• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are African-Americans a mongrel people?

Are African-Americans a mongrel people?

  • Total voters
    33
Where in the world am I saying "mongrel = racism"

I've said "mongrel when used as a reference to a wild dog or a savage or something less than human" is insulting. I've even specifically referenced that in ways other than black guys. If a women called a white guy a "mongrel" because he sleeps around with women without a care that would be just as insulting as if she called a black person that.

Mongrel is not a racist word, though using it to suggest black people are savages/dogs/below human would be a racist action.
 
Harshaw said:
No, I don't think Reid or Clinton made racist remarks; I never said I thought they did. I didn't automatically assume that they were, even though on the surface, they sounded pretty bad.

However, the flap over Lott IS comparable, because what he said wasn't racist on its face -- but the flap started immediately. It could be if you dig into it and interpret it a particular way; I never denied that. But he says he didn't mean it that way. And in fact, several of his Democrat colleagues said they don't think he meant it that way.

He said it was an off-the-cuff toast to a friend.

If he DID mean it in a pro-segregationist way, it still wasn't obvious from his words. The point was never that Lott couldn't possibly have meant it that way, only that people were more than willing to jump on it without caring to find out.
Click to expand...

No, one only needed a moderate understanding of what Strom Thurmond and the Dixiecrat Platform was...which was focused around segregation...to consider that his BROAD endorsement of how much better it would've been under Thurmond included support for segregation seeing how that was the prime focus of Thurmonds campaign.

This is entirely different than assuming that "get us coffee" immedietely was racist as there's an equally if not more reasonable assumption to be made.

If one has any knowledge of Thurmond/the Dixiecrats, the most reasonable assumptions based on a broad support for them would be at least partial support for segregationist policies.
 
Zyphlin said:
No, one only needed a moderate understanding of what Strom Thurmond and the Dixiecrat Platform was...which was focused around segregation...to consider that his BROAD endorsement of how much better it would've been under Thurmond included support for segregation seeing how that was the prime focus of Thurmonds campaign.

This is entirely different than assuming that "get us coffee" immedietely was racist as there's an equally if not more reasonable assumption to be made.

If one has any knowledge of Thurmond/the Dixiecrats, the most reasonable assumptions based on a broad support for them would be at least partial support for segregationist policies.
Click to expand...

Yes, Zyph; it's an assumption, which is the entire point. But, whatever; I guess you've just gotta be right.

It wasn't even anything more than a tangent to a larger point anyway.
 
Zyphlin said:
Mongrel is not a racist word, though using it to suggest black people are savages/dogs/below human would be a racist action.
Click to expand...

Exactly. But somehow some people just associate it with negative meaning and tell people: "Don't use that word, it belongs to, or at least suggests, my identification."
 
A qualified Yes, African Americans who can trace their ancestry back to slavery because slave masters had sex with female slaves.
 
gmeyers1944 said:
A qualified Yes, African Americans who can trace their ancestry back to slavery because slave masters had sex with female slaves.
Click to expand...

Somebody would better work in the dictionary to prepare another identifcation word before it is too late and be accused of racism.
 
Psychoclown said:
Yet another stupid thread started by conservatives to bash Obama over something so minor and insignificant. You would think after 8 years of partisan liberal hacks pulling this crap on Bush, conservatives would realize how stupid these sort of threads make people look.
Click to expand...

I think you inadvertently used the plural, "conservatives," instead of the singular, "a conservative."
 
Right, it's an assumptuon.

Where in this thread have I said people can't or shouldn't make assumptions?
 
Zyphlin said:
Because:

1. WHO says something DOES matter into the context. It gives you a history into their views to know if they've said or done other things to suggest the intent and context behind the words. Your buddy yelling "Hey Asshole" to you is likely to cause you to react differently then random person from the street yelling "Hey Asshole". Why? Because you have knowledge about your buddy and are thus able to better gauge what is likely meant by the comment even though its a similar comment.

2. WHO said it would allow you to more easily look for additional context or give you a guess that there's more to the comment then simply "African Americans are a mongrel people". Saying "African Americans are a mongrel people, and they should be subjigated so that the White man can take his rightful place as rulers once more" and saying "African Americns are a mongrel people, who like white people, are a race of mixed national origins" are two VERY different meanings and things that both start out with the same snippeted comment. WHO said it allows one to more easily find out the additional comments surroudning it.

Together, those things make up CONTEXT...you know, this important thing we use to make decisions.

What you and Goobie are arguing is the same ignorant idea based around the notion that if someone ever says the N-word they are racist because the N-Word automatically ='s racist.
Click to expand...

Well, to clarify, Im not arguing anything, I was asking a question, and trying to get the answer that nobody would give Gooober.
Mission Accomplished on my behalf.

And yes, I agree with your posts about context and who makes a statement makes a difference when we have two different meanings of a word used, etc, etc.

As far as your comment about the N word... well, there is poor Mr. Howard and his use of the word niggardly.
 
Caine said:
As far as your comment about the N word... well, there is poor Mr. Howard and his use of the word niggardly.
Click to expand...

Intersting that you brought this up. What did you think of the Chariman of the NAACP defending Howard back then?
 
Goobieman said:
... you really dont have anything worthwhile here by refusing to answer these questions:

How should have I asked it to bring it into context?
And how would that have changed your response?

You'll continue to refuse to answer them and I'll continue to laugh at your pettiness and unwarranted self-importance.
Click to expand...

You have continued to refuse to address the issue about why you did not include context in your OP and why you continue to ignore this point and instead addres who said it... something that is not being addressed. Once you do that, I will answer your questions. Until then I'll continue to laugh at your dishonesty and refusal actually address what is being discussed.
 
Caine said:
You are missing the point CC.
Goobie is demonstrating how simply WHO says something is what is CREATING the "context" for many thread followers and participants, and sadly, for many people across the nation. One poster's example of the poor mr. Howard using the term niggardly even with proper context and being used in the proper manner for a dictionary fitting use of the word was not enough, because of WHO this word was coming FROM. The race of Mr. Howard was all the context far too many people needed to opine on the matter.
Click to expand...

If you look at the thread, Caine, all folks are addressing is the context of what was said. People don't care who said it. Further, speaking for myself, I don't care who said it. Based on the context, it means the same thing regardless. Goobie is trying to trap people into attacking Obama by NOT addressing the context of what was said. This is the point that he has refused to respond to.
 
Harshaw said:
Maybe, but "I killed the ass" is such an unusual thing to say, you'd automatically want more context, especially if a President said it.
Click to expand...

And using the term "a mongrel people" is something we hear everyday? I don't think so.

You're pretty much admitting what I said -- you were overly concerned with context because it was Goobieman. If someone else had asked the same question, no, I don't think you'd have been as concerned.
Click to expand...

Not at all. I said the opposite. I would have been more skeptical if it was Goobie, but I would have checked the article either way. Wouldn't have mattered who posted it.

Do I agree it was baited and that Goobieman does that kind of thing? Sure. All the time.
Click to expand...

Good. Thank you.

But the point is, in this case, it was a good question to ask, even if he has that history. It's a good point to make.

And that point is, in case you missed it -- people DON'T ask for context when that kind of statement is made. It's all good and well to say it matters, which it does, but that's not how people operate. If they did, David Howard wouldn't have lost his job.
Click to expand...

Thing is, on this forum people DO ask for context. And did, immediately. And just because people don't ask for context, doesn't mean that context is not key in deciphering what is being said.
 
MaggieD said:
Regardless of all the bantering going on back and forth on this thread, it was an EXCELLENT post. Most of us couldn't help but learn something here. If anyone didn't, they just weren't trying hard enough. (I'm gathering that Goobie is known for this; that just makes the poster "enlightening" -- not disingenuous.)
Click to expand...

Then you missed what was being stated in the bantering.
 
This has actually been an interesting thread. It failed miserably in what it was intended to do, but it did create some interesting discussions among those willing to listen to each other.
 
Goobieman said:
Ah yes -- because you agreeing or disagreeing with a statement depends on who says it.
Not a surprise.
Click to expand...

You're doing it again. Ignoring what is being said and instead responding to what you want people to have said. This is why you're not getting any answers to your questions. Explain why you did not add context to your OP, and why you are dishonestly claiming that people are having issue with who said it when the issue is the context in which it was said.
 
Goobieman said:
Who said it doesn't matter. Disagree? Why?
Why it was said doesnt matter. Disagree? Why?
Where it was said doesn't matter. Disagree? Why?

That anyone said it at all -- doesn't matter.
Disagree? Would your answer to the question change depending any of the above things?
Click to expand...

Explain why you did not include context in your OP and and why you are dishonestly claiming that people are addressing who said it when people are actually addressing the context in which it was said.
 
Tucker Case said:
Intersting that you brought this up. What did you think of the Chariman of the NAACP defending Howard back then?
Click to expand...

Be the first time ive ever heard of a member of the racist ass organization showing some integrity.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
If you look at the thread, Caine, all folks are addressing is the context of what was said. People don't care who said it. Further, speaking for myself, I don't care who said it. Based on the context, it means the same thing regardless. Goobie is trying to trap people into attacking Obama by NOT addressing the context of what was said. This is the point that he has refused to respond to.
Click to expand...

Go back and check Post #5.

I believe Goobie clarified Mongrel in the same exact manner that Obama used the word.
 
Caine said:
Go back and check Post #5.

I believe Goobie clarified Mongrel in the same exact manner that Obama used the word.
Click to expand...

And how was the word used in the context of all of Obama's comments? That is the issue.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
And how was the word used in the context of all of Obama's comments? That is the issue.
Click to expand...

No... its not.
It doesn't matter what the context is. Its not offensive to state that African Americans are of mixed breed.
 
Zyphlin said:
Well lets see...
I would probably have responded by stating that in theory I agree with him. The whole notion of "African" American is a bit questionable now, as while historically one could trace linieage there many black people could perhaps claim more European or Carribean blood perhaps than pure "african" blood....

I'd likely state that its multifaceted and would depend on how or why someone was using it. In a very generalized way I'd say its likely meant to be insulting, as the common use and reference to mongrel in most speech today is referencing to rabid dogs or mangy dogs.
Click to expand...
This distinction heres is based on the meaning of the term "mongrel" as asked in the question. You probably didn't notice that I cleared this up in post #5.
That's not a context issue, that's a 'which meaning of the word do you mean" issue. The meaning CAN be discerned thru context, but you do not necessarily NEED context in order to determine it.
So, your complaint falls flat. Sorry.
 
Tashah said:
Quite frankly, your pedantic little games bore me.
Click to expand...
Even more frankly, you are more than free to leave, as your simpering and sniveling adds nothing to the conversation. At the very least, my other detractors have hade the courtesy to at least TRY to defend their point.
But, my questions, directly addressing your point, stand; your supposed boredom is a convenient cover for you not being to answer them while maintaining your point.

Ta ta!
 
After reading this thread, I realized that it is not going as the OP intended.
 
Redress said:
I still have not answered your poll question, because I still do not know the whole context.
Click to expand...
Well, at this point, that's just willful ignorane on your part. I can't help you there, and if all you're planning to do is remain willfully ignorant, there's really no reason for me to respond to you further..

No it has not.
Click to expand...
See above. Post #5 clarifies the issue to the point necessay to answer the question. You're just playing dumb.
You -are- playing, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom