Happy Atheist Forum

Just to clear it up before anyone starts thinking this, I am not racist and I believe it's wrong to be racist... And I'm from Kentucky, so that's good xD

In the past 100+ years, the U.S. has come a long way when it comes to racism. Went from Blacks being slaves and saw and thought of as property, to them being free but still had a lot of restrictions, to segregation and the racism dramatically lowering, to where we are now, a minimal of racists... Well, at least people who admit it.
But are Blacks (I don't say African American, cause MOST aren't) and Whites TRULY equal?
When it comes to political terms, I do believe so, unless there is like some weird law or act I don't know about, then yes. But socially, NO.

I don't understand how it's like Blacks and Mexicans (for example) can say certain things and it be fine, but if a white person says it, its racist... Like for example, the "N word". I'm not saying that I should be able to go around and call every black person I see one, but I just don't see why Blacks can go around and say it to even a white guy and it be fine, but if I say it, ALL HELL BREAKS LOOSE OH SHIT RACIST (most likely). I know that is was an offensive term used a while back, but I thought the U.S. was past this... People really shouldn't care, it's just a word... I mean come on, someone calls a white person Honky, it's fine, or Cracker, but white's can't say the "N word"... Now according to South Park, white people just don't understand, but that's not the point... Lol wow I can't believe I said that much on it...

Then again, like certain jokes... White people can't really say SOME black jokes, but blacks can say like any white joke (even if they ALL suck...)... I just find this stuff amazing.



Now, I am NOT saying that all whites should go around calling blacks the "N word" freely and whenever, because that would just start conflict, and it would kind of ruin the word, but it should not not be ok if a white person does, or says a black joke or something like that... Know what I mean? American society is weird...

Are Blacks & White truly equal? Intrinsically, yes. In society, no.

There's an area of scholarship called Critical Race Theory. Sounds like you might be interested in it. There's a subset called Whiteness Studies. You may be interested in that, too. Actually, judging by your post, I'd say you should read this article: White Whine by Tim Wise (http://www.zmag.org/zspace/commentaries/1901). It's not a very long read. In fact, I'll put it here in a spoiler tag. I suggest every White person reads it as it addresses a lot of the feelings White people have (a number of which you have expressed in your post).

[spoiler:1kf04r4a]White Whine: Reflections on the Brain-Rotting Properties of Privilege

April, 20 2004
By Tim Wise

To truly understand a nation, a culture, or its people, it helps to know what they take for granted.

After all, sometimes the things that go unspoken are more powerful than the spoken word, if for no other reason than the tendency of unspoken assumptions to reinforce core ways of thinking, feeling and acting, without ever having to be verbalized (and thus subjected to challenge) at all.

What's more, when people take certain things for granted, anything that goes against the grain of what they perceive as "normal" will tend to stand out like a sore thumb, and invite a hostility that seems reasonable, at least to those dispensing it, precisely because their unspoken assumptions have gone uninterrogated for so long.

Thus, every February I encounter people who are apoplectic at the thought of Black History Month, and who insist with no sense of irony or misgiving that there should be no such thing, since, after all, there is no White History Month--a position to which they can only adhere because they have taken for granted that "American history" as told to them previously was comprehensive and accurate, as opposed to being largely the particular history of the dominant group.

In other words, the normalcy of the white narrative, which has rendered every month since they popped out of their momma's wombs White History Month, escapes them, and makes the efforts of multiculturalists seem to be the unique break with an otherwise neutral color-blindness.

Sorta' like those who e-mail me on a semi-regular basis to insist, as if they have just stumbled upon a truth of unparalleled profundity, that there should be an Ivory Magazine to balance out Ebony, or that we need a White Entertainment Television network to balance out BET, or a NAAWP to balance out the NAACP.

Again, these dear souls ignore what is obvious to virtually all persons of color but which remains unseen by those whose reality gets to be viewed as the norm: namely, that there are already two Ivory Magazines--Vogue and Cosmopolitan; that there are several WETs, which just so happen to go by the names of CBS, NBC and ABC; and that the Fortune 500, U.S. Congress and Fraternal Orders of Police are all doing a pretty good job holding it down for us white folks on the organizational front. Just because the norm is not racially-named, doesn't mean it isn't racialized.

Likewise the ongoing backlash against affirmative action, by those who seem to believe that opportunity would truly be equal in the absence of these presumably unjust efforts to ensure access to jobs and higher education for persons of color.

We are to believe that before affirmative action things were fine, and that were such efforts abolished now, things would return to this utopic state of affairs: to hell with the persistent evidence that people of color continue to face discrimination in employment, housing, education and all other institutional settings in the U.S.

So if the University of Michigan gives applicants of color twenty points on a 150-point admission scale, so as to promote racial diversity and balance out the disadvantages to which such students are often subjected in their K-12 schooling experience, that is seen as unfair racial preference.

But when the same school gives out 16 points to kids from the lily-white Upper Peninsula, or four points for children of overwhelmingly white alumni, or ten points for students who went to the state's "top" schools (who will be disproportionately white), or 8 points for those who took a full slate of Advanced Placement classes in high schools (which classes are far less available in schools serving students of color), this is seen as perfectly fair, and not at all racially preferential.

What's more, the whites who received all those bonus points due to their racial and class position will not be thought of by anyone as having received unearned advantages, in spite of the almost entirely ascriptive nature of the categories into which they fell that qualified them for such bonuses. No matter their "qualifications," it will be taken for granted that any white student at a college or University belongs there.

This is why Jennifer Gratz, the lead plaintiff in the successful "reverse discrimination" suit against Michigan's undergraduate affirmative action policy, found it a supreme injustice that a few dozen black, Latino and American Indian students were admitted ahead of her, despite having lower SATs and grades; but she thought nothing of the fact that more than 1400 other white students also were admitted ahead of her and her co-plaintiffs, despite having lower scores and grades.

"Lesser qualified" whites are acceptable, you see, while "lesser qualified" people of color must be eliminated from their unearned perches of opportunity. This is the kind of racist logic that people like Gratz, who now heads up the state?s anti-affirmative action initiative with the financial backing of Ward Connerly, find acceptable.

This kind of logic also explains the effort of whites at Roger Williams University to start a "white scholarship fund," on the pretense that scholarships for students of color are unfair and place whites at a disadvantage.

This, despite the unmentioned fact that about 93 percent of all college scholarship money goes to whites; despite the fact that students of color at elite and expensive colleges come from families with about half the average income of whites; despite the fact that there are scholarships for pretty much every kind of student under the sun, including children of Tupperware dealers, kids whose parents raise horses, kids who are left-handed, kids whose families descend from the founding fathers: you name it, and there's money available for it.

While there are plenty of whites unable to afford college, the fault for this unhappy reality lies not with minority scholarships, but rather with the decisions of almost exclusively white University elites to raise the price of higher education into the stratosphere, to the detriment of most everyone.

But to place blame where it really belongs, on rich white people, would be illogical. After all, we take it for granted that one day we too might be wealthy, and we wouldn?t want others to question our decisions and prerogatives come that day either.

Better to blame the dark-skinned for our hardship, since we can take it for granted that they're powerless to do anything about it.

Whites, as it turns out, take most everything for granted in this country; which makes perfect sense, because dominant groups usually have that privilege.

We take for granted that we won't be racially profiled even when members of our group engage in criminality at a disproportionate rate, whether the crime is corporate fraud, serial killing, child molestation, abortion clinic bombings or drunk driving. And indeed we won't be.

We take it for granted that our terrorism won't result in whites as a group being viewed with generalized suspicion. So Tim McVeigh represents only Tim McVeigh, while Mohammed Atta gets to serve as a proxy for every other person who either has his name or follows a prophet of that name.

We take it for granted that our dishonesty will be viewed in purely individualistic terms, while the dishonesty of others will result in aspersions being cast upon the entire group from which they come.

Thus, Jayson Blair's deceptions at the New York Times provoke howls of indignation at any effort to provide opportunity to journalists of color--because after all, diversity and quality are proven by this one man's exploits to be incompatible--but Jack Kelley's equally egregious fabrications and fraud at USA Today fails to prompt calls for an end to hiring white guys as reporters, or for scrutinizing them more carefully, or for closing down whatever avenues of opportunity have helped keep the profession so white for so long.

We take it for granted that we will never be viewed as one of those dreaded "special interest" groups, precisely because whatever serves our interests is presumed universal.

So, for example, while politicians who pursue the support of black, Latino, gay or other "minority" voters are said to be pandering to special interests, those who bend over backwards to secure the backing of NASCAR dads and soccer moms, whose racial composition is as self-evident as it is unmentioned, are said to be politically savvy and merely trying to connect with "normal folks."

We take it for granted that "classical music" is a perfectly legitimate term for what really amounts to one particular classical form (mostly European orchestral and piano concerto music), ignoring that there are, indeed, classical forms of all musical styles, as well as their more contemporary versions.

We take it for granted that the only controversy regarding Jesus is whether or not he was killed by Jews or Romans; or whether the depiction of his execution by Mel Gibson is too violent for children, all the while ignoring a much larger issue, which is why does Gibson (and for that matter every other white filmmaker or artist in the history of the faith) feel the need to make Jesus white: something he surely could not have been and was not, with all due apology to Michelangelo, Constantine, Pat Robertson, and the producers of "Jesus Christ Superstar."

That the only physical descriptions of Jesus in the Bible indicate that he had feet the color of burnt brass, and hair like wool, poses a slight problem for Gibson and other followers of the white Jesus hanging in their churches, adorning their crucifixes (if Catholic), and gracing the Christmas cards they send each December.

It is the same problem posed by the anthropological evidence concerning the physical appearance of first century Jews from that part of Northern Africa we prefer to call the "Middle East" (and why is that I wonder?). Namely, Jesus did not look like a long-haired version of my Ashkenazi Jewish, Eastern European great-grandfather in his prime.

But to even bring this up is to send most white Christians (and sadly, even many of color) into fits, replete with assurances that "it doesn't matter what Jesus looked like, it only matters what he did."

Which is all fine and good, until you realize that indeed it must matter to them what Jesus looked like; otherwise, they wouldn't be so averse to presenting him as the man of color he most assuredly was: a man dark enough to guarantee that were he to come back tomorrow, and find himself on the wrong side of New York City at the wrong time of night, reaching for his keys or his wallet in the presence of the Street Crimes Unit, he'd be dispatched far more expeditiously than was done at Golgotha 2000 years ago.

But never fear: we needn?t grapple with that because we can merely take it for granted that Jesus had to look like us, as did Adam and Eve, and as does God himself. And indeed, most whites believe this to be true, as proven by every single picture Bible for kids made by a white person, all of which present these figures in such a way.

Consider the classic and widely distributed Robert Maxwell Bible Series for children, popularly known as the "blue books," which are found in virtually every pediatrician and OBGYN's office in the U.S. In Volume I, readers learn (at least visually speaking) that the Garden of Eden was in Oslo: a little-known fact that will stun Biblical scholars to be sure.

It would all be quite funny were it not so incontestably insane, so pathological in terms of the scope of our nuttiness. What else, after all, can explain the fact that when a New Jersey theatre company put on a passion play a few years ago with a black actor in the lead role, they received hundreds of hateful phone calls and even death threats for daring to portray Jesus as anyone darker than, say, Shaun Cassidy?

What else but a tenuous (at best) grip on reality can explain the quickness with which many white Americans ran around after 9/11 saying truly stupid shit like "now we know what it means to be attacked for who we are?"

Now we know? Hell, some folks always knew what that was like, though their pain and suffering never counted for much in the eyes of the majority.

What else but delusion on a scale necessitating medication could lead one to say--as two whites did on CNN in the wake of the first O.J. Simpson verdict--that they now realized everything they had been told about the American justice system being fair was a lie? Now they realized it! See the theme here?

That's what privilege is, for all those who constantly ask me what I mean when I speak of white privilege. It's the ability to presume that your reality is the reality; that your experiences, if white, are universal, and not particular to your racial identity.

It's the ability to assume that you belong and that others will presume that too; the ability to define reality for others, and expect that definition to stick (because you have the power to ensure that it becomes the dominant narrative).

And it's the ability to ignore all evidence to the contrary, claim that you yourself are the victim, and get everyone from the President to the Supreme Court to the average white guy on the street to believe it.

It is Times New Roman font, one inch margins, left hand justified. In other words, it is the default position on the computer of American life. And it has rendered vast numbers of its recipients utterly incapable of critical thought.

Only by rebelling against it, and insisting on our own freedom from the mental straightjacket into which we have been placed as whites by this system, can we hope to regain our full humanity, and be of any use as allies to people of color in their struggle against racism

Tim Wise is an antiracist activist, essayist and father. He can be reached at timjwise@msn.com. Death threats, while neither appreciated nor desired, will be graded for form, content and originality. [/spoiler:1kf04r4a]

Race issues in the United States are unique and extraordinarily complex. The "racism" you're talking about is actually "bigotry." Racism is a system of power, while bigotry is ignorant, aggressive and illogical prejudice and hatred.

I know I've used this before, but the South Park episode With Apologies to Jesse Jackson (http://www.southparkstudios.com/guide/1101) wherein Stan's dad is on Wheel of Fortune and gets "N _ G G E R S" wrong is a great social commentary on the (still very real) tension between Blacks and Whites. As Stan and Token say at the end:

Stan: "Dude, I get it now. I don't get it."
Token: "Now you get it."

Being a former racist, I can completely relate with where you're coming from.

There are plenty of inconsistencies like these.. Affirmative action is a policy that makes the playing field less level, in the minorities' favor, blacks have their own sections for books in the bookstore, their own magazines, TV channel, yet none of these natural segregations are looked down upon.

Plus, it's pretty noticeable that, given the choice, they will congregate together and separate themselves.. I can't tell you how much empirical evidence I've gathered from simply living and going to public places that they naturally section themselves off from the other groups.. in fact most races do this, except for whites, because for us it is now culturally taboo.

For them to be proud of the fact that they were born black is to be lauded and commended, open the champagne!
But for one of us to be proud of the fact that we were born white is an atrocity and could get you a prison sentence if you aren't careful.

It's very much inconsistent and wrong in the current system (and I speak for America here). Racial quotas and affirmative action make it impossible not to take race into account when making decisions (which is a practical definition of racism).

In striving for equality, we've enforced its opposite.

I'm not sure this is as much about equality as it is a glaring difference between cultures and evidence that the races are still divided, even if only by themselves.

My son had a baby sitter from Trinidad years ago that did not understand the black white thing in America.  She was black her neighbor was white and they called her "Auntie".  The fact that we were so different from one another here in the States was confusing to her.

I look around Dallas and you can drive through a neighborhood and see that we've even moved to neighborhoods with the same races.  There is an area that is primarily asian, another that's black, another that's white, and others are Mexican.  Of course you go one block you have another set of people.  My neighborhood is actually very mixed in race and ages and we all do just fine.  We are all still very different, doesn't really have anything to do with equality but rather the fact that we don't see ourselves as Americans but rather identify with our races first, as we do others.

Quote from: "VanReal"I'm not sure this is as much about equality as it is a glaring difference between cultures and evidence that the races are still divided, even if only by themselves.

My son had a baby sitter from Trinidad years ago that did not understand the black white thing in America.  She was black her neighbor was white and they called her "Auntie".  The fact that we were so different from one another here in the States was confusing to her.

I look around Dallas and you can drive through a neighborhood and see that we've even moved to neighborhoods with the same races.  There is an area that is primarily asian, another that's black, another that's white, and others are Mexican.  Of course you go one block you have another set of people.  My neighborhood is actually very mixed in race and ages and we all do just fine.  We are all still very different, doesn't really have anything to do with equality but rather the fact that we don't see ourselves as Americans but rather identify with our races first, as we do others.

A good point about the neighborhoods. However, it seems that even those with differing races all have points of commonality, like the black families who the gangsters and rappers and such would call "white on the inside" would live in the well-to-do and well-kept neighborhoods.

I don't agree that it's alright for blacks to call whites racially insulting terms. It goes both ways where I live. Nobody gets away with it. It is just trashy to use any of that derogatory language. I hate to sound like somebody's grandmother, but people who use derogatory, bigoted terms just make themselves look bad, whatever color they are. Most of the people I am friends with, whatever their race wouldn't do that.

It's interesting that we can have a United Negro's College Fund and All Black Churches etc, etc. But if an All White Church or National White's College Fund was established it would be deemed racist before you could say "Mississippi hot dog."

Quote from: "Sophus"It's interesting that we can have a United Negro's College Fund and All Black Churches etc, etc. But if an All White Church or National White's College Fund was established it would be deemed racist before you could say "Mississippi hot dog."

That's precisely the kind of tripe I'm talking about.. whereas "racial discrimination" was once looked down upon and fought against, it's now esteemed and valued by the same racial community..

They now demand race-based privileges instead of detracting race-based punishments.

It's all still race-based. It's all still wrong.

Quote from: "chuff"They now demand race-based privileges instead of detracting race-based punishments.

  Isn't it remarkable?

"They" had race based privileges because they were needed. They still are. Do a tiny bit of research and you will find that statistically a person of color does not make as much on average as a white person does. It is harder to get a good job, a good education. Sure, in many places the opportunities have equalized, hence our soon to be president, but don't try to tell me that your average inner city minority kid is as safe or has as many opportunities as a white kid. As a woman, who also has a glass ceiling to contend with, I think that white males whining because the underdogs are still having to organize and fight for protection and rights is pathetic. This country still has a racist underbelly. I saw it in the election. Didn't you?

Yeah, I personally think race played a BIG role in the election, even if those people don't want to admit it... But, so did age, as after-poll statistics showed. But if Obama was white, the election would have been WAY different... Blacks wouldn't have had his face on the shirt they wore like twice a week, and he wouldn't of had as much publicity a year and half before the election.

And I'm actually suprised I got 9 replys to this already, and I'm glad to see most agreed with me... Like Sophus said, blacks, and well, all races, really, besides middle-eastern and whites in the U.S. have "special rights", as I would like to call it, because of their race... Like you said, Sophus, if there was a group trying to start up a White Scholarship Fund, or All-White University, or All-White Christian Church, they would be criticized, despised, hated, and shut down... But blacks, mexicans, asians, etc. do it, then it is a good thing... There is no such thing as racial equality in the society of the U.S...

Quote from: "chuff"

Quote from: "Sophus"It's interesting that we can have a United Negro's College Fund and All Black Churches etc, etc. But if an All White Church or National White's College Fund was established it would be deemed racist before you could say "Mississippi hot dog."

That's precisely the kind of tripe I'm talking about.. whereas "racial discrimination" was once looked down upon and fought against, it's now esteemed and valued by the same racial community..

They now demand race-based privileges instead of detracting race-based punishments.

It's all still race-based. It's all still wrong.

Obviously no one read the White Whine (http://www.zmag.org/zspace/commentaries/1901) article I linked. I'll summarize the relevant point to this: nearly every other college fund and church IS a National White College Fund or a White Church.

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"Obviously no one read the White Whine (http://www.zmag.org/zspace/commentaries/1901) article I linked. I'll summarize the relevant point to this: nearly every other college fund and church IS a National White College Fund or a White Church.

I was going to, but I had a friend over and didn't want him to see my on the HAF lol I didn't want to start something right now.

I read it and disagree with it totally, it sounds like many other "Boo hoo, nasty white people" whines I have heard before

I think all forms of affirmitive action are inherently wrong. not only are they unfair, whichever way you look at them, they are also counter productive in all senses. At a university with such an admission policy, every minority student has the spectre of of it cast over them, "are they here becuase they are smart, or because they are black?" thoughts will abound. Not only that, it also sends the message that minorities need help to make their way in the world, becuase they lack something to help themselves.

Also, with regards to the glass ceiling comment, nonsense, there has been no glass cieling in my country for years, in many cases quite the opposite.

Equality of opportunity is right, enforced equality of outcome is not. When you see a workplace that is predominantly one group, you can not make the assumption it is that way becuase of discrimination.

If an engineering company is full of men, and a nursing facility is full of women, does this imply discrimination? No, different people have different abilities and preferences, there is some correlation between these differences and race/sex. It is precisley becuase of these differences that any sort of race based or sex based quota is usless, it labels people as large groups without ascribing to the character of the people in those groups.

Affirmative Action is, in its essence, a system set up to prevent racist, bigoted business owners from refusing a person employment because of qualities inherent to his or her biology. (On a related note, it is illegal for Affirmative Action to place quotas on businesses. If a business has a quota, they placed that upon themselves. The government takes no legal action against businesses who at least attempt to follow the AA guidelines.) University "urban scholar" programs, as they are so often called, have stringent (normally) and clear qualification standards, usually focusing on GPA and SAT/ACT score. They are there to help students from low socioeconomic status areas pay for higher education that they would not have been able to otherwise.

Explain to me how that's bad.

You can make the assumption that workplaces are "boys clubs" due to discrimination. Whether or not that assumption is fair is the question. Look at a Country Club. You think it's mostly old, White men because they're most qualified to play golf, or because they don't want them darkies niggin' up their greens?

Whites have an inherent set of privileges based solely on the color of their skin. It's when these privileges are questioned that terms like "reverse racism" start popping up. Reverse racism is an oxymoron, incidentally. Racism is an overarching system of power that privileges a certain race while denigrating the abilities, opportunities and quality of life of another race.

Race did play a large part in this past election. Many Blacks were extraordinarily excited about Obama's nomination and subsequent election, and for good reason. Don't you think we, as an atheist community, would do the same if one of us was elected and won? In the baby boomers' lifetimes it has gone from separate drinking fountains, fire hoses and dogs, to a dark skinned man being elected to the most powerful position on the planet. That's pretty damn amazing. Yeah, if I was a Black guy, I'd be jumping up and down, too.

Truth be told, I did jump up and down when he won.

But, just to illustrate the concept of White privilege, I want the White folk here to look at this list of items, and be honest with themselves. How many of these would you say reflect your experience?

[spoiler:3p4b1shx]1. I can if I wish arrange to be in the company of people of my race most of the time.

2. I can avoid spending time with people whom I was trained to mistrust and who have learned to mistrust my kind or me.

3. If I should need to move, I can be pretty sure of renting or purchasing housing in an area which I can afford and in which I would want to live.

4. I can be pretty sure that my neighbors in such a location will be neutral or pleasant to me.

5. I can go shopping alone most of the time, pretty well assured that I will not be followed or harassed.

6. I can turn on the television or open to the front page of the paper and see people of my race widely represented.

7. When I am told about our national heritage or about "civilization," I am shown that people of my color made it what it is.

8. I can be sure that my children will be given curricular materials that testify to the existence of their race.

9. If I want to, I can be pretty sure of finding a publisher for this piece on white privilege.

10. I can be pretty sure of having my voice heard in a group in which I am the only member of my race.

11. I can be casual about whether or not to listen to another person's voice in a group in which s/he is the only member of his/her race.

12. I can go into a music shop and count on finding the music of my race represented, into a supermarket and find the staple foods which fit with my cultural traditions, into a hairdresser's shop and find someone who can cut my hair.

13. Whether I use checks, credit cards or cash, I can count on my skin color not to work against the appearance of financial reliability.

14. I can arrange to protect my children most of the time from people who might not like them.

15. I do not have to educate my children to be aware of systemic racism for their own daily physical protection.

16. I can be pretty sure that my children's teachers and employers will tolerate them if they fit school and workplace norms; my chief worries about them do not concern others' attitudes toward their race.

17. I can talk with my mouth full and not have people put this down to my color.

18. I can swear, or dress in second hand clothes, or not answer letters, without having people attribute these choices to the bad morals, the poverty or the illiteracy of my race.

19. I can speak in public to a powerful male group without putting my race on trial.

20. I can do well in a challenging situation without being called a credit to my race.

21. I am never asked to speak for all the people of my racial group.

22. I can remain oblivious of the language and customs of persons of color who constitute the world's majority without feeling in my culture any penalty for such oblivion.

23. I can criticize our government and talk about how much I fear its policies and behavior without being seen as a cultural outsider.

24. I can be pretty sure that if I ask to talk to the "person in charge", I will be facing a person of my race.

25. If a traffic cop pulls me over or if the IRS audits my tax return, I can be sure I haven't been singled out because of my race.

26. I can easily buy posters, post-cards, picture books, greeting cards, dolls, toys and children's magazines featuring people of my race.

27. I can go home from most meetings of organizations I belong to feeling somewhat tied in, rather than isolated, out-of-place, outnumbered, unheard, held at a distance or feared.

28. I can be pretty sure that an argument with a colleague of another race is more likely to jeopardize her/his chances for advancement than to jeopardize mine.

29. I can be pretty sure that if I argue for the promotion of a person of another race, or a program centering on race, this is not likely to cost me heavily within my present setting, even if my colleagues disagree with me.

30. If I declare there is a racial issue at hand, or there isn't a racial issue at hand, my race will lend me more credibility for either position than a person of color will have.

31. I can choose to ignore developments in minority writing and minority activist programs, or disparage them, or learn from them, but in any case, I can find ways to be more or less protected from negative consequences of any of these choices.

32. My culture gives me little fear about ignoring the perspectives and powers of people of other races.

33. I am not made acutely aware that my shape, bearing or body odor will be taken as a reflection on my race.

34. I can worry about racism without being seen as self-interested or self-seeking.

35. I can take a job with an affirmative action employer without having my co-workers on the job suspect that I got it because of my race.

36. If my day, week or year is going badly, I need not ask of each negative episode or situation whether it had racial overtones.

37. I can be pretty sure of finding people who would be willing to talk with me and advise me about my next steps, professionally.

38. I can think over many options, social, political, imaginative or professional, without asking whether a person of my race would be accepted or allowed to do what I want to do.

39. I can be late to a meeting without having the lateness reflect on my race.

40. I can choose public accommodation without fearing that people of my race cannot get in or will be mistreated in the places I have chosen.

41. I can be sure that if I need legal or medical help, my race will not work against me.

42. I can arrange my activities so that I will never have to experience feelings of rejection owing to my race.

43. If I have low credibility as a leader I can be sure that my race is not the problem.

44. I can easily find academic courses and institutions which give attention only to people of my race.

45. I can expect figurative language and imagery in all of the arts to testify to experiences of my race.

46. I can chose blemish cover or bandages in "flesh" color and have them more or less match my skin.

47. I can travel alone or with my spouse without expecting embarrassment or hostility in those who deal with us.

48. I have no difficulty finding neighborhoods where people approve of our household.

49. My children are given texts and classes which implicitly support our kind of family unit and do not turn them against my choice of domestic partnership.

50. I will feel welcomed and "normal" in the usual walks of public life, institutional and social.[/spoiler:3p4b1shx]

Circumstances of birth should not be a source of pride or shame. I think once everyone lets go of the past and learns from it and moves on, racism and bigotry can die. Unfortunately, there will always be the "other guy is holding me down" attitude, no matter what the race. Every race has dealt with it, some more than others, but like so many other things, until we learn from it we can't move on.

QuoteRacism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist. The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.

    * Ron Paul, Government and Racism, April 16, 2007

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"Obviously no one read the White Whine (http://www.zmag.org/zspace/commentaries/1901) article I linked. I'll summarize the relevant point to this: nearly every other college fund and church IS a National White College Fund or a White Church.

Due to the ratio and probability, correct? Not that if you're of another race and try to join you wouldn't be accepted?

Quote from: "chuff"Being a former racist, I can completely relate with where you're coming from.  

You used to be racist? Wow. I've not heard that statement from anyone before. That must have taken one hell of an effort to break free from it and admit you were wrong, or at least, 'ill advised'.

I've actually had someone say to me before "is it because i am black?"
My answer to that was, "No, it is because you're an idiot."

I generally stay as far as possible from the race issue. I just do not want to touch it with a barge pole. I'm not racist and that's good enough for me.

Quote from: "Wraitchel""They" had race based privileges because they were needed. They still are. Do a tiny bit of research and you will find that statistically a person of color does not make as much on average as a white person does. It is harder to get a good job, a good education. Sure, in many places the opportunities have equalized, hence our soon to be president, but don't try to tell me that your average inner city minority kid is as safe or has as many opportunities as a white kid. As a woman, who also has a glass ceiling to contend with, I think that white males whining because the underdogs are still having to organize and fight for protection and rights is pathetic. This country still has a racist underbelly. I saw it in the election. Didn't you?

I agree with you.  If everything is so terrific to be black like having a whole month of glorious history celebration or having the freedom to use racial slurs, who here would admit they would be willing to change places with any black man or woman?  Exactly!

Curiousity, I did not read your post about "White Wine", because there's enough of it here to go around.  Unfortunately, there's not a cheese strong enough to stand up to the finish.

Quote from: "chuff"Being a former racist, I can completely relate with where you're coming from.

There are plenty of inconsistencies like these.. Affirmative action is a policy that makes the playing field less level, in the minorities' favor, blacks have their own sections for books in the bookstore, their own magazines, TV channel, yet none of these natural segregations are looked down upon.

Plus, it's pretty noticeable that, given the choice, they will congregate together and separate themselves.. I can't tell you how much empirical evidence I've gathered from simply living and going to public places that they naturally section themselves off from the other groups.. in fact most races do this, except for whites, because for us it is now culturally taboo.

For them to be proud of the fact that they were born black is to be lauded and commended, open the champagne!
But for one of us to be proud of the fact that we were born white is an atrocity and could get you a prison sentence if you aren't careful.

It's very much inconsistent and wrong in the current system (and I speak for America here). Racial quotas and affirmative action make it impossible not to take race into account when making decisions (which is a practical definition of racism).

In striving for equality, we've enforced its opposite.

Alcoholics, I'm told, don't ever fully get rid of their urge to drink.  Your comments don't lend themselves to keep the claim of "former".

Quote from: "karadan"You used to be racist? Wow. I've not heard that statement from anyone before. That must have taken one hell of an effort to break free from it and admit you were wrong, or at least, 'ill advised'.

Agreed, it's hard to admit that you're a racist. Sadly, the majority of Whites are racist and the majority of men are sexist. This isn't as bad as it sounds, and it doesn't mean what most expect it to mean. Being a "racist" is simply not actively refuting the system of White privilege. That's all. Being a "sexist" is simply not actively refuting the system of male privilege. A White person saying, "I have Black friends" is not proof that s/he is an anti-racist. It most likely just means they have class or work with a Black person. It rarely refers to someone they spend time with outside those places in any meaningful way.

I went through the same thing a few years ago, when I was confronted by an aging Black man who later went on to become more or less my surrogate father. It was tough. I wasn't a bigot, and still am not, but I was definitely perfectly fine and comfortable with being nicely seated in a position of extreme privilege. It was a breakthrough. I started reading works by bell hooks, Molefi Kete Asante, Malcolm X, ML King (Trumpet of Conscious, especially, is amazing), Huey P. Newton, Paul Lee and Peggy McIntosh. I started studying concepts like Black liberation theology,, Afrocentrism, the Critical Race Theory I mentioned above, and anti-racist pedagogy. I learned a lot about the real racism in the United States, specifically, and even more about myself.

Quote from: "DennisK"I agree with you.  If everything is so terrific to be black like having a whole month of glorious history celebration or having the freedom to use racial slurs, who here would admit they would be willing to change places with any black man or woman?  Exactly!

Curiousity, I did not read your post about "White Wine", because there's enough of it here to go around.  Unfortunately, there's not a cheese strong enough to stand up to the finish.

Doing the "would you like to change places with a Black person" exercise was one of the first things that set me on the road to anti-racism. Others have said, "Why would I want to change me? I like being me." It's not about that. It's a question that refers to giving up a position of privilege and power. There's an old saying: "Snakes won't bite themselves. Batters won't strike themselves out." Those in positions of power almost never freely relinquish that power on their own volition. The unfortunate aspect of this is when the oppressed seize power and become, themselves, the oppressors. It has happened all too often.

I'll gladly be the cheese to stand up and finish. I've spent years dealing with my own racism and sexism. I've spent countless nights laying awake, wondering if I really am "that guy." I've tried to explain it to other White folk, but none of us (including myself) can ever truly understand unless we find ourselves in a country or a place where we really are the minority in every sense of the word. Even this is difficult, as in most places throughout the world being White and speaking English with an American accent is like having a free pass, whether it be because the local population loves us or just lets us slide, muttering, "Baka gaijin..."

Incidentally, using atheism to compare to the prejudice or oppression felt by women and minorities doesn't work. You can't "see" atheism. You can't assume atheism by a name or clothing. Just thought I'd toss that out there.

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"Sadly, the majority of Whites are racist and the majority of men are sexist. This isn't as bad as it sounds, and it doesn't mean what most expect it to mean. Being a "racist" is simply not actively refuting the system of White privilege. That's all. Being a "sexist" is simply not actively refuting the system of male privilege.

Really?? I mean seriously??
Read this statement two or three or six times real quick... see if you can see the huge, glaring errors in what has been stated.

I'll point out the obvious first, in case you all missed it...
I have had friends of different races (yes, I am "white") who do not actively refute the "system of white privilege." They racist?

My Mother, whom I love dearly, has never once refuted the "system of male privilege." She sexist?

Ok, ok, I'll cut you off at the pass here, I know you probably meant to put "Being a "racist" [white guy] is simply not actively refuting the system of White privilege."

I'll accept that argument a bit easier.
HOWEVER, to paint all of us with a racist and sexist brush is a little much, don't ya think?

If black gentlemen should not be thought of any differently due to the situation of their birth that is waaay beyond their control (skin color) then why shouldn't it be the same for me as a white man? Simply because I was born white, which I didn't ask for, I am obligated to stand up against anything that may be unfair for people of other races??

Does this mean that all black people NEED to follow Jesse Jackson in his messages simply because they're black?
Shouldn't every Native American fight back against the U.S. citizenry because we stole their land, or else they're sub-par?
For that matter, I've never helped Native American's fight to get their land back, even though I see what happened to them was wrong, does that make me more racist in this viewpoint?

I think generalization is a huge part of racism. I think painting anybody with any certain brush simply because of their skin color is wrong. And, unfortunately, I think that's easy for any educated, otherwise thoughtful and helpful person, to fall into that trap. And I think this is an example of that.

Oh, and for the record. I (a white male) am neither racist, nor sexist. I believe if everyone wants to be equal (as we all deserve) we need to get past anything that gives unfair opportunity to anyone because of something as trivial as skin color or chromosome pairings.
This includes "white privilege" and "the united negro college fund" and "title 9" and everything in between.

Hey Curio, was your spoiler list from Heart of Whiteness by Robert Jenson? I read that a few months ago. It was very enlightening.

I have to say I am delighted that white men are feeling threatened by the rise of minorities and women. It's been a long time coming!

Quote from: "Ihateyoumike"Ok, ok, I'll cut you off at the pass here, I know you probably meant to put "Being a "racist" [white guy] is simply not actively refuting the system of White privilege."

I'll accept that argument a bit easier.

Yes, that is what I meant. I assumed it was implied, but I suppose I should've been clearer. I want to re-emphasize what I said about being a racist and a sexist, in that it does not necessarily mean that one is a bigot, simply that one lives in the system of power that favors one race or sex. In the United States, for example, a woman could not be a sexist, per se, however she could certainly hate men and express bigoted, prejudicial disgust toward them. It's political. It's about power.

Quote from: "Ihateyoumike"If black gentlemen should not be thought of any differently due to the situation of their birth that is waaay beyond their control (skin color) then why shouldn't it be the same for me as a white man? Simply because I was born white, which I didn't ask for, I am obligated to stand up against anything that may be unfair for people of other races??

If you consider yourself an anti-racist, then yes, precisely. If you agree that the racist system of privilege is unfair and should be fought against, then not standing up against it places you in the racist camp. I know this is hard to hear and even harder to come to terms with, but it's true. It doesn't mean you're a bad person, that you hate Black folk or any other race, it just means that you're normal. You live in a system of privilege, you enjoy those privileges (consciously or unconsciously) and understand that there are those in society against which the system is geared.

This is not a case of "if you're not with us, you're against us" or, as the Republicans like to say when Iraq II began, "If you're not for the war, you're against the troops." Some people see it that way. It's not.

Quote from: "Ihateyoumike"Oh, and for the record. I (a white male) am neither racist, nor sexist. I believe if everyone wants to be equal (as we all deserve) we need to get past anything that gives unfair opportunity to anyone because of something as trivial as skin color or chromosome pairings.

This is where you begin to miss the point. Not everyone wants to be equal. Everyone loves the idea of equality, but few people are willing to give up what they have so others can enjoy that equality. The Black population surely wants to be equal (though I hesitate to use that word, as it implies that the Black population in-and-of itself is lacking in some way that would be made up for by the "evening out" with Whites, with which I most certainly disagree) with the White population in some aspects, as it would mean an end to the de facto segregation and racist system that still permeates the country. Does the White population want this? Does the White population all want to give up a measure of privilege and power in some tremendous altruistic act of love simply because they want someone else to have the freedom they deserve? I'm not so sure.

Quote from: "Wraitchel"Hey Curio, was your spoiler list from Heart of Whiteness by Robert Jenson? I read that a few months ago. It was very enlightening.

I have to say I am delighted that white men are feeling threatened by the rise of minorities and women. It's been a long time coming! :banna:, hah. Power is a tricky thing. Those in power will never, as I said, freely give up that power (in its entirety) simply because the oppressed demand it. It must be taken. Check out Freire's Pedagogy of the Oppressed. It's intellectually brutal and will likely put you into a synapse overload... it's dense, but extremely powerful. (We would spend four hours discussing a single paragraph during my graduate work.) Then again, there are some of us White men who feel no threat whatsoever about the "rise of minorities and women".  :| Obviously, I just skimmed it, but I'll go back through with more energy at some point. I need to return some books, jeeze.

Quote from: "Wraitchel"I have to say I am delighted that white men are feeling threatened by the rise of minorities and women. It's been a long time coming!

I'm all for equality and "the rise of minorities or women." I just find it humurous how there's a huge double standard in the country.

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"Yes, that is what I meant. I assumed it was implied, but I suppose I should've been clearer. I want to re-emphasize what I said about being a racist and a sexist, in that it does not necessarily mean that one is a bigot, simply that one lives in the system of power that favors one race or sex. In the United States, for example, a woman could not be a sexist, per se, however she could certainly hate men and express bigoted, prejudicial disgust toward them. It's political. It's about power.

Fair enough. I assumed that's what you meant, I simply wanted clarification. I agree it is about power.

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"If you consider yourself an anti-racist, then yes, precisely. If you agree that the racist system of privilege is unfair and should be fought against, then not standing up against it places you in the racist camp.

I both agree and disagree with this statement. I believe that perhaps this statement needs to be expanded. I do agree that the racist system of privilege is unfair and should be fought against... by those who have the means to do so. I myself was born to a family who, through the hard work of my Dad and the loving support at home from my Mom, gave me the opportunities that others may not have had. My parents had a college fund that they set up for my siblings and myself which none of my older siblings (I'm the youngest) needed due to athletic scholarships. I was not as athletically gifted as my brothers and my parents offered to use the college fund to pay for my education. I declined because I was not the type of person who wanted to have everything handed to me. Does that make me better than anyone? No. In hindsight, it makes me feel stupid for declining since I was not able to work my way through college on my own. I dropped out and joined the working class. I have self educated myself to a point, however, some day when I have worked my way back to the position to do so, I plan to get a higher education of some form. At this point, I am living in a situation where I have no means to stand up for what I believe is right, except for individual one-on-one discussions concerning my beliefs. That is not to say that I won't do so once I have (hopefully) gained a position to do so. It may simply be semantics, but I believe that the statement "If you agree that the racist system of privilege is unfair and should be fought against, then not standing up against it places you in the racist camp." is unfair and needs to be expanded to, "If you agree that the racist system of privilege is unfair and should be fought against [and you have the means to stand up against it], then not standing up against it places you in the racist camp." Do you see how much difference that makes?

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"This is where you begin to miss the point. Not everyone wants to be equal. Everyone loves the idea of equality, but few people are willing to give up what they have so others can enjoy that equality.

I'm not sure if I missed the point, or if this is simply a matter of semantics again. Not everyone does want to be equal. Unfortunately, there will always be people of all types who want to hold all the power over others. And, I'll have to disagree that everyone loves the idea of equality.

Quote from: "Wraitchel"I have to say I am delighted that white men are feeling threatened by the rise of minorities and women. It's been a long time coming!

Quotes like this (to me) don't sound like the wanting of equality, but the wanting to suppress the "white man's" power and give it to minorities and women. That doesn't sound like equality to me. And as for your statement, "but few people are willing to give up what they have so others can enjoy that equality." I agree, few people are willing. Even less people are able. I would gladly do what I could to help the situation, if I were in a position to do so. Unfortunately, I have to focus my energies on taking care of myself and figuring out how I am going to eat and afford rent next month being currently unemployed and job-seeking in this horrible economy. And, maybe I'm being naive, but I'd like to think that there are alot of people out there like me who would stand up and have their voice heard if they were able to put themselves in a position to do so.

And finally, to end this post, I'd like to thank you curiosityandthecat. I joined this forum yesterday and have already read quite alot of insightful postings by yourself and other regulars. I'd like to thank you for giving your ideas in a manner becoming of an educated, thoughtful human being. Thoughtful discussion online without being demeaning to others' viewpoints is hard to find, and (barring Messenger) I seem to have found a place where exactly that is possible. So thank you, and everyone else who adds to these discussions in that way.  

Quote from: "Wraitchel"I have to say I am delighted that white men are feeling threatened by the rise of minorities and women. It's been a long time coming! :)

Quote from: "Ihateyoumike"

Quote from: "Wraitchel"I have to say I am delighted that white men are feeling threatened by the rise of minorities and women. It's been a long time coming!

Quotes like this (to me) don't sound like the wanting of equality, but the wanting to suppress the "white man's" power and give it to minorities and women. That doesn't sound like equality to me. And as for your statement, "but few people are willing to give up what they have so others can enjoy that equality." I agree, few people are willing. Even less people are able. I would gladly do what I could to help the situation, if I were in a position to do so. Unfortunately, I have to focus my energies on taking care of myself and figuring out how I am going to eat and afford rent next month being currently unemployed and job-seeking in this horrible economy. And, maybe I'm being naive, but I'd like to think that there are alot of people out there like me who would stand up and have their voice heard if they were able to put themselves in a position to do so.

It isn't that I want to put white men down, though I know that is what it sounds like. The fact is that I have been angry for a long time about the fact that there is no way I will ever earn as much money as my husband does. Sure, he is trained in a valuable field, but that is a result of the culture that raised him to do that. He has MS, and is on the road to inevitable disability. We have three kids. It would be really nice if I could earn enough to support them, but even with more education added to my BA, I cannot. I am very aware that there is still inequality, and if white men are feeling threatened, perhaps that means the inequity is closer to being remedied.

Curio, I think you are wrong in so many ways in thsi thread.

Your definitions of racism and sexism are all wrong for starters. A racist is someone who bases decisions about others on their race and not on the individual characteristics of that person, nothing more or less. Just beause I don't go waving a placcard at every anti-racist march does not make me a racist.

Your long list of questions, I'll illustrate my answers to a few.

1 I sure can, as can everyone else I know, regardless of racfe. In fact if anything at my university, it is the east adn southern asian students I notice who segrgate themselves into their own communities and groups far more so than white people.

2 I asume by this you mean people of other races? Well, as a matter of fact i could not, my lectures are very diverse, my accomodation is very diverse, a lot of the places I hang out are very diverse.

3, Yes, if I have the money, I can rent most houses ( some people dont like students in their houses ), but so could anyone else, when i was living in a large block of flats last year, the place was chock full of people of all races, nearly all of them renting students or families.

4 people in england are generally polite to their neighbours, though i have been next to some real ****s before, places I have lived, what colour you are does not affect how you are treated, how much noise you make and how much rubbish you leave about does though.

5 yes, this can be said for anyone where I live, I have never witnessed racial harassment in all my years for someone going shopping

6 i can, then again white people make up over 90% of england's pop, so there is bound to be more of them on TV, thinking of for example, serious news presenters, i know 2 black guys, 4 indian people and about 15 odd white people, this seems a prety fair representation to me, if anyhting skewed towards minorities more.

7 well, england was prety much exlusivley english before the slave trade, so any history before then will be white centric, anything post then seems to include black people where they are relavent ( of course, few politicians and powerful people have been black until recently, so they are not talked about lot in history, mainly becuase they werent there or wernt interesting )

All your other points, for example being late for a meeting and it being put down to your race, sure I can, but so can anyone elese, who would draw conclusions like that froma  single data point? If they did it would surley be the fault of the person, and not some over arching system of control.

If people have the money, you can buy whatever you want, if people ahve the brains, you can go to whatever school you want, race does not come into these things, no matter how much people try to come up with excuses for their failings.You seem to ahve a really strongly motivitated position against the "white establishment" when as far as i can see, there is really no law or precedent against minorities. Sure there are racist people out there, but they are not all white people.

As to your point about how affirmitive action is bad, I'll tell you why, it's racist. If yop let people into a university on any grounds apart from acedemic ability, it is discriminatory in some way, everyone pays the same price, thats why it is fair.

Have you heard of an Affirmative action bake sale?

Quote from: "SSY"Your long list of questions, I'll illustrate my answers to a few.

What list?

Kyu

He posted a list of questions under a spoiler tag about how you are treated in the world and what priviedge you may or may not have, in an attempt to suggest white people are treated differently as an ingrained societal system.

Quote from: "SSY"He posted a list of questions under a spoiler tag about how you are treated in the world and what priviedge you may or may not have, in an attempt to suggest white people are treated differently as an ingrained societal system.

I believe that the point was actually to make white people aware of the many ways in which we benefit from being on top, socially speaking, without even being aware of it. It was eye opening for me when I read a similar list in a book I mentioned in a previous reply. The point was not to label anyone who benefits from white privilege as a racist. The point was to increase awareness so we will not go on saying stupid things about how laws enacted to ensure a place for minorities and women in the workplace are no longer needed.

Quote from: "SSY"A racist is someone who bases decisions about others on their race and not on the individual characteristics of that person, nothing more or less.

...someone who makes decisions about others based on their race, precisely. Decisions that are informed by a system and society in which one race is inherently more valued and able than another (at least, ostensibly) via the media, social norms and values. How is my definition any different from yours? The only difference I see is that, in mine, the person is called a "racist" while in yours, I would call that person a "prejudiced, racist asshole".  

Quote from: "Wraitchel"I believe that the point was actually to make white people aware of the many ways in which we benefit from being on top, socially speaking, without even being aware of it. It was eye opening for me when I read a similar list in a book I mentioned in a previous reply. The point was not to label anyone who benefits from white privilege as a racist. The point was to increase awareness so we will not go on saying stupid things about how laws enacted to ensure a place for minorities and women in the workplace are no longer needed.

That's right. Also, the racism I'm talking about is specific to the United States. I in no way want to insinuate that I am speaking or making claims about racism in any other country or society. I haven't lived in any, I haven't studied any, and I don't want to speak about any. All those items in that list were actually questions Peggy McIntosh was asking herself when she was struggling with how to expand her work on feminism and the male power structure into the world of race. I don't think they should be qualified. If one answers "Yes, but..." to every one, then there's an obvious attempt to justify the privilege that's being acknowledged.

If by ensure women a place in the workplace, you mean deny an equaly qualified man/transgender a place in the office, I agree with you.

Making a decision based on anything other than the person qualification/ability is sexist, there is simply nothing else to it.

If the woman is the best candidate, she gets the job on her merit, if she is not the best candidate, it will go to someone else. There is no benefit to having a woman in an office just becuase she is a woman.

If a woman is the best candidate and is denied the job based purley on the prejudice of the employer, then she can take it to a sexual discrimination tribunal and make her individual case. Affirmative action is reverse discrimination, and all discrimination based on sex or race is wrong.

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"

Quote from: "SSY"A racist is someone who bases decisions about others on their race and not on the individual characteristics of that person, nothing more or less.

...someone who makes decisions about others based on their race, precisely. Decisions that are informed by a system and society in which one race is inherently more valued and able than another (at least, ostensibly) via the media, social norms and values. How is my definition any different from yours? The only difference I see is that, in mine, the person is called a "racist" while in yours, I would call that person a "prejudiced, racist asshole".  
.

I don't understand you, I say a racist is someone who makes decisions based on races, you agree and go on to say the qualities ascribed to these races are brought about by a person exposure to their society. They are making a decision based on race, and is therefor a racist.

However, before, you said "Being a "racist" is simply not actively refuting the system of White privilege.", you seem to have changed your mind.

Or are you saying that a white person is incapable of not being a racist becuase they must hold certain views they picked up from their society, and that they must be unable to make decisions about others without resorting to these views if they have them? Are you saying that someone who does not activley refute white priviledge will also hold views that other race are beneath them?
You are saying that being raised in a white world will automatically lead people to make racist decisions?

I disagree. Not only is it possible for a white person to have views about other races that are fair and balanced ( I'm sure you would drop yourself in this catagory ),  but also to make decision about others based on factors apart from their race. i simply view people as people.

I am going to throw this out there. I do beleive there are differences between statistical averages in races. just as it is well acknowledged that white guys tend to be taller than chinese guys. Not every white guy is taller than every chinese guy, but if you took a thousand random of each, the odds are the, the ghostfaces would have a higher mean height. I believe things like this can extend to IQ, physical characteristics, etc. Many of these correlations have been well documented and studied, even though they almost certainly draw vilification of the rest of the world.

I do not view myself as a racist, for one simple reason, I do not make decisions based on race. If I was an employer, and I had an east asian ( typically of a higher IQ) and a black guy ( typically of a lower IQ, statistically speaking of course ), I would not hire the asian without thought. I would conduct both interviews to see which one had the higher IQ ( I am correlating job performance to IQ here as an example ) as I know two things. Odds are,1 the black guy will score lower on his IQ test, if i were to interview a thousand such pairs of interviewees, 2, there is every chance this particular black guy could beat the asian guy on his IQ test. I dont care what race my employee is, as long as he is smart, so I hire the one with the higher IQ.

After a thousand interviews, It is likley that my company will be over 50% east asain ( I am assuming a somehwat strange country here, with only blacks, east asians, and some weird pair based job application system that stipulates a mixed race pairing here ). This does not mean I am racist, this is simply a refection in the diferences between races. No one person was given treatment based on their race, no black person was discriminated against, and no asian was given a free ride.  this is an example about how one can hold well reasoned, researchec views about differences in races, and yet still, not be a racist.

As I said before, equality of oppurtunity, not of outcome, that is fair.

Quote from: "SSY"I don't understand you, I say a racist is someone who makes decisions based on races, you agree and go on to say the qualities ascribed to these races are brought about by a person exposure to their society. They are making a decision based on race, and is therefor a racist.

However, before, you said "Being a "racist" is simply not actively refuting the system of White privilege.", you seem to have changed your mind.

The two are not mutually exclusive. At it's core, being a racist is not actively refuting the system of (insert dominant race here) privilege. There are layers surrounding it. This is partially what makes racism a complex problem.

Quote from: "SSY"You are saying that being raised in a white world will automatically lead people to make racist decisions?

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that being White places a person (in the United States) in a position of arbitrary power and privilege. Being Black places one in a position of arbitrary weakness and oppression. There are exceptions. I'm speaking broadly. Systemically. Nobody chooses to be born White or Black, as has been mentioned. I'll add that life isn't fair, and sometimes those in power need to feel just a little bad about it in order to lean things toward getting better.

Quote from: "SSY"I do not view myself as a racist, for one simple reason, I do not make decisions based on race. If I was an employer, and I had an east asian ( typically of a higher IQ) and a black guy ( typically of a lower IQ, statistically speaking of course ), I would not hire the asian without thought. I would conduct both interviews to see which one had the higher IQ ( I am correlating job performance to IQ here as an example ) as I know two things. Odds are,1 the black guy will score lower on his IQ test, if i were to interview a thousand such pairs of interviewees, 2, there is every chance this particular black guy could beat the asian guy on his IQ test. I dont care what race my employee is, as long as he is smart, so I hire the one with the higher IQ.

Nobody likes to view themselves as a racist. Well, some do, I'm sure, but I'm talking about normal, regular people like you or me. What you're talking about is meritocracy. "Smarter guy, more merit, better job" in essence. However, you're not paying attention to why this is. I had the fortune of growing up White, male, and in an affluent Ohio suburb. I went to good schools, never worried about money, always had a car, and never worked for good grades. Do I have more merit than someone drastically different from me because of this? Using merit is a tricky concept: who decides what it is?

Pick any inner city Black kid from a Chicago ghetto and put him up against some Chinese American kid from the Bay, and yes, there is going to be a difference in standardized test scores. But why? (I could go on for days about standardized tests, including IQ, but I won't. That's for another thread.    ) Is it something inherent about their skin color or eye shape? Of course not. It comes from the chances and opportunities they've had, the chances and opportunities and the amount of work done by their parents, and their parents, and their parents. It comes from the system in which they are allowed or not allowed opportunities based solely on characteristics they themselves had absolutely nothing to do with: location of birth, skin color, family history, etc.

Is this the "equality of opportunity" you're talking about?

In the first part of tyour post, you are wrong. I am sorry, but people do not get to define their own words.

From wiki:Racism is the belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.

from dictionary.com ;a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

merriam webster says :1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

You seem to be confusing a non racist with an anti racist activist.

edit: wiki says this also :By its nature, anti-racism tends to promote the view that racism in a particular society is both pernicious and socially pervasive, and that particular changes in political, economic, and/or social life are required to eliminate it.

Seems much closer to your view point.

In the third part of your post, you seem to be confusing being poor with being black. If a black kid went to the best schools and had private tutored, compared to some ghtoo bred asian kid, i am sure the black kid could do better on certain standardised tests. The determining factor you are pointing out here is access to education, which means money. The race is unimportant in your example, only money is.

I deliberatley chose IQ test, as it is not ( or at best, minimally with culture fair IQ tests ) affected by schooling. I never got taught how to do those questions with rotating shapes or those verbal logic puzzles at school, I never practiced them until i had taken an IQ test. I delebiratley associated IQ with job performance, pre empting your questions about judging merit. I showed one example, whereby a company could have few black people in it and not have anything to do with racism.

If you have a problem with poor people not getting as good an education, set up a collge fund for poor people, not poor black people, its simply another form of racism.Sophus was on the money with his comments about the negro college fund.

Studies done on adopted children in mixed race type families have demonstrated the correlation between IQ and race, while eliminating the socioeconomic factor. Also, the fact that you got good grades without working suggest that instead of having a good school or money, it was your intelligence that got you those grades, you should have been able to get them at any school, ghetto or not.

Also, I never suggested that skin colour or eye shape affect inteligence, it is down to the brain, but there are correlations between races and intelligence. I think a lot of people will not allow themselves to believe this becuase of an ultra PC, white guilt rideen world, where anyone who thinks like this is demonised. Just last year research at y university was terminated because it was moving towards differences in races and IQs, the results were not even examined, the research was terminated before the testing phase was over. People have no problem accepting white guys are taller than chinese guys on average, without having to come up with loads of reasons for this accounting for the chinese guys disadvantaged start in life or similar, so why the same about intelligence? If one can be racially correlated, surley the other can?

Quote from: "SSY"If by ensure women a place in the workplace, you mean deny an equaly qualified man/transgender a place in the office, I agree with you.

Making a decision based on anything other than the person qualification/ability is sexist, there is simply nothing else to it.

If the woman is the best candidate, she gets the job on her merit, if she is not the best candidate, it will go to someone else. There is no benefit to having a woman in an office just becuase she is a woman.

If a woman is the best candidate and is denied the job based purley on the prejudice of the employer, then she can take it to a sexual discrimination tribunal and make her individual case. Affirmative action is reverse discrimination, and all discrimination based on sex or race is wrong.

In an ideal world, I would agree with you, but what does it mean if studies continue to show that women and minorities are more likely to be unemployed right now than white men are? What does it mean if women who are employed are still making 81 cents on average for every dollar a man makes? Here is a link to US dept of Labor statistics for December 2008. Note that a white men over the age of twenty have a 4.1% unemployment rate. Women over 20 have a 6.8% unemployment rate. Black men over 20 have an 8.4% unemployment rate. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t02.htm and here is a table comparing wages by race and gender since 1970. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0882775.html

You can't just jump to discrimination. The gender pay gap has been widley explained before any way.

Women tend to go for less "high flying careers" than men, they also tend to take several years out to look after their kids, a big lapse like that will hurt your employment prospects.

men are seen as breadwinners, there is a much higher stigma attached to a man being out of work than a woman, perhaps driving them to seek work more vociferously, or accept any job. The women listed as unemployed may be acting as carer to some form of dependant or other, a traditionaly female dominated role.


Also, way to pick the employment rate form the month that illustrates your point, what about dec 07, when the femal umployment rate is lower. Actually, 6.8 % is not even on there, whats wrong with you? if you post a link to the table, at least quote the right numbers, even if you are trying to show your point. the mens un employment rates in that table are consisantly higher. I may be missing something though

As for the black being less employed, im guessing a societal/cultural/racial issue, probably a combination of all three.

You can't assume something is different, there for it has been discriminated against its not like that. Even though men are under employed from your table, im not whining about the workforce hating men, I am willing to explain it in other ways.

Quote from: "SSY"You can't just jump to discrimination. The gender pay gap has been widley explained before any way.

Women tend to go for less "high flying careers" than men, they also tend to take several years out to look after their kids, a big lapse like that will hurt your employment prospects.

men are seen as breadwinners, there is a much higher stigma attached to a man being out of work than a woman, perhaps driving them to seek work more vociferously, or accept any job. The women listed as unemployed may be acting as carer to some form of dependant or other, a traditionaly female dominated role.


Also, way to pick the employment rate form the month that illustrates your point, what about dec 07, when the femal umployment rate is lower. Actually, 6.8 % is not even on there, whats wrong with you? if you post a link to the table, at least quote the right numbers, even if you are trying to show your point. the mens un employment rates in that table are consisantly higher. I may be missing something though

As for the black being less employed, im guessing a societal/cultural/racial issue, probably a combination of all three.

You can't assume something is different, there for it has been discriminated against its not like that. Even though men are under employed from your table, im not whining about the workforce hating men, I am willing to explain it in other ways.

This particular male to female pay comparison does not compare female daycare worker wages to male CEO wages. It compares equivalent jobs... such as male CPA to female CPA of the same level. If it compared wages across the board, it would be drastically more severe.   As for the unemployment table, you're right. I was looking at the Dec 2007 data. Oops, my bad.  However, the gap between white males over 20 and black males over 20 was even wider a year later, with black males being much more likely to be unemployed. You should know that the unemployment data are based on people who actually apply for unemployment benefits. It doesn't count female caregivers and stay at home moms.

I don't know where to start in this thread, from what i read ( i did not read every post) it seems that there are more than a few misunderstanding, and i did not see any self-identified "Black" or "African American" person responding.

So as an Black person i will.....

I understand the resentment that many white people have to programs like affirmative action ect.

And i have heard of people not exactly liking the fact that Black people have College Funds, NAACP, Black Caucus in congress, BET (Black Entertainment Television), Black Magazines Ect.

The Basic reason for this is Black people had to create their Own Music channels, Magazines, Ect. because they were not welcome in others. They were not accepted as a part of Mainstream American culture so they developed their own subculture.
Though many of there Prejudices have disappeared I don't (and most Black people) feel that there is no reason to throw away the creative outlets this culture created after being excluded for so long.

As for Programs and Organization that were created to help Black People, they are not all still Relevant (the fact that NAACP has colored in it still makes me wonder) and i think the Congressional Black Caucus is Irrelevant, and other entities may become irrelevant as time goes on, but as the Minority in any Democratic Country Blacks will need people looking out to make sure the Majority does not impose unfair or undue rules or practices. YES we have a Black President in a few days, but White Men still hold the majority of the power.

Keith,
Thanks for your perspective.  I agree with most of what you said and I'll take your word on the rest I know little of.

As I see it, it simply boils down to power.  Those who have it rule.  In our country, whites have an overwhelming majority of the power and, therefore the whites make the rules.  And as long as we see differences in race and cultures, equality will remain a myth.

Quote from: "Wraitchel"This particular male to female pay comparison does not compare female daycare worker wages to male CEO wages. It compares equivalent jobs... such as male CPA to female CPA of the same level. If it compared wages across the board, it would be drastically more severe.   As for the unemployment table, you're right. I was looking at the Dec 2007 data. Oops, my bad.  However, the gap between white males over 20 and black males over 20 was even wider a year later, with black males being much more likely to be unemployed. You should know that the unemployment data are based on people who actually apply for unemployment benefits. It doesn't count female caregivers and stay at home moms.

Link to study please.

With regards to unemployment figures, several things. You admit men are less employed than women, this seems fine to you, but black guys being less employed than white guys is some heinous crime of discrimination? Why do you only address that issue?

You are obviously suggesting that white men have an advantage in getting employed, or perhaps people discriminate against black males when doling out jobs. I would like to see some evidence for this, you can not make an observation ( differing employment rates ) and then attach an arbitary explanation for it, surely an atheist would know better. If you can offer proof it is becuase black guys are discriminated against, I will look at it seriously. My view, it could well be something to do with the typically lower scores acheived by black pupils in school exams of all levels making them less employable.

Do the statistics include people who apply for benefits or those that receive them? I imagine there is a difference.

Sorry I'm just getting back to this. It's heavy stuff and I've had other things to do.

Quote from: "SSY"From wiki:Racism is the belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.

from dictionary.com ;a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

merriam webster says :1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

You seem to be confusing a non racist with an anti racist activist

The definition I gave for "racist" is not opposed to those definitions; it is part and parcel. Someone who does not refute the system of racial power, thus, by buying into that system, maintains the "belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits" or "inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement". One would not come to have those thoughts if they were not presented at some time (much the same as we often espouse the view that everyone is born an atheist, and only becomes a theist when exposed to those views, as atheism is the default position).

The assumption is that to be a non-racist one would have to go waive signs in picket lines or become politically involved in some other way. I never made any sort of statement. Being a non-racist (or anti-racist) could be as simple as chastising friends or family members for making racist, derogatory remarks. To join in (or, I would go so far as to say, simply not speaking up against) these remarks or jokes is sufficient enough to make someone a racist. That does not mean that person is going to go join the KKK or wear White Power t-shirts.

Regarding race and socioeconomic status, there is a clear correlation between the two. Nobody in their right minds would even try to refute that. One EBSCOHost search for "race" and "socioeconomic" returns nearly 2000 articles. Narrowed down to academic journals published in the United States still returns over 500. The point I'm making is that the race of someone has no inherent affect on how much money they make; the system in which the race is judged, does. Here's just a few sources pulled at random.

[spoiler:i4y4odzd]Albrecht, D., Mulford, C., & Edward Murguia, A. (2005, Summer2005). MINORITY CONCENTRATION, DISADVANTAGE, AND INEQUALITY IN THE NONMETROPOLITAN UNITED STATES. Sociological Quarterly, 46(3), 503-523. Retrieved January 16, 2009, from Academic Search Complete database.

Cardarelli, R., Cardarelli, K., & Chiapa, A. (2007, August). The Modifying Effects of Education and Income on Hispanics Reporting Perceived Discrimination. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 29(3), 401-407. Retrieved January 16, 2009, from Academic Search Complete database.

Does Socioeconomic Status Matter? Race, Class, and Residential Segregation. (2006, May). Social Problems, Retrieved January 16, 2009, from Academic Search Complete database.

Grodsky, E., Warren, J., & Felts, E. (2008, August). Testing and Social Stratification in American Education. Annual Review of Sociology, 34(1), 385-404. Retrieved January 16, 2009, from Academic Search Complete database.

Hardaway, C., & McLoyd, V. (2009, February). Escaping Poverty and Securing Middle Class Status: How Race and Socioeconomic Status Shape Mobility Prospects for African Americans During the Transition to Adulthood. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 38(2), 242-256. Retrieved January 16, 2009, doi:10.1007/s10964-008-9354-z

Hochschild, J., & Weaver, V. (2007, December). The Skin Color Paradox and the American Racial Order. Social Forces, 86(2), 643-670. Retrieved January 16, 2009, from Academic Search Complete database.

Hunt, M. (2007, June). African American, Hispanic, and White Beliefs about Black/White Inequality, 1977â€"2004. American Sociological Review, 72(3), 390-415. Retrieved January 16, 2009, from Academic Search Complete database.

Williams, D. (2008, September 2). Racial/Ethnic Variations in Women's Health: The Social Embeddedness of Health. American Journal of Public Health, 98, S38-S47. Retrieved January 16, 2009, from Academic Search Complete database.[/spoiler:i4y4odzd]
While it may be ostensibly obvious that good grades should get students into whatever schools they want, it's not realistic to believe that. Let's imagine a Black student who lives 10 miles away from a mostly White private school that she is certainly qualified to attend. Does she have transportation? What will her peers think, and how will that affect her self esteem? Can her parents afford it (KRIVO, L., & KAUFMAN, R. (2004, August). HOUSING AND WEALTH INEQUALITY: RACIAL-ETHNIC DIFFERENCES IN HOME EQUITY IN THE UNITED STATES. Demography, 41(3), 585-605.)? Would the school administration welcome a Black girl in the first place? Will the students at the private school treat her poorly or differently? Will she feel like she is selling out? She has an IQ of 153. Does that matter in the light of all the social forces?

Race is a social construct. 2000 years ago when Cleopatra ruled Egypt, there was no concept of race. Skin color didn't matter. We have made it matter. The thing about height is a poor example. With the exception of giantism and dwarfism, there is typically no stigma attached to height. There is also no perceived correlation between height and intelligence or ability (with the exception of maybe basketball players, ability-wise). If things are "down to the brain" like has been suggested, then let's look at that closer.

The brain is formed via nutrients in the diet (in utero, and then in early childhood). Poor diet, poor brain development (along with everything else), lower intelligence. If I am wrong, please tell me. It's a demonstrable fact that in mostly Black neighborhoods the produce at grocery stores, just to use one example, is often of a lower quality than that found in affluent White neighborhoods. Meat also tends to be of a lower quality. Be this a result of poorer equipment like freezers and coolers, or improper storage, I do not know; the fact remains. Following this to it's logical conclusion regarding brain development and function, is it still "down to the brain" when the cards are stacked against minorities when they're still in the womb?

Hrm, lunch time. Gotta go.

I'm really enjoying this, by the way!  

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"The definition I gave for "racist" is not opposed to those definitions; it is part and parcel. Someone who does not refute the system of racial power, thus, by buying into that system, maintains the "belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits" or "inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement". One would not come to have those thoughts if they were not presented at some time (much the same as we often espouse the view that everyone is born an atheist, and only becomes a theist when exposed to those views, as atheism is the default position).

No, while someone who is a racist will obviously not fight against your supposed system fo white priviledge, it is not nessacerially true in reverse. You say unless you refute the white priviledge system, you buy into it, I not only disagree with that, you have also made the assumption the system exists in the first place. Just because I do not go out of my way to support strawberry jam, that does not mean I like rasberry jam. And people don't just hold views they are presented with, they could have developed them themselves, just as someone could come to their own conclusions about god not existing without even hearing about Mr dawkins.

QuoteThe assumption is that to be a non-racist one would have to go waive signs in picket lines or become politically involved in some other way. I never made any sort of statement. Being a non-racist (or anti-racist) could be as simple as chastising friends or family members for making racist, derogatory remarks. To join in (or, I would go so far as to say, simply not speaking up against) these remarks or jokes is sufficient enough to make someone a racist. That does not mean that person is going to go join the KKK or wear White Power t-shirts.

Again, I am sorry, but you are only a racist if you hold racist views ( one race is inherently superior to others ). Your statment would mean that not actively trying to disprove god or convert friends and family to atheism would make one a theist, this is obviously not true. if someone just stays out of religious discussions, or lets their family say grace without a chastising them, they can still be plenty atheist.

QuoteRegarding race and socioeconomic status, there is a clear correlation between the two. Nobody in their right minds would even try to refute that. One EBSCOHost search for "race" and "socioeconomic" returns nearly 2000 articles. Narrowed down to academic journals published in the United States still returns over 500. The point I'm making is that the race of someone has no inherent affect on how much money they make; the system in which the race is judged, does. Here's just a few sources pulled at random.

Could you furhter elaborate on the system in which the race is judged, does?

QuoteWhile it may be ostensibly obvious that good grades should get students into whatever schools they want, it's not realistic to believe that. Let's imagine a Black student who lives 10 miles away from a mostly White private school that she is certainly qualified to attend. Does she have transportation? What will her peers think, and how will that affect her self esteem? Can her parents afford it (KRIVO, L., & KAUFMAN, R. (2004, August). HOUSING AND WEALTH INEQUALITY: RACIAL-ETHNIC DIFFERENCES IN HOME EQUITY IN THE UNITED STATES. Demography, 41(3), 585-605.)? Would the school administration welcome a Black girl in the first place? Will the students at the private school treat her poorly or differently? Will she feel like she is selling out? She has an IQ of 153. Does that matter in the light of all the social forces?

Your questions again mix up being poor with being black. If a white female student lived 10 miles from school, with no transportation, would she magically be able to get to school any easier than a black person? If her parent can't afford school for her, it is becuase they are poor, not becuase they are black, a poor white family would not be able to conjure the money from thin air. I can not see a reason the school admin would not welcome her for being black, if they do, soley on the basis they are black, then that is purley down to thier own racism, same for the students of the school. there is no legal statute legalising or condoning discrimination against her. Similarly, should some whit efmaily move into harlem and send their daughter to a local school, mostly black, do you think her peers will look down on her? how will this effect her self esteem?  Will the students at the school treat her poorly or differently?

QuoteRace is a social construct. 2000 years ago when Cleopatra ruled Egypt, there was no concept of race. Skin color didn't matter. We have made it matter. The thing about height is a poor example. With the exception of giantism and dwarfism, there is typically no stigma attached to height. There is also no perceived correlation between height and intelligence or ability (with the exception of maybe basketball players, ability-wise). If things are "down to the brain" like has been suggested, then let's look at that closer.

You missed my point, I am saying there is a connection between race and height, people are fine with that, as soon as you ask about race and intelligence, people get all indignant and up in yo face aout it.

QuoteThe brain is formed via nutrients in the diet (in utero, and then in early childhood). Poor diet, poor brain development (along with everything else), lower intelligence. If I am wrong, please tell me. It's a demonstrable fact that in mostly Black neighborhoods the produce at grocery stores, just to use one example, is often of a lower quality than that found in affluent White neighborhoods. Meat also tends to be of a lower quality. Be this a result of poorer equipment like freezers and coolers, or improper storage, I do not know; the fact remains. Following this to it's logical conclusion regarding brain development and function, is it still "down to the brain" when the cards are stacked against minorities when they're still in the womb?

Again, you mix black with being poor, a poor white person would not have access to Organic free range corn fed chicken either. Also the effects of diet on the brain may hve an effect, but you can not put all differences in IQ down to that.

QuoteHrm, lunch time. Gotta go.

I'm really enjoying this, by the way!  

I have been waiting for Godwin's law to be invoked for a while now, the lack of it makes this the most well reasoned debate I have had on the subjct actually.

Quote from: "keith2004"I don't know where to start in this thread, from what i read ( i did not read every post) it seems that there are more than a few misunderstanding, and i did not see any self-identified "Black" or "African American" person responding.

So as an Black person i will.....

I understand the resentment that many white people have to programs like affirmative action ect.

And i have heard of people not exactly liking the fact that Black people have College Funds, NAACP, Black Caucus in congress, BET (Black Entertainment Television), Black Magazines Ect.

The Basic reason for this is Black people had to create their Own Music channels, Magazines, Ect. because they were not welcome in others. They were not accepted as a part of Mainstream American culture so they developed their own subculture.
Though many of there Prejudices have disappeared I don't (and most Black people) feel that there is no reason to throw away the creative outlets this culture created after being excluded for so long.

As for Programs and Organization that were created to help Black People, they are not all still Relevant (the fact that NAACP has colored in it still makes me wonder) and i think the Congressional Black Caucus is Irrelevant, and other entities may become irrelevant as time goes on, but as the Minority in any Democratic Country Blacks will need people looking out to make sure the Majority does not impose unfair or undue rules or practices. YES we have a Black President in a few days, but White Men still hold the majority of the power.

The sentiment I consistently feel from those black people who are resentful of "the 'White Man' holding the majority of the power" is that they are in favor of a racial overthrow of power in the US.

It is as though they will only be satisfied once every person of influence in the whole of the United States is a person of color (because even if all of the Senate and all of Congress and the President were all blacks, they would complain that the VP is White [or has some white in him])...

This is quite obvious in the fact that they are never assuaged by the already immense power of their influence in media and politics. As a special interest group they have remarkable say-so in how things are conducted that have anything to do with race (even with races that are not their own).

What will satisfy the black subculture we talk about, or as more radical black "liberationists" would say, the black nation? Is that what they want? A black nation? A nation of blacks?

They refuse to be content until the whole of the power-caste is made up of blacks. And this precisely mirrors the National Socialist platform (http://www.nsm88.org/25points/25pointsengl.html), replacing white with black.

For a group of people who believe that race is not a dividing line among people groups, it's amazing that they are resentful that members of another group they don't believe in hold power over their own. If there is no race distinction, what are you upset about? Ardent White racists (with some very rare exceptions (http://www.davidduke.com)) just don't get elected in the modern day.

The blacks who fight for affirmative action and extra benefits based on race are the same who convey a desire for a black nation, i.e., a nation of their own, which they govern, they institute, and (we should hope) they keep alive and well.

Hearkening back to my earlier days, I would have quickly said to let them have it, and let us have our own.

Quote from: "chuff"

Quote from: "keith2004"I don't know where to start in this thread, from what i read ( i did not read every post) it seems that there are more than a few misunderstanding, and i did not see any self-identified "Black" or "African American" person responding.

So as an Black person i will..... :eek:    WOW

well i dont feel that way and i have alot of Black friends, non of them feel that way....i dont know which fringe Morons you spoke to, but please understand that the Majority of us dont feel that way.....i was on the Mall today with 3 Million others for the inauguration....and trust me that is not the Vibe, people are content, No one is trying to take over anything....

Aside from the fact that I think not only America but also other countries in the world have shown tremendous growth and evolving, and it is 2009 after all, I don't feel that black and white people are truly equal. And there are more reasons than one to why that is.

Saving you the slavery and apartheid speech, I can't - and no one should - deny that black people have had more to suffer in two generations than other races in twenty. Even though that is not relevant in today's culture anymore, the repercussions of it still live on in many people's hearts and minds. As little as fifty years ago, when - I think - most of our parents where already born, people where taking their white children out of a school because an African-American mother had wanted a better education for her six-year-old daughter. That child is still alive today; she is a 54-year-old woman now. And she still thinks about the fact that she almost didn't get the chance to sit in a classroom and be taught. And she tells her children and grandchildren about it,v and they learn.

The differences between black and white people haven't gone because they are no longer physically present; they are very much alive today, as the elderly tell their children about the things they didn't have and the newer generations should be grateful for. Blacks and whites are equal in their rights, but they may not be so equal that they can blend in with each other without people seeing their different histories.

Regarding the n-word. I was raised a white child, but born to a white mother and a black father. Whenever people say that word, or any other ethnic slur, I get very frustrated. I find that white people often think that they're not allowed to say the n-word, while other ethnic groups can do whatever they want. Let me shed the light differently so that you may hopefully find some peace about the subject: whether people say the 'n word', or any other demeaning noun regarding Indians, Jews, the Chinese, African, Germans, the French, Canadians, Muslims or whatever group that someone may feel unfamiliar with, it is WRONG. And when you hear an African-American say the 'n word' to a friend or relative, it is STILL WRONG. These things are formed by certain horrible moments in history (it doesn't come from rap videos, it comes from the time when slaves where hung from trees) and are carried on by those who use it, regardless of their background.

Without not practicing what I preach; you don't see Muslim women who dress in certain religious and / or cultural ways go out calling each other 'fucking penguin' or  'dumb Arab' (which I DON'T think they are, but I frequently hear people say that around me). The definition of the n-word was very much altered by our modern music culture. Instead of the correct spelling, the now slang version 'niggah' is perfectly fine. Well, I don't think it is, and many people agree with me.

So, if you are white and you feel bothered by African-Americans call each other the 'n word', think about the fact that out of the approximate 13 percent of African-Americans in the United States, there are thousands and thousands of them who are embarrassed by the fact that their own people are still keeping up the racial differences and bigotry, and are not putting a stop to what many people fought for.

You can't say the n word, but they can't either.

Quote from: "flickroon"And when you hear an African-American say the 'n word' to a friend or relative, it is STILL WRONG.

I've always been told (by Black folk who use the word) that it's just a way of reclaiming a concept, taking it away from those with the power. Much the same way lesbians have claimed "dike" or gays have claimed "queer" or, just for fun, the way we use "heathen" or "heretic." The best way to change peoples' thoughts is to change peoples' language: we think in language.

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"I've always been told (by Black folk who use the word) that it's just a way of reclaiming a concept, taking it away from those with the power.

I am part African and a lesbian, and if there are two groups who endure both internal and external name calling all the time, I've hit the jackpot. And I have nothing to say to black people who call me 'niggah' or anything like that, or to lesbians who call me 'dyke' or 'queer'. I am more than those two things, and nobody should have to face being looked upon as only a homosexual or only an Indian or only a Jew.

I feel that if you allow yourself and members of your group to use ethnic, cultural or sexual slurs to address to them (which many people - even inside the group - find very offensive), then you should also allow other groups to do the same. I don't see it fit or possible that you can call out the n-word to a friend in the streets while a group of white people walks by, and then go "Hey, look, I can say it but you better be damn sure you can't".

What that message really says is: "We want equality, but we feel like we can't get it. And why can't we get it? Because by using this word, we still keep certain aspects of the bigotry and discrimination alive that has tortured us for generations, and we don't allow for that horrid moment in history to rest in peace."

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"

Quote from: "flickroon"And when you hear an African-American say the 'n word' to a friend or relative, it is STILL WRONG.

I've always been told (by Black folk who use the word) that it's just a way of reclaiming a concept, taking it away from those with the power. Much the same way lesbians have claimed "dike" or gays have claimed "queer" or, just for fun, the way we use "heathen" or "heretic." The best way to change peoples' thoughts is to change peoples' language: we think in language.

That is exactly why phrases like "Fo' shizzer my nizzer" are used. As soon as white people start using it, the phrasiology has to be amended.

South Park, the greatest social commentary since Shakespear.

Mr. Garrison: Chef, what did you do when white people stole your culture?
Chef: Oh, well, we black people just always tried to stay out in front of them.
Mr. Slave: How did you do that?
Chef: Well, like with our slang. Black people always used to say, "I'm in the house" instead of "I'm here." But then white people all started to say "in the house" so we switched it to "in the hizzouse." Hizzouse became hizzizzouse, and then white folk started saying that, and we had to change it to hizzie, then "in the hizzle" which we had to change to "hizzle fo **** and now, because white people say "hizzle fo **** we have to say "flippity floppity floo."
Mr. Garrison: We don't have time for all that, Chef! Oh, if only those Queer Eye For the Straight Guy people understood what they were doing. Wait. That's it! I know exactly what to do! Come on, Mr. Slave! Let's get back to our flippity floppity floo.
Chef: Oh no! Dammit! Don't call it that!

I agree about racist slurs by the way, if it's racist, it's racist, you can't selectivley choose who can use what words.

Quote from: "SSY"South Park, the greatest social commentary since Shakespear.

Mr. Garrison: Chef, what did you do when white people stole your culture?
Chef: Oh, well, we black people just always tried to stay out in front of them.
Mr. Slave: How did you do that?
Chef: Well, like with our slang. Black people always used to say, "I'm in the house" instead of "I'm here." But then white people all started to say "in the house" so we switched it to "in the hizzouse." Hizzouse became hizzizzouse, and then white folk started saying that, and we had to change it to hizzie, then "in the hizzle" which we had to change to "hizzle fo **** and now, because white people say "hizzle fo **** we have to say "flippity floppity floo."
Mr. Garrison: We don't have time for all that, Chef! Oh, if only those Queer Eye For the Straight Guy people understood what they were doing. Wait. That's it! I know exactly what to do! Come on, Mr. Slave! Let's get back to our flippity floppity floo.
Chef: Oh no! Dammit! Don't call it that!

I agree about racist slurs by the way, if it's racist, it's racist, you can't selectivley choose who can use what words.

Haha!
Matt and Trey deserve medals.

No two human beings have ever been 'equal' in any meaningful way, though occasionally they are similar in one way or another.
Equality, like all idealist delusions, is a mug's game: it does no one any good, and it doesn't make a bit of sense.

PS: 'Races' are also imaginary.

It all depends on whether they (black or white) are rich or poor, in a position of power or not  in position of power, where they live and where they dont live, what schools they go to and what schools they don't go to.

In the last century things have changed dramatically for both poor white people and poor black people, which I believe has been because of the breakdown of the class system (which is the real enemy :blink:

Races are not equal ,if we watch the IQ.
Average IQ of:
Asian is 110
White is 100
Black 75 - Doesn't matter if he/she is living in U.S or Africa.

I'm not racist,It's just racist fact.

This going to get messy, real fast.

I would point out your sources by the way, it's always a nice thing to do, even more important in such a charged discussion as this one.

The most notable example of this type of thing in recent times, is the publishing of "The Bell Curve" which includes some material about intelligence and race. Like anything that might suggest such a link, the book has been attacked in pretty much every way imaginable. The topic seems to really incite people to rail against it, unfortunatley, most of the people criticising it come witht he midset of " The book must be wrong, I must disprove it in some way", which is rarely conducive to scientific debate.

Attempting to generalize normative statistics of any given demographic to all of the individuals in an attempt to justify assertions of inequality is wrong headed, and foolish. All because a normative general assessment (although IQ is a terrible one -- it is highly criticized as inaccurate, culturally biased, and largely meaningless, because the number can various by such a large degree depending on who's IQ exam you take) established that the average of some demographic is lower than another does not imply that there are no members of the lower demographic that are superior in that regard to members in the demographic with a higher over all average -- so it hardly justifies saying that the entire demographic is inferior in that regard.

Given that the statistics of IQs fails to take into account relevant variables that we know to effect results -- one being that on average Asian people are better educated than white people, and have a general better educational system, and white people are generally better educated than black people -- which is well known to affect the results, and is a factor that is wholly unrelated to their race -- after tallied it is largely meaningless.

All this aside however it is irrelevant. Social equality, or equity under the law, does not imply equality of ability, intelligence, sexual appeal, height, weight, health, speed, strength, or any other measurement one wants to go by. Of course no one is perfectly equal with regard to such standards. Equality under the law means equal rights, and equal social, and moral consideration, not equal physical or metal ability.

Favoring intelligence, strength, speed, beauty or any other standard one wants to judge people at is arbitrary. There is no rational reason to favor one thing over others, and which traits are most preferable is simply a matter of opinion. If you want to judge equity by such standards, then you might as well just judge by skin colour, or gender. At least they are more practical, and more easily determined.

If you want to judge "equality" by ability for whatever reason, then do it on an individual basis. Generalizing across demographics already assumes that whatever statistical significant figure you may come up with is attributable to them by virtue of being members of that demographic, without first actually linking it with evidence to the specific trait that links the demographic, and discounting any other possible explanations, or that it is mere correlation. This is highly unscientific.

It is also simply unfair. You could be a member of a demographic in the high end of the statistics, and personally be a great deal superior than the average of all other demographics, but still be painted as inferior with the same wide brush -- simply by virtue of being a member of a demographic with a low over all average.

Quote from: "Taavi"Races are not equal ,if we watch the IQ.
Average IQ of:
Asian is 110
White is 100
Black 75 - Doesn't matter if he/she is living in U.S or Africa.

I'm not racist,It's just racist fact.

Yeah, this could get ugly, especially since this was posted without any context or without an introduction. Additionally, if you post statistics, post the reference source, please. I would like for you to get off on the right foot here, Taavi. Thank you.

Folks, please do not immediately flame him/her (no one has done so yet, just asking that no one does). Let's understand first. A reminder has been given, so let's relax a bit, please.  

Quote from: "McQ"Folks, please do not immediately flame him/her (no one has done so yet, just asking that no one does). Let's understand first. A reminder has been given, so let's relax a bit, please.  :blush:

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"

Quote from: "McQ"Folks, please do not immediately flame him/her (no one has done so yet, just asking that no one does). Let's understand first. A reminder has been given, so let's relax a bit, please.  :blush:

(I hate you so much)


 

Quote from: "Taavi"Races are not equal ,if we watch the IQ.
Average IQ of:
Asian is 110
White is 100
Black 75 - Doesn't matter if he/she is living in U.S or Africa.

I'm not racist,It's just racist fact.

What is *racist fact" when its at home ?

Quote from: "Kevin"Just to clear it up before anyone starts thinking this, I am not racist and I believe it's wrong to be racist... And I'm from Kentucky, so that's good xD

In the past 100+ years, the U.S. has come a long way when it comes to racism. Went from Blacks being slaves and saw and thought of as property, to them being free but still had a lot of restrictions, to segregation and the racism dramatically lowering, to where we are now, a minimal of racists... Well, at least people who admit it.
But are Blacks (I don't say African American, cause MOST aren't) and Whites TRULY equal?
When it comes to political terms, I do believe so, unless there is like some weird law or act I don't know about, then yes. But socially, NO.

I don't understand how it's like Blacks and Mexicans (for example) can say certain things and it be fine, but if a white person says it, its racist... Like for example, the "N word". I'm not saying that I should be able to go around and call every black person I see one, but I just don't see why Blacks can go around and say it to even a white guy and it be fine, but if I say it, ALL HELL BREAKS LOOSE OH SHIT RACIST (most likely). I know that is was an offensive term used a while back, but I thought the U.S. was past this... People really shouldn't care, it's just a word... I mean come on, someone calls a white person Honky, it's fine, or Cracker, but white's can't say the "N word"... Now according to South Park, white people just don't understand, but that's not the point... Lol wow I can't believe I said that much on it...

Then again, like certain jokes... White people can't really say SOME black jokes, but blacks can say like any white joke (even if they ALL suck...)... I just find this stuff amazing.



Now, I am NOT saying that all whites should go around calling blacks the "N word" freely and whenever, because that would just start conflict, and it would kind of ruin the word, but it should not not be ok if a white person does, or says a black joke or something like that... Know what I mean? American society is weird...

Amazing and unimportant since most of the authors of these Jokes lack integrity to begin with.

What shall we do with "Blazing Saddles"? It's one of my fave movies. Co-Wrtitten by Richard Pryor before he reputiated the N word. It's full of N**r but to me It's THE  Un-racist movie ever. ('Course it's homophobic and has the horrbly mysogynist line about liking rape, but that's a whole 'nother topic.)