Both letters from "Disgusted White Girl" and "Black Royalty" are racist and/or misinformed.

Some of you may recall a famous letter (made popular via the internet) written to Jamie Foster-Brown, editor of Sister 2 Sister magazine, in which a white woman from VA slandered black women in society, claiming that her fiance (a black man) and other black men preferred white woman over African American women because black women were "too fat, too loud, too mean, too argumentative, too needy, too materialistic [or] carrying too much excess baggage." This woman signed her letter Disgusted White Girl.

In response, a reader named Black Royalty submitted a letter to the magazine in which he attempted to refute many of DWG's claims, and made a few comments of his own. Although heavily praised (especially in the black community) and considered a great rebuttal, I personally disagree with many of Black Royalty's remarks, and in fact deem them just as racist and unnecessary as DWG's initial comments. However, many people seem to oppose my thinking; most people I know who have read his response praise BR as some kind of hero instead of another ignorant person promoting prejudice in the world today.

For this debate, I am looking for an opponent who has read both letters, and *agrees* with the arguments that Black Royalty has put forward to challenge DWG. I will attempt to prove that his letter was both racist and contained misinformation, which would therefore negate it being some type of awesome rebuttal that black people everywhere should be proud of. For those of you who have not heard about this articule or read the letters, they can be found here...

Disgusted White Girl's Letter:

http://www.agoodblackman.com...

Black Royalty's Response:

http://www.agoodblackman.com...

Seeing as my Round 1 posting has yet to contain any of arguments, this will be a 4 round debate. Good luck!

Black Royalty's letter was pretty racist, but that's not the point. The reason I'm assuming it is so celebreated in the black community is because a "Brother" stood up to an ignorant white chick and defended his people, most notably women. That is perceived as an honorable thing. Also, I'm assuming that the people who do support what he said don't really know anything about history or culture. So in their minds, Black Royalty is an intelligent and articulate guy who stood up for himself and them. I think it's comical, but not really a problem. Maybe if you point out certain aspects of the letter that you disagree agree with I will have something specific to respond to.

I have about 8 points, so I'll list 4 of them here, the next 4 in Round 3, and then a final rebuttal and/or conclusion in the last round. Here we go!

1. Black Royalty states, "Back in the day, one of the biggest reasons why black men dated white women was because they were considered easy.
The black girls in my neighborhood were raised in the church. They were very strict about when they lost their virginity and who they lost it to. Because of our impatience to wait, brothers would look for someone who would give it up easy without too much hassle. So, they turned to the white girls."

It's important that he noted "in my neighborhood," because there are many neighborhoods throughout the country in which ALL or most members of the community are raised in the church, and therefore have the same values, i.e. abstinence until marriage. These concepts apply to certain religions in general and are not determined by race but by faith and choice. In addition, he also prefaced the quote with "back in the day" which is also important; it's a fact that the church's influence on members and non-members alike have significantly declined (Source: http://www.wfu.edu...), and therefore what may have been true back then may not be true today. Also, studies show that one's sociodemographic has little to no relation in regards to their sexual activity. Countless articles support this notion.

2. "A lot of black men, because of insecurities, fears, and overall weaknesses, have become intimidated by the strength of our black women. We are afraid that our woman will be more successful than us, make more money than us, drive nicer cars and own bigger houses. Because of this fear, many black men look for a more docile woman." -- Black Royalty

Not only black women have the capacity to be more financially successful than black men, so I really don't understand his point. In fact, according to Forbes International Rich List of Billionaires, there is only 1 black woman billionaire (Oprah... who is the only African American woman on the list, actually) as opposed to 34 white women. And yes, some of them were self-made billionaires.

In addition, it's no secret that - for whatever reason - white women make a significant amount more money than black women. I'm not saying that it makes white women more superior, nor am I saying that the "system" is fair in regards to educational opportunities, etc. I'm simply saying that his argument doesn't make sense. He claims that black men are scared that black women will out-earn them, so they turn to white women... even though white women make more money than black women? Um, okay.

3. "Stop thinking that because you are white that you are some type of goddess. Remember, when black Egyptian Queens like Hatsepshut and Nitorcris were ruling Dynasties and armies of men in Egypt, you were over in the caves of Europe eating raw meat and beating each other over the head with clubs. Read your history!"

Uh, maybe BR should re-evaluate HIS perception on history. It seems to me that during the 15th Century BC (when Queen Hatshesput ruled over Egypt), white women were NOT "over in the caves of Europe eating raw meat and beating each other over the head with clubs." Actually, Greece - which BR should know is in Europe, since he's so educated and all - was thriving as a civilization and even more advanced than Egyptians in certain aspects of society.

In addition, I don't think it's wise for him to compare which race is more civilized. It certainly is subjective. Plus, one could counter his argument by bringing up culture today: Women in Africa are STILL "eating raw meat and beating each other over the head with clubs" ... that is to say that people of the Western world can look at the cultural practices of black people in Africa, and consider their way of life to be uncivilized... perhaps even more-so than the so-called Europeans he is referring to from thousands of years ago. Perhaps some would consider the cultural practices of tribes in Africa as being "worse" because of humanities advancements in science, technology, etc. over the past thousands of years.

4. "It was the black woman that taught you how to cook and season your food. It was the black woman that taught you how to raise your children."

First of all, there is no proof that black women taught white people how to season food. Salt is considered a seasoning, and people have been using salt as a staple for thousands of years... most notably the Ancient Romans who based much of their civilization (where they settled, for example) based on their proximity to salt supplies because of its importance to their economy/food consumption/way of life in general. But yeah, maybe black women DID teach white women a lot about seasoning food. That's awesome! I know I love seasonings! But does he really want to start comparing contributions to humanity?

I'll take it a step further: While BR credits black women for teaching white people about seasoning to cook and preserve food, he does not mention Emeline Hart who patented the first commercial oven in 1876. Nor does BR recognize Amanda Jones for developing the vacuum canning process for preserving food. So, let's think about this for a second. Which is more prevalent in terms of cooking and preserving food today? Do we rely on seasoning, or would society be more comfortable in the reliability of ovens and canned food in terms are which foods are safer/better to eat? I'll let you decide.

My point is that while black women very well may have made contributions throughout the ages, that does not negate what white women have done OR make them inferior. BR also sounds a bit cocky when he claims that black women taught white women how to raise their children. I don't even know how to respond to that; obviously that is a statement with no basis. He references slavery, sure... but white women were raising children long before slavery in America (which is the slavery he is referring to, apparently).

5. "It is the black woman that had to endure watching their fathers, husbands, and children beaten, killed, and thrown in jail."

This statement is so irrelevant and out there. Why? Because BR doesn't give any other context clues to let us know what he is talking about. Therefore, one can turn around and accuse him of claiming that ONLY black women had to watch their loved ones get beaten and thrown in jail... which is, of course, completely absurd. If it's the Civil Rights Movement that he's referencing, well, all I can say to that is that he is wrong again; many white people supported African Americans in their struggle for equal opportunity and civil rights, including white (mostly Jewish) lawyers who were sometimes thrown in jail for their contribution to the movement. Also, let us not forget the white women who have seen their husbands get beaten, jailed or killed when they were fighting for other rights in America, such as during the Revoltionary War. And that's only talking about the US!

... But I digress. For now. I only planned to list 4 points, however, the 5th one seemed to be on the same page so I included it here. But I guess what I have tried to point out thus far in the debate is that I feel both black people and white people have struggled and made sacrifices AND contributions to society. One race is not superior over the other. Therefore Black Royalty's letter is WRONG, and, I would argue - completely misinformed. And racist.

In that case I don't think that his letter was racist, just misinformed. He may b a racist person intentionally providing misinformation, but he makes no blatant attempts at racism other than giving faulty facts.

... I'll just continue with my points, and address all of your issues in my final argument.

6. "I honestly believe that your anger is geared more toward jealousy and envy more so than snotty looks. If this were not so, then why do you continuously go to tanning salons to darken your skin? If you are so proud to be white, then why don't you just be happy with your pale skin? Why do you continue to inject your lips, hips, and breasts with unnatural and dangerous substances so you can look fuller and more voluptuous?"

People go to tanning salons because it is currently considered fashionable by some people to have darker skin. Likewise, in the past it was considered fashionable at times to have lighter skin. I don't think wanting to be considered "trendy" or one's desire to feel prettier by altering their skin tone means that one rejects their own race.

As far as plastic surgery, well, 2 things: 1, not all black women are voluptuous. Look at Tyra Banks and Venus/Serena Williams. Plus, black women get breast implants + plastic surgery also. 2, I haven't heard of anyone wanting to ADD to their HIPS.

7. "If I were looking for a docile woman, someone I can walk over and control, I would give you a call. But, unfortunately, I am looking for a Virtuous Woman. Someone that can be a good wife and mother to my children."

It's wrong of BR to classify this woman and all white women in general as being docile. After re-reading both letters, it appears that BR was more hostile in the sense that he was more inclined to stereotype and generalize the races. The "Disgusted White Girl" noted that black women being too fat, materialistic, loud, etc. were all ideas that her fiance had given to her in response to her inquiry about black men and white women. She didn't take any direct responsibility for those concepts being her own.

Finally, BR says that he is looking for a virtuous woman to be a good wife and mother to his kids. The last time I checked, white women were capable of being considered virtuous as well. And there are certainly millions of competent white wives and mothers.

BOTTOM LINE: Though thoughtful, honest and sincere, BR's response to this "Disgusted White Girl" did more harm than good. He defended his "sisters" but bashed white women in the process. His introduction about not wasting his "precious time to slander white people" was false; he certainly succeeded in doing so both directly (claiming that black women were smarter and more advanced in ancient times) and indirectly (too many examples to list).

I also did not think it was necessary for BR to use DWG as a representative for the white community in general... and he did, when he said things like "why do YOU continuously go to tanning salons?" and "YOU were over in the caves of Europe..." By doing so, he is assuming that the thoughts, attitudes and feelings put forth by DWG are the same of every white person, which I can assure you is not true! His response makes it appear as if all white women feel the same way about interracial relationships. They do not.

In my opinion, a more appropriate response could have been directed towards DWG herself, and contained less racism. BR seems to have a chip on his shoulder towards white women and perhaps even all white people in general. Now, just because I don't agree with his letter means that I have a problem with black people. Instead I am addressing what HE wrote, and not bringing up "all the ways white people are better than black people" which is what BR seems to attempt to do.

In the end, it all comes down to one thing: one's virtue, capacity to love and be in a happy/healthy relationship, etc. should not be determined based on their race, but by their individual personality and behavior. That's it. That's all BR had to say. He could have called DWG stupid and ranted about all the ways in which she is ignorant, and he could have listed all the reasons why he personally loves black women (which he did) without listing reasons why he feels white women are inferior. That's offensive, and 2 wrongs don't make a right.

A comment in the comment section wrongfully claims that my purpose in this debate seems to be allowing theLwerd to keep elaborating on all of her points, while I lay back and not put up much of a fight. This is not so. For I would rather keep my debate tactic simple and that is to only have one goal in mind. I aim to persuade voters to see a different side to these obviously racist letters.

DWG's initial letter to Sister2Sister did contain some racist remarks as my opponent has pointed out. However none of these racist ideas came from her but rather her black boyfriend. This brings two arguments to mind. One, when will we see the day that black people are held to the same white person standard, and stop making comments that hurt their own so-called brothers and sisters? This contradiction is evident in society, as rappers run around using the N word in every sentence, yet it is almost criminal if white people use the same term. Obviously there is a double standard. And maybe what theLwerd and everybody else should consider is the fact that the racist comments in DWGs letter were not her own words. They were taken out of context.

This brings me to my next point. Accountability. Why are we holding DWG responsible for quotes that came directly from her boyfriend? I feel that DWGs comments, although inarguably racist, were just recited in the form of an inquisition to a black magazine. DWG knew that she would get some heated responses. Why else would she bash black people in a magazine geared towards a black audience? Even if you do not agree that her intentions were sincere (asking legitimate questions), you still can not blame her for those remarks since she quoted them as coming from her boyfriend. How many times do people quote other sources on debate.com? The purpose is to include the opinion of another person to support your claim. We do it all the time. Yet you want to punish DWG for doing the same. Whether or not you agree with her, you cannot hold those words against her. That is my final say as far as DWG.

In terms of Black Royalty, you posed the question that was reiterated in the comment section about your quest to find out why his letter was so celebrated in the black community. I believe I have already responded to this in the first round. My argument is that he twisted facts to misrepresent black culture vs. white culture in history. Though none of what he said was untrue. For instance, Queen Hatesput DID rule over tribes in Egypt. Black women DID teach white women how to season and preserve food. Black women DID watch their husbands get beaten and thrown in jail during the Civil Rights Movement. So although your insight into the situation was correct, e.g. reminding us that white people have also made adequate contributions to society and undergone similar hardship, it doesn't take away from BRs points that black people have too. Thus taking away from your argument that his letter was misinformed.

And as far as racist goes, I didn't see any of that. Sure BR talks about his preference of black women over white women and why, but we can't call him racist for being honest about his opinion.

I acknowledge that DWG was merely "quoting" her boyfriend (ha). However just because the words may or may not have been her own does not negate the fact that the CONTENT of her letter was racist, regardless of who said it. DWG was obviously "misinformed" by her boyfriend. Thus, her letter = racist and misinformed.

I believe I have already addressed the misinformation of BR's words in previous rounds. For instance, he claimed that white people were over in Europe "beating each other over the head with clubs" while black queens ruled over Egypt. That is blatantly untrue. He is misinformed. His letter provides misinformation. Plus, some of his statements were blatantly racist as well. He writes, "Nowadays, in my opinion, a lot of brothers date white women because they are docile and easy to control." That is his opinion - fine. But later he writes, "Bottom Line: If I were looking for a docile woman, someone I can walk over and control, I would give you a call." That statement is rooted in prejudice. He is assuming that DWG is docile BECAUSE she is a white woman. Hence, racism.

So, in conclusion, both letters contain racism and misinformation. You have not and cannot prove otherwise.

I am not attempting to prove otherwise. I am attempting to persuade readers into an alternate level of thinking. My argument is that DWGs letter was not racist BECAUSE she was misinformed. Think about it.

My second argument is that BRs letter contains his own racist beliefs, or his own racist view of a situation (e.g. omitting white women's contributions to society and instead only recognizing black contributions). But his letter does not promote racism. Therefore his letter does no harm. All it does is stick up for black people after they were berated in a previous letter.

BR is celebrated in the black community because people are happy that he thinks the way he does; people are happy he loves black women and supports his sisters instead of agreeing that black women are difficult. It offers another perspective to history. Maybe it's the "black" perspective. Maybe it's the wrong perspective. But there is a "white" perspective that is wrong to, as we have seen in DWGs initial letter.

I ask that people vote Con because my arguments have shown them an alternate view of what went on. If they understand where I'm coming from, they understand where BR was coming from, and where the black community was coming from.