The MMMMMM "race issue is DEAD" challenge

MMMMMM said:

[ QUOTE ]
Well, Cyrus, this isn't the 1950's. There is very little prejudice in America today against minorities, and what little there is, is quite possibly more than functionally offset by overwielding programs such as Affirmative Action.

All in all, the race card, and race issue ARE DEAD--except for those with axes to grind or those who remain ideologically mired in ancient (modern) history.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the same thread, MMMMMM challenged the board to come up with an incident of modern-day racism. It appears to be somewhat of a moving target--as the thread progressed, the modifier "serious" was added.

In any event, I am aware of such incidents. Some of which I cannot write about, even anonymously, becuase of my professional responsibilities. But I offer this description from a recent court opinion:

This case is before us for the second time. In Spriggs v. Diamond Auto Glass, 165 F.3d 1015 (4th Cir.1999) ( Spriggs I), we briefly outlined the facts as alleged in the complaint. Therein we noted that Spriggs, an African American, had been employed by Diamond as a customer service representative in its Forestville, Maryland store from July 1993 until August *182 1995, FN1 and again from September 1996 until February 1997. On both occasions, Spriggs left Diamond's employ dissatisfied with the company's response to certain actions taken toward him by his white supervisor, Ernest Stickell. The details of these events having now been more fully developed through the discovery process, we relate them here in the light most favorable to Spriggs. See Hawkins v. PepsiCo, Inc., 203 F.3d 274, 276-77 (4th Cir.) (citations omitted), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 875, 121 S.Ct. 181, 148 L.Ed.2d 125 (2000).

FN1. From the materials produced during discovery, it now appears that Spriggs initially separated from Diamond on September 7, 1995. See infra note 10.


A.


1.

At his deposition, Spriggs testified that he left Diamond the first time because of Stickell's incessant racial slurs, insults, and epithets. Indeed, Stickell rarely hesitated to vilify anyone of African descent, including Diamond employees (whom he proclaimed “niggers” or “monkeys”) and customers of the business. Not even Stickell's wife, an African American, was off-limits, as Stickell repeatedly referred to her as a “black bitch” in Spriggs's presence. Stickell often became enraged during telephone conversations with his wife, causing him to “fly into a barrage of racial obscenities towards her and slam the phone down. She would call back. Once again, she was a no-good nasty bitch. It was continuous daily.” J.A. 195.

2.

Spriggs was eventually persuaded to return to the Forestville store on management's assurance that Stickell would be kept in check. It quickly became clear, however, that Diamond would not deliver on its promise, as Stickell's behavior did not improve, but actually worsened. In addition to maintaining his routine of talking about his wife in racially derogatory terms, Stickell habitually called Spriggs a “monkey,” “dumb monkey,” and “nigger.” In one particularly egregious episode, Stickell placed a picture of a monkey between the pages of a parts manual (known as a “NAG book”) that Spriggs regularly used. Stickell had captioned the picture with X's and O's, along with the notation “so you'll never forget who you are.” J.A. 209.
On Thursday, February 6, 1997, Spriggs walked out of the Forestville store “to alleviate the onslaught.” J.A. 211. Spriggs attempted to return to work the following Monday, February 10, but Stickell denied him access to the premises. A dialogue ensued involving Spriggs and various representatives of Diamond, including its president, Richard Rutta. As a result of these discussions, Spriggs was invited to resume working on March 10, 1997. When Spriggs arrived on the appointed date, however, Stickell presented him with a formal list of job duties, which Spriggs believed to be unduly onerous and racially motivated. Rather than accept the new conditions, Spriggs resigned his employment.

MMMMMMMM is a racist. His hiding his name with his username is not unlike the klansman using the sheet.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
His hiding his name with his username is not unlike the klansman using the sheet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point Mr. Notilting. Interesting name you have there --- good thing that you like poker.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
MMMMMMMM is a racist. His hiding his name with his username is not unlike the klansman using the sheet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Welcome back Jokerswild.

[Zoelef]

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/

Given the context of the aformentioned blog, I'm sure you'll find something that qualifies as per M^6's criterion eventually.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
MMMMMM said:


"Well, Cyrus, this isn't the 1950's. There is very little prejudice in America today against minorities, and what little there is, is quite possibly more than functionally offset by overwielding programs such as Affirmative Action.

All in all, the race card, and race issue ARE DEAD--except for those with axes to grind or those who remain ideologically mired in ancient (modern) history."


In the same thread, MMMMMM challenged the board to come up with an incident of modern-day racism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not true. Actually, I asked if the poster had PERSONALLY OBSERVED an incident of racism that had had a serious effect in the areas he mentioned. Later, I also opened the challenge to others, but "PERSONALLY OBSERVED" is key here--not something you have merely read about in the newspapers.


[ QUOTE ]
It appears to be somewhat of a moving target--as the thread progressed, the modifier "serious" was added.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not true. That qualifier was part of the original request, as reprinted here:

Re: Either way...
09/03/05 10:18 AM

ACPlayer: "It is existent, practiced daily in government and corporations and small business and personal interactions."

M: "I can't remember the last time I've seen its effects in any particular instance. And I mean for decades.

Can you? Can you cite an instance of racism you observed which it had some serious effect in the areas you mention?"


[ QUOTE ]
In any event, I am aware of such incidents. Some of which I cannot write about, even anonymously, becuase of my professional responsibilities. But I offer this description from a recent court opinion:

[/ QUOTE ]

So are you saying you have PERSONALLY OBSERVED an incident of racism which had some serious effect in the areas ACPlayer mentioned? Because that is what I was asking (due to my impression that such incidents are rather rare).

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Given the context of the aformentioned blog, I'm sure you'll find something that qualifies as per M^6's criterion eventually.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is that I was asking if ACPlayer himself had personally observed--then later I opened the question to other members of this board.

My thesis is that while such incidents do still exist, they are comparatively rare in today's America. That is the reason for the "personally observed" criteria. Of course anyone can dig up incidents recorded somewhere if they search. But the point has to do with the degree of prevalence or frequency of occurrence--it is not about whether this stuff exists at all (since it obviously does).

[vulturesrow]

The problem with your challenge is that racism isnt the in your face easily noticeable entity that it was a long time ago. It is a much subtler, almost conspiratorial type of entity. That said, I spent most my time growing up in the South. Racism is alive and well. It has become more "sophisticated" if you will, with modern day bigots making claims like they are only predjuciced against certain kinds of black people and other such nonsense. As for personal observation, Ill throw in two of my more vivid recollections. The first was a week of numerous outbreaks of violence on campus between the blacks and the good ol' boys at my school, brought about by several attacks on some black kids in our school coupled with a surge in advertising and vocal support for the KKK. The second was my being attacked by a group of about 8 good ol' boys which resulted in a broken blood vessel in my eye the day before I had to visit the optometrist for the eye examination which was part of my phyiscal examination for entrnace in the Naval Academy. If I had been a hit a little harder or been a little less adept at defending myself or any of a host of "might haves" I might have not been able to realize the dream that I had held for most of my young life. The reason I was attackedwas for having the termerity to drive my basketball teamates (myself and one other member of the team were white) home from practice and then compounding my "mistake" by mouthing off to one of the good ol' boys who didnt like this practice of mine. Since then I have encountered other instances of racism, though none quite so direct as those, but more of subtle attitudes observed, etc.

I personally dont think Affirmative Action is a great thing at this time. But it sure as hell isnt because I think racism is dead.

[MMMMMM]

Thank you for relating your personally experienced incident, Vulturesrow.

Your point about racism being more subtle today is probably right. I think overall, too, racism is also a lot less prevalent today.

Also, I'd like to clarify again that I never asserted nor do I believe that racism itself is dead--it's only diminished.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Thank you for relating your personally experienced incident, Vulturesrow.

Your point about racism being more subtle today is probably right. I think overall, too, racism is also a lot less prevalent today.

Also, I'd like to clarify again that I never asserted nor do I believe that racism itself is dead--it's only diminished.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont think its that rare, I just think its transformed into something less obvious, and maybe even less injurious to blacks. At any rate, I didnt think you had claimed that racism was dead, just a bit of hyerbole on my part [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]