The sensitivity of language and people when describing race-related issues

[Inelia]

LS, I do not feel guilty, nor carry the shame of what my ancestors did. However, I do feel the response-ability to support the Mapuche in their work and struggle.

I wonder why the word "guilt" is allocated so freely to others? Do you feel I am guilty? I would not assume you did. But you did assume I did felt guilty, a mistake. - or did I missread you?

I would not assume why you are so charged about this particular issue, but in my experience, when that amount of charge comes up about something, there is a deeper issue to be looked at and addressed.

Totally agree with you that it is about MONEY. It has always been about money, land, gold, goods, property. That's the whole point, it is, and has been, a different set of priorities that has separated the colonialists (no matter what colour) to the natives.

And, going back to topic, moderators are about keeping the set of priorities in a particular area in place.

[yaksuit]

Posted by Whitehaze (here)
Race. In the beginning it was the human race, and in the end it was the human race. All these labels we keep applying to particular members of the human race needs to stop in order for the human race to move on. When we finally get THIS clue we are going to find that there is no color that seperates the true light that resides within us all.

Well said !!

"Human grace" is not far away.

cheers,
yak

[NancyV]

Here in the US there are a large percentage of black men in prison compared to other races. Many people feel that stating that more black men are in jail is a racist remark. It's a FACT, not a judgment. What the heck is the politically correct thing to do now?? Ignore everyone's race and color? Sorry, that's not going to happen. Race, color and gender are all distinct characteristics which make us unique. Ignoring these differences seems about as ridiculous to me as making the differences something to persecute people for.

So it wasn't all "white men" who killed off the native American Indians and Aborigines. I bet there were some blacks, Asians, Latin Americans and even some women who participated. But the majority were white men. Should we just say "humans killed other humans who were living in America".? That would not be very descriptive and would impart little detailed information, plus it might make ET's feel left out. Maybe some of them were involved too. Maybe we should say "some embodied souls on planet earth killed off some other embodied souls". Oops, then the disembodied souls might get pissed off.

Or we could get ridiculously detailed and say "Mostly White men along with some Blacks, Asians, a couple of Women, a few teenagers, an ET who walked into a white man's body and a rabid dog possessed by the ghost of the dread pirate Roberts killed off many Native American Indians, some of whom were half white, half black and half Asian who came about from interbreeding with some of their captives who were kept as slaves."

Originally Posted by Whitehaze
Race. In the beginning it was the human race, and in the end it was the human race. All these labels we keep applying to particular members of the human race needs to stop in order for the human race to move on. When we finally get THIS clue we are going to find that there is no color that seperates the true light that resides within us all.

Labels are only tools to describe things in more detail. They cannot be offensive unless someone wishes to reject the reality of the duality that we live in and pretend that our bodies are all the same. Sure, the light within those diverse bodies is the same, that doesn't negate the fact that the details differ.

[manny]

i bet if this converstion was in peron 1-1..
it would havebeen resolved in 5 minutes.
"i saw it this way"
"i meant it that way"
and it would have been properly discussed and resolved.
no harm intended,to either party.
you see when someone types something ,it can be read differently to what is meant.
taken out of context.

now we have two egos,at loggerheads.imo.
there is no winner or loser.
or agree to disagree.
and let it be.

hopefully i hope no one falls out over this.

you are both better than this.
and you both know it.

[Mad Hatter]

I AM often asked to talk at schools and almost always ask students three questions about a film that lies about the “stolen generations”.
First: “How many of you have been shown Rabbit-Proof Fence?”
Answer: every one.
Second: “Have you been shown the movie as a great piece of film-making, or as a history lesson?”
Answer: in every case as history. You know, like you learn America’s history from John Wayne movies.
And third: “How many of you have checked whether the film is actually true, by, say, reading the book on which it’s based?”
Answer: of thousands of students, just two have raised their hand.
And that alone is reason enough for me to agree with historian Keith Windschuttle, who this week called for Rabbit-Proof Fence to be banned from our schools for being “grossly inaccurate”.
Lies are being taught as truth, and until the teachers know the difference, it’s mischievous and damaging to so deceive young children about their country’s past.
Windschuttle examines the truthfulness of Rabbit-Proof Fence in the third volume of his ground-breaking series, The Fabrication of Aboriginal History, which this time dissects the myth of the “stolen generations”.
Readers of my own columns over the years will be familiar with the evidence he presents against this award-winning film by Phillip Noyce - a film made with $5.3 million of taxpayers’ money to convince hundreds of thousands of schoolchildren that their country is so racist it really did steal 100,000 children just because they were Aboriginal.
As I’ve demonstrated before, the very first words spoken in Noyce’s film are already a lie: “This is a true story.”
This “true story” is meant to be that of Molly Craig, then 14, and her two cousins - Daisy, 8, and Gracie, 11 - who were taken in 1931 from an Aboriginal camp at Jigalong, in Western Australia’s north, and sent to a school at the Moore River Native Settlement, 2000km south, from which they escaped to trek all the way home again.
The film purports to show how the girls were stolen from loving parents by racist whites in a genocide that Noyce’s publicity material claimed was “more cruel than could ever be imagined”.
Yet when Craig was shown this “true story” at a special screening in her bush camp seven years ago, she protested: “That’s not my story.”
She was right. It isn’t.
Anyone can check that for themselves simply by reading the book which inspired it - Beyond the Rabbit-Proof Fence, written by Craig’s own daughter - even if they can’t be bothered tracking down the case documents.
Take the very first scenes of the film, which portray Jigalong as an Eden in the Pilbara - a neat bush camp, where all are clean and well-fed, and in which Craig plays happily with other children.
The truth? Pilkington wrote that her mother in fact often played alone as a child because the full-blood children told her she was “like a mongrel dog”, being neither Aboriginal nor white.
The white superintendent of the depot was worried enough to write to the state’s Chief Protector of Aborigines, A. O. Neville, that both Craig and her cousin Gracie “were not getting a fair chance as the blacks consider the H/Cs (half castes) inferior to them”. In other camps, such children were killed at birth.
That, and the absence of any father to protect her, were not the only factors that made the camp no place to raise a child such as Craig. There was also no school, no hospital and no welfare, other than the rations.
Even now, in this richer welfare era, Aboriginal bush settlements can shock those who know nothing of them. When Pilkington returned to her mother’s camp 30 years after being rescued herself, even she was shaken.
“No one prepared me for the conditions that people lived under,” she told ABC radio in 1999. “It was shocking. I hadn’t seen so many dogs in my life. It was just tin humpies and people just slept anywhere.”
So why was 14-year-old Craig removed from Jigalong?

You’d think the answer obvious. But the film instead shows Chief Protector Neville stealing Craig and her cousins simply because he’s a racist with a plan to steal half-caste children from their parents to “breed out the Aborigine”.
Neville, whose late son vehemently protested against this portrait of his respected father, is shown wickedly brooding that the youngest of the girls, eight-year-old Daisy, is promised in marriage to a “full-blood”.
How monstrous, the film suggests, that a white official should object to a fatherless eight-year-old girl being married off to a grown Aboriginal man. How racist.
In this, the film is not just morally blind - the girl is just eight, for God’s sake - but deceitful.
The truth is that Neville did not take these three girls under some blanket policy to steal all half-caste children. Indeed, Windschuttle says he removed only one other child in 1931 from all camps in Western Australia.
And as I’ve reported, Neville told the 1936 Moseley Royal Commission into the treatment of Aborigines: “The children who have been removed as wards of the Chief Protector have been removed because I desired to be satisfied that the conditions surrounding their upbringing were satisfactory, which they certainly were not ... “
What concerned Neville was their welfare - which is precisely what concerns us still about such children, and has us remove more today than Neville ever did.
It wasn’t just that Neville had been told Craig and Gracie were being ostracised. A Mrs Chellow from Murra Munda station warned him the girls were in danger of sexual abuse as well: “I think you should see about them, as they are running wild with the whites.”
This was enough for Neville, who ordered they be rescued and given an education. A future.
But Rabbit-Proof Fence piles on invention after baroque invention to make that decision seem wantonly evil .
In what Noyce calls the scene that “tells the whole story”, a policeman roars up to the girls in a car, leaping out to yank Craig from the arms of her screaming mother.
Pure fiction. Pilkington writes that the policeman actually rode on horseback to Craig’s “stepfather” to say he must remove the girls, and “the old man nodded”.
The policeman then rode calmly out, leading a second horse carrying the girls.
Almost every allegation in the film of the cruelty these girls then endured is likewise invented.

No, they weren’t transported in a dog-box, tossed on the back of a truck, or awoken each dawn at Moore River by a clubbing of the walls.
No, they weren’t forced to wear prison-style sacks, either. In fact, when Craig fled, her daughter says she wore “two dresses, two pairs of calico bloomers and a coat”.
But none of that matches the gravity of the central deceit of this “true story” - that it was a racist crime to rescue these girls.
What makes that deceit even more unforgivable is that Noyce is a hypocrite. He damns Neville for doing no more than he’d have done himself.

How do I know? Because Noyce “stole” his lead actor, 11-year-old Everlyn Sampi, much as Neville stole Craig, and for exactly the same reasons.
He didn’t merely pluck her from a bush town and offer her a bright future, or twice physically stop her from running away. He also knew Sampi had wagged school, and he fretted over her precocious behaviour, saying it was “odd” that she’d once asked him for something, adding: “If you do that, I will give you a kiss on the lips.”
He said this was one of the things that “makes you want to protect her, adopt her” - which is why after the shooting he sent Sampi to a boarding school near Perth.
But just like Craig, Sampi fled that school, and the last time I caught up with her she was in a remote bush town, promising to one day go to the local school.
Noyce, to his credit, did once concede to a documentary maker that what he’d done for Sampi was little different to what Neville had done for Craig, for which he’d been so vilified by Noyce’s film.
“I suppose in one way you could say that in a different context, in a different time, I’m an A. O. Neville, promising these young Aboriginal children a better life, asking them to do things that are against their instincts, perhaps because it’s for their own good ... “
Only then did I hear Noyce speak the truth about our past.
And only then did I know that, like Neville, his heart was true, even though his film was false.

Source http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/a...ewbolt%2F#1650

[starsmoonmtns]

Posted by NancyV (here)
Here in the US there are a large percentage of black men in prison compared to other races. Many people feel that stating that more black men are in jail is a racist remark. It's a FACT, not a judgment. What the heck is the politically correct thing to do now?? Ignore everyone's race and color? Sorry, that's not going to happen. Race, color and gender are all distinct characteristics which make us unique. Ignoring these differences seems about as ridiculous to me as making the differences something to persecute people for.

So it wasn't all "white men" who killed off the native American Indians and Aborigines. I bet there were some blacks, Asians, Latin Americans and even some women who participated. But the majority were white men. Should we just say "humans killed other humans who were living in America".? That would not be very descriptive and would impart little detailed information, plus it might make ET's feel left out. Maybe some of them were involved too. Maybe we should say "some embodied souls on planet earth killed off some other embodied souls". Oops, then the disembodied souls might get pissed off.

Or we could get ridiculously detailed and say "Mostly White men along with some Blacks, Asians, a couple of Women, a few teenagers, an ET who walked into a white man's body and a rabid dog possessed by the ghost of the dread pirate Roberts killed off many Native American Indians, some of whom were half white, half black and half Asian who came about from interbreeding with some of their captives who were kept as slaves."

Originally Posted by Whitehaze
Race. In the beginning it was the human race, and in the end it was the human race. All these labels we keep applying to particular members of the human race needs to stop in order for the human race to move on. When we finally get THIS clue we are going to find that there is no color that seperates the true light that resides within us all.

Labels are only tools to describe things in more detail. They cannot be offensive unless someone wishes to reject the reality of the duality that we live in and pretend that our bodies are all the same. Sure, the light within those diverse bodies is the same, that doesn't negate the fact that the details differ.

Thanks for your reply NancyV,,, truth is that you can also include indigenous peoples killed/betrayed/stole women too.
The wars were not only instigated by white man.... that is my point.

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Posted by Seikou-Kishi (here)

Posted by starsmoonmtns (here)

Posted by Seikou-Kishi (here)

Posted by starsmoonmtns (here)

Posted by Seikou-Kishi (here)
I am sick to the back teeth of the petulant complaints about members leaving, being banned or suspended from the forum. This forum's moderators and administrators have a heavy duty upon them to ensure that the forum is a healthy and focused place in which to discuss its very important topics — if that means they lose your favour, so be it; they have greater considerations.

You're all so quick to say how awful the 'censorship' is here at Avalon as soon as somebody objects to the way in which you tear it down in your posts, but Avalon is, as has so often been mentioned, not a free house or a free-for-all. This is Bill's forum and we are here in his house to share our experiences and our thoughts. If you do not like Bill or his house rules, stop bitching about them both and leave.

I can say it not more directly: if you dislike how Avalon is run, leave.

It really should show you that there is no censorship here at Avalon when you can berate it endlessly and with impunity. If you still think there's censorship here, though, you owe it to yourself to leave, and you owe it to us to leave us in peace.

I have never said anything about censorship, IMHO this entire thread should never have been produced.... move on if that's how you feel.

I have not pointed fingers at particular people in my post, so if you feel you have been unfairly marked out you must have misunderstood. Indeed, your entire post demonstrates a regrettable lack of perspicacity. "Move on if that's how you feel". Your point has already been dealt with. I can only assume you haven't read the thread or you would have seen that it has been dealt with not once already but twice.

You keep saying 'move on if u don't like it' but your still here.....
WTF?

You no, I really couldn't appreciate your point until you made it so coarsely.
It is one thing to say "if you do not like this place, move on" and quite another to say "if you do not like how some people treat this place, move on."

Take it as u wish... I think the whole 'story' has been told a million times, and each time differently....
no need to offend. ; )

[Lord Sidious]

Posted by Nasu (here)

Iv'e re-read Bills post, trying really hard to take him the wrong way, but cannot. He was merely stating what we all know, nature and the "wilderness" in particular, in the greatest part, has been tamed or is controlled by man.

He simply used Australia as an example. He could have pointed his burning messianic finger of accusation at any one of us, or indeed any country or race. I'm just glad he didn't point it at me, don't get me started on what my ancestors got up to, I don't feel It would do much good to apologize now. but two points the Sith has..

Firstly, we can reflect on what our ancestors did, perhaps learn from it, or perhaps choose to incorporate it into our lives, bring it with us if you like, or we choose to accept what was, what is and what we cannot change and instead, focus on what we can. There need be no guilt, only the guilty need feel guilty. Our actions have ripples, but outside of that, it is not our preview, accept it, let it be and get on with making things better.

Secondly, if Bill gets a chance to read all this, I hope he apologizes to the dark lord, for the misunderstanding. Life is too short. We are all equally non guilty and guilty by association, it is wrong to single out the herd. Our words are very linear without our expressions and presence, it is all too easy to come across wrong. I think bill should forgive him, have compassion for his quick temper, it gives him strength, it is, after all, only in his nature and nurture to view things through the limited kaleidoscope of the dark side.

PS: Sid, your own words twisted out of context and used as ammunition against you: "Everyone makes mistakes, me, you, Bill, all of us."

PPS: I too agree with the sentiment of Seikou Kishi's first post. Lets move on and be the change.

Peace, Calm, Unity, Love…. N

Bill didn't say men, he specifically said white men.
If I said to you that the ku klux klan was justified in hanging black men for raping white women, would that be acceptable, even if I could prove that is what happened?
No, because not all black men have done that.
Why is it acceptable for Bill to use the same thing to slander me, my family and all whites here with something that has happened to the flora and fauna, then when challenged, turn it into what was done to the aborigines?
AND he doesn't even know why it was done, that is obvious.
That was not a very nice thing for him to do, switch one for the other.
I wouldn't insult anyone here by claiming that I don't make mistakes, but I also wouldn't think that anyone here would think Bill doesn't either.

Posted by Inelia (here)
LS, I do not feel guilty, nor carry the shame of what my ancestors did. However, I do feel the response-ability to support the Mapuche in their work and struggle.

I wonder why the word "guilt" is allocated so freely to others? Do you feel I am guilty? I would not assume you did. But you did assume I did felt guilty, a mistake. - or did I missread you?

I would not assume why you are so charged about this particular issue, but in my experience, when that amount of charge comes up about something, there is a deeper issue to be looked at and addressed.

Totally agree with you that it is about MONEY. It has always been about money, land, gold, goods, property. That's the whole point, it is, and has been, a different set of priorities that has separated the colonialists (no matter what colour) to the natives.

And, going back to topic, moderators are about keeping the set of priorities in a particular area in place.

Good, I am glad that you don't feel guilt for those things.
I agree about the responsibilty to help, that shouldn't even be questionable, at least as far as I can see.
The reason I used the word guilt is look at the two posts of Bills that started this.
First one is about what the whites have done to the flora here, the second one is about what we did to the aborigines.
If that isn't about guilt, what is it about? Finger pointing is usually some type of allegation, no?
The reason I reacted like I did is that I don't appreciate a) racist statements like the one Bill made and b) a different standard for him and others.
He says that you have been slandered on nexus and demanded apologies and stuff, yet won't live up to that same standard when he did it to me and mine?
I am carrying this on for all to learn the lesson, me included of what we can get out of this that is positive to move on, so that we don't go round and round and round till doomsday.
That isn't why we are on earth, we are here to progress.

Posted by yaksuit (here)

Posted by Whitehaze (here)
Race. In the beginning it was the human race, and in the end it was the human race. All these labels we keep applying to particular members of the human race needs to stop in order for the human race to move on. When we finally get THIS clue we are going to find that there is no color that seperates the true light that resides within us all.

Well said !!

"Human grace" is not far away.

cheers,
yak

Excellent, another one gets it.

Posted by manny (here)
i bet if this converstion was in peron 1-1..
it would havebeen resolved in 5 minutes.
"i saw it this way"
"i meant it that way"
and it would have been properly discussed and resolved.
no harm intended,to either party.
you see when someone types something ,it can be read differently to what is meant.
taken out of context.

now we have two egos,at loggerheads.imo.
there is no winner or loser.
or agree to disagree.
and let it be.

hopefully i hope no one falls out over this.

you are both better than this.
and you both know it.

Yeah, this could have been resolved in real life quick, but that is the net for ya.
First off, thanks for caring enough to say that you hope no one falls out.
Why would that happen? This isn't me vs Bill, although it may look like it.
All I want is an apology, same as he wants from nexus members and for all of us to learn the lessons of this incident and move on.
Not alone, move on together.
There is no reason for anyone to fall out over this, that is the OLD thinking.
If we are going to help heal the world, the old thinking has to go, no?

[g.k.r]

maybe we should just state the powers that be did all the bad things, which is true anyway,,

think the aboriginies would use the term that bill said probs why he put it too

[mondaze]

accept no-one elses guilt! it's all metonym thinking! Just say no to all labels, their game is to do things in our name and then blame us... it's how they keep this whole sorry charade on the road. We, the ordinary Joes, buy into race,nation, creed and associate ourselves with the history of each... but we had absolutely no influence on that history so how are we culpable or victorious? it's all bs...

[Lord Sidious]

Posted by g.k.r (here)
maybe we should just state the powers that be did all the bad things, which is true anyway,,

Now you are getting there.
And you know what?
They invented racism.
Guess what for?
Read the thread after Bill's post.
Then you will get an idea of why I am not letting it go.
I know them and their tactics, that is why I am effective at beating them.
I would like for you guys to have the advantage of my experience and not have to go through all the stuff I did to learn the hard way.
For all you here, remember the first times I threatened any of you with carrots.
What do you think I was doing?
What do you think I am doing now?
Nuggets, the lot of you.
Not far to go now, calm down.
We are all nearly there.

Posted by mondaze (here)
accept no-one elses guilt! it's all metonym thinking! Just say no to all labels, their game is to do things in our name and then blame us... it's how they keep this whole sorry charade on the road. We, the ordinary Joes, buy into race,nation, creed and associate ourselves with the history of each... but we had absolutely no influence on that history so how are we culpable or victorious? it's all bs...

YAY!
Another one is on the same wavelength.

[DevilPigeon]

Posted by Lord Sidious (here)

Posted by g.k.r (here)
maybe we should just state the powers that be did all the bad things, which is true anyway,,

Now you are getting there.
And you know what?
They invented racism.
Guess what for?
Read the thread after Bill's post.
Then you will get an idea of why I am not letting it go.
I know them and their tactics, that is why I am effective at beating them.
I would like for you guys to have the advantage of my experience and not have to go through all the stuff I did to learn the hard way.
For all you here, remember the first times I threatened any of you with carrots.
What do you think I was doing?
What do you think I am doing now?
Nuggets, the lot of you.
Not far to go now, calm down.
We are all nearly there.

Divide and conquer. Same with religion.

[Lord Sidious]

Posted by DevilPigeon (here)

Posted by Lord Sidious (here)

Posted by g.k.r (here)
maybe we should just state the powers that be did all the bad things, which is true anyway,,

Now you are getting there.
And you know what?
They invented racism.
Guess what for?
Read the thread after Bill's post.
Then you will get an idea of why I am not letting it go.
I know them and their tactics, that is why I am effective at beating them.
I would like for you guys to have the advantage of my experience and not have to go through all the stuff I did to learn the hard way.
For all you here, remember the first times I threatened any of you with carrots.
What do you think I was doing?
What do you think I am doing now?
Nuggets, the lot of you.
Not far to go now, calm down.
We are all nearly there.

Divide and conquer. Same with religion.

Good man.
Thanks for that.
No carrots for you.
Even if you really are a devilpigeon.

You guys gotta stop all this nuggetry, I can't make you all attack me and then help you all heal every few months.

[Mad Hatter]

Well I would like to apoligise for allowing my ego of the leash yet again. I do hope it has not done any harm...
Thank you Bill and Avalon for yet another extraordinary evening.

Mad Hatter dons his nigh cap and passes out...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Seikou-Kishi]

Let the sun shine, Let the sun shine in
The sun shine in

//repeat and fade to finish//

Lol

[Dorok]

I think the point is very simple. Blaming something on 'white men' is the equivalent of associating the guilt with the race rather than the individuals. 'White' is an unnecessary modifier unless the point being made is to associate that detail to the blame. It's a bit pedantic, but nonetheless an important distinction to be able to make.

[SKIBADABOMSKI]

[DeDukshyn]

Posted by Lord Sidious (here)
...
Bill didn't say men, he specifically said white men.
If I said to you that the ku klux klan was justified in hanging black men for raping white women, would that be acceptable, even if I could prove that is what happened?

With all due respect your Sithness, There is one hugely glaring difference between your example and Bill's remark which is the reason why I don't find Bill's statement racist (even with the "white" reference). The reason is Bill was justifying nothing - just reporting.

"If I said to you that the ku klux klan was justified..." -- Your example. I can't find any similar justifications in Bill's statement.
At what point should our descriptions of things be watered down so as not to be seen as "racist" by those who are slap-happy with labels?

I'm white as white can be, and my people did all kinds of nasty stuff to native americans here ... white people did it and I don't care who says it, because it is true.

Reminds me of a Russel Peter's skit ... (language warning)

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=LlKKkXQGrMQ

[Amer]

Are we afraid of real dialogue? Have we become obsessed with being so politically correct that we’re afraid to put a foot wrong? It is wonderful to talk about loving one another, ascending, creating peace , harmony and fantastic vibrations- believe me I’m first there in line!But friends there’s really nothing wrong with passionately and intelligently voicing your opinion. It’s healthy as long as it is in the true pursuit of knowledgeand with respect. Sometimes we overstep ourselves in the process but those big enough in spirit come back and say hey I’m sorry if I was a bit over the top and disrespectful.

I have learnt so much from the exchange between Lord Sid and Bill- haven’t a lot of you as well? I’m not going to comment because I have to think about it but I want to say thank you to Lord Sid and Bill for their passion. Thank you Sid (may I call you Sid ?!) for his capability of putting himself across in a way that is not at all offensive . From what I have seen of him he is the first to apologise if he genuinely feels he’s overstepped the mark.But he had courage to play out his thought and confront someone, in this case Bill, on their point of view and to dispute it. It will be up to them what resolution they will find. I can understand Bill may be aghast at the thought of his name being linked to a racial comment - and at the same time I understand that Sid is calling us all out here to think about the words we use for others and the stereotypes ingrained within us.( also unknowingly )

To Seikou-Kishi this exchange goes to demonstrate what I was trying to say to Paul in the thread “another member gone”- again I was not bitching- I was disputing his idea of using the word “impugn” in relation to banning Chicodoodoo because the written word leaves its mark. And so he leaves the idea attached to Chicodoodoo of attacking members. Instead a healthy debate could have been opened like what is happening here. ( why the heck are you not banned already Sid?!!)
The brain does not recognize the command “do not” - Do not think about pink monkeys- your brain will automatically try to visualize them! Sweeping stuff under the carpet/refusing to engage will come back to bite the proverbial bum

I’m off to think about Sid’s and Bill’s points ofview. Time for this Irish girl laden down with historical stereotyping to put the kettle on.

[Lord Sidious]

Posted by DeDukshyn (here)

Posted by Lord Sidious (here)
...
Bill didn't say men, he specifically said white men.
If I said to you that the ku klux klan was justified in hanging black men for raping white women, would that be acceptable, even if I could prove that is what happened?

With all due respect your Sithness, There is one hugely glaring difference between your example and Bill's remark which is the reason why I don't find Bill's statement racist (even with the "white" reference). The reason is Bill was justifying nothing - just reporting.

"If I said to you that the ku klux klan was justified..." -- Your example. I can't find any similar justifications in Bill's statement.
At what point should our descriptions of things be watered down so as not to be seen as "racist" by those who are slap-happy with labels?

I'm white as white can be, and my people did all kinds of nasty stuff to native americans here ... white people did it and I don't care who says it, because it is true.

Reminds me of a Russel Peter's skit ... (language warning)

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=LlKKkXQGrMQ

Your point is valid, Bill didn't SAY it was justified, this is true.
I was using that as an example and you proved my point.
When do we learn, remember WHO we are and move on?
Are you going to help stop the madness?

Posted by Amer (here)
Are we afraid of real dialogue? Have we become obsessed with being so politically correct that we’re afraid to put a foot wrong? It is wonderful to talk about loving one another, ascending, creating peace , harmony and fantastic vibrations- believe me I’m first there in line!But friends there’s really nothing wrong with passionately and intelligently voicing your opinion. It’s healthy as long as it is in the true pursuit of knowledgeand with respect. Sometimes we overstep ourselves in the process but those big enough in spirit come back and say hey I’m sorry if I was a bit over the top and disrespectful.

I have learnt so much from the exchange between Lord Sid and Bill- haven’t a lot of you as well? I’m not going to comment because I have to think about it but I want to say thank you to Lord Sid and Bill for their passion. Thank you Sid (may I call you Sid ?!) for his capability of putting himself across in a way that is not at all offensive . From what I have seen of him he is the first to apologise if he genuinely feels he’s overstepped the mark.But he had courage to play out his thought and confront someone, in this case Bill, on their point of view and to dispute it. It will be up to them what resolution they will find. I can understand Bill may be aghast at the thought of his name being linked to a racial comment - and at the same time I understand that Sid is calling us all out here to think about the words we use for others and the stereotypes ingrained within us.( also unknowingly )

To Seikou-Kishi this exchange goes to demonstrate what I was trying to say to Paul in the thread “another member gone”- again I was not bitching- I was disputing his idea of using the word “impugn” in relation to banning Chicodoodoo because the written word leaves its mark. And so he leaves the idea attached to Chicodoodoo of attacking members. Instead a healthy debate could have been opened like what is happening here. ( why the heck are you not banned already Sid?!!)
The brain does not recognize the command “do not” - Do not think about pink monkeys- your brain will automatically try to visualize them! Sweeping stuff under the carpet/refusing to engage will come back to bite the proverbial bum

I’m off to think about Sid’s and Bill’s points ofview. Time for this Irish girl laden down with historical stereotyping to put the kettle on.

Thanks for your observations and for thinking about what I mean.
Call me Rob, that is the name I was given to use in this life.

[Lettherebelight]

I understand. LS was referring to the reference made to an entire race, in an atomosphere which is currently focussed on 'ascension' of such bodily designations.

Take out the word 'white', then everything is alwight...right?

I think Morgan says it a little better than I can...

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=GeixtYS-P3s

But the initial statement was made in response to whether or not moderators are necessary in the natural world.

In answer... Yes they are there, but you can't see them with your eyeballs.