Six Flags Removes Confederate Flags From Its Parks

^^^ A billion percent this.

The only real way to flush out hate is to stop perpetuating it down to the next generation.

Read that again. All sides. Not just one group. But everyone.

LOL. You guys love undefinable standards. Everyone will agree to raise their kids properly. Key is defining that.

Glad the black and white world you guys think you live in doesn't exist because if it did I would be out of a job.

You're too hung up on abstract "that." You agree that racism is bad, right? Great, then the issue is settled.

No kidding. If you're putting as much effort into trying to determine what is right or wrong as you are into actually teaching your kids to do the right thing, you're doing it wrong. It's not that complicated.

GoBucks89 said:
You guys love undefinable standards. Everyone will agree to raise their kids properly. Key is defining that.

I don't think anyone here loves "undefinable standards". Rather, each person's standards are their own. Each person may agree to "raise their kids properly"; each person's definition of "properly" will vary. For Chicagoans, to some that means sending their kids to Chicago Public Schools (7 out of the 10 highest rated schools in Illinois are part of CPS), to others that means homeschooling. There's no single definition of "properly".

Glad the black and white world you guys think you live in doesn't exist because if it did I would be out of a job.

It seems to me that, based, admittedly, only on what you've posted here, you're seeking black and white options. It's a broad grey area.

I'm thinking much more broadly than what school you send your kids to. I'm talking about broken families in general. GoBucks, here are some defined standards for:

- Don't have kids if you don't have the means to support them.
- Don't have kids if you don't want kids.
- If you're a dad, don't abandon your kids.

This all sounds obvious to probably everyone here, but you said that everyone will agree to raise their kids properly. Not true at all. Too many women have kids with multiple men that end up in prison. Too many men have sex recklessly and then run off and never speak to their children. Too many kids become defacto parents at a young age because they have to look after the 8, 6, 3 and one-year olds while mom is working her 3rd job (or not) and "dad" is out doing whatever it is he's doing.

Kids that come from these situations are at a much great risk than kids that come from stable, two-parent households. These are standards that people fail to live up to every day, and they aren't hard to define. Anyone with an ounce of common sense can look at situations like this and say "you're doing it wrong." People are doing it wrong, not because of bad luck or tough circumstances, but because of poor decisions.

A-holes are going to pass their a-hole beliefs onto their kids. I don't think there's a whole lot you can do about that. What I'm talking about is this notion of one's responsibility to the society one lives in. There are times to stand up and fight, times to march and rally--for yourself and for the little guy. But there may not be anything more vital to a healthy society than people turning their children into good citizens. It might be difficult to agree on the best way to do that, but we ought to know (and acknowledge) what the worst way looks like.

GoBucks89 said:

If slavery was always wrong (a position with which I agree), the idea that government determines which is right goes out the window. That was the point of my question. If that is too nuanced for your inner psyche 2Hostyl, I apologize.

Ha.

Keep your apology. You dont think you did anything wrong.

Brakeman -- A few points:

1. I didn't expect that you were talking about schools either

2. When I said everyone would agree to raise their kids properly, I wasn't talking about whether you or any given number of people would think they were doing so. Its whether they think they are doing so. The vast majority of parents believe they are raising their kids properly (and even more would agree to do so). Certainly a significant number more than meet your three standards.

3. Its interesting to me that Rob supported your statement a billion percent but your list doesn't even mention the word hate. There are millions of kids being raised in hateful families who meet all 3 of your standards. And kids being raised in non-hateful families who meet none of your standards.

4. In an interesting twist of the talk here, there are many who would view your list as racist based on the racial differences in people satisfying your standards.

2Hostyl -- No doubt there was a certain level of snark in my response to you. But with all the drama in your response to me (reference to the inner portion of your psyche, sharing mood, typing a response, saving it but not posting it), I thought some snark was in order.

1. Good.

2. I'm not really interested in how people perceive their performance; the results are what matter. I'm also not a big fan of moral relativism. I believe in an objective, baseline standard of morality that comes from the common sense of reasonable people. Slavery is wrong because it is. Throwing battery acid in the faces of little girls is wrong because it is. And getting back to parenting: neglecting and/or abusing your kids is wrong because it is. Failing to provide stability for your kids is wrong because it is. Having a parent do these things while still thinking that they're doing a good job? Who cares what they think?

3. That's why I wrote the lengthy follow-up. While I agree with what Rob said, it wasn't what I had in mind when I made that initial comment. But to address what you're saying: yes, you can have parents that make all the right moves in every way I described and still poison their children with bad ideas. Like I said, there's not much you can do there. It's really kind of depressing. But I do think those attitudes can potentially erode over time. I can imagine kids in this situation growing up with an enlightened attitude, looking back and realizing that mom and dad didn't know what they were talking about. All of that is beside the point I was originally making. I don't think we talk enough about the truly awful parenting that really does plague society.

4. I'll quote myself:

In many cases, simply observing facts about different groups in regards to crime, poverty, education level, etc. can bring accusations of racism, so much so that otherwise decent and well-meaning people are afraid to talk about these issues.

I made no mention of race in my post. Those issues can and certainly do affect all groups. If every parent, regardless of race, focused all their effort on doing it the right way with their kids (or put differently, not doing it the wrong way), the world would be a better place.

"easily azz chapped"
"too nuanced for your inner psyche 2Hostyl"
"all the drama in your response"

And on top of that, a non-apology apology.

I get it, this is a philosophical debate to you. Great, have fun with it.

These symbols and the sentiments that they represent could get me killed. Or worse, get my sons killed. Let that sink in.

...

...

...

These symbols are reminders that there is a certain segment of the population that really believes that my family is of lesser worth than theirs simply because of a different amount of Melanin. And it's not just the past. As I see people holding on so tightly to these symbols, the question becomes "Why?" Not a rhetorical question, but a practical one. Is it because they are committed to the concept of history in all its forms, or is it *specifically* this history, a history of of 'dehumanization", that they wish to commemorate. If it's the latter, these are the people who are going to be my neighbors, my kids' classmates, teachers, doctors, human resource managers, loan officers real estate agents in my community. Is my family going to be treated fairly by these people?

History is replete with examples going the other way. You've seen the reports of unarmed black people being shot even under the guise of "protecting" them (http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/crime/article94009242.html ), studies have been done that show upcoming doctors under-appreciate the pain of black people ( https://news.virginia.edu/content/study-links-disparities-pain-mana...acial-bias ), that schools give harsher discipline to black students than whites even as early as PRESCHOOL ( http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2014/03/21/292456211/black-p...-suspended ), that black kids are generally seen less as "kids" than their peers ( http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2014/03/black-boys-older.aspx ), that having a "black sounding" name can reduce your chances of getting a job ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/black-sounding-names-study_us_5...b8000d687f ) and the concept of 'redlining', shutting blacks out of certain neighborhoods, and in turn certain schools and other amenities, has a *long* history and an even *longer* reach into the present ( http://www.chicagomag.com/city-life/August-2017/How-Redlining-Segre...d-America/ ).

So yes, with the backdrop of all of this (and to borrow a phrase, there is tons more "Believe me!") I tend to get caught up in my own head. It even more frustrates me when those who believe themselves sympathetic to the cause allow themselves to be flippant or downplay the severity of things in current day. Or pass the problems as being more economic than racial. Or the worst "I dont see color". These ignore the realities that I live with and I get really frustrated that I cannot make people understand that. As MLK said "I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizens Councillor or the Ku Klux Klanner but the white moderate who is more devoted to order than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says, "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically feels that he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time; and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season." I want to pound their heads against a wall till they see just how much their *inaction* is as harmful as the unapologetic racist's overt actions are.

But instead, I sit back and engage mostly on their terms, careful not to make personal claims of "benefiting from systematic racism", "white privilege", or "racial overtones" because, in my experience, "white fragility" is real and because "race" isnt an issue they deal with constantly, it's uncomfortable to them. They shut down and get defensive insisting that they themselves arent racist steering the conversation away from the broader themes and down to a personal narrow definition of racist/racism. It happened here where extremecoasterdad felt he had to justify his position as not a personal racist because someone suggested his comment may have had racial overtones. Admittedly, he *was* partially baited into it, but the lengths he went through are typical in many of these conversations I've had through the years.

As I've said before, I dont know any here well enough to call them a racist and even if I did, I find that unhelpful.

So, if I'm easily chapped, intellectually/emotionally unnuanced, and filled with drama when it comes to these issues, I'll wear that as a badge of honor. It's my way of showing that I still have a few f***s to give.
lata, jeremy

"To be a Negro in this country and to be relatively conscious is to be in a rage almost all the time." James A. Baldwin

My general feeling is that those who are "down for the white race" subconsciously know that they cannot compete on a level playing field. I mean, just look at those guys in khakis and white polos running around with tiki torches...they're not exactly "the best and the brightest." If they DO have superior genetics (not bloody likely, LOL), they make a wonderful argument for the effects of nurture vs. those of nature. And that they had substandard parenting.

And that's my 2 cents for now...

It even more frustrates me when those who believe themselves sympathetic to the cause allow themselves to be flippant or downplay the severity of things in current day. Or pass the problems as being more economic than racial. Or the worst "I dont see color". These ignore the realities that I live with and I get really frustrated that I cannot make people understand that.

This a million, billion, trillion times. As a typical white guy, If you're white and anything bold applies to the way you think, that's a problem. Because even though our reality is different, it doesn't negate the reality or experiences of a person of color.

in my experience, "white fragility" is real and because "race" isnt an issue they deal with constantly, it's uncomfortable to them. They shut down and get defensive insisting that they themselves arent racist steering the conversation away from the broader themes and down to a personal narrow definition of racist/racism.

Insisting you aren't racist (regardless of whether someone accused you of that, or because it's a precourser for the next thing you're about to say) doesn't help a situation. What helps? Conversation with an open mind. Admitting that you do see race (everyone does), admitting that you do act on learned impulses (that you can acknowledge and change), and being aware of the issues that people of color face and be willing to be an active force to change those issues to positive issues.

I'm gonna go back to this comment for a second:

I do question the motives of a lot of people who act like they're joining the right side of history on this, though. It's 2017. These statues have been up for a good long time and it's perplexing to me how many people who never expressed any distaste for this sort of thing in the past suddenly want to act as if it's some great offense to them. That's bandwagoning, and it seems to happen constantly.

Any person that feels that way needs to examine their close personal relationships and question why they think that this is a new thing (it's very much not). If it's new to you, perhaps it's time to broaden your circle of friends. And If you have a diverse group of friends, then ask yourself why they've never discussed how they feel about this issue (and others pertaining to race) with you. Then maybe ask them.

2Hostyl said:

But instead, I sit back and engage mostly on their terms, careful not to make personal claims of "benefiting from systematic racism", "white privilege", or "racial overtones" because, in my experience, "white fragility" is real and because "race" isnt an issue they deal with constantly, it's uncomfortable to them. They shut down and get defensive insisting that they themselves arent racist steering the conversation away from the broader themes and down to a personal narrow definition of racist/racism. It happened here where extremecoasterdad felt he had to justify his position as not a personal racist because someone suggested his comment may have had racial overtones. Admittedly, he *was* partially baited into it, but the lengths he went through are typical in many of these conversations I've had through the years.

As I've said before, I dont know any here well enough to call them a racist and even if I did, I find that unhelpful.

So, if I'm easily chapped, intellectually/emotionally unnuanced, and filled with drama when it comes to these issues, I'll wear that as a badge of honor. It's my way of showing that I still have a few f***s to give.
lata, jeremy

"To be a Negro in this country and to be relatively conscious is to be in a rage almost all the time." James A. Baldwin

So, I think you may have some kind of idea of where I am coming from in that I had to make way too many posts about explaining my own position as far as being labeled racist. What to me was a simple conversation between my friends and I turned into something that was laughed at because there was no way that what I was describing actually happened. And as I said before, I won't lose any sleep over some anonymous people who don't believe what I am saying because I was there and none of you were.

After reading what you have said (not to mention some other very well thought out points made by others), maybe I am being somewhat insensitive to the issue of removing statues that represent slavery. What I would rather spend my time and efforts on, truthfully, is making changes that I would think are more important like changing laws that hold the police more accountable when it comes to situations where violence was clearly not necessary, or overzealous neighborhood watchmen that get away with murdering a kid with a bag of skittles. All in all, I would rather fight those fights that I believe will truly make a change. I suppose I am just failing to see where removing the statues will make a real difference in this world. And if we are going to make a difference in this world, and not just here in the U.S, there are a lot of other symbols of slavery that should be dealt with. Although for now it seems we can only take care of that which is in our back yard.

extremecoasterdad said:
What to me was a simple conversation between my friends and I turned into something that was laughed at because there was no way that what I was describing actually happened.

Therein lies the trouble with discussing complex issues on the Internet. There's no nuance, no context, only pixels on a screen.

And I'll admit, when I read someone saying their black friend said they could say x or y, I take that as a rationalization of that person's racism. I apologize for any offense.

...maybe I am being somewhat insensitive to the issue of removing statues that represent slavery.

My take away here? That cities and colleges and so on saw where the winds were blowing and took the opportunity to remove statues offensive to a significant part of the population. There have always been folks opposed to statues of Confederates, such as Robert E. Lee, who not only whipped his slaves until they were bleeding, but then rubbed salt into their wounds. These recent events provided the opportunity to remove those statues without much controversy.

What I would rather spend my time and efforts on, truthfully, is making changes that I would think are more important like changing laws that hold the police more accountable when it comes to situations where violence was clearly not necessary, or overzealous neighborhood watchmen that get away with murdering a kid with a bag of skittles.

We're on the same page.

[Pulls out high horse] Zimmermen wasn't a neighborhood watchman as the neighborhood had no neighborhood watch. He was a thug with a gun.
[Puts high horse back]

I suppose I am just failing to see where removing the statues will make a real difference in this world.

Removing the statues, in and of themselves, won't make a real difference, but removing them is a part of the larger work of addressing the continuing issues of racism in this country.

Jeremy -- Following up on the discussion we had earlier today offline and in part based on it and on re-reading the discussion here, I better understand your response to my post here. With that understanding I acknowledge and agree your response was appropriate and my response to yours was this inappropriate and insensitive. As I said to you in that discussion, I apologize for that. Just following up here to put it on the record so to speak.

Slithernoggin, I did not know that the neighborhood that Zimmerman was in had no neighborhood watch. And thanks to everyone who positively added to this discussion. I am now seeing more of the reasons to remove these statues. I think I got caught up in the whole, what's going to be removed next that someone finds offensive rhetoric.