Moderators John317 Posted May 30, 2010 Moderators Posted May 30, 2010 Quote: lazarus: 1968 - 1968 Washington, D.C. riots, April 1968 (Washington, D.C., United States) MLK's death # 1968 - Baltimore riot of 1968, April 6–12 (Baltimore, Maryland, United States) MLK's death # 1968 - Chicago riot of 1968, a.k.a West Side Riots, April 7–14 (Chicago, Illinois, United States) Mlk's death # 1968 - Wilmington Riot of 1968 April 1968 (Wilmington, Delaware, (United States) MLK's death # 1968 - Kansas City riot of 1968, April 1968 (Kansas City, Missouri, United States) MLK's death # 1968 - Salisbury riot, May 18–20, (Salisbury, Maryland, United States) # 1968 - Louisville riots of 1968, May 27, (Louisville, Kentucky, United States) MLk's death # 1968 - Glenville Shootout, (Cleveland, Ohio, United States) Those things were indeed related to the Civil Rights Movement, but they were all events that occurred as a direct result of the assassination of Martin Luther King. I went through Washington DC on the greyhound bus at the time of the riots there, and when it stopped to pick up someone, they wouldn't let anyone off the bus at the station. I could see smoke and fire outside the bus windows, as well as National Guardsmen on the street corners. People were angry and many were taking advantage of the confusion to break into the stores, etc. An army buddy of mine told me about a year later that he took part in that riot in D.C. Those riots were contrary to everything the Civil Rights leaders taught and believed. It would be wrong to blame it on them. They tried to stop the riots and the violence from happening. If they hadn't, it would have been far, far worse. John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators Gerr Posted May 30, 2010 Moderators Posted May 30, 2010 WOW!!! Thanks Lazarus for taking the time to check the references. How revealing!
Woody Posted May 30, 2010 Posted May 30, 2010 Quote: there was some violence during those years, # 1964 - New York City 1964 race riot, July 18–23 (New York City, United States) # 1964 - Rochester 1964 race riot, July 24–25 (Rochester, New York, United States) # 1964 - Jersey City 1964 race riot, August 2–4 (Jersey City, New Jersey, United States) # 1964 - Paterson 1964 race riot, August 11–13 (Paterson, New Jersey, United States) # 1964 - Elizabeth 1964 race riot, August 11–13 (Elizabeth, New Jersey, United States) # 1964 - Chicago 1964 race riot, August 16–17 # 1964 - Philadelphia 1964 race riot August 28–30 # 1965 - Watts Riot, August 1965, (Los Angeles, California, United States) # 1966 - Easter Monday Riot, April 1966 (Glen Echo Amusement Park, Glen Echo, Maryland, US) # 1966 - Fire Hydrant Riots, July 1966 (Chicago, Illinois, United States) # 1966 - Hough Riots, July 1966 (Cleveland, Ohio, United States) # 1966 - Hunter's Point Riot (San Francisco, California, United States) # 1966 - Compton's Cafeteria Riot, August 1966 (San Francisco, California, United States) # 1966 - Waukegan Riot, August 27 (Waukegan, Illinois, United States) # 1966 - Benton Harbor Riot, August-September 1966 (Benton Harbor, Michigan, United States) # 1966 - Atlanta riot of 1966, Sep. 6 (Atlanta, Georgia, United States) # 1966 - Sunset Strip curfew riots (Los Angeles, California, United States) # 1967 - Roxbury riot, June 2 (Boston, Massachusetts, United States) # 1967 - Tampa Riots of 1967, June 1967 (Tampa, Florida, United States) # 1967 - Buffalo riot of 1967, June 27 (Buffalo, New York, United States) # 1967 - 1967 Newark riots, July 12–18, 1967 (Newark, New Jersey, United States) # 1967 - 1967 Plainfield riots, July 14–20, 1967 (Plainfield, New Jersey, United States) # 1967 - Cairo riot, July 17 (Cairo, Illinois, United States) # 1967 - Durham riot, July 19 (Durham, North Carolina, United States) # 1967 - Minneapolis North Side Riots, Minneapolis-Saint Paul, Minnesota, July 19–20. # 1967 - Memphis riot, July 20 (Memphis, Tenn., United States) # 1967 - Cambridge riot of 1967, July 1967, a.k.a H. Rap Brown riot (Cambridge, Maryland, United States) # 1967 - 12th Street Riot, July 23–29, 1967 (Detroit, Michigan, United States) # 1967 - Milwaukee riot (July 30 - August 2, 1967), (Milwaukee, Wisconsin, United States) # 1968 - Orangeburg, South Carolina riot and Orangeburg Massacre, (Orangeburg, South Carolina), United States) # 1968 - 1968 Washington, D.C. riots, April 1968 (Washington, D.C., United States) # 1968 - Baltimore riot of 1968, April 6–12 (Baltimore, Maryland, United States) # 1968 - Chicago riot of 1968, a.k.a West Side Riots, April 7–14 (Chicago, Illinois, United States) # 1968 - Wilmington Riot of 1968 April 1968 (Wilmington, Delaware, (United States) # 1968 - Kansas City riot of 1968, April 1968 (Kansas City, Missouri, United States) # 1968 - Salisbury riot, May 18–20, (Salisbury, Maryland, United States) # 1968 - Louisville riots of 1968, May 27, (Louisville, Kentucky, United States) # 1968 - Glenville Shootout, (Cleveland, Ohio, United States) # 1969 - Stonewall Riots, June 1969, (New York City, New York, United States) # 1969 - York Race Riot, July 1969, (York, Pennsylvania, United States) # 1969 - Days of Rage, Oct. 1969, (Chicago, Illinois, United States) Thank you there buster. This is instructive. :) May we be one so that the world may be won. Christian from the cradle to the grave I believe in Hematology.
Moderators lazarus Posted May 30, 2010 Moderators Posted May 30, 2010 Thank you there buster. This is instructive. I agree. Just for you woody, here's another one...... The Detroit 1967 riot or the 1967 Detroit rebellion was a multiracial civil disturbance in Detroit, Michigan that began in the early morning hours of Sunday, July 23, 1967. The precipitating event was a police raid of an unlicensed after hours bar then known as a blind pig on the corner of 12th Street and Clairmount on the city's near westside. Police confrontations with patrons and observers on the street evolved into one of the deadliest and most destructive riots in U.S. history, lasting five days and surpassing the violence and property destruction of Detroit's 1943 race riot. Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence. Einstein
Neil D Posted May 30, 2010 Posted May 30, 2010 Yes, I remember these things very well. They really had absolutely nothing to do with the Civil Rights Movement. Most of the other violent events on that list also had nothing to do with the Civil Rights Movement. "absolutely nothing"???? I may be younger than you, John317, but these were things that were talked about in my classes when I was growing up....I remember them as well, but not in the same way as you seem to remember... Whether you like it or not, these riots contributed to the civil rights movement and expressed the outrage over "white oppressive power". The blacks felt oppressed and rightly so, and we reluctantly changed our outlook on blacks...we would look at that today, and say, in our PC way, that the police over abused thier appointed powers, justified or not. In many western companies and places in the US, we overcompensated in that day, and many blacks got away with many things mainly due to the blacks feeling oppressed and thier anger over it. For example, if there was a problem with a black employee, ie an attitude problem ["No whitey gonna overtake my position of which I am equally qualified"], many companys found other ways to "unqualify" that person but it was the attitude that cause the black person to get removed. If a white person were to display that same racial attitude during that same time period, he was also removed, but for the attitude, not for qualification. ...Today, I don't think that would be the case. In each case, an offensive attitude[ whether racial or sexual] from any race would cause one to be removed instantly if not sooner...at least, out here in the western US... Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve. George Bernard Shaw
Members rudywoofs (Pam) Posted May 30, 2010 Members Posted May 30, 2010 niggers why is it okay for a black person to use that word, but nobody else dare use it? Pam Meddle Not In the Affairs of Dragons; for You Are Crunchy and Taste Good with Ketchup. If we all sang the same note in the choir, there'd never be any harmony. Funny, isn't it, how we accept Grace for ourselves and demand justice for others?
Moderators John317 Posted May 30, 2010 Moderators Posted May 30, 2010 Quote: John317:Yes, I remember these things very well. They really had absolutely nothing to do with the Civil Rights Movement. Most of the other violent events on that list also had nothing to do with the Civil Rights Movement. Quote: Neil D: "absolutely nothing"???? I may be younger than you, John317, but these were things that were talked about in my classes when I was growing up....I remember them as well, but not in the same way as you seem to remember... Whether you like it or not, these riots contributed to the civil rights movement and expressed the outrage over "white oppressive power". The blacks felt oppressed and rightly so, My comment about "absolutely nothing" was in reference to the "Stonewall riots," which had to do with gays rejecting what they viewed as police brutality and an unjust system. I remember when that occurred, and it indeed had nothing directly to do with the Civil Rights Movement. At the same time, the gays who took part in it were no doubt influenced by the changes they saw happen during the Civil Rights Movement. They refused to allow themselves to be treated the way the state had been treating them, and to that degree they were inspired by the Civil Rights Movement. But did you see where I said the riots connected to Martin Luther King's assassination had nothing to do with racial problems? Of course they did have to do with racial problems. But that is different from being part of the Civil Rights Movement. What I'm saying is that they weren't brought on by the Civil Rights Movement any more than the 1992 riots of LA were brought by the Civil Rights Movement. Were they related to problems of racism and anger over feeling oppressed and being treated unjustly? Yes, certainly, but that doesn't qualify them as having been brought on by the Civil Rights Movement. John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Members phkrause Posted May 30, 2010 Members Posted May 30, 2010 Excellent posts Lazarus and John. I'm glad to see that at least someone was willing to actually look these up to find out the reasons behind them and not just put a spin on them, as O'Rielly would say. pk phkrause When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; But when a wicked man rules, the people groan. Proverbs 29;2
Moderators John317 Posted May 30, 2010 Moderators Posted May 30, 2010 I do like that O'Rielly guy too. John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Neil D Posted May 30, 2010 Posted May 30, 2010 My comment about "absolutely nothing" was in reference to the "Stonewall riots," which had to do with gays rejecting what they viewed as police brutality and an unjust system. I remember when that occurred, and it indeed had nothing directly to do with the Civil Rights Movement. Mea Culpa... When I went back to look at what cause me to respond, I didn't see it or interpreted it wrong...or something....anyways...sorry for jumping all over you on that one.... And while I would agree that the Stonewall riots had nothing DIRECTLY to do with the civil rights movement, there were definately some INDIRECT implications that were caused by the civil rights movement... Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve. George Bernard Shaw
Moderators John317 Posted May 30, 2010 Moderators Posted May 30, 2010 Quote: Neil D: And while I would agree that the Stonewall riots had nothing DIRECTLY to do with the civil rights movement, there were definately some INDIRECT implications that were caused by the civil rights movement... Do you see a difference between the Civil Right Movement and the civil rights struggle? The American Civil Rights Movement was a part of the civil rights struggle, but they weren't one and the same. For one thing, the civil rights struggle took place outside of America and in the US involved people such as Malcolm X, Eldridge Cleaver, Huy P. Newton, and George Jackson, men who certainly did not favor doing things peacefully. They called for violence. See on George Jackson: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Jackson_(Black_Panther) This is also of interest, on Stokely Carmichael: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stokely_Carmichael But I do agree with you that the Stonewall riots were influenced by the entire civil rights struggle of that era. However, notice that they rioted, or used violence, despite the fact that violence was never an action taken by the American Civil Rights Movement or its leadership. In fact, they discouraged it in the strongest terms, because, for one thing, they knew such actions could only do great harm to the Movement and to their cause. If the Movement had gone the way of violence, as some people wanted, it would have been really tragic for both sides because it would have resulted in a blood bath of massive proportions. John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
olger Posted May 31, 2010 Posted May 31, 2010 Originally Posted By: Lazarus niggers why is it okay for a black person to use that word, but nobody else dare use it? A very good question indeed. olger "Please don't feed the drama queens.."
Members abelisle Posted May 31, 2010 Author Members Posted May 31, 2010 I cannot believe that on an Adventist forum open to the public that there are educated Christians with Christlike characters discussing the use of the term "niggers"? It is a term no one should use - blacks nor whites, conservatives nor liberals, educated nor uneducated, Christians nor atheists. If we can use EGW as an example of pure spiritual writing, do you see this term being used by her? It is deprecatory and denigrating language that no one who seeks to emulate Christ's character should use in conversation. Christ did not give his life for use to humiliate our fellow brothers and sisters, whether they be believers or not. And this humiliation extends to name calling that deals with politics also. Jesus would never be guilty of this - at least the Jesus I know. Alex (speaking harshly but trying hard to love my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ) We are our worst enemy - sad but true. http://abelisle.blogspot.com
doug yowell Posted May 31, 2010 Posted May 31, 2010 [The American Civil Rights Movement was a part of the civil rights struggle, but they weren't one and the same. For one thing, the civil rights struggle took place outside of America and in the US involved people such as Malcolm X, Eldridge Cleaver, Huy P. Newton, and George Jackson, men who certainly did not favor doing things peacefully. They called for violence. . H. Rap Brown. Angela Davis, and more. In fact, I'm old enough to remember those days. though I was only 12-16 I watched with great interest the civil rights movement and the Negro leadership which wrestled with those issues. The division was very real and very pronounced within the black community. I remember watching a televised round table discussion which featured almost every prominant civil rights leader. It's been a few years but I still remember many of the participants. Roy Wilkins (anybody remember him?) Stokley Carmichael, Malcolm Ten, and I think that MLK was there too. It was quite a lively exchange. The movement is known as being successful because of the leadership of those who refused violence not because it was not advocated or practiced.
karl Posted May 31, 2010 Posted May 31, 2010 I cannot believe that on an Adventist forum open to the public that there are educated Christians with Christlike characters discussing the use of the term "niggers"? It is a term no one should use - I agree, but if someone is ignorant or prejudiced enough to use the term, he should be pitied, prayed for, and helped, if possible. It is a sorry state to be in. Unfortunately, many black people use the term on each other. I don't think that helps matters.
doug yowell Posted May 31, 2010 Posted May 31, 2010 Originally Posted By: abelisle I cannot believe that on an Adventist forum open to the public that there are educated Christians with Christlike characters discussing the use of the term "niggers"? It is a term no one should use - I agree, but if someone is ignorant or prejudiced enough to use the term, he should be pitied, prayed for, and helped, if possible. It is a sorry state to be in. Unfortunately, many black people use the term on each other. I don't think that helps matters. Here's what I find ironic. The black community goes ballistic if a white person tries to degrade them by using the "N" word,but don't blink an eye if someone calls them "MF". What's the rationale behind that?
Moderators lazarus Posted May 31, 2010 Moderators Posted May 31, 2010 Originally Posted By: Lazarus niggers why is it okay for a black person to use that word, but nobody else dare use it? It's not OK, It's controversial. Black folks don't agree on whether it should be used. You can use it if you like. It depends on the context and the manner in which it is used. Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence. Einstein
Woody Posted May 31, 2010 Posted May 31, 2010 Quote: It's not OK, It's controversial. Black folks don't agree on whether it should be used. You can use it if you like. It depends on the context and the manner in which it is used. Amazing. Just Amazing. I'm with Alex on this one ... trying hard to love my Christian brothers who think this way. But my black side of me is having difficulty. May we be one so that the world may be won. Christian from the cradle to the grave I believe in Hematology.
Moderators lazarus Posted May 31, 2010 Moderators Posted May 31, 2010 A very good question indeed. olger That question brings us back unexpectedly, but very pointedly back to the thread of the topic. White people can't use that word anymore to insult black people. Rightly so. So, they use more subtle phrases couched in humor. So when challenged they can roll back and say it was only a joke. I see it here it here on CA. It's amusing to see who responded so forthrightly to my use of the word (abelisle excepted). They will make snide, snarky remarks tinged with racism but will "trip over furniture" to get to the keyboard and raise strong high-minded objections to the use that word. LOL. Here's a list of the types of ways in which the word might be used. Can you guess which one fits my use? Casual use Threatening use Historical use Elitist/Difference use Ironic Use I'll post more later, I have to step out. This should be interesting!! Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence. Einstein
Woody Posted May 31, 2010 Posted May 31, 2010 Amazing Just Amazing. Your 'rules' would only apply to a black person. Never ... Never would a white person be allowed to use the term. Personally ... I find ANY use of the term to be racist. And no matter WHO is using it. Just my 2 cents worth. May we be one so that the world may be won. Christian from the cradle to the grave I believe in Hematology.
Moderators lazarus Posted May 31, 2010 Moderators Posted May 31, 2010 That question brings us back unexpectedly, but very pointedly back to the thread of the topic. White people can't use that word anymore to insult black people. Rightly so. So, they use more subtle phrases couched in humor. So when challenged they can roll back and say it was only a joke. I see it here it here on CA. It's amusing to see who responded so forthrightly to my use of the word (abelisle excepted). They will make snide, snarky remarks tinged with racism but will "trip over furniture" to get to the keyboard and raise strong high-minded objections to the use that word. LOL. Here's a list of the types of ways in which the word might be used. Can you guess which one fits my use? Casual use Threatening use Historical use Elitist/Difference use Ironic Use I'll post more later, I have to step out. This should be interesting!! BTW, Olger. I now forgive your ancestors for all the times they have used the word. I forgive you if you have ever used it. You now have my permission to use it in an a non-insulting appropriate manner and context. Please be aware, however, that it will carry the risk that you, as a white person,may be misunderstood and attacked physically and/or verbally. In your desire not to have white folks act the fool I hope this helpful. Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence. Einstein
Moderators lazarus Posted May 31, 2010 Moderators Posted May 31, 2010 Amazing Just Amazing. Your 'rules' would only apply to a black person. Never ... Never would a white person be allowed to use the term. Personally ... I find ANY use of the term to be racist. And no matter WHO is using it. Just my 2 cents worth. Allowed? You can post it now. You can say it now. To say you find any use of the term racist is strange. Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence. Einstein
Woody Posted May 31, 2010 Posted May 31, 2010 It should be among one of the many banned words on this forum. It should not be allowed. May we be one so that the world may be won. Christian from the cradle to the grave I believe in Hematology.
Administrators Tom Wetmore Posted May 31, 2010 Administrators Posted May 31, 2010 If one is having a rational and dispasionate discussion of vocabulary used in a certain era, can one successfully avoid using the very words of which you speak? "Absurdity reigns and confusion makes it look good." "Sinless perfection is such a shallow goal." "I love God only as much as the person I love the least." *Forgiveness is always good news. And that is the gospel truth. (And finally, the ideas expressed above are solely my person views and not that of any organization with which I am associated.)
Recommended Posts