East Harlem Online Discussion Forums  

Go Back   East Harlem Online Discussion Forums > General > General Discussion
User Name
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 04-09-2002, 07:46 PM
Kirsten Kirsten is offline
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 1
Lightbulb Reparations


This may be very bad, but I initially decided to log on to the site because I usually feel particularly strong ties to people in the Hispanic community. You made a comment in your message. You asked whether or not your grandchildren would have to pay for reparations. Am I wrong or right ...are you a white American? Or could you could be racially mixed.

I am a student, and I am wondering whether you have had the chance to study, extensively, reparations? What is your perception of Blacks in America? Is it your perception that they are lazy, and always trying to get over on the system or what?

I felt very comfortable when I entered the site, but after reading your email. I felt extremely unwelcome. Not because of the facts that you stated, but because of the rhetorical questions that you used to aid the defense of your beliefs.

I am not being syde, I am just wanting more clarification.
Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2002, 10:05 PM
Antonio Rivera Antonio Rivera is offline
Registered User
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Bronx
Posts: 5

Dear Kirsten:
I read your reply to the reparations message by Jose and had some thoughts on it. First I want to say a little bit about myself. I am a middle age male American of Puerto Rican descent. I have a Masters Level degree in Social Work. I am a conservative and am Christian (real though flawd).
What I found most interesting about your response was that it seems to say (correct me if I am wrong) that since I am a X (in my case a American of Puerto Rican Descent) that I should hold y point of view (liberal in this case). I find that point of view disturbing because it does the very thing that me and you would agree we should not do;and which we hate the slave owner and sellers for having done; namely it paints us with the same brush (in slavery times this brush meant that Blacks were inferior and could be had as slaves). We would and should both agree that the brush that labels all the same is no good becuase we are not all the same. We each have different talents and short comings. But I want to be clear, slavery was and is wrong, short and simple. There was no justification for it based on anything!
When you allude or intimate that as a given ethnic group we should hold to a particular point of view you paint me with the same stroke slave owners painted Blacks. I am not comfortable with that. Martin Luther King fought for the equallity of and for Blacks, but when it has happened, it has been refused. For example, Clarence Thomas is Afro-American but was heavily opposed by many in his ethnic group! Why? He was Black (wasn't that what the civil rights movement was about, equal opportunity for Blacks)? But the real issue with those who opposed him was his politics, which is really a separate issue. So I find that those that oppose Judge Thomas are not really asking for equallity for Blacks as much as they want Blacks of a particular political persuasion to be on top. As I said, that is really a different agenda than what Martin Luther King fought and died for.
I dont know if what I am going to say applies to you but I find that those who preach equallity and tolerance the most are the most intolerant of other points of view of all. It is easy to be tolerant of views similar to you, but hardly a test of true tolerance. It is harder to be tolerant of ideas and opinions that are anti-thetical to your point of view. I am not about pushing my point of view down anyones throat, I don't like that and it does not work; so believe me when I say that I don't like forcing my will on others as it pertain to my beliefs. But I am not on the "Tolerance Band Wagaon" either because it tends to supress any opposing view in the name being an "abvious truism." In other words those who posit the tolerance way are not really interested in dialogue or hearing and tolerating another real differing point of view.
I believe in dialogue and in competing ideas. I feel safer when there are people of opposing views scattered about with no one group having control. Why? Because even benevalent despots can turn into monsters; and them who is left to fight them? You have only to look at Mao and Stalin to see a seemingly good idea (that the people share power equally) turn sour and deadly. And I'm sure they thought they were right and doing the right thing. Following "noble" causes is no garauntee that the methods use to establish and maintain them will be as noble. I dont believe that people are intrinsically evil as compared to one another (as compared to a pure and Holy God, relatively speaking, we are evil).
But I dont believe that man is intrinsically good eihter. I think communism is a good idea except that as human beings we are too flawd to carry it out. The same holds true for capitaliam, we can't pull it off perfectly because we are flawd or fallen. We will have to wait until the end times to see perfection, and at that time there will be not tolerance for anything but what is true, right, and Godly. God does not run his Government as a Democracy, He knows what is best and will carry that out (similar to an engeneer knowing how to correct shuddy wiring in a house even if the unknowing owner thinks he knows what is correct).
I will end it here and will wait for your response. I am not sending this to you and some "know it all" with a scolding tongue, but as dialogue between two people with differing views. Would love to hear what you have to say. May or may not agree, but it sure is nice being free. In freedom you can be right or wrong. In essence it is the right to be right or wrong. Tolerence should not mean I must agree, otherwise what are you being tolerant of, but your own point of view staring back at you! Tolerance would imply allowing a diffening point of view to exist, though you don't agree with it; that is tolerance! It could mean that you ague against it agressively in the market place of ideas as you contend to persuad others of the "correctness" of your own point of view. But if it should mean that in the name of "my correctness as I understand it" you should lie down and die (your ideas), then that is not tolerance. That is totalatarianism (excuse my spelling) in the guise of "including all" which is exactly what it Does Not Do!

Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2002, 08:44 PM
Jose's Avatar
Jose Jose is offline
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: East Harlem/El Barrio/Spanish Harlem
Posts: 272
I can't agree with you more. You hit part of the issue dead on the head. Because I am Puerto Rican, does it mean that I have to or am suppose to think a certain way? Ditto all the way.
Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2003, 04:34 PM
Jibaro's Avatar
Jibaro Jibaro is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 58
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:29 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
All Rights Reserved, 2002-2008