Focusing on White
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-08-2016, 05:48 PM
RE: Focusing on White
40 years ago in Ft Lauderdale Florida our competition painted on the side of his trucks "All black owned and operated." So our boss painted on our trucks "All white owned and operated." The black guy sued our company for being racist. They went to court. The judge told them both to clean that off their trucks and that they each had to hire someone from the other color scheme. That is how I started working in a company where I was the only white face out of about 18 people. That is also when and where I met my second wife.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 10 users Like Born Again Pagan's post
26-08-2016, 06:10 PM
RE: Focusing on White
Not to worry. You can put your whites away after Labor Day.
http://content.time.com/time/nation/arti...84,00.html

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
26-08-2016, 06:13 PM (This post was last modified: 26-08-2016 07:39 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Focusing on White
Step out the front door like a ghost
into the fog where no one notices
the contrast of white on white.

[Image: white_1.jpg] - Kazimir Malevich




#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
26-08-2016, 06:39 PM
RE: Focusing on White
Regarding the Maori seats in parliament.
That goes back to when the government was trying to be more inclusive and shit. When whites dominated and Maori were looked down upon.
They created those seats to help improve race relations. So at the time they were very much needed.
The issue is though, now they are not. There are plenty of Maori politicians as well as gay or Muslim or Asian or whatever. There's no need for the seats.

I believe we still have the seats simply because the issue hasn't been that big of an issue to warrant parliament getting rid of them.
I'm sure it'll happen in the future.


Maori v White is an issue in this country though and it's not at the hands of white people, it's Maori keeping the war waging.
Perfect example, the flag referendum. That was a perfect opportunity for us as a nation to take the first step in uniting but nope, Maori leaders and shit pushed hard for people to vote to keep our flag because they simply didn't like John Key. If that was the Maori Party or even Labor putting that forward we would have a new flag right now.
The Maori are the single biggest problem at keeping this divide. Well, more specifically the Iwi leaders are.

[Image: oscar.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-08-2016, 06:51 PM (This post was last modified: 26-08-2016 07:15 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Focusing on White
(26-08-2016 06:39 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  Maori v White is an issue in this country though and it's not at the hands of white people, it's Maori keeping the war waging.

Who was there first? I enjoy watching the indigenous population dicking with pasty little gay virgin boy invaders.




#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-08-2016, 07:51 PM
RE: Focusing on White
My general impression is that most canonical arguments you read/hear are from a Euro-centric ("white") perspective so you aren't hearing anything new. I can't really speak from experience, because race usually doesn't come up in my studies.

I feel there is some *sense* to that perspective. If an institution disproportionately affects people of a certain race, for example, the people of the race most negatively affected by it probably have experience with what issues there are. While I'd still expect evidence to back up their claims, they have the advantage of knowing what hypotheses to consider when evaluating evidence. That said, saying you're opinion is invalid because you're white isn't a good argument as you should be able to demonstrate why they are wrong; however, commenting that someone's perspective is limited because they are white at times may be a fair point even if it's not an argument.

As an analogy that may help, someone's perspective of the Bible may be limited if they haven't read it (or read beyond what their clergy presented) compared to someone who's read the Bible front and back. Someone who's read the Bible front and back can cite verses that indicate "hey, this God was kind of a dick" that someone who hasn't read the Bible hasn't read. Commenting that a person's perspective of the Bible is limited because they haven't read it is a fair point, but if you want to demonstrate why their claim is wrong, you still need to cite the verses. Not sure if that's the best analogy, but maybe that gets the idea across? :/
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-08-2016, 07:58 PM
RE: Focusing on White
(26-08-2016 06:39 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  Perfect example, the flag referendum. That was a perfect opportunity for us as a nation to take the first step in uniting but nope, Maori leaders and shit pushed hard for people to vote to keep our flag because they simply didn't like John Key. If that was the Maori Party or even Labor putting that forward we would have a new flag right now.
The Maori already have their flag
[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSQYrGE8KeGM4wWQsJRnMK...QfyVWCmlpK]

I didn't vote for the change of flag because their was no significance for the change. It was just a whim.
If we get rid of the treaty, that would be something to celebrate and would need a new flag.

But getting back to my OP.
Could you imagine the uproar if we had a White's only rugby team, or whites only parliament seats, or an article in the national rag about the White perspective on something?

Why do no one get in an uproar when we do the Maori thing?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
26-08-2016, 08:22 PM
RE: Focusing on White
(26-08-2016 07:58 PM)Stevil Wrote:  But getting back to my OP.
Could you imagine the uproar if we had a White's only rugby team, or whites only parliament seats, or an article in the national rag about the White perspective on something?

Why do no one get in an uproar when we do the Maori thing?

Because you are tedious as all fuck. What's so hard to understand?

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-08-2016, 08:32 PM
RE: Focusing on White
(26-08-2016 08:22 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Because you are tedious as all fuck. What's so hard to understand?
What?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-08-2016, 08:51 PM
RE: Focusing on White
(26-08-2016 07:51 PM)ZoraPrime Wrote:  My general impression is that most canonical arguments you read/hear are from a Euro-centric ("white") perspective so you aren't hearing anything new. I can't really speak from experience, because race usually doesn't come up in my studies.

I feel there is some *sense* to that perspective. If an institution disproportionately affects people of a certain race, for example, the people of the race most negatively affected by it probably have experience with what issues there are. While I'd still expect evidence to back up their claims, they have the advantage of knowing what hypotheses to consider when evaluating evidence. That said, saying you're opinion is invalid because you're white isn't a good argument as you should be able to demonstrate why they are wrong; however, commenting that someone's perspective is limited because they are white at times may be a fair point even if it's not an argument.

As an analogy that may help, someone's perspective of the Bible may be limited if they haven't read it (or read beyond what their clergy presented) compared to someone who's read the Bible front and back. Someone who's read the Bible front and back can cite verses that indicate "hey, this God was kind of a dick" that someone who hasn't read the Bible hasn't read. Commenting that a person's perspective of the Bible is limited because they haven't read it is a fair point, but if you want to demonstrate why their claim is wrong, you still need to cite the verses. Not sure if that's the best analogy, but maybe that gets the idea across? :/

The difference between understanding something and actually experiencing it. One is academic. The other visceral. The best way to understand certain perspectives is to just actually experience them. Find a makeup artist to make you pass as black. Take an evening stroll through your neighborhood.

We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning ~ Werner Heisenberg
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: