From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: Chaney is a racist (and other ramblings) (was re: why...)
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 17:50:59 GMT

In article <93008.142529KRB104@psuvm.psu.edu> <KRB104@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>In article <1993Jan7.205708.344@csus.edu>, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A
>Chaney) says:
>>
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>  OK, I will use the space that you have so graciously given me.   James
>Meredith was as assistant of the infamous Civil Rights Leader (by the way, I
>am being scracastic about that) Jesse Helms.  Jesse Helms was the man who used
>blatantly racist commercials in order to defeat his Black opponent for the
>U.S. Senate back in 1990.  Meredith, on several occasions during the campaign
>advocated several of Jesse's more elaborate, racist ideals.  Exactly what they
>were, I don't recall exactly sitting here at my computer, but if someone knows
>off the top of their head please jump in.  Do you not deny the racist rantings
>of Meredith's former boss?

What was his racist rantings, please? 


>  As far as "Uncle" Clarence Thomas, well this is up to each individual's
>interpretations.  Mine is that he is a racist towards Blacks.  In his role as
>head of the EEOC, he constantly through barriers in the way of Blacks seeking
>equal protection under the law.  On the Supreme Court thus far, he has voted
>for cruel punishment in prison, where a great deal of our brothers are being
>held.  This is a man who claims to have pulled himself up by his own bootstraps
>(I do not wish to downgrade the man's accomplishments, he has accomplished a
>lot), and the only time acknowledges the fact that he is a Black man is when it
>is political expediant to do so ("High tech lynching").  In my eyes, he is a
>racist, along with some other famous people.

No, he opposed Reverse Discrimination. He did not select Blacks and
then order them scratched out. 

And those who end up in prison do so by their own actions and should
not be treated differently for the same crime. If that is racist then
welcome to Oceania, the land of Newspeak. 

In other words, your eyes have a stigmatism problem. 


>>Independent and bitchy are different things. Some women are
>>independent - I like that. (I can't stand a dependent arm-clinger for
>>a girlfriend.) Some women are bitchy - I can't stand that. (So are
>>some men.)
>>
>>Men who shout "bitch" whenever a woman is simply independent and
>>speaking her mind, are punks. But that is not the case with me and I
>>have never called a woman "bitch" on this newsgroup, so it does not
>>apply to me at all. Why did you post this?
>>
>
>    I did not say that you used the word "bitch" (which is why I had it in
>quotes") but you do give the definition of what some men consider a "bitch"
>when you make your attack against Black women.  Nowhere did I say that you
>actually used the word, so don't get so defensive.

This woman was hardly just independent - she was combative and getting
huffy with me and later on it got to my parents and I had to answer to
them, too. THAT is bitchy no matter if the person is a man or a
woman.


>>We have RIGHTS in this country, mister. One of those rights is to DATE
>>AND MARRY WHOEVER WE WANT.
>>
>>And if you or anyone else wants to take that right away or abuse us
>>for using that right, I'll take division any day. Peace without
>>freedom is one option I won't accept, and I'll steamroll anyone who
>>tries to take it away. The danger you speak of is irrelevant to me.
>>
>>Racial purism is plain and simple Naziism, no matter what its color
>>is.
>
>   What the hell are you talking about Naziism here for?  I specifically say
>that I have no problem at all with whom you decide to date, make love to or
>marry, that is totally none of my business.  The reason why I called you a
>"Reverse Watermelon Man" is that you obviously have a dislike for your race,
>or at least for the women who happen to share your race.  We are in America
>where you are supposedly allowed to marry and date whom you wish, and I applaud
>that.  Your problem is that you make generalizations about the entire
>population of Black women.  Don't you see the danger and the incorrectness of
>that?  It is just as bad as when a white person, after watching "New Jack City"
>to come to the conclusion that all but a few Blacks are on crack.  Or as bad as
>every time a "Black view" is needed by the media they head straight for Jesse
>Jackson.  If nothing else, we agree on the fact that there is no one "Black
>view" just like there is not "one Black woman".  Each of our sisters should be
>taken for their own worth and should not be judged on the last sister that
>disrespected you!

Hey, uh, bud, haven't you noticed: generalizations is the rule on this
newsgroup! People do it when responding to me on a wide scale. It
happens so often I have tired of pointing it out. 

Agreed, generalizations are bad, but hey, why can't I do it if it's
being done in, arguably, the majority of the time here?

You've got a heck of a lot of people to answer to you, for the
generalizations they make. 


>>Yeah, right. If people REALLY thought it was none of their business
>>who another black person dated or married, this discussion would not
>>be going on in the first place.
>
>   Wrong!  This discussion, if you carefully read what I wrote, is not about
>who you choose to date, but rather your insistent on the unworthiness of Black
>women as a whole.  There will always be people who are concerned with who
>others date, both Black and white (you mean to tell me that white people have
>said nothing to you or your girlfriend about your situation?  I would find that
>impossible to believe).  This discussion is about your sweeping generalizations
>about the sisters of this country, nothing else.

Ah, I see. This is about my sweeping generalizations. Then perhaps we
can discuss generalizations? Half this newsgroup would be on trial.
But no, this is only about when I do it. Gee, I must re-read the rules
here...

There *are* some whites who would severely dislike my dating her, but
it was a real, real big shock to hear that attitude coming out of the
mouth of a black woman who is supposed to know the evils of that kind
of attitude. And here is a generalization by you: "You mean to tell me
that white people..." Why didn't you say "some"? By just saying "White
people" you are openly as guilty as I am.

My point is again demonstrated. 


>>Good grief.. Clarence Thomas and James Meredith.. RACISTS against
>>blacks? Come on, that has got to be the most paranoid, uneducated,
>>stupid statement that has ever been made on this newsgroup.
>>
>  Paranoid?  Maybe.  Stupid?  Depending on your political beliefs, possible.
>Uneducated?  Sorry buddy.  You know of not what you speak.  Unless you know
>something about me, then you shouldn't make that statment.  As a Black man who
>graduated with honors with degrees in Chemical Engineering, Sociology and is
>trying to finish his graduate degrees, I think uneducated is the wrong
>adjective to describe me and my statement.  You were almost doing fine until
>that statement!

Perhaps misled, illogical, media-corn-fed? 
Maybe that better describes what you said about them. 


>  I still say that you suffer from a classic case of self hate that Dr. Ken
>Clark made famous during the Brown v. Board of Education court case.  If you
>do not know what I speak of, I would advise you to read his work, it may open
>your eyes about what I am talking about.

Self-hate? I liked myself more after I got free of the notion that I
have to be afraid of answering to someone about who I dated. To have
self-hate, you have to be ashamed of yourself - when you're proud of
yourself, self-hate is as possible as hell freezing over. 


  --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
  --Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.5--
  USENET Warlord / IRC Channel Owner / Accounts WorldWide / Home Login!
	      (Whooboy that means LOTSA time for all this?)
                  The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american