Harry Belafonte calls Colin Powell a "house slave"
 

EDIT:
While Belafonte has contributed to our country, i put more value into someone who has risked his life to defend our country's ideals.


Light em up Colin!!


Kitso
KS 361 bombs raining down on saddam hussein

Helly Yeah Harry

I hate that people think that because someone can sing their political opinions matter more than any other ordinary person!

It would be a sad state of affairs when someone changed their political leanings because of something Harry Belafonte said...

Belafonte can sing but I don't see him running for office... and if he did I'd hope no one took him seriously.

If Colin Powell made a similar comment about Belafonte's music it would be just as weighty.

I think what he said was very irresponsible and cowardly. It shows a total disregard for being respectful of a strong african american role model.

and ditto to aggiesigma

Harry Belafonte has quite a long history of activism in civil rights and human rights. His opinion is just as valid as anyone else's, being an entertainer doesn't make it more or less valid. If he did run for office, a lot of people would take him seriously.

Not to take anything away from Colin, but I don't see him running for office either. He's never held an elected office, only appointed.

I don't agree with all of Belafonte's comments, I think he stepped over the line, especially with the house slave remark, but he makes some valid points about Colin's dissapearance and change in stance regarding the Iraq situation. We're talking about an administration that said in July 2001 that Iraq was not a threat, and now a year and some change later they are the big enemy? I want to know exactly what changed between now and then, because from what I can see, not a darn thing has changed except Bush's rhetoric. (Not to mention the Cold Warrior's (Condoleeza Rice) rhetoric. :rolleyes: )

What I would like to see is Bush make some serious strides towards enacting some helpful domestic policies. Right now I just see him as a war monger. Note to Bush: A new war is not going to stabilize the economy, put homeless people in shelters, give this nation's children better education, OR stop snipers in the D.C. area (heck that's what I'm most worried about right now).

I could write a long list of things I'd like to see done in this country before we go to war with Iraq. I'll definitely be speaking up with my vote in 2004 (which can't get here soon enough)!

ZA

I think that leaders are allowed to change stances when new evidence is presented. For example, in Turkey they just arrested a group of men that were smuggling uranium towards Iraq... If there's anything we can do at this point to keep this technology out of the hands of terrorists we must do it now. If we do not act soon, Saddam will have nuclear weapons. And after this there is not a damned thing we can really do to prevent a nuclear attack here in the US.

In WWII when the Nazi's were ignored for so long there were people like you with the exact same argument. Then he invaded Austria and they still said since he was no threat to the US we should do nothing! What's it going to take? A nuke in NYC?

Bush's war with Iraq is total Wag the Dog in my book. It's near midterm election time - there are crucial elections taking place for the control of the senate, and you KNOW Bush wants a republican controlled senate. They hope the average Joe Voter, with little political knowledge will think "wow, the president is 'fighting terrorism' and bringing that evil Saddam Hussein to justice - oh and the president is Republican. I guess I'll vote for the republican running in my district for senate because GW saves the day again:rolleyes: " I don't think it will fly - the american people, while still traumatized about 9/11, are getting a little fed up with the war on terrorism. It has been over a year and we have made no significant strides and have yet to capture bin laden or his top assistant - even with the best military forces on earth in the marines, navy seals, and rangers. The American people are more concerned these days with the economy and domestic policies.


I agree with ZetaAce that just becuase someone is not Secretary of State or any other political office that their opinion does count. I respect Colin powell and I respect Harry Belafonte, even though i may not agree 3with either of them from time to time. Someone with a long history of political action and cvil rights activism has just as much of a valid opinion on the politics of our nation. In fact I believe everyone in this country, from the big powerful business person to the homeless guy on the street should have an equal voice in this country - and thats what the electoral system is in place for, to hold reps responsible to their constituants.


Oh, and a perfect reason why the US needs to stay out of everyone else's business unless they are asked for help and concentrate on domestic issues: Pro-Taliban party wins in Pakistan election. What's next, we attack Pakistan even though they have been our friend through this :rolleyes:

We're a sovereign nation and we expect that just because German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder might not agree with or support what Bush is doing in terms of Iraq, he's NOT going to swoop into our country with the german military and battle until Bush is out of office. And the US should do the same for other sovereign nations - let them handle themselves.

Patriotism=Making your country. Loving it so much you are wiling to die for it, even if this death comes at the hands of some one whom your counrtyman have "chosen" to lead.

Nationalism=Waving a flag around like a moron, or a coward, just so you won't seem unpatriotic.

The most patriotic thing ever was the Declaration of Independence. It never mentioned God. Nor does the constitution. "So help me god" which is usually said after after the president is sworn in is not an offical part of the constitution.

If you didn't own an American flag before september 11, and/or identifyed with your state more than your country, you are not a patriot. I love Virginia and all, think it is cool, love our motto, but the USA will always be number one in my heart. Maybe I should write this in my journal not greek chat?

Comparing Iraq to Germany pre-WWII is extremely short sighted in my opinion, IMO. Two totally different countried and situations.

A group of men smuggling uranium to Iraq is not really anything to chomp at the bit about...yet. I would not be shocked to find out that Iraq already has Uranium.

While I agree we should nip the situation in the bud now, there are other options to stopping Sadaam from building Weapons of Mass Destruction besides war. How about some legit inspections for instance, instead of the half assed one they had before?

Do you honestly think another war is what our country needs? We still have one going on, and it's dragging us down economically and politically.

ZA

IowaHawkeye- RIGHT ON!

Do you think inspections could actually accomplish anything? You have what... 20, 30 inspectors? Maybe less? They are supposed to know everything that goes on in a country? Let's be realistic.. If Saddam wanted to hide something from them it wouldn't be all that hard. And there is PROOF that he has in the past.

There are many UN resolutions that he's already broken. Why does anyone think he'd take another seriously? Usually we'd know not to trust someone after breaking their promises once or twice.. but I understand it's somewhere in the neighborhood of 15 times he's blatently disobeyed the UN?

It's simply unrealistic to conclude that inspections or anything short of regime change is really going to accomplish a whole hell of a lot.

Ok, this doesn't have to do with iraq, but UN resolutions.

The UN has passed several resolutions in regards to Palestinians who were forced out of their homes in the West Bank/Gaza/Jerusalem demanding that they return to their homes. The UN has passed resolutions that the Israelis MUST end their occupation of Jerusalem and allow the palestinians to return to their homes. Israelis must withdrawl from territories added through armed conflict - as they have no legal validity.

the US, as a UN security council member is doing nothing to enforce these UN resolutions, instead we are producing and shipping Israel billions of dollars worth of arms and advanced military equipment. not to mention the fact that Israel is the only country in the region we allow to have nuclear weapons - b/c it is convienant and useful for us for us to have these here.

So don't use ignoring UN resolutions as a reason for invading a country - it doesn't fly in my book especially when the US has obviously done the nothing to stop the conflict in the middle east and has yet to help enforce the UN resolutions.

The difference between Israel and Iraq is that one is known to have close ties with the leadership of the people that killed 3000 of our civilians on 9/11 and Israel is an ally.

The fact is that in Isreal's case they are acting in Palestine to defend their own people. They are the middle east's only true democracy. There are plenty of great reasons to support Israel.

Comparing them to Iraq isn't going to make a very good case at all.

I wasn't comparing Israel/Palestine to Iraq at all, as you can see at the beginning of my post I even said "This doesn't have to do with Iraq, but UN resolutions"

What I did say, however, is that using the fact that Saddam has ignored UN resolutions or lied about them as an excuse or a reason to invade WILL NOT FLY - basically because the US has done the exact same thing and if that is our reason to invade, we are hypocrites.

We just might have to start a new thread on reasons to support Israel - becuase the more I read about it and the more I learn about I can't imagine what I was thinking for defending israel for so long. The only reason I can come up with to defend Israel is that there are rich pro-israeli lobbiers in congress and rich pro-israeli members of congress and the Presidents don't want to lose their support.

The fact is that the Israeli Zionists many years ago decided they wanted their own country, where the businesses and the government and the people were all jewish so they could no longer be persecuted in Europe. And for sentimental reasons they chose the area of Palestine, as Jerusalem is a sacred city for Jews, Chirstians, and Muslims (it is said that here is where the prophet Mohammed ascended). They forced out the Muslims and Christians in the city out of their homes and took over. there is armed occupation in all israeli controlled territory, and you have to have special israeli security clearance to get in - which doesn't happen for the arabs and muslims whose homes are there. The israelis are buliding a 12ft high fence with threnches and security cameras all around to keep the palestinians out. It's more like the Palestinians are trying to defend their people - from the Israelis who keep killing them with their high tech weapons and helecopters provided by the United States and good old taxpayer money.

Boy did this thread ever get off topic, but since the elections are coming up politcal debate was bound to pop up.

Back to the point, I think Harry was way out of line with his remarks towards Colin Powell. Colin Powell is an established leader with a great track record. I agree with AggieSig's comment on willingness to die for our country. It's easy to talk S**T when your not the one in the line of fire. Ask Harry to do the kind of things Colin Powell has done and let's see how things would turn out.

I think that what ktsnake was trying to say about Belafonte is also how i feel about vocal celebrites such as Jane Fonda(back in the day), Barbra Streisand(however the hell you spell that) Alec Baldwin, et. al.

Just because you can sing well, or act well, or play a sport well does NOT make you a leader of society. Volunteer work, government service, military service, acts of personal sacrifice, these are things that i think make someone a leader of society. Did belafonte participate in sit-ins? marches? etc. during the Civil Rights movement? If so, then yes, i respect him for what he's done. I may not agree with his statements, but i will respect them.

But when you have people like Stresand and Baldwin pop up in election years, to give us their 2 cents, pardon me while i gag. Has either of these people spent years studing political policy? do they have years of experience in actual physical volunteering(and not just lending their famous name to a cause)

I"m sorry, but every time one of these people speak out, i can't help but laugh. Wasn't it Baldwin that said if Bush won he was going to Canada? why the hell isn't he there now. To me, that's the statement of an 8 year old who can't have their way so they pout. Yeah, i didn't vote for Bill Clinton, but i'm not going to leave my country to show my displeasure.

In closing, Belafonte was way out of line, celebs like stresand and baldwin do NOT need to be encouraged that we care what they say, don't get my started on Hanoi Jane, and Light 'em Up W!!

Kitso
KS 361 American flags i had before Sept 11, and will continue to have no matter whom our president is.

Took the words right out of my mouth....
we need more men like you in America...lol

I never said I care about what these celebs have to say - I just feel that everyone's opinion on this country's foreign policy actions should count equally. We all pay taxes, what we do with Iraq effects all of us in some way economically or otherwise. I'm also a really big fan of the Ist Amendment :D

I never said that they shouldn't be allowed to say what they want. Say it all, but that doesn't mean that every news carrier has to play it, and your average Joe or Jane Celeb-Lover needs to be like, oh, well, Babs said that war is bad, so i'm going to agree with her.

I'm sorry, but if you base your political ideology on what 'cool' celebs are in a party, i think you should have your right to vote revoked.

I vote how i vote, because of feelings i have on issues, not becuase Bruce Willis or Arnold Schwarzanegger(sp) votes that way.

DeltaSig- It must be a Texas thing :D

Kitso
KS 361 times i shake my head everytime 'Babs' opens her mouth.

I'm sorry but I not only disagree with what you have posted, but would also like to inform you that you are in very shady area in terms of the facts you provide.

UN Resolutions in terms of Israel: If you honestly feel like you know about this matter, start a new thread. However, make sure you research your facts and don't just post BS lies because I will pick them apart one by one. In terms of the facts you listed, you are wrong about the UN already. To actually read about the UN resolutions, distinguish between the different types of reolutions the UN passes, and to learn why the Arabs even REJECTED the resolutions please read an article by the Economist http://www.economist.com/world/na/di...ry_id=1378577. The Economist, a British publication, is pretty critical of Israel just so you know. The UN resolutions (Type 7) passed in regards to Iraq are incredibly different from the ones passed in regards to Israel.

You are also incredibly wrong about why America supports Israel, creation of Israel (Zionist History), and the present climate in the region. In fact most of what you said is garbage propaghanda with twisted facts thrown into it. Do you honestly feel that you are ready to discuss this topic if you barely know anything about it?? Do you know anything about Israel's nuclear program that you commented on it? Do you think that America simply allows Israel to have this program?

You make comments about Palestinians killed yet you neglect to mention that 53% of those killed include combatants (suicide murderers) as opposed to 22% from the Israelis, that the number of Israeli women killed is twice as high as Palestinian women, that the number of Israelis over 40 killed is 50% higher than the same Palestinian cohort, that the percentage of children killed among Israelis is higher than among Palestinians even though more Palestinians have died overall.

Now it's funny that you can even compare the War on Iraq to Wag the Dog when even Hillary Clinton said this was not the case. The case has been made pretty well for the War. If you read a previous thread on the Iraq war (http://greekchat.com/gcforums/showth...highlight=iraq) there is already a great deal discussed. I think that those that oppose the war are generally very ill-informed but I'm waiting to see what you have to say to start "informing" you

-Rudey
--Greekchat, providing that much needed break from school work.

Well thank God that we have Rudey here to always correct everyone (read: impose his beliefs on whoever opposes him) and lo and behold, SCHOOL US (read: turn every debate into a competition).

I just hate the self-righteous tone with which you continually post. Also the fact that anyone who disagrees MUST be intellectually flawed, and in need of the oh-so-important teachings of Sir Rudey.

This post, as have others before it, gets a hearty

:rolleyes:

I correct people when they say something wrong. I don't turn anything into a competition, but you seem to have a problem with me ever since I corrected you on basic WWII history. Yes I am bringing that up again.

There is a big difference between holding an opinion and putting out wrong facts. However, why don't you go back to claiming that the US attacked Japan first and impose your close-minded liberal beliefs on me. I don't have a desire to get into a flaming war with you.

-Rudey
--Oh So Important Sir Rudey

Rudey...I am not hung up on any WWII threads. You stated your opinion, I stated mine. You had more historical facts, I accepted your argument. Let us throw a parade.

Your very first sentence is so telling. Do you not understand that people can distort and twist stats and facts to fit their own agenda? Just because Rudey thinks it is correct, does NOT make it empirical evidence, get it? It works BOTH ways, which is why I backed down from the WWII argument.

And my problem is NOT with you stating "facts," it is the competitve overtones in every post, not to mention your self-righteousness...for the second time, because in your fervor to pat yourself on the back, you must've missed it when I first posted it.

I am not imposing anything liberal or closeminded on anyone. I am just letting you know that your facts and your opinions might be better received if you weren't such an a$$hole about it.

Before you criticize read that Economist article. I read it earlier today and was going to come in and post the link. There's plenty of propaganda on both sides of the thing but really I'm all for sticking up for Israel.

I read the article. I am not even talking about this debate, so much as the debate STYLE. And I am not sayign anyone is wrong either. I am a little peeved at the way he argues. End.

Rudey - I'll get back to you on what you said.

Until then - check out these sites:

www.electronicintifada.net
www.partnersforpeace.org

Read through them, you just might be enlightened.

As a valid media source I can count on the electronic intifada for only 1 side of something. Definitely one-sided spin on the Palestinian side of the issue.

If I'm going to have to chose between it and The Economist for unbiased reporting I don't think the choice would be that hard.

I've already been "enlightened" and not by sources like that although I do check them over every so often to get a glimpse at how certain people think. The reason why I posted the Economist article is because it DIRECTLY discussed how Israel and Iraq differ in regards to the UN.

Librasoul, I love you.

-Rudey
--Love is such a strong word though

Rudey, this has been bugging me, but I never asked it. Do you have an English accent? Because how you type I can see it sounding that way in real life.
-I mean a sophicated English Accent.
--Not Cockney

To get back to the original subject.....
 

After hearing Mr Belefonte's remarks and then Mr. Powell's response----it's obvious which one has class. And if any person from a different background had used that "house slave" comment, they'd have been crucified! Why is it okay for some people to make racist remarks?

D*mmit! You are going to blow our cover! Now everyone on GC will know of our steamy affair!

Re: To get back to the original subject.....
 

What do you mean by that? Some people? Because from where I am sitting it looks like a not-so-subtle way of asking why black people can say that and white people cannot.

Please elaborate so I can reply without making an incorrect assumption.

Re: Re: To get back to the original subject.....
 

it seems like the SAME not-so-subtle way people refer to white people in other posts as "those people".

doubleblue&gold-
i totally agree. if anyone else said that they would be labeled a racist.

Re: Re: Re: To get back to the original subject.....
 

Re: Re: Re: To get back to the original subject.....
 

Would you care to reference specific posts? Because like PrettyKitty, I am not sure I can recall any that say "those people".

The reason why Belafonte is not being labeled a racist is because he, too, is black. You cannot be racist against your own race (by definition).

Also, is there NOT a controversy? Y'all are acting like his comment is getting swept under the rug, when it really has caused a stir. Very selective reasoning.

Re: Re: Re: Re: To get back to the original subject.....
 

sure i don't mind. i'll do it when i have time though. "we" have been refered to as "them", "melanin-challenged", "those people", etc. many times that I have read. everyone knows who people are referring to and a big deal is not made from it, just like it shouldn't be here. i'll get back to you when i have time.

i still don't really see the problem with the way doubleblue&gold phrased her (his? sorry) question.

as the the topic at hand, i don't have much of an opinion because i am not familiar with the topic.

Re: Re: Re: To get back to the original subject.....
 

EXACTLY my point!

I don't care if Harry Belafonte is black, white, red, orange, blue, yellow, or lime green-----a racist remark s a racist remark whatever!

Re: Re: Re: Re: To get back to the original subject.....
 

Not really. You cannot hate your self, unless you are psychotic. I can say cracker all I want and its not racist.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To get back to the original subject.....
 

Exactly. doubleblue&gold, you are totally missing the point. I mean, what exactly is the point? Are you trying to use this scenario to justify ACTUAL racism? Like saying if THEY do it, why do they get mad when WE do it? Because that's what I am really trying to get at. If that is the case there is a problem.