• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Racial Double Standard for Student Writer?

Tony

Penultimate Amazing
Tony
Joined
Mar 5, 2003
Messages
15,410
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,118048,00.html ...full article


COVALIS, Oregon — Barred from writing columns for the Oregon State University Daily Barometer, senior David Williams is in the eye of a storm some call a racial double standard.

The newspaper's editor fired him after he wrote: "I think blacks should be more careful in deciding whom they choose to support. They need to grow beyond the automatic reaction of defending someone because he or she shares the same skin color and is in a dilemma."
Click to expand...


Black leaders on campus disagreed with Williams' firing but admit they protested against the article and didn't take the same action for Pitts because of their different races.
Click to expand...

Why is racism like this allowed to continue? Ohh yeah, "minorities" are allowed to be racist.
 
"I think blacks should be more careful in deciding whom they choose to support. They need to grow beyond the automatic reaction of defending someone because he or she shares the same skin color and is in a dilemma."
Click to expand...

I say good for Oregon State. How patronizing, how insulting, and lets not forget, how untrue, as proven by the overwhelming majority of black Democratcs who voted against Al Sharpton.
 
Re: Re: Racial Double Standard for Student Writer?

Major Billy said:


I say good for Oregon State.
Click to expand...

Do you normally support censorship and racism? And how is this guy anymore "insulting" than Pitts who wrote the same thing?
 
This is intolerable. Dark-skinned minorities and their sycophant, effeminate, white-liberal co-conpsirators are repressing us just like our Southern brothers predicted!

"I think blacks should be more careful in deciding whom they choose to support. They need to grow beyond the automatic reaction of defending someone because he or she shares the same skin color and is in a dilemma."
Click to expand...

That's not the least bit patronizing.

"I think blacks should be more careful in deciding what they choose to eat. They need to grow beyond their automatic, frothing, Pavlovian reaction toward fried chicken and pork ribs."
 
Cain said:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I think blacks should be more careful in deciding whom they choose to support. They need to grow beyond the automatic reaction of defending someone because he or she shares the same skin color and is in a dilemma."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to expand...

Patronizing perhaps, but otherwise it sounds like reasonable advice.
 
...and the point wasn;t necessarily the partonizing or non-patronizing tone of the piece. The selective outrage against the words of a white writer, but not against almost identical words from a black writer is the height of racism. And rank hypocrisy.
 
crackmonkey said:
...and the point wasn;t necessarily the partonizing or non-patronizing tone of the piece. The selective outrage against the words of a white writer, but not against almost identical words from a black writer is the height of racism. And rank hypocrisy.
Click to expand...
Thank you.
 
Tony said:
Why is racism like this allowed to continue? Ohh yeah, "minorities" are allowed to be racist.
Click to expand...

To be fair, go see Barbershop. Great movie, with a substantially similar statement. And, of course, it got attacked.

In this case, I don't think that it's so much the minorities' being racist as it is the editor being racist as part of an assumed proxy (which, of course, is also racist) for minorities.
 
Its a sad thing that america's racial history with us not being able to talk about the majority thought or behavior of blacks in a constructive way without their being an inherent patronizination implicit in the remarks.

It seems if a white person wants to praise blacks collectively in america then this is fine and dandy. Whereas if you say that the majority of blacks rally around black celebrity criminals and this is bad, then you are racist and bad.

This just shows how much farther we must go in racial relations in america. Going beyond making it to where every minority has equal opportunity but to where we can discuss race related issues openly and honestly with each other.
 
Originally posted by Tony Black leaders on campus disagreed with Williams' firing but admit they protested against the article and didn't take the same action for Pitts because of their different races.
Click to expand...
Imagine this same sentence with the preference being given to a white writer. Anytime you see different treatment for different races for the same behavior, you have racism, pure and simple.
 
Cain said:
This is intolerable. Dark-skinned minorities and their sycophant, effeminate, white-liberal co-conpsirators are repressing us just like our Southern brothers predicted!

That's not the least bit patronizing.

"I think blacks should be more careful in deciding what they choose to eat. They need to grow beyond their automatic, frothing, Pavlovian reaction toward fried chicken and pork ribs."
Click to expand...

Dave Chapelle did a comedy sketch essentially saying the same thing (about black support of black celebrities. If he’s done one about food, I haven’t seen it yet) In the sketch, Chapelle plays a potential black juror being interviewed in the jury selection process by the prosecution for a variety of black celebrities. In each one, he swears up and down that he’s impartial, but believes the man innocent despite all kinds of evidence from DNA to video evidence of the person committing the crime.

Of course, being black, it’s okay for Chapelle to say such things. That’s the problem. One must be black to make any kind of criticism about black culture no matter how valid.

Should we be sensitive to racism? Absolutely, but we must also recognize that not every speech that addresses one ethnicity by a member of another ethnicity is racist, even if it’s critical. There is a line between social commentary and racism, and any environment that protects freedom of speech will allow that line to be crossed from time to time, but it will also, in time, clarify exactly where that line is and allow important issues to be addressed.
 
This phenomenon is not restricted to race. For example, I always think it is funny how America protects the rights of its citizens to burn the flag in protest (although admitted there are a lot of people against it, but it is still a protected right) but when someone in a foriegn country burns an American flag, all of America is up in arms.

It reminds me of the line from Animal House:

Otter: "They can't do that to our pledges."
Boone:"You're right. Only we can do that to our pledges."

This is pretty much the same thing. It is unfortunate, however, that blacks and whites are categorized as "we" and "they."
 
Originally posted by pgwenthold
This phenomenon is not restricted to race. For example, I always think it is funny how America protects the rights of its citizens to burn the flag in protest (although admitted there are a lot of people against it, but it is still a protected right) but when someone in a foriegn country burns an American flag, all of America is up in arms.
Click to expand...

When American flags are burned in foreign countries, it is not an issue of American rights to freedom of speech. Those rights do not extend beyond our borders.

Protecting the rights of an American citizen to burn a flag in the United States is protecting his right to express his opinions in that way, which is very different from agreeing with the speech he is making.

Reacting strongly to an American flag being burned in a foreign country is reacting to the message being delivered by that action.

Do you see the difference?
 
"I think blacks should be more careful in deciding whom they choose to support. They need to grow beyond the automatic reaction of defending someone because he or she shares the same skin color and is in a dilemma."



Is this reserved only for blacks?? Pleeze. Take the war for example. If a solider is accused of wrongdoings, doesnt the govt and americans period side with them right away.. Or how about when police are accused of wrongdoings. (Rodney King police trials ring a bell). Theres a whole mess of people who will refuse to believe or admit that a police officer would do any wrong.

As for backing soemone based on race, its a politcial tradition in America. Whos gonna win the race in the polish-american districts in Chicago? How man Irish Americans are in the Mass. State Govt???


That lady who killed her kids gets a "not guilty by insanity." Do you here about the "white jury letting the white lady off." Nope. But if she was black and ot was a mostly black jury, well then itd be a big topic. Same wh the TYCO hung jury.
 
Mycroft said:


When American flags are burned in foreign countries, it is not an issue of American rights to freedom of speech. Those rights do not extend beyond our borders.

Protecting the rights of an American citizen to burn a flag in the United States is protecting his right to express his opinions in that way, which is very different from agreeing with the speech he is making.

Reacting strongly to an American flag being burned in a foreign country is reacting to the message being delivered by that action.

Do you see the difference?
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Actually, the big difference between the two cases is going to be the interpreted mindset that originates the act. When it is an American burning a flag, it is an act of free expression with the goal of motivating positive change. When it is a foreigner, it is an act of agression demonstrating their hatred of our country.

As Americans, we can talk and debate all we want about ways to make our country better, even to the point of accepting very extreme views. OTOH, we get pretty pi$$y when some foreigner comes around and presumes to tell us to change. Good or bad, I don't know, but the point being that this phenomenon is not uncommon.

Do you see the similarity between this example and the case at hand?

As long as there is a "us" and "them," there are going to be things that "we" are allowed to do that "they" are not. The proper solution is to break down the barrier that creates the "us" and "them" in the first place.
 
pgwenthold said:
This phenomenon is not restricted to race. For example, I always think it is funny how America protects the rights of its citizens to burn the flag in protest (although admitted there are a lot of people against it, but it is still a protected right) but when someone in a foriegn country burns an American flag, all of America is up in arms.
Click to expand...
I don't think this argument works for a number of reasons.
  1. Many if not most Americans are in favor of preventing flag burning (I am not). That is why congress continues to pass laws.
  2. Many Americans are up in arms about people who burn the flag in the United States. Some want a law, some are just angry that others do it but support the right of the person who burns the flag.

    I for one am for protecting the freedom of anyone who would burn the flag. I would gladly march for their right to do so. I don't think much of their choice of protest and will say so, but I defend it none the less.
  3. The "up in arms" you talk about is not necassarily in reference to passing laws to prevent people in other countries from burning flags. People are simply offended and outraged. Hopefully they have the right to express their outrage at the behavior of others.
    [/list=1]
 
pgwenthold said:

As long as there is a "us" and "them," there are going to be things that "we" are allowed to do that "they" are not. The proper solution is to break down the barrier that creates the "us" and "them" in the first place.
Click to expand...

Yes, but anytime you are to talk about racial, ethnic or religious groups, the group has to be identifiable by some criteria. :)
 
RandFan said:
I don't think this argument works for a number of reasons.
Click to expand...

See my example about criticizing America as probably a better example of what I am talking about (the flag burning thing was basically just a way to use the "Only we can do that to our pledges" line, although I'll admit it is not perfect (mainly because of the opposition to flag burning within)).

Americans can debate what is best for America, but foreign input is not all that welcome. Republicans can debate the Republican party platform, but Democrat input is not welcome. It's the same whenever there are groups.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom