Thank you for pointing out that the Black people in this country have a very admirable position in this country presently. Both in reference to that of other communities in the world and the Black community historically. I have made that point in many discussions throughout the years.
Most recently in the discussions about morality and violence against women.
On to the paper:
there is a large segment of the Black community that is lower class and
as a result of the strong likelihood that respondents no belong to classes higher and more powerful, politically and economically, than the lower class largely because they have graduated from Princeton University, it is interesting to
see what their attitudes are towards a large majority of Blacks unlike themselves. Feelings of obligation to improve the life of the Black lower class, feelings of guilt for betraying the Black lower class, as well as feelings of shame or envy toward the Black lower class are investigated in this study.
No charge against whitey here.
Posts
7 comments:
"so why is it inappropriate to see the difference in the communities Black, White, Asian, etc.? "
As I see it, this is the real issue.
There IS NO white community. We are not publicly allowed our differences, as any time something is viewed as inherently "white" there is always a negative stigma attached or discrimination is invoked.
While the real racists choose to ignore this reality and segregate their selves voluntarily, I think that in the end, white preservationists and supremacists in the end just want to be a part of something.
The outrage over things like this paper and the continued "Push" for a prosperous black community, is that it focuses on the black community separate from the community as a whole.
This is indeed a product of forced segregation and racism, however, it is very hypocritical of one "group" to claim group rights, while saying another group is being suppressive for their own cultural identification.
In 2009 we need to start looking for end roads forward in merging the Black, White, Hispanic, and Asian communities into a singular American, Missourian, or Kansas Citian community.
The Big complaint I have is that documents like the one being discussed here, serves as both a recognition of cultural progress and a severe cultural division line.
The bad comes with the good.
The argument I seem to be aligned with, is that of all things she could have picked to write about, cultural integration is one that will ALWAYS cause divisions in the American community.
While we should honour where the Black Communities have come, and the challenges that have been won, to so strongly focus, as we do, on the things that are DEFEATING true diversity is a large step backwards.
There is no merging there is only more and more differences: the only thing that combines people of color is the 'rich white man' and by extension the poor white man therefore all white males even the ones that scream up and down that they are 'down with the brother' the common enemy. Get rid of that that you can rally against then what will you have to rally against?
Diversity is not strength that is only a PC line.
Africa is perhaps the most diverse place on the planet and the most war torn etc. Even taking in to account the effects of colonialism one would think that people similar in many ways could overlook their difference but they seem unable to do so. To think that the US can continue fragmenting and holding together long term is wishful thinking.
Armani sucks.
I wonder if Michelle is as member of racist NAACP. If her husband wasnt president of the US which side would she take?
ummm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30289142
"Each of these cases goes to the ability of our society to achieve opportunity, fairness and ultimately to our ability to be the democracy that we aspire to be," said John Payton, president and director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. "We've made tremendous progress as a society, and some of that progress is having in place anti-discriminatory" laws to ensure it continues.
Haha so much for supporting the First Amendment. I was wondering how long it would take before you would try shutting me out. Beyond pathetic and obviously gives new meaning to the word hypocrite. You don’t have to worry about me. I won’t be wasting anymore time here as it is obviously not going to get anywhere. Marcus, I’m sorry as I had you confused with someone else. Although I do agree with you, you are also a hypocrite. Back to the battle I go.
No doubt Michelle believes the myth:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Njg4MzdkYTQ0YjZjYWUwOWQzOTg0OWVmYWVjMDY5ZTM=
Among scholars who’ve studied Tuskegee, there’s a lot of debate about how much — if any — racism was involved in the experiment. But no one disputes that Tuskegee had nothing whatsoever to do with genocide or even a desire to spread the disease among the black population.
http://www.sptimes.com/2008/01/26/Worldandnation/An_uneasy_question_fo.shtml
Plus when they enterd the war most the good German pilots had been killed they mainly went up aginst very young and ill trained German pilots. They also kept close to the bombers that were heavily armed.
I'd be curious as to what you base that last little claim on. While it may sound plausible as a hypothesis, it is just an off hand remark without some support. For instance, do you have some research that suggests an overall improved record against the Germans by allied forces? Or perhaps, you can show some marked improvement in the arming and safety of the American bombers.
But maybe you're not really interested in that and just want to make the point that "the negras didn't do so much. Hell we didn't even really need 'em. It was just out of the goodnes of our hearts that we let the darkies join in the fun."
As to the Goldberg piece on the Tuskegee experiment, I'm pretty sure I've always maintained that they didn't infect but rather let the disease go untreated. At one time I had thought one of the purposes of the study to be the mapping of the spread of the disease. That is no the case.
Let's examine why the experiment continued for 40 years past the understanding that hte disease had the same effects on Blacks as Whites. I'll throw out that there was probably a little bit of that "let's not end the program since were still getting funding" mentality that goes with gov't funding. I'll also throw out that the inherent value of the people involved as subjects was seen as less than that of let's say a middle class White subject. It was just a sign of the times. I don't think that that attitude would hold in today's America but during the 30s?
Post a Comment