Sister Brenda Walsh writes a lengthy piece in the JT about combating racism. "We can address racism in a holistic way-name it, face it, denounce it and dismantle it" she writes. Great, let's do that.
The problem with this and every other local commentary on the subject of racism is that they inevitably fail to identify an actual racist individual or institution. How can we face and denounce racism without facing and denouncing a racist?
So please Sister Brenda Walsh, identify the racist individuals and institutions that are so harming our community.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
32 comments:
Yep.
When I read Sr. Walsh's commentary this morning, I knew EXACTLY what Denis N. would write!
People in positions of priviledge NEVER see the errors of their own selves - only of the poor.
So why don't you tell me who the local racists are anon since I doubt we will hear from Sister Walsh.
Your argument is similar in context to the "war on terror", our government has installed a myraid of legislation to fight terrorism, but I have yet to see or hear of any actual terrorist threat in Racine or Racine county but the city and county get tons of cash to "fight" terrorism.
Can someone please identify a local terrorist or local terrorist institution?
Denis - can you identify the biggest local ass clown? No, because he is anonymous.
Sister Brenda Walsh is a relentless activist for fairness. She is tireless when it comes to our community. She sees discrimination in beautiful Racine. As do others. Just reading blogs gives you a good idea of the segregation. Just seeing the emphasis on downtown splendors vs. resident job training and opportunities for residents shows a bent toward ivory towerism all in the name of the tax base and at the expense of human beings that live here now. We have a few examples being played out right in the paper currently. Like what really happened with Bilal on the northside and why can't the Chocolate City enterprise in the Century Market get their side of their enterprise out to the public? Last week there was this case in the paper regarding a young man (white) who put 7 bullet holes into someone during a drug deal and he is given a 2 years. There does seem to be a double standard.
great points CK. The general fear of black and hispanic, particularly young men is all too real in racine, this contributes to the hysteria.
"The general fear of black and hispanic, particularly young men is all too real in racine, this contributes to the hysteria."
Hysteria? There is no hysteria. There are simply years of being trained to look the other way while the wild little monkeys (yes, they act just like little monkeys) do as they wish. Anytime someone stands up and says something, they are labled racist or risk getting shot in front on their family. No, there is no hysteria, just millions of upstanding folk watching, waiting, for their opportunity to right a few wrongs, level the playing field. If it means denying some some little punk a job, so be it. If it means letting a drug dealer get killed by another drug dealer too bad. If it means getting hit in the head with a pipe while robbing my house, good riddance.
I'm sick of these little pieces of shit and their enablers thinking that we fear them... we don't. We are not hysterical, we have have control over our emotions.
We are patient. We will overcome them, because we are smarter and have the numbers.
anon, you have successfully proved my point. thanks.
Wow.
Racine is NOT a racist city...
You must be white.
"anon, you have successfully proved my point. thanks."
You had no meaningful point. You haven't said anything outside of the same old liberal rhetoric. You NEVER address the question, you ALWAYS attack the person asking it. On the other hand, my comments are based in a truth that you will learn to understand, like it or not.
"Wow.
Racine is NOT a racist city...
You must be white."
Wow, I must be white, I must be racist. Same old, same old comments from the REAL racists. Sorry, no matter how hard you try I will never feel guilty for having "a racial ethnicity". You must not be white.
"Racine native says she poisoned, abused Iraqi prisoners"
this is a subheading on today's Racinepost page. At least this person has a name and a developing awareness of the human condition.
I notice that non-Whites (especially Negroids) in Racine & everywhere in the nation & world are very racist by the original definition still used in some dictionaries. All other races advocate for the interests of their race & for advantage for their race. All species prefer to be with their own kind. It is only White people that are taught it is evil to look out for their own kind or even to have pride in their race. White founded nations unfortunately are the least racist nations on the planet. No non-White nations allow other races to immigrate to them & become citizens nor give them special treatment. All White founded nations do allow massive legal & illegal immigration & offer special treatment & protection for other races. It is much safer for non-White people in White areas of Racine than it is for White people in non-White areas. The same is the case anywhere in the nation.
Amen, brother.
It's always such a prickly subject. There are many who cry racism when there is none at all. And like you can't convince a Christian that God does not exist, you can't convince someone who feels disenfranchised by racism, or any other thing, that they are not being somehow singled out and left behind.
Check out "Discriminator's" profile by clicking on the name in his post. Then please tell me if his post has any credibility in a sane society.
"Check out "Discriminator's" profile by clicking on the name in his post. Then please tell me if his post has any credibility in a sane society."
Regardless of Discriminator's profile or the topics on his/her blog, Discriminator's comment was completely on topic and did nothing more than add his perspective to the topic. Discriminator's account name also distinguishes his/her comments from purely anonymous ones.
It would appear anonymous, that you could take a few clues from Discriminator.
Take a few clues from Discriminator? Like what? How to be racist and sexist? e.g. using the term "negroid." (Please don't patronize with some dictionary definition here.)
And thank you for the "advice," but as a woman of color, I'll post as anonymous. It seems safer.
"Take a few clues from Discriminator? Like what?"
What part of...
"Discriminator's comment was completely on topic and did nothing more than add his perspective to the topic. Discriminator's account name also distinguishes his/her comments from purely anonymous ones."
...didn't you understand?
Are opinions and observations reserved exclusively for individuals who strictly adhere to your opinions?
And thank you for the "advice," but as a woman of color, I'll post as anonymous. It seems safer.
Using an account to distinguish yourself from other anonymous posters doesn't in any way pose some sort safety issue for anyone. For example, do you know who I am? Is it possible for you to figure it out? As an incentive, I'll give you $100 to respond with my name. And incidentally, you are completely safe on this blog. I wish I could say the same for my family, should we want to go to Denny's or something. Now, who's patronizing who? And one other thing you might consider. When you refer to yourself as a "woman of color", it makes you sound very condescending, separatist and even racist. Perhaps you feel that it makes you better or something? When last was it that I could say, "as a white man...", without being labled a racist? I'm supposed to consider you an equal human-being when you are making specifically making that distinction?
"How to be racist and sexist? e.g. using the term "negroid.""
Nothing that Discriminator said was racist. Nothing. Hmm. Can't refer to you as African American, you might not be from Africa. Can't refer to you using the "n" word because it's derogatory, unless it's one "dark colored skin person" talking to another "dark colored skin person". Can't use the term black, because black has "bad" connotations associated with it. "Negroid", regardless of how you personally feel about the term, is a scientific term and correct English. I suppose you've never used the term caucasian?
Get over yourself.
I do not need to give lessons to any non-White individuals on racism. They are all extreme racists. That is not a cut. Unfortunately Caucasoids are not very racist. That means our survival instincts are weak and our survival is at risk. People have false perceptions created by our mis-education systems and the media about racism. Now even many dictionaries have changed the definitions of racism to fit with the stupid Masses force fed false perceptions about racism. The same is the case for many other words that represent important concepts. Stereotype, generalize, & discrimination are a few examples.
Anonymous says she is a woman of color. A meaningless statement except that it implies a politically correct, weak mind, behind the words. What color? White or pinkish or brown or black? Black is a color usually associated with darkness or absence of color. Non-Whites that use the term "people of color" use it as a foolish racist dig at White people. They have been fed the idea that we (Caucasoids) are without color. The most foolish will buy into anything that makes them feel better.
An African American is a person from Africa that immigrates here & becomes a citizen. That rules out most folks that call themselves African Americans. I will not call people whatever they want to be called no matter how foolish & wrong. A White (Caucasoid) person from South Africa or Rhodesia (the ones that have not been slaughtered) that moves here & becomes a citizen is a true african American. Africa covers more than just mainly negroid Sub-Sahara Africa.
In any case African is a geographical designation that is not race specific. American like French are national designations that are also not race specific. The term Asian is also geographical. The terms Latin, Hispanic, Persian, or Arab are language designations that are not race specific. There are millions of Caucasoid & negroid & mulatto Hispanics. Most of the invaders from the south (actually being welcomed) - are mestizo's. That is a Caucasoid/Mongoloid mix. The media & mis-education systems create as much confusion about race as they can. It is best to use ONLY actual race specific terms to talk about specific races. That way there is no confusion.
More importantly than color what about your race? Are you negroid, Caucasoid, or mongoloid? Perhaps one of the mixed race types like mulatto or mestizo? I know all a about the mindless slogans the stupid masses parrot about there only being one race - the human race. Actually there is no such thing as a human race. There is however a human species that like all species (plant or animal) is divided into sub-species. We call those sub-species of humans races - for horses or dogs we say breeds. Race is not merely about color despite the mindless slogans about race being skin deep.
A pit bull is not equal to a poodle in temperament, intelligence or strength even if both the same color. Dogs are not the best example for the stupid masses since they are not natural in the sense that man has pretty much screwed with them & created the mixes we see. In nature wolves do not breed with foxes or coyotes or wild dogs. To each his own is the natural law that protects diversity & ensures evolution to higher plains with the unfit dying out. Chickens & Eagles though both birds are not the same nor equal. The same for brown bears, black bears, grizzly bears & polar bears.
Color is just skin deep (or hair or fur deep) but race is the essence of who we are followed by gender. Yes I am a sexist as well. Not being a fool I have not bought into the gender equality myth anymore than the racial equality myth. I will not accept lies that are proved as such by observable reality all around me on a daily basis. It is high time White people start looking out for ONLY our own interests. Often there is not common interests. We are competitors at best and natural enemies at worst. When negroids & mulatto's get there way in this nation it is most always at our expense. They benefit - we are harmed. Often it is not possible for something to be good for us all. It is good for me when I win at chess but not so for my opponent.
White people do not owe any other peoples apologies. All is fair in love and war & all life is love & war. Or better yet forget about fairness except with our own. If negroids would have been capable of traveling to Europe and enslaving White folk they would have done so. Mastership & slavery are eternal no matter how the names & circumstances change. The strong rule over the weak. It is part of evolution.
Negroid slaves had a much better standard of living here than back home. Remember they were already slaves with the stronger negroid tribes enslaving the weaker ones. Here they were given some education, much better & more food, better housing, more free time, better treatment (as valuable property), better health care, & better housing. Remember we are talking about savages thousands of years behind us - permanently so.
If not for past negroid slavery there would be no negroids or mulatto's leeching off of this White created civilization today. Instead they would be back in Sub-Sahara (black) Africa naked, flies all about, starving, in mud & dung huts waiting for the next food shipment from the christ insanity infected White man.
No we owe them nothing but hatred & contempt. It is natural to hate those & that which threatens what & whom you love. Your hatred will be as strong as the love it grows out of & is inspired by. The only way to eliminate hate like the fools parrot, is to eliminate the love it springs from & is connected to. Only those that love nobody nor anything (not even self) are without hate since they can't muster any since they do not give a hoot for anything or anyone.
Negroids & mulatto's have ruined most all of our cities our culture & education systems. Now the mestizos are infesting our nation. They infest this nation from coast to coast. They (all non-Whites together)are a huge net liability. They (negroids alone)kill over 1,500 of us per year for 4 decades now (ever since they stopped fearing the rope). They (negroids alone)rape 30,000 + of our females per year for 4 decades - they rape more of ours than theirs for obvious reasons. They (negroids)assault over 1 1/2 million of us per year for 4 decades.
Black on White crime is more prevalent than black on black yet the media talks ONLY about black on black crime. I guess White peoples lives do not matter to them. Why should they? Their lives should not matter to us either except in the way that they are a threat to us. Our lives should matter to us though!
It is negroids that owe us for slavery. They owe a debt they could never repay. I would settle for repatriation. Reparations (though we owe them NOTHING) only for repatriation back to the motherland. How many of the negroid & mulatto complainers would really want to leave this supposed racist White society they infest & leech from? They love it here & know they have it made. They have learned to play on foolish christ insanity inspired White guilt. The more they complain and act up the more we cave in to their demands.
This nation needs some serious racial cleansing if it is to survive. The racial pollution will only get worse. As our nation darkens so does our future. If you want a brighter world & future it takes a Whiter world & future.
What Is Racism?
by Thomas Jackson
There is surely no nation in the world that holds "racism" in greater horror than does the United States. Compared to other kinds of offenses, it is thought to be somehow more reprehensible. The press and public have become so used to tales of murder, rape, robbery, and arson, that any but the most spectacular crimes are shrugged off as part of the inevitable texture of American life. "Racism" is never shrugged off. For example, when a white Georgetown Law School student reported earlier this year that black students are not as qualified as white students, it set off a booming, national controversy about "racism." If the student had merely murdered someone he would have attracted far less attention and criticism. Racism is, indeed, the national obsession. Universities are on full alert for it, newspapers and politicians denounce it, churches preach against it, America is said to be racked with it, but just what *is* racism? Dictionaries are not much help in understanding what is meant by the word. They usually define it as the belief that one's own ethnic stock is superior to others, or as the belief that culture and behavior are rooted in race. When Americans speak of racism they mean a great deal more than this.
Nevertheless, the dictionary definition of racism is a clue to understanding what Americans *do* mean. A peculiarly American meaning derives from the current dogma that all ethnic stocks are equal. Despite clear evidence to the contrary, all races have been declared to be equally talented and hard- working, and anyone who questions the dogma is thought to be not merely wrong but evil. The dogma has logical consequences that are profoundly important. If blacks, for example, are equal to whites in every way, what accounts for their poverty, criminality, and dissipation? Since any theory of racial differences has been outlawed, the only possible explanation for black failure is white racism. And since blacks are markedly poor, crime-prone, and dissipated, America must be racked with pervasive racism. Nothing else could be keeping them in such an abject state.
All public discourse on race today is locked into this rigid logic. Any explanation for black failure that does not depend on white wickedness threatens to veer off into the forbidden territory of racial differences. Thus, even if today's whites can find in their hearts no desire to oppress blacks, yesterday's whites must have oppressed them. If whites do not consciously oppress blacks, they must oppress them UNconsciously. If no obviously racist individuals can be identified, then *institutions* must be racist. Or, since blacks are failing so terribly in America, there simply must be millions of white people we do not know about, who are working day and night to keep blacks in misery. The dogma of racial equality leaves no room for an explanation of black failure that is not, in some fashion, an indictment of white people. The logical consequences of this are clear. Since we are required to believe that the only explanation for non-white failure is white racism, every time a non-white is poor, commits a crime, goes on welfare, or takes drugs, white society stands accused of yet another act of racism.
All failure or misbehavior by non-whites is standing proof that white society is riddled with hatred and bigotry. For precisely so long as non-whites fail to succeed in life at exactly the same level as whites, whites will be, by definition, thwarting and oppressing them. This obligatory pattern of thinking leads to strange conclusions. First of all, racism is a sin that is thought to be committed almost exclusively by white people. Indeed, a black congressman from Chicago, Gus Savage, and Coleman Young, the black mayor of Detroit, have argued that only white people *can* be racist. Likewise, in 1987, the affirmative action officer of the State Insurance Fund of New York issued a company pamphlet in which she explained that *all* whites are racist and that *only* whites can be racist. How else could the plight of blacks be explained without flirting with the possibility of racial inequality Although some blacks and liberal whites concede that non-whites can, perhaps, be racist, they invariably add that non-whites have been forced into it as self-defense because of centuries of white oppression.
What appears to be non-white racism is so understandable and forgivable that it hardly deserves the name. Thus, whether or not an act is called racism depends on the race of the racist. What would surely be called racism when done by whites is thought to be normal when done by anyone else. The reverse is also true. Examples of this sort of double standard are so common, it is almost tedious to list them: When a white man kills a black man and uses the word "nigger" while doing so, there is an enormous media uproar and the nation beats its collective breast; when members of the black Yahweh cult carry out ritual murders of random whites, the media are silent (see AR of March, 1991). College campuses forbid pejorative statements about non-whites as "racist," but ignore scurrilous attacks on whites.
At election time, if 60 percent of the white voters vote for a white candidate, and 95 percent of the black voters vote for the black opponent, it is white who are accused of racial bias. There are 107 "historically black" colleges, whose fundamental blackness must be preserved in the name of diversity, but all historically white colleges must be forcibly integrated in the name of... the same thing. To resist would be racist. "Black pride" is said to be a wonderful and worthy thing, but anything that could be construed as an expression of white pride is a form of hatred. It is perfectly natural for third-world immigrants to expect school instruction and driver's tests in their own languages, whereas for native Americans to ask them to learn English is racist.
Blatant anti-white prejudice, in the form of affirmative action, is now the law of the land. Anything remotely like affirmative action, if practiced in favor of whites, would be attacked as despicable favoritism. All across the country, black, Hispanic, and Asian clubs and caucuses are thought to be fine expressions of ethnic solidarity, but any club or association expressly for whites is by definition racist. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) campaigns openly for black advantage but is a respected "civil rights" organization. The National Association for the Advancement of White People (NAAWP) campaigns merely for equal treatment of all races, but is said to be viciously racist. At a few college campuses, students opposed to affirmative action have set up student unions for whites, analogous to those for blacks, Hispanics, etc, and have been roundly condemned as racists. Recently, when the white students at Lowell High School in San Francisco found themselves to be a minority, they asked for a racially exclusive club like the ones that non- whites have. They were turned down in horror.
Indeed, in America today, any club not specifically formed to be a white enclave but whose members simply happen all to be white is branded as racist. Today, one of the favorite slogans that define the asymmetric quality of American racism is "celebration of diversity." It has begun to dawn on a few people that "diversity" is always achieved at the expense of whites (and sometimes men), and never the other way around. No one proposes that Howard University be made more diverse by admitting whites, Hispanics, or Asians. No one ever suggests that National Hispanic University in San Jose (CA) would benefit from the diversity of having non-Hispanics on campus. No one suggests that the Black Congressional Caucus or the executive ranks of the NAACP or the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund suffer from a lack of diversity. Somehow, it is perfectly legitimate for them to celebrate *homogeneity*. And yet any all-white group - a company, a town, a school, a club, a neighborhood - is thought to suffer from a crippling lack of diversity that must be remedied as quickly as possible.
Only when whites have been reduced to a minority has "diversity" been achieved. Let us put it bluntly: To "celebrate" or "embrace" diversity, as we are so often asked to do, is no different from *deploring an excess of whites.* In fact, the entire nation is thought to suffer from an excess of whites. Our current immigration policies are structured so that approximately 90 percent of our annual 800,000 legal immigrants are non-white. The several million illegal immigrants that enter the country every year are virtually all non-white. It would be racist not to be grateful for this laudable contribution to "diversity." It is, of course, only white nations that are called upon to practice this kind of "diversity." It is almost criminal to imagine a nation of any other race countenancing blatant dispossession of this kind. What if the United States were pouring its poorest, least educated citizens across the border into Mexico? Could anyone be fooled into thinking that Mexico was being "culturally enriched?" What if the state of Chihuahua were losing its majority population to poor whites who demanded that schools be taught in English, who insisted on celebrating the Fourth of July, who demanded the right to vote even if they weren't citizens, who clamored for "affirmative action" in jobs and schooling? Would Mexico - or any other non-white nation - tolerate this kind of cultural and demographic depredation? Of course not.
Yet white Americans are supposed to look upon the flood of Hispanics and Asians entering their country as a priceless cultural gift. They are supposed to "celebrate" their own loss of influence, their own dwindling numbers, their own dispossession, for to do otherwise would be hopelessly racist. There is another curious asymmetry about American racism. When non- whites advance their own racial purposes, no one ever accuses them of "hating" another group. Blacks can join "civil rights" groups and Hispanics can be activists without fear of being branded as bigots and hate mongers. They can agitate openly for racial preferences that can come only at the expense of whites. They can demand preferential treatment of all kinds without anyone ever suggesting that they are "anti-white." Whites, on the other hand, need only express their opposition to affirmative action to be called haters. They need only subject racial policies that are clearly prejudicial to themselves to be called racists. Should they actually go so far as to say that they prefer the company of their own kind, that they wish to be left alone to enjoy the fruits of their European heritage, they are irredeemably wicked and hateful. Here, then is the final, baffling inconsistency about American race relations.
All non-whites are allowed to prefer the company of their own kind, to think of themselves as groups with interests distinct from those of the whole, and to work openly for group advantage. None of this is thought to be racist. At the same time, *whites* must *also* champion the racial interests of non-whites. They must sacrifice their own future on the altar of "diversity" and cooperate in their own dispossession. They are to encourage, even to subsidize, the displacement of a European people and culture by alien peoples and cultures. To put it in the simplest possible terms, white people are cheerfully to slaughter their own society, to commit racial and cultural suicide. To refuse to do so would be racism. Of course, the entire non-white enterprise in the United States is perfectly natural and healthy. Nothing could be more natural than to love one's people and to hope that it should flourish. Filipinos and El Salvadorans are doubtless astonished to discover that simply by setting foot in the United States they are entitled to affirmative action preferences over native-born whites, but can they be blamed for accepting them? Is it surprising that they should want their languages, their cultures, their brothers and sisters to take possession and put their mark indelibly on the land?
If the once-great people of a once-great nation is bent upon self-destruction and is prepared to hand over land and power to whomever shows up and asks for it, why should Mexicans and Cambodians complain? No, it is the white enterprise in the United States that is unnatural, unhealthy, and without historical precedent. Whites have let themselves be convinced that it is racist merely to object to dispossession, much less to work for their own interests. Never in the history of the world has a dominant people thrown open the gates to strangers, and poured out its wealth to aliens. Never before has a people been fooled into thinking that there was virtue or nobility in surrendering its heritage, and giving away to others its place in history. Of all the races in America, only whites have been tricked into thinking that a preference for one's own kind is racism. Only whites are ever told that a love for their own people is somehow "hatred" of others. All healthy people prefer the company of their own kind, and it has nothing to do with hatred. All men love their families more than their neighbors, but this does not mean that they hate their neighbors. Whites who love their racial family need bear no ill will towards non-whites. They only wish to be left alone to participate in the unfolding of their racial and cultural destinies.
What whites in America are being asked to do is therefore utterly unnatural. They are being asked to devote themselves to the interests of other races and to ignore the interests of their own. This is like asking a man to forsake his own children and love the children of his neighbors, since to do otherwise would be "racist." What then, is "racism?" It is considerably more than any dictionary is likely to say. It is any opposition by whites to official policies of racial preference for non-whites. It is any preference by whites for their own people and culture. It is any resistance by whites to the idea of becoming a minority people. It is any unwillingness to be pushed aside. It is, in short, any of the normal aspirations of people-hood that have defined nations since the beginning of history - but only so long as the aspirations are those of whites.
What Is Racism? by Thomas Jackson originally appeared in American Renaissance, Vol. 2, No. 8.
Question for Anon......:
What are you implying with your "go to Dennys" comment? You sound afraid??? What scares you???
And I see Discriminator just posted. Anon..., do your comments still hold true after reading the latest post?
Discriminator: you have to be kidding in some sick sort of way. Especially the part "They (negroids alone)rape 30,000 + of our females per year for 4 decades - they rape more of ours than theirs for obvious reasons." Obvious reasons???? Give me a break.
Anon, I respect the fact that you have stuck around to continue with the discussion.
To answer your questions.
What are you implying with your "go to Dennys" comment?
Go to this page and find Denny's: http://www.jsonline.com/watch/index.aspx?watch=1&date=5/15/2006&format=print
I witnessed part of this fiasco. I decided to leave when the napkin holders started to fly. It was a free-for-all. No different than the riots in LA, which (coincidentally) happened while I lived there. Barbaric animals one and all, in LA and at this Denny's. I didn't have my family with me (thank God). This is what I've grown up to see, not white guy lynching mobs. All I know is what I see. My opinions are established on real life experience. I was at Children's Hospital last week, same type of animal behavior. Harassing people minding their own business, who just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time, probably trying to visit some kid at the hospital.
You sound afraid???
You know this stupid comment that keeps getting made is starting to annoy me. Don't confuse pissed-off with afraid. This mistaken attitude is eventually going to get a brother disassembled.
What scares you???
Having one of my kids get in the crossfire of some little animal dirtbag. I don't go looking for trouble, I go out of my way to avoid it. I am not an animal and I'm not interested in involving myself with animals and their antics. I think most troublemakers take one look at me and figure it's probably not worth it, anyway.
What scares you, anon?
And I see Discriminator just posted. Anon..., do your comments still hold true after reading the latest post?
The comments I made regarding Discriminator's original comments are just as vakid now, as the first time I made them. I haven't commented on his / her last comments. What, are you telling what I need to respond to now?
So give it up anon...
What scares you?
The beginning: "Anon, I respect the fact that you have stuck around to continue with the discussion."
The end: "So give it up anon"
Somehow I see a lack of sincerely in the "beginning" of your post.
(btw, visiting the kid in the hospital was such a nice touch to your post.)
Somehow I see a lack of sincerely in the "beginning" of your post.
Sounds like you have a personal problem. I would think that a strong, colored woman (such as yourself), would would have a healthy ego. I was being sincere. How prejudice. Are you insinuating that a white guy can't be sincere? How racist.
(btw, visiting the kid in the hospital was such a nice touch to your post.)
Sounds like you are suggesting that I am a liar. How prejudice. Is that because I am a white guy? How racist.
How about this anon...
1. It is a "childrens" hospital therefore ALL the patients are KIDS.
2. I was there visiting my wife and four month old daughter who just had open heart surgery. Don't believe me? Ask Denis. He's seen the pictures of her in the ICU last week.
So anon, I've consistantly responded to all of your remarks. You have yet to answer any of my questions to you. All you've done so far is question the legitimacy of my comments and declare your colored-ness.
What are you afraid of anon? What is it that scares you?
Ooops...
I apologize if I offended you when I referred to you as a "colored woman". What I meant was "woman of color".
whatever
whatever
My bad. You don't like the questions that I axe you?
Denis: Could you please strongly consider deleting the last post that uses the word "axe" in an obviously racist manner. It also now is most clear that the previous "colored" comment was intentional.
Anonymous/Discriminator: You may feel that you somehow got under my skin with your comments. I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I have heard so many ignorant comments in my life that I think I am immune to that kind of racist drivel.
There is so much hate here...I will no longer participate. In fact, I was in error in posting in the first place.
Wouldn't you need to participate in the first place, in order to no longer participate?
Anonymous, there is no hate here, at least not from me. I don't hate you. I don't even dislike you. I was attempting to get you to respond to the subject that you joined (without participating) and you never did. Since you were so hell bent on accusing "us" of being racist, I adapted my "style" to a very real cultural style. So now, even THAT makes me racist, right?
When you give up that crutch, then you won't be disabled any more.
My black friends think it's hysterical when I do impressions like that. You know why? Because they know how ridiculous it is when people (of any color) act that way.
Anonymous...? Knowhatumsayin'?
Why feed thew monkeys?
Post a Comment