HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bc205cs@opie.bgsu.edu
Subject: Re: Mr. Moore
Organization: Bowling Green State University
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 17:17:37 GMT

Point well taken!!!!!!
Xref: sparky soc.culture.african.american:9842 misc.headlines:6576
From: lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american,misc.headlines
Subject: Re: All The More Reason To End Welfare
Date: 10 Oct 92 22:44:54 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <1992Oct9.130209.23074@rock.concert.net> bing@jazz.concert.net (Carter E. Bing) writes:

>    
>MORE WHITES BENEFIT FROM AID:
>   Whites use government safety-net programs more than blacks or 
>Hispanics and are twice as likely as minorities to be lifted out 
>of poverty by help they get, says the Center on Budget and Policy 
>Priorities. The Washington, D.C., think tank, in a report out 
>Friday, says that in 1991 government aid lifted 45% of poor whites 
>out of poverty, compared to just 20% of blacks.


This statistic is very confusing.  DOes this mean that, after
receiving government aid, the whites had an income above the poverty
line?  If so, that would just mean they started from a higher level in
the first place, not that they received more aid.

>    
>POOR MORE LIKELY TO BE WHITE:
>   Half of the USA's 35.7 million poor people are white, 29% of 
>the poor are black, 18% are Hispanic, says a report out Friday. 
>Even in urban areas, there are four poor whites for every three 
>poor blacks and every two poor Hispanics, says the Center on 
>Budget and Policy Priorities. However, a larger percentage of 
>minorities are poor - 32.7% of blacks, 28.7% of Hispanics, 9.4% of 
>whites.
>    

This statistic is misleading since blacks are only about 12% of the
population.  Thus, the representation of blacks among the poor is more
than twice their represenation in the population at large.

To put it another way, if you choose a random black person out of the
population, they are more than twice as likely to be poor than a
randomly chosen American.

-- 
larry kolodney:(lkk@panix.com) 
_(*#&)#*&%)@(*^%_!*&%^!)*&#+!*&$+!?&%+!*&^_)*&#%)*&^%#+&
The past is not dead, it's not even past.   - Wm. Faulkner
From: wdw@math2.sma.usna.navy.MIL (Wm. Douglas Withers -- math  FACULTY <wdw@sma.usna.navy.mil>)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: Human Unity
Date: 16 Oct 92 17:17:25 GMT
Organization: U.S. Naval Academy

In article <1992Oct16.135857.19262@wam.umd.edu> lovegod@wam.umd.edu (Donald Andrew Agarrat) writes:

>Yeah, it was originally the White man's name for me that he used to shout at me  
>boastingly and with intimidation.

Fascinating.  When was the last time anyone shouted this at you `boastingly
and with intimidation'?

>Now, I'll call myself nigger, or my friends,  
>(I used to have reservations about this; obviously now I don't), simply because  
>I want Whites to hear it and remind them of its origins as it puts that fear  
>into their hearts.  They KNOW that word can't be uttered from THEIR lips when  
>I'M in their presence!  I know they want to say it SO BAD.

Gee, if I were you I would try to associate with a better group of people.



-- 
Els Withers                   email: wdw@math2.sma.usna.navy.mil
Department of Mathematics     phone: (410)267-3192 / fax: (410)267-4883
United States Naval Academy
Annapolis, MD  21402-5002     Senri no tabi mo ippo yori...
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
From: aburt@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu (Andrew Burt)
Subject: Re: peculiar language
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 14:41:12 GMT

Well, so far nobody has stood up and said the newspaper SHOULD have said,
"Black named to high court", so I will proceed with my original intent,
which is to rebuke the paper for make a point out of something irrelevant
and suggest to them they make it their official policy not to mention
irrelevant facts.  (And try to enlist their aid in communicating this
policy to the rest of "the media".)

I suppose to some this sounds like a "Politically Correct" thing, but it's
not.  I would call this a "Factually Relevant" thing:  (a) stick to the facts
*and* (b) omit irrelevant facts.

For the good of humanity, I suggest others who agree with my articles do
likewise and contact their local media.
-- 

Andrew Burt 		   					  aburt@du.edu

      "And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped"
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
From: jumper@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (Michael Lanham)
Subject: Re: Buffalo Soldiers Monument Unvieled at Pentagon
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: soc
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 15:05:03 GMT

kautaj@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (kauta) writes:

>The "Buffalo Soldiers" were mass murderers and not a little reactionary. 
>Supporting them just coz they were blak troops does not hold any water.
>Your posting reminds me of this quote from the newsgroup 
>misc.activism.progressive:

Though the 9th and 10th Cavalry Regiments may have been involved in a
massacre, I am not aware of it.  Names, places, dates please?  If you are
talking the US Army in general in the "Old West" there is plenty to support
that view, and to argue against it.

How about celebrating the achievments and finally giving recognition were
there has been virtually nil for the last 200 years?  The 9th and 10th saved
Teddy Roosevelt's ass on San Juan Hill--look who got and took the credit.
They also fought with honor and distinction in other actions during the
Spanish American War.

>   "To derail concern over whether you should _support_their_policy_,
>the PR system focuses attention on whether you _support_our_troops_ --
>meaningless words, as empty as the question of whether you support the
>people of Iowa.
>   "That of course, is just the point: to reduce the population to
>gibbering idiots, mouthing empty phrases and patriotic slogans, waving
>ribbons, watching gladiatorial contests and the models designed for
>them by the PR industry, but, crucially, not thinking or acting.

Mr Chomsky's statement seems to imply that those who not only "support the
troops" but also support the policy are "gibbering idiots."  You and he seem
to be saying that anyone who supports the policy and the troops is
stupid/ignorant/manipulated/substitute-your-word-for-dupe-here and refuses to
acknoledge that intelligence may be behind our actions as well as yours.

I think and act more than Chomsky or other self-styled pundits give me credit
for.  And I am willing to bet so do the rest of people in this country.
Quotes like the above seem to imply that most people are simply idiots in the
first place and cannot see bull**** as what it is; only pundits like CHomsky
and compnay can and it is their divine duty to "enlighten" us.

He who will not reason, is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool;
and he who dares not is a slave.      --- Sir William Drummond

Michael Lanham       mjlanham@eos.ncsu.edu   &  jumper@catt.ncsu.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
From: spiff@bert.eecs.uic.edu (Jason Leigh)
Subject: Re: Interracial Dating
Organization: University of Illinois, Chicago
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 04:04:28 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.014145.2522@athena.mit.edu> femibyte@athena.mit.edu (Olufemi G Anthony) writes:
>
>No I don't. In fact I believe that a most of the black male -
>white female relationships today come about largely due to curiousity or some
>psychological factor - black males feel a sense of powerlessness/sense
>of inferiority and feel that getting a white woman will somehow make up
>for that. Most white females go with black men because of the stereotype
>that we black men are somehow more sexually potent. Remember that during
>the days of slavery and Jim Crow, these were the two groups on the
>opposite side of the racial divide that were absolutely forbidden to
>have sexual relations (black women were raped often by the white
>slavemasters). That's where the curiousity part comes in. Personally I
>am against interracial dating for the following reasons. Another reason

I think we have to be careful here. When you say you are against
interracial dating for the above reasons your examples site only
dating between black and white. That is not enough to justify being
against interracial dating in general.  How does dating between a
black and an asian or a black and a latino, figure into your equation?
You can no longer apply theories of master/slave mentality nor,
reasons of Jim Crow laws to these cases any more.  I am curious to
hear of what your reasons are for the existence of these other forms
of interracial relationships and the reasons why these should not exist
either.

While I respect and honor your opinions and preferences I think you
should be more accurate in your definition of interracial relationships.

Jason Leigh


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------  ___
| The opinions expressed above are necessarily those of | \\     \\  | \\
| the Electronic Visualization Laboratory, NAAAT!       |  \\---  \\ |  \\
| Send Replies to: spiff@bert.eecs.uic.edu (Jason Leigh)|   \\____ \\|   \\____
From: ph111-bx@violet.berkeley.edu (;;;;7202)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: peculiar language
Date: 9 Oct 1992 21:44:22 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: violet.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Oct9.135120.18456@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
aburt@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu (Andrew Burt) writes:
>In my original post I made three objections to the usage,
>this [the word "black"] was only one
>of them.  Nonetheless, I still object to it on this basis.  Yes, I know it
>has *become* a synonym for that; but I'm saying that it is harmful for it
>to be a synonym.  I'm arguing that since in FACT it alludes to nothing more
>than skin color (which is why it became the synonum), it should be used
>only when skin color is a relevant fact.

Just because the origins of the word "black", when used to refer to people of
African ancestry, have to do with skin color, does not at all mean that's
all the word alludes to today.  *You* may only think of skin color when
you hear the word, but when I identify myself as black I also call up an
entire cultural heritage that goes way beyond the darkness of my skin.
If skin color is all you can think of when you hear the word, then your
understanding of black people is deficient.

>I object to using Latino based on my other two objections -- we should not
>isolate people when talking about them.  If it had said, "Latino named to
>high court" -- it would still be obnoxious.  I don't *care* if the judge is
>Latino, Black, Left-Handed, Size 10 shoe, etc.  It *shouldn't* be an issue,
>but it always will be as long as we keep using the words this way.

It was reported in the newspaper that way because the unusualness of the
occurance made it newsworthy.  If in the past people with size 10 shoes
had been systematically prevented from attaining such a position and today
the situation had changed such that a size 10 was allowed to become a judge,
then it would be just as newsworthy.  However, our country does not have a
history of discriminating against size 10's as it does people of African
ancestry, so the analogy doesn't work.  Yes, your ethnic group shouldn't
matter, and in a perfect world it wouldn't, but this world is far from
perfect, and the history, memory, and *continuing existance* of racism
makes a new judge's nonwhite race worth reporting.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
From: dc4l+@andrew.cmu.edu (Dean Calloway)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: Interracial Dating
Date: 12 Oct 92 17:49:43 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.ceqWgrS00iV347BFxN
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Excerpts from netnews.soc.culture.african.american: 12-Oct-92 Re:
Interracial Dating by Lloyd T Jones@moose.cs.i 
> think Whites were the only ones to practice it.  In fact, it was
mostly Blacks
>  in
> Africa that sold other Blacks into slavery.  Should we hate those
tribes, if w
> e
> can find out who they were?

Silly and abviously ignoring history.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
From: djr48312@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (X X)
Subject: Re: Are there Any "Good white Folk"?***
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 05:18:20 GMT

I've pondered over the same statements you've said so many times myself.
But who has the power man?  Who's going to have the power in years to 
come?  Man we were used as their slaves, to build this nation , but we
can't cry..  we have to play the game with them.  Like the Jews we must
grow strong and be able to fend for ourselves.  Otherwise out words can
echo off of them, while they laugh realizing their strength on this 
planet.  What to do?  Well as long as we live up under another culture
I don't know how far we can go.  It seems that we remain dependent on
him...  And when its time for his brothers or us to starve who do
you think is going to starve my brother?  We don't even have a militia
of our own, we rely on them to serve and protect us...  They end up
SERVING us a whole lot more than protecting us.  Can't you see it?  He is
strong , we are weak.  He don't give a fuck...  Bush got a fuckin war going
on in his own country were tens of thousands of black men died last year.
Count over a 7 year period like vietnam and you can double what they lost
there.  ANd they complained..  A whole lot of wasted american lives.  Cant
you see it?  He don't care about you, me or any of us.  And don't expect
him to respect us either.  We don't have no power.  Well Im sure im going
to get Flamed up the back pipe so Im going to brace myself.  But people
listen to what Ive said.  We don't have chit.  And Garvey was right.
They did say "Ok we'll let them outta slavery...  But in a 100 or 200 years
there won't be a black soul in this nation"  Hell were on the path too...
Not only in america.
From: tuff@ellis.uchicago.edu (Geoff Tuffli)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: Interracial Dating
Date: 16 Oct 92 18:50:07 GMT
Article-I.D.: midway.1992Oct16.185007.19424
Reply-To: tuff@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Oct16.163022.2890@athena.mit.edu> femibyte@athena.mit.edu (Olufemi G Anthony) writes:
>
>I guess the Native Americans were all *idealists* and see how they got
>f*cked over. Trying to be idealistic in a world that is harsh and real
>is a recipe for suicide. I will not be colorblind in a world where most
>people are not colorblind. I would be a fool to do so. Dreaming about
>civil-rights, full equality,etc seems to be just that in America,dreams.
>They do not
>translate into substance. I say that we black people stop dreaming, get
>off our asses, and try to do something for ourselves, instead of
>trying to make everyone (including ourselves) non-bigoted; that's the
>only way we can gain respect in this country, : as people having
>economic clout, not as pipe-dreamers.
>
>Nuff said,
>
>Femi.

I apparently didn't express myself clearly enough. I never said the world
wasn't harsh, and unfair. And it is certainly true that being naively
idealistic will get one, as you so eloquently put it, "f*cked over". However,
there is a world of difference between being naively idealistic and being
realistically idealistic.

The problems of racial discord and the like in this country and in the world
in general will certainly not be entirely cured by nothing more than idealism;
but that is never what I intended for people to think I was trying to say.
Idealism is a way to identify or create a goal, a final port, so to speak. It
says nothing about methods.

Your comments about "...try to do something for ourselves..." is a case in
point. I agree completely - that is a METHOD. Being non-bigoted, or finding
ways of making the world as a whole more non-bigoted is the GOAL. What I
am so vehemently opposed to is the choosing of goals such as "black people
are all genetically inferior, and thus should be slaves" or "white people
are all oppressive racists, and thus let's all get back at them any way we
can".

I hope I've cleared up what apparently was a rather severe misconception that
my words put across.

	Geoff Tuffli
From: heath@athena.cs.uga.edu (Terrance Heath)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: LOVEgod
Date: 14 Oct 92 02:06:08 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens


     Lord, Lord, Lord. I leave the net for day and everything gets out
of hand. 
     My brothers, its not about race, its about love. If you can't
love your own people you cant love yourself, and that is SAD. However,
loving your own people to the extent of excluding others from that
love is equally SAD. Under those terms, I'm not sure it should even be
called love. 
     I love black men. I love white men. I love hispanic men. I love
asian men. I love jewish men. I love arab men. I love european men. I
love american men. I love tall men.  I love short men. I love white
men. 
     Guess what? I love men and I don't care what color they are.
     Like I said in an earlier post, if I limited myself to dating
only men of my race I'd be spending a lot of time in front of the
television, at home, ALONE.  I just don't think that's what life has
in store for me, and the number of OUT BLACK GAY MEN around here can
be counted in two hands (with fingers to spare). So when I get a
chance to date someone I like, I don't ask about his race first. I
don't care.
     Admittedly, it took a long time to get to this point. I used to
be immersed in vanilla and hypnotized by all its differences. Then I
saw what that meant about the way I saw my own beauty and those of my
brothers. I've changed, inside. I would welcome a healthy, loving
relationship with another black man. It would probably do me some
good. However I'm not going to send a good thing away if it comes
along, just because it happens to come in a different colored wrapper.
Now I'm amazed by the number of beautiful black men I never noticed
before. Hell, I'm amazed by the number of beautiful PEOPLE I never saw
before.
     This whole interracial dating thread is getting tired and
shallow, but I suppose its worth it if it opens an eye or two.

-- 
"Black men loving black men is THE revolutionary act!"
			-Joseph Beam_
Terrance Heath 
heath@athena.cs.uga.edu
From: kevinc@sequent.com (Kevin Closson)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: Rating brothers and white guys
Date: 16 Oct 92 15:41:45 GMT
Article-I.D.: sequent.1992Oct16.154145.26819
Distribution: usa
Organization: .

In article <1992Oct15.224627.10337@morrow.stanford.edu> HF.GTD@forsythe.stanford.edu (Gabrielle Daniels) writes:

> Lets demystify this Mandingo mess right now and check out what black 
sexual power actually means for us.

     Be my guest.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
From: bc205cs@opie.bgsu.edu
Subject: D Calloway
Organization: Bowling Green State University
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 23:18:32 GMT

I agree totally. I was just giving reasons, BASED ON MY EXPERIENCES, on why I  
(with great emphasis on I), don't date interracially.  This is a discusion,
sooner or later discussions get out of hand, especiallly when there is a
disagreement. That's not a cut down.  
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
From: djh4535@zeus.tamu.edu (HARRIS, DUANE J)
Subject: Re: David: Interracial Dating
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 01:40:00 GMT

In article <vamcnair.921014151634@lab5.eng.auburn.edu>, vamcnair@eng.auburn.edu (Valerie A. McNair) writes...
>In article <1992Oct14.103658.1@opie.bgsu.edu> bc205cs@opie.bgsu.edu writes:
>>I have to agree.  Most black women, that I have encountered, want the
>>stereotypical "black man." 
>What is the stereotypical "black man".  I am tired of brothers talking about
>how the majority of black women say "whatcha got", "where you work", and "what
>are you gonna do fo' me".  This is all irrevelant. 

i think that this is very strong of you but i to tend too agree with the 
original poster. you are the exception NOT the rule.


>I am not like this, and I
>know plenty of sisters who are not.  

unfortunately i DON'T (outside my family)
they are a rare and unusual breed i fear they are becoming extinct.


>I enjoy sunrises, concerts in the park,
>and other things.  Why do brothers continue this thing about black women being
>money hungry, and wanting a strong man.  
			     ^^^^^^ ?

unfortunately experience has taught us all to well.
it seems to me that they (sisters) want a weak stereotypical man (not strong)
i was once in a meeting discussing the problems we have in our dating and 
meeting rituals (for lack of a better word) one girl/woman said upon being 
asked why do women seem to go for the 'dogs' and leave the 'nice' guys behind
alone. she said it was because they want to change him and make him into a
'strong' brother. i thought to myself they wish to bend and change someone to\
meet their specs. very capitalistic. after being burn and not changing him i
get that 'ALL MEN ARE DOGS' line.  is it the challenge?
is it the dominating?
is it the showing your friends what you done to this . . . person.
hhhmmmm
oh well i am not the one. (ice cube)
until i find someone to love me for me 
					"JUST LEAVE ME ALONE" (MJ)
				(compomise is expected at some point but not
				 sell yourself out)


>I want and have someone who is going
>to treat me with respect.  I don't mind going dutch.  I don't mind having my
>boyfriend telling me he loves me.  As a matter of fact, to me, that's enough.
>Enough said...

well said.
			d.j.loki seth I



> 
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
From: barnhart@gagme.chi.il.us (Mr Aaron Barnhart)
Subject: Re: Marxism (was Re: Pessimism
Originator: barnhart@gagme
Organization: Evanston, Illinois
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 01:50:19 GMT

This is in reply to HF.GTD@forsythe.stanford.edu (Gabrielle Daniels), who wrote:
:.
:In regards to the above:  the reason why I think so many Silicon
:Valley nouveau riche here in California and elsewhere are ponying so
:much moolah to Clinton is that they feel threatened by the
:disparities between rich, middle-class and poor.  Now it's only rich
:and poor.  Folks are beginning to look real hard at WHY, and that
:puts the rich on the hot seat.  Better back this cornpone dude no
:matter how much you hold your nose. The alternative may be their
:ass.  Plus, no body likes Bush, the phony!

I should've been emphatic on that point.  Kemp, you're in the wrong
party!

Howzat.

Aaron


Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
From: dem@engin.umich.edu (Darryle E Merlette)
Subject: Re: Looking for Darryle
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 92 16:20:12 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
Distribution: usa

Sorry to post this on a public forum (no nosy folks should be
reading this anyway 8-) :
Sharise,
I've tried emailing you several times but it always either bounces
back or goes off to "never-never emailand". Your mail reaches me,
so you can reply to this message through email. I'll see what I
can do to reach you through email.
	Darryle
...And now back to our regularly scheduled program...
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
From: gaff@sr.com (Jon Gaff)
Subject: Organization of Black Screenwriters
Reply-To: gaff@srhqla.sr.com (Jon Gaff)
Organization: Silent Radio, Los Angeles
Distribution: la
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 15:48:01 GMT

The Organization of Black Screenwriters meets twice a month at the
Embassy Showcase Theater at 4720 W. Washington blvd. L.A.  For info,
call 213-964-2801.  Their next meeting will be Oct. 24 and will feature
a panel of agents and various film/studio reps to meet prospective clients.

-- 
Jon Gaff / SilentRadio head tech support bozo.

Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american