Barack: 'Typical White People'

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]Professor X wrote:
pat wrote:
Professor X wrote:
An American writes, “I owe my freedom to white men” on this forum and no one bats an eye. Let someone claim that the typical white person is afraid of blacks and all hell breaks loose.

Like I said, we are way, way, way, way to sensitive about race. We can’t even hold a decent conversation about it.

Races are different. Noticing differences or feeling fear because one is by one’s self in a potentially compromising situation is not being racist. People fear differences and gravitate toward similarities. All peoples do it. It is a natural feeling.

I don’t believe white people are afraid of black people typically. A person of one set of traits approaching a group of people who share similar traits with each other but not with the person approaching may cause that person some degree of fear. Thaat is not racism, it is just being cautious. Circumstances determine whether people are better off avoided or not.

Then how is what Obama stated incorrect based on what you just wrote? Because he used “fear” instead of “caution”?[/quote]

I don’t believe I chose a side…What he said doesn’t bother me in the least.
The reason, I believe, people are making a shit fit about it is that if this were a white politician who said these same words except replacing “black” for “white” then rest assured you’d have Al Sharpton parading down the street and head would role. At least that is the perception…Whether or not that is correct is another question.

The problem is, in this situation or a reversed situation it is really petty and nit picking. We’d all be better off if we didn’t try to read deeply into things…

We just need to get over ourselves and quit being so motherfucking sensitive every time somebody mentions skin color.

Are we going to have peace and good will to man if we nitpick each other to death?

62

[quote]

BostonBarrister wrote:

And it will remain B.S. while we continue to be fixated on race as an issue.

Professor X wrote:
Then stop “fixating” on it.

BostonBarrister wrote:
I’m happy to do so - and I’d ask the same of you.

Professor X wrote:
I’m not one of the ones creating a new Obama thread daily while claiming I’m not voting for him.[/quote]

I’m not voting for him. I’m voting against the Democrat, whomever that may be.

Now if we can just quit automatically attributing bad things that happen between people of different races to racism, we’ll be getting somewhere…

63

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Sloth wrote:
lixy wrote:

I actually argued that clothes, tattoos, and the way one carries themselves is what will catch my attention. Therefore, I don’t see how I would by rationalizing racism. If you dress like a thugh, talk like a thug, and carry yourself like you’re billy bad ass, I’m going to pay some attention to you as you approach me.

Have none of you people ever been a victim of a violent crime? Or, even know anyone that has been?

But, I am still interested in my “typical black woman” question.

I have tattoos. I wear tank tops. I also have a BS degree in Biology and DMD.

If most young black men are likely, based on similar culture, to dress just the way you keep calling “thuggish”, then you just justified what Obama stated but blamed the culture instead of the skin color.

Do you have a wife or daughter?

I have a younger sister. I also am very close to my younger cousin. She graduates from college in May. Both of them generally go out with people who you would be “cautious” around.[/quote]

So, they’re oblvious of who is around them? And strangers of certain dress and look don’t arouse extra caution with them? Can you honestly sit here and tell me that?

  1. White or black male, old fashioned, clean-cut, no visible tattoos, conservative hair style. Clean, conservative clothes; no baggy jeans, or holes in jeans.

  2. Black or white guy. Jeans hanging off his ass, tats, earings, punkish/thugish hair-do, baseball cap partially sideways and pulled down over the eyes. Walking with an attitude.

Or

Black or white guy. Stereotypical badass biker look. Walking with an attitude.

If you’re telling me white AND black women will pay less attention to the types found in 2. than 1., I’ll have to assume you’re not interested in an honest discussion. I know for a damn fact people gave my father, a white man, cautious attention when his biker looking self passed through. And, it usually wasn’t positive. Those female family members of yours would’ve made damn sure to keep alert as he passed by them in a parking lot.

64

[quote]lixy wrote:
pat wrote:
People fear differences and gravitate toward similarities. All peoples do it. It is a natural feeling.

I don’t believe white people are afraid of black people typically.

You really don’t see the blatant contradiction in what you wrote?

[/quote]
Nope you took those statements out of their contexts. Left in context. They are perfectly clear.

[quote]
A person of one set of traits approaching a group of people who share similar traits with each other but not with the person approaching may cause that person some degree of fear. That is not racism, it is just being cautious.

If said traits encompass anything racial, it is racism. You don’t even seem to know what the word means.[/quote]

Huh?

65

[quote]pat wrote:
Professor X wrote:
pat wrote:
Professor X wrote:
An American writes, “I owe my freedom to white men” on this forum and no one bats an eye. Let someone claim that the typical white person is afraid of blacks and all hell breaks loose.

Like I said, we are way, way, way, way to sensitive about race. We can’t even hold a decent conversation about it.

Races are different. Noticing differences or feeling fear because one is by one’s self in a potentially compromising situation is not being racist. People fear differences and gravitate toward similarities. All peoples do it. It is a natural feeling.

I don’t believe white people are afraid of black people typically. A person of one set of traits approaching a group of people who share similar traits with each other but not with the person approaching may cause that person some degree of fear. Thaat is not racism, it is just being cautious. Circumstances determine whether people are better off avoided or not.

Then how is what Obama stated incorrect based on what you just wrote? Because he used “fear” instead of “caution”?

I don’t believe I chose a side…What he said doesn’t bother me in the least.
The reason, I believe, people are making a shit fit about it is that if this were a white politician who said these same words except replacing “black” for “white” then rest assured you’d have Al Sharpton parading down the street and head would role. At least that is the perception…Whether or not that is correct is another question.[/quote]

But, you don’t see the difference?

Before we go any further, are people actually making the claim that a negative statement about race that is directed at a group of people who have been historically degraded carries the exact same weight in society as a statement about race directed at those who never faced something like that on anywhere near the same scale?

I don’t even see Obama’s statement as negative. You and Sloth basically justified his statement even though Sloth blamed “culture” instead of “race”.

that means, if you all are agreeing with Obama but simply using different words, why is ANYONE upset about it?

One idiot in this thread even made fun of “ethical” names and no one took offense or claimed they should stop.

I keep bringing up that statement from before and none of these people so “moved” by Obama’s pastor even make a comment or call that poster out for it.

You all sound like a bunch of crying hypocrites.

66

[quote]Professor X wrote:
…
If most young black men are likely, based on similar culture, to dress just the way you keep calling “thuggish”, then you just justified what Obama stated but blamed the culture instead of the skin color.[/quote]

Those are very different things. Culture is a choice, an attitude, a value system. Skin color is pigmentation.

For instance, tattoos have become somewhat more mainstream over the past few years (my wife has one now), but prior to their popularization they were associated with criminality. Even now, certain tattoos - and tattoos in certain places (like the face and neck) are still associated with criminality. If you were to choose to get a tattoo of a teardrop on your face, you can’t be mad if people make assumptions based on your choice.

67

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

BostonBarrister wrote:

And it will remain B.S. while we continue to be fixated on race as an issue.

Professor X wrote:
Then stop “fixating” on it.

BostonBarrister wrote:
I’m happy to do so - and I’d ask the same of you.

Professor X wrote:
I’m not one of the ones creating a new Obama thread daily while claiming I’m not voting for him.

I’m not voting for him. I’m voting against the Democrat, whomever that may be.

Now if we can just quit automatically attributing bad things that happen between people of different races to racism, we’ll be getting somewhere…[/quote]

Are we actually doing that?

Where specifically?

Tuskegee? Because that wasn’t racist?

68

[quote]Sloth wrote:

So, they’re oblvious of who is around them? And strangers of certain dress and look don’t arouse extra caution with them? Can you honestly sit here and tell me that? [/quote]

I was raised on martial arts and boxing. It runs in the family. I don’t walk around afraid of too much of anything and I am aware of my surroundings most of the time. I am the type of person who looks for the seat nearest the wall so I can keep an eye on EVERYONE. Their style of dress is irrelevant.

[quote]

  1. White or black male, old fashioned, clean-cut, no visible tattoos, conservative hair style. Clean, conservative clothes; no baggy jeans, or holes in jeans.

  2. Black or white guy. Jeans hanging off his ass, tats, earings, punkish/thugish hair-do, baseball cap partially sideways and pulled down over the eyes. Walking with an attitude.

Or

Black or white guy. Stereotypical badass biker look. Walking with an attitude.

If you’re telling me white AND black women will pay less attention to the types found in 2. than 1., I’ll have to assume you’re not interested in an honest discussion. I know for a damn fact people gave my father, a white man, cautious attention when his biker looking self passed through. And, it usually wasn’t positive. Those female family members of yours would’ve made damn sure to keep alert as he passed by them in a parking lot. [/quote]

Again, you are clueless to culture differences. Your “#1” would be least likely to get laid in South Houston. Therefore, how do you think most guys dress?

69

[quote]Professor X wrote:

But, you don’t see the difference?

Before we go any further, are people actually making the claim that a negative statement about race that is directed at a group of people who have been historically degraded carries the exact same weight in society as a statement about race directed at those who never faced something like that on anywhere near the same scale?[/quote]

This doesn’t matter. Either racism is bad or it’s not. Either it’s OK to categorize people by race or it is not OK to categorize people by race. It’s not a situational ethic.

70

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Professor X wrote:
…
If most young black men are likely, based on similar culture, to dress just the way you keep calling “thuggish”, then you just justified what Obama stated but blamed the culture instead of the skin color.

Those are very different things. Culture is a choice, an attitude, a value system. Skin color is pigmentation.[/quote]

This isn’t necessarily true as people often take on the culture that surrounds them.

[quote]
For instance, tattoos have become somewhat more mainstream over the past few years (my wife has one now), but prior to their popularization they were associated with criminality. Even now, certain tattoos - and tattoos in certain places (like the face and neck) are still associated with criminality. If you were to choose to get a tattoo of a teardrop on your face, you can’t be mad if people make assumptions based on your choice.[/quote]

A tear drop tattoo means something very specific to nearly anyone who knows about it. Wearing clothes by popular hip hop designers does not equal the same.

71

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
…
Now if we can just quit automatically attributing bad things that happen between people of different races to racism, we’ll be getting somewhere…

Professor X wrote:
Are we actually doing that?

Where specifically?

Tuskegee? Because that wasn’t racist?[/quote]

I’m thinking about a thread we had a while back with a dialog among me, you and Captain PlanIt.

72

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Professor X wrote:

But, you don’t see the difference?

Before we go any further, are people actually making the claim that a negative statement about race that is directed at a group of people who have been historically degraded carries the exact same weight in society as a statement about race directed at those who never faced something like that on anywhere near the same scale?

This doesn’t matter. Either racism is bad or it’s not. Either it’s OK to categorize people by race or it is not OK to categorize people by race. It’s not a situational ethic.

[/quote]

It does matter, because if a statement has zero effect on you, then it is not the same as a statement that carries much more social weight.

73

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Professor X wrote:
…
If most young black men are likely, based on similar culture, to dress just the way you keep calling “thuggish”, then you just justified what Obama stated but blamed the culture instead of the skin color.

Those are very different things. Culture is a choice, an attitude, a value system. Skin color is pigmentation.

For instance, tattoos have become somewhat more mainstream over the past few years (my wife has one now), but prior to their popularization they were associated with criminality. Even now, certain tattoos - and tattoos in certain places (like the face and neck) are still associated with criminality. If you were to choose to get a tattoo of a teardrop on your face, you can’t be mad if people make assumptions based on your choice.[/quote]

Heh. My father has a skull/Harley tat on one forearm, and a barbarian chick on the other. Those are just the visible ones. He carries the big leather wallet sporting a chain which runs up to buckle on his leather belt. He wears the usual black leather biker boots, and almost always some kind of Harley shirt. And he has the old-fashioned bushy biker beard. Furthermore, he walk and talks like he’s used to bar brawling and living rough. Trust me, women are generally suspicous of the man as he passes through.

74

[quote]

Professor X wrote:
…
If most young black men are likely, based on similar culture, to dress just the way you keep calling “thuggish”, then you just justified what Obama stated but blamed the culture instead of the skin color.

BostonBarrister wrote:
Those are very different things. Culture is a choice, an attitude, a value system. Skin color is pigmentation.

Professor X wrote:
This isn’t necessarily true as people often take on the culture that surrounds them.[/quote]

And how is the observer supposed to differentiate on sight between those who are sending a message and those who aren’t? Particularly if it means a potential danger in the case of someone who is sending a message? It’s obviously safer for the observer to assume the dangerous message.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

For instance, tattoos have become somewhat more mainstream over the past few years (my wife has one now), but prior to their popularization they were associated with criminality. Even now, certain tattoos - and tattoos in certain places (like the face and neck) are still associated with criminality. If you were to choose to get a tattoo of a teardrop on your face, you can’t be mad if people make assumptions based on your choice.

Professor X wrote:
A tear drop tattoo means something very specific to nearly anyone who knows about it. Wearing clothes by popular hip hop designers does not equal the same.[/quote]

Yes, it does. And many people walking down the street are not familiar, and might just hold the old attitude about all tattoos.

A lot of the baggy clothing originally came from urban gang-bangers - now it’s mostly just hip-hop clothing (with the exception of one-color looks or certain labels in certain areas). Does Obama’s grandmother know about the evolution of hip-hop clothing? You can’t just assume someone will know the message you’re trying to send with something. And it’s more the responsibility of someone choosing his nonverbal messages to have an idea what they might convey than it is for other people to be up to date on what things mean today - particularly if the people in question are over the age of 25.

75

[quote]

Professor X wrote:

But, you don’t see the difference?

Before we go any further, are people actually making the claim that a negative statement about race that is directed at a group of people who have been historically degraded carries the exact same weight in society as a statement about race directed at those who never faced something like that on anywhere near the same scale?

BostonBarrister wrote:
This doesn’t matter. Either racism is bad or it’s not. Either it’s OK to categorize people by race or it is not OK to categorize people by race. It’s not a situational ethic.

Professor X wrote:
It does matter, because if a statement has zero effect on you, then it is not the same as a statement that carries much more social weight.[/quote]

It doesn’t matter. Punching someone in the face is illegal whether it hurts a person a lot or a little bit.

76

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

…You can’t just assume someone will know the message you’re trying to send with something. And it’s more the responsibility of someone choosing his nonverbal messages to have an idea what they might convey than it is for other people to be up to date on what things mean today - particularly if the people in question are over the age of 25.[/quote]

Following this line of reasoning will ensure that things never change and that people consider clothing styles that have been popular since the early 90’s to be “thuggish” in spite of it not being so.

I will also say that change is not done quietly. Of all of the talk about how we need to move past racism, most of you seem deluded enough to actually believe that this can be done without you personally feeling or hearing anything you may not like.

77

[quote]Professor X wrote:

I was raised on martial arts and boxing. It runs in the family. I don’t walk around afraid of too much of anything and I am aware of my surroundings most of the time. I am the type of person who looks for the seat nearest the wall so I can keep an eye on EVERYONE. Their style of dress is irrelevant.

[/quote]

Ah, well there it is. Able to keep an omniscient awareness on those around you, with absolute equal attention, at all times. And, so certain to turn the tide on an attacker who got the initiative on you. So, no need to make judgement calls on who gets your attention the most. No need for a hierarchy of attention.

And, none of your female family members would allow their hand to creep into their purse, closer to their mace/taser, simply because a person looked like a thug, a hoodlum, or a punk.

78

No, you can change clothing styles, body art, hair cuts, and all of that all you want, but you just can’t whine about people being biased when they respond to a message you’re choosing to send.

Or you can whine about it - but you won’t find a lot of agreement that it’s just more racism.

79

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Professor X wrote:

I was raised on martial arts and boxing. It runs in the family. I don’t walk around afraid of too much of anything and I am aware of my surroundings most of the time. I am the type of person who looks for the seat nearest the wall so I can keep an eye on EVERYONE. Their style of dress is irrelevant.

Ah, well there it is. Able to keep an omniscient awareness on those around you, with absolute equal attention, at all times. And, so certain to turn the tide on an attacker who got the initiative on you. So, no need to make judgement calls on who gets your attention the most. No need for a hierarchy of attention.

And, none of your female family members would allow their hand to creep into their purse, closer to their mace/taser, simply because a person looked like a thug, a hoodlum, or a punk.

[/quote]

We’ve already discussed how out of date your personal concept of what a “thug” looks like is. You also claim that race has nothing to do with who you are more cautious of even though you misunderstand the culture and see it as a negative.

Whether you can comprehend it or not, I don’t go around judging “baggy pants” as being “thuggish” and then assume I need to pay more attention to that person.

80

That was the most cowardly political damage control, I think I’ve ever heard in my life or ever will.

What the fuck kind of self respecting man, makes his grandmother look like a fool to save his own skin.

That was disgusting to me.