or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › History has been made
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

History has been made - Page 2

post #41 of 151
Except for when McCain says he's the change agent. Then he's just being a maverick.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #42 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post



I know English may not your first language. But try and work on your succinctness.

You know artman my comment wasn't even directed at you. Which is why I didn't quote anything you posted. But as to your nature you make it all about you.



How can I get more succinctness than "Unconditional Pride"? I think the meaning is clear.
post #43 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

Historic, yes, but overcoming the Clinton organization -- that -- is a truly outstanding piece of work. The Clinton organization, all the years that it took to build it, only to have it bested by a truly savvy politician. A guy who knows how to spot talent, and hire those key people to help him formulate a strategy, and then make it happen. The man can dance.

That right there is the HUGE story that no one is talking about. The DLC is toast. Rahm Emmanuel will be replaced and Dean will continue to run the DNC.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #44 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

That right there is the HUGE story that no one is talking about. The DLC is toast. Rahm Emmanuel will be replaced and Dean will continue to run the DNC.

I'd bet there's at least two bestsellers, and a handful of dissertations, there.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #45 of 151
Obama as president will certainly give a new image of USA around the world. If well used it could become a great card to play.
post #46 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Powerdoc View Post

Obama as president will certainly give a new image of USA around the world. If well used it could become a great card to play.

I suppose it will be historically notable should the US elect a black (bi-racial?) president... but it's just such a derogatory thing to recognize a person solely for their skin color. I don't see any value in it beyond the purely superficial symbolism. What matters are the policies that will follow this new administration (should he end up being elected). It's a crying shame that we've been reduced to fashion-show politics, but there you go.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #47 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

It is about time.

The US has blabbed and blabbed and blabbed about being the leader of the free world and of possessing that wonderful word "democracy" for many years, yet they have been unable to actually live up to the talk. Discrimination has been rampant throughout our history.

Finally, both a woman and a black can run for president. For the first time, I feel that the US is actually beginning to live up to some of the hype and beginning to act like the democracy it has always tried to portray itself as.

However, the racism persists (as does the sexism), and only time will tell whether Obama can actually make it to the WH. Too many people in the country are still too small to accept a black in the WH and will look for any petty reason why not to let that happen just so they can protect their own narrow interpretation of "American values". The same would have held for Hillary had she won: too many people just aren't ready for it, which is sad (though IMO she is not fit to be prez, this is about being a woman).

I know you had good intentions with this post. And I know that race will be an underlying issue... That's a given in this historic election. But maybe I'm just wrong here... (and this just goes to show how sensitive the issue still is)........... is it appropriate language to simply say "a black"? A black what? I've never heard the term "a white" used. It's always "a white male" or "a white female". I've heard whites and blacks, but not simply "a white"... whatever. I think you know what I mean. Simply saying "a black" doesn't feel right to me. Yeah I know, the whole thing is touchy and that's why we need to get past race and just see people as people.... but we're just not there yet.

It just seems really inappropriate to stop at the adjective and never get to the noun when referring to your fellow human beings.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Chances that Jesse, Sharpton, et al are going to slow down one bit in this evil "US of KKK A" - 0.00%


Again, this doesn't feel right.... lumping Obama with these other public figures simply because they share the same race. And how close are the ties between Sharpton, Jackson and Obama? Why even mention this? Oh yeah... because they're black.
post #48 of 151
Ok. Fixed.

Looked up the usage on dictionary.com

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/black

Though usually used in the plural, it can be used in the singular. It can also be used with or without a capital letter.

Check usage note 3, 21.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #49 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by mydo View Post

You know artman my comment wasn't even directed at you. Which is why I didn't quote anything you posted. But as to your nature you make it all about you.

How can I get more succinctness than "Unconditional Pride"? I think the meaning is clear.

I've already said my piece, here's another view...


To Love America, But Not be Proud of It


Quote:
So why the strong negative reaction from some people to Michelle Obama's words, "For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country, because it feels like hope is making a comeback"? At worst these words, even taken out of context as I do here, tell us a truth without sugar coating it. Is she or her husband the first to clamor for change, to bemoan the state of American politics? Are we to interpret the widespread attraction to Obama's message of fundamental change as some sort of surge in anti-Americanism?

...

Let's stop the cynical and partisan dissection of a sentence or two uttered by Michelle Obama. It's easy for me to see how much Barack and Michelle Obama love America. Unless you have something substantive to prove otherwise, let's heed the wishes of the vast majority of Americans who are tired of this kind of political discourse.

Have you something substantive to prove otherwise?
post #50 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

I suppose it will be historically notable should the US elect a black (bi-racial?) president... but it's just such a derogatory thing to recognize a person solely for their skin color. I don't see any value in it beyond the purely superficial symbolism. What matters are the policies that will follow this new administration (should he end up being elected). It's a crying shame that we've been reduced to fashion-show politics, but there you go.

But that is just it - the big things about Obama are not about race, they are about intelligence and honesty. He is much smarter and more honest than any of the other people that have run for the office of president in the last 50 years.

Race is just a side show, it is his brain that will re-make the American image. I personally have never felt much national pride in being an American, buy maybe that can change if we start to suck a bit less.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #51 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

But that is just it - the big things about Obama are not about race, they are about intelligence and honesty. He is much smarter and more honest than any of the other people that have run for the office of president in the last 50 years.

Race is just a side show, it is his brain that will re-make the American image.

While I certainly agree that race should be a side show, I doubt it will be, and perhaps not because of the people that some typically blame. The media has already put it on the front page.

Still, a more important question is that since "the big things about Obama are not about race, they are about intelligence and honesty", does this imply that if he loses it must be because of his racial makeup?

In other words, because Obama is so obviously intelligent and honest (question begging aside), is the only reason one would vote against him would be because of his race?
post #52 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Powerdoc View Post

Obama as president will certainly give a new image of USA around the world. If well used it could become a great card to play.

You know, my gut reaction is to say "yeah! I agree!" and then I start thinking about the long line of non-white PMs in Britain, non-white presidents in France, non-white chancellors in Germany, non-white presidents of Italy....

The Netherlands? Switzerland? The nordic countries? Eastern Europe?

Are there ANY industrialized countries in the West that have elected a leader who was not of the majority race/ethnicity?

With that said, I certainly hope America's image abroad changes. I get tired of pretending to be a Canadian when I'm across the pond.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #53 of 151
They have black people in Europe?

post #54 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akumulator View Post

Again, this doesn't feel right.... lumping Obama with these other public figures simply because they share the same race. And how close are the ties between Sharpton, Jackson and Obama? Why even mention this? Oh yeah... because they're black.

I am not "lumping Obama with these other public figures" at all. The topic I was plainly referring to is the state of race relations in the US... and if Obama getting the nom or the presidency would mean that the usual suspects would stop their race-baiting. With or without Obama, Jesse and Al are still going to claim that this is a racist nation. The drumbeat will not change.

So the idea of putting them (BHO, et al) together based on them all being black happened in your head, not mine.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #55 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

They have black people in Europe?


I met a german guy, who's "black", born and raised in germany. He's talking to a strait up german guy (blonde and white) one day and the guys says "your german is very good" and black german guy says "so is yours" and then the strait up german guys gets all red faced and says "Well I was born here!" .... "so was I".
post #56 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by mydo View Post

I met a german guy, who's "black", born and raised in germany.

I think you mean "African-American."
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #57 of 151
Well, Obama didn't waste any time in praising his overlords.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/r...#article990208

It doesn't really matter for the country's foreign policy if Obama or Clinton or Mc Cain becomes president.
Most of us employ the Internet not to seek the best information, but rather to select information that confirms our prejudices. - Nicholas D. Kristof
Reply
Most of us employ the Internet not to seek the best information, but rather to select information that confirms our prejudices. - Nicholas D. Kristof
Reply
post #58 of 151
If anyone wants a direct look at how crazy Hillary Clinton supporters are, go no further than here.

It's the biggest Hillary Clinton fanpage on myspace other than the official Clinton myspace. I was a member of this group for almost a year because I like Hillary Clinton's policies (as any supporter of Obama would). Several months ago they kicked me out for talking about party unity. Take a look at some of these people:

Quote:
We need to vote McCain for President 2008!

He is qualifed, experienced and connects with AMERICA!

****** Vote McCain ******

Quote:
I am voting for McCain, but my heart is with Hillary!

Quote:
If its obama and mccain..my hillary vote will be to mccain unfortunately

I don't see how McCain is the logical, rational next choice for people who supported Clinton.

It's just crazy- there's no explaining it.
post #59 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

I don't see how McCain is the logical, rational next choice for people who supported Clinton.

It's just crazy- there's no explaining it.

Sure there is some explanation. You just might not see it yet.

I would say that it has to do with the fact that politics is dominated by quests for power, control and authority. It is also dominated by winning and losing. It is also dominated by emotion and, often, irrationality and illogic.

Mix all of that together into a bowl, add water and stir and it explains a lot...not just about the behavior (or claimed behavior of Clinton supporters) but also the people that get elected and the policies that get enacted in general.
post #60 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by talksense101 View Post

Well, Obama didn't waste any time in praising his overlords.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/r...#article990208

It doesn't really matter for the country's foreign policy if Obama or Clinton or Mc Cain becomes president.

As this story, and video show, question AIPAC and you will be punished. Criticize them and you are branded an antisemitic, unpatriotic, appeaser. AIPAC is a scary organization that doesn't give a shit about America other than what it can do for Israel. Their influence in US politics is truly a testament to the absurd religious and nationalist brainwashing of a huge portion of the American populous.

I listened to Obama's entire speech to AIPAC. While he isn't as eager to publicly felate the organization as McCain and many others, he still went down on camera to the tune of $30 billion in guaranteed aid to Israel should he win the election. That's $30 billion for a nation that is the only nuclear power in their region.

That was a bit if of a gut punch because I do like Obama. I understand he is trying to win over a bunch of racist hillbillies who think he is the anti-christ. In order to win, he doesn't have any other choice. Still, that is real scary power.

Here's another step in the right direction.
post #61 of 151
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post


I don't see how McCain is the logical, rational next choice for people who supported Clinton.

It's just crazy- there's no explaining it.


It sounds like a protest vote but my GOODNESS at what cost!!!! ?

I am mostly conservative but I cast a protest vote against Bush when he ran for his second term. I proudly voted Kerry as I DID NOT support the war in Iraq and found that Bush did not carry out a "humble foreign policy" but rather went off the deep end of the neocon spectrum.

I support conservatives but not neocons.

With these Hillary supporters to threaten or even plan on casting a protest vote against Obama and in favor of McCain sounds more like a childish knee jerk reaction rather than one based on policy like my protest vote in 2004 was based on.

That is truly a sad state of affairs if you ask me.

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #62 of 151
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

As this story, and video show, question AIPAC and you will be punished. Criticize them and you are branded an antisemitic, unpatriotic, appeaser. AIPAC is a scary organization that doesn't give a shit about America other than what it can do for Israel. Their influence in US politics is truly a testament to the absurd religious and nationalist brainwashing of a huge portion of the American populous.

I listened to Obama's entire speech to AIPAC. While he isn't as eager to publicly felate the organization as McCain and many others, he still went down on camera to the tune of $30 billion in guaranteed aid to Israel should he win the election. That's $30 billion for a nation that is the only nuclear power in their region.

That was a bit if of a gut punch because I do like Obama. I understand he is trying to win over a bunch of racist hillbillies who think he is the anti-christ. In order to win, he doesn't have any other choice. Still, that is real scary power.

Here's another step in the right direction.

I have nothing against Israel and recognize and support their right to exist which not all arab neighbors grant the nation but may I ask...

Does it sometimes seem.... That whoever is running for the president of the USA also in a sense finds themselves "running for president of Israel" as well if you will?

I too saw the AIPAC speeches delivered by both Obama and Clinton and the a** kissing was over the top.

Again I have nothing against Israel but why in the world do American leaders bow down so far and wide for this nation / lobby???

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #63 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellowship View Post

Again I have nothing against Israel but why in the world do American leaders bow down so far and wide for this nation / lobby???

Fellows

It probably has to do with the community owning the media in the USA (with significant worldwide reach) and it's ability to forge public opinion and help with propoganda. The fact Israel has enough nukes to render the world's supply of oil from it's neighbours useless doesn't help the case against them either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Here's another step in the right direction.

It reads well. But let us see, time will tell if change actually takes place. I doubt it though.
Most of us employ the Internet not to seek the best information, but rather to select information that confirms our prejudices. - Nicholas D. Kristof
Reply
Most of us employ the Internet not to seek the best information, but rather to select information that confirms our prejudices. - Nicholas D. Kristof
Reply
post #64 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellowship View Post

I have nothing against Israel and recognize and support their right to exist which not all arab neighbors grant the nation but may I ask...

Does it sometimes seem.... That whoever is running for the president of the USA also in a sense finds themselves "running for president of Israel" as well if you will?

I too saw the AIPAC speeches delivered by both Obama and Clinton and the a** kissing was over the top.

Again I have nothing against Israel but why in the world do American leaders bow down so far and wide for this nation / lobby???

Fellows

This might help.

AIPAC and the American right

Aijaz Ahmad traces the power of AIPAC to the "Reagan Revolution"

Quote:
Some 90 percent of the members of AIPAC are Jewish, but, significantly, most of the remaining 10 percent are evangelical Christians. Neoconservatives, who have played such a key role in formulating policy for the Bush administration have always coordinated their views and policies with AIPAC. All this would appear to be quite at odds with the gender profile of the American Jewish community as a whole, which is set to comprise overwhelmingly of liberal Democrats.
post #65 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

But that is just it - the big things about Obama are not about race, they are about intelligence and honesty. He is much smarter and more honest than any of the other people that have run for the office of president in the last 50 years.

Would you be willing to say that one can be intelligent and honest, yet still be wrong?

I've looked pretty closely at his policy ideas, and frankly they alarm me. It's all old line Democrat thinking. If all of his ideas were somehow implemented I think it starts to make sense to move out of the US just to cover one's assets (so to speak).

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #66 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

It's just crazy- there's no explaining it.

Kinda like "Republicans for Obama"
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #67 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Kinda like "Republicans for Obama"

No. "Democrats for McCain" would be the counterpart for "Republicans for Obama," and each makes more sense than "Clinton supporters for McCain."
post #68 of 151
This is shaping up to be the most bizarre run for the presidency I've ever seen.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #69 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

I think you mean "African-American."

I might say African-German but then the "black" guy I know from Holland had his parents come from Suriname. I don't even try to guess.


In the future we'll all just be gray, like aliens.

post #70 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

You know, my gut reaction is to say "yeah! I agree!" and then I start thinking about the long line of non-white PMs in Britain, non-white presidents in France, non-white chancellors in Germany, non-white presidents of Italy....



Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

With that said, I certainly hope America's image abroad changes. I get tired of pretending to be a Canadian when I'm across the pond.

It's never going to change enough to obscure the fact that Canadians are way, way cooler.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #71 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by giant View Post

each makes more sense than "Clinton supporters for McCain."

You're obviously swallowing the full course of "McCain is Bush III." Not reality. As far as McCain/HRC- What are they really that far apart on...?

Carbon Tax... check.
Voted for the war.... check.
Windfall profits tax... check.
Amnesty for criminals... check.
Abridging the 1st Amendment... check.
Gun control... check.

A bunch of folks around here think HRC is a "right-center" democrat, and McCain is definitely a "left-center" Republican. Heck, the way he's heaping praise on her at this point, I cannot believe that they are not already running mates.

Remember the cuddles we all were treated to over the "most civil campaign ever" if they ran against each other? Why would that be... I'd say because, policywise, these two are not that far apart in practice.

HRC says what she has to say to satisfy her liberal base, just like McCain has to vomit his lies to try to pacify the conservative base. Neither one of them are who they want people to believe they are.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #72 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

You're obviously swallowing the full course of "McCain is Bush III." Not reality. As far as McCain/HRC- What are they really that far apart on...?

Carbon Tax... check.
Voted for the war.... check.
Windfall profits tax... check.
Amnesty for criminals... check.
Abridging the 1st Amendment... check.
Gun control... check.

A bunch of folks around here think HRC is a "right-center" democrat, and McCain is definitely a "left-center" Republican. Heck, the way he's heaping praise on her at this point, I cannot believe that they are not already running mates.

Remember the cuddles we all were treated to over the "most civil campaign ever" if they ran against each other? Why would that be... I'd say because, policywise, these two are not that far apart in practice.

HRC says what she has to say to satisfy her liberal base, just like McCain has to vomit his lies to try to pacify the conservative base. Neither one of them are who they want people to believe they are.

Why doesn't McCain run for the socialist party nomination?

He'd be a lock.
post #73 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

Why doesn't McCain run for the socialist party nomination?

He'd be a lock.

Now, that's just being silly.

He's already the Presumptive Nominee of a really Grand Old Party, after all.

It would be MUCH more realistic to expect him to make a truly savvy choice for his running mate. I'm thinking Kucinich... or maybe even Nader!
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #74 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerLurker View Post

Now, that's just being silly.

He's already the Presumptive Nominee of a really Grand Old Party, after all.

It would be MUCH more realistic to expect him to make a truly savvy choice for his running mate. I'm thinking Kucinich... or maybe even Nader!

*shrugs*

McCain is the most liberal major party candidate in the history of politics in the western world.

Why can't you see that?

post #75 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

Why doesn't McCain run for the socialist party nomination?

He'd be a lock.

Quote:
McCain is the most liberal major party candidate in the history of politics in the western world.

Wow... I did not realize how flippant hyperbole can be so convincing.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #76 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Wow... I did not realize how flippant hyperbole can be so convincing.

You might have also not realized that McCain's policy positions couldn't be any more different than Clinton's. (Only because McCain is so far to the left of her. ). With all honesty, I think it's just interesting when you encounter someone with assumptions so radically different about basic, fundamental things.

The idea that McCain and Clinton are substantially similar- I mean where does that come from? If you're talking about the entire political spectrum (socialists, anarchists, libertarians, etc), then yeah, they're probably pretty close. But that's not what you're talking about. You're saying something like he's closer to a Democrat relative to other members of his party. Well, this map seems to back up some of what you're saying, but it shows the entire political spectrum.



That big gap between the parties really says a lot. There's something going on there. And if we're talking about logical second choices, Obama is closer on that map than McCain is.
post #77 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by mydo View Post

I might say African-German but then the "black" guy I know from Holland had his parents come from Suriname. I don't even try to guess.


In the future we'll all just be gray, like aliens.


Back when I used to listen to Rush Limbaugh, he went on a rant one day about a History channel show about the Holocaust in which the narrator had said something like "Jews weren't the only victims. Thousands of African-Americans were gassed, as well."

The point, I think, was that lots of black folks in Germany were rounded up.

I've just always hated "African-American," largely because no other country does that. African-Englishman? African-German? African-Hollish?

Plus, I once had an African student GO OFF on a black student who referred to himself as African-American. Her argument was that he wasn't African, had never been to Africa, would never go to Africa, had no relatives in Africa, didn't know anything about Africa, and so to claim that he was "African" was an insult to her.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #78 of 151
I actually hold out great hope that in the future the issue of race will be obsolete because of the "race mixin'" going on now will render race irrelevant. My kids get their blood from three continents and two islands. Some generations from now people will just have to find some other reason to hate one another. Maybe it will be stars?
post #79 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post



That big gap between the parties really says a lot. There's something going on there. And if we're talking about logical second choices, Obama is closer on that map than McCain is.

This chart is way, way off. Paul is more "authoritarian" than Gravel? Someone's been smoking crack.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #80 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Back when I used to listen to Rush Limbaugh, he went on a rant one day about a History channel show about the Holocaust in which the narrator had said something like "Jews weren't the only victims. Thousands of African-Americans were gassed, as well."

The point, I think, was that lots of black folks in Germany were rounded up.

I've just always hated "African-American," largely because no other country does that. African-Englishman? African-German? African-Hollish?

Plus, I once had an African student GO OFF on a black student who referred to himself as African-American. Her argument was that he wasn't African, had never been to Africa, would never go to Africa, had no relatives in Africa, didn't know anything about Africa, and so to claim that he was "African" was an insult to her.

Too true, I always wondered about people from Morocco, Egypt, or South Africa-- if Momar Kadafi and Pieter Botha hypothetically emigrated, would they be an "African American"? Kinda screwy.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › History has been made