Range_This11

The problem with morality is that in order to define something as 'good,' you must first have a point to reference 'good' to. In other words, you cannot have something that is good without also having something that is bad. It's severely limiting. Then you have to ask: from which source do we derive moral authority? People of religion sometimes refer to their sacred texts, others look to nature, but we have no single source of moral authority in this world--at least not one that we can agree on. Instead, we rely on law. In America (and many other parts of the world), our conception of what is right/wrong or good/bad is displayed in our laws. Again there is a problem here. Conceptually, law is a wonderful idea--people are given a written code of what is acceptable to do and what is not--but it is only the consequences of our actions that influence our decisions, not simply because an action is morally right or wrong. Law is a very inefficient way of enforcing morality.

I'll take heated, healthy debate any day. It's better than reading the essentially mindless posts on the Today thread.

That's the point! Fitzgerald is trying to accurately portray the social environment of post-WW1 America. They often referred to themselves as the Lost Generation (a term coined by Ernest Hemingway). These people had seen so much destruction, devastation, and death that they thought faith in humanity was a hopeless cause and found solace in decadent and shallow activities.

Everyone here is an established cultural critic, I thought you were aware? No need to back up any arguments with evidence.

I found this picture of you on the internet. Yeah except he killed me too by crashing into me, so not as glorious as that makes it look haha. The L96 is pretty legitimate, I am glad I unlocked it but I'm thinking of switching to the Support class. My PPM is going down from sniping.

It gets better at the end. Keep reading. Gatsby was good, but the rest of Fitzgerald's work is far too emotionally indecisive, much like him. I started reading One-Dimensional Man by Herbert Marcuse. A very thoughtful critique of modern industrial society.

Ethnicity alone is not but when it becomes intertwined with culture it becomes part of the larger picture. Obviously there is no universal set of traits for an ethnic group, that I know, but when culture, geographical placement, and ethnicity are all combined (as they are in America), they forge the core of a person's identity.

I sniped a guy out of a heli today. Kharg Island, CQ...he was on top of the building at D, I was way up in the hills sniping. I started cracking off rounds at him just to mess with him since it was close to the end of the game--I'm using the MK11 by the way. So he takes off, rotates towards me so he's coming at me head on. I wait until he gets closer, line up where I think he'd be in the cockpit and fire the first shot. Head shot and I killed him. I bet he was so pissed off :lol:

As I said before, ethnicity and culture are the two most vital aspects to a person's identity--and like it or not, they are here to stay. They are not shallow features in the least. This is simply an opportunity to celebrate the heritage of a very important group of people and, as I have shown earlier, many different ethnic groups have months or weeks dedicated to recognizing their heritage and contributions to the development of the United States. Whether you see it as an opportunity to celebrate differences and build unity or as a discriminatory event that elevates one ethnic group over another is totally up to you. My opinion on the matter is quite clear.

I think a statistical career is much more impressive than a few wins in the postseason. Both are impressive, but I think consistency over a season is a much harder feat to achieve.

I think there's a big difference between saying "I'm proud to be Caucasian" and " Caucasians are a superior ethnic group." The same applies for any other ethnicity. While you may not have a choice of which part of the globe or which ethnic group you are born into, pride in one's heritage is something that brings people together culturally; and culture is a very powerful rallying point. Culture and ethnicity are two crucial parts of a person's identity. We all define ourselves and our realities by the things we experience, for instance, a shared culture or ethnicity--and by nature, we group ourselves and identify with people who share similar cultural or ethnic traits.

Not even close. Eli is a great quarterback (that stings as a Packer fan, but I will admit it), but his success largely comes during the postseason. It depends on whether or not you define a great quarterback as someone who plays when it counts most or who can play consistently over the course of a 17 week season. Eli is a great playoff quarterback, but Peyton puts up much higher and more consistent numbers.

At what point does it become a stifling of black pop culture expression? At least indirectly. Forcing people to become integrated tells them that the previous culture they had--whether or not it is based on ethnicity--is something that is not okay. I would rather there be a vibrant, culturally heterogeneous society in which the many different ethnic groups are able to express their culture on their own terms. Culture and ethnicity are very intertwined in the United States. Eliminating that relationship is not only impossible, but threatening to the cultural autonomy of any given ethnic group. Of course BET doesn't represent the culture of all backs, anyone who thinks that or uses it as a launching point for an argument is misinformed.

Right, I mean Chappelle's Show was wildly popular and Comedy Central features nowhere near the same programming that BET does.

I don't even know if BET is totally run by black people anymore. I can't imagine that would even be possible or legal. I was commenting on the origins of it. Mostly they show sitcoms, comedy, and movies--things like that. The occasional talk show. Typically the main characters or hosts are black.

The concept surrounding the entire network is that--at least originally--it was run from the ground up by blacks. In the television industry, many of the executives, directors, and writers were predominantly white. That, I assume, has changed since its inception. A big portion of its inspiration comes from the television show Soul Train (the creator actually just died within the last week) which was one of the first shows to be run completely in the control of blacks.

Sounds like something the government could fund, but I doubt that would go over so well in this political environment.

Source This is some very exciting news for the planet if it is indeed successful!

I suppose I am. However I don't really see the feasibility of it. We already have a lot of networks that appeal to whites: PBS, CSPAN, Speed Network, Nat Geo. Not that only white people are interested in the programming on those networks or that programming is designed to appeal to whites, but I think it is safe to say many whites gravitate towards those networks. :shock:

Just a side note here, I've heard many times that affirmative action typically benefits white women more than any other group of people. I don't have any sources on this so don't hold me to it. As far as BET, I think it is a great thing. It's an outlet for cultural expression that is designed by blacks, overseen at almost every level by blacks, and packaged uniquely for black viewers. Same goes for pride parades. I think they're great. If someone wants to develop something like that for whites, more power to them. I have no problem with any cultural or ethnic group celebrating their identity in the public sphere. Hell, I even watch BET for the stand up comedians.

I don't doubt you are well educated and informed on the history--also not narcissistic nor a cretin. But there are many people who are ill informed by choice or lack of exposure. Like I said, having Black History Month will create tension and dissonance because there are and always will be differences between ethnic groups. Ignoring them won't make them go away and neither will dedicating a month to their study. Perhaps I'm too utopian, but I look at it as an opportunity to learn more about the history of a very unique group of people. Maybe that's why I've landed in the history field and love it so much. There is no one that knows the entire history of anything, so having an opportunity to learn more or even become reacquainted with a topic is good to me. Interpretations change over time, events are viewed differently than they were even twenty years ago. The people, places, and time period do not change, but how we view them is always different. There are a number of different months that are used to recognize different ethnic groups: (a full list can be found here) Hispanic Heritage Month Asian/Pacific American Heritage Month American Indian Heritage Month Irish-American Heritage Month (issued yearly by the President, but not set it stone--has been since 1991) Women's History Month

I think some of the examples are extreme, but the general idea I agree with. No one is stopping you from designating a month for your own own ethnic group. If you don't think that learning a little extra about African Americans would give you a fuller understanding of history, even during the shortest month of the year (counting Leap Year Day), then you are choosing to remain ignorant of some important events that improved not just African Americans' lives but everyone's lives. When a person revels in ignorance, then that person becomes intolerant to new ideas. Perhaps it does highlight cultural/ethnic differences, but that does not automatically have to create more tension. The tension comes with the resistance to learning about difference. By what you call being proud, you are creating "us vs them" scenarios; dividing people instead of uniting; viewing differences as something negative. And I do realize that there are people on both sides of the ethnic divide that are guilty of these actions.

Morgan Freeman does not speak for all blacks. Neither does Al Sharpton, James Brown, or any other famous or influential member of the black community. It looks like a few posters here seem to be using the argument of "every ethnicity should get a month if blacks do!" as a way of simply saying "I don't think black people deserve a month of cultural celebration and historical reflection." I don't doubt this will be denied, but it's easy to see who is just a wee bit prejudiced. If you have to say "I'm not a racist, but..." it usually means whatever follows is probably a little racist. There should be absolutely no problem taking ONE month out of the year to recognize the ethnic group that was--BY LAW--oppressed, used, and otherwise completely degraded as human beings for nearly 375 years. As a side note, saying "slavery has been over since the end of the Civil War" means nothing. Neither does "none of us today participated in owning slaves." The mistreatment of African Americans goes much, much deeper than the chattel labor system. Most of our parents (and all of our grandparents) experienced an America that was segregated. Even after the Civil Rights act of 1964, prejudice, inequality, and racism did not disappear. Even today many laws still indirectly (whether or not that is on purpose or not is for another debate) put African Americans and other ethnic groups at a severe disadvantage. Instead of moaning, complaining, and trying to conjure up as many reasons why there shouldn't be a Black History Month, why don't we go out and celebrate this month TOGETHER? It's not just for African Americans to celebrate, after all. We should all be celebrating the culture and history of a large portion of Americans and participating in things that are partially or even completely foreign to us. But then again, many people in this country (and a few in this thread) are narcissistic cretins that believe the world will be forever divided on ethnic issues, and that celebrations of ethnicity and culture serve only to highlight tensions and racism. To those of you who truly believe this, I have saved a very special part of my heart that mourns for your limited perspective of the world. EDIT: Also, Ring_World, the historian in me is cringing so badly at your interpretation of "Hispanic history." :mad:

I would agree, just wanted to check to see what you were really referring to. Owning work and owning time are very different concepts. Basing the argument on the ownership of work would nullify it, BUT since you aren't doing that...well stated! :shades:

I don't see a wage laborer as owning any sort of work at all. They own time, which they are compensated for(whether or not it is fair compensation is not the issue). They do not own the work that they do. That work is owned and assigned by some sort of superior--a manager, supervisor, boss, whatever you want to call it. The worker owns his or her time, but the person in charge of the operation owns the labor of that person.