Ahtman wrote:
Asians are sort of an odd man out in that they are both treated as white, yet often still outsiders.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
Asians are sort of an odd man out in that they are both treated as white, yet often still outsiders.

I don't get this part.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
Asians are sort of an odd man out in that they are both treated as white, yet often still outsiders.

I don't get this part.

You have to remember that there are books written on the subject, so any attempt to encapsulate in just a brief period will not cover every facet of a discussion. Essentially, a 'white' person is worried about if an Asian family moves in next door than they are latinos or blacks. Asians are seen as sharing more 'white values' such as focus on education and professional aspirations. We aren't talking about reality, but perception, but one that effects property values and levels of discrimination. Yet, there is still a sense of otherness that is still projected. There is also still a stigma of excoticism, especially among Asian women. It sort of straddles the gap of being included and excluded simultaneously.

 Albatross wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 Ratbarf wrote:
EG; nobody gives a darn if you aren't Irish and celebrate St. Patrick's Day.

Or black, for that matter.

Also, real Irish people do get pissed about it.

Yes, I can testify to that. I'm only half Irish and... Well, it doesn't annoy me as such, but it is rather pathetic. No-one with any real links to the place bangs on about how 'oirish' they are. I've never even been to a St. Patrick's day party in my life, and my sister was born where the fether's buried!

 Ratbarf wrote:

lol what?

Dog breeding is a vastly white thing. Not too many minorities into as far as I'm aware aside from Selukies.

 Albatross wrote:
Shih-tzus, Afghan hounds, Shar-Pei...

 Frazzled wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
Shih-tzus, Afghan hounds, Shar-Pei...

Pekinese, and those little rat dogs movie stars always have.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
Shih-tzus, Afghan hounds, Shar-Pei...

Pekinese, and those little rat dogs movie stars always have.

 Albatross wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
Shih-tzus, Afghan hounds, Shar-Pei...

Pekinese, and those little rat dogs movie stars always have.

Chihuahas?

Also, Koreans breed dogs.

 reds8n wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
Shih-tzus, Afghan hounds, Shar-Pei...

Pekinese, and those little rat dogs movie stars always have.

... agents ...?

 Eidolon wrote:
Given my vast knowledge of racial stereotypes, the fact that dog breeding was even brought up is shocking to me.

 KingCracker wrote:

 Eidolon wrote:
Given my vast knowledge of racial stereotypes, the fact that dog breeding was even brought up is shocking to me.

This is the Offtopic man, the fact that your shocked, shocks me

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Akita is a Japanese breed.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The Tea Party is the symptom of the fiscal and social conservatives noticing that the traditional Republicans did not deliver what they wanted.

 sebster wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The Tea Party is the symptom of the fiscal and social conservatives noticing that the traditional Republicans did not deliver what they wanted.

Which, in a dose of truly delicious irony, was funded and co-opted by the corporate interests

 Seaward wrote:
I'm not as convinced. I think any large demographic voting in such a monolithic fashion should raise an eyebrow or two.

 Luco wrote:
I'm sure I'm misreading your point, do explain? What is wrong with celebrating and studying the cultures of Europe, ancient to present, and her diaspora?

 AustonT wrote:
Because it's only racist when it's Obama right? The are almost literally countless examples of the inconsistency between what is suddenly "Racist" with Obama that was just legitimate expression before. The only racism is what your own prejudices read into it.

 whembly wrote:
How we celebrate being an "American"?

Or "British"?

Or "Australian"?

Sometime I think we create our own problems...

 Albatross wrote:
Yes, I can testify to that. I'm only half Irish and... Well, it doesn't annoy me as such, but it is rather pathetic. No-one with any real links to the place bangs on about how 'oirish' they are. I've never even been to a St. Patrick's day party in my life, and my sister was born where the fether's buried!

 sebster wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
How we celebrate being an "American"?

Or "British"?

Or "Australian"?

Sometime I think we create our own problems...

We celebrate being Australian all the time. The British celebrate being British, and I know you Americans celebrate being American. I really don't know what you're getting at here.

djones520 wrote:
I look at it this way, I'm white, and I celebrate my culture. Not white culture, but American culture. I'm an American. I'm not a Scottish-American, European-American, or even Caucasian-American. I'm just American. These divides aren't going to close themselves until all parties begin to look at themselves the same way. Stop identifying yourself as African-American, Phillipino-American, Latin-American, etc...

 Ahtman wrote:
Yes, because as we all know, when they stopped selling new slaves in the US was when suddenly Black people were considered equals in every way, with full access to all parts of American society.

While we are on the subject, did you know that it hasn't been 200 years since slavery was made illegal in the US? If we count the pseudo-slavery of Jim Crowe, it has been even less time.

 Ahtman wrote:
People choose to be called what they want, and doing so is a sign of respect and understanding. Some people prefer to be referred to as black, some as African-American. Some prefer to be called white, others Franco-American. It is a personal identification issues, and often, especially from non-minorities, it is a cause of consternation, because it would just be easier if the smaller groups would just conform to the larger groups norms and labels. Of course it never really works like that. Indian, Native American, First Nation, Indigenous, Cherokee.

Another problem with 'White Culture' is that it radically changes over time to envelop different groups. Mediterranean groups (Greek, Italian) were not classified as white in the US for for more time than they have been. A white woman was arrested for miscegenation until it was found out that she was of Italian descent, at which point she was let go because the law forbid white people to marry black people, and Italians weren't white. Of course lets not forget 'No Dogs or Irish", either. Jews are now typically considered 'white', unless someone knows they are Jewish, which then colors their view, but most don't think to much on it. Asians are sort of an odd man out in that they are both treated as white, yet often still outsiders.

Anglo Saxon isn't an intellectual term for anything, it is a descriptor of people of descent from the Anglo Saxon groups. It is just old world X-Y, such as African- American.

 whembly wrote:
What I was getting at earlier was that everyone keeps trying to celebrate "Black" or "Irish"... which is fine, but I think sometime we forget what brings our country together..

We're all "American"... you in your case, you're "Austrailian" (btw, forgive my ignorance... how do ya'll "down under" celebrate?)

 whembly wrote:
Put.Down.The.Pipe.Man.

Or better yet... gimmie dat!

djones520 wrote:

This is a two way street though. Celebrating "black culture" only leads to highlight differances and doesn't do anything to close the gap.

djones520 wrote:

Stop identifying yourself as African-American, Phillipino-American, Latin-American, etc...

 whembly wrote:
Okay... since this is sorta related...

What's the big deal? This isn't new info...

http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/02/obama-speech-jeremiah-wright-new-orleans

To be honest, I'd rather be talking about:
-Banghazi
-Obamacare
-Indemnifying Lockheed for political gain
-Fast&Furious
- Obama saying, "the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam"

 Frazzled wrote:
However, don't worry, the MsM will ignore it.

In fact, Tucker Carlson, editor-in-chief of The Daily Caller, discussed the speech in June 2007 on his MSNBC show.

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
However, don't worry, the MsM will ignore it.

So, the non-Conservative media will ignore a speech that's 5 years old and has already been covered ?

In fact, Tucker Carlson, editor-in-chief of The Daily Caller, discussed the speech in June 2007 on his MSNBC show.

 Frazzled wrote:

The full speech was not covered, just an edited transcript. The actual speech is substantially more damning.

“Down in New Orleans, where they still have not rebuilt 20 months later,” he begins, “there’s a law, federal law — when you get reconstruction money from the federal government — called the Stafford Act. And basically it says, when you get federal money, you have to give a 10 percent match. The local government’s has to come up with ten percent. Every 10 dollars the federal government comes up with, local government has to give a dollar.”
“Now here’s the thing: When 9-11 happened in New York City, they waived the Stafford Act — said, ‘This is too serious a problem. We can’t expect New York City to rebuild on its own. Forget that dollar you have to put in. Well, here’s 10 dollars.’ And that was the right thing to do. When Hurricane Andrew struck in Florida, people said, ‘Look at this devastation. We don’t expect you to come up with your own money here. Here’s the money to rebuild. We’re not going to wait for you to scratch it together, because you’re part of the American family.’”
"What's happening down in New Orleans? Where's your dollar? Where's your Stafford Act money?"

“
Obama begins his address with “a special shout out” to Jeremiah Wright, the Chicago pastor who nearly derailed Obama’s campaign months later when his sermons attacking Israel and America and accusing the U.S. government of “inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color” became public. To the audience at Hampton, Obama describes Wright as, “my pastor, the guy who puts up with me, counsels me, listens to my wife complain about me. He’s a friend and a great leader. Not just in Chicago, but all across the country.”

By the time Obama appeared at Hampton, Jeremiah Wright had become a political problem. Wright told The New York Times earlier that year that he would no longer be speaking on the campaign’s behalf because his rhetoric was considered too militant. And yet later in the Hampton speech Obama explicitly defends Wright from unnamed critics, a group he describes as “they”: “They had stories about Trinity United Church of Christ, because we talked about black people in church: ‘Oh, that might be a separatist church,’” Obama said mockingly.



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/02/obama-speech-jeremiah-wright-new-orleans/#ixzz28FCtRz00

And with that, Obama pivots to his central point: The Los Angeles riots and Hurricane Katrina have racism in common. “The federal response after Katrina was similar to the response we saw after the riots in LA,” he thunders from the podium. “People in Washington, they wake up, they’re surprised: ‘There’s poverty in our midst! Folks are frustrated! Black people angry!’ Then there’s gonna be some panels, and hearings, and there are commissions and there are reports, and then there’s some aid money, although we don’t always know where it’s going — it can’t seem to get to the people who need it — and nothin’ really changes, except the news coverage quiets down and Anderson Cooper is on to something else.”

It’s at about this point that Obama pauses, apparently agitated, and tells the crowd that he wants to give “one example because this really steams me up,” an example that he notes does not appear in his prepared remarks:


“Down in New Orleans, where they still have not rebuilt twenty months later,” he begins, “there’s a law, federal law — when you get reconstruction money from the federal government — called the Stafford Act. And basically it says, when you get federal money, you gotta give a ten percent match. The local government’s gotta come up with ten percent. Every ten dollars the federal government comes up with, local government’s gotta give a dollar.”

“Now here’s the thing,” Obama continues, “when 9-11 happened in New York City, they waived the Stafford Act — said, ‘This is too serious a problem. We can’t expect New York City to rebuild on its own. Forget that dollar you gotta put in. Well, here’s ten dollars.’ And that was the right thing to do. When Hurricane Andrew struck in Florida, people said, ‘Look at this devastation. We don’t expect you to come up with y’own money, here. Here’s the money to rebuild. We’re not gonna wait for you to scratch it together — because you’re part of the American family.’”

That’s not, Obama says, what is happening in majority-black New Orleans. “What’s happening down in New Orleans? Where’s your dollar? Where’s your Stafford Act money?” Obama shouts, angry now. “Makes no sense! Tells me that somehow, the people down in New Orleans they don’t care about as much!”

It’s a remarkable moment, and not just for its resemblance to Kayne West’s famous claim that “George Bush doesn’t care about black people,” but also because of its basic dishonesty. By January of 2007, six months before Obama’s Hampton speech, the federal government had sent at least $110 billion to areas damaged by Katrina. Compare this to the mere $20 billion that the Bush administration pledged to New York City after Sept. 11.

Moreover, the federal government did at times waive the Stafford Act during its reconstruction efforts. On May 25, 2007, just weeks before the speech, the Bush administration sent an additional $6.9 billion to Katrina-affected areas with no strings attached.

“America is going to survive. We won’t forget where we came from. We won’t forget what happened 19 months ago, 15 years ago, thousands of years ago.”

That’s not what he actually said. Before the audience at Hampton, Obama ends his speech this way:

“America will survive. Just like black folks will survive. We won’t forget where we came from. We won’t forget what happened 19 months ago, or 15 years ago, or 300 years ago.”



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/02/obama-speech-jeremiah-wright-new-orleans/#ixzz28FDjsXpc

 Frazzled wrote:
I'd posit these as well. Remember people I didn't bring this topic up.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I'd posit these as well. Remember people I didn't bring this topic up.

Perhaps not, but you aren't going to let it go either.

As for black folks remembering slavery, Jim Crowe, Tuskegee Experiments, ect, well, I'm not sure what the alternative is. You take quotes from a black speaker given to a black audience about black issues and then put it in front of a white crowd and it sounds foreign to them I suppose, but really only if they can't put things together as far as history and context. This sort of feigned outrage over why black folk won't just let go of past issues is a particularly craven white sentiment.

 Frazzled wrote:

Its also called racial pandering.

That’s not, Obama says, what is happening in majority-black New Orleans. “What’s happening down in New Orleans? Where’s your dollar? Where’s your Stafford Act money?” Obama shouts, angry now. “Makes no sense! Tells me that somehow, the people down in New Orleans they don’t care about as much!”