But, as I have proven over and over again on this thread, and every darn study in this natioin that is a peer reviewed piece with good methodology, proves that BLACKS SIMPLY ARE RACIALLY DISCRIMINATED FROM EVEN COMPETING AT ALL, MUCH LESS ON AN EQUAL FOOTING, RIGHT HERE IN THE USA, EVERY DAY, TODAY.

I have not presented that argument one way or the other, because I have not seen any evidence or studies one way or the other.

Perhaps you could research that since that seems to be your reasoning why it is okay to racially discriminate on such a large scale?

When I say race doesn't matter, I'm 100% correct from an anthropological perspective. When nighttimer attacks me for saying that what he then presents are factors related to what we could call "black culture". When he claims that black people don't want to "act white", what he means is that they do not want to modify their behaviors in order to join the dominant culture. Yet, he, and other race-obsessed followers of that culture, insist on ALL the benefits associated with full membership in the dominant melting-pot culture.

So does this mean blacks are being unfairly held to a higher standard than whites? Would the conclusion then be that the average black employee is more qualified to do the job he's doing than the average white employee? Because sad to say, that has not been my observation.

What is your observation based upon? Your limited exposure to "the average black employee?"

You said elsewhere, "You made the accusation, so the burden's on you."

What is your observation based upon? Your limited exposure to "the average black employee?"
Yes, exactly. I don't claim that it's authoritative. It's just an observation I've made over time. If it's not reflective of reality, then presumably others would have different observations.

Maybe you'd be willing to answer the question that CruisingRam's refusing to answer. If blacks are being held to a higher standard than whites, would it then follow that those who actually meet those standards are, on average, going to be more qualified for the jobs they're doing than white hirees for the same jobs?

You said elsewhere, "You made the accusation, so the burden's on you." How's that coming along, by the way?

An observation without any supporting evidence or documentation is only a feeling and your feelings are not subject to debate.

Maybe not. Are you starting a new thread?

I believe Cruising Ram has answered your question. Whether or not he answered it to your satisfaction is another matter entirely.

An observation without any supporting evidence or documentation is only a feeling and your feelings are not subject to debate

They're subject to contradiction, if anyone else's observations are different.

I believe Cruising Ram has answered your question. Whether or not he answered it to your satisfaction is another matter entirely.

No, a refusal to answer the question is not an answer to the question.

why do you believe your unsupported observations should be taken seriously?

I direct your attention to Post#51 in this thread.

[mod]Let's get back on topic (fyi - it's part of the Rules DUVA).

DEBATE:

1. Is Bush doing a positive thing by addressing this organization which has been extremely hostile to his administration since 2001? What, if anything good will come of this?

2. Should Bush address ANY "race based" organization like the NAACP? Or, should he send a message that "race" is no longer a legitimate differentiator between US citizens and is, in fact, a biologically obsolete concept?[/mod]

...you don't need studies to tell you that if a certain class of people are being held to a higher standard, those who meet that standard will have superior qualifications. Why the two of you are running from that inevitable conclusion is utterly beyond me.

1. Is Bush doing a positive thing by addressing this organization which has been extremely hostile to his administration since 2001? What, if anything good will come of this?

2. Should Bush address ANY "race based" organization like the NAACP? Or, should he send a message that "race" is no longer a legitimate differentiator between US citizens and is, in fact, a biologically obsolete concept?

They should only be taken seriously by those who have the same observations. Those who don't, don't have to.


And I direct yours to the post following, in which I showed him that the basis of his response was inaccurate. After that, he hemmed and hawed about not having seen "studies" that address the question I was asking, but you don't need studies to tell you that one and one is two, and you don't need studies to tell you that if a certain class of people are being held to a higher standard, those who meet that standard will have superior qualifications. Why the two of you are running from that inevitable conclusion is utterly beyond me.

Um, DUH- NO- of course not- it would be a real reach to even suggest that- what it means, without any ambiguity, is that blacks are not given the same opportunity to compete in the work place as whites through racial discrimination- I think that is the problem in the first place- If blacks were able to compete on an equal footing- well, then competition is a good thing. But, as I have proven over and over again on this thread, and every darn study in this natioin that is a peer reviewed piece with good methodology, proves that BLACKS SIMPLY ARE RACIALLY DISCRIMINATED FROM EVEN COMPETING AT ALL, MUCH LESS ON AN EQUAL FOOTING, RIGHT HERE IN THE USA, EVERY DAY, TODAY.

THAT is something that goes against our very founding principles- that some poeple in our society are not equal NOT because of ability, but judged on race or religion. THAT is an injustice the republican party has ignored or even fought on ANY real progressive ideas in that arena. Folks like LH, refuse to even believe that blacks, just by virture of being black, and CANNOT just "modify thier personal behavior" to right this wrong.

But once again- this refusal to even really allow that there is this racial inequality today, day to day, against blacks, by the republican party, is why blacks, IMHO- no matter what issues the majority of blacks in this country agree on, WILL NEVER GO REPUBLICAN- something like 89% of blacks voted against GW- because you refuse to even AKNOWLEDGE ITS EXISTANCE, OR RIGHT THIS INJUSTICE IN ANY WAY, AND, IN FACT, BLAME BLACK SOCIETY FOR IT- so long as the majority of republicans feel this way- pretty speaches at the NAACP won't sway any voters I'm a bettin!

I proved, without a shadow of a doubt, that racial discrimination is a pervasive, ongoing and insidious problem in America- something so pervasive in our society, that if it didn't occur, or could somehow be marginalized or combatted, it would HELP THE ENTIRE NATION- not just blacks- it would help our economy, it would unclog our prisons and lessen unemployement- just through the act of the open and free from racism competition for a job-

LH- Many black people suffer discrimination as a RESULT of bad behavior. Their bad behavior is not the result of discrimination. They make the choice to get pregnant as a teen, drop out of school, take drugs, or engage in a life of crime.

Nice- it is black poeple's fault that they suffer discrimination- after all, the only reason that white poeple commit racial discrimination is because of the bad choices blacks make. Oh boy. I think any further response to that one would earn me a strike.

So- to clarify- it should be perfectly legal for you to racially discriminate against black poeple becuse, after all, they deserve it? And the goverment should have no hand in fixing this problem in any way?

No- LH is saying exactly that Christopher- that it should be perfectly okay for white poeple to discriminate against black society- because black society has much worse behavior than white society- period- after all, "they get pregnant as a teen, drop out of school, take drugs, or engage in a life of crime. " Direct quote from LH here- it is quite apparent how LH feels about blacks and- apparently- white poeple don't do this kind of stuff.

"they get pregnant as a teen, drop out of school, take drugs, or engage in a life of crime. "

Other studies have produced comparable results. Noah A. Rosenberg and Jonathan K. Pritchard, geneticists formerly in the laboratory of Marcus W. Feldman of Stanford University, assayed approximately 375 polymorphisms called short tandem repeats in more than 1,000 people from 52 ethnic groups in Africa, Asia, Europe and the Americas. By looking at the varying frequencies of these polymorphisms, they were able to distinguish five different groups of people whose ancestors were typically isolated by oceans, deserts or mountains: sub-Saharan Africans; Europeans and Asians west of the Himalayas; East Asians; inhabitants of New Guinea and Melanesia; and Native Americans. They were also able to identify subgroups within each region that usually corresponded with each member's self-reported ethnicity.

Okay- but the white person automatically discrminates against blacks NOT because they ascertained that they were "on the bottom rung"- but because they "sounded black" or "had a black sounding name"-
Christopher- if it is all economic and such- then why would a white person rather hire a white convict rather than a black person with no record at all? That right there negates any reasoning of bad behavior on the part of race- the white person had the criminal history-not the black person- yet, it was STILL twice as hard to get a job- so what is the black community supposed to do about this? Forget about it? Act as if it doesn't exist? Blame the black man with no bad behavior for not being able to get through the doors to get a job? How about busting the person commiting the injustice- how about some responsibility on the part of the racist?

How about busting the person commiting the injustice- how about some responsibility on the part of the racist?

and your only answer to this is "so are black poeple in jobs better than white poeple"-

In the housing example, where a landlord does not rent a unit to a black person because of the sound of his/her voice... As one said, this has more to do with economic/social rather than racial matters. Don't misunderstand me, the landlord is discriminating based on race. But the reason the landlord is is because he/she fears that the black will either not pay or be engaged in criminal activity. Sadly, since blacks as a whole commit a higher proportion of crimes and are the group with the highest percentage in poverty, there are facts to support this improper mindset.

The problems that the underclass are experiencing are not the result of white racism. Period.

It requires a mindset change. It requires taking race off the table in our society. It means moving on from the past racism and moving past the excuses associated with past racism. It also means minimizing self identity associated with "race" and substituting with something else far more elegant; being an American.

If "race" is off the table, then we can start to focus on the real issues where are related to individual behaviors. When we start looking to people as "people" and less as "groups", we'll be on the right road.

Many black people suffer discrimination as a RESULT of bad behavior. Their bad behavior is not the result of discrimination. They make the choice to get pregnant as a teen, drop out of school, take drugs, or engage in a life of crime. "White people" don't make them do it. If, as nighttimer claims, white people are not qualified to suggest solutions for other American citizens who happen to be "black" because they haven't been born that way, then "white" people cannot be held accountable for "black" people's individual actions and decisions. It works both ways logically.

Culturally and socially, a white person is outcast if he is considered to be a "racist". He can certainly lose his job, his career, and any accumulated social status. Such people are only at the fringes of "white" society and not taken seriously.

In contrast, black racists are called "activists" and we hear from them frequently on the national stage. They are elected, put on TV constantly, and revered as "spokesmen" for their "people".

It's idiocy and a blatant double standard.

Focus on race prevents progress, it doesn't expedite it. And, I think that President Bush was wrong to play that game. He's 60 years old though and that generation can't be expected to see beyond the social parameters that were created in their formative years.

If we remove the concept of "race" from our national dialog, then a "black" person can't accuse someone of speaking correct English, striving to achieve economically, and becoming a law-abiding pro-American citizen as "acting white" anymore than one could accuse an Asian, Indian, or Eastern European immigrant of the same.

Yet, posters in this thread continue to point to the exceptions, rather than the rule, as justification for additional "racial animosity", resentment, and the demand for government mandated reparations, affirmative action job preferences, and other acts of overt racism as "solutions".

When we focus on what links Americans together (our citizenship) and stop worrying so much about obsolete concepts like "racial identity" and the eugenics associated with it, then we'll be positioned to BEGIN to progress beyond where we are today.

I'm not claiming, as you and nighttimer insist to mis-characterize my posts, that "there are no problems" in America.

What I am proposing are some answers.

Perpetuation of the status quo has been demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt not to work. The "liberal" solutions to the black underclass have been employed almost exclusively since the last 1960's.

People like you have had your chance and your way hasn't worked.

It's time to give the reigns to someone else. Someone who has some ideas that might actually work this time.

There is a boatload of evidence to document what happens to "white" people when they are labeled as "racists". There are strong social sanctions against anyone who behaves that way. One can lose one's job, career, and be ruined financially.

And whatever "white" discrimination remains in this country is the result of "guilt by association" with the crime ridden under class in this society. And that is human nature. If you want to eliminate that, you need to attack the root cause... which is the BEHAVIOR of those in the underclass.

If I were black, those people would be MY enemy. I would be working to rid our nation of that sub-culture, not act as an apologist for it out of some misguided "racial allegiance". I would distance myself from them in every possible conceivable way and simultaneously work to correct their dysfunction, not blame someone else for it. But, that's what a focus on race has done to our country. Wealthy and successful "black" people act as apologists for ghetto dwellers without a clue because they "look" like them. Because "race" is more important than anything else. Just ask them. You see and hear it every day including on this board.

But how can you possibly understand this issue either, cruisingram? You are, after all, "white" are you not?

According to nighttimer, your opinion is as exactly valid as mine. In other words, of zero value.

Although I am highly individualistic, I have no problem with people grouping (unions included) to reach personal goals. There's the old saying about "strength in numbers." Organizations that better some individuals do not necessarily tear down other people.

but it's dishonest in the extreme to pretend White supremacy did not and does not have a contributing effect.

I know that its hard for White men to accept their input isn't always wanted or welcomed, but once you learn to accept the fact that Black men (and women) can stand up and make these decisions for themselves, by themselves, you'll be just fine.

And on their own dime as well, or do they not want to be quite that "exclusionary"?

Actually what's not only "hard for White men to accept", but unacceptable for most people, is the hypocrisy of saying that racism is OK in one direction, but not in the other. I can only imagine the howls of protest that would come from white people publicly saying that black people's input isn't wanted or welcome in a given political matter.

Though it's tempting, I'm not going to get into a point-by-point rebuttal of the statements I quoted. Instead, regarding the role you as a White person has to play in Black empowerment, I offer this from Malcolm X.

"There can be no black-white unity until there is first some black unity.... We cannot think of uniting with others, until after we have first united among ourselves. We cannot think of being acceptable to others until we have first proven acceptable to ourselves."

In the worst case, someone says that they are “Black” in order to receive some benefit, whether consideration for a scholarship or minority contractor status or whatever, and someone puts their foot down and says “you look white to me - prove it.” Then what do you do? In South Africa, they had skin tone standards, measured people’s noses, absolutely horrible stuff, reminiscent of Hitler and the eugenics movement. Do we develop a test and see if they “act white?” Speech patterns? Dance ability? It sounds funny but it will happen. turnea has noted the genetic markers, so we could use those, but what will be the standard? As litigious as the US has become, I bet it has already happened somewhere.

So this is my point – what is the end game? Sandra O’Connor recently held her nose and said “another 30 years should do it” for race preferences. Can we set a time-limit? An action standard?

Your dime? What makes your dime so much more important than my dime?

How exactly is Black racism victimizing Whites?

I'm not at all surprised the notion that there are places where the input of Whites is not needed goes down like bad medicine, but that's just the stone cold truth of the matter. What Black people need to do by and for themselves does not require the presence of a White man at the head of the table. Deal with it.

Actually I would totally disagree with Malcom. IMHO I think black-white unity comes when people no longer regard people as white or black. Blacks don't have to unite, in fact the opposite would be more effective for "unification". I think if blacks were to melt into the population just like almost every other immigrant population has done, then so-called white-black unification will be complete.

You see, there is no NAAWP, is there? You talk about "white people" like there's an organization or meetings of white people. In fact, if it weren't for black people, there really wouldn't be any white people. White people are simply people that contrast black people. I would even debate that you could argue Asians are white people.

Of course in India dark-colored skin people are not treated very well either, it seems to be a theme across the globe.

You really do have a propensity for evading questions you don't want to answer.

Blacks are often the real victims of black racism. They're the ones who get held back by it.

There is always something good that comes of discussion between groups that have differing opinions. The NAACP has been more hostile to the Bush Administration then IMO they really should be, considering many of the advancements made under him.

I think that the Republican Party can do more for to help African-Americans and that it has neglected to do so because they have framed their message incorrectly. The party of Goldwater and Reagan has strayed far from the chosen path and has instead relied on principles that were once criticized as an attribute of the Democrats (still is). The first thing that they have to do is cut out the hypocrisy of their message and their actions. Next, they have to have their message made clear. That is a message of the American Dream where nobody is held back from achieving their goals in a fair environment. The message that the American economic system is the most socially mobile of any nation in the history of the world and that the opportunities to succeed are numerous. It must be stressed that the law will be upheld and discrimination will not be tolerated. The Republicans should put responsibility squarely on the shoulders of every individual regardless of race or ethnicity and tell them that we can create equal opportunity for all and that it is up to you to take that opportunity. Some of the Democrats are right, the Repubs need to walk the walk.

for their kids. Are those not values that all of us share and things we all want to see happen? They want to know what the government is going to do about that. IMO, the answer should be little. Government should create the level playing field for all those who want to succeed and enforce the rule of law. When the government tries to make things better, they usually end up making things worse. So Bush should be making it clear that he supports the rights of blacks to pursue their own happiness and that the best thing he can do is not stand in their way.

President Bush has decided to address the NAACP during its annual convention in Washington, D.C. This change of heart, apparently, is the result of the NAACP's recent leadership change.

Questions for debate:

1. Is Bush doing a positive thing by addressing this organization which has been extremely hostile to his administration since 2001? What, if anything good will come of this?

2. Should Bush address ANY "race based" organization like the NAACP? Or, should he send a message that "race" is no longer a legitimate differentiator between US citizens and is, in fact, a biologically obsolete concept?

What it comes down to is I have a propensity for ignoring questions that aren't "reflective of reality."

"Blacks are often the real victims of black racism?" Whoa. How profound. Got anything in the way of actual fact to back it up or is this just another one of those "observations made over time" that aren't "reflective of reality?"

You just don't want to answer the question, because you the answer doesn't reflect the "reality" that you've invented here.

In other words you're asking me how continued validation of racism by blacks hurts blacks? I think I'll let you work that one out on your own. Certainly others reading this can do the same.

No, It's just really difficult to answer a question when it's posed in such an unintelligible form.

As for me, if you won't bother to back up your absurd assertions, why should I waste my time doing for you what you won't do for yourself?

...you're just stalling, for rather obvious reasons.

Since it's clear that you don't have "factual evidence" for the contrary position either, I'm happy to let our dear readers rely on their own common sense in determining whether continued validation of racism by blacks hurts blacks.

By the way, maybe (probably not, but miracles do happen) you'll explain what exactly IS the contrary position to the quaint notion that black racism hurts blacks? Black racism DOESN'T hurt blacks? How do you go about proving a negative?

I'll tell you what. If there's any other member reading this thread who found my question "unintelligible" after looking over our exchange, and says so here, I'll endeavor to spell it out further. Till then, you're just stalling, for rather obvious reasons.

In other words you're asking me how continued validation of racism by blacks hurts blacks?

In the quote above, it is unclear whether you are talking about "continued validation of racism by blacks" or "continued validation of racism by blacks."

I believe you were trying to say that racism by blacks against whites hurts whites and state that it also hurts blacks by holding them back.