here's the quote from attorney general Holder 

"“Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards. Though race related issues continue to occupy a significant portion of our political discussion, and though there remain many unresolved racial issues in this nation, we, average Americans, simply do not talk enough with each other about race.�



I'm irritated at his generalization or stereotyping of the nation with this attitude towards things racial.  I wish he would have cited some specific examples so we could know and better understand what the heck is on his mind.  Was he referring to primarily blacks & whites or all races of people. I'm a bit baffled by what his desires and expectations are.

I'm not sure what he meant either.  I can say it was impolitic in any case.  Not one of us wants to think of himself as a "coward."  I'm no coward?  Are you a coward?  Of course not!  Holder's remarks won't get anything but negative response.  Sean Hannity will say it's the liberals who are the cowards, Keith Olbermann will say it's the conservatives who are the cowards, and in a couple of weeks we'll all forget about it!
::)

I'm not sure what he meant either.  I can say it was impolitic in any case.  Not one of us wants to think of himself as a "coward."  I'm no coward?  Are you a coward?  Of course not!  Holder's remarks won't get anything but negative response.  Sean Hannity will say it's the liberals who are the cowards, Keith Olbermann will say it's the conservatives who are the cowards, and in a couple of weeks we'll all forget about it!
::)
Could he have been simply just projecting his own mindset & attitude? I'm not sure.  hey, do they still have Celebrity deathmatch on MTV? Olbermann & Hannity would be a great one.  as for the topic, in trying to understand the great racial divide, I can only look at my own situation and declare that he is very wrong, and that there is not even a need for discussion because the color of our skin doesn't get in the way of anything, & i work in a very diverse office environment. so maybe it's more in the political arenas that he is referring to? hopefully he'll expound or elaborate on who the cowards are and how they can resolve this. 

We are a nation of cowards, but not on racial issues. More like crime, where most people turn a blind eye to someone getting their ass kicked in the street or drug deals right outside their windows. Someone gets shot and suddenly everyone around is deaf, blind and mute. Even when imminent danger is not present, many people will not put themselves out at all for a fellow human being.

Remember that woman who was beheaded at the coffee shop at VT a few months ago? All 9 people in the restaurant ran away from that. Two of them weren't complete ******* and at least called 911. Had all 9 jumped the guy instead, that woman might still have her head. Not even Chuck Norris is going to beat those odds.

The "don't say anything, don't do anything, don't help anyone" mentality I see so prevalent is why I say this country is full of cowards.

Edit: no sooner do I make this post do I read a story like this:

http://highschool.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=914609

That restored my faith in humanity for the evening.

signature banned as well

We should re examine just what he’s saying first before we get defensive on who he’s speaking of.
I agree with him somewhat and think his statement, by and large was something more of a challenge for us to look into ourselves. This countries ethics and racial issues (which surly need some self exploration) are more than what we normally would associate with outright blatant racism.

I don't think working in a trouble free workplace and getting along with a great mix of diverse races and cultures is the issues he’s speaking of…check yourself on this, can you say you’re able to function in just the same way, and have the same views of others races OUTSIDE the workplace, that is in all places and situations? Not all people can, your thoughts on someone’s character or motives just may change because of their ethnicity or color of their skin depending on the situation and the environment you’re in.
I’m not accusing anyone of being a closet or situational racists, at least no more than myself because I realize that the natural human response and social instinct does this, its somewhat natural, but wrong. Often times in some situations, we do let others racial, religion or ethnic prejudice slide or pass without pointing it out or standing up against it, especially if it doesn’t seem to effect or involve us directly.
That is cowardice. And a little bit of that cowardice, accepted by everyone, goes a long way in continuing the bigotry we need to leave behind.

For example I have already noticed, a growing “When will you people be satisfied?â€� attitude surfacing from some, but dare not said inside the workplace, but overhead at the local bar or gas station… A “See? So there, we elected a black president, so don’t tell me there’s racism in America anymoreâ€� mentality.  As if the election results means we will let other issues of race and prejudice slide just a bit. But no one is calling them on it…

Just because you’re not a racist or don’t let color or bigotry effect your judgment, you can’t look at it in your own situation & say that there is not even a need for discussion, because it affects us all. How BRAVE are you to point out that weakness of bigotry in others and let them know its wrong? How brave are we, this country working to stop it and keep it from spreading to another generation?

Holder is full of it.  The man's obviously out of touch.

We are a nation of cowards, but not on racial issues. More like crime, where most people turn a blind eye to someone getting their ass kicked in the street or drug deals right outside their windows. Someone gets shot and suddenly everyone around is deaf, blind and mute. Even when imminent danger is not present, many people will not put themselves out at all for a fellow human being.


http://thesexycrimes.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/stop-snitching.jpg

http://thesexycrimes.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/stop-snitching.jpg


Haha! I knew that would come up (not that particular picture, but snitching). I am not a snitch in the sense that if you're growing a garage full of weed or don't have a current inspection sticker on your car... I don't care - if the cops gets called, it's not me. If you decided to go burglarize some homes, beat up old ladies or start an "anything that has a heartbeat" rape spree, yeah, if I found out about it I'd be making all kinds of calls.

I don't really have a problem with drug deals, but if it's outside my window, then yeah, I do. I suppose that makes me a hypocrite, but so be it.

I dunno that we'll ever meet in person, but I promise* you that if you ever are the victim of the violent crime and I'm a witness, I'll keep my mouth shut to the cops. Snitches honor.

I'm sorry if attempting to help you or bring you justice seems a dishonorable thing to do. I'm gonna at least throw you a few Band-Aids and ask if you are okay though.

signature banned as well

http://thesexycrimes.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/stop-snitching.jpg


Who wrote that, Dick Cheney?
8)

Haha! I knew that would come up (not that particular picture, but snitching). I am not a snitch in the sense that if you're growing a garage full of weed or don't have a current inspection sticker on your car... I don't care - if the cops gets called, it's not me.

No need to snitch on the dude with the garage full of weed and the expired inspection sticker.  The cops will pull him over for the expired inspection sticker, and you'll never guess what he'll have in his car!  Typical police blotter entry in the Amherst Bulletin there.
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/06/jinnwink.gif

I don't really have a problem with drug deals, but if it's outside my window, then yeah, I do. I suppose that makes me a hypocrite, but so be it.
It's not the drug deals, it's the druggies and the crime and the scary thugs that go along with it!

Anyway, I still don't understand what AG Holder was getting at.

;D

I myself am not actually that large an advocate of the "stop snitching" mentality. I just figured if anybody bought it up it should be me.  ;)

No need to snitch on the dude with the garage full of weed and the expired inspection sticker.  The cops will pull him over for the expired inspection sticker, and you'll never guess what he'll have in his car!  Typical police blotter entry in the Amherst Bulletin there.
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/06/jinnwink.gif
It's not the drug deals, it's the druggies and the crime and the scary thugs that go along with it!



True, Max. My point is that is more people were upstanding citizens, there would be less police needed (something I think Andy would like) and less guys going to the pen for a dime for an expired inspection sticker.



Anyway, I still don't understand what AG Holder was getting at.

I think Gumbybiz nailed it:

For example I have already noticed, a growing “When will you people be satisfied?� attitude surfacing from some, but dare not said inside the workplace, but overhead at the local bar or gas station… A “See? So there, we elected a black president, so don’t tell me there’s racism in America anymore� mentality.

I have been guilty of part of this in that I think Obama's greatest possible success would be in improving race relations and bringing people together... is that a bad thing?  ???

I get the impression that some think Obama is Jesus Christ, Santa Claus and the Lamp Genie all rolled into one. No one man can solve all of the problems we face, regardless of race.

I know there is still racism, and electing a black president won't/didn't eliminate that. I'm beginning to think that racism is like abortion, in that I could listen/discuss/debate until my lungs come out of my mouth and my fingernails turn necrotic, and it won't change anyone's viewpoints.


;D

I myself am not actually that large an advocate of the "stop snitching" mentality. I just figured if anybody bought it up it should be me.  ;)


Ah, ya got me! And yes, you were the right man for the job.

signature banned as well

Yeah, I notice the attitude.  Youse guys got one of you as president, so now you kin just shaddap!

We should re examine just what he’s saying first before we get defensive on who he’s speaking of.
I agree with him somewhat and think his statement, by and large was something more of a challenge for us to look into ourselves. This countries ethics and racial issues (which surly need some self exploration) are more than what we normally would associate with outright blatant racism.

I don't think working in a trouble free workplace and getting along with a great mix of diverse races and cultures is the issues he’s speaking of…check yourself on this, can you say you’re able to function in just the same way, and have the same views of others races OUTSIDE the workplace, that is in all places and situations? Not all people can, your thoughts on someone’s character or motives just may change because of their ethnicity or color of their skin depending on the situation and the environment you’re in.
I’m not accusing anyone of being a closet or situational racists, at least no more than myself because I realize that the natural human response and social instinct does this, its somewhat natural, but wrong. Often times in some situations, we do let others racial, religion or ethnic prejudice slide or pass without pointing it out or standing up against it, especially if it doesn’t seem to effect or involve us directly.
That is cowardice. And a little bit of that cowardice, accepted by everyone, goes a long way in continuing the bigotry we need to leave behind.

For example I have already noticed, a growing “When will you people be satisfied?â€� attitude surfacing from some, but dare not said inside the workplace, but overhead at the local bar or gas station… A “See? So there, we elected a black president, so don’t tell me there’s racism in America anymoreâ€� mentality.  As if the election results means we will let other issues of race and prejudice slide just a bit. But no one is calling them on it…

Just because you’re not a racist or don’t let color or bigotry effect your judgment, you can’t look at it in your own situation & say that there is not even a need for discussion, because it affects us all. How BRAVE are you to point out that weakness of bigotry in others and let them know its wrong? How brave are we, this country working to stop it and keep it from spreading to another generation?

very insightful gumbypiz. I nominate you for Attorney General  ::)  you've explained in a way that Holder should have if that is indeed what he meant.  yet there surely must be a lot of Americans that are not cowards and do speak up and do discuss, so for him to label the nation as a whole for the weakness of some was wrong and people have a right to become defensive, because we are one nation. As for a person's environment making it easy for them to not experience racism, I think that for me, I look at people on the streets or in other places outside my safe pleasant world in pretty much the same way, but there are obvious differences, sometimes dramatic cultural and physical & attitude differences but I don't think or react negatively because of that.  we have come a long long way since the 60's & 70's which is all the racial prejudice time that I have seen. As for it spreading to another generation, it's gonna probably always exist, but I'm pleased to see that for my daughter and her friends, their seems to be no evidence of racism at all which is pretty awesome.

here's the quote from attorney general Holder 

"“Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards. Though race related issues continue to occupy a significant portion of our political discussion, and though there remain many unresolved racial issues in this nation, we, average Americans, simply do not talk enough with each other about race.�



I'm irritated at his generalization or stereotyping of the nation with this attitude towards things racial.  I wish he would have cited some specific examples so we could know and better understand what the heck is on his mind.  Was he referring to primarily blacks & whites or all races of people. I'm a bit baffled by what his desires and expectations are.


Hell, we won't even show Looney Tunes Cartoons because of its political incorrectness!

If we didn't have political incorrectness, everything would be fine...NOT!

Hell, we won't even show Looney Tunes Cartoons because of its political incorrectness!

If we didn't have political incorrectness, everything would be fine...NOT!
which Looney Toons in particular.  political correctness can also makes people cowards, but some PC is necessary, but it can go overboard.

I don't know...  I can't think of a single case where political correctness is necessary.  Can you provide an example?

I don't know...  I can't think of a single case where political correctness is necessary.  Can you provide an example?


It's about respect and a little common sense. Everyone is capable of that without compromising themselves or their beliefs.

It's about respect and a little common sense. Everyone is capable of that without compromising themselves or their beliefs.


That would be tact...  That's not the same thing as political correctness...  ;)

That would be tact...  That's not the same thing as political correctness...  ;)


Tact is the basis of political correctness :P

which Looney Toons in particular.   political correctness can also makes people cowards, but some PC is necessary, but it can go overboard.


Almost ALL LT cartoons contain PIness. Stereotypes, dynamites, and even some nudity.

If that was all taken out...we'd be left with Sniffles cartoons.

Tact is the basis of political correctness :P


True, but PC is kind of like tact gone bad.  It's like when someone apologizes too much.

True, but PC is kind of like tact gone bad.  It's like when someone apologizes too much.


PC is you apologize to me for what your ancestors didn't do to somebody else!
:D

As far as "PC" is concerned, if you really look into it, its nothing more than common sense and respect to begin with. Its's choosing an appropriately ethnic or similarly race or ethnic situation describing word or environment instead of a common and racially insulting one.

Problem is with "PC" is that its usually obscures the real background or intention of the word or meaning and context, making something offensive to sound almost completely opposite or so detached from the real meaning or suggestion that it becomes absurd.

I'll say it now and I'll say it a thousand times. Its not the blatant racism or prejudice that exists in our society that bothers or offends most, its the insidious, hidden, and background bigotry that drives people mad, mostly because its not easily seen or identified, and almost NEVER called out on its obvious bigotry.
I'd rather deal with blatant backwards racism than the "cloaked" "PC" euphemisms and buzz words that infiltrate our culture.  ;)

I don't know...  I can't think of a single case where political correctness is necessary.  Can you provide an example?

That's 'cause when it's necessary, it's tactful; it only gets defined as "political correctness" if it's unnecessary.  And I'm only being a little bit cynical here.

The problem was PC did not just define a lexicon of appropriate versus inappropriate words, it sought to control thought.  There is a right way to think about politics and it is our way because we say our way is "politically correct."  It is not hyperbole to say that Stalin used such methods.  Control speech, control thought, control thought, control possibility.  PC had the effect, perhaps unintended, of dulling the minds of its adherents until they could no longer discern between joke and hyperbole and serious pejorative.  This got a fellow like me, with an irreverent sense of humor, in big trouble with the PC chicks and their wuss boyfriends!
:P

As far as "PC" is concerned, if you really look into it, its nothing more than common sense and respect to begin with. Its's choosing an appropriately ethnic or similarly race or ethnic situation describing word or environment instead of a common and racially insulting one.

Problem is with "PC" is that its usually obscures the real background or intention of the word or meaning and context, making something offensive to sound almost completely opposite or so detached from the real meaning or suggestion that it becomes absurd.

I'll say it now and I'll say it a thousand times. Its not the blatant racism or prejudice that exists in our society that bothers or offends most, its the insidious, hidden, and background bigotry that drives people mad, mostly because its not easily seen or identified, and almost NEVER called out on its obvious bigotry.
I'd rather deal with blatant backwards racism than the "cloaked" "PC" euphemisms and buzz words that infiltrate our culture.  ;)



Karma +

I was in Florida(perfect place for discussion on this) watching the news when I saw the news clip, and nodded and went about my business because I believed that everyone would understand what he was saying.  Obviously I was wrong.  Please stop with the on and on PC this and PC that, and it doesn't have anything at all to do with the "stop snitching" crap, or taking of a womans head in VT, I don't see how that entered into the conversation at all.  This isn't about being politically correct.  It is about the United States as a country, (not each one of us in our own little worlds), all of us together, admitting that there is a serious problem with race and the discussion of it.

It is not the minutia of everyday, it is the general all encompassing racism. I will tell you unequivocally, as an African American female, with a good education, who makes a good living, and owns her own home, I experience racism in some form, be it subtle or overt, everyday.  Is there really any reason for me, a bit overweight, dressed well, usually not talking aloud to myself, to be followed around a store?  Many times this racism has been from people who would say they are absolutely not racist.  I am sure that my fellow African American posters will say the same.  I will also add that I am pretty thick skinned, or maybe at time completely oblivious, so it isn't like I am looking for racism, don't need to, it follows me everywhere I go.  

 Is there really any reason for me, a bit overweight, dressed well, usually not talking aloud to myself, to be followed around a store?  

I take it you mean by store employees. If they engage you, it might be because they make commission on sales and in those cases I get followed/pestered too. If they are watching/following from a distance and not trying to sell you something, then no, I can't imagine a reason for that (unless you were the only person in the store and the LP person is bored to tears).

There are things that send up red flags to store personnel other than skin color. If you are carrying around a giant purse or have small kids with you, you may get followed as well. Big purses = more room to steal, and small, unsupervised kids tend to mess up displays, both of which are bad for the store.

"general all encompassing racism"

Would you please elaborate on this?

signature banned as well

That's 'cause when it's necessary, it's tactful; it only gets defined as "political correctness" if it's unnecessary.  And I'm only being a little bit cynical here.




I can agree with that.  Makes sense...  ;)

The problem was PC did not just define a lexicon of appropriate versus inappropriate words, it sought to control thought.  There is a right way to think about politics and it is our way because we say our way is "politically correct."  It is not hyperbole to say that Stalin used such methods.  Control speech, control thought, control thought, control possibility.  PC had the effect, perhaps unintended, of dulling the minds of its adherents until they could no longer discern between joke and hyperbole and serious pejorative.  This got a fellow like me, with an irreverent sense of humor, in big trouble with the PC chicks and their wuss boyfriends!
:P


A-freaking-men to that.  +1

Karma +

I was in Florida(perfect place for discussion on this) watching the news when I saw the news clip, and nodded and went about my business because I believed that everyone would understand what he was saying.  Obviously I was wrong.  Please stop with the on and on PC this and PC that, and it doesn't have anything at all to do with the "stop snitching" crap, or taking of a womans head in VT, I don't see how that entered into the conversation at all.  This isn't about being politically correct.  It is about the United States as a country, (not each one of us in our own little worlds), all of us together, admitting that there is a serious problem with race and the discussion of it.

It is not the minutia of everyday, it is the general all encompassing racism. I will tell you unequivocally, as an African American female, with a good education, who makes a good living, and owns her own home, I experience racism in some form, be it subtle or overt, everyday.  Is there really any reason for me, a bit overweight, dressed well, usually not talking aloud to myself, to be followed around a store?  Many times this racism has been from people who would say they are absolutely not racist.  I am sure that my fellow African American posters will say the same.  I will also add that I am pretty thick skinned, or maybe at time completely oblivious, so it isn't like I am looking for racism, don't need to, it follows me everywhere I go.  




No offense, but it still does sound like you view yourself as a victim.  As long as you do that, you'll never be satisfied with society's handling of prejudice (or with much of life in general).  The fact that you have accomplished what you have with your life is something more relevant to focus on.  It's a testament to our society's social progression that you are able to live comfortably here.

It's all about perspective.  For example, if you think things are racist here, look at what black people have to deal with in South Africa.

No offense, but it still does sound like you view yourself as a victim.  As long as you do that, you'll never be satisfied with society's handling of prejudice (or with much of life in general).  The fact that you have accomplished what you have with your life is something more relevant to focus on.  It's a testament to our society's social progression that you are able to live comfortably here.

It's all about perspective.  For example, if you think things are racist here, look at what black people have to deal with in South Africa.


I can't speak for Danoota, but I don't think she was denying there was progress on racism in this country, but that it is very much alive and as an African-American female, she experiences it every day.

Heightism is not the same thing, and I try not to bring it up, but it is relevant here.  Short men face a kind of bigotry in our culture and it is always present.  I'm several inches below "average" height for American men and it's a constant hassle.  There's nothing you can do about it, so you just learn to live with it, and try not to draw attention to it all the time because that doesn't help either.  However, my society loves to tell me how I don't get the same respect as taller men, how I don't make as much money, how I can't get this or that job, and how women don't like me.  The unfairness of it all used to get me hopping mad, but now I just shrug it off, c'est le vie. 

When you are a victim of discrimination it helps not to think of yourself as a "victim," but it doesn't make the victim status unreal.  Also, we've been taught to equate "victim" with "helplessness."  That's not what I'm saying nor do I think it is what Danoota is saying. 

BTW, I'm not looking for advice on the matter either.

Danoota and I have immutable characteristics immediately visible for which we do get treated differently, often in a negative way.  That's all.

Back when my height used to upset me more, I joined online support groups for short men, but they only made me feel disgusted.  They were full of raging Glenn Danzig types who boasted of how much they could bench press, and how they kicked some 6' 5"  guy's ass in a bar fight, and how they hated fat girls asking them out just because they couldn't get tall guys, etc., etc.  Some of them even ganged up on me for being a liberal.  Don't you know, liberalism is for tall guys trying to pick up girls!  Ciao, brothers, thanks but no thanks!
:o

^Well said


No offense, but it still does sound like you view yourself as a victim.  As long as you do that, you'll never be satisfied with society's handling of prejudice (or with much of life in general).  The fact that you have accomplished what you have with your life is something more relevant to focus on.  It's a testament to our society's social progression that you are able to live comfortably here.

It's all about perspective.  For example, if you think things are racist here, look at what black people have to deal with in South Africa.


You couldn't be more wrong about the victim part. Being aware of the problem and dealing with it doesn't make one a victim. I know what I have accomplished in my life, being aware of the roadblocks that I had to fight through doesn't make me a victim.  It isn't a testament to our societys' social progression that I am able to live comfortably here, it is more of a shame that it is seen as a testament to social progression.  Why should I look at what black people in South Africa have to deal with?  I am an American and I should only have to look at what other Americans have to deal with. 

Hey Max, if you think things are heightist here, look at what short men have to deal with among the Massai in Tanzania and Kenya  ::)

Hey Max, if you think things are heightist here, look at what short men have to deal with among the Massai in Tanzania and Kenya   ::)


If you got to South Africa, I'll go to Kenya!
;D

^Well said

You couldn't be more wrong about the victim part. Being aware of the problem and dealing with it doesn't make one a victim. I know what I have accomplished in my life, being aware of the roadblocks that I had to fight through doesn't make me a victim.  It isn't a testament to our societys' social progression that I am able to live comfortably here, it is more of a shame that it is seen as a testament to social progression.  Why should I look at what black people in South Africa have to deal with?  I am an American and I should only have to look at what other Americans have to deal with. 

Hey Max, if you think things are heightist here, look at what short men have to deal with among the Massai in Tanzania and Kenya   ::)


You can be facetious all you want, Danoota, but a lot of people are still going to view you as hopelessly embittered.

I've tried to reason with you on this, but I can see now that this is an act of futility.

You can be facetious all you want, Danoota, but a lot of people are still going to view you as hopelessly embittered.



Said the boy with O.J. siggie line!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/10/vogel.gif

Anyway, it ain't like the America ever gave the black man anything to be embittered about!  They're ingrates, just like the Iraqis!

OK, come on, I have dealt with bitter African-Americans before, ones who hate whites solely because they're white and constantly p*ss and moan about what YOUR ancestors did to MY ancestors.  In five years of being on the same message board, I have never known Danoota to be like that.  She only brought up the issue because of the subject of this thread.  Are you implying African-Americans are bitter merely for pointing out discrimination still exists?  Perhaps that points to something of what AG Holder was getting at.

Said the boy with O.J. siggie line!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/10/vogel.gif

Anyway, it ain't like the America ever gave the black man anything to be embittered about!  They're ingrates, just like the Iraqis!

OK, come on, I have dealt with bitter African-Americans before, ones who hate whites solely because they're white and constantly p*ss and moan about what YOUR ancestors did to MY ancestors.  In five years of being on the same message board, I have never known Danoota to be like that.  She only brought up the issue because of the subject of this thread.  Are you implying African-Americans are bitter merely for pointing out discrimination still exists?  Perhaps that points to something of what AG Holder was getting at.


If we're gonna take this to a more general racial level, I can honestly say that yes, black people do tend to bitch more about racism than anyone else.

If I saw the same level of bitching from other minorities (especially ones that have more to bitch about - like Native Americans), then I'd probably feel differently about the situation.

There clearly is a different tactic used by the black community to deal with racism than what is seen among other minorities.

But don't worry, I'll remove my sig, since it's apparently become an issue.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbwNSNLPIfw (some language)

signature banned as well

PC is you apologize to me for what your ancestors didn't do to somebody else!
:D


"I'm sorry, for something I didn't do!"

If we're gonna take this to a more general racial level, I can honestly say that yes, black people do tend to bitch more about racism than anyone else.

There clearly is a different tactic used by the black community to deal with racism than what is seen among other minorities.

DUH.  ::)
Since prejudice by color of skin is so prevalent, their color of skin, black/brown/yellow, being readily seen and differentiated from white, blacks (Latino, Asians and others too) thereby experience it more.

I'll say it again, DUH. Thats what racism is. 

As soon as some green or purple people start showing up, I'm sure they'll get their share of bigotry and they will complain too.
If suddenly, the US became color blind, and didn't judge by color first and foremost, we'd not be having this discussion.
Want the "bitching" to stop? Then stop or help end the practice of discrimination in ALL its forms. Don't be part of the problem by claiming "tactics" as if this a political agenda. Otherwise, NO Justice, NO peace.

If I saw the same level of bitching from other minorities (especially ones that have more to bitch about - like Native Americans), then I'd probably feel differently about the situation.

Native Americans don't complain about their situation? ::) Please, the reason you don't hear more complaints from them is that effectively the USA and its founders killed most of them and rounded them up into "reservations". Murdering, taking a cultures land, destroying their way of life and moving them on death marches to virtual prisons in the middle of nowhere tends to keep those people pretty quiet, and makes them think twice before speaking up.  ::) They've been so effectively subdued the only thing that gets them recognized is the money some have made from the casinos and their tax free status. Uncle Sam doesn't care till theres some money to be taxed from them, otherwise Native American who?

Maybe you're right its not as if blacks have ever been murdered, or any part of their culture destroyed or enslaved or them being marched to prisons in unequal numbers...hmm.
I mean, you'd think they be complaining about that, loudly, so it wouldn't happen to them like the Native Americans, right? ;)


But don't worry, I'll remove my sig, since it's apparently become an issue.

And the sig? Don't bother me one bit, as long as you put it up for humors sake on OJ and him being a lying murderer, fine. If you put it up because hes a black lying murderer, that would be a problem.

DUH.  ::)
Since prejudice by color of skin is so prevalent, their color of skin, black/brown/yellow, being readily seen and differentiated from white, blacks (Latino, Asians and others too) thereby experience it more.

I'll say it again, DUH. Thats what racism is. 

As soon as some green or purple people start showing up, I'm sure they'll get their share of bigotry and they will complain too.
If suddenly, the US became color blind, and didn't judge by color first and foremost, we'd not be having this discussion.
Want the "bitching" to stop? Then stop or help end the practice of discrimination in ALL its forms. Don't be part of the problem by claiming "tactics" as if this a political agenda. Otherwise, NO Justice, NO peace.

Native Americans don't complain about their situation? ::) Please, the reason you don't hear more complaints from them is that effectively the USA and its founders killed most of them and rounded them up into "reservations". Murdering, taking a cultures land, destroying their way of life and moving them on death marches to virtual prisons in the middle of nowhere tends to keep those people pretty quiet, and makes them think twice before speaking up.  ::) They've been so effectively subdued the only thing that gets them recognized is the money some have made from the casinos and their tax free status. Uncle Sam doesn't care till theres some money to be taxed from them, otherwise Native American who?

Maybe you're right its not as if blacks have ever been murdered, or any part of their culture destroyed or enslaved or them being marched to prisons in unequal numbers...hmm.
I mean, you'd think they be complaining about that, loudly, so it wouldn't happen to them like the Native Americans, right? ;)
And the sig? Don't bother me one bit, as long as you put it up for humors sake on OJ and him being a lying murderer, fine. If you put it up because hes a black lying murderer, that would be a problem.



The word here that sums it all up is definitely "Duh"!

O.J. is not an issue unless your conscience is bugging you.  I was referring to facetiousness.

::)

But don't worry, I'll remove my sig, since it's apparently become an issue.

Thanks.. not that it had really become an issue, it's just that like a one-liner that's funny the first time, it gets a bit annoying after a while (and it was rather big & in-your-face)

You can be facetious all you want, Danoota, but a lot of people are still going to view you as hopelessly embittered.

I've tried to reason with you on this, but I can see now that this is an act of futility.


*heavy sigh*

One thing I have never being accused of is being bitter, let alone "hopelessly embittered".  If I felt that way about it I wouldn't live in the community I live in, have many of the friends I do have, and live the life I live.  This is a thread about a comment by an African American in a prominent position stating that there is a problem with race in America and serious dialogue needs to be open.  Some people disagree, I totally agree and offered input to show that a person such as myself is subjected to petty indignities on a daily basis.  People of color in the United States do in fact deal with racism on a daily basis, and, I believe that the only way that this will be countered is with communication.  You accuse me of being bitter for simply trying to give personal insight, and that is part of the problem. The accusation that, because I speak of the problem makes me bitter is....well, unreasonable.  As for facetious, well sometimes I just can't help it. ::)




If I saw the same level of bitching from other minorities (especially ones that have more to bitch about - like Native Americans), then I'd probably feel differently about the situation.



So what you are suggesting is that African Americans may have a problem, but they should be a bit quieter, more demure, and in time, maybe, if we stop acting up, things may change?  That kinda didn't work for about 300 years.

The kid with the flag is still seen as a hero by many.  There needs to be some dialogue

http://www.page291.com/blog/images/flag.jpg

"I'm sorry, for something I didn't do!"


;D me too, even if I can't remember his name

http://www.page291.com/blog/images/flag.jpg


WTF?!  :o

The kid with the flag is still seen as a hero by many.  There needs to be some dialogue

http://www.page291.com/blog/images/flag.jpg


Karma

Mississippi, 1964, right?  Nope.  No?  Boston, 1976! 

I've seen that photo before.  It won a Pulitzer if memory serves.  The thing is I've looked down that same street on that same urban vista of Boston City Hall so many times.  It turns my stomach to know that scene played out during my lifetime right where I have stood.  I grew up with all the textbooks pointing down south to Bull Connor and all those bad boys, but we'd kind of like to forget about the busing riots, wouldn't we?  Racism?  We don't do that in liberal, tolerant Boston!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/10/znaika.gif

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/national/2008/04/04/a-flag-a-busing-fight-and-a-famous-photograph.html

WTF?!  :o


That was Boston in the 70s.  A gang of kids from Southie during busing got a hold of this guy, Ted Landsmark, and tried to ram him.  Luckily he was able to shift himself so he was only grazed by the flag, but was then beaten to the ground. Joe Rakes, the guy with the flag, was considered pretty much a hero in Southie for doing this, The guy who is holding him, Jimmy Kelly, who went on to be a elected as city councilor even serving as council President, he died in 2007 and they honored him by naming a bridge after him.  Go figure.  

Wow.

Karma

Mississippi, 1964, right?  Nope.  No?  Boston, 1976! 

I've seen that photo before.  It won a Pulitzer if memory serves.  The thing is I've looked down that same street on that same urban vista of Boston City Hall so many times.  It turns my stomach to know that scene played out during my lifetime right where I have stood.  I grew up with all the textbooks pointing down south to Bull Connor and all those bad boys, but we'd kind of like to forget about the busing riots, wouldn't we?  Racism?  We don't do that in liberal, tolerant Boston!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/10/znaika.gif

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/national/2008/04/04/a-flag-a-busing-fight-and-a-famous-photograph.html


The article cited tries to pretty it up a bit.  Says Jimmy Kelly was trying to get Landsmark out of the way.  Doubt it.  Jimmy Kelly was a thug in the Mullens gang and a rabid anti-buser.  Joseph Rakes went on to pal around with the likes of Whitey Bulger.

The article cited tries to pretty it up a bit.  Says Jimmy Kelly was trying to get Landsmark out of the way.  Doubt it.  Jimmy Kelly was a thug in the Mullens gang and a rabid anti-buser.  Joseph Rakes went on to pal around with the likes of Whitey Bulger.


Birds of a feather. 
::)

DUH.  ::)
Since prejudice by color of skin is so prevalent, their color of skin, black/brown/yellow, being readily seen and differentiated from white, blacks (Latino, Asians and others too) thereby experience it more.

Yes, but...  you don't see Latinos and Asians mention it as much.  That's my point.

As soon as some green or purple people start showing up, I'm sure they'll get their share of bigotry and they will complain too.
If suddenly, the US became color blind, and didn't judge by color first and foremost, we'd not be having this discussion.
Want the "bitching" to stop? Then stop or help end the practice of discrimination in ALL its forms. Don't be part of the problem by claiming "tactics" as if this a political agenda. Otherwise, NO Justice, NO peace.

...but it is a political agenda.  Look at Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.  It's opportunism.  Like anything else, you can profit from the indignation of minorities just like you can profit from indignation toward minorities.

Native Americans don't complain about their situation? ::) Please, the reason you don't hear more complaints from them is that effectively the USA and its founders killed most of them and rounded them up into "reservations". Murdering, taking a cultures land, destroying their way of life and moving them on death marches to virtual prisons in the middle of nowhere tends to keep those people pretty quiet, and makes them think twice before speaking up.  ::) They've been so effectively subdued the only thing that gets them recognized is the money some have made from the casinos and their tax free status. Uncle Sam doesn't care till theres some money to be taxed from them, otherwise Native American who?

Native Americans aren't exactly crying on the way to the bank.

Maybe you're right its not as if blacks have ever been murdered, or any part of their culture destroyed or enslaved or them being marched to prisons in unequal numbers...hmm.
I mean, you'd think they be complaining about that, loudly, so it wouldn't happen to them like the Native Americans, right? ;)
And the sig? Don't bother me one bit, as long as you put it up for humors sake on OJ and him being a lying murderer, fine. If you put it up because hes a black lying murderer, that would be a problem.



It all comes down to one thing.  Human nature.  As Mugabe shows, black people can kill and oppress just like anyone else and for racial reasons.

So instead of focusing on race, I generally focus on class.  That's really what determines power.  As long as we bicker over race among the working class, the elite rich hold the power.

So what you are suggesting is that African Americans may have a problem, but they should be a bit quieter, more demure, and in time, maybe, if we stop acting up, things may change?  That kinda didn't work for about 300 years.

The kid with the flag is still seen as a hero by many.  There needs to be some dialogue

http://www.page291.com/blog/images/flag.jpg


Yep, that was 33 years ago.  But there is already dialogue.  That's why I think Holder was full of it.  He's just another politician playing the "blame whitey" card.

It all comes down to one thing.  Human nature.  As Mugabe shows, black people can kill and oppress just like anyone else and for racial reasons.



No one could argue that.  It is power that oppresses, not color.



So instead of focusing on race, I generally focus on class.  That's really what determines power.  As long as we bicker over race among the working class, the elite rich hold the power.




That's absolutely right.  The problem is the working classes in the USA don't even want to admit they are working class.  Ask anyone on the street, even the minimum wage worker at Wal Mart, and they will tell you they are middle class, and would be more than likely to identify themselves with someone making $300,000 than they would would with anyone in the inner city.

No one could argue that.  It is power that oppresses, not color.

That's absolutely right.  The problem is the working classes in the USA don't even want to admit they are working class.  Ask anyone on the street, even the minimum wage worker at Wal Mart, and they will tell you they are middle class, and would be more than likely to identify themselves with someone making $300,000 than they would would with anyone in the inner city.


I'm glad we agree here.

There is one positive aspect to this though.  Americans do tend to be very ambitious.  We're not nearly as jealous of wealth as many Europeans can be.  Even people like John Cleese have mentioned this.

So, if we could just take this ambition and combine it with a more practical education system, we'd have a more productive society.

I'm glad we agree here.

There is one positive aspect to this though.  Americans do tend to be very ambitious.  We're not nearly as jealous of wealth as many Europeans can be.  Even people like John Cleese have mentioned this.

So, if we could just take this ambition and combine it with a more practical education system, we'd have a more productive society.


I must parse your words here.  You are confusing jealousy with envy.  Poor Americans might be less envious of the rich than Europeans.  However, rich Americans--and even the vast majority of poor Americans who have some delusion that they are or might become rich--are obscenely jealous about their wealth.  They don't want those they deem poor--and therefore lesser human beings--to get their hands on any of it.  Thus, it is easy for rich men such as Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh to sell anti-tax sentiment to men who own nothing but an old pickup truck and some retirement bonds.  Chances are those are now gone too!

The American attitude toward extravagant wealth is not envy; however, it is not a healthy sentiment either.  It is another one of the seven deadlies, covetousness. 

If they taught worthwhile history texts in our public schools, such as Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States," Americans would understand the truth about class and race in America and sales of books such as "The Millionaire Next Door" would sink like a cast iron stove.

As for your reference to John Cleese, my comedic muse, Cleese said a lot of things about a lot of things, and I'll just let that one go.
::)

I must parse your words here.  You are confusing jealousy with envy.  Poor Americans might be less envious of the rich than Europeans.  However, rich Americans--and even the vast majority of poor Americans who have some delusion that they are or might become rich--are obscenely jealous about their wealth.  They don't want those they deem poor--and therefore lesser human beings--to get their hands on any of it.  Thus, it is easy for rich men such as Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh to sell anti-tax sentiment to men who own nothing but an old pickup truck and some retirement bonds.  Chances are those are now gone too!

The American attitude toward extravagant wealth is not envy; however, it is not a healthy sentiment either.  It is another one of the seven deadlies, covetousness.   

If they taught worthwhile history texts in our public schools, such as Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States," Americans would understand the truth about class and race in America and sales of books such as "The Millionaire Next Door" would sink like a cast iron stove.

As for your reference to John Cleese, my comedic muse, Cleese said a lot of things about a lot of things, and I'll just let that one go.
::)


Cleese is actually pretty insightful.

I understand what you're saying about Americans in general, and I agree, but...  it could be much closer to a reality if our education system resembled Germany's more.  The 2 track system of academics and technical trades is very effective at placing people where they are most capable.  It's also good at finding work for students right out of school.

Cleese is actually pretty insightful.

I understand what you're saying about Americans in general, and I agree, but...  it could be much closer to a reality if our education system resembled Germany's more.  The 2 track system of academics and technical trades is very effective at placing people where they are most capable.  It's also good at finding work for students right out of school.


The Germans have a good system.  However, such a system requires a social contract.  Our ruling class does not like social contracts.  If the government tracks me into the trade-bound tier not the university-bound tier, it is obliged to ensure I have a job when I graduate my program.  If not, then the government shall pay me generous benefits.

In contrast, our ruling class doesn't even believe in public education.  It first made the word "government" a term of derision, the pushed the term "government schools" for "public schools."

The argument against the German model of "public education" is, of course, couched in Republican dreamy-dream speech:  "This is America, Land of Opportunity, the government doesn't come in and tell you what you can be, you can be whatever you wanna be, you come up from the boonies of Arkansas and be a Rhodes Scholar, like Bill Clinton...Bill Clinton?  Uh, Babs, this German idea doesn't sound so bad after all!"
:D

Yep, that was 33 years ago.  But there is already dialogue.  That's why I think Holder was full of it.  He's just another politician playing the "blame whitey" card.


What are you talking about?   ???  You really have to explain how you came up with this one.

The holder is a politician playing the "blame whitey" card?? I thought you meant blame Whitey Bulger,  then I realized you were talking about the guy in the suit, you are saying that he's playing the "blame whitey" card.  The guy in the suit that you refer to as  " just another politician playing the "blame whitey" card" is Ted Landsmark, he is not a politician, never was, he is an architect and quite accomplished in his field. He was on his way to a meeting at city hall, minding his own business. He was unlucky enough to walk around a corner and was grabbed by this gang of thugs, and yes, it was solely because of his color. The guy behind him who is holding him (the actual holder)is Jimmy Kelley who helped beat the guy up after the flag missed its mark.  Jimmy Kelley, a member of the Mullens Gang, was promptly voted in as a city councilor and rose to be President of the city council and when he died a couple of years ago had a bridge in Southie named after him.

And, by the way, Landsmark never "blamed whitey", he blamed Jimmy Kelley and Joe Rakes.  

Cleese is actually pretty insightful.
Absolutely - he *knew* when a parrot was only pining for the fjords ;)

sometimes i get the impression libertarians are libertarians simply because they get a mysterious kick out of arguing and disagreeing with large, diverse groups of people at the same time. ;D

What are you talking about?   ???  You really have to explain how you came up with this one.

The holder is a politician playing the "blame whitey" card?? I thought you meant blame Whitey Bulger,  then I realized you were talking about the guy in the suit, you are saying that he's playing the "blame whitey" card.  The guy in the suit that you refer to as  " just another politician playing the "blame whitey" card" is Ted Landsmark, he is not a politician, never was, he is an architect and quite accomplished in his field. He was on his way to a meeting at city hall, minding his own business. He was unlucky enough to walk around a corner and was grabbed by this gang of thugs, and yes, it was solely because of his color. The guy behind him who is holding him (the actual holder)is Jimmy Kelley who helped beat the guy up after the flag missed its mark.  Jimmy Kelley, a member of the Mullens Gang, was promptly voted in as a city councilor and rose to be President of the city council and when he died a couple of years ago had a bridge in Southie named after him.

And, by the way, Landsmark never "blamed whitey", he blamed Jimmy Kelley and Joe Rakes.  



I was talking about Eric Holder.  The Attorney General.  The person that inspired this thread.

sometimes i get the impression libertarians are libertarians simply because they get a mysterious kick out of arguing and disagreeing with large, diverse groups of people at the same time. ;D

I am a contrarian by nature.

Admittedly, I play the liberal in other forums, just as I basically play the conservative here.

sometimes i get the impression libertarians are libertarians simply because they get a mysterious kick out of arguing and disagreeing with large, diverse groups of people at the same time. ;D


I'm libertarian because I feel that the government should basically leave everything alone :D

I'm libertarian because I feel that the government should basically leave everything alone :D
i think they should stop doing annoying stuff like taking my money and invading people and bailing out corrupt financiers and just do cool stuff like building libraries and parks and giving me money.

i think they should stop doing annoying stuff like taking my money and invading people and bailing out corrupt financiers and just do cool stuff like building libraries and parks and giving me money.


I'm with you, but I think they should build big bombs so nobody ever dares try to attack us :P  Not that that completely works, mind you...

I'm with you, but I think they should build big bombs so nobody ever dares try to attack us :P  Not that that completely works, mind you...
the big bombs thing doesn't seem to work as advertised, from what i can see, but perhaps that's a discussion for another thread.

the big bombs thing doesn't seem to work as advertised, from what i can see, but perhaps that's a discussion for another thread.


Have you read the Butter Battle Book?

Have you read the Butter Battle Book?
i have not! my mom was busy brainwashing me with the leftist tree-hugging pablum of "the lorax."

i'm looking at the wikipedia entry though and im wondering, who the eff eats their bread butter-side down? kill the bastards!

i have not! my mom was busy brainwashing me with the leftist tree-hugging pablum of "the lorax."

i'm looking at the wikipedia entry though and im wondering, who the eff eats their bread butter-side down? kill the bastards!


The Lorax is awesome!

The Lorax is awesome!
aw you know i'm funnin'. the lorax is poetry, when i was just a wee little hamster i'd totally cry when all the trees died and they had the picture of the hills with the stumps on em.

amazing a generation brought up on that managed to destroy the planet anyway. you know right now dr. seuss is on the witch mountain flying saucer going, all right, eff all yall, i tried, bitchzz. i'm outta here.

aw you know i'm funnin'. the lorax is poetry, when i was just a wee little hamster i'd totally cry when all the trees died and they had the picture of the hills with the stumps on em.

amazing a generation brought up on that managed to destroy the planet anyway. you know right now dr. seuss is on the witch mountain flying saucer going, all right, eff all yall, i tried, bitchzz. i'm outta here.


Yeah, Dr. Seuss was sort of a hippie.  The Lorax, Horton Hears A Who!, The Butter Battle Book, How the Grinch Stole Christmas!.......all hippie, "Love thy neighbor and planet" like.

But I love the hell out of them, and so does Jason.

What are you talking about?   ???  You really have to explain how you came up with this one.

The holder is a politician playing the "blame whitey" card?? I thought you meant blame Whitey Bulger, 



So did I!
;D

I am a contrarian by nature.

Admittedly, I play the liberal in other forums, just as I basically play the conservative here.


Conservative isn't exactly the word I was thinking of.

No offense, but it still does sound like you view yourself as a victim.  As long as you do that, you'll never be satisfied with society's handling of prejudice (or with much of life in general).  The fact that you have accomplished what you have with your life is something more relevant to focus on.  It's a testament to our society's social progression that you are able to live comfortably here.

It's all about perspective.  For example, if you think things are racist here, look at what black people have to deal with in South Africa.


"You'll never be satisfied with society's handling of prejudice?"

Did you honestly say that?

Because you know what, Macphisto?  I am not satisfied with society's handling of prejudice either.



"It's a testament to our society's social progression that you are able to live comfortably here."

I guess "comfortable" is the operative word, isn't it.  I don't know about you...but it wouldn't make me very comfortable if people were following me around a store.  But then I guess mentioning it would be me just playing a victim...wouldn't it?

After reading what you've written on this thread...I really should know better to waste my time replying to you at all.  But the fact that you personally attacked Danoota is inexcusable.  How dare you?  Calling her embittered?  Saying that she is playing a victim?  It really goes to show that you have no idea what you're talking about, that you've never paid attention to her or the things that she has said over the years.  But to just dismiss her experiences the way you did.  She isn't acting like a victim - it is her LIFE she is talking about...and the lives of millions of other people every single day. 


People like YOU are the problem that Holder is talking about with your snide little comments and your holier than thou attitude. 


Unbelievable.

I fail to see where an honest discussion of one's views, no matter how popular or unpopular, right or wrong that they may be, is cowardice. Sorry.

signature banned as well

Have you read the Butter Battle Book?


Scrambled Eggs Super!

  I will tell you unequivocally, as an African American female, with a good education, who makes a good living, and owns her own home, I experience racism in some form, be it subtle or overt, everyday.  Is there really any reason for me, a bit overweight, dressed well, usually not talking aloud to myself, to be followed around a store?  

maybe it's not racism & they were just checking out your ass Danoota  ::)    but seriously, it's a situation that me as a hispanic/half white person never really felt, being watched as if i may steal something or maybe i just never noticed. 

I was talking about Eric Holder.  The Attorney General.  The person that inspired this thread.



I don't see him playing the "blame whitey" card anywhere in that speech.  I see him calling on all Americans, he did say "we". I took that as meaning everyone, including me, my friends, and the people who I come in contact with everyday.

maybe it's not racism & they were just checking out your ass Danoota  ::)    but seriously, it's a situation that me as a hispanic/half white person never really felt, being watched as if i may steal something or maybe i just never noticed. 


I am pretty good for a dame my age   ;)  ;D

"You'll never be satisfied with society's handling of prejudice?"

Did you honestly say that?

Because you know what, Macphisto?  I am not satisfied with society's handling of prejudice either.



"It's a testament to our society's social progression that you are able to live comfortably here."

I guess "comfortable" is the operative word, isn't it.  I don't know about you...but it wouldn't make me very comfortable if people were following me around a store.  But then I guess mentioning it would be me just playing a victim...wouldn't it?

After reading what you've written on this thread...I really should know better to waste my time replying to you at all.  But the fact that you personally attacked Danoota is inexcusable.  How dare you?  Calling her embittered?  Saying that she is playing a victim?  It really goes to show that you have no idea what you're talking about, that you've never paid attention to her or the things that she has said over the years.  But to just dismiss her experiences the way you did.  She isn't acting like a victim - it is her LIFE she is talking about...and the lives of millions of other people every single day. 


People like YOU are the problem that Holder is talking about with your snide little comments and your holier than thou attitude. 


Unbelievable.



I've never been one to mince words, because I prefer honesty over courtesy.  I see that you have an appreciation for that as well.

You speak your mind as bluntly as I do.  I like that, because it makes communication more efficient and honest.

One of the primary differences in our perspective, however, is that I don't expect society to be rid of prejudice.  There is a certain amount of it you simply deal with.  I don't bemoan the fact that there are sides of my city where it's not safe to walk around as a white person.  I simply avoid them.

I accept the reality that prejudice is commonplace.  We're all human.  As long as lynchings and segregation are gone, I'm satisfied.  There are certain areas of the country where racism takes on a more blatant tone (like Jena), but in the areas that matter more, prejudice is eminent but tolerable.

You see, I'm a realist.  There are certain things I strive to make better in society, but these are mostly systemic things.  I'd like to improve our healthcare system, for example, but I don't expect to be able to make people more ethical or less prejudiced.  I've come to terms with the fact that human nature dictates a certain amount of prejudice being present.  As long as this prejudice is constrained to perceptions and subtleties, there's not much left to do about it.

While the kinship you feel for Danoota is passionately apparent, it does not strengthen your argument.

I can be snide, yes, but I only do it to challenge others.  There was a lack of conflict in the discussions here (aside from that rather inflammatory Israel thread that I mostly stayed out of), so I decided to add some, because without any points of contention, what is there to debate?

I am pretty good for a dame my age   ;)  ;D


When i lived there in the US i used to walk around stores with this friend of mine who was white and i remember feeling like everyone was watching my every move while she was left alone. I complained to her about it and she said:"I wished people would watch me instead that would mean I was the hot one" I got all mad at her but it was so funny :D

Yeah, Dr. Seuss was sort of a hippie.  The Lorax, Horton Hears A Who!, The Butter Battle Book, How the Grinch Stole Christmas!.......all hippie, "Love thy neighbor and planet" like.

But I love the hell out of them, and so does Jason.


You can't be conservative unless you conserve!

Yes, but...  you don't see Latinos and Asians mention it as much.  That's my point.
No you wouldn't, not if you're too busy focusing on how dark ones skin is to differentiate. If your so focused that blacks do so much of the complaining, then you obviously wouldn't see any other. If your eye goes to the darkest person in the room, then you're not going to even notice the Latino beside him...I live in southern California and I know that thats just not true, the number of Latinos here have definitely spoken up for their rights and called out injustices here and still do.

...but it is a political agenda.  Look at Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.  It's opportunism.  Like anything else, you can profit from the indignation of minorities just like you can profit from indignation toward minorities.

Oh man, the same color skin, so the same thinking, huh?  ::)
Just because Sharpton and Jackson may have a political agenda, doesn't mean I or every person of the same color does. I'm not a fan of either really, yes they are opportunists, but no I don't share in any political agenda and haven't yet seen any particular advantage of it either.

And since you're so wise in the ways of being dark skinned in this country, tell me, how have I, personally, profited from made to feel guilty if I walk out of store empty handed (I often do) as if I shoplifted something? Having security people give you the thousand yard stare? Where do I profit from that? What particular way have I profited from this "indignation" I feel from being suspected as being a thief?

So lets overview, what you're saying is "You profit from acknowledging and complaining about prejudice and you receive an unfair advantage because of it". What warped thinking...if thats true then it would stand to reason (although we are obviously not working with much reason here) that you, and all that embraced this backward logic, would do all you could to end any and all instances of prejudice to end the unfair advantage we supposedly have, yes?

Denying there is an issue or saying that we complain over prejudice that doesn't exist, just gives us more power and advantage (in your definition). Crazy...if you don't want us to "play the race or white oppression card" Why do you continue to deal it out to us in such large quantities? ???


Native Americans aren't exactly crying on the way to the bank.

Not every Sinkyone, Sioux, Dine or other tribes are making money, most live below the poverty level till this day. Again, you mostly don't hear of any complaints because there just aren't any around anymore and they are so, so far away from the rest of society. Effectively erased from our scope of recognition. Seriously, when was the last time you, or anyone for that matter saw an Native American walking down the street or pass you in a busy subway?


It all comes down to one thing.  Human nature.  As Mugabe shows, black people can kill and oppress just like anyone else and for racial reasons.

True, no one is saying that only one can oppress or kill. But this is not an issue of WHO can kill, its who has the power and majority of control in this country that discriminates. People of color in this country don't (as of yet) have that control.

So instead of focusing on race, I generally focus on class.  That's really what determines power.  As long as we bicker over race among the working class, the elite rich hold the power.

Agree with you on the last part. So I'm baffled as why more don't open their eyes and minds and accept we still have major issues in race and get together to end it.

No you wouldn't, not if you're too busy focusing on how dark ones skin is to differentiate. If your so focused that blacks do so much of the complaining, then you obviously wouldn't see any other. If your eye goes to the darkest person in the room, then you're not going to even notice the Latino beside him...I live in southern California and I know that thats just not true, the number of Latinos here have definitely spoken up for their rights and called out injustices here and still do.

Well, hopefully, they're legal too...

Oh man, the same color skin, so the same thinking, huh?  ::)
Just because Sharpton and Jackson may have a political agenda, doesn't mean I or every person of the same color does. I'm not a fan of either really, yes they are opportunists, but no I don't share in any political agenda and haven't yet seen any particular advantage of it either.

I suppose you didn't see how race was used as leverage concerning Roland Burris's filling of Obama's seat then, eh?

And since you're so wise in the ways of being dark skinned in this country, tell me, how have I, personally, profited from made to feel guilty if I walk out of store empty handed (I often do) as if I shoplifted something? Having security people give you the thousand yard stare? Where do I profit from that? What particular way have I profited from this "indignation" I feel from being suspected as being a thief?

Well, you can't profit from that, because that's called paranoia.

So lets overview, what you're saying is "You profit from acknowledging and complaining about prejudice and you receive an unfair advantage because of it". What warped thinking...if thats true then it would stand to reason (although we are obviously not working with much reason here) that you, and all that embraced this backward logic, would do all you could to end any and all instances of prejudice to end the unfair advantage we supposedly have, yes?

Affirmative action exists, doesn't it?

Denying there is an issue or saying that we complain over prejudice that doesn't exist, just gives us more power and advantage (in your definition). Crazy...if you don't want us to "play the race or white oppression card" Why do you continue to deal it out to us in such large quantities? ???

I don't.  I'm simply pointing it out when it's used.  But there is power involved for sure.  For example, you can have a black student union on a college campus without any incident, but if a white student union was started, they'd be labeled as racist.

This perceived racism and victimization leads to double standards that are rather blatant in the realm of political correctness.

True, no one is saying that only one can oppress or kill. But this is not an issue of WHO can kill, its who has the power and majority of control in this country that discriminates. People of color in this country don't (as of yet) have that control. Agree with you on the last part. So I'm baffled as why more don't open their eyes and minds and accept we still have major issues in race and get together to end it.

Well, the argument that it's raced-based power is declining.  It kind of has to now that we have a president who's half-black.

It really has more to do with class.  I'll say it again....  The more we treat the current situation like it has more to do with race, the easier it is for the elite to divide the working class.  Class is really what determines your power and whether or not you will be subject to abuse or neglect.

We have racial issues in America, but again, I was pointing out that race relations are actually better in America than in most of the world.  We simply see more conflict here because we are more diverse.  I can assure you, for example, that Russia is much more racist toward black people than most whites here are, because Russia isn't used to living with black people nearby.  The racism against untouchables from the upper castes in India is far worse than what any minority must face here.

I'm not saying this justifies racism here, but perspective is always key.  Sooner or later, we might soon find out that what we currently experience is about as good as it gets.  I really don't think we're going to decrease racism much beyond current norms, which is why, to me, dealing with racism today mostly has to do with damage control than with any idealistic conception that prejudice will end.

...because quite frankly, it won't.  Racism will always exist, but the question is how minimal can you make it?  I think we've basically reached the minimum amount possible without descending into ridiculous amounts of political correctness.

I am pretty good for a dame my age   ;)  ;D
there is nothing like a dame. nothing in the world. There is nothing you can name, that is anything like a dame  8)    I was in a small production of South Pacific & was a sailor in that song 

...Sometimes, I think our nation or I should say  "many" in the nation & the media seem to be displaying either too much P.C.  or cowardice, & I think sometimes there's a thin line between the 2.  for instance, in the news 2 young men beat & robbed an older man and police are looking for them as they are obviously dangerous.  in most reports, the thugs description is given, age, height, weight, clothing style, race & skin color.  in recent times I've seen crime reports that do not indicate the race or skin color & I get the feeling the news organization is being extra sensitive to not label the criminals by race or skin color or that they are afraid to use descriptive terms or if I give them the benefit of the doubt, they just didn't have that info.  if they say the 2 yute's are black, then do we look suspiciously at every pair of young black men on the street in that area? That is a unfortunate possibility, but it pretty much goes for all races, white, black, hispanic, asian, whatever. it just seems to me I'm seeing the media give the impression that they don't want to offend and leave that part of the news story out.  maybe it's just me, I'm not sure, but think I can discern some things fairly accurately & I wish they'd just do the job of reporting accurate news that helps the public, especially in situations where safety is at hand.

I'm just curious about the whole being followed around the store thing. I'd never thought about it until now? I get followed all the time. Why? I'm pretty white for most of the year. Is it just because I don't look like the typical Midwest farm f**k? Do I give off black vibes? "He looks white, but I'll bet he's going to steal something any minute now!"  ;D Seriously, what's with that.

I'm just curious about the whole being followed around the store thing. I'd never thought about it until now? I get followed all the time. Why? I'm pretty white for most of the year. Is it just because I don't look like the typical Midwest farm f**k? Do I give off black vibes? "He looks white, but I'll bet he's going to steal something any minute now!"  ;D Seriously, what's with that.
you do have surly look about you Andy  ;D    just kidding  I think that many of us, myself included can judge a book by it's cover, but not just the race thing & thinking someone is gonna steal, but in other ways too. people may appear stuck-up or mean, and then you get to know them and they're really friendly.  as for the being followed in the store thing, I can't recall it happening, but there are times when I wonder if I'm being watched on surveillance and then I make sure to walk with my product so that it can be well seen. sometimes I take out my glasses and put them back in my pocket & I wonder if someone see's me do that and thinks he's pocketing something and then they stop me as I'm leaving. I'd be pissed  >:(

you do have surly look about you Andy   ;D   


In real life, he looks like an innocent angel. ;D

Re: followed around the store.  This happens to me when I'm with my sister, who is hella darker than I am.  Once we realize it is going on, and know that they are following us because of the way she looks (and we can tell....we've worked in retail and know all the tricks), we'll make eye contact, smile, and nod or wave.  This usually flusters the f*ck out of them, and they turn around and walk away or they pretend like they were just straightening displays or endcaps.  It's rather amusing. :D

I also forgot to mention that it does happen to me in Chinatown as well, but usually because I'm the only Gwai Po in the store.  I guess that's a different story though.... :-\\

I also forgot to mention that it does happen to me in Chinatown as well, but usually because I'm the only Gwai Po in the store.  I guess that's a different story though.... :-\\


FORBIDDEN CHILD!!!!!  *evil monkey pointing*

In real life, he looks like an innocent angel. ;D

Re: followed around the store.  This happens to me when I'm with my sister, who is hella darker than I am.  Once we realize it is going on, and know that they are following us because of the way she looks (and we can tell....we've worked in retail and know all the tricks), we'll make eye contact, smile, and nod or wave.  This usually flusters the f*ck out of them, and they turn around and walk away or they pretend like they were just straightening displays or endcaps.  It's rather amusing. :D
he looks cool, I was just hacking on him.  ::)      that's a good technique, sounds funny and it must amuse you & sis when they get caught spying  ;D


FORBIDDEN CHILD!!!!!  *evil monkey pointing*
OMG!  your wife is not Chinese  ??? 

he looks cool, I was just hacking on him.   ::)


Oh, I know you were.  He really does look like an innocent angel though.  Hell, I thought he wasn't even old enough to drink! ;D

OMG!  your wife is not Chinese  ???

Pretty much.  Had an older Asian couple giving us the stink eye in Costco.  They would look at Rice, then me, then the boy, and glare in contempt. :P

Oh, I know you were.  He really does look like an innocent angel though.  Hell, I thought he wasn't even old enough to drink! ;D

Pretty much.  Had an older Asian couple giving us the stink eye in Costco.  They would look at Rice, then me, then the boy, and glare in contempt. :P
they shouldn't even lay their eyes on the boy. for that they risk all  >:( 

Well, hopefully, they're legal too...

Unnecessarily insulting to millions of Latinos that were born and raised here, hard working and tax paying citizens who are a growing majority in this state and throughout the US (and not to mention, proves NO point). Imagine, just because your last name is Menendez or if you have an accent or speak Spanish, you're automatically thought of being a possible illegal? Is that fair or even constructive in this discussion? Further than that, how well has this attitude succeeded to reduce the problem of illegal immigration?

I suppose you didn't see how race was used as leverage concerning Roland Burris's filling of Obama's seat then, eh?

No, I don't. You somehow envision that every black person is watching or involved in the affairs of one another black and its just not so. To me, thats a Illinois issue that has to do with a disgraced and impeached governor that has nothing to do with my state. Believe me we have plenty of Governator issues here to deal with now...

Well, you can't profit from that, because that's called paranoia.

Great, the best retort you have is calling me mentally instable, that will help you prove your point ::) or maybe you're imping that all people that have experienced bigotry are crazy...Well, I don't wake up every day thinking I'm black and going to be discriminated against, but there are times and situations I have to think twice about my looks or appearance and situation I'm in because I'm black. Thats not fair and I shouldn't have to go through that, no one should. Its not life crippling, but its not fair that I have to deal that and others don't. Can you imagine what you have to tell your child why it is that dark people have more attention on them in the store, or why the doors (of a already locked car) ca-chunk when we walk to a corner of a street? Even worse when others claim it doesn't exist or I shouldn't be bothered for it.
No, its not an everyday occurrence, and in and of it self not life threatening, but it does stick in your mind. I do have to sometimes adjust my behavior just to fit a situation that others don't. Thats wrong.

Affirmative action exists, doesn't it?

I personally feel its perspectives like yours on affirmative action just give ammunition to backward thinking that we're somehow "getting" privileges that others don't and thats why I have issues with it.
I was raised to understand that in order to get ahead in this world you have to twice as good as the next guy, and at one time be three times as good as the white guy. I KNOW if I'm up for a job or promotion, its all because (lots of ego here), really I AM that much better.
The only reason why Affirmative Action exists, is because some don't believe a man should be judged on his character, and in that case we need a leveling field. In other words, for those that insist that racism doesn't exist we NEED it to ensure it doesn't' effect the hiring process.
So, in lots of ways, your views only support its institution....

If you want to end the need for it, stop denying discrimination exists, and work to end it. As soon as that bigotry is gone, so should Affirmative Action go...

I don't.  I'm simply pointing it out when it's used.  But there is power involved for sure.  For example, you can have a black student union on a college campus without any incident, but if a white student union was started, they'd be labeled as racist.

No I wouldn't call it racist, why are you assuming what others think. I'd call it "odd" in that by sheer numbers, the whites would, in most universities, outnumber any of the other minorities on campus, and again by numbers alone already have a majority control, thereby making a need or want of a white union unexplainable. If they want one, fine by me, but why would they NEED one?
What would they gain from it that they don't already posses, and for what purpose?


This perceived racism and victimization leads to double standards that are rather blatant in the realm of political correctness.

Well, the argument that it's raced-based power is declining.  It kind of has to now that we have a president who's half-black.

Maybe I'm one of the few who thinks this, but electing a black or half black, or half white president to me, has no residual effect on our countries race relations, other than to have a better and open discussion on race in this country. The only real and tangible result of his election in my eyes. I mean, really do any of us think if a woman was elected suddenly men would suddenly understand women better and vice versa?

It really has more to do with class.  I'll say it again....  The more we treat the current situation like it has more to do with race, the easier it is for the elite to divide the working class.  Class is really what determines your power and whether or not you will be subject to abuse or neglect.

We have racial issues in America, but again, I was pointing out that race relations are actually better in America than in most of the world.  We simply see more conflict here because we are more diverse.  I can assure you, for example, that Russia is much more racist toward black people than most whites here are, because Russia isn't used to living with black people nearby.  The racism against untouchables from the upper castes in India is far worse than what any minority must face here.

Just because you think that race relations are better here, doesn't justify the silencing of those that do experience it within our boarders.
Even further than that, I, myself constantly hear from friends Asian, British, French, Brazilian, Australian and yes even Russian how course and sketchy they feel with the way "yanks" treat Latinos, blacks and minorities. (troublesome for me as I'm expected to explain why I or my race, and US government, allows it to persist to this day).

I have a small female Italian friend who after visiting California, went to South Carolina (my birth state) to visit distant family who was appalled at the separation, socially and mentally of black from white that she encounter there, being that this is the land of the free and all.  ::)
I don't think you can quantifiably speak of just what or how other countries speak or act towards "race" in their country vs ours, unless you're a citizen of that country.
Nonetheless, whatever their view on it, as we speak here my, nor your concept of other countries attitude towards race has no purpose, as we're speaking of relations in this country and I would expect that I, as much as you, would expect so much more from the US.

I think its an big mistake to ever think that racism can't be reduced or eliminated. To ever think that this is the best we can do in ANY situation is a defeatist one and always leads to object failure. Regardless of your reasons to think accepting current norms as reasonable, you really jeopardize the final and great prosperity that we all want and wish.

Hasn't history already shown us that a country's power, its strength is only as strong as its least empowered body? You can't continue to expect those that feel that feel they're unrepresented, underpowered or unable to succeed due to racism or class or any other "isim" to continue without the resulting downfall of the whole union. Its happened before, why wait for it to eventually happen again?

I'm not saying this justifies racism here, but perspective is always key.  Sooner or later, we might soon find out that what we currently experience is about as good as it gets.  I really don't think we're going to decrease racism much beyond current norms, which is why, to me, dealing with racism today mostly has to do with damage control than with any idealistic conception that prejudice will end.

...because quite frankly, it won't.  Racism will always exist, but the question is how minimal can you make it?  I think we've basically reached the minimum amount possible without descending into ridiculous amounts of political correctness.

No, I totally disagree, I DON'T think racism will always, absolutely, for all time on earth exist, thats giving up on the US, and human beings in general. We can always do better. I'm surprised, with your direction on this discussion, that you'd be able to accept that kind of thinking. Well maybe not, I guess if theres no hope for something better, than I can except that someone will accept the current problems as the best they can do.
But I won't.

^BRAVO(once again)

The argument about other countries is soooooo tired.   This is the United States of American. One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all, We the people of the united States in order to form a more perfect Union, A new nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal .  Why should we not try to live up to the ideal?




One of the primary differences in our perspective, however, is that I don't expect society to be rid of prejudice.  There is a certain amount of it you simply deal with.  I don't bemoan the fact that there are sides of my city where it's not safe to walk around as a white person.  I simply avoid them.



I don't expect any society to be rid pf prejudice, what I do expect is that people, regardless of the prejudices, be made to know that when in the public arena they must behave.



I accept the reality that prejudice is commonplace.  We're all human.  As long as lynchings and segregation are gone, I'm satisfied. 




Lynchings may be gone, but there is still segregation, more subtle, making it more insidious.  Understanding that is critical to understanding this issue. 

I'm just curious about the whole being followed around the store thing. I'd never thought about it until now? I get followed all the time. Why? I'm pretty white for most of the year. Is it just because I don't look like the typical Midwest farm f**k? Do I give off black vibes? "He looks white, but I'll bet he's going to steal something any minute now!"  ;D Seriously, what's with that.


That is a petty annoyance, how about buying a pair of binoculars at a Brookstone but then deciding to return them.  I went to the store at the Mall I was in and the manager said she wouldn't refund the money because "we don't have the cash to cover it"(about 75 dollars).  Huh  ???  Then she said maybe it would be a better idea for me to return them to the Brookstone that I bought it from "where they know you"  Double huh!!  Or going in to a store with a visor on that I had bought maybe a week earlier.  When I got to the register the clerk asked me if I wanted to purchase the visor I was wearing, I said no, I had bought it the week before.  She waved over a manager. Basically, "she's got this visor on and says she already paid for it" The manager assessed the situation, there was no proving either way. Yeah, and take this crap I was going to buy and shove it up your a$$.  It worked out better for me than the kid at a mall near here who was made to remove a shirt he had purchased, go home and bring back the receipt for the shirt, (luckily he still had it).

This is what is meant about the need for dialogue, education, edification.  Just as white people don't want to be made to be judged for past practices or the actions of others, neither do I think those same people should judge me for past practices or the actions of others.

I think one of the problems we have with discussing race is that people generally tend to think that people who are different from them in some way are experts on all people in that same different group. I've caught myself doing this before with race, religion, sexuality, gender, etc. It wasn't until recently that I was talking with a gay friend, who in response to a question of mine kindly, but bluntly, uttered "I DON'T KNOW! I was making the assumption that since he was gay that he must be an expert on all things gay, and maybe even that all gay people have more things in common than an attraction to the same sex.

Back to race, I think many of us make assumptions about a group of people based on incredibly limited and often incorrect sources. Speaking with a few friends of a different race and watching the news or listening to the media often gives a very narrow and skewed social perspective. If I watched nothing but BET and COPS, I'd have a very distorted view of blacks. Ditto for a black person watching nothing CMT and COPS. Even if the viewers of these channels were reversed, they still are getting a very distorted view of the world.

I don't think they are any significant differences between blacks, whites, hispanics or asians that would prevent us from one day all being free of bigotry and racism. Stereotypes are a different matter and a slippery slope - they can easily lead into more insideous thoughts, but some of them are rather funny to play around with. Take the old stereotype that black people like fried chicken and watermelon. I'm caucasian and I like fried chicken and watermelon too! Does that make me an honorary stereotypical black? lol. That particular stereotype is more apt for southerners than for any race.

I'm not going into illegal immigration, because that is more of a nationalism, legalistic, and practicality issue than anything racially based.

signature banned as well

It seems clear, friends, that Mac just doesn't get it, and probably never will. 



I don't think they are any significant differences between blacks, whites, hispanics or asians that would prevent us from one day all being free of bigotry and racism.

signature banned as well


When they tried to draft me back in '68, and I had to fill out the "paperwork" my response to the "race" question was "human".  And to "sex" I answered "as often as possible".  ;D ;D

I think one of the problems we have with discussing race is that people generally tend to think that people who are different from them in some way are experts on all people in that same different group. I've caught myself doing this before with race, religion, sexuality, gender, etc. It wasn't until recently that I was talking with a gay friend, who in response to a question of mine kindly, but bluntly, uttered "I DON'T KNOW! I was making the assumption that since he was gay that he must be an expert on all things gay, and maybe even that all gay people have more things in common than an attraction to the same sex.

Back to race, I think many of us make assumptions about a group of people based on incredibly limited and often incorrect sources. Speaking with a few friends of a different race and watching the news or listening to the media often gives a very narrow and skewed social perspective. If I watched nothing but BET and COPS, I'd have a very distorted view of blacks. Ditto for a black person watching nothing CMT and COPS. Even if the viewers of these channels were reversed, they still are getting a very distorted view of the world.

I don't think they are any significant differences between blacks, whites, hispanics or asians that would prevent us from one day all being free of bigotry and racism. Stereotypes are a different matter and a slippery slope - they can easily lead into more insideous thoughts, but some of them are rather funny to play around with. Take the old stereotype that black people like fried chicken and watermelon. I'm caucasian and I like fried chicken and watermelon too! Does that make me an honorary stereotypical black? lol. That particular stereotype is more apt for southerners than for any race.

I'm not going into illegal immigration, because that is more of a nationalism, legalistic, and practicality issue than anything racially based.

signature banned as well


Karmadoodle  :)

I have the advantage, or disadvantage, it works both ways, of having grown up in a very diverse neighborhood, but in a very caucasian city.  I have seen both sides of the mountain.  Living in a diverse neighborhood is definitely the best way to go.  I could have moved with Sig into a very upscale town, but I won't do that to my son. I believe his life is much richer in the semi-urban city that we are in, because of the people he is exposed to.  It is why I am less wary, angry, or afraid, and more accepting, beyond that more welcoming, of differences in cultures and attitudes.  

It seems clear, friends, that Mac just doesn't get it, and probably never will. 




Agreed.  More intent on validating his own attitude.  Everything would be just peachy keen if we just stopped bitch**g 


(for him)

I've never been one to mince words, because I prefer honesty over courtesy.  I see that you have an appreciation for that as well.

You speak your mind as bluntly as I do.  I like that, because it makes communication more efficient and honest.

One of the primary differences in our perspective, however, is that I don't expect society to be rid of prejudice.  There is a certain amount of it you simply deal with.  I don't bemoan the fact that there are sides of my city where it's not safe to walk around as a white person.  I simply avoid them.

I accept the reality that prejudice is commonplace.  We're all human.  As long as lynchings and segregation are gone, I'm satisfied.  There are certain areas of the country where racism takes on a more blatant tone (like Jena), but in the areas that matter more, prejudice is eminent but tolerable.

You see, I'm a realist.  There are certain things I strive to make better in society, but these are mostly systemic things.  I'd like to improve our healthcare system, for example, but I don't expect to be able to make people more ethical or less prejudiced.  I've come to terms with the fact that human nature dictates a certain amount of prejudice being present.  As long as this prejudice is constrained to perceptions and subtleties, there's not much left to do about it.

While the kinship you feel for Danoota is passionately apparent, it does not strengthen your argument.

I can be snide, yes, but I only do it to challenge others.  There was a lack of conflict in the discussions here (aside from that rather inflammatory Israel thread that I mostly stayed out of), so I decided to add some, because without any points of contention, what is there to debate?



I also accept the reality that people are prejudiced...but that will never make it ok.  Judging a person for the color of their skin is wrong.  Period.  You seem to be trying to justify it...but you simply can't.

Let's not be too hard on Macphisto. I've met him in real life several times and he is a good person. If there's something specific that you all would like to address with him, I'm sure he'd be happy to give an honest answer.

I'm not going to presume to speak for him, but I think that he feels that major leaps in social progress toward racial harmony/equality are not going to happen. To an extent, they've already happened. When this country was founded, blacks were slaves and women didn't have the right to vote. It took 75 and 140 years, respectively, for those things to change. It wasn't until the 1950s that segregation was banned. Another twenty years to allow interracial marriages. We don't really have to look at other countries for extremes in racial attitude - we have seen a lot of progress made here in the last 220 years. Yes, I know that's a woefully long time to be where we are today, but nothing happens overnight. It is frustrating.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'm not saying that there isn't still a lot of room for improvement - there is.

If there's anywhere in the US where hardcore racism is prevalent, it seems to be in prisons. This wouldn't be a huge problem if all had life sentences and were never coming back into the general public, but at some point most of them will. I dunno how to fix this, but this situation does need fixing.

Many of the people I've met who are what we might call blatantly racist are ignorant in some respect. I have one such friend, and he is a handful in most cases. Most of you would probably never want to meet him. Why then am I friends with him? He is a great worker and a good father, and, aside from race, we share a lot of viewpoints. Although he has a lot to learn, he has come a LONG way in his views and actions. He may never be fully accepting of everyone, but he is making progress.

One of the things I've tried to break him of is when he gets angry, his first action is to get vocal. If a white person pisses him off, that guy is an "asshole". If the person is black, then it's the N-bomb. Racism by whites does embarass white people. I have more than once turned to him and said "dude, stfu!".  I try to get him just to call everyone who pisses him off "asshole" and leave race out of it. Baby steps....


Karmadoodle  :)

I have the advantage, or disadvantage, it works both ways, of having grown up in a very diverse neighborhood, but in a very caucasian city.  I have seen both sides of the mountain.  Living in a diverse neighborhood is definitely the best way to go.  I could have moved with Sig into a very upscale town, but I won't do that to my son. I believe his life is much richer in the semi-urban city that we are in, because of the people he is exposed to.  It is why I am less wary, angry, or afraid, and more accepting, beyond that more welcoming, of differences in cultures and attitudes.  


Thank you.

You're probably doing the best thing for your son. Exposure to more people of different types imo breeds acceptance, not discontent or hatred. Knowledge is power.


It seems clear, friends, that Mac just doesn't get it, and probably never will. 


When they tried to draft me back in '68, and I had to fill out the "paperwork" my response to the "race" question was "human".  And to "sex" I answered "as often as possible".   ;D ;D


;D

signature banned as well

That's absolutely right.  The problem is the working classes in the USA don't even want to admit they are working class.  Ask anyone on the street, even the minimum wage worker at Wal Mart, and they will tell you they are middle class, and would be more than likely to identify themselves with someone making $300,000 than they would would with anyone in the inner city.


Not me, I'm lower-lower class, poor

Unnecessarily insulting to millions of Latinos that were born and raised here, hard working and tax paying citizens who are a growing majority in this state and throughout the US (and not to mention, proves NO point). Imagine, just because your last name is Menendez or if you have an accent or speak Spanish, you're automatically thought of being a possible illegal? Is that fair or even constructive in this discussion? Further than that, how well has this attitude succeeded to reduce the problem of illegal immigration?

Lighten up.  You're a bleeding heart, aren't you?

No, I don't. You somehow envision that every black person is watching or involved in the affairs of one another black and its just not so. To me, thats a Illinois issue that has to do with a disgraced and impeached governor that has nothing to do with my state. Believe me we have plenty of Governator issues here to deal with now...

I'd believe you if Bobby Rush hadn't gotten involved and specifically made it a race issue.

Great, the best retort you have is calling me mentally instable, that will help you prove your point ::) or maybe you're imping that all people that have experienced bigotry are crazy...Well, I don't wake up every day thinking I'm black and going to be discriminated against, but there are times and situations I have to think twice about my looks or appearance and situation I'm in because I'm black. Thats not fair and I shouldn't have to go through that, no one should. Its not life crippling, but its not fair that I have to deal that and others don't. Can you imagine what you have to tell your child why it is that dark people have more attention on them in the store, or why the doors (of a already locked car) ca-chunk when we walk to a corner of a street? Even worse when others claim it doesn't exist or I shouldn't be bothered for it.
No, its not an everyday occurrence, and in and of it self not life threatening, but it does stick in your mind. I do have to sometimes adjust my behavior just to fit a situation that others don't. Thats wrong.

Of course it's not fair, but life never has been.  Deal with it.  Do you think it's fair that most of the world lives in slums?  Do you think it's fair that millions of people in Africa die every year from famine and war?  Of course not.  The subtleties you have to deal with are insignificant compared to most of the world's ills, so it's hard for me to sympathize with your extreme sensitivity to perceived prejudice.

I personally feel its perspectives like yours on affirmative action just give ammunition to backward thinking that we're somehow "getting" privileges that others don't and thats why I have issues with it.
I was raised to understand that in order to get ahead in this world you have to twice as good as the next guy, and at one time be three times as good as the white guy. I KNOW if I'm up for a job or promotion, its all because (lots of ego here), really I AM that much better.
The only reason why Affirmative Action exists, is because some don't believe a man should be judged on his character, and in that case we need a leveling field. In other words, for those that insist that racism doesn't exist we NEED it to ensure it doesn't' effect the hiring process.
So, in lots of ways, your views only support its institution....

If you want to end the need for it, stop denying discrimination exists, and work to end it. As soon as that bigotry is gone, so should Affirmative Action go...

You're right about one thing.  Affirmative action encourages bigotry.  Fixing the racism of the past isn't done by creating racism in the opposite direction, which is exactly what affirmative action is.

No I wouldn't call it racist, why are you assuming what others think. I'd call it "odd" in that by sheer numbers, the whites would, in most universities, outnumber any of the other minorities on campus, and again by numbers alone already have a majority control, thereby making a need or want of a white union unexplainable. If they want one, fine by me, but why would they NEED one?
What would they gain from it that they don't already posses, and for what purpose?

What do blacks gain from black student unions?  If we're supposed to be colorblind, why do minorities consistently separate themselves from the majority?  They obviously aren't colorblind themselves.

The point is...  You can't have it both ways.  You can't tell people to treat everyone equally and then turn around and favor people according to race with affirmative action.  You can't expect race to be a nonfactor in society when minorities continually bring it to the forefront.

Maybe I'm one of the few who thinks this, but electing a black or half black, or half white president to me, has no residual effect on our countries race relations, other than to have a better and open discussion on race in this country. The only real and tangible result of his election in my eyes. I mean, really do any of us think if a woman was elected suddenly men would suddenly understand women better and vice versa?

It's primarily symbolic.  If the majority of voters are willing to have a man who is half-black and looks completely black as president, then it implies that people are at least somewhat trusting of black people in general.  If racism was as bad as some of you have been saying, McCain would've won by a landslide.

Just because you think that race relations are better here, doesn't justify the silencing of those that do experience it within our boarders.
Even further than that, I, myself constantly hear from friends Asian, British, French, Brazilian, Australian and yes even Russian how course and sketchy they feel with the way "yanks" treat Latinos, blacks and minorities. (troublesome for me as I'm expected to explain why I or my race, and US government, allows it to persist to this day).

Well, if it's so bad here, why not move?

I have a small female Italian friend who after visiting California, went to South Carolina (my birth state) to visit distant family who was appalled at the separation, socially and mentally of black from white that she encounter there, being that this is the land of the free and all.  ::)
I don't think you can quantifiably speak of just what or how other countries speak or act towards "race" in their country vs ours, unless you're a citizen of that country.
Nonetheless, whatever their view on it, as we speak here my, nor your concept of other countries attitude towards race has no purpose, as we're speaking of relations in this country and I would expect that I, as much as you, would expect so much more from the US.
.

I don't expect more from America.  Why?  Because I never believed in the whitewashed version of our history.  For example, the Civil War wasn't about slavery, it was about economics and mostly 2 rich groups of people pitting their poor against each other on the battlefield.  The Civil Rights Movement was something to be proud of, but ultimately, the only reason it happened was because race relations had gotten so bad we couldn't ignore it anymore.

Yet, what we see with our history isn't that different from other countries.  The only thing that does actually make us unique is our ethnic diversity.  Because we have more variance in culture here than most all other countries, we are more prone to cultural and racial conflict, but that doesn't mean we're more prejudiced.  That actually implies the opposite.  The fact that we've stayed a stable country despite our diversity is something to be proud of.

Numerous countries have been unable to handle diversity.  Look at the creation of Kosovo as a nation for the most recent example of a cultural conflict leading to massive conflict.

I think its an big mistake to ever think that racism can't be reduced or eliminated. To ever think that this is the best we can do in ANY situation is a defeatist one and always leads to object failure. Regardless of your reasons to think accepting current norms as reasonable, you really jeopardize the final and great prosperity that we all want and wish.

I view it in the opposite way.  By continually focusing on the social side of things, we miss the forest for the trees.  Economics determine social progress.  Improving healthcare, education, and monetary policy eventually provide an environment where social progress is more likely to occur.

Hasn't history already shown us that a country's power, its strength is only as strong as its least empowered body? You can't continue to expect those that feel that feel they're unrepresented, underpowered or unable to succeed due to racism or class or any other "isim" to continue without the resulting downfall of the whole union. Its happened before, why wait for it to eventually happen again?

Nope.  History mostly shows that a country's power is derived by economics and the quality of life for the majority.  Still, I do support racial equality and civil rights.

No, I totally disagree, I DON'T think racism will always, absolutely, for all time on earth exist, thats giving up on the US, and human beings in general. We can always do better. I'm surprised, with your direction on this discussion, that you'd be able to accept that kind of thinking. Well maybe not, I guess if theres no hope for something better, than I can except that someone will accept the current problems as the best they can do.
But I won't.


Technology has continually improved, but human nature remains the same as it was back in ancient times.  By nature, we tend to vex and oppress each other.  It is only through law that we are able to organize and refrain from killing and abusing each other.

^BRAVO(once again)

The argument about other countries is soooooo tired.   This is the United States of American. One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all, We the people of the united States in order to form a more perfect Union, A new nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal .  Why should we not try to live up to the ideal?

Compared to most of the world, we already do.  I know you don't like the comparisons, but that's probably because they force you to acknowledge that it's true.

Our doctrine of government is unique, but our nature as a people is not.

I don't expect any society to be rid pf prejudice, what I do expect is that people, regardless of the prejudices, be made to know that when in the public arena they must behave.

Lynchings may be gone, but there is still segregation, more subtle, making it more insidious.  Understanding that is critical to understanding this issue. 

I will agree with you on these points.  This is why I think worrying about whether or not someone is "following" you in a store is rather trivial.

What matters is how to deal with things like how white people voluntarily leave neighborhoods when blacks start moving in.  I'm sure we can at least agree that the behavior many people exhibit in the real estate industry is racist.  To me, that's something much more legitimate to mention in a discussion about racism.  It's the institutionalized side of racism that we can probably agree to fix.

I also accept the reality that people are prejudiced...but that will never make it ok.  Judging a person for the color of their skin is wrong.  Period.  You seem to be trying to justify it...but you simply can't.


You mistake justification for realizing that some things are inevitable.  If we were all the same race, we'd discriminate against each other for some other reason, like religion or weight.

Again, it's human nature.


It seems clear, friends, that Mac just doesn't get it, and probably never will. 


When they tried to draft me back in '68, and I had to fill out the "paperwork" my response to the "race" question was "human".  And to "sex" I answered "as often as possible".   ;D ;D


If I don't get it, why not directly address me?  Surely, you could convince me otherwise if your argument is sound.

If I don't get it, why not directly address me?  Surely, you could convince me otherwise if your argument is sound.


Oh how you get it...You're arguing just to argue,kudos to Gumbypiz for not giving up.

Mr. Macphisto sport is throwing semi-insults right and left while acting like he owns the truth. His act is getting so old ::)

The day you get Macphisto to support affirmative action is the day I start my Sex and the City fan club!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/10/vogel.gif

You're a bleeding heart, aren't you?

i think we need to stop thinking this is a bad thing, frankly.

Oh how you get it...You're arguing just to argue,kudos to Gumbypiz for not giving up.

Mr. Macphisto sport is throwing semi-insults right and left while acting like he owns the truth. His act is getting so old ::)


Eric Holder says he wants us to have a dialogue.  I've been providing that, because only a few of us here apparently hold a view different from the mainstream one.

Besides, if we all agreed with each other on everything, it would be boring.

And yes, Max, I don't think I'd ever support affirmative action in its current form.  If you switched it to helping the poor regardless of race, I'd support it though.


i think we need to stop thinking this is a bad thing, frankly.


Going to the extreme in any direction is a bad thing, left-wing included.

Eric Holder says he wants us to have a dialogue.  I've been providing that, because only a few of us here apparently hold a view different from the mainstream one.

Besides, if we all agreed with each other on everything, it would be boring.

And yes, Max, I don't think I'd ever support affirmative action in its current form.  If you switched it to helping the poor regardless of race, I'd support it though.

Going to the extreme in any direction is a bad thing, left-wing included.


Yes,but you're not for real. Why playing the asshole all the time?

i think we need to stop thinking this is a bad thing, frankly.


What does this "bleeding heart" even mean?
::)

Yes,but you're not for real. Why playing the asshole all the time?

I am for real as far as the central meaning of what I'm saying.  Admittedly, my aggression is somewhat contrived, but it's more straightforward that way.

What does this "bleeding heart" even mean?
::)


I would worry if my heart stopped bleeding, but that's probably just me.

Let's not be too hard on Macphisto. I've met him in real life several times and he is a good person. If there's something specific that you all would like to address with him, I'm sure he'd be happy to give an honest answer.


One of the things I've tried to break him of is when he gets angry, his first action is to get vocal. If a white person pisses him off, that guy is an "asshole". If the person is black, then it's the N-bomb.



I am sure that there isn't anyone here surprised at this.  When I was about 13 wearing an iron cross was a fad.  Lots of the kids got them, so did I.  When I went to a Jewish friends house. Her father saw it and explained that the iron cross was associated with the Nazis, and though he knew they were a fad, and that I didn't mean anything by it, it was still a symbol of hate and it wasn't allowed in his house.  I took it off, and when I went home I threw it away.  I realized that he was right in his attitude. I will add that my parents didn't know I had it, my father was a Vet, I knew enough to know it would not have gone down well at home either. Anyone who would perpetuate something that is so obviously hurtful would have to have the mentality of a petulant child.

I am assuming that MacPhisto is over the age of 12.

I am sure that there isn't anyone here surprised at this.  When I was about 13 wearing an iron cross was a fad.  Lots of the kids got them, so did I.  When I went to a Jewish friends house. Her father saw it and explained that the iron cross was associated with the Nazis, and though he knew they were a fad, and that I didn't mean anything by it, it was still a symbol of hate and it wasn't allowed in his house.  I took it off, and when I went home I threw it away.  I realized that he was right in his attitude. I will add that my parents didn't know I had it, my father was a Vet, I knew enough to know it would not have gone down well at home either. Anyone who would perpetuate something that is so obviously hurtful would have to have the mentality of a petulant child.

I am assuming that MacPhisto is over the age of 12.


Whoa...  Again, missing the details here.  The guy Username is talking about is a guy that he works with, not me.  Username can reveal his name if he wants to, but he can vouch for me on this one as well.

I don't tend to call people the N-word because I'd rather not get my @$$ kicked.

Re-read Username's post again.

I am sure that there isn't anyone here surprised at this.  When I was about 13 wearing an iron cross was a fad.  Lots of the kids got them, so did I.  When I went to a Jewish friends house. Her father saw it and explained that the iron cross was associated with the Nazis, and though he knew they were a fad, and that I didn't mean anything by it, it was still a symbol of hate and it wasn't allowed in his house.  I took it off, and when I went home I threw it away.  I realized that he was right in his attitude. I will add that my parents didn't know I had it, my father was a Vet, I knew enough to know it would not have gone down well at home either. Anyone who would perpetuate something that is so obviously hurtful would have to have the mentality of a petulant child.

I am assuming that MacPhisto is over the age of 12.


My post separated those lines as I was not referring to Macphisto with the second part. I probably should have made two posts so that the two people wouldn't be confused as one - my error.  I've never heard Mac say things like that, or even get upset. The other friend I refer to would probably get himself banned from here in 20 posts or less, if he had internet access.

signature banned as well

I am sure that there isn't anyone here surprised at this.  When I was about 13 wearing an iron cross was a fad.  Lots of the kids got them, so did I.  When I went to a Jewish friends house. Her father saw it and explained that the iron cross was associated with the Nazis, and though he knew they were a fad, and that I didn't mean anything by it, it was still a symbol of hate and it wasn't allowed in his house.  I took it off, and when I went home I threw it away.  I realized that he was right in his attitude. I will add that my parents didn't know I had it, my father was a Vet, I knew enough to know it would not have gone down well at home either. Anyone who would perpetuate something that is so obviously hurtful would have to have the mentality of a petulant child.

I am assuming that MacPhisto is over the age of 12.


Now that we've gotten the misunderstanding out of the way, to address you here: my friend didn't wear iron crosses, he burned wooden ones. In people's front yards. Several times. He got caught, spent a lot of time in juvie and jail. I don't think he was ever a member of the KKK or AB or anything like that, but he was, at one time, the worst of the worst, someone many would consider as ever beyond hope of change. 20 some years later, he still has a lot of things to overcome, but he has come very far. He'll probably never be non-biggoted, but I try when I can to help him understand the words he chooses to use are as important as his actions.

I don't fully understand his past because he hasn't told me everything (almost everything though), and I am not him. I never walked in his shoes or grew up in the environment he did - thankfully.

signature banned as well

whoa...  now, that part...  I didn't know about....

The day you get Macphisto to support affirmative action is the day I start my Sex and the City fan club!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/10/vogel.gif


Affirmative action shouldn't be race based.

Lighten up.  You're a bleeding heart, aren't you?

Well, if giving a s**t about your fellow man is a being a bleeding heart, then yes I am.
I'd believe you if Bobby Rush hadn't gotten involved and specifically made it a race issue.

I still don't understand what that has to do with me, just because Rush is black and HE thought a Black should have Obama's vacant seat doesn't mean I did or it has anything directly to do with me because I'm black, I'm not a resident in Illinois and doesn't directly involve me. Me, personally don't give a rats a** about that situation. It was caused by the governor that was already impeached and all tracks back to him.

Of course it's not fair, but life never has been.  Deal with it.  Do you think it's fair that most of the world lives in slums?  Do you think it's fair that millions of people in Africa die every year from famine and war?  Of course not.  The subtleties you have to deal with are insignificant compared to most of the world's ills, so it's hard for me to sympathize with your extreme sensitivity to perceived prejudice.

Maybe I put that incorrectly, its not EQUAL that others get treated differently. Thats part of the law of the land, partly what the country was founded upon. We have the RIGHT to not be treated differently because of the color of our skin, race, or religion. Thats the way it supposed to be. If we accept that one slight can be overlooked, then where do you draw the line? Just which part of the constitution and bill of rights do you want to follow and which should we "deal with"?

Furthermore, I've said it before, we're concerned with the issues HERE in this country.
PETA tries to use the same backwards pledges of trying to save the animals that are treated poorly while ignoring the fact that people are murdered, treated poorly and need help. Lets get our priorities straight. If we can't learn to correct issues here and save our own here, how are we ever going to be able to claim, or think we have any ability or right to think we can compare our issues with someone outside of our own country?
Besides unless you are actually personally involved with correcting the issues for those that are worse off in other countries, then you have no real position to spout this as a reason to deny prejudice or claim that its only "perceived".

What type of bankrupt mentality claims those in this country should deal with it because others have it worse overseas and does nothing to correct the injustices happening on either side? Thats a moral or ethical position to stand beside? ???

You're right about one thing.  Affirmative action encourages bigotry.  Fixing the racism of the past isn't done by creating racism in the opposite direction, which is exactly what affirmative action is.

Hey, like I said, I don't like it, and don't want it, it only helps support backward thinking of prejudiced views. But its a necessary evil, as long as people believe there is no bigotry and continue to foster some claim of a perceived prejudice that others encounter, then it'll be in place. And as Malcolm X stated very truthfully, theres no way you can claim reverse racism from any minority to the majority. Its a ridiculous concept, Affirmative Action is simply the result and reaction of prejudice towards minorities for many, many years, minorities didn't start that and can't claim responsibility for it. If you break a window there are going to shards of glass around and you might get cut. Don't want to get cut? Don't break the glass or deny that there is broken glass...and don't tell me you didn't break the glass, even so. its there, and it has to be acknowledged and cleaned up.
There are always going to be repercussions from transgressions from the past, can't sweep what was done before under a rug and think there will not be some retribution to be paid and pain from it. Hey, like you said life's not fair, but we have the power to change it, recognizing that there is still a problem and stopping this "perceived" prejudice notions and and help bring bigotry to and end. Otherwise "deal with it". ;)

What do blacks gain from black student unions?  If we're supposed to be colorblind, why do minorities consistently separate themselves from the majority?  They obviously aren't colorblind themselves.

DUH. Blacks Unions gain some amount of power that they didn't have being in the minority to begin with. Black unions don't suddenly gain eminent power to take over a university, but their voices, their opinions get heard a bit better than before. With the exception of black universities, most universities are populated by a white majority. You can't tell me you don't know or recognize this.
They are, by being a minority on campus, ALREADY separated from the majority. They don't have to try to separate themselves, its already done by demographic alone. Muslim, Christian, Jewish Unions and clubs on campus simply try to bring together those that are already separated from the majority. Some semblance of community that the majority already have and not always willing to share.

The point is...  You can't have it both ways.  You can't tell people to treat everyone equally and then turn around and favor people according to race with affirmative action.  You can't expect race to be a nonfactor in society when minorities continually bring it to the forefront.
Like I've mentioned before, the reasons why it exists are partly due to notions and thoughts like yours. Most minorities would completely agree to end it as soon as we rectify the ongoing issues that exist. As long as those issues are denied, and real discriminatory practices and systems are called "perceived" and empty buzz words like "victims" and "victimization" are thrown around nothing will happen to change it.

It's primarily symbolic.  If the majority of voters are willing to have a man who is half-black and looks completely black as president, then it implies that people are at least somewhat trusting of black people in general.  If racism was as bad as some of you have been saying, McCain would've won by a landslide.
I would like to believe that, but the fact is, IMO, Bush had so throughly pissed off so many Americans, and screwed up so much that we could of put a brown bear on either ticket and they'd of given McCain a run for the money.
You say you're a realist, well I'm kind of one too, in that if the majority of the voting public, somehow still thinks that a black man, obviously a liberal in thinking, will be the total opposite of Bush. Race not necessarily being the issue, just to get Dubya out of there and something, anything different in. Hell they would of voted Hillary in if Obama wasn't there, and that in itself is tribute of how messed up Bush got us to. But no, I and hopefully most Americans didn't think that somehow electing a black president would somehow alleviate all of this countries race problems.

Well, if it's so bad here, why not move?
::) What are you, a Nixon Republican driving a '72 Pinto with a "My America, Love it or Leave it" bumpersticker?
This is 2009, and believe it or not, it is possible to criticize the country you live in without having someone question your patriotism and love for it. At least I thought so...I do think the US is the best country in the world, but isn't perfect by a long shot and has some serious problems it needs to address. If you're going to start with the question my patriotism thing, you need to put on a red armband and learn the to march the goose-step.
As cheesy as it sounds, I still think its our patriotic DUTY to stand up for whats right, and call out whats wrong. If not then we don't really have any freedom at all...

I don't expect more from America.  Why?  Because I never believed in the whitewashed version of our history.  For example, the Civil War wasn't about slavery, it was about economics and mostly 2 rich groups of people pitting their poor against each other on the battlefield.  The Civil Rights Movement was something to be proud of, but ultimately, the only reason it happened was because race relations had gotten so bad we couldn't ignore it anymore.

I mostly agree, the Civil War was about economic power, unfortunately that basis of that economic power was the southern states heavily based economy based on slavery, which was based on a widely held perception that it was ok to enslave people of a darker color for profit. Soo...its still unrealistic to think the Civil War didn't have some moral and ethical issues that brought it to the forefront, and to say it didn't have anything to do with slavery is just fooling yourself.
You need to read your history an open your eyes if you think the '60's were the worst of race relations my friend, some of the most unspeakable things done to minorities due to racism were done loonnngg before the beginning of the 20th century and even after that, the things that were done and happened PALE in comparison to the monstrous things that happened just before the Civil Rights Moment began.
There are a lot of ghosts of dark skin that'd like to tell you stories, and put you in say Mississippi circa 1937 to let you know how they would disagree with you on how it was so much "worse" for blacks in the 60's. ::)
What was different about the 1960's was the media and television that brought it to the living room of those that didn't believe it or thought it really happened...

Yet, what we see with our history isn't that different from other countries.  The only thing that does actually make us unique is our ethnic diversity.  Because we have more variance in culture here than most all other countries, we are more prone to cultural and racial conflict, but that doesn't mean we're more prejudiced.  That actually implies the opposite.  The fact that we've stayed a stable country despite our diversity is something to be proud of.

Numerous countries have been unable to handle diversity.  Look at the creation of Kosovo as a nation for the most recent example of a cultural conflict leading to massive conflict.

I view it in the opposite way.  By continually focusing on the social side of things, we miss the forest for the trees.  Economics determine social progress.  Improving healthcare, education, and monetary policy eventually provide an environment where social progress is more likely to occur.
You misunderstand, I've never said or believed the US is more prejudiced, just more in denial of it. And works so HARD to keep itself in that denial. I wholeheartedly agree we need to move forward in improving all that you mentioned, again, unfortunately health care, education and monetary policy has in the past all been directly effected by race in this country previously. You can't improve healthcare, and eduction until you address just why the history of both of those have so miserably failed for minorities in this country.

Nope.  History mostly shows that a country's power is derived by economics and the quality of life for the majority.  Still, I do support racial equality and civil rights.
I might give you that, but keep in mind, the current majority is not always going to be so, and the minorities will (if not already) someday be the majority and they are not satisfied with the quality of life they have.

Technology has continually improved, but human nature remains the same as it was back in ancient times.  By nature, we tend to vex and oppress each other.  It is only through law that we are able to organize and refrain from killing and abusing each other.
You're entitled to think that, its a rather Nietzschean approach to the human state. I just happen to think we are really quite capable of much greater things, so I always see something better and scoff at how easily we let ourselves and others suffer at our own hand.

^God, I love your posts




Whoa...  Again, missing the details here.  The guy Username is talking about is a guy that he works with, not me.  Username can reveal his name if he wants to, but he can vouch for me on this one as well.

I don't tend to call people the N-word because I'd rather not get my @$$ kicked.

Re-read Username's post again.


I misread, and heartily apologize.

But, I would feel better about it if you didn't tend to use the N because it is the wrong thing to do

Affirmative action shouldn't be race based.


People think that affirmative action is based solely on race, but that is not the case.  It is based on race, gender, disability, and yes, relligion.  People have sued for discrimination and won.   As a matter of fact, colleges now are seeing a drop in the academic qualifications of males and have quietly instituted a loosening of requirements to allow for more of them on campus. 

Gumbypiz, you kick ass.   

People think that affirmative action is based solely on race, but that is not the case.  It is based on race, gender, disability, and yes, relligion.  People have sued for discrimination and won.   As a matter of fact, colleges now are seeing a drop in the academic qualifications of males and have quietly instituted a loosening of requirements to allow for more of them on campus. 


I am aware of that, girls are just more motivated and mature than boys which is why they are getting all the primo spots in colleges.  I personally would rather have a competent female doctor/lawyer helping me out than a dude who got in because of modernized affirmative action though.  I think affirmative action should be based solely on socioeconomic status and not what God you worship or what color your skin is, but I guess if it turns out that there's about 10% black people in America and only 4% of them go to college, something should be done...never satisfactory, is it?

Well, if giving a s**t about your fellow man is a being a bleeding heart, then yes I am.  

We all have limits to our compassion.  I'm just more selective about it than you.

I still don't understand what that has to do with me, just because Rush is black and HE thought a Black should have Obama's vacant seat doesn't mean I did or it has anything directly to do with me because I'm black, I'm not a resident in Illinois and doesn't directly involve me. Me, personally don't give a rats a** about that situation. It was caused by the governor that was already impeached and all tracks back to him.

Nice backpedaling.  It doesn't have to relate to you.  It's about the general connection to your race that exists and why it has power in the form of political correctness.

Rod Blagojevich is a scumbag, but he's a very clever one.  He intentionally picked a black guy popular in the black community of Chicago knowing that Burris would be heavily defended by Bobby Rush and many others.  If Rod had picked a white guy, it would've been much easier to deny his entrance into the Senate.  Rod played his cards very well in taking notice of how Obama was the only black senator and how many people like Rush were saying things essentially meaning that this particular seat was owed to the black community.

So again, it may not have to do with you personally, but it's pretty obvious that being a minority can actually be used to your advantage.  If Burris was white, he wouldn't be in the Senate right now, because he wouldn't have had anywhere near the support of that local community.

Maybe I put that incorrectly, its not EQUAL that others get treated differently. Thats part of the law of the land, partly what the country was founded upon. We have the RIGHT to not be treated differently because of the color of our skin, race, or religion. Thats the way it supposed to be. If we accept that one slight can be overlooked, then where do you draw the line? Just which part of the constitution and bill of rights do you want to follow and which should we "deal with"?

Realistically?  I would like to prevent you from being discriminated against in hiring practices and having access to things like public amenities.

There's a big difference between how people might treat you in subtle ways and how they can actually violate your rights.  The freedom of speech is generally construed as granting the freedom to think whatever you want and say whatever you want.  So, if someone wants to be a racist, they can still perceive you and communicate with you however they like.

It's not a pleasant thing, but it is true.  Being a racist is not illegal, nor should it be.  Certain racist actions are illegal, however.  That's where the law comes in.  Civil rights legislation generally covers all that is necessary to give you equal rights.  The rest is up to individuals.  The government can't force you to stop being a racist.  The government also can't force people to not move out of a neighborhood just because a black family moves in down the street.   Unfortunately, there are certain racist actions that occur in America that are still legal, but they tend to be of a subtle variety which can only diminish through time.  No law can really vanquish these sorts of things.

Also, some of these actions are the result of certain people fitting stereotypes.  Some people have prejudices against blacks because of crimes committed disproportionately more often by them in certain areas.  Again, before anyone accuses me of it, I'm not justifying racism, but I am trying to explain the context of why it occurs.

In short, racism doesn't occur in a vacuum.

Furthermore, I've said it before, we're concerned with the issues HERE in this country.
PETA tries to use the same backwards pledges of trying to save the animals that are treated poorly while ignoring the fact that people are murdered, treated poorly and need help. Lets get our priorities straight. If we can't learn to correct issues here and save our own here, how are we ever going to be able to claim, or think we have any ability or right to think we can compare our issues with someone outside of our own country?

Your logic is somewhat flawed here, because surely, we can agree that our society will always have issues.  No matter how far we go in trying to diminish racism, it will exist in some fashion.  It's like what the movie Bulworth said, "the only way to end racism is for us all to keep ****ing each other until we're all the same race."  And even if we took that approach, we'd discriminate against each other over other things like weight or religion (as I mentioned earlier).

So, realistically, we simply must come to terms with a minimal threshold of prejudice we are willing to accept.  For me, this threshold is mostly already attained.

By the same token, murder and poverty will always exist in this country.  Although, we can probably agree that neither of these have reached a tolerable minimal threshold.

So, in realizing that we will always have issues, it is not very logical to assume that one cannot use the rest of the world as a yardstick for measuring societal progress just because we have issues already here.  We still do have one of the best countries to live in.  If you don't agree with me on that one, well, there's really not much else I can say there.

Besides unless you are actually personally involved with correcting the issues for those that are worse off in other countries, then you have no real position to spout this as a reason to deny prejudice or claim that its only "perceived".

Two can play that game, gumby.  If you want to make that assertion, then I could say the same about you concerning prejudice in general.  Are you part of an activist group that specifically works toward improving race relations?  Are you a community organizer similar to how Obama was in Chicago?

I mean, if you are, I commend you, but if we're being honest here, I have a feeling you're no more active on social issues than I am.

What type of bankrupt mentality claims those in this country should deal with it because others have it worse overseas and does nothing to correct the injustices happening on either side? Thats a moral or ethical position to stand beside? ???

You'll note that never have I brought up the moral question.  Everything I've posted is based on logic or pragmatism.  You've injected morals into the discussion, but I haven't used that as part of my rationale.

But, I'll humor you.  Morally speaking, it's a question of priorities (as you mentioned earlier).  If I were to become active in government, I would probably address economic concerns before any less tangible ones like this one.  To me, perceptions are driven by circumstance.  Actions are also dictated by them.  So, if we assume that most of the reason why people have prejudices against blacks is because of crime, then I would address the root causes of this crime.   I would assume that most crime is done due to poverty, so logically, the best course of action would be to lessen this crime through improving education and healthcare access while finding some creative way to help these people find work easier.

To me, that would be the most moral thing to do.  The annoyances of having to deal with subtle differences in behavior coming from certain people because of your race would seem to be rather minor in the grand scheme of things.

In short, progress is best approached through tangible means rather than concerning one's self with the fleeting and flawed perceptions of certain people.

Hey, like I said, I don't like it, and don't want it, it only helps support backward thinking of prejudiced views. But its a necessary evil, as long as people believe there is no bigotry and continue to foster some claim of a perceived prejudice that others encounter, then it'll be in place. And as Malcolm X stated very truthfully, theres no way you can claim reverse racism from any minority to the majority. Its a ridiculous concept, Affirmative Action is simply the result and reaction of prejudice towards minorities for many, many years, minorities didn't start that and can't claim responsibility for it. If you break a window there are going to shards of glass around and you might get cut. Don't want to get cut? Don't break the glass or deny that there is broken glass...and don't tell me you didn't break the glass, even so. its there, and it has to be acknowledged and cleaned up.
There are always going to be repercussions from transgressions from the past, can't sweep what was done before under a rug and think there will not be some retribution to be paid and pain from it. Hey, like you said life's not fair, but we have the power to change it, recognizing that there is still a problem and stopping this "perceived" prejudice notions and and help bring bigotry to and end. Otherwise "deal with it". ;)

What about the subtle Achilles heel of affirmative action?  Are you aware that the system in its current form pits rich minorities against poor ones?

For example, a rich black student is just as eligible for a race-based scholarship as a poor one.  The rich black student will likely have a lot more opportunities to work with before even accepting the scholarship.  He/she could afford employing a personal tutor to help him/her with studying.   This competition between wealthy minorities and poor ones happens all the time, and the net effect is that it increases the opportunity gap between the rich and poor within a given race.

So the irony of this situation is that affirmative action was created initially to help close the wealth gap between whites and minorities.  Now that it's been about 40 years since its inception, times have obviously changed a lot for minorities.  Now, there are plenty of wealthy minorities just like there are wealthy whites.

What I'm getting at here is that basing affirmative action on class (regardless of race) would make more sense than what we're currently doing.  A rich black student or worker doesn't need anymore help than a rich white one, and by allowing wealthy minorities to still benefit from affirmative action, you've essentially made it harder for the poor minorities to adapt to society.

In the end, class defines your opportunities much more than race does.

DUH. Blacks Unions gain some amount of power that they didn't have being in the minority to begin with. Black unions don't suddenly gain eminent power to take over a university, but their voices, their opinions get heard a bit better than before. With the exception of black universities, most universities are populated by a white majority. You can't tell me you don't know or recognize this.
They are, by being a minority on campus, ALREADY separated from the majority. They don't have to try to separate themselves, its already done by demographic alone. Muslim, Christian, Jewish Unions and clubs on campus simply try to bring together those that are already separated from the majority. Some semblance of community that the majority already have and not always willing to share.

This presents an interesting dilemma.

The question I have for you is...  do you believe in equality?  If so, do you believe in the equality of individuals as well?

If you answered yes to both of those questions, then doesn't proportionate representation make the most sense for equality?  If so, then isn't it also logical to believe that minorities should have a voice directly as significant as their numbers would naturally allow.

If you are greatly outnumbered by a majority, then in my mind, your voice should be smaller.

I know that if I go to A & T University in my city of Greensboro, I will be a very small minority being white.  The vast majority of A & T is black, so naturally, black culture predominates.  I would not expect whites to have much of a voice there.  If the situation were reversed, I would not expect blacks to have much of a voice.

Like I've mentioned before, the reasons why it exists are partly due to notions and thoughts like yours. Most minorities would completely agree to end it as soon as we rectify the ongoing issues that exist. As long as those issues are denied, and real discriminatory practices and systems are called "perceived" and empty buzz words like "victims" and "victimization" are thrown around nothing will happen to change it.

Providing a few examples would probably strengthen your argument some.

I would like to believe that, but the fact is, IMO, Bush had so throughly pissed off so many Americans, and screwed up so much that we could of put a brown bear on either ticket and they'd of given McCain a run for the money.
You say you're a realist, well I'm kind of one too, in that if the majority of the voting public, somehow still thinks that a black man, obviously a liberal in thinking, will be the total opposite of Bush. Race not necessarily being the issue, just to get Dubya out of there and something, anything different in. Hell they would of voted Hillary in if Obama wasn't there, and that in itself is tribute of how messed up Bush got us to. But no, I and hopefully most Americans didn't think that somehow electing a black president would somehow alleviate all of this countries race problems. ::)

I halfway agree with you, but you seem to downplay any trust the public might have with the black community.  Why is that?

What are you, a Nixon Republican driving a '72 Pinto with a "My America, Love it or Leave it" bumpersticker?
This is 2009, and believe it or not, it is possible to criticize the country you live in without having someone question your patriotism and love for it. At least I thought so...I do think the US is the best country in the world, but isn't perfect by a long shot and has some serious problems it needs to address. If you're going to start with the question my patriotism thing, you need to put on a red armband and learn the to march the goose-step.
As cheesy as it sounds, I still think its our patriotic DUTY to stand up for whats right, and call out whats wrong. If not then we don't really have any freedom at all...

I had a feeling you would interpret it that way.  Danoota did as well when I asked her.

I'm not a very patriotic person.  I also criticize this country on quite a bit myself, but the question I presented to you was, believe it or not, an honest one.  I wasn't trying to question your patriotism, because I don't have much of that myself.

The point is that we still are much nicer to live in than most of the world.  So, again, I was trying to see what your frame of reference is here.  You've mentioned a lot concerning your ideals for this society, but for me, I usually try to aspire for something I've already seen in reality.

For example, Norway embodies a lot of what I think America should become.  They have excellent social programs, education, and healthcare access.  I think we're too large and culturally conflicted to ever really become another Norway, but there are things we could learn from them.

Do you see any examples in the outside world of the sort of thing you're trying to achieve with this society?  If not, then that might imply that your ideals are not particularly realistic.

I mostly agree, the Civil War was about economic power, unfortunately that basis of that economic power was the southern states heavily based economy based on slavery, which was based on a widely held perception that it was ok to enslave people of a darker color for profit. Soo...its still unrealistic to think the Civil War didn't have some moral and ethical issues that brought it to the forefront, and to say it didn't have anything to do with slavery is just fooling yourself.
You need to read your history an open your eyes if you think the '60's were the worst of race relations my friend, some of the most unspeakable things done to minorities due to racism were done loonnngg before the beginning of the 20th century and even after that, the things that were done and happened PALE in comparison to the monstrous things that happened just before the Civil Rights Moment began.
There are a lot of ghosts of dark skin that'd like to tell you stories, and put you in say Mississippi circa 1937 to let you know how they would disagree with you on how it was so much "worse" for blacks in the 60's. ::)
What was different about the 1960's was the media and television that brought it to the living room of those that didn't believe it or thought it really happened...

I'm not sure where you got the idea that I thought the 60s were the worst of our race relations.

I've mostly just focused on the fact that the nature of racism has changed a lot since the '60s.

You misunderstand, I've never said or believed the US is more prejudiced, just more in denial of it. And works so HARD to keep itself in that denial. I wholeheartedly agree we need to move forward in improving all that you mentioned, again, unfortunately health care, education and monetary policy has in the past all been directly effected by race in this country previously. You can't improve healthcare, and eduction until you address just why the history of both of those have so miserably failed for minorities in this country.

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on the last point.  Economic policy eventually directs social policy, not the other way around.

I might give you that, but keep in mind, the current majority is not always going to be so, and the minorities will (if not already) someday be the majority and they are not satisfied with the quality of life they have.

In most cases, once a cultural minority becomes the majority, it eventually becomes the most powerful class.  This is more likely to occur in America than in most other countries because of the openness of our markets.

You're entitled to think that, its a rather Nietzschean approach to the human state. I just happen to think we are really quite capable of much greater things, so I always see something better and scoff at how easily we let ourselves and others suffer at our own hand.


I used to scoff at our tendency to do horrible things to each other, but that eventually just depressed me too much.

We both are aiming to improve society, but we just prefer different methods.

People think that affirmative action is based solely on race, but that is not the case.  It is based on race, gender, disability, and yes, relligion.  People have sued for discrimination and won.   As a matter of fact, colleges now are seeing a drop in the academic qualifications of males and have quietly instituted a loosening of requirements to allow for more of them on campus. 


I personally think the only criteria for assistance should be for disabilities and poverty.  Gender and religion are equally as irrelevant as race.

Affirmative action shouldn't be race based.

Nor should Sex and the City fan clubs.
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/13/icon_rendeer.gif

Nice backpedaling.  It doesn't have to relate to you.  It's about the general connection to your race that exists and why it has power in the form of political correctness.

In your context it did relate to me and the association of the color of my skin and all others of with that same skin color, you stated that it was a agenda held by minorities, I'm stating that your generalization of that is false (a prejudiced view), in that not all of those of the same skin agree or would use race as a wedge in political matters..

Rod Blagojevich is a scumbag, but he's a very clever one.  He intentionally picked a black guy popular in the black community of Chicago knowing that Burris would be heavily defended by Bobby Rush and many others.  If Rod had picked a white guy, it would've been much easier to deny his entrance into the Senate.  Rod played his cards very well in taking notice of how Obama was the only black senator and how many people like Rush were saying things essentially meaning that this particular seat was owed to the black community.

I completely agree with the latter part, its wrong to think an elected position is "owed" by any party or group, but in this particular instance its almost impossible to really claim this is entirely part of or a direct result of a black political agenda as you state, not as long as Blagojevich's corruption is in play. Once this situation has been tainted by the hands of corruption the whole thing is dirty, and its impossible to claim any one part of it has an agenda or motive, its all bad.

So again, it may not have to do with you personally, but it's pretty obvious that being a minority can actually be used to your advantage.  If Burris was white, he wouldn't be in the Senate right now, because he wouldn't have had anywhere near the support of that local community.

But Burris is already under fire to resign and most likely will have to resign, even if he manages to stay his effectiveness in the position has been nullified...so the point is moot there. I'll give you latitude in trying to use this Burris/Blagojevich situation as an example, but its just too muddied with political scandal to use in this debate effectively.

Your logic is somewhat flawed here, because surely, we can agree that our society will always have issues.  No matter how far we go in trying to diminish racism, it will exist in some fashion.  It's like what the movie Bulworth said, "the only way to end racism is for us all to keep ****ing each other until we're all the same race."  And even if we took that approach, we'd discriminate against each other over other things like weight or religion (as I mentioned earlier).

So, realistically, we simply must come to terms with a minimal threshold of prejudice we are willing to accept.  For me, this threshold is mostly already attained.

By the same token, murder and poverty will always exist in this country.  Although, we can probably agree that neither of these have reached a tolerable minimal threshold.

So, in realizing that we will always have issues, it is not very logical to assume that one cannot use the rest of the world as a yardstick for measuring societal progress just because we have issues already here.  We still do have one of the best countries to live in.  If you don't agree with me on that one, well, there's really not much else I can say there.

I do not agree, you're comparing apples and oranges. Its one thing to say some other country has it worse than us, especially when unlike the US, they don't have the ability to change the situation, whereas we do.
I do think its irresponsible, at least in context, to say its OK to ignore, or that we should be somehow satisfied with the level of discrimination here just because some other country has it worse off than we do, because they're operating or governed upon (usually lower) different standards than we. We have much more opportunity and privilege to recognize and change the situation for the better, and in not doing so, that just reaffirms the threads original title, suggesting this nation being cowardly and not addressing correctable problems with race.

Two can play that game, gumby.  If you want to make that assertion, then I could say the same about you concerning prejudice in general.  Are you part of an activist group that specifically works toward improving race relations?  Are you a community organizer similar to how Obama was in Chicago?

I mean, if you are, I commend you, but if we're being honest here, I have a feeling you're no more active on social issues than I am.

Actually I am involved in my community, I did (and do) not want to spout my affiliation with groups I am part of to prove my point, but now that you've asked...I wanted not to automatically turn off or prejudice you or others ideas on my intentions or motives for responding so strongly to this thread. No, not as Obama, but in a less political, but more community and mobility focused way here in my town. And although I had not initially become involved for any racial or other problems of discrimination reasons, I've found that its difficult to be a part of it without recognizing its effect.

You'll note that never have I brought up the moral question.  Everything I've posted is based on logic or pragmatism.  You've injected morals into the discussion, but I haven't used that as part of my rationale.

But, I'll humor you.  Morally speaking, it's a question of priorities (as you mentioned earlier).  If I were to become active in government, I would probably address economic concerns before any less tangible ones like this one.  To me, perceptions are driven by circumstance.  Actions are also dictated by them.  So, if we assume that most of the reason why people have prejudices against blacks is because of crime, then I would address the root causes of this crime.   I would assume that most crime is done due to poverty, so logically, the best course of action would be to lessen this crime through improving education and healthcare access while finding some creative way to help these people find work easier.

To me, that would be the most moral thing to do.  The annoyances of having to deal with subtle differences in behavior coming from certain people because of your race would seem to be rather minor in the grand scheme of things.

In short, progress is best approached through tangible means rather than concerning one's self with the fleeting and flawed perceptions of certain people.

Hey, I agree with that, I think most would, but as I said previously, education and healthcare for minorities and for those that it would do most good have been historically underfunded and poorly implemented. I'm saying that the effects of bigotry and racism effects how healthcare and education ($$) is applied.
What about the subtle Achilles heel of affirmative action?  Are you aware that the system in its current form pits rich minorities against poor ones?

For example, a rich black student is just as eligible for a race-based scholarship as a poor one.  The rich black student will likely have a lot more opportunities to work with before even accepting the scholarship.  He/she could afford employing a personal tutor to help him/her with studying.   This competition between wealthy minorities and poor ones happens all the time, and the net effect is that it increases the opportunity gap between the rich and poor within a given race.

So the irony of this situation is that affirmative action was created initially to help close the wealth gap between whites and minorities.  Now that it's been about 40 years since its inception, times have obviously changed a lot for minorities.  Now, there are plenty of wealthy minorities just like there are wealthy whites.

What I'm getting at here is that basing affirmative action on class (regardless of race) would make more sense than what we're currently doing.  A rich black student or worker doesn't need anymore help than a rich white one, and by allowing wealthy minorities to still benefit from affirmative action, you've essentially made it harder for the poor minorities to adapt to society.

In the end, class defines your opportunities much more than race does.

I don't know about that, I have to say I was brought up from a better than upper middle class black family, I remember filing out all the paperwork for colleges and although I would of been offered some scholarships due to affirmative action, I know I didn't qualify for many just due to the my parents income.
Personally, from my experience, I do believe much of the process for filling for financial aid already puts a barrier between those richer than others from the outset.

This presents an interesting dilemma.

The question I have for you is...  do you believe in equality?  If so, do you believe in the equality of individuals as well?

If you answered yes to both of those questions, then doesn't proportionate representation make the most sense for equality?  If so, then isn't it also logical to believe that minorities should have a voice directly as significant as their numbers would naturally allow.

If you are greatly outnumbered by a majority, then in my mind, your voice should be smaller.

I know that if I go to A & T University in my city of Greensboro, I will be a very small minority being white.  The vast majority of A & T is black, so naturally, black culture predominates.  I would not expect whites to have much of a voice there.  If the situation were reversed, I would not expect blacks to have much of a voice.

But your questions just amplifies the issue...yes I DO believe in equality, I do believe in the equality of individuals as well.
Problem is some others don't.
But I disagree, proportionate representation makes the most sense for the MAJORITY, nothing more. Not for equality.
We have a popular vote for majority, we have a senate, an electoral college to try to maintain some sense of equality from the majority vote (or thats the way we're told its supposed to work).
By definition equality is correspondence in quantity AND degree, value, rank, or ability. A majority representation doesn't always address value, or ability, often times not at all. Equality is everyone having the same social status, no social state or social class. I believe its naive to think majority rule doesn't create a defacto separate social class by being in the minority.  I think you'll agree that total belief or support in majority/mob rule is not in the best interest of neither the majority or the minority.
And to follow up on a previous question you raised, in this particular case, I would totally expect whites to form a white union at a black college, and have absolutely no reason to call it racist at all. For the same reasons blacks or other minorities would create their own unions at a traditionally white majority populated college.

And interesting aside, most of my family is from/still in Greensboro, lived there a few years myself. Want to someday buy a home and retire there...something I'm not going to be able to afford to do here in lovely southern Cali.

I halfway agree with you, but you seem to downplay any trust the public might have with the black community.  Why is that?

Of that I will admit to the effects of a bigoted society on my thinking, and not really having complete faith in the motives or the ulterior motives of electing a black man as president.
I had a feeling you would interpret it that way.  Danoota did as well when I asked her.

I'm not a very patriotic person.  I also criticize this country on quite a bit myself, but the question I presented to you was, believe it or not, an honest one.  I wasn't trying to question your patriotism, because I don't have much of that myself.

The point is that we still are much nicer to live in than most of the world.  So, again, I was trying to see what your frame of reference is here.  You've mentioned a lot concerning your ideals for this society, but for me, I usually try to aspire for something I've already seen in reality.

For example, Norway embodies a lot of what I think America should become.  They have excellent social programs, education, and healthcare access.  I think we're too large and culturally conflicted to ever really become another Norway, but there are things we could learn from them.

Do you see any examples in the outside world of the sort of thing you're trying to achieve with this society?  If not, then that might imply that your ideals are not particularly realistic.

I think looking outside of the US for answers is a good way for ideas, but not for implantation. You can't really expect successful programs implemented in homogeneous society to work here, at least not in the same manner. But I agree that doesn't mean we can't learn from them. And I also think you're too harsh on your opinion that we're too culturally conflicted. Just the opposite, I believe our diversity in the US IS our strength. We do learn from outside of our boarders, most because a lot of those people from those country's decide to live here. That says loads about what the US has too offer, even today.
A lot of anti-immigration people don't understand that. Homogeneous societies outside the US have never attained the status of living, wealth and social growth that we have, despite the ongoing and current economic problems.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that I thought the 60s were the worst of our race relations.

I've mostly just focused on the fact that the nature of racism has changed a lot since the '60s.

One of your responses in previous posts mentioned that
The Civil Rights Movement was something to be proud of, but ultimately, the only reason it happened was because race relations had gotten so bad we couldn't ignore it anymore.

I was trying to highlight the fact that the Civil Rights Movement did NOT happen because race relations had gotten so bad, and want to make it clear that it had ALWAYS been that bad and in some cases, worse. The only thing that changed was that it got more media and television exposure than it had previously. Both Malcolm X, and MLK Jr, used the media in much more effective a way than say Marcus Garvey could of have used it before. The visual of Bull Connors dogs, hosing of black protesters, helped bring what was already happening to blacks for YEARS to the forefront.

And YES, the nature of racism has changed, thats my biggest point I've been trying to make. The subtly of discrimination has been noted as being "perceived". As if the points of it are made up, a result of paranoia, over-sensitivity for being a "victim" or result of playing the race card..
I'm trying to make the point that it IS there and it has just gone underground to come out and manifest itself in other ways. Which, in many instances is more infuriatingly frustrating to combat than more blatant racism is, as many refuse to recognize or acknowledge it.

We both are aiming to improve society, but we just prefer different methods.

True that.

One again

http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/15/wav.gif

In your context it did relate to me and the association of the color of my skin and all others of with that same skin color, you stated that it was a agenda held by minorities, I'm stating that your generalization of that is false (a prejudiced view), in that not all of those of the same skin agree or would use race as a wedge in political matters..

Again, you're misinterpreting me here.  I was suggesting that certain people within your race use race as a wedge.  The opportunity to use it as a wedge is available to anyone within your race.

So what I'm suggesting is quite different from what you're saying here.  It doesn't matter whether or not you're using it as a wedge, because people in power do it.  As long as people like Bobby Rush and Al Sharpton intentionally use race whenever it might benefit them politically, there are legitimate complaints involving political correctness and how it relates to race.

Furthermore, those guys would be nothing more than blowhards if certain people within the black community didn't play into their hands.  A lot of Chicago's black community reacted exactly how Rush and Rod wanted them to.  They bought into the race part of the conflict and defended Burris despite the implications of being selected by a corrupt governor.

I completely agree with the latter part, its wrong to think an elected position is "owed" by any party or group, but in this particular instance its almost impossible to really claim this is entirely part of or a direct result of a black political agenda as you state, not as long as Blagojevich's corruption is in play. Once this situation has been tainted by the hands of corruption the whole thing is dirty, and its impossible to claim any one part of it has an agenda or motive, its all bad.

Again, it's a matter of being an agenda among certain people in power within the black community like I mentioned above.

But Burris is already under fire to resign and most likely will have to resign, even if he manages to stay his effectiveness in the position has been nullified...so the point is moot there. I'll give you latitude in trying to use this Burris/Blagojevich situation as an example, but its just too muddied with political scandal to use in this debate effectively.

If you've been following the situation, you'll know that most of the pressure is now coming from his admission that he was approached by Blagojevich's campaign for funds in exchange for the position.  This contradicts his previous testimony that Blagojevich didn't engage in any pay for play deals that he knew of.

So, while the situation is muddled by corruption, it certainly doesn't remove the race factor from the discussion, especially with the aforementioned involvement of Rush.

I do not agree, you're comparing apples and oranges. Its one thing to say some other country has it worse than us, especially when unlike the US, they don't have the ability to change the situation, whereas we do.
I do think its irresponsible, at least in context, to say its OK to ignore, or that we should be somehow satisfied with the level of discrimination here just because some other country has it worse off than we do, because they're operating or governed upon (usually lower) different standards than we. We have much more opportunity and privilege to recognize and change the situation for the better, and in not doing so, that just reaffirms the threads original title, suggesting this nation being cowardly and not addressing correctable problems with race.

I see where you're coming from, but generally speaking, at this point, most of what's going on with regard to race nowadays is political correctness.  Again, how are we supposed to change the subtle things we've talked about?  Do you really think the average person is going to be devoid of prejudice in the near future?  That's rather naive.

Actually I am involved in my community, I did (and do) not want to spout my affiliation with groups I am part of to prove my point, but now that you've asked...I wanted not to automatically turn off or prejudice you or others ideas on my intentions or motives for responding so strongly to this thread. No, not as Obama, but in a less political, but more community and mobility focused way here in my town. And although I had not initially become involved for any racial or other problems of discrimination reasons, I've found that its difficult to be a part of it without recognizing its effect.

Well, in that case, I commend you.  :)

Hey, I agree with that, I think most would, but as I said previously, education and healthcare for minorities and for those that it would do most good have been historically underfunded and poorly implemented. I'm saying that the effects of bigotry and racism effects how healthcare and education ($$) is applied.

In the past, yes.  Nowadays, it's class-based.  A poor white community is not going to be any better off than a poor black one.

I don't know about that, I have to say I was brought up from a better than upper middle class black family, I remember filing out all the paperwork for colleges and although I would of been offered some scholarships due to affirmative action, I know I didn't qualify for many just due to the my parents income.
Personally, from my experience, I do believe much of the process for filling for financial aid already puts a barrier between those richer than others from the outset.

If that's true, then why not leave it purely as a class-based thing?  As someone from a wealthier family, you obviously didn't need the help as much as a poor person would.  Even poor white people would need more help than you.

But your questions just amplifies the issue...yes I DO believe in equality, I do believe in the equality of individuals as well.
Problem is some others don't.
But I disagree, proportionate representation makes the most sense for the MAJORITY, nothing more. Not for equality.
We have a popular vote for majority, we have a senate, an electoral college to try to maintain some sense of equality from the majority vote (or thats the way we're told its supposed to work).
By definition equality is correspondence in quantity AND degree, value, rank, or ability. A majority representation doesn't always address value, or ability, often times not at all. Equality is everyone having the same social status, no social state or social class. I believe its naive to think majority rule doesn't create a defacto separate social class by being in the minority.  I think you'll agree that total belief or support in majority/mob rule is not in the best interest of neither the majority or the minority.
And to follow up on a previous question you raised, in this particular case, I would totally expect whites to form a white union at a black college, and have absolutely no reason to call it racist at all. For the same reasons blacks or other minorities would create their own unions at a traditionally white majority populated college.

I suppose this is where we disagree.  I believe in straight majorities ruling.  This is why I despise the Electoral College and I believe the Senate overvalues the input of smaller states.

I generally prefer the referendum style governing of Ancient Greece over republics.  Granted, I realize the republic is used mostly because of practical concerns.

And interesting aside, most of my family is from/still in Greensboro, lived there a few years myself. Want to someday buy a home and retire there...something I'm not going to be able to afford to do here in lovely southern Cali.

Wow... small world.  :)  Well, it is much cheaper here, but crime has been going up.  It would appear that Durham is exporting many problems here (as are certain political refugees coming from African war zones).  We just got a new gang unit for the Greensboro PD to deal with MS13 as well.  Our HIV rate is also much higher than the norm.

Generally speaking, I plan on getting the hell out of here as soon as I can afford it.  I did enjoy growing up here as a kid, but things have changed here, and a lot of it has not been for the better.

I'll probably end up in Colorado in about 5 to 10 years.  Denver is more my kind of city.

Of that I will admit to the effects of a bigoted society on my thinking, and not really having complete faith in the motives or the ulterior motives of electing a black man as president.

Ulterior motives?  You'll have to explain that one.

I think looking outside of the US for answers is a good way for ideas, but not for implantation. You can't really expect successful programs implemented in homogeneous society to work here, at least not in the same manner. But I agree that doesn't mean we can't learn from them. And I also think you're too harsh on your opinion that we're too culturally conflicted. Just the opposite, I believe our diversity in the US IS our strength. We do learn from outside of our boarders, most because a lot of those people from those country's decide to live here. That says loads about what the US has too offer, even today.
A lot of anti-immigration people don't understand that. Homogeneous societies outside the US have never attained the status of living, wealth and social growth that we have, despite the ongoing and current economic problems.

That's not true, actually.  All the top countries on the HDI are small and homogeneous compared to us.

Here are some examples:

Norway (#2), Canada (#3), Australia (#4), Ireland (#5), Netherlands (#6), Sweden (#7), Japan (#8).

I left out Iceland (#1), because the latest HDI does not take into account the recent banking collapse of that country.  Canada is the only one of those that is fairly diverse, and Japan is the largest, although they have less than half of our population.

I would argue that diversity does help in having a flexible social environment, but it really has no bearing on economics or quality of life.

A lot of the reason why people move here is because of (1) our openness, (2) our media, and (3) our relatively low cost of living compared to most First World nations.

Certain professionals move here because they can make and keep more of their own money here as well, but again, this has less to do with our already present diversity and more to do with our economic policies.

I was trying to highlight the fact that the Civil Rights Movement did NOT happen because race relations had gotten so bad, and want to make it clear that it had ALWAYS been that bad and in some cases, worse. The only thing that changed was that it got more media and television exposure than it had previously. Both Malcolm X, and MLK Jr, used the media in much more effective a way than say Marcus Garvey could of have used it before. The visual of Bull Connors dogs, hosing of black protesters, helped bring what was already happening to blacks for YEARS to the forefront.

Ah, good points.  I'll concede on that one then.

And YES, the nature of racism has changed, thats my biggest point I've been trying to make. The subtly of discrimination has been noted as being "perceived". As if the points of it are made up, a result of paranoia, over-sensitivity for being a "victim" or result of playing the race card..
I'm trying to make the point that it IS there and it has just gone underground to come out and manifest itself in other ways. Which, in many instances is more infuriatingly frustrating to combat than more blatant racism is, as many refuse to recognize or acknowledge it

Alright, I'll give you that one too, but...  people really do play the race card sometimes.

Again, you're misinterpreting me here.  I was suggesting that certain people within your race use race as a wedge.  The opportunity to use it as a wedge is available to anyone within your race.

So what I'm suggesting is quite different from what you're saying here.  It doesn't matter whether or not you're using it as a wedge, because people in power do it.  As long as people like Bobby Rush and Al Sharpton intentionally use race whenever it might benefit them politically, there are legitimate complaints involving political correctness and how it relates to race.

Furthermore, those guys would be nothing more than blowhards if certain people within the black community didn't play into their hands.  A lot of Chicago's black community reacted exactly how Rush and Rod wanted them to.  They bought into the race part of the conflict and defended Burris despite the implications of being selected by a corrupt governor.

Again, it's a matter of being an agenda among certain people in power within the black community like I mentioned above.

If you've been following the situation, you'll know that most of the pressure is now coming from his admission that he was approached by Blagojevich's campaign for funds in exchange for the position.  This contradicts his previous testimony that Blagojevich didn't engage in any pay for play deals that he knew of.

So, while the situation is muddled by corruption, it certainly doesn't remove the race factor from the discussion, especially with the aforementioned involvement of Rush.
No, I admit I've turned off much of following it closely, its a bag of bricks to me. A little distracted here as we've got the Governator digging into our empty pockets for $$ we don't have while the state pays people with IOU's...But I guess I can understand the gist of what you're trying to say...but again neither Sharpton, nor Rush would have the power to manipulate anyone if racism didn't exist to such an extent that it effects those that they're trying to manipulate.

I see where you're coming from, but generally speaking, at this point, most of what's going on with regard to race nowadays is political correctness.  Again, how are we supposed to change the subtle things we've talked about?  Do you really think the average person is going to be devoid of prejudice in the near future?  That's rather naive.

No, I don't think so, not naive, just idealistic. Maybe not now or next decade, but maybe someday. I think its an empty soul who doesn't hold that ideal for the future. This is America, we can and should do always strive to do better. We shouldn't ever really be satisfied at some certain level of discrimination, who or what determines what that level should be and what should it be for one race, religion, or creed over another? In order to not stagnate and even slide back, we have to be pushing further ahead. We wouldn't of gotten to where the US is today (there'd BE no US today) without someone, and lots of others had ideals of something greater than what was already in place..."You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one..."

In the past, yes.  Nowadays, it's class-based.  A poor white community is not going to be any better off than a poor black one.
I'd like to think that, but the fact is if it were true, there wouldn't be a designation, it'd be just a poor communty, not a white or black one. Obviously whether its a political or social issues between white or black, if they were really the same their wouldn't be any a seperate white community than the black one. I'm certain, that given the choice, you'd rather be in the poor white community when it came to dealing with the police, or medical services for example, 'cause I'd sure rather not be in the black one in those situations, because it'd be lacking. So there is still a separation in race happening there even in the same economic class.

If that's true, then why not leave it purely as a class-based thing?  As someone from a wealthier family, you obviously didn't need the help as much as a poor person would.  Even poor white people would need more help than you.
But it really kind of is, a poor white student, in this case would of been offered or qualified for student loans, grants and scholarships that I didn't because of my family's income.

I suppose this is where we disagree.  I believe in straight majorities ruling.  This is why I despise the Electoral College and I believe the Senate overvalues the input of smaller states.

I generally prefer the referendum style governing of Ancient Greece over republics.  Granted, I realize the republic is used mostly because of practical concerns.

OK, I guess we will agree to disagree. Its just that you'd mentioned believing in equality and having no social class, and a majority rule is going to by its inception create a minority social class and not be equal to all.

I'd use the analogy of having a country of 20 Pauly Shores (scary!) and three Einsteins...majority rule in this case is going to have some problems and systematically reduce the voice of those that may just be the most beneficial to all.

Wow... small world.  :)  Well, it is much cheaper here, but crime has been going up.  It would appear that Durham is exporting many problems here (as are certain political refugees coming from African war zones).  We just got a new gang unit for the Greensboro PD to deal with MS13 as well.  Our HIV rate is also much higher than the norm.

Generally speaking, I plan on getting the hell out of here as soon as I can afford it.  I did enjoy growing up here as a kid, but things have changed here, and a lot of it has not been for the better.

I'll probably end up in Colorado in about 5 to 10 years.  Denver is more my kind of city.

Wow, MS13, in Greensboro? I work with a community group here on the gang issue, I had already herd of the growth of gangs in the south but never really visualized gangs and the sort there. I guess I'm still seeing the Piedmont area as it was in the late '70's when I was a kid, laid back, clean air, no traffic, cookouts and drag races. I guess you can't go home again after all...

Ulterior motives?  You'll have to explain that one.

I'm unfortunately tainted by a history of bigotry of what will happen, in the long run, afterwards. I'm part cynic too..With Obamas election, the scenario of what happened after the failed reconstruction era after the Civil War comes to mind...

That's not true, actually.  All the top countries on the HDI are small and homogeneous compared to us.

Here are some examples:

Norway (#2), Canada (#3), Australia (#4), Ireland (#5), Netherlands (#6), Sweden (#7), Japan (#8).

I left out Iceland (#1), because the latest HDI does not take into account the recent banking collapse of that country.  Canada is the only one of those that is fairly diverse, and Japan is the largest, although they have less than half of our population.

I would argue that diversity does help in having a flexible social environment, but it really has no bearing on economics or quality of life.

A lot of the reason why people move here is because of (1) our openness, (2) our media, and (3) our relatively low cost of living compared to most First World nations.

Certain professionals move here because they can make and keep more of their own money here as well, but again, this has less to do with our already present diversity and more to do with our economic policies.
I'm not sure I have the information to respond, Canada and Australia are not small countries and neither, to my information would be called homogeneous. So by what measure of population percentage does one country qualify to be called that then?

Also, I'd point out that without the huge influx of immigrant labor in the early 20th century, a great deal of expansion and growth of this country would of never taken place. Still now, immigrants (yes, even illegal ones) are participating in the economy and helping sustain it.

Alright, I'll give you that one too, but...  people really do play the race card sometimes.

Sure they do, there are some people so bereft of character they'll use the race card, the sexual discrimination/harassment card or the ageism card or religious persecution card for their own selfish gains.  But we can't assume thats a trait of any particular race or political agenda, thats just an ethically empty, poor excuse for a human being. :P

Thing is if we work to make sure all of this discriminatory stuff that IS happening out there is reduced as much as possible or to the ideal of trying to wipe it out. Eventually these people will have no way to use them.

...but again neither Sharpton, nor Rush would have the power to manipulate anyone if racism didn't exist to such an extent that it effects those that they're trying to manipulate.

Now that...  I can agree with.

No, I don't think so, not naive, just idealistic. Maybe not now or next decade, but maybe someday. I think its an empty soul who doesn't hold that ideal for the future. This is America, we can and should do always strive to do better. We shouldn't ever really be satisfied at some certain level of discrimination, who or what determines what that level should be and what should it be for one race, religion, or creed over another? In order to not stagnate and even slide back, we have to be pushing further ahead. We wouldn't of gotten to where the US is today (there'd BE no US today) without someone, and lots of others had ideals of something greater than what was already in place..."You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one..."

I suppose there was a time when I could've agreed with that, but I'm in a different phase of my life now.  I think the greatest concerns we face are economic.  It may sound pessimistic, but honestly, I think you and I might have to worry more about where our next meal is coming from a few years from now.

Today's racism will seem like a mere annoyance compared to the financial fall we're increasingly headed for.  It's only natural that America's standard of living will fall to accommodate a more even distribution of resources in the world.  Our period of primacy and decadence is evaporating, and while the Third World looks like it has a bright future ahead, the First World will probably be more reminiscent of the current Second World in the near future.

Again, I suppose it's a difference in priorities.  Prejudice seems like a much smaller issue to me than the massive debts we're now facing.

I'd like to think that, but the fact is if it were true, there wouldn't be a designation, it'd be just a poor communty, not a white or black one. Obviously whether its a political or social issues between white or black, if they were really the same their wouldn't be any a seperate white community than the black one. I'm certain, that given the choice, you'd rather be in the poor white community when it came to dealing with the police, or medical services for example, 'cause I'd sure rather not be in the black one in those situations, because it'd be lacking. So there is still a separation in race happening there even in the same economic class.

Well, personally, I'd rather be in the poor white community because, on average, there's less crime.  I know that sounds racist, but statistically, it is true.  I think the police relations you're speaking of have more to do with the prominence of crime than of racism in and of itself, although I'm sure the crime has a way of making people have more negative perceptions of blacks.

But it really kind of is, a poor white student, in this case would of been offered or qualified for student loans, grants and scholarships that I didn't because of my family's income.

Another thing to consider is that California now has more of a class basis to its programs.  Affirmative action was either changed or eliminated from some areas because, in places like Sacramento, there is no racial majority.

So, depending on when you applied for grant assistance, you might have been applying to programs already changed to reflect class, unlike many other states.

OK, I guess we will agree to disagree. Its just that you'd mentioned believing in equality and having no social class, and a majority rule is going to by its inception create a minority social class and not be equal to all.

I'd use the analogy of having a country of 20 Pauly Shores (scary!) and three Einsteins...majority rule in this case is going to have some problems and systematically reduce the voice of those that may just be the most beneficial to all.

I suppose that also depends on who you perceive as the Einsteins and as the Pauly Shores.  The more I think about it, I guess what I support is equality by protection of law but not equality of voices.  I generally believe the majority should rule.

The reason I support this sort of thing has to do with the negative side of our government right now.  In the Federalist Papers, the Founding Fathers warned against allowing the rule of "the tyranny of majorities."  Of course, this was before the advent of modern lobbyism.  Nowadays, we seem to be dominated by special interests -- what I would call the "tyranny of minorities."

So, ultimately, while I would like equal protection under the law of all races and religions, I believe the majority culture should dominate.

If I moved to Canada, I would expect the majority culture of that society to dominate.  If I moved to Mexico, I would expect the majority culture to dominate there as well.

So, I don't see anything wrong with the majority culture being dominant here, as long as your rights aren't violated.

Wow, MS13, in Greensboro? I work with a community group here on the gang issue, I had already herd of the growth of gangs in the south but never really visualized gangs and the sort there. I guess I'm still seeing the Piedmont area as it was in the late '70's when I was a kid, laid back, clean air, no traffic, cookouts and drag races. I guess you can't go home again after all...

Well, there is definitely a lot of economic stratification here.  The North and West sides of town tend to be much safer than the East and South.  Greensboro is apparently only second to Durham in its crime rates per capita among all major NC cities.  Considering how dangerous much of Charlotte is, that was definitely disturbing to discover.  Thankfully, I do live on the West side, so I'm safe, I guess.  I have 2 guns, just in case.

I'm unfortunately tainted by a history of bigotry of what will happen, in the long run, afterwards. I'm part cynic too..With Obamas election, the scenario of what happened after the failed reconstruction era after the Civil War comes to mind...

Now that is a very good point...  Now that you mention Reconstruction, I have to share something with you.

One reason I've never glorified Lincoln like so much of the rest of the country seems to is because abolitionism seemed to be such a hollow movement among the Republican party.  There was a war fought and a big show made of freeing the slaves, but then what happened?...

That 40 acres and a mule thing didn't work out, did it?  It was like all these idealists didn't realize, "hey, we freed the slaves, but gee...  they have no money and most of them have no education or employable skills outside of plantation work."  It was like they didn't understand or didn't care about what the blacks would be left doing after freedom.

As a result, many of the former slaves ended up working on the same plantations as before, while living in an environment that was hostile to them because of the strife caused by the war.  Blacks were obviously an easy scapegoat for abuse by disenfranchised whites.  All the North really seemed interested in was carpetbagging the South.

All that being said, I can definitely relate.  I recently heard a white guy say something like, "Now that we have a black president, institutionalized racism is officially dead."  I was like... "if only..."

So yeah.  I don't think we should get overly excited about having a black president, but I do think that Obama's victory is more than just a statement that Republicans were just that undesirable.  I think a lot of America really does have less issues with race than before.

Another thing to consider is that Obama is a pretty clean cut guy.  He doesn't evoke the thug image.  If he dressed and acted like a rapper, he would've lost.  So I think his victory also shows that, in order to be successful at a higher level in this society, you have to be professional in image.  Obama does seem quite good at appearing cool without appearing too corporate or too shady.

I think that goes well beyond race and more towards culture and attitude.


I'm not sure I have the information to respond, Canada and Australia are not small countries and neither, to my information would be called homogeneous. So by what measure of population percentage does one country qualify to be called that then?

Canada is 1/10th of our population and is the 36th largest country in population.  I suppose that doesn't make them small, but they aren't particularly large either.  Maybe mid-sized is the best description.

Australia is the 51st largest country at 21 million people.  That's pretty small compared to a lot of the world.

Visible minorities in Canada (non-whites) make up about 13.5% of Canada's total population.  Because the Census Bureau measures Hispanics/Latinos separately (and can be applied to any race, since many people are a combination of Latino and Black or Latino and Native American), it's harder to get a grasp of our exact visible minority percentage here, but...  to give you an idea, Latinos make up 15% while Blacks are about 13%.

So, America is considerably more diverse than Canada.  As for Australia, 90% of them are of European descent.  Again, we're considerably more diverse than they are.

Also, I'd point out that without the huge influx of immigrant labor in the early 20th century, a great deal of expansion and growth of this country would of never taken place. Still now, immigrants (yes, even illegal ones) are participating in the economy and helping sustain it.

There are 2 things to consider here.  First, that period you mention was when we had a factory economy.  We produced a lot more than we consumed back then, and we were a manufacturing powerhouse.  Nowadays, most of the economy is service-based, and we consume a lot more than we produce.  The population was also much smaller back then as well.  Essentially, we needed a lot of labor back then.  We don't so much anymore.

Second, illegals may contribute to the economy, but because they don't usually pay into the system, they burden our amenities.  When they show up in our ERs and don't pay for services rendered, the costs get passed to you and me.  Also, a significant portion of them are in prisons costing us yet again.

Sure they do, there are some people so bereft of character they'll use the race card, the sexual discrimination/harassment card or the ageism card or religious persecution card for their own selfish gains.  But we can't assume thats a trait of any particular race or political agenda, thats just an ethically empty, poor excuse for a human being. :P

Thing is if we work to make sure all of this discriminatory stuff that IS happening out there is reduced as much as possible or to the ideal of trying to wipe it out. Eventually these people will have no way to use them.


In theory, I agree, but I would suggest that people like Al Sharpton effectively distract society from real racism.  If they'd just shut up for once, we could address these problems without going overboard in the PC direction.

All this argy-bargy makes me wish for a Nation of Howards!
:P

I have a small female Italian friend who after visiting California, went to South Carolina (my birth state) to visit distant family who was appalled at the separation, socially and mentally of black from white that she encounter there, being that this is the land of the free and all.  ::)


I don't really know if someone from Italy is in a position to cast stones about racism. I've seen a couple of TV reports over the past few years that described Italian society as being very racist and xenophobic.

I don't really know if someone from Italy is in a position to cast stones about racism. I've seen a couple of TV reports over the past few years that described Italian society as being very racist and xenophobic.


No kidding.