I'd be very surprised if there's one post on OCnet that meets academic criteria.
I'm not looking for a post that would make it into a peer-reviewed, refereed journal. I just thought that you'd be above the ludicrous or the needlessly impolite. To be honest, I've seen dozens of boneheads on here typing in their crude approximations of what they take to be "Negro dialect" and never felt the need to call them on it because they've never represented themselves to be anything other than crude boneheads. From what I understood, you represented yourself to be something of a "scholar", so I held you to a bit of a higher standard. My mistake.
What if not childish is typing whole paragraphs when someone used an article you don't like?
I don't think that endeavoring to make oneself understood when someone else has misinterpreted what they've written is childish.
Your opposition to my mimickry of accents has been noted
Hmmm...it's as simple as mimicry of accents to you with no pejorative implications whatsoever? I doubt that, but then again, perhaps Mabsoota's post re: you is applicable here after all.
Besides. I don't see why sarcasm shouldn't have a place in debate.
Well, I've fought the urge to make Goldmember
references throughout our discourse.
And repeatedly calling someone you disagree with a kid is hardly a way to get a mature discourse and is an ad-hominem at that. But don't worry, I won't be so silly and report you because you said something I didn't like *wink*
Let's not put the cart before the horse, Sonny Jim. The juvenile behavior preceded both the paternal references and the recourse to authority in terms of purging the Haile Selassie thread.
I must admit that I hadn't heard of him before, but it seems he was a democratically elected politician who came to power in a bankrupt state. Apparently he founded many social programs, including a school feeding program. I'm pretty sure that he isn't perfect, but he hardly sounds like the devil you paint him to be. He was elected witth a landslide and after his first term in office he was popular enough to be re-elected. But obviously you disagree with some of his policies, and that's fine. Don't go and blame whole nations and continents for that.
And how precisely did he secure those elections and come to power? Most "First World" people could never imagine a world in which one of the major political parties recuited the street gangs - and then armed them with imported weapons - to ensure that individuals living in certain districts voted in certain ways, ways contrary to their own interests, but unfortunately, that was the reality in Jamaica for many years. When the opposition party followed suit, "politics time" in Jamaica became synonymous with violence and death. People hated it when the election cycle rolled around, because that meant more relatives hacked to death with machetes or killed with imported M-1s (wonder where they got those?) until everyone agreed to play ball and secure a "landslide" for dear old Eddie.
No, no one is blaming whole nations or continents for Mr. Seaga, but there are those abroard who had a vested interest in his coming to power (and remaining there) because they felt that recently independent Jamaica was moving too closely into Cuba's orbit, and it would be better to spill gallons of Jamaican blood than to let that happen.
But Seaga is peripheral to the conversation. I only brought him up because your remarks that
Jamaicans are hardly oppressed by da white man today
Jamaica [isn't] poor or suffering because of da white man.
Were simplistic and demonstrably false.
However, you missed my point entirely. It's not about Jamaica, or even Africa. It's about how no child should be held accountable for the sins of his father. Holding them responsible for things they did not do, like the Caribbean states are doing, is dispicable, disgusting and immoral. You can't go around blaming people living today for slavery or oppression of the past. Nobody should be made to feel guilty for something he or she didn't do and that's what I have been saying all along. In your righteous fury you apparently missed the point....
I didn't miss your point. I asserted that it was peripheral (at best) to the thread in which you launched into this tirade in the first place. Alpo asked why a certain group of people were attracted to Ethiopian and Coptic Orthodoxy. Others offered an explanation. You then began your tiresome little spiel above, parroting the usual arguments advanced again the strawman statements you've introduced above. I never said anything about reparations, ancestral sin, "white guilt", holding the collective feet of the West to the fire or anything else. I merely said that your introduction of these concepts and then attempts at refuting them had no place in a thread about whether or not Haile Selassie should be canonized.
Don't worry, it happens even to academic geniuses like yourself
Yes, even academic geniuses sometimes have to watch people argue with themselves. In fact, you're not even the first one of the day. On the way into work, I saw a guy on a streetcorner doing the same thing.
I might have exaggerated a bit in my dislike of those terms and theories, but that hardly makes one a reactionary. At least not by any definition I was able to find in the dictionaries.
Here's what mine says:reactionary
(rɪˈækʃənərɪ ; -ʃənrɪ) adjective
1. of, relating to, or characterized by reaction, especially against radical political or social change
You know, like arguments one has with oneself about reparations for slavery, or extreme reactions
to the mere mention of terms like "racism" or "imperialism", even when utilized in context to answer someone's inquiry about a third party's motives and not advanced as part of a political argument.
No hard feelings.
Of course not, my dear lad.