>>>As you are a product of the "immense stupidity" of the integrated school system - and the "dumber place" that America has become due to the type of school you attended, I am tempted to say that your postings here lend credibility to your claims.

Having experienced the "integrated" school system, your Orwellian human ant farm, I have no desire to perpetuate its existence. Yes, America is a dumber place than it was 40 years ago especially when ranked internationally.

>>>But how, then, could we account for such a product being in their senior year at Auburn?

It is called independent initiative.

>>>I guess some students actually survive all that integration relatively intact. Go figure.

Many students get involved in gangs, addicted to drugs, get pregnant and drop out of school. I have seen numerous lives completely ruined by your so called "integrated" school system - the legacy of people like yourself.

This will change one day. Like all periods of history, the Multicultural phase of the United States will pass away with time.

So the only thing that will save the United States is for it be white....?

Do you think that other races are inherently inferior to those of white america, since you are so against any sort of racial integration?

And are you sure that the majority of kids in racially integrated schools end up in gangs, on drugs, pregnant and drop out? Because if thta were truly the case, then why are there so many colleges around (it cant be because of all those immigrants studying here, they're obviously too stupid)? Why is it that my predominantly mexican and caucasian school actually has a 96% graduation rate?

Its not racial integration that is making our society dumber. Our society (the majority of which happens to be white) perpetuates ignorance, those in power (mostly white) control us through propaganda and limit our access to information. We are an incredibly pacified country because we institutionalize indoctrination, and no one is taught to think for themselves, that has nothing to do with race.



Im not sure exactly what youre problem is with this. So you cant be discriminated against because youre black, white, asian, mexican etc. Because thats not what anyone should be discriminated against. Strangely enough, it is perfectly legal to discriminate against someone based on their job performance, their skill, and their knowledge; all those things actually have some bearing on employment. Just because someone is Indian doesnt mean they cant perform well at a job, but if that Indian person lacks the education then that will in fact, hinder them from performing their job.

Ive said it before, and Ill say it again, just because the white man is no longer top priority doesnt mean its racism.

Thanks, Kim! Couldn't have said it better myself (Except the part about your school, because I don't go there...but I believe you )

This line is a gem.

[]i>>>So the only thing that will save the United States is for it be white....? [/i]

I have no desire to perpetuate the existence of any "United States" nor am I concerned in the least about saving the "United States." I am eager to see the United States fail, for my agenda presupposes its downfall.

>>>Do you think that other races are inherently inferior to those of white america

This depends on how you square it. There is no race that is superior to every other race in every respect. That is an obvious Straw Man. The only thing dumber however than saying that there is a master race that is superior to all other races in every way is to say that all races and all individual are "equal" in every respect - which is of course another straw man supported by no evidence.

There is no such thing as the tartuffery known as equality other than in imagination. There is no such thing as equality between populations any more than there is equality between individuals. Equality is a value or the relationship of something to something else. It exists in the human mind and nowhere else.

>>>since you are so against any sort of racial integration?

There is no such thing as any racial integration. America is a largely segregated society even today. I saw an example of this the other day which I found hilarious. Just the other day the President at the White House brought in a crowd of racially mixed kids to have some photo op. While the President was reading the kids the story the white kids coelesced together on side of him and the blacks kids on the other. People are tribal. That is just the way human beings are. I see nothing wrong with that. I think segregation was a superior system personally. In fact, the majority of those that advocate segregation today are blacks. Go to some of our Ivy League colleges and you will see seperate minority graduation programs, and seperate dormatories, seperate yearbooks and beauty pageants. Blacks want their own segregated caucus in the US Congress, they want holidays for black leaders and support Black History month. It doesn't look to me like blacks really have a problem with segregation for if they do it would seem they would behave differently. I advocate tit for tat.

>>>And are you sure that the majority of kids in racially integrated schools end up in gangs, on drugs, pregnant and drop out?

We can pull out statistics if you wish and compare American schools post and prior to integration if you wish but I do not think anyone would seriously put forth the case that there are not SEVERE problems with America's public education system.

>>>Because if thta were truly the case, then why are there so many colleges around (it cant be because of all those immigrants studying here, they're obviously too stupid)?

Well many of our colleges, such as the University of California at Berekely are overflowing with foreigners. It is very hard to get into some of our top colleges. There is a lot more competition today than there used to be and Affirmative Action makes quite a difference. You must also remember that the Ted Kennedy's of this world and all the other moralistic liberals rarely send their children to the REAL schools they would have their constituants children go to.

>>>Why is it that my predominantly mexican and caucasian school actually has a 96% graduation rate?

I do not know your "school."

>>>Its not racial integration that is making our society dumber.

Internationally America's school are garbage. Its SAT scores have been declining for years now and they peaked in the year 1963.

>>>Our society (the majority of which happens to be white) perpetuates ignorance

No offense but ignorance presupposes people. It for sure is not the quantity of money spent on children that cause them to do well in school, for if that were the case, we would be producing all stars in Washington D.C. and that certainly is not the case. It is quality that is important. Human beings are not "equal" in anyway whatsoever. It is ridiculous to actually "believe" on an "article of faith" that humans are interchangable units.

>>>those in power (mostly white) control us through propaganda and limit our access to information.

LOL sorry but this simply does not follow. Those in power have dramatically increased spending on education, which now consumes over 40% of California's budget by law and even more than that in reality and its schools are still poo-poo. Your argument does not make any sense for when we break America down by state, and even if we go overseas, we find the same phenomena.

[]i>>>We are an incredibly pacified country because we institutionalize indoctrination, and no one is taught to think for themselves, that has nothing to do with race. [/i]

Oh it has everything to do with race. Race is as real as sex is. It is no coincidence that men commit exponentially more crime than women, especially young men, and especially young black men.

>>>Im not sure exactly what youre problem is with this.

My problem with the above is quite simple. That is what the law says but when a judge looks at the law he can simply conjur up something that says the exact opposite. That is not REALITY in the least. REALITY shows us, and even our top universities will admit this, that they are discriminating against applicants on the basis of their race and the loser and the sucker that is on the losing end of the stick are people like myself. Thus I have a problem with that. I do not believe in the asisinity of any "integrated society." That is for the

>>>So you cant be discriminated against because youre black, white, asian, mexican etc.

White people are discriminated against on the basis of their skin color across the United States on an everyday basis - especially in government.

>>>Strangely enough, it is perfectly legal to discriminate against someone based on their job performance, their skill, and their knowledge; all those things actually have some bearing on employment.

Race will get you places in America today all the skills in the world can never make up for. Just ask ol' Trent Lott.

>>>Just because someone is Indian doesnt mean they cant perform well at a job, but if that Indian person lacks the education then that will in fact, hinder them from performing their job.

I have no desire to be in any society with Indians. If I wanted to associate with Indians I would go to India. You should try immigrating to India. Call up their embassy and ask them about their emmigration policy. If you ever do place such a call tell me how long they spent laughing at you.

>>>Ive said it before, and Ill say it again, just because the white man is no longer top priority doesnt mean its racism

The United States has decided that eliminating the white race and its culture in America is a top priority. Fifty years from now white people are going to be a minority in "America." We are going to be surrounded by all the wonderful "diverse" and wonderful cultures of the Third World. I for one am not in the least enthusiastic about being run out of my society after being displaced with millions of foreigners with a foreign way of life. I have not fallen for the sheer insanity that this will not be anything other than the complete and utter ruin of the United States, just like South Africa has been ruined in the last ten years in the same manner. Only FOOLS believe Saddam Hussein is any threat to their security here in the United States. The REAL enemies are already here.

My metaphor may not have been an exact parallel, but Affirmative Action is intended to compensate for past sins - just as war reparations are.

I would not support reparations either, but I do not believe that Affirmatiev Action is unconstitutional. If that could be proved in a court of law, I'm sure it would have been by now. Of course, once the current administration starts stacking all of our federal courts even more than they currently are, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Jim Crow laws were reinstated.

This thread is a hoot. Before I enter the fray, a few definitions:

Racism: The belief that one's own race is superior to all others, or some others, and by divine decree, deserves to exploit inferior races. Just acknowledging racial differences does not make you a racist. Hanging with your own kind does not make you a racist. Actively discriminating against or exploiting a race you think is inferior does make you a racist--and a few other adjectives, nouns, and phrases that would cause this post to be edited by the sysops.

Segregation: The enforced separation of races by law.

Integration: The forcing of races together by law.

Racial harmony: The races joining together in the brotherhood and sisterhood of humankind, voluntarily.

Equality: Equal treatment under the law, regardless of race, creed, age, sex, or economic/social positions. Sexual orientation shouldn't be anybody's business under the law.

Realism: The admittance that racial harmony and equality have not ever been reached in the United States of America.

Idealism: What our founding fathers wrote into the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States: All [humankind] are created equal [under the law]. I know, I know--the founding fathers had their problems with racism too. Blacks were only worth 3/5ths of a white man, and Native Americans didn't count at all. Women were treated like Native Americans, under the law. God was white and male. You know, typical 18th Century thinking.

Conservative: One who considers him or herself a realist. Some idealism does enter into this stance: Everyone has equal opportunity in the US of A, for example.

Liberal: One who considers him or herself an idealist. Some realism does enter into this stance: Admitting that the war on poverty was a failure, for example.

Okay? Or not okay? I'm seeing very loose definitions, mostly implied, here.

I know for a fact that, having been a kid growing up in an ethnically mixed place, racial differences aren't perceived by children until a certain age. Maybe the average is 4 or 5. All you see are different kids. Then later, your folks try to fill your little brain with as much hatred for others as they can muster. At least that's what happened to me. Naturally, I rebelled like the dickens. That's just who I am. Think of Archie Bunker--that was my father, although he changed later in life. I'm pretty sure he's a do-gooder, bleeding-heart angel running around trying to help anyone in need, up there wherever. Or maybe he got reincarnated into a Black person's body, although I think he had it out for Jews more than Blacks.

Anyway, I think that Democrats are generally less in favor of keeping the status quo as Republicans, especially on the equality of people under the law regardless of economic/social positions. I think Democrats are more idealistic than Republicans, and that more Black folk vote Democrat than Republican.

However, I don't think either party has a good handle on how to achieve racial harmony or equality under the law. Humankind isn't quite ready to achieve these ideals yet. I do think we are pretty darn close, though. I'm hoping two or three more generations.

The SATs are in and of itself, biased towards a persons socioeconomic background. Our schools are garbage, but I still dont see what that has to do with the racial status of any student.
http://aad.english.ucsb.edu/docs/fish.merit.html
excerpt:






So? Oh no, our schools have forgieners in them! I fail to see the threat. We, as humans, thrive on competition, and why does it matter where our competition is coming from? If its hard to get into our top colleges, is it automatically the fault of student immigrants, and not our own low public school standards?



Obviously not many people are going to argue with our joke of a school system, but I still dont know where youre pulling the crap of "all our students turn into pregnant junkie gang members". In fact, I would say that theres only a small percentage that fit that particualr category, and most kids end up OK. It could be better, and we should strive for it, but I hardly think an all white society is what will make everyone a non-pregnant, drug free, businessman.



But not as much as a quadrapelegic (sp?), a woman, a homosexual, a hispanic or a black. If it were the case, there would be a disproportionate amount of minorties in office, and there arent.



You missed the point entirely. Did I say you should associate with Indians? No. I actually said this: Just because someone is Indian doesnt mean they cant perform well at a job, but if that Indian person lacks the education then that will in fact, hinder them from performing their job. If you're too simple to read it for what it says, I dont know if there is a point in trying to explain it to you. Let me see if I can say this in terms you will understand....Its not a persons skin color that makes them inadequate for a job, its their education.

Well, I have to go, so Ill continue this later.

My position is that the notion that one race is superior to all other races in every respect is nonsense. My position is that the notion that all invididuals and all races are somehow equal in every respect is supported by no evidence whatsoever and even more ridiculous.

I believe in the reality of racial differences. Actually there is no denying racial differences, they are written on the faces of the people you see everyday. The only argument is over the extent of such differences, which is BY FAR the most politically incorrect of all topics to discuss in America. Race is as taboo as witchcraft or sex were in centuries past. Racists are the witches of the 21st Century - like Trent Lott or David Duke. Obviously witchcraft must be destroyed by Tolerance Commissions, the modern day equivilant of the Inquisition and all suspected witches, sorry racists, must be destroyed for the creation of utopia, today called the multiracial society can exist. You see this is just a cultural phenemona that has taken many forms throughout American history. It is the same old irrational New England quasi-religious Puritanism in its latest manifestation. It will be regarded as silly years into the future.

The Founding Fathers did not believe in any integrated society. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison would have found such a concept outrageous. Most of the Founding Fathers advocated some form of seperation, either in the form of the creation of a buffer state of blacks on the frontier as proposed by Paine or the colonization of blacks back to Africa by Jefferson. There was an organization called the American Colonization Society founded for this purpose. America set up a colony on the west coast of Africa called "Liberia." The capital of Liberia today is Monrovia, named after former President James Monroe who was a member of the society. Many Liberians are descended from the American slaves who were repatriated there.

Abraham Lincoln also was a white supremacist. The Republican's Free Soil policy was based on their desire to keep the Plains States the exclusive preserve of the white race for white labor as Seward openly bragged about. In reality, Lincoln was one of America's most vocal white supremacists. For example, Lincoln during the Secession War had the U.S. Congress purchase land in Panama and Haiti for his grand plan to rid America of all its blacks. He organized the Union Navy for this specific purpose as well btw. His assassination ended this great dream however and the Radical Republicans took over and decided to create a Constitutional dictatorship with the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment gave slaves the right to vote but if you read it closely you will notice that it also disenfranchised those who fought for the Confederacy. The purpose of the Amendment had nothing to do with the equal rights of blacks but in reality it was a scheme to plunder the Southern States and punish them for the war. The Grant Administration was one of the most corrupt in American history btw. The so called Republican moralists who "freed the slaves," only well into the war after suffering several defeats, just months after the war ended went about mopping up the Indian allies of the Confederacy - exterminating the Plains Indians. The U.S. Army has black soliders shoot and massacare the buffalo for the indian men, women, and children would starve to death. This is where the phrase "Buffalo Soldier" comes from by the way. Ironic for such a society that believed in racial equality is it not.

One more thing about America. Hitler admired America and sought to emulate America's policies on the Eastern Front which he talked quite openly about. He did not like Bismarck's policy of cooperating with the Russians and wanted to use an American model of colonization. He also admired how the British had dealt with the Indians (Asia) over the years. Hitler was a strong believer in centralized Government and would have admired Lincoln's attempt to rid America of its Negroes and kill all the Indians. In fact, on his death bed Sherman regretted he did not get to kill every indian in America. Hitler did not believe in Federalism, much less state's rights.

America's trumped up war against Iraq reminds me a lot of Hitler's invasion of Poland. I do not even think Goebbels at his height came anywhere near producing the amount of propaganda that comes out of the so called "free press" these days. Hitler's concept of the "master race" is just one of the many ideas and techniques he borrowed from other ideologies. Hitler's concept of the master race came from his observations of the Jews and their belief that they were the chosen master race of God. Hitler saw how the Jews had used this concept of the master race to preserve their identity and advance their interests over time. For example, God told the Jews to slaughter the Canaanites and since Jews were the master race and had a covenent with god himself this was OK. He mixed this with some of Chamberlain's theories and low and behold - the Aryan Master Race.

>>>The SATs are in and of itself, biased towards a persons socioeconomic background. Our schools are garbage, but I still dont see what that has to do with the racial status of any student.

I have not idea why you are dragging the ridiculous and discredited socioeconomic theory of differences in SAT scores out again - possibly because to admit the sociobiological theory is superior would ruin utopia. Impoverished white and asians, many of them foreign immigrants, routinely outperform middle and upper class blacks and hispanics.

You schools are garbage. In fact, the government has redesigned the SAT test several times in the past twenty years because results have plummeted to such a degree. For example the math section is 60 minutes now, and you can use a caculator, whereas it used to be 90 minutes without a caculator before. Many of the questions that minorities do poorly on have been expelled but nevertheless let us look at REALITY rather than the illusion of Social Lamarkism.

Between 1960 and 1998, average SAT scores on the Verbal section fell 49 points. Math scores fell ten points.

Verbal 1960 - 477
Verbal 1998 - 428

Math 1960 - 498
Math 1998 - 428

Note: This was AFTER the test was "re-designed" several times because of the so called "bias." Average SAT scores peaked in 1963 at 980 and in 1998 were 916.

Crying "racism" does not make REALITY go away. Race is a FACT.

>>>So? Oh no, our schools have forgieners in them! I fail to see the threat.

Perhaps it is a bad thing for white kids in California to be pushed out of their state universities, which their parents pay for, by foreigners admitted on Affirmative Action programs.

>>>I fail to see the threat. We, as humans, thrive on competition, and why does it matter where our competition is coming from?

I do not believe in the zoological construct of materialism known as "humanity."

>>>If its hard to get into our top colleges, is it automatically the fault of student immigrants, and not our own low public school standards?

It is harder to get into our top colleges because of the rising number of minorities being admitted because of massive racial preferences - not to mention immigrants coming here and the increasing size of our population. You have more people competing over less resources.

>>>Obviously not many people are going to argue with our joke of a school system, but I still dont know where youre pulling the crap of "all our students turn into pregnant junkie gang members".

Your public education system is the laughing stock of the world and it is not because of differences in spending either. America spends an ENORMOUS amount of money on education. Small states like North Dakota have superior test scores rather than the institutions in Washington D.C. and California in which we pour a king's ransom in to. The difference is not in money but in quality - the type of people you have there. Go watch the movie "Dangerous Minds" an interesting insight into America's culture and public education system.

>>>In fact, I would say that theres only a small percentage that fit that particualr category, and most kids end up OK.

The further kids are away from the ridiculous government social engineering experiment you call the public education system the better. The further children are away from those indoctrination camps, from integration, the better. Home schooled children perform above average.

>>>It could be better, and we should strive for it, but I hardly think an all white society is what will make everyone a non-pregnant, drug free, businessman.

We have an interesting way to examine this phenomena in America by looking at the performance of difference states. The District of Columbia has the second highest level of per pupil spending in America, after New Jersey where the gap is still huge. D.C. came in dead last on the NAEP's 8th grade math test in 1996. North Dakota, Iowa, Maine, and Minnesota which in per pupil spending come in forty fourth, twenty eigth, eighteenth, and twenty seventh came in at the top of the pack.

Obviously it is not spending that is the problem, it is the type of students in the schools and the cirricullum.

>>>But not as much as a quadrapelegic (sp?), a woman, a homosexual, a hispanic or a black.

Where did you come up with this nonsense? These people receive all sorts of preferences and entitlements.

>>>If it were the case, there would be a disproportionate amount of minorties in office, and there arent.

The amount of Jews in the Congress does not seem to reflect anti-semitism against them. They are overrepresented. I cannot think of one Congressional District anywhere in America that is majority black that does not have a black representative. Can you? Women are elected to all kinds of offices. California for example, has two women Senators as does Washington I believe. I know Dole just got elected in North Carolina and Hutchison is in Texas. There are many more women in office. Many people talk about the colorblind society and how minorities are underrepresented. Does that mean that we must have blacks to represent blacks in Congress? Should we reserve 12.5% of Senate and House seats for Blacks and 12.5% of seats for Hispanics. Is it possible for anyone to represent these individuals that are not of their race?

>>>You missed the point entirely. Did I say you should associate with Indians? No. I actually said this: Just because someone is Indian doesnt mean they cant perform well at a job, but if that Indian person lacks the education then that will in fact, hinder them from performing their job.

I got the gist of your response but I have a problem with it. I do not want all these indians coming here. It is not like I can immigrate to India.

>>>If you're too simple to read it for what it says, I dont know if there is a point in trying to explain it to you. Let me see if I can say this in terms you will understand....Its not a persons skin color that makes them inadequate for a job, its their education.

Skin color in the United States can make you millions. Take Jesse Jackson for example or how the Republicans always parade around all 12 black conservatives in the United States.








In fact, I would say that theres only a small percentage that fit that particualr category, and most kids end up OK. It could be better, and we should strive for it, but I hardly think an all white society is what will make everyone a non-pregnant, drug free, businessman.

I don't think your for real Fade. it seems to me that your outrageous postings are just for attention and reaction.

Madtown

Oh I am very very real, in the flesh! Back to the topic of the fundamental racism in society. Obviously the topic presupposes there is such racism and with that I agree. America is a racist society and supports racist policies. For example America supports an Apartheid worse than anything ever seen in South Africa in Israel at this very moment. That is the hypocritical thing about America however, and all the we are the world anti-Segregationist Congressmen, they do not practice what they preach. I wonder what type of neighborhood these Senators live in and what type of schools their children attend - probably not the type of neighborhoods most Americans live in or the type of schools they send their children too.

There is a lot of racism in government policy but is mostly directed at appeasing domestic special interest groups and there is no such thing as any White Lobby or any NAAWP with any sort of influence or power. There is a lot of racism in what can be described as "the culture" as well. I can quote the poetry of the individual who calls himself Ice Cube if you wish. I have no problem with America's racism. I am a racist, in that I believe in racial differences, and I do not believe in any magical colorblind society that does not exist, has not ever existed, or will ever exist anytime in the future. Utopians believe in the colorblind society and I am not any Utopian. Israel does not believe in any colorblind society. I have never understood just why the Utopians believe in this nonsense personally. I consider the belief in "equality" or the "colorblind society" to be like believing in the tooth fairy or Santa Claus. There comes a point when people need to know it actually isn't real, that it doesn't exist and has never existed.

I dont feel like going point for point, but I am quite interested in where you get your infomation. Where do you get that Jefferson wanted a segregated society (I am not very well read when it comes to our Founding Fathers), but from what I know, he felt alot of guilt for owning men as slaves, even though he never acted upon his guilt (a point that I will always hold against him). Also, where is it that Lincoln was a white supremacist? I know he had no liking towards blacks, but I dont think I would call him a white supremacist (although thinking about it a little more...I guess I do...I just associate white supremacy with burning crosses and the like...)

And exactly how is it discredited that the SATs are biased? Just because they changed the tests, that means they are free of bias? Do you have anything to back up this claim? Ill post another article about how the SATs are biased towards race and class.
http://aad.english.ucsb.edu/docs/lords.html
excerpt:


Americans spend very little on education, actually. Nationally, we spend something like 6% of our budget on education. I have the budget PDF, but I dont feel like looking it up for the dollar amounts (I apologize for being so lazy tonight, Im also going to apologize for how scattered this post is going to be) But, again, I will agree that what the nation's kids are being taught is probably a bigger problem than how much we spend on them (although, I do not think that racial integration is the downfall of the education system....)

And while women, minorities etc. get what you call "special privileges", they still recieve more discrimination than the average white man. Denying that is idiocy. And there may be some women in office, but they make up over half the population and the numbers are disproportionate. The same goes for other minorities, and is the answer really because they are all inferior, or because white America may be repressing them?



So because there are 13 wealthy blacks in America, then it means....what? You were replying to my comment "Its not a persons skin color that makes them inadequate for a job, its their education". Tell me how what you replied makes any sense.

Also, I would suggest you read Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond, if you havent already. It explains much about why certain races seem "evolved" while others arent. And it has very little to do with the fact they have a different skin color or facial structure. Racial difference is only apparent physically. I dont see how you can believe that certain races are any less equal than another, if you are referring to intelligence, aptitude, agility etc. Everyone starts at the same base level, and some people acquire different skills and become better at certain things, but that has nothing to do with race. It has to do with genetics, culture and education. While I agree that a colorblind society may be a bit unrealistic, that doesnt mean we shouldnt strive for it. Im tired.

>>>I dont feel like going point for point, but I am quite interested in where you get your infomation.

I spend lots of time reading personally.

>>>Where do you get that Jefferson wanted a segregated society (I am not very well read when it comes to our Founding Fathers)

Obviously you have never read his Notes on Virginia, especially Query XIV,
which can easily be found at any local bookstore. Thomas Jefferson did not believe in any “racial equality.” Thomas Jefferson believed in individual rights and Jefferson believed that these rights were derived from reason and in that area Negroes were “much inferior.” That is why Thomas Jefferson was against giving Negroes equal rights for Thomas Jefferson did not believe in according equal rights to unequal beings as a Rationalist. Jefferson wanted to deport blacks out of America to Africa. Most of the Founding Fathers felt the same way but there were various plans as to how to go about it. Some suggested creating a Negro border state, or deporting blacks to Haiti, or back to Africa. Jefferson was haunted for years by nightmares of an American race war for decades, especially after the race war in Haiti. He described the presence of the black race in America to be a problem that if not corrected soon would be the “murder of his descendents.”

>>>but from what I know, he felt alot of guilt for owning men as slaves, even though he never acted upon his guilt (a point that I will always hold against him).

Thomas Jefferson did feel guilty about owning slaves. He considered the presence of blacks in America to be a curse, like most of the leaders of his generation. Thomas Jefferson supported deporting blacks to Africa and would have considered the idea of according them equal rights to be madness. America established a colony on the West Coast of Africa, Liberia, to repatriate freed slaves there. The capital of Liberia, Monrovia, is named after President James Monroe who was one of the members of the American Colonization Society.

>>>Also, where is it that Lincoln was a white supremacist?

Lincoln was always a white supremacist and said so many times. Lincoln did not believe in according blacks equal rights. In fact, Lincoln was the first President to invite blacks to the White House - he asked them there to see if they could participate in his colonization plan to rid America of Negroes. Lincoln, like most Northerners, hated slavery in large part because they saw the presence of blacks in America as a curse upon the country which they wanted to remove. Blacks could not even reside within Lincoln’s home state, it was illegal under the Illinois State Constitution.


"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races—that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."

- Abraham Lincoln, Lincoln/Douglas Debates

>>>I know he had no liking towards blacks, but I dont think I would call him a white supremacist (although thinking about it a little more...I guess I do...I just associate white supremacy with burning crosses and the like...)

The Ku Klux Klan is an organization that has come into and out of being many times throughout American history. The 20th Century Klan is a different organization than the 19th Century Klan. The 20th Century Klan has been based primarily in the North, not the South, and was revived after the Great War in large part because of the influx of Negroes to Northern cities such as Detroit. The most violent race riots in American history have been in the North and West, not the South, like the Watts riot and the one we just experienced in Cinncinnati recently. The Ku Klux Klan today is still largely based in the North, in places like Ohio, Indiana, Pennsylvania, and especially Michigan. To the modern Ku Klux Klan, who use the U.S. Flag more than the Confederate Flag, Lincoln was a hero because he was a white supremacist that wanted to rid America of Negroes. Lincoln in fact did deport many blacks to Africa. If he had not been shot to death it is possible he would have gone down in history as the Great Colonizer, not the Great Emancipator.

>>>And exactly how is it discredited that the SATs are biased?

The SAT is not biased.

>>>Just because they changed the tests, that means they are free of bias?

This so-called bias has never been shown. It is claimed the test is “biased” because certain populations do bad on it. That is given as proof, but that is the logical fallacy of Post Hoc.

>>>Do you have anything to back up this claim? Ill post another article about how the SATs are biased towards race and class.

The SAT is not biased against race or class. It is claimed that the SAT is biased against “race” and against “class” because the SAT clearly shows huge disparities amongst groups which show up internationally consistently. The fallacy involved here is the presumption that all groups are somehow equal, and that they should be suspected to perform equally, despite no evidence supports this premise. If the SAT was biased against race and class, poor whites, Jews, and Asians would not outperform middle and upper class blacks and Hispanics consistently.

Asian-Americans are 12 percent of California's population, but make up over 40% of the student body in California's elite public universities

How is that possible?

http://www.liddyletter.com/letter/SATexam.htm




This is an example of the logical fallacy of Post Hoc.

>>>Americans spend very little on education, actually.Nationally, we spend something like 6% of our budget on education. I have the budget PDF, but I dont feel like looking it up for the dollar amounts (I apologize for being so lazy tonight, Im also going to apologize for how scattered this post is going to be)

Between 1960 and 1998, per pupil expenditures in constant numbers increased 187%. Since the 1970s, per pupil spending has increased by more than 70 percent in constant dollars yet student achievement measured by the NAEP has stayed flat to have declined slightly. Spending on public and secondary education reached an all time high in 1998 at 324.3 billion dollars. And lastly I believe you are using a false analogy. The majority of money spent on public education in America is done at the local and state, not the federal level, whereas abroad it is just the opposite.

>>>But, again, I will agree that what the nation's kids are being taught is probably a bigger problem than how much we spend on them (although, I do not think that racial integration is the downfall of the education system....)

Sure it is. This is easily proven by breaking down American education state by state. States such as North Dakota, Maine, Iowa, and Minnesota which spend BY FAR less on education than states like California, New Jersey, or the District of Columbia beat the crap out of them. It is not quantity but quality that is responsible for the state of the American public education system.

>>>And while women, minorities etc. get what you call "special privileges", they still recieve more discrimination than the average white man. Denying that is idiocy.

Where is the evidence to support this? Many blacks in professional fields make more than whites do, because they are in so much demand, and honestly so rare.

>>>And there may be some women in office, but they make up over half the population and the numbers are disproportionate.

This is Post Hoc. Who is elected to office depends upon who is running for office and who votes for them.

>>>The same goes for other minorities, and is the answer really because they are all inferior, or because white America may be repressing them?

Blacks make up 12.5% of the population but in virtually every single district where blacks are a majority there is a black leader or congressman. There is no evidence whatsoever that America is repressing blacks. America has spent trillions of dollars and discriminates against other Americans specifically to uplift blacks. There is no reason to suspect that because a population makes up so and so percentage of the population that they will be “equally represented” in some way or another. Furthermore such an argument is inherently racist and sexist and presupposes that only blacks can represent blacks and only women can represent women and only whites can represent whites. If that were the case, why not have congressional quotas for each population can be “equally represented” by some member of their “group.”

>>>So because there are 13 wealthy blacks in America, then it means....what? You were replying to my comment "Its not a persons skin color that makes them inadequate for a job, its their education". Tell me how what you replied makes any sense.

Skin Color can make you a lot of money in America, just ask Larry Elder or Jesse Jackson. The Republicans at their 2000 convention put about every black in the Republican Party on stage to show the world their blackness.

>>>Also, I would suggest you read Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond, if you havent already.

I have Jared Diamond’s book right here and have already read it. Diamond does not even really discuss race, says so in the introduction, so I fail to see why you are sourcing him.




>>>It explains much about why certain races seem "evolved" while others arent.

Actually no it doesn’t for Jared Diamond spent virtually no time whatsoever discussing Europe in his book and tried, but could not adequately explain, the state of Aboriginies and their failure to even trade with New Guinea.

>>>And it has very little to do with the fact they have a different skin color or facial structure.

Carleton S. Coon, the Harvard Anthropologist, has consistently demonstrated that Negroes and Aboriginies are less evolved than Europeans and Asians.

>>>Racial difference is only apparent physically.

This is false.

>>>I dont see how you can believe that certain races are any less equal than another, if you are referring to intelligence, aptitude, agility etc.

This is because there is no evidence whatsoever that has ever been demonstrated than any population, much less any individual, is somehow inherently equal to any other. The only thing empirical data shows is inequality and has consistently shown inequality ever since such data began to be collected. The only equality in this world is the Identity principle, A= A. FadeTheButcher = FadeTheButcher. That is an axiom. There is no such thing as A = B, C, D, E, F, G, H, et cetera.

>>>Everyone starts at the same base level, and some people acquire different skills and become better at certain things, but that has nothing to do with race.

This has never been shown by any evidence.

>>>It has to do with genetics, culture and education.

Genetics show consistently real and measurable differences between populations, especially with regards to disease. Question. Black Males do not live as long as whites or asians, does this mean that the healthcare system is biased against them? If that is the case, why do black and white females live longer than White Males?

>>>While I agree that a colorblind society may be a bit unrealistic, that doesnt mean we shouldnt strive for it. Im tired.

There is no such thing as any “colorblind society.” There never has been any “colorblind” society and there never will be as long as human beings have eyes. No one was ever had to explain why any “colorblind” society should be strived for or if such a society is even possible. No one has presented any evidence that this experiment is in somehow desirable in anyway or has any probability of succeeding. The only thing the evidence shows is inequality and the only thing history has ever known is inequality. No one has ever shown any inherent equality between any population much less any two individuals. Equality is a value and the fallacy of the egalitarians is there belief in inherent, rather than subjective value. Their theory of value was discarded over a century ago but for some reason they still cling to it because it is the only way Utopias are possible, the only way the perfect society can be planned out is if humans are interchangeable units. A dollar bill is not “inherently” equal to another dollar bill. A dollar bill is a scrap of paper that has a relative value to human beings. Value is a RELATIONSHIP between entities, it is a subjective concept that exists in the human mind and nowhere else. To say two populations are somehow “equal” to one another and that they should be expected to perform “equally” is ridiculous and supported by no evidence.

FadeTheButcher: In future, can you maybe use the [QUOTE] tag? Or, at the very least, identify the participant to whom you are responding or who you are quoting? I've stop reading your postings altogether now - not just because of the content, but because, formally, they are almost incomprehensible.

Thanks.

The only thing I am going to reply to is why I referenced Jared Diamond's Guns Germs and Steel. From what I remember he actually says he isnt trying to say why one race is superior to another, and gives a whole list of reasons why some regions have not developed as the Europeans have. Most of it has to deal with the resources of the areas they lived in, and not due to the lack of intelligence of that race. (And when you come to think of it, wouldnt it be a sign of your intelligence to find a way to survive in someplace like Australia?) While he doesnt have all the answers (as youve said, he can not give a reason why the Aborigines regressed once they reached Australia), I think he makes a valid point. Races arent inherently stupid. It seems more that some did not have the opportunity that Europe had, which is decent climate, the easiest grown wheat seeds (as compared to the Ethiopians who had the smallest most difficult wheat seed to try to cultivate), easier cattle and livestock, etc



Uh...I agreed with you, that spending wasnt the problem. I just disagreed that it was because there was racial integration.



While being a minority can give you a lot money, I think that being white will give you more. Bush, Kennedy, Gore, Trump, Forbes....Theres plenty more where that came from. Being at the top usually means youre white. I cant refute the others points you have brought up, but if I'm not feeling too lazy and I find the time, I will do some more research.



Does this mean that black men are any more inferior though? When I was referring to equality, I was referring more to intelligence and skill than health. Ive already stated that there are physical differences between races, but that doesnt mean they are not equal.



You make a good point that you dont have to a woman to represent a woman, but why is always a man that is representing women? (Or what have you...) There is only a few women that represent men. I dont have the answers, and Im not how to articulate exactly what I want. But it seems to me that white men have had the power for so long, that there is very little choice in having ANYONE else represent them.

Well, it seems Ive replied to more than I said I was going to. And Im beginning to grow weary of this, as I know its a futile argument on both sides.

Only on the internet do people claim that the nature vs nuture debate is settled. Both sides have scored points as far as I can see. Pretending its settled at this early point in the understanding of genetics says much more about a persons bias than the science itself.

Oh, and guns germs, and steel was a good book. Fun read.

definetly democrats. They have pandered to the black vote for years now, and to hear them, most blacks say they are no better off nowadays. So who is keeping them down????

>>>Oh, and guns germs, and steel was a good book. Fun read.

I have Guns, Germs, and Steel and have read it cover to cover. It makes several good points but fails in many areas. Diamond is mostly a darling of the media rather than mainstream science like Gould. The striking failure of the book is that it barely spent any time whatsoever talking about Europe and totally ignored race and racial differences from the outset. Another failure is the pathetic explanation given regarding the state of the aboriginies and their inability to even trade with New Guinea. I thus fail to see why it is quoted so often in debates regarding race.

>>>The only thing I am going to reply to is why I referenced Jared Diamond's Guns Germs and Steel. From what I remember he actually says he isnt trying to say why one race is superior to another, and gives a whole list of reasons why some regions have not developed as the Europeans have.

This would follow if Diamond in Guns, Germs, and Steel actually spent any considerable time whatsoever discussing the development of European Civilization rather than almost totally ignoring it. It would also follow if Diamond's book was really a discussion about race in the first place, which of course it isn't, so it makes little sense to cite his work.

>>>Most of it has to deal with the resources of the areas they lived in, and not due to the lack of intelligence of that race.

Diamond did not talk about the "intelligence of races." Jared Diamond has no qualifications whatsoever in that field either. For a discussion of racial anthropology cite a credible source like Carleton S. Coon.

>>>(And when you come to think of it, wouldnt it be a sign of your intelligence to find a way to survive in someplace like Australia?) While he doesnt have all the answers (as youve said, he can not give a reason why the Aborigines regressed once they reached Australia), I think he makes a valid point

The aboriginies are the most unevolved and primitive form of human life in the world. That is entirely why they are so backwards. Just by looking at them one can point out their numerous archaic traits. This has been documented for years. For god sakes there are Erectus fossils in Australia in many ways more advanced than modern day aboriginies.

>>> Races arent inherently stupid. It seems more that some did not have the opportunity that Europe had, which is decent climate, the easiest grown wheat seeds (as compared to the Ethiopians who had the smallest most difficult wheat seed to try to cultivate), easier cattle and livestock, etc

This does not follow for Egypt one of the oldest civilizations in the world arose in Africa and the Sahara was a lush paradise for several thousand years before it became a desert while Europe was under ice and much of Northern Asia was similarly as bitter and cold. The climate has undergone significant changes in the last 20,000 years. There are numerous regions all throughout Africa such as the Great Lakes region, the Rhodesian Plateau, and the Ethiopian highlands where civilization could have arose well before it did in Europe.

>>>Uh...I agreed with you, that spending wasnt the problem. I just disagreed that it was because there was racial integration.

Sure it is. It is precisely after integration that our schools systems began to fall apart and integration has disproportionately hit the South harder than anywhere.

>>>While being a minority can give you a lot money, I think that being white will give you more. Bush, Kennedy, Gore, Trump, Forbes....

None of these people achieved their fortunes off their skin color.

>>>Theres plenty more where that came from. Being at the top usually means youre white. I cant refute the others points you have brought up, but if I'm not feeling too lazy and I find the time, I will do some more research.

It is a Non Sequitur to suggest that because "white people" are at the top they advocate "white interests" or attained their position because of their "whiteness."

>>>Does this mean that black men are any more inferior though?

In terms of life span absolutely.

>>>When I was referring to equality, I was referring more to intelligence and skill than health.

There is no such thing as any "equality" between populations or individuals anywhere. The only equality in this world is the Law of Identity - A = A.

>>>Ive already stated that there are physical differences between races, but that doesnt mean they are not equal.

Sure it does. If the "races" were equal they would be exactly the same and that is entirely false. The only thing this world has ever known is inequality and only inequality exists with respect to populations. There is no reason whatsoever to "expect" equality to be found at any level. No two individuals are "equal" in anyway whatsoever even identical twins. No one has ever been able to demonstrate any evidence whatsoever of any equality between populations - especially populations which are so easily distinguishable to the naked eye.

>>>You make a good point that you dont have to a woman to represent a woman, but why is always a man that is representing women? (Or what have you...)

Most likely because it is the man who ran for office and the man who got elected running on some platform that received votes by promising something to a certain segment of the population or another. There is no conspiracy to "oppress" women in the United States. California has two female Senators. Why is it that women are representing men there? Why should anyone expect otherwise?

What percentage of the population do fat people compose? Is their inherent discrimination against fat people in government? Should this be corrected by Affirmative Action? Should fat jokes be outlawed as hate speech? What about the handicapped? Are their any Congressman or Senators representing the handicapped?

>>>There is only a few women that represent men.

Why should women have to represent men in accordance with their arbitrary percentage of the population? Perhaps women have other interests other than politics. Perhaps they are presupposed to be interesting in other things. Why should anyone rationally expect the makeup of Congress to correspond to an abitrary statistic?

>>>I dont have the answers, and Im not how to articulate exactly what I want. But it seems to me that white men have had the power for so long, that there is very little choice in having ANYONE else represent them.

Is their a conspiracy amongst white men, especially white racists, to oppress women and minorities? That is ridiculous for the only thing the government ever does is relentlessly persecute white racists.

I dont think I can discuss this further, as I am a little disgusted and sort of tired of it. Although I am going to say one more thing, which is I dont think theres some conspiracy to oppress people. Its that there is an ingrained belief of inequality that we need to overcome as a society. But spare me your thoughts on it, as I already know what they are.

* warning: rant *

I am so tired of the poor whites whining constantly about any other race having a voice, a job, or an education that wasn't offered to them first.

Bill O'Reilly was having this discussion with Charles Barkley tonight.
Something was said about how few blacks are in television and Bill butts in, as if that was a lie, and says, "yes they do...they have BET." And Bill looks smug as if he's won a point.

Oh right...

Finally. One channel of their own out of how many and for how long? Think how TV would be if 90% of it appealed to and starred blacks. Whites and the other minorities would be fine with it, huh?

Don't you think blacks would rather have a more balanced representation of roles and story lines and how come they don't after all these years? I suppose the Bill's of the world think they should now be satisfied with their one little separate channel.

Just like every thing else. If after 30 years you can't integrate you have no right to complain when they get or want something of their own. You will though. You've probably already said, "Look at that! If we had a channel like that and called it White TV we'd be called racists No fair! How come they can do it and we can't!?"

And as with everything else (like Kwanza and preferred hiring) the answer is that you already DO have it, 90% of everything is all about you you you.

So quit crying like little babies when you don't always get to be first, best, or only.

>>>I dont think I can discuss this further, as I am a little disgusted and sort of tired of it. Although I am going to say one more thing, which is I dont think theres some conspiracy to oppress people. Its that there is an ingrained belief of inequality that we need to overcome as a society. But spare me your thoughts on it, as I already know what they are.

We are in agreement that there is no "conspiracy" to oppress women and minorities. In fact, the establishment will fall all over itself to appease minorities. You say there is an "ingrained belief in inequality" in society. I do not believe this is so personally. Most Americans it would appear to me are under the delusion that we are somehow "all equal." Why is this so? Well because Thomas Jefferson said so in the Declaration of Independence. This is a huge straw man. The last thing that Thomas Jefferson believed in was the innate equality of all human beings. Thomas Jefferson owned hundreds of slaves and favored deporting blacks to Africa which was his long term dream in life. What he was referring to was equality before the law of citizens with individual rights. There is no rational reason whatsoever that we should try to "overcome an ingrained belief in inequality" any more than we should strive to overcome the belief that the Earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around or that only women can have babies. The Soviets pursued this folly of equality for decades to the point where they actually bankrupted themselves. It will happen the same way in my opinion in the USSA.

Fade,

I've read some of your logic about racial differences based on who developed civilization first--assuming that developing civilization is a sign of advancement, which can be argued against on several levels. However, if this is true, don't the Chinese get the top advancement notch?

Aren't Africans and Middle Easterners up there on the ladder, along with Greeks?

Wouldn't Europeans come in toward the lower rungs?

Yeah, somewhere below the Iroquois who could have pushed the colonists into the ocean had it not been for a little germ warfare (smallpox-tinged blankets).

I think arguing about what race is more advanced than another is an exercise in futility and can lead to some startling, and not very self-complementary, conclusions. It may be that Europeans are just more cunning and ruthless than anybody else. If this is a sign of advancement, then get me off this continuum!

First of all, I would like to apologize for going completely off the subject of this post. But when someone is as wrong as Fade is. . .I really have no other choice than to call him on it. Fade states:



I appears to me that you are making a judgement call about a people based on the way they look. Guess what, just because a race happens to have a little more prominent brow ridges than a white person. . .doesn't make them stupid or unevolved. Aborigines have very ruff features, but (if you haven't ever noticed) the Australian outback is a pretty ruff place. What may be our definition of physical beauty is not the same as that of an aborigine. When choosing a mate (which is the beginning of any evolutary change) an aborigine is not looking for a pin-up girl, he's looking for a physically strong and capable woman. Therefore, aborigines may have taken a possibly different route (physically speaking) than we have in our evolution. . .but these differences do not mean that they are any more evolved or unevolved than we are. The physical appearance of sharks hasn't changed in 100's of millions of years. . . .does that mean that they are the lowest form of life in the ocean?. . . .of course not, it means they have reached the perfection that we as humans are still working towards. And where exactly was that homo erectus found that was more evolved than modern day aborigines. And how was this higher evolvedness (not a word, I know) determined? Because it certainly wasn't based on intelligence (it's impossible to get an IQ rating from the skeletal record). Homo erectus were able to walk better on two feet than Homo habilis and they made better tools than them as well; but I have yet to hear any anthropologist state that even the smartest Homo erectus was as smart as the dumbest Homo sapien sapiens. Or did you just get that bit of info from stuffimadeup.com?

-Kisov

More great Fade logic:



So, we think all people are equal because we thought TJ said it? That's our reasoning, huh? And now that you have stunned us with the truth that he didn't actually believe that, therefore, humans are not equal? That's not very sound logic, Fade.

You're right, though Fade, people are not equal. We are all born in unique configurations. Some people are beautiful. Some people are not. Some people are geniuses. Some people are great natural athletes, or musicians. Some people are the fortunate sons, some are the children of the homeless and the destitute. In all of these various configurations that make up humanity, and at all sides of every trait, there are people from Ireland, England, Germany, Mali, Burma, China, Zimbabwe, Australia, Brazil, Canada, gee, every place on earth, and people of every color.

Your continued frothing about blacks, your hatred of Jews, your worship of Hitler and Napoleon, all these things tell us who you are, fade. But I hope I'm wrong. I hope you're just some guy playing a huge joke on all of us - I'll join you in laughing. But if you are really for real, you have got some serious thinking to do, my friend. Some serious thinking.

Kisov,

Well put. There is no correlation between physical appearance and intelligence. Just look at Einstein, for gosh sakes.

I don't know any native Australians directly, but the ancient culture sure is interesting. Very tied into spirit and the rhythms of nature. I'm still not convinced that creating civilizations, overcrowded cities, and divorcing ourselves from spirit and nature was such a great idea. How smart are we if we poison our own environment?

Isn't a sign of evolutionary improvement the development of a sustainable culture?

So back on topic: Are either of the big two political parties in the US fundamentally racist?

Of course not.

Neither has such a philosophy as an organization. However, individuals in the big two parties are fundamentally racist, and that's their problem. If the racism translates to legislation, that becomes our problem.

not hardly. They have a voice, can get an education, a job, all kinds of stuff. The job should go to the most qualified candidate. If the most qualified person is black...GREAT....if he's white...GREAT...if she's a lesbian....GREAT.

But when you hire a black man ONLY because he's black...that's not great.

Same with education. Giving something to someone only because of the skin color is wrong..period...no matter who benefits from it.

No one is trying to supress minorites. That's a liberal scare tactic.



They do. There are TONS of black sit coms on television nowadays. I'm not sure where Mr. Barkley got off on saying that. Nor do I approve of Bill's reply. BET is a cable channel, not hardly primetime



Why does racism have to go only one direction? So your saying because my ancestors mistreated minorites, they now have the right to mistreat me? poetic justice? revenge? am I getting what I deserve?

I don't see how two wrongs makes a right.

Discrimination is discrimination. Racism not only flows from white to black, but also come black to white.



Assuming that minorities need handouts, is a racist as assuming white people are so much better off. I'm not better off than the next guy because I'm white. Don't be rediculous. Skin color has nothing to do with success or failure.

- I've been looking for a different job for over a year now, I can't find one
- I'm about to get laid off at my current job in Feb.
- My wife left me a few months ago
- I have no college degree and have some learning disabilities.

But oh yeah, thats right, I'm white, so I'm so much better off and my life is so much easier because of my skin color (sarcasm)

If you get ANYTHING from ANYONE simply because your skin is a certain color...thats wrong...period

--cheers

Mark, don't forget the issue of gun control and Hope Scholarship in GA!!

L. Zeved

They have a voice, can get an education, a job, all kinds of stuff. The job should go to the most qualified candidate.
They wouldn't have this voice if nothing happened to force it. Without AA we never would have started to change. If a company is hiring the most qualified candidate all the time they won't need to catch up on quotas and all is good.


Same with education. Giving something to someone only because of the skin color is wrong..period...no matter who benefits from it.
Bull. Everyone benefits from an education including society. There are all kinds of scolorship's out there for all kinds of different people. They are mostly privately funded and reserved for certain people to inspire and provide help where a need is thought to exist. Why not petition them all to stop helping people?

No one is trying to supress minorites. That's a liberal scare tactic.
Thanks for throwing liberal in there. Is that to somehow diminish my feelings on the subject? I don't care what names you give it the point hasn't changed.

Same with education. Giving something to someone only because of the skin color is wrong..period...no matter who benefits from it.
Coming from someone who has never experienced it. How many jobs have been given to blacks that should have been yours? And please tell me how you know you were more qualified and the company simply behind on their quotas. You may be complaining about something that has never even affected you.

They do. There are TONS of black sit coms on television nowadays.
Name eight. Out of all the shows on network TV I think eight should be a fair number. Let's leave out cable to make it simple. And please make those this seasons line up. You can pick any kind of show you want.

Why does racism have to go only one direction? So your saying because my ancestors mistreated minorites, they now have the right to mistreat me? poetic justice? revenge? am I getting what I deserve?
No, I am saying you are in no way being mistreated.

Did my homework Danya, and here is what I came up with:

First, I got this information from www.tvguide.com where I entered in an Oregon zip code. I pulled the listings from between 10am and midnight, between today, and one week from today. I picked all kinds of shows where either the main charactor is black, the majority of the cast is black, or everyone is black on the show. I've got more than 8, as I'm sure your going to try to discredit as many as you can.

I'm not sure what you meant by "this seasons lineup" but we're talking about TV shows in general. ONLY this season limits everything. People watch shows that are more than one season old, so I didn't limit myself to brand new shows this season. (I coudln't, as I wouldn't even know what they all are) In some cases, the shows are old, and no longer created, but are still shown on TV regularly.

I am sure there are more, but I haven't exactly heard of, or seen, every show on television.

Here we go, justifications will follow

1) Opera
2) Judge Joe Brown
3) Montel Williams
4) Family Matters
5) Cosby Show
6) Fresh Prince
7) NBA Basketball
8) The Parkers
9) Movie - Trading Places
10) Movie - Coming to America
11) Bernie Mac
12) Cedric the Entertainer

Opera The only host of the show is black.

Judge Joe Brown Wasn't quite sure about this one. I THINK Judge Brown is black...

Montel Like Opera, is black

Family Matters Mostly Black comedy. You know....Urkel

Fresh Prince Another mostly black comedy

NBA Basketball Most NBA players are black. Very few white guys on the floor these days

The Parkers I know little about this show, but I think I remember it being mostly black

Movie - Trading Places One of my all time favorite Eddie Murphy movies. True, it's not on weekly, but it was on THIS week, which is when my sampling was taken from

Movie - Coming to America Another one of my favorite Eddit Murphy movies. He actually plays like 5 ppl in this movie. Anyway....mostly black

Bernie Mac Funny show, mostly black

Cedric the Entertainer Never seen it, but Cedric is black.



How would you know? That's quite an assumption you've got there. As luck would have it, your right....THIS TIME. But it HAS affected people close to me.

Example: A good friend of mine (white guy) recently graduated from college, with a 4 year degree in chemistry. Well, he was having a hard time finding a job, so while he went looking for a job in his area of expertise, he started applying to fast food restaurants just so he could pay the bills. He was turned down from a local McDonalds because he wasn't a minority.

Forget his college education, forget his age, forget his experience...who cares about all that? All McDonalds cared about what the color of his skin. I'm certainly not saying that the next minority to apply isn't a college grad, I'm just saying hiring or not hiring based on skin color is wrong.

That's a true story. Sad as it is. Thats called racism. If they won't hire a minority because he's a minority, thats racism...if they won't hire a white guy because he's not a minority, is also racism. You can't fight racism with racism. 2 wrongs don't make a right.

Am I mistreated as a white guy? No. But does the color of my skin determine how well off I am, or how lucky I am? Certainly not.

If I offended you with my "liberal" comment, than I apologize. But know that we're even, since you made that kind of an assumption about me. I would have been very *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** had you turned out to be wrong.

--cheers

No, you have not offended me at all. I appreciate the thought and work you put into your post. What offends me is people who speak in generalities about things they know nothing about. So, you would not fit that group.

What I was looking for regarding the TV shows were network telivision shows that are being shown this season because it gives a better idea of the balance. You did good. But you listed 10 out of how many shows/channels/times? So if this is 10 out of a list of 100 that means the new shows are 90% white. If this were anywhere close to the real population percentage I might say you can't cover everyone. But since we are examining a race that has been here for hundreds of years, and coming out of segregation you want to measure progress, 10% is pitiful.

I'll try to go and see if I can do the research for a line up and see if I can show you what I mean. But it would have to be tonight because I'm working.

Good for McDonalds for making effort to create a more balanced work force.

Racism is having a nearly all white work force.

Your against Affirmative Action which helps minorities achieve a college education, so at least let them have the McDonald type jobs.

Madtown

I'm glad you brought that back up because I forgot to comment about it earlier. A lot of times places like McDonalds won't hire someone who is that educated because they know that they will probably keep looking for a higher paying job and quit on them as soon as they're through getting them hired and trained.

That's what they mean when they tell you your over-educated or sometimes if you have too much experience. It sounds dumb but my relatives used to own a 7-11 and they would do the same thing.

BTW, I highly doubt the person hiring would be dumb enough to tell someone they had to give the job to a black person instead. I've worked in a couple of offices near the human resource dept. and I know that's not something they would say. Not that I think your lying but your friend may not be being honest, either with you or himself maybe.

With affirmative action white males do not lose the right to be hired for jobs; qualified women and minorities gain that right. White males had 150 years of affirmative action in their favor in the U.S., and now they want to whine about losing that unfair advantage.

Women and minorities have been shut out of jobs, paid less for a long time and Affirmative Action is one way to change that.


Madtown

Welfare has damaged blacks greater than slavery and Jim Crow. In the mid-60's 25% of all black children were born out of wedlock. Today it is 69%. Children born out of wedlock are more likely to have lower IQ's, higher crime rates, higher dropout rates and higher rate of drug use. The two main factors in black irresponsibility is their 'leaders' telling them whitey will not let them succeed in this world and welfare which rewards people for producing illegitimate children.

The free economy punishes those who hire anyone based on anything besides the best man for the job. No need for government interference. Most college grants are privately financed, no one should have a problem with those.

Thats not true in the least. What you say is how it should work, but it doesnt always work like that. Its socially ingrained in us that black men are dangerous, or that mexicans are lazy. Its sometimes subtle and sometimes hard to notice that you percieve someone that way simply because they have a different skin color than you, but it happens.

Kim,
you are then implying that all whites are inherently racist, all the time...a somewhat insulting statement.

Hugo, not sure if you are 100% correct, but I would tend to agree with you.

I am 100% correct if you do not hire someone based on any other reason than the fact that he is from an economical viewpoint the best person for the job your business will suffer. Basic economics.

I think it could possibly be more complicated than that. Reasons like being labled 'racist' and being boycotted. Economically speaking, I doubt that'd be good for any business.

Also if a certain race always fits the bill that could possibly cut down on patronage (how many people would go into a grocery store that was all of a different race?).

Not that I have any particular opinion on this topic, just wanted to debate this one little point.

I said economically speaking. Obviously being boycotted would cause economical harm. Obviously if I was a manager at Hooters and just hired flat, ugly women I would be harming the business. The fact is there are times when discriminating is good for the business, that should be allowed. Government needs to stay out of interfering with employers decisions.

I think I was speaking economically as well.

If discrimination is to be tolerated in some businesses, heck, even encouraged... who is to decide what the rules are when it comes to these situations?

Who should decide what places can discriminate?

Who should decide to what extint such places can discriminate?

If this were left to employers alone could you not see at least some unfairness?

Racisim is alive and well, sexism is alive and well, ageism is alive and well.

There have to be some boundaries and protection for those that are discriminated against.

I think Hugo's point was that the free market would dictate which places and the extent of discrimination by virtue of the amount of patronage. Customers won't exactly flock to racist/sexist businesses, and word gets around fast.

As far as boycotts go, this tactic is also being used in nefarious ways (many believe) by shakedown artists seeking power and notoriety.

Shouldn't the employer have the ultimate say in who is the best person for a job? Especially if the company is not public.

I would like to think so... but so long as there are racist, sexist, ageist, whatever'ist employers out there I think there should be ground rules.

There are places where the community would be perfectly fine with say:

1) An establishment where there were only white workers

2) An establishment where there were only male or female workers

3) An establishment where being outside of your 20s or 30s would put you out of the race for the job.

I worked in a restaurant in Hephzibah, GA also known as "South Augusta" where I was let go based on my race. I was a temporary bus person and had planned on keeping the job for awhile. After about a week the manager and owner (two separate people) pulled me aside and said, verbatim, "It just doesn't look right having a white person bus tables, we've had comments on it, we're going to have to let you go." Sure enough they had someone waiting to fill my spot, someone black.

This same place only hired white, female waitresses. The only part of the restaurant that was void of racism was the kitchen.

This stuff still happens and until it doesn't happen anymore there needs to be some rules. Some of us have bills that need to be paid.

To not hire someone because he is black is racist, but to not hire someone because he is white is OK?

THAT, in and of itself, IS racist.

Hire from qualifications, and first come first serve.

Turn that situation around. lets say it was a black friend of mine that was denyed a job because he was black. Would that be OK? Then why is it ok when the applicant was white?

To not hire anyone based SOLELY on their skin color is wrong.
(NOTE - no mention of white, black, brown, or other colors in that sentence)

Long ago, white people DID have an advantage, but they no longer do. To turn that advantage completely around, and do to us what was done to you years ago, is every bit as wrong as what we did to you.....eye for an eye, paybacks, revenge, poetic justice. Make you feel better? Take out years of pain on the decendants of those who wronged you? I guess it was wrong of white people to do that to minorites, but it's OK if you do it to us now?

I thought society was bigger and better than that. I Guess not.

*****************

Danya: I know what your saying about being PC. I found it strange that that is what my friend was told. But I trust me friend implicitly. He is a good man, I've known him for years, and he has never lied to me before. I have no reason to believe he is lying now. (Though, awful gutsy of the manager to tell him that)

If they fired you only for being white, you have a case. Take em to court.

Madtown

Perhaps the manager was the liar. What a pity your college educated friend couldn't get a job a McDonalds. Tsk Tsk!

DP, could you just be looking for trouble? Were you ever turned away from a college because AA?

Sounds to me like the manager thought your friend was NOT the most qualified to flip burgers.

Didn't you say, on an earlier post, that AA has not really hurt you?

Madtown

PS Even our best friends fib sometimes.....even presidents lie.

The free market will punish those who engage in discrimination. Why do you think they had Jim Crow laws in the south? They were necessary to enforce discrimination. Get government out of the picture. Let employers and employees free to enter contracts.

Not exactly...

I really don't see how the theoretical advantage of hiring minorities is enough to make much of a difference financially. Short of bad publicity or boycotts that is...