Can't call black hoodlums "hoodlums"
We read:
"Pinellas School Board chairwoman Janet Clark is coming under fire for using the term “hoodlums” to describe a small group of chronically disruptive students in county schools. Board members Mary Brown and Linda Lerner criticized Clark at Tuesday night’s board meeting. And now Ray Tampa, president of the St. Petersburg branch of the NAACP, said Clark’s refusal to apologize has made things worse. “I was disgusted with her response,” Tampa said Wednesday.
The International People’s Democratic Uhuru Movement—better known as the Uhurus—called for Clark to resign for the statement, which it viewed as racist. Clark is white. Tampa said he thought the comment was inappropriate, but not racist.
Clark made the comment at a board workshop last week in a wide-ranging discussion about chronically disruptive students at John Hopkins Middle School and other Pinellas schools. "So much time is taken up with addressing hoodlums, with kids who don’t want to be in school,” she said. She also said, “We are talking about a small number of children.”
Before the meeting, Clark said the statement had nothing to do with race. “I made no mention of race,” she said. “There are hoodlums of all races and colors and ethnic backgrounds.”
It does not appear the origins of the word “hoodlum” have any ties to race or ethnicity. It is an adaptation of a German word that meant “ragamuffin” or “good for nothing,” said Michael Adams, an associate professor of English at Indiana University and author of the 2009 book, Slang: The People’s Poetry.
"Hoodlum, when you look it up in the dictionary, doesn’t look so bad,” Adams said. But when people in the black community hear it, “they associate it with words and meanings other than (those from) 1871 or whenever it was the word first appeared in print.”
Source
This is the result of the Left seeing racism under every bed
29 comments:
Tampa said he thought the comment was inappropriate, but not racist.
Jon retorted, "This is the result of the Left seeing racism under every bed"
Actually Jon's comment is the result of conservatives trying to turn something racist when is is clearly not and then laying the blame on liberals.
Libby,
Go back and reread the article:
"The International People’s Democratic Uhuru Movement—better known as the Uhurus—called for Clark to resign for the statement, which it viewed as racist."
Luke, forgive Libby. As we know, leftists see only what they want to see, and that never includes reality.
Obviously, since the word "hoodlum" is not specific to any person or group, this "sham" complaint has noting to do with racism. What it does have to do with is, getting rid of the White person in charge of this school, and of course, replacing her with a black. This is an old tactic used by black activists, and if the political environment they're in is Leftist, (ie: NYC, Mexifornia, etc.) it usually works. In other words, it's simply a power-grab using race as the excuse.
BTW, the totally made-up out of thin air Uhuru movement are radical, black nationalists.
Any negative term will soon be racist. Any condemnation of any bad, chaotic, or criminal behavior will be deemed0 racist. "Thugs" are probably next on the list of naughty words.
Ive come to the conclusion that compulsory education is not working. There are hoodlums at schools that should simply be removed from the student body. I take pride in our government providing an education to every child in America. However just because every child has the opportunity to get an education doesnt mean they should have the obligation to get one. Why let the few ruin it for everyone else?
Of course "thugs" is next. We can't have anyone showing disdain for the "freedom fighters" from the sub-continent. (Where are Cary Grant, Victor McLaglen, and Douglas Fairbanks, Jr. when you need them?)
Of course "thugs" in next. We can't have anyone showing open disdain for the "freedom fighters" from the sub-continent. (Where are Cary Grant, Victor McLaglen, and Douglas Fairbanks, Jr. when you need them?)
Who says the word "hoodlum" is racist? I had never thought of it as a racist word until the Times suggested it. I don't believe that Janet Clark meant to offend anyone but the young criminals who disrupt this school.
Here is another use of the word from PBS:
In January 1949, Klansmen held a motorcade through Tallahassee, where newly- inaugurated governor Fuller Warren, a former Klansmen himself, denounced them as "hooded hoodlums and sheeted jerks."
Sean said;
"I take pride in our government providing an education to every child in America."
Do you also take pride in the quality/type of education those children receive? If you do, you need to put the Kool-Aid down and wake up!
Anon 5:58,
Apparently, you are one of the ones who received low quality education, judging by your moronic comment.
And quit knocking Kool-Aid.
Manticore,
Do you understand the Kook-Aid reference?
Luke, of course. It comes from that good Christian preacher, Jim Jones, who took his followers on a short cut path to Jesus. Instead of wine, he used Kool-Aid. Instead of a cracker, he used cyanide.
You and you ilk turned a children's drink into something horrible, just as homosexuals stole the terms gay and rainbow.
The Point is that his followers refused to think for themselves and believed him so completely that they willingly drank the cyanide laced Kool-Aid. So now referring to that incident has become shorthand for someone who is swallowing what they've been told hook, line and sinker instead of thinking for themselves.
That's not a bust on Kool-Aid, but a bust on mindless drones.
Oh, and for the record, the "Jesus" Jones was preaching was NOT the Jesus of the Bible. The Bible has significant passages telling people to seek knowledge and wisdom. For example:
"For this very reason, make every effort to supplement your faith with goodness, goodness with knowledge, knowledge with self-control, self-control with endurance, endurance with godliness,"
—1st Peter 1:5-6
It also warns against blindly believing whatever we're told. For example:
"Now these [Bereans] were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so."
—Acts 17:11
If you read the context of this passage, you'll find that the person they were checking up on was Paul, the most significant writer of portions of the New Testament; and the Bible says that was a good thing.
"Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to determine if they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world."
—1st John 4:1
Of course, there are a lot more passages similar to these. They're just examples. And don't just believe me. Check it out for yourself. ;-)
As I remember reading, Jim Jones was more of a socialist than a Christian preacher, something the Left would rather we not know or remember, for obvious reasons.
So now referring to that incident has become shorthand for someone who is swallowing what they've been told hook, line and sinker instead of thinking for themselves.
An excellent example of this is Limbaugh's Legion of Dittoheads.
That's cute - quoting the Bible to say that Christians should be critical when the whole history of Christianity in all its forms has been one of enforced conformity along with aggressive indoctrination (in the past often on pain of death or severe punishment, and today more a case of social and psychological manipulation").
Still distorting history again, I see.
And still holding on to the crazy idea that it's not Christianity's teachings which define Christianity, but those who violate those teachings.
I feel sorry for you.
So tell me, where does the Bible teach that Christians are to do the things you complain about? I know the Koran actually teaches that all Muslims are to oppress or kill non-Believers unless they convert, with no time or place restrictions. The Bible doesn't.
What does it actually teach Christians to do? How 'bout this:
"I give you a new commandment: love one another. Just as I have loved you, you must also love one another. By this all people will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another."
(John 13:34–35 HCSB)
"But I say to you who listen: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you."
(Luke 6:27–28 HCSB)
Finally, what's wrong with trying to convince someone of something you are convinced is true? You are doing exactly that.
I'll remind you again that Penn Gillette gets it. Why don't you?
Actually, 4:04, if you read this article, particularly the last six paragraphs, you'll find that the Christianity you talk about was the one that appeared as a result of the clash with Islam resulting from the Islamic invasions of Europe. I myself was surprised to read this, including the part where Christianity actually dissolved the warlike tendencies of the barbarians that conquered Rome, having known of the Dark Age Christianity you talk about.
Still distorting history again, I see.
Still quoting fairy tales again, I see.
Some try to separate the idea/belief of "Christianity" from the followers who may have "strayed from the path". But the history of Christianity has been nothing but dividing paths right from the start - from the jewish sect to Paul of Tarsus' re-newed church for ther gentiles - to the many so-called heresies, and on to the official establishment under the Roman Empire, and then centuries of schisms.
So who's to know the difference between Jesus' original message (if ever recorded correctly) and the countless interpretations since. But don't look to the received "Bible", as that is a highly edited version).
"if ever recorded correctly) and the countless interpretations since. But don't look to the received "Bible", as that is a highly edited version"
As Mongo said, "quoting fairy tales".
We have solid evidence that the Bible has not been changed over the centuries, including a huge number of manuscripts (that's handwritten copies) exceeding even the next most copied writing—Homer's Iliad— by a by about 25,000 to 643 with the oldest copies coming within about 50 years of the originals compared to a more than 400 year gap from the original Iliad, numerous quotations in writings of early church fathers and enemies (to the point that we could reconstruct every bit of the Bible, except for a handful of verses just from those quotations), etc. We even have writings of guys just like you from the first century complaining about these darn Christians believing that Jesus rose from the dead. We have darn good reasons to be confident that the Bible was passed down accurately.
I'm not even going to bother taking the time to explain why we can be confident in what was recorded. It would be time consuming, and you've shown that you don't want to hear it anyway.
"Some try to separate the idea/belief of "Christianity" from the followers who may have "strayed from the path"."
And some (like you) try to claim that those who deviate from the standard somehow changes that standard. That's simply ridiculous.
During this past Olympics there was a speed skater who was on pace to break the record by a large margin. But his coach told him to change lanes when he was already in the correct lane. Did that mistake make such a lane change The New Standard? Of course not!
If a builder misreads a blue print (deliberately or not) and builds a building wrong, does that mean the architect was wrong? No, the architect is not wrong because the builder didn't follow the architect's instructions.
If someone decides that an inch should as long as his middle finger, then mass produces and sells rulers and tape measures using his new standard, would that somehow magically change the standard definition of an inch at NIST? No, of course not. That just means his measuring devices are wrong.
If you decide to set a goal to save $100 a month, but you only save $90 a month, does that mean your original goal was $90 a month. Again, no, of course not! It means that you failed to live up to the standard you set for yourself, not that the standard had magically changed.
If every English speaking person in the world believed that William Shakespeare wrote a play about the Flying Spaghetti Monster, would that mean that Shakespeare actually did write such a play? No, of course not. The standard of "Plays written by Wm. Shakespeare" doesn't change just because everyone believes something that does not match up with that standard.
This idea that someone violating a standard (and contrary to your assertion, an extreme minority of believers violated that standard to the degrees you cite) somehow changes or invalidates the original standard just doesn't make sense. You can say that they violated that standard and they are therefore wrong, which would be true. Arguing that something about the original standard is wrong, even when fully followed is also a reasonable type of argument. But to argue that an original standard is somehow bad because of those who violate that standard just strikes me as unspeakably irrational. You might as well just argue that Christianity is bad because you hate beets.
Is that typical verbosity of christians supposed to be in any way relevant or convincing- or just a smoke-screen?
Please say in a concise way what you actually mean (in relation to the previous posts to which you were presumably referring).
Christian denominations and sects disagree with each other, and have always disagreed, over the "standard", so the "standard" is clearly in dispute (to the point of violence and war). The "standard" can cover a huge range of issues, but even the meaning behind the recorded words of Jesus are argued over.
Anon 4:39,
What does word count have to do with whether or not an argument is valid?
Anon 7:30,
I'm sorry, is "love your enemies" somehow unclear?
Humans have a remarkable ability for self-delusion. Almost every single day, I see people taking things out of context, distorting words, distorting evidence, ignoring things they don't like, and generally believing what they want to believe even in the face of evidence to the contrary. And this is in every area of life, not just religion. It's no surprise that people try to do the same to The Bible.
Yes, there are portions of The Bible that are vague where even careful well-meaning thinkers can disagree. (For example, the exact order of some prophesied events around Jesus' return.) But there are also portions which are crystal clear, such as the "Love your enemies" passage I quoted earlier. (Luke 6:27–28)
People try to force their own preferences onto anything and everything. That says nothing about the validity of what was originally written.
What does word count have to do with whether or not an argument is valid?
Nothing. But it DOES show if you are a blowhard or not.
Even if your "blowhard" label was correct, what does that have to do with the validity of the statements?
If it doesn't mean anything, why bring it up?
Post a Comment