An interesting article from an interesting perspective....
This is one of the most racist statements I've read in a loooong time.
"If you're black and a hurricane is about to destroy your city, then you'll probably wait for the government to save you."
I stopped reading shortly after that.
Jesus, what an Uncle Tom.
Thats right, call him an Uncle Tom and dismiss everything he says. This is exactly whats wrong with our national dialogue these days. Someone says something controversial and he/she is called a right-winger, left-winger, racist, Uncle Tom, etc. and the conversation is over. How about you address what the man said rather than simply talking shit? Explain why he is wrong...
Now that guy is a REAL leader, and a real T-Man, not afraid to say what needs to be said. Good article. Good for him.
He isn't wrong. N.O has been in that situation for years, but we here have grown tired of ranting and raving about what needed to be done about the city's dependency on the gov. This guy stepped up and told the nation.
The major problem I see with the labels "racism" or "racist," as they tend to be applied these days, is that they effectively silence any discussion. And therefore they prevent any "unconventional" or "unapproved" thinking that might possibly lead to solutions for societal ills.
This is not to say that racism or racists don't exist. They surely do.
But I think we must be cautious not to paint all discussion with the broad brush of "racism." To do so invites a stupor of thought and discussion. And it's often an overly simplistic attempt to silence any differing viewpoints without addressing the specific issues or comments raised.
Just in case we arent on the same page, I dont think he is wrong either. I do think this problem extends beyond the black community though...
Oh true, it's just that there is way more to fix than can be discussed on one thread.
i know where this article was going so didn't even bother reading it. nothing interesting about it just the same stupid song played over and over again
The statement was racist and to me, discredited the author as being fair and open minded, so I had no reason to take anything else he had to say as the truth.
I'm not saying he didn't have any other good points, he may have. I just didn't feel the need to read further into his opinion.
It reminds me of an ad for a product that was stating that creatine is useless, and gave a lot of miss-information about creatine to make their product look better.
The product may have been good, but I chose not to believe any of the other information about the product due to their false claims about creatine. I know some of the information is wrong, so why should I trust any of the rest?
That was my mind set anyway. I've read other information about similar issues that didn't come off as being racist or ignorant.
The people's lack of taking action could have been due to many other issues. They may have been poor, lazy, and wanted everything handed to them despite being black, not because of it. I've seen many white and Asian people act the same way, and have seen many black people of today act the way the author describes black people from an earlier time.
In regards to the first question asked, it would largely depend on my financial situation, how much time I had between knowing of the hurricane coming, and my knowledge of what to do in an emergency situation (along with some common sense), and if I made it out of there safely, I wouldn't think that being white had anything to do with it.
That's a racist label in itself....
Your post validates many of the root points made by the author.
Kids, the author of the article is a black reverend.
Yes, but that doesn't make his statements any less racist.
I don't think anyone missed that fact though, Captain Obvious.
Is that the point you're trying to make, that he can't be racist if he's talking about his own race?
If so, you're wrong.
So do you think his report has no merit because it seems racist?
No, I stopped caring about the oppinion of the author because he made ignorant, racist remarks.
Like I said in an earlier post, "I'm not saying he didn't have any other good points, he may have. I just didn't feel the need to read further into his opinion."
Ok, point taken
"Blacks are obligated to help themselves and not depend on the government to care for them."
The second to last sentence in the article. I understand why he is trying to make his point, and how he is doing it, but I will just say that he is wrong. The statement should read:
Everyone is obligated to help themselves and not depend on the government to care for them.
When you make a statement like he did, it devalues all the hard work and dedication which is shown by every black person who isn't sitting around waiting for a handout. I realize this is the author using a poetic device, and an appeal to the reader's (hopefully) developed sensibilities, but it's still racism.
I'm wondering, maybe looking a little deeper here: What happens when "helping yourself", and playing your best cards at the table involves being dependent on the government? What comes first, the chicken or the egg? Do we cut off the welfare with a tough love kind of mindset? Do we slowly and carefully change the way things are, going for a more "get a job and wean yourself off the gubbamint tittay" thing?
I will bet that those "slackers" we are pointing our accusing fingers at here are making more money by sitting on their asses than by working some shit job somewhere. Where was the motivation to get that education when they knew they could just slack off? There isn't the sense of shame in being dependent anymore... not like it used to be. Is that what the author is calling the "moral poverty?" I don't know.
The article title was very misleading. I was expecting a holier than thou attitude from the writer with a phrase like "Moral Poverty" being used. I would call this more "get off your asses, I'm ashamed of you" than "you all suck, you're going to hell". Maybe the good reverend should have titled this with "Motivational Poverty" instead?
You can argue stupid little sematics of he should have worded his statement like this or like that blah blah blah....
IN reality his article is right on. He gives no excuses and simply says the blacks in NO were lazy and morally unsound, those are the citizens that elected their government which mirrored the ethic of the population that elected it. Hence you had the breakdown and bitching with finger pointing.
You can downplay that whole issue all you want but the fact remains that poeple were getting shot, sniped, businesses were getting looted, women were being raped, hospitals robbed of their drugs etc... It's like Rawanda here in the USA.
All the politically correct quagmire aside, the black population of this country has a long road ahead of itself, i won't even try to pretend how difficult it must be to walk a mile in a black persons shoes, but perhaps me not knowing is better because it does not taint and weigh me with how daunting and hard it is to rise up. There are small pockets of blacks that have risen but the great majority have a long road ahead of them and while i don't have any answers on how a people can rise i CAN tell you that future generations are the new hope for any ethnic group.
Perhaps if black fathers stayed with their women and married to raise a stable family and work to put kids through college, all the while pushing their kids to suceed academically. Done that way, Sucess for the black people at large would come much sooner.
It's the same approach used by the Europeans, Asians etc... Some of the most sucessfull races of people.