Racism in the US
- Thread starter Bettysnake
- Start date
Bettysnake
twisted pony ******
Nope, not as far as I know.
Incidentally Sokari's posted an interesting follow up post on 'Blogging, social networking and activism' which is worth reading.
the hotel story is crazy, can't believe that still happens in the us!
i thuoght though, that the proposal to boycott the hotel is kind of self-defeating perhaps - isn't that exactly what the hotel wants? ie no black people going to stay there... kind of re-affirming the segregation. of course i imagine lots of non-black people will boycott it as well, and i can't see what other sanctions they've got...
i thuoght though, that the proposal to boycott the hotel is kind of self-defeating perhaps - isn't that exactly what the hotel wants? ie no black people going to stay there... kind of re-affirming the segregation. of course i imagine lots of non-black people will boycott it as well, and i can't see what other sanctions they've got...
the undisputed truth
Banned
N
nomadologist
Guest
Totally agree, Peter.
Guybrush
Dittohead
I may be threading on thin ice here, but I don't think the Richards' story is nearly as clear-cut racist as the Ngũgĩ one: in the latter story a person was singled out and treated disrespectfully because of his skin colour (apartheid at its worst), whereas in the former a person in affect aimed to find the most scathing slur he could think of and settled for the "forbidden" (and therefore the most effective) one. The notion that a raging man should somehow, in the heat of the moment, restrain himself and go for the "next-to-worst" insult is laughable: of course he goes for the worst one, of course he doesn't give a hoot whether it's a low-blow, a no-no, or what-have-you -- he's raging, and anything that will get the job done he'll use. (Feel free to exchange "he" for "she.")
Does this mean that society should accept the use of such grave affronts? Not in my opinion. They ought, however, to be viewed soberly and without all the racial neurosis that seem to imbue American debate. In that Letterman interview, Richards seemed to imply that he needed help, not because he was mad as a hatter, but because of the words he used -- kind of like the American debate at large, or am I talking through my hat?
Does this mean that society should accept the use of such grave affronts? Not in my opinion. They ought, however, to be viewed soberly and without all the racial neurosis that seem to imbue American debate. In that Letterman interview, Richards seemed to imply that he needed help, not because he was mad as a hatter, but because of the words he used -- kind of like the American debate at large, or am I talking through my hat?
N
nomadologist
Guest
Did someone equate the two events, Guybrush? I must have missed that.
Also, I'm sure I understand what you mean by "neurotic." I actually think what was once considered "racist" or "racially charged" language has been broken down and reconstituted by South Park, The Simpson, hip-hop's use of slang, etc. I think many black people probably rolled their eyes at Kramer whateverhisnameis, thinking "this guy wants 15 more minutes in the limelight." It worked for Mel Gibson.
Also, I'm sure I understand what you mean by "neurotic." I actually think what was once considered "racist" or "racially charged" language has been broken down and reconstituted by South Park, The Simpson, hip-hop's use of slang, etc. I think many black people probably rolled their eyes at Kramer whateverhisnameis, thinking "this guy wants 15 more minutes in the limelight." It worked for Mel Gibson.
Guybrush
Dittohead
No, nobody equated the two events, but as they are being discussed in the same thread, a thread named "Racism in the US," I believe that pointing out the differences between the two has some merit.
I'm not so sure about these kinds of expressions having been de-galvanized: judging from the video they still seem to have unsettling qualities, but perhaps things were even worse a couple of years ago, what do I know. (The term "racially insensitive" makes me cringe: Why should one care, let alone be sensitive, about others "race" at all?)
among whom?
i think his point is rich, white people will spend time and money trying to help poor blacks (b/c it alieviates their guilt, about, say, living in a neighborhood with no black people), but wouldn't help poor whites... and i think there is truth in that.
the undisputed truth
Banned
maybe locally...
...but does anyone think if africa were populated mostly by whites that g8 would do more to help as in rwanda ??? or say if bosnia were mostly black that they would have left them to their own devices ???
replace those world vision ads of starving black kids with white kids and as a white person how would you feel ???
...perhaps more eager to help out your own "race" as it were ???
I take your point but in the interest of history, let's keep the facts straight. Bosnia *was* left to its own devices for three years, or more precisely, to Serbia and Croatia's devices, from 1992-1995, during which period an estimated 200,000 people died at the hands of the Yugoslav and Croatian armies.
Last edited:
the undisputed truth
Banned
^^^was that because of media supression ??? I remember as soon as i first started seeing bosnian refugees thinking 'yup they're gonna go in there now.'
It's not a good look and not one the west is accustomed to seeing.
Africa on the other hand. Well, I've always grown up seeing impovrished black people on TV that now i'm mostly desensitised to it. Almost as though it's expected.
It's not a good look and not one the west is accustomed to seeing.
Africa on the other hand. Well, I've always grown up seeing impovrished black people on TV that now i'm mostly desensitised to it. Almost as though it's expected.
Because black people define cool, right?
I seem to remember some eps where there was a black character and the whities were all stiff and awkward, i.e. playing up how sheltered white people don't know how to act around blacks. "Its a black person! Do I have to say yo?" kind of thing...
Growing up in Palmerston North - the town was practically segregated. I played with Maori/PI kids in primary school, but by high school it was 98% stratified by race/class.
Biggest racist post i have seen on here.
"whities"..wtf?
Anyway, every place is segregated, go anywhere in Europe or America....
You will get communities of specific different races, and even some religions (i.e. Muslims), not many communities are a big mix. They talk about "multi-cultural" society.. that means the country is full of different races, doesnt mean anyone will accept each other, obviously they dont, hence why segregation still happens in the 21st century!
Your town, city or estate may be multi-race but in most cases, all blocks are made up of different races. Some towns/cities even have majority races.
Why i would never live in the US.
All us internationals hear of America being the richest nation and big places like New York, las vegas etc. but it werent until the hurricane that many people realised the huge divide in the country, of extremely rich and extrememly poor (ok, they are some inbetween) and how their own government would ignore them and allow them to die.
I could go on... but i am in a rush...
Bettysnake
twisted pony ******
Yet more on this from an anonymous employee of the same restaurant.
My point re segregation was the extent to which it was calcified during the formative years of schooling.