Kenneth Eng, columnist for "AsianWeekly", a sister-publication of The San Francisco Chronicle is under fire for a recent article he wrote titled "Why I Hate Blacks".  Eng himself has been a controversial figure for years, and most describe him as a "Devout Athiest" and "Asian Supremist".  Below is a copy of the controversial article.

Why I Hate Blacks
Kenneth Eng, Feb 23, 2007

Here is a list of reasons why we should discriminate
against blacks, starting from the most obvious down to the
least obvious:

• Blacks hate us. Every Asian who has ever come across
them knows that they take almost every opportunity to hurl
racist remarks at us.

In my experience, I would say about 90 percent of blacks I
have met, regardless of age or environment, poke fun at
the very sight of an Asian. Furthermore, their activity in the
media proves their hatred: Rush Hour, Exit Wounds, Hot
97, etc.

• Contrary to media depictions, I would argue that blacks
are weak-willed. They are the only race that has been
enslaved for 300 years. It’s unbelievable that it took them
that long to fight back.

On the other hand, we slaughtered the Russians in the
Japanese-Russo War.

• Blacks are easy to coerce. This is proven by the fact that
so many of them, including Reverend Al Sharpton, tend to
be Christians.

Yet, at the same time, they spend much of their time
whining about how much they hate "the whites that
oppressed them."

Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t Christianity the religion
that the whites forced upon them?

• Blacks don’t get it. I know it’s a blunt and crass
comment, but it’s true. When I was in high school, I recall
a class debate in which one half of the class was chosen
to defend black slavery and the other half was chosen to
defend liberation.

Disturbingly, blacks on the prior side viciously defended
slavery as well as Christianity. They say if you don’t study
history, you’re condemned to repeat it.
In high school, I only remember one black student ever
attending any of my honors and AP courses. And that
student was caught cheating.

It is rather troubling that they are treated as heroes, but
then again, whites will do anything to defend them.

*****

Here is a link to where you can find the story.  I have posted it and provide this link, because the AsianWeekly has removed it from their site, and it is almost impossible to find the original article.

http://www.capaweb.org/awpetition/AsianAmerican_Leaders_Condemn_Racist_AW_Article.pdf

Of course, this is not the first time Mr. Eng has fired away like this.  Some of his precious articles have been titled "Why I Hate Whites", "Why I Hate Hispanics", and "Why I Hate Christians".  In fact, in his own blog on Amazon.Com, he takes aim against Christians, Muslims, or anybody else that is religious:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/ATCXMPPVKTNTU

According to his own words, "Religion is sick. Religion is disgusting. Anyone who practices religion should be forced to wear a shirt that says "stupid". I'm not fu*king joking. I'm really serious."

Of course, it does not help matters that in his blog, he makes several mistakes about religion.  It was not Moses (as he claims) that was told to sacrifice his son, but Abraham, who was told to sacrifice either Isaac or Ishmael (depending on if you are Judeo-Christian or Muslim).

My question is this:  Why was he even allowed to publish an article titled "Why I Hate Blacks"?  In fact, why was he allowed to publish any of his previous "hate speech" articles?  Were his editors asleep?  And where was the outrage from his prior articles?

I'd like to see an article titled "Why I Hate Kenneth Eng."

My question is this:  Why was he even allowed to publish an article titled "Why I Hate Blacks"?  In fact, why was he allowed to publish any of his previous "hate speech" articles?  Were his editors asleep?  And where was the outrage from his prior articles?


As you know, he is allowed to publish an article titled "Why I Hate Blacks."  That's his First Amendment right.  However, "Asian Weekly" is not obliged under the First Amendment to publish Eng's articles or employ him. 

Philosophically, Mr. Eng is attempting a cheap tactic of being an equal opportunity hater.  The problem is, not all hatred is equal.  If you write an article called "Why I hate Blacks," you're going to strike a raw nerve unique to bigotry against Blacks.  I would not doubt Eng knew these "hate" articles would eventually get him fired.  From there he could whip up a media controversy, and in the end it would help his career. 

Philosophically, Mr. Eng is attempting a cheap tactic of being an equal opportunity hater.  The problem is, not all hatred is equal.  If you write an article called "Why I hate Blacks," you're going to strike a raw nerve unique to bigotry against Blacks.  I would not doubt Eng knew these "hate" articles would eventually get him fired.  From there he could whip up a media controversy, and in the end it would help his career. 


This all boils down to being responsible, and accepting the consequences for your actions.

Mr. Eng (or anybody else) has the right to publish anything they want.  But the publisher also has the right (and responsibility) to edit or censor him if they feel that publishing the article is against it's own interest (or the interest of it's readers).

After all, I have the right to stand in Compton and say "I hate blacks" also.  And everybody he hears me then has the right to beat the holy crap out of me for doing such a stupid thing.  My biggest question is why this racist was allowed to continue to write article after article, publically showing his hatred and racism.  He should have been slapped down after his very first article (which was published last year).

This is why the only people I ever speak badly about are Myopians.  Nobody can deny that they are all very short-sighted.  :D

This is why the only people I ever speak badly about are Myopians.  Nobody can deny that they are all very short-sighted.   :D


Y'know I'm myopic, and if I could clearly read what was said here, I'm sure I'd be offended...I think. ;)

Hahaha! I like this guy. He says what he thinks.

Hey, I'm not in agreement with everything he says, he's done this article "I Hate Whites." I'm white, but still, at least he's not a pussy, covering up his real thoughts.. comes out and says it.

Oh, he's right.. anybody that's religious should wear a 'I'm stupid' shirt.

My biggest question is why this racist was allowed to continue to write article after article, publically showing his hatred and racism. 

Isn' the answer obvious?  They got nervous.

It's fun to hang out with your buddy when he's ripping on people at the bar...until those reeeal big dudes in the corner get up and start waking towards you.  Then you're all, "Hey, I ain't with this guy!"
:o

http://ganjataz.com/general-bollocks/images/by-GT/forum-sheeshz/pot-kettle-black.jpg

He can write whatever he wants but should not be surprised that there are repercussions.

Y'know I'm myopic, and if I could clearly read what was said here, I'm sure I'd be offended...I think. ;)


I am myopic also.  That is one of the fun things about poking fun at them: I am also poking fun at myself.


Oh, he's right.. anybody that's religious should wear a 'I'm stupid' shirt.


But he says basically that anybody that is not an Athiest is stupid.  That means I am stupid.  It means that most of my friends are stupid.  Oh, and it also means that Cat is stupid.  No matter what our disagreements are, I would never consider Cat to be stupid.  Especially about something as personal as religion.

In fact, I am sure that 75%+ of the members here are "Religious" or "Spiritual" in one form or another.  What he is really saying is "Everybody that does not look like me, and believes exactly what I think is stupid.

I wonder if he has considered starting an Asian chapter of the KKK.  Because Mr. Eng sounds to me as stupid as any other racist or bigot.

Being a racist is the ultimate stupidity.


http://ganjataz.com/general-bollocks/images/by-GT/forum-sheeshz/pot-kettle-black.jpg

He can write whatever he wants but should not be surprised that there are repercussions.


I love that picture Rice! 

I love that picture Rice! 


I thought it was appropriate under the circumstances :)

I'm taking a better look at the excerpts you posted (don't want to read the actual article because the guy's an idiot) and I have a few thoughts...


• Blacks hate us. Every Asian who has ever come across
them knows that they take almost every opportunity to hurl
racist remarks at us.

Untrue.  I am Asian and have numerous black friends and colleagues.  Mr. Eng obviously has the viewpoint of a frog in a well who thinks the sky is only as big as the part he can see (old Chinese Proverb).



In my experience, I would say about 90 percent of blacks I
have met, regardless of age or environment, poke fun at
the very sight of an Asian. Furthermore, their activity in the
media proves their hatred: Rush Hour, Exit Wounds, Hot
97, etc.

Also untrue.  Black people make fun of everybody, they are extremely good at racial humor (Chris Rock and Dave Chappelle come to mind).  Who better to poke fun at minorities than a minority?  :D



• Contrary to media depictions, I would argue that blacks
are weak-willed. They are the only race that has been
enslaved for 300 years. It’s unbelievable that it took them
that long to fight back.

I'm sure back in the really old days the slaves didn't have to fight back against "massa's" with guns :P

I would not believe black people to be weak-willed in general, just as I would not say the same for Hispanics or other Asians.  There's a difference between being weak-willed and being deprived of equal opportunity.  Although I feel that nowadays, opportunities are more numerous than in the past.


On the other hand, we slaughtered the Russians in the
Japanese-Russo War.

Yeah, because the Japanese had ninjas with ninja powers.



• Blacks are easy to coerce. This is proven by the fact that
so many of them, including Reverend Al Sharpton, tend to
be Christians.

Yet, at the same time, they spend much of their time
whining about how much they hate "the whites that
oppressed them."

Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t Christianity the religion
that the whites forced upon them?

This is some fuzzy logic going on!  There's nothing wrong with believing in God (Christian or otherwise).  And just about every race of human is coerceable. 



• Blacks don’t get it. I know it’s a blunt and crass
comment, but it’s true. When I was in high school, I recall
a class debate in which one half of the class was chosen
to defend black slavery and the other half was chosen to
defend liberation.

Disturbingly, blacks on the prior side viciously defended
slavery as well as Christianity. They say if you don’t study
history, you’re condemned to repeat it.

I thought that was the point of the assignment, to choose a side and defend it in a debate despite not believing in the side you are defending...



In high school, I only remember one black student ever
attending any of my honors and AP courses. And that
student was caught cheating.

Frog in well!

There are actually several Hispanic and black students in my graduate biology program.  Very intelligent, insightful and generally good folk.  Mr. Eng must have been extremely unlucky to be cursed with such poor representatives of the black community :P



It is rather troubling that they are treated as heroes, but
then again, whites will do anything to defend them.


Many black people ARE heroes.

In conclusion, Mr. Eng is an idiot.

Hey, what's the big deal?  As Avenue Q so eloquently put it, "Everyone's a little bit racist!"  This guy just took it a few light-years further than that!

Mine would be called "Why I think Mr. Eng, is a douchbag".

But that would be offensive to douch bags.

::)

Eng is wrong.  Blacks weren't enslaved for 300 years.  They were enslaved for 400 years.
:-\\

Actually, I'd say this attests to the strength and endurance of Blacks.  They actually survived the filthy white man and his diseases.  A lot of them Indian tribes croaked before 1600 hundred.  Good old smallpox!

I think there is more than a remote possibility that the next article Mr. Eng writes will be titled "Why I Got My Ass Kicked".

  I've been reading on the net a mix between condemnation for this cat's remarks, concern that a paper that purports to speak for Asian Americans would publish them (especially during black history month) while speaking to the love/hate relationship between Blacks and Asians.  Both sides are interested in the other culturally but seem to have the hardest time reaching common ground in day to day relations...

  Girlfriend suggests his Asian card be revoked immediately...

  He's lashed out at whites in previous articles, as well, and folks are saying that this kind of thing is a reflection of Asian male rage in a society that diminishes Asian masculinity.  With the black male stereotype being the EXACT opposite of the Asian male stereotype, creating natural animosity/jealousy/&etc...

  The last point is pretty interesting and pretty true...

  ??? ???

It took me a couple of minutes to realize why this guy comes across as so objectionably racist: it's the way he's cherry-picked certain behavioural attributes which will be shown by some (even if not the broader black population), and those which reinforce his personal prejudices, ignoring anything which would create even the vaguest of good impressions.

Thing is, he talks about slaves taking three (or four, Max) hundred years before liberation, but on the same scale the overwhelming majority of the Japanese population were servile for thousands of years, also often believing in their own brand of ridiculously silly deities.  So how can that be used as an argument?

The guy is obviously a blinkered idiot - why do we bother giving him any thought or discussion here?

This guy must get lots of death threats.

• Blacks hate us. Every Asian who has ever come across
them knows that they take almost every opportunity to hurl
racist remarks at us.


This is the one thing I saw in this article which may explain his entire reason for writing it (and why he feels that way).

I know that in the larger cities in California (SF and LA), this often seems to be true.  Asians are frequently the victims of gang attacks and roberies in the big cities.  And I have lost count of the number of them I heard about when I lived there.

And during the LA Riots, the first places that the looters targeted were normally Asian owned.  Liquor stores, convience stores, electronics stores, jewelry stores.  In particular the Korean communities were heavily targeted in the 1992 Riots.  I remember seeing video and photos of store owners standing on their roofs and inside their stores with guns, trying to protect what they owned from looters.  Some even banded together into impromptu "Protection Societies" to protect their homes and businesses until the National Guard arrived.

http://www.occidentalism.org/?m=200608
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots

So it is easy to understand why Mr. Eng may feel that "Blacks hate Asians".  It happens to be the opinion of a lot of Asians in California.  But things like this will do nothing to lower the tensions between Asians and Blacks.  If anything else, it will ratchet up the tension even more.

  He's lashed out at whites in previous articles, as well, and folks are saying that this kind of thing is a reflection of Asian male rage in a society that diminishes Asian masculinity.  With the black male stereotype being the EXACT opposite of the Asian male stereotype, creating natural animosity/jealousy/&etc...


That's the really sad part.  The articles lashing out at whites (and one called "Why I hate Asians") not only got published, they didn't get him fired, or pulled from the website, or anything else. 

He's clearly a racist, or writing racist things to try and provoke outrage.  Why should racism against one race should matter more than another?

I found the excerpts laughable.  This man is clearly an idiot.  Rice's well comment was perfect.  That being said, I'm interested in seeing his other "why I hate" articles, but can't seem to find them.  Has anyone else had any luck?

I found the excerpts laughable.  This man is clearly an idiot.  Rice's well comment was perfect.  That being said, I'm interested in seeing his other "why I hate" articles, but can't seem to find them.  Has anyone else had any luck?


We'll see them the same time we see someone suing a rich person for getting into a college with poor grades(affirmative action by any other name...)

I found the excerpts laughable.  This man is clearly an idiot.  Rice's well comment was perfect.  That being said, I'm interested in seeing his other "why I hate" articles, but can't seem to find them.  Has anyone else had any luck?


Why I Hate Asians
http://news.asianweek.com/news/view_article.html?article_id=7db9bd5343504d52fa065fef122fc04d&this_category_id=172

Accusing police of ignoring a racist attack on himself
http://news.asianweek.com/news/view_article.html?article_id=e50d589d0b9f6987fac2f6fccc940053&this_category_id=172

Why Non-Violent Protest Will Never Help Asians
http://news.asianweek.com/news/view_article.html?article_id=1d2c23e4d37fcd4815bda23b23e84159&this_category_id=172

Proof That Whites Inherently Hate Us
http://news.asianweek.com/news/view_article.html?article_id=33bdb64c5b346a69bab3a2d448603596&this_category_id=172

And I already linked to his articles, "Why I Hate Blacks", and his manifesto about people who are religious.

Why I Hate Asians
http://news.asianweek.com/news/view_article.html?article_id=7db9bd5343504d52fa065fef122fc04d&this_category_id=172


HA....he hates himself.

Nice going, Mr. Eng. You got your 15 minutes of fame.

*yawn*

This is the one thing I saw in this article which may explain his entire reason for writing it (and why he feels that way).

I know that in the larger cities in California (SF and LA), this often seems to be true.  Asians are frequently the victims of gang attacks and roberies in the big cities.  And I have lost count of the number of them I heard about when I lived there.

And during the LA Riots, the first places that the looters targeted were normally Asian owned.  Liquor stores, convience stores, electronics stores, jewelry stores.  In particular the Korean communities were heavily targeted in the 1992 Riots.  I remember seeing video and photos of store owners standing on their roofs and inside their stores with guns, trying to protect what they owned from looters.  Some even banded together into impromptu "Protection Societies" to protect their homes and businesses until the National Guard arrived.

http://www.occidentalism.org/?m=200608
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots

So it is easy to understand why Mr. Eng may feel that "Blacks hate Asians".  It happens to be the opinion of a lot of Asians in California.  But things like this will do nothing to lower the tensions between Asians and Blacks.  If anything else, it will ratchet up the tension even more.


Certainly, there is gang-related Black-on-Asian crime, but there is plenty of organized crime amongst Asian populations from L.A. to Vancouver.  There is Asian-on-Asian and Asian-on-Black crime too. 

Remember what happened to Dr. Haing S. Ngor--played Dith Pran in "The Killing Fields," won Best Supporting Actor,  later murdered by "The Oriental Lazy Boys."

Certainly, there is gang-related Black-on-Asian crime, but there is plenty of organized crime amongst Asian populations from L.A. to Vancouver.  There is Asian-on-Asian and Asian-on-Black crime too. 

Remember what happened to Dr. Haing S. Ngor--played Dith Pran in "The Killing Fields," won Best Supporting Actor,  later murdered by "The Oriental Lazy Boys."


This is very true Max.  It is especially true in Garden Grove, which most in the region refer to as "Garbage Grove".  It is home to the largest Vietnamese Community outside of Vietnam.  And it is a haven for Vietnamese gangs.

These gangs are rather unique in LA, because unless you are Asian (or a member of another gang), they will normally leave you alone.  While I would find a way to walk far around a group of Crips, I would have no fear of a Vietnamese Gang, because I am not Vietnamese.  But they are terrors in their own community, and killings between gangs and upon people they try to extory money from are almost daily occurances.

But especially in the Korean Community in LA, there is a real feeling of tension because of many incidents.  I do not nessicarily believe that the things Mr. ENg brought up are real, but there is enough to try and make a claim of it.


HA....he hates himself.


Not true.  Look at the last sentence of his article:

Don’t get me wrong. I love the Asian race, but every race has its inferiors.

And Mr. Eng is of Japanese descent.  Most of the different Asian groups tend to feel a "superiority" over the others, but the Japanese often take it to an extreme.  They used this as a "justification" for their atrocities before and during WWII, and still act that way to this day.  In fact, out of all the places I have visited and lived, I have never been in a culture as Xenophobic as Japan.

Fortunately, most Japanese-Americans (and other Asian-Americans) seem to have left that kind of thinking in their past.  It is sad that Mr. Eng is trying to bring it over here.  Maybe he would be better off if he moved to Japan.  That way he can experience some racism first-hand.  That way he can see how those in Japan normally treat a Nisei or Sansei.

Not true.  Look at the last sentence of his article:


I'm not reading that tripe.  If he didn't hate all Asians, he shouldn't have titled the article "Why I Hate Asians".  If you don't mean to paint a whole spectrum of people with the same broad brush, you should alter the title to reflect that.  If I write an article called "Why I Hate Gays", fill it with bigoted slurs and garbage and sum it up by saying, "Now by the way, I don't hate all gays".....I'd look like a damn fool.  And that's just what this Kenneth Eng character is.

After all, I have the right to stand in Compton and say "I hate blacks" also.  And everybody he hears me then has the right to beat the holy crap out of me for doing such a stupid thing.

Actually, in all fairness, they don't really have that right. That would be assault and battery.

I'm not reading that tripe. 


Do not think I am excusing him.  I think everything he wrote is pure garbage.  Of course, he is a self-proclaimed "Asian Supremist", and his subtitle for his Opinion page is "God Of The Universe".

I wonder if he would like for me to send him an edited version of The Turner Diaries.  I can change it, maybe call it The Musashi Diaries.  I can even make the hero a valiant Nisei-American, who commits seppuku after destroying the last of the Caucasian, Black, and Hispanic "Mud People".

He might enjoy it.  Because he has likely commited Seppuku to his own literary career.

Do not think I am excusing him.


Where did I say I thought you were excusing him?

That's the really sad part.  The articles lashing out at whites (and one called "Why I hate Asians") not only got published, they didn't get him fired, or pulled from the website, or anything else. 

He's clearly a racist, or writing racist things to try and provoke outrage.  Why should racism against one race should matter more than another?
This was my initial thought.....why is it that THIS article is getting attention all of a sudden and the others are simply mentioned as an afterthought?

This was my initial thought.....why is it that THIS article is getting attention all of a sudden and the others are simply mentioned as an afterthought?



Maybe because prejudice against blacks is more newsworthy?  I don't know; you bring up a good point.

I don't think there is anything wrong with this.  What ever happened to freedom of speech?  On the other hand, you don't have to like him or what he says.

I don't think there is anything wrong with this.  What ever happened to freedom of speech?  On the other hand, you don't have to like him or what he says.


Right.

As I pointed out right at the start of the thread. What he says dosen't bother me. I don't care, it's conjecture. That's fine, have a field day. At least he has the balls to say what he thinks.

Right.

As I pointed out right at the start of the thread. What he says dosen't bother me. I don't care, it's conjecture. That's fine, have a field day. At least he has the balls to say what he thinks.


Precisely.

Maybe because prejudice against blacks is more newsworthy?  I don't know; you bring up a good point.


The other day I picked up a copy of the Pittsburgh Courier, I usually get a copy every couple of weeks at the grocery store.

Ayway there was this big article complaining about how 90% of the African American Hair Care product market is "owned by Koreans" and that something must be done to rectify the situation.

Makes me wonder what would happen if the Pittsburgh Post Gazette ran an editorial worrying why the NBA has so many African American players, or why so many Pakistanis and Indians work at the convenience stores.  You would be reading about this on Page One of every newspaper in the country.

I don't think there is anything wrong with this.  What ever happened to freedom of speech?  On the other hand, you don't have to like him or what he says.

As noted above, the First Amendment does not extend to employment.  Well, it does to some degree, maybe it should more, but that's a different kettle o'fish.  The state cannot arrest the guy for writing his "I hate this that and the other thing" articles, but the newspaper doesn't have to keep him on staff. 




Ayway there was this big article complaining about how 90% of the African American Hair Care product market is "owned by Koreans" and that something must be done to rectify the situation.



Maybe Koreans are more entrepeneurial.  Or...maybe it's just easier for Koreans to get business loans.  I dunno.  If we truly have a free enterprise system, all Blacks would have to do to "rectify" the situation is show some enterprising spirit, organize themselves, and work hard.  But I'm not sure it's that simple.  I'd wager it isn't.

http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/12/dontknow.gif

as you say in your original post, he also has articles titled "why i hate hispanics" and "why i hate whites", and yet nobody said anything until he wrote an article about why he hates blacks. i'd say that, in itself is discriminating. how is poking fun at the black comunity any different than doing so to the hispanics or whites?

as you say in your original post, he also has articles titled "why i hate hispanics" and "why i hate whites", and yet nobody said anything until he wrote an article about why he hates blacks. i'd say that, in itself is discriminating. how is poking fun at the black comunity any different than doing so to the hispanics or whites?


Maybe there wasn't a response to those articles.  No response, no action taken.

as you say in your original post, he also has articles titled "why i hate hispanics" and "why i hate whites", and yet nobody said anything until he wrote an article about why he hates blacks. i'd say that, in itself is discriminating. how is poking fun at the black comunity any different than doing so to the hispanics or whites?


In a new chapter of the "Double Standard", last week for St Patrick's Day, a day originated to honor a religious figure in Ireland, my company had an "Irish Spirit Contest" in which the winner won a $50 gift certificate for the local beer distributor, and the runner-up got a gift certificate good for one mixed drink at a local bar.  (Interpretation:  Irish people are a bunch of drunks.)

Unbelieveable.

What do you think would have happened in the newspapers if, for MLK Day, we had a "MLK Spirit Contest" where the winner got a free "Extra Crispy Bucket" meal from Kentucky Fried Chicken®?  Or a "Gay Pride Day" where the winning employee won a tub of Crisco®?

But the newspapers and politicians instead take St Paddy's day in fun, celebrating the excess drink stereotype.  Their "fair mindedness" and "political correct sensitivity" only extends to those constituencies that provide them money and votes.  If they were true to their "cause" they would not be stereotyping irish as a bunch of drunks.

In a new chapter of the "Double Standard", last week for St Patrick's Day, a day originated to honor a religious figure in Ireland, my company had an "Irish Spirit Contest" in which the winner won a $50 gift certificate for the local beer distributor, and the runner-up got a gift certificate good for one mixed drink at a local bar.  (Interpretation:  Irish people are a bunch of drunks.)

Unbelieveable.

What do you think would have happened in the newspapers if, for MLK Day, we had a "MLK Spirit Contest" where the winner got a free "Extra Crispy Bucket" meal from Kentucky Fried Chicken®?  Or a "Gay Pride Day" where the winning employee won a tub of Crisco®?

But the newspapers and politicians instead take St Paddy's day in fun, celebrating the excess drink stereotype.  Their "fair mindedness" and "political correct sensitivity" only extends to those constituencies that provide them money and votes.  If they were true to their "cause" they would not be stereotyping irish as a bunch of drunks.




THe spirit in which these two days are celebrated are part of the reason.  On MLK day you will see Fellowship Breakfasts, Church Services, Speeches, and Remembrances.  I don't see any of that on St Patricks Day.  On St Patricks Day what you see is drinking, parades, and drinking at parades.  The negative conotations of St Patricks Day(the term Paddy being an insult) have been fostered by the very people who say they are offended by them.

THe spirit in which these two days are celebrated are part of the reason.  On MLK day you will see Fellowship Breakfasts, Church Services, Speeches, and Remembrances.  I don't see any of that on St Patricks Day.  On St Patricks Day what you see is drinking, parades, and drinking at parades.  The negative conotations of St Patricks Day(the term Paddy being an insult) have been fostered by the very people who say they are offended by them.


I guess you were not at the St Patrick's Day services at my church yesterday.  As well, most of the people you see boozing it up at those parades are not Irish.  It is SAINT PATRICK'S DAY, not "Jameson's Irish Whickey Day".

Note that many of the offensive black sterotypes were perpetuated by blacks themselves but you do not hear media people saying "well it is OK because blacks contributed to the stereotype".

And if you've ever watched one of those Gay Pride parades you'd see alot more stereotype action than free Crisco® giveaways.  But if any company sponsored such a "contest" they would be pilloried in the newspapers as mean spirited.

I repeat my contention.  Most of the "public indignation" that you see from the "PC community" is nothing more than grandstanding and it is insincere and self-serving.  If it were not, you would see nary a person at a St Patrick's Day parade stereotyping those of Irish descent.

I guess you were not at the St Patrick's Day services at my church yesterday.  As well, most of the people you see boozing it up at those parades are not Irish.  It is SAINT PATRICK'S DAY, not "Jameson's Irish Whickey Day".
I repeat my contention.  Most of the "public indignation" that you see from the "PC community" is nothing more than grandstanding and it is insincere and self-serving.  If it were not, you would see nary a person at a St Patrick's Day parade stereotyping those of Irish descent.


It is nice that you celebrate St. Patricks day in a way that shows respect for the man and what he was about.  Unfortunately that is not the way it is observed by the community as a whole.  Having grown up outside of Boston, one of the most Irish of cities, and worked in the city all of my life I know how it is in actuality celebrated.  As a matter of fact it is only in past decade that people not of obvious Irish descent have been able to even go to the parade in Southie without the fear of being accosted(beaten senseless in many cases), so the crap about the revelers being not Irish(or of Irish descent) is just that, crap. The first St Patricks day in the United States was celebrated with a parade and reveling, and it has continued to be so.  Every St. Patricks Day the police beef up there ranks, and the news is frought with warnings about public drinking and drunkeness, that is what the day has degenerated into.  You may protest but facts are facts, as much as you would like to lay the blame for the problems of St Patricks day on everyone but the communtiy that throws the party.

I'm (partially) of Irish descent, and have an Irish surname.  St. Paddy's day does not inspire in me even a twinge of ethnic pride.  Besides not being the "ethnic pride" type, the holiday focuses on the most destructive Irish trait--love of drink.  The Irish side of my family was fraught with raging drunks who were abusive to their kids.  Many of them died horrible deaths of cirrhosis before age 50.  The alcoholic mindset is much more destructive than people seem to understand.  It's not just drunkenness.  It's a whole mosaic of dysfunctional and shame-based behaviors. Not to mention what happens when you combine it with grim Irish Catholocism!

Other European ethnicities have alcohol as an integral part of their culture.*  However, the Irish have a penchant for particularly destructive alcohol abuse.  You find this among other cultures who have undergone centuries sorrow, such as Native Americans and Russians. 

Lyricboy is correct.  St. Patrick's Day celebrates the thing that has hurt Irish people the most (other than the bloody English bastards). However, Danoota is correct also.  Irish Americans are the ones who embrace it the most.  They're free to do so.  I think it's silly, but I'm not going to wage an anti-SPD campaign!

"Paddy" has not qualified as a bona-fide ethnic slur for three generations.  It is true the "paddy wagon" was used to haul Irish drunks to the lock-up, but the cops behind the wheel were just as likely to be Irish themselves!

"Paddy" has long been a nickname for Irish lads named "Patrick."  There's no parallel with the N-word.  Of course, you've got Niger Innis, but that's another story!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niger_Innis

*The temperance movement, which lead to Prohibition, was directed by blue nose WASPs who resented the Irish and the Italians.

For the most part, St. Patrick's Day is a sham, and that's not short for shamrock!

I think St. Patrick's Day is fun, and I don't use it as an excuse to drink.  I wear some green, throw on a shamrock headband and listen to Enya.  I think the majority of people who celebrate St. Patrick's Day do so intelligently and they don't get wasted and fall down in the street.  It's sad that the drunken louts end up on the TV as the "representatives" of this fine holiday.  As a Catholic, it's a feast day for those named Patrick so there are people who look at the day as more than an excuse to see how much liquor their liver can handle before it goes on strike.  It's a shame the stereotypes have completely overrun it.

I think St. Patrick's Day is fun, and I don't use it as an excuse to drink.  I wear some green, throw on a shamrock headband and listen to Enya. 
;D

;D



I'm only like 1% Irish and I don't drink much as it is anyway.  So......that's enough celebration for me.  ;D

I saw a lot of Irish spirit yesterday, and only about 20% was the drunken frat boy, I'm gonna drink til I puke asshats. It was like a sea of green in downtown Chicago, and I even saw some poor souls braving the cold in traditional garb.

I like St. Patrick's Day. It's a fun holiday if you can get over the stereotypes. And yes, I did imbibe of the Guinness, but isn't that like the official alcoholic drink of the Emerald Isle?

Oh, and I went around calling myself Jessica O'Perez, but I'm a dork like that. :D

I was McLeung.

I must add to my bit of tirade that my sig is of Irish descent, as is my best friend.  I took a course in Irish History, as well as reading up on the history of the Irish in America. One of my most prized possessions is a clay pipe I dug up on an excavation in South Boston that has "Home Rule" etched into it(it has been dated to the 1860s), and own a copy of the writings of John Boyle O'Reilly(which I have actually read).  One of my favorite hang-outs is Castle Island in Southie. I have seen the best and the worst of the neighborhood, what happens on St. Patricks Day is in the worst category.

Maybe there wasn't a response to those articles.  No response, no action taken.


exactly, because nobody had a problem until he said crap about the blacks. the black community is way too sensitive.

exactly, because nobody had a problem until he said crap about the blacks. the black community is way too sensitive.

I explained all this to you before.  Apparently you do not want to listen.  What a scholar.
::)

This all boils down to being responsible, and accepting the consequences for your actions.

My biggest question is why this racist was allowed to continue to write article after article, publically showing his hatred and racism.  He should have been slapped down after his very first article (which was published last year).



Maybe the editor / publisher agrees with him

Why I Hate Asians
http://news.asianweek.com/news/view_article.html?article_id=7db9bd5343504d52fa065fef122fc04d&this_category_id=172




I read that & in reading it = it seems that he is not really "hating" Asians, he is telling them to NOT go along with blacks and whites & have Asian pride and think more like him. I think he is trying to spread his own message - that blacks & whites are enemies and Asians should act accordingly.

(I read it that way anyway)

Asian Week? I wondered what Mr. Eng would write if there were a magazine called “White People’s Week�. He probably doesn’t like “Black Men in Business� or any of the other multiple black magazine publications… I suppose Asian Week is okay & any culture’s exclusive magazines or publications – just so long as there are not any called “Ivory� “White Hair� “White Entertainment Weekly� etc., that’s too anti-Asian for the God of the Universe.

Maybe the editor / publisher agrees with him



Well then the editor/publisher is as sick as Mr. Eng is.

Well then the editor/publisher is as sick as Mr. Eng is.


They seem to be! - It seems the only logical explaination to why they would continue to publish his stuff...

But he says basically that anybody that is not an Athiest is stupid.  That means I am stupid.  It means that most of my friends are stupid.  Oh, and it also means that Cat is stupid.  No matter what our disagreements are, I would never consider Cat to be stupid.  Especially about something as personal as religion.

In fact, I am sure that 75%+ of the members here are "Religious" or "Spiritual" in one form or another.  What he is really saying is "Everybody that does not look like me, and believes exactly what I think is stupid.



i sort of agree. i think that to believe in such things (religion) is stupid, but the fact that you believe doesn't make you stupid. i don't think people who are religious really realize how rediculous some of the beliefs are. do any of you christians believe in magic? do any of you truly believe that one single entity could create an entire univers with the flick of a finger? now that is stupid. where did this "god" come from. that's the problem with all beliefs, (spiritual or not) someting had to come before anything else. where did it come from? i believe in the big bang theory. but i have no idea where those first two particles that collided came from. ulitmatly, the fact that we or anything else exists is almost impossible (i'd say full impossible but that is obviously not true.) 

George Soros says the same thing... all Christians & all those who believe in God are stupid. He says that no one wishing to be president of the US should believe in God. If they are that stupid, he tells us, then they shouldn't be president... Soros, a left wing wacko who pours money into the moveon.org folks who now say they own the democrat party!!!!!!

Funny stuff...

Democrats: Owned by an extremist web site  = Actually, it's pretty sad & scary if you think about it.

i sort of agree. i think that to believe in such things (religion) is stupid, but the fact that you believe doesn't make you stupid. i don't think people who are religious really realize how rediculous some of the beliefs are. do any of you christians believe in magic? do any of you truly believe that one single entity could create an entire univers with the flick of a finger? now that is stupid. where did this "god" come from. that's the problem with all beliefs, (spiritual or not) someting had to come before anything else. where did it come from? i believe in the big bang theory. but i have no idea where those first two particles that collided came from. ulitmatly, the fact that we or anything else exists is almost impossible (i'd say full impossible but that is obviously not true.) 


Kent Hovind, who is currently residing in federal prison for tax evasion, would say evolution is stupid too.

If you have two hours free, check out this video:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6814048597272982882

I know this guy is a nut, but at least he is funny on this one, and raises some decent points...

Sorry, but to be blunt I think both theories (Intelligent Design and Evolution) have enough holes in them to pilot an aircraft carrier through. They are both irrelevant to me as well. I could care less if I evolved or if I was designed (or something else entirely different).

George Soros says the same thing... all Christians & all those who believe in God are stupid. He says that no one wishing to be president of the US should believe in God. If they are that stupid, he tells us, then they shouldn't be president... Soros, a left wing wacko who pours money into the moveon.org folks who now say they own the democrat party!!!!!!

Funny stuff...

Democrats: Owned by an extremist web site  = Actually, it's pretty sad & scary if you think about it.



  Actually moveon.org did endores a few Republicans.

I think Soros laugh about as hard at Christians as Karl Rove does. 

  Actually moveon.org did endores a few Republicans.

I think Soros laugh about as hard at Christians as Karl Rove does. 



I am sorry, I have no idea what that meant.

I am sorry, I have no idea what that meant.




The first is self explanatory.

The second one is that Karl Rove does not have a high opinion of the religious right.  In fact he has been know to make fun of them off the record.

http://www.inthe00s.com/index.php?topic=23433.0 

The first is self explanatory.

The second one is that Karl Rove does not have a high opinion of the religious right.  In fact he has been know to make fun of them off the record.

http://www.inthe00s.com/index.php?topic=23433.0 




Okay, should that mean anything special to me? I have no idea how it relates to anything, but then again, I haven't had too much sleep lately.

 

George Soros says the same thing... all Christians & all those who believe in God are stupid. He says that no one wishing to be president of the US should believe in God. If they are that stupid, he tells us, then they shouldn't be president... Soros, a left wing wacko who pours money into the moveon.org folks who now say they own the democrat party!!!!!!

Funny stuff...

Democrats: Owned by an extremist web site  = Actually, it's pretty sad & scary if you think about it.





Republican's make fun of them too.  That is how my last statement that you didn't understand due to fatigue fits in.  Get some sleep.

Republican's make fun of them too.  That is how my last statement that you didn't understand due to fatigue fits in.  Get some sleep.



Oh, I see. Okay, the thing I was saying, (and I thought it was clear), is that soros tells us that people who believe in God are STUPID and should not be in office. It has nothing to do with the religious right at all. He says president Bush should not be in office or anyone else who believes in God, period. If Rove makes jokes about the religious right, I hardly see how that is even brought into the picture here. The far right extremists are no better than the far left extremist wackos - they are both too far to one side that they sound funny, odd or crazy. Rove isn't saying anything about people's beleif in God being stupid and so making it impossible to hold office because those who do are too stupid to do so.

Did you know that ever since he was young, he thought when the world became one order, he would be the one to run it? That's scary, an anti-God world leader who banishes God completely, as he wants... that's your backbone of moveon org, the site who says they own the democrat party. Nice!

Oh, I see. Okay, the thing I was saying, (and I thought it was clear), is that soros tells us that people who believe in God are STUPID and should not be in office. It has nothing to do with the religious right at all. He says president Bush should not be in office or anyone else who believes in God, period. If Rove makes jokes about the religious right, I hardly see how that is even brought into the picture here. The far right extremists are no better than the far left extremist wackos - they are both too far to one side that they sound funny, odd or crazy. Rove isn't saying anything about people's belief in God being stupid and so making it impossible to hold office because those who do are too stupid to do so.

Did you know that ever since he was young, he thought when the world became one order, he would be the one to run it? That's scary, an anti-God world leader who banishes God completely, as he wants... that's your backbone of moveon org, the site who says they own the democrat party. Nice!



Belief in God neither makes you stupid or weak.  Yes, moveon.org is run by mainstream Democrats.  The Republican candidates that they endorsed were moderates. (RHINOS)  B.T.W. you are talking about main stream Democrats aren't you.  I'm not a main stream Democrat.

If Rove makes jokes about the religious right, I hardly see how that is even brought into the picture here. The far right extremists are no better than the far left extremist wackos - they are both too far to one side that they sound funny, odd or crazy. Rove isn't saying anything about people's beleif in God being stupid and so making it impossible to hold office because those who do are too stupid to do so.



The thing about Rove is, while Soros is saying exactly what he believes, Rove is pandering to the religious right, saying he is with them and believes what they believe, then turns his back and laughs at them, and doesn't care what the person in power believes as long as they do what he says, while quite probably thinking(and hoping) the same thing Soros is saying.

The thing about Rove is, while Soros is saying exactly what he believes, Rove is pandering to the religious right, saying he is with them and believes what they believe, then turns his back and laughs at them, and doesn't care what the person in power believes as long as they do what he says, while quite probably thinking(and hoping) the same thing Soros is saying.


Are you saying Karl Rove is a Right-Wing hypocrite??  Because if you won't may I say it?

Are you saying Karl Rove is a Right-Wing hypocrite??  Because if you won't may I say it?


All together in unison at the count of 3,  1..2..3 

All together in unison at the count of 3,  1..2..3 



;D ;D ;D

I think it is counterproductive to call religious people stupid, weak-minded, or what have you.  First of all, most people in the world are religious.  Secondly, most people who are not religious--like me--don't think it is "stupid" to be religious.  Thanks but no thanks, George.

Furthermore, anybody who thought Karl Rove was a good Christian man needs an ice cold bucket of reality dumped on his head!
::)

Belief in God neither makes you stupid or weak.  Yes, moveon.org is run by mainstream Democrats.  The Republican candidates that they endorsed were moderates. (RHINOS)  B.T.W. you are talking about main stream Democrats aren't you.  I'm not a main stream Democrat.


Uh, no! Moveon.org is HARDLY moderate or mainstream, they are an extremist crazy group who feels that they made it possible for democrats to win the houses. Apparently you do not know much about them or Soros!

The thing about Rove is, while Soros is saying exactly what he believes, Rove is pandering to the religious right, saying he is with them and believes what they believe, then turns his back and laughs at them, and doesn't care what the person in power believes as long as they do what he says, while quite probably thinking(and hoping) the same thing Soros is saying.


The difference is it is documented and fact regarding Soros, the world leader God bashing owner of the liberal party and with Rove, it is your opinion, a big big difference.

Danoota is right about Karl Rove. 

The difference is it is documented and fact regarding Soros, the world leader God bashing owner of the liberal party and with Rove, it is your opinion, a big big difference.




No brag, just fact.  Rove was caught making fun of the religious right.

No brag, just fact.  Rove was caught making fun of the religious right.

And you know what?  If Bush and Rove could do it all again in 2008, the Religious Right would vote for Dubya just the same as '00 and '04!
::)