Mrs. Obama: FINALLY Proud of Her Country?

No one is making the argument you are arguing against.

There are plenty of things a black person could be proud about being a citizen of America. In 1776? No.

In 2007? Sure.

The successful fight to get the equality that they deserved being among them.

Essentially the notion from post #265.

Essentially the notion from post #265.

It would almost have been better had the caption read "that all white men are created equal". The dichotomy of the statement as presented versus as practiced adds insult to injury, or perhaps injury to insult.

And the fact that so many of the seemingly intelligent, highly educated white men in this thread DO NOT GRASP THIS is...sigh...I was going to say "incomprehensible," but unfortunately it isn't...

Was Reagan's "Welfare queen" speech some sort of Ceti eel that's eaten away that part of their brains?

So what would you call it when foreign nationals are infiltrating our country to destroy buildings and kill people? Happy-Fun-Time?

It's not exactly hard to grasp.

It is hard to grasp evidentally that that shit stopped decades ago. Now it's the other way around - your job can be at risk if you aren't a politically correct drone.

The difference is, in most fortune 500 companies diversity and affirmative action are the order of the day. Questioning whether or not it should be is a firing offense. And at the end of the day, what that means is that all other things being equal, being a white male is a disadvantage. I understand it's meant to block the old boys club. I also understand that when I see a minority or a woman 'mentoring' a person of their subtype that that is completely acceptable and encouraged.

I have yet to get my silver spoon for being a white male. My folks didn't come from a rich family, there were certain educational opportunities that were available to minorities that weren't available to me in the interest of fairness.

I do well enough, but the hypocricy of discriminating in order to stop discrimination should be readily obvious to anyone.

But it isn't - because quite frankly quite a few people think that white males deserve to be discriminated against.

Hell, it's encoded in the legal system - there are protected classes that have different rules applied to them.

Having worked with quite a few minorities as my bosses, including one company that was owned by one that got privileged contracts that white owned companies couldn't legally compete for, I've seen the other side of it.

Terrorism. What do you call it?

The suspension of habeas corpus is clearly meant for when the very existence of the Republic is at stake (e.g. invading armies, civil war). That's why the Constitution doesn't state habeas corpus may be suspended in "Declarations of War" or even just when "the public Safety may require it". It states "unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it".

How would you know?

Because there were laws passed? Discrimination just magically went away overnight? How would you have been able to tell the difference, Whitebread?

And here we have it, folks. Being asked to think before he opens his mouth is EXACTLY the same as being forced to ride in the back of the bus or getting paid less for the same job.



Did I say "intelligent"? I take it back...

But they cannot be separated. Their today is still deeply shaped by their yesterday. And they're only too aware of that. Perhaps that Michelle considers the whole of America's history in her assessment is your gripe here.

Since Paladin brought it up, I have to wonder if, had there really been true equality since the DoI implicitly stated as much in the 18th century, or even since the Constitution "guaranteed" it in the 19th century, there would even be the welfare issue he mentioned.

It's a job thing. You wouldn't understand.

Tell us how you've been discriminated against on the job. Then I can tell my "how fast can you type" story again. And that's only one of them.

Black's today isn't shaped by yesterday; they are still living yesterday by choice. What Blacks aren't doing is looking to the future. They moved from the plantation to the ghettos by circumstance, but they refuse to do what is necessary to move beyond that.

Lot's of groups had it rough in this country. The difference is until we don't all say we're victims a century and a half after slavery ended and 5 decades after Civil Rights got teeth.

Try to stay on topic, eh?

But that's also for another thread. This is about whether the treatment this nation has shown them over its history fills them with pride or...something else.

Are you proud of it?

Yes, warts and all.

And how much of that treatment is self-inflicted? Is it justifiable to say "America is shit and I've never been proud of it because I'm black and I've been shit on for 400 years" without pointing out that at least some of that is their own fault?

We'd have been shocked if you'd said otherwise.

Self-inflicted is what happened to the Confederacy. They were in control of their destiny, and chose it.

LOL. I love it when a white person lectures me on the fact that I can't know anything about black people.

Tell me, sista, how have you been oppressed?

As far as institutionalized oppression, yes, there are laws, and what's more, a corporate culture that reacts far before any laws have been broken. I've seen the result of that. Maybe it's not everywhere, but lawsuits that make the news about this issue are rare now, and in my personal anecdotal evidence I've worked for numerous minorities that have reached high levels in their chosen professions.

On the alternate side, I personally have seen minorities not fired when a white person would be because of their protected status. I've seen affirmative action programs reward one race over another in the interest of diversity.

I do understand the glass ceiling. But I wasn't born into the white male elite, and it doesn't advantage me at all. 99% of white males aren't corporate CEOs with legacy scholarships.

Now it's absolutely absurd to state that white males are discriminated against at the same level as blacks or women in earlier decades. I understand that, it's not even close.

But I'm not making that argument. I'm saying if discrimination is wrong, then it's wrong no matter who does it, or what their supposed noble intent is.

Currently there is institutionalized discrimination. Its slight, but it exists.

All other things being equal giving an advantage to one side in hiring and promotions is INNATELY discriminatory.

So you think it's just peachy keen that a white owned company can't get certain government contracts that a minority owned company can?

There's no logical basis for that. Other than you think that it's OK to discriminate against whites males because they were mean to you in the past.

Oh, look. He can talk ghetto.

Fix your tags.

Anything of substance to say?

Let's hear about your 'how fast can you type story.'

And blacks that piss away the education provided for them and choose to limit their opportunities don't? Who is more to blame for the state of any inner city project: Jefferson Davis or hit and run baby daddies?

Well, we both agree that this country certainly gave African Americans an...education :flow2:

I lost interest as soon as you started talking about how persecuted you were. Let me know when the marks from the shackles heal and we'll take this up again.

And when you get over your snit that a white male might have encountered discrimination in his life, you could explain to me how what you have faced is so much more than what I have faced.

And when you get over the fact that yes, other people, even white males, might have experienced discrimination.

And then you can explain to me how it's OK in one case, and not in the other.

But again, if we are talking specifics, you'll 'lose interest.'

There's no reason a young black person today should feel that way.

To throw out the principles of the Founders--individual liberty, self-government--because they were imperfectly applied is to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

It's why blacks are doomed to be forever angry and disappointed: they believe an activist government--a government no freedom-loving person would tolerate--is the only answer to their problems.

Technically, other people achieved those rights for them: blacks did not self-liberate. That, too, may also be part of the problem.

Nonetheless, I'm not denigrating the civil rights advances of the 20th Century, I'm merely saying that it's wrong to say there was nothing good about our tradition before them, no matter what color you are. The Founders principles were, are, and will remain good. Their only significant failing thus far is that they weren't universally applied.

You seem to think I'm arguing against civil rights; I'm not. I'm saying that if civil rights changes in the 20th Century are your sole focus, you're bound to undervalue the truly great American tradition of individual liberty and self-government.

You say that as if it were some minor detail. That's understandable I suppose, because you aren't a descendant of those who were victims of the "oversight".

This is about nothing more than whether Michelle Obama is entitled to feel less than proud of this country. Everything else being introduced is a distraction.

Noooboooodyy knoooowwws the trouble he's seeeen, nooobooody knooowws hiis sorroooww!!!

:bitch:

Dicky's right. Whites were never subjected to Indentured Servitude in America, or denied jobs or housing if they were Irish or Catholic or something other than WASPs. And poor whites with no education were never preyed on by unscrupulous lawyers in Appalachia, taking the mineral wealth beneath their very feet and turning those same whites into an permanent underclass thanks to colonial economics.