posted
A few weeks ago I came across this site: www.stormfront.org , a site of white power and basicly anti anyone alse. I read a lot of the articles and threads there and was amazed. I have no idea what's the situation is between blacks and whites in America and all the knowledge I posses on those subjects come from television. Eventhough I don't really know what are the crime rates and such commited by blacks (we have very few blacks in Israel and personaly I never had a black friend) I was still horrified by their description as animals and sub-humans, all supported by "science" and "sociological factors". What personaly got me was the description of the jews as power hungry monsters who plan to rule the world and destroy the white race (which until then I had no idea I was not a part of according to some people) via mixing them with blacks and mexicans by the jewish multicultural laws and dogma. The way the see jewish history and religion (especialy the Talmud) is completly paranoid and untrue (most of them believe the holocoust never happened or on a very low scale and everyone is covering up, or that the media is run by jews who brain wash everyone with their ideas) but this sites has many many members most of them fairly educated. I tried to post there and discuss some issues without just fighting but I was basicly told to shut up and my posts got deleted. So I'll ask here you honest folks. How do you see multicultural America? Do you see racial and stereotypical views around you?
posted
You should know that, although racism and anti-semitism does, depressingly, exist in a not insignificant minority of Americans, such extreme sites as this represent the views of a very tiny portion of America.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well put Dag. I will add that there does seem to be a growing trend of reverse discrimination. Not sure what we can do to slow that since any attempt would be taken the wrong way.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
According to the site those aren't minorities at all and come from all levels of society. Reverse discrimantion annoys me, eventhough it has nothing to so with me. I see "black" movies or shows like The Chappel Show where the whites are being rediculed and put down just because their white and that annoys me just the same, is the racial and ethnic tension there is really as high as that site shows?
Posts: 34 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think so. I've worked in multicultural environments without a problem. It's actually quite fun and informative to learn about other cultures and how to respect traditions and beliefs and whathaveyou.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
What? Both are wrong and shouldn’t be tolerated. Yes, his question came from the idiot white power group, but his question was about racial views, so I don’t think I’m off topic.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:According to the site those aren't minorities at all and come from all levels of society.
That site isn't going to be the best place to get any accurate information. While I don't doubt they come from all levels of society, they are a tiny minority in each one.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
And Jay, there's no such thing as reverse-discrimination - there's discrimination, pure and simple.
And no matter how bad one thinks affirmative action or other typical examples of "reverse discrimination" might be, no honest commentator can equate it with what's depicted on these sites. Plus, there's plenty of discrimination against minorities remaining, whether inspired by bigotry or not. Compare that to "reverse discrimination" instances if you must, but not the garbage espoused at this site.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
True, I agree, but made my comment only for the clarity of race relations in society today. We should be color blind in our race relations. All of us. By giving special things to certain races this will give fuel to these white power groups. Where as a race neutral society would be able to say “huh, what’s a race?”
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can only speak about the part of America I personally know about. And I will touch mainly on how I see multicultural america. I live in the deep south. Yes, racism is still around. No, it is nowhere as bad as it once was. As for these stormfront people, please do not think they represent the views of the majority of white people.
The place where I work is very integrated and the races get along very well. Really, in this work place it isn't even very much of an issue. Where I see racism is actually in the socio-economical aspects of my city.
The downtown area is predominantly black and also poorer. And there is also a visible 'white flight' syndrome: meaning that most middle-upper class whites either build apart from or move away from these neighborhoods. A lot of the economic division, I believe, is a carry-over from what happened to these folks over a hundred years ago. It will still take some time for the effects of slavery to diminish to the point where you see no class divisions among blacks and whites.
My pastor's wife said it like this (when answering a young black man about why so many blacks here are poor or in jail): Families were divided, split apart, during slavery. Education was unattainable for most of these people. These things have persisted from one generation to the next. Fathers still do not raise their sons and daughters (for the most part), the schools in these sections of town are still considered sub-par, and education isn't stressed enough. Basically, families are still fractured and opportunities and skills for advancement are still not equally available, and all this can be traced back to slavery.
All that said, I do believe it's getting better. There are programs in place to ameliorate the wrongs of the past. They are not perfect, but they are a start. Affirmitive action is one way that my company encourages diversity and provides opportunities for minorities. This is a good thing.
Also, my church is a somewhat integrated church. Blacks and whites worship alongside one another and visit in one another's homes. We are friends in and apart from church. Still, this is not the case with most of the churches. We are a non-denominational church, located downtown, with several outreach programs designed specifically for the urban areas of our city.
All that said, the majority of folks in my church are white. The majority of folks we are trying to minister to in the urban part of town are black. Again, division due to economics. And here's where it gets touchy. A few of the predominantly black churches actually resent the fact that we are doing so much outreach. Some seem to see us as white folks trying to get brownie points by doing charity for token blacks. This is, imo, nonsense. Most of us, it wasn't even our idea. God put the desire in one of our pastors and we just got on board with his vision and are trying to do good in the part of town where we are located. Lest you get the wrong idea though, I think this is not a widespread opinion among other churches. We have folks from other churches who do support and agree with what we are trying to do. And we actively seek ways to minister alongside other churches.
So, maybe that gives you a small window into how I see multicultural Georgia. Is racism still around, sure. But we are moving in a positive direction, or at least we are trying to. It will still take a lot of effort from everyone to get us where we need to be.
Now to your second question: Do I see racial and stereotypical views around me? Moreso in the media than in actual life. But probably because, even for all my exposure to other races, I am still pretty insulated. The folks I work with are all college educated and very easy to get along with. We have more in common than not. The folks I go to church with, the same. I don't discuss race issues very often, and never with people I don't know, so my exposure to other people's views is limited. Maybe I need to do more about this, I don't know.
I did see something in particular in the supermarket the other day. It was a Land o' Lakes butter label. (I think that was the brand). It had a female native american on the label. I always am sensitive about such images because I have two very close friends who are native americans; one lives here, the other in Oklahoma. We have baseball teams like the Atlanta Braves, or Cleveland Indians, and I don't think that's right. We wouldn't have the Atlanta Sharecroppers with a black man behind a mule. Or even the Atlanta Crackers, with a white man holding a whip. I know these are not exactly analagous, but we really shouldn't have a symbol of a minority's heritage as a mascot. And even then, the symbols are often inaccurate. I would dare to say that the Land o' Lakes butter woman is not dressed in authentic native american garb. She is drawn like the artist (the picture looks like it was done back in the 50s or something) thinks a native american would be dressed.
okay, this post has gone on too long. I have work to do. Maybe this helps.
Posts: 232 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Where as a race neutral society would be able to say “huh, what’s a race?”
Is that how we'd want to think? (This is just an honest question by the way - I don't really know how I'd answer.)
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only reason "reverse discrimination" and affirmitive action take place is because not all races are on a level playing field. Unfortunately, many people are hindered financially, socially, and politically because of their race. A child who lives in a ghetto and is part of a visible minority might not receive the same level of education as a caucasian kid living in an up-scale neighborhood. Is this the first kid's fault? No. should this occurence be taken into account later on in life? Tricky question. I disagree with the concept of affirmitive action, because it is a short term solution that doesn't really address the issue. I would be much more in favor of an effort to provide equal education for all people in any country, which would make it so that affirmitive action would be no longer necessary. That said, right now affirmitive action is important if people are going to be provided with the opportunities they need to live a healthy and prosperous life (which is hard considering the melting pot of the US).
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I tend to think it's a bit strange and lacking of any reasonable historical perspective for any white male in America to be surprised at so-called 'reverse discrimination'. Or to complain about it as a horrible injustice, without recognizing the incredible irony in doing so.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's no irony in calling racial discrimination an injustice. It is an injustice, regardless of whom it is directed toward. Perhaps you think that because I'm white, I somehow "deserve" to be discriminated against for awhile as punishment for what other people of my ethnicity did before I was born. But that's ludicrous. No one deserves to be treated unfairly because of what they are. Equality doesn't mean we take turns being the bad guy.
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Not punishment, though. I think its supposed to be in compensation, to balance the supposed racial playing field. I agree that fairness is not balancing things across generations like that, though.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not particularly well-put, really, since I was careful not to say I approved of so-called 'reverse discrimination', or that I disapproved of it.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think racism is much of an issue for the majority of Americans, but I think stereotyping is still a big problem, whether it be based on race, gender, religion, age, politics, etc. It's not really acknowledged or thought about all the time, but it still has an effect on our culture.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I tend to think that racism isn't an issue for a majority of Americans since about 70% of Americans are white:)
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jay: True, I agree, but made my comment only for the clarity of race relations in society today. We should be color blind in our race relations. All of us. By giving special things to certain races this will give fuel to these white power groups. Where as a race neutral society would be able to say “huh, what’s a race?”
Being tolerant is not about ignoring the differences between people of different races, genders, or sexual orientations. It is about seeing the similarities and the differences and accepting and even embracing them.
Posts: 1015 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I prefer Jay take, it should coe to a point where soemone points out a friend is jewish or black and you reply: "huh? He is?" Since once you reconize people are different people might start being divided among those lines, and prejudice may or may not evolve from those differences.
Posts: 1567 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Being tolerant is not about ignoring the differences between people of different races, genders, or sexual orientations. It is about seeing the similarities and the differences and accepting and even embracing them.
I agree somewhat, but there is a problem with that approach. Seeing and embracing differences also necessarily implies making judgement calls based on them - that's just how the human mind processes. If skin color is to be viewed as an important feature of a person, there is simply no getting around the fact that people will be judged by skin color, based on what people of that skin color seem to share in common.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Unfortunately, many people are hindered financially, socially, and politically because of their race. A child who lives in a ghetto and is part of a visible minority might not receive the same level of education as a caucasian kid living in an up-scale neighborhood. Is this the first kid's fault?
We can easily reverse this and say a black child living in an up-scale neighborhood will receive a better education than a poor white kid in a rural county with parents that can't read or write.
In either case it's not race that makes the difference, but the socio-economic status.
I live in a county that's incredibly diverse. On a normal school day you can be in line to drop off your kids with a Mercedes in front of you and a beaten down old truck hauling a trailer with a calf on it behind you. We have subdivisions with half-million dollar homes less than a mile away from beaten down trailer parks where people count themselves lucky if they still have indoor plumbing that works.
There is a huge disparity, a huge gulf between the two types of people that live here, and of course quite a few people like myself who consider ourselves in the middle. Kids are quick to divide themselves into the different "classes" at school and pick on and make fun of the kids who come from the poorer areas.
Our racial demographic? The county is 98% white.
My point is that I think it's the socio-economics that separate people in America much more than the race.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Racism is a minor issue in America, Erez. It is still an issue, and there are still problems and traumas resulting from it.
But it is not the everyday norm. Far, far from it.
The website is stating that they (the racists) are not in the minority, and represent people from every walk of life, specifically because they want anyone reading it to be easily convinced that what they are saying represents reality.
It's a lie. America is a culturally rich and ethnically diverse place and racists are a tiny minority of people.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
I might agree, with the caveat that racial inequity is still rampant. Some caused by racism, some caused by past racism, and some caused by socio-economic forces (which may be sharpened by racism).
But I wonder if racial perception, which would fall under some definitions of racism, is really minor. While there may be fewer outright bigoted people, there may still be many who hold unhealthy, inaccurate racial stereotypes.
Regardless, race (no "ism" at the end) is certainly not a minor issue in America.
posted
I'm going to ask what is normally an insulting question, TL: are you white?
If so, in what way exactly do you feel-for lack of a better word-anything other than ignorant about racism in American?
I mean, unless one (not you, just anybody) actually is a racist and consorts with racists, then of course they won't see it very often, because they quite rightly are repelled by racism and racists.
In the same way I am leery of statistics regarding homosexuality because of an uncertain number of closeted homosexuals, I am leery of people belonging to the majority group in any country claiming that racism is a minor problem.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Unfortunately, many people are hindered financially, socially, and politically because of their race. A child who lives in a ghetto and is part of a visible minority might not receive the same level of education as a caucasian kid living in an up-scale neighborhood. Is this the first kid's fault?
We can easily reverse this and say a black child living in an up-scale neighborhood will receive a better education than a poor white kid in a rural county with parents that can't read or write.
In either case it's not race that makes the difference, but the socio-economic status.
I live in a county that's incredibly diverse. On a normal school day you can be in line to drop off your kids with a Mercedes in front of you and a beaten down old truck hauling a trailer with a calf on it behind you. We have subdivisions with half-million dollar homes less than a mile away from beaten down trailer parks where people count themselves lucky if they still have indoor plumbing that works.
There is a huge disparity, a huge gulf between the two types of people that live here, and of course quite a few people like myself who consider ourselves in the middle. Kids are quick to divide themselves into the different "classes" at school and pick on and make fun of the kids who come from the poorer areas.
Our racial demographic? The county is 98% white.
My point is that I think it's the socio-economics that separate people in America much more than the race.
of course education is influenced by socio-economic status, but in a country like the US, where the melting pot is the predominating cultural structure, race and socio-economic status are much more intertwinned than they would be in, say your contry.
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, I might add that racism ought to be expanded to "culturalism", because alot of the time modern discrimination is more about lifestyles, cultures, and religion than simply race.
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Where as a race neutral society would be able to say “huh, what’s a race?” --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is that how we'd want to think?
Yes, I think so. I think the goal should be one race: humanity.
quote: I tend to think it's a bit strange and lacking of any reasonable historical perspective for any white male in America to be surprised at so-called 'reverse discrimination'. Or to complain about it as a horrible injustice, without recognizing the incredible irony in doing so.
Surprised? No. Outraged? Certainly. And why not? I didn't do anything to create the current situation, and neither did my ancestors. So why don't I have the right to be upset that I'm treated a certain way, based on the acts of total strangers, most of whom are dead now?
Well, since we're allowed to work by your model, that we can't complain about being ridiculed for the actions of others, Muslims can't complain about anti-Islamic actions. Which is obviously stupid.
As a whole though, I don't think we suffer from the blatent racism of the past. America is far more accepting and integrated today. Stereotypes do abound however. Metro Detroit isn't exactly a interracial fantasy land. But we rarely see hate crimes anymore. With every generation we get closer to eradicating predjudice.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
You're misreading me. Again, as I've said, I've been careful not to say that so-called reverse discrimination is justified, or a good thing, or fair-game.
I think it's wrong-headed, counterproductive, and hypocritical for any people who proclaim themselves to be the enemies of one type of prejudice to support another.
All I'm saying, fellow white-guys, is that we should understand something: it's only forty years since we (and I mean 'we' as Americans) were turning fire hoses and police dogs on blacks demonstrating for civil rights. That's all. So just don't be so surprised and incredulous when you come across 'reverse discrimination', because like all prejudices, there is a kernal of rationality behind it. Un like many prejudices, this one's kernal is a bit bigger and a helluva lot more recent.
But that still doesn't make it good, productive behavior.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I said I'm not surprised at all. I see the rationale behind it, but I don't think that makes it right or justified.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Erez, those sites are run by a handfull of angry guys. That's kids stuff. The race problem in America is deeper than that, with a completely different feel.
I hear white people say that race doesn't matter, socio-economics does. Which is fine, I'm just not so sure that you can seperate the socio part of socio-economics from race. And furthermore, if we could, I'm not sure who we'd be doing a service to?
I think that the social differences(approaches to American culture) that are the result of independent cultural practices that have arisen from WASP culture-- in all of their manifestations-- and non-WASP cultures having to contend with WASP culture communicate some deep problems in all of the cultures involved.
In a rush to try to whitewash everyone into being the same suburban white guy-- which I think is considered is the default ideal of the "American"-- I think the dialogue would be better served if we take a closer look at the root of our cultural differences, and those differences are deeper than ones economic status. I think the same can be said for gender differences. I'm not sure we should be race blind or gender blind, until we figure what's a play, what's at stake, and how on earth there came to be so many social differences to begin with.
That's my two cents. In short, WASPS need get their moral act together before I even push for a color blind America. Because when people say, "A color blind America," I get the sense they mean a ubiquitous America whose structures and natural disposition is heavily influenced by WASP male sensibilities.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"To a certain degree, Catholics get a special dispensation because of the unmitigated influence that good deeds have in the church," he says, piously.
Edit:
For protestants, I think a few hundred years of this faith alone business has separated Godliness and from generousity and compassion on earth, and it's not an attractive distinction.
posted
I agree that the socio-economic factors are the most important as far as the "level of the playing field".
But as far as racism goes, I think it is extremely low and overblown, on all accounts.
Though we can argue about the level of education kids in the city get, ( and I would like to see some stats on it, if someone took the time) the bottom line is hard work, dedication and perserverance will overcome all barriers, whether racial or economic in nature.
As long as men like Michael Dell can create billion dollar companies out of their garages, this dream is alive.
Posts: 201 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
You can get reports on the testing on every school system in Alabama. I requested the results of the Stanford Achievement Test in Reading for eighth graders in Ragland - a very poor school system in a rural area. The reading percentile score was 47 for all students - and 88.8% of the students were white.
In contrast, I looked at eighth graders in Vestavia Hills, a wealthy suburb south of Birmingham. Their reading percentile was 81, and this school is 88.81% white. Almost the same racial makeup for both schools (the remaining percentages were black and hispanic students) and yet one apparently scores twice as well as the other in reading.
Race isn't making a difference, so what is? Socio-economic factors. And I can assure you, a child that graduates from high school in Vestavia Hills has a much greater chance of going to college and making a good career for themselves than does a student who graduates from Ragland High.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Michael Dell is a success because he is a billionaire?
I get confused. I just thought being a billionaire meant that he had was worth a billion dollars. I didn't see it as a testament to the quality of his character.
There are bigger, more menacing barriers than mere economics. Equality doesn't mean that everyone has access to the same amount of money. To a degree, that's part of it, but only a part. It's murkier business.
I don't even know if I want to push for equality, if equality means that everyone is equally morally bereft.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, if, as it seems to be the opinion of this board so far, it is true that socio-economic factors are the most important in determining someones education level and the degree to which they need help because of bad schools and situations...
(though I am not ready to concede the point that public schools in the suburbs provide a better opportunity for education than those in the "ghetto" - And it is just an opportunity to educate oneself. Students today think that it is the job of the teacher to pour knowledge into the student like a bucket. This is not accurate. If you have a love for learning, you can get a good education no matter where you go to school.)
...than the entire Affirmative Action policy makes no sense. Its the level of education that one receives before college that matters and that is the only thing that matters .
I am sure that there are inner city schools that are predominantly black and yet are much better than many in suburban USA. How would that difference in education be taken into account by the AA system? Why couldn't the suburban kids (probably predominantly white) get an education on par with those kids at the excellent inner city school?
As improbable as that may sound, my point is that to base someone's admission on their skin color is nearly irrelevant.
There are white kids in the ghetto and there are black kids in the 'burbs and I don't think the difference in their educations are all that great.
That said, the objective of the first SAT was to find diamonds in the rough, smart kids with little knowledge, farm kids and inner city kids. It was an assessment test. This helped colleges select students with the potential to become educated.
Now the test is an achievement test. This does nothing to help those students who actually have received a sub-par education. (and there definitely are some, like every public school grad )
So now, instead of intelligently finding smart students based on the numerous ways that colleges normally do - grades, test scores and extra-curricular achievements - they skip all those and go straight to a completely irrelevant characteristic of the prospective student: skin color.
quote:I don't even know if I want to push for equality, if equality means that everyone is equally morally bereft.
Are you saying Michael Dell is morally bereft?
quote:I am sure that there are inner city schools that are predominantly black and yet are much better than many in suburban USA. How would that difference in education be taken into account by the AA system? Why couldn't the suburban kids (probably predominantly white) get an education on par with those kids at the excellent inner city school?
As improbable as that may sound, my point is that to base someone's admission on their skin color is nearly irrelevant.
I think you better review the last exchange. Did anyone advocate AA in response to your post? You seem to think that recognizing that blacks regularly get shortchanged by our social, educational, and political institutions automatically equates to support for AA.
I also think you have a very limited understanding of what AA is if you think it requires taking skin color into account.
People, I believe, were responding to this portion of your posts:
quote:But as far as racism goes, I think it is extremely low and overblown, on all accounts.
Though we can argue about the level of education kids in the city get, ( and I would like to see some stats on it, if someone took the time) the bottom line is hard work, dedication and perserverance will overcome all barriers, whether racial or economic in nature.
posted
Some of my meandering thoughts on AA, previously posted Elsewhere:
Affirmative action covers a lot of ground. In its broadest sense, it is affirmative steps to hire more of a member of a particular group. It does not mean only quotas or only minority preferences.
For example, programs that help companies or government agencies publish job announcements in places that are more likely to be seen are affirmative action. And one of the more successful types of affirmative action I might add.
Similar types include educating employers about resume items with which they may not be familiar. For example, many employers consider "Eagle Scout" to be a proxy for a host of admirable traits: leadership, dedication, hard work, etc. There are corresponding accomplishments which may be more popular with minorities that employers might not be aware of.
I would suggest few would disagree with these policies. Yet each such policy specifically has to acknowledge racial group attributes (more likely to read paper X, or more likely to participate in group Y). The reason this isn't problematic is because it doesn't extend an advantage; rather, it specifically targets a disadvantage. I suspect that if the lack of knowledge most employers have about black experiences could be totally overcome, these types of steps would go a very long way to allowing blacks access to equal opportunity.
More troublesome are preferences (where being black would add points or something similar). In this case, being black would serve as a proxy for something else. Even more troublesome are quotas, which, while they technically are never mandated, are often implemented as a preemptive strike against accusations of discrimination.
The context matters here. Affirmative action is only a problem if it results in the "wrong" person being put in a particular slot. For jobs in private industry, this would be the person most capable of doing the job that is willing to accept the pay offered or available, with other factors such as expected longevity factored in. What's often not acknowledged is that both ignorance of the targeted by the first type of AA programs I described and outright bigotry both stop the "right" person from getting the job very often.
In colleges, people seem to have a default expectation that the "right" person is the one with the best grades or the highest test scores or the best extra-curricular activities. This isn't really the case. Even the slightly better criteria, "who will do best in college," won't necessarily admit the "right" person, even if it could be measured perfectly. College is not a reward for past performance nor a self-contained, self-measuring program. Education is useful to society because of the type of people it produces. Truly successful colleges should be measured by how their alums contribute to society. I admit I have no practical means of making such a measurement. But the mere fact that colleges aren't about how well students do in college means that we shouldn't necessarily consider policies that reject "better" students as automatically bad.
posted
Quote: "Not if adequate education isn't available"
Thats something you'll have to search deep in your self to really find the answer to.
Do you truly believe that?
Even if it is "true" on some scientific level, do you want to establish as a fact in this world that if you have a bad upbringing then you can't contribute positively to society? I don't think that is a good precedent to set.
Posts: 201 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Also, if, as it seems to be the opinion of this board so far, that socio-economic that...
I didn't know the board had an opinion. If you are talking about taking the feeling from the majority of the posts and attributing that to the whole. You can't just do that and call it the opinion of the board. I don't know how you think you can. I think that worship of majority rule is WASP conditioning, but anyway, quit it.
Even so, I'm not sure what the board's opinion has to do with the truth of the situation.
Again, I'm not sure how one can divorce race from the socio part of socio-economic, and since, for the most part, I'm against divorce, I'm not sure that race ought to split off.
Dag,
I don't know anything about Michael Dell, except that he is loaded and he makes computers. But I'm nervous when he is touted as being a hero or success because he has made a lot of money.
I'm sure Dell does good work, but I'm not so sure how much of that is evidenced by his gross worth.
___
As an aside, something is wrong with my computer's cut and paste function, I want to say that the last paragraph of your last post is spot on, down to mentioning that there is no easy, quantitative, way to measure the "success" of alumni contributions to society.
quote:Not particularly well-put, really, since I was careful not to say I approved of so-called 'reverse discrimination', or that I disapproved of it.
I wasn't necessarily saying that you either did or did not approve of pro-minority racial discrimination. (I refuse to call it "reverse", because that's nonsense.)
But you did say that it was "ironic" for whites to call racial discrimination against themselves an injustice. The implication was that because whites were the ones that caused the inequality in the first place, then whites shouldn't get to complain if the tables are turned and they start being discriminated against.
It is that notion that I am calling ludicrous. When it comes to social injustice, turnabout is not fair play. We should be working toward a society where everyone is given equal opportunities, not a society where the former oppressors become the oppressed. For one thing, that's still oppression, and it's still--and I say this without a trace of irony--an injustice.
For another thing, there is a distinction between saying "the people in power are white" and "white people are in power". Most actual white people don't have much power, and never did. I, for one, have never been a cause of racial discrimination. So for me to become a victim of racial discrimination would not be "irony", and it would not be fair.
(I'm not saying I have been the victim of racial discrimination. I don't actually believe I ever really have been. I'm just making a point.)
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
@ Jay (for bringing up a loaded issue like reverse-descrimination) and White Power.
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)
