Apparently, it is impossible for white people to be on the receiving end of racism.

I think the economy and global warming (not "man made" global warming... ACTUAL global warming) are bigger dangers than "anit-racism," et al...

Or, maybe I'm crazy? :P

not "man made" global warming... ACTUAL global warming

You're going to bring up global warming during Snowmaggdeon? It's better to say climate change.

Racist is hating someone solely for their race. By definition this can happen to anyone.

this article is crap.

Yes I suppose it would be to someone with racist tendencies. Lots of people just can't stand nor handle the truth and true this article is.

I think you can be prejudiced towards a group of people who are more powerful than you, but I don’t think you can be racist towards them.

Wow he just provided the definition of racism but doesn't believe it? Let's all get to pick and choose what definition things mean. For example, this guy is a @!$%#- that means he like rainbows.

I was in a magnet (read: desegregation) program in middle school and high school. Like prison when you take out the biggest baddest mofo on the block, no one messes with you. This girl tried to punch me for no reason other than she thought I was white (I'm asian). I dodged her fist, swept her legs out from under her, and sat on her chest while holding her ears and smashing her head into the concrete until she passed out and required medical attention. No one ever picked on me again :).

Oh and after I was done with her I got up and asked her friends who wanted to take me on next.... They ran like the cowards they were..

Who the @!$%# voted your comment up? It's pretty revolting how proud you are of it.

I voted her comment up.

:D

Brian white must never have been on the receiving end of racism.

As did I!

Try being a haole (caucasian) in Hawaii. Racism towards whites is alive and well.

Brian white must never have been on the receiving end of racism.

I grew up white in PG county, where the school system is about 85% black. Were people prejudiced against me? Sure. Did I bash in their heads? No.

BTDT. It's especially hard on the kids. Gotta love "Beat up Haole" Day at school!

Racism is everywhere.

Brian,
What Apples did, was in self-defence.
Would you have preferred that she let the other girl beat her up?
*shakes head & sighs*

and sat on her chest while holding her ears and smashing her head into the concrete until she passed out and required medical attention

That is not self defense. Do you think you're just allowed to do whatever you want if the other person throws a punch? Like someone tries to punch me, and I'm allowed to beat him to death?

Do you think you're just allowed to do whatever you want if the other person throws a punch?

Actually you're allowed(in many places) to use as much force as necessary to remove the threat.

I'm betting she didn't have many if any problems after that. Which sounds to me like she removed the threat.

Actually you're allowed(in many places) to use as much force as necessary to remove the threat.

Which is very true. But perhaps Brian would have preferred for her to just get beat up and go about her way since she is the priveleged white kid and the black is the oppressed minority. and i believe what she did was self defense.

If ANYBODY threatens me or mine, I'll do WHATEVER I feel is necessary to remove that threat.
No ifs, ands or buts about it.

If ANYBODY threatens me or mine, I'll do WHATEVER I feel is necessary to remove that threat.
No ifs, ands or buts about it

You got that right!

some people dont feel that way though, some people are of the belief that you should just grin and bear it, most of those people dont have backbones.

I've been known to chase off intruders with a sword, whilst wearing my polka-dot pyjamas.
(The visual!)
*blushing*
:D

That is not self defense. Do you think you're just allowed to do whatever you want if the other person throws a punch? Like someone tries to punch me, and I'm allowed to beat him to death?

Sure is self defense...the next one in line who was thinking of attacking thought twice about it.

This girl tried to punch me for no reason other than she thought I was white (I'm asian). I dodged her fist, swept her legs out from under her, and sat on her chest while holding her ears and smashing her head into the concrete until she passed out and required medical attention. No one ever picked on me again :).

Because they found out you're Asian. Asian people know martial arts & @!$%#.

(See what I did there?)

That is not self defense. Do you think you're just allowed to do whatever you want if the other person throws a punch? Like someone tries to punch me, and I'm allowed to beat him to death?

Pretty sure it is. A girl attacked her and she responded with an equal level of force, she just did it better.

My kind of people whup ass when needed. =] I grew up in the South, yep I have been called a cracker, honkie, whitie, white trash, white bread, white mainland trash, hoale, pale face I guess I could go on, however I taught my child not to describe people by their color and to use proper terminolgy. I guess some folks are still ignorant and spreading their hate. I had no slaves and refuse to pay for history over and over. History is important, it can teach us what not to do and to learn from it. And that is where is needs to be history.

Brian

Look man don't get upset about it.

I'm just telling you one of the lesson's that I took away from the military, NEVER swing first, after someone swings the other person can claim "self-defense" for whatever they do. Plus what I was taught as a kid, don't start nothing, but if something starts make darn sure you finish it.

You're getting upset about a poster relating a story from their youth, should she have just ignored that the other person took a swing at her? Should she have apologised and offered to hold still so that the next time the person swung the blow could land?

I've been there, done that from the description the poster provided. As a matter of fact I advised my stepson to do the same when he started getting bullied on the bus by older kids. I told him to take the one with the loudest mouth and break his nose, and that the rest of them would leave him alone from then on. It may not sound nice, but it works.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_self-defense

However, when an assailant ceases to be a threat (e.g. by being tackled and restrained, surrendering, or fleeing), the defense of justification will fail if the defending party presses on to attack or to punish beyond imposing physical restraint.

Facts. You cannot claim self-defense for holding someone down and repeatedly bashing their head once you have them down.

Facts. You cannot claim self-defense for holding someone down and repeatedly bashing their head once you have them down

That isnt necessarily true. Often times it depends on what state you are living in, and "ceases to be a threat" is a subjective term. Perhaps this girl thought that if she let her assailant up she would have been hurt. So you never know.

Facts. You cannot claim self-defense for holding someone down and repeatedly bashing their head once you have them down.

"Down" in no way implies that the assailant stopped struggling, and therefore that term wouldn't really indicate that the attacker has stopped being a threat.

"Down" in no way implies that the assailant stopped struggling, and therefore that term wouldn't really indicate that the attacker has stopped being a threat.

Struggling to keep his brains from being scrambled. If I was in that position, I would certainly fight back.

The fact that you can still hear the word crackers on occasion is proof enough, if the label exists, so does the problem

...I wonder if we could get that restaurant chain that calls itself "The Cracker Barrel" to change its name...

God I hope thats sarcastic, funny if it is.

Good comment

The University of Delaware stated this in its Freshman Orientation. They contended that ALL whites are rascist and ONLY whites were. Check your facts at the door - as usual.

Typical University Speak now days .

They contended that ALL whites are rascist

Not buying it.

What left lies? How is this a left or right issue in the first place?

I see haters from all over the spectrum. You only have to open you eyes to see that....

Who has to change how racism is defined?

See #19

One person's view does not reflect the view of the general public.

NOT the first time I have heard that presented.

As a matter of fact I was told on a different seed that that definition of "racism" is the ONLY one sociologically acceptable any more, that the dictionary definitions don't count.

Ringo

When I was born the Civil Rights Act would not be law for another decade. As a child I saw images on the television of blacks being hosed, attacked by dogs and firebombed. As a little kid, I learned that there were many people who hated me and would hate me on sight for the rest of my life because of the color of my skin.... not a really big deal in itself, but combined with the realization that those people's attitudes could directly impact just about every facet of my existence from my education to my livelihood, caused me great trepidation.

Let me give you a simplistic analogy... suppose a guy and his boss don't like each other. Which one has the most to worry about? Which one would you rather be?

No race or ethnicity is in control of everything.

Really? What sector of our society is under minority control? Of course there are minorities represented at the highest levels of wealth. However, I would say until very recently (November 2008, to be exact) there was no discernible representation in terms of power.

Anybody that thinks 'you can't do this to me, I'm white!' applies in the US is delusional. The color of any persons skin is no protection from racist action.

I would really like to know what kinds of "racist actions" you are talking about...

Ringo, You really need to look at the statistics. Blacks are at best half of whites in all the metrics. Are you saying this is because of their abilities or would you say it is related to the racism this country's whites have exhibited since the beginning of the slave trade in this hemisphere?

And don't forget the role money plays in perpetuating social standing in this country. If your parents have money, the children are way more likely to have money and opportunity.

So what you're saying is that the only person with any power is the President

Nope... that's not at all what I was saying.... here it is again

Of course there are minorities represented at the highest levels of wealth. However, I would say until very recently (November 2008, to be exact) there was no discernible representation in terms of power

_______________________________________________

Violent crime whose victims are targeted based on race or ethnicity, hiring/firing based on the same, service based on the same, etc.

I pretty much figured you were going to talk about these kinds of issues. Were you refused service at some point in time? you have referred to this repeatedly, so I'm curious.

You don't seem comfortable with looking at racial discrimination in a broader, more systemic way, only from the perspective of individual culpability. However, here is an example of the bigger picture as it relates to one of those areas you mentioned... "hiring/firing" based on race..

Researchers Marianne Bertrand and Sendhil Mullainathan, at the University of Chicago and MIT found in a 2004 study that there was widespread discrimination in the workplace against job applicants whose names were merely perceived as "sounding black". These applicants were 50% less likely than candidates perceived as having "white-sounding names" to receive callbacks for interviews. Devah Pager, a sociologist at Princeton University, sent matched pairs of applicants to apply for jobs in Milwaukee and New York City, finding that black applicants received callbacks or job offers at half the rate of equally qualified whites.^[24][25] In contrast, institutions and courts have upheld discrimination against whites when it is done to promote a diverse work or educational environment, even when it was shown to be to the detriment of qualified applicants.^[26][27] The researchers view these results as strong evidence of unconscious biases rooted in the United States' long history of discrimination (i.e. Jim Crow laws, etc.)^[28]

^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism}

#18.8 [edit]

First sentence should be in block quote..

So what you're saying is that the only person with any power is the President

Statistically, there is no such thing as a racial or ethnic group where none of the people are on the receiving end of racist actions and where none of them are committing said actions.

Please tell me you aren't arguing that each group is statistically equivalent in the racism they face on a daily basis.

cynergy...

Don't give me all the whining about "reverse discrimination" until you show some awareness/"awakeness" about the genuine scope and gravity of the devastation white racism/racial discrimination has wreaked on our own country as well as across the globe...

LOL! So, you see this as some sort of balance sheet.

If so, when does the balance reach equilibrium. Or does it conveniently go on in perpetuity, given license to ongoing counter-racism towards those "whining" Whites?

Global,

"LOL!"???? I must have missed the punch line... or you are very easily amused.

you have completely misunderstood my post... I would clarify, but I'm thinking that's not what you're looking for ...

I would clarify, but I'm thinking that's not what you're looking for ...

Please....do try.

Were you refused service at some point in time?

------------------

I have been, yes, but I've witnessed it more than just situations directly involving me.

I have never been refused service by anyone of any race, however I realize it happened with great frequency at one time...

For almost three decades beginning in 1936, many African-American travelers relied on a booklet to help them decide where they could comfortably eat, sleep, buy gas, find a tailor or beauty parlor, shop on a honeymoon to Niagara Falls, or go out at night. In 1949, when the guide was 80 pages, there were five recommended hotels in Atlanta. In Cheyenne, Wyo., the Barbeque Inn was the place to stay.

A Harlem postal employee and civic leader named Victor H. Green conceived the guide in response to one too many accounts of humiliation or violence where discrimination continued to hold strong. These were facts of life not only in the Jim Crow South, but in all parts of the country, where black travelers never knew where they would be welcome. Over time its full title — “The Negro Motorist Green Book: An International Travel Guide” — became abbreviated, simply, as the “Green Book.” Those who needed to know about it knew about it. To much of the rest of America it was invisible, and by 1964, when the last edition was published, it slipped through the cracks into history.

Theater J in Washington, which specializes in Jewish-theme plays, is a co-producer of “The Green Book” reading. The “inconveniences” (as Green genteelly put it) of travel that African-Americans encountered were shared, albeit to a lesser extent and for a briefer period, by American Jews. In Mr. Ramsey’s play the Holocaust survivor comes to the tourist home after he’s appalled by a “No Negroes Allowed” sign posted in the lobby of the local hotel where he had planned to stay.

“The Jewish press has long published information about places that are restricted,” Green wrote in his book’s introduction,

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/23/books/23green.html

What does this have to do with the topic?

I have never been refused service by anyone of any race, however I realize it happened with great frequency at one time...

It depends upon WHAT you consider "greater frequency" now doesn't it.

I have had folks close their register and simply walk away when I get ready to check out. They didn't come right out and "refuse" service, but the effect is the same.

I have been the next in line and had folks skip over me to wait on someone of their own race, they didn't actually "refuse" service, but the effect is the same.

Are you saying that it's NOT the same because the words "We are refusing you service" are not used?

kaz,

I've had silly, petty things like that happen to me.. and no, I don't chalk it up to racism because there are far too many other explanations for bad behavior, and I'm not one to jump to conclusions.

Have you ever been subjected to rude behavior by members of your own race? I have...

and no, I don't chalk it up to racism because there are far too many other explanations for bad behavior

OH, OK so now things like that are simply "bad behavior".

Interesting.

I wonder if you'll take that SAME attitude the next time a "minority" says something about being treated that way?

kaz...

I wonder if you'll take that SAME attitude the next time a "minority" says something about being treated that way?

I AM a "minority"...

What about that question I asked you..

Have you ever been subjected to rude behavior by members of your own race? I have...

Have you ever been subjected to rude behavior by members of your own race?

Yep but the vast majority of the time, they will actually SAY something, not just ignore a person. What you don't seem to get is in many of those instances where something like that has happened, I will talk to the manager, and NOTHING is done other than the manager defending the employee's actions. I feel that THAT is done to shield themselves from accusations coming from the employee.

I AM a "minority"...

Duh................

Why do you think I feel that you are defending this type of behavior the way you are.

So let me ask, are "stop and frisks" in NYC "racism" or "bad behavior" on the cops part?

kaz,

I think you're a tad paranoid... and that you must spend an inordinate amount of time in black establishments. i believe that white people and black people and other races/ethnicities are capable of showing preferential treatment to members of their own race/ethnicity.

I'm not "defending" any one race, I'm telling you that when a white person behaves badly toward me, I don't automatically assume it's because of the color of my skin. You, on the other hand, seem to be quite convicted you are being victimized because you are white. How would you explain the multitude of times other black people have been rude to me?... and the multitude of times you have been disrespected by other white people?

I have only visited NYC a few times in my life... never been stopped or frisked. Are you comparing getting skipped over in a checkout lane to a police action?

There is real racism in the world and trying to reduce the issue to such trivial levels does nothing for the conversation.

FR sent, Cy.
:D

Accepted, Abby... ;)

Thankyou, Cy!
:)

I think you're a tad paranoid... and that you must spend an inordinate amount of time in black establishments.

Just cause you're paranoid doesn't mean that they aren't out to get you.

"Black establishments"? Really? The 2 worst places that this has happened were an auto parts store right down the block(it was the closest one) and a fast food restaurant during my lunch break(again the closest one).

Now were they "Black establishments"? I have absolutely NO idea, as I for one could care less who owns a place, I simply want the product I'm looking for at the best price I can find.

As far as "Black establishments", YES I've been in a few and the vibe that I got walking in the door(from the patrons, NOT the employees/owners) let me know that I was not welcome, so I hung around and made those giving off that vibe uncomfortable.

In the case of racism in the United States there are many more businesses owned by whites than by minorities, and there are many more opportunities for whites to demonstrate racist practices. That happens to be where the largest amount of racist practices originate from.

You are right in the fact that blacks in America lack the political and economic power to practice racism to the extent that whites do, and even if they did, do you really think they would practice racism to the same degree? I really don't think they would. When you've spent time being the victim of racism, you really don't want other people to have to go through the same thing.

When you've spent time being the victim of racism, you really don't want other people to have to go through the same thing.

Don't bet on it, there are enough who deem it a sort of revenge, evening the score. Some people learn from history and experience and get better, some get worse, whether white or black, or jew, or latino.

Actually I think the more powerless the people, the more racism that is exhibited. Now that just may be because the more powerful are more insulated and quiet.

I find it to be true, at least from most of the people I know. I'm sure there are exceptions, but that hasn't been my experience.

You are right in the fact that blacks in America lack the political and economic power to practice racism to the extent that whites do, and even if they did, do you really think they would practice racism to the same degree? I really don't think they would.

It depends. I grew up in a majority black county. Mostly black teachers, mostly black businessmen, mostly black cops, mostly black politicians, etc. - all the positions of institutional power. The "revenge" ethos won out.

Im Ringo

I have a friend who has a great barbecue joint he is black, most of his customers are white.

I have a friend that is Chinese who owns a restaurant all of his customers are black.

I have a white friend that owns a corner store all of his customers are black.

I have and Arab friend who owns a auto mechanic shop and most of his customers are Mexican or Hispanic

I don't know of any business or businessman who discriminates against money and what color the person spending the money is, is totally unimportant.

I don't know of any business or businessman who discriminates against money and what color the person spending the money is, is totally unimportant.

Apparently you are unfamiliar with this part of american history?

Ringo

Reality is that there are many that DON'T do business that way.

True, but the point you are missing from those argueing the point with you is that THEY don't see anything wrong with that UNLESS it's a minority on the recieveing end.

The entire "Buy Black" campaign that someone tried to start is a prime example.

Now I don't know about you, but for myself I could care less about the color of skin that the owner of a business has, as long as they have the product I want at an acceptable price. But that "campaign" wanted folks to ONLY do business with businesses that were owned by those of the same skin color as theirs. Now if it had been a "Buy White" campaign the screams of "racism" would have been deafening, but instead this drive was applauded by many in the "minority" community as "empowering" them.

Now if it had been a "Buy White" campaign the screams of "racism" would have been deafening,

And if the vast majority of businesses were minority owned and the "white" population had been institutionally discriminated against for over 400 years you would not see an outcry either. Looking at this issue in a historical vacuum is disingenuous at best. When the vestiges of racism are erased from the economy, I would support your position of "buy black only". But that is not the case. This group has been held back by institutional racism. Active social action to reverse the effects of this racism is a legitimate tool to speed up parity. Then we can eliminate the actions and let things go naturally.

This doesn't mean we shouldn't watch for exploitation of the group by members of the group.

had been institutionally discriminated against for over 400 years you would not see an outcry either.

See therein is where your whole deal collapses.

Are you HONESTLY trying to blame people alive today for things that happened 400 years ago?

Does that mean that YOU are responsible when someone with your skin color commits a crime?

Are you HONESTLY trying to blame people alive today for things that happened 400 years ago?

No, I am saying that the effects of the past linger on into the present. Those effects influence decision making today. They still present an artificial obstacle and it takes effort to remove an obstacle. And some of those people are alive today. The civil rights movement took place in my lifetime. Or are you saying the discrimination that was only outlawed in the mid 1960s is not still having an impact on the country today?

Or are you saying the discrimination that was only outlawed in the mid 1960s is not still having an impact on the country today?

I'm saying that the pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction.

kaz...

Are you HONESTLY trying to blame people alive today for things that happened 400 years ago?

Yes, he is, like so many others.

Global

One of the sadder things about that is that they think that folks don't see it.

Anyone who believes that racism is a thing of the far-distant past is tripping... it was written into laws, and was carefully, systematically woven into the social fabric of this country over decades and centuries. Not wanting to face its real and ongoing impact on current attitudes and actions is counterproductive and detrimental for ALL of us...

Violence in the United States against African Americans, especially in the South, rose in the aftermath of the Civil War, after slavery had been abolished and recently freed black men were given the right to vote. Violence rose even more at the end of the century, after southern white Democrats regained their political power in the South in the 1870s. States passed new constitutions or legislation which effectively disfranchised most blacks and many poor whites, established segregation of public facilities by race, and separated blacks from common public life and facilities. Nearly 3,500 African Americans were lynched in the United States between 1882 and 1968, mostly from 1882 to 1920.^[1]

By the end of Reconstruction in 1877, with fraud, intimidation and violence at the polls, white Democrats regained nearly total control of the state legislatures across the South. They passed laws to make voter registration more complicated, reducing black voters on the rolls. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, from 1890 to 1908, ten of eleven Southern legislatures ratified new constitutions and amendments to effectively disfranchise most African Americans and many poor whites through devices such as poll taxes, property and residency requirements, and literacy tests. Although required of all voters, some provisions were selectively applied against African Americans. In addition, many states passed grandfather clauses to exempt white illiterates from literacy tests for a limited period. The result was that black voters were stripped from registration rolls and without political recourse. Since they could not vote, they could not serve on juries

The ideology behind lynching, directly connected with denial of political and social equality, was stated forthrightly by Benjamin Tillman, governor of South Carolina and later a United States Senator:

We of the South have never recognized the right of the negro to govern white men, and we never will. We have never believed him to be the equal of the white man, and we will not submit to his gratifying his lust on our wives and daughters without lynching him.^[21]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching

____________________________________________

Human zoos (called "People Shows"), were an important means of bolstering popular racism by connecting it to scientific racism: they were both objects of public curiosity and of anthropology and anthropometry.^[60][61] Joice Heth, an African American slave, was displayed by P.T. Barnum in 1836, a few years after the exhibition of Saartjie Baartman, the "Hottentot Venus", in England. Such exhibitions became common in the New Imperialism period, and remained so until World War II. Carl Hagenbeck, inventor of the modern zoos, exhibited animals beside humans who were considered "savages".^[62][63]

Congolese pygmy Ota Benga was displayed in 1906 by eugenicist Madison Grant, head of the Bronx Zoo, as an attempt to illustrate the "missing link" between humans and orangutans: thus, racism was tied to Darwinism, creating a social Darwinist ideology that tried to ground itself in Darwin's scientific discoveries. The 1931 Paris Colonial Exhibition displayed Kanaks from New Caledonia.^[64] A "Congolese village" was on display as late as 1958 at the Brussels' World Fair.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism

In reality the majority of people in this country are of mixed race.

Andy Ritch - call them Americans. That's what they are. If you want to get technical, there are really very few "races". Five, I believe. Latinos, South Asians, and Middle Easterns are all Caucasian. Does that help? Racial make-up is primarily denoted by the shape of the skull and the way the body reacts to certain medications and are prone to illnesses. That's really all that it is.

It's strange but on most forms I fill out there are boxes for Black, Latin, Mexican Americans, etc, but most of the time I fail to find "White American". Why is that? Am I being too racist about it??

Andy, I believe they use the term Caucasian to mean white. This is, of course, incorrect, since they separate other Caucasians like Latino and Asians. There should be a "white" box.

I want to know what to call all the children of mixed race parents.

What, like you're looking for new slurs to describe the different mixes?

Brian,

You used the word slur. Not me. You are looking to put words in my mouth? Besides, why do you think that I might Not have interracial children? My wife could be a Black American.

I simply want a box to check that says White American.

Call them what they accept that is what I do.

"I want to know what to call all the children of mixed race parents."

Yeah, so ... what are you looking for there? Give me an example.

"Besides, why do you think that I might Not have interracial children?"

Because then you'd know what to call them.

"I simply want a box to check that says White American."

There is usually a checkbox for Caucasian/White. Or you can scribble in your own checkbox and write Elvish, like I do.

Sounds like a good idea.

"I want to know what to call all the children of mixed race parents."

Human beings would be a good start.

I want to know what to call all the children of mixed race parents. There are many, many double standards. What are the kids suppose to believe? You cannot call the pot black without being politically incorrect. Maybe we need another expression.

I just call 'em kids.

I know lots of mixed race people. I and most of the black people in my orbit will generally say things like..

"He/she is half-black, half-Asian"

or

"He/she is half-white" (implying that the other half is black)

These comments/references are merely descriptors, just like short/tall, male/female, slender/heavy-set.

However when addressing someone of apparently mixed-race, we simply call them by their name... I would think this is pretty much the norm for most folks...

BTW, I cannot recall ever seeing a form that didn't have White/Caucasian along with other racial/ethnic choices... I always check "Other" just to mess with whoever reads the forms.. :)

Lol!!

cynergy...

I always check "Other" just to mess with whoever reads the forms...

Sounds like a racially motivated reaction, to me. You certainly don't have race on the brain...

Half-white/half-black? Wow, how quickly we've forgotten our racist terminology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadroon

Half-white/half-black is mulatto.

1/4th black/3/4th white is quadroon.

1/8th black/7/8th white is octoroon.

We don't have similar terms for white/asian, black/asian, white/black/asian, etc. Why I was wondering what Andy was looking for up above.

So, four of my grand kids are quadroon? Just what the hell does that mean? They are people, children, individuals - with no labels.

Is this a derogatory term?

It sounds like one to me.

I agree Mongo.
Kids are kids.
Simple as that.
To label ANYBODY like that is offensive, rude & insulting.
(quadroon etc.....Are they even real words?)

Sounds like a racially motivated reaction, to me. You certainly don't have race on the brain...

Huh???

Is this a derogatory term?

It sounds like one to me.

They were official census terms at one time.

(quadroon etc.....Are they even real words?)

No, I just made up the whole wikipedia page of course. The terms are part of racial history in the US.

http://cerebellum1.wordpress.com/2011/02/04/louisiana-myths-quadroons-octoroons/

When discussing multiethnicity, or multiraciality (for me, the two are one in the same concept, by the way), New Orleans and Louisiana are almost always included in the conversation, where Louisiana Creoles are reported as having historically self-identified as Quadroons and Octoroons and even going so far as to having stately balls called Quadroon Balls in New Orleans.

....

1890: Fragments remaining indicate “Whether White, Black, Mulatto, Quadroon, Octoroon, Chinese, Japanese or Indian.”

Just goes to show how race is a social construct. People used to be 'races' that don't even exist any more.

When are you going to learn that there is only one race,- the HUMAN race?
Sheesh!

Humans are a species.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(classification_of_humans)

As people define and put about different conceptions of race, they actively create contrasting social realities through which racial categorization is achieved in varied ways.^[13] In this sense, races are said to be social constructs.^[14]

What's fascinating is that someone who is half-white and half-black is 'black' in America, but they're 'white' in Africa.

Clearly all you want to do is argue.
I feel sorry for you.
(there ARE better ways of getting attention, you know)
Have a nice day.
*smiley face*

Racism is a form of discrimination based on the ethnic and racial background of an individual. There are but a hand-full of discreet races among the human species and the genetic differences are so minor that they only appear in very select forms. One of which, is the melanin content of their skin. Originally, it is agreed that the human species was uniform at the beginning. The expansion and spread across the globe brought on certain adaptations to cope with the environment in which they settled. For example, thicker eye lids and dark hair to combat the harsh cold and low elevation of the sun in the sky most of the time like in the arctic circles. The thicker eye lids bring a squint of sorts and out of this evolved the mongoloid race of the human species. From there, numerous extensions are found from the south Pacific right on through Asia, the northern latitudes and right back down into the Americas in the Native American branch. All derived from the same early humans where the races began to diverge.

The same for those where the Sun is strong and temperatures are hot. More pigmentation to combat the Sun's radiation and other adaptations to cope with this environment. Two distinct races from different regions have many of the same environmental issues but in different amounts. So there are the west Africa variety and the east Africa variety. Similar but still different enough to be two different races.

Another northern branch that settled in a more temperate and varied climate developed lighter skin because there was not as much need for protection from the Sun. Lighter hair and eyes also came of the lesser need for the pigmentation. Although the Sun was still low in the winter, it was high in the summer so the swing back and forth reduced the need for the thicker eye lids and the need to squint to see in strong light. The European Caucasoid race developed to fit these surroundings.

Today however, the differences are used against each other for no other reason than the fact that they are different. There is no difference in intelligence or anything like that, as you can find people of all races in the high intellect range as well as the lower IQ range. So, it's not by their smarts, but by their appearance that sets them apart. Unfortunately, there are those who believe that the color of their skin determines their rights as people and the level to which their rights places them. It is all in the mind set, as there is no superior race, nor is there an inferior race. All have the same capacity to succeed as well as fail. All have the same abilities and weaknesses. We just look different as a result of regional adaptations over generations of settlement in different parts of the world.

With the globalization of the world's population, I can see in the future, a re-amalgamation of the human species into one common race once again. Today will then be prehistoric to them, just as the early humans are just as prehistoric to us.

As I understand, there are only 5 specific races. (or is it 7? I forget) Take away the skin and other regional adaptations and you have the same root core of a being, that which makes one a human.

Racism is about these differences. Prejudice is the way people act in response to the races and a great many other things.

Brian,

Some words have ceased to be used over time. Some words have fallen into disfavor.

I'm certain that most black people in this country now consider those terms to be derogatory, pretty much the same way we find "colored" to be.

And you do realize that those designations were used for the purpose of determining standing for blacks in socio-political contexts??

Btw, "reverse racism" is racism.

Btw, "reverse racism" is racism.

Yep.

When you are the clear majority, screaming "they hate me because I'm white!" just makes you look like a sore loser pissed you're not getting your way.

Very true. lol

That's why I said power and money.

At #22.2 -- The problem is that those situations aren't based so much on racism as they are power (as another poster pointed out), with money also being preset (if to a lesser degree).

The problem with most claims of so-called "reverse racism" is that is falls more into a white person unable to get attention any other way than to play the invented "race card".

The problem with most claims of so-called "reverse racism" is that is falls more into a white person unable to get attention any other way than to play the invented "race card".

Race based discrimination is either wrong, or it's not. If it's wrong, it's wrong in all directions.

If it's wrong, it's wrong in all directions.

Sadly for SOME it's become about "payback" for things that they have never experienced.

Which IMO will lead us to something like what the middle-east is, folks fighting over things that happened centuries ago, just because they were taught they were supposed to.

I think U of Del backed off of this in Nov 2007. http://wthrockmorton.com/2007/11/01/university-of-delaware-ends-controversial-residence-life-education-program/

The fact that it happened at all is completely revolting. It shows how deluded some people can become in their own prejudices.

The fact that it happened at all is completely revolting.

Revolting? I don't know about that; certainly misguided. This is a process. Don't forget, once there were "Colored" toilets too.

Yeah, and both were bad because they judged an entire race, right?

both were bad because they judged an entire race,

No, U of Del judged. The other was the law of the land and subjected blacks and other minorities to systematic oppression. There is a difference.

So if U of Del made all the freshman take a class on the flaws of all non-white races it would also only be a minor snafu since it's not the 'law of the land'?

It matters only with power versus without power.

Yes! When racism writes the laws of the land it is ten times more harmful.

Discrimination, of any sort, without power is an impotent exercise in futility.

The difference here and in other posts that bring up the power issue is the difference between individual racism and societal racism. You are correct Ringo that for each person it is an individual choice. But it is also a reality of life that each individual has to participate in a society.

Not exactly. Individual racism does not enact laws that unfairly discriminate. An individual does not prevent an entire group from legally voting. That requires a society and is not just proportional to the number of individuals, but is a multiple of that sum.

Individual racism does not enact laws that unfairly discriminate.

So then you would say that laws that REQUIRE a set percentage of governmental contracts be awarded based upon "race" and NOT upon the bidding process, are "racist"?

If the "race" is still suffering the effects of the previous racism, no. I call it leveling the playing field. Once the demographics of that "race's" businesses are proportional to that "race's" demographics in the general population, then it would be. But when the baseline is skewed obscenely in favor of the group that has benefited from the racism of the past it is not enough to just say "the playing field is level". It is not. Bringing the system to a level playing field means that those that benefited for generations are going to see that benefit decrease. That is not racism. That is equality.

I call it leveling the playing field.

Why did I figure that would be your response?

So in other words laws that affect folks based upon "race" are OK with you as long as it's YOUR "race" that benefits from those laws, if it's YOUR "race" that is hurt by those laws then they are no good.

But when the baseline is skewed obscenely in favor of the group that has benefited from the racism of the past it is not enough to just say "the playing field is level". It is not. Bringing the system to a level playing field means that those that benefited for generations are going to see that benefit decrease. That is not racism. That is equality.

That's NOT "equality" no matter how it's looked at.

Here is a prime case in point, my ex-brother-in-law does concrete work and has for decades now. The company he works for was one of the prime contractors on a local military base due to their bids always coming in lower than others and the quality of the work done. Well they have been caught up in the whole "minority preference" for awarding contracts, and since the company is "white-owned" they were shut out of bidding on contracts. So what they did was go find someone who is a "minority" to put THEIR name on the bids, and they increased the amounts of the bids enough to give this guy a 6 figure salary for simply being the name on the bid and no longer worried about turning in a "competitive" bid.. So the SAME company is getting the contracts, the SAME people are doing the work, the ONLY difference is that it is costing the taxpayers more money to simply pay someone a huge salary to put a "minority" name on the bid.

You call THAT "equality"?

I call that a waste of taxpayer monies.

You call THAT "equality"?

No I call that illegal.

So in other words laws that affect folks based upon "race" are OK with you as long as it's YOUR "race" that benefits from those laws, if it's YOUR "race" that is hurt by those laws then they are no good.

Nice ad hominem response, especially since you have no idea what my racial background is. So you think it is "equality" that after generations of advantage that those advantages should continue unaddressed into the future. For instance, the loans to start the business in the first place was skewed in favor of one race over another should be ignored when trying to bring equality to the system. The advantage of a larger loan at a lower interest rate for one business over another should not be considered in remedying the negative effects of institutionalized racism. Well I disagree. That initial racist action has lingering effects into the future of both businesses. And unless steps are taken to actively negate those advantages the playing field is not level. These actions continue until the effects of the initial advantage are cancelled out and both can compete on equally.

Now if you are asking is I think we have been effective in these efforts, that is a different question. Your example shows that we have not been. And we won't be as long as a dummy businesses can be this easily set up to circumvent the intent of the action.

No, telling someone that they cannot have the job, promotion, etc because of their skin color is NOT equality.

And where does the law say this? At most it says that if two people are both qualified for the job, the tie breaker goes to the minority that has suffered from past discrimination and is currently under represented as a demographic in this type of position. Hiring an unqualified person is an overreaction of the employer to abide by the letter of the law and not the spirit. It is stupidity.

There are more hispanics now than there are blacks, but our racial policies are all designed around black/white. Hispanics were never slaves here, and there is no background of Jim Crow laws around Hispanics. Yet hispanics are eligible for affirmative action programs. As are Asian-Americans. Asian-Americans are eligible for affirmative action programs even though Asian-American households have a higher median income than white american households.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Real_Median_Household_Income_by_Race_and_Ethnicity.JPG

I never said and never meant to imply that our actions are flawless. And I don't accept the implication that all institutional discrimination is related to slavery and Jim Crow type legislation. I do mean to state that I support the spirit of eliminating discrimination and its lingering affects on the country. This is not to be confused with support of every action we have taken or the say in which we have taken it.

Your example shows that we have not been. And we won't be as long as a dummy businesses can be this easily set up to circumvent the intent of the action.

So what is YOUR solution?

Simply don't award the contracts?

Force the company to open their books and line their employee's up for a "race check" before awarding the contract?

Simply ban anyone "white" from working on any government contract?

There are more hispanics now than there are blacks, but our racial policies are all designed around black/white. Hispanics were never slaves here, and there is no background of Jim Crow laws around Hispanics. Yet hispanics are eligible for affirmative action programs. As are Asian-Americans. Asian-Americans are eligible for affirmative action programs even though Asian-American households have a higher median income than white american households.

White women were never slaves or subject to Jim Crow laws, either, but they had to fight hard for their rights, just as black people did. Yes, the playing field needs to be level.... They are, by far, the largest "minority" group and they have been the biggest beneficiaries of Affirmative Action.

From MONEY Magazine 1996...

MEMO TO PRESIDENT CLINTON: While you and the rest of the Beltway bigwigs consider re-engineering affirmative action programs that favor minorities, the nation's 60 million working women might not cotton to the idea. Largely overlooked in the debate about "equal opportunity" vs. "preferential treatment" is that women, particularly white women, have been among the biggest beneficiaries of 30 years' worth of affirmative action. The average white woman now earns 78¢ for every dollar earned by a man, up from 63¢ in 1979.

WOMEN--ESPECIALLY WHITE WOMEN--ARE BRIDGING THE SALARY GAP WITH MEN, BUT BLACK AND HISPANIC WOMEN LAG FAR BEHIND. Over the past 15 years, the gap in men's and women's pay has narrowed. Today, women earn 76.4¢ for every dollar earned by men, vs. 62.5¢ in 1979. But black women earn only 66¢ of every dollar men earn, and Hispanic women earn 58¢.

YOUNGER WOMEN ALMOST REACH MEN'S EARNINGS. Women ages 25 to 34 earn 83¢ on the male dollar, while those ages 45 to 64 earn only 66¢

BUT WOMEN STILL GET ONLY A TINY FRACTION OF GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS. Although women own 37% of all U.S. businesses, according to the research arm of the National Association of Women Business Owners (NAWBO), women-owned firms receive no more than 2% of all primary federal contracts. "There is still an old-boy network in the purchasing arena," says NAWBO president Patty DeDominic.

AND ALTHOUGH WOMEN PROFESSIONALS HAVE GAINED GROUND, FEMALES ARE DRAMATICALLY ABSENT IN TOP JOBS. Women now account for 24% of lawyers (up from 5% in 1970), 19.4% of doctors (7.6% in 1970) and 8.3% of engineers (1.3% in 1973). Moreover, nearly three out of 10 (29.9%) lower and middle managerial positions in private industry are now filled by women, almost triple the percentage in 1966. But according to the federal Glass Ceiling Commission report released last March, women climb only so far: They represent a scant 4% of senior managers in the private sector.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/moneymag_archive/1995/08/01/205199/index.htm

I'm just going to say you can't be a minority group when you're 50% of the population.

I am a minority... There is only one of me.

I am a minority... There is only one of me.

I love it!!
:D

Well then we have NO minorities then if 50% is the number for making a decision.