Most don't like to talk about RACE because they feel some type of GUILT attached to the word.

LMFAO about that Chappelle skit!!! That brought back memories!!! Now, for some serious talk. This article broke it all down...effortlessly and seamlessly. I'd like to elaborate on a few excerpts which I believe pack the most merit.

(1) This ideology is very popular – like a racial utopic version of the Golden Rule – but it’s actually quite racist. “Colorblindness” doesn’t acknowledge the very real ways in which racism has existed and continues to exist, both in individuals and systemically. By professing not to see race, you’re just ignoring racism, not solving it.

Rush, Sean, Michael Berry, Michael Savage, and Glenn Beck have all used this scenario to justify ruling out the existence of racism. Berry simply uses the idea of having a black adopted son and an India-derived wife to play his hand. However, Berry is still more forthcoming than all of them put together, and, tells more REAL truth than all of them. Rush NEVER sees racism..at all. Then, he proceeds to come down on all blacks and no whites...EVER. It's getting to where 'we' must play this game around here, also.

(2)In one interview, Obasogie told me, a woman told a story from her childhood in which she walked in on her mother aggressively cleaning the kitchen. When she asked why, her mother responded that her black babysitter had been in the kitchen and black people had a smell, which she needed to wash away. The next day, the woman remembers going to smell her babysitter, finding she did have a smell and from then on always associated that smell with black people, despite never having noticed it before.

(3)Racism – both the personal kind and the systemic kind– isn’t necessarily triggered by the visual cue of another person’s skin color. Racism is about the social value we assign to people and their actions based on their physical attributes, and neither blind nor colorblind people avoid that acculturation just because they lack the visual cues.

(4)   What he found is that even people who have never had sight still use visual representations of people – including a person’s perceived racial or ethnic identity – as a major marker for how they interact with them.

It's a FACT that the greater percentage of whites INSTRUCT their kids on how to interact with blacks...IF AT ALL. Most of the time, they avoid blacks but, if they must speak it's VERY, VERY brief and DRY. This goes back to my 'playground' scenario which I used here a couple of years ago...and it STILL HOLDS TRUE. Kids at the playground that lack the ability to see and associate skin color are innocent and play with ALL OTHER KIDS with complete innocence. They just simply want to play and have fun. It's the parents that begin to TEACH their kids to stay away from the 'coloreds' and such. They all but teach their kids to hate black kids and that they're better than them and the next excerpt proves it.

(5) Racism – both the personal kind and the systemic kind– isn’t necessarily triggered by the visual cue of another person’s skin color. Racism is about the social value we assign to people and their actions based on their physical attributes, and neither blind nor colorblind people avoid that acculturation just because they lack the visual cues.

Blacks have been severely socially de-valued, more so than their white slaved counterparts, since the slavery days. Whites love to argue that "there were white slaves, too' but, they never tell the whole story outside of the liberal/conservative constraint of things. Black slaves actually FAR OUT NUMBERED whites and whites were sold a specific way as opposed to blacks:

http://www.salon.com/2000/06/15/white_slaves/

(6) “Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. All citizens are equal before the law.”

But we are not, and never have been.

Yet, because blacks simply want to make the playing field just a little more balanced, maybe not EQUAL, THE WHITES/REPUBLICANS CLAIM THAT BLACKS/DEMOCRATS ARE DEFILING THE CONSTITUTION...DESTROYING THE COUNTRY. They say this because they really don't want to see any change from what they're used to...blacks being suppressed and under siege all the time. I must laugh at the next and final link and excerpt because whites LOVE TO TOUT IT AROUND FOR JUSTIFICATION:

http://topconservativenews.com/2012/03/americas-first-slave-owner-was-a-black-man/

Excerpt: Anthony Johnson was a Negro from modern-day Angola. He was brought to the US to work on a tobacco farm in 1619. In 1622 he was almost killed when Powhatan Indians attacked the farm. 52 out of 57 people on the farm perished in the attack. He married a female black servant while working on the farm.

When Anthony was released he was legally recognized as a “free Negro” and ran a successful farm. In 1651 he held 250 acres and five black indentured servants. In 1654, it was time for Anthony to release John Casor, a black indentured servant. Instead Anthony told Casor he was extending his time. Casor left and became employed by the free white man Robert Parker.

Let's read very carefully. First, he was BROUGHT TO THE U.S. where he worked on a farm for three years...and he married a black female SERVANT. HE DID NOT COME ON HIS OWN....HE WAS BROUGHT. Then, when Anthony was RELEASED, okay, RELEASED, he was LEGALLY RECOGNIZED AS A 'FREE NEGRO'... HE WASN'T FREE AT FIRST. What this means, you silly Republicans, extremists, and whites, is that Anthony WAS FIRST A SLAVE HIMSELF IN AMERICA. You CANNOT 'RELEASE' AN ALREADY FREE BLACK MAN. What happened between him and Casor is a completely different deal. The guy who RELEASED ANTHONY was a SLAVE OWNER...AND OWNED ANTHONY....thus HIS RELEASAL BY THE OWNER. Doesn't sound like Anthony was America's first slave owner to me at all. Think indentured servants weren't actually slaves? Think again:

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

Read the last six words of the opening paragraph. If you're not FREE, the you're what??? Anthony was titled an 'indentured servant'...he wasn't free by any means and was owned. Next link and excerpt will further support my diligence:

http://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/feature/indentured-servants-in-the-us/

The first two sentences in the third paragraph down COMPLETELY WASH EACH OTHER...almost like a woman saying that 'SHE'S A LITTLE PREGNANT.' Either she is, or, she isn't. Look:

Servants typically worked four to seven years in exchange for passage, room, board, lodging and freedom dues. While the life of an indentured servant was harsh and restrictive, it wasn't slavery.

If they're working for FREEDOM DUES the how in the hell are they NOT SLAVES???? Paying close attention to what one reads and its' proper interpretation ARE VITAL. The only thing that extremists, whites, and a percentage of racist Republicans got out of the very first article was the lie that a black was the first slave owner in America...and they ran with it. Anyone with common sense can read it and see that it's completely false and extremely misleading...all so they can justify going through what blacks had to go through.

Now, I'm going take you right back to yet another confusing aspect of indentured servants and Anthony Johnson. Boy, these people try really hard but, it just doesn't stick:


http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2013/08/the-first-legal-slave-owner-in-what-would-become-the-united-states-was-a-black-man/

First paragraph clearly confirms that HE DIDN'T COME OVER WILLINGLY...and that he came as an indentured servant. Yet, and still, he SOLD AND TRANSPORTED TO VIRGINIA. The write tries to pass it off as Anthony not 'technically' being a slave but, only slaves were bought, sold, and

White must not be considered a race. Ever notice when discribing a robbery suspect on the news if race is mentioned it's "black" or "brown" and never "white" even if the robber race is obvious on the security cameras.