Now that BoF has safely proven that any discussion of white racism will be derailed in order to discuss the "reverse-racism" so decried in our modern age. (sarcasm over) let's try a new paradigm... bring forth the bottle!
(okay almost over)

Let the festivities begin!






Here's a link moif provided on anti-white racism.

Link


Is racism against whites in America as prevalent as that against blacks? More So?

Is "reverse racism" a significant factor in harming the opportunities of white Americans?

Does racism against blacks harm the opportunities of black American's significantly?

OK, you pulled me out of my hole in the ground! I'll get things rolling.


BoF proved nothing of the sort. The only thing I am reasonably sure of from the referenced thread is those who would argue that white-on-black racism is alive and well will hijack said thread in order to continue pushing "the agenda" and those who would argue otherwise will get pegged as a "read-between-the-lines" closet racist. OK, maybe I exaggerate a bit...

Is racism against whites in America as prevalent as that against blacks? More So?

No, it is not. By virtue of the fact that there are more whites it will seem that blacks get the raw end of the deal more often and indeed they do. Judged as a percentage within each population, I believe the jury is still out. Too much has been said about the prevalence and reasons behind white-on-black discrimination and not enough about the understandable/not-so-understandable hyper-sensitivities of that same black population when perceiving such potential acts of discrimination.

Is "reverse racism" a significant factor in harming the opportunities of white Americans?

IMO, not too much. At least I don't perceive any impediment in my own life. Then again, if the blacks were the majority...

Does racism against blacks harm the opportunities of black American's significantly?

I suspect so. Significantly enough to merit sooooo much intervention from Uncle Sam? Probably not. There are simply too many success stories in black America. Poverty also keeps you out of the loop, you know?

Is racism against whites in America as prevalent as that against blacks? More So?

It's hard to say. Im not black so there is no real way that I could make a comparison. However I believe that much of white "discrimination" is based on current black culture. There is a difference between racism and discrimination. Many people are prone to sterotype's and might discriminate against a white male with long hair and tatoos. Does that make them racist? No, it might make the shallow, but there are also reasons within our society that they believe they can make conclusions on looking at a persons image then judge them from that.

Blacks, even though only account for around 13% of the population make up a large majority of the prison population. I don't believe that this is because of the color of skin but rather more of a poverty issue that has sprung from US black culture. Much of it having to do with mistrust of their follow white man (and with good reason) combined with racist and discriminatory white people.

So when someone walks past two teenage black teens they are probably more cautious than if they walked by two white teens. Now if they walked by two white teens with shaved heads and visible tattoos they might be just as cautious as they were if they walked by two black teens.

Does this make them racist? No, it makes them discriminatory based on impressions society has dictated, it has less to do with skin color but more to do with appearance, and skin color can be a part of that.

Say if it was a black person with a suit and tie and that was well groomed (think Colin Powell), as opposed to the two white teens with shaved heads and tattoos (think Charles Manson). They would most likely look over the black person but appear cautious when walking past the two white teens.

Discrimination is not about skin color but it can be a part of it depending on the "popular culture" associated with that skin color (think rappers).

I grew up in a black neighborhood. If racism is rampant within the black culture, it wasn't in the neighborhood I grew up in. I had a lot of black friends, and no one ever threatened our family.. I did have about 5 black people try to beat me up but I ran away from them, this wasn't representative of the area though. Most of my neighbors were always nice to me. However I did goto some black neighborhoods that were very poor and racism was very abundant there. This is what I talked about earlier... the more in poverty the more it seemed they disliked "the white man".

People like Al Sharpton only progress the divide. "We need more black people in The Atlanta Braves just because they don't have enough black people".

Thats udderly ridiculous, if you can prove racism, fine, but don't jump the conclusion that everyone is guilty until proven innocent.

Is "reverse racism" a significant factor in harming the opportunities of white Americans?

In some cases yes, but only because of laws that regulate race into the factor of being qualified for the job. In other cases its because a minority seeks out other minorities instead of qualifications (ive seen this first hand).

Does racism against blacks harm the opportunities of black American's significantly?

Yes but law that benefits one race over the other instead of equally representing both is never the answer. If you code racism into laws it will only degrade the human race.

I'm not sure how BoF proved that any discussion of white racism will be derailed in order to discuss the "reverse-racism" since the people here at are not representative of all other people.

Personally I do not think you can so easily divide up racism into racial goups, or rather any one who insists on doing so, has dubious motivations.


Is racism against whites in America as prevalent as that against blacks? More So?
Statistically, it would appear more so.


Is "reverse racism" a significant factor in harming the opportunities of white Americans?
I would imagine this is so in only a small proportion of cases given the numbers of white people under the authoirity of black people. Also, if Vampiels point about poverty holds water, then its not likely that the racist black people have the power to harm the opportunities of white Americans, they are more likely to break into their homes and murder them.

The numbers I've seen quoted indicate that black on white crime is mostly violent crime as opposed to 'harming the opportunities of white people' which sounds like the sort of institutional racism one might encounter at the work place. The way you posed your questions turnea prompts answers which deflect the violent aspects of racism.


Does racism against blacks harm the opportunities of black American's significantly?
I don't think this can be denied. There seems to be a lot of institutional racism in the USA although this too appears to be gradually eroding as time goes by and attitudes change.

America is the richest country in the world, yet, and it may be that these problems are gradually ironed out as a product of wealth. I wonder whether or not other American countries have similar trends, Brazil for example. Everything I've ever read indicates Brazil has a far greater intermixture of race than the USA, but Brazil is also a very violent country and this is often attributed in text to poverty rather than race. The only people I've ever known to express a directly negative opinion about black people however have been either black themselves, or Brazilian.

I suspect this is, by definition racist. No one said race had to be alone among a person's motivators for them not to be racist.


Only if no one pays close attention to those statistics.

I'm not blaming you but that website you pulled fudged the numbers, as is typical with the "save our culture" white-power-without-the-umph groups.

If you actually take a direct look at the hate crime statistics rather than total crimes, the vast majority of which have no racial motivation.

Anti-black crimes still #1 in the list.
FBI Hate Crime Stats


Didn't mean too.... I thought the first question covered it.

Is racism against whites in America as prevalent as that against blacks? More So?

In order to answer this question, I think it is important to make the distinction between racial discrimination and racial prejudice - both forms of racism (the former being, in the majority of instances, an extension of the latter), though the former has the most impact. Racial prejudice simply requires having a brain, racial discrimination requires some form of power to act on prejudice.

In order for a particular form of racial discrimination to have a significant adverse impact, the group engaging in the discrimination must have significant power to act.

So, is racism against whites as prevalent as that against blacks? One could argue that as a percentage of each population, racial prejudice might exist equally within both populations. It would be more prevalent against blacks if you look at it in terms of the whole population simply because blacks are a smaller segment of the population as a whole. Racial discrimination however is much more prevalent against blacks than it is against whites, because whites have more power to act - being the majority with most of the control.

Is "reverse racism" a significant factor in harming the opportunities of white Americans?

I am assuming that this refers to racial discrimination and not simply racial prejudice because in order to harm the opportunities of an individual an act based on this prejudice must occur - someone must actively discriminate.

This being the case, I would say no - being that a significant number of the opportunities available to white Americans come from other white Americans.

Does racism against blacks harm the opportunities of black American's [sic] significantly?

Taking the above into account, I would say that more harm is done directly to black Americans as a group as a result of racism against blacks than is done to white Americans as a result of "reverse" racial discrimination.

If I've learned nothing on this board it's that as a White Christian (only in the sense I'm not Jewish or Muslim) Male I can never speak about racism in any meaningful way because in 1492 Columbus sailed the Ocean Blue and enslaved a continent. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. Yadda yadda.

But then I rarely apply things I learn

No. It isn't. To suggest that this is so is simply silly. And I got bumped out of NYU for Affirmative Action and even I don't think that Whites are suffering from racsism.

No.

Yes. More harmful is a coddling government that makes an entire race feel like it needs help to survive. To say nothing of what the likes of Bill Cosby rails against lately.

This is why some wonder about all of this "culture of victimization" talk, I mean this is so divorced from reality that it dwarfs any complaint by blacks about being "held back" for groundlessness.

Considering just how many white Christian males have been discussing racism for... five years on this board...


Seeing as that's not really how Affirmative Action works, I'm eager to hear this explained...

I didn't set out to prove anything vanguard, but what I said had happened in previous threads, happened in mine. It wasn't all that hard to predict, and without calling names, I pretty well knew who would take the bait.

If we have "closet racists" here, only they know for sure. How do you balance a bit of "exaggeration"? Perhaps with a bit of understatement.

There seems to be a trend on the board. If someone can't defend something, then they deflect it by saying that someone else did as bad or worse. If there is white racism, we need to look at Black racism, even if it means only quoting something Al Sharpton said. If Bush does something horrible, then that's ok, because Clinton did something similar - maybe worse.

Everybody does it?

Good job with discounting what he said Turnea without saying anything meaningful.

I think he has a point. On America's Debate (and heck, in America) there is an overwhelming idealism that white people will never know or understand racism, and that a black person is the only expert. Even if they're 19 and in college... they're more adept at the reality of life than someone that might have real world experience with a lighter skin tone.

That's how it always gets portrayed.



This is a good example of how society sees it... right/wrong/indifferent.

I'm not saying racism against white people is worse. I've been really saying that racism in general doesn't hold anyone back in any meaningful manner. If you live in a po-dunk town where the only good jobs are held by a white/black/hispanic group... move.

If you can't get into NYU or LSU because of affirmative action, you probably didn't study hard enough. (Scholarships are a different story and a thread in themselves... that is verifiable discrimination against ONLY white men).

The point I've attempted to make is that in the US, it's not 1965 anymore. If you want a good job, to live in a nice neighborhood, a quality education, etc you have to play the cards you're handed. If I can make it into a "good ol' boys" club because of my cultural background (trust me- down here it's not limited to skin color but often times yankees are looked down upon), then so be it. I definitely can't benefit from any gov't programs.

You win on some fronts and lose on others. The ability to take it on the chin and keep swinging is what defines a man. It's what defines America. Frankly, I'm sick and tired of American people of all walks blaming something.

This is exactly what bothers me about these threads. Black people on America's debate continually insinuate if not directly state that they can't get good jobs, get homes, make into schools, etc because of their skin color and it's a load of crud.

It's the exact same load of crud some white people use to blame affirmative action or "diversity" for their lots in lives. I know for 100% that I didn't get a job once because they needed a woman, and they hired a black woman to boot. So? I ended up getting a better job later.... why? ... because I realized I live in a great city for what I do and kept "swinging".

Racism does exist. Those who don't buy into it are fools. Those who believe it is an impediment and continually harp on it's effects are even more foolish.

I sure you could come up with some examples then... doesn't even have to be right away but everything we say is stored here.

I see the opposite, black people believe that whites can understand racism which is why we're always trying to explain it. I for one work steadily towards the goal that most posters here understand the intricacies of race in America and harbor no doubts that they are capable of doing just that.


Seeing as black people of tend to have good job, homes, and degrees, I smell a strawman.

I have never argued racism keep blacks from succeeding, I have argued that it continues to play an active role in society. That it is far more harmful that "reverse racism."


Are you saying there is no verifiable discrimination against other groups?

What do you mean "only"?

Is racism against whites in America as prevalent as that against blacks? More So?

I think this debate gets lost in the idea of individual experiences and systematic. Systematically I have never felt racism towards the fact I am white, as a woman yes, but not for being Caucasian.

Personally I have had some very traumatic experiences with what I guess is "reverse racism" I think that term is unfair. You can't tell me that when someone tells me over and over at a young and very impressionable age that they hate me, because they hate white people and I am white that this is not an experience of just plain, not conditional on any account, racism. Obviously it is, it has just never been universal and systematic for either me or my fellow white people in America. Altho I don't think it is rare.
But it is wrong and it isn't a focus in our society, and I don't think it should be. Individually some people are very cruel and racist, society really does not have the onus on that, outside of education, as it does with systematic cruelties. Which is why I think it is wrong for our social systems to employ any kind of structure that either rewards or restricts anyone based on their race/sex/age etc.

Is "reverse racism" a significant factor in harming the opportunities of white Americans?
Again I don't understand why racism has to be qualified with the word "reverse". Yes I think personally my experiences have had a harmful and lasting affect on me as a person and ultimately a member of society. But again my personal experiences in no means equate to a "social order" or a "national history" something many seem to forget.

Does racism against blacks harm the opportunities of black American's significantly?

I guess this question is different depending on your current view of society....either you feel blacks still face systematic racism or else you feel it is only individual. I don't know how I feel about that truthfully. I know that all the poor people who live in the govt housing in my town are black, and that has to mean something.

Well there's a question, then. Is that perception correct or incorrect? Does the white American majority have the most control? Are they the group in the position to offer the most opportunities? If the answer is yes, then - all things being equal in terms of the existence of racial prejudice and the percentage of whites and the percentage of blacks willing to act on it - racial discrimination against blacks would be more prevalent.

Typical.

When talking about minority scholarships on college campuses, particularly at least during the mid 90's, it applied to women, black people, hispanics, asians, pacific islanders, etc. It generally only excluded white men .That's a fact jack.

Go take a peek at any college campuses scholarship booklet and look for minority scholarships... then peek at the qualifications. Who in the US is not a minority? Women are. People of color are. Handicapped people, senior citizens, etc are. Not white men. It's that simple.



Again- I've seen your arguments a hundred times. Never do the statistics follow your argument. Are you saying that fewer people benefit from government sponsored racism (AA) than are discriminated against?

Turnea, the statistics posted on this (and any) board don't support your argument. If they do, please post them. I haven't, nor has anyone else on this board seen such information.

What I am saying again, is that the information supports my argument. The facts show that racism in America is woefully exaggerated and blown out of proportion in order to facilitate an ongoing excuse for apathy or lack of success. Why do you think Prop 209 existed in CA?

I'll happily retract my comments if you can prove, even within a shred of doubt, that government sponsored racism does not create more opportunity than white-against-black racism. The thing is that I'll be very surprised when it does.

A certain portion of Black America doesn't buy into your fictional account of society. A certain part of Black America should be sick of your statements about "racism is holding us back". I know people that think this way, but unfortunately they deem it imprudent to speak loudly. Just look at how people like NT brand guys like Larry Elder.


http://www.publicpolicy.umd.edu/IPPP/1QQ.HTM


http://aad.english.ucsb.edu/docs/01-07-05Amar.htm


Want some Dept of Labor information?
http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/ofccp/aa.htm


Seriously. This is far reaching Turnea. Get your head out of the "man holding me down manual", and see if you can counter my ideas with statistics.

Again- I implore that racism exists, and that one is never better than another. Just different. Some of us have jacks, some of us have queens... gotta play the hand we're given. We all have the ability to know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em. Some of us might be born into a hand with more Aces, but that doesn't stop those of us with eight's from winning.






That's some interesting logic.

What you're saying is that the majority of white America is racist? We are all prejudice?

Good Lord. Where is Amlord with his sound logic. People don't think that way Entspeak. The only way your logic would ring true is if all/most white people were racist.

We're not. News flash. Power would only matter if we were attempting to perpetuate some racist doctrine. The only overwhelming body that does that is the US gov't.

I wouldn't say unfair so much as unnecessary.

It is an attempt to contextualize American racism through use of a brief phrase and as such is subject to misinterpretation.

One thing I see is that blacks among other minorities and when compared to the white majority is far more aware, constantly in fact, of the historical context of race relations.

Few think it's still 1965 as aevans176 phrased it ...but most are sorely aware that was about forty short years ago.

Racism is typically different in nature among these demographics as well.

Blacks who "hate" whites do so because they are angry like WWII vets who "hated" Germans or Japanese (met some).

They resent whites because of a historical context. I's not systematic or even typically rationalized it works in spurts, typically after showing of Roots

White racism on the other hand is typically due to perceived biological or cultural superiority and is therefore naturally more systematic.

Well, no... it's your twisted interpretation of pretty straightforward logic that is interesting. In no way did I say that the majority of white America is racist. I said that, if the ratio is equal of the percentage of white Americans engaging in racism against blacks as a section of all white Americans to the percentage of black Americans engaging in racism against whites as a section of all black Americans, then, logically, racism against blacks would be more prevalent because of the simple fact that the white America is the majority. This doesn't at all mean that the majority of white Americans are racist. I don't know where you got that, but that's not at all what I said.

It's not that my logic isn't sound... it's that you have are exhibiting an inability to parse sound logic.

Basically it breaks down like this:

% wR as subset of wA = %bR as subset of bA. (an assumption... meaning: all things being equal when it comes to the number of black racists among black Americans compared to that of white racists among white Americans.)

population of wA > population of bA.

Therefore, physical number of wR > physical number of bR.

Hence wR is more prevalent than bR.

So, even if a black man is just as likely to be racist as a white man, racism against blacks will still be more prevalent.

Now, all men are equally capable of violence. A white man may drag a black man behind a truck. A black man may pull a white man out of the cab of a semi and beat him.

In terms of non-violence. A black man may not hire a white man because he's white. A white man may not hire a black man because he's black.

But racial discrimination requires the power to discriminate... where does the majority of that power lie? In the hands of black Americans? Do black Americans own the majority of businesses? The majority of the land in this country? I don't think so. Most opportunities in this country are offered by white America. So, when racial discrimination occurs, it is more likely to occur at the hands of those with the majority of the power... those with the majority of the control.

Turnea my personal experiences, I never laid claim to systematic occurrences, were at such an early age that I have to totally disagree with you on your comment or even perhaps excuse, that it was just an act of responsive anger, where did children learn to be so angry? This "anger" is also a cultural perception, it just resides within a system that is much smaller and less defined. I would never consider a familial perception systematic , but these systems can extend to entire neighborhoods, communities..subcultures....where do we define personal and systematic I guess is my question.

I happen to live most of the times thinking black people hate me, is this a cultural perception?, yes to some degree it is, but it has been heavily reinforced and authenticated for me, and this authentication occurred for me outside the system or control of white people. And I take no pride in admitting that here, in fact it is difficult for me and I do feel it is a failure of my own or a personality defect. It is not meant to be a one up or even a counter argument. If anything I just wish to be honest about it.

I think race relations have to encompass the whole relationship, in it's entirety. And I don't think the relationship only heads in one direction only occasionally and briefly reversing course. It is all over the place and sometimes nowhere at all.

I have had relationships with black people but I still feel this way and I think it is because culturally we are told this is the way it is, and again it gets hard to define between the personal and systematic.

Good job with using the word parse, but that's about it.

What my whole post refers to in this case is affirmative action and EEOC based discrimination. It's government sponsored racism in its truest form.

The fact is that in order for reverse racism (did you read the thread leading up to this? That's what we're referring to) to be LESS impactful than "white perpetrated racism", it would have to be carried out by as few White Americans who are actually acting upon racist ideals.



The facts that AA presents and that our society shows is that many black Americans still believe in this racist notion. If I said "I believe that in our current times society has kept White People out of the NBA", and then there was some evidence, then we started infusing the NBA with white people... it would be racist.

That's not true for black people in Colleges, the military or other gov't jobs? Not according to contemporary society.

This is a great quote.
http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/oped/more...tiveaction.html

I'm often quite sure that when responding to my posts, some people don't even bother to read them.



I know you miss nighttimer but try and stay with me...

At the risk of sounding like my mother "What did I just say?!"


...and that's not what implore means!


Technically I was saying that more blacks are discriminated against than whites are even when one considers affirmative action.

...but I'll take this bet too.

I'll start by linking to kmsouthern's first post is what has become a tradition in AA debates seeing as she worked as an AA consultant.

Link


Typically the same way any "historical sentiment" is passed on, through their parents. Communities often have their own historical sense, if people can still be expected to feel the frustrations of certain colonists dumping tea in Boston harbor hundreds of years ago, to feel for millions of Jews being massacred sixty or so years ago...

It is not entirely unreasonable for new generations to feel anger about ministers being stabbed in the street and homes and churches being bombed while the police kept watch a mere forty years ago.


That is one of the more difficult aspects of settling with racism. Emotions are difficult to rationalize away.

I understand the sentiment and can only offer my apologies for anyone making you feel that way. I for one always attended mixed schools, my best friends have been white since third grade and I know that both communities have some growing to do that can certainly be accomplished.

I hope no one thinks I'm saying blacks can't be racists because I've seen it too in ways that can baffle the mind. One thing that always killed me is black racism against Latinos and (especially) Jews.

Pure irrational nonsense.

I truly hope that you have some money to bet...

Did you read my department of labor post? Are you saying that the government doesn't give bids to companies specifically because they have minority owners? (they do turnea)

Don't post other people's posts as proof. It's absurd. I could post my own posts and they'd be as meaninful.

Did you read my quote and links from the previous post? It explicitly states that in 1995, $179M in Gov't Dollars went to contracts for companies just like these.

The fact is that a post from an AA consultant can't fight this:
http://law.freeadvice.com/government_law/p...ts_minority.htm
http://www.adversity.net/fed_stats/fed_stats_main.htm

Come on man.
Yes- minorities get gov't contracts. Yes- they get into college easier. Yes- the military promotes them faster/with lower standards. It's a fact. Fight the FACTS if you'd like.

Don't give me another "my friend Susie said" story. They really don't go well with the reality of America.

I did not suggest you did. Your beef is with turnea as he confidently indicates in his OP as much. Apparently he missed the point of your OP also.


Fair enough. I believe this happens also. Honestly, it's probably quite a bit of both. My take on your previous thread was that it was mostly the same accusations thrown at the anti-AA crowd all under the protections of your OP parameters (i.e., "OK guys, you can't say anything about how blacks can be buggers too!")

To be fair.. your post didn't say that.

It said federal contractors of a certain size have to develop Affirmative Action Programs.


Do Minority-Owned Businesses Get a Fair Share of Government Contracts?

Hardly.

I just pointed out the truth of his assertions in the intro.

I'm really confused.

Again- you post a source (the Urban Institute article) that I've read that really lacks substance.

What the entire article talks about is the inability of minority contractors to get bids because of a number of reasons, including the inability to "grow their business", lack of "financial resources", etc.
Who's fault is that?

The fact, unequivocally, is that if I go into business w/ the government and am bidding against a minority owned business I will lose. It does happen, and has happened more than once in my career. The government and the posts I've given do mention this happens. Minorities, including people of color and women (again- not white men) get preference and certain $$$ are earmarked for these contracts specifically.

Read the post and the article. that's exactly what it says.

Again, I'd love you to post something, anything with empirical information showing how racism against blacks is worse than the effects of AA (or reverse racism) on whites. You did say that. I need not link it do I?

The facts are on my side. Don't make me pull AA from universities, private companies, etc. That will take time and of course we all know what the outcome will be.

Yep, that is the plain truth. No matter how you look at it, coding anything into law that favors people because of skin color, minority, sex is wrong period. It would be like throwing people in jail because of what someone else might do.

AA is not about making it equal for all it's about giving away equality of white men specifically with the justification of what other white men might do to minorities.

Guilty until proven innocent.

The facts are neither unequivocal or on your side. You have offered zero proof that minorites and women get preference over White males. Certainly, you'd like it to be so, but that doesn't make it so.

For example, regarding women competing for government contracts, your assertion is laughable on its face. Women and minorities still lag far, far behind White men in government contracts, sitting on corporate boards and breaking through the glass ceiling.

Even though women-owned firms represent an estimated 28 percent of all businesses in the United States, their firms have obtained a mere 2.9 percent of the $235.4 billion in federal government contracts.

Although the representation of African Americans sitting on corporate boards has climbed 4 percent since 1999, African-American men and women held just 388 of 11,500 Fortune 1000 board seats in 2002. (Microquest White Paper: Shattering The Glass Ceiling, 2002)

The U.S. Department of Labor's Glass Ceiling Commission report, released in March 1995, showed that while white men are only 43 percent of the Fortune 2000 workforce, they hold 95 percent of the senior management jobs. A report from Catalyst reveals that only 4.1 percent of the top-earnings officers in Fortune 500 companies are women. ("Census of Women Corporate Officers and Top Earners of the Fortune 500," Catalyst, 2000) fair chance

That's a really nasty habit you have there Aevans176 of sneering at the reference materials offered by others while acting as if yours is the end-all/be-all authorative source. There is absolutely nothing wrong with Turnea quoting kmsouthern, particularly so when she has a background in affirmative action programs.

One of the sites you referenced is Adversity.net which is described Adversity.Net - "A Civil Rights Organization for Color Blind, Race Blind, and Gender Blind Justice." "Non-profit organization dedicated to educating the public and our leaders of the deep and devastating impact of racial preferences, race-based targets, goals, and quotas. Special features include detailed case studies of victims of 'reverse discrimination.'" So before you look down your nose at the Urban Institute or a affirmative action consultant, don't act as if you're referencing from a non-biased source, becaus Adversity.net is anything but.

Where is your evidence that minorities get into college "easier" and promoted faster in the military with lower standards? To throw your own rhetoric back at you, please provide FACTS that can be verified and statistical evidence to back up your absurd assertions. Not anecdotal "I know for a fact" fairy tales. That's meaningless.

Mean ol' minority groups taking away lucrative government contracts from needy White men? Awwww...that's a darn shame.
Unfortunately, somebody must not have given that memo to the Bush Administration because minority businesses have found themselves closed out in the post Hurricane Katrina rebuilding.

About 1.5 percent of the $1.6 billion awarded by the Federal Emergency Management Agency has gone to minority businesses, less than a third of the 5 percent normally required.

On Tuesday, Sen. Olympia J. Snowe, R-Maine, and Rep. Donald A. Manzullo, R-Ill., asked the Government Accountability Office to investigate whether small and minority-owned businesses have been given a fair opportunity to compete for Katrina contracts.

Andrew Jenkins doesn’t think so.

Once Katrina’s destructive waters receded, he began making calls in hopes of a winning a government contract for his Mississippi construction company.

Jenkins, who is black, says he watched in frustration as the contracts went to others, many of them larger, white-owned companies with political ties to Washington.

“That just doesn’t smell right,â€� said Jenkins, president of AJA Management and Technical Services Inc. of Jackson, Miss., noting the region has a higher percentage of blacks and minority-owned businesses than other areas of the country.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9590752/

Fight the facts, Aevans176? It would be helpful if you provided a few and not just your vivid imagination and unverified, exagerrated horror stories.

It's amazing that someone who constantly asserts there is little to no true racism directed against Blacks can assert with complete certitude that White males are victims of reverse discrimination despite offering little more than his own limited life experience and dubious figures from less than impartial websites as "proof."

It'll be a lot easier for Black folks to throw away the "man holding me down manual" if White folks pull that "waah, I'm white and everybody's pickin' on me" pacifier out of their mouths as well.

Oh, and for the record, though I never mentioned Larry Elder, I do consider him a sellout, a suck-up and a delusional fool. Which does explain why White conservatives love him so much.

That link provides a whole different set of numbers and its hard for me to see how they relate to each other. Either, as you say a lot of people are fudging the numbers or I'm bad at mathematics. In point of fact I am very bad at math since I suffer from 'dyscalculia'. Even so, the numbers you've posted don't actually show me an overwhemling majority of crimes against black people as opposed to white people. Not when I take in the size of the relative populations.

Then, my feeble grasp of numbers tells me that my original point (that no one race has a monopoly on atrocity) still holds water.



I agree that threads have a tendency to devolve as you've described BoF, but be fair, its not a one way street is it!?

Whilst some people may be predictable in their defensive posture, others are equally predictable in their accusations. I'd not be surprised if the latter weren't so fast to post broad diatribes against a perceived injustices then others wouldn't so fast to counter them.

Also, I agree there is a trend of deflection where by people argue that 'someone else did as bad or worse' so my/our sins shouldn't be criticised, but again, this door swings both ways and apparently people are not allowed to discuss black racism without being accused of turning the tables.

If, as I believe, racism is a universal trait, then it really ought not to be a subject where only one skin colour is focused upon. That is itself racist. Arguing that a thread about white on black racism is being 'derailed' because white people point out that black peope are also racist so why all the drama about white racism? may be predictable, but there is nothing wrong with it that I can see. Why is it wrong for me or any one else to counter claims of white racism with the observation that black people attack white people too?

I remember the thread about the radio host who called a bunch of sports women 'nappy headed ho's'. That thread generated a lot of interest, but what I found most telling about it, was that it existed at all. Why did one man's slur generate so much antipathy when a whole culture of music and films generate vast wealth from doing the same thing every day? What was the essential difference? I couldn't see any. It seemed to me that nighttimers thread was so completely biased against this one man, only because of the colour of his skin. Had he been a black man, I'd wager the thread would never have been started.

Its a double standard as far as I can see and thats what provokes the defensive response. People who live in glass houses ought not to throw stones!

Get your facts straight first moif, then you can bloviate to your heart's content. The women in question were not "a bunch of sports women." They were the women's basketball team of Rutgers University. Hope that helps clear up any confusion.

Second, if you still can't figure out what the difference is between a wealthy, 60+ year-old-White shock jock who hires sidekicks to do "nigger jokes" and a callow urban teenager who puts down women because he's filled both with misogyny, gender confusion and the knowledge that's the kind of music the record companies are selling, then I can't help you there. The cultural gap is too wide to be bridged.

Third, if you can't see the difference maybe it's because you don't want to see a difference.

Fourth, you already posted in that thread, "had he been a Black man, I'd wager the thread would never have been started." Guess we'll have to wait until a wealthy, 60+ year-old Black shock jock does the same thing and then we'll know.

Fifth, as that thread was voted as the best topic in the Race Debate forum it would appear though you didn't get it, yours was an isolated case.

And finally...



Denmark has been known for years as a model society. Unfortunately, since the arrival of ethnic minorities, Danish society has dramatically changed from being tolerant to one of the most xenophobic in Europe. Racism and discrimination – socioeconomic, cultural and religious - is widespread. Over 50% ethnic minorities are unemployed, often are given housing in deprived areas, mother tongue education has been abolished, young people are not allowed to visit entertainment places, police attitudes are unfriendly, and elderly minorities have no suitable facilities in homes for the elderly.

Most political parties support many restrictive laws. Family reunion, asylum and visa regulations are being tightened regularly. Conditions for establishing a family, obtaining permanent residence and getting citizenship are so strict that very few people can fulfill them. Media coverage is very negative and often perpetuates existing prejudices.

Isalmophobia is prevalent in all sections of the society. It is next to impossible to get one’s complaint to be accepted by police or other authorities. Despite all these discrimination, extreme violence against minorities is minimal.

link

Oh yeah. People should work to eliminate racism in their country before they get so holier-than-thou about racial situations in other countries they clearly do not understand.

Thank you nighttimer. I couldn't have made my point any clearer than you just did. When confronted with what you perceive to be a double standard, you immedietely turn the tables and suddenly this thread is no longer about the topic at hand, but in fact the opposite. What you've just done is no different from what Aevens has done.

As it happens, this thread is not about any one nation. It is about racial groups and whether one is in Denmark or America makes no difference to the colour of one's skin or the principle of combating racism where ever it raises its head. Whether in Århus, or in Atlanta. Your attempt to personalize this debate does not change that principle one jot.

No one group or race has a monopoly on racism. It is a universal failing of humankind. Focusing on isolated incidents, or on individual cases as you did in your popular shock jock thread only demonstrates that you don't seem to understand that.


edited to change a sentence to remain civil

I understand it fine, Moif, but even if I didn't I wouldn't come to you for enlightenment. Seems you have your own issues of discrimination and racism in Denmark to keep you busy for some time to come.

Oh, and I didn't attempt to personalize the debate. You did with this remark:



And had he been a Black man, I'd wager you would never have responded.

Then again, maybe you're just experiencing a bout of deja vu.



Would Moif have cared if I did?

Not really. The information source you posted is highly biased and mistaken in its conclusions. If you really wish to debate Danish racism, feel free to start a thread on the subject and I will happily oblige you. In the meantime, Denmark is not germane to the topic.


No. I was refering to the thread, not you. Your being the author of the topic is completely incidental to the point I was making.

By comparison, Denmark has nothing what so ever to do with this topic. There is only one reason to bring Denmark up and that is to make an ad hominum attack against me.


Yes.

I participate in those debates on where I can relate. Most topics on this forum are too specific to America for me to do anything but read what others have written so I tend not to post in them. Racism is a universal issue so I feel no hesitation in adding my opinion, even if the concrete example offered originates in the USA.

Is racism against whites in America as prevalent as that against blacks? More So?

I think resentment against whites in America is prevalent. It isn’t exactly the same relationship dynamic so I’m not sure it can be classified as racism. Race relations in the country have had a very sketchy past, and discrimination has existed, covertly, far longer than it has been tolerated overtly. For example, white people and black people often speak about one another when “the others” aren’t around. I’m not privy to the second conversation, but I’ve heard plenty of the first. “You don’t want to live there, your kids will be the only white kids in school” ect, ad naseum. You can’t tell me that this doesn’t have an impact on the way people are treated. These same folks will swear up and down out of the other side of their mouths that they don’t discriminate. The problem is a sticky one because in their own minds they don’t discriminate at all…they just say things in white (or company they perceive as “white”, since my husband looks “white” they forget and don’t mind complaining about the Hispanics in front of us, which actually doesn’t bother us) company they wouldn’t say in mixed company.

Of course it’s the same for blacks when they are alone, I’m sure. But the power dynamic is different. Let’s look at these two hypothetical conversations:

1) Women says: “I always carry a little can of mace in my purse in case I have to work late at night. The other night I was walking through the parking garage and a truck pulled up. Some of the neighborhood football players were on it, they slowed down and whistled and hooted. I ran to my car after that, it was very unnerving.”

2) Man says: “I always carry a little can of mace in my pocket in case I have to work late at night. The other night I was walking through the parking garage and a truck pulled up. Some of the neighborhood cheerleaders were on it, and they slowed down and whistled and hooted. I ran to my car after that, it was very unnerving.”

Two very similar situations, but it isn’t really fair to compare them. It’s a power dynamic, and white people generally hold the power. That isn’t to say black people hold no power, or that the forces are in place that completely forbid them from becoming successful, but I don’t think we can ignore all of the societal baggage and call it ‘even’.

Here's the deal: Your point of view assumes that black racism and white racism are problems of equal magnitude. "Racism from one group is just as bad as racism from another."

But we're not talking about which is morally more abhorrent. This isn't a moral measurement between who's more disgusting? Sistah Soljah laughing at white men being beaten during the LA Riots or Don Imus berating the Rutgurs Scarlet Knights? This isn't "who is more racist white or blacks?"

The difference to be made is that I don't think many of us could reasonably argue that racism against Whites has been as big of a problem for our country as racism against Blacks. Seriously, follow me on this because a lot of the "table turning" of these threads is hinged on this idea that black racism is just as big of a problem as white racism.

But quite frankly -- and you'll never find stats to prove such an unquantifiable thing -- but its not. I have lived as a white man in predominately black settings all my life. Sure, I've been mocked for my race -- in Rap, Movies, and Carlos Mencia type comedy, all of which just so happen to be produced, aired, and sponsored by white media moguls. But what I have endured cannot compare to what Black people int his country undergo.

I went to a predominately black public school, but was one of the few people to go to college at all, let alone an expensive prestigious private college. I've traveled the world on the backs of scholarships, even to Africa a place that by all accounts Black Americans have a more immediate connection to. I've had more opportunity than almost every black neighbor I've ever had, simply because of the double standard of what our society expects of black men and what it expects of white men. I was strictly expected to go to college, the average lower middle class black man is not.

That's a racism against blacks that is perpetrated by whites AND blacks AND the media AND history AND the government AND heck, the grocery store. It's an invisible racism that we have never discussed.

That's the difference. Black racism deserves to be discussed, sure, absolutely. So does chinese-japanese racism. So does racism among mexican americans. But none of those racisms are as problematic for our country as racism against black americans, which is as old as our constitution, yet so less understood.

Imagine if everytime we started talking about the Iraq war, somebody deflected the conversation to the less problematic Afghan war. Suddenly we can't sit down and talk about the Iraq war because we're constantly fielding accusations about the Afghan war. It's just simply not constructive. The Iraq war is a more pressing issue.

The notion that all racism needs to be discussed equally is absurd. I'm not saying that White people should be analyzed more for the way we 'keep black people down' -- its not that simple. I'm saying American culture should be analyzed for the way it perpetuates lower expectations for black men and women. Because as far as I can see, American culture isn't really doing a great job of keeping white men from getting government contracts if that's what all the fuss is about.

For some reason, people cannot discuss this without drawing the crucial distinction between personal guilt and context. We don't judge Lincoln for his racist views. We judge him as a man of his time, someone who may have been born in a racist world but who led us into a less racist world: A hero. So why can't we judge ourselves as men and women of our own, still quite racist time? It's not our fault we were born into such a racist world. But we'd be bad boy scouts if we didn't leave this world a better place.

But to do that we have to discuss racism against blacks, and that's not going to happen if we keep derailing the conversation into racism against whites. They aren't the same problem. Those problems are separate and unequal.




Because of exactly what I was just saying: Movies, music, etc, beat down women and blacks in subtler ways-- including music and movies created by black men and black women. Don Imus's comments clearly flew past a limit. Finally, instead of a white man paying a black man to say "nappy headed hos" on a rap CD purchased by white youth, we had the straight unambiguous racism: A White man saying it for himself. That went too far, and even the most bobble-headed American had to admit that yes, that was a clear example of racism.

The other distinction between Don Imus and Rap? Rap is humor, absurdity, schlock, pop art, and irony. Beneath all that yes, there is grand amount of noxious sexism that the NAACP and other organizations have spent a generation decrying. But Don Imus' comments had none of that: They weren't guised as irony, schlock, pop art, or absurdity. It was a pretty gruff white man saying something a little bit too honestly for his own good. If he'd said it over a beat with a clever pun worked in there, he would have been fine, because the average American doesn't take the time to think about when exactly a piece of art is racist and when it isn't. That's because we can never discuss racism against blacks without derailing the thread.

Yes, it is. The only way you can isolate it is if you factor out those aspects which prohibit your bias. For example...

Frankly, it is. Any and all racism is equal in being wrong. One persons racism does not out weigh another persons just because of history. History justifies nothing what so ever.

You say there is no moral measure, and you are correct. There isn't. In fact there is no way to measure or compare wrongness- It merely is. Racism is all wrong and thus all illegal.

The historical facts of racism have no bearing on the present. History is always subject to perception and as accepted wisdom is as often as not flawed, it cannot be used as a measure either. There is the law or there is nothing.

See what I'm saying Moif? You view this as a moral indictment instead of a social problem.

I do not. If we're going to try individual members of our society for racism, then each and everyone of us is going to do some jailtime. We live in a racist world.

But if we're going to view this as a social problem, rather than an egregious sin, then we're going to get somewhere. And if we are in the business of addressing problems -- not assigning blame -- than racism against blacks is a bigger problem more worthy of our time.

And, to thoroughly take this away from the issue of blame, I'd argue that racism against blacks is quite often espoused by blacks themselves... you don't need a FM radio to tune into that fact.

But I will blame white people -- and for that matter, any people -- if they aren't willing to man -- or woman -- up to the hard reality. Racism did not die with Martin Luther King. It merely changed shapes, allowed new possibilities and redirected its energy elsewhere. The fact that racism continues to benefit whites, means that whites have the hardest work cut out for us.




Historical facts? What about the present facts? I haven't heard of nearly as many white people being pulled over for driving nice cars with out of state plates? I've never heard of the white Sean Bell. I've never heard of the white achievement gap.

This is not White people's fault if we address this problem. This is the world we've inherited, and the tradition of Washington, Lincoln, Douglas, Martin, Malcolm -- and even Malcolm -- suggests that we will get nowhere unless we grant ourselves the bold ability to change who we are as a nation. Assigning blame belongs in the tradition of race riots, lynchings, and obstructionist politics.

Who is responsible for the poor black student who under-performs? In my view, no one person. Achievement is a complex relationship between an individual, their community, their society, and our history. At our best, individuals transcend the community they were born into, and arrive at something greater. But more often we grow up and fit into our surroundings. All I'm asking is for white society to take one step towards that under-performing black student -- the step of self-analysis -- so that he or she can take the next step towards us.

But if you'd rather play the childish game of "who has the worst racism," then fine. How enlightened.

er... how do you get from 'There is the law or there is nothing' ...to morality? I just spent the better part of my time explaining that morality has no bearing on the matter essentially because morality is an individual perception.

Whether or not it is a social problem depends surely on the society in question. Not all black people live in the same social structure, not even in the USA. For some there are opportuntities for others there aren't. The degree to which black people in general are subjected to racism in the USA is still open to debate for there is no over whelming evidence to support the notion that poverty stricken black people are suffering from the consequences of racism.

It seems to me that a lot of people wish to equate poverty with racism when the poor person in question is black... First and formost, the black student is.

Who is responsible for the poor white student who under-performs?

You can always find circumstances which make life hard for people, sometimes these include racism, ageism, sexism, homophobia or just plain old spite, but to go from that to claim racism is the dominent social factor requires some pretty good impartial evidence.