|
Post by Dex on Sept 14, 2017 7:34:47 GMT -5
A banner was quickly confiscated during Wednesday night's Red Sox game against the Oakland A's. Four fans seated above the Green Monster dropped down a sign during the fourth inning. The black sign with white letters read, "Racism is as American as baseball." Security reeled the banner back within minutes and escorted the fans from their seats, according to CSNNE. Red Sox officials confirmed the incident through a statement: "During the fourth inning of tonight’s game, four fans unfurled a banner over the left field wall in violation of the club’s policy prohibiting signs of any kind to be hung or affixed to the ballpark. The individuals involved were escorted out of Fenway Park," said Zineb Curran, Senior Director of Corporate Communications. A short time later, a group called Boston Antifa claimed via Twitter to be responsible for the stunt. Fans at Wednesday night's game were quick to react to the stunt. "Baseball represents America and racism does not. It's not OK," said one fan. "I think it is going to end up being another one of those things that makes Boston look bad," said another man. "I don't really know what they meant by it. I guess it is up for interpretation." This is the second time this year a controversial banner has been unfurled over the Green Monster, according to CSNNE. In June, a banner with a political message regarding the Middle East was also removed. The Red Sox have instituted a no-tolerance policy after Orioles outfielder Adam Jones, who is black, said he heard racist remarks during a game earlier this season. www.nbcboston.com/news/local/Racism-is-as-American-as-baseball-Banner-Unfurled-at-Fenway-Park-444321193.html
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Sept 14, 2017 8:05:36 GMT -5
what always appears to be over looked is.. that wherever you have human beings you will get racism of one kind or another and what exactly is racism but tribalism.... and what is tribalism but the desire for the tribe/group to survive...it is an inbred instinct.. a fundamental indstinct bred in over Millenia and thousands or years and it isn't going to go away over night
we can have all the laws in the world it isn't going to go away any time soon ...it will continue to exist one way or another for generation to come ...because people will always have their own personal prefferences
the very best we can do is equality in law and opportunity..we are not going to alter human nature any time soon
theres not one of us on this site would let our families suffer starvation because we choose to give our share of the food to another starving family....because our families are our priority
|
|
|
Post by annaj26 on Sept 14, 2017 9:05:59 GMT -5
Mouse, you are trying to apply your own ideas of racism to "American Racism".
If 1/16th or so of U. S. racists are encouraged, they will KILL those that they hate.
Let that sink in before you write back on this.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Sept 14, 2017 9:54:16 GMT -5
what always appears to be over looked is.. that wherever you have human beings you will get racism of one kind or another and what exactly is racism but tribalism.... and what is tribalism but the desire for the tribe/group to survive...it is an inbred instinct.. a fundamental indstinct bred in over Millenia and thousands or years and it isn't going to go away over night we can have all the laws in the world it isn't going to go away any time soon ...it will continue to exist one way or another for generation to come ...because people will always have their own personal prefferences the very best we can do is equality in law and opportunity..we are not going to alter human nature any time soon theres not one of us on this site would let our families suffer starvation because we choose to give our share of the food to another starving family....because our families are our priority Acceptance is often the same as encouragement. "Personal Preference" easily slides into acceptance and encouragement is a giant step closer to law breaking. Not good.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Sept 15, 2017 2:59:11 GMT -5
what always appears to be over looked is.. that wherever you have human beings you will get racism of one kind or another and what exactly is racism but tribalism.... and what is tribalism but the desire for the tribe/group to survive...it is an inbred instinct.. a fundamental indstinct bred in over Millenia and thousands or years and it isn't going to go away over night we can have all the laws in the world it isn't going to go away any time soon ...it will continue to exist one way or another for generation to come ...because people will always have their own personal prefferences the very best we can do is equality in law and opportunity..we are not going to alter human nature any time soon theres not one of us on this site would let our families suffer starvation because we choose to give our share of the food to another starving family....because our families are our priority Acceptance is often the same as encouragement. "Personal Preference" easily slides into acceptance and encouragement is a giant step closer to law breaking. Not good. it may not be good... but that is the basic reality of human nature.. and like I said our basic nature isn't going to alter any time soon we can kid ourselves and because we kid our selves is why we make laws and put them into practice to enforce others to agree with us ... but when push comes to shove and we need to make choices then we will instintivly cleeve to our own and those with whom we have a commonality that's all religion is about.. them and us.. the Christians used to very fussy god forbid a catholic should go out with a prodestant ..and the people killed for their faith because they were openly different [take any century ] islam is a prime present day example .. look at Mugabe he isn't called a racist.. but he is selective of those not of his tribe and has had thousands murdered its not called racism the Hutu and Tutsi...nothing to chose between them but 4 million it is reconed died but itys not called racism the irish are another example started up as religious ended up as accent and its not called racism look at Korea and its hates it hates south Korea for having it easier then the north and see them as capitulators.. and they hate the Americans because of the past history and sanctions and because America is more powerful.. its not called racism but that is what it boils down to we even avoid calling the holocaust racism or tribalism... ive never been sure which is the biggest tie among humans ..the group you see your self part ie commomnality or ethnic/national group because I know if I had to make a choice there are those from out side my racial/national/ethnic group I would choose in preference to some from the UK because of commonality
|
|
|
Post by beth on Sept 15, 2017 9:16:02 GMT -5
Thanks for your opinion, mouse.
Interesting read.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Sept 16, 2017 4:13:55 GMT -5
Mouse, you are trying to apply your own ideas of racism to "American Racism". If 1/16th or so of U. S. racists are encouraged, they will KILL those that they hate. Let that sink in before you write back on this. no no no.. racism is racism where ever you find it.. its all a matter of degree.. there is nothing special about American racism..why would there be all real racists regardless of nationality will kill those they hate . .[and this is why degrading the word racist to cover stupid things takes the edges off the word] ive seen real racism inaction and I have seen the results of the type of racism to which you refer.. so trust me I have no need to let any thing sink in Anna.. was mulling this over as it triggered some memories and I had a re think am I right in thinking thinking you by calling it "American racism".. you mean its the real vicious violent kill em all sort of thing and not what so often passes for racism ? yes?.. i usually refer to it at real racism.. as I don't know how else to infer the differences between the varying degrees of racism and including those things which are passed off as racism when they are some thing else I have first hand experience of both unthinking racism and of sort of petty racism .. my daughter and sun in law especially son inlaw have both first hand experience of racism.. son in law much more than most or real life and death racism .. and even grandson 2 has had his share[from the other side so to speak .
|
|
ladylinda
Moderatorz
Poetry Editor
July 2011 Member of the Month, May 2014 Member of the Month
Posts: 4,901
|
Post by ladylinda on Sept 16, 2017 17:28:38 GMT -5
I think there is a difference between a generalised sort of racial prejudice and racism proper.
And as someone who's experienced both in every day life I think I know the difference.
But I think that it is worrying when Trump doesn't kick into touch 'endorsements' from the KKK; when he tries to equate neo-Nazis with antifascist protestors (even if many of them are loathsome leftie sicko scumbags).
And there's far too much indifference to the reckless way US cops routinely kill or abuse black people.
That really does have to stop and IMO it really IS down to racism.
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Sept 16, 2017 18:54:43 GMT -5
I think there is a difference between a generalised sort of racial prejudice and racism proper. And as someone who's experienced both in every day life I think I know the difference. But I think that it is worrying when Trump doesn't kick into touch 'endorsements' from the KKK; when he tries to equate neo-Nazis with antifascist protestors (even if many of them are loathsome leftie sicko scumbags). And there's far too much indifference to the reckless way US cops routinely kill or abuse black people. That really does have to stop and IMO it really IS down to racism. I believe it to be more complicated than that LadyLinda. At the end of our Civil War (1865) and with the passage of the 14th Amendment (1868) the foundation was laid for the continued expansion of National Citizenship and the expanding of Civil Rights. When Woodrow Wilson became president (1913) the darling of the Democrats and the Left, he had an integrated federal Civil Service and an integrated National military. Even so he did not believe that blacks could work with whites and began segregating both. If he had not taken this path to segregation the civil rights efforts of the 1960s would not have been necessary and the influence of groups such as the KKK would have been less pronounced if not none existence. He also was a proponent of one world government, which developed tension and pressures between many foreign nations. It is difficult to have racism or straightforward pressure between groups that are familiar with each other because they commonly work side by side. However, President Woodrow Wilson caused increasing separation. I will also say that I have worked with police for many years except for a couple of people (who were fired) I have never seen police routinely kill or abuse black people. I have seen agitators come to meetings (mostly Black) and tell those who attend to never help the police and that if you know someone (black) who has committed a crime to never tell the police as the police are not your friend. One Local black (self-proclaimed) leader who attended a city council meeting stated that the white people who came to that meeting only did so because they wanted to lynch a black man, in this case the mayor. With these attitudes (for which there is no evidence) racial strife will continue and grow and they will grow for no reason what so ever. The police here are doing a tremendous job supporting all people and yet there are growing numbers of blacks who believe what you say, “routinely kill or abuse black people.” It simply isn’t true.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Sept 16, 2017 20:59:08 GMT -5
|
|
ladylinda
Moderatorz
Poetry Editor
July 2011 Member of the Month, May 2014 Member of the Month
Posts: 4,901
|
Post by ladylinda on Sept 17, 2017 12:57:49 GMT -5
The Dixiecrats under Thurmond stood in the 1948 election when Dewey for the Republicans urged Civil Rights on the US as a key part of his programme. Truman said he agreed with Dewey but didn't propose to do anything. Hubert Humphrey (then Mayor of Minneapolis) forced through a motion at the Dems convention committing them to Civil Rights. Nothing was DONE about it as Dewey lost and Truman did nothing and it was Eisenhower who began the process of desegregation (even then he chose Kansas rather than, say, Alabama or Mississippi to bring before the Supreme Court.)
But certainly from that time onwards the Democrats changed from ignoring and tolerating segregation to actively opposing it.
Wallace, Maddox and others of their ilk remained in the party but by the early 70s were dead ducks (as was the Solid South!)
|
|
ladylinda
Moderatorz
Poetry Editor
July 2011 Member of the Month, May 2014 Member of the Month
Posts: 4,901
|
Post by ladylinda on Sept 17, 2017 12:59:57 GMT -5
It's also worth pointing out that Grant was the first President to try positive discrimination and only when Hayes stole the election from Tilden in 1876 and the uproar was so great that he only clung on to power by ending Reconstruction abruptly.
During Grant's Presidency for the first time blacks held political power. He may have been a corrupt drunk but he has never been given the credit due to him for what he did during his two terms in the White House.
|
|
ladylinda
Moderatorz
Poetry Editor
July 2011 Member of the Month, May 2014 Member of the Month
Posts: 4,901
|
Post by ladylinda on Sept 17, 2017 13:02:17 GMT -5
As for the cops, well. You and I have different opinions on the police, Menantol. I see them as the protectors of the authorities and the enemies of the people; you see them as protectors of the people.
By analogy you could say that I see the police and their general behaviour rather in terms of how you see people who wish to repeal the Second Amendment. To me the police represent the forces of repression and try to deny liberty to the citizens just as you regard gun control as being an act of repression and a denial of your liberty.
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Sept 17, 2017 13:45:20 GMT -5
I understand your position about the police, I just think you are wrong.
While I have little doubt that you can quote publications parroting your view, my opinions come from working with police, setting in meetings where the police go over past actions and what they are trying to do.
I have also been in meetings of minorities who plan to disregard the orders of the police no matter what the justification. If what you said was true our society would have broken down long ago and crime would rule the streets.
I was in Detroit when the 1967 riots broke out and if it wasn’t for the police there would have been many more dead.
If there is a problem with a police force then the solution is to volunteer for serving on a citizen review committee (of police actions).
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Sept 17, 2017 15:01:07 GMT -5
As for the cops, well. You and I have different opinions on the police, Menantol. I see them as the protectors of the authorities and the enemies of the people; you see them as protectors of the people. By analogy you could say that I see the police and their general behaviour rather in terms of how you see people who wish to repeal the Second Amendment. To me the police represent the forces of repression and try to deny liberty to the citizens just as you regard gun control as being an act of repression and a denial of your liberty. I see the police not as protectors of the people but rather as enforcers of the law, quite a different thing.
|
|