|
|
 |
|
Getting On : Catching up
Views on racism vs. Berg ideas & other | from pharmaboy - Friday, October 04, 2002
accessed 1854 times A reply to racism discussion on ageless profession Thread. Some of you were repulsed by racist remarks & wrote them off as die-hard family ideas. I already posted a long tweaker rant on another thread about ex-fam-trying-their-best-to-become-dumb-citizens, just because my view on racism happen to sound vaguely familiar, doesn’t mean I avidly am reading MO books for my political viewpoints. If you would lay off watching CNN/ABC/Jerry Springer/MTV(it’s all the same anyways) and maybe look into some non-mainstream sources, you’d be shocked at how different the picture is. What proof do you want? SA’s crime statistics over the past 10 years, personal experience, long talks I had with both white/black 50 year olds? So AIDS and rape are products of ignorance? I’m not an atheist, more an agnostic, but if you believe in natural selection and survival of the fittest, then that’s exactly what happened here, whites were not more strong physically than blacks, they were more a advanced civilization already 400 years ago and nature took its course, if the blacks would have developed faster than us, you think they wouldn’t have done the same, colonizing Europe and enslaving the crude, simple people they found on the way? It wasn’t nice, many cruel things have happened since, but nature doesn’t have Christian compassion either. The truth is not what CNN says(nothing could be farther!), that’s why I say come here and see it for yourself to get a true picture. No amount of reading can compare to direct observation. I was just reading a pamphlet from the Italian chamber of commerce regarding business opportunities in SA, it was droning on about how since the first free elections in ’94 economy has been booming here. Translation: before ’94, SA was a western, industrialized country(strong competition, hard to get a piece of the action) now it’s a 3rd world country(cheap, unskilled labor i.e. easy to take advantage of by large multi-national corporations). I got into trouble in the Family when I openly spoke my views on race issues (a nice chat and prophecy session with a couple VS), and I have read Mein Kampf and revisionist authors (i.e. David Irving).
It’s ignorant to think Berg was the only one with those ideas, hell, I remember in an older lifeline he was encouraging the medical use of Cannabis as a non-addictive sleep aid, does this mean every time I light a fat one it’s because I still have family “hang-ups”? While Berg never admitted his sexual abuses on children and never really condemned it even after legal trouble(other than the purge), in one of his last GNs(the uncured sons of Ham), he changed his views on black to fit what was a more mainstream opinion & Zerby later on in some Blade simply went to the DARE website, cut-and-pasted all the bullshit, added some words from our loving husband & presto! Drugs are evil because look at what Jesus said. The family in recent times, except for their fixation with sex, are really very conformist to attract a larger crowd of followers (their target market). So you do your homework before signing everything subversive as psycho family beliefs. Even sexual beliefs, just because Zerby & Co. have a disturbed sexuality, doesn’t automatically mean the puritanical view of no-sex-before-marriage-adolescents-shouldn’t-even-be-thinking-about-it is right.
Anyways, I’ll think of more points later, it’s Friday and I’m at work, but I’m sure that after plenty of sleep/food depravation by Monday I’ll be myself again. A good book to read would be Chuck Palahniuk’s(sp?) “Survivor” you can buy it on Amazon.
Cheers,
Pharma
|
|
|
|
|
Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article |  from JoeH
Tuesday, October 08, 2002 - 15:19
(Agree/Disagree?)
I think everybody needs to stop arguing with pharmaboy, because when they do, they give the ravings of methamphetamine-using adolescent far too much credit. Just let druggie boy stew in his own juices
(reply to this comment)
| from xhrisl
Tuesday, October 08, 2002 - 03:43
(Agree/Disagree?)
There is only one Race, and that is the Human Race. If the concept of seperate races where valid, then children of mixed racial heritage would be a medical imposibility. Study, history, sociology, psychology, biology, science,philosophy, and ethics, learn not just to hold a belief, but to challenge it, and then determine if that beleif is valid.
Lastly, I find you ignorance repulsive, and you logic flawed. Furthermore, I must infer that your perspective of racial bigotry, might also translate to to a belief that women are also inferior to men?
How lucky for you to have been born a white pompass male.
(reply to this comment)
|  From pharmaboy
Tuesday, October 08, 2002, 06:44
(Agree/Disagree?)
Talk about ignorance! There you go categorizing me under the usual right-wing conservative beer-drinking woman-beater. Why do you think I posted this, to get thought-provoking answers, not: “you’re such a racist, dude”. I wish I could just buy into the neo-liberal-progressive rants that we’re all the same, just different colors thingy, & I used to, but direct observation has led me to question that belief. Have I ever stated that blacks are inferior to whites? Have I ever encouraged the return of black slavery? I am currently reading “Uncle Tom’s Cabin”. I see that racial issues present around the world are all different and complex problems that cannot be solved by simply saying were all the same. I can see though that most of the replies to this thread simply analyze what I’ve posted word for word but have fuckall to say. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | from Anthony
Monday, October 07, 2002 - 14:22
(Agree/Disagree?)
Pharmaboy and Thepersoniamnow, I don't think anyone was "attacking" your views on "race", it' simply that, given our peculiar background, whenever one of us publicly makes a "outlandish" claim such as, "I'm a racist" or " I enjoying stripping", it is only natural that others will want to know if indeed these are real personal convictions or simply the "resin" from smoking the cult. In other words, we are curious if your currently held views and claims are the result of a third-party masturbation routine, picked up along the road of self-discovery, self-reflection and introspection, or indeed a "self-generated" conclusion. Notice the quotation marks around self-generated, for as we all know, we all are "victims" of outside influences, whatever the source.
Regards,
Anthony
(reply to this comment)
| from pharmaboy
Monday, October 07, 2002 - 04:38
(Agree/Disagree?)
I’ll make a general reply:
I didn’t start this thread as an excuse for a flame war, but for an intelligent discussion of a controversial issue that too often is over-simplified. What annoyed me most, & prompted me to start this thread, was some comments where my views were written off as Berg cobwebs in my head.
Leaving alone statistics, scientific “evidence” and thoughts from “experts”, in this topic because it’s far too controversial today for 100% neutral studies to be made, I’ll draw another parallel to the war on drugs (also a very sensitive subject today). Have you noticed that every study on illegal or controlled substances always has a negative slant while prescription medication studies always tone down the negative side-effects? In fact, almost every psychotropic substance banned in the past 50 years was rarely banned on grounds of it’s risk to the general public (except maybe considering the high addiction potential of opiates). First the government will ban it, then they’ll get an expert to prove how dangerous it is, often with phony experiments on animals and/or only partial publication of results. Same goes for racial studies.
I don’t think blacks are inferior or of less value because of their physical attributes, nor do I lump all non-whites in the same category. Chinese/Japanese, almost in parallel to western peoples, developed an advanced civilization, society and form of government. We are different, each race from the other, & that I see as the biggest problem here in SA. The government must recognize this difference of race and level of development, of course I’m not saying justice and emergency services. On one hand I’ll despair when I’m calling an accountant from another business and she/he is black, because they rarely understand what their talking about, on the other hand where will you find a white that will walk 10-20KM a day under a scorching sun to get to work and back? While African-American blacks were forcibly brought to a strange land, in large numbers but still a minority, they assimilated our white customs and eventually integrated well as we see today. I’m not talking about African-Americans, but about black Africans. Here the situation is different, blacks are the racial majority here, but now considering all races equal and with a simplistic black government, the situation has worsened since the apartheid. Apartheid means separate, not unequal, the blacks could study and get education during the apartheid, in fact there are some very successful black businesses formed by blacks that grew up & studied during the apartheid. Today there is no clear right/wrong, black/white, a lot of it is shades of grey, the apartheid was not 100% right, but neither was it totally wrong. It may sound horrible that blacks weren’t allowed in white neighborhoods after dark, but think of the early pioneers in America, stockading their first settlements from the American-Indians, they were much more primitive and couldn’t understand these whites, so it may have been “racist”, but it did have some sense behind it. Every situation is different, sorry if I was over-generalizing, but most of my thought derived from my observations here and the US for example do not have the same problems that SA has. In Zambia and Botswana there is yet another situation and I can say much different from SA.
I also started this topic because like religion, there is no one true way to go, I also realize I’m young and have yet much to learn & hope that open-minded people here will see past all the hate, indignation and resentment most people feel when racism is discussed and will be able to analyze this topic objectively. I like to start off a topic with some statements that will most surely get a rise out off others, but I don’t necessarily believe them myself (i.e. playing atheist with a group of strong believers). In any other discussion board my post would have started a major flame war, I guess we are more open-minded than most!
(reply to this comment)
| From Craven de Kere
Monday, October 07, 2002, 13:45
(Agree/Disagree?)
a) I am glad flames were not your bent.
b) Don't hit your wife because you got fired, I didn't ever say you were under Berg's influence. I don't play that card.
c) I know drugs well and and disagree with your conclusions in that regard. In any case it's off topic, should you care to discuss those studies you call false I'm willing to do it on another thread.
d) Nobody here is claiming that development is equal. Only that rights are. And that your line of thinking usually is a pretext to erode said rights.
e) Separate IS unequal. Would you like to see the legal precedents for this? The end of segragation was wrought of realization of this fact. Separation is not intended to simply separate races but qualities of service. There has not been a single exception to this in history in regard to racial segragation.
f) Don't take pridian ignorance to justify futher ignorance. The tratment of the American Indians was a dark page in history and a poor example to use to validate modern ignorance.
g) Truth is NOT subjective. If you would like a very quick debate try to prove that there is no one true way to go. What you might be referring to is that when factors are simplified the "truthful" conclusions are usually not true and that with a dash of lateral thinking they can be taken to task.(reply to this comment) |
| | From pharmaboy
Tuesday, October 08, 2002, 07:58
(Agree/Disagree?)
Ok, Craven, I’ll try to put it clearly:
1) Blacks and whites(this also includes Indians and coloureds) in Africa are at completely different levels of development. AIDS is at alarming levels mainly among the Black population, unemployment is very high also.
2) Blacks here need help, lots of it (I don’t mean this in a sarcastic way)
3) The dilemma, how to help them, is western civilization and economy really what they need?
4) Has western influence helped or harmed them, considering that many of their problems are due to natural/environmental difficulties?
5) Why are they so full of this Black empowerment rot when really all it means is well-off blacks dressing, talking, acting like whites while their entire source of income comes from a western model of economy? If the white “occupation” of their land is, as most like to believe, the cause of their suffering, aren’t they living a contradiction?
6) How can you blame AIDS, unhealthy sexual practices, bad hygiene(the main cause of their suffering) on the slave trade or apartheid? Weren’t they experiencing the same problems before white came to Africa, & aren’t the American blacks much better off living in a white society?
Btw, is it just for controversy that you disagree with my views on the war on drugs? Otherwise I’d be curious to know your viewpoint.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Craven de Kere
Tuesday, October 08, 2002, 10:17
(Agree/Disagree?)
In regard to #1: What's your point? I've conceded that the development of some has lagged and hold this to be circumstantial. What are the conclusions you wish to draw from that?
In regard to #2, many people need help. The overwhelming majority of the world's population is underdeveloped.
re #4: Sure western civilization has harmed them, but I don't lay the blame at the feet of the west. Survival of the fittest is a law of nature and a cruel thing. Now that contagion is a greater power than in the past our fates are more intertwined and only now is it in the interest of the west to ameliorate the lives of those who are worse off (if only to open more markets).
re 6: what do you care about how they make their money? People swing from one extreme to another. What do you care about how blacks dress or talk or act? It's the epitome of arrogance to think your opinion in regard to that has any validity.
re 6: I never laid such blame at the feet of apartheid. I fault Apartheid for the policies of Apartheid nothing more. And American blacks are well off because they live ina country with over 50% of the world's wealth. White has little to do with it as much as you'd like for it to be that way (it's called selective vision, you only see facts that you want).
As to drugs you made a sweeping statement that would have to be clarified before I take further issue with it. Deceit has been a part of the anti-drug campaign yes, but no I didn't disagree out of a blindly disagreeable nature the majority of drugs studies have been sound (my own studies revealed that Marijuana gives you the munchies but I can't secure a grant for further study). But if you care to elucidate on your comment please do so in another thread.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | from nobody,s bitch
Saturday, October 05, 2002 - 06:50
(Agree/Disagree?)
you make the argument that since western
civilization was more advanced than african civilazation 400 years ago, it
means that as a race caucausans are more advanced. there is several different reasons that western civilazation was advancing in leaps and
bounds in the past 500 years that have
nothing to do with race.
and what about the fact that for the previuos 5,000 years all the major cultural advances (prior to the past 500 years) were made by everyone but whitie? i.e the first cities and the moving away from being hunters and gatherers, occurred in africa. more specifically in egypt and ethiopia.
what about india, and china?
so as far as global history goes whitie is very new on the scene as a major and intelligent player.the main reasons that western civilazation is the dominant and most advanced (arguable)today.
its first major proggressions is that it learned to mobilize itself more effectively that anyone else.
second, wherever it went it carried diseases that would afflict the local
population rendering the competition
useless.
all of its progresses were a compilati-
on of a large variety of races and cultures.i.e gunpowder was invented by the chinese. it was marco polo that gave it a military application.
but it took both races to create that.
once a civilazation has been established
it can take the very best of the races and civilazations it dominates.
this does,nt make it superior.
it makes it a product of all the races.
p.s love all
(reply to this comment)
| from Lance
Friday, October 04, 2002 - 19:45
(Agree/Disagree?)
Views on racism vs. Berg ideas & other? What does it matter, you're an idiot either way.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | From monkeyfart
Saturday, October 05, 2002, 06:19
(Agree/Disagree?)
Why Lance-A-Lot, how nice for you to return to the fray. It appears in doing so you have yet again made an amusing object of your pubescence in alleging I have an "obsession with puberty" which has really just been humour derisorily directed at your abundant juvenility. As for shaping more words into insults, I assure you they come in all shapes and sizes, however you & your “lance” seem to do a fine job of that already. Some truly concerned advice, keep up the regular diet of bean sprouts which should encourage follicle activity, & hopefully calm those disturbing feelings surrounding your puberty.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From JoeH
Wednesday, October 09, 2002, 00:22
(Agree/Disagree?)
no, I didn''t get to read shakespeare in the Family, but I know now (thanks to 10th grade English) that Polonius in Hamlet said "Brevity is the soul of wit, and tediousness the limbs and outer flourishes thereof," which may have been the quote to which you were attempting to allude. Just doing what I can to help out the undereducated. :) Lots of love in Jesus.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From monkeyfart
Tuesday, October 08, 2002, 08:17
(Agree/Disagree?)
Let me guess, this is fancy-name-dress-up day and you are; a part of a saints body, or; a columnist for a religious magazine or newsletter, or; a small dirt road in a quaint catholic village in mexico, or; maybe you really are "st martin's lane", if so, please, enjoy yourselves! (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | from cm
Friday, October 04, 2002 - 15:38
(Agree/Disagree?)
The argument of nature vs. nurture is one that will never be solved because they are both right and both wrong. Genetics and upbringing both play a role in the final product of a human being. The same is true with race-while someone may be able to scientifically prove that the black man is genetically ill equipped to suceed in a the Western culture (which is global culture),it is only can only be based on ones criterions for "sucess" and "culture".
My argument here against your racism is not to duel with research and numbers because they are generally pointless, easily fabricated and subject to interpretation (see "The Bell Curve"). My point is, what is the point of your racism? How does a racist belief benefit you or humanity? While we can all probably agree that the black and particularly African culture as a whole is less "advanced" that that of it European/American counterparts, it does not take away from their place and "rights" as human beings.
If you can find a few one culturally advanced black man (and anyone who has lived in America can find millions), it proves that it is possible to improve the educational, financial and cultural advancement of the entire race.
Why spend your time attempting to prove your genetic superiority over a race, a culture or a continent? Why not instead do what you can to bring cultural advancement to them? It would benefit the african, the hispanic, the asian and yes, the caucasian to do so.
(reply to this comment)
| from Craven says this is too easy
Friday, October 04, 2002 - 09:58
(Agree/Disagree?)
First of all let me thank you for starting a new thread.
I will mow reply to your comments (in quotation marks) in a segmented and disjointed manner.
"Some of you were repulsed by racist remarks & wrote them off as die-hard family ideas."
Twasn't I. In any case I agree that similarities between one's doctrine and that of Berg does not have to indicate a deficiency in all of the logic, it is simply a way to attack the poster without attacking the idea. A cop out. Which leads me to my next point.
"If you would lay off watching CNN/ABC/Jerry Springer/MTV(it’s all the same anyways) and maybe look into some non-mainstream sources, you’d be shocked at how different the picture is."
This is another cop -out. It's the "emperor's clothes" and another way of saying, "I am to ignorant to attack the substance of your notion so I'll just say you derive all your information from the wrong sources".
It's flawed because:
a) Where you get your information does not always make it right or wrong.
b) You make sweeping assumptions about the lives of those who don't agree with your sweeping generalizations. I don't regularly watch any of the stations/program you mentioned, that doesn't make my ideas any more or less valid.
"SA’s crime statistics over the past 10 years, personal experience, long talks I had with both white/black 50 year olds? So AIDS and rape are products of ignorance?"
Yes you dolt, AIDS and rape are the product of ingnoracnce and differing morals. What on earth does it have to do with race? You take circumstantial eidence and try to justify your racial prejudice with it. If the oppressed minority were another race inSA the other race would be the one committing the crimes. It's no coincidence that the poor commit crimes, when you keep a whole race poor (in regimes such as Apartheid) it's no suprise that their crime rate should be higher.
If you are trying to say that since the blacks became free from Apartheid SA has not done to well (especially for non blacks) I'd agree, but that has little to do with race except for the fact that racial supression in the past has led to "reverse racism". But that's the natural order of the universe. From one extremet to another, eventually balance might be acheived.
"if you believe in natural selection and survival of the fittest, then that’s exactly what happened here, whites were not more strong physically than blacks, they were more a advanced civilization already 400 years ago and nature took its course,"
Your ignorance knows no bounds. The advancement of civilizations is due to circumstance not genetics in the overwhelming majority of cases. You are just using convenient facts about history to help you feel superior to the vast number of differing races.
"if the blacks would have developed faster than us, you think they wouldn’t have done the same, colonizing Europe and enslaving the crude, simple people they found on the way?"
Possibly, and your point would be?
"The truth is not what CNN says(nothing could be farther!), that’s why I say come here and see it for yourself to get a true picture. No amount of reading can compare to direct observation."
I agree (except for your ridiculous notions about CNN), but proximity does not give you a trump card that allows you to disregard fact. And you are a fool to assume that anyone who doesn't share your racist views did not observe at great proximity themselves.
"I was just reading a pamphlet from the Italian chamber of commerce regarding business opportunities in SA, it was droning on about how since the first free elections in ’94 economy has been booming here. Translation: before ’94, SA was a western, industrialized country(strong competition, hard to get a piece of the action) now it’s a 3rd world country(cheap, unskilled labor i.e. easy to take advantage of by large multi-national corporations)."
Sigh, you are twisting everything you can here. It's a better place for business after '94 because the sanctions are down. The transitional period is not ever going to be easy but you exhibit a startling ignorance about economics here.
"I have read Mein Kampf"
What's your point? Sources of information do not validate one's conclusions. All you have shown is a penchant for extremism.
"It’s ignorant to think Berg was the only one with those ideas"
I agree! Berg recycled hogwash. His ideology was rarely original.
"I remember in an older lifeline he was encouraging the medical use of Cannabis as a non-addictive sleep aid"
I am very interested in seeing this.
"So you do your homework before signing everything subversive as psycho family beliefs."
You are using the same tactic you railed against earlier.
(reply to this comment)
| From pharmaboy
Monday, October 07, 2002, 07:23
(Agree/Disagree?)
Craven, in SA conditions for blacks are just as bad if not worse than before '94. The only difference is now they can feel part of the great new world order("wow, democracy, I'm not sure what it is but it must be good, hopefully it will give my children food"). The racial group suffering the most now from sky-high crime is the blacks, for the rich whites, Indians & coloureds crime is just a bit of a nuisance. Sanctions? who the hell gave them sanctions in the first place, DUH? Europe and the US out of utter ignorance, you think they put sanctions on themselves because they were an irrational, racist government? Plus those sanctions were only enacted in the '80s before that they prospered. Your intellectual way of analyzing all my sentences may sound smart but your not getting my sarcasm, is like mmm... Why was I railing against CNN or dumb Americans, not to make stereotypes of everyone that posts here, but I was fucking annoyed when I post anything anti-American or non-mainstream and get the usual: "you're still brainwashed by the cult, dude". Generalizing in that way is pure ignorance, and not getting sarcasm/taste of your own medicine is stupidity.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From monkeyfart
Friday, October 04, 2002, 13:49
(Agree/Disagree?)
Craven,
In general, your response makes plenty of sense. However your standpoint appears to be more one of a wish to side step the issue of having a solid personal opinion on the matter. Would it be fair to assume that the entire "race issue" is pretty much a world dilemma? I personally have several SA friends (non ex-Fam) who I would have to say mirror in many respects the view points and ideas of Pharmaboy. I agree totally with your view that the "whites" being considered more advanced is purely circumstantial. Morally speaking if they ("whites") were so farther advanced you would think they would have had better sense than to engage in the primitive act of enslaving another human being just because they were from a more "primitive" culture. However, if you're going to argue the issue of "reverse-racism" then you have to consider the "reverse-reverse-racism" which would follow. Obviously "whites" have taught both themselves and others including "blacks" that they ("whites") are superior, or if not actually taught, implied such or acted as such and the backlash of such falsehood can hardly be expected to be peaceable, rational or even moral. I have known quite a few "whites" to think there is even medical proof that "blacks" are genetically less intelligent than "whites". - Mere social interaction with "black skinned people" is enough to show the sheer silliness of such an idea, however some people will not be convinced.
I personally do not wish to engage in persuading people to accept others simply because of their skin colour. I have come across quite a few people who blindly offer unconditional friendship with those of a different skin colour simply because of that fact & like to think they are better than everyone else for that fact. That to me is degrading because it is in effect accepting a different standard from one person because they’re “white” than from another because of a differing skin colour. I certainly believe in giving allowances for people who have come from different backgrounds, be it cultural, social, racial or what have you. However I believe a line has to be drawn if the behaviour or attitude of a person is unacceptable either on a personal, moral level or by standards of law.
So far as Pharmaboy’s personal views on the matter, obviously if one’s culture & held ideals are under more imminent threat the greater a response or feeling of resentment there will be. I don’t necessarily agree that his proximity to the SA gives him a huge advantage as perhaps being so close to the situation his perspective will be more of that which is right in front of him. As much as I don’t want to have to accept it as my concern, it certainly appears that the world expects “whites” to make up for some of the grave mistakes of the past & I really see no logic in why I should be more privileged simply because of my skin colour. On the other hand I cannot and will not tolerate people feeling they have a right to harm me, my family or my friends simply because of an urge to “set something right” with regards to treatment of their race, culture or religion & that point will be made even violently if necessary, I have no moral dilemma there.
Pharm, may I suggest you probably would enjoy a bit of time travelling when ever you get the chance. Many people find other countries more to their liking for similar reasons to what you’ve raised. I personally find it amusing how many so-called intelligent people from other countries sit and blame “white” SA people for having racist attitudes. You’re in Africa for goodness sake, despite the fact that “blacks” in the US were originally brought over as slaves and the “whites” in SA were the rulers the feelings of resentment of each other’s colour or racism is the same regardless. If you cannot blame a “black” for having race related resentment in a predominantly “white” US then it must be considered that the same sort of feelings would come from being a “whitey” in a predominantly “black” continent.
I believe that racism and related attitudes are something which we have to deal with in a whole new way when we leave “the family”. Many of us were taught that “blacks” were stigmatised based on the so called “curse of Noah” from the bible. I certainly agree Berg seems to have simply gone off the generally acceptable ideas of the time with this one which again proves to me that his entire motivation was his desire for ultimate sexual domination and gratification of his perversions which he did so effectively by influencing people’s minds to accept his twisted version of “truth”. Personally I can see his (Berg’s) mentality that if he had accepted the concept of “blacks” as equals at the time that his “free sex” doctrines were being disseminated, people would have automatically drawn a parallel and dismissed his views as being “primitive”, however when the world became more accepting, so did his standpoint, and with it came his timely recantation.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From pharmaboy
Monday, October 07, 2002, 07:38
(Agree/Disagree?)
As said in another reply(sorry for fragmenting) other countries I've been to had a much different situation(Zambia, Botswana, Zimbabwe). Unless you come here will you see the full picture, talking to blacks and whites. Before i came here, reading about SA, I only got a very one-sided opinion (mandela good, whites/apatheid evil). I work and live with both blacks and whites, and the picture I got was much different from the internationaly accepted "oficial" version of the truth, which we see from history isn't always right...(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Craven agrees in large part
Friday, October 04, 2002, 14:28
(Agree/Disagree?)
I live with a South African, he shares Pharmaboy's view and I have long told him he is racist. He agrees. I don't think that mass ignorance validates individual ignorance. South Africa has a high level of racism. That is hardly a generalization anymore, after all, the whole world used to boycott them for it.
I am perfectly willing to talk about "reverse-reverse-reverse" racism. It's of acute import in this debate. It illustrates the insipid cycle that this leads to.
Many whites think that they are genetically superior to blacks, most read "The Bell Curve" to try to validate their prejudice (though the book is pseudo-science) others just base this on the sampling they come in contact with without taking note of the fact that intellectual capability has not yet ever been able to be quantified with exactitude.
You make a valid point about people who treat minorities better due to their distaste for racism. I couldn't agree more.
"However I believe a line has to be drawn if the behaviour or attitude of a person is unacceptable either on a personal, moral level or by standards of law."
ABSOLUTELY! Attack actions and behavior not people or races! Amen!
Re: rectifying the sins of pridian white supremacy: It's obviously wrong. Don't punish the son for the father's sins. However if the current situation is socially caustic it's in the interests of all to recify. What I'm saying is that it should not be the "white man's burden" to carry the racism of his forefathers on his back. I do not advocate it.
As to your comments about self-defense I've never suggested otherwise. I'll be the first to say that I loathe the way some minorities conduct themselves. But I will not countenance the simplistic "most crimes are commited by blacks = blacks are primitive". That is simply not logical. As I said and you, to al least some extent agreed, the behavior is circumstantial and not exclusive to a pigment of skin.
As to the racism of South Africans it's only different from racism elsewhere in one regard: until VERY recently racism was a government policy. There are few countries in the world in which the most ignorant views were allowed to become the rule rather than the exception.
My position about racism is NOT about white racism. It's against ALL racism. I'll be the first to admit that there is very often a double standard with racism not all bigots were created equal it seems, I find them all distasteful regardless of their own color.
As to Berg recanting in the "uncursed sons of Ham" I was not in TF then and can't comment.
Thanks for a civil few minutes discussing a polemic issue.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | |
|
|
|
|
]
[About the Trailer Park] [Who Links Here]