UA apologizes for slavery

[IH8Orange]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by fosterkeats:
Not really... I was just going for shock value... like the UA apologie...

I'm more of a Battlestar Galactica guy... well, not really...

</font>

I never really cared for Star Trek either.

I liked Battlestar Galactica and Buck Rogers when they were in their prime, but now when I watch an episode, I cringe.

The only good thing that remains of Buck Rogers is Erin Gray.

Did you ever watch Grizzly Adams? I saw an episode recently and I can't believe that our society was EVER starved for entertainment to the extent that they would support such a lame show for two seasons.

------------------
"I've never been quarantined, but the more I look around the more I think it might not be a bad thing." -- George Carlin

 

[JH-ATL]

BamaJay123

I notice you did not address the issues raised.

Just played the "race" card.

Signs of a very small mind!!!

You need to get your parents to give you an apology for passing those "small mind genes" on to you!!!

[This message has been edited by JH-ATL (edited 04-22-2004).]

 

[BamaJay123]

And JH-ATL you need to get an apology from your parents for ******* up on your abortion. They ****ed up and look what popped out.

 

[NOSty]

Hey BamaJay,

You asked for links and I provided some, what's your answer to those? They "seem" to back up JH-ATL's statements.

 

[Displaced Bama Fan]

BamaJay can't respond in rational thought. He's a punk.

 

[Bama's Belle]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by bamanut_aj:
You'll never get some people to understand that. Kids now, (kids? damn I'm only 31) have had it forced in their heads that their mamas and daddys, grandparents, etc. were all racists and slave owners and they should feel bad for that. I'm not sure why many libs today think that there's still this gigantic rift between the races. Socially or economically yes; but a hollow apology won't change that. That's up to each individual to change that (oh wait, that's what gov't handouts are for) If there is this rift, it's because some people just keep bringing it up. If this apology was never issued, would there have been any negative repercussions? I don't think so. Now that it has been issued, could there potentially be negative repercussions? You bet.

Belle, please accept my apology for being ugly earlier. But I really want to hear what you perceive to be all of these injustices, and what healing do you think needs to be done? Seriously.</font>

Thanks aj, I accept.

I just think that we still have a ways to go before things are really equal, but I DO think we have come a long way, but we still can go further. I just happen to think that Black people are looking for an acknowledgement of something bad happened, instead of always hearing the same excuses like "thats in the past"--which is moot if they still are struggling as a people because of it or "just get over it"--which is easy to say if you havent experienced the psychological issues they have, such as the division between dark blacks and lighter blacks, issues with their hair and feeling that they have to strighten it to be accepted in the corporate world, bleaching their skin to get lighter aka 'accepted', things like the reason there are so many broken homes/single parents is a carry over from slavery when the fathers were seperated from the mother and children or bred or etc, and that it became acceptable because many never experienced the two parent home. I just equate it to this, what happens to a parent that has mental problems or issues etc, people often pass their issues to their children, so how is anyone surprised that there are still issues because of slavery?Thats what I'm talking about...

 

[Chukker Veteran]

Belle, save a little sympathy for the American Indian- they used to own this country. And don't forget the Asians who were brought over to build the railroads and wash clothes. Some of the caucasian immigrants had a rough go of it when they first hit the East Coast.
I'm not trying to trivialize how bad slavery was, but at some point it's time to move past old wrongs and look forward.
You're one of my alltime favorite posters, don't think I'm fussing.

 

[JH-ATL]

NOSty

Good links by the way.

When they start shouting instead of reasoning, you know you are right and they do to. So there is nothing left for them to do but scream out in rage and play the "race" card. That card is not working as well as it use to. Sort of like a credit card. It is close to limiting out.

 

[Bama's Belle]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Chukker Veteran:
Belle, save a little sympathy for the American Indian- they used to own this country. And don't forget the Asians who were brought over to build the railroads and wash clothes. Some of the caucasian immigrants had a rough go of it when they first hit the East Coast.
I'm not trying to trivialize how bad slavery was, but at some point it's time to move past old wrongs and look forward.
You're one of my alltime favorite posters, don't think I'm fussing. </font>

Its cool Chucker, you're one of mine too.

I get what you are saying but...

Actually, thats who my SUPREME Sympathy goes to, especially as I am Part Native American, my grandfather was full blooded. So many wrongs with them happened that its really hard to speak of, especially as I visit the reservations on a regular basis,I am one of those people that has sympathy for the plight of other people, and try to see their side. I am what I call a humanist, I am just concerned with everyone on this planet being treated as a human being, and not looked down on because of who they look like.

And the Irish...who have been treated like grade a crap for years...but the difference is, when they got here, there wasnt as much focus as their was on people radically different such as Natives, Blacks and Asians.

I just dont like petty differences. We're all the same, well, except for the nuts...

 

[JH-ATL]

BB

When the Irish first got here, there were no Africans.

 

[Tidewater]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Bama's Belle:
...the division between dark blacks and lighter blacks, issues with their hair and feeling that they have to strighten it to be accepted in the corporate world, bleaching their skin to get lighter aka 'accepted'</font>

Where does a black person have to straighten his of her hair and bleach his skin "to be accepted in the corporate world"? Can you name a single company?
Also, I have never heard a white racist suggest treating lighter skinned black people better than darker skinned ones. I believe they lump all black people into the same group.
On the other hand, I have heard that some black people look at a lighter shade as being preferable, but I would not by in a position to authenticate such beliefs. Just for what it's worth, I experienced precisely this dynamic while in Haiti. A light-skinned Haitian man was talking to me, when a very dark skinned Haitian walked by. My conversant wrinkled his nose and got a disgusted look on his face. When I asked him what was wrong, he said "He is Congo. He is black." When I pointed out to my conversant that HE was black as well, his response was "He is blacker than me." To the extent this black on black bigotry occurs, it is unfortunate, but has nothing to do with slavery at the University of Alabama.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Bama's Belle:
the reason there are so many broken homes/single parents is a carry over from slavery when the fathers were seperated from the mother and children or bred or etc, and that it became acceptable because many never experienced the two parent home. </font>

There is only one problem with this theory. The facts don't support it. In the previous thread on Professor (Confessor?) Brophie's demagoguery, I pointed out that, in a Public Television interview, the moderator pummeled Brophie’s sad excuse for an argument (by the way, making the University of Alabama look very bad for having given this man a job teaching). The moderator pointed out that, as of 1960 22% of black births were out of wedlock. In 1994, the figure had risen to 70%. Slavery does not explain this phenomenon. In 1960, IN wedlock births were the norm within the black community. In the next 34 years, out of wedlock births ("a social pattern with devastating economic consequences" according to sociologists Stephan and Abigail Thernstrom) became the norm. And this enormous and destructive change occurred 100 years AFTER the last slave was freed. Making excuses for the failure which usually follows short-sighted and selfish behavior might make you feel better, but it fails to address the problem. But then again, so does the University of Alabama apologizing for slavery.
Think with your brain, not your heart. The former organ is designed for thinking.

 

[Crimson Elephant]

Seems like this apology has divided more people, than just letting it alone. I can't understand why some people can not leave a issue like this alone. What purpose does it really serve. Isn't there more important issues today than something that happened over a 100 years.

Are those of you whose asestors own slaves going to apologize for their mistakes. It doesn't make sense. This country will be better off when some people will drop this issue and move forward in life, instead of allowing the past to be in the front of you.

 

[TommyMac]

The genesis of slavery in the U.S. began in Africa. It was only possible because Africans took other Africans as spoils of tribal war and sold them to the slave traders along the west coast of Africa. Think of the logistics that would be necessary for the Euro's to sail to Africa, defeat and capture the future slaves and then transport them across the Atlantic. Those vessels weren't large enough to accomodate the needed manpower, supplies and slaves in numbers large enough to make it a profitable enterprise.

Moreover, slavery still exists in much of Africa, so if some of you folks have such guilty consciences and need a crusade to embark on, why not try to put a halt to modern day slavery?

 

[IH8Orange]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by TommyMac:
Moreover, slavery still exists in much of Africa, so if some of you folks have such guilty consciences and need a crusade to embark on, why not try to put a halt to modern day slavery?</font>

I don't really believe that any of this has to do with righting the wrongs of the past or reconciliation. If it were related to either of those nobler causes, the seekers of apologies and reparations would target ONLY the descendants of those that profited from slavery and companies that profited from slavery. The fact that they instead target an entire race shows that this is just an insipid political tactic by certain radical factions of civil rights organizations. These factions seek to profit by allaying undeserved guilt upon people based on nothing other than the color of their skin.

The basis of our justice system is that individuals are accountable only for their own actions. The demands for apologies and reparations fly in the face of this concept of accountability.

Slavery was wrong. Holding a party responsible for the actions of another party is wrong. Two wrongs never make a right... they just make another wrong.


------------------
"I've never been quarantined, but the more I look around the more I think it might not be a bad thing." -- George Carlin

 

[Bama's Belle]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by JH-ATL:
BB

When the Irish first got here, there were no Africans.</font>

When did they get here then, because there were Africans that travelled with the Spanish when they came to America...

[This message has been edited by Bama's Belle (edited 04-23-2004).]

 

[Bama's Belle]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Tidewater:
There is only one problem with this theory. The facts don't support it. In the previous thread on Professor (Confessor?) Brophie's demagoguery, I pointed out that, in a Public Television interview, the moderator pummeled Brophie’s sad excuse for an argument (by the way, making the University of Alabama look very bad for having given this man a job teaching). The moderator pointed out that, as of 1960 22% of black births were out of wedlock. In 1994, the figure had risen to 70%. Slavery does not explain this phenomenon. In 1960, IN wedlock births were the norm within the black community. In the next 34 years, out of wedlock births ("a social pattern with devastating economic consequences" according to sociologists Stephan and Abigail Thernstrom) became the norm. And this enormous and destructive change occurred 100 years AFTER the last slave was freed. Making excuses for the failure which usually follows short-sighted and selfish behavior might make you feel better, but it fails to address the problem. But then again, so does the University of Alabama apologizing for slavery.
Think with your brain, not your heart. The former organ is designed for thinking.</font>

I know of many cases where black people have been told to stop the "ethnic" hair styles at the work place...and does nothing for their self esteem of their hair being fine the way it is...How many Black women do you see with hair in Afros or Natural? For the most part, their hair is not straight, Most of them straighten it with chemicals, not that anyone tells them to do it directly, its that their hair is different and frowned on and it has been for years...but its part of their wanting to look like everyone else...instead of themselves. Through images, attitudes etc, it is reinforced over and over that what is better is blue eyes and blonde hair, even whites fall victim to this...


And its not some black people, the lightskin/darkskin issue, its a permeation in the culture that noone likes to talk about, its not intentional but it happens all around, your story just helps illustrate that, Ask any person of color and they will tell you about the divisions between those lighter of the race and dark...and that happens world wide aka China, Africa, India etc, that those who are the lightest are the best, it even happens among whites, thats why those who are "blondes" are considered to be better than brunettes...nobody says is, but its there...Blondes are elevated as the most beautiful desireable amongs whites, so i dont know how anyone could be surprised it happens with skin color...In Spanish television the blacks are only the cooks or maids, in India, the "undesirables" are the darkest ones...its from a worldwide accertation that being lighter is best...Slavery in America didnt help that with the lighterskin blacks being treated better as they were generally the children of the slavemasters reason being why, but of course it gets reflected as lighter is better...

 

[IH8Orange]

If lighter skin is better, Belle, then how come tanning salons are such profitable ventures?

------------------
"I've never been quarantined, but the more I look around the more I think it might not be a bad thing." -- George Carlin

 

[Bama's Belle]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by IH8Orange:
If lighter skin is better, Belle, then how come tanning salons are such profitable ventures?

</font>

Because for whites in the present, to look tan is to look like a person of leisure or someone who doesnt have to work much and to be is part of the upper class and everyone wants to at least look the part...back in the day, it was to be white as you could because only servants or slaves baked in the sun...ladies and gentlemen didnt do that...You've got to look at the psychology of why people do things...

So whoever is the caucasian and has the darkest tan looks like someone who has the most leisure time, therefore by association is rich and doesnt have to work indoors like others do, but at the end of the day, it can fade and they are still white...



[This message has been edited by Bama's Belle (edited 04-24-2004).]

 

[NOSty]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Bama's Belle:
Because for whites in the present, to look tan is to look like a person of leisure or someone who doesnt have to work much and to be is part of the upper class and everyone wants to at least look the part...back in the day, it was to be white as you could because only servants or slaves baked in the sun...ladies and gentlemen didnt do that...You've got to look at the psychology of why people do things...

So whoever is the caucasian and has the darkest tan looks like someone who has the most leisure time, therefore by association is rich and doesnt have to work indoors like others do, but at the end of the day, it can fade and they are still white...

[This message has been edited by Bama's Belle (edited 04-24-2004).]</font>

Um, okaaay. I don't ever look at someone with a tan and think, "wow they are rich and live a life of luxury" LOL! I think, "what an idiot, don't they know too much is harmful and makes you look old before your time"

 

[Twelve2one!]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Bama's Belle:
Because for whites in the present, to look tan is to look like a person of leisure or someone who doesnt have to work much and to be is part of the upper class and everyone wants to at least look the part...back in the day, it was to be white as you could because only servants or slaves baked in the sun...ladies and gentlemen didnt do that...You've got to look at the psychology of why people do things...

So whoever is the caucasian and has the darkest tan looks like someone who has the most leisure time, therefore by association is rich and doesnt have to work indoors like others do, but at the end of the day, it can fade and they are still white...

[This message has been edited by Bama's Belle (edited 04-24-2004).]</font>

You MUST be a psychology major BB. So everyone who goes to a tanning booth {like my 17 yr old daughter?} wants to be thought of as rich and living a life of leisure? That's the most ridiculous thing i've ever heard. Why does everything someone does have to be grounded in some deep psychological need or bent with you? GEEEESH!
Maybe they just don't want to blind people with their lily white legs when they put on shorts. huh?