imported post
marshaul wrote:
SouthernBoy wrote:
Well let's see. First off I never accused you of being "politically correct but factually inaccurate". That was someone else.
You're right, sorry.
SouthernBoy wrote:
As for quibble, perhaps, but I like what Rush Limbaugh was fond of saying; "words have meaning".
You're right, words
do have meaning:
Af•ri•can
adjective
of or relating to Africa, or people of African descent.
(emphasis mine)
And that's a usage that's been around far longer than "Political correctness". Or need I point out that "Chinese" food isn't really Chinese, and "Italian" food rarely actually
made in Italy, either?
However, I was serious with me request. I genuinely do not understand why you think this terminology has the potential to Balkanize America. I was hoping you could enlighten me, or at least discuss it. I'm done being annoyed, I promise.
The point that I and at least one other have made is that the politically correct do not use the term in the way that it is defined. Two examples were given of people who were born in Africa, which would make them related to Africa, or of African decent, yet because they were not black they could not claim the title African-American. I would argue that they were more closely related to Africa than most of the black people in this country, yet they were denied that claim. How many black people in this country have ever even been to Africa, much less wereborn there?
The potential to divide comes from affirmative action policies that use these definitions to set quotas for entry into schools, job hirings, business loans, ect. Unfortunately, many minority leaders perpetuate racial divides by basing these things on the color of skin. MLK Jr. said that he dreamed of day where his children would not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.
I challenge any black person to give me an example of being denied a job in the last 20 years,basedonly on the color of their skin, where the employer said directly to their face that the reason that they were not being hired was the color of their skin. I was told to my face by the owner of a company that I was applying to, that I could not be hired because I was a white male. If he had denied a black man the job based only on the color of his skin, or a woman based only on her gender,he would have been sued for violation of civil rights. I was denied this same protection because it wasthe governmentthat setthese discriminatory policies in place. He hadall of the white guys that he was allowed by the governmentto hire already. Why are my civil rights less important than anybody else's? Because I'm a white guy I deserve to get the shaft? I have yet to meet one minority whowould assertthat this policy was fair to me, or anyone else.
I do not blame this on black people,I blame it on liberals who think that the only way toright a wrong is to wrong other people who had nothing to do with the original offense.I could care less what color your skin is, all that I care about is what kind of person you are.
Racism is relevant to the gun control debate because most gun control laws in our country were based on racist policies, and at their roots, were designed to keep minorities unarmed. Gun control also tends to have the most detrimental affects on minorities because they tend to be the prevalent population in many high crime areas. This is not a judgement on these people one way or the other, just a fact of life. When you take away the ability for law abiding citizens to defend themselves crime will take over. Those with the ability, will move away, but those who cannot move, for whatever reason, fall victim to the lowlifes that assume control of their streets. Racism, no matter who is guilty of it, is always going to lead to a division of the people.
