Obama’s ‘Constituency Groups’ Checklist Offers No Options for Whites or Men

reply to post by Trustfund


Please don't mention that.

That's a touchy subject and will open a sensitive spot. Some would object that "they" themselves got them where they are or like the Republicans, the sire of poor European immigrants. Skin color has nothing to do with it. Which is, in of itself... hilarous

SO all of you people out there that don't see any problem with the group of people that are the CLEAR MAJORITY in this country and make up the backbone of the workforce by anyone's measure getting shafted repeatedly and purposefully out of some wish to "make things fair" by making things ANYTHING BUT FAIR.

What do you think we should do when we finally get sick of giving the most and getting the least. Being last in line for everything. Being mocked openly and incessantly with racist caricatures about everything from our athletic ability to our prowess in the bedroom. Not being allowed to say our opinion about anything without being labeled racist sexist or just plain bigots. Being the most qualified for jobs and college applications and having others who are less qualified picked ahead of us. Having to sit through supposed history classes for our entire young lives that are out and out designed to make us feel ASHAMED for our skin color and male genitalia since we've caused every problem in the world for the last 500 years allegedly.

What do you think we should do?

After all it was BEYOND wrong when all of this was done to other groups, so what makes it right now?

Better yet.... what makes you think we're just going to lay down and keep taking it indefinitely?

Those of you who applaud such divisive and patently unfair practices and policies are going to be the cause of a level of ugliness that hasn't been seen in awhile here in the western world.

reply to post by shelookslikeone


It's about groups. Not skin color. Your title is way off the mark. He left off many races if you want to look at it that way.
Funny how you want to point out this as something possibly racist on Obama's part against the white man, but aren't you being racist yourself with what your alluding to?

reply to post by Trustfund

A minority of black property owners could vote, this was not common place. I've already said this in my post

No, you didn't.
a minority of ALL ppl (even caucasions) could vote, what's your point here?

and NO, not a minority of black property owners ... the majority of black property owners voted and had been for some time.

it doesn't matter what percent of AA the slaves were, they were all slaves and they DID learn ... it was a question of self-determination then just as much as it is today.

so, some first-hand accounts reflect ALL slave activity, ?
interesting perspective you have there.

history is what it is, i need not skew anything.
your problem is a lack of information, however, that is easily remedied should you desire.

neither this thread or this survey is exemplary or discussing "racism" ... we are discussing discrimination or prejudice, not racism.
yes, racism is a form of discrimination but it is not the only one.

when or where have i said racism is/was non-existant ??
link it or give your keyboard a rest.
putting imaginary words in my mouth isn't substantiating your argument one bit.

White supremacy was never the law of the land, no one was separate but equal and the civil rights movement was just for kicks

the legality of white supremacy is not the topic of this thread.
also, if you believe what you typed, you have much to learn.

your source is lacking vital info and that is why it is mis-represented, as is common with "general" historical accountings.

what would you like me to prove wrong with your linked info ??
let's start here, from the opening paragraph ...

When the Constitution was written, only white male property owners (about 10 to 16 percent of the nation's population) had the vote.

[color=amber] NO, this wasn't even true when the Constitution was written.

historical reference, please review
www.blackpast.org.../african-american-history-timeline-1700-1800
blacks (land owners) were "voting" long before the US existed as it did in 1776.

Over the past two centuries, though, the term "government by the people" has become a reality. During the early 1800s, states gradually dropped property requirements for voting.

and the last state (of the original 13) to remove said requirements did so in 1856 ... not the early 1800s.

and this is why i say it is misrepresented in its presentation.
for someone soooo bored, why do you keep responding ?

AND, let's not forget that the whole "restricted from learning" thing did NOT eminate from the Constitution, either.
in the case of SCarolina, the Colonial legislature in 1741 ... "South Carolina's colonial legislature enacts the most extensive slave restrictions in British North America. The laws ban the teaching of enslaved people to read and write, prohibits their assembling in groups or earning money for their activities. The law also permits slaveowners to kill rebellious slaves." --> from same link above.

THIS behavior was not endemic of the Constitutional US but the Colonial one immediately prior to the revolution.

facts aren't much without context and until you begin to see the whole picture, it will always appear worse than what it actually was.

the remainder of this post i will address later.

"White" (or Caucasian) is omitted.

Several "other" groups are included.


"Men" is omitted.

"Women" are included.


Some members here say it will default to those when other boxes are not checked and that people should be able to figure it out.

Like a "Default" data mining operation perhaps.


So in other words, "Whites" and "Men" are supposed to "read Between the Lines" because their "groups" are not in print ?

What does that tactic suggest ?

Maybe the "others" can't "read Between the Lines" so it needs to be in print ?

Was that the real intention ?

Implied racism/sexism

reply to post by Trustfund

Constitutional protections are meaningless when they are not being protected

the correct wording should read ...
Constitutional protections are meaningless when they are not exercised.
a piece of paper protects nothing.

i know you don't get my point, sadly, that IS the point.

aside from our choices of words, what is the difference between these 2 statements ?
mine ...

those errors you can blame on the Attorneys of the day, the poor court systems and the perpetual failures of the USSC to interpret the Constitutional conflicts correctly.

yours ...

No, I blame it on racist idiot judges, law makers, and the bigoted society of that time.

last i checked ... attorneys = law makers, judges = USSC, and society usually goes with the flow.
if society was such an important factor, why are we still suffering today ?
we have a much larger, tolerant and forceful society today than then, so what's the hold up ??

IF you were teaching anything, you'd realize that it is a lifetime commitment ... not one you drop/dismiss because your student fails to agree ... hence, the reason i keep responding to you

ETA -- oh, and btw, in states where slavery wasn't practiced, like Connecticut, black freemen voted from the very first elections held in 1789.
do you understand that ???
they (black freemen, not necessarily land owners) had voting rights since day 1 in some areas of the country. and, some southern black land owners enjoyed the same exercise of their right to vote since day 1. however, this did not extend to every caucasion male, even then.

Originally posted by Trustfund

quickfacts.census.gov...

Well, that's racist to me. I am a white male, I don't want to be generalized in a group that is MOSTLY me, I want to be in a group that represents ME. Oops, that's racist right??? So where is the white, or Caucasian line?

What kind of person identifies with "white people" anyway? What kind of a grouping is that?

It seems there are Federal Standards that exist for racial and ethnic categories.

"White" is included. So is "Black"

Right on the White House website too.

APPENDIX

DIRECTIVE NO. 15

RACE AND ETHNIC STANDARDS FOR FEDERAL STATISTICS
AND ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTING

1. Definitions

The basic racial and ethnic categories for Federal statistics and program administrative reporting are defined as follows:

American Indian or Alaskan Native. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North America, and who maintains cultural identification through tribal affiliations or community recognition.

Asian or Pacific Islander. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent, or the Pacific Islands. This area includes, for example, China, India, Japan, Korea, the Philippine Islands, and Samoa.

Black. A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa.

Hispanic. A person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race.

White. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, North Africa, or the Middle East.

August 1995
Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity

Revisions

1. Categories and Definitions

The minimum categories for data on race and ethnicity for Federal statistics, program administrative reporting, and civil rights compliance reporting are defined as follows:

-- American Indian or Alaska Native. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America), and who maintains tribal affiliation or community attachment.

-- Asian. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam.

-- Black or African American. A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa. Terms such as "Haitian" or "Negro" can be used in addition to "Black or African American."

-- Hispanic or Latino. A person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race. The term, "Spanish origin," can be used in addition to "Hispanic or Latino."

-- Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands.

-- White. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa.

Respondents shall be offered the option of selecting one or more racial designations. Recommended forms for the instruction accompanying the multiple response question are "Mark one or more" and "Select one or more."

Oct 1997
Revisions to the Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity

reply to post by poet1b

I'd say it is hypocritical to slam US values, and ignore that values in the rest of the world were far worse.

This discussion is about the US, I would be more than willing to slam any other nation or government for its wrong doings, as they are just as much an extension of the human condition as the US. I would agree that the "spirit" of the DoI and "American Values" are moral and logical, but that does not mean they are or were ever practiced perfectly or efficiently.

The DoI stated that all men were created equal, which doesn't include women. Women's rights came much later. And even then, the US was and is far ahead of the rest of the world.

Yes it blatantly excluded the rights of women, implying that men (again white men) deserve more rights and women less. So you can already see that we as a country at its inception and throughout its early history were not moral regardless of us being more moral than another nation at the time.

While European countries did end slavery much earlier than the US, they remained monarchies with a strongly divided class system long after the US created the first democratic republic, and commoners in Europe had very little rights and in many ways were still treated like slaves.

Yes the European nations were monarchies, however they had already incorporated forms democracy within their governments. Parliament in England was established in the 13th or 12th century...

The English Parliaments during the reign of King Henry III in the 13th century incorporated elected representation from shires and towns, and is considered the forerunner of the modern parliament

While these practices in government were not perfect and often were rampant in corruption, they were still practices that eventually inspired future democratic movements.

And you ignored the fact that Britain supported the slave owning confederacy during the civil war.

Yes for trade, but implying that they supported their political positions is a little disingenuous. Nations throughout history have done trade and diplomatic dealings with other nations regardless of their political or human rights positions. The US to this day is involved in political dealings with nations under Sharia Law or support communist ideals.

I am not sure how the western expansion of the US went against US ideals. How is spreading democracy against US ideals.

You don't think that imperialism goes against the very nature of freedom? Imperialism is about conquest not diplomacy which is at the forefront of democracy. Not all of the native tribes of North America were savage murderers who deserved to be "liberated" the Sioux for example, who banded together with their own enemies to protect their land from the western expansion of the US, culminating to Wounded Knee which by today's standards would be a war crime.

Native American tribes were very brutal towards competing tribes, and they fully embraced conquest.

Some of them did some of them did not, you cant paint them all with the same brush, history proves this.

Mexico attacked the US starting the Mexican American war, so why not take territories on which Mexico had no legitimate claim.

Mexico was just as bad, they expanded north and slaughtered thousands of Native Americans conquering land that was never theirs, just like the US did at the time.

Sure, the people of the US embraced ideals they weren't capable of achieving, doesn't everyone? What is wrong with that? It is not hypocrisy.

It was when the words they wrote did not reflect what they became to mean with the passage of time, meaning "All men are created equal" includes ALL HUMANS not just white men, the fact that they could not reconcile these ideas at the time makes them hypocrites.

reply to post by KeliOnyx


It is less likely that one will walk through a tree. An open space is more likely to be walked through, nobody wants to walk through pee.

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
What kind of person identifies with "white people" anyway? What kind of a grouping is that?

That's like asking what kind of person identifies with black people? Drug dealers? White people identify with white people.

Racism and stereotypes are a double edged sword.

Did anyone even come to think that by "white" being the "default" race, that in itself is racist behavior (both towards minorities and whites)?

It's called discrimination.

reply to post by shelookslikeone

That's like asking what kind of person identifies with black people? Drug dealers? White people identify with white people.

You identify with white people? Like you do know it is not asking your race, but what abstract "group" you identify with. I would personally check off something else and not even consider "white people" as my "group".

Racism and stereotypes are a double edged sword.

What kind is that?

Did anyone even come to think that by "white" being the "default" race, that in itself is racist behavior (both towards minorities and whites)?

Nope, I didnt. However, if you have to "think"of ways something may be racist, then you are missing the point.

Originally posted by Staroth
reply to post by shelookslikeone

 

It's about groups. Not skin color. Your title is way off the mark. He left off many races if you want to look at it that way.
Funny how you want to point out this as something possibly racist on Obama's part against the white man, but aren't you being racist yourself with what your alluding to?

oh please, school us pleebs, please ?
do share which of the many races were left off ??
... thanks to the post by xuenchen indicating ALL of the Federal race classifications and standards ... do tell, which of them isn't represented on the survey ??

not so surprisingly, i only see ONE, guess which one ?
all of the others are mentioned specifically and with identical verbiage.

prejudice ?? discrminatory ?? racist ??
yepppers, all of the above.

reply to post by Openeye

meaning "All men are created equal" includes ALL HUMANS not just white men, the fact that they could not reconcile these ideas at the time makes them hypocrites

could this statement be any MORE hypocritical ??

since you are so convinced that the idea of gender equality should have been openly accepted, practiced and guaranteed during their day (230+yrs ago) ... do tell, where in the world would they have been exposed to such an "idea" ??

what country and where, in the 1700s, practiced any ethic (work, personal or religious) that exemplified gender equality ??

reply to post by Openeye


To judge the US by standards not applied to the rest of the world, is the very definition of hypocrisy.

The European nations had begun to adapt to the ideals embraced by the US in the US, however the Europeans remained heavily separated by class and the belief that those born into the aristocracy, were superior.

reply to post by shelookslikeone
I was never a Democrat or Republican but there were times when I didn't hate all of the politicians and this is in remembrance of one of them who said it well then and it applies now where Obama and his legion of minions are concerned

How many politicians are really out there begging for the white-male constituency? Or...better yet, how many non-profits advocate for white-males? It's not like the while-male issues are really pressing, are they?

Or are they the 'silent majority' that I keep hearing conservatives talk about?

reply to post by links234

silent majority ?? nah not really (some maybe but not all)
politicians ?? well, i can think of at least one this last election, can you ?

and i'm just guessing here, but apparently this 15yr old group is 'news' to you ?

www.linkageinc.com...
White Men as Full Diversity Partners

WMFDP is a leader in the essential work to reengage white men in successful diversity and inclusion initiatives inside companies.
[color=amber]Bill has pioneered white male only learning efforts along with innovative partnership work for senior leaders in corporations for the last 15 years.

since this consulting company is still in business, apparently their (WM) issues are pressing, don't ya think ??
or are you going to suggest they must be affiliated with the KKK ??