It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Two Sides of Race-Relations

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic
Phoenix... again, this points out the importance of clear definitions. What is your definition of the term?


I was always under the impression that IR meant exactly what the words state: An institutional (systemic) form of racism.

Interstingly enough when looking up a few words, I found this under racism--
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination
dictionary.reference.com...

To be honest this is the first time I have seen this definition used in a dictionary. I was always under the impression that racism was an ideology, a personal belief. The institutional part came into play when racist ideology was actually turned into legislation.

Edit to Add

Even more interesting, I looked up Racism in a websters dictionary that I have, which was published in 1958, and racism is defined as: Animosity shown towards people of a different race.

You see, I think the definition being used is a modern definition, intended to play into that "semantic disconnect" that I keep hearing so much about. Now I finally understand why many black people think that they can't be racist.

[edit on 5-2-2007 by phoenixhasrisin]

[edit on 5-2-2007 by phoenixhasrisin]




posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic
OK, jumping in here from the start:

Yes. I see that at the level of the individual, different people view race differently.


That's fair to say. How about on a group level?



I believe definition of terms is vital to these kinds of discussions. So, using BH's submission for the definition of the term 'institutional racism' (the only such definition provided so far), I say Yes, this does happen in the US. It is relatively subtle these days, since the laws can no longer make it explicit. But Yes. However, I believe Institutional Classism predominates over Institutional Racism.


I don't think that institutional racism is that subtle. However, this might be because of a difference in race as well. When institutional racism is in one's face day in and day out, it is quite convincing that race is of more importance than class.


Not sure what is meant by 'middle ground', but I think my answer here is No. If we define 'middle ground' as a common move toward the 'center' of a subject by all parties in order to discuss it, then No. It is perfectly possible for people of very passionately held, diametrically opposed positions to discuss a subject without moving towards a center.


I agree. However, my opinion of the "middle ground" comes from people having a view of not only their positions, but of the positions of others. They use this knowledge to have a civil and instructive discourse on race.

However, not many people have the foresight to achieve a multi-lateral view of the issue of race because "they believe what they believe" and nothing else.

I think because most people are "unilateral" in their thinking about race, they can't bring themselves to walk in another's shoes in order to understand a different opinion.

But that's just my pessamism talking.



As has been said, none. To place higher or lower credibility in a speaker based soley on race merely strengthens racist attitudes.


Thank you for pointing that out. That is one thing I have subtly tried to weave into a motif of "who is to be believed". However, I tend to think that there is less honesty about this question due to group solidarity. Because people so often shoot from the hip when it comes to matters about race, beliefs are often attached to what they know. And sometimes, if someone of the same race says that something is "correct", then others of the same race will follow. Sometimes, this "solidarity" happens when racism is pointed out.

Instead of investigating the situation, "group solidarity" (by virtue of the privileged afforded to institutional racism) deems what is correct in race-related conversations. That's why it is very important in bringing up the aspect of "who is to be believed". It has quite of an impact of race-related discussions far more that some might think.



For me personally, No. But I have observed that in discussions about class, tempers and passions tend to not run as high as quickly. So I'm thinking that for some people, 'class' discussions are easier.


Race is not very easy to discuss because it is so personal. It affects this country in ways that we still have yet to see. However, I believe that the transition to class is a way for those in the dominant culture to escape from discussing race. The reason why is that when people of color openly discuss how they are affected by institutional racism, some in dominant culture quickly throw up other "isms" to avoid facing race.

(some notables are "classism", "feminism", "ageism", etc.).

To me, it is a cop out mechanism, unless it is truly a discussion about class.



Regarding the definitions post... Thanks, Ceci... as mentioned above, I believe clear definitions are vital for these kinds of discussions.


You are very welcome.


However, I have some disagreement with some

I do not believe the term 'Assimilationist model' can be confined to the Anglo society in the US. I will accept this definition if the word Anglo is removed, and the phrase 'in the United States' is removed. Assimilation happens in all cultures, not just the Anglo culture of the US.


Below, you wrote that the top level of society consisted of "White, Christian, Hetero-sexual Males". Would it be more acceptable if it said "White, Christian, Hetero-sexual Males" are the dominant group in America?

However, it is true that assimilation happens in all cultures, but it has to do with who has power in this society and by what means. That's why the definition does have some validation.



I believe this definition is not quite precise. A minority group is simply a group wherein the number of people in the group is less than the number in a majority group. Members of minority groups do experience the discrimination noted, and may have physical characteristics that distinguish them, but I do not believe these points should be in the definition of the term.


I disagree with you. In every society, there are smaller groups which consist in it. Because of these characteristics, the "minority group" is discriminated against. Because it is an apparent problem that is consistently occuring (on a societal basis), the definition needs to state this.

However, I believe that sometimes this view might be tainted by race as well. As a member of a minority group, the definition to me sounds very valid because it is verifiable. However, for some in a majority group, this might not be viable because some might not be able to see the same consistency of discrimination.

Not accepting the standard definition, warts and all, (to me) is an indicator of denial regarding the realities that "minority" groups face.

This too reflects the difference of opinon afforded to race.



I would accept this definition as modified here. Part of this is just different phraseology. The important change is the removal of the phrase 'the inaccurate'. The power of stereotypes comes from accurate depictions of individuals of a group being inappropriately applied to the group as a whole.


What if you were told you couldn't modify the definitions? Would you feel powerless?

To your "modified" definition, I would say that it reflects the privileges of institutional racism. By removing the parts that you find offensive, then the definition works to hide some of the inequities that are caused by power relations within institutional racism. By such a removal, it appears that perhaps the "group oriented" assessment belonging to a race cannot be done.

And if that cannot be done, then it is left to an "individual" assessment (which reflects "self-oriented" analysis). To me, that reflects a sense of lack of identification with the larger group.

In my experience, there are always those who solely speak of "Blacks" as a group and fail to distinguish us as individuals. By placing Blacks "in a group", it reflects the privilege of institutional racism by removing the individual characteristics about us.

Why can't a person of color treat those in the dominant culture as a group--in terms of asserting power?

Part II is coming. Thanks for being patient.





[edit on 5-2-2007 by ceci2006]



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006
In every society, there are smaller groups which consist in it. Because of these characteristics, the "minority group" is discriminated against.


I disagree. I am in a "minority group" where I live and I am not discriminated against.



Not accepting the standard definition, warts and all, (to me) is an indicator of denial regarding the realities that "minority" groups face.


So, if we don't accept your definitions, lock, stock and barrel, we're in denial?




What if you were told you couldn't modify the definitions? Would you feel powerless?


No. I would work with the definitions given, I would just want it to be clear that I didn't agree 100% with every one of them, and I would indicate where that was the case.



By removing the parts that you find offensive, then the definition works to hide some of the inequities that are caused by power relations within institutional racism.


Speaking only for myself, I didn't disagree with certain definitions because I found them offensive, I found them inaccurate.



To me, that reflects a sense of lack of identification with the larger group.


Yes. Very true. I don't identify with the larger group of "white people" because we're not all alike. In fact, there are huge variations in the thoughts, views, priorities, desires and characters of white people. Look at Angelina Jolie and Dick Cheney. Possibly the ONLY thing they have in common (aside from being well-known) is that they're white. Why should they "identify" as being white? It means nothing.



In my experience, there are always those who solely speak of "Blacks" as a group and fail to distinguish us as individuals.


I'm sure there are. There are also those who solely speak of "white people" as a group and fail to distinguish us as individuals. Many people like to generalize. They like to see things in little packages with labels. It's a human failing.



By placing Blacks "in a group", it reflects the privilege of institutional racism by removing the individual characteristics about us.


I actually agree. That's why I so often speak out against grouping people and making judgments.

But on the other side of that coin, placing "whites" in a group reflects the privilege of institutional victimization by removing the individual characteristics about us. For example, saying that "the single-parent issue in black America is ultimately the fault of white America" gives the black people who feel this way the privilege of blaming their issues on another race and not having to take responsibility for it, themselves.

Now, you have just spoken out against placing Blacks "in a group", as it removes your individual characteristics. Yet you turn around and ask:



Why can't a person of color treat those in the dominant culture as a group--in terms of asserting power?


They can and they do.
I don't necessarily think that it is the most productive position and most importantly I don't think it does much towards resolving anything. But it happens all the time, nevertheless.

And to answer it a different way:



Why can't a person of color treat those in the dominant culture as a group--in terms of asserting power?


For the same reason that "the dominant culture" can't treat people of color as a group -- in terms of drug use, criminality, intelligence, promiscuity or any other stereotype.

It's grouping people and assigning an attribute.

[edit on 5-2-2007 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006
That's fair to say. How about on a group level?


Hmmm, well, I think it is safe to say that groups of people of a particular race, be it white, black, asian or whatever, probably tend to see this subject similarly. In other words, you could assemble a group of white people, for instance, all of whom would feel the same way about race. But I would NOT accept the phrase: "white(black)(asian) people feel such and so way about race".



I don't think that institutional racism is that subtle. However, this might be because of a difference in race as well. When institutional racism is in one's face day in and day out, it is quite convincing that race is of more importance than class.


I see where I was not clear. I meant subtle in relation to how it once was... for instance, the IR that occurs today is more subtle than the "blacks drink from this fountain" type that used to be in existence. It is now a matter of custom, where it used to be a matter of law.



my opinion of the "middle ground" comes from people having a view of not only their positions, but of the positions of others.


We may be in agreement here without knowing it.
I believe someone can have a view or understanding of another's position, without agreeing with it.



I tend to think that there is less honesty about this question due to group solidarity.


I'm pretty sure I disagree here. For example, if Condoleeza Rice were to say anything regarding racial issues, I would tend to discount it, because she in my opinion has proven herself to be a liar and manipulator of truth. If Tyra Banks were to say the same thing, I would give it more credence, because (again, due to my experience) I consider her to be an honorable person who tells the truth. Full acknowledgement here that I may be wrong on both counts, but that is where I put these two based on my information to date.



Race is not very easy to discuss because it is so personal. It affects this country in ways that we still have yet to see.


I absolutely agree.




I believe that the transition to class is a way for those in the dominant culture to escape from discussing race.


Not so sure I agree here. It may be so for some, I cannot say. For me it is not. For me, the discussion of social inequity includes racial aspects, but is not limited to race. So if the discussion is ONLY about the racial aspect of soial ineqity in the US that is one thing (and maybe that is the intent here). If the discussion is about social ineqity in the US and what can be done to address it, the other 'isms' MUST be taken into account.



Below, you wrote that the top level of society consisted of "White, Christian, Hetero-sexual Males". Would it be more acceptable if it said "White, Christian, Hetero-sexual Males" are the dominant group in America?


I didn't actually say anything about hetero-sexual, but that is a good addition...




In every society, there are smaller groups which consist in it. Because of these characteristics, the "minority group" is discriminated against. Because it is an apparent problem that is consistently occuring (on a societal basis), the definition needs to state this.


Well, we may have to agree to disagree, here. To me, it is important to define what a thing IS, first. Then we can go on to discuss the effects and consequences that result from being that thing. While the majority(if not all) of human societies are still primitive enough to discriminate against the minority sections of the population, there is nothing instrinsic about a minority that leads to this. It is a failing of human society, not a characteristic of a minority population.



What if you were told you couldn't modify the definitions? Would you feel powerless?


Not particularly (based on experience).



By removing the parts that you find offensive


Ah, but I do not find it offensive, merely inaccurate.




In my experience, there are always those who solely speak of "Blacks" as a group and fail to distinguish us as individuals. By placing Blacks "in a group", it reflects the privilege of institutional racism by removing the individual characteristics about us.


That is my experience as well. I consider 'those' people morons, hardly worthy of my time. And my experience includes people who soley speak of "white people" as a group, and "asians" as a group and so on.



Why can't a person of color treat those in the dominant culture as a group--in terms of asserting power?


A person of color - any color - can speak of the dominant culture as a group in terms of asserting power. The problem occurs when a person identifies the dominant culture as a race... for example, if someone were to say that "dominant culture" = "white people". The DC includes many non-white members, and many white people are not part of the DC.



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 01:42 PM
link   
I'm going to put my answers in 1-5 format

1. Every persons perspective is different so I believe we all see it differently. A white guy in San Antonio is going to see race differently that a black guy in Philly. As a nation it seems to me that all white people will support any other race in what it says, right or wrong so as to not come off as a racist, or skin head.

2. I kind of answered that in 1. I do see institutional racism. If we are talking about the same thing. A society, or Nations view. I think its still alive and strong with all the sterotypes that we see on tv, and movies, etc.

3. There has to be a middle ground. But first all races, have to be willing to compromise. Do you really want a middle ground. Get raised by my parents. I was raised around every color race, creed, class, etc. If you want to be well rounded you have to learn at an early age to take people for who they are, not stuff they have no control over. If you do you will fine beauty in all races. It didn't take long to understand that the only people you really should hate are the @SSholes in society regardless of color creed status.

4. If your refering to which race I believe the most, I don't believe any the most. They all have their prejustes, it most been ingrained into them from a early age and hard to fight off.

5. Because there are the have/ and the have nots in this world. A majority of all of us are the have nots. There are plenty of us in the world who wish we had money, or the power to do things, but can't

I hope this helps

I'm trying to get a little discussion on another thread similar to this but from the white perspective

www.abovepolitics.com...




posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006
Would it be more acceptable if it said "White, Christian, Hetero-sexual Males" are the dominant group in America?


No. Because there are plenty of white, Christian, hetero-sexual males who are in no way associated with those who make policy and have the power and control in this country. Also, Dr. Rice is not a white, Christian, hetero-sexual male.

Defining Dominant Culture or Dominant Group as a race based group is just not going to work. You can't accurately define the Dominant Culture using race, gender, religion or sexual preference.

[edit on 5-2-2007 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 05:07 PM
link   
BH, when I said I would answer your questions later, I meant I would answer your questions later. I am very busy today. I'm sorry that you got the impression that I was blowing off your questions.

I'm still in the middle of answering OMS' questions.

However, thanks for replying to my answers to OMS. I'll take those answers into account when I answer your post back later on.


[edit on 5-2-2007 by ceci2006]



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006
BH, when I said I would answer your questions later, I meant I would answer your questions later.


I know.
I'm in no hurry. Take your time.



I'm sorry that you got the impression that I was blowing off your questions.


I didn't. Not in this thread. I didn't say a thing about that in this thread.



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic

I would say No. Using the only defn. of IR provided so far.


Why are satisfied with the definition of IR? Why didn't you go about to change that definition as you went about to change the others?




I want to be careful, here. Within the very strict, tight bounds of this question, I would say No. HOWEVER. I do not believe that the opening proposition of the question has been proven, nor do I believe it is true in the US at the present time. So, in the current situation in the US, if someone were to say for example that 'white people' are above all others in a system of IR, I would have to disagree. As I said above, I think in the US today it is more economic class based than race based.


Why are you trying to shift the argument to class instead of race?

If there is one group that has been determined to be in most of the power positions of society, it is the Christian, White, Hetero-sexual Male.

If there is one group that has been determined to put forth ideologies that influenced society, it is the Christian, White, Hetero-sexual Male.

Why are you trying to skirt this fact?

Economically, socially, politically and racially, Christian, White, Hetero-sexual Males have constantly been the ones that have benefitted by the system. They represent most of the Fortune 500. Their ideas have filled our history books. They have been the only representatives of the President of the United States. They are heads of the think tanks in American society.

Why is it hard to accept this fact that they benefit from institutional racism?

To not acknowledge this is the case, is to be in denial.


[edit on 6-2-2007 by ceci2006]



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Okay. As far as I know, I have never benefited from institutional racism. That is, I have never knowingly been hired over an equally qualified person of color, been seated in a restaurant before someone of color who arrived before me, been paid more than a person of color with equal job duties, been given a loan when a person of color with the same credit was denied, gotten better grades in school because of my race or benefited in any way over a person of color because of my race.


What about acknowledging the things out of your control that constantly benefit you? Your treatment in society. The benefits you get from your white skin. The status of acceptance that the system of institutional racism has built up systematically year after year.



I said nothing about proof at all. So, no, that’s not at all what I said. I said we need to define the terms within a discussion so we all know what we mean when we use them.


Again, why was that such a problem in the "Successful Black Prejudice" thread? That situation (compared to this one) reflects of who is to be believed in terms of submitting proof.


I said nothing about being sure. I said I believe. I just know there are plenty of times what I said was glossed over. And no, I will not elaborate or provide proof. If you really care, go read the threads and see how many times what I said or asked was completely ignored.


I would ask you to do the same on my account. The answer is that you can never be too sure. However, one would hope that we are on the same page when it comes to providing answers based on our world view.


Let me be clear, I'm not complaining about it, just making an observation in response to your question.


That's acceptable.





I have already answered this. You have never given me the courtesy of proving your accusations against me. You ask for proof, citing how important it is over experience, but when asked to prove specific words you’ve charged me of, you refuse (because I didn’t say them).


That's why putting words into another's mouth and playing semantic games with them is never a good thing to do.


So, no, I will not search through all the posts of the various threads and find those specific words. Let me just say that even if it wasn't said verbatim, there’s a very strong implication that white people are the problem here.


That shows sometimes people aren't truly invested in the answer. Instead, they shoot from the hip when it is convenient.


As I've said, I don’t think this happens any more with the minority group than any other.


I think it does. Again, who are they going to believe?



I never said or implied that it did. In fact, I politely asked you for YOUR definition so we could work with that.


So you did. Thank you very much for being polite.


I have answered this in entirety. See my quote above. Believe it or don’t. But to answer it again is just a waste of bandwidth.


Actually, it is not a waste of bandwidth. It is trying to get to that elusive middle ground in which we all can try to understand that not all situations are the same depending on our frame of reference.

Could it be that you don't believe that "minimizing" happens because you have never witnessed it before?

What if there were sources that proved "minimizing" to you? Would you believe that it happens with new proof--depending on who posted the source?


I’m sure people will believe whoever they believe. I’m not that invested in who believes whom. I know I’m telling the truth. I don’t say people have a chip on their shoulder because of their race. That’s ridiculous.


I am invested in who believes whom because it happens quite frequently in discussions about race. I have witnessed group solidarity happening among whites when a person of color poses a different aspect of the subject matter. And one white would say, "Stop having a chip on your shoulder". And then, comes the rendition, "If you weren't so militant...." Along with the, "You are trying to be disruptive with your agenda...." And the "If you focused all that energy in trying to do the best you can to make it into society....."

These are all catchphrases for saying, "I don't want to hear your experience. I don't care if you've been discriminated against."

By simply going into denial and pretending that such experiences don't exist, one does not believe the person of color.

It's not so ridiculous when a person of color has been told phrases like the ones above over and over repeatedly. It's also not so funny when there are some white people trying to be sanctimonious and patronizing in response to a person of color's message instead of trying to grasp it, analyse it and trying to understand it .

Some people from the dominant culture simply pretend that it doesn't happen. That's why it is important.

Let me suffice it to say that these are not complaints; these are things that simply happen in my experience.


Part II is coming. Thanks for being patient.






[edit on 6-2-2007 by ceci2006]



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally quoted by Benevolent Heretic
You don’t need to prove it. I have said a zillion times that racism exists. I’m already sure that some white people do act in that manner and I’m sure some black, 'red' and 'yellow' people act in that manner as well. Racism exists.


I think your answer is sidestepping the question. The question posed whether you would read the situation racist from other vantage points than your own.

Such as: Are the descriptions of people of color racist within the source?

The questions had nothing to do with whether racism simply exists or not. That has already been established.



I couldn’t possibly give you my judgment on that unless I was there and saw what happened. My judgment doesn’t really matter, anyway. It’s just my opinion.


It does matter. It can help pinpoint exactly where the semantic disconnect happens when approaching race-related discussions.




I have nothing to prove.


On the contrary. You wouldn't be submitting these long posts with your replies if you didn't.


I wish you luck in pinpointing that if it’s what you want to do. I’m not sure I can help.


You are helping. Your answers aid in trying to understand why there is such a difference in comprehension when it comes to race-related issues.


Absolutely! Not only is it easier, it's all I can do. I can no more answer for my race than I can for women or dog-lovers or homeowners. If I could get one point across, it would be that I only speak for myself and no one else.


But what if you could find a set of distinctive behaviors that are solely attributed to your race? What if those sets of behaviors can be proven by sources and experience?




When there are “race-attributed answers”, I always try to be clear that I can only speak for myself. I might then go on to say, “But if I were to generalize about white people, I believe many white people feel…”


That is fair to say. But by your answers of, "Many white people feel..." you do discuss these matters in a group-oriented fashion. People do it all the time.


But generally, I am only speaking for myself and my experiences. I’m not a mouthpiece for my race.


No one else is a mouthpiece for their race as well. However, I hope that this can be remembered when other race-related issues are started.


I have no clue what that means.


By simply being a member of the dominant culture, one's answers are always deemed "normal" and "correct" without any deviation. This is a privilege belonging to those of the dominant culture.


I suppose because people disagree. Many people have strong opinions about groups and no matter how much proof is provided; they will not believe anything differently. That’s just human nature. Rarely do 100% of people go along with an idea or concept, even with proof.

For example, some people believe democrats are bad people, no matter what anyone else says. That’s just the nature of people.


If it is natural and other persons do it, then it shouldn't be percieved as wrong--especially when proof is there to back it up.

The problem here is being able to account (as well as acknowledge the behaviors) for the group that is generalized in good faith. That means that if the proof has been used to verify the behaviors of the said group (accounting for individual differences), then it should be accepted as true. Then, comes the part to analyze and discuss why it is so that a certain group acts in a particular way.

Thus, no one should be corrected for using generalizations as long as it is in good faith and not as a stereotype.



I don’t see it as blame. Unless of course the entirety of one race is seen as the perpetrator and benefactor -- and the entirety of another race is seen as the victim and sufferer. In that case, I see it as blame.


What if there was proof and experiences that one race (in its entirety) is the perpetrator and the benefactor? Would it be considered blame in those circumstances?




No. I don’t think so. If one racial group is proven to be above all others. But that hasn’t been proven. At least not to me. As I said in my earlier post, depending on where you live in the US, different races have the power. Where I live, Hispanics or Latinos are the majority. Not only that, many of our political power-holders, including our police officers, sheriff, legislators, judges and governor are Hispanic.


However, that is within a state. What should be of import is the acknowledgement that institutional racism occurs across the country by virtue of setting up a hierarchical system based on race. This overt system in the nation is set up by one race above all others despite the fact that it is different where you live.

But then again, this is a difference of opinion afforded to race.


Definitions
I share OMS’s exact concerns about the definitions given.


I'll ask you what I asked him: why must the definitions be changed to suit your perceptions? Why couldn't you have left the definitions as they were?



I have no further input as regards "who tells the truth", "who is deemed credible" and "who is to be believed". I have no interest in proving who is ‘right’. So I leave it to my able and intelligent fellow human beings and board members to decide for themselves who they believe is credible.

I know this is an important part of this discussion to you, but I just don’t have any input, but don't want to gloss over it.


I'm sorry that you don't have any input in this area. It's just that when you see a poster try to subvert the definitions and rewrite them to suit his perceptions, the issue of credibility and believability becomes highly important. When the power relations shift from the dominant culture to the person of color, the rules constantly have to be rewritten to bring back a sense of superiority.

I think that OMS' demonstration (and your agreement with him) displays quite a lot in trying to convince others in the thread who ought to be believed opposed to those who don't. When people benefit from privilege, there is an unwritten sense of entitlement. When there is a situation in which the "entitlements" aren't forthcoming, then something by the dominant culture always has to be done to make sure those privileges are back on board.

That's why believability, credibility and telling the truth is a part of defining power relations not only in this thread, but in the country as well.

Some in the dominant culture do not like being in a subordinate position very well. They must do everything in their power to subvert the situation so they end up on top.

But that is something a person who has not benefitted from the system of institutional racism can easily see in many situations. I'm actually surprised by you. You claim that you are not of the dominant culture. But not once have you admitted this happens.
Could you have missed this?


[edit on 6-2-2007 by ceci2006]



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 12:18 AM
link   
I thank all of you for participating in the thread. I have read your wonderful answers. By your participation, the answers given help to find the "middle ground" that needs to be reached in discussions about race-relations.

I also am appreciative of links pinpointing to other discussions of the like. It helps to know that there are other members on the board trying to search for answers in this area. The more work in trying to create understanding, the more people will understand the various opinons afforded to race-related discussions.

I would also like to note that each answer is very important. The most surprising trend that makes me happy about this thread is the fact that it has remained civil. That is the best thing I could have hoped for above everything else.

Keep on sharing your answers! I look forward to reading them!



OMS and BH, I will get to your second set of answers a little later. You both introduce some other facinating avenues to think about.


Thank you, phoenixhasrisin for the heads up on the meaning of racism. It helps quite a bit to have it worked into the discussion.


[edit on 6-2-2007 by ceci2006]



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006
Why are satisfied with the definition of IR? Why didn't you go about to change that definition as you went about to change the others?

I did not go about to change the provided definition of IR because it makes sense to me. Just as the vast majority of the definitions you provided make sense to me, which is why I only went about changing a very few, very specific sections of a very few of the definitions you provided. I included explanation of why I wanted to change those parts (incoherent as those explanations may have been
). If you can provide a reason for your definitions to stand, I am interested in hearing it.




Why are you trying to shift the argument to class instead of race?

I'm not. I am trying to include class as a factor in the undeniable social inequity present in the US today.



Why are you trying to skirt this fact?

I'm not. I absolutely agree with your statements.



Economically, socially, politically and racially...

Why is it hard to accept this fact that they benefit from institutional racism?

It isn't. I have no argument with these statements.



To not acknowledge this is the case, is to be in denial.

Indeed. However, since I do acknowledge this what is the point of this statement?

Question for you: Is this thread about strictly race and inequity, or is it about general social inequity in the US and what we might be able to do about it? I am aware of what the title is, and I may be mis-interpreting the actual intent of the thread. Please answer A or B:

A - Race only
B - General social inequity

Many thanks in advance for your response.



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 08:24 AM
link   
OMS, it is about race and inequity. The reason why I am gearing it toward race is the fact that too many people (as I reiterated before) always shift the discussion to class when it comes to race-related talks. For this thread, I would like the issue of class to be used sparingly in the discussion.

I understand your reasons for including class, but I think for a true discussion about race, we have to leave that aspect out of it.

I also wanted to ask these questions:

What if other people (as well as of color) were comfortable with the meanings as it were? Would you go ahead and change them without asking what the others thought?

What if others felt that the meanings were accurate enough despite your feelings about their inaccuracy? Would you still go ahead and change them without asking what the others thought?

What gives you the right to deem the meanings inaccurate without the insights, let alone permission of others in the discussion?

Have you ever withstood using meanings that were changed by someone else out of your control?

I'm sorry if my questions appear weird or hard to you. But, I would like to ask them (out of curiosity) for these reasons:

1)What you did is not unique in my experience of race-related conversations. In my experience, there is always someone from the dominant culture who tries to "change the meaning" of definitions or subject matter to suit them. I've always wanted to find out why this was done.

2)One of the things that people of color have to put up with are "meanings" and "definitions" that have been forced into our thinking by the dominant culture without any regard for our feelings or thoughts about them. Whenever representatives of the dominant culture shift the meaning to their liking, it always done without any recognition about how others (of color) might have used the original meaning to approach the subject matter.

That's what the old Slavery-era practice of "seasoning" was about.

That's what missionaries did to "reeducate" indigeninous populations.

That's why I keep on asking who is to be believed and who is deemed credible.

I know that you might find inaccuracies in the definitions and that BH might find the meanings offensive. I accept that.

But also, one forgets to consider the feelings of other people who find those meanings quite all right whether or not you both find them "inaccurate" or "derogatory".

That's why the examination of "power relationships" are quite important, especially when one might have the gall to change the definitions without asking someone first.

Just some thoughts before I answer more of your questions.






[edit on 6-2-2007 by ceci2006]



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006
OMS, it is about race and inequity. The reason why I am gearing it toward race is the fact that too many people (as I reiterated before) always shift the discussion to class when it comes to race-related talks. For this thread, I would like the issue of class to be used sparingly in the discussion.

Thank you for this concise answer...


I'll have something to say on this, but I want to answer your questions first.



What if other people (as well as of color) were comfortable with the meanings as it were? Would you go ahead and change them without asking what the others thought?

As I explained earlier, I am concerned with accurate definitions of what things are. Once this is understood and agreed upon, the discussion can then move to the examination of the consequences of being what has been defined. I have seen far too many discussions spiral into worthlessness because of a simple confusion regarding the true definition of what was being discussed.

Social issues are often difficult to define precisely. If others are comfortable with a given definition, they are certainly free to use what they see fit, or try to convince me of the accuracy of the definition. If they use a definition different from mine, I will continually check during the discussion to see if an apparent disagreement is due to this difference of definition.



What if others felt that the meanings were accurate enough despite your feelings about their inaccuracy? Would you still go ahead and change them without asking what the others thought?

I would do exactly what I did here: Present my changes and why I favor them. Present these for further discussion, as it were.



What gives you the right to deem the meanings inaccurate without the insights, let alone permission of others in the discussion?

I do not need anyone's permission to present anything for further discussion.



Have you ever withstood using meanings that were changed by someone else out of your control?

Absolutely. Frequently. And I always point it out. And when I believe a particular definition is inaccurate, I always continue to refer to it in discussions until either I fully understand where I was seeing an inaccuracy that was not present, or the person who was changing it saw the inaccuracy of theirs. I do this all the time. And I've even experienced being told "We are going to do it this way. Shut up or get out.".



1)What you did is not unique in my experience of race-related conversations. In my experience, there is always someone from the dominant culture who tries to "change the meaning" of definitions or subject matter to suit them. I've always wanted to find out why this was done.

I am not a member of the dominant culture. I stated my reasons for the changes I proposed.



2)One of the things that people of color have to put up with are "meanings" and "definitions" that have been forced into our thinking by the dominant culture without any regard for our feelings or thoughts about them. Whenever representatives of the dominant culture shift the meaning to their liking, it always done without any recognition about how others (of color) might have used the original meaning to approach the subject matter.

I am not a member of the dominant culture. I am not responsible for how members of that culture behave.


Finally, here is the problem I see with constraining this kind of discussion to race only:

It is entirely too easy for the dominant culture to say something like: "Why, racism is no longer a problem! Look right here, we have a black woman as the Secretary of State! And a Hispanic as Attorney General! See? Racism is a thing of the past!"

When we all know that racism, including institutional racism is alive and entirely too well in the US right now. I believe that a wider discussion of inequity in the culture, while certainly more difficult, may be more productive.

Edit to add:
Additionally, I believe that limiting such discussions to race only tends to encourage another inaccuracy: that the terms "dominant culture" and "white people" are synonyms. They are not. This may be easily demonstrated by the fact that there are many rich non-white people who are members of the dominant culture, and I can think of NO poor people of any color who are.

edit to remove redundancy, plus addition

[edit on 6-2-2007 by Open_Minded Skeptic]



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006
too many people (as I reiterated before) always shift the discussion to class when it comes to race-related talks.


That's because far too many times, conclusions are attributed to race when they are actually a result of class (or more accurately, wealth and corruption).



I understand your reasons for including class, but I think for a true discussion about race, we have to leave that aspect out of it.


Well, that's your prerogative to speak of race only, but I will continue to bring class into the discussion when I believe it's relevant.



What if other people (as well as of color) were comfortable with the meanings as it were? Would you go ahead and change them without asking what the others thought?


I would do EXACTLY as I have done. OMS disagreed with some of them and stated his opinion. And I agreed with his exceptions.



What if others felt that the meanings were accurate enough despite your feelings about their inaccuracy? Would you still go ahead and change them without asking what the others thought?


I would do EXACTLY as I have done. I would voice my exceptions regardless what others thought. Isn’t it pretty obvious that I have no trouble doing that?



What gives you the right to deem the meanings inaccurate without the insights, let alone permission of others in the discussion?


What gives me the right to have and express my opinion? I don’t need anyone’s permission (except the staff of ATS) to voice my opinion on ANYTHING on this board, as long as I remain within the T&C.



Have you ever withstood using meanings that were changed by someone else out of your control?


Absolutely. I do that in life all the time. I note where I may disagree, talk about it like adults and come to an understanding. No power struggle involved. No accusations of racism. Either the definitions stay, we change them or come to a compromise, like adults. But in any case, it’s OK for me to voice my opinion about it. I have never been fired, divorced or attacked for voicing my opinion.



In my experience, there is always someone from the dominant culture who tries to "change the meaning" of definitions or subject matter to suit them


Only one problem… I’m not from the dominant culture.



Whenever representatives of the dominant culture


See above… And, by the way... if the class aspect is supposed to be left out, why do you keep referring to the Dominant Culture? Why don’t you just say “white people” if that’s what you mean? Or is it ok for you to talk about class, but not us?

I don’t understand how you can talk about the Dominant Culture (not a race), and then tell us to leave class out of this discussion. Sounds clearly like another double standard to me.



BH might find the meanings offensive


I have already said that I didn’t find them offensive. Not at all. Just inaccurate.



But also, one forgets to consider the feelings of other people who find those meanings quite all right whether or not you both find them "inaccurate" or "derogatory".


I didn’t forget to consider anyone’s feelings. I had NO IDEA that a simple, politely stated disagreement would cause you to be so offended or have hurt feelings, to the point where this has now become the main subject of the discussion… And of course, to you, it’s all about race, er, um, excuse me, the Dominant Culture…

And no one said anything about them being “derogatory”. Again, you have misquoted.



That's why the examination of "power relationships" are quite important, especially when one might have the gall to change the definitions without asking someone first.


Seems you actually don’t want to hear what others in this discussion really think or have to say, because if it disagrees with you, they get accused of having “gall”, being part of the dominant culture, trying to exercise their power over you or being inconsiderate…



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 10:18 AM
link   
BH, you're wrong. But, leave it to you to always twist my words. It happens in every thread without fail.


And there you go again with assuming my motivations.


But, I will answer your comments as well as OMS'. (even though my comments were addressed to OMS).

It is fair to explain further why I asked those questions and your thoughts on the definitions. I will also answer OMS as well.

It's been quite busy these days, so I'll try to do my best.





[edit on 6-2-2007 by ceci2006]



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006
Since dealing with "Successful Black Prejudice", I noticed a trend developing in the discussions of race-relations on the board. Whenever these conversations come about, there is a sense of not understanding completely how one race views this subject matter in comparison to another race. In fact, sometimes key points (when discussing certain topics in this area) are either knowingly emitted or are glossed over.

It is rather surprising because one would think that people would notice the same things about race because of well-publicized happenings that have occurred in the MSM. But even there, the two different sides of race continue to be promoted because conflict makes good ratings.

However, the outcome of the Duke Rape Case and the OJ Trial (as well as the shooting of Sean Bell) point to a serious division of how race is played out in this country--especially how different races discussed the outcome.


Is it about different experiences? Or is it about prejudice?

Is it about veing aware of your surroundings. If you have a white/black/yellow/green/Orange man walking bristly behind you and notice that he is trying to catch up with you as you are trying to get into your house ... My advice would be to get out the Pepper Spray ... Or hopefully even better you have your concealed Hand Guns License and you can send him to hell where he belongs ... Instead of putting him into our Judicial system of let's keep him alive and feed him for free the rest of his life. When I know for a fact because my cousin didn't wanna get a job or didn't wanna work ... He started doing drugs ... selling them ... Making money ... And when he went to jail he told me it was just a nice break for him ... And he gets connections inside that he would have never made outside. **ALITTLE OF SUBJECT SORRY ... Just a PERSONAL EXPERIENCE I had ... OH YEAH BTW ... He was/is WHITE ... Although I call him a no class Nigger that I wish I was not any relation too.

I am curious about five things, if you all could answer them for me:


1)Do you (or do you not) see that people view race differently in America?
If you thought that everyone was perfect than you have ALONG way to go in this world ... It doesn't matter what you think ... FACT IS ... Police use statistics such as Color and Race to profile suspects ... and so do other people in America ... Some here in my town don't want HUD people living in their neighborhoods because of how they treat thier stuff ... It was given to them ... or most of it was ... and everyone knows ... when you give a child something what happens to it ... it gets broken ... or tossed away with NO INTEREST .. you take the same child ... Make him/her work for that toy ... it will be the most valued possesion that they have ... Hmm ... Why are we not learning from out children that our values are the same whenever we get older ... ESPECIALLY when the government won't let American's grow up ... We let our parents call the police on our thier own children ... Well HELL ... I wish my dad would have called the police on me instead of giving me the butt WHOOPIN I deserved ... Although my sister was (innocent) and my dad told me numerous times when I asked him why he didn't whoop her ... he would tell me that she would learn her lesson other ways ... But what he really did to her was make her take Acting lessons as a Kid she learned if she cried really really hard ... she could get anything she wanted ... even getting out of a spankin ...Now she is living with a drug dealer and taking care of his child that he had with another woman that he could care less about but she can't even see that he uses her ... Not sure if it is because of Abuse ... or Drugs ... or the simple fact that he can apologize for anything he does ... Such as she has been stabbed by his other WOMAN .... when she caught him cheating on her .. But yet she goes back ... Because she has learned I guess to believe Words; instead of believing in ACTION which I learned from those spankings were what I needed to believe in ...


2)Do you think insitutional racism happens in the United States?
I think that if you want to have institutional racism then you need to start taking babies when they are born maybe 6 months old and send them off to a State School ... Otherwise NO ... you will have these kids out there believing something along the lines of what thier parents believe ... Lets be known as the Soviet U.S. .... Why not ... we are already invading peoples countries only thing we are not doing is adding them to the 53 states we already have here ...

3)Do you think that there is a middle ground for people of all backgrounds to discuss race? There is a middle ground alrite and that is the people that have learned that Color is nothing more than the way that refracts off of peoples Retna in their eyes ... Although many African Americans believe that they are way behind as far as Education ... And that is just basically because that is what thier Mothers and Fathers have told them ... and Guess what ... if you are being told something all your life ... it tends to SINK in ... or take hold of your life ... If you wake up every morning go to get on the school bus and all the kids thier call you loser all the way to school .. You might not like getting up in the morning .. NOt because of school ... but because of the ride and lots of children are in this situation because they don't have a realtionship with thier parents to talk to them and solve the situation.


4)In a discussions about race-relations, who do you believe the most by race?
I am not sure that I understand this question can you rephrase it please ?? I would say ... a Black man and a White woman yes .. but a White woman and a Black man NO ... LoL ... Why would a purple man and a white woman be different then a black and a black or a green male and a green female ..?? Your eyes make people act different ?


5)Is it easier to talk about class instead of race? Why/Why not is this so?
It is much easier to talk about class instead of race although ... If you got around the wrong Class that may turn difficult in itself ... It truly depends on your CROWD ... You could have a truly difficult situation to discuss ... but if it is a group of tight knit friends ... it might not be

[edit on 4-2-2007 by ceci2006] [/quote



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006
Since dealing with "Successful Black Prejudice", I noticed a trend developing in the discussions of race-relations on the board. Whenever these conversations come about, there is a sense of not understanding completely how one race views this subject matter in comparison to another race. In fact, sometimes key points (when discussing certain topics in this area) are either knowingly emitted or are glossed over.

It is rather surprising because one would think that people would notice the same things about race because of well-publicized happenings that have occurred in the MSM. But even there, the two different sides of race continue to be promoted because conflict makes good ratings.

However, the outcome of the Duke Rape Case and the OJ Trial (as well as the shooting of Sean Bell) point to a serious division of how race is played out in this country--especially how different races discussed the outcome.


Is it about different experiences? Or is it about prejudice?

Is it about veing aware of your surroundings. If you have a white/black/yellow/green/Orange man walking bristly behind you and notice that he is trying to catch up with you as you are trying to get into your house ... My advice would be to get out the Pepper Spray ... Or hopefully even better you have your concealed Hand Guns License and you can send him to hell where he belongs ... Instead of putting him into our Judicial system of let's keep him alive and feed him for free the rest of his life. When I know for a fact because my cousin didn't wanna get a job or didn't wanna work ... He started doing drugs ... selling them ... Making money ... And when he went to jail he told me it was just a nice break for him ... And he gets connections inside that he would have never made outside. **ALITTLE OF SUBJECT SORRY ... Just a PERSONAL EXPERIENCE I had ... OH YEAH BTW ... He was/is WHITE ... Although I call him a no class Nigger that I wish I was not any relation too.

I am curious about five things, if you all could answer them for me:


1)Do you (or do you not) see that people view race differently in America?
If you thought that everyone was perfect than you have ALONG way to go in this world ... It doesn't matter what you think ... FACT IS ... Police use statistics such as Color and Race to profile suspects ... and so do other people in America ... Some here in my town don't want HUD people living in their neighborhoods because of how they treat thier stuff ... It was given to them ... or most of it was ... and everyone knows ... when you give a child something what happens to it ... it gets broken ... or tossed away with NO INTEREST .. you take the same child ... Make him/her work for that toy ... it will be the most valued possesion that they have ... Hmm ... Why are we not learning from out children that our values are the same whenever we get older ... ESPECIALLY when the government won't let American's grow up ... We let our parents call the police on our thier own children ... Well HELL ... I wish my dad would have called the police on me instead of giving me the butt WHOOPIN I deserved ... Although my sister was (innocent) and my dad told me numerous times when I asked him why he didn't whoop her ... he would tell me that she would learn her lesson other ways ... But what he really did to her was make her take Acting lessons as a Kid she learned if she cried really really hard ... she could get anything she wanted ... even getting out of a spankin ...Now she is living with a drug dealer and taking care of his child that he had with another woman that he could care less about but she can't even see that he uses her ... Not sure if it is because of Abuse ... or Drugs ... or the simple fact that he can apologize for anything he does ... Such as she has been stabbed by his other WOMAN .... when she caught him cheating on her .. But yet she goes back ... Because she has learned I guess to believe Words; instead of believing in ACTION which I learned from those spankings were what I needed to believe in ...


2)Do you think insitutional racism happens in the United States?
I think that if you want to have institutional racism then you need to start taking babies when they are born maybe 6 months old and send them off to a State School ... Otherwise NO ... you will have these kids out there believing something along the lines of what thier parents believe ... Lets be known as the Soviet U.S. .... Why not ... we are already invading peoples countries only thing we are not doing is adding them to the 53 states we already have here ...

3)Do you think that there is a middle ground for people of all backgrounds to discuss race? There is a middle ground alrite and that is the people that have learned that Color is nothing more than the way that refracts off of peoples Retna in their eyes ... Although many African Americans believe that they are way behind as far as Education ... And that is just basically because that is what thier Mothers and Fathers have told them ... and Guess what ... if you are being told something all your life ... it tends to SINK in ... or take hold of your life ... If you wake up every morning go to get on the school bus and all the kids thier call you loser all the way to school .. You might not like getting up in the morning .. NOt because of school ... but because of the ride and lots of children are in this situation because they don't have a realtionship with thier parents to talk to them and solve the situation.


4)In a discussions about race-relations, who do you believe the most by race?
I am not sure that I understand this question can you rephrase it please ?? I would say ... a Black man and a White woman yes .. but a White woman and a Black man NO ... LoL ... Why would a purple man and a white woman be different then a black and a black or a green male and a green female ..?? Your eyes make people act different ?


5)Is it easier to talk about class instead of race? Why/Why not is this so?
It is much easier to talk about class instead of race although ... If you got around the wrong Class that may turn difficult in itself ... It truly depends on your CROWD ... You could have a truly difficult situation to discuss ... but if it is a group of tight knit friends ... it might not be

[ 4-2-2007 by ceci2006]



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006
Since dealing with "Successful Black Prejudice", I noticed a trend developing in the discussions of race-relations on the board. Whenever these conversations come about, there is a sense of not understanding completely how one race views this subject matter in comparison to another race. In fact, sometimes key points (when discussing certain topics in this area) are either knowingly emitted or are glossed over.

It is rather surprising because one would think that people would notice the same things about race because of well-publicized happenings that have occurred in the MSM. But even there, the two different sides of race continue to be promoted because conflict makes good ratings.

However, the outcome of the Duke Rape Case and the OJ Trial (as well as the shooting of Sean Bell) point to a serious division of how race is played out in this country--especially how different races discussed the outcome.


Is it about different experiences? Or is it about prejudice?

Is it about veing aware of your surroundings. If you have a white/black/yellow/green/Orange man walking bristly behind you and notice that he is trying to catch up with you as you are trying to get into your house ... My advice would be to get out the Pepper Spray ... Or hopefully even better you have your concealed Hand Guns License and you can send him to hell where he belongs ... Instead of putting him into our Judicial system of let's keep him alive and feed him for free the rest of his life. When I know for a fact because my cousin didn't wanna get a job or didn't wanna work ... He started doing drugs ... selling them ... Making money ... And when he went to jail he told me it was just a nice break for him ... And he gets connections inside that he would have never made outside. **ALITTLE OF SUBJECT SORRY ... Just a PERSONAL EXPERIENCE I had ... OH YEAH BTW ... He was/is WHITE ... Although I call him a no class Nigger that I wish I was not any relation too.

I am curious about five things, if you all could answer them for me:


1)Do you (or do you not) see that people view race differently in America?
If you thought that everyone was perfect than you have ALONG way to go in this world ... It doesn't matter what you think ... FACT IS ... Police use statistics such as Color and Race to profile suspects ... and so do other people in America ... Some here in my town don't want HUD people living in their neighborhoods because of how they treat thier stuff ... It was given to them ... or most of it was ... and everyone knows ... when you give a child something what happens to it ... it gets broken ... or tossed away with NO INTEREST .. you take the same child ... Make him/her work for that toy ... it will be the most valued possesion that they have ... Hmm ... Why are we not learning from out children that our values are the same whenever we get older ... ESPECIALLY when the government won't let American's grow up ... We let our parents call the police on our thier own children ... Well HELL ... I wish my dad would have called the police on me instead of giving me the butt WHOOPIN I deserved ... Although my sister was (innocent) and my dad told me numerous times when I asked him why he didn't whoop her ... he would tell me that she would learn her lesson other ways ... But what he really did to her was make her take Acting lessons as a Kid she learned if she cried really really hard ... she could get anything she wanted ... even getting out of a spankin ...Now she is living with a drug dealer and taking care of his child that he had with another woman that he could care less about but she can't even see that he uses her ... Not sure if it is because of Abuse ... or Drugs ... or the simple fact that he can apologize for anything he does ... Such as she has been stabbed by his other WOMAN .... when she caught him cheating on her .. But yet she goes back ... Because she has learned I guess to believe Words; instead of believing in ACTION which I learned from those spankings were what I needed to believe in ...


2)Do you think insitutional racism happens in the United States?
I think that if you want to have institutional racism then you need to start taking babies when they are born maybe 6 months old and send them off to a State School ... Otherwise NO ... you will have these kids out there believing something along the lines of what thier parents believe ... Lets be known as the Soviet U.S. .... Why not ... we are already invading peoples countries only thing we are not doing is adding them to the 53 states we already have here ...


3)Do you think that there is a middle ground for people of all backgrounds to discuss race?
There is a middle ground alrite and that is the people that have learned that Color is nothing more than the way that refracts off of peoples Retna in their eyes ... Although many African Americans believe that they are way behind as far as Education ... And that is just basically because that is what thier Mothers and Fathers have told them ... and Guess what ... if you are being told something all your life ... it tends to SINK in ... or take hold of your life ... If you wake up every morning go to get on the school bus and all the kids thier call you loser all the way to school .. You might not like getting up in the morning .. NOt because of school ... but because of the ride and lots of children are in this situation because they don't have a realtionship with thier parents to talk to them and solve the situation.


4)In a discussions about race-relations, who do you believe the most by race?
I am not sure that I understand this question can you rephrase it please ?? I would say ... a Black man and a White woman yes .. but a White woman and a Black man NO ... LoL ... Why would a purple man and a white woman be different then a black and a black or a green male and a green female ..?? Your eyes make people act different ?


5)Is it easier to talk about class instead of race? Why/Why not is this so?
It is much easier to talk about class instead of race although ... If you got around the wrong Class that may turn difficult in itself ... It truly depends on your CROWD ... You could have a truly difficult situation to discuss ... but if it is a group of tight knit friends ... it might not be

[ 4-2-2007 by ceci2006]




top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join