One place where you're example of hiring preference dosn't work...Nursing Homes. Discarded alte kakers having their asses cleaned by guess who. Anyway...nature and love will soon cause the end of the pale people. Looking at Washington, this may be a very good thing.

It's fine that you are aware. But what are you going to do with that information? Sit on it? Or try to have an honest discussion about race without accusing anyone of racism?


Who said I was being quick to judge anyone? I'm talking about how I view the issue of race-related talk in America.


I don't think it is very racist to say that whites do not take seriously non-white people as a collective group if it is true. After all, if whites did take people of color seriously, there wouldn't be quick accusations of racism and there wouldn't be any patronizing, blanketed assumptions to boot.

You can discuss how much you denounce Don Imus until you are blue in the face, but what does it really solve if there are other white people who think the way he does and actively do so without any repercussions to them?

How else are you going to collectively talk about a group of people if the factors are made in good faith and speaks to a common experience?

You assumed wrong. Sometimes in race-related talks I've had with white people, they have thrown in references to Sharpton and Jackson as a way to separate the "good blacks" and the "bad blacks" in their view. Furthermore, then they mention Bill Cosby's so-called tongue-lashing at the Black community as a "good thing" when it actually disparages poor Black people.

It makes sense to me. You said on a personal level white people relate to non-white people more. Collectively, you said, this wasn't entirely the case. I think that's because that sometimes the dominant culture thinks in a "self-oriented" way opposed to a "community-oriented" one. And, that presents a problem when it has to do with discussions of race especially on the grounds of a semantic disconnect.

Because white people don't see themselves as a collective group, they can easily dismiss some of the experiences that non-white people make. And, they can't take responsibility for what has happened in a collectively, social basis. Now do you think that is fair?

How can you say that? White privilege is not a thing of the past. It still happens and it has been documented. There must be something going on because the social disparities between whites and people of color still exist. Someone has been doing this and as a result all whites have benefitted from it because of skin color.

That's not racist. It's just a factor of institutional racism and its repercussions.


Semantics aside, should white people be aware of their history, heritage and social standing in America? Should white people acknowledge the fact that their history has had these eras in time in which celebrated their supremacy legally, socially, and in practice? Should they not take responsibility for these things and work with it in order to deal with race-relations from a non-white perspective?

Why do you keep on assuming anything? I could say from the few posts you've written that you conveyed some very subtle racist attitudes about non-white people and their perceptions--especially when you keep on assuming things that you think you know about people of color.

Neither does assuming anything about me or any other people of color. But, I guess it is always by your rules and not anyone else's.

It definitely is, especially when they target the Latino community repeatedly when associating undocumented workers and illegal status. Do you think if a bunch of Europeans started crossing the border would other white people coin the term "illegal"?

He showed that Blacks could run for President in America, despite his failure in this fact. He and Jesse Jackson were the first to do so. But it hasn't escaped your attention that Barack Obama now has to have a security detail due to his sudden popularity as a Presidential candidate. He was the first to do so.

Then, why should any non-white person have to stoically take it and not discuss their views of the past when it has to do with race?


You're right. No one had said it. But, in other race-related discussions, I was putting in context how certain catch-phrases such as "victimhood", "I don't see a color" and "we're all human beings" relate to telling a non-white person that their experiences are to be dismissed. When you put it in that light, it is almost as good as saying "shut up".

Who were you talking to then? The rest of the non-white people in America?

Your posts implied that.

__________________
Ceci's News and Views Forum

I see. You say an "honest" discussion of race means we cannot identify racism and those who practice it. That's ridiculous, dishonest and frankly, it's impossible to discuss race relations without mentioning racists.
Unless you mean any mention of Black beople being racist is off the table, even though you are very quick to point this out with Whites.
I never said that. Do you see the word "YOU" or ANY reference to you yourself anywhere in the quote you used?It is most certainly NOT true, and that makes it a racist statement.If WHITES...? Not "some" Whites, or "many" Whites? THAT is a blanket statement. Since I'm White, what do you think I should take from it?I don't denounce Don Imus. I denounce what he said. I've listened to him long enough to know he doesn't seem like a racist at heart. I have a sneaking suspicion you just rode the anti-Imus wave without having listened to him.
And of course, talking about Imus doesn't SOLVE anything as regards other people. There are plenty of people in EVERY ethnic group who hate others without reason. Plenty of Blacks hate Whites too, but I don't see anyone singling out all of them either.
I'm sure White people use those terms when speaking to Black people all the time.I actually heard the things he had said and they were aimed primarily at lazy, unproductive people who blame others when they come up short on success. He was NOT addressing poor people. You might want to check your facts before criticizing others.
Everyone acts in a "self-oriented" way, and so do you when you continually refer to "Whites" as a collective group.
For starters, there IS no "collective" white group, nor is there a collective Black group. Both groups are individuals first, and then smaller groups. There are VAST differences in the people who make up a race, and that includes Whites. Your unwillingness to even use the word "some" seems to illustrate you either don't understand that or you are willing to omit that critical fact for your own purposes. Either way you are wrong in assuming Whites are part of a "collective" based on race alone.
Absolutely not, and for the reasons I just mentioned. We are not a "collective group" and the term itself is racist by definition, especially when you try to hang blame on people who are completely uninvolved in the problems you mention because YOU have deemed them as part of a collective group and therefore to blame for the actions of ANY other Whites. Again, a race is a collective group ONLY in terms of pigmentation.
There's that odious term again. I fail to understand where all these privileges are that I am granted. My next door neighbor is Black. Does this "privilege" mean I pay less for gas than he does, or pay lower taxes? Is the air less polluted on my side of the fence? Do I drive on the "good" highways while he must take the bad roads?
Oh yeah, my neighbor has a better job than I do.
And Whites are ALL part of these "institutions". I get it.
More racist, blanket statements. As I said before, I don't think you even SEE lumping all Whites together in collective guilt as a racist attitude.
I'm sure you'll find this amazing, but a LOT of White people in this country, most I would say, are well aware of things like slavery and how Blacks were at one time owned by whites, and how bad segregation was, etc. But guess what? They are all DEAD and plenty of people walk this earth bearing no guilt for the actions of others.
People, ALL people should take responsibility for their own actions.
You ask me to try and see things from a minority perspective, and I do to the best of my ability. However, I'll now ask YOU how you would feel if you were a first-generation American whose parents came from Europe, say, 20 years ago, and someone like yourself kept insisting you were somehow responsible for the wrongs committed in a country your grandparents never even SAW. There are plenty of White people in this country who descended from Immigrants. I don't see you making that distinction.
I wish you could be a little more honest about these blanket statements of yours.
Like what? No generalities. Show me some specific comments I have made that make you think I'm a racist. In fact, ANYONE here show me some of these comments, here or in ANY other thread on this forum.

And on a side note, kindly refrain from using the "rolleyes" emoticons after every paragraph. They are insulting and dismissive.
Another cop-out. I'm trying to conduct and honest debate about race, but I suppose when you have nothing to offer in substantive rebuttal it's only because I am discussing this "by my rules." So, since you can spot these "rules" so easily, why not tell me what you think they are.
If they were here illegally, they would be called illegal immigrants.
The ones you mention come from MEXICO, so why should it surprise you that the illegals we talk about are identified as latino?
You need THEM to show you Blacks could run for president?
Why is that? And please provide HIS reason, not yours.

__________________
Not a day goes by that I don't see something that reinforces my belief that people are idiots.

I hope that one day there will be real justice. This is what I am living for.
There is a very long way to go.
Whites/Europeans as a collective are in a serious state of denial and dishonesty. Blinded by their white culture not worth being proud of. A culture built on centuries of violence, genocides, exploitation, not seeing, that this "culture" is right now repeating its history

If the unworthy culture does not succumb to violent madness it will be purified by assimilation. There may come a day when no one will admit to having any white in them.

Look around the world: Without justice there is no peace.
In America and also in other so-called democratic countries these democratic values are going to be destructed. White supremacy, capitalism, greed, addiction to power and violence. America, the world's police which wants to bring 'democracy' to the world, violating human rights within the own borders.

That may be true, but the real question is who defines "justice"? You?

__________________
Not a day goes by that I don't see something that reinforces my belief that people are idiots.

We agree on a lot, but this statement here is just plain inaccurate. I've heard this same thing recycled countless times in even more disguised ways. There are more non-Latino illegals than you think. Plenty os Asian illegals and plenty of white skinned illegals. You just have to know where to look. The only ones that make this a race issue are the ones who want it to be one.

Furthermore, having been to Mexico quite a few times, I can also add that not everyone living in Mexico (hence not everyone coming from Mexico) is brown skinned. I'm half-latino and against illegal immigration and it's amnesty proponents, and realize that this claim of some sort of "inherent racism" from the Anti-Amnesty crowd against only brown skinned illegals is a myth only perpetrated by those who want it to exist. Sorry, but I don't like to let inaccuracies, even if unintentional, spread this way.

__________________
"The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom."
Isaac Asimov

No. I didn't set any rules about an honest discussion about race. Nor, did I say that whites were being racist. What I did say was that there were tendencies out there that make discussing race problematic due to a semantic disconnect.

But, I find that I can't escape your rules.

I have??? I haven't pointed out anything about Whites except to say that white people see themselves as individuals and not of a collective group. I also said that since white people see things in a "self-oriented" way, they cannot collectively acknowledge themselves let alone acknowledge other groups in a similar pattern.

Now where in those explainations relate to white people being racist?


You implied it. I mean look at your answers. You said, "YOU are quick to point out whites are racist". You also said, "that YOU used the blanket term regarding white people....." I mean, do you actually read what you write?



Really, it comes down to a difference of perspective. Whites collectively do not take non-white people collectively seriously. But since you yourself (and only you) view it from a "self-oriented" way, then perhaps you might think it isn't true.

But really it's not a racist statement from a group-oriented manner.


It wouldn't make a difference if I had said, "some whites" or "ten whites", the answer would have been the same. Except, there would be another twisting of words to suit your beliefs.

And since you are white, I don't know what you should take from it. But judging from your answers, I'd wager not very well.


Be suspicious all you want. I have listened to Don Imus. And he, over the years, has made derogatory references to women and people of color. Just because you might not have noticed it (because you are not operating from a perspective of someone of color), doesn't make him into a martyr. I believe he does have racist tendencies, no matter what performance he pulled in front of the Rutgers' Women's basketball team. He's apologized over and over, still reverting back to his denigrating comments. He hasn't learned.

And coming from the perspective of a person of color, there are many white people who do make the same type of statements, and then laugh it off as a joke. What is especially insulting is the fact that they would say something like that to me and then reply, "you know I was just joking, don't you?"

And, I would sure as heck know that they weren't. They probably did have that thought about non-white people (and most namely, Black people) in the back of their mind. And instead of apologizing to me, they'd laugh about it and watch to see how I'd take it.

Is that specific enough for you?


No, it doesn't. He's only symptomatic of a larger problem that has happened because of the views of the dominant culture. And until the people of the dominant culture realize this, the problems afforded to race will continue to happen.

Fine. Again, no one is arguing against this. But, in a sociological basis, there is a part which points to the larger problem: dominant culture values. It didn't escape you that the parameters of the system is based on the values of white people. White people developed the modern concept of race. White people set up a system through values, norms and legalities in which they benefit first while others fall behind in a far second. And then, the discourse that is afforded to race has been developed by white people (i.e. the "color blind theory") to not "see color" enough to dismiss racial disparity. And because white people "do not see color" and refuse to talk about "racial identity", then, the problems afforded to skin color are most often overlooked.

You can do what you want. But the cold, hard facts point to dominant culture and values...even when it comes down to racial profiling (i.e. Shopping While Black, Driving While Black, etc.).

Some white people do. But, for those who do say them, I wonder if they ever think about what they utter? And what is the intent behind those statements? Are you guys just repeating what the white politicians and pundits say about non-white people? Or is it just because of a subtle but biased attitude against non-white people?

Okay. Algernon Austin and Jared Bernstein wrote about this in the Economics Policy Institute website deconstructing Bill Cosby's message.

They said:

Now you tell me what I said was wrong if two other people said it.

Everyone does? Asian cultures, for example, act collectively. African cultures act collectively. In fact, Japan is a strong example of group-oriented thinking and behaviors. The language, customs and culture is oriented around the notion of the group and thinking that each person is interdependent on another.

America, on the other hand, is based on individualism, which is in part due to dominant discourses and thinking.

So no, not everyone does think in a "self-oriented" way. I thought you would have noticed what South Korea did when they found out that Cho Seung-Hui was the shooter of the Virginia Tech tragedy.

Yes, they are. And then, there are subcultures that exist within the larger culture. And then, sociologically thinking, there are "in-groups" and "out-groups". So, I'd think that there is a "collective" white group dominated by discourses of "individuality" in part to dismiss the historical and social significance white supremacy has had on the emphasis of their behaviors, social norms, values and practices on society.

But, of course, white people don't think of themselves as a culture. Nor, do they think of themselves as a group. Why do you think the discourses of George Orwell, Aldous Huxley and H.G. Wells are along these lines? They are examples of three white males who have written of individuals against the larger group when dealing with the dangers of the community ("newspeak", "groupthink", "doublespeak", "two legs bad, four legs good"). That alone is indicative of dominant discourses that find the "community" as some evil entity.

Sociology, anthropology, cultural studies, Whiteness studies and other disciplines make it their business to study groups in a collective sense. You'd think that someone had the presence of mind to do so.

I'm not arguing against this notion as well.

I've used the word "some" plenty of times. But if you think that I have an agenda (which has been used by some white people in race-related talks I have had) you're wrong.

Just because you think I'm wrong, doesn't make the fact of describing white people as a collective group wrong. I just surmise that my way of thinking runs counter to yours. And you are doing everything in your power to prove that it's your way or the highway.


It's not racist to describe a group collectively. I have done so in good faith in setting up my reasons why Americans (collectively) cannot have an honest discussion of race. You personally, though, have a problem with discussing race because you keep on trying to rewrite the rules of a race discussion based on your terms alone. I mean, how can we ever get to the nitty gritty if you keep on lording over the conversation with your edicts about how race should be referred to?

Peggy McIntosh, Tim Wise and Robert Jensen doesn't think it is so odious. They talk about white privilege all the time. They've made studies about the term along with other theorists in cultural and sociological studies. They try to analyze and deconstruct the term. And they are all white, to boot. But, they've mentioned in their writings how hard it is for some white people to see themselves as having unearned benefits due to skin color because they see the things they have done as a natural part of life. However, the theorists also mention the omission that occurs in the thinking of some white folk that anyone else would view these aspects as gaining an easier access to treatment in society.

White privilege, in the view of Peggy McIntosh, is the fact that one's race is constantly validated in the media (i.e. a more than ample representation of white faces in commercials, news, films and television programs). Band-Aids are "flesh colored" in terms of white skin, opposed to brown skin. White people can move into a neighborhood and not fear that they are going to bring the real estate down. Nor, do they feel that their neighbors are going to ostracize them for the color of their skin. These things--along with a list of twenty others--are the privileges she has documented in her seminal article.

__________________
Ceci's News and Views Forum

But how is he or she treated on the job? Does he or she get stopped by the police due to racial profiling? How is he or she treated by other white people when jogging down the street? Do white ladies clutch their handbags when he or she passes by or rides up an elevator?

Having a better job doesn't mean a damn thing when it comes to treatment and access in society.

Thank you for getting it. That is the first step in a one-thousand mile journey, as Lao Tse would say.

I never mentioned anything about collective guilt. In fact, for the record, I don't like that whites should have guilt. Instead, I would prefer that whites would have a sense of conscience when discussing racial disparities in society.

Having a conscience is quite different from having guilt.

I'm sure they do. But again, what are they going to do with the information? Sit on it? Or try to make things better by having a conscience when trying to discuss issues on race?

The murderers of James Byrd Sr. are still alive. Some of the old Sheriffs who collected poll taxes from Black folks in the South who wanted to vote, are still alive. Some of the lynchers during Segregration are still alive. The members of the all-white juries who had set the lynchers free are still alive. The murderer of Emmett Till is still alive. The bomber of the Selma Four is still alive. The list goes on and on. There are plenty of white people who participated and complied with Jim Crow segregation that are still alive and kicking.

And again, guilt has nothing to do with it.

My relatives as well as other older Black people who had to face the violent actions of white people complying with the system of Segregation are still alive too. Rep. John Lewis (D.-Georgia) was nearly knocked unconscious by police when he protested for the right to vote. He's alive. And of course, Jesse Jackson, who witnessed the murder of Dr. Reverend Martin Luther King is still, most verifiably, alive.

Collectively, people also have to see how history has treated other groups in society as well. The Germans are trying to work with their collective past from the Third Reich. Why can't whites do it in America?

Well, I beg to differ. But I thank you for the attempt.

I just did.

I have, if you would read what I have been saying. But you're too caught up on the "collectivity" of it all and pronouncing me racist for saying so.



I never said I thought you were racist. I did say that what you had proposed in a previous post contributed to a "racist lie". I furthermore said, that I didn't think what I said was racist in nature. But, I can't change your mindset if you think I am out to make you one. I'm sorry that you think that way. I'm just trying to stay on topic with how I perceive the nature of this issue.

Who died and made you Simon Legree?

Funny, you've done nothing but insult and dismiss what I'm trying to say. But I still take it and continue to converse with you. That says a lot.

It depends. When people immigrate here, they have to not only deal with the system and society of their old country; they also have to adjust to their new country as well. The old country has its own historical events that have juxstaposed different groups and sub-groups in their own country.

But, to be more specific, if I were a white immigrant, I'd have to deal with the nationalist pressures from the anti-immigrant crowd (which has its own baggage stemming back from the early 19th Century to the present day). And then, it doesn't preclude the fact that by virtue of white skin (although with a different accent), I would still experience the same privileges in getting access socially and racially. After all, there have been books written about how certain immigrant groups from Europe came to America and received harsh treatment from nativists. And then, when they had risen economically, they became "white". That is the story of the Jewish, Italians and Irish.

Just because someone comes from somewhere else in which white values were pushed in order to afford superiority, doesn't mean that it goes away when coming to America. Some people coming from mono-lithic cultures still have a problem with multi-culturalism. It doesn't make them racist. It just helps perpetuate certain attitudes. And this knowledge does not preclude them from not knowing what has happened in the past and making sense of it, especially having a respect for it and trying to change the system so that it benefits all of us instead of some.

But, it might be a different ball of wax if one was an immigrant from an African, Asian or a Middle Eastern Country. By the color of the skin, they not only have to face the same social disparity afforded to skin color (Arabs especially so due to the "terror scare" peddled by the current administration); they also have to deal with the nativists who don't like to see immigrants come here. They have a double-edged sword to carry.

__________________
Ceci's News and Views Forum