Racism in America (radical, Hispanics, financial, states)

[Reelist in Atlanta]

Originally Posted by Sagran

It's all about history. It wasn't too long ago that the Miss America Pageant was totally segregated, if not by regulation, by tradition. Black women simply weren't allowed to compete. It was then that the Black Miss America-type pageant was born. And the Negro colleges. And just about everything else black-specific. There was a time that a black on the TV would start a round of phone calls as one black family would call another to tell them that "there's one on channel 3". No wonder there's a black network, black magazines, black anything. It isn't because blacks are excluding whites, it's because whites excluded blacks.

My goodness gracious! Were talking about how things used to be again. It's not that way anymore for crying out loud. According to you we could never move past racism because of the way things used to be. You are a defeatest, my friend. We're talking about racism today and you bring up how things used to be.

- Reel

[halleda]

Originally Posted by Sunil's Dad

The French were slaves of the English? News to me.

Just who do you think supplemented their own English slaves? Captured French, who were their enemies. Convicts and French made up the majority of the slaves used to row the boats of the English. But don't feel too bad, the French made slaves of the English too. There are a number of books if you would like to learn more.

[joetownmom]

Originally Posted by Sagran

Millions of respectable Protestants sat quietly by while their ministers told them not to vote for Kennedy because he was a **horrors** Catholic. And then they put on their Sunday best and went right back into that House of God the next Sunday morning.

People sit quietly by and listen to others spew hatred all the time. Always have, always will.

And some of those same pastors told folks not to vote for John Kerry for the same reason.

[dorock99]

Originally Posted by halleda

Mac,
So Affirmative Action is racism by your definition? Don't worry. I agree with that statement. You also have to delineate the different FORMS of racism or racial preconceptions. I think everyone discriminates every day. I think a lot of today's supposed White racism is simple behavioral discrimination. Every parent in this country discriminates. In the old days when I was growing up a kid with long hair was discriminated against. Nowdays many parents do not want their children around people who pierce themselves. Discrimination is a normal action in which you apply your personal experiences to guide you in making wiser decisions than in the past. In the race issue the Civil Rights movement found it advantageous to lump Racial Supremacy with Racial Separatists and with Racial Isolationists and Racial Purists. They lumped them all under the term racist. They had one thing in common, they were ALL applied only to Whites. There was never any question that Blacks were not racist simply because they were Black. That was racist but no one called them on it. Blacks have gotten preferential treatment based on the color of their skin. There is no other term for that BUT racial discrimination. So one group wants to remain pure and despite the claims of some of the equally racist Civil Rights supporters, there are those with absolutely NO Black blood in their background. Anthropologists know this to be the case. There are the hate filled Racial Supremists who are just plain wrong in my book. Racial Seperatists just want to be left alone by other races not just Blacks. There is even an extreme case called Racial Isolationists. So first we must agree on the definition of racist and whether a Black person can be labeled as racist now that a Black man is now in the position of supreme power relatively over whites and other races alike.

Halleda and Macmeal, i've read most of your comments regarding racism and it seemed to be fairly debated in most respects. However, i'd like to add my interpretation to the discussion;

I believe discrimination is the utlimate parent of various forms subcategories of discrimination, which include racism, sexism, and etc In my opinion and analysis discrimination by itself without the support of legislation is ultimately powerless. I also believe while racism is a very prevelent subcatogory of discrimation it is not the only discriminatory force that creates problems in the United States.

Discrimination (Parent or Main Category)
(Sub Cateogries of Parent below)
-Racism
-Ageism
-Sexism
-Location
-Country of origin
-Occupation
-Educational Attainment

The question is not whether individuals practice discrimination (we all practice different forms to some degree), but it is how the creation of unjust/unfair laws created by legislators impact another individuals personal preference to discriminate. In other words discrimnation without the support of legislation is ultimately powerless, so under this logic i'd assume most rational people would not engage in such a powerless activity if it wasn't legislated.

To eliminate discrimination (and all its subcategories) citizens entrusted with the duty to create laws, must make sure the creation of all legislation is fair/just, so that all eventual outcomes are fair and just. Discrimination is only powerful if legislation makes it. The power stems from legislators creating unfair/unjust laws, that favors or advantages one group of citizens over another (whether it is Jim Crow, Voting, Women's Sufferage, Licensing, Educational Attainment, Occupational, Affirmative Action or other etc). Any group outside the scope of this legislation is disadvantage and thus has their freedoms reduced. The outcomes when unfair/unjust laws are enacted create unfair/unjust outcomes.

You pointed out Affirmative Action, which would certainly qualify under legislators creating an unfair/unjust law. Why it was created is irrelevant (i understand why) but to correct Macmeal a law created that extends freedom to some, but not to others can never be considerd a just/fair law The only fair/just laws are laws that extend freedom to all equally.

To remedy past injustice you have to recognize the legislation behind the discrimination. To clarify discrimination of any form is not powerful unless there is legislation that supports its existence. To solve the problem of past injustice to (blacks, asians, hispanics, women, and the old) the goal should be to create fair/just legislation that extends freedom to all equally. The extension of freedom for all citizens is the ultimate goal. Freedom to all can only be extended through legislation of fair/just laws. If fair/just laws are enacted then the outcomes are by default will all be fair/just.

The complexity of the problems are really simple. The conflicts within and surrounding most societal problems arise from legislators entrusted to create fair/just laws on behalf of all citizens, that do not create fair/just laws. Instead they create laws that are unfair/unjust that empower discrimination something that derives all its power to coerce, harm, and impede on anothers freedom through law.

Final Point to sum it all up

Laws = created by Legislators

Goal of both conservative /and all other legislators should be to create fair/just laws

Fair and Just Laws = are laws created by legislators that extend freedom equally to all members (citizens) of a society. Laws which do not advantage one group (citizens) over another group. (it's a simple as that nothing more complicated)

Fair and Just Outcomes = Only arise if all laws created by legislators are Fair and Just.

Unfair/Unjust Laws = are laws created by legislators that reduces freedom for a group of citizens in a society. Laws which seek to disadvantage one group (citizens) in relationship to another group of citizens.

Unfair/Unjust Outcomes = Only arise if one single law created by legislators are Unfair and Unjust (the reason it only takes one unfair/unjust law to lead to unfair/unjust outcomes even if all other laws are considerd fair and just is one group of citizens is not experiencing the maximum amount of freedoms due to one piece of unfair/unjust legislation)


Now to close out i'll tie it all back to discrimination


Fair/Just Laws = Fair/Just Outcomes = Extends Freedom to All Equally = Renders Discrimination Powerless

Unfair/Unjust Laws = Unfair/unjust Outcomes = Extends Freedom to Some, but not to all = Gives Discrimination actual Power

[WilliamSmyth]

Originally Posted by halleda

But can you see that this reverse racism is guaranteed to cause anger and confusion from the Whites? Here you are saying not to discriminate on the basis of race and the government discriminates on the basis of race. Sorry but you do NOT cut off your left arm to make up for losing your right arm. Are you saying that racial discrimination is bad or that white discrimination is bad? The massage gets blurred. There were and are better ways to accomplish what you want besides AA. Like Ron Paul said, there was an easy way out of the Civil War and all the backlash that has lasted for 150 years and causes anger on ALL sides. If the North had spend a tenth of what the War cost they could have bought every slave in the South, took them up North and freed them. Instead Lincoln used slavery as a means to alter the basic power balance of this country and caused apparently unrepairable harm to this country in doing so. They were his pawns in an ideological battle that the states lost, and the country as a whole shares now in that loss. I used to really like Lincoln till I did some digging and saw what he did to the foundation of the checks and balances of a federal government and state's right. All unnecessary. This whole racial issue was avoidable but Lincoln CHOSE to cause a wound in this country that may never heal.

The South seceded from from the United States prior to Abraham Lincoln becoming president. Jefferson Davis became president of the the Confederate States in Feb 1861; Lincoln wasn't inaugurated until March 1861.

We can all speculate on how things could have been different, but by the time Lincoln became president the south was already in revolt.

[WilliamSmyth]

Originally Posted by Reelist in Atlanta

I don't see where the poster said that Obama is racist in this post. What he said was that Obama had put racist into the Administration. But as long as you ask:

1. Obama put racists into his Administration i.e. Van Jones

2. The Obama Administration dropped charges of voter intimidation agains the New Black Panther thugs in Philadelphia. Yes that decision came from the top.

3. Obama sided with Gates in a situation where he did not have the facts i.e. it was a 'knee jerk' reaction. It's where he's coming from.

4. He attended a Black Liberation Theology church for 20 years. BLT is anti-white i.e. racist.

5. In a major speech on race he referred to typical white people painting us all with the point he was making.

There's a start for you.

- Reel

Black Liberation Theology is neither racist or anti-white. BLT asserts the equality of all races. Trinity UCC, Obama's former church, is the largest congregation in a predominately(90%+) white denomination. People practicing an anti-white theology would not voluntarily align themselves with predominately white denomination. Not only are they members of the denomination, but they are voluntarily one of the largest financial backers of the denomination.

The following article was written by a former minister at Trinity UCC.
On Faith Panelists Blog: What's Wrong with Black Liberation Theology? - Susan K. Smith

[Sagran]

Originally Posted by Reelist in Atlanta

My goodness gracious! Were talking about how things used to be again. It's not that way anymore for crying out loud. According to you we could never move past racism because of the way things used to be. You are a defeatest, my friend. We're talking about racism today and you bring up how things used to be.

- Reel

More right wing taking-things-out-of-context. I even prefaced my post explaining why things are like they are with "It's all about history." That history was once current events for a lot of the people posting on this forum, it's not like something that happened 100, 200 years ago. Even so, I have had a surprising number of responses from people who were unaware of some of the things I posted. By your thinking, we shouldn't teach history.

If we can't speak of the past, we can't fimprove the future.

[Pug Life]

Originally Posted by WilliamSmyth

The South seceded from from the United States prior to Abraham Lincoln becoming president. Jefferson Davis became president of the the Confederate States in Feb 1861; Lincoln wasn't inaugurated until March 1861.

We can all speculate on how things could have been different, but by the time Lincoln became president the south was already in revolt.

Duh, he was elected long before inaguration. Secession was a direct response to his election.

It's amazing how you people have completely left the main point of this thread behind.

I was talking about Nazis and KKK members holding elected office in America...you people started playing the "race card" and started complaining about how whites are the victim. This is pathetic. You should all be ashamed of yourselves.

Nobody should approve of a KKK leader being elected to office, whether it's Byrd, Duke or Metzger, this is not something that Americans should support or approve of, regardless of race. Nazis and Klan members are evil and dangerous, end of story.

[obo]

Originally Posted by Sagran

Millions of respectable Protestants sat quietly by while their ministers told them not to vote for Kennedy because he was a **horrors** Catholic. And then they put on their Sunday best and went right back into that House of God the next Sunday morning.

People sit quietly by and listen to others spew hatred all the time. Always have, always will.

How is that hate? I think you're just trying to justify something by any means possible.

[WilliamSmyth]

Originally Posted by Pug Life

Duh, he was elected long before inaguration. Secession was a direct response to his election.

It's amazing how you people have completely left the main point of this thread behind.

I was talking about Nazis and KKK members holding elected office in America...you people started playing the "race card" and started complaining about how whites are the victim. This is pathetic. You should all be ashamed of yourselves.

Nobody should approve of a KKK leader being elected to office, whether it's Byrd, Duke or Metzger, this is not something that Americans should support or approve of, regardless of race. Nazis and Klan members are evil and dangerous, end of story.

I was responding to halleda's statement that somehow this was all Lincoln's fault. I was just pointing out that the war had started prior to Lincoln assuming power. Therefore Lincoln was powerless to stop it. We can only speculate on what Lincoln would have done if the South hadn't already seceded by the time he assumed power. The war wasn't started by Lincoln. This issue may very well be off topic, but I couldn't let that assertion go disputed.

Like Ron Paul said, there was an easy way out of the Civil War and all the backlash that has lasted for 150 years and causes anger on ALL sides. If the North had spend a tenth of what the War cost they could have bought every slave in the South, took them up North and freed them. Instead Lincoln used slavery as a means to alter the basic power balance of this country and caused apparently unrepairable harm to this country in doing so. They were his pawns in an ideological battle that the states lost, and the country as a whole shares now in that loss. I used to really like Lincoln till I did some digging and saw what he did to the foundation of the checks and balances of a federal government and state's right. All unnecessary. This whole racial issue was avoidable but Lincoln CHOSE to cause a wound in this country that may never heal.