Lattimore lovers unite

[Solid Orange Blood]

View embedded media

Comment section gives me hope.

 

[leetp]

I do agree that's one political use of the ideology. There is power in identity, if only because of the power of numbers. But there's another slippery way of talking about "whitness" and power: black people are supposedly not able to be racist, because "racism" according to the new "anti-racism" isn't simple racial prejudice, it's a system of oppression that flows only one way, from "whiteness" to "non-whiteness." But, at the same time, "whiteness" only belongs to white people, since only white people can be racist. So "whiteness" exhibited by non-white people is still white oppression, somehow.

Further, you'd expect that power differentials would be different depending on what situation you were in. For instance, if you were involved in something where the authorities adopted the new "anti-racist" ideology, then non-whites would clearly have more power than whites. However, nobody seems to notice that defining racism by relative differences in power means that the more equal non-whites are to whites, the more capable of racism non-whites are. The fact that this hasn't been noticed is another reason to think that the "anti-racist" ideology is attracting a lot of people mostly interested in political power.

As far as "whiteness" goes as a concept, I'd say it's got some validity when you think about the way, for instance, the Irish or Italians were at one time considered not to be white. There was clearly some sort of ideological usage of "whiteness" that conferred group membership and certain privileges. That's a social construction that I think needs to go away, and that I actually think has faded quite a bit anyway (it seems telling to me that people are less interested in deconstructing "blackness," though...). The problem is when you reify the ideology so that it attaches to people as an innate characteristic.

There is some good discussion to be had in what you said... but foremost--regarding your third paragraph--I suspect you are using presentism to describe whiteness as anything but a purely modern social construction. While some 'white' ethnic minorities suffered rather tragically in the early twentieth century, particularly the Italians, I don't know why this has to be retroactively labeled 'whiteness', or as 'another' example of 'white' oppression...as if this is the chief inherent attribute of 'whiteness'?

There has likely not been one ethnic majority in history that has not systematically tried to exterminate or subjugate a rival or weaker group. History is replete with this behavior and it knows now racial (or ethic) boundaries.

Its somewhat ironic when you consider his latter public image, but one of my favorite quotes of all times comes from then retired General Colin Powell... it was in the closing chapter of his book, My American Journey. The quote was in reference to his stance on affirmative action. Presumably he was trying to say he was against it without actually saying he was against it (go figure). Here's the quote (I am giving you this purely from memory, so forgive me if I get part of it wrong):

"Discrimination for a group inevitably leads to discrimination against another, and all discrimination is offensive"

To make it more apt here, I would simply change 'discrimination' to 'racism'...and using "whiteness" as a pejorative is 100% racism.

(As I re-read your post...this may indeed be the point you were making)

 

[FranktheDank]

I may have said he has a lot of potential in crutch sales.....

.....which was mean as hell and uncalled for.

That said - I don't get the love for him to the level we are seeing. He may be a great guy. But so is CJ Spiller, Trevor Lawrence, Christian Wilkins, and dozens of other players that played for Clemson.

Never saw what the big deal with Lattimore was.


Now I will say that on the field, George Rogers was a beast.

For that school during that time it was a big deal for them to have a good guy on the team to counterbalance the scumbags: Garcia, Swearinger, Hampton, Culliver

 

[BHSRebels89]

Ironic post IYAM. N---

IDAY

 

[tgrharley]

So are Maxine Waters, Alma Adams, and Eleanor Holmes Norton.

No shyte!

 

[leetp]

IDAY

And to think all this time I have been typing my words out.... or perhaps, ATTATTIHBTMWO

 

[BHSRebels89]

And to think all this type I have been typing my words out.... or perhaps, ATTATTIHBTMWO

I was being coy (or trying)
😂
I don’t know these. My 17 yo reminds me all the time

 

[leetp]

I was being coy (or trying)
😂
I don’t know these. My 17 yo reminds me all the time

Given my typo rate, I should seriously consider adopting the trend

 

[ChicagoTiger85]

So are Maxine Waters, Alma Adams, and Eleanor Holmes Norton.

Or, what if those are just people whose opinions we think are wrong?

 

[leetp]

No shyte!

And then there is this one:

During a House committee meeting, Rep. Hank Johnson said he feared that stationing 8,000 Marines on Guam would cause the island to "become so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize."

Need I mention he as was a rep from Georgia?


I, for one, would be ok if we stop looking to popularity contestants for solutions to our apparent problems ...that if we can somehow make who gets elected matter far less, that we might find we don't really have that many problems?

 

[ChicagoTiger85]

There is some good discussion to be had in what you said... but foremost--regarding your third paragraph--I suspect you are using presentism to describe whiteness as anything but a purely modern social construction. While some 'white' ethnic minorities suffered rather tragically in the early twentieth century, particularly the Italians, I don't know why this has to be retroactively labeled 'whiteness', or as 'another' example of 'white' oppression...as if this is the chief inherent attribute of 'whiteness'?

There has likely not been one ethnic majority in history that has not systematically tried to exterminate or subjugate a rival or weaker group. History is replete with this behavior and it knows now racial (or ethic) boundaries.

Its somewhat ironic when you consider his latter public image, but one of my favorite quotes of all times comes from then retired General Colin Powell... it was in the closing chapter of his book, My American Journey. The quote was in reference to his stance on affirmative action. Presumably he was trying to say he was against it without actually saying he was against it (go figure). Here's the quote (I am giving you this purely from memory, so forgive me if I get part of it wrong):

"Discrimination for a group inevitably leads to discrimination against another, and all discrimination is offensive"

To make it more apt here, I would simply change 'discrimination' to 'racism'...and using "whiteness" as a pejorative is 100% racism.

(As I re-read your post...this may indeed be the point you were making)

My personal point of view is that we need to get rid of our whole rotten racial classification system. It's byzantine, it's absurd, and it's entirely socially constructed (including being based on archaic science that was simply wrong). However, I get that because that absurd classification system is the water we swim in, we all have a sort of unquestioned understanding of our racial identity mostly based on what we and our parents look like. I'd prefer we all get past that, but it can be relatively benign if we just understand it as something basically meaningless and benign (even if it's absurd).

When I'm talking about "whiteness" above, I'm talking about the history of the concept from a point of view of deconstruction. I do not think there's some sort of coherent group that can be referred to as "the white race" that has a specific culture or any other meaningful characteristics that are definitive of "whiteness." I would especially disagree with anybody pointing to something being innately "white." All of that was socially constructed. So when "whiteness" was used historically to privilege certain people or to exclude certain others (including people we think of a "white" today, like the Irish), it was being understood in an ideological way and not just in a simple "what's your skin tone appear to be" way. When the new "anti-racist" way of thinking reifies that ideology so that it applies to all people with a certain skin tone and background, they're using "whiteness" in the same way. The irony is that they also deconstruct whiteness in the same way I do, but they

 

[LUV DEM TIGERS]

I am really disappointed in Marcus. He should have tried to separate "US" from "THEM" by using the "N" word. Afterall, how else better to separate the two races than by having a special word that one can use and not the other. THAT is how you show you are "BLACK FOLK",

 

[hopefultiger13]

Sometimes, when you are about to open your mouth and say something, you should take the opportunity to say nothing. Lattimore should never have opened his mouth on this subject.

On the HW issue, if you are running for political office, you need to have the basic skills to have ideas and policies, express these in public in an easily understood manner, and convince others in public that your ideas are are sound and reasonable.

Just for the sake of argument let's say that HW has good ideas (and I'm FAR FAR from convinced that this is so). His ability to express those ideas clearly and convince others that not only are they good ideas but that he is NOT a crackpot is simply not there.

Just as a for instance, he tried to make a point that the US shouldn't spend a ton of money on clean air when other countries (especially China) are polluting like crazy and our efforts mean nothing when they are doing this. I don't necessarily agree with this, but one can make a reasonable argument for this position. HW spouts complete gibberish about US Air and China air swapping places.

Simply put, this is NOT the guy you want in Washington advocating for things your state needs and things your state wants done at the national level.