Don't hold your breath, victimhood and denial of responsibility is a lucrative nostrum.

Read up on the "diffusion of responsibility" studies in psychology.

Of course. But that's one part of a whole.

Some parts of black culture are certainly becoming more mainstream, like hip-hop (which I personally think is overplayed in the media). But that's still just one part (or a few parts) of a whole. Not to mention, other cultures are taking things like slang and hip-hop and putting their stamps on them...so is that more representative of black culture in the end, or more representative of the culture "updating" it? Or is it equal?

I think that there is definitely a "digital divide" in terms of users, but as far as content, I'd say the 'net is incredibly diverse compared to "reality."

To my knowledge God/Mother Nature makes people and I doubt if he/she has read the declaration of independence. People are not equal, some are pretty, some are smart, some have rhythm, and some have mechanical ability. Only a few of us have it all. :king:
C'mon Rho, how long do I have to listen to these stations to find out what there discussing? 1 hour? 1 evening? 1 week? That's hardly the same as linking an article that I can read at my convenience and make a judgement on it's author and content. I'm not looking for a hobby or thesis subject. Besides, I wonder if what makes it on the radio as the supposed topics on every black mind, is the same as the shit being talked about among blacks when I walk up and they look at me like "it's a black thing, you wouldn't understand".
I work with some older black men that have been around long enough to have lived Jim Crow at it's worst. They've been colored, nigger, negro, black and African American. A few on them won't even talk to white people unless it's required to do their job. They've told me stories (yeah they talk to me) of things that happened to them in the 30's, 40's and 50's that floored me. Regardless of the changing laws and times, you can't say, that's in the past, move on, to these men. They have been permanently scarred, I would be too. But to their credit they don't preach hate to the younger ones and give me the impression they don't approve of the "jive ass niggas" either. :apimp:

Ahh, now that talent is raceless.

Many people do treat others as individuals...that's a good thing. I don't think discussions like this are a bad thing though because (at least to me) it's a given that not everyone is going to fit into a particular "mold."

I don't think that there's anything wrong with celebrating our differences as people. The problems start when one group thinks of themselves as superior to others.

I can read an article about the red people, and deem it legitimate or crap. Hell, I can read 3 or 4 articles about the red people. And based on those articles, I may know a little about red people. But how much? Chances are that it's probably not going to be much.

I listen to Rush and Hannity roughly once or twice a week...they're not the end-all be-all on conservative thought, but when I combine that with reading right-wing material or television plus what some of you folks here are saying, then I have what I think is a pretty good perspective on conservative thought.

That sounds like my father-in-law...Rho can better explain him than I can, but he did quite well for himself and his family. Shit...Rho's family had way more money than mine growing up. :)

Oh, Wolf...I love you to death, but sometimes, I dunno about you. :)

White liberal talk radio isn't "taking black voices away"...it's the owner of the station. In the case of WHAT, that would be Inner City Broadcasting, which is a company owned and run by...

wait for it...

black people!!!

Now of course, one could argue as you did. And one could argue that ICBC is beating up on its own kind. But given that many black folks will probably agree with a lot of the things that Al (who I happen to think is hilarious--you should listen to his CD) and his gang are discussing, one could argue that ICBC is merely adding "stronger" voices and/or being diverse.

Not necessarily. Sometimes, they just happen to fall in your lap. On the flip side, you could search the ends of the world, but you just might not find/get an opportunity.


Sharpton and his ilk keep issues that are important to many blacks in the forefront...just when you think they've gone away, here they come again! I don't think they're looking for a handout (yes, free health insurance is a handout, but we'll talk about that at another time)...they just want to sit at the table of brotherhood. And from their perspective, they're still at the kiddie table...or in small chairs that leave them looking up at the table.

Having said that, Sharpton and Jackson have big-time credibility issues...issues that they've brought on themselves. I think they've done much good for blacks, but it's time for them to let someone else take charge...a Kweisi Mfume, a Harold Ford or a Jesse Jackson, Jr. perhaps.

But, everyone thinks the group they belong to is superior to other groups, at least on some level. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. It's when you combine that pride with a lack of human decency and respect. Ignorant, hateful people can be found in any race, country, religion, whatever.

Agreed...and you can't legislate thoughts or feelings.

You're right, but most times, if someone gets an opportunity to better themselves, they did a bit of legwork themselves. Pure luck isn't all that common - just go to Vegas sometime.

They're perpetuating emnity between races by constantly pointing out perceived slights, insults, etc. But they're not offering feasible solutions. One of the biggest jokes of modern society is this business of "raising awareness" as a solution to a problem. Pinning ribbons on lapels, booking a celebrity for a $1,000/plate dinner, bitching on cable news shows, and marching with signs raises awareness, but it's never ever ever been shown to do a damn bit of good FIXING anything. Ditto for governmental programs - they're poorly administrated, corrupt, and serve only to "show people that we're doing something". Instead, people need to be good to one another on an individual level. That can't happen when supposed "leaders" are constantly throwing lit matches into a brushpile.

Oh come on, how'd you miss my clever cut and paste job?

I thought Sharpton had some really good plans during his presidential campaign...and he's nowhere near the firestarter he was 15 years ago.

Are folks like him too sensitive? Maybe, but that's a subjective thing...who's to say he's not in the right?

I wouldn't say that. The 1963 Birmingham incident started as one of "raising awareness," and wound up being the catalyst that led to the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act.

I agree that we should treat each other well on an individual level...and I think we're getting there. And I agree that some--if not most--government programs are poorly administered. But they greatly help people who truly need them. Now, we could wax ad infinitum about how these programs may or may not have conditioned people into expecting handouts, but...

That reminds me, what is he trying to do to help the Puerto Ricans after his last visit? Last I heard, they had an expected $300,000,000 yearly shortfall thanks to him.

Oh yeah...Vieques was all his doing. Anyway...

but that is inevitable. group relationships always fall into competition and conflict on some level.

think about when you were a kid on some sports team. you hated those bastards on the other team. they didn't play like you. they weren't as good as your team and they cheated, too. fast forward 12 months and the teams have shifted. now that some of those guys from the other team are on your team, they aren't so bad afterall. all of humanity is divided into "us and them". the more actively a group maintains its separateness and differentness, the more likely it will be viewed with suspicion and negative attitudes.

i'm not saying that we shouldn't all be proud of who we are, but there are much more important aspects of oneself to take pride in than our color.

why should you be proud of your color anyway? could you change it if you weren't especially proud of it? and how about guys like us syc? - "i'm proud to be white." if that isn't an invitation for people to wonder if you are white supremist i don't know what is. but you hear about black pride, hispanic pride, etc. and it is just dandy.

The term "pride" carries a bunch of societal baggage these days. "Black pride," "white pride," "gay pride," all conjure instant associations with fringe groups. Another perfectly good word appropriated by special interests and taken out of everyday usage for the rest of us.

There can be a lot of factors involved with that, though...relationship between the two groups, history between them, etc.

Color is only a small part of it. It's about pride in a people.

See above.

Watch the movie Black Like Me...or look at Michael Jackson. :)

And Italian pride, and German pride, and Irish pride...

For a very long time, it wasn't cool to be different from the norm--hell, it's still not cool in some circles. Then some folks began a counter-culture of sorts..."Hey, there's nothing wrong with me being different! In fact, it's cool as shit!" And it went from there...

If people are proud of being white, hey, that's fine. The problem is that "I'm proud to be white/white pride/white power" are the equivalents of "nigger." You can make it incredibly positive or empowering, but it's gonna be tough--if not impossible--to shake the negative connotations historically associated with the words.

I'm willing to bet that if he hadn't stuck his nose in where it didn't belong that there would still be a base there. Lobby groups can try to extort money from all of the private sector companies that they want, but as has been shown all the military has to do is utter a hardy "Fuck you Silver, away!" and problem solved.

What exactly is a people?

What do Italians have to be proud of?

What do Spaniards have to be proud of?

What do Chinese have to be proud of?

What do blacks have to be proud of?

again - i'm more impressed with someone who simply says "proud to be american". everyone wants to celebrate and tout their differentness but then turn around and cry because america has become so divided.

I can think of only two groups in which I sometimes feel pride.

- My generation: I feel a kinship with people my age more than with any other group. The distinct experiences that we share, even from thousands of miles apart, are amazing. I really hope that my generation's time in power will undo some of the bullshit approaches of the past. Although from human nature I know that we also bring new problems to the table as well.

(In April of 2003 it was thought that my generation had finally faced a challenge and faced it head-on. We were 2-0 and kicking ass. By one year later with Abu Ghraib, we had really completely blown it for the free world and the past victories were forgotten. This is my generation's calling: we will simultaneously fucking clean up the baby boomer's mess AND take the blame for it. Knowing the truth, I feel pride for us.)

- Americans: the connection is weaker, but from time to time it comes through and gives me that moment of pride.

Possibly, but Sharpton wasn't the only high-profile person protesting, and there had already been problems with Vieques two years prior to him getting involved.

Maybe we should do less celebrating of our differences and more celebrating of our commonality.
That's it.....Everybody Poops Day! :biggrin:

My use of "people" in this case refers to people who have a shared ancestry, history and culture.

Each group has plenty to be proud of...off the top of my head, the Spaniards and Italians can claim Columbus, the Chinese helped build railroads out west and blacks have brought us different types of music and food.

A bit of a disparity in scale eh?

I don't think we've ever been as united as some people think. And right now, I think the divisiveness we have is due to strong differences in opinion...differences that cross racial and economic divides.

I am proud to be American, but there are times when I am embarrassed to be so. And I can understand why some folks are not proud to be American...I hope that we can get to the point where those folks are proud one day.

How so?

How about Bruce is a Big Ol' Poop Day?

:turd:

:)

You realize that you are a baby boomer (1946-64), right?

What exactly is contributed by black culture that seperates it from other cultures? What sets it apart so much that people are willing to kill each other over it? What is so important that people are willing to generate an arbitrary and unnecessary divide in american culture based on it? Is it some great change in paradigm that is shaping a better tomorrow? A new math that gives us the Unified Field Theory? An easily learned language that will make all men brothers? A weapon so hideous that all cultures agree to end war?

All I'm asking, and this applies to all of the associated parties, is what is so important about skin color that it's necessary to make up cultural differences when it's more important that we generate a set of synergistic commonalities instead?

You essentially already asked this question in a previous post, which I answered.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean here. How do you know that people are actually killing each other over black culture?

I believe that black and other minority cultures developed due to a forced divide by the powers that be back in the day. If there was any arbitrariness involved, I would say that it was on the side of the powers that be. Those cultures remain today because they provide a rich history and legacy for those people not necessarily covered by mainstream culture...plus they preserve the culture and help ensure that it continues. And I don't think that's a bad thing.

See my response above. I'm not sure that synergistic commonalities are so important.

No, I go by Strauss & Howe's 13th Generation 1961-1981.

I think I'll keep the '46-'64 years for the Boomers along with Gen X ('65-'75 or '79 or '81...no one seems to agree on this one like they do on the Boomers). Gen X was a great punk band...The 13th Generation sounds like some crappy '70s lite rock band. :)

syc - i don't naively believe this nation was once united and it has become divided. but once upon a time the goal of those less fortunate, due to segregation and economics, was to join the ranks of the fortunate. to be a part of what they were missing out on. that was the whole point of the civil rights movement. a group of people were unfairly denied access to opportunities simply because the color of their skin. the laws have changed. access is there. unfortunately, there are people that prefer crying about lack of opportunity, instead of taking advantage of the opportunities already available. achievement isn't easy, but it is possible. it shouldn't be easy. i have yet to see a successful person of any color who is obsessed with the roadblocks in front of them. most successful people don't have time to stand and bitch about why life is unfair to them. they are too busy working toward a goal. they may acknowledge the difficulties along the way but they focus on the possibilities in front of them. and i think that is what bill cosby and others have been trying to say.

Not everyone agrees. ;)

Put it this way...quite a few people agree that the Baby Boomers were born between 1946 and 1964. The same cannot be said for Generation X.

Bastard. :)

And quite a few people disagree, saying it's '43 to '60. It appears the social security people are among that group. :p

Who do you trust more? SSA or AARP? :)

Laws have indeed changed, and I think they're helping. But like I said last night, you can't legislate thoughts and emotions.

What you call "crying about lack of opportunity" others see as expressions of legitimate concerns.

I happen to know quite a few successful people that are concerned about the roadblocks that they and their people continue to face, namely my in-laws.

Similar to what I said above, what you call "standing and bitching about why life is unfair to them" some see as legitimate complaints, concerns and/or voicing opinion.

I think a lot of what Cosby has said has been spot on, though some of it has been just plain silly.

We didn't used to be.

The cutoff was 1959/60 ... I was very proud to be part of the unnamed generation that was sandwiched in between the boomers and Generation X.

I can describe the change in a way that makes it obvious to you specifically Syc; dig this;

In autumn 1982 I started DJing dance parties at my college. That year there were two "staples" that we had to play or there would be trouble amongst the drunken sorority sisters. One was "Paradise by the Dashboard Light", the other was "Working for the Weekend".

These were kids who thought the Cars were "edgy" and the Police were "too weird". Adam and the Ants, or Adam Ant solo, would enrage them. Billy Idol released his first solo album in 1982 and it contained "White Wedding" and "Dancing with Myself" and it DID NOT PLAY. They HATED it! Those drunken sorority sisters were born in 1960-61.

By 1985, though, things changed. I could see it happening. By the end of 1985 we were able to play Depeche Mode, and by 1986 they became critical. Idol's first album finally played and then and then his initial EP with "Mony Mony" suddenly reappeared, and THAT became the song we HAD to play. Those drunken sorority sisters were born in 1963-64, the front for the arrival of the new culture.

Or, take Elvis Costello. Did you know his ONLY charting song was "Everyday I Write the Book" in 1983? Before that, no EC song made the "Top 40". Because the baby boomers couldn't relate so well, but the 13ers/Xers understood.

But the true anthem of the early Xers is "How Soon is Now". This brilliant song includes as original a signature guitar riff as you'll ever hear... hard and edgy and a little frightening, it's as closely tied to the song as the opening of "(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction". But is there a single "classic rock" station in the USA that has played it ONCE? No. That right there is the defining cultural line; if you dug it, you are 13er/Xer, if not, you are Boomer.

It took until 1993 for another anthem to appear to represent the second wave of Xers.

That's interesting, UT. I don't think Strauss & Howe are phony at all, and I apologize if it seemed like I was totally dismissing them.

Having only been a child in the early 80s, I don't have such a detailed reference. From what I've seen, most people over 40 don't get Metallica, Nirvana or Depeche Mode. Many people 25-40 do. Right now, a lot of kids under 25 love bands like Chevelle and The Used...I'm 29, and I don't care much for them.

The "expressions of legitimate concerns" is the right, if not duty, of every thinking person. The difference lies in if they are expressing these concerns while working to improve their lot or while waiting for someone else (gumint?) to do it for them.

aside- From what I've seen the best shot at equal treatment for minorities and women is through labor unions. While not perfect, because they are run by people, Unions are small enough organizations that if you feel you're not being treated fairly you can interact personally with the leadership. The Union keeps the Company from abusing you (at least abusing you more than others) and if the Union is abusing you, both the Company and the Feds are willing to step in on your behalf. I don't want to derail this thread so if you have a beef with unions please start a new thread. ;)

Yup... for me, it was Good Charlotte. Holy crap, they just *suck*, don't the kids see it? What is it with this youth culture!

Keep in mind, though, that many people believe that the government should take care of such issues. That's not necessarily good or bad...it just is.

They're hit and miss with me...I like some of their stuff. I have a soft spot for them b/c they broke while we lived in DC, and they're from nearby Waldorf, MD. Kind of like how I have soft spots for Philadelphia artists, even if I don't like them (Freeway, Jaguar Wright).

Eve and of course The Roots which we have talked about before. Does Philly get its props for turning out such legitimate musicians as its contribution to hip hop?

I'd say so...The Roots helped put Philadelphia back on the music map.

I think it's bad and I think it's a product of the welfare system.
That mentality of, it's the gumints job, has been seeping into the thinking of the general public, for the people that grew up in the welfare system as a given and for the people who were not in the system thinking "well if they gumint can take care of those people on welfare they can damn well take care of my problem.
The other thing being "if the gumint can spend $300 million studying the sex life of a tree frog they can damn well take care of my problem".
I think most people will agree that any problem the gumint sets out to handle, is going to cost too much and take too long, at best. :)

I don't disagree with you on your last point, Bruce. As far as the government's role in our lives...I do think that the government should take care of us. Having said that, I don't think the bureaucracy could be tamed to the point where it would be possible, which is why I support ending SS and do not support universal healthcare.

Good Charlotte? The Roots? Eve?


WTF is that?

I was born in 1970. What labelled generation am I in?

They're music artists (The Roots and Good Charlotte are bands) that have risen to popularity over the past 5 years. Are you not familiar with them? If not, I wouldn't be surprised, given that you didn't know who The Smiths were...and you lived in the UK during the height of their popularity. :)

Depending on who you talk to, you're either a Gen Xer or part of the 13th Generation.

Oh I see, having paid the max to SS all these years, now that I'm ready to collect, you want to stop it. I don't think so. :eyebrow:

Easy there, old man. Any child born on or after...lets say 1/1/08...should not receive SS.

Never heard of them. Granted, I don't have my radio on 24/7 or anything, but I've heard of the big popular people.

Any definitions of the Baby Boomers that have a date of conception preceding V-E day are pretty silly.

the injured came home early and ushered in the new america, popping out kids, starting construction companies, buying land, and pushing higher education. anything after '43 should be reasonable.

Not if Bush gets his way. He'll have spent it paying for his adventures in Allah land. :mad:

There wasn't any construction going on that wasn't for the War Department. As a matter of fact if something wasn't part of the war effort it just didn't happen until VE day and then only a little before VJ day. Therefore they had plenty of time for poppin' out babies. :)
Boomer is a much shortened version of what was originally Post War Baby Boom. Shortening the name shouldn't alter the original definition, but with the rate that history is being rewritten these days, Who knows. :rolleyes: