist. This was not a personal attack. You refuse to acknowledge that what you said was racist.

Then you accuse people of twisting what you mean to "further some provocative aim".

I didn't want this thread to be derailed like so many others on babble where the racism of babblers is challenged. I also didn't want yet another instance of unacknowledged, and supported racism to go un-noticed.

For myself, everytime I see Rice or Powell or Obama I think along the same lines as Unionist; I hold these politicians to a different standard based, partly at least, on their race.

I can see the unfairness in this...and I can definitely see why this is a racist view because inherent in this I am totally judging them based on race; my expectations are totally racially based.

When I watch Israeli troops oppress Palestinians I often think about how Jews were oppressed in Nazi Germany and see similarities in the current treatment of Arabs. I expect better based on race.

I can easily see why someone of colour would take exception to what Unionist said; at the same time, I also get his point.

I think that the answer is for us to be sensitive of the context of our words; if we are touching on a controversial subject then why not be sensitive?

In another thread we talked about Obama's speech for instance. The subtext (to put it mildly) was the same as this thread essentially; Obama is a person of colour who distanced himself from the words of his past religious advisor. The subtext was that Obama ought to have stood firm in solidarity with what Wright was saying or at least deal with the substance of Wright's controversial remarks which is partly (at least) based on Black Liberation Theology.

My expectation (dream or hope) was that Obama would have brought this perspective to a wider audience and thus open up a real discussion on race in America. The impossibility (inability) of him to do this was disappointing to me. I was disappointed with Obama and disappointed with the state of U.S. politics.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sam:
For myself, everytime I see Rice or Powell or Obama I think along the same lines as Unionist; I hold these politicians to a different standard based, partly at least, on their race.

---

[ 02 April 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

quote:

---

White picket fences! God bless America! White picket fences and apple pie! Shirley Temple! The Ku Klux Klan! Hiroshima! Nagasaki! The CIA! White socks, Bobby socks! Rednecks! God bless America! String up those niggers! Fry them communists! God bless America, land of the free! - Guy Burgess, "Cambridge Spies"

---

quote:

---

Sam, you are clear about that extra expectation - thanks for voicing it - but are you also clear about the fact that you are voicing this critique - I presume - from outside and on top of the Afro-American community.

---

I may not have been clear in voicing my privilege, but I will gladly do so now.

I was waiting for a chorus of alternative black viewpoints to echo or validate my gut instinct to Obama's speech, for instance. I learned so much from the wonderful critiques that have surfaced from the black community. I'm also heartened by Israeli journalists or Jewish Americans who very strongly criticize U.S. or Isreali policies with regard to Palestine.

To me this dissent has greater credibility and I pay special attention to it, ust like I pay special attention to Powell, Rice and Obama.

I guess what I'm saying is that as much as I may condemn Obama, Rice or Powell for their political positions I try to pay special attention, and give deference towards people of colour's views, who do not agree with Obama's speech, as an example.

For instance, if Obama's speech was met by silence or applauded by the black community then I would respect it that much more rather than giving a crap about how whites viewed it - big time.

For whatever reason, when I saw Rev. Wright on Fox fighting back and winning against the white commentators I was hooting in victory.

This was most emblematic in the run up to the Iraq War where an overwhelming majority opposed the War, against an overwhelming majority of whites who supported the war. This majority persisted for white males even when the civilian casualty figures were suggested to possibly run into the the thousands. Indeed, Black America was far more in agreement with the rest of the world than White America.

As such, it is no wonder that Harry Belafonte had very little good to say of either Colin Powell or Condoleeza Rice. He was being forthright in his criticism.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
I'm going to say this very clearly:

My comment was not racist.

I explained exactly what I meant by it. And I stand by what I meant.

If someone is offended by it, it's because they don't understand it.

---

I have a few comments to make, and so many quotes from the thread to choose from.

I think I’ll make what I think is the least central comment first.

Many of the discussants referred to how much they disliked Obama’s politics on the Mideast, internationally in general. Some broadened that to point to his talk of American exceptionalism, ‘only in this country, etc.

But without exception- and there are many such posts, they talked about how proud of Obama they are... both for what he did overall with the speech, and for the content of what he said in the speech. That included at least one who said whe still expected to continue supporting Clinton.

I don’t expect that to change anyone’s own opinion about Obama. But I want people to take note.

[ 08 April 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]

But whether a comment is racist or not is not judged by whether someone misunderstands it and their feelings are hurt. I explained my comment, I regretted how it was received. But I'm not going to apologize over and over for a comment which was not racist in itself not did it have any racist intent behind it.

Racism is an objective phenomenon, a real evil. It's not judged by how some people feel when they hear what someone says - you know why? Because people misunderstand each other's meaning and intent all the time, and if they don't sit back and listen and reflect on the whole picture, they decide to have a war instead.

Now this was first written during the height of the KKK in the USA.

But if it is true then we have had a President of the US who was african american.

It is sort of amusing how non-african americans or canadians for that matter look at those who are members of the right versus members of the left.

Minority members from a party left of centre are usually liked and admired. But if those same people are from a right of centre party they are a sell out etc.

I recall being told that Lincoln Alexander Canada's first black cabinet minister and first black mp was not someone to be admired rather we should look at him with disgust.

To me that was ridiculous. While we can disagree with the politics of the person we can never deny the hurdles that needed to be overcome for them to reach the position.

The only comments I got were dismissals. Not a single one of them attempting to address the content of what I said. No discussion of what it’s like to address racism in the US outside ‘safe places’ [or Canada for that matter]- just dismissals: “he didn’t say anything.”

That included a couple people saying that because it was pap that would appeal to people, it was going to win things for him. Which I knew to be absurd.

And that’s one of the narratives that runs through the comments in the discussion BCG linked to: that they are afraid the [white] people it was intended for are not getting it. Worse, that the not surprising spin on Obama’s speech was being used against him.

Many who made those comments affirmed the importance of Obama’s effort, and some expected it would have a helpful impact even if that is not visible.

So much for the content of the speech being ‘trivial’.

I’ve excerpted some comments from the discussion thread. These are representative of what is very much the dominant narrative. I’ll put this one first not because it’s the best, but because its one I want to expand a bit on:

quote:

---

A quote from a Republican strategist on Fox News that I heard just a couple of minutes ago:
“It’s offensive to Americans who are descendents of earlier generations of immigrants, like me, a fourth-generation American. My family came here four generations ago and played by the rules and made something of themselves”
Paraphrases, of course, but it really really angered me that she’d say something like this when there is a specific part in the speech in which Obama urges the white community to acknowledge that past and current barriers to blacks’ success are real and exist, and are not just figments of their imagination.
It just makes me wonder how much of the speech she actually listened to, or if she just subconsciously tuned that part of the speech out.

---

That isn’t by any means just Fox News and its ideology speaking. As soon as I read Obama’s seech I KNEW this one was coming. And it comes also from the lips of young liberal white’s- laden with a lot of freight that the word ‘resentment’ hardly does justice.

As I’ve said before- stick me in front of a mainstream audience of 50 people and task me with broaching what I know to be white people’s ‘problematic’ and emblematic attitudes about race... and this one and it’s close relatives are going to run in a tape in a number of peoples’ heads. And that tape is so loud that they probably aren’t going to hear anything else I said.

In most cases I’ll not get a chance to talk to those people. And that’s talking to fifty people, let alone the dynamic of talking to a nation.

And I’ll get those predictable reactions with me being careful, let alone if I had just marched in there and ‘told truth to power’ or followed any number of other facile recommendations people here offered as what Obama should have done.

quote:

---

i am so impressed by obama right now. i feel like i cant even perceive the difficulty of his task - to speak to the american public about racism in a way that is complex and meaningful and looks hard truths in the eye, and at the same time can be received and appreciated by people coming from suuuch different places. from other comments, it makes me think maybe this latter part [whether people did in fact appreciate what Obama said] isnt even happening as much as i first imagined, but still, obama does such an incredible job i think.

............

His ability to state that we ALL discuss race in our “safe groups” was key.

............

BUT, I do believe that people see and hear what they choose to. I went over to the comments on CNN, and many were essentially saying that Obama was showing his true (i.e., racist) colors by “defending” Jeremiah Wright.

And honestly, my heart grieved at their ignorance. My heart broke for their inability to hear what this man was saying–to hear and try to recognize that no one of us is the product of only our own generation in this country; to hear him talk of reconciliation.

This was a great, honest and unifying speech. But I agree with the sentiment expressed in many comments that people will only hear in it what they want to hear.

I’m disappointed that some seemingly otherwise intelligent people just devolve when the issue of race arises and, for all of their attitudes and activism, just die inside/get hostile outside when their white-skin advantage is questioned, if not challenged, for the fallacy that it is.

Kudos to Senator Obama for standing up for himself and offering a nuanced–well, nuanced for a leading US presidential candidate–speech about the race in America. But it just feels like, once again, Black people are in the position of “explaining racism/explaining us” to white America.

........

...but if he’s willing to walk away from Obama just because Obama wouldn’t tie himself with every viewpoint of his pastor….that’s weak.

...................

....refer to who will see what they want to, i would guess that this speech was not directed at them. this is for the people who want to listen and think and then decide. and for that audience, i think this speech was well done.

................

How anyone could not get the heart of Obama’s speech is beyond me. I was exceptionally moved.

.....................

Look, I don’t care if Obama wins anymore, this speech was enough. To have somebody with his profile speak in detail about race on national television was outstanding. I don’t care about the people questioning his motives, or scoffing at his sincerity. I do not care. This speech was empowering, even if it’s the only thing that survives this cutthroat political process. This was a man asked to navigate a path so unique that failure seemed inevitable, yet he rose to the occasion and prospered. That makes me happy as a black man in America. It makes me very happy.

---

[ 08 April 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Who cares that Dr. Hilarius has identified as "Black"? Is that some sort of a pass for her opinions about Rice and Powell?

She calls these war criminals "conservatives". To me, that justifies their war crimes. She says it's irrelevant what colour they are. Well, what relevance is Dr. Hilarius' self-identified skin colour to the validity of her opinions?

She says she lived in Israel for a number of years. Why does she tell us that? What am I to make of that? Ignore it?? Israel is a rogue state that colonizes and dehumanizes Arabs.

---

I've jsut gotten back to town and so have only jsut seen this now. To respond to Unionist:

What gives you the impression that I'm looking for any sort of "free pass" on my views on Rice and Powell on account of my skin colour? Furthermore, I never even said anything positive about either of those two individuals. I explicitly stated that they deserve to be condemned for their views and actions. I simply said that those views and actions ahve nothing to do with their skin colour and injecting their race into discussions of foreign policy when it has nothing to do with the issues at hand, struck me as racist. So did a sense that someone should hold specific ideologies based on their race as if some views were simply not acceptable for certain groups. Yes, I called them "conservative" and already explained that I used the terms "liberal" and "conservative" as general catch-all ideologies rather than offering a laundry list of different places along some ideological spectrum. If the fact that I referred to them as "conservatives" and not "war criminals" is the best you can do in trying to paint me as some sort of sympathizer to the policies of the current U.S. administration, that's one hell of a long stretch.

Again, you bring up the fact that I lived in Israel as if that is in any way relevant. You're doing the same thing as you did with regard to race: trying to assume someone's viewpoint based on external factors, rather than on their own thought-out viewpoints. It's teh same game many play towards the Jewish community in which there is considered to be an "acceptable" viewpoint - namely, Zionism - and any Jew who diverges from that is considered by some to be a traitor. It's wrong then and it's wrong when you do it to African Americans.

I do not understand why in a discussion related to race, you felt the need to take gratuitous pot-shots at Israel and try to tar me with Israeli actions because I once lived in the country. Yes, Israel has colonized a part of the population that previously inhabited the territory. Canada did the same thing to it's native population. Can I use that fact to make assumptions on YOUR views based on what certain people in your country (mine too now) have done in the past?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Still not going to vote for him.

---

Um, first of all, you can't vote for him.

Second, don't you always spoil your ballot in the one country in which you can legally vote?

quote:

---

Originally posted by bigcitygal:

Um, first of all, you can't vote for him.

---

What are you doing muddling up my rhetorical point with the truth?

I was actually born there, a long time a go in a country far far away and I suppose I could go down to the embassy and demand my right... but then I have problems getting up off my ass to vote for Chow, who I like despite my misgivings about her husbands facial hair, and they would actually come and collect me to go and do it, so yeah, not voting for Obama is very natural for me, you are right.

Although, I really have to say, I prefer the smooth talking and charming Obama to the completely deceitful Clinton, who makes my stomach turn. So, all in all, given that I can not really "not vote" for Obama without going through extreme amounts of red tape to assert my national right to not express the pointlessness of my vote by not putting an effort into not voting, I think I'd rather express my disinterest the American way and just turn off the TV.

...best probably because I have this deep seated fear that someone is going to shoot him before he gets anywhere near even what remains of the trapping of presidential power in the homeland, and I would hate to be watching when that happened.

[ 08 April 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

But I'm not going to apologize over and over for a comment which was not racist in itself not did it have any racist intent behind it.

....Because people misunderstand each other's meaning and intent all the time.....

I have no intention of changing my mind, except in the event that someone actually presents a logical argument.

---

Ask and you shall receive.

Not a logical argument. A logical framing of the issue at hand.

You know that lack of intent to be racist does not in any way indicate whether a statement is an expression of racial stereotypes.

Virtually all discussion of racial stereotyping would be impossible if it was only about intent.

If you follow those lines it comes down to "is he / am I guilty of expressing racial stereotypes?"

I personally wouldn't go there.

Here's the observations of the philosophical pragmatist.

I've watched this dynamic a number of times of person(s) of colour taking offense when a white person says what they perceive to be an expression of "so and so isn't really black/NA/whatever or they wouldn't be pushing those positions they are."

The nub is that 'what they percieve to be'..

Because of course the person in question did not explicitly say that.

So it does boil down in the end to the validity of said perceptions- which is of course not an easy place for anyone concerned to go.

I'm certainly capable of feeling that a person of colour was touchy in how they reacted to a comment. Sometimes it's even pretty obvious.

But I don't remember ever having thought so in one of these cases such as we are talking about.

And there is a good reason for that. Remember that the person of colour taking offense is a person who chooses to spend at least some of their time with white activists. They do not 'fly off the handle' easily, and are not prone to easily take offense. In fact, out of habit, they think twice- at least- before and if they say something. Otherwise they couldn't be where they are.

Another observation. I don't think apologies are expected. Silence in response to an expression of displeasure is often perfectly acceptable. But every time a white person reacts with 'what did I do'... it fans the flames.

[ 08 April 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dr. Hilarius:
What gives you the impression that I'm looking for any sort of "free pass" on my views on Rice and Powell on account of my skin colour?

---

Nothing gives me that impression. It was Le Télé who was looking for that "pass" when he referred to: "the one person who has identified as Black in the thread has pointed out that the comments are racist?" And it was Le Télé that I was responding to, not you - scroll up and check.

quote:

---

I simply said that those views and actions ahve nothing to do with their skin colour and injecting their race into discussions of foreign policy when it has nothing to do with the issues at hand, struck me as racist.

---

First of all, we are fully agreed. War criminals, regardless of skin colour, are war criminals. We are both saying the same thing.

As for injecting race into the discussion, try to be consistent. I didn't "inject" race. How about reading the opening post. This entire thread was created to discuss the issue of race and its role in high-level U.S. officialdom. I made an offhand comment that while those two war criminals may be black, they don't exactly reflect the heroic struggles of other African Americans against enslavement and oppression. If that is a racist comment, then I'm buying a new dictionary. What that comment was is the truth.

Did I say, or imply, that they have a higher duty not to be war criminals than whites? You can search for a very long time for such a statement.

quote:

---

Yes, I called them "conservative" and already explained that I used the terms "liberal" and "conservative" as general catch-all ideologies rather than offering a laundry list of different places along some ideological spectrum.

---

You said that white liberals and black liberals tend to oppose the war. I totally disagree, and further, I consider that as a coverup for the very real fact that both Republican and Democratic opinion-makers are fully in support of U.S. warmongering and have no plan, indeed no intent, to stop waging war against the people of Iraq and Afghanistan (among others). That's why I found your comments to be not only misleading and false, but actually framed in a U.S. discourse which won't wash in Canada.

quote:

---

Again, you bring up the fact that I lived in Israel as if that is in any way relevant.

---

I didn't bring it up - you did. Otherwise I wouldn't have know, would I? You must have thought it was relevant, so I simply concurred.

quote:

---

I do not understand why in a discussion related to race, you felt the need to take gratuitous pot-shots at Israel and try to tar me with Israeli actions because I once lived in the country.

---

A suggestion was made (not by you) that I should accept your view of what is or is not racist because of how you self-identified. I of course reject that notion entirely, as I believe you do as well. However, I then went on to examine how you had self-identified. You said you lived in Israel for a number of years. Had you said you lived in Iraq from 2003-2005 and Afghanistan from 2005-2008, I would have raised a similar question. If you're being cited by Le Télé as some kind of authority, I will examine your credentials as you yourself have presented them here.

As for "gratuitous pot-shots" against Israel? This is a discussion about race. Israel is a state built, in its very basic law, on racial and ethnic and religious discrimination - besides the aggressive colonialism it practises. What's "gratuitous" about my condemnation of Israel?

quote:

---

Canada did the same thing to it's native population. Can I use that fact to make assumptions on YOUR views based on what certain people in your country (mine too now) have done in the past?

---

quote:

---

I made an offhand comment that while those two war criminals may be black, they don't exactly reflect the heroic struggles of other African Americans against enslavement and oppression.

---

the original comment by unionist:

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Cueball:
To be fair there have been black cabinet ministers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In skin colour, maybe, but not in their souls.

---

unionist:

quote:

---

Did I say, or imply, that they have a higher duty not to be war criminals than whites?

---

KenS:

quote:

---

I've watched this dynamic a number of times of person(s) of colour taking offense when a white person says what they perceive to be an expression of "so and so isn't really black/NA/whatever or they wouldn't be pushing those positions they are."

The nub is that 'what they percieve to be'..

Because of course the person in question did not explicitly say that.

---

And, I've re-read this thread and can't see where I brought up the fact that I once lived in Israel. I'm assuming you took it from another thread compeltely un-related to this one, which left me puzzled as to why my previous residence was being brought up and why a, yes, gratuitous, pot-shot was being taken at Israel and me being associated with their policies when Israel had nothing to do with this discussion until you felt the need to inject it and try to tar me by association.

I think at this point the argument about what unionist did or didn't say is going around in circles. Everyone has said their say, and now it's just getting repetitive. How about channeling that energy constructively by having the discussion there about the issue itself?

[ 08 April 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dr. Hilarius:
Israel took my family in as refugees when we had nothing and had nowhere else to go and all its faults aside, I will always be grateful for what israel has done for my family and myself.

---

I also had that feeling that regardless of what comes next, Obama had made me just plain happy for what he said and did in that speech.

Unionist. I got news falsh for you. Your comment was racist. To err is human.

It is the practice of white privilldede, when you think that you have the God given right to continue to use racially ofensive terms, and how dear anyone call you on it.

What but white supremacy, would give you the idea that you are the supreme judge of what is offensive to some of us.

Someone has accurately described to you why and how what you said was offensive. you can choose to learn from it, or you can shoot the messenger.

Feel free to read the other babble threads about "so called white-antiracists" and what they need to learn to be true allies. As opposed to be allies in their minds alone. It is not good enough to think you are not racist. Your actions, words and reactions, have show the depth of your racist tendencies.

Let me tell you a short story, that will help to illustrate the absurdity and mental masturbation of your denial. "lets just say the the cops stop you for accidentally running over someone with your car, the fact that you have driven with ought hitting anyone for years, does not change the fact that you just hit someone. "

This is not rocket science. So ask yourself why you are blind to that.

Whether you have been the poster child for anti racist discourse, has no bearing on the fact that you just said something racist.

This is from Jane Eliot's clarification of typical statement that well meaning people make :

quote:

---

In many situations, minorities are paranoid and oversensitive. They read more into the situation than is really there. They find discrimination because they are always looking for it.

---

Here is the clarification :

quote:

---

There's obviously something wrong with the Black's perception of the situation than the situation itself. Let's change the perception and leave the situation alone.

---

You can see the full list here, I had quoted #25

quote:

---

What but white supremacy, would give you the idea that you are the supreme judge of what is offensive to some of us.

---

quote:

---

KenS: To be fair, there's also being blinded by simple stubborness and pride.

---

Racism is pervasive- it is much easier to determine someone's race than almost anything else about them and race has long been a lazy person's refuge- an easy replacement for knowing anything actually relevant about a person.

It is also fair if we are combating it to recognize that it shows up in many ways some loaded with hate some accidental due to a lack of care and thought about the implications of the words we use. That some people say things that are racist without any ill-will, does not make those things any less racist but they do make it harder for a person who feels they are not racist to address when they have said something unfortunate and someone else has done the math for them.

There are also different expectations of people based on race. Some of those differences are racist and deeply offensive. But is it racist to observe the following: we know that racism affects different ethnicities disproportionately. Sadly, I think it is impossible to expect a person of colour to go through life without experiencing obvious racism at some point in their lives while many if not most white people will never have this experience. Progressive white people know this- that there are experiences they will never fully understand even with a healthy dose of imagination and empathy. Morality has often been defined in the context of what a reasonable person would do. This reasonableness is defined by knowledge and experience and is implicit in the comment "so and so ought to know better." In part this more relative morality allows us to consider the age. Homophobic, sexist and even some racist behaviour, as bad as they all are can be seen differently today than 100 years ago given that we learn our morality from our peers.
We look to leaders and expect them to have the greatest reasonableness- and this is about their experiences. In part it is this reality that leads us to expect that someone of colour would be at least aware of racism. Once we believe a person is aware of something we expect, insofar as they can that they do something. Unfortunately, this means that we increase the burden of expectation on those who "know" and reduce it for those who do not. Racism, I am told (I am one of those fortunate whites who has only witnessed but never experienced it -- and there is a huge difference between the two). It is possible to understand why the expectations would be different.

All this being said, I am hoping that was where Unionist was coming from. Unfortunately, I hope eventually there is a realization that the word soul implies something other than an expectation resulting from awareness and experience. It is that distinction that leads me to believe that Unionist was wrong to make those comments and should apologize.

But we all need to be aware that racism is a social cancer that we all have to fight. If we accept that it is in our history, our language, our social structure and our culture, then we have to accept that we are, none of us, immune. We all again using the moral imperative that knowledge gives us, must help each other with that awareness and open ourselves to learning.