What can we do to address race-relations and solve racism?

B/H, I know you weren't talking to me, but Ceci and I do agree on a few points, and I thought I would address some of the stuff you said to her.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I don't think anyone is sweeping anything under the rug.

I could see how you would feel this way, but let me give you an analogy. Say you were a young woman who had been raped, and that, due to some strange agreement with the judge, the rapist had been forced to pay for the victim's therapy. (I know it's highly unlikely, just work with me for a minute.) Then, say, the rapist decided to stop payment, claiming that the aggrieved party has had enough time to get over it.

That's the situation we're dealing with, or my point of view on it. So, when people say, you don't need affirmative action anymore, or, you minorities (like its a dirty word) are always crying about racism, it appears, to the victim, like sweeping it under the rug. Or, as it appears in my mind, you really should be over it by now.

I'm just saying we can't change it and we can't do anything to make it right.

That's not entirely true. Things have been done to TRY and make it right, but, now even those little concessions are no longer safe. Everyday, someone else decides that we're incorrigible and useless, so why even bother with affirmative action, etc, in a very high-brow manner, of course.

That's why saying nothing can be done is a cop-out. What SHOULD you(pl.) do? Stop questioning those little concessions. Then, stop accusing us of wanting hand-outs. Hand-outs are what the US governement gives Israel. If we can all agree that the slaves worked for free, for a VERY long time, what we want should be referred to as deferred payment.

I think it's an insult to accuse people of being self-centered and non-empathetic because we don't hold onto it and feel guilty about something we didn't do. Because we don't walk around apologizing to black people for something we had no control over or knowledge of. I don't apologize to Jews either for what happened to them in the past. I was no more part of that than I was of slavery ownership.

Conversely, due to my own experiences, I do apologize. Clearly, I was not here, or a part of it, but when I met a Native American girl in college, I certainly did tell her how messed up it was that people came here and stole their country. And although she was a little surprised at my honesty, she accepted my sympathy. It was a touching moment.

And that's all you have to do (not just you of course, but everyone). Like someone else said, we're all human, and we all contain, within us, different facets of the human experience. Sometimes that includes pain. The humanity in us all should reach out and try to soothe the pain in others. That's all.

Thank you very much, HH. Your post says more than I could ever express. I appreciate your input because it helps with making this difficult topic crystal clear. I appreciate it.

It helps to have many perspectives so that people can truly use reason in order to separate the wheat from the chaff.

[edit on 11-8-2006 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by HarlemHottie
That's the situation we're dealing with, or my point of view on it.

I think that’s a bad analogy. To me affirmative action takes away from the concept of rewarding those who work hard and who have rightly earned everything they get. I can tell you right now that my school has certain quotas that they have to fill with respect to minorities. What that means is that after a certain number of applications the main criteria which judgment is based upon is no longer academic performance but rather race and gender. That is not the way we should be doing things in America if we want to promote the concept of fair play and the concept of a level playing field.

Originally posted by HarlemHottie
The humanity in us all should reach out and try to soothe the pain in others.

Sure I can tell others that I think what happened in the past was wrong and that we should work to have a better future but I do not see why I should personally apologize for the past, I had no part or say in what occurred. And I don’t buy the guilt by association line of thought.

Originally posted by HarlemHottie
If we can all agree that the slaves worked for free, for a VERY long time, what we want should be referred to as deferred payment.

Who is we? And who should pay for this "deferred payment", Me? The ONLY way in which I support reparations is if it was direct to those who suffered, i.e. Jews after the holocaust, Japanese after the interment. I do not support this notion that generations later we should pay people because of their lineage and or distinguishing features.

[edit on 11-8-2006 by WestPoint23]

WestPoint,

You say it's a bad analogy, then go on to recount a personal experience with affirmative action. What was so bad about the analogy?

[edit on 11-8-2006 by HarlemHottie]

[edit on 11-8-2006 by HarlemHottie]

West Point, I'm glad you recognize the Holocaust and the Interment camps. We all should do so.

What makes it so hard for you to recognize that people suffered during slavery as well as during Jim Crow?

Is there a racial hierarchy in the manner of suffering?





[edit on 11-8-2006 by ceci2006]

To me affirmative action takes away from the concept of rewarding those who work hard and who have rightly earned everything they get. I can tell you right now that my school has certain quotas that they have to fill with respect to minorities. What that means is that after a certain number of applications the main criteria which judgment is based upon is no longer academic performance but rather race and gender. That is not the way we should be doing things in America if we want to promote the concept of fair play and the concept of a level playing field.

When certain folk are suppressed from their pursuit of happiness whether it be success
in business or prefered area of living or what have you, hardly constitutes a fair and
level playing field.

Sometimes benefit of the group outweighs benefit of the individual and this doctrine is
epitomized IMO with affirmative action.

Originally posted by ceci2006
What makes it so hard for you to recognize that people suffered during slavery as well as during Jim Crow?

I don't believe I have ever denied what happed in the past with respect to slavery, I understand that people suffered and I hope its never repeated. So with all due respect I don't see where your coming from on that.

Originally posted by ceci2006
Is there a racial hierarchy in the manner of suffering?

Not at all, at least not for me, how about for you?

Originally posted by HarlemHottie
You say it's a bad analogy, then go on to recount a personal experience with affirmative action. What was so bad about the analogy?

I believe I already have.

The main problem that I have with your analogy is that its not really representative of this situation. What you should have said is that the grand children or associates of the rapist, generations after the incident, should be forced to pay the grandchildren of the raped woman. And now that I’ve answered your points could you kindly do the same for mine?

Originally posted by nextguyinline
When certain folk are suppressed from their pursuit of happiness whether it be success in business or prefered area of living or what have you, hardly constitutes a fair and level playing field.

Then go after the "folk" who are suppressing the pursuit of happiness of whomever. However don't make blanket laws that unjustly and wrongly apply and affect all.

Originally posted by nextguyinline
Sometimes benefit of the group outweighs benefit of the individual and this doctrine is epitomized IMO with affirmative action.

Forgive me if I have misinterpreted you but are you trying to say that the "benefit" of one group outweighs that of another? Isn't that what started this whole thing?

[edit on 12-8-2006 by WestPoint23]

Originally quoted by WestPoint23
I don't believe I have ever denied what happed in the past with respect to slavery, I understand that people suffered and I hope its never repeated. So with all due respect I don't see where your coming from on that.

I'm glad that you hope that the suffering of slavery will never be repeated. But, I think, by all due respect, you are missing the point. And terribly so.

Slavery was enforced by the government and economic structure. The laws of Jim Crow were enforced by the government, the authorities and society. This includes the laws on miscegenation and segregation. Were Black people not affected by the government too?

However, I'm not surprised by your response. You are that type of person that plays lip service to not being racist and in the next breath put down Arabic people for being terrorists.

And that's not any different than accusing Blacks for wanting reparations all the time. But knowing you don't see the point, this won't affect you.

Not at all, at least not for me, how about for you?

By all due respect, there is a racial hierarchy at play. People like you perpetuate it with responses like yours.

And sadly, you are not the only one that thinks in this manner.

Frankly, I just have to ask you this question:

1)What would be the remedy for Blacks in light of all this suffering if reparations are not an applicable solution?

I would like to see what your answer would be.










[edit on 12-8-2006 by ceci2006]

I would like to throw this into the mix. Maybe articles about white privilege might help give clues about why there is such a breakdown of communication in dealing with issues related to race.

Note: These authors are white. So, they are studying their own "whiteness" and the privileges that come with it.


This first article was posted on my "Tony Snow" thread. I think that it should be looked at again:

WHITE PRIVILEGE SHAPES THE U.S.

Here's what white privilege sounds like:

I am sitting in my University of Texas office, talking to a very bright and very conservative white student about affirmative action in college admissions, which he opposes and I support.

The student says he wants a level playing field with no unearned advantages for anyone. I ask him whether he thinks that in the United States being white has advantages. Have either of us, I ask, ever benefited from being white in a world run mostly by white people? Yes, he concedes, there is something real and tangible we could call white privilege.

So, if we live in a world of white privilege--unearned white privilege--how does that affect your notion of a level playing field? I ask.

He paused for a moment and said, "That really doesn't matter."

That statement, I suggested to him, reveals the ultimate white privilege: the privilege to acknowledge you have unearned privilege but ignore what it means.

what is white privilege?

Some people have described white privilege as the flip-side of racism. Behind the violence and discrimination of racism that people of color are subjected to in this country are the advantages and protections of having white skin. Peggy McIntosh, a scholar on white privilege, describes it as "an invisible weightless knapsack of special provisions, maps, passports, codebooks, visas, clothes, tools, and blank checks."
[...]
Sharon Martinas describes white privilege as the preferential treatment, on an individual, institutional, and cultural level, to individuals whose ancestors came from Europe over people whose ancestors came from the Americas, Africa, Asia, and the Arab world.This preferential treatment exempts European Americans from the forms of racial and national oppression inflicted upon people whose ancestors are not from Europe. Although this is true today, it has not always been true. The ethnic groups who are considered White have changed many times over the years.

Peggy McIntosh has published a very interesting list of privileges that she felt "white privilege" has earned her. She finds this fascinating in terms of trying to define what exactly this "privilege" is:

White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack

I decided to try to work on myself at least by identifying some of the daily effects of white privilege in my life. I have chosen those conditions which I think in my case attach somewhat more to skin color privilege than to class, religion, ethnic status, or geographical location, though of course all these other factors are intricately intertwined. As far as I can see, my African American coworkers, friends and acquaintances with whom I come into daily or frequent contact in this particular time, place, and line of work cannot count on most of these conditions. I usually think of privilege as being a favored state, whether earned or conferred by birth or luck. Yet some of the conditions I have described here work to systematically overempower certain groups. Such privilege simply confers dominance because of one's race or sex.

1. I can if I wish arrange to be in the company of people of my race most of the time.
2. If I should need to move, I can be pretty sure renting or purchasing housing in an area which I can afford and in which I would want to live.
3. I can be pretty sure that my neighbors in such a location will be neutral or pleasant to me.
4. I can go shopping alone most of the time, pretty well assured that I will not be followed or harassed.
5. I can turn on the television or open to the front page of the paper and see people of my race widely represented.
6. When I am told about our national heritage or about "civilization," I am shown that people of my color made it what it is.
7. I can be sure that my children will be given curricular materials that testify to the existence of their race.
8. If I want to, I can be pretty sure of finding a publisher for this piece on white privilege.
9. I can go into a music shop and count on finding the music of my race represented, into a supermarket and find the staple foods which fit with my cultural traditions, into a hairdresser's shop and find someone who can cut my hair.
10. Whether I use checks, credit cards, or cash, I can count on my skin color not to work against the appearance of financial reliability.
11. I can arrange to protect my children most of the time from people who might not like them.
12. I can swear, or dress in second hand clothes, or not answer letters, without having people attribute these choices to the bad morals,the poverty, or the illiteracy of my race.
13. I can speak in public to a powerful male group without putting my race on trial.
14. I can do well in a challenging situation without being called a credit to my race.
15. I am never asked to speak for all the people of my racial group.
16. I can remain oblivious of the language and customs of persons of color who constitute the world's majority without feeling in my culture any penalty for such oblivion.
17. I can criticize our government and talk about how much I fear its policies and behavior without being seen as a cultural outsider.
18. I can be pretty sure that if I ask to talk to "the person in charge," I will be facing a person of my race.
19. If a traffic cop pulls me over or if the IRS audits my tax return, I can be sure I haven't been singled out because of my race.
20. I can easily buy posters, postcards, picture books, greeting cards, dolls, toys, and children's magazines featuring people of my race.
21. I can go home from most meetings of organizations I belong to feeling somewhat tied in, rather than isolated, out-of-place, out numbered, unheard, held at a distance, or feared.
22. I can take a job with an affirmative action employer without having coworkers on the job suspect that I got it because of race.
23. I can choose public accommodation without fearing that people of my race cannot get in or will be mistreated in the places I have chosen.
24. I can be sure that if I need legal or medical help, my race will not work against me.
25. If my day, week, or year is going badly, I need not ask of each negative episode or situation whether it has racial overtones.
26. I can choose blemish cover or bandages in flesh color and have them more or less match my skin.

What do people think about this--especially when dealing with the argument of affirmative action and reparations?



[edit on 12-8-2006 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Originally posted by HarlemHottie
You say it's a bad analogy, then go on to recount a personal experience with affirmative action. What was so bad about the analogy?

The main problem that I have with your analogy is that its not really representative of this situation. What you should have said is that the grand children or associates of the rapist, generations after the incident, should be forced to pay the grandchildren of the raped woman.

Only if you believe racism, against African-Americans, is dead. If you do, wow. I don't really know what I should say, or, if anything I say will make a difference, because I would really be starting from square one. Maybe that deserves a thread of its own.

And now that I’ve answered your points could you kindly do the same for mine?

Please see above. I really would be happy to address your points, but I don't think this is the place for a drawn out debate like that.

HH

[edit on 12-8-2006 by HarlemHottie]

This is also an interesting piece concerning how different races were supposed to act during the times of Jim Crow. This might also help put into context why discussing race-relations are so complex.

Racial Etiquette: The Racial Customs and Rules of Racial Behavior in Jim Crow America

Most southern white Americans who grew up prior to 1954 expected black Americans to conduct themselves according to well-understood rituals of behavior. This racial etiquette governed the actions, manners, attitudes, and words of all black people when in the presence of whites. To violate this racial etiquette placed one's very life, and the lives of one's family, at risk. Blacks were expected to refer to white males in positions of authority as "Boss" or "Cap'n"--a title of respect that replaced "Master" or "Marster" used in slave times. Sometimes, the white children of one's white employer or a prominent white person might be called "Massa," to show special respect. If a white person was well known, a black servant or hired hand or tenant might speak in somewhat intimate terms, addressing the white person as "Mr. John" or "Miss Mary."

All black men, on the other hand, were called by their first names or were referred to as "Boy," "Uncle," and "Old Man"--regardless of their age. If the white person did not personally know a black person, the term "'n-word'" or "'n-word'-fellow," might be used. In legal cases and the press, blacks were often referred to by the word "Negro" with a first name attached, such as "Negro Sam." [...]Whites much preferred to give blacks honorary titles, such as Doctor, or Professor, or Reverend, in order to avoid calling them Mister. While the term "'n-word'" was universally used, some whites were uncomfortable with it because they knew it was offensive to most blacks. As a substitute, the word "niggra" often appeared in polite society.
[...]
This practice of addressing blacks by words that denoted disrespect or inferiority reduced the black person to a non-person, especially in newspaper accounts. [...]In general, blacks and whites could meet and talk on the street. Almost always, however, the rules of racial etiquette required blacks to be agreeable and non-challenging, even when the white person was mistaken about something. Usually it was expected that blacks would step off the sidewalk when meeting whites or else walk on the outer street side of the walk thereby "giving whites the wall." Under no circumstances could a black person assume an air of equality with whites.

[edit on 12-8-2006 by ceci2006]

Ceci, in reference to the laundry list of white privilege, I have to say that, although I personally loved it, and I'll get into that in a minute, I don't think it could change anyone's mind, or even make them really think about it, unless they already believe that people of color are discriminated against. For example, in #19, that only makes sense if you already believe that people of color are pulled over, or audited, more often, solely because of their race. Otherwise, the person of color is usually seen as "over-reacting," or being "overly sensitive."

The reason I loved the list was because you could tell the author really thought about it, and might have even tried it out 'in the field.' She must have interviewed people, or spoke to her own friends, to really get it, you know?

She forgot one though, and I have to admit/apologize that this is a bit of a rant: not having to worry about people understanding you, literally not figuratively, but that being your fault somehow. Accents usually are accepted as, a, involuntary, and, b, maybe even alluring. Not ours, not ever. White Americans, across the board, unless you're a recent/ first generation immigrant, can feel confident that people will understand their actual words, because, as soon as they come up with slang, it's added to the dictionary, or all over the tv. Not so with ours, of course. It takes years, and then, its used to sell crappy products.

One of the first interview tips we get is, don't 'talk black,' and that same advice applies to personal life too. I have very clear diction and a large vocabulary at my disposal, because I was well-educated. Some black people don't think I 'talk black' well enough. Yet, I've had white friends overhear me talking to someone else and kind of lift their eyebrows at me and say flatly, Oh, I didn't know you talked like that(their emphasis). Yes, that could be attributable to the fact that I didn't speak to them like that, but that still doesn't explain the disdain in that look. It made me realize that it disturbed some white people, even in my own peer group, to hear me speak that way, and it made me uncomfortable in their presence, like, I better make sure not to slip up like that again, or face social censure. So what I did, and what I lot of black people do, it seems, is make damn sure I didn't slip up, which can be very stressful. What if that was the only way I knew how to talk? How many people would not want to know me based on such a silly thing?

That was 9th grade at a preppy private school (hence the "social censure"), but, since then, I've learned to speak in whichever way I'm comfortable (which shifts back and forth with my mood) from the very beginning. That way, you can take it or leave it, but I can imagine that some less stalwart souls decided, what the hell, I don't mind throwing away one more piece of the minicule bit of cultural history we were allowed to retain. Although I speak several European languages as well, I would never give away the one that promotes kinship with my people.

Almost always, however, the rules of racial etiquette required blacks to be agreeable and non-challenging, even when the white person was mistaken about something.

Oh, that stopped? (/sarcasm)

I was joking, but, seriously, Ceci, I think that's the source of a lot of your problems here.

[edit on 12-8-2006 by HarlemHottie]

HH,

I agree. And you point out a lot of interesting things. I was told the same things all through school. My family was told they "didn't talk black". And I was told that I "don't talk black" as well. In fact, when my white friends speak to me on the phone, they tell me that I "don't sound black" at all.

Speech and manners was something my great aunt was sensitive about, though. In her home (for years), everyone was supposed to "be proper" in speech and manner. And she would correct you if you slipped up. All of my older relatives were like that. They had lived through the trials and tribulations of Jim Crow. They thought that if you used proper speech and manners, no one could take that away from you.

And then, there are my black friends who say I sound too white. It's a crazy thing. It's funny, but that's how some people perceive speech.

But, there are dialects. And when I am among my relatives and friends, the dialects come out. It's something that I've grown up around and feel comforted by. It is a form of kinship. But it's like anyone else. We adjust our speech depending on the group of people. However, there is bias in the type of speech used.

And accents, depending on where you are from, puts you on that hierarchy of value. After all, some accents (like a British or German accent) are more highly valued than others. Black accents are always lampooned and ridiculed until they are used to make money for someone else other than the speaker.

But, to tell you the truth, it does has to do with understanding. The reason why I chose Peggy McIntosh's list and article is to demonstrate that there are people in the world trying to figure out what "white privilege" is. I agree with her that white people are conditioned not to "believe it" . In fact, this belief leads them "to deny it". This is a factor of life.

Even in this thread, I've spoken of things and have had to repeat them over and over because of that denial. It also has to do with context and cultural understanding, though.

But it's a good list to look over so that people can be aware of these things and discuss them. There is at least one thing that will resonate with them and will highlight the divisions that occur. Hopefully, that will happen.

As for the racial ettiquette during Jim Crow: I whole-heartedly agree with you because that rule of ettiquette you pointed out is one of the things afforded to white privilege. In fact, it is an unwritten rule. And even though it is not said, it is expected that way. God forbid if something is actually wrong.

Of course, it's a problem. You get lectured about "your behavior" all the time if you disagree. Those who do it think nothing is wrong with their chastising. That's what finger-wagging is all about. Sad, but true.

And if you "act out", you are immediately seen with a "bad attitude". Think about how they talk about Cynthia McKinney. Because Ms. McKinney doesn't play ball with white privilege and points out things wrong with it, she immediately is seen as "uneducated", "of bad character", "lacking an I.Q.", "racist" and "rude". It's been mentioned here on the board so many times that I've lost count.

And if we don't capitulate to the dominant culture, those types of descriptions will be used to paint us in the same way. We are almost forced to shut down our feelings and expressiveness in order to survive in the world of the dominant culture. That is very sad.





[edit on 12-8-2006 by ceci2006]

HarlemHottie

I have a few questions regarding your statements below. Please point out where I might have misunderstood you.

One of the first interview tips we get is, don't 'talk black," and that same advice applies to personal life too. I have very clear diction and a large vocabulary at my disposal, because I was well-educated. Some black people don't think I 'talk black' well enough. Yet, I've had white friends overhear me talking to someone else and kind of lift their eyebrows at me and say flatly, Oh, I didn't know you talked like that(their emphasis). Yes, that could be attributable to the fact that I didn't speak to them like that, but that still doesn't explain the disdain in that look. It made me realize that it disturbed some white people, even in my own peer group, to hear me speak that way, and it made me uncomfortable in their presence, like, I better make sure not to slip up like that again, or face social censure. So what I did, and what I lot of black people do, it seems, is make damn sure I didn't slip up, which can be very stressful. What if that was the only way I knew how to talk? How many people would not want to know me based on such a silly thing?

That was 9th grade at a preppy private school (hence the "social censure"), but, since then, I've learned to speak in whichever way I'm comfortable (which shifts back and forth with my mood) from the very beginning. That way, you can take it or leave it, but I can imagine that some less stalwart souls decided, what the hell, I don't mind throwing away one more piece of the minicule bit of cultural history we were allowed to retain. Although I speak several European languages as well, I would never give away the one that promotes kinship with my people.

So, you felt that you faced "social censure" if you "spoke black?

And this was enough to change the natural way you spoke?

You would never give away that trait (actually you seem to classify it as a language), which promotes kinship with your people?

Others, less stalwart, chose to go along to get along, and threw away a bit of culture that you were "allowed to retain"?

Correct assumptions so far?

OK, so here are my questions:


What parts of your culture were you allowed to retain?

What parts of your culture were you not allowed to retain, specifically?

How were they taken away from you, specifically?

What were the penalties you faced for holding on to other cultural traits?

Who, exactly, was in charge of these decisions?

Were other 9th graders, regardless of race, faced with the same type of censure because of the way they dressed, their weight, or other factors?

Did you seek out counsel from a mentor or school counselor, about this issue? I assume that a preppy private school had these resources available to the students. Plus we always have our friends and family as resources.

Was your capitulation worth it in the long run?

How would you counsel a young person faced with the same issue today?

End of questions.

Ninth grade can be an especially hard time for kids. They are confused and crave social acceptance, and they can be faced with cruel treatment from other kids who are members of school cliques. But that was present then, before then, now and will be in the future.

If you have friends that actually say "Oh, I didn't know you talked like that(their emphasis)" then it apparently still matters to you.

I personally don't know any adults who would make a remark like that. If they did, however, it would make me realize that they had the problem, not me.

Originally posted by ceci2006
1)What would be the remedy for Blacks in light of all this suffering if reparations are not an applicable solution?

I know you weren't addressing me, but I'd like to answer this.

The remedy would be equal treatment under the law and in the culture. Black people have equal treatment under the law, but the culture is still 'cheating' at equal treatment. That's where the problem is.

There's no way we can or should make-up for the suffering of people in the past. If we did that with black people, we'd be obligated to do it for women, too. After all, women are still suffering from cultural inequality, too, even though they too have equal protection under the law.

Ceci? Do you think reparations are in order? For just black people or maybe for Japanese Americans and women, too?

Another question to consider.

I speak very differently to my husband than I would in an interview. I would never get a job if I spoke to an interviewer using "white Trash" talk, the way I do among my casual friends. I don't speak "white trash" in the grocery store, either, simply because I choose to portray a certain public persona.

If I spoke to my dog club president the same way I speak to my Mother-In-Law (with the white trash tongue), the president's eyes would widen and she'd probably kick me out. She certainly wouldn't respect me anymore.

Am I giving up my natural way of being because society won't accept me unless I do?

Isn't it really my choice?

Don't I make the choice based on the results I want? If I want the job, I CHOOSE to speak intelligently and with proper diction, in a manner that's comfortable to the culture that I'm trying to become a part of.

If I'm among people who are already a part of my culture, I relax back into by casual (white trash) normal form of speech, which those on this board have never heard from me.

Edited to expand.

[edit on 12-8-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]

Jsobecky sorry in the delay about getting back to you, but I have been rather busy. I’ll try and clear up what I was saying when I last posted - as I was rather rushed for time.

The point I was making about remarks, clearly wasn’t explained well enough.

Children learn through imitation and reward at a very early age. When they are at School, they are able to meet other children. Many of these children will have different parents and it is possible that some of these parents will be bigots. All it then takes is one of these children to make a racist remark and for another to find it amusing. The other children, if the first is not reprimanded will see he has been rewarded with their social praise and many might follow.

However, does it make them racists if they do not know what the term means? That’s all down to who knows. Take for example you are the recipient of a verbal remark. The child might not know terms like paki are going to insult the other person as they might have seen it only as a funny thing. However, to the one on the receiving end - it’s completely different story. To them, you might very well be a racist even if you didn’t mean it.

Biblical-era tomes actually mention groups that are unable to pronounce certain consonants correctly as a criteria for being "different".

Indeed it does, however the Bible also mentions everyone as one-race. Remember, we are all decedents of Adam and Eve in the Abrahamic texts. The hatred mentioned in these texts, is Nationalism and Xenophobia - that’s not racism they are actually very different.

The true definition of racism, as accepted by Sociologists is very much what I mentioned before. [Reference: Haralambos and Holborn.] If the definition is good enough for Sociology lectures in Universities across the United Kingdom than I do not see why it isn’t for ATS.

So, everything was just fine until Darwin published his book?

I never said everything was fine, did I? I just said the views of racism back then were that of Nationalism and Xenophobia. If you had seen my first post, you’d be aware I’ve referenced several sociologists, psychologists and biologists who all agree with my point.

Race doesn’t exist, there is no difference between us. If someone of darker pigmentation spends generation after generation in a different climate, than the pigmentation will change. [Reference: Steve Jones Genetics and Evolution.] So those who view races as separate biological entities are just idiots. Furthermore, this hatred can be by people of the same “colour” against one another.

Until people actually realise, we're all the same. This false idea won't stop. However, the hatred for ethnic groups? That will come through understanding and each group opening up to the mainstream culture they live beside.

Then go after the "folk" who are suppressing the pursuit of happiness of whomever. However don't make blanket laws that unjustly and wrongly apply and affect all.

Are you angry that I use the word folk? Sorry, that's just the small town in me.
I would say affirmative action is going after the folk that are doing the suppressing, wouldn't you?

Forgive me if I have misinterpreted you but are you trying to say that the "benefit" of one group outweighs that of another? Isn't that what started this whole thing?

Sorry for not being more clear. Group = Human group.

Originally posted by ceci2006

Originally quoted by TrueAmerican

ceci, you wanna solve a problem right? So if the solution is to remove all the cards, then how can the systematic removal of the first card in line (the racist one, and mingling of the races) not be working towards that end? I really, no I REALLY mean sincerely that I do not understand your position on that. At all. Sorry.

I think that a way to rid the problem of racism is to accept diversity as it is.

Wonderful in theory, but it fails miserably in practice. As long as entities like BET, NAACP, and the KKK are allowed to exist, you can pretty much give it up. It is being perpetuated and passed down through generations.

If society as a whole were really interested in solving the problem, it seems to me that racist entities such as those would be outlawed. And I'll argue all day long that in contrast, those people who have chosen to have babies interracially have made the ultimate statement concerning racism. They did what was needed to be done when it wasn't cool to do so. As these babies increase in numbers over the generations, the melting pot grows. In reality ceci, not in theory.

It is as if someone who is espousing the Melting pot theory advocates erasing the different cultures, races, languages, customs and contributions belonging to different races save one. That is why it is a rather problematic way to solve racism.

Well wouldn't it be interesting to take a look at how people who have married interracially have dealt with those issues? And many studies have been done on this. One source of information on this is Interracial Voice, a website that dedicates itself to interracial issues. Wikipedia also has an interesting entry on interracial marriage, full of information and links.

It seems people who are non-white always have to give up their culture and social practices to satisfy that of the dominant culture in order to assimilate. That is what makes non-whites more acceptable to the dominant culture. And those of the dominant culture do not understand how much non-white people have to give up to be accepted. It isn't easy. To have someone "seasoned" out of their culture to satisfy one race smacks of superiority disguised as "equality".

On the contrary, ceci, from what I have read, and experienced to a degree by the way, the melding of religious and cultural differences appears to take place on a totally random basis, depending on the couple. And in cases where the melting pot phenomenon (it is not a theory, it is happening in reality), appears to be thwarted by societies with arranged marriages, even those will likely eventually fall into the melting pot of interracial human stew:

In much of the rest of the world, arranged marriages and inbreeding are the norm. Among Muslims in West Asia and North Africa, the ideal marriages are arranged ones with first cousins. In Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan close to half of all marital pairings are between first or second cousins.

Not surprisingly, individuals in these regions tend to be intensely nepotistic toward their extended families/clans/tribes, and thus unpatriotic toward their countries. Nor should it be shocking that—due in part to the nepotistic corruption, lack of civic trust, and general political fractiousness caused by their extreme endogamy—these pseudo-nations tend to get their butts kicked by more unified armies from countries where the breeding pools are larger and more inclusive.

It's not that easy to say that the melting pot theory will solve racism. It won't work.

In our lifetimes, probably not. It will likely take thousands of years and hundreds of generations before humans across the global identify themselves racially, culturally, religiously and otherwise as part of a united human race. And I have a theory that this is what Alien Civilizations are probably waiting for before public disclosure can really happen. And then the human race will be taxed with trying to combat feelings of race intergalactically. And after that, universally. After that...

In the end ceci, IMO racism at all levels cannot be solved to any extent useful to us at this point in human development. It will probably be somewhat solved naturally though, in a very very long time. In the meantime, I won't go out of my way to marry either in my race or outside my race. If I marry it will be with one I love, no matter what color they are.

By all due respect, I still believe that the "melting pot" is a theory. It is a nice theory, though. But I think that the way people are using this theory is to buttress their argument against diversity and its merits.

I still don't know why you would equate BET and the NAACP with the KKK. The last time I looked, the NAACP hasn't burned any crosses, worn hoods or intimidated any white people. BET is merely one of few networks catering to African-Americans. It is one out of the 90 per-cent that cater to the dominant culture. So, explain to me how NAACP is on par with the KKK in terms of racism.

Secondly, you think that the Melting Pot would take care of everything. And I disagree because with the "Melting Pot" already happening, there is still a society full of racism based on a system of social caste.

Which brings me to asking you several questions:

1)Do you know who started this type of social caste based on color in the United States?

2)Do you know why this social caste based on color happened?

3)How did couples subscribing to the Melting Pot fare by those leading this "social caste" historically? How were their offspring treated in terms of this social caste based on color?



P.S. BH, I will get back your comments later. You will be answered.




[edit on 12-8-2006 by ceci2006]