Rodimus Prime wrote:Honestly, I don't get that either. The word 'colored' and the phrase 'person of color' mean the exact same thing. so why is it acceptable to use the phrase but not the word? Yes, I know the word has racist undertones, as it was used to label blacks in a mostly negative manner (even though blacks themselves use it) but then shouldn't the phrase be looked down on as well? Yet it's being used every day, mostly by minorities. Or is it that they haven't perceived the phrase being used derogatorily yet by Caucasians? Once that happens, the phrase will be off limits as well.
Alright, I read it. It talks about why the word 'colored' is offensive to blacks. I already knew this. My inquiry was regarding the phrase 'people of color' and why it's deemed acceptable when it means the same thing as the word 'colored.' I tried to answer it for myself in my previous post, but I was just guessing, really. Was I right? Or am I missing something?AcademyofDrX wrote:Let me Google that for you:
https://www.chicagotribune.com/columns/ ... story.html
If you are sincerely seeking the information, please consider doing the work for yourself first. Otherwise, it could appear that you're defending open bigotry, which I'm sure we all want to avoid.
AcademyofDrX wrote:Let me Google that for you:
https://www.chicagotribune.com/columns/ ... story.html
If you are sincerely seeking the information, please consider doing the work for yourself first. Otherwise, it could appear that you're defending open bigotry, which I'm sure we all want to avoid.
AcademyofDrX wrote:There is no magic answer to always treating people as they want to be treated, because no racial, ethnic, or cultural identity is monolithic.
AcademyofDrX wrote:The bottom line? Try to treat people with respect.
AcademyofDrX wrote:If you stop believing in racism, does that history and its impacts disappear? Obviously not. That is not an argument in good faith.
Since you singled out the conservative side, does that mean the liberal side is the opposite of this? That liberalism includes and even promotes the differences among us based on our cultures?AcademyofDrX wrote:There's a Philip K Dick quote that I love:
“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.”
There's a certain view in conservative politics that believes we're in a post-racial society, and that if everyone adopted a colorblind mantra, racism would be over. For me, that doesn't pass the above test. To suggest that the cultural legacy of centuries of obvious discrimination like slavery and Jim Crow, or the fundamental differences in inherited wealth between whites and others, or the history of racist policies in housing, education, and employment ... If you stop believing in racism, does that history and its impacts disappear? Obviously not. That is not an argument in good faith.
I agree 100%. Unfortunately, these days when the subject comes up, most people involved in the conversation tend jump to conclusions and immediately assume the worst in the other person and the negative aspects of the argument. While this is true for both sides, in my experience more often it happens from the liberal side. That's not to say conservatives have things correct, only that their reaction seems more subdued. Of course, this can be a bad thing as well, because sometimes it's not enough. I'm not sure why that is, my guess is all depends on that person's view of things and the environment that person was subjected to in her/his formative years. I can personally attest to this, as in my younger years I was more liberal and as I grew older and gained life experience I became more subdued and conservative. But regardless of which side I identify with stronger, I never subscribed to 'either/or' because I believe that's 1 of the biggest problems we face as a society. Having to choose a side, or more accurately, believing that we have to choose a side. That's how those in power keep us divided and thus defeated.AcademyofDrX wrote:I was specifically making the case that the post-racial view of racial justice is aligned to conservative thought. See for example the famous John Roberts like in an affirmative action US Supreme Court decision: “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”
The converse of that is that acknowledging and referencing the ongoing disparate treatments and circumstances of people of different races is not only appropriate but necessary for racial justice and for full recognition of the members of society. That's not necessarily or inherently racism, but is necessary for combatting racism.
There are certainly ways to talk about race that are racist, and at times people co-opt progressive language to denigrate people along ethnic, national, and racial lines. But acknowledging that society (and really, societies) has treated and continue to treat people differently based on race shouldn't be controversial.
AcademyofDrX wrote:There is no magic answer to always treating people as they want to be treated, because no racial, ethnic, or cultural identity is monolithic..
Written by white slaveowning men who had no regard in mind for natives, slaves or even their own women when they wrote it. Nevermind people who don't get a much better start in life because of the wealth left to them by their parents and grandparents and generations before them. "All men are created equal." My ass. Should have said "All rich white men are created equal." Because that's who it was written for at the time. I agree with the spirit of the constitution, but it is by no means perfect. If it was, it wouldn't have needed 27 amendments to it. It made sense at the time, but that was 230 years ago. Everything has changed since, the present time and its circumstances do not fit into the parameters of the constitution. So either the constitution has to be amended again or we have to go back to the societal structure as it was in the 18th and 19th centuries, up to the beginning of the Civil War, anyway.Truthstar9 wrote:AcademyofDrX wrote:There is no magic answer to always treating people as they want to be treated, because no racial, ethnic, or cultural identity is monolithic..
Its called the US Constitution. Written a long time ago yet people are still too stupid to read.
Rodimus Prime wrote:Having to choose a side, or more accurately, believing that we have to choose a side. That's how those in power keep us divided and thus defeated.
Rodimus Prime wrote:Written by white slaveowning men who had no regard in mind for natives, slaves or even their own women when they wrote it. Nevermind people who don't get a much better start in life because of the wealth left to them by their parents and grandparents and generations before them. "All men are created equal." My ass. Should have said "All rich white men are created equal." Because that's who it was written for at the time. I agree with the spirit of the constitution, but it is by no means perfect. If it was, it wouldn't have needed 27 amendments to it. It made sense at the time, but that was 230 years ago. Everything has changed since, the present time and its circumstances do not fit into the parameters of the constitution. So either the constitution has to be amended again or we have to go back to the societal structure as it was in the 18th and 19th centuries, up to the beginning of the Civil War, anyway.Truthstar9 wrote:AcademyofDrX wrote:There is no magic answer to always treating people as they want to be treated, because no racial, ethnic, or cultural identity is monolithic..
Its called the US Constitution. Written a long time ago yet people are still too stupid to read.
Truthstar9 wrote:Rodimus Prime wrote:Written by white slaveowning men who had no regard in mind for natives, slaves or even their own women when they wrote it. Nevermind people who don't get a much better start in life because of the wealth left to them by their parents and grandparents and generations before them. "All men are created equal." My ass. Should have said "All rich white men are created equal." Because that's who it was written for at the time. I agree with the spirit of the constitution, but it is by no means perfect. If it was, it wouldn't have needed 27 amendments to it. It made sense at the time, but that was 230 years ago. Everything has changed since, the present time and its circumstances do not fit into the parameters of the constitution. So either the constitution has to be amended again or we have to go back to the societal structure as it was in the 18th and 19th centuries, up to the beginning of the Civil War, anyway.Truthstar9 wrote:AcademyofDrX wrote:There is no magic answer to always treating people as they want to be treated, because no racial, ethnic, or cultural identity is monolithic..
Its called the US Constitution. Written a long time ago yet people are still too stupid to read.
I could be wrong, but usually not. I've heard your rhetoric from self hating white liberals who were indoctrinated at an early age. Still doesn't absolve you.
Since the majority of what you said is ridiculously stupid, I'll reply only to the least stupid comments.
So you ae advocating to a return to a 18/19th century political/social structure. Well us Americans gave up the Kings and Queens of old and it isn't returning. If you feel the need to knee to another, you can always relocate to the country of your choosing. Freedom is great isn't it?
You obviously are against the US Constitution, gotta give you credit for taking a side at least. Some of your comrades took one for the team last night. But I'm guessing you are all talk and no action. I'm truly hoping for the latter. As they say, what's the point of taking an Oath if you don't intend to honor it.
Rodimus Prime wrote:Written by white slaveowning men who had no regard in mind for natives, slaves or even their own women when they wrote it. Nevermind people who don't get a much better start in life because of the wealth left to them by their parents and grandparents and generations before them. "All men are created equal." My ass. Should have said "All rich white men are created equal." Because that's who it was written for at the time. I agree with the spirit of the constitution, but it is by no means perfect. If it was, it wouldn't have needed 27 amendments to it. It made sense at the time, but that was 230 years ago. Everything has changed since, the present time and its circumstances do not fit into the parameters of the constitution. So either the constitution has to be amended again or we have to go back to the societal structure as it was in the 18th and 19th centuries, up to the beginning of the Civil War, anyway.
Rodimus Prime wrote:Written by white slaveowning men who had no regard in mind for natives, slaves or even their own women when they wrote it.
Rodimus Prime wrote:"All men are created equal." My ass. Should have said "All rich white men are created equal." Because that's who it was written for at the time.
Rodimus Prime wrote:I agree with the spirit of the constitution
Rodimus Prime wrote:it is by no means perfect. If it was, it wouldn't have needed 27 amendments to it. It made sense at the time, but that was 230 years ago. Everything has changed since, the present time and its circumstances do not fit into the parameters of the constitution. So either the constitution has to be amended again or we have to go back to the societal structure as it was in the 18th and 19th centuries, up to the beginning of the Civil War, anyway.
AcademyofDrX wrote:I saw a quoted line, though I couldn't follow the indents: "I've heard your rhetoric from self hating white liberals who were indoctrinated at an early age."
The correct right-wing talking point is that self-hating white liberals like me were indoctrinated by Marxists at college. It's all in your handbook, do better at staying on message.
AcademyofDrX wrote:Disappointed but not surprised that the thread protesting police violence is now being used to glorify violence against protesters, in particular by commenters who are new to the site.
No, we should not. If you seriously think that's a solution, you're wrong. If you were trying to be sarcastic and condescending, it won't get you anywhere. Definitely not through a rational discussion.ShadowKatt wrote:So, because of who wrote the constitution, I suppose we should just disregard it.
All of them. The Declaration of Independence states in part that "all men are created equal." The Constitution, which followed the Declaration by a little over a decade, is a legal framework (as you said) that is there to uphold the truth of that statement in limiting government in what it can do when it comes to ruling the citizens of the brand new country it is set up to govern. It was written and authorized by the men who fought and won the Revolutionary War. Slave-owning white men who had already accumulated different amounts of wealth before the conflict even began, and became even wealthier still after kicking the British out and claiming and divvying up all the land among themselves. If the Constitution was meant for everyone inside the borders of the brand new country they established, why wasn't it immediately also established that slaves were freed, or that women and natives had the same rights as those men did? Why did it take multiple amendments over a long period of time to get to that result? After all, "all men are created equal" had been their message since 1776. So where was equality for blacks and natives? The constitution supposedly prevents government from treating them differently than whites. So were they treated the same? History says the constitution failed in doing so. Because the men who wrote it failed in doing so.I'd like you to tell me first, though, which mistake was it? Was it the white part? Was it the men part? Was it the slave owning part? Or the idea that they had no interest in any other people besides themselves.
Once again, condescension is the wrong way to go. You're making assumptions. Nowhere in my post did I say the constitution specifically selected wealthy people to have any advantage. But as I said, it was written by people of considerable wealth and influence, and as much as you would like to think it was for everyone (as it should have bern and claimed to be), it was written by those men with their vision of society in mind, a society in which natives were banished, blacks picked cotton, women cooked meals and raised children, and those men controlled the wealth of the new country and thus had the power to help or restrict those without wealth from advancing in society.So I guess it's just the rich then, the wealthy. The government shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, unless you're poor. The government shall make no law dictating the worship of religion if you own a certain amount of land. Shall I go on or can we forget this ever happened?
Exactly. It covers no basic human rights that someone who's not a wealthy white male should have. How the hell is that supposed to be the 'supreme law of the land' when it omits rules regarding a large segment of the population? When it was written, it could've applied to those who wrote it and lived in that society. But it can't be now, because too much has changed. So every time someone brings up the Constitution, this is the debate or argument that takes place. So yes, I do agree that the spirit of the constitution is just. That government shouldn't be allowed to trample an individual's rights. But that should apply to all individuals, and the collection of those individuals is different now than it was 1789.Rodimus Prime wrote:I agree with the spirit of the constitution
Obviously you don't because you already poisoned the well by somehow taking a document that was supposed to be a legal framework and making it about race, about sex, about wealth, about everything else it doesn't cover.
Hence it's biggest flaw. It ignored everyone other than wealthy white men, as I keep saying.The constitution is not a permission slip. It's not a list of the things you're allowed to do if you're a citizen. It's a list of restrictions on the government telling the people in power what they are not allowed to do. And you're right, there is a flaw, but that flaw is not with the constitution itself. The constitution dictates the rights of the citizen shall not be infringed by the government. It does NOT, however, dictate who those citizens are. That was never enumerated in the constitution and fell directly into the hands of underwritten federal law until much, much later when it was written in under the 14th amendment. So your arguement about the scope of people it applied to was firstly nullified by it not being covered and secondly because that was later added. It wasn't originally the responsability of the constitution to grant citizenship and rights.
So once again, I'm right. It can't be applied as it was written, it has to keep changing, because society is changing. It doesn't seem that I misunderstood anything.Rodimus Prime wrote:it is by no means perfect. If it was, it wouldn't have needed 27 amendments to it. It made sense at the time, but that was 230 years ago. Everything has changed since, the present time and its circumstances do not fit into the parameters of the constitution. So either the constitution has to be amended again or we have to go back to the societal structure as it was in the 18th and 19th centuries, up to the beginning of the Civil War, anyway.
Here you are correct about one thing but you still show a fundamental misunderstanding. You're right, the constitution is a flawed, living document that was meant to grow and evolve over time. The people that wrote it knew that they would never be able to make it perfect, knew that it would need to change, and so they put in a process to change it. Had they ACTUALLY believed that the United States, as they were, were perfection incarnate they could have simply have written in that the words were law as passed down by God through their pen and that would have been that. They didn't. And it has changed.
Yes, those are all amendment. Changes that came later. Meaning, the document had to be amended in order to be applied to the society of the time of the amendment, because as it was originally written, it couldn't be used. Because it was ratified with a different society in mind. One made up by white, wealthy slave-owners.The constitution is not to dictate what you can or cannot do. It is strictly to tell the government what it cannot do. The eleventh amendment dictates that the US government SHALL NOT prosecute you on behalf of a foreign state or actor. The thirteenth amendment states that state nor any citizen Shall Not own slaves or indentured servents. The fifteenth amendment states that the state Shall Not deny the vote to citizens. And this means that everyone is free from foreign prosecution, free from bondage, and free to be represented.
And then there's a few others that you might have heard of that are slightly more contraversial. Like the fourteeth, citizenship. Before, it was accepted that citizens were citizens, and after the end of slavery it was written in that all peoples born here, or all peoples that resided here for a period were citzens. The government MUST grant citizenship to all peoples that fall under these catagories. As you said, it made sense at the time, and look at where we are now. Entire caravans of people marching through thousands of miles of dangerous terrain because if they can get here, if they can have a birth here, if they can hide out long enough, they can secure citizenship. The amendment meant to grant citizenship to all slaves and indentured servants that had been denied before. Now it is being abused as a free ticket to ride. Or the sixteenth which gave the government(read: gave itself) the power to levy taxes without any restriction or moderation. As you can see, giving them the right to simply taken money from the people has worked out so very well. This was the right of the government to levy any tax, not the people shall not be taxed. By granting the right to the government, it has been taken away from the people.
It's not my responsibility what you assume by my words. I stated that the constitution, as it was written, does not work for today's society without making changes to it. I said this in response to another poster who threw out the blanket statement of "but the Constitution! You're too stupid to read!" I know those weren't the exact words, but that's the gist if his point and my counter point. You seem to be putting way too much into what I was actually saying.So now getting back to you. You speak of the constitution writteh by men, by white men, by rich white men with no regard to anything or anyone other than themselves. You speak of generational inequalities in wealth and power. And you speak of using the constitution itself as a crowbar to fix it. And you may not like that analogy but that's what it will be.
Has it worked? Has the government, in the 231 years since the constitution has been around, been unable to oppress its people, whether in part or as a whole?The constitution itself is meant to be a check on the government, a barrier that denies it the ability to oppress the people of the nation.
Agreed. And this happens because the writers of the constitution could not (or refused to?) foresee the changes tjis country underwent in the last 2 centuries. So the blame lies mainly with them, along with those who look to exploit the Constitution in present day, through both legal and criminal means.But I can assure you of this. No matter the law, no matter the reparation, no matter the policy seeing to balance some inequality from the past, it will be done by creating inequality in the other direction in the present. Either by taking directly from those deeped to have benefitted from it and giving to others, a redistribution of sorts, or some other government program which merely draws from a larger pool, those being taxed by, again, that troubling sixteenth amendment I stated earlier.
Once again, I'm in agreement. But all that you just wrote doesn't excuse the failures of the Constitution or the failures of the men who wrote it. You're right, it will fail, because it was fallible to begin with, which was my point in the first place.I'm not going to deny that there are inequalities in the past. There are inequalities today, in every single nation on the planet. It's not a perfect world and it's not going to be. But if I can stress anything from this long and rambling entry then let it be this: You cannot change the past. What was done is done. It cannot be undone. Asians in WWII were interred wrongly. They were paid reparations. The black mark still remains. It doesn't go away. If you're sincere about dealing with generational inequalities then there is a conversation to be had there. It will not come from a constitutional amendment. It will not come from a federal law. It will not come from the jackboot of officers coming to take from one and given to another. If you want to fix generational inequality going forward then we have to move forward. Accept the past for what it is. Drop the malice, drop the hate, forgive whatever debts there are and build a better future because here's the dirty truth: There are debts in the past. Debts to previous generations. Those generations are dead. We do not hang the sins of the father, or the debts, upon the sons. And until we do that we will get what we have now: Hatred and violence on behalf of a bygone generation, claiming moral virtue in their names and revenge for their honor. If you try to use the constitution as a tool here, not only will it fail but it will invalidate any good it has done in history.
AcademyofDrX wrote:I saw a quoted line, though I couldn't follow the indents: "I've heard your rhetoric from self hating white liberals who were indoctrinated at an early age."
The correct right-wing talking point is that self-hating white liberals like me were indoctrinated by Marxists at college. It's all in your handbook, do better at staying on message.
Disappointed but not surprised that the thread protesting police violence is now being used to glorify violence against protesters, in particular by commenters who are new to the site.
Registered users: Bing [Bot], Bumblevivisector, Dino-Snarl, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot], Roadbuster, SupersonicShockwave, Triceratops3