eflynn

There's no reason to assume because a person's family makes less than $60,000 a year they can't perform. I seriously doubt Harvard wants their attrition rate any higher than it is currently and wouldn't put a policy in place that would contribute to it. Plain and simple whoever gets into Harvard, wealthy or poor, is still held to the same academic standard. EVERYONE has to do the work.

Because it's obvious he meant what he said. A boldface lie like that would have simply added more shit to the storm. Making an off color remark about another race is something 99% of people have done. What he did was completely different. He got upset at a heckler, which incidentally comes along with doing standup, and said the things he usually just thinks. He's not an 8 year old child who didn't get the transformer he wanted for christmas. He's a grown man who knew what he was doing, what he was saying, who he was saying it to, and where he said it. Here's what they think of you...

Here's the flaw in your logic... If it was a white kid, everyone would know who the Daddy was. And, the Daddy would deal with it. Probably very effectively. I wouldn't be surprised if the kid with the pellet gun doesn't even know who his Daddy is. Yes, of course. Because if you're white everyone knows who their father is. And if you look like me you have absolutely no idea who you father is. In addition, we all know mothers are incapable of n their children. "Here's what they think of you."

How is it they wouldn't have become successful physicians "were it not for the unfortunate ills that befell their people in the past?" I can't imagine how you're going to begin to defend your position but on the surface, that comment is so casually arrogant it incenses me. I suppose had these same people's ancestors never been removed from Africa they wouldn't have had the chance to receive the wonderful educations that are only available in the US? Based on your "logic," it could be argued that any positive incident could be directly or indirectly as a result of something negative that happened prior. No. In the example you've given it's absolutely ridiculous.

Big Daddy Kane "It's a Big Daddy Thing" Slum Village "Fantastic Vol 2" J Dilla "Donuts" John Coltrane "Love Supreme"

Although it has nothing to do with what's been said so far, I'm well aware of the definition and etimology of the word. You didn't say black people are known for blah blah blah as a general comment akin to I like to eat cereal for breakfast sometimes. Wether you say "known to" or "known for" makes no difference in this instance. The words came out your mouth and trying to spin it one way or the other doesn't change a thing. I'm done.

In the context of this thread it's nowhere close to the same thing.

That's what we're known for? Is that what your "numerous black friends" are know for? Do they know that's how you feel about people who look like them? James Bryd Jr was chained to the bumper of a pickup truck, and dragged down a road for miles until his body was literally spread over miles of road. His head and arms were found over a mile from one another. He was black and the two men who did it were white. This happened in 1999. I could very easily change your statement by one word so it reads "Just that white people are known to victimize others simply on the basis of their race." That one incident or a collection of them doesn't give you the right to label an entire race of people. If you took the time and effort to understand and learn about black people, rather than holding fast to what you see on television and the limited exposure you've obviously had, you'd find yourself in a better place as you try to make sense of these things. But perhaps you don't really want to. We're not all the same. Do we have commonalities? Yes, but that doesn't make us all the same. Differences should be celebrated not ignored. Once you accept that people generally come from different places, have different backgrounds, cultures, history, upbringing ect, then you can begin to have an intelligent conversation about why people of different races do what they do. Until then further discussion is pointless.

I don't really see what the Rodney King verdict has to do with my comment but I'll entertain your question. It would take more time and space than I have to explain the social climate in LA at that time but let it suffice to say, they went after whatever/whoever was close. We didn't march out to Bel Aire or the hills and burn and beat the shit out white people. Black people, whether you choose to believe it or not, actually caught it too. I'm sure the image of Reginald Denny being beaten by numerous black people is seared into your mind. What you may not know, and what wasn't shown or talked about much, is the fact that the people who stopped the beating were black, his e.r. physican was black, and one of his plastic surgeons was black. The Rodney King verdict was the straw that broke the camel's back as we have been catching it from LA police for years. The riots were not a call to arms on behalf of Rodney King but more the top blowing off years, and I do mean years, of frustration and anger.

Main Source. Tight.

No, it's not the same as government sanctioned policies but the things that happened during as a result of them are still having an effect today. That's undeniable.

I always say I'm not going to get involved but it's difficult to sit by and not contribute. Per the game analogy, the notion of it simply restarting with the next generation simply isn't true. The opportunities afforded or denied to the people who "played before you" do have an effect on where you begin and how well you do. It's never a "new game;" It simply continues with the next group of players. Where you start AND what happened before you doesn't solely determine where you finish but it does play a role. Whether institutional racism is now criminalized really doesn't have as much of an effect as most people would like to think it does. It makes it difficult for people to say "I'm not hiring you because you're black" or white or asian but it doesn't change how peoplel feel or think.

Someone needs a hug.

I've hardly missed the point. If you read my original post I begin by saying "I think if the dog being named "nigger" is essential to the story line of the film then it shouldn't be changed." If it was actually his name as you say then it is essential to the story line. "The pervading thought of that time as you put it was complete indifference to colour." Perhaps that was the climate in England but here it was much different which is further evidenced by the fact this thread exists.

"I mean it's easy to talk tough on the internet." What you're referring to is the classic "Email Thug."

"oh, i can think of lots more offensive terms... LOTS more" No, you can't. Nothing will get you knocked out faster. "don't hold your breath, they're as rare as hens teeth you've got more chance of seeing a black person out yachting" In the immortal words of Charlie Murphy "Wrong!" I know seven Black people who own yachts, and five other skydivers.

I'm Black and I jump so in a nutshell... I think if the dog being named "nigger" is essential to the story line of the film then it shouldn't be changed. If it simply reflects the pervading thought of that time regarding Black people and that's it's main aim, then it should be changed. Other than that it's just as random as any other name in the film. But somehow I doubt it was the first dog name that came to the writer's mind. As far as how I feel about the term, that's an incredibly long and involved discussion. You're correct in that there isn't a term more offensive or one that will get you into trouble faster. What makes the discussion about the word difficult is there is no equivalent expression for ANY other group of people with the same history behind it. So making someone understand it damn near impossible.

Nobody was ever going to riot regardless of what may have been written online or said on CNN. Think about it... He founded the crips over 30 years ago and has since renounced gang life and everything associated with it. In doing so he put himself at odds with everyone who continues to bang. Given this you have a few groups of people. 1. Young crips who have no idea who he is or really don't care AND look at him as being a traitor. They're definitely not going to riot. Why would they? 2. Bloods who would love to see him die based on the fact he created their enemy faction. 3. Non gang members who feel he should have been granted clemency for whatever reason. These folks aren't generally the types that riot when things don't go their way. Basically, there's a huge disconnect between anyone who might have rioted and the given conditions.

Kanye grew up the son of a college professor but it's not as if he's from a wealthy family. He didn't grow up in the suburbs of chicago as you stated. He's from the South side of Chicago. How do I know? I met him in '94 while I was still in school at Morehouse through his current manager, Jon Jon aka Jon Monopoly, who lived down the hall from me. He grew up just like I did, the son of an educated parent not that far removed from those less fortunate. So while it may seem like a stretch to you it wouldn't be to either one of us. The fact that he's doing very well now doesn't mean he can't identify with those who aren't.

Politicians in general aren't about helping average people. They're about protecting their own interests and maintaining/establishing wealth. Bush included. While I understand what you're saying about poor vs black, in the US there is a parallel between the two. If you were to paint all the homes of poor people red and the homes of all the middle class and wealthy people black there would be a lot more black people with red homes than black ones. If you banned anyone who wore vans from ever skydiving again for a non skydiving reason, enough skydivers would be affected to make it seem like they were in part being targeted. That's Kanye's point. As far as him promoting himself I don't think that had anything to do with what he said. If you've ever seen one of his interviews or read an article about him he's always had a monster ego. I've watched him walk out of interviews, throw tantrums, and tell the host of a show to "be quiet while I talk." When people hear him speak their attention automatically turns to him. My point is he didn't need to say any of what he said to "promote himself." I actually know and went to school with his manager, Jon Jon aka Jon Monopoly and spoke to him a day after his comments. We both joked about him having his taxes in order as his comments could bring hiim far more harm than good. Jon also mentioned extra security. The fact of the matter is he said what A LOT of people were thinking. Wether you agree or not thousands of people stood up and said "YES!!!" when he spoke his mind. Will anyone ever be able to prove it? Probably not. But it does feel good to get things off your chest or have someone else who can say what you feel to the world. As far as race, money, and power goes I think they're all connected in this country. I think money provides power but race figures into the equation too. That's another discussion and not one that I would engage in here.

My boy Joe is still the shit.

I'm not accusing you of anything. I'm simply citing what you've written. If you write about how much you don't like fruit, why would I think you like pineapples? I wouldn't. Your basic point is "I never said I didn't like ALL fruit" and I'm saying that's a weak argument. hypocrite: One who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion. One who feigns to be better or other than he is. Hardly. "The reason I brought it up was that the police officers apparently followed departmental policy and were crucified for it. What happened was symptomatic of a departmental problem--not a problem with the specific officers. They were used as scapegoats and the people behind those policies were ignored. That really bothered me at the time--the fact that the policy makers seemed to be insulated from any actions." This is really another discussion but I'll address it. If what they did during that traffic stop was departmental policy, one of the officers wouldn't have tried to stop the other from beating him with his night stick. It would have been par for the course. "Most of the other cheering seemed to be because a black man beat the system. Seemed bizarre to me at the time because it was really a case of RICH man beating the system. I think OJ would have won even if his lawyers had not played the race card so heavily. There apparently was some ridiculous police misconduct and incompetence. I still don't see it as a race thing at all." Robert Blake is rich. OJ, at that time, was rich and black. There is a difference as far as most of the country is concerned.

I have absoultely no idea where you got any of your information on Kanye West's background but it's ALL wrong. There isn't anything "gangsta" about anything he's ever done/written. Comparing him to Tupac is like comparing Cornell West to Dr Suess (I hope the comparison didn't escape you). I don't know what other "rap legends" you're talking about but you might want to do a little more research first next time.

If what you write about is what you've personally observed, and all that you've written about black people on dz.com is negative, then it could be very easily inferred that that's what you think of us. I'm not asssuming anything in regards to what you think of black people. I'm citing what you've written. You may have more than one view of us but thusfar, you've only spoken of one. Using the "where did I ever say ALL is a stretch." "As I recall, the issue in the trial was whether the police officers violated L.A. police department policy and the jury found that they did not. The civil rights charges were brought by the feds later on to help calm the situation down. Not as a matter of justice, but to help calm the situation down." This doesn't change a thing. If he was a saint before and after or was a hardened criminal before and after there was no cause for him to be beaten like that regardless of what the jury's verdict was. "I can understand that but that kind of "cause and effect" description of those incidents is eerie--almost like some sort of rationalization of the violence. Of course there is no real justification for it." I'm not trying to justify or say violence in these cases was okay. I'm explaining to you why it occurred since you obviously didn't understand initially. "I saw that a while back. Interesting. BTW, I was one of the very few white people cheering the OJ verdict. (I had bet on a full walk and won the bet!)" You cheered because you won a bet. Others cheered for completely different reasons.

That was a quote from another thread.