 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] nawaz org<<<<<<
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/14/09 13:00, Warp wrote:
>> 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.
Nope. Just us.
The assumption that it is to promote themselves at the expense of
others, just because they formed such an organization, is flawed.
I know of groups like the Asian American Association of Medical
Students (or some similar name). I'm willing to bet that there's no us
vs others mentality, and that in the field, or in class, there's little
actual "discrimination". It's not as if they'll refuse to work with
others who aren't Asian, etc.
>>> "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 "sounds" like it because of external information that's biasing you.
From a language and logical perspective, either interpretation is
valid. You're likely picking one because of issues related to
affirmative action, etc.
I see nothing wrong with the statement.
>> 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?
Oh, sure. But that's like criticizing the ACLU for pointing out biases
against certain racial groups because then they'd be doing racial profiling.
--
For Sale: Parachute. Only used once, never opened, small.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> "Increasing the number of black journalists in management positions"
> sounds exactly like pushing them to those positions without the necessary
> qualifications.
It could equally be "decreasing the number of black journalists
discriminated against."
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Or take Barack Obama, for instance. Many people say he is "the first
> black president of the US". No he, isn't. He is exactly as much white as
> he his black.
Actually, his father was of mixed ancestry himself (part native Kenyan
and part Arab), so Barack is more white than anything else.
What many find troublesome, however, is that 99% of black Americans who
voted did so for Obama, but the press made nothing of it. If 99% of
whites had voted for McCain, the press would be bawling about white
America's racism.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> John VanSickle wrote:
>> Who is, as most people know, Cablinasian, that is, a mixture of
>> Caucasian, black, Native American, and asian.
>
> Yes, but in America, that makes you black. Americans wants native
> american (indian) land, so you had to be mostly indian to lay a claim to
> it.
Actually, it's the tribes themselves who set the rules on claims to
anything tribal nowadays. Now that many reservations have casinos,
there is actually substantial amounts of money at stake. Some tribal
councils, after establishing that profits are to be shared equally among
all tribal members, have been removing people from the tribal rolls in
order to reduce the size of the denominator.
Not a big issue, until they start taking dead people off of the rolls,
which leaves many living members with no leg to stand on when the
council challenges their own membership.
The moral of the story: Greed is not genetic.
> On the other hand, Americans wanted black slaves, so if you're even
> a tiny bit black, you're "black".
Since there were not a few non-whites who owned black slaves in the
south [1] and since not all blacks in the south were slaves, it was not
a simple case of black=slave. The laws are far more likely to be an
artifact of post-slavery racism. If being part white qualified you as
being white, then there's nothing to stop every black on earth from
claiming that ancestry.
Regards,
John
[1] Several of the Native American tribes owned slaves, of their own
race and of any other that was for sale (invariably black). Ironically,
the first slave to challenge, in an American court, the legality of
slavery (and thus his master's claim to his servitude), was owned by a
black man.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> What many find troublesome, however, is that 99% of black Americans who
> voted did so for Obama, but the press made nothing of it. If 99% of
> whites had voted for McCain, the press would be bawling about white
> America's racism.
IMO democracy is a failure when people don't vote for someone who has
the same *political* opinions, but for other irrelevant reasons.
I'm pretty certain that Finland has a woman as president for the last
two terms mainly because 50% of the voters are female, not because her
political opinions would agree with the majority.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
