Race in America - Riots Explode in Chicago

[seacoaster]

Kelly Cancelled:

https://www.thenation.com/article/socie ... ontgomery/

Wow. Couldn't happen to a more deserving POS.

Yeah, agreed. Good story, good ending.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Pretty interesting video. This seems to be ignored for the most part.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nuVhEdAgOY

,,, what do you mean ignored??

Although intellectuals today may condemn slavery as a historical evil of our society, what was peculiar about western society was not that it had slaves like other societies around the world, but that it was the first civilization to turn against slavery.

Certainly one of the earliest existing societies to have turned against, perhaps the first. I can't say for certain it was the first. Note the US however was no where near the first among the civilized "west".
Where does this come into play with the intellects who tell us that we white folk are inherently racist, it's in our DNA. I certainly would not say that it was in the DNA. We have and have had more than our share of racists, but this is much more an issue of environment, nurture, not nature. No child is born hating people of another race.
Is this part ignored by those folks, might some of us (a whole lot of us) be of the DNA of the folks who were the first to turn against slavery? Think I answered this.

What seems almost incomprehensible today is that there was no serious challenge to the moral legitimacy prior to the 18th century.

Is this, for the most part, ignored by the cancel culture mob? Do I need to look at George Washington as a bad person because he was a slave owner in a world where there was "no serious challenge to the moral legitimacy " of slavery in pretty much the entire world? Is that part made clear by those screaming the loudest about how evil the white man in this country is/was. Is this being ignored in our new history books or is the whole story being told accurately and with facts? Are they also filled with facts about where slaves were bought and who was selling them, or is that part being pretty much ignored as well?
I like the way Sowell lays this out, it sure sounds a whole lot different than the way many tell this story and what they would have you believe. I think this part of the story is ignored by a whole lot of people, or perhaps it's more likely they don't even know the whole story. Rather than point by point I will answer generally. I have always liked Sowell even if he sees himself as a conservative. Don't agree with him in all things but his perception of "history" as outlined by your questions above is right on. I do not believe what he is arguing against however is some hallmark of "liberal" historical interpretation or reading of history. His is the same history I learned. You must distinguish between the "social justice warrior" in the heat of battle and and those historians, intellectuals, learned men who might support their cause. The later most definitely understand the history. Many perhaps most "social justice warriors" don't really know or understand the the history other than that which is relevant to their immediate cause. Some do, but aren't going to argue against their cause. In this regard, I see those opposing the "social justice warriors" as absolutely no better, and more likely worse.

As for the "cancel culture". I find it a really really poor term for what is going on. It is in this case used to imply that history is being unwritten/rewritten - which is not what is going on. The history remains unchanged, only a fuller story is being told. I disagree with those "social justice warriors" who cannot see beyond their cause. Men have to be judged by their deeds, and their time, not some absolute standard, which no one can pass, even the hero's of the "social justice warriors".

I was just talking to someone about Sowell and this issue last week. He is a little disingenuous in the comparison. Anyway, I tell people, I will give this country a Mulligan on slavery. We had our chance post emancipation....dropped the ball. We are about 75-100 years behind where we should be....the system of slavery here was actually unique.

I would agree with the uniqueness and the being behind by a century and Sowell coming off as disingenuousness on occasion. This generally happens when he is being used by some republican propagandist, in cases I have seen. No one is perfect.

I guess Mr Sowell is the wrong shade of black to make the FLP Jack wagons on this forum happy. Imagine that, a cantankerous, ornery bunch of racist FLP liberal old white guys that deem themselves qualified to pass judgement on the opinions of a conservative black man.

What shade is that?

That would be the shade that pizzes off old, cantankerous FLP liberal white guys. You would have to ask Bob Ross if he was still alive. He was the master at blending different colors to make a beautiful landscape. I do know that the FLP chuckleheads on this forum have a nasty dislike for conservative shades of black. I'm thinking the shade would be blackish.

You can always ask your friend.

[cradleandshoot]

Pretty interesting video. This seems to be ignored for the most part.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nuVhEdAgOY

,,, what do you mean ignored??

Although intellectuals today may condemn slavery as a historical evil of our society, what was peculiar about western society was not that it had slaves like other societies around the world, but that it was the first civilization to turn against slavery.

Certainly one of the earliest existing societies to have turned against, perhaps the first. I can't say for certain it was the first. Note the US however was no where near the first among the civilized "west".
Where does this come into play with the intellects who tell us that we white folk are inherently racist, it's in our DNA. I certainly would not say that it was in the DNA. We have and have had more than our share of racists, but this is much more an issue of environment, nurture, not nature. No child is born hating people of another race.
Is this part ignored by those folks, might some of us (a whole lot of us) be of the DNA of the folks who were the first to turn against slavery? Think I answered this.

What seems almost incomprehensible today is that there was no serious challenge to the moral legitimacy prior to the 18th century.

Is this, for the most part, ignored by the cancel culture mob? Do I need to look at George Washington as a bad person because he was a slave owner in a world where there was "no serious challenge to the moral legitimacy " of slavery in pretty much the entire world? Is that part made clear by those screaming the loudest about how evil the white man in this country is/was. Is this being ignored in our new history books or is the whole story being told accurately and with facts? Are they also filled with facts about where slaves were bought and who was selling them, or is that part being pretty much ignored as well?
I like the way Sowell lays this out, it sure sounds a whole lot different than the way many tell this story and what they would have you believe. I think this part of the story is ignored by a whole lot of people, or perhaps it's more likely they don't even know the whole story. Rather than point by point I will answer generally. I have always liked Sowell even if he sees himself as a conservative. Don't agree with him in all things but his perception of "history" as outlined by your questions above is right on. I do not believe what he is arguing against however is some hallmark of "liberal" historical interpretation or reading of history. His is the same history I learned. You must distinguish between the "social justice warrior" in the heat of battle and and those historians, intellectuals, learned men who might support their cause. The later most definitely understand the history. Many perhaps most "social justice warriors" don't really know or understand the the history other than that which is relevant to their immediate cause. Some do, but aren't going to argue against their cause. In this regard, I see those opposing the "social justice warriors" as absolutely no better, and more likely worse.

As for the "cancel culture". I find it a really really poor term for what is going on. It is in this case used to imply that history is being unwritten/rewritten - which is not what is going on. The history remains unchanged, only a fuller story is being told. I disagree with those "social justice warriors" who cannot see beyond their cause. Men have to be judged by their deeds, and their time, not some absolute standard, which no one can pass, even the hero's of the "social justice warriors".

I was just talking to someone about Sowell and this issue last week. He is a little disingenuous in the comparison. Anyway, I tell people, I will give this country a Mulligan on slavery. We had our chance post emancipation....dropped the ball. We are about 75-100 years behind where we should be....the system of slavery here was actually unique.

I would agree with the uniqueness and the being behind by a century and Sowell coming off as disingenuousness on occasion. This generally happens when he is being used by some republican propagandist, in cases I have seen. No one is perfect.

I guess Mr Sowell is the wrong shade of black to make the FLP Jack wagons on this forum happy. Imagine that, a cantankerous, ornery bunch of racist FLP liberal old white guys that deem themselves qualified to pass judgement on the opinions of a conservative black man.

What shade is that?

That would be the shade that pizzes off old, cantankerous FLP liberal white guys. You would have to ask Bob Ross if he was still alive. He was the master at blending different colors to make a beautiful landscape. I do know that the FLP chuckleheads on this forum have a nasty dislike for conservative shades of black. I'm thinking the shade would be blackish.

You can always ask your friend.

You are my friend.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Pretty interesting video. This seems to be ignored for the most part.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nuVhEdAgOY

,,, what do you mean ignored??

Although intellectuals today may condemn slavery as a historical evil of our society, what was peculiar about western society was not that it had slaves like other societies around the world, but that it was the first civilization to turn against slavery.

Certainly one of the earliest existing societies to have turned against, perhaps the first. I can't say for certain it was the first. Note the US however was no where near the first among the civilized "west".
Where does this come into play with the intellects who tell us that we white folk are inherently racist, it's in our DNA. I certainly would not say that it was in the DNA. We have and have had more than our share of racists, but this is much more an issue of environment, nurture, not nature. No child is born hating people of another race.
Is this part ignored by those folks, might some of us (a whole lot of us) be of the DNA of the folks who were the first to turn against slavery? Think I answered this.

What seems almost incomprehensible today is that there was no serious challenge to the moral legitimacy prior to the 18th century.

Is this, for the most part, ignored by the cancel culture mob? Do I need to look at George Washington as a bad person because he was a slave owner in a world where there was "no serious challenge to the moral legitimacy " of slavery in pretty much the entire world? Is that part made clear by those screaming the loudest about how evil the white man in this country is/was. Is this being ignored in our new history books or is the whole story being told accurately and with facts? Are they also filled with facts about where slaves were bought and who was selling them, or is that part being pretty much ignored as well?
I like the way Sowell lays this out, it sure sounds a whole lot different than the way many tell this story and what they would have you believe. I think this part of the story is ignored by a whole lot of people, or perhaps it's more likely they don't even know the whole story. Rather than point by point I will answer generally. I have always liked Sowell even if he sees himself as a conservative. Don't agree with him in all things but his perception of "history" as outlined by your questions above is right on. I do not believe what he is arguing against however is some hallmark of "liberal" historical interpretation or reading of history. His is the same history I learned. You must distinguish between the "social justice warrior" in the heat of battle and and those historians, intellectuals, learned men who might support their cause. The later most definitely understand the history. Many perhaps most "social justice warriors" don't really know or understand the the history other than that which is relevant to their immediate cause. Some do, but aren't going to argue against their cause. In this regard, I see those opposing the "social justice warriors" as absolutely no better, and more likely worse.

As for the "cancel culture". I find it a really really poor term for what is going on. It is in this case used to imply that history is being unwritten/rewritten - which is not what is going on. The history remains unchanged, only a fuller story is being told. I disagree with those "social justice warriors" who cannot see beyond their cause. Men have to be judged by their deeds, and their time, not some absolute standard, which no one can pass, even the hero's of the "social justice warriors".

I was just talking to someone about Sowell and this issue last week. He is a little disingenuous in the comparison. Anyway, I tell people, I will give this country a Mulligan on slavery. We had our chance post emancipation....dropped the ball. We are about 75-100 years behind where we should be....the system of slavery here was actually unique.

I would agree with the uniqueness and the being behind by a century and Sowell coming off as disingenuousness on occasion. This generally happens when he is being used by some republican propagandist, in cases I have seen. No one is perfect.

I guess Mr Sowell is the wrong shade of black to make the FLP Jack wagons on this forum happy. Imagine that, a cantankerous, ornery bunch of racist FLP liberal old white guys that deem themselves qualified to pass judgement on the opinions of a conservative black man.

What shade is that?

That would be the shade that pizzes off old, cantankerous FLP liberal white guys. You would have to ask Bob Ross if he was still alive. He was the master at blending different colors to make a beautiful landscape. I do know that the FLP chuckleheads on this forum have a nasty dislike for conservative shades of black. I'm thinking the shade would be blackish.

You can always ask your friend.

You are my friend.

Ask the other one.

[cradleandshoot]

Pretty interesting video. This seems to be ignored for the most part.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nuVhEdAgOY

,,, what do you mean ignored??

Although intellectuals today may condemn slavery as a historical evil of our society, what was peculiar about western society was not that it had slaves like other societies around the world, but that it was the first civilization to turn against slavery.

Certainly one of the earliest existing societies to have turned against, perhaps the first. I can't say for certain it was the first. Note the US however was no where near the first among the civilized "west".
Where does this come into play with the intellects who tell us that we white folk are inherently racist, it's in our DNA. I certainly would not say that it was in the DNA. We have and have had more than our share of racists, but this is much more an issue of environment, nurture, not nature. No child is born hating people of another race.
Is this part ignored by those folks, might some of us (a whole lot of us) be of the DNA of the folks who were the first to turn against slavery? Think I answered this.

What seems almost incomprehensible today is that there was no serious challenge to the moral legitimacy prior to the 18th century.

Is this, for the most part, ignored by the cancel culture mob? Do I need to look at George Washington as a bad person because he was a slave owner in a world where there was "no serious challenge to the moral legitimacy " of slavery in pretty much the entire world? Is that part made clear by those screaming the loudest about how evil the white man in this country is/was. Is this being ignored in our new history books or is the whole story being told accurately and with facts? Are they also filled with facts about where slaves were bought and who was selling them, or is that part being pretty much ignored as well?
I like the way Sowell lays this out, it sure sounds a whole lot different than the way many tell this story and what they would have you believe. I think this part of the story is ignored by a whole lot of people, or perhaps it's more likely they don't even know the whole story. Rather than point by point I will answer generally. I have always liked Sowell even if he sees himself as a conservative. Don't agree with him in all things but his perception of "history" as outlined by your questions above is right on. I do not believe what he is arguing against however is some hallmark of "liberal" historical interpretation or reading of history. His is the same history I learned. You must distinguish between the "social justice warrior" in the heat of battle and and those historians, intellectuals, learned men who might support their cause. The later most definitely understand the history. Many perhaps most "social justice warriors" don't really know or understand the the history other than that which is relevant to their immediate cause. Some do, but aren't going to argue against their cause. In this regard, I see those opposing the "social justice warriors" as absolutely no better, and more likely worse.

As for the "cancel culture". I find it a really really poor term for what is going on. It is in this case used to imply that history is being unwritten/rewritten - which is not what is going on. The history remains unchanged, only a fuller story is being told. I disagree with those "social justice warriors" who cannot see beyond their cause. Men have to be judged by their deeds, and their time, not some absolute standard, which no one can pass, even the hero's of the "social justice warriors".

I was just talking to someone about Sowell and this issue last week. He is a little disingenuous in the comparison. Anyway, I tell people, I will give this country a Mulligan on slavery. We had our chance post emancipation....dropped the ball. We are about 75-100 years behind where we should be....the system of slavery here was actually unique.

I would agree with the uniqueness and the being behind by a century and Sowell coming off as disingenuousness on occasion. This generally happens when he is being used by some republican propagandist, in cases I have seen. No one is perfect.

I guess Mr Sowell is the wrong shade of black to make the FLP Jack wagons on this forum happy. Imagine that, a cantankerous, ornery bunch of racist FLP liberal old white guys that deem themselves qualified to pass judgement on the opinions of a conservative black man.

What shade is that?

That would be the shade that pizzes off old, cantankerous FLP liberal white guys. You would have to ask Bob Ross if he was still alive. He was the master at blending different colors to make a beautiful landscape. I do know that the FLP chuckleheads on this forum have a nasty dislike for conservative shades of black. I'm thinking the shade would be blackish.

You can always ask your friend.

You are my friend.

Ask the other one.

No.. I only trust you. I am your fan lax stalker.

[Brooklyn]

One of the 'no justice, no peace' claims made by minorities over the years is disparate treatment in sentencing upon conviction. In this case, a latina mom creates a memorial for her daughter who was killed by gangsters. A white neighbor bowls over and croaks her. Everyone conveniently forgets the idea of a life for a life and she gets a 9 month sentence. Her attorney says she was punished enough by the trial and should have her sentence suspended:


https://www.newsday.com/long-island/cri ... -news-only



A Suffolk judge sentenced a Patchogue woman Thursday to nine months in jail following her criminally negligent homicide conviction last year in the 2018 death of anti-gang activist Evelyn Rodriguez.

Last March, jurors also had convicted Ann Marie Drago, 60, of misdemeanor charges of criminal mischief and petit larceny.

The panel of 12 jurors found the registered nurse caused Rodriguez’s death with criminal negligence when she drove over the pedestrian near her mother's home in her Nissan Rogue during a Brentwood confrontation. News 12 Long Island captured the event on a video that became the key evidence in the trial.

The deadly encounter on Sept. 14, 2018, involved a dispute about a memorial Rodriguez, 50, of Brentwood, had set up in front of the Ray Court home of Drago’s mother ...




Had that been a Latina deliberately bowling over a white woman certain delusionals of the far right would demand a death sentence. All of us know that is true but many will still live in denial.

[RedFromMI]

A Black man comments on the Dr. Seuss/cancel culture outrage over at Fox News:

By Michael Harriott, from Twitter:

I think I may know why white people are so upset about this Dr. Seuss/cancel culture thing. I was reminded of this story today. It goes back to the second-most devastating day of my life: The day I found out the Hardy Boys were white.

A thread

Some people know I was homeschooled until I was 12. I recently found out my mother was conducting an experiment. She told me she doesn't believe "a black child fully realize their humanity in the presence of whiteness."

A lot of people think that's racist. Here's why it's not.I was raised in a Black neighborhood, in a Black church, and in a Black family. But it's not that I didn't know white people existed.

The guy who delivered fresh eggs every week was white. My grandmother sold Avon and her plug was white. I saw white people at the Piggly Wiggly.

But my mom did other things. When my sisters and I were really young, she would read bedtime stories. But she would change all the names. When she worked at night, she recorded cassettes of her reading for us to fall asleep to.

She even removed covers from books with white kids on the cover. We also couldn't watch reruns of "Sanford & Son," "The Jeffersons" or "Good Times" until we were older.

I'll explain why in a minute. But just know that our TV habits were very limited

It's not she woke us up every morning with "Lift Every Voice" or told us "Beware the whites" before we went to sleep. But this was my normal. I had seen Diff'rent Strokes and Sesame Street. I liked Arthur Fonzarelli.

I knew white people were a thing.

But, if you had asked 8-year-old me, I would have told you that MOST people were Black.

And so, never having seen them, I assumed the Hardy Boys were 2 **ggas from the suburbs of Detroit. Same with Encyclopedia Brown.

Black was my default.

I also grew up in a family that didn't celebrate Christmas. We didn't eat pork. But I had a cousin who was raised as my sister, and HER mom ate bacon and gave Christmas gifts.

One year, she came back with something incredible.

A Dr. Seuss book.

See, a LOT of Black parents always knew Dr. Seuss was lowkey racist. It's WHITE people who are just finding this out. My mom forbade him.

Now, I assumed my mom was against the book because of his repeated references to pork. But, So when Robin brought home Green Eggs and Ham...

It was OVER for mom's cassette tapes. I hid that book under my mattress and Robin and I read it every day.

To this day, my sisters and I can recite every single word of "Green Eggs and Ham."

Then I started going to public school. And the school was mostly white.

Sometimes, I'd be reading a book and the plot would seem vaguely familiar. That's when it clicked:

"This is just white Encyclopedia Brown!"

Oh turd! The Hardy Boys are white, too? I was devastated.

One day I came home from school, and my mom was sitting in the yellow chair

She NEVER sat in the yellow chair. It was my grandmother's chair. The ONLY time she ever sat in that chair was for one reason:

House Court.

Y'all, we had WHOLE ASS TRIALS in my house when we got in trouble. There were juries and everything. Even the neighbors would get involved

But on this day, my mom was just sitting there, rocking in that faux leather Lazy Boy with a copy of Green Eggs and Ham.

Technically, it wasn't my book. But I kept it under my mattress because my sisters were all snitches. So I know, if it was ever found, they were GONNA tell.

My legal team (my sisters) prepare my defense. We couldn't come up with anything, so I confess and plead my sentence down to 2 weeks punishment (the max sentence)

Doing time in the hole wasn't that bad, because it gave me an ace card:

For 2 weeks, I had a servant (Robin).

For months, I held that over their heads. If it was my turn to wash dishes, I could blackmail Robin with: "What if mama found out about Green Eggs and Ham, tho?"

I had forgotten this story until today, when my sister texted:

"Remember when you got in trouble for Dr. Seuss?"

I had totally forgotten about it. But I've actually had this conversation with my mom about insulating us from whiteness like this and she explained why.

The belief that a Black child cannot realize their humanity in the presence of whiteness had nothing to do with white people

She had nothing against Fred Sanford or George & Weezy. Or the Hardy Boys. Or white people.

The few representations of Black people on TV & in books were WHITE PEOPLE'S versions of us. Not necessarily negative as much as they are stratified...Sassy or subservient. Poor or lucky

The criminal or the hero. Our existence is defined by how white people see us.

As an adult, I realize what mother went through for this experiment. Checking every book, teaching us at home, checking our TV habits.

It sounds like a LOT of labor. And it was.

Most white people can't comprehend what that's like. I honestly believe that the reason a lot of white people think I'm "the real racist" is because I never learned how to care what white people think. There is a subtle, subconscious deference to whiteness that MOST of us have

But here's the thing: I understand why they can't understand it. Who cares if Dr. Seuss was racist one time in that one book? Should he be canceled?

They don't realize that the ONLY time a Black child saw themselves in a Seuss book was in a racist illustration.

They can't comprehend because, even if there's 1 bad characterization of whiteness, there are ONE HUNDRED other characters in the book. Even when the villain in the TV show is white, so is the hero...And the hero's sidekick...And the lawyer...And the cop...And judge...

And the anchor on the news...And the weatherman...And the QB...And the commentator...And everyone except the ONE Black person.

The point is: THEY GET TO CHOOSE!

The only way to stop a Black child from ingesting this inescapable harm is to LITERALLY insulate them from whiteness

The ONLY way to prevent them from looking into society's mirror & seeing a white man's caricature of their reflection is to build a white people-free cocoon.

But it's hard for them to imagine what it's like when books, TV, movies, etc. have predetermined how the world sees u

My mom manufactured a bizarro world where white people were the minority, they did not control the narrative and Black was the default.

The whites are absolutely right about one thing, though. Y'all canceled Dr. Seuss.

Trust me, I know.

I was today years old when I realized:

I grew up in a "cancel culture."

Thank you
Thank you
Black, I am.

[jhu72]

A Black man comments on the Dr. Seuss/cancel culture outrage over at Fox News:

By Michael Harriott, from Twitter:

I think I may know why white people are so upset about this Dr. Seuss/cancel culture thing. I was reminded of this story today. It goes back to the second-most devastating day of my life: The day I found out the Hardy Boys were white.

A thread

Some people know I was homeschooled until I was 12. I recently found out my mother was conducting an experiment. She told me she doesn't believe "a black child fully realize their humanity in the presence of whiteness."

A lot of people think that's racist. Here's why it's not.I was raised in a Black neighborhood, in a Black church, and in a Black family. But it's not that I didn't know white people existed.

The guy who delivered fresh eggs every week was white. My grandmother sold Avon and her plug was white. I saw white people at the Piggly Wiggly.

But my mom did other things. When my sisters and I were really young, she would read bedtime stories. But she would change all the names. When she worked at night, she recorded cassettes of her reading for us to fall asleep to.

She even removed covers from books with white kids on the cover. We also couldn't watch reruns of "Sanford & Son," "The Jeffersons" or "Good Times" until we were older.

I'll explain why in a minute. But just know that our TV habits were very limited

It's not she woke us up every morning with "Lift Every Voice" or told us "Beware the whites" before we went to sleep. But this was my normal. I had seen Diff'rent Strokes and Sesame Street. I liked Arthur Fonzarelli.

I knew white people were a thing.

But, if you had asked 8-year-old me, I would have told you that MOST people were Black.

And so, never having seen them, I assumed the Hardy Boys were 2 **ggas from the suburbs of Detroit. Same with Encyclopedia Brown.

Black was my default.

I also grew up in a family that didn't celebrate Christmas. We didn't eat pork. But I had a cousin who was raised as my sister, and HER mom ate bacon and gave Christmas gifts.

One year, she came back with something incredible.

A Dr. Seuss book.

See, a LOT of Black parents always knew Dr. Seuss was lowkey racist. It's WHITE people who are just finding this out. My mom forbade him.

Now, I assumed my mom was against the book because of his repeated references to pork. But, So when Robin brought home Green Eggs and Ham...

It was OVER for mom's cassette tapes. I hid that book under my mattress and Robin and I read it every day.

To this day, my sisters and I can recite every single word of "Green Eggs and Ham."

Then I started going to public school. And the school was mostly white.

Sometimes, I'd be reading a book and the plot would seem vaguely familiar. That's when it clicked:

"This is just white Encyclopedia Brown!"

Oh turd! The Hardy Boys are white, too? I was devastated.

One day I came home from school, and my mom was sitting in the yellow chair

She NEVER sat in the yellow chair. It was my grandmother's chair. The ONLY time she ever sat in that chair was for one reason:

House Court.

Y'all, we had WHOLE ASS TRIALS in my house when we got in trouble. There were juries and everything. Even the neighbors would get involved

But on this day, my mom was just sitting there, rocking in that faux leather Lazy Boy with a copy of Green Eggs and Ham.

Technically, it wasn't my book. But I kept it under my mattress because my sisters were all snitches. So I know, if it was ever found, they were GONNA tell.

My legal team (my sisters) prepare my defense. We couldn't come up with anything, so I confess and plead my sentence down to 2 weeks punishment (the max sentence)

Doing time in the hole wasn't that bad, because it gave me an ace card:

For 2 weeks, I had a servant (Robin).

For months, I held that over their heads. If it was my turn to wash dishes, I could blackmail Robin with: "What if mama found out about Green Eggs and Ham, tho?"

I had forgotten this story until today, when my sister texted:

"Remember when you got in trouble for Dr. Seuss?"

I had totally forgotten about it. But I've actually had this conversation with my mom about insulating us from whiteness like this and she explained why.

The belief that a Black child cannot realize their humanity in the presence of whiteness had nothing to do with white people

She had nothing against Fred Sanford or George & Weezy. Or the Hardy Boys. Or white people.

The few representations of Black people on TV & in books were WHITE PEOPLE'S versions of us. Not necessarily negative as much as they are stratified...Sassy or subservient. Poor or lucky

The criminal or the hero. Our existence is defined by how white people see us.

As an adult, I realize what mother went through for this experiment. Checking every book, teaching us at home, checking our TV habits.

It sounds like a LOT of labor. And it was.

Most white people can't comprehend what that's like. I honestly believe that the reason a lot of white people think I'm "the real racist" is because I never learned how to care what white people think. There is a subtle, subconscious deference to whiteness that MOST of us have

But here's the thing: I understand why they can't understand it. Who cares if Dr. Seuss was racist one time in that one book? Should he be canceled?

They don't realize that the ONLY time a Black child saw themselves in a Seuss book was in a racist illustration.

They can't comprehend because, even if there's 1 bad characterization of whiteness, there are ONE HUNDRED other characters in the book. Even when the villain in the TV show is white, so is the hero...And the hero's sidekick...And the lawyer...And the cop...And judge...

And the anchor on the news...And the weatherman...And the QB...And the commentator...And everyone except the ONE Black person.

The point is: THEY GET TO CHOOSE!

The only way to stop a Black child from ingesting this inescapable harm is to LITERALLY insulate them from whiteness

The ONLY way to prevent them from looking into society's mirror & seeing a white man's caricature of their reflection is to build a white people-free cocoon.

But it's hard for them to imagine what it's like when books, TV, movies, etc. have predetermined how the world sees u

My mom manufactured a bizarro world where white people were the minority, they did not control the narrative and Black was the default.

The whites are absolutely right about one thing, though. Y'all canceled Dr. Seuss.

Trust me, I know.

I was today years old when I realized:

I grew up in a "cancel culture."

Thank you
Thank you
Black, I am.

Great essay Red!!

[jhu72]

How Racism Harms White People.

A real good piece from CNN. The ideas aren't new, but serves as a reminder how White people (tax payers, voters) have cut of their own nose to spite their face so so many times.

[Typical Lax Dad]

How Racism Harms White People.

A real good piece from CNN. The ideas aren't new, but serves as a reminder how White people (tax payers, voters) have cut of their own nose to spite their face so so many times.

That’s a very good article. I saw it yesterday. Sad but true.

[DMac]

jhu72 wrote
Great essay Red!!

+1, it sure is.

[youthathletics]

How Racism Harms White People.

A real good piece from CNN. The ideas aren't new, but serves as a reminder how White people (tax payers, voters) have cut of their own nose to spite their face so so many times.

That’s a very good article. I saw it yesterday. Sad but true.

There is the counter point, one that was set in motion in PG County, MD in the late 70's early 80s. The the black community pushed back and later abolished it, arguing it was not in their best interest. IMO, those that were part of this experiment benefitted greatly. As a white male, I would argue the experiment was a success....many of my closest friends were black. Many of those families moved out of the area they were bussed from to the school district to which they were bussed. As they say... you can please some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time.

As an added benefit I loved D.C. go-go music and was a bass player, so we always kicked it in music class or in someone's garage. We'd hang out together at Hains point or Sams car wash after detailing our rides. In the end, sure, we saw color but it did not divide us. It started turning south towards the middle/late 80's when drug dealing/hustling went crazy. The separation started to widen once again.

SEARCH LINKS HERE

[Typical Lax Dad]

How Racism Harms White People.

A real good piece from CNN. The ideas aren't new, but serves as a reminder how White people (tax payers, voters) have cut of their own nose to spite their face so so many times.

That’s a very good article. I saw it yesterday. Sad but true.

There is the counter point, one that was set in motion in PG County, MD in the late 70's early 80s. The the black community pushed back and later abolished it, arguing it was not in their best interest. IMO, those that were part of this experiment benefitted greatly. As a white male, I would argue the experiment was a success....many of my closest friends were black. Many of those families moved out of the area they were bussed from to the school district to which they were bussed. As they say... you can please some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time.

As an added benefit I loved D.C. go-go music and was a bass player, so we always kicked it in music class or in someone's garage. We'd hang out together at Hains point or Sams car wash after detailing our rides. In the end, sure, we saw color but it did not divide us. It started turning south towards the middle/late 80's when drug dealing/hustling went crazy. The separation started to widen once again.

SEARCH LINKS HERE

Why are you addressing the counter point to me? I didn’t post the article.

[youthathletics]

I yi-yi .... so the guy with the most posts, somehow now does not understand how to keep a conversation going on a particular thread discussion to which they were part of. We'll see how often you quote conversations moving forward, which implies you disagree with the last poster....message received.

[Typical Lax Dad]

I yi-yi .... so the guy with the most posts, somehow now does not understand how to keep a conversation going on a particular thread discussion to which they were part of. We'll see how often you quote conversations moving forward, which implies you disagree with the last poster....message received.

Just what I figured.

[Kismet]

I yi-yi .... so the guy with the most posts, somehow now does not understand how to keep a conversation going on a particular thread discussion to which they were part of. We'll see how often you quote conversations moving forward, which implies you disagree with the last poster....message received.

Just what I figured.

BTW YA - it's "Ay Yai Yai" - a Spanish (actually Mexican) expression. You know, the people who paid for DOPUS' wall.

[a fan]

In the end, sure, we saw color but it did not divide us. It started turning south towards the middle/late 80's when drug dealing/hustling went crazy.

Another way to put that is: it started to turn south when racist drug policies treated drugs blacks Americans used and drugs white Americans used entirely differently.

So my High School in the 80's? You could get almost anything you wanted, if you were looking for it. But the police were nowhere to be found. Not a single kid I knew who dealt drugs was popped for even a misdemeanor.

Meanwhile, in poorer neighborhoods?

...you know the rest....

[Typical Lax Dad]

I yi-yi .... so the guy with the most posts, somehow now does not understand how to keep a conversation going on a particular thread discussion to which they were part of. We'll see how often you quote conversations moving forward, which implies you disagree with the last poster....message received.

Just what I figured.

BTW YA - it's "Ay Yai Yai" - a Spanish (actually Mexican) expression. You know, the people who paid for DOPUS' wall.

Ay Ya Ya.....Could have easily followed up JHU or DMAC....

[youthathletics]

In the end, sure, we saw color but it did not divide us. It started turning south towards the middle/late 80's when drug dealing/hustling went crazy.

Another way to put that is: it started to turn south when racist drug policies treated drugs blacks Americans used and drugs white Americans used entirely differently.

So my High School in the 80's? You could get almost anything you wanted, if you were looking for it. But the police were nowhere to be found. Not a single kid I knew who dealt drugs was popped for even a misdemeanor.

Meanwhile, in poorer neighborhoods?

...you know the rest....

there is a lot of wiggle room on this topic. I knew a few kids(white) that were popped and sent to Boys Village.

[Typical Lax Dad]

In the end, sure, we saw color but it did not divide us. It started turning south towards the middle/late 80's when drug dealing/hustling went crazy.

Another way to put that is: it started to turn south when racist drug policies treated drugs blacks Americans used and drugs white Americans used entirely differently.

So my High School in the 80's? You could get almost anything you wanted, if you were looking for it. But the police were nowhere to be found. Not a single kid I knew who dealt drugs was popped for even a misdemeanor.

Meanwhile, in poorer neighborhoods?

...you know the rest....

https://johnjayrec.nyc/2015/06/01/databits201501/

FYI....nice post 1980 trend lines.