you'll have to read the book

http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0072819359/student_view0/



http://www.ingrimayne.com/econ/FiscalDead/deadfour.htm

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/crowdingouteffect.asp

http://financial-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Crowding+Out+Effect

http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/essays/keynes/deficit.htm

http://www.safarix.com/0321278992/ch13lev1sec2

by believing that Affirmative Action is "reverse discrimination"

you're thinking out loud again. time for your medication


a) Are you aware of this concept - Logic?

b) shhh, grown ups are talking.  :)


I can see your point. I have been discriminated against, or have had things said to me that made me go, "Did you just say that aloud to me?". I call it a balancing of the scales until true fairness can be obtained. America, as a whole, has a whole lot of sheesh to clean up before they can march into other countries demanding democracy.


Right.. and it's ridiculous that in this day and age we are still doing that.
What bugs me is that so many people think it's a one way street.

I am aware, that as a white middle class male, life will be easier for me than a lot of other people.
I don't think I should have to apologise for that or be denied anything because of that. I simply got lucky in the lottery.

Useing that as an example, should somebody who wins the lottery then be banned from every playing the lottery again? Or should they be stopped from going for a high paying job, simply because they already have enough money?

I'm glad you can see where I'm coming from.. I do wish I could think up an answer to the conundrum myself, but I'm afraid I can't - Thinking makes my brain hurt.  ;D

by believing that Affirmative Action is "reverse discrimination"



But that's what it is.

Right.. and it's ridiculous that in this day and age we are still doing that.
What bugs me is that so many people think it's a one way street.

I am aware, that as a white middle class male, life will be easier for me than a lot of other people.
I don't think I should have to apologise for that or be denied anything because of that. I simply got lucky in the lottery.

Useing that as an example, should somebody who wins the lottery then be banned from every playing the lottery again? Or should they be stopped from going for a high paying job, simply because they already have enough money?

I'm glad you can see where I'm coming from.. I do wish I could think up an answer to the conundrum myself, but I'm afraid I can't - Thinking makes my brain hurt.  ;D


As for the lottery, I'd say "Damn, if he/she isn't greedy", but, lol, that's just me.

As for you, I don't feel you need to apologize to me or anyone or be denied. However, having had the "luck of the draw" as you say, it's harder to see (sometimes) the perspective of those who don't. But at least you are trying. Don't think so hard about it. Just keep making an effort to not go down the same path others have chosen to continue. Do your own thing.

As for the lottery, I'd say "Damn, if he/she isn't greedy", but, lol, that's just me.

As for you, I don't feel you need to apologize to me or anyone or be denied. However, having had the "luck of the draw" as you say, it's harder to see (sometimes) the perspective of those who don't. But at least you are trying. Don't think so hard about it. Just keep making an effort to not go down the same path others have chosen to continue. Do your own thing.


Life's easy if you never look behind the scenery... right, that's how it goes?

A lot of people refuse to admit that life is different for others. Of course it is. I still believe that by continuing a policy of exclusion, all that we're doing.. is maintaining those differences.

Life's easy if you never look behind the scenery... right, that's how it goes?

A lot of people refuse to admit that life is different for others. Of course it is. I still believe that by continuing a policy of exclusion, all that we're doing.. is maintaining those differences.


I hear ya and the ideal is great. But there has to be some kind of policy that strives for equal opportunity, not discrimination. Imagine life if it hadn't been put in place. I wouldn't have achieved as much as I have. It would be been much harder as a minority and as a woman, if not damn near impossible. Sometimes things have to be forced on others so that some greater good can be achieved. Imagine if school busing wasn't instituted or integration wasn't put in place. We would still be back in the "good old days" of yesterday which weren't so good. So much of America's evolution has happened because of those policies and the blood, sweat, and tears of those that worked to get those policies in place. 

Hush up, little one.


see page 35

http://www.google.com/custom?q=cache:oCheQ6eu0KAJ:www.webasa.org/Pubblicazioni/Moyersoen_Huysentruyt_2005_1.pdf+%22crowding+out+effect%22+ethnicity&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=11&gl=us&client=pub-1475700848612418

Go play in the sand box now.

I hear ya and the ideal is great. But there has to be some kind of policy that strives for equal opportunity, not discrimination. Imagine life if it hadn't been put in place. I wouldn't have achieved as much as I have. It would be been much harder as a minority and as a woman, if not damn near impossible. Sometimes things have to be forced on others so that some greater good can be achieved. Imagine if school busing wasn't instituted or integration wasn't put in place. We would still be back in the "good old days" of yesterday which weren't so good. So much of America's evolution has happened because of those policies and the blood, sweat, and tears of those that worked to get those policies in place. 


That's very true.

I'm pretty much just thinking aloud. I just can't help but think there is a way of doing things when ideas aren't forced upon people. That's my biggest concern.
By forcing anything upon somebody.. you're always going to either get acceptance or revolt.
I think Equal Opportunities initiatives help a lot of people and do a lot of good. I also think they cause a lot of resentment and discord.

But that's what it is.




Affirmative Action violates the aryan supremacists' sense of privilige and entitlement

So then in your mind, anyone who thinks affirmative action is discriminatory, they are automatically aryan supremacists? 

So then in your mind, anyone who thinks affirmative action is discriminatory, they are automatically aryan supremacists? 


those that believe that it's so-called "reverse discrimination," absolutely

That makes absolutely no sense.  I fail to see how calling something that is discriminatory "discrimination" somehow equals aryan supremacy.  That's faulty logic.  Discrimination is discrimination, it doesn't matter who is being helped or hindered by it.  Just because minorities were discriminated against for so long, doesn't mean it's okay for them to do it too. 

That makes absolutely no sense.  I fail to see how calling something that is discriminatory "discrimination" somehow equals aryan supremacy.  That's faulty logic.  Discrimination is discrimination, it doesn't matter who is being helped or hindered by it.  Just because minorities were discriminated against for so long, doesn't mean it's okay for them to do it too. 


Oh, just ignore him.

He's quite clearly not able to participate in reasonable discourse.

...to an aryan supremacist



Go play in your sand box.



Oh, just ignore him.

He's quite clearly not able to participate in reasonable discourse.


Clearly.  BTW, it's hard to ignore someone who keeps quoting your posts and calling you a racist. 

  I fail to see how calling something that is discriminatory "discrimination" somehow equals aryan supremacy. 


how is it possible for the discriminators(hiistorically speaking) to be victims of discrimination?

Go play in your sand box.



Clearly.  BTW, it's hard to ignore someone who keeps quoting your posts and calling you a racist. 


Of course, but still, like most annoyances, it'll go away if ignored.

Star70, I'll say it plain and simple...

Some of your posts in this thread, which have been moderated and deleted in extremis, WILL NOT be tolerated. It's ten times easier for me, Tam, or Chucky to take affirmative action than it is for you to take half an hour to type these things.

Take care.

Star70, I'll say it plain and simple...

Some of your posts in this thread, which have been moderated and deleted in extremis, WILL NOT be tolerated. It's ten times easier for me, Tam, or Chucky to take affirmative action than it is for you to take half an hour to type these things.

Take care.

Excellent job Bobo!
Thank you.

karma +1

O RLY?

I'm just warming up

Hmmm... little does he know that we do not have to warm up the admin buttons we possess! ;)

O RLY?


i haven't even gotten out of the bullpen

i haven't even gotten out of the bullpen


Healthy debate is more than welcomed and highly encouraged.
Slander, defamation of character and outright insults are not!

Back on topic now Yes?! 8)

Star70, I'll say it plain and simple...

Some of your posts in this thread, which have been moderated and deleted in extremis, WILL NOT be tolerated. It's ten times easier for me, Tam, or Chucky to take affirmative action than it is for you to take half an hour to type these things.

Take care.



Karma.

Apologies to all.

STAR70 threatened a Mod and has been banned.

Carry on....

actually, it's WHITE women who have benefitted the most from Affirmative Action.

Citation for this?  I'm not feeling upt to hunting it down myself.
BTW, another group that chronically plays the victim card on campus: Pretty white girls.
"I reserve the right to dress like a hooker on the stroll, and if you whistle at me, I'll call it a 'virtual rape,' unless you're a dishy rich guy with a candy apple-red Porsche!"
:D

Citation for this?  I'm not feeling upt to hunting it down myself.
BTW, another group that chronically plays the victim card on campus: Pretty white girls.
"I reserve the right to dress like a hooker on the stroll, and if you whistle at me, I'll call it a 'virtual rape,' unless you're a dishy rich guy with a candy apple-red Porsche!"
:D


There was a construction job at Emmanuel College and all the guys had to go through sensitivity training and were told that there was a three second rule for looking at females walking by.  The could look for three seconds, no more.  So who was monitoring that? And why three seconds, why not two, or four?

There was a construction job at Emmanuel College and all the guys had to go through sensitivity training and were told that there was a three second rule for looking at females walking by.  The could look for three seconds, no more.  So who was monitoring that? And why three seconds, why not two, or four?


That kind of BS was going on when I was in college.  The women's groups always came up with various "rules," but none of them applied to women....just guys.  It boiled down to "I can do what I want, but you've got to do what I say!"  I caught hell for replying to an editorial that said "A woman should be able to dance naked on a barstool and not be sexually harrassed." 
I said, "I agree, and I should be able to leave my gold watch hanging from my doorknob and have nobody steal it.  Sometimes you need a reality check."

Now, I never had a gold watch, but I never stole one.  I did see a woman dance naked on a barstool, and I tipped her a dollar because it was that kind of place!
:D

That kind of BS was going on when I was in college.  The women's groups always came up with various "rules," but none of them applied to women....just guys.  It boiled down to "I can do what I want, but you've got to do what I say!"  I caught hell for replying to an editorial that said "A woman should be able to dance naked on a barstool and not be sexually harrassed." 
I said, "I agree, and I should be able to leave my gold watch hanging from my doorknob and have nobody steal it.  Sometimes you need a reality check."

Now, I never had a gold watch, but I never stole one.  I did see a woman dance naked on a barstool, and I tipped her a dollar because it was that kind of place!
:D
when i was in undergrad the women's studies department once posted flyers all around campus saying, 'these men are potential rapists' -- and it was just a randomly selected list of male students from the enrollment roster. it sparked a HUGE backlash, because obviouly no one wants to be accused of being a potential rapist, who isn't. the point they were making was, if you're a man, you're capable of rape. which, yes, there's a lot of sexual assault out there, but carrying that amount of rage around with you, where you've basically decided half the population isn't human (cuz that's what that amounts to) -- really you're only hurting yourself.

Citation for this?  I'm not feeling upt to hunting it down myself.
BTW, another group that chronically plays the victim card on campus: Pretty white girls.
"I reserve the right to dress like a hooker on the stroll, and if you whistle at me, I'll call it a 'virtual rape,' unless you're a dishy rich guy with a candy apple-red Porsche!"
:D


I'm not too sure I can disagree with this. But if I'm feeling up to it. I'll find something to support it.

when i was in undergrad the women's studies department once posted flyers all around campus saying, 'these men are potential rapists' -- and it was just a randomly selected list of male students from the enrollment roster.


If I were one of the guys randomly chosen for such treatment, I'd have put up posters of the women's studies students who made the posters, and captioned it 'these women are potential prostitutes'.  Fight fire with fire, I say.

If I were one of the guys randomly chosen for such treatment, I'd have put up posters of the women's studies students who made the posters, and captioned it 'these women are potential prostitutes'.  Fight fire with fire, I say.


Why not go a step further and play their game.

Put up posters saying 'These women are potential rpaists' after all, the same women who would be putting up those posters would be the same ones that complain about gender roles. Why not create a level playing field?  ;) ;D

I'm not too sure I can disagree with this. But if I'm feeling up to it. I'll find something to support it.

Tanya, i swear the more you post,the more i like you 8)


If I were one of the guys randomly chosen for such treatment, I'd have put up posters of the women's studies students who made the posters, and captioned it 'these women are potential prostitutes'.  Fight fire with fire, I say.

And we all know we would win that war,don't even try ;)

I can see your point. I have been discriminated against, or have had things said to me that made me go, "Did you just say that aloud to me?". I call it a balancing of the scales until true fairness can be obtained. America, as a whole, has a whole lot of sheesh to clean up before they can march into other countries demanding democracy.


This is kind of sad, but Tanya, I think you as an elementary school teacher can especially relate to this.

I can remember when I was in elementary school, having been raised in a neighborhood that was predominantly white, but well past the initial "Why is that person's skin a different color?" stage where I might have been in kindergarten.   The truth is, my generation, at that point in time, hadn't learned to be prejudice yet.  Race and religion just didn't register.  There was no such thing as "acting black" or "acting white", we all loved Michael Jackson and Culture Club, the playground consisted of people of all races waiting in line to "jump in" while two of us twirled the jump rope...and nothing was segregated.

By high school, I know things had gotten more segregated, not by the school, but by the students themselves.  Each race formed their own cliques, listening to their own music, etc.  The exceptions were often called names by their own race.  "Wigger" comes to mind.   Because I went to high school on the other side of the country from where I went to elementary school, I didn't really get to see the transition... but I often wonder... my best friend in elementary school was black.  I kept in touch with her for many years even though she was in NY and I was in CA.  Race never came up.  But I wonder, if I had continued to go to school with her, if we would have even hung out together?

It seems like we should take a lesson from our childhoods... but I can't quite put my finger on what influences us in between elementary and high school... that may well be the root of the problems...

Any ideas on this?

This is kind of sad, but Tanya, I think you as an elementary school teacher can especially relate to this.

I can remember when I was in elementary school, having been raised in a neighborhood that was predominantly white, but well past the initial "Why is that person's skin a different color?" stage where I might have been in kindergarten.   The truth is, my generation, at that point in time, hadn't learned to be prejudice yet.  Race and religion just didn't register.  There was no such thing as "acting black" or "acting white", we all loved Michael Jackson and Culture Club, the playground consisted of people of all races waiting in line to "jump in" while two of us twirled the jump rope...and nothing was segregated.



I was also raised in a predominantly white neighborhood, the difference being that there were many first generation immigrants so the was a bit of respect because we were actual Americans.  The problem wasn't so much in the neighborhood as it was in school. There was, to a lesser extent still is,  a glaring animosity between the Irish/African American community, and this played out in schools and some of the teachers were the worst offenders.  A couple made my life miserable, in the elementary grades on up to high school.  The effect on me could be countered in my home and neighborhood. What I see a being the bigger problem was the white students buying into the teachers denigration of me and not having as much to counter it when returning to their own segregated neighborhoods.

I went to a school that was 1/3 white, 1/3 black and 1/3 hispanic. I heard years before I went to that school that there were racial riots. I don't recall any racial tension when I went-that doesn't mean that there wasn't any-just that I never noticed it. However, I was on the cheerleading squad (yes, me-a cheerleader) and of course, like anything else in the school, was mixed. Depending on who was absent that day, this one girl who I hung out with (who was also white), we would say to each other, "We are minority today."




Cat

when i was in undergrad the women's studies department once posted flyers all around campus saying, 'these men are potential rapists' -- and it was just a randomly selected list of male students from the enrollment roster. it sparked a HUGE backlash, because obviouly no one wants to be accused of being a potential rapist, who isn't. the point they were making was, if you're a man, you're capable of rape. which, yes, there's a lot of sexual assault out there, but carrying that amount of rage around with you, where you've basically decided half the population isn't human (cuz that's what that amounts to) -- really you're only hurting yourself.

I haven't seen as much of these antics lately, but in the '90s the radical feminists in the area would post flyers naming all men who had even been accused of any kind of sexual assault.  You see, the courts are run by male chauvinist pigs, women never lie, and so of course these men are guilty of whatever they're accused of!  That was the reasoning, I sh*t you not!

Bitter story---

Once back in college I asked this gorgeous blonde out.  Not something I'd normally bother to do, but she flirted with me bigtime!  She turned me down--out of the question today, out of the question forever!  OK.  Hullooo Max, she flirts with everybody, take off that frikkin' blindfold!
::)
She did say we could be "friends."  Riiiiiight!  You know that one!  So a few weeks later she and her roomies threw a party at their apartment.  The sports department was invited, I was not.  Hmmm....I wondered why I didn't see the obvious before.  "Oh well," I thought, "Like water off a duck's back."

Subsequently I heard her complaining about the same young men behaving inappropriately---well, they were playing grab-ass with her, to be blunt.  Who was she complaining to?  She was complaining to me!  I said,
"Now, Carrie, I thought you enjoyed that manner of overture for you invite the same guys to your apartment for drinks, and surely my old-fashioned approach did not impress you for I have not been on your guest list and they have.  For heaven's sakes, stop batting eyelashes, strutting sultry, and getting high with the sportos before something happens that you really don't like."  She looked at me like I'd just run over her grandmother, and then never looked at me again.
I was bitter not for being spurned by Carrie, but because she felt entitled to have me play the court eunuch with whom she could commiserate.
;D 

This whole thread is the most boring stuff I've ever read.  The majority of posts here are off topic.  Good Grief :\'(

This whole thread is the most boring stuff I've ever read.  The majority of posts here are off topic.  Good Grief :\'(



Thanks for sharing that.  Sorry we can't entertain you better. 

Tanya, i swear the more you post,the more i like you 8)
And we all know we would win that war,don't even try ;)



Aw, aren't you sweet!!!!

Thanks, love.

This is kind of sad, but Tanya, I think you as an elementary school teacher can especially relate to this.

I can remember when I was in elementary school, having been raised in a neighborhood that was predominantly white, but well past the initial "Why is that person's skin a different color?" stage where I might have been in kindergarten.   The truth is, my generation, at that point in time, hadn't learned to be prejudice yet.  Race and religion just didn't register.  There was no such thing as "acting black" or "acting white", we all loved Michael Jackson and Culture Club, the playground consisted of people of all races waiting in line to "jump in" while two of us twirled the jump rope...and nothing was segregated.

By high school, I know things had gotten more segregated, not by the school, but by the students themselves.  Each race formed their own cliques, listening to their own music, etc.  The exceptions were often called names by their own race.  "Wigger" comes to mind.   Because I went to high school on the other side of the country from where I went to elementary school, I didn't really get to see the transition... but I often wonder... my best friend in elementary school was black.  I kept in touch with her for many years even though she was in NY and I was in CA.  Race never came up.  But I wonder, if I had continued to go to school with her, if we would have even hung out together?

It seems like we should take a lesson from our childhoods... but I can't quite put my finger on what influences us in between elementary and high school... that may well be the root of the problems...

Any ideas on this?


Good points!!!! I really believe parents and the environment somehow influence that in-between time. When we are kids, it's like, "aw, how cute". But, as we get older, it becomes "watch out for that person b/c he/she's white, black, Asian, Latino, whatever and they're known to do this," which I can honestly gamble by saying that most of us have heard from older people, who b/c of how they were raised and/or the time period of such raising couldn't understand those friendships. Quite frankly, I grew up in a predominantly black neighborhood and most of my friends, particularly in high school were white. It was simply because we were into the same things (e.g. music (yes, dare I say it hair metal, lol). I dated almost every color (boy, do I get around, j/k) b/c I didn't want to feel confined or defined by my outside appearance. Sure, because of my fair-skin, I got labeled everything in the book (e.g. "acting white", "wannabe", "sellout"). It hurt, and I did feel ostracized by many. But I was being who I was, and hanging with those that was like that (which included some black people too).

It's really sad, but that kind of self-segregation is happening again. However, since I've lived in L.A. for some time now, I see more integration in suburban areas where there are some diversification (not complete, but hey it's a start right?).

Good points!!!! I really believe parents and the environment somehow influence that in-between time. When we are kids, it's like, "aw, how cute". But, as we get older, it becomes "watch out for that person b/c he/she's white, black, Asian, Latino, whatever and they're known to do this," which I can honestly gamble by saying that most of us have heard from older people, who b/c of how they were raised and/or the time period of such raising couldn't understand those friendships. Quite frankly, I grew up in a predominantly black neighborhood and most of my friends, particularly in high school were white. It was simply because we were into the same things (e.g. music (yes, dare I say it hair metal, lol). I dated almost every color (boy, do I get around, j/k) b/c I didn't want to feel confined or defined by my outside appearance. Sure, because of my fair-skin, I got labeled everything in the book (e.g. "acting white", "wannabe", "sellout"). It hurt, and I did feel ostracized by many. But I was being who I was, and hanging with those that was like that (which included some black people too).

It's really sad, but that kind of self-segregation is happening again. However, since I've lived in L.A. for some time now, I see more integration in suburban areas where there are some diversification (not complete, but hey it's a start right?).


The number of black students attending predominately white schools peaked around 1980, according to a recent graph I saw in Teaching Tolerance magazine. It started declining when "Reaganomics" and the  Conservative Revolution really took off.

In my lower elementary school class (2nd grade of 1998), there was not a single black or Asian child, and there were under 5 in the whole school, to my memory. They lived on the other side of town; as I remember, it was shocking to me when I first had a black person in my class, in 6th grade (I later became good friends with her). Not in a negative way, it was just strange. My mother talks about how there was one black girl in her elementary school class of 1967...though she wasn't ostracized, it was strange for both sides, since most of the people in her section of  town had African-American housekeepers. Not that they were old money; most people in the suburb where she grew up came from the neighborhood the housekeepers now lived in within the city of Newark a generation earlier.

Thanks for sharing that.  Sorry we can't entertain you better. 


I'm glad you noticed.  You're pretty dependable, aren't you?  I'm truly amazed at how so many of you can be all over this board at once just waiting to be nice.  That is so sweet. :)

The number of black students attending predominately white schools peaked around 1980, according to a recent graph I saw in Teaching Tolerance magazine. It started declining when "Reaganomics" and the  Conservative Revolution really took off.
This I would not doubt.  We are still underestimating the toxicity of Reaganomics (aka Supply Side Economics; aka neo-Dickensian economics).  Those who defend it talk in terms of numbers but not how it affected real people. 

Obviously "Teaching Tolerance" is a liberal rag.  Shouldn't be teaching tolerance, should be teaching Christ.
::)

In my lower elementary school class (2nd grade of 1998), there was not a single black or Asian child, and there were under 5 in the whole school, to my memory. They lived on the other side of town; as I remember, it was shocking to me when I first had a black person in my class, in 6th grade (I later became good friends with her). Not in a negative way, it was just strange. My mother talks about how there was one black girl in her elementary school class of 1967...though she wasn't ostracized, it was strange for both sides, since most of the people in her section of  town had African-American housekeepers. Not that they were old money; most people in the suburb where she grew up came from the neighborhood the housekeepers now lived in within the city of Newark a generation earlier.

My sixth grade class was all caucasion, except for one Vietnamese boy.  That was it.  There weren't even any Jews!
That's New Hampshire for you.

I'm glad you noticed.  You're pretty dependable, aren't you?  I'm truly amazed at how so many of you can be all over this board at once just waiting to be nice.  That is so sweet. :)



;D  ;D


My grade school was predominantly black and hispanic, because that was the neighborhood it was situated in.  Even though I went to a Catholic high school, there was a good mix of all races there.....I don't think any one had a majority.  We can thank Cardinal Bernadin for that, though.  Before him, if you weren't Catholic, you couldn't attend a Catholic school.  On the walls in my high school, they have the class photos of every graduating class since 1939, the year the school opened.  You can tell when the Diocese got opened, because the class pictures went from lily white to a mix of all races and ethnicities. 

;D  ;D


My grade school was predominantly black and hispanic, because that was the neighborhood it was situated in.  Even though I went to a Catholic high school, there was a good mix of all races there.....I don't think any one had a majority.  We can thank Cardinal Bernadin for that, though.  Before him, if you weren't Catholic, you couldn't attend a Catholic school.  On the walls in my high school, they have the class photos of every graduating class since 1939, the year the school opened.  You can tell when the Diocese got opened, because the class pictures went from lily white to a mix of all races and ethnicities. 


Right. I went to Grammar school and you could see the gradual influx.

Back in the 60's when my Dad was there (Yeah, I went to the same school as my Dad!  ;D) it was 100% white, by the time I was there it was about 60% white.

Right. I went to Grammar school and you could see the gradual influx.

Back in the 60's when my Dad was there (Yeah, I went to the same school as my Dad!  ;D) it was 100% white, by the time I was there it was about 60% white.



The H.S. my dad went to was pretty much 90% Caucasian when he graduated in 1967.  Now, it's in the middle of war zone between two dueling gang factions.  He was showing me pictures of what the school used to look like, and if you drive past it now....it's like driving past an armed encampment.  Bars on the windows, high fences, cops patrolling the grounds, metal detectors at the front door.....it's scary.

The H.S. my dad went to was pretty much 90% Caucasian when he graduated in 1967.  Now, it's in the middle of war zone between two dueling gang factions.  He was showing me pictures of what the school used to look like, and if you drive past it now....it's like driving past an armed encampment.  Bars on the windows, high fences, cops patrolling the grounds, metal detectors at the front door.....it's scary.


I went to three different high schools and let me tell you - All the kids that complain about living a boring life in suburbia probably ought to shut up.

The first high school I was kicked out of was in the middle of the city and in the time I was there 2 people were killed. 1 got dropped over the side of a staircase and the other was stabbed just outside the gates.

The last one I went to - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutterworth_Grammar_School was great. It was like Warzone to Utopia.  ;D

The biggest thing was.. and you mentioned this, the local government saw fit to just stick everybody together, not paying any attention to the fact that there were serious racial tensions.
This isn't exactly that long after the race riots and the authorities are sticking about 500 Muslim students, 500 Sikh and Hinduh students, 500 Black students and 500 white students in to the same school. Reeeeeeal smart.  ::)

I think a large number of the problems that occur in schools are down to the ridiculous planning and implimentation by local authorities.

This whole thread is the most boring stuff I've ever read.  The majority of posts here are off topic.  Good Grief :\'(



9 times out of 10 threads go off topic around here.




Cat

And sometimes the conversations that evolve from the off-topicness are better than what was being mentioned about the topic.

I went to three different high schools and let me tell you - All the kids that complain about living a boring life in suburbia probably ought to shut up.

The first high school I was kicked out of was in the middle of the city and in the time I was there 2 people were killed. 1 got dropped over the side of a staircase and the other was stabbed just outside the gates.

The last one I went to - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutterworth_Grammar_School was great. It was like Warzone to Utopia.  ;D

The biggest thing was.. and you mentioned this, the local government saw fit to just stick everybody together, not paying any attention to the fact that there were serious racial tensions.
This isn't exactly that long after the race riots and the authorities are sticking about 500 Muslim students, 500 Sikh and Hinduh students, 500 Black students and 500 white students in to the same school. Reeeeeeal smart.  ::)

I think a large number of the problems that occur in schools are down to the ridiculous planning and implimentation by local authorities.



I'm interested in your generation's perspective, since you were in grade school much later than I was.  In 2nd-4th grade, was there any perception of race that was beyond that of, say, left handed as opposed to right handed students?  For us there wasn't... at least until junior high...

Modified to add:  One exception... I do remember in the early years of grade school, noticing that the black girls could do a mean double dutch... and whenever it was a non-black student's turn, they usually had to toss one of the ropes to the side and just use one... otherwise we'd be falling flat on our arses. :D

I'm interested in your generation's perspective, since you were in grade school much later than I was.  In 2nd-4th grade, was there any perception of race that was beyond that of, say, left handed as opposed to right handed students?  For us there wasn't... at least until junior high...



I was in 2nd-4th grade from about 89-92.  We learned about famous people from different races, obviously not as in-depth as when we were in H.S. or college, but we knew who Martin Luther King Jr. was and why the people where he lived didn't like him.  We learned that he was black and that he wanted to help black people and the white people at the time didn't like him for that.  Obviously this is very simplistic, but we are dealing with with 4th graders, here.   

Yeah, we knew some of the history too... I guess what I mean is did different races have their own cliques/mannerisms/music/etc. at that time?



I honestly wasn't paying attention to stuff like at the time.

what do we have to apologize for? we didn't enslave the blacks. in truth, the blacks enslaved the blacks. back in africa, when the "new world" was in its early years, people in africa fought, and took prisoners. they sold these prisoers to america as slaves. sure, we exploited slavery, but we didn't invent it, start it. but no, i don't feel that we have anything to apologize for. in the long run, we saved the many blacks from the horible diseas ridden continent they once called home. an apology is not in order, because we (our generations) did not enslave them.

I'm interested in your generation's perspective, since you were in grade school much later than I was.  In 2nd-4th grade, was there any perception of race that was beyond that of, say, left handed as opposed to right handed students?  For us there wasn't... at least until junior high...

Modified to add:  One exception... I do remember in the early years of grade school, noticing that the black girls could do a mean double dutch... and whenever it was a non-black student's turn, they usually had to toss one of the ropes to the side and just use one... otherwise we'd be falling flat on our arses. :D


At that age.. not really.

When I was very young my best mate was Nishel. He was Indian (although born in the UK). I knew he was different and sometimes it was a bit weird if I was at his house and his family was talking in a different language, but I didn't really see any issue with it or he wouldn't have been my mate.

what do we have to apologize for? we didn't enslave the blacks. in truth, the blacks enslaved the blacks. back in africa, when the "new world" was in its early years, people in africa fought, and took prisoners. they sold these prisoers to america as slaves. sure, we exploited slavery, but we didn't invent it, start it.

Slavery, although a horror in any sense, was more insidious in the US than in other countries.  Slaves in Africa were free to have a spouse, not be sold away from that person, earn their own keep, and eventually even may be made part of the tribe. The enslavement of subsequent generations was not a given as it was in the US. This was true of slaves in Latin America also.  The rigid racism in that evolved was/is much more pronounced in the United States and continues to plague us.  Other countries also did not sit on the Bill of Rights and espouse the attendant high ideals. This differences in the quality of life for a slave in the USA and elsewhere is a long involved issue in itself. 

Slavery, although a horror in any sense, was more insidious in the US than in other countries.  Slaves in Africa were free to have a spouse, not be sold away from that person, earn their own keep, and eventually even may be made part of the tribe. The enslavement of subsequent generations was not a given as it was in the US. This was true of slaves in Latin America also.  The rigid racism in that evolved was/is much more pronounced in the United States and continues to plague us.  Other countries also did not sit on the Bill of Rights and espouse the attendant high ideals. This differences in the quality of life for a slave in the USA and elsewhere is a long involved issue in itself. 
Sorry, I have to disagree with this.  How can you say that slavery was more insidious in the US than in other countries when it still exists in other countries?  I'm also curious as to what other countries followed much the same policies regarding slaves as the US.... I'm by no means an expert when it comes to slavery so I honestly don't know what other countries (i.e. European, Asian, etc) views were regarding slaves. ???

doctors lawyers, engineers, etc.

for example, the other day I veiwed the biography Percy Jaime on of the greatest chemists. hewas denied a job at Dupont because he was a black man. they told him they had known he was black they wouldn't have bothered with an interview
Do you mean Percy Julian?  a) that occurred back in the 30s when this sort of practice was (unfortunately) common and b) he still went on to become quite successful....probably more successful than he would have been had he gotten the job at DuPont (and HE was the one who said that, not myself).  If you're going to try and post "facts", at least make a slight attempt to make them correct ::)

Sorry, I have to disagree with this.  How can you say that slavery was more insidious in the US than in other countries when it still exists in other countries?  I'm also curious as to what other countries followed much the same policies regarding slaves as the US.... I'm by no means an expert when it comes to slavery so I honestly don't know what other countries (i.e. European, Asian, etc) views were regarding slaves. ???


I am not talking about slavery now,(to discuss then and now is too broad a topic right now).  But, it is true that slaves in cultures outside of the US had more mobility in terms of earning their freedom and the ability to have a family and remain in the family unit, this was doubly true in the case of mixed race children of slaves and owners.  The part that absolutely angers me, though, is the hypocrisy of the US system that espoused enlightenment, ("All men are created equal" )but enslaved people by rationalizing their inhumanity.

I am not talking about slavery now,(to discuss then and now is too broad a topic right now).  But, it is true that slaves in cultures outside of the US had more mobility in terms of earning their freedom and the ability to have a family and remain in the family unit, this was doubly true in the case of mixed race children of slaves and owners.  The part that absolutely angers me, though, is the hypocrisy of the US system that espoused enlightenment, ("All men are created equal" )but enslaved people by rationalizing their inhumanity.

When we think of slavery in the U.S., we think of plantation slavery, which was particularly horrendous.  I don't know the percentage off the top of my head, but most households that owned slaves owned only a few, perhaps just one.  Treatment ranged from quite humane to obscenely barbarous.  However, even if the master was kindly, enslaved African-Americans were considered absolutely inferior to whites.  Even house slaves who dressed in finery and were allowed to hit the town with a pocket full of cash were still just n*gg*rs.  I think that's the insidious racism ingrained in our culture.  There's still a trace of it today.

You mention the infuriating hypocrisy of the Declaration of Independence.  Consider the hypocrisy of Muslim slave traders and slave holders.  The Koran prohibits slavery and yet you still find Muslims running slaves even today, albeit a tiny percentage, but still....

You mention the infuriating hypocrisy of the Declaration of Independence.  Consider the hypocrisy of Muslim slave traders and slave holders.  The Koran prohibits slavery and yet you still find Muslims running slaves even today, albeit a tiny percentage, but still....


The Bible was also used to rationalize slavery, by the likes of Thomas Jefferson, no less.  Wonder how they justified the rape of slave women?  A persons espoused religion hasn't much to do with their humanity.  They can call themselves anything they want, doesn't make them what they actually are.

in the long run, we saved the many blacks from the horible diseas ridden continent they once called home.



You need more of an education about that "disease ridden continent" that my ancestors once called home.  You need more of and education of the "disease ridden continent" that they were brought to.  This statement is infuriating.

You need more of an education about that "disease ridden continent" that my ancestors once called home.  You need more of and education of the "disease ridden continent" that they were brought to.  This statement is infuriating.

It sounds like "This Kid" is earning his Jr. Klansman merit badges under the tutilage of David Duke!
:P

Africa became a disease-ridden hell thanks to the white man.  So did these trans-Atlantic continents.  Sorry, Kid, just the way it went down!
::)

You need more of an education about that "disease ridden continent" that my ancestors once called home.  You need more of and education of the "disease ridden continent" that they were brought to.  This statement is infuriating.


you're right. america is disease ridden (ofcourse not actual disease unless you count obesity as a disease) i  apologize if you took that statement as a defense for slavery. that is not what i meant to say. all i'm trying to say is that we (our generations) do not have to apologize. we did not enslave african americans. our ancestors did.

also, how did we (whites) bring aids to africa? i thought the disease originated in india.

i hear if you wash your hood in pure bleach it comes out whiter.

i hear if you wash your hood in pure bleach it comes out whiter.



Oh damn.

Oh damn.
where you offcolor bros at? PM me. i'm BORED. >:(

gettin' my late-night metal on.

where you offcolor bros at? PM me. i'm BORED. >:(

gettin' my late-night metal on.



I got nothin' to say, dude.  I'm bored too.  I'll be watching Letterman shortly, 'cuz my man Peyton is on tonight.

I got nothin' to say, dude.  I'm bored too.  I'll be watching Letterman shortly, 'cuz my man Peyton is on tonight.
>:(

dammit. i'm feelin' talkative.

you're right. america is disease ridden (ofcourse not actual disease unless you count obesity as a disease) i  apologize if you took that statement as a defense for slavery. that is not what i meant to say. all i'm trying to say is that we (our generations) do not have to apologize. we did not enslave african americans. our ancestors did.

also, how did we (whites) bring aids to africa? i thought the disease originated in india.

The origin of AIDS is controversial and warrants another thread altogether.

I'm not talking about AIDS.  I'm talking about communicable diseases to which Africans had no immunity.  This goes all the way back to the 15th century.  Colonialism destroyed the organic cultures that developed in Africa over thousands of years.  These cultures had war and disease, but they were able to recover from the death toll and geographic disolocations and thrive once again.  The Europeans deemed themselves "superior" because of their higher level of "technology," thus they deemed African cultures inferior thus rationalizing decimation of populations and theft of natural resources.  Independence for African nations from the colonial period only happened gradually over the past century.  However, the "nations" carved up by the European conquerors were artificial and not in form with the ancestral heritage of native African cultures, we are still seeing the fall-out from this in modern times in places such as Rwanda and the Sudan.

Furthermore, the Europeans forced African cultures to break with their traditional small-scale agricultural and land-holding practices and embark on large-scale agriculture for the profit of the colonial powers.  This in turn eradicated thousands of square miles of the African ecosystem and depleted the soils that had sustained African populations back as far as man practiced agriculture and animal husbandry.  The damage of the colonial age c. 1460---1960 has caused irreparable  catastrophe on the African continent. 

The origin of AIDS is controversial and warrants another thread altogether.

I'm not talking about AIDS.  I'm talking about communicable diseases to which Africans had no immunity.  This goes all the way back to the 15th century.  Colonialism destroyed the organic cultures that developed in Africa over thousands of years.  These cultures had war and disease, but they were able to recover from the death toll and geographic disolocations and thrive once again.  The Europeans deemed themselves "superior" because of their higher level of "technology," thus they deemed African cultures inferior thus rationalizing decimation of populations and theft of natural resources.  Independence for African nations from the colonial period only happened gradually over the past century.  However, the "nations" carved up by the European conquerors were artificial and not in form with the ancestral heritage of native African cultures, we are still seeing the fall-out from this in modern times in places such as Rwanda and the Sudan.

Furthermore, the Europeans forced African cultures to break with their traditional small-scale agricultural and land-holding practices and embark on large-scale agriculture for the profit of the colonial powers.  This in turn eradicated thousands of square miles of the African ecosystem and depleted the soils that had sustained African populations back as far as man practiced agriculture and animal husbandry.  The damage of the colonial age c. 1460---1960 has caused irreparable  catastrophe on the African continent. 


Karma  ;)

I would add to this that I have heard the "they should be glad" crap before, does it follow that the Jews should be happy about the pogroms and the holocaust?  Does it follow that the Native Americans should be joyous over the "Trail of Tears" and "reservations"?  Does it follow that the Irish should celebrate the "famines" that brought them here?  I have never heard anyone suggest that.  The situations of those people were many many more times dire than the kidnapped Africans the majority of whom were living in subsistence, if not prosperous villages.

Karma  ;)

I would add to this that I have heard the "they should be glad" crap before, does it follow that the Jews should be happy about the pogroms and the holocaust?  Does it follow that the Native Americans should be joyous over the "Trail of Tears" and "reservations"?  Does it follow that the Irish should celebrate the "famines" that brought them here?  I have never heard anyone suggest that.  The situations of those people were many many more times dire than the kidnapped Africans the majority of whom were living in subsistence, if not prosperous villages.
There are so many differences between those that you list and slavery.....
The Jews were systematically KILLED, Native Americans were forced off their OWN land, and there's not much the Irish could do about the "famine".  None of these people were sold by their OWN people into slavery.

That being said, I do NOT buy into the "they should be glad" crap either.  What happened to all of these groups was horrible, but the fact still remains that it was Africans who sold other Africans into slavery.....

There are so many differences between those that you list and slavery.....
The Jews were systematically KILLED, Native Americans were forced off their OWN land, and there's not much the Irish could do about the "famine".  None of these people were sold by their OWN people into slavery.


More captured Africans died on those slave ships than survived the journey.  Untold numbers died of disease and violence after they got here.  Don't forget about the decimation of populations in Africa by war, violence, and disease because of European conquest.  True, the intention of the nazis was to kill as many Jews as possible, but I have trouble seeing what happened to Africans and Native Americans as less abominable.  As for "forced off their OWN land," the conquerors of Africa did the same thing to African peoples as they did to the indigenous peoples of the Americas.  The nazis also forced the Jews off their OWN land in the pogroms. 

Interesting parallel with the Irish famine.  The British forced the Irish into agrarian monoculture, which we now know depletes the soil--hence the Potato Famine.  As I was saying above, the colonial powers forced Africans to practice large-scale monoculture of food and textile crops, which was even more damaging in the tropical ecosystem of sub-Saharan Africa than in the temperate climate of Ireland.  Colonialism and famine went hand-in-hand whether in Ireland, India, or the the Congo.

There are so many differences between those that you list and slavery.....
The Jews were systematically KILLED, Native Americans were forced off their OWN land, and there's not much the Irish could do about the "famine".  None of these people were sold by their OWN people into slavery.

That being said, I do NOT buy into the "they should be glad" crap either.  What happened to all of these groups was horrible, but the fact still remains that it was Africans who sold other Africans into slavery.....



There isn't much difference at all in this groups at all. Maxwell as pointed many of them out. However, since you insist on pointing out the "Africans sold other Africans into slavery" statement as if it is an excuse for what happened once they got on the ships, I must enlighten you.

The period from the beginning of the TransAtlantic African Slave so-called Trade (1500) to the demarcation of Africa into colonies in the late 1800s is one of the most documented periods in World History. Yet, with the exception of the renegade African slave raider Tippu Tip of the Congo (Muslim name, Hamed bin Muhammad bin Juna al-Marjebi) who was collaborating with the White Arabs (also called Red Arabs) there is little documentation of independent African slave raiding. By independent is meant that there were no credible threats, intoxicants or use of force by Whites to force or deceive the African into slave raiding or slave trading and that the raider himself was not enslaved to Whites at the time of slave raiding or "trading". Trade implies human-to-human mutuality without force. This was certainly not the general scenario for the TransAtlantic so-called Trade in African slaves. Indeed, it was the Portuguese who initiated the European phase of slave raiding in Africa by attacking a sleeping village in 1444 and carting away the survivors to work for free in Europe.

After the over land passage of African trade had been cut off at the Nile Delta by the White Arabs in about 1675 B.C. (the Hyksos), the Egyptian/African economy was thrown into a recession. There is even indication of "pre-historic" aggression upon Africa by White nomadic tribes (the Palermo Stone). As recession set in the African Government began selling African prisoners of war and criminals on death row to the White Arabs. This culminated as an unfortunate trade, in that, when the White Arabs attacked, they had the benefit of the knowledge and strength of Africans on their side, as their slaves. Thus, deception became a key point in the trade.

To say that no Native American, Irish, or Jew sold out another is asinine because there have been records of such situations. One example is George Soros.

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/george-soros-on-helping-the-nazis-during-the-holocaust

I will say that as an educator (or future one), it's important to be well-read in world events (past or present). It's too easy now to make a blanketed statement without scrapping off the b.s. that's been poured onto it for centuries. How will you answer questions by students if you don't know much about the material? Please don't say it won't happen b/c it will. You may just have a student in your class like me, Mama K. Trust me, I've made many of my past teachers frustrated when I showed the flaws of their knowledge to my fellow classmates.

There isn't much difference at all in this groups at all. Maxwell as pointed many of them out. However, since you insist on pointing out the "Africans sold other Africans into slavery" statement as if it is an excuse for what happened once they got on the ships, I must enlighten you.

The period from the beginning of the TransAtlantic African Slave so-called Trade (1500) to the demarcation of Africa into colonies in the late 1800s is one of the most documented periods in World History. Yet, with the exception of the renegade African slave raider Tippu Tip of the Congo (Muslim name, Hamed bin Muhammad bin Juna al-Marjebi) who was collaborating with the White Arabs (also called Red Arabs) there is little documentation of independent African slave raiding. By independent is meant that there were no credible threats, intoxicants or use of force by Whites to force or deceive the African into slave raiding or slave trading and that the raider himself was not enslaved to Whites at the time of slave raiding or "trading". Trade implies human-to-human mutuality without force. This was certainly not the general scenario for the TransAtlantic so-called Trade in African slaves. Indeed, it was the Portuguese who initiated the European phase of slave raiding in Africa by attacking a sleeping village in 1444 and carting away the survivors to work for free in Europe.

After the over land passage of African trade had been cut off at the Nile Delta by the White Arabs in about 1675 B.C. (the Hyksos), the Egyptian/African economy was thrown into a recession. There is even indication of "pre-historic" aggression upon Africa by White nomadic tribes (the Palermo Stone). As recession set in the African Government began selling African prisoners of war and criminals on death row to the White Arabs. This culminated as an unfortunate trade, in that, when the White Arabs attacked, they had the benefit of the knowledge and strength of Africans on their side, as their slaves. Thus, deception became a key point in the trade.

To say that no Native American, Irish, or Jew sold out another is asinine because there have been records of such situations. One example is George Soros.

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/george-soros-on-helping-the-nazis-during-the-holocaust

I will say that as an educator (or future one), it's important to be well-read in world events (past or present). It's too easy now to make a blanketed statement without scrapping off the b.s. that's been poured onto it for centuries. How will you answer questions by students if you don't know much about the material? Please don't say it won't happen b/c it will. You may just have a student in your class like me, Mama K. Trust me, I've made many of my past teachers frustrated when I showed the flaws of their knowledge to my fellow classmates.


First of all, I don't see where you got that I was using it as an "excuse" for what happened and am rather offended that you are implying that I was.  Second, I didn't mean to imply that Native Americans or Jews were NEVER sold out by their own people, but it was much rarer than with the slaves.  The fact still remains that most slaves were sold by other Africans and some freed slaves in America even owned slaves of their own.  Third, I DID research the statement before I made it.  I admit, I probably could have worded it differently.

The point I was making is that the basis behind the pogroms and the holocaust was to eliminate an ENTIRE race.  The purpose behind slavery was not to ELIMINATE the entire race.  Right or wrong, a "value" was placed on slaves.

For some reason, you seem to think that I approve of slavery and what happened to them.  I don't know how many different times or ways I have to say that I don't.  I think what happened to them was abhorrent, but I can't go back and change history.  It seems that the "in" thing to do when arguing an atrocity from the past/present is to compare it to the Holocaust.  I didn't say there weren't similarities, but there are MAJOR differences that seem to always be overlooked when using it as an example.

I've also frustrated others when pointing out flaws in their arguments/knowledge.  I never claimed to be an expert on slavery and would certainly never venture to try and teach it.  Before I attempt to comment on subjects I'm not exceptionally knowledgeable on, I do try and do research (and I check multiple sources) to make sure the facts I'm giving are accurate, I don't just regurgitate what someone else told me.  Being "well-read" doesn't mean jack squat if what you're reading is wrong or blatantly biased......

What the Europeans did to Native Americans is similar to what they did to Africans. They sided with some peoples, who used European weaponry to eradicate others quickly in the short run and solve generations long disputes with other peoples. However, in the end, the Europeans won, because the upper-class' power was undermined by the violence produced by firearms and by the depletion of their people due to slavery. They pitted them against each other, though in the end colonization occurred and no African won.

Since the late 20th century, people have mistakenly assumed that all was fine, dandy, and harmony on earth among American Indians prior to European arrival. Not true. Though the Sioux nobly fought for Wounded Knee, they themselves viciously and violently seized the area from other tribes like the Blackfeet and Arapaho only a hundred years before that when a powerful prophet of theirs decided it was their "promised land" as shown in his visions. All people are subject to the whims and awfulnesses that human beings are subject to; the Sioux acted remarkably like Europeans on a smaller level before the Europeans themselves came. That's why they lasted so long against them and they've been romanticized so much by descendents of the European conquerors.

Yes, Jews did sell out and help the Nazis-but only a very small number of them. Among them was the Wildenstein family of art dealers in France. Jocelyne Wildenstein, the lady who had plastic surgery to look like a tiger, married into them.

What the Europeans did to Native Americans is similar to what they did to Africans. They sided with some peoples, who used European weaponry to eradicate others quickly in the short run and solve generations long disputes with other peoples. However, in the end, the Europeans won, because the upper-class' power was undermined by the violence produced by firearms and by the depletion of their people due to slavery. They pitted them against each other, though in the end colonization occurred and no African won.

Since the late 20th century, people have mistakenly assumed that all was fine, dandy, and harmony on earth among American Indians prior to European arrival. Not true. Though the Sioux nobly fought for Wounded Knee, they themselves viciously and violently seized the area from other tribes like the Blackfeet and Arapaho only a hundred years before that when a powerful prophet of theirs decided it was their "promised land" as shown in his visions. All people are subject to the whims and awfulnesses that human beings are subject to; the Sioux acted remarkably like Europeans on a smaller level before the Europeans themselves came. That's why they lasted so long against them and they've been romanticized so much by descendents of the European conquerors.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!  Don't you know it's ONLY Europeans who are "evil"?

First of all, I don't see where you got that I was using it as an "excuse" for what happened and am rather offended that you are implying that I was.  Second, I didn't mean to imply that Native Americans or Jews were NEVER sold out by their own people, but it was much rarer than with the slaves.  The fact still remains that most slaves were sold by other Africans and some freed slaves in America even owned slaves of their own.  Third, I DID research the statement before I made it.  I admit, I probably could have worded it differently.

The point I was making is that the basis behind the pogroms and the holocaust was to eliminate an ENTIRE race.  The purpose behind slavery was not to ELIMINATE the entire race.  Right or wrong, a "value" was placed on slaves.

For some reason, you seem to think that I approve of slavery and what happened to them.  I don't know how many different times or ways I have to say that I don't.  I think what happened to them was abhorrent, but I can't go back and change history.  It seems that the "in" thing to do when arguing an atrocity from the past/present is to compare it to the Holocaust.  I didn't say there weren't similarities, but there are MAJOR differences that seem to always be overlooked when using it as an example.

I've also frustrated others when pointing out flaws in their arguments/knowledge.  I never claimed to be an expert on slavery and would certainly never venture to try and teach it.  Before I attempt to comment on subjects I'm not exceptionally knowledgeable on, I do try and do research (and I check multiple sources) to make sure the facts I'm giving are accurate, I don't just regurgitate what someone else told me.  Being "well-read" doesn't mean jack squat if what you're reading is wrong or blatantly biased......


Where's your research stating that most slaves were sold by other Africans? That's my point. You have regurgitated what many "researchers" have said through the decades by no reall fault of your own really. It's been a popular assertion for quite some time that really is questionable, if not unfounded in many cases.

I didn't say that you approved of slavery at all. Maybe I wasn't quite clear. There's no sense in comparing astrocities (particularly when many topics within those astrocites are not well-known by many) because the truth remains that those scars remain and fester within the current state of America's sense of democracy. If my post came off as offensive, that wasn't my iintention at all. But, for many years, I've witnessed others (including teachers) say what you've said and when I would approach them on their misleading facts, I would get face their continued arrogance. I'm not denying some things. The percentage is small and those that were sold were war criminals and prisoners of war who were traded, not to come to America, but settle scores for other traders. That's my point. The heart of the matter is your assertion (which really isn't yours since I've heard it from those not quite aware) is simply not true. The majority wasn't sold, but rather stolen.

Now I don't deny that there were differences between slavery and the holocaust. But there are many similarities. For example, one major similarity is the destruction of a culture. With the Holocaust, you have the physical/human factor; whereas, with slavery, you have the cultural destruction (e.g. slaves were not allowed to speak in their native tongues nor practice any cultural traditions).

Maybe I'm speaking from the frustration of many that think what they read is law when it isn't. To be quite frank, what has been taught in America's classroom is 80% crap!! But that's another topic for another time.  ;)

Happy Valentine's Day and I'm open to any debate!!!

What the Europeans did to Native Americans is similar to what they did to Africans. They sided with some peoples, who used European weaponry to eradicate others quickly in the short run and solve generations long disputes with other peoples. However, in the end, the Europeans won, because the upper-class' power was undermined by the violence produced by firearms and by the depletion of their people due to slavery. They pitted them against each other, though in the end colonization occurred and no African won.

Since the late 20th century, people have mistakenly assumed that all was fine, dandy, and harmony on earth among American Indians prior to European arrival. Not true. Though the Sioux nobly fought for Wounded Knee, they themselves viciously and violently seized the area from other tribes like the Blackfeet and Arapaho only a hundred years before that when a powerful prophet of theirs decided it was their "promised land" as shown in his visions. All people are subject to the whims and awfulnesses that human beings are subject to; the Sioux acted remarkably like Europeans on a smaller level before the Europeans themselves came. That's why they lasted so long against them and they've been romanticized so much by descendents of the European conquerors.

Yes, Jews did sell out and help the Nazis-but only a very small number of them. Among them was the Wildenstein family of art dealers in France. Jocelyne Wildenstein, the lady who had plastic surgery to look like a tiger, married into them.


I'm impressed!!

I'm impressed!!


Thanks!

About the Jews owning land: the reason we avoided farming was because it was an occupation that, through the world, has had the same families working the same land through the generations over the centuries. We always had to move around for political and social reasons, and we pretty much all arrived in Europe as traders brought by the Romans at various times. One major group of traders from the Romans were brought to France and Germany and became the Ashkenazi Jews, another were the Sephardi and came to Iberia. We were largely kicked out of the Frankish hill country in the 1200s and 1300s, and invited to Poland by the King of Poland to create economic development there. We spread out from Poland to Lithuania, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, and Romania; that's the Yiddish-speaking Jewish heritage. There, we did things like make shoes because they were mobile occupations.

To say that Africans had a role in the slave trade is not to say that it was the fault of Africans. It's to say that upper-class people control society everywhere, they tend to be petty and disconnected from their people, fatally shortsighted, and care not a whit for the lower classes most of the time.

Where's your research stating that most slaves were sold by other Africans? That's my point. You have regurgitated what many "researchers" have said through the decades by no reall fault of your own really. It's been a popular assertion for quite some time that really is questionable, if not unfounded in many cases.

I didn't say that you approved of slavery at all. Maybe I wasn't quite clear. There's no sense in comparing astrocities (particularly when many topics within those astrocites are not well-known by many) because the truth remains that those scars remain and fester within the current state of America's sense of democracy. If my post came off as offensive, that wasn't my iintention at all. But, for many years, I've witnessed others (including teachers) say what you've said and when I would approach them on their misleading facts, I would get face their continued arrogance. I'm not denying some things. The percentage is small and those that were sold were war criminals and prisoners of war who were traded, not to come to America, but settle scores for other traders. That's my point. The heart of the matter is your assertion (which really isn't yours since I've heard it from those not quite aware) is simply not true. The majority wasn't sold, but rather stolen.

Now I don't deny that there were differences between slavery and the holocaust. But there are many similarities. For example, one major similarity is the destruction of a culture. With the Holocaust, you have the physical/human factor; whereas, with slavery, you have the cultural destruction (e.g. slaves were not allowed to speak in their native tongues nor practice any cultural traditions).

Maybe I'm speaking from the frustration of many that think what they read is law when it isn't. To be quite frank, what has been taught in America's classroom is 80% crap!! But that's another topic for another time.  ;)

Happy Valentine's Day and I'm open to any debate!!!
I did the research online in my campus library databases and it came specifically from the "Black Studies Center".  Here's one article that touches on both the slave trade AND the Native Americans.  I also found THIS that points out the errors in many textbooks..... and seems to indicate that slaves were initially enslaved and sold by other Africans/Arabs (which was my point) LONG before America even came into the picture.....also:
"a number of schoolbooks suggest that slaves in Africa and the Middle East were regularly able to win their freedom. Two things can be said about such claims. With respect to most African societies, the claims are false. And when societies did show high rates of manumission, the moral implications of such rates were exactly opposite from what the schoolbooks convey. " which also contradicts the theory that slavery in other countries was much better than in America.

Sorry, but I still think the Holocaust was worse.  They, too, were denied any cultural "tradition" and it didn't matter if they obeyed or not, they were still systematically murdered, tortured and used as science experiments.  I learned this at the Auschwitz & Dachau concentration camps and through the stories of a friend's mother, who was born at the Newengamme (sp?) camp less than a month before it was liberated in 1945 and her mother who survived that camp and went through Bergen-Belsen.

Your point about comparing atrocities was what I was trying to get at.  It's like trying to argue something religious-based.....people can quote the Bible to prove either side of the argument, but the quotes aren't always necessarily pertinent to the argument at hand. 

My frustration comes from the assumption (I'm not saying you, but many others) who think I cannot possibly know about ANYTHING that has to do with "X" because I'm not "X"  OR, that all of my information comes from "whitewashed" sources when it doesn't.

To say that Africans had a role in the slave trade is not to say that it was the fault of Africans. It's to say that upper-class people control society everywhere, they tend to be petty and disconnected from their people, fatally shortsighted, and care not a whit for the lower classes most of the time.
karma + 1  Crap!  "An Error Has Occurred!
Sorry, you can't repeat a karma action without waiting 24 hours." :(

.

That being said, I do NOT buy into the "they should be glad" crap either.  What happened to all of these groups was horrible, but the fact still remains that it was Africans who sold other Africans into slavery.....



And I still say a big So What.  Who bought?  And once they were became property how were they treated?  It doesn't matter what the color or nationality of the people doing the selling.  People purchased and perpetuated the atrocities upon the lives of these people, and their children, and their childrens children. The importation of slaves from was banned in 1808(well, legally). From then it was the slave owners ball game, and play they did.

Karma+1 to Tanya for the interesting history lesson!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/13/icon_thumleft.gif

I don't think anybody meant to imply that Kim approved of slavery, I certainly didn't.  That would be prespammersite.

I prefer not to compare the Holocaust to the slave trade in Africa.  They are two of the worst atrocities in human history, but no good can come from arguing whether one was worse than the other.

A certain poster whom I should have ignored spurred my remarks.  What that person said just got under my skin!

The last thing I would suggest is that only Europeans are evil, and I'm not making a play for white guilt.  History is history regardless of how I feel about it.

And I still say a big So What.  Who bought?  And once they were became property how were they treated?  It doesn't matter what the color or nationality of the people doing the selling.  People purchased and perpetuated the atrocities upon the lives of these people, and their children, and their childrens children. The importation of slaves from was banned in 1808(well, legally). From then it was the slave owners ball game, and play they did.
Jeez, no one is saying they were treated fairly, heck, even humanely (although some - very few - were).  If they hadn't been "sold" in the first place, nothing would have happened.  You seem to keep implying that it was the white Europeans who "invented" slavery.  Slavery's been around since the beginning of time.....some were treated better than others, some weren't.  Unfortunately, that's a part of history and nothing can change the past.  The government can give a 100% heartfelt apology and it STILL won't erase what happened and there are many who will STILL be resentful.  When the whole thing in Virginia came to light, the news was showing interviews with people on their reactions and there was one guy who said "I really don't care.  There's NOTHING the government can do or say to make it right."

Jeez, no one is saying they were treated fairly, heck, even humanely (although some - very few - were).  If they hadn't been "sold" in the first place, nothing would have happened.  You seem to keep implying that it was the white Europeans who "invented" slavery.  Slavery's been around since the beginning of time.....some were treated better than others, some weren't.  Unfortunately, that's a part of history and nothing can change the past.  The government can give a 100% heartfelt apology and it STILL won't erase what happened and there are many who will STILL be resentful.  When the whole thing in Virginia came to light, the news was showing interviews with people on their reactions and there was one guy who said "I really don't care.  There's NOTHING the government can do or say to make it right."


No, that is not what I am saying at all.  What I am saying is that it was much more hypocritical.  Slavery in the United States was rationalized with a thick coat of doing what is best for the poor "2/3s of a human being" .  The utter religious hypocrisy of the legislated reasons for maintaining the peculiar institution.  I will go on record as saying I don't care about apologies, they tend to ring hollow(so much yaddayaddayadda).  What I would like is an acknowledgement that slavery in the United States did take a different turn and the ramifications continue to influence the lives of all Americans today.  How can African Americans, or any minority in the USA, expect to "get over it" when the powers that be won't.

No, htat is not what I am saying at all.  What I am saying is that it was much more hypocritical.  Slavery in the United States was rationalized with a thick coat of doing what is best for the poor "2/3s of a human being" .  The utter religious hypocrisy of the legislated reasons for maintaining the peculiar institution.  I will go on record as saying I don't care about apologies, they tend to ring hollow(so much yaddayaddayadda).  What I would like is an acknowledgement that slavery in the United States did take a different turn and the ramifications continue to influence the lives of all Americans today.  How can African Americans, or any minority in the USA, expect to "get over it" when the powers that be won't.
Google Bush's speech at Goree....or does it need to be a "formal" declaration? ??? http://www.whitheouse.gov/news/releases/2003/07/20030708-1.html

Google Bush's speech at Goree....or does it need to be a "formal" declaration? ??? http://www.whitheouse.gov/news/releases/2003/07/20030708-1.html



I wonder how that would play in South Carolina?  Heck I wonder how it would play in Boston, or Detroit,Memphis, Selma, Dallas..........

Our substitute teacher for my physics class (who, yes, was African-American) said people need more dialogue about slavery in order for people's attitudes about it to improve. Because the educational standard has gone from approval and whitewashing to blanket statements like "it was bad." Yes, of course it was awful. But it was also unspeakably important: economically, socially, religiously, politically, and culturally. Not everyone who owned slaves was a bad person. The same way every anti-Semite was not a bad person. These attitudes are complicated when you apply them on the personal level; overarching sociopolitical statements find both their clearest and their most confusing expression over one person.

For example, the Polish attitudes towards Jews. In 1939, 3.3 million Jews lived in Poland, over ten percent of the country's population, and were an important economic cog in the country. We traded and produced valuable commodities for the farmers, were comparatively integrated though we lived together in clusters, and were brought over six or seven hundred years by express invitation by the Polish king to improve the economy. Even as many Poles assisted the Nazis in rooting out and exterminating Jews, there were still more Poles than in any other country who were "righteous among the nations" and resisted Nazi attempts to destroy the Jewish population of Poland. The Ukrainians, Belarusians, and Romanians were worse anti-Semites. And yet, the Polish population of Poland conspired with the Russian, German, and Austro-Hungarian governments to suppress us. The Poles, Ukrainians, and Belarusians were the lowest common denominator rights-wise for most of the late second millennium in terms of the European food chain, and the lowest need somebody to push around. Ditto with poor whites and African-Americans in the US; the ruling classes of Europe encouraged anti-Semitism among the lower classes because it was a distraction from the actual suppressor. In the late 19th century, socioeconomic resentment and bitterness was misdirected at Jews in the pogroms that should have been directed at the Czar.

Reading Flannery O'Connor made me GET the South more and GET the cultural atmosphere of it more as a Northerner. And understand both sides better. The whole "My ancestors were mean to yours!" thing is pointless.

The upside of Polish-Jewish relations:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dc/Wojciech_Gerson-Kazimierz_Wielki.jpg
Casimir III of Poland and the Jews.

In the middle-ages, Poland was the hot place to be for Jews. The Jewish masses of Germany fled to Poland during the Black Death. We even had special rights given to us in which we had our own courts of law, an autonomous community of sorts, and formed the middle-class. In the Renaissance, it was even known as "heaven for the Jews."

Yes, of course it was awful. But it was also unspeakably important: economically, socially, religiously, politically, and culturally. Not everyone who owned slaves was a bad person.


??? Unspeakably important, ( I consider your age as I withhold invective)

It was economically, socially, religiously, politically, and culturally unnecessary, and detrimental.  There isn't a justification for the exploitation of any group in this manner.  Every person who owned/owns a slave may not have been/be a bad person, owning a person and excersing the ultimate power over that persons life is a very bad act.  (hey, Joe is great guy, sure he owns a slave but...   hey, Joe is great guy, sure he beats his wife, but...   hey, Amy is a great gal, sure she pimps her daughter out, but...)

In the middle-ages, Poland was the hot place to be for Jews. The Jewish masses of Germany fled to Poland during the Black Death. We even had special rights given to us in which we had our own courts of law, an autonomous community of sorts, and formed the middle-class. In the Renaissance, it was even known as "heaven for the Jews."



That was nice for those in the Middle Ages, but things changed, and that change was not economically, socially, religiously, politically, or culturally necessary.

??? Unspeakably important, ( I consider your age as I withhold invective)

It was economically, socially, religiously, politically, and culturally unnecessary, and detrimental.  There isn't a justification for the exploitation of any group in this manner.  Every person who owned/owns a slave may not have been/be a bad person, owning a person and excersing the ultimate power over that persons life is a very bad act.  (hey, Joe is great guy, sure he owns a slave but...   hey, Joe is great guy, sure he beats his wife, but...   hey, Amy is a great gal, sure she pimps her daughter out, but...)




I mean IMPORTANT in understanding society now. IMPORTANT  in understanding religion as it is now. WHY? because it happened. Most really bad things were also IMPORTANT.

Just because something is unnecessary doesn't mean that it didn't happen, and that in order to understand society now, you need to understand it, in all its negativity. What I see now in American education is an execution of this attitude. What is one-dimensional is one-dimensional is one-dimensional, and it's all rank and despicable miseducation and an example of the trend of NEWSPEAK. Trying to say that something that is bad is unimportant is social engineering. ALL SOCIAL ENGINEERING IS BAD. It's never worked out and it never will. If you want to have an informed and sensitive young America, you need to inform and not opine to them about slavery. Not make conclusions for them; 99.9% will come to the conclusion that it's bad. If everything that's bad is seen as UNIMPORTANT, we'd be living in a social engineering fairyland in which nothing ever changes, but everything is shoved under the carpet. Dogma is dogma, whatever the side perpetrating the dogma is, as is oversimplification.

UNNECESSARY? Along with everything else. Have humans ever been guided by necessity? NO. Have we ever done the best thing? NO (or usually not.) Can we learn from our mistakes? POSSIBLY. In order to execute change in America, we need to realize that SLAVERY IS IMPORTANT. If it weren't important, why is it still so f*cking emotional and charged of an issue today? And if we keep trying to look at slavery as "unimportant", the sh*tty state of race relations in this country will continue to be sh*tty. Thanks.

I mean IMPORTANT in understanding society now. IMPORTANT  in understanding religion as it is now. WHY? because it happened. Most really bad things were also IMPORTANT.

Just because something is unnecessary doesn't mean that it didn't happen, and that in order to understand society now, you need to understand it, in all its negativity. What I see now in American education is an execution of this attitude. What is one-dimensional is one-dimensional is one-dimensional, and it's all rank and despicable miseducation and an example of the trend of NEWSPEAK. Trying to say that something that is bad is unimportant is social engineering. ALL SOCIAL ENGINEERING IS BAD. It's never worked out and it never will. If you want to have an informed and sensitive young America, you need to inform and not opine to them about slavery. Not make conclusions for them; 99.9% will come to the conclusion that it's bad. If everything that's bad is seen as UNIMPORTANT, we'd be living in a social engineering fairyland in which nothing ever changes, but everything is shoved under the carpet. Dogma is dogma, whatever the side perpetrating the dogma is, as is oversimplification.

UNNECESSARY? Along with everything else. Have humans ever been guided by necessity? NO. Have we ever done the best thing? NO (or usually not.) Can we learn from our mistakes? POSSIBLY. In order to execute change in America, we need to realize that SLAVERY IS IMPORTANT. If it weren't important, why is it still so f*cking emotional and charged of an issue today? And if we keep trying to look at slavery as "unimportant", the sh*tty state of race relations in this country will continue to be sh*tty. Thanks.

Let me also add:

"Important" does not necessarily mean "justified."  Throughout history, there have been numerous actions that were not "necessary" or "justifiable," but that does not mean they were not important.  If we don't learn from our past mistakes and continue to dwell on and live in the past, how can we be expected to move forward and improve the future?

Let me also add:

"Important" does not necessarily mean "justified."  Throughout history, there have been numerous actions that were not "necessary" or "justifiable," but that does not mean they were not important.  If we don't learn from our past mistakes and continue to dwell on and live in the past, how can we be expected to move forward and improve the future?


If the present state illustrates that the past wasn't studied properly and no actual learnings came from it, the future state is already hindered. For example, America's future will be dead in the water unless we take the necessary steps to acknowledge it's ENTIRE ugly past, which in America's present is in a state of denial.

If the present state illustrates that the past wasn't studied properly and no actual learnings came from it, the future state is already hindered. For example, America's future will be dead in the water unless we take the necessary steps to acknowledge it's ENTIRE ugly past, which in America's present is in a state of denial.
I agree.  However, no matter what we do or say, there will always be people who will be in denial about the past......just as there will always be people who will never admit that some HAVE "learned from it."  It is not only those who refuse to acknowledge the past, but those who refuse to acknowledge any progress who are exacerbating the (mis)understanding of the issue.

I just think some people here have a hard time understanding the difference between necessity AND "importance." Importance is due to magnitude and pervasiveness, not some idea of "necessity." History is not an engineering workroom.

I just think some people here have a hard time understanding the difference between necessity AND "importance." Importance is due to magnitude and pervasiveness, not some idea of "necessity." History is not an engineering workroom.


Ah yes, young one, History can be constructed in an engineering workroom when you take into account perspective. His story, Her story, the truth.

Oh, I know the difference between the words, btw.

Ah yes, young one, History can be constructed in an engineering workroom when you take into account perspective. His story, Her story, the truth.

Oh, I know the difference between the words, btw.


I was not speaking of you. It can be. However, it SHOULD NOT BE. And both sides of an issue tend to be guilty of bias. And PLEASE don't patronize me.


And getting back to the original topic. I do not think a slavery apology is either necessary or wise. A society built on apology only creates bitterness and indebtedness, and an inability to move on. Case in point: Israel and the Holocaust. It was among Israel's worst decisions to feed off of Holocaust apology and reparations. It has to answer to that forever. What America needs to do is to inform and acknowledge slavery better. How is the government expected to EVER solve white privilege? But as a society, through education, we can better build an equalized society of people making informed decisions. The mistake of the late 20th century people who influenced education on these issues was to replace dogma with dogma, something Martin Luther King Jr. warned against repeatedly. Talk is cheap, as are "nice gestures."

Two recent developments:

The Virginia State legislature voted unanimously to its regrets for Virginia's part in slavery and for the exploitation of Indians.

Brown University is rewriting its official history to acknowledge that it benefited from both the slave trade and slavery, since many of its original benefactors were slavers, including the ancestors of the man after whom it was named, although he was a prominent abolitionist.  It is also beefing up its African American Studies program, creating an incentives program for students willing to work in the local schools to improve K - 12 education, and building a monument honoring slaves.  These are the kind of things I meant when I talked about institutionl acknownedgment.

that's pretty hilarious, virginia, considering how every other highway around here is named after a confederate general.

um, sorry i live on robert e. lee memorial drive.

that's pretty hilarious, virginia, considering how every other highway around here is named after a confederate general.

um, sorry i live on robert e. lee memorial drive.


;D

and then a  ::)

rounded out with a rousing  :\'(.

um, sorry i live on robert e. lee memorial drive.


You should be proud. Maybe some of his excellent tactical knowledge will rub off on you.

You should be proud. Maybe some of his excellent tactical knowledge will rub off on you.


::)

::)


Hey, he was a great tactician.

Hey, he was a great tactician.


Too bad he was such a d*ck.

Hey, he was a great tactician.


but not quite good enough  ;)

but not quite good enough  ;)


Mmhmm. If he was in charge of the union army, the war would have been over in a matter of months IMO. Tactically, Lee was the better man, by far. His army sucked.

that's pretty hilarious, virginia, considering how every other highway around here is named after a confederate general.

um, sorry i live on robert e. lee memorial drive.


Of course its hilarious, no question, and the virginia leg. is probably made up of a bunch of hypocrits, but is was interesting to read.

Mmhmm. If he was in charge of the union army, the war would have been over in a matter of months IMO. Tactically, Lee was the better man, by far. His army sucked.



Maybe, maybe not.  Can't prove a negative.  Grant did it all, and that was proven.

Maybe, maybe not.  Can't prove a negative.  Grant did it all, and that was proven.


MM, fair enough. I'm not interested enough to care.  ;D

I dunno why, but the Civil war bores me. Maybe it's because I was never taught it.. British and French schools don't tend to cater to american history so much. Gimmie WW2 anyday, dogfights, genocide and a-bombs, that's where it's at!

MM, fair enough. I'm not interested enough to care.  ;D

I dunno why, but the Civil war bores me. Maybe it's because I was never taught it.. British and French schools don't tend to cater to american history so much. Gimmie WW2 anyday, dogfights, genocide and a-bombs, that's where it's at!


I wasn't much on the Civil War until the Ken Burns thing.  Then I read a book, Confederates in the Attic by Tony Horowitz.  It is a guy who took a road trip around some Civil War sites a few years ago to find out about what the locals think of the war these days.  It was a great book, think you'd like it.  He hangs with some of those hardcore re-enactors.  It is cool.  I was always a bit more interested in WWI.  It isn't so easy though, over hear WWI and Korea are the forgotten wars,(along with the Spanish American, King Philips War, the War of 1812, Shays Rebellion, and...and...and....)

I wasn't much on the Civil War until the Ken Burns thing.  Then I read a book, Confederates in the Attic by Tony Horowitz.  It is a guy who took a road trip around some Civil War sites a few years ago to find out about what the locals think of the war these days.  It was a great book, think you'd like it.  He hangs with some of those hardcore re-enactors.  It is cool.  I was always a bit more interested in WWI.  It isn't so easy though, over hear WWI and Korea are the forgotten wars,(along with the Spanish American, King Philips War, the War of 1812, Shays Rebellion, and...and...and....)


.. you forgot to add 'The war on terror', 'The war on drugs', 'The war on fiscal policy' etc..etc..etc  ;D

.. you forgot to add 'The war on terror', 'The war on drugs', 'The war on fiscal policy' etc..etc..etc  ;D
aren't we constantly getting REMINDED of those metaphorical wars, though?

aren't we constantly getting REMINDED of those metaphorical wars, though?


It's been ages since I heard about the war on drugs.. and I'm only occasionally reminded of the hunt for osama bin laden.

hmm, i suppose that's true actually. i guess the war on terror is currently satisfying the needs of the military-industrial complex.

about which im learning lots and lots at this new job, by the way.

hmm, i suppose that's true actually. i guess the war on terror is currently satisfying the needs of the military-industrial complex.

about which im learning lots and lots at this new job, by the way.



NARK!

dude, if you got nothin' to hide, you got nothin' to fear.

i was talking with gay guy about how his cell phone ring tone is the "love boat" theme song, and he's all, "i love the 80s." and i'm like, why? cuz of the great fashions and legwarmers and stuff (cuz i'm constantly trying to ask him loaded questions to try and find out if he really IS gay cuz he's totally hot without making it too obvious, "or, is it cuzza the whole morning-in-america thing?" and he's, oh, yeah, morning in america, definitely.

so he's like one of these reagan cultists. it's really confusing, like, is he one of these log cabin republicans or does he just ACT gay or what's with that?

anyway....

it's funny because all these army/intelligence/law enforcement gigs i've worked have been

a. damned interesting, just on an intellectual level and
b. the people are VERY nice and personable and laid back. and i KNOW they're all probably to the right of strom thurmond. so... it's rather confusing. god help me if they find out my actual politics.

dude, if you got nothin' to hide, you got nothin' to fear.

i was talking with gay guy about how his cell phone ring tone is the "love boat" theme song, and he's all, "i love the 80s." and i'm like, why? cuz of the great fashions and legwarmers and stuff (cuz i'm constantly trying to ask him loaded questions to try and find out if he really IS gay cuz he's totally hot without making it too obvious, "or, is it cuzza the whole morning-in-america thing?" and he's, oh, yeah, morning in america, definitely.

so he's like one of these reagan cultists. it's really confusing, like, is he one of these log cabin republicans or does he just ACT gay or what's with that?

anyway....

it's funny because all these army/intelligence/law enforcement gigs i've worked have been

a. damned interesting, just on an intellectual level and
b. the people are VERY nice and personable and laid back. and i KNOW they're all probably to the right of strom thurmond. so... it's rather confusing. god help me if they find out my actual politics.


It is true. You have no worrys if you have nothing to hide. Now.. I know... and you know, that we have lots to hide. So let's drop this particular subject.  ;D

I think Pete is gay and he's to the right of Herman Goering. Being gay dosen't automatically mean one has to be a Liberal.  ;)

Being gay dosen't automatically mean one has to be a Liberal.  ;)



For sure!!!

http://perival.com/delillo/edgar_and_clyde.jpeg

For sure!!!

http://perival.com/delillo/edgar_and_clyde.jpeg


;D ;D True!