Kanye West Was Right. Ces Doesn't Care About Black People.

[Bobbieaware]

But was such military action ultimately successful in destroying the combinations or did they result in temporary suppression of them?

To me, reading the Book of Mormon it was only by changing people's hearts and minds that evil was successfully removed...unfortunately it reappeared when selfishness became a prime motivator again. The military actions didn't change the desire to rule in those who survive, they just bided their time till they saw a chance to manipulate or oppress again.

I am not suggesting military action is useless, just that it can only suppress or control at best. Which is why I agree with the Nehor that for the vast majority focusing on living the Gospel in love for our fellowmen will do much more than looking in fear for possible evil among them.

I also see supporting those with the experience and capability to deal successfully with evil men is wisdom as well, such as contributing to the efforts of Operation Underground Railroad.

You're correct. The main reason why the Nephite victories over their enemies were often so shortlived is because the Nephites all too often plunged into a state of wickedness in a seemingly endless cycle of righteousness to prosperity, prosperity to pride, pride to wickedness, wickedness to chastening (said chastening usually coming upon the Nephites by means of aggressive enemies who forced them to defend themselves against utter annihilation), chastening to humility and, finally, humility all the way back to another state of righteousness.

BUT IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT YOU'RE CORRECT, HERE'S WHAT YOU MAY NOT HAVE CONSIDERED: If the Nephites hadn't fought their enemies, even though the wars they were compelled to engage in we're usually precipitated by their own unrighteousness, they would have been wiped off the face of the earth hundreds of years sooner than they were; and the many productive, though temporary, periods of righteousness they enjoyed would have never come to pass. If the Nephites had not successfully engaged in warfare against their enemies, in spite of their wickedness, there would have been no gathering at the temple in Boumtiful to receive the resurrected Christ,

Edited January 11, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[mfbukowski]

Damn!    I was going to edit my post to delete everything I said in Newb's defense ... before you quoted it and set it in stone for posterity!

 

What's it worth to you to have me fix it for ya there buddy?

[carbon dioxide]

However, what I don't understand is that the Church seems to have taken no thought to how a black person might feel sitting through an entire year of hour long-lessons extolling the virtues of a man who closely aligned himself with the John Birch Society, which has been classified as a "hate group" (albeit a non-violent one). Did anyone even THINK that some black members might find this disconcerting? And more pertinently, does anyone in leadership even care?

 

How many black members are aware of the John Birch Society let alone what its positions have been over the years.  I think very little.  Who determined that the John Birch Society is a "hate group".  That joke organization the Southern Poverty Law Center?  Are you suggesting that ETB should never have a manual dedicated to his teachings in the Church because of his political views?  Read through the manual and when you are done, comment on the material presented in it is my advice.  Perhaps ETB is not as bad as you think he is.

[thesometimesaint]

Let me see if I understand the moral of your story.  You sat down at a table and were then joined by others, so that, by the time everyone was seated, you were the only non-black person at the table.  And because you didn't bolt from the table yelling and screaming, this makes you Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel (one of Dr. King's closest allies, and oh yeah, a white guy)?  How could I have been so wrong about you?

 

Unless, I'm reading your story incorrectly, you didn't see a group of black people at a table and say, "Hey, let me join them and meet some people not exactly like me."  They sat at a table where you were already seated.  Should I give you credit for "permitting" them to sit at your table?

 

You do realize that this is my reality for EVERY seating situation in our church, right?  And not just in the Church.  When I speak at your local bar meeting (and it will happen sooner or later), I will be seated at a table where I am the only black person.  Will you be impressed with my racial sensitivity for being able to "endure" the company of all white people for an hour?

 

Of course, I have failed to give you credit for being willing to date some of our women.  That is mighty delightsome of you.  Of course, by this standard, Thomas Jefferson would have been the greatest friend to black people in this nation's history.  It makes me wonder why we aren't celebrating HIS birthday next Monday.

 

In all seriousness, let me be clear.  I do NOT think you are a sheet-wearing, head-shaven hateful bigot.  Giving your professional achievements and Mormon upbringing, I would find it hard to believe that you harbor explicit racial animus towards others.  I would even go so far as to guess that you have never even uttered the N-word (or any other racial epithet).  Yet, the fact that you think you deserve an NAACP Image Award for not making an awkward departure from a table of black Congressional Young Leaders (after all, if it's any blacks you have to worry about, it's those CYL "thugs") does seem to indicate that Dr. King's dream might not have been fully realized with you ... yet.

 

Perhaps, that is why I'm here.  To "gently and lovingly" prod you to become your highest self.  And I'm only 80% kidding.  If I wasn't convinced that you are a fundamentally decent guy, I would just wipe "the Ken from my feet."  There are a few posters who I think are too far gone to even make the effort, but I see potential in you (after all, the people who choose CYLs can't be all wrong).  As a result, I offer my guidance and gentle correction (you're welcome).

 

Now, to get to the substance of your critique of my Church critique, why do YOU think that 2015 should be The Year of the Benson? And what should be done, if anything, for the Church to soothe the anxiety of those wacko black Church members (i.e., ME) who have trouble lionizing someone who opposed civil rights during their lifetimes?

 

I think the best thing to do is forgive them for they knew not what they did. But learn from their mistakes so we don't repeat them.

[Kenngo1969]

What's it worth to you to have me fix it for ya there buddy?

Meh.  As much as I hate to admit it, I stand by what I wrote.  As profound as my disagreement and potential, probable personal dislike of Newb are, I do think Avatar4321 went over the line in his response to Newb.  Ideally, i hope it kinda grates on Newb to have such an unhip white guy come to his defense.  I hope it makes him worry whether he can maintain his street cred.

 

P.S.: I'm now ignoring Newb.  He has earned the distinction of being the only one of 10,000 registered users on this Board who I think no longer merits any direct response from me.  He chose to focus on what I did or didn't do, ignoring the fact that there were 500 other people in the room who could've done something different, but didn't.

Edited January 11, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

MormonNewb:

 

(If you choose to reply, be aware that I have you on ignore, and will not see it unless someone else chooses to quote it. Congratulations!  You're 1 in 10,000!)  You may be a genuinely nice guy in real life, but many people would have trouble divining that from some of your interactions with some people on this Board.  I'm with ERayR.  If we were to meet in real life, you'd have some work to do to get me past the idea that you don't have a chip on your shoulder with regard to race, as well as (with regard to me personally) . . .

 

If I had only your interactions with me on the Board to judge you by, however (and indeed, that IS all I have to judge you by), they might well lead me to believe (and not without good reason) that, in addition to having a chip on your shoulder with regard to race, at least some of the time, you're a passive aggressive SOB who delights in doing the rhetorical equivalent of poking someone in the eye while everybody's back is turned, then when people turn to see the response, you feign innocence and ignorance, and protest (since nobody was paying particular attention to what provoked the response) that you're all about Christian Peace and Love, and et cetera, and, after all, what could you possibly have done that was so bad to merit such a vehement, disproportionate [choose-your-adjective] a response?  With regard to your previous response to me, stop focusing on what I did (or didn't do) and focus, instead, on the fact that 500 OTHER people in the room (white AND BLACK) could've done something different, but didn't.

 

Now, with that out of the way, my substantive response to the subject of the thread:

 

Now, to get to the substance of your critique of my Church critique, why do YOU think that 2015 should be The Year of the Benson? And what should be done, if anything, for the Church to soothe the anxiety of those wacko black Church members (i.e., ME) who have trouble lionizing someone who opposed civil rights during their lifetimes?

 

I think 2015 should be the Year of the Benson because:

• 1998 and 1999 were The Years of the Young
• 2000 and 2001 were The Years of the [Joseph F.] Smith
• 2002 was The Year of The Lee
• 2003 was The Year of The Taylor
• 2004 was The Year of The Grant
• 2005 was The Year of The McKay
• 2006 was The Year of The Woodruff
• 2007 was The Year of The Kimball
• 2008 and 2009 were The Years of The [Joseph] Smith
• 2012 was The Year of The [George Albert] Smith
• 2013 was The Year of The Snow, and
• 2014 was The Year of The [Joseph F.] Smith

And it's very likely that, 2015, 2016, and 2017 (not necessarily in that order) will be:

• The Year of The Monson
• The Year of The Hinckley
• The Year of The Hunter

(Incidentally, I hope if the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints changes Priesthood and Relief Society curriculum, it doesn't abandon the series.  I want to complete the set, and I'd like to do a concordance so that, at least if a particular teaching made it into one of the manuals, someone can find everything all of the prophets said in their particular manuals about, e.g., faith).

 

As others have pointed out, then-Elder Benson was not against civil rights qua civil rights.  He saw the Civil Rights Movement as a "stalking horse" for other things.  Whether or not, in the cold light of hindsight, he was right, he was not alone.  

 

I would ask my interlocutor whether there's a chapter in any previous president's manual on civil rights, and, if not, why he expects there to be one on civil rights in te Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Ezra Taft Benson.  

 

I would ask my interlocutor whether he knows if President Benson, once he became President of the Church, said something about civil rights or about race with which he would disagree.  (While I'm open to correction on that score, I seriously doubt he did.) 

 

I would ask my interlocutor why, since the set has covered the teachings of thirteen other prophets (who no doubt said things about race and/or about civil rights with which my interlocutor would disagree), since the set likely will cover the three remaining prophets, President Benson should be singled out for special  (non-) treatment.  Was what President Benson said (or didn't say) about race or civil rights really so egregious that we should ignore his teachings entirely by leaving him out of the series?  ("No soup for you!" )

 

If my interlocutor's answer to the previous question is, "Yes," I would then ask my interlocutor, "Isn't the Church of Jesus Christ then open to accusations that it is hiding its history?"

 

I would tell my interlocutor that presidents of the Church (and their teachings) are only of value insofar as they lead me to Christ.  If they don't do that, there's not much, if any, value in them.  The teachings of other prophets in the series have done (or, at least, they have attempted to do) exactly that.  I have no reason to believe that President Benson's teachings are any different.  In fact, since I was alive during his tenure, I can testify that they did, that they have, and that they will continue to do so.  Regardless of what they did or didn't say about blacks or about civil rights, the same is true of the teachings of other prophets.

 

P.S.: I commend Carbon Dioxide's advice in the last sentence of his post #203, above.

Edited January 11, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[Calm]

"So I should just shuffle on over to Genesis where black folks can have this conversation amongst ourselves...."

Is this not in essence what you are planning to do if you go through with returning to the black Baptist congregation?

Last I heard Genesis did not consist of solely blacks but all interested parties were allowed to join.

It seems to me that the Genesis group would most likely be the best clearinghouse of information on what is happening in the LDS faith in terms of race relations and for suggestions on what various members have discovered is most effective in spreading the word. They may also have resources others are not aware of.

I would consider it wisdom for anyone of any ethnic group interested in race relation to contact the Genesis group just like I would suggest those interested in apologetics to contact FairMormon, those interested in humanitarian aid to contact LDSP, those interested in specific problems such as clean water, starving children, education aid, slave trafficking contacting those official and unofficial groups who have banded together to create a movement that will be greater than the sum of the individuals' efforts.

[why me]

It may seem that I have a chip on my shoulder because I bring up race "so often."  However, I think I demonstrated in my reply to Why Me that it isn't that often.  It just seems that way because I'm the only one who brings up the issue AT ALL.  Perhaps, it's because I'm the only one who is ever confronted with the issue.  People probably don't ask the rest of you, "Why do you belong to such a racist church?"  However, I have to answer that question about once a month (even earlier TODAY).  And what I am DYING to say is, "No, you've got that wrong.  Sure, we were racist in the past.  Who wasn't?  But let me tell you how we are working to clear up that misperception ..."

 

And that's where my frustration lies.  We seem to have the attitude that, since we moved past our blatantly racist policies in 1978, that the world should just move.  "Priesthood ban removed.  Nothing to see here, folks!"  Well, it doesn't work that way.  We have to make SOME effort to indicate that this Church is now open to ALL.  And I was simply questioning whether Bensonmania was the right vehicle to get us where we need to be.  Or whether, as a Church, we were even TRYING to get there.

It is a question about why you bring it up and the way you bring it up. Both are related in my opinion. You are rather rude and also a tad racist when you interact with people you think are white. Your black speech in the threads is a mock to be sure for the people who read it. It is also immature. Not good for a discussion.

 

If you don't know that the church is open to all just how did you become a member. It is obvious that the church was open to you a black man. Did you have any problems joining because of your skin color? I don't think so. And even if you tried to join in 1970, there would be no problem. You would have been welcomed with open arms. So, your argument in your post above is a mute point. And I do think that you know that.

 

Now to another point. True to my word in priesthood today I spoke about Benson's politics. In fact, I was asked to do so. I spoke about his role in government, his rold in the birch society and how he was a man of his time with all the imperfections of other men. I also spoke about how no one is perfect and church members are allowed their political viewpoints, including GAs. And on and on I went for a few minutes. No problem at all because I spoke in an academic way, without getting emotional, opionated, and shallow. I also said that when benson became prophet there was a sense of nervousness among a few church members because of his politics. But when he became prophet he led the church  well, was not political in his talks but rather very spirtual. He was the right man for the job and led the saints well as those can testify who were members at that time.

 

All went over quite well. Now for you personally. If benson is an issue for you you can tell the bishop that you no longer want to be a teacher in EQ. No problem there too. The church is rather understanding of many things and no one is forced to do something that they do not want too.

[why me]

"So I should just shuffle on over to Genesis where black folks can have this conversation amongst ourselves...."

Is this not in essence what you are planning to do if you go through with returning to the black Baptist congregation?

 

With this black speak about shuffling on over to somewhere else shows that this poster has very little respect for the people on this board. His blackisms are very racist and I would be surprised if a genuine black person would keep bringing up such stereotypes. Even the use of 'black folks' is racist. His language is in the 1940s. And this is why nothing fruitful can ever come from interacting with him. One can only have a dialogue when there is respect on all sides and I think that you and others have tried to do so. But...the reactions with blackisms tell otherwise from the poster who says he is black. Sad that he needs to use such racist stereotypes because they are demeaning to afrcian americans.

Edited January 11, 2015 by why me

[Kenngo1969]

http://www.ldsgenesisgroup.org/

 

http://www.blacklds.org/

 

http://blackmormonfilm.com/

[mfbukowski]

http://www.ldsgenesisgroup.org/

 

http://www.blacklds.org/

 

http://blackmormonfilm.com/

http://blacksinthescriptures.com/black-jesus/

Edited January 11, 2015 by mfbukowski

[BlueDreams]

My point was that mormonnewb tends to bring up race in every thread he starts and makes it known that he is black. I tend to believe that this is done for a reason. And most people on this site are probably white giving the racial makeup of the church. In every thread about race, the race issue is raised and discussions, debates, disagreements begin between different races and usually ends with nothing accomplished or achieved, until the next thread is started again. I think that it would be much better for mormonnewb to join genesis and get a black perspective on these issues. They would certainly understand his feelings and intents better than whites etc who have had different experiences because of the color of their skin. I only say this because of the amount of race threads mormonnewb starts and continues to start to rile up the board.

 

I do agree that conversations are welcome here too but since there have now been countless threads about racism and the lds church started by mormonnewb, he may find it useful to get perspectives from the genesis group. It may help him find some peace. If i were a critic of the church, I could come to this board and nitpick my way through the past and attack the church to my hearts content. All churches could be attacked in such ways. But the conversation will go nowhere because my sole intent would be for people to defend from my attacks. And since we are speaking about the past, it would be endless because we  can only offer interpetations about why this happened or why a past leader believed or said what he believed or said.

 

But what about the present? It would be wonderful to discuss race relations in the church in the present tense.

I'm late to responding to this because I spent most of yesterday either painting or in the temple. So in some ways a number of points that I would've made have already been touched on by other posters. The one part I do agree with is that it would be good for Newb to get in contact with Genesis. I think it would be helpful for him to get to know what's going on currently from black LDS who have been working in this exact area of concern. That stated I have a number of disagreements with what you've mentioned here and in other parts.

 

First Newb has brought up race more than other posters recently but he's vertainly not the only one who has. I know I have from time to time on this board as well. 

Second, just because this board is overwhelmingly white doesn't lend much credence to the idea that race shouldn't be talked about. This board is overwhelmingly heterosexual, yet how many threads on SSM, gay issues, etc have been brought up? I've seen several threads on mormon women here in the recent past where the majority of people participating were largely male. And well before Newb came, there was a string of topics about race, blacks, and curses. I remember because I participated in as many as I could until it reached near burn-out on race threads and obvious misconceptions/obtusely racist arguments.  So just how few or how many X people are here have never been indicative as to whether or not this board has talked about something. 

 Lastly, having different experiences based on race is absolutely essential for this dialogue. And I never knew any of these topics brought on this board had to go somewhere per se.

 

And from what I get, this isn't entirely about the past, but rather how do we move forward and discuss/acknowledge our past with our present needs/concerns. I disagree adamently with Newb's idea for present action because it's basically throwing out the baby with the bathwater.  

 

With this black speak about shuffling on over to somewhere else shows that this poster has very little respect for the people on this board. His blackisms are very racist and I would be surprised if a genuine black person would keep bringing up such stereotypes. Even the use of 'black folks' is racist. His language is in the 1940s. And this is why nothing fruitful can ever come from interacting with him. One can only have a dialogue when there is respect on all sides and I think that you and others have tried to do so. But...the reactions with blackisms tell otherwise from the poster who says he is black. Sad that he needs to use such racist stereotypes because they are demeaning to afrcian americans.

Why me, this looks absolutely awful....who the heck says "blackisms." And saying "black folks" isn't 1940's...it's what a black person would say today. I know this because I've seen it and said something similar in my day to day (though usually it's us "brown folks" because my context is more multiracial). If anything this looks like you have little to no contact to black people...and if you do they don't have the comfort of speaking to you as they would to other black/brown people (ie. not apart of the in-group). And lastly this is condescending and tactless to stated things like a "genuine black person" questioning someone's racial ID is far beyond acceptable in just about every circle I move in. You may dislike just about everything Newb states, but what you're currently stating leaves you looking bad. I'm speaking this as a brown person, a very real one.    

 

 

With luv,

BD

[BlueDreams]

 

 

This thread has not been fruitful because "lads members need to become defensive against attacks on ETB and other issues of race."  And this is somehow MY fault?  So I should just shuffle on over to Genesis where black folks can have this conversation amongst ourselves and not bother white people with these issues (white people being the ONLY people in this Church with the power to address them)?  Really?  Wouldn't that just be "useless griping and complaining against the Lord's anointed"?  I guess it's really true.  Benson if you do.  Benson if you don't.

 

 

Ironically, this statement reminds me of Benson when I was looking him up. He would have statements that were waaay out there, other GA's/the presidency would be like "woah now, slow it down" or "we, as a church body, do not support xyz extreme position." And he would assume it was just part of him fulfilling his duty on speaking out on freedom or what not and keep on in such a way that seemed to ignore or even slightly rebuke those who said otherwise as freedom-haters (mild hyperbole used)....all pre-prophet call luckily. I'm juts saying you might find more in common with ETB than you think. I mean ya brought in Kanye and an exaggerated assertion as a thread title....that's generally going to leave people leery. 

 

 

With luv,

BD 

[why me]

 

Why me, this looks absolutely awful....who the heck says "blackisms." And saying "black folks" isn't 1940's...it's what a black person would say today. I know this because I've seen it and said something similar in my day to day (though usually it's us "brown folks" because my context is more multiracial). If anything this looks like you have little to no contact to black people...and if you do they don't have the comfort of speaking to you as they would to other black/brown people (ie. not apart of the in-group). And lastly this is condescending and tactless to stated things like a "genuine black person" questioning someone's racial ID is far beyond acceptable in just about every circle I move in. You may dislike just about everything Newb states, but what you're currently stating leaves you looking bad. I'm speaking this as a brown person, a very real one.    

 

 

With luv,

BD

. 

My point in the second part was that mormonnewb tends to speak to the  people on this board by using stereotypes of how black

people speak. Words such as shuffle off, black folks, sooty, etc shows a passive aggressive nature where he acts the slave or in a hollywood movie from the 30s. I dont like it and I think that it is racist. Call such language anyway that you like but recognize it for what it is: dmeaning to african americans and racist toward other races by putting himself in stereotypical talk. And yes, his posts using such language are absolutely awful. And I have no idea why he would use such stereotypical language as a black man involved in a discussion about african americans with people from various racial backgrounds.

Edited January 11, 2015 by why me

[mormonnewb]

With this black speak about shuffling on over to somewhere else shows that this poster has very little respect for the people on this board. His blackisms are very racist and I would be surprised if a genuine black person would keep bringing up such stereotypes. Even the use of 'black folks' is racist. His language is in the 1940s. And this is why nothing fruitful can ever come from interacting with him. One can only have a dialogue when there is respect on all sides and I think that you and others have tried to do so. But...the reactions with blackisms tell otherwise from the poster who says he is black. Sad that he needs to use such racist stereotypes because they are demeaning to afrcian americans.

Wow! Now, you object to my choice of words? Not that they are profane. But simply that my expressions are "too black"?

Just for the record, the term "black folks" is used by some of America's leading black thinkers (eg, Dr. Cornel West, Tavis Smiley, et al). It is not a term of derision but rather an explicit attempt to realize that the black American experience isn't just limited to those elites who obtain advanced degrees and social prominence, but also the regular "folks" (who in most cases, made it possible for others to succeed).

I once heard a (white) Mormon say, "In this Church, we love us some black people, provided they are just like us." I now see his point. Black people are perfectly welcome in the Church, provided they are just like white people (oblivious to issues of race). However, the moment one of us broaches the subject, we are being rude, disrespectful, etc.

And yes, I am extremely sarcastic. But, in truth, am I any more so than The Nehor, cinepro or Wade Englund? I would contend that the difference is WHAT I decide to poke fun at (ie, YOU). If I used my razor sharp wit, cutting analysis (and striking good looks) to go after the anti-, ex- and never-Mormons, you'd like me, you'd really, really like me.

Yet, quite frankly, there is enough self-congratulating going on in the Church as it is. SOMEBODY has to say, "All is not well in Zion." And perhaps, somebody could say it a little nicer, but I really don't think it would register over the steady hum of "Hosana! Hail to the high us!" (Get it? Not highEST, but high US. I even impress me sometimes.)

[Robert F. Smith]

I agree but I don't think that he would be interested because he couldnt play the race card there as he does here. This thread has not been very fruitful because as is usual  lds members need to become defensive against attacks on  ETB and other issues of race. No discussion really happening on this thread or other race threads. Just a game of chess.

I don't think that Newbie is playing the "race card."  He seems sincerely concerned, even if he admits to being a new kid on the block.  And knee jerk defense of Benson is probably not appropriate.  He had major faults, as do we all, and we need to admit that up front.  Fortunately, when he became LDS President, he lost his political pecadillos.

 

Lets see if he contacts them. I am sure that they are attempting to help th e black community too. I am tired of the race baiting on these type of threads.

Genesis group is an official LDS organization, approved by the Brethren, and they are very effective.

[Robert F. Smith]

....................................................................

 

1)  What are acceptable exit narratives?

2)  Why are we brittle Christians (i.e., leave Christianity altogether when we lose a testimony of the Church)?

3)  Are our prophets really prophets to the world (i.e., speaking on secular matters as well as spiritual ones)?

4)  When do you decide to give your testimony at F&T meeting?

............................................................................

1.  Any exit narrative is acceptable, as long as the narrator is frank and open about it.

2.  We are not brittle at all.  It is only that we are hard core in our commitments, so hard core that when we lose faith, we really lose faith.

3.  Prophets who have a bully pulpit can speak to the world, e.g., the Pope, Billy Graham, et al.  Mormon prophets are broadcast worldwide at Conference time, but is anybody in the "world" listening?  Is getting down to basics a matter of secular interest?

4.  Mormons give testimony whenever they please, which can be at an unexpected time, because they may not really be making the decision.

[why me]

Wow! Now, you object to my choice of words? Not that they are profane. But simply that my expressions are "too black"?

And yes, I am extremely sarcastic. But, in truth, am I any more so than The Nehor, cinepro or Wade Englund? I would contend that the difference is WHAT I decide to poke fun at (ie, YOU). If I used my razor sharp wit, cutting analysis (and striking good looks) to go after the anti-, ex- and never-Mormons, you'd like me, you'd really, really like me.

:

Heeey, fagetaboutit. No problemos....just sayin, ya know wha I meen! We italians love everyboddy even black folks from the hood. I think I'll get a hoagie now or a meatball sandwich. See ya later okay? Why me the italian american with Irish blood too. Sorry for my stereotype of italiam americans but I think that I tried to make a point. And please don't poke fun at me...I will not like it.

Edited January 11, 2015 by why me

[mormonnewb]

. Words such as shuffle off, black folks, sooty, etc shows a passive aggressive nature where he acts the slave or in a hollywood movie from the 30s.

 

BD and I BOTH explained to you the context behind "black folks."  You are simply dead wrong.

 

"Sooty" was a typo.  To my knowledge, "sooty" has never been used by any black person at any time ever (unless you'd consider the chimney sweep, Bert, from Mary Poppins to be black and even then, I don't think he ever said, "Sooty, Mary!").  Wrong again!

 

"Shuffle off" was a little passive aggressive, so I'll give you that one, although not totally inappropriate since you were basically telling me to "take that black stuff elsewhere."

[mormonnewb]

Heeey, fagetaboutit. No problemos....just sayin, ya know wha I meen! We italians love everyboddy even black folks from the hood. I think I'll get a hoagie now or a meatball sandwich. See ya later okay? Why me the italian american with Irish blood too. Sorry for my stereotype of italiam americans but I think that I tried to make a point. And please don't poke fun at me...I will not like it.

 

As an African American, I am NOT offended by the way in which you expressed yourself above.  Why would I be?  I'm a little confused as to what your lunch choice has to do with our discussion, but I find nothing inherently offensive about how you express yourself.  Perhaps, Italian Americans would be offended, but as a non-Italian, I'm totally fine with it.

 

And interestingly, I don't feel the need to respond in kind either.  I'm not even tempted to mock your Italianisms.  Just as when I'm speaking with, say, a Chinese American with a distinct accent, I don't feel the need to mock his manner of speaking.  Nor am I offended that he does not speak English exactly as I do.  So I'm really missing your point.

[Hestia]

Time to close.