Rahm Emanuel uses insult "retarded"

[DetroitCity313]

Duane, there are varying levels of hatred, bullying, intimidation, racism. All racism is not equal. But we had people claim Irish discrimination in America is equal to the holocaust, so I think any further discussion on this is futile. If you believe that, I think you either have no sense of history or no common sense.

[Duane B. Sims]

Originally Posted by chasfh

Are you making this up? Or are you going to provide actual proof of this?

No, I'm not making it up.

http://www.commoncore.org/_docs/CCre...tillatrisk.pdf

That took all of two seconds to find. I'm sure I can find other examples if you wish.

And what does this have to do with what I said, anyway?

You said, "every month is white history month." And that's not true. History isn't being properly taught, black or white. So I say let's start teaching history, period. I hate segregating black history, as if it's something seperate but unequal. Black leaders lament the fact that nobody knows who performed the first open heart transplant. Well, hell, nobody knows who signed the Declaration of Independence, either.

[sub rosa]

stereotyping based on race, gender, religion - it's all bad. nobody should do it. to divide it up on a spectrum of badness is pointless.

[chasfh]

Originally Posted by Duane B. Sims

First, the bolded part: Are we to shrug off injustices or indignities because those affected are ... minorities?

Secondly, as I said before: there are a lot of predominantly black neighborhoods in the USA, which means in those neighborhoods is a minority of white kids. I doubt it's a "few isolated white kids." I bet the number of whites who live in predominantly black areas is in the hundreds of thousands, at least.

The word isn't important. What is important is how that word is used. Whether it's "honky" "white boy" or "cracker," if the word is used to humiliate and demean someone, history makes no difference whatsoever.

In terms of what? Scale? So, again, because those affected are a minority, they don't matter? If that's the case, then let's stop worrying about blacks, since they also are in the minority?

If not, then what's the cutoff point where we stop caring about a particular group's feelings?

This is all very interesting and academic and abstract. But there is still the overarching question of scale.

I don't know what the mathematical cut-off point that you're looking for is, but I do know this: the history and experience, trials and tribulations of African-descended people in this part of the world for the last 400 years is, in terms of scale, far, far, far greater than those of any group of European-descended people encompassing any circumstance or length of time in this country. That's just common sense, and it's not close to any cut-off point you want to establish for your poor white kids in black majority neighborhoods.

[Duane B. Sims]

Originally Posted by DetroitCity313

Duane, there are varying levels of hatred, bullying, intimidation, racism. All racism is not equal. But we had people claim Irish discrimination in America is equal to the holocaust, so I think any further discussion on this is futile. If you believe that, I think you either have no sense of history or no common sense.

Here's what I believe: it's no less odious if a black guy tries to humiliate a white guy with words than if a white guy does it. That's my whole point. Yeah, there have been some incredible injustices perpetrated on black people throughout this country's history. Nobody with any sanity would argue that this is a good thing.

But right now, I'm not going to give a black guy who tries to put me down a free pass because his grandpa couldn't drink out of the same drinking fountain as my grandpa. Sorry, I'm just not going to do it. I judge people by the content of their character, not the history of what happened to those of a similar hue.

[Duane B. Sims]

Originally Posted by chasfh

This is all very interesting and academic and abstract. But there is still the overarching question of scale.

I don't know what the mathematical cut-off point that you're looking for is, but I do know this: the history and experience, trials and tribulations of African-descended people in this part of the world for the last 400 years is, in terms of scale, far, far, far greater than those of any group of European-descended people encompassing any circumstance or length of time in this country. That's just common sense, and it's not close to any cut-off point you want to establish for your poor white kids in black majority neighborhoods.

So, again, you whip out the scorecard. And those who have the highest numbers of oppressed, or the most years of oppression, win your sympathy. The minority, in your judgement, doesn't count. Am I reading this right? I mean, your "overarching question of scale" is another way of saying ... scorecard.

[DetroitCity313]

Originally Posted by Duane B. Sims

Really? Then how come a significant number of kids graduate from high school and can't tell you what decade WWII took place in, or who Thomas Jefferson was?

Here's what I'd like to see: start teaching kids history, black and white. Teach them about George Washington and George Washington Carver. Don't segregate it.

The point is what is mostly taught in a class on American history is about white Americans. It is about Washington, Adams,, Lincoln (all the presidents essentially), Jefferson, Franklin, Edison, Wright Brothers, etc. You cannot deny most of American history classes focus on white men. Not white women, not black women, not black men, certainly not Asian Americans, or others, mostly white America.

Whether the kids know history well isn't the issue, it is that at best the black Americans that are mentioned are MLK, Rosa Parks in Feb. for black history month. The rest of the time is generally spent on white Americans. I want history classes to include ALL Americans, and for history to not be from only the perspective of elite white men, but also lower class and middle class minorities and whites.

[DetroitCity313]

Originally Posted by Duane B. Sims

Here's what I believe: it's no less odious if a black guy tries to humiliate a white guy with words than if a white guy does it. That's my whole point. Yeah, there have been some incredible injustices perpetrated on black people throughout this country's history. Nobody with any sanity would argue that this is a good thing.

But right now, I'm not going to give a black guy who tries to put me down a free pass because his grandpa couldn't drink out of the same drinking fountain as my grandpa. Sorry, I'm just not going to do it. I judge people by the content of their character, not the history of what happened to those of a similar hue.

Who is asking you to give anyone a free pass?

[Duane B. Sims]

Originally Posted by sub rosa

stereotyping based on race, gender, religion - it's all bad. nobody should do it. to divide it up on a spectrum of badness is pointless.

Thank you, sir. Nicely put.

[Duane B. Sims]

Originally Posted by DetroitCity313

The point is what is mostly taught in a class on American history is about white Americans. It is about Washington, Adams,, Lincoln (all the presidents essentially), Jefferson, Franklin, Edison, Wright Brothers, etc. You cannot deny most of American history classes focus on white men. Not white women, not black women, not black men, certainly not Asian Americans, or others, mostly white America.

Whether the kids know history well isn't the issue, it is that at best the black Americans that are mentioned are MLK, Rosa Parks in Feb. for black history month. The rest of the time is generally spent on white Americans. I want history classes to include ALL Americans, and for history to not be from only the perspective of elite white men, but also lower class and middle class minorities and whites.

We agree. Let's scrap Black History Month and start teaching all history. I'm down with that.

And, by the way, when we teach about black history, let's not discriminate. In addition to teaching about Rosa Parks, also teach about Claudette Colvin. You don't hear much about her during Black History Month. I guess some black history is more important than others.

Colvin was the real heroine in the Birmingham bus struggle; when Parks came along, she had the entire weight of the Civil Rights Movement behind her. Her refusal to give up her seat was a staged media event, and with the world watching, and reporters and photographers everywhere, there was less of a chance anything bad would happen to her than when Colvin did it. That little girl stood up for herself and took a real chance of getting lynched. And yet we hear next to nothing about her, compared with Parks.

[Duane B. Sims]

Originally Posted by DetroitCity313

Who is asking you to give anyone a free pass?

If you agree, then, that calling someone white a bad name, or making fun of them on TV is bad, then we're in agreement.

If you whip out a scorecard and say, "yeah, but blacks have been treated even worse," that's when I say screw history.

[chasfh]

Originally Posted by Duane B. Sims

No, I'm not making it up.

http://www.commoncore.org/_docs/CCre...tillatrisk.pdf

That took all of two seconds to find. I'm sure I can find other examples if you wish.

First of all, when you make statements purporting to be facts, the burden of proof is on your to deliver the citation, not on the recipient to verify your statement.

Second of all, it took me all of two minutes to determine that the very report you cite here to support your statements not only doesn't contemplate students knowledge of what decade World War II took place, but it actually refutes your statement that a significant number of kids graduating from high school don't know who Thomas Jefferson was. This report confirms that 87% of the kids surveyed identified Jefferson as the author of the Declaration of Independence.

You said, "every month is white history month." And that's not true. History isn't being properly taught, black or white. So I say let's start teaching history, period. I hate segregating black history, as if it's something seperate but unequal. Black leaders lament the fact that nobody knows who performed the first open heart transplant. Well, hell, nobody knows who signed the Declaration of Independence, either.

You're addressing a completely different issue than I am. You're complaining about the how. I am addressing the what.

And given your inability to properly back up your World War II and Thomas Jefferson statements, I can't really get on board with you when you say things like "nobody knows who signed the Declaration of Independence". You're clearly just saying stuff, and if you want to strengthen your credibility, you'll need to change this strategy.

[DetroitCity313]

Originally Posted by Duane B. Sims

You're hung up on a word. Yeah, black and hispanic comedians regularly make disparaging jokes about white people still. You got me on the "h" word. It's outdated from the 70s. Instead we get Martin Lawrence's violently racist standup routine, or a movie called "White Men Can't Jump." Which is fine, and I can accept that as a joke, as long as a filmmaker can also make a movie called "Black Men Can't Swim" without fear of being picketed. And we both know that could never happen.

Racist or offensive movies that achieved success and were not especially picketed:

The Love Guru- Every stereotype of Indians in one movie, by a huge hollywood star
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom- Indians eat brains and hearts
Rambo - First Blood Part II
Rules of Engagement- Arabs hate America
Traffic- White girl sleeps with big black, drug dealing boyfriend and gets trapped in the ghetto
Me, Myself and Irene- Ghetto kids, every stereotype
Billy Madison- Big, black maid who is stupid and horny
Jungle 2 Jungle- Just look at the name
Bringing Down the House- Loud, fun, yet ignorant black woman with attitude
The Last Samurai- White man saving natives who can't help themselves
Ace Ventura- When Nature Calls- Ah yes, white man mocking native culture again and saving it from itself
The Green Mile- Big black buffoon with no sense of intelligence or mental strength
Dangerous Minds- Little white woman does what no minority can and saves brown students from their horrible lives
Rob Schneider movies- Yes, all of them
Transformers- Black robots with grills, bling and illiterate. Beautiful


Want children's movies to indoctrinate racism? Well then, Walt Disney is your guy.

Sebastian from The Little Mermaid, a crab with a Jamaican accent who preaches laziness and the negatives of finding a job.

The Jungle book: All of the animals have British accents. Who doesn't? Of course, the monkeys with "black" voices who are loud, and speak jibberish.

The Siamese Twins from Chip n' Dale Rescue Rangers- Chinese stereotypes

The Indians from Peter Pan

[DetroitCity313]

Originally Posted by Duane B. Sims

If you agree, then, that calling someone white a bad name, or making fun of them on TV is bad, then we're in agreement.

If you whip out a scorecard and say, "yeah, but blacks have been treated even worse," that's when I say screw history.

It is bad. I don't use those words and I don't say those things about white people.

I also think the word honkey carries less weight in this world than the N word. You can't divorce a word from its past and say "its over" and assume it is then over.

No scorecard, just history and common sense.

[DetroitCity313]

Originally Posted by Duane B. Sims

We agree. Let's scrap Black History Month and start teaching all history. I'm down with that.

And, by the way, when we teach about black history, let's not discriminate. In addition to teaching about Rosa Parks, also teach about Claudette Colvin. You don't hear much about her during Black History Month. I guess some black history is more important than others.

Colvin was the real heroine in the Birmingham bus struggle; when Parks came along, she had the entire weight of the Civil Rights Movement behind her. Her refusal to give up her seat was a staged media event, and with the world watching, and reporters and photographers everywhere, there was less of a chance anything bad would happen to her than when Colvin did it. That little girl stood up for herself and took a real chance of getting lynched. And yet we hear next to nothing about her, compared with Parks.

Uhhh, you are are proving my point. "we hear next to nothing about her" because we don't teach black history. We teach MLK and Rosa and stop there. The rest of the time is spent teaching about elite whites.

[DetroitCity313]

And regarding comedians..arguably the biggest radio personality in the country (Howard Stern) has at least one resident racist on his show at all times and makes caricatures of all races. So yeah, its not unheard of from either sides.

[Melody]

Originally Posted by DetroitCity313

Uhhh, you are are proving my point. "we hear next to nothing about her" because we don't teach black history. We teach MLK and Rosa and stop there. The rest of the time is spent teaching about elite whites.

Must be a northern thing. I attended elementary school in the sixties, high school in the seventies, and we learned about Crispus Attucks, Harriet Tubman, Frederick Douglas, and others. On into high school, Dred Scott, Charles Drew, and others were part of the curriculum.

MLK they didn't really need to teach about because he was current events rather than history.

[DetroitCity313]

Originally Posted by Melody

Must be a northern thing. I attended elementary school in the sixties, high school in the seventies, and we learned about Crispus Attucks, Harriet Tubman, Frederick Douglas, and others. On into high school, Dred Scott, Charles Drew, and others were part of the curriculum.

MLK they didn't really need to teach about because he was current events rather than history.

Well, you are right on Tubman. She is incorporated into many classrooms, especially younger grade levels. But at this point, most curriculums include little about Malcolm X, The Black Panthers, SNCC, CORE, etc.

[Melody]

Originally Posted by DetroitCity313

Well, you are right on Tubman. She is incorporated into many classrooms, especially younger grade levels. But at this point, most curriculums include little about Malcolm X, The Black Panthers, SNCC, CORE, etc.

Well, since I'm from the generation when Malcolm X and the Black Panthers were current events, my recollections of them really aren't all that positive. History has glossed over a lot relative to these, and I can remember when they were in strong opposition to MLK's mission and message.

[pfife]

Originally Posted by sub rosa

stereotyping based on race, gender, religion - it's all bad. nobody should do it. to divide it up on a spectrum of badness is pointless.

No it isn't.

[Oblong]

Why should kids learn about the Black Panthers?

[DetroitCity313]

Originally Posted by Oblong

Why should kids learn about the Black Panthers?

Because they were a significant part of America's history. Why shouldn't they?

[smr-nj]

significant?

No, I don't think so.

[Melody]

Originally Posted by Oblong

Why should kids learn about the Black Panthers?

Maybe they need to be taught the truth about the Black Panthers. Too many kids grow up today learning a sanitized and rationalized history of this group.

I'd rather mine be studying the Tuskegee Airman, Dr. Charles Drew, Vivien Thomas and others who made significant positive contributions to our society, and for my children to be appalled by the injustice these experienced while at the same time inspired by their intellect, bravery and innovativeness.

PS: I had never even heard of Vivien Thomas until I caught "Something the Lord Made" on HBO. Remarkable story. It'll make you cry if you have a heart.

[Oblong]

Originally Posted by DetroitCity313

Because they were a significant part of America's history. Why shouldn't they?

there's a finite amount of time that kids have to learn history in school. I wouldn't waste it on those guys.

[billms]

Originally Posted by Oblong

so if a non Jewish person rips me off by selling me a necklace for $100 that's not real gold, and I say "He jewed me", that's ok since it wasn't a Jewish person I'm talking about?

Ok chief.

No. However - however if a guy with a big nose rips you off and you say a guy with a big nose ripped you off thats ok.

Got it junior?

[sub rosa]

Originally Posted by DetroitCity313

Racist or offensive movies that achieved success and were not especially picketed:

your mother's an astronaut!

[pfife]

Originally Posted by chasfh

First of all, when you make statements purporting to be facts, the burden of proof is on your to deliver the citation, not on the recipient to verify your statement.

qft

that's not a comment about this specific conversation, but in general.

[Oblong]

Originally Posted by billms

No. However - however if a guy with a big nose rips you off and you say a guy with a big nose ripped you off thats ok.

Got it junior?

Who you callin' Big Nose?

[pfife]

Palin not treating Limbaugh and Beck similarly to Rahmbo isn't doing her any favors.

[ewsieg]

Originally Posted by pfife

Palin not treating Limbaugh and Beck similarly to Rahmbo isn't doing her any favors.

Palin opening up her mouth generally doesn't do her any favors.

[pfife]

Originally Posted by ewsieg

Palin opening up her mouth generally doesn't do her any favors.

rife with entendres

[sub rosa]

Originally Posted by pfife

rife with entendres

yes, and she's probably pretty good (for a white girl).

[djhutch]

Originally Posted by Oblong

Who you callin' Big Nose?

One more time mate, & I'll take you to the ..... cleaners.

[chasfh]

Greatest Monty Python movie in history, and not by a whisker by any means.

[Oblong]

I like Holy Grail better but that's because it's more slapstick. I can literally pick a scene and watch it and laugh hysterically, then stop. Life of Brian isn't structured that way. But it's still top notch.

I can use a Python line in almost every thread I read on a message board. That's what I love about them. They apply to everything.

[chasfh]

Just reading through some of the comments made after 300pm yesterday, it seems a lot of posters would like only certain portions of black history taught in schools. They would like schools to teach about MLK Jr., the Tuskegee Airmen, Claudette Colvin, George Washington Carver, Crispus Attcuks, Harrriet Tubman, and others. On the other hand, they would like to limit academic exposure to, or at least present in negative judgmental terms, a group that includes Malcolm X, The Black Panthers, SNCC, CORE, Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin and others.

What is the difference between these two groups of people? To my view, it appears that the former group includes black people who tried to get along in the white world on white people's terms, or tried to effect change in very quiet ways without raising any ruckus, and hope their efforts are noticed by a patronizing white society so they can be held up as exceptional paragons to which the black race should be expected to aspire. On the flip side, the latter group sought to create change for the black race immediately by confrontation, often loudly and sometimes even violently, and irrespective of the wishes of how white people would prefer they proceed.

Both groups were important components of the history of black people in America, and if you really look at it fairly, since both groups had significant impacts on history, both should be dealt with at length. Yet some posters here would want to teach the youth of our country, both black and white, about only the former group.

What's that all about?

[chasfh]

Originally Posted by Oblong

I like Holy Grail better but that's because it's more slapstick. I can literally pick a scene and watch it and laugh hysterically, then stop. Life of Brian isn't structured that way. But it's still top notch.

I can use a Python line in almost every thread I read on a message board. That's what I love about them. They apply to everything.

Holy Grail is a great film in and of itself. What makes Brian a cut above is, not only are the jokes and bits first rate on the level of Grail, but the conceptual continuity is far tighter, and it has an edgier point of view, which I always appreciate.

[Melody]

Originally Posted by chasfh

Both groups were important components of the history of black people in America, and if you really look at it fairly, since both groups had significant impacts on history, both should be dealt with at length. Yet some posters here would want to teach the youth of our country, both black and white, about only the former group.

What's that all about?

It depends upon the age group we're talking about, and what the content and point of the lesson is. If anything, the violence contributed to racial disunity. Malcolm X, I suppose, could be taught as a tragic figure. The Weathermen, I suppose, could also be said to have impacted history. But I wouldn't say that their "contribution" was a positive either, and I wouldn't want them taught as role models.

Not sure how old you are, but I'm of the generation when these were current events at school rather than history, and the Black Panther leadership was calling out Dr. King as an Uncle Tom. And I was living in a culture that had been totally integrated since the 1940s where we saw no necessity to fight each other; we were on the same side fighting the Viet Cong, the Russians, etc. because we were all Americans. The rest of the country just needed to catch up.

[chasfh]

Originally Posted by Melody

It depends upon the age group we're talking about, and what the content and point of the lesson is. If anything, the violence contributed to racial disunity. Malcolm X, I suppose, could be taught as a tragic figure. The Weathermen, I suppose, could also be said to have impacted history. But I wouldn't say that their "contribution" was a positive either, and I wouldn't want them taught as role models.

Melody, do you believe that when history is being taught to children at school, it should be done with a point of view? Should we be telling them who's the good guy and who's the bad guy? Should we be teaching the children who they should be cheering for and booing? Or should we be trying to teach the children with the goal of objectivity, imparting to them the people and the dates, and events and their causes and the effects, based only on verifiable facts?