Stephen wrote:
> Treatment yes but never, I think, the justification that Africans were sub human
> so it didn't count.

I really think it was the other way around, tho. The only way you could 
justify continued slavery was to say "It's not slavery, it's property 
ownership."  I don't think most people really thought they weren't human any 
more than most religious people really believe in the promises of their 
religion.

> Although the situation in Australia might have been
> different. Australian aboriginal weren't enslaved but they were persecuted
> relentlessly with organised Abo hunts.

I have read recently where they're still considered in some laws to not be 
human. Probably for the same reasons - if they're human, you can't just take 
land away without any justification under the law, and nobody is willing to 
actually pass a law bigoted enough to just take it anyway.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 10:52:03 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:

>Stephen wrote:
>> Treatment yes but never, I think, the justification that Africans were sub human
>> so it didn't count.
>
>I really think it was the other way around, tho. The only way you could 
>justify continued slavery was to say "It's not slavery, it's property 
>ownership."  I don't think most people really thought they weren't human any 
>more than most religious people really believe in the promises of their 
>religion.
>

You are right (of course ;) it went from slavery to property but still holding
on to "slavery". That is one of the marvellous things about humanity, the
ability to believe two contradictory things at the same time. 

>> Although the situation in Australia might have been
>> different. Australian aboriginal weren't enslaved but they were persecuted
>> relentlessly with organised Abo hunts.
>
>I have read recently where they're still considered in some laws to not be 
>human. Probably for the same reasons - if they're human, you can't just take 
>land away without any justification under the law, and nobody is willing to 
>actually pass a law bigoted enough to just take it anyway.

Probably, I can imagine not all the laws were repealed especially when you don't
want to talk about it.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
>> I have read recently where they're still considered in some laws to not be 
>> human. 

> Probably, I can imagine not all the laws were repealed especially when you don't
> want to talk about it.

Well, I meant to say that those laws are still in force, at least from my 
reading of the article.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

>  I especially like the last paragraph:
> 
> "One group of firefighters threatened to sue for discrimination if
> promotions were made based on the test results, and others said they
> would sue if the city ignored the results and denied promotions to
> candidates who did well."
> 
>  That is wrong in *so* many levels I cannot even count. This is what the
> world has become.

The firefighters that were denied promotion sued as a group
without knowing who had scored best on the tests. They didn't
know 100% that the firefighters with the best results were white,
all they really knew was that all the promotions went to 
black rookies, and the test had been discarded.

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook wrote:
> John VanSickle wrote:
>> Over the course of history, just about everyone in a position of power 
>> has abused that position.  The reason for the selective focus is that 
>> in recent history, whites have been the ones in power.  Replacing the 
>> white guy with something non-white appears to have no effect on the 
>> rate of abuse.
>>
>> Men have historically predominated in politics because in the early 
>> days, and not-so-early days, political questions were frequently 
>> solved by brute force.  Men have more of that.  Now that women are 
>> becoming more plentiful in politics (and in government in general), 
>> they are showing themselves to be every bit as likely to abuse 
>> whatever powers they have as men are.
> 
> "Power corrupts.  Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

And instead of saying, "Let's not accord this power to the government," 
the usual suggestion is, "Let's have someone else be in power for a 
while.  Specifically, my gang."

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> Tom Austin <taustin> wrote:
> 
>> I do remember way back in high school physics that we discussed the term
>> jerry-rig.  Our teacher reasoned that 'jerry' was a racial slur and
>> shouldn't be used.  So he suggested that 'billy-rig' was a better term -
>> referring to West Virginia hill billys.  Since we were in Virginia, it
>> was a better term than 'jerry-rig'
> 
> I think that your teacher may have been confusing jerry-rigged with jerry-built
> which is a slur against a certain English Jerry. Jerry-rigged is from WW2 and
> applied to Allied equipment repaired using German parts.
> To be honest, I have heard one phrase used by American oilmen that was a racial


I have heard some people use the term "Afro-engineering," an attempt, 
evidently, at making a politically-correct racial slur.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Tom Austin <taustin> wrote:
>> So, two groups of kids had been 'disinvited' with no loud complaining. 
>> As soon as the exact thing happens to a racial minority, it becomes a 
>> problem.
> 
> I'm surprised that you are surprised by something like that, at this point.
> 
> The current politically correct multicultural religion has certain dogmas.
> One of these dogmas is that whenever something bad happens to non-white
> people, it's because of racism (and, naturally, when the exact same thing
> happens to white people, it's not racism and usually not even that bad).

For instance:

Whites predominate in ice hockey due to pervasive discrimination. 
Blacks predominate in basketball due to inherent superiority.

Women make less money than men because of pervasive discrimination.
Women enjoy longer lifespans because of inherent superiority.

And so on.

This is a mental disorder known as Plurocausitive Attribution Syndrome:

"Clinical description: Plurocausitive attribution syndrome (PAS) is the 
a disorder in which the patient attributes different causes to a given 
social situation based on the race, gender, or sexual orientation of the 
people involved.

Cause: PAS is generally acquired in environments in which consistency of 
thought is discouraged. As such, it is epidemic in most social science 
departments.

Diagnosis: Ask the patient to explain a disparity in the longevity or 
success between multiple sets of two groups, distinguished along lines 
of gender, race, or sexual orientation. The diagnosis is confirmed if 
the patient attributes better outcomes for non-whites, women, and 
homosexuals to inherent superiority, but also attributes better outcomes 
for whites, men, and heterosexuals to oppression.

Treatment: Prospects are bleak. The best solution is to isolate the 
patient from impressionable minds."

You can read more at:

http://www.geocities.com/evilsnack/mental.htm

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 15:42:37 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:

>Stephen wrote:
>>> I have read recently where they're still considered in some laws to not be 
>>> human. 
>
>> Probably, I can imagine not all the laws were repealed especially when you don't
>> want to talk about it.
>
>Well, I meant to say that those laws are still in force, at least from my 
>reading of the article.

Is it enforced? That is the important thing, really. 
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Tom Austin wrote:
>> I recently read a story on CNN
>> http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/09/philly.pool/index.html
>>
>> The story is about how a group of black kids were 'expelled' from a 
>> pool because of race.
>>
>>
>> An interesting quote is:
>> "He said two other day-care centers, neither of which included 
>> minority children, had previously been similarly disinvited."
>>
>> So, two groups of kids had been 'disinvited' with no loud complaining. 
>> As soon as the exact thing happens to a racial minority, it becomes a 
>> problem.
>>
>> I don't know if the action was racially motivated or not - I'm not 
>> judging that.  But it is amazing how people jump to say this is 
>> racially motivated.
>>
>> Just look at the quote:
>> "But Duesler told two Philadelphia television stations that the 
>> children had changed "the complexion" and "atmosphere" of the club."
>>
>> While I can see how this could be a racially charged statement, it 
>> could easily apply to ANY group of people and not be racially charged.
>>
>>
>> Even with the bias of the article I can see plenty of evidence that 
>> the incident may not have been racially motivated.
>>
>>
>> I guess people should be sensitive to things like this because it was 
>> such a big problem in the past, and continues to be problem today.  
>> But at times it seems that it goes a little too far.
>>
>> I wish people would take the time to understand the facts before 
>> passing judgment.  IMHO much in this article points towards people 
>> making snap judgments without taking time to try to understand what 
>> really happened.  Black group - kicked out by white people - something 
>> must be wrong.
>>
> Actually, got a better one for you:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqbL9-HzxH4
> 
> Didn't know that Italians and Irish where "different species"...

I watched the video.  He did not say that they were.  Since the word 
"species" only came out of his mouth once, I'd be inclined to say that 
it came out because he couldn't think of the word he actually wanted.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

It's fairly ironic that efforts to reduce discrimination have actually 
furthered it, only causing the explanation for the discrimination to 
shift.  It's no longer 'blacks are inferior because of their skin 
colour', but 'blacks are obviously inferior because if they weren't, 
there'd be no need to enact laws to protect them'.  Arguments of 'we 
should repeal such-and-such protection law because it's not needed any 
more' are dubious, since the discrimination would still be there.  It'd 
just find another excuse.

--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message