Go to PLAY FAIR OR TAKE YOUR BALL AND GO HOME
- Add a comment
- Go to IS IT POSSIBLE, YA THINK?
Justi
...but they attempt to enlighten us with wisdom that is not ignorance of their subject.
Does this sentence mean anything. I can't make it out.
posted by
Antipodean
on April 15, 2007 at 6:39 PM
| link to this | reply
Enigmatic68
At some point I would like to see these people be totally informed and that they would understand the information to see the hollow log they are screaming into.
posted by
Justi
on April 15, 2007 at 6:27 PM
| link to this | reply
Corbin Dallas
There is so much so many don't have a clue about but they attempt to enlighten us with wisdom that is not ignorance of their subject.
posted by
Justi
on April 15, 2007 at 6:25 PM
| link to this | reply
Justi
Since the people who disagree with people like you, and me, and Corbin, and Nautikos, obviously have such superior intellects in all fields - I'm just wondering why one of them doesn't simply invent a time machine, so they can go back and (without violence, of course), prevent all the wrongs (some real, some perceived) of history, most of them caused (naturally) my those evil peoples from "Western Civilizations!"
posted by
Enigmatic68
on April 15, 2007 at 5:08 PM
| link to this | reply
Justi.....Looking at some other's blogs......
I would have to say we have a few that match up to Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson...when it comes to style..........and methodology.
posted by
Corbin_Dallas
on April 15, 2007 at 9:02 AM
| link to this | reply
Justi
I am saying what is fair for one is for another. Some language cannot be considered racist if the same is used against another race, can it?
Well, yes it can. What is fair for one is not necessarily fair for the other, because groups have different historical experiences. Blacks were brought to America for slavery and then discriminated against in the most vile ways. Therefore, to specify a program as 'black' refers to an attempt to enable black Americans to compete equally in society. Whereas an organisation designed to promote 'white' activity would generally symbolise an attempt to extend pre-existing discriminatory attitudes.
I don't think this is a very difficult point. Similar language forms can have different meanings when they are used in varying contexts.
posted by
Antipodean
on April 15, 2007 at 2:31 AM
| link to this | reply
Talion
I appreciate your comment. I am not talking about exclusivity. Would you object to the same language in a advertisment, United White College? That was my point. I think all races should be accepted to any college they could afford. I do not think there should be two classification about what can be or not be said. I did not make this statement to offend any. I am saying What is fair for one is for another. Some language cannot be considered racist if the same is used against another race, can it?
posted by
Justi
on April 15, 2007 at 1:01 AM
| link to this | reply
Justi
I won't comment on all of your points, but I will say you have some misconceptions about "black" universities. I attended Xavier University, a "black" college in New Orleans. What made Xavier "black" is the predominant race of the student body, however, there weren't any rules, laws, or mandates stating that whites or any other race couldn't attend. There were white administrations, faculty, staff, and even white students. In fact, I had more white professors/instructors than black ones. Xavier, nor any other "black" university, excludes whites or anyone else academically qualified for entrance. "Black" colleges and universities are subject to the same admission guidelines as every other accredited university in the country. Therefore, when a black student attends a predominantly black university, he/she isn't "...exercising a selective privilege here not given others," as you wrote, but simply exercising his/her right to go to the school of his/her choice, no different than a white student attending a predominantly white university.
posted by
Talion
on April 14, 2007 at 10:39 PM
| link to this | reply
Justi
Well justice was done to him kiddo, that's all I can say.
posted by
WileyJohn
on April 14, 2007 at 9:35 PM
| link to this | reply
Justi
This is strange stuff:
There are only two people in this world who ever died for freedom: A Soldier and Jesus.
In one really odd post you've managed to construct an oppressed coalition made up of whites, Christians, George Bush, and people who vote for George Bush - clearly the wretched of the earth. You've then touted soldiers and Jesus as the only people who fought for freedom.
Now I understand. If you really believe this then it is entirely logical that you would want victimised Republicans in the Bible Belt protecting themselves by waging a military campaign against the rest of the world.
Bring it on. It's Hammertime!!!!!
posted by
Antipodean
on April 14, 2007 at 8:33 PM
| link to this | reply
Nautikos
I think it would be valuable to all concerned if more responsibility were taken on by all parties. I have seen much progress this week I think. Thank you for yaour comment.
posted by
Justi
on April 14, 2007 at 4:34 PM
| link to this | reply
Justi
Imus' remarks were indefensible, but I agree with you, we have a double and even a triple standard when it comes to that sort of thing, in this country as well...
posted by
Nautikos
on April 14, 2007 at 4:02 PM
| link to this | reply