From: cr614@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Monee C. Kidd)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: Why we go for non-black women
Date: 12 Jan 1993 02:30:35 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: cr614@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Monee C. Kidd)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) says:

[various referencese deleted].......

>The reason why I date someone is irrelevant. What's it to her? I
>already stated what attracts me: attitude and ideology, race being
>irrelevant. 
>
>

Now all of a sudden, race is irrelevant..... How did this come about??

>>2.  What's this with Jesse and "Hymietown" which Mr. Chaney uses
>>    to brand all "liberal" black voices?  Did Mr. Chaney not read
>>    Pat Buchanan and his views on Jews?  I only bring up Pat because
>>    Mr. Chaney avows himself as a conservative and so does Pat. If
>>    liberals are to think as Jesse than I think I'm free to assume
>>    that conservatives think as Pat.  Ignorant assumption, I know, but
>>    it's consistent with the original.
>
>Well, the media always links us with Pat Buchanan - no one in the
>media ever talks about "Hymietown." While the media is constantly
>trying to quote anti-semitic things that Pat Buchanan never said in
>the first place, they have no time to explain the Jesse Jackson
>issue.
>

The difference is that Jesse Jackson has apologized for his statement about
"Hymietown." I listened to Pat Buchanan's speech at the Republican
convention and was frightened by his vision for America. His was one of
racial and religious purity - you speak of Neo-Nazi views, take a look at
this guy! I doubt he ever apologizes.

>
>>3.  I admit to my position.  I am married to a black woman who possesses
>>    all the qualities that I could ever want.  She has some qualities
>>    that Mr. Chaney also desires, or so he writes.  I think I found 
>>    her because I had no blinders and we remained together because we
>>    respect one another.
>
>Where'd you meet her? I'll head over there to live. 
>
>
>>4.  Mr. Chaney defines conservatism as judicial restraint.  I was 
>>    surprised no one challenged his definition.  I would be interested
>>    in other definitions.  I'll offer mine:  conservatism is an attempt
>>    to remain politically consistent with the past based on some form 
>>    of legitimacy.  Not a horrible thought necessarily but the current
>>    American strain of conservatism seems to base its validity on a 
>>    religious morality that is dangerous, at best.  Not because religion
>>    is wrong, but because they contend if you argue with them you are
>>    not religious or moral.  
>
>Uh, excuse me, but where do you find conservatism based on religion?
>Outside of Pat Robertson, that is. And while we're at it, can you tell
>me what role religion had with Martin Luther King, Jr.? (Clue: QUITE A
>BIT.) It seems to be okay as long as the person is liberal, but if
>they are conservative? Then, suddenly, the First Amendment comes into
>existence where it is irrelevant otherwise.. 
>

Pat Buchanan has a lot to do with religion as well.
>
>>5.  As a ph. d. candidate in history I feel confident in stating that 
>>    when the discussion moved to Russia and the reason for victory in
>>    W.W. II, I became bored.  I'm not sure how it got there but I can
>>    assure you that most of the assertions and causations were, IMHO,
>>    sophomoric.  If for no other reason than for Mr. Chaney's comment
>>    that we would not have helped Russia defeat Germany if we had known
>>    of the atrocities behind the iron curtain.  Mr. Chaney, we knew.
>
>Well, I believe there is a Russian here on s.c.a.a. who knows more
>about this than you or I, so I will leave the issue to him.
>
>
>>I'm not sure where this debate is anymore.  For the record, I believe
>>people should date who they want to date and others who feel they 
>>shouldn't be together can possess their opinion as well.  I hope that doesn't
>>mean that they will accost or assault the dating couple--rather, they 
>>can hold their opionions privately.  Mr. Chaney, the sister who lectured
>>you on your dating situation did you a favor.  She told you how she 
>>felt to your face.  I hope that you did her the courtesy of telling her
>>how you feel as you have done so with us.  I hope you didn't misuse the 
>>opportunity to reach your real audience (the woman who spoke with you) in
>>an effort to get to your computer to reach us--who maybe your audience.
>
>I told her exactly what I felt about her attitude. I told her to take
>her so-and-so-and-so and get back in that march behind Jesse Jackson
>and take with her various books on how to get a life, and leave me to
>enjoy mine. (And my girlfriend's. :) ) 
>
>
Mr. Chaney, you said in an article somewhere back there that your life had
gotten a lot easier since you began dating your nw girlfriend. Serious,
mature questions now - How long have you been dating this woman? It is
often the case that new relationships often seem rosy in the beginning. I
am not suggesting that your relationship is doomed somewhere in the future,
however, you might consider the fact that in a new relationship, your s.o.
can do virtually no wrong.
-- 
       "Whatever happened to Peace?"    -Eric B. & Rakim
     ********    This is our year - GO CAVS!!!    ********
                         ~ mc kidd ~
~ cr614@cleveland.freenet.edu ~ kidd47@wilma.wharton.upenn.edu ~