Becca wrote:
> George Shirley wrote:
>
>> We've got a clump growing out behind the greenhouse that's been there
>> about ten years IIRC. Seldom use it anymore but we've given starts
>> away by the hundreds. Local Vietnamese family runs, of all things, a
>> Cajun restaurant. Offered them some lemon grass as they mentioned they
>> had been buying it in a nearby city. They jumped on the deal and now
>> have a lot of it growing behind the restaurant.
>
> In the Houston area, my lemongrass grew without a problem. Here in
> Louisiana, it is was 5 degrees colder over the winter, and it died back.
> It grew back in the spring and it looks great.
>
> One of the golfers, driving by on the cart path, asked me if it was
> Pampas grass.
>
> Becca
You must live in North Louisiana. I live in SW Louisiana and it's a
strange winter when we get more than a very short freeze down around
30F. We had an ice storm here in, I think, 1997. Knocked three of our
oak trees down, were without power for three or four days, and had to
borrow a chain saw to get the cars out of the garage. If we ever have
another one I'm moving back to South Texas.

George

Kathleen wrote:

> Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>
>> On Sat 21 Jun 2008 10:14:44a, George Shirley told us...
>>
>>
>>>Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat 21 Jun 2008 05:51:43a, Kathleen told us...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Fri 20 Jun 2008 10:19:51a, Kathleen told us...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>No, I wouldn't. However, I see no reason why whites would
>>>>>>>>necessarily celebrate the end of slavery. We weren't slaves.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Not *then*. But it's certainly a scourge that might have spread
>>>>>>>based on various bogus racial or socio-economic standards.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I doubt that would have ever happened in the South where black
>>>>>>slavery predominated and there was far more racial distinction than
>>>>>>class distinction.
>>>>>
>>>>>But what happens when racial lines blur? There were slaves whose
>>>>>fathers and grandfathers were white.
>>>>
>>>>For many years I believe there was a law that a certainly very low
>>>>percentage of "black" made you totally black. This was true long after
>>>>the Emancipation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>It was certainly true in New Orleans until well into the Twentieth
>>>Century. White and black could not marry, even if the so-called "black"
>>>had only 1/64th black blood.
>>
>>
>> Yep, that's the fraction I couldn't remember.
>>
>
> I guess the modern day equivalent would be the Cherohonkee - a white
> person with a teaspoonful of native american blood going around wearing
> buckskin, beads and braids.

Well, why not? You've never seen a Native American going around wearing a
business suit?


--
Blinky
Is your ISP dropping Usenet?
Need a new feed?
http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html

Blinky the Shark wrote:
> Kathleen wrote:
>
>> Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat 21 Jun 2008 10:14:44a, George Shirley told us...
>>>
>>>
>>>> Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat 21 Jun 2008 05:51:43a, Kathleen told us...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri 20 Jun 2008 10:19:51a, Kathleen told us...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, I wouldn't. However, I see no reason why whites would
>>>>>>>>> necessarily celebrate the end of slavery. We weren't slaves.
>>>>>>>> Not *then*. But it's certainly a scourge that might have spread
>>>>>>>> based on various bogus racial or socio-economic standards.
>>>>>>> I doubt that would have ever happened in the South where black
>>>>>>> slavery predominated and there was far more racial distinction than
>>>>>>> class distinction.
>>>>>> But what happens when racial lines blur? There were slaves whose
>>>>>> fathers and grandfathers were white.
>>>>> For many years I believe there was a law that a certainly very low
>>>>> percentage of "black" made you totally black. This was true long after
>>>>> the Emancipation.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> It was certainly true in New Orleans until well into the Twentieth
>>>> Century. White and black could not marry, even if the so-called "black"
>>>> had only 1/64th black blood.
>>>
>>> Yep, that's the fraction I couldn't remember.
>>>
>> I guess the modern day equivalent would be the Cherohonkee - a white
>> person with a teaspoonful of native american blood going around wearing
>> buckskin, beads and braids.
>
> Well, why not? You've never seen a Native American going around wearing a
> business suit?
>
>
You know how the folks on the rez know when it's spring? When the
anthropologists show up.

Blake wrote:

> in mississippi, they didn't want word of the emancipation to get
> around.

From the Wikipedia article on the 13th Amendment:

"Ratification was completed on December 6, 1865. The amendment was
subsequently ratified by the following states:

"Mississippi (March 16, 1995, after having rejected it on December 5, 1865)"


Bob

Wayne wrote:

> For many years I believe there was a law that a certainly very low
> percentage of "black" made you totally black. This was true long after
> the Emancipation.

I have an acquaintance who is 1/64th black; she routinely marks her
ethnicity as African-American on job applications and applications for
public benefits. She believes it gives her an edge.

Bob

On Sat 21 Jun 2008 06:16:55p, Bob Terwilliger told us...

> Blake wrote:
>
>> in mississippi, they didn't want word of the emancipation to get
>> around.
>
> From the Wikipedia article on the 13th Amendment:
>
> "Ratification was completed on December 6, 1865. The amendment was
> subsequently ratified by the following states:
>
> "Mississippi (March 16, 1995, after having rejected it on December 5,
> 1865)"
>
>
> Bob
>
>

Given the behaviors of family, friends, and total strangers I've observed
in Mississippi, that makes perfect sense.

--
Wayne Boatwright
-------------------------------------------
Saturday, 06(VI)/21(XXI)/08(MMVIII)
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
The self-employed person is uniquely
in a position to define success
however he pleases.
-------------------------------------------

On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 18:18:55 -0700, "Bob Terwilliger"
> wrote:


>I have an acquaintance who is 1/64th black; she routinely marks her
>ethnicity as African-American on job applications and applications for
>public benefits. She believes it gives her an edge.
>
>Bob

Hi Bob,

Perhaps that advantage explains why we see so many black
folks in dominant positions in American academe, commerce,
and politics...

All the best,
--
Kenneth

If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."

"Wayne Boatwright" > ha scritto nel messaggio
6.120...
> On Sat 21 Jun 2008 10:14:44a, George Shirley told us...
>
>> Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>>> On Sat 21 Jun 2008 05:51:43a, Kathleen told us...
>>>
>>>> Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri 20 Jun 2008 10:19:51a, Kathleen told us...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, I wouldn't. However, I see no reason why whites would
>>>>>>> necessarily celebrate the end of slavery. We weren't slaves.

I am so confused. Who said that?

It seems to me that if the majority of white people hadn't wanted an end to
slavery, it would not have ended. While the war was about more than that,
it's still a damned big statement to make if you don't care, and most of the
soldiers were not black. All our allies had made it illegal before we did.

On Sun 22 Jun 2008 01:22:44a, Giusi told us...

> "Wayne Boatwright" > ha scritto nel messaggio
> 6.120...
>> On Sat 21 Jun 2008 10:14:44a, George Shirley told us...
>>
>>> Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>>>> On Sat 21 Jun 2008 05:51:43a, Kathleen told us...
>>>>
>>>>> Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri 20 Jun 2008 10:19:51a, Kathleen told us...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, I wouldn't. However, I see no reason why whites would
>>>>>>>> necessarily celebrate the end of slavery. We weren't slaves.
>
> I am so confused. Who said that?

I was the one who made the previous statement.

> It seems to me that if the majority of white people hadn't wanted an end
> to slavery, it would not have ended. While the war was about more than
> that, it's still a damned big statement to make if you don't care, and
> most of the soldiers were not black. All our allies had made it illegal
> before we did.

While it's true that there were some slaves in the North, the majority were
in the South. I'm sure you know that the "war between the states" was
essentially the war between the North and South. There was only a small
minority of southerners who were against slavery.

My ancestral family were plantation owners and slave owners. Much of the
economy of the South was dependent on these vast plantations and the ablity
to work them. Without slaves it was impossible in that structure.

Please note that I am not advocating slavery by any means. However, whites
were not slaves and, especially in the South, they had no particularly good
reason to celebrate the abolishment of slavery. It meant the demise of the
economic and social structure they had known for generations.

The North and its Union Army and its allies were larger and had more
resources. It was only natural that they would win. Because they won is
nnot a reason why *all* whites should celebrate the Emancipation.

If this makes you think that I am a racist, I assure you I am not. I
simply have no personal reason to celebrate this. I have truly good
friends of various races, including blacks, and I do not differentiate
between any of them.

--
Wayne Boatwright
-------------------------------------------
Sunday, 06(VI)/22(XXII)/08(MMVIII)
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
I am Lancelot of Borg. Resistance is
feudal.
-------------------------------------------

On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 18:16:55 -0700, "Bob Terwilliger"
> wrote:

>Blake wrote:
>
>> in mississippi, they didn't want word of the emancipation to get
>> around.
>
>From the Wikipedia article on the 13th Amendment:
>
>"Ratification was completed on December 6, 1865. The amendment was
> subsequently ratified by the following states:
>
>"Mississippi (March 16, 1995, after having rejected it on December 5, 1865)"
>
>
>Bob

better late than never, i suppose.

your pal,
blake

On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 16:17:56 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
> wrote:

>On Sat 21 Jun 2008 05:51:43a, Kathleen told us...
>
>>
>> But what happens when racial lines blur? There were slaves whose
>> fathers and grandfathers were white.
>
>For many years I believe there was a law that a certainly very low
>percentage of "black" made you totally black. This was true long after the
>Emancipation.

colloquially known as the 'one-drop' rule.

your pal,
blake

On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 16:15:14 -0500, Kathleen
> wrote:

>
>I guess the modern day equivalent would be the Cherohonkee - a white
>person with a teaspoonful of native american blood going around wearing
>buckskin, beads and braids.

<snort>

never heard that one.

your pal,
blake

On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 11:34:21 -0500, (Fred Jones)
wrote:

>All Southerns should celebrate!!!
>It gave us a chance to send black criminals
>to Baltimore, Cleveland and Detroit...
>How's crime in those cities today? !!!!
>I'm having grits and gravy and ya'll should
>too !!!

no doubt making it easier for white criminals such as yourself.

blake

On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 12:08:52 -0500, zxcvbob >
wrote:

>blake murphy wrote:
>
>> i would reverse that. only *very* occasionally do they [ACLU] do
>> something irritating; ninety-nine percent of the time they're on the
>> right side of things. they favor the constitution, in particular the
>> first ten amendments. i know that is somewhat out of fashion in the
>> current administration - 'a goddamn piece of paper' - but it's what
>> we have, and ignored at out peril.
>>
>
>
>Minor correction: They support the 1st, and the 4th thru 8th
>amendments. (don't know about the 3rd, it hasn't come up.) They are
>ambivalent about the 2nd amendment, that's why we have the NRA and the
>Second Amendment Foundation. I think everybody has given up on the 9th
>and 10th.
>

to be honest, the second doesn't came up all that often, either. and
as you say, the oppressed gun owners have the n.r.a. to look after
them, while most of the a.c.l.u.'s clients have few champions.

>It'll be interesting to see what changes after the SC announces the
>Heller decision (possibly on this-coming Monday)
>
>Bob

it's hard to tell, indeed. (*heller* concerns d.c.'s handgun ban.) i
feel confident in predicting that scalia's opinion will be full of
shit, though.

your pal,
blake

On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 12:16:35 -0500, George Shirley
> wrote:

>zxcvbob wrote:
>> blake murphy wrote:
>>
>>> i would reverse that. only *very* occasionally do they [ACLU] do
>>> something irritating; ninety-nine percent of the time they're on the
>>> right side of things. they favor the constitution, in particular the
>>> first ten amendments. i know that is somewhat out of fashion in the
>>> current administration - 'a goddamn piece of paper' - but it's what
>>> we have, and ignored at out peril.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Minor correction: They support the 1st, and the 4th thru 8th
>> amendments. (don't know about the 3rd, it hasn't come up.) They are
>> ambivalent about the 2nd amendment, that's why we have the NRA and the
>> Second Amendment Foundation. I think everybody has given up on the 9th
>> and 10th.
>>
>> It'll be interesting to see what changes after the SC announces the
>> Heller decision (possibly on this-coming Monday)
>>
>> Bob
>The Supreme's certainly screwed up by offering terrorists the same
>rights as Americans. I can just see the trial lawyers lining up for Al
>Qaeda money for defending the terrorists now.

the decision frees no detainee. it just means the government has to
show cause as to why they are detained, that is, charge them with a
crime. if they were the hardened bad-asses they are made out to be,
that shouldn't be too hard.

your pal,
blake

On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 12:00:26 -0400, "kilikini"
> wrote:

>zxcvbob wrote:
>> modom (palindrome guy) wrote:
>>
>>> OBFood: I gave sprouted stalks of lemongrass to two of my friends
>>> yesterday. I bought the stalks at an Asian market in suburban Dallas
>>> a few weeks ago and sprouted them in water. They have a nice brace
>>> of roots on them now and are ready to plant in sunny spots in the
>>> yard. I love lemongrass. My friends have greener thumbs than I and
>>> I'm counting on them to raise a fine batch this summer for us all to
>>> play with in the kitchen. Two more stalks are still trying to root
>>> at my house tonight. I'm hoping they make it.
>>
>>
>> I've tried that several times and I've never been able to get them to
>> root.
>> Bob
>
>I've got a pot of lemongrass growing outside my door. Not only do we like
>it, but the stray cats take a nibble now and then, too! LOL. When Nick and
>Jun were here a couple of years ago, Jun planted it for us. It's still
>going strong.
>
>kili
>

did you get jun to cook for you? i know i would have tried to.

your pal,
blake

On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 18:13:23 -0500, George Shirley
> wrote:

>Becca wrote:
>> George Shirley wrote:
>>
>>> We've got a clump growing out behind the greenhouse that's been there
>>> about ten years IIRC. Seldom use it anymore but we've given starts
>>> away by the hundreds. Local Vietnamese family runs, of all things, a
>>> Cajun restaurant. Offered them some lemon grass as they mentioned they
>>> had been buying it in a nearby city. They jumped on the deal and now
>>> have a lot of it growing behind the restaurant.
>>
>> In the Houston area, my lemongrass grew without a problem. Here in
>> Louisiana, it is was 5 degrees colder over the winter, and it died back.
>> It grew back in the spring and it looks great.
>>
>> One of the golfers, driving by on the cart path, asked me if it was
>> Pampas grass.
>>
>> Becca
>You must live in North Louisiana. I live in SW Louisiana and it's a
>strange winter when we get more than a very short freeze down around
>30F. We had an ice storm here in, I think, 1997. Knocked three of our
>oak trees down, were without power for three or four days, and had to
>borrow a chain saw to get the cars out of the garage. If we ever have
>another one I'm moving back to South Texas.
>
>George

don't do it, george! think of the food you'd miss.

your pal,
blake

On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 12:25:54 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
> wrote:

>The North and its Union Army and its allies were larger and had more
>resources. It was only natural that they would win. Because they won is
>nnot a reason why *all* whites should celebrate the Emancipation.

Too bad it took a blood bath to bring the South (kicking and
screaming) into the Industrial Revolution. Eli Whitney had already
invented the cotton gin and the concept of mass production.


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

"Wayne Boatwright" > ha scritto nel messaggio
6.120...
> On Sun 22 Jun 2008 01:22:44a, Giusi told us...
>
>> "Wayne Boatwright" > ha
However, I see no reason why whites would>>> necessarily celebrate the end
of slavery. We weren't slaves.
>>
>> I am so confused. Who said that?
>
> I was the one who made the previous statement.
>
>> It seems to me that if the majority of white people hadn't wanted an end
>> to slavery, it would not have ended.

> While it's true that there were some slaves in the North, the majority
> were
> in the South. I'm sure you know that the "war between the states" was
> essentially the war between the North and South. There was only a small
> minority of southerners who were against slavery.
>
> My ancestral family were plantation owners and slave owners. Much of the
> economy of the South was dependent on these vast plantations and the
> ablity
> to work them. Without slaves it was impossible in that structure.
>
> Please note that I am not advocating slavery by any means. However,
> whites
> were not slaves and, especially in the South, they had no particularly
> good
> reason to celebrate the abolishment of slavery. It meant the demise of
> the
> economic and social structure they had known for generations.
>
> The North and its Union Army and its allies were larger and had more
> resources. It was only natural that they would win. Because they won is
> nnot a reason why *all* whites should celebrate the Emancipation.
>
> If this makes you think that I am a racist, I assure you I am not. I
> simply have no personal reason to celebrate this. I have truly good
> friends of various races, including blacks, and I do not differentiate
> between any of them.
>
> --
> Wayne Boatwright

Wayne, I could not cut that statement and still get you to explain it to me.

If slavery had not been abolished, your black friends and probably some you
don't realize it about, would be slaves. They would be bought and sold and
their children would be chattels as well. They would be bred like animals
to bring out certain qualities. If they escaped, they would be chased down,
sometimes tortured and killed.

To me that says they aren't really human beings. We are in the 21st
century. Never mind who your ancestors were, would you go along with that?

While it was true that the system could not go along as it had without
slavery, it could and did go along with paid workers. They were legally
entitled to, if they didn't always receive, the same rights we have. So
instead of a few who were rich off the sweat and blood of others, more
people divided the result. It happens that one of my two closest friend IS
a plantation owner in Mississippi, so I am not ignorant of how much
paternalism still exists among the societies. But even so, I think
abolishing slavery was and is a good thing for white people as well as Black
people or Jews or Poles or Gypsies or whoever was enslaved by anyone. So I
would feel a lot closer to you if you'd say, "Hell, yes, let's celebrate the
emancipation of slaves!"

On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 13:41:48 GMT, blake murphy
> wrote:

>On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 12:16:35 -0500, George Shirley

>>The Supreme's certainly screwed up by offering terrorists the same
>>rights as Americans. I can just see the trial lawyers lining up for Al
>>Qaeda money for defending the terrorists now.
>
>the decision frees no detainee. it just means the government has to
>show cause as to why they are detained, that is, charge them with a
>crime. if they were the hardened bad-asses they are made out to be,
>that shouldn't be too hard.
>
It makes my blood boil just to think about the writ of habeas corpus
being ignored like that on American soil.


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

blake murphy wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 12:00:26 -0400, "kilikini"
> > wrote:
>
>> zxcvbob wrote:
>>> modom (palindrome guy) wrote:
>>>
>>>> OBFood: I gave sprouted stalks of lemongrass to two of my friends
>>>> yesterday. I bought the stalks at an Asian market in suburban
>>>> Dallas a few weeks ago and sprouted them in water. They have a
>>>> nice brace of roots on them now and are ready to plant in sunny
>>>> spots in the yard. I love lemongrass. My friends have greener
>>>> thumbs than I and I'm counting on them to raise a fine batch this
>>>> summer for us all to play with in the kitchen. Two more stalks
>>>> are still trying to root at my house tonight. I'm hoping they
>>>> make it.
>>>
>>>
>>> I've tried that several times and I've never been able to get them
>>> to root.
>>> Bob
>>
>> I've got a pot of lemongrass growing outside my door. Not only do
>> we like it, but the stray cats take a nibble now and then, too!
>> LOL. When Nick and Jun were here a couple of years ago, Jun planted
>> it for us. It's still going strong.
>>
>> kili
>>
>
> did you get jun to cook for you? i know i would have tried to.
>
> your pal,
> blake

I don't think she stopped cooking the whole week they were here! I was too
sick to eat; I pretty much stayed in the bedroom because the aroma was
killing me. LOL. My husband and Nick ate with gusto, though, and got
drunker than a barrel of monkeys soaking in a vat of Everclear. It was an
"interesting" week. :-/

kili

blake murphy > wrote:

> did you get jun to cook for you? i know i would have tried to.

Here's some of Jun's cooking when she was here in Austin:

Bitter melon and pork:
http://i29.tinypic.com/4k89dh.jpg

Slightly fermented dried fish and peppers condiment:
http://i32.tinypic.com/2nrg588.jpg

Veggie Plate:
http://i25.tinypic.com/2qupshs.jpg

Garlic Pork:
http://i28.tinypic.com/nboxso.jpg

Pork balls, pork, eggplant, mushroom, basil curry:
http://i31.tinypic.com/6xzsk9.jpg

Vietnamese-style pork stew (star anise broth):
http://i29.tinypic.com/jsbqz6.jpg

Pork is the preferred meat in her kitchen since she doesn't beef for
religious reasons.

sf wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 13:41:48 GMT, blake murphy
> > wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 12:16:35 -0500, George Shirley
>
>>> The Supreme's certainly screwed up by offering terrorists the same
>>> rights as Americans. I can just see the trial lawyers lining up for Al
>>> Qaeda money for defending the terrorists now.
>> the decision frees no detainee. it just means the government has to
>> show cause as to why they are detained, that is, charge them with a
>> crime. if they were the hardened bad-asses they are made out to be,
>> that shouldn't be too hard.
>>
> It makes my blood boil just to think about the writ of habeas corpus
> being ignored like that on American soil.
>
>
Uh! Guantanamo Bay is actually Cuban soil, we just rent it.

Giusi wrote:
> "Wayne Boatwright" > ha scritto nel messaggio
> 6.120...
>> On Sun 22 Jun 2008 01:22:44a, Giusi told us...
>>
>>> "Wayne Boatwright" > ha
> However, I see no reason why whites would>>> necessarily celebrate the end
> of slavery. We weren't slaves.
>>> I am so confused. Who said that?
>> I was the one who made the previous statement.
>>
>>> It seems to me that if the majority of white people hadn't wanted an end
>>> to slavery, it would not have ended.
>
>> While it's true that there were some slaves in the North, the majority
>> were
>> in the South. I'm sure you know that the "war between the states" was
>> essentially the war between the North and South. There was only a small
>> minority of southerners who were against slavery.
>>
>> My ancestral family were plantation owners and slave owners. Much of the
>> economy of the South was dependent on these vast plantations and the
>> ablity
>> to work them. Without slaves it was impossible in that structure.
>>
>> Please note that I am not advocating slavery by any means. However,
>> whites
>> were not slaves and, especially in the South, they had no particularly
>> good
>> reason to celebrate the abolishment of slavery. It meant the demise of
>> the
>> economic and social structure they had known for generations.
>>
>> The North and its Union Army and its allies were larger and had more
>> resources. It was only natural that they would win. Because they won is
>> nnot a reason why *all* whites should celebrate the Emancipation.
>>
>> If this makes you think that I am a racist, I assure you I am not. I
>> simply have no personal reason to celebrate this. I have truly good
>> friends of various races, including blacks, and I do not differentiate
>> between any of them.
>>
>> --
>> Wayne Boatwright
>
> Wayne, I could not cut that statement and still get you to explain it to me.
>
> If slavery had not been abolished, your black friends and probably some you
> don't realize it about, would be slaves. They would be bought and sold and
> their children would be chattels as well. They would be bred like animals
> to bring out certain qualities. If they escaped, they would be chased down,
> sometimes tortured and killed.
>
> To me that says they aren't really human beings. We are in the 21st
> century. Never mind who your ancestors were, would you go along with that?
>
> While it was true that the system could not go along as it had without
> slavery, it could and did go along with paid workers. They were legally
> entitled to, if they didn't always receive, the same rights we have. So
> instead of a few who were rich off the sweat and blood of others, more
> people divided the result. It happens that one of my two closest friend IS
> a plantation owner in Mississippi, so I am not ignorant of how much
> paternalism still exists among the societies. But even so, I think
> abolishing slavery was and is a good thing for white people as well as Black
> people or Jews or Poles or Gypsies or whoever was enslaved by anyone. So I
> would feel a lot closer to you if you'd say, "Hell, yes, let's celebrate the
> emancipation of slaves!"
>
>
Try looking around the rest of this old earth. Slavery still runs
rampant in some countries, primarily in Africa. Some Arab nations didn't
free their slaves until 1962 but kept them on as unpaid servants as they
"were to old to turn loose without a job." There are still slave markets
running today, none I know of in the US or any of the other Western nations.

Skin color has nothing to do with it, the Romans and Greeks enslaved any
captives and bought and sold them on the open market. The Spanish
enslaved, raped, and murdered, untold thousands of Native Americans in
all of the Americas where they were. Native American tribes enslaved
other tribes people. It appears from history that slavery was the norm
for a very long time. I would certainly hope that mankind is enlightened
enough to not enslave others but wouldn't bet on it around the world.

"George Shirley" > ha scritto nel messaggio
...
> Try looking around the rest of this old earth. Slavery still runs rampant
> in some countries, primarily in Africa. Some Arab nations didn't free
> their slaves until 1962 but kept them on as unpaid servants as they "were
> to old to turn loose without a job." There are still slave markets running
> today, none I know of in the US or any of the other Western nations.
>
> Skin color has nothing to do with it, the Romans and Greeks enslaved any
> captives and bought and sold them on the open market. The Spanish
> enslaved, raped, and murdered, untold thousands of Native Americans in all
> of the Americas where they were. Native American tribes enslaved other
> tribes people. It appears from history that slavery was the norm for a
> very long time. I would certainly hope that mankind is enlightened enough
> to not enslave others but wouldn't bet on it around the world.

I'm not ignorant of any of this and know of slavery situations going on in
many places not so far from me. Ukrainian, various Africans and some
Albanians are tricked into coming to Italy or to other countries for jobs as
models which turn out to be prostitution. They take their ID from them and
threaten their families remaining at home. It's a very large part of the
Caribinieri duties to find the perpetrators and get rid of them.

As a citizen however I would fight it in the US even harder. As someone who
generally admires Wayne, I really wanted clarification.

On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 16:16:12 +0200, "Giusi" >
wrote:

>While it was true that the system could not go along as it had without
>slavery, it could and did go along with paid workers. They were legally
>entitled to, if they didn't always receive, the same rights we have. So
>instead of a few who were rich off the sweat and blood of others, more
>people divided the result. It happens that one of my two closest friend IS
>a plantation owner in Mississippi, so I am not ignorant of how much
>paternalism still exists among the societies.

There. You said it. In Spanish cultures, the class would be
"Patron".

>But even so, I think
>abolishing slavery was and is a good thing for white people as well as Black
>people or Jews or Poles or Gypsies or whoever was enslaved by anyone. So I
>would feel a lot closer to you if you'd say, "Hell, yes, let's celebrate the
>emancipation of slaves!"

Giusi, he's from the south so his views come from a southern
perspective. It's like being a Texan or a Californian... we look at
things differently from the rest of the country.


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

On Sun 22 Jun 2008 07:16:12a, Giusi told us...

> "Wayne Boatwright" > ha scritto nel messaggio
> 6.120...
>> On Sun 22 Jun 2008 01:22:44a, Giusi told us...
>>
>>> "Wayne Boatwright" > ha
> However, I see no reason why whites would>>> necessarily celebrate the
> end of slavery. We weren't slaves.
>>>
>>> I am so confused. Who said that?
>>
>> I was the one who made the previous statement.
>>
>>> It seems to me that if the majority of white people hadn't wanted an
>>> end to slavery, it would not have ended.
>
>> While it's true that there were some slaves in the North, the majority
>> were in the South. I'm sure you know that the "war between the states"
>> was essentially the war between the North and South. There was only a
>> small minority of southerners who were against slavery.
>>
>> My ancestral family were plantation owners and slave owners. Much of
>> the economy of the South was dependent on these vast plantations and
>> the ablity to work them. Without slaves it was impossible in that
>> structure.
>>
>> Please note that I am not advocating slavery by any means. However,
>> whites were not slaves and, especially in the South, they had no
>> particularly good reason to celebrate the abolishment of slavery. It
>> meant the demise of the economic and social structure they had known
>> for generations.
>>
>> The North and its Union Army and its allies were larger and had more
>> resources. It was only natural that they would win. Because they won
>> is nnot a reason why *all* whites should celebrate the Emancipation.
>>
>> If this makes you think that I am a racist, I assure you I am not. I
>> simply have no personal reason to celebrate this. I have truly good
>> friends of various races, including blacks, and I do not differentiate
>> between any of them.
>>
>> --
>> Wayne Boatwright
>
> Wayne, I could not cut that statement and still get you to explain it to
> me.
>
> If slavery had not been abolished, your black friends and probably some
> you don't realize it about, would be slaves. They would be bought and
> sold and their children would be chattels as well. They would be bred
> like animals to bring out certain qualities. If they escaped, they
> would be chased down, sometimes tortured and killed.

Please re-read what I wrote. I said, in effect, that I do not condone it.

> To me that says they aren't really human beings. We are in the 21st
> century. Never mind who your ancestors were, would you go along with
> that?

I do not go along with it at all. However, had I been living in the South
in the mid-19th century, I probably would have. I'm sure my mindset would
have been the same my ancestors at the time.

> While it was true that the system could not go along as it had without
> slavery, it could and did go along with paid workers. They were legally
> entitled to, if they didn't always receive, the same rights we have. So
> instead of a few who were rich off the sweat and blood of others, more
> people divided the result. It happens that one of my two closest friend
> IS a plantation owner in Mississippi, so I am not ignorant of how much
> paternalism still exists among the societies. But even so, I think
> abolishing slavery was and is a good thing for white people as well as
> Black people or Jews or Poles or Gypsies or whoever was enslaved by
> anyone. So I would feel a lot closer to you if you'd say, "Hell, yes,
> let's celebrate the emancipation of slaves!"

In present day thinking, I totally agree that abolishing slavery was a good
thing, and I would have to admit that it was good for everyone. I will not
say, however, that I wish to *celebrate* the Emancipation, so you may still
not feel a bit closer to me. I'm sorry for that.



--
Wayne Boatwright
-------------------------------------------
Sunday, 06(VI)/22(XXII)/08(MMVIII)
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
Take care of the cojones and the
frijoles will take care of themselves.
-------------------------------------------

On Sun 22 Jun 2008 09:15:09a, sf told us...

> On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 16:16:12 +0200, "Giusi" >
> wrote:
>
>>While it was true that the system could not go along as it had without
>>slavery, it could and did go along with paid workers. They were legally
>>entitled to, if they didn't always receive, the same rights we have. So
>>instead of a few who were rich off the sweat and blood of others, more
>>people divided the result. It happens that one of my two closest friend
>>IS a plantation owner in Mississippi, so I am not ignorant of how much
>>paternalism still exists among the societies.
>
> There. You said it. In Spanish cultures, the class would be
> "Patron".
>
>>But even so, I think
>>abolishing slavery was and is a good thing for white people as well as
>>Black people or Jews or Poles or Gypsies or whoever was enslaved by
>>anyone. So I would feel a lot closer to you if you'd say, "Hell, yes,
>>let's celebrate the emancipation of slaves!"
>
> Giusi, he's from the south so his views come from a southern
> perspective. It's like being a Texan or a Californian... we look at
> things differently from the rest of the country.
>
>

Thank you, Barbara, for expressing it that way.

--
Wayne Boatwright
-------------------------------------------
Sunday, 06(VI)/22(XXII)/08(MMVIII)
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
Pardon me, waiter. I like my water diluted.
-------------------------------------------

On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 10:56:24 -0500, George Shirley
> wrote:

>sf wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 13:41:48 GMT, blake murphy
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 12:16:35 -0500, George Shirley
>>
>>>> The Supreme's certainly screwed up by offering terrorists the same
>>>> rights as Americans. I can just see the trial lawyers lining up for Al
>>>> Qaeda money for defending the terrorists now.
>>> the decision frees no detainee. it just means the government has to
>>> show cause as to why they are detained, that is, charge them with a
>>> crime. if they were the hardened bad-asses they are made out to be,
>>> that shouldn't be too hard.
>>>
>> It makes my blood boil just to think about the writ of habeas corpus
>> being ignored like that on American soil.
>>
>>
>Uh! Guantanamo Bay is actually Cuban soil, we just rent it.

We're not paying rent - we control it. Guantanamo Bay has been under
US control since we captured it during the Spanish-American War. To
the victor goes the spoils, so it's nominally US soil.... unless
you're part of the Bush administration, chipping away at our
constitutional rights.


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

Wayne Boatwright wrote:
> On Sun 22 Jun 2008 07:16:12a, Giusi told us...
>
>> "Wayne Boatwright" > ha scritto nel messaggio
>> 6.120...
>>> On Sun 22 Jun 2008 01:22:44a, Giusi told us...
>>>
>>>> "Wayne Boatwright" > ha
>> However, I see no reason why whites would>>> necessarily celebrate the
>> end of slavery. We weren't slaves.
>>>> I am so confused. Who said that?
>>> I was the one who made the previous statement.
>>>
>>>> It seems to me that if the majority of white people hadn't wanted an
>>>> end to slavery, it would not have ended.
>>> While it's true that there were some slaves in the North, the majority
>>> were in the South. I'm sure you know that the "war between the states"
>>> was essentially the war between the North and South. There was only a
>>> small minority of southerners who were against slavery.
>>>
>>> My ancestral family were plantation owners and slave owners. Much of
>>> the economy of the South was dependent on these vast plantations and
>>> the ablity to work them. Without slaves it was impossible in that
>>> structure.
>>>
>>> Please note that I am not advocating slavery by any means. However,
>>> whites were not slaves and, especially in the South, they had no
>>> particularly good reason to celebrate the abolishment of slavery. It
>>> meant the demise of the economic and social structure they had known
>>> for generations.
>>>
>>> The North and its Union Army and its allies were larger and had more
>>> resources. It was only natural that they would win. Because they won
>>> is nnot a reason why *all* whites should celebrate the Emancipation.
>>>
>>> If this makes you think that I am a racist, I assure you I am not. I
>>> simply have no personal reason to celebrate this. I have truly good
>>> friends of various races, including blacks, and I do not differentiate
>>> between any of them.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Wayne Boatwright
>> Wayne, I could not cut that statement and still get you to explain it to
>> me.
>>
>> If slavery had not been abolished, your black friends and probably some
>> you don't realize it about, would be slaves. They would be bought and
>> sold and their children would be chattels as well. They would be bred
>> like animals to bring out certain qualities. If they escaped, they
>> would be chased down, sometimes tortured and killed.
>
> Please re-read what I wrote. I said, in effect, that I do not condone it.
>
>> To me that says they aren't really human beings. We are in the 21st
>> century. Never mind who your ancestors were, would you go along with
>> that?
>
> I do not go along with it at all. However, had I been living in the South
> in the mid-19th century, I probably would have. I'm sure my mindset would
> have been the same my ancestors at the time.
>
>> While it was true that the system could not go along as it had without
>> slavery, it could and did go along with paid workers. They were legally
>> entitled to, if they didn't always receive, the same rights we have. So
>> instead of a few who were rich off the sweat and blood of others, more
>> people divided the result. It happens that one of my two closest friend
>> IS a plantation owner in Mississippi, so I am not ignorant of how much
>> paternalism still exists among the societies. But even so, I think
>> abolishing slavery was and is a good thing for white people as well as
>> Black people or Jews or Poles or Gypsies or whoever was enslaved by
>> anyone. So I would feel a lot closer to you if you'd say, "Hell, yes,
>> let's celebrate the emancipation of slaves!"
>
> In present day thinking, I totally agree that abolishing slavery was a good
> thing, and I would have to admit that it was good for everyone. I will not
> say, however, that I wish to *celebrate* the Emancipation, so you may still
> not feel a bit closer to me. I'm sorry for that.
>
>
>
Most white southerners don't celebrate Juneteenth. Has nothing to do
with skin color, just doesn't occur to most whites and we consequently
don't even think about it. A lot of southern blacks don't necessarily
celebrate Juneteenth as a holiday either. Most around here are more into
Black History Month and MLK's birthday.

"blake murphy" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 16:13:57 -0400, "Virginia Tadrzynski"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"George Shirley" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> Giusi wrote:
>>>> > ha scritto nel messaggioOn Jun 20, 12:01?am, "modom
>>>> (palindrome guy>
>>>>> I for one have observed Juneteenth annually as a part of my American
>>>>> heritage for decades. ?The white v black presumption is bogus and only
>>>>> serves to perpetuate divisiveness among our people. >
>>>>
>>>> As long as Blacks insist on having separate holidays for just
>>>> themselves and as long as there's groups like the NAACP, the ACLU, The
>>>> United Negro College Fund, etc. and as long as there's affirmative
>>>> action there's going to be divisiveness between Blacks and Whites.
>>>> It's the Blacks who are the cause of the divisiveness between Blacks
>>>> and Whites.
>>>>
>>>> You need an attitude adjustment. You are aware that if someone
>>>> infringes
>>>> YOUR civil rights, the ACLU will fight the case for you? I guess black
>>>> people should just shut up and take whatever falls from the table?
>>> It wasn't too long ago that the ACLU went to court to protect a Ku Klux
>>> Klan rally's right to march and protest. The ACLU is a PITA to most of
>>> us
>>> but occasionally they do something right.
>>
>>I remember that, George, it was in Skokie, IL. The Klan applied for a
>>legal
>>permit to march and were denied. The ACLU took their case and won it for
>>them stating they did everything correctly by asking for the permit. It
>>wasn't up to the granting authority to like what they were doing just make
>>sure it was done legally. There was a dust up, but the march never would
>>have gotten half the press if they didn't appeal the decision and file
>>with
>>the ACLU.
>>-ginny
>>
>
> i don't think you can blame the a.c.l.u. for the attendant publicity.
> the march in skokie was tasteless in the extreme, but still within the
> rights of the klan group. the a.c.l.u. was right to defend them.
>
> your pal,
> blake

I never said they weren't correct to take the case. I think the Klan used
the ACLU and the infamy attached to them to drum up their own publicity.
-ginny

"Giusi" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> "George Shirley" > ha scritto nel messaggio
> ...
>> Try looking around the rest of this old earth. Slavery still runs rampant
>> in some countries, primarily in Africa. Some Arab nations didn't free
>> their slaves until 1962 but kept them on as unpaid servants as they "were
>> to old to turn loose without a job." There are still slave markets
>> running today, none I know of in the US or any of the other Western
>> nations.
>>
>> Skin color has nothing to do with it, the Romans and Greeks enslaved any
>> captives and bought and sold them on the open market. The Spanish
>> enslaved, raped, and murdered, untold thousands of Native Americans in
>> all of the Americas where they were. Native American tribes enslaved
>> other tribes people. It appears from history that slavery was the norm
>> for a very long time. I would certainly hope that mankind is enlightened
>> enough to not enslave others but wouldn't bet on it around the world.
>
> I'm not ignorant of any of this and know of slavery situations going on in
> many places not so far from me. Ukrainian, various Africans and some
> Albanians are tricked into coming to Italy or to other countries for jobs
> as models which turn out to be prostitution. They take their ID from them
> and threaten their families remaining at home. It's a very large part of
> the Caribinieri duties to find the perpetrators and get rid of them.
>
> As a citizen however I would fight it in the US even harder. As someone
> who generally admires Wayne, I really wanted clarification.
>

Not just in Italy, there have been sting operations anywhere there have been
large immigrant settlements. The former soviet mafiosi that have immigrated
to the US have promised marriages to US men, education, etc. to Russian
girls to get them here then put them on the streets to earn money for them.
There are Chinese girls who have 'work off' their passage to this country,
illegals from South America who have been told they will be reported to INS
if they don't 'perform'.........slavery is alive and well in the good ol' US
of A.
-ginny

"Wayne Boatwright" > wrote in message
6.120...
> On Sat 21 Jun 2008 10:14:44a, George Shirley told us...
>
>> Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>>> On Sat 21 Jun 2008 05:51:43a, Kathleen told us...
>>>
>>>> Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri 20 Jun 2008 10:19:51a, Kathleen told us...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, I wouldn't. However, I see no reason why whites would
>>>>>>> necessarily celebrate the end of slavery. We weren't slaves.
>>>>>> Not *then*. But it's certainly a scourge that might have spread
>>>>>> based on various bogus racial or socio-economic standards.
>>>>>
>>>>> I doubt that would have ever happened in the South where black
>>>>> slavery predominated and there was far more racial distinction than
>>>>> class distinction.
>>>> But what happens when racial lines blur? There were slaves whose
>>>> fathers and grandfathers were white.
>>>
>>> For many years I believe there was a law that a certainly very low
>>> percentage of "black" made you totally black. This was true long after
>>> the Emancipation.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> It was certainly true in New Orleans until well into the Twentieth
>> Century. White and black could not marry, even if the so-called "black"
>> had only 1/64th black blood.
>
> Yep, that's the fraction I couldn't remember.
>
> --
> Wayne Boatwright
> -------------------------------------------
> Saturday, 06(VI)/21(XXI)/08(MMVIII)
> -------------------------------------------
> -------------------------------------------
> 'It's as BAD as you think, and they
> ARE out to get you.'
> -------------------------------------------
>
>
>

There are still some very 'archaic' rules on the books. Lousiana has a
classification of people defined as 'octaroons'....if you can locate a black
ancestor going back eight generations (I think that is where the 1/64th
comes in 8x8 and all that jazz) you are 'not white, and therefore an
octaroon.....or person of color. LA (and I know for a fact, NC) also has
the Napolianic laws as well........think back to A Streetcar Named Desire,
and good ol' Stanley Kowalski and his 'Napolianic laws'.....I ran into this
when my mom passed away. I attempted to sell her property and couldn't. I
had to have a sworn statement from my husband that I had his permission to
sell it, as I was a mere female and didn't have the authority to transfer
property without his consent. If he were unwilling, I couldn't have sold
it, if I were widowed, I would have to have had my 24 year old son give me
permission. This was 2005......not at the end of the Civil War either
(which in that little podunk I grew up in, is still going on......).
-ginny

"blake murphy" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 11:34:21 -0500, (Fred Jones)
> wrote:
>
>>All Southerns should celebrate!!!
>>It gave us a chance to send black criminals
>>to Baltimore, Cleveland and Detroit...
>>How's crime in those cities today? !!!!
>>I'm having grits and gravy and ya'll should
>>too !!!
>
> no doubt making it easier for white criminals such as yourself.
>
> blake

coming back at Fred is wasting a good typing. He should know that A-holes
are raceless and genderless.........they just naturally occur in any
setting......note Freddie's presence here.
-ginny

Virginia Tadrzynski wrote:
> "Wayne Boatwright" > wrote in message
> 6.120...
>> On Sat 21 Jun 2008 10:14:44a, George Shirley told us...
>>
>>> Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>>>> On Sat 21 Jun 2008 05:51:43a, Kathleen told us...
>>>>
>>>>> Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri 20 Jun 2008 10:19:51a, Kathleen told us...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, I wouldn't. However, I see no reason why whites would
>>>>>>>> necessarily celebrate the end of slavery. We weren't slaves.
>>>>>>> Not *then*. But it's certainly a scourge that might have spread
>>>>>>> based on various bogus racial or socio-economic standards.
>>>>>> I doubt that would have ever happened in the South where black
>>>>>> slavery predominated and there was far more racial distinction than
>>>>>> class distinction.
>>>>> But what happens when racial lines blur? There were slaves whose
>>>>> fathers and grandfathers were white.
>>>> For many years I believe there was a law that a certainly very low
>>>> percentage of "black" made you totally black. This was true long after
>>>> the Emancipation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> It was certainly true in New Orleans until well into the Twentieth
>>> Century. White and black could not marry, even if the so-called "black"
>>> had only 1/64th black blood.
>> Yep, that's the fraction I couldn't remember.
>>
>> --
>> Wayne Boatwright
>> -------------------------------------------
>> Saturday, 06(VI)/21(XXI)/08(MMVIII)
>> -------------------------------------------
>> -------------------------------------------
>> 'It's as BAD as you think, and they
>> ARE out to get you.'
>> -------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>
> There are still some very 'archaic' rules on the books. Lousiana has a
> classification of people defined as 'octaroons'....if you can locate a black
> ancestor going back eight generations (I think that is where the 1/64th
> comes in 8x8 and all that jazz) you are 'not white, and therefore an
> octaroon.....or person of color. LA (and I know for a fact, NC) also has
> the Napolianic laws as well........think back to A Streetcar Named Desire,
> and good ol' Stanley Kowalski and his 'Napolianic laws'.....I ran into this
> when my mom passed away. I attempted to sell her property and couldn't. I
> had to have a sworn statement from my husband that I had his permission to
> sell it, as I was a mere female and didn't have the authority to transfer
> property without his consent. If he were unwilling, I couldn't have sold
> it, if I were widowed, I would have to have had my 24 year old son give me
> permission. This was 2005......not at the end of the Civil War either
> (which in that little podunk I grew up in, is still going on......).
> -ginny
>
>
Louisiana does have the Napleonic Code for laws but they have been
greatly modified. Up until recently if one spouse died the other didn't
inherit automatically, even with a will stating so. One-half of the
estate went to the kids and they could demand their share, forcing the
surviving partner to sell in order to pay them. Now we can have wills
that leave it wherever we want but disabled children under the age of 23
years still get a share whether you want it or not. Other than that
we're a community property state. I know nothing about NC laws.

"zxcvbob" > wrote in message
...
> Dimitri wrote:
>>
>> "modom (palindrome guy)" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> It's Juneteenth. Everybody celebrate! Eat ribs!
>>> --
>>>
>>> modom
>>
>>
>>
>> I would prefer the logic of Morgan Freeman.
>>
>>
>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10482634/
>>
>>
>
>
> I agree that Black History Month is counterproductive. But I think
> Juneteenth is a great holiday -- it's a celebration of freedom.
>
> Bob

I suspect you miss the point -
Freeman notes there is no "white history month," and says the only way to
get rid of racism is to "stop talking about it."


Freedom for Who?
A Black Holiday,
Celebrating a Black event,
For Black people.
Where does it stop? If ever?



After all some of my best friends are BLACK.
--
Old Scoundrel

(AKA Dimitri)

Bob Terwilliger wrote:

> I have an acquaintance who is 1/64th black; she routinely marks her
> ethnicity as African-American on job applications and applications for
> public benefits. She believes it gives her an edge.
>
> Bob

One of my clients, I won't mention their name <*cough*Coca-Cola*cough*),
called me in for a meeting to see if we could figure out a way that I
was not Caucasian. They wanted me to sign a document, saying that I was
part hispanic, black, native American, etc.

Some people might get the idea, that they were trying to show that they
were hiring minorities, without actually doing so. I am not claiming
they were doing that, I am just saying that some people might see it
that way. I did not sign the form, and I kept them as a client. Each
year we went through the same song and dance.

Becca

George Shirley wrote:
> Becca wrote:

>> In the Houston area, my lemongrass grew without a problem. Here in
>> Louisiana, it is was 5 degrees colder over the winter, and it died
>> back. It grew back in the spring and it looks great.
>>
>> One of the golfers, driving by on the cart path, asked me if it was
>> Pampas grass.
>>
>> Becca
> You must live in North Louisiana. I live in SW Louisiana and it's a
> strange winter when we get more than a very short freeze down around
> 30F. We had an ice storm here in, I think, 1997. Knocked three of our
> oak trees down, were without power for three or four days, and had to
> borrow a chain saw to get the cars out of the garage. If we ever have
> another one I'm moving back to South Texas.
>
> George

Yes, I live a little farther north than you do. When we landscaped the
house, it was a new ball game, for me. I had to choose plants that could
withstand temperatures just below freezing. This is the farthest north
I have ever lived, and I am still south of the Red River. lol

Becca

Becca wrote:

> Bob Terwilliger wrote:
>
>> I have an acquaintance who is 1/64th black; she routinely marks her
>> ethnicity as African-American on job applications and applications for
>> public benefits. She believes it gives her an edge.
>>
>> Bob
>
> One of my clients, I won't mention their name <*cough*Coca-Cola*cough*),
> called me in for a meeting to see if we could figure out a way that I
> was not Caucasian. They wanted me to sign a document, saying that I was
> part hispanic, black, native American, etc.
>
> Some people might get the idea, that they were trying to show that they
> were hiring minorities, without actually doing so. I am not claiming
> they were doing that, I am just saying that some people might see it
> that way.

Well, what the hell else could be the motivation? Right: nothing.


--
Blinky
Is your ISP dropping Usenet?
Need a new feed?
http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html

Dimitri wrote:
>
> "zxcvbob" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Dimitri wrote:
>>>
>>> "modom (palindrome guy)" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> It's Juneteenth. Everybody celebrate! Eat ribs!
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> modom
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I would prefer the logic of Morgan Freeman.
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10482634/
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> I agree that Black History Month is counterproductive. But I think
>> Juneteenth is a great holiday -- it's a celebration of freedom.
>>
>> Bob
>
> I suspect you miss the point -
> Freeman notes there is no "white history month," and says the only way
> to get rid of racism is to "stop talking about it."
>


I don't miss the point at all; I *agreed* with it.

Besides, "Juneteenth" is a great excuse to eat watermelon, ribs, fried
catfish, collard greens, fried okra, fried chicken, "Big Red" or grape
NeHi soda (Do they still make those? 16 ounce "belly washer" bottles)...

All this talk about food is making me hungry.

Bob