# Measuring Racism in America



## Makalakumu (Sep 28, 2004)

If you were to measure racism in America, what criteria would you examine?  What statistics would you use to show that racism is still occuring?  I am asking this because it seems as if the right and left trade anecdotal stories to back up claims for and against this concept.  I would like to see what the data actually says...

upnorthkyosa


----------



## MA-Caver (Sep 29, 2004)

Now-a-days it's (seemingly) difficult to measure racism. IMO it's gotten a lot better in terms of non-existence. But at the same time it's still around. Not too recently I heard a couple of (white) co-workers refer to blacks using the "N" word. Also heard derogatory remarks about two mexican workers as well. I didn't appreciate it and said so. Was told what to go do with myself. 
Growing up I was racially biased but thankfully, O' Thankfully I gotten over it. My life is SO much MORE richer because of my "color-blindness".
How to measure it though. It's become a hidden taboo because it's just not PC (if it ever were... yeah, around members of your own race). Will people fess up what they really feel inwardly about their racially different co-worker/friend/neighbor? 
What exactly are you looking for when asking these type questions? Who is and who isn't? Folks are calling Bill Cosby racist because of the remarks he made about his own race. 

I'll throw this in while I'm at it. 
I'm (personally) not approving of the term "African-American" (or "Mexican-American" for that matter). Because to me it signifies that the user is saying they are from Africa as well as America. If they are new immigrants then by all means, sure. Because to me, they're showing where they're from originally but also signifying their citizenship-status. 
But if they're like 3rd or 4th or even 5th generation AMERICAN BORN then they're Americans ... period. 
My family descends directly from Ireland but being 8th generation born I'm not calling myself "Irish-American." I'm an American and that's that. 
I can understand the desire to want to show some ... (whatever it's called) to where one's ancestors are from... but if you're born here and thus a citizen here... then by gum you're from here! 
That's my little rant. 
 :asian:


----------



## deadhand31 (Sep 29, 2004)

It's kind of hard to measure racism, I think. Also, it's politically correct to think that racism only comes from white anglo-saxton protestants. I remember seeing footage from the LA riots, where a bunch of african-americans were burning korean stores, and said that koreans shouldn't be moving into their neighborhood. (I seem to remember alot of footage from the 50's where the KKK was burning crosses in black houses, because they shouldn't "be moving in to their neighborhood".)I also see alot of Chris Rock's humor, and I see alot of racist remarks. What would happen if I, as a white male, were to get up on stage, and start making racist remarks to minorities? I'd probably get the crap kicked out of me by an angry mob. To measure racism, we first need to get the definition right: bias against ANYONE based on race.


----------



## Kane (Sep 29, 2004)

Affirmative action in my opinion is a big bringer of racism in our country. The fact Underepresentative groups get more rights than other group is just infuriating. When giving collage admissions for example, they give top priority to Blacks, Hispanics, and Latinos. Is that fair? I think it is racist to both sides. 

For the groups that aren't Underepresentative; it is basically taking away many job offerings or collage scholarship because of race. For example, if a Hispanic gets a 3.5 as a high school average and a white man gets a 4.0 as a high school average, guess who gets admitted to collage and is given more priority, the Hispanic who got lower grades. Now isnt that just racism. Many hard-working people like whites are denied scholarship to collages for some other race who didnt work as hard. Im not saying that Blacks, Hispanics, and Latinos dont work hard. I just think they should be held to the same standard as whites, Asians, or any other race.

It also is racism to an Underepresentative person too. For one, it is basically telling a Hispanic or Black that you are lowers in intelligence and dont need to work as hard. ALL human sub-species have the same intelligence; no race should be cut slack. To tell you the truth, I would be offended if I was Black, Hispanic, or Latino and found I was accepted into collage because of my race. I would feel can guilty if I had was in their shoes.

There is a club at my collage (Brown University) called the Third World Club. First of all, that name sounds SO offensive, what kind of name is that? Third World was a term used in the Cold War so already they are using a wrong term. Second, they tell these students that come in that they are below white people and crap like that. SO MUCH CRAP I think. Everyone is equal in America.

My point is that ALL people should be treated equal. It doesnt matter if their was slavery 200 years ago, or if his parents came from another country. All people should work hard and get the same results. Anyone disagree?


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 29, 2004)

Kane said:
			
		

> The fact Underepresentative groups get more rights than other group is just infuriating.


Can you please list the 'Rights' that these Under-represented groups have that others do not?

You list preferences in scholarships and adminission to University in your argument. I would posit, however, that those are privileges, not 'Rights'.

Mike


----------



## loki09789 (Sep 29, 2004)

Not so much a way to 'measure racism' but maybe a way to measure the trend of social acceptance of a group would be to study demographics on where and what property values 'minority' groups are living in.

Same with educational trends (college entry vs. graduation/degree rations for minorities)

Same with populations of career/jobs based on percentages of minorities in those fields RELATIVE to the total population of the minority.
(If you say that Auto VP's are made up of only 3% minorities, what if that 3% is 40% of the total minority population AND it is an increased over time from no representation to 20% 5 years ago and so on.)

I would say the best measure of 'racism' would be to study the rate of 'social acceptance' in terms of job opportunities, educational opportunites, financial income stats, housing.... that would indicate the rate of improved quality of life from introduction into the society to the current day (so say from the day that Slaves were freed and became citizens - if not completely in practice at least theoretically - to now.)


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 29, 2004)

Sorry, but I'm about to stick an appendage in the door jamb again. 

First off, "Kane," I did my grad work at Brown University, where it looks like standards have sure 'nough been taking a beating. Just so you know, I worked with Robert Scholes in English, Michael Silverman in Semiotics, and I even helped hire one of the professors you probably despise.

So, when you start off about how at your, "collage," something called the "Third World Club," fails to understand that, "all human sub-species," should be "treated equal," and that therefore affirmative action discriminates against, "Many hard-working people like whites...{who} are denied scholarship to collages for some other race who didnt work as hard," I scarcely know whether to critique the basics, the logic, or the misrepresentation first.

It's nonsense, ugly nonsense, beginning with the pseudo-biology of, "sub-species," and, "race." 

In the case of Brown University, I recommend learning something about your..."collage," starting with what the Triangle Trade was.

In the case of affirmative action, I recommend you read some of Richard Rodriguez's stuff on the matter. He's somebody you might find common ground with, but he has a far-more intelligent sense that affirmative action is a messy solution to a cultural tangle. Oh, and by the way--please supply a specific case in which you can document somebody, "white," who did not get into university because of his (funny how it's always, "his," ain't it? I guess the girls have their own affirmative action...white man just can't catch a break, can he?), "race."

Incidentally, I write as a WASP who, I am willing to bet a shiny nickel, grew up with a lot less money than you did. What's their cost up to now? must be well over 35-40 K/year. No wonder you feel discriminated against.

Affirmative action's worked for white boys since forever. Our current Prez used it to get into Yale (legacy program...didn't have the grades); when I taught at your University, I had a student (nice white kid) who was flunking ALL his classes and wanted to leave...dad wouldn't let him, he told me, and was dropping a big donation to make sure he stayed there. Or there's Stanley Fish's comment that when he started grad school at Berkeley in 1961, there were two women professors out of 126...one was in a wheelchair, and the other got denied tenure the following year, after she stopped dating one of the Department's senior professors.

I'm sorrry you find Brown such a hotbed of radicalism--but if I can offer some advice, don't worry about most of the political clubs students at extremely-expensive colleges form. Anyway, Mary Chapin Carpenter was a Brown grad. The place must have SOME good in it.

And damn, man, take some English classes, willya? If you can, take a class from Scholes--he's brilliant, and a wonderful teacher (you can look him up in all sorts of sources, including a remarkably-stupid book, "Profscam," where he's described as the Prince of Darkness more or less...), and has spent a lot of time teaching and writing on undergraduate composition.

Oh, and hey...where do you go to study martial arts in Providence, these days? How's Buddy doing in the slammer?


----------



## Kane (Sep 29, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Sorry, but I'm about to stick an appendage in the door jamb again.
> 
> First off, "Kane," I did my grad work at Brown University, where it looks like standards have sure 'nough been taking a beating. Just so you know, I worked with Robert Scholes in English, Michael Silverman in Semiotics, and I even helped hire one of the professors you probably despise.
> 
> ...


When was did your grad work at Brown University? Just curious.

One of my friends was discriminated from going to Stanford. A Hispanic student had a 3.1 and they were going to give the scholarship to him instead of my friend (who is white) who had a 3.8. Thank God he didn't, but do you think it was fair they were even thinking of doing that?

Though I am not white I would still kind of feel guilty is some hardworking white person did not get the same right I did. I like to earn my place. I don't need anyone cutting me any slack. I am East Indian and not really on the Underep. Group list, but it could have happened.




			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Oh, and hey...where do you go to study martial arts in Providence, these days? How's Buddy doing in the slammer?


 
How do I study MA in Providence? I don't have time for any martial arts in here besides wrestling. I actually come from California, and that is where I do my Asain MA (judo, ju jitsu, Tae Kwon Do). 

What do you mean by "How's Buddy doing in the slammer?"


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 29, 2004)

Kane said:
			
		

> One of my friends was discriminated from going to Stanford. A Hispanic student had a 3.1 and they were going to give the scholarship to him instead of my friend (who is white) who had a 3.8.


College Admissions and Awarding Scholarships are often not based solely upon GPA. There are often other contributing factors. 

Perhaps the Hispanic student has a father or grandfather that attended Stanford, and maybe donated a building or two?

Perhaps the Hispanic student played the oboe.

Perhaps the Hispanic student wished to study a field in which the college needed additional representation. 

Or maybe, the scholarship was being awarded based upon need, and the Hispanic student was poorer than your friend.

And maybe ... the Hispanic student was going to receive the scholarship because he was Hispanic.

Can you do anything more to demonstrate the schools motivation for not choosing your friend, or are we left with his statement as the cause?

Mike


----------



## Flatlander (Sep 29, 2004)

Kane said:
			
		

> One of my friends was discriminated from going to Stanford. A Hispanic student had a 3.1 and they were going to give the scholarship to him instead of my friend (who is white) who had a 3.8. Thank God he didn't, but do you think it was fair they were even thinking of doing that?


That would depend upon the nature of the scholarship.  Some are for specific circumstances, and perhaps the Hispanic student was a better candidate.  That's not really the issue, though.  He wasn't discriminated against in terms of his acceptance to Stanford according to your story, he was denied scholarship funding, which is a different issue.  It's difficult to determine if this was a circumstance of discrimination or not without all of the facts.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 30, 2004)

So let me see if I correctly grasp the nettle of your logic here--you attend Brown, your buddy goes to Stanford, but you feel discriminated against because of Affirmative Action.

Exactly how do your or your friend KNOW that this, "Hispanic student," was given preferential treatment at the expense of your buddy? Any facts, or are you simply going by guess?

If you live in Providence, R.I. and you don't know who Buddy Cianci is, it's pretty revealing. Unless you've only been in town a month, you assuredly should have heard of this Republican ex-mayor, a topic EVERYBODY in town discusses endlessly.

What it reveals is that you're an extraordinarily-privileged student, who lives--and has always lived--a life that is completely disconnected from the working class people who remain the majority of Providence's citizens, and most likely the vast majority of working people back home.

I think you should be glad that you got into and no doubt are working hard at an extraordinary university. Considering that your family has almost certainly got a great deal of money (which is what got you to Brown in the first place), considering how much nicer your daily life is than the overwhelming m,ajority of the people of Providence, and considering that if you're "East Indian," it is not so long ago that you would never have been allowed entrance into an Ivy League university, you might consider lightening up a little on the racial invective--and, once in a while, at least considering your class privileges.


----------



## Kane (Sep 30, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> So let me see if I correctly grasp the nettle of your logic here--you attend Brown, your buddy goes to Stanford, but you feel discriminated against because of Affirmative Action.
> 
> Exactly how do your or your friend KNOW that this, "Hispanic student," was given preferential treatment at the expense of your buddy? Any facts, or are you simply going by guess?
> 
> ...


 
Now you seem to be making bold-faced assumptions. First of all, I didn't know you were talking Buddy Cianci or a "buddy" of mine. Since you seem to somewhat get offensive at times and jumping to conclusions, I not always sure what your talking about.

Anyway, why do you make assumptions I got to Brown because of money? Are you trying to say I got to Brown because my parents were rich? Hardly the reason, I first of all got the admission to Brown by a large amount of financial aid, and my parents struggle to pay for it. You have no right to say I went to Brown because I am rich or whatever. Oh and no, I wasn't accepted into Brown because of my race either.

You maybe right about the fact that a long ago East Indians were denied rights to Ivy League School. That happen a long time ago and I don't need to worry about that today. Should we pay all the African slaves money for having them in slavery 200 years ago? Why aren't Egyptians paying back the Israelites for slavery thousands of years ago? Why isn't Rome paying Greece back for conquering them? Why don't we just forget about the past and look to the future?


----------



## Flatlander (Sep 30, 2004)

From here, affirmative action is defined as:


> Positive steps to enhance the diversity of some group, often to remedy the cumulative effect of subtle as well as gross expressions of prejudice. When numerical goals are set, they are set according to the group's representation in the applicant pool rather than the group's representation in the general population. For example, a medical school with an affirmative action program would seek to admit members of an underrepresented group in proportion to their representation in the population of those who had completed pre-medical requirements and wished to attend medical school. Affirmative action should be distinguished from reparations.


Affirmative action is a path to attain the harmony of universal equality that most would agree is necessary in order to level the societal playing field.  It is not an end, it is a means to an end.  Of course, there will be the short sighted few who see the personal inconveniences, and are not prepared to make a sacrifice for betterment of our society's future.  This is a natural and predictable response from people who are experiencing a lessening of their historical position of relative priviledge.  That is, however, the whole point.  Nobody ever said that this would be an easy or non-disruptory path.  That is because it is about the fundamental change of ingrained selfish beliefs.  Essentially, it's a battle against protectionism.

It's unfortunate that the struggle to change the status quo manifests itself as what appears to be a furtherance of predjudicial policy, but it is a necessary evil.  Only when the norm becomes an equal representation of people of all different ethnicity, and remains that way for generations, will the ideals that so many have suffered for, be realized.  Until then, people will continue to complain when things don't go their way, and blame it on some sort of racist or predjudicial agenda.  But those of us who choose to see the forest will recognise this as finger pointing and denial of responsibility, as a reluctance to let go of the unbalanced priviledges that have served as the elevator of mediocrity for generations.


----------



## Dr. Kenpo (Sep 30, 2004)

Speaking as a Hispanic, some people here seem to be working toward Racism real good.

Please don't say you're not, because you're not in my shoes to see the view from my side.(for the past 50 years)

But to be fair, it's always going to be here, no matter what, and it's up to all ethnic groups to stengthen themselves to achieve success in this world.

Yes, I'm an American, but I can't nor will I hide what I am, and I must keep up my culture alive. One cannot drop what they truly represent, and besides, as long as we're different, we're always going to note that anyway.

Somehow, we just all have to find a way to get along.:asian:


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 30, 2004)

In the first place, "Kane," I wrote that "it was not so long ago," that east Indians were not getting into the Ivy League all that often. Well within my lifetime, in fact.

Moreover, there are three basic possibilities here:

a) you aren't a student at Brown at all, and you're just woofin;
b) you are a student at Brown, and your parents have lotsa bucks;
c) you're an "East Indian," student, who grew up somewhat privileged already (or you wouldn't have the expertise in English and the educational background to have a hope of applying to an elite American school), and whose grants and loans and scholarship--whether you know it or not--depend on concepts like affirmative action.

In other words, your background--as I said before--privileged you, as mine did me while I was a grad student. You should also keep in mind that however hard you worked, however smart you are--there are lots of folks out there who worked equally hard, who were at least as smart, and didn't get the breaks you got.

I'll still bet that I got through school on a LOT less money than you are getting through school on. And personally, I usually felt damn fortunate. But if you're on financial aid--you are benefiting from a form of affirmative action, the form that this country decided upon some time back, when it decided that people who weren't really wealthy should have a shot at the best education too. Then too, within my lifetime people who were, "East Indian," were considered, "colored," and subject to all sorts of ******** from bigots. If that's changed, it's because only a little while ago, people put their asses on the line. They still do.

And oh...the money that started the university you attend, and built some of the buildings...it's from the triangle trade...rum from molasses, gold, and slaves. You shouldn't feel guilty, but you should have a basic awareness of how many human beings worked and suffered so you can get on the computer in your dorm room and pooh-pooh giving everybody as equal a chance as possible.

And don't worry. All the stats still show that the white men are getting the biggest piece of the pie in America.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 30, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> And don't worry. All the stats still show that the white men are getting the biggest piece of the pie in America.



Could somebody please outline the criteria and the statistics to back this statement up?  Racism is such a broad topic that it becomes difficult to see what actually fits underneath that umbrella.  I think that a concrete understanding of this concept would help us understand more about where we stand in regards to race relations.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 30, 2004)

Dr. Kenpo said:
			
		

> Speaking as a Hispanic, some people here seem to be working toward Racism real good.
> Please don't say you're not, because you're not in my shoes to see the view from my side.(for the past 50 years)
> But to be fair, it's always going to be here, no matter what, and it's up to all ethnic groups to stengthen themselves to achieve success in this world.
> Yes, I'm an American, but I can't nor will I hide what I am, and I must keep up my culture alive. One cannot drop what they truly represent, and besides, as long as we're different, we're always going to note that anyway.
> Somehow, we just all have to find a way to get along.


I would think, Dr., that you might be a little more clear about whom you are making such accusations. At least that way, the accused 'Racist' will be able to respond. And there is, I believe, a very big difference between 'Racism' and a 'Racist', and as I read your remarks, you are making the latter accusation.

But, that aside. Many before you have come to America and indeed did give up what they had, and put aside their culture in order to become part of something new, and different, and exciting; The American Experiment. My forebears came to this country to become part of this country. In doing so, they acknowledged that they would have to sacrifice some of that which came before, and some of that from where they came. They may not have liked the rules, but those were the rules of the game. 

I am about a liberal as they get. You might not find anyone on this board more supportive of 'minority rights', 'immigration rights' and 'equal opportunity' than me. And yet, I find your post offensive. Much of what makes America great, is the belief that the sum is greater than the total of the parts. We are all better together. And your post seems to say that you are not willing to give the total of your parts (your Hispanic heritage) as a portion of the whole. I believe that is about as Un-American as you can get.

Let me add a small anecdote from work. My company makes a product that allows small business to generate computer reports for American consumers. In the coming months, we are adding to our primary product the ability to print those reports with the major content printed in Spanish. During the past few weeks, I have been contacting our clients (primarily small business owners - specifically in New England) and informing them of this upcoming additional feature. The vast majority (if not all) of the clients I mention this feature to are opposed to adding in this Spanish language capability. In fact, earlier today, I spoke with 'Fatima' at one of the shop (a good Portuguese woman), and she said, "No, we're in America now. The language is English'.

So, welcome; but please leave "your storied pomp" in the "ancient lands". Remember where you came from, but don't cling to it so tightly that you weaken that which drew you here.

Thank you - Michael


----------



## Dr. Kenpo (Sep 30, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I would think, Dr., that you might be a little more clear about whom you are making such accusations. At least that way, the accused 'Racist' will be able to respond. And there is, I believe, a very big difference between 'Racism' and a 'Racist', and as I read your remarks, you are making the latter accusation.
> 
> But, that aside. Many before you have come to America and indeed did give up what they had, and put aside their culture in order to become part of something new, and different, and exciting; The American Experiment. My forebears came to this country to become part of this country. In doing so, they acknowledged that they would have to sacrifice some of that which came before, and some of that from where they came. They may not have liked the rules, but those were the rules of the game.
> 
> ...


I didn't start the thread, but I will answer to it. I'm not being offensive but those that wrote before sounded like it. I'm not pointing fingers, the persons who wrote know what they said, or didn't say. I'm just answering back.

You ask me to give up what I am??? You gotta be kidding me. A man cannot change what he is, and deny his past lineage.  This is what I would expect from someone in Texas, but it goes beyond this state, so I see.

You're telling me to "leave my storied pomp in the ancient lands?" You are a racist then. Who are you to dictate to me? See, it's goofiness like that that causes things like "Affirmative Action" to pop up so that people can get some sort of justice.

I also got a news flash for ya; my people were here first. I speak damn good English, and make that a priority here as a teacher in South Texas, especially when I deal with students from Mexico. It's called being billingual;what a concept! If others want to deny thier heritage, that's their business. I could care less.

You're telling me I'm "UnAmerican." What a joke. You remind me of my past 30 some years ago. I guess it's true;the past does repeat itself.

And I'll cling to any damn thing I want. Be careful though, the Justice Deaprtment is on my side now.:rofl:  I win!!!


----------



## Kane (Oct 1, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> In the first place, "Kane," I wrote that "it was not so long ago," that east Indians were not getting into the Ivy League all that often. Well within my lifetime, in fact.
> 
> Moreover, there are three basic possibilities here:
> 
> ...


 
I see what you are saying; my point is that we shouldn't live in the past on move forward. I think all people should be judged the same and collage administrators shouldn't judge on admission by race. 

Affirmative Action I don't mind if it is to look at lifestyle. For example, if the student had to work all day and do school that would be a reason for affirmative action. Looking at race isn't a way to look at things.

By the way in case you did or did not know, I mean East Indian from India not fEast Indian from the Caribbean. Cheers!


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 1, 2004)

Dr. Kenpo said:
			
		

> I didn't start the thread, but I will answer to it. I'm not being offensive but those that wrote before sounded like it. I'm not pointing fingers, the persons who wrote know what they said, or didn't say. I'm just answering back.
> 
> You ask me to give up what I am??? You gotta be kidding me. A man cannot change what he is, and deny his past lineage. This is what I would expect from someone in Texas, but it goes beyond this state, so I see.
> 
> ...


As a teacher, I am perhaps a little bit surprised that you are unfamiliar with 'The New Colossus'.

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,​With conquering limbs astride from land to land;​Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand​A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame​is the imprisoned lightning, and her name​Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand​Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command​The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.​"Keep *ancient lands, your storied pomp*!" cries she​With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,​Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,​The wrteched refuse of your teeming shore.​Send these, the homeless, tempest-tose to me,​I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"​ 
Surely, you are not calling the Statue of Liberty racist now, are you?​ 
Michael​


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 1, 2004)

I agree. Let's abandon the past...no more hanging on to the old world...provided this includes a) any and all St. Patrick's Day celebrations, b) all this Columbus Day nonsense, c) these ancient Christian celebrations, Christmas and easter, d) Neapolitan ice cream, and pizza. And oh yes...no more of these rodeos, which whine on and on and on about heroic cowboys...no more NASCAR, and the dreary celebration of white Southern yeehawing...

Funny how it's prefectly OK for some to celebrate their ethnicity and their history, and others not. Personally, I find Kwanzaa kinda goofy...but no goofier than Christmas.


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 1, 2004)

> I agree. Let's abandon the past...no more hanging on to the old world...(etc.)


 That was a bit of projection regarding Kane's comment, wouldn't you say?  I think he was more or less expressing his desire for society to move forward in a progressive way with regards to historical racial divisions.  In fact, in that context, it sort of sounds like you are satirizing your own belief structure here, which I'm certain you didn't intend to do.  Perhaps your emotions are clouding your judgement.  You need to stretch out with your feelings.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 1, 2004)

No, I wouldn't.

His comments are quite consonant with the frequent remarks one hears these days to the effect that women have now achieved full equality (in fact, they want to me more equal!), and that therefore we have no further need of feminism.

But I am glad to see psychobabble from the 1970s adapted to the purpose of protecting dominant ideology from interrogation.


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 2, 2004)

Sure it was.  You're putting words in his mouth.  Projection.  

70's psychobabble?  Try - attempt at levity, with Obi-Wan-Kenobi speak.

Protecting dominant ideology from interrogation, or seeking interpretive precision?  Doesn't make too much sense to go off on someone if we are misreading their intent, does it?  Not all are capable of expression at your level of colorful articulation.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 2, 2004)

Oh wow, duder. 

Perhaps your emotions are clouding your judgment. You need to stretch out with your feelings.

And then again, perhaps quoting will suggest just how incompatible (not to say inappropriate) a recoruse to one's feelings rermains in re racism.

Basic "Wit and Its Relation to the Unconscious:" jokes articulate unconscious desires and resistances.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 2, 2004)

flatlander said:
			
		

> 70's psychobabble?  Try - attempt at levity, with Obi-Wan-Kenobi speak.



Dude, I caught it right away.  And rmcrobertson is right!  The time periods match exactly!  Of course this is all, _"from a certain point of view..."_


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Oct 3, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> jokes articulate unconscious desires and resistances.


Yeah, so when I tell the "Orange you glad" knock-knock joke, I'm really expressing an intense desire for oranges over bananas. :idunno:


----------



## Deflecting_the_Storm (Oct 3, 2004)

I think the idea of this thread was to see if anyone could put a measurement on Racism. You cant. Everyone feels that they have been wronged in some way not just with the color of their skin, but from where they come from, how much money they make, what they drive, where they live, if they can speak right. I live in Texas, I am a biracial person. I dont believe that there is any racism in america anymore. Just people being told lies and believing them. Fear of the unknown is what racism is. Now some of you will say that you somehow were effected by a person of a different race or affirmative action caused you to lose a job, or a college admission. But do you really know? What if that person is just better than you? The option of affirmative action just angers people. We find the need to blame something to explain why things happen in this world. Why things are different. There are only two problems in this world. 1. Selfishness. 2. Lack of responsibility. If you could eliminate those there would not be any hatred or crime. People would be driven to do the right thing to get what they want, and not blame everyone else for the mistakes, or problems in their life. I dont know anyone who is truely racist. The common thing I hear all the time is that since I am half, I am not really part of that race. Or that because I speak well, and carry myself in a different way, that I am not that stereotype. But I am. And when I do those things that they hate so much, they dont hate me, they enjoy my company. I have met many of men and women who hate people of a different race and then I get them to say that its not really that, they were raised to hate. There is no reason for it. As far as the affirmative action discussion goes, that can help/hurt others not just of race, but of religion, sexual orientation, and practices that they do outside of said job/school. Everyone I hear about always wants to play the race card when it comes to affirmative action, but guess what, A gay man can get the job over you, a gay jewish man can get the job over him, a gay, jewish dwarf can get the job over him. Then a Muslim woman could get the job over him. Its more than just race with it. Racism is just a name we give to hatred. Hate is the same. Fear of the unknown. Fear of something better, something worse. Fear itself. If we changed the word from Hate to fear or racism to fear, doesnt it show how weak and sad we are as people on this planet? My 2 cents. Thats it.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 3, 2004)

It is extremely easy to get on the Internet and find well-documented evidence that clearly-measurable racism is alive and well in the United States, and--as much as I appreciate the last post--deflecting that reality into generalized terms such as "fear," will not change a thing.

But perhaps this is the sort of thing that leaves folks with the notion that everything's just ginger-peachy:

Critical Study Minus Criticism of Justice Dept. 

by David Johnston and Eric Lichtblau

*
WASHINGTON, Oct. 30  An internal report that harshly criticized the Justice Department's diversity efforts was edited so heavily when it was posted on the department's Web site two weeks ago that half of its 186 pages, including the summary, were blacked out. 

The deleted passages, electronically recovered by a self-described "information archaeologist" in Tucson, portrayed the department's record on diversity as seriously flawed, specifically in the hiring, promotion and retention of minority lawyers.

The unedited report, completed in June 2002 by the consulting firm KPMG, found that minority employees at the department, which is responsible for enforcing the country's civil rights laws, perceive their own workplace as biased and unfair. 

"The department does face significant diversity issues," the report said. "Whites and minorities as well as men and women perceive differences in many aspects of the work climate. For example, minorities are significantly more likely than whites to cite stereotyping, harassment and racial tension as characteristics of the work climate. Many of these differences are also present between men and women, although to a lesser extent." 

Another deleted part said efforts to promote diversity "will take extraordinarily strong leadership" from the attorney general's office and other Justice Department offices.

Even complimentary conclusions were deleted, like one that said "attorneys across demographic groups believe that the Department is a good place to work" and another that said "private industry cites DOJ as a trend-setter for diversity." Beyond that, a recommendation that the department should "increase public visibility of diversity issues," was kept out of the public report.

Private lawyers who have sued federal agencies for racial discrimination expressed dismay at the heavy editing of the report and at its conclusions that discrimination was perceived by the minority lawyers who make up about 15 percent of the Justice Department's 9,200 lawyers.

"The Justice Department has sought to hide from the public statistically significant findings of discrimination against minorities within its ranks," said David J. Shaffer, a lawyer who has represented agents from federal agencies in class-action discrimination lawsuits. "These cases challenge the same type of discriminatory practices found to exist at the Justice Department."

After the unedited document began circulating in computer circles, and articles began appearing earlier this month in publications like Computer World and newspapers like Newsday, the Justice Department pulled the edited report from its Web site, later posting a different version thought to be more resistant to electronic manipulation.

The complaints about the Justice Department come as it has shifted many resources to fighting terrorism and critics have said it has allowed the enforcement of civil rights to languish and failed to aggressively pursue some accusations of discrimination in housing, the workplace and other critical areas.

Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, said the department's handling of the report called into question its commitment to diversity in its own workplace.

At a Senate hearing this week, Mr. Kennedy told James B. Comey, nominated by President Bush to succeed Larry Thompson as deputy attorney general, that the episode "gives the distinct impression that the department commissioned the report, then left it on the shelf, ignoring the recommendations."

Mr. Comey, however, said the report and the policy that grew out of it were "a point of pride" for the Justice Department.

Mark Corallo, a Justice Department spokesman, said that portions of the report, and even its conclusions, were "deliberative and predecisional" and so could be excluded from the public report under provisions in the Freedom of Information Act. Mr. Corallo said some of the consultants' findings were inaccurate, but he said he could not discuss deleted passages.

Mr. Corallo said career lawyers who routinely decide how to censor material before public release made the recommendations about what to delete from the diversity report. He said their recommendations were sent to the office of the deputy attorney general, where it was reviewed by political appointees who made no further changes.

By the time the department posted the theoretically more secure version of the report on its Web site, it was too late. Russ Kick, a writer and editor in Tucson, who operates a Web site, thememoryhole.org, had had already electronically stripped the edited version of the black lines that hid the full text. Mr. Kick then posted the unedited version of the report (.pdf file) on his Web site, where it has been copied more than 32,000 times, a near record for the site. Justice Department officials said it was unlikely that any action would be taken against Mr. Kick.

Some Justice Department lawyers said the editing of the report had overshadowed the purpose of the study. Stacey Plaskett Duffy, a senior counsel to the deputy attorney general, said the study, a self-evaluation, was part of a program to improve the department's diversity programs.

"This was a study that we commissioned of our own volition to get a look at what our work force looked like," Ms. Duffy said. "We didn't have to let people know we were doing this."

She said the department had undertaken a number of significant steps to improve the work environment for minority members. Department officials have begun a pilot $300,000 program to help new lawyers pay off student loans, she said, and have also started a mentoring program, begun posting all job openings and are assessing how to more fairly assign cases within each unit.

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Oct 3, 2004)

Interesting.  I wonder what other statistics the report considered; I hope it wasn't only employee perceptions.  Those are obviously important, but not conclusive of racism.  However, with 186 pages, I'm sure it had to address other stats.  

Hmm, 186-page document that Im not even sure I should be lookin at...decisions, decisions.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 3, 2004)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> Interesting.  I wonder what other statistics the report considered; I hope it wasn't only employee perceptions.  Those are obviously important, but not conclusive of racism.  However, with 186 pages, I'm sure it had to address other stats.
> 
> Hmm, 186-page document that Im not even sure I should be lookin at...decisions, decisions.



THAT is exactly why posed this thread.  So many reports cite statistics and then do not SHOW the stats they are citing.  I was hoping that we could look at some actual stats and ponder their meaning.  Hopefully, then, we can come to a better understanding of racism in America.


----------



## Patrick Skerry (Oct 4, 2004)

Racism can be measured in America by the color-coding of human beings; calling an Italian American, or Lithuanian American 'white' or calling an Afro-American 'black' is racist, so color coding human-beings is racist.

The selective color coding of humans is racist, for example, Irish Americans are called 'white', but Chinese Americans are not called 'Yellow', they're called 'Asian', so the selective color coding of people is racist.

Institutionalized Racism is identified by policies which favor one human over another: for example, forced busing is racist, affirmative action is racist, minority quotas is racist, forced housing is racist, these are all examples of 'Institutionalized Racism'.

Confusing a religion for an ethnic group or race is RACIST: Catholics, Jews, Protestants, Buddhists, and Muslims are religions, not races, so it is Racist to refer to a religion as an ethnic group.

Institutionalized Favoritism and color coding human beings and regarding religion as ethnicity are RACIST. WE must stop this racism every chance we get. These are examples of terrorist racists, and cannot be tolerated.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Oct 4, 2004)

Patrick Skerry said:
			
		

> Racism can be measured in America by the color-coding of human beings; calling an Italian American, or Lithuanian American 'white' or calling an Afro-American 'black' is racist, so color coding human-beings is racist.
> 
> The selective color coding of humans is racist, for example, Irish Americans are called 'white', but Chinese Americans are not called 'Yellow', they're called 'Asian', so the selective color coding of people is racist.
> 
> ...


I don't understand what you mean by "terrorist racists". 

Who is referring to religons as ethnicities or races? 

And as much as people like to whomp on Affirmative Action, until African-Americans and Hispanic-Americans, etc, really are given as fair a shake as white folks in this country, that is just one method to try to level the playing field a bit. 

I'll have to gid up some of the recent work on racist attitudes - it's disturbing how ingrained some attitudes are, without people being actively aware of them.


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 4, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> I'll have to gid up some of the recent work on racist attitudes - it's disturbing how ingrained some attitudes are, without people being actively aware of them.


I found this, which can be used as a technique to measure racism, though I don't think that is the primary application for the technique, from this website:



> Each student was then shown a series of photographs, some of white males and some of black males. The more biased a student was, the more the team saw a certain area of their brain activate, an area associated with "executive control," conscious efforts to direct thinking. This, Richeson said, is a sign the brain is struggling not to think inappropriate thoughts.
> 
> Based on the findings, the team suggested that when a biased person interacts with someone of another race, even briefly, it exhausts the part of the brain in charge of executive control, leaving it temporarily unable to perform as well on the Stroop test and, presumably, other tasks.


The point of the study done here was to reveal subconcious or filtered predjudicial thoughts, as many people who have these types of thoughts or feelings tend to filter them out when discussing related topics.  Generally, people tend not to want to be viewed or labelled as racist or predjudiced.


----------



## TwistofFat (Oct 4, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Funny how it's prefectly OK for some to celebrate their ethnicity and their history, and others not. Personally, I find Kwanzaa kinda goofy...but no goofier than Christmas.


Robert, I always enjoy your point of view but thought I would make some comments and await the return flaying 

Kwanzaa was created by Dr. Maulana Karenga to celebrate being African and human. The Nguzo Saba (7 principals) start with Umoja (unity) that professes the need for unity in family, community, nation and ironically for this thread, race.

Christmas was not created per se, but most of us know the tradition grew from one man's impact on billions of people throughout the last two thousand years. Man or god - no one man and his followers have had the impact Jesus of Nazereth had. Period.

I can not imagine the folks who gave their lives and are still dying for these beliefs today can be called goofy. Goofy is cute word. Not ment to offend yet dismissive. As you said "jokes articulate unconscious desires and resistances".

The subject of this discussion was racism, a word and practice all civilized people should (and do) detest. Feisty Mouse posted about a study:

"The point of the study done here was to reveal subconcious or filtered predjudicial thoughts, as many people who have these types of thoughts or feelings tend to filter them out when discussing related topics. Generally, people tend not to want to be viewed or labelled as racist or predjudiced."

Funny how you can defend such noble cause as celebration of diversity and origin but laugh in face of the noble search for our collective origin and meaning. You and the comparitive religion prof must be quite a pair.

And Govinda saw that this mask-like smile, this smile of unity over the flowing forms, this smile of simultaneousness over the thousands of births and deathsthis smile of Siddharthawas exactly the same as the calm, delicate, impenetrable, perhaps gracious, perhaps mocking, wise, thousand-fold smile of Gotama, the Buddha, as he perceived it with awe a hundred times


----------



## Patrick Skerry (Oct 4, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> I don't understand what you mean by "terrorist racists".
> 
> Who is referring to religons as ethnicities or races?
> 
> ...


Some people have referred to 'Jews' and 'Moslems' as if they were a race or an ethnic group. Also, color-coding human beings is racist, so becareful when you use the term 'white' - who are the "white folk" in this country? Do they live near the 'yellow folk'?

Forced busing and affirmative action are discriminating against caucasians in this country. We have 30+ years of forced busing in Boston when there was no segregation or imbalance, yet residents are forced to send their kids to non-select schools based on skin color - which makes forced busing a form of "terrorist racism"; affirmative action is discriminating against caucasians based on skin color, making affirmative action a form of "terrorist racism".

In 1964 70% of the Boston Public Schools were ethnic caucasian, and these ethnic caucasians (I'm an Irish American) were slurred as 'white', making the schools 70% white in violation of the 1964 Racial Imbalanced Act, and forced busing was supposed to 'desegregate' the non-segregated schools. Today in 2004, thanks to forced busing, the Boston Public Schools are 70-80% 'black & hispanic' in total violation of the 1964 Racial Imbalance Act, yet nothing is being done! This is another example of "terrorist racism".

Until all racism is stopped in this country against the Polish American, Irish American, etc... and the Afro-American, institutionalized racism like Affirmative Action will only perpetuate racism, not end it.


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 4, 2004)

TwistofFat said:
			
		

> Feisty Mouse posted about a study:


Actually Glen, that was me  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





.



			
				Patrick Skerry said:
			
		

> Forced busing and affirmative action are discriminating against caucasians in this country. We have 30+ years of forced busing in Boston when there was no segregation or imbalance, yet residents are forced to send their kids to non-select schools based on skin color - which makes forced busing a form of "terrorist racism";.....<snip>....Today in 2004, thanks to forced busing, the Boston Public Schools are 70-80% 'black & hispanic' in total violation of the 1964 Racial Imbalance Act, yet nothing is being done!


1.  What are you talking about?  Forced busing?  Care to elaborate?  Have a source, Patrick?

2.  Forced to go to a particular school based on skin color?  I doubt that very much.  Once again, sources, evidence, anything at all to supprt this remarkable claim?

3.  Define what you mean by "terrorist racism".  I know, you already tried.  Try again.  

4.  Does the 70-80% of non-caucasians attending these Boston schools that you reference reflect the area demographic?

Patrick, we need references for your claimed "facts" here, particularly since they seem to be a little far-fetched.



			
				Patrick Skerry said:
			
		

> Until all racism is stopped in this country against the Polish American, Irish American, etc... and the Afro-American, institutionalized racism like Affirmative Action will only perpetuate racism, not end it.


 You have got to be kidding.


Oh, one other thing.  You managed to contradict yourself in a very glaring way, I'll post the quote, you see if you can find it.



			
				Patrick Skerry said:
			
		

> Also, color-coding human beings is racist, so becareful when you use the term 'white'





			
				Patrick Skerry said:
			
		

> thanks to forced busing, the Boston Public Schools are 70-80% 'black & hispanic'


----------



## Patrick Skerry (Oct 4, 2004)

flatlander said:
			
		

> Actually Glen, that was me
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There is no contradiction in any of my posts.  By the way, get a book on English Grammar and look up 'sentence fragment', because they have no meaning.


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 4, 2004)

Patrick Skerry said:
			
		

> There is no contradiction in any of my posts.


I guess you couldn't find it.  Gee, too bad.  I'm sure you are the only one who didn't get it, though.  I guess it'll be our inside joke.  You being on the outside of that one.





			
				Patrick Skerry said:
			
		

> By the way, get a book on English Grammar and look up 'sentence fragment', because they have no meaning.


This is particularly ironic.  Nice riposte.


----------



## Patrick Skerry (Oct 4, 2004)

flatlander said:
			
		

> I guess you couldn't find it. Gee, too bad. I'm sure you are the only one who didn't get it, though. I guess it'll be our inside joke. You being on the outside of that one.This is particularly ironic. Nice riposte.


I'm curious to read if you even know what a 'contradiction' consists? Tell me what you think was a contradiction in my post, and I will tell you if you are correct.  And you still need to look up 'sentence fragment' so you don't take things out of context.


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 4, 2004)

> *color-coding human beings is racist*





> thanks to forced busing, the Boston Public Schools are 70-80% '*black* & hispanic'


Patrick, here is a quick lesson in providing references, no charge.

From www.dictionary.com :

*con·tra·dic·tion* 

 ([font=verdana, sans-serif] P [/font]) *Pronunciation Key* (k
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





n
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




tr
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




-d
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




k
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




sh
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




n)
_n._ 


<LI type=a>The act of contradicting.
The state of being contradicted.

A denial.
*Inconsistency; discrepancy*.
Something that contains contradictory elements.
I was using the word contradiction in definition #3. Your above quotes become a contradiction when you answer this question:


Are you a racist, Patrick?

See, if you answer "no", which I am sure you will, if you answer at all, then the contradiction in your statements becomes quite apparent.


----------



## Patrick Skerry (Oct 4, 2004)

flatlander said:
			
		

> Patrick, here is a quick lesson in providing references, no charge.
> 
> From www.dictionary.com :
> 
> ...


1. You still haven't pointed out any contradiction.

2. No, since you failed to point out a contradiction, and failed to learn what is a 'sentence fragment';   I am not now nor have ever been a racist.

3. Are you a fascist Flatlander?


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 4, 2004)

Patrick Skerry said:
			
		

> 1. You still haven't pointed out any contradiction.
> 
> 2. No, since you failed to point out a contradiction, and failed to learn what is a 'sentence fragment'; I am not now nor have ever been a racist.
> 
> 3. Are you a fascist Flatlander?


1. Get your head out of the sand.
2. Never said you were.  Only that you were contradictory.  Interestingly, you have not adressed any of the other points.  
3. Nope.  I'm a Canadian.  How 'bout you?


----------



## Patrick Skerry (Oct 4, 2004)

1. Get your head out of the sand.

This is a serious question, you have not pointed out any contradiction, you did provide a dictionary definition which did not fit anything in my post.

Where is the contradiction in my post?  (Also, you still need to look up 'sentence fragment').


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 4, 2004)

Patrick Skerry said:
			
		

> 3. Are you a fascist Flatlander?



Oh, maybe I can help with this one...



> The 14 Defining
> Characteristics Of Fascism
> by Dr. Lawrence Britt
> 
> ...



Flatlander, does this sound like you or anyone you might know...not that I mean to hijack this thread by anymeans.


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 4, 2004)

That was an excellent example of how to provide a source.


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 4, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> If you were to measure racism in America, what criteria would you examine? What statistics would you use to show that racism is still occuring? I am asking this because it seems as if the right and left trade anecdotal stories to back up claims for and against this concept. I would like to see what the data actually says...
> 
> upnorthkyosa


Anyone remember this?  It is the topical post for this thread.  Does anybody have anything to add to the topic?


----------



## Seig (Oct 4, 2004)

Patrick Skerry said:
			
		

> Jews, are religions, not races, so it is Racist to refer to a religion as an ethnic group.


Not true, Jews are a race. We lost our minority status in the last 15 years. If you look at the current Affirmative Action sheets, all peoples of "Middle Eastern or European descent" are now classified as "Caucasian" or "White".


----------



## Seig (Oct 5, 2004)

flatlander said:
			
		

> From here, affirmative action is defined as:
> 
> Affirmative action is a path to attain the harmony of universal equality that most would agree is necessary in order to level the societal playing field. It is not an end, it is a means to an end. Of course, there will be the short sighted few who see the personal inconveniences, and are not prepared to make a sacrifice for betterment of our society's future. This is a natural and predictable response from people who are experiencing a lessening of their historical position of relative priviledge. That is, however, the whole point. Nobody ever said that this would be an easy or non-disruptory path. That is because it is about the fundamental change of ingrained selfish beliefs. Essentially, it's a battle against protectionism.
> 
> It's unfortunate that the struggle to change the status quo manifests itself as what appears to be a furtherance of predjudicial policy, but it is a necessary evil. Only when the norm becomes an equal representation of people of all different ethnicity, and remains that way for generations, will the ideals that so many have suffered for, be realized. Until then, people will continue to complain when things don't go their way, and blame it on some sort of racist or predjudicial agenda. But those of us who choose to see the forest will recognise this as finger pointing and denial of responsibility, as a reluctance to let go of the unbalanced priviledges that have served as the elevator of mediocrity for generations.


Dan,
Please, until you have been the victim of Affirmative Action, do not tell us it is a good thing.


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 5, 2004)

Seig said:
			
		

> Dan,
> Please, until you have been the victim of Affirmative Action, do not tell us it is a good thing.


Actually, I have, though certainly not in any extreme sense.  My applications for government jobs have been passed up numerous times.  I have been notified that "as I was not a member of a visible minority, my application would not be considered."

However, on the grand scale, I understand why it is this way.  It limits me personally, but I'm not entirely unemployable in some other capacity.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Oct 5, 2004)

I just have one question, which will hopefully add something to the topic.  I know that it may be practically impossible, but as far as fairness is concerned, what about racially blind applications?  Rather than attempting to keep up a certain balance of racial membership, would there be problems with a system that makes sure that racial biases can't be used in the application process?


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 5, 2004)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> I just have one question, which will hopefully add something to the topic. I know that it may be practically impossible, but as far as fairness is concerned, what about racially blind applications? Rather than attempting to keep up a certain balance of racial membership, would there be problems with a system that makes sure that racial biases can't be used in the application process?


Well, the way I can see that turning out, is that first, we need to assume that Company A currently has an employee demographic that does not reflect the area demographic.  Assuming that all new hires were the best candidate, they ought to reflect the area demographic, but because the employee demographic wasn't balanced in the first place, it would take quite a while before the company demographic fell in line.
This scenario also assumes that all area residents have equal access to whatever education or training is necessary as a prerequisite for working at Company A.


----------



## TonyM. (Oct 5, 2004)

It's easy to measure racism in America. How many CEOs are anything but white males. How many of those have you met that are dumber than a bag full of hammers. 
Affirmative action is stupid. I didn't get a permanent government contract job (I did get hired as a temp with no benefits.) even though I could have registered as a minority (Native American) because the person leaving the job was Hispanic and at the time had to be replaced by another hispanic. And Lord knows there were plenty of Hispanics in rural Maryland in 1974.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 5, 2004)

I should very much like to see specific, detailed evidence of having been "hurt by affirmative action," which--kinda like busing--is not really anybody's idea of a great solution to an ongoing problem.

Not hearsay, not, "this is what must have happened," not, "I was told that...," I mean specific, detailed evidence. A memo, letter, quoted remarks from the person who did the hiring/promotion, statistics, etc., will do. If you're going to claim that somebody less-qualified got a job or a promotion, you should supply a detailed resume for both the "victim," and the, "less-qualified," candidate.

I should also very much be interested in the company, school, firm, etc., published policy on affirmative action. I repeat--PUBLISHED policy, not hearsay.

I'm not saying it hasn't happened. I'm saying that I hear this from white boys like myself a lot, and I'd like to see some actual proof for a change.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Oct 5, 2004)

Patrick Skerry said:
			
		

> 1. You still haven't pointed out any contradiction.
> 
> 2. No, since you failed to point out a contradiction, and failed to learn what is a 'sentence fragment';   I am not now nor have ever been a racist.
> 
> 3. Are you a fascist Flatlander?




Ah, "Patrick", I see it is, again, hard for you to admit someone has you in a corner.  Instead of politely admitting you'd contradicted yourself, you attack the other person out of hand.  

You did contradict yourself.  You cautioned me for being racist by referring to people as "white", I believe, but then called other people "black".  Is using terms like "black" and "white" racist, or is it not?

And so far your "terrorist racism" idea still is unsupported and sounds like ravaings to me.  School bussings as terrorism?  Please.


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 5, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> I should very much like to see specific, detailed evidence of having been "hurt by affirmative action," which--kinda like busing--is not really anybody's idea of a great solution to an ongoing problem.
> 
> Not hearsay, not, "this is what must have happened," not, "I was told that...," I mean specific, detailed evidence. A memo, letter, quoted remarks from the person who did the hiring/promotion, statistics, etc., will do. If you're going to claim that somebody less-qualified got a job or a promotion, you should supply a detailed resume for both the "victim," and the, "less-qualified," candidate.
> 
> ...


Hi Robert,

The e-mail response that I personally received from a federal govenment human resources department has been deleted from my inbox, as it was approximately 18 months ago.  However, if you care to read up on the Canadian Legislated Employment Equity Program, help yourself.  Please bear in mind that in Canada, it is referred to as Employment Equity, rather than affirmative action, as the mandate is limited to specifically developing the current governmental workforce demographic to reflect that of the population. 

Please allow me to reiterate that I do see value in the program, and do not generally begrudge the government for applying it.  I was merely expressing that I had experienced 'affirmative action', in the Canadian format, personally.

Unfortunately, I have no other specific evidence that I may provide of that occurring.  You may choose to disbelieve my claim, that's not really my concern.  Just trying to contribute to the discussion.


----------



## Patrick Skerry (Oct 5, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> Ah, "Patrick", I see it is, again, hard for you to admit someone has you in a corner. Instead of politely admitting you'd contradicted yourself, you attack the other person out of hand.
> 
> You did contradict yourself. You cautioned me for being racist by referring to people as "white", I believe, but then called other people "black". Is using terms like "black" and "white" racist, or is it not?
> 
> And so far your "terrorist racism" idea still is unsupported and sounds like ravaings to me. School bussings as terrorism? Please.


You have just won the award for the best sophisms and illogic on the internet!


----------



## Patrick Skerry (Oct 5, 2004)

Seig said:
			
		

> Not true, Jews are a race. We lost our minority status in the last 15 years. If you look at the current Affirmative Action sheets, all peoples of "Middle Eastern or European descent" are now classified as "Caucasian" or "White".


Since when is a belief system encoded on the human genome?  Judaism is a religion, not a race.  Also color coding human beings is racist, the federal bureaucracy color-coding human beings just proves it is institutionally racist, that all.  But you need to consult with a biologist, geneticist, or physicial anthropologist regarding the classification of human beings and Roman Catholic is not a race, Protestant is not a race, Judaism is not a race, Islam is not a race, etc.....


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Oct 5, 2004)

According to biologists/anthropolgists, "race" is a very tricky classification to get a hold of.  Although people think they can easily classify someone as belonging to a certain race with visual inspection, attempts to do so genetically are much more tricky.  There is more genetic variation within races than between them - i.e., we may be more "related" to someone of a different race than we are to someone of the same race.


----------



## Patrick Skerry (Oct 5, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> According to biologists/anthropolgists, "race" is a very tricky classification to get a hold of. Although people think they can easily classify someone as belonging to a certain race with visual inspection, attempts to do so genetically are much more tricky. There is more genetic variation within races than between them - i.e., we may be more "related" to someone of a different race than we are to someone of the same race.


You might be generalizing 'ethnic group' with race.  According to my college biology, genetic, and physical anthropology textbooks, and as taught in class by those same subject professors in my college courses - humans are are all of one species, homo sapien, that are classified into three main races: Mongoloid, Negroid, and Causcazoid.  Those three main racial phenotypes are subdivided into ethnic groups.  The Han Chinese or the Lithuanian or the Hottentot or the Pygmy or the Rus or the Irish etc. etc.  The variations in skin tone from the equator to the artic circle is called 'continuous variation', the darker nearer the equator and lighter nearer the artic circle, the Laplander having almost translucent skin and the Sudanese having almost ebony skin, as an evolutionary environmental adaptation.  So are blue eyes, brown eyes, green eyes (my mother had green eyes), blonde hair, red hair, etc., these are ethnic characteristics rather than racial characteristics, as identified by scientists.  

N.B.: Notice that Belief Systems do not enter the biological/genetic realm, it is sloppy thinking to believe that a religion is a race.  Belief Systems fall into the realm of cultural anthropology or sociology, not biology.  So Roman Catholicism or Judiaism are not races or ethnic groups. 

I agree with this objective and impartial outlook on the study of humans.  No human being is superior or inferior to another human being, it is a scientific impossibility (we are not talking about birth defects or the severely retarded, they occur statistically equal in all the racial groups).

So I always describe people with these objective and impartial terminologies to increase my accuracy and identify my objectivity.  And if someone misunderstands, they need to get an edjumakashum (education). Thank you.


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 5, 2004)

Sooo, I posted a link to a study done regarding measuring neural responses in people in an attempt to uncover any supressed predjudicial tendencies.... that was on topic.  Anyone care to discuss?  

I think that it would be an excellent metric by which to measure racism in our society.  I can envision an experiment wherein  representative sample groups are gathered and interviewd, perhaps a few times per year, and trends are revealed and documented.  Could work, assuming the method is reasonably accurate.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 5, 2004)

Excellent paper on Affirmative Action from Stanford....

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/affirmative-action/

One of the "problems" I have with the program is best summed up here...



> Christopher Edley, the White House assistant put in charge of President Clinton's review of affirmative action policy in 1994-95, speaks of how, during the long sessions he and his co-workers put in around the conference table, the discussion of affirmative action kept circling back to the "coal miner's son" question.
> 
> Imagine a college admissions committee trying to decide between the white [son] of an Appalachian coal miner's family and the African American son of a successful Pittsburgh neurosurgeon. Why should the black applicant get preference over the white applicant?[68]​Why, indeed? This is a hard question if one defends affirmative action in terms of compensatory or distributive justice. If directly doing justice is what affirmative action is about, then its mechanisms must be adjusted as best they can to reward individual desert and true merit. The "coal miner's son" example is meant to throw desert in the defender's face: here is affirmative action at work thwarting desert, for surely the coal miner's son -- from the hard scrabble of Harlan County, say -- has lived with far less advantage than the neurosurgeon's son who, we may suppose, has reaped all the advantages of his father's (or mother's) standing. Why should the latter get a preference?


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Oct 5, 2004)

Interesting problem, Tgace. 

I have faced a similar problem with a research program for undergraduates at several universities. Certain programs exist which underpriveleged and underrepresented students can apply for summer fellowships in which they can become research assistants in labs and find out more about biology, psychology, medical sciences, anthropology, etc.

These are great programs, and I think there should be more of them. My concern is thusly: on the application, students checked off if they were a) first-generation college student, b) minority, c) low-income (any or all could be checked off). One summer, I really liked one student's application, who had checked off both "a" and "c". It is my *impression*, however, that she was not accepted to the program, and I was asked to take a different student, because they had checked off "b".

I think all three of those checklist items are important and affect students. That "minority" seemed to win out over both "first-gen" and "low-income" bothered me. 

That being said, I still think there is a bias against minorities, all other things being equal.

ETA:

I checked out the link you posted, flatlander.  I thought it was pretty intriguing.  I think the title, like most titles, is misleading - people are not stupider if it was OK to let their racist attitudes show, one might assume.



> Another, conducted by Stanford's Gabrieli and other scientists, showed that the brains of white people process white and black faces differently from the moment they see them.


This study I'd like to read more about - I wonder how it might be different for, say, a black child raised by a white family, or a white child raised by a black family.


----------

