WATCH: Georgia graduation ceremony breaks down after principal rants about ‘all the black people’

First topic message reminder :

The graduation ceremony at a private school in Stone Mountain, Georgia sank into disarray after the school’s principal and founder clashed with the audience, The Grio reported. Footage of the event at TNT Academy shows Nancy Gordeuk chiding crowd members after she mistakenly ended the ceremony before the valedictorian made his speech.






http://www.rawstory.com/2015/05/watch-georgia-graduation-ceremony-breaks-down-after-principal-rants-about-all-the-black-people/

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Nemesis wrote:


Just to clarify, you are talking utter shit:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_trash

Just to read your own link for you:

"By 1855 the term had passed into common usage by upper-class whites, and was common usage among all Southerners, regardless of race, throughout the rest of the 19th century."

Is that all the link said, or do you want me to embarrass you further?
Are you still being idiotic enough to think it is not a racial derogatory remark?

Nemesis wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Nemesis wrote:


Just to clarify, you are talking utter shit:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_trash

Just to read your own link for you:

"By 1855 the term had passed into common usage by upper-class whites, and was common usage among all Southerners, regardless of race, throughout the rest of the 19th century."

Is that all the link said, or do you want me to embarrass you further?
Are you still being idiotic enough to think it is not a racial derogatory remark?

I saw what the link said -- I'm telling you, minorities don't call white people that very often now. The link showed how it was mostly popular as a racial slur over 100 years ago. It's really not used that way any more, and many people self-identify as white trash (or rednecks) now:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlNyN8qNvgc

All I can say is, this is something no British person knows unless they've spent a lot of time here. I called my friend white trash and he agreed

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Nemesis wrote:


Is that all the link said, or do you want me to embarrass you further?
Are you still being idiotic enough to think it is not a racial derogatory remark?

I saw what the link said -- I'm telling you, minorities don't call white people that very often now. The link showed how it was mostly popular as a racial slur over 100 years ago. It's really not used that way any more, and many people self-identify as white trash (or rednecks) now:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlNyN8qNvgc

All I can say is, this is something no British person knows unless they've spent a lot of time here. I called my friend white trash and he agreed

This is why I have little time for idiots
You claim to be against racism and yet here champion a racist term against whites.
That is what is called a self hating white person and a proponent of racism itself.
The fact you elude to people using this and then excuse it based on the most idiotic thinking, shows how daft you can be at times.
It is a racial abusive term, that stigmatizes white people.
Seriously stop coming out with bullshit and defending a racial abusive word.
Your argument is basically saying well blacks say N-i-g-g-a, so its okay for whites to then call them this also.
That is what you call being utterly stupid
Hence why the yanks are clueless when it comes to racism and why they still have countless problems, as seen here they try to champion a racist term.

I'm just telling you about my culture, no need to get abusive about it.

Ben_Reilly wrote:I'm just telling you about my culture, no need to get abusive about it.

That is because you are being a twat trying to defend a racist term.
Hence why you have huge problems with racism, as seen through the most idiotic view, you make such terms acceptable.
I do not think you begin to understand how much I fight against racism, for you here to defend such a racist term, hence why it annoys me and even more because you are not stupid. I could excuse stupidity, but you clearly are not stupid, hence why I will rightly chastise you here.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:The use of such a term in the UK could land you in bother. I do think that sometimes there's too much fuss made about these things, but at least in the UK we have some kind of equality when it comes to racial slurs.

Like I said, it's not really a racial slur. A black person would be far more likely to use the term "cracker" (to denote any white person), while it's the upper-class whites who typically call lower-class whites "white trash."

It would be a racial slur here. A teacher was prosecuted for using the term "white trash".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/8186919/Teacher-who-said-child-was-white-trash-convicted-of-race-crime.html

If someone was called a cracker here, it would be considered a compliment.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Imagine going into your attic and lifting a box, only to find a nest of roaches milling about.  That's pretty much white trash South Carolina, Georgia and Florida.

Is the term "white trash" not considered to be racist over there? You wouldn't say "black trash" would you?

This is my point over and over and over again on this forum.

It's actually becoming very racist towards it's white self!

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:


Is the term "white trash" not considered to be racist over there? You wouldn't say "black trash" would you?

This is my point over and over and over again on this forum.

It's actually becoming very racist towards it's white self!

I think there's a different perception in the US as to what is a racial slur and what isn't. It does appear that Ben and Quill don't think you can be racist against a "majority" - ie, white people. In the UK, we apply it more across the board, although I would say that racial slurs against non-white people do generate more outrage.

I've noticed that both Ben and Quill do make a lot of references to people's race - much more so than anyone else on here.

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:


This is my point over and over and over again on this forum.

It's actually becoming very racist towards it's white self!

I think there's a different perception in the US as to what is a racial slur and what isn't. It does appear that Ben and Quill don't think you can be racist against a "majority" - ie, white people. In the UK, we apply it more across the board, although I would say that racial slurs against non-white people do generate more outrage.

I've noticed that both Ben and Quill do make a lot of references to people's race - much more so than anyone else on here.

The issue isn't about the majority, as discrimination against Hispanics in the US confirms.  Hispanics in California, the largest state in the union, and other huge states, are in the majority, yet a white elite keeps discrimination against them in place.  Getting down to basics, what we reject about racism is it's use in discrimination: treating others of a different race as inferior.

The better expression to describe the conundrum is, 'you can't be racially discriminatory against the privileged'.  The privileged are the established and well fixed in any society.  Hitler tried to define them in the 1930's, using terms like 'Aryan race' and 'master-race', but these expressions inevitably suffered from having far too parochial a reference.  Feelings of superiority are not limited to religion, ethnicity, national origin or race.  Better to go directly to the point: what we mean is, the privileged in any society.

To say that one can be both privileged and yet be discriminated against is an absurdity.  This use of the term loses its meaning, which is quite possibly the motive in political debate.  In order to understand how racism is discriminatory, you have to understand the history of the given society.  You have to understand the course of how one insular group nurtures feelings of superiority against another group.

There is no such history of black discrimination against whites in either Anglo or American society.  To the contrary with reference to American society, we all know that blacks were the object of discrimination by whites, beginning with slavery, through separate-but-equal, on to segregation, and thence to the social racism of the present day.  So there is no referent for white racism, and that's the problem with trying to invent the term.

To say that terms like 'white-trash' are racist is an absurdity, constructed in a phantasmal mind.  The whole concept of white racism is rather like the concept of a unicorn: we all know that a unicorn is a mythical animal and that no such animal exists, but we use our imagination to construct a unicorn, imagining a lovable horse with a rhino's horn on its nose.  Nevertheless, it is best to put the imaginings aside when dealing in serious matters.  Such fantasies reveal what you want to be true, but cannot have.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I think there's a different perception in the US as to what is a racial slur and what isn't. It does appear that Ben and Quill don't think you can be racist against a "majority" - ie, white people. In the UK, we apply it more across the board, although I would say that racial slurs against non-white people do generate more outrage.

I've noticed that both Ben and Quill do make a lot of references to people's race - much more so than anyone else on here.

The issue isn't about the majority, as discrimination against Hispanics in the US confirms.  Hispanics in California, the largest state in the union, and other huge states, are in the majority, yet a white elite keeps discrimination against them in place.  Getting down to basics, what we reject about racism is it's use in discrimination: treating others of a different race as inferior.

The better expression to describe the conundrum is, 'you can't be racially discriminatory against the privileged'.  The privileged are the established and well fixed in any society.  Hitler tried to define them in the 1930's, using terms like 'Aryan race' and 'master-race', but these expressions inevitably suffered from having far too parochial a reference.  Feelings of superiority are not limited to religion, ethnicity, national origin or race.  Better to go directly to the point: what we mean is, the privileged in any society.

To say that one can be both privileged and yet be discriminated against is an absurdity.  This use of the term loses its meaning, which is quite possibly the motive in political debate.  In order to understand how racism is discriminatory, you have to understand the history of the given society.  You have to understand the course of how one insular group nurtures feelings of superiority against another group.

There is no such history of black discrimination against whites in either Anglo or American society.  To the contrary with reference to American society, we all know that blacks were the object of discrimination by whites, beginning with slavery, through separate-but-equal, on to segregation, and thence to the social racism of the present day.  So there is no referent for white racism, and that's the problem with trying to invent the term.

To say that terms like 'white-trash' are racist is an absurdity, constructed in a phantasmal mind.  The whole concept of white racism is rather like the concept of a unicorn: we all know that a unicorn is a mythical animal and that no such animal exists, but we use our imagination to construct a unicorn, imagining a lovable horse with a rhino's horn on its nose.  Nevertheless, it is best to put the imaginings aside when dealing in serious matters.  Such fantasies reveal what you want to be true, but cannot have.

The law-makers in the UK disagree with you. Your way is not necessarily the best way as it encourages racism against people who you deem to be "privileged" for some bizarre reason.

You'd think that the Americans would learn that constantly telling some people that they're privileged, and others that they're victims is a really stupid idea. It doesn't seem to have worked so far - in fact it seems to be making things worse.

Raggamuffin wrote:You'd think that the Americans would learn that constantly telling some people that they're privileged, and others that they're victims is a really stupid idea. It doesn't seem to have worked so far - in fact it seems to be making things worse.

Some people ARE privileged and others ARE victims. You can't wish away reality by not talking about it.

Raggamuffin wrote:The law-makers in the UK disagree with you. Your way is not necessarily the best way as it encourages racism against people who you deem to be "privileged" for some bizarre reason.

The lawmakers in Britain as not the most insightful folks, as I have learned through experience watching them.  I think that most Europeans, when it comes to discrimination, operate under assumptions born of Nazism, which incorporated racism, but went far beyond.  So Britain tries to craft a 'one-size-fits-all' kind of remedy, which doesn't always work.

This approach actually exacerbates the problem, and the present scenario is a case in point.  While purporting to remedy disenfranchisement, the British 'one-size-fits-all' answer actually creates safe havens for the guys responsible.  The discriminators get to cry discrimination! when they have not remotely experienced any such thing.

This creates (1) a faux issue, wasting a real concern, leading people like John Roberts to declare that racism is over, Shelby County v. Holder (2012); or worse, (2) puts a tool in the hands of the bad guys to use to perpetuate the wrong.  Time wasted to coddle privileged white people, is time subtracted from benefiting the people in need.

Either way, this approach aids in neutralizing a very real concern, and retarding the progress of Britain.  Lol...but that's not new, in either the UK or the US.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:You'd think that the Americans would learn that constantly telling some people that they're privileged, and others that they're victims is a really stupid idea. It doesn't seem to have worked so far - in fact it seems to be making things worse.

Some people ARE privileged and others ARE victims. You can't wish away reality by not talking about it.

Quill thinks that anyone who is white is privileged though, even if they're poor, ill, or whatever. He thinks that all black people are victims, even if they're rich, successful, and perfectly happy.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:The law-makers in the UK disagree with you. Your way is not necessarily the best way as it encourages racism against people who you deem to be "privileged" for some bizarre reason.

The lawmakers in Britain as not the most insightful folks, as I have learned through experience watching them.  I think that most Europeans, when it comes to discrimination, operate under assumptions born of Nazism, which incorporated racism, but went far beyond.  So Britain tries to craft a 'one-size-fit-all' kind of remedy, which doesn't always work.

This approach actually exacerbates the problem, and the present scenario is a case in point.  While purporting to remedy disenfranchisement, the British 'one-size-fit-all' answer actually creates safe havens for the guys responsible.  The discriminators get to cry discrimination! when they have not remotely experienced any such thing.

This creates (1) a faux issue, wasting a real concern, leading people like John Roberts to declare that racism is over, Shelby County v. Holder (2012); or worse, (2) puts a tool in the hands of the bad guys to use to perpetuate the wrong.  Time wasted to coddle privileged white people, is time subtracted from benefiting the people in need.

Either way, this approach aids in neutralizing a very real concern, and retarding the progress of Britain.  Lol...but that's not new, in either the UK or the US.

Wrong, it is centered around discrimination to blacks and asians, sorry but you are way of the mark understanding Britain.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:The law-makers in the UK disagree with you. Your way is not necessarily the best way as it encourages racism against people who you deem to be "privileged" for some bizarre reason.

The lawmakers in Britain as not the most insightful folks, as I have learned through experience watching them.  I think that most Europeans, when it comes to discrimination, operate under assumptions born of Nazism, which incorporated racism, but went far beyond.  So Britain tries to craft a 'one-size-fit-all' kind of remedy, which doesn't always work.

This approach actually exacerbates the problem, and the present scenario is a case in point.  While purporting to remedy disenfranchisement, the British 'one-size-fit-all' answer actually creates safe havens for the guys responsible.  The discriminators get to cry discrimination! when they have not remotely experienced any such thing.

This creates (1) a faux issue, wasting a real concern, leading people like John Roberts to declare that racism is over, Shelby County v. Holder (2012); or worse, (2) puts a tool in the hands of the bad guys to use to perpetuate the wrong.  Time wasted to coddle privileged white people, is time subtracted from benefiting the people in need.

Either way, this approach aids in neutralizing a very real concern, and retarding the progress of Britain.  Lol...but that's not new, in either the UK or the US.

Well I think it's best to have laws which do not discriminate on the basis of someone's race, don't you?

Do you think that your way is working? You're constantly complaining on here about black people being picked on, so it doesn't seem to be.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Some people ARE privileged and others ARE victims. You can't wish away reality by not talking about it.

Quill thinks that anyone who is white is privileged though, even if they're poor, ill, or whatever. He thinks that all black people are victims, even if they're rich, successful, and perfectly happy.

Well, to your credit, you are honing in on the issue. The issue isn't economics ("rich") or spirituality ('happiness') or health ("ill") as you suggest, but feelings of racial superiority. Sometimes its simpler to go right to the point, and if you need to extrapolate you can always step back.

Put in those terms, and using your logic Raggs, yes...I think it is irrefutable that whites feel their are privileged and are indeed privileged over blacks.

Nemesis wrote:Wrong, it is centered around discrimination to blacks and asians, sorry but you are way of the mark understanding Britain.

Even when you say "blacks and asians [sic]" you are taking a 'one-size-fits-all' approach. The history of discriminatory treatment of blacks is decidedly different from the history of discrimination against Asians.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Quill thinks that anyone who is white is privileged though, even if they're poor, ill, or whatever. He thinks that all black people are victims, even if they're rich, successful, and perfectly happy.

Well, to your credit, you are honing in on the issue.  The issue isn't economics ("rich") or spirituality ('happiness') or health ("ill") as you suggest, but feelings of racial superiority.  Sometimes its simpler to go right to the point, and if you need to extrapolate you can always step back.

Put in those terms, and using your logic Raggs, yes...I think it is irrefutable that whites feel their are privileged and are indeed privileged over blacks.

My dear chap, if you constantly tell white people that they're privileged (good), and that black people are victims (bad), you're basically telling them that they're superior.

If you constantly tell black people that they're victims, of course they're going to feel like victims in the end.

Original Quill wrote:

Nemesis wrote:Wrong, it is centered around discrimination to blacks and asians, sorry but you are way of the mark understanding Britain.

Even when you say "blacks and asians [sic]" you are taking a 'one-size-fits-all' approach.  The history of discriminatory treatment of blacks is decidedly different from the history of discrimination against Asians.

No just showing where the biggest problems exist, next would be antisemitism in this country, though they change from year to year who faces the worst. In this country the problem was together when the first influx of Asians Blacks came in the 1950's do they are very much interlinked

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:You'd think that the Americans would learn that constantly telling some people that they're privileged, and others that they're victims is a really stupid idea. It doesn't seem to have worked so far - in fact it seems to be making things worse.

Some people ARE privileged and others ARE victims. You can't wish away reality by not talking about it.

Why is it ok to be horrible to privileged people? Dont get it. Sorry.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Some people ARE privileged and others ARE victims. You can't wish away reality by not talking about it.

Quill thinks that anyone who is white is privileged though, even if they're poor, ill, or whatever. He thinks that all black people are victims, even if they're rich, successful, and perfectly happy.

Well, to your credit, you are honing in on the issue.  The issue isn't economics ("rich") or spirituality ('happiness') or health ("ill") as you suggest, but feelings of racial superiority.  Sometimes its simpler to go right to the point, and if you need to extrapolate you can always step back.

Put in those terms, and using your logic Raggs, yes...I think it is irrefutable that whites feel their are privileged and are indeed privileged over blacks.

Hmmmm. I think YOU do?!!!
That is very obvious by your last sentence and hence why you feel guilt perhaps?

You,really bang on about this issue a lot and your last sentence is very telling quill.
Wow. Seriously!

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Well, to your credit, you are honing in on the issue.  The issue isn't economics ("rich") or spirituality ('happiness') or health ("ill") as you suggest, but feelings of racial superiority.  Sometimes its simpler to go right to the point, and if you need to extrapolate you can always step back.

Put in those terms, and using your logic Raggs, yes...I think it is irrefutable that whites feel their are privileged and are indeed privileged over blacks.

Hmmmm. I think YOU do?!!!
That is very obvious by your last sentence and hence why you feel guilt perhaps?

You,really bang on about this issue a lot and your last sentence is very telling quill.
Wow. Seriously!

Half the problem is with this word - "privilege" and its meaning. Quill himself has changed his definition of it now - he means a superiority complex.

eddie wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:You'd think that the Americans would learn that constantly telling some people that they're privileged, and others that they're victims is a really stupid idea. It doesn't seem to have worked so far - in fact it seems to be making things worse.

Some people ARE privileged and others ARE victims. You can't wish away reality by not talking about it.

Why is it ok to be horrible to privileged people? Dont get it. Sorry.

only when the privilege has come at the expense of other people
then yes it is moral to be horrible to the Privileged.

veya_victaous wrote:

eddie wrote:

Why is it ok to be horrible to privileged people? Dont get it. Sorry.

only when the privilege has come at the expense of other people
then yes it is moral to be horrible to the Privileged.

So because Quill thinks that all white people are privileged, you think it's fine to be horrible to all white people?

have i said quill is not racist???

you will find i said ALL PEOPLE ARE racist... that include me... it is the way the brain is structured. it will take several more generations to evolve new mental techniques to replace stereotypes and preconceptions

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Well, to your credit, you are honing in on the issue.  The issue isn't economics ("rich") or spirituality ('happiness') or health ("ill") as you suggest, but feelings of racial superiority.  Sometimes its simpler to go right to the point, and if you need to extrapolate you can always step back.

Put in those terms, and using your logic Raggs, yes...I think it is irrefutable that whites feel their are privileged and are indeed privileged over blacks.

Hmmmm. I think YOU do?!!!
That is very obvious by your last sentence and hence why you feel guilt perhaps?

You,really bang on about this issue a lot and your last sentence is very telling quill.
Wow. Seriously!

To add to me already posting this on another thread for you:


Colorblind

What they say:

“People are just people.” “I don’t see color.” “We’re all just human.” “Character, not color, is what counts with me.”

Response:

“Colorblindness” negates the cultural values, norms, expectations and life experiences of people of color. Even if an individual white person can ignore a person’s skin color, society does not.

Claiming to be “colorblind” can also be a defense when someone is afraid to discuss racism, especially if the assumption is that all conversation about race or color is racist. Color consciousness does not equal racism.


Reverse Racism

What they say:

“Blacks cry ‘racism’ for everything, even though they are more or just as racist as white people.”

Response:

Let’s first define racism with this formula: Racism = racial prejudice + systemic institutional power.

To say people of color can be racist, denies the power imbalance inherent in racism. Although some Black people dislike whites and act on that prejudice to insult or hurt them, that’s not the same as systematically oppressing them and negatively affecting every aspect of their lives.

People of color, as a social group, do not possess the societal, institutional power to oppress white people as a group. An individual Black person who is abusing a white person, while clearly wrong, is acting out a personal racial prejudice, not racism.


It’s Not Race

What they say:

“It’s not race, it’s economics.” “Classism is the new racism.”

Response:

“Being Black and middle class is fundamentally different to being white and middle class.” This is what Dr. Nicola Rollock, a researcher at The Institute of Education at the University at Birmingham in the U.K., said after researching the issue.

For the report, “The Educational Strategies of the Black Middle Classes,” Rollock and her team looked at African-Caribbean families in particular, and confirmed that there is a Black “middle class” who work very hard to do the best for their children. But researchers also discovered that social status and relative wealth do not protect Black people from racism.

Racism is a reality in the lives of Black middle-class families and it extends to the upper class too, as Oprah Winfrey would agree based on her widely reported racial-profiling incident at a Zurich boutique last year.


Pull Yourself Up by Your Bootstraps

What they say:

“America is the land of opportunity, built by rugged individuals, where anyone with grit can succeed if they just pull up hard enough on their bootstraps. So Blacks need to pull themselves up from the bottom like everyone else.”

Response:

U.S. social propaganda has convinced many people that an individual’s hard work is the main determinant of success in the country. This ideology totally denies the impact of either oppression or privilege on any person’s chance for success, and pretends that every individual, regardless of color, gender, disability, etc., has the same access to the rights, benefits and responsibilities of society.

It also implies that Blacks have only their individual character flaws or cultural inadequacies to blame, and not racism.

- See more at: http://atlantablackstar.com/2014/02/10/7-things-color-blind-racist-friend-might-say-respond/6/#sthash.8p74lRbh.dpuf

veya_victaous wrote:have i said quill is not racist???

you will find i said ALL PEOPLE ARE racist... that include me... it is the way the brain is structured. it will take several more generations to evolve new mental techniques to replace stereotypes and preconceptions  

And yet you just had a huge rant on another thread about the "Brits" being racist.

You even want the UK to change its culture to suit you. Do you include the Scots, the Welsh, and the Northern Irish by the way, or do you mean just the English?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Well, to your credit, you are honing in on the issue.  The issue isn't economics ("rich") or spirituality ('happiness') or health ("ill") as you suggest, but feelings of racial superiority.  Sometimes its simpler to go right to the point, and if you need to extrapolate you can always step back.

Put in those terms, and using your logic Raggs, yes...I think it is irrefutable that whites feel their are privileged and are indeed privileged over blacks.

My dear chap, if you constantly tell white people that they're privileged (good), and that black people are victims (bad), you're basically telling them that they're superior.

Yes, there is definitely a hierarchy in all of this.  You seem to be of the opinion that if we ignore it, it will go away.  We in America can tell you from experience that does not happen.  We need to talk about it with a mind toward changing things.

Your social theory--omg, are you a socialist?--that silence will heal, has in fact resulted in devoting that passivity toward perpetuating the disease.  This is actually a restatement of inertia, an old law of physics: In the absence of a counterforce, what is, is what will be.

Raggamuffin wrote:If you constantly tell black people that they're victims, of course they're going to feel like victims in the end.

Just as they did in the beginning, when slavery began.  But to suggest that by merely telling blacks 'the opposite', as the remedy, is absurd.  You fail to explain, in your theory of silence, how passivity will result in any change at all.  It only allows self-perpetuation of the racism, which is the source of it all.

Nemesis wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Even when you say "blacks and asians [sic]" you are taking a 'one-size-fits-all' approach.  The history of discriminatory treatment of blacks is decidedly different from the history of discrimination against Asians.

No just showing where the biggest problems exist, next would be antisemitism in this country, though they change from year to year who faces the worst. In this country the problem was together when the first influx of Asians Blacks came in the 1950's do they are very much interlinked

Yes, you can imagine how startling it is to hear that it came about for you in the 1950's. For us it started in the 16th-century.

I can understand why you take the 'one-size-fits-all' approach to a remedy. Although we in the US are cognizant of the similarities, we tend to stress the individuality of the movements. For blacks, it is the skin color and the arrogant assumptions of white racists, resulting in social, economic, educational and justice discrimination; for Hispanics it is the language, and family patterns, also resulting in educational and economic discrimination; for Asians it is housing and economic segregation.

Fortunately, we have little or no issue with Jews, whom we tend to look up to in this country. That was Europe's thing...a sort of jealousy, I believe. Here, we don't get jealous; we compete. Ironically, this has left the Jew in good stead in the US, because Jews are so good at everything they do. It's a microcosm, but you can see in this how America was going for capitalism, and Europe was heading toward socialism

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

My dear chap, if you constantly tell white people that they're privileged (good), and that black people are victims (bad), you're basically telling them that they're superior.

Yes, there is definitely a hierarchy in all of this.  You seem to be of the opinion that if we ignore it, it will go away.  We in America can tell you from experience that does not happen.  We need to talk about it with a mind toward changing things.

Your social theory--omg, are you a socialist?--that silence will heal, has in fact resulted in devoting that passivity toward perpetuating the disease.  This is actually a restatement of inertia, an old law of physics: In the absence of a counterforce, what is, is what will be.

Raggamuffin wrote:If you constantly tell black people that they're victims, of course they're going to feel like victims in the end.

Just as they did in the beginning, when slavery began.  But to suggest that by merely telling blacks 'the opposite', as the remedy, is absurd.  You fail to explain, in your theory of silence, how passivity will result in any change at all.  It only allows self-perpetuation of the racism, which is the source of it all.

Why not just tell everyone that slavery is over, and they're all equal? Have laws which say that, and then apply them. Don't keep on about it though.

I really do think that some people like to feel like victims, so you're just encouraging it. If you tell people that they're privileged, that will get their backs up if they don't feel privileged.

You do mean a superiority complex rather than being privileged don't you? You mentioned economic issues before, but now you seem to be saying that it's nothing to do with how well off or poor someone is. I think the word itself might be causing problems in communication.

I don't think you have to be a socialist to see that constantly pointing out the differences between people is not going to bring them together.

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Well, to your credit, you are honing in on the issue.  The issue isn't economics ("rich") or spirituality ('happiness') or health ("ill") as you suggest, but feelings of racial superiority.  Sometimes its simpler to go right to the point, and if you need to extrapolate you can always step back.

Put in those terms, and using your logic Raggs, yes...I think it is irrefutable that whites feel their are privileged and are indeed privileged over blacks.

Hmmmm. I think YOU do?!!!
That is very obvious by your last sentence and hence why you feel guilt perhaps?

You,really bang on about this issue a lot and your last sentence is very telling quill.
Wow. Seriously!

I am aware that it is a huge issue in my life, and I have more-or-less accepted it as my mission in life to spin the wheel toward a remedy.  Remember, I was a student at Berkeley, standing in Sproul Hall Plaza, when they announced that Martin Luther King had been murdered.

Racism is certainly the biggest social problem of America.  America could almost be the perfect country, were it not for racism and war.  So vast, so wealthy, so powerful, so well-intentioned...and yet, so base in racial fairness and the willingness to settle even the most minor differences by violence.  Those two issues--guns are a sub-set of the war mentality--are what stops America from being the successful experiment in political science started in 1791.

Original Quill wrote:

Nemesis wrote:

No just showing where the biggest problems exist, next would be antisemitism in this country, though they change from year to year who faces the worst. In this country the problem was together when the first influx of Asians Blacks came in the 1950's do they are very much interlinked

Yes, you can imagine how startling it is to hear that it came about for you in the 1950's.  For us it started in the 16th-century.  

I can understand why you take the 'one-size-fits-all' approach to a remedy.  Although we in the US are cognizant of the similarities, we tend to stress the individuality of the movements.  For blacks, it is the skin color and the arrogant assumptions of white racists, resulting in social, economic, educational and justice discrimination; for Hispanics it is the language, and family patterns, also resulting in educational and economic discrimination; for Asians it is housing and economic segregation.  

Fortunately, we have little or no issue with Jews, whom we tend to look up to in this country.  That was Europe's thing...a sort of jealousy, I believe.  Here, we don't get jealous; we compete.  Ironically, this has left the Jew in good stead in the US, because Jews are so good at everything they do.  It's a microcosm, but you can see in this how America was going for capitalism, and Europe was heading toward socialism

Not all Jews are good at everything they do - that's just generalising.

I would say we don't have much antisemitism in this country - generally speaking.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:


Hmmmm. I think YOU do?!!!
That is very obvious by your last sentence and hence why you feel guilt perhaps?

You,really bang on about this issue a lot and your last sentence is very telling quill.
Wow. Seriously!

I am aware that it is a huge issue in my life, and I have more-or-less accepted it as my mission in life to spin the wheel toward a remedy.  Remember, I was a student at Berkeley, standing in Sproul Hall Plaza, when they announced that Martin Luther King had been murdered.

Racism is certainly the biggest social problem of America.  America could almost be the perfect country, were it not for racism and war.  So vast, so wealthy, so powerful, so well-intentioned...and yet, so base in racial fairness and the willingness to settle even the most minor differences by violence.  Those two issues--guns are a sub-set of the war mentality--are what stops America from being the successful experiment in political science started in 1791.

You'd need to abolish the death penalty too - that's rather uncivilised. Oh, and tell some people to keep the noise down.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:


Hmmmm. I think YOU do?!!!
That is very obvious by your last sentence and hence why you feel guilt perhaps?

You,really bang on about this issue a lot and your last sentence is very telling quill.
Wow. Seriously!

I am aware that it is a huge issue in my life, and I have more-or-less accepted it as my mission in life to spin the wheel toward a remedy.  Remember, I was a student at Berkeley, standing in Sproul Hall Plaza, when they announced that Martin Luther King had been murdered.

Racism is certainly the biggest social problem of America.  America could almost be the perfect country, were it not for racism and war.  So vast, so wealthy, so powerful, so well-intentioned...and yet, so base in racial fairness and the willingness to settle even the most minor differences by violence.  Those two issues--guns are a sub-set of the war mentality--are what stops America from being the successful experiment in political science started in 1791.

But you make good hamburgers.

Raggamuffin wrote:Why not just tell everyone that slavery is over, and they're all equal? Have laws which say that, and then apply them. Don't keep on about it though.

Do you think that would work?





I think it's rather pollyannaish, but more power to you. The reason why we carry on is that it is still in the political stage. Republicans have seen they can make political cash by pandering to racism. That is their Southern Strategy. We can't even get those laws you speak of, written. So, we keep "keep on" about it.

Raggamuffin wrote:You do mean a superiority complex rather than being privileged don't you? You mentioned economic issues before, but now you seem to be saying that it's nothing to do with how well off or poor someone is. I think the word itself might be causing problems in communication.

I think you see things in dichotomies too much… ‘either/or’, ‘left/right’. As I said to eds, yes there are overlaps between racial discrimination and class economics. It’s not ‘either/or’. Economic class seeks to stratify people in society. A prime way to discriminate is to stratify people. Racism is a cause; economics is an effect. Whether you give it a psychological name like ‘superiority complex’ or and economic name like ‘poor’, or the pejorative ‘trash’, you are dealing with a single phenomenon…discrimination by race. Society is not like a laboratory, where you can isolate elements and treat them singularly.

Raggamuffin wrote:I don't think you have to be a socialist to see that constantly pointing out the differences between people is not going to bring them together.

What I find interesting, and mention it merely in passing, is your penchant for social theory. Normally, RWers like to view society as a collection of individuals, eschewing social theory altogether…something they call socialism.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Why not just tell everyone that slavery is over, and they're all equal? Have laws which say that, and then apply them. Don't keep on about it though.

Do you think that would work?





I think it's rather pollyannaish, but more power to you.  The reason why we carry on is that it is still in the political stage.  Republicans have seen they can make political cash by pandering to racism.  That is their Southern Strategy.  We can't even get those laws you speak of, written.  So, we keep "keep on" about it.

Raggamuffin wrote:You do mean a superiority complex rather than being privileged don't you? You mentioned economic issues before, but now you seem to be saying that it's nothing to do with how well off or poor someone is. I think the word itself might be causing problems in communication.

I think you see things in dichotomies too much… ‘either/or’, ‘left/right’.  As I said to eds, yes there are overlaps between racial discrimination and class economics.  It’s not ‘either/or’.  Economic class seeks to stratify people in society.  A prime way to discriminate is to stratify people.  Racism is a cause; economics is an effect.  Whether you give it a psychological name like ‘superiority complex’ or and economic name like ‘poor’, or the pejorative ‘trash’, you are dealing with a single phenomenon…discrimination by race.  Society is not like a laboratory, where you can isolate elements and treat them singularly.

Raggamuffin wrote:I don't think you have to be a socialist to see that constantly pointing out the differences between people is not going to bring them together.

What I find interesting, and mention it merely in passing, is your penchant for social theory.  Normally, RWers like to view society as a collection of individuals, eschewing social theory altogether…something they call socialism.

This is what you said before:

The issue isn't economics ("rich") or spirituality ('happiness') or health ("ill") as you suggest, but feelings of racial superiority. Sometimes its simpler to go right to the point, and if you need to extrapolate you can always step back.

Put in those terms, and using your logic Raggs, yes...I think it is irrefutable that whites feel their are privileged and are indeed privileged over blacks.

In other words, you equate "privilege" with feeling racially superior.

If you have a black guy who is well off, and a white guy who is not, which one do you consider to be more "privileged"?

I do not agree that economic circumstances are necessarily caused by racism. Your insistence that black people are victims may well be making some of them feel that they will never succeed, financially speaking, and they might not bother to try. It might be nothing to do with someone's race at all.

I actually don't see things as "right" or "left". In fact, I have asked on here a few times what those terms mean to people. Nobody answers usually.

You have said that a privileged person can't be discriminated against. Even if one accepted that all white people are privileged, it's perfectly possible for someone to discriminate. A black boss might refuse to give a job to a white person, for example.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

My dear chap, if you constantly tell white people that they're privileged (good), and that black people are victims (bad), you're basically telling them that they're superior.

Yes, there is definitely a hierarchy in all of this.  You seem to be of the opinion that if we ignore it, it will go away.  We in America can tell you from experience that does not happen.  We need to talk about it with a mind toward changing things.

Your social theory--omg, are you a socialist?--that silence will heal, has in fact resulted in devoting that passivity toward perpetuating the disease.  This is actually a restatement of inertia, an old law of physics: In the absence of a counterforce, what is, is what will be.

Raggamuffin wrote:If you constantly tell black people that they're victims, of course they're going to feel like victims in the end.

Just as they did in the beginning, when slavery began.  But to suggest that by merely telling blacks 'the opposite', as the remedy, is absurd.  You fail to explain, in your theory of silence, how passivity will result in any change at all.  It only allows self-perpetuation of the racism, which is the source of it all.

Why not just tell everyone that slavery is over, and they're all equal? Have laws which say that, and then apply them. Don't keep on about it though.

I really do think that some people like to feel like victims, so you're just encouraging it. If you tell people that they're privileged, that will get their backs up if they don't feel privileged.

You do mean a superiority complex rather than being privileged don't you? You mentioned economic issues before, but now you seem to be saying that it's nothing to do with how well off or poor someone is. I think the word itself might be causing problems in communication.

I don't think you have to be a socialist to see that constantly pointing out the differences between people is not going to bring them together.

Okay, do you realize that the systemic oppression of black people in the U.S. in no way ended with slavery? Or that many Southern whites didn't agree with ending the institution at all and were very angry both at the freed slaves and those who freed them?

White America didn't just agree all at once to end slavery, to end segregation, to grant freed slaves the right to vote, to enact stricter laws that would guarantee that when they tried to vote they weren't forced to pay taxes or pass so-called literacy tests; to enact equal-opportunity employment policies ... It's been a fight the entire way with a lot of blood shed by those who wanted equality.

Shady wrote:But you make good hamburgers.

Or better, Pacific dungeness crab sandwiches on sour doughbread:



Sorry, back to the issue.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Why not just tell everyone that slavery is over, and they're all equal? Have laws which say that, and then apply them. Don't keep on about it though.

I really do think that some people like to feel like victims, so you're just encouraging it. If you tell people that they're privileged, that will get their backs up if they don't feel privileged.

You do mean a superiority complex rather than being privileged don't you? You mentioned economic issues before, but now you seem to be saying that it's nothing to do with how well off or poor someone is. I think the word itself might be causing problems in communication.

I don't think you have to be a socialist to see that constantly pointing out the differences between people is not going to bring them together.

Okay, do you realize that the systemic oppression of black people in the U.S. in no way ended with slavery? Or that many Southern whites didn't agree with ending the institution at all and were very angry both at the freed slaves and those who freed them?

White America didn't just agree all at once to end slavery, to end segregation, to grant freed slaves the right to vote, to enact stricter laws that would guarantee that when they tried to vote they weren't forced to pay taxes or pass so-called literacy tests; to enact equal-opportunity employment policies ... It's been a fight the entire way with a lot of blood shed by those who wanted equality.

Well black people can vote now, can't they?

My main objection is to this constant use of the word "privilege". I've seen it used on a forum I used to know - populated by black people, and the bitterness and hatred towards white people on there was terrible at times. If you constantly tell some people they are privileged, they will either take offence because they don't feel privileged, or they will believe you, and it will make the problem worse.

My other objection is this idea that black people can't be racist, or can't discriminate against white people. That's clearly nonsense, and I think you're giving them a green light to be as bigoted and intolerant as some white people are.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Why not just tell everyone that slavery is over, and they're all equal? Have laws which say that, and then apply them. Don't keep on about it though.

I really do think that some people like to feel like victims, so you're just encouraging it. If you tell people that they're privileged, that will get their backs up if they don't feel privileged.

You do mean a superiority complex rather than being privileged don't you? You mentioned economic issues before, but now you seem to be saying that it's nothing to do with how well off or poor someone is. I think the word itself might be causing problems in communication.

I don't think you have to be a socialist to see that constantly pointing out the differences between people is not going to bring them together.

Okay, do you realize that the systemic oppression of black people in the U.S. in no way ended with slavery? Or that many Southern whites didn't agree with ending the institution at all and were very angry both at the freed slaves and those who freed them?

White America didn't just agree all at once to end slavery, to end segregation, to grant freed slaves the right to vote, to enact stricter laws that would guarantee that when they tried to vote they weren't forced to pay taxes or pass so-called literacy tests; to enact equal-opportunity employment policies ... It's been a fight the entire way with a lot of blood shed by those who wanted equality.

Well black people can vote now, can't they?

My main objection is to this constant use of the word "privilege". I've seen it used on a forum I used to know - populated by black people, and the bitterness and hatred towards white people on there was terrible at times.  If you constantly tell some people they are privileged, they will either take offence because they don't feel privileged, or they will believe you, and it will make the problem worse.

My other objection is this idea that black people can't be racist, or can't discriminate against white people. That's clearly nonsense, and I think you're giving them a green light to be as bigoted and intolerant as some white people are.

When asked at a meeting of Texas Republicans “what can Republicans do to get black people to vote,” a Texas Tea Party leader, Ken Emanuelson, gave the following answer:

“I’m going to be real honest with you, the Republican Party doesn’t want black people to vote if they’re going to vote 9-to-1 for Democrats.”

http://americablog.com/2013/06/republican-party-doesnt-want-black-people-to-vote-per-texas-tea-party-leader.html

I can't spend too much time bringing you up to speed on race relations in the U.S.; you should really read up more about this. The fact of the matter is that the Supreme Court recently struck down part of the Voting Rights Act. Districts across the country have passed laws making it more difficult for black people to vote. The problem hasn't been solved, and it still has a long way to go.

Black people make up about 12 percent of the U.S. population. They just don't have the numbers to systematically discriminate against whites the way they have been systematically discriminated against. I'm not saying it's impossible for a black person to discriminate, but it's not happening at the massive scale that the opposite has and in some ways continues. And as far as a black person being bigoted, it's hatred without power, which is a lot different than hatred with power. It basically amounts to name-calling in most instances.

Why do Ohio Republicans suddenly feel so strongly about limiting early voting hours in Democratic counties? Franklin County (Columbus) GOP Chair Doug Preisse gave a surprisingly blunt answer to the Columbus Dispatch on Sunday: “I guess I really actually feel we shouldn’t contort the voting process to accommodate the urban—read African-American—voter-turnout machine.” Preisse is not some rogue operative but the chairman of the Republican Party in Ohio’s second-largest county and a close adviser to Ohio Governor John Kasich.

Like Pennsylvania House majority leader Mike Turzai, who said his state’s voter ID law “is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania,” Preisse said publicly what many Republicans believe privately—keeping turnout down among Obama supporters is the best way for the GOP to win the 2012 election. That’s why, since the 2010 election, Republicans have devoted so much energy to voter-suppression efforts like limiting early voting hours, restricting voter registration drives, passing voter ID laws, disenfranchising ex-felons and purging the voter rolls.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/169454/ohio-gop-admits-early-voting-cutbacks-are-racially-motivated

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well black people can vote now, can't they?

My main objection is to this constant use of the word "privilege". I've seen it used on a forum I used to know - populated by black people, and the bitterness and hatred towards white people on there was terrible at times.  If you constantly tell some people they are privileged, they will either take offence because they don't feel privileged, or they will believe you, and it will make the problem worse.

My other objection is this idea that black people can't be racist, or can't discriminate against white people. That's clearly nonsense, and I think you're giving them a green light to be as bigoted and intolerant as some white people are.

When asked at a meeting of Texas Republicans “what can Republicans do to get black people to vote,” a Texas Tea Party leader, Ken Emanuelson, gave the following answer:

“I’m going to be real honest with you, the Republican Party doesn’t want black people to vote if they’re going to vote 9-to-1 for Democrats.”

http://americablog.com/2013/06/republican-party-doesnt-want-black-people-to-vote-per-texas-tea-party-leader.html

I can't spend too much time bringing you up to speed on race relations in the U.S.; you should really read up more about this. The fact of the matter is that the Supreme Court recently struck down part of the Voting Rights Act. Districts across the country have passed laws making it more difficult for black people to vote. The problem hasn't been solved, and it still has a long way to go.

Black people make up about 12 percent of the U.S. population. They just don't have the numbers to systematically discriminate against whites the way they have been systematically discriminated against. I'm not saying it's impossible for a black person to discriminate, but it's not happening at the massive scale that the opposite has and in some ways continues. And as far as a black person being bigoted, it's hatred without power, which is a lot different than hatred with power. It basically amounts to name-calling in most instances.

Well you can only discriminate against individuals, and so a black person can do that just as much as anyone else. If a white person is turned down for a job because he's white, I doubt it's much comfort that it's not on a massive scale. Discrimination is discrimination.

It sounds like Republicans don't want anyone to vote for the Democrats - understandably, but how is that targeting black people in particular.

Raggamuffin wrote:In other words, you equate "privilege" with feeling racially superior.

In all forms of social stratification there is a ‘superior’ group and there is an ‘inferior’ class. In high school, you might remember the ‘popular’ kids and the ‘not-so-popular’ kids. And remember the ‘in-crowd’?...I think they wrote a song about that. So it’s not solely about race, but race also borrows the same techniques.

Raggamuffin wrote:If you have a black guy who is well off, and a white guy who is not, which one do you consider to be more "privileged"?

In what context? Economics? Or race? Class stratification is a phenomenon that occurs in all sorts of contexts. And, as I have said repeatedly, they overlap in many instances.

Raggamuffin wrote:I do not agree that economic circumstances are necessarily caused by racism. Your insistence that black people are victims may well be making some of them feel that they will never succeed, financially speaking, and they might not bother to try. It might be nothing to do with someone's race at all.

I didn’t say that economic circumstances “are necessarily caused by racism.” This is where you dichotomize too much. Had you paid attention to my discussion with eds (and I told you specifically to read that post…obviously you didn’t), you would have seen that was a discussion about class stratification, and how it overlaps very often with racism. Economics and racism are not mutually exclusive categories.

Raggamuffin wrote:I actually don't see things as "right" or "left". In fact, I have asked on here a few times what those terms mean to people. Nobody answers usually.

I know, but if you understand what I am saying above you will grasp what I mean. (Dichotomize = 'to divide into two parts, classes, or groups' and ‘regard or represent as divided or opposed’, Merriam-Webster.com). ‘Right’ and ‘left’ are a dichotomy in politics.

It’s not the example I want you to focus on, but the fact that you are misunderstanding the subject as two mutually exclusive disciplines. Economics and racism can overlap and do most of the time.

Raggamuffin wrote:You have said that a privileged person can't be discriminated against. Even if one accepted that all white people are privileged, it's perfectly possible for someone to discriminate. A black boss might refuse to give a job to a white person, for example.

But would that be racism? I’m not ruling that out (remember our discussion about ‘black-on-black’ discrimination), but it is more probable than not that it is something other than racism. Remember, racism is a motive…discrimination is what one is motivated to do. So the question in your example is: was racism really the motive for the adverse employment action by the black boss?

Raggamuffin wrote:Well you can only discriminate against individuals, and so a black person can do that just as much as anyone else. If a white person is turned down for a job because he's white, I doubt it's much comfort that it's not on a massive scale. Discrimination is discrimination.

Unquestionably, discrimination can go both ways.  But in the aggregate in America, it is much more common that whites discriminate against blacks.  That is because blacks don’t have the problem; whites do.  That’s why we say that racism is a white problem.

Raggamuffin wrote:It sounds like Republicans don't want anyone to vote for the Democrats - understandably, but how is that targeting black people in particular.

Because Republicans have opted to serve the racists in America—recalling how Republicans have adopted the Southern Strategy— they quite naturally do not get the majority of black votes.  

Realizing this, Republican lawmakers have done as much as they can to prevent blacks from being able to vote.  Again, this is overlapping: politics this time, with racism.  Another example of how life is a mixture, not a laboratory.

Raggamuffin wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:have i said quill is not racist???

you will find i said ALL PEOPLE ARE racist... that include me... it is the way the brain is structured. it will take several more generations to evolve new mental techniques to replace stereotypes and preconceptions  

And yet you just had a huge rant on another thread about the "Brits" being racist.

You even want the UK to change its culture to suit you. Do you include the Scots, the Welsh, and the Northern Irish by the way, or do you mean just the English?

I tell the Americans they are not even a civilized nation all the time

It's not to suit me either it is to suit the globalized western secularism which was instated by largely Anglo powers
some whinging pommie just don't like it now you have to do it too
200 years too late to start complaining

IF your culture is "NOT accepting people speaking to each other on the bus in language you don't understand" then HELL yeah i support changing your culture by force if necessary cause the world Doesn't need another Nazi Scum nation with a culture like that.
The Global community has to look to Europe as a potential Nazi Terrorist breeding ground, that may have to be dealt with we can not let Europe Commit the atrocities it has committed in the past again.

I think I've used the phrase "world's wealthiest third-world nation" to describe my own country before ...

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Well you can only discriminate against individuals, and so a black person can do that just as much as anyone else. If a white person is turned down for a job because he's white, I doubt it's much comfort that it's not on a massive scale. Discrimination is discrimination.

Unquestionably, discrimination can go both ways.  But in the aggregate in America, it is much more common that whites discriminate against blacks.  That is because blacks don’t have the problem; whites do.  That’s why we say that racism is a white problem.

Raggamuffin wrote:It sounds like Republicans don't want anyone to vote for the Democrats - understandably, but how is that targeting black people in particular.

Because Republicans have opted to serve the racists in America—recalling how Republicans have adopted the Southern Strategy— they quite naturally do not get the majority of black votes.  

Realizing this, Republican lawmakers have done as much as they can to prevent blacks from being able to vote.  Again, this is overlapping: politics this time, with racism.  Another example of how life is a mixture, not a laboratory.

I didn't ask why they want to target black people, I asked how they're doing it.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Well you can only discriminate against individuals, and so a black person can do that just as much as anyone else. If a white person is turned down for a job because he's white, I doubt it's much comfort that it's not on a massive scale. Discrimination is discrimination.

Unquestionably, discrimination can go both ways.  But in the aggregate in America, it is much more common that whites discriminate against blacks.  That is because blacks don’t have the problem; whites do.  That’s why we say that racism is a white problem.

In other words, you do not see people as individuals, you see them as one colour or another. To a white person who has been discriminated against, it doesn't matter how many other white people have been discriminated against. That's the point of equality laws - they protect individuals, not just people from minorities - or at least they're supposed to.