Her Name is "Ms. Ann"
#11
10-23-2009, 09:28 PM
Senior Administrator
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Lotsa places, currently Metro D.C., USA
Posts: 13,574
Now, 1st things 1st...
I was speaking in GENERALITIES! I've lived, for various lengths of time, in something like 12 different countries over the 45+ years of my life. I was not disparaging. I was stating a *general* fact. YOU are free to take and misconstrue it as you please (and, obviously did, along with a lame attempt at denigrating MY message, thank you for that). As an American you have that right. I served in the American Armed Forces, in many of those same countries I mentioned in defense of your right to be obdurate.
2ndly...
I mentioned that MANY cultures do this. You DO read and speak American-English, do you not? What are you a FOX Newsian?!?!? Most Asian cultures do, Aboriginal Americans, Aborginal Australians, Inuit and nearly all Pacific-rim cultures do this. Oh, and yes, African, Middle-Eastern and dot-in-the-forehead-Indian cultures GENERALLY practice this form of honorific, too! Surely they have books available in whatever your native language is (my presumption is that it isn't American English, since you missed such a simple point) that can lay this out for you in a manner that doesn't require any intuitive leaps on your part.
3rd in the series...
What, in what I said, SAYS that European culture is somehow INFERIOR for not doing this? Did I touch a nerve, for real, this time, perhaps? I apologize if I did. That was CLEARLY not my intent.
4th street...
I thank you for lumping me in with such a vile display of humanity, of ANY color. Your ignorance is showing, Kemosabee!
5th, and finally...
NOTHING I wrote suggested African-American treat their elders better or worse. I spoke of "traditional" Afr-Am culture. NOTHING about how we are, as AMERICANS, suggests ANYBODY give a rats @$$ about traditions, in THIS day and age.
Never fear, I would shed my life's blood to defend your right to say whatever you felt you needed to, sensical or retarded. If ANYBODY EVER gives you ANY grief for expression of your opinion, remind them of the BILL Of RIGHTS that pre-sage the Constitution of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA. Or, send them my way and I'll orate some sense into them, for you.
Speak your mind! I am NOT here to hold you back, in that regard.
There was a pretty clear inference, given teh content and tone of his diatribe. And, you might want to re-listen to the piece. He DID say, several times, that Black men (I say, "Men-of-Color," perhaps that semantic is what you are referring to. If so, that is also sad.) have never accomplished anything worth noting.
Last edited by AWDaholic; 10-23-2009 at 09:38 PM.
#12
10-23-2009, 09:31 PM
Senior Administrator
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Lotsa places, currently Metro D.C., USA
Posts: 13,574
NOW, on to the reason I came BACK to this abominable thread, in the first place. A counter-point exists, also on you-tube, to the right reverend-clueless:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mv28X...om=PL&index=49
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mv28X...om=PL&index=49
#13
10-24-2009, 02:34 PM
First, let me say that I have great respect for all of those who serve courageously in our armed forces. I have family who has served in Iraq and is now in Afghanistan. I have also worked for the army as a researhcer, although I would never equate this contribution to the sacrifice made by our soldiers.
The vid of Smokey Robinson is very cool. He looks to the present and to the future while the Pastor is focused on the past.
Now let me elaborate on my ideas and address AWD's criticisms of my posts. Nothing I have written here is due to a "struck nerve" or emotional reflex on my side.
^This is the stereotype you mention.
You make it clear that you were speaking in generalities. Stereotyping is making generalalized statements about a group of people. And whether or not your stereotype is a valid one, it is disparaging to Euro-American culture. So it would be inaccurate to say that I was putting words in your mouth or to say that I misconstrued your words.
The real difference between our perspectives centers on the Pastors view of black men.
As I rewatch the video I list the most controversial things that he says about blacks:
1) black people do not understand the world
2) Africa's engineering feats were insignificant compared to other civilizations
3) South Africa was worse off under Nelson Mandela
4) black folk dont know how to run a nation
5) somethings wrong with the black mans mind
I would classify 2-4 as historical observations. He consistently points to the the plight of the African nations, and uses their history as a history of black people. I think this because he first makes a distinction between Africans and African Americans. He disinguishes Obama from a true black man becuase Obama is genetically half white and was raised by a white woman.
He seems to speak towards situations that are entirely owned by the black community. <*This is very important to recognize.* He says that black men can be successful rocket scientists. They can accomplish a lot in this world. They can learn to do many great things. But, the pastor insists, they depend on a world that is largely a fabrication of other cultures. For instance, a brillant black neurosurgeon stands on the shoulders of Hippocrates and other Greek and Roman doctors. So I think that the Pastor is much more critical of the black community than of the individual. And this is what 1 and 5 are directed towards. It is a subtle distinction between the understanding or success of an individual as opposed to the success of the community. He is sort of saying that "the whole is smaller than the sum of its parts." Or that the success of individuals does not equate to the success of the community or nation. Its somewhat difficult to put into words but I can attempt to elaborate assumming that I have made some sense and have not been offensive to anyone.
Once again, I am not really analyzing the accuracy of his message, I am concerned more that the message is properly understood. I tried to avoid infering things or making implications beyond the intent of the specific langauge.
That brings me to the next point, the "oppression" of white opinion on matters of race. Now I am not necessarily saying that this "oppression" is unfair or tragic, but it is certaintly very real. There is no denying the fact. You have the NAACP (which has no white counterpart) constantly censoring and attacking white comments about race. Take the case of Don Imus. His insensitive remarks cost him his job, yet he used words that are common parts of black culture. So although I appreciate the recognition and defense of my freedom of speech, the reality is that there is a much more danger, ridicule, and embarassment faced by white people when it comes to any issue of race. So as a practical matter, I have no choice but to speak with restrian and avoid any grey areas.
The personal comments directed towards me are not relevant to a productive conversation but let me address a few of them because I think personal respect is important.
Yes I am often stubborn, but I stubbornly insist that we understand what has been said before we determine what has validity. Yes, english is my first langauge - I dont know if this was a joke or insult or both. Yes my ignorance shows as it should, life is not such a simple matter. Yes I watch Fox News (and other news), does this make me bad or wrong or both?
The vid of Smokey Robinson is very cool. He looks to the present and to the future while the Pastor is focused on the past.
Now let me elaborate on my ideas and address AWD's criticisms of my posts. Nothing I have written here is due to a "struck nerve" or emotional reflex on my side.
Originally Posted by AWDaholic
...almost EVERY aged culture DOES this sort of honorific for elders, respected or not. Sadly, Euro-American culture does not generally do this. Elders are mostly discarded, as opposed to being revered for their knowledge, wisdom, and vast experiences.
Originally Posted by AWDaholic
I was not disparaging. I was stating a *general* fact. YOU are free to take and misconstrue it as you please (and, obviously did, along with a lame attempt at denigrating MY message, thank you for that).
The real difference between our perspectives centers on the Pastors view of black men.
Originally Posted by AWDaholic
(paraphrasing) The pastor said several times that black men never accomplished anything significant.
1) black people do not understand the world
2) Africa's engineering feats were insignificant compared to other civilizations
3) South Africa was worse off under Nelson Mandela
4) black folk dont know how to run a nation
5) somethings wrong with the black mans mind
I would classify 2-4 as historical observations. He consistently points to the the plight of the African nations, and uses their history as a history of black people. I think this because he first makes a distinction between Africans and African Americans. He disinguishes Obama from a true black man becuase Obama is genetically half white and was raised by a white woman.
He seems to speak towards situations that are entirely owned by the black community. <*This is very important to recognize.* He says that black men can be successful rocket scientists. They can accomplish a lot in this world. They can learn to do many great things. But, the pastor insists, they depend on a world that is largely a fabrication of other cultures. For instance, a brillant black neurosurgeon stands on the shoulders of Hippocrates and other Greek and Roman doctors. So I think that the Pastor is much more critical of the black community than of the individual. And this is what 1 and 5 are directed towards. It is a subtle distinction between the understanding or success of an individual as opposed to the success of the community. He is sort of saying that "the whole is smaller than the sum of its parts." Or that the success of individuals does not equate to the success of the community or nation. Its somewhat difficult to put into words but I can attempt to elaborate assumming that I have made some sense and have not been offensive to anyone.
Once again, I am not really analyzing the accuracy of his message, I am concerned more that the message is properly understood. I tried to avoid infering things or making implications beyond the intent of the specific langauge.
That brings me to the next point, the "oppression" of white opinion on matters of race. Now I am not necessarily saying that this "oppression" is unfair or tragic, but it is certaintly very real. There is no denying the fact. You have the NAACP (which has no white counterpart) constantly censoring and attacking white comments about race. Take the case of Don Imus. His insensitive remarks cost him his job, yet he used words that are common parts of black culture. So although I appreciate the recognition and defense of my freedom of speech, the reality is that there is a much more danger, ridicule, and embarassment faced by white people when it comes to any issue of race. So as a practical matter, I have no choice but to speak with restrian and avoid any grey areas.
The personal comments directed towards me are not relevant to a productive conversation but let me address a few of them because I think personal respect is important.
Yes I am often stubborn, but I stubbornly insist that we understand what has been said before we determine what has validity. Yes, english is my first langauge - I dont know if this was a joke or insult or both. Yes my ignorance shows as it should, life is not such a simple matter. Yes I watch Fox News (and other news), does this make me bad or wrong or both?
Last edited by AutoUnionFan; 10-24-2009 at 02:38 PM.
#14
10-24-2009, 09:49 PM
Senior Administrator
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Lotsa places, currently Metro D.C., USA
Posts: 13,574
So, basically, you have the capacity to view the right-reverends words as a dispassionate discourse. But, things *I* say; things that are, unlike the pastors, empirically TRUE (did I mis-speak when I said what I said about European-American culture? no, I did not), are assigned a value of "disparaging" by you. You say I did not touch a nerve... I think I did. And, honestly, I apologize if I have. I do notice that nowhere in your responses do you say that I was wrong about my characterization. How, pray tell me, can TRUTH be disparaging? It can be uncomfortable, to be sure. Ugly, even. But, even by the hard standard of law, telling the TRUTH about someone, or in this case, something, cannot be disparaging.
Your denials notwithstanding, your ability to take something someone says, no matter the truth therein, and mangle the intent is what clued me in to your FOX-ivity. I predict you will have a talk-show of your own, one day.
The personal comments were humor, not insult, and meant to bait. To your credit, and my new-found respect for you, you did not take it.
You list your job as physicist. I have no reason to dis-believe you or not take you at your word. So, I presume you are educated, regardless of your native tongue. Actually, because of my travels, I tend to have MORE respect for people who are non-native American-English speakers that have managed to command the language sufficiently to hold a conversation (spoken or written) in MY native tongue. I used to be able to make such claims about a couple of languages not my own, myself, years ago. Disuse has atrophied my linguistic skills, I am afraid.
So, I say the pastors' an ***. What is your opinion of reverend clueless?
Your denials notwithstanding, your ability to take something someone says, no matter the truth therein, and mangle the intent is what clued me in to your FOX-ivity. I predict you will have a talk-show of your own, one day.
The personal comments were humor, not insult, and meant to bait. To your credit, and my new-found respect for you, you did not take it.
You list your job as physicist. I have no reason to dis-believe you or not take you at your word. So, I presume you are educated, regardless of your native tongue. Actually, because of my travels, I tend to have MORE respect for people who are non-native American-English speakers that have managed to command the language sufficiently to hold a conversation (spoken or written) in MY native tongue. I used to be able to make such claims about a couple of languages not my own, myself, years ago. Disuse has atrophied my linguistic skills, I am afraid.
So, I say the pastors' an ***. What is your opinion of reverend clueless?
#18
10-26-2009, 11:53 AM
For the sake of productive conversation, lets read the definition of disparage.
dis·par·age (dĭ-spār'ĭj)
tr.v. dis·par·aged, dis·par·ag·ing, dis·par·ag·es
1) To speak of in a slighting or disrespectful way; belittle.
2) To reduce in esteem or rank.
It says nothing about the truth of the statement.
So I would say that the Pastor and AWD both made disparaging remarks. Both also said that their remarks are nothing less than truthful.
Statements 2-4 from the Pastor are historical observations and can be addressed specifically. No one has done that so far, but it would be appropriate to do so if you are going to unconditionally critisize him for stupidity and lies (he does have a PhD in something).
Statements 1 and 5 are more opinionated, and open to interpretation. Their context is not clear, but I believe that they refer to issues of the community more than the individual. So the Pastor is drawing attention to the problems in the black commnity. This is valid. The method is unconventional and controversial, but that is the Pastors style and it does not de-legitimize the message.
For instance, Baltimore City is 65% black. I recently read some statistics that said 80% of children in Baltimore do not know who their father is. 65% of public high schoolers will not graduate. The city consistently has one of the highest murder rates in the country, most murders are young black men (drug dealers) who kill other young black men. Witnesses or "snitches" are regularly threatened and killed. Children who do well in school are ridiculed and beaten. (if anyone has seen The Wire, it is a surprisingly accurate depiction). These are obviously serious problems that are very hard to solve. But a lot of the problems are blamed on police officers and teachers. The real issue centers on the family.
Morgan State University in MD, is a historically black University and is given certain priveledges. For instance, some degrees (e.g. electrical engineering) cannot be awarded at any other state university. And the lack of competition leads to a lowering of standards, it also forced students to goto Morgan State and guaranteed levels of state funding. All of this at the cost of students education.
I mention these two examples because they are local to me. Social injustices certaintly helped to cause these probelms. But the proposed solutions often involve more social injustice. I call it the "two wrongs make a right" approach. You cant bring one group up by bringing another group down. You cant create a color blind society by perpetuating racial quotas and by writing race into the laws. It just doesnt make sense.
So I do not view the Pastors words as "disspasionate discourse." He spoke them very passionately, but he also spke with thought and purpose. It is easy to attack him at the surface, and I will leave that for others to do, but there is also something to be understood on a deeper level.
My nerve has not been struck. I dont take general things that people write on the internet personally. It is likely true that Euro-American culture does not generally use Mr. and Ms. to the same degree as others. But to say that thier elders are "discarded" resembles the negative tone that the Pastor uses.
dis·par·age (dĭ-spār'ĭj)
tr.v. dis·par·aged, dis·par·ag·ing, dis·par·ag·es
1) To speak of in a slighting or disrespectful way; belittle.
2) To reduce in esteem or rank.
It says nothing about the truth of the statement.
So I would say that the Pastor and AWD both made disparaging remarks. Both also said that their remarks are nothing less than truthful.
Statements 2-4 from the Pastor are historical observations and can be addressed specifically. No one has done that so far, but it would be appropriate to do so if you are going to unconditionally critisize him for stupidity and lies (he does have a PhD in something).
Statements 1 and 5 are more opinionated, and open to interpretation. Their context is not clear, but I believe that they refer to issues of the community more than the individual. So the Pastor is drawing attention to the problems in the black commnity. This is valid. The method is unconventional and controversial, but that is the Pastors style and it does not de-legitimize the message.
For instance, Baltimore City is 65% black. I recently read some statistics that said 80% of children in Baltimore do not know who their father is. 65% of public high schoolers will not graduate. The city consistently has one of the highest murder rates in the country, most murders are young black men (drug dealers) who kill other young black men. Witnesses or "snitches" are regularly threatened and killed. Children who do well in school are ridiculed and beaten. (if anyone has seen The Wire, it is a surprisingly accurate depiction). These are obviously serious problems that are very hard to solve. But a lot of the problems are blamed on police officers and teachers. The real issue centers on the family.
Morgan State University in MD, is a historically black University and is given certain priveledges. For instance, some degrees (e.g. electrical engineering) cannot be awarded at any other state university. And the lack of competition leads to a lowering of standards, it also forced students to goto Morgan State and guaranteed levels of state funding. All of this at the cost of students education.
I mention these two examples because they are local to me. Social injustices certaintly helped to cause these probelms. But the proposed solutions often involve more social injustice. I call it the "two wrongs make a right" approach. You cant bring one group up by bringing another group down. You cant create a color blind society by perpetuating racial quotas and by writing race into the laws. It just doesnt make sense.
So I do not view the Pastors words as "disspasionate discourse." He spoke them very passionately, but he also spke with thought and purpose. It is easy to attack him at the surface, and I will leave that for others to do, but there is also something to be understood on a deeper level.
My nerve has not been struck. I dont take general things that people write on the internet personally. It is likely true that Euro-American culture does not generally use Mr. and Ms. to the same degree as others. But to say that thier elders are "discarded" resembles the negative tone that the Pastor uses.
#19
10-26-2009, 04:52 PM
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Constant State of Confusion
Posts: 5,942
NOW, on to the reason I came BACK to this abominable thread, in the first place. A counter-point exists, also on you-tube, to the right reverend-clueless:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mv28X...om=PL&index=49
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mv28X...om=PL&index=49
