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

On 07/15/09 09:19, Warp wrote:
> 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.

	Unfortunately, democracy is not "self-correcting". There's nothing in 
the framework of democracy to prevent or even discourage this.

	In other words, it's not democracy gone wrong.


-- 
... OS/2 VirusScan - "Windows found: Remove it? (Y/y)"

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   IMO democracy is a failure when people don't vote for someone who has
> the same *political* opinions, but for other irrelevant reasons.

It makes sense, if your top political concern is racism.

-- 
   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

John VanSickle wrote:
> Actually, it's the tribes themselves who set the rules on claims to 
> anything tribal nowadays.

Now, yes. :-)

> The moral of the story:  Greed is not genetic.

Or at least not racist. :-)

>> 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.

Certainly. But it helped.

-- 
   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 15-7-2009 13:38, John VanSickle wrote:
> 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.

Arabs are white?

> What many find troublesome, however, is that 99% of black Americans who 
> voted did so for Obama, but the press made nothing of it.  

I tried to find any statistics, but I couldn't find anything. Do you 
have info that supports up this claim?

> If 99% of 
> whites had voted for McCain, the press would be bawling about white 
> America's racism.

I doubt it, but as it didn't happen...

Post a reply to this message

andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> On 15-7-2009 13:38, John VanSickle wrote:
> > 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.

> Arabs are white?

  No, but the percentage of white inheritance is larger than any other
ethnicity.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message