100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Double Standard? Race Card? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
I want to go back to a conversation that appears on the first page of this thread. I don't like the term "race card" or racist for that matter. I think that we are humans first and foremost. Like it or not, we have all been cast on this earth together. Let's play the human card. as a goal I love it, but we still have to have honest discussion of how to GET THERE..... 
If you want to "GET THERE", then you need to do one thing in particular: Stop saying that certain people are "your people". To explain what I mean, take a look at the below image of the main characters in the animated show Hey Arnold!: 
The blond-haired boy in the upper-left-hand corner of the image is Arnold, the show's title character. The boy immediately to the right of Arnold (wearing the sweatshirt with "33" on the front) is Gerald, Arnold's best friend. 
* * * *[Gerald]* * * * The rest of the characters are kids in Arnold's neighborhood who participate in Arnold's adventures. One of the show's strengths is that it depicts children of different ethnic backgrounds (one girl is Asian; one boy is Jewish) treating each other as equals. To these characters, ethnic background is irrelevant (except in one episode in which the characters celebrate the Bar Mitzvah of one of their friends). In the show, Gerald's "people" aren't people who share his racial characteristics. Instead, Gerald's "people" are Arnold and the other kids depicted in the above image, because the kids live in the same environment, attend the same school and have the same public experiences (as opposed to family experiences) and treat each other as equals. In short, the kids are culturally the same despite the fact that they have different ethnic ancestries. What is true in that fictional show is also true in real life. Who you are culturally is not determined by your physical features, but by your language, beliefs, upbringing and experiences. This reality is seen in the "Harry Potter" film series (although a fictional story), in which the students at Hogwarts are culturally the same although they are of different racial backgrounds (Angelina Johnson is a black student who eventually becomes Ron Weasley's sister-in-law). As I see it, if you limit your "people" to being only people who share your physical/racial characteristics, then you are engaging in racism because you are practicing racial segregation. In the show, Gerald's "people" aren't people who share his racial characteristics. Instead, Gerald's "people" are Arnold and the other kids depicted in the above image, because the kids live in the same environment, attend the same school and have the same public experiences (as opposed to family experiences) and treat each other as equals. In short, the kids are culturally the same despite the fact that they have different ethnic ancestries. as it stands, in america, because of the racial element of its very FOUNDATION people within a 'race' have experience a very similar 'culture' that is why, in fed statistics, they dont have impoverished, educated, or any other type of 'category' or distinction but you can easily find out what percentage of americans are black white,,,etc and you can find further distinctions by RACE even amongst people that otherwise have similar (Culture) education, social status,,etc,,, or how many incarcerated are white, black, etc,,, or how many in college are white black, etc.... so when we further examine INFORMATION that is collected with such categorization, it is going to be necessarily relevant to use that same categorization when looking at the underlying causes,,,,, Isn't the use of such categorization in itself a form of systematic racism? Besides, I am addressing the question of how to put an end to racism. Putting an end to it starts with the individual, with the way that the individual perceives another individual. Earlier this year, I had an opportunity to talk to the bishop of a collection of Christian churches located in the eastern African nation of Uganda. Regarding his outward features, the bishop has more in common with Louis Farrakhan than he does with me. So, would it be correct to say that the bishop is one of Farrakhan's "people"? Answer: No. The only things that the bishop and Farrakhan have in common are physical characteristics. there is something that seems obvious to me, and maybe because of my own personal experiences the commonality about which I speak is a COMMON history HERE IN AMERICA common civil struggles, common financial struggles, common educational struggles,, all stemming from the FOUNDATION of racially divided policy and law that CREATED A racially divided base so, although on a personal level I have much in common with people from different races, my TREATMENT is going to be much more common to others who look like me,,,, the treatment that STARTS from long standing historically formed preconceptions about what people with my ancestral background AND asthetic features here in america can do or should do,,, I have much in common with many males, but I have much more COMMON experience SYSTEMATICALLY with other females,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Redykeulous
on
Thu 07/12/12 04:15 PM
|
|
I like my post better
 they're all good posts when they continue to inspire discussion.
...I'm not going back into my history to pull the link for you, but I will give you a huge hint, start with the state of Michigan....THEY AMENDED as did two other states and two more are considering for a total of five...
Oh – so that’s in regards to the states that have considered Affirmative Action bans particularly targeting College admissions, including: Texas, Michigan, Nebraska, Colorado, Arizona, Missouri, Oklahoma and California. Washington State simply banned all government agencies from any form of discrimination in employment, agency processes, and education which, of course, disallows the use of equalizing factors that have been inherent in the federal AA guidelines. Missouri did not make it to the ballot, not enough signatures. Colorado struck it down; Oklahoma failed in 2008 but is on ballot for Nov. 2012. Michigan has been prevented from implementing their ban because the courts perceived a direct conflict between the Michigan constitution and the new law (to ban). So far Michigan has refused to make changes that would allow both laws to exit – so that one is still up in the air. California and Texas have, so far, won any court battles, but there are still some in the pipeline and Nebraska colleges also dealing with the effect of and AA bans. California and Texas – two of the earliest to ban AA in colleges had noticed some wide disparities in the diversity of their populations. The institutions were allowed to develop their own strategies to be complicit with their states laws. [ quote] April 3, 2012 The university has tried to compensate for the drop in those students by using other admissions criteria, including a "comprehensive review" of applicants, admitting the top 4 percent of graduates from any high school and decreasing the weight of standardized tests, the opinion said. But affirmative action proponents say the measures have not been enough to boost opportunities for historically excluded minorities. So they’re still working on other avenues to assure they have diverse and inclusive campuses and I certainly respect their efforts. Texas has had more luck with this strategy: In Texas, students in the top 10 percent of high schools are automatically admitted to the public university system, a policy that does not consider race but increases racial diversity in part because so many high schools are racially homogenous.
Nebraska is still experimenting as their universities had developed strong diversity programs for outreach, recruiting and assistance programs that were targeting particular diverse groups. Now they are illegal. Their programs were designed to reach,assist and persuade the best of those populations to apply. They have lost some funding and associations with grantors who only funded because of the inclusive nature of the programs. Nebraska is tying a different approach to try to maintain diversity – include two new essay questions — both optional — on UNL’s admissions application. One allows students to explain how they’ve contributed to diversity, and the other invites students to write about obstacles they’ve overcome.
The open-ended nature of the questions allows applicants to interpret “diversity” as they wish, Munier said. The essays also will allow UNL to identify potential scholarship recipients based on factors beyond race and gender: A student who writes about becoming the first in his or her family to apply for college might stand out, for instance, as could a low-income student or a student from rural Nebraska seeking to add to UNL’s geographic diversity. Obviously the ‘fix’ for AA is not a simple matter of state legislation. In fact AA guidelines were established to be the simplest and most economic way of bridging the gaps that exist between minority populations and the social inequalities that stem from innumerable sources. It was originally thought that existing inequalities would begin to fade with desegregation and federally legislated Acts specifically targeted at protecting the rights and opportunities of minority people. But we have failed to successfully address discrimination at the appropriate levels – like our primary public school systems, for one. Our judicial systems, from congressional penal legislation to protective services up to the Supreme Court levels have failed minorities miserably as well. We are looking for root causes but they will never be found as long as the ‘majority’ is unable or unwilling to see and acknowledge that both implicit and overt forms of discrimination are as widespread as they really are. I personally don't AA is the ultimate answer - it designed to be bridge the problems that were suppose to be resolved. But they won't be resolved until 'equality' is not a matter of legislation but a matter of social desirablity. EDIT: lots of grammar error in the above - tying to do too many things as once, I think. My appreciation to those who try to muddle through it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Did you mean "avenues of redress" in that first paragraph?
Yes - I could attribute your insight to woman's intuition but I don't want to show any gender bias. No, I don't consider this post mostly angst, but much of it is common sense and some of it I do not agree with...
Entrepreneurial and ground floor entry into newly formed businesses are both ideal ways for women to fast track to high level, high paying jobs...Entry level into new business would be the easiest and would involve far less risk...But Redy, that is NOT the only way and it is not necessarily the best way for women to climb the corporate ladder...A "happy", well adjusted, highly productive, highly motivated woman with an ability to lead and impeccable work ethic can also rise to the top in a reasonable amount of time....The glass ceiling was shattered long ago.... I do consider the things you posted and will continue to, but give women credit...Many do see the big picture and are proceeding accordingly....The great economic gains made during the past century could not have been made if peeps were guilty of tunnel vision....That comment is very easy to make because you are either forgetting or purposefully leaving out the fact that hindsight is 20/20...We have NOT lost everything, we have just come close...A learning experience perhaps?.... I appreciate your response and the good points you have made. Sometimes I reply directly to another person's post but sometimes I include comments within the reply for the benefit of other posters involved in the thread - like the reminder that there is a bigger picture. I agree, there is gender discrimination but considering the attempted gender-biased legislation we've been exposed to in the last few years I'm not as optimistic about our (women)level of achievement. - that's ok though, it just make me want to maintain the effort. On the other hand, I appreciate optimism which is why I consider the current social, economic, and environmental issues to be an opportunity for making changes but I don't necessarily think that 'fixing' some of the old stuff is progress, some things simply require full scale change. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I do think most people dont understand it, yes. Especially throughout the years IVe been discussing it online, its amazing what people 'think' the laws say and what they ACTUALLY say. So try being an employer trying to manage it accurately! That's why it's important for employers to either have the knowledge necessary, or to higher a well educated human resource manager. The cost of that higher salary is worth it in the long run. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Besides, I am addressing the question of how to put an end to racism.
Putting an end to it starts with the individual, with the way that the individual perceives another individual. Earlier this year, I had an opportunity to talk to the bishop of a collection of Christian churches located in the eastern African nation of Uganda. Regarding his outward features, the bishop has more in common with Louis Farrakhan than he does with me. So, would it be correct to say that the bishop is one of Farrakhan's "people"? Answer: No. The only things that the bishop and Farrakhan have in common are physical characteristics. there is something that seems obvious to me, and maybe because of my own personal experiences the commonality about which I speak is a COMMON history HERE IN AMERICA common civil struggles, common financial struggles, common educational struggles,, all stemming from the FOUNDATION of racially divided policy and law that CREATED A racially divided base so, although on a personal level I have much in common with people from different races, my TREATMENT is going to be much more common to others who look like me,,,, the treatment that STARTS from long standing historically formed preconceptions about what people with my ancestral background AND asthetic features here in america can do or should do,,, I have much in common with many males, but I have much more COMMON experience SYSTEMATICALLY with other females,,, In my previously-posted analogies (Hey Arnold!, Harry Potter saga), the people in each analogy have common civil struggles, common financial struggles, common educational struggles, and yet they are not all the same in their "racial" features. Meanwhile in the real world, Latina magazine published an article in which Latinas who are outwardly black complain about the way that they are treated by African-Americans*. Those Latinas are offended whenever someone assumes that they are African-Americans*, because that is not what they are. In short, those particular Latinas have been judged according to their skin color, and among the ones doing the judging are African-Americans*. You can't control how others label you, but you can control how you label yourself. If you want to do your part to end racism, then it would be helpful if you would refrain from using physical features as a basis for determining who your "people" are. We are now living in the 21st Century, a time when laws and court rulings have done away with the racial policies that were common during the last century. The alleged "racism between the teeth" is the residual effect of the those policies, and yet, that residual effect is just that - residual. I still consider it an act of racism to claim that your "people" are your "people" because those people have the same "racial" characteristics that you have. By doing that, you are judging people according to the color of their skin, not according to the content of their character. [*I use the expression "African-American" for the sake of convenience only.] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Meanwhile in the real world, Latina magazine published an article in which Latinas who are outwardly black complain about the way that they are treated by African-Americans*. Those Latinas are offended whenever someone assumes that they are African-Americans*, because that is not what they are. In short, those particular Latinas have been judged according to their skin color, and among the ones doing the judging are African-Americans*. You can't control how others label you, but you can control how you label yourself. If you want to do your part to end racism, then it would be helpful if you would refrain from using physical features as a basis for determining who your "people" are. We are now living in the 21st Century, a time when laws and court rulings have done away with the racial policies that were common during the last century. The alleged "racism between the teeth" is the residual effect of the those policies, and yet, that residual effect is just that - residual. I still consider it an act of racism to claim that your "people" are your "people" because those people have the same "racial" characteristics that you have. By doing that, you are judging people according to the color of their skin, not according to the content of their character. [*I use the expression "African-American" for the sake of convenience only.] That is exactly why I use the term negro. It is scientific classification of race. Not all negros are from Africa and not all Africans are negro. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Leigh2154
on
Thu 07/12/12 04:50 PM
|
|
I like my post better
they're all good posts when they continue to inspire discussion.
...I'm not going back into my history to pull the link for you, but I will give you a huge hint, start with the state of Michigan....THEY AMENDED as did two other states and two more are considering for a total of five...
Oh – so that’s in regards to the states that have considered Affirmative Action bans particularly targeting College admissions, including: Texas, Michigan, Nebraska, Colorado, Arizona, Missouri, Oklahoma and California. Washington State simply banned all government agencies from any form of discrimination in employment, agency processes, and education which, of course, disallows the use of equalizing factors that have been inherent in the federal AA guidelines. Missouri did not make it to the ballot, not enough signatures. Colorado struck it down; Oklahoma failed in 2008 but is on ballot for Nov. 2012. Michigan has been prevented from implementing their ban because the courts perceived a direct conflict between the Michigan constitution and the new law (to ban). So far Michigan has refused to make changes that would allow both laws to exit – so that one is still up in the air. California and Texas have, so far, won any court battles, but there are still some in the pipeline and Nebraska colleges also dealing with the effect of and AA bans. California and Texas – two of the earliest to ban AA in colleges had noticed some wide disparities in the diversity of their populations. The institutions were allowed to develop their own strategies to be complicit with their states laws. [ quote] April 3, 2012 The university has tried to compensate for the drop in those students by using other admissions criteria, including a "comprehensive review" of applicants, admitting the top 4 percent of graduates from any high school and decreasing the weight of standardized tests, the opinion said. But affirmative action proponents say the measures have not been enough to boost opportunities for historically excluded minorities. So they’re still working on other avenues to assure they have diverse and inclusive campuses and I certainly respect their efforts. Texas has had more luck with this strategy: In Texas, students in the top 10 percent of high schools are automatically admitted to the public university system, a policy that does not consider race but increases racial diversity in part because so many high schools are racially homogenous.
Nebraska is still experimenting as their universities had developed strong diversity programs for outreach, recruiting and assistance programs that were targeting particular diverse groups. Now they are illegal. Their programs were designed to reach,assist and persuade the best of those populations to apply. They have lost some funding and associations with grantors who only funded because of the inclusive nature of the programs. Nebraska is tying a different approach to try to maintain diversity – include two new essay questions — both optional — on UNL’s admissions application. One allows students to explain how they’ve contributed to diversity, and the other invites students to write about obstacles they’ve overcome.
The open-ended nature of the questions allows applicants to interpret “diversity” as they wish, Munier said. The essays also will allow UNL to identify potential scholarship recipients based on factors beyond race and gender: A student who writes about becoming the first in his or her family to apply for college might stand out, for instance, as could a low-income student or a student from rural Nebraska seeking to add to UNL’s geographic diversity. Obviously the ‘fix’ for AA is not a simple matter of state legislation. In fact AA guidelines were established to be the simplest and most economic way of bridging the gaps that exist between minority populations and the social inequalities that stem from innumerable sources. It was originally thought that existing inequalities would begin to fade with desegregation and federally legislated Acts specifically targeted at protecting the rights and opportunities of minority people. But we have failed to successfully address discrimination at the appropriate levels – like our primary public school systems, for one. Our judicial systems, from congressional penal legislation to protective services up to the Supreme Court levels have failed minorities miserably as well. Some good info here  To your comment about inequalities and the belief that, over time, they would fade as the gap narrowed, you are "somewhat" correct...Speaking only with respect to AA, it's true the original thought was that the desired effect would happen sooner than it has, but I do not believe that translates into a failure to reach appropriate levels,..[What are "appropriate levels anyway?...The only acceptable level is no discrimination ] .... It just means that we are still working on the problem, still committed to resolving it.
Social desirability will not happen because people are not perfect....The best we can hope for is continued awareness, education, and programs like AA that fight against discrimination...I believe this not because I am pure of heart, but because I understand that discrimination of any kind is counterproductive to the health and prosperity of society as a whole.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Texas is a poor example.
The majority is Mexican. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Leigh2154
on
Thu 07/12/12 04:51 PM
|
|
Did you mean "avenues of redress" in that first paragraph?
Yes - I could attribute your insight to woman's intuition but I don't want to show any gender bias. No, I don't consider this post mostly angst, but much of it is common sense and some of it I do not agree with...
Entrepreneurial and ground floor entry into newly formed businesses are both ideal ways for women to fast track to high level, high paying jobs...Entry level into new business would be the easiest and would involve far less risk...But Redy, that is NOT the only way and it is not necessarily the best way for women to climb the corporate ladder...A "happy", well adjusted, highly productive, highly motivated woman with an ability to lead and impeccable work ethic can also rise to the top in a reasonable amount of time....The glass ceiling was shattered long ago.... I do consider the things you posted and will continue to, but give women credit...Many do see the big picture and are proceeding accordingly....The great economic gains made during the past century could not have been made if peeps were guilty of tunnel vision....That comment is very easy to make because you are either forgetting or purposefully leaving out the fact that hindsight is 20/20...We have NOT lost everything, we have just come close...A learning experience perhaps?.... I appreciate your response and the good points you have made. Sometimes I reply directly to another person's post but sometimes I include comments within the reply for the benefit of other posters involved in the thread - like the reminder that there is a bigger picture. I agree, there is gender discrimination but considering the attempted gender-biased legislation we've been exposed to in the last few years I'm not as optimistic about our (women)level of achievement. - that's ok though, it just make me want to maintain the effort. On the other hand, I appreciate optimism which is why I consider the current social, economic, and environmental issues to be an opportunity for making changes but I don't necessarily think that 'fixing' some of the old stuff is progress, some things simply require full scale change. Absolutely agree with your last comment, fixing old stuff is tedious....This is a good place for me to make this point again  Absolute equality is impossible to achieve and the downside to all programs is this..."once a program, always a program...Those who suffer discrimination will hold on to Affirmative Action with an iron grip, that is understandable...Sometimes there is no choice but to "fix" that which is not working as effectively as we need it to...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Texas is a poor example. The majority is Mexican. True dat... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It works every which way with every race, it's not one race against another, it's also vice versa. Some people have had less exposure to the elements of mixed relationships. Chaos is meant to happen on this earth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Besides, I am addressing the question of how to put an end to racism.
Putting an end to it starts with the individual, with the way that the individual perceives another individual. Earlier this year, I had an opportunity to talk to the bishop of a collection of Christian churches located in the eastern African nation of Uganda. Regarding his outward features, the bishop has more in common with Louis Farrakhan than he does with me. So, would it be correct to say that the bishop is one of Farrakhan's "people"? Answer: No. The only things that the bishop and Farrakhan have in common are physical characteristics. there is something that seems obvious to me, and maybe because of my own personal experiences the commonality about which I speak is a COMMON history HERE IN AMERICA common civil struggles, common financial struggles, common educational struggles,, all stemming from the FOUNDATION of racially divided policy and law that CREATED A racially divided base so, although on a personal level I have much in common with people from different races, my TREATMENT is going to be much more common to others who look like me,,,, the treatment that STARTS from long standing historically formed preconceptions about what people with my ancestral background AND asthetic features here in america can do or should do,,, I have much in common with many males, but I have much more COMMON experience SYSTEMATICALLY with other females,,, In my previously-posted analogies (Hey Arnold!, Harry Potter saga), the people in each analogy have common civil struggles, common financial struggles, common educational struggles, and yet they are not all the same in their "racial" features. Meanwhile in the real world, Latina magazine published an article in which Latinas who are outwardly black complain about the way that they are treated by African-Americans*. Those Latinas are offended whenever someone assumes that they are African-Americans*, because that is not what they are. In short, those particular Latinas have been judged according to their skin color, and among the ones doing the judging are African-Americans*. You can't control how others label you, but you can control how you label yourself. If you want to do your part to end racism, then it would be helpful if you would refrain from using physical features as a basis for determining who your "people" are. We are now living in the 21st Century, a time when laws and court rulings have done away with the racial policies that were common during the last century. The alleged "racism between the teeth" is the residual effect of the those policies, and yet, that residual effect is just that - residual. I still consider it an act of racism to claim that your "people" are your "people" because those people have the same "racial" characteristics that you have. By doing that, you are judging people according to the color of their skin, not according to the content of their character. [*I use the expression "African-American" for the sake of convenience only.] some men are mistaken for women because of their facial features and long hair,,and some women are mistaken for men because of their choice to wear short hair, no makeup, etc,,, being offended by understandable mistakes is truly the issue of the person who gets offended, unless the incorrect term is INTENDED As an insult,,, I dont worry so much about that. what makes 'my people' my people isnt that we merely ahe similar racial features, it is the RACIAL HISTORY We share this should not be a problem, anymore than me aknowledging the people sharing a common life with me in my home as MY FAMILY,, it is not a term that excludes any other BROADER application of the word I dont think the issue is that people acknowledge 'their' race (sometimes referred to as 'my people') or their fellow males or females (often referred to as 'my gender') these are merely classifications to point out one type of commonality or another I Think the tendency for people to believe aknowleding those commonalities for the purpose of discussion is a significant problem, misses the point, it is more along the lines of being 'colorblind', which I also dont agree with the issue shouldnt be whether I aknowledge 'my race' or 'my people' in the context of a discussion on race relations or racism,,,that is merely distracting,, in my opinion the issue is that we need to get past being so uncomfortable with aknowledging different histories or experiences within and between groups of people and start getting to a point where those differences dont make anyone more or less, or better or worse than anyone else, and where those past differences dont interfere with achieving more current financial/social/judicial equality |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shared history is not exclusive to African Americans, all "American" ethnic groups have a shared history...HIstory is important...It should not be forgotten, it does serve a valid purpose as a point of reference in the present...HOWEVER...It does get tiresome, it does sound hypocritical, and it often comes across as a double standard when African Americans use their history as a point of reference to defend, excuse, or explain current actions or circumstances...Phrases like "my people", "your people", "their people", and "race card" can sound discriminatory even when that is not the speakers intention....There is a time and a place for everything...A discussion about racial discrimination is not the place to stress blackness or whiteness and will always be a set up to fail as clearly demonstrated in the very first post to the OP...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Fri 07/13/12 07:53 AM
|
|
Shared history is not exclusive to African Americans, all "American" ethnic groups have a shared history...HIstory is important...It should not be forgotten, it does serve a valid purpose as a point of reference in the present...HOWEVER...It does get tiresome, it does sound hypocritical, and it often comes across as a double standard when African Americans use their history as a point of reference to defend, excuse, or explain current actions or circumstances...Phrases like "my people", "your people", "their people", and "race card" can sound discriminatory even when that is not the speakers intention....There is a time and a place for everything...A discussion about racial discrimination is not the place to stress blackness or whiteness and will always be a set up to fail as clearly demonstrated in the very first post to the OP... IM curious, if the time an place to discuss 'blackness' or 'whitness' in AMERICA where within my MOTHERS lifetime that very characteristic was the difference between where you were and wernt allowed to live, be educated, or even go pee,,,,,is not in a racial discrimination discussion when is the time? IM sorry that its 'tiresome', but its 'tiresome' to me to hear about alot of repetitive complaints about other issues this is a discussion forum, an in a discussion on race, RACE is going to be mentioned,,, and we absolutely CANNOT Discuss racial disparities and discrimination occurring in AMERICA Without mentioning it,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's tiresome when terrorists like Eugene, Sharpie, Wright and other whitey haters are defended as honorable people.
All facts show they are bigots and want whitey dead. Why defend bigots? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's tiresome when terrorists like Eugene, Sharpie, Wright and other whitey haters are defended as honorable people. All facts show they are bigots and want whitey dead. Why defend bigots? usually, defense is a REACTION to an initated OFFENSE as long as people feel free to ATTACK the character of someone, others are free to defend it as a response,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
“The civil rights of European Americans are being violated by affirmative action, forced integration and anti-European immigration policies... . We face cultural discrimination in the media and education... . An example is the media hate crime hysteria that highlights and publicizes any white crime against minorities.”
“I don't call myself a white supremacist. I'm a civil rights activist concerned about European-American rights.” David Duke quotes Pretty right on quotes. Why is Duke called a racists if the negro bigots get free passes to openly hate? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
“The civil rights of European Americans are being violated by affirmative action, forced integration and anti-European immigration policies... . We face cultural discrimination in the media and education... . An example is the media hate crime hysteria that highlights and publicizes any white crime against minorities.” “I don't call myself a white supremacist. I'm a civil rights activist concerned about European-American rights.” David Duke quotes Pretty right on quotes. Why is Duke called a racists if the negro bigots get free passes to openly hate? oh, I dont know, maybe because he was a former Grand Wizard of the KKK being good friends with Don Black having a blog on Stormfront or believing, now that minorities have HELPED to build up the wealth and power of AMerica, that they should now just go to some other country to let whites have their 'own' neighborhoods , schools, etc,,, ,,those are just a few of MY personal reasons for being pretty convinced he is a bigot,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Looks like the only difference between Duke and Eugene is skin color.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Leigh2154
on
Fri 07/13/12 09:22 AM
|
|
Shared history is not exclusive to African Americans, all "American" ethnic groups have a shared history...HIstory is important...It should not be forgotten, it does serve a valid purpose as a point of reference in the present...HOWEVER...It does get tiresome, it does sound hypocritical, and it often comes across as a double standard when African Americans use their history as a point of reference to defend, excuse, or explain current actions or circumstances...Phrases like "my people", "your people", "their people", and "race card" can sound discriminatory even when that is not the speakers intention....There is a time and a place for everything...A discussion about racial discrimination is not the place to stress blackness or whiteness and will always be a set up to fail as clearly demonstrated in the very first post to the OP... IM curious, if the time an place to discuss 'blackness' or 'whitness' in AMERICA where within my MOTHERS lifetime that very characteristic was the difference between where you were and wernt allowed to live, be educated, or even go pee,,,,,is not in a racial discrimination discussion when is the time? IM sorry that its 'tiresome', but its 'tiresome' to me to hear about alot of repetitive complaints about other issues this is a discussion forum, an in a discussion on race, RACE is going to be mentioned,,, and we absolutely CANNOT Discuss racial disparities and discrimination occurring in AMERICA Without mentioning it,,, Morning Harmony...I was expressing my personal feelings about what was already being discussed and I stand by them....At the risk of sounding like a racist, which I am not, I am going to be brutally honest and speak to the other side of your arguement...I'll start by saying two things...I am far from perfect and I always try....That means, like everyone else who is doing something they care about, I make mistakes, SO DO YOU....I believe you started this thread because you are tired of what you perceive to be negative "group" labeling against your race...That tells me you started it with preconceptions about discrimination with respect to some of the posters here..You have also made it clear that you are tired of Obama bashing and have insisted many times that the bashing was race related when it was not....People who engage in the more serious threads usually do it because they care, not because they like to argue and fight....Your thread title has the potential to incite anger and was unecessary, way beneath your capabilities... It is also counterproductive to meaningful conversation....Some of the things you say and the context in which you say them do, in my humble opinion, sound racist..In spite of your obvious intelligence, your extremely strong commitment to your causes combined with your stubborn nature, often stalemate good conversation.... I am hoping against hope that this does not anger you or hurt your feelings because I value your imput, more often than not enjoy your posts...I have learned a great deal from reading you....
|
|
|
|
|
