View Full Version : O-Reilly should just die already!
Alia_of_the_Knife
09-27-2007, 01:02 PM
I see no reason for this thread or any form of civil discourse to be shut down.
I also appreciate the tone you've taken by trying to discuss this on an intellectual
plane.
Although you obviously disagree, I join with Stanley Crouch, Juan Williams, Walter Williams, the late Barry White and many others who see rap and hip-hop as having done more harm than good. Please don't compare it to Jazz. Not when it's an art form (?) primarily designed for people who "can't sing ; write music or play an instrument" - Barry White. Not when it worships and glorifies violence , anarchy and the very MISOGYNY you complain of. Not when it relies on disgusting
and vulgar language including but not limited to the "N" word.
Regardless of WHO invented it ; who perpetuated the term "nappy" ? Why was it
"acceptable" for black folk to describe other Black people as " nappy-headed" ?
I agree it's neither nice nor polite and never defended Imus's use of the word.
Nor have I even tried to excuse or explain away for a nano-second his use of the
"H" word. You are 100% correct about the origins and history of both terms and I
politely say : "SO WHAT ? " Why is ANYONE using them ? Why isn't ANY use of
vulgar and degrading language wrong ?
The strangest thing you've had to say appears to link the CURRENT use of the
"N" word by Blacks to "White Supremacy" from the past. The question, the only question afaic is WHO is telling Black folk TODAY ; HERE ; NOW ! to use a word originally designed to refer to people thought, at the time it originated, to be less than human ?It isn't White folk. It isn't even the big bad white record company execs. Not any more. You don't hear the "N" word in Springsteen's lyrics.
Who was it that popularized "Prison Fashion" ? It wasn't Tommy Hilfiger.
Who is infecting the Black and Latin communities with Sicilian style "Omerta" ? It isn't Francis Ford Coppola.
Who has romanticized "gang culture" ? Not Jimmy Cagney.
Who jumps on fellow Blacks for acting or talking "White" ? It ain't Warren Buffet. Or Jimmy Buffet for that matter.
In short, I respectfully suggest that blaming past racism for current problems be shelved until AFTER all the self-inflicted wounds have been cleaned and dressed.
Good post, but you are talking about many layers of issues in which some are interrelated to another and others are not. I also never said that you defended Imus and pretty much agreed with you on this
I thought what he said was stupid and outrageous and he was taken to task for it, with justice. and pretty much the advertising execs did what they needed to do to take care of that.
What I am trying to say and have been mentioning is that there are a LOT of social-conscious blacks who are working against those very things that you mentioned. There have been campaigns against misogynist lyrics in hip-hop for decades. (Such as the example I gave in my second post about Spelman or the recent burying of the N-word which I thought was more than a little corny but still had a point http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/09/national/main3032635.shtml.) At the same time, I wouldn't paint all hip-hop with a broad brush. There are many different types of hip hop. There is socially conscious hip hop, gangsta hip hop, but probably the most common is the commercialized hip hop drivel that is on the radios. (I don't care for any commercialized music period). I think there is a lot of confusion on popular youth culture and things that are pathological. They are not necessarily the same thing.
There is also a very fine line of where does art (something that I wouldn't call commercial hip-hop which is mostly sold to white kids in the suburbs anyway) reflect life and when does life reflect art? I would suggest that many of the problems you listed were already issues before the advent of hip-hop and that blaming hip hop for social ills is too short sighted.
I have also noticed that when many people talk about black people, they are mostly refering to blacks under the age of 25. Not blacks my parents or grandparents age. My parents would pop me hard on the mouth for using any type of foul language and I wouldn't want to imagine what my grandparents (may they rest in peace) would do. There is a greater acceptance for all types of foul language in today's era (with young girls and women quick to call each other slut, bitch, and cunt) than there has ever been. Sometimes it is used affectionatly, sometimes not. But I think it reflects a greater societal problem of a lack of respect in general. People don't respect their parents, their "friends", their bodies, education, or hard work across the board.
And viewing things such as dark skin and nappy hair as abnormal or inferior is a direct by-product of white supremacy. The whole "black is beautiful" movement of the 60s did try to assuage that but it is still around. I know a lot of native Africans (I have an uncle by marriage from Ghana, my boyfriend's parents are from the Senegal and Gambia and he is Mandingo, and I have also spent time in Africa) and they really don't have half the hang ups that many African Americans have. The reason why Africans have less hang ups about it is that they didn't have as much direct contact with white supremacy. My father nearly looks white (his dad was half native american and half irish) so I have rather longish hair and I can't count to you the number of times as a kid (and even now) black people tell me I have such "pretty hair". I absolutely can't stand it and it's something that black people definatly have to work on. I am not using white supremacy as an "excuse" but you need to know how something is caused and then handed on from generation to generation to get at a solution.
Also none of my posts were saying that blacks are not experiencing a lot of problems, in fact we are, but my point was that a lot of the attitudes of black women (being lacivious, being prostitutes, being ugly) didn't start with black men but started with white men. And that blacks have sadly adopted these notions, not the other way around as you were trying to make it seem with Imus.
Also Eric, I want to add one more point before I forget. But I can tell you that as a black stripper working in mostly white strip clubs that many white men expect MORE out of a black stripper than a white one. Too many white men think that ALL black strippers are prostitutes. These attitudes have been around for hundreds of years and didn't just start with the advent of BET videos.
Eric Stoner
09-27-2007, 01:05 PM
This is GREAT ! No. I'm serious. You and I are literally doing a classic Socratic/ Hegelian intellectual synthesis whereby through a continual exchange of thoughts we narrow any disagreements and come to substantial agreement. And I submit that you and I ARE in substantial agreement.
Aside from the inane music sic. or more particularly the doggerel verse lyrics with the nasty language there is a whole culture surrounding hip hop and rap that has a lot of negative and destructive elements to it. In other words, if it were just the "music" even with use of the "N" word and even with the misogyny, I think most folks could and would tolerate it. Not like it. Not condone it. But learn to live with it . Unfortunately , hip-hop is just one part of a larger element helping to comprise current AMERICAN Black life and culture especially among inner-city youth that on balance is provably negative and self-destructive. Afaic, whatever positives there may be in the whole gangbanger milieu are literally flowers growing on a manure pile. So I say"Fine, yes this is good or there's nothing wrong with that so TRANSPLANT IT to a more positive environment and let it grow."
As far as your personal experience is concerned I understand what you are saying but you can see variants of the same thing elsewhere in the world. There are clubs in the D.R. and Venezuela that currently mimic how it used to work in pre-Castro Cuba :If you look" Black" or "African" you can't get in. There's no colonial "massa" involved. On the other hand you can go to Brazil and they are much more amalgamated and integrated than any place I've ever been and have some of the most beautiful women I've ever seen. I travel to Canada a lot where they have both native born and immigrant Black populations and they do NOT, by and large, have the same problems to the same degree in their black communities as we do in the U.S. Canada NEVER had slavery and their native born blacks went there from the U.S. starting in 1776 to escape slavery and they NEVER had Jim Crow so your "Historical white supremacy" argument is springing a leak.
I don't know and would be curious to learn how Black self-perception is today in South Africa. Under apartheid "COLORED" was different legally and socially than "AFRICAN" and hair straighteners and skin lighteners were big sellers. If anyone knows I'd appreciate their chiming in.
francescadubois
09-27-2007, 01:43 PM
Alia, I hear what you're saying. But the truth of the matter is no matter how the past has affected our culture over the years, the black community should know better by now. Black men should know that it is unacceptable to disrespect black women, but our culture is so destructive (yes, I said it, our culture is destructive at this point in time) that many IN the black community promote, encourage, and coddle these "men" for their behaviors. I don't care what anyone says, no one disrespects black women like black men. NOBODY. MANY of them are disrespectful as all hell, but if you look them in the eye and ask them to repeat what they just said (if you say it in a proper voice), they'll straighten up real quick and speak like they have some f*cking sense. WE don't hold them accountable. WE need to give them a swift kick in the ass. It really is our problem and instead of going ape shit (this isn't referring to you, just in general) over something idiotic a talking head says on his corny ass show, we need to be investing all this energy into taking back our community, sans Sharpton and Jackson. (No offense, but I just feel like their "leadership" is outdated.)
Alia_of_the_Knife
09-27-2007, 01:50 PM
This is GREAT ! No. I'm serious. You and I are literally doing a classic Socratic/ Hegelian intellectual synthesis whereby through a continual exchange of thoughts we narrow any disagreements and come to substantial agreement. And I submit that you and I ARE in substantial agreement.
LOL. It's kind of ironic that you state this considering that we are going over rhetoric and dialectic development in my college philosophy class right now.
Aside from the inane music sic. or more particularly the doggerel verse lyrics with the nasty language there is a whole culture surrounding hip hop and rap that has a lot of negative and destructive elements to it. In other words, if it were just the "music" even with use of the "N" word and even with the misogyny, I think most folks could and would tolerate it. Not like it. Not condone it. But learn to live with it . Unfortunately , hip-hop is just one part of a larger element helping to comprise current AMERICAN Black life and culture especially among inner-city youth that on balance is provably negative and self-destructive. Afaic, whatever positives there may be in the whole gangbanger milieu are literally flowers growing on a manure pile. So I say"Fine, yes this is good or there's nothing wrong with that so TRANSPLANT IT to a more positive environment and let it grow."
I agree that most commercial hip hop is negative, but I think the question is larger than that. Why can suburban black and white kids (who are the majority who buy hip hop) listen to it but don't end up selling drugs and still feel like they need to go to school and work hard? I think the answer is parenting. I have volunteered as a tutor and mentor for inner city youths and have lived in the inner-city for a substantial part of my life, and too many kids really do not have parents. They may have a person or people that might feed them and provide food and shelter but they don't have anyone teaching them right from wrong, or fantasy from reality. If they had real parents they would understand that hip hop is just "entertainment".
One could also say that professional sports are also detrimental to black inner-city youth because I can't count to you the number of kids and teenagers who have told me that they are going to be a basketball or football player. Yet these sports are beloved by most Americans. Should we get rid of those past times? Of course not, and that's why I feel like it is parenting that is the bigger issue.
Also a lot of the pathologies that you mentioned were coming into vogue in the late 70s and sometimes even earlier. These were the days before hip hop. There was also a huge outsourcing of industrial jobs at that which was the main reason why so many black people moved to inner cities in the first place. Again, I would like to say that hip hop doesn't help, but I think we are disagreeing on the magnitude of it. I believe that it is just a small part of a very complicated issue.
As far as your personal experience is concerned I understand what you are saying but you can see variants of the same thing elsewhere in the world. There are clubs in the D.R. and Venezuela that currently mimic how it used to work in pre-Castro Cuba :If you look" Black" or "African" you can't get in. There's no colonial "massa" involved. On the other hand you can go to Brazil and they are much more amalgamated and integrated than any place I've ever been and have some of the most beautiful women I've ever seen. I travel to Canada a lot where they have both native born and immigrant Black populations and they do NOT, by and large, have the same problems to the same degree in their black communities as we do in the U.S. Canada NEVER had slavery and their native born blacks went there from the U.S. starting in 1776 to escape slavery and they NEVER had Jim Crow so your "Historical white supremacy" argument is springing a leak.
I don't know and would be curious to learn how Black self-perception is today in South Africa. Under apartheid "COLORED" was different legally and socially than "AFRICAN" and hair straighteners and skin lighteners were big sellers. If anyone knows I'd appreciate their chiming in.
It is really fascinating how "race" is perceived depending on what country you look at. I would say that Dominicans probably have some of the biggest issues with being black. The vast majority of Dominicans are part black but few will admit it. It's also interesting how Canadians and non-native born blacks view America. The vast majority of blacks in Ivy leauge universities are either from the Carribean or Africa or their parents are. My boyfriend (the Mandingo that I told you about) and his family would probably ROFL if someone told them that they were acting white. My boyfriend is a chemical engineering major, his one older sister is a doctor and the other is a pharmacist. His sisters wear their hair completely natural and are two of the most confident and poised women I have ever had the pleasure of meeting.
I personally don't know any South Africans and I have never visited that country but I have heard that there are TONS of problems with light vs. dark skin.
Eric Stoner
09-28-2007, 07:24 AM
Alia, I hear what you're saying. But the truth of the matter is no matter how the past has affected our culture over the years, the black community should know better by now. Black men should know that it is unacceptable to disrespect black women, but our culture is so destructive (yes, I said it, our culture is destructive at this point in time) that many IN the black community promote, encourage, and coddle these "men" for their behaviors. I don't care what anyone says, no one disrespects black women like black men. NOBODY. MANY of them are disrespectful as all hell, but if you look them in the eye and ask them to repeat what they just said (if you say it in a proper voice), they'll straighten up real quick and speak like they have some f*cking sense. WE don't hold them accountable. WE need to give them a swift kick in the ass. It really is our problem and instead of going ape shit (this isn't referring to you, just in general) over something idiotic a talking head says on his corny ass show, we need to be investing all this energy into taking back our community, sans Sharpton and Jackson. (No offense, but I just feel like their "leadership" is outdated.)
Amen.
The root causes of the negative pathologies in the Black community are Welfare
and Drugs. Welfare enabled single mothers to be able to have and raise children
without a father HAVING to be present. Despite "welfare reform" the rate of unpaid child support by Black fathers is scandalous. 70% of Black children are born out of wedlock and grow up without a father EVER being present and many
are raised by grandparents, aunts, uncles or foster parents. 60 % of the prison population nationwide is Black or Latino.The drop out rate in both high school and college among blacks is still around 50 %.
Drugs have enabled Black youths and men to survive without doing the menial and low-skilled jobs they took prior to the 60's. Even at low wages , working black men plowed back a portion of what they earned to their communities mostly throught the Black churches. Globalization, illegal immigration and out-sourcing have only compounded the problems of under and partially educated Black youth.
Government has NOT been the solution. Government can't make a child learn in school ; not take drugs ; not sell drugs ; not get arrested and not father children.
Statistically if you finish high school ; don't get arrested and do not have children
until AFTER marriage you will not end up in "poverty".
Eric Stoner
09-28-2007, 08:02 AM
Btw - What did you think about Boyce Watkins going on CNN to discuss this whole "O'Reilly discovers black people are normal human beings" sic thing and calling Juan Williams a "happy Negro " ? Not once , but twice without a word of protest or comeuppance from the hosts.
If I did that I'd be suspended or even banned from this bd. If O'Reilly or another white talking head said it they'd be condemned a la Imus.
Lapaholic
09-28-2007, 08:05 AM
^^^ Hmmm... IF govt is the cause for these pathologies - and for now I am excepting those pathologies as u stated - then we must have the same pathologies in say West Virginia or other poor states with a large white populations on welfare. Seems to reason anyway.... I think we need the freakanomics guy to study this.
Eric Stoner
09-28-2007, 08:47 AM
^^^ Hmmm... IF govt is the cause for these pathologies - and for now I am excepting those pathologies as u stated - then we must have the same pathologies in say West Virginia or other poor states with a large white populations on welfare. Seems to reason anyway.... I think we need the freakanomics guy to study this.
I'm admittedly oversimplifying a bit but if you want more of something subsidize it; less of something , tax it. Welfare for decades subsidized illegitimacy among poor women regardless of race. And it punished families for having stay at home fathers. Originally, Federal welfare assistance was called "Aid to Mothers With
Dependent Children" which was changed to "Aid to FAMILIES With Dependent
Children." Almost every state and city in the country with some form of welfare or Home Relief penalized households with able-bodied fathers or made them ineligible altogether.
There was a time when there was Jim Crow, segregation , discrimination and plenty of economic disadvantage and yet Black families were largely intact and crime and drug use were relatively low compared to today. Bearing children out of
wedlock USED to be something shameful and was discouraged by both the community and economic reality. Today it has become the norm. 70% of all Black chjildren are born to unwed mothers compared to 25% of white children.
In the days of segregated schools Black children did NOt drop out at the rate they do today and their academic performance in math and language skills was within a few percentiles of similarly situated white kids i.e . poor blacks kept pace with poor whites. Standards and expectations were HIGH. Black teachers ; often paid less than their white counterparts ; devoted themselves to their students and expected them to perform. Integration leading to "white flight" did not cause the academic performance to decline in relative terms. Rather it was more the deterioration of the Black family and increasing Federal involvement in Education coupled with increased power of the NEA and AFT.
francescadubois
09-28-2007, 10:35 AM
Btw - What did you think about Boyce Watkins going on CNN to discuss this whole "O'Reilly discovers black people are normal human beings" sic thing and calling Juan Williams a "happy Negro " ? Not once , but twice without a word of protest or comeuppance from the hosts.
If I did that I'd be suspended or even banned from this bd. If O'Reilly or another white talking head said it they'd be condemned a la Imus.
I could choke the shit out of Boyce Watkins for saying this. I saw it on youtube and literally said out loud, "You have lost your damn mind!" But this is the destructive culture that we embrace as a community. Just because we don't all agree with the dems/libs and some of us actually want to consider a situation like this in context and in a sophisticated, thoughtful manner, we are Happy Negroes/Uncle Toms/Oreos/Sell-outs. This is what frustrates me to no end, and this is why I have a limited number of black friends, because they can't believe that I don't (gasp) love to jump on the "we shall overcome" bandwagon every time something is said that offends someone black.
I went back and listened to the broadcast with O'Reilly and Juan Williams (which I'm sure most people have yet to do), and I'm trying to figure out where he was being offensive. If anything, he was sharing with the public an epiphany he had about race, particularly that all blacks are not cut from the same cloth, act the same, talk the same, or look the same. I think that's some stand up shit for a guy like him to say. (No, I'm not a fan.) His audience is mostly white, suburban, red state people who probably don't have a lot of contact with the black community outside of what they see on the 6 o'clock news and the mainstream media. He just hipped them to something, "THERE'S NO DIFFERENCE!!" Black people were cordial, polite, dressed well, and was listening to music that was NOT hip hop. HE SAID IT WAS LIKE ANY OTHER RESTAURANT. He informed people that a) he had preconceived notions of black people, and b) he had an experience that challenged said preconceived notions. THIS IS A GOOD THING PEOPLE!! That's why Juan Williams said, "I'm glad you said that, because THAT'S what people need to hear."
And that's the truth. That IS what America needs to hear, and the fact that it came from someone like O'Reilly means that it will reach a different audience and maybe allow even ONE of them to re-assess their perceptions on minorities.
Eric Stoner
09-28-2007, 10:54 AM
Going back to the beginning of this thread. What O'Reilly said was that most racism is based on fear and most of that fear is based on ignorance. He talked about his OWN Grandmother who he thought was racist and said it was because she didn't know any Black people and based on what she saw and heard in the media ( rap , gang-banging, Snoop , Ludacris, Michael Vick, O.J. etc. ) maybe that wasn't all that surprising.Her lack of contact with middle class black folk coupled with media driven negative stereotypes made her mind-set understandable.
He described going to Sylvia's and attending Anita Baker's concert as things
MORE white people ought to do so that they would have increased contact with mainstream Black folk with a lot in common with themselves.
O'Reilly didn't need to or actually have an epiphany with regard to Black people.
He's had more Black folks on his show than Olberman and Anderson Cooper
combined including a lot of folks on the fringe (like followers of Farakhan and The NBPP ) that can't get near other so-called news shows. He's dined at Sylvia's with Al Sharpton a number of times and Sharpton confirms that he always picks up the check.
Alia_of_the_Knife
09-28-2007, 10:59 AM
Alia, I hear what you're saying. But the truth of the matter is no matter how the past has affected our culture over the years, the black community should know better by now. Black men should know that it is unacceptable to disrespect black women, but our culture is so destructive (yes, I said it, our culture is destructive at this point in time) that many IN the black community promote, encourage, and coddle these "men" for their behaviors. I don't care what anyone says, no one disrespects black women like black men. NOBODY. MANY of them are disrespectful as all hell, but if you look them in the eye and ask them to repeat what they just said (if you say it in a proper voice), they'll straighten up real quick and speak like they have some f*cking sense. WE don't hold them accountable. WE need to give them a swift kick in the ass. It really is our problem and instead of going ape shit (this isn't referring to you, just in general) over something idiotic a talking head says on his corny ass show, we need to be investing all this energy into taking back our community, sans Sharpton and Jackson. (No offense, but I just feel like their "leadership" is outdated.)
Too be honest, most black people I know, including most people in my family, see Sharpton and Jackson as a joke. I know very few blacks who actually see them as "leaders" or identify with them in any way. Sharpton and Jackson are just the ones to be paraded around the media the most often. There are black (and white) sociologists, economists, and lawyers, as well as regular people in the "trenches", who are working on the very issues that you just mentioned, but they will never get media attention because they are not as outlandish and ridiculous as Sharpton. But many whites see Sharpton and Jackson on tv and get the idea that the vast majority of blacks see them as some sort of messiah figures which is very far from the truth. I honestly see conservative whites talk more about Sharpton than progressive blacks.
What I especially can't stand, which has taken place over the last 15 years, is the whole "high profile black man in trouble" issues such as O.J. Simpson (a man who never cared for black people, Jim Brown can testify to that), R. Kelly (a documented pedophile) and now Michael Vick (what can I say?). Even if Simpson, Kelly, and Vick were possibly innocent they are still all ridiculously rich and can hire the best defense attorneys to protect them. I feel like there should be more of a focus on the hundreds of thousands of black men and women who can not hire high profile attornies and need to relly on public defenders. (That's something else that I see that bugs me, there is a huge focus on black men in civil rights cases but very little focus on black women who are actually the fastest growing demographic of the prison population.)
I also feel that there needs to be a switch in the main focus of the Civil Rights movement from Government legislation to financial independence. The Legislation made in the 50s, 60s and 70s was necessary to combat the brutal and ruthless Jim Crow legislation, but I feel there are all the laws there can be at this point. We, as black people, need to focus on home ownership, education, investing, money management, and owning our own businesses. I see very little focus on this. Even most historically black colleges focus on being a "good worker and employee" and not on ownership. We live in a capitalistic society and need to take advantage of it. This thought has actually made me an outcast among some blacks (and white liberals) because they say I sound republican. (But I would NOT call the republicans of today a fiscally responsible party but I don't want to turn this thread poo-ish so I'll stop right there.)
I see so many of my fellow black college students wanting to become teachers, social workers, and lawyers to do good for black people (which isn't wrong or anything) but I feel like they could do more good by becoming entrepreneurial fat cats.
Alia_of_the_Knife
09-28-2007, 11:19 AM
There was a time when there was Jim Crow, segregation , discrimination and plenty of economic disadvantage and yet Black families were largely intact and crime and drug use were relatively low compared to today. Bearing children out of
wedlock USED to be something shameful and was discouraged by both the community and economic reality. Today it has become the norm. 70% of all Black chjildren are born to unwed mothers compared to 25% of white children.
Just as a side note, just because a child is born out of wedlock does not mean the same thing as being "fatherless". Many times fathers do pay child support and are in the kids lives. It's the rare and exaggerated case in which mothers are like the women on Maury who don't know who out of 10 guys is the father. I am not saying that there isn't a problem going on but the 70% statistic doesn't say the whole truth.
In the days of segregated schools Black children did NOt drop out at the rate they do today and their academic performance in math and language skills was within a few percentiles of similarly situated white kids i.e . poor blacks kept pace with poor whites. Standards and expectations were HIGH. Black teachers ; often paid less than their white counterparts ; devoted themselves to their students and expected them to perform. Integration leading to "white flight" did not cause the academic performance to decline in relative terms. Rather it was more the deterioration of the Black family and increasing Federal involvement in Education coupled with increased power of the NEA and AFT.
This is a very complicated but interesting issue. There is even a school of thought in black acadamia that says that "Plessy v.s. Ferguson" should have have been supported and enforced (in order to enforce the equal part of seperate but equal.) But what is done is done and there is no putting back the clock. Either way, wheter it was integration or upholding the equal part of seperate but equal, Jim Crow had to go through the horrific violence and even deaths (such as not being able to be treated at a white hospital) that occured. Not to mention your tax dollars going to institutions (schools, police, etc) that you didn't benefit from.
But I think this issue has more to do with economics and timing than it does with race or the ending of Jim Crow. The late 60s and 70s were the beginning of outsourcing as well as the introduction of welfare. Had the Civil Rights movement happened during the 40s or 50s, a more solid economic time for America, maybe these problems wouldn't be nearly as big.
francescadubois
09-28-2007, 11:45 AM
Going back to the beginning of this thread. What O'Reilly said was that most racism is based on fear and most of that fear is based on ignorance. He talked about his OWN Grandmother who he thought was racist and said it was because she didn't know any Black people and based on what she saw and heard in the media ( rap , gang-banging, Snoop , Ludacris, Michael Vick, O.J. etc. ) maybe that wasn't all that surprising.Her lack of contact with middle class black folk coupled with media driven negative stereotypes made her mind-set understandable.
He described going to Sylvia's and attending Anita Baker's concert as things
MORE white people ought to do so that they would have increased contact with mainstream Black folk with a lot in common with themselves.
O'Reilly didn't need to or actually have an epiphany with regard to Black people.
He's had more Black folks on his show than Olberman and Anderson Cooper
combined including a lot of folks on the fringe (like followers of Farakhan and The NBPP ) that can't get near other so-called news shows. He's dined at Sylvia's with Al Sharpton a number of times and Sharpton confirms that he always picks up the check.
Ok, I see what you are saying about him actually having an epiphany (or not), I just kind of came to the conclusion from the words he used like, "I couldn't get over XYZ" and "I realized that it's just like any other place.", etc.
At any rate, all I was saying there was he wasn't trying to be demeaning the way so many are making what he said out to be.
francescadubois
09-28-2007, 11:47 AM
I also feel that there needs to be a switch in the main focus of the Civil Rights movement from Government legislation to financial independence. The Legislation made in the 50s, 60s and 70s was necessary to combat the brutal and ruthless Jim Crow legislation, but I feel there are all the laws there can be at this point. We, as black people, need to focus on home ownership, education, investing, money management, and owning our own businesses. I see very little focus on this. Even most historically black colleges focus on being a "good worker and employee" and not on ownership. We live in a capitalistic society and need to take advantage of it. This thought has actually made me an outcast among some blacks (and white liberals) because they say I sound republican. (But I would NOT call the republicans of today a fiscally responsible party but I don't want to turn this thread poo-ish so I'll stop right there.)
I see so many of my fellow black college students wanting to become teachers, social workers, and lawyers to do good for black people (which isn't wrong or anything) but I feel like they could do more good by becoming entrepreneurial fat cats.
I agree whole heartedly with this.
Lapaholic
09-28-2007, 12:00 PM
Ok, I see what you are saying about him actually having an epiphany (or not), I just kind of came to the conclusion from the words he used like, "I couldn't get over XYZ" and "I realized that it's just like any other place.", etc.
At any rate, all I was saying there was he wasn't trying to be demeaning the way so many are making what he said out to be.
U r right Ms. Dubuois - he is still an idiot tho - lol!!! .... Funny that he wont play those comments on his TV show.
U know I think that freedom of speech outweighs anyones sensitivities. Even Imus got manhandled for admittedly saying something totally stupid BUT id rather have him on the air then being yanked for his speech. Too many times we call people a racist or anti-semite for making off-color comments or disagreeing with public policy. I am not defending what these morons say just that their right to say it is important in a free society. Has anyone been to a comedy club lately - man, they make fun of stereotypes and no ones seems to mind. How about ChApelle or Mencia? Imus and O'reilly biggest crimes is that they are not funny nor can they phrase a comment on race without sounding like a total blowholes!
IMHO....
Eric Stoner
09-28-2007, 12:08 PM
Just as a side note, just because a child is born out of wedlock does not mean the same thing as being "fatherless". Many times fathers do pay child support and are in the kids lives. It's the rare and exaggerated case in which mothers are like the women on Maury who don't know who out of 10 guys is the father. I am not saying that there isn't a problem going on but the 70% statistic doesn't say the whole truth.
This is a very complicated but interesting issue. There is even a school of thought in black acadamia that says that "Plessy v.s. Ferguson" should have have been supported and enforced (in order to enforce the equal part of seperate but equal.) But what is done is done and there is no putting back the clock. Either way, wheter it was integration or upholding the equal part of seperate but equal, Jim Crow had to go through the horrific violence and even deaths (such as not being able to be treated at a white hospital) that occured. Not to mention your tax dollars going to institutions (schools, police, etc) that you didn't benefit from.
But I think this issue has more to do with economics and timing than it does with race or the ending of Jim Crow. The late 60s and 70s were the beginning of outsourcing as well as the introduction of welfare. Had the Civil Rights movement happened during the 40s or 50s, a more solid economic time for America, maybe these problems wouldn't be nearly as big.
Please don't let your wishes father your thoughts as to out of wedlock birth. The
father who is "present" in the lives of children he fathered out of wedlock is, sadly, the EXCEPTION and NOT the norm. Likewise, Black fathers who DO pay child support to the mothers of the children they've fathered is again, the EXCEPTION. One part of the problem is they can't pay child-support while they're doing time.
America would definitely have benefitted greatly had FDR had any real political courage and done such things as integrate the Armed Forces before or during WWII and insisted that defense contractors practice non-discriminatory fair employment practices in both the South and The NORTH ! It is indeed painfully ironic that during WWII many contractors in the North gave less opportunity to Blacks than their southern counterparts i.e. they closed off the most skilled and lucrative defense plant jobs to Blacks to maintain good relations with their unions.
While there were race riots in Mobile and elsewhere over defense plant hiring the worst one took place in Detroit and Port Chicago was in San Francisco.
A. Philip Randolph admitted many times that he mistakenly trusted Roosevelt and called off the March on Washington that was planned and ready to go to protest discrimination in the defense industry and the Armed Forces. He settled for crumbs i.e. a few token hirings and promotions when he COULD have and SHOULD have forced wholesale change.
The outsourcing you think began in the 1970's did indeed happen but the dislocation was overwhelmingly INTERNAL. Low wage,low-skilled industrial jobs were driven out of Northeastern and Midwestern cities and were relocated in the South and Soiuthwest. Wages and benefits were lower and cheaper. Regulations were fewer and softer and TAXES and Government spending were MUCH lower.
Starting during the Great Depression and continuing into the early 1960's Blacks had migrated North leaving agricultural work to take industrial jobs. When those jobs left Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, Newark, Patterson , New York etc. most Blacks had nowhere to go.
It's an interesting cultural and social phenomenon how many middle-class Blacks have migrated back from North to South over the last decade or so.
Eric Stoner
09-28-2007, 12:17 PM
U r right Ms. Dubuois - he is still an idiot tho - lol!!! .... Funny that he wont play those comments on his TV show.
U know I think that freedom of speech outweighs anyones sensitivities. Even Imus got manhandled for admittedly saying something totally stupid BUT id rather have him on the air then being yanked for his speech. Too many times we call people a racist or anti-semite for making off-color comments or disagreeing with public policy. I am not defending what these morons say just that their right to say it is important in a free society. Has anyone been to a comedy club lately - man, they make fun of stereotypes and no ones seems to mind. How about ChApelle or Mencia? Imus and O'reilly biggest crimes is that they are not funny nor can they phrase a comment on race without sounding like a total blowholes!
IMHO....
O'Reilly has the ENTIRE conversation on his web-site. Anyone can download and listen to it. And he has played those comments on his show.He played them on his show last night with Jesse Jackson; the night before when Sharpton was on and the night before that. OMG ! I watched O'Reilly THREE nights in a row. I gotta get a life !
Imus had a right to say what he did. CBS and MSNBC had a right to fire him based on what he said.
Alia_of_the_Knife
09-28-2007, 12:22 PM
O'Reilly has the ENTIRE conversation on his web-site. Anyone can download and listen to it. And he has played those comments on his show.He played them on his show last night with Jesse Jackson; the night before when Sharpton was on and the night before that. OMG ! I watched O'Reilly THREE nights in a row. I gotta get a life ! Lol. you need to hold it with the O'Reilly factor.
Imus had a right to say what he did. CBS and MSNBC had a right to fire him based on what he said.
That's exactly how I see it. Of course he has the right to free speech. It's not like he was ever legally or civilly prosectuted for what he said. His constitutional rights were not infringed on. At the same time, you can't just say whatever you want to at your job. (Like curse people out for instance.) You can't be thrown in jail for it, which would be restricting your constitutional rights, but you're boss has the right to fire you for it. Especially when advertisers start pulling out and you are losing millions of dollars.
Hot2Trot
09-28-2007, 12:38 PM
Speaking of which ...
Did anyone watch how O'Reilly invited Jesse Jackson on his show last night in an attempt to verbally eviscerate him?
Now, inviting him was a play on his part to show good will, correct? Why then, was he so rude and condescending to his "guest," Jackson?
Not everyone agrees with Jackson's ways, obviously O'Reilly doesn't, but if I invite you to my house to apologize, I am not going to be rude to you unless it is in a self-serving interest that I invited you over; i.e. "Look everyone, I invited this person over so I could apologize" ::) .
Jackson was caught in the cross hairs of this self-promoting blabbermouth. O'Reilly opened the segment in thick sarcasm:
"The Reverend Jesse Jackson, here for the first time in 11 years!"
What a jerk - I could tell it would be downhill from there.
Personally, I couldn't stomach more than 10 minutes of it (it was most likely less than that). He basically invited Jackson on to speak at and down on him, cut him off to reiterate his own tired points and justify himself while spinning what his nasty mouth said in the first place, Re: How amazed he is that black people can be civilized.
And he continues to insist that it was taken out of context. Perhaps more believable if O'Reilly didn't have such a big mouth. There is just no disguising his true intentions. It comes through in the tone of his voice.
Bah - Most likely he needed the ratings.
:flirt: .
Alia_of_the_Knife
09-28-2007, 12:41 PM
Please don't let your wishes father your thoughts as to out of wedlock birth. The
father who is "present" in the lives of children he fathered out of wedlock is, sadly, the EXCEPTION and NOT the norm. Likewise, Black fathers who DO pay child support to the mothers of the children they've fathered is again, the EXCEPTION. One part of the problem is they can't pay child-support while they're doing time.
Speaking as someone who has lived in the "hood" and still has lots of friends and family in the "hood", and who knows plenty of kids born "out of wedlock" I would say that it isn't as exceptional as you might think. I don't have any exact figures or statistics but it is definatly not 70% of black kids who have no father what-so-ever. There are different degrees of parenting and one kid might see their father almost every other day while a nother might only see their father a few times a month and everything in between (which of course is still a problem) but that isn't the same thing as completely "fatherless". Also kids who have married or divorced parents might still be "fatherless" or "motherless". (My ex boyfriend, an older, established white guy had a nut case drug addict suburban wife who was largely absent from their daughters' lives.) It's a case by case study and I don't think there are any statistics on it. 70% doesn't have the whole picture. Again, I am not saying there isn't a huge problem but the image that many people who are not very intimate with urban blacks and the reality of the situation are different.
America would definitely have benefitted greatly had FDR had any real political courage and done such things as integrate the Armed Forces before or during WWII and insisted that defense contractors practice non-discriminatory fair employment practices in both the South and The NORTH ! It is indeed painfully ironic that during WWII many contractors in the North gave less opportunity to Blacks than their southern counterparts i.e. they closed off the most skilled and lucrative defense plant jobs to Blacks to maintain good relations with their unions.
While there were race riots in Mobile and elsewhere over defense plant hiring the worst one took place in Detroit and Port Chicago was in San Francisco.
Very true. If desegregation would have started in the 40s a lot of heartache could have been averted.
Eric Stoner
09-28-2007, 12:56 PM
Speaking as someone who has lived in the "hood" and still has lots of friends and family in the "hood", and who knows plenty of kids born "out of wedlock" I would say that it isn't as exceptional as you might think. I don't have any exact figures or statistics but it is definatly not 70% of black kids who have no father what-so-ever. There are different degrees of parenting and one kid might see their father almost every other day while a nother might only see their father a few times a month and everything in between (which of course is still a problem) but that isn't the same thing as completely "fatherless". Also kids who have married or divorced parents might still be "fatherless" or "motherless". (My ex boyfriend, an older, established white guy had a nut case drug addict suburban wife who was largely absent from their daughters' lives.) It's a case by case study and I don't think there are any statistics on it. 70% doesn't have the whole picture. Again, I am not saying there isn't a huge problem but the image that many people who are not very intimate with urban blacks and the reality of the situation are different.
Very true. If desegregation would have started in the 40s a lot of heartache could have been averted.
Wait a second . I NEVER said "70% of Black children do not have fathers" or anything close. 70% are born to unmarried mothers. And the majority DO grow up without a father living IN the home. There ARE plenty of statistics on this and related issues. And most of these fathers do NOT pay child support for a wide variety of reasons- death being a big one ; incarceration ; unemployment ; disappearance; paternity not established and simple irresponsibility. And many of those fathers that do take a role in the lives of their children do so on an irregular basis and pay child support on an irregular basis.
Lapaholic
09-28-2007, 01:01 PM
^^^ Why I think the guy is still an idiot!!! And sure Imus could be fired - I am just saying the public outcry IMHO was overblown. I just think its better - in this case for the Al Sharptons of the world - to pick a fight worth fighting. Thats all. Tolerance is a virtue too... works both ways.
Please don't let your wishes father your thoughts as to out of wedlock birth. The
father who is "present" in the lives of children he fathered out of wedlock is, sadly, the EXCEPTION and NOT the norm. Likewise, Black fathers who DO pay child support to the mothers of the children they've fathered is again, the EXCEPTION. One part of the problem is they can't pay child-support while they're doing time.
This is not a black phenomenon. And I think the labeling it as such skews not only the real problem of unwanted children - it also suggests that children raised by a single parent are at a distinct disadvantage merely because of the single status of the parent. I would challenge that notion. I think there are a lot of logical leaps in that kind of observation... Stable and loving homes can be provided by single and married parents and the reverse is also true. ITs more the stable and loving home life than the marital status of the parent(s)... Im agree being a single parent is more difficult, it is.. but it can be ( and is being ) done by people of all races and economics circumstances. I think Eric that you are using this argument to validate your belief that govt assistance programs create a black underclass.
Im gonna have to go to the Sociology section at Barnes & Noble and get some reading material ... lol We may have to move this discussion to Member boards eh?
Eric Stoner
09-28-2007, 01:09 PM
Speaking of which ...
Did anyone watch how O'Reilly invited Jesse Jackson on his show last night in an attempt to verbally eviscerate him?
Now, inviting him was a play on his part to show good will, correct? Why then, was he so rude and condescending to his "guest," Jackson?
Not everyone agrees with Jackson's ways, obviously O'Reilly doesn't, but if I invite you to my house to apologize, I am not going to be rude to you unless it is in a self-serving interest that I invited you over; i.e. "Look everyone, I invited this person over so I could apologize" ::) .
Jackson was caught in the cross hairs of this self-promoting blabbermouth. O'Reilly opened the segment in thick sarcasm:
"The Reverend Jesse Jackson, here for the first time in 11 years!"
What a jerk - I could tell it would be downhill from there.
Personally, I couldn't stomach more than 10 minutes of it (it was most likely less than that). He basically invited Jackson on to speak at and down on him, cut him off to reiterate his own tired points and justify himself while spinning what his nasty mouth said in the first place, Re: How amazed he is that black people can be civilized.
And he continues to insist that it was taken out of context. Perhaps more believable if O'Reilly didn't have such a big mouth. There is just no disguising his true intentions. It comes through in the tone of his voice.
Bah - Most likely he needed the ratings.
:flirt: .
How was O'Reilly rude and condescending to Jackson ? And who says O'Reilly had anything to apologize for ? Or that happened to be the purpose of having Jackson on ? You wouldn't be making this up as you go along ; would you ?
You do know that O'Reilly blows away CNN and MSNBC combined; don't you ?
Jesse is the one who gutlessly REFUSED for over a decade to go on the show.
Did you hear some of the simplistic blather coming out of Jackson's mouth ?
How tired and irrelevant Jackson appeared to be ? He's a caricature of himself from 20 years ago. He goes on a show to opine about comments he didn't listen to for himself ? He had absolutely nothing relevant or original to say on the whole topic.
How foolish he looked over his offer to the Duke accuser to pay for her college education ? He didn't KNOW she was a mentally ill drug addict who has now disappeared ?
Eric Stoner
09-28-2007, 01:23 PM
^^^ Why I think the guy is still an idiot!!! And sure Imus could be fired - I am just saying the public outcry IMHO was overblown. I just think its better - in this case for the Al Sharptons of the world - to pick a fight worth fighting. Thats all. Tolerance is a virtue too... works both ways.
This is not a black phenomenon. And I think the labeling it as such skews not only the real problem of unwanted children - it also suggests that children raised by a single parent are at a distinct disadvantage merely because of the single status of the parent. I would challenge that notion. I think there are a lot of logical leaps in that kind of observation... Stable and loving homes can be provided by single and married parents and the reverse is also true. ITs more the stable and loving home life than the marital status of the parent(s)... Im agree being a single parent is more difficult, it is.. but it can be ( and is being ) done by people of all races and economics circumstances. I think Eric that you are using this argument to validate your belief that govt assistance programs create a black underclass.
Im gonna have to go to the Sociology section at Barnes & Noble and get some reading material ... lol We may have to move this discussion to Member boards eh?
It is not a "black" phenomenon per se as out of wedlock birth is not confined to Black women. Children of single parents ARE usually at a disadvantage economically ( most American children with married parents grow up in two-earner households ) ; socially - Little League baseball is dying in the Black community partly as a result of lack of fathers and children demonstrably benefit from two-parent child raising.
I was raised by a widowed mother from the time I was 6 BUT I had grandparents, aunts, UNCLES, older MALE cousins and lots of older MALE neighbors to lend a hand and serve as positive role models. Too many poor children , many of them Black don't have a father present ; nor a grandfather ; nor an uncle or older cousin and too many grow up in neighborhoods with comparatively small adult male populations. Many of the adult men are either dead or in prison.
Every study clearly shows that children from one parent households commit more crime ; use more drugs; do less well in school and have out of wedlock children themelves at MUCH higher rates than children raised in two-parent households.
Why do YOU think that is ?
And Yes, I have plenty of historical and other evidence to show that Welfare and other Government programs helped create a Black and Latin underclass.