Comments on the Million Man March

Carpo,

I believe I already said I did not agree with everything that was said. I said that the event was positive overall, and not about making excuses for problems, but solving them. Now in this same vein others spoke on this issue. They called for an end to senseless gang violence, for people who live in these gang communities to step up and counsel youths before they go down this route, and the need to solidify families in the community so that youths do not feel they have to search for family elsewhere. I do not see a problem with that. Please do not equate silly comments with the march as a whole, it is the same as equating all Baptists with Westboro Baptist and their protests outside of soldiers funerals.

 

>Because a "buy black" speech was given?

Why are there never "buy Mexican, Chinese, Japanese, Thai, Italian, Korean, Polish, Swedish . . . " speeches made?

 

Excellent point Filmproducer


Dragoon68 said:

"Discrimination" has become a bad word but the practice is not necessarily bad depending upon the context. Discrimination is not inherently bad.

Give examples good and bad Dragoon68 because this
left to stand on its little lonesome looks like
you are falling into a black hole. You need to
expound on it and provide context.

 

I don't know. There was not at this march, because it was about the African American community. I people are REALLY MISSING the point. It was meant to support those in the African American community. It was NOT meant as a "buy black" ONLY speech.

 

It demands things for the benefit of one race on the basis of their race to the exclusion of others of a different race.

It claims unity but includes and excludes persons on the basis of their individual God given race verses their chosen interests, affiliations, beliefs, or practices.

It seeks to blame descendants of one race for all things wrong about the situation of the members of their race. Conversely, all things correct are attributed to their race to the exclusion of members of other races.

It seeks to punish, under cover of law, persons of one race for wrong doing allegedly done by their ancestors to decedents of a different race on the basis of their race long after the fact. Notably, it does not seek the same punishment from descendants of members of their race for the part they allegedly played in the same wrong doing.

It encourages cooperative actions on the basis of race that would be opposed if engaged by those of other races. It fosters a position of entitlement to unique "rights" based upon race while denying those same "rights" to persons of other races.

It attempts to seek special favor from our government for members of one race to "correct" known or alleged wrong doing. It assumes that a "wrong" can make a "right". Conversely, it does not support the concept of equality before the law regardless of race. It seeks more favorable treatment before the law and demands funding of that treatment predominating from members of another race.

It is all very racist!

Christians are of all races and of no race. Christians are simply followers of Christ in whom they are one.

"Discrimination" has become a bad word but the practice is not necessarily bad depending upon the context. Discrimination is not inherently bad. </font>[/QUOTE]Again, I really believe a point is being missed. It was not meant to exclude others. Maybe by Farrahkan and his people, but definitely not others. When MLK began his civil rights movement MANY white people joined with him. In this same vein Jesse Jackson works with MANY white people. His Rainbow/Push Coalition helps all poor and disenfranchised, or underrepresented, which includes MANY white people.

There are still hard feelings about slavery, segregation, and overall violent racist behavior. We have not yet reached a point in history where this would be a forgotten ill. Discriminatory behavior still exists, as well as racial violence. Not everybody commits these crimes and not everybody is victimized, but the history is still too fresh. Now as far as reparations are concerned. It is ONE issue among many. Not everyone is in favor of monetary reparations. Some people hope that the government would officially apologize for slavery and segregation, and overall exclusion from the freedoms listed in the Bill of Rights. At any rate is still one issue, and not even a particularly important one, in the grand scheme of things.

I will leave off with this. African Americans are a small segment of the population. They are not unlike the Christian population, in that they have specific interests regarding their community. While people cannot change their race, they can participate in affecting change in the "black community". IOW, white people, nor any other race is necessarily excluded form the "cause". Besides you mentioned that Christians are not necessarily one race, but just like African Americans they have specific interests. Look at it this way. Baptist Board is mainly for Baptists, but others who are not Baptists are allowed to join. In this same vein some churches exclude certain groups or people from attending or joining their church, but this is not all churches on the whole. It is one specific issue facing Christians, just as reparations is one issue in the black community.

 

FP, the bottom line is this. You live and preach a double standard. If whites had a meeting and it was all positive, but one person said blacks were an infierior race, and they gave that stupped supposedly biblical thing about them decending from one of Noah's sons who was cursed (I can't remember which one it was). You would not be saying it was a positive meeting. I'f one single person said such a thing, it would be major denunciation time.

But in this meeting several people and groups can say racist things and you still say it was overall positive.

What you are saying it is ok for blacks to segregate while crucifiying any white person who does it. We are stuck in a rut!

 

You are presuming things about my character and my ability to reason and distinguish between good and bad. The fact of the matter is you have no idea how I live or what I "preach". I am quite capable of watching, listening, or attending an event and discerning the positive and negative aspects involved. Beyond that, no one here knows my motive for watching the event in the first place, so to make judgments on my objectivity is insulting.

First of all, I would not denunciate an entire group, white, black, or other, on the basis of ridiculous, racist, or otherwise offensive comments made by certain members, but not the whole. Churches, even Baptist churches, to this day have singled groups or segments of the population that are unworthy, therefore not allowed in their midst. Do I denounce all of Christianity or Baptists? No. I attended a Baptist church, with my husband, where the preacher preached a sermon on why interracial relationships are unbiblical and displeasing to God. I was quite capable of discerning that this is a view held by the minority. My husband and I still attend Baptist churches.

Now if it was an established hate group I might have a problem. I do not believe in hate speech. I do not believe in the hate speech perpetuated by Farrahkan and his people, but they were not the only people in attendance.

Secondly, here is the double standard. The OP made claims of the march mobilizing black people to hand over even more of their lives to others interference. Being someone who actually watched the entire event, I refuted this claim. The march specifically addressed problems in the black community and ways to solve them. Now, not all the solutions were productive, and not all the comments made were right, but the overall event was not about making excuses as people have claimed. After this, people claimed that the march excludes other races. Again, this was refuted. Now it is being claimed that it is for blacks, by blacks, with minimal participation by others. Why is their minimal participation by others? It is because others do not want to participate-point blank. The opportunity is there, no one is stepping up to the plate, because the issue are not as important to them, or do not affect them. People claim that African Americans do not take responsibility for their problems, and only complain about how they have been wronged, but when they gather publicly to discuss their problems, for all the world to see, they are racist. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Either African Americans are not stepping up and trying to solve the problems in their community, or they are racist and do not want to do anything but wallow in their unfortunate history.

As far as slavery is concerned, the issue was not settled a long time ago. Slavery was ended a long time ago, but injustice was not. African Americans were still treated as third class citizens, all the way up until the Civil Rights Era of the 1960s. These issues may be settled for white people, but it is not so easy to forget for some black people. It was NOT THAT LONG AGO. To this day, there is racial profiling and discrimination based on skin color alone. American may offer an opportunity for everyone, but it is harder for African Americans, because of the profiling and discrimination. Not that they cannot succeed, and not that these issues are holding them back, but they make it harder. Being looked at differently and demonized, for no other reason than the color of your skin can, and does break a person down. Some people don't seem to realize or take notice of this. The same can be said for differences between the poor and the middle class. Opportunity is there, but it is easier for one, versus the other. Not that it cannot be done, but one has more obstacles to overcome.

I am not even going to address the voting issue, as I have discussed that in other threads. However, the majority of African Americans are not going to jump and start supporting the Republican party, you can hope all you want, but this is not going to happen, without major changes being made. That is the truth of it. Is it right? I am not one to judge, but that is the reality of it.

 

"so to make judgments on my objectivity is insulting."---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am simply going off what you said. No insult is inteneded. If you think meetings like that are overall positive when you would never say the same thing about a white meeting that had a hint of those kind of satements. I think that is a double standard. Also to say that it is ok to have black student unions when I know you would be alarmed if whites built a building that said "White Student Union" over the door is a double standard. Thus my statement that you are living and preaching a double standard. I am not sure why you do not understand my reasoning in the statement, but you know I would not purposly insult you.

Your defence was that there are white only sorities that are that way because blacks don't want to join. That kind of reasoning is beneith you. Their is a big difference between a group that whites or blacks wont join and one that would calls itself, "white" or "black" only.

You said something about most business in black inner city neighborhoods being white owened, but when I watched the riots in LA and the blacks were distroying businesses in their neighborhoods it was Blacks and Asians who owened those businesses.

All this talk about whites would not go and support the meeting. Why woud they go when the youth minister was basically saying people with white skin are Nazies. The fact that you would say a meeting with such statements is overall poistive is the hight of Hypocracy. If a reverse statement was said like that by a white individual at a white meeting in DC That consisted of known and accepted groups, the individuals would be delt with on the spot. So even if some of the folks were positive in what they said, the fact that no one in the group has denounced the racist hate speech is telling of the overall group. So It cannot be classified as overall positive.

I am not saying that the world is perfect for blacks. But their is alot of prejudice against white men in coproate america now. I know you wont believe that. But how would you like to be a white man who has to compete with all other groups who are getting admision, hiring and promotion preferances. I know my ancestors all the way back to the Civil War, and none owened slave owners, which is true for the vast majority of whites. And I never observed my parents be prejiduced toward a black. So why should I tolerate reverse prejudice? just becasue you say I should?

"However, the majority of African Americans are not going to jump and start supporting the Republican party, you can hope all you want, but this is not going to happen, without major changes being made."------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You mean without the Rebups getting on the "entitlement" band wagon and supporting reverse discremination. That is what I mean when I say they are bought and payed for by the Demos.

 

Because Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Italian, Polish, Swedish, and most every other nationality and culture enjoy doing business with their own people. Black people don't trust black people.

 

I am simply going off what you said. No insult is intended. If you think meetings like that are overall positive when you would never say the same thing about a white meeting that had a hint of those kind of satements. I think that is a double standard. Also to say that it is ok to have black student unions when I know you would be alarmed if whites built a building that said "White Student Union" over the door is a double standard. Thus my statement that you are living and preaching a double standard. I am not sure why you do not understand my reasoning in the statement, but you know I would not purposly insult you.

First of all, when did I say this? Secondly, I said I WOULD say the same thing for a "meeting" of white people where someone hinted at the same thing, but it was not the whole group's sentiments. Would I accept the racist, offensive sentiments? No, but if the meeting was overall positive I would say so. Did I accept or try to justify Farrahkan or his people's racist, offensive remarks? No, I said in light of them, others made the event overall positive, in that it tried to deal with the issues facing black Americans. There would be NO DIFFERENCE.


As far as "white student union" is concerned, you obviously misunderstood my point. Why is there a black student union? There is a BSU because on the majority of college campuses black Americans make up maybe 2%-5% of the total students. The black student population is small enough to have common interests. There could be a "white student union", however I don't see how successful it would be. The white population is so large and diverse compared to the black student population, that I seriously doubt everyone could find a common interest to make the group worthwhile. This is why there are music clubs, math clubs, Christian clubs, female organizations, gay organizations, Irish clubs, athletic clubs, Latino organizations, etc., etc. All of these populations are small enough to have a common interest. And far "black only" student unions, I believe I mentioned that UK had a few white members in the BSU when I was there. It is all about common interests, where people can get together and discuss their common interests, and support each other.

You said something about most business in black inner city neighborhoods being white owened, but when I watched the riots in LA and the blacks were distroying businesses in their neighborhoods it was Blacks and Asians who owened those businesses.

I didn't say that there were no black or Asian business owners. I said that the majority of businesses in this country are white owned and operated, and that even SOME black operated businesses are white owned. Yes, there are more black owned businesses concentrated in urban areas, but the majority of businesses are still white owned.

All this talk about whites would not go and support the meeting.

Again, I believe you missed my point. The point I was trying to make is that for most white people these issues are not what most concerns them, therefore they would have no reason to attend the march. I hope that clarifies my previous statement. As far as the event being overall positive, it was for African Americans. Many important and relevant issues were discussed. Ways to combat problems in the community were discussed. The ridiculous comments of certain people in attendance does not change this fact.


So why should I tolerate reverse prejudice? just becasue you say I should?

I have never told anyone to tolerate reverse prejudice. I do not tolerate reverse prejudice. I have openly claimed that Farrahkan and his people were WRONG. They had no business spewing the hate speech that they did. What more do you want me to say? I will not say that the overall positiveness of the march is undone over these comments, because I do not believe that to be true.

You mean without the Rebups getting on the "entitlement" band wagon and supporting reverse discremination.

Not necessarily, entitlement programs are not the only ways to combat poverty. I would think if the Republicans took an ACTIVE and VIGOROUS role in eliminating poverty more African Americans would vote Republican. I am not saying the Democrats do this, but they are the ones that embraced the Civil Rights movement of the 60's, and previously the New Deal. The general population is not actively involved in politics, therefore it would take a lot to sway preconceived notions of party preference.

 

It seems to me you may be taking some of the comments a bit too personal.

We're all giving our opinions here about the Million Man Movement. The focus is on that topic and not on one another except to the extent of commenting about our comments. You nor your motives are the subject here. You, as a person, just like the rest of are essentially unknown. We can only presume we're fellow Christian brothers and sisters due equal mutual respect and consideration.

I am sorry I came off as being insulted. That paragraph was in direct response to Bunyon's previous post, but as the rest of the comments were meant to be general I did not specify as such. I do not believe Bunyon was trying to insult me, but I wanted to qualify why the statement was incorrect. Here is the quote:

I did not necessarily take it personally, but wanted to at least address the issue.


It is not the role of government to make poor people rich nor rich people poor...

I never said it was. My statement was as to why there would not be a major party shift among African American voters. All people view government and the role of government in different ways. Poverty is a big issue to many, especially African Americans. Government involvement, right or wrong, would be a determining factor for a party shift.

 

You forgot FP, the neonazis are a small enought group to have their own common intrest, so lets build them a student union too. Hiel Hitler! I am astounded that you support segregation. That is what putting the word black or white or Asian before the name "student union" is. Segregation. Blacks want to demand equal treatment. But they don't mind setting themselves apart. They want to criticize, but want let cosby or anyone outside of their race criticize them no matter how obvious the problems are. We well meaning whites and blacks sit around whistiling and ignoring the big elephant in the room, and along comes the Neo Nazies pointing the elephant out for all of us. That is a real shame that we give them this opportunity.