View Full Version : White People's Frustration with Racism
xdamage
07-08-2008, 05:38 AM
I will leave one thought for tonight. These feelings of blame, hatred, anger, etc. are not human nature. They are taught to us. Think of the moment a child is born. It knows nothing of hate, nothing of blame, and nothing of anger.
I use to think so, but then I read a book (and following that many more) and my mind is now changed.
This sounds like the popular Blank Slate theory which I think Steve Pinker debunks beautifully in his book, "The Blank Slate : The Modern Denial of Human Nature". The popular myth is humans have blank slates for minds, like perfect little RAM chips, with no pre-wired nature. That emotions are all put there by "society". It is a very popular bedtime story these days, but...
I'm reasonably convinced now that Steve and others that argue like him are correct. That we in fact are pre-wired with a nature, and although we can moderate it through intellect, we do have a nature and includes what we think of as negatives.
I no longer believe that people are simply products of societies, but also societies are products of people, and reflect something about our nature. Racism, war, us vs them, that's us people, in culture after culture, history over history, we are not all sugar and spice and everything nice. We are survivors. Everything else is frosting on a cake.
xdamage
07-08-2008, 05:51 AM
p.s. By the way, my kids sure weren't these perfect little angels growing up. They had a lot of me-centric emotions and thoughts. I taught them to use their intellect to moderate it, but I am 100% sure of I didn't they'd be in jail now, completely unable to self-moderate their own wants with respect to others in society. They also have very different personalities as surely as they have different heights. That's not all taught... the evidence is a lot of it is pre-wired, as surely as it is pre-wired that they will easily learn a language, that their bodies will go into a flight or fight reaction when afraid, etc.
GenWar
07-08-2008, 05:51 AM
It's amusing how well trained white people are. Even posting anonymously on a non-political discussion board not a single one dares to show any unabashed pride in his race, while all agree that racial pride is right and obligatory for non-whites as long as it is displayed in a "non-hateful" way.
I think this is because they do not have a cultural identity. Not as being white. If I ask you what it means to be Croatian, you can tell me. If I ask you what it means to be Baptist, you can tell me. If I ask you what it means to be an Alabaman, you can probably tell me. But when I ask what it means to be white, I don't get a lot of answers. Most of the ones I do get tend to be cast in the light of negativity, ie, it is more about being NOT-black than it is about being specifically white.
Yet how many white people willingly choose to live in a racially integrated neighborhood? How many would deny racial realities when not in the comfort zones of their daily lives? Some do, and they often end up as a victim in the crime statistics, as whites are the victims of black and hispanic predators far, far more often than the reverse. Like it or not there is an undeclared race war against whites taking place, much of it fueled by a "white"-run media that has neutered white men in racial matters while indoctrinating non-whites to hate white people.
Often? Really? Your statement lacks context. I think I'd agree that, when someone is going to prey on another human being to commit a crime against, and race is their specific motivation, it is far more likely that it will be a minority preying on a white person. However, my personal belief is that most crimes occur not as a specific predatory act and more as acts of opportunity. When someone is going to mug or carjack, they attack the nearest available person fitting the victim profile without race being a factor. Maybe I am naive, but I find it difficult to picture a black carjacker hiding in the bushes while lots of black and hispanics drive late model SUVs by harmlessly, only to jump out a grab the white dude in the BMW.
As for the neutering of white men by the media...well, no one can make someone not stand up for themselves. In general, my experience is that you can only push a person so far. Most people will not stand for injustice against themselves. So I think I would disagree with you that people who have opinions similar to Lestat1 do not refrain from speaking up because they fear the media as much as they do not think that it truly affects their daily lives. A person who feels like you do about race relations tends to express it, as you did. I think you need to consider the possibility that a lot of white people just don't feel as you do.
The disconnect between how white people think and how they actually live their lives in most cases is huge. Until whites can write and speak freely in America, racial discussions are b.s., always from an anti-white perspective with no one allowed to be pro-white.
I just don't agree with this. I think that most educated minorites serious about race relations would be happy to sit down and have a real discussion with whites about it. And I think it has to be just as valid for whites to express their concerns with any perceived disadvantages they are suffering as it is for the minorities. Otherwise, all the minority arguments are rendered void. How can I claim that things need to be done about problems I face if I won't hear the counterarguments?
I think you are stereotyping. I think you are picturing going into "South Central" and sitting down with a "Thug Gangsta Rapper" and trying to have a serious talk about race issues. You are right, that talk wouldn't go well. It also won't happen...because you won't find that guy...even in South Central. He doesn't exist...he is an image. Did you see "Harold and Kumar: Escape from Guantanamo Bay?" Remember the scene where they accidently drive into the black neighborhood and Harold hits the fire hydrant? If not, see that movie and check out that scene for an example of what I mean.
I think (hope?) that your views are somewhat antiquated and that you need to wake up and realize that this land is changing. Yes the white hegemony is losing its grip. I think Mr. Obama is a good example of that. I don't think that more minorities in power or even being present necessarily has to take away from being proud to be white. I don't think it even has to take away with your god given right to fear or distrust those not like you. But, in most every example that nature provides, diversity equals strength. I think that has to be a good thing...
-gen
Tauries
07-08-2008, 06:13 AM
GenWar...It's a white thing, you wouldn't understand. :)
xdamage
07-08-2008, 08:19 AM
It's amusing how well trained white people are. Even posting anonymously on a non-political discussion board not a single one dares to show any unabashed pride in his race, while all agree that racial pride is right and obligatory for non-whites as long as it is displayed in a "non-hateful" way.
I think it's human nature that we feel safer around people who look like us then those that don't. I know that is not PC to say, but I think we do ourselves a major disservice by living in my-little-pony land and pretending humans are inherently "good", and all evils are to be blaimed on "Society".
The problem is "Society" is a straw man. A circular argument, because societies are nothing but groups of people. Societies reflect things about us, the good and not so good. We all contribute to society, and have made it what it is today, by our actions or inactions.
If we don't face this fact about ourselves we are going to go on blaiming a boogey man for our problems versus realizing a hard truth. We, us people, can sink or swim. No body is going to make us do it. We can either use our intellect and educate our kids to overcome their nature, or we can go on hoping the straw man named "society" will change.
What you think of as "training white people" actually reflects a real truth. It does not come naturally to us. It is in our nature to associate pride with our race, but that doesn't mean we should leave it at that. It is also in our nature to sit on our fat asses and eat too much, but we use our will power, our intellect, to fight our nature and become better for it.
Here is an intellectual thought to consider. None of us got to choose our genes when we were born. Not our genes that resulted in our height, our talents, ourr race, our sex, our physical strength... It was all just random luck, outside of our control. So what is there to be proud of? It's like being proud for winning at Roulette. Pure luck. If you won, great, but those that didn't weren't any less deserving. They just didn't get lucky. We can use our intellect here too, to overcome our human nature of taking pride in that which we have no reason to be proud of.
I think it's a fantastic ideal goal that maybe in time we can learn to separate pride in accomplishments earned vs pride in pure luck. It may not be in our nature to think that way, but we have the brains and intellect to be more then we are. It's up to us to use it, or not.
The Snark
07-08-2008, 08:22 AM
The fact is I belong to probably the most popular demographic to discriminate against at the present time: white, middle-class, heterosexual, Christian male. But speaking for myself, I wouldn't want to be anything different.
There's something of an Alice-in-Wonderland quality to these complaints that white men are poor, benighted victims of discrimination. White American men are the most powerful group of people in human history. They dominate the business world--over 90% of executives of Fortune 500 companies are white and male. They dominate the political world--the great majority of members of Congress are white and male. All the important levers of power in American society are controlled by white, middle-class, heterosexual, Christian males. So how can they face discrimination in any significant way?
I think the kind of "discrimination" we're talking about here doesn't have any serious real-world consequences, such as being denied employment or housing. The most serious consequence seems to be hurt feelings or a sense that you can't say the things that you'd really like to say. (And usually these things are a coded variation of a single theme: that whites are superior to blacks.)
The lack of a "white" identity is more a function of privilege than of discrimination. White Americans have always expressed their aspirations in universal terms. When Thomas Jefferson wrote "all men are created equal," he certainly wasn't thinking about any of the slaves that he owned. He didn't feel a need to state that freedom and equality were reserved for white men--it was something that went without saying. Because white men have always enjoyed a dominant position within American society, there has never been a need to explicitly point out the racial nature of their identity.
i.breathe.in
07-08-2008, 09:25 AM
ok this morning i dreamed that in modern day white people were made as slaves and i as one of them. i tried to run away and got caught and beaten.
i find it odd that im having dreams about stripper web threads lmao!
xdamage
07-08-2008, 04:14 PM
There's something of an Alice-in-Wonderland quality to these complaints that white men are poor, benighted victims of discrimination. White American men are the most powerful group of people in human history. They dominate the business world--over 90% of executives of Fortune 500 companies are white and male. They dominate the political world--the great majority of members of Congress are white and male. All the important levers of power in American society are controlled by white, middle-class, heterosexual, Christian males. So how can they face discrimination in any significant way?
True, although I think people don't necessarily connect with that since it's a country of about 300 million, and so while white people hold many upper positions, we're still looking at relatively small numbers as compared with the population as a whole. To the average guy who isn't trying to be an exec at fortune 500 company, but maybe get a job at one of the other hundreds of thousands of businesses, those high-end exec statistics aren't doing him any good.
The other thing is this is not some unique American evil. If you go to Japan, or China, or Russia, or France, or Turkey, or Egypt, my list goes on and on, there is a good chance you can predict who in these countries holds the vast majority of political and upper end business positions. One guess. They aren't white guys from the USA. They are from the majority race in those countries.
America has become a melting pot so it makes sense that business and politics better reflect the percentages of people in the population, but still, white man in the USA are not some unique form of evil on earth.
And if it actually did turn out that white people are actually bowling over people world wide, then it really is time to start asking, is there some genetic reason why? I don't know that there is, but if it really was true then we have to start looking deeper, because there really is no "man" behind the scenes pulling the strings of all of history.
Biggieman
07-08-2008, 06:04 PM
The biggest problem with this chain letter is that people give it any credibility. If you just read it and think about it, it's complete bullshit. I tore this stupid thing apart on my MySpace blog more than a year ago after getting it mailed to me for the 738th time. I'd had enough. Here's what I wrote last April...
I got this sent to me the other day in a bulletin. It's been bulletined to me at least twice before in the past, and I've also gotten it forwarded to me in emails a few times over the years. I don't know who originally wrote it, but it's one of the stupidest things I've ever read. I'm not saying anything against the people who've sent it to me, but if any of you actually read this and sign off on everything it says, we need to have a chat.
Here it is, verbatim, and I'm sure many of you have received it or perhaps sent it along yourself...
My responses are in red.
Proud to be White (I am not biased)
This person is so proud to be white that he or she has to immediately go on the defensive after stating the title. Not a good start. Plus, it's just a nonsensical statement. If the person who wrote it is white, they ARE fucking biased. Ain't no black guy writing this shit.
>> Someone finally said it.
Someone said it, but I'm quite certain you weren't the first. There are entire groups of people who say that every day at secret meetings in the South. They wear sheets and cone-shaped hoods, and they are probably more proud to be white than you are, sir.
>> How many are actually paying attention to this?
The answer to this is not enough or too many, take your pick. Too many because I've received it several times, and not enough because if you actually did pay attention, I wouldn't have receieved it several times because people would be smart enough to realize how ignorant it is. I paid attention, and that's why I'm able to tear this writer a new asshole.
>> There are African Americans, Mexican Americans,
>> Asian Americans, Arab Americans, Native Americans, etc.
>> And then there are just Americans.
So, what? You want to be called a White American or a Caucasian American? What's the point? This is terrible writing.
>> You pass me on the street and sneer in my direction
I can say for certain I've never passed a white person on the street and sneered at them.
>> You Call me "White boy," "Cracker," "Honkey,"
>> "Whitey," "Caveman" .. And that's OK.
I don't call you that, but I'm thrilled that it would be okay if I did.
>> But when I call you, Nigger, Kike, Towel head, Sand-nigger,
>> Camel Jockey, Beaner, Gook, or Chink ... You call me a racist.
Well, that's because those are racist insults, sir. If you call someone those things, you ought to be called racist.
>> You say that whites commit a lot of violence against you,
>> So why are the ghettos the most dangerous places to live?
Ghettos are dangerous places to live because they are inhabited by low-income people (of all races), many of whom are desperate and don't have stable jobs. Desperate, uneducated people often commit crimes. But thanks for the implication that only colored people live in "ghettos". You never see any homeless "whiteys".
>> You have the United Negro College Fund. You have Martin Luther King
>> Day. You have Black History Month. You have Cesar Chavez Day. You
>> Have Yom Hashoah You have Ma'uled Al-Nabi You have the NAACP.
>> You have BET.
And I'm oh-so-happy to have all those wonderful things. Thank you for allowing us colored folk to have these days. I do have other things, too, though, like the 4th of July, Memorial Day, Christmas, Thanksgiving, and even New Years Eve! Yay!
>> If we had a White Pride Day .. You would call us racists.
No, I'd call you idiots. Martin Luther King Day isn't a celebration of being black, you fuckin twat. It's a celebration of a man. Just because the man was black doesn't mean it's unfair to white people. A good person, white, black or otherwise, understands the significance of Martin Luther King and it isn't that he was proud to be black. There's no Black Power Day. There's no Muslim Terrorist Week. There's no Illegal Immigration Day, but that's because every day is Illegal Immigration Day in America.
>> If we had White History Month ... We'd be racists.
>> If we had any organization for only whites to "advance" OUR lives ..
>> We'd be racists.
Look around society. Your race is doing just fine here in the U.S.A. Seen a black President lately?
>> We have a Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, a Black Chamber of
>> Commerce, and then we just have the plain Chamber of Commerce.
Wonder who pays for that?
Taxpayers of all races, that's who.
>> If we had a college fund that only gave white students scholarships
>> ... You know we'd be racists. There are over 60 openly proclaimed
>> Black Colleges in the US , yet if there were "White colleges" ..
>> THAT would be a racist college.
Well, if you don't understand the reason those schools and scholarships exist, perhaps you've never even seen a black person, let alone been taught about their history. I pity you.
>> In the Million Man March, you believed that you were marching
>> For your race and rights. If we marched for our race and rights,
>> You would call us racists.
>> You are proud to be black, brown, yellow and orange, and you're
Not afraid to announce it. But when we announce our white pride ..
>> You call us racists.
That's because the people who announce their white pride...usually are racists, just like many of the fanatics who scream about black pride. Do you also have a problem with gay pride? I guess you're still working on the sexual discrimination dissertation. And I'm sorry, but I haven't seen any yellow or orange people declaring their pride to be yellow or orange.
>> You rob us, carjack us, and shoot at us. But, when a white police officer
>> Shoots a black gang member or beats up a black drug-dealer running
>> From the law and posing a threat to society ... You call him racist.
When any police officer shoots a gang member of any race, I call him or her a hero. But again, it's good to learn that only people of color commit robbery, carjackings, and shootings. Must be those people from the ghetto again. They are quite a nuisance, aren't they?
I am proud.
You are also stupid. Congratulations.
>> But, you call me a racist.
Seemed like a good idea at the time.
>> Why is it that only whites can be racists?
It would only appear that way to the most ignorant of people, like yourself. In fact, it takes a bigot to write something like this. But then, you probably don't understand the difference between a racist and a bigot, do you?
>> There is nothing improper about this e-mail.
That must be why you're on the defensive again. No, there's nothing at all wrong with it. Kudos on its brilliance.
>> Let's see which of you are proud enough to send it on.
>> AMEN AND I AM PASSING THIS ALONG!
Amen? Was this a prayer? Oh, and speaking of which, stay away from those black churches. They're full of racists.
**** this is not to offend or piss off my hispanic or african american friends, it's only to share the TRUE feelings of white america****
If these are the TRUE feelings of white America, then we have a problem. Fortunately, you speak for the few and not the majority, and those few are just as moronic as you are.
Again, I'm sure some of the people reading this have received or forwarded this email. I would ask you, why? Did you actually read it? Do understand how stupid it is? And please, if you receive it again, leave me off your forwarding list. After all, I'm only half white. I can't be proud.
greenidlady1
07-08-2008, 06:17 PM
Great responses:) , I think I am going to send this to my father who forwarded this to me a while back, he couldn't disown me any more than he already has.
crizgolfer
07-08-2008, 07:25 PM
This sounds like the popular Blank Slate theory which I think Steve Pinker debunks beautifully in his book, "The Blank Slate : The Modern Denial of Human Nature". The popular myth is humans have blank slates for minds, like perfect little RAM chips, with no pre-wired nature. That emotions are all put there by "society". It is a very popular bedtime story these days, but...
I am not familiar with the "Blank Slate" theory. I do not believe we are born with this blank slate. We are animals, after all. We have base survival instincts just as any other animal. That is our nature, and anything beyond that is taught to us in one form or another. Our higher intelligence (in relation to other animals) allows us to learn more than they do. Not everything we learn has a positive value.
We can develop many different outlooks on the world. This is illustrated by the variety of cultural values that exist. These cultural values are taught. If this were not the case then we would all share the same values.
Blaming shortcomings on "human nature" is a bit of a cop out. Sort of like "the devil made me do it." When our intelligence cannot come up with a valid excuse for our actions, then human nature is to blame. We can't possibly be accountable for our bad actions.
Human nature is something that we all share. I have dealt with people that would be labelled as sociopaths. These are people that will find a way to justify any act that benefits themself. I have also sat and had tea with Buddhist monks. They are the most docile, patient, and non-judgemental people I have ever met. They are the exact opposite of the sociopath. Human nature dictates that these two opposites share something in common. What is that beyond the basic survival instinct? The rest is learned.
My last comment is in regard to your statement about anothers theory being a "very popluar bedtime story". It is worthless rhetoric. It may work on some, but I have done much public speaking in my life so I understand its use and limitations. Condescending statements that are used to trivialize anothers point of view are a sign of insecurity.
threlayer
07-08-2008, 07:41 PM
I think most white peoples' attitudes toward blacks, if they think about it and have enough exposure, would be considerably different if they could separate the ghetto - types from the remainder. I mean to me just being black is not an indicator of anything really different. But acting like (or not knowing how to act different from) the ghetto - types is very different. I can see why some people diccriminate against that type of behavior; I don't like to see myself acting differently around them, but I do. But I do have some good black friends with whom their color makes absolutely no difference to me, and they know it.
I think this racism topic in the OP is partly blamable on certain politicians tryin gto take a personal advantage.
crizgolfer
07-08-2008, 07:46 PM
Racial differences? We are so genetically similar that if we were dogs...we would be the same breed.
i.breathe.in
07-08-2008, 10:49 PM
id like to say how proud that this thread hasnt become a flame war.
i attribute this to my blackness.....er....nevermind. ;)
Susan-Va
07-09-2008, 05:29 AM
id like to say how proud that this thread hasnt become a flame war.
i attribute this to my blackness.....er....nevermind. ;)
I was thinking the same thing, now if it were on the Pink side.........
bem401
07-09-2008, 06:16 AM
There's something of an Alice-in-Wonderland quality to these complaints that white men are poor, benighted victims of discrimination. White American men are the most powerful group of people in human history. They dominate the business world--over 90% of executives of Fortune 500 companies are white and male. They dominate the political world--the great majority of members of Congress are white and male. All the important levers of power in American society are controlled by white, middle-class, heterosexual, Christian males. So how can they face discrimination in any significant way?
I think the kind of "discrimination" we're talking about here doesn't have any serious real-world consequences, such as being denied employment or housing. The most serious consequence seems to be hurt feelings or a sense that you can't say the things that you'd really like to say. (And usually these things are a coded variation of a single theme: that whites are superior to blacks.)
The lack of a "white" identity is more a function of privilege than of discrimination. White Americans have always expressed their aspirations in universal terms. When Thomas Jefferson wrote "all men are created equal," he certainly wasn't thinking about any of the slaves that he owned. He didn't feel a need to state that freedom and equality were reserved for white men--it was something that went without saying. Because white men have always enjoyed a dominant position within American society, there has never been a need to explicitly point out the racial nature of their identity.
Well I teach in an inner-city school district and my 15 years experience has shown me that the school department is trying to adopt a certain 'look" among its faculties and administrations. In short, people seemed to be hired or promoted for what they are rather than what they can do.
As far as your comment on white, middle-class, heterosexual, Christian men, I can only point out ( and this is an observation, not necessarily a complaint ), that there are few or no organizations/advocacy groups looking out for white people, or middle-class people, or heterosexual people, or Christians, or men. We are everybody's favorite whipping boy, but maybe i feel that way because i work in the public sector, not the private.
GenWar
07-09-2008, 06:31 AM
The biggest problem with this chain letter is that people give it any credibility. If you just read it and think about it, it's complete bullshit. I tore this stupid thing apart on my MySpace blog more than a year ago after getting it mailed to me for the 738th time. I'd had enough. Here's what I wrote last April...
...
Nice. I like what you did with that. Very funny.
I, too, itched to point out the sheer lunacy in the author's points. But I resisted the urge (it was hard.) My reason? Because, while the author is an idiot, `tis true, that isn't the point. The point is that there are, ostensibly, a lot of white people out there who are reading this and it is resonating with them. The smart ones immediately ignore the stupidity of taking issue with the United Negro College Fund or believing that only a minority will carjack but still feels the author's pain, over and above their pity that he isn't very smart. They wonder if he doesn't have a point, despite his poor attempts to support it.
id like to say how proud that this thread hasnt become a flame war.
i attribute this to my blackness.....er....nevermind. ;)
On the whole, I would say this thread has reassured me that there aren't THAT many white people out there thinking that there is a point here. I do feel better for the discussion. I am glad I started this thread. It turned out way better than my other idea for a new Thread, "Guess how old mr_punk is!"
-gen
P.S. 58.
xdamage
07-09-2008, 06:54 AM
Blaming shortcomings on "human nature" is a bit of a cop out. Sort of like "the devil made me do it." When our intelligence cannot come up with a valid excuse for our actions, then human nature is to blame. We can't possibly be accountable for our bad actions.
Actually I view it is the opposite of the "devil made me do it" or "society makes us do it". Those actually do blaim outside entities.
Saying we humans are responsible for creating our society, including racism, places the responsibility for it back on our shoulders.
I don't have a perfect analogy, but let me create an imperfect one. If tomorrow the animals evolved intelligence and objected to being eaten, forcing us to change our eating habits, it's not blaim to point out that we have teeth evolved for eating meat. It's facing facts about our nature. If it is also turned out that we had evolved genes that caused us to salivate and become hungrier over the thought of eating meat, this too could well be fact.
Now that does mean we can't use our intellect to overcome our human nature.
When it comes to facts, pretending it isn't so will not in any way help us to change our nature. All it will do is leave us confused.
Evolutionary strategies among animals are not particularly kind. The lion does not lie down with the lamb. Animals often compete brutally for resources. We aren't doing ourselves any favors by denying this aspect of our own nature. So if it is our nature to divide the world into racial lines, if it is in our nature to commit war against others to take what they have, especially so if they appear different then us, then I don't see any point in telling ourselves bedtime stories otherwise.
Again, none of that means we can't use our intellect to overcome our nature, but it means we will need to make a conscious, on-going sociai effort to do it. It won't happen by blaiming society, or the devil, or another race or another sex, etc.
But I really think it's harmful to the cause when people are running around confused. I really think they are better off both being aware that their genes are telling them one thing, but they can and must fight that using their intellect.
The thing is "things change". An evolutionary strategy that at one point in time did work can become useless or harmful if the environment changes. It may take many thousands or hundreds of thousands of years to change the genes, but the fact is in a few short (thousands of ) years our environment has changed radically as a result of our tremendous intellects.
The world is no longer the place our genes evolved in. Technology has changed everything from communication, medicine, travel, how people live and intermix. So we need to change too. That doesn't mean we don't and won't have some deep seated racial drives, but as a society we can be aware of them and teach our kids why they are old drives that are now useless.
xdamage
07-09-2008, 07:14 AM
Racial differences? We are so genetically similar that if we were dogs...we would be the same breed.
It is a gray scale from very similar to increasing differences.
Still I mean honestly if you look at us, there are statistical differences among races (e.g., average height, physical strength, facial shapes, typical hair color) that are clear and pronounced so that none of us has any trouble picking out say a Japanese person from an Indian, despite that they even live relatively close on the globe. And it's not just skin color that our brains observe as differences.
I really don't know what the facts are, but intuitively, I am thinking we do have it our genes that we are more likely to side with those who look more like us then those that do not. That is in keeping with evidence that people are more likely to side with their genetic kin, starting first with their direct children, because they are the closest to us genetically. I am reasonably convinced now that is proven fact about us, and so it is not a big stretch then to extrapolate that we are more likely to side with people who are closer to us genetically in our tribe or village then someone who looks very different from another part of the world. Fast travel and technology has changed that so today we can quickly intermix races, but it wasn't always so.
I don't think we necessarily have genetic measuring devices in our heads, but I do think our brains look for patterns, and let's face it, skin color is a visibly big indicator given how much of the body is affected.
Dirty Ernie
07-09-2008, 07:35 AM
As far as your comment on white, middle-class, heterosexual, Christian men, I can only point out ( and this is an observation, not necessarily a complaint ), that there are few or no organizations/advocacy groups looking out for white people, or middle-class people, or heterosexual people, or Christians, or men. We are everybody's favorite whipping boy, but maybe i feel that way because i work in the public sector, not the private.
Umm...I think it's called Congress.
ahmeerah
07-09-2008, 07:49 AM
ok this morning i dreamed that in modern day white people were made as slaves and i as one of them. i tried to run away and got caught and beaten.
i find it odd that im having dreams about stripper web threads lmao!
lol You're not the only one. It just means we're spending too much time on here.;D
Jenny
07-09-2008, 09:17 AM
Well I teach in an inner-city school district and my 15 years experience has shown me that the school department is trying to adopt a certain 'look" among its faculties and administrations. In short, people seemed to be hired or promoted for what they are rather than what they can do.I had this conversation with guy here recently who couldn't get a job as a teacher and was bitter about it. I just thought his argument that he couldn't get hired because he was white was so completely ludicrous considering that a huge majority of teachers and educational administrators in Ontario are, you know, white.
And I would suggest the reason there is no "advocacy group" for white would be because the only thing the "advocate" for is the protection of the bastion of white male privilege. I mean "No Pay Equity! Men deserve more!" "Keep Our Universities White!" "Another White, Male President Please! Why Mess With A Good Thing?" It's silly.
NickT
07-09-2008, 09:42 AM
^^^
Being white might actually be preventing him from getting a job in some cases. If the school is trying to maintain a certain minority percentage, they may select minority candidates over him. It's not that they hate whites-it's that the government wants a certain % of minority faculty.
You can also see this issue in many government programs. There are lots of programs that only minorities can take advantage of.
For example, a Hispanic female will have lots of minority-specific programs to help her start a business, get a home, etc. that aren't available to a white male. The white male may be in the exact same financial situation as her, but he'll have a harder time getting loans.
I don't think that's a bad thing, but I think it's important that the majority doesn't get treated unfairly at the expense of helping the minority.
bem401
07-09-2008, 11:17 AM
I had this conversation with guy here recently who couldn't get a job as a teacher and was bitter about it. I just thought his argument that he couldn't get hired because he was white was so completely ludicrous considering that a huge majority of teachers and educational administrators in Ontario are, you know, white.
And I would suggest the reason there is no "advocacy group" for white would be because the only thing the "advocate" for is the protection of the bastion of white male privilege. I mean "No Pay Equity! Men deserve more!" "Keep Our Universities White!" "Another White, Male President Please! Why Mess With A Good Thing?" It's silly.
I can't speak about Canada, Jenny, but it is presently very difficult for white people, male or female, to get teaching jobs nowadays in urban school districts in RI at least. Just because the majority of currently employed teachers is white doesn't mean that's whose getting hired or promoted. I'm not saying its a good thing or a bad thing, but as the older white teachers leave, they are being replaced overwhelmingly by non-white teachers.
And as I said in the post, I was not complaining that such advocacy groups are non-existent, just observing that they are. The OP's point was that such groups would be labeled as racist when advocating for middle-class white heterosexual Christian males but not in any other circumstances. By no means was I suggesting such groups should exist either. As a white, Christian, middle-class, heterosexual male, the only thing I'd be willing to change( if I could) would be to swap the middle-class for upper-class
Jenny
07-09-2008, 01:49 PM
I can't speak about Canada, Jenny, but it is presently very difficult for white people, male or female, to get teaching jobs nowadays in urban school districts in RI at least. Just because the majority of currently employed teachers is white doesn't mean that's whose getting hired or promoted. I'm not saying its a good thing or a bad thing, but as the older white teachers leave, they are being replaced overwhelmingly by non-white teachers.
Well, if you had specific numbers outlining how 80% of new hires in the RI school boards are non white, and how 80% of promotions are giving to non white people I might find this more convincing. As it stands, my suspicion is that it is merely white-guy's-perception; I mean when placing your intuition and perception against mine, I'm probably going to trust mine.
And as I said in the post, I was not complaining that such advocacy groups are non-existent, just observing that they are. I know. You said that. But a) pointing out the absence of such groups is clearly meant to communicate something in the context of this thread, since you posted it in this thread and b) i was merely providing you with an explanation as to why such advocacy groups don't exist.
bem401
07-09-2008, 02:07 PM
Well, if you had specific numbers outlining how 80% of new hires in the RI school boards are non white, and how 80% of promotions are giving to non white people I might find this more convincing. As it stands, my suspicion is that it is merely white-guy's-perception; I mean when placing your intuition and perception against mine, I'm probably going to trust mine.
I don't know if such statistics exist but the district was once 95%+ white teachers 15 years ago and is now 2/3 minority teachers. The ironic thing is the minority kids complain that they'd rather have white teachers they can understand than minority ( including their's ) teachers. They've been hiring minorities to fill vacancies at least 80 % of the time BTW. Trust me on this, but I'll do some digging if you insist. I work for a de facto sanctuary city actively courting the approval of the Hispanic community.
Bob_Loblaw
07-09-2008, 10:32 PM
Yeah, but you have to admit there is more validity from one side than another.
I should know better than to argue semantics with you but I don't believe one side's argument is more valid than another's. No doubt, one side may have more reasons to object but I don't think it's justification to blindly accept discrimination based upon the fact that one group doesn't have it as bad. (Please correct my use of the word 'semantics' if necessary http://forums.radiocontrolzone.com/images/smilies/teacher.gif)
I don't know if such statistics exist but the district was once 95%+ white teachers 15 years ago and is now 2/3 minority teachers.
I dunno. Is there any way to confidently say this is reverse racism? I mean, it's entirely possible that of the pool of teachers applying for jobs, the majority are minorities. Or it's possible that of the opening available, it's the minorities who are better qualified. Or maybe it's a case of new schools opening in areas that are more heavily populated by minorities so it's mostly teachers of minority groups who are applying for these positions?
What about the proportion of male teachers to female teachers? I'm sure there's somewhere in the country where figures would be skewed one way or the other.
To say that society is devoid of any racism is naive. At the same time, I think a lot of times, people are too quick to blame outside factors that may or not be there and project their feelings and ideas to the point where everything seems to support their reasonings for their failure.
I am glad I started this thread. It turned out way better than my other idea for a new Thread, "Guess how old mr_punk is!"
47
miabella
07-09-2008, 11:51 PM
it's pretty racist if you can't be around other ethnic groups without saying something rude. not-white people have managed in america for 100s of years-- it shouldn't be hard for whites.
Serrin
07-10-2008, 01:41 AM
Man, lots here to reply to.
First off, I have no racial pride. This is because I don't count race among the important components of my identity. Being white is about as important to me as being left-handed, or having a navel that goes in, and slightly less important to my identity than my drink of choice and which pant leg I put on first.
That said, as a white man, I do have some avoidance of black people. Is it stupid? Maybe, yeah, I guess it is. But I'm also not going to go out of my way to stop. Consider what a white man sees of black people in American culture. We see radicals, like Farrakhan and Jackson, and Wright, and we assume they have a lot of influence, because otherwise nobody would know who they are. And it's probably not primarily Cuban feminists who are backing them, you know. We're bombarded with images of a black, thuggish gang banging, drug dealing, money-worshipping rapper who implicitly hates Whitey. You turn on Comedy Central, and almost every black comedian you see is trying to be Chris Rock or Dave Chapelle. Now, I'm not saying that I think that represents black people in general. However, given that these images are ubiquitous in society, there are several awkward possibilities:
1) he hates Whitey.
2) he thinks that I hate blacks.
3) he thinks that our skin color is an insurmountable barrier to mutual understanding
4) he's offended that I walk on eggshells around him because he's black because that means I suspect him, a rational man, of either being racist, or because I suspect him of suspecting that I'm racist.
Plus there's always the chance they feel the need to bring up race issues. I don't like talking about race issues. I feel like I'll be called racist for disagreeing with things like "white people need to pay a white tax to pay for reparations". There are some dumb black people out there. There are also some dumb white people, but I can always shrug them off like "haha, yeah, let's kill all them negros. good idea, Cletus" and it's okay because I'm not the object of their anger.
Then we get into the whole race vs. culture thing. There's nothing stopping me from sharing in black culture, nor from black people from sharing in white culture (for the most part, anyway), but we tend to stick to our own cultures. I've been to white churches. I've never been to a black church. I listen to heavy metal, and hate rap. I don't watch BET, and I'm not a big fan of basketball. I do a lot of nerdy white guy things. Of course, none of this has anything to do with race. Lots of white people like rap, and lots of black people read philosophy. But until the day I die, I doubt I'll ever feel comfortable in a room full of unfamiliar black people, because they'll have the presumption of a common culture, and a common experience, even if no such thing actually exists. I can differ from another white guy without any real consequence. He can say "So how about the game Sunday?" and I can stare blankly and ask "what the fuck are you talking about?" and he'll go "oh, I guess you don't watch sports". On the other hand if a black guy says "oh man, I love <rapper>" and I go "huh?" he's liable to go "oh, that's right, you're white".
And yes, I'm uncomfortable being the minority in a room, or a group, or a club. It's not that I feel safer around white people because white people are less violent, or that white people only mess with non-whites. I just don't like to stick out. If someone is going to carjack someone, race doesn't matter. On the other hand, if someone is looking to start racial shit, they will. It doesn't matter if 999 out of 1000 black people in a black neighborhood are kind, saintly, rational individuals if that 1 black man who wants to get back at The Man sees you walking down the street and wants to start something.
Let's open a new can of racism worms. I'm sick of being called racist because I have rather harsh views on illegal immigrants. I don't care WHAT race you are, if you're here illegally. If half of China swam on over to Alaska and tried to stay, I'd be pissed. If all the white people in Canada tried to jump the border, I'd still be pissed. If you drive without a license or insurance, if you work for below minimum wage, if you don't pay our taxes yet use our public resources, our schools, our medical care then I have a problem with you whether you're Mexican or not, whether you're illegal or not. Crime is not a racial issue. Though if you point out that enforcement of laws, jury and judge bias, and sentencing are racial issues, I would sadly have to agree with you.
Poole
07-10-2008, 01:55 AM
I think this is because they do not have a cultural identity. Not as being white. If I ask you what it means to be Croatian, you can tell me. If I ask you what it means to be Baptist, you can tell me. If I ask you what it means to be an Alabaman, you can probably tell me. But when I ask what it means to be white, I don't get a lot of answers. Most of the ones I do get tend to be cast in the light of negativity, ie, it is more about being NOT-black than it is about being specifically white.
-gen
You don't get a lot of answers because the PC answer is that whites don't exist as a race except in negative ways. In other words, not only can one not say anything negative publicly about blacks, one cannot also say something positive about whites.
As for the definition of white, it's quite simple: Anyone whose ancestors are from Europe is white. Yes, we come in varying skin tones, hair colors and eye colors, but that is part of the "diversity" of the white race and is a wonderful thing.
Poole
07-10-2008, 01:56 AM
Often? Really? Your statement lacks context. I think I'd agree that, when someone is going to prey on another human being to commit a crime against, and race is their specific motivation, it is far more likely that it will be a minority preying on a white person. However, my personal belief is that most crimes occur not as a specific predatory act and more as acts of opportunity. When someone is going to mug or carjack, they attack the nearest available person fitting the victim profile without race being a factor. Maybe I am naive, but I find it difficult to picture a black carjacker hiding in the bushes while lots of black and hispanics drive late model SUVs by harmlessly, only to jump out a grab the white dude in the BMW.
As for the neutering of white men by the media...well, no one can make someone not stand up for themselves. In general, my experience is that you can only push a person so far. Most people will not stand for injustice against themselves. So I think I would disagree with you that people who have opinions similar to Lestat1 do not refrain from speaking up because they fear the media as much as they do not think that it truly affects their daily lives. A person who feels like you do about race relations tends to express it, as you did. I think you need to consider the possibility that a lot of white people just don't feel as you do.
-gen
Some crime is not perpetrated purely for racial reasons, but a significant amount of it is.
White men don't stand up for themselves because it is not worth it. The media never, repeat never, has empathy for whites as whites. To "stand up" as a white man today in a racial situation is in every case to be portrayed as the bad guy no matter what the actual facts were.
Poole
07-10-2008, 01:57 AM
I just don't agree with this. I think that most educated minorites serious about race relations would be happy to sit down and have a real discussion with whites about it. And I think it has to be just as valid for whites to express their concerns with any perceived disadvantages they are suffering as it is for the minorities. Otherwise, all the minority arguments are rendered void. How can I claim that things need to be done about problems I face if I won't hear the counterarguments?
-gen
You might be right on this, at least as far as some minorities. It is the "white" media which forbids intelligent whites who dissent from the PC line from taking sensible pro-white positions.
Poole
07-10-2008, 01:59 AM
I think (hope?) that your views are somewhat antiquated and that you need to wake up and realize that this land is changing. Yes the white hegemony is losing its grip. I think Mr. Obama is a good example of that. I don't think that more minorities in power or even being present necessarily has to take away from being proud to be white. I don't think it even has to take away with your god given right to fear or distrust those not like you. But, in most every example that nature provides, diversity equals strength. I think that has to be a good thing...
-gen
I appreciate your reply to my post, since as my first one on this board it was pretty inflammatory. (And sorry for the multiple posts as I haven't figured out the multi-quote thing here.) However I consider myself a racial realist, not someone who clings to the past. I am racially conscious as are you and, as you put it early on about yourself in this thread, "a massive racist" but not a hater. I am proud of my race but also genuinely like and respect others of different backgrounds. Anyone who claims to love their race but doesn't respect others is indeed a mindless hater.
My racial consciousness has nothing to do with "supremacy" but rather freedom of choice, or more accurately freedom of association. For most of this country's history the government brutally enforced segregation of the races. Now it brutally demands forced integration, though fortunately we're not to the point yet that those that disagree with their government's racial policies are charged with crimes, as is already happening in Canada and many European nations.
I believe the only solution to America's racial situation is freedom of association. Those who wish to work with and marry those of a different background should have every right to do so, and those who wish to associate only with their own kind should also have that right.
That is true freedom, something most Americans have long forgotten, or never learned. The government and media manipulate and exploit us, pitting us against each other on the basis of race, class, gender, sexual orientation, and anything else that they think is effective. It's "divide and conquer."
What I "hate" is seeing how easily trained so many people are to parrot whatever the latest party line is. Far and away the most serious problem we face is that of a fast-developing totalitarian police state, which since 9/11 is being constructed under the pretext of "protecting our freedom." I just briefly caught the title of another thread on this board, to the effect of strippers being fingerprinted in a club. This is the kind of outrage that grows by the day and affects us all.
I am a believer in freedom, freedom of thought and freedom of action, as long as it doesn't violate anyone else's freedoms. But I am not a libertarian; I am totally opposed to "open borders" and "free trade." We need to get back to a system that takes care of Americans first. And we also need honest discussion on immigration and racial issues. The overwhelming majority of Americans reject current immigration policy, which has a very strong racial element; we need to be able to discuss that issue and all others frankly, from not only pro-black and pro-Mexican perspectives, but from pro-white ones as well.
Genuinely pro-white people are not the cartoon cut-ups in Hollywood costumes seen on Jerry Springer, but thoughtful, caring people who want to see everyone in this country who has good intentions do well. GenWar, like you I have a JD and like you it was a struggle to achieve it; I imagine you defy the sterotypes many whites have about blacks and I think I defy the stereotypes most people have about racially conscious whites. I'm not a reactionary but someone who wants to see blacks and every other group do well, but who also doesn't want to see America become a non-white country.
As the U.S. becomes more and more a non-white country it more and more resembles a Third World country. Whites have been too fair, and have lost their common sense and survival instincts. The current power structure is leading this country straight to chaos and hell and I believe we all sense this deep down though we disagree on the causes and solutions, which is testament to how successfully and diabolically this land has been factionalized into countless groups and belief systems. The power structure is the problem, and it isn't pro-any race, only out for itself, to the detriment of everyone else.
bem401
07-10-2008, 06:22 AM
I dunno. Is there any way to confidently say this is reverse racism? I mean, it's entirely possible that of the pool of teachers applying for jobs, the majority are minorities. Or it's possible that of the opening available, it's the minorities who are better qualified. Or maybe it's a case of new schools opening in areas that are more heavily populated by minorities so it's mostly teachers of minority groups who are applying for these positions?
What about the proportion of male teachers to female teachers? I'm sure there's somewhere in the country where figures would be skewed one way or the other.
To say that society is devoid of any racism is naive. At the same time, I think a lot of times, people are too quick to blame outside factors that may or not be there and project their feelings and ideas to the point where everything seems to support their reasonings for their failure.
47
The city as a whole has become "less white" during my tenure and the [U]very[U] liberal powers that be want to appease the minorities so they strive to hire minorities whenever possible, often to the exclusion of white teachers. Their reasoning is that the minority teachers would serve as better role models for the minority students. Maybe its true, maybe not. The city can't seem to hire enough teachers fresh from the Dominican Republic or Africa, cutting them all sorts of slack for certification. The problem is these teachers speak such poor English that the minority students complain that they want white teachers, so they can understand them. Yet the trend continues
xdamage
07-10-2008, 07:56 AM
The city as a whole has become "less white" during my tenure and the [U]very[U] liberal powers that be want to appease the minorities so they strive to hire minorities whenever possible, often to the exclusion of white teachers. Their reasoning is that the minority teachers would serve as better role models for the minority students. Maybe its true, maybe not. The city can't seem to hire enough teachers fresh from the Dominican Republic or Africa, cutting them all sorts of slack for certification. The problem is these teachers speak such poor English that the minority students complain that they want white teachers, so they can understand them. Yet the trend continues
Some things are getting mixed together.
Affirmative Action requires that the work place reflect the community, so if urban schools are hiring less white teachers that might be inline with the community. But it could also be that white teachers are less likely to want to work in the cities. It doesn't take much googling to find articles on how poor the schools are in inner cites.
Racism and Sexism in the work place are getting mixed together. These are very different dynamics. Again, I want to remind people that if they step outside of the USA borders, they are going to find that non-white males of the predominate race/nationality hold most of the political and upper paying jobs in other countries. This is not some unique "white" evil. Try it. Go to Japan, China, South America, Germany, Turkey, Egypt, the list is endless and you will see that White American males do not have most of the jobs. Then again you might also be surprised that neither do minorities in those countries either.
Sexism, an imbalance of females to males in the work place, is a different dynamic at play that cross many cultures for entirely different reasons, which sociobiologists argue has genetic roots. That is a separate topic of discussion.
It is not fundamentally wrong that white males feel like they are being treated unfairly, but let me given an analogy to show this.
Imagine a law office, owned by a White Female. Imagine she hires mostly white female lawyers for her upper and lower ranking positions. Imagine that suddenly she is slapped with an affirmative action lawsuit, and is forced to make some changes.
Step #1, she tells her employees she cannot to afford to hire more people, but she is required to fill the ranks with a higher percentage of minorities. Lets suppose she can fill those roles with minority females so sex stays out of it. Would any of the white women volunteer their own jobs to step down and make room for a minority female?
Step #2, she tells her employees she cannot promote from within. No more white females in upper management or exec positions for a while. Sorry, she will have to hire non-white females from outside. How well would this go over?
It may all be fair in the bigger picture, but on a personal level, all an individual knows is they are being passed over because they are "white". For that person, the fairness of it is very ethereal, but the impact on them is very real.
That still doesn't mean we shouldn't go ahead with affirmative action, but it also doesn't mean individually people who are negatively affected are going to accept it lying down, or even volunteer to give up their position for the benefit of another.
GenWar
07-10-2008, 08:53 AM
As for the definition of white, it's quite simple: Anyone whose ancestors are from Europe is white. Yes, we come in varying skin tones, hair colors and eye colors, but that is part of the "diversity" of the white race and is a wonderful thing.
So Russians aren't white?
-gen
Russia is in Europe. Europe stops at Ural and white part of Russia is in west side of Ural's. Russia East of Ural's has been colonized by whites same way as North America and Australia have been colonised by whites.
i.breathe.in
07-10-2008, 10:34 AM
not-white people have managed in america for 100s of years-- it shouldn't be hard for whites.
eh?
really? i get racism from black people far more then i ever see white people dole it out.
its more "socially acceptable" i think. that or they feel entitled.
but i live in a primarily black area (there are 2 projects near my house, and that may sound racist but its mainly blacks that live there)
xdamage
07-10-2008, 12:08 PM
So Russians aren't white?
-gen
They are, but I don't see what this has to do with anything.
I mean I don't quite see the point. Indians (I mean in India) aren't white. Arabs in the middle east, not thought of as "white". Asian's (China, Japan, Korea, etc.) aren't. South America is mostly not. Africa mostly not. The list goes on. There are plenty of people of various ancestry, some of which have evolved darker skin, some not.
The point of Affirmative Action is not to make sure that Black skinned people thrive on a world wide basis. The point is that people of different races represent a certain percentage of our current national make up, and so should our jobs and politics. The rest of the world mostly doesn't even make an AA effort and if you are not of the predominate race and color in those societies, tough.
---
A total aside about skin color...
If black skin devolves in the future, and it may, so what? It really is just melanin levels.
The general theory is our bodies make more if we tend to live in the sun outdoors. If not, our bodies will tend to make less because making more then we need is a waste of resources. So it could well be that if people tend to live more of their lives indoors, that they will make less.
Now if your issue is that in general darker skinned people tend to be poorer... it's complex. Strange thing is make them wealthier, let them live more generations indoors in human created structures, and you very likely will see their skin color turn lighter in coming generations. Or put them settings where the weather is colder, where they are forced to live more time indoors, and they may evolve lighter skin color. There is unexpected outcome for you.
xdamage
07-10-2008, 12:34 PM
Some thought provoking comments about American's perceptions here:
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2008/01/skin-color-is-deceptive-character.php
threlayer
07-10-2008, 02:36 PM
Indians (I mean in India) aren't white. Arabs in the middle east, not thought of as "white". Asian's (China, Japan, Korea, etc.) aren't. South America is mostly not. Africa mostly not. The list goes on.
Point of order: definition of Caucasian race - European, Western Asia including the Mioddle East, and North African. Australian Aborigine is classified s a race somewhere. Asian (Oriental) would include middle, southern, and eastern Asia, including some of the southern prior Russian confederations like Kirgizistan. to me the Indian subcontinent could be considered an distinct race.
If black skin devolves in the future, and it may, so what? It really is just melanin levels. The general theory is our bodies make more if we tend to live in the sun outdoors. If not, our bodies will tend to make less because making more then we need is a waste of resources. So it could well be that if people tend to live more of their lives indoors, that they will make less.
The melanin thing is not a theory, it is proven. But as I have posted here previously, 2000 generations ago there was only one race evolving to the present day hominids. Those who stayed in Africa longer retained their darker skin. When the geneticists look at 'race' they see very very little differences in the genomes. Skin actually is one of the minor remaining differences. Facial features, certain inheritable disease tendencies are more significant, just not to the general populace who mostly see skin color and in some regions, cultural differences.
Personally I know a few blacks right over from Africa and they, after cultural integration, are pretty much indistinguishable from the general immigrant populace, save skin and facial features. These people are professionals and they are quite intelligent with very respectful families, for example. And I know a few from the ghetto who are the typical rabble rousers etc. To me, these cultural differences are a lot more significant than anything else in my choice of black friends.
Bob_Loblaw
07-10-2008, 07:38 PM
So Russians aren't white?
They're only white when you mix in cream or milk. http://northstandchat.com/images/smilies/whisky.gif
xdamage
07-10-2008, 08:02 PM
Skin actually is one of the minor remaining diffeences.
Yes, but I guess because it such a large visible difference, and humans being not always very bright, we tend to categorize by the most obvious difference first.
Anyway, due to technology and the speed at which we can now cross the globe and intermix, plus technology that lets us clothe our bodies, live indoors in climate controlled environments, wear sunscreen, and probably a few more factors, who knows.. perhaps skin color will tend to lighten among those who can afford to live like that. Those who cant or live in bright sunshine will remain dark skinned.
Who knows... maybe necessity will tend to breed a kind of invention where those who tend to live in colder climates are more likely to spend resources improving on structures, vehicles, clothing, and protection, that allow them to live in colder weather. Perhaps those who live in the sun will tend to make less efforts in these areas because they can survive just fine without these technological advances?
But competition among humans will never stop. It is a double edge sword. If we didn't compete we would stagnate. We can't afford for everyone to move at the pace of the slowest among us for fear that someone might be left behind and feel bad that they are not keeping up.
And even our desire for equality... it's questionable what really lies behind it. Do we really want to see everyone treated equally? Or do we just want to see everyone treated well enough that there are no major backlashes that would destabilize the society for the rest of us? When we think of it like that, the altruistic frosting is removed, and maybe it's just another successful, but still competitive, strategy towards success.
Poole
07-11-2008, 03:34 AM
Yes, but I guess because it such a large visible difference, and humans being not always very bright, we tend to categorize by the most obvious difference first.
Is your point that all races are exactly alike "on the inside," that blacks and other minorities are nothing more than whites with different external paint jobs?
Is it possible that it's not "very bright" to assume that all races are exactly the same in every way and therefore that every outcome when measuring races, on average, such as mental and physical performance, should be exactly the same and that any deviation can only be ascribed to "racism"?
fancygirl
07-11-2008, 05:43 AM
anyone can be racist. while I think that logically-- yes, to have black only scholarships and such is racist because whites can't have white only scholarships
we know that there are scholarships that are practically white only because they're given to white people for a variety of reasons. Most of all, because the giver of the scholarship only wants to give to white people and will even if ethnic people are technically able to apply.
I had affirmative action explained to me this way: given twenty years, it really could even out the injustice which forces a lot of ethnic people into the lower classes and thus into the barrios, the ghettos, the crack hoods, and also into jail.
Logically-- affirmative action is racist. Realistically, it and now scholarships are the only hope we have of evening things out with the least amount of bloodshed.
xdamage
07-11-2008, 07:16 AM
Is your point that all races are exactly alike "on the inside," that blacks and other minorities are nothing more than whites with different external paint jobs?
Is it possible that it's not "very bright" to assume that all races are exactly the same in every way and therefore that every outcome when measuring races, on average, such as mental and physical performance, should be exactly the same and that any deviation can only be ascribed to "racism"?
Let me answer you like this...
Evolutionary Psychologists show a lot of proof that our emotional tendencies, ability to learn, even some behaviors, are affected by our brains wiring.
This is completely counter to popular blank slate thinking today, but here is an analogy.
If you build a computer and just put memory chips in it and turn it on, nothing happens. In order for a computer to do anything, learn anything, first you need a lot of software in place. In fact CPUs contain firmware/software. Same with the BIOS, the OS you load, the graphics card, the support chips even the keyboard has a microprocessor and instructions already programmed in.
Blank slates DO NOT LEARN. We do. We are not BLANK SLATES. We are also not perfect machines completely free of bias, with perfect perception of ourselves.
Okay, that indirect answer leads to the next part...
In fact you wouldn't be the first to suggest that there are more differences at play then simply skin color, and there is a strong body of evidence now that the statistical differences between the sexes are also due to more then just having a penis or a vagina, but here are the problems :
1.) We know that despite any inherent nature, we can modify our behavior through social training (i.e., the impact of our environment).
2.) We don't have any good science that clearly shows us for example that people raised from a certain part of the world are more likely to be violent. Some have suggested it, but without studies, it's a guess. I won't tell you it is impossible because in fact it is possible, but we don't have the data.
3.) Even if we did have the data, then what? We would go back to point #1, which is despite that, the only point of control we do have is to change our environment.
So... you could be right, but even so the outcome will still be the same no matter if we have the science to prove it or not. Still people will want a bigger share of the pie, and a change in their environment will have impact on their behavior.
p.s. to be clear, the difference between the sexes has evolved over a much longer period of time then the difference between races so on a gray scale even if it is true, the difference between the races could be so minor and insignificant that it really is not a factor. That said, there has been enough time for very visible difference to evolve including facial features, overall height, hair color, skin color, and our brains are biological organs too so there has been time for some differences in their wiring to have evolved just as much as these other differences.
threlayer
07-12-2008, 11:42 AM
Is your point that all races are exactly alike "on the inside," that blacks and other minorities are nothing more than whites with different external paint jobs?
Is it possible that ..., on average, [measures] such as mental and physical performance, should be exactly the same and that any deviation can only be ascribed to "racism"?
If you read my previous post, I addressed my opinion that culture, much more than race, has made greater differences, at least in the USA. We also know specific medical differences (and to an extent physical performance) that are due to heredity and thus to race. Even considering African nations (subraces?), there are very considerable variations in size and other physical measures that are probably greater than average differences between races. Again culture makes a very big difference, even within the races.
Oh, yeah. And to get to the OP's much more specific point, it is the culture and politics that frustrate US citizens. Atonement for past sins, to follow the Constitution, should also apply to the Native Americans. There is a helluva lot of difference between the way citizens regard the two 'races.' This must be due to politics IMO.
cinammonkisses
07-12-2008, 12:59 PM
As for the definition of white, it's quite simple: Anyone whose ancestors are from Europe is white. Yes, we come in varying skin tones, hair colors and eye colors, but that is part of the "diversity" of the white race and is a wonderful thing.
Well, isn't that like saying everyone whose ancestors are from Africa are black? Hasn't science proved that man started in Africa? :-\
Also, my grandfather is a white german. I am DEFINATELY not the definition of white according to your definition. lol
cinammonkisses
07-12-2008, 01:06 PM
anyone can be racist. while I think that logically-- yes, to have black only scholarships and such is racist because whites can't have white only scholarships
Logically-- affirmative action is racist. Realistically, it and now scholarships are the only hope we have of evening things out with the least amount of bloodshed.
1) Actually, at Kentucky State University, an HBCU (historically black college/university) they have scholarships for minority representation of the school ie. whites, asian, hispanic. May I mention that KSU is like 55% white eventhough it's an HBCU.
2) I don't believe affirmative action is racist. They do more than give a handup to people of different races. Did you know that WHITE WOMEN are the biggest recipiants of Affirmative Action? I'm just saying..
Affirmative action is intended for minorities, women, handicap, and veterans.
miabella
07-12-2008, 01:12 PM
eh?
really? i get racism from black people far more then i ever see white people dole it out.
its more "socially acceptable" i think. that or they feel entitled.
but i live in a primarily black area (there are 2 projects near my house, and that may sound racist but its mainly blacks that live there)
racism is prejudice with institutional force behind it. you experience prejudice because in your anomalous area, you are the minority. this is atypical in america and means that poor little mcwhitey you might experience some localised prejudice from blackfolk.
but they have no institutional power backing their prejudice. the cops are not nicer to them somehow, they don't get sinecures with no qualifications, they can't leave town and easily get an apartment (well, more easily in a place like nyc). hell, they live in the projects-- hardly a sign the local blackfolk have any power backing their prejudice.
it's not racism when your prejudice has no power behind it. it's just prejudice (pre-judging, typically in a negative way in practice). someone calling you 'white girl' or 'cracker' ain't racist-- just prejudiced, because you can basically have them arrested for doing so at the drop of a hat, as a white woman. that's power they haven't got access to.