DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... The Implications of Racism

Are you still caught up on this reverse racism thing? lol

How are you getting THAT out of all my posts?

But who's actually excusing the college riots? I'll agree that they may be reported differently than say the Ferguson/Baltimore riots... But does that mean that they aren't being reported on accurately? (and please don't take my upcoming analysis as trying to justify this kind of thing)

Take OSU riots: They ARE students right? SO it make sense to say students are doing it. Their reason for doing it is pretty straight forward: our team won.

Now let's look at Ferguson/Baltimore: The rioters weren't students, so you can't call them that. If the rioters aren't 'thugs', then who are they??? Remember, from top to bottom, everyone is trying to distance themselves from the rioting by claiming that they aren't the same kind of people as the peaceful protesters not getting the media coverage. When we see pictures of gang members throwing Molotov cocktails, people with their pants off their arse looting stores (and yes, I do feel this is a valid observation because the pants off the arse thing is the clothing style OF the 'thug' and 'gangsta' lifestyle and culture, a culture that shamelessly promotes a criminal culture and the victimization of their own community), and hundreds of people helping and egging them on...

If these people aren't thugs, then who are they?

I think a large part of the problem is that people are trying to play both sides: they want to distance themselves from the activity "Oh, its not me".. but they are trying to embrace it at the same time "Oh, they aren't thugs they are (fill in the blank). Its a lot like in the movie Braveheart when Wallace's rebellion kicks off. Robert the Bruce asks his father for advice. His father says to support the rebellion in some of their lands to gain favor with the Scots, but condemn it in their other lands to gain favor with the King of England.

IMO we are seeing numerous people in important positions (the mayor, prosecutor, the President, DOJ, community organizers, etc) playing both sides for their own political gains.

At a minimum their actions fall under the "Well, you aren't black so you have no right to criticize". On top of that, the OSU rioters aren't directing their damage in a counterintuitive manor i.e. we won the National Championship so we'll burn down the stadium and campus.

Watching these 'leaders' in places like Ferguson and Baltimore is like watching Baghdad Bob when he was on Live TV saying Saddam was beating back U.S. forces and that we were nowhere near Baghdad as U.S. M1 Abrams tanks roll in to the square behind him.

These 'leaders' are telling us that the rioters are acting this way because of a lack of education, job opportunity, and investment in to the community... while the rioters are at that moment burning down local shops and senior centers... things also known as job opportunity and investment in the community. It might not be a lot of opportunity and it may not be an investment that benefits everyone in the community, but some is better than nothing. And people who have a different skin color are told that they have to "understand"... People aren't stupid. Typically speaking there is no justification to cut your nose off to spite your face.

But I really am interested in your thoughts in regards to my question: if they aren't thugs, then who are they?

Let's also not forget that there were more than blacks rioting. I saw whites, blacks, Asians, and idontknows rioting. The word 'thug' is non-racial, and it easily applies to anyone demonstrating thuggish behavior.

The OSU riots were just an example, to show the disparity how the media and people generally characterizes these people. If we look at the pumpkin festival or some of the riots that happen at major sports events no one is called thugs or criminals. They are called rowdy, students, angry fans ect..

If you watched the news or images you should be able to agree that the majority of the rioters in Baltimore were kids most of them who looked high school/college age.

Your question is "Who are they?" I don't know how to answer that question, all I can say is keep it consistent with everyone. If those rioters are thugs, we should make sure we call the pumpkin rioters thugs and we need to call the OSU rioters thugs because they are still tearing property doing illegal criminal activity.

The word thug, for the most part associated with black and other minorities, that is just a reality. The word can be apply anyone "demonstration thuggish behavior" but the majority of the time it will describe a black person/latin. You will probably disagree with this statement but again as I said before in other posts, people have subconscious thoughts and gravitate to sterotypes.

I read many news blogs and there is always a very consistent theme from both the media and the anonymous people who post on them. If you like I can easily find some for you.

Bbb

Love this story! I had a similar experience in life. As an educator, I rarely had parental issues. However, one year, I had a black Mother,who,gave me a few issues. Her son was a delight, but as most boys do, he needed the occasional required behavior adjustment. Because I held her child to the same standards of accountability I held all of my students, I became a racist in her eyes.

About mid year she requested a meeting. The administrator of the building and I sat down with her. She immediately and angrily began the profanity and accusation routine. I calmly requested to be excused from the meeting and was permitted to exit. Upon conferencing with the administrator, it was revealed that the mother had commented that she told her husband I would not last five minutes in the meeting. Lo and behold, she was right!!!

The remainder of the year was calmer. The last day of school, this same mother showed up at my classroom door with a dozen roses. She was crying and apologized for her behavior. Her son had made such great progress behaviorally and academically that she was overwhelmed with gratuity. She told me that her young son had the utmost respect for not only me, but the entire school. My job was done! She thanked me for holding him accountable and not giving up. What she did not know is that the words "give up" do not exist in my vocabulary. I held her son to the same highest standards of respect and accountability I held each of my students.....no exceptions.

Well, that was sixteen years ago. Just the other day I was out for dinner after one of my son's concerts. Guess who the waitress was? Yup, that same mother. She reintroduced herself and began to tell my family about our experience together.

What a strong woman! I was fortunate to share pictures of my former student and his young children with this mother. He is now entering the service. What an honor to have taught him.

You see, as an individual, I have nothing to prove to anyone. I have no need to win over any race etc.. However, as an educator, I had to prove to myself that I could teach any student and any student could learn from me. This was accomplished by simply treating others respectfully and with dignity.

I have a hunch that if we all challenged ourselves to be the best we can be, many of these issues would become moot.

Clem was starting a discussion in the Chaos in Baltimore thread.. and I posted this there, so I will just copy/paste it here rather than retyping it.

The word thug is defined by Webster as a brutal ruffian or assassin.. so by definition, if these guys did what they are being charged with then they are thugs... you can call them thugs and I will have zero problem with it. I might call them thugs myself...

Then there is the popular street definition of a thug, which is what I think you are getting at... when you say the word "thug", an image comes to mind and it's not a guy in a suit or a cop uniform (or a college kid celebrating a victory).. it's a guy, usually younger, more than likely black, wearing a hoodie and baggy jeans and generally up to no-good.

The word thug was adopted into English from the Indian 'thugee', which was a cult of assassins and extortionist in India. It has been used for years to describe criminals. I have heard the word equally applied to all those that commit crime. It has been used in reference to the mafia, general criminals, and those that riot. I'm sure I heard it used during occupy protests, which are mostly white college students.

It is a sad reality that in 2015 when any group can have their own television network, be represented as talk show hosts and anchors, be the POTUS, be represented in government and be a part of a society where interracial marriages are embraced, that we say there has been no progress in racial equality. This IS progress from the 60s and before. Anyone who says otherwise needs to talk to those who lived in the 50s and 60s.

Enough progress? I think not.

Progress that will never be perfection.

It is the narrow mind that believes one race will solve for all. We need all represented for a long term chance at

If you're hearing mafia members referred to as "thugs" instead of "gangsters" then you might have a problem with your hearing.

If you think the term "thug" is a coded word then I would suggest you play on google for a bit. Just google some predominantly white things (Dirty white athletes, tea party, occupy movement) vs. some predominantly black things (Clean black athletes, Ferguson riot) and just look at the total results.

Sorry..finishing here....

racial equality and world peace.

had to log on for this one.

First off, the reason BET was created is because black artist had a VERY rough time breaking through on MTV. MAYBE BET isn't needed anymore, but it was absolutely needed when it was created, because black artist were getting no air time on MTV and VH1.

not gonna comment on talk shows and Anchors.

Same thing with Schools. The reason HBCU's(Historically Black college and Universities) exist was because there was a time when blacks weren't allowed to attend higher educational facilities.

and you guys still have you're all white shows and channels, its called CMT.

some of you guy's comments....i swear.

Hey man, we have Darius Rucker.

And I was just listening to him last night. Again!!! His country stuff, his Hootie stuff.

B

Point is, there has been progress. There has been progress. No thinking person can deny that. Of those things I listed, which were occuring or seen as a possibility in the 50s and 60s? Of course we all have our representation. That is what we want. All to be represented.

Again, you just proved my point. There is no goal for any other group to be snuffed out by the majority of Americans, regardless of color.

Swish, of course, "there was a time" ........you said it, operative word "was".

That is the point. The "time" no longer exists. There are opportunities now for all groups. There is room to grow, yes, but progress has been made as it very well should be.

What changed to create those opportunities? What worked? How can we keep it going?

We shall overcome working together. Together we stand, divided we fall.

His hootie stuff is ways above his country stuff. His country stuff is a tragic examples of what's wrong with "country" radio these days.

Y'all need to get into Sturgill Simpson.

I'll agree with that part.

Gosh, this is gonna age me (and him, really) I went on vacation 20 years ago without my, at the time, girlfriend. Hootie was one of the bands we used to listen to quite a bit.

To this day, I can remember driving to one side of the lake where I had cell reception, listening to Hootie and the Blowfish, and calling my soon to be wife.

Still waiting for someone to tell me which of these could have happened in the 50s or 60s.

you're not making any points. The fact that we are still progressing even though slavery ended in the 1860's should tell you something.

you know whats STILL happening now that happened back in the day?

Segregation of neighborhoods, job discrimination, police brutality, etc.

Most of the HBCU's were created before the civil rights movement. 3 of the HBCU's were created RIGHT after the civil war.

So yes, we had our own stuff even BEFORE the 50's and 60's.

and interracial marriages are embraced? God i wish we could do a life swap. i dunno what part of america you're living in, but i'm STILL getting dirty ass looks.

just because it's legal doesn't mean its embraced, don't get those words confused with each other.

I mean don't get me started on IM's. It pisses me off that i get dirty ass looks for being married to a white woman, yet nobody bats an eye when these old crusty white dudes BUYS these asian mail-ordered brides.

And once again, open a history book. we were already represented in government in states like SC, because their was a large population of blacks back then, and they elected us to manage our own communities, but it was a way to segregate indirectly.

racism will never go away, i get that. however, you're trying to make it seem like just because they're is progress, that means we don't have anything to complain about.

So Cjrae, Since we're asking questions, I'll ask you one:

name another president before Obama that was called a Kenyan Muslim Socialist and was accused of not being american and harassed over a birth certificate?

You make some really good points.

I loved your story and you are right that progress has been made.

I don't see how anyone can dispute that.

The reason I started this thread was because I KNOW progress has been made and I am worried that we are about to undo all the good that has been done.

This thread lost steam when personal accountability was brought to the table. It picks up life when people can go back to BLAMING the other side.

What good does that do?

Should we recognize the problems? Hell yeah.

Should we allow the problems to create more problems? Hell no.

Should we use them as excuses to give validity to our own biases, prejudices, and hate? No sir, we should not.

Nn

Mj

Personal accountability is a huge issue, not only on this board, but within society as well.

Swish, to answer your question, can't think of any. What is the point?

I already answered your question.

we were already being represented in government before. i specifically said that in my response to you.

sure, first time ever a minority became president, but they could've had a hispanic woman running in 2008, and as long as she didn't say anything dumb, she would've won. The GOP was hated.

and whats the point? what good is "progress" or having a black potus when he gets those type of racist remarks when he's in? So could argue that having a black POTUS made our race relations worse, as the hate this guy gets and the name calling, blacks have felt that backlash as well.

Bb



Well, lest we not forget the tricky little and sometimes disrespectful nicknames for all those gone before. Don't make it put to be the one and only time this ever happened.

Progress is always good and only as good as those working towards it want to make it.

The real thing here is that most of us want the same thing here. We simply have different ways to make it happen. Chances are, a little of you, me and everyone else is the best answer.

Sorry I posted inside your post in my response. I got lost.