Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: goldworldnet who wrote (540440)	2/15/2004 1:21:02 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Shep knows I am no racist. In fact, he has very closely read every single post I have written on the subject, looking for some way to pin this typical leftist lie upon me. He could not do it, so, like a leftist, he lied. But the important thing is, he read my posts very closely. He did this because I artfully used the word "Negro." It is edgy, no doubt about it; but the issue is out, I've said my piece many times because of it, and more importantly, the leftists have read me enough to have imbibed the truth. Had I repeated the same empty platitudes on race that are usually repeated, the leftists would have gone onward in the same false comfort and sanctimony they have always employed when faced with this issue. We must remember here: Dipy, the leftist, actually thinks Powell is a "House Slave," a "disgrace to his race" and yet neither Shep nor any leftist here has expressed outrage (they've instead expressed outrage because I used the term "Negro" in a very specific way. They act as if "Negro" is worst than claiming Powell is a "House Slave" and a 'disgrace to the entire race of blacks'. Their hypocrisy is made obvious). It is my considered opinion that when faced with racists, either from the left or the right, it is inappropriate to use calm language and lovely platitudes. Racists think like a ignorant Negros and that fact needs to be expressed with the utmost clarity. We'll disagree on this. I honor you nevertheless. On your point against hyphenations: We need also consider that the word "negro" is not a profane word in the least. In other languages it simply means "black." The word "colored" is also not in the least profane. The word black is not profane either. But here in America these words have all somehow magically acquired unsavory meaning. Rather than look squarely at this phenomenon and question it, we run, incessantly seeking to bury the entire issue. Of course it never goes away, but we run nevertheless. Why do we run? We run because many blacks themselves run (at least those who tend to get press). They have always run, and when they find we are unwilling to run at their prompting, they call us "racists." So, we run, leaving behind "negro" to call them "colored," then leaving the term "colored" to call them "black," then leaving "black" to run uncritically toward the term "African-American". Here is the truth that we all know and that we never openly admit: American blacks have no more real connection with Africa than did King George III. Their "Africa" does not exist and never has existed. This term "African-American" has about as much grounding in reality as that utter embarrassment of a "holiday" commonly known as "Kwanzaa." We need to think about this stuff and stop so much mindless running. We aren't helping anyone, certainly not blacks, by doing this. Why are blacks running so much and so frequently? What do they aim to achieve by this? And how do they control language so easily? Can't they employ this sort of cultural change in other areas-- areas that will give them a greater bang for the effort? It is clear to me these folks are seeking esteem - understandably so, especially given their awful history (which is our history too). But instead of paying the true price for it, they wish to buy it cheaply, by such foolish things as perishable goods and name-changes. It is something like a garbage man thinking he can make himself king by naming himself "Henry V." I refuse to play the game. That is why in all the hundreds, perhaps thousands of posts I have submitted here over the years, not even one uses the term "African-American" regarding blacks, except to underscore the falsity of the term. Now there is a flip side to my view, and you ought to consider it also if you are serious about rejecting hyphenations. If we agree that we are against hyphenations, then we should consider acting like it. This means we do not get pushed into stupidity by leftists, calling blacks "African-Americans" when almost to a man they haven't the foggiest idea where in Africa they are from. Heck, vast numbers of these people have more European blood than African. It also means we will maintain our idea of American culture, inviting others to share it, but refusing to corrupt it with trash despite who calls us racist. It also means that if a guy should decide to adopt our idea of culture, to enhance and then advance it without destroying its moral and spiritual underpinnings, then we will form community with him, since we are all Americans with no hyphenations. It will not do to claim we are against hyphenations while acting as if hyphenations are our life's blood. We ought to be consistent - one way or the other.