• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

The answer that most CC'ers give in opposition to OC

.40S&W

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2012
Messages
74
Location
earth
If you are CCing, and someone attacks you because you look like an unarmed sheeple, and you shoot them, that is nothing more than "entrapment"--you have intentionally "set up" a thug to think you are prey, JUST SO you can shoot one.

I don't need to illustrate how ridiculous this statement is. People such as yourself that have this mentality do nothing to further the OC/CC cause. You're giving the antis ammunition (pun intended) against all of us when you use this rhetoric. You then go on to to say this isn't true for all people who CC but only some? I realize this is your opinion but it still doesn't diminish how harmful thoughts like this are.
 

ThatOneChick

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2009
Messages
113
Location
North Side *Represents*, Utah, USA
This I agree on, but you don't need to come to my fictional business to be safe. If you don't like leaving you self protection at my property line then exercise your right to do business with who you choose somewhere else. I am not saying property rights trump everything else but unless you "need" to be there then you should abide by the rules of the property without government restrictions. The less government we have the more freedom we will be.

I lived in a town where there was only one business--Walmart. Yeah, there were gas stations, a hole-in-the-wall diner but, most of the goods that were needed I could only get at Walmart. I would've loved to have other choices because I dread Walmart but, there were none. What's your solution, then? I drive 50 miles through backwoods country, sometimes in a blizzard, to shop elsewhere? If that Walmart wanted to say "no blacks", "no weapons", "no blondes", whatever, people were screwed. Property rights of a business should be on a lower necessity level than that of personal rights.

So you're into reversed racism? The government should favor any group that society rejects? If I refuse to do business with BLACKS then they need a business that only caters to them? No. The government shouldn't get involved with that at all. I am not saying it is right, all I am saying is the government has no business in that. If I was refused service at a business based on my skin color I would go somewhere else, until I found a place that would serve me. Also, they're black. Not African-American, most were born and raised in the US and have no ties (besides ancestral) to africa. I am white not a "German-American". Treat other races how you want to be treated, it is a large step against racism.

Moot point but, there are African-Americans, I didn't say all black people are African-American. Splitting hairs.

No, I'm not into racism (Reversed racism? What's that? Isn't it all just "racism"?). It was just an example of what happens if a business owner decides to single out a group based on whatever group you want to pick. People, in general, are irresponsible and, on very limited cases, the government apparently does need to step in and say "Hey, be nice to people. You can't single out anyone because of their age, race, religion, blah blah blah." It needs to be that way because: See my experience in the small, never heard of town that I used to live in.
 

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,383
Location
in front of my computer, WI
IdahoOpenCarry said:
...many CC'ers who oppose OC. Their most common response is, "It makes people feel uncomfortable." My answer to them is, "How do you know?"
We all know that the vast majority of people don't notice, and those who do generally manage to take in the whole picture & figure out that the LAC is pushing a shopping cart just like they are (or having dinner, or whatever).

At the risk of being labeled an attention whore, I'll admit I have several videos I've made of me OCing in various places around the city. I used a hidden camera so nobody knew they were being recorded except me. Mostly, nobody notices. The ones who do don't freak out, & some smile at me. Even in my bank.

"It makes you a target for the BG's."
There is no recorded evidence that an OC'er has been targeted by a BG.
Actually there is one. A couple summers ago here in Milwaukee (MKE) a BG who was illegally ccing used the "can you light my cigarette" ruse to get close enough to commit armed robbery on a guy who was legally OCing. The victim even had to undo the retention holster himself, at gunpoint.
But that's one incident out of how many millions of times by people across the country?
If the crime were common, I think we'd hear more about it. If it were really common (like armed robberies in Chicago or NYC) it wouldn't make the news.
I don't know why, but flipping the channels the other day I landed on a talk show segment where they were interviewing a woman in NYC who chased down the guy who stole her purse.
See, that made the news because it's strange. (Isn't that sad?)

And the most ridiculous excuse given by opponents is, "OC'ers are just posturing."
Once again, this is projection.
That's the reason they would carry openly, so it must be the reason everyone does.

NavyLCDR said:
I choose to engage in an active deterrence to crime, rather than passively possess the means to defend myself against a criminal who has already utilized their "element of surprise" to gain the upper hand prompting the need for defensive action.
What he said.
When you look like a sheepdog, the wolves will leave you alone.
When you look like a sheep, the wolves will treat you like a sheep. You'll have to react, which gives the criminal the advantage.
I'd rather they leave me alone in the first place.
 

09jisaac

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
1,692
Location
Louisa, Kentucky
I lived in a town where there was only one business--Walmart. Yeah, there were gas stations, a hole-in-the-wall diner but, most of the goods that were needed I could only get at Walmart. I would've loved to have other choices because I dread Walmart but, there were none. What's your solution, then? I drive 50 miles through backwoods country, sometimes in a blizzard, to shop elsewhere? If that Walmart wanted to say "no blacks", "no weapons", "no blondes", whatever, people were screwed. Property rights of a business should be on a lower necessity level than that of personal rights.

Moot point but, there are African-Americans, I didn't say all black people are African-American. Splitting hairs.

No, I'm not into racism (Reversed racism? What's that? Isn't it all just "racism"?). It was just an example of what happens if a business owner decides to single out a group based on whatever group you want to pick. People, in general, are irresponsible and, on very limited cases, the government apparently does need to step in and say "Hey, be nice to people. You can't single out anyone because of their age, race, religion, blah blah blah." It needs to be that way because: See my experience in the small, never heard of town that I used to live in.

Yes, it is racism. It is racism to try to keep from being racism. I once had a friend who said "I like all black people" that would be reversed racism in a form. Racism in its simplest definition is grouping all/most/some people of the same race into a group. Like saying all black people are thugs, or white people can't jump, or asians are good at math. It isn't always against a race.

My solution? If you are unhappy with the way walmart is treating you then start a competing business. Life isn't fair but when the government tries to make it fair they just turn the tables. You don't have to be there, they do. That is where their business is and they can't move it on a whim, but you can go somewhere else.
 

.40S&W

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2012
Messages
74
Location
earth
What he said.
When you look like a sheepdog, the wolves will leave you alone.
When you look like a sheep, the wolves will treat you like a sheep. You'll have to react, which gives the criminal the advantage.
I'd rather they leave me alone in the first place.

Ok great but there are too many variables here. What if the BG comes at you from an angle where your weapon isn't visible? What if he doesn't care if your Glock is hanging off your waistband? What if he has his own weapon? The point I'm making is either form of carry is good because you never know what situation you're going to be in unless of course you can predict the future.
 

ThatOneChick

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2009
Messages
113
Location
North Side *Represents*, Utah, USA
Yes, it is racism. It is racism to try to keep from being racism. I once had a friend who said "I like all black people" that would be reversed racism in a form. Racism in its simplest definition is grouping all/most/some people of the same race into a group. Like saying all black people are thugs, or white people can't jump, or asians are good at math. It isn't always against a race.

My solution? If you are unhappy with the way walmart is treating you then start a competing business. Life isn't fair but when the government tries to make it fair they just turn the tables. You don't have to be there, they do. That is where their business is and they can't move it on a whim, but you can go somewhere else.

So, a person is to give up their lifestyle to pursue their own business-making because another business is tromping all over their rights? A person is going to have to learn each and every single trade so they can take care of what needs to be taken care of because another business has banned redheads? Sorry, that dog won't hunt.

Again, personal rights outweigh property rights--to an extent. If I need food, medication, clothing and there is one business that has that, it needs to be against the law that they refuse service to me because I have 10 fingers. I simply cannot learn how to run a business, where to order supplies, get necessary licenses, get necessary funding, etc fast enough that I would not starve to death. Plus, you chance that all businesses, farmers, shippers, on and on, will refuse service to people with 10 fingers. If that's the case then yes, you're absolutely screwed and yes, it should absolutely be against the law for anyone to restrict on such a basis and yes, the government should step in and say "Hey! WTF are you doing? Stop it."
 

09jisaac

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
1,692
Location
Louisa, Kentucky
So, a person is to give up their lifestyle to pursue their own business-making because another business is tromping all over their rights? A person is going to have to learn each and every single trade so they can take care of what needs to be taken care of because another business has banned redheads? Sorry, that dog won't hunt.

Again, personal rights outweigh property rights--to an extent. If I need food, medication, clothing and there is one business that has that, it needs to be against the law that they refuse service to me because I have 10 fingers. I simply cannot learn how to run a business, where to order supplies, get necessary licenses, get necessary funding, etc fast enough that I would not starve to death. Plus, you chance that all businesses, farmers, shippers, on and on, will refuse service to people with 10 fingers. If that's the case then yes, you're absolutely screwed and yes, it should absolutely be against the law for anyone to restrict on such a basis and yes, the government should step in and say "Hey! WTF are you doing? Stop it."

Then I will ask this again. Yes or no. Without handpicking the parameters. Should the government have the authority to force anyone to do business with anyone? Even if they have a reason not to?
 

.40S&W

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2012
Messages
74
Location
earth
Then I will ask this again. Yes or no. Without handpicking the parameters. Should the government have the authority to force anyone to do business with anyone? Even if they have a reason not to?

I'll answer it for you. No. This is why I believe Affirmative Action and similar programs are absolutely unconstitutional.
 

ThatOneChick

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2009
Messages
113
Location
North Side *Represents*, Utah, USA
Then I will ask this again. Yes or no. Without handpicking the parameters. Should the government have the authority to force anyone to do business with anyone? Even if they have a reason not to?

To an extent. I stress that. I am by no means for an all-powerful government who controls everything but, there needs to be some rules and regulations to protect a people. Where that line is, we could sit here and debate up and down until the sun explodes. It's not as simple as a "yes" or "no". It's not black and white and I will not treat it as such.
 

09jisaac

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
1,692
Location
Louisa, Kentucky
I'll answer it for you. No. This is why I believe Affirmative Action and similar programs are absolutely unconstitutional.

To an extent. I stress that. I am by no means for an all-powerful government who controls everything but, there needs to be some rules and regulations to protect a people. Where that line is, we could sit here and debate up and down until the sun explodes. It's not as simple as a "yes" or "no". It's not black and white and I will not treat it as such.

Thanks .40.

Chick, you have some elitist views. Like a protected class that can't be turned down for any reason.

It would be un-American if I was force to do business with smith&wesson because they sold me a bad gun. Most are good. But it is too american to force smith&wesson to do business with me, a white guy because they had some bad dealings with a white gun. Most are good.

I equate both sides of the coin as the same. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
 

ThatOneChick

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2009
Messages
113
Location
North Side *Represents*, Utah, USA
Thanks .40.

Chick, you have some elitist views. Like a protected class that can't be turned down for any reason.

It would be un-American if I was force to do business with smith&wesson because they sold me a bad gun. Most are good. But it is too american to force smith&wesson to do business with me, a white guy because they had some bad dealings with a white gun. Most are good.

I equate both sides of the coin as the same. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

I said "to an extent" not "in every case". You, as a consumer, are not forced to do business with anyone. You, as a business, should be restricted to an extent on who you can and cannot serve because my safety is more important than your property rights--which you agreed with.
 

deepdiver

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
5,820
Location
Southeast, Missouri, USA
I think we need to keep in mind that "most" in the context such as the thread title, may be inaccurate. Bear with me for a minute here ... There are obviously several millions of people who own firearms. Gallup's recent polling compared to the national demographics indicates that there are at least 77.5 million adult US gun owners. Back in 2005, Gallup found that 11% of adults carry a gun for self-defense (the questions are not provided and I'm guessing that "carry" is broader than CC/OC on or about their person but I'm just speculating there as the number seems high especially for 7 years ago before the more recent surges in this arena). Their numbers would indicate that roughly 30% of US adult gun owners carry a gun in some way for self-defense or in excess of 22 million US citizens. *obviously being Gallup these are self-reported figures and generally are considered to be, if anything, low when they come to gun ownership/carry based on the assumption that many people are reluctant to self-report such ownership/usage*

So, we mostly come into contact with fellow CC/OC people at gun shows, meet-n-greets, internet forums, etc. But really, what percentage of that some 22 million people do we really interact with? I know more than a few dozen people who carry or are soon to be carrying who never visit firearm forums, never go to gun shows, and some have barely even fired a gun. Most of them I know because being an outspoken 2A supporter they have contacted me in some way for 2A or firearm information. Several shocked me with the information that they do or intend to carry. My guess is that these people are the majority of people who carry, not us.

Honestly, I doubt that OC is even on the radar for most of these people unless confronted with the issue in some manner through conversation, seeing someone OC, seeing a news story, etc. I'll bet that for most of them when they first hear about it they picture themselves - a 30-something mom with 2 kids who carries an LCP she fired at the CC class and that's about it whose interest in firearms mostly begins and ends at "don't rape me" - walking around like an Old-West gunfighter, knowing that they spend most of their life not really paying much attention to anything besides Dancing With the Stars and their idea of situational awareness is making sure they lock their car before walking into the mall, looking around the parking lot walking to their car after dark and remembering what their mothers told them about looking in the back seat before getting into the car (not picking on women as I know as many men who are similar, but rather kinda thinking of a composite of a few women I know as I think my point is more obvious) and concluding in the moment, "I don't want that around my kids!" And going from there. Men will have a differently verbalized conclusion, but really, it isn't much different in practice.

I'm just saying that to say "most" in these forums without the context of "most of the CCers I meet at guns shows" or "most of the CCers I interact with on such and such CC forum" is probably pretty inaccurate. I don't think we interact with most CCers on any matter firearm related. I think the average CCer doesn't think anything about OC until presented with it and then their first reactions are knee-jerk, emotional reactions based on themselves, imagining themselves or people like themselves OC. And I don't think that most CCers would be comfortable carrying OC for many reasons, one of the primary being the stress of maintaining the level of situational awareness to feel comfortable. They don't want to OC because they don't want the hassles of it. They don't want to hassle with cops. They don't want to argue about guns with their fellow PTA members. They don't want to discuss it with their hairdresser, their minister, their kids teacher, their kids baseball coach or anyone else. They don't want to worry that everyone knows they have a gun when they have to leave it in the car to go inside and pick up their kid at school, or to suspect that they maybe didn't leave it in the car but still have it in their purse or under their suit coat. They don't want most people to know they carry. They just don't want to deal with the gun more than absolutely necessary to have the feeling of security in knowing that in a worst case scenario they can pull out that carry gun they have been dragging around for years and maybe, only maybe, practicing with every year or two, and scare the BG enough that he goes away or absolute worst case that they are close enough that they just can't miss.

And on top of ALL that, I know several people who carry in their briefcase in the car and at work which is legal in MO and have the sidearm available at home, but don't have a CCW, don't want a CCW but still call themselves CCers because they do sort of carry a gun and they certainly don't OC.

I'm not saying that these people are unsafe or that they are stupid, lazy or bad. We argue that firearms are just a tool. I think that most CCers agree with that at least in concept and they don't give a whole lot more thought to their sidearm than they do to any other tool in their basement toolbox beyond safe handling/storing considerations and some of that may be suspect. People here are either activists, or firearm hobbiest, or in some other way "involved" in 2A or firearms. We read, study, think about these issues. Ask us, "OC or CC" and we have an answer. It may be able to start as a a few words, but really, we could all write pages about our preference or lack thereof or spend hours talking about it. And we do. We forget that most people just aren't that invested in the topic nor invested in the same ways we are.

Yeah, they think that OC might make people uncomfortable. Yeah, many of them are probably projecting their own discomfort. Yeah, they might carry themselves and be a hypocrite, but they don't see it that way. Remember, they don't want to talk about the gun. They don't want to think about needing to use it anymore than they want to think about using their fire extinguisher in the kitchen, using the second floor escape ladder to save their children when their house is burning down around them and their pet is trapped downstairs howling as it burns to death or cashing in their spouse's life insurance policy after their spouse dies after a long bout of cancer so they have the money to finish raising their children as a widow(er). See, those things suck. Those things are not just inconvenient possible realities, but their are very, very scary and make people very uncomfortable. They have the fire extinguisher, the ladder and the life insurance because they are not stupid about the risks of life, but they don't want to think about the scenarios in which they will really be used. They have a gun for the same reason and they also don't want people shoving the reality of that possible need in their faces either. You don't have to do anything to make them feel like you are shoving it in their face, you just have to be there, to have it, to be OC. It brings reality to close. It brings their innate fears to the surface. Better to just hide it and pretend that we don't need to carry a deadly weapon to protect ourselves, to feel safe. Better not to think about your wife who won't carry getting raped in your own home because you and your CC pistol worked a few hours late. Better not to think about the bloody mess spread across your upholstery if you do come home in time to stop the rapist.

Yeah, I talk to CCers about this too, but the psychologist in me (my first career path) pushes me to ask non-policy related questions about their opinion. I just talked to a long-time customer about OC the other day. Avid hunter, owns lots of guns of all types, CCer but mainly in his truck and briefcase ... He said OC might make people uncomfortable. But he isn't uncomfortable with guns. He has seen me OC in my office and has even asked me to unholster/unload so he could more closely examine one of my carry sidearms. He OCs when he hunts. Yeah, but it makes people uncomfortable. What about it makes people uncomfortable? It, it, it just does. People don't want to think about carrying a gun when their trying to eat dinner. What is the carry/dinner connection. People don't want to think about why someone has to carry a gun when they are trying to have a nice dinner.... Nevermind .. have to go meet someone ... That isn't a reaction to OC as a political matter, but emotional and not even about the gun per se.


I could be all wet on this. And none of this has anything to do necessarily with the LEO CC-only types who are all about tactical advantage stuff. Although, I do think that the vast majority of non-LEO who spout this got it from some LEO CC instructor or buddy. Not disparaging. Just stating what I usually find at the root when I pull that particular weed. Regardless (and this went on way longer than I ever intended) I think we need to be more mindful of who we are really talking about and what is really shaping their perspective.

When we are as passionate as we tend to be on OC/2A, when we talk to people less involved we can sometimes be like the parent whose kid comes home and asks "Mom/Dad, where did I come from" and then after spending 3 hours explaining human reproduction have the kid say, "I still don't get it. Suzy says she's from Cleveland."

*and apologies in advance for the numerous pronoun/verb/tense inconsistencies ... too tired to go back and bother fixing it*
 

JeepSeller

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
412
Location
Orlando, FL, ,
so I'm not saying all CCers are sociopathic vigilantes, but some are, and we ALL need to admit that, and deal with the reality of that concept....

And, by the same token..not all OCers carry openly for the "hey, look at me, I have a gun" swagger either. But, some do. Same shoe, just on a different foot now.

As I've said, this train goes both ways. For every anti-CC comment/statistic/rhetoric/fact/speculation/stereotype, we can come up with, they can come up with one of their own...and vice-versa.

I'm, trying hard here to avoid taking sides, playing Devil's Advocate more than anything....as, I feel strongly that we do no good for our cause (either side) by fighting among ourselves. In fact, (whip out the tin-foil hats now..LOL) I've considered that it's possible the anti's plant some of their own folks into these discussions, for no other reason than to push us into these arguments by stirring the pot. After all, given the sheer numbers we have, can anyone imagine what we could accomplish if we stopped spinning our wheels on debates that will never see a winner and we actually did pull together as a cohesive whole? The entire gun community...OC'ers, CC'ers,..across the entire country, on 1000's of forums just like this....... The anti's wouldn't stand a chance.

And, I'll bet that little tid bit scares the anti's something awful.
 
Last edited:

ThatOneChick

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2009
Messages
113
Location
North Side *Represents*, Utah, USA
And, by the same token..not all OCers carry openly for the "hey, look at me, I have a gun" swagger either. But, some do. Same shoe, just on a different foot now.

As I've said, this train goes both ways. For every anti-CC comment/statistic/rhetoric/fact/speculation/stereotype, we can come up with, they can come up with one of their own...and vice-versa.

I'm, trying hard here to avoid taking sides, playing Devil's Advocate more than anything....as, I feel strongly that we do no good for our cause (either side) by fighting among ourselves. In fact, (whip out the tin-foil hats now..LOL) I've considered that it's possible the anti's plant some of their own folks into these discussions, for no other reason than to push us into these arguments by stirring the pot. After all, given the sheer numbers we have, can anyone imagine what we could accomplish if we stopped spinning our wheels on debates that will never see a winner and we actually did pull together as a cohesive whole? The entire gun community...OC'ers, CC'ers,..across the entire country, on 1000's of forums just like this....... The anti's wouldn't stand a chance.

And, I'll bet that little tid bit scares the anti's something awful.

It's called "concern troll" and happens quite a bit.
 

09jisaac

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
1,692
Location
Louisa, Kentucky
True. I have only know three African-Americans in my life... and one was white.

I did too. We went to UK together (predominantly white). He was trying to apply for a minority grant because where he came from, somewhere in south africa, his family was the only white people there. He didn't get it.
 

Gil223

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2012
Messages
1,392
Location
Weber County Utah
My own personal take is that I support both methods of carry and view them as personal choices, where such is available by law, and where having a gun with you is better than having none at all on your person. I don't have a bias because I do view this as a person decision. What I do find curious is that while all of the OC'ers I have met support concealed carry whereas a number of CC'ers I have met and have read on websites are strongly biased, read that as prejudiced, against those who choose to OC. One would think we're all in the same boat but it appears that only half of us are on board..

I have held a CFP for many years and, like you, I support both personal choices. I can also see some validity in the arguments against both, simply because they are emotion-based rather than fact-based. People have emotions! My personal experience is that (based upon the way they stare) OC does make some folks uncomfortable, but it isn't the fault of the OC'er that so many people are ignorant of our right to do so. I believe the largest contributor to that discomfort is that there are states and lesser political subdivisions that ban OC, and even in the states that recognize 2A in their own Constitution there relatively few OC'ers. Exposure is the key to reducing anxiety among the general, non-carrying public. The head-shrinkers call it "desensitization", which is nothing more than gradual exposure to increasing quantities and/or extended time periods to those things which cause their anxiety.

As for the "element of surprise"... that will come when the CC'er discovers it probably takes about 1 second too long to filter through clothing and access their handgun if an armed miscreant is observant and has the necessaary mindset to use his weapon. I used to shoot WFDA (World Fast Draw Association), and that 38/100 sec to draw, fire and hit your target from a fast draw rig, turns into about 2+ seconds for CC (if it's winter in a cold climate, and you're wearing a jacket), and probably 1.75 secs in the summer from a concealed IWB or belt holster. From a practical standpoint, OC makes more sense to me whenever weather permits. Utah winters are when one of my handguns goes into my waist-level R/H jacket pocket.

OC whenever you can, and help ease that discomfiture the general public feels! Pax...
 

Gil223

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2012
Messages
1,392
Location
Weber County Utah
I think we need to keep in mind that "most" in the context such as the thread title, may be inaccurate.

First, I must say that your post is very well composed! Yeah, it's long-ish, but sometimes we can't say all we need to say in order to successfully communicate our thoughts in 25 words or less. I think "most" - as people tend to use the word - is generally anecdotal, and what they are really saying is "most people that I know" or "most people that I have met (or "talked with") express a belief that...". We would have to know - or have spoken with - millions of people before we could use the term "most" in the literal sense. There are a lot of inefficiencies in the way we use the English language: cant, idiom, street-slang and jargon are the 'order of the day' for many people. Our unintentional abuse of "most" seems to be just one example of the many communication shorthands in which "most" people seem to indulge. ;) Pax...
 

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
I did too. We went to UK together (predominantly white). He was trying to apply for a minority grant because where he came from, somewhere in south africa, his family was the only white people there. He didn't get it.

You know what was funny? The white African-American I once knew had a sister who was also an African-American. Both had immigrated from South Africa to the U.S. When his sister made application to college, she checked the African-American box as to ethnicity/race. Upon presenting herself, they would not accept this and told her she had to change it. So they were applying a bit of racism to a real, a genuine African-American. Go figure.
 
Last edited:
Top