True racial equality? - Viewing Thread



Username [Register?]: \| Password [Lost Password?]: Save Password?

Bottom of Page

INTL v5.0 > Site Comments > Archives > Archived Forums > Serious Discussions: Too serious to have a double entendre in the title > True racial equality? > Viewing Thread
Also Here: 2 guests.
Page: [ 1 2 3 4 ]	[ Thread Views: 11924 \| Total Posts: 93 ]
Rate This Thread:	Reply to Thread \| Create New Thread \| Create New Poll \| Convert To Poll \| Subscribe To Thread

Menion
INTL Premium Member
Regular

Man-Onions

Ballkicks: (+122 / -35)
Posts: 905 (0.14)
Reg. Date: Aug 2003
Location: Tavares, FL
Gender: Male

http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/news.php?i=1153

The article on this site today is one of very few there that have ever iniated some thought in me.

This photo is part of a relatively controversial Sony add... which is apparently intended to emphasize the color contrast between black and white... nothing more. The author of CTRL+ALT+DEL makes a good point about the typical American reaction to photos like this; asking if we would react to the photo in the same way if the two women were of the same race, but dressed in the colors pictured.

Most likely no one would have a problem with it, so why should the photo be offensive given the circumstances?
Another picture in the series shows the black woman in the position of dominance, which suggests the relative neutrality of the campaign from a racial perspective...
But it still makes me wonder.

Quoted from CAD author "Tim Buckley":
Here's a different take on my view.

No one is offended that the billboard suggests a precursor to violence. No one is offended that it's two women involved in violence. If it had been two white women, one in a white suit, one in a black suit, nobody would say a thing.

Furthermore, nobody has said word one about the version of the ad where the black woman is dominating the white woman. And I'm willing to bet that if that image had been on the billboard instead, nobody would have said a thing. At least not publicly.

So ask yourself, honestly, why it's offensive to you. Because the billboard doesn't depict slavery. Not in the slightest. If the black woman was picking cotton, and the white woman was standing over her with a whip, then hell yes it would be offensive. But it's just two people squaring off, and one of them has the upper hand. So why does it matter to you which one that is?

Because if we really want to reach the level of equality in our society that we all say we do, we need to stop dwelling on the past. Slavery is abolished. Has been for a good long time. Not a single one of us Americans owned slaves, or was a slave. It was a horrible period in time, but it's over. Being oversensitive about things like this billboard is what's keeping this racial tension alive. If you ask yourself honestly, you may find that you don't actually think the billboard is offensive, but that you've just been taught it's offensive.

Stop making race a big deal, and race stops being a big deal.

(PS, Kudos to whoever designed the ad campaign for accomplishing exactly what was intended; to spark discussion and bring attention to Sony and the product)

That's a pretty good stance I think, allthough my instantaneous reaction to the photo was still more or less "OMG PREJUDICE".

Quoted from CAD:
But, in America especially, you look at that billboard, and you see a white person in an assumed position of dominance over a black person, and immediately alarms go off in your head. Everything we learned in history class about the 1800's comes flooding into our minds, along with a healthy dose of guilt, and we apply our own demons to the image. We attach 150 years of racial tension to the image, and condemn it for our history, not because of any message it's actually delivering.

I thought I'd include that quote too, in case some of you don't read the article. He's got an interesting take.

Are we, Americans, overly sensitive to racial topics? Could this lead to an unneccesary conflict in the future?

Desmond Tutu once said that "This country [america] has made great strides in racial equality. But the truth is that you could use something akin to the Truth and Reconciliation Commision here, to soothe the wounds of the past".
(Paraphrase since I can't remember the actual quote. I have it on tape)

What do you all think of this sort of message?
How does it speak to you, and why?

Ok, that's good to know...

"To err is human, but to really foul things up you need a computer." --Paul Ehrlich

"I wish Stanley Baldwin no ill, but it would have been much better if he had never lived" -- Winston Churchill

"I love California, I practically grew up in Phoenix." -- The Infamous Mr. Dan Quayle

This reply was last edited on 07-14-06 02:04:11 AM by Menion.

atlas sighed (at me)
User is currently banned until further notice.

Quote:
Are we, Americans, overly sensitive to racial topics?

Because, minorities associate themselves with inferiority, and thus, they become inferior. And, feeling inferior, they need a way to lash out at the force they identify keeping them inferior.

In this case, the force they associate as "keeping them down" happens to be white people, and so, naturally, they are going to correlate every reason they consider themselves inferior with the continued existence of the white man.

When the socio-economic fabric of America becomes truly equalized, there will be no racism in this country. Why? Because, when no one race can see another as substantially superior in any way, they will no longer be able to correlate them with the reason for not being equal, and, as such, will have no need to see themselves as inferior to any one race.

For example, why do you think black people despise any white man who uses the word "nigger" as a way to describe one of them? They instantly associate that word with inferiority because they feel inferior.

So, if a black man did not feel inferior because a white man called him a "nigger", the word would have no meaning, and, thus, would be totally neutral to all parties involved.

Skye
INTL Premium Member
Droog Queen

I love Skye

Ballkicks: (+781 / -120)
Posts: 5306 (0.796)
Reg. Date: Jan 2003
Location: adulthood
Gender: Male

As probably the only regularly posting black female on this site, I call total bullshit to everything that article says and the points that have been made in this thread. Racism and prejudice are still major factors in American society (also note that advertisement isn't slated to run in the States; it's going to run in Europe -- specifically, Amsterdam, if I recall correctly).

Racism is still a major problem in the United States. The whole "slavery is over" retort is a piece of crap because flawed racial relations persisted well past slavery, and it still continues today. Just because white people are more afraid to call black people "niggers" does not mean the offensiveness and the "power" of the term has been eliminated; if anything, it's amplified because people are ignoring the problem of racism in our institutions and our culture, and by ignoring it the problem is only exacerbated further.

This ad, in its current state, would not offend white people. And if anything, the reason an uproar would probably not arise around the reverse scenario (the black woman dominating the white woman) is largely due to the fact that historically speaking, such a situation of blacks dominating whites has been nonexistent. Racism depends on prejudice and power, not prejudice alone. In other words, people of color can hate white people as much as they'd like, but they've never had the large-scale power dynamics to enact their hatred. So an image like that is deeply offensive because it shows no regard for past relationships between blacks and whites, it largely paints what would be a merely "aggressive" scenario from a historically ignorant perspective, and to be honest, the symbolism's rather weak.

And, I'm sorry, but being overly sensitive to racial topics is a given for the inferior race when for centuries, though systemized discrimination and indoctrinated prejudice, your people have been taught they were inferior to the majority and continue to face problems stemming from centuries-long discrimination and prejudice. Hell, even our parents have horror-stories from the overly-glorified civil rights movement and beyond, showing that while the struggle faded from the public view because whites, failing to realize that their privilege extends far beyond voting, viewed the civil rights movement as over, blacks still faced strained social relationships as well as cultural and institutional barriers based largely on vestiges of a racially divided system.

http://forums.interestingnonetheless.net/display.php?tid=4368

Doesn't the manatee kind of look like a guest on the Ricki Lake show? "Uh, Ricki, I'm here because I'm endangered." Then one of those mean people in the audience would offer up the advice, "Yeah, I want to say something to the sea pig!" "That's sea cow." "Whatever. Sea pig, you gotta get yourself an education and a job!" "Uh, I live in the ocean." "It just so happens you live in the ocean 'cuz you ain't got no job!" "I don't know what you're -" "You gotta get in Weight Watchers, some kinda program!" "I have a layer of blubber to keep my body warm in the water..." "Whatever, talk to the hand." "I dont have a hand!"

Menion
INTL Premium Member
Regular

Man-Onions

Ballkicks: (+122 / -35)
Posts: 905 (0.14)
Reg. Date: Aug 2003
Location: Tavares, FL
Gender: Male

I tend to agree with Skye on this, I still think that the image is very prejudiced. The image that I see is not simply whiteness dominating blackness, it's a white woman dominating a black woman.

The contrast of human faces lends to the contrast of the persons themselves.

Racial prejudice does exist in society, and I think that it will probably persist for many more generations. It's impossible to tell what part of society the prejudices will manifest in or from, and there is really no way to know who is prejudiced or who isn't until someone demonstrates it in some way. That's why everyone must be carefull with messages like this one because it's easy to stray too far from the intended purpose. Had the women been of the same race, the racial element would have been ultimately defeated, elimintating any confusions. Perhaps a better campaign would have had two white women in one poster, and two black women in another.

Society is a long way from equality, either real or percieved, though I think we move closer to it every day (and my opinion is that perception is what counts more than reality anyway). The fact is, however, that racism is something that everyone must still look out for, which is why this campaign is rightfully controversial.

IF0
Administrator

Hey, I was with Mary Magdalene last night....smell my finger lol

Ballkicks: (+621 / -173)
Posts: 6751 (1.038)
Reg. Date: Jul 2003
Location: Springfield, MO
Gender: Male

So.. what if it were brown and had a South American girl? Or an Asian wearing a yellow suit?

Adopt a

.
[01:19] witty tirade: wait wait wait
[01:19] witty tirade: let me get this straight
[01:19] witty tirade: I'm the thin attractive one
[01:19] witty tirade: and you, the fat one, are making fun of me?
[01:19] witty tirade: no sir I do not believe it.

Skye
INTL Premium Member
Droog Queen

I love Skye

Ballkicks: (+781 / -120)
Posts: 5306 (0.796)
Reg. Date: Jan 2003
Location: adulthood
Gender: Male

It's not just the colors; it's the colors plus the power dynamic.

Menion
INTL Premium Member
Regular

Man-Onions

Ballkicks: (+122 / -35)
Posts: 905 (0.14)
Reg. Date: Aug 2003
Location: Tavares, FL
Gender: Male

So long as each player is the same race, the racial element is dismissed...

If an asian girl in a yellow suit was dominating a hispanic girl in a brown suit in the same way pictured above... I'd have to say it was discriminatory (though my reaction would probably not be as strong or immediate, due to my experience).

And Skye mentioned the power dynamic, a valid point:
If it were any combination of girls simply squaring off, there wouldn't be a problem. But the fact is that one is shown in clear sumbission to the other.

IF0
Administrator

Hey, I was with Mary Magdalene last night....smell my finger lol

Ballkicks: (+621 / -173)
Posts: 6751 (1.038)
Reg. Date: Jul 2003
Location: Springfield, MO
Gender: Male

If they're both shown at different instances being "in power" over the other, then I don't see how you can use that as a reason. Somehow I don't see every marketing company for the next 100 years making sure that they NEVER show a white person succeeding over a black person, only that black people succeed over white people, in the efforts that nobody is offended. Then again, I'm always one for understanding what something actually means, instead of relying on societal influences to tell me myself. Obviously, if they have a different version of the ad with a dominating black woman, then it's not meant to be racist (Even if you believe the actus reas is there, the mens rea is obviously not).

EDIT:
Also, what many people today view as "racism" is not based on race at all, but on socio-economic standing. It just so happens that more minorities fall into that category. In modern time, it's moreso noting that someone is "poor" and "lower class," not of a less-worthy "race."

Adopt a

This reply was last edited on 07-07-06 10:00:56 PM by IF0.

Skye
INTL Premium Member
Droog Queen

I love Skye

Ballkicks: (+781 / -120)
Posts: 5306 (0.796)
Reg. Date: Jan 2003
Location: adulthood
Gender: Male

One power dynamic has more resonance with historical occurrences than the other, and that does matter. Society hasn't reached a point where it can fail to recognize that hierarchy, and it shouldn't because it means we still have a lot of work to do to eradicate the hierarchy.

It's not an issue of one succeeding over the other because that's just adding to the imbalance, not creating racial equality. Letting one race win is just as degrading as subordinating it because it's still one side having control over the other's actions and capabilities.

The basic symbolism of the ad is not hard to grasp with the black and white imagery; however, adding the layer of race to it opens up a new dimension because of the many different significances ascribed to the "black" race and the "white" race historically. If it were two white guys wearing black and white, it would be even more radically different. There's also something to the fact that it's two women in the ad dealing with a new type of controller for a game, especially since this ad campaign is geared toward teenaged males. However, since society superficially explores different hierarchies without trying to figure out why they can't be eliminated, these types of talks are represented as trivial. That's the reason why this ad isn't appropriate -- because no one's willing to look at the issues and ideas behind the advertisement.

Also, IF0, race does affect socio-economic standing because of the wage gap, the reluctance of businesses and the government to invest in schools and development in high concentrations of minority populations, and the fact that (as I said earlier) the vestiges of institutionalized racism haven't been eliminated from society yet.

IF0
Administrator

Hey, I was with Mary Magdalene last night....smell my finger lol

Ballkicks: (+621 / -173)
Posts: 6751 (1.038)
Reg. Date: Jul 2003
Location: Springfield, MO
Gender: Male

I see them as almost the same thing. They may not like a black girl because her name is Shaniqua, which is reminiscent of a poor ebonics ghetto culture. If they hear a guy speaking in ebonics, they're not going to hire him no matter his race. The entire poor ghetto hip-hop culture is based in poor neighborhoods, with gangs (that develop in poor areas), etc. That's kind of a jumbled explanation, but I hope you get my point.

If socio-economic equality existed, then much of what creates a culture that contains a majority of minorities wouldn't exist, and said culture wouldn't exist anymore. People aren't afraid of race as much as poor people, anymore, in my experiences and what I've studied. A poor person is a poor person. You wouldn't choose white trash/neo-nazi/pierced skank over an educated well-spoken black guy. You don't get nervous because you see a black guy in the suburbs, you get nervous when you are wandering around a trailer park or a ghetto, no matter the race.

Adopt a

Skye
INTL Premium Member
Droog Queen

I love Skye

Ballkicks: (+781 / -120)
Posts: 5306 (0.796)
Reg. Date: Jan 2003
Location: adulthood
Gender: Male

But that's not always true. There's a difference between not choosing Shaniqua because she's from a poor background with inadequate preparation (which is due to lack of resources because of investment neglect) and not choosing Shaniqua because the name is associated with poor black ghetto culture.

Also, I don't know what suburbs you live in, but where I live, which isn't the ghetto, and in the surrounding suburbs, there's tons of racial tension, hate crimes, and vandalization linked to hate crimes.

Linking back to "poor ghetto hip-hop culture," have you noticed that one of the prevailing themes of music related to the culture emphasize economic affluence but still raises the points that regardless of how much money has been accumulated, they still face the same shit? There's still the profiling, and there's still the unrealistic assumption that being black means that at some point you were tied up with "poor ghetto hip-hop culture," and any appearance of a person of color in a powerful setting with whites has automatically occurred through affirmative action and not the efforts of that person and his/her own merit? Minority cultures will continue to exist because this society was founded on establishing hierarchies and privileges for certain types of people.

IF0
Administrator

Hey, I was with Mary Magdalene last night....smell my finger lol

Ballkicks: (+621 / -173)
Posts: 6751 (1.038)
Reg. Date: Jul 2003
Location: Springfield, MO
Gender: Male

I don't think you realize that a lot of your argument is very similar to mine. Give the country 50 years worth of economic inequality between everybody, regardless of race. Pretty much all of that would fade out in that generation, and if not that one, the next one. Socio-economic status is what created the situation in the first place, with blacks on the very bottom of course, trading places with the Irish, Chinese, American Indians, and Central/South American cultures depending on the region/time frame.

Adopt a

atlas sighed (at me)
User is currently banned until further notice.

Quote:
the reluctance of businesses and the government to invest in schools and development in high concentrations of minority populations

Affirmative action, welfare, food stamps, subsidized housing, what other freebies do you feel black people need to join the middle class?

Seriously, I grow so tired of having to take the "Black man's burden" becuase they are unable to move out of the lower economic spectrum.

Quote:
vestiges of institutionalized racism haven't been eliminated from society yet

Great, point them out so we can eliminate them. Or, are you going to pull an Al Sharpton and say that they are too invisible to be seen by the normal eye?

Honestly, if you want to give us conspiracy theories, at least provide something to make it look plausible.

Quote:
symbolism of the ad is not hard to grasp

And what is the symbolism?

The point of the ad is to contrast the differences of the old Black PSP and the new White PSP. In it, it is implied that the Black PSP is inferior to the new one in terms of technology, that is all.

The so-called "symbolism" which you refer is not inherent to the ad, but, is the product of your imagination applying racial complexes. Once again, if you did not consider yourself inferior to white people, you would not be offended by this ad even if others say it should.

IF0
Administrator

Hey, I was with Mary Magdalene last night....smell my finger lol

Ballkicks: (+621 / -173)
Posts: 6751 (1.038)
Reg. Date: Jul 2003
Location: Springfield, MO
Gender: Male

Vissario, Skye is stastically backed up in every example she's given so far in regards to economic inequality between races, that's not really the point that's being debated. Institutionalized racism stastically exists, and there's no arguing that. It's gone to the Supreme Court more than once in certain cases, and they're actually sort of an interesting read.

Adopt a

atlas sighed (at me)
User is currently banned until further notice.

Quote:
that's not really the point that's being debated

Thus why I did not contest it.

Quote:
Institutionalized racism stastically exists

Awesome, provide case dates, graphs, and other sources citing, specifically, that state, local, and the federal governments are keeping the black man down after the 1960's.

IF0
Administrator

Hey, I was with Mary Magdalene last night....smell my finger lol

Ballkicks: (+621 / -173)
Posts: 6751 (1.038)
Reg. Date: Jul 2003
Location: Springfield, MO
Gender: Male

It's not my job to satiate your ignorance. It happens to be quite a prevalent topic in my class selection, as well as my choice of graduate school. If you'd prefer to know the multitudes of statistics and studies, then you can look them up yourself. There are multitudes of examples you could find.

Adopt a

Skye
INTL Premium Member
Droog Queen

I love Skye

Ballkicks: (+781 / -120)
Posts: 5306 (0.796)
Reg. Date: Jan 2003
Location: adulthood
Gender: Male

Quoted from vissario:
Affirmative action, welfare, food stamps, subsidized housing, what other freebies do you feel black people need to join the middle class?

Affirmative action isn't a fucking freebie. Viewing it as a freebie automatically assumes that black people aren't qualified to get higher-paying jobs and jobs requiring more education, and that's not the case. The problem with lack of representation in high-profile jobs dealt more with the factor of race being a determinant for what jobs blacks were eligible. If that system never existed, affirmative action would not be needed because more blacks would be represented in the government and elsewhere. But that's not the case, and not necessarily because black people were poor.

Welfare does not only go to black people. In fact, associating welfare with black women is one of the largest propaganda pushes by fiscal conservatives to draw attention away from the fact that more white women are on welfare, the welfare program is an entitlement program like disability and other programs, and the welfare program is actually inadequate for raising children because of all the regulations and income requirements involved. Food stamps and subsidized housing fall under this category as well.

Quoted from vissario:
Seriously, I grow so tired of having to take the "Black man's burden" becuase they are unable to move out of the lower economic spectrum.

This is the flawed logic that results from American dream rhetoric that seems to ignore the existence of Jim Crow and codified racial discrimination up until only a few decades ago. The black man does have a burden because there's no way to navigate through American culture with a positive history of being black. And it's mainly because of all these myths about what black people are incapable of being reinforced in the white mainstream culture. It trickles down.

Quoted from vissario:
Great, point them out so we can eliminate them. Or, are you going to pull an Al Sharpton and say that they are too invisible to be seen by the normal eye?

Honestly, if you want to give us conspiracy theories, at least provide something to make it look plausible.

I've already given examples. The affirmative action system actually does more harm than good because since white men cannot benefit directly from it, it's automatically stigmatized as a giveaway to white women and minorities, groups of people who have never had the opportunities to advance that white men have institutionally had for centuries. However, there aren't many ways to figure out an alternative because without the system, the trends of society will just default to the status quo.

Another example of vestiges of institutionalized racism occurs in the housing market. There are not very many integrated housing communities because of a rather constant phenomenon of whites migrating out of urban areas as more minorities move in, which isolates and separates whites from minorities even more, and also drives down the property value because the areas are viewed as undesirable because the base of long-term ownership is diminishing. And the only group of people who have successfully maintained long-term home ownership are whites. Very few minorities can lay claim to that sort of constancy.

Another example of institutionalized racism stems from entertainment and its lack of integration, especially on the major media markets. Quite frankly, it reinforces the piss-poor minority stereotype unless it portrays a successful minority that has no ties to the positive contributions of its culture, rather that minority individual is often thoroughly assimilated in white culture.

And trust me, sir, there are plenty more if you open your eyes to see them and research them.

Quoted from vissario:
And what is the symbolism?

The point of the ad is to contrast the differences of the old Black PSP and the new White PSP. In it, it is implied that the Black PSP is inferior to the new one in terms of technology, that is all.

Once again, if you think historically of race relations, especially in America, the symbolism is not that simplified. If anything, your description raises more problems. The fact that race is one of the highlights of the "differences" brings back a lot of oppressive history stemming from racial "differences." The implications of the statement that the "Black PSP is inferior to the [White] PSP in terms of technology" carries over to old racial stigmatizations and stereotypes that the black person is inherently inferior to the white person in terms of intellectual capabilities, in terms of physical prowess, in terms of humanity -- basically, in terms of one's human "technology," if you will. And that's problematic. You can't have a debate like this if you ignore historical context because it's relevant in understanding present issues.

Quoted from vissario:
The so-called "symbolism" which you refer is not inherent to the ad, but, is the product of your imagination applying racial complexes. Once again, if you did not consider yourself inferior to white people, you would not be offended by this ad even if others say it should.

You're making a faulty assumption. I don't consider myself inferior to white people. However, since I'm not white, I don't have the luxury of being blind to race relations. I am constantly conscious of being black and of the history of black people in this country. Whites can easily blank it out because it doesn't have daily significance for them. Plus, I think it is very significant that the predominant ad that is running for this campaign is the white woman subordinating the black woman, and not the other way around. The other way around doesn't even make sense for the ad campaign if the technology of the white PSP is better. After all, as I said before, white-dominant/black-subordinate is an easily recognized association from the past because white people have remained in power.

atlas sighed (at me)
User is currently banned until further notice.

Quote:
It's not my job to satiate your ignorance

No, but it is your job to back up all of the assertions you have thrown out there.

Honestly, if you want anyone to believe anything you say, you are going to have to provide compelling evidence, not rhetoric from your class mates or professors which you just know to be true.

Quoted from Skye:
Viewing it as a freebie automatically assumes that black people aren't qualified to get higher-paying jobs and jobs requiring more education, and that's not the case

So, if I don't view Affirmative Action as a freebie, it still isn't compensating for the incompetency of black people (and other minorities) in getting higher educations? Affirmative Action is one of the largest examples of institutionalized racism in that it actually declares that black people are not the equal of white people and that are thus deserving of special benefits to compensate for this. It is only ironic that legislation which black people find integral to their assimilation into America is actually one of the key things separating them from it.

Quoted from Skye:
the factor of race being a determinant for what jobs blacks were eligible

Ignorant argument. The EEO laws specifically make that type of discrimination illegal and prevent it en masse. Unless, of course, you are going to argue that there is some huge world-wide conspiracy by old, rich white men trying to keep blacks out of their offices....but, of course you will.

Quoted from Skye:
the fact that more white women are on welfare

Cool fun fact, want to back it up or should I simply believe it because you said it?

Quoted from Skye:
a few decades ago

Try five.

Quoted from Skye:
whites migrating out of urban areas as more minorities move in, which isolates and separates whites from minorities even more,

Simple economics: poor people move where the lease is cheap, middle class people move to place which they can afford. This stratification is a result of the failure of Black people to effectively move themselves up in the world like all the other immigrants in this country have, for the most part, been able to do.

Quoted from Skye:
it reinforces the piss-poor minority stereotype unless it portrays a successful minority that has no ties to the positive contributions of its culture, rather that minority individual is often thoroughly assimilated in white culture.

So it is the white man's fault that black youth enjoy watching BET instead of going out to find a job or get an education?

Quote:
I don't consider myself inferior to white people.

If you didn't, than the image would not infer to you that are inferior to white people because you know you aren't. Seriously, think about it; when you get mad for being called a "nigger" by a white man, you get mad because he is insinuating that you are inferior even if you "honestly" believe you aren't while if a black man calls you a "nigger", you tolerate it because you don't feel inferior to him.

I mean, you don't see white people in arms when the black woman is dominating the white one.

etymxris
INTL Developer

JUST AS PLANNED

Ballkicks: (+179 / -16)
Posts: 942 (0.153)
Reg. Date: Jun 2004
Location: Virginia
Gender: Male

I've no doubt racism exists aplenty. If these ads were from Japan, and I think they were, then it may be more of a cultural misunderstanding. On the other hand native Japanese are very quick to stereotype. Japan is not an immigrant nation like the US.

Just to throw out an anecdote, my mother was on welfare for quite a while after her husband (my stepfather) got jailed for doing nasty things to my sister. After a few months she got a job at the post office and has been working there since. Welfare has legitimate uses and is not supposed to be perpetual for anyone, black or otherwise.

And while racism still exists and I wouldn't deny that it is probably institutionalized in many places, I'm weary of affirmative action. I personally don't mind competing against affirmative action quotas, but it naturally leads to charges of "you couldn't qualify on your own merit". And I think for some people it benefits, it may lower their self worth.

IF0
Administrator

Hey, I was with Mary Magdalene last night....smell my finger lol

Ballkicks: (+621 / -173)
Posts: 6751 (1.038)
Reg. Date: Jul 2003
Location: Springfield, MO
Gender: Male

Quote:
No, but it is your job to back up all of the assertions you have thrown out there.

Honestly, if you want anyone to believe anything you say, you are going to have to provide compelling evidence, not rhetoric from your class mates or professors which you just know to be true.

These aren't assertions. As I said, they're statistics. I have never met anybody that engaged themselves in an argument like this that didn't know what he/she was talking about, but apparently now, I have. Usually, when someone DOES get into an argument like this, there isn't any debate that there is institutional racism. That's considered fact. I apologize if you missed that part of current events. Where are the statistics to back up what YOU are saying? I don't feel the need to show any to you, because I JUST GOT FINISHED TAKING AN ENTIRE CLASS ON IT, and I already know it's true, as I've already seen the statistics and read the studies and cases, despite your assumption that I'm repeating a professor or a classmate. As I said, it's not my job to prove that you're wrong to something most educated people would already know you were wrong about.

AKA, this isn't the part of the debate I was interested in, because it's not debateable by knowledgeable individuals.

Try to be a little more respectful in your responses, as this is SD.

Adopt a

Skye
INTL Premium Member
Droog Queen

I love Skye

Ballkicks: (+781 / -120)
Posts: 5306 (0.796)
Reg. Date: Jan 2003
Location: adulthood
Gender: Male

I'm not going to keep discussing this with you if you retaliate with

Quoted from you:
Quoted from person:
the book

It's a group of pages bounded by covers with words inside. Get real.

It's a waste of time if you isolate phrases from what I'm saying and you're not absorbing the entire argument. Which is similar to the argument I'm raising about race: just because a few safeguards exist against racial discrimination now doesn't mean it never existed at all and does not still affect how society and institutions work in America, as well as how we perceive racial relations.

Quoted from etymxris:

And while racism still exists and I wouldn't deny that it is probably institutionalized in many places, I'm weary of affirmative action. I personally don't mind competing against affirmative action quotas, but it naturally leads to charges of "you couldn't qualify on your own merit". And I think for some people it benefits, it may lower their self worth.

I relate to the last sentence personally, actually. Aside from that, the reason why most minorities stick with affirmative action despite the merit accusation is that by establishing a "quota," it does help to diversify the basis for representing other races. But the flipside of that is there's no point of diversifying if minorities have to sacrifice the positive points of their culture through assimilation to get ahead in a white-dominated society.

IF0
Administrator

Hey, I was with Mary Magdalene last night....smell my finger lol

Ballkicks: (+621 / -173)
Posts: 6751 (1.038)
Reg. Date: Jul 2003
Location: Springfield, MO
Gender: Male

Part of that class requirement I mentioned taking above had a study in it that was about 20 years long. The woman was a fun writer, so it was a good read. If I think of the name of it, I'll put it on here. Anyhow, while interviewing minorities about affirmative action, most took a lot of defense about it and didn't want it at all. Same with that thing about teaching foreign children in Spanish or whatever language - the parents hate it because they want their children to learn English. Blah blah.. I wish I could remember it. MAGUSMAGUSMAGUSMAGUS

FOUND IT: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/006092229X/sr=8-1/qid=1152336235/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-8032164-1935308?ie=UTF8

Families on the Fault Line.

Quote:
Some 20 years after her work Worlds of Pain , Rubin again explores the working class, finding that economic decline and the increased presence and demands of minorities have led to greater racial and ethnic polarization. She writes in smooth prose, but her study--based on nearly 400 interviews with different races and ethnic groups--rarely goes deep. Nevertheless, she makes worthwhile points: even working-class Americans believe in the myth of a classless society; divorce often brings economic devastation to women; we have yet to adequately address family needs like day care, parental leave and affordable housing. Fears of joblessness and homelessness have increased greatly among her subjects, and they no longer expect to own homes and live securely. Only if we reckon with our national problems, she warns, will we find the path to change. $50,000 ad/promo; first serial to Tikkun; author tour.
Copyright 1994 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

From Library Journal
Sixteen years after the publication of Worlds of Pain ( LJ 1/1/77), which considered 50 Bay Area working-class couples, Rubin returns to reevaluate the impact of social, political, and economic changes upon blue-collar families. Utilizing interviews, she examines how relations among family members and racial and ethnic groups have changed, detailing the transformation of working-class life and resultant shifts in views and responses to the outside world. Rubin fervently describes working-class frustration, anger, fears, hopes, and dreams. She debunks the myth of America as a classless society and, most importantly, argues that racial and ethnic discontent is due to the social and economic upheavals of the last two decades. With the economy failing the working class and their moral structure in disarray, Rubin notes, many blue-collar families are living on a societal fault line, awaiting the big quake. Recommended for larger public and academic libraries.
- Michael A. Lutes, Univ. of Notre Dame Lib., Ind.
Copyright 1994 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

Adopt a

This reply was last edited on 07-08-06 01:30:45 AM by IF0.

Skye
INTL Premium Member
Droog Queen

I love Skye

Ballkicks: (+781 / -120)
Posts: 5306 (0.796)
Reg. Date: Jan 2003
Location: adulthood
Gender: Male

The bottom line is assimilation for minority cultures is an easier way out than establishing programs that do recognize our cultures as equally relevant and prominent as white culture. Because, as we've seen in many examples, any program that recognizes differences between cultures only isolates them and uses the differences against minorities. Whites (and assimilated minorities) then automatically slate the program(s) as a patronizing "extra boost" for the "failure" minority to be able to pull itself up. It's seen as "accommodation" rather than incorporation of more opportunities and resources where there previously were little to none.

atlas sighed (at me)
User is currently banned until further notice.

Quote:
It's a waste of time if you isolate phrases from what I'm saying and you're not absorbing the entire argument. Which is similar to the argument I'm raising about race: just because a few safeguards exist against racial discrimination now doesn't mean it never existed at all and does not still affect how society and institutions work in America, as well as how we perceive racial relations.

If you don't feel that you can respond to the rebuttals I have given to all of your major arguments, fine, you lose. I don't know the exact mode of operations here in Serious Discussions, but, I assume that like any intellectual debate, people must be able to isolate the facts of the situation and make cohesive arguments and effective rebuttals to buttress their point; not baseless assertions which may or may not be true.

Quote:
As I said, it's not my job to prove that you're wrong to something most educated people would already know you were wrong about.

Honestly, it is the height of hypocrisy to consider yourself a more intellectual and educated individual while providing no facts to at all back up your assertions that state instituted racism exists all over the United States.

The fact still remains that you are using an "Appeal to authority" logical fallacy by claiming your assertions to be true simply because your professor said they were. If this is all that you can rely upon to debate with me your assertions, than there really is nothing more to say as you have already lost.

Quoted from IFO:
Try to be a little more respectful in your responses, as this is SD.

More hypocrisy. You, in your last post, depicted me as an uneducated individual simply because I did not agree with your baseless assertions. Is this ad hominem attack worthy of Serious Discussions, or is it so because you are part of the team?

Menion
INTL Premium Member
Regular

Man-Onions

Ballkicks: (+122 / -35)
Posts: 905 (0.14)
Reg. Date: Aug 2003
Location: Tavares, FL
Gender: Male

The ideal situation, would be equal representation for each race at all levels of society, though we have not reached that point yet. (By equal representation, I'm talking about demographic distribution. Obviously, if there is a 22% black population in the US, then they would ideally occupy 22% of any given job in the country. Sadly, that is not yet the case.)

Institutionalized racism is still rampant in the US especially, and it's a very unfortunate circumstance that we are constantly battling. A big problem is that our society's "official" policy is that racism does/should not exist. Since that view is the official one, it's easy for a minority to play the racism card whenever a white man is hired into a position over a minority of similar or equal merit, whether racism was truely involved or not. That's a firefight on both sides of the fence, and it's what I was refering to as the battle against institutionalized racism.
Like Skye said, one of the strategies to win the battle is to simply level off the demographics with programs like affirmitive action. Although it could have some serious benefits, programs designed to fill societal quotas "artificially" are also dangerous. Time alone will tell, I think.

Quoted from Skye:
The bottom line is assimilation for minority cultures is an easier way out than establishing programs that do recognize our cultures as equally relevant and prominent as white culture. Because, as we've seen in many examples, any program that recognizes differences between cultures only isolates them and uses the differences against minorities. Whites (and assimilated minorities) then automatically slate the program(s) as a patronizing "extra boost" for the "failure" minority to be able to pull itself up. It's seen as "accommodation" rather than incorporation of more opportunities and resources where there previously were little to none.

If I'm catching your drift, you're saying that "artificial leveling" of the demographic is more or less redundant, as it creates tension through the very process by which it's leveling the playing field, yes? That's true, which is why such a program is dangerous. However, if we can succesfully distribute the races across society in the long run, then discontinue the program, I think the tensions created therein will ease much faster than it would have taken for society to level off naturally. It takes a long time for an entire minority to completely catch up to a majority from an economic standpoint. Blacks were very underprivaledged, and although that is no longer the case, it's impossible for every minority to fully "catch up" in the time it's been since... well, there isn't really a landmark moment. However, the case of immigration of poorer people to the US is entirely different and contributes to the "underprivaledged minority" view.
The biggest issue Skye, is that you can't establish a "program" that simply changes peoples' minds. Officially, the races are already regarded as equal. Some people don't treat them that way, but there isn't much the feds can do about that. (Except put them on trial)

The honest-to-God truth is that historic significance will diminish more and more in time as the society levels off demographically. Learning from a mistake is one thing, let it never be forgotten. But holding the past up as a filter to everything we view today is something entirely different. Yes slavery happened, and it left a nasty wound on the face of Western history. Wounds need to heal, however; they need time and they need care. When Desmond Tutu told us that we need to heal the wounds of the past, this is exactly what he was talking about (I was actually there at his speech, I have the .mp3 if anyone wants it). Time can heal a festering wound like that, no matter the severity. The day will come when our society can look at a photo like the one above and have the same reaction regardless of which race is "on top".

If the women were of the same race, there would be no real opposition to the campaign since all things would be equal from a racial perspective. However, all the races are equal anyway, mankind has determined that and is well aware of it. As a species, we have known for many years that any given race has equal potential, so why should it matter which one succeeds over the other in the add campaign?

Really, it shouldn't. An add like this one shouldn't speak of racism because we should know in our hearts that race really makes no difference, and that the focus of the add is on color, not race. That's egalitarianism and true equality. Saddly however, society is not yet at that point.

Why?
Well that is quite the loaded question. Why can't society move towards a more egalitarian view? There's probably no single answer. I think history is still too close on our heels for us to have moved that far ahead.

OOG: I edited this post a bunch, please make sure you check again if you quoted me. Some of the stuff I said before the edit was... off kilter.

This reply was last edited on 07-08-06 02:27:12 AM by Menion.

Quick Reply

Page: [ 1 2 3 4 ]	Reply to Thread \| Create New Thread \| Create New Poll \| Convert To Poll \| Subscribe To Thread
[ Thread Views: 11924 \| Total Posts: 93 ]

Server Time: 04-23-21 05:17:11 AM
Load Time: 0.177 seconds.
- PHP: 0.14 seconds.
- SQL: 0.037 seconds.
- Queries: 28

Top of Page