The Little Thread Which Grew - the Apollo '73 to Everything But

[lkwdblds]

Re: I see your point.

So Lakey, as an hypothetical question, would you care to have your daughter publicly likened to a mule simply because of her parentage? What part of that would you deem as 'respectful' and not intentionally demeaning?

The fact that this reference to an 'hybrid' stems from common preconceptions about racial differences should clue you in that it is clearly intended as a racial epithet, however the appellation may have been 'meant' by 'nice people' .


Mark A. Baker

MAB, if someone likened my daughter to a mule and I just read it in passing on an internet message board, I would pay it no mind and probably ignore that person from that point forward. Now if someone got in my face personally, there might be occasions where I would be angry and start fighting with them.

I just don't care that much about word usages to analyze the fine nuances of a word and then take offence when it is used in a manner which might be construed as being impolite.

A GOOD EXAMPLE - These Indian tribe spokespeople who take offence if a sport's team is named after an Indian tribe or is called the Braves, the Indians, the Seminoles, etc. seem like idiots to me, wasting their time on such trivial matters.

I see the words as complimentary, offering recognition and acknowledgement to a particular tribe for the courageous traits they routinely exhibited in their past.

People ask me how I would like it if someone used people from my heritage and background as their sports mascot. I remember that Dennis Prager took up this topic on his show many years ago. He said that if a sports team named itself the "Rabbi's" for example, he would be honored and thrilled and would probably immediately start rooting for the team.

So now the Stanford Indians are the Stanford Cardinals. Is the world a better place? Are Indians more respected as a result of this? To me, the resounding answer to both questions is a big "NO!!!"

Thank God there are some schools with a little backbone who do not cave in to this sort of intimidation. The University of Illinois teams are still the "Fighting Illini", the Atlanta Braves are still the Atlanta Braves and the Cleveland Indians are still the Cleveland Indians.

The Bottom Line Not all people are going to agree on this type of thing. I hate being politically correct. I don't go out of my way to avoid being politically incorrect. If someone in my vicinity makes a sincere complaint, I will accomodate them. Other than that, I prefer to ignore always being politically correct. You and others may feel that it is proper to be politically correct and to be sensitive to the feelings of various groups. It is all well and good. Please continue doing so. I applaud and respect your decision but I don't want to follow in your footsteps on this issue 100& of the time, sometimes I will, sometimes I won't.

The one big thing with me is indiscriminate use of the word "racism". If someone's post is labeled as racist by a reader, it had better mean that the author of that post was actually intending to demean one particular race and saying strongly that it is inferior to other races otherwise the adjective racist should never be used in describing the post. To me, using that adjective loosely or incorrectly is a serious issue while calling a sports team "The Fighting Illini" is not a serious issue.
Lakey

 

[freethinker]

Re: The "Healing"

I appreciate you answering this because as you picked up, the "healing" occuring because he was elected, for the reasons you state, were and are not apparent to me because he was elected.

I wasn't thinking in terms of his race but in terms of the state of this country and its economy. I see no healing there either.

I personally don't think his race or color of his skin had anything to do with his getting elected but the lofty promises that he made.

I don't think Hillary lost because she was a woman but rather because of the controversies during her husbands presidency and and when she became a senator of NY.

I believe McCain lost because he represented a continuation of the Bush administration which went on too long anyway.

I asked the question as regards what was meant by healing, the country or something else but as you pointed out, and as I believe, racism has been dying away anyway and I don't think Obama's election made that significant an impact in that area.

The "healing" began before President Obama declared his candidacy. To be aware of the healing that occurred, one must have some reality on the disease which existed prior to said healing.

Black people were slaves in this country for an extended period and even when slavery ended, they were generally not thought of as equal to White people by many whites.

I witnessed Jim Crow laws in action in Miami, Florida in the summer of 1955 when, as a 15 year old, I went to work for my Aunt and Uncle in their business. Water fountains and restrooms were labeled "White" and "Colored". The Blacks had to ride in the back of the bus. Most lunch counters had signs prohibiting them from eating there.

In 1950, I was a movie, The "Jackie Robinson Story" about the fabeled athlete from U.C.L.A. becoming the first Black baseball player to break the color barrier.

Even in 1962, a Black friend who visited Las Vegas with me could not gain admittance to my hotel. In 1964, we tried it again and and he was able to register.

In the 1950's black people were a sub culture of America and had the worst jobs. They were primarily "garbage collecters", washroom attendants, shoe shine boys, "Red Caps' at the train stations and airports, busboys, and unskilled laborers. Black women usually were maids or came to people's houses to clean them.

In the South in the 1960's, those Whites who marched with the Blacks to improve conditions were often singled out to be beat up or even murdered. Somewhere after the Civil Rights Act of 1964, things began to improve.

One of the big things which contributed to this in the USA were the sports heroes. Michael Jordan and the Chicago Bulls brought the entire city of Chicago together. Fans rallied around the Willie Mays's, Wilt Chamberlins, Kareem Abdul Jabbars, etc in professional sports. One could feel racism lessening when attending a baseball, football or basketball game at a University or in the arenas of the big cities. White fans where wearing the jerseys of the top black players, cheering for them, idolizing them and buying their mementos and sports paraphenalia.

When that started happening, I began to feel that the walls of racism were crumbling. The White fans absolutely went crazy and cheered at the top of their lungs for their Black players. HEALING HAD BEGUN!

There are two impressive facts about President Obama's being voted into office as the President of the USA. First, when Obama entered the race for the Democratic party nomination, Hillary Clinton was far ahead of all other candidates. The Clintons. Bill and Hilary, were one of the most powerful political families in American. Obama with very little political experience was able to topple Hilary Clinton and wrest the nomination away from her. A majority of White voters prefered Obama to a powerful and well known White woman, Hilary Clinton.

Next came the general election. WHEN I WAS A KID, PEOPLE USE TO SPECULATE THAT SOMEDAY, PROBABLY IN THE DISTANT FUTURE, THE USA WOULD ELECT A BLACK PRESIDENT. President Obama swept to a convincing victory in the general election with considerably more White people voting for him than for his White rival, John McCain. The fact that more white people voted for Obama than for Mc Cain illustrated clearly that much healing had already taken place in the United States since those days when I was a teenager down in Miami in 1955.

I'll tell you this. If our country was getting stronger, the economy was good and there was low unemployment, President Obama would easily sweep to victory for a second term. THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT ABOUT THAT. The proof is that he may win anyway, even though the country is in financial disarray and unemployment is high. The next election is going to be very close. If Obama loses, it will be because of his record.

In summary, to be aware of the healing that has occurred, you must compare the country's current performance in dealing with racial relations to the performances of earlier days such as prior to 1860, between 1865 and 1955, between 1955 and 1964 and between 1964 to the present. Though there is still more healing which must take place, an enormous amount of healing has already occurred!
Lakey

 

[FoTi]

Re: The "Healing"

I appreciate you answering this because as you picked up, the "healing" occuring because he was elected, for the reasons you state, were and are not apparent to me because he was elected.

I wasn't thinking in terms of his race but in terms of the state of this country and its economy. I see no healing there either.

I personally don't think his race or color of his skin had anything to do with his getting elected but the lofty promises that he made.

I don't think Hillary lost because she was a woman but rather because of the controversies during her husbands presidency and and when she became a senator of NY.

I believe McCain lost because he represented a continuation of the Bush administration which went on too long anyway.

I asked the question as regards what was meant by healing, the country or something else but as you pointed out, and as I believe, racism has been dying away anyway and I don't think Obama's election made that significant an impact in that area.

I think his skin had a lot to do with him being elected. At the time of the election I was working in a place that had a large percentage of black people. They all voted for Obama. Every black person I ever spoke with in the area where I live, about the election, voted for Obama. I don't think they cared anything about his politics....I think they just wanted to finally see a black man as president of this country .... it helped to give them a feeling of being more equal and was another step out of being considered less by the whites.

Anyplace that I worked over the last 15 years where blacks were employed, their thing was to get into the supervisory positions....even if the pay was less....it's a status thing so that they have seniority and people will look up to them and respect them more.....even though they took a cut in pay sometimes.....the position was more important than the money. So getting a black president into office in the U.S. was very, very important to them.

 

[Ted]

Re: I see your point.

So Lakey, as an hypothetical question, would you care to have your daughter publicly likened to a mule simply because of her parentage? What part of that would you deem as 'respectful' and not intentionally demeaning?

The fact that this reference to an 'hybrid' stems from common preconceptions about racial differences should clue you in that it is clearly intended as a racial epithet, however the appellation may have been 'meant' by 'nice people' .


Mark A. Baker

Gee wiz, Mark. You are really stretching this thing out of bounds.

If I had a mulatto daughter it would mean that I loved a Black woman. That love would be invincible, and the daughter a product of that love. There isn't enough time in the universes to take issue with every idiot who walks upright.

How about an analysis of the article I posted on Obama's narcissism? Then to swing it on topic, compare to Hubbard.

 

[RogerB]

Re: The Apollo Narcissist

could you expound on what you mean by this because personally I never saw the "healing"

FT,

Yes, that is probably a fair statement from you, based on where in the country you live.

What I refer to is the point that, for example, the last "black man" who stood as a candidate for president, Jesse Jackson, really got trounced before he had any real chance of being his party's nominee . . . and the media yap and sentiment was all on the issue of his "blackness" and the race issue and the "readiness of the country to elect a 'black president'." (Though the real reason for his rejection may well have been his known stands on various contentious issues along with suspicion of his integrity, etc. . . . the media yap declined to cite his questionable character and motives, but instead referred to the nation's readiness to elect based on racial grounds.)

Remember, Obama's election was only a few years after the LA riots on the "Rodney King affair" wherein the "blacks" (and other minorities) rioted because police officers were acquitted of charges of assault . . . . remember we saw on national TV a white guy dragged from his truck and beaten senseless during the riots simply because he was white and driving through . . . this race riot was 1991. And it was not uncommon to see in the media the airing of the "anniversary of the Rodney King beating and riots following the trial."

When Obama was actually elected, the whole media sentiment about racial issues changed, and the people I was in touch with expressed their relief and degrees of joy at the fact that "America had done the right thing in electing based on the issues and had overcome the racial divide." (Though it is equally true that Obama was helped by being opposed in the nominee process by the hated H. Clinton against whom there was a massive vote . . . and that he was opposing a "representative" of the memory of the incompetence and deceit of George H W Bush Republicanism, half of was a bimbo Sarah "who?""

Some I know even expressed the idea that: "now maybe, the blacks will get over the idea of being disenfranchised, etc.,"

R

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: Thanks for your clarification

I appreciate you answering this because as you picked up, the "healing" occuring because he was elected, for the reasons you state, were and are not apparent to me because he was elected.

I wasn't thinking in terms of his race but in terms of the state of this country and its economy. I see no healing there either.

I personally don't think his race or color of his skin had anything to do with his getting elected but the lofty promises that he made.

I don't think Hillary lost because she was a woman but rather because of the controversies during her husbands presidency and and when she became a senator of NY.

I believe McCain lost because he represented a continuation of the Bush administration which went on too long anyway.

I asked the question as regards what was meant by healing, the country or something else but as you pointed out, and as I believe, racism has been dying away anyway and I don't think Obama's election made that significant an impact in that area.

Thanks for clarifying what you meant! I agree with what Freethinker says in post # 12383 above. I doubt that any white person could have won the nomination over Hilary Clinton. Black people typically vote about 90% for Democratic candidates. When it came to Obama in 2008, this percentage probably inched up a bit to 92% or 93%. That did not swing the election. I agree with you that people were tired of Bush and wanted a change.

As far as healing in the sense that you intended, I believe that Roger's post yesterday explains why that type of healing has not occurred. There are deficiencies in Obabma's M.O. which are coming to light and many of the people who voted for him are dropping off of his "bandwagon". He now has detractors on the right, as expected, but also on the "far left", people who don't consider him far enough to the left.

In short, you will not see the type of healing which you were looking for because that type of healing is not what Obama is really about. Obama doesn't really care much about high unemployment rates, high gas prices and things of that nature. He is more interested in rebuilding our government in the European mold.

What makes the election close is that Obama is a very glib and convincing speaker, promising a lot of things which he can't deliver. Nevertheless, much of the far left and the liberal press simply can't bring themselves to vote for a Republican or promote that the public at large do so. To have a chance of winning an election, the Republicans have to cause a big shift in the "independent" block of voters.

It is ironic that the nation's block of Black voters, about 10% of all voters, is the most important block of voters in the country. About 90% of these voters vote a straight Democratic ticket, giving the Democrats 9% of the national vote and the Republicans only 1%. That is an 8% edge in the polls before the election even starts. ITS LIKE A BUILT IN HOUSE ADVANTAGE IN A CASINO GAME SUCH AS ROULETTE. In every election, the Democrats start out with an 8% bias in thier favor. Had Blacks voted 50-50 in the 2008 election, Mc Cain would have won by about 2%.

Lakey

 

[RogerB]

Re: For My Friends Here in the Apollo Thread . . .

I received this below from one of my gurus, Lawrence Roulston, yesterday. It might be useful info for you. Notwithstanding, Friday afternoon I took the opportunity to pick up some bargain priced bullion (gold, silver) coins at the market low

I and others who follow the markets hold the belief that our governments have blown it. They have no answers other than cheap tricks to try and manipulate opinion and mislead the electorate.

Hell, we Exies saw that in an earlier thing we were involved is . . . . one does not forget lessons learned if one wants to survive in the face of a bad scenario.

R
_______________________________________________________

Commodity prices fell hard after a coordinated series of announcements from government agencies. After the initial panic selling, what can we expect next?

The stage for the attack was set with a report from the US Fed that showed the US economy to be growing, although not as fast as policymakers would have liked. The Fed forecast growth this year of 2.7 to 2.9%, down from the earlier estimate of 3.3 to 3.9%. (Putting those figures in perspective, the average pace of economic growth in the US from 1947 to 2010 was 3.3%.)

With fears subsiding for a double dip recession, hopes faded for QE3. The current stimulus program Quantitative Easing 2 – has pumped billions of dollars into the economy as the government effectively prints money to buy back its own bonds. Hopes for a continued dumping of nearly free money on to the investment markets lessened expectations for inflation in commodity prices.

The big surprise was the announcement that the International Energy Agency was going to sell onto the markets 60 million barrels of oil from its emergency reserves. Half of the sales were to come from the American reserves.

The announcement had the intended effect. Within seconds, traders had visions of an oil market awash in excess crude so they hit the sell buttons as fast as they could. The scene was like a barking dog sending a flock of birds into flight. At the sound of the bark, the birds don't take the time to rationally evaluate the danger posed by the dog. They simply react instinctively.

It was much the same for the traders. Even a few seconds delay in hitting the sell button in such a situation would see the trade filled at a lower price. Like the birds reacting to a barking dog, traders often react instinctively to news.

In reality, the amount of oil being released from reserves is miniscule in the scale of the world oil markets. The 60 million barrels represents 17 hours worth of oil consumption.

Anybody who takes the time to think it through will recognize that the need to release oil from strategic reserves is an acknowledgment that the world markets are in a tight supply situation. OPEC features prominently in discussion of the oil markets, yet that group produces less than 40% of the world’s oil. While some members of OPEC may be resisting calls for higher production levels, the reality is that most of the member states are producing at capacity. The 60% of non-OPEC oil production would be increased if those free market oil producers were capable of doing so.

The announcement of the sale of oil from strategic reserves was simply a very effective public relations exercise. The mere suggestion that the world would be flooded in oil, hitting every trader within seconds, had the effect that the government intended.

The knee-jerk reaction that brought down the oil price spilled over to other commodities. Margin calls on oil contracts impacted on some traders’ positions in other commodities. Mostly, I believe, it was simply a spill-over of sentiment.

Somehow, in the midst of all the confusion, thinking arose that the US dollar was once more a strong and stable currency. With that belief, speculators sold gold and silver. Somehow the trillions of dollars of government debt and the massive annual deficit were forgotten for the moment.

The exploration and development companies in gold, silver and other metals had not really benefited from the recent rally in metal prices. As a result, the selloff in the latest round of speculative panic was not too severe for those companies.

It takes steady nerves to go into markets in the midst of a well-coordinated public relations attack on commodity prices. Some people will prefer to wait on the sidelines until a clearer picture emerges. The more aggressive investors may want to enter stink bids for your favorite stocks. You may not get filled, but if you do it could look like a terrific buy in the coming weeks, or even days.

 

[freethinker]

Re: For My Friends Here in the Apollo Thread . . .

Interesting that you say this because most of the balack people I talked to in my area were not going to votte for him for two reasons:

1. They didn't think he had enough experience.

2. They didn't think he would win.

Where I live they had just elected a black govenor prior to Obama running

I think his skin had a lot to do with him being elected. At the time of the election I was working in a place that had a large percentage of black people. They all voted for Obama. Every black person I ever spoke with in the area where I live, about the election, voted for Obama. I don't think they cared anything about his politics....I think they just wanted to finally see a black man as president of this country .... it helped to give them a feeling of being more equal and was another step out of being considered less by the whites.

.

.

Who he was up against, Hillary then McCain, was ,in my opinion, part of the factor that he won. Don't forget that Hillary made a strong comeback towards the end when she became personable again. That's what people were looking for, Personable, someone they felt they could sit down and have a chat with.

Bush had created a much larger separation between government and the people, a government that did what it wanted for what it thought was right.

McCain could have filled that bill had he not conected up with Palin which turned his whole campaingn into a circus that no one could trust.

As it turned out, Obama is unapproachable with an air of arrogance that matches Bush. He doesn' respect his own appointees and considers the American public children that must have their decisions made for them.

FT,

Yes, that is probably a fair statement from you, based on where in the country you live.



When Obama was actually elected, the whole media sentiment about racial issues changed, and the people I was in touch with expressed their relief and degrees of joy at the fact that "America had done the right thing in electing based on the issues and had overcome the racial divide." (Though it is equally true that Obama was helped by being opposed in the nominee process by the hated H. Clinton against whom there was a massive vote . . . and that he was opposing a "representative" of the memory of the incompetence and deceit of George H W Bush Republicanism, half of was a bimbo Sarah "who?""

Some I know even expressed the idea that: "now maybe, the blacks will get over the idea of being disenfranchised, etc.,"

R

I agree.

Thanks for clarifying what you meant! I agree with what Freethinker says in post # 12383 above. I doubt that any white person could have won the nomination over Hilary Clinton. Black people typically vote about 90% for Democratic candidates. When it came to Obama in 2008, this percentage probably inched up a bit to 92% or 93%. That did not swing the election. I agree with you that people were tired of Bush and wanted a change.

As far as healing in the sense that you intended, I believe that Roger's post yesterday explains why that type of healing has not occurred. There are deficiencies in Obabma's M.O. which are coming to light and many of the people who voted for him are dropping off of his "bandwagon". He now has detractors on the right, as expected, but also on the "far left", people who don't consider him far enough to the left.

In short, you will not see the type of healing which you were looking for because that type of healing is not what Obama is really about. Obama doesn't really care much about high unemployment rates, high gas prices and things of that nature. He is more interested in rebuilding our government in the European mold.

What makes the election close is that Obama is a very glib and convincing speaker, promising a lot of things which he can't deliver. Nevertheless, much of the far left and the liberal press simply can't bring themselves to vote for a Republican or promote that the public at large do so. To have a chance of winning an election, the Republicans have to cause a big shift in the "independent" block of voters.

It is ironic that the nation's block of Black voters, about 10% of all voters, is the most important block of voters in the country. About 90% of these voters vote a straight Democratic ticket, giving the Democrats 9% of the national vote and the Republicans only 1%. That is an 8% edge in the polls before the election even starts. ITS LIKE A BUILT IN HOUSE ADVANTAGE IN A CASINO GAME SUCH AS ROULETTE. In every election, the Democrats start out with an 8% bias in thier favor. Had Blacks voted 50-50 in the 2008 election, Mc Cain would have won by about 2%.

Lakey

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Re: I see your point.

Gee wiz, Mark. You are really stretching this thing out of bounds. ...

Hardly, Ted. The simple point is that basic decency implies extending respect for the person, not focus on some imagined 'mixed blood' or 'hybrid' status. The latter is an intentional misdirection from the personhood & diminishment of an individual. Nor is it inappropriate to expect someone who is familiar with the basics of the auditor's code to be able to see that point.

... How about an analysis of the article I posted on Obama's narcissism? Then to swing it on topic, compare to Hubbard.

Not terribly interested, quite frankly. I see Obama as at worst no worse than others. Frankly, given the state of conditions facing the u.s. I am astounded at the excellent job he has done attempting to conduct damage control operations over the horrendous state of affairs which his administration has been forced to address since assuming office. Especially as these improvements have occurred wholly in the face of deliberate opposition in an attempt to force the failure of his administration for poisonous purposes of partisan politics.

Frankly, conditions in the u.s. suck and they do so as a result of popular policies of long standing duration which were touted as promoting economic expansion & the reduction of intrusive government under the aegis of a laissez faire approach to public policy, but which have actually had the effect of transferring inordinate amounts of civil power & influence into the corporate sector and at the expense of overall economic stability and the political, financial, & physical well being of the general population.

My view is the american people as a whole have created this mess. In this they were largely spurred on by private avarice, a preference for delusory ideology over reasonable policies, and their own peculiar mythos of 'american exceptionalism'. Since they created it, in the scientology sense, they are entitled to have it.

But then you and I differ widely with regard to our respective views on responsible approaches to public policy. And unlike yourself, when it comes to humanity I am not an optimist.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Ted]

Re: I see your point.

Hardly, Ted. The simple point is that basic decency implies extending respect for the person, not focus on some imagined 'mixed blood' or 'hybrid' status. The latter is an intentional misdirection from the personhood & diminishment of an individual. Nor is it inappropriate to expect someone who is familiar with the basics of the auditor's code to be able to see that point.

[...]

Mark A. Baker

The focus on mixed blood, hybrid status was not mine. All I stressed is that Obama is not Black. He could have promoted himself as of mixed heritage, but he chose the Black side while frequently disparaging the White side. Those posters who followed up, including yourself, have made race an issue. Obama makes race an issue by choosing sides.

Had Obama the business acumen, intelligence, good-will, and love of country that Herman Cain apparently possesses, I would be right there with Obama. Unfortunately for us all, in Obama none of these qualities are apparent.

 

[Ted]

Re: I see your point.

[...]

Nor is it inappropriate to expect someone who is familiar with the basics of the auditor's code to be able to see that point.

[...]

Mark A. Baker

By your statement I would assume that your experience with the Auditor's Code is limited. It is a fine code in a social setting. It is a fine guideline for an auditor/pc relationship.

However, in an anti-social setting, when someone bears you ill-will, when someone has you as a target, application of the Auditor's Code has limited value. Sometimes it is best if you just walk away leaving that "process" unflat. Sometimes it is best if you step up with force, the only language some people will understand or appreciate.

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: I see your point.

Gee wiz, Mark. You are really stretching this thing out of bounds.

If I had a mulatto daughter it would mean that I loved a Black woman. That love would be invincible, and the daughter a product of that love. There isn't enough time in the universes to take issue with every idiot who walks upright.

How about an analysis of the article I posted on Obama's narcissism? Then to swing it on topic, compare to Hubbard.

Excellent reply Ted. You make a fine point. If you have a mulatto daughter, you have already demonstrated that you love a Black woman. Any man marrying a Black woman and fathering a child with her, knows from the outset that there will be some naysayers who may ridicule him and or his daughter. Any such man is going to be steeled to that fact before the child is even born. Certainly, such a man would not get upset the first time someone refered to his daughter as a mulatto. Ditto for his wife. They would have a bigger game to play than to take offence at the word "mulatto".
Lakey

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Re: I see your point.

By your statement I would assume that your experience with the Auditor's Code is limited. It is a fine code in a social setting. It is a fine guideline for an auditor/pc relationship.

However, in an anti-social setting, when someone bears you ill-will, when someone has you as a target, application of the Auditor's Code has limited value. Sometimes it is best if you just walk away leaving that "process" unflat. Sometimes it is best if you step up with force, the only language some people will understand or appreciate.

In view of the facts that Obama is not a particularly unreasonable individual and neither was he or anyone on the board behaving in a manner threatening to you, how do your remarks appealing to the occasional need for 'an appropriate degree of force' serve as a justification for using a racist epithet in discussing the president's ancestry?

Or rather, perhaps that is a question you would do better not to answer. I give you credit for the tango you've been dancing to justify your remarks so far. Excellent example of 'making yourself right'. Sad to say, not much credit for good sense, or respect & toleration towards others though.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Ted]

Unfortunately, I see your point.

In view of the facts that Obama is not a particularly unreasonable individual and neither was he or anyone on the board behaving in a manner threatening to you, how do your remarks appealing to the occasional need for 'an appropriate degree of force' serve as a justification for using a racist epithet in discussing the president's ancestry?

Or rather, perhaps that is a question you would do better not to answer. I give you credit for the tango you've been dancing to justify your remarks so far. Excellent example of 'making yourself right'. Sad to say, not much credit for good sense, or respect & toleration towards others though.


Mark A. Baker

Your ad hominem goes from veiled to overt. That you won't discuss the subject proposed but choose to flirt around it by trying to make it something else speaks volumes.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Re: Unfortunately, I see your point.

Your ad hominem goes from veiled to overt. That you won't discuss the subject proposed but choose to flirt around it by trying to make it something else speaks volumes.

I'm not the one who introduced racist language into an ongoing thread discussion, Ted. Your political differences with Obama are of no interest to me. Your use of racist invective on the thread I see as problematic.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Ted]

Re: Unfortunately, I see your point.

I'm not the one who introduced racist language into an ongoing thread discussion, Ted. Your political differences with Obama are of no interest to me. Your use of racist invective on the thread I see as problematic.


Mark A. Baker

Oh, I see. YOU were insulted.

Are you of mixed racial parentage?

 

[RogerB]

Re: Unfortunately, I see your point.

I'm not the one who introduced racist language into an ongoing thread discussion, Ted. Your political differences with Obama are of no interest to me. Your use of racist invective on the thread I see as problematic.


Mark A. Baker

Racist invective? ?

I think you stretched the point when you took the Latin word from which the now Anglo word is derived to posit that the use of the English word means you are insulting a person by calling them a mule!

That's really, way too far fetched.

Christ, it is such a "technical" word and so infrequently used that most ordinary non-very well read folks would have trouble defining it! So it can hardly be considered a word of insult or racial invective . . .

In English the word mulatto simply means of mixed blood. So what? Many are proud of it!

Indeed, I read in the press many folks having to fill out the various forms and questionnaires we nowadays are confronted with are miffed because some forms omit the mixed race options and only allow answers of, for example, black, white/Caucasian or Hispanic.

There was a time in this country (USA) when being anything less than pure white was viewed as being a second class person. Indeed, many who were of mixed blood, who could pass for white, did take the option to "pass." I well remember Eartha Kit being asked on "60 Minutes" if she ever considered "passing" . . . she hadn't.

Today, most folks are honored or dishonored for their conduct and who they are, not for any considerations of "blood purity."

And that is as it should be, and it is part of the "healing" this country is progressing through.

As you know, I'm an Ozzie, and I grew up in a society that had none of these considerations about "race." Indeed, one of my best buddies I grew up with that I went back to Sydney to celebrate with recently is full-blooded Chinese. We had a giggle together while chatting about old times and the point I had "the hots" for his younger sister at one time.

I say this in the context that it has been an interesting exercise observing and comparing the US scenario as regards "race" in the 30+ years I've been here versus the Ozzie scene I grew up in.

Rog

 

[lkwdblds]

Another fine post!

Racist invective? ?

I think you stretched the point when you took the Latin word from which the now Anglo word is derived to posit that the use of the English word means you are insulting a person by calling them a mule!

That's really, way too far fetched.

Christ, it is such a "technical" word and so infrequently used that most ordinary non-very well read folks would have trouble defining it! So it can hardly be considered a word of insult or racial invective . . .

In English the word mulatto simply means of mixed blood. So what? Many are proud of it!

Indeed, I read in the press many folks having to fill out the various forms and questionnaires we nowadays are confronted with are miffed because some forms omit the mixed race options and only allow answers of, for example, black, white/Caucasian or Hispanic.

There was a time in this country (USA) when being anything less than pure white was viewed as being a second class person. Indeed, many who were of mixed blood, who could pass for white, did take the option to "pass." I well remember Eartha Kit being asked on "60 Minutes" if she ever considered "passing" . . . she hadn't.

Today, most folks are honored or dishonored for their conduct and who they are, not for any considerations of "blood purity."

And that is as it should be, and it is part of the "healing" this country is progressing through.

As you know, I'm an Ozzie, and I grew up in a society that had none of these considerations about "race." Indeed, one of my best buddies I grew up with that I went back to Sydney to celebrate with recently is full-blooded Chinese. We had a giggle together while chatting about old times and the point I had "the hots" for his younger sister at one time.

I say this in the context that it has been an interesting exercise observing and comparing the US scenario as regards "race" in the 30+ years I've been here versus the Ozzie scene I grew up in.

Rog

Thanks Roger! You have provided a fine summation type of post here, covering the subjects of race, mixed races, how two different societies relate to racial matters plus some comments on the derivations of the word "mulatto". To me, your overview of these matters is objective and enables us to step back and look objectively at the big picture.

I am reminded of a white politician who lost his job in 2009 by using the word niggardly in an address to a mixed race group of people in Washington D.C.. Here is a reference to the event:
White DC Mayoral Staffer Loses Job for Saying "Niggardly" ... Ancient Word Costs Man His Job (01/28/99) ... black colleague by using the word "niggardly" has ...

www.adversity.net/special/niggardly.htmWilliams Aide Resigns in Language Dispute

Here is a definition of the word:

DICTIONARY
niggardly
Definition
nig·gard·ly[ níggərdlee ]ADJECTIVE
nig·gard·li·er comparative
nig·gard·li·est superlative

1. not generous: very reluctant to give or spend anything
2. small or inadequate: very small or inadequate in quantity
ADVERB

DICTIONARY
niggardly
Definition
nig·gard·ly[ níggərdlee ]ADJECTIVE
nig·gard·li·er comparative
nig·gard·li·est superlative

1. not generous: very reluctant to give or spend anything
2. small or inadequate: very small or inadequate in quantity
ADVERB
1. in stingy way: in a miserly or stingy way
nig·gard·li·ness NOUN
Word Usage
Though the etymology of niggardly and niggard remains subject to debate, these words probably have a Scandinavian origin not associated historically with the origin of the offensive word Negro and its related offensive racist slurs, which are derived ultimately from Latin. Niggardly, then, is in no way a racial slur. However, the fact that the word sounds as if it might be one is reason to consider context very carefully before using it.
Thesaurus

Even though it was explained to the Black person demanding that the politician be fired that the word niggardly was a legitimate English word having nothing to do with race, that person still demanded that the politician be fired and the politician did lose his job!!! The one who instigated the firing and still insisted on it once he learned what the word really meant, invoked the reasoning mentioned in the last sentence of the Thesauras article above.

I liken Ted's use of the word mulatto, to the politician's use of the word niggardly in January of 2009 in Washington D.C.. It seems that in current American society, the person who is offended by the use of a word holds the "trump card" in matters of whether or not a word has racial overtones. Even though the person who used the word intended no racial overtones and even showed that the word has none, he still lost his job.

This is 2011 American society in action. I was hoping that we here on this thread could set a higher bar than society in general. I guess I was wrong!

Lakey

 

[RogerB]

Re: Another fine post!

Thanks Roger! You have provided a fine summation type of post here, covering the subjects of race, mixed races, how two different societies relate to racial matters plus some comments on the derivations of the word "mulatto". To me, your overview of these matters is objective and enables us to step back and look objectively at the big picture.

I am reminded of a white politician who lost his job in 2009 by using the word niggardly in an address to a mixed race group of people in Washington D.C.. Here is a reference to the event:
White DC Mayoral Staffer Loses Job for Saying "Niggardly" ... Ancient Word Costs Man His Job (01/28/99) ... black colleague by using the word "niggardly" has ...

www.adversity.net/special/niggardly.htmWilliams Aide Resigns in Language Dispute

Here is a definition of the word:

DICTIONARY
niggardly
Definition
nig·gard·ly[ níggərdlee ]ADJECTIVE
nig·gard·li·er comparative
nig·gard·li·est superlative

1. not generous: very reluctant to give or spend anything
2. small or inadequate: very small or inadequate in quantity
ADVERB

DICTIONARY
niggardly
Definition
nig·gard·ly[ níggərdlee ]ADJECTIVE
nig·gard·li·er comparative
nig·gard·li·est superlative

1. not generous: very reluctant to give or spend anything
2. small or inadequate: very small or inadequate in quantity
ADVERB
1. in stingy way: in a miserly or stingy way
nig·gard·li·ness NOUN
Word Usage
Though the etymology of niggardly and niggard remains subject to debate, these words probably have a Scandinavian origin not associated historically with the origin of the offensive word Negro and its related offensive racist slurs, which are derived ultimately from Latin. Niggardly, then, is in no way a racial slur. However, the fact that the word sounds as if it might be one is reason to consider context very carefully before using it.
Thesaurus

Even though it was explained to the Black person demanding that the politician be fired that the word niggardly was a legitimate English word having nothing to do with race, that person still demanded that the politician be fired and the politician did lose his job!!! The one who instigated the firing and still insisted on it once he learned what the word really meant, invoked the reasoning mentioned in the last sentence of the Thesauras article above.

I liken Ted's use of the word mulatto, to the politician's use of the word niggardly in January of 2009 in Washington D.C.. It seems that in current American society, the person who is offended by the use of a word holds the "trump card" in matters of whether or not a word has racial overtones. Even though the person who used the word intended no racial overtones and even showed that the word has none, he still lost his job.

This is 2011 American society in action. I was hoping that we here on this thread could set a higher bar than society in general. I guess I was wrong!

Lakey

Ya, I grew up with the word "niggardly" in common use. It's part of the lingo is Oz, though I don't recall it being used in England that frequently.

To have ranted about its use as you report, and I do remember the incident here in the US, was such a nonsense and totally mishandled by the press.

Indeed, it was a classic example of a semi-illiterate digging heals in to make another wrong, unable to be corrected. I wouldn't mind betting the dunce was one who then turned around and voted the drug addict felon Marion Barry back into office after his release from jail.

It makes interesting reading to see in the wiki on Barry how much the race issue protected him from the consequences of his misbehavior.

It seems mobs do act nuts whether whities, blackies or mixedies.

Rog

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Re: Unfortunately, I see your point.

Racist invective? ?

I think you stretched the point when you took the Latin word from which the now Anglo word is derived to posit that the use of the English word means you are insulting a person by calling them a mule!

That's really, way too far fetched. ...

Not at all, Roger. The word derives from portugese and stems from heavy portugese involvement in the america's slave trade. It was racist in it's inception and remains so to this day.


Mark A. Baker