Obama Addresses Racial "Anger" - Page 27

Jermyn Davidson · #**261** 03-20-2008, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by COOPER

Not when it backed up by NAACP, Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton.

Not when white men loose jobs by a slip of the Tongue.

....the last guy said "Nappy" ....give me a brake........

Look what happened to "The Dog".....

Blacks can basically say what ever they want, where ever want on any kind of media.

Let a Powerful white man insinuate anything about a Black and all civil rights groups come after him.

Whites are getting tired of it.

I believe he called them "nappy-headed ho's"-- yeah it was good to see him lose his job. His remarks were pointed at a group of real people, who have fought that to break the cycle of failure in their lives, He insulted and minimized their accomplishments, using their race as the basis of his insult, for no reason at all.

I was saddened to learn he has his show in the air again.

"The Dog" comments, at least his apology was sincere, but I don't watch tv much at all so I don't know if his show was cancelled or not.

These "slips of the tongue" are highlighted in the media to show that there are still racial issues to be dealt with and that the arguments of the race-baiters do have some truth to them, at times,

Blacks can't say whatever they want without media repercussions-- OUTSIDE of the race-baiting idiots who draw attention whenever they breathe, please give an example where a black person has made racially disparaging remarks without backlash.

"Whites are getting tired of it"-- the angry white male syndrome is real, but I am unsure whether it is justified. Even if it is, if "they" don't deal with it in positive terms, they are no better than than the race-baiters who frustrate them.

Jermyn Davidson · #**262** 03-20-2008, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I saw, with my own eyes, a black guy in Houston being interviewed after Katrina. He said, "If they don't continue to help us, they will see what crime really is."

What in the world kind of statement is that? Crazy!!!

Whether that statement was made by a Political Scientist, Sociologist, or a village idiot, there is some truth to that statement. Even more painful, is that the crime that will increase will only hurt his closest neighbors, friends and family-- people who look just like him, the most.

It would be a stupid statement, if there just wasn't so much truth to it.

Pressing-On · #**263** 03-20-2008, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1399

"Whites are getting tired of it"-- the angry white male syndrome is real, but I am unsure whether it is justified. Even if it is, if "they" don't deal with it in positive terms, they are no better than than the race-baiters who frustrate them.

I agree with the latter part. I am just tired of having to step on egg shells.

For instance, if a child in the public school here says the "N" word he is put in detention. BUT, if the black kid calls a white kid "Cracker", "Honky", "Gringo", etc. they get a pass.

See how it works? It is annoying - mainly because none of the words annoy us, it's that we are the only ones that don't get to say anything without more repercussion. That's what I have seen.

Pressing-On · #**264** 03-20-2008, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1399

Whether that statement was made by a Political Scientist, Sociologist, or a village idiot, there is some truth to that statement. Even more painful, is that the crime that will increase will only hurt his closest neighbors, friends and family-- people who look just like him, the most.

It would be a stupid statement, if there just wasn't so much truth to it.

Being that we saw the handouts abused, we took the statement as a threat to commit crime if we don't pamper them. That is what so many were incensed about.

Jermyn Davidson · #**265** 03-20-2008, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ReformedDave

Do you think Wright is 'hateful'?

I do agree that it is possible to take the same stance for different reasons. I am NOT defending BJU but what was the reason for their stance on interracial relationships? (This is a sincere question)

From the part of the sermon I have heard and from his outreach to his community I have heard about and from the fact that he has white people on his staff (so I'm told), I have to say, "No" I don't think Wright is hateful, neither do I consider him to be a racist.

Bob Jones reason for their stance may be will-intentioned(I don't know), but hateful in its results, breeding more hate, misinformation and such.

COOPER · #**266** 03-20-2008, 11:23 AM

Farrakhan recieved award from Wright; read in this pdf copy of The Trumpet

http://www.trumpetmag.com/pdf/nov_dec_magazines.pdf

Jermyn Davidson · #**267** 03-20-2008, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I agree with the latter part. I am just tired of having to step on egg shells.

For instance, if a child in the public school here says the "N" word he is put in detention. BUT, if the black kid calls a white kid "Cracker", "Honky", "Gringo", etc. they get a pass.

See how it works? It is annoying - mainly because none of the words annoy us, it's that we are the only ones that don't get to say anything without more repercussion. That's what I have seen.

I have seen that too-- not right at all. The adults (in a school setting) need to do more to nip that stuff in the bud as it is happening. But they can't do anything about it, if the white students don't complain. When I saw it happen, most of the time, the white kid just didn't care, it didn't phase them.

ReformedDave · #**268** 03-20-2008, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1399

From the part of the sermon I have heard and from his outreach to his community I have heard about and from the fact that he has white people on his staff (so I'm told), I have to say, "No" I don't think Wright is hateful, neither do I consider him to be a racist.

Bob Jones reason for their stance may be will-intentioned(I don't know), but hateful in its results, breeding more hate, misinformation and such.

I appreciate your willingness to discuss this rationally.

Here's an interesting letter I found on-line. Again, I DON"T believe this is a correct stance but I have a father who believed this and I truly don't think he thought of himself better because of his race or position in life.

Mr. James Landrith
P.O. Box 8208
Alexandria, VA 22306

Dear Mr. Landrith:

Thank you for your phone call requesting information concerning interracial relations here at Bob Jones University. The University has an open admissions policy, and we accept students of any race. The student body is fully integrated with all students participating in all activities and organizations regardless of race.

Bob Jones University does, however, have a rule prohibiting interracial dating among its students. God has separated people for His own purpose. He has erected barriers between the nations, not only land and sea barriers, but also ethnic, cultural, and language barriers. God has made people different one from another and intends those differences to remain.. Bob Jones University is opposed to intermarriage of the races because it breaks down the barriers God has established. It mixes that which God separated and intends to keep separate. Every effort in world history to bring the world together has demonstrated man's self-reliance and his unwillingness to remain as God ordains. The attempts at one-worldism have been to devise a system without God and have fostered the promotion of a unity designed to give the world strength so that God is not needed and can be overthrown.

Although there is no verse in the Bible that dogmatically says that races should not intermarry, the whole plan of God as He has dealt with the races down through the ages indicates that interracial marriage is not best for man. We do believe we see principles, not specific verses, to give us direction for the avoidance of it.

The people who built the Tower of Babel were seeking a man-glorifying unity which God has not ordained (Gen. 11:4-6). Much of the agitation for intermarriage among the races today is for the same reason. It is promoted by one-worlders, and we oppose it for the same reason that we oppose religious ecumenism, globalism, one-world economy, one-world police force, unisex, etc. When Jesus Christ returns to the earth, He will establish world unity, but until then, a divided earth seems to be His plan.

Of course, we realize that this is controversial position and that there are many fine Christians who disagree with us on it. We recognize the right of other Christians to hold differing views; we only hope that they will recognize the sincerity and love with which we hold ours.

Christian students of all races find a happy and harmonious atmosphere here at the University, and the number of minority students grows every year. We believe prejudice to be Biblically wrong, and it is not tolerated in the student body.

I trust this information is helpful to you. Kind regards.

Jonathan Pait
Community Relations Coordinator

Pressing-On · #**269** 03-20-2008, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1399

I have seen that too-- not right at all. The adults (in a school setting) need to do more to nip that stuff in the bud as it is happening. But they can't do anything about it, if the white students don't complain. When I saw it happen, most of the time, the white kid just didn't care, it didn't phase them.

We don't get riled up over words, that's why. Blacks and Hispanics seem to let that bother them a lot. Why is that?

DividedThigh · #**270** 03-20-2008, 11:41 AM

in following and chiming in occasionally in this discussion i have to give huge kudos to 1399, my brother has a friend at the pentagon he works with, you remind me of him 1399, just like me a man , with values and integrity, striving to do the best you can in and for your world, god bless you brother, and honest enough to discuss this stuff, cool,dt