and we both decided that we're just not going to succumb to the fear that we've seen our friends, family and colleagues fall prey to. It just makes you too easy to control.
Good for you. Damn good.
Obama's not going to be raiding anyone's checking account. Rather, he will do what any other administration would do; borrow money. If the market won't provide enough money, the Fed will step in and buy any number of bonds it has to, printing money to do so. This will cause inflation, and a lot of it, so storing wealth in things that aren't dollars is probably a very good idea, but your dollar balances will not disappear.
This isn't Obama, this would be true of any President. McCain would have been even worse, because he wanted to both cut taxes and increase spending. So far, at least, Obama wants to raise them a little on the upper income earners, and increase spending. He'll be a little better, but it's still gonna suck.
I'm glad you're keeping a cool head, buzz. Never a bad idea. 
TheGameguru wrote:What White America failed and still fails to understand about the OJ "victory" was it was far less about OJ and more about Rodney King.. it was in essence "pay back"
I thought their payback was the LA riots?
That was the reaction.. not sure about it being payback.. like most reactions..they pain was directed inwards for the most part.
Racism is a very real and tricky issue in our country.. its difficult as a white male to ever truly understand what it is to be a black male in this country. Its just simply not possible.
Podunk wrote:Re: The Man keeping you down:
I love you.
Careful. Podunk's easy to love, but he'll break your heart, man.
Not ignorant at all. The republican party spent decades using racial issues as a wedge to gain votes. YOu can deny the history all you want, but it's there.
My whole contentious issue was with the word significant. Just so you know. And most groups out there have the vocal, and I mean REALLY vocal part of their group that garners more attention. I think you do a disservice to think this applies primarily to conservatives.
Do we really think that the garish cross dressing transy's in parades are a 'significant part' of the whole gay rights movement?
Do we really think that the Black Panther movement was a 'significant part' of the whole black civil rights movement to this day?
Do we really think that the 'abolish all religion in any public setting' portion of the liberals or agnostics is a 'significant part' of the agnostic or liberal mindset.
Do we really think that the KKK is a 'significant part' of the normal southerners beliefs and lifestyle?
PETA
Greenpeace
Ann Coulter
Al Franken
Jesse Jackson
The examples could go on, and these were off the top of my head examples. All these examples may be the vocal groups, but we do a disservice to say they are representative, or a significant part of their larger groups imho.
Finally, up until Obama took a noble path to speak of hope and unity, the Democrats were very much a party of fear at the national level as well...'unions, they'll cut your wages and outsource your jobs', 'teachers, they'll make you take a test, and if you fail, fire you'; 'blacks, they hate you...really hate you, and want to see you fail...those rich white republicans'; 'immigrants...they want to toss you out of the country, and your family, and cut off all immigration'...and the list goes on.
But I was never naive enough to think that all liberals/Dems think that same way, that only fear will mobilize the voters on election day.
How Obama won on a largely positive course, regardless of a lack of specifics, is why I'm excited for his upcoming presidency.
My whole contentious issue was with the word significant . . . Do we really think that the garish cross dressing transy's in parades are a 'significant part' of the whole gay rights movement?
Odd comparison. You think the number of angry white voters in America are equal to the number of garish cross dressing {transphobic slur}? The garish cross dressing {transphobic slur} vote is tiny. Miniscule. Practically unmeasurable. If there were a lot more of them, however, more politicians would be running around in feather boas drumming up votes. Just like republican leaders have used white resentment to get more votes.
"Significant" doesn't mean "all." It doesn't mean "representative." In this context, it refers to a group of voters within the republican party who respond to political messages intended to whip up anger at minorities. They are part of the republican coalition. If you want to talk about the structure of the democratic party, okay. But that's a different question.
I'm not saying every white republican out there is angry and resentful. The problem for republicans is that they have appealed to that demographic, and that message has helped to push minorities away from the republican party. In this election, exit polls indicate that non-whites made up 27% of the electorate and went heavily for democrats. That's a big deal, election-wise.
A question to Pharacon and others wondering whether they can turn the tables on blacks now: have YOU, personally, voted for that black guy? Somehow I doubt that. Then, Assuming you were ridden by white guilt and shafted by the affirmative action before this day (which I also doubt), what did YOU do to become able to proclaim you freedom of there burdens now? I simply cannot grasp the reason here.
Is submitting to an authority of a man of color this once now is a watershed enough for you to say that not only the history of racial inequality is over, but actually has been reversed?
Racism is not an "I Win" card. And I look forward to the day it can be truly cut from the deck.
So don't react and proceed as though they did not call you a racist. Don't try to prove you are not racist, as that just escalates the issues. Just try to stay on topic.
I worked as a manager in retail for long enough to realize that when some loser calls me a racist for busing him shoplifting, or refusing a bogus return, that it was just a loser making a baseless claim. White people I've busted in the same way just have different lame excuses. Neither represents their race in any way.
I had a white kid trying to use his an EBT card (Food stamps) to buy a bunch of Mountain Dew and Chips. the register decided if items are food automatically, and some stuff doesn't qualify, or it is not in the system. So we are going through all of this BS trying to figure out what is not getting credit. During this time he makes some comment to one of his buddies about how he has basically figured out how to game the system and get this EBT card on the sly. So I just ended the transaction and told him to leave. He called me all kinds of names, blah, blah, blah. If he was black, he would have called me racist.
It doesn't matter. I choose not to be offended by what a loser calls me.
No one that knows me has ever called me a racist. That matters.
You're forgetting the Dixiecrats; the Southern Democrats just about defined racist fearmongering to maintain political power. Modern Republicans are like babes in the kiddie pool in comparison.
The Southern Dixiecrats left the Democratic Party years ago. I, for one, hope they never come back. The Republicans have a problem, though. Since Nixon, they have gotten relied upon the Dixiecrats as a key art of their electoral strategy. The hope for some in the Republican Party would be to cast this group out. But that would leave them very short on electoral votes.
But I believe excising the Dixiecrats at this time could be a bigger boon for the Republicans than they imagine. They could once again court the the black vote, and even bring in many of the more conservative Democrats. I think this is the answer for the Republicans. The question is, who leaves who? Can the Neocons and Dixicrats form their own party, or will the more moderate republicans try to strike out on their own?
I suppose I could retort that "A significant part of the democratic coalition are (not is) unrealistic/naive multi-cultured people."
An hour ago, I could have resisted making this post, but now I'm tired and grumpy. Feel free to skip it as it does not add to the primary discussion.
Perhaps I misunderstand the purpose of your parenthesis in that statement, DeepSea, but I interpret it to be an attempt at correcting the grammar in the post to which you are responding. You, sir, fail at grammar police (sic). The correct subject/verb agreement is, indeed, to use "is" as the verb for the singular subject "(A significant) part." "Of the democratic coalition" is merely a prepositional phrase functioning as an adjective to modify the (again, singular) subject, "part." You can see this illustrated if you remove the prepositional phrase entirely - "A significant part is unrealistic/naive multi-cultured people." This post has been sponsored by the letters "C" and "P" and the number "7". We now return you to you're regularly scheduled discussion.
Note: My hubris portends the likelihood that there will be some sort of grammatical or stylistic error within my post. Consider this a preemptive apology for both.
Don't start pulling synonym lists to argue about. We have distinct words for a reason. On the other hand...
You can say that it goes against 40 years of political history if you'd like, but I'd love to see an impartial source showing that for 40 years a pregnant part of the republican party have been angry/resentful white people who are afraid of minorities.
Strikes me as quite funny, though I am safely out of pummeling range of any significant women.
"Significant" doesn't mean "all." It doesn't mean "representative." In this context, it refers to a group of voters within the republican party who respond to political messages intended to whip up anger at minorities.
Significant
Definition: telling, meaningful
Synonyms: cogent, compelling, convincing, denoting, eloquent, expressing, expressive, facund, forceful, heavy, important, indicative, knowing, meaning, momentous, powerful, pregnant, representative, rich, sententious, serious, sound, suggestive, symbolic, valid, weighty
I just feel that characterizing a large group of people this way is presumptuous and slightly offensive. You can say that it goes against 40 years of political history if you'd like, but I'd love to see an impartial source showing that for 40 years a *insert synonym for significant here* part of the republican party have been angry/resentful white people who are afraid of minorities. I just find it completely absurd. You're not basing this on fact, you're basing it on your perception.
Is there a part of the Republican party on the FAR right that have some fairly ridiculous views that could be characterized this way? Absolutely. But then there are some pretty colorful ways to describe the people on the far left of the Democratic party as well. I wouldn't try claiming that they're a representative sample of the whole party though. It would be a broad overstatement, and it would be fundamentally FALSE in the same manner that your statement is.
Grumpicus: You wound me to the core Sir! Though I cannot deny the cutting effectiveness at which you've wielded your English lesson riposte. However incorrect I may be, I deny the obviousness of your argument! I stand firm screaming "are NOT is" until the English grammar police beat me down and cast me out of Paradise.
I would agree that the Dixiecrats are somewhat of the crack cocaine of the American political process. Everyone knows they are poisonous to the long term health of whichever party holds them, but they are tremendously addictive to the party that has them. The Republicans would be wise to go cold turkey and tell them to go screw themselves just like LBJ did.
I think the main problem is that angry/resentful whites is really only encompassing their political views. They may be happy, productive citizens in every other facet of their lives. But bring up race, religion, and homosexuality and they have a very different outlook.
I agree with Funken, there is a significant portion of the Republican base that fits this mold. Significant in that I meant 20-25%. It may be higher, as I don't see how you can have the reactions we saw at the Palin rallies without a lot of angry/resentful people showing up. That's what was so scary about the Youtube videos that showed the crazies. They didn't look that crazy. But they sounded scary as hell.
Like Funken, I've talked with too many folks, and seen their internet rants, that fit that mold to discount their numbers.
You're not basing this on fact, you're basing it on your perception.
Of course it's my perception. I disagree that it isn't based on facts, but every historical interpretation is guided by individual perception of the world. For 30 years I've read political history, have watched Republican political messaging with my own eyes, and had countless conversations with other white Americans about politics. So naturally I have a perception about what the political situation is here. Do I trust my perception more than I trust your assertion that my view is wrong? Naturally. I'm okay with that.
I think the main problem is that angry/resentful whites is really only encompassing their political views. They may be happy, productive citizens in every other facet of their lives. But bring up race, religion, and homosexuality and they have a very different outlook.
I agree with Funken, there is a significant portion of the Republican base that fits this mold. Significant in that I meant 20-25%. It may be higher, as I don't see how you can have the reactions we saw at the Palin rallies without a lot of angry/resentful people showing up. That's what was so scary about the Youtube videos that showed the crazies. They didn't look that crazy. But they sounded scary as hell.
Like Funken, I've talked with too many folks, and seen their internet rants, that fit that mold to discount their numbers.
I think we're debating about the numbers here but are missing the real problem the GOP has right now. No matter how many or how few of their members share these beliefs, the outside public believes that the entirety of the party is like this. The public perception is that the GOP has turned into the lobby platform for the ultra-conservative white evangelicals. Whether true or false it is a major problem for them.
So will Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton no longer be allowed to play the race card? What do you guys think?
There's nothing I could say that Tim Wise hasn't already. And much more eloquently.
To wit,
One has to wonder what white folks would do if Jackson and Sharpton weren't around; who would we have to divert attention from our own biases? Attacking these two is the default position of white America whenever one of ours does something wrong: "Well what about Jackson? What about Sharpton?" This is then followed by a reminder of the former's "Hymietown" statement, and the latter's involvement in the Tawana Brawley affair.
But even if one accepts the standard white critique of Jackson and Sharpton, the argument nonetheless amounts to a colossal failure to apply "personal responsibility" logic to oneself and one's community. It is yet another attempt by whites to change the subject.
But here's the bigger truth: if white folks are tired of seeing Jackson and Sharpton out front whenever white racism rears its ugly head, there's an easy way to solve that problem. Namely, all we have to do is do the work ourselves! If whites were willing to stand up and unapologetically, and without equivocation, condemn the racism in our community--following the lead of grass-roots folks of color with names far less known than the two men in question--perhaps Jackson and Sharpton wouldn't have to be the ones leading the rally. Maybe they could take a break. Maybe they could get a much-needed and earned vacation. But that's the problem: most whites do nothing in the face of racism. Most of us don't speak up, don't talk back, don't challenge family, friends, colleagues, or anyone else when they engage is racist actions or merely tell racist jokes. We sit back and remain largely silent, or condemn but only with caveats included. No wonder black leaders like Jackson and Sharpton end up being the visible faces of resistance: we aren't showing up at all, so what are they supposed to do?
At the end of the day, it is white silence and collaboration that has always made racism--whether of the personal or institutional type--possible. If whites had, in larger numbers, joined with folks of color to challenge white supremacy, there is no way that such a system could have been maintained. There is no way that racist persons would be able to spew their venom without fear of reprisal, in most cases. They would know that such verbiage, or racist actions would be met forcefully, and that those engaging in such things would be ostracized. But white silence and inaction has given strength to the racists, whether on radio or in corporate offices, or government positions, or police uniforms; it has emboldened them to act out, since they have long had little reason to believe anything would happen. Slaveowners would have been powerless had the whites who didn't own slaves stood up to them and challenged their evil; so too with segregationists, those who lynched thousands of blacks from the late 1800s to the early 60s, and those who engage in discrimination today. The silent and passive collaborators with injustice are just as bad as those who do the deed, and have always been such. And too often, those folks have been us.
Some more recommended reading from Wise:
What Kind of Card is Race? The Absurdity (and Consistency) of White Denial
White Whine: Reflections on the Brain-Rotting Properties of Privilege
And if you can, go out and buy his book 'White Like Me'. In my opinion, it should be required reading for any white American.
The Tim Wise article you linked is just buckets of awesome. I'd read it awhile back but it deserved to be re read.
I did not read the links at the end of your post yet, but appreciate them and will get to them.
My issues with jackson and Sharpton is that I think they do more damage than good. White Folks who don't consider themselves racist (like me...sort've...I think every person in America is racist to a degree) see extreme examples like Sharpton calling for the heads of white college boys when there was plain evidence the girl was lying, Jackson calling Obama "not black enough" and wanting to remove his testicles, etc, and see these men as embarrassing caricatures: like ventriloquist dummies who deserve no more respect than their counterparts Limbaugh or Dobson.
The problem is that the media continues to feed these leeches the blood of the African American anger -- and I am beginning to beleive the media does this to make a profit from these circus acts at the expense of black suffering.
Epic awesome article.
He hit the nail on the head with the force or a sledgehammer. It's part of why I'm so animated about this. Clean your own house before you whine at others.
FSeven wrote:Epic awesome article.
He hit the nail on the head with the force or a sledgehammer. It's part of why I'm so animated about this. Clean your own house before you whine at others.
It's not in our American nature to do that though. As much as we profess to be a "Christian nation", we have never really taken the whole motes and eyes things to heart. We're perfectly okay about condemning other countries for their shortcomings especially if it deflects attention from our own.
Similarly, bringing up the likes of Jackson and Sharpton is done precisely for the same reason: it masks the appalling behavior that comes with racial privilege.
adding useless comment, as is my wont: the white whine article is brilliant..
My issues with jackson and Sharpton is that I think they do more damage than good. White Folks who don't consider themselves racist (like me...sort've...I think every person in America is racist to a degree) see extreme examples like Sharpton calling for the heads of white college boys when there was plain evidence the girl was lying, Jackson calling Obama "not black enough" and wanting to remove his testicles, etc, and see these men as embarrassing caricatures: like ventriloquist dummies who deserve no more respect than their counterparts Limbaugh or Dobson.
I agree, and I think it's depressingly ironic how many of Jackson/Sharpton's greatest detractors agree with and are often even outright fans of the likes of Limbaugh and Dobson.
That Wise's article tries to push the blame of that point of view as failure of white americans may be accurate, but realistically it would be easier to find new figureheads.
Oprah and Obama, for example.
Traditional or not, it's a damed good practice. One that would serve most well.
Man, I can't believe I'm posting inn P&C.
I hear a lot of talk in my filthy skimming of this thread over the 'persecution' and 'victim' angles of the American right.
There is no way we are going to see conservatism without this. In the modern era, conservatives have used 2 main tools against liberal agendas; reichsfiende and neutrality.
A centralizing, unifying enemy who is victimizing the 'good people' of your respective nation is traditional as a conservative backing within a nation state. Look at 19th century Germany, who used Catholics and then the SPD and finally a generation later Jews as an enemy of the state (reichsfiende to quote Bismarck). This in turn would make those good apple pie eating conservatives the victims.
Conservatives also portray themselves as 'above politics'. Its easy enough to find examples of this in modern culture (fair and balanced channel?).
Rather than debating issues, you see many conservatives talk about how they represent the true nation (silent majority) and are above the petty quibbling that liberals are currently engaged in.
I think we're debating about the numbers here but are missing the real problem the GOP has right now. No matter how many or how few of their members share these beliefs, the outside public believes that the entirety of the party is like this. The public perception is that the GOP has turned into the lobby platform for the ultra-conservative white evangelicals. Whether true or false it is a major problem for them.
Sadly, I have no counter argument for the truth you write
But here's the bigger truth: if white folks are tired of seeing Jackson and Sharpton out front whenever white racism rears its ugly head, there's an easy way to solve that problem. Namely, all we have to do is do the work ourselves! If whites were willing to stand up and unapologetically, and without equivocation, condemn the racism in our community--following the lead of grass-roots folks of color with names far less known than the two men in question--perhaps Jackson and Sharpton wouldn't have to be the ones leading the rally. Maybe they could take a break. Maybe they could get a much-needed and earned vacation. But that's the problem: most whites do nothing in the face of racism. Most of us don't speak up, don't talk back, don't challenge family, friends, colleagues, or anyone else when they engage is racist actions or merely tell racist jokes. We sit back and remain largely silent, or condemn but only with caveats included. No wonder black leaders like Jackson and Sharpton end up being the visible faces of resistance: we aren't showing up at all, so what are they supposed to do
I must admit part of my view of the world is through prism'd glasses - being in the military, its not something you routinely deal with...its there, but not a significant part. If someone is a great worker, don't care the color, and if they are an asshole, i also don't care about the color.
That said, most of my friends flat out out call out racism if they see it. I agree that we all have 'racism' by the perception and life we lead, and that fits on all plates, white, black, yellow. But I think it ignores the issue of the likes of Sharpton/Jackson, who I think derive their power and prestige from pushing the 'poor downtrodden colored folk' line of conversation to the max. Of course there are still injustices, and until we stand up and call them out, we cannot move all the way forward. But that requires all sides to do that. Not just white folks calling out the Coulters and Limbaughs, but blacks calling out the likes of Jackson and Sharpton as pure divisive. There are many voices in all communities of reason, and I think we elected one - but for the media and others to simply point to the other angry white man when you have the likes of Jackson/Sharpton is a disservice to all imho.
On a side note - imho it would be nice if blacks moved on from slavery...not forget...don't get me wrong. Never forget, for those that forget history are doomed to repeat it. But the end above discusses the past oppression of slavery. Guess what, i'd say 99% of the US sees and feels how horrid the justice was. But its how the past was. Empires were conquered, races erased, races enslaved, nations destroyed. History is not pretty. But to rewrite history based on the prism of today makes no sense. Accept the past injustices, vow to never let them happen again, push that intolerance be confronted head on. Those are the steps that get us to where we are, and the steps that will put us closer to a race neutral country...where you see the person, not the color or sex.
On a side note - imho it would be nice if blacks moved on from slavery...not forget...don't get me wrong. Never forget, for those that forget history are doomed to repeat it. But the end above discusses the past oppression of slavery. Guess what, i'd say 99% of the US sees and feels how horrid the justice was. But its how the past was. Empires were conquered, races erased, races enslaved, nations destroyed. History is not pretty. But to rewrite history based on the prism of today makes no sense. Accept the past injustices, vow to never let them happen again, push that intolerance be confronted head on. Those are the steps that get us to where we are, and the steps that will put us closer to a race neutral country...where you see the person, not the color or sex.
Easier said than done Pigpen.
First off, I think we should do something we haven't yet done in this country: ask blacks how THEY want something that affects them so much dealt with. Since this country was founded, we whites have been projecting our realities onto every other group in this country, telling them what's real and what's not. If we really want to move past these things, we need to shut up and listen for once.
As Wise says,
But the obvious question is this: if we have never seen racism as a real problem, contemporary to the time in which the charges are being made, and if in all generations past we were obviously wrong to the point of mass delusion in thinking this way, what should lead us to conclude that now, at long last, we've become any more astute at discerning social reality than we were before? Why should we trust our own perceptions or instincts on the matter, when we have run up such an amazingly bad track record as observers of the world in which we live? In every era, black folks said they were the victims of racism and they were right. In every era, whites have said the problem was exaggerated, and we have been wrong.
Unless we wish to conclude that black insight on the matter--which has never to this point failed them--has suddenly converted to irrationality, and that white irrationality has become insight (and are prepared to prove this transformation by way of some analytical framework to explain the process), then the best advice seems to be that which could have been offered in past decades and centuries: namely, if you want to know about whether or not racism is a problem, it would probably do you best to ask the folks who are its targets. They, after all, are the ones who must, as a matter of survival, learn what it is, and how and when it's operating. We whites on the other hand, are the persons who have never had to know a thing about it, and who--for reasons psychological, philosophical and material--have always had a keen interest in covering it up.
It's white privilege that allows us to suggest blacks 'get over' slavery and expect to be taken seriously. No one suggest that Jews 'get over' the Holocaust. I think because we defeated the Germans, we can detach ourselves from their atrocities however when it comes to slavery, because the offenders were Americans and were the founders of this country, we have an inability to separate ourselves from the sins of our fathers.
And remember. The first slave was brought here in 1619. Jim Crow was defeated in the 60's. That's about 40 years ago. Let me say that again; 40 years ago. This isn't ancient history man. Slavery, as bad as it was, was the foundation of the modern day African-American. So many of their family traditions were passed down from their grandparents and great grandparents.
Barack Obama will be inaugurated on the steps of the Capitol building. Steps that were laid by more than 400 African slaves.
National healthcare company Aetna was originally founded to insure slaves. They owe their very existence due to slavery which they profited from. There are dozens of banks and businesses that flourish today which were built on the backs of slaves whose descendants to this day have not seen one penny. Oh, you can bet though if their ancestors owed money, it would fall on their descendants today to pay it off; with interest!
Obama mentioned a 106 year old woman in Atlanta who went to vote. A woman who had experienced slavery. Yes our cute little schoolbooks tell us that slavery ended with Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation in 1865, but it's been documented and evidenced that slavery existed for many years afterwards. After all, when it fell upon slave masters to inform their slaves that they were now free, there were quite a few who zipped their lips and continued on with business as usual.
I'm not sure if you're aware, but during slavery children were often stripped away from their parents and sold to white men sometimes from other states. Families were torn apart. Mothers, brothers, sisters, cousins. In case you hadn't read in another thread, I'm white and my wife is black. She acts as her family's historian. She's been trying hard to trace her family roots. So far she has only been able to trace her mother's mothers' lineage back to Africa. The rest of her family tree stops at a dead wall in 1860. African Americans know this as the 'Wall of 1860'. You see, in 1860, the Federal Government decreed that all slaves were to be claimed by slaveowners by names and approximate age. Prior to that, slaves were claimed on Census reports as chattel. They were listed alongside livestock, crops, etc. So prior to 1860, you may have seen a slaveowners Census report listing: Cattle - 20 head, wheat - 1,000 bushels, slaves - 24. No names. No identities. Just numbers. Assets. Property. Their very humanity stripped. Even their names were stripped and they were given 'good Christian names'.
Want to know the way my wife was able to trace her mothers line? Because my wife's mother's maiden name was the surname of the white man who owned their ancestors. My wife, after she hit this Wall of 1860, found out more information by looking at the records of the slaveowner in South Carolina who owned them.
So to suggest that African Americans just 'get over' slavery is incredibly insensitive and to be honest, downright offensive. Most African Americans have no choice but to hang onto slavery because it's the only way they can trace family lineage. I still hear stories of African Americans who, while researching their lineage, come across records that they have a great aunt or great uncle living in the other side of the country due to the slave master splitting up their family and selling them off to other men. There are black family reunions that go on to this day where first cousins meet for the first time.
Sorry if this post is disjointed. It's late and folks like Pigpen get my blood boiling.
When I wake up 3:00 in the morning and see my wife sitting at the computer, with only the light from the monitor illuminating her face and reflecting off the tears pouring out of her eyes as she scans through Census reports, old newspaper reports (there's actually a town in Maryland named after my wife's great-grandfather who was the last black man lynched in America - she has a black and white photo of him hanging from a poplar tree with white men, women, and children standing around like they're displaying a trophy), documents of the descendants of plantation owners who own a large chunk of South Carolina and are wealthy beyond measure while the descendants of the slaves they owned who live in the same town their parents were enslaved in and struggle to make ends meet, and dozens of other assorted documents as she tries to fill that hole inside of her to discover WHO she is and WHERE she came from, it tears my heart out. You see, I'm first generation American. My mother came on a boat from Austria and my father's family came from France and Italy. I can trace my lineage back over 400 years. I used to take that for granted.
So sorry if I get real upset by folks who suggest blacks just need to get over slavery. I'm really straining to not devolve into a expletive rich attack on you Pigpen, however I'll just leave you a word of advice I hope you will take. If you're not black, don't talk about anything related to black folks because you are speaking from a position of vast lack of knowledge. I would highly recommend reading some James Baldwin, Michael Eric Dyson, Tim Wise, Mab Segrest, and WEB DuBois. Just whatever you do, don't try to force your reality onto an African American. Let them tell you when they're ready to lay the past to rest.
Stuff.
Seconded. I have to admit, hearing white people tell me to "get over it", when the can trace their family history, when they know their last name is their family's and not one assigned to them, when my ancestors helped build this country and never got any recognition for their toiling...
...there's a way to move on, past slavery, past segregation and Jim Crow. But "Get Over It" ain't it. Like FSeven said, we don't tell Jews to "Get Over" the Holocaust, why do I suddenly have to ignore my family, my fellow's history. I don't argue that we should be an ultimate arbiter of race, but I think it's more than slightly disingenuous to say that the U.S. has done everything it could to move past the issue and that it's only Blacks holding the country back. I say this because every time I hear "Get Over It" expressed, it's in terms of treating slavery and its impact (the following 100 years after its abolition) like the Hawley-Smoot Tariff. Something that happened, ignore the lasting effects, shut up, don't talk about it, don't Female Doggo.
boogle's right. Further, we're teetering on the brink of succumbing to that psychosis on a national level.
48%, people. 48%.
Pages