Sunday, March 23, 2014

Not What We've Been Led to Believe

I came across this article and found it disturbing.  Who were these subjects studied for this research?  Were they only black Republicans?  Because as we're told so often after all, Repubs are the bigots and racists.

Or perhaps, as we saw in the last post, Dan and feo will offer some lame reasoning that suggests these blacks are incapable of seeing whites as anything other than adversaries, and thus are justified for maintaining "the code".

One thing's for sure.  We will never attain true racial harmony.  It's just not possible.  Far too many people are hung up on skin color and ethnicity.  If studies like this one yield this type of understanding, what hope can we have?  I had no idea that black people felt this way about other blacks who are too friendly with white people, especially given how we are told only white people can be racist.

I have to admit, that I did not access the actual study itself.  It required a subscription or cost for the single study, neither of which I feel like purchasing.  And the Examiner indicates two numbers that seem to conflict, regarding how many people were studied.  I'm guessing the bigger number relates to the total amount of subjects, and the lesser number refers to the total number of blacks, or black who have the issue. 

As anyone who has visited this blog knows, I don't give much credence to studies with a sampling of so few.  But just the idea that ANYONE would alter their perception of one of their race simply for developing a real relationship with someone of another race demonstrates a real problem in that "anyone".  I know we often see films of white racists acting that way, but that's film and often those films are made by liberals who lack a clue.  And I have always had a real problem believing that the races are so different that we couldn't find examples of any attitude as common in one race as any other.  This study lends validity to that belief, except that it shows an attitude more prevalent among blacks.

It ain't a good attitude for any race.  Especially the human one.

70 comments:

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

My experience since I entered the 6th grade in 1963 has been that more blacks than whites are racists, and exactly as this study showed - that they are antagonistic towards blacks who have the audacity to befriend "white" people.

But according to the anointed, blacks cannot be racists.

Marshall Art said...

I'm not ready to state one way or the other which race has the greatest percentage of racists. I think the mere consideration of such a thing also helps to reduce the possibility of our species ever getting over it. It's enough to admit that it exists across all races, and that it all needs to stop yesterday.

Each of us has our experiences. Mine is of being raised in a community with only one black family for the first 10-15 years it existed. Thus, all the racists I ever encountered were white. I never spent much time thinking about the possibility of black racists, as I never spent the time thinking in terms of racism to begin with.

A year or so after my father died, my mother sent my brother and myself to a summer camp for two weeks. We were in different cabins, according to age, and in mine was one black kid, Ron Harris. We were thick as thieves, along with a couple other dudes and we all got in trouble together. The speed at which we got past our skin color was not much slower than the blink of an eye. People like feo can't get their heads around things like this.

Nor is he likely to get his pointy head around the study to which I linked.

Feodor said...

"I had no idea that black people felt this way..."

Well, how could you? You've not done the simple thing and read about the black experience in the Americas. But, please, let me help you out just by pointing you in a general direction:

1) Many Thousands Gone, Ira Berlin
2) The Strange Career of Jim Crow, C. Vann Woodward
3) The New Jim Crow, Michelle Alexander
4) Against the Wall: Poor, Young, Black, and Male/Edited byElijah Anderson

Though you'll probably trod along your usually ignorant way whistling some tune of avoidance.

Marshall Art said...

And there ya go! feo purposely takes me out of context in order to further his desperate need to portray me in a negative way. As any honest person who actually read the post knows, what I said was...

"I had no idea that black people felt this way about other blacks who are too friendly with white people, especially given how we are told only white people can be racist."

Note the emboldened, italicized portion of my entire statement. It is the punchline, as it were. The point of the statement. The crux.

But no. feo needs to believe he is down with the cause, a champion of the black people (as if they are that stupid as to need him).

So here it is again: There is no "black experience" that isn't simply a human experience exploited by those unwilling to get over it without profit of some kind, or to maintain the division between the races by suggesting anyone from another race couldn't possibly understand.

And once again, feo believes there is something in his books that can justify something as wicked as looking down on someone for associating with another of a different race. Two posts in a row, feo defends racist idiocy.

Boy, how "false priest" fits him so well!

Feodor said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Feodor said...

You call me false but here you are twice now asking questions about the black experience but demand that two white men answer.

What's the problem with that, do you think?

Sorry, wrong word.

I had actually given a little thought to you in the shower more than a week ago now about around this. Since I think little of you I never spare thought here. But I'm almost convinced that even you can see the idiocy of the above question and demand that you've set.

And I've pointed you to black voices that speak to your questions. Sure, they speak at length. And that's because it takes time for any reader or listener to get far into the experience of another, different kind of person - be that ethnic and cultural or national or gender or sexuality difference.

It takes an open mind and conscious to let others' words in. I dare say that has what brought Dan and I to our respective places in life, namely, to the point of your questioning, a place where we can share communion with other kinds of people because we were humble enough to let others' words in. For me it was many other people. Many, many black friends, co-workers, mentors, wife and family. People like Alene and Oyarma, Bishop Coleridge, Aileen and Bob, Destiny, Mwandu, Antony, David, Joan, Claude and Carol, Claudine, Sister Copeland, Mr. Charles and his wife, Ms. Korbego, and others. And people I never knew. James Baldwin, Bell Hooks, Cornel West, Toni Morrison, Stanley Crouch, Harold Cruse, Richard Rodriguez, and many others.

I suspect the same is true for Dan.

It takes an open mind and heart, and some courage because, yes, reading and listening to other people will change you, Marshall. And yes. reading and listening to black folks will raise up that subconscious guilt you are so afraid of.

But what's your problem with identifying guilt within yourself, Marshall? Are you not already a sinner? Where is the grace of God that you so often claim is true?

I think it is not so much the guilt that you deny that you are really avoiding.

Dan and I have felt that guilt, admitted the truth to white history in this country and colonial violence in western history. But God forgives the penitent. And we have experienced the grace of God that cleanses and renews and reveals a new world. So, we are not afraid of the other. The other belongs to us and we to them in mutual responsibility to love. There is no more guilt. Just a committed determination to justice.

It is not the prospect of guilt that you avoid, Marshall. There's a more than equal answer to any guilt.

Sadly, it's that you have yet to have a personal experience of the very, most true thing that you know in your head waits out there for you. God's grace is what opens hearts. I wish for you a time to enter into it, to feel it, to let it lead you to love, humility, an open mind and heart to your brothers and sisters.

Perhaps then you'll know whom to ask about the black experience in america. And you'll know a whole lot more as well.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

I have no guilt about it at all, because neither I nor my progenitors had anything to do with slavery or racism.

Taking guilt for something you had nothing to do with might make you feel all smarmy but it does nothing for reality. Typical for liberals; all about feelings and nothing about common sense.

Feodor said...

Luke 18:11

Feodor said...

And then there is the fact that you are absolutely wrong, Glenn.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Feo,
Thanks for abusing a passage which has nothing to do with what I wrote.

Another typical behavior by liberals.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Feo,

And then there is the FACT that I am NOT wrong but you are.

Feodor said...

Are you an American, Glenn? Do you have European ancestry?

If yes to either or both, then you've benefited from slavery.

Feodor said...

And, of course, as Luke notes, you are a sinner, as were your progenitors

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Feodor

You are an ass. No, I did not benefit from Slavery because it never happened within 100 years of my being born. MY family FOUGHT against slavery.

I never intimated that I wasn't a sinner. But I have no guilt for other people's sins. No one is guilty of another person's sin. Are you really that stupid to think otherwise? Oh, yes you are, as demonstrated in your continual Scripture twisting and your liberal ideology.

Feodor said...

Chatfield's popping a vein under pressure. Is Jsus' calm assurance so remote?

You got rich off of slavery, Glenn.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Feo,

Again, you prove to be a false prophet by making untrue claims.

I'm as calm as a cucumber.

And your stupidity to insist I got rich off of slavery is off the deep end. I'm not even rich!

what I have, I worked for and events of 150 years ago had nothing to do with it. And, as I already said, fool, my progenitors FOUGHT against slavery.

you are indeed as foolish as your buddy Trabue.

Feodor said...

You're wealthier than 93% of the world, Glenn. But you don't seem to be very thankful to God about that. Not very faithful of you.

Actually it's an accident of birth. You were born in a nation that created enormous wealth from slave labor. This slave labor built your capital, created the funds that built a military, paid for the defense of the country, and seeded loans and capital, floated and invested in the job creators of the north and south.

You got rich off of slavery, Glenn.

So you lied when you said neither you not your progenitors had anything to do with slavery and racism. And you miss the mark by not confessing that the sins of the fathers are visited upon the sons.

But you are right that you're a cucumber. They can't make intelligible arguments - or follow them - either.

Feodor said...

By the way, Marshall, pertinent to your post, a good first clue as to why black folks stay wary of nice, white people, all you have to do is watch how quickly, in just a few words, Glenn descends into denials, lack of compassion, and a belief that he owns scripture rather than the other way around.

Well, you really have your clue at the first, when Glenn claims black folks are more racist than white folks.

Irritation, resistance to being defined by whites, suspicion about signs of "love" toward them isn't racism. It's born out of a history of family being torn apart, chained, robbed, and then left isolated, unrecompensed and unsupported when freed.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Feo,

I’m tired of playing your game. You revise history to go along with your liberal ideology.

Then you make false claims about what I am or am not thankful to God for (since you can’t read my mind) and by doing so you are guilty of hypocritical and unbiblical judgment.

You again twist Scripture about the “sins of the fathers.” What will be visited upon the sons is the consequences of fathers’ sins, not that the sons are guilty of them. E.g., the nation of Israel was given over to captivity and the whole nation suffered for many generations because the earlier “fathers” turned to idolatry.

You really need to study the Bible from a viewpoint other than liberal ideology. You might just learn something.

Your reading comprehension demonstrates more of your ignorance. I never said I was a cucumber. You are the one who can’t make intelligent arguments - or even follow them.

Have a nice day, fool.

Feodor said...

"I'm not even rich!"

You're richer than 93% of the world.

Doesn't take mind reading to hear ingratitude in you.

And then it's the coward who cuts and runs.

Feodor said...

And as I recall, the sons didn't do too much better than the fathers, did they, Glenn?

Remind us of what happened after they came back from exile, please.

I don't think you've read the whole thing.

Feodor said...

And it's not a game, Glenn. How would you call a debate over the legacy of slavery and racism a game if you did not already devalue the issue from the beginning? You're a coward, you're a hermetic Pharisee, and both make you callous.

Marshall Art said...

How apropos to check my blog on April 1st and see one of the greatest fools of all spewing his typical foolishness. feo never disappoints in that regard. I begin with his comment from March 31, 2014 at 6:32 PM:

"You call me false but here you are twice now asking questions about the black experience but demand that two white men answer."

I call you false for your twisted and untrue positions on the topics on which you've chosen to post comments. But this statement itself is false in that what I requested was your defense for the statement YOU made (or for Dan to defend his). You've yet to do this and instead continue to offer the words of others (by listing books to read) which, even if I read every one of them would still not constitute an answer from you for the question you haven't the courage to admit you lack an actual answer. So typical of yourself, to say nothing of lefties in general, you merely say crap you think sounds profound without actually thinking about the implications of what you say.

"I had actually given a little thought to you in the shower more than a week ago now about around this."

Some might find it flattering to be thought of by some guy in the shower. I find it disturbing and insist you keep your sexual fantasies to yourself.

"But I'm almost convinced that even you can see the idiocy of the above question and demand that you've set."

The idiocy is in assuming you can say anything that pops into your infantile mind and not have it challenged or not be required to defend it. The question itself is sound given you made a stupid comment suggesting that another idiot can have legitimate justification for saying idiotic things (I refer again to Holmes).

"And I've pointed you to black voices that speak to your questions."

Because you're too cowardly to admit that your faux-intellectualism has been found wanting and you hope that by distracting with references to books will result in the issue being dropped or forgotten. Those black voices cannot speak for you and your idiotic notion that there is legitimate justification for the stupidity of Holmes' racist comments about white Republicans.

"And that's because it takes time for any reader or listener to get far into the experience of another, different kind of person..."

This, and the paragraph that follows it, is the typical childishness that takes the place of honesty by lefty race-baiters and other defenders of bad behaviors. The child will go to great lengths to justify and rationalize his childish behavior. Honest people easily recognize this in the left and have no tolerance for it. Dishonest people of the left cling to such as it absolves them of the heavy lifting required to transcend their baser selves. No amount of race-baiting psuedo-intellectual authors can rationalize their own faults and shortcomings. If I want to know what a black person has to say, I'll check in with an honest one, such as Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Star Parker, Zo Rachel and others who don't make excuses for their situation and instead put into practice the timeless strategies for success and happiness that work for anyone regardless of race, creed or religion.

more coming now...

Feodor said...

Well, if we're to judge foolishness, it must be said that you can't get past two words without tripping. The word, "apropos," is primarily a preposition not an adjective. So it isn't customary to say, "How apropos," but, rather, how appropriate.

Then again, I suppose this isn't foolish so much as stupid.

So let's move on:

I guess if you had questions about what birth pain feels like you'd also settle for my opinions?

[And thank you for acknowledging that on Fool's Day, this is the place to be.]

Marshall Art said...

"But what's your problem with identifying guilt within yourself, Marshall? Are you not already a sinner?"

I don't deny my own shortcomings and sinfulness. I do indeed deny that I harbor, or should harbor, what is known as "white guilt". That's for losers like yourself who have bought into the crap of the race-baiters that insists you owe the black race something other than, or more than, the common respect and dignity we hope to receive ourselves. If you want to feel guilty about something in which you have taken no part, go right ahead. Or perhaps your guilt is the result of your own actual racism you cannot overcome even with your alleged marriage to a black woman. Perhaps you realize that marrying a black woman won't erase your own racist tendencies. Seek counseling for that, but don't project your evil upon others who simply see people as people no matter what their race or ethnicity.

I find it ironic, and incredibly hypocritical that you would cite Luke 18:11 while assuming a position of moral superiority by suggesting you are not as unfortunate as me for not yet realizing God's grace. How freakin' typical on this day of fools for you to make such a fool of yourself in that way. You've outdone even your own self.

Feodor said...

No need to harbor when we have Christ.

I'm not sure you know how the whole forgiveness and holiness things work.

Again, bravely venturing out toward a true personal redemption experience will be the best thing for you.

Until then, you're lost - metaphorically speaking.

Feodor said...

Luke describes someone who is avoiding acknowledging that they are like everyone else.

I've long acknowledged that and want for you to join on the happy bandwagon of so many. It's not me, Marshall. It's you.

Marshall Art said...

"The word, "apropos," is primarily a preposition not an adjective."

-adj.
Being at once opportune and to the point. American Heritage Dictionary

-adj
1. appropriate; pertinent. Collins English Dictionary

-adj.
3. being appropriate and timely. Webster's College Dictionary

-adjective
3.
opportune; pertinent: Random House Dictionary

Synonyms
applicable, apposite, pertinent, germane, material, pointed, relative, relevant

Related Words
appropriate, apt, fit, fitting, suitable; important, meaningful, significant; sensible, useful; admissible, allowable

Any way you want to cut it, it is perfect that a fool like you chooses this day to comment at all, at this blog or anywhere else, in an attempt to persuade that you are anything more than a fool. (Of course you are that desperate to latch onto something like that to maintain your self-delusion of superiority.)

Then, as if you hadn't confirmed the fact firmly enough, you go ahead and type this question:

"I guess if you had questions about what birth pain feels like you'd also settle for my opinions?"

Note again, fool, that you suggested that there was legitimate justification for the idiotic remarks Holmes made. Since YOU made the suggestion, it is more than perfectly appropriate that you provide that justification. That is, why do YOU say (not Toni Morrison or Cornell West, but YOU) it? If any of your "black voices" made the suggestion, I would look to them to provide support for it.

Thus, if you made an equally idiotic suggestion about birth pains, as I would fully expect you would were the topic to be about pregnancy, I would insist you support that as well.

"No need to harbor when we have Christ."

Yet you harbor guilt feelings over suffering in which you perhaps played no part.

"I'm not sure you know how the whole forgiveness and holiness things work."

There you go projecting again.

"Luke describes someone who is avoiding acknowledging that they are like everyone else.

I've long acknowledged that..."


Lip service doesn't cut it. And then you go on to project yet again. Get over yourself.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Fedor,

Glenn claims black folks are more racist than white folks.

Another lie. Glenn really said, My experience since I entered the 6th grade in 1963 has been that more blacks than whites are racists, and exactly as this study showed - that they are antagonistic towards blacks who have the audacity to befriend "white" people.

From there your false charges just go down hill demonstrating your inability to understand English.

God says to not answer a fool according to his folly.

Your foolishness, as well as your inability read and comprehend any conversation, tells me I should not continue answering you. It has nothing to do with cowardice.

Have fun Marshall. I don't have time to waste on Feo's ilk.

Feodor said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Feodor said...

Glenn, a liar is someone who says he is going to do one thing ("I'm tired of playing your game... Have a nice day) and then don't do it.

A coward and now a liar. You're really racking up the negative character traits. I think you need a vacation.

Feodor said...

The reason, Marshall, that Collins lists "apropos" as primarily an adjective is because Collins is a dictionary of Scottish usage. You know, for people who still may say, "the song feels apropos to a midnight jaunt."

The others you list, take it in third place as an adjective. Like I said, "apropos" is primarily a preposition not an adjective. It's just not our usage.
______________

For the same reason I can tell you that giving birth is terrifically painful without pain killers, I can tell you that black folks have great reasons to distrust the power holders and decision makers of this country.

The reason I say that is because I have listened to the people who have gone through experiences impossible for me to have.

I listened.

So, just as if you were to continue in denial about birth pain I would ask you to read and listen to women who have given birth, so I ask that you read and listen to black folks.

But you resist such simple logic because we both know that truly listening to black folks scares you deeply.

It shouldn't - and wouldn't if you had had a personal experience of God's grace.

As it is, you stay in terror of the unknown and dare not admit the terror even to yourself.

Marshall Art said...

Yeah, feo. I get it. In desperation you chose to try to nail me on my usage of the word "apropos". You failed in that my usage wasn't the least bit improper. Thus, no foolishness at all on my part. Too bad for you, fool.

"For the same reason I can tell you that giving birth is terrifically painful without pain killers, I can tell you that black folks have great reasons to distrust the power holders and decision makers of this country."

Problems with this comment:

-Again, I wouldn't ask you about birth pains at all. Your decision to use this example fails as the example does not compare in any way to the issue at hand, which is your inability to give a reason why Holmes was justified in saying white Republicans would feel differently about abortion if their daughters were knocked up by a black dude. It was a stupid and racist thing to say, not to mention without factual basis, but you feel someone like me couldn't possibly understand why he'd say such a thing. Of course that isn't true. I understand completely. He's a race-baiting Democrat who, like Dems in general, say stupid things routinely without thinking, as if their mouths are assholes and their words are farts.

-To pretend black people have "great reasons to distrust the power holders and decision makers of this country", is to admit to black racism against white people.

-The biggest problem is how common it is for you, while trying so hard to project intelligence, to fail so badly and instead expose yourself as the fool you are.

-For all your bluster and insistence that you can account for your defense of Holmes, you have yet to provide a thing that even hints at anything akin to a "great reason".

-Allowing for just a moment that blacks in general might have some ingrained distrust of whites, it still wouldn't explain Holmes saying something that incredibly stupid, which might actually alienate sucked in white Dem supporters who took the time to actually think about the implications of his idiotic pronouncement.

"I ask that you read and listen to black folks."

This assumes that I haven't and don't. An idiotic thing to say considering I just cited a few of the black people I follow. But then, you desperately need to believe such things about me, OR, more likely, you go along with the race-baiters, as well as the types of blacks depicted in the link of this post, and regard the blacks I follow as "Uncle Toms" and "oreos" and the like. I'm guessing it's both, because you're that corrupt in your thinking.

If there's anything that provokes fear in me, it's the fear that you might breed. God help any children you might have fathered.

Feodor said...

Racism is without reason, idiot.

Marshall Art said...

"Racism is without reason, idiot."

Exactly my position, fool, which is why I don't understand why you so desperately cling to it along with the race whores to whom you give worship.

Or is it that you finally acknowledge that there is no sound reasoning behind Holmes' idiotic remark? Naw, that can't be it. You're not that bright.

Feodor said...

It's not your position. It's your post but you confuse your own post. You have the wrong end of the stick because you're not looking.

Black folks have over four hundred years of reasons for being suspicious of white power. And they have drug laws since Reagan, prison laws passed by both parties, educational policies from Republicans and many Democrats, housing practices of almost every lending institution in the country, hiring practices of white managers, etc. etc. as a basis of their continuing "show me first" distrust.

Whites have the legacy and the self-interested perversion of irrational racist definitions and dehumanizing instincts of prejudice.

You don't know what you do when you ask questions, Marshall.

You raise a sound that militates against your avoidance and fear of redemption.

Marshall Art said...

"It's not your position. It's your post but you confuse your own post. You have the wrong end of the stick because you're not looking."

My position has been consistent and crystal clear. Highly educated people like yourself might have difficulty understanding what is so plain. I've confused nothing about my post. But then, you're content to simply make claims regardless of their lack of truth and honesty.

"Black folks have over four hundred years of reasons for being suspicious of white power."

And not one of them justifies stupid comments like that which Holmes said, nor does any of them justify condescending to one of their own race for the "crime" of befriending one of another race.

"And they have drug laws since Reagan..."

Which whites forced blacks to do drugs?

"...prison laws passed by both parties..."

Which whites forced blacks to break the law?

"...educational policies from Republicans and many Democrats..."

Which whites prohibited blacks from studying?

"...housing practices of almost every lending institution in the country..."

This is a good one, which suggests that red-lining was a decision based on racism as opposed to sound economics, or that expecting a loan applicant to demonstrate the ability to pay off the loan is somehow racist.

"...hiring practices of white managers..."

As if that's a real issue these last thirty years or more.

"...as a basis of their continuing "show me first" distrust."

Which is absolutely no different than the complaint lodged by blacks against whites years ago. Apparently double standards are just fine. That double standard on display in the following:

"Whites have the legacy and the self-interested perversion of irrational racist definitions and dehumanizing instincts of prejudice."

And apparently blacks believe they get to act that way now? Is that what you're saying? Yes. It is. You're an idiot.

"You don't know what you do when you ask questions, Marshall."

What I do is foolishly believe asking questions of people like you will result in an honest, cogent and logical answer. Silly me.

"You raise a sound that militates against your avoidance and fear of redemption."

You raise a sound that militates against your vain attempt at intellectual posturing. In short, you're an idiot.

Feodor said...

You feign ignorance and usually it's true, but in this case I think you know what I'm talking about. Your stonewalling is your soul's rigid blanket.

Marshall Art said...

That's funny: you accusing me of stonewalling. You make deceit look so easy.

And now, when you consider your comment of April 2, 2014 at 1:44 PM, you're up to three statements you need to support with specific evidence (not to mention the half dozen or so sub-points which provoked questions to answer as well). But it's enough for you to simply accuse, isn't it?

Feodor said...

Read the books; listen to the voices. The testimony of millions are your evidence. Get to know them. Quit stonewalling.

Marshall Art said...

I haven't inquired of "the voices". I'm not seeking "testimony of millions". I'm insisting that a cowardly false priest accounts for his own statements suggesting there are legitimate reasons why blacks would disparage other blacks who befriend whites (blacks who apparently haven't listened to the voices or the testimony of millions), as well as his own statements suggesting there is some acceptable reason why an elected official would suggest the white Republicans would not oppose abortion if their daughters were impregnated by a black dude.

Instead, I get spineless accusations of stonewalling because I won't be distracted by desperate diversions of book lists, which is itself stonewalling rather than demonstrating courage of conviction. It's obvious that you lack that courage, that you lack the intellectual might you try, but consistently fail to present. And here, you stepped in it again by making those suggestions you now wish you did not. Like the fool you are, you obviously, but stupidly, believe you won't be challenged, and faced with challenges to your idiotic pronouncements, you try to project your blatant shortcomings onto others. You sad, pathetic little child. I feel so sorry for you.

And as to voices? I've listened to some great ones, like those I've already mentioned, as well as others, like:

Herman Cain
Clarence Thomas
Condy Rice
JC Watts
Armstrong Williams
Ken Blackwell
Larry Elder
Shelby Steele
Wayne Perriman

as well as Rev. Martin Luther King, who preached of judging another by the content of his character. And I've read some of Malcom X, who said, "Anytime you see someone more successful than you are, they are doing something you aren't."

I read people who don't make excuses for bad behavior and bad rhetoric.

Feodor said...

Of course you haven't inquired. You asked the questions. If you new the sources of answers to the questions you wouldn't have had to ask, now would you?

That's why I've pointed you toward the answers: read the history to what you're asking. (No historians on your list.)

And engage with real people in life. (No friends on the list.)

You're scared, of course. Anybody is. But to get to the content of the racist character of our history, you just simply have to get to know - personally and at length and over time - people whose ancestors, family, and contemporary selves suffer still today from that history.

Otherwise, you're simply using your team for the color of their skin.

Feodor said...

And frankly, I doubt you've read them.

Because each of them will talk about the devastating effects of centuries of slavery, a century of Jim Crow, and contemporary racist differences in sentencing drug sellers from drug users, illegal lending rejections, and differences in quality of education between the poor (majority minority) and the predominately white middle class... have all had on the communities of black and brown people in this country.

It is the policies of solution that they oppose the majority on, not the past and continuing damage.

But it's the damage that you've denied.

So, no, I don't think you've ever read any black skinned author you want to Bogart.

Marshall Art said...

Whether or not you believe I've read what I claim to have read is neither here nor there, especially since your doubt is a result only of your pathetic desperation that is a result of your having to account for your suggestion that there is a legitimate reason for either the Holmes statement or the racist condescension of some blacks toward other blacks who refuse to allow skin color to dictate their choice of friends. Try as you might, you cannot escape the fact that you have no legitimate reason that you can cite, or you would have done so instead of pretending such a reason exists somewhere between the covers of any of the books you want me to read.

So here's how it would work if I was dealing with a visitor to this blog who was a man of higher character than yourself; someone with honor, integrity, honesty and a true understanding of what it means to be a Christian: Such a person would say something along the lines of...

"While I acknowledge that there are in American history well documented instances of discrimination and oppression toward people of color, and that these instances are not forgotten, nor should they be, there is no excuse for the stupidity of an elected official suggesting that the position on abortion held by white supporters of the Republican Party would change if their white daughters were impregnated by black men. Furthermore, even in light of those instances in American history, there is no excuse or justification for disparaging attitudes of some black people toward other black people for befriending white people."

That's what honorable people of character, regardless of their race, would say about Holmes or the people to which the link in this post refers. I fully understand you are not capable of understanding this most simple concept of Christian brotherhood, because you lack honor, integrity, honesty and a true understanding of what it means to be a Christian.

Feodor said...

If we're to be honest, Marshall, then you'll have to walk back your dishonesties.

"Legitimate reason" is your phrase; risen to your usage no doubt by fear, paranoia, and your central character - unChristian and ugly as it is - of being always in judgment of others.

Dan and I inferred that Mr. Holmes could be understood sympathetically. If one knows the history of our country in race relations; if one knows, intimately, families and friends who bear the suffering of... not just prejudice and racism, no not merely those devastating weapons of oppression... but bear the suffering marks of chattel slavery in the history of families, in the spiritual and economic violence done to generations whereby a person today is heavily burdened by belonging to divested and raped lineage.

If one knows these things then one cheers the victories beginning to mount in the black and brown citizens of the country - of which the President is an undeniable and now historically perpetual symbol; though just that in terms of race, a symbol of hope, the victory of perseverance and the slow defeat of racist forces that bear horrible fruits everyday.

That terrible fruit ripens everyday is seen by those who read the history and listen to the living and have compassion for what it means when Mr. Holmes and others say what they say.

Compassion is the heart of Christianity. For God so loved the world.

But you don't love it. You leap to racially driven drivel. And so does Glenn. Upon the remarks of one back man, Glenn writes condemnation of the whole class of black folks vis a vis white folks.

You and your boy are icons of those who "lack honor, integrity, honesty and a true understanding of what it means to be a Christian."

Feodor said...

Once again, you've posted, and then misplaced all reason, so ending up confused as to the direction that answers run. That would be left to right, Marshall.

Answers run from those who have them to those who do not. Left to right.

Marshall Art said...

"If we're to be honest,..."

This is funny. Who's "we"? You and your head lice? Not surprising the false priest would say "IF" as if there must be some condition met before being honest. Honesty is so difficult for you as your constant dodging here demonstrates once again.

Perhaps you mean you and I when you say "we're". But then, I haven't been the least bit dishonest in this discussion. YOU'RE the false priest, feo. Dishonesty is YOUR schtick. I have no reason to be dishonest since I've been speaking about truth and facts.

"...Marshall, then you'll have to walk back your dishonesties."

We'll be walking without end until you can find any. I'll wait here.

""Legitimate reason" is your phrase..."

Yes, it is, because I have no use for the alternatives, which you've been providing non-stop rather than risk being a stand up guy. It's OK, feo. Unless you firmly believe your black wife and her family will disown you for being one. Are they so twisted that they, too, would defend such a racist comment as put forth by Holmes? If so, isn't that really an example of what the linked article references? It would seem then that, like you, they would tolerate the most insipid and stupid statements by a black Democrat politician and stand behind it to the fullest rather than risk a white Republican victory at the polls. THAT is the only way one can "legitimately" explain Holmes' statement, because that's the honest truth. No dark days of America's past can justify something so stupid. Holmes is an idiot. He said something absolutely stupid and racist and you don't have the honor and integrity to admit it. This is typical of the leftist. It is so expected of feo the false priest. You wouldn't be feo if you did anything else.

"...being always in judgment of others."

There is nothing wrong with judging the quality, honesty and intelligence of the words and actions of others, especially politicians and those in positions of authority. Your blathering about oppression of black people is certainly judgmental, especially considering you believe all whites bear guilt for it. Ironic hypocrisy on your part. Typical.

"Dan and I inferred that Mr. Holmes could be understood sympathetically."

You inferred it, did you? You and Dan demonstrate idiocy and white guilt that you would even consider that there is legitimate justification for ANYONE, regardless of race, to say anything so incredibly stupid and racist. If there is any sympathy due Holmes, it is due to his complete incompetence in dealing with his opponent's righteous opposition to abortion.

"If one knows the history of our country in race relations; if one knows, intimately, families and friends who bear the suffering..."

Yada, yada, yada....how long does it take you to compose this drivel? I don't know about your black family, but the black people I've known don't seem to spend a whole lot of time anguishing over such things. The black people I know spend their time much as I do, trying to make a living, enjoy life and living it to the fullest. But then, I try not to spend too much time with anyone, regardless of their race, who whines all the time, making excuses for their failures.

Marshall Art said...

"If one knows these things then one cheers the victories beginning to mount in the black and brown citizens of the country..."

Yeah, I've been real cool with the victories of people like JC Watts, Clarence Thomas, Condy Rice, Tim Scott, Alan West and others, who rose based not on the color of their skin, but on the content of their character and their positions on issues. This is very much unlike Obama, who can't be topped as the worst person to claim the mantle of "1st BPOTUS". Well...I guess Al Sharpton would have been worse. But he never had any real chance. If Barry O is a symbol of anything, it's that you can be really stupid and unqualified and still be elected president. He symbolizes how racism can propel you to the top. (This "symbol" has lost support amongst the black population. That's some symbol!)

"...have compassion for what it means when Mr. Holmes and others say what they say."

I DO have compassion for what it means. It means he's an idiot and continued racist expressions will cost him. I truly feel terrible for people who are that stupid. And think of his supporters!! I feel really bad for them...unless they continue to support him. Then they deserve him.

"Compassion is the heart of Christianity. For God so loved the world."

What of compassion for all the white Republicans Holmes slandered with his racist remark? Got any for them? What of compassion for any of his supporters who might possess a shred of common sense and reason, but have him as a candidate? Got any for them? Boy, I sure do! God's compassion for the sinful is limited by their sincere desire to repent of their wickedness. If Holmes is just completely stupid, God will likely take that into account. But since he's been able to garner political support, I would imagine it is only cheap racism that provoked such a stupid remark. That would have to change. An apology would be nice, but he's a Dem, so that isn't likely, either.

"But you don't love it. You leap to racially driven drivel. And so does Glenn. Upon the remarks of one back man, Glenn writes condemnation of the whole class of black folks vis a vis white folks."

Good gosh, you pack a lot of projection in that little paragraph!

I love the world well enough, but not more than I love the Lord. I'm in the world, but not of it, like you and Dan. God does not require that I love everything people say or do, and in fact, I'm compelled to stand against wickedness in all its forms in favor of God's will. That's true love, false priest. Learn it. Live it.

I write two posts about racist drivel and you accuse me of leaping to racist driven drivel. There's that ironic hypocrisy I've so come to expect from you (and you never disappoint).

And you have the same desperate fantasy about Glenn being racist that you have for me. Why you feel this twisted need to portray us in this way is truly psychotic, if not sociopathic.

"Once again, you've posted, and then misplaced all reason, so ending up confused as to the direction that answers run."

Is this supposed to sound profoundly insightful?

"Answers run from those who have them to those who do not."

This explains the recommended reading list you offered. You have no answers for your own idiotic suggestion that Holmes was justified, as well as suggesting that blacks how frown on other blacks befriending whites is justified. Yet, the answer is simple: black racism against whites. BTW, you're simple, too.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Upon the remarks of one back man, Glenn writes condemnation of the whole class of black folks vis a vis white folks."

What a rank liar!

Feodor said...

I think this is probably what you do to Dan all the time: you make us say something we're not so that you have a bad interlocutor to deal with so that you come out right in the end. Doesn't matter that what you present is not what we wrote. Doesn't matter that you no longer have integrity with what you wrote before.

Just so the thing you have in your head works out the only way your head can deal with it and be right.

Nothing more dishonest and self-deceiving than that.

Like guilt. The good news is that one need not harbor guilt. There is Christ. I'll keep repeating that because its true in chrisitianity and even though you're a deceiving member, you're still a member. And you don't get how the whole forgiveness and redemption thing works.

So, I have not guilt. Dan has not guilt. Yet you're crutch is a picture of self-flagellation. That's your fear, not ours. Because it's what you secretly expect for your sins.

There's a way out.

And the beautiful thing about that way out is that it puts you in touch with all beings through love. Mr. Holmes can be loved and understood because of what he and JC Watts both bear: black history and personal experience of racism.

The difference between them is opinion on what the best policy is to shape society.

Mr. Watts is naive and Mr. Holmes is pessimistic.

And if I were to be honest, like here, I'd have to say I didn't really read what you wrote beyond a few lines and scanning the reference to Mr. Watts.

You ask what comes before honesty (again, asking questions where you're already prepared to deny answers), but what comes before is trust. If not trust in one another then the minimum trust that the other is speaking with some reality hold on themselves.

Sorry but I can't trust you to hold an ongoing and coherent sense of yourself. You begin to disintegrate when faced with arguments and spirit that you cannot handle.

Feodor said...

Glenn: "Have fun Marshall. I don't have time to waste on Feo's ilk."

And yet here you are again, Glenn. So you lied Glenn.

There, that's a concrete example you can now apply and correct your mistaken understanding of what lying is.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Feo,

HEY jackass. The first time you made that accusation was because the comments did not post in sequence. Secondly, this last comment was not directed at you.

I just wasted more of my time responding now because of YOUR false charges. You are indeed scum of the earth.

Now go back under the rock you crawled out of.

Feodor said...

Marshall, I would imagine that in the back of Mr. Holmes' mind would be this sort of thing as well:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/bal-again-christianity-the-last-to-get-it-right-commentary-20140404,0,7646305.story?fb_action_ids=10203263824063926&fb_action_types=og.recommends

Feodor said...

Because you are weak, Glenn, and a liar, I'll bet you'll be back yet again.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Amazing how Feo would select an article from one of the most liberal racists out there.

Feodor said...

And the lying coward is back! Not able to contend with content, just casting prejudicial, biased judgments.

Such a good Pharisee.

Marshall Art said...

You've provided no content for Glenn to address, nor have you provided any for anyone to address. And hypocritically, you rebuke Glenn for doing the very thing you've been doing in these last two posts...casting prejudicial, biased judgments. You are so good with the ironic hypocrisy. It's so effortless for you!

Feodor said...

When in Rome.

Marshall Art said...

It just gets better and better! Dig this:

"I think this is probably what you do to Dan all the time: you make us say something we're not so that you have a bad interlocutor to deal with so that you come out right in the end."

First, it doesn't speak well regarding you ability to think. Secondly, I don't make you say anything you don't have a corrupt and twisted mind to say. I merely remark on the implications of what you guys say. I can't help it if you are incapable of making your shit smell like lilac. If I come out right in the end (as is so easy when dealing with the likes of you two), it is because I am right (which is also easy given that I need only speak truthfully with fact and logic supporting my position).

"Doesn't matter that what you present is not what we wrote. Doesn't matter that you no longer have integrity with what you wrote before."

Except that what you wrote is nothing. What you wrote is unrelated to the challenge I set before you after you made your own stupid statement.

And what I wrote has been the same thing I wrote from the beginning, that there is no rational and legitimate excuse for a politician to spew racist sentiment toward an entire group of people (something race baiters continue to accuse whites of doing to blacks), or that there is also no excuse for the racism of blacks toward other blacks who befriend whites. Indeed, I've been quite consistent.

There's really nothing difficult to figure out here (for those who aren't so highly educated, so well read and graduates of seminary, like yourself). These two posts speak to racism by black people. It is no more acceptable or justified for blacks than it is for whites. Racism is wrong. You clearly support it for blacks because of your white guilt.

And indeed you suffer from white guilt, despite your claims to the contrary and your projections of racism toward me. You insist that all whites bear some burden for the past sins of other whites. If this isn't guilt, then guilt doesn't exist, and you wallow in that shit, like the race-baiting pig you are. But here's the thing....

"And you don't get how the whole forgiveness and redemption thing works."

Forgiveness and redemption requires repentance. You insist on labeling whites and insisting we're required to feel shame for things we have not done to blacks. You want us to repent for things we haven't done, while you continue to harm the black community by defending their own racist members and excusing their bad behaviors by using past history.

And you also need to believe such wild and nasty things about me in order to feel superior. But you have yet to prove I am guilty of any of the charges you continue to level against me. Again, it is enough for you to simply talk smack for it to be true in your pathetic and twisted mind. How sad.

Marshall Art said...

There is no comparison between Watts and Holmes. Watts is a man of integrity and honor. Holmes, by his racist and incredibly baseless statement demonstrates that he, like so many on his side of the ideological fence, is not.

"Mr. Watts is naive..."

Why? Because he doesn't fit the leftist race-baiting narrative? Why not just call him an "Oreo"? Apparently his perspective on how to deal with America's past is not valid. Nice.

"You ask what comes before honesty..."

No, I didn't. I commented on your need to have a reason to be honest. There should be no "IF I am to be honest..." There should only "I WILL be honest." A hard thing for you to grasp, no doubt. One needn't expect anything, even trust, before being honest. Indeed, trust is developed through honesty. Again, I don't expect a false priest to understand how integrity works. I get it. It's not in your nature.

"Sorry but I can't trust you to hold an ongoing and coherent sense of yourself. You begin to disintegrate when faced with arguments and spirit that you cannot handle."

There you go projecting again, needing to believe negative things about me that you haven't the least shred of evidence to prove. I'm here handling the argument as well as I can against someone lacking the courage, will and integrity to engage in it honestly. You keep dodging and avoiding and accuse me of being unable to handle...what exactly? There's nothing there to handle, which pretty much sums up your whole schtick. Empty posturing, no substance. Cheap accusations without basis.

It's funny, though. You continue to pretend I am fearful. And the fact is that way back in my mind, I sometimes feel a bit of fear that one day someone like you would actually step up and pose some problematic point against which I might not be able to argue. Then I wonder what reason have I to fear that will ever happen? You have never provided anything in the way of evidence that you are even capable.

All that education...all those books...and all you are is a sad and pathetic poser. Such a shame.

Feodor said...

Apparently you think that being a badass, Marshall, is just to be repetitious.

Feodor said...

I'd be interested what you boys think about this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/06/feinstein-cia-report_n_5100652.html

Marshall Art said...

"Apparently you think that being a badass...is just to be repetitious."

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. No doubt you don't, either.

"I'd be interested what you boys think about this:"

Off topic and totally irrelevant to it. If you want to know what I think about it, post it at your blog and I'll be sure to rush right over.

Feodor said...

Ah well, I expected it.

Since repetitious refers to more than one thing, I guess you get confused?

Marshall Art said...

Oh, please, false priest! You again attempt to posture yourself as intellectually superior. How incredibly sad, pathetic and typical. That is, I expected it. Yeah, I'm unaware that the word has more than the one meaning that the first billion people you'd interview would offer as a definition. I doubt that there is such an alternative, but what I don't doubt is that if there is, you'd use it purposely with the intent to confuse, because of your false and deceitful nature. "Oh, look! *sniff sniff* He is ignorant of my obscure reference! See how bright I am!" Such insecurity! It's merely more diversion since you've painted yourself in a corner in supposing there is a defense for indefensible statements and behaviors.

And of course you haven't explained yourself, so that suggests that you don't know what you mean.

Feodor said...

You're a mobius strip of disingenuous self-deception, Marshall. You twist things unit you think its dishonest and then you in a circle until you come back and do it all over again.

You ask stupid questions like why over 90% of black folks vote for Obama (leaving your ebony cadre in a hermetic bubble of 10%) and then adamantly refuse to listen to those very same folks reflect on how their experience - in the flesh, in their own hearing, in their own mail (not in their imagination like you and Glenn conjecture for racism vs whites) - has taught he fine lineaments of hate.

Take my hero, Hank Aaron, for instance.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/09/hank-aaron-obama_n_5119633.html

I learned from him, from someone who actually has felt the experience. Such as your Mr. Holmes.

But, being without empathy, you'll be ever lost. And fearing guilt if you do stumble on the way forward. Grace will heal you, Marshall. When will you have faith?
__________________

It's a shame I have to leave this scintillating barroom floor moraine of a discussion, but I have a date with my black wife for a week in the Dominican Republic.

It's so telling that you occasionally kill my wife off rhetorically by disbelieving. You can't stand real intimacy with black folks, And just think, I'll be surrounded with black living a latino culture. It's heaven.

Marshall Art said...

So typical of the false priest to project his deceitfulness onto his opponents. It's not hard to understand. The liar points to the other and accuses him to deflect attention from his own guilt. So pathetic, but so typical and expected from feo.

I don't have any need to twist anything, and like all your others charges against, couldn't provide evidence of twisting on my part to save your dark and corrupt soul. Consider that just another challenge you will not even attempt to take on.

"You ask stupid questions like why over 90% of black folks vote for Obama..."

Well, son of the father of lies, that IS a stupid question because the answer is not the least bit hidden. It isn't asked because I don't know the answer. It is asked because you won't respond honestly. Those reasons, of which there really are two, are no mystery, and they are the same regardless of the color of the Obama supporter:

1. He's a Democrat/not a Republican. That's all Democrats need regardless of their race or level of intelligence. This evident by the lack of true argument proving his worthiness.

2. Most importantly, because he's (half)black. This outweighs everything to all those who believe "it's time" or "America is ready", sentiments that alone illustrate why the country is doing as badly as it is. Fools believe those are legitimate reasons to elect anyone. "It's time"? "American is ready"? Those sentiments illustrate the racist heart of the Democratic Party. Those who wish the best for the country do NOT consider race as a factor in bringing about the best, even when considering the shallow left being aroused by the possibility.

No. Those who wish the best want the best choice possible regardless of the choice's race or gender. Character, ideas and the will and ability to put them to work were what was needed. Not a completely empty suit with no track record of accomplishment, no well defined idea of how to do the job and a completely twisted perception of the Constitution.

Since he first campaigned, I've asked often of Obama supporters why anyone should cast a vote his way. All I got were meaningless platitudes, and he didn't even rise to reflect a one of them. Now, in his sixth year, he still hasn't proven himself worthy and he still hasn't demonstrated that he is even one of the smartest in the room, much less THE smartest in the room. And the only defense idiots like you try to put forth is that we who see the emperor has no clothes are racists.

Marshall Art said...


Take your hero Hank Aaron. He hangs on to the hate mail he got all those years ago, just like idiots like you hang onto your belief that whites are inherently racist. He doesn't even see that because of his own self, today is nothing like the era when he got into baseball. People like him and Robinson brought about an understanding that his sorry self, like yours, just refuses to acknowledge, to your own discredit. He thinks not much has changed. What an idiot.

But your a very special idiot because you think that whatever suffering someone from his generation endured justifies racism, hatred and contempt for an entire race.

One of my oldest friends grew up as a racist. He did the same thing in criticizing the whole black race. Praise God he no longer is racist like you. But how he was is how many people are and how many blacks are. That is, with only a limited exposure to those of the other race, too often by choice, they hold opinions based on myth. Those who are the subject of the linked article are of this group of people. They go out of their way to avoid contact with whites and satisfy themselves that they know enough about them to regard every one of them with suspicion, in the very same way white racists, like my friend was, have done with black people. It's the attitude your hero has and it is shameful.

"But, being without empathy, you'll be ever lost."

Ah, but I DO have empathy. I can put myself in your shoes and be filled with self-loathing and I can understand why anyone would cop an attitude for stupid reasons, including cultural indoctrination, which is at the heart of the hate black racists feel toward whites. That is, they are taught to be racists, just like Jim Bob whose daddy wore a white sheet and burned crosses. I understand it all as well as the racism in you and it disgusts me to no end.

"It's so telling that you occasionally kill my wife off rhetorically by disbelieving. You can't stand real intimacy with black folks"

I know you so desperately need to believe this. You so desperately want this to be true so as to give your pompous arrogance some shred of legitimacy. But it, like all you believe, is a lie.

The fact is that what I can't believe is that ANY woman, regardless of color, would find a complete asshole like yourself to be a good choice for a husband. I grieve for her and due to your stupidity, am forced to believe she's stupid as well, and sadly and very likely more so given her choice of husband. But since ignorance is bliss, you both are likely very happy.

What is quite clear is that you're a black wannabe. More evidence of just how pathetic you are. You're so filled with white guilt that you want to be a black man so as to assuage your guilt. You need counseling.

Feodor said...

"What is quite clear is that you're a black wannabe."

There it is.

You think loving a black person, enjoying black or latino culture is a disease.

There it is: you're unexamined, unacknowledged racist subconscious.

Marshall Art said...

"You think loving a black person, enjoying black or latino culture is a disease.


There it is: you're unexamined, unacknowledged racist subconscious."


There you go projecting again. You're so sad and pathetic and truth averse.