NY and WH discriminate against blind people?

[kokonut]

perhaps you need a memory refreshment. the first post of your OWN thread -

I asked a question, are people discriminating against Paterson because he's blind?

Your point...?

 

[Jiro]

They don't work for me, either, but I see it as a necesarry step to help bring closure. It's almost akin to the idea that since I'm not related to Germany nor do I live there or have a German ancestry background that I can step back and say the same thing about Germany's atrocities and be neutral to the idea of whether an apology would be needed back in 2000 when an apology did happen. But that took Germany 55 years to do it. For Democrats, it is so far 150 years plus and ongoing for not apologizing.

you can make another thread about it. It is completely unrelated to this thread. Again - take your own advice - "If you have a complaint about this, I suggest you take it up to them. Don't take your complaints up to me."

 

[Jiro]

I asked a question, are people discriminating against Paterson because he's blind?

Your point...?

ah finally! a question pertinent to this thread. I've already answered that question - see my post #21, 22, and 23.

 

[dreama]

I get accused of acting sighted, but usually the accusation is from other sighted people who know nothing about blindness. From what I've observed, there's not too much pressure in the blind community at large to "act blind." But if we're looking at some subcultures, like the NFB, then it's a whole different story. So I guess we have our own version too.

I'm on a few NFB websites. They don't have a 'blind culture' in the way the deaf people do.

Actually I find that people from NFB have more open views. Some blind people seem to resent people with some vision. Getting guide dogs. When to me the issue of vision is not important. It's more important how you treat your dog.

 

[somedeafdudefromPNW]

They don't work for me, either, but I see it as a necesarry step to help bring closure. It's almost akin to the idea that since I'm not related to Germany nor do I live there or have a German ancestry background that I can step back and say the same thing about Germany's atrocities and be neutral to the idea of whether an apology would be needed back in 2000 when an apology did happen. But that took Germany 55 years to do it. For Democrats, it is so far 150 years plus and ongoing for not apologizing.

That's because Germany was bombarded by the international community to do that... including Israel.

Canada still hasn't apologized for their brutal treatments of First Nations and Inuits. They only apologized to the Japanese-Canadians for interment camps because Japan pressured our Prime Minister to do that.

The Democrats or Republicans are not facing that international pressure.

 

[dreama]

It is a lot harder to do it just like that..it takes time. Sometimes, depending on my mood, I let the labels get to me but then I have to remind myself that whoever is assigning these labels arent important people in my life and not react.

It's best to do that. When they used to call me 'froggie' at school because I was half french and the kids were very open about not liking french people while I was growing up. Anyway I was really upset about it, but mom just told me to laugh it off.

 

[Jiro]

It's best to do that. When they used to call me 'froggie' at school because I was half french and the kids were very open about not liking french people while I was growing up. Anyway I was really upset about it, but mom just told me to laugh it off.

froggie? lol for one moment there, I thought you're referring to frogmen

 

[somedeafdudefromPNW]

It's best to do that. When they used to call me 'froggie' at school because I was half french and the kids were very open about not liking french people while I was growing up. Anyway I was really upset about it, but mom just told me to laugh it off.

Yikes. I am not sure if being called "froggie" or "Pepsi" is better...

We call all Quebecois and Francophones "Pepsi" in western Canada.... because Pepsi kinda has a franchise hold in Quebec.

Stupid discrimination based on languages.

 

[kokonut]

A party? What about those individuals? Maybe the better question would be is "Why would those individuals carry that kind of baggage and deny it?"

I mean that there are Democrat Senators who were around the 50s - 70s are still here today. They've been through that and chances are they harbored the same racist attitudes of their colleagues of the day back then. You have had JFK, LBJ, JC, BC as well who also went through that period. But none of them offered any apologies for what Democrats have done in the past from the 1800s to 1900s, and even today like what Barbara Boxer tried to do in such a condescending way in her treatment to Harry Alford. Did she apologized afterwards? Nope! In using Jillio's logic in this example when Sen. Boxer kept saying how she "loves black people" etc. etc... wouldn't that be a sign of "covert racism?" (standing up as I make these big air quotes).

According to Jillio, she'd have the marking as a full blown racist Senator that momentarily came out that day with Harry Alford, president of the Black Chamber of Commerce. How come no apologies then when Harry felt insulted by her condescending comments to him?

SEN. BARBARA BOXER, D-CALIF.: We will quote John Grant, who is the CEO of 100 Black Men of Atlanta: "Clean energy is the key that will unlock millions of jobs, and the NAACP's support is vital to ensuring that those jobs help to rebuild urban areas." So clearly, there is a diversity of...

(CROSSTALK)

HARRY ALFORD, PRESIDENT, BLACK CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: Madam Chair, that is condescending to me.

BOXER: Well...

(CROSSTALK)

ALFORD: I'm the National Black Chamber of Commerce, and you are trying to put up some other black group to pit against me.

BOXER: If this gentleman were here, he would be proud that he was being quoted.

ALFORD: He should have been invited.

BOXER: Just as he would be proud...

ALFORD: It is condescending to me...

BOXER: Just so you know, he would be proud that you were here. He's proud, I'm sure…

ALFORD: Proud.

BOXER: …that I am quoting him.

ALFORD: All of that's condescending and I don't like it. It's racial. I don't like it.

BOXER: Excuse me.

ALFORD: I take offense to it.

BOXER: OK.

ALFORD: As an African-American and a veteran of this country, I take offense to that.

BOXER: Offense at the fact that I would quote...

ALFORD: You're quoting some other black man. Why don't you quote some other Asian or some...

BOXER: No.

ALFORD: I mean, you are being racial here.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

O'REILLY: All right. Now Senator Boxer would not appear, but joining us from Washington is Harry Alford. Before we get to the racial aspect of this, why do you object to the climate industry that President Obama is — wants to build and Senator Boxer supports? Why do you object to it?

HARRY ALFORD, PRESIDENT, BLACK CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: Well, certainly I want a good clean climate for the globe, but we want and the Natural Black Chamber of Commerce has been espousing, an energy policy that will make the United States self-sufficient, self-sufficient for its energy needs and also to deliver energy to American families and businesses at an affordable rate, at the same time, help clean up the environment and keep our position economically in the world.

O'REILLY: All right, but they say cap-and-trade and all the green windmill stuff and all the stuff that they want to do will create more jobs, will help all Americans, including African-Americans, and you seem to object to their point of view.

ALFORD: Well, we got the Charles Rivers Associates group to do a study for us. They're a very reputable group. It showed in the end if this cap-and-trade hustle were to be delivered to the American people, in the end, we would have 2.3 million less jobs than we do now. It does not make sense to have less jobs, higher cost of energy still the world is in the same predicament carbon-emission wise.

O'REILLY: All right, so your position kind of mirrors my position. It's interesting. Now, you are not an ideological group, the Chamber of Commerce, right? I mean, you're just a business group.

ALFORD: Nonpartisan, not for profit. We espouse capitalism and entrepreneurship.

O'REILLY: OK. So now you're presenting your objection, which I think is absolutely valid objection, to the cap-and-trade. You call it a hustle; I call it cap-and-con. So we're pretty much on the same page. And Boxer, in order to debate you, puts up the NAACP, a liberal group, who thinks that cap and trade and the other green industries is just terrific. Now, you say that's a racial deal. Explain that further.

ALFORD: Well, first of all, the NAACP had a resolution saying they're for a better environment. I'm for a better environment; I'm sure Bill O'Reilly's for a better environment.

O'REILLY: Absolutely.

ALFORD: It did not address cap-and-trade. It did not address the Waxman-Markey bill. And her, with her usual embellishments, that's trying to make this seem like it was something supporting the Waxman-Markey bill, it was not. But, that's her MO...

O'REILLY: So, that's a general statement by the NAACP. But, you seem to object to the fact that she was pointing out a black group was counter-mannering your Black group. You didn't like that.

ALFORD: It was pure race. It was like down there in Mississippi, back in the bad old days, when one Black preacher would rise up against the big boss, he'd go find another black preach to fight against that black preacher. Yeah, it is — it was ugly. And she jumped — she opened up a pit, a mud pit that I wasn't going to jump into.

O'REILLY: Well, you shocked her. You stunned her with that analysis, and she had no answer to it. She kept saying: he would be proud. I mean, it was almost comical. You stunned her, because I don't think, Mr. Alford, and maybe you see it differently, I don't think Ms. Boxer had any intent to bring racism into the debate, she just wanted to win the argument and said well, look, I'll use the NAACP, I'll take it out of context to throw the guy off his game. I think that's what she was doing.

ALFORD: Actually, Bill, I think it's her persona. I don't think she can help herself. When she gets caught up in a rut like that or against the wall, race comes out. She's — the brainchild of Anita Hill attacking Clarence Thomas was Barbara Boxer. You go back to the election 2004 and all of that garbage against Ken Blackwell, secretary of state of Ohio, saying he rigged the election, that was Barbara Boxer.

O'REILLY: OK, but she would say, Mr. Alford, I love black people. I love black people. I want the best for — I'm a liberal, I want the best for black people. Now, the two people that you mentioned, Judge Thomas and Mr. Blackwell, are conservatives. Now, she will attack conservatives using any and all methods, as any liberals will do. But, if you've got Barbara Boxer, she would go: I love black people. I'll vote for everything that will help them, affirmative action on down the line. So, I think — I don't think she feels that it's a racial argument, it's an ideological argument. If you oppose her views, then we'll come get you, but it doesn't have anything to do with race.

ALFORD: She loves poor black folks and she loves black folks in their place. She does not love — you take Condoleezza Rice, who I would love my grandchildren to emulate and the way she treated Condoleezza Rice during her confirmation hearings was just terrible.

O'REILLY: Again, a conservative woman, you know. I get what you are saying.

ALFORD: Professional.

O'REILLY: I get what you are saying. I think Boxer has it out for anybody who's in the right. Now, after you took her down, and you did, Mr. Alford, what kind of reaction did you get?

ALFORD: Well, I have got a great fan club now. A lot of people don't like her. I've gotten about 7,500 emails and 98 percent are cheering me on. I think...

O'REILLY: After tonight, you'll have 25,000 emails, because — look, I respect you. You stood up for what you believe, you told her what you thought, she had no reply and then you came on this program to further explain and she would not, so I think that everybody knows what's going on here, Mr. Alford, and we appreciate you coming on very much, tonight.

ALFORD: Thank you, Bill.

Black Chamber of Commerce CEO Harry Alford Defends Shoot-out with Senator Boxer - Bill O'Reilly | The O'Reilly Factor - FOXNews.com

 

[dreama]

froggie? lol for one moment there, I thought you're referring to frogmen

No, it's what the english people call the french because we are all supposed to like Frogs legs. Only I've been going to visit my grandparents in France and I am yet to be offered Frogs legs.

I don't think I ever will now since I'm vegan.

 

[jillio]

I recall this all started when people like Jimmy Carter and our own resident psychologist, jillio, said Obama's opponents are acting out of covert racism. In other words, the "covert racists" haven't mentioned race in their criticism (otherwise they would be among the overt racists). The first ones to bring it up are people like jillio. I'm trying to figure out the logic, although I have a feeling I'm probably foolish for doing so.

Actually, if you will go back and check, I wasn't the first one to bring it up. I have simply responded when others have made it an issue.

 

[kokonut]

you can make another thread about it. It is completely unrelated to this thread. Again - take your own advice - "If you have a complaint about this, I suggest you take it up to them. Don't take your complaints up to me."

It's about discrimination. It's on a related topic.

Nice segue into a non-sequitur comment in avoiding the question.

 

[jillio]

There was a white teacher at my school who was the head of the diversity department. She constantly went on about how she's married to a black man. When she had a baby, she brought her baby in and went on and on about how he was biracial.

Would this be considered racist?


As for the mentioning killers' religions and so on, newspapers tend to use minorities as identifiers. For example "Lesbian Gets Caught in Sex Scandal" or "Deaf Man First Man On Mars" or what have you (just making up the titles).

And some minorities take precedence over others. For example, to vaguely bring the thread back on topic, from the conversations I've had and newspaper articles I've read, there is a lot of talk about how David Paterson is blind, but there is very little talk about how he's black. So in a way blindness takes precedence over blackness when using a minority identifier.

Well, it would certainly appear that she had race at the forefront of assigning identity. What most don't understand is that racism doesn't always end in discrimination. It is the attitude of making it a criteria for identification of another. People tend to equate racism with discrimination. Perhaps that is why they get overly sensitive when a racist remark is pointed out. In many cases, there is obvious discrimination that goes along with racism, but that usually occurs more often with overt racism.

 

[deafskeptic]

No, it's what the english people call the french because we are all supposed to like Frogs legs. Only I've been going to visit my grandparents in France and I am yet to be offered Frogs legs.

I don't think I ever will now since I'm vegan.

My sister told me years ago that my grandmother from my dad's side of the family used to serve frog legs to my brother and my big sister before she died. She died a year after I was born. My dad's family is of English origin.


I can pick up frozen frog legs at the local fish market here. I've never tried them.

 

[jillio]

A statement to show how absurd an accusation is- also known as a defense. If I try to say "That's absurd. I have black friends. I volunteer and help black kids improve in math skills, etc." that would be a statement used to show how absurd the accusation is. But that statement, according to you, would actually expose my inner racism. What's the difference?


It seems you missed my disclaimer: "* This is just for the sake of argument. I don't actually mean that."

In other words, hypothetically speaking, if one were to lob the "covert racism" charge against you, how are you supposed to refute it?

Yes, you included a disclaimer. By the time I got to the end of the post and the disclaimer, I had already cracked up regarding the accusation.

As I stated before, if you aren't racist, you feel no need to defend against it. It is an aside, rather than the focus of the conversation.

 

[jillio]

The United States is not a full melting pot. There are still groups who separate each other .

Exactly. The difference is, you and souggy recognize and admit your ethnocentrism, while those that are attempting to portray themselves and completely non-racist and non-ethnocentric deny its existence. The honest person admits that we all have a degree of ethnocentrism. It is a human condition. Those are the people you don't need to worry about. Their awareness and their honesty means that they do not, or at least strive not, to use it as a way to discriminate or oppress. The deniers are the ones you need to look out for.

 

[jillio]

That wasn't the question I was referring to but about what Perryman stated when it comes to bringing closure:



Why are Democrats so adamant on not apologizing? Is it out of fear that people will find out and it's better not to apologize? What?

Fear? I think not. More like irrelevance to today's issues. Move on up, this is 2009.

 

[jillio]

the funny thing is.... this racism subject is another topic too.... not even pertinent to this thread which is about blind people

Yep. But somehow, in these threads, race always gets brought into the topic. And it is irrelevent to most...except the one person that seems to think that race is relevent to everything.

 

[jillio]

I've never been able to distinguish someone's ethnics by their voice as I've never been able to hear well enough.

I do make guesses though sometimes.
White people tend to sweat more so if it's a really hot day and the person isn't sweaty I can guess they are black, but it's only a guess, and I've got it wrong before now.

That is a myth. White people do not sweat more than black people.

 

[Jiro]

That is a myth. White people do not sweat more than black people.

hence.... "anecdote is the least accurate" as said in your post #140