Anathstryx: Christian Foundations and Abolition of Slavery

[Speak2Truth]

stop there, s2t, change gears a bit and stop focusing on what you want to say. Take a look at your quote, and his. "That's simply not true". What on earth are you thinking? or, rather, why aren't you thinking? His claim is a simple one. Deal with it directly.

I thought I did deal with it directly.

True or False: Affirmative Action bestows favors upon people who were never wronged because of the color of their skin.

True or False: Affirmative Action denies such favors to a certain group of people because of the color of their skin, even though a great many of them also were unable to "live the American Dream".

[Speak2Truth]

another example is the different way racism is being used. s2t do you think racism and prejudice are the same thing?
the grandly inquisitive mrs ross

Wow, that's a tough one...

Prejudice means to "pre-judge", as in to believe something about somebody, good or bad, prior to getting to know the truth. Racial Prejudice indicates pre-judgement of someone based on their skin color. It's what Martin Luther King railed against, saying we must judge people by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin.

Racism is fairly simple. It is belief and behavior towards a race of people, based on their race. It is Prejudice but implies action.

I'll take it a step further: Institutional Racism is societally or government enforced institutions that bestow favors upon some races while denying such favors to others. Like drinking at the "whites only" water fountain. Or getting "blacks only" scholarships or job preference.

Individual racism is to be separated from Institutional racism because, as in the USA, it is dis-encouraged and fought against by our society. That's why I point out the hypocrisy of decrying individual racism while societally upholding Institutional Racism.

If we're trying to get racism out of our society, it does not help to enforce it by Government and other institutions.

[someguy]

My take on affirmative action is that two wrongs dont make a right. You can't fight fire with more fire. Its wrong for people to discriminate against minorities for things like jobs, education, etc, and its also wrong to have policies that discriminate against non-minorities, regardless of any good intentions that might be behind those policies. Discrimination is wrong, period. If you dont believe in that, what kind of a person are you??

[rossmen]

ok, so for you the difference between racism and prejudice is that while both start with a belief about a group, racism includes action?

the reason i ask is because for me, while prejudice includes action (for example i might be prejudiced about lawyers, believing that they will adjust their views according to who is paying them so i try to avoid using the legal system), racism includes both prejudicial belief, and any action i take is supported by societal structure (for example i can hire hardworking latin americans for cheap and they will do anything i want without causing trouble because they are illegal).

hey i'm white and my work has been building. my race has helped me because i have seen the people beside me given less opportunity. in this world we deal with racism every day.

Wow, that's a tough one...

Prejudice means to "pre-judge", as in to believe something about somebody, good or bad, prior to getting to know the truth. Racial Prejudice indicates pre-judgement of someone based on their skin color. It's what Martin Luther King railed against, saying we must judge people by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin.

Racism is fairly simple. It is belief and behavior towards a race of people, based on their race. It is Prejudice but implies action.

I'll take it a step further: Institutional Racism is societally or government enforced institutions that bestow favors upon some races while denying such favors to others. Like drinking at the "whites only" water fountain. Or getting "blacks only" scholarships or job preference.

Individual racism is to be separated from Institutional racism because, as in the USA, it is dis-encouraged and fought against by our society. That's why I point out the hypocrisy of decrying individual racism while societally upholding Institutional Racism.

If we're trying to get racism out of our society, it does not help to enforce it by Government and other institutions.

[Speak2Truth]

racism includes both prejudicial belief, and any action i take is supported by societal structure (for example i can hire hardworking latin americans for cheap and they will do anything i want without causing trouble because they are illegal).

I think we're in agreement on the definitions. I would have said prejudice is possible without action but one can choose to act on it.

I believe racism need not be supported by societal structure (as Affirmative Action is) to be racism. Some folks just hate folks of the [whatever] race, think of them as inferior or resent them for other reasons, without this viewpoint being supported by society around them. Here, we get into the definition of societal structure. I don't think I'm mentally prepared to tackle that. Long day of programming. Brain-dead. :-D

[anathstryx]

Heck yeah, try getting a job at Taco Bell as a white guy. You'll see some racism. I got the horror story of a white manager who was driven out by employees who refused to work because he was white. Once he was gone, the place turned to crap and I never went back to eat there.

Guess I don't have to try getting a job as a white guy at Taco Bell to see some racism. It's pretty evident right there in that paragraph. After the WHITE manager left, the place turned to crap (although Taco Bell food pretty much starts out as crap and ends up as crap no matter who is managing...in the real world). Of course, since you never went back there, how would you know that the place turned to crap when the white manager left?

Anathstryx

[zenekar]

My take on affirmative action is that two wrongs dont make a right. You can't fight fire with more fire. Its wrong for people to discriminate against minorities for things like jobs, education, etc, and its also wrong to have policies that discriminate against non-minorities, regardless of any good intentions that might be behind those policies. Discrimination is wrong, period. If you dont believe in that, what kind of a person are you??

That's a very simplistic view of a complex societal issue regarding race. You must understand the history of the European invasion of this continent, the slaughter of indigenous peoples, racism against non-Europeans, assumed white privilege. . . In your view, this society should go back to the good-old-boy white privilege approach prevalent before the Civil Rights movement? Do you understand the reason why Affirmative Action was enacted? What I read between the lines of some of the posts here is a defense of white privilege.

[someguy]

That's a very simplistic view of a complex societal issue regarding race. You must understand the history of the European invasion of this continent, the slaughter of indigenous peoples, racism against non-Europeans, assumed white privilege. . . In your view, this society should go back to the good-old-boy white privilege approach prevalent before the Civil Rights movement? Do you understand the reason why Affirmative Action was enacted? What I read between the lines of some of the posts here is a defense of white privilege.

No its not complex. Very simple indeed. Of course I understand the history you explained. And just for laughs, I'll answer your insane question with a no. It should have been obvious from my previous post that I do not stand for racism, prejudice, racial privilege of any sort, as you do. You shouldn't read between the lines Zenekar. Rather you should only read what is is exactly on the lines as you run a high risk of being completely wrong, as you are right now. I couldn't be more clear on where I stand and where I stand is on the side of complete non racial prejudice. You, and others here sadly, are not.

[Thad]

'where I stand is on the side of complete non racial prejudice.'

Could you expand that?

[someguy]

Could you expand that?

Yes. It's very simple. I treat everyone, regardless of skin color exactly the same way, and I expect our government and others to do that as well. No special favors, breaks, incentives for anyone of any skin color. No oppression or intolerance of anyone of any skin color.

[jbox]

Yes. It's very simple. I treat everyone, regardless of skin color exactly the same way, and I expect our government and others to do that as well. No special favors, breaks, incentives for anyone of any skin color. No oppression or intolerance of anyone of any skin color.

I think that is well put. At the risk of opening up a hornet's nest, how do you feel about Native Americans receiving rights and privileges and special treatment and status not afforded to any other American? How is this different from Affirmative Action?

[podfish]

Yes. It's very simple. I treat everyone, regardless of skin color exactly the same way, and I expect our government and others to do that as well. No special favors, breaks, incentives for anyone of any skin color. No oppression or intolerance of anyone of any skin color.

I don't discount your good will or your intention - but I don't buy your claim. Even though OTINOKYAD, ("on the internet, no one knows you're a dog") applies, I bet you're human. As such, (and for that matter, this is just as true of dogs) you're not all that much in control of your prejudices. Check this out, for example.

[podfish]

My take on affirmative action is that two wrongs dont make a right. You can't fight fire with more fire. Its wrong for people to discriminate against minorities for things like jobs, education, etc, and its also wrong to have policies that discriminate against non-minorities, regardless of any good intentions that might be behind those policies. Discrimination is wrong, period. If you dont believe in that, what kind of a person are you??

to be pedantic: the word itself (grammatical form ignored) just means being selective. So "what kind of person"?? A thinking one...

You're talking about a specific social practice, and doing it in too broad a form. So the two cliches leading your argument may be true but aren't relevant. In your first real observation, there's an important qualification: "discrimination AGAINST". That's a far more narrow term. I agree with you there. But when a selection must be made, a lot of criteria can be used. Someone who's not selected may feel like it's "against" him; but dude, it's not always about you. It might instead be about the guy who -is- selected, and it's "for" him.

[rossmen]

i am not so sure, what you might define as racism, for example some of rev wrights rhetoric, i think of as racial prejudice. without society backing you up, prejudice mostly harms the believer. my distrust of lawyers just limits the options i have in settling disputes. working with undocumented workers is a benefit for employers because of societies structure.

yeah it is really complicated, this is deep stuff. that's why it helps to know how others define their words. i think racial prejudice and racism get in the way of us seeing each other, and i like to draw the distinction between the two terms because of the different impact they have on people. it also helps me understand what to do.

I think we're in agreement on the definitions. I would have said prejudice is possible without action but one can choose to act on it.

I believe racism need not be supported by societal structure (as Affirmative Action is) to be racism. Some folks just hate folks of the [whatever] race, think of them as inferior or resent them for other reasons, without this viewpoint being supported by society around them. Here, we get into the definition of societal structure. I don't think I'm mentally prepared to tackle that. Long day of programming. Brain-dead. :-D

[rossmen]

simplicity can be reassuring. reads like racism, racial prejudice, racial privilege, affirmative action, tribal rights, all have the same meaning for you and it is not good? race should not be a factor in human relations with each other?

the question is what to do when it is. then it can be useful to have different meanings for these terms. so we can communicate with mutual understanding about the nuances of race and human relations.

No its not complex. Very simple indeed. Of course I understand the history you explained. And just for laughs, I'll answer your insane question with a no. It should have been obvious from my previous post that I do not stand for racism, prejudice, racial privilege of any sort, as you do. You shouldn't read between the lines Zenekar. Rather you should only read what is is exactly on the lines as you run a high risk of being completely wrong, as you are right now. I couldn't be more clear on where I stand and where I stand is on the side of complete non racial prejudice. You, and others here sadly, are not.

[Iolchan]

Color Blind is the Best Policy

Speak2Truth wrote:
Individual racism is to be separated from Institutional racism because, as in the USA, it is dis-encouraged and fought against by our society. That's why I point out the hypocrisy of decrying individual racism while societally upholding Institutional Racism.

If we're trying to get racism out of our society, it does not help to enforce it by Government and other institutions.

I have to say that here, amongst a fair amount of drivel you've put forth, is one valid point, Speak2Truth, that does resonate with my own experience as a young man from Berkeley. The fact is, as a young man from the ages of seventeen to twenty-five, I often went to the Employment Development Department at the University Avenue office in Berkeley, but they never once did land me a job. Not once; though I was often over-qualified for many of the jobs that came up on the Bulletin Board - and there were many jobs over the years, that I really wanted, and tried to apply for, often. Alas, there was always a stipulation that, although I had applied for the job first, some person of color, or a female would have the first crack at the job. Those were just house rules. It was called "Affirmative Action."

In Denver Colorado, in '68, it was just the opposite. There was no affirmative action - it was always "first come/ first served." Every day I would show up at six a.m. at the employment office in downtown Denver, and get sent out on some job. It was wonderful, compared with what I always experienced in my hometown, Berkeley, where I was actually discriminated against just because I was a male from the dominant strain. Was it my fault that Cruel, unjust, unfeeling, greedy, avaricious white slave traders had stolen black bodies & souls and shipped them off to the West Indies and Charleston and Mobile, centuries ago? No.

But I, as a kid, had to suffer unemployment, and it was institutionally mandated, and it was the law. - And so did all of the other poor dumb white kids, who grew up in Berkeley; some of whom never got a job at all, on account of this institutional discrimination.

Many of the Berkeley-born Boomers never "succeeded" in Life on account of this institutional bias - and many of them turned to dealing drugs on account of this disadvantage. Most of the "white" males who were my peers at Berkeley High School are now {prematurely} dead. It was enough to turn some of the survivors into avid Michael Savage afficionados.

In Berkeley, I can honestly say, that for indigenous white males, the fruits of "Affirmative Action" in the Employment Development Department was very destructive. It was an example of bad social engineering - with very predictable consequences and the inevitable, predictable, backlash.

Now, I am only suggesting that there should be no racial profiling and no discrimination, at all, in the Employment Development Department. In other words, Color Blind is the best policy and first come/first served is also the best policy, and the most equitable. It rewards the early bird with the worm, which is Nature's Way.

Mark Walter Evans

[Speak2Truth]

lolchan - I wish I could give more than one "gratitude" to your post. That is EXACTLY what we mean by "institutionalized racism" and it is heinous. I've experienced it as well.

It just turns my stomach to see racists take control of government and private institutions and get a free pass because, heck, they're just keeping the white man down. That's become acceptable, even good, to the Left in this country. They seem to think that white people today should be punished for a wrong they never did, for the gain of someone who was never wronged. All on the basis of skin color. Prejudiced, bigoted racists.

Despicable.

[someguy]

I don't discount your good will or your intention - but I don't buy your claim. Even though OTINOKYAD, ("on the internet, no one knows you're a dog") applies, I bet you're human. As such, (and for that matter, this is just as true of dogs) you're not all that much in control of your prejudices. Check this out, for example.

Your link to the Harvard test is absurd at best. Take a guess at which racial group I supposedly dislike the most according to this fraudulent exam?

[rossmen]

i guess white, am i right?

Your link to the Harvard test is absurd at best. Take a guess at which racial group I supposedly dislike the most according to this fraudulent exam?

[someguy]

i guess white, am i right?

Congrats! And which racial group do I prefer most? 1000 points if you get this one Rossmen.

[podfish]

... "institutionalized racism" .. is heinous. I've experienced it as well. ... It just turns my stomach to see racists take control ...Despicable.

You know, anytime you find that you've adopted a perspective where you're the victim, where somehow you're not getting what you rightfully should, and other less-deserving folks are either getting things they haven't earned, or not being punished for their misbehavior, or otherwise just aren't suffering enough -- those are times you should wonder why such self-serving beliefs seem so dog-gone obviously true.
There's the cliche "just follow the money" that's intended to cut through the bullshit and illuminate what's really happening. "Just follow the beneficiary" is less mellifluous a cliche, but may help illuminate why these are such "stomach-turning" issues. If the primary beneficiary is oneself, that might indicate that there's less than pure reason going on. That's why the issues chosen by the left have more resonance to me, and those chosen by the right seem so unappealing - the right's almost always about selfishness; they typically self-identify with those they want to help.

[rossmen]

your definition of institutional racism is the same as affirmative action?

if that is true you have no idea what other people mean by this term. i have been turned away because of affirmative action, and benefited even more from institutional racism. maybe i can see this because i am so curious about how the world works, keep my eyes and ears open, ask challenging questions, really try to understand what people are saying beyond my own judgements, and know that whatever i learn is less than the whole truth.

lolchan - I wish I could give more than one "gratitude" to your post. That is EXACTLY what we mean by "institutionalized racism" and it is heinous. I've experienced it as well.

It just turns my stomach to see racists take control of government and private institutions and get a free pass because, heck, they're just keeping the white man down. That's become acceptable, even good, to the Left in this country. They seem to think that white people today should be punished for a wrong they never did, for the gain of someone who was never wronged. All on the basis of skin color. Prejudiced, bigoted racists.

Despicable.

[podfish]

Your link to the Harvard test is absurd at best. Take a guess at which racial group I supposedly dislike the most according to this fraudulent exam?

Those morons at Harvard. A bunch o' elitists, I betcha

[someguy]

Those morons at Harvard. A bunch o' elitists, I betcha

You tell me.

[rossmen]

asian?

Congrats! And which racial group do I prefer most? 1000 points if you get this one Rossmen.

[someguy]

asian?

Sorry, its african -americans.

[Iolchan]

Good Point & a Valid Distinction, rossmen

rossmen wrote:
your definition of institutional racism is the same as affirmative action?

if that is true you have no idea what other people mean by this term. i have been turned away because of affirmative action, and benefited even more from institutional racism. maybe i can see this because i am so curious about how the world works, keep my eyes and ears open, ask challenging questions, really try to understand what people are saying beyond my own judgements, and know that whatever i learn is less than the whole truth.

You write: " i have been turned away because of affirmative action, and benefited even more from institutional racism. " Yes, this is so true. Bravo - good distinction.When it comes to racial profiling as practiced by Police Officers, Sheriffs, District Attorneys, and Judges, those who were born "white" { i hate the term} still do have the cards stacked in their favor.

Affirmative Action, and mandatory busing, were either poorly-conceived policies, or else the social engineers who implemented those policies were hedging on & investing in the futures market of the fallout & the backlash that those policies would inevitably generate: the so-called "Savage Nation" of today - with all of the attendant alienation, fragmentation, & law-of-the-jungle ethic that the term implies.

[Iolchan]

Why Not a Level Playing Field?

podfish wrote:
You know, anytime you find that you've adopted a perspective where you're the victim, where somehow you're not getting what you rightfully should, and other less-deserving folks are either getting things they haven't earned, or not being punished for their misbehavior, or otherwise just aren't suffering enough -- those are times you should wonder why such self-serving beliefs seem so dog-gone obviously true.

There's the cliche "just follow the money" that's intended to cut through the bullshit and illuminate what's really happening. "Just follow the beneficiary" is less mellifluous a cliche, but may help illuminate why these are such "stomach-turning" issues. If the primary beneficiary is oneself, that might indicate that there's less than pure reason going on. That's why the issues chosen by the left have more resonance to me, and those chosen by the right seem so unappealing - the right's almost always about selfishness; they typically self-identify with those they want to help.

Podfish, why must we, as folks who were accidentally born into the so-called "dominant ethnicity," just stuff the injustice that was produced by Affirmative Action? I think it is fair and just to say that it was a bad program. As I wrote:

Iolchan wrote:
...I, as a kid, had to suffer unemployment, and it was institutionally mandated, and it was the law. - And so did all of the other poor dumb white kids, who grew up in Berkeley; some of whom never got a job at all, on account of this institutional discrimination.

Many of the Berkeley-born Boomers never "succeeded" in Life on account of this institutional bias - and many of them turned to dealing drugs on account of this disadvantage. Most of the "white" males who were my peers at Berkeley High School are now {prematurely} dead. It was enough to turn some of the survivors into avid Michael Savage afficionados.

In Berkeley, I can honestly say, that for indigenous white males, the fruits of "Affirmative Action" in the Employment Development Department was very destructive. It was an example of bad social engineering - with very predictable consequences and the inevitable, predictable, backlash.

You will note, that this one {me-uns} is not coming out against the failure of the policy of "Affirmative Action" just for myself, and how it affected me, personally - but also because the policy was hurtful and destructive to the lives of many, many of my poor, white, male, lumpanized peers, who are now dead; and whose economic interests were not served by the state employment offices... You say "follow the beneficiary" but I submit that my peers - at least the so-called "Caucasian" ones - were certainly not benefited by the policy; they were hurt.

To stuff such feelings, I feel, is to engage in "internalizing one's own oppression" as defined by the Algerian psychiatrist and revolutionary, Frantz Fanon. I will go further. The program of Affirmative Action was part and parcel of the rest of the abominable policies of the Johnson Administration - along with the wrecking ball of H.U.D. {see the book Cities Destroyed For Cash} and the deliberate, genocidal policy of destroying a whole Generation physically, morally and every other which way, through the instrument of sending it through the meat-grinder of Viet Nam.

And furthermore, I affirm that the policy of Affirmative Action was socially engineered and designed to create further division amongst the People; and to foment further racial strife and tensions, down the line. Thus, ultimately, it was a subtle instrument of Class Warfare.

Sincerely,
Mark Walter Evans

[podfish]

.. Why Not a Level Playing Field?

it -would- be nice were it so.

Podfish, why must we, as folks who were accidentally born into the so-called "dominant ethnicity," just stuff the injustice that was produced by Affirmative Action?

you don't need to "just stuff it". But you were indeed born into the dominant ethnicity, you benefit from it frequently, so excessive whining about the times when it's not an advantage is unbecoming.
to be fair, of course not all objections to affirmative action programs can be dismissed as whining. However, we rarely see measured and well reasoned discussion of how best to overcome historical legacy without imposing excessive burden on individuals who usually weren't personally responsible for creating such a legacy. We see instead impassioned rants about how some blameless individual is suffering, with often specious claims that the real goal here is simple fairness for all. How many people who are enraged at affirmative action policies are equally concerned about other fairness issues?
It also seems that there are people drawn to this issue because it is indeed a clear example where rules intended to benefit all society can sometimes negatively impact individuals. I get that for many that's a concept that they hate. It still strikes me as a foolish issue to get so invested in because it reeks of the powerful resenting the weak.

[Speak2Truth]

The "powerful" are those who enforce affirmative action and other racist institutions. The "weak" are those harmed by it who can do nothing about it but suffer the injustice.

We surely would not be saying that "powerful" and "weak" are indicated by skin color, right? That would be a horrible insult, merely repeating the prejudiced claims of a long-gone era, undoing the progress we have made in recognizing the true equality of all people.