 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 13-7-2009 18:34, Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
>> Interestingly enough, there were a number of black pundits and spokespeople
>> claiming Barak Obama isn't black because his African parent was actually
>> born in Africa or something. Basically, his ancestors were never slaves, so
>> he isn't really an African-American.
>
> How does that make any sense?
Some derive their sense of pride from the fact that someone in their
ancestry was a slave and blame every failure of themselves* on those
that have the same 'color' as the one time owners of slaves**. If you do
that and claim 'compensation' for something somebody did 2 centuries ago
against somebody that might have been a family member of an ancestor, it
is important to give your group a name, say 'black', and prevent as many
others as possible to join that group. In short, this logic only makes
sense if you believe that black people are actually (morally) superior
to the other races.
The main point of course is that if someone is claiming Obama is any
color at all and that that is relevant, is that the person who does it
is a racist. He/she/it is not judging a person by what he does and has
done, but by a superficial characteristic that is irrelevant for the job.
I am not totally familiar with US history, but I think that most (all?)
presidents before him were from an upper middle class background.
Perhaps that is even a bigger change than the 'color' issue, or am I now
guilty of being an economist?
* which does not mean that racism does not play a role in many problems
of 'black' people.
**irrespective of that person's ancestors having been in the US at the
time and of their status at that time. Most were of course too poor to
afford slaves.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> The main point of course is that if someone is claiming Obama is any
> color at all and that that is relevant, is that the person who does it
> is a racist.
Well, unless the person who is making the claim merely that his election
showed that the country isn't as racist as it once was. I.e., if you're
attributing anything to Obama himself due to his skin color, that's racist.
If you're attributing something to the voters due to Obama's skin color,
that's not necessarily racist.
> I am not totally familiar with US history, but I think that most (all?)
> presidents before him were from an upper middle class background.
Not exactly. Of course, by the time you're president, you have to have
enough money to advertise to get elected. But quite a number of presidents
were born into families too poor to effectively support themselves.
Abraham Lincoln in a one-room log cabin doing homework on the back of a
shovel with chalk because he couldn't afford paper or a blackboard is the
most famous example. Some recent presidents started out rather poor too.
Of course, yes, you don't get to be president without any money to spend on
a campain.
--
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 13-7-2009 20:15, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> The main point of course is that if someone is claiming Obama is any
>> color at all and that that is relevant, is that the person who does it
>> is a racist.
>
> Well, unless the person who is making the claim merely that his election
> showed that the country isn't as racist as it once was. I.e., if you're
> attributing anything to Obama himself due to his skin color, that's
> racist. If you're attributing something to the voters due to Obama's
> skin color, that's not necessarily racist.
True.
>> I am not totally familiar with US history, but I think that most
>> (all?) presidents before him were from an upper middle class background.
>
> Not exactly. Of course, by the time you're president, you have to have
> enough money to advertise to get elected. But quite a number of
> presidents were born into families too poor to effectively support
> themselves.
>
> Abraham Lincoln in a one-room log cabin doing homework on the back of a
> shovel with chalk because he couldn't afford paper or a blackboard is
> the most famous example. Some recent presidents started out rather poor
> too.
Thanks for the info. I was under the impression that the Bushes were
rather well off and so were the Kennedys, I assumed Clinton was also
from a middle class family because he studied law (using the prejudice
that working class children are more likely to study something
productive) and generalized from there. I must admit that it was mostly
motivated by being able to make the 'economist' 'joke'.
> Of course, yes, you don't get to be president without any money to spend
> on a campaign.
Sure but money that can come after your childhood. Perhaps because you
have a talent.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> Thanks for the info. I was under the impression that the Bushes were
> rather well off and so were the Kennedys,
Yes.
> I assumed Clinton was also
> from a middle class family because he studied law
Many people who wind up high in the legal system have studied law. :-)
I'mpretty sure Reagan started out very poor, for a recent example, but you'd
have to look that up.
> Sure but money that can come after your childhood. Perhaps because you
> have a talent.
Exactly my point, yes.
--
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 07/13/09 11:03, Warp wrote:
>> The whites set the rules. If you were a little black, you could be a slave.
>> Simple, really.
>
> I certainly do understand that some hundreds of years ago when oppressive
> slavery and extreme ideological racism was prevalent in the US, that is,
> when non-whites were considered inferior races, people who had non-white
Hundreds of years ago?
Try double digits. There are light skinned people alive in the US today
who were once discriminated against when it was discovered that they had
a black ancestor. Not all are that old (you know, 60's or something).
When both the victims and the racists (KKK, etc) are still alive in the
country, it may be asking for a lot to expect everything to be "color
blind", as they call it.
> IMO racism will never be eradicated as long as a mulatto is considered
> "black" and things like this are allowed to exist:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Association_of_Black_Journalists
>
> (Imagine the outcry if there was a "National Association of White
> Journalists".)
While I get your point about NAWJ, I wouldn't necessarily oppose the
existence of certain groups that are for African Americans, including
perhaps NABJ. Issues of color are still present in parts of the country,
and such organizations may prove useful in countering them.
(I have no idea if this one does, though, and I'll grant some of these
organizations may create more problems than solving them).
Also, I think you're looking at it from too narrow a lens. Unlike, say,
Europe, the US doesn't have as strong a "fixed" and "known" culture, due
to its history (mostly immigrants or slaves, etc). It's not unusual to
see groups related to Italian Americans, for example. Or Central
Americans. Or of various East European background (e.g. Russian). There
are also groups of Irish background. I'd be willing to bet there are a
bunch of Asian background.
I don't know if any of these are professional oriented (lawyers,
doctors, etc), but I don't think it would raise too much of an eyebrow.
And so you have African American groups as well. Most likely in the era
some were formed, AA was not the usual phrase, but black was.
--
AAHH!!! I've deleted all my RAM!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/13/09 11:26, Darren New wrote:
> Yep. Nowadays, it can serve as an excuse for failure, or a source of
I'm sure it was always used as an excuse for failure, if necessary ;-)
> Interestingly enough, there were a number of black pundits and
> spokespeople claiming Barak Obama isn't black because his African parent
> was actually born in Africa or something. Basically, his ancestors were
> never slaves, so he isn't really an African-American.
Well, I can understand _some_ of those sentiments. Saying he's not
African American is silly, but I guess they were pointing out that he
likely did not have the usual African American "experience" in terms of
his upbringing, and thus may be out of touch with most African
Americans. How much of that is true, I don't know. It seems he did spend
a lot of time with them while in Chicago.
--
AAHH!!! I've deleted all my RAM!
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle wrote:
> 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
Yeah, well. Still wrong, both about the principle of "why" he thinks it
didn't apply to the US, etc. I mean, close bred animals are "always"
weaker, do to replication of flaws. So, the only way his theory works is
by assuming a particular group of people "don't have any" such genetic
flaws. Its still racism, since its implying that the US is "poorer" for
breeding outside "pure" stock, regardless of what word the idiot comes
up with. He is ignorant of the facts, pulling theories based on "purity"
of some random people out of his backside, and in the process, implying
that the US is doomed, because we do what ***actually*** makes animals
healthier, and not breeding back into the same limited gene pool...
Stupid, no matter how you look at it.
But, the truly stupid thing about it is, within the same week, Faux News
also ran a special on the same country, describing them as baby killers
(i.e. pro-abortion), who where doomed because they allowed pot joints
and prostitution, and it was all the fault of them being not religious
enough. Mind, this is ignoring the fact that, as one person put it, two
out of the three political parties have gone right wing, and are
promoting the removal of laws that allow all those things, and **also**
actually caved to the Islamic people moving into the country, by
claiming that the, women shouldn't own property, have the same rights,
maybe even get educations, and men are always right about "everything",
Shiria law, is "not" dangerous or contrary to a democracy... WTF!
Someone is smoking something over there in the government all right, but
its much stronger than the horrible pot heads they want to ban. lol
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> (I have no idea if this one does, though, and I'll grant some of these
> organizations may create more problems than solving them).
No matter how well-intentioned such organizations might be, one big problem
which they have is that they create an "us vs. them" mentality. They might
talk about equality and removing perceived differences, but in practice they
are just prolonging the concept of those differences and the "us vs. them"
mentality.
In the case of NABJ, some of their principles are misguided and present
that problem. For instance:
"Strengthening ties among black journalists": Us vs. them.
"Sensitizing all media to the importance of fairness in the workplace
for black journalists": Note that it's "black journalists", not "all
journalists, regardless of such unimportant matters as skin color".
"Increasing the number of black journalists in management positions
and encouraging black journalists to become entrepreneurs": This sounds
like racial profiling.
And so on.
As long as things like these are considered "good", racism will never be
eradicated.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/14/09 07:15, Warp wrote:
> In the case of NABJ, some of their principles are misguided and present
> that problem. For instance:
>
> "Strengthening ties among black journalists": Us vs. them.
I tend to disagree. If you're a group that is consistently
discriminated against, it will help greatly if that group gets together
and is organized.
Often, oppressed groups are quite fractured, and this is trying to make
it less so.
> "Sensitizing all media to the importance of fairness in the workplace
> for black journalists": Note that it's "black journalists", not "all
> journalists, regardless of such unimportant matters as skin color".
One black journalist in an organization. He gets discriminated against.
NABJ comes and talks about fairness for journalists. They proceed to
point out that all their other journalists are doing fine, and so that
black journalist must be the problem.
"Look, we have all these minority journalists who work here and they
don't have any complaints!"
Let's look at it from another angle. Instead of stopping where you did,
why not just an organization that "sensitizes all media to the
importance of fairness in the workplace for all employees".
In other words, becoming employee centric rather than just focusing on
journalists. Wouldn't that be even better?
> "Increasing the number of black journalists in management positions
> and encouraging black journalists to become entrepreneurs": This sounds
> like racial profiling.
No - not unless they simply insist that black people have to be at
their positions regardless of qualifications.
It may well be that they're pushing their own members to perform better
and work harder so that they can get into those positions. And then
it'll be easier for them to fix any racial problems that may exist.
With all these statements, one can look at it either way. It all boils
down to how they're actually going about doing this.
> As long as things like these are considered "good", racism will never be
> eradicated.
After seeing a lot of problems (be they race related, or ethnicity
related, or profession related, or religion related), I'm actually quite
convinced that the first and most important step towards fighting it is
for the oppressed group to organize and band together. That's what
they're doing.
--
For Sale: Parachute. Only used once, never opened, small.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> On 07/14/09 07:15, Warp wrote:
> > In the case of NABJ, some of their principles are misguided and present
> > that problem. For instance:
> >
> > "Strengthening ties among black journalists": Us vs. them.
> I tend to disagree. If you're a group that is consistently
> discriminated against, it will help greatly if that group gets together
> and is organized.
In other words: Us vs. them.
> > "Increasing the number of black journalists in management positions
> > and encouraging black journalists to become entrepreneurs": This sounds
> > like racial profiling.
> No - not unless they simply insist that black people have to be at
> their positions regardless of qualifications.
"Increasing the number of black journalists in management positions"
sounds exactly like pushing them to those positions without the necessary
qualifications. In other words, it advocates special treatment for some
people based on skin color.
> It may well be that they're pushing their own members to perform better
> and work harder so that they can get into those positions. And then
> it'll be easier for them to fix any racial problems that may exist.
And selectively encouraging some people (based on skin color) to perform
better is not racial profiling?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
