For AndyFox et.al. [Archive] - Two Plus Two Older Archives

andyfox

05-01-2003, 11:33 PM

Groups that have been singled out for special mistreatment historically have organized themselves to watch out for their interests. If there were no anti-black racism in the United States, there would never have been a need for a Congressional Black Caucus. If women were treated fairly, there would never have been a need for the National Organization for Women. If Jews had been treated fairly there would never have been a need for the ADL.

White supremicist groups want to treat blacks like second class citizens. Groups like the Congressional Black Caucus want to assure that blacks are not treated like second class citizens.

Groups such as the Congressional Black Caucus are needed because of people like you, who don't want to live near blacks or eat in restaurants where they eat. And who don't want to have to let blacks live where they want to live or eat where they want to eat merely because they are black. And who don't want them to be on television, because they're being forced down your throat.

The reason that black groups are trying to instill pride in being black is because for so many years people like you have made them feel ashamed of being black.

Just to make sure I'm not wrong about what I think that you think: I am interpreting your past posts to indicate that you do not think the government should not allow you to disciminate against blacks (or any other racial or ethnic group). If you don't want to rent an apartment you own to blacks or Jews or Arabs simply because they are black or Jewish or Arab, or let them eat in a resstaurant you own, that should be your business. Correct?

John Cole

05-02-2003, 01:07 AM

Andy,

See, you just have to form the groups without the tell-tale signs of race; then, of course, it's perfectly fine. Now we know the Daughters of the American Revolution really don't need "White" in front of their name. Oh, and their little gaff with "African" music? Well, that was a long time ago, and nobody remembers Marian Anderson these days. Do they?

John

Michael Davis

05-02-2003, 02:49 AM

"nobody remembers Marian Anderson these days."

How could we forget the crack-smoking Washington mayor?

/forums/images/icons/grin.gif

Cyrus

05-02-2003, 03:22 AM

Nobody would've thought of calling organisations such as NAACP racist a few decades ago. The fact that there's merit to this discussion now, implies that the black sector of American Society has made (or, more importantly, is perceived to have made) great strides in social advancement. Personally, I don't think that the phenomenon is indicative of racist resurgence in the U.S. because the public has been accustomed to more "advanced" social spectacles (e.g. Wesley Snipes French-kissing a White Girl), and not just in movies or sports.

So, while it was grudgingly acceptable some decades ago to give the lower strata some leeway or even an extra crutch to help 'em along, it is now to a lot of people bothersome, irrititating and even unjust to still be helping those folks out.

This IMHO is just an indication that the perception, at the very least (arguably, the reality is different), of Blacks in American society have changed. If anything, the perception has become more polarized : Blacks are either Michael Jordans, and why should multi-millionaire jocks be financially supported, or crack-dealing single-mother-makin' rappers, and why should anyone support them??

Chris Alger

05-02-2003, 03:37 AM

What he says about the Middle East is quite a bit funnier. From the writer's letter to President Bush:

"Peace is the wrong goal... the current Arab regimes do not ... have a right to exist ... You should kill Arafat.... America ... should conquer the entire Arab Middle East, including Saudi Arabia, using our nuclear arsenal and our other military might. We must seize the oil properties that the Arab governments robbed....The entire region should be made a colony of the United States.
You should encourage brave and adventurous Americans (and others) to settle and develop this colony, as those in the 1800’s settled and developed the American West."
http://pages.prodigy.net/rpisaturo/President-Israel.htm

andyfox

05-02-2003, 12:02 PM

I knew when Ayn Rand was cited what we were in for.

I think American Airlines is eLROY reincarnated.

AmericanAirlines

05-02-2003, 02:18 PM

Hi Andy,
Well, seems to me, if you can find a rationalization for reverse discrimination, to you, that makes it OK. All you did was give a bunch of "becauses".

Fair is Fair. Either *no* race considerations or any and all. Any middle is just BS.

My Post means what it meant when we started all this in "Neocon". The tide of racism these days is going toward anti-white. The very presence of a race name in an organization name makes it race based, hence racist. There's no counter argument for that.

I do not wish to treat anyone as a second class citizen. And allowing other groups to band together, but not mine is treating *me* as the second class.

Yes, since "At will emploment" means I can be fired for "any reason or no reason", Why can't I decide who I will or will not do business with for the same "any or no reason". So in real effect all us worker types are second class. Union Workers and Gov't workers have protections the rest of us don't. So being a white unrepresented individual, I'm at the bottom of the list, protections-wise.

I can't "pull the race card" and run to EE0C. I have no Union Steward. My "contract", if you can call it that, states specifically that At-Will is not limited. Beyond that I can't work for my principle for xx months after all is done... yet I recieve no "valuable consideration" for giving up that right. Seems like a "no-contract contract" to me and I'd love to see those clauses tested in court.

Seems to me Thorogood Marshall liked to talk about "protected classes". Seems to me he was black.

As I've said all along. If race is *not* to be a consideration... strike *all* language to that effect. Blacks should not be a protected class in the same way ADA people are protected. If your "ADA and black" or "ADA and white" the protections should be the same.

If you are black or white, all other protections should be the same.

Since the Bakke decision stated that reverse discrimation does exist, yet refused to do anything truly constructive about it, we simply have a chicken sh*t decision.

I also believe we should not be passing bills like AGOA to support africa at the beheadst of the Black Caucus. This is BS. Because I don't even want african products in my home. But it gets hard to avoid when all the manufacturers start going for those cheap materials and labor and sending the jobs to Zimbabwe or whatever.

As I've stated before, I would defend any black's right to be equal in law, but also my right to exercise my right to not have anything to do with them, or everything to do with them as I see fit. And vice versa. They don't want me in thier businesses. Fine by me.

Where I draw the line as stated before is in public services. The gov't and possibly corps. funded by public exchanges should not have the same broad rights as a sole proprietor who has his own net worth on the line. Same for the apartment complex. Why should I have to suffer the very real effect on net worth that the blackening of the complex would bring? To meet *your* ideals? Perhaps when the AIDS and crime rate among blacks is less... then this won't happen? Then maybe I'd change my mind. So the onus is on them to join the mainstream... not to make thier ways our mainstream. If they don't want to fine too.

As for the media, I believe it is just *evidence* that whoever is running it is trying to push black culture mainstream. Not just for the money either. As I now see commercials where blacks are placed in the authority roles.

As noted before, if I have negative feelings about afro-culture, who are you or the gov't to push it on me?

As for black pride. They should be as proud as anyone else. There's no shame in being any particular race. But there are groups that a best separate from each other. Say Islam and Jews, for example.

However, none of this is a diatribe to return to separate but equal, which was legally enforced segregation.

I'm just saying I want the right to choose within the bounds of my life and my assets without interference.

And I don't want legitimized race based organizations like "The Black Caucus" telling me I can't.

Sincerely,
AA

P.S. Have no idea who Elroy was. From what I've read of Ayn Rand I think she's a little logically inconsistent too. She seems to argue for equality but thinks umbridled capitalism will lead to it. Highly unlikely. It hasn't worked to date.

Besides, truth is, despite the eloquence of the Gettysburg Address... the Civil War overturned The Declaration of Independance and made us all subjects of the Federal Gov't. Which is a Federal *Republic*. The upside, slavery was overturned. The downside, you can no longer stand in on place and say, "I am not subject to your laws".

AmericanAirlines

05-02-2003, 02:54 PM

Hi Andy,
It dawned on me...

What you are doing is blaming non-blacks for wanting to stay away from a group with higher crime and AIDS rates, etc.

You are in essence blaming non-blacks for exercising thier better judgement.

This is illogical.

Sincerely,
AA

andyfox

05-02-2003, 03:29 PM

You can stay away from whoever you like. But you can't force people to stay away from you. If a black person moves in next door to you, you're not obligated to stay where you live. Move. But you can't keep them from moving in next store because you don't like them. Exercise your "better judgment."

By the way, you can't get aids from going near a person who has it, so "staying away" from a group of people with a higher AId rate is illogical.

You want absolute freedom for yourself by denying it to others.

andyfox

05-02-2003, 03:49 PM

Well, seems to me, if you can find a rationalization for reverse discrimination, to you, that makes it OK. All you did was give a bunch of "becauses".

-Well, you cause it a rationalization for reverse discrimination, I call it a reason for fighting racism. You think blacks are underrepresented in our universities because they're less "cerebral," I think it's because they have a raw deal. I want to make it less raw.

Fair is Fair. Either *no* race considerations or any and all. Any middle is just BS.

-What you call fair is not fair. No race consideration on paper is a racist society in action. Because there are people like you who would prefer to not serve blacks in their restaurants or have them be on their TVs.

My Post means what it meant when we started all this in "Neocon". The tide of racism these days is going toward anti-white. The very presence of a race name in an organization name makes it race based, hence racist. There's no counter argument for that.

-Yes there is. An organization like the NAACP was created to try to assure that blacks were not treated as second class citizens. A white supremicist organization is created to treat non-whites precisely as second class citizens. I see a world of difference between the two.

I do not wish to treat anyone as a second class citizen. And allowing other groups to band together, but not mine is treating *me* as the second class.

-You are allowed to band together with whomever you like. There are plenty of white supremicist groups to choose from.
Their intent, as I said above, is to treat non-whites as second class citizens.

Yes, since "At will emploment" means I can be fired for "any reason or no reason", Why can't I decide who I will or will not do business with for the same "any or no reason". So in real effect all us worker types are second class. Union Workers and Gov't workers have protections the rest of us don't. So being a white unrepresented individual, I'm at the bottom of the list, protections-wise.

I can't "pull the race card" and run to EE0C. I have no Union Steward. My "contract", if you can call it that, states specifically that At-Will is not limited. Beyond that I can't work for my principle for xx months after all is done... yet I recieve no "valuable consideration" for giving up that right. Seems like a "no-contract contract" to me and I'd love to see those clauses tested in court.

-Anyone fired in this country because of race has plenty of recourse. I own a business that was taken into court because we fired a man from our office staff. He was the only man in the office and claimed he was fired because of sex discrimination. I guarantee you that if I fired someone because of his or her race I'll be in court pronto . As I should be.

Seems to me Thorogood Marshall liked to talk about "protected classes". Seems to me he was black.

-I love your spelling of Mr. Marshall's first name. And you're right, he was black.

As I've said all along. If race is *not* to be a consideration... strike *all* language to that effect. Blacks should not be a protected class in the same way ADA people are protected. If your "ADA and black" or "ADA and white" the protections should be the same.

If you are black or white, all other protections should be the same.

-I agree. But you want to deny protections to blacks. You don't want to have to associate with them if you don't want to.

Since the Bakke decision stated that reverse discrimation does exist, yet refused to do anything truly constructive about it, we simply have a chicken sh*t decision.

I also believe we should not be passing bills like AGOA to support africa at the beheadst of the Black Caucus. This is BS. Because I don't even want african products in my home. But it gets hard to avoid when all the manufacturers start going for those cheap materials and labor and sending the jobs to Zimbabwe or whatever.

-You don't want African products in your home, don't buy them. You don't like how your representatives vote on bills, work to get them out of office.

As I've stated before, I would defend any black's right to be equal in law, but also my right to exercise my right to not have anything to do with them, or everything to do with them as I see fit. And vice versa. They don't want me in thier businesses. Fine by me.

-You don't have a right to have nothing to do with blacks. If they want to eat in a restaurant with you, they should have that right. If they want to live in the same apartment building, they should have that right.

Where I draw the line as stated before is in public services. The gov't and possibly corps. funded by public exchanges should not have the same broad rights as a sole proprietor who has his own net worth on the line. Same for the apartment complex. Why should I have to suffer the very real effect on net worth that the blackening of the complex would bring? To meet *your* ideals? Perhaps when the AIDS and crime rate among blacks is less... then this won't happen? Then maybe I'd change my mind. So the onus is on them to join the mainstream... not to make thier ways our mainstream. If they don't want to fine too.

-It's not the "blackening" of the complex that lowers the property values, it's the attitude of people like you. "Our" mainstream?

As for the media, I believe it is just *evidence* that whoever is running it is trying to push black culture mainstream. Not just for the money either. As I now see commercials where blacks are placed in the authority roles.

-The media is in the business to make money. They must feel there is a market for shows and commercials that feature black performers. Why do you find this so terrible?

As noted before, if I have negative feelings about afro-culture, who are you or the gov't to push it on me?

-It isn't being pushed on you. You don't like it, don't watch or listen to it.

As for black pride. They should be as proud as anyone else. There's no shame in being any particular race. But there are groups that a best separate from each other. Say Islam and Jews, for example.

-People learn to hate each other, they are not innately best separate from one another.

However, none of this is a diatribe to return to separate but equal, which was legally enforced segregation.

-Separate but unequal is precisely what you are advocating.

I'm just saying I want the right to choose within the bounds of my life and my assets without interference.

-Fine, so long as you don't interfere with the same right others have.

And I don't want legitimized race based organizations like "The Black Caucus" telling me I can't.

Sincerely,
AA

P.S. Have no idea who Elroy was. From what I've read of Ayn Rand I think she's a little logically inconsistent too. She seems to argue for equality but thinks umbridled capitalism will lead to it. Highly unlikely. It hasn't worked to date.

Besides, truth is, despite the eloquence of the Gettysburg Address... the Civil War overturned The Declaration of Independance and made us all subjects of the Federal Gov't. Which is a Federal *Republic*. The upside, slavery was overturned. The downside, you can no longer stand in on place and say, "I am not subject to your laws".

Baltimore Ron

05-02-2003, 04:53 PM

"-People learn to hate each other, they are not innately best separate from one another."

The field of biological evolution informs us that tribal/group affiliation is hard-wired into our natures. This was a necessary condition of survival for early human beings. We might have big brains, but we have no claws, armor, camouflage, speed, strength, &c. Twinned with the desire to belong to a group is a distrust of those not in the group. Skin color is just an obvious means of identifying "others", but is not the only one. After all, Irish catholics and Irish protestants look pretty much the same, but that hasn't stopped them from killing each other.

I think it is the triumph of civilization to lessen, sometimes to a great deal, this desire to break apart into tribal lines. Yes, there has been much discrimination in this country. Yes, some (hopefully a tiny minority) still harbor anti-{name the group of your choice} feelings. I worry, though, that an emphasis on differences, even if for the right reasons, perpetuates the problem instead of solves it. We need something different.

BR

Ulysses

05-02-2003, 05:11 PM

They don't want me in thier businesses. Fine by me.

Yesterday I picked up some brisket from Brother-in-Law's BBQ. It's a black-owned business and all the customers in there at the time happened to be black as well. I'm not black, but they were all very friendly and welcomed me in their business, as always. The other customers were also very friendly.

Surprisingly, I didn't get AIDS and I didn't get mugged during this encounter.

Have you considered that perhaps they have no problem with you in their business? Or if they do, it's not because you're white but because they think you're ignorant and racist?

As I now see commercials where blacks are placed in the authority roles.

Well, you do have a good point. That's just sickening. Have you seen the show 24? They have a black guy as President. I think there was also some movie where Morgan Freeman was President. Crazy. And I also saw some movie where there was a black guy on the Supreme Court. I'll tell you what, if that ever really happened, I'd leave this country.

I see a common theme in all of your posts. Everyone is trying to keep you down or against you in some manner. The government. Your employers. Wealthy people. The blacks. The media. If it weren't for all that, things would be so much better for you, but it's just such a struggle fighting through all this. Everyone else has it so easy and everyone more successful than you just had everything handed to them. But you manage to somehow struggle through in spite of everything you have working against you. How about this? Perhaps you should give some consideration to the possibility that maybe it's just you. There's a lot to be said for taking responsibility for your actions and the corresponding results. I hope you give that some consideration.

andyfox

05-02-2003, 05:41 PM

Hi B.R.

I know virtually nothing about biological evolution. But people are not born with religious affiliations. It is politics that makes Jews and Palestinians enemies. Perhaps you are sayiing that once people feel themselves to be part of a certain group, they are hardwired to be distrustful of people outside of that group.

I am in accord with your worry that emphasis on difference then accentuates this process. Thus the need for people to come to terms with, and live with, people outside of their own group. If we allow the separate but "equal" situation that A.A. desires to exist, this will certainly perpetuate, and accentuate, the problem.

I do have some doubts, however, that is is civilization, that helps us. Hunter-gatherers, for example, unencumbered by concepts of poverty and civilization, lived a life of leisure and communism. Perhaps it is us who do indeed need something different.

Parmenides

05-02-2003, 05:52 PM

Give it a rest. You obviously dislike Blacks. You aren't going to change. No one cares about your prejudices. Discrimination is against the law. Neither your biases, nor the law is going to change.

Trying to equate political organization and participation by a group that has only had the right to vote since 1965, that lived through apartheid, employment discrimination, education discrimination, red lining, lynchings, beatings, profiling for police harassment, and more is ludicrous to the Nazi's is far more than a stretch.

Cyrus

05-02-2003, 07:47 PM

It's quite dangerous to pretend Humans are something they really aren't, i.e. righteous and innately good. After all, we are only a geological blink after the Pleistocene.

"Hunter-gatherers, for example, unencumbered by concepts of poverty and civilization, lived a life of leisure and communism."

O Rousseau, O Milton, I wish that were true!

But it's not. Not at all. I'm sorry.

AmericanAirlines

05-02-2003, 08:06 PM

Hi Andy,
I'd really like to simply be rich enough to have enough space to not worry about who's next door. But try to do that in a society that already as an elite calling the shots.

Perhaps AIDS doesn't jump through the air.

But when Hollywood glamorizes the high risk blacks and white start sleeping with them, it crosses. Over.

Not to throw an insult, but you need to wake up to reality and be able to analyze it as well as you can a deck of cards. I don't know what to say, because you sit there and try to deny facts.

Diseases are like pollution. Throw some oil in the water in Alaska and it will go everywhere. Same as ground water pollution etc.

I do not wish to deny any freedom to others... but I don't want them denying my freedom through law.

I see choosing who comes into my business or real estate as one of those freedoms. Simple as that. After all I have to trade my life for the dollars that buy them. And those hours of my life traded cannot be regained.

Guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

You say it's OK to force things on me I don't want. I say it's not.

Sincerely,
AA

Michael Davis

05-02-2003, 08:28 PM

"But when Hollywood glamorizes the high risk blacks and white start sleeping with them, it crosses. Over."

Maybe these whites who are so unduly influenced by Hollywood are just less cerebral.

AmericanAirlines

05-02-2003, 08:43 PM

Hi Andy,
Race consideration on paper is racism, period. God you have a twisted sense of logic. Too much poker Mr. Fox. Seems straight forward linear logic has you confounded. (Of course it's a given, I suck at poker. I admit it.)

The reason property values go down when black move in is because of how blacks are. The reduction of property value is the effect, not the cause.

Have you ever stopped in all this to simply ask, "Why are blacks percieved as a negative?" I'd bet you haven't. So ask yourself that and see if you can come up with some objective answers other than "because whites are racists".

As you point out, "People *learn* to hate". In other words, they have to have encounted a reason to hate.

Think on that some.

I was once fired for my race (I believe) at a large credit card company.

I was contracted to a Black Woman manager with a 95% black department.

I elected to accept a ride to the Chrismas party with a white person rather than drive. (Was in an area I didn't know).

I continued to hang with some of the white folks a the party.

Well between that and my conservative non-ghetto style clothes on the job, I could tell she made a decision, since I didn't "Homie-ize" myself and dress crappy.

Took about 2 days after the party to make an excuse.

Course that's my side. There's always two sides.

I'd have left at the first opportunity anyway. Didn't realize I was going to be in that situation.

I do not want to deny protections for blacks. But I do not what them banding together in Congress if whites can't either.

*In my own personal space* (which includes anything close enough to touch me) and in a nieghborhood where others feel as I do, we should be able to say who we do or do not want there. Geez, gated communities keep "strangers" and poor people out don't they?

Why should *I* have to move. The old law school legal saw about property rights used to be "first in time, first in right".

As for an apartment building. If *I* don't own it... not my decision. But if I *do own it*, it ought to be. Same for the restaurant. It should be the owner's decision. What part of "personal choice" do you keep missing. You continue to want to align me with older racists like Nazis and Segregationists. I agree with neither. I'm specifically against any group that bands together to push their views on others. A group of people who feel like I do and want to separate out assets is quite different from a group that wants to pass laws to force a behavioral standard.

I'm saying, "Let us make our own choices, unfettered". NOT, "Hey you all need to live my way or be penalized". My whole stance on this is a lot more peaceful than you seem to recognize.

Yes, I guess my spelling of Mr. Marshall's name is off. Been a few years since I was in law school.

You keep missing that I do not support Nazi type groups and want to keep aligning me with them. I'd fight against a "Neo-Nazi" caucus too.

It's kind of hard to avoid african products and materials if the manufacturers don't tell you they are there. I've tried on several occasions to get on manufacturer to tell me where the mahaogany in his products come from. Never get a straight answer. But given AGAO, these products will be brought in without your knowledge of what they are incorporated into.

And besides, if the *hole next to me brings african products into the workplace, like one person I know why has a blanket from Nairobi... then at some particulate matter level he's contaminating me... same as second hand smoke. Same as the techno-dweebs 'round here you've heard me mention that have "hit or miss" personal hygiene.

Why do I dislike seeing blacks in the media so much?
Because the media sets trends. I wouldn't want any daughters of mine deciding the blacks are glamorous and decide to sleep with a group that has a higher probability of diseaase and a higher probability the father isn't going to stick around. That's not a racial comment, that's what the stats show. Sorry if it falls along racial lines. I feel bad even saying it, but it's true nonetheless.

Hollywood made drugs look glamorous in the 60,70's and beyond.... how many of your friends died in drug related accidents or incidents? Several of mine have.

Face it people emulate TV. The Jackass Movie or whatever it was already has people hurting themselves.

Well, I'm done. My case stands as far as I can see. 1) Non-whites seem to be allowed to organize on racial lines, but whites cannot; 2) The media is pushing african culture, for whatever reasons, likely money and perhaps Jewish use of blacks as a way to shift focus; 3) Any racial terms in law that give edges on racial lines are discrimatory and racist, even if it's "minorities" that get the edge.

Sincerely,
AA

AmericanAirlines

05-02-2003, 08:45 PM

Hi John,
Tell me about the gaff with african music and Marian Anderson. Don't know anything about it.

Sincerely,
AA

AmericanAirlines

05-02-2003, 08:52 PM

Hi Cyrus,
Your perception of the polarization is quite good.

As for the "Super Star Blacks". Are they not an example of why affirmative action is not required? Clearly thier children have access to the same education as any whites.

As for the Single-Mother-Making version. I believe there *is* some statistical truth to this. I heard Pat Buchanan say on TV that out of wedlock birth rate for blacks is around 70%, compared to 23% for whites. That's about 3 times as bad for the blacks.

So the problem I see is that Hollywood makes it look OK for Lexa Doig to kiss a black guy passionately (or Madonna for that matter) and the white girls buy into the Hollywood version, expecting black men to be like the super stars... but get Homie the crack dealer.

So the glamorization of black men on white women trend in the media will cause the problems caused by black males to cross over into the white (and possibly asian) groups.

This is not a good thing.

For whatever reasons... seems I see a lot of black guy on white women scenes in stuff produced by Jay Firestone and Adam Haight.

Sincerely,
AA

AmericanAirlines

05-02-2003, 09:21 PM

Hi Ulysses,
You pose some valid questions. However, yes, many folks in the position to do so see me and folks like me as exploitable resources. "The working masses". Worker bees. Whatever.

But it isn't me. I've worked hard since I was 14. Put myself through college. Military wanted me in the Nuclear Program (I declined, wanted to fly). Etc. Etc. Etc. I tool responsibility for my actions, and stayed honest. And you know what. It doesn't work. Except that I sleep really well.

So if I've worked to the point of collapse (literally) at some points, paid the dues, and don't have membership at the top... what else can it be other than the results of my efforts have been hoovered upwards by a system created by families that were elites long before I was born. Seems a simple straight forward conclusion.

Honest, hardworking folks get exploited (black, white or green). Seems the cheaters who know just when to stop pushing and not get caught are the winners. Sad state of affairs IMHO.

As it stands, in my current position TWO chains of Management over my head own big houses and have BMW's and "my kids will get to serve thier kids french fries on thier trip to Aspen" as the line in the movie goes. If that's not a rip-off, I don't know what is.

Face it, there are classes in America.

So yes, you do correctly detect the common theme. That the deck is stacked against most of us in many ways. All's you have to do is put aside your politically correct programming and question everything.

And I do know, from a long period of time spent in the shadow of wealth (Jupiter Island) that many things are insiders clubs, and my do have things handed to them. You going to sit there and claim G.W. Bush (a Jupiter Island property owning family) worked as hard as the rest of us?

Be real.

It's about time more people start looking as hard at these things as I do.

Unfortunately, like the old saw, "Most folks are spending too much time making a living to make any money."

In otherwords, most folks have worked themselves into corner, based on sh*tty info passed to them as kids to ever do anything. And well, the general programming of the masses is to not take a stand, but to be good little sheep.

Truth is, the current system works by each individual trying to take a bite out of the next guy's "financial *ss". So yes, there is some truth that many are keeping me "in my place".

As it is most people are complete liars. Saying one thing and meaning or doing another is par for the course. There's "what we say", "what we really do"... and if you discuss the difference between the two... well then people liku *you* say people like me have a *problem*. That it must be us honest people who are messed up!

As an aside, I do appreciate your ability to read between the lines.

But if you're a trust fund pro, or have always been talented enough to be a pro, and thus never have had to be in a boss/worker relationship or lose a gal to some old money kid...etc. (i.e. to have had these "others" f*ck with your life) I doubt you'll ever see my side of these things.

As for the BBQ, does your brother-in-law own it? Just curious.

As for blacks not liking me. Well... in my closet I still have some clothes they gave me when I left a transistor plant for "the big time" (LOL!) at a jet plant. I worked among many. Got hit on by one or two. But I was much younger and less well traveled then.

As for a Black Supreme Court Justices. This bears out my point that there's blacks at all levels. Why the need for a Black Caucus?

Clearly some blacks are way beyond my meager abilities. Heck they've only been free since 1865 and they're all the way to the top. Guess I come from a really retarded family, since we've been free from the start. Or at least until you trace back to Europe. But then, does Italy really owe me reparations because of thier enslavement of my English ancestors way back when? Well if not, then reparations to jews and blacks stike me as BS.

(Anyways, actually in some branches of my family are the Herhseys (chocolate...), Lennox Crystal folks, and some other notables. My particular branch is the poor folks branch... long story... but having some jewish folk married into the family, I can say with authenticity, some stereotypes do hold a little water. And furthermore, the rich really do live better.)

Sincerely,
AA

AmericanAirlines

05-02-2003, 09:41 PM

Andy,
You mis-read... I do NOT support "Separate but Equal".

I'm for "Separate if you choose". LOL! Ya gotta stop seeing me as a slobbering KKK member or something. I'm just speaking from the heart. Honestly and truly!

I agree with B.R. Some of my feelings about africans are 100% based in biology. I find thier body type and traits non-attractive. (Well I find *all* men unattractive... guess I'm a homophobe too!) I feel exactly the opposite about asian women. But then at some point of obesity an obese person is a turn off too. That's one of the reasons I'm so adamant about it. It is *personal*. And all the other statistical reasons are logical points as well. As one lawyer said, "You can't argue a man into liking a glass of beer".

FWIW, one african woman wrote an editorial in a small time Vegas rag that said in essence, "Black men who want white women are selling us sisters out... seems the pecking order is white women, asian women, hispanic women, and black women. It's got to be the television!"

I believe she had very good powers of observation. And also that she called the media role in it correctly. The media does agrandize certain looks. It's effect on black women has been to straighten thier hair in many cases.

In any case I will support you idea that group affiliation does play into this with some folks and thus there can be an environmental component along with the hardwired one. But I believe it's variable.

As an example from the animal kingdom. I have a bud with a Pit Bull. He also has a cat. The cat sleeps with the dog. The cat will knock food off the table for the dog. The dog will protect the cat.

But we also all know of dogs that would like to eat cats for dinner, and they cannot be reprogrammed. At best you can scare them so bad they won't go near a cat, but they still want to get one.

(I actually had a cat one time that chased a dog into his dog house! Was funny to watch.)

So, are the cat-eating-dogs defective? Hard to say. The definition of a defect or disorder, particulary when mental in nature can be real difficult. The BS surrounding Ritalin comes to mind. When ever they talk about "brain chemical imbalances"... which they cannot really measure, the red flag has to go up. And even if you could measure them directly, who's to establish "normal". And what's to say a deviation from "normal" isn't just "evolution"?

Also, as I understand it, Jews and Palistinians did live together peacefully until an Islamic name Al-Habib started persecuting Jews.

I do agree, the the current state of industrialization leads to a rat race scenario and that something more laid back would be nice.

But since everyone seems to be committed to "as much for me as possible" it'll never happen.

In the end the strife may really just be an artifact of population density.

Alexis De Toqueville in his 1835 "Democracy in America" stated that he felt that American Democracy worked in part because there was enough space in between people.

They say he also correctly predicted the Civil War, in there. Guess I'll have to go pull my copy out and look.

Sincerely,
AA

AmericanAirlines

05-02-2003, 10:07 PM

Hi Parmenides,
I'm not equating these organizations with the Nazi's. You're reading that into it.

I dislike an organization that seeks to force it's will on me.

You need to give it a rest. Your *people* need to give it a rest. Enough "Holocaust Survivors" already. It's over. We're tired of hearing about it.

Millions of other non-jews died freeing you folks. 4 million Poles got it. How many American boys, black, white, and other got it too? We ALL suffered through that one. My ancestors faught to free yours.

I'm saying fairness dictates if blacks (and I guess jews or anyone else) are allowed to organize by race, then it should be ok for everyone. No half-way here. Ok for you, but not me, is what racism is based on right?

Don't believe that a lot of folks don't have me view either... that no one cares about my view. Fact is most folks are trickier and less honest about it than myself.

Problem you've got is they are much more like you believe I am, than I am. They *would* want to oppress and second class treat people. I don't care for them either.

Your right, the law won't change at the minute. There's lots of your people in Law. And clearly you believe it's ok to infringe on my freedom of choice.

And maybe that stuff about "We're gods chosen people" has nothing to do with how people feel about Judiasm?

Seems you folks are as racist as the Nazi's were. Not saying you're as evil. So don't get that wrong. Until you can see this, you'll never understand folks reactions to you.

There's as many organizations with "Jewish" in thier name as black.

And yet, you folks will say, "Oh we relate to the blacks because of our slavery to Egypt." Well, Egypt is in Africa. The africans taught the world slavery and a host of other not so nice things. But they sure don't have a corner on the market.

I have Jewish friends that say "Jews DO run the media". And can we deny thier presence in Congress, Law, etc.

I can remember Howard Stern saying, after all his obnoxious BS, "Oh I don't know why people hate jews... must be because we stick together."

Hmmm... so maybe you all take over ecomomies and piss people off maybe? Weren't Stalin and Hitler both partly Jewish?

Anyway, enough. Fair means same for all. So if you're going to have the "Jewish League of Whatever", Then a "White League of Whatever" should be acceptable.

But you see, this is how the media has twisted things. "The White League of Whatever" would just *have* to be a Nazi group.

FWIW, despite out disagreement on this issue, I'd still fight for your freedom, because I have to do what I think is right.

Sincerely,
AA

Michael Davis

05-02-2003, 10:52 PM

Ignorance and prolificacy make a nasty team.

Baltimore Ron

05-02-2003, 11:43 PM

"Perhaps you are sayiing that once people feel themselves to be part of a certain group, they are hardwired to be distrustful of people outside of that group."

Egg-zackery. The need to belong to a group and the distrust of those not in the group are hardwired. How groups are delineated is a social construction.

BR

Cyrus

05-03-2003, 05:30 AM

Greetings to AmericanAirlines. I will try to respond to some of your positions, as stated in a number of posts you made.

"Weren't Stalin and Hitler both partly Jewish?"

No. The families of Vissarion Dzhugashvili and Katerina Geladze, Stalin's parents, were Georgian through and through. There has been speculation about some Jewish blood in Hitler's ancestry but that would be about it, even if correct.

"There are classes in America."

There are classes everywhere! When a perceptive fellow by the name of Marx explored that issue he was vilified. (It didn't help of course that he mixed his historical determinism with his call to action!) That classes exist doesn't by itself imply something specific. If anything, we have learned to distrust, and right fully so, all ideologies of social engineering.

"That stuff about "We're God's chosen people" has [a lot] to do with how people feel about Judaism."

Only because Israelis get to practice it!

Look deep into the official ideology of any nation, indeed of most human groupings, and you will discover notions of Destiny. Americans are "Number One"; Britons caried "The White Man's Burden" (to civilise the world); Germans, let's not talk about Germans; and so on. Even the atheist Marx divined (excuse the pun) that the proletariat is historically bound to win the class war. ...Hmmm, so let's fall alseep and wake up when the revolution has won, shall we?

"You going to sit there and claim G.W. Bush (a Jupiter Island property-owning family) worked as hard as the rest of us?"

What riles is not the silver spoon, but the attempts to come across as something that he's not.

"I heard Pat Buchanan say on TV that out-of-wedlock birth rate for blacks is around 70%, compared to 23% for whites."

I am not going to suggest that this is only a matter of economic or social status. It is also a matter of culture, at least partially, e.g. in a country like Sweden, which is affluent, peaceful and homogenous.

And I accept without reservations, (even little old hedonist me!) that the "nulear family" is the best environment for humans to be raising their children. I will simply not dispute the statistics, they are overwhelming. In Africa, which is more densely populated with Blacks than the U.S., out-of-wedlock birthrates are lower than American Blacks'. But if it's American culture at fault, why does it affect differently Whites and Blacks?

The only real difference between American ethnic groups, from Whites to whatever, is that Blacks have "emigrated" to America as slaves. This is actually, from a purely social point of view, a tremendous burden on any social group! And while slavery has been abolished a few decades ago and official racism is on the wane, Blacks, though indirectly, are still disenfranchized. It will take one more or two generations for fuller integration. And for American Blacks to forge an identity, a culture that will be socially positive rather than reflexively destructive -- now they are turned off (and away from) a backward Africa whule their new-native, WASP culture is still alienating.

Meantime, let's just try to get along. All talk about "slavery reparations" or "reverse racism" are counter-productive, at best.

"Some of my feelings about Africans are 100% based in biology. I find their body type and traits non-attractive."

A matter of taste. But perhaps unduly generalizing! Surely there are some Africans that are attractive even to your eyes. I'm sure that a lot of Whites, men or women, do look ugly to you. Right? Then it's only a small statistical leap from there.

Later,

--Cyrus

Cyrus

05-03-2003, 05:40 AM

"Ignorance and prolificacy make a nasty team."

Are you saying that "ignorant people", however you want to define the term, should not be too prolific, should not breed too much?

Or are you simply saying that AmericanAirlines writes too many posts?..

<ul type="square"> http://history1900s.about.com/library/graphics/streicher1.jpg [/list]

John Cole

05-03-2003, 11:58 AM

Cyrus,

See Marshall Sahlins's Stone Age Economics for the opposite point of view, and nowhere does he refer to the Noble Savage.

John

Michael Davis

05-03-2003, 02:45 PM

I was not advocating eugenics.

adios

05-03-2003, 03:03 PM

"National Society of Black Engineers:
Black Caucus of the American Library Association
Official Home Page of the Congressional Black Caucus
California Legislative Black Caucus
The National Black Caucus of State Legislators :
California Librarians Black Caucus (CLBC)
Louisiana Legislative Black Caucus Home Page
Official Homepage of the Congressional Black Caucus of the 108th ...
Sponsored by the Black Caucus of NCTE and by NCTE
Michigan Legislative Black Caucus:"

I believe groups like these promote divisiveness in our society in many ways. One of the reasons that the Republicans have the hard core religious right as loyal constituency is that black voters vote Democrat about 90-10. With the such a big constituency solidly in one camp the Republicans have had to pander to the religious right to gain their solid loyalty as a result. This is in addition to the obvious way that these groups promote divisiveness which is of course that a certain race is organizing itself to promote it's interests above and at the expense of other races. Could you imagine the furor in Congress if the Republicans started a "white caucus" in either chamber? I don't share your apparent values (I'm not sure where you stand because I haven't read everything in detail) but I agree with you that it is way wrong to condone this sort of thing for one race and condemn it for another. The justification seems to be that blacks in the USA are an oppressed lot. First of all it depends on how you define oppression but that would seem like an extremist outlook to me. One has to wonder why Blacks in this country vote so one sidedly. Of course part of the reason is that Blacks have a higher rate of poverty and thus feel disenfranchised. But are the Democrats really helping to improve their lot all that much? Are government transfer payments all that critical to the economic well being of the poverty stricken which include a disportionate amount of blacks? As far as I can tell the "War on Poverty" was an unmitigated disaster. If it was so successful why haven't Blacks improved their lot more economically? Another interesting study might be how the average black hs fared economically since Reagan took office. It seems that the more enfranchised a person feels in our society the more susceptible if you will to the Republican message. I'm almost certain that among Blacks who have maintained an income level that say is in the top 40% of wage earners, you'd find a great deal more Republicans among them than you would for the poverty stricken. Which makes me wonder if the Democrats have any vested interest in seeing Blacks being assimilated into the middle and upper echelon wage earners in the proportion that they represent population wise. I mean why would the Democrats want to see that if it's going to cost them votes? Take Jesse Jackson for instance has he or has he not exploited blacks while enriching himself? This is why the DNC and Democratic congressional leaders promote class warfare and to large extent repudiate capitalism and promote socialism. It's laughable almost to the point of being hilarious that the Democrats are now going to run on fiscal austerity and a balanced budget. Sorry to knock the Democrats yet again but I can't see where they are helping Blacks one iota and so I wonder what the purpose of these committees actually is. Actually I have fairly good idea I believe.

John Cole

05-03-2003, 03:38 PM

Tom,

And, you must also wonder, for fairness sake, why the religious fundamentalists vote so one-sided as well. If I recall, neither Robertson, Falwell, or Graham leads the ascetic life, at least judging from the suits they wear.

Why don't some organizations label themselves "White"? Answer: They don't have to.

John

PS. I think it makes perfect sense to vote for whichever party proposes to represent the group's interest the best.
Note "proposes."

andyfox

05-03-2003, 04:52 PM

"the problems caused by black males to cross over into the white (and possibly asian) groups. This is not a good thing."

An excellent summary of your philosophy.

andyfox

05-03-2003, 04:57 PM

In addition to Sahlins, a reader by John Gowdy called Limited Wants, Unlimited Means is quite good.

andyfox

05-03-2003, 05:05 PM

I have no doubt that you're speaking from the heart. You may think your negative feelings about "africans" are based on biology, but their based on prejudice, conditioned by your generalizing about them based on a few experiences. Right after you say biology conditions your feeling, you say that you find their body types and traits non-attractive. Isn't it possible that the negative feelings you have about how they look influence your other feelings about them?

Your understanding of Jews and Palestinians living together peacefully is a misunderstanding. The Palestinians objected from the very beginning when the Zionists came to settle in their homeland because they recognized that they intended to take over. It is not the fact of Jewishness or Palestinian-ness that makes them natural enemies. It is the political fact of them both considering the same territory their homeland.

Population density has nothing at all to do with strife.

andyfox

05-03-2003, 05:09 PM

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/eleanor/peopleevents/pande06.html

andyfox

05-03-2003, 05:29 PM

Race consideration on paper is racism, period. God you have a twisted sense of logic. Too much poker Mr. Fox. Seems straight forward linear logic has you confounded. (Of course it's a given, I suck at poker. I admit it.)

-My dictionary has two definitions of racism: 1) The notion that one's own ethnic stock is superior; 2) Discrimination or prejudice based on racism.

By the first definition, you are racist. By the second definition, a system which results in blacks being second class citizens is racist. Things designed to eliminate that de facto racism aer anti-racist.

The reason property values go down when black move in is because of how blacks are. The reduction of property value is the effect, not the cause.

-A price example of your racism under definition one.

Have you ever stopped in all this to simply ask, "Why are blacks percieved as a negative?" I'd bet you haven't. So ask yourself that and see if you can come up with some objective answers other than "because whites are racists".

-I don't perceive blacks as a negative.

As you point out, "People *learn* to hate". In other words, they have to have encounted a reason to hate.

Think on that some.

-I have. You hate blacks because you have experienced a few things in your life, (such as the one you relate below) and assume all blacks are bad. My house was burglarized by a black person. And my car was stolen by a white person. So what?

I was once fired for my race (I believe) at a large credit card company.

I was contracted to a Black Woman manager with a 95% black department.

I elected to accept a ride to the Chrismas party with a white person rather than drive. (Was in an area I didn't know).

I continued to hang with some of the white folks a the party.

Well between that and my conservative non-ghetto style clothes on the job, I could tell she made a decision, since I didn't "Homie-ize" myself and dress crappy.

-You could "tell" this? How could you tell?

Took about 2 days after the party to make an excuse.

Course that's my side. There's always two sides.

I'd have left at the first opportunity anyway. Didn't realize I was going to be in that situation.

I do not want to deny protections for blacks. But I do not what them banding together in Congress if whites can't either.

-Why can't white bands together as whites? Of course they can. Of course it wouldn't be politically popular, so they don't do it.

*In my own personal space* (which includes anything close enough to touch me) and in a nieghborhood where others feel as I do, we should be able to say who we do or do not want there. Geez, gated communities keep "strangers" and poor people out don't they?

-Gated communities do not keep out black who want to own property there. And they do not keep out blacks who are invited guests because they are black and , therefore, you do not want them there to touch you or be close to you.

Why should *I* have to move. The old law school legal saw about property rights used to be "first in time, first in right".

-You don't have to move. You have the option of moving.

As for an apartment building. If *I* don't own it... not my decision. But if I *do own it*, it ought to be. Same for the restaurant. It should be the owner's decision.

-So you want to be able to restrict blacks, because you don't like them, from being able to live in an aparment or eat in a restaurant. Disgusting.

What part of "personal choice" do you keep missing.

-The part where your "personal choice" eliminate personal choice for the other person.

You continue to want to align me with older racists like Nazis and Segregationists. I agree with neither. I'm specifically against any group that bands together to push their views on others. A group of people who feel like I do and want to separate out assets is quite different from a group that wants to pass laws to force a behavioral standard.

I'm saying, "Let us make our own choices, unfettered". NOT, "Hey you all need to live my way or be penalized". My whole stance on this is a lot more peaceful than you seem to recognize.

Yes, I guess my spelling of Mr. Marshall's name is off. Been a few years since I was in law school.

You keep missing that I do not support Nazi type groups and want to keep aligning me with them. I'd fight against a "Neo-Nazi" caucus too.

-I don't recall injecting the word Nazi into the discussion.

It's kind of hard to avoid african products and materials if the manufacturers don't tell you they are there. I've tried on several occasions to get on manufacturer to tell me where the mahaogany in his products come from. Never get a straight answer. But given AGAO, these products will be brought in without your knowledge of what they are incorporated into.

And besides, if the *hole next to me brings african products into the workplace, like one person I know why has a blanket from Nairobi... then at some particulate matter level he's contaminating me... same as second hand smoke. Same as the techno-dweebs 'round here you've heard me mention that have "hit or miss" personal hygiene.

-I'm not sure what kind of workplace has blankets in them, but for the sake of argument, how would my bringing a blanket made in Nairbobi into my neighboring workplace harm you?

Why do I dislike seeing blacks in the media so much?
Because the media sets trends. I wouldn't want any daughters of mine deciding the blacks are glamorous and decide to sleep with a group that has a higher probability of diseaase and a higher probability the father isn't going to stick around. That's not a racial comment, that's what the stats show. Sorry if it falls along racial lines. I feel bad even saying it, but it's true nonetheless.

-Incredible.

Hollywood made drugs look glamorous in the 60,70's and beyond.... how many of your friends died in drug related accidents or incidents? Several of mine have.

Face it people emulate TV. The Jackass Movie or whatever it was already has people hurting themselves.

Well, I'm done. My case stands as far as I can see. 1) Non-whites seem to be allowed to organize on racial lines, but whites cannot; 2) The media is pushing african culture, for whatever reasons, likely money and perhaps Jewish use of blacks as a way to shift focus; 3) Any racial terms in law that give edges on racial lines are discrimatory and racist, even if it's "minorities" that get the edge.

-Ah, anti-semitism as well as racism. I suppose they usually come together.

I believe your many statements in this thread speak for themselves and require no more comment from me. Since your done and you feel your case stands, I'm done too.

andyfox

05-03-2003, 05:34 PM

"having some jewish folk married into the family, I can say with authenticity, some stereotypes do hold a little water."

-OK, I'll bit: which "jewish folk" stereotypes" do you think hold a little water? I promise not to give you a hard time, not to even respond. Just want to see what you think and I'll let it stand on its own.

andyfox

05-03-2003, 05:38 PM

Never mind my post above, where I asked you to indicate which stereotypes about Jews you found to have validity, I hadn't seen this post yet, which answers my question.

Cyrus

05-03-2003, 08:32 PM

OK, I'll bite: which "jewish folk" stereotypes" do you think hold a little water?

All the males are circumsized.

Cyrus

05-04-2003, 01:23 AM

andyfox recommended John Gowdy's "Limited Wants, Unlimited Means" but I'm afraid human wants have been historically defined by means. The more we can produce, the more we consume; as soon as we can improve on something, we adopt the improvement. A human-created environment of economic life feeds back human economic aspiration (I'm talking about the overall politico-economic life and not just monetary transactions). Ten billion people would have been unthinkable two centuries ago but here we are.

As to your recommendation, Sahlin's "Stone Age Economics", it is worth reading, if only because it should offer insights about Reaganomics.

John Cole

05-04-2003, 05:24 AM

Andy,

I learned about this in grammar school, a Catholic grammar school, from a Nun with a social conscience. I wonder now how many of us came home that day and told our parents what we had learned in school that day.

John

adios

05-04-2003, 06:00 PM

It's quite obvious to the casual observer that the Republicans promote and embrace equality, fairness, and diversity regarding blacks (as well as other minorities). It's equally clear that the Democrats don't support the values nor the position of the religous right on at least one key vital issue and of course it's abortion. Both political parties in the USA promote and embrace equality, fairness, and diversity regarding blacks (see I'm being kind to the Democrats) while blacks choose to overwhelmingly line up with one of those parties. Apparently the reason for this is an issue of policy in acheiving the goals. I question whether or not the Democrats policy is really helping the plight of the disenfranchised in our society. I also question the value of having a "black caucaus" in Congrees when it clearly is not necessary and is divisive. The issue of abortion is quite different really. Wouldn't you agree? If not, then do you think if the Democrats adopted a stance calling for the end to Roe vs. Wade the religous right would be so decidely behind the Republicans? I'll concede that the abortion debate is highly polarized but it's not clear to me where the middle ground is on that issue.

andyfox

05-04-2003, 08:29 PM

"It's quite obvious to the casual observer that the Republicans promote and embrace equality, fairness, and diversity regarding blacks (as well as other minorities)."

It's not quite obvious to me. What specific policies or general ideas make this obvious?

adios

05-04-2003, 09:07 PM

GOP leaders seek involvement of blacks (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030114-29647030.htm)

Senators want to reach blacks (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20021223-12705907.htm)

Renewing Family and Community (http://www.rnc.org/GOPInfo/Platform/2000platform4.htm)

The last is the an excerpt from the Republican party plaform in 2000. How about Clarence Thomas, Conid Rice, and Colin Powell appointments as well. Anyway I'll post more later because I don't have the time to answer your completely now. Apparently you believe the Republican party is anti-black. Is it because they generally don't support racial quotas?

andyfox

05-05-2003, 12:40 AM

I don't know if I would say "anti-black." I was against the war in Iraq, but I was not "pro-Hussein."

The Republican Party is the white man's party. Some conservative blacks can be found, and thus you have Clarence Thomas parroting Scalia's votes on the Supreme Court. The Democrats have traditionally been in the lead in pushing a legislative agenda that would address the problems of black people in the country. This is why the Republicans are now apparently trying to reach out to get some black support--because they have done very little in the past to do so. Note that the conservative black leaders who met with Senator Frist called him "ignorant" on race issues. I also note this from the second link:

"Sen. James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, said there was nothing racist in remarks made by Mr. Lott, of Mississippi at a 100th-birthday party for Sen. Strom Thurmond, when Mr. Lott said the nation would have been better off had it elected Mr. Thurmond to the presidency in 1948. Mr. Thurmond, South Carolina Republican, ran as a "Dixiecrat" on a platform that advocated racial segregation and states' rights."

I saw nothing in the platform specifically addressing the black community.

John Cole

05-05-2003, 02:17 AM

Although I can't deny the importance of abortion to the religious right, I also can't quite believe that's the only reason it has lined up so decidedly with conservatives. If you noted the reference to William Bennett, Tom, you'll find that losing eight million gambling is only a problem if the gambler plays with the "milk money." When the poor lose money gambling, then gambling is evil; when the rich lose money gambling, then it's a harmless leisure activity. So, it seems that being poor is the moral issue here, and the rest is just, well, toast. And you wonder why the Dems garner most of the Black vote?

John

MMMMMM

05-05-2003, 01:24 PM

So is it, or should it be considered, immoral to be poor (over long periods of time)?

AmericanAirlines

05-07-2003, 01:53 PM

Hi Micheal,
Perhaps you are correct. The SAT scores, etc. that indicate more "cerebral" for white and asians do not neccesarily represent the entire bell curve. It's quite possible that the *mean* of the bell curve for whites and asians is higher... but not the left tail.

Sincerely,
AA

AmericanAirlines

05-07-2003, 01:58 PM

Hi Baltimore Ron,
I don't think it's 100% social construction. I think there is some preference for the bio-type of one's mother at the very least. Unless the first breasts you get is a social rather than biological construction!

Just seems to me the majority of folks find thier own race what they end up marrying. In a *free* society (i.e. no arranged marriages) why would anyone marry someone they didn't want to boink with, except for the usual reasons, like wealth, or misdirections because of some hollywood movie.)

Sincerely,
AA

AmericanAirlines

05-07-2003, 02:00 PM

So do ignorance and terseness.

AmericanAirlines

05-07-2003, 02:39 PM

Hi Cyrus,
I agree, the slavery issue is a burden. But trying to get me to offer reparations is bogus. I wasn't alive. Chances are my family also fought on both sides of the issue as some a Pennsylvanians others Virginians.

I feel the same about jewish gold. Perhaps we should use the alleged jewish gold in Switzerland to pay the families of americans that died in WWII... we'll call it a "liberation payment". How's that for some yiddish logic?

However, even if the out of wedlock birth rate in Africa is lower than here. They're still a disease infested bunch of people that need to get thier whole continent in order. They don't have the slavery *excuse* to fall back on.
So it seems to me there's plenty of evidence that africans in general make a mess when left to themselves.

Now some folks have taken issue with me saying "America is Becoming Africanized". But if you go look at the report linked below, on page 6 you can see the map of distribution of blacks. In the text of the report is says blacks are reproducing at a faster rate than the general population. So proportionately america is becoming blacker... africanization by any other name.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-5.pdf

Then AndyFox wants to say in one post... "Well then just move away from them..." Aaah... to where? That's *exactly* the mechanism of Africanization... Whites are expected to move away when they show up... to just succeed the area to them.

That's complete BS. How many europeans died to make america a great place. And now we should just let the blacks have it because they arrived. Sorry, that's f*cked. It's also what Killer Bees (a.k.a. africanized bees) do. Just about every species from africa becomes invasive when transplanted somewhere else. I've always suspected that the biosphere over there promotes the evolution of aggressive species.

As it is they already have all the areas with best climate. So.Cal., San Fran, Deep South, Florida, even Denver and Las Vegas in an otherwise relatively low black density west. In other words, any where you might go to live.

What's left? The Rockies? Total crock. If you can't see this trend. Well, you just blind, or politically "correct".

Yes, I suppose no one could argue that Tyra Banks or Maria Carey aren't attractive to a lot of men. But they seem to be mullatos to me. Straight hair etc. Unfortunately the Cubans have a saying, "White women to marry, black women to work, mixed women for *sex*". Pisses me off because I don't think of women as the property of men. Anyway, yes, there's plenty of whites I find unattractive, including myself. I'm no Fabio or whatever. But I don't even want to touch things blacks have touched. It's along the lines of revulsion actually. I'd suspect most blacks feel the same about whites. I'm sure it's not unilateral. And I don't take it to heart. Yes, black, whites, hell the women I want most, may not find me attractive. Touch sh*t, that's genetics. What pisses me off is if someone says, "Oh looks don't matter, money doesn't matter"... then she goes and chases Brad Pitt... c'mon now... come clean babe.

So now as a challenge, go try to figure out where in the USA you can live and not have at least one crotch grabber handling the groceries you are about to buy. Kinda difficult isn't it.

As an aside, one client of one of my family businesses, who is a cuban, stated she, "left Miami because of all the neeegors". So apparently hispanics aren't to thrilled with black majority areas either.

And yes, you are damn right they don't want to go back to africa to be with thier "brothers". They know damn well africa is a mess.

Recall that Haiti was the first black ruled country in the "New World". It's a complete mess too.

Yet a bigger problem is the cultural africanization that has kids of all the other races wearing "ghetto" clothes etc.

Now I can remember when everyone has long feathered hair cuts for the same reason. It was what the bands were doing... but come on... did the Rolling Stones go shooting at The Beatles.

Gangsta Rap... like most other african cultural artifacts is BS.

The point about G.W. Bush I was making is a little different. The point is that you may actually work *harder* and get less out of life. How we can be a "democracy" when the rules favor the upper 5% is beyond me. Life's a joke and the working class is the punchline. The rich exploit your labor, the poor exploit you through welfare. A perfect system if you're at the top. Tax the middle enough that they never get powerful enough to affect you, give some of it back to the echelon most likely to revolt. Marvelous.

So anyway, here's an excerpt from an RFP (Request for Proposal) for Disaster Recovery Services from the Palm Beach County School board. Note how they give point for having minorities....This means an all white, but otherwise perfect business could get a score of 90... but an all black one could get 81 points on the same categories... but end up with 91 points for being black... hmmm.... that's not racist?

12.0 EVALUATION CRITERIA
The Evaluation Committee shall rank all proposals received which meet the submittal requirements.
The following factors will be considered in ranking the proposals received:
MAXIMUM POINTS
A. Experience and Qualifications of the Firm 15
B. Qualifications of Staff 15
C. Approach / Methodology 20
D. Proposers Policies 10
E. Cost of Services 30
F. Minority/Women Business Participation 10
_________
Total 100

Here's the link to prove it's real:

http://www.palmbeach.k12.fl.us/bids/Doc/FY00/00C-001E.pdf

Look, the problem is everything form the Isreali-Saudi-Afro region. Islam, Christianity and Judiasm are thier related people are going to be the cause of Armageddon... by some of thier own writings even (book of Revelations?). Then thier's thier diseases, behaviors etc.

How many people have died over the divisions over there and they ancient mythical religions from that region?

So America should just get off oil, and boycott them all.

It was the White Anglo Saxon work ethic that built America.

As an aside, one jewish bud of mine feels it is correct that the Islamics are pissed at america because we are so aligned with Isreal. (Can't figure out why... no oil in Isreal... could it be all those jewish lawyers on capital hill and Wall Street? Hmmm.. Remember, they nailed the World *Trade* Center and the Pentagon... not the national cathedral... it's not the religion that's the issue, but our economic and military policy. Both have a decidedly Isreali leaning toward them, wouldn't you say?)

Sincerely,
AA

AmericanAirlines

05-07-2003, 05:02 PM

Hi Tom Haley,
Yes, I have written a lot in this thread. I wouldn't expect anyone to have read it all!

Anyway, at least you do see the main point I'm trying to make though.

As for the parties. Well, I tend to believe Dems and Reps both want the same thing. Power. But the Dems want to do it on volume, the Reps. on price! :-)

Seems to me, if you consider that Democracy means "one man, one vote, for everyone" and Republic means, "Run by a group of people with a greater interest", then the party differences are really clear. Reps = Richie Riches, Dems = Working folks.

The traditional alignment of Dems with Labor Unions bear this out.

I have no political affiliation, I prefer to decide on an issue by issue basis.

I consider myself to be working class even though I have a Degree. Matter of fact, I consider anyone who has a boss to be in what I call the "Servant Class", even if thier income is high.

So bottom line, I certainly wish I was elite enough to be a Rep. but can't align with them because I'm not. On the other hand, the Dems seem to be "tax and spend" and micromanaged social engineering, can't side with that either.

We need a party that promotes wealth and autonomy for everyone! (Ah... there I go with that Utopian nonsense again.)

Sincerely,
AA

P.S. Here's a few more allegedly "not racist" groups:

National Black MBA Association
National Society of Hispanic MBAS

Hmmm.... where's the Caucasian one? Maybe I should show up at one of these and see what happens?

AmericanAirlines

05-07-2003, 06:19 PM

Hi AndyFox,
Yes, it is. And until the statistics say differently, it's a logically sound philosophy as well.

I'd be curious to know what percentage of your neighborhood is black.

Sincerely,
AA

AmericanAirlines

05-07-2003, 06:37 PM

Hi Andy,
Yes it is true, I've not studied the Palestinian/Jewish history of that region to any great extent. I saw a special about Islam on an Education Channel that stated Al-Habib was the start of it all. In any event, neither side seems to be able to live up to it's religion. What happened to "The Golden Rule", "The 10 commandments" etc. etc. My impression is those folks over there *like* to fight. They'd rather fight than say, farm, and make something out of the dust bowl they're in. Ah but then maybe they lack the "Protestant Work Ethic" or whatever. These stupid ancient Afro-Saudi region religions are going to be the trigger of WW. III.

Any Social Psychologist would say population density does add friction and has a lot to do with it. So would any police officer. Look up Gemeinschaft and Gesellshaft.

People behave more organically and less constrained, interestingly enough, in large cities rather than small communities. In the larger herterogenous environment they feel not attached.

So density has a definite affect.

More dense, more heterogenous, -> less community spirit, more willing to fight.

Consider the classic "Joey BagaDonuts" stereotype of New Yorkers... "Yo what's a matta you, I kick a you ass, I got yer fancy fancy suspension right here...".

The Northeast, where it's very dense, has a lot of this in my opinion and experience. A good bit of my family hails from Philly. and Pittsburg. And trust me S. Philly is a bad place.

Sincerely,
AA

AmericanAirlines

05-07-2003, 06:43 PM

Interesting she's from So. Philly.

Before my folks had me they rented and apartment in S. Philly from a *black* landlord... I'm 40... so it seems that Affirmative Action wasn't required even that far back as the landlord was the property owner.

Being white does gaurantee you won't be treated second class.

Wealth is the determinant of that. And to point about 95% or so of us are "second class". Funny how in a "democracy" this can happen.

But oh, I forget myself... this is a Federal Republic.

Sincerely,
AA

AmericanAirlines

05-07-2003, 06:52 PM

Hi John,
This kind of double standard exists on many levels.

You know the joke, "It's not gambling that's the problem... it's the losing". :-)

Seriously though, If you're poor and have odd behaviors, it's a "disorder". If you're rich, it's an "excentricity".

:-)

I tend to think that the Dems get most of the black vote for the same reason they get the union vote. Dems put themselves up as the workers party. Reps. seem to be aligned with the interests of the rich. I tend to think it starts with the political systems thier party names represent. Dems = Democracy, Reps = Republic.

At least back in Plato's day, Democracy was a bad word... considered one step short of anarchy.

Sincerely,
AA

Cyrus

05-08-2003, 12:18 AM

"It was the White Anglo Saxon work ethic that built America."

Yes. That's correct. And it too had its roots in Africa! (Know what I'm sayin'?)

"Some folks have taken issue with me saying "America is Becoming Africanized"."

Not me! I hope you are right! The future of mankind, on the basis at least of "past performance", is one whereby yellows are sleeping with blacks, whites are sleeping with reds, and everybody is sleeping with everyobody else, regardless of race. A racist's nighmare come true!

Now, yes, this may not be too good for our immune systems (not what you think!) but it's a fine, and most exciting, picture of a happier world. A world less uptight...

"Even if the out of wedlock birth rate in Africa is lower than here, they're still a disease-infested bunch of people that need to get their whole continent in order. They don't have the slavery 'excuse' to fall back on."

You ignore/forget the grave issue of colonisation. Africans have only recently been allowed to fend for themselves, free of European rule, and to catch up with cultural advances similar to western ones on their own.

But the reasons can be much, much more pedestrian! Chance plays a much, much bigger part in whether YOU are culturally inferior to Mr N'kome of Zaire, than vice versa. ("Culturally" as a measure of civilisation advance -- and that last word is also loaded, but never mind.) A most humbling and insightful introduction to the theme of chance as to who gets to be conqueror and who the conquered can be found in Jared Diamond's classic "Guns, Germs and Steel" (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0393317552/qid=1052365909/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/102-5806124-7713707).

Lastly, the issue of diseases in the African continent is due to many factors, and not just the unsanitary conditions. I'm not a subscriber to the various conspiracy theories about Africa being a virtual testing lab for western pharmaceutical companies, but I do believe that a number of social and economic factors come together to produce a very adverse situation. It's not a "black thing".

"Take killer bees. Just about every species from Africa becomes invasive when transplanted somewhere else."

Another illusion, or at least half the truth. Micro-organisms do that everywhere! As a matter of fact, the White Man "cultivated" in the unhealthy environment of European cities of the Middle Ages a number of dangerous such organisms to which he himself grew immune but which he spread with devastating effect when he started colonizing the rest of the world!

For an incisive, yet highly readable and funny, account of the White Man's and his micro-companions' forays into the World, one must absolutely read the excellent "The Biological Expansion of Europe" (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521456908/qid=1052366442/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-5806124-7713707?v=glance&s=books). Just excellent reading.

"Gangsta Rap... like most other African cultural artifacts is BS."

Rock and Roll is an "African cultural artifact", my man. I rest my case.

--Cyrus