beyond angry

[SoloRiver]

I do believe it's possible to use a description of someone's background - Irish or Scottish or English or Cambodian or Vietnamese or white - without being a racist.

 

Sure, but that's not what happened in this case.

[Lenajo]

Well said Mary!

 

excellent post, it's just too bad she didn't read the post we were talking about.

[nancy]

I think she did. And I think some of us try too hard to be correct.

 

Becca, I do understand your reaction. But I love Brit-coms, which seem to find Lithuanians hilarious. We, on the other hand, pride ourselves on our intelligence.

 

What if that poster had said that the people in that one town who wear red blazers seem to take pride in untrained bully dogs? Or maybe left handed? I suspect "poor-white" would have been OK.

 

What if I tell you that I (a white, upper-middle-class, over 60, short woman of mainly Lithuanian background) enjoy tutoring the kids at a school that is all Hispanic, Black, or both? And in a lower-economic neighborhood.

 

Am I insinuating that those kids need more help than those of my background? Am I implying that I like to play Lady Bountiful? Am I claiming that their parents are not doing enough?

 

BTW, the question I hear most often when I go to a classroom to get one of my kids is, "Are you [his or her] Mom?"

 

I think you'd find my real motive interesting. Besides the fact that I have a ball with these kids.

[SoloRiver]

I suspect "poor-white" would have been OK.

 

That's highly offensive, Nancy -- the fact that you assume I have some sort of hidden racist agenda of my own.

 

The best case scenario, I suppose, is that several posters to this thread are merely incredibly obtuse.

[Laurae]

One reason it's not the same thing to substitute "white" with "hispanic" into a conversation about the population that thinks owning pit bulls lend to "bad ass" credibility is that there is no history of institutionalized discrimination of white people in this country the way there is with minority populations. The white people, in fact, have historically been the oppressors. This makes identifying hispanics with thug culture a perpetuation of the negative stereotypes that fuel discrimination.

[mbc1963]

Yes, I am being very careful as I type. I'm more than a little bit happy that this conversation has actually continued. I think it's worth being careful to be able to keep talking about this.

 

One reason it's not the same thing to substitute "white" with "hispanic" ... is that there is no history of institutionalized discrimination of white people in this country the way there is with minority populations. The white people, in fact, have historically been the oppressors. This makes identifying hispanics with thug culture a perpetuation of the negative stereotypes that fuel discrimination.

 

Yes, that is true, but...

 

Individually, we are and can only be responsible for the intent of the words and actions we put out there. Not for the weight of history that, in this situation, has left some of us marked heavily.

 

I have heard it argued that it is impossible, in America, for anyone except a white person to be racist, because of the historical oppression and the small power minorities have had. But if we're using the standards applied to this conversation - which is that we humans sometimes mistakenly assign negative (or positive) attributes of a few members of a group to the entire group - then I'd say the label applies to all of us. Generally, we understand the microcosmic culture in which we were raised, and have limited understanding of the life experiences of everyone else. The broader our experiences with another culture, the richer and more shaded our point of view becomes.

 

So, imagine that a hispanic guy says, "Those hoochie white girls came over last weekend." (Negative association between whiteness and hoochiness? Maybe. I'd need to know how this guy talks about women in general.) I would argue that it's possible for a white guy to say, "Those hoochie hispanic girls came over last weekend" with the same exact intent and motivation. I wouldn't be impressed by the sophistication or intelligence of either guy, but I couldn't stick a "racist" label on either without knowing a lot more about them.

 

My long-winded point is that both these guys are responsible for what their words do in the world - the white guy no more or less than the hispanic guy.

 

I don't live it, but I do "get" that the experience of being nonwhite in America is fundamentally different from my life experience. To my limited ability, I try to understand the snarl of race in America, and work on my own issues and biases. But I do sometimes feel that I am asked to answer for words and actions of other people, past and present. I think it would be fair to only be asked to answer for my own failings.

 

Which is what we're all saying, right?

 

Mary

[nancy]

So, those "crackers" I saw with pit bulls in Florida were OK? And my calling them that is OK?

 

Why is saying"poor white" OK and saying "Polack" is OK and saying Mick is OK and claiming a person puts an I or an a on the end of every word is OK? And to say that any of them with pit bulls are showing aggression is OK.

 

But stating that a certain group other than one of those struts with a pit bull and an aggressive attitude is not OK.

 

The poster was simply noting which group in that particular area was doing what. In my area, it would be a different group. In other areas it would be other groups.

 

And, YES, no matter how correct you want to be, there are specific groups in specific areas who have specific types of dogs - not because they really care about the dogs - but because they feel that those dogs give them status.

 

Bet if the poster noted that elderly white ladies have poodles with stupid cuts, polished nails, and bows, no one would have decided that was racist.

 

And I'm known as a hippie, bleeding heart, politically correct, liberal. In two counties each of three US states, most of Yorkshire, and about all of Lithuania.

[Laurae]

But the biggest difference (to my eyes) is that your example of stereotyping elderly white women with pampered poodles wouldn't necessarily lead to discrimination in any meaningful way. Can you not see the difference between that and casting hispanics as thugs?

[powerfulgazelle]

I don't live it, but I do "get" that the experience of being nonwhite in America is fundamentally different from my life experience. To my limited ability, I try to understand the snarl of race in America, and work on my own issues and biases. But I do sometimes feel that I am asked to answer for words and actions of other people, past and present. I think it would be fair to only be asked to answer for my own failings.

 

Which is what we're all saying, right?

 

Mary

Hey, Mary, great posts!

 

Rather far off the topic of dogs, true, but good to read anyhow.

 

I am non-Hispanic-Caucasian, middle aged, female...I was born here in the US, but raised in a variety of countries/continents overseas.

 

I realize that there may be parts of the life experiences of others here in the US I may not ever fully understand (although I try to understand first, before seeking to be understood).

 

I know when I moved back here to the US as a young adult, I became aware of issues of race/ethnicity/religion that were quite different from what I had experienced living in other places.

 

I often feel surprised by the emotion in the responses of others to things they experience as "racist"...and am often surprised by how often the responses seem to fall somewhere in the range of "angry". I don't have any difficulty speaking out about unkindness against another, whatever the unkindness is clothed as---racist, age-ist, sexist, classist---but I don't think I often do so by adopting an angry attitude. I think it is possible to challenge "racism" differently.

 

I guess I think back to the first time my English spouse said something snarky about the Irish in my presence. I nearly fell out laughing, as I realized his statement was both so ridiculous as to be funny and that he was speaking it as if he believed it true. I guess my response was tempered by the fact that my family hasn't been Irish in more than a century and the fact that I loved the speaker, even if he was spouting rubbish, and was willing to gently test his view of "reality".

 

I think that sort of willingness to engage in discussion is good and useful.

 

Thank you for being willing to write carefully thought out responses in a forum (the internet, not this board specifically) that can be less than hospitable to good communication.

[Pippin's person]

Anyone seen this video?

 

 

Pretty nice discussion of race in America, I thought, and regardless of political persuasion, I think many people can appreciate that this was one bad-ass speech.

[Dixie_Girl]

Irish and Scots are drunken fighters, Brits have no sense of humor, French are cowards, Italians will romance your sister in the evening and put a bullet in your daddy's head that night, Asians are smarter than anyone, Mexicans are thiefs, Blacks are lazy, Aussies just look for a good time, Canadians think they are better than anyone else, rednecks are stupid, West coasters are liberal, tree huggers, New Yorkers are rude, inner city kids are drug dealing drop outs, private school kids are good wholesome kids that will go on to be docs and lawyers, Christians will go to heaven and the rest of the world be damned, Islams are ordered to rid the world of non-islams, Jews will cheat you out of your last buck and still ask for change, white people feel supreme to anyone else, truckers tell dirty jokes, cops are on the take, politicians all lie, your neighbors can't raise their kids as good as you, teachers are child molesters, allowing people to own guns makes kids go on shooting sprees, fast food restaurants make us fat, cigarette companies make us smoke, blonde, thisthin, women own chihuahuas in pocket books, gangsters own and fight pits,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

I can't go on, my head hurts. There is not a single person in this world that does not have something about them that can be "predjudiced" about. Color, age, weight, height, continent or country your ancesters came from, it doesnt' matter. Upon meeting, I treat everyone exactly the same. Once they start talking, I sometimes change my mind. My grandson dyed his hair bright fire engine red, then got a mohawk. I took him with me everywhere and people would stare, and I could just hear what they were thinking. But I knew him, and when I looked at him, I saw the kid that made a cross for his little sisters dog that got ran over and put his arm around her while he showed it to her. Predjudices excist. There is no denying that. Everyone has them in one form or another. It's whether you let that rule how you treat individules that counts. I've been around the world once and across Texas twice, I have dined with millionaires and folks so poor, it was water added to the soup to make it stretch. I've had great conversations with kids that looked like "thugs", but were very interresting. I've also talked with "preppy" kids that were meaner in spirit than cat $hit. And, I have had conversations with kids that looked like thugs and they scared the crap out of me. And "preppy" kids that were very kind and nice.

 

So what the hell does all this mean? I don't know. I guess since climbing to the top of the food chain, we don't have anything to fear except each other.

[echo44]

I know I will take a lot of heat for this but facts are facts The majority of fatal bites in the US

are a result of bully dogs and rottweilers. http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbreeds.pdf

I am not smart enough to know if its the owners or the inherent genetics of the dog.

or more likely a combination of both.

I am not doubting the ability of almost any breed to kill. However according to this article

there has never been a fatal attack by a border collie or a labador and if you do a google search you can find more recent data

which supports the older statistics.

The important distinction is many dogs attack and cause injury, but bullys and rotts when they do attack have higher probability of killing you or your dog.

I am sure with the right breeding and in the hands of responsible owners a pitt bull is as gentle and loving

and safe as any breed however in our current society that is not the case.

I think other breeds have more tolerance and less aggressive dispositions that allow for more foolish handling and mistakes by owners and

therefore less problems. Maybe the answer is to require additional regulation for certain breeds? There is the argument start banning one breed or regulating

one breed than more and more breeds will be added to the list. I personally feel certain breeds should require a special license that would require a

test similar to a drivers test. To own a border collie you would be tested on how many consecutive times you can throw a tennis ball before you pass out

[Eileen Stein]

Mary, you said a lot of good and true things, but I just don't think they apply here.

 

The statement made was this:

 

I know this is not the greatest thing to say, but I really am not a very big fan of bully breeds. I also live in an area that has a huge hispanic population.. that thinks that they are the most "bad ass" if they have the largest pit bull on a huge chain and a collar with the largest spikes......

 

What is the reason for introducing the nationality of pit bull owners in her area into the discussion? Why drag it in from left field? What relevance does it have to what she is trying to say? Well, apparently, what she's saying is, "Hey, you don't understand what's so bad about these bully breeds! Where I live, there are a lot of hispanics and those hispanics have these dogs! Those hispanics think they are the most 'bad ass' if they have the largest pit bull on a huge chain and a collar with the largest spikes!"

 

The thread she was posting to was not a sociological discussion, or a celebration of multiculturalism. It was a discussion about a person, nationality unknown, who let his/her pit bull attack another dog. But this poster, to make her point about how bad these dogs are, and why she is not a fan of them, gratuitously explained that where she lives they are owned by thuggy hispanics. That's why it was offensive. And I think it would have been equally offensive had she substituted Irish or Polish or poor whites for hispanics, as Luisa illustrated.

 

Yes, I'm sure Eskimos have certain "typically Eskimo" traits, and you and I have certain "typically guss'aq" traits, but do you really think it's legitimate to say that thuggish strutting with pit bulls is a "typically Hispanic" trait?

[MrSnappy]

Canadians think they are better than anyone else

.

 

Well, we are.

 

:D

 

RDM

[Black Watch Debatable]

I know I will take a lot of heat for this but facts are facts The majority of fatal bites in the US

are a result of bully dogs and rottweilers. http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbreeds.pdf

I am not smart enough to know if its the owners or the inherent genetics of the dog.

or more likely a combination of both.

I am not doubting the ability of almost any breed to kill. However according to this article

there has never been a fatal attack by a border collie or a labador and if you do a google search you can find more recent data

which supports the older statistics.

The important distinction is many dogs attack and cause injury, but bullys and rotts when they do attack have higher probability of killing you or your dog.

 

Actually, the report you cited lists several deaths attributed to Labrador retrievers. A border collie was involved in a fatal attack a couple years ago. So what? The CDC hasn't tracked fatal attacks by breed since 1998 -- they think it's a waste of time. The bigger the dog, the greater the likelihood that it will cause harm if it attacks. Again, so what? The majority of dog bite victims are children, and it doesn't take a big dog to maim a child. Some 40 breeds have been involved in fatal attacks, according to the CDC. Briards are rare as hen's teeth, and they've killed four or five people in the last decade. Should it be illegal to own a Briard?

 

Here's a quote from Julie Gilchrist (a doctor at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention who researches dog bites):

"If anyone says one dog is more likely to kill — unless there's a study out there that I haven't seen — that's not based on scientific data."

 

[P]ost 1998, the CDC stopped tracking which breeds were involved in fatal attacks because, according to a spokesperson, that information isn't of discernible value. ["Breed-ban talk usually starts with pit bulls." THE NEWS TRIBUNE Saturday, November 13th, 2004.]

On another site the CDC states:

A CDC study on fatal dog bites lists the breeds involved in fatal attacks over 20 years (Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998). It does not identify specific breeds that are most likely to bite or kill [emphasis mine], and thus is not appropriate for policy-making decisions related to the topic. Each year, 4.7 million Americans are bitten by dogs. These bites result in approximately 16 fatalities; about 0.0002 percent of the total number of people bitten. These relatively few fatalities offer the only available information about breeds involved in dog bites. There is currently no accurate way to identify the number of dogs of a particular breed, and consequently no measure to determine which breeds are more likely to bite or kill.

 

Many practical alternatives to breed-specific policies exist and hold promise for preventing dog bites. For prevention ideas and model policies for control of dangerous dogs, please see the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) Task Force on Canine Aggression and Human-Canine Interactions: A community approach to dog bite prevention.

 

Further discussion of this study can be found here and here.

 

_______________

 

Just out of curiosity -- are those of you who self-identified as middle-aged-white-women-who-are-not-racist cool with what the poster said? Do you agree with her description of "a huge hispanic population.. that thinks that they are the most "bad ass" if they have the largest pit bull on a huge chain and a collar with the largest spikes"?

 

Do you figure the poster has met every family, every man, woman and child with a Spanish surname in South Texas and they all have pit bulls on huge chains with spiked collars because they all want to be the most 'bad ass'? Have you met all those people with Spanish surnames?

 

Or do you think it's just "most" of the "huge hispanic population"? "Many"? Every other family-with-a-Spanish-surname on the poster's block...?

 

Because when someone says that "the problem is stupid people think they are 'bad asses'" and and the "huge hispanic population... thinks that they are the most 'bad ass' if they have the largest pit bull on a huge chain and a collar with the largest spikes," I don't see how you can read that as anything but a slur: a biased generalization.

 

And if you're not cool with what the poster wrote, then do you think I'm out of line to take issue with that biased generalization?

 

As I said, I'm just curious.

 

 

 

 

RDM --- barring a few jerks in Ontario

[Bo Peep]

I will add my 2 cents worth. My father was in WW II- He was diagnosed with brain cancer in 1973. Lateral (sp) (at that time) was the only hope. We went to Germany. He asked "How can you help me, when I bombed your country?" They responded. That was a long time ago. Thing's are forgotten. The ONE reason I sent the cuz was to "thank you" to my German friend, no matter the cost- my father died there. But they helped.

Then, I went and married a German fellow. Heck, he wasn't born here. Aren't we all? What's all the arguments about? We all come from different lives. I grew up in Los Angles and was "transformed" into a red-neck. Now, back to city girl.

 

But aren't we on these boards for ONE MAIN REASON- not to say anything about bully breeds, we all have our view, but for the love of border collies- Isn't that what it's all about? This has taken a wrong turn and people have become emotional, as some should be, but lets get back on topic or......maybe Eileen, close this thread- it isn't helping anyone.

Dianne

[mbc1963]

Just out of curiosity -- are those of you who self-identified as middle-aged-white-women-who-are-not-racist cool with what the poster said? Do you agree with her description of "a huge hispanic population.. that thinks that they are the most "bad ass" if they have the largest pit bull on a huge chain and a collar with the largest spikes"?

 

As I said, I'm just curious.

 

And again, I'm trying to be very careful in what I say...

 

First, I admit I have biases, and that I work on them. "You gotta name it to claim it." I would be lying to myself and the forum if I said I was without bias. If I were scrutinized and analyzed by an Asian woman, I'm sure she'd find steretypical thinking in my brain about Asians. Ditto for every other subgroup. On the other hand, I also believe that everyone else is pretty much like me - that most groups of people have similar biases they direct at whatever groups they don't belong to.

 

Regarding the original post, which I did, indeed read - I bothered to post yesterday because I felt this had evolved into a philosophical discussion, rather than a personal one. Again, being careful here.

 

But I do believe it's possible the OP could say that, in her experience, she has seen "bad ass" pit bulls in neighborhoods that have a "huge hispanic population" without necessarily intending to imply that the entire hispanic population of the US is to blame for pit bull problems, and without necessarily being any more racist or biased than everyone is. There may be an underground spring of hatred for hispanics in her, but I honestly didn't hear it coming through in her post.

 

Am I "cool with it?" I guess not - I wouldn't have used the same phrase myself, certainly. But I don't like the implication that she can - with absolute certainty - be labeled "racist" for saying what she did. I don't think the world can be divided into "we are absolutely X" and "you are absolutely Y." Unfortunately, the 'net tends to make that division seem natural.

 

I think we all tend to toss out ethnic labels as descriptors when we're talking about groups we don't belong to. I'm willing to bet that people in the largely nonwhite city nearby would quickly use "white" as a descriptor for the weird and sometimes pathological behaviors and mannerisms of people in the unfailingly white, semi-affluent town where I teach.

 

No, that would not increase racism against semi-affluent whites - correct! - because that form of racism doesn't exist in the US. But, again, I don't think we can hold whites who make observations about nonwhites individually more "guilty" or "evil" than we hold nonwhites who do the same to whites. I think there's an implication that, because of historical oppression, the world holds ME (white lady) more responsible for my individual actions and words than it holds a nonwhite lady. I don't think that's balanced or even workable. I'm not "White Oppression;" I'm just myself.

 

I, myself, think this thread has actually moved from angry to thoughtful, and hope that Eileen won't close it unless it de-evolves.

 

Mary

[kelpiegirl]

Luisa

 

It was a poor turn of phrase, yes, and I can't speak to the OP's reasons for having to deliniate the nationality/race of the persons owning the pb's in her town. But, perhaps there are two issues here. One, that the Hispanic population is the majority, and the non-Hispanics feel dis-enfrachised? Or, maybe it's because the Hispanics and non-Hispanics by and large do not "associate", thereby keeping each other at arm's length, which causes further division- who knows? The second is that Pitbulls are a breed that *are* used as status symbols by young inner city men, in many cases. Who's tougher? You or me? My dog or yours? Perhaps it all comes down to testosterone.... Sorry guys I know Melanie works in academia, as I do, and we are very fortunate to be surrounded by every possible demographic on a daily basis. It keeps one's head on right, so to speak. One thing that I would like to mention- this Pitbull that attacked Sage was owned by a woman, I think of caucasion background.... Boy did we ever move off the topic....

 

 

_______________

 

Just out of curiosity -- are those of you who self-identified as middle-aged-white-women-who-are-not-racist cool with what the poster said? Do you agree with her description of "a huge hispanic population.. that thinks that they are the most "bad ass" if they have the largest pit bull on a huge chain and a collar with the largest spikes"?

 

Do you figure the poster has met every family, every man, woman and child with a Spanish surname in South Texas and they all have pit bulls on huge chains with spiked collars because they all want to be the most 'bad ass'? Have you met all those people with Spanish surnames?

 

Or do you think it's just "most" of the "huge hispanic population"? "Many"? Every other family-with-a-Spanish-surname on the poster's block...?

 

Because when someone says that "the problem is stupid people think they are 'bad asses'" and and the "huge hispanic population... thinks that they are the most 'bad ass' if they have the largest pit bull on a huge chain and a collar with the largest spikes," I don't see how you can read that as anything but a slur: a biased generalization.

 

And if you're not cool with what the poster wrote, then do you think I'm out of line to take issue with that biased generalization?

 

As I said, I'm just curious.

RDM --- barring a few jerks in Ontario

[Nik]

I understand why alot of you were offended by what the post that Foxglove made. It is NEVER right to hate or judge someone because of the color of their skin or the heritage they descend from. We are all human beings created equally. We just have differences. I also think that some of this is blown way out of proportion too. Foxglove came back an apologized for being offensive to anyone that may have taken the statement in that context and even explained further what exactly was meant by the post, yet very few of you are even willing acknowledge much less to accept the apology and continue to "beat a dead horse" so to speak. Take the apology and let bygones be bygones in this case. IMO, if Foxglove were truly a "racist" person then an apology would NOT have even been given in the first place.

 

Linda made a good point about ALL of us having our biases...its just how we let them rule our actions toward others. I have seen quite a few derogatory statements made on this board in the past that have not been called down, but I don't really see where Foxglove MEANT those statements to be derogatory. What I do see is those of you who cannot or will not accept the apology that was given are really no better than your opinions of Foxglove.

 

To Liz and the purpose of the original post:

 

I'm sorry you and Sage had to go through an experience like this. Knowing what PB and other "bully breeds" are capable of is a scary thought when you have one coming at you and your dog like you did. I just hope that Sage shakes off (or whatever it takes to get him past) this bad experience and doesn't let it affect his actions w/ other dogs. It's very frustrating dealing w/ nincompoop dog owners.

[OffTopic]

Just out of curiosity -- are those of you who self-identified as middle-aged-white-women-who-are-not-racist cool with what the poster said?

First, I suppose I should make it known that not only do I despise racism, I actually don't get it. It makes no logical sense. People are individuals. How can we prejudge someone based on skin color?

But I also get that being able to say race doesn't matter is the ultimate white priviledge, because we don't have to worry about it. Our skin color doesn't affect our lives on a daily basis. And it doesn't occur to many of us (very often) that other people have real difficulty on a daily basis just because their skin isn't white.

 

I also live in an area that has a huge hispanic population.. that thinks that they are the most "bad ass" if they have the largest pit bull on a huge chain and a collar with the largest spikes......

I honestly don't think the poster meant this as a racist statement. Obviously a lot of people read it as such. But I don't think it was her intent. I think she was simply trying to relate the problem she sees in her little corner of the world. I did not see anything which made me think she was making a blanket statement about every Hispanic person in the world. Just the very specific group in her area who use pit bulls as penis extentions.

 

Plus, she apologized.

Again I am sorry for stepping on toes, as I was not meaning my post in a derogatory manner, just venting about the problems I deal with as well. I have no problems with different races of people, I do have a problem with ignorant dog owners who want a dog just to be "cool" though.

 

 

 

Idiocy cuts across all human groups. The only pit bull I've ever run into that seriously scared me was with a white guy who had a British accent.

Melanie, this is your reality. Are you saying that therefore, it must be everyone's? That anyone who thinks pit bulls are scary are idiots? That's an impression that could be taken from your 2 sentences there. I doubt that's what you meant, but then according to you, I'm obtuse.

The best case scenario, I suppose, is that several posters to this thread are merely incredibly obtuse.

 

My reality re: pit bulls is that there are several pits and bully mixes running loose in my neighborhood and one has a history of attacking leashed dogs. My reality is that my neighborhood is a mix of white, black, asian, gay, straight, rich, poor, you name it, we've got it. My reality is that I love my neighborhood and all it's quirks. Except for the bully problem.

And I know that other neighborhoods in the city have had similar problems with loose bully dogs.

[2 Devils]

The problem I see is you can't just blame the bully breed for being loose. It is the owner (s) that don't contain the dogs (of different breeds). If I was in a neighborhood and a dog kept attacking other dogs, I would find a way to stop it (whether it be deal with the owner, call the cops, call animal control, deal with it myself). I have been bit my small mixes, poodles, border collies - my dogs have been attacked by labs, goldens, poodles border collies and other small mixes (and this goes back to my childhood to adulthood). I have never been bit by a bully breed and neither have my dogs. Any breed of dog can have issues depending on genetics, environmental triggers and just bad ownership.

 

I still say that small dogs are more likely to bite they just odn't cause the damage or death that the bigger breeds cause which is why they get away with it.

 

I also believe that people in general need to stand up and protect themselves, pets and property. I have no qualms about kicking/hitting, etc... a dog that is charging after me or my dogs. I will do whatever it takes to protect what is mine. Too many people just sit back and let things happen for whatever reason and then complain about it. If the owner of said dog was being a ^%$%^$ then I would give it back. I am not referencing anyone in particular here - so no offense intended.

 

Regarding the whole racist comments. Yes I took them the wrong way and I am almost 36, white, short, athletic and a redneck. So yes some of us "whites" did take the remark as racist. It may not have meant to be that way but it was the way it was written. This is why we have to be careful with the way we word things on the internet. No one can really know what any poster actually means - maybe we need to be more understanding and realize that was written may have been written poorly instead of poster being racist. It makes no difference to me though. Conflict and discussion is a good thing whether some people believe it or not.

[Gary M]

Throughout history to be a minority meant that you were subjugated by the majority, perhaps to your death.

 

I think that what is now termed racist, bigoted or prejudiced was, and in some cases or countries still is, a survial mechanism.

 

There will always be those, both in the majority and the minority, that will exploit these reactions for their own benefit. For these people there is always a reason to keep the pot boiling and stir it with "Us" versus "Them".

 

It may be a sad state of affairs in the world today, but that does not change the reality of the situation.

 

In this country there seems to be more focus on this issue because of the variety of ethnicities, races and theological beliefs that make up our population. It is the "tribal" nature of our kind to live amongst our own. Hence the Little Italy of New York, Chinatown, Irish in Boston, Germanics in Pennsyvania and so forth.

 

Part of the problem as I see it is that while we should be proud of our individual heritages, we tend to celebrate them in the wrong order. The fact that I am an American first, for me, takes precedence over my race, ethnicity or religious beliefs.

 

I am not a hyphenated American.

As non-hyphenated Americans, we were the first to land on the Moon, secure our Republic and future from tyranny in breaking away from England and latter in 2 world wars, those of millions abroad as well.

As non-hyphenated Americans we developed medicines and procedures that have saved or extended the lives of countless people world wide and provide the freedom and opportunities sought by millions of immigrants, legal or otherwise, all over the globe.

This was not done by a This-American or That-American.

I truly believe that if we took more time to celebrate our commonality and less on our differences, much of the non-tolerant attitude that we see in this country today would slowly wither away. Otherwise I just see more of the same.

[Eileen Stein]

"Idiocy cuts across all human groups. The only pit bull I've ever run into that seriously scared me was with a white guy who had a British accent."

 

Melanie, this is your reality. Are you saying that therefore, it must be everyone's? That anyone who thinks pit bulls are scary are idiots? That's an impression that could be taken from your 2 sentences there.

 

Maybe I'm obtuse , but I can't see at all how Melanie's post could be seen as saying "anyone who thinks pit bulls are scary are idiots." It's pretty obvious to me that she's saying that idiocy in the form of misuse of pit bulls cuts across all human groups (i.e., is not peculiar to Hispanics), and as illustration of that fact she is giving the example of a white, apparently British guy who assaulted her with a pit bull.

 

As regards Foxglove's apology, I don't think anyone failed to accept it, or that anyone is trying to punish her. The continued critical posting about what she said (not about her) has been an effort to explain why it was offensive, in response to those who are saying that it wasn't. Probably not a productive effort, I have to agree, because when it comes to racial/ethnic slurs people's perceptions and responses tend to be set in certain predictable grooves.

[painted_ponies]

As regards Foxglove's apology, I don't think anyone failed to accept it, or that anyone is trying to punish her. The continued critical posting about what she said (not about her) has been an effort to explain why it was offensive, in response to those who are saying that it wasn't.

 

Absolutely. I am addressing myself only to the speech and not to the speaker. I accept that things don't always come out the way we mean them to.

 

I'm posting because I'm intrigued by Eileen's idea that we perceive this speech differently.

The problem is stupid people think they are "bad asses" with these bully breeds and they let them act like "bad ass" dogs. I know this is not the greatest thing to say, but I really am not a very big fan of bully breeds. I also live in an area that has a huge hispanic population.. that thinks that they are the most "bad ass" if they have the largest pit bull on a huge chain and a collar with the largest spikes......

 

I'm having a tough time seeing the inoffensive part. When I read this passage, I understand it this way:

"People who try to impress others with aggressive dogs are stupid. There's lots of hispanic people where I live, and they get great big dogs and put them on heavy chains with spiked collars to impress others."

Am I making too great a leap in logic to understand the quoted passage as saying hispanic people are stupid because they try to impress people with their aggressive dogs?

 

How do y'all perceive this language?

[BustopherJones]

I don't think it's ever OK to just sit back and say nothing and let racism slide. Nor is it impolite to call someone on it. It's the responsibility of a decent human being and concerned citizen.

 

This board may be about dogs, but it exists in the context of our broader society, as do we all. There are a lot of topics from the "real world" I'm willing to allow don't really belong here. But sticking your head in the sand and ignoring flat-out bigoted statements in the spirit of being "polite" is not acceptable.

 

I'm sorry I joined this thread late, but Melanie had a very telling statement. The last couple of days, I have been with my mother to ease her final hours. But the type of person she was would be relevant to Melanie's observation. My mother was born and raised in French North Africa (Algeria, to be precise). She was white, and of direct French descent. But Algeria was populated with whites, Arabs, Spaniards, and blacks. My mother was color-blind, and she taught us to be color-blind as well. Until I was a teenager, I did not even understand the concept of ethnicity, and I had never learned racial prejudices and epithets. It is indeed heartening to see the number of people in this thread who have taken exception to bigotry and racism. But wouldn't this be a great world if, like my late mother, we did not even see the differences in peoples' skins and ethnic heritage, and simply accepted every individual on the basis of who and what he or she is as a person?

 

But then again, that is only my opinion...