I have said this in the old board, but some people seem to have forgotten it.  SO I will post it again.

I consider myself color blind.  I do not care about race.

I do not care if somebody is oppressed because they are black (red, yellow, white).  All I care about is if they are oppressed.  Period.  I do not care about race in any way.  To me, all people are people.  Period.

Now I have been accused of being a raceist 2 times while I was in the military.  Ironically, both times I was accused of being raceist against Hispanics.  And both times, was after I had to bring somebody up on charges.

One incident was after I caught 2 guys who had broken into a building they were supposed to be guarding.  They broke in so they could take a nap out of the rain.  The second time was when I asked somebody to do something, and he told me to do something I am not anatomically able to do.  I then rephrased my request as an order, and he tried to take a swing at me.

Both times, they requested lawyers and filed charges of raceism against me.  Both times, it was thrown out before it got anywhere.  Luckily, in the military you have to have more then just a scumbag's say-so.

Luckily, the first incident occured about 6 months after I got married.  THe second time was after my son was born.  I say luckily, because my wife was born and raised in Argentina.

I am glad that military lawyers were able to see how silly it was to claim I was raceist against Hispanics, when I was married to one, and my son is also Hispanic.  But that did not stop people from making the claim.  And I admit that there are raceist people out there.  In fact, I work with a few.

Everybody at my work now knows not to say raceist things around me.  I will turn and walk away from them.  In fact, I will not even talk to them for 20 minutes to 2 hours after I hear them saying "the N word" or some other such garbage.  I will simply act like they are not there.  Is rather effective, because I treat them how I see them at that time, as nothing.

Raceism disgusts me.  Even more so is people who throw the raceism word around all the time, whether it applies or not.  That is prejudging me, just as much as when a raceist assumes that something is true/not true just because of somebodies race.

I am proud of the fact that I do not care about race.  I view the world and judge people just as Dr. King wished.  I judge people by the content of their character, not the color of their skin.

I'm with you man!  Because I'm prejudiced against....racists.  People who think they can just assume stuff about people based on the color of their skin obviously can't be very rational about much anything else.

The thing that disturbs me most is that a lot of the racists I know are at CHURCH!  I was told that a long time ago, when there weren't any black people at my church, some of the men used to tell these really cruel racial jokes during PRAYER BREAKFAST!  And my brother said he remembers a time when the associate pastor was preaching and he said that "...more *n-words* need to get shot..."  That just sickens me how some who calls themself a Christian can talk like that. 

Also all these old-school people think that interracial dating/marriage is SUCH A SIN!  One guy said he was "so disappointed in Bob Jones University" when he heard they dropped their interracial dating policy.......HELLO!!! That has ABSOLUTELY NO BIBLICAL BASIS!!!  The college adopted that policy WAY BACK IN THE DAY and it was only because a Middle-Eastern family tried to sue the school because they're daughter got married to a white guy.
Oh well, some people argue that if people of two different races marry and have kids, the children won't know what to identify themselves as.....um...DUH!  Try half and half? They don't have to PICK one or the other.

Oh well, some people argue that if people of two different races marry and have kids, the children won't know what to identify themselves as.....um...DUH!  Try half and half? They don't have to PICK one or the other.


How about a race that everybody else in the world throws on us, American?

I am your typical Heinz-57 American.  I have so many races in my background, that I could never count them all.  But I only identify myself as American.

I am not Irish-American, Scottish-American, German-Aaerican, Native-American, or French-American.  My son does not consider himself Argentinian-American or Hispanic (unless he is FORCED to claim that status).  He is simply an American.

In fact, my ex-wife finds it funny that she is classified as "Hispanic", while all of her ancestors come from France and Spain. In fact,  I am darker then she is!  She still considers herself white, while everybody else considers her "Hispanic".

Hyphenating race to me just makes people different.  And that is not how I view our nation.  We are not any one race, but an amalgamation of the best from everywhere.  I often say we are the best of the rejects from everywhere else.  We rejects all came together to make our own nation, where that does not matter.

It is OK to be proud of your heritage.  I go to Scottish Games on occasion.  But I look to my present and future to set my path in life, not the past of my ancestors which I have no control over.

As for raceists at a Church, that is simply disgusting.  I would not go to a church like that.  And if it is part of a large denomination, then you should go to their governing body and register a complaint.  If the elders and preacher condone such behavior, I would say it is time for the higher authority in the Church to clean house.

As for raceists at a Church, that is simply disgusting.  I would not go to a church like that.  And if it is part of a large denomination, then you should go to their governing body and register a complaint.  If the elders and preacher condone such behavior, I would say it is time for the higher authority in the Church to clean house.


It is an independent church, meaning one local church that governs itself.  We do have a new pastor now and he's younger, but the associate is still there.  There are now more people of different races and I'm glad because then people will at least watch their mouth.  I know some people are still think the wrong things sometimes, but I am seeing them be kind to others.  And if anyone had ever complained if I had brought my black boyfriend to church, well I'd just have to point how how hypocritical they are, since our youth leader is a white guy and he's married to an Asian woman, and they are a very good Christian family.  I think it's good they're there cuz then some of the old-school people can see that "Oh, I guess interracial marriage isn't so bad after all..."

Funny story:

The other day, I went to this fast-food restaurant with my boyfriend and we got some hamburgers and fries... and we needed ketchup. And for whatever reason, we both went up to the counter - and the girl who finally came over to help us didn't realize we were together. (Okay, there was maybe 2 feet between us because I was trying to poke my head around the counter to find the ketchup 'cause they were taking too long.) She was like, "Oh, are you --? Well, she was over there ..." Anyway, it kinda pissed off my (non-white) boyfriend... guess we didn't quite look like a couple. :P

Funny story:

The other day, I went to this fast-food restaurant with my boyfriend and we got some hamburgers and fries... and we needed ketchup. And for whatever reason, we both went up to the counter - and the girl who finally came over to help us didn't realize we were together. (Okay, there was maybe 2 feet between us because I was trying to poke my head around the counter to find the ketchup 'cause they were taking too long.) She was like, "Oh, are you --? Well, she was over there ..." Anyway, it kinda pissed off my (non-white) boyfriend... guess we didn't quite look like a couple. :P


Becca told me about a time yall went out to eat and the waitress was talking to your bf very slowly, to make sure he could understand.  And he got mad...or at least a little upset.

Well, anyway I wonder if not enough people realize that "whites" are discriminated against too.  There was this black girl on my hall at school who, everytime we were in the bathroom (community bathrooms suck!) she was on her cellphone and I always heard  "Man it was some WHITE dude/girl..." Was it really necessary to point out what they are?
And the other day I was hanging out with my friend from Bangladesh.  He had to go stop at this little Bangla convenience store and the woman inside just glared at me the whole time. 

LOL. Sad thing is, he has to talk slowly sometimes, 'cause people don't understand (or don't want to make an effort to understand) his (rather mild) accent.

And the other day I was hanging out with my friend from Bangladesh.  He had to go stop at this little Bangla convenience store and the woman inside just glared at me the whole time.

Maybe she was just surprised. ;)

As most people know, my husband is half Puerto Rican (his father is of German decent). His cousin (on his mother's side) is also married to a "white woman." The two of them went into Dennys one time and they were basically igorned. This was in California.  >:(  We don't "do" Dennys anymore.




Cat

I'm sick of partisan Republicans making up this paranoid narrative about liberals benefiting from racism.  It's completely bogus, especially in the face of what the Republicans did in the 2000 election.

Racism is alive and sick in America, and it isn't some 'tards in white sheets who are perpetuating it.

The only prejudice I have is against morons. 

I can't stand any type of racism.  A person is not their skin color, a person is who is inside. 

I have been accused of being racist because I am white and live in Utah where there aren't alot of African Americans.  (the town I grew up in had one family.  The main minority population in Utah are Asian and Hispanic) It hurt being told to my face that I must be racist because of where I was raised.  I was raised not to care about color.  Too many people judge by the color of skin and it needs to stop.

     I used to drive a semi cross-country and when I was in the South, I don't think I ever saw one single white person working in a fast-food restaurant. All the crews were all African-Americans. I don't know if white Southerners think that this kind of work is beneath them or something, but if anyone here is from that region I was wondering if they could explain that to me.
 

The only prejudice I have is against morons. 

I can't stand any type of racism.  A person is not their skin color, a person is who is inside. 

I have been accused of being racist because I am white and live in Utah where there aren't alot of African Americans.  (the town I grew up in had one family.  The main minority population in Utah are Asian and Hispanic) It hurt being told to my face that I must be racist because of where I was raised.  I was raised not to care about color.  Too many people judge by the color of skin and it needs to stop.


I think my mom is oblivously racist.  She's one of those people who always has to mention someone's race even when it has nothing to do with anything.  And when we go to eat at restaurants on the "poor side of town" she always has to make some comment like the people there "must be on welfare..."  I keep telling her she needs to stop.
The way someone is brought up is no excuse for being racist.  My roommate my 1st semester was ALWAYS making very rude racial jokes, and always did it around me and teased me because my boyfriend was black.  Then she'd say "Sorry, I was just brought up that way..."  >:(

So far, this conversation has focused on members'ack of person prejudice, which I believe is totally sincere and which I applaude.  Might I suggest, though, that there is a differance between prejudice and racism.  Prejudice has to do with who you chose to assosiate with (I am prejudiced against fundamentalist Christians, am reluctant to talk to them because we sleak different languages, and so avoid them whenever possible - although there was 1 cute one when I was a teaching assistant who apparantly wanted to violate a few of the Commandments with me...I declined!).  Racism has to do with the disadvantages built into the system that denies people, usually of color, the advantages that those of us who can pass as "white" usually get. 

And I'm not denying that there is "reverse racism".  Apparently, when I interviewed at Castleton, some thought that I would be darker than I am.  In fact, one said something like "we thought you were black", or "we would have prefered if you were black" (this was 20 years ago mind, so memory isn't as clear as I might like).

Regardeless, race is a fundfamental issue for this country.  I look forward to a "colorblind" day, but it will take more than just the good intentions and good actions of you all and other average folks to end the legacy of racism that is the heratage of the U.S.  Your personal conquests of racial prejudice are admirable, are a start, and I applaude them.  The deeper, systematic racism remains to be confronted.

And talking about not being "racist", as a Puerto Rican man, I married a white woman, twice.  Slumming?  No offence, its just all in your point of view.

prejudice and racism.  Prejudice has to do with who you chose to assosiate with (I am prejudiced against fundamentalist Christians, am reluctant to talk to them because we sleak different languages, and so avoid them whenever possible - although there was 1 cute one when I was a teaching assistant who apparantly wanted to violate a few of the Commandments with me...I declined!). 

You just couldn't do it could you?  All Christians are fundamentalist....what was that ''i'' word?

     I used to drive a semi cross-country and when I was in the South, I don't think I ever saw one single white person working in a fast-food restaurant. All the crews were all African-Americans. I don't know if white Southerners think that this kind of work is beneath them or something, but if anyone here is from that region I was wondering if they could explain that to me.
 


I haven't noticed...... ::)


Seriously i'm glad someone pointed this out.  But with a high drop-out can you blame them.  I'm glad people of all races work in fast food, i'd rather them doing that then living on unemployment.

I haven't noticed...... ::)


Seriously i'm glad someone pointed this out.  But with a high drop-out can you blame them.  I'm glad people of all races work in fast food, i'd rather them doing that then living on unemployment.

Why is the drop-out rate for African Americans so high?

I have to admit, this week I have been applauding one of my idols when I was growing up, Bill Cosby.

Dr. Cosby stood up at a Brown Vs. Board Of Education this week, and really tore into the aspects of the "Black Community" that he feels is dragging them down.

Blacks useing the "N word" about each other and themselves, not speaking English, unwed mothers, abscent fathers, drugs, and crime are all things he blasted.  And again at a Rainbow-PUSH dinner, he continued his castigation.

I always thought that he was a real man, and a gentleman.  In the early days of his career, he tried to spread himself between teaching (he was a Junior High teacher) and his comedy career.  I remember my parents going to see him in Vegas, which he did every summer during the school break.  It was only when his career took off to the point that he could not do both that he stopped teaching.

His oldest son Ennis was also involved in education when he was murdered several years ago.  And I applaud him for making this stance.  I only hope he is not blasted to harshly by other blacks for his needed opinions.

http://www.pww.org/article/articleview/5425/1/221

Living in Chicago, there have been countless stories on this.  What amazes me is that there are African Americans who are chastizing him because he dared to speak out against "his people". ::)


I agree.  And to me, Bill Cosby is somebody well worth idolizing.

His shows are classics.  Even skits he did 30+ years ago are as funny now as they were when they were first performed.  He also does not swear.  ALL of his bits are clean, and able to be enjoyed by people of any age.

I remember when Eddie Murphy lashed out at him 20 years ago.  When I first saw Eddie on SNL, I thought he was fantastic.  Then I heard him swearing and cussing like Richard Pryor, and my first thought was "Eddie, you don't need to be like this".  Obviously he later realized this, because his popularity is now back where it was 20 years ago.  More kids know of him as "Donkey" then anything else.

I often think that is part of the problem.  Bill is a self-made man, who worked his way through college, then was a successful teacher.  His comedy is clean and family oriented.  I guess among the "thug" element, he is just not cool.

He didn't say that, he said "fundamentalist Christians" meaning (IMO) "those Christians who are 'fundamentalists' "  It's called an adjective and it defines what type of Christians of which he speaks.  I'm sure he associates with some Christians, just not the fundamentalist ones.



I'm sure DC will respond to this himself but you right that he does associate with Christians. In fact, there are many in his family as well as mine. Being a Christian does not make one a "fundamentalist".



Cat

You just couldn't do it could you?  All Christians are fundamentalist....what was that ''i'' word?


Those who responded to this are correct.  I never said that ALL Christians are "fundamentalists".  I used the word as an adjective modifying (ergo limiting) the term "Christian", as you well know.  If fact, some of my best friend are Christian.  Seems you have mastered the tactic of the right wing media in misrepresenting what people say.  I think you owe me an apology.

I haven't noticed...... ::)


Seriously i'm glad someone pointed this out.  But with a high drop-out can you blame them.  I'm glad people of all races work in fast food, i'd rather them doing that then living on unemployment.


You hadn't noticed that in the south most "servers" are people of color?  I guess I'm not surprised.

During the late 19th Century and early 20th the drop out rate was high for all working class people because their families needed the $$$ to get by.  That is what people of color face today.  Cheeze, it effects lots of working class families who need 2 or 3 incomes, or more, to get by.  The middle class is shrinking, the poor are increasing, and the rich want "just one more dance".  Villified as he was by the right in his own day, FDR understood that to save the system, it had to improve the standard oif living of at least some of the people who do the work that creates the wealth of society.  So we got the National Labor Relations Act and Social Security.  Neocons are undermining that "social safty net" as weak as it already is.  As under attack as the working class is, minorities are under a greater attack.  But the ball can't go on forever.

I think you owe me an apology.


You are right, I do.  I am sorry.

I have said this in the old board, but some people seem to have forgotten it.  SO I will post it again.

I consider myself color blind.  I do not care about race.

I do not care if somebody is oppressed because they are black (red, yellow, white).  All I care about is if they are oppressed.  Period.  I do not care about race in any way.  To me, all people are people.  Period.

Now I have been accused of being a raceist 2 times while I was in the military.  Ironically, both times I was accused of being raceist against Hispanics.  And both times, was after I had to bring somebody up on charges.

One incident was after I caught 2 guys who had broken into a building they were supposed to be guarding.  They broke in so they could take a nap out of the rain.  The second time was when I asked somebody to do something, and he told me to do something I am not anatomically able to do.  I then rephrased my request as an order, and he tried to take a swing at me.

Both times, they requested lawyers and filed charges of raceism against me.  Both times, it was thrown out before it got anywhere.  Luckily, in the military you have to have more then just a scumbag's say-so.

Luckily, the first incident occured about 6 months after I got married.  THe second time was after my son was born.  I say luckily, because my wife was born and raised in Argentina.

I am glad that military lawyers were able to see how silly it was to claim I was raceist against Hispanics, when I was married to one, and my son is also Hispanic.  But that did not stop people from making the claim.  And I admit that there are raceist people out there.  In fact, I work with a few.

Everybody at my work now knows not to say raceist things around me.  I will turn and walk away from them.  In fact, I will not even talk to them for 20 minutes to 2 hours after I hear them saying "the N word" or some other such garbage.  I will simply act like they are not there.  Is rather effective, because I treat them how I see them at that time, as nothing.

Raceism disgusts me.  Even more so is people who throw the raceism word around all the time, whether it applies or not.  That is prejudging me, just as much as when a raceist assumes that something is true/not true just because of somebodies race.

I am proud of the fact that I do not care about race.  I view the world and judge people just as Dr. King wished.  I judge people by the content of their character, not the color of their skin.


I don't believe the color thing for a minute.  Let me ask you this, say you got mugged and while talking to the police about it they ask you to describe the person and what race was he.  Are you saying you would say something like ''I don't know, I don't see color, it was just a person.  There is only one race the human race.''

You are right, I do.  I am sorry.


Accepted, thanks.

I don't believe the color thing for a minute.  Let me ask you this, say you got mugged and while talking to the police about it they ask you to describe the person and what race was he.  Are you saying you would say something like ''I don't know, I don't see color, it was just a person.  There is only one race the human race.''


Obviously, in this situation, one would give as complete a description as possible.  Equally obvious is that fact that we all have different skin colors.  But you might be interested in the fact that the genetic differences between, say Sweedes and Sudanese are less than the genetic differences between Sweedes and Sweedes and Sudanese and Sudanese.  Race is a social construct, not a biological one.  In fact, biologically, we ARE one race.

You hadn't noticed that in the south most "servers" are people of color?  I guess I'm not surprised.

During the late 19th Century and early 20th the drop out rate was high for all working class people because their families needed the $$$ to get by.  That is what people of color face today.  Cheeze, it effects lots of working class families who need 2 or 3 incomes, or more, to get by.  The middle class is shrinking, the poor are increasing, and the rich want "just one more dance".  Villified as he was by the right in his own day, FDR understood that to save the system, it had to improve the standard oif living of at least some of the people who do the work that creates the wealth of society.  So we got the National Labor Relations Act and Social Security.  Neocons are undermining that "social safty net" as weak as it already is.  As under attack as the working class is, minorities are under a greater attack.  But the ball can't go on forever.

Members of my family travelling in the south noted that kitchen help and busboys were almost exclusively of color.  Hosts and waitstaff were almost exclusively white.  
Frankly, I'm tired of hearing conservatives say there's no more racism in America.  Denying racism in America should be treated akin to denying the Holocaust.  What's worse is the way conservatives play the craven tactic of blaming those who try to remedy the problems of racism of perpetuating the issue.  If it weren't for pesky liberals, there would be no racism, goes the thinking.
Don Carlos is correct about the shrinking middle class.  The natural order of things in the history of civilization has been a tiny minority at the top controlling the wealth, and a vast underclass desperately scrambling to stay alive.
The "middle class" is a socialist construct brought about by government regulation and organized labor.  The only reason why the Right woos the "middle class" is because the plutocracy needs a mandate from the masses to carry on its evil deeds.  Thus, the Republican party charms the middle class voters the way Ted Bundy charms a college girl.  Pretty soon, though, the plutocracy will gain enough power to outgrow this "democracy" ruse.

Members of my family travelling in the south noted that kitchen help and busboys were almost exclusively of color.  Hosts and waitstaff were almost exclusively white.  
Frankly, I'm tired of hearing conservatives say there's no more racism in America.  Denying racism in America should be treated akin to denying the Holocaust.  What's worse is the way conservatives play the craven tactic of blaming those who try to remedy the problems of racism of perpetuating the issue.  If it weren't for pesky liberals, there would be no racism, goes the thinking.
Don Carlos is correct about the shrinking middle class.  The natural order of things in the history of civilization has been a tiny minority at the top controlling the wealth, and a vast underclass desperately scrambling to stay alive.
The "middle class" is a socialist construct brought about by government regulation and organized labor.  The only reason why the Right woos the "middle class" is because the plutocracy needs a mandate from the masses to carry on its evil deeds.  Thus, the Republican party charms the middle class voters the way Ted Bundy charms a college girl.  Pretty soon, though, the plutocracy will gain enough power to outgrow this "democracy" ruse.


Unless people wake up, that's where we are heading, to hell in a hand basket.

I'm really glad this topic has been raised, because I think that one of America's biggest problems is that we don't just sit down and really talk to each other enough. When I was in the Army, there was an black man in my unit with whom I would discuss racial issues with, and we had some really great conversations. He really opened my eyes to a lot of things.  I think that most people of all races sidestep these issues for fear of offending each other (I am guilty of this myself), and I believe our society is suffering because of this.
   I just read Bill Cosby's most recent comments, and while what he said was pretty harsh, it was also true, and it really needed to be said. All Americans, no matter what race they may be, need to realize that this is a two-way street, and we really need to start working together to solve our problems rather than pointing fingers and blaming each other.

I don't believe the color thing for a minute.  Let me ask you this, say you got mugged and while talking to the police about it they ask you to describe the person and what race was he.  Are you saying you would say something like ''I don't know, I don't see color, it was just a person.  There is only one race the human race.''


Now we are not talking about "People", but about a "Person".

I remember my dad had his van broken into in 1982.  One of his co-workers told him that he saw 2 Hispanics hanging around the parking lot, and they did not work for the company.  One of his other co-workers busted in and said "So they are thieves, because they are Hispanic?"

My dad's friend said no, that he is simply saying 2 people who did not work there were in the parking lot, and they happened to be Hispanic.

I dated a gal several years ago, and made the mistake of moving to Conneticut for 3 months to live with her.  I did not realize how she was until I said I was going to visit a used bookstore in a neighboring town.

When I asked for the directions to go there, she said "You do not want to go there, that is a Puerto Rican neighborhood."  I gave her a blank stare, and said "so what".  She then informed me that people like "us" (meaning White) did not go into "those" areas.  Needless to say, I went there anyways, and did not have any problems at all.

When I say I am colorblind to people's race, that means people as people.  When it comes to a PERSON, a single individual, the race just does not matter to me.  I have lived in both Compton, Watts, and Inglewood, which are largely black ghettos.  I lived in Garden Grove, which is a Vietnamese area.  My first job in Alabama was as a DJ at a club where 98% of the clients were black.  My ex-wife and my son are Hispanic.  These are awefully strange places for me to live and work, if I am this Republican Raceist that so many seem to want to believe me to be.

When I see a scumbag, I just see a scumbag.  When I see a great person, I see a great person.  Their color means nothing in that in any way, shape, or form.

we really need to start working together to solve our problems rather than pointing fingers and blaming each other.


Certainly, but at the same time we need to understand that the playing fielf is far from level.  Should it ever become level, then we "white" people can say "go for it" until it is level we need to say something else, like "we recognize the disability that hundreds of years of slavery and Jim Crow have saddled you with, and we want to make amends".  I don't hear that on this thread.  Working together, it seems to me, implies a common goal.  I'm not sure that elite white America has the goal of "dark" equality in mind.  Note!  This is in reference to institutional racism, not personal prejudice.  I also admire Cos, I just question his understanding of the deeper issues, or his willingness to confront them.

I'm really glad this topic has been raised, because I think that one of America's biggest problems is that we don't just sit down and really talk to each other enough. When I was in the Army, there was an black man in my unit with whom I would discuss racial issues with, and we had some really great conversations. He really opened my eyes to a lot of things.  I think that most people of all races sidestep these issues for fear of offending each other (I am guilty of this myself), and I believe our society is suffering because of this.
   I just read Bill Cosby's most recent comments, and while what he said was pretty harsh, it was also true, and it really needed to be said. All Americans, no matter what race they may be, need to realize that this is a two-way street, and we really need to start working together to solve our problems rather than pointing fingers and blaming each other.


A lot of what Cosby is saying is right on.  The only thing that bugs me is that his message for African Americans to take charge of their own destiny is getting co-opted by "The Man."  The Man likes Cosby's message because he can twist it into more propaganda against social programs, affirmative action, and other remedies to racism.  I haven't heard Cosby try to distinguish his point of view from that of the conservative white establishment.  I wish he would.

The same conservative white establishment has used he implimentation of social welfare and affirmative action programs to stir up even more racial antagonism.  It's easy to play poor whites off agains poor minorities to distract them from the fact that they're both being screwed over by the super-rich.

America has to finally face the big C word: Class.  The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King talked about "race" for ten years and became a national icon.  He talked about "class" for five weeks and got shot dead.

The same conservative white establishment has used he implimentation of social welfare and affirmative action programs to stir up even more racial antagonism.  It's easy to play poor whites off agains poor minorities to distract them from the fact that they're both being screwed over by the super-rich.
Exactly. I've thought for a long time that the powers that be have been using the media to stir up fear and mistrust between the races. A while ago, I heard a Chris Rock comedy tape where he said that it p*sses him off that every time there is a story involving race on the news, they always try to find the scummiest-looking black person possible to interview. And it's true.

if I am this Republican Raceist that so many seem to want to believe me to be.

When I see a scumbag, I just see a scumbag.  When I see a great person, I see a great person.  Their color means nothing in that in any way, shape, or form.


I hope you are not suggesting that I implied or suggested that you were racist, nor do I recall anyone else making that suggestion.  Further, I am quite willing to belive that you are not prejudiced.

But I can't emphasise enough that, as I said above, there is a difference bewteen racims and prejudice.  Racism is institutional, as in preventing Florida blacks from voting.  Prejudice has to do with our personal likes and dislikes.  Frankly, I don't really care if some people don't like me because I'm Puerto Rican, its their lose.  They are missing out on some great food and music - and yes, I got that latin rythem.  Its institutional limitations, as when prejudice is combined with power that equate to racism.  If you don't want to associate with .... who cares?  If they are last hired and first fired from the most menial jobs, than it becomes a problem.

The same conservative white establishment has used he implimentation of social welfare and affirmative action programs to stir up even more racial antagonism.  It's easy to play poor whites off agains poor minorities to distract them from the fact that they're both being screwed over by the super-rich.

America has to finally face the big C word: Class.  The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King talked about "race" for ten years and became a national icon.  He talked about "class" for five weeks and got shot dead.


"Divid and conquor" has been the establishment strategy for years.  Early in this Century employers hired through agents, and advertized for various specific ethnic groups to bring European animosities, like between Greeks and Turks etc, into the workplace to blunt labor solidarity.  And we can clearly see politicians today doing much the same thing with "the race card". 

How long will it take for poor folk to wake up to the class divisions you point to?  I'm now reading a biography of Mother Jones, the union organized of the early 20th Century.  She faced the same problems.  When will we ever learn?

Let me add to my last post by giving you a good example of my own personal experiences with race and the media. As far back as I can remember, it seemed like every night on the evening news I was bombarded with images of Palestinians rioting in the occupied territories, Iranians burning American flags and holding up signs that said "Death To America," and the scowling face of the Ayatollah Khomeni. I became conditioned to think of Arabs and Muslims as being mean and angry and hateful. So when I was in my mid-20's, I was working at the Kawasaki plant here in town and on one of the assembly lines I worked alongside a couple of Iraqis. I had never really met anyone of Arabic descent before. I was surprised not only at how nice these guys were, but what really caught me off guard was that there was one guy in particular who was every bit as much of a goofball as I am, and we'd yuk it up quite a bit. And I felt like such a fool for just assuming things about an entire group of people. Even now, especially after 9/11, whenever I see an Arab there's a little part of me that thinks, "What if?" And it sucks and I hate feeling that way but I can't help it. It must be hell to be a Muslim in this country right now. A man I work with who emigrated here from Iraq was visiting the zoo in Omaha about two weeks ago, and the police received an anonymous "tip" that he was "prowling" vehicles in the parking lot, so they detained him and his wife and her father for over two hours for "questioning," and according to the paper he said the police were being quite rude about it. He actually had to call the FBI and get a hold of an agent who ran a background check on him after 9/11, and the agent had to drive out to the zoo and tell the cops that he was OK and that he wasn't a terrorist before they'd let him go. He has since filed a complaint against the Omaha Police Department in hopes of getting an apology and getting them to change the behavior of the officers. Apparently he has never had any problems with the police here in Lincoln.
     Aside from the victims of the September 11 attacks and their families, Arab-Americans have suffered the most fallout from this event. They must be putting up with a ton of crap, and I don't see how it can get any better for them anytime soon. I guess the best thing I can do is to fight through my own fears and suspicions and remember that the vast majority of them are decent, hard-working people just like anyone else.
      You know, as I said earlier, we are constantly being saturated with images of Arabs and Muslims as being hateful and violent.  I wonder...how do the Arab networks portray the average American?  What kinds of images of US are being beamed into THEIR living rooms night after night???

Let me add to my last post by giving you a good example of my own personal experiences with race and the media.

Your story, which I edited for brevity, is touching in terms of your willingness to face your own prejudices, and also revealing in terms of institutional racism.  There was a similar incident here in Vermont not long ago.  A black person deposited a small check at his bank, and was later stopped by cops.  Seems another bank patron thought he was casing the joint and called the cops, who never bothered to check with the bank.  Such is the pervasiveness of racism.  Thanks for your story.

You know, as I said earlier, we are constantly being saturated with images of Arabs and Muslims as being hateful and violent.  I wonder...how do the Arab networks portray the average American?  What kinds of images of US are being beamed into THEIR living rooms night after night???

Sad to say, but you're probably right to think that the majority of Arabs are getting a similar sort of anti-West (especially anti-American) propaganda as we are the other way round. 

Sad to say, but you're probably right to think that the majority of Arabs are getting a similar sort of anti-West (especially anti-American) propaganda as we are the other way round. 




When it comes to the Middle East, we need to be a bit historical.  With the exception of Iran (Persia) and Turk (the Ottoman Empire), all the current nations of that region were created as colonial protectorates following WWI.  None are "real" nations and those of Europe or the Americas are.  What we are seeing in all this are the racial manifestations of European Imperialism (and Yankee profiteering from it) cominh home to roost, in addition to later insults, like the CIA coup that installed the Shah and ended democracy in Iran in the 1950's.  I think I would hate "the west"
too if that were my legacy.  So when westerners turn their power against Muslims and Arabs in their midst, instead of finding ways to emiliorate the results of that continuing imperialism, they perpetuate the problem.  And what tool do the powerless have except their bodies? 

I would suggest that the Civil Rights Act was only approved because powerless black people were will to put their bodies on the line, and many, not just Martin, lost their lives in the cause (do the names Medgar Evers, or Emmit Till ring a bell?).

This is NOT a matter of how individuals feel about those who look different, its a question of power, of control of wealth, in terms of the Middle East, about OIL.  As the old miners' union song asked, "which side are you on boys?".

I am a cemetery buff and one day I was visiting a cemetery and there was a couple wandering around.  I had a guide book to the cemetery and we actually ended up at the same grave, so  asked them if they were interested in old cemeteries.  No, they were doing a genealogical thing and were looking up an ancestor,Louis Hayden, the grave we were standing at.  It just so happened that Louis Hayden was in the guide book,.  I asked them again if they were certain it was Louis Hayden they were looking for.  Yes, that was who they were looking for.  So I showed them his picture in the guide book.  They were mid-west Caucasians and it appeared to me they were taken aback to find that the ancestor they were looking for was a famous African American abolitionist.    They seemed fine with it and the fellow took alot of pictures of the grave, but I often wonder how the folks back home took it.

Mushroom, take a look (or a listen) to a Mexican comedian called Carlos Mencia. He has a provocative stand-point but makes his points quite clearly about how human beings interact with each other (esp. of different 'races'). As importantly, he is very funny. 'Take a joke America' is a nice piece of stand-up.  :)

I am a cemetery buff and one day I was visiting a cemetery and there was a couple wandering around.  I had a guide book to the cemetery and we actually ended up at the same grave, so  asked them if they were interested in old cemeteries.  No, they were doing a genealogical thing and were looking up an ancestor,Louis Hayden, the grave we were standing at.  It just so happened that Louis Hayden was in the guide book,.  I asked them again if they were certain it was Louis Hayden they were looking for.  Yes, that was who they were looking for.  So I showed them his picture in the guide book.  They were mid-west Caucasians and it appeared to me they were taken aback to find that the ancestor they were looking for was a famous African American abolitionist.    They seemed fine with it and the fellow took alot of pictures of the grave, but I often wonder how the folks back home took it.


I think there are a lot of folks who have "dark" people in their background.  I have a photo of my maternal grandmother, and 1 of my mother, that I show my students, asking them the "race" of these people.  They usually identify my grandmother as black and my mother as white, as they do me (except in the first semester, when they see my tan).  This demonstration confuses them, as it should.  The one thing we can all say (and which I said on the "race" question at my draft physical) is that we are human.  The rest is a social construct.

I used to live in a town called Wolverhampton in the Middle of England (called 'The Midlands' funny enough) and it had a lot of black (personally I don't like to say 'coloured' because, despite it sounding sensitive, someone said to me that you are generalising a person's identity) and Indian people.

I must confess, when I was young, I used to be quite racist (to the Indians) - I don't think it was intentional, I just thought I was being funny without realising I could have hurt them (I got a massive telling off from an Indian's big sister in my first year of senior school because of an offhand comment I made).

You live and learn don't you?  :)

I used to live in a town called Wolverhampton in the Middle of England (called 'The Midlands' funny enough) and it had a lot of black (personally I don't like to say 'coloured' because, despite it sounding sensitive, someone said to me that you are generalising a person's identity) and Indian people.

I must confess, when I was young, I used to be quite racist (to the Indians) - I don't think it was intentional, I just thought I was being funny without realising I could have hurt them (I got a massive telling off from an Indian's big sister in my first year of senior school because of an offhand comment I made).

You live and learn don't you?  :)



For me, it was even more complex.  I have lots of dark skinned (they would be called black) cousins both by birth and marriage.  I grew up with them, love them all, and have always felt comfortable with my Lationo brothers and sisters regardless of the color of their skin.  But as a kid and young adult, I was never comfortable around "black" people, ie non-lationos.  This came to puzzle me.  Then I remembered something that happened when I was, maybe 5 or 6.  On a ride with Dad's mom and grandpa, we stopped for ice cream.  I went to drink from a water fountain, the kind with that arched metal thiggy over that water.  Grandma said not to touch it since we didn't know what BLACK person might have.  So the fear of black people was implanted, and that little time bomb in my subconscious just ticked away.  My dark but latino relatives and friends were segregated into the "good dark people" while "anglo-blacks" were dangerous.

Then I  actually met a few.  Dad was a foreman at a small factory, and one of his workers, Mr Laws, invited my family to a church social.  We went.  Mr Laws, I though, was a most kind and nice man.  His family was very nice.  His oldest daughter, my age, was VERY attractive.  And I began to wonder about my feelings.  Oh, if you haven't gotten it, the Laws family were black.  I can't remember how, or why, but somehow, that incident with my grandmother came into my memory, and I was able to difuse that horrible, racist time bomb planted in my head so long ago.  I never did date Mr Laws lovely daughter, and I must say I regret not getting to know her.  My lose due to my grandmother's stupid prejudice.  Had we hit it off, I'm sure our rainbow kids would have been knockouts, in every way.

We all must find those "time bombs" of prejudice hidden in our minds and confront them.  Then, we must all recognize and fight the institutional racism embedded in our society.  For a time, I think being color blind means recocnizing the barriars that people of color have to face on a daily basis in our society.

I might add that even though most people see me as white, I have been called a "spic".  I guess is becoose we latinos no speke de eeeglish de way jue like.  That was a long time ago, but I still remember.  The kid who did it got a black eye and I got sent home from school.  You don't mess with Don Carlos.

We all must find those "time bombs" of prejudice hidden in our minds and confront them.  Then, we must all recognize and fight the institutional racism embedded in our society.  For a time, I think being color blind means recocnizing the barriars that people of color have to face on a daily basis in our society.


That is very inspirational, Carlos. To be perfectly honest, I thought I was going to hear chants of 'Bobby the racist' but I was not really. I've just got a stupid and ignorant sense of humour. I didn't want to come onto the thread saying 'you know what I hate racists' because I didn't know if I was a subliminal one or not. I would never called anyone a Spik (have no idea what it means) or Paki and don't even think like that so I guess I'm alright.  ;D

That is very inspirational, Carlos. To be perfectly honest, I thought I was going to hear chants of 'Bobby the racist' but I was not really. I've just got a stupid and ignorant sense of humour. I didn't want to come onto the thread saying 'you know what I hate racists' because I didn't know if I was a subliminal one or not. I would never called anyone a Spik (have no idea what it means) or Paki and don't even think like that so I guess I'm alright.  ;D




Lots of people, I think, have "picked up" prejudices that they don't understand and that are subrational.  Since I'v been there, I am very carefull about who I call racist.  I might use the word "ignorant" in some cases for those who refuse to question their prejudices, but that does not apply to you.

The real problem, though, as I have said several times on this thread, and which no one has addressed, is the institutional racism built into the system itself.  I say again, I really don't care if someone calls me a "spik", or a dago  (derogitory for lationo).  What I care about is that these prejudices don't get translated in either public or private policy.

We all need to deal with our own demons.  If you personally can't bring youself to see some other group as ok, for whatever reason, ok.  Just don't impose those personal prejudices on institutions.  The first is your lose, the second is the lose of others. 

By the way, this is not addressed to you personally.

The real problem, though, as I have said several times on this thread, and which no one has addressed, is the institutional racism built into the system itself.  I say again, I really don't care if someone calls me a "spik", or a dago  (derogitory for lationo).  What I care about is that these prejudices don't get translated in either public or private policy.

I severely appreciate this and agree with you entirely, it's just one of those things we have no idea what to do about. Privately we can make the world a little better by leading by example but, like litterbugs, we can say to someone 'Hey, don't drop that.' but beyond that, what can normal Joe Public do?

We all need to deal with our own demons.  If you personally can't bring youself to see some other group as ok, for whatever reason, ok.  Just don't impose those personal prejudices on institutions.  The first is your lose, the second is the lose of others. 

By the way, this is not addressed to you personally.

I understand you are not addressing me personally, Carlos. To be perfectly honest, it's not a 'personal demon'. I have only got to know two Indians and perhaps my (would you call it 'prejudice'?) was based on those two Indians who severely disliked me.  :\'(

I know . . .  :-[

I severely appreciate this and agree with you entirely, it's just one of those things we have no idea what to do about. Privately we can make the world a little better by leading by example but, like litterbugs, we can say to someone 'Hey, don't drop that.' but beyond that, what can normal Joe Public do?



I understand you are not addressing me personally, Carlos. To be perfectly honest, it's not a 'personal demon'. I have only got to know two Indians and perhaps my (would you call it 'prejudice'?) was based on those two Indians who severely disliked me.  :\'(

I know . . .  :-[


Your right, it is a thorny problem, but I think there are lots of thing WE THE PEOPLE can do.  First, risk being called "politically correct" by not tolerating racist jokes or comments.  Second, encourage our employers to acctually engage in "affirmative action" (ie hire equally qualified disadvantaged groups) and give our political support to those who also support it.  Third, clean up our own acts.  Seek out and befreind minorities.  You might not like an individual you meet - drop him/her like a hot potato, but expand your circle of friend to include minorities.

You mentioned Indians.  I have an Indian colleague.  She's a real b**ch in many ways, but she is great, bright, analytical, insightful, an intellectual joy, and quite attractive.  I wouldn't want to live with her, but as a colleague, she's aces, and a great cook.

We hired another Indian who I put up for a few days while they were house hunting.  His wife broke a wine glass.  They went out and bought me a set of four to replace the broken 1.  They also left me a bottle of Glen Livit scotch. 

In grad school my x-wife had a bad experience typing for a Nigerian.  He was an a**hole.  I have met Nigerians, though, who are really super people.

You get the  idea

To me the idea of affirmative action and seeking out people to befriend based on race seems a bit insulting. Like, "Oh, look at the minorities, they're so fascinating!" the way you would regard quaint local artwork when visiting a foreign country.

Perhaps I've just been fortunate that my college career brought me in contact with people from a wide variety of backgrounds - I never needed to go out of my way to find someone of another race, and I was just open to those who were interested in getting to know me as a classmate and friend.

You mentioned Indians.  I have an Indian colleague.  She's a real b**ch in many ways, but she is great, bright, analytical, insightful, an intellectual joy, and quite attractive.  I wouldn't want to live with her, but as a colleague, she's aces, and a great cook.

We hired another Indian who I put up for a few days while they were house hunting.  His wife broke a wine glass.  They went out and bought me a set of four to replace the broken 1.  They also left me a bottle of Glen Livit scotch. 

In grad school my x-wife had a bad experience typing for a Nigerian.  He was an a**hole.  I have met Nigerians, though, who are really super people.

You get the  idea


Yes I understand everybody is different, Carlos. Even though I am not a racist, I just wanted to say what I said to avoid being a hypocrite. I don't treat hypocrites lightly because I have met a lot and they angered me so I go out of my way to not be like them.  :)

To me the idea of affirmative action and seeking out people to befriend based on race seems a bit insulting. Like, "Oh, look at the minorities, they're so fascinating!" the way you would regard quaint local artwork when visiting a foreign country.

Perhaps I've just been fortunate that my college career brought me in contact with people from a wide variety of backgrounds - I never needed to go out of my way to find someone of another race, and I was just open to those who were interested in getting to know me as a classmate and friend.


This is another interesting viewpoint, womberty.  :)

To me the idea of affirmative action and seeking out people to befriend based on race seems a bit insulting. Like, "Oh, look at the minorities, they're so fascinating!" the way you would regard quaint local artwork when visiting a foreign country.

Perhaps I've just been fortunate that my college career brought me in contact with people from a wide variety of backgrounds - I never needed to go out of my way to find someone of another race, and I was just open to those who were interested in getting to know me as a classmate and friend.


You can interpret my remarks in that vien if you wish, but I will say again that "most of my friends are white".  I'm not, and suspect that I got all of my teaching jobs, in part at least, because I am hispanic.  Equal opportunity refers to attempting to be color blind.  Affirmative action refers to giving a job to an equally qualified disadvantaged group member over a white, but the key is "equally qualified".  That is an attempt to redress the color barrier that still exists to a large extent in the "land of opportunity".

I've also been called a "cracker" on more occasions than I wish to count

That's a racial thing?  And all the time I thought those dudes were referring to the fact that I liked to eat a lot Saltines with my chicken soup!

In college, a good friend of mine (he was gay) was a brother in an all-black fraternity.  He wanted to take me to their formal.  They refused to sell him a ticket for me as I was white.  So, "minorities" need to expand their circles as well.

Interesting and, sad to say, you have a point....
Minorities in their own way suffer from dealing in prejudice just as confining and morally bankrupt as opposed on them by the majority.
Understand that (in my opinion) the prejudices of blacks towards other blacks are just as disruptive as any other type of prejudice.
Imagine the strife that goes on between the “lighter� skinned blacks, “redbones� and dark skinned blacks that is not even known or realized by whites. Blacks and other minorities have seen that white or close-to white appearance results in better treatment and acceptance by society.
And so they perpetrate ugly biases that seem only too ironic to be real.
Both my mom and dad attended Howard University in D.C. (all-black college) as did I for a short time. The stories they told me about the completely surreal amount of prejudice within the black student body there were unreal to me, until I attended my first semester.
I was saddened to see the sorority and frats on this enlightened establishment of black education that actually had “brown bag� filters or tests that one had to pass to even qualify for consideration to one of these places of brotherhood and sisterhood. That is, you had to be black to join these Greek houses (even though many students that attended Howard are NOT African American in decent) and you had to be lighter-skinned or as light skinned as a brown paper bag to join.

Don’t believe me? Check out Spike Lee’s “School Daze�, it’s a commercial but generally on point description of some of the backwards thinking that is still going on in black schools.
A lot of this warped thinking is a result of many years of slavery & racist/prejudice heaped upon the blacks of this country.
But blacks have, despite many advances and victories over the inherently oppressive society that we live in, a burden of their own to honestly look upon their own attitudes and self-loathing to make some changes in the way we see, act and re-act to the world around us.

I'm certianly not the one who claims to have all the answers, but I know that we still have a long way to go...

You know what, though, the discrimination (on a personal level) goes both ways.  I had a very close "friend" in high school.  We had to keep our "friendship" a secret because he was Hispanic and I was caucasian and his parents and friends would not approve.  The 1 time I called him at his house, his mother started cursing at me (in Spanish) and told me (in English) to "never call this house again if you know what's good for you".  I've also been called a "cracker" on more occasions than I wish to count.  In college, a good friend of mine (he was gay) was a brother in an all-black fraternity.  He wanted to take me to their formal.  They refused to sell him a ticket for me as I was white.  So, "minorities" need to expand their circles as well.


Cheer, I couldn't agree with you more, but again, you are talking about, at least in the first instande, personal prejudice.  Your friend's mother was ignorant, and your friend was to young (I guess) to challegnge her.  You give no details, but for sure there was a stage in my life that I would have allowed a parant to do that, maybe up to 14 or 15, but I always was a rebel.  I never tried to tell my kids who they should date, and would have been happy to see them date any person that I thought was a good person, race, religion, or even gender not withstanding (although I sure hoped that they were all hetero's - that's a prejudice on which I would not have acted).

Your second example, if it reflected that fraternity's policy, is an example of institutional racism.  Regardless of your friend's orientation, to exclude you from being his guest because of your race was institutional racism.  I condemn both the prejudice of the Latino mother (please pm me with more detials, like age etc if you want to explore this) and the whole idea of a "black" fraternity.  In that regard, one must ask, how many "white" fraternities were there? Whould they have sanctioned "cross race" dating?  Having faced exclusion, I have felt the desire to say, to be crude "F**k you", who needs you.  This is not ment as an appology, but as an explanation.  When you get kicked often enough you say so, and form bonds of support to keep from getting kicked again.  It might not be the best response, but until you have walked a mile in those moccasins, it might be hard for you to understand.

Looks like you have been ill used by the racism of our society, but not as ill used as its major recipiants.  You walk in white moccasins, so its hard for you to walk in those who socieity (NOT YOU) has defined as other.  In both cases, your experiences are a reflection, not on you, but on the society that defines these relationships.  Its so sad, its such a tragedy, its such a waste. 

Cheer, I hope you take none of this as a personal affront.  My comments are not ment that way at all.  I do see and appreciate your point.  Mine, although not expressed in these terms, has to do with who has power.  Ultimately, power is the issue.  Power to hire and fire.  Power to arrest, power  to profile.  As one who felt discrimination because of the power of others, you were an innocent victim, as an individual with an oper heart.  As a member of the dominant race, that might be another story.

To paraphrase Martin, "when ALL Gods children will be judged by the content of their character" then we can ALL declare "Free at last, Free at last, thank God Almighty, WE ARE ALL free at last".

Hope this makes sense.  I get a bit emotional about it, especially trying to explain to good hearted white foilks. ( Now if you were GWB I'd try to lay you out  ;)

I'm overwhelmed with things I would like to say on this subject. I'll try to pare it down. I am an African-American female who would pass the paperbag test. I come from a family that runs the color spectrum from able to pass to looks like he just got off the boat. I was raised in a very diverse neighborhood of  a very Caucasian(at that time) city.  There is an education that comes with being in that sort of situation.  I have been in situations where people who I thought were beyond the color thing have said things that were racist and insulting, and didn't understand why I would take offense because "you're not like those people, you're different".  I have met people who I have mistakenly tagged as racist, who were much more open than the people I thought were beyond all that. In the fourth grade I was berated by my teacher for putting on airs because black people don't talk like that. She found out very soon, in the principals office, that my mother, father, and grandmother did.
I work in a position now that I am well qualified for, but I know that I would not have this job if there wasn't affirmative action program in place.  I work in a, traditionally, white male profession along side some people not as qualified as I, who got here on the daddy factor.  They don't see that as being a form of affirmative action.  Everyday of my life people make assumptions about me, they stereotype my situation, and most times, I have to say, they are wrong.  So I have learned not to make assumptions about them.  Take people as they offer themselves.

I know what you're saying.  And, I agree, there have been atrocities in the past that were committed simply due to race.  However, you encouraged the "white" people to "seek out and befriend minorities".  What I was trying to point out is that there are still MANY who do not want "white" friends.  They see the color of OUR skin and automatically jump to the conclusion that we are either racist or trying to "prove" that we're not.  In the first case I pointed out, he was 18 (I was 17).  And, in response to your question about fraternities?  I would venture a guess that there are FEW (if any) all-white fraternities today, but a multitude of all-black ones.  Maybe you're right, because I'm white, I don't see why an all-minority organization can exclude us and it's okay. ???


While I pretty much HAVE to have white friends, but I do prefere to hang with the few Latinos I know.  My point really has nothing to do with who people choose to befriend, but rather with those who have power opening the institutions of power to minority access.  The notion of white folks "adopting a darkie" is repugnant to me, but is not relective of the attitude of my white friends, who sought me out and found me to be a valuable friend and colleague.

I don't approve of "race" based organizations, public or private!!! 

Now a bit of science:  Two mountain gorrillas in central Africa meet.  A scientist takes a blood sample from each and runs a DNA analysis.  Another scientist draws blood from an Inuet and an Austrailian native (aboriginy) and also runs one.  Which will demonstrate the greatest genetic variation? 

























The gorillas.  Race IS NOT a biological reality but a social construct based on POWER.

To me the idea of affirmative action and seeking out people to befriend based on race seems a bit insulting. Like, "Oh, look at the minorities, they're so fascinating!" the way you would regard quaint local artwork when visiting a foreign country.


I never have a problem with helping people who have had some bad luck in life.  Giving scholarships to kids from the ghetto, or giving them breaks so they can get into college is perfectly fine to me.  But to me, it should be based on INCOME. not on RACE.

I always found it stupid that applications for financial aid have the PARENTS income.  Parents, as in both.  I knew a guy a few years ago who lived in a bad area of LA.  His dad would never pay child support, and his mother worked 2 jobs to get by.

When he applied for aid, he had to give his worthless father's income (over $200k a year).  Of course, he was refused.  And of course, his father would NEVER give him a dime for school.  So because his worthless father was rich, he got no help.  While other kids were able to get scholarships simply because of their color.  That to me is madness.

While I pretty much HAVE to have white friends, but I do prefere to hang with the few Latinos I know.  My point really has nothing to do with who people choose to befriend, but rather with those who have power opening the institutions of power to minority access.  The notion of white folks "adopting a darkie" is repugnant to me, but is not relective of the attitude of my white friends, who sought me out and found me to be a valuable friend and colleague.


I fully agree with you there.  I never make friends or hang out with somebody for any reason other then I like them and we get along.  That is all that ever matters to me.  I think my life would be even more dull if I only had friends who were like me, looked like me, thought like me, and agreed with me.


The gorillas.  Race IS NOT a biological reality but a social construct based on POWER.


There are SOME biological reasons behind race.  The only one that is major is the sycle cell in blacks.  This developed as a way to protect against malaria.  This and the dark skin helped them adapt to a life on an open grassland region.  In much the same way Mongolians developed the "emphatic eyefold" to protect their eyes against glare in the tundra and grassland regions of central Asia.

The problem is that in the US, most people say "race" when they REALLY mean "ethnicity".  There are only 3 "races", but there are thousands of ethnicities.

Myself, it really means nothing, to be honest.  A person is a person, and I do not judge people by something as silly as who their great-great-great-great-great grandparents were.

One interesting thing, some "racial slurs" are considered insults, yet there are others which are considered compliments.  And some are stereotypes which are almost totally wrong, yet others have often been seen to be correct.  Some of them are acceptable to mention, and others are not.  Just more things that make you go "Hmmmm".

One interesting thing, some "racial slurs" are considered insults, yet there are others which are considered compliments.  And some are stereotypes which are almost totally wrong, yet others have often been seen to be correct.  Some of them are acceptable to mention, and others are not.  Just more things that make you go "Hmmmm".


I know what you mean, Mushroom. As mentioned previously, I've put my foot in it a few times.  :-\\

I never have a problem with helping people who have had some bad luck in life.  Giving scholarships to kids from the ghetto, or giving them breaks so they can get into college is perfectly fine to me.  But to me, it should be based on INCOME. not on RACE.

I always found it stupid that applications for financial aid have the PARENTS income.  Parents, as in both.  I knew a guy a few years ago who lived in a bad area of LA.  His dad would never pay child support, and his mother worked 2 jobs to get by.

When he applied for aid, he had to give his worthless father's income (over $200k a year).  Of course, he was refused.  And of course, his father would NEVER give him a dime for school.  So because his worthless father was rich, he got no help.  While other kids were able to get scholarships simply because of their color.  That to me is madness.

I think above a certain age, you don't have to report your parents' income.  A young person who has a deadbeat dad should be able to consult with officials and get exempt from the requirement.

I have always believed financial aid should be based strictly on income, not on race.  Many years ago when my cousins were applying for college, one of them accidentally checked Native American on her application--not a financial aid app., a college app.  The scholarship offers just POURED in.  Never mind that their father was a millionaire advertising executive and they lived in Greenwich, Connecticut.
::)

A young person who has a deadbeat dad should be able to consult with officials and get exempt from the requirement.
::)

But if you automatically lose out on aid you'd otherwise get, surely there must be some kind of legal compulsion for the parent who has the money to pay for your education?

There have been a couple of child support cases were fathers refused to pay college expenses.  It was found that they could not be compelled to pay any money beyond child support because parents in a two family household are not legally bound to put their child through college. Secondary education, although more and more a necessity is considered a privilege, not a right.  A close friend of mine had to put her daughter through college by maxing out credit cards, and depending on family, while daddy(with alot more money) refused to come up with any more than the court ordered child support..  To add insult to injury, the day she graduated from college he couldn't attend because he was in court rescinding the support order.

There are SOME biological reasons behind race.  The only one that is major is the sycle cell in blacks.  This developed as a way to protect against malaria.  This and the dark skin helped them adapt to a life on an open grassland region.  In much the same way Mongolians developed the "emphatic eyefold" to protect their eyes against glare in the tundra and grassland regions of central Asia.

The problem is that in the US, most people say "race" when they REALLY mean "ethnicity".  There are only 3 "races", but there are thousands of ethnicities.

Myself, it really means nothing, to be honest.  A person is a person, and I do not judge people by something as silly as who their great-great-great-great-great grandparents were.

One interesting thing, some "racial slurs" are considered insults, yet there are others which are considered compliments.  And some are stereotypes which are almost totally wrong, yet others have often been seen to be correct.  Some of them are acceptable to mention, and others are not.  Just more things that make you go "Hmmmm".


Yes, clearly there are genetic differences between human groups, which in some cases lead to physical manifestations.  That is obvious and undeniable, nor did I ever deny it.  My point is that these variations are VERY smalleven though their manifestations seem to be great.  As a spicies, we are more alike genetically than most others.  That being the case, I have to conclude that the divisions we countancance (your notion that there are 3 races F.E.) just doesn't hold up BIOLOGICALLY.  At that level, we are one race called "human" or "homo Sapien".  We divide ourselves for ethnocentric reasons having to do moistly with power. 

As to "racial" slurs, I have had some aimed at me.  The first time I didn't get it.  The second time, the kid got a bloody nose and I got suspended, until my (northern European ancestory) father told the principle where to go.  I have heard "black" people use the "n" word for each other.  The oppressed often mock the oppressor.

Again, as I said above, we need to get past this and value everyone for the content of their character, not for the very few genes that make us appear different.

I took a course in Anthropology and was told we are all Homo Sapien Sapien(I forget why we get the
extra Sapien)  We are one race with differing ethno/cultural divisions.  It's easier to explain it this way.  We can all have each others babies.  Voila!  We procreate in exactly the same way. And when we do are skin color is blended, not mottled or patched, ever notice that? Ever wonder why northern Italians are are blond and southern Italians are, well, dark? We can attribute the dark skin to the proximity to the African coast, as opposed to the proximity to the Alps.  We all tend to smile when we are happy, cry when hurt. One world, one race, like it or not.

I took a course in Anthropology and was told we are all Homo Sapien Sapien(I forget why we get the
extra Sapien)  We are one race with differing ethno/cultural divisions.  It's easier to explain it this way.  We can all have each others babies.  Voila!   We procreate in exactly the same way. And when we do are skin color is blended, not mottled or patched, ever notice that? Ever wonder why northern Italians are are blond and southern Italians are, well, dark? We can attribute the dark skin to the proximity to the African coast, as opposed to the proximity to the Alps.  We all tend to smile when we are happy, cry when hurt. One world, one race, like it or not.


As you may have infered, I like it.  When we all recognize that we are one people, and put  that knowledge into action by eliminating the historical divisions WE have created to rationalize slavery and exploitation, and when those who have benefited from those rationalizations give up their benefits, we might wind up with MLK's dream.  I hope I live to see that day.

I took a course in Anthropology and was told we are all Homo Sapien Sapien(I forget why we get the
extra Sapien) 

Ah, that would be indicated in the current scientific classification system of biology, called taxonomy:
Genus: Homo
Species: Sapiens
Subspecies: Sapiens

see the entire classification here:
http://www.baa.duke.edu/BAA93/taxonomy

Ah, that would be indicated in the current scientific classification system of biology, called taxonomy:
Genus: Homo
Species: Sapiens
Subspecies: Sapiens

see the entire classification here:
http://www.baa.duke.edu/BAA93/taxonomy



And by this very defintion, if "race" was a truly biological division, the sub-species designation would be different for each "race" ie. "Africanus", "Australus", "Oceanus", etc. But it's not. It's "sapiens" for everyone. And let me add a foreign perspective on this issue. On no official document that I have ever had to complete or official record that I've ever seen in this country have I ever seen a space for the designation of one's race, except to ask if the person completing it is of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander origin. Country of origin is often asked, but never one's "race". Since multiculturalism has been an important part of Australian government policy since the early 1970s, the question of one's "race" (outside of Aboriginality, which remains problematic for a lot of reasons) is, technically, not seen to be an official issue from a bureaucratic point of view. From a social stand point however, it unfortunately remains one.

And by this very defintion, if "race" was a truly biological division, the sub-species designation would be different for each "race" ie. "Africanus", "Australus", "Oceanus", etc. But it's not. It's "sapiens" for everyone. And let me add a foreign perspective on this issue. On no official document that I have ever had to complete or official record that I've ever seen in this country have I ever seen a space for the designation of one's race, except to ask if the person completing it is of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander origin. Country of origin is often asked, but never one's "race". Since multiculturalism has been an important part of Australian government policy since the early 1970s, the question of one's "race" (outside of Aboriginality, which remains problematic for a lot of reasons) is, technically, not seen to be an official issue from a bureaucratic point of view. From a social stand point however, it unfortunately remains one.


In fact, most taxonomies have dropped the second "sapians" since genetic studies have proven that Neanderthals were not a sub-spiecies.  We are one of the least genetically diverse spiecies on the planet.  Our mitochondrial mother, Eve, lived about 150,000 years ago around Lake Victoria.  Our Y chromasome father, Adam, lived in the same region and at about the same time, not that they ever met.  We are all cousins, and should revel in that fact.

  We are all cousins, and should revel in that fact.




WHAT?? You mean I married my cousin?  :o     


;)




Cat

WHAT?? You mean I married my cousin?  :o     


;)




Cat


Move to Utah...it's legal here.  Well, as long as you are past child bearing years. ;)

Move to Utah...it's legal here.  Well, as long as you are past child bearing years. ;)

Really? You can?  After your child bearing years?  Oh wow!  I hope my cousing Jen keeps that swell figure, she's a hottie! (joke)
;D
Seriously, they must mean the woman's childbearing years.  I mean, look at a guy like Tony Randall, he was shooting live rounds at the age of 78!  Now, didn't Mrs. Edwards just have a child at the age of 50?  It seems the chilbearing age is going up all the time!

Really? You can?  After your child bearing years?  Oh wow!  I hope my cousing Jen keeps that swell figure, she's a hottie! (joke)
;D
Seriously, they must mean the woman's childbearing years.  I mean, look at a guy like Tony Randall, he was shooting live rounds at the age of 78!  Now, didn't Mrs. Edwards just have a child at the age of 50?  It seems the chilbearing age is going up all the time!


Vice is nice, but incest is best  ;D (thats a joke son).

WHAT?? You mean I married my cousin?  :o     


;)




Cat
Hope you don't have any "Flipper" children!  ;D

Really? You can?  After your child bearing years?  Oh wow!  I hope my cousing Jen keeps that swell figure, she's a hottie! (joke)
;D
Seriously, they must mean the woman's childbearing years.  I mean, look at a guy like Tony Randall, he was shooting live rounds at the age of 78!  Now, didn't Mrs. Edwards just have a child at the age of 50?  It seems the chilbearing age is going up all the time!


Gotta love Utah and our stupid laws. ;)

Hope you don't have any "Flipper" children!  ;D

That's more likely to be a result of living in too close proximity of certain government testing and dumping that goes on out there, like where they filmed that John Wayne movie, "The Conquerer."
:P

I find the North American prejudice against the marriage of cousins rather amusing. In most other Western nations, including Australia, there's no laws against cousins marrying, and no scientific evidence to suggest there's anything wrong with it. Certainly "in-breeding" can occur when successive generations of closely-related people continue to intermingle, but the stigma against the marriage of cousins appears to be a uniquely American issue.

I knew a woman who married her first cousin-didn't even have to change her name. They have since been divorced and I think she remarried-don't know about him-lost contact with them.




Cat

That being the case, I have to conclude that the divisions we countancance (your notion that there are 3 races F.E.) just doesn't hold up BIOLOGICALLY.  At that level, we are one race called "human" or "homo Sapien".  We divide ourselves for ethnocentric reasons having to do moistly with power. 


As far as humans go, we are ONE species, THREE races, and THOUSANDS of ethnicities.

The problem is that a lot of people confuse the terms.  RACE is often used, when ETHNICITY is the more appropriate term.

Here is a good example.  Asian (Mongaloid) is a RACE, Japanese is an ETHNICITY.  Just like Caucasian is a race, but German, Italian, and English are not, they are ethnicities.

It is the "common useage" of saying "race" instead of "ethnicity" which has caused this problem.

As far as humans go, we are ONE species, THREE races, and THOUSANDS of ethnicities.

The problem is that a lot of people confuse the terms.  RACE is often used, when ETHNICITY is the more appropriate term.

Here is a good example.  Asian (Mongaloid) is a RACE, Japanese is an ETHNICITY.  Just like Caucasian is a race, but German, Italian, and English are not, they are ethnicities.

It is the "common useage" of saying "race" instead of "ethnicity" which has caused this problem.


This may be YOUR definition of race (Asian, Caucasian & I assume African) but it is not a biologfically recogized taxonomy.  In fact, there is more genetic variatiion within, say the population of Sweeden than between swedes and the !Kung people of the Kalihari desert.  In Brazil there are some 40 names supposedly identifying people's race.

Actually, it used to happen here in the US more often than people would like to believe.  While doing some genealogy for my family and the families of a couple of friends, I found that back around the late 1700's-early 1800's, there was at least 1 marriage in each of the 5 families I did where cousins married cousins.  And, I believe, in most states, it's only "illegal" if you are 1st cousins ;)


That is very true.  In pre-industrial cultures (like ours 100 years ago), very few people traveled more then 100 miles from home in their lifetimes.  Depending on where you lived, that might mean almost everybody you met was related to you in one way or another.  Especially in the Southern states, marriage between cousins was not unusual.  Even today, marriage between first cousins in Alabama is legal.

Earlier this year in fact, 2 cousins from Alabama had to go to Louisiana to get married.  It seems they wanted to get married, but because they were only 13, they had to go to Louisiana becaquse the age for marriage in Alabama is 14.

This may be YOUR definition of race (Asian, Caucasian & I assume African) but it is not a biologfically recogized taxonomy.  In fact, there is more genetic variatiion within, say the population of Sweeden than between swedes and the !Kung people of the Kalihari desert.  In Brazil there are some 40 names supposedly identifying people's race.


Actually, yhis is not *MY* definition.  It is a LONG standing definition.  It was what I learned in an anthropology class in 1993 in fact.  Here is the listing from the The American Heritage® Book of English Usage (1996 edition):

  The attempt to classify humans into discrete racial groups is greatly complicated by the fact that human populations have been migrating and intermingling for hundreds of centuries. There are no pure races in any meaningful sense, only large geographical groupings whose genetic histories can never be fully known. The traditional names for these groupingsâ€â€Â�Negroid, Mongoloid, Caucasoid (or Caucasian), and in some systems Australoidâ€â€Â�are now controversial and are likely to give offense no matter how they are used. Caucasian does retain a certain currency in American English, but it is used almost exclusivelyâ€â€Â�and erroneouslyâ€â€Â�to mean “whiteâ€ÂÂ� or “Europeanâ€ÂÂ� rather than “belonging to the Caucasoid racial group,â€ÂÂ� a group that includes a variety of peoples generally considered to be nonwhite. This ambiguity, along with the growing aversion among many people to the racial terminology of earlier anthropologists, suggests that Caucasian may soon go the way of the -oid words and disappear even from local police blotters.


A simple translation: There are 3 (some say 4) RACES, but that definition is being excised because of Political Corectness.  The term ETHNICITY is being phased out, and is being applied to the word RACE.

This was actually a topic of one of our classes (this was at a California Community College).  The professor was showing how there are only a few races, and that the ethnicities all folded into one or more of the races.  She disliked the term "Hispanic" because it applied both to Mexicans (largely Indian with some Caucasian) and people in Argentina (almost straight Caucasian - very little Indian influence in the gene pool).  She showed us how even though we call both "Hispanic".

The terms I use are long accepted ones.  Just one more point, the United States Department of Health and Human Services recognizes 3 races.  Here is the listing from their page for the "Office Of Equal Opportunity & Civil Rights":

There are properly only three races: Caucasian, Negroid and Mongoloid.  Within the three races there are additional variations in color.  In some instances national origin discrimination overlaps with race discrimination, and in such cases, the basis of discrimination can be categorized as both race and national origin.  For example, discrimination against a Native American may be race and/or national origin discrimination.

As you can see, this is not just *MY* definition, but a long standing accepted standard both in academic circles and in Government.

The terminology is outdated, the regulations are outdated, and that kind of thinking is outdated.  The terminology is not being excised because of political correctness, it is being excised because it has been proved scientifically incorrect.  Remember it was not too long ago when a Negroid was considered 3/5ths of a human being.  It was also true that a Caucasian with one drop of negroid blood was termed negroid.  Or is the idea that Negroids  are actually human beings another politically correct scam?

The terminology is outdated, the regulations are outdated, and that kind of thinking is outdated.   The terminology is not being excised because of political correctness, it is being excised because it has been proved scientifically incorrect.  Remember it was not too long ago when a Negroid was considered 3/5ths of a human being.  It was also true that a Caucasian with one drop of negroid blood was termed negroid.  Or is the idea that Negroids  are actually human beings another politically correct scam?


Actually, it is very well founded.  And you are talking about laws.  You can pass laws saying anything, that does not make them true.

The 3/5 human was for assignment of Representatives in the Constitution.  And the blood was for the purposes of Jim Crowe type laws.  You can make a law saying that Indians are not people, or that Cows ARE people.  But such a law does not mean it is true.

The general classification of Race is very well founded.  There were 3 major directions of human evolution once it left Africa.  Those that stayed evolved one way, those that went to the cold of Europe developed another way, and those that migrated East to the steppes of Asia developed yet another.  But *ALL* are human.

Remember, this is RACE, not ETHNICITY.  Ethnicity is something totally different.  And it is for GENERALIZATION.  I myself have all 3 in my background, but caucasian is the dominant because that is what most of my ancestors are.

What is sad is that people look at something that has worked well for over a century, and now attack it because THEIR "race" is not included.  The result is creating more and more insanity.

That means that in your view, there is not one Mongaloid race.  There are races for Japanese, Thai, Korean, multiple Chinese regions, Mongolian, Philippines, Eskimo, American Indian, Malaysian, Cambodian, Laotian, and Vietnamese.

There is no doubt there are big differences.  But at the same time, there are great similarities.  Race is simply the first classification of these differences.  But when it is all said and done, nobody (at least not me) is denying that they are not people, or are some kind of "different person".

I think that I look at things very differently, because I approach it from a logical scientific standpoint.  To me, there is no reason for emotion, or passion, or feelings.  Breaking the human family into 3 (or 4) groups BEFORE breaking them down into the almost infinite sub-branches of ethnicity just makes sense.  It helps scientists show where they branch off, and when.

What is the solution?  Saying that there are more races?  How many more?  10?  50?  That just opens up a mess that will make any simple classification impossible.

If every seperate region and nationality is also a race, then maybe it just proves that one of the biggest killers in history was right after all.  Because that might just make German a race after all.  I am sure Hitler would agree with that.

"That means that in your view, there is not one Mongaloid race.  There are races for Japanese, Thai, Korean, multiple Chinese regions, Mongolian, Philippines, Eskimo, American Indian, Malaysian, Cambodian, Laotian, and Vietnamese."

No, what I am saying is that there is one race, Homo Sapien Sapien, with different etnicities.

Actually, yhis is not *MY* definition.  It is a LONG standing definition.  It was what I learned in an anthropology class in 1993 in fact.  Here is the listing from the The American Heritage® Book of English Usage (1996 edition):

  The attempt to classify humans into discrete racial groups is greatly complicated by the fact that human populations have been migrating and intermingling for hundreds of centuries. There are no pure races in any meaningful sense, only large geographical groupings whose genetic histories can never be fully known. The traditional names for these groupings�Negroid, Mongoloid, Caucasoid (or Caucasian), and in some systems Australoid�are now controversial and are likely to give offense no matter how they are used. Caucasian does retain a certain currency in American English, but it is used almost exclusively�and erroneously�to mean “white� or “European� rather than “belonging to the Caucasoid racial group,� a group that includes a variety of peoples generally considered to be nonwhite. This ambiguity, along with the growing aversion among many people to the racial terminology of earlier anthropologists, suggests that Caucasian may soon go the way of the -oid words and disappear even from local police blotters.


A simple translation: There are 3 (some say 4) RACES, but that definition is being excised because of Political Corectness.  The term ETHNICITY is being phased out, and is being applied to the word RACE.

This was actually a topic of one of our classes (this was at a California Community College).  The professor was showing how there are only a few races, and that the ethnicities all folded into one or more of the races.  She disliked the term "Hispanic" because it applied both to Mexicans (largely Indian with some Caucasian) and people in Argentina (almost straight Caucasian - very little Indian influence in the gene pool).  She showed us how even though we call both "Hispanic".

The terms I use are long accepted ones.  Just one more point, the United States Department of Health and Human Services recognizes 3 races.  Here is the listing from their page for the "Office Of Equal Opportunity & Civil Rights":

There are properly only three races: Caucasian, Negroid and Mongoloid.  Within the three races there are additional variations in color.  In some instances national origin discrimination overlaps with race discrimination, and in such cases, the basis of discrimination can be categorized as both race and national origin.  For example, discrimination against a Native American may be race and/or national origin discrimination.

As you can see, this is not just *MY* definition, but a long standing accepted standard both in academic circles and in Government.


May I humbally suggest that you need to upgrade both yourdictionary and ryour understanding od race.  Lots has changed in the field of human genetics since 1996, so your source is vastly out of date.

Nor does your post respond to the biological facts in my post to which you respond, nor to the obvious differences between the way we in the US and our government define race and the way it is defines most notibly in Brazil, but throughout the Carribean and tropican Atlantic.  You might want to consult, in addition to the recent scientific literature, Marvin Harris's Patterns of Race in the Americas and Herbert S. Klein's Slavery in the Americas.  Both are older books (can't give the dates as they are in my office), but well worth a read.

The fact that your 3 terms are "long accepted" is irrelevant.  It was long accepted - into the 1950's and later - that some "races" (notably caucasians) were superior to others, and "scientific" proofs were produced to support that thesis.  On this you might want to consult Steven J. Gould's The Mismeasure of Man.  That belief, termed "Social Darwinism" lead to the eugenics movement of the 1920.

I don't remember a "race" distinction from Bio 101...Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species...nope, no "race"






*this is right, right Rice? ;)

I'm not Rice, but yes, that's right.  That's why when I fill out my "paperwork" to be drafted in 1968 I indicated my "race" as human.  Thats what I are, and thats what we all is (lol).  The racial designations various societies recognize are reflections of historical rtationalizations for power relationships, as are the myths of "racial inferiority".  The notion that science supports these artificial designations, or needs them, is just wrong.

I'm not Rice,
And you're not a ricist?

OK, then let me ask it this way:

How many races are there?  Is "Hispanic" a race?  How about "Germanic"?  Is "Ethiopian" a different race then "Negro"?  And obviously, Iranian is a different race then Iraqi, right?

To me, this type of nit-picking is the WORST form of fascism and nationalism.  It is a way for two groups to look at each other and say "But they are DIFFERENT then us, so we do not have to treat them the same as us."

This has happened time and time again in the last century.  Genocide most often happens in two groups very closely related, who use such nitpicking words to foster and enable hatred to another group.  Look at former Yugoslavia, Armenia, Rowanda, and South Africa for great examples of what I am talking about. 

There is a *HUGE* difference between "Race" and "Ethnicity".  But as I have shown, most people see them as the same thing.  The line between the two is now so blured, that to most people they are the same thing.  And that is a tragedy.

Myself, I see myself as a "Typical American".  What I mean by that is that my Ethnic background is so tangled, I just classify myself as "American".  To me, we are a nation of rejects from all over the world, who for the most part gathered the best of all of us and made a great country.

I love talking to people from other countries.  They are amazed when I tell them my wife was from South America, and that I do not care about race.  And that I can be proud of my nation and patriotic, and at the same time *NOT* be Nationalistic.

Last month, I was talking with a gal from Russia.  We would talk about many things, like the space race (which amazed her when I said USSR got there first, and even knew the names of a lot of the Cosmonauts, while she could name no US Astronauts).  The conversation ended when she started talking about what b*****ds Chetchnians are, and how all of them are evil and should die.  I have no desire to talk to people like that, and refuse to talk to them, just like I admonish and refuse to talk to people I meet in real life who express raceist opinions in front of me.

One thing I love about the simple classification of race (as opposed to ethnicity) is that it brings us closer together.  It gives simple classification, and leaves out any possibility of Nationalism, Ethnicity, or regional disputes.  It is a simple way to group people on GENERAL outside characteristics.

Beyond race, there is then the much more intricate classification of specific categories.  Hispanic, Indian, Semite, Arab, and Germanic are ALL "Caucasian".  So see, it just shows how similar we all are.  And it goes way beyond region, religion, or the specifics of any one region.

And yes, I do still do a lot of reading in Anthropology.  It has been a hobby of mine since I was in my teens.  It is a constantly evolving science, but the actual science has not changed it's view.  And don't confuse "Anthropolgy" with "Biology".  Biologically, we are all the same.  I would ****NEVER**** say that any one race is superior/inferior to another.  Just the thought of that is disgusting.

As a side note, for almost a century North American Indians were classified as "Mongaloid".  But from looking at DNA evidence it is becomming obvious that that is not nessicarily true in all cases.  While the Western and Southern tribes and groups (from Alaska down to South America) show strong genetic connections to Asia, more and more evidence is appearing to show that the East Coast tribes prdominately migrated from Europe.

OK, then let me ask it this way:
One thing I love about the simple classification of race (as opposed to ethnicity) is that it brings us closer together.  It gives simple classification, and leaves out any possibility of Nationalism, Ethnicity, or regional disputes.



As one who has lived in the same region all her life, the place of ancestors going back many generations,and have been told on more than one occasion to "go back where you came from"  I would have to dispute that claim.

As one who has lived in the same region all her life, the place of ancestors going back many generations,and have been told on more than one occasion to "go back where you came from"  I would have to dispute that claim.


Well, that should not be hard to respond to.

If somebody told me to go "back where I came from", I would just laugh and say "What, go back to California?"

That is just pure ignorance speaking, and ignorant people have every right to be ignored.  That has been my response for years.  And trust me, it often works wonders.  2 of my coworkers have learned to NEVER say "The N Word" around me.  Because I will ignore them for the next 10-30 minutes.  I will not even aknowledge that they are there.

I am sorry people act like that.  It just shows how stupidity knows no bounds.

You responded to "I'm not rice"...
And you're not a ricist?


I don't get it ??????????????????

Beyond his archaic notion of three biological races, Mushroom has a point.  Ethnic divisions, which is to say cultural animosities, continue to divide us, and are at the roots of a good deal of the hostilities we see, as does old fashioned US racism (when was it that Truman desegregated the military? Did you know that black units organized in the British Carribean  during WWI were not allowed to fight the Germans because the powers that be didn't want "black" people shooting "whites"?)

But let me throw a fly in the ointment.  While it is true that many of the ethnic/nationalist animosities (like Greek/Turk) go back centuries, some, and especially in Africa, are the result of European imperialism and its divide and conquor strategy.  The Hutu and Tsutsi peoples, for example, had a symbiotic relationship for millenia before the Europeans arrived and elivated one over the other.  Further, most of the national boundries in Africa and the middle east were imposed by Europeans.  Which is to say that they are artificial and intensify ethnic animosities.  Iraq, for example, was created as a British mandate after WWI.  Before that, it had been part of the Ottoman Empire, which allowed for the relative autonomy of its ethnic and religious groups, divided  into provinces. 

Anthropologists are interested in the study of culture and cultural differences, which are certainly as reality.  Biologists study life forms.  From an anthropologic view we are certainly much divided.  From a biological view, we are one.  So Mush and I are both right.  One race (me) divided into diverse cultures (Mush).  At CSC we have a mandatory course which exposes students to lots of different experiences.  At 1 event a speaker asked students how their ethnicity was manifested in their daily lives.  One responded "I'm Irish and Italian, and I don't know how to answer, but I do love my Guinesse with my pasta".  That was an "A".

Beyond his archaic notion of three biological races, Mushroom has a point. 


Thanks, but that is *NOT* my point.

Biologically, we are all the same.  There is no BIOLOGICAL basis for race (unless you are a Nazi, Anti-Semite, or some other kind of raceist).

"Race" is simply a way to classify the basic external characterists of humans.  It is useful for anthropoligists in many ways, including traceing how prehistoric people spread from one area of the planet to another.

One example: when it was first suggested that modern Europeans migrated from India, a lot of people rejected that thought.  "Prespammersite" they thought, that *THE* could descend from *THEM*.  This was prejudice.  Now we are more aware that is exactly what happened.  This has been proved in many way, most strongly linguistics.

In much the same way, long-held beliefs of the ORIGINAL colonization of N. America are changing because of similar finds.  This might also explain the mystery behind the "Clovis" civilization, and explain why ancient tools in the NE and Central US are so different from those found in the SW.

One of the main reason that most anthropologists discuss the "3 races", is that unlike the Caucasians, Negroids, and Mongoloids, the people of Australia seemed to be content to settle down and not migrate to other regions.  Like a great number of other species in Australia, the Aboriginees my actually be the closest link to what humans were like BEFORE they split into the 3 other groups.

It is with these groupings in mind when I talk "race".  Ethnic discrimination is similar, but very different.  For example, there is long animosity ethnically between Koreans and Japanese, yet they are from the same racial group.  (In fact, in the last decade, genetics have shown that the Japanese themselves descended from imigrants from Korea several thousand years ago.(  We see the same thing in Africa, where once nomadic tribal groups are now becomming more and more urbanized, leading to greater conflict because of centuries old conflicts.

Thanks, but that is *NOT* my point.

Biologically, we are all the same.  There is no BIOLOGICAL basis for race (unless you are a Nazi, Anti-Semite, or some other kind of raceist).

"Race" is simply a way to classify the basic external characterists of humans.  It is useful for anthropoligists in many ways, including traceing how prehistoric people spread from one area of the planet to another.

One example: when it was first suggested that modern Europeans migrated from India, a lot of people rejected that thought.  "Prespammersite" they thought, that *THE* could descend from *THEM*.  This was prejudice.  Now we are more aware that is exactly what happened.  This has been proved in many way, most strongly linguistics.

In much the same way, long-held beliefs of the ORIGINAL colonization of N. America are changing because of similar finds.  This might also explain the mystery behind the "Clovis" civilization, and explain why ancient tools in the NE and Central US are so different from those found in the SW.

One of the main reason that most anthropologists discuss the "3 races", is that unlike the Caucasians, Negroids, and Mongoloids, the people of Australia seemed to be content to settle down and not migrate to other regions.  Like a great number of other species in Australia, the Aboriginees my actually be the closest link to what humans were like BEFORE they split into the 3 other groups.

It is with these groupings in mind when I talk "race".  Ethnic discrimination is similar, but very different.  For example, there is long animosity ethnically between Koreans and Japanese, yet they are from the same racial group.  (In fact, in the last decade, genetics have shown that the Japanese themselves descended from imigrants from Korea several thousand years ago.(  We see the same thing in Africa, where once nomadic tribal groups are now becomming more and more urbanized, leading to greater conflict because of centuries old conflicts.


OK. This is the first time you have recognized that there is no Biological basis for race.  That means, as I have asserted numerous times, that the definition of race is a social/cultural phenomenon. 

Once we all own that, the question becomes, it seems to me, how do we, as one humanity, erode and eventually erase the barriers that seperate us so that we can put those stupid and irrelevant dividsions behind us and proceed to manage what we all have equally inherited in a  way that is both profitable and sustainable for all of us, recognizing - no reveling in our cultural differences yet validating them at the same time, in peace and harmony?  We are smart enough to send men to the moon and  observation ships to Saturn.  Given that, managing our human affairs should be easy.  As much as some may protest, if we don't come to realize that we are "our brothers' keepers" I think we will go the way of the dodo.

OK. This is the first time you have recognized that there is no Biological basis for race.  That means, as I have asserted numerous times, that the definition of race is a social/cultural phenomenon. 


I never brought up any kind of biological basis in the first place, so I was not aware that I *HAD* to respond to it.  That was brought up by somebody else.

To make a crude comparison, domestic cats are basically broken onto 2 groups, DLH (Domestic Long Hair) and DSH (Domestic Short Hair).  Biologically, both are the same.  They are all domestic cats.  The differences are all external.  Some have different colors, some have different shapes to the ears, nose, legs, eyes, etc.  But *ALL* are domestic cats.  All are able to cross-reproduce, and that is all that really matters.

To me, trying to claim actual biological differences between humans is offensive.  That is the type of thinking that Hitler believed in.  I have never claimed that, and will always deny it.

I don't get it ??????????????????

Er... Don Carlos, it was a joke, a play on words...

Reminds me of a problem that came up two or three years ago: I wrote a system for printing badges for prison visitors.  The badges contained a picture, the visitor's name and a "word of the day" - a six-letter word which was unique for a given date, and pulled from a dictionary file - I think there were two or three thousand six-letter-words, enough to go for a few years without repetition.  Part of the spec was that I should have no input on precisely which words were used, but that it should be random.  There was the ability to change the word of the day, but after a year or two this had been forgotten... we got a rather agitated call from a prison saying they had a six foot six 200lb guy kicking up a stink because he didn't like the idea of wearing a badge with the word "RACIST" under his photo...

I never brought up any kind of biological basis in the first place, so I was not aware that I *HAD* to respond to it.  That was brought up by somebody else.

To make a crude comparison, domestic cats are basically broken onto 2 groups, DLH (Domestic Long Hair) and DSH (Domestic Short Hair).  Biologically, both are the same.  They are all domestic cats.  The differences are all external.  Some have different colors, some have different shapes to the ears, nose, legs, eyes, etc.  But *ALL* are domestic cats.  All are able to cross-reproduce, and that is all that really matters.

To me, trying to claim actual biological differences between humans is offensive.  That is the type of thinking that Hitler believed in.  I have never claimed that, and will always deny it.


I'm sorry, but I beg to differ.  You asserted that there were three races.  Ok, you recognize three.  In Brazil they recognize over 40, in Puerto Rico they recognize 4 or 5, and all are supposedly based on one's biological legacy.  You can't have it both ways.  Either race is biological (which it isn't) or its a social construct and as such has historical roots, which we should seek to understand.

I'm sorry, but I beg to differ.  You asserted that there were three races.  Ok, you recognize three.  In Brazil they recognize over 40, in Puerto Rico they recognize 4 or 5, and all are supposedly based on one's biological legacy.  You can't have it both ways.  Either race is biological (which it isn't) or its a social construct and as such has historical roots, which we should seek to understand.


Notice, "In Brazil they recognize over 40, in Puerto Rico they recognize 4 or 5, and all are supposedly based on one's biological legacy".  Did I make that claim?  Did *I* say there was a biological difference?  NO

Hitler claimed that Germans were a "Master Race", and that all others were biologically inferior.  He had all kinds of proof too (at least in HIS mind he had proof).  As I said, I find anything even close to that repulsive and offensive.

The way I use the terms, "Race" is an accepted anthropology term, used to describe one of the major groups that migrated around this planet.  It is based loosely (but not entirely) on geography.  It is a general term, not locked to any one group (ethnicity).

Now ETHNICITY is different.  The thing is, most people use the word "Race" when the word they REALLY mean is "Ethnicity".  Hitler was RACIALLY Caucasian, ETHNICALLY German.  Ethnicity means where you (or your recent ancestors) came from.  Race is where your ultimate great-great-great-great-great grandparents came from.  This is why Ethnically you can be Peruvian, but Racially Asian.

Notice, "In Brazil they recognize over 40, in Puerto Rico they recognize 4 or 5, and all are supposedly based on one's biological legacy".  Did I make that claim?  Did *I* say there was a biological difference?  NO

Hitler claimed that Germans were a "Master Race", and that all others were biologically inferior.  He had all kinds of proof too (at least in HIS mind he had proof).  As I said, I find anything even close to that repulsive and offensive.

The way I use the terms, "Race" is an accepted anthropology term, used to describe one of the major groups that migrated around this planet.  It is based loosely (but not entirely) on geography.  It is a general term, not locked to any one group (ethnicity).

Now ETHNICITY is different.  The thing is, most people use the word "Race" when the word they REALLY mean is "Ethnicity".  Hitler was RACIALLY Caucasian, ETHNICALLY German.  Ethnicity means where you (or your recent ancestors) came from.  Race is where your ultimate great-great-great-great-great grandparents came from.  This is why Ethnically you can be Peruvian, but Racially Asian.


Ultimately, then, we are all African.  By studying mitchondrial DNA and the Y chromosom biologists have traced us back to African Eve and Adam.  What anthropologists study IS ethnicity, which is to say cultural differences. 

To say that race has  no basis in biology is not to deny that it existrs as a social phenomenon.  My point is that as such it needs to be studied in its historical context.  Several historians and anthropologists/sociologigsts have done  so even in a comparatively. 

So, where would that put me, D.C.? I'm racially African, but being African-American, where do I fit?

Tanya

So, where would that put me, D.C.? I'm racially African, but being African-American, where do I fit?

Tanya


Its not a question of where I "put you", but how this society defines you, and you know the answer to that better than I.  If you appear to be of African decent you are defined as black regardless of your parantage because in the US we apply a definition of race similar to that advocated by Mushroom.  In Brazil, depending on your skin tone, your facial features, your hair, and how wealthy you appear, you could be defined as mulato, or cafe negro, or cafe con leche, or prieto or one of any number of terms.  But that is  just the point.  Our bipolar (in terms of white/black) definition has deep historial roots having to do with demographics, colonial government, religious control, economics, as does the Brizilian definition.

Its not a question of where I "put you", but how this society defines you, and you know the answer to that better than I.  If you appear to be of African decent you are defined as black regardless of your parantage because in the US we apply a definition of race similar to that advocated by Mushroom.  In Brazil, depending on your skin tone, your facial features, your hair, and how wealthy you appear, you could be defined as mulato, or cafe negro, or cafe con leche, or prieto or one of any number of terms.  But that is  just the point.  Our bipolar (in terms of white/black) definition has deep historial roots having to do with demographics, colonial government, religious control, economics, as does the Brizilian definition.


Wow. Excuse my ignorance, Carlos but I didn't realise race was so involved.

Wow. Excuse my ignorance, Carlos but I didn't realise race was so involved.


The idea of race is extremely involved, as are the politics surrounding the definitions of race.

The idea of race is extremely involved, as are the politics surrounding the definitions of race.


You know, this is EXACTLY what I have been trying to say since this whole thing started.

Because of politics, the definition of "race" has changed.  And by that, I mean the word itself.

"Race" now means what "Ethnicity" means.  When people say "race", most of the time they MEAN "ethnicity".  There are differences between the two, but people insist on making them the same.

And because of this, people who use race correctly are being told to change the way they do their work.  When my professor first started to talk about the great migrations of humans 10,000+ years ago, he used the 3 races I have said before.  This is well before any known ethnic groups came into being.  There were no Italians, no Japanese, no Arabs.

Now thousands of years later, they are taking a scientific term and trying to change it for "inclusion", for political purposes.  Race is race, ethnicity is ethnicity.  Trying to say that Race is really Ethnicity is the type of doublespeak that George Orwell warned us about in 1984.  It also smacks strongly of "Political Corectness", a term Joe Stallin coined.

I started this topic, with the idea of RACE in mind.  I was keeping things general, Caucasian, Oriental, and Black.  It was the generality of racial intolerance I was looking at.  I was not trying to get into the much more involved topic of ethnic discrimination. 

Check out the "definition" of race:


OK, fine.

I learned about the difference between Race and Ethnicity in College.  To an Anthropologist, there is a distinct difference, and that is how I view it.  If other people want to broaden it, there is nothing I can do about it.

To me, this is a shame because instead of bringing it closer together, it just gives people yet another reason to break us apart, and to make differences between "us" and "them".

You know, this is EXACTLY what I have been trying to say since this whole thing started.

Because of politics, the definition of "race" has changed.  And by that, I mean the word itself.

"Race" now means what "Ethnicity" means.  When people say "race", most of the time they MEAN "ethnicity".  There are differences between the two, but people insist on making them the same.

And because of this, people who use race correctly are being told to change the way they do their work.  When my professor first started to talk about the great migrations of humans 10,000+ years ago, he used the 3 races I have said before.  This is well before any known ethnic groups came into being.  There were no Italians, no Japanese, no Arabs.

Now thousands of years later, they are taking a scientific term and trying to change it for "inclusion", for political purposes.  Race is race, ethnicity is ethnicity.  Trying to say that Race is really Ethnicity is the type of doublespeak that George Orwell warned us about in 1984.  It also smacks strongly of "Political Corectness", a term Joe Stallin coined.

I started this topic, with the idea of RACE in mind.  I was keeping things general, Caucasian, Oriental, and Black.  It was the generality of racial intolerance I was looking at.  I was not trying to get into the much more involved topic of ethnic discrimination. 


Cheer's post is an excellent one.  The concept of race hasn't changed due to politics, but due to greater scientific understanding.  The features we generally use to distingush race, like skin color, result from extremely small genetic differences, which is why 2 Finns can be more different genetically than a Finn and a Swahili, as Cheer's post points out.

The people who migrated out of Africa about 100,000 years ago (not 10,000 - thats when agriculture began to become the dominant "mode of production", replacing gathering and hunting) were all the same, dark skinned, for good biological reasons.  As they settled different climate zones they slowly changed color.

Racial intolerance is a much more recent historical phenomenon based on power and the excercise thereof.  In fact, one could trace our definitions of race, and indeas about racial superiority/inferiority to European expansionism beginning in 1492, or maybe to the Crusades (but these were more "cultural wars" than racial ones, as Islamic civilization was certainly more advanced at the time than European.

So yeah, race is very complex, and the sooner we eliminate notions of racial superiority/inferiority while recognizing out cultural differences, the better. 

So, for argument's sake, is the foundation of "racial supremacy"  based on the deep rooted feelings of "racial inferiority" by the race of power?

For example, African-Americans are treated unfairly in many walks of life, yet those who are against them for various reasons seek the perfect "tan", full, pouty lips, and an ample derriere. Another example, Latinos are treated unfairly, yet those against them seek the stereotypical fiery, passionate personality and culinary tastes associated with them. Asians are treated unfairly and those against them often seek the discipline instilled in their families.

Is this safe and fair to assume?

Tanya

So, for argument's sake, is the foundation of "racial supremacy"  based on the deep rooted feelings of "racial inferiority" by the race of power?

For example, African-Americans are treated unfairly in many walks of life, yet those who are against them for various reasons seek the perfect "tan", full, pouty lips, and an ample derriere. Another example, Latinos are treated unfairly, yet those against them seek the stereotypical fiery, passionate personality and culinary tastes associated with them. Asians are treated unfairly and those against them often seek the discipline instilled in their families.

Is this safe and fair to assume?

Tanya



I don't claim to be a psychologist, so I can't answer your question in an informed way.  You are certainly correct in pointing out that oppressors sometimes admire what they consider attributes of the oppressed.  There are many ways this manifests itself, including sex tourism to "exotic" places (just read a book on this).  My point is that Europeans, as they conquored the world, defines the people they encountered as "other" and inferior, and so we have "the white man's burden", and a justification for conquest, murder, slavery, racism, and exploitation.  The better we understand the historical reality behind our views on race and racial issues, the better we can confront them and eliminate their consequences.

I don't claim to be a psychologist, so I can't answer your question in an informed way.  You are certainly correct in pointing out that oppressors sometimes admire what they consider attributes of the oppressed.  There are many ways this manifests itself, including sex tourism to "exotic" places (just read a book on this).  My point is that Europeans, as they conquored the world, defines the people they encountered as "other" and inferior, and so we have "the white man's burden", and a justification for conquest, murder, slavery, racism, and exploitation.  The better we understand the historical reality behind our views on race and racial issues, the better we can confront them and eliminate their consequences.


I agree with you completely. It'll be a tough road, though. I always wondered these things as I grew up. It bothered me to see tanned white girls on the cover of magazines, but not a single African-American or Latino girl. It didn't make sense to me.

Tanya

I agree with you completely. It'll be a tough road, though. I always wondered these things as I grew up. It bothered me to see tanned white girls on the cover of magazines, but not a single African-American or Latino girl. It didn't make sense to me.

Tanya





What never made any sense to me is white people who dislikes blacks and latinos but sit out in the Sun trying to get tanned.  ??? 

I judge people on WHO they are, not WHAT they are. Color of skin, ethnic background, religion, sexual orination, and (believe it or not) political beliefs is not a factor. If you are a good human, that is all that counts.



Cat

I agree with you completely. It'll be a tough road, though. I always wondered these things as I grew up. It bothered me to see tanned white girls on the cover of magazines, but not a single African-American or Latino girl. It didn't make sense to me.

Tanya




No, it doesn't make sense.  If, as the saying goes, "white is right" you would think they would want to be as white as possible.  But they can afford to get dark and still be white.  Frankly, I could hide my Latino heritage and "pass".  I choose not to because I choose not to deny my identity.  I think, again, it has to do with power, and the myths/fantasies that "white" people have (especially sexual) about "people of color".  I could add to citations I have already posted on this, but anyone interested should PM me, always glad to share reading lists.

I'm a Black woman and my boyfriend, at the time, is White and we had the same surnames. We made sure we weren't related. Just because we're from different racial backgrounds doesn't mean we can't be related whether by marriage, adoption or even blood-lineage. I'm very pro-interracial/pro-interrcultural and proud of it. I think it's wonderful learning about a different group and their way of living. And that doen't make me any less Black! If I dyed my hair blond and pop in blue contacts that doesn't make me any less Black! I date White men, because I personally find them physically attractive in MY eye! As Envoge's "Free Your Mind" verse goes "I may date another race or color, doesn't mean that I don't like my strong Black Brothas". If someone ever judges you by skin color, just let them know if they don't like it take that up with GOD, he's the artist of ALL humans on this planet and he decides what skin color/complexion,eye/hair color,height,bone structure,body shape and yes,even who you should fall in love with! Can't we all just get along?! :-*

What never made any sense to me is white people who dislikes blacks and latinos but sit out in the Sun trying to get tanned.  ??? 

I judge people on WHO they are, not WHAT they are. Color of skin, ethnic background, religion, sexual orination, and (believe it or not) political beliefs is not a factor. If you are a good human, that is all that counts.



Cat
To answer your ??? Probably the same reason why Black's and Latino's (especially the dark complected Black's and Latino's) smear on the skin-lightening creams. ???

To answer your ??? Probably the same reason why Black's and Latino's (especially the dark complected Black's and Latino's) smear on the skin-lightening creams. ???

I've heard Black women resent White women dating Black men the way White men resent Black men dating White women.  As a White man I've never had a problem either way, and would have no problem dating a Black woman.  I've also never heard White men make a big deal of White men dating Black women.  I don't know if other Black women resent Black women for dating White men.

I'm a Black woman and my boyfriend, at the time, is White and we had the same surnames. We made sure we weren't related. Just because we're from different racial backgrounds doesn't mean we can't be related whether by marriage, adoption or even blood-lineage. I'm very pro-interracial/pro-interrcultural and proud of it. I think it's wonderful learning about a different group and their way of living. And that doen't make me any less Black! If I dyed my hair blond and pop in blue contacts that doesn't make me any less Black! I date White men, because I personally find them physically attractive in MY eye! As Envoge's "Free Your Mind" verse goes "I may date another race or color, doesn't mean that I don't like my strong Black Brothas". If someone ever judges you by skin color, just let them know if they don't like it take that up with GOD, he's the artist of ALL humans on this planet and he decides what skin color/complexion,eye/hair color,height,bone structure,body shape and yes,even who you should fall in love with! Can't we all just get along?! :-*


You have reinvigorated an old thread, but an imnportant one.  I applaude your racial openess and I shrare it.  I 2 want to be judged "by the content of my character" and not the color of my skin.

As to dating, I'm not in the market, but I like my women dark and sweet (my wife is both - not too dark thought, mediteranian).  Hail the cosmic race.

When they tried to draft me for Vietnam, and asked my race on the "paperwork", I replied "HUMAN".  And  so are we all.

When they tried to draft me for Vietnam, and asked my race on the "paperwork", I replied "HUMAN". And so are we all.


Amen to that, Carlos. :)

I've heard Black women resent White women dating Black men the way White men resent Black men dating White women.  As a White man I've never had a problem either way, and would have no problem dating a Black woman.  I've also never heard White men make a big deal of White men dating Black women.  I don't know if other Black women resent Black women for dating White men.
To answer your question, unfortunately, there are still black women who question other black women ,like me,as to why and what do I see in White men that I could have found in a Black man. Personally, their ideal goes back to sexually, MY idea is who I fall in love with and who is attractive in MY eyes! I still get those hypothetical questions, you know, the "what if's". I was really iritated by one of my supervisors (who's Jewish), when one of my Black male clients walked in the door,and she had the nerves to say "there he is", in other words assuming that just because I'm Black that I'm suppose to stay or date within my race!! I told her off!  I bet she never said a word to my other supervisor,Who's a White woman married to a Black man,an African native,at that! The other White women in my office and white friends, doesn't  have a problem with my choice and color of men that I choose,but I'm very careful of what I say and who I date around Black people because it all goes back to the days when "so and so" was hanged in a tree and ''so and so" was kicked out of the country or "so and so" had a cross burned on the lawn and so on and so on! Mainly, the ones who "butt" into my social love life are the ones who have messed up lives and no lives! >:(

You have reinvigorated an old thread, but an imnportant one.  I applaude your racial openess and I shrare it.  I 2 want to be judged "by the content of my character" and not the color of my skin.

As to dating, I'm not in the market, but I like my women dark and sweet (my wife is both - not too dark thought, mediteranian).  Hail the cosmic race.

When they tried to draft me for Vietnam, and asked my race on the "paperwork", I replied "HUMAN".  And  so are we all.

Almost as good as my old standby:
SEX: not as often as I'd like
:-\\

To answer your question, unfortunately, there are still black women who question other black women ,like me,as to why and what do I see in White men that I could have found in a Black man. Personally, their ideal goes back to sexually, MY idea is who I fall in love with and who is attractive in MY eyes! I still get those hypothetical questions, you know, the "what if's". I was really iritated by one of my supervisors (who's Jewish), when one of my Black male clients walked in the door,and she had the nerves to say "there he is", in other words assuming that just because I'm Black that I'm suppose to stay or date within my race!! I told her off!  I bet she never said a word to my other supervisor,Who's a White woman married to a Black man,an African native,at that! The other White women in my office and white friends, doesn't  have a problem with my choice and color of men that I choose,but I'm very careful of what I say and who I date around Black people because it all goes back to the days when "so and so" was hanged in a tree and ''so and so" was kicked out of the country or "so and so" had a cross burned on the lawn and so on and so on! Mainly, the ones who "butt" into my social love life are the ones who have messed up lives and no lives! >:(


Thanks.  I just asked because I was curious to hear your take on the "interracial dating" issue.  So much of "race" is a crock anyway, and we'd all be a lot better off if certain nosey people would just mind their own business!

Almost as good as my old standby:
SEX: not as often as I'd like
:-\\


Thats good - never though of it, but thtrs really good.

I don't think I could make my views on "interracial" dating (whatever that is) any clearer.  If one human being is attracted to another human being, and the feeling is +/- mutual, GO FOR THE GOLD.  It is, in my opinion, high time that we discarded all the silly prejudices we have regarding skin tone (as I said, I like dark), hair (kinky is nice  ;)), "Roman" noes?  Why not....

My point is that human beings come in all shapres, sizes, skin tones, etc.  To me, all are beutiful, in fact, all are a part of me.  If we could only put all the divisivness behind us, and revel in out profound unity, AND our superficial diversity, could we not create a better world?

To answer your ??? Probably the same reason why Black's and Latino's (especially the dark complected Black's and Latino's) smear on the skin-lightening creams. ???


That's something completely different. That's self-hatred.

Tanya

That's something completely different. That's self-hatred.

Tanya
It's all in the same boat! Point meaning, it's fine and dandy if you want to wear braids or dreadlocks or straight hair or blue contacts or listen to "Tejano" music or "World" music or take up martial arts, if it's something YOU want to do or "embrace", but if you do these things to impress or "woo" a potential love, instead of being yourself, in our society today, that's when the "s*** hits the fan". And that's where stereotyping,grouping and racial profiling come in play. In the past,in Middle School, I was ridiculed for talking like a "white-girl"! What the Hades is a white girl supposed to sound like?!!  >:( What the Hades is a black-girl supposed to sound like?!!  >:( I was brought to speak and enuniciate clearly and act like a young lady is supposed to! At the time, was I suppose to act, dress or look a certain way to show my "blackness"? And sadly, there's also "intrarracial" hatred. Example, again,back in Middle school,I was ridiculed for having "kinky" hair, after High School (in the early 90's),one person told me my skin wasn't "light" enough (OH, WHATEVER!, He wasn't exactly Denzel Washington, himself!) and let's not forget that scene in Spike Lee's movie,in the early 90's called "School Daze", when there were two sororities, one "light-skinned" the other "dark-skinned", getting catty and calling each other hateful names,I don't see much of that now,thank goodness! I use to watch those talk shows that brings up the touchy subject about "race" and either it angered you or laugh about it, because it was nonsense and these people were nothing more than actors. Either way, it's an eye opener. Anyways, life is way too short to worry about the largest organ on our bodies "Skin"!  ;)

And let's not forget that scene in Spike Lee's movie,in the early 90's called "School Daze", when there were two sororities, one "light-skinned" the other "dark-skinned", getting catty and calling each other hateful names,I don't see much of that now,thank goodness!

That reminds me of one of my favorite comics, "Doonesbury" once did a strip that I absolutely loved.

It depicted the College Dean dealing with the president of the "Black Student Union".  The Dean was talking about all of the things they had done to appease this group.  Their own Student Union building, their own Fraternity and Sororities, their own studies groups and history classes.  When the Dean asks what their demands are this time, the reply is "We want our own drinking fountains."

I am still trying to find out how this "self-segregation" is any better then the "forced segregation" of a generation ago.

That reminds me of one of my favorite comics, "Doonesbury" once did a strip that I absolutely loved.

It depicted the College Dean dealing with the president of the "Black Student Union".  The Dean was talking about all of the things they had done to appease this group.  Their own Student Union building, their own Fraternity and Sororities, their own studies groups and history classes.  When the Dean asks what their demands are this time, the reply is "We want our own drinking fountains."

I am still trying to find out how this "self-segregation" is any better then the "forced segregation" of a generation ago.


In one of his less known speeches, Martin said something like "It won't be the day of the white man, it won't be the day of the black man, it will be the day of man AS man".  Amen.

But Martin also had some things to say about the brutal cycle of poverty that infects the black communities across our country, and are the results of institutional racism.  He refered to the practices during reconstruction when mostly illiterate and pennyless ex-slaves were told "your free now"  but got little or no help in establishing their freedom.  He compared them to an incarcerated innocent man who is freed, given  no help, and told to rebuild his life by "picking himself up by his bootstraps".  Then he said something like "Its fine to tell someone to pick himself up by his bootstraps, but it is a cruel jest to tell a bootless man to pick himself up be his bootstraps."  Martin understood.

In one of his less known speeches, Martin said something like "It won't be the day of the white man, it won't be the day of the black man, it will be the day of man AS man".  Amen.


A sentiment I agree with 100%.  I very much live by Dr. King's ideals, of judging a man by the content of his character, not the color of his skin.


But Martin also had some things to say about the brutal cycle of poverty that infects the black communities across our country, and are the results of institutional racism.  He refered to the practices during reconstruction when mostly illiterate and pennyless ex-slaves were told "your free now"  but got little or no help in establishing their freedom.


Not trying to start a "back and forth", but remember that we are talking the mid 19th century.  At this time, most of the white Americans were illiterate as well.  This was especially true in the South, where the vast majority of people had no education at all.

I look at the end of slavery in an entirely different context.  In less then 100 years, they went through over 500 years of European Civilization.  They started as slaves, much as what existed in Rome 2,000 years ago.  When that was ended, a lot moved up to "Share Croppers", an institution very similar to the Medieval Feudal Serfdom.

A generation later, they had moved up to "The Age Of Enlightenment", where they were in a similar position to peasants.  By World War 2, they were well on the way to equality (with the exception of those still in "The South").  We now sit 161 years after the Civil War, and for all intents and purposes, equality is here.  There is nothing to be done about those that still harbor racist beliefs, other then to minimilize them (which they rightly deserve).

Myself, I look in pride at how blacks in this nation accomplished in such a short amount of time.  Then again, I always tend to look at the positive things and not the negative.  I think that pride in accomplishment is a lot more productive then wallowing in self pitty.

A sentiment I agree with 100%.  I very much live by Dr. King's ideals, of judging a man by the content of his character, not the color of his skin.

Not trying to start a "back and forth", but remember that we are talking the mid 19th century.  At this time, most of the white Americans were illiterate as well.  This was especially true in the South, where the vast majority of people had no education at all.

I look at the end of slavery in an entirely different context.  In less then 100 years, they went through over 500 years of European Civilization.  They started as slaves, much as what existed in Rome 2,000 years ago.  When that was ended, a lot moved up to "Share Croppers", an institution very similar to the Medieval Feudal Serfdom.

A generation later, they had moved up to "The Age Of Enlightenment", where they were in a similar position to peasants.  By World War 2, they were well on the way to equality (with the exception of those still in "The South").  We now sit 161 years after the Civil War, and for all intents and purposes, equality is here.  There is nothing to be done about those that still harbor racist beliefs, other then to minimilize them (which they rightly deserve).

Myself, I look in pride at how blacks in this nation accomplished in such a short amount of time.  Then again, I always tend to look at the positive things and not the negative.  I think that pride in accomplishment is a lot more productive then wallowing in self pitty.


I know you don't mean it, but it sounds very patronizing.

I know you don't mean it, but it sounds very patronizing.


Believe me, it is not patronizing at all!!!!!!!!!

African-Americans have in this country gone farther in less then 200 years then All of Europe did in over 1,000 years.  They went from Roman style slavery to equal rights.  That is quite an achievement.

At the same time, look at "Civil Rights" in most areas of the world.  The achievements made are amazing, and should in no way be put down.  In fact, in 1918, a black in America had more rights and lived better then the common person living in Russia.  In Russia, they still had what equated to a Medeival Serf system.  This inequality is what lead to the Revolution.

Things are not perfect.  But yes, things are much better.  Things have improved remarkably just in my lifetime.  There are not very many things that that can be said about.  As I said, I tend to look at the positive things, and to see the glass as "half full" (things are better) instead of "half empty" (things have not changed).

Believe me, it is not patronizing at all!!!!!!!!!

African-Americans have in this country gone farther in less then 200 years then All of Europe did in over 1,000 years.  They went from Roman style slavery to equal rights.  That is quite an achievement.

At the same time, look at "Civil Rights" in most areas of the world.  The achievements made are amazing, and should in no way be put down.  In fact, in 1918, a black in America had more rights and lived better then the common person living in Russia.  In Russia, they still had what equated to a Medeival Serf system.  This inequality is what lead to the Revolution.

Things are not perfect.  But yes, things are much better.  Things have improved remarkably just in my lifetime.  There are not very many things that that can be said about.  As I said, I tend to look at the positive things, and to see the glass as "half full" (things are better) instead of "half empty" (things have not changed).

It is patrionizing ad nauseam.  It's also the kind of Rush Limbaugh buffoonery that asks us to ignore the evil racism that STILL exists.  More than tell us to ignore the racism of the Right, the GOP strategists bring Uncle Tom preachers and pundits to the forefront.  These clowns bolster the Republican party's insipid rantings about the "racism" of the Democratic party and the liberals.  They try to portray the Repugs as the party of Lincoln and emancipation, even though that end of the party has been dead for generations.  What's more they shout about the racist past of the Democratic party.  Nobody denies the Dems were the party of segregation, but the shift began in the New Deal and was complete by 1965, when the majority of Civil Rights legislation was in place.  For the past forty years the GOP has been the party of the White corporate elite and the racist redneck alike.
The Republican Party used BLATANTLY RACIST TACTICS to DISENFRANCHISE Blacks in the last two presidential elections (and God knows how many others) because Blacks vote Democrat. 
When the Repugnicans are not scrubbing African-Americans from the voter rolls, they are pushing a big lie to Black America about how the Dems want to keep them dependent on government, and how the GOP will provide them with "opportunities" for dignified self-reliance.  The sick reality is, "self-reliance" is more difficult for everybody under Repugnican policies.  The Right throws the working man overboard with a lead life preserver and tells orders him to swim!  F**k the Right!!!!

I'm not saying the Dems are angels either.  They have a looooong way to go to redeem themselves for siding with the interests of the corporate elite!

Just one thing that bugs me here that I can't let go of... "American" is not a race or ethnicity, it's a nationality. Unlike many countries across the world, the U.S. is not an ethnic nation-state and therefore its adjective in no way denotes race or ethnicity. Sure there is no reason to call yourself anything other than "American" or "Canadian" or "Australian" if you're dicsussing nationality which simply means "country/countries of citizenship." When someone is asked about their race or ethnicity (which also differ from one another), they would be foolish to answer "American" because that is not what was asked of that person.

Ethnic identifiers are important for people in a melting-pot society, it lets them know what ingredient they're contributing and it allows them some connection with not only their past, but other people that share a similar past. Without a bunch of "Irish-Americans" hanging around, we wouldn't all be able to enjoy a wild St. Patrick's Day parade/party. Without "Mexican-Americans" we wouldn't be able to kick back with a Corona and lime on Cinco de Mayo. Without Cajun/French Americans we wouldn't have Mardi Gras. You get my point. 

It is patrionizing ad nauseam.  It's also the kind of Rush Limbaugh buffoonery that asks us to ignore the evil racism that STILL exists.  More than tell us to ignore the racism of the Right, the GOP strategists bring Uncle Tom preachers and pundits to the forefront.  These clowns bolster the Republican party's insipid rantings about the "racism" of the Democratic party and the liberals.  They try to portray the Repugs as the party of Lincoln and emancipation, even though that end of the party has been dead for generations.  What's more they shout about the racist past of the Democratic party.  Nobody denies the Dems were the party of segregation, but the shift began in the New Deal and was complete by 1965, when the majority of Civil Rights legislation was in place.  For the past forty years the GOP has been the party of the White corporate elite and the racist redneck alike.
The Republican Party used BLATANTLY RACIST TACTICS to DISENFRANCHISE Blacks in the last two presidential elections (and God knows how many others) because Blacks vote Democrat. 
When the Repugnicans are not scrubbing African-Americans from the voter rolls, they are pushing a big lie to Black America about how the Dems want to keep them dependent on government, and how the GOP will provide them with "opportunities" for dignified self-reliance.  The sick reality is, "self-reliance" is more difficult for everybody under Repugnican policies.  The Right throws the working man overboard with a lead life preserver and tells orders him to swim!  F**k the Right!!!!

I'm not saying the Dems are angels either.  They have a looooong way to go to redeem themselves for siding with the interests of the corporate elite!


It is when I see posts like this that I often wonder why I keep returning to this message board.  So many of the posters are so amazingly hostile, that it is a wonder that any "free thought" is tolerated at all.  Liberals band together, puit on your white robes and smash the evils of Conservatives, Christians, and Republicans.

So once again, I am just gonna fade away.  I absolutely love free exchange of opinion.  It is especially enjoyable when the people have differing opinions, because it is not fun to just sit around and "pat each other on the back".  But when I make a sincere post like I did and come under such a harsh attack, I realize that there is no true "freedom of expression" desired by some in here, they only want to bash, attack, and rend apart anybody who has a different opinion then their own.

And gee, I always thought that the "Liberals" championed themselves as the group of acceptance.

It is when I see posts like this that I often wonder why I keep returning to this message board.  So many of the posters are so amazingly hostile, that it is a wonder that any "free thought" is tolerated at all.  Liberals band together, puit on your white robes and smash the evils of Conservatives, Christians, and Republicans.

So once again, I am just gonna fade away.  I absolutely love free exchange of opinion.  It is especially enjoyable when the people have differing opinions, because it is not fun to just sit around and "pat each other on the back".  But when I make a sincere post like I did and come under such a harsh attack, I realize that there is no true "freedom of expression" desired by some in here, they only want to bash, attack, and rend apart anybody who has a different opinion then their own.

And gee, I always thought that the "Liberals" championed themselves as the group of acceptance.

Now you've got a taste of what it is like for liberals versus cable news and talk radio!  Nobody "attacked" you, Mush.  I did say the it was patronizing for you to explain to an African-American person how she just feels sorry for herself if she thinks racism is still a problem in America, and I stand by that analysis.
Sometimes conservatives on this board do a great job of tearing down my arguments,too, and sometimes they get it right.  That doesn't mean I take my toys and go home!  Now you know darn well there's a difference between "acceptance" of another person and the automatic concession to any opinion he has even if you disagree with it.
Sometimes one's sincerely held beliefs are folly.  I still have misconceptions I'm trying to face.  It's hard to do.
And it isn't YOU, Mushroom, to whom I am so hostile, it is the machinery of the Republican party. 
It seems to me conservatives feel entitled to have the final say in everything since our media started giving them a blank check redeemable for any amount of erroneous opinion.  Well, sir, not if I have anything to say about it.  It seems also conservatives can't take a taste of their own medicine.
If you want to quit posting, you do so on your ow volition.  Take responsibility for your own touchiness instead of trying to pin the guilt on me and the other "liberals" around here!

Believe me, it is not patronizing at all!!!!!!!!!

African-Americans have in this country gone farther in less then 200 years then All of Europe did in over 1,000 years.  They went from Roman style slavery to equal rights.  That is quite an achievement.

At the same time, look at "Civil Rights" in most areas of the world.  The achievements made are amazing, and should in no way be put down.  In fact, in 1918, a black in America had more rights and lived better then the common person living in Russia.  In Russia, they still had what equated to a Medeival Serf system.  This inequality is what lead to the Revolution.

Things are not perfect.  But yes, things are much better.  Things have improved remarkably just in my lifetime.  There are not very many things that that can be said about.  As I said, I tend to look at the positive things, and to see the glass as "half full" (things are better) instead of "half empty" (things have not changed).


Things HAVE changed.  Very few people now refer to blacks as "niggars" or as "boy", or Puerto Ricans as "spiks", and there is a small black and latino "professional class".  At my college, inter-racial dating is, according to some students, acceptable, and it has been a long time since I heard about a white person rubbing a black person's head for luck.  BUT, the fact remains that minorities in this country still face institutional barriers, and racial profiling (that is to say racism), and still face racial hatred (that is to say prejudice).  So the "glass" of equality may be half full, but when it comes to equality (in this country at least) half full just isn't enough.  If we allow ourselves to be satisfied with "half full" we will never get to FULL.  To me, that is NOT acceptable, and this is no time for complacancy.  Only when the "glass" of equality is full can we afford that luxury.

Let me add, for Mushroon's benefit, that I DO NOT aim these  comments at him.  If fact I am willing to believe him when he claims to judge people "by the content of their  character". 

I also think Max is right, and Danoot, but I also think it is bad politics to alianate people of good will.  Being "politic" is to build bridges, for alliances, educate, inform etc.  But I also recognize the wisdom of that old Wobbly saying "To teach and educate is very good that's true, but still, you can't get along without that good old wooded shoe" (the sabot, from which the word sabotage comes).

This is slightly off-topic, and maybe was already discussed, but does anyone else get confused/annoyed whenever people still refer to Native Americans as "Indians."  I think I heard somewhere that some do prefer to be called Indian, but otherwise it just confuses me.  Today at church some ol guy asked me sister (who has much lighter skin than me, especially since I've been tanning) "Is your sister part Indian?"  My sister told me he asked that and for a minute I was like  "Huh?  I don't even look Indian"  Then I realized its my Cherokee blood showin.

This is slightly off-topic, and maybe was already discussed, but does anyone else get confused/annoyed whenever people still refer to Native Americans as "Indians."  I think I heard somewhere that some do prefer to be called Indian, but otherwise it just confuses me.  Today at church some ol guy asked me sister (who has much lighter skin than me, especially since I've been tanning) "Is your sister part Indian?"  My sister told me he asked that and for a minute I was like  "Huh?  I don't even look Indian"  Then I realized its my Cherokee blood showin.


The mistake, aparantly, goes back to Columbus, who though he was in Japan, so naturally called the native Indians  ???  ???  ???.  Not only was he lost, his knowledge of geography also was a bit screwy. 

The meaning is clear, so I, for 1 don't get confused, but I'm not sure that "native America" is the right term either.  I was born here, so I too am a "native American".  "Original American" might be a better term.

Visiting these boards again for the first time in a while has reinforced my initial thinking on this, which is that the human animal seems to be so easily threatened, and so quick to challenge any real or perceived threat, not only to our physical persons, but even to our individual ideas, our perspectives, our sense of 'right and wrong', our 'identity' our 'egos'.

Antagonisms based on race seem to me to be not all that different from those based in class, religion, gender or political ideology.  To me, it's not really about race at all --- it's about our fundamental failure to control our primitive need to demean, diminish and marginalize those different from 'us'.

Visiting these boards again for the first time in a while has reinforced my initial thinking on this, which is that the human animal seems to be so easily threatened, and so quick to challenge any real or perceived threat, not only to our physical persons, but even to our individual ideas, our perspectives, our sense of 'right and wrong', our 'identity' our 'egos'.

Antagonisms based on race seem to me to be not all that different from those based in class, religion, gender or political ideology.  To me, it's not really about race at all --- it's about our fundamental failure to control our primitive need to demean, diminish and marginalize those different from 'us'.


YES!

And it is a flaw we must all, individuially and collectively, try to overcome.

I used to hate racists, but now I try to have compassion now for whatever I can imagine might have screwed them up.  There's a woman in my office who won't even look at me much say hi, and I couldn't understand why, since I'm very friendly and well-liked.  Then one of the other managers told me she thinks the woman doesn't like Asians.  And at first that made me very angry, but I decided to make up that once a long time ago in college she met and fell in love with an Asian man who broke her heart.  Now I feel bad for her.  And of course I am racist sometimes too, so I see how that goes.

I used to hate racists, but now I try to have compassion now for whatever I can imagine might have screwed them up.  There's a woman in my office who won't even look at me much say hi, and I couldn't understand why, since I'm very friendly and well-liked.  Then one of the other managers told me she thinks the woman doesn't like Asians.  And at first that made me very angry, but I decided to make up that once a long time ago in college she met and fell in love with an Asian man who broke her heart.  Now I feel bad for her.  And of course I am racist sometimes too, so I see how that goes.


I'm sure that there are many instances when 2 human beings reached out to each other but failed, for whatever reason, to connect.  But when that happens between 2 people of different ethnic or "racial" spersuasions it can easily lead to "all those _______ fill in the blank" being responsible, and equally guilty, in your pain.  The trick is to destinguish the individual from the group. 

In my own case, I married a Jewish woman who broke my heart.  So, do I hate all Jews?  No, I married another one, who is my true love, my life companion, and the love of my life.  Yes, I'm refering to Cat.

But the point is to always seperate the act of the individual from any attributes, characteristics, etc, attributed to either races or ethnicities.  Unfortunately....

I'm sure that there are many instances when 2 human beings reached out to each other but failed, for whatever reason, to connect.  But when that happens between 2 people of different ethnic or "racial" spersuasions it can easily lead to "all those _______ fill in the blank" being responsible, and equally guilty, in your pain.  The trick is to destinguish the individual from the group. 

In my own case, I married a Jewish woman who broke my heart.  So, do I hate all Jews?  No, I married another one, who is my true love, my life companion, and the love of my life.  Yes, I'm refering to Cat.

But the point is to always seperate the act of the individual from any attributes, characteristics, etc, attributed to either races or ethnicities.  Unfortunately....


Right on!

Tanya

Right on!

Tanya


Thanks, Tanya

I used to hate racists, but now I try to have compassion now for whatever I can imagine might have screwed them up.  There's a woman in my office who won't even look at me much say hi, and I couldn't understand why, since I'm very friendly and well-liked.  Then one of the other managers told me she thinks the woman doesn't like Asians.  And at first that made me very angry, but I decided to make up that once a long time ago in college she met and fell in love with an Asian man who broke her heart.  Now I feel bad for her.  And of course I am racist sometimes too, so I see how that goes.


Nah, I have heard that excuse before and don't go for it.  If she goes out white guy who breaks her heart would she hate all white guys?  I think not.  It doesn't wash.  Feel bad for her for making her world a much smaller place, but not the reason that she became that way.

I'm sure that there are many instances when 2 human beings reached out to each other but failed, for whatever reason, to connect.  But when that happens between 2 people of different ethnic or "racial" spersuasions it can easily lead to "all those _______ fill in the blank" being responsible, and equally guilty, in your pain. 

I don't understand how that comes easily for anyone.  If Joe hurts me, then Joe hurt me... not Joe, John, Billy, Jane & Rita.  It would seem easiest to blame just Joe than to try to figure out who all the other thousands of people I could lump into that blame should be. 

I also just really don't understand the point of racism.  Ok, so Joe Schmoe and company decide to hate all people who have freckles on their noses.  They convince others to agree.  They, along with all the people they convince to share their hatred discriminate against, persecute and finally commit a completely successful genocide against all freckle-nosed people... no more freckled noses, anywhere on the entire planet.    Then what?  What's the payoff for them, the ultimate goal of it all... the big brass ring they wasted their lives grabbing for?   

I don't think there's a point.  It's emotional.  If a stranger walks up to most people and calls you a dirty whore, most of them would get mad.  Why?  There's no reason.  Some stranger's opinion not going to effect your life.  But we're emotional creatures, we don't operate like Spock.


I agree that the natural emotional reaction of our species when such an offense is perpetrated against us by a stranger is to be angry at that particular stranger for that particular offense.  What seems very unnatural, bizarre (and perhaps even somewhat indicative of some form of mental illness) is to then choose some physical trait of that stranger, seemingly at random and then extend our anger from that one event and that one stranger to the very existence of each and every person on the planet who shares that physical trait. 

If a stranger walks up to most people and calls you a dirty whore, most of them would get mad. 


No, I'd just say "You've seen the pictures, huh?"  :D  ;D  :P  :-*  ;)

Tanya

I think my mom is oblivously racist.  She's one of those people who always has to mention someone's race even when it has nothing to do with anything.  And when we go to eat at restaurants on the "poor side of town" she always has to make some comment like the people there "must be on welfare..."  I keep telling her she needs to stop.
The way someone is brought up is no excuse for being racist.  My roommate my 1st semester was ALWAYS making very rude racial jokes, and always did it around me and teased me because my boyfriend was black.  Then she'd say "Sorry, I was just brought up that way..."  >:(


Both my grandmothers still use the term "colored."  :-X  One is from the UK and the Northeast, another grew up in the Northeast.  There were black people around them when they grew up -- they've each mentioned families they knew who were "colored, but nice"  :-X :-X  They really don't understand that they're doing anything wrong when they talk like this...

I encountered something else when I was 19-20.  My boyfriend at that time was black.  After we broke up, more than once someone would come up to me and say, "Hey, I hear you date black guys..." it would either be a guy wanting to meet me solely on the basis of the fact he was black and I was white, or some girl who wanted to set me up with a guy for the same reason.  That annoyed me so much!

Then there are some people I know who think that because I am white, I shouldn't try coming into their neighborhoods because "it's too dangerous."

Like most of you guys here, I regard all of this as so stupid.  I wonder...will it ever end? 

It won't end.  Even a open-mided person sees someone of a certain race and makes assumptions.  But they will deny it because everybody's afraid of being called racist, so everybody is in denial.  I am racist.  Just like I am sexist.  Not because I hate people of other racist, but I realize I make assumptions becuase of the cultrue I was raised in.

It won't end.  Even a open-mided person sees someone of a certain race and makes assumptions.  But they will deny it because everybody's afraid of being called racist, so everybody is in denial.  I am racist.  Just like I am sexist.  Not because I hate people of other racist, but I realize I make assumptions becuase of the cultrue I was raised in.


One can always overcome the crap that we were taught as children.  For a long time I feared American black people, although I had no problem with very dark Puerto Ricans.  At one point I realized why.  As a child my grandmother took care of my sister and I while my parents worked.  In the summer we would go for rides and ALWAYS stop for ice cream.  Once, as I was about to take a drink from a water fountain with the silly curved metal bar extending from it, Grandma said "Don't put your lips on the bar, you don't know what black person did before you".  That little time bomb, buried in my subconscious, led to my fear.  Once I remembered it, I could deal with the irrationality of my feelings.  The way to confront irrational fears, or hates is to bring them to consciousness and evaluate them rationally. 

Well, we have to put somebody on the bottom.

I agree that the natural emotional reaction of our species when such an offense is perpetrated against us by a stranger is to be angry at that particular stranger for that particular offense.  What seems very unnatural, bizarre (and perhaps even somewhat indicative of some form of mental illness) is to then choose some physical trait of that stranger, seemingly at random and then extend our anger from that one event and that one stranger to the very existence of each and every person on the planet who shares that physical trait. 


Did you ever hear of "racial profiling"?  Neither racism nor prejudice are rational.  Both are totally irrational.


Well, we have to put somebody on the bottom.



NO

We don't have to put ANYBODY at the bottom!  To do so, or to condone doing so, it seems to me, is to accept the racist notion that some groups are "better" than others.  I reject that position utterly, and deplore it.  We are all equal, each with his/her own attributes, good and bad, and we are all




  HUMAN



In fact, the genetic differences between the Inuets of Alaska and the aboriginal population of Austrailia anr less than those between 2 groups of chimps living 50 miles apart in Central Africa.

Nobody can stand for something without insulting everything else.

It doesn't have to be that way... the problem is democracy, or at least the electorate: they vote for people who demonise rather than people who are nice to everyone.

But it's not just them doing it, it's us. Am I the only one who reads this board? :-)

"Them" is "us" in a democracy... if you see what I mean.

I guess we're saying the same thing. I was just confused becuase you said they. It's everybody doing it is my point.


But "everyone" is not "doing" it.  There are those of us who judge a person "by the content of their character" and by no other standard.  I personally, have no need to put anyone under me, nor do I recognize anyone over me.

   
But it's not just them doing it, it's us. Am I the only one who reads this board? :-)


No, you are NOT the only one who reads the board, and its not me looking down at anyone for who they are, and its not me looking up to anyone for reasons other that their accomplishments, for the "content of theit character".

I was not attacking you.  I was replying to Philbo's comment.  I'm not accusing you of anything.  I'm just talking about society in general.  I like to think I'm a good person too, but I'm just saying 'we' to take responsibility for being part of the society, and I want to take responsibility (not blame) for the environment I live in.  Convincing myself what a good person I am and what bad people other people are is not productive.  I do it more than I should, but I don't think it's good.  So I say 'we' to say I accept responsibility (not blame) for my society and want to make a commitment to make it better.  That's all.

And the 'only one who reads this board' comment was a little joke, which is why there was a smiley.

Sorry.

I guess we're saying the same thing. I was just confused becuase you said they. It's everybody doing it is my point.


But "everyone" is not "doing" it.

True... but we live in a "democracy" (of sorts, anyway), and a large majority of people do judge based on prejudice, whether their prejudice happens to be sex, skin colour, social class, whatever.

I was not attacking you.  I was replying to Philbo's comment.  I'm not accusing you of anything.  I'm just talking about society in general.  I like to think I'm a good person too, but I'm just saying 'we' to take responsibility for being part of the society, and I want to take responsibility (not blame) for the environment I live in.  Convincing myself what a good person I am and what bad people other people are is not productive.  I do it more than I should, but I don't think it's good.  So I say 'we' to say I accept responsibility (not blame) for my society and want to make a commitment to make it better.  That's all.

And the 'only one who reads this board' comment was a little joke, which is why there was a smiley.

Sorry.


I didn't mean to be short or nasty, sorry if I came off that way.  I too accept responsibility to our society and try to make constructive and progressive change.  One way is to participate in discussions like this one where we reach a fairly large number of people.  Another is writing letters to the editor etc.  But in the final analysis, I think the most important thing individuals can do is to confront their own  prejudices.  The other is to confront institutional racism.  Both are tough jobs, but need to be done. 

As far as dating goes who cares I have had crushes on Pilipino and Hispanic women. I happen to like brunettes of all ethincity's(black, white, spanish,asian, indian) I am a white man myself.

I also saw a post about cousins marrying cousins I think that is kind of "out there" if you will. I don't see how you can marry somebody you are already a relative of.

Other things: I mean at work the other day I went to lock the front gate and a couple of black men were in a car and they asked me for directions. Since I was not from that area I really couldn't help them but I told them to go to the gas station so they could go get directions. 

Another thing I think its hard to classify race nowadays. I saw a tan white girl the other day with blonde hair. Even the comic(who was black) at the comedy club even commented like "tan white girl". There is some white girls with dark hair its like sometimes you question could they possibly be spanish or could they probably could be mixed both white and spanish.

To answer your ??? Probably the same reason why Black's and Latino's (especially the dark complected Black's and Latino's) smear on the skin-lightening creams. ???
I don't get why any Black or Latino women would smear on skin-lighteners. I think women with brown skin are attracive. Look at Halle Berry or R&B singer Deborah Cox. They have brown skin and they are attractive looking ladies.

I don't get why any Black or Latino women would smear on skin-lighteners. I think women with brown skin are attracive. Look at Halle Berry or R&B singer Deborah Cox. They have brown skin and they are attractive looking ladies.


The same reason that white girls use tanning booths.  They all want to be something else.

Cosmetics have been used throughout history by women to change their appearance.  200 years ago, women would actually use arsenic, to make themselves appear more pale.  100 years ago, they used lead based cosmetics to do the same thing.

Now, white women do something just as dangerous, by exposing themselves to ultraviolet lights, just to appear darker.  It is not as much as the desire to appear darker or lighter, as much as it is to appear "different".

The finny thing is, a lot of actresses of mixed race will often work hard to change their appearence, just so they can get a role.  Jennifer Beals has played both White and Black women.  So have a lot of other actors and actresses over the years.  I myself could not care less what race a woman is.

All I care about is "Does she have a nice bootie?"  *said with tongue so far in cheek it hurts*

The same reason that white girls use tanning booths.  They all want to be something else.

Cosmetics have been used throughout history by women to change their appearance.  200 years ago, women would actually use arsenic, to make themselves appear more pale.  100 years ago, they used lead based cosmetics to do the same thing.

Now, white women do something just as dangerous, by exposing themselves to ultraviolet lights, just to appear darker.  It is not as much as the desire to appear darker or lighter, as much as it is to appear "different".


Vanity, my friend, I've heard so many women say they smoke because it helps them keep their weight down.  I tell them smoking also halts the aging process.  It's a two-fer!

The finny thing is, a lot of actresses of mixed race will often work hard to change their appearence, just so they can get a role.  Jennifer Beals has played both White and Black women.  So have a lot of other actors and actresses over the years.  I myself could not care less what race a woman is.

All I care about is "Does she have a nice bootie?"  *said with tongue so far in cheek it hurts*
Yeah thats true alot of actress's have played either white or black women. Even some white actress's have played latino women and vice versa. I used to know a girl I;m pretty sure she was indian but it also looked like she was Portugese or Spanish. I knew of her for like 1 year at work and then the 2nd year she when was at my place where I worked we started talking. Once I got to know her I really could care less if she was mixed or not. It just wasn't important.

Now I have been accused of being a raceist 2 times while I was in the military.  Ironically, both times I was accused of being raceist against Hispanics.    THe second time was after my son was born.  I say luckily, because my wife was born and raised in Argentina.

I am glad that military lawyers were able to see how silly it was to claim I was raceist against Hispanics, when I was married to one, and my son is also Hispanic. 


so then, following your logic, the Holocaust was neither A) anti-Semetic, or B) racist, because Hitler was of Jewish ancestry.

so then, following your logic, the Holocaust was neither A) anti-Semetic, or B) racist, because Hitler was of Jewish ancestry.


Not true, not true, not true!!!

For one, it has never been proved that he was of Jewish descent.  His father was illegitimate, and the strongest suspect was that his paternal grandfather was Jewish.  But suspicion is far from fact.  Also, remember that in the Jewish faith (just like the Catholic faith), decendence was carried out through the matriarchial line, not the patriarchial.

In addition, "Jewish" is more faith then race.  Since neither of his parents or himself was ever raised Jewish, he would not be recognized as being a "Jew".  No more then I would be recognized as being a Catholic, even though my Paternal grandfather was Catholic.

In fact, under the German Race Laws of the era, somebody who was 1/4 Jewish was not considered "Jewish" if they did not adhere to the faith.  So even under the draconian race laws that the Nazi's followed, he was not Jewish.

Yes, of course somebody can be racist against there own race.  Alot of Americans think Americans in general are stupid and ignorant.  Alot of people think there better than the other people in there school, or at there job, or even in there own family.  Why wouldn't people think there better than other people in the same race?

OK, I want to throw something else in here, because of a recent conversation:

When is making a racial slur acceptible?

Any responses?

OK, I want to throw something else in here, because of a recent conversation:

When is making a racial slur acceptible?

Any responses?


What do you mean by 'slur', because that term is already making a judgement.  It's like asking someone who punishes their child whether they think it's right to abuse their kids.  Do you know what I mean?

I think stereotypes are usually negative and destructive whether it's about blacks, or whites or Jews or atheists, or the French or whatever.

OK, I want to throw something else in here, because of a recent conversation:

When is making a racial slur acceptible?

Any responses?

What do you mean by 'slur', because that term is already making a judgement.  It's like asking someone who punishes their child whether they think it's right to abuse their kids.  Do you know what I mean?

I think stereotypes are usually negative and destructive whether it's about blacks, or whites or Jews or atheists, or the French or whatever.


"Slur" certainly indicates a negative comment (like "those bra-burning hags"), stereotype (like "drunken Irishman"), or slag (like "damn spik") and is always inappropriate because it is ment not as a criticizm of an individual's personal characteristics but of a broader group and guilt by association.  Some will say I'm being too politically correct, but I disagree. 

"Slur" certainly indicates a negative comment (like "those bra-burning hags"), stereotype (like "drunken Irishman"), or slag (like "damn spik") and is always inappropriate because it is ment not as a criticizm of an individual's personal characteristics but of a broader group and guilt by association.  Some will say I'm being too politically correct, but I disagree. 


Thanks, I know -- I was trying to get at what Mushroom meant by the term, since 'slur' implies negative, but the same expression can be a slur in one use and not in another.

What do you mean by 'slur', because that term is already making a judgement.


To me, it is any term used that is negative which has a racial or religious component in it's use.

Myself, I never find them appropriate, politically correct or otherwise.  I may find somebody to be a boor, an idiot, or an offensive jerk.  But to bring in a racial slur against such a person is inexcuseable in any form.

To me, it is any term used that is negative which has a racial or religious component in it's use.

Myself, I never find them appropriate, politically correct or otherwise.  I may find somebody to be a boor, an idiot, or an offensive jerk.  But to bring in a racial slur against such a person is inexcuseable in any form.


I totally agree.  One is a boor not because of one's race, ethnicity, etc, but simply because one is a boor etc.  And all the stereotypes are just so much crap, and rely on faulty logic.  Ted Bundy was a mass murderer.  T. B. was a white, Anglo Saxon Protestant, therefore all WASPS are mass murderers. (Wasp, by the way, is redundant.  There are no ASPs of color).

To me, it is any term used that is negative which has a racial or religious component in it's use.

Myself, I never find them appropriate, politically correct or otherwise.  I may find somebody to be a boor, an idiot, or an offensive jerk.  But to bring in a racial slur against such a person is inexcuseable in any form.


I don't think anyone would disagree, really.  Like I say, I don't think race is much different than religion, sexual orientation, nationality, politics or anything else.  People should deal with the person, not the group they belong to.

I totally agree.  One is a boor not because of one's race, ethnicity, etc, but simply because one is a boor etc.  And all the stereotypes are just so much crap, and rely on faulty logic.  Ted Bundy was a mass murderer.  T. B. was a white, Anglo Saxon Protestant, therefore all WASPS are mass murderers. (Wasp, by the way, is redundant.  There are no ASPs of color).


Actually, the term is coined by "White Anglo's" in a reference to include other Whites, who are not Anglo's.  Somebody who is Germanic, Italian, Slavic, and French can't be "WASPs", no matter how often the term is used on them.  While the term was not used yet, the beliefs of the "Know-Nothings" is very much a "Pro-WASP" ideology.

The same reason that white girls use tanning booths.  They all want to be something else.


i disagree. the reason white girls go to tanning booths is for status: they want to give others the false impression of being  a lying-on-the-beach-all-day idle rich, like Paris Hilton, who is an example of such a person.

Can we stop making generalizations about 'white girls'?  Thank you.  ::)

Can we stop making generalizations about 'white girls'?  Thank you.  ::)


some of my very best friends just happen to be white girls.

some of my very best friends just happen to be white girls.


So you must know they don't all think or act the same.  :)

So you must know they don't all think or act the same.  :)


they ALL seem to like me!!!    ;) :) ;)

i disagree. the reason white girls go to tanning booths is for status: they want to give others the false impression of being  a lying-on-the-beach-all-day idle rich, like Paris Hilton, who is an example of such a person.


No, they go to achieve a look they don't have naturally.

Can we stop making generalizations about 'white girls'?  Thank you.  ::)

I don't make generalizations about "white girls."  They generalize themselves!
::)

I don't make generalizations about "white girls."  They generalize themselves!
::)


Hardee-har.  If you substitute "black men" nobody would think that was so funny.

Listen, man, the biggest "race" problem in America is the Rat Race!

^ very true, Max!

Listen, man, the biggest "race" problem in America is the Rat Race!


The term 'Rat Race' is offensive.  It's negative and perpetuates the stereotype of the rat as a dirty, unsanitary, unscrupulous urban scourge.  Some rats are like that, but not all.  And the ones that do fit that description are often the victims of an oppressive stratified social order that arbitrarily places gerbils and country mice at the top and unfairly demonizes rats.

Listen, man, the biggest "race" problem in America is the Rat Race!



What about the Human Race?  They are greedy and selfish-regardless of one's color, religion, etc. (with exceptions of course). They are the source of ALL problems in society.





Cat

OK, so apparently there are times when I am allowed to use racial slurs.

Can somebody explain to me when they are appropriate to use?  Can I use them because I do not like somebody?  Is it allowed if I oppose something that person stands for?

OK, so apparently there are times when I am allowed to use racial slurs.

Can somebody explain to me when they are appropriate to use?  Can I use them because I do not like somebody?  Is it allowed if I oppose something that person stands for?


you can use them if you don't care whether or not people think you're racist.

OK, so apparently there are times when I am allowed to use racial slurs.

Can somebody explain to me when they are appropriate to use?  Can I use them because I do not like somebody?  Is it allowed if I oppose something that person stands for?


Why do I get the feeling you are looking permission to do something, or to complain about something?  Use your own judgement, and judge the results.  We all have both hearts and brains.  We should spend more time using both of them.

Actually, the term is coined by "White Anglo's" in a reference to include other Whites, who are not Anglo's.  Somebody who is Germanic, Italian, Slavic, and French can't be "WASPs", no matter how often the term is used on them.  While the term was not used yet, the beliefs of the "Know-Nothings" is very much a "Pro-WASP" ideology.  During the 19th Century, neither Italians nor Slaves were considered "white".


A student of mine once wrote a report on a book called How the Irish Became White, which is about anti-Gailic prejudice in the good old USA.  My point was that ALL Anglo-Saxon Protestants are white, so the "W" is redundant (and the "ASP" acronime is a much better description of their impact on world history). 

The "Know Nothings" were esentially anti-Irish and anti-Catholic, which at the time was the same thing.



What about the Human Race?  They are greedy and selfish-regardless of one's color, religion, etc. (with exceptions of course). They are the source of ALL problems in society.





Cat


Well, yes.  Humans consitute human society, so of course they (we - some of us) are the source of all problems in human society.  Womderful insight my love  ;).  We could solve them by all of us "terminating" our miserable existances.  Or, we could work together to achieve what most of us want, a secure future, a peaceful life, loving relationships (like ours  ;D) etc.  Not too much to ask, but the devil is in the details.

A student of mine once wrote a report on a book called How the Irish Became White, which is about anti-Gailic prejudice in the good old USA.  My point was that ALL Anglo-Saxon Protestants are white, so the "W" is redundant (and the "ASP" acronime is a much better description of their impact on world history). 


I tend to avoid all uses of acronyms when refering to a group of people.  You will not find me useing terms like WASP, JAP, WOP, BUM, or any of the others that have pop-up up over the years.  I find it a form of stereotyping as offensive as any other.

I tend to avoid all uses of acronyms when refering to a group of people.  You will not find me useing terms like WASP, JAP, WOP, BUM, or any of the others that have pop-up up over the years.  I find it a form of stereotyping as offensive as any other.


We may disagree on any number of issues. but not on this one.  Now political designations are a bit different.  Neocon, leftist, liberal, etc don't refer to personal characteristics.

What about the Human Race?  They are greedy and selfish-regardless of one's color, religion, etc. (with exceptions of course). They are the source of ALL problems in society.





Cat

OK, then, the biggest race problem is the human race...
:-\\

What about the Human Race?  They are greedy and selfish-regardless of one's color, religion, etc. (with exceptions of course). They are the source of ALL problems in society.





Cat

Yes, they can be, especially if they have too much free time on their hands, and/or too much money than they can spend in their lifetime, and/or they have too much power.  Lord Acton said, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

For example, when the Constitution was drawn up, the idea was NOT to have professional politicians getting re-elected until their children or protoge's were ready for the office.  The people who were to be elected were to be from the general population, with businesses of their own that had to be tended.  This was, IMHO, the fail-safe mechanism for the Legislature, that they would be so worried about their farms and businesses that they would spend as little time as possible in DC (a perfectly good swamp that they turned into a cesspool), and thus would be less likely to pass bad laws.  Sadly, it seems that professional politicians DID manage to get into Congress, and soon spread like a cancer through the body politic.  There may yet be a cure for it, but I'm not sure yet what it is...

The "Know Nothings" were esentially anti-Irish and anti-Catholic, which at the time was the same thing.


The closest public figure to a "Know Nothing" today is Pat Buchanan, and he's a what?  He's an Irish Catholic!  And Janice Rogers Brown....

The closest public figure to a "Know Nothing" today is Pat Buchanan, and he's a what?  He's an Irish Catholic!  And Janice Rogers Brown....


Yeah well. things change...

No, they go to achieve a look they don't have naturally.


as recently as 100 years ago, pale skin was the hallmark of the idle rich. Dark skin is now the trade mark due to the proliferation of the "California beach culture" post WWII, hence the tanning booths.