Racist America?

[HAL 9000 96]

I think the country is more racist than what people are willing to think. I am "white" and my spouse is "black" but I never really noticed the color difference in our skins....just a little bit of background...I'm not racist but...I see the news channel interviewing "black" men and asking them who they are voting for (Obama) and why (1st black president to stand up for their rights). Isn't the president suppose to lead the entire nation not just blacks or white? A lot of people vote based on race rather than policy...sad. I know the same goes for McCain also. However, then there is the fact that there are schools specifically for "blacks" and scholarships for "blacks". If this were true for the "whites" then it would be called segregation or predjudice...so why is it ok for all of the "minority" races. Are we not all human beings? I thought slavery had been abolished...long before my generation...so why are the innocent still paying for the consequences? Still...the "white" presidents cater to the "minority"...do the "majority" not also have rights? Why do we even have to track the race of a person on applications and such. Why can't we all be treated equally?

Because history has produced savage inequalities in how people can access opportunity and upwards mobility much like in many other parts of the planet.

Such inequalities are perpetuated by men in $5000 suits, not society.

I disagree with part of that logic, brother Matt.

The men in those $5K suits definitely benefit from them... but the perpetuation comes from having critical mass in regular people willing to forego rational logic in lieu of emotional appeals to nationhood and the maintenance of a bipolar system that keeps apex feeders where they are while only a very few of the regulars can climb anywhere near the top.

All those at the top have to do is remind the rest of the system and the 'regulars' take care of the rest. This is changing and its perhaps why so many of those in favor of this way of existence are so included to use labels and, not surprisingly, appeals to irrational emotions.

[Ling Ling 22]

I think the country is more racist than what people are willing to think. I am "white" and my spouse is "black" but I never really noticed the color difference in our skins....just a little bit of background...I'm not racist but...I see the news channel interviewing "black" men and asking them who they are voting for (Obama) and why (1st black president to stand up for their rights). Isn't the president suppose to lead the entire nation not just blacks or white? A lot of people vote based on race rather than policy...sad. I know the same goes for McCain also. However, then there is the fact that there are schools specifically for "blacks" and scholarships for "blacks". If this were true for the "whites" then it would be called segregation or predjudice...so why is it ok for all of the "minority" races. Are we not all human beings? I thought slavery had been abolished...long before my generation...so why are the innocent still paying for the consequences? Still...the "white" presidents cater to the "minority"...do the "majority" not also have rights? Why do we even have to track the race of a person on applications and such. Why can't we all be treated equally?

Let me help you out here...

Long ago there was this thing called slavery. It meant that Black people were kidnapped from Africa, and then sold to White people in America.

Those slaves worked very hard, and for very long hours. They didn't get vacation days, and they didn't even get a paycheck.

Those slaves made America a very wealthy country. HOW? Well let's just take company "X" that makes widgets for 200 years,

and take company "Y" that makes widgets for 200 years. Company "X" pays their employees, gives them breaks for meals, and lets them go to their own home at night.

Company "Y" doesn't pay their employees, doesn't give too many breaks, makes them work long hours, and they sleep at the job.

So which company is going to be more profitable after 200 years?

OK...so fast forward to the end of slavery. You now have people who were born into slavery, born in the USA, and they have no rights, no education, and no property.

Oh...and even though they have a history of working hard labor for 18 hours per day, now they're considered LAZY and risky to employ.

Well these people start to seek things like HUMAN RIGHTS, CIVIL RIGHTS, access to education, and even property.

It's pretty difficult to get property when you don't have rights or access to education.

So the people who were already here before the slaves have had rights, access to education, the ability to accumulate and pass on property, and wealth accumulated sometimes by the work of former slaves.

As we moved forward in this civilized nation, some people realized that because of this disenfranchisement, that there Black folks (I prefer to think of them as just dark skin Americans) didn't have the same opportunities as light skin Americans. For instance, Johnny's family has been in the USA since 1821. They bought a farm, worked hard, and have continued to pass on their wealth and property through the family. Johnny grew up in a house, and there was no doubt that he would be able to do anything he wanted to do as long as he worked hard. Barry's family has been in the USA since 1820. They came over on a slave ship. They worked as hard, and sometimes brutally harder than others. Not only were they unable to pass along anything to their children, but most of the time their family was being divided or sold off. Barry's family has only been able to own property for about the last 100 years. But because his family has been less educated, and had fewer opportunities, Barry's family lives in an apartment.

For Barry's family, college is only a dream.

So they setup schools, and grants, and programs for Barry and others like him.

Some people said they needed to take action, AFIRMATIVE ACTION to make things more fair. Well in trying to be more fair to Barry,

sometimes they weren't fair to Johnny. Sometimes, even though Johnny worked harder, they would pass him over because Barry needed a break just because of his family history. Johnny complained, and the managers started to see it wasn't working...so they tried to be more fair to both. Sometimes, Barry did perform better than Johnny, but the managers were afraid that they would be giving preference to Barry over Johnny. In the end, this affirmative action didn't work out too well. But it was an attempt to give Barry a chance to catchup to Johnny, so that one day Barry could tell his children, "If you work hard, you can be anything you want, maybe even President of the USA".

So yes, slavery is over, but the effects and inequalities of slavery are still being felt today.

Affirmative action may not be the answer, but denying that it exists only adds to the problem.

[mRx 16]

I think the country is more racist than what people are willing to think. I am "white" and my spouse is "black" but I never really noticed the color difference in our skins....just a little bit of background...I'm not racist but...I see the news channel interviewing "black" men and asking them who they are voting for (Obama) and why (1st black president to stand up for their rights). Isn't the president suppose to lead the entire nation not just blacks or white? A lot of people vote based on race rather than policy...sad. I know the same goes for McCain also. However, then there is the fact that there are schools specifically for "blacks" and scholarships for "blacks". If this were true for the "whites" then it would be called segregation or predjudice...so why is it ok for all of the "minority" races. Are we not all human beings? I thought slavery had been abolished...long before my generation...so why are the innocent still paying for the consequences? Still...the "white" presidents cater to the "minority"...do the "majority" not also have rights? Why do we even have to track the race of a person on applications and such. Why can't we all be treated equally?

Because history has produced savage inequalities in how people can access opportunity and upwards mobility much like in many other parts of the planet.

Such inequalities are perpetuated by men in $5000 suits, not society.

I don't think so Matt. I really don't.

It takes a long time for society to 'change'. The black man was originally property here. As the waves of immigrants have arrived, they entered society on the lowest levels of employment.

It takes generations for ideas, concepts and stereotypes to fade. I don't think money has much to do with it.

I should've been a bit more clear. I don't think money has anything to with it, Becca.

Segregation laws, black codes, and affirmative action are all collectivist ideals, or group favoring. Redistribution of wealth and class warfare are also group favoring ideals. When people see themselves as members of an abstract group and not unique individuals with equal rights, then the democracy can come in, and with majority rules, oppress one group, while favoring another.

The government, state or federal, has no authority to take away and redistribute rights granted to us by the constitution. These rights belong to the people, because it was they who fought for them.

It does take time for social changes to occur. But such group favoring laws like segregation inhibit such progress. The men in $5000 suits are the state and federal lawmakers that pass any such nonsense.

[mRx 16]

But it was an attempt to give Barry a chance to catchup to Johnny, so that one day Barry could tell his children, "If you work hard, you can be anything you want, maybe even President of the USA".

That's the problem, though. The few, acting in the interest of "equality", decided that the best was to bring about equality is to prop one group up over another. This is flawed logic. Rights are an equal leveled field, not something that can be appropriated.

If someone owns a business, and he decides to hire based on group status like skin color, and not on merits, then that is his right.

Now, if we had an equally free economy, then it's safe to assume that his business wouldn't fare too well, as his employees may not be the best fit for the job. This could lead to a logical social change inside the business owner, or he could go out of business. But to force certain racial quotas, then reward this with subsidies and tax-breaks isn't doing anything with the problem, and it sure as hell isn't teaching Barry that he could be anything he wants.

Real societal change cannot come through government coercion. It has to come through individual awareness.

[HAL 9000 96]

But it was an attempt to give Barry a chance to catchup to Johnny, so that one day Barry could tell his children, "If you work hard, you can be anything you want, maybe even President of the USA".

That's the problem, though. The few, acting in the interest of "equality", decided that the best was to bring about equality is to prop one group up over another. This is flawed logic. Rights are an equal leveled field, not something that can be appropriated.

If someone owns a business, and he decides to hire based on group status like skin color, and not on merits, then that is his right.

Now, if we had an equally free economy, then it's safe to assume that his business wouldn't fare too well, as his employees may not be the best fit for the job. This could lead to a logical social change inside the business owner, or he could go out of business. But to force certain racial quotas, then reward this with subsidies and tax-breaks isn't doing anything with the problem, and it sure as hell isn't teaching Barry that he could be anything he wants.

Real societal change cannot come through government coercion. It has to come through individual awareness.

I believe AA is one of those philosophies that needs to be revamped for a more realistic, pragmatic, and fair application. The onus should be placed on equality, access, and measurable goals- not the creation of bipolar attitudes that lend themselves to false climates that support racism and limit actual access for progress.

[Ling Ling 22]

But it was an attempt to give Barry a chance to catchup to Johnny, so that one day Barry could tell his children, "If you work hard, you can be anything you want, maybe even President of the USA".

That's the problem, though. The few, acting in the interest of "equality", decided that the best was to bring about equality is to prop one group up over another. This is flawed logic. Rights are an equal leveled field, not something that can be appropriated.

If someone owns a business, and he decides to hire based on group status like skin color, and not on merits, then that is his right.

Now, if we had an equally free economy, then it's safe to assume that his business wouldn't fare too well, as his employees may not be the best fit for the job. This could lead to a logical social change inside the business owner, or he could go out of business. But to force certain racial quotas, then reward this with subsidies and tax-breaks isn't doing anything with the problem, and it sure as hell isn't teaching Barry that he could be anything he wants.

Real societal change cannot come through government coercion. It has to come through individual awareness.

Eh, Matt....that's kind of what I said in the part that you missed.

So yes, slavery is over, but the effects and inequalities of slavery are still being felt today.

Affirmative action may not be the answer, but denying that it exists only adds to the problem.

I know affirmative action created 2 losers and no winners. But just saying everything is equal doesn't make it so. Individual awareness of the problem IS the first step.

Unfortunately, there are too many people that want to pretend that no problem exists. They want to pretend that when Barry and Johnny walk into the car dealership, with the same education, same experience, and dressed in the same suit, that they're treated the same. They are not treated the same if they came for a car, or if they came for a job. They may not even know they've pre-judged these two fine Americans; but Johnny is greeted with, "Welcome, how can we help you", and Barry is greeted with, "What's up boss, need some help? Did you catch the Bulls game last night?".

[mRx 16]

I know affirmative action created 2 losers and no winners. But just saying everything is equal doesn't make it so. Individual awareness of the problem IS the first step.

Unfortunately, there are too many people that want to pretend that no problem exists. They want to pretend that when Barry and Johnny walk into the car dealership, with the same education, same experience, and dressed in the same suit, that they're treated the same. They are not treated the same if they came for a car, or if they came for a job. They may not even know they've pre-judged these two fine Americans; but Johnny is greeted with, "Welcome, how can we help you", and Barry is greeted with, "What's up boss, need some help? Did you catch the Bulls game last night?".

Just because we have equality before the law, that doesn't make us equal. We are not equal. We are all superior and inferior to each other in many ways, but we deserve equal treatment under the law.

With your given scenario, and every man being the same, then the business owner has to make a choice. And it's his responsibility to make that choice, and no one elses. However, even though the two have identical credentials, they are not identical. They each have their own each individuality. Each driven and motivated by different factors. Each with their own personality and individual behavior. That is the point of having a face-to-face interview, isn't it? Not to pick the person of the best color, but to see who that person really is. And if he were a successful business owner, he would make the choice that was in line with the best interest of his company.

But to deny him that choice, is to deny him the freedom to run his company as he sees fit.

I don't think that there is any more I can say, that hasn't been said already. I am surely not denying that discrimination takes place. I know it does. But for the government to come in and instate new discrimination to counterbalance the existing discrimination is folly. They are merely attacking a symptom of the problem, and not the problem itself. I made a point of this on page 4 with the War on Drugs, for it represents a pure inequality under the law.

[Peikko 1,575]

I'm just going to say, watch Bamboozled - wierd film.

[rebeccajo 14]

IMO, a simplistic analogy would be what you sometimes have to do with children.

Say that in a classroom, you have a group of children picking on another group because of some supposed difference between them. Let's imagine it's the bigger kids picking on the physically smaller ones. The teacher then has to step in and make change happen. She makes the big kids sit in the circle with smaller ones during reading group. She assigns kids to dodgeball teams, rather than letting the kids choose the teams. At first they grumble. The desired result is that they will learn to appreciate each other by forcing them to interact.

Matt, I come from an area of the country where there is REAL bigotry. It's mostly due to whites not being exposed to people from other cultures.

Affirmative Action forces people to interact. It's not the best way to teach that we are all human, but humans WILL resist change when they are fearful. I've grown up around people who still have the real boogey-man mentality about the black man. They learned it from their fathers, and their fathers before them. They hold onto old ideas; old concepts and old stereotypes because they would rather cling to what they believe. They don't buy into an 'equality' concept just because we tell them it's so. They won't believe differently until they live it. And these people won't live it unless they are forced.

I don't know if you have ever been exposed to real, ugly bigotry - the kind you see in newsclips from the civil rights era. I lived through some of that time. I don't know if you have met people who think Martin Luther King Jr. was rabble rousing troublemaker, deserved to die and certainly shouldn't have a holiday named after him. I have. Our world - the US - was like that when AA was first instituted.

Is it unfortunate that some whites have suffered reverse discrimination due to AA? I suppose so. But what did they expect? Was the supremecy supposed to go on forever? Did the bad taste in their mouths due to any fallout they may have suffered from AA give them just a little flavor for what decades of oppression must have been like? I hope so. It was probably the only way to begin the unraveling - the teaching.

[Ling Ling 22]

I know affirmative action created 2 losers and no winners. But just saying everything is equal doesn't make it so. Individual awareness of the problem IS the first step.

Unfortunately, there are too many people that want to pretend that no problem exists. They want to pretend that when Barry and Johnny walk into the car dealership, with the same education, same experience, and dressed in the same suit, that they're treated the same. They are not treated the same if they came for a car, or if they came for a job. They may not even know they've pre-judged these two fine Americans; but Johnny is greeted with, "Welcome, how can we help you", and Barry is greeted with, "What's up boss, need some help? Did you catch the Bulls game last night?".

Just because we have equality before the law, that doesn't make us equal. We are not equal. We are all superior and inferior to each other in many ways, but we deserve equal treatment under the law.

With your given scenario, and every man being the same, then the business owner has to make a choice. And it's his responsibility to make that choice, and no one elses. However, even though the two have identical credentials, they are not identical. They each have their own each individuality. Each driven and motivated by different factors. Each with their own personality and individual behavior. That is the point of having a face-to-face interview, isn't it? Not to pick the person of the best color, but to see who that person really is. And if he were a successful business owner, he would make the choice that was in line with the best interest of his company.

But to deny him that choice, is to deny him the freedom to run his company as he sees fit.

I don't think that there is any more I can say, that hasn't been said already. I am surely not denying that discrimination takes place. I know it does. But for the government to come in and instate new discrimination to counterbalance the existing discrimination is folly. They are merely attacking a symptom of the problem, and not the problem itself. I made a point of this on page 4 with the War on Drugs, for it represents a pure inequality under the law.

Was there somewhere in my post where I advocated government intervention?

Did you miss the part where I said affirmative action failed?

Did you read my post, or just hit respond?

[HAL 9000 96]

C'mon guys, you are both agreeing more than disagreeing. Its the philosophy that you should address first and then the means to the end. Just a suggestion.

[Ling Ling 22]

C'mon guys, you are both agreeing more than disagreeing. Its the philosophy that you should address first and then the means to the end. Just a suggestion.

Exactly...it's mind boggling.

I think he's just speed reading.

Does not compute.

[mRx 16]

IMO, a simplistic analogy would be what you sometimes have to do with children.

Say that in a classroom, you have a group of children picking on another group because of some supposed difference between them. Let's imagine it's the bigger kids picking on the physically smaller ones. The teacher then has to step in and make change happen. She makes the big kids sit in the circle with smaller ones during reading group. She assigns kids to dodgeball teams, rather than letting the kids choose the teams. At first they grumble. The desired result is that they will learn to appreciate each other by forcing them to interact.

Matt, I come from an area of the country where there is REAL bigotry. It's mostly due to whites not being exposed to people from other cultures.

Affirmative Action forces people to interact. It's not the best way to teach that we are all human, but humans WILL resist change when they are fearful. I've grown up around people who still have the real boogey-man mentality about the black man. They learned it from their fathers, and their fathers before them. They hold onto old ideas; old concepts and old stereotypes because they would rather cling to what they believe. They don't buy into an 'equality' concept just because we tell them it's so. They won't believe differently until they live it. And these people won't live it unless they are forced.

I don't know if you have ever been exposed to real, ugly bigotry - the kind you see in newsclips from the civil rights era. I lived through some of that time. I don't know if you have met people who think Martin Luther King Jr. was rabble rousing troublemaker, deserved to die and certainly shouldn't have a holiday named after him. I have. Our world - the US - was like that when AA was first instituted.

Is it unfortunate that some whites have suffered reverse discrimination due to AA? I suppose so. But what did they expect? Was the supremecy supposed to go on forever? Did the bad taste in their mouths due to any fallout they may have suffered from AA give them just a little flavor for what decades of oppression must have been like? I hope so. It was probably the only way to begin the unraveling - the teaching.

I totally agree with you that social interaction is what changes ideals and old discriminative beliefs. I was stationed out in South Carolina and I saw quite abit of bigotry and hate. I saw it by whites and by blacks. I think people tend to segregate themselves in groups for their own comfort, because they are indeed fearful. As I've said all along, it's collectivism. I don't think that such ideals are inherent in humans, but it is learned, just as you've said.

I just think that it's unjust to create additional inequalities in the logic that two negatives would somehow create a positive. I don't think that's what MLK envisioned in his dream. I truly believe that racism in the US will eventually end. It won't end because of coercion, force, or restriction of civil liberties. But society will eventually mix up enough to where such beliefs of group supremacy are irrelevant to society. But continuing down the road that we are on with governmental intervention, we will only end up less free as a society. Once laws are made, and rights are taken, they are rarely ever returned.

[HAL 9000 96]

We are already at a point where the overwhelming majority of Americans discredits racism for the stupidity that it is- including some racists themselves.

[mRx 16]

Was there somewhere in my post where I advocated government intervention?

Did I ever say you did?

Did you miss the part where I said affirmative action failed?

Am I not allowed to explain why I think it failed?

Did you read my post, or just hit respond?

Is it possible to respond to me without being a #######?