Toggle sidebar

UA apologizes for slavery

Belle, you didn't address the out of wedlock birth issue. I assert that the consequences of out of wedlock births are devastating, but the pervasiveness of the institution (as the historical data to show) is not attributable to slavery. Sometimes people make bad choices, and bad choices sometimes have serious consequences.
As for the hair do issue, I have always believed that if you take the king's coin, you do the king's bidding. By accepting employment with a company, you should abide by the company's policy on appearance. If that policy is unacceptable, then you should find employment elsewhere. I recall a Starbuck’s employee who wore a nose ring. Customers were disgusted, and complained and he was told to get rid of it. I’m not sure what you mean by an “ethnic” hair do, but I have seen some African-American women with some pretty outlandish (and unnatural) hair styles. If a company does not want to be represented by an employee with an outlandish hairstyle, they should have the ability to require a normal hair do while on the job, or of terminating the employment. I have never heard of an employee, white or black, being fired for having a normal (natural) hairstyle of moderate hair length.
As for attention paid to skin color, I have little time for anyone who pays much attention that, on either side of the color line. I certainly don’t think more or less of anyone I have ever met based on the skin color, or shades thereof.
 
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by NOSty:
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"

</font>
Click to expand...

Its unconscious, people say "oh, I look better etc", why dont they think they look good in their natural white skin? Why do you think people spend all that time in the sun, why do you think tanning is such a big deal? This is why.

People do a lot of things for reasons they dont understand, but this is the origin of tanning...
 
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Twelve2one!:
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?</font>
Click to expand...

Whats wrong with white legs? You were born white. Its because everyone wants to live up to this ideal...ie tanning equals, having a lot of time to hang in the sun equals wealthy lifestyle...the wealthy looked tanned, so the regular people want to emulate it...and thats why you disdain your white legs, when those are the legs God gave you.

And its not ridiculous, its the truth. You need to look into the deeper meaning of things, I think its folly not to...so if white people do this, and so many white women bleach their hair to look up to this ideal of being the "most beautiful" Why do you think so many women risk death and mutilation to tan and get boob jobs and liposuction and lip implants etc...to live up to this ideal...I dont know why that surprises you, women dont do all of that to themselves because they need something to do, they are trying to live up to an ideal...so imagine what minority people do to live up to this ideal...if whites arent happy in their skin and have to do this, imagine what minorities do, after having images of whites being the richest wealthiest etc. Its unconcious.
 
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Tidewater:
Belle, you didn't address the out of wedlock birth issue. I assert that the consequences of out of wedlock births are devastating, but the pervasiveness of the institution (as the historical data to show) is not attributable to slavery. Sometimes people make bad choices, and bad choices sometimes have serious consequences.
As for the hair do issue, I have always believed that if you take the king's coin, you do the king's bidding. By accepting employment with a company, you should abide by the company's policy on appearance. If that policy is unacceptable, then you should find employment elsewhere. I recall a Starbuck’s employee who wore a nose ring. Customers were disgusted, and complained and he was told to get rid of it. I’m not sure what you mean by an “ethnic” hair do, but I have seen some African-American women with some pretty outlandish (and unnatural) hair styles. If a company does not want to be represented by an employee with an outlandish hairstyle, they should have the ability to require a normal hair do while on the job, or of terminating the employment. I have never heard of an employee, white or black, being fired for having a normal (natural) hairstyle of moderate hair length.
As for attention paid to skin color, I have little time for anyone who pays much attention that, on either side of the color line. I certainly don’t think more or less of anyone I have ever met based on the skin color, or shades thereof.</font>
Click to expand...

So you think a black person should change the genetic makeup of their hair to get a job? So how many afro wearing black women/men do you see in corporate america? That is their natural hair state. And chemically straightening their hair is permenant, and only after cutting it all off will it go back to its natural state... So what if you had to chag

And as for the out of wedlock birth issue, that is attributable back to slavery and the cycle of poverty. During slavery it was acceptable because they had no choice, when slavery ended, many got married because they had the freedom to do so then, and people take advantage of something they could do then, but if your parents and their parents nd their parents have never been married and you see it all around you and its thought of as the norm...also, Abortions are not really accepted in the community, they'd rather have the kids out of wedlock...and society in general has become less stigmatic of out of wedlock births, remember back in the days people would "go away" and give the kids up etc, it was a stigma then. Its a problem, and its roots go back to slavery why its its thought of acceptable, it doesnt fully explain the problem, but the rest of it is attributable to poverty, because poor people all over the US its the poor who have out of wedlock births.
 
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Bama's Belle:
So you think a black person should change the genetic makeup of their hair to get a job? </font>
Click to expand...
That is not what I said. I did say that an employer has (and should have) a say in how its employees are perceived by it potential or actual customers. Everyone has the right to modify his or her appearance as he or she sees fit. That does not mean a potential employee has a right to any job he or she may want, regardless of his or her appearance. The employers’ over-riding imperative is to make money through attracting as many customers as possible. If an employee’s appearance (and here I would draw a distinction between those physical characteristics over which one has a choice, such as hair styles, and those over which one has no choice, such as one's race or gender) adversely impacts on that imperative, the employer's judgment must rule the day.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Bama's Belle:
And as for the out of wedlock birth issue, that is attributable back to slavery and the cycle of poverty. </font>
Click to expand...
If that postulate was true, then why did the rate of out of wedlock birth in the African-American community explode precisely when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 take effect? If your theory was true, the precise opposite effect would be visible in the data than is actually the case. The rate of out of wedlock births would have been highest in 1865, and shrunk over time as the debilitating legacy of chattel slavery receded into the past, and the rate between 1960 and 1994 it would have shrunk to relative insignificance with the growth of a black middle class over that time period. In the real rate, the opposite occurred. I also believe that the acceptance you wrote of is not an entirely favorable phenomenon. While I applaud the discouragement of abortion as a means of birth control, the correct solution is either abstinence outside of the bounds of marriage, or at least, marriage when an out of wedlock pregnancy occurs. This would be what is best for the child’s future (although admittedly not necessarily in the best interest of either of the mother of the father. The increased acceptance of out of wedlock birth is a mixed blessing when not accompanied by increased societal or familial pressure to marry. But, in the end, one cannot honestly attribute the explosion of out of wed lock births to slavery. The facts simply do not support that interpretation.
Please don't take this as picking on you. I disagree with you, although I applaud your temperance in making your case.
 
You can e-mail Mr. Brophy here with your opinions. abrophy@law.ua.edu


Dear Mr Brophy,

You shouldn't be offering apologies for a state university, or from the people of Alabama. I'm of the opinion it isn't your place to apologize for the people of Alabama.


Regards,

James E. Going



[This message has been edited by JGOZ (edited 04-24-2004).]
 
So let me get this straight BB.
The reason a black 27 yr old mother has 7 kids by 5 different blacks guys { I won't call them fathers} is because her ancestors were slaves ?

And I thought it was because she doesn't have sense enough to keep her legs together or at least go down to the nearest government sponsored public assistance program and get on some kind of birth control. Of course then she couldn't recieve another monthly check if she did that could she?
Truth is she's the biggest hog at the trough when it comes to bleeding the system for all it's worth.
 
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Twelve2one!:
So let me get this straight BB.
The reason a black 27 yr old mother has 7 kids by 5 different blacks guys { I won't call them fathers} is because her ancestors were slaves ?

And I thought it was because she doesn't have sense enough to keep her legs together or at least go down to the nearest government sponsored public assistance program and get on some kind of birth control. Of course then she couldn't recieve another monthly check if she did that could she?
Truth is she's the biggest hog at the trough when it comes to bleeding the system for all it's worth. </font>
Click to expand...

But you say that as if all black women or minorities on welfare have 7 children, although I'm sure you didnt mean it that way...there are more whites on welfare in this country, we just have the image of the welfare queen being black...and all black women do not sit up there having babies to receive a check, some of them honest to goodness need it as do white women...

But self-esteem, and lack of a father in her own life could be directly attributeable. Girls need good responsible fathers to aid them seeing what a good man is, how is your image of men going to be if the most important man in your life walks out on you? I'm sure there is a directly attributeable link to that...so if you keep going back and seeing these examples of men walking out or never seeing a nuclear family unit, generally people fall into that same pattern themselves...
 
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Bama's Belle:
Its unconscious, people say "oh, I look better etc", why dont they think they look good in their natural white skin? Why do you think people spend all that time in the sun, why do you think tanning is such a big deal? This is why.

People do a lot of things for reasons they dont understand, but this is the origin of tanning...

</font>
Click to expand...

I agree BamaBelle, but you mentioned along the lines of leisure and well to do. WE all know some pretty ugly rich people with tans.
icon7.gif
 
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Tidewater:
Originally posted by Bama's Belle:
So you think a black person should change the genetic makeup of their hair to get a job? </font>
Click to expand...
That is not what I said. I did say that an employer has (and should have) a say in how its employees are perceived by it potential or actual customers. Everyone has the right to modify his or her appearance as he or she sees fit. That does not mean a potential employee has a right to any job he or she may want, regardless of his or her appearance. The employers’ over-riding imperative is to make money through attracting as many customers as possible. If an employee’s appearance (and here I would draw a distinction between those physical characteristics over which one has a choice, such as hair styles, and those over which one has no choice, such as one's race or gender) adversely impacts on that imperative, the employer's judgment must rule the day.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Bama's Belle:
And as for the out of wedlock birth issue, that is attributable back to slavery and the cycle of poverty. </font>
Click to expand...
If that postulate was true, then why did the rate of out of wedlock birth in the African-American community explode precisely when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 take effect? If your theory was true, the precise opposite effect would be visible in the data than is actually the case. The rate of out of wedlock births would have been highest in 1865, and shrunk over time as the debilitating legacy of chattel slavery receded into the past, and the rate between 1960 and 1994 it would have shrunk to relative insignificance with the growth of a black middle class over that time period. In the real rate, the opposite occurred. I also believe that the acceptance you wrote of is not an entirely favorable phenomenon. While I applaud the discouragement of abortion as a means of birth control, the correct solution is either abstinence outside of the bounds of marriage, or at least, marriage when an out of wedlock pregnancy occurs. This would be what is best for the child’s future (although admittedly not necessarily in the best interest of either of the mother of the father. The increased acceptance of out of wedlock birth is a mixed blessing when not accompanied by increased societal or familial pressure to marry. But, in the end, one cannot honestly attribute the explosion of out of wed lock births to slavery. The facts simply do not support that interpretation.
Please don't take this as picking on you. I disagree with you, although I applaud your temperance in making your case.
Click to expand...

I dont think you are picking on me at all
icon7.gif
This is a discussion, and I do take yalls points of view and information seriously,and I learn a lot.

Then I'll ask, So what do you think explains this phenom? There is a direct link from poverty to fatherlessness...
 
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Bama's Belle:
I dont think you are picking on me at all
icon7.gif
This is a discussion, and I do take yalls points of view and information seriously,and I learn a lot.

Then I'll ask, So what do you think explains this phenom? There is a direct link from poverty to fatherlessness...</font>
Click to expand...

I believe the causes of out of wedlock births within the African-American community are complex. Certainly part of it is a change is societal (and familial) acceptance of out of wedlock births. As you observed, it is not stigmatized the way it used to be. While this stigma is bad for the individual suffering the stigmatization, it has a benefit for society as a whole (the stigma encourages chastity and marriage as a response to out of wedlock pregnancy). If I had to place the blame, the proximate cause would have to be the Great Society programs that let out of wedlock mothers and fathers off the hook, and replaced them with a Federal welfare check. These programs may have been motivated by the best of intentions (living, at least for the sort term, on welfare is preferable to living on the street), the problem is when the social safety net becomes a hammock, a way of life. Raising a child (or children) as a single parent is no cake walk, not having a strategy for self-sufficiency makes such a life style a prison. As I said before, sometimes people make bad choices (having unprotected sex out of wedlock would be one of those), and those bad choices have devastating consequences. Some folks (of all races) engage in dangerous life styles, and want to Federal government to pick up the tab for those consequences. If I had a free hand to direct Federal welfare programs, I would use the money to establish dormitories, with limited health care (including mandatory birth control measures while on the program) and child care provided, and require recipients to implement some strategy to achieve self-sufficiency (education and/or job training, etc.) for a limited (but adequate) duration. After that time is up, the welfare recipient would be kicked out, ready or not. One free ride on the tax payers per life time (or after some decent interval, say, seven years, as a productive member of society and taxpayer). The program would not be fun, or easy, but would be focused and most importantly strategic: the recipient would have to have a goal and a program to reach that goal. The Nanny state has failed, and the status quo is unacceptable: it is expensive and catastrophically unsuccessful.
 
Wow Belle!

My grandfather worked out in the fields in the sun for years and years and had this awesome tan.

It was sad that he never knew that he was wealthy and living a life of leisure. He probably just thought that he was a poor dirt farmer.

I guess that when those rich people referred to him as a "redneck", it was because they were just jealous of his tan(and subsequently of that life of leisure that he lived).

------------------
"I've never been quarantined, but the more I look around the more I think it might not be a bad thing." -- George Carlin
 
While I think the argument some of you have put up, that you can't apologize for someone else, is a pretty good argument, I still think this was a positive step, since it's a recognition of history. So I agree with Bama's Belle.

Sorry I don't get to post as much these days. I've enjoyed reading this thread.
 
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by bamaphilosopher:
While I think the argument some of you have put up, that you can't apologize for someone else, is a pretty good argument, I still think this was a positive step, since it's a recognition of history. So I agree with Bama's Belle.

Sorry I don't get to post as much these days. I've enjoyed reading this thread. </font>
Click to expand...

Oh my goodness, A Plato Sighting! Its like seeing a Unicorn...
 
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Bama's Belle:
But you say that as if all black women or minorities on welfare have 7 children, although I'm sure you didnt mean it that way...there are more whites on welfare in this country, we just have the image of the welfare queen being black...</font>
Click to expand...


Sorry BB this reasoning won't fly. I know there are more whites on welfare than blacks but YOU know that blacks only make up 20-25% of the population.
Percentage wise {of the population of each race} there ARE more single black females on assistance than single white females.
I'm sure there are some out there but I don't know ANY white females that have 5-10 kids with 3-5 different fathers. But you can go right down here in the downtown area around Mobile and find many in the black community.
It's like they don't even try to use birth control. When it's readily available and free. What does this say about ones mental capacity? Either they are too stupid to control themselves or they just don't care. Either way it's sad.

[This message has been edited by Twelve2one! (edited 04-25-2004).]
 
well i for one wouldve NEVER apologized for ANYTHING. im far from a racist but listen to my rant..lol just cuz hitler tried to commit genocide should we expect an apology from the germans? NO. do i expect an apology from my ancestors that came over here to live instead of scotland and somewhere else(i forget)? NO. am i repsonsible for my ancestors that owned slaves? NO. if a black man killed my great great great grandad am i supposed to expect an apology from his family? NO. point is we are only responsible for OUR actions not our ANCESTORS.

------------------
rip zach culpepper(1980-1998) well miss u #42
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Posts

Advertisement

Trending content

Advertisement

Latest threads

Top Bottom
Back