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.

Post a reply to this message

Tom Austin wrote:
> 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.

That's OK. We had politicians getting kicked out because they said they'd 
have to be niggardly with the budget, and the ignorant black coworkers 
didn't know what the word meant.

-- 
   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

"Tom Austin" <taustin> wrote in message news:4a565c62$1@news.povray.org...

> 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."

Funny (or sad) how that's mentioned only in passing at the end of the
article (before which point many "readers" stop reading). That's media for
you. Racism, terrorism, global warming doom and gloom, missing rich white
photogenic kids, pedophiles and Michael Jackson (but I repeat) do sell.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Tom Austin wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> That's OK. We had politicians getting kicked out because they said 
> they'd have to be niggardly with the budget, and the ignorant black 
> coworkers didn't know what the word meant.
> 

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'

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> "Tom Austin" <taustin> wrote in message news:4a565c62$1@news.povray.org...
> 
>> 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."
> 
> Funny (or sad) how that's mentioned only in passing at the end of the
> article (before which point many "readers" stop reading). That's media for
> you. Racism, terrorism, global warming doom and gloom, missing rich white
> photogenic kids, pedophiles and Michael Jackson (but I repeat) do sell.
> 
> 

I did read that some of the minority kids did hear some comments from 
other people at the pool that could be racist.

Yes, the sensational news does sell - and with the amount of news that 
is generated, it makes sense that even small things are seen as big. 
Then you also have reporters that push agendas in their stories - 
purposefully focusing on some aspects while burying others.  But I guess 
that's always gone on - One just has to read between the lines.

Post a reply to this message

Tom Austin wrote:

> Yes, the sensational news does sell - and with the amount of news that 
> is generated, it makes sense that even small things are seen as big. 
> Then you also have reporters that push agendas in their stories - 
> purposefully focusing on some aspects while burying others.  But I guess 
> that's always gone on - One just has to read between the lines.

The trouble is, you weren't there and you don't know what realy 
happened. You can try to take a guess, but without all the facts 
available to you, it's difficult to reach a meaningful conclusion.

This is why I generally don't pay any attention to the news...

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Tom Austin wrote:
> 
>> Yes, the sensational news does sell - and with the amount of news that 
>> is generated, it makes sense that even small things are seen as big. 
>> Then you also have reporters that push agendas in their stories - 
>> purposefully focusing on some aspects while burying others.  But I 
>> guess that's always gone on - One just has to read between the lines.
> 
> The trouble is, you weren't there and you don't know what realy 
> happened. You can try to take a guess, but without all the facts 
> available to you, it's difficult to reach a meaningful conclusion.
> 

Exactly - people are making hard fast very charged conclusions based on 
a few sound bytes.  Now a organization has to deal with the charge of 
racism - whether they deserved it or not.

Post a reply to this message

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
slur – N*gg*r-rigged. Not that, that phrase has ever passed my lips.

Stephen

Post a reply to this message

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).

  (Another dogma is that only white people can commit racist acts, and
only non-white people can be victims of racism. It's impossible for a
black person to commit a racist act, for instance.)

  In many places (especially in the US but very much also in Europe) some
people (such as employers) cannot treat everybody in the same way for the
fear of being accused of racism. The must be more lenient to non-white
people than they are to white people because of this. Equal treatment is
not really an option (which is kind of ironic).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

>   In many places (especially in the US but very much also in Europe) some
> people (such as employers) cannot treat everybody in the same way for the
> fear of being accused of racism. The must be more lenient to non-white
> people than they are to white people because of this. Equal treatment is
> not really an option (which is kind of ironic).

It's sad but it's true: Equal Opportunities actually means giving more 
opportunities to people deemed to be undervalued by present or possibly 
past society. Which is rather self-contradictory...

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> It's sad but it's true: Equal Opportunities actually means giving more 
> opportunities to people deemed to be undervalued by present or possibly 
> past society. Which is rather self-contradictory...

  Also certain people get more protection from law than others, based on
ethnicity, both de-facto and in some cases even de-jure. This even in
constitutional countries where the constitution guarantees equal legal
treatment.

  (The fact that treating people differently based on ethnicity is the
very definition of racism seems to be completely inconsequential.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 07/10/09 10:28, Warp wrote:
>    (The fact that treating people differently based on ethnicity is the
> very definition of racism seems to be completely inconsequential.)

	Nope. That's ethnicism. Don't confuse the two.

-- 
BASIC isn't; C stands for Confusing...


                     /\  /\               /\  /
                    /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                        >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                    anl

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   In many places (especially in the US but very much also in Europe) some
> people (such as employers) cannot treat everybody in the same way for the
> fear of being accused of racism. 

To be fair, this *does* keep going back and forth. One not rarely reads 
articles where some court or other said it was discriminatory to not promote 
the white folks who passed the test just because none of the minorities who 
took the test passed, or that it's illegal to not admit americans to schools 
who did better than the asians, or something like that. Every couple years 
there's a ballot in California to switch between "equal opportunity" and "no 
discrimination" in the state universities, for example.

-- 
   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

Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> On 07/10/09 10:28, Warp wrote:
> >    (The fact that treating people differently based on ethnicity is the
> > very definition of racism seems to be completely inconsequential.)

>         Nope. That's ethnicism. Don't confuse the two.

  To multiculturalists racism, ethnicism, xenofobia, islamofobia and
basically everything is "racism". It's an umbrella term for everything
related to how white men behave towards non-white people.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 07/10/09 12:33, Warp wrote:
> Neeum Zawan<m.n### [at] ieeeorg>  wrote:
>> On 07/10/09 10:28, Warp wrote:
>>>     (The fact that treating people differently based on ethnicity is the
>>> very definition of racism seems to be completely inconsequential.)
>
>>          Nope. That's ethnicism. Don't confuse the two.
>
>    To multiculturalists racism, ethnicism, xenofobia, islamofobia and
> basically everything is "racism". It's an umbrella term for everything
> related to how white men behave towards non-white people.

	I know, but just because they do it wrong doesn't mean you should too. ;-)

-- 
BASIC isn't; C stands for Confusing...


                     /\  /\               /\  /
                    /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                        >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                    anl

Post a reply to this message

On 07/10/09 11:35, Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> In many places (especially in the US but very much also in Europe) some
>> people (such as employers) cannot treat everybody in the same way for the
>> fear of being accused of racism.
>
> To be fair, this *does* keep going back and forth. One not rarely reads
> articles where some court or other said it was discriminatory to not
> promote the white folks who passed the test just because none of the
> minorities who took the test passed, or that it's illegal to not admit

Citation for anyone interested:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hzSshxj3_ArctG2PKsP2_rYMV7iA

	To be fair, though, the judges who had previously ruled that the city 
did the right thing admitted it was silly, but they felt that it was 
mandated by the law, and it wasn't their job to argue whether the law 
was silly.

> americans to schools who did better than the asians, or something like

	This is a new one for me. My Asian colleague keeps pointing out that 
they're never the beneficiaries of affirmative action (which he is 
against). I keep pointing out to him that they usually do better than 
white Americans anyway. ;-)

> that. Every couple years there's a ballot in California to switch
> between "equal opportunity" and "no discrimination" in the state
> universities, for example.

	I haven't followed this, but my colleague, who did his undergrad in UC 
Berkeley, states that the UC system removed affirmative action in the 
90's and have not reinstated it since.

	(Which doesn't contradict your statement - I thought I'd just point it 
out).

-- 
BASIC isn't; C stands for Confusing...


                     /\  /\               /\  /
                    /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                        >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                    anl

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.

yes, you are right - I was referring to what he reasoned.


> To be honest, I have heard one phrase used by American oilmen that was a racial
> slur – N*gg*r-rigged. Not that, that phrase has ever passed my lips.
> 

I've heard of that term - and I've never used it myself.  Tho, if I see 
something really well built I may use it ;-)

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   To multiculturalists racism, ethnicism, xenofobia, islamofobia and
> basically everything is "racism". It's an umbrella term for everything
> related to how white men behave towards non-white people.

While many white men feel marginalised by these things, one must 
consider the very real notion that, for much of recorded history, males 
in general (and white males in the Western societies) *have* abused 
their positions of power, causing what is effectively a kneejerk 
reaction once that reaction is acknowledged as even slightly valid, and 
growing as acceptance of it spreads.

However.

We're pretty much all the same, us humans, all petty and greedy and 
otherwise not very nice towards each other, so you get the same sorts of 
things happening when you swap who's in any particular power role.

The vast majority of the world was, is, and will never really be 'in 
control', so there's no use b'awwwing over someone else calling the 
shots if you personally were never in the position to do it anyways. 
Feel slighted because of your gender/race/ethnicity/sexual 
identity/toothpaste preference?  Don't worry, just about everyone else 
has things just as bad, and that's just how things are.  In time, 
someone from 'your group' will rise to power, and...it won't change much 
of anything for all the other members of the group.  Their close friends 
will probably experience some benefits, and there might be spillover 
into the law to give your type a break, but big-picture-wise, it's 
status quo.  Noise will be made by some, and the squeaky wheel will get 
its grease, but only until it stops squeaking too loudly compared to the 
others.

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

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> While many white men feel marginalised by these things, one must 
> consider the very real notion that, for much of recorded history, males 
> in general (and white males in the Western societies) *have* abused 
> their positions of power, causing what is effectively a kneejerk 
> reaction once that reaction is acknowledged as even slightly valid, and 
> growing as acceptance of it spreads.

  I don't have any problem aknowledging history, and I am the first one
to promote learning from the past in order to avoid repeating the same
mistakes as our ancestors.

  However, I do have a problem with this modern idea that white people are
still somehow "responsible" for what their ancestors did, and that they have
to somehow compensate for that, to pay back what they took, especially when
this means discriminating against some people for what their ancestors maybe
have done.

  I am not responsible for what some people have done centuries ago. Even
if someone of my own forefathers had done something wrong, I'm still not
responsible for that. Nobody can and should not hold me responsible for
what someone else has done in the past, regardless of common ethnicity, or
even if it was a direct ancestor.

  "Equal rights" should be taken literally. "Equal rights" cannot mean that
some people are more protected than others, or that some people are given
better opportunities than others, based on something like ethnicity or
origin.

  Discriminating in order to eradicate some perceived "racism" is just
wrong, in a very ironic way. "Two wrongs don't make a right" may sound
like a cliche, but I think in this case it's a valid statement. You can't
eradicate racism by exercising it "in reverse". The only thing you are
going to achieve is frustration and resentment, which can only prolong
any existing animosity.

  (Some people suggest that many multiculturalists actually *want* to
maintain animosity and racism, while still keeping a facade of trying
to completely eradicate it. If racism was truely and completely eradicated,
they would be "out of job" (sometimes *literally*, as there are many jobs
which exist for this sole reason).)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hzSshxj3_ArctG2PKsP2_rYMV7iA

  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.

> > americans to schools who did better than the asians, or something like

>         This is a new one for me. My Asian colleague keeps pointing out that 
> they're never the beneficiaries of affirmative action (which he is 
> against).

  A cynic could say that Asians might not be "colored enough" to get
special treatment...

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook wrote:
> While many white men feel marginalised by these things, one must 
> consider the very real notion that, for much of recorded history, males 
> in general (and white males in the Western societies) *have* abused 
> their positions of power,

Wait, worse than the Asians abused their positions of power? Worse than the 
africans abused their positions of power over other africans?  Worse than 
the native americans in power over other native americans? Why are white 
people in power buying black slaves worse than the black people in power 
buying black slaves? Why is white people conquering India worse than Japan 
invading China?

I strongly suspect it's because the white folks know their own history much 
better than they know the history of other cultures. Quick, without looking, 
what was going on in Africa and India during the medieval ages? Who were the 
power players?

And, interestingly enough, when you look around the world today, where do 
you see the *most* civil rights?  What countries are the ones where people 
are *shocked* by abuses rather than saying "we really should get them to 
change that"?

-- 
   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

Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> americans to schools who did better than the asians, or something like
> 
>     This is a new one for me.

Honestly, I was trying to make it not all about blacks. :-) Lots of people 
think there should be rules against immigrant asians taking spots that 
residents should have, too, regardless of qualifications. Same thing, 
different type of discrimination.

>     I haven't followed this, but my colleague, who did his undergrad in 
> UC Berkeley, states that the UC system removed affirmative action in the 
> 90's and have not reinstated it since.

Yeah.  Before then, there was lots of back and forth, and lots of failed 
initiatives and such. Not unlike the whole gay marriage thing nowadays.

-- 
   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 strongly suspect it's because the white folks know their own history much 
> better than they know the history of other cultures. Quick, without looking, 
> what was going on in Africa and India during the medieval ages? Who were the 
> power players?

  AFAIK there have been and even still are many atrocities committed by
many African countries (or at least some of their inhabitants) towards
their neighboring countries, based on what can basically be called pure
racism (in other words, the people on the other country are of the "wrong"
race, and thus are despised if not even abused). The most prominent case
of this was the Rwandan genocide where between half and one million people
were killed (which sadly most western people don't even remember anymore!)
However, AFAIK, this is just the most prominent case and the tip of the
iceberg.

  The Rwandan genocide is completely in par with the nazi holocaust. However,
which one of these two is better remembered?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

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"... Even 
the women in the room asked him if he wasn't suffering from a mental 
disorder himself, and given that his is Fox News... 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

Darren New wrote:
> Wait, worse than the Asians abused their positions of power? Worse than 
> the africans abused their positions of power over other africans?  Worse 
> than the native americans in power over other native americans? Why are 
> white people in power buying black slaves worse than the black people in 
> power buying black slaves? Why is white people conquering India worse 
> than Japan invading China?

"Because the White Man is 'civilised'."  (and should know better)  wink 
wink.  Also see below.

> I strongly suspect it's because the white folks know their own history 
> much better than they know the history of other cultures. Quick, without 
> looking, what was going on in Africa and India during the medieval ages? 
> Who were the power players?

Exactly.  So much focus is on the whites now primarily because the 
British Empire was so expansive and is pretty darn recent.  So people 
learn about that.

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

Post a reply to this message

On 07/10/09 15:36, Warp wrote:
>    The Rwandan genocide is completely in par with the nazi holocaust. However,
> which one of these two is better remembered?

	Well, perhaps as importantly people should notice (and later, remember) 
what went on in the Democratic Republic of Congo over the last 10-12 
years. It's the deadliest conflict since WWII. I think the latest 
estimate is over 5 million excess deaths (i.e. violent deaths and also 
including deaths due to malnutrition, etc that are estimated wouldn't 
have happened in the absence of the conflict).

	I could say a few more things about it, but I'd rather people just look 
it up. I don't actually know the details of the players and the history 
of the conflict. Some (a lot?) of it is actually a spillover from the 
Rwandan genocide (i.e. Hutus and Tutsis). But it goes beyond that.

	If you do look it up, then the one thing to notice is the "rape 
epidemic" there - it may well be remembered for that alone.

-- 
BASIC isn't; C stands for Confusing...


                     /\  /\               /\  /
                    /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                        >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                    anl

Post a reply to this message

On 07/10/09 15:03, Darren New wrote:
> Wait, worse than the Asians abused their positions of power? Worse than
> the africans abused their positions of power over other africans? Worse
> than the native americans in power over other native americans? Why are
> white people in power buying black slaves worse than the black people in
> power buying black slaves? Why is white people conquering India worse
> than Japan invading China?

	Well, I'd like to hear more about Japan and China. I know of the 
Nanjing Massacre, but then I also know of some events related to the 
British in India, which are often not mentioned. Like a more or less 
forced famine (I think over a million died).

	(Just tried looking it up - there were a bunch of famines under the 
British - some with a lot more dead, so I don't know which one was the 
"forced" one - basically the British insisted that the isles get their 
share of the food output from India, even though there was a shortage 
locally).

	I don't know too much about the British abuses in India, but I 
occasionally hear a lot of really nasty stories. It may be the case that 
their actions in India are considered "worse" because they were there 
longer than the Japanese were in China.

	In any case, it's rare that I hear a lot of "guilt" about the British 
in India. Certainly Indians occasionally bring it up. Maybe it's much 
more common across the Atlantic.

	As for slaves due to the whites vs (black on black) slavery (sorry, am 
too lazy to put it in a better form): I never liked discussions on 
slavery, because they often treat all slavery as equally bad, when 
that's far from the truth. The discussions should focus on the 
treatment, and not merely on the fact that they were slaves. Some "free" 
people have gotten much worse treatment than other slaves have.

	I have no idea if the English/Spanish slave trade was worse than the 
"domestic" slave trade within Africa - I don't know much about the 
latter. I believe the Spanish was much more brutal than the English, but 
we rarely hear about it, perhaps because the world doesn't speak Spanish.

> I strongly suspect it's because the white folks know their own history
> much better than they know the history of other cultures. Quick, without
> looking, what was going on in Africa and India during the medieval ages?
> Who were the power players?

	When's the medieval ages? I honestly don't know - sometimes I hear it 
in the context of about 1000. Other times more like 1500's. If you mean 
the former, I actually don't know much about Europe at that time 
either.<G> Vaguely know of the Crusades (had they begun by 1000?). I'm 
sure England existed, but that's all I know about them. Most of Spain 
was under Muslim rule. That's about it.

	If you mean 1500's, then India was probably mostly under the Moghuls. 
Africa is harder for me. Ottomans and/or other Muslims likely had most 
of North Africa. Mali was a big power around that time (Mansa Musa, 
etc). The rest, I don't know. But after all, Africa is a whole huge 
continent, you know. Then again, I may not know that much more about 
Europe. I know a number of the "nations", but I know little about who 
was more powerful, etc. I'm suspecting the French and English both had 
quite a bit of power. There was the Hapsburg (sp?) empire, and the 
Russian Empire. The Dutch were good at seafaring, and that's it.

	But yes, a lot of it is that the white folks know their history. The 
white folks are more or less the dominant power these days (the Chinese 
and Indians may have a few things to say about that soon). And so the 
white folks obsess about it. And again, the rest of the world obsesses 
about it because 1) they want to complain about those in power - 
frequently ignoring their own crimes and 2) the culture of (at least 
certain groups of) white folks can spread deep into the rest of the 
world - to the point that many of the young generation know much more 
about the history of parts of the historically white world and not as 
much about theirs. You know, stuff like Hollywood and English stories.

	Then again, a lot of the whites perhaps _are_ to blame that this is 
couched in terms of skin color, because that's how it is in their own 
narratives, and why should the rest of the world argue about it when 
those responsible seem to want to put it that way? Had the Japanese 
conquered the world over the past few centuries, perhaps they and the 
world would talk about the Japanese evils, but perhaps not in terms of 
skin color (although race may still be the focus).

	I'm somewhat rambling, but I think we shouldn't ignore the possible 
effects of the news reporting. When it comes to crimes and atrocities in 
today's world, the media (here in the US, at least - but I suspect it is 
a universal trend) has the most ridiculous "perspective". Two 
"atrocities" of a very comparable nature may occur - at times even 
during the same period. One will be blown way out of proportion, and 
another will barely be mentioned (or perhaps not at all mentioned in 
some outlets). I could easily give lots of examples.

	In the news if a white racist does something to an African American 
here in the US, it'll be big news. The reverse (which does happen) will 
often not be - unless some prominent media personality makes a fuss out 
of it. If some African Americans are seriously abused by Latinos (e.g. 
LA gang violence), it barely gets any press. If a white supremacist 
group did likewise, there'll be hell to pay.

	But then again, when a white young woman goes missing, it can dominate 
certain news outlets for a ridiculously long time. I've never seen 
anything close happen when an African American young woman goes missing. 
If a bomb goes off in Asia and kills some German citizens, it'll be big 
news. If another bomb goes off, kills as many, but no "Western" tourists 
were nearby, it's not anywhere near the front page.

	I could go on - might as well stop here. I guess my point is partially 
that while a lot of what you say is true (bias against whites on a lot 
of issues), there is still bias in favor of certain groups (including 
whites) on other issues. Both should be addressed.


-- 
BASIC isn't; C stands for Confusing...


                     /\  /\               /\  /
                    /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                        >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                    anl

Post a reply to this message

On 07/10/09 14:49, Warp wrote:
>> This is a new one for me. My Asian colleague keeps pointing out
>> that they're never the beneficiaries of affirmative action (which
>> he is against).
>
> A cynic could say that Asians might not be "colored enough" to get
> special treatment...

	A lot of Indians are more colored than Hispanics.

	I'm not 100% sure, but I think affirmative action simply did not apply 
to Asians. Nor do I see why it should have - the whole premise of 
affirmative action did not apply to them, because statistically 
speaking, they do better than whites in academics (in the US - Europe 
may be a whole other story).

	The University of California system's undergrads are 37% Asian. They 
comprise only 12% of the population in California. Countrywide they're 
5% of the population. Yet at Stanford they have 24% representation, and 
27% at MIT. They have more than 10% of the student population in many of 
the country's top universities:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/07/world/americas/07iht-asians.4125275.html

	We were actually discussing this a few days ago with my friend from 
Berkeley. Another colleague joked that the UC system should reinstate 
affirmative action so that more whites could get in.

-- 
BASIC isn't; C stands for Confusing...


                     /\  /\               /\  /
                    /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                        >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                    anl

Post a reply to this message

Warp a écrit :
>   (Another dogma is that only white people can commit racist acts, and
> only non-white people can be victims of racism. It's impossible for a
> black person to commit a racist act, for instance.)

However black people can and often are accused of antisemitic acts, at 
least around here. In fact there has been a tendency in the French news 
and politics to assume antisemitism any time a Jew is involved in a 
violence outbreak.

-- 
Vincent

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>>   To multiculturalists racism, ethnicism, xenofobia, islamofobia and
>> basically everything is "racism". It's an umbrella term for everything
>> related to how white men behave towards non-white people.
> 
> While many white men feel marginalised by these things, one must 
> consider the very real notion that, for much of recorded history, males 
> in general (and white males in the Western societies) *have* abused 
> their positions of power, causing what is effectively a kneejerk 
> reaction once that reaction is acknowledged as even slightly valid, and 
> growing as acceptance of it spreads.

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.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

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."

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

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 14:32:30 -0400, Tom Austin <taustin> wrote:

>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.
>
>yes, you are right - I was referring to what he reasoned.
>

So I reasoned, too.

>> To be honest, I have heard one phrase used by American oilmen that was a racial
>> slur – N*gg*r-rigged. Not that, that phrase has ever passed my lips.
>> 
>
>I've heard of that term - and I've never used it myself.  Tho, if I see 
>something really well built I may use it ;-)
>

You take your life in your hands, methinks ;)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 22:42:48 -0500, Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:

>	Well, I'd like to hear more about Japan and China. I know of the 
>Nanjing Massacre, but then I also know of some events related to the 
>British in India, which are often not mentioned. Like a more or less 
>forced famine (I think over a million died).
>

I question that figure try 10 million or more than 40 million during the 200
years of British rule.

>	(Just tried looking it up - there were a bunch of famines under the 
>British - some with a lot more dead, so I don't know which one was the 
>"forced" one - basically the British insisted that the isles get their 
>share of the food output from India, even though there was a shortage 
>locally).
>

I don't think that the food came to Britian. More likely it was sent to other
colonies.
 
I was reading recently about the English starving the Irish into submission
during the 16th Century. So it was a method that was tried and tested.
Although in our ancestors defence (ha!) I don't think that it was really racist
more a class thing. They treated the Indian rulers with more respect than they
did their own poor people. 


>	In any case, it's rare that I hear a lot of "guilt" about the British 
>in India. Certainly Indians occasionally bring it up. Maybe it's much 
>more common across the Atlantic.
>
That may be more to do with the people that go there. The Indians and Pakistanis
that settle in the UK tell different stories.

>	As for slaves due to the whites vs (black on black) slavery (sorry, am 
>too lazy to put it in a better form): I never liked discussions on 
>slavery, because they often treat all slavery as equally bad, when 
>that's far from the truth. The discussions should focus on the 
>treatment, and not merely on the fact that they were slaves. Some "free" 
>people have gotten much worse treatment than other slaves have.
>

Yes indentured servants, orphans and single mothers under the care of certain
Christian churches, crofters, mill workers, in fact all poor people. Everyone
who was powerless in fact.

>	I have no idea if the English/Spanish slave trade was worse than the 
>"domestic" slave trade within Africa - I don't know much about the 
>latter. I believe the Spanish was much more brutal than the English, but 
>we rarely hear about it, perhaps because the world doesn't speak Spanish.

Ask any Jamaican they suffered under both. But African and European slavery
pales into insignificance when compared to the American idea. I don't believe
that slaves in the rest of the world were considered animals, sub-human or just
children at best.

>> I strongly suspect it's because the white folks know their own history
>> much better than they know the history of other cultures. Quick, without
>> looking, what was going on in Africa and India during the medieval ages?
>> Who were the power players?
>
Islam and Arabs

>	When's the medieval ages? I honestly don't know - sometimes I hear it 
>in the context of about 1000. Other times more like 1500's.

11th to 15th century

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 07/11/09 10:25, Stephen wrote:
> I question that figure try 10 million or more than 40 million during the 200
> years of British rule.

	Due to famines, or overall?

> I don't think that the food came to Britian. More likely it was sent to other
> colonies.

	Could be.

> I was reading recently about the English starving the Irish into submission
> during the 16th Century. So it was a method that was tried and tested.
> Although in our ancestors defence (ha!) I don't think that it was really racist
> more a class thing. They treated the Indian rulers with more respect than they
> did their own poor people.

	I think what people classify as racism is more often than not  other 
prejudices. The proper words for each just aren't as trendy as racism.

>> 	In any case, it's rare that I hear a lot of "guilt" about the British
>> in India. Certainly Indians occasionally bring it up. Maybe it's much
>> more common across the Atlantic.
>>
> That may be more to do with the people that go there. The Indians and Pakistanis
> that settle in the UK tell different stories.

	What I meant is I don't see many white people talk about the guilt of 
the British Empire (as in, I was wondering why Darren brought it up).

> Ask any Jamaican they suffered under both. But African and European slavery
> pales into insignificance when compared to the American idea. I don't believe
> that slaves in the rest of the world were considered animals, sub-human or just
> children at best.

	When you say "American", wasn't that more or less the same as when they 
were under the English? I believe the English got rid of it earlier and 
treated them more humanely earlier than the US did, but if we were to go 
back to the mid-1700's, wasn't the treatment by the English more or less 
the same as what you're referring to as American?

>>> I strongly suspect it's because the white folks know their own history
>>> much better than they know the history of other cultures. Quick, without
>>> looking, what was going on in Africa and India during the medieval ages?
>>> Who were the power players?
> Islam and Arabs

	Mostly only in North Africa and the East coast of Africa. What about 
the rest of the continent?


-- 
Computer Lie #1: You'll never use all that disk space.


                     /\  /\               /\  /
                    /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                        >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                    anl

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 10:56:03 -0500, Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:

>On 07/11/09 10:25, Stephen wrote:
>> I question that figure try 10 million or more than 40 million during the 200
>> years of British rule.
>
>	Due to famines, or overall?
>

Just famines

>> I don't think that the food came to Britian. More likely it was sent to other
>> colonies.
>
>	Could be.
>

I suspect so as 40 or 50 years ago rice was considered quite exotic in Britain,
not a staple food. It is also dangerous to ship for as I'm sure you know when it
gets wet it expands and will not release its water.

>
>	I think what people classify as racism is more often than not  other 
>prejudices. The proper words for each just aren't as trendy as racism.
>

I agree.

>>> 	In any case, it's rare that I hear a lot of "guilt" about the British
>>> in India. Certainly Indians occasionally bring it up. Maybe it's much
>>> more common across the Atlantic.
>>>
>> That may be more to do with the people that go there. The Indians and Pakistanis
>> that settle in the UK tell different stories.
>
>	What I meant is I don't see many white people talk about the guilt of 
>the British Empire (as in, I was wondering why Darren brought it up).
>

We are well aware of it although lots of things are forgotten. Have you heard of
The Great Hedge of India? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Hedge_of_India
Another glorious episode of the British Empire.

>> Ask any Jamaican they suffered under both. But African and European slavery
>> pales into insignificance when compared to the American idea. I don't believe
>> that slaves in the rest of the world were considered animals, sub-human or just
>> children at best.
>
>	When you say "American", wasn't that more or less the same as when they 
>were under the English? I believe the English got rid of it earlier and 
>treated them more humanely earlier than the US did, but if we were to go 
>back to the mid-1700's, wasn't the treatment by the English more or less 
>the same as what you're referring to as American?
>

Treatment yes but never, I think, the justification that Africans were sub human
so it didn't count. Although the situation in Australia might have been
different. Australian aboriginal weren't enslaved but they were persecuted
relentlessly with organised Abo hunts.

>>>> I strongly suspect it's because the white folks know their own history
>>>> much better than they know the history of other cultures. Quick, without
>>>> looking, what was going on in Africa and India during the medieval ages?
>>>> Who were the power players?
>> Islam and Arabs
>
>	Mostly only in North Africa and the East coast of Africa. What about 
>the rest of the continent?

I don't know, you said not to look it up. I only know of Shaka the Zula leader.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

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
> slur – N*gg*r-rigged. Not that, that phrase has ever passed my lips.

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

On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 03:20:36 -0400, John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom>
>> 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
>> slur – N*gg*r-rigged. Not that, that phrase has ever passed my lips.
>
>I have heard some people use the term "Afro-engineering," an attempt, 
>evidently, at making a politically-correct racial slur.
>

No doubt we will be using that term soon instead of bodged job :(
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> 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. 

Yes. That's what I'm saying. At least, according the the article I read.

-- 
   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:
> Whites predominate in ice hockey due to pervasive discrimination.

I saw a very funny black commedian. 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.

-- 
   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

Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> It's fairly ironic that efforts to reduce discrimination have actually 
> furthered it, only causing the explanation for the discrimination to 
> shift.

  As I already mentioned, the problem with anti-discriminatory measures,
which provide "minorities" special treatment which others don't have, is
that the "majority" will in the long run feel resentment because they don't
think it's fair that some people get more than others due to their ethnicity
or skin color. It also doesn't help that people who preach "equal opportunity"
and "equal treatment" act contrary to what they say, rather hypocritically:
The often *don't* treat everybody in the same way, but favor some groups of
people over others.

  If some people have to wait hours in a line while others get to walk past
the line (figuratively, and I'm sure in some cases actually literally), the
people waiting in line and seeing those others getting special treatment are
very likely to grow feelings of resentment.

  Rather ironically, it's very possible that these anti-discrimatory
measures are actually making some people slightly racist or at least
prejudiced, even though they previously were not.

  And as I also said, some cynics actually suggest that this is exactly
the result that many of the multiculturalists want: They have been trying
to prove for years that western countries are completely filled with racism
and prejudice. Multiculturalists have a brilliant way of getting what they
want while pretending to do the "right" thing themselves. And as long as
they can demonstrate the prevalent racism and prejudice, they will get to
keep their position as moral guardians of the society.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Yes. That's what I'm saying. At least, according the the article I read.
>

Despite experience I still expect people to behave morally. What you say is
disgraceful but then

No I’m not going to start slagging  a country off in a public forum.

Stephen

Post a reply to this message