-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Trayvon Martin's Parents Speak
- Thread starter Zaac
- Start date
Crabtownboy said:
Well, if he should read Douglass, then maybe you should read Up From Slavery, by Booker T. Washington.
In it, he condemns the victimhood mentality you're trying to attribute to blacks in the strongest terms.
But then, he's probably not as qualified as you to speak on issues affecting black people.
No. It's an honest one. Like Don said, it's silly to pretend it's 1959.
My question is relevant, and on topic. Seems to me more black kids die in our cities than ever did in the south. Since you are the one who keeps changing the subject, stay on topic, and state whether you would want to live as a black teenager in a Chicago ghetto today, or as a rural southern black teenager in the 1950s. Should be an easy question. I know I'd rather take my chances in the south, given the odds.
Sapper Woody
Well-Known Member
Racism is only being perpetuated by reverse racists. It only becomes an issue when there is some form of race on race violence, even if that violence wasn't based on race.
CTB, your experiences are from a long time ago. That book was from a long time ago. America has changed. Drastically. Reverse racism is now the norm. For example:
1. There are grants available for college that are only available to blacks. If there were some only available to whites, that'd be racist.
2. There is a black Miss America pageant, only open to black women. If there were a "whites only Miss America pageant", that'd be racist.
3. There's a Black Entertainment TV. If there were a White Entertainment TV, that'd be racist.
4. There is a "Black History Month". If there were a "White History Month", that'd be racist.
5. Businesses are now required to have a certain number of minorities represented in their workforce. This means that if their numbers are low, then they'll have to hire a black (or Asian, latino, etc) over a white man, even if the white man is more qualified.
So, let me ask you: who is being racist?
As a black man in a white neighborhood? You got it. As a black man in a black neighborhood? Not for a billion bucks.
As a black man, I'm much more likely to get capped by a brudda than a cracka.
I'm not misinformed. I'm enlightened. Are you saying Christ was not touched with the feeling of the infirmities of an American black man, because He was a Jew in Palestine in the first century? What about mine as a white man in America?
No. I know exactly what is in play, and the remedies, magisterial and eternal.
thisnumbersdisconnected
New Member
Sorry, Mr. Martin, but the only racism in this case is that exhibited by liberals and the black community in demanding Zimmerman go to prison for killing a young man who was trying to kill him.
Funny, as pointed out in another thread on this forum, this case was never considered racial.
http://rochester.ynn.com/content/top_stories/490926/jury-finds-roderick-scott-not-guilty/
Even funnier, there isn't one hint except for the inexact photo taken outside the courtroom that the accused is black, and the dead kid-turned-thug was white.
I don't know about reverse racism - racism is just racism...but that's just a matter of wording and I know what you mean, so it's not an argument. I'd just like to see it all considered equally nasty by all, and for people to realize that all races seem to get discriminated against to some degree. It's not just a white or black thing. You don't have to be white to be racist, you don't have to be black either. Racists come in all races, as do their victims.
You bring up a really good question, one I've talked about with a few people.
That conversation discussed everything you just said.
I came to the conclusion that there was a time when having to hire x number of people was needed to force out unfair treatment, there was a time when scholarships and such seemed like a great idea, when exclusion ran so high that there really was a need for entertainment and such that catered to one race over another, as actors and producers had issues with working with other races or representing others.
However...when does it stop? Is it still needed and even if it is in some areas, is it helpful or harmful? Isn't it time to let it go and let this work itself out now? Is it possible that it is having the opposite effect now, and even more divisive and excluding of other races than helpful, given the times?
I know that when it comes to African Americans, slavery didn't end and then things were magically great and wonderful, with peace and harmony for all. There still isn't, which is why I say there was a time for those things. But...I also would say it's time for them to stop and let this issue get worked out in people's hearts and souls.
Of course it will be ugly, but keeping it now? I think that's just as ugly.
There's also the issue of it being more than just a black and white issue, which I get tired of people not recognizing. Look at those scholarships. What happens when people feel like whites have gotten the short end of the stick because there is a special scholarship for blacks only? They're going to be more likely to award scholarships to whites, rather than to another black kid who earned it more than the white kid, but then add this - what about the Asian child who did better than both, but they already filled their quotas of people with Asian last names, and Asians are perceived as not being as much in need, so did that help the real person who should have been awarded that scholarship?
What happens quietly behind the scenes in scholarships and such is pretty interesting. You are point on in the other stuff too. Why should someone be hired because of a quota, or not hired because that quota has been filled and they feel bad that they gave jobs to fill quotas, so now they feel the need to hire someone of another race since they feel the other races were treated unfair since they were overlooked while the quotas were being filled?
So - I have to wonder how that even gets out there, the idea that hey, it's time to see if Americans have evolved enough in their thinking to be able to handle a nation of mixed colors without the government standing over and saying how to do so in a correct fashion. That could be a problem in a nation where the government doesn't think the citizens can handle large sodas, the length of the grass in their own yards, or how to teach their own kids, so the first hurdle would be convincing the government that the citizens might be able to survive without them for a millisecond.
I'm guessing if it was tried, the government would step it down very slowly to prevent problems and be prepared for backlash, using even more vigilance over it all than used now. Which would likely need funding, which would require taxes to be raised. Hrm.
Edit: I didn't change anything, I just have to edit because I didn't add a very important part: I do completely disagree about Black History Month. It is unique. Why take it out, or have issue with it? It is a large part of American history. An entire group of people, largely black, were brought here and made slaves and had a long, tough road to freedom and a fight to be viewed simply as less than sub-human, let alone equal citizens. We still see remnant of those views today. Such a huge chunk of history deserves its own space and study. It is a major part of our nation, our history, our heritage.
That doesn't mean I won't stand there and point out to students that blacks weren't the only people who were slaves, but by far, African Americans were the largest group with the longest fight and the largest societal impact in our history. How would it be racist to give it the attention it deserves?
Last edited by a moderator:
North Carolina Tentmaker
New Member
That is pretty close to what I was trying to say Gina. If racial profiling was occurring on a large scale, then those profiled, black Americans in our case, would be under such scrutiny that they would not be able to get away with any crimes. They would be caught every time because there would always be someone watching them.
A long established principle is that it is not the harshness of the penalty that deters crime as much as the likelihood of getting caught. If we chop your arm off for theft, you still might try to steal if you know 99% of the time you will get away with it. If we send you to jail for 6 months, but you know that 99% of the time you will be caught, you won’t try to steal.
You said,
I would argue that a thief steals because he thinks he can get away with it. If racial profiling was widespread, crime rates in the profiled group would plummet. The fact that crime rates in the minority population exceeds the general population proves to me that racial profiling either does not exist or does not exist at a high enough level to have any effect on our behavior.
Yes, the logical conclusion of that line of thought is that we need more racial profiling. Something that I am sure would reduce crime rates, but is a step most Americans, including myself, are unwilling to take.
There is a balance between personal liberty and personal safety, and as an American I would favor personal liberty and defending my own property over a police state where I was perfectly safe and controled. But that really is a different topic.
Zaac
Well-Known Member
Cooperation and communication for what? George Zimmerman is not a police officer. One of my Black friends told me that it's the strangest thing in the world for them to see how many white people think they have the right to just come up to anyone who doesn't look like them and start questioning them as though they are the police.
Trayvon didn't have any reason to communicate to the man who was following him. Nor did he have any reason to cooperate with the non-police officer.
Of course it did. Just like Zimmerman's neighbor said. It's the big ole elephant in the room. Black young men had been committing robberies in the neighborhood. Zimmerman followed Trayvon because he fit the profile of those who had done the robberies.
And there is nothing wrong with knowing who to look for. But he took it past the "looking" when he has no authority to have done so. It's called Neighborhood WATCH for a reason.
Zimmerman was not the police and had no reason to be pursuing anyone as though he were the police
The most racist people are the ones crying "RACIST!".
Zaac
Well-Known Member
That's not racist. That's CHOICE. The GRANTEE gets to decide the conditions of the grant.
The Miss America Pageant was whites only until the 70s. Again that's a choice. If people were saying they couldn't be in the pageant because their skin doesn't make them worthy of competing with us, then THAT is racist.
You had white entertainment tv for decades.:laugh: BET isn't any more racist than is ESPN or Turner CLASSIC Movies. They are playing to a demographic the same way Fox News does.
If BET said we're not gonna show any white artists because their skin color makes their music worse than ours, then THAT is racist.
There are 11 other months filled with nothing but White History so what's the big deal? part of the point that non-Whites have attempted to make to Whites is that just because white America hasn't coined a term for something, by default, because that's the viewpoint that is always taught, that's the viewpoint that is always put in textbooks, that's the story you always hear, it is on the face what it is without calling it such.
Untrue as affrimative action deals with EQUALLY qualified candidates.
It is probably rare that you actually encounter someone who is gonna overtly do something racist. But the cries of racism are coming from a lot of folks who don't know what racism is. And the cries against the ones crying racism are also coming from folks who don't know what racism is.
Racism( odd use of a word that's talking about skin color and not race) is an issue of power and the belief that your skin color should allow you to exact a certain level of power or position or superiority over a person of another skin color.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
in all fairness Treyvon's family get some things right.
1. Treyvon is their child.
2. He was unnarmed.
3. He was shot by George Zimmerman.
4. They expected Zimmerman to go to Jail.
5. They probably do believe this whole thing is about race and not much else.
The media tells us George Zimmerman "calls himself hispanic" but they never tell us that "Obama calls himself black" for the very same reasons George Z calls himself Hispanic.
So - perhaps Treyvon's parents are being setup by the media on some of this.
If Zimmerman had taken the more noble option of "just bleeding" perhaps "Just passing out" or possibly going into a comma - all would have been well.
In that case Treyvon would be alive - and in jail as a thug - and Zimmerman might alive and recovering with no one threatening him.
in Christ,
Bob
Zaac
Well-Known Member
Would agree except with #5. I believe the parents are on record as saying they believe race was a factor but not the only factor.
And when the GRANTEE decides those conditions based on skin color, that's racist. Sapper wins that point.
It was a choice not to allow women of color into the Miss America pageant because of their skin color--just like you don't see Asians or whites competing in the Miss Black America pageant. That's a choice made because of skin color. Point again for Woody.
So where's the Asian channel? The American Indian channel?
Let's face it: if someone proposed the "White Entertainment Channel," there'd be an outcry, and we all--including you--know it. Point again for Woody.
There actually is an Irish-American Heritage month; can't get much whiter than that. Point to Zaac.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Reports from the court case indicate that Treyvon was only wounded on his knuckles from pounding Zimmerman - and then the gun shot wound.
Nothing else.
That means this whole story might be the lesson of how a Hispanic male adult should end a mugging when that mugging is being done by a 17 year old that is larger than the Hispanic male in question - and the adult is on the ground with his head getting pounded.
Clearly from all the news and fuss - Zimmerman did not get the solution to that problem right.
"Pilot error" as they say in the airline business.
I wonder if he (or anyone in his neighborhood) will "volunteer" for neighborhood watch - ever again.
in Christ,
Bob
I believe this was about race. Zimmerman was hispanic and that was the only reason Martin attacked him.
Zaac
Well-Known Member
That's not racist. That's preference.
Again if it's because they thought that black skin made them inferior and not worthy of being Miss America, then that's racist. But if they just wanted to have an all White pageant, that's preference.
That's still not racist so you stop giving points to Woody. :laugh: If the Miss Black America Pageant was saying Whites, Asians, and non-Blacks are inferior to them and thus aren't worthy of being in the same pageant with them, then that would be racist.
As it stands, it's simply a preference. If Fox News doesn't have any black anchors on their shows it doesn't necessarily make them racist.
Not sure where you guys are, but ATT , Comcast and Dish Network all have Asian channel lineups. If they think there s a substantial market for it, they'll do it. That's why the Spanish channel lineups have expanded.
And let's face it again, since television started you've essentially had White Entertainment Channels so what would change other than the fact that folks would suddenly be bold enough to say it?
Zaac
Well-Known Member
I hope so. But Neighborhood watch has specific guidelines to which George Zimmerman obviously was not adhering. His behavior should not be perceived as indicative of Neighborhood Watch as he wasn't acting in that capacity on the night of the encounter with Trayvon Martin.
When you PREFER to not include people based on their skin color, that's discrimination -- also known as "racism." Paint it any way you want - Woody successfully refuted your statements.