OK, I'll say it... we are too sensitive

[luvsJack]

Well, there are a lot of wrongs that aren't "isms".

You'll note I said "many" other wrongs.

Well, I didn't mean that literally but similar things. But any prejudice that makes someone treat other human being badly is equally wrong.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

To the first part: yes, I do believe racism is worse than many other wrongs - you don't? What's more basic than how you treat your fellow man?


To the second part: I understand that you don't think that it was common to think about racial equality in the 30's. What I think is that people knew right from wrong; that they knew it wasn't right to treat other human beings so horribly.


I think we're all repeating ourselves now.

Why do we stop at the '30s?

 

[sam_gordon]

You beat me to it!

Are you the horse then?

 

[Cogswel_Cogs]

Again we are talking about the NHL.
If there weren't that many more insensitive organizations to rights then Sports for a long time (IMO).North or South.. I think the first pro hockey player was in 1958.
And I totally agree it should be one size fits all.
I am from North we have a heck of a lot of people up here who scare me.

 

[PaulaSB12]

Yes people are too sensitive and racism is growing , Martin Luther King fought against segregation now people are demanding it
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...y-graduates-may-2017-ivy-league-a7730686.html
https://onenewsnow.com/culture/2019/04/26/ma-college-pushes-blacks-only-dorms-for-safety
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-being-called-racists/?utm_term=.d6a7289e8c8d
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10729

 

[kaytieeldr]

Yes people are too sensitive and racism is growing , Martin Luther King fought against segregation now people are demanding it
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...y-graduates-may-2017-ivy-league-a7730686.html
https://onenewsnow.com/culture/2019/04/26/ma-college-pushes-blacks-only-dorms-for-safety
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-being-called-racists/?utm_term=.d6a7289e8c8d
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10729

Links one, two, and four are all actions initiated by students of color. Third link doesn't result in an article.

 

[Disney Doll]

Links one, two, and four are all actions initiated by students of color. Third link doesn't result in an article.

People of color can be racists and segregationists too. They are not character flaws that are only limited to white people.

 

[luvsJack]

Links one, two, and four are all actions initiated by students of color. Third link doesn't result in an article.

I got an article on link 3? From the Washington Post?

 

[DeniseJH]

I hope to meet the scheduler one day.

When you find him/her let me know - I'm not getting my promised royalties!!

 

[DeniseJH]

I am not sure who is putting Thomas Jefferson on a pedestal. But honestly, I think we should be leave the memorial of this man right where it is and just be honest about who he was. he did great things and he did horrible things. In guide books, history books, whatever. He is important to the history of this country but he was also a product of his time that thought of African Americans as less than human. Thank God, we have learned better than that now.

Our ancestors were racist. They were racist against the Native Americans, the African Americans, Irish (well not a race but you get what I mean), Germans, Japanese, etc. etc. etc. Some have moved well beyond that and a few haven't. Let's just be honest about it. No reason to lie.


He doesn't just have a statue, he has a whole building! But there is a reason for that. So does Abraham Lincoln (who you do know was racist also, just read some of the things HE said!). George Washington's home is visited by a great many people every year (and I guess so is Thomas Jefferson's), if the Washington memorial was taken down, how long until his home is too?

"I am not sure who is putting Thomas Jefferson on a pedestal." A statue of any man is literally and figuratively putting them on a pedestal! That's the point of a statue! At this point I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on what the future of these statues should be.


Of course our ancestors were racist against many - no one is disputing that.


I've already addressed what my opinion is in regards to houses - no need to remove them, they are history. They weren't erected as a tribute.


You never answered my question: If a man had enslaved and raped your ancestors, would you be perfectly fine that there were statues celebrating him?

 

[PollyannaMom]

To the second part: I understand that you don't think that it was common to think about racial equality in the 30's. What I think is that people knew right from wrong; that they knew it wasn't right to treat other human beings so horribly.

Yes, many people "knew it wasn't right to treat other human beings so horribly" - but what they thought qualified as "horribly" was different very different than what we think qualifies now. This post several pages ago seemed to get passed over:

I think that the root of the response that you are getting is that you are misunderstanding how "racist" was defined at the time. You are using a modern definition of racism/racist to define behaviors of a different era. At the time, the sort of "racist" that was universally recognized as wrong ALWAYS involved disdain and often involved violence. Everyone knew it was wrong to put black people down simply because of the color of their skin, or to say that they were all lazy, or stupid, or criminal, or sexually promiscuous because of the color of their skin. What was NOT considered racist at the time were such behaviors as imitation that was done in admiration (which believe it or not, actually included some blackface performances, especially those by Jolson), and portrayals that were meant to show nobility of spirit (which was allegedly the case with That Song).

but I think it makes a really good point! What people considered racism back then was a much smaller set of much worse actions than what people consider racism now. I bet back then, just like you said, a lot of people did know better than to be racist. - But they thought "being racist" was beating people up and burning crosses on hillsides. If they didn't do those things, they thought they were accepting everyone. The smaller microaggressions that are considered racism by today's standards were just not things the average person then knew to be mindful of. This lady you want to hate because of a song might have been disgusted by what she considered racism, and she's not here to defend herself.

I think we need to look at progress in society like we look at progress in science. Newton certainly wasn't stupid just because Einstein came along later and got more detailed. Newton made huge progress with the information he had at the time. And I'm sure there were many good people in the 30s who made progress against racism - individuals who were more accepting of people with different skin colors than their own parents and grandparents had been. Do I wish it had happened faster? - Of course! And I understand that there are still things that aren't fair. But all I can do is try to personally treat people kindly today. Feeling guilty for what "my ancestors" (in quotes because I doubt I'm actually related to any of the famous people we're talking about) did in the past won't help.

People are complicated, and I don't think we can throw out the good things they did because of the bad and more than I think we can sweep away the bad because of the good.

 

[DeniseJH]

Well, I didn't mean that literally but similar things. But any prejudice that makes someone treat other human being badly is equally wrong.

I get it, but the PP didn't distinguish between any "wrongs". So my response stands.

 

[DeniseJH]

Yes, many people "knew it wasn't right to treat other human beings so horribly" - but what they thought qualified as "horribly" was different very different than what we think qualifies now. This post several pages ago seemed to get passed over:



but I think it makes a really good point! What people considered racism back then was a much smaller set of much worse actions than what people consider racism now. I bet back then, just like you said, a lot of people did know better than to be racist. - But they thought "being racist" was beating people up and burning crosses on hillsides. If they didn't do those things, they thought they were accepting everyone. The smaller microaggressions that are considered racism by today's standards were just not things the average person then knew to be mindful of. This lady you want to hate because of a song might have been disgusted by what she considered racism, and she's not here to defend herself.

I think we need to look at progress in society like we look at progress in science. Newton certainly wasn't stupid just because Einstein came along later and got more detailed. Newton made huge progress with the information he had at the time. And I'm sure there were many good people in the 30s who made progress against racism - individuals who were more accepting of people with different skin colors than their own parents and grandparents had been. Do I wish it had happened faster? - Of course! And I understand that there are still things that aren't fair. But all I can do is try to personally treat people kindly today. Feeling guilty for what "my ancestors" (in quotes because I doubt I'm actually related to any of the famous people we're talking about) did in the past won't help.

People are complicated, and I don't think we can throw out the good things they did because of the bad and more than I think we can sweep away the bad because of the good.

I'm not going to "qualify" on degrees of treating people horribly, in terms of racism. Treating people like animals, i.e.: you're not good enough to sit with me, eat with me, etc. is horrible. And if y'all are going to start defending black-face now, I'll be leaving (which will make most here VERY happy) and let you have your own place here to...well, to "talk amongst yourselves".

 

[PollyannaMom]

I'm not going to "qualify" on degrees of treating people horribly, in terms of racism.

But how can beating someone up not be worse than using the wrong word? (I'm thinking of the example upthread of older folks who still assume "colored" is more polite than "black".) If you really think those are exactly the same "level of horrible", please explain why.

 

[DeniseJH]

But how can beating someone up not be worse than using the wrong word? (I'm thinking of the example upthread of older folks who still assume "colored" is more polite than "black".) If you really think those are exactly the same "level of horrible", please explain why.

I'm not talking about words. I never have here.

 

[luvsJack]

I'm not going to "qualify" on degrees of treating people horribly, in terms of racism. Treating people like animals, i.e.: you're not good enough to sit with me, eat with me, etc. is horrible. And if y'all are going to start defending black-face now, I'll be leaving (which will make most here VERY happy) and let you have your own place here to be...well, to "talk amongst yourselves".

You still are not getting that no one is defending anything. They are simply stating the fact that what people thought was “horrible treatment” then isn’t the same as what we think is now. Were there some that perhaps were progressive enough to see it then? Yes. Otherwise change would have been slower than it has been.

Where do you even get “defending black face?” Which by the way was started in Shakespeare when they used no actors of color. They also didn’t use women. It didn’t start as a means to be racist. But now it is different. We see it differently. We understand the use of it now can be offensive. And most people do not use it. Not defending it at all. Just stating facts.

 

[Boardwalk Jedi]

But how many?

Until it reaches a tipping point, those that knew better were the social activists. We can't expect everyone to be a social activist.

In my opinion you can't hold people to having the "wrong" view until about 40% of the population holds the "right" view and there has been a steady trend to get to that 40%.

If we could go back in time to the 1930's I think you would be hard pressed to find that 40% of the population believed in racial equality and that those words used in the song were wrong.

To put things in perspective as to what was considered right and wrong both before and after the song was produced:
In 1906 the Bronx Zoo displayed Ota Benga in a cage with monkeys.
In the 1930s Germany displayed African family's in exhibits at their zoos.
In 1958 Belgium put in a Human Zoo at the Worlds Fair they hosted.

Do you not understand the concept that these things aren't done anymore? I've got no problem putting Kate Smith's rendition in the same category.

 

[DeniseJH]

You still are not getting that no one is defending anything. They are simply stating the fact that what people thought was “horrible treatment” then isn’t the same as what we think is now. Were there some that perhaps were progressive enough to see it then? Yes. Otherwise change would have been slower than it has been.

Where do you even get “defending black face?” Which by the way was started in Shakespeare when they used no actors of color. They also didn’t use women. It didn’t start as a means to be racist. But now it is different. We see it differently. We understand the use of it now can be offensive. And most people do not use it. Not defending it at all. Just stating facts.

You and I disagree - we've been back and forth on this. I've explained my opinions many, many times (some would say to the detriment of some poor horse). I get what you all are saying, I get it...and I disagree.


The black-face comment is in response to PollyannaMom's post, reposting NotUrsala's post.

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

So only one side of the debate should listen? How is that going to solve anything? The only way to resolve anything is for both sides to listen. By listening one or both may learn to stop assuming why someone feels the way they do.

For years upon years only one side had to listen. And they got the message all too well. And when monuments didn't do the trick, violent measures did. Their feelings weren't taken into account. That message was, "We're still in charge here." Well times have changed. Those violent measures, though they still do happen, aren't even remotely as widespread as they were and are punished instead of brushed aside these days. And in many cities where these monuments went up well the other side is in charge now. And after years upon years of listening all too well, they aren't forced to listen any more. They want them down and I cannot say as I blame them one bit.

 

[PollyannaMom]

I'm not talking about words. I never have here.

The whole thread was started about a song. A song is words.

The black-face comment is in response to PollyannaMom's post, reposting NotUrsala's post.

I never mentioned black-face either.

But since you edited your post after I initially quoted it, I'll try again:

I'm not going to "qualify" on degrees of treating people horribly, in terms of racism. Treating people like animals, i.e.: you're not good enough to sit with me, eat with me, etc. is horrible. And if y'all are going to start defending black-face now, I'll be leaving (which will make most here VERY happy) and let you have your own place here to...well, to "talk amongst yourselves".

I wasn't aware that any of us knew who Kate Smith sat with or ate with? All I said (way, way upthread) was that we don't know enough about her to assume she was hateful. She sang something polite people wouldn't listen to today. Your guess is that it was because she was a horrible person, my guess is that it was because she didn't know any better. But all we can do is guess, and I don't think either of our guesses are realistically going to change. (Though if she rises from the dead, visits my house, and refuses to sit next to my son's best friend, I do promise I'll show her the door.)

And you still haven't answered my question. - I agree that "treating people like animals" (or more accurately, treating people like I wouldn't even treat animals) is horrible! What I'm trying to understand better are your feelings about not "qualifying" things - how using an outdated word, refusing to sit with someone, and burning a cross are the same?

To me, they are "qualified" (in order) as uninformed, prejudiced & mean, and evil & dangerous. They're all something to be stopped, but they're not all on the same "level" - and I think treating them as such leads to more confusion than progress.