Well for you who think I'm racist....

I don't really feel a need to try to defend myself but some of the things said obout me are just so lame. Anyway Lets set the record straight, I'm no biggot or whatever you guys try to make me out to be, but some things in this world just aren't fair. What is awful is when a governmental policy decides to increase unfairness in society. Proponents of affirmative action say things like "well oppression has gone on for so long that we need to make up for it". Well this is a total cliche but two wrongs don't make a right. I'm not gonna pay the price for what some racist guys did back in the 1800's for chist's sake. Also 3Bet Brett seems to think that its a racist because I stated that various races have underachieved in certain categories. I wonder if he would have said something similar if I had pointed out that some particular minority group overachieves in some category. Of course it doesn't matter they both mean the exact same thing. Around here the medical profession is dominated by Middle Eastern groups and their are lots of Asians too. Anyway in a sense all other races are underachieving- nothing racist just fact based. Also I am not inferring that other races aren't capable of doing better but there will always be statistical fluctuations- it's just natural. Hell at my first high school the asians were blowing everybody out of the water in math and science related fields.

Anyway, I am a person that believes in the law trying to enforce equality, not favoritism or "making up for the past".


Kris

"3Bet Brett seems to think that its a racist because I stated that various races have underachieved in certain categories. I wonder if he would have said something similar if I had pointed out that some particular minority group overachieves in some category."


The fact that the white race, and particularly the Anglo-Saxons, rule the Earth is due to chance: the combination of climate, environment, etc. You can picture it as one particular deal of cards - that went completely one way.


So no white person in his right mind can claim to be proud of the white race's achievements and supremacy : one cannot be proud for things that are due to luck.


(And, of course, we all came out of Africa - me, you, Ray Zee, Wogga and White Marcher. Everybody! Should give the racists pause.]

I totally agree. When people say things like "I'm proud to be white" I find it to be so lame. How can you be proud of something you had no control over.


Kris

"..we all came out of Africa"


Yes, that is currently the most popular theory.

I don't want anymore, I am proud to be Russian or Greek or whatever. Amen.

Is saying I'm not ashamed to be Black just as lame?

You are a bigot.The las wshould jail you for tax evasion, and then let you talk trash in prison.

one is proud or ashamed of ones culture based on how ones personal values mesh with those of ones culture

I believe in affirmative action and generally oppose the Supreme Court's efforts to limit it, but I also suspect some (probably inevitably) faltering and outright bad methods of implementation. It also fails to adequately consider -- indeed it tends to mask -- common problems of class, and it can stigmatize. However, the following against affirmative action is simply lousy:


"I'm not gonna pay the price for what some racist guys did back in the 1800's for chist's sake."


Are you a domestic-born white? If so, it follows that you have no interest in reaping the benefits either, and would therefore be willing to estimate your portion of the benefits conferred by generations of slavery, below-market wages, special exclusions and burdens borne by non-whites and budgets and taxes limited by racism, then reduce this amount to cash, but then burn or bury it because any attempt at remediation would be a "wrong" that cannot create a "right." Alternatively, I suppose you could argue that the wealth created as a result of slavery and racism simply vanished, over generations, into thin air.


There's another explanation for those that invoke this argument, at least if they tend to honor and celebrate the sacrifices and contributions of prior generations: like criminals, they prefer to remain unaccountable and reap the benefits of wrongdoing because their greed overrides their most elementary moral instincts.


Socities, like individuals, shouldn't do the crime if they can't do the time. Your argument essentially denies this simple rule.

yeah why would somebody be ashamed or not ashamed of something they have no control over? It's totally silly either way.


Kris

Wait another tax evasion post! Whats up with this? I don't evade taxes, but think what you want, and don't call me a bigot because you are wrong in trying to say I am. By the way the name calling continues only from those who arent smart enough to try to argue peacefully. I have no problem with peole heatedly disagreeing but when some character just resorts to name calling it shows a bit about their own intelligence level.


Kris

Well I respectfully disagree for several reasons, one of which is that it really is ludicrous in my opinion to punish people for things they have/had no control over. Anyway, the issue is complex and maybe I should have never brought it up on this forum since this thing sort of turned into a monster. To answer your question, yes I am but it really doesn't have any bearing on my opinion. There are other issues I have strong beliefs in which don't concern me one bit, and some that do concern me but I actually prefer the side that doesn't help me. For instance, I have a part time job that is nice because of tipping, tips are worth much more then the paychecks, and in these fields they always pay minimum wage. I am very much against any minimum wage hikes for several reasons. Now this is something that directly affects me but without diving into that topic you can see that I don't necessarily go for the direction that helps me. I analyze political situations by what seems most correct to me, and then balance other elements into my thoughts to try to come to conclusions about things. Finally,it's nice to see that we can disagree without you falsely accusing me of being a bigot unlike so many of those other posters who sheepishly hide behind pseudonys because they don't want to admit who they are. Anyway Chris have a good one, and I enjoy these mature debates without the name calling, thats why i gave you a (halfway) decent reply and the other guys get little or none usually.


Kris

Cultural pride is different then racial pride. One has to do with thinking your chromosomes make you better than those of different races. The other has to do with acknowledging and appreciating the language, music, food, customs etc of your culture. Two very different things in my opinion.

historically they were the same.


brad

"Proponents of affirmative action say things like "well oppression has gone on for so long that we need to make up for it". Well this is a total cliche but two wrongs don't make a right. I'm not gonna pay the price for what some racist guys did back in the 1800's for chist's sake."


I can't speak for other proponents, but I say that the oppression continues. It is more subtle and less prevalent, but present nonetheless. That is why we need affirmative action. It is because of what goes on in the present not what happened in the 1800s.


"various races have underachieved in certain categories"


If you believe that this is true because the race is inferior genetically, then you are a racist. If you believe there are other causes, social or environmental or political, for example, then this would not be a racist statement.


"I am a person that believes in the law trying to enforce equality, not favoritism or "making up for the past"."


This is exactly the aim of affirmative action.

Your views are quite biased. Maybe you believe in Peter Pan. Never Never Land may have eradicated racial discrimination in hiring, but the USA has not.

historically race and culture were the same? Well at some point in history they might have been. However, sometimes peoples of a similar racial origin developed very different cultures because they suffered a different historical fate.

I tend to think that the business climate today in the USA is so highly competitive that most compnies can't afford to practice discimination in hiring--they generally have to hire the most qualified they can get in order to remain competitive.


Of course, a bit of discrimination may exist here or there, but for the most part, companies today really have to stay on the ball or fall behind.

I'm not so sure. I deal with a lot of very big companies and they're loaded with incompetence. I don't believe that they hire the most qualified they can get. They look for people who have experience in the field, or they have to take second or third choice because first choice doesn't want to relocate or for some other reason, or other factors play a part.


Discrimination is rampant. I've had 3 different people with one of the biggest retailers in the world tell me they practice discrimination. I had another make an anti-semitic remark to me.


Discrimination is much more subtle than it once was. Big corporations have to watch out for the government, so no blatant dfiscrimation, to be sure. But discrimination is still prevalent.


While renting an aparment when I was younger (perhaps 20 years ago), I had 2 people in different neighborhoods tell me they were the only person on the block who rented to people with kids. When I told them that it was illegal to not rent to people with kids in Los Angeles, they both told me of course it is, but nevertheless it was true that they were the only ones on the block who rented to kids. A check of other buildings on the block confirmed this.


Laws are stronger now than in the past, but subterfuge remains a big problem.

but what happened to businesses that refused to take the best...they eventually go broke...except in a socialist society like current usa....where mediocrity is praised...whoisjohngalt??jmho..gl

Well Andy I was almost done writing a long response to you when my goddamn internet connection failed. Anyway I'll just give a brief response now.

Firt comment of yours I agree, opression is still going on and its a horrid thing but I am sure that affirmative action is the wrong way to go about trying to remedy the problem.


Second comment, I partially agree, most of the inferiorities are social environmental issues, but there are some exceptions. for instance look at white skin- its naturally pale so they are most susceptable to things like skin cancer and sunburn. Things like that are indeed inferiorites to say a black person who doesn't need to worry about such things. Anyway in terms of mental abilities my opinion is that ALL races are capable of thinking/ doing things on the same level as anyone else. But phsically there are inferiorities- or superiorities- however you want to look at it. there is no denying it and it is simply a part of the beauty of diversity.


Finally, I disagree that affirmative action is trying to create equality because there are better ways to do it then to basically rob others of their jobs.

I gotta run,


Kris

They don't necessarily go broke. A company with, say, 10,000 employees can easily have 1,000 bad ones and still thrive. They'd do better if the 1,000 were better, but they can still do OK.

I agree that there appear to be physical differences among races that cause different levels of achievement in certain areas. We need to be careful, though, in assuming that it is indeed a physcial attribute that causes the difference, rather than something else. Some people assume, for example, that some races are less intelligent because they don't do well on tests that measure "intelligence."


As for affirmative action "robbing" other of their jobs, this assumes someone has a right to a certain job because he has scored higher on a test or has better qualifications. I sometimes hire someone with a lower test score or with less experience or with less education than someone else who applied for the same job. I base my decision on a number of other criteria, some subjective.


I never hire (knowingly, I make mistakes) anyone, however, who I judge to be unqualified. There is a basic threshhold, below which I disqualify someone. I would be against any affirmative action program that hired someone who didn't qualify for a job or that let someone into school who didn't qualify. But if you needed a score of, say 100, and two candidates had scores of 110 and 120, I don't see anything wrong with using additional critera that are relevant for hiring the person with the 110.

(or at least under jack welch) did not think that way. in fact their policy is to continuously cull the bottom 10 percentile of performers....real business...

But not right away. Welch specifically said that if his policies were instituted right away, the corporation, in his judgment, would have gone into shock. So there are reasons, subjective ones, for not always "maximizing" personnel.

but he would be appalled by the statement that it doesn't matter if ya got 10% deadwood...gl

These are valid points, and indeed I totally agree about the hiring process. If there is some standardized test in some certain field thn certainly the most qualified person is NOT neessarily the highest scorer, since there are several other factors that an employee can asses their potential worker on besides whats in some "test".

About the physical differences in people these are actually bred into all of us and then social factors increase or decrease the prvelance of some features. For instance Japanese people are a typically smaller framed people, rarely overweight and have the longest lifespan of any nationality, not to mention that they often look younger then their actual age. This is quite a nice profile, but sometimes these things change when they say come to America. Here they may conform more to a high fat, high protein diet like many Americans eat and end up dying younger, but also often growing taller then average and not being all that thin. Of course this oesn't happen all the time but this is fairly common when somebody who comes from a line of people who for generations have lived off of a certain diet, now make a total 180. There is a bit of a shock factor involved.

Anyway as for mental abilities I can't imagine any physical reason that all races are capable of the same thing. After all we are all just the human race with a few differences in looks and some minor adapted appearances. We eat, breathe, and sleep the same as each other (relatively speaking) and the best way to be in this world would be total color blindedness. Too bad the racist folks f-ck it all up and make us have to try to remedy their evil deeds. I dunno maybe racism should become illegal- certain freedoms of speech already are banned, so I don't see the problem with making racism illegal, then again it probably wouldn't help things much in the real world.

Glad to see that you have some solid reasoning behind your thinking process with affirmative action. The problem is that I suspect that many of the other people don't think as clearly as you though.


Kris

I didn't say it doesn't matter. I know of many companies where, in my estimation, 10% of the employees are subpar, yet the companies are doing well. Thus a company could indeed practice discrimination, not hire the best qualified person for the job, in fact hire unqualifed people, and still do well. Likewise a company could hire the second best person, rather than the best, for affirmative action reasons, and do well.

Thanks for your thoughtful response and compliment (and I don't mean it was thoughtful because you complimented me, although that certainly helped!).


Hate crime legislation, I think, is a way of trying to make racism illegal. I have my doubts about hate crime legislation, it strikes me as thought control. It should not be illegal to think stupid things (I have certainly been guilty of that crime many times in my life). Nor should it be a crime to do something because of stuipd thoughts. If I rob someone, I should be punished for robbing them, not for robbing them because I didn't like their ethnicity.

It is my impression that the business environment is more competitive than it was a few decades ago...considerably so. Therefore there should be less room for for companies to shun the opportunity to hire the best they can. I'm not saying they will necessarily go under if they don't follow this principle, but many would be hurt, and some would go under, if they practiced discrimination on a widespread basis.

Andy,


If you're still reading so far down. If you rob someone, it is assumed you are doing so to aquire that person's money or property, regardless of that person's characteristics. But, these crimes can be reduced or prevented through better safety measures, increased police presence, and public awareness. What makes a hate crime worse is that the crime is directed against the person because of some characteristic particular to the victim. I think the difference in motive makes hate crimes harder to stop.


John

i just mean that people often speak loosely.


as for history, in the first part of the 20th century it was perfectly acceptable for chess writers to categorize someone as ' a typical georgian' or 'typical german' or something like that. i dont remember exactly but you get the drift.


brad

....but keep being not-proud

the absence of shame is ok. but to state it is pointless.

Fantasy Island, M.

I guess I just don't understand the concept of a hate crime. You rob me. You're caught, tried, and sentenced. Some enterprising criminal studies your m.o. and duplicates your crime exactly. He's also caught and says part of the reason he robbed me was because I'm Jewish. Why would the reason he robbed me be relevant to the crime? Supposing he was wrong and I wasn't Jewish, or had converted to Catholicism the week before. What if he said he didn't know if I had enough money to make the robbery worthwhile, but assumed I did because I was Jewish. Would this qualify as a hate crime?


It's disgusting to hate Jews because we're Jewish, but should it be a crime to do so? You know from my posts I'm pretty far to the left, but I have a hard time understanding the concept of the hate crime.

im not sure.

you certainly mask your argument as legitimate, yet you fail to recognize a simple fact: the people that took advantage of minorities and the people that were taken advantage of are all dead. they no longer are responsible for their actions to anyone on this earth. for us to assume that any restitution can be made to those dead and gone is ludicrous.


that doesn't mean that we can't work toward equality in the present age, however. affirmative action isn't the way to go about that though. to say that a person should get a job because of their race, more importantly than qualification, is racist.


let me stop and give my working definition of racism.


racism = any time that race is a factor in any decision at all.


so racism is an equal opportunity evil, one that can pervade all races, genders, cultures, religions, nations, etc. but it is still a bad thing, no matter where it comes from, or who it unfairly benefits.


lets look at a hypothetical example from a slightly different angle.

suppose i work my arse off to get a job. i go to school, get the necessary training, excel in that program, have proven leadership skills in that field, earn experience in that field, study and earn EXTRA qualification for the job in question, have a great resume, have great recommendations, interview well, and then i don't get the job.

ok, now im frustrated. but then i find out that someone less qualified gets the job. simply because of their race, the one thing i could not control. the one 'qualification' that i can't earn. now im pissed. and i am right to be. its not fair, and im not whining, im looking at the situation objectively. while i may think that it totally sucks that so many different races have received such harsh discrimination in this country for a long time, i had nothing to do with it, and now i am getting treated unfairly because of it.


to say that i am benefitting from the opression that my ancestors caused, but that races of minority are not is dumb. we live in a society, a global society some might say, that has its history. but we all live here together, and there is no way that you can say that the advantages that are here equally for all to take part of are ok for minorities to take advantage of, but i would be a racist scum taking advantage of what my 'ancestors' did way back when should i choose to benefit from the same stuff. the advantages available to me are available to all, as they are a part of the fabric of our society.


also, my great grandparents were off the boat from hungary and sweden somewhere between 1920 and 1930. on both sides. so does that mean that because i am caucasian, i should have to bear the responsibility of all the wrongs that caucasians have committed in this country, even though my ancestors didn't get here until early 20th century, and they were definitely not in the priveleged class?


explain that to me please...

"simply because of their race, the one thing i could not control"


I think the problem is the word "simply." The person was qualified. He did not get the job simply because of race; if an affirmative action program was in place and this effected the decision to hire him instead of you, race was one factor, not the only factor.


"racism = any time that race is a factor in any decision at all"


Racism is a factor at all times, then, by your definition. Let's say we had a situation where 20% of the population was a certain race. But the percentage of people in poverty from that race was 60%; the percentage of people graduating from universities from that race was 2%; and the percentage of people without health insurance from that race was 90%.


Now by law, in this society, no one could be discriminated against. Yet the numbers are what they are. We can either assume that the race is inferior in achievement by virtue of their race or that their is some endemic racism at work. If we assume the latter, then racism is at work and to NOT strive to correct this with an affirmative action program would be racism.


At some point equality of results becomes important. Because equality of opportunity sometimes works only on paper and not in practice. A superficially color-blind society has resulted in a racist (by your definition) society. This is because it is only superficially color-blind; discrimination continues to operate daily in more subtle ways than it did fifty years ago.


I don't like the argument that others who support affirmative action use that it's an effort to right past wrongs. I'm interested in present wrongs. The present is indeed a resultant creation of the past, but the important point is not, in my judgment, that blacks are doing badly as a result of the legacy of the past of slavery, Jim Crow and overt racism, but rather that they are doing badly, period.


I know it wasn't directed at me, but what purpose is served by the title of your post?

Andy,


Simply hating someone for being Jewish is not a crime; anyone who wishes to do so may. I guess what I mean is that most robbers, for example, rob to gain something from someone. Now if you're robbed simply because you're Jewish, then, for me anyway, that makes the crime "worse." If a robber took the trouble to only rob from Jewish victims, then the intent is not so much to gain something from someone, but to deprive someone of something. Perhaps it's only a small difference, but it seems and feels different to me.


I suppose my thinking is somewhat colored by incidents such as the dragging of a man over the roads from the back of a truck. The crime, in that situation, was motivated by hate, and had we run into those two men, we would not have met with a similar fate. However, if by chance we happen to run into a robber, I don't think he will care who we are because he's motivated, not by hate, but by something else.


John

I agree the difference is motivation. But, from the standpoint of the law, so what? A man was dragged along the road from the back of the truck. It's disgusting. That they did it because he was black is particularly disgusting. But what if they did it because they didn't like the clothing he was wearing, or because he had a tattoo, or an earring, or because, well, they just felt like it. Disgusting and should be punished the same as if they did it for any other reason.


However. . .


Every restaurant I visit has a sign that say "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." But they cannot. If they refuse to serve you because you are black, it is a crime. And I agree that it should be a crime. So here, it is indeed the motivation for the refusal of service that determines whether or not a crime has been committed.


Also, in determining whether a person is guilty of 1st or 2nd degree murder or manslaughter, motivation is considered as well. Someone who planned to commit the murder is accused of a different crime than someone who acted in a crime or "passion."


My conclusion is that I need to think this over some more. Thanks for the stimulus to do so.

Andy, Kris (Goat), John,


Good sub-thread. A few thoughts on affirmative action….


It seems to me that people could be given credit for a bunch of factors other than grades and race (in the case of college admissions). A kid with good but not great grades might get a little edge if one year of bad grades coincided with his parents divorce; another might get a little boost if he had to overcome illness, another may have siblings who are troubled (perhaps in jail) yet he overcame his family difficulties to do relatively well. And race could also be a small factor. But a rich black kid from a stable family should not have an edge over a poor white kid from a broken family. Perhaps this is already done to some extent and if so that would be fine.


BTW, John and Andy, you guys should meet. You look so much alike it is possible that you were separated at birth.


Regards,


Rick

Everything that is prosecuted under the "hate crime" label is prosecuted anyway, be it dragging someone behind your car, lunching him or raping her. You name it, it's illegal.


Putting the ideas of a person on trial, under the guise of "intention" or "ideology", is a truly dangerous start. Of course, the American Left, and particularly the campus variation of it, is too stupid and self-centered too understand this.


--Cyrus

Hey Rick,


Now that I've dropped a few more pounds--I'll write and let you know why--down to about 145, when I wear my hat and jeans, I get mistaken for Billy Bob Thornton a lot these days. I hadn't realized how thin I've gotten.


John

Cyrus,


I'm not quite so sure someone's ideas are being put on trial when someone is prosecuted for a hate crime.


Perhaps the very notion is a dangerous one--and may lead to consequences and calamaties we can't anticipate right now. But, since the law already distiguishes among 1st, 2nd, and manslaughter, "ideas" are already taken into consideration. And this is only one type of crime in which courts address the thinking of the defendent.


Yes, I'm glad we don't prosecute the likes of Ernst Zundel for teaching "false history." And, I suspect that when John Walker is put on trial for treason and faces the death penalty, his lawyer will very much put his "ideas" on trial. You can't have it both ways, my firend.


John

"you fail to recognize a simple fact: the people that took advantage of minorities and the people that were taken advantage of are all dead."


I'm not dead and I've taken advantage of it in many ways. To name just one, I was the benficiary of an overfunded school district when growing up in Pasadena, Texas, in the 1960's. The quality of the schooling I received was superior as a direct result of segregation. Tens of millions of living Americans are in this boat. To name others: my ancestors weren't precluded from jobs, schools, travel, property ownership, voting or public accomodations as a result of their race, nor were they more at risk from jailers or hangmen. To say that none of these factors have helped me in my life would be foolish or dishonest or both.


"that doesn't mean that we can't work toward equality in the present age, however"


Then you agree that we should take some affirmative action toward this end. That's what "work" is.


"racism = any time that race is a factor in any decision at all"


I'd define it has any hurtful discrimination against a group. Nevertheless, you inclusion of race as a factor in decision-making and implied exclusion of it as a factor of social conditions is purely arbitrary. OTOH, if you include it as a factor of social conditions (as everyone should), then you've got racism regardless of whether race is included as a factor in decision-making. Which makes the only quesiton remaining: use race as a factor to decrease to negative effects of racism or allow the conditions to persist until they, hopefully, someday, die some natural death during future generations, or wait until some future generations acknowledges responsibililty?


"so does that mean that because i am caucasian, i should have to bear the responsibility of all the wrongs that caucasians have committed in this country, even though my ancestors didn't get here until early 20th century, and they were definitely not in the priveleged class?"


As a direct result of U.S. racism your ancestors were members of a privileged class even before they arrived: the emigration laws during this period were biased in favor of Northern European (white, Protestant) countries and discriminated expressly against others. So the mere fact of them getting here was probably a benefit of racism. As soon as they arrived they benfitted by virtue of their race in the ways I mentioned above.

you make good points. and i do agree that the present situation is in trouble, and needs fixin, not the past. and i do believe that affirmative action was put into place in a good faith effort to adddress the problems with jobs and race issues. i just don't believe that it is achieving these ends for the good of society on the whole. i also agree that there is a sparse difference between our color-blind society on paper and the nasty group of scumballs that we all are, deep down. i wish i had a better solution, and i guess i could probably come up with one if i put enough work into it. but i just don't think that affirmative action is the best solution.


the title of my previous post, not directed toward you, was a nice way of saying 'dude, you are on crack. because there must be some abnormal chemical process going on in your head to arrive at your conclusions...' that was why i chose that title.

Well, I feel bad for John, since I'm not regularly mistaken for Robert Redford. I'm about 150 now, I think, but I'm still bald and ugly. At least we're both on the correct side of hte political spectrum. (Sorry, Rick, couldn't resist.) I got a big laugh out of my wife last weekend when, arriving home from the driving range wearing my Yankee hat, she asked me what was new, and I replied that 3 young girls mistook me for Derek Jeter.


"a rich black kid from a stable family should not have an edge over a poor white kid from a broken family"


A black kid has a much greater chance of being poor and from a broken family and a white kid a much better chance of being rich from a stable family. Ideally, we should look at each kid on a case-by-case basis, but affirmative action is a group solution (or impediment, depending on your viewpoint) and since my first sentence in this paragraph is true, then it aims to help black kids in general as opposed to white kids. There will undoubtedly be individual cases where it seems ill-advised, for example, for your rich black kid from a stable family, but the big picture, I think, has it correct.

OK fine. You make a lot of good points. But for HOW LONG should the group which benefitted have to pay for it? How many generations? When does it end and we say OK it's been long enough and from now on, NO discrimination, against minorities, against majorities, or against anybody. I don't see provision for this is your scenario, nor do I see any sort of timeframe. I can't accept that "makeup" should go on indefinitely.


On another note, I don't feel that present day affirmative action is necessarily doing more good than harm, although I think that at one time it was.

"you've got racism regardless of whether race is included as a factor in decision-making"


This, to me, is the crux of the matter. People who are against affirmative action, I think, are stuck in the 1960s. Create a color-blind society so that miorities are not discrimated against. But we now know precisely what you say: racism results from our society's operations even when it is not expressly a factor in the decision-making process. It operates in more subtle and covert ways, such as some of the things you talk about in your post, but it still operates. Hence we need affirmative action to reduce racism. We take a person's race into account to counteract and balance the racism that, without affirmative action, would (and does) result.

I think racism had an effect which reverberated through generations, but I don't think racism results from how our society operates today.


Also I really take a bit of exception to something along somewhat different lines (I am not thinking of anything which you said here, Andy). I believe culture (not race) plays a big part in how well the average member of a group performs. In other words it is simply true that Asians and Jewish folk tend to practice commitment to education and hard work more than most other groups. Just as a child from a hard-working, hard-studying family will tend to outperform children from a family that is merely average in those aspects, so too does this apply to larger groups. A lot of immigrants came to this country with literally nothing and rose through dedication and hard work, in a strange land. I say that certain oppressed groups which have historically been poor or oppressed, but which are oppressed no longer, should take a lesson from this. Specifically if American blacks, and Palestinians (as groups), worked as hard as the Jews and Asians, they as groups might have a bit less to complain about--and for that matter, poor white folks might think about this rather than drinking beer and watching the ball game. And I too might spend less time on the Internet and more time earning money and exercising. The average WASP does not apply himself as fully as the average Jew or Asian immigrant. I agree that cultural wrongs against groups need to be rectified. But at some point you also have to throw into the equation just what are people doing with their opportunities. So yes, let's try to redress wrongs and preclude discriminatory practices. I'm all for judging everyone on their own merits. However I do believe that cultural practices DO influence results when considering broad averages. And if anyone thinks this is an anti-black or anti-Palestinian post, it's not. Few groups work and study as hard, on average, as the Jews and Asians. And the proof is in the pudding. So I say let's put a little responsibility on the individual and don't blame everything on the past. This is still the land of opportunity and it's a COP-OUT to say that people cannot overcome most disadvantages in this day and age. Such was true in the past, and advantages/disadvantages do matter, certainly, but some other things matter more. I'm talking about the power of the human spirit and the willingness to take your destiny largely as your own responsibility.

"I don't think racism results from how our society operates today."


Then this is where we disagree. Blacks don't have to sit at the back of the bus any more, nor drink from separate water fountains, but I believe racism is alive and kicking and the statistics for just about anything will show it. Of course, those who disagree will say that the statistics have little or nothing to do with racism. I don't believe it has "everything" to do with the numbers, but I believe it has a lot more to do with them than you do.


I don't think anyone is blaming "everything" on racism, past or current (though some may approach this extreme). I have heard, for example, Jessie Jackson say almost exactly the same thing you are saying: people need to take resopnsibility for themselves and work hard. But one can believe this and also (like Jackson) believe that racism is an active presence in the society. It is possible that both things are responsible for low achievment. We need to address both issues.


Blaming racism for everything would be wrong. Certainly there are some in the black and liberal communities who are prone to do this. Likewise blaming cultural influences for everything is wrong. There are many in the white and conservative communities prone to do this.


"advantages/disadvantages do matter, certainly, but some other things matter more"


Change your last word from "more" to "too" and I think we're on the same page.

I did not say that Racism doesn't EXIST today in our society; it certainly does, in pockets. I said it doesn't RESULT from how our society operates today. It resulted from how our society operated in the past. It still exists somewhat today. But I don't think it is being propagated through how our society operates today.


Also let me clarify that the Palestinian situation is much different and that they currenty have a lot more to overcome than today's American blacks. I'm not saying they can solve all their problems through hard work and study. BHowever, building that into their culture wouldn't hurt, just as it wouldn't hurt most cultures to come to emphasize these things more. It can only help.


Also, in the past how someone in this country does was more influenced by situation and family and culture. Today we truly do have opportunities for almost everybody.

"I did not say that Racism doesn't EXIST today in our society; it certainly does, in pockets. I said it doesn't RESULT from how our society operates today. It resulted from how our society operated in the past. It still exists somewhat today. But I don't think it is being propagated through how our society operates today."


I didn't say that your said it doesn't exist, but reading my post, it certainly can be assumed that's what I meant. I have been criticized 9and correctly so) here before (not by you) for putting words in other posters' mouths;l it shouldn't be done.


But we still disagree: I believe it does result, in my judgment, from how our society currently operates, as well as how it operated in the past. It's certainly harder to see and things are certainly better than they were in the past.


I certainly agree with you that a dose of self-reliance couldn't hurt any group of people and that our society does present more opportunities now than it did in previous generations. I don't think, though, that this negates my racism argument.

"I suspect that when John Walker is put on trial for treason and faces the death penalty, his lawyer will very much put his "ideas" on trial. You can't have it both ways, my friend."


I assume that this will be the job of the prosecution. The prosecution will attempt to establish that Walker thinks like a traitor. I also assume that the defense wil try to show that the defendant was not guilty of the actions for which he's accused.


But if the defense chooses to base its strategy on Walker's ideas I have no problem with that at all. I don't know what they will accomplish with this, because one's beliefs & ideas don't (shouldn't) make a crime less or moe punishable.


Which is what I say when the shoe's in the other foot, too.


"Since the law already distiguishes among 1st, 2nd, and manslaughter, "ideas" are already taken into consideration. And this is only one type of crime in which courts address the thinking of the defendent."


No, when we try to establish and prosecute intent it is not as if we are after that person's ideas. We are simply try to establish whether the crime happened voluntarily or involuntarily - the crime's denouement, at least. Which is all legitimate and fair and has never been challenged by defenders of civil rights.


Now, if in order to search for intent, we also examine the defendant's ideology, then that's perfectly legitimate too. (A Jew is found stabbed 49 times. Questioning the skinhead defendant about his political sympathies is mandatory practice in my book.)


--Cyrus

How long should we use affirmative action to combat racism and it's effects? Putting aside questions of efficacy, why not until the problems of racism are largely solved, in the sense that it's negative effects have disappeared?


It's an interesting but almost purely abstract question. I doubt that anyone believes that affimative action could possibly outlast the enduring negative consequences of our racist heritage.

Well, I'd truly be curious to know specifically what operational process in our society today is producing racism. Maybe I am overlooking something here. I just can't think of a single thing our society or government does today, operationally speaking, which produces racism.

Re: Intent


Perhaps this is why I put "ideas" in quotation marks. In essence, if not in actuality, I think we agree.


John

M,


I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say "how society produces racism," but let me respond with one example that may be apt. During the last election, the two candidates, Bush and Gore, seemed to differ little on most issues. One area, though, where they did differ was their plans for educational "reform" (and, historically, education always undergoes "reform" about every ten years). Bush's plan emphasizes testing to identify school districts that perform poorly as measured through tests. Gore, however, chose to emphasize increased funding for Head Start programs. Bush pushed school vouchers; Gore urged increased funding for poor school districts.


How does racism figure into this? Or, how can Bush's plan be considered racist? First, the Center for Childhood Poverty has shown that lack of proper nutrition affects the cognitive ability of children to the extent that if they are malnourished, their brains will not develop normally, and by the time these children reach five years old, the effects of poverty and improper nutrion have left them unable to learn. Head Start has been called by many the best educational program in the United States, yet Bush's plan chose to ignore this. The proposed amounts for school vouchers, which putatively offer parents a "choice," is a joke. Offer $25,000.00 a year and let poor parents send their children to Exeter, Philips Andover, or Choate. Bush's plan will offer $1,500.00 per year.


Recent studies show that the nation's public schools are more segregated today than they were thirty years ago. This is not an accident. Millions of poor children never graduate from high school. Surely, this cannot be attributed soley to "cultural" differences. And, it is well known that the best predictor of educational success is the parents' income. Cultural? I just don't see it.


John

Try 300 years. This is anti-blac crap. Nicely spun bigotry.

Is it bigotry to ask at at what point in the future we might be able to dispense with ALL discriminatory practices? That question is anti-black? I don't think so.

Ok, perhaps I can address your points in order. In this thread, starting with Andy Fox's response to Chris Alger, Andy states that racism is produced by our society's operations, both past and current. I certainly agree that this was the case in the past; I agree that racism exists in pockets even today; but I don't see how the operations of our society today are producing it. Since Andy made this statement, I am asking him to please elaborate.


I don't know nearly as much about the Bush plan as you do, but I believe I share your sentiment that his plan seems to be considerably lopsided. And of course nutrition does play a very important role in effective learning. Bush's plan may be discriminatory and may be a case of giving aid to those who need it least rather than most. This is a good example, IMO, of an unfair plan. I still don't see that it would produce racism (since mechanisms by which our society today produces racism are what I asked Andy to elaborate upon), even if it might (arguably) be called racist.


I never intended to give the impression that I believed cultural differences were solely responsible for scholastic or professional achievement; nothing could be further from the truth. However when you look at averages I don't think it can be denied that they do play a part. You are involved professionally in the world of education, tell me, on average, don't Asians tend to do better, overall, than non-Asians? I don't think this is solely due to economic status. I also agree that poverty is a very significant impediment to education. All Asians aren't rich or even solid middle-class. Yet I would bet that as a group and on average they solidly outperform non-Asians scholastically and professionally. If this is true, and we discount genetic differences, we are left with the conclusion that this may be due at least in part to a cultural difference: namely, a strong work/study ethic. The other part of the difference may be due to financial factors...but I doubt if Asians in this country are in the very top group financially. However, my impression is that they probably are in the very top group scholastically, if we consider the major "groups" for purposes of this discussion and comparison to consist of Asians, Caucasians, African-Americans, and Hispanics. If we further expand the "groups" to include those of Jewish descent, my guess would be that they would share the top average scholastic/professional group status with the Asians. However we may make the argument that since Jewish folks do tend to be in higher income brackets, we might attribute this primarily to financial effects. However I don't think it is entirely a coincidence that both Asians and Jews, on average, have a stronger cultural bias towards studying/working hard than do the other groups. I don't think this is at all bigoted; I just think I am observing and drawing likely conclusions based upon my observations.

Mark,


First, of course I don't consider you bigotted, nor should anyone else reading your thoughts on these subjects. I'm still, though, not really quite sure how racism, can be "produced" through a specific mechanism. However, I do believe that various practices can contribute to producing a racist society. Or, perhaps, our attention is diverted from the real causes of social inequity by all sorts of mechanisms. For example, both conservatives and liberals alike blame television violence for real life violence, ignoring factors such as poverty, childhood rape, and child abuse. Violent TV shows, rap songs, even cartoons become the scapegoat. Four youths in Central Park, who have raped and beaten, are found to have violent material with them--a "comic book"--which was blamed in the media for inciting these youths. This occured in 1953.


Also, since I work at a community college, I see first generation college students, students from all over the world. Asians do not outperform other students; in fact, many of our Asian students are still struggling with English. Nor do these students have exceptional ability in math or science. This, though, is to be expected. First generation Americans have always stuggled in school. Studies have shown that usually three generations must pass before non-English speakers begin to succeed academically. (By the way, of recent immigrants, it seems Polish students are best prepared; generally, they have had many years of English, along with--and I found this hard to believe--six or seven years of chemistry and physics by the time they graduate from high school.)


But, I don't discount the effects of culture. Asian students have trouble writing because they have trouble with the language, but they also write in a circular fashion. Their culture preaches avoiding directness, so they have trouble grasping the idea of stating points and providing evidence or support for those claims in a linear fashion. Nigerians honor, in their own culture, deception and trickery. This affects their writing.


Honestly, though, at the community college level, I really don't see significant or overwhelming evidence that one group of people succeeds more than another. Of course, perhaps we need to examine our own notion of concepts like "work ethic" and question whether our devotion to these sorts of terms have really made our world better. After all, look what happened to Gatsby with his pursuit of the "American Dream." Only two people showed up at his funeral.


John

I'm also not sure how racism can be produced by any mechanism in our society today, but unless I misundertand Andy, he seems to think it is, so I'm hoping he will elaborate.


I almost noted the English exception re. Asian students due to reasons you mention, but isn't it true that they outperform other groups (speaking again about averages here) in the sciences and math--the subjects in which they are least handicapped by lesser facility with English?


I'm also not saying that a blind adherence to a hard work ethic is necessarily, or always, a good thing. I think as humans we really need some leisure and true "re-creation." However there is little doubt that when an individual (or group) needs to elevate themselves somehow, a focus on hard study/work often helps greatly in this regard.


I'm not discounting other factors in performance, and I think cultural habits are not the most important here. I just do happen to think that they matter when looking at group averages. Also I can't help but notice the very high percentage of Asian and Jewish professionals in our society---it does seem to outweigh the percentage of professionals of Black, Hispanic, and probably even Caucasian groups (or at least so it appears to me). This, if true, I must attribute at least partially to the effects of cultural habits.

A couple of examples:


1) Where I live, as a percentage of their population, more non-whites work at minimum wage than whites. By keeping the minimum wage lower, rather than raising it, the income disparity between whites and non-whites is kept wide.


2) Where I live, studies have shown that the two biggest minority groups, black and latinos, pay not only a higher percentage of their income for food, but more money in absolute terms. The big supermarket chains have all pulled out from the areas where they live. In addition, studies also show that gasoline prices are higher in areas with high percentages of blacks and latinos among the population.


Now I'm not saying that Exxon or our legislators are saying that they don't like Latinos or blacks and therefore they've decided that they should earn less and pay more money for goods and services. What I am saying is that the result of the way things are is a situation wherein they do in fact earn less and pay more. This is a racial situation. Whites are better off by virtue of the way the world works.


Some anecdotal notes: I go into an office building to see a professional, let's say a doctor, a lawyer, an accountant. There's a dirrectory of the doctors, lawyers and accountants near the elevator. What are the chances of one of them being a black or a Latino? On the other hand, what are the chances that the janitor in the building or the elevator operator is black or Latino?


I'm not saying that racism is the only reason for these situations. But I am saying that it is part of the reason. A situation does not specifically have to have a racial intent to result in racism. It is indeed much more difficult to conduct business in an overtly racist fashion; the laws prohibit it. But in a society where blacks are at the bottom of the ladder in virtually every meaningful statistic of success or achievement, surely a more covert racism is a part of the problem.

Andy,


Some people, and I'm one of them, might say institutionalized racism is more overt than covert. Of course, that depends on how you look at it.


BTW, I guess we should have started either a new thread or thrown in a different title somewhere; this amounts to a hell of a lot of writing about a suspected crack habit.


John

Perhaps it is our respective definitions of "racism" which are leading to not seeing us eye-to-eye here, Andy. The things you mention may indeed produce iniquities. I don't see them as producing "racism" because to me "racism" is defined by one's beliefs, and, perhaps by one's actions. Also, I believe you may be answering a different question than the one I am asking. You are describing things which may produce end effects which could be similar to the effects of racism. Yet I still don't see how these inequalities work to produce racism, a belief system which regards certain races as inherently inferior or superior to others. I think our society did at one time operate in such a way as to propagate such beliefs, but I see no evidence that it does so now.

>Yet I still don't see how these inequalities >work to produce racism, a belief system which >regards certain races as inherently inferior or >superior to others. I think our society did at >one time operate in such a way as to propagate >such beliefs, but I see no evidence that it does >so now.


I think you are missing the point here. Laws don't have to specifically mention races to be racist. Why is the penalty for being caught with crack cocaine much heavier than the penalty for being caught with the powder form? Is it because rich excecutive types are more likely to have the powder? And poorer minority types more likely to have the crack form?


What about demonization from the police? Have you heard of racial profiling? Racial profiling basically amounts to pulling people over based on the color of the skin and the kind of car they drive. So if you are black or hispanic and drive a fancy car, you are apt to be pulled over. Even if you are a professional. There was a story on TV about a black dentist who got pulled over going to work FIFTY TIMES in the last 5 or so years.


You write about society propagating racist beliefs. If you are being harrassed by the police, wouldn't you think the system is out to get you? If people of color move into a neighborhood and all of a sudden non-colored people start moving out of fear that their property values will plummet, won't you start thinking you can't ever get a fair deal? If your neighborhood has no banks, but is full of ripoff check cashing shops and pawn shops, do you think that is fair? At some point people have to stop thinking about racism in terms of Jim Crow and start looking more at the modern situation and how to rectify it. The problem is that many people feel free to comment about things when they don't have the slightest clue about what's really going on.

I don't get the impression that you were closely following this entire thread. I'm discussing a very specific point here with Andy. I'm not disagreeing that there are some things occurring in our society which are unfair and that some racism exists. That's not the point of my post, and it's not the point of my question to Andy. I'm not even arguing about whether there are some laws which may produce racist-type effects.


What I am trying to discuss in the above post IS NOT whether our society has some racism or procuces inequalities. Of course it does. I am trying to discuss whether or not the way our society operates PRODUCES RACISM ITSELF, not inequalities which could arguably be called racist.


Racism is a belief system which holds that certain races are inherently superior or inferior to others. I don't see that our society operates in a manner TODAY so as to be PRODUCING this BELIEF. The key word here is "belief." Andy seems to think our society is currently operating in such a way as to produce racism. I don't see it. I see a lot else, but I don't see that, and I'm asking him to explain, if indeed his definition of racism is the same as mine.


All the points you have made I'm not arguing about. Others have provided additional examples. But none of this is addressing my question to Andy, which deals with whether our society is currently producing RACISM itself, not merely producing inequalities borne primarily by minorities. I think they are two different questions. In other words, to give a concrete example, let's look at the check-cashing services. Yes, these services take advantage of the fact that in lower income areas people may need the money instantly and can be gouged a hefty fee to get their checks cashed. I agree with you and see the weight of this falling primarily on lower-income people and minorities. Arguably this could even be called a racist-type of effect. However, I don't see that this produces racism itself...if it does, then who did it just push closer to becoming a bigot? That's what I am trying to get at. I don't see how racist beliefs are being propagated by how our society operates today, even though I can certainly see how some unequal burdens and injustices are falling on minorities due to how our society operates.

I understand your question better now.


If you have a situation, which we do, whereby blacks do less well than whites, they are looked upon as being inferior. Some social scientists even write books (The Bell Curve) purporting to prove that they are mentally inferior. The operation of the society, then, serves to instill racist thinking in people's minds. Belief systems produce tangible results, but then the tangible results serve to reinforce, and recreate for other people, belief systems.


Again, I agree with you that the effect is probably much less pronounced than it was in the slavery, Jim Crow, or pre-civil rights days. It was very easy for, say, Thomas Jefferson, despite his progressive thinking on other issues, to assume the worst about blacks because of their position in Virgina society. The situation is indeed different today, but the same mechanism still works, not on the same level or to the same degree, but still present and pervasive.

Again, I think our society is producing a sort of covert racism. Not really the racism of the old south. That was more a hatred. Now we have more of a fear factor. And many politicians (especially the more quote unquote conservative types) are not scared to use it. Look at Willie Horton during the Bush Dukakis election. Look at Pat Buchanan talk about immigration laws. It's more now a sort of fear thing. Fear of those who are different. Fear that they may get your job, move into your neighborhood and change your way of life.


I noticed in your analysis above you mentioned only the check cashing shops but not racial profiling. Don't you feel racial profiling by the police propagates racism? I think it does, and very directly.

Racial profiling might actually be such an example of this. I had not considered it. Is it still the policy of some police departments, or is it now generally forbidden?

Perhaps so, in a subtle way.


It would seem to me that the primary cause of all this is then poverty. This raises another question? Why are black and hispanic minorities more poverty-stricken in the USA than Asian minorities? Also, I am wondering if there is more violence amongst the black poor compared to the white or Asian poor. My impression is that this is definitely so, by a great margin. If so, here again I do not feel that it is genetic, but rather somehow cultural. After all look at the gang culture and rap music. Yes there are Asian Tongs and Hell's Angels but I think the rap/gang culture is one newer example of violence having become a part of a group's culture. The whole rap thing is saturated with violence and a violent aggressive attitude, even the lyrics of much of the music. I'm not saying that blacks are more inherently violent because I don't believe that, but I would bet that poor blacks are more violent on average than poor whites or Asians, although I know I might be wrong on this. I think certain aspects of culture need to be overhauled, though I don't see a way to do this. I don't accept that violence is acceptable just because a people have had a hard time.