posted
I'm pretty sure if I keep saying this, eventually someone will hear me: if you can't agree on a definition of racism, this debate is pointless, and therefore a waste of time.
A few things everyone SHOULD know by now (but we'll say them anyway): 1.) No matter how well-constructed, well-researched, and well-defended your argument is, being inflammatory can only hurt you. 2.) Logical premises must have a basis in fact in order to represent the world. Dismissing facts is contrary to logic. If your opponent presents facts to you, saying that facts don't matter makes you wrong. If your opponent dismisses fact, there is no hope and you must just move on. (Note, this still leaves plenty of room to REFUTE information presented as fact, and to INTERPRET facts.) 3.) If you are unable to get into a discussion without getting ridiculous, you should probably rethink whether it's a good idea to get involved at all.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Dismissing facts is contrary to logic. If your opponent presents facts to you, saying that facts don't matter makes you wrong.
This is not true saxon. Fact: the earth is approx. 93,000,000 miles away from the sun.
My arguments have never been that facts don't matter, but rather that the specific facts that Leto brought up do not matter. Leto was trying to prove there there was racism in hiring practices. Since no one that I know of was disputing this, his facts were meaningless. One must build a cogent argument with the cited facts in order for them to matter at all.
Saxon, earlier you restated my position in a very good way. I would like to hear you, or anyone else restate the position of Leto, in a concise intelligent way. I honestly don't know what he was getting at. If someone out there does, please share. There seems to be a decent amount of people here who agree with him, so tell me what it is that you agree with. And don't just tell me that you agree that I am wrong, tell me what it is you think about this topic.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My parents cannot help her in paying for the expenses after the scholarship (ie, books, food, etc). So, she works. She does not do as well as the other students because she is working when she should be studying or working on projects. THe other students parents can afford to pay for everything.
This is not a racial problem. This is a wealth problem. I had to deal with this same issue, and others, in a big way.
Well, yes, in Starla's sister's case. However, she was obviously using this as an example that demonstrates how difficult it is to compete in a system in which the playing ground is not even. In fact, she says that this is what she is using the example to demonstrate. Why dismiss it out of hand? That's just deliberately obtuse.
Posts: 2945 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a present concern that is similar to Starla's example above.
I live with a girl in a house owned by her brother and her parents. Now, when we moved in, we paid equal rent, despite me not having access to the garage (it's a two-car garage) and having the much, much smaller room. At the time, I didn't mind so much, just being grateful to have a place to live and assuming that it would be fun.
It isn't, because we are not on equal ground. If I am upset with her (about anything), I can lump it or move out. If she's upset with me, she goes to her parents and asks them to kick me out. The parents (good people) try to stay out of it on fairness principles, but when it comes down to it, they want their daughter to be happy and do not require her to figure it out on her own - they bought the house for her. So, I have to either toady to my roommate or else find somewhere else to live.
It isn't merely a wealth problem - my salary is more than hers. The situation has arisen where she does not need to make an effort to make sure I am happy because she loses nothing if I'm not - the family she was born with will take care of things. I have to make sure she is happy or else put my living situation at risk.
This particular situation is not that big of a deal - and I deeply envy her a family that loves her. I can easily find another place to live - but what if everything was owned by her family?
In a larger scale, this is the power imbalance that affirmative action tries to redress. I'm not too thrilled with AA, but I'm more appalled at the alumni consideration - why should that have anything to do with it?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: However, she was obviously using this as an example that demonstrates how difficult it is to compete in a system in which the playing ground is not even. In fact, she says that this is what she is using the example to demonstrate. Why dismiss it out of hand?
Firstly, it demonstrates only that succeeding is not easy. Secondly, I have not dismissed it. If anything, this strengthens my position that the individual is responsible for his or her own actions. That people of all colors run into barriers when trying to succeed. Even those who are rich and appear to have an easy life, have issues of there own to deal with. So for someone to judge based on skin color that a group of people has a harder life, is ignoring many issues. Everyone has hardships, and it is each person's individual struggle with those hardships that determines their success.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok. So you are saying that black people don't really start from an inherently more difficult position in a society that descriminates against them... BUT, if they did (which they don't), it wouldn't matter anyway because they should just work harder?
Posts: 2945 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: So you are saying that black people don't really start from an inherently more difficult position in a society that descriminates against them...
While they do have a difficult position, to judge it and say that black people have a harder life than say, some poor white guy from a rural area is obsurd. Everyone has to deal with problems.
quote: it wouldn't matter anyway because they should just work harder?
Pretty much. Same as anyone who wants something they don't have. One must work in order to gain rewards. Some must work harder than others, that is how life works. There is no possible way to change this. Nor can I conceive of a better system than that which rewards hard work.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'm not saying whether or not they have a harder time than anyone else - you're saying they don't.
Okay, what then are you saying? Please, provide some perspectives of your own, I would like to know where you are coming from on all this.
quote:every man for himself capitalism that will save the day?
I know I have been over this many times in this thread, and more than once on the last page. Not immediately, but over time, yes. And I will stipulate that I advocate as unregulated as is reasonable. There must be some limits set by the government, although I prefer they be generous in their implement and rare in their occurance.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, since you claim to be so misunderstood, I'm just trying to clarify your position.
That said, I pretty much agree with Leto and Rakeesh's position in the argument. I do think racism remains a problem in America and I do think that white on black racism is a problem (more so than black on white racism). I also believe that a sytem built on racist inequalities is not inherently fair. I am, however, against affirmative action legislation.
Posts: 2945 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let me see if I can sum up what I think John was saying:
Including race, culture and ethnicity in the definition of one's identity is not racist, nor is the simple act of using such things as a part of how one identifies others. Racism only occurs when such criteria are used to qualify others as inferior.
As per above, a "colorblind" society is not really that great a goal, since it strips a person of a part of his identity to which he is entitled.
Real racism exists in America today, and it exists at levels that are much higher than can be considered negligible.
The effects of racism are felt more by non-white Americans.
White Americans, whether or not they are racist themselves, benefit from past racism, and that is not fair.
Non-white Americans, on the whole, have it worse than white Americans, and that is not fair.
The government can act to make things fair, and is neither morally wrong nor racist if and when it does so.
Applying strict capitalist principles to today's situation will result in non-white Americans continuing to remain near the bottom of the social and economic ladder, and will perpetuate racism.
posted
But, Robes, capitalism will not help racism, even over time. Unless, of course, everyone starts off evenly. But things are not so evenly distributed over the races in America.
Even if it were to eliminate racism, then you come up with another problem: classism. Instead of people being judged by how they look, they will be judged by their possesions.
Capitalism does not eliminate these problems, it perpetuates them. Poor people in capitalism believe they cannot obtain the level above them, so they do not try. Those who do try have a large chance of failing, because the higher paying jobs require more schooling, or, like my sister's case, more invovled schooling. They have to work outside of school, and it may get in the way and cause them to fail. There are people who do rise above, but out of all the people I have known, there is only one whom I can think of that made it through unscathed, and they really busted themselves for it.
I know you're going to say this has nothing to do with racism. It does. It is a rebuttal to your argument that capitalism, over time, will help the situation.
Posts: 463 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Poor people in capitalism believe they cannot obtain the level above them, so they do not try.
While the poor may believe this, of course they are incorrect. Look at how many rich people there were in 1990, and how many there are now. There is a huge difference, these are people who believed that they could move up.
Welfare and other government handouts teach the poor that they cannot make it without the government. That is the shameful state of our current wealth-redistribution system. It takes the benefits of capitalism, and buries them in fear.
quote: Let me see if I can sum up what I think John was saying:
Thank you, Saxon.
Ethics Grad.:
quote: I do think racism remains a problem in America
I agree.
quote: I do think that white on black racism is a problem
I agree.
quote: (more so than black on white racism).
I disagree. I think this form of racism is just as prevalent, although it manifests itself in different ways. Leto showed how white on black racism shows up. However, there is almost no attention payed to black on white racism because it is politically disasterous to even discuss the issue(more proof that minorities are not forgotten in politics).
quote: I also believe that a sytem built on racist inequalities is not inherently fair.
Our entire economy is not built on racist inqualities. The slave economy of the south was to be sure, however the industrial economy of the north east was not built on racism. Certainly it existed, but to say the entire economy is BUILT on it is folly.
quote:against affirmative action legislation.
I agree, and politely ask if you have any suggestions for changing our current system which you say is "based on racial inequalities".
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I don't see how non-white-on-white racism could possibly be as prevalent as white-on-non-white racism
Amongst those applicable. Certainly there are more whites than non-whites. However, a good many of these are not racist.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Agreed. I think this takes us back to the point that racism is an individual problem, and as such, may not be classified as any one race's fault, and that the solution does not lie with any one race. It lies with each individual person.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Starla* said: ...capitalism will not help racism...
I think we need to be clear about the difference between racism and the effects of racism such as poverty due to unequal opportunity.
I don’t think Robes ever said capitalism would help racism – I think his theory is that capitalism is the best system for ensuring equal opportunity and eliminating the economic effects of racial discrimination, and that attempting to eliminate the economic disparity between the races by policies that favor one race over another are 1) inefficient and 2) causes of increased racial tension and resentment.
I think one of his underlying assumptions to this theory is that the legal and de facto legal barriers that hindered racial economic equality are largely gone in 2003 America.
I’m not taking a position one way or the other, but I think this misunderstanding of Robes’ viewpoint has persisted throughout the thread.
Dagonee PS, I know you’ve elaborated well beyond this, but if I’ve misstated the core of your position, Robes, then I’m as lost as most of the others on this thread seem to be.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I know you’ve elaborated well beyond this, but if I’ve misstated the core of your position, Robes, then I’m as lost as most of the others on this thread seem to be.
You're right on, Dags.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
I can't even walk away from an argument without being invoked repeatedly as an excuse for who was "right" and who was "wrong." So, in the effort to make one last clarification—and, indeed, to give everyone a reason to let the thread die—and address something Choco said.
My point, from the beginning, is that there are many people who are claiming the beginning of this thread is a "black problem," and can only be solved by black communities or "the" black community in general. Of course, this isn't an exact quote of what people like Robespierre and others have said, but it is, for all intents and purposes, the basic gist of what was said (just not in so many words). This type of thinking is not only openly divisive, but it promotes a "not my problem" attitude that is, indeed, a problem that originated and has been propagated by that very mode of thinking. I go even further to say that this type of thinking is made worse by an underlying social stratification that—while not being legally sanctioned nor socially heralded—allows for an inequality of life based on ethnicity and gender. Furthermore, this type of thinking is historically based on an ethnocentric ideal for how society should work, based on the point of view of the most common denominator of those in political, economic, and social power throughout key periods dating back to both the origin and the "come-uppance" of this nation as a world power. That point of view—often referred to (in the pejorative tense) as WASP—is that of a white male, typically of protestant affiliation (though not necessarily religious themselves).
While it may be a regular occurance to have people rail against this group in the deroggatory sense, one cannot deny that throughout American history, it is always a strong white male who has led the nation, who has been the most wealthy, and who has been seen as a religious/social leader... sometimes one person taking on more than one role. While there have been numerous times (mid-1900s in particular) where a strong black leader spoke out in strong support of civil rights, their recognition has almost always been posthumus, and they rarely held positions of actual power or political influence (with a few very debatable exceptions). All of these times, however, the economic and social situations of the day were dictated by people who were not directly representative of their cause. Though the cause for civil rights has, over the course of a century and culminating in the 1950-60s, made leaps and bounds, it has yet to produce a socio-economic status quo that places people of all ethnic background on equal social and political footing. In addition, minorities (and, notably, all women) still average lower pay scales in equal jobs with equal experience and credentials to this day.
This is not speculation. This is fact. You don't have to believe me—look up national averages of income and employment by 'race' (in quotes because others use that word as a qualifier, though I will not... we are all of the same race). Look up national positions of power—the number of elected officials in office is hardly representative as a whole of the population, both in ethnicity and gender (though things are moving in the right direction). There are numerous studies done by various sources on general hiring practices, by ethnicity, by gender, and by both.
What this creates is a modern social environment that—while not being overtly racist or encouraging of racism (quite the opposite in some cases)—is heavily biased towards males of white ethnicity (and, to a smaller degree, of protestant upbringing). There is no question of this: a white male earns more on average than white females or minority males or females; national income levels are largely stratified, with whites taking up most of the upper, upper-middle, and middle class, and minorities more heavily concentrated on the lower-middle and lower classes; a higher percentage of both hate crimes and egregious discrimination cases are perpetrated by whites on minorities.
Now to address the issue of perspective.
What this social environment creates is a difference in general perspective between ethnicity and gender, making it difficult to bridge and properly address. Indeed, only the most salient of cases ever get wide coverage, which leaves much unaddressed and therefore out of sight (and out of mind). In turn, those of different backgrounds and developmental environments will not have an understanding of the common perceptions and issues of other backgrounds and developmental environments. However, the product of one environment is still the basis on which every other is still judged—in modern America, this is still that of the white, middle-class (or upper-middle-class, depending on the source) male of protestant heritage. Upbringing will certainly differ from person to person, but with little exception, the general perspective regarding opportunity, challenge (moral and economical), adversity remains pretty much the same. The issue that is rarely seriously addressed is that there is a genuine difference in perspective on opportunity, challenge, and adversity depending on the person's ethnicity. This perspective is not something we inherit by genetics, yet it is based primarily on genetics.
On the bright side, these different perspectives have become more and more overlapped, especially within the last twenty years. This by no means suggests that the perspectives are anywhere near being the same, however. The levels of opportunity have also greatly increased to cover a broader scope in society, but this also does not mean that opportunity has been rendered equal for all—the stratification is still there, and old attitudes are still underlying (regardless of sanction or acceptance). The difference in perspective between a poor black kid growing up in the "ghetto" and the middle-class white kid in the suburbs is going to be apparent, but the perspective does not change that drastically when the comparison is done on the same economic class... the only thing that changes is how they react to that perspective. Because of this perspective difference, it's difficult to bring a non-adversarial presence to discussion when racism is concerned, because it sets all sides on a defensive for different reasons: no one wants to be openly aggressive but no one wants to make concessions.
A counterproductive method of trying to handle this unique and nervous situation is to take a stance of "colorblindness." This is, by nature, a passive technique, and is most often espoused by whites than any other group. The reason it is counterproductive is that it requires minorities to disengage themselves from a factor that gives them part of their definition of individuality. This is not generally understood by whites, mostly because so many American caucasians have multi-national lineages, with roots in many nationalities. To most whites, integration is a given, with individuality asserted primarily through "things" and "isms" and the common groups they socialize with. To the black or the hispanic (or other minorities), this basically asks them to disengage from an understood group and submit to the perspective and standards of a group that they have little more than a superficial understanding of and accept it, come what may. This places them in a position of even more disadvantage, from that perspective, and could arguably be taken to the extreme of servitude (from their perspective). While not openly intending offense or ill intent, a "colorblind" outlook is asking minorities to give something up and accept that the majority has given up predilections without question. A position of "colorblind outlook" asks for little from the majority and much from the minority (from their respective points of view)—hardly a 'fair' approach.
A lesson in integration can be had from a long-view look at the integration of Jews into societies throughout history, most notably modern Western society. Being Jewish is not just an ethnicity, nor is it only a religious affiliation, though it can be one or both simultaneously. While there have been times throughout history when being recognized as being of Hebrew descent was a pariah, the Jewish community has enjoyed an increased level of equal opportunity and acceptance without having to give up the identifier of "Jew" to gain it. This integration was not had through a "colorblind" mentality, because the difference usually had little to do with the skin tone. Perhaps this played to the advantage of Jews, but that speculation doesn't take into account many other identifiers that would set them apart, not the least of which being the different Sabbath, kashrut law, and especially in Europe, circumcision. Add to this prejudicial stereotypes, and there is plenty of ways that they could have (and have been) separated from the rest of society. Over the years, through plenty of perserverence, this has changed for the better (for the most part). Considering the long history of continual prejudice against Jews, they have managed to maintain a social identity while simultaneously integrating into a more equal environment with modern society. While this example may help to shed some future light on possible solutions for the future, it is mainly to show that better integration can be had without requiring that a group cease identifying themselves as a group before being "allowed" (rhetorically) to be considered on equal terms.
My continual assertion with those whom I have argued with is the error that they do not sufficiently understand the perspective of American society outside of their own group, yet still demand that minorities are racist because they use their ethnicity as an identifier to their individuality. Another assertion is that "colorblindness" will not solve anything, and in fact creates more adversity. Another assertion is that there is indeed a stratification of opportunity between ethnicities, and unless that is addressed first by the majority, it will never be sufficiently addressed.
saxon75, I thank you for breaking it down into quick summaries.
Choco, you misquote me when you remove the context in which I stated those things to Robespierre: I pointed out that his perspective not only jibes right along with the general white male perspective, but that his responses from that perspective only serve to maintain an unequal environment in America. I also stated my opinion that Robespierre is both in college and is a late-teen/early-twenty-something who has had little experience outside of the hypothetical, making it clear that the hypothetical and the different perspectives and viewpoints of the real world do not walk side by side. While I'm sure it's friendly and politically correct to assume that the scholarly hypothetical and the multi-leveled real experience are of equal value, it is not a posture of dismissal I am assuming, it is from the position of having experienced both worlds and seen how infinitely different they really are. If Robespierre would like to clear that issue up as a misconception and tell us all that he is an office worker in his mid-thirties, that'll be fine and dandy and I'll admit my miscalculation. However, the issue that his point of view not being the end-all, be-all of how the world works stands firm—he is operating from a singular perspective, and to address racism from only one singular perspective will always result in a skewed outlook.
And finally:
quote:Our entire economy is not built on racist inqualities. The slave economy of the south was to be sure, however the industrial economy of the north east was not built on racism. Certainly it existed, but to say the entire economy is BUILT on it is folly.
To equate racism solely with slavery—which is exactly what you did in this quote—is the true folly, and a point I already made earlier, talking about the flaw in trying to assume that the end of slavery and the removal of Jim Crow laws somehow changed individuals' minds about the ethnicities that were already viewed as inferior. And until you can prove that minority-on-white racism is actually more prevalent nationwide than the opposite direction, I'm going to exercise my right to claim "bullshit" on that, and assure you that every statistic I have ever read states very clearly that it is definitely the other way around by a large margin.
And time for the personal story, since so many seem to have one:
I was born in Baltimore and grew up in that area until I was 8. I then moved to New Jersey, and grew up not far from Philadelphia. However, the cities I lived near have less to do with the story than does my family. You see, I have two mulatto cousins, one of whom is near my age and grew up with me. To say that—even as a child—the bias was not apparent would be a lie. It was present in school, in public, and as we grew up, even when it came to looking for work. You see, he happens to be in the same general field of work I am, and it's amazing to notice how much harder he has to work to get a job. In fact, I could survive totally from contracting, if I wanted, but he has to find salary work—at a lower salary. Even something as innocuous as going out to eat has resulted in incidents where people display their bias. And even during periods where I didn't spend a lot of time with my cousins, I have personally experienced a fraction of the minority-on-white racism than I have seen white-on-minority, and this is even when living through high school in an over 90% black project. I think that many whites who experience a smidgen of the discrimination other ethnicities experience regularly—sometimes on a daily basis—tend to exaggerate the experience to a level that blurs the reality that their experience was tiny in comparison to the regular prejudice that goes on every day, in many parts of the nation.
And with that, I ask that no one continue to invoke "Leto was wrong because he's a jerk" or "Leto's not posting so I'll insult him some more" or "Leto deserves my insults because I don't like him" posts. If you have something you specifically want to take up with me, then my e-mail is available. If you want to continue to discuss racism, I could not care less. I've said my piece six ways to Friday, as has pretty much everyone else. In my opinion, it seems everyone's mind is already made up. I'm not saying I have nothing more to say on the subject, I'm saying it's pretty clear that anyone who disagrees with me is firmly of the position that I'm a prick, and wants nothing to do with conversation with me except to toss more insults or knee-jerk reactions. If you have something to say to me, you know how to reach me. This includes you, Choco, in case you have trouble understanding anything I said.
(note: the standard 'five-post-after' buffer for comments like "don't let the door smack ya" and other heckles is active, allowing for the normal wind-down before regular posting commences)
Posts: 6907 | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged |
Any way, I just wanted to clear a point with Dagonee---that was a typo. I wanted to say that capitalism will not help get rid of racism.
And, I know, I'm parroting, but, I really do agree with Leto.
I'll say it again, we all come from the same Mother. We need to teach that early on, all other problems must be sorted later.
Posts: 463 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Starla* said: Any way, I just wanted to clear a point with Dagonee---that was a typo. I wanted to say that capitalism will not help get rid of racism.
That’s how I interpreted what you said. Again, I don’t think anyone’s saying capitalism will help get rid of racism. They’re saying it’s the best way to get rid of the economic inequities caused by racism.
I didn't think of it that way. You're right in that. But, I still stand by my opinion when I say it will create classism instead.
Posts: 463 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Leto II said: I’m saying it's pretty clear that anyone who disagrees with me is firmly of the position that I'm a prick, and wants nothing to do with conversation with me except to toss more insults or knee-jerk reactions.
Some people who disagree with a large portion of your position have not insulted you nor reacted in a knee-jerk fashion.
I think the major problem with this thread has been its devolution into a choice between two views, leaving little room for discussion by those who disagree with both.
quote: I think the major problem with this thread has been its devolution into a choice between two views, leaving little room for discussion by those who disagree with both.
I think the last few pages have been well stocked with other opinions from people like Morbo, Starla, et al. There are only as many voices as there are people willing to speak.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Leto, I've got to say that was a very well-worded post. There's a ton of information in there that I agree whole-heartedly with, and quite a bit of information that I'll have to chew on for a bit.
I understand better now your ideas on the perspectives situation. Going into the discussion as someone who hasn't specifically grown up with the discrimination that blacks face does cloud my perception a bit. You could very well be right that if I take the position of "I won't discriminate against you," it does give access, but doesn't address an equal starting point.
The idea of how Jews have made their places in societies wherein they can obtain equality and their own identity is an interesting point. How best can it be used in this situation? What can we all learn from it?
Also, I do have to ask, are we speaking purely of American blacks, or all minorities? Currently, Hispanics make up the largest minority segment in the United States. From an outward perspective and using generalizations, it appears that the two minority groups are going about things very differently in making their place in this country.
Please understand, I am not trying to make any racist remarks here, but stating what I see, which may, of course, be incorrect. The Latino community is one of the most active in creating and promoting new businesses in the United States. They have seen the opportunities before them and then seized on the chance to make their place. There are also so many immigrants, legal and illegal, breaking their backs in the agricultural fields and manufacturing.
As someone who spent years in an agricultural area, I got to meet and be around numerous migrant workers. These folks worked 10-12 hour days at minimum wage (that was a guarantee at least where I lived) six days a week. On Friday afternoons, you would see them lined up outside of the Western Union office, sending almost all of their hard-earned money home to Mexico (and other countries) to support families back home. In time, many brought their families here and became a permanent part of the community, a very valued part of the community.
In short, these folks saw the promise of the American dream, and no matter how far behind they started, they worked hard to achieve it. They came here with no sense of entitlement, but every sense of their success was purely predicated on the work they do, be it in a field or restaurant or manufacturing plant or running a Central American market.
There are numerous examples within the black community of the same work and hope and even greater successes. But just a simple roll around the TV dial or radio tuner points at a culture that may be fighting against just that. I understand that the projected image may have no basis in reality, but does it work against the black segment of the population. I see videos, hear songs and lifestyles projects that put more emphasis on the "bling bling" than the work that goes into getting it. There's also a level of ghetto chic gangsta that is pushed in an effort at "keeping it real" or somesuch. Is this the real black culture or just, sadly, the modern version of a minstrel show?
quote: These folks [migrant workers and Latinos] worked 10-12 hour days at minimum wage (that was a guarantee at least where I lived) six days a week. On Friday afternoons, you would see them lined up outside of the Western Union office, sending almost all of their hard-earned money home to Mexico (and other countries) to support families back home. I
Amen. Money from foreign workers back to their families is a huge part of the economies of Mexico, C. and S. America and the Carribean.
I have worked with many Mexicans and other Latinos in restaurants. When I was younger I would hear comments like "Mexicans are lazy" and other such nonsense. Being young and inexperienced, I would take such comments at face value.
But today if I hear that, I will tell the speaker that they are completely full of it (if I am in a polite mood.) Anyone who says that Mexicans or other Latinos are lazy is clueless, knows nothing about them and/or has never worked with them. Most of them work harder than I ever have, for less money too.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Robespierre said: There are only as many voices as there are people willing to speak.
Or as many as are willing to wade through a bunch of back and forth accusations of racism, ad hominem attacks, and cross-thread insults, not to mention the “I think XXX was nastier than YYY” posts to find the substantive comments and people issuing commands about who is qualified to post in the thread.
It’s a matter of those opinions being drowned out by the hysterical volume of the thread.
"My point, from the beginning, is that there are many people who are claiming the beginning of this thread is a "black problem," and can only be solved by black communities or "the" black community in general. Of course, this isn't an exact quote of what people like Robespierre and others have said, but it is, for all intents and purposes, the basic gist of what was said (just not in so many words)."
Ok, here's suggestion number one, My genius idea: How about reading what other people say instead of making up their arguments for them and then going off on how they're wrong with a bunch of largely either obvious or irrelevant facts? If you can't do that, then I suggest that the arguments you make up for them are at least a little less unethical and offensive, and thereby create less strife and leave more room for inteligent and serious discussion.
quote: While there have been numerous times (mid-1900s in particular) where a strong black leader spoke out in strong support of civil rights, their recognition has almost always been posthumus, and they rarely held positions of actual power or political influence (with a few very debatable exceptions). All of these times, however, the economic and social situations of the day were dictated by people who were not directly representative of their cause.
Wow, I'm very impressed by your knoledge of history. Ancient history. Ancient irrelevant history. Ancient ENTIRELY irrelevant history. Hmmm, let's see how much I know... Hey, I remember, there was a civil war! As I recall, Slaves ended up getting free, but not much in the way of political rights, and some other stuff... how's that, is my BSing as good as yours? Cause it's certainly as relevant to the topic at hand- which, I'd like to point out, is about racism in America, NOW. (DUH)
quote: Though the cause for civil rights has, over the course of a century and culminating in the 1950-60s, made leaps and bounds, it has yet to produce a socio-economic status quo that places people of all ethnic background on equal social and political footing.
Your historical knoledge now dissapoints me. There's this thing that happened about that time, and it was called The Civil Rights Movement, it was lead largely by a guy named Martin Luther King, Jr., and it didn't just make leaps and bounds against racism, it actually legally clarified the constitutional rights of all people. In fact, it had nothing to do with "socio-economic status", it had more to with "I have a dream..." a speech by MLK. Perhaps you should read it sometime-really read it-, it's very inspiring.
quote: In addition, minorities (and, notably, all women) still average lower pay scales in equal jobs with equal experience and credentials to this day.
DO THEY REALLY??? I had no idea! Remarkable! And Extremely relevant to this topic I'm sure.
quote: a white male earns more on average than white females or minority males or females; national income levels are largely stratified, with whites taking up most of the upper, upper-middle, and middle class, and minorities more heavily concentrated on the lower-middle and lower classes;
Do They really? That's almost unbelievable... but I think I have a solution: Let's just kill all males, all white people, and all rich people! That'll solve the problem for sure. Or, if you want to go for a less violent solution, you could start up a national robbing society that targets only them.
quote: What this creates is a modern social environment that—while not being overtly racist or encouraging of racism (quite the opposite in some cases)—is heavily biased towards males of white ethnicity (and, to a smaller degree, of protestant upbringing)
Prove to me that this is created by the other unconditionally or practically either one, and I might take back some of the nasty things I'm saying. What you appear to be suggesting is not that inequality perpetuates itself, which I would agree with to some degree, but that un-equal demographics perpetuate themselves, which I disagree with entirely, because even if this sometimes appears to be the case, it is post-hoc fallacy at work. In truth, all evidence suggests that the demographic is changing favorably, not the other way around.
quote: Indeed, only the most salient of cases ever get wide coverage
OOOh yeah. All those unsalient cases. Namely, the ones that didn't happen but that you could claim did and quickly get good a perfectly good public servant fired or discredited- Very Quickly, because the system is biased against, not for, that public servant.
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: My genius idea: How about reading what other people say instead of making up their arguments for them and then going off on how they're wrong with a bunch of largely either obvious or irrelevant facts?
That *is* a revolutionary idea!
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Classy post, suntranafs." Yes, Yes, thank you very much, thank you very much. I thought so myself . Hey, sarcsatic praise is better than none at all! rright? Anyway, I wasn't done, I had to get off comp. suntranafs rant:(continued)
quote: In turn, those of different backgrounds and developmental environments will not have an understanding of the common perceptions and issues of other backgrounds and developmental environments.
Very wise and enlightened I'm sure. Perhaps even true to some extent, assuming you're dealing with people who haven't got but a very little in the way of diversity of background, and that they've pretty much been boxed up their whole lives, apart from other local backgrounds and environments.
quote: However, the product of one environment is still the basis on which every other is still judged—in modern America, this is still that of the white, middle-class (or upper-middle-class, depending on the source) male of protestant heritage.
Rrrreally. Just, precisely, how is it judged, praytell? Do we go and look at white peoples' turds and black peoples' turds and say: 'hmm, that turd of that black guy sure is uglier than that white guy's turd'? Do we say: 'well, yes, the white guy and the black guy both make 20$/hr but the white guy buys pringles and the black guy corn chips and more people buy pringles than corn chips, so therefore that white guy's money is better than the black guy's, buck for buck' Jeez man, make clear what you mean or for G-d's sake don't say it!
quote: The issue that is rarely seriously addressed is that there is a genuine difference in perspective on opportunity, challenge, and adversity depending on the person's ethnicity.
Yes, that is rarely seriously addressed, and here is why: The fact of life is that the majority of human beings, of all ethnicities are not creative, and they do not seek with any great effort to better their positions in life. They tend to be sheep, and to accept what is given them, and this is neither right nor wrong, but at this point in the moral evolution of the human race, fact. Yet every once in a while there will be a fish who refuses to swim with the stream. Some of these will continue to swim against it no matter what, no matter the cost. Many will swim against it for a time, and if encouraged, if a way opens for them, continue. So in our legal and eduactional system we need to keep a door open for these people, and it's actucally being done pretty darned well in this country right now.
quote: A counterproductive method of trying to handle this unique and nervous situation is to take a stance of "colorblindness." This is, by nature, a passive technique, and is most often espoused by whites than any other group. The reason it is counterproductive is that it requires minorities to disengage themselves from a factor that gives them part of their definition of individuality.
Bad, Bad, Leto. Now you're playing cat and mouse. First you're talkiing about what whites should do/think about black individuality and then about what blacks should do/think about black indivduality as if they were the same thing. It ain't necc-sess-sarily so. That I have Modawk heritage and have a relative who was a great warrior is and therefore should be signifigant to me, but it should not neccessarily be signifigant to you.
quote: This is not generally understood by whites, mostly because so many American caucasians have multi-national lineages, with roots in many nationalities.
Actually, when it's not, if it's not, among black or whites, it's because they were born a. often rich b. often members of a cultural majority and c. Exclusively with their heads up their arses and without respect for their heritage.
First, go to the top of the page and read my post. I recommend trying to follow those guidelines if you want to be taken seriously.
Second, a historical perspective is rarely, if ever, "ENTIRELY irrelevant" when trying to understand current events. If we do not understand history, we do not understand causes. If we do not understand causes, we understand little, indeed.
Third, whether or not you find Leto's information about the correlation of race and gender to salary amazing, it is both true and verifiable.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Prolix.: "Wow, just when I thought this thread had a chance at being reasonable."
Hem, well yes, sorry about that, old chap, yet I can't help but feel that with people like Leto around, it's(and Pardon the metaphore) kill or be killed.
Ok, Sax, I followed #3, as far as #1 goes, and I quote " Dismissing facts is contrary to logic. If your opponent presents facts to you, saying that facts don't matter makes you wrong. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is not true saxon. Fact: the earth is approx. 93,000,000 miles away from the sun."
"Second, a historical perspective is rarely, if ever, "ENTIRELY irrelevant" when trying to understand current events. If we do not understand history, we do not understand causes. If we do not understand causes, we understand little, indeed."
Whatever, boss, I'm not nockin' history, just nockin' BSing.
"Third, whether or not you find Leto's information about the correlation of race and gender to salary amazing, it is both true and verifiable."
C'mon man, have a little insight, I know it's true, I was being severely sarcastic.
Oh, One more little detail: I broke rule#2 Sorry but it was really fun trashing his huge but stupid(again, sorry) argument (that which I got to, that si)
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Suntranafs, I see a line of mine in your last post there... without quotes or any attribution.
I am not quite sure what you were getting at with your posts, but your tone is certainly no good. Perhaps now that you've had some time to sleep it off, you can clarify?
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Hem, well yes, sorry about that, old chap, yet I can't help but feel that with people like Leto around, it's(and Pardon the metaphore) kill or be killed.
First of all, Leto's post to which you responded was delivered in an eminently calm and reasonable tone. So you had no reason to jump on him. But even if he had been totally inflammatory, two wrongs don't make a right.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Amen, Sax. If this is how these people are like in the real world it looks like there are a lot of one-eyed, one-toothed people who post on Hatrack.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm tempted to say everyone who posts in serious threads, but that's probably a huge generalization. But it certainly seems as though everyone who steps in cannot let something they regard as a personal slight go unpunished. Without fail, within every serious thread there are a few people going at each other and any point they're trying to make is lost in the midst of their efforts at making the other person sound like an idiot.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's an opinion piece that I think applies in an important way.
quote:What I celebrate as a source of pride and self-esteem is the fact that I have brown eyes. You say, "Williams, that goes to prove what we've been saying all along. You're a lunatic! Is having brown eyes some kind of accomplishment?" Such a response is proof positive that you've missed out on an important part of today's college education. Diversity worship and multiculturalism are currency and cause for celebration at just about any college. If one is black, brown, yellow or white, the prevailing thought is that he should take pride and celebrate that fact even though, just as in the case of my eye color, he had nothing to do with it. The multiculturist and diversity crowd see race as an achievement. In my book race might be an achievement, worthy of considerable celebration, only if a person was born white and though his effort and diligence became black.
For the multiculturist/diversity crowd, culture, ideas, customs, arts and skills are a matter of racial membership where one has no more control over his culture than his race. That's a racist idea but it's politically correct racism. It says that one's convictions, character and values are not determined by personal judgement and choices but genetically determined. In other words, as yesteryear's racists held: race determines identity.
The multiculturists are right in saying that in a just society people of all races and cultures should be equal in the eyes of the law. But their argument borders on idiocy when they argue that one culture cannot be judged superior to another and to do so is eurocentrism. For them different cultural values are morally equivalent. That's unbridled nonsense. Ask your multiculturalist friends: Is forcible female genital mutilation, as practiced in nearly 30 sub-Saharan Africa and Middle East countries, a morally equivalent cultural value? Slavery is practiced in Northern Sudan; is it morally equivalent? In most of the Middle East, there are numerous limits placed on women such as prohibitions on driving, employment and education. Under Islamic law, in some countries, women adulterers face death by stoning and thieves face the punishment of having their hand severed. Are these cultural values morally equivalent, superior or inferior to ours?
Western values are superior to all others. Why? The indispensable achievement of the West was the concept of individual rights. It's the idea that individuals have certain inalienable rights and individuals do not exist to serve government but governments exist to protect these inalienable rights. It took until the 17th century for that idea to arrive on the scene and mostly through the works of English philosophers such as John Locke and David Hume.
While western values are superior to all others, one need not be a westerner to hold Western values. A person can be Chinese, Japanese, Jewish, African or Arab and hold Western values. It's no accident that western values of reason and individual rights have produced unprecedented health, life expectancy, wealth and comfort for the ordinary person. There's an indisputable positive relationship between liberty and standards of living.
Western values are by no means secure. They're under ruthless attack by the academic elite on college campuses across America. These people want to replace personal liberty with government control; they want to replace equality with entitlement; they want to halt progress in the name of protecting the environment. As such they pose a much greater threat to our way of life than any terrorist or rogue nation. Multiculturalism and diversity are a cancer on our society and ironically, with our tax dollars and charitable donations, we're feeding it.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
