- Joined
- Sep 19, 2018
- Messages
- 4,117
- SL Rez
- 2002
- Joined SLU
- Nov 2003
- SLU Posts
- 35836
In 1984 no less! I thought that kind of thing was more understood to be taboo by then. I'd expect this kind of thing closer to 1964...(You also have to really question the university that considered this appropriate to print in their yearbook.)
Not long before then I was still calling those licorice babies by an n-bomb name. Don't get me started on Brazil nuts. Transgender was rarely even thought of and if it was it lumped in with gay, and gay wasn't the word we used. AIDS was exclusively thought of as the gay disease.In 1984 no less! I thought that kind of thing was more understood to be taboo by then. I'd expect this kind of thing closer to 1964...
It depends where you are talking about in VA. They had an African-American governor a few years after that pic.Not long before then I was still calling those licorice babies by an n-bomb name. Don't get me started on Brazil nuts. Transgender was rarely even thought of and if it was it lumped in with gay, and gay wasn't the word we used. AIDS was exclusively thought of as the gay disease.
84 was closer to 64 than 84 is to now.
I know gay rights was not a thing until I was old enough to watch it, but I had thought racial issues were a bit less ignorant. I will accept your correction.Not long before then I was still calling those licorice babies by an n-bomb name. Don't get me started on Brazil nuts. Transgender was rarely even thought of and if it was it lumped in with gay, and gay wasn't the word we used. AIDS was exclusively thought of as the gay disease.
84 was closer to 64 than 84 is to now.
That exact point was being debated and discussed on NPR today as I was driving home from work. The guest (didn't catch his name) did a capable job of dismantling that defense for Northam, in great part with Northam's own words, which show that his improvement is based on changing norms of what is socially acceptable rather than any true enlightenment. Every time his apology veered close to the mark, he'd hare off on some cringe-worthy tangent.To play Devil's advocate here; if you punish someone for mistakes made when they were younger, and that they have shown at least some improvement since then, there is little incentive to try and be a better person.
And of course, the future:Not long before then I was still calling those licorice babies by an n-bomb name. Don't get me started on Brazil nuts. Transgender was rarely even thought of and if it was it lumped in with gay, and gay wasn't the word we used. AIDS was exclusively thought of as the gay disease.
84 was closer to 64 than 84 is to now.
That exact point was being debated and discussed on NPR today as I was driving home from work. The guest (didn't catch his name) did a capable job of dismantling that defense for Northam, in great part with Northam's own words, which show that his improvement is based on changing norms of what is socially acceptable rather than any true enlightenment. Every time his apology veered close to the mark, he'd hare off on some cringe-worthy tangent.
One example (and I'm paraphrasing here) was that Northam admitted that his experience of life was different from what black people experienced and found hurtful -- so far so good -- and then he HAD to say it: and vice versa.
Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam’s (D) medical school, Eastern Virginia Medical School, banned yearbooks in 2013 after the inclusion of photos showing students dressed like Confederate soldiers, according to a Monday Washington Post report.
The administration made that move nearly 30 years after the publication of the yearbook which includes photos of men dressed in blackface and a Ku Klux Klan robe on Northam’s page.
I really have to wonder about a school whose student body thinks such behavior is okay even to the point where they put it on blast in their yearbook. And how many years has this been going on?
What has me confused is how a pic gets on his page without him being pretty familiar with it. It also usually strongly implies he is in said photo. If he found it objectionable and it was not him why would he have not made a stink about it when the yearbook was published?I really have to wonder about a school whose student body thinks such behavior is okay even to the point where they put it on blast in their yearbook. And how many years has this been going on?