 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> John VanSickle wrote:
>> Whites predominate in ice hockey due to pervasive discrimination.
>
> I saw a very funny black comedian. He said he doesn't like hockey,
> because it's a bunch of white guys skating around on white ice. "The
> only black thing in the whole game is the puck." He then went on to
> point out how the best *golf* player is Tiger Woods.
Who is, as most people know, Cablinasian, that is, a mixture of
Caucasian, black, Native American, and asian.
Some have gone so far as to argue that the reason Tiger is such a good
player is because he is a mixture of different racial groups, and that
the actual ingredients are actually moot.
There is some evidence in support of this. A study of children in
Hawaii, specifically children who were of mixed Japanese and Caucasian
ancestry, revealed that their IQs were about points higher than the
average of their backgrounds.
In another study, it was revealed that after correcting for factors such
as wealth, the children born in America of Italian immigrants were on
average a few inches taller than their cohorts back in Italy. It turned
out that the immigrants, while indeed marrying other Italian immigrants,
were often marrying someone who had not grow up in the next village
over, but on the other side of the country. This alone broadened the
gene pool enough to ensure a significantly higher level of health among
the resultant children.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmail com> wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
> > John VanSickle wrote:
> >> Whites predominate in ice hockey due to pervasive discrimination.
> >
> > I saw a very funny black comedian. He said he doesn't like hockey,
> > because it's a bunch of white guys skating around on white ice. "The
> > only black thing in the whole game is the puck." He then went on to
> > point out how the best *golf* player is Tiger Woods.
> Who is, as most people know, Cablinasian, that is, a mixture of
> Caucasian, black, Native American, and asian.
Yet many people just call him "black".
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.
It somehow feels like being "black" is more inherited than being white.
I have heard that sometimes it goes so far that if one of your grandparents
was black (and everyone else white), you are still considered "black".
I don't get it.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>
> Yet many people just call him "black".
>
> 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.
>
> It somehow feels like being "black" is more inherited than being white.
> I have heard that sometimes it goes so far that if one of your grandparents
> was black (and everyone else white), you are still considered "black".
>
> I don't get it.
>
> --
Funnily enough, when I was working in Jamaica. You were considered to be white
if you had white ancestors.
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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. On the
other hand, Americans wanted black slaves, so if you're even a tiny bit
black, you're "black".
> Some have gone so far as to argue that the reason Tiger is such a good
> player is because he is a mixture of different racial groups, and that
> the actual ingredients are actually moot.
No. The reason he's good is he actually exercises and practices. He lifts
weights on his way to the competitions. Just look at him standing next to
Phil Michaelson. Plus, he's been doing it since he was like 3 years old.
Plus, of course, he has this awesome drive to not only win, but to kick your
butt while doing so. Odd that he picked a sport as non-competitive as golf.
While I'm sure his genes may have had something to do with it, it's probably
a tiny part of his advantage, methinks.
--
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:
> It somehow feels like being "black" is more inherited than being white.
> I don't get it.
The whites set the rules. If you were a little black, you could be a slave.
Simple, really.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > It somehow feels like being "black" is more inherited than being white.
> > I don't get it.
> 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
ancestors were considered "less pure" than people who had only white
ansestors. In other words, in this ideology if one of your grand-grandparents
was non-white, you were partially "non-pure", and thus almost as bad as a
black person. Thus certainly if one of your parents was black, you were
considered as "inferior" as your parent, and thus black. Your "white half"
had not much significance in this: You were still "impure".
But this is more the reason why I'm completely baffled about the modern
custom of calling people "black" if one of their parents, or even grandparents
is black. This is a reminder of the times of ideological racism and slavery,
and it's precisely what we want to eradicate. Considering "blackness" as
"more inherited" than "whiteness" is racism in its purest form, both
historically and ideologically.
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".)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> But this is more the reason why I'm completely baffled about the modern
> custom of calling people "black" if one of their parents, or even grandparents
> is black. This is a reminder of the times of ideological racism and slavery,
> and it's precisely what we want to eradicate. Considering "blackness" as
> "more inherited" than "whiteness" is racism in its purest form, both
> historically and ideologically.
Yep. Nowadays, it can serve as an excuse for failure, or a source of pride
(as in, blacks are proud of the accomplishments of Tiger Woods), or a door
into affirmative action.
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.
You may be under the mistaken impression that people don't *want* to be
racist. They simply don't want *other* people to be racist against *them*.
> (Imagine the outcry if there was a "National Association of White
> Journalists".)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_Whites
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> 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?
> > (Imagine the outcry if there was a "National Association of White
> > Journalists".)
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_Whites
I suppose that when the naming is humoristic enough, the big public
will let it pass... :)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> 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?
I'm not sure it does. I think many people thought it didn't make sense.
> I suppose that when the naming is humoristic enough, the big public
> will let it pass... :)
No, actually, there was quite a shit-storm, with lots of peole screaming for
heads or at least expulsion for even suggesting such a thing.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> > I suppose that when the naming is humoristic enough, the big public
> > will let it pass... :)
> No, actually, there was quite a shit-storm, with lots of peole screaming for
> heads or at least expulsion for even suggesting such a thing.
I see. The wikipedia article just didn't mention anything like that.
Well, I suppose it goes to prove that taboos are still based on the skin
color of who breaks them, which is sad, really.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 13-7-2009 18:34, Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> 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 Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/15/09 11:56, andrel wrote:
>> 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 Warp said.
But since you mentioned it, for census purposes, Arabs are counted as
whites:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_American
So that would make him 75% white?
--
... OS/2 VirusScan - "Windows found: Remove it? (Y/y)"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/15/09 11:56, andrel 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.
>
> I tried to find any statistics, but I couldn't find anything. Do you
> have info that supports up this claim?
99% is a stretch (although I didn't check for this election), but 90%
typically vote Democrat. I had once found a web site that had all kinds
of statistics, including breakdown by race/ethnicity, which confirmed
this all the way back to the 70's.
So in a sense, the huge figure is probably not that much related to
race as it is political affiliation. However, I believe exit polls
generally showed that race was a factor in this past election, and not
just for blacks, but also for whites. (They were explicitly asked if it
was a factor).
I saw this a while ago, and I suspect it may shed some light (I forget
the details):
http://www.ted.com/talks/nate_silver_on_race_and_politics.html
--
... OS/2 VirusScan - "Windows found: Remove it? (Y/y)"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/15/09 13:22, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> I saw this a while ago, and I suspect it may shed some light (I forget
> the details):
>
> http://www.ted.com/talks/nate_silver_on_race_and_politics.html
Looking at it again, it only discusses white racism influencing their
votes, and not black...
--
... OS/2 VirusScan - "Windows found: Remove it? (Y/y)"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 15-7-2009 20:22, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 07/15/09 11:56, andrel 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.
>>
>> I tried to find any statistics, but I couldn't find anything. Do you
>> have info that supports up this claim?
>
> 99% is a stretch (although I didn't check for this election), but
> 90% typically vote Democrat. I had once found a web site that had all
> kinds of statistics, including breakdown by race/ethnicity, which
> confirmed this all the way back to the 70's.
I seem to remember much lower figures from the previous elections. Which
were probably more religion influenced than those before.
> So in a sense, the huge figure is probably not that much related to
> race as it is political affiliation.
or social status, which is correlated to race.
> However, I believe exit polls
> generally showed that race was a factor in this past election, and not
> just for blacks, but also for whites. (They were explicitly asked if it
> was a factor).
>
> I saw this a while ago, and I suspect it may shed some light (I
> forget the details):
>
>
> http://www.ted.com/talks/nate_silver_on_race_and_politics.html
There are still people in favor of banning interracial marriages?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 15-7-2009 19:20, Warp wrote:
> 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.
Ok, yes that is probably true.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 15-7-2009 20:27, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 07/15/09 13:22, Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> I saw this a while ago, and I suspect it may shed some light (I forget
>> the details):
>>
>> http://www.ted.com/talks/nate_silver_on_race_and_politics.html
>
> Looking at it again, it only discusses white racism influencing
> their votes, and not black...
>
Yes, I noticed. Apparently the white people are the real problem ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> Yes, I noticed. Apparently the white people are the real problem ;)
My favorite news quote of the whole election: "I don't want to sound racist,
but I don't want a black man in the white house."
Guess what, redneck? You're racist! You're *so* racist you can't even keep
from sounding racist if you don't want to!
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> andrel wrote:
> > Yes, I noticed. Apparently the white people are the real problem ;)
> My favorite news quote of the whole election: "I don't want to sound racist,
> but I don't want a black man in the white house."
> Guess what, redneck? You're racist! You're *so* racist you can't even keep
> from sounding racist if you don't want to!
Without knowing the motives for not wanting a black man as president,
it's impossible to say whether those motives are racist in nature or not.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/15/09 17:54, Warp wrote:
> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> andrel wrote:
>>> Yes, I noticed. Apparently the white people are the real problem ;)
>
>> My favorite news quote of the whole election: "I don't want to sound racist,
>> but I don't want a black man in the white house."
>
>> Guess what, redneck? You're racist! You're *so* racist you can't even keep
>> from sounding racist if you don't want to!
>
> Without knowing the motives for not wanting a black man as president,
> it's impossible to say whether those motives are racist in nature or not.
It's unambiguously racist. Whether it is _bad_ or morally wrong is
another story.
--
I couldn't repair your brakes, so I made your horn louder.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Without knowing the motives for not wanting a black man as president,
> it's impossible to say whether those motives are racist in nature or not.
If your reason for not wanting someone as president is *because* he's black,
that's racist. Now, if he'd said "I don't want the black candidate in
office", he might have just been using a poorly-chosen adjective. But then
he would have stopped and picked another adjective, rather than disclaim the
inherent racism.
It's like when people write "no pun intended" and actually mean "I intended
that pun, and I'm pointing it out in case you missed it."
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Without knowing the motives for not wanting a black man as president,
> > it's impossible to say whether those motives are racist in nature or not.
> If your reason for not wanting someone as president is *because* he's black,
> that's racist.
But it might not be that this person is prejudiced against black people or
has any ideology against them. In other words, it's not necessarily because
he opposes a black person being the president per se.
What else could it be, you may ask? Maybe he doesn't oppose a black
president per se, but he fears he will get sick and tired of all the
racist boasting around the country if it happens, ie. that many people
will celebrate that a black person was finally elected president (as if
skin color was all that important), and other people would oppose him
vocally for racist reasons.
Maybe what he meant was that a black president would be ok the day when
there is *no* racism whatsoever in the country, in which case skin color of
the president is exactly as unimportant as eye color or hair color. Before
that a black president might only cause furor, both pro and con.
(No, I don't know the motives this person had to say that, but I'm just
saying that it could be *plausible* that he is not being a racist.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> What else could it be, you may ask? Maybe he doesn't oppose a black
> president per se, but he fears he will get sick and tired of all the
> racist boasting around the country if it happens,
I'll grant you that.
But, trust me, it wasn't that. :-)
The people around him, for example, were carrying signs reading "It's the
*white* house!"
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> The people around him, for example, were carrying signs reading "It's the
> *white* house!"
Curious. In Finland you would get arrested for such an open display of
racism (one of the few situations where that law is used *correctly*,
I suppose). I'm surprised it's not the same in the US.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> The people around him, for example, were carrying signs reading "It's the
>> *white* house!"
>
> Curious. In Finland you would get arrested for such an open display of
> racism (one of the few situations where that law is used *correctly*,
> I suppose). I'm surprised it's not the same in the US.
50 years ago you weren't allowed to marry interracially, and you expect the
US to punish racists now? :-)
No, but seriously, one thing Americans do go on about is how obnoxious
they're allowed to be while speaking or writing, with that whole "First
Amendment" thing. I have to admit I agree with it, tho.
We punish people who do more than *say* racist things, mind. You can get
extra punishment if you beat someone up *because* you're a racist, for
example. But talk? Talk is easy.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> We punish people who do more than *say* racist things, mind. You can get
> extra punishment if you beat someone up *because* you're a racist, for
> example. But talk? Talk is easy.
So if you publicly say racial slurs, and then later you beat a black guy,
you will get a extra punishment even though the reason for beating him might
not have been racist?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> So if you publicly say racial slurs, and then later you beat a black guy,
> you will get a extra punishment even though the reason for beating him might
> not have been racist?
I wouldn't think so. I think if you beat up a black guy *while* screaming
racial slurs, then (say) tie him to a fence, kick him to death, then paint
racial slurs on the corpse, you'll be accused of a "hate crime". (Yeah,
real example, only with gays rather than blacks.)
--
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 07/16/09 16:20, Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> So if you publicly say racial slurs, and then later you beat a black guy,
>> you will get a extra punishment even though the reason for beating him
>> might
>> not have been racist?
>
> I wouldn't think so. I think if you beat up a black guy *while*
> screaming racial slurs, then (say) tie him to a fence, kick him to
> death, then paint racial slurs on the corpse, you'll be accused of a
> "hate crime". (Yeah, real example, only with gays rather than blacks.)
You're arguing an extreme.
If a person has a proven penchant for saying racist things, and then
beats up a black guy, and there isn't an obvious motive (money, self
defense, organized crime), I'm sure many will push for it to be treated
as a hate crime.
But that's a guess. I never observed if this kind of stuff happens.
--
I couldn't repair your brakes, so I made your horn louder.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 07/16/09 16:20, Darren New wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> So if you publicly say racial slurs, and then later you beat a black
>>> guy,
>>> you will get a extra punishment even though the reason for beating him
>>> might
>>> not have been racist?
>>
>> I wouldn't think so. I think if you beat up a black guy *while*
>> screaming racial slurs, then (say) tie him to a fence, kick him to
>> death, then paint racial slurs on the corpse, you'll be accused of a
>> "hate crime". (Yeah, real example, only with gays rather than blacks.)
>
> You're arguing an extreme.
> If a person has a proven penchant for saying racist things,
I'm not sure how much you're allowed to bring that sort of thing into
question, if it didn't happen during the actual commission of the crime.
I was just saying that there are clearly cases where it's a hate crime, and
clearly cases where it isn't, and you'd have to look at the individual cases
and lawyers prosecuting them to see how they turn out if it's not extreme.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> or social status, which is correlated to race.
As in, "I'm not racist, I'm just opposed to people with certain
lifestyle/moral/political views" (that are overwhelmingly correlated to
race)? When attribute x is associated with race, it's still racism, in
the end effect. Kind of like saying "I don't hate women, I just have an
issue with people who menstruate". The motivation is a paper-thin
excuse covering what the real problem is, at least for the targeted
group. It doesn't matter *why* you're bigoted, just the fact that you are.
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17-7-2009 4:50, Tim Cook wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> or social status, which is correlated to race.
>
> As in, "I'm not racist, I'm just opposed to people with certain
> lifestyle/moral/political views" (that are overwhelmingly correlated to
> race)? When attribute x is associated with race, it's still racism, in
> the end effect. Kind of like saying "I don't hate women, I just have an
> issue with people who menstruate". The motivation is a paper-thin
> excuse covering what the real problem is, at least for the targeted
> group. It doesn't matter *why* you're bigoted, just the fact that you are.
My remark was about political preferences of groups of people in the US,
not about interaction between members of groups.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
