Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform > The Ridge Creek School / Hidden Lake Academy

What happened to "They'll never settle"?

<< < (5/8) > >>

Anonymous:
I fail to see the relevance of the color of the man's skin who delivered that "opinion".

Anonymous:
Maybe our MTV loving, non-facist is suggesting that all black people smoke marijuana!  Doesn't this put you more in league with Hitler than programs?

Anonymous:
dont contort my words to your benifit. no i'm saying i've never heard a black person say something so ignorant. in my experience i've found them to be more open minded, and reject right-wing propaganda. I am very aware that statistically, the rates of marijuana use among blacks is lower than that of whites, particularly in my home state. it just shocked me to find that someone who's ancestors fought against slavery and racism, to go turn his back and start supporting an ideal which was born in racism.

If you do a little research, you'll find that the illegalization of marijuana had more to do with the anti-mexican (and later anti-black) sentiment of the southwest states, than it's supposed dangers. around the turn of the century racist authorities in the southwest had a "mexican problem", yet could not find a way to legally start rounding them up and deporting them. so they began a campaign to make their lives very uncomfortable. among many other measures, marijuana was banned in the border states. not implying any stereotype of nowadays, but back in the day it was thought that all mexicans smoke weed, so banning it would mean banning mexicans. what great logic!! deeeeeer. but, ironically, they saw results. there was also a problem - since it was only illegal in a few states, there was no real problem with the supply. so, the SW states went on a campaign and as a result, one by one most of the states pass bills. But still, that wasnt enough. so in 1916 the federal marijuana tax act was passed, and the FBN (federal beurou of narcotics, since changed to DEA) headed by henry anslinger went a on massive propaganda and extermination campaign. (A.K.A "reefer madness".). thus, making it seem like marijuana is the devil's weed and will make you go mad. there was another problem with the U.S and weed - for the longest time, hemp was very difficult to process, thus making it a worthless competitor against cotton. but in the 30's, a machine was invented which actually made hemp much more cost-efficient to grow. a complete transition from cotton to hemp was predicted, but there was a problem. The Dupont family (then and still one of the richest families) owned the majority of the cotton and textile industry, along with all the chemicals and whatnot which are used to process it. They also happened to in bed with the half the house of reps and the white house. and Hemp would put them out of bussiness very, very quickly. . guess what happened next.  A very simmilar thing happened with cocaine. there was one incident in chicago when a coked-up black guy took a few dozen bullets to die. when it was published in the paper, mass hysteria ensued, people were scared that their guns wouldnt stop a coked-up black guy who is (of course) trying to rape all the white women in sight. so, cocaine was also eventually made illegal

and same story with opium and the chineese in california. it was O.K untill white women bagan frequenting opium dens, and before there was an explosion of chineese immigrants.

and please, please, dont get started anymore on the whole racism thing. i  can go on and on and on about all the racism and anti-semitism i experienced at HLA from both students AND staff. even the dress code at HLA is racist. i remember when a particular black student came, and a few weeks into forming he got his clothes in the mail. i was watching when he was talking to his counselor, and his counselor was trying to explain why his clothes were innapropriate. this kid came from inner city detroit (how his parents paid for hla i dont know), and had the standard popular inner city clothes. not to be racist (white people are probobly bigger customers of these clothes), but these were your standard stereotypical "black" clothes - stuff from ecko, fubu, sean jean, etc. the counselor couldnt come up with anything exept for why they were innapropriate exept for becouse they were "imagy". image of what? a black person? so instead this kid had to go out with his counselors and they bought him a whole wardrobe of the preppiest clothes ever - the gap, AnF, hollister, eddie bauer, etc, all on his parents money. why? becouse at HLA no image but the "preppy white boy" look is accepted. the kid was robbed of his individuality and identity. unfourtunately there is this notion throughout the south that any black person dressed in baggy clothes must be a gangster, just like there is the notion that people with tattoos and long hair take drugs or that any muslim is a terrorist. it is simply not so. but the people in power, they try to make things look non threatening, so they change things. they tell you what drugs you can or cant take, tell you what to wear, how to act, etc. this way of thinking is integral to the NATSAP idealogy.

Anonymous:
Let's see this is the most ignorant thing you have ever heard a black person say?  Are you kidding! Do you really expect anyone to believe that is what you ment by your statement.  Ok, we are on fornits and your compatriots tend to be gullible; I'll let it slide.  As to your disertation on illegal drugs, I saw the same history channel series.  Try getting an original thought!

You did however hit upon a few of my favorite topics; image, dress and identity.  I know that you have grown up in a culture of individuality.  I am sure that you were raised to believe that you are special and unique and that there is no one as special as you.  Reality check.  That's all crap.  If you shave your head, cover yourself in tattoos and begin wearing combat boots your a skinhead.  No one is going to ask you if you are really a good person at heart.  If you dress like an inner city, urban, gang affiliated, dope dealer, (guess what?) you will be labeled that and treated as if.  You act as if you have the right to project what ever image you feel fits your identity today and the rest of society must respect that.  Never happened, never will.  The professional dress code in this country has not changed in over 150 years and its not likely to change soon.

Check the research, your image dictates how people will interact with you no matter what area of the country your in.  It happens in the community, on college campus' and public and private schools.  Get over yourself, you are not special, you are not unique and no one owes you anything.

Anonymous:
yes, of course. images are connotated with certain profiles. of course, dressing up as a skinhead or metalhead or gangster or whatever wont get you much respect within mainstream society, but maybe that's not on the top of certain people's lists of priorities. maybe they DONT WANT TO be part of mainstream society. maybe they consider people that wear poloshirts and khakis imbeciles. maybe associating yourself with an "image" IS more conformist than it is individualistic.

also keep in mind that in certain parts of the world, if you wear a suit & tie you're liable to be singled out as an infidel. wear anything but a robe or a burka and you're likely to be executed. sure, they are the "inferior" islamic countries, but you cant dismiss the opinion and belief of miilions of people, regardless of of ludicrious they are.

but this is the U.S.A. people have a right to choose what to wear. we're not in afghanistan. they can associate themselves with any sector of society without being persecuted. sure, tatoos and long hair may keep you from getting into Yale or getting an office job, but maybe to the ones that tatooed themselves, getting a a 9-5 job is torture. we live in a free society, where one can choose or even create their own path in life. by outlawing an image, you are restricting the number of choices people have. even if the choice is to conform to the same idiotic fashion, e.g emo or hardcore.

and remember, there is a difference between instituting a uniform policy (which is O.K for certain schools under certain conditions) and creating a dress code which is based on racisim and stereotyping.

not everyone views the world the same way you do. a suit and tie to you may signal respect, but to me it signals close-mindedness, emotional repression, and overall squareness. when i looking for an assistant a few months ago, i chose a kid with dreads and anarchist beliefs over the dozen or so other applicants who came in wearing suits and fancy resume's. why? not becouse i'm biased, but becouse in my line of work a kid with dreads and liberal values would get along better, get more respect and sell more shit. and i know that from experience. try to do what i do wearing a polo&khakis and your either going to get shunned, harassed, or humiliated.


now go tell your kids that if they get tatooed theyll never hold a job. pffffftttt!!!!!

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page