en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/756985 Comments by ljl5092 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/how-am-i-not-a-racist__trashed/#IDComment69803833 This really is a tricky topic. As citizens of the US, we sometimes forget just how lucky we are to have the resources and opportunities that we are presented with every day. I know that, myself included, we take for granted so many liberties, rights, and resources. And I think you're right that traveling to a third-world country, or even one that's just not us can really serve as a wakeup call to highlight the inequalities in this world. That being said, I don't think there's anything wrong with acknowledging the fact that an American citizen will probably get further in life than say, someone in Haiti. It really comes back to the King of the Mountain analogy that Sam always uses. We have the resources, we have the opportunities. Be it by luck, by force, or by other factors, it's how to cards have been dealt. By no means do I think this is fair, but nothing ever is. I actually think it's a good thing for you to examine these differences because it really makes you see that the circumstances into which someone is born can have a very strong influence on how far they go in life. But to me, what keeps you from walking onto the racist side of the line is perspective. it's good to realize that because of your opportunities you're more likely to succeed, but make sure you step back and make sure you know that given your resources, someone from a country that isn't as fortunate as ours would have just as great, if not a greater chance of success. The thing to keep in mind is that it's not one's nationality that dictates success. It's the work ethic, combined with available opportunities and resources. It's a sad thing to have to think about, but I'm sure that there are so many brilliant minds out there that have dreams of peace, new inventions and innovations, and new energy ideas that will never get off the ground because they never got the chance. The mind to cure cancer could be somewhere in the middle of Haiti just struggling to survive. It's so crazy to think about, but there's so much potential out there that's never going to come to fruition. So the next time you see someone from a struggling country, think about that. Instead of looking at that person and thinking that there's no chance that they'd ever become anything successful, or that they're poor because they're lazy, open your mind to the global perspective. Consider the possibility that they're more innovative, determined, or driven than you, but the only reason why they're not the one in charge is because of the where they were born. Thu, 22 Apr 2010 19:41:32 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/how-am-i-not-a-racist__trashed/#IDComment69803833 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/want-to-learn-chinese__trashed/#IDComment68283597 Contrary to what I'm seeing a lot of people comment on this blog, I think that learning world languages is a very important part of education. To those who say they took numerous years and learned nothing, maybe you need to step back and look at your situation. Maybe your school didn't have a good language program, or maybe you didn't fully apply yourself because you never thought you'd ever have to actually use it. I took 6 years of French, and by immersing myself in it and actively trying to learn the language, I became nearly fluent. I travelled to France once on a tour and once on an exchange and was able to communicate just fine with the locals both times. And I'm not the only one with a story like this. If you really are interested in learning and put your mind to it, you truly can lean the language. And it goes both ways. My father came to America from Sicily at the age of 17 not knowing a word of our language, but by sheer will, hard work, and determination learned English perfectly and is now one of the most eloquent speakers that I know. So for those who say that learning a language other than your own is useless, what do you say to that? Would it have been better for my father to not bother to learn English? If he hadn't, how would he have pursued his dreams and gotten to where he is today? Sometimes it really is worth the effort to rev up our brains, step out of our complacent mindsets, and actually try something different. So for that reason I really think it's great that schools are starting to push students to learn Chinese. For so long the "big three" languages have been French, Spanish, and German. Of those three, I'd say Spanish is the most pertinent to today's society. But if my school had offered Chinese, I know so many people that would have taken it. I myself being one of them. For those who have responded to this blog by saying that no one should have to learn Chinese because English is the language of the world, I'd like to just ask you to take a step back and acknowledge your own ethnocentrism here. While English is such a major language, what would it hurt, other than your pride, to consider that maybe learning someone else's language could be beneficial? What could it hurt to consider that maybe someone else in the world other than Americans have something significant to bring to the table? I can't even tell you how much it aggravates me when people get so stuck in the idea that "we're Americans so we don't have to change what we do. Everyone else needs to conform to our standards." When are we going to wake up and for once see something bigger than ourselves and our foolish pride? Thu, 15 Apr 2010 22:42:07 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/want-to-learn-chinese__trashed/#IDComment68283597 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/those-damn-dolls__trashed/#IDComment65457417 When Sam warned us that this video was going to be disturbing, I was confused about what he meant. But pretty much as soon as he started the meaning of his worlds completely clicked. Watching the angst that these children underwent during the process of picking dolls deeply troubled me. These are children we're talking about. They aren't adults of the world that have had decades of experience with race relations. They're children. The fact that so early on in their lives they've been ingrained with the thought that black people are "bad" and white people are "good" and "nice" absolutely sickens me to be quite honest. What are we doing to their minds; to their self-esteem? These kids are going to grow up with such poor images of themselves, and such low standards and goals that succeeding and rising above adversities are going to be near impossible for them. Think of how you would feel if from the time you were born everyone around you, the media, advertisements, the school system, and society in general told you that you were bad at math. Every day you were bombarded with the statement that numbers were just not for you. Eventually, even if you didn't want to believe it at first, you would come to think that you were bad at math, and according to the self-fulfilling prophecy, you would never succeed in the subject. That's similar to the message that's being sent to these children. When their young, impressionable minds are swamped with messages that black is bad, what else are they to think? And they don't know any different. And without someone or something to tell them otherwise, who's going to stop the vicious cycle? Their poor self-image as being inadequate, inferior (morally or otherwise), isn't something that's just going to disappear. It's not like one day they're going to wake up, look in the mirror and say "Wow, self, you're beautiful just the way you are. You're important, full of potential, and can do anything you want." Things like that just don't happen. What's more likely is that without some kind of intervention, these children are likely to grow into the stereotypes that are set like traps for them by society. They are bound to fall prey to the ills of society and become the very things they once feared. What really disturbed me the most about the video is that at such a young age, these children already have the mindset once reserved for those maybe triple their age. The kids in the video I'd say are all younger than about 5. At that age, the only worries a child should have are whether to play kick-ball or color with chalk. The issue of race shouldn't even be a question to them, much less should they have to differentiate between "good" and "bad" colors. And the fact that they were able to make such determinations at all is shocking, and extremely saddening. Where has their childhood gone? With no time to just be a kid and not worry about color and race, these children are being catapulted into an adult world much much too soon. Fri, 2 Apr 2010 05:34:45 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/those-damn-dolls__trashed/#IDComment65457417 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/whats-the-big-deal-with-periods__trashed/#IDComment64071238 Unlike a good portion of our class, I was completely unperturbed by Sam's conversation about "bleeding." To me, the fact that people have such an adverse reaction to talking about menstruation in just childish to me at this point. The reactions that some people had (i.e. walking out of class) were ones that I would expect from a classroom full of 7th graders. Not college students. As a female, I personally appreciated Sam's honesty and interest in his wife's monthly struggle. It's so clear that he has so much respect for the burden that she has to deal with. Some women, like his wife, have terrible terrible periods. I myself am one of the lucky ones who doesn't get devastating cramps. I don't dread my period. Sure, it's not my favorite time of the month (I mean who really enjoys it), but at least it's proof that I'm not pregnant. I know that a lot of girls rejoice when they get their periods for that very reason. But I do also understand the plight of those who do have debilitating periods. It really can completely sideline someone for days. So I'm glad that Sam recognizes the significant role that a monthly period plays in a woman's life. To address the term "bleeding," I think it's again juvenile for people to cringe at the reference. Face it. It's the truth. We're all big kids now, and I think we should be able to maturely address and refer to a natural bodily function in terms of what's actually happening. People argue that they don't need the visual that the term presents, but think about when someone says they need to poop. What do you think of? Exactly. You get a visual there, too. It's only weird to people because it's not something we generally talk about. I honestly think that if women weren't constantly told that their periods were gross, or that talking about it was taboo, this really wouldn't be an issue. In my house, the role that the woman plays as child bearer is completely revered. Periods weren't considered gross. They were truly miracles. So I grew up being comfortable with myself and my body. Now, while some girls find it difficult, uncomfortable or even impossible to talk about their period with their boyfriends or friends, I have no problem with it. My boyfriend is completely understanding when I go through my week of grouchy irritability. He understands that sometimes I want to be left alone and other times I want to be pampered. And I'm sure that most girls reading this will agree that finding a partner who's so sympathetic to our monthly issues is pretty rare, but always always appreciated. I think that if guys tried to start seeing periods for what they really are instead of a disgusting function that girls have to deal with, and if girls were taught to respect and love their bodies, we'd finally be able to move forward. Thu, 25 Mar 2010 17:58:05 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/whats-the-big-deal-with-periods__trashed/#IDComment64071238 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/prom-or-no-prom-just-dont-let-the-queer-students-dance-together__trashed/#IDComment63074677 This story really disgusted me. To be honest, I can't really say that I'm surprised though, because going back to what the girl's teacher said "remember where you are." This girl lives in Mississippi, one of the "reddest" states out there. By no means, however, does that justify the actions that are being taken at this school. After all of the LGBT issues we've covered in class, I feel like this article really drove home the ridiculous prejudices that still exist towards people in that community. Two main things bothered me about this story. First, and a little less serious, is the school's restriction on what Ms. McMillen wanted wear: a tuxedo. For anyone who hasn't been to a prom recently/at all, today's prom dresses are little more than nightgowns. The "down to there" necklines, revealing cutouts, and skintight fabrics leave little/nothing to the imagination. So to be quite honest, a state as conservative as Ole Miss should be thrilled that a female student would rather cover up in a suit than show off every inch of her body. I can't think of any restrictions placed on straight students at proms either. Girls are allowed to wear dresses that are short or long, tight or poofy, modest or risqué. Boys aren't even required to wear a tuxedo if they don't want to. Hell, they could wear a zoot suit for all the administrators could care. Couples are even allowed to attend in dresses/tuxes made of DUCT TAPE. Secondly, and the main issue with the actions taken by the school is the blatant prejudice at work here. How is it the job of school administrators to judge whether students' lifestyles are "moral?" How is that any human's job? That's the thing. It's not. But in any case, cancelling a prom because girls want to go together is just ridiculous. At every dance I've ever been to, the way "straight" girls dance with each other is just about as raunchy, if not raunchier, than the way they dance with boys. They act like since they're both girls, they're allowed to dance as slutty as they can and it's okay because they're just "friends." But the way some girls dance with boys is basically vertical sex. They literally mount each other on the dance floor. So if two girls want to go together as a couple, what the hell is the problem? It's not going to be any more sexual than anything high school students have seen before. Just because there's an unmerited stigma that follows LGBT people, it doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to go to dances together. It's just ridiculous. The whole issue is merely a case of a society that refuses to let go of old notions and join in the more accepting views of the modern world. Sat, 20 Mar 2010 00:25:41 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/prom-or-no-prom-just-dont-let-the-queer-students-dance-together__trashed/#IDComment63074677 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/whats-with-the-theme-parties__trashed/#IDComment59492308 While I respect this student's courage to ask her question, I have to say that I really really really disagree with it. I'm only a freshman, but I've been to my share of theme parties, and not ONE of them was thrown with the intention of belittling anyone, let alone black people. Like people before me have said, there are millions of different kinds of theme parties. I've heard of/attended toga parties, Jersey Shore parties, gangster/nerd parties, decade parties, CEOs and corporate hoes, golf pros and tennis hoes, and white-trash parties. Three of the aforementioned themes have racial connotations: Jersey Shore, gangster/nerd, and white-trash parties. The references toward race, however, are not demeaning. it's all in jest. A white person dressing up as a "gangster" or a "thug" is just as goofy as a black person dressing up as the stereotypical white nerd/prep. Where's the problem with that? It's just role reversal if anything. But even if someone chose to be offended at the references, take note that two of the three themes i just mentioned refer to white people, not black people. However, all of the theme parties I just stated have one major thing in common. They are for FUN. It's like an extended Halloween. Is there anything racist about Halloween? I sure don't think so. If anything, these parties are sexist. It's basically an unwritten rule that girls are expected to come as scantily clad as possible to these events. Even though this isn't the issue at hand, I don't really see a problem with it. I'm a girl and I only do what I'm comfortable with. I keep in mind that the parties are just that: parties. They're meant to bring people together to have a good time, so if you're really against the idea, just don't go. But what really irked me about this question was its general basis. I wouldn't consider myself racist by any stretch, but the fact that she played the race card here really bothered me. Not everything is about race, and I feel like people of color often see "racist" issues where there are none. Perhaps the reason that the parties seem to be hosted mostly by white people is because the majority population at this university is white. And not every party is themed. Actually the contrary is true. The majority of parties that I've been to are just a group of people (of all colors) getting together to socialize. I feel like the issue of black and white gets so oversimplified sometimes that any little thing starts a conversation about racism. Like Laurie Mulvey says in her book, we need to trust that we're not always out to get each other. I think we all need to try to leave our "boxes" and try to see the big picture instead of what we choose to see. Wed, 3 Mar 2010 05:22:09 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/whats-with-the-theme-parties__trashed/#IDComment59492308 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/native-americans-question-three__trashed/#IDComment58578245 To tell you the truth, I think people afraid to let themselves feel any real type of way about actions that make them look bad. Granted, out generation did not cause this problem, this injustice, or the general degradation of Native Americans that ensued, but we're not really doing much (if anything) to fix it. I feel like people take the attitude that if they weren't the ones that "broke" it, they shouldn't have to pay to fix it, but ignoring the problem and remaining ignorant to the massive genocide and wrongs that the Native American people have endured is despicable. It is absolutely contrary to the image that America portrays, which really angers me because it is so blatantly hypocritical. America creates this image for itself as the world police, the fixer of the broken, and the savior of the lost and helpless. But are they helping the poor and helpless in their own country? No they aren't, because they were the ones that put them in that situation in the first place. To acknowledge their hypocrisy would taint their image and credibility, and God forbid their reputation be sullied in the pursuit of actual justice. As you can see, I am not one of those who remained ignorant to the severity of the harm caused to the Native American people. Before this week's classes I didn't really know anything about it, but after hearing what Sam had to say, it's absolutely appalling to me that anyone could ignore what happened. From my perspective, there is absolutely no way that anyone should leave a lecture of such powerful points without feeling some notion of "wow, something really is wrong here." As counterarguments, I can see people saying that since they weren't directly the ones to eradicate the Natives they shouldn't have to pay the price for their ancestor's sins. Okay, but if that's the case, like Sam said, you'd also have to relinquish every other asset you ever acquired from someone else, and then where would you be? You'd be as disadvantaged as the Native Americans. Second, people will probably say that after being wronged the Natives resigned and turned instead to drugs, alcohol, and unhealthy addictions. While I do agree that people must be responsible for their own actions, and that no one FORCES people into those lifestyles, with such grim, dismal prospects, it's much easier for them to fall prey to the escapes that drugs and alcohol provide. As most of us are privileged (or at least more privileged than those about whom we're speaking), it's hard to understand their mindset. Without being in such a situation, who are we to judge them? To me, World Savior America needs to do some soul searching and heal the wounds of its own people before it does any more social work on the global stage. Thu, 25 Feb 2010 01:36:52 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/native-americans-question-three__trashed/#IDComment58578245 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/lgbt-class-question-six__trashed/#IDComment57381902 Finally someone else finally asked the question that I've been dying to hear back on. I ask every guy that I know and I always get the same answer: "BECAUSE!" And of course that's not enough of an answer for me, so when I try to ask why, I always get "because they're hot.." as the final, definitive answer. But I still really don't get the infatuation. I asked the question during my discussion group, and I got the closest thing to an understandable answer that I've ever gotten. The answer was this: "Girls love chocolate. So think about combining, let's say milk chocolate and white chocolate. Glorious." Essentially, what he was saying was that having two lesbians together is like having double of your favorite thing. But here's the catch. Think they'd feel that way if the lesbians in question weren't "hot?" Didn't think so. I feel like guys have this misconceived notion that every lesbian is the hot, toned, horny girl they see in pornos or music videos. Not the case. Most of those girls are just actresses doing it for money. The real lesbians that I know are just normal, average looking girls and women. They're not all 33 DDs. They don't all traipse around their apartments in wet t-shirts or lingerie. They're just like everyone else. It's just unrealistic to live in the fantasy world of pin-up girls. Which leads me to the topic of gay men. If i'm being honest, I must admit that I do always do a double-take when I see homosexual couples (male or female). It's not that I'm against it, because I'm not. It just always catches my eye. It's not really something I'm used to. Especially coming from a fairly sheltered, cookie-cutter suburban neighborhood where just about everyone was a rich, white, straight kid, gay and lesbian lifestyles are fairly new to me. But even thought I haven't seen too many homosexual couples, I've seen enough to know that lesbians are far more accepted than gay men. First of all, as mentioned before, the image that many males have of the hot "lipstick lesbians" fuels their acceptance. That base isn't really there for gay men. Secondly, and what I see as a major pitfall to the acceptance of gay men, is that men have the general image of being the macho, man of the household. Not to say that gay men can't be macho, but I think that the general mental picture one draws of a gay man isn't exactly one that depicts him running a household and being "that guy." Again, being honest, I think most people would visualize a colorful, flamboyant guy in tight clothes that has a little lisp and likes to shop. Even though today the gender roles of men and women are changing, males are still seen as having to be the protectors of the family and people just don't see gay men as fitting into that role. Hopefully, over time people will come to realize that gay men and lesbians are just like everyone else. They have varying personalities just like any straight person, and they are capable of fitting the bill of any job or situation. Thu, 18 Feb 2010 02:55:12 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/lgbt-class-question-six__trashed/#IDComment57381902 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/animals-vs-humans-vs-welfare-cheats__trashed/#IDComment56091222 Seriously? Bauer's comments honestly sound like they came straight out a movie script in which he's been cast as the cliche inconsiderate, ignorant, silver-spoon politician. The fact that he had the audacity (and the stupidity) to make such a remark at all, let alone while there is an election at stake, astounds me. Just who does he think he is? And does he realize how incomplete and unrepresentative his blanket statement is? This argument came up in my English class, and I've been stewing over it since then. First of all, making such a comment is dangerous no matter who you are. But from a politician? From someone who is supposed to represent the people and help them lead better lives? It's political suicide! Does he really think that people won't remember what he said just because he apologizes? No they won't. Those on welfare that possibly would have voted for him will certainly not forgive and forget and vote for a man who doesn't even see them as human beings. It truly disgusts me that he thinks that he's so high above people. Which brings me to my next point. Since he was able to make such an ignorant statement about people on welfare, it's pretty safe to assume that he himself was never enrolled in the system. He was probably raised in at least a middle-class home that didn't need welfare to make ends meet. And I'm not saying that he needs to apologize for that. But what kills me is the label he put on people that need welfare. He assumes that they're all slackers who are too lazy to work. That all they want is drugs, sex, and to waste away their days. But the people he fails to acknowledge are the ones who have fallen upon hardship. Who work multiple jobs to try to support an ill loved one, or to send their children to school. What about these people? Are they like stray animals? No. They are just as hardworking, if not more so than Mr. Bauer. As a politician, he should know better than anyone the struggles that these people face, and he should acknowledge their perseverance and determination instead of demeaning and belittling them. It all comes back to the discussion we had today in class. Does our success (or failure) depend on the individual choices we make in life, or on uncontrollable circumstances that are out of our hands? Clearly Mr. Bauer favors the former, which given what we learned today, is typical of a conservative belief system. But along that line, what we also learned is that the intellectual way to look at this is from the center. It is only logical that what becomes of our lives depends partially on what we choose, but also upon our circumstances. Failure to examine both sides of why a person may be on welfare is choosing to ignore half of the issue. Perhaps the next time Andre Bauer decides to make a statement on welfare, he'll do his homework and sound like an educated, level-headed adult. Wed, 10 Feb 2010 00:41:01 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/animals-vs-humans-vs-welfare-cheats__trashed/#IDComment56091222 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/avatar-and-the-white-mans-burden__trashed/#IDComment55283452 I'll admit it. The first few times I saw commercials for Avatar, I wrote it off as some stupid alien/action movie for guys. So, when lo and behold, a few of my guy friends decided to see it in 3d on opening night, I politely declined and thought nothing else of the film. But when I started hearing rave review from my female friends, it dawned on me that maybe I should check it out. So I saw the movie. And I loved it. The special effects were incredible, the native people were beautiful, and I was in awe. I too became one of the people who couldn't stop talking about how awesome Avatar was. But the very next day, I stumbled upon a posting on Facebook that left me feeling a little jaded. Someone had printed out a plot synopsis of Pocahontas and had replaced overlapping themes/character types etc. with elements from Avatar. And then I realized they were basically the same movie, but Avatar cost much much more and took place on a different planet. So I did a little more thinking, and remembered one of my favorite childhood movies: Ferngully. Again coming to the realization that the parallels were uncanny. I figured that other people had already caught on to the same notion as I had, so I checked it out, and found out that just about everyone else agreed. Upon reading Brooks' article, it looks like I was right on with that one. But the "White Messiah" theme wasn't really one I had previously considered. For me, it had more been "white man enters nature with the intent of destroying it, but then realizes he was wrong and changes his ways." I hadn't ever really thought about the fact that more often than not, said white man ends up siding with the native people/beings against his own people. For the most part, I feel like Brooks is pretty on target with his observations. Native people are generally portrayed as non-white, athletic, slender, graceful, and peaceful. Usually the white man sees them as being "savage" to begin with, but learns later that what he thought was "savage" behavior was merely different behavior. When I saw the movie, this is more of like the theme that I took away from it rather than the "white messiah" theme. To me, the fact that a plot that so relates to world situations today resolves in a manner such that the big tough American realizes and admits that his ways are wrong, and then goes out of his way, putting his life on the line, to try to change the ways of the other Americans, is just what our world needs to hear. The situation to me, paralleled with drilling for oil in a pristine natural environment. For the economic benefit of humans, the environment and anything that lives there is to be disregarded. Same thing in Avatar, except instead of oil, the target is "unobtanium." If only the world would take this theme seriously, maybe it could evoke some real change. Thu, 4 Feb 2010 04:57:56 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/avatar-and-the-white-mans-burden__trashed/#IDComment55283452 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/01/the-enlightened-west-knows-best__trashed/#IDComment54253481 This headline popped up on my homepage yesterday, and as soon as I saw it, I was sheerly astounded by how ridiculous it is. If we're being honest, I know next to nothing about Muslim women, their culture, or their religion. But what I do know is that the French government has no place in telling people what they can and cannot wear. First of all, let's look at the argument that some make that by banning burqas, the government is freeing Muslim women from the oppression of men or whoever/whatever they say is imposing the outfit upon the women. The claim (made, I would assume from the all-knowing "enlightened west") is that the women do not want to be covered up, and that it stifles them as a group. From such an out of context view, sure, this may seem logical. But how do the French think they have the voice to speak for these women? Does the French government know how the women feel about their garments? Do the French politicians wear burqas as part of their daily lives? No, they don't. So to me, it's absolutely ridiculous for them to decide that the burqa, which I am coming to learn is a religious symbol, cannot be worn? Secondly, if the shoe were on the other foot, I'm positive that this argument would be WAY different. What if the legislation instead stated that denim could no longer be worn? Or high-heels, or makeup, or business suits? Or any number of things that characterize western culture? While western culture expresses itself through color, and being different and unique, why can't we acknowledge a type of self-expression different than our own? Just because it's not what we do, or what we consider "normal" doesn't mean it's wrong, and it certainly doesn't justify issuing a fine to anyone who thinks differently than we do. Honestly, can you imagine getting a 1000 fine for wearing the PSU staple of uggs, tights, and a north face? Let's be real people. Drop the hypocrisy. Since the western world sees itself as the source of truth and all that is right and logical in the world, I really shouldn't have been so surprised that they would try to "spread their enlightened views" to other parts of the world. But i wish they could see that each part of the world has its own culture, traditions, and customs; and its own fabric to add to many-colored quilt that makes up our world. And the beauty of this world lies in the fact that it is made up of so many different cultures. So by forcing the western traditions and ways of life on others, what do the French hope to accomplish? To make everyone like them? And where would that get us? To me, it would put us all in world of sport jackets, skirt suits, and blue jeans. And tell me, where's the beauty in that? Thu, 28 Jan 2010 21:04:18 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/01/the-enlightened-west-knows-best__trashed/#IDComment54253481 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/01/last-name-begins-with-l__trashed/#IDComment53876855 Laura Tue, 26 Jan 2010 02:17:22 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/01/last-name-begins-with-l__trashed/#IDComment53876855 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/01/clubbing-the-bejesus-out-of-rationality__trashed/#IDComment53462949 To be honest, before I read this article I wouldn't have been able to match Pat Robertson's face with his name. Sure, I've seen the first few minutes of The 700 Club when I forget to turn the TV off and it's late, but I never really thought anything of the show or its host. But now, after reading his explanation of the tragedy in Haiti, I am appalled that our country, which gets so caught up in political correctness and putting forth an image of acceptance and equality, could allow such nonsense to be broadcast nationwide. The outright ignorance of Robertson's statement actually made me catch my breath. It honestly sounds like the rambling of someone who's just not quite all the way 'there.' As a Christian myself, and a Catholic at that, I've heard some ridiculous, ignorant, and counterintuitive things be said. These fanatics give the rest of us level-headed Christians a horrible name. They make us out to be god-obsessed, hateful, and closed-minded, where in fact, most of the Christians I know are quite the opposite. If Robertson is half of the Christian he claims to be, he would know that in times of trouble, our task is to come to the aid of our brothers and sisters in Christ, not to turn against them and accuse them of such fallacies. Perhaps Mr. Robertson is not aware of the many Christians of Haiti who would be cut to the core by his accusations. The Christian religion is based on forgiveness and love, not hate. The image that Robertson portrays of God and religion by making the remarks that he did is one of a punishing, harsh God. Instead, he should portray the fact that throughout the Bible, God forgives those who forsake him. Even when Jesus Christ, the son of God himself was betrayed by his own people, they were forgiven. So even if there was some satanic pact (which is ridiculous), it is rash to say that this disaster, this NATURAL disaster, was an act of a wrathful God. The more I think about his words, the more my emotions change. At first i was shocked, then the shock wore into disbelief that such a ridiculous thing could be said. After that I felt angry that Christians were being misrepresented, but now I feel disgust. Disgust that in a time where other human beings need help, Pat Robertson feels he has the right to look down on them and make judgements. This is a time when man should be helping his fellow man, not when he should draw dividing lines. So many other people in this world have put their differences aside to come to the aid of the Haitians. Who does Pat Robertson think he is that he can speak in such a way? Who is he that he is above the Haitians? Someone needs to let Mr. 700 Club that he needs a major reality check. He is just a man, as are his brothers in Haiti. Fri, 22 Jan 2010 22:15:38 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/01/clubbing-the-bejesus-out-of-rationality__trashed/#IDComment53462949