HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bd@fluent@dartmouth.EDU (Brice Dowaliby)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: Rage, ranting and race
Date: 12 Nov 92 14:10:27 GMT
Reply-To: bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU
Distribution: usa
Organization: Fluent Inc., Lebanon NH

dem@engin.umich.edu (Darryle E Merlette) writes:

>Of course if you poll individual whites, you'd be hard pressed to find one
>who feels the government does what he/she wants. But if you consider the
>trends, policies, rules, and regulations (written and unwritten) of the
>major institutions, you'd be dealing with the true source of white group
>power. These institutions in many ways have taken on racist lives of their
>own, and its very effective because it shields individual whites from
>taking any blame (it also hinders progress, for replacing obviously racist 
>individuals with apparently non-racist individuals within such institutions 
>doesn't do any good)

Recent polls show that 70% of the people think the country is
on the wrong track.  That sounds like a fundamental
disagreemnt with the way the country is working.

>I know talking about "whites as a group" gets a lot of folks upset, but
>its something I've thought long and hard about: in order to reconcile the
>persistence of racism in society with the widely-heard denunciations of 
>racism from white individuals, eventually you must either believe 1) the 
>vast majority of white individuals are really racist, or 2) there's a 
>collective dynamic of white racism that exists separately from the feelings
>of individual whites. In "days of optimism" I embrace #2, but I admit there
>are often "days of pessimism".

Talking about "whites as a group" doesn't offend me, it just
makes me want to point out that it's as meaningless as talking 
about the feelings of "blacks as a grouip".  Easy to do, but
essentially meaningless.

I think it's a strategic error to talk about "racism" as one giant
monolithic thing.  I suggest it's more helpful to look at individual
results of "racsim" and attack them individually.

A white woman crossing the street to avoid three black males that she
deems threatening is "racism", but it doesn't have the same cause
as the racism of a Jesse Helms ad showing a white worker balling up
a job rejection letter at the same time a voiceover talks about
affirmative action.

The murder rate of ghetto youths is far too high, but it is not
helpful in seeking solutions to say that "racism" is the cause.
Lack of jobs and lack of hope is the reason.  Drugs are the
reason.  "Racism" might be used to describe the lack of interest
that lets this situation arise, but it does nothing to help alleviate
the situation:  in fact it turns people off by offending them or making
them defensive.

Any comments?
-- 
   Brice Dowaliby, Fluent Inc., 10 Cavendish Court, Lebanon, NH  03766
                         bd%fluent@dartmouth.edu        
             I don't speak for them, they don't speak for me
                              DoD # 0698
From: patm@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Pat Murphy)
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 21:45:57 GMT
Subject: Re: AFAM TV characters and Cosby,etc
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american

        

	i haven't had a chance to catch many *new* shows... but i'll
tell ya what-- my favorite program airs (usually) on sunday nights
and it ain't put together by a large family of talented comedians...

that's right!  ROC is for me...  dutton is one fine actor...


peace to all,
pjm.
From: bing@jazz.concert.net (Carter E. Bing)
Subject: Re: Eva Clayton bio
Organization: Center for Communications, MCNC; RTP, NC
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 13:33:03 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.160700.15751@dg-rtp.dg.com> meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers) writes:
>In article <1992Nov10.154649.29316@rock.concert.net> bing@jazz.concert.net (Carter E. Bing) writes:
>[ ... ]
>>	Her being elected "with the help of the
>>rich-white-liberal Handgun Control, Inc" is nothing more than
>>the NRA rhetoric that is common now.
>
>Contributions from Handgun Control Voter Education Fund, 1992:
>        North Carolina
>                NC-1   Clayton, Eva (D)         $1,000.00
>                NC-12  Watt, Melvin Luther (D)  $1,000.00
>
>Primary source:  Federal Election Commission, as of August 12, 1992.
>Secondary source (where I read it -- no, kiddies, you won't see this
>in the New York Times or the N&O):  Guns & Ammo Magazine, Nov. 1992.
>	
		
	Greetings,

	I see you are right a whole $1,000 dollars. Sounds
like they have both been bought and paid for by the
"rich-white-liberal Handgun Control, INc." to me. ONE THOUSAND
DOLLARS can by you an office in North Carolina! This is to
funny for words.     

	One thousand dollars would couldn`t buy you two adds
during the local news on one station in their district. I see that you fail
to list the entire amounts that they spent on their election
bids and you also failed to list the total contributions from
other groups. It takes more than a slice to make a pie....

	  

			Carter

	

	
--
"Why, have you never noticed that opinion without knowledge is
always a shabby sort of thing? At the best is blind. One who
holds true a belief without intelligence is just like a blind
man who happens to take the right road, isn`t he?"  Socrates
From: barnhart@ddsw1.mcs.com (Mr. Aaron Barnhart)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: BLACK ATHEISM
Date: 7 Nov 92 02:27:41 GMT
Article-I.D.: ddsw1.BxBqu5.Dn5
Organization: Evanston, Illinois, U.S.A.

Munch on this, Steve Allen Jr.:

	What is required now, in other words, is neither warmed-over
	Marxism, vulgar anti-Marxism, nor superficial post-Marxism.
	Rather we need a new social emancipatory vision that takes
	seriously Marxism, feminism, Garveyism, ecologism, and
	antimilitarism.  There are some of us who still believe --
	and I think Harrington would agree -- that the Christian
	gospel provides invaluable resources for such a vision.  Yet
	unlike Harrington, some of us also believe that such a 
	vision would remain a *religious* vision and retain
	*Christian* spirituality.

	-- Cornel West [eulogizing Michael Harrington]

Aaron
From: 3ZASIB3@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: Detroit's Rodney King Incident
Date: 10 Nov 92 14:42:45 GMT
 <1992Nov10.021234.1297@u.washington.edu>
Organization: Central Michigan University

I would be surprised if two of these officers (aka "Starsky and Hutch")
will probably do some time.  There were 7 officers suspended, including
the black sargent who did not stop the beating.  the other officers were
white.  Starsky (Nevers) and Hutch (Budzyn) had been members of STRESS.
STRESS (Stop The Robberies Enjoy Safe Streets) was a unit which became
a brutal outlaw group within the department.  Coleman Young was elected
mayor on the promise he would disband the unit.  He did.  These two
African American head knockers were a part of that mentality.  Nevers
was a few months away from retirement.  Deservedly he won't won't get
his pension but more importantly he won't need it in the slammer.
Nevers has been involved in other fatalities.
    While they are not all fatalities, police behavior in Detroit is
so bad that one of the major budget items is settlement of suits against
the police.  That's with Coleman in office.  Can you imagine what the
situation would be with someone else as mayor.  The occupying army is
still with us and their job is to keep black people in their place.  This
latest situation is simply the modern form of lynching.  Malice Green's
death may be attributed to his not saying "yassuh boss, mister white man."
    I will be interesting, though not likely, to see if this trial gets
shipped to outstate Michigan rather than Detroit or the Metropolitan area.
I don't think the politics of Michigan would allow for that to happen.
I think some police will do time for this killing.
                            Robert Newby
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
From: gds@york.cs.ucla.edu (Greg Skinner)
Subject: single blacks
Originator: gds@york.cs.ucla.edu
Reply-To: gds@cs.ucla.edu (Greg Skinner)
Organization: in your face!
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 20:50:53 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.005334.6961@osf.org> kenny@osf.org (Kenneth Crudup) writes:
>True, but quick- how many brothas out there *not* run into this? It
>must be some state law in Mass that unmarried (now, or ever) sisters
>have to have at least one child. Everybody's got kids. Hell, I'll take
>a smoker over a parent anyday.

You're entitled to date whoever you want, but that's no reason to
criticize other people (women in this case) for their circumstances.
Some of them were abandoned by the fathers of these children, some of
their husbands/boyfriends/lovers died, etc.

I also don't see how this is relevant to the original point, raised by
Ronald Davis, that (paraphrased) it's heavy women, or women who have
kids (and no husband) who are criticizing black men for dating
non-black women.  That matter aside, if you're going to criticize
them, do so on the basis of their arguments, and not on their weight
or how many kids they have.

>>Comments like this justify black women calling black men dogs, etc.
>...and how does this "justify"? Perchance you meant "Comments like
>this cause Black women to *retaliate* by calling us dogs, etc."

Basically, that's what I meant.  Although, when I've discussed this
with other black women they claim they are justified in calling
brothers dogs because they make statements like the Atomic Dog and
Ronald Davis did.

--gregbo
From: HF.GTD@forsythe.stanford.edu (Gabrielle Daniels)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: Children/Larger Women (was Re: IR Dating (The Atomic Dog Speaks))
Date: 12 Nov 1992 17:19:13 -0800
Organization: Stanford University
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: morrow.stanford.edu

In article <1992Nov12.225927.24920@uts.cc.wayne.edu>,
delledg@uts.cc.wayne.edu (DeVaughn Elledge) writes in response to
Keith Smith's:
>
>>>>        3) the child knows that you are not their father, and feels that they
>>>>           don't have to mind you when you catch them doing something that
>>>>           they hadn't oughta'.
>>>>           --- this can be especially irritating if you are damn-near
>>>>               supporting the tyke.... what his _father_ _should_ be doing.
>>>>           --- besides that, the child is _always right_ in momma's eyes,
>>>>               because whether you stay or leave, the child will be there.
>>>.
>>>.
>                I agree with part of this. Children know what and with whom
>                they can get away with things. You best believe when you open
>                your mouth to say "don't do this or that" the 1st word that
>                comes out their mouth's: "You aren't my father".
.
.
Sorry, but when I was coming up, I lived with my grandparents and
mother.  My mother went out and regularly; she had her church stuff,
her Y stuff and everybody else's sorority, but no one came around
and slept over unless they had a ring, a preacher and a plan.

>>>>
>>Speaking of looks, and speaking as a man who has dated a few big
>>(200 or so lbs.) women, and a few small ones, and a few medium-sized ones.
>>I would like to say that, given my "druthers", and all other things being
>>equal, that I prefer a woman tho is at or near her own personal "fightin'
>>weight".  I say this for the following reasons:
>>
>>        1) I fully appreciate the fact that "looks aren't everything",
>>           but I would just-as-soon be with a woman that I could make
>>           love to with the lights _on_.
>>           --- and I have not come across many really-big women who
>>               meet that description
>
>        No comment on your preferences, but I was lucky enough to find
>someone about that weight who has an extremly sexy body. Trust me, I knew
>she wasn't 150 but I could believe by looking at her that she was much
>heavier.
.
.
Go for it, DeVaughn.
From: kautaj@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (kauta)
Subject: Re: Rage, ranting and race
Organization: Indiana University, Department of Mathematics.
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 16:29:38 GMT

In article <2359@usna.NAVY.MIL> wdw@math2.sma.usna.navy.MIL (Wm. Douglas Withers -- math  FACULTY <wdw@sma.usna.navy.mil>) writes:
>In article <3a4sTB3w165w@netlink.cts.com> galan@netlink.cts.com (Greg Gross) writes:

>>What makes you assume that we as a group have no interest in what is 
>>happening in Somalia or Haiti?  Do not mistake a sense of powerlessness 
>>for a lack of concern.
>>
>A very good point.  Now, a sincere question here:  What makes some people
>assume that whites as a group have no interest in what is happening to
>blacks in the inner city or elsewhere?  Do not mistake a sense of
>powerlessness for a lack of concern.
>-- 

What makes *you* assume that whites as a _group_ are powerless?? Are you 
really in the military??

J.K.



-- 
Internet: kautaj@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
Bitnet:   kautaj@iubacs.bitnet         
Uucp:     kautaj@iubacs.uucp           
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: A Comment on A Local Talk Show
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 12:58:38 GMT


In article <1992Nov9.145133.5132@rock.concert.net>, 
bing@jazz.concert.net (Carter E. Bing) said:

> I intend to write a letter to the management of the station and the
> FCC concerning this incident.  I think that this also points to a
> larger problem that is taking place in this country when talk show
> host are allowed to play to the fears of their listeners in order to
> do well in the ratings.  I would think that somewhere in this
> process that these people should be held responsible for the actions
> of those people who fears they play to.  Often times these fears are
> based in racist stereotypes that are completely unfounded.  I have
> no problem with political differences being expressed but not to the
> point where it may result in violence.

Sounds to me as though you're advocating the censorship of the
expression of ideas and beliefs.  Not good.

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american,triangle.politics,talk.politics.misc,soc.women,talk.rape
From: lovegod@wam.umd.edu (Donald Andrew Agarrat)
Subject: Re: RE: Spike Lee
Organization: Workstations at Maryland, University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 13:59:33 GMT

In article <DuPsTB1w163w@peewee> peewee@infoserv.com (Philip  
Stromer) writes:
} There is no law, anywhere, that says it's okay to discriminate 
} against someone because he's a homosexual.  Except in the 
} armed forces.

You dummy!  What the hell do you think Amendment 2 is in  
Colorado?  An Ice Cream Party for Gays?

Donald
From: lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: Malik Shabazz, Islam and Anti-Semitism (Re: Cultural leaders, cu
Date: 5 Nov 92 03:54:14 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <1992Nov4.171110.11693@cs.brown.edu> dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren) writes:

>Ayman Fadel writes:

>#Will you provide some evidence of the "Islamic world's hatred 
>#of Jews in general?"

>Here are some quotes. To be on the fair side, they are from some
>time ago (most were made before the `67 war). As for today, most
>Muslim states don't advocate (at least formally) this kind of
>anti-Jewish drivel, but there still is a definite anti-Jewish
>trend in the Arab world, both against the few Jews remaining there
>and in general. Witness the pressure Arab firms are putting on
>firms dealing with them to hire less Jewish employees, or the
>disgusting manner in which Saudi-Arabia behaved towards US
>Jewish soldiers in the Gulf war. There are other examples.

	[lots of anti-semitic drivel deleted]

All the quotes you cited are disgusting enough, but what it
particularly Islamic about them.  They don't sound so much worse than
anti-Japanese rhetoric in the US during WWII.

All of these states were at war with Israel, which defined itself as
the homeland of the Jews.  Thus, Jews were the enemy (as Syrians were
the enemy of Israel), and the military propoganda was aimed at Jews.
This had nothing to do with Islam, and everything to do with jingoism
of a more universal type.

-- 
larry kolodney:(lkk@panix.com) 
_(*#&)#*&%)@(*^%_!*&%^!)*&#+!*&$+!?&%+!*&^_)*&#%)*&^%#+&
The past is not dead, it's not even past.   - Wm. Faulkner
From: peewee@infoserv.com (Philip Stromer)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: Homosexuality
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 13:03:03 PST
Distribution: world
Organization: Friends of Lenny Bruce

	>So tell me, when I mention my boyfriend or parnter in conversation, 
	>just as casually as a straight man might mention his wife, am I 
	>talking about sex or am I talking about a relationship that is 
	>important in my life? When straight people stop, I will stop.

You're talking about sex, because that's the only thing important to gay
people.  It's WRONG to be gay, you're not born that way, and you'll get
AIDS if you don't stop, and real soon.  It's no coincidence that everyone
that gets AIDS is gay.  Magic is bi (same thing as gay), and I'll make a
prediction right here: Dick Sargent will die soon, not from cancer, as he
claims to have, but from AIDS.  You heard it here first.

If a NAMBLA member talks about NAMBLA, is he talking about the act or about
a relationship in his life?

	>You could just as easily tell me I'd be well-advised to turn white, 
	
Michael Jackson turned white, and it hasn't helped him much.  :)

People are BORN black.  People are not BORN gay.  Your parents were normal,
and so should you be.  It's a false analogy to equate being gay with being
black.  You're gonna get AIDS if you don't straighten up and fly right.
Don't blame me when it happens.  But I respect your rights as an individual
to do as you please.  I don't advocate harm or violence toward your or your
group.

	>"Black men loving black men is THE revolutionary act!"
	>-Joseph Beam_

Is he the guy that produced that EXTREMELY DISGUSTING PBS show called
"Tongues Untied"?  He should be shot for that GROSS waste of taxpayers'
money.

--Philip Stromer (peewee@infoserv.com)
From: ronaldd@cbnewse.cb.att.com (ronald.h.davis)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
Subject: say what?! [was: Re: "Nigger" DIs and "Nigger" Dat]
Date: 10 Nov 92 15:58:37 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbnewse.1992Nov10.155837.6417
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T

In article <1689AFBF6.GRIIVEA@YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu> GRIIVEA@YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu writes:
>How sad;
>Ronald viewed the public exchange between Aaron and myself
>through the occluded lens of victim ideology and so mistakenly projected
>his own discomfort with the word "nigger" onto Aaron. That's why Ronald
>was convinced that only a "MORON" could think Aaron's misquote was the
>result of a mental lapse, rather than a genteel moral reticence.
> 
>How sad;
>Aaron congradulates himself for having so throughly
>repressed the hated signified that he routinely represses the signifier.
> 
>How sad;
>Ronald felt that his ideological squeamishness about what he
>believes to be a pejorative group lable, licensed his use of a
>pejorative personal lable.
> 
>     What makes all of this particularly ironic is that the special
>brilliance of B(lazing) S(addles) is it's brutal
>subversion/deconstruction of streotypes through naive restatement and
>repetition.  Just repeat after me: she's a nigger, he's a nigger,
>
oh?  you're not a moron?  i apologize for the error...

tell me non-moron, how long did it take you to come up with this
crap?  this stuff is way too esoteric for my meager intellect to
comprehend...

>	[hopelessly pedantic twaddle mercifully deleted]
> 
>                                       Iverson


-- 
  __  ______  __  / __/ |       at&t bell laboratories, naperville il, usa
_/ (_(_) / (_(_/_/_(_/  .       ronald@iexist.att.com / att!iexist!ronald
"if you ain't the lead dog, the scenery never changes" -- edmund wilson
Xref: sparky soc.culture.african.american:10981 talk.politics.misc:59717 triangle.politics:134
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american,talk.politics.misc,triangle.politics
Subject: Re: Release from the Clinton Camp
Date: 12 Nov 92 08:48:47 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <1992Nov10.172358.12239@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.235237.22175@rock.concert.net> barber@jazz.concert.net (Scott Barber) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct22.143719.5031@dg-rtp.dg.com> crosmun@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun) writes:

>>What it takes is to 
>>>ignore the fact that the Constitution expressly prohibits the government
>>>from infringing the right to bear arms, 

>>I'm not aware that the Brady Bill infringes on anyone's right to
>>bear arms, does it?  Please correct me if I'm wrong.  I thought it
>>was a measure to require a waiting period before purchase.
>>Personally, it seems to me to be moderately useless, but I don't see
>>how it is an infringement of the right to bear arms.  

>Well, I guess it is no more an infringement on the right to bear arms
>than a waiting period before printing anything would be an
>infringement of the right to free speech.

I wish you people would get the (IMHO silly) analogy correct.  The Brady
Bill doesn't require a waiting period before *using* a gun.  It requires
a waiting period before *buying* a gun.

Thus, a waiting period on purchasing a printing press would be the
appropriate analogy.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
niepornt@phoenix.    |------------------------------------ 
   princeton.edu     | "I still believe in a place called Hope."
Clinton/Gore '92.  Don't stop thinking about tomorrow.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american