Stanek Sunday funnies 12-29-13
Here’s the last weekly round-up of my favorite funnies for 2013! Be sure to vote for your favorite in the poll at the bottom of the post. Happy New Year!
by Gary McCoy at Townhall.com…
by Glenn McCoy at GoComics.com…
by Gary Varvel at Townhall.com…
by Steve Kelley at GoComics.com (yes, in case you hadn’t heard, A&E has had second thoughts and unsuspended Phil Robertson, the patriarch of its biggest money-maker, Duck Dynasty)…
by Dan Wasserman at GoComics.com…
[polldaddy poll=7678236]
Dec.29, 2013 11:52 am |
Cartoons |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I’m going to go with #3 this time. I found it pretty funny.
I wonder if our glorious leader got hacked when he pulled that farce of “signing up” for Obamacare.
Mary, *he* didn’t sign up, a staffer went to a physical location to sign up because they couldn’t do it through the website and signed up for him.
Hi Jespren,
Thank you. I stand corrected.
Was it because the website was screwed up or because they feared it being hacked? Also, what do you mean by a physical location?
Thanks for the info.
All of these were great but #3 got my vote. LL
Mary, reportedly it was because, as President, his ‘personal information’ is not availible in federal databases so the website could not authenticate his information. Although what information requested by the website that would need authentication that was not in the standard databases is unknown. As for ‘physical location’ there are four ways to sign up, you can go to the website, call the phone line, fill the paperwork out and mail it in, or go to a staffed location, which helps you with said physical paperwork. They all work equally unwell since everything, ultimately, is being funneled through broken channels, unqualified staff (famously no background checks required! And already caught on tape telling people to lie about their income) and the same data pools, but there *are* physical locations. In my town the university hospital is hosting the physical location.
Hi Jespren,
Thank you! :)
What? Your mess-iuh turned out to be just another lying politician? Poor darlings. Welcome to the wake up.
Even my lib relatives were laughing this Christmas because Der ‘Leader’hosen was hoping we’d all follow the pajama boy’s advice but instead we had a rousing conversation about Ducks. LOL!!!
No. 4 – it’s all about the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
I voted for No. 1 the most profoundly truthful cartoon. Mary’s baby Jesus would have been the poster child for PP with her unplanned, unwed, teenage pregnancy. They would have been glad “to take care of her little problem” for a price. They could have posted a flashing sign which would have read ”Dead Babies R Us” with the subtitle “No Live Babies Allowed”. I think it was Carol Everett the ex-abortuary owner who is now pro-life who said “PP is in business to sell abortions”.
I try not to feed the troll but you actually are right Reality but mostly about No. 1
PP “IT’S ALL ABOUT THE $$$$$$$$$$$$$$.”
the subtitle “No Live Babies Allowed” – well that would obviously be incorrect.
I try not to feed the troll – I don’t mind doing so a little bit when they turn up :-)
PP doesn’t exist to make a profit so that funds can be distributed to any owners or shareholders, A&E does. That’s where it’s really all about the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Number 1 for me, though I can understand how my American neighbours identify with number 3. No heroes in the A&E controversy, only the nastiest parts of capitalism and unprofessional behaviour at work.
I agree with Reality about one thing: No.4 gets my vote.
It is all about the money, of course. But I, on the other hand, find it amusing that A&E struggled to determine which course of action would retain the most $$$. You can’t profit from a downhome family in one breath and then fire them for their morality for which many viewers appreciate them in the next. Well, I mean, you CAN (this is not about legality or free speech per se), but you can’t have it both ways, from a business perspective. In other words, if you don’t want real people, don’t do reality shows.
On a more important note (wink), Go Packers Go!
“Now that’s a woman. They got to where they’re hard to find. Mainly because these boys are waiting til they’re twenty years old before they marry them. Look, you wait til they get to be twenty years old and the the only picking that’s going to take place is your pocket. You got to marry these girls when they’re about fifteen or sixteen and they’ll pick your ducks.” – Phil Robertson.
This might explain his return LifeJoy – “One wonders why the network felt compelled to reinstate Phil Robertson so quickly. One hunch is that it assumes it has already lost the tolerant open minded demographic it is going to lose. Maybe reinstating Phil Robertson will ensure the demographic most aligned him is maintained.”
Well, yes, Reality. That’s exactly it. We agree.
I just can’t believe it took A&E more than 5 minutes to figure that out. Perhaps it was just an empty gesture to pretend suspend him, feigning alarm at their star’s words.
You may well be right LifeJoy.
Alternatively, maybe they were genuinely alarmed at his words then realised that those words probably didn’t alarm or alienate anyone who wasn’t already alarmed or alienated by the things he’s said.
Either way, it’s not exactly high moral ground stuff being demonstrated by A&E.
Ha, Reality. Indeed. Even “progressive” capitalists are capitalists first. I’m alarmed that they would be alarmed. The poor thought police were so very disillusioned.
That said, I don’t feel particularly comfortable with Phil representing conservative Christians. Speaking the truth in love probably need not include discussions about so many body parts. And although he did advocate for treating all people with love and respect and admitted to his own sinful nature, he might have told the good news of forgiveness. But then again, perhaps GQ just ran out of ink.
Too true LifeJoy, one can never be sure of the impact of editing of articles/interviews in many parts of the media.
““Now that’s a woman. They got to where they’re hard to find. Mainly because these boys are waiting til they’re twenty years old before they marry them. Look, you wait til they get to be twenty years old and the the only picking that’s going to take place is your pocket. You got to marry these girls when they’re about fifteen or sixteen and they’ll pick your ducks.” – Phil Robertson.”
Lol someone’s never lived in the rural South if they are shocked by someone saying something like that. :D
I’m glad they reinstated him, no people can’t stop crying and whining.
#3 hands down!. In 2014 upon another review, the goal posts will be moved the length of TWO football fields…
Steve Kelley’s doesn’t work. I highly doubt the ducks would be taking Robertson’s side on anything.
That said, I don’t feel particularly comfortable with Phil representing conservative Christians.
Well you shouldn’t be. That stuff he said about black people being “happy” in the Jim Crow era was insensitive and ridiculous. My dad grew up in rural Florida during that time and he still remembers “colored only” bathrooms and drinking fountains, sitting in the back of buses, having to call little white boys and girls “Mr” and Miss” while he was a grown man and still referred to as a “boy,” etc. My mother went to South Carolina once and black people were not even allowed to try on clothing and shoes in stores. He had a friend that was “called” out by the “nightriders” (Klan) and never seen again. There was even a live oak in his town that all the black people avoided because it was rumored to be a “lynching tree.” He hated it so much there that he moved to Pittsburgh to eacape. I can hear the pain in my parents’ voices when they talk about this, which is rarely, and my Dad is in his nineties.
And please stop the “birther” stuff. It’s tired and ridiculous.
“That stuff he said about black people being “happy” in the Jim Crow era was insensitive and ridiculous.”
That’s what I said on the other thread. The stuff he said about gays was just kinda dumb, the stuff he said about “never seeing a black person mistreated” in rural Louisiana under Jim Crow was beyond the pale.
Phillymiss, I’m sorry for what your father went through. I can’t imagine.
In my line of work I sometimes travel to theaters all over the country. In some states, theaters of a certain age still have relic old second balconies that go unseen and unmentioned these days, until the local arts fundraising organizations can quietly renovate them away. When working, I’ve gone up to some of the “colored balconies,” as they were called. In the most ornate, lush, proud theaters you’ll see simple rows of hard benches up there. With separate entrances, sometimes just rickety stairs up the outside of the building, exposed to the elements.
That’s just a single, unnecessary, entertainment-industry thing but it is just one bit of evidence of something so undeniable: what things were once like. I really have no patience for people who choose to remember things differently than they were.
I voted for #3.
Regarding Phil’s comments on black people – isn’t it possible that Phil’s personal experience as a poor white person working along side black people in the fields was as he described. We all know what went on in the broader context of the Jim Crowe south, but it’s probably safe to assume that Phil had little experience beyond a pretty narrow rural upbringing. I see ignorance of the plight of black people beyond what he personally witnessed, but not the hatred people are ascribing to him.
I agree with you, C.T. Most of us think we know the feelings of all blacks and all whites, based on our generally living in different neighborhoods.
Ironically, in much of the rural South they live side by side. Who is anyone to say Phil is lying about the people he lived and worked with not griping about race relations? Do they really think you have to live a life of constant outrage?
“but it’s probably safe to assume that Phil had little experience beyond a pretty narrow rural upbringing. I see ignorance of the plight of black people beyond what he personally witnessed, but not the hatred people are ascribing to him. ”
“Ironically, in much of the rural South they live side by side. Who is anyone to say Phil is lying about the people he lived and worked with not griping about race relations? ”
I know that neither of you ever lived in the rural South (especially not in that time period, it’s better now but still eh), but come on now have you ever talked to blacks who were living in the rural South under Jim Crow? I don’t think Phil is “hateful” but I think he’s ignorant, probably willfully. White people are pretty good at ignoring racism that isn’t directed at them. Poor white southern families weren’t treated incredibly well, and there was a certain camaraderie between poor blacks and some poor whites, but “working side by side” didn’t mean that race relations were not dangerous and ever present. No matter how much Mr White likes Mr Black when they work the field together, if Mr Black tried to go to the same stores, do the same things, or get too friendly in certain ways that’s not going to be cool.
I understand he referred to himself and his family as “poor white trash”, meaning he and his family were considered ”dirt poor whites” back in the day and they probably were so poor they were not respected by anyone. I have a friend raised dirt poor in the rural south who said her mother taught her both whites and blacks deserved to be treated with dignity and respect. I could not believe it, I wrongly assumed all rural southern whites were racist and treated blacks horribly. She said her mother taught her Jim Crow was “stupid” and the KKK was “shameful”. Their family was so poor that black families helped them when they were about to starve to death and they would help each other during tough times by sharing food and crops. She was taught to address her black friends’ parents as “maam” and “sir”, her mother insisted on it. However she did acknowledge that blacks were generally treated worse than poor whites by other whites but her mother hated racism and taught her it was wrong.
“. However she did acknowledge that blacks were generally treated worse than poor whites by other whites”
That’s my point with good ol’ Phil. Not all whites were racist, even rural southern whites, but you had to be more deluded than I am to not notice the disparities in treatment between poor whites and blacks.
Formally-known-as-Jack,
My point was that in the pocket of life that was Robertson’s experience, he wasn’t much around public water fountains or bathrooms or buses for that matter to watch blacks being mistreated.
He was thrown together with them in the fields. They all lived “on the other side of the tracks”. They were even more integrated than a football locker room.
He never said discrimination didn’t exist. He just said it wasn’t the topic in his youth among his co-workers. They were too busy doing their job and living their life.
No, Hans and CT, everything and everywhere is the monolithic beast represented in books and important people’s experience. If yours is other than, you are lying, hateful, and/ or an ignoramus.
Phil emphasized that this was his observation from his immediate surroundings. Are we so adverse to fluidity and nuance that we can’t fathom that in a particular five mile radius, for a finite set of individuals with a specific set of circumstances, this was the case? Education gone terribly awry.
“everything and everywhere is the monolithic beast represented in books and important people’s experience. If yours is other than, you are lying, hateful, and/ or an ignoramus.”
Well, no one insulted him here I don’t think. “Ignorant” isn’t an insult, it’s descriptive. You may call me ignorant on a multitude of things without insulting me, because it’s truthful. It’s demonstrably ignorant to say that black people under Jim Crow, forced to work cotton fields because they were basically locked out of any career or job advancement, among other issues were “happy”. It’s like (forgive me for the analogy but I think it’s appropriate) the slave owners and whites who claimed that slaves were happy and treated well… sure, black people who were enslaved might have found joy in bad circumstances and not all slave owners beat and raped their slaves, humans are resilient and the black community certainly had some wonderful culture even under great oppression. That doesn’t mean anyone was joyful over slavery, or Jim Crow, or that people weren’t oppressed and treated horribly.
I’d just rather take the word of actual black people who grew up in conditions that Phil described instead of, instead of listening to some old white guy whitewash history to make a tortured point about “entitlement” or something stupid like that. I don’t even know what he was going on about. People who forget history are doomed to repeat it, and I think it’s creepy that it’s only been like what? 50 years since the civil right’s movements? And people are already trying to make things not seem as bad as they were (not because of what one silly redneck said, the people who jumped to defend his views on Jim Crow and bash the black community of today, which admittedly has issues).
I just don’t see him saying anything beyond his experience. Maybe he is making a statement that things were better pre-civil rights, but I don’t get that from his statement at all. I see him making a comment about what he saw, with his own eyes. Maybe all he’s saying is what you said above. That even in a time that everyone sees as universally horrible across the board, there were pockets of joyfulness and, as he perceived it, comraderie.
I mean I think you hit the nail on the head. I don’t know what he’s going on about and neither do you. Allegedly the interviewer asked him about life pre-civil rights, but then he responds making a point about entitlements. Did the interviewer ask a different question? Did he not understand the question? Is he just prone to tangents? Regardless, I don’t see him trying to “whitewash” history or argue that no one was treated horribly. I just see an old guy responding to a question (and we don’t know what that question was) w/ a statement that his personal experience was not what people would expect. Polished and articulate he is not. But I don’t think he’s hateful either. A little naive and/or ignorant? Possibly.
For the record, I too would take the word of black people as to their experience. But I take the word of Phil as to his. Nothing more.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion and every one of us voices opinions through a filter (our own interpretations based on our experiences and belief system). All this talk about Phil reminds me of growing up in Eastern Europe and being exposed for the first time to the black culture by watching the movie Roots. I was about 9 years old at the time. This movie presented blacks in certain light and the general understanding of the culture stemmed from exposure to that film. Imagine when I arrived in the US at age 14 and met black people face to face under various circumstances. How were my views shaped then and how did they transform from watching Roots?
Phil is conveying his views, dictated by his experiences and his belief system that are very much rooted in interaction with blacks and other factors dictated by historical events. So Phil has no right whatsoever to voice his opinions in response to a reporter’s question? Give me a break. I think Hans’ December 31, 2013 at 3:07 am summation (based on my own experiences mentioned above) makes the most sense in this discussion.
Excuse me Thomas, where do you see me say “Phil Robertson shouldn’t be allowed to share his (however ignorant and limited in my view) opinions.”? That’s a huge misunderstanding of how I think of free speech if you think I think anyone, even a genuine racist which I don’t believe Phil is, should be stopped from expressing their opinions. You’re arguing some point I never made.
CT I was not saying Phil was attempting to whitewash history, though I think according to black peoples personal accounts of the time period, he must be rather blind. I’m talking about the reaction to those comments I’ve witnessed.
Like I said, I think the heated debate here centers around what Phil said and how he said it and the audacity of him saying what he did. He said it, the “controversy” is over and even A&E had the “heart” to reinstate him. If Phil got so much flack I only wonder what would some do to me for expressing my opinions borne out of my experiences :)
“Controversy” isn’t censorship. People are just as allowed to give people crap for views that they don’t like as people are allowed to express their unpopular viewpoints. Getting fired from a private company (and rehired, for that matter) isn’t lack of free speech either. No one is protected from societal backlash, everyone is protected in this country from government censorship (in most cases) and certain discriminatory practices (can’t be fired for being black or whatever, but you can get fired for black separatism activism, for one example).
It’s really just complaining to complain that other people are complaining that Phil complained about something. Lol.
CT I guess I did say that Phil was trying to whitewash history, I apologize I didn’t mean to. I just think he’s ignorant (I suspect willfully, but I have no proof other than knowing about a thousand old white rednecks from the rural south who think exactly like him). The reaction by certain segments to his race comments concerns me, is what I meant.
“(can’t be fired for being black or whatever, but you can get fired for black separatism activism, for one example).”
So DLPL – would you kindly email this statement to the “reverend” Jesse and Reverend Al. I think they deserve lots of credit for keeping racism alive, don’t you?
Happy New Year to one and all!!!
“So DLPL – would you kindly email this statement to the “reverend” Jesse and Reverend Al. I think they deserve lots of credit for keeping racism alive, don’t you?”
I don’t see why it’s my job to police black activists. I’m a white Cubano, I’ll talk about racism, colorism, and whitewashing in the white and Cuban (and, I guess, “hispanics” as a whole, though Cubans seem to be the worst in my opinion with perpetuating racism) communities because that’s what I can speak to. Black people are perfectly capable of calling out their own activists and some do a fantastic job at counteracting the rhetoric they see as damaging to their own community. I do wonder about this insistence whenever people bring up problems that white people have in regards to race relations that someone ALWAYS has to bring up a couple black activists.
And people are already trying to make things not seem as bad as they were (not because of what one silly redneck said, the people who jumped to defend his views on Jim Crow and bash the black community of today, which admittedly has issues).
Jack,
This “silly redneck” “privileged” his way in college to be a top quarterback at Louisiana Tech. I believe his backup was Terry Bradshaw, a winner of four Super Bowls who said Phil was much better. Phil was offered a pro career but prefered the rural life (Redneck!}. So he built a successful company instead.
Now it’s just the deluded liberal talking point that he was deludedly defending Jim Crow laws. There are places where even an oppressive government doesn’t reach. We all remember how our lives barely made it through those dark days of the recent government shutdown. Oh, the tales of woe we’ll be telling to our grandchildren!
No, Phil wasn’t being an oblivious “Miss Daisie”, or saying that all blacks were always happy. Just “his’n” were, there and then. Unless we were there and then, we can’t call him a liar.
“This “silly redneck” “privileged” his way in college to be a top quarterback at Louisiana Tech.”
And that’s relevant how…? I don’t really care about Phil himself, he seems affable enough, family man. Like I said, I don’t think he’s racist, just ignorant on some opinions and (imo) willfully blind.
“There are places where even an oppressive government doesn’t reach. ”
If you think Jim Crow was simply oppressive government that’s not true. It was a way of life codified in law. I would ask Phil what his daddy would have done if one of those black men they worked with had shown interest in one of the white daughters. I’ve talked to many blacks that grew up here under Jim Crow, and they had many friends who were white, usually poor whites. BUT there was always a barrier and certain things you did not do or say. Ever. Like I said, race relations were ever present no matter how close poor blacks and whites were when working the same type of jobs and being in similar socioeconomic circumstances. Phil was privileged to not have to be aware of that, black men his age could not forget it.
I do admit I have a slight chip on my shoulder about white rednecks, lol. They’ve never been particularly kind to me, haha. In general they aren’t bad people, but they in general show a real lack of awareness to people’s differing circumstances.
And I don’t think Phil is “lying”, I think he’s ignorant and blind in some ways. It’s not his fault he was born white and didn’t have to live with particular things that black men of that age had to. I’m sure in his limited view from where he’s looking, his statements are just factual. Doesn’t change the fact that people take issue with them for good reason.
Jack,
There aren’t that many parents who wouldn’t want their kid to marry someone close to them in culture or whatever. You couldn’t blame a Jewish couple wanting their daughter to marry “a nice Jewish doctor” over the likes of you or me.
We all see the world through our own eyes. I think it would be willfully ignorant of us to claim to know what Robertson saw and felt just because we’ve heard of different stories.
Uh, I’m mixed race so the “it’s normal to not want your cultures to mix” thing does NOT fly with me, lol. I think it’s damn racist, to be completely honest. It wasn’t about “culture”, it’s long been pointed out that poor white and black southerners had exceedingly similar cultures (seriously, listen to what people like to call “ebonics” and compare it to deep South white accents, they are quite similar, and that’s just one example). It’s pure racism, plain and simple. There was actually much more difference between my parents white southern culture (Dad) and the Cuban immigrant culture (Mom) than there were between impoverished whites and blacks in many areas of the south. It’s about skin color. Pretending it’s not is… I don’t have a kind word for it.
I do think there were some whites who were simply concerned for the safety of the couple in mixed race relationships, but a lot of it was simple anti-miscegenation. Oh, except white guys could sleep with/coerce/rape black women with impunity, basically. Let’s not forget it didn’t go both ways.
I’ve not even once claimed I know what Robertson “saw and felt”, I do think that he is coming from a position of privilege to not see black people mistreated in deep South Louisiana under Jim Crow, for goodness sakes.
I should clarify, I don’t think it’s racist to want your child who was raised a Christian and is a Christian to marry another Christian for example. I would find it massively racist if they didn’t want their white Christian child to marry a black Christian, for example. Same thing with the Jewish example. Wanting your kids to marry within religion is one thing, not approving of marrying someone because of ethnicity or skin color is racist, there’s just no way around that. Otherwise I’m stuck only dating half-white half-Cuban women lol, I doubt I’ll find many of those where I live now.
Things are looking bleak when the Left has insisted on picking up that whip that used to be wielded by the slavemasters and the Jim Crow era Democrats and cracking it over our heads shouting: “We’ve got different colored skin! Notice it! Never let it leave your mind!”
Well, stop it. I agree with my fellow Republican. I’d rather judge someone by their character.
Not wanting your child to date or marry someone because of their ethnicity or skin color is the very definition of not letting skin color leave their mind. It’s not but the most extreme leftists that try to justify anti-mixing, that’s the shame of the other side.
Sure, people can react to someone’s perspective on their own personal experience with disgust and dismay. But in this case, those responses are unjustified. If he meant his observations to be generalizable, with the purpose of downplaying racism and mistreatment, then I can understand the alarm. A lack of additional context obliges us to take him at his word. The dissonance pains us, doesn’t it? Unless you can insert the PC party line, keep your mouths shut or deal with the deluge of mischaracterizations of you and your ideas.
What was your experience with x?
Well, x, y, and z.
No, no it wasn’t! That’s aweful!
“What was your experience with x? Well, x, y, and z. No, no it wasn’t! That’s aweful! ”
That’s silly. Say you asked me “what’s your experiences with how women are treated?” and I went on about how I’d personally never see a woman treated with anything less than respect, that in my experience I haven’t seen any type of sexual harassment, domestic violence, or any other inequity (especially if I were talking about a time period/place where women were treated legally and culturally very badly), I would expect people to be like “this dude has no idea what he’s talking about, his statements are incredibly out of touch with the actual experience and treatment of women”. Your personal experience can be faulty or ignorant in multiple ways and no one is obligated to just be like “okay” because that’s what you personally saw.
Jack,
Notez bien the first word:
HAPPY NEW YEAR! :)
Prospero ano nuevo! If I weren’t lazy I’d get the accents and punctuation right lol.
That’s the nice thing about the Romance languages. You can pretty much figure it out between Italian, Spanish, and Italian. :)
{And I sure hope you aren’t reading my comments too quickly. This darned new laptop! Windows 8. Bah humbug!!}
See what I mean? “Spankish!??” That’s a whole other meaning!
“Say you asked me “what’s your experiences with how women are treated?” and I went on about how I’d personally never see a woman treated with anything less than respect, that in my experience I haven’t seen any type of sexual harassment, domestic violence, or any other inequity (especially if I were talking about a time period/place where women were treated legally and culturally very badly), I would expect people to be like “this dude has no idea what he’s talking about, his statements are incredibly out of touch with the actual experience and treatment of women”.
I think that would be a relatively fair response. What wouldn’t be fair is to say, “this guy is a misogynist. He said women were happier under those laws. He thinks women are better off being treated badly,” or to say “I don’t believe that he NEVER saw a woman mistreated (implying that you’re a liar).” I don’t think you’ve criticized Phil in exactly this way, but this has been the general opposition response.
You used a word above that I think described his experience perfectly – limited. His experience is definitely limited and unless he says something to indicate that he thinks it’s a generally applicable experience, I just give him the benefit of the doubt.
“What wouldn’t be fair is to say, “this guy is a misogynist. He said women were happier under those laws. He thinks women are better off being treated badly,” or to say “I don’t believe that he NEVER saw a woman mistreated (implying that you’re a liar).””
Yeah I know you didn’t accuse me but that’s not what I was trying to convey. I doubt he’s lying, I would bet money he was blind to inequities because they weren’t directed against him. I pointed out the “no dating white girls” thing as one example.
I’m far more disturbed that people do weird things like trying to justify anti-miscegenation or wax lyrical about how nice it was before the blacks got all uppity and whined about their unequal treatment to support his views than anything he said, at all, though I think it was quite ignorant and inappropriate for him to say what he did without some qualifier. Same thing with his gay comments, I rolled my eyes at the straight old dude trying to puzzle out why men would be attracted to men, but I was quite disturbed at the quite disgusting commentary some of his supporters came up with.
”I do wonder about this insistence whenever people bring up problems that white people have in regards to race relations that someone ALWAYS has to bring up a couple black activists.”
I brought up couple of “activists” because you DLPL started this conversation about a redneck being ignorant about the black experience. Jesse and Al and their support-base have to bear plenty of blame for keeping the race card alive and well and thus propagating a negative view of Black Americans. I hope this has clarified my statement for you.
What is the reason some ALWAYS discredit how others view the world through their own eyes and yet defend their own views?
“What is the reason some ALWAYS discredit how others view the world through their own eyes and yet defend their own views?”
Seems human enough, people discredit my views all the time for whatever reason. Even when my view is based on actual facts.
“Jesse and Al and their support-base have to bear plenty of blame for keeping the race card alive and well and thus propagating a negative view of Black Americans. I hope this has clarified my statement for you.”
No, I got your point. My point is that it’s almost impossible to have a discussion about how non-black Americans view race relations without bringing up those two. I think it’s silly. Jesse and Al’s race-baiting is one thing, whitewashing American history and denying issues that still exist is another. If there’s one thing you can’t accuse the reverends of, it’s downplaying racism, lol.
I would like to register my disgust that Hans’ comment justifying anti-miscegenation got 4 “likes”. Sorry Hans, you know we’re buddies but I do think the viewpoint is disgusting.
Deluded Lib, your railing in disgust at anti-miscegnation is just as disgusting. Intolerance from a deluded lib is no less disgusting and even more hypocritical.
Uh, truthseeker. I am going to hope that you simply don’t know what “miscegenation” means if you’re going to oppose it.
There is some evidence that supports that some types of interracial marriages have lower divorce rates than intraracial marriages. How does that factor into the bigotry? I also find it interesting that people seem to have a lot less trouble with white/Hispanic marriages than white/black marriages. Seems to be based on racism instead of “cultural differences”, considering Hispanic cultures tend to wildly differ from white American culture in several ways.
I’ve never, in my entire life, claimed to be tolerant of many things. Racism is one thing I have little tolerance for.
Did anyone see the video where the white supremacist/neo-Nazi found out he was like 15% sub-Saharan African through DNA testing? I always think of that video when this subject comes up.
Jack, the bigotry I was referring to is your intolerance of people who see intra-racial relationships as the better choice.
I am proud to be bigoted against bigots. So sue me. I’m bigoted against pro-choice viewpoints as well, I’m not going to pretend that being pro-baby killing and anti-race mixing are valid viewpoints equal to the oppositions.
See, I’m not even technically “mixed race”, really, because Latino is an ethnic, not a true racial category (there are white, black, and even some Asian Latino/as). But even children of white/white Hispanic marriages face some bigotry. I had this one hugely racist neighbor who kindly explained to me, after hearing me speak Spanish to my kids, that the world would be better if people like me didn’t exist or tried to act “more white” at least. I’ve had some “full-blood” Cubans call me “half-breed” which I found funny, but it’s still bigoted. But the very few instances of racism I’ve had directed against me is nothing compared to what I’ve seen directed at black people in general, and mixed white/black people in particular. I’m not ever going to pretend that I understand or care about the feelings of those who are anti-interracial couplings, not only is it bigoted in itself it causes all kinds of problems for the children of such marriages, as well as the couple.
“Racism is one thing I have little tolerance for.”
Did you ever consider that open disdain in stating disgust with people who deem intraracial relationships as the better choice is a form of racial intolerance?
“Did you ever consider that your and open disdain in stating disgust with people who deem intraracial relationships as the better choice is a form of racial intolerance?”
If it is “racial intolerance” I don’t really care. I don’t give legitimacy to people’s views who think that there’s something wrong with my existence or the existence of other people who’s parents weren’t both of pure European descent (or African descent, or whatever), for pity’s sake.
All of us are mixed race to an extent, btw, unless you’re part of an indigenous isolated population in some areas.
“Did you ever consider that your and open disdain in stating disgust with people who deem intraracial relationships as the better choice is a form of racial intolerance?”
Well, “people who deem intraracial relationships as a better choice” are not a race, so your question makes no sense.
I’m gonna play the “Stormfront or Truthseeker?” game for the rest of your comments, k?
I said nothing about extremist people thinking your existence is illegitimate but you go into a rant about how you have no care for people who deem intra-racial relationships as the better choice. You are the king of drama and you are a left-wing bigot.
Like I said, proud to be bigoted against bigotry. I view anti-race mixing and pro-choice viewpoints about the same.
Here truth, these are the type of people who are anti-interracial marriage. They focus on mostly black/white couples and their children but I’m sure people like me are no better in their eyes. http://www.stormfront.org/truth_at_last/archives/interracial.htm
If there is one good argument for anti-interracial relationships, I’ve not heard it.
I would like to register my disgust that Hans’ comment justifying anti-miscegenation got 4 “likes”. Sorry Hans, you know we’re buddies but I do think the viewpoint is disgusting.
Huh? What? Are you referring to the comment saying it was understandable that a Jewish couple would like to see their child marry another Jew? I thought you conceded giving them a break a couple comments later.
Where was i being anti-miscegenist? I’m not against inter-racial dating. Their kids are… Well, look at Halle Berry. Say no more.
But the feweer obstacles in a match, the better. There’s a point where cultural differences may be problematic. But if love can overcome the backgrounds of a Zulu and an Inuit, more power to them. But they’d be the exception, not the rule.
I don’t care from skin color, and I don’t know where you got that I did.
“Huh? What? Are you referring to the comment saying it was understandable that a Jewish couple would like to see their child marry another Jew? I thought you conceded giving them a break a couple comments later.”
Yeah, your comment was in answer to mine pointing out that no matter how close poor whites and blacks were, dating between them was almost completely condemned. You seemed to be justifying it with your comment. People claim “cultural differences” when it’s actually about race, all the time, particularly with black/white relationships. I clarified I think wanting your kid to date within religion is a completely different thing than wanting them to only date within race.
Sorry if I misunderstood the point of your comment, Hans. I didn’t misunderstand truthseeker, at least.
Jack,
We’ve really got to get off our high horses. People have always grouped in similar ethnicities and cultures. That’s not a bad thing. It’s nice to think we”ll all totally mix in a Kumbaya cosmopolitan Babylon, but it’s not going to happen any time soon.
You misunderstand all the time drama king. And you greatly expound upon and exaggerate to no end. I guess you might also want to apologize to the four people who you said disgusted you for liking Hans’ comment then?
One has to try interracial dating to be for it I would say. DLPL thinks that if someone is against interracial dating they are somehow a bigot. To be a realist to admit that interracial dating has a very unique set of issue even today is bigotry? Huh!!!
DLPL, your response to Hans showed your left-wing justify anything and everything at all cost to an extreme ideology. Your disdain for conservatives is very evident but the fact that you had to call Hans out publicly in such a manner because he related a very basic human propensity unacceptable in your world, is a show of disdain for anyone who disagrees with you or voices an opinion you do not share.
Lately I find your attempts to hijack every conversation disgusting…
And to compare people who are against intrarracial marriage and say they are ‘equal’ to people who kill babies is beyond insane.
“We’ve really got to get off our high horses. People have always grouped in similar ethnicities and cultures. That’s not a bad thing. It’s nice to think we”ll all totally mix in a Kumbaya cosmopolitan Babylon, but it’s not going to happen any time soon. ”
Yes, it’s a bad thing when it results in stigmatization and discrimination against people who buck the norm or worse, children who are born into it who had no choice in who married who. Which is what the “I think interracial marriage is a bad choice” supports. Really, if someone could give me an actual reason to oppose it rather than “humans tend to date within race” which is just a fact, maybe I could see some reason behind actively opposing interracial dating.
“DLPL thinks that if someone is against interracial dating they are somehow a bigot. To be a realist to admit that interracial dating has a very unique set of issue even today is bigotry? ”
Yes, opposing people dating because of race is bigotry. And it’s dumb, because people are rarely purely from one ethnic group or the other. There are certainly unique issues to interracial dating, generally from other people’s reactions, but actually opposing it is bigoted.
“Your disdain for conservatives is very evident but the fact that you had to call Hans out publicly in such a manner because he related a very basic human propensity unacceptable in your world, is a show of disdain for anyone who disagrees with you or voices an opinion you do not share. ”
Is not true, I’m quite fond of Hans in particular and him and I disagree quite often. He’s a grown up, if I call him out and disagree with him he can answer me, like he did. And it’s blatantly obvious with a lot of your comments to me that you disdain me for disagreeing or voicing opinions you do not share. So there’s some pot and kettle going on here.
“And to compare people who are against intrarracial marriage and say they are ‘equal’ to people who kill babies is beyond insane.”
Opposing interracial dating and marriage has led to lynchings, social inequity, beatings, legal discrimination, among other ills. I don’t respect the viewpoint in any way. Yes, I view it similarly to pro-choice ideals. Some pro-choicers may think that their views are positives and just the “real world” but it doesn’t change how wrong they are. Sorry to tread on your toes, I didn’t realize it was something you opposed so vociferously.
Being discriminating doesn’t mean discrimination. Preferences and choices don’t mean bigotry.
I’ve never seen the sense in smoking. Does that mean I’m bigoted against anyone who has ever smoked? Making a decision doesn’t have to mean you’re a hater of everyone who makes a different one.
“Opposing interracial dating and marriage has led to lynchings, social inequity, beatings, legal discrimination, among other ills”
Jack…notice the words you used…’has led to’… then you dramatize all kinds of evil things people have done in the name of racial bigotry and label all people who oppose interracial marriage as wanting to lynch etc… You are a drama king.
Not everybody who opposes interracial marriage wants to lynch people. I happen to have three sisters who were in interracial marriages so for you to take someone like me and try and call me a bigot and bundle me with people who commit lynchings etc. is not only bigoted and unfair but it is an example of how incapable you are of approaching this (and many other issues) with any kind of humility or open-mindedness.
And you are insane to compare people who counsel caution entering interracial marriage to people who kill babies. It shows how intellectually shallow you are.
“then you dramatize all kinds of evil things people have done in the name of racial bigotry and label all people who oppose interracial marriage as wanting to lynch etc… ”
Uh, no, I didn’t say that people who oppose interracial marriage all want to lynch. I did say that anti-interracial sentiment has led to some disgusting stuff. And the viewpoint itself is bigoted.
I didn’t say “truthseeker wants to lynch people”, I called one of your opinions bigoted. You called some of mine bigoted and I don’t really care, I’m honestly surprised at the massive amount of hurt this apparently causes you. It’s simple fact that societies that have had heavy anti-interracial dating stigmas and laws have a lot of problems with the things I mentioned. There was Nazi Germany, South Africa under apartheid, Japan still has heavy stigma against “hafus” (mixed Japanese-other race children). It’s a bad time.
And you moved the goal posts, I’m talking about opposing interracial marriage, and now you’re talking about “advocating caution” whatever that means.
I’ve known quite a few Cuban families who told their children that if they dated a Haitian (or, probably, anyone with much darker skin) they were shaming the family. Do you think that is bigoted or not?
I see a whoooole lot of “I’m not racist but…..” going on.
To be a realist to admit that interracial dating has a very unique set of issue even today is bigotry? – and what might that ‘unique set of issue(s)” be caused by? Why do they exist? Bigotry perhaps?
And you greatly expound upon and exaggerate to no end.
Lately I find your attempts to hijack every conversation disgusting…
Two contenders for joke of the day! Who would’ve thought.
And you are insane to compare people who counsel caution entering interracial marriage to people who kill babies. It shows how intellectually shallow you are. – oh look, a third contender.
And why do you find it necessary to “counsel caution entering interracial marriage”? What might the causes of that necessity be? Ignoring or denying these issues is where the intellectual shallowness is apparent.
Nobody but you has moved any goalposts. You decided to go on a tirade that began with Hans and anybody who liked his comment and then continued it on me.
When my sister and I were teens, my dad would make the joke (only half jokingly unfortunately) that we better never bring a black man home from college. My mom would step in and say something like, “as long as he treats her right, it doesn’t matter what color his skin is and he is welcome in our home.”
My mom told us she would love who ever we loved but she did add that she thought it would be difficult to raise biracial children in our area — there just weren’t any black families in our community or the surrounding communities at that time. My mom was thinking about the feelings of any future spouse and/or grandchildren that would have to deal with folks 100 times worse than my dad.
Mom knew racism was absolutely not right but she also knew it was a reality. There are now black families in my area and I don’t notice any racism although it’s not what I notice that matters — it’s what they may be having to deal with that matters.
“You seemed to be justifying it with your comment. People claim “cultural differences” when it’s actually about race, all the time, particularly with black/white relationships. I clarified I think wanting your kid to date within religion is a completely different thing than wanting them to only date within race.”
Deluded Lib, why are you ok with discriminating against inter-cultural or inter-religious marriages?
“My mom told us she would love who ever we loved but she did add that she thought it would be difficult to raise biracial children in our area — there just weren’t any black families in our community or the surrounding communities at that time. My mom was thinking about the feelings of any future spouse and/or grandchildren that would have to deal with folks 100 times worse than my dad.”
See that’s perfectly reasonable. Reality versus bigotry. If one of my kids wanted to date someone of a different ethnicity I’d be perfectly happy with it if they were a good person, and I would make sure my kid knew that there would be some extra challenges. What I wouldn’t do is oppose or advocate against interracial marriages, or want my kid to stop dating a person from a race, because that’s bigoted.
“Jack, why are you ok with discriminating against inter-cultural or inter-religious marriages?”
Oh for pete’s sake truthseeker, I’m not. I don’t care who dates who as long as they treat each other well. I do care if people advocate against or oppose interracial dating/marriage. It’s not a complicated position.
Edit: Ooooh I see what you’re saying. Because religion is a choice, it’s something you can change. People convert for each other and stuff like that, and religion and culture actually affect what kind of values you have. Your skin color does not affect your values or what kind of person you are, nor is it a choice. There’s no reason not to date because of race, religion and actual values and chosen things are a different story.
In your quote above you stated clearly that wanting your kid to date within your race is unacceptable but that wanting your kid to date within your religion is ok. Why did you say that?
I answered your question in an edit truth, I didn’t understand what you were asking.
Basically, melanin doesn’t affect your values, character, or actions. Your religion and such does.
I see nothing bigoted about a black, white, Native American, Jewish, Amish, Muslim, Hindu, Catholic, Evangelical, Hispanic, gypsy, Eskimo, Asian, Pacific Islander, you name it parent(s) preferring their child marry within their own racial, ethnic, and religious group.
Never going to get it. How is it not bigoted to be like “that person has the wrong skin color/facial structure, you best not be dating them, Son/Daughter”? It’s a disgusting mindset to me.
I don’t see why it is bigoted. People want to maintain their cultural, racial, ethnic, and religious identity and heritage now and for future generations. This doesn’t mean they hate anyone or have biases against other people.
I have encountered black people who would never want their children marrying whites. Do I take offense at this? Absolutely not. Its not because they hate me. I fully understand their point of view. I also sympathize with black women angry over black men preferring white women. I’d be angry too.
I’ve encountered Native Americans who are troubled by intermarriage and what they see their race and culture dwindling. I sympathize with their concern. I understand Jewish Americans are also very concerned about intermarriage and how this is affecting future generations.
I see absolutely no bigotry in any of these concerns.
You can retain cultural, ethnic, religious, and heritage without confining to race. That reminds me of the people who accuse mixed race kids of “watering down” or “stealing” one of their parent’s cultures. Or acting “too white” or “not white enough” or “not really being part of the culture” and things like that. It’s disgusting. Physical traits are simple genetics, there’s no need to prioritize some. It’d be like me demanding my son only marry blue eyed women because I don’t want my purty blue eyes dying out if he married a woman with the dominant genes (brown eyes).
Stuff like language, traditions, heritage, culture, etc can be passed on without having to remain within certain facial structures and skin colors. Humankind has to get off this kick of the way you look being the most important thing about you.
In the Cuban-American community there is a huge problem with “colorism”, people are treated better the lighter their skin is. Light skinned Cubanos who marry darker skinned Cubanos are subjected to harsh treatment from their families. I have been told this is a hold over from how things are stratified in Cuba. This “I wanna preserve my culture!!” bs is just that, bs. The darker skinned Cubans with more African facial features are just as Cuban as the lighter skin Cubans who have more Spanish features, it’s just bigotry that causes the problems. You get the same “preserving” and “I want my grandkids to look like me” arguments there, and it’s all the same group!
Why do people want to maintain color/race/ethnicity/religion anyway?
Because they think theirs is better than the others?
Fear of the others?
What does that amount to?
Hi Jack,
Well, there are people who don’t agree and I don’t think it has to do with how you look. Also cross cultural and religious, which isn’t necessarily cross racial, marriage can in fact pose a great deal of problems, as American women who have married into Muslim cultures can verify.
As I said, I see no bigotry in people preferring their children marry within their own race, religion, ethnicity, and culture. If you have no such preference, fine. BTW, this is from someone who spent her childhood alone in more diversity than most people will see in a lifetime, so I can hardly be considered bigoted. I could advise the “experts” on diversity that the best way to overlook people’s differences is to stop forever making an issue of them.
Reality,
Why wouldn’t they want to?
Reality it is important to retain/remember ethnic traditions and such, including religion. Stuff like food, music, dancing, folk stories, language, etc, are important to remember and pass on to the next generation. It’s not dependent on the way you look, though. Mixed race children get a lot of garbage for not looking right when they partake in their parent’s cultural traditions, I get some flack from the really weirdly nationalistic second generation Cubans, but since the Cuban community prioritizes lighter skin I actually get treated nicer as a half breed by most than darker skinned full Cubans do. It’s sick. This insistence that people of a cultural tradition must look the same to partake in ethnic stuff causes a lot of problems.
So, to sum it up, Robertson is a redneck bigot for thinking he got along with black co-workers and claimng they weren’t constantly complaining about equality. But, it’s not bigoted to dismiss him as an ignorant redneck who really knew they hated him for being white.
Okay,
Intermarriage of every type will continue to be a fact of life. I’m just saying that parents are not bigots if they would prefer their children marry into their own race, religion, culture, and ethnicity. To me it is completely understandable and if I would take no offense if a black or Native American family did not want one of their children marrying one of mine.
I want to be as eloquent as Mary when I grow up,
Perhaps you could answer the “why?” that I asked first Mary.
it is important to retain/remember ethnic traditions and such, including religion. – why? Which ones? Female genital mutiliation? Maybe Morris Dancing, which survives despite a couple of hundred years of geographic split. There was a large influx of Irish into the US at one period. None of their descendants have an Irish accent. Most cultures have some ‘traditions’ they’d rather not cling to.
Stuff like food, music, dancing, folk stories, language, etc, are important to remember and pass on to the next generation. – these change. Take a look at Indonesian or Malaysian recipes, they have numerous ethnic sources.
Hi Hans,
Thank you. :)
Happy New Year
I wouldn’t be offended if someone didn’t want my child marrying into their race/ethnicity either. I’d be pleased my child wasn’t marrying into bigotry.
I want to be as eloquent as Mary when I grow up, – oooooooooo, where do I start! ;-)
Reality,
I think the list of “whys” would go on forever and vary individually. I’ve already said I do not believe that bigotry has to be a factor. People assimilate but maintain their own racial, religious, ethnic, and cultural identities, in case you haven’t noticed. That they would want their children to maintain these identities doesn’t make them bigots. To some parents it may not be an issue. To some it may.
“Robertson is a redneck bigot for thinking he got along with black co-workers and claimng they weren’t constantly complaining about equality.”
Nope, this was not what was said.
“But, it’s not bigoted to dismiss him as an ignorant redneck who really knew they hated him for being white.”
Nope, this was not what was said either.
Reality,
“oooooooooo where do I start?”
You’re too kind.
“I’m just saying that parents are not bigots if they would prefer their children marry into their own race, religion, culture, and ethnicity. To me it is completely understandable and if I would take no offense if a black or Native American family did not want one of their children marrying one of mine.”
Will no one acknowledge how this way of thinking affects those children of interracial couples who are accused of “watering down”, “stealing”, looking “wrong”, or not really being a part of the culture? Seriously. Wanting certain cultural traditions passed down is not wrong (well, unless the tradition itself is bad like FGM or whatever), declaring only certain people to be acceptable based on race is wrong.
“why? Which ones? Female genital mutiliation? Maybe Morris Dancing, which survives despite a couple of hundred years of geographic split. There was a large influx of Irish into the US at one period. None of their descendants have an Irish accent. Most cultures have some ‘traditions’ they’d rather not cling to.”
The world would be pretty boring if it were culturally monolithic, for one. Unfortunately globalization is causing that to happen, way more so than any intermarriage could do. And I think it’s weird if you don’t think some Irish cultural traditions remain to this day, some of them even got absorbed into larger American culture. Do you think that Boston has a similar culture to Little Havana in Miami, or did the cultural traditions of the peoples who mainly settled in those places give the place a different “flavor”?
I don’t think it’s necessary to have to preserve cultures, but it’s not wrong to do so. Cultural creep certainly happens, you especially see it with food, but it’s pretty neat to have all different kinds of ethnic foods and such. Don’t have a problem with people teaching their grandkids their language, religion, dances, whatever, what I have a problem is people being excluded or judged based on immutable things that don’t actually affect who you are, like skin color.
You’re too kind – on this particular occasion yes, to both of you :-)
Just don’t try to teach him ‘creating multiple characters’, I found them rather one-dimensional.
Hey, I acknowledge it ADLP.
“And I think it’s weird if you don’t think some Irish cultural traditions remain to this day” – I was saying that they do.
Oh come on Jack,
Interracial children are something new? Beyoncé and Halle Barry don’t seem to be suffering the tortures of hell. Who says these children “water down” anything? That’s the first time I’ve heard that saying used.
The fact parents would prefer their children to marry within their own does not mean their children will or that parents will reject their children and grandchildren if they don’t. Members of our local Native American tribe are successfully preserving their culture, but they want to preserve their racial heritage as well and have concerns about decades of intermarriage. Is this bigoted? Not in my book. Are the children suffering? Not from what I can see.
Jack, I was really talking about the attitudes of the liberal pundits, though you have repeated their talking point watchwords of “redneck” and “ignorant”.
Reality, 12:21am
What ARE you babbling about?
It’s ok Mary, I can keep a secret if others didn’t twig.
Just to clarify Jack, I was stating that Morris Dancing has survived despite the tyranny of distance and many years of Irish ‘dilution’ such that the accent doesn’t really exist amongst descendants. And I didn’t mean this is one of the traditions people would rather forget.
Jack,
When has the world been culturally monolithic? Cultures and people have been intermingling since the dawn of creation. Wars, conquests, exploration, slavery, trade, travel, migration, immigration.
There were some Vikings in my ancestors’ woodpiles and who knows what else?
I pointed out that people assimilate, but still maintain their racial and cultural identities. As such they don’t necessarily maintain any number of customs. I mentioned the local Native Americans who while maintaining their culture and desiring to maintain their racial heritage, have certainly assimilated, but still maintain many customs. That they want their future generations to is certainly understandable. That they want to maintain their particular ethnicity is also understandable.
“Who says these children “water down” anything? That’s the first time I’ve heard that saying used.”
Well, I’m glad you’ve never heard it personally, it’s not a nice thing to be told, but it’s a fairly common thing. I’ve even been told similar things and I’ve had a really easy time compared to most multiethnic people. It’s actually something minority groups are much worse about than white people, in my experience. You look “too white” to partake in your mom’s cultural traditions, etc etc. Black/white mixed race kids are made fun of or left out if they identify with the white parents culture, because they are “too black” to be real I guess. This whole “preserving racial lineage” bs plays into it, a lot. I knew this mixed race boy who’s white grandparents left him out of a family reunion photo because he didn’t “look like the rest of us”.
“The fact parents would prefer their children to marry within their own does not mean their children will or that parents will reject their children and grandchildren if they don’t. ”
Well most people in general don’t reject their children, so obviously not. If you don’t think mixed race children have a harder time because of all this racial purity garbage though, I honestly don’t know what to tell you. You ever hear the white supremacists crying and moaning about how the “white race” is dying out because everyone is marrying wrong and pure white people aren’t popping out enough pure babies? It’s ridiculous, and I don’t think I can not see it as bigoted. “This skin color, these cheekbones, this eye color is superior and needs to be preserved” has a long nasty history, and I seriously find it disturbing that it’s 2014 and people are still trying to justify it.
“When has the world been culturally monolithic? Cultures and people have been intermingling since the dawn of creation. Wars, conquests, exploration, slavery, trade, travel, migration, immigration.”
Why are you telling me this? I said the world being culturally monolithic would be really boring. Culture =/= race though. This “I wanna preserve my race” stuff is quite a different story from wanting traditions and culture passed down. I believe we’ve had several pretty huge wars over people prioritizing skin color and inborn characteristics like that, it never turns out very well.
Why does is matter if anyone’s grandkid is blond and blue eyed or dark skinned and dark eyed? Is the way they look making them incapable of learning your culture’s language, dances, food, etc?
Jack,
What children aren’t ridiculed? The fat child certainly is. The child who is “too tall”, “too short”, “funny looking”, a “nerd”. A child of a particular race or religion, mixed or not. A child with a physical or mental challenge, an unattractive child. I was insanely jealous of the darker skinned girls, one of whom was a Filipino, because I was so ridiculed for being fair skinned. Its called growing up and yes for some children, for whatever reason, its far more miserable than for others.
While I’m the last person to defend white supremacists, they have no monopoly on concern for racial, ethnic, and cultural preservation. You will find this is a concern shared by non white ethnicities as well.
Mary,
There were some Vikings in my ancestors’ woodpiles and who knows what else?
Ah, my long-lost 15th cousin. No wonder we get along. Or is it bigoted to say that?
Jack.
I know what you said and I was pointing out its never been monolithic. I’m saying that I can understand parents wanting to preserve their racial heritage, whatever it is along with their history, culture, customs, etc. I see no bigotry in this. I understand it. Do I have a problem with intermarriage? Not at all. My sister is married to a Jewish man. However, I can understand if certain groups have concerns about racial, ethnic, and religious preservation. This does not translate into hatred of others.
Ah, so because kids are cruel in general, mixed race kids have no complaint for being treated badly or something? I don’t get your argument there. You went from denying that mixed race children are treated badly to saying it’s just life? Don’t get it, you might need to explain further.
“While I’m the last person to defend white supremacists, they have no monopoly on concern for racial, ethnic, and cultural preservation. You will find this is a concern shared by non white ethnicities as well. ”
Yeah, and I think they are ALL wrong. Not wanting your white daughter to marry a black man because you want an “Aryan” grandchild is just as sick as thinking that if your Latino son married an Asian woman that the kids wouldn’t be “right”. WHY does it matter what people look like? Is there something inherent in melanin and facial structure that prevents people from passing their cultural traditions and such down?
Mary would you consider it immoral if a Native American reservation passed a law that Native Americans could not marry whites or blacks? I’m really (despite Thomas and truthseekers opinions of me) trying to understand this way of thinking that race is something that should remain “pure” but it’s not working.
“though you have repeated their talking point watchwords of “redneck” and “ignorant”.”
But he quite literally is a redneck, lol, how is it bad to call him one? I’m pretty sure he calls himself a redneck! And like I said, I don’t consider “ignorant” an insult. I’m ignorant on quantum mechanics and what it’s like to be a woman, it’s not insulting me to say that. It’s my opinion Mr Duck has some ignorant opinions.
Jack,
I’m pointing out that children of any race, mixed or not, can be subject to cruelties for various reasons. Sadly its the world we live in and always have. Children of mixed race may also be very popular and excel academically and socially. Its the obese white child who may be the subject of ridicule and bullying.
Well if you think they are all wrong then we will just have to agree to disagree. I don’t care what people look like. No there is nothing that says traditions can’t be passed down. I also see nothing bigoted about people preferring their children marry into their own racial and ethnic groups and this is not something exclusive to the white supremacists and bigots.
I have heard black, Jewish, and Native American people express this concern. This does not mean they would reject their children or grandchildren if their was intermarriage. If you consider them bigoted and wrong, then so be it.
Jack.
I can’t imagine such a law being passed and I’m not for restricting a person’s choice of who to marry. I don’t believe humans can be treated like breeding cattle. However, I could understand members of the tribe having concerns about preserving their racial and cultural identity, and encouraging their young people to do so, especially if their number were dwindling. I could understand if Native parents were not thrilled about their children marrying outside their race.
I do not believe that would in any way make them bigots.
It’s the same kind of thought process that let’s people pass up non-white babies for adoption, they are “worth less” (much cheaper to adopt compared to Caucasian babies). Seriously depressing to me. Your family doesn’t have to look like you and it doesn’t matter what skin color people have. Racial purity hasn’t ever worked as an ideology.
We’re just gonna have to agree to disagree, and I’ll go hug my kids, one who is basically dirty blond and has blue eyes and the other who looks more Hispanic than I do.
Hi Hans,
So that explains it!
I don’t think it bigoted since no Vikings have posted any objections.
Hi Jack,
I have no problem with interracial adoptions. From what I understand it was a group of black social workers who did. They feared the black child’s racial and cultural identity would be lost if not raised by a black family. Maybe this has changed as I read that some time ago.
Also, at least where I live, the mixed race Indian child will be removed from the non Indian parent in the event of a divorce or death and raised on the reservation. I’ve heard a few white mothers express fear of losing their part Indian children. This is done to preserve the child’s cultural and racial heritage.
Now, what was this about white supremacists?
How many times do I have to say that I think minority groups are just as bad when they do this crap? I think I’ve been harder on the Cuban community in this thread than anything.
Hi Jack,
I bet your kids are gorgeous!
BTW, I and my entire family just love my Jewish brother in law.
I was the only redhead and my siblings and I look nothing alike. My mother was often asked who I looked like. Must have been that Viking in the woodpile a few centuries ago.
Reality 12:33am
Still incoherent I see.
My kids are gorgeous but they look nothing alike lol. My son looks like my ex in male form except with my eyes, and my daughter looks like me except with my ex’s eyes. It’s actually really weird how little they resemble the other parent.
The white supremacists are probably quite pleased the mixed kiddies are sent to the reservation.
I and my entire family just love my Jewish brother in law – that comes across as a bit “even though”.
Still incoherent I see – maybe to the others. But you and I know. Don’t protest too much though or people might start asking you awkward questions. Or is your phrase just the usual signal you give about this time? ;-)
Uh Reality,
Its tribal law and has nothing to do with white supremacists.
That comes across as a bit “even though” That’s too stupid a comment to even dignify with a response.
maybe to others. But you and I know. Don’t protest too much though or people might start asking you awkward questions. Or is your phrase just the usual sign you give about this time?
Only becoming more incoherent I see.
There were some Vikings in my ancestors’ woodpiles and who knows what else?
My son is awfully good at football. I’m gonna check to see if I have any Packers in my woodpiles.
DLPL: “I would like to register my disgust that Hans’ comment justifying anti-miscegenation got 4 “likes”. Sorry Hans, you know we’re buddies but I do think the viewpoint is disgusting.”
Well Jack let’s analyze your statement. You have managed to insult 5 people in a manner, which you yourself have railed against on this blog and finally transformed from Jack to DLPL because you were “insulted” too much. Correct? I am surprised that this post did not go into moderation and maybe deletion but whatever. Hans took the high ground, many years your senior, and did not call you out for doing exactly what you accuse others of doing to you all the time, kudos to him for that. TS did however suggested you apologize to the four you insulted but whatever.
DLPL: “Is not true, I’m quite fond of Hans in particular and him and I disagree quite often. He’s a grown up, if I call him out and disagree with him he can answer me, like he did. And it’s blatantly obvious with a lot of your comments to me that you disdain me for disagreeing or voicing opinions you do not share. So there’s some pot and kettle going on here.”
Well Jack let’s analyze this statement. You are not fond of Hans because publicly you compared his reasoning to disgusting. And no, no disdain from me of you. Its just you trying to put the onus on someone else because this spotlight is not what you desire.
And frankly, I want to register my surprise (not disgust but surprise) that your above comment justifying your insult and confusing fondness with disgust, got 3 “likes.” Wow!!!
To be a realist to admit that interracial dating has a very unique set of issue even today is bigotry? – and what might that ‘unique set of issue(s)” be caused by? Why do they exist? Bigotry perhaps?
No “reality” not bigotry perhaps. Two different cultures, religions, lifestyles, families, traditions, foods, dilemma as to how to raise children (among many other considerations) PERHAPS.
I dated a Filipina once. My culture and hers’ are Catholic BUT what other challenges do you think our relationship faced?
I am seriously doubting you want to have an honest conversation.
Hi Prax, 9:43am
LOL,
Hi Jack, 1:43am
Maybe your children are displaying the DNA of an ancestor or two that hid in the woodpile!
Well I tried to post a comment thanking Praxades for her thoughtful sentiment last night at 9:27, but the copy and paste function on this commenting feature are all goofy so never mind. :(
”That comes across as a bit “even though” That’s too stupid a comment to even dignify with a response.”
Mary, you should know by now that most of Reality’s comments are like that.
len, when you get to the paste window hit the space bar once and then paste and then hit the delete key. Sounds strange but try it ;)
Hi ts, 10:44am
Point taken.
Thank you for the reminder.
“Well Jack let’s analyze your statement. You have managed to insult 5 people in a manner, which you yourself have railed against on this blog and finally transformed from Jack to DLPL because you were “insulted” too much. Correct?”
Okay, no. In what world is thinking a viewpoint is wrong/awful/disgusting/whatever translate into insulting the person automatically? I mean, Reality is well aware that I find abortion and pro-choice viewpoints viscerally sickening and evil, but I’m sure he’s also aware I don’t view him as a human being as a viscerally sickening person. You really can dislike a viewpoint without hating/hurting a person. I will apologize if anyone took that to mean that I hated them or was disgusted by them as a human being, because that’s not what I meant to convey. I do tend to get overzealous.
I don’t go complaining people don’t like my views, though I think the world would be perfect if everyone agreed with me. ;) I complain when people call me names, or stupid, or refuse to argue my viewpoints and instead go on long comment threads about what type of terrible human being I am. That gets old. People can call my viewpoints disgusting all day long, whatever.
” I am surprised that this post did not go into moderation and maybe deletion but whatever. ”
Hans is a mod, if he found it too objectionable he could delete it if he wanted.
“Hans took the high ground, many years your senior, and did not call you out for doing exactly what you accuse others of doing to you all the time, kudos to him for that. TS did however suggested you apologize to the four you insulted but whatever. ”
Lol well Hans is old enough to be my dad, if we have differing maturity levels it’s not THAT surprising. I refuse to apologize to truthseeker because he treats me poorly and never apologizes. I will apologize to other people if they felt like I was insulting them as people. I might find the viewpoint awful but I don’t think anyone is necessarily a bad human being for believing it.
“You are not fond of Hans because publicly you compared his reasoning to disgusting. ”
That’s stupid, you don’t know how I feel about Hans because I don’t like his viewpoint on this particular subject. I don’t think Hans himself is disgusting or bad.
“And no, no disdain from me of you. Its just you trying to put the onus on someone else because this spotlight is not what you desire. ”
Nope. I’m just applying your reasoning to how you treat me. If I disdain Hans because I hate one of his viewpoints, than you disdain me because of how much you dislike 99% of mine. If you don’t disdain me even if we often disagree, then it should be easy for you to see why I don’t disdain Hans.
I’m pretty sure people have assured me over and over that they find things like homosexual behavior disgusting, but don’t find the homo/bisexual him/herself disgusting. I think the same principle applies here.
“Two different cultures, religions, lifestyles, families, traditions, foods, dilemma as to how to raise children.”
None of that has to depend on race, actually. A wealthy white person from NYC dating a poor white southerner would have the same types of issues most likely. Everyone is making it race when it’s actually culture that you guys are talking about. There’s nothing inherent in your racial makeup that makes you a certain culture, at all.
So what you are saying is that black families do not have an issue with their son/daughter dating a white? That is never the case? I know of many black families who do not believe in “mixing it up.”
For the record, I have nothing against interracial dating/marriage, having done the dating thing myself. I just take exception with a claim that its bigotry when whites discuss this issue openly.
Hans was one hundred percent correct with his discussion of the subject matter. Its not bigotry. And he did take the high ground, you may as well remember that.
This “stay with my own” preference is found across all races and cultures and is just a natural human propensity. You may find it disgusting, but its human nature and nothing more.
“So what you are saying is that black families do not have an issue with their son/daughter dating a white? That is never the case? I know of many black families who do not believe in “mixing it up.” ”
No…. where in the world did you get that from what I said? Some people are racist like that. It’s wrong.
“I just take exception with a claim that its bigotry when whites discuss this issue openly. ”
The viewpoint that interracial marriage is immoral or wrong is bigoted, no matter the race of the person who holds it.
“Hans was one hundred percent correct with his discussion of the subject matter. ”
In your opinion, not mine.
“This “stay with my own” preference is found across all races and cultures and is just a natural human propensity. You may find it disgusting, but its human nature and nothing more.”
Yes and sometimes human nature is disgusting and needs to change and discouraged. This is one of those times.
“Yes and sometimes human nature is disgusting and needs to change and discouraged. This is so one of those times.”
So does that mean that you hold yourself to the same standard? I ask because whenever someone here challenges you, the statement above seems not applicable..
“So does that mean that you hold yourself to the same standard? I ask because whenever someone here challenges you, the statement above seems not applicable.. ”
What? Of course I hold myself to the same standard. Many aspects of my nature are awful and disgusting, maybe even most, and I have to work to change them and act in an appropriate and moral way just like anyone else. Just because you have certain propensities (like racism, or being a huge slut or something), does not mean you have to accept and encourage them in yourself or other people.
I think you must fundamentally misunderstand how I view myself and the world at large.
Well I have learned one thing from this conversation - I have to incorporate the word disgusting into my comments here. This may make my posts a hit :)
I don’t understand why you think that every time I disagree with something, I have to talk about everything that is wrong with me too. If you want I can give you my email, and I will tell you every single character flaw and terrible thing about me, and you can refer to it every time you start thinking that I think I’m perfect or something when I argue against a view I don’t like.
People call all kinds of things disgusting on this blog, I don’t see why I shouldn’t.
I just got home from work and it’s disgusting that I’m eating cheese puffs for a snack. But they sure are good!
Cheese puffs are not as disgusting as pork rinds. I give you a pass on your snack choices!
That’s too stupid a comment to even dignify with a response. – defensive much? Thou doth protest too much methinks.
No “reality” not bigotry perhaps. Two different cultures, religions, lifestyles, families, traditions, foods, dilemma as to how to raise children (among many other considerations) PERHAPS. – hence my further question –
Why do people want to maintain color/race/ethnicity/religion anyway?
Because they think theirs is better than the others?
Fear of the others?
What does that amount to?
I dated a Filipina once. My culture and hers’ are Catholic BUT what other challenges do you think our relationship faced? – the prejudices of others.
I am seriously doubting you want to have an honest conversation. – it’s what I strive for. But it can be difficult to find around here ;-)
Mary, you should know by now that most of Reality’s comments are like that. – ‘most’? Is this you being generous :-)
None of that has to depend on race, actually. A wealthy white person from NYC dating a poor white southerner would have the same types of issues most likely. Everyone is making it race when it’s actually culture that you guys are talking about. There’s nothing inherent in your racial makeup that makes you a certain culture, at all.
This is exactly my viewpoint. So why do you find it disgusting? You’re the one focussing on race. If a black and a white are from the same neighborhood, school, and church that would absolutely negate a bunch of possible obstacles.
I’m just opining that opposites attract only to an “uncertain point”. You might end up in an oil and water situation. Serious dating of just anyone you’re at all attracted to isn’t considering the big picture.
You’re more likely to want the same future if you have more of the past and present in common. But maybe that’s juist me.
My old saying, “Opposites attract. Then they divorce.”
“This is exactly my viewpoint. So why do you find it disgusting? You’re the one focussing on race. If a black and a white are from the same neighborhood, school, and church that would absolutely negate a bunch of possible obstacles.”
Because you guys keep saying that being against interracial marriage is wrong, how is that me making it about race? I feel like I’m totally misunderstanding something here. The whole thing started because I said that the poor whites that Phil was talking about probably wouldn’t be okay with one of their black coworkers dating their daughters, and you said that was okay with you. I don’t get where we aren’t understanding each other.
Well, like most of these long threads, I’m a bit confused too. I forget if I’m the one that set you off as having a disgusting opinion. I’ll have to check it out,
I’m probably just being dumb again, lol.
In my comment before, I meant “you guys keep saying that being against interracial marriage ISN’T wrong”. If everyone thought interracial marriage was fine there wouldn’t be an argument. My comment made no sense.
Jack,
That was interesting.
At 12/30 11:41 I said who are we to question Robertson’s experience? 4 likes. Dun dun dun! You immediately answered: “Come on, he must be willfully ignorant, blacks were probably not allowed in the same little country store he was.
At 12/31 3:07 a.m. (I have no life,) I asked what do we know of his specific time and place? It was so rural there weren’t public fountains or bathrooms and they didn’t hop on a bus from one swamp to the next. (Besides, wasn’t this the late 50s or early 60s? Rosa Parks was already big news by then.) And I said those fields were as integrated as the football locker rooms he was in, and he didn’t say no discrimination existed anywhere. 5 likes, among them probably our friend with the scary moniker of Lifejoy.
That afternoon you said he was ignorant of the bad treatment. Could be. And could you be ignorant of what he saw and heard? Then you said you’d rather take the word of blacks who lived then. Fair enough. But can you know what all blacks everwhere remember?
At 12/31 5:43 p.m. I took issue with “redneck” 3 likes. And at 6:04 p.m. seems to be the likely culprit of my awful, terrible, very bad comment where I said it was understandable that Jewiish parents would like their daughter to marry a “nice Jewish doctor”. 4, eventually 5 likes.
Some chit chat between ua about a Happy New Year, But not so happy for you because two days later BOOM! On 1/2 at 2:38 p.m. you’re disgusted I got four likes because I “justified miscegenation’.
Well, knock me over with a sledgehammer. I don’t get it. I’ve eliminated the impossible and I’m left with the improbable. And still puzzling.
“And at 6:04 p.m. seems to be the likely culprit of my awful, terrible, very bad comment where I said it was understandable that Jewiish parents would like their daughter to marry a “nice Jewish doctor”. 4, eventually 5 likes.”
Oh yeah that was the comment I didn’t like. I went on to clarify I was okay if it was the religion that they wanted the daughter to marry into, but not if it was about “race” (ethnicity? I’m always confused with the Jewish people). And lol I wasn’t mad when I made the other comment, just annoyed that people agreed with you and not me. it’s all about meeeeee. And then truthseeker decided to double down and call me a bigot for not liking people being opposed to interracial marriage, and it snowballed into typical Jack rants and truthseeker throwing a fit. So yeah. Lol. I need to work on temper control.
But I’m sure you know that Thomas is wrong and I don’t disdain or have disgust for you, lol.
Yeah, fortunately you don’t know me that well, Jack. ;)
:)