Waterstar

Thanks for sharing your perceptions.

Fox's conservative, political contributor Michelle Malkin, who not so long ago here would have probably had to do the paper bag test, is speaking out in response to the George Zimmerman interview, saying that people are "playing the race card again" and are "rushing to judgment". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gLpq1p2zj8

Trayvon Martin’s parents respond to George Zimmerman’s claim of ‘God’s plan’: ‘I don’t know what God he worships’ In a series of television appearances Thursday morning, Tracy Martin and Sybrina Fulton shot back at the Zimmerman's claim Wednesday night that the killing of their son was part of "God's plan." By Philip Caulfield / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS Thursday, July 19, 2012, 9:02 AM Read more: http://www.nydailyne...1#ixzz2151KYivC Trayvon Martin's parents won't accept George Zimmerman's apology for shooting their son. In a series of television appearance on Thursday morning, Tracy Martin and Sybrina Fulton shot back at the Zimmerman's claim Wednesday night that the killing of their son was part of "God's plan." "I don't understand what God he worships? It's not the same God I worship," Tracy Martin told "Fox and Friends." "That's heartless to say that it was 'God's plan' that he took our child's life," Martin added. Zimmerman's interview on Fox News Channel's "Hannity" was his first since he killed the unarmed teen with a single shot to the chest on Feb. 26. During the interview, Zimmerman - who was arrested a month after the shooting and charged with second-degree murder - said he shot Martin as a last resort after the teen broke his nose, slammed his head into the concrete, told him he was going to die and reached for Zimmerman's gun. The volunteer watchman said he was not following the teen but keeping “an eye on him” when Martin confronted and then attacked him. But offered an apology to the boy's parents, saying that he prayed for them daily. "I am sorry that they buried their child. I can't imagine what that feels like," Zimmerman said. "I do wish there was something, anything I could have done that wouldn't have put me in a position where I had to take his life." Martin's parents said there was something he could have done - stayed in his car. "He made a rush to judgment to judge Trayvon as a criminal, as suspicious," Tracy Martin told CNN. "He got out of that car. He put Trayvon in that position." "He cannot … pick a fight and then say, 'He put me in this position,'" he said. When asked if they'd be willing to talk to Zimmerman, Martin's parents said "absolutely not." "My son was murdered a couple months ago," Fulton told Fox. "It not something I can stomach right now." ***************************** On the Zimmerman "apology". How can one accept an apology which was never truly given? Zimmerman basically said: "I'm sorry.... I'm sorry that they buried their child." We too often don't listen to what is being said. Where in those words is an apology for taking the life of the young man? Where in those words is an apology for the death of the young man? Nowhere. "I'm sorry that they buried their child."

George Zimmerman "speaks out" for the first time during this Fox interview with Sean Hannity. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuXsxRVjvMc Source: Fox News Zimmerman opens up about Trayvon Martin killing, says he prays for teen's parents Published July 18, 2012 FoxNews.com Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/18/george-zimmerman-says-prays-for-trayvon-martin-parents-daily/#ixzz2150Tq0mq George Zimmerman, in an interview Wednesday with Fox News' Sean Hannity, called the shooting death of unarmed teen Trayvon Martin a "tragic situation" and "the most difficult thing I'll ever go through in my life." But Zimmerman, a volunteer neighborhood watch leader, also spoke in detail about what happened that fateful night in February, saying he had followed Martin because he looked suspicious running between houses in the rain. Martin soon turned to confront Zimmerman and "asked me what my problem was" before the exchange escalated into violence, Zimmerman told Hannity in his first TV interview, conducted in an undisclosed location in Florida. The 28-year-old, with his attorney sitting by his side, said he reached into his pocket to find his phone to call 911 for a second time, and "I looked up and he punched me and broke my nose." At one point Zimmerman said he heard Martin "telling me he’s going to kill me." Zimmerman is charged with second-degree murder for shooting and killing 17-year-old Martin on Feb. 26 in Sanford, Fla., though he says he acted in self-defense. At first, "I didn't think I hit him," Zimmerman said, adding he only found out later that Martin had died. Now he is in hiding and said he feels his life is in jeopardy, based on death threats he has received. He told Fox News that on the night of the shooting he had gone out to shop at Target -- "that's the last time I've been home." The case drew intense national attention as speculation grew about the motives for the shooting, especially given that Martin was black. Zimmerman has white and Hispanic heritage. He dismissed suggestions by some that he acted out of racism. "I don't think it's fair that they rushed to judgment to assume that," he told Fox News. Police initially declined to press charges, citing Florida's so-called "Stand Your Ground" law. But a special prosecutor who was called in to investigate concluded that the evidence didn't support Zimmerman's claims, and the murder charge was filed. When asked what he would say to Martin's parents, Zimmerman said, "I would tell them that, again, I'm sorry." "My wife and I don’t have any children," Zimmerman told Hannity. "I have nephews that I love more than life. I love them more than myself. And I know when they were born, it was a different unique bond and love that I have with them. And I love my children even though that they aren’t born yet. "I am sorry that they buried their child. I can’t imagine what it must feel like. I pray for them daily." Zimmerman, who is free on bond in Florida while awaiting trial, has pleaded not guilty to second-degree murder. Hannity had spoke with Zimmerman, 28, off the record in April when he contacted Hannity against the advice of his attorneys. Both Hannity and Zimmerman denied claims that Hannity offered the murder suspect any financial assistance or payment. The interview concluded with Zimmerman looking into the camera and saying that he wishes the night hadn't ended in Martin's death. "I do want to tell everyone, my wife, my family, my parents, my grandmother, the Martins, the city of Sanford and America that I'm sorry that this happened," he said. "I hate to think that because of this incident, because my actions, it's polarized and divided America. And I'm truly sorry." Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/18/george-zimmerman-says-prays-for-trayvon-martin-parents-daily/#ixzz2150cxJIW

I also believe that things will get much worse before they get better. So what about the Paterno statue at Penn State? Do you guys think that it should be taken down? This one guy was being interviewed on the news saying that taking the statue down wouldn't serve any purpose, that it wouldn't do anything. He talked a bit more along those lines and contradicted himself in the end by saying it would only end up causing more harm than good. (Hmm..) Another person who was being interviewed about the potential removal of the statue was nearly in tears. "He was a hero", she said. So what do you guys think? Do you think that the statue should be taken down? Why or why not? I tend to think that it should be taken down if Paterno was more concerned about helping to protect the reputation of Penn State and Sandusky vs more concerned about helping to protect the young men. Then again, questions of morality keep missing those such as catholics who are solid pro-lifers. Their speeches, even their bumper stickers are so focused on opposing abortion and anyone who supports even pro-choice. Don't get me wrong, I am not anti pro-life, yet if it is really about putting children first, why are there so many PPs (pedophile priests/priestly predators/predator priests) in the catholic church who keep being protected by the same catholic church that opposes abortion as a sin against God? Is not the molestation of children a sin against God? ESPECIALLY by those in such religious positions? ************************************************** By COLLEEN CURRY June 1, 2012 The lurid confessions of a priest who sexually abused young boys in his parish choir and the seminary offer a glimpse into one of the minds behind the massive sex abuse scandal that has rocked the Catholic Church. Former priest Robert Van Handel's 27-page sexual history, which he wrote for a psychologist between 1993 and 1994, details his history of abuse and fantasies of abusing boys age 8 to 11. The document was released as part of a settlement between the Franciscan order of priests and 25 abuse victims. In the essay, Van Handel, now 65 and a registered sex offender in Santa Cruz County, describes wrestling, tickling, and fondling young boys whom he invited to attend one-on-one choir practices, admits to molesting high school boys at a seminary where he taught, and says he took pictures of young boys wearing few clothes or showering. "It was clearly my choir and the fulfillment of my fondest dreams," he wrote. "Now I understand that it was also a constant supply of attractive little boys." Read Robert Van Handel's Sexual History He also described an encounter with another priest, while Van Handel was in seminary around high-school age, in which the priest molested him while he was in the infirmary. "While I don't think it is of crucial importance in my life, it is curious that this is nearly the exact activity I would perform 10 to 15 years later," he wrote. Van Handel's account of his own descent into pedophilia traces his shame and guilt growing up, learning about and trying not to think about sex, into young adulthood, where he bought porn magazines and became interested in naked children. "I asked my best friend once if he saw anything 'special' in pictures of children. He said, 'no, not at all.' I began to realize that I was different. Sometimes I worried about this, but I thought that as long as it was just fantasy, there was no reason to panic," he wrote. He progressed from reading about sex with boys to taking pictures of young boys and finally, when he took over directing a boys' choir, abusing boys. "We used to wrestle, and I would tickle him, while paying special attention to touching his genitals," he wrote. "(He) never seemed to mind, and I wasn't about to stop on my own." Van Handel describes trying to speak to a Franciscan counselor about his actions twice in the early 70's, but said he was too vague for the counselor to understand what he was saying. In 1992, Van Handel pleaded guilty to one count of lewd and lascivious behavior with a minor and served four years in prison, and another four years on parole. The release of Van Handel's confessions is rare, even among the thousands of church abuse cases that have made it to the court system in the past 10 years, according to attorney Jeffrey Anderson, who has handled more than 2,000 church abuse cases. "This is unique," Anderson told the Associated Press. "It really is a glimpse into the mind of the molester." Van Handel and his attorney, Robert "Skip" Howie, did not return calls from ABC News seeking comment.

Oh nonsense. They're just saying that because his last name just happens to be Thomas. Uncle Thomas. *In Uncle Ruckus voice "No relation"* Well I have my own opinions on such stuff, because I have a certain worldview, but that is really neither here nor there. The grandfather that Clarence Thomas spoke of in that interview really stands out to me. He seems like he was such a strong and dedicated man, one who had a strong sense of responsibility to the collective. "Son, don't you let me down"... Wow. How could Clarence Thomas choose the path that he chose and not be tormented by his grandfather every night? My great grandmother was a strong and dedicated woman, a Black Cross nurse who had a strong sense of responsibility to the collective. I wish I would choose the path of ANY of those in that collage and name my book "My Great Grandmother's Daughter" . Not even in her death would she let me sleep well about that. As much as my parents love me, they would never look me in my eyes and tell me that they were proud of the success that such a path has brought me. Hey though, we are not all raised with the same backgrounds and with the same set of expectations. What meant a lot in my household might have been as significant as cow dung in the next household. Furthermore, regardless of background and expectations, we still make decisions in this life, even the refusal to make a decision is a decision. I believe that Clarence Thomas chose his path for the same reasons that other black people in similar positions chose such paths; for themselves,their famlilies, the communities in which they live, for the issues that affect them in their particular situations, and for their generations that have yet to be born. There are some who are to the ancestral bones and to the ancestral soul, "Keepers of The Way" and they can be neither bought nor sold,because they have no price. They are very few. For the rest, the price varies, but it is there just the same. It was cool to see that Clarence Thomas could still skip rocks though.Hey, that takes skill! My friend could do that so well and he still can. I never "got it".

Anywhere at at anytime the denial of human rights is, such condtions will be. The root of the national problem and the root of the global problem are one. Religion itself is harmless. It is like a gun. A gun by itself is harmless. Religion is merely a tool and as it is with any tool, it is what people do with a tool that matters. Oh you know that tune? Yeah, I need to raid your stash, bet you got some sweet, sweet music. Yes though, a lot of people quote Bob Marley on that, but Bob based it off Selassie I's words.

Have you seen this movie? It is a really good movie about the life of the Shawnee (indigenous American) warrior, Tecumseh and his people ,of many nations, whom he sought to unite. Tecumseh, "a fiery orator, a brilliant diplomat, a revolutionary thinker, a political and military genius", a lover of the people for whom he died, a legend. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-PjQ_e5lVM This movie is in multiple parts.

No, not at all. When I said that I started to post the 60 minutes interview, I meant that I was going to post it when I came back and the only reason that I did not is because you had beaten me to it. I found the interview interesting. It didn't really spark the altering of my overall views, but I still found it interesting. :-O Where did the word traitor come from, Troy? I never mentioned that word. You're not suggesting that Uncle Ruckus is a traitor, are you? You know the man got revitaligo! (Oh I forgot about that Color Purple-like episode in which he found out that his mother had been lying to him since he was a baby. lol)

That's so lovely already.@ Troy. One of Emperor Selassie I's speeches included these words:

Oh my goodness. "Geezus, kill da visuals..." LOL Yes, I realize that, but I also realize that what these adults have to handle on their jobs is a lot, but what these children who have no adults to put them first have to handle in their lives is even greater. As an aside, is it wanting Utopia to simply want a world in which more children have adults around them to care for them, to protect them? Is it asking for Utopia for children to actually come up with a much stronger sense of "community"? Visions of a better tomorrow are, at best, seen as impossible dreams. Some want to "return to the good ol' days." People like Pat Buchanan speak about this stuff a lot. I missed the era in which "people wore pajamas and lived life slow", but from what I gather, those times weren't exactly the "good ol days" for some. I can't relate to the "let's return to the good ol' days" thing because I never lived through them, though I must say that my coming of age atmosphere wasn't anywhere of the present coming of age atmosphere and goodness only knows what the children of tomorrow will have to face. I can, however, relate to the "I want a brighter tomorrow" thing. Maybe more of us would work toward a brighter tomorrow if it were not felt that this were just some useless Utopian vision that could never come into fruition.

No disagreement a'tall there from the start of this thread until the ending of it. The analogy was to deal with the evolution of connotations/references/norms. Key word in the last quote being "many", Troy. I think that the fight for the acknowledgment of the humanity of our people, those from past and present, is an important fight any day. Not to say that terminology should be number one on our list of priorities, but we should definitely value those who came before us much more. For the most part, those of the past have no sanctuary, not in our minds, not in our hearts, not even in our vocabularies. It is my opinion that we show just how much they do "not" mean to us when we refer to them as "the slaves". "When the slaves came to America, they such and such. " <--- Which part of a sentence such as this one shows any connection to the people who are being talked about in this sentence? Most of us here would not find anything about this sentence abnormal, because this is the way so many of us talk when talking about "the slaves" and this, to me, is indicative of the deeper though less obvious problem, our lack of conscious connection to our past. Are we distancing ourselves from our people who were enslaved? Who speaks of a family reunion and refers to family members as "those people" except one who is in some way disconnected from "those people"? Perhaps these things that we do are mostly done subconsciously, but the fact is that these things are still being done. He who knows better does better. I'm sayin.... Let somebody reference you as a "colored" person and note your reaction. Be in the minority at a company cookout and be introduced as the department's only "colored". LOL Honestly, who thinks that that would be cool? Wait though. It wasn't so long ago that saying "colored" was the norm, whether this reference to us came from someone else or from ourselves. After all, we ARE colored, are we not? Would it be better if you are introduced as the department's only "colored"? Is it not so that many of our people felt the desire to be referred to differently? Let us use your site as an example, Troy. The site is AALBC. Why not CLBC or NLBC? These are mostly rhetorical questions, but it would not hurt us to think about the scenarios. From Oxford Journals: (The abstract didn't mention "nigger", but the use of "nigger" as common reference here predates the use of "colored" here.) I will find the thread that I remember seeing in which a member of this forum spoke on why "Black" was his/her preferred reference. Labels and symbols have a relationship. Often, labels are changed in an effort to change the symbols and therefore the messages that are associated with these labels. However, sometimes, the messages of the symbols are so deeply embedded within us that the change might take quite a few generations to truly come about. Especially in a situation such as ours, what is to be expected? However, we must start somewhere on the path of doing better. My primary concern is not about how others see us but about how we see ourselves, how we see and relate to our people ( of the past and of the present),

Remarks by the President at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Washington, D.C. 10:00 A.M. EDT THE PRESIDENT: Good morning, everyone. It is a great honor to be with you here today. Of course, it is a truly humbling moment to be introduced by Elie Wiesel. Along with Sara Bloomfield, the outstanding director here, we just spent some time among the exhibits, and this is now the second visit I've had here. My daughters have come here. It is a searing occasion whenever you visit. And as we walked, I was taken back to the visit that Elie mentioned, the time that we traveled together to Buchenwald. And I recall how he showed me the barbed-wire fences and the guard towers. And we walked the rows where the barracks once stood, where so many left this Earth -- including Elie’s father, Shlomo. We stopped at an old photo -- men and boys lying in their wooden bunks, barely more than skeletons. And if you look closely, you can see a 16-year old boy, looking right at the camera, right into your eyes. You can see Elie. And at the end of our visit that day, Elie spoke of his father. "I thought one day I will come back and speak to him," he said, "of times in which memory has become a sacred duty of all people of goodwill." Elie, you've devoted your life to upholding that sacred duty. You’ve challenged us all -- as individuals, and as nations -- to do the same, with the power of your example, the eloquence of your words, as you did again just now. And so to you and Marion, we are extraordinarily grateful. To Sara, to Tom Bernstein, to Josh Bolten, members of the United States Holocaust Memorial Council, and everyone who sustains this living memorial -- thank you for welcoming us here today. To the members of Congress, members of the diplomatic corps, including Ambassador Michael Oren of Israel, we are glad to be with you. And most of all, we are honored to be in the presence of men and women whose lives are a testament to the endurance and the strength of the human spirit -- the inspiring survivors. It is a privilege to be with you, on a very personal level. As I’ve told some of you before, I grew up hearing stories about my great uncle -- a soldier in the 89th Infantry Division who was stunned and shaken by what he saw when he helped to liberate Ordruf, part of Buchenwald. And I’ll never forget what I saw at Buchenwald, where so many perished with the words of Sh’ma Yis’ra’eil on their lips. I’ve stood with survivors, in the old Warsaw ghettos, where a monument honors heroes who said we will not go quietly; we will stand up, we will fight back. And I’ve walked those sacred grounds at Yad Vashem, with its lesson for all nations -- the Shoah cannot be denied. During my visit to Yad Vashem I was given a gift, inscribed with those words from the Book of Joel: "Has the like of this happened in your days or in the days of your fathers? Tell your children about it, and let your children tell theirs, and their children the next generation." That’s why we’re here. Not simply to remember, but to speak. I say this as a President, and I say it as a father. We must tell our children about a crime unique in human history. The one and only Holocaust -- six million innocent people -- men, women, children, babies -- sent to their deaths just for being different, just for being Jewish. We tell them, our children, about the millions of Poles and Catholics and Roma and gay people and so many others who also must never be forgotten. Let us tell our children not only how they died, but also how they lived -- as fathers and mothers, and sons and daughters, and brothers and sisters who loved and hoped and dreamed, just like us. We must tell our children about how this evil was allowed to happen -- because so many people succumbed to their darkest instincts, and because so many others stood silent. Let us also tell our children about the Righteous Among the Nations. Among them was Jan Karski, a young Polish Catholic, who witnessed Jews being put on cattle cars, who saw the killings, and who told the truth, all the way to President Roosevelt himself. Jan Karski passed away more than a decade ago. But today, I’m proud to announce that this spring I will honor him with America’s highest civilian honor -- the Presidential Medal of Freedom. (Applause.) We must tell our children. But more than that, we must teach them. Because remembrance without resolve is a hollow gesture. Awareness without action changes nothing. In this sense, "never again" is a challenge to us all -- to pause and to look within. For the Holocaust may have reached its barbaric climax at Treblinka and Auschwitz and Belzec, but it started in the hearts of ordinary men and women. And we have seen it again -- madness that can sweep through peoples, sweep through nations, embed itself. The killings in Cambodia, the killings in Rwanda, the killings in Bosnia, the killings in Darfur -- they shock our conscience, but they are the awful extreme of a spectrum of ignorance and intolerance that we see every day; the bigotry that says another person is less than my equal, less than human. These are the seeds of hate that we cannot let take root in our heart. "Never again" is a challenge to reject hatred in all of its forms -- including anti-Semitism, which has no place in a civilized world. And today, just steps from where he gave his life protecting this place, we honor the memory of Officer Stephen Tyrone Johns, whose family joins us today. "Never again" is a challenge to defend the fundamental right of free people and free nations to exist in peace and security -- and that includes the State of Israel. And on my visit to the old Warsaw Ghetto, a woman looked me in the eye, and she wanted to make sure America stood with Israel. She said, "It’s the only Jewish state we have." And I made her a promise in that solemn place. I said I will always be there for Israel. So when efforts are made to equate Zionism to racism, we reject them. When international fora single out Israel with unfair resolutions, we vote against them. When attempts are made to delegitimize the state of Israel, we oppose them. When faced with a regime that threatens global security and denies the Holocaust and threatens to destroy Israel, the United States will do everything in our power to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. "Never again" is a challenge to societies. We’re joined today by communities who’ve made it your mission to prevent mass atrocities in our time. This museum’s Committee of Conscience, NGOs, faith groups, college students, you’ve harnessed the tools of the digital age -- online maps and satellites and a video and social media campaign seen by millions. You understand that change comes from the bottom up, from the grassroots. You understand -- to quote the task force convened by this museum -- "preventing genocide is an achievable goal." It is an achievable goal. It is one that does not start from the top; it starts from the bottom up. It’s remarkable -- as we walked through this exhibit, Elie and I were talking as we looked at the unhappy record of the State Department and so many officials here in the United States during those years. And he asked, "What would you do?" But what you all understand is you don't just count on officials, you don't just count on governments. You count on people -- and mobilizing their consciences. And finally, "never again" is a challenge to nations. It’s a bitter truth -- too often, the world has failed to prevent the killing of innocents on a massive scale. And we are haunted by the atrocities that we did not stop and the lives we did not save. Three years ago today, I joined many of you for a ceremony of remembrance at the U.S. Capitol. And I said that we had to do "everything we can to prevent and end atrocities." And so I want to report back to some of you today to let you know that as President I’ve done my utmost to back up those words with deeds. Last year, in the first-ever presidential directive on this challenge, I made it clear that "preventing mass atrocities and genocide is a core national security interest and a core moral responsibility of the United States of America." That does not mean that we intervene militarily every time there’s an injustice in the world. We cannot and should not. It does mean we possess many tools -- diplomatic and political, and economic and financial, and intelligence and law enforcement and our moral suasion -- and using these tools over the past three years, I believe -- I know -- that we have saved countless lives. When the referendum in South Sudan was in doubt, it threatened to reignite a conflict that had killed millions. But with determined diplomacy, including by some people in this room, South Sudan became the world’s newest nation. And our diplomacy continues, because in Darfur, in Abyei, in Southern Kordofan and the Blue Nile, the killing of innocents must come to an end. The Presidents of Sudan and South Sudan must have the courage to negotiate -- because the people of Sudan and South Sudan deserve peace. That is work that we have done, and it has saved lives. When the incumbent in Côte D’Ivoire lost an election but refused to give it up -- give up power, it threatened to unleash untold ethnic and religious killings. But with regional and international diplomacy, and U.N. peacekeepers who stood their ground and protected civilians, the former leader is now in The Hague, and Côte D’Ivoire is governed by its rightful leader -- and lives were saved. When the Libyan people demanded their rights and Muammar Qaddafi’s forces bore down on Benghazi, a city of 700,000, and threatened to hunt down its people like rats, we forged with allies and partners a coalition that stopped his troops in their tracks. And today, the Libyan people are forging their own future, and the world can take pride in the innocent lives that we saved. And when the Lord’s Resistance Army led by Joseph Kony continued its atrocities in Central Africa, I ordered a small number of American advisors to help Uganda and its neighbors pursue the LRA. And when I made that announcement, I directed my National Security Council to review our progress after 150 days. We have done so, and today I can announce that our advisors will continue their efforts to bring this madman to justice, and to save lives. (Applause.) It is part of our regional strategy to end the scourge that is the LRA, and help realize a future where no African child is stolen from their family and no girl is raped and no boy is turned into a child soldier. We’ve stepped up our efforts in other ways. We’re doing more to protect women and girls from the horror of wartime sexual violence. With the arrest of fugitives like Ratko Mladic, charged with ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, the world sent a message to war criminals everywhere: We will not relent in bringing you to justice. Be on notice. And for the first time, we explicitly barred entry into the United States of those responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Now we’re doing something more. We’re making sure that the United States government has the structures, the mechanisms to better prevent and respond to mass atrocities. So I created the first-ever White House position dedicated to this task. It’s why I created a new Atrocities Prevention Board, to bring together senior officials from across our government to focus on this critical mission. This is not an afterthought. This is not a sideline in our foreign policy. The board will convene for the first time today, at the White House. And I’m pleased that one of its first acts will be to meet with some of your organizations -- citizens and activists who are partners in this work, who have been carrying this torch. Going forward, we’ll strengthen our tools across the board, and we'll create new ones. The intelligence community will prepare, for example, the first-ever National Intelligence Estimate on the risk of mass atrocities and genocide. We're going to institutionalize the focus on this issue. Across government, "alert channels" will ensure that information about unfolding crises -- and dissenting opinions -- quickly reach decision-makers, including me. Our Treasury Department will work to more quickly deploy its financial tools to block the flow of money to abusive regimes. Our military will take additional steps to incorporate the prevention of atrocities into its doctrine and its planning. And the State Department will increase its ability to surge our diplomats and experts in a crisis. USAID will invite people and high-tech companies to help create new technologies to quickly expose violations of human rights. And we’ll work with other nations so the burden is better shared -- because this is a global responsibility. In short, we need to be doing everything we can to prevent and respond to these kinds of atrocities -- because national sovereignty is never a license to slaughter your people. (Applause.) We recognize that, even as we do all we can, we cannot control every event. And when innocents suffer, it tears at our conscience. Elie alluded to what we feel as we see the Syrian people subjected to unspeakable violence, simply for demanding their universal rights. And we have to do everything we can. And as we do, we have to remember that despite all the tanks and all the snipers, all the torture and brutality unleashed against them, the Syrian people still brave the streets. They still demand to be heard. They still seek their dignity. The Syrian people have not given up, which is why we cannot give up. And so with allies and partners, we will keep increasing the pressure, with a diplomatic effort to further isolate Assad and his regime, so that those who stick with Assad know that they are making a losing bet. We’ll keep increasing sanctions to cut off the regime from the money it needs to survive. We’ll sustain a legal effort to document atrocities so killers face justice, and a humanitarian effort to get relief and medicine to the Syrian people. And we’ll keep working with the "Friends of Syria" to increase support for the Syrian opposition as it grows stronger. Indeed, today we’re taking another step. I’ve signed an executive order that authorizes new sanctions against the Syrian government and Iran and those that abet them for using technologies to monitor and track and target citizens for violence. These technologies should not empower -- these technologies should be in place to empower citizens, not to repress them. And it’s one more step that we can take toward the day that we know will come -- the end of the Assad regime that has brutalized the Syrian people -- and allow the Syrian people to chart their own destiny. Even with all the efforts I’ve described today, even with everything that hopefully we have learned, even with the incredible power of museums like this one, even with everything that we do to try to teach our children about our own responsibilities, we know that our work will never be done. There will be conflicts that are not easily resolved. There will be senseless deaths that aren’t prevented. There will be stories of pain and hardship that test our hopes and try our conscience. And in such moments it can be hard to imagine a more just world. It can be tempting to throw up our hands and resign ourselves to man’s endless capacity for cruelty. It’s tempting sometimes to believe that there is nothing we can do. And all of us have those doubts. All of us have those moments -- perhaps especially those who work most ardently in these fields. So in the end, I come back to something Elie said that day we visited Buchenwald together. Reflecting on all that he had endured, he said, "We had the right to give up." "We had the right to give up on humanity, to give up on culture, to give up on education, to give up on the possibility of living one's life with dignity, in a world that has no place for dignity." They had that right. Imagine what they went through. They had the right to give up. Nobody would begrudge them that. Who’d question someone giving up in such circumstances? But, Elie said, "We rejected that possibility, and we said, no, we must continue believing in a future." To stare into the abyss, to face the darkness and insist there is a future -- to not give up, to say yes to life, to believe in the possibility of justice. To Elie and to the survivors who are here today, thank you for not giving up. You show us the way. (Applause.) You show us the way. If you cannot give up, if you can believe, then we can believe. If you can continue to strive and speak, then we can speak and strive for a future where there’s a place for dignity for every human being. That has been the cause of your lives. It must be the work of our nation and of all nations. So God bless you. And God bless the United States of America. Thank you very much. (Applause.)

Fi real. Troy, that I understand (though I don't know why the toddler would be left alone long enough to even have the chance to make this discovery). Anyway, as I've said, I understand what you are saying with this scenario, but my question is this. Why can't the father even be questioned? Why can't the toddler's account even be grounds for an investigation into the matter? The father could easily let it be known that the child "discovered" porn on the PC. No, it's not something that might be as easy as "That's what happened? Oh okay, you folks have a good day and be more careful next time. We're driving off now." Still, to be investigated does not always mean to be arrested and branded. I do understand that such a situation of someone being innocent has happened and definitely on more than one occasion, but I still think that the father should have been at least questioned. In the case that I described, there were red flags and one was that the father became very defensive when he was questioned by the child's mother. There is a tape in which the father can be heard threatening to kill anyone connected with the case if he were go to jail over something that someone said he did to the child. Look, never once on the tape did the father show parental concern, something, anything pointing to "Why is my child saying this? Of course I'd never do anything to hurt my child, but it is important for me to find out why the child is saying this. Perhaps someone did touch the child or perhaps the child was somewhere and discovered some porn." The above info is only a little big in terms of red flags. Still, where has that left the child in this case? There are many children with incidents such as these. In some cases, the adults around these children won't even listen, so many children don't even have agency in their family members.

You are funny, Cynique. Ant any rate, this is where I got the $3,000.00 dollars thing from: Why wouldn't I get along with Kola Boof quite well? She is my sister, as are you. What would keep me from getting along with my sisters; their perceptions about my perceptions? No way.

Let me clarify, Troy, I am not saying that to say "nigger" and to say "slaves" are the same. What I am moreso saying is saying that at one time we referred to ourselves and people as "niggers" and it wasn't even done by us in a negative way. In time, we saw the need to change that and speak of ourselves and of our people in different terms, terms that pointed to a more affirming self and collective defining of who we were and are. In the same way, we have for a long time and currently refer to our people who were enslaved as "the slaves" and just like in the previous exmple, we don't even do it in a negative way. Hopefully in time, we will see the need to change this and speak of our people in different terms. More than anything, I am saying that they were human beings, people, "our" people, that were enslaved, they were not just mere objects, "slaves", though this is exactly how they were treated. I understand your question, Troy, but one thing to keep in mind about my thoughts on talking about entire groups is that I embrace the term "African" for those continental and for those abroad. I use "black" or "African American" or of "African descent" when typing here, but my mentality is that light, middle, dark in complexion, in the Americas or anywhere else, an African is an African. (Which just made me think that some of our people who were brought to North America once embraced their African selves and identified themselves accordingly. Many of our people who were taken to the West Indies/other regions of the Americas never stopped embracing their African selves and idenfity themselves accordingly.) It is so that for many years (and this ended fairly recently), caucasian men could have their way with our foremothers. Anyway, in an individual case such as the question you asked about the enslaved child of such parentage, I do not at all think that "slave" would be more suitable than "enslaved person". We know that America's "one drop rule" would still make the child just as nigra as the next even in the midst of racial buffering. Again, more than anything, I am saying that they were human beings, people, "our" people, that were enslaved, they were not just mere objects, "slaves". I rarely hear our people of today referring to those who were enslaved as "our people", but I commonly hear our people of today refer to our people who were enslaved as "the slaves". MAAFA, the holocaust of our people, The African Holocaust, lasted centuries upon centuries. How many of us stop to acknowledge the experiences of our people? The European Holocaust lasted some YEARS, yet who dares forget that? Certainly not the victims' descendants, not even most people no matter where on the globe they might be. Check out how they remember (and they should). Check out how they emphasize the dehumanization and how they speak on the importance of keeping in mind that these were human beings, the importance of all remembering and acknowledging their humanity. Check out how the current president of the United States remembers, he spoke at the Holocaust Days of Rememberance Ceremony. These souls are those who were once human in the minds of their people of today and in the minds of many people regardless of their race or background. What about the slaves? See? What about our people? Centuries upon centuries of being abducted, raped, killed, separated from family, dehumanized, demonized, etc, etc., etc. It is bad that others continue to deny the humanity of our people who were enslaved, but that we continue to deny the humanity of "the slaves" is an unspeakable abomination. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXeVcMYf738 You know what I find interesting? People, no matter their race or background can speak on the atrocities of the European Holocaust and they are supported. On the other hand, people of African descent can speak on the atrocities of the African Holocaust and they are handled as if they are b*tchin. Ironically, our people are often the first to take this "Stop b*tchin about the past" stance.

"My People Were Not Slaves" Vernol Braithwaite http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBqK4OvVkbQ&feature=plcp The "slaves" versus "enslaved Africans/enslaved persons" issue from multiple angles: From: Scott Gac [mailto:scott.gac@trincoll.edu] Hi everyone: I know there has been a lot said on this, but I wanted to expand on the issues raised by David Blight. What would Frederick Douglass, /An American Slave/, have thought about our current obsession with language, terminology? I think David would agree that few in history have been more sensitive to words and their power than Douglass. When he developed an antislavery reading of the Constitution in the 1850s, he relied not only on the power of words, but their malleability--"If the language of any part of the Constitution could be tortured into a doubt whether Slavery were favored or not, we had a right to take advantage of that dubious language, and construe it on the virtuous side." Our current focus on words, however, has failed to link to the "big questions" just as much as the "big questions" have failed to link and acknowledge the power inherent in words. Ned Blackhawk bemoans "representational violence," acts of omission in the historical record committed by generations of historians and other shapers of the past. The current exploration of language, I think, reveals scholars uncomfortable sharing the same word, "slave," with the likes of James Henry Hammond, Thomas Dixon, and Bull Connor. The meaning of "slave" changed and is changing over time. How this transformation relates to the "big questions," though, is not something that we can continue to ignore. I suspect that there is a meaningful way to bridge the two sides, but we haven't yet uncovered the means--the words--to accurately convey the relationship. All best, Scott Assistant Professor of American Studies and History Trinity College, Seabury 033 300 Summit Street Hartford, CT 06106 860.297.2347 scott.gac@trincoll.edu "Among the words that can be all things to all men, the word Race has a fair claim to being the most common, the most ambiguous, and the most explosive," said Jaques Barzun in 1937. "Yet no agreement seems to exist about what Race means. Race seems to embody a fact as simple and obvious as the noonday sun, but if that is really so, why the endless wrangling about the idea and the facts of race?" 2. From: dkuchta@MAINE.RR.COM I respect those colleagues who have spent their careers recovering the history of slavery, but let us not forget: the denial of personhood is central to slavery. No, slavery IS the denial of personhood. And the assertion of personhood, in courts, in slave narratives, was central to slavery's abolition. So the debate over vocabulary should be no less important to historians than other debates, some of which have revolved around the vocabulary historians use to describe the past (as in, were slaveholders "capitalists"?). Consider this debate one of historiography: how should historians describe the past? Doesn't emphasizing the personhood of people held as slaves allow us to escape the legacy of slavery, and free historians to better describe the past? David Kuchta University of New England 3. From: joseph.yannielli@YALE.EDU First of all, I want to say that this debate has made me think about slavery in new and in new and interesting ways - I am incredibly grateful to the participants. I think there are two very different (but connected) arguments being made for use of the term "enslaved." The first is that the term "slave" is reductive and static and does not accurately reflect reality. Enslaved individuals are dynamic and complex human beings - they are more than mere slaves. The second is that "slave" carries too much emotional baggage, is demeaning and hurtful. I want to share my ruminations on the former argument, though I think the latter is equally important. When I entered my local Stop & Shop this weekend, I found a pile of glossy pamphlets in the produce section honoring Black History Month. The pamphlets were entitled "Profiles in Excellence: A Celebration of Dance" and provided a brief overview of "African American Dance," from the 18th century to the present. The author was very careful to use the term "enslaved Africans" for the charter generation of chattel captives, which sounded fine to me in context. But (s)he also wrote that "African Americans sang and danced in the places where they worked as slaves." Slavery sounded like it was just something they did from time to time - not a totalizing institution. They "worked as slaves," just like I work as a grad student or my mom works as a librarian. I think such phrasing is an example of what can happen if we enshrine a predetermined set of linguistic constructs and make language a fetish over analysis. I agree that both "slave" and "enslaved" have their merits; both should be used. I think "enslaved" draws attention to the important point that slavery is, fundamentally, a process. It's constantly being "negotiated" (although I hate that word - I think the hoary old Marxist term - "struggle" - is far more appropriate). For slaveholders, maintaining slavery legally, socially, and culturally is a constant struggle. And the reverse is true, of course, for slaves. But slaves don't just "work as slaves." Even when they carve out time for themselves or challenge the boundaries of the institution, they are still, materially, "slaves." As Orlando Patterson would say, they are still "natally alienated" chattel. It's an empirical fact. Yes, slaves are "mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, daughters and sons," thinkers and actors, etc., but this does not negate their status as slaves. In fact, their slave status pervades and conditions all their other identities, either chosen or given. To suggest otherwise is to imply a degree of autonomy that was simply never there. Labor historians don't write of "persons alienated from the means of production." They write of "wage laborers," or just "workers." Likewise, I think it's perfectly fine to use the shorthand "slave" rather than "enslaved person," depending on the context. It's up to the historian to show how slavery functioned as a process (in fact, mirroring Rebecca Scott, I think we can speak of "degrees of slavery" in various times and places). We shouldn't rely on some mandatory predetermined language to make the argument for us. A rose by any other name would still smell as foul. Joseph Yannielli (just a lowly grad student) 4. From: catherineclinton@MAC.COM Colleagues: As I read this thread, I wish I had answers to share with my students....it is especially perplexing dealing with students in Northern Ireland, as the Irish were held in "thrall" from Iceland to the Caribbean---and the modern civil rights movement in Northern Ireland modeled itself on U.S. movements and "language as status" remains a significant component on both sides of the debate and across many oceans. But back to U.S. academe---like many readers of these postings, I hesitate to jump in--but suggest perhaps we can get some perspective by looking at waves of reinterpretation from the 1960s, 70s and into the present, and ask our fellow scholars in the field of "native American history," "Amerindian history," "American Indian history," "indigenous peoples of North American history," etc. to see if they might shed some light on this particular impassioned debate--- What hath renaming wrought? Catherine Clinton Chair of U.S. History School of History Queen's University Belfast Belfast BT7 1NN UK 5. From: jsuggs1@NYC.RR.COM As much as I would think such a thing would never happen, I believe David Blight has missed the point--or at least my point since he ignores it. That point is not that "slave" is "politically incorrect" but that in their assumption in the legal historical record that some people have the inherent quality of "slave-ness" in them, ante-bellum jurists were philosophically incorrect by making an essentialist argument where accidentals were in play. Even if one wants to say that said jurists didn't really believe that and it was only legal rhetoric, all the more reason to abjure. jon-christian suggs professor emeritus english the city university of new york 6. From: rsgold@PANIX.COM Several contributors have drawn a parallel between the slave/enslaved and the victim/survivor distinctions. I find that interesting and perhaps instructive. I'm not an expert on the history of victim services, but my anecdotal sense (as someone who was a volunteer counselor at a sexual assault crisis service in the mid-1980s) is that at first it was a big feminist accomplishment just to organize counseling and other support for people who had been raped or battered; and then some years later, language became important and "suvivor" came into favor. The logic seemed to be that "survivor" foregrounded strength and resiliancy, and that resiliancy was something to be proud of, and hence by highlighting resilancy we were respecting and empowering our "clients" more than we would by saying "victim." "Survivor" quickly became the approved term within the advocacy establishment. (This may be an oversimplification and I'd love to see a good scholarly study of the history.) I had and still have mixed feelings about all this. I am all for empowering people who've been abused, but I've often wondered whether these semantics weren't more important to the counselors and advocates than to the women who'd been raped and beaten. I've heard some of the latter say "victim" without seeming to think it was a dirty word. And indeed, why should victimhood be shameful? As well, the idea that there is a right and a wrong term seems to fly in the face of one of the best lessons I got from my counselor training, which is that different people respond differently to the trauma. There is no set formula such as three weeks of "the trauma phase," six weeks of "the anger phase," and so forth. So why should there be one universally correct term? Some people may want to highlight their resiliancy, others their victimhood, and still others may use both terms at different times. As long as we are not talking about clear-cut epithets, like "imbecile" (Buck v. Bell), I don't see why counselors or anyone else should set up an orthodoxy. (I think there may be a similar range of opinion among people who are blind, paralyzed, etc., over "disabled" versus "differently abled.") Scholars writing about historical slavery can't directly consult their subjects about semantic preferences, although sometimes they can listen to the language those people used. And as I wrote before, I'm not at all sure that "slave" really connotes lack of agency to most of our readers and students. I suspect that the most effective way to call attention to the agency of various people involved in slavery is to write or teach with good examples of what those people did to resist or to enforce the institution. But for those who attach more weight to the nuances of language here, it seems to me that thoughtful scholarship calls for attention to the agency of slaveholders, to the agency of slaves/enslaved people, *and* to the victimhood of the latter -- and hence for a varied vocabulary. Roberta Gold 7. From: b.t.schiller@GOOGLEMAIL.COM As someone who generally prefers the adjective "enslaved" to the noun "slave" for the same anti-essentialist reasons that I prefer to use the words "black" or "white" as adjectives rather than a nouns, it occurs to me that this debate raises another interesting question: what should we do with various words deriving from "freedman"? If we accept the point (well-put by Ryan Carey in his discussion of Johnson's 'On Agency') that enslaved men and women were far more than slaves, then this also carries important implications for our discussions of the formerly enslaved, a somewhat cumbersome construction but one which nonetheless carries the logic of enslaved-vs-slave beyond emancipation. I wonder what the list thinks about this?

*PC= politically correct* Slaves” versus “Enslaved Africans” Academic Jargon In The Partly Cloudy Patriot Sarah Vowell describes a tour she took of Salem, MA. Walking past one farm’s slave quarters she notes that her tour guide, a teenager with an upward canting voice that “puts every sentence into the interrogative,” gestures to them calling them “where the enslaved Africans lived.” Vowell is taken aback. Thinking it’s an overly PC term she asks why they’re not just termed “slaves.” The tour guide responds “we’re trying to point out that it’s not all they were. Vowell opines that she “gets it” but is critical of the neologism. After all, when one is a slave, the point is that “that’s all you are.” Moreover changes in terminology such as “enslaved Africans” can have the unfortunate consequence of downplaying the sheer horror of the situation in favor of the comfort of modern sensibilities. I mention Vowell’s account because, when touring the Royall house, the docent referred to “enslaved Africans” rather than slaves. It was the first time I’d heard it in person and I began wondering is this a New England slavery thing? Or perhaps it’s unique to the farm? There was only one way to find out. “I notice you keep using the phrases “enslaved Africans” and “enslaved people,” I delicately asked as we climbed the staircase from the ground floor to the bedrooms. Not being a successful writer or regular contributor to This American Life I figured I’d shoot more for “professionally inquisitive” rather than “confrontationally interrogative.” The docent, a pleasantly expressive 40-ish woman, gave me an arch smile. “Yes, we do.” She turned to face me, and braced herself against the banister on the landing. This was obviously a topic she felt passionate about, much to my delight. With all due respect to Vowell’s tourguide, I expect this woman might have a more complete answer. “We call them enslaved Africans here because while the Royalls obviously saw them as their property — as did the Royalls’ social circle — the ‘slaves’ obviously saw things differently. While they did work from sun-up, when they helped Isaac Royall get dressed in the very room we’re standing in, to sun-down, when they turned down every cover in every room, that was not all they did. Alexandra Chan’s dig underscores that. We have artifacts that show what they did in the little bit of leisure time they had. They made pottery, jewelry, charms; there’s a pendant that displays Akan art from Ghana. Some of these seem to have been protection amulets they might have worn to ward of dangers in the new world. They created, entertained themselves, maybe even tried to resist in some small ways in addition to being property. They had entire lives in the spaces between what we know about them. Some of them even became free blacks, like Belinda. So we try to show that really, being enslaved wasn’t all they were.” I nodded, listening, silently wishing I’d thought to ask if she would mind being tape recorded at the beginning of our tour. Then again I’d have had to somehow type up an informed consent form, so that wouldn’t have solved anything. I definitely see the logic, I though to myself. While maybe it is a touchy-feely sentiment the bottom line is that they are human beings so perhaps its best to err on the side of giving them agency. Besides, like the African-English former slave Equiano said on slaves during the Middle Passage, “they endured.” That counts for something. “I noticed the Akan charm in the slave quarters display. I feel that also shows they were trying to incorporate their old identities as West Africans to their new identities in North America.” The docent nodded. “That’s very true. Chan writes it was the beginning of their new identities as African-Americans. While we don’t know all that much about them and can’t state too much that is definitive about their lives we do know that they had their own narrative apart from the Royalls. The little we do know about them is precious.” So there you have it. While my jury is still out on the terminology I don’t think I would go so far as to label it “PC,” with all due respect to the great Sarah Vowell.

You know how the word "nigger" is viewed by many? That it was one of the most dehumanizing terms that could ever be used to describe a black human being? Yes, it is of course used by many as a term of endearment while many people, ESPECIALLY older black people abhor the term being used in that sense by the younger generations... but that topic is neither here nor there at this point in the thread. There was a time that our people who were enslaved in North America called themselves and one another niggers because that is all that they were ever called and that is all that many ever knew. At some point, others referring to us as "niggers" became 'fightin' words' and though the term is used as a term of endearment among black people, certain people referring to us as "niggers" still makes for fightin words for the most part. On the other hand, our using the term "the slaves" in reference to our ancestors who were enslaved is considered by some of us a way in which we deny them their humanity, and it is not something that most of us do consciously. However, this reference is used often, by others and by ourselves. In addition to our playing into the denial of their humanity, we also play into the severing of ties with our people when they are "the slaves". That is kind of like a book (and it was not a novel, it was autobiographical) that I once read in which the mother referred to her daughter as "The Child". She of course "was" her child, but then again, if my mother is a woman, does it not show a lack of connection to her if I constantly refer to her as "The Woman"? So then we get into more than just semantics here; we get into the power of relationships to definitions and also, we get also into defining relationships. Maybe one day, the use of the term "the slaves" will be frowned upon much as the use of the term "nigger" is frowned upon.Maybe we will one day refer to our ancestors that came to the Americas as our people who were enslaved, human beings who were forced to slave on sugar cane plantations, cotton plantations, in rice fields and so on. Our people who were enslaved whose humanity escaped not only those who had enslaved them but also once by those had been descended from them. On the flipside, who is to say that Joe Oliver is not a prophet? He said that we call ourselves coonasses as a term of endearment. Maybe he was not defending George Zimmerman but speaking of things to come. :-O "Sup, Coonass?" "Yo, datz my main COONASS over THERE!" (Where dey do dat at? Oh, Joe Oliver said Louisiana. Who knows...)

There was a case of a child who told of having been touched by the father. The child could speak well and showed what was said to have been done very graphically, far too graphically for a child of that age to know. The Department of Family and Children Services was notified. However, the agency could not give involved. Why?... Because the child was too young. The child had to be at least 3 and the child was only 2. The police department could not question the father. Why? ...Because the child was not old enough. What were the deeper reasons? .. Not only because the child was too young, but also because those allegations were too serious to get involved with coming from a child so young and such allegations could lead to lawsuits for these state agencies. Why does a child have to be at least 3 for these agencies to have his or her back? So in the meantime, that child by law, was supposed to keep going to the father during visitation time. What does something like this mean for a child who is crying for help to adults that will not help because of a fear of lawsuits. Clearly, many are more concerned with covering themselves than the chldren.

I don't know about you, but I actually have a thing for keeping my eye on politics. If you have watched politicians go back and forth, you can notice how two politicians can be debating a particular issue and how the craftier politician will twist the other politician's words to shape the conversation into a debate that he really wants to have. The politician who is not as crafty gets so caught up into a whole 'nother debate, one that usually starts with his saying, "You're twisting my words!" nevertheless it often ends in being a debate that the first politician wanted to have about the issues that the first politician wanted to debate about. If the second politician were as crafty as the first, he would tell the first politician that he is aware that his words are being twisted to divert yet that he would stick to the issue that is supposed to be being debated. Often though, the audience, which is in most cases made up of those who are less crafty than both politicians, is won over by the craftier politician and the issue that they came to hear debated is not even debated; they walk out as unclear about the issue as they were when they walked in the room. Cynique, figuratively speaking, I can't keep telling you that I don't have your $3,000, because you don't believe me, no matter how many times I tell you that I don't. lol IWhat do you expect to come out of the situation when you keep challenging me to return the $3,000 that I never stole, furthermore, the $3,000.00 that you never had? Hey, I have never minded your challenging anything that I have said. It's just that your challenging things that I never say leads to a conversations like the one that we've had in here. You made something personal that was never intended to be personal. It was not an attack on what you said, certainly not an attack on what you never said. It was simply something that I was sharing with the collective, something that many of us, even the best of us do without having ever given thought to it. You took this as my nit-picking and I clearly told you in my initial response to you what I just recapitulated here, but you kept going on about my saying things that I didn't say. It seems that you have looked at the one that is standing next to you, thinking that she is grasping for straws when it is actually the person adjacent to her who is grasping for straws. Challenge anything that I say, by all means. For the sake of clarity though, please just quote the specific words that I say, give your interpretation of the words that you have just quoted, and then challenge it. You might feel like all of that is unnecessary. If so, I feel u, because I feel the same way when it is not done in this way. I will tell you what I will do, though. I will share some expressed thoughts that are in keeping with my intentions for bringing up the our using the term "the slaves" .Even if I hear a young brother or sister say "the slaves", I say the same thing. Maybe you will understand why I said it or maybe you will continue to think that I was merely nit-picking. I came across an interesting article. I will soon post it. As with everything in this forum which is your namesake, you are always welcome to read it. Back on the collage, can we add Armstrong Williams?

I tend to think that the person would have been arrested. Bush was cracking down on citizens who expressed dissent with no connections to violence, so I would think that someone who made statements about wanting to murder his wife would be dealt with totally differently than this person is being dealt with and that goes for the person being of any race.

Greetings, Breathebooks. I am totally aware that this is Cynique's Corner. In fact, this is the brief description of this particular forum: Most of what I post is directly related to black people in America, Africa, and the rest of the Diaspora. In addition, I have no argument a'tall about the honoree being brilliant and profilic. She definitely is. Beind misunderstood is probably a part of life and being misquoted in a conversation is probably a part of conversation. However, there is difference one being misquoted and one habitually countering points that were never made by you. The latter can be likened to arguing with a delusional person who doesn't have the first penny yet is claiming that you stole $3,000.00 from them. What is the purpose of going back and forth in such a situation? Someone might go on about that, but it certainly will not be me. Debating is cool, but not constantly over points that I know that I never made and it is just one person that seems to habitually challenge me on points that I never made. lol ("I don't have your $3,000.00. Peace".) Every response to something that was not said or implied brings another response about something that was not said or ever implied and so if there is anything that I am avoiding, it is the continuation of that cycle. As far as affecting my audience, I worry about that under certain circumstances and trust me, that is quite rare. I have long learned that in this life, we touch those who are for us to touch. Don't like what I say? That's cool. Like what I say? That's cool. Indifferent to what I say? That's cool. Don't like what I never said and expect me to defend it? That is what it is, but I will only do that but so much. There are many things that one can worry about in life and controlling the perceptions of others (especially because it is not something that I can do anyway) is definitely not one of them. There is none so blind as he who will not see and for such a situation, no glasses nor surgery can remedy that. My recognizing this, however, is not synonymous to my being "discouraged". I'm young-er, but not that young. Of all the things in life that inspire suicide, what Cynique thinks or what anyone else thinks is definitely not one. (But if anything changes, I promise to scan my suicide not here first. It will likely read, "SEE WHAT YOU DID, CYNIQUE???") @ Cynique, I don't have any new words for this old situation. Troy, it's something that you would post that interview. I had actually started to post it. :-) I can only imagine how his grandfather feels about the path that Thomas has chosen.

It is my observation that time and time again, people are much more concerned about protecting reputations/'power' holders than they are the actual people who need protection. It is possible that Penn State's football activitiy will be suspended for at least 5 years. In both cases, everyone who knew yet refused to protect the victims should be held accountable and legally dealt with to the fullest extent.

Troy said I feel the same way about us dropping the ball somewhere thinking the job was over, enjoying a few new "freedoms". I don't think it's just about pointing the fingers. I think it's about acknowledging what has happened and all focusing on picking the ball back up and pressing on differently. We have to be the change that we wish to see and little changes can and will make a great difference. More than anything, we need to start with love, unity, and loyalty. We have adopted the "We four and no more" type of mentality. We need to be more concerned with the collective and not only concerned with those under our roofs. If more of us had this type of mentality, we would really be well on our way. Also, I don't think many of us will disagree with the fact that many things in this world take money. However, there are many children that could use our intelligence, wisdom, and love and guess what? We could use theirs, too. Just being willing to donate time and energy to be a positive influence in these children's lives could help to do wonders. It is not easy for them. It is commonplace for them to be dealing with all kinds of problems that children just should not have to deal with and many of us as adults never take this into consideration as we express disgust for the way they are and the things that they do. Things are so different today.The children of today are like "nobody's children" when it was not so long ago that they were "everyone's children Not to say that things were ever perfect or that they will ever be perfect, but I think that most of us can remember a time when there was more love and more reaching out.