Should the admissions process be colorblind?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm reluctantly coming to the conclusion that she just wants a forum to insult people, and is using race as the vehicle.

This one. It's a pity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As I pointed out previously, the Atlantic slave trade was a global phenomenon. A nationalistic perspective on it (especially one that focuses on a time when the US wasn't even a nation) makes no sense. The Jewish holocaust numbers are multinational as well.

Finally, to put this in context, imported slaves were a fraction of slaves in the US. (The 1860 census counted 3.95 million slaves). And, of course, the population of the world was a lot smaller in the 18th/19th century than it was in the late 20th c. (978 million est in 1800 (the closest date I could get to 1808 when the US banned the slave trade) vs. 2.3 billion in 1939). And North America was a much smaller part of that world population (less than 1%) than Europe was in the mid/late 20th c. (20-25%) I don't know what percentage of the European population Jews were when Hitler came to power/pre-Holocaust. But African Americans were about 20% of the US population at the time of the Revolutionary War. Slavery wasn't some small, peripheral institution.

Yes, the Jewish Holocaust claimed more lives faster. By contrast, slavery ground on for centuries. Both are horrors and tragedies with implications that are still felt. I don't see the point of playing "who got it worse?"

Out of curiosity, do you think Native Americans experienced a holocaust and if not, why not?

What I believe one of the earlier posters found offensive - as do I - is using the term Holocaust. [Especially in a discussion where the next message is an Israeli bashing pro-Palestinian..]

No one is saying that any of these groups havent been harmed, what I and others object to is the coopting of the word Holocaust and then arguing that it's appropriate instead of being sensitive to others.

If whites have come to stop using th words "boy" and "negro" becuase blacks find that offensive, perhaps they too should practice some sensitivity.

[Anonymous]

Can you please explain in an unemotional way how using the word holocaust in the context of the slave trade (or any other historical event) is offensive?

Not trying to argue any point, just really curious to hear the reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can you please explain in an unemotional way how using the word holocaust in the context of the slave trade (or any other historical event) is offensive?

Not trying to argue any point, just really curious to hear the reason.

It is the application of the word "Holocaust" to the slave trade which is offensive.

Please read the following items, it explains things better than I could here:

First, a book by Alan Dershowitz:

http://tinyurl.com/y9pmofk

(scroll up to item 7 and continue reading please.)


and here is a snippet of an ADL letter to Rep Grayson regarding his coopting the word "Holocaust" in the health care debate.

"No matter how dire one's objections to health care or any other policy, invoking the Holocaust, the Nazi effort to exterminate the Jewish people, is offensive and has no place in a civil political discourse. We are aware that last night on the Rachel Maddow show you stated that referencing the Holocaust "may not have been the best choice of words." But it is worse than a poor choice of words. Using the Holocaust as an analogy for flaws in the current health care ystem is inappropriate and serves only to trivialize the murder of six million Jews and millions of others. Suggesting an equivalence between government inaction or a policy failure and the Holocaust demonstrates a profound lack of understanding of this unique tragedy in human history and is an affront to Holocaust survivors and to the memory of its victims.

We respect your right to engage in vigorous debate about the current health care system. However, we urge you to retract your statements and reject such odious comparisons in the future..."

There is a history of Blacks in the US using the term "Holocaust" to be purposefully incindiary and hateful (see "jew baiting") -

I hope that begins to explain the objections.

[Anonymous]

It does not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It does not.

Well you certainly are a fast reader to have come to that conclusion within 120 seconds of having posted the link to Dershowitz' test.

If sincerely hope you are not an AA mother at Sidwell.

[Anonymous]

We all would be happy if massacres, genocides, holocausts, ethnic cleansings were a one time occurrence; unfortunately, these events have transpired in every century to my recollection.

[Anonymous]

What does an AA mother at Sidwell have to do with anything? Bizarre remark.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We all would be happy if massacres, genocides, holocausts, ethnic cleansings were a one time occurrence; unfortunately, these events have transpired in every century to my recollection.

No one is saying they didn't occur (apart from the Holocaust deniers).

There are terms for slavery and the slave trade, they are "slavery" and "the slave trade".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What does an AA mother at Sidwell have to do with anything? Bizarre remark.

Must have been confusion between this and the next threads title.

[Anonymous]

Slavery was a holocaust for Black Americans and other people of African origin around the globe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Slavery was a holocaust for Black Americans and other people of African origin around the globe.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is called "jew baiting". See Dershowitz text above.

[Anonymous]

No it is not. That is your reaction. No one is baited, but you. Only you make those references. A holocaust is an apt description for slavery, the slave trade and what happened for centuries to people of the African race around the globe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No it is not. That is your reaction. No one is baited, but you. Only you make those references. A holocaust is an apt description for slavery, the slave trade and what happened for centuries to people of the African race around the globe.

And "negro" is a word meaning "having black ancestors".

And "colored" is another variation on the term "of color".

And "bastard" is a child born out of wedlock.

Those are the proper definitions.

So, you certainly won't have any objection to calling a child a "colored bastard" huh?

If you do object, then it must be "your reaction". No one is baiting you, just posting words that are an apt description according to the dictionary.

[Anonymous]

I guess your white hood is showing through. Run along now...I imagine that you're late for your Klan meeting.