Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
i hate my last name. i think when my dad dies im gonna change it. im thinking "waldorf" or "lannister."
its funny, my friends from college and my wife all consider my nose large. but recently at thanksgiving my family clearly didn't think my nose was large at all. i said that only among a group of jews is my nose considered normal sized.
i hate my last name. i think when my dad dies im gonna change it. im thinking "waldorf" or "lannister."
its funny, my friends from college and my wife all consider my nose large. but recently at thanksgiving my family clearly didn't think my nose was large at all. i said that only among a group of jews is my nose considered normal sized.
LOL! I am of Dutch descent. The Dutch are the tallest people overall in the world, and along with the height comes our big feet.
Some years ago, my sisters and cousins were standing around talking at a bridal shower. One cousin looked down at my feet and asked what size shoe I wore. I said, "10". She said, "How did you end up with such small feet?"
Only in my family would a size 10 shoe on a woman be considered small.
thats true. im sure there were a few. Thats the same for any race in any election. But to assume that all of them did simply because he is black is completely incorrect. That fact remains black people almost always vote democrat. so again, the assumption is completely false. But to your point, if one did vote simply because of his race then yes that would be racism.
OK, I'm mostly Irish heritage but consider myself only as a american not an irish american, never once in my long life did I vote for a candidate because he was simply an Irish candidate. There has been many articles posted about blacks coming out to vote for Obama in large numbers. Here's an article about whites not voting for him because he's black and blacks exceeding the normal numbers at the polls by millions. I agree wholeheartedly that blacks vote for democrats but these numbers at the last 2 elections cycles might be looked at differently.
One interpretation assumes pure old-fashioned racism: whites will not vote for Obama because he is black. According to this view, a segment of the white voting population did not vote for Obama in 2008, and will not do so in 2012, simply because of the color of his skin. These arguments are presented with evidence showing the smaller percentage of the white vote Obama received in some Deep South states compared to white Democratic candidates before him. In Louisiana and Alabama, for example, Obama received nine or ten percent less of the white vote John Kerry took in 2004.
The other interpretation concerns itself only with black voters. African-Americans will vote for Obama also because he is black. That is, black voters will generally vote for a Democrat but they will particularly and exceptionally vote for Obama because he is black. The evidence here is found in historical comparisons. John Kerry received 88 percent of the black vote in 2004 and Al Gore took 90 percent in 2000. Obama, however, not only received 96 percent of that vote in 2008, but also boosted black turnout by two million voters nationwide compared to 2004.
And if you don't you will assure that those not white and male will never get hired.
I am a white male who has been "underemployed" for the past three years! And I have been around enough to know that if I DO fill those out, it puts ME at a disadvantage for getting hired.
I also love the term "reverse racism" people used to describe a minority's hate toward whites. It is racism one way or the other. Decisions should be made without considering race or sex, plain and simple. Don't twist it around to make it sound like anything else. This is 2013, not 1913.
I am a white male who has been "underemployed" for the past three years! And I have been around enough to know that if I DO fill those out, it puts ME at a disadvantage for getting hired.
I also love the term "reverse racism" people used to describe a minority's hate toward whites. It is racism one way or the other. Decisions should be made without considering race or sex, plain and simple. Don't twist it around to make it sound like anything else. This is 2013, not 1913.
And things have not changed that much in 100 years to make me feel that racism isn't still a significant factor in this society. I have seen and experienced too much to think differently.
I am a white male who has been "underemployed" for the past three years! And I have been around enough to know that if I DO fill those out, it puts ME at a disadvantage for getting hired.
I also love the term "reverse racism" people used to describe a minority's hate toward whites. It is racism one way or the other. Decisions should be made without considering race or sex, plain and simple. Don't twist it around to make it sound like anything else. This is 2013, not 1913.
I actually think not filling those out puts you at a disadvantage unless you are Asian (in which case why would you ever shoot yourself in the foot with one of those things). If it's empty the default assumption is white anyway, and it's a blatantly political statement which risks offended whoever in HR is handling your resume.
With that said, there's a lot to be said for not checking the box even knowing that not doing so can only hurt you (again, assuming you're not Asian) -- those things do nothing but enable racism and leaving them empty is practically an act of civic duty and sacrifice. I'd like to say I never fill them out, but I go back and forth depending on the context, usually leaving them blank.
OK, I'm mostly Irish heritage but consider myself only as a american not an irish american, never once in my long life did I vote for a candidate because he was simply an Irish candidate. There has been many articles posted about blacks coming out to vote for Obama in large numbers. Here's an article about whites not voting for him because he's black and blacks exceeding the normal numbers at the polls by millions. I agree wholeheartedly that blacks vote for democrats but these numbers at the last 2 elections cycles might be looked at differently.
One interpretation assumes pure old-fashioned racism: whites will not vote for Obama because he is black. According to this view, a segment of the white voting population did not vote for Obama in 2008, and will not do so in 2012, simply because of the color of his skin. These arguments are presented with evidence showing the smaller percentage of the white vote Obama received in some Deep South states compared to white Democratic candidates before him. In Louisiana and Alabama, for example, Obama received nine or ten percent less of the white vote John Kerry took in 2004.
The other interpretation concerns itself only with black voters. African-Americans will vote for Obama also because he is black. That is, black voters will generally vote for a Democrat but they will particularly and exceptionally vote for Obama because he is black. The evidence here is found in historical comparisons. John Kerry received 88 percent of the black vote in 2004 and Al Gore took 90 percent in 2000. Obama, however, not only received 96 percent of that vote in 2008, but also boosted black turnout by two million voters nationwide compared to 2004.
None of this proves that the majority of blacks voted for Obama "simply because of race." Did you know 91 percent of blacks voted for Walter Mondale? You can make your assumptions based on a few people who did so. But the majority of black folks voted for Obama because he was Democrat. They may have been more politically aware because of the black candidate and the media attention associated with that(which led to larger voter turnout), but most were not simply voting due to his race.
I will add that in 2008, i was at Essence Festival and both Obama and Hilary spoke. Hilary had the better crowd response by FAR at that time.
Last edited by pinkydapimp; 12-23-2013 at 04:23 PM..
i hate my last name. i think when my dad dies im gonna change it. im thinking "waldorf" or "lannister."
its funny, my friends from college and my wife all consider my nose large. but recently at thanksgiving my family clearly didn't think my nose was large at all. i said that only among a group of jews is my nose considered normal sized.
Very few Jews hid their Jewishness. It's just something you don't do in my culture. If it were that simple, they wouldn't have been so easy to target in the Holocaust, Inquisition, Expulsion from Russia, etc, etc. Sure, a few entertainers did it back in the day, but they were in the minority of Jews. Even a lot of non-Jews changed their names in entertainment. Sometimes to sound "cooler", other times to be less "ethnic". Either way, it is a very tiny part of the population.
Goldwyn and Mayer (Metro Goldwyn Mayer, AKA MGM Studios), Warner Brothers, Goldman & Sachs, and I can name many more, all had very Jewish sounding names, yet even back then, they still made it. And I can assure you that most white people back then didn't consider them to be "white".
And I am not trying to draw comparisons between any races or ethnicities here. I don't believe in grouping people together like that. The point I am trying to make is that Minority/Majority status does not guarantee anyone power, or lack of it.
But it's like saying "blacks have had great success in sports & entertainment the last 50 years. All's good and now we're all on a level playing field." History doesn't work like that.
Jews success or failure was due to their perseverance but also very much due to the whims of the MAJORITY in power in Russia, Germany, Spain, etc. If for some reason the powers-that-be decided it's time for a crackdown, Jews were easy targets and the common townsfolk did not often care. This went on for centuries. Only western democracies like the US, Canada & Great Britain allowed them to thrive unburdened (for the most part) by out & out violence and regular pogroms. So yes, Jews became successful and basically mainstream but only in stable democracies and maybe for only the past 100 years. It was a long slog getting to that point.
It's that shared suffering that saw Jews become the biggest supporters of MLK and the civil rights movement in the 60s. They knew first-hand that arbitrary differences like religion & skin color are not reasons to hold entire groups of people back. And for black people true civic freedom is less than 50 yrs old.
But it's like saying "blacks have had great success in sports & entertainment the last 50 years. All's good and now we're all on a level playing field." History doesn't work like that.
Jews success or failure was due to their perseverance but also very much due to the whims of the MAJORITY in power in Russia, Germany, Spain, etc. If for some reason the powers-that-be decided it's time for a crackdown, Jews were easy targets and the common townsfolk did not often care. This went on for centuries. Only western democracies like the US, Canada & Great Britain allowed them to thrive unburdened (for the most part) by out & out violence and regular pogroms. So yes, Jews became successful and basically mainstream but only in stable democracies and maybe for only the past 100 years. It was a long slog getting to that point.
It's that shared suffering that saw Jews become the biggest supporters of MLK and the civil rights movement in the 60s. They knew first-hand that arbitrary differences like religion & skin color are not reasons to hold entire groups of people back. And for black people true civic freedom is less than 50 yrs old.
Yes. That is why I wrote that caveat "At least not in a free, non-violent non-regime". The great Jewish migration (my ancestors included) was about 150 years ago, around 1850-1875. They were still hated, but at least they didn't have to be worried about being killed.
But we are talking about power, and it's origins. It's origins are not in having high numbers, and it is not in having some success in "sports and entertainment". You know it goes way beyond that. Getting $10M to run around with a ball isn't power. Paying people $10M to run around with a ball IS. White people losing their majority is not going to cost them their power, because they still have all the money, the best education, and the contacts. You can't vote those things away with a majority. Politicians don't work for the people, they work for the money that people give their campaigns. You can vote more black and hispanic people into office, but they are still going to do whatever the people giving them the money tells them to do. I wouldn't expect any big changes when white people are no longer the majority.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
