• 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
Zyphlin said:
You mean like this?



In the SECOND post in the thread to which Goobie responded with



People did, IMMEDIETELY ask to get the actual context of it and goobie immedietely from the start tried to dance around it.
Click to expand...

No... he asked if it mattered.

WHY does it matter?
 
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.
Click to expand...

Yes Caine, you're absolutely correct.

WHO says something does play into context.

For example, if I heard someone go "Reasonable Suspicion is too vague to be reasonable for the Arizona Law" it would likely generate a far different reaction from me if it came out of the mouth of a open-borderes advocate than if it came out of the mouth of a Police Officer.

If during 2006 I heard a comment "The republicans are abject failures" and had NO indication beyond that of the context, be it what else whas said or who said it, if forced to give a gut reaction to it I'd have said no. If you had told me however it was Newt Gingrich not Nancy Pelosi that said it, and he went on to explain he meant they were failures at upholding some of their principles which caused a severely depressed turnout, I'd actually probably agree with him IN THAT CONTEXT.

In this case you have a generic comment:

"Are African-Americans a mongrel people".

This, without ANY other context, is an insulting comment to many as because of its ambiguity it could be speaking culturually but it could be speaking racially or even colloquiely.

If you went "Fred Phelps says that African-Americans are a mongrel people" then suddenly I'd definitely say it was an insulting comment as one has further context due to knowledge of the views of the individual in question which helps to paint what he's meaning.

However when you have Obama stating they're a mongrel people, he specifically points to the "mixed up" nature of their history, likening it to the similar mixed up make up of white individuals, it makes it clear that he's using it less in the way that can be used to insult and more in the way people colloquilaly use things like "mutt" when explaining individuals of extremely mixed ancestory.

To expand upon my earlier example, you have two statements:

1. "Republicans failed miserably"
2. “Republicans failed miserably”

1. Nancy Pelosi said “Republicans failed miserably”
2. Newt Gingrich said “Republicans failed miserably”

1. Nancy Pelosi said “Republicans failed miserably, they ruined the country and the economy”
2. Newt Gingrich said “Republicans failed miserably, they abandoned conservatism and it caused their base to be disenchanted”

1. Nancy Pelosi said “Republicans failed miserably, they ruined the country and the economy. Its obvious that the people must elected Democrats into power.”
2. Newt Gingrich said “Republicans failed miserably, they abandoned conservatism and it caused their base to be disenchanted. The party must embrace conservatism so as to be reelected back into the majority.”

By your and Goobie’s ridiculous reasoning those two statements are EXACTLY the same and should have EXACTLY the same reaction and EXACTLY the same view because when you take just a snippet of it “Republicans failed miserably” they are saying the same thing. That’s idiotic.
 
Caine said:
No... he asked if it mattered.

WHY does it matter?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Zyphlin said:
Yes Caine, you're absolutely correct.

WHO says something does play into context.

For example, if I heard someone go "Reasonable Suspicion is too vague to be reasonable for the Arizona Law" it would likely generate a far different reaction from me if it came out of the mouth of a open-borderes advocate than if it came out of the mouth of a Police Officer.

If during 2006 I heard a comment "The republicans are abject failures" and had NO indication beyond that of the context, be it what else whas said or who said it, if forced to give a gut reaction to it I'd have said no. If you had told me however it was Newt Gingrich not Nancy Pelosi that said it, and he went on to explain he meant they were failures at upholding some of their principles which caused a severely depressed turnout, I'd actually probably agree with him IN THAT CONTEXT.

In this case you have a generic comment:

"Are African-Americans a mongrel people".

This, without ANY other context, is an insulting comment to many as because of its ambiguity it could be speaking culturually but it could be speaking racially or even colloquiely.

If you went "Fred Phelps says that African-Americans are a mongrel people" then suddenly I'd definitely say it was an insulting comment as one has further context due to knowledge of the views of the individual in question which helps to paint what he's meaning.

However when you have Obama stating they're a mongrel people, he specifically points to the "mixed up" nature of their history, likening it to the similar mixed up make up of white individuals, it makes it clear that he's using it less in the way that can be used to insult and more in the way people colloquilaly use things like "mutt" when explaining individuals of extremely mixed ancestory.

To expand upon my earlier example, you have two statements:

1. "Republicans failed miserably"
2. “Republicans failed miserably”

1. Nancy Pelosi said “Republicans failed miserably”
2. Newt Gingrich said “Republicans failed miserably”

1. Nancy Pelosi said “Republicans failed miserably, they ruined the country and the economy”
2. Newt Gingrich said “Republicans failed miserably, they abandoned conservatism and it caused their base to be disenchanted”

1. Nancy Pelosi said “Republicans failed miserably, they ruined the country and the economy. Its obvious that the people must elected Democrats into power.”
2. Newt Gingrich said “Republicans failed miserably, they abandoned conservatism and it caused their base to be disenchanted. The party must embrace conservatism so as to be reelected back into the majority.”

By your and Goobie’s ridiculous reasoning those two statements are EXACTLY the same and should have EXACTLY the same reaction and EXACTLY the same view because when you take just a snippet of it “Republicans failed miserably” they are saying the same thing. That’s idiotic.
Click to expand...

A nice, to the point, and very clearly defined explanation as to why, in this case and many others, ESPECIALLY politics, context is everything.

If the recent debacle of lousy reporting done by a certain racebaiting blogger didn't teach the why of that, to those that want to pretend it doesn't matter, then their ignorance isn't just pervasive, it's deliberate and calculated.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
When I saw Goobie's thread, knowing his past history of posting dishonest bait and trap threads, I would have done what I did. Read the article to see in what context the comment was made. If it was someone else, I would have been far less skeptical, but still would have read the article to see in what context the comment was made. In either case, if context was not disclosed, I would have been just as confrontational. Goobie knows what he did. He does it all the time. Here's an example of what he did:

"I killed the ass". Tell me if this is an appropriate thing for a President to say?

Then, when you read the article, you find out that the President said this when he saw a donkey charging at 4 children, so he "killed the ass". Now, Goobie would say that context doesn't matter... because he would be creating a dishonest bait and trap thread to attack liberals. Of course, most people would see through this and understand that context creates a completely different meaning for the statement... something that Goobie denies. I find it quite bizarre that someone would deny the importance of context when discussing the meaning of statements. Goobie's purpose isn't to debate. It's to trap. And I'll keep exposing these traps whenever I see them.
Click to expand...

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.

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.

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

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.
 
Last edited:
Thread: Are African-Americans a mongrel people?
Click to expand...

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.)
 
I'm still wondering who talks like this. I would never think to call ANY group "a mongrel people". Seems very odd to me. Does he intentionally say things to get a rise out of people?
 
Harshaw said:
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...

Which is more the point of why knowing WHO is saying or doing something helps give context.

In a completely autonomous sense, lets say that "DP" has a server function that generates random discussions from web crawls of other forums, if it came up 'Are African-Americans a mongrel people" I'd probably not worry too much about context and address it as a very broad thing, because in that sense it would be clear that its NOT any more specific than that.

Similarly, if DonSoutherland posted this I likely would react differently and look at it as a more broad, legit, honest question without searching for a ton more context. Why? Because Don is a poster known for being honest, not into playing games, up front with his views, and generally extremely fair in his presentation. There'd be no reason to assume there's a "gotcha" hiding behind a corner, no reason to assume there's a SPECIFIC situation that occured that this is referencing, no reason to think that he's going to present it in a generic or different context only to then try and suggest that your answer must apply in all contexts.

Goobieman and how he posts polls is the exact opposite of the above. So in the context of knowing its Goobieman its reasonable to assume that there is a "gotcah" game being played, that there is a larger bit of context to be gleamed, that it does reference something specific that he's going to try and take your general answer and suggest it must evenly apply to it.

Let me give you another example.

In scenario one you have a friend that has similar tastes as you and is knowledgable about cars and who is very trustworthy. He comes with you to a used car lot and looks over the cars and suggests the car he thinks will suite your tastes bet and says everything looks good parts wise.

In scenario two you have a used car salesmen that has a reputation for telling people what they want to hear to get them into whatever car he's wanting to get off the lot. He comes up to you at the used car lot, suggests the car he says will suite your tastes bet and says everything looks good parts wise.

Again, what you're suggesting is that its unreasonable to treat the exact same comments differently based on who is stating it. Which is ridiculous. Of course you're going to trust the comment as being more honest by the person you know has a history of being honest and knowing you rather than the person who has a history of being dishonest and manipulative.

Would a conversation regarding the "mongrel" nature of African American's be perhaps a legitimate conversation? Perhaps. However its evident and clear by the person who was posting it, his response in regards to someone asking about it, and more specifically his response once his little game was shown in the true light that this thread was NOT about discussing it in a general sense but an attempt to get people to discuss it in such a way to then act like anyones statements on it in a general sense or in the "typical" sense must apply to a very specific situation.

However a generic, hypothetical, situation placed in a vacuum != a real life situation with additional context that happens to include the same words.
 
Mellie said:
I'm still wondering who talks like this.
Click to expand...

Obama, of course. :lol:

I would never think to call ANY group "a mongrel people". Seems very odd to me. Does he intentionally say things to get a rise out of people?
Click to expand...

I think he just uses the terms in an accurate manner and doesn't avoid certain terms simply because people commonly misconstrue them as negatively connotated terms.

The definition of "mongrel" in websters is :

Main Entry: mon·grel
Pronunciation: \ˈmäŋ-grəl, ˈməŋ-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, probably from mong mixture, short for ymong, from Old English gemong crowd — more at among
Date: 15th century

1 : an individual resulting from the interbreeding of diverse breeds or strains; especially : one of unknown ancestry
2 : a cross between types of persons or things
Click to expand...

The term is absolutley accurate in the context he gave it in.

The issue is that most peopel jump om the connotation first, something I myself am guilty of. For example, when I saw the title of this thread, I clicked on it because my initial thought was "WTF kind of quesiton is that?!?!?"

This is because I'm as guilty as the next person of thinking abou the negative connotations of the word before thinking about the actual literal definition of the word.


But when I read the statement in context, I realized that the literal definition was being used, not the negatively connotated colloquial version of the word.

I'd like to think that race didn't matter regarding my realization, but I have to admit, I am unsure of that.

It's easier to realize that there was no negative connotation when it was a black guy.

Now, I know that political lean wouldn't matter for me. But I have to admit that there is chance that there is some degree of double standard regarding the race of the person making the comment.
 
Tucker Case said:
I think he just uses the terms in an accurate manner and doesn't avoid certain terms simply because people commonly misconstrue them as negatively connotated terms.
Click to expand...

Would that we lived in a world where you could actually do that.

That world is not even here at Debate Politics. I don't refer to this thread specifically in saying that.
 
The great majority of Americans are mongrel. I know of at least six different countries of origin for my family and three different races.

The most dominate being German (1/4) and Native American (1/8).
 
Last edited:
Harshaw said:
Would that we lived in a world where you could actually do that.
Click to expand...

I think the fact that this particular comment is news is proof that we don't live in such a world.

But it doesn't mean that Obama is going to stop using the terms in an accurate fashion.
 
Zyphlin said:
Yes Caine, you're absolutely correct.
WHO says something does play into context.
Click to expand...
You people are REALLY beginning to bore me.

How should have I asked it to bring it into context?
And how would that have changed your response?
 
The Uncola said:
A nice, to the point, and very clearly defined explanation as to why, in this case and many others, ESPECIALLY politics, context is everything.
Click to expand...
How should have I asked it to bring it into context?
And how would that have changed your response?
 
Tucker Case said:
I think the fact that this particular comment is news is proof that we don't live in such a world.

But it doesn't mean that Obama is going to stop using the terms in an accurate fashion.
Click to expand...

He probably isn't. However, a few things about that.

I think he was doing what you said in this instance, but I think you also may be giving him too much credit in others. He's said some god-awful stupid things ("Special Olympics," etc.) which indicate he might just be a bit tone-deaf. There are good and bad ways of saying things.

Plus, he's the de facto head of a political bloc which champions things like hate speech laws, speech codes on campuses, and which gets into a tizzy when people say insensitive things. However academically accurate he might have been in the context, he must also be aware of how the word "mongrel" would sound. There's no way he couldn't be. So, he really does need to be playing it better.
 
Mellie said:
I'm still wondering who talks like this. I would never think to call ANY group "a mongrel people". Seems very odd to me. Does he intentionally say things to get a rise out of people?
Click to expand...

To me Mongrel appears, in this case, to be similar to the use of "mutt" when describing people...something I've heard used often. I've seen individuals refer to others, and themselves, as a "mutt" before when they're heritage is mixed.

IE, one person goes "He's Italian" cause they're a quarter italian or "He's Irish" cause they're a half irish" and someone goes "He's a mutt, he's like a 1/16th of a bunch of different things".

Additionally, "He's a mutt" would have an entirely different context and connotation if it wasn't right after everyone talking about their ethnic makeup and instead was someone going "He's a mutt, he sleeps around with everyone", showing the implication is more about refering to the person as a dog then it is to referring to his mixed ethnicity.
 
Goobieman said:
You people are REALLY beginning to bore me.

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

Simple.

If your purpose is what it CLEARLY was, which was being spurred by Obama's comment and referencing his comment, you could've gone.

"Do you agree with President Obama's belief that African-Americans are a mongrel people as he stated on the view?

Pasted entry of his quotes from the view
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

If your purpose was HONESTLY not trying to set a trap and were meaning this in an entirely generalized way you could've gone

"Do you believe African-Americans are a mongrel people? I mean this as a general use of the word, not specifically in reference to the statements by the President recently on the view"
Click to expand...

See, history is something that doesn't just get ignored. Reputation doesn't get ignored. You have to deal with it. To give a real world current analogy, you are undergoing the same issue as Albert Haynesworth. He's got a reputation for being a diva, and as such is being treated like one immedietely rather than ASSUMING he's going to behave and be legit. Likewise, you have a distinctive and unquestionable history of making "gotcha" bait threads that have the sole purpose of providing you with hyper partisan fodder to attack people on by giving leading questions or partial comments and then attempting to spring traps on people by trying to apply a generalized comment they made to a specific situation. Due to your history you start out at a disadvantage and frankly its incumbant upon you to make an effort to show people that a thread is different than typical Goobie fare.

This would be no different than if you saw Chuz Life wading into an abortion thread, or Cephus wading into a religion thread. They have an unquestionable history of doing/feeling/thinking/saying specific things so its reasonable to assume that unless they show otherwise THAT is what they'll be doing/feeling/thinking/saying. If they're coming at it from a different direction its going to be incumbant upon them to make an argument in such a way to make it clear that they are.

You did not provide any additional context outside of JUST asking your question, meaning the only other context is that which you didn't provide...which is your posting history and style. You could've negated that context by providing more of your own, but you decided to forgo doing that...which, in and of itself, re-inforces the context concerning your normal behavior in these type of threads.
 
Harshaw said:
He probably isn't. However, a few things about that.

I think he was doing what you said in this instance, but I think you also may be giving him too much credit in others. He's said some god-awful stupid things ("Special Olympics," etc.) which indicate he might just be a bit tone-deaf. There are good and bad ways of saying things.

Plus, he's the de facto head of a political bloc which champions things like hate speech laws, speech codes on campuses, and which gets into a tizzy when people say insensitive things. However academically accurate he might have been in the context, he must also be aware of how the word "mongrel" would sound. There's no way he couldn't be. So, he really does need to be playing it better.
Click to expand...

The special Olympics comment was incredibly stupid. During the election, his "typical white person" was incredibly stupid, and his "clinging to guns and bibles" comment unbelievably so. However, can you think of any one who has spoken in public so often, on so many topics, who has not made some real unbelievably stupid comments? When you put yourself out there that much, sometimes you are going to **** it up. I have said some things on this board that where incredibly stupid, and done some things that where. Thankfully I am not in the spotlight, and text means I can edit away some of my worst ****ups.
 
Redress said:
The special Olympics comment was incredibly stupid. During the election, his "typical white person" was incredibly stupid, and his "clinging to guns and bibles" comment unbelievably so. However, can you think of any one who has spoken in public so often, on so many topics, who has not made some real unbelievably stupid comments? When you put yourself out there that much, sometimes you are going to **** it up. I have said some things on this board that where incredibly stupid, and done some things that where. Thankfully I am not in the spotlight, and text means I can edit away some of my worst ****ups.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or challenging me.
 
Tucker Case said:
That's typical of a mongrel white person who clings to their gun and/or bible while bowling against a special olympian. :2razz:
Click to expand...

Anyone who can bowl while holding a gun and bible is pretty talented.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom