This should help race relations....sigh....

[Udie]

Originally posted by midnight Target


The older one (24) is very realistic. He sees it as sort of a stunt, but feels very much like eskimo2 wrote in his post. It may be a stunt, but the message still needs to get out that things are nowhere near how they should be.

The younger one (22) want's to know where he signs up for the cash.

sounds like you raised a couple of normal kids, good job!

[midnight Target]

Does not moving into a black inner-city neighbourhood, but choosing a white suburb instead make you a racist?

Does not liking rap and preferring Mozart instead make you a racist?

Does sending your kid to the school that teaces Western Culture, instead of multi-culturalism make you a racist?

Maybe.

If you choose the suburb ONLY based on race then yes (I'm assuming an equally affluent "inner-city" neighborhood for comparison purposes).

If you choose Mozart ONLY because he is white then yes.

And ditto on the school.


I thought Halle Berry's speech at the oscars was horrible. I still feel Bill Walton was the best center in basketball (when he was healthy). Mozart is OK, and I don't get too excited over Motown music.

NOT ONE of these opinions is based upon the race of the individuals in question.

[koala]

Eskimo2 made a very eloquent point about the lingering effects of slavery and the continued existence of racism in this country.

Black people don't "think as a group" any more than white people do.

The "as a group" reference came from Eskimo2's post, which stereotyped blacks "as a group", and which you thought was so eloquent.  Why do you think I put it in quotes?  And used the same sweeping generalization about OJ as Eskimo2 did about blacks "suffering from the effects of slavery"?  And why didn't you quote the original??

So don't tell me that blacks "suffer as a group" any more than they "think as a group".  And don't preach to me about racism dude.  Your selectiveness makes it obvious that you don't have a clue.

[mietla]

Originally posted by midnight Target


If you choose the suburb ONLY based on race then yes (I'm assuming an equally affluent "inner-city" neighborhood for comparison purposes).

If you choose Mozart ONLY because he is white then yes.

And ditto on the school.
 

You take an easy way out by presenting an unrealistic and trivial, clear cut case.

Of course there is not inner-city area equally influent as a suburb. And of course my decision is not based on a race of people who live there, but on their behavior/values and the property values. If the behavior and race correlate, I don't care why. I'm choosing based on what's better for me, and I'm not going to go into "root causes" business.

Is your decision making process different?

Same with the other two cases. I make pragmatic decisions. Do you really think that after I've heard something I liked on a the radio, I'd check the picture of the performer before ordering a CD? Obviously not, but at the same time, I have no intention to research Albanian or Sudanian music to make sure that my mucial interest are balanced racially.

Call it lazy, tell me it's my loss, but the question is, would you call me racist?

You've weazeled out of the school issue. I want my kids to gain a solid and practical knowledge, not the made up, emotional demagogery and that's what the multi-culturalism is.

I have no problem with teaching/learing about different cultures, but not at the expense of the culture we live in. And I reject an a priori assumption that all cultures are equivalent, all we have to do is dig enough for the proof.

Again, does that make me a racist?

[eskimo2]

Whenever people make generalizations about how groups of people (who are different than themselves) think or behave it is an indicator of racist thinking.  If you tend to think that aspects of a people can be easily summarized, you probably are misunderstanding them.  Expect that all groups in a free country are as diverse in their thinking, behavior and morality as your own and you will probably have a better understanding of them.

On the same note, when there is evidence that a group of people thinks or behaves differently (such as the % of blacks and whites that think Aetna should apologize) you must also expect diversity in their reasoning behind their thoughts or actions.  Summarizing people's thoughts is a dangerous thing.

Why do more African Americans than whites think that Aetna should apologize?  Lots of reasons, I'm sure.  And the question doesn't just suggest that some blacks think differently than some whites, it also suggests that some whites think differently than some blacks, and some blacks think similarly to some whites, and some whites think similarly to some blacks.

The article also stated:

"Nine out of 10 white respondents said the government should not make cash payments to slave descendants while 6 percent said it should."

Well any lawsuit that 90% of the people don't support must not have much merit, but the article also said:

"Among black respondents, 55 percent said the government should make cash payments and 37 percent said it should not."

This caught my attention more than anything.
What kinds of things have so many African Americans experienced to make them think so differently than the large part of the white population?  The answers must be many, and long.  Instead of assuming that African Americans are all nuts, I am much quicker to assume that there is a lot about America, and being African American than I understand, or can expect to understand.

Perhaps the 6% of whites, and 55% of blacks are right.  In an ideal world, with an infinite amount of federal money, it might be fair to pay slave descendants.  What I think these 6% of whites and 55% of blacks are missing, however, is how impossible this lawsuit is because it would lead to an infinite amount of lawsuits, even international lawsuits, going back to the beginning of history.  Economic ruin of our nation, and perhaps the world, would be the real long term result if such a suit were to succeed. History is just too complex.

eskimo

[eskimo2]

Koala,
How did you get a stereotype from:

"African Americans as a group still are suffering from the effects of slavery"

This just simply means that not every individual African American is suffering from the effects of slavery.  But on the average, African Americans suffer from: lower pay, less education, higher crime, etc.  Many studies, reports and census reports have clearly shown this.  

Had I said "African Americans still are suffering from the effects of slavery",  it could have been interpreted that each and every African American was still suffering.  I think that most readers would have known what I meant anyway.   "as a group" made the statement LESS stereotypical, if anything.

eskimo

[midnight Target]

koala,

Here is your quote again:

"The majority of blacks also thought O.J. was innocent. So personally I don't care what they think "as a group". Their acute "awareness" has abslolutely nothing to do with reparations."

The point of my post, and I apologize if it was not well presented, was that racism can be subtle and inconspicuous to those that it is not directed toward. I am not calling you a racist. I am trying to point out some comments, made by well meaning people, that contain this subtle form of racism. If you feel your quote was not as racist as some, then you have helped me make my point. I don't perceive it sometimes as well. I believe I did say that the racist comments I was posting may be coming from people who have the best of intentions.

Your post sounds like you have no respect for the thoughts of blacks as a group because the majority thought OJ was innocent. This may or may not be true, but that is how it sounded, so that is why I included it.  


meitla:

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


Sorry if you think I trivialized your questions, but the answer does not change no matter how trivial you think it is. A decision based solely on race is racist. A decision based partially on race is partially racist. A decision based on the ignorance of other cultures cannot by definition be racist as there can be no feeling of superiority without the knowledge of those other cultures. Then you are talking ignorance instead of racism. The 2 are closely related but not the same thing.

[mietla]

Exactly, the feeling of superiority (and acting on it) based on your group membeship.

The gotcha is that most of the PC types, ignore the rationale behind a decision and jump to the "racist" outcome.

"I live in a predominantly white neighbourhood, ergo, I must be racist."

"The cab driver refuses a fare to a crime ridden area, ergo, he is a racist."

"Most of the top management at company X is white, ergo, they are racist."

Since PC types can't measure the opportunity, they are trying to measure the outcome and imply that the "racist" outcome implies racism.

They are working on an abitrary, unjustified and totaly idiotic assumption that equal opportunity implies equal statistical participation in the outcome. If yo uask me, this trivializes the real racism, desensitizes society to real injustice.

Equal does not mean the same.

[koala]

Koala,
How did you get a stereotype from:

"African Americans as a group still are suffering from the effects of slavery"

midnight Target,

If I had said "Blacks as a group think O.J. Simpson was innocent", how would that be any different?  They're both stereotypes that serve nothing more than to lump the thought process or condition of a certain group into one convenient, trivialized, pigeonhole.  And that is just as "racist" as any example you've put forth.

In fact, let's just remove "as a group".  If I said "Blacks think O.J. Simpson was innocent", you'd call that a racist remark.  But if I said "Blacks still are suffering from the effects of slavery", you wouldn't.  They both equally use a broad brush to portray all blacks the same way.  But because one is a "negative" statement and one is a "positive" statement, then you call one "racist" and the other one "eloquent".  And that kind of hypocritical double standard is the problem with most race issues today.

[Tumor]

....everyone wants a handout.  Whats new?

[eskimo2]

Koala,
The first statement: "Blacks think O.J. Simpson was innocent", suggests that ALL blacks think alike.  Simply adding the word "More" at the beginning of the sentence changes it completely.  If this is indeed true, and taken from a poll, then there is nothing racist about it.  If it is assumed, however, then it may be of racist origin.  The sentence was doomed to a racist tone after the second word; "Blacks think..."  Other sentence beginnings that can only end up sounding racist would be; "Whites always...",  "Jews never...",  "Catholics can't..." or "Hispanics feel..."

The sentence: "Blacks still are suffering from the effects of slavery", is not the same.  Like I said previously; "...on the average, African Americans suffer from: lower pay, less education, higher crime, etc. Many studies, reports and census reports have clearly shown this."  
"Recovery" from the American Civil War, and slavery, is not complete.  Civil rights laws did not instantly place minorities on an equal playing field with whites.  Racism has been so ingrained in our country for so long that it's effects will long outlast any of us.
It is not racist to state facts.

eskimo

[Reschke]

All this roadkill about reparations makes me sick. Yes being a WHITE MALE in the south as I am I get sick and tired of hearing the crap that goes on like this. I have many friends (from sports and work) that are black, African-American or whatever you want to call them that think this is frigging stupid as well.

This point was brought up in a discussion in a Sociology class in college I took a couple of years ago. The professor (a liberal Bill Clinton desk hugger/ igar smoker.) was leading the class into why they should pay out reparations to all Americans who are of African descent. There was a woman in her 50's that happened to be of African descent who stood and asked why she should be receiving money for this. After all she was never a slave and she never felt demoralized or demeaned just because her great grandparents were born as slaves. Then the woman started getting support from other people (also African descent) and the professor stopped the class for the day because he was not getting his way.

You see in the South as I have witnessed it you don't have a vocal group that yells about reparations. You have handsomehunk bastards like that professor and others like the great Rev. Al "I need a new hairdo" Sharpton (who just happens to not be from the south AFAIK) calling for this.

My statement is this: Why can't we all just get along and remember the past for what it really is......THE PAST and the history of our nation where people dead and gone really screwed things up for us all.

[Steven]

I'm not sure if this is the place for the following story, but I'm including it nevertheless.  The story is true and I will gladly put my hand on anyone's book and swear to its truth.

Back in about 1995, after having been laid off from work the previous year or year-and-a-half, I decided to go back to college and get a degree that would help me to enter a new career.  With my unemployment having run out and my savings gone, I went to the financial aid services of this fine state university educational institution during the process of enrollment and was told there was no help for me because I'd made too much money the year or so before.  However, I was broke!  During this discussion, another financial aid worker from behind the counter walked by and rather flippantly said aloud to the lady who was helping me, something to the effect of:  "Are you trying to give out the money for the black students?  We have a lot of extra money that we need to give out to them."  That is not a direct quote, but the meaning is correct.  I was stunned.  I will now never support "affirmative action" because it just affirms all those things we are supposed to be against.  And it strikes me that this is a form of reparation.  

I hope I wasn't out of place.

[eskimo2]

Steven;

This thread has many themes...

When I earned my Fire Science degree, my best friend was female.  She was an A student and was one of only a small handful of firefighters that I know whom I would trust my life with.  As she finished school, her husband was transferred to a military base near a fairly large Southern town.  She applied for a job as a firefighter, achieved the highest score on the test and did well on the physical.  In spite of her outstanding abilities, the chief was reluctant to hire her.  She was a woman and there was only one other woman on this department of several hundred.  When her chief finally gave her the job he said, "Well I guess hiring you is better than hiring another cupcake."

Imagine how many black firefighters in that town would not have their jobs if it were not for Affirmative Action quotas.  Sure, I bet some of the blacks who were hired may not have scored as well as some of the whites who were not hired.  But, I would also bet that there were/are many blacks who out-performed the majority of white recruits.  These guys would have never stood a chance with this kind of a chief in charge.  Imagine, working for years toward your dream of becoming a firefighter, and scoring at the top of the field, only to lose out to an average performing white guy, simply because he was a good-ol-boy.

How many stories like this one could a black southerner tell?  I can only imagine.

I am not saying that Affirmative Action is not greatly flawed and severely unjust in many cases.  Clearly it is, but in many cases it is the better of two evils.
                           
The stories where a white guy (or woman) gets burned by AA only because they are white should make all of us angry.  But keep in mind that we only hear of a small handful of select cases where whites, blacks or other minorities get burned by racial injustice from various directions.  The reasons why these stories surface most likely varies.  

Try to look at the big picture. Case by case, nearly everyone has either got it too easy or too tough.
Look critically and fairly.  Try not to only focus on the examples where the white guy gets burned.  Try not to brush off the stories where a minority gets burned by assuming that they must be whining or trying to get something from nothing.
On the average, white folks in America have a lot more opportunities than people of minorities.  Many of these opportunities are the result of past or present racism.  In our nation, this should not be tolerated or ignored.

eskimo

[koala]

I am not saying that Affirmative Action is not greatly flawed and severely unjust in many cases. Clearly it is, but in many cases it is the better of two evils.

Racism is never the better of two evils.  Just because it's the law doesn't make it right.  In fact, it makes it even more wrong.  Individuals who practice racism should be fired, just as anybody who sexually harrasses people or who steals from the company should be fired.  But institutionalizing racism by making it a law is not the answer.