[FairfieldLife] Re: I am the eternal not racist and in fact shows concerns for Blacks
One more thing to add to what I wrote below: A certain someone preferred to use the name Barry for the first 20 or so years of his life because he felt uncomfortable with the given name on his birth certificate. Perhaps that tells us something about interacting in America with a name considered a wee bit out of the ordinary. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcg...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis reavismarek@ wrote: Pal, that (below) is a racist statement, plain and simple. It's reprehensible and you are entirely wrong in the sentiment you express. Marek: Several months ago I made a statement here on this forum about Blacks having an advantage over other races on the basketball court. I got several responses that the statement was racist (and also several that agreed with the statement). Of course, I then revealed that it wasn't ME who actually said it but Barack Obama and I had made it seem as if I said it just to make a point. I then provided a link to a video of him saying it. Except for I-am-the-eternal using the word all as in black guys and black women in the US all have to have their own cult names, I am at a loss as to why what he wrote is racist. Certainly, it is, at most, equally racist and, at least, much less racist than what Obama said about Blacks and basketball. The observation about unique names in the Black Community is not and should not be a taboo subject. Indeed, it was the subject of one of those newsmagazine shows (20/20? Primetime? Dateline NBC?) a while back. The premise of the show? The naming phenomenon in the Black Community often creates huge problems for those kids when they grow up and try to get jobs. In fact, it provides an opportunity for racists to practise their racism. As a lawyer you know that there are laws against requiring someone to put a photograph on Resume's or identifying race when applying for a job. Yet the ghetto name phenomenon is such that that is used as an identifying marker by potential employees NOT to hire blacks and to do it with impunity. A white racist reading a resume submitted from a Shaneequah Washington can reject the application and not risk being accused of prejudice. That I-am-the-eternal dares to broach this subject shows not only sensitivity on his part but I suggest genuine concern for African- Americans. http://tinyurl.com/caonfg http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=black+names http://www.blackghettobabynames.net/ ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, I am the eternal L.Shaddai@ wrote: **snip And I'm sure it's no coincidence that black guys and black women in the US all have to have their own cult names. So not only can you spot someone on the phone with the black variant of the southern accident, you can spot 'em by their name as well. If only black mothers gave as much consideration to how they will rear a child they've just spawned as they give to coming up with a unique name for the child.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I am the eternal not racist and in fact shows concerns for Blacks
Shemp, I missed the remark you posted from Obama under your own name, so I won't comment on that. And as to a young person's insecurities re how they might best fit in with a world which for them is defined by all sorts of mis-matching pieces (single mom, absent dad, stepfather, Indonesia, absent mom, living with different race grandparents in Hawaii), I can easily cut him some slack for that. (As an aside, look at the monikers that folks who post here use as one marker of how they try to fit in.) L.Shaddai's remarks, both his original post and subsequent replies, contained clear and offensive indicators that he believes blacks are inferior and debased; he was not expressing concern for the well-being of others. Your own remarks that folks should refrain from giving their children names that have charm or cultural significance within the community with which they identify, because that can be used to discriminate against them, has the argument all turned around. They're only names, not metrics of value (unless that's your shorthand for judging people). The larger community has to learn to look at the person, not succumb to prejudice. To encourage all the young Baracks in America to change their name to Barry so they'll fit in, is entirely the wrong message and one sent to the wrong party. Although racism is still a given in this country, it's changing and yielding towards the American ideal of meritocracy; an ideal that I'm positive you hold. Thanks for taking the time to address the issue. Marek ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcg...@... wrote: One more thing to add to what I wrote below: A certain someone preferred to use the name Barry for the first 20 or so years of his life because he felt uncomfortable with the given name on his birth certificate. Perhaps that tells us something about interacting in America with a name considered a wee bit out of the ordinary. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis reavismarek@ wrote: Pal, that (below) is a racist statement, plain and simple. It's reprehensible and you are entirely wrong in the sentiment you express. Marek: Several months ago I made a statement here on this forum about Blacks having an advantage over other races on the basketball court. I got several responses that the statement was racist (and also several that agreed with the statement). Of course, I then revealed that it wasn't ME who actually said it but Barack Obama and I had made it seem as if I said it just to make a point. I then provided a link to a video of him saying it. Except for I-am-the-eternal using the word all as in black guys and black women in the US all have to have their own cult names, I am at a loss as to why what he wrote is racist. Certainly, it is, at most, equally racist and, at least, much less racist than what Obama said about Blacks and basketball. The observation about unique names in the Black Community is not and should not be a taboo subject. Indeed, it was the subject of one of those newsmagazine shows (20/20? Primetime? Dateline NBC?) a while back. The premise of the show? The naming phenomenon in the Black Community often creates huge problems for those kids when they grow up and try to get jobs. In fact, it provides an opportunity for racists to practise their racism. As a lawyer you know that there are laws against requiring someone to put a photograph on Resume's or identifying race when applying for a job. Yet the ghetto name phenomenon is such that that is used as an identifying marker by potential employees NOT to hire blacks and to do it with impunity. A white racist reading a resume submitted from a Shaneequah Washington can reject the application and not risk being accused of prejudice. That I-am-the-eternal dares to broach this subject shows not only sensitivity on his part but I suggest genuine concern for African- Americans. http://tinyurl.com/caonfg http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=black+names http://www.blackghettobabynames.net/ ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, I am the eternal L.Shaddai@ wrote: **snip And I'm sure it's no coincidence that black guys and black women in the US all have to have their own cult names. So not only can you spot someone on the phone with the black variant of the southern accident, you can spot 'em by their name as well. If only black mothers gave as much consideration to how they will rear a child they've just spawned as they give to coming up with a unique name for the child.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I am the eternal not racist and in fact shows concerns for Blacks
Marek, Do you hold out any probability that Shad has something useful to say, some insightful life experience to share? To answer yes, is certainly NOT equivalent to i) believing everything he says is useful or valid, and 2) agreement with his views, and 3) that some of his views are not reprehensible to you. If you hold out at least some small probability that he has something useful to say, some insightful life experience to share, then do you hold any glimmer of hope that some open, fully listening dialogue may bear at least some fruit? The Bush administration was strongly adverse to dialogue with people with whom they felt had reprehensible views. Progress on world issues during this reign was negligible if not negative, in my view. This is in stark contrast to the Obama administration which has instructed it s most senior diplomats to first listen intently, and not start out dictating what the other party should do or feel. If Byron Katie has any validity, then believing in shoulds is weak and unproductive thinking. Some recently have said that talking to someone with views different than our own, starkly different, validates the other persons views, that is, it gives them legitimacy. That view is pure Bushian, in my opinion. What are your views on dialogue -- even with people who hold starkly different views than yourself? In my view and experience, name calling, particularly super charged words like racist, completely shuts down diologue -- in the near term and for a long time after that. And it shuts down the ability for either party to listen and really hear the deeper issues and dynamics behind the other party's words. The reptile brain takes over. Which is the opposite effect I would have hypothesized about long-term PC dippers. Perhaps Spraig and Vaj can elaborate on the research behind this. Thus, per your actions of calling someone a racist, it would appear, contrary to all other indications from your posts, that you are in the Bush camp of diplomacy. I hope, and do not think, that is not the case. What are your views on labeling people, processes for opening and closing of dialogue, giving legitimacy to other parties via dialogue, and the value of dialogue for understanding the deeper dynamics of why a person or group feels, thinks and acts the way they do? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis reavisma...@... wrote: Shemp, I missed the remark you posted from Obama under your own name, so I won't comment on that. And as to a young person's insecurities re how they might best fit in with a world which for them is defined by all sorts of mis-matching pieces (single mom, absent dad, stepfather, Indonesia, absent mom, living with different race grandparents in Hawaii), I can easily cut him some slack for that. (As an aside, look at the monikers that folks who post here use as one marker of how they try to fit in.) L.Shaddai's remarks, both his original post and subsequent replies, contained clear and offensive indicators that he believes blacks are inferior and debased; he was not expressing concern for the well-being of others. Your own remarks that folks should refrain from giving their children names that have charm or cultural significance within the community with which they identify, because that can be used to discriminate against them, has the argument all turned around. They're only names, not metrics of value (unless that's your shorthand for judging people). The larger community has to learn to look at the person, not succumb to prejudice. To encourage all the young Baracks in America to change their name to Barry so they'll fit in, is entirely the wrong message and one sent to the wrong party. Although racism is still a given in this country, it's changing and yielding towards the American ideal of meritocracy; an ideal that I'm positive you hold. Thanks for taking the time to address the issue. Marek ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: One more thing to add to what I wrote below: A certain someone preferred to use the name Barry for the first 20 or so years of his life because he felt uncomfortable with the given name on his birth certificate. Perhaps that tells us something about interacting in America with a name considered a wee bit out of the ordinary. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis reavismarek@ wrote: Pal, that (below) is a racist statement, plain and simple. It's reprehensible and you are entirely wrong in the sentiment you express. Marek: Several months ago I made a statement here on this forum about Blacks having an advantage over other races on the basketball court. I got several responses that the statement was racist (and also several
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: I am the eternal not racist and in fact shows concerns for Blacks
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 9:30 AM, Marek Reavis reavisma...@sbcglobal.netwrote: L.Shaddai's remarks, both his original post and subsequent replies, contained clear and offensive indicators that he believes blacks are inferior and debased; he was not expressing concern for the well-being of others. That's because you wanted to read such things into my posts. I have expressed concern about my former cotton picking state before and will express it again. I don't like blacks choosing unique names. Racist or not, the unique names stick out like a sore thumb in the rest of US society. And yes, I no longer have to receive a resume from a headhunter or consulting firm which says read resume carefully (i.e. this one's for your affirmative action program), I just look at the name. I'm just as concerned about the accent that blacks seem to have a problem shaking. I reported here during the election that I got a poling call from a man who spent 30-45 minutes quizzing me on my feelings about race and about this candidate versus this other one, this party versus that party. When ending the call, he said he had one final question for me: what is my race. I told him that he was black. It was obvious from the very unique variant of a very subtle southern accent. Now frankly I don't care what his race is, but I know of many people who would have pre-formed their opinion during the very first word uttered. If you think that I am dismissive of you, well I am. I really don't care what you think. As a matter of fact, from what you say it's pretty obvious that you are a dreamer of how things should be but has never dealt with things with regard to blacks as they are and struggled with the possible solutions to the problem. So just as we dismiss people who have never done TM from giving a critique of the TM practice, I dismiss you. You have no idea how blacks constantly keep themselves and others enslaved by their own attitudes and I have no interest in educating you, as though I could.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I am the eternal not racist and in fact shows concerns for Blacks
Grate.swan, I awed by your balance. If you and Marek can keep this dialog going, it's gunna be terrif. Glad you're posting here. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan no_re...@... wrote: Marek, Do you hold out any probability that Shad has something useful to say, some insightful life experience to share? To answer yes, is certainly NOT equivalent to i) believing everything he says is useful or valid, and 2) agreement with his views, and 3) that some of his views are not reprehensible to you. If you hold out at least some small probability that he has something useful to say, some insightful life experience to share, then do you hold any glimmer of hope that some open, fully listening dialogue may bear at least some fruit? The Bush administration was strongly adverse to dialogue with people with whom they felt had reprehensible views. Progress on world issues during this reign was negligible if not negative, in my view. This is in stark contrast to the Obama administration which has instructed it s most senior diplomats to first listen intently, and not start out dictating what the other party should do or feel. If Byron Katie has any validity, then believing in shoulds is weak and unproductive thinking. Some recently have said that talking to someone with views different than our own, starkly different, validates the other persons views, that is, it gives them legitimacy. That view is pure Bushian, in my opinion. What are your views on dialogue -- even with people who hold starkly different views than yourself? In my view and experience, name calling, particularly super charged words like racist, completely shuts down diologue -- in the near term and for a long time after that. And it shuts down the ability for either party to listen and really hear the deeper issues and dynamics behind the other party's words. The reptile brain takes over. Which is the opposite effect I would have hypothesized about long-term PC dippers. Perhaps Spraig and Vaj can elaborate on the research behind this. Thus, per your actions of calling someone a racist, it would appear, contrary to all other indications from your posts, that you are in the Bush camp of diplomacy. I hope, and do not think, that is not the case. What are your views on labeling people, processes for opening and closing of dialogue, giving legitimacy to other parties via dialogue, and the value of dialogue for understanding the deeper dynamics of why a person or group feels, thinks and acts the way they do? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis reavismarek@ wrote: Shemp, I missed the remark you posted from Obama under your own name, so I won't comment on that. And as to a young person's insecurities re how they might best fit in with a world which for them is defined by all sorts of mis-matching pieces (single mom, absent dad, stepfather, Indonesia, absent mom, living with different race grandparents in Hawaii), I can easily cut him some slack for that. (As an aside, look at the monikers that folks who post here use as one marker of how they try to fit in.) L.Shaddai's remarks, both his original post and subsequent replies, contained clear and offensive indicators that he believes blacks are inferior and debased; he was not expressing concern for the well-being of others. Your own remarks that folks should refrain from giving their children names that have charm or cultural significance within the community with which they identify, because that can be used to discriminate against them, has the argument all turned around. They're only names, not metrics of value (unless that's your shorthand for judging people). The larger community has to learn to look at the person, not succumb to prejudice. To encourage all the young Baracks in America to change their name to Barry so they'll fit in, is entirely the wrong message and one sent to the wrong party. Although racism is still a given in this country, it's changing and yielding towards the American ideal of meritocracy; an ideal that I'm positive you hold. Thanks for taking the time to address the issue. Marek ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: One more thing to add to what I wrote below: A certain someone preferred to use the name Barry for the first 20 or so years of his life because he felt uncomfortable with the given name on his birth certificate. Perhaps that tells us something about interacting in America with a name considered a wee bit out of the ordinary. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis reavismarek@ wrote: Pal, that (below) is a racist statement, plain and simple. It's reprehensible and
[FairfieldLife] Re: I am the eternal not racist and in fact shows concerns for Blacks
Comments interleaved: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan no_re...@... wrote: Marek, Do you hold out any probability that Shad has something useful to say, some insightful life experience to share? **snip Certainly. However, so far on this issue he has spoken in terms that my skinhead clients, tattooed from head to ankles with images and symbols of racial hatred, would be quick to endorse. That is not to say that L.Shaddai would participate in the same acts of violence that those individuals feel is the logical confirmation and necessary next step in holding those beliefs, but on the spectrum of racial tolerance/intolerance his expressed views are clearly racist. ** To answer yes, is certainly NOT equivalent to i) believing everything he says is useful or valid, and 2) agreement with his views, and 3) that some of his views are not reprehensible to you. If you hold out at least some small probability that he has something useful to say, some insightful life experience to share, then do you hold any glimmer of hope that some open, fully listening dialogue may bear at least some fruit? **snip Yes. But again, L.Shaddai in these exchanges has inferred facts regarding me and my experience for which he has no evidence, other than, once again, his prejudices. My comments were based on what L.Shaddai said, not on any baseless speculation as to why he said them. He undoubtedly has some history and training that has reinforced his prejudices, but as Edg has pointed out, we all have such histories and training; the important thing is to recognize it in our personality and work to overcome it. That is only, of course, if you feel that racism is a problem that needs to be addressed in your own personality, rather than a problem the blacks (or any identified others) have to rectify within the parameters that you approve so you can feel more comfortable around them. ** The Bush administration was strongly adverse to dialogue with people with whom they felt had reprehensible views. Progress on world issues during this reign was negligible if not negative, in my view. This is in stark contrast to the Obama administration which has instructed it s most senior diplomats to first listen intently, and not start out dictating what the other party should do or feel. If Byron Katie has any validity, then believing in shoulds is weak and unproductive thinking. **snip As re racism, I fall firmly on the side that it should be discussed and it should be discouraged. ** Some recently have said that talking to someone with views different than our own, starkly different, validates the other persons views, that is, it gives them legitimacy. That view is pure Bushian, in my opinion. What are your views on dialogue -- even with people who hold starkly different views than yourself? **snip I'm in favor of dialogue. ** In my view and experience, name calling, particularly super charged words like racist, completely shuts down diologue -- in the near term and for a long time after that. And it shuts down the ability for either party to listen and really hear the deeper issues and dynamics behind the other party's words. The reptile brain takes over. Which is the opposite effect I would have hypothesized about long-term PC dippers. Perhaps Spraig and Vaj can elaborate on the research behind this. Thus, per your actions of calling someone a racist, it would appear, contrary to all other indications from your posts, that you are in the Bush camp of diplomacy. I hope, and do not think, that is not the case. What are your views on labeling people, processes for opening and closing of dialogue, giving legitimacy to other parties via dialogue, and the value of dialogue for understanding the deeper dynamics of why a person or group feels, thinks and acts the way they do? **snip There's a natural and immediate reaction in me to be labelled a Bushian, and I would refute that term as it applies to me. In my first comments to L.Shaddai, however, I made particular point not to call him a racist. Rather, I commented that his statement was racist and reprehensible. A strong assertion, true, but it was an acknowledgement that perhaps he was not aware of how offensive his statements were and, if pointed out, he would take the opportunity to distance himself from them. However, on the contrary, he confirmed his position by implying that it was the blacks who were the real racists and made more derogatory claims regarding the blacks. From that point on I have come to the conclusion that he is a racist. What's unfortunate is not that *I* have identified him as such, but that *he* has identified himself as such. Thanks for working to find some middle way, here. I hold no animus for L.Shaddai, and should he come to the unfortunate position in life that I was appointed to represent him in a criminal
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: I am the eternal not racist and in fact shows concerns for Blacks
On Jan 29, 2009, at 11:59 AM, Marek Reavis wrote: In my first comments to L.Shaddai, however, I made particular point not to call him a racist. Rather, I commented that his statement was racist and reprehensible. A strong assertion, true, but it was an acknowledgement that perhaps he was not aware of how offensive his statements were and, if pointed out, he would take the opportunity to distance himself from them. However, on the contrary, he confirmed his position by implying that it was the blacks who were the real racists and made more derogatory claims regarding the blacks. LOL...Marek, this is really funny, intentional or otherwise. The only thing to do with something as heinous as racism is to laugh at it. From that point on I have come to the conclusion that he is a racist. What's unfortunate is not that *I* have identified him as such, but that *he* has identified himself as such. So true. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: I am the eternal not racist and in fact shows concerns for Blacks
Sal, since my posts are to be consigned to L.Shaddai's trash, it seems unlikely that there'll be any further dialogue on the subject between us. L.Shaddai obviously doesn't believe that he is prejudiced, and to whatever degree that belief informs or moderates behavior, all the better. What Edg pointed out earlier, however, is true for all of us, I feel. As primates we are quick to recognize distinctions and if we have been trained (by education or experience) to associate certain differences with bad, then it's understandable that we act and talk the way we do around others. One of the things that I find most rewarding about my work is that, at times, I get to be present when a client comes to a realization about others where he/she can draw a relationship between a group that they hate and themselves. I'm dealing right now with a young man who is in a world of trouble (after a lifetime of trouble and abuse) who, the last time he was in prison, abandoned his skinhead affiliations by refusing to stab a black inmate on the yard, because a black psychologist had shown him compassion and helped him gain insight during counseling sessions with him. Among other things, his refusal to follow orders means that when he goes back to prison he will always be in PC (protective custody away from the general population and essentially confined 23 hours a day). The operative phrase is blood in, blood out. Initiation into any of these groups (whether in prison or on the outs) involves the spilling of blood (the initiate's or someone else's -- or both), and refusal to abide by the group's code or orders from an authority within the group means that there is a lifetime contract on the violator's life. It wasn't an easy choice for him to make. His tattoos and appearance identify him indelibly as a member of a group that he no longer identifies with and can never rejoin. He is an outcast in every possible sense of the term, hated (not necessarily without good reason) by all, and accepted by none. He has told me on more than one occasion how much he appreciates the work I do for him, and I consider that high praise and good reward for my time. Marek ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunsh...@... wrote: On Jan 29, 2009, at 11:59 AM, Marek Reavis wrote: In my first comments to L.Shaddai, however, I made particular point not to call him a racist. Rather, I commented that his statement was racist and reprehensible. A strong assertion, true, but it was an acknowledgement that perhaps he was not aware of how offensive his statements were and, if pointed out, he would take the opportunity to distance himself from them. However, on the contrary, he confirmed his position by implying that it was the blacks who were the real racists and made more derogatory claims regarding the blacks. LOL...Marek, this is really funny, intentional or otherwise. The only thing to do with something as heinous as racism is to laugh at it. From that point on I have come to the conclusion that he is a racist. What's unfortunate is not that *I* have identified him as such, but that *he* has identified himself as such. So true. Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: I am the eternal not racist and in fact shows concerns for Blacks
On Jan 29, 2009, at 1:58 PM, Marek Reavis wrote: What Edg pointed out earlier, however, is true for all of us, I feel. As primates we are quick to recognize distinctions and if we have been trained (by education or experience) to associate certain differences with bad, then it's understandable that we act and talk the way we do around others. One of the things that I find most rewarding about my work is that, at times, I get to be present when a client comes to a realization about others where he/she can draw a relationship between a group that they hate and themselves. I'm dealing right now with a young man who is in a world of trouble (after a lifetime of trouble and abuse) who, the last time he was in prison, abandoned his skinhead affiliations by refusing to stab a black inmate on the yard, because a black psychologist had shown him compassion and helped him gain insight during counseling sessions with him. Among other things, his refusal to follow orders means that when he goes back to prison he will always be in PC (protective custody away from the general population and essentially confined 23 hours a day). The operative phrase is blood in, blood out. Initiation into any of these groups (whether in prison or on the outs) involves the spilling of blood (the initiate's or someone else's -- or both), and refusal to abide by the group's code or orders from an authority within the group means that there is a lifetime contract on the violator's life. It wasn't an easy choice for him to make. His tattoos and appearance identify him indelibly as a member of a group that he no longer identifies with and can never rejoin. He is an outcast in every possible sense of the term, hated (not necessarily without good reason) by all, and accepted by none. He has told me on more than one occasion how much he appreciates the work I do for him, and I consider that high praise and good reward for my time. Great story, Marek, thanks! Your work must be very fulfilling. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: I am the eternal not racist and in fact shows concerns for Blacks
It is, Sal, . . . most of the time. So far, so good. Marek ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunsh...@... wrote: On Jan 29, 2009, at 1:58 PM, Marek Reavis wrote: What Edg pointed out earlier, however, is true for all of us, I feel. As primates we are quick to recognize distinctions and if we have been trained (by education or experience) to associate certain differences with bad, then it's understandable that we act and talk the way we do around others. One of the things that I find most rewarding about my work is that, at times, I get to be present when a client comes to a realization about others where he/she can draw a relationship between a group that they hate and themselves. I'm dealing right now with a young man who is in a world of trouble (after a lifetime of trouble and abuse) who, the last time he was in prison, abandoned his skinhead affiliations by refusing to stab a black inmate on the yard, because a black psychologist had shown him compassion and helped him gain insight during counseling sessions with him. Among other things, his refusal to follow orders means that when he goes back to prison he will always be in PC (protective custody away from the general population and essentially confined 23 hours a day). The operative phrase is blood in, blood out. Initiation into any of these groups (whether in prison or on the outs) involves the spilling of blood (the initiate's or someone else's -- or both), and refusal to abide by the group's code or orders from an authority within the group means that there is a lifetime contract on the violator's life. It wasn't an easy choice for him to make. His tattoos and appearance identify him indelibly as a member of a group that he no longer identifies with and can never rejoin. He is an outcast in every possible sense of the term, hated (not necessarily without good reason) by all, and accepted by none. He has told me on more than one occasion how much he appreciates the work I do for him, and I consider that high praise and good reward for my time. Great story, Marek, thanks! Your work must be very fulfilling. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: I am the eternal not racist and in fact shows concerns for Blacks
Marek: Aside from the comments I-am-the-Eternal made in the post about naming kids in the African-American community, what else has he said that indicates he is a racist? Or is that all that you are referring to? I can't seem to find another original post that he made that I can construe as racist...perhaps it's there but I can't find it. If anyone knows, please tell me so I can look at it. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis reavisma...@... wrote: Shemp, I missed the remark you posted from Obama under your own name, so I won't comment on that. And as to a young person's insecurities re how they might best fit in with a world which for them is defined by all sorts of mis-matching pieces (single mom, absent dad, stepfather, Indonesia, absent mom, living with different race grandparents in Hawaii), I can easily cut him some slack for that. (As an aside, look at the monikers that folks who post here use as one marker of how they try to fit in.) L.Shaddai's remarks, both his original post and subsequent replies, contained clear and offensive indicators that he believes blacks are inferior and debased; he was not expressing concern for the well- being of others. Your own remarks that folks should refrain from giving their children names that have charm or cultural significance within the community with which they identify, because that can be used to discriminate against them, has the argument all turned around. They're only names, not metrics of value (unless that's your shorthand for judging people). The larger community has to learn to look at the person, not succumb to prejudice. To encourage all the young Baracks in America to change their name to Barry so they'll fit in, is entirely the wrong message and one sent to the wrong party. Although racism is still a given in this country, it's changing and yielding towards the American ideal of meritocracy; an ideal that I'm positive you hold. Thanks for taking the time to address the issue. Marek ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: One more thing to add to what I wrote below: A certain someone preferred to use the name Barry for the first 20 or so years of his life because he felt uncomfortable with the given name on his birth certificate. Perhaps that tells us something about interacting in America with a name considered a wee bit out of the ordinary. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis reavismarek@ wrote: Pal, that (below) is a racist statement, plain and simple. It's reprehensible and you are entirely wrong in the sentiment you express. Marek: Several months ago I made a statement here on this forum about Blacks having an advantage over other races on the basketball court. I got several responses that the statement was racist (and also several that agreed with the statement). Of course, I then revealed that it wasn't ME who actually said it but Barack Obama and I had made it seem as if I said it just to make a point. I then provided a link to a video of him saying it. Except for I-am-the-eternal using the word all as in black guys and black women in the US all have to have their own cult names, I am at a loss as to why what he wrote is racist. Certainly, it is, at most, equally racist and, at least, much less racist than what Obama said about Blacks and basketball. The observation about unique names in the Black Community is not and should not be a taboo subject. Indeed, it was the subject of one of those newsmagazine shows (20/20? Primetime? Dateline NBC?) a while back. The premise of the show? The naming phenomenon in the Black Community often creates huge problems for those kids when they grow up and try to get jobs. In fact, it provides an opportunity for racists to practise their racism. As a lawyer you know that there are laws against requiring someone to put a photograph on Resume's or identifying race when applying for a job. Yet the ghetto name phenomenon is such that that is used as an identifying marker by potential employees NOT to hire blacks and to do it with impunity. A white racist reading a resume submitted from a Shaneequah Washington can reject the application and not risk being accused of prejudice. That I-am-the-eternal dares to broach this subject shows not only sensitivity on his part but I suggest genuine concern for African- Americans. http://tinyurl.com/caonfg http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=black+names http://www.blackghettobabynames.net/ ** ---
[FairfieldLife] Re: I am the eternal not racist and in fact shows concerns for Blacks
Shemp, Hey. Look, I've got no agenda against L.Shaddai personally and no wish to catalog all the statements he made that I found to be offensive. What I'd suggest to you is this: within the thread, just go through his posts and substitute the phrase Shemp and his whole family everytime he uses the term blacks and them and they. See if you'd feel okay with that. The original post that I referred to was L.Shaddai's first post within that thread. He didn't start the thread but was the first reply to the first post, I believe. Marek ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcg...@... wrote: Marek: Aside from the comments I-am-the-Eternal made in the post about naming kids in the African-American community, what else has he said that indicates he is a racist? Or is that all that you are referring to? I can't seem to find another original post that he made that I can construe as racist...perhaps it's there but I can't find it. If anyone knows, please tell me so I can look at it. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis reavismarek@ wrote: Shemp, I missed the remark you posted from Obama under your own name, so I won't comment on that. And as to a young person's insecurities re how they might best fit in with a world which for them is defined by all sorts of mis-matching pieces (single mom, absent dad, stepfather, Indonesia, absent mom, living with different race grandparents in Hawaii), I can easily cut him some slack for that. (As an aside, look at the monikers that folks who post here use as one marker of how they try to fit in.) L.Shaddai's remarks, both his original post and subsequent replies, contained clear and offensive indicators that he believes blacks are inferior and debased; he was not expressing concern for the well- being of others. Your own remarks that folks should refrain from giving their children names that have charm or cultural significance within the community with which they identify, because that can be used to discriminate against them, has the argument all turned around. They're only names, not metrics of value (unless that's your shorthand for judging people). The larger community has to learn to look at the person, not succumb to prejudice. To encourage all the young Baracks in America to change their name to Barry so they'll fit in, is entirely the wrong message and one sent to the wrong party. Although racism is still a given in this country, it's changing and yielding towards the American ideal of meritocracy; an ideal that I'm positive you hold. Thanks for taking the time to address the issue. Marek ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: One more thing to add to what I wrote below: A certain someone preferred to use the name Barry for the first 20 or so years of his life because he felt uncomfortable with the given name on his birth certificate. Perhaps that tells us something about interacting in America with a name considered a wee bit out of the ordinary. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis reavismarek@ wrote: Pal, that (below) is a racist statement, plain and simple. It's reprehensible and you are entirely wrong in the sentiment you express. Marek: Several months ago I made a statement here on this forum about Blacks having an advantage over other races on the basketball court. I got several responses that the statement was racist (and also several that agreed with the statement). Of course, I then revealed that it wasn't ME who actually said it but Barack Obama and I had made it seem as if I said it just to make a point. I then provided a link to a video of him saying it. Except for I-am-the-eternal using the word all as in black guys and black women in the US all have to have their own cult names, I am at a loss as to why what he wrote is racist. Certainly, it is, at most, equally racist and, at least, much less racist than what Obama said about Blacks and basketball. The observation about unique names in the Black Community is not and should not be a taboo subject. Indeed, it was the subject of one of those newsmagazine shows (20/20? Primetime? Dateline NBC?) a while back. The premise of the show? The naming phenomenon in the Black Community often creates huge problems for those kids when they grow up and try to get jobs. In fact, it provides an opportunity for racists to practise their racism. As a lawyer you know that there are laws against
