COMMENTS:
you're missing the point. if peopel were truly not racists, they would not even focus on the race. get it? in other words, the accomplishments of the person are because of his or her skills and should not be about race. it is in fact, racist to always call attention to their race. you should also know that many leaders in the black community have an issue with it. for example, the rev. jackson has said he cringes when he hears "the first black secretary of state." can you blame him? it's insulting. it's like talking down to them -- pandering in a way. it's the same when they keep saying "the first female ______________ whatever.
it's bacially saying "can you freaking believe a woman is doing that job!" or "can you believe a black man is _____________ a freaking black guy! how did that happen!?"
take it from a gay guy. when i hear "the openly gay actor said today" or what ever. its insulting. so what if he's openly gay? is his name now "openly gay?" often they use the name like an aside or as if its irrelevant.
The races will never be considered equal until the language we use everyday reflects that equality. Constantly referring to someone by their race makes that feature of their life paramount above all others, and effectively their race then becomes their distinguishing feature, rather than their achievements/failures. This extra/lack of attention based solely on race is, contrary to what you may have had drummed into your head from an early age, racist.
the reason i say it's pandering and demeaning is because it really is like saying "see black man! you can do it! good for you boy!" insulting. focus on his or her achievements and not their race. many liberals have good intentions, but in calling others racist, they fail to see that they are often the most racist of all.
Hey, the same thing is done with female accomplishments. Everytime a woman does something for the first time, that men have been doing for hundreds of year, the media makes a big deal out of it.
By making a big deal out of such minor achievements, it highlights the fact that minorites have achieved VERY LITTLE since the beginning of time.
Kev you're argument makes no sense because when society acknowledges the race,sex or whatever of a person who has acomplished something they are not saying it out of shock that a minority was able to accomplish something they are just stating the facts.When history professors and teachers tell their students that the Greeks were the first to develop democracy or that the British were the first to limit the power of monarchy do you really think they are pandering or demeaning the Greeks and British?Ofcourse not they are just stating the historical facts and part of those facts deal with the back ground of those who accomplish something.
^ leave it to Grapost, lol
by mojo on Thu Nov 16, 06 6:21am
[+]
But just imagine the great song and dance that would be made if men ever had to have babies or suffer through menstruation every month. HAH!
by mojo on Thu Nov 16, 06 6:23am
[+]
corrupt, can you process information? seriously, I'm really beginning to worry about your reading comprehension. the point is, i said it was pandering to continually call attention to their race. after colin powel had been secretary of state of about 3 years, they would still say "the first black secretary of state." i also said that it was the rev. jesse jackson that cringed when he heard that line, not me. see the difference there?
second point of contention champ, is why say my argument makes no sense, when other people in the ballot make the same point and the ballot itself makes that point? obsess much? awww, you're trying to get some attention from me. ain't that so sweet.
Voted : Yes, it's thinly-veiled racism
I think it is, or at least some people have chips on their shoulders.
The news media reports on news. When someone, of a particular minority, does something unique, it's news.
To enforce a colorblind rule on the media, when society is still filled with inequality, is nothing more than censoring the news in a way that favors the dominant elements in society. THAT is racist.
So Kev when historians always call attention to Seneca's or Stalin's race they are pandering and demeaning the Russian and "Italian" people then?Also Kev you take things too personally the only reason why I called you out is because you commented the most on this ballot,jeez the ego on some people...
I don't think so to be quite honest. It shows how far minorities have come. Why is bad to say the "first Black secretary of state?" when it's true? Isn't that more of a sense of accomplishment than anything else?
by aya on Thu Nov 16, 06 7:13am
[+]
corrupt baby, you have a history of doing that with my comments. i know you're just looking for a way to get my attention. its sweet. if you took the time to read the other ballots on this very topic, you'd have been better prepared to speak on this particular ballot. obviously you're caught with your pants down.
most people with class would have written "kev, i disagree with your premise" and then argued their point. right now, you have no point because you're focused in on one aspect of a broad range of comments on this topic on this and the like ballots that went up last night.
my point stands. if people were truly not racist, they would not focus on someone's race in their "coverage' of that person. you don't think tiger woods is tired of hearing "black golf great, tiger woods." of course he is. if someone is the "first" at something, maybe it's normal to say "the frist black__________ or the first hispanic______________, but that is intself, racist.
are you able to follow along, or am i going to fast for you? if a white person were to lets say break a record that had been previously held by only black people, would the media say "the first white person_________. doubtful.
that is why its pandering. and like i pointed out above, it's not solicited pandering. the media needs an angle. they need something to build off, so they're the ones that make race an issue.
see me after class for extra credit work.
Constantly referring to someone by their race makes that feature of their life paramount above all others, and effectively their race then becomes their distinguishing feature, rather than their achievements/failures. This extra/lack of attention based solely on race is, contrary to what you may have had drummed into your head from an early age, racist.
lil_ape, I don't think so. Is it racist to merely point out the achievements of visible minorities?Besides, what Powell is remember for isn't that he's the "first Black secretary of State" but rather, that he opposed the Iraq war. Conveying the fact that ppl of a visible minority have accomplished something isn't making their race paramount above all others.
by aya on Thu Nov 16, 06 7:44am
[+]
aya, if they break a milestone, its natural to focus on that. but its not natural to continually focus on their race. if colin powel was the first black secretary of state, that may be a milestone worth note at first, but to keep focusing in on his race after he's been in the position serves no purpose. thats just one example though. with the williams sisters its "black tennis ace venus williams." what does her being black have to do with anything? it doesn't. tiger woods is also not the first great golfer who is black, but they keep saying "black golfing champ tiger woods." why? i don't care if he's black -- he's a great golfer. period. but yes, you make sense in my opinion and we're not in disagreement.
The thing is, though, I don't hear of Powell constantly referred to as "first black secretary of state" anymore, or Tiger Woods as first black golfer or whatever.
by aya on Thu Nov 16, 06 7:54am
[+]
oh yeah corrupt, italian is not a race. caucasian is a race. black is a race. nationality is in fact, generally not a race. we don't have a race of italian people, do we? no, we do not. you need to hit the books more. example here is that tiger woods is an american by birth, and his race is asian and black (and maybe others, but primarily). you don't hear people saying "the first white_______________. rarely, if ever.
they do aya, all the time. coling powel is not in the position anymore, but with tiger woods, yes, they do.
White rappers are constantly referred to by their race.
You're argument stands on a sunken foundation Kev because you have yet to explain why the media is racist for stating the facts about a historical person.You have no reasoning you just keep repeating that "it's racist", "it's racist" just to even acknowlege racist.Racism implies discrimination or bias on the basis of race.Just saying that this is the "first black guy to do something" is not bias nor discrimination it's the stating the facts.Am I going to fast for you're political correct ass Professor?
Also the media does acknowledge if a white person accomplishes a task that has only been accomplished by minorities.Look at sport that have been dominated by non whites like Judo.History has recorded every white person who has made breakthroughs in that sport and other traditionally non white sports.
wait. you're calling me politically correct? are you seroius? huh? me? have you read my comments? they are anything but politically correct. in fact my comments and herzogs are pretty much identical in idea on the other ballots. is he politically correct?
dude, with that one statement, you totally lost me. moving on.
politcally correct!? do you even know the definition? i just can't believe i just read that. and here i thought i was debating with someone with an iota of commen sense and intelligence. good lord man! if you're going to use a popular term, use it in the right context. ooooh, embarassing for you.
and einstein, the term racism does not mean bias or discrimination in ever sense. how can you not know that?
noun
The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
rac•ism
Pronunciation: (rā'siz-um),
—n.
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
please join us in conversation when you can bring something to the table.
i'm waiting. 
Oh sugar I love it when we get into these pissing contest.Okay Kev I agree that I have defined racism too narrowly I accept you're definition.Now in the definition you have given how in the hell is acknowledging the race of a person who has achieved some historical record a form of racism?No doubt you will say that it is patronizing and demeans the abilities of the race that is supposed to be praised.However how can you say that when the media does the very same thing when a white person achieves some historical record.As cranky pointed out when white men first entered into rap and became a hit the media recognize their breakthrough and spoke of their race.Similarly in certain sports that are dominated by other races,Olympic Judo being an example the sports media did not hesitate to talk about white men "beating the japs at their own game." So again professor how is acknowledging race,which in this case is a relevant fact to the story,racist?
Also I said you're politically correct because you think just mentioning race is racist as if stating the facts some how is an act of hatred.So do I get that extract credit now Prof?
okay stud, let me lay it out for you. it's racist in the sense that we cannot live in a society that says "don't hate someone because of their race" or "race does not matter, it's just a skin color" and then, turn around and continually focus on someone's race. we are not in the early stages of racial intergration at this point -- we're far past it. politically correct people are the ones that keep dragging race into it.
don't you know that civil rights activists say they are fed up with white liberal america talking down to them? they're totally fed up because that is what white liberals do -- they keep focusing on race on one hand, and in the other, they say "race is not an issue -- we are all equal."
and we are. so if race is not an issue according to them, why even make it the main focus of the story? there's a world of difference between saying "the first black_________________" as your intro., versus integrating it into a story as part of history. no one is saying to not acknowledge it, but it can be part of the big picture and not the focus.
aya says she does not hear tiger woods refered to as "black golf great tiger woods." i still do. why? we all know he's black. who cares.
so the point is, liberals are the first to call other's racist, especially conservatives, but they're the very morons making race an issue. how can you say you are a liberal who is against racism and then turn around and slam white, conservative males as being racist? that is in fact, racist.
are you still with me? 
I follow and I agree that the race of some great person should not be the main focus of every media about them,you're right we don't need to hear that Tiger Woods is a great black golfer everytime his name is mentioned in the public.However as a historical fact mentioning his race can not be avoided.
 what a brilliant boy you are corrupt! yey! that was my point all along -- though, i admit, i didn't make it as clear as i should have and it took you to suck it out of me. good job. thanks dude.
|
