posted
You make a good point Storm. I was not thinking along those lines at all.
I was thinking more of the "culturally white" adult who has moved into a largely hispanic/latino community, or is visiting such a community, rather than someone born into the hispanic culture with a different skin color.
I think this is important though, also when talking about black vs. white situations. How is racism perceived differently by the black man who grew up in "white culture" and the black man who grew up in "black culture". Does one feel that he is essentially the same aside from skin color and the other that he is essentially different? Or not?
Compare a black man who dresses every day in suits and ties, with patent leather shoes and a sports jacket on his way to Wall Street with the black man who dresses every day in baggy jeans, gold chains, a do rag and puffy jacket who spends his days hanging around a street corner. Are they of different cultures, and do they perceive racism differently?
I don't know. I can't claim to be either. But I can imagine that a white man described the same as the first man above would have a different experience with this "sea of priviledge" than a white man described the same as the second. It's more a matter of what culture you identify with, in a way.
So, yes, a white person trying to assimilate into minorty culture might have a hard time *because* of the popular white culture setting him apart from his peers, while a white person not trying to assimilate might see such popular culture as a lifeline of sorts.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't worry, Starla. It's not like anyone around here would go berserk upon seeing his nickname applied to someone else. What kind of lunatic would do that? Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Your arrogance is boundless. I have no knowledge of what? Tell me what it is that I don't know. Or is it the same tired old "you're not a minority so you don't know what it's like" mantra?
Apparently, yours is the arrogance that is without limit. Like I said, there was an issue that is personal, meaning it's none of your damn business, and you would be wise to stop trying to pursue it. Either keep it out of discussion—and out of your trolling tactics—or soon find yourself reported for misbehavior. Like I said, I'm not going to get into a flame war with you. Either you stay on topic, or I have nothing to discuss with you. I told you that you are uninformed about what you were talking about, and told you why (because it's personal and not concerning you), yet you persist. You can jump up and down in anger about it if you wish, but it's none of your business.
quote:Look out! someone might force you to do something you don't want to do! Here we see a good example of excuse making.
Example number two of you having no clue what you're talking about. Had you a clue, you would have known it's not about minorities that I made that statement. I've been bullied by certain people here, and I am not going to get into a flame war again and get bullied a second time. It's why I disappeared for so long before (apparently, before you decided to make your rhetorical debut).
quote:I am almost certain that you are the first to use the phrase "moral superiority."
Ha! Because that exact phrase was not uttered, someone else wasn't attempting to do the action? I can see why you find it so easy to make excuses for racism, since as long as a racist isn't actually calling themselves a racist, then they must not be. Mighty fine logic you have there.
And then mister Robespierre can't even quote me in context, and must try his darndest to doctor the words I say to mean what he wished I did:
Sorry to break it to all the American white kids out there...
...everyone who has posted that stance here is white as the driven snow...
...you white kids would probably not have had such an easy life growing up.
...In case American whites didn't realize it, --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now switch every instance of "white" with "black" and see how you are the problem. You are the racist here. No one here is labeling a specific race like you, no one here is making assumptions based on race like you.
I guess you can't be bothered to read not only the main title of this thread, but the links and statements of the very first post. No, sirra, I was nowhere near the first one to be specific about ethnicity. Additionally, switching the word "white" with "black wouldn't work, becuase it would instantly not be true—every one who has posted here but for three people (four at the most)—are caucasian. If you don't think that influences their view, then you are quite delusional.
quote:Your idea that white people cannot see racism is disgusting.
Considering that was not the point I was pressing here, your complete lack of comprehension is rather disgusting. I was saying that the excuse being made that whites are "simply taking advantages of the situation" was supporting a recidivist racism at the worst, and justifying a racist system at the least. Of course, since you're pulling your own meanings out of misquotes and knee-jerk replies, you probably couldn't comprehend that, even though I said it quite plainly more than once.
quote:"You don't know what its like to be black!" Exactly right! But totally meaningless! I don't need to be black to know what its like to be hassled by the police for not looking like the right kind of person. I don't need to be black to see that only societies with some freedom can survive. I don't need to be black to know that making excuses for problems will cause them to never be solved.
The problem, genius, is that racism is still alive and well, and that "taking advantage of the situation" promotes it. If anyone is making excuses, it's you. You're continually trying to justify and rejustify yourself by trying to lay blame. I have no need to lay blame, mostly because the people who created the system are long dead. However, what I will do that you seem incapable of is promote a change of situation to more accurately represent a society of personal liberty and freedom that is not based on racist systems. You seem perfectly happy in the present racist-based system. That doesn't surprise me, as you're probably white.
quote:White people are the only faces among the world's richest? Alsaud, Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal is #6. And there are plenty of other non-white rich people in the world.
Of the world's top fifty, name all the non-whites. Don't forget to mention that numbers 1 through 5 are not only white, but male. Please, elaborate on these "plenty of other non-white rich people" you so self-righteously claim as justification for your attitude. What percentage of non-whites would it take to satisfy your rage about my comments? Less than 20%? 10%?
quote:According to your logic, white people are really the minority, and the world should be unfair to them.
Why should the world be unfair to them? The whole point is that no ethnic group should be tolerated holding superiority over another. The proverbial playing field should be level. Currently, the playing field is not. You seem perfectly happy with it, I do not.
quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Were everyone on the same level, then it wouldn't sound like such a fun thing to say.
The only way for everyone to be on the same level would be for all of civilization to be destroyed and go back to hunting and gathering.
Or civilization would have to be required to think before acting. How terrible—everyone would have to not only be educated, but they would have to be sure to hold themselves personally responsible for their own decisions. What's worse is that they would have to be honest about it. The horror! I can see why that scenario frightens you.
quote:Your fundamental problem is the idea that everyone should be at the same "level." The best that we can hope for is for legal equality, which we are far from.
That we are "far from" legal equality supports my statements. Thank you.
quote:When everyone has the same rules applied, there can be no excuses. No one group's past makes them a bigger victim than any other group.
Too bad the world doesn't work like this. Too bad the United States doesn't work like this. I don't know what fairy-tale land you live in, but a land where the same rules were applied to every individual in the same manner is exactly the type of thing I'm talking about. Since even you admitted that we are "far from" it, it would seem you are contradicting yourself, or talking yourself into knots.
quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- then you are basically justifying hundreds of years of slavery, oppression, genocide, and warfare, whether or not you mean to by saying it --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This statement could not be more wrong. For it to be true, it must also be true that white people be the only race to have committed the crimes you mention.
What a line of utter baloney. The current situation in the United States is not the result of all slavery that has ever taken place throughout the world. It is the result of slavery that was perpetuated and maintained by European whites colonizing the Americas. What was borne from this already racist action was a hatred that has lasted and still affects the nation today. Nice try to make "the big picture" somehow negate the subject, but your misapplication of it belies your ignorance. For example:
quote:I would argue that the slavery perpetrated by whites is a drop in the bucket when compared to the overall amount of people in the entire world that have been slaves.
(emphasis mine) Prove it. If you do not have fact and evidence to back up such a statement, you are doing nothing but typing away to hear the tappity-tap of the keyboard as you stroke your own ego. Allow me to prepare you: I already have numbers from history, and they don't just include the slavery of the blacks in Africa. You had better come up with some pretty convincing evidence if you don't want to look like a bullshitting loudmouth in this case.
quote:Wars have been fought by people of all races against people of all races. People of all races have committed genocide. The only rational way to structure a society is to have the rules and consequences apply to everyone in the same way.
And how does this make any difference to my point that promoting more of the same is wrong? You're basically trying the "two wrongs make a right" argument, trying to say that because wrongs have been committed elsewhere in the world throughout history, that it gives us some sort of precedent to behave like racist pricks by taking advantage that a few hundred years of wanton slavery has allowed. Your justifications are getting weaker and weaker.
quote:To say that group A has suffered more than group B and therefore should be given special advantages can only re-inforce the problem.
And to say that group C suffered as well doesn't make the suffering of A or B any less, nor does it give B the right to trample the liberties of A. You are trying to make the case that since C suffered, that B has every right to trample A.
quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- a world where inequality is rewarded. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As it SHOULD be. Those who are more productive, get more compensation. Someone who can play the piano with masterful skill, will be allowed to play at a concert. This is the fundamental in-equality which you want to eliminate.
Now you're just making things up. I was quite clear what I want to eliminate—a world where racism promotes inequality of opportunity. Just because you intentionally misquote me in order to create a straw man does not make you any less incorrect. I make a point, then you claim I am making a point other than the one I truly made, and attack your made-up point. I'm sure you're quite angry by now, but you would do well to take a break from your horrible logical fallacies before continuing to debate here.
quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I did say that we need to either learn to honestly play fair, or stop assuming that just because we're happy and we're not legally segregating people any more --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is your concept of fair? And we are legally segregating people right now, whites have to fight extra hard to get into schools and other institutions in order to "level the playing field". The rules are NOT applied the same way for all races.
I never said the rules are being applied the same way for all races. I'm saying that is a problem. You seem to be creating yet another straw man here, trying to make it seem as if I'm supporting Affirmative Action. I do not, yet you immediately try to argue against that, totally missing my point yet again. Good job. And if you believe that whites have to work harder to get admitted into schools or get jobs than non-whites, then I would seriously love for you to prove that with empirical evidence. In fact, before I toss in my own empirical evidence showing what a farce that statement is, I'll let you go first to try and justify yourself. Good luck, and you had better come up with some reputable sources.
quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Who cares if people—human beings—are getting shafted during the course of it? It's a dog-eat-dog world out there, and someone's got to come out on top, right?
Would you care to propose an alternate system? Perhaps we can devise a system where everyone gets the same reward no matter what they contribute.
HA! I love it. Because you can come up with nothing but straw men and attempts to start a flame war, you demand a solution inside of a single post sufficient to cover all bases of the problems. You are either seriously insane, or just have no clue what an illogical request that was. Reams could only begin to cover the issues, but they would mostly start out with education and integration—something that states to this day have been known to argue against—followed up with legislation more adequately punishing hate crimes and known cases of unacceptable treatment of any minority (in any environment, meaning blacks, hispanics, women, or even whites, if ever applicable). In a nation as complex and large as the US, it would take years to accomplish. The only down side is that the majority of people are quite comfortable with their ethnic advantages, and want nothing to do with actual liberty and freedom.
Like I've already said, don't attempt to insult me or start a flame war or get personal with me. It's not going to happen. I'm offering you a chance to back up a few things you said, and I pointed out where you are arguing against points I never made, mostly because you can't refute the things I've said. If you want to debate, I'll debate. However, you will either stay on the topic and the points made, or you are not really debating me, but some imagined creature of your own making, and I am sure you can have a whole debate with that creature without any help from me. So, either address what I say and back up your questionable statements, or I really don't have much more to say.
[ October 27, 2003, 11:03 PM: Message edited by: Leto II ]
Posts: 6907 | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Like I said, there was an issue that is personal, meaning it's none of your damn business, and you would be wise to stop trying to pursue it.
The discussion, is about racism. If you have some personal expirience with racism either share it, or move on. Just because you have some personal problem doesn't mean I don't get to discuss my point of view. When you come into the discussion and start throwing stones with no sort of point, you are going to get some negative responses.
quote:How convenient coming from a white guy.
If you cannot see the racist nature of your remarks, you have no right what-so-ever to be calling anyone racist. You seem to be justifying your inflamatory remarks by claiming its not racism if its true.
quote: Had you a clue, you would have known it's not about minorities that I made that statement. I've been bullied by certain people here, and I am not going to get into a flame war again and get bullied a second time. It's why I disappeared for so long before (apparently, before you decided to make your rhetorical debut).
Your past problems are of NO concern to me. If you don't want to see what I have to say about this topic, stay away from this thread. As for the secret hidden meaning in your statements: fine, let them mean whatever you want them to. At face value they are racist and more than a little inflammatory.
It is clear that your thoughts on this subject are tainted by your uncontrolled rage. Since you seem to want to discount everything I say because I am white and I just cannot possibly understand the issue, I am not going to address your individual points. I will merely ask you to explain your first 2 paragraphs on why I should not be allowed to discuss this topic.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:And to say that group C suffered as well doesn't make the suffering of A or B any less, nor does it give B the right to trample the liberties of A. You are trying to make the case that since C suffered, that B has every right to trample A.
No, I think the argument is that just because C has suffered, it doesn't give C the right to trample A or B - who suffered just as greatly in different ways.
Well, that's not exactly accurate. It's more like, just because C has suffered, it doesn't give C's grandchildren the right to trample the grandchildren of A or B, when A or B suffered just as greatly in different ways.
quote:Like I've already said, don't attempt to insult me or start a flame war or get personal with me.
posted
I think that in this argument Tresopax has the right of it.
There were horrible injustices perpetrated on many different groups of people in the past. The descendants of these people often suffered (and may yet suffer) due to these injustices.
Yet there is no logical way that people living today who did not in any way participate in those injustices may make amends without perpetrating further injustice.
The only reasonable course of action to follow is to 1) Ensure as much as possible that further injustices are not committed and 2) Ensure as much as possible that our society rewards merit rather than any other alternative selection criteria.
The alternative to this course is to allow unfettered litigation and unreasonable governmental policies in an attempt to right past wrongs. The problem with this approach is the sheer number of people who may claim damages due to past wrongs. In the recent past of the United States claims could easily be made by Native Americans, Jews, Blacks, Irish, Chinese, Mormons, lefties, Japanese, Hispanics and many, many others.
It is simply unreasonable to choose among these wronged groups and develop policies which favor one group or another. If we asa society are concerned with aiding disadvantaged people then criteria could be developed based on economic level rather than dubious ethnic or cultural groups.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Not only should all minorities be left to the own devices, but that it is infact illegal to act otherwise. To give special benefits to a group because their ancestors have had to put up with past adversity is a mistake.
Incorrect, and that is (again) not what I'm advocating anyway. Besides, the points of programs such as Affirmative Action-which I don't support-are not only to redress past oppression and racism, but to give minorities a fair shake in a world shaped by the history of such things. I realize in your world, civil rights should've ended with the Amendment (or do you think that way?), but the problem still exists. Burying your head in the sand and repeating your mantra of, "I'm not a racist personally, so I'm doing all I can," doesn't help the problem. Your belief that apathy is the best treatment is the only thing that sustains your idealogy on this issue.
quote:As I stated before, it is not the government's place(nor yours) to judge which group has had a rougher background and then award that group with legal goodies. Who is the government(or you) to judge that Blacks or any other minority deserve more or less legal protection than any other group? Who is the ultimate arbiter of historical strife, and by what standard is this arbiter to measure?
I don't. It's not that I don't want to talk about Affirmative Action, it's that you constantly are suggesting (without using AA specifically) that that's what I'm advocating. No. I make no claim to be a perfect arbiter, as I've also said numerous times. What I do claim is that just because there's a law on the books that outlaws discrimination by no means means our job is done. God, look at American history to see how many times government has had to step in to enforce the law which is simply not obeyed, and you'll see what I mean. Integration. Jim Crow laws. Lynch mobs. White juries in black neighborhoods. Obvious racism in hiring policies which Affirmative Action was designed to redress.
These are all instances where your policy of apathy was a miserable failure, and to ensure that the ideals of our nation were upheld, something more than apathy was required.
quote:I know you don't want to hear it, but what is the option to letting people fend for themselves? That is what our society is based on. Those who are part of our society must operate within its guide lines. To place a certain group outside of our society is wrong for many reasons. It is unfair to all others, and it unfairly stigmatizes the group.
Incorrect. "Fend for yourselves" is the law of the jungle, not the law of civilization.
quote:Over time, capitalism directly benefits everyone. Those who work hard receive the most benefit.
Nonsense. Over a long, long, long time, maybe. By this curious logic, African-Americans should be at the top of the heap. What of Mexican-Americans in the American Southwest? Or Asian-Americans who labored throughout the ninteenth century? What you're talking about is fairness not how civilization views it (we get what we deserve), but what the state of Nature says fairness is (you deserve what you get).
quote:Before someone asks why our problems exist today, I would point them to my previous comments about the watered-down nature of our current capitalist society.
Laissez faire has been tried before, and it ultimately led to what would constantly happen in nature if you gave animals the ability to think and ambition. Few on the top, lots on the bottom, and every so often, one among the teeming masses will break into the top.
quote:I do not think that capitalism is the solution to all problems.
Over time, capitalism directly benefits everyone. Those who work hard receive the most benefit.
Perhaps capitalism won't fix everyone's problems in a week, but over the years, most problems can be fixed by people living and prospering together.
While not exactly contradictory, the themes of these excerpts are curiously incongruous. And one of the problems we're discussing is that people aren't living and prospering together. They're living and prospering seperately, largely.
quote:Others may have advantages from their social status. However, when you get down to it, to operate in any other way is immoral and offensive to reason.
Immoral? So your morality is you deserve what you get, then. Is it "moral" for white Americans to have uncounted advantages in society, while minorities do not? Certainly not. What you're saying is that, if this exists, it's necessary, but don't make a pretense to morality.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Quote: -------------------------------------------- Others may have advantages from their social status. However, when you get down to it, to operate in any other way is immoral and offensive to reason. --------------------------------------------
Immoral? So your morality is you deserve what you get, then. Is it "moral" for white Americans to have uncounted advantages in society, while minorities do not? Certainly not. What you're saying is that, if this exists, it's necessary, but don't make a pretense to morality.
Yeah, it sounds a little different within the actual context of my post.
quote: While I say that all are helped by capitalism, I do not say that there will never be adversity, or that the road will be equal for all involved. Some have backgrounds which hold them back. Others may have advantages from their social status. However, when you get down to it, to operate in any other way is immoral and offensive to reason.
quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Like I said, there was an issue that is personal, meaning it's none of your damn business, and you would be wise to stop trying to pursue it. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The discussion, is about racism. If you have some personal expirience with racism either share it, or move on. Just because you have some personal problem doesn't mean I don't get to discuss my point of view. When you come into the discussion and start throwing stones with no sort of point, you are going to get some negative responses.
You ignorant, ignorant person. The personal issue you are trying to jump in on has to do with Storm Saxon's claiming to cry out against prejudice, yet having no problem displaying and marching around his own prejudice. You decided to jump in on a remark I made at him, and it's neither your business, nor are you privy enough to have anything worthwhile to say on the subject. Each time you run your mouth considering it, you use more and more trolling tactics, up to and including trying to start a flame war. Good for you for sticking to your typical troll baiting tactics.
quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- How convenient coming from a white guy. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you cannot see the racist nature of your remarks, you have no right what-so-ever to be calling anyone racist. You seem to be justifying your inflamatory remarks by claiming its not racism if its true.
No, I'm saying that your statements regarding the imabalancing bias of the United States social structure are typical of a group of people who have had absolutely no problem in the arena of racism, prejudice, unfair treatment. You are demanding that all other ethnic groups look at the world from the point of view you have, while simultaneously being ignorant and unaware of the points of view of other ethnicities (and their experiences). You want everyone to play by the same rules, but only if they play by yours. That is not equality.
quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Had you a clue, you would have known it's not about minorities that I made that statement. I've been bullied by certain people here, and I am not going to get into a flame war again and get bullied a second time. It's why I disappeared for so long before (apparently, before you decided to make your rhetorical debut).
Your past problems are of NO concern to me. If you don't want to see what I have to say about this topic, stay away from this thread.
Actually, I took apart everything you said fairly well, and made it a point to show you where you were not on topic. Instead, I demanded that you stay on topic, instead of trying to incite a flame war.
Speaking of which, I see that you have done jack and squat to quantify the claims you made where I challenged your source. I'll give you a few more hours before I show what a sham your statements were.
quote:As for the secret hidden meaning in your statements: fine, let them mean whatever you want them to.
Uh huh. You're trying so hard to find "secret hidden meaning" in what I say, you are incapable of taking them at face value. The problem therein is yours, not mine.
quote:At face value they are racist and more than a little inflammatory.
At face value they point out your ignorance and lack of perspective, and that makes you angry because it insults your self-assumed intelligence.
quote:It is clear that your thoughts on this subject are tainted by your uncontrolled rage.
And yet you're the one posting more and more angrily, making up numbers and trying to rewrite history to support an incongruent ideology.
quote:Since you seem to want to discount everything I say because I am white and I just cannot possibly understand the issue, I am not going to address your individual points.
In other words, you can't prove the things you said that I asked you to prove. Nice cop-out.
quote:I will merely ask you to explain your first 2 paragraphs on why I should not be allowed to discuss this topic.
You may discuss the topic all you like. What you have no right discussing the personal problems Storm Saxon has with me, and no right to try to start a flame war over it. Discuss racism all you like—don't try to goad me into a flame war over it.
Immoral? So your morality is you deserve what you get, then. Is it "moral" for white Americans to have uncounted advantages in society, while minorities do not? Certainly not. What you're saying is that, if this exists, it's necessary, but don't make a pretense to morality.
Yeah, it sounds a little different within the actual context of my post.
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- While I say that all are helped by capitalism, I do not say that there will never be adversity, or that the road will be equal for all involved. Some have backgrounds which hold them back. Others may have advantages from their social status. However, when you get down to it, to operate in any other way is immoral and offensive to reason. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rakeesh's reply still stands. Capitalism is not what has created the stratification between opportunity between ethnic groups. Capitalism does not promote racism. That you are trying to say that capitalism makes the situation where blacks get 10% (or more) less than whites for the same jobs is ridiculous and an attempt at creating a flase pretense. Rakeesh wasn't debating against capitalism, Rakeesh was debating against the racist idea that blacks are afforded less opportunity than whites is "acceptable losses" or a product of capitalism. Your logical fallacy is still present.
Tresopax:
quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And to say that group C suffered as well doesn't make the suffering of A or B any less, nor does it give B the right to trample the liberties of A. You are trying to make the case that since C suffered, that B has every right to trample A. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, I think the argument is that just because C has suffered, it doesn't give C the right to trample A or B - who suffered just as greatly in different ways.
Well, that's not exactly accurate. It's more like, just because C has suffered, it doesn't give C's grandchildren the right to trample the grandchildren of A or B, when A or B suffered just as greatly in different ways.
Nice way to miss the point. Let me break it down for you by assigning a more real value to the letters you misrepresented.
A is blacks. B is whites. C is non-black, non-whites.
When discussing the racism of whites against blacks, bringing up the suffering of group C—the non-black, non-whites—does not justify the infringements that whites have made towards blacks, nor does it justify current infractions.
quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Like I've already said, don't attempt to insult me or start a flame war or get personal with me. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doctor, heal thyself.
That's not funny, Tres, because while Robespierre is trying to bait a flame war, I have not dropped to that level. You may not like how I debate, but I have stayed on topic and denied any jumps into flaming.
Jacare:
quote:I think that in this argument Tresopax has the right of it.
There were horrible injustices perpetrated on many different groups of people in the past. The descendants of these people often suffered (and may yet suffer) due to these injustices.
Yet there is no logical way that people living today who did not in any way participate in those injustices may make amends without perpetrating further injustice.
I am not saying that blacks deserve some sort of reparations. You are creating an argument that I have not made. I'm saying that the field of opportunity is, at this point and time, not level for non-whites. I'm saying that the field of opportunity should be level, and I've repeatedly pointed out how those who are quite comfortable with the current ideal are judging the opportunities from their easy perspective without taking into account those of other groups. It's very easy to say the game is fair when you are in the winning group that, while not cheating at the moment, is "winning" (yes, I know the rhetorical connotation is allegorical, not direct) because of past cheating done by former members while continuing game play under uneven circumstance. I'm saying that the circumstances can be made equal, and that anyone who does not want that does not really want equality. Heck, that's also one of my main arguments against AA, which should jibe nicely to those against Affirmative Action. However, I'm applying it to more than just AA, and it seems that the ethnic majority in America doesn't quite like that.
Posts: 6907 | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Nice way to miss the point. Let me break it down for you by assigning a more real value to the letters you misrepresented.
But it wasn't your point to begin with - it was Robespierre's, which you reinterpreted as a justification for the 'trampling' of blacks. My point was that Robespierre's point was not that the trampling of blacks was justified - rather his point was that affirmative action was unjustified as a solution to that past trampling.
quote:That's not funny, Tres, because while Robespierre is trying to bait a flame war, I have not dropped to that level.
Leto, if you're calling what Robespierre has written so far an attempt to bait a flame war and get personal, I'd like to know how you would have responded if Robes said to you what you just said to him. I mean, you did just call him an 'ignorant, ignorant person', a troll (multiple times), and arrogant, as well as imply he only believes what he does because he's white, he is only attempting to insult you, and that he has no reasoning skills, among other things.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: am not saying that blacks deserve some sort of reparations. You are creating an argument that I have not made.
I was making a general observation, not responding to anyone in particular
quote: I'm saying that the field of opportunity is, at this point and time, not level for non-whites. I'm saying that the field of opportunity should be level, and I've repeatedly pointed out how those who are quite comfortable with the current ideal are judging the opportunities from their easy perspective without taking into account those of other groups.
In what way is the field not level? Or better, In what way is the field not level which can be fixed by exterior forces such as legislation? Any legislation aimed solely at aiding a given race will, in my opinion, help propagate the problem it seeks to solve.
quote: It's very easy to say the game is fair when you are in the winning group that, while not cheating at the moment, is "winning" (yes, I know the rhetorical connotation is allegorical, not direct) because of past cheating done by former members while continuing game play under uneven circumstance. I'm saying that the circumstances can be made equal, and that anyone who does not want that does not really want equality.
It sounds like you have an idea of how you would fix the current situation. I would be interested to hear it. Personally I think that the only solution is to ignore race altogether and concentrate on economic status.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:That's not funny, Tres, because while Robespierre is trying to bait a flame war, I have not dropped to that level. You may not like how I debate, but I have stayed on topic and denied any jumps into flaming.
But previously Leto II said(in no specific order):
quote: How convenient coming from a white guy.
Storm Saxon is making excuses and blaming minorities for the problems caused by racism against them, but he'll gladly ignore me because "he just don't like me, mommy."
Sorry to break it to all the American white kids out there who believe that "colorblind" is the way to go—and I'm willing to place money on the fact that everyone who has posted that stance here is white as the driven snow
In essesnce, it's no less contributing to the hate and bigotry in the world than the guy who keeps a white hood in his closet and looks sideways at anyone other than a typical WASP.
Have fun ignoring away, Stormy, because you're acting just like the prejudicial bastards you damned with your first post.
Either keep it out of discussion—and out of your trolling tactics—or soon find yourself reported for misbehavior.
I told you that you are uninformed about what you were talking about, and told you why (because it's personal and not concerning you), yet you persist. You can jump up and down in anger about it if you wish, but it's none of your business.
Example number two of you having no clue what you're talking about.
I guess you can't be bothered to read not only the main title of this thread, but the links and statements of the very first post.
If you don't think that influences their view, then you are quite delusional.
your complete lack of comprehension is rather disgusting.
you probably couldn't comprehend that, even though I said it quite plainly more than once.
The problem, genius, is that racism is still alive and well
You seem perfectly happy in the present racist-based system. That doesn't surprise me, as you're probably white.
Please, elaborate on these "plenty of other non-white rich people" you so self-righteously claim as justification for your attitude. What percentage of non-whites would it take to satisfy your rage about my comments?
I don't know what fairy-tale land you live in,
What a line of utter baloney.
Nice try to make "the big picture" somehow negate the subject, but your misapplication of it belies your ignorance.
You had better come up with some pretty convincing evidence if you don't want to look like a bullshitting loudmouth in this case.
that it gives us some sort of precedent to behave like racist pricks by taking advantage that a few hundred years of wanton slavery has allowed. Your justifications are getting weaker and weaker.
Now you're just making things up.
I'm sure you're quite angry by now, but you would do well to take a break from your horrible logical fallacies before continuing to debate here.
totally missing my point yet again. Good job.
before I toss in my own empirical evidence showing what a farce that statement is, I'll let you go first to try and justify yourself. Good luck, and you had better come up with some reputable sources.
You are either seriously insane, or just have no clue what an illogical request that was.
You ignorant, ignorant person.
Each time you run your mouth considering it, you use more and more trolling tactics, up to and including trying to start a flame war. Good for you for sticking to your typical troll baiting tactics.
Speaking of which, I see that you have done jack and squat to quantify the claims you made where I challenged your source. I'll give you a few more hours before I show what a sham your statements were.
At face value they point out your ignorance and lack of perspective, and that makes you angry because it insults your self-assumed intelligence.
And yet you're the one posting more and more angrily, making up numbers and trying to rewrite history to support an incongruent ideology.
Nice way to miss the point.
If you want to accuse me of starting a flame war, go right on ahead and do it. I think its pretty obvious that you are turning this into a knock-down drag-out brawl, with no intention of listening or responding in a civil way.
posted
Robespierre, you've been kicking a hornet's nest and are upset that you've been stung a few times. Frankly, I'm surprised that the swarm hasn't covered you in puffy welts by now.
Leto has shown remarkable constraint - in terms of Leto's past history - and has made many clear, concise arguments that have targetted your logic and the support for your points. You have ignored any valid argument he has made by diverting attention to some of his more abrasive comments.
I like this version of Leto. I'll call him Leto III. Please don't kick him until he snaps. Itemizing a list does nothing productive, as just such a list could be made from your posts.
Maybe try answering the logical challenges made instead of dismissing them out of hand. Even if an argument comes from a source you disagree with, or a source you have prejudged, it still may be valid. Ignoring his points and poking him with a pointy stick only makes you appear antagonistic and hostile.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd like to put in my hat as generally supporting Leto. Some minor disagreement, but overall agreement.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Which means I'm agreeing with fugu, Leto, and Tres. I hope the horsemen don't think that's some kind of cue. *ulp*
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with FlyingCow. That's what I wanted to say, but most unfortunately---I was late for work and it was the kind of work it's bad to be later for.
By dismissing Leto b/c you say he's being insulting, is a red herring to the argument. It almost looks like you are trying to cover up that you cannot back up your information.
Hey, if I thought someone was insulting me, I would want to prove them wrong by backing up my information as to say "you're a jerk...and oh, btw, here's my info..."
have a nice day Posts: 463 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm in an odd position, because I agree completely with John and yet simultaneously don't approve of his delivery.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you want to accuse me of starting a flame war, go right on ahead and do it. I think its pretty obvious that you are turning this into a knock-down drag-out brawl, with no intention of listening or responding in a civil way.
In other words, you're not going to back up the stuff I challenged you on. The only "knock-down drag-out" thing here is the debate. Apparently, you're not able to validate what I challenged you on in my last reply. That's okay, because I'll go right ahead and post mine anyway...
The biggest problem with this thread is that it attempts to lay the blame of disparity in black communities squarely on the shoulders of blacks themselves, arguing that there is no longer any fault on the vast majority in America due to the Civil Rights movements. However, from the get-go, the people who are arguing this are missing a great deal of flaws, not the least of which is that they are demanding that any and all perspective of the situation of racism in America be done from their own, without regard to the vastly different perspectives of other ethnicities. Additionally, they are hiding behind a civil rights movement that only made some inroads, and had been perservering for the majority of the 20th century to gain enough momentum to actually finally achieve some legislation. Just as black men were not equal to white men after the Emancipation Proclamation and the Civil War, the black community was not equal in opportunity to the white community after Civil Rights legislation was passed over decades ago. The process of gaining equality is slow to take, and while steps are being taken, they are by no means close to being achieved.
Many posts in this thread would have us believe otherwise. The implication seems to be that since the Civil Rights movement is years passed, that society is now even-handed in its offerings and opportunity. The implication is that the ready chance for achievement is present, but the minority communities themselves are now the only factor in preventing such a concept from becoming reality.
This is far from the truth.
We can begin with the misconceptions of the general public regarding demographic statistics of different ethnicities. When asked what the percieved percentage is of blacks, hispanics, and Asiansis in the United States, the average judgement is as follows:
Blacks—22 to 23 percent
Hispanics—15 percent
Asians—9 percent
The reality is far different:
Blacks are actually about 12% of the US population
Hispanics are actually about 11% of the US population
Asians are less than or about 1% of the population
What this misconception shows is that the general idea in America is that there is a growing environment of diversity, when there is very much not one. Together, those three minorities barely make up a quarter of the United States population, with the rest being almost entirely whites of European heritage. What this distorted image implies is that there is more opportunity to minorities because they have more physical presence. Obviously, they do not. Yet, unemployment rates by race put blacks at twice the percentage unemployed as whites (graph and a more detailed breakdown). Along with umeployment, the difference in hiring opportunity is also still biased. In an official federal study, it was found that employers still have different methods for dealing with whites than they do blacks.
quote:When the white tester applied, he was informed that that particular branch was not hiring. The bank representative referred him to their branch in .... He was given the telephone number and the name of the branch manager and the assistant manager. The bank representative instructed him to say he was referred by the Human Resource Department of the ... branch. When his partner (black tester) followed up on his resume and letters of interest, he was told that his resume had been passed on to an interviewer and that he would be contacted within the next two weeks if they were interested. After receiving no response, the tester called to inquire about the status of his application. After placing several follow-up calls, he was told that his application was now "slate dated' (out of date) and was advised to submit another application.
Indeed, the federal pilot study was small, but its results jibe with other studies. However, once in the workplace, discrimination does not end.
quote:During an OFCCP onsite review of Perini Building Company, we interviewed a Black male carpenter Foreman who had suffered racially derogatory language from his supervisor. In addition, the compliance officers found Confederate flags displayed at the work area, along with racial jokes and threats on the interior walls of the portable toilets. It was common practice for non-minority employees to use racial slurs and jokes. The contractor was cited for this problem and required to remove the Confederate flag. The offending supervisor had to formally apologize to the Black foreman for his use of derogatory language, and the contractor was required to hold meetings with employees to inform them that racially offensive language would not be tolerated. In another construction company, OFCCP staff also found problems of a racially hostile work environment. When interviewed by OFCCP compliance officers, the Superior Construction Company staff complained of the constant use of racially derogatory comments, profane language used when addressing minorities. One Black carpenter quit his job because of the treatment. OFCCP staff also received complaints from residents in the surrounding area that the superintendent of the work site used racial comments and profane language toward them while working in their communities. OFCCP required the company to take immediate action against the Superintendent, to extend a bona fide offer of employment to the Black carpenter who quit because of discriminatory treatment, and to provide him compensation, and to ensure a work environment free from harassment, intimidation and coercion.
quote:During a routine compliance review of this contractor that supplies computer software services to NASA, OFCCP compliance officers discovered that two African American white collar workers (a woman account clerk and a male technician) were forced to unclog toilets, mop up urine and perform other demeaning tasks not required of nonminorities. The woman, who resigned rather than sustain the indignity of this unlawful treatment, received back pay from the contractor. The male was also made whole, including a promotion to a position he was denied.
quote:During an OFCCP onsite review of Diamond Walnut Growers, Inc., we interviewed employees who reported that the contractor maintained a hostile work environment towards minorities and women. The Compliance Officer investigated these allegations and found that some employees are continually engaged in conduct that causes a hostile work environment, including racial and sexual harassment and intimidation. Interviews further revealed that some employees engaged in offensive conduct such as racial and sexual comments, slurs, and jokes. Specifically, some employees use the terms "Niggers", Spicks, and Monkeys." The investigation disclosed that managers were aware of the racial and sexual slurs, as well as the jokes, but took no disciplinary actions against the employees. The contractor was cited for its failure to implement its EEO/AA and Anti-Harassment Policies. While no monetary settlement was required involving backpay, the contractor was required to provide regular training in EEO/AA and Anti-Harassment to both managers and employees on an annual or bi-annual basis, provide an open door policy whereby employees may make harassment complaints without fear of reprisal, provide a formal impartial process for investigating and resolving complaints by trained unprejudiced experts
And the list goes on.
Racial profiling is still a common occurrance, and is even being currently justified as a way to fight terrorism, even though the vast majority of profiling happens to blacks and hispanics. Interestingly enough, there is a large portion of those who justify racial profiling that will equally say that there is no institutional racism left in the government. Perhaps not on a federal level, but the state and municipal levels tell a different story.
quote:First, in 1996, an initiative was proposed to voters in Kentucky to repeal a provision in the state's constitution that stipulated that black and white children could not be educated in the same classrooms. Of course, this provision was nullified by the 1954 U.S. Supreme Court in the Brown decision, but the ban on racially integrated education remained in the official Kentucky state constitution for another 42 years. In 1996 Kentucky voters passed an amendment to remove the provision. However, nearly 250,000 Kentuckians, about a third of the total Kentucky electorate, voted to keep the provision as part of the official state constitution.
In case anyone is counting, that's a quarter million people who voted against integration. In 1996, not 1956 or 1966.
quote:Two years later, in 1998, South Carolina voters were presented with the opportunity to remove an 1895 provision from the state constitution that banned marriages between blacks and whites. Of course, this clause also was moot because the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1967 that laws forbidding interracial marriages were unconstitutional. However, the provision remained part of the state constitution. As expected, the amendment to the South Carolina constitution passed easily. But the remarkable aspect of the vote was the fact that in 1998 326,000 South Carolinians, 38 percent of the total South Carolina electorate, voted to retain the provision as part of the state constitution. In fact, a majority of voters in six counties in South Carolina voted to keep the ban on interracial marriage as part of the fundamental charter of the state.
Even on a law that had no more power, almost 40% of the people voted against allowing mixed marriages. In 1998. Astounding.
quote:In November 2000, voters in Alabama were presented with a referendum to repeal a ban on interracial marriage which had been part of that state's constitution since 1901. More than 525,000 voters in Alabama — some 40 percent of the total electorate — voted to keep this provision as part of the fundamental law of the state. In view of the fact that blacks make up more than 20 percent of the voting age population in the state, and in all likelihood voted almost unanimously to remove the ban, it is probable that a majority of the white voters in the state wished to keep the ban on interracial marriage as part of the Alabama constitution. In fact, the referendum to remove the ban was voted down by a majority of voters in 24 of Alabama's 67 counties.
In 2000, the heralding year of the 21st century, there are still 40% of the people in Alabama who feel that mixed marriages should be illegal. However, before we begin a rash of south-bashing nonsense...
quote:Finally, in 2002 voters in the traditionally liberal state of Oregon were offered the opportunity to remove racist language from the 1857 state constitution. The original language of the state constitution called for the apportionment of state Supreme and Circuit Court judgeships by the number of people in the "white population." Also, a provision of the 1857 state constitution called for a vote on whether slavery would be permitted in the new state and whether "free Negroes" and "mulattos" would be allowed to own property in the state. Oregon voters at that time voted "No" on both questions. To this day the language has remained part of the state's constitution. Measure 14, which was put before the voters, called for the removal of the racist language. The measure passed. But 29 percent of all Oregon voters wanted to keep the racist language in the state constitution. More than 339,000 Oregonians voted "No" on the measure.
339,000 voters. More than in South Carolina, and more than in Kentucky. In Oregon, which is not a southern state.
This isn't even taking into account that since minority voters don't make up 25% of the population, that they are extremely under-represented throughout government. Politicos don't even bother to do heavy campaigning in black- or hispanic-majority communities—and why should they? After all, even if any given candidate pulled every single able voter from such communities, there is little to no assurance of getting into office. Despite the often-altruistic ideals we place on our elected officials and their platforms, every politician—all of them, of any party—has only one thing in mind... getting voters who count to vote for them. And to stay in office, they will cater primarily to the wants and needs of those majority groups. Does that make the system openly racist? Probably not in most cases, but it definitely supports inequality and a lack of equal opportunity in our nation.
I'm not even going to touch the issue of hate crimes here, except to point out that in the link "racially motivated" and "ethnic" bigotry are listed separately, bringing the grand total of crimes perpetrated by racist motivations to 72% of the hate crimes in that study, with 60% of the targets being black.
Still think racism isn't highly prevalent? to quote:
quote:The survey was administered to a cross-section of about 1,200 Americans and asked such questions as:
"Do people in these groups tend to be unintelligent or tend to be intelligent?"
"Do people in these groups tend to be hard-working or tend to be lazy?"
"Do people in these groups tend to prefer to be self-supporting or do they tend to prefer to live off welfare?"
With only one exception, minority groups were evaluated more negatively than whites in general. The one exception is Jews who were rated more favorably than whites on all characteristics except patriotism. African Americans and Latino/as were ranked last or next to last on almost every characteristic measured. For instance, in response to the question about intelligence, African Americans and Latino/as were essentially tied at the bottom. Respondents evaluated African Americans as the laziest and as the group with the highest preference for living off welfare. More than half the survey respondents rated African Americans as less intelligent than whites. Fifty-seven percent of non-African Americans rated African Americans as less intelligent than whites and thirty percent of African Americans themselves rated African Americans as less intelligent than whites. Sixty-two percent of the entire sample rated African Americans as lazier than whites and more than three out of four survey respondents said that African Americans are more inclined than whites to prefer welfare over work.
Is prejudice alive and well in America? I would posit that it most definitely is.
More fun-filled links to fill your brains with facts (because I'm on a deadline and cannot go into more summarization):
quote:Is prejudice alive and well in America? I would posit that it most definitely is.
And I forgot to add to that: almost all of that prejudice is eminating from white communities outward, with residual effects on minority communities. To even attempt to paint it any other way is ludicrous and indicative of a painfully ignorant and naive view.
And Tom wears combat boots.
Posts: 6907 | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, come on Leto, you can't use facts in this debate. That's cheating!
I was shocked that the measure to remove racist language from the Oregon constitution did not receive approval up in the 90% range. (Then again...apparently Oregon once had some of the highest levels of Klan activity in the nation.) My school held a mock election, and some of my classmates said they voted against this measure because they wanted to preserve the "historical language." I don't think they're racist...but that was definitely a dumb argument.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not for nothing, Shigosei, I think their positions were racist (and, by using that position, they were).
And I forgot to mention the falsehood of the "drop in the bucket" remark. It seems Robespierre is under the misguided assumption that since the Emancipation Proclamation, there has been no government-sponsored racism. That assumption is very much incorrect. European colonialism throughout Africa was strong up through the 1900s, coming to a close in the mid-1900s except for a few minor (in relation to outright slavery) infractions and one big one—South Africa (apartheid). The apartheid government lasted until the 1990's. I dare anyone to try and make a case that apartheid was not openly state-sponsored racism.
The colonialist racism was not limited to Africa, however. Britain took over south Asia (India and surrounding nations) and took advantage of its people for years, and Spain, France, and Britain have used Southeast Asia as cheap slave labor, some dating back to shortly after Magellen's flagship voyage. Ask any Aussie here to regale us with the prejudice in the early years of the "land down-under."
"Drop in the bucket" indeed. White Europe (and her descendants) have maintained and/or supported racism well into the late 1900s officially, and America, for all of its human rights advancements, has played right along. Don't make the mistake of thinking that just because private citizens were not directly owning slaves that slave labor and legislated serfdom was not prevalent nearly to the 21st century.
Now, do people still not believe that white racist ideals, while having become an anathema to openly espouse in public, still influence the way our society works, judges people, and allocates opportunities to individuals in America and most of the Western World?
Posts: 6907 | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Leto, can you clarify something for me? You said “And I forgot to add to that: almost all of that prejudice is eminating from white communities outward, with residual effects on minority communities” I read this to mean almost all of the prejudice in America.
However, your next post deals with world-wide racism by whites. Did you mean that almost all prejudice in the world is emanating from white communities outward?
quote: Apparently, you're not able to validate what I challenged you on in my last reply.
What do I need to validate? I have made no claims about numbers. You were posturing with your "I'll give you a few more hours before I show what a sham your statements were" statement. I see nothing in your exposition on topics already covered that disputes anything I am saying. No one on this board is claiming that there is no racism against blacks and hispanics. I do not claim that every white person is understanding and worldly and would never think badly of a minority. What I do claim, is that the racism you and others attribute to the poor standing of blacks in our society today is not as pervasive as you would have us believe.
Your citation of some un-sourced poll about perceived percentages of population of the races shows just that, what people perceive the % population of minorities to be. I disagree that this shows americans then think that minorities have it better than they actually do because of a greater physical presence. This merely shows that the american people do not regularly check the census data. Can we see a breakdown of how the different races perceived population %'s? What would it imply to you if blacks thought the population was 30% black? What would it imply if blacks thought the population was 5% black?
As far as your cited studies about hiring practices, how do they apply to what I have said about the morality of applying laws based on skin color? Again, I do not say that there is no racism. Only that it is not the problem you make it out to be. From a study you cited:
quote:In the Banking industry, 15 branch locations of 10 separate banks in the Washington D.C. metropolitan area were contacted by telephone by both the black and white testers. Both testers mailed or faxed applications to 3 branch locations, one of which had not previously been contacted. Both testers filled out applications in person at 12 of the 13 other locations that had first been contacted by telephone. Follow-up calls were made, as a result of which the black tester was interviewed by 6 different branches and the white tester was interviewed by 6 different branches. These interviews were all conducted at 8 branches of 7 different banking employers. Only 4 branches interviewed both testers. Two (2) other branches interviewed only the black tester and the 2 remaining branches interviewed only the white tester.
Follow-up calls were made by both testers. The black tester received a second interview 3 times and the white tester received a second interview only 2 times. Two (2) branch locations of the same employer interviewed both the black and the white tester a second time. One (1) branch of another employer only interviewed the black tester a second time. This same branch only interviewed the black tester the first time. Interestingly, this branch did not make an offer to the black tester but rather made a job offer to the white tester who had never even been interviewed at all. However, another branch location of the same employer offered a job to the black tester but not the white tester without ever interviewing either individual.
I say that the studies you cited found racism. However, as pointed out before, these instances do not represent the entire work place, or even a majority.
When you cite the voting records of certain states and claim that those states are racist, you make many assumptions.
quote: However, nearly 250,000 Kentuckians, about a third of the total Kentucky electorate, voted to keep the provision as part of the official state constitution.
You seem to imply that this means 1/3 of Kentuckians are racist. While I would assume that most of those voting to keep the anti-integration policy were white, we do not know the #'s. What % of those that voted in the 1/3 were black or other? I would also point out that even if we assume this vote shows racism, it shows that 2/3 of the state is not racist.
quote: Even on a law that had no more power, almost 40% of the people voted against allowing mixed marriages. In 1998. Astounding.
Again, how many of those voting to keep the ban were white?
quote: In view of the fact that blacks make up more than 20 percent of the voting age population in the state, and in all likelihood voted almost unanimously to remove the ban, as part of the Alabama constitution. In fact, the referendum to remove the ban was voted down by a majority of voters in 24 of Alabama's 67 counties.
Was the study unable to obtain data on the racial makeup of the voters in Alabama? Why do they say "it is probable that a majority of the white voters in the state wished to keep the ban on interracial marriage" without actually providing any #'s? They may well be right, but if the #'s support them, why not show the #'s?
quote: that they are extremely under-represented throughout government.
The idea that any group could be under-represented in a democratic government is not logical. Everyone's vote counts as ONE vote. What is the mechanism for this oppression? Should minorities be given more votes in order to "balance" this system? As I pointed out earlier, minorities actually get much more political say than most other groups. When politicians are able to tailor their messages to certain blocks of voters, they do so. Minorities are greedily fought over by both parties. While the democrats typically get most of the black vote(95% for Gore in 2000), both they and the Republicans will pander to the black vote endlessly. Republicans will go out of their way to show minority participation in their party, and democrats will put forth laws that benefit blacks. To say that minorities are under-represented is to ignore the political reality. Here is an interesting article by Walter Williams on the topic of political power for minorities.
quote:Dislike me all you wish; pre-judge me to whatever extreme your heart desires. Disregard the plain truth, however, and you're only hurting yourself.
The "plain truth" as you put it, is not so plain. You offer no solution and not even a hint of what the actual problem is. I have stated many times that I believe the problems you point out can be solved by applying a large dose of capitalism. People who prosper together, will get along. I would say that if the government would cease its racially motivated programs, it would do much to ease tensions between races. When Blacks are told by the gov. that they are not smart enough to get into a university without help, they will eventually believe it. When whites are told that they do not deserve a spot in a university becuase a minority is less qualified but under-represented, they will resent this.
quote: And I forgot to add to that: almost all of that prejudice is eminating from white communities outward, with residual effects on minority communities. To even attempt to paint it any other way is ludicrous and indicative of a painfully ignorant and naive view.
Those who oppose racial equality seem to enjoy blaming one particular race for ALL RACISM. I have not suggested that all racism is a result of black behaviour, and I would say neither has anyone else on this thread. The point originally made was that blacks who identify themselves primarily as blacks, and not americans, are doing plenty to seperate themselves from others based on race. This does not equate to "all racism is the fault of blacks"
You seem to be claiming that prejudice is only a "white problem". Is this your claim?
quote: Robespierre is under the misguided assumption that since the Emancipation Proclamation, there has been no government-sponsored racism.
Why do you intentionally ignore what I have said about this, then state the contrary? I have not yet mentioned the Emancipation Proclamation. Nor have I claimed that state sponsored racism doesn't exist in the world. I have said just the opposite. I have said the US gov's program of Afirmative Action is indeed a state sponsered program of racism.
As per your comments on the prevelance of white owned slaves in the history of the world, where are your #'s? How many slaves have there been since the beginning of time, and how many were owned by whites? I would guess, becuase I do not know the answer, that plenty of people have been enslaved by africans, arabs, persians, indians, syrians, turks, japanese, chinese, mongols, indonesians, vietnamese, thailanders, aztecs, inca, etc. Would you argue that over the course of history that whites have held more slaves than all of these groups combined?
Very cute. But would you tell us then, that since 1/3 of the population MAY be racist, that the entire state is racist?
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem with the racism issue is that lots of statistics get thrown around, most of which tend to be misleading or inconclusive. Consider...
The bit about black unemployment levels being higher is not indicative or racism - it is to be expected in a country where blacks are significantly poorer than whites.
The stories from various workplaces are anecdotal. It would be easy enough to find similar accounts of whites being mistreated because of their skin color, but a few cases of something happening does not imply a widespread problem. Indeed, we're pretty certain there are SOME cases of racist companies still alive - the question is whether or not it's widespread.
The election data is somewhat interesting, but the fact that minorities of the public objected to changing the wording of constitutions in two states does little to show that a majority of companies nationwide are refusing to hire blacks over less-qualified whites. It may be simply that 30% or so of the voters felt the changes were just PC silliness, since the things being changed were just wording and had no real impact on anything else. As for the two southern states that had a minority of people opposing interracial marriage, we should keep in mind that opposition to interracial marriage does not go hand and hand with thinking one race is inferior to many people, and does not imply you would refuse to hire a black just because you wouldn't want your white daughter to marry one. This is a view held not only by some whites, but also by some minorities. Ever see Bend It Like Beckham?
That last survey was the most informative piece, but even it only shows that people think there are trends in these traits among racial groups. For instance, I bet many people (even here) would rate blacks as 'more athletic' than whites. Or that blondes are dumber than brunettes. Does this mean they're racist? Perhaps. But it doesn't mean they're going to judge someone on their race, or refuse to hire them because of their race.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:What % of those that voted in the 1/3 were black or other?
Hmph. Just for fun let's assume the N. Carolina percentage is the same. About 12 out of one hundred would be minority, so then about three out of the thirty three would've voted against integration.
The idea that there is a signifigant percentage of the minority community voting for things like segregationist language, criminalizing mixed marriages, etc., is the most ridiculous idea I've heard in a long, long time. It's nonsense, and you show just how flimsy and vacuous your arguments are by stating such.
Yup. Lots of self-hating minorities in America who just can't wait to cut themselves off from the mainstream, huh.
Incidentally, the Japanese (until they opened up to the Western world), Aztecs, and Incas typically murdered their captives, not enslaved them. And none of the people you mentioned have singly enslaved more people over greater distances for longer periods of time.
And it's nice that your last statement is that you win if whites haven't enslaved more people than the rest of the planet combined.
quote:Very cute. But would you tell us then, that since 1/3 of the population MAY be racist, that the entire state is racist?
Not may be racist, voting against things like integration and interracial marriage is a clear indicator of racism. And 33% of the population is a hell of a lot more than you were suggesting before, when every post you made was filled with "ifs" and it's not as bad as you say. You're also pretending that that thirty three percent represents every single person of racist leanings.
You're an apologist for racism, Robespierre. Your stance is first that it doesn't happen very often, and you're a reverse-racist for suggesting it does. When confronted with obvious evidence of concrete racism, then your defense is...well, all these people aren't racist, and besides, I'll just bet lots of minorities voted for measures that emasculate them.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The idea that there is a signifigant percentage of the minority community voting for things like segregationist language, criminalizing mixed marriages, etc., is the most ridiculous idea I've heard in a long, long time.
quote:Not may be racist, voting against things like integration and interracial marriage is a clear indicator of racism.
Both of these claims are very much not true. The idea of not mixing marriages is a very old one, and may even be MORE prevalent among minority groups than majority groups. And voting for segregationist language may be an expression of anti-PCness more than anything.
posted
*shrug* I believe they are true, Tresopax. I do not believe that a person who would not want their daughter to marry one of "them" would be fair and equitable when it comes to reviewing the resume, interview, or application of said "them".
Edit: Not when it's one of "them" versus one of "us". And your point about anti-PCness does have merit.
quote: The idea that there is a signifigant percentage of the minority community voting for things like segregationist language, criminalizing mixed marriages, etc., is the most ridiculous idea I've heard in a long, long time. It's nonsense, and you show just how flimsy and vacuous your arguments are by stating such.
I am saying that the vote is un-important. Segregation is not a White only concept. In the past, the state governments who were white enforced segregation. This cannot be denied. However, the past is just that, the past. If you can show that a majority of the 1/3 are in positions of hiring people, and that they are racist, and that they act on that racism, then you are making a point. One which has already been made and which is irrelevant to the argument, but a point.
quote: Yup. Lots of self-hating minorities in America who just can't wait to cut themselves off from the mainstream, huh.
You who oppose racial equality are the only ones making statements about people based on their race. I have not claimed to know what any one group of people thinks or generalize how a group acts. This has solely been done by you who oppose the legal equity of all races.
quote: And it's nice that your last statement is that you win if whites haven't enslaved more people than the rest of the planet combined.
No, I am saying that Leto's statements about the genetic evil of white people are way out of line, and that he must prove that slavery is something that only white's have participated in, or even done the majority of slave holding.
quote: Not may be racist, voting against things like integration and interracial marriage is a clear indicator of racism.
Throughout history, jews have had laws forbiding inter-racial marriage. Most of these cases are in situations where the jewish population is the vast minority, places like venice, vienna, berlin, etc. Are these Jews racist? I do not judge them either way on this issue. However, you state that it is a given that those who oppose inter-racial marriage are racist, I say that this is not a given, and is a logically unsound way to test for racism in the overall population.
quote: You're an apologist for racism, Robespierre. Your stance is first that it doesn't happen very often, and you're a reverse-racist for suggesting it does.
Wrong, my stance is that it happens to most people, white or black. Part of that stance is that the degree that you paint the situation is much too severe. You are a reverse racist for making statements about "white people". That is why I label you as someone who opposes racial equality. I have been arguing from the beginning that the only way to solve the problem is for all laws to apply equally for all people. Nothing short of this will solve the problem. You oppose this stance, which implies that you think it appropriate for the government to judge people based on their race. I would say that this is racism. Please show how I am am apologist for racism.
quote: When confronted with obvious evidence of concrete racism, then your defense is...well, all these people aren't racist, and besides, I'll just bet lots of minorities voted for measures that emasculate them.
Instead of making stuff up about me, why don't you quote what I have said. Show how what I have said leads to your conclusion.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: John made no statements about the genetic evil of white people.
Take your own advice.
Will do!
Leto Said:
quote: Quote: --------------------------------------- Is prejudice alive and well in America? I would posit that it most definitely is. ---------------------------------------
And I forgot to add to that: almost all of that prejudice is eminating from white communities outward, with residual effects on minority communities. To even attempt to paint it any other way is ludicrous and indicative of a painfully ignorant and naive view.
Here Leto points out that he believes almost all prejudice in America to be coming from white people. He also makes statments like(in no particular order):
quote: Sorry to break it to all the American white kids out there who believe that "colorblind" is the way to go—and I'm willing to place money on the fact that everyone who has posted that stance here is white as the driven snow
How convenient coming from a white guy.
You seem perfectly happy in the present racist-based system. That doesn't surprise me, as you're probably white.
Leto has made it clear that he puts all white people in one catagory. Leto is the person here who is making judgements about people based on their race. Leto is the one dismissing arguments because of his perception of the race of those making the arguments.
If I made a comment like "these people arguing against me are probably black as the ace of spades" I would be run out of here as a racist, and rightfully so. However, we see that when Leto committs this type of offense, no one even takes note, its perfectly okay. What is his defense for this racism?
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Given that over seventy percent of America is white, John's statements about where racism emanates are accurate. Simple math proves that, unless you believe minorities are more likely to be racist than white people.
And he has still made no statements concerning genetic evil. He doesn't say whites are more evil than minorities, but he is disagreeing with your stance that racism is an unimportant and mild problem not experienced by hardly anyone in America today in a signifigant way.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I do not oppose laws treating everyone equally. I have never, not even once, said I favored such laws.
Here you say that you do not oppose laws treating everyone equally. Then in the next sentence you say that you have never, not even one, said that you support laws that treat everyone equally. I am assuming that one of these statements is false, which one is it?
You state a problem, racism. Then when I propose a way to help solve the problem, you tell me I am racist. I want to know what you would have us do that does not involve making laws based on people's race. If you want for the solution to come from the government, it will be in the form of racist laws. I have said over and over again that the problem cannot be solved by the government, that, as stormy suggested at the beginning:
quote:Thus, racism in this country is not a national issue but a racial issue that each 'culture' and person in that culture, the white culture and the black culture, must resolve for themselves exclusive to each other until they see themselves as part of a cultural group that is determined not by skin color but by something else.
posted
Actually, I believe minorities are more likely to be racist than whites - mainly because they're kinda allowed to.
This is offset, though, by the fact that whites tend to be in better positions to do some damage with their racism.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Typo. I do not support laws favoring one race over another based on ethnicity. I have never said I did support such laws. You, however, have consistently said I do. Quote me. Where did I say I support laws favoring one race over another?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
