SweeTea said:

I do not see your response?

rdhull said:[quote]

Thecherryloon said:

you assume too much in your last paragraph.I don't begrudge anyone a job,I just went to the next interview, I certainly don't think ALL the jobs are being taken by people of colour. As it is now i'm in a position to hire and fire people myself.I have ten employees, only two apart from myself are white.

I count lesbians, gays, jews and muslims among my friends.Does that say anything to you about the kind of person i am? I hope so.


.
[This message was edited Sat Nov 2 15:10:35 PST 2002 by Thecherryloon]

2funkE said:[quote]SweeTea said:[quote]

ian said:

By nastiness you mean asking questions? I'm not justifying any racism, I'm justifying anger. Me nor Mr. Farrakan have anything to do with the facts. And that fact is these perpetrators and recipents of the ANGER are majority white. That makes me racist or Mr. Farrakan racist?

2funkE said:

SORRY THIS IS IT:

My point here is Mr. Farrakan had nothing to do with the fact that systematic racism is mainly perpetrated by whites. How can he control that? He has a right to hate these evil deeds, it is not his fault that they are mainly perpetrated by whites. This is my point.

SweeTea said:[quote]2funkE said:[quote]

SweeTea said:

In all honesty,IMHO, probably. You have to get beyond color and discuss individuals. Demonizing an entire race, or being angry with an entire race based on the actions of a few (hundreds of years ago) is in itself a pretty accurate defination of racism.
All in all, very negative, and only serves too often as justification for a lack of progress.

SweeTea said:

Hating the deeds yes, hating all whites for it, no.
Do you hate the black race because certain members of it sold their own people into slavery like animals?

Can you see how scary and non-productive that type of thinking could be?

I found an interesting article on Mr Farrakan.Please take the time to check it out -

FARRAKHAN AND THE SLAVETRADERS
By JEFF JACOBY
c.1997 The Boston Globe

<


One year ago, just back from his 27-day ``world tour'' of African dictatorships and Middle East police states, Louis Farrakhan held a news conference at the National Press Club in Washington. Why, one reporter asked, did he defend the government of Sudan, an Iran-style Islamic junta that enslaves African natives from the country's southern provinces?

Farrakhan bristled. ``Where is the proof?'' he demanded. ``If slavery exists, why don't you go as a member of the press? And you look inside Sudan, and if you find it, then you come back and tell the American people what you have found.''

Farrakhan has long insisted that Khartoum's grisly traffic in black slaves is merely an unproved rumor. But there is no shortage of eyewitness testimony laying out in skin-crawling detail the atrocities inflicted on the southern Sudanese.

``What usually happens is that Arab armed militias go into the southern villages or the Nuba mountains,'' reported The London Observer in 1995. ``They burn the villages. The men are killed if they don't escape, and the women and children are rounded up ... and taken to the Arab north.''

These women and children are black-skinned and often Christian, unlike their lighter-skinned Muslim captors. The slavery that awaits them is both race- and religion-based, and it is unspeakable: Hard labor in the fields. Domestic servitude. Whipping. Branding. Genital mutilation. Compulsory conversion to Islam. Rape and forced marriage.

Some masters sever their slaves' Achilles tendons, to keep them from running away. Countless African teenagers are impressed into the army, cannon fodder for Khartoum's jihad against the south. ``The government's hands,'' says Macram Gassis, a Sudanese Catholic bishop, ``drip with the blood of innocent people.''

Yet Farrakhan, who routinely invokes 19th-century American slavery, persistently covers up for the perpetrators of 20th-century African slavery. His newspaper, The Final Call, labels the reports out of Sudan a ``Big Lie ... another manipulative device to divide the Black and Arab people in America.'' On a PBS program, Farrakhan's spokesman Akbar Muhammad dismissed evidence of Sudan's slave trade as a Jewish conspiracy. ``I know that the Jewish groups, the Zionists, have a problem with the Sudan.'' Shown footage of young black captives being whipped by Arabs, Muhammad shrugged: ``That's their culture. They'll beat 'em.''

In the year since Farrakhan issued his National Press Club challenge, two major US media outlets rose to meet it. The Baltimore Sun and ``Dateline NBC'' sent several journalists deep inside Sudan. What they reported was harrowing—children ripped from parents at gunpoint, town squares where slaves are distributed like booty, a man shot in the face when for trying to save a child from capture. ``Here in southern Sudan,'' wrote the Sun's Gilbert Lewthwaite and Gregory Kane, ``there can be no doubt that slavery exists.''

For their heart-stopping journalism, Lewthwaite and Kane—the former a white veteran foreign correspondent, the latter a black Baltimore columnist who had never before traveled abroad—may win Pulitzer Prizes. But in the Farrakhan fever swamp, the coverup goes on.

``The Sun is a Zionist Jewish daily,'' ranted The Final Call. ``Reject the slavery propaganda against Sudan. ... Don't let the Zionists get away with damn lies!'' Farrakhan swore that in all his travels to Sudan, no one had told (ital) him (unital) about slavery. ``A lot of what I have been reading when it comes to life in Sudan,'' he declared, ``are vicious lies.''

But the only lies in this tale are those told by Farrakhan. Because for all his denials and demands for ``proof,'' Farrakhan was personally told at least three years ago about the enslavement of black Africans in Sudan.

In telephone interviews last week, two leaders of the south Sudanese resistance recounted their meetings with Farrakhan in the spring of 1994.

``For two or three days, we sat at breakfast every morning,'' said Bona Malwal, a former Sudanese cabinet minister, recalling the week he and Farrakhan spent in Nairobi. ``We talked about the situation in the Sudan. We talked about slavery. It came up very often. He knew blacks in the south were being persecuted. He said he had been told about the slave camps.'' Malwal, now editor of the London-based Sudan Democratic Gazette, said Farrakhan vowed to intercede with the authorities in Khartoum, to ``tell them the way they were treating the south was not right.''

When he later met in Kampala, Uganda, with representatives of the Sudanese People's Liberation Army, Farrakhan was even blunter.

``We talked to him about slavery,'' recalled Steven Wondu, a key SPLA official. ``About the racial issue, the religious issue. I will never forget what he said: `When it comes to a choice between religion or the dignity of the black man'''—i.e., between the Muslim masters or the African slaves—```I will choose my skin.' >From that minute, we took him for a friend.''

But Farrakhan was no friend. To speak out in behalf of Sudan's black slaves would be to forfeit the patronage of Khartoum's Arab dictators. That was a price Farrakhan wouldn't pay. And so, as a million African innocents go on bleeding under the whip, he goes on making excuses for the slavetraders who whip them.
+++

worth defending?

2funkE said:[quote]SweeTea said:[quote]

2funkE said:

I have not demonized anyone. How have I done that. I have only stated the perpetrators and victims of hideous deeds, and their respective racial makeup. That's demonizing? I did not create this situation. I am a victim of racism. BTW, I do not believe all white people are demons. And I have never called anyone here or in any previous threads a racist or a demon. I do not hate white people because their skin is white. I don't even hate them for the hideous crimes perpetrated by some people of the white race. I am not attempting to convert or convince anyone here. I just find it interesting the logic of some who perceived Mr. Farrakan as a racist and was trying to get an understanding of how they came to this conclusion, when Mr. Farrakan is the victim of racism.
But, I see now, it's because he spoke out against these cruel deeds and was branded a racist.

I have tried to provoke thought as to why some people would call Mr. Farrakan a racist IMO, to call another person a racist because they abhor and get angry by the hideous deeds done to them is ludicrious. That's like saying

DON'T TALK ABOUT THE HIDEOUS THINGS DONE TO YOU. IF YOU TALK ABOUT THEM, IF YOU BRING IT TO SOMEONE'S ATTENTION -- YOU ARE A RACIST. JUST FORGET ABOUT IT. FORGET ABOUT THE DEEDS AND NEVER MENTION IT TO ANYONE. ALSO, DO NOT GET MAD EITHER, CAUSE IF YOU GET MAD, YOU ARE RACIST. DO NOT TRY TO ANALYZE OR CATEGORIZE THE PEOPLE WHO DID THESE HIDEOUS THINGS TO YOU. DON'T ASK WHY IT WAS DONE TO YOU OR WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR DOING IT TO YOU, CAUSE IF YOU DO YOU ARE A RACIST. DO NOT PLACE BLAME ON ANYONE WHO DID THESE HIDEOUS THINGS TO YOU, CAUSE IF YOU DO YOU ARE A RACIST. IGNORE WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO YOU IN THE PAST AND WHAT IS HAPPENING TO YOU RIGHT NOW. IT MEANS NOTHING. SWEEP IT UNDER THE RUG AND NEVER LOOK UNDER IT AGAIN. IF YOU LOOK UNDER THE RUG, GET ANGRY, TRY TO RECOGNIZE, ANALYZE OR CATEGORIZE ANY OF THESE HIDEOUS THINGS DONE TO YOU, YOU WILL BE DISCREDITED AS A RACIST! DO YOU UNDERSTAND?

Thecherryloon said:

Then whyu bother mentioniung it if it didnt bother you?



yes...but your posts on racism makes you come off as an asshole..

Thecherryloon said:

Just for the sake of accuracy and clarity, Thecherryloon, firstly everybody has an ethnic background, but if you are suggesting that businesses in England are obliged by law to have a quota of people from certain ethnic backgrounds either in their employ, or at the very least represented at job interview stage, then this is incorrect.

SweeTea said:

I'm afraid I am mis-understanding you here and on previous posts/threads.
Could you clarify something for me?

Who exactly are you angry with now?

You're coming across as having anger/hatred towards all white people. I've highlighted these lines above to demonstrate my point.

I think we can take it as read that those who commit racist acts are of a different race to those acted upon. It may make for less mis-understanding if you limit your use of the term "white" to only when necessary?

langebleu said:

fine.'minority' it is.On your second point,I didn't say 'by law',i meant out of common decency.

I'm assuming you're in England, Did you here that story about that Rastafarian bloke who was refused a job in a department store.He wanted a job in a 'Santa's Grotto' he was refused it on the grounds that "nobody has seen an elf with Dreadlocks"

Who's ever seen an elf?!

he's taking them to a tribunal over it.

I have no problem with a racist or bigoted minded person..they have the right to be racist or bigoted..the only problem I have is when their racist or bigoted views or actions affects another in a negative way.

AbucahX said:

Winna winna winna!!

mcmeekle said:

Answer:

Limit the term "white" to only when necessary like when describing the major of people who have perpetrated the hideous deeds? I thought that's what I did. Are you saying that I should not use "white" in describing these people? What term should I use to decribe them then?

You do know there are black slave traders alive and kicking today? they've always existed, sure, wealthy white people purchased slaves back in the day but never forget some Africans chose to sell their own down the river.

But people either choose to ignore that or pretend it never happened for some reason.
[This message was edited Sat Nov 2 18:22:20 PST 2002 by Thecherryloon]

Thecherryloon said:

fuck them too--it isnt like people are here are condoning that shit..discrimination, racism etc from ANYONE is messed up..wtf? Please stop now.

rdhull said:

Thanks RDhull,couldn't have said it any better.

Thecherryloon said:

OH THIS IS SO TIRED.

First of all, slavery is unjustifiable wherever. But we must avoid these platitudes that obscure very real differences between slavery as practiced in Africa at that time versus the slavery practiced by whites in the Americas.

First of all, slavery in Africa was a social/class designation. Slaves were for the most part prisoners of war from tribal conflicts, and though slaves, they were still considered human beings who could often times rise to the highest position of the slaveholding society. Slaves could be generals in the army, advisors to tribal rulers, translators, etc.

It is VERY possible that those who sold slaves in Africa did not know they were selling into a TOTALLY DIFFERENT system.

Slavery in the Americas as practiced by the Europeans held that the slaves were LESS THAN HUMAN. They were property, and had no human rights whatsoever. No right to self, language, religion, culture, god, family, property, rights, freedoms, etc. This is totally different than what was practiced in Africa.

Like I stated, slavery is condemnable wherever it is practiced. But let us not dismiss the very peculiar evils of slavery as practiced in the Americas simply because Africans participated in it.

SweeTea said:

Oh I'm cool. And what I said is true. If you want to start with who is lazy, let's start with the origin of LAZY. People who did not perform any labor for the riches they reaped.

Spatch cocks in black face offer us pennies (Offer us pennies)
When it's millions and millions upon millions they reap
(When it's millions, when it's millions) (Pluck his eye again!)
How in the world can we call ourselves equal
When their wages outweigh
When their wages outweigh the time that they keep?
(Pluck his eye again!)
And if they stood up and behaved like the humans they're supposed 2
As opposed 2 the way they are not
Then this New Power Soul would not be so soulful
(Then this New Power Soul would not be soulful)
And the water they're in would not be so hot
(And the water would not be so hot)
The exodus has begun (The exodus has begun!)

SweeTea said:

When you say "I do not hate white people because their skin is white." you are saying you hate them for other reasons.
That is how you are coming across. And that's my point, because I know from your other posts that you don't hate white people.
I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. All I'm trying to do is illustrate how you are being perceived, and how that is sometimes the opposite of what you are trying to say.

And yes, I would suggest you use other terms to describe those who committed those hideous deeds. You have used "slave traders" and "lynch mobs" previously. Maybe you could start there? I'm not suggesting you ignore the fact they were predominantly white. On the contrary, but you should elaborate on why their colour is relevent. This would make your point clearer.
You can see from my first paragragh how overuse of the term "white" can lead to mis-interpretation and detract from your argument.

mcmeekle said:

Answer

No I cannot see this based on the answers I've given above.

If there is a misintrepretation or detraction that you feel then you should examine your own reasons for coming to this conclusion. Afterall, as I've said before, I cannot control your perceptions I can only attempt to defend my statements. How you perceive them is totally up to you. Now, I could change my statements to fit your perception, but I'm not going to do that, because you haven't given me a logical reason to. I'm all ears.


[This message was edited Sun Nov 3 2:52:14 PST 2002 by SweeTea]
[This message was edited Sun Nov 3 3:01:10 PST 2002 by SweeTea]

Race Face the music.

Cut me

Cut you

Both the blood is red.