@Barfly To better understand which tweets you were referring to, I asked for you to quote them. If you don’t want to do that say so. But as far as I know, you find a tweet of hers that was condemning news coverage of covering the riots rather than the story of Freddie Gray hateful, racist, and sexist.
We all could go down a list of all the unarmed black men killed in and out of police custody of just this year alone and point out the ones who were referred to as thugs but we all know it’d be a lot of pointing.
Black men are called thugs for their dress, their demeanor, and their actions. The true value comes into play when white men do they same and are not called thugs. The media plays a nasty part in this, but people aren’t being force-fed race-baiting news stories.
In response to the black community’s “absent father problem”, I will leave someone else to break that down. It’s messy. Often, people throw out statistics without stating their bounds.
@dfbdfb I probably didn’t state my point clearly. If you look at the definition for racism (I cited Webster’s in previous post) there are two definitions. True, two is greater than one, but the definitions are related, you could say one is based on the other. When I think of a polysemous, a word like bank comes to mind: money storage, side of a river, billiards, turning airplanes, etc.
I think most if not all of the posts are referring to “racial prejudice or discrimination.” Is there another definition that would apply?
The stats I’ve seen suggest a high number of unwed births in some AA communities … 75 percent in that Baltimore neighborhood for example. But it could be debatable that this necessarily translates into a similar percentage of “absent” fathers. An unknown number of those fathers are probably present, just not married to the mother.
I was an unwed African American mother when my daughter was born, and it was not “a problem”. I think my mom was technically unwed when my older sister was born. Now that I think about it, I bet my great grand parents were technically unwed too.
For the record, I think single motherhood is statstically a HUGE risk factor.
“isn’t that what “women’s studies” is? So you can learn how white males are causing all females to be a victim?”
No, no, you got it all wrong. It’s white HETEROSEXUAL males that are the problem.
I have no idea why anyone would defend racism and sexism. Sure, there are people with racist and sexist views all over the place, but it is indefensible.
Of course, everyone knows that men are pigs. The entire lot of them, I tell you!
Dictionary definitions are only part of the questions of how a word is defined. Consider, for example, that there have been two completely different applications of what racial prejudice means—some have defined it such that it’s inherently one group oppressing another, while others have defined it in such a way that it applies at an individual level. Those are functionally different definitions.
I think it’s telling that both Michael Brown and Travon Martin were both called “thugs” by many people within “the white community” (see how absurd a term like that sounds?), some of whom did so here on CC. Michael Brown actually robbed a convenience store, while Travon shopped quietly , and paid for his skittles and iced tea. Travon had no record of run-ins with the law, was unarmed, and minding his own business when George Z., who apparently had pegged him as “a thug” on sight, decided to stalk him with a loaded gun. The only common denominator between the two of them was their race.
The former seems to be the definition used by some left-leaning activists – the ones who call everything they do not like “racist”, while hiding their own racism behind claims that “only a white person can be racist”.
Of course, if “racism” is “inherently one group oppressing the other”, then there is no way for an individual to change whether s/he is “racist” or not, since his/her group membership defines whether s/he is “racist”. But then what incentive would anyone have to be non-bigoted, since individual attitudes are subordinated by group membership in this case?
The problem with “statistics”, especially gross statistics, is that they never paint a complete picture. Sure, there’s a strong correlation between unwed motherhood and poverty with a certain demographic of the nation’s black population, but even within this demographic, not all of these mothers are without the presence, and at least partial support from the fathers of their children. And there’s another black demographic, represented by middle to upper middle class, and often educated women, who also sometimes have children out of wedlock. The fact that they are unwed when their children are born signifies none of the pathology GOP talking heads and CC denizens like to posit it does, even though these women too, help to comprise the gross statistic the tongue waggers are so fond of siting. It’s no more of a “problem” than when white women from the same educational and economic demographic have children out of wedlock, because they too are oftentimes in long term and cohabiting relationships with their baby’s fathers, and go on to marry at some later date. I wonder how many white female CC posters, angsting oven their children’s college prospects, were unmarried when they gave birth…?
Small detail, Shrinkwrap. You still never fit the stereotype the stat lovers are so happy to cite. But the gross stats don’t care. You have black skin. That’s enough. 8-|
I have raised my kids to respect others. The tweet showed a deep seated lack of respect for kids who potentially will be in her class waiting for grades. I do not even think there should be a race “box” to check. I care more about who people are. I’m not naive to think that minority children do not have it tougher in many areas. But the angst from this tweet comes from people feeling as if she will judge a person on the color of your skin. I do not feel anyone has the right to do that…white black asan etc.
Quick to point out the “absent black father” problem. Quick to point out the “gang” problem. Quick to point out the “disrespect of authority” problem. But not so fast to point out the “poverty” problem and thus the “generational poverty” problem…or the “criminal justice system” problem…or the “discrimination in the workforce” problem. It’s just 100% better for everyone if the root of problems were focused on rather than baiting against flammatory issues.
Everyone has the right to judge. Judging is what we do on a daily basis. Being judgmental is another story. I’d rather see my family, friends, and peers to see my skin color, than claim “I don’t see skin color. We’re all the same.”
CaliCash brought up the thug and absent father issues, and the discussion then turned in that direction with the participation of several Af-Am posters.
Thuggism and absent fathers are not unique to the black community, and no one said they were.
My post was in reference to the tendencies of the media and those who draw their sole information from them. Looking back, I didn’t clarify. No one here in this thread stated that these characteristics were unique to the black community; however, the faults of the black community are frequently referenced as some of the points stated earlier above in this thread.
busdriver, “cis” is simply a shorthand term, invented about 20 years ago and used in academic settings (and trans-related discussions on the Internet), meaning “non-transgender.” (It’s derived from Latin prefixes used in geography – for example, cisalpine vs. transalpine – and chemistry, meaning, roughly speaking, on the same side as vs. across.) It was intended to put trans people and non-trans people on an equal footing in discussions of trans issues, so as not to have an implication in such discussions of “normal” vs. “abnormal.” Sort of the same way that “straight” has come to mean “not gay,” for much the same reason. (I’m old enough to remember when “straight” usually meant “doesn’t take drugs”!) I generally use “cis” only when talking to trans people or people who are familiar with (or work in the field of) trans and other gender issues, and “non-trans” in other contexts. (After all, I’m used to dividing the world into Jews and non-Jews!)
“Cis” is also sometimes cited by (1) certain non-trans people when they feel like parodying and being dismissive of what they see as pseudo-academic jargon that’s ostensibly incomprehensible to most people, and/or (2) non-trans people who suspect that “cis” is used by trans people to insult them. Because “non-trans” is obviously such a difficult concept to understand, and God forbid that anyone ever invent a new word.
Thanks, Donna, I think I understand. Though it seems like non-trans would be far more simple to use than cis, I guess the academic types always have to make something more complicated than it is.
